Hello Sara, I understand your concern to the term "monoFILAR" as it isn't restricted to a dial with a string. The same remark can be made to the term biFILAR.
Nevertheless the word bifilar is quit common since the original invention of this type of dial in which 2 threads were used. Because of the historical use of this word I hope we will continue to use this word. Best wishes, Fer. Fer J. de Vries [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.iae.nl/users/ferdv/ Eindhoven, Netherlands lat. 51:30 N long. 5:30 E ----- Original Message ----- From: Sara Schechner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2000 6:13 PM Subject: Re: Singleton Classification > >>>First, thanks Fer for confirming that a monofilar dial does not > necessarily > have to have a thread, string or cable gnomon. This was confusing.<<<< > > I am very much against using monofilar in this way. It is confusing and > unhelpful. It seems to me that monofilar should refer to a special case of > string-gnomon. > > Sara >
