PROTECTED]; sundial@rrz.uni-koeln.de
Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2000 6:11 PM
Subject: Re: sundial taxonomy
As an alternative approach we could get round this by specifying
the angles of universality. e.g., UNIVERSAL 60°N - 10°S. This is a
more scientific way of doing it. Again, I look
Message text written by Sara Schechner
As an alternative approach we could get round this by specifying
the angles of universality. e.g., UNIVERSAL 60°N - 10°S
I would go with this. I don't like the idea of something being 'partly
universal'. It seems to me things are either universal or
]
- Original Message -
From: Patrick Powers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: sundial sundial@rrz.uni-koeln.de
Sent: 27 February 2000 20:28
Subject: Re: sundial taxonomy
Message text written by Sara Schechner
As an alternative approach we could get round this by specifying
the angles of universality
I don't like the idea of something being 'partly universal'. It seems to
me things are either universal or they are not.
Perhaps 'limited universal' will do, or 'universal within limits'?
-
Thibaud Taudin-Chabot
52°18'19.85 North
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: Patrick Powers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: sundial sundial@rrz.uni-koeln.de
Sent: 27 February 2000 20:28
Subject: Re: sundial taxonomy
Message text written by Sara Schechner
As an alternative approach we could get round
Hi Everyone,
I too have been watching the discussion on so-called azimuth sundials and
have been concerned about the confusion in terminology. I want to second
remarks made by Gianni Ferrari and John Davis.
I think it is useful to divide sundials into major classes based on what
parameters of
