Fellow Shadow Watchers,
I've recently completed a small batch of Universal
Miniature Equatorial dials and, as usual, took some JPEG pictures as work
progressed. These will be sent out (5 jpegs - 280k total) early next week to
the 90+ members of my JPEG sub-list so if
At 10:19 PM 7/20/00 +0200, PINEAU François wrote:
you have some examples on this web site:
http://thizy.free.fr/queyras/queyras.html
where you can see wonderful photos about sundials in Queyras
best wishes
François Pineau
Bonjour Francois,
Merci beaucoup pour l'address pour le cadrans
I've been following the discourse on 'Nought at noon' and
this has reminded me of an anomoly which has puzzled me for
years.
In my school technology course we undertake a project on
time and so we get a lot of clocks and sundials which the
students design and make.
A question I am often
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
A question I am often asked is why do English clocks with
Roman numerals have (instead of IV) at the '4'
position and most Continental and American clocks appear to
have the correct IV?
This is something which has been around for a
People on this list may be interested in the Moonstick
slide rule moon phase calculator.
www.moonstick.com
I don't consider the use of either or IV an error but rather a choice
to use a specific representation.
Various reasons have been given, including unsubstantiated anecdotes, for
the preference of vs. IV on clock dials. On clock dials preference is
often given to the aesthetics of
On Fri, 21 Jul 2000, Richard Koolish wrote:
People on this list may be interested in the Moonstick
slide rule moon phase calculator.
www.moonstick.com
Wow! Or, shall I make that Wow! to the 4th power? (W^4)
Wonderful concept!
Beautifully implemented product!
Excellent presentation
Hi all,
I used to think that, in dialling (rather than clocks), the form was
gradually replaced with the modern IV. However, I have recently come
across a case where an old vertical dial (a wooden great decliner) was
replaced by covering it with a newer one. The original dial has been
Hi,
as Gordon wrote, the sign III instead of IV isn't an error but only another
way to write the same number: 4.
Usually it is correct to say that Romans used the classical form of IV
(subtractive) but in medieval times writers preferred the sign that was
additive form, the same happened
