Sorry, I didn't intend to start new thread; I'm adding something to my Mayall & Mayall question-post:
First, I thank Simon for the answer and link. I've decided to divulge the reason for my question about Mayall & Mayall: The wikipedia Sundial article says that Mayall & Mayall, and Rohr as well, published incorrect Reclining-Declining formulas. In fact, the wikipedia sundial article also says that only in the last decade has there been agreement on the formula for a Reclining-Declining sundial. Those claims aren't supported in the article. Are they correct? I invite dialists to check out those claims, and modify or delete them in the wikipedia article. As I said, the article can be edited, modified, or deleted by anyone, without membership, registration or log-in. And, in general, the wikipedia sundial article needs some input from dialists. Come on, let's (at least in part) start fixing that wikipedia article, which is surely many people's introduction to sundials. I like sundials, and I don't like to be contentious about a subject that I like. And the Internet already has too much contentiousnes. But should unsupported or incorrect statements that contradict everything previously published be at that introductory article? Michael Ossipoff
--------------------------------------------------- https://lists.uni-koeln.de/mailman/listinfo/sundial
