In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Thierry van Steenberghe
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>I had heard of this explanation too, but if it works for VIII, IIII, it
>doesn't for some other vertically symetric pairs:
>I and XI ??
>II and X ok
>III and IX ok
>IIII and VIII ok
>V and VII ??
I have just been looking at a picture of an old clock face,
c1700, and it looks quite symmetrical to me. On further observation the
X is of little more weight than the I because the X is squeezed very
tightly and one half is made from a very narrow line. Therefore the X
will have about the same weight as the I and the V is actually less
because it tapers at the bottom. So I agree that the worst mismatches
are as you have pointed out, the V / VII looking the worst. The I / XI
although slightly unbalanced seem to be offset by the II / X in the
opposite direction.
Therefore going back to IV against VIII the latter is more than
twice the weight and IIII/ VIII almost balances.
Anyway, this is just nit picking. Let's just enjoy these old
dials the way they were built by our forefathers. If we are going to
modernise them, then we should really use Arabic numerals.
Alternatively, how about a base 2 system??? 1,10,11,100... 1010,
1011 & 1100. These would balance fairly well if we include the leading
zeros and make the 0s wide like letter O - (but not in all fonts).
I hate to think of it........
Regards,
Mike.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cambridge, UK.
