Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2022 September 20

= September 20 =

Numbering of German U-boats
Wikipedia says at List of U-boats of Germany: "The submarines have usually been designated with a U followed by a number... When Germany resumed building submarines in the 1930s, the numbering of the submarines was restarted at 1." However, while reading the World War II memoir Iron Coffins, I noticed that the submarine U-230 was newer than the U-557. The linked articles confirm this, and it's not a small difference: the lower-numbered sub was newer than the other one by well over a year, although they were both the same class of sub.

So is there any information as to how those numbers were assigned? --174.95.81.219 (talk) 05:11, 20 September 2022 (UTC)


 * The U-Boat Wars, Edwin Palmer Hoyt (1986), p. 94 says that after U-100 the numbering ceased to be sequential to give the impression that there were more boats than actually existed, a deception plan by Karl Dönitz. Alansplodge (talk) 12:53, 20 September 2022 (UTC)


 * However, Hunt and Kill: U-505 and the Battle of the Atlantic Theodore P. Savas (2004) p. 16 says:
 * The numbering system of Type IX boats, and indeed that of all German submarines in World War II, at first glance defies logic and continues to confound anyone except the most knowledgeable of experts or those with a superbly developed memory. Instead of numbering boats in the chronological order in which they were commissioned and joined active service, the German Navy designated its submarines more or less according to the sequence in which the construction orders were allocated to the individual shipyards. This arrangement lead to some confusion, because some boats carrying high numbers had been commissioned (and sometimes even sunk) before a boat with a lower number had even hoisted its battle ensign.
 * He goes on to say that later in the war, whole contracts for older designs were sometimes cancelled in favour of newer designs, with the numbers allocated being reused later. Sounds a bit more plausible than the deception theory. Alansplodge (talk) 19:04, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * In the particular case I mentioned, the U-557 was ordered over a year earlier, construction began over a year earlier, it was launched over a year earlier, and commissioned over a year earlier than the U-230. But if a contract was canceled and then the numbering gap was filled later, that makes sense. Thanks. --174.95.81.219 (talk) 04:06, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The deception hypothesis may be based (perhaps inaccurately) on the real German tank problem. --Error (talk) 19:32, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Westminster Abbey
Watching the funeral of Elizabeth II yesterday it struck me how beautiful the choral music sounded as it amplified across the Abbey and reverberated across its ancient walls.

I know the Abbey is an ancient place with parts of it dating to Edward the Confessor. What understanding of acoustics, if any, did medieval church architects have. Or is it merely a coincidence that sung music sounds so spectacular in places like it? —Andrew 09:13, 20 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't have a full reply, though I'm sure the answer is that they had a lot of practical knowledge of acoustics. But see acoustic jar for a specific example. ColinFine (talk) 10:42, 20 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Reverberation is typically high in large Gothic churches due to the low absorption of the stone walls, largely left uncovered, and the sheer height (see Sabine's reverberation equation). Reverberation does not agree with coloratura but works well with solemn choral music with its slow-moving chord progression. --Lambiam 11:52, 20 September 2022 (UTC)


 * ACOUSTICS OF GOTHIC CHURCHES has a lot of technical details but not much on whether these acoustic features were created intentionally, except to say that there was no need for the spoken word to be audible in medieval churches, that would only come with the Reformation when sermons and Bible reading became important. Alansplodge (talk) 12:40, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That said, using churches (not necessarily gothic) as recording venues for music is a very common thing because of these acoustic features. Xuxl (talk) 13:07, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The causation is the other way round. Gothic cathedrals were built because they looked wonderful, they fitted the theology, and technology existed to do it (only sometimes; but all the badly-built ones fell down centuries ago). Having built them, people started singing in them, and discovered that some types of music sounded fantastic, while others didn't work so well. Cue the composers writing the sort of music that made the most of the existing acoustics.
 * Acoustics was not well understood even in the 1800s. -- Verbarson  talkedits 20:07, 20 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Acoustics and architectual engineering share some mathematical principles. For example, Musical scales are related to Fibonacci numbers and the "golden ratio" (phi) --based on Fibonacci numbers-- has been important in architecture for millennia. It's not entirely coincidental that what looks beautiful also sounds beautiful. I recall an engineering professor who would say "when in doubt, use the phi ratio". Harley Earl probably said the same thing; he and his design studio used it often. 136.56.52.157 (talk) 20:13, 20 September 2022 (UTC)


 * A further thought is that polyphonic singing was introduced into Western liturgy some time after people started building tall cathedrals. So it seems likely that the music was made to suit the building rather than t'other way about. The wonderful Funeral Sentences (sung as the coffin entered ) were written by William Croft specifically for use in the Abbey - he was the organist there from 1708 to 1727, and would have known perfectly well how to get the best out of the space. Alansplodge (talk) 20:52, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Apologies -- Verbarson, you have made the same point above. I should pay more attention. Alansplodge (talk) 20:56, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Just an echo - Wikipedia must have a very long reverberation! -- Verbarson talkedits 21:05, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Where you will find exactly the same point, with examples. WHAAOE! -- Verbarson talkedits 21:08, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, a flavor of Phibaloney that I may not have seen before. How does 13 figure into musical scales? It's true that 2,3,5,8 do, but that they are Fibonacci numbers is the strong law of small numbers at work. Note that 4 (non-Fib) is more important than 8.  —Tamfang (talk) 18:59, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, to the point that I starting looking for a translation of "le monde est bien fait" (such a beautiful world) but the web engine not being aware of my quest proposed me only assertions rather the opposite. --Askedonty (talk) 19:20, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * According to the phibaloney (great word BTW!) web site linked by the IP, "There are 13 notes in the span of any note through its octave." I guess that translates as "There are 12 notes in the chromatic scale, but 12 is not a Fibonacci number, so let's throw one more in there to make the data fit the hypothesis". CodeTalker (talk) 02:32, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Inclusive counting is why, among other things, the octave is so called. (Thanks, but now I'm leaning to spelling it Fibologna) —Tamfang (talk) 06:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Pen tip on a photo
Zooming in to Mamoru Shigemitsu's pen tip at the surrender of Japan, it appears as though the pen's writing tip during signing is on the table cloth, outside the paper, instead of being on the document itself. Why is that? 212.180.235.46 (talk) 16:59, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks to me as if his hand and pen are just hovering above the paper at that moment. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:09, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This image, and this one, show him actually putting pen to paper. Alansplodge (talk) 17:47, 20 September 2022 (UTC)