David Hathaway wrote:
> The argument so far seems to be focussed around building replica
> historical brass instruments and I would certainly argue that in this
> particular case, modern machining methods and materials other than brass
> would be inappropriate. (Calculation and layout methods ARE invisible in
> the resulting dial and excluded from my argument.)
>
> However there are more than enough modern designs and situations where
> other materials are more appropriate. We are blessed in Cambridge (UK)
> with a variety of historic and modern sundials and they range from
> painted panels through brass and modern bronze pieces to a new one I
> have just found cut into the concrete cladding of a building.
I concur with you, David. I am sorry if my earlier statement was found
to be misleading by some, however, I was referring *only* to my (rather
specialized) branch of "dialling", making astrolabe replicas, that is.
I am not in the least opposed to using "modern" materials in non-
historical dials. I acknowledge that in the proper context, they can
look quite intriguing. But as hardly anybody would want a sundial made
of concrete on the walls of a 16th century building, I simply cannot
conceive of using aluminum- made astrolabes.
Wolfgang Abratis
--
------------------------------------------
^ ^
Wolfgang Abratis ^(_)(_)^
(_) __ (_)
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] / \
(_/\_)
------------------------------------------
