Art:

Isn't it fun to trash bad factory dials!  I do it every chance I get.  (at
least their pesdestals are nice).

By the way, I found another website (The Garden Gate) which sells GORGEOUS
cultured marble and stone pedestals and tapered obleisks.  They also carry
some sundials too.

<http://www.gardengateco.com/Sundials.HTM>

John Carmichael
Tucson Arizona







John C.

(At least their pedestals are nice.)

>Dave Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I'd call it a fairly expensive joke!
>> 
>> Note that a "real" dial should, roughly speaking, have the hours from 0600
>> to 1800 in a semicircle, running from East through North to West (in the
>> northern hemisphere). This is a clock face, with only room for 12 hours in
>> a day!
>
>The sundial at
>http://www.shopoutdoordecor.com/cgi-local/SoftCart.exe/online-store/scstore
/p-AWS209S.html?L+scstore+wxsc3599ff367336+981445839
>is certainly poorly (criminally?) designed in that it gets out of
>whack as the declination changes (by about +/- 1 hour, even if
>properly mounted).  The simple fact that there are only 12 hours in a
>circle does not, however, make it totally useless.  Since the foot of
>the gnomon is on the circle rather than in its center, the shadow
>falls at about the right spot near sunrise and sunset.
>
>In fact, if the circle were either perpendicular to the gnomon or
>elongated to an ellipse along the 6-12 axis, it could be turned into a
>perfectly fine sundial.
>
>In the "Sundial Installation Instructions", the company states, "These
>sundials are designed for ornamental use and give an approximation of
>time. As a very accurate sundial would require constant adjustment and
>less ornamentation, these models have been selected to give years of
>enjoyment without the aggravation of constant tuning."  I find these
>words rather painful, knowing that sundials certainly can be accurate
>(limited in most cases by the Equation of Time), and having seen many
>examples of the beauty the artisans of this list can bestow on such an
>accurate dial.
>
>--Art Carlson
>
>

Reply via email to