Hi David/Susan:

By the fact that none of the experts on the list know of a traditional name
to call this type of time, I guess everyone is free to use his own
terminology.  In all my sundial literature, I have been unable to find any
reference to the name of this type of  time.  Your definition: "Zonal
Apparent Time" is almost identical to the one preposed by Ciao Gianni who
suggested the term: "Time-Zone True Time".

I'd like to use your definition in my "Sundial Owner's Manual", if it's ok
with you?

Thanks for your detailed and thought out answer.

John Carmichael
http://www.azstarnet.con

>Hello all:
>Having been away for the week of (US) Labor Day, I return to a mailbox full of
>interesting items. Not being a sundial constructor, but having had interest
in the
>math and such topics may I address this question?
>
>I suggest the phrase Zonal Apparent Time.
>My reasoning:     The sun (ie, true sun; the thing up there; hence time on a
>sundial) identifies Local Apparent Time (referred to by some as Local True
Time,
>since it is the true sun.) Correcting for longitude provides the Apparent
Time at
>the Meridian of the time zone. That is what a sundial would read at that place.
>
>The EOT "changes" the Apparent Time defined by the True Sun to the Mean Time of
>the (fictitious ) mean sun. It is the mean sun which provides for 24 hours
per day
>. The true sun is "off" this arbitrary standard by the amount of the EOT.
>
>Eg:   I am at 118º W. My zone is defined as 8 hours slow on GMT hence by the
>Meridian at 120º W
>If my sundial reads noon, then it is 1200 hrs LAT; when it is noon at 120º W's
>dial , my dial reads 1152 hrs. Notice that NO clock will read these times
unless
>the EOT is 0 for that day. Clocks refer to the fictitious Mean Sun.
>
>Hope that helps. I am using 19th Century simple definitions of course without
>reference to Ephemeris Time,  UT, UT(0), UT(1) or Atomic Time.
>
>DAVE
>33º 39' N   118º 05' W       ..........by my own sights and subject to
>change        :)
>
>John Carmichael wrote:
>
>> Hello all:
>>
>> I've got a little simple question that I'm not quite sure how to answer.
>>
>> What would be the correct definition of the type of time shown by a sundial
>> which is longitudinally corrected, but NOT corrected for The Equation Of
Time?
>>
>> Thanks so much,
>>
>> John Carmichael
>> http://www.azstarnet.com/~pappas
>>
>> p.s. Tony Moss said that he had a problem logging onto my website. Would any
>> of you living in Great Britain mind checking to see if you too are having
>> trouble?
>
>

Reply via email to