Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2008 January 13

= January 13 =

Changing gear ratios in cars
Suppose if one wishes to change the gear ratio of the first gear from, for example, 3:1 to 2:1, does the physical gear face have to be changed and replaced with a smaller gear face? Acceptable (talk) 01:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, you understand the mechanical advantage issues involved, right? So the gear needs a different number of teeth.  This would mean the gear would be a different size- things would need to be rearranged for the transmission to still work.  I believe this is the basic reason that most transmissions aren't set up for easy tweaking of gear ratios by end users.  What people do fairly commonly is swap out the differential for a different overall final drive ratio- but this would effectively change everything, not just first gear. Friday (talk) 01:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The simplest way is to either change the gearbox or change the size of the wheels. -- Web H amster  01:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Credibility
Why is it that info criticising skeptics is not allowed on Wikipedia ?


 * Wikipedia on UFO Watchdog: UFO Watchdog used as evidence of criticisim of "believers", people who investigate paranormal matters. when info concerning skeptics is found on the SAME source, it violates Wikipedia standards, such as being "inappropriate", as stated in edit summaries.


 * UFO Watchdog: Criticises both believers, investigators AND skeptics. One famous skeptic criticised by UFO Watchdog is Philip Klass and CSICOP.


 * Source of criticisim: www.ufowatchdog.com Click on "Hall of Shame 1, see the 7th entry there. Ignore the bathroom joke there about fiber and anal probes. Click on the underlined matter there.

This sort of thing can and will destroy what credibility that Wikipedia has. People will think that Wikipedia will actually supresses info concerning the criticisim of skeptics while it permits the criticisim of "believers" and paranormal investigators. UFO Watchdog is used in the following articles:


 * Linda Howe
 * Richard C. Hoagland

It calls both "conmen" and even nuts.

When placed as source that has evidence criticising a famous skeptic, it is deemed a unreliable source, even "inappropriate". Same source, different standards. 65.163.113.170 (talk) 02:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * My terminal screwed up, thus had to use another terminal. 65.163.113.170 (talk) 02:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd say this'd be more appropriately placed at the Village Pump, not? --Ouro (blah blah) 07:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Cryo921 (talk) 16:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Anybody moved it there yet? Did the OP? Sorry, I'm just a bit bummed out today. --Ouro (blah blah) 17:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Anyway, the answer is that there isn't one entity known as "Wikipedia" that makes or interprets the rules and if you are having difficulties with editors regarding the use of sources you should take one of the many ways of soliciting other opinions and try to maintain a cool head. It may very well be the case that some editors are interpreting the rules to fit their own POV but if you make it sound like there's a conspiracy against you you'll end up looking like a nut and be discounted. If you are interested in seriously hashing this out with others it is recommended that you get a log-in name because "anonymous" IPs are treated as second-class citizens in questions of content disputes and have to overcome a higher burden of proof than established editors. Learning the Wikipedia rules on using sources will help you to use the system to your advantage; if you don't take the time to learn them, the people who disagree with you will find ways to use them against you. It's not a conspiracy, it's just how this sort of loose social network works, and if you don't want to take the time to learn how to make the system work for you then you're better off finding a different hobby. Editing on Wikipedia is an intricate system of little social games, for better or worse. --24.147.69.31 (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Automatic Center Punch


Where can I find a description of how an ACP works? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.12.59 (talk) 04:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I cant find anything after a quick look on Google. If you have one you could take it apart and try to figure out how it works, then let us know!--TreeSmiler (talk) 05:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It's tricky to explain without a diagram, but basically, within the punch body are three moving parts stacked-up in series. From the business end to the back of the punch, let's call them 1) the punch; 2) the intermediate rod (or pin); and 3) the hammer mass (hammer).


 * The hammer mass is spring-loaded from the back of the punch by a large spring (and you can adjust the tension to some degree on that spring by turning the backmost portion of the punch). Turning it out will reduce the spring preload and consequently reduce the force of the impact. There's a hole partially drilled into the front center portion of the hammer mass, which acts as the receiver for the intermediate rod.


 * The intermediate rod is where the magic happens. It's designed with the rod off axis so that its resting position is skewed, causing it to contact the hammer mass off-center, on that part of the front of the hammer mass where the hole isn't. So as you press the punch rod inwards, the intermediate rod bears on the hammer mass and pushes the hammer mass back against its spring, storing up energy for the impact.


 * But at a certain point, a cone shaped receiver in the body of the punch centers the corresponding cone shaped section of the intermediate rod, straightening out the intermediate rod ("unskews" it). Now centered, the tip of the intermediate rod slips into the central hole in the hammer mass. The hammer mass, driven by its spring and no longer held back by the intermediate rod, starts accelerating towards the front end of the punch. But the hole in the hammer mass is only so deep so eventually the moving hammer mass bottoms out against the tail end of the intermediate rod and the impulse of the hammer mass is transmitted through the intermediate rod, through the punch rod, and into your workpiece.


 * "Thunk". The can of Xerex antifreeze is punctured and the TV commercial can continue.


 * Atlant (talk) 00:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I was able to find a punch and take it apart but going just by memory of the parts your description is good enough to explain the operation... Maybe there should be an article... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.12.59 (talk) 01:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Article? Done! Check it out and please feel free to be bold make improvements: Automatic center punch.


 * Atlant (talk) 00:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * To eliminate reader confusion it might be better if the word "rod" in the text and the word "pin" in the illustration were one or the other but not different. In fact I'd like to find some way to say rod or pin. I can change the drawing, no problem, but what do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.12.59 (talk) 06:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Probably by analogy to "push rod", "connecting rod", etc. I tend to like "rod". But I'm susceptible to being convinced otherwise as well.


 * Atlant (talk) 13:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Firing pin comes to mind, which seems to fit the rapid type of longitudinal motion better versus sinusoidal motion as associated with crank case rod or axial motion as associated with piston and rod (pinion) or with twisting motion as associated with drill rod. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.12.59 (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hashbrowns
Is cooking hashbrowns on the stove like how you would cook grilled cheese bad for you? (no oils) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.119.61.7 (talk) 14:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If you burn yourself on the stove, yes. Otherwise no. Remember that there is no such thing as 'bad' food - only a bad diet. Your hash-browns will doubtlessly be tasty and very enjoyable to eat and will have zero ill-effect if incorporated into a good diet/lifestyle. They are pretty much made of just potato and whatever oil you add when cooking (or as the article suggests sometimes a binding agent such as egg). 16:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ny156uk (talk • contribs)


 * Also, don't use too much salt. --M @ r ē ino 18:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The study of self esteem in children aged 6-10
working with children aged 6-10 years describe a way that you can support a childs development in 1, self esteem. 2,self expresion. 3, sense of identity. 4, self help skills.--77.96.184.31 (talk) 15:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

…Okay, sorry for the flippant comment if you caught it, but in the Welcome box at the top of this page you will read what wiki ref desk is not including this: "Do your own homework. The reference desk will not give you answers for your homework, although we will try to help you out if there is a specific part of your homework you do not understand. Make an effort to show that you have tried solving it first." Because your topic is known to you and you probably have a reading list, and google, we encourage you to make an effort in a specialised area like this. Any snags with it, let us know. Meanwhile you might like to look at Wiki article child development adn the links at the bottom of the page. Cheers, Julia Rossi (talk) 07:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

AXE Shock
My cousin gave me a bottle of AXE Shock shower gel. When applied to the pubic hair, it creates a cold sensation. When applied anywhere else, it's nothing unusual. Why is this happening? J I P | Talk 22:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Because your crotch is a highly sensitive area of your body... The gel will initial be very cool compared to your skin temperature. It's kinda like how when you walk into the sea (at least cold seas) the sensation is about a million times cooler when you get to your crotch than it is just wading your legs. At least that's my take on matters. ny156uk (talk) 22:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that the groin is one of the warmest external spots on the body, so applying a cold solution is going to have more of an effect anyway. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 23:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I once had this sensation too - but it was a dedicated washing gel for cleaning those areas. This, too, made me go whoa ;) --Ouro (blah blah) 06:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Does it have mint in it by any chance? I have endured some sharp intakes of breath using a minty shower gel.  Lanfear's Bane |  t  10:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Not looking for legal advice - curious about Squatters rights?
Just watched an excellent suspense movie called Pacific Heights in which a young couple buy a large Victorian mansion in San Francisco and let out 2 basement apartments. One "tenant" deliberately becomes a nuisance but hides behind his "tenant's rights" in a move to get the owners out and reduce the market value of the house so that he can acquire it and make a substantial profit. I live in Scotland and recall many years ago that lots of English properties were occupied by "squatters" who were virtually irremovable by the owners. What happened to those types of event as they don't nowadays appear in the media? And again, out of simple curiousity, what rights would a person have who walked into your unlocked home while you were next door borrowing a cup of sugar and claimed they had squatter's rights?? Would they be entitled to stay and live in the home until lawfully evicted by the civil courts or would they be charged with illegal entry?? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.241.155 (talk) 23:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Squatters' rights differ considerably depending on the country and even within the country. New York City, for instance, has laws that give renters much more protection than they would get elsewhere in the State of New York.  Like most laws in the Anglophone world, it stems from a centuries-old "common law" -- if a land-owner pays so little attention to his own property that he cannot be bothered to either evict squatters, or demand that they pay rent, within 20 years, then the squatters own the land.  In modern times, of course, 20 years is an eternity to be living in legal limbo, and many of the twists and turns of ancient property law seem a little too aristocratic, so different versions have evolved.  In any case, anywhere in the modern world, if someone sneaks into your house and claims squatter's rights just because you left to visit the neighbors for a minute, you don't have to wait for the courts -- you can have them arrested for breaking and entering or disturbing the peace.  --M @ r ē ino 01:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * We have an article on Adverse possession that covers squatter's rights. SWAdair | Talk 07:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Although may seem impossible that anyone could occupy a property for 20 years without being evicted or having rent demanded, it does sometimes happen - see, for instance, Rainbow George Weiss. Warofdreams talk 00:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)