Hi Linda,
There are two essential parts to a sundial ... the dial (the indicating
surface on which a shadow is cast) and the gnomon (the thingey that casts
the shadow). While there are some general rules about how to build a
functional sundial which cannot be violated, I've found there is one helluva
lot of variance in what will work staying within those general rules (I've
looked at about 500 examples, now, of the vertical-/wall-mounted variety ...
and believe me, the makers of sundials ran the gamut of the parameters) ...
and certain parameters change depending on variables like latitude, degree
of inclination of the wall from a perpendicular to the sun, height &
placement of gnomon, etc.. After a week's study, I am the rankest of sundial
dillentante, yet, one thing is clear from my perusal of all those photos ...
there is no requirement for 12 rays (hours) being indicated on the dial
(though this IS common in the mid-latitudes). Please peruse the comparison
of the hypothetical Tyler sundial with the one constructed at Yale in 1930
on this page (I think you'll find both have eleven rays/hours indicated,
rather than twelve ... also note the one-hour shift on the hours indicated
on the dial ... about what one would expect by the difference in latitude of
Texas & Connecticut? difference between Yankee & Rebel cultures' ideas of
the ideal work day? differences between shcool day & institutional/hospital
day? difference in the angle of the sun available from the wall where the
sundial was designed to be mounted?):
http://skiles.net/sundial.htm
Thank you for your comment, please try again :)
Bob
~~~
"Smithers! Get that bedlamite to an alienist." ~ C. Monty Burns
----- Original Message -----
From: "Linda Derry" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 12:45 PM
Subject: Re: please help identify this item
> If I'm counting correctly, the other sundials appear to have 12 divisions,
> but your example only has eleven. This would seem to argue against the
> sundial explanation.
>
> Linda Derry
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
>> Behalf Of Bob Skiles
>> Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 8:55 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: please help identify this item
>>
>>
>> Ron,
>>
>> Thanks for your comments. I agree that this design appears to be both
>> decorative & functional. The one edge isn't
>> unfinished/broken, it's simply
>> obscured by the scrunched-up cloth on which it's sitting (the
>> original photo
>> in the left panel has been inverted 180-degrees to show the
>> "flower" &
>> "keystone" perspective). I apologize for the unclear/misleading photo.
>>
>> http://skiles.net/Tyler.jpg
>>
>> Bob
>> ~~~~~~~~~~
>> I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report
>> the facts. -Will
>> Rogers
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Ron May" <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 2:39 AM
>> Subject: Re: please help identify this item
>>
>>
>> > Bob,
>> >
>> > The stone appears ornamental and the interior design looks to have
>> > more
>> > than
>> > one meaning: floral and functional. I am reminded of compass type
>> > illustrations used by architectural designers to calculate
>> the maximum sun
>> > angles
>> > during the day in order to lay out windows and French doors
>> for lighting
>> > planning
>> > in a house. However, one of the angles blends into the
>> geometric flower
>> > part.
>> > I tend to see it as unfinished, given the break on one end.
>> >
>> > Ron May
>> > Legacy 106, Inc
>> <BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR>
>> > AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's
>> > free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.
>>
|
