Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 16:04:03 -0500 From: Tad Dunne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-DIAL (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Wm. S. Maddux" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Worlds Largest Sundial References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I suggest a good measure is not the largest dial but the most accurate to the naked eye. Some really big ones might fail to take the equation of time into account. Small ones with an analemma might read to the nearest 5 minutes or so, while larger ones with an analemma might read to less than a minute. A consistent way of measuring this is a) does it tell accurate local time and b) how wide, in seconds, is the width of the gnomen's shadow. - Tad Dunne Wm. S. Maddux wrote: > Fellow Dialists, > > Since the question of the "World's Largest Dial" has been recurrent on the > list, might I submit that the largest is an (approximately) spherical dial, > a little more than 12,700 kilometers in mean diameter, and is located here. > (Wherever you choose to designate "here.") As with smaller spherical > dials, there are quite a number of possible arrangements for conveniently > reading this dial. Because of its large size, there is sufficient space > for multiple gnomons and reading scales, of varied design and construction. > > As this is also the "World's Oldest Dial," details of its precise date of > construction and the name of its builder(s) are not readily determined. > Attempts to interpret various cryptic or partially effaced markings as date > and signature, have not yet led to general consensus on these points. > > Lest the champions of other claimants for "World's Largest" argue that this > dial should be disqualified as not "man made," I submit that while the > material "World" part referred to may not have been made by man, the "Dial" > part is a human conception and construct. As for the rest, other candidate > dials are merely rearrangements of material constituents of the larger > dial. > > (I beg the question of whether the candidate dials' sizes should be > expanded by approximately 149.6 million kilometers, mean value, to include > the illumination source for each of them.) > > Chris Lusby Taylor wrote: > > >It strikes me that somewhere in the world must be looking for a > >suitable design for a millennium monument, and the world's largest > >sundial might be an amusing conceit. > > I feel that we already have a grand monument to many past millennia. One > hopes it will continue to be contemplable by all dialists through many > future millennia. > > Bill Maddux
