User talk:Michael Daly

I see you have been active on the sundial page. Welcome.

I am unsure that the Vitruvius list is in the right place, as it seems to me to be a Historical footnote. I haven't moved it yet to History, as I think that so close to the head of the article would give it unnecessary prominence and there are too many unresolved issues- but theoretically it would seem to be more logical. Any thoughts?

We are missing a section on dial furniture. More fun?

I have long been planning to do a page on the mathematics of dials to complement this page where we could place svgs of geometrical construction- and provide computer code for each dial- it is time that is holding me back. Smile. ClemRutter 09:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I put in a bit of info and a reference on Ring Dials and then noticed the [edit] tags were messed up. This is due to cramming too many images in less than ideal spots. Then I realized that the images were forcing the thumb sizes, so I deleted those sizes so user preferences were used instead. I put in a break to clean up the edit tags, but that makes a space in the middle of the page.

I hadn't intended to do so much!

I know nothing about the Vitruvius list.

I still would like to put in a Butterfield section, but have other WP priorities right now. --Michael Daly 22:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This morning I added a picture of

I've seen a few photos on the web, but none that are PD that I know of. --Michael Daly (talk) 17:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your fine work in improving the article "Tachymeter". Best wishes, Leonard G. (talk) 02:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A new May 2008 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter is hot off the virtual presses. Please feel free to make corrections or add news about any project-related content you've been working on. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss (talk) 23:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's here at long last! The January 2009 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter is ready, with exciting news about Darwin Day 2009. Please feel free to make corrections or add news about any project-related content you've been working on. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse --ragesoss (talk) 03:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Regarding your revert, I think you may have not read my edit and summary carefully. The article was misleading in that it implied that only those listed stars can be used for navigation. While their selection makes sense and few if any navigators will use others, it is definitely possible to do so; all that is needed is ephemerides for the stars in question, which can be, and are, calculated and tabulated. Please consider my arguments and please don't revert factual corrections without discussion. 80.216.22.200 (talk) 10:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are confusing general concepts in navigation with the specific details in the sentence. It states "Skilled navigators can use the Moon, planets or one of 57 navigational stars whose coordinates are tabulated in nautical almanacs." - the subject of the sentence is "skilled navigators", not astronomy theorists. Skilled navigators are trained to use a specific set of navigation stars - those that are defined in standard texts on navigation. There are 57 stars that every navigator must know well and those stars are documented in standard nautical almanacs. --Michael Daly (talk) 14:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. And a skilled navigator is of course able to use many others, because all he needs for that is the ephemerides. That ephemerides for stars other than the selected 57 are not tabulated does not mean that there is any special difficulty in calculating them. If you'd write "skilled navigators usually make use of..." or something like that, that would reflect the facts more accurately, the difference being that between "can" and "usually do". 80.216.22.200 (talk) 14:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should have written that instead of just making a bland statement that distorts what standard practice is and removes the reference to the 57 prime stars. Had you written something like that, I wouldn't have reverted it. There is an additional list of 47 (IIRC) secondary stars that I have long considered adding mention of to that article but have not found a decent reference to it and haven't taken the time to look. The article could use some additional info and cleaning up. --Michael Daly (talk) 20:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I titled the category "Mayflower Descendants" not "American Mayflower Descendants". Note that the first child born to Pilgrims in America moved to Britain as an adult. Note that Mayflower Descendants includes an Irish President and arguably the greatest leader of modern Britain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scooteristi (talk • contribs) 23:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I somewhere read you were in search for this:

"This paper surveys the development of the chronometer manufacturing sector of the British horological industry from its birth, at the end of the eighteenth century, to its death, just after the end of the First World War... The industry died after the First World War because the world's stock of chronometers was greatly in excess of demand; and also because an alternative technology - the transmission of time signals by radio - made it possible to use a timepiece of quite ordinary quality to indicate Greenwich time and therefore enable position at sea to be calculated precisely. The industry manufacturing marine chronometers thus had an effective lifespan of about 150 years." Davies, A.C.: "The Life and Death of a Scientific Instrument: the Marine Chronometer, 1770-1920" Annals of Science, Nr. 35, 1978, pp. 509-525

I`m in search for data on marine dead reckoning accuracy (all times, all ships) and data on accuracy of astronomic derived longitude before the time of telescopes. -- Portolanero (talk) 11:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This recent edit of yours, [1], had the edit summary of: "In country-specific articles, use the currency of the country. On first occurrence, consider including an approximate conversion to a major reserve currency such as U.S. dollars, euros," This is a selectively truncated quote as the full & true quote is "On first occurrence, consider including an approximate conversion to a major reserve currency such as U.S. dollars, euros, pounds."; see [2]. The latter word of the quote, pounds, refers to UK pounds (pounds sterling or GBP) and hence your repeated edits are unsupported by the MoS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.19.137 (talk) 07:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current