Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009 July 1

= July 1 =

Maps in southern hemisphere
Maps in the northern hemisphere typically have north at the top. If you live in Australia, for example, is north still shown at the top? Or is the map rotated 180 degrees with the nearest pole at the top? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Only as a gimmick in tourist souvenir shops. Ordinary maps still show the North Pole "on top". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I see. I wonder if that is also true of South America and Africa? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Then there's Antarctica, for which technically "north" is on all sides. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Australia does look a bit like the U.S. upside down. Edison (talk) 05:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That may not be a coincidence. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 06:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So what would be the point of having the nearest pole at the top? Why would any southern hemisphere country bother to do that? The convention set by early cartographers was north at the top and everyone agrees. Easy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.190.83 (talk) 07:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In theory, yes. I just wondered how it was actually done in practice. The orientation toward north is very strong. If you see photos from the Apollo flights, it looks like the spacecraft is positioned such that the earth's north pole is to the "top", even though there's no apparent reason for that other than convention. Either that, or they rotated the pictures. Somewhat related, when flying airplanes the cockpit sits atop the plane with the sky above and the ground below, even though being positioned "under" the plane could be advantageous. In defiance of that convention, though, the Shuttles generally fly "upside down", with the earth above, until they are ready to come in for the landing. I bet that takes some getting used-to. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 07:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, at least in Europe, the convention set by early cartographers was that the map had east at the top -- that's why we call it orientation. See Map. Maps with north at the top didn't become common until the Renaissance. --Anonymous, 08:32 UTC, July 1, 2009.
 * Yep. The term "orientation" originally meant "pointing toward the orient", i.e. toward the east, as opposed to "occidental", which would be toward the west. However, the "orient" in this case was not China or India, it was Israel, "the Holy Land". It has since evolved into a general term meaning any kind of activity that gets you "pointing in the right direction", such as "new employee orientation". I would suspect that the religious aspect was superceded by the secular - specifically, for sailing the seas, where they relied on the sun during the day and the stars at night - and Polaris was what they would have "oriented" around. Orienting toward Israel would have been useless. However, Polaris is not visible in the southern hemisphere, which is part of why I wondered about this. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 09:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I really think it was religious to point them east. If you wanted a useful map for sailing, putting an astronomical constant - north - at the top of a map would make far more sense, besides, the actual shaping of the Earth means once mapping was secular, I can't really see them pointing maps east. Just my opinion, since people are not quite that rational. Besides, maps like this are clearly in a Christian time, but point north.- Jarry1250 [ humourous – discuss ] 09:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * According to our article on the famous photograph "The Blue Marble" taken by the Apollo 17 astronauts, "The photograph was originally taken 'upside down' in that the South Pole was at the top of the photograph. This is because of the orientation in which the astronauts were traveling at the time." — Michael J  21:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Chinese maps traditionally had South at the top. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Former Canadian Blue Ensign
In the article re HMCS Kitchener, Corvette K-225, you show the flag the ship fought under as the older Canadian Blue Ensign. The ship fought under the standard British White Ensign. The Blue Ensign was flown on the jackstaff at the stern, but no RCN veteran of WW II would ever fly the Canadian Blue Ensign. They fought and died under the British White Ensign, which was the flag for all Canadian naval ships until 1965. Please correct this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.27.3.23 (talk) 09:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I assume you have a Reliable source which confirms what you have to say? If so, you are the best person to fix this.  No one else at Wikipedia is a better editor than you, and the entire encyclopedia was built by people like you.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  17:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * First of all (as a non-Canadian outside Canada), let me wish you a happy Canada Day! See how other Royal Canadian Navy ships are treated. Perhaps the Canadian blue ensign is used in the information box to distinguish Canadian ships from (e.g.) British, Indian and Australian ships. Then you could start a discussion of the two competing considerations at (the currently-empty) Talk:HMCS Kitchener, which is really the proper place for this. See also WP:Manual of Style (icons) and its discussion page (reached by the "discussion" icon at the top of the page).
 * P.S., there seem to be similar problems with other flags in the Flower class corvette articles, e.g. the South African ensign is for the Republic of South Africa as she is today, and not the Union of South Africa as she was just after the war. Since the South African naval article only shows ensigns after 1952, when their Flower Class corvette had probably been decommissioned or retired, I'm not sure what to put instead, and I can't at the moment find my old flag books to consult. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

problem
I've been with my new boyfriend for only 6 weeks, but it was going really well and we were getting on well etc etc! We see each other most days and it felt like it was starting to get a little serious and it started to feel quite real for me, especially as it has been 4 years since i split up from a big ex in my life and have pretty much spent that time since we split, dipping in and out of silly little relationships that meant very little to me. I suppose what i'm trying to say is that this new bf means alot to me in a short space of time and i can see us having a future together. Im at that age now where i had made a promise to myself, not to get caught up in meaningless relationships and try to look for "the one" to settle down with. So that's how i feel (or felt) about him and me.....

Until yesterday, when he dropped a HUGE bombshell on me!! He told me that a girl had been in touch with him over the weekend and had told him that she is 9 weeks pregnant and that it could be his baby. He told me that they had had a one night stand back in the beginning of December (before he'd even met me). However, this girl is married and she doesnt yet know if she will keep the baby anyway!! He also told me that they had had a relationship (im not sure how serious it was) some time ago before she married and moved away. The weekend they had slept together, she had come back to our home town to visit friends, had bumped into him and one thing led to another. This girl had made the effort to travel 2 hours back to our home town to sit with him on sunday and tell him!!

When he told me, unfortunately, my reaction wasn't the best! I was quite harsh with him and i was in complete shock and didnt know what to say! If im honest, looking back, i was quite self-centred in my response and made out that it was all my problem, not stopping to think about how he might be feeling. Unfortunately our chat was cut short by an interruption and i left. He then did what blokes often do when things go wrong, and went out and got drunk with his mates. After he let me walk out, i had a couple of rather dismissive text messages throughout the night, but we agreed to meet today to have a chat. I spent the evening with a friend and we talked the whole thing through and she made me realise that if i honestly believed we have some kind of future together, then providing i can deal with the fact that another woman is having his baby etc etc, there's no reason why we couldnt make a go of it! Having said that.....it took hours and hours to come to that conclusion, discussing everything!! So after hours of discussing it with some friends, i went home feeling more positive and had worked out what i wanted to ask him and what i needed to say to him today. However, on my way home i happened to see him walking home! i couldnt just drive passed in the snow and blizzards, so i stopped and gave him a lift! He was very drunk and was trying to instigate the conversation, i kept saying that it wasn't a good idea and leave it til the morning. But he blabbed on and on and ruined all the good work my friends had put in. Basically he said that i should walk away and leave, even though he said that it's not what he wants to happen. He admitted that he's scared and doesn't know what to do. When he's had a few, he comes across aggressive, so when i left, i felt even more confused. He had spoken so openly and aggressively, albeit he was drunk and i shouldn't take too much notice, but what do i do???????? He has text me this morning and we will be meeting later to talk it through, but his text messages still sound dismissive and cut off from me, almost like he wants to push me away!

What should i do....should i stay with him or leave? I know it's only been 6 weeks, but none of this is my fault, and im willing to stand by him at the moment and see what develops over the next few weeks, but now i feel like he is pushing me away on purpose. I know i can't make a decision until we've spoken today, but i'm so scared that his reaction to what i have to say, won't be what i'm expecting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salty Beef (talk • contribs) 10:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, random people aren't all going to be Ann Landers, but here's my two cents' worth.


 * First, you say that he comes across as aggressive when he drinks. How aggressive? This is not a person you want to be with if he drinks a lot and is very aggressive. I know you probably feel like you can help him, but if he gets like this a lot and is really rough, for your own safety you should leave for your own safety.


 * Now, having said that, remember that alcohol is a depressant. It may make a person feel like they can't handle anything when in fact, if they look at the big picture (like your friend helped you do) they can. So, what's I'd suggest is that you try to draw out from him his true feelings. Why is he scared? Why is he pushing you away? See if you can talk about the person inside him. Show him that he can open up in front of you and not hide behind drinking. Because, that's what people in that situation are doing, in my opinion. They drink becasue they are hiding from their problems. Try to convince him that he should never turn to drink, but that he should always be willing to turn to you for companionship. Because, my friends and I are all abstainers - we choose to be that way, as most of us are Christian - and we feel much more open about things than some men. Those of us who are married do turn tot heir wives for stuff that bothers them.


 * That's what you should be seeking in a relationship. It's what you deserve. Ask yourself, is this person the kind you would be able to share everything with each other all the time, wthout him holding things back? If you're willing to show forgiveness for that fling, as long as you make sure he won't do it again, I see no reason why you can't remain in the relationship. Because, he might be pushing you away because he's worried you can't forgive him. At the same time, though, try to discuss with him why he felt the need to have this fling. You don't say how old you are, but he should be mature enough that "one thing leading to another" should not result in sex - and that might be something nagging at him. in which case, perhaps you can help him, too, by offering to provide him with accountability so he won't be tempted again.Somebody or his brother (talk) 11:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec) Look at it from his POV.  He's been going out with a great girl (that's you) for a few weeks, it's getting reasonably serious; then his ex says she's 9 weeks pregnant with his baby.  What does he do?  Well he tries to do the decent thing and tells his current girlfriend but she goes mad and storms off.  So what next? Thinking he's messed up two relationships, he tries to pretend it's not happening, goes to a bar and gets drunk.  So decide whether you could stand the idea that he fathered a baby with another woman (and all that entails... eg. child support payments, access, etc), give him a few days to come to his senses, and arrange to meet when neither of you are drunk and are prepared to sit down and talk like adults.  Astronaut (talk) 11:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Also ask urself dat is he the kind of person who has let go of this sort of thing if dat has hapnd to u. If the ans is yes then its just a simple advise. Talk and let him know wat u think abt abt this and u are supportive, dat was something hapnd wen u were nt dere in his lyf so tell him this. If he undstnds u well n good, if he does nt den try once more if u still feel he is pushing u then keep urself away from him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.228.59.66 (talk) 11:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * He DID tell you right away about the "bombshell", didn't try to keep it quiet. That's a good start.
 * But there's something not right about the numbers. If he had an "old times' sake" fling with this former girlfriend in December, she'd be more like 6 months pregnant rather than 9 weeks. If it is 9 weeks, chances are the kid is her husband's, and I can't see what it has to do with him. Unless he met her again more recently, which you haven't mentioned. Perhaps what he's scared of is her being manipulative? you need to get a timeline on all this, and ask him how he feels about every step along the way. - KoolerStill (talk) 12:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah - I agree. There is something that doesn't add up there.  He needs to get a paternity test done - because even if the dates do add up - it could easily be someone else's kid.  I think you need to cut the guy some slack.  It's not like he cheated on you - and it's far from clear that this is his kid anyway.  He's under a spectacular amount of stress right now - it's enough to make anyone want to go and get drunk.  He needs help and support and not another source of stress.  You're the one who's gotta be there for him...at least until the facts become clearer...you can walk away from this at any time, so you can afford to be patient and let events unfold. SteveBaker (talk) 13:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with my colleagues, you need to get the numbers sorted out. December was much more than 9 weeks ago. What you do next really depends on what the actual situation is. Generally speaking, though, I think you need to sit down and talk with your boyfriend while he is sober and work all this out with him. Tell him exactly how you feel. He is probably worried that this news will scare you off and would be relieved to hear how serious you are about making this relationship work. He is also probably very scared at suddenly finding out that he might be going to be a father and probably isn't thinking straight. The only solution to both those problems is talking, and talking while drunk doesn't count for anything. --Tango (talk) 17:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion about whether questions like this are appropriate for the reference desk here. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow relationship advice---ok; This is a guy you would like to spend the rest of your life with; he lied to you; he had a one night stand(probs not his first)with a married women so much for his opinion of marrige!!; possibly got this chick pregnant so much for protection; went out got smashed with his mates; when you had the audasity to question him on said women he dismissed you with a few txts; suggest finding out if he has been to the clinic as protection is not used; ok i am not to be rude or disrespectfull in anyway as these are the rules of wikipedia -_- but some advice you are getting is things like speak to him when he is sober(so he is a drunk); he is under stress(he is male dont talk rubbish); you have to be there for him(no thats what his beer and mates are for); resist rudness must resist- cough cough; Sorry ill try to be nice-if you need telling what to do in this situation after a whole 9 weeks such a long time. you now know he is a drunk; a womaniser; cares more for his mates or he would be in; doesnt use protection; cant wait to see what you know after 18 weeks :) pretty clear what i think you should doChromagnum (talk) 10:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Correction 6 weeksChromagnum (talk) 10:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

It will end in tears,stop seeing him now and save yourself heartbreak.hotclaws 14:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Na-Na, Hey-Hey, Kiss Him GOODBYE!!! Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Why doesn't milk curdle inside cows?
Currently in the UK we've been experiencing rather hot weather and its lead me to think about milk.. (hmmm). Milk seems to curdle very fast in hot weather and i would assume cows are hotter than most weather, so why doesn't the milk in cows udders curdle? Is there something in there that stops the process, and if so, why doesn't it go into milk bottles? -Benbread (talk) 18:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Curdling of milk is usually a bacterial process. So, what "stops" the process in the absence of milk-curdling bacteria in the udder. One can also curdle milk by adding an acid to it. However, I don't even want to think what a cow on acid would do ;). --Dr Dima (talk) 18:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That is a moot question. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Udderly reprehensible answer. Edison (talk) 03:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) You need acid to make milk curdle so it will only happen naturally if the milk goes sour. The real question, therefore, is what stops milk going sour in the udder? Dairy cows are milked every day, so there might just not be time for it to go off. I'm not sure what would happen if they were milked less often. --Tango (talk) 18:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The milk just gets reabsorbed by the body if it stays in the udder long enough.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Milk is nominally sterile unless the cow (or any other mammal) has an infection. Tuberculosis and other diseases can be transmitted by milk, but the lactobaccilli that curdle milk should not be present in the udder unless something's wrong with the cow. Milk has mild antibiotic properties of its own, which help. Once milk leaves the cow, bacteria can be introduced at any point after pasteurization, i.e., during bottling, after opening the bottle, etc as they're endemic in the environment (and pasteurization doesn't kill everything). Ultrapasteurizing extends the life, at the cost of cooking the milk somewhat. Dairy cattle get milked twice a day, so milk in the udder should never be more than 12 hours old. Un-milked cows will tell you that they need to be milked in no uncertain terms - it's very painful (ask any nursing mother who needs to express some milk) and can lead to mastitis in both cows and people.   Acroterion  (talk)  04:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Curdling is the clumping together of casein, which happens in an acid environment. The acidity can be from yeasts, mold and other bacteria, which are generally introduced into milk once it leaves the cow (sometimes immediately, by unhygienic milking equipment). Other curdling agents (rennet, lemon juice) are not likely to ever exist inside the cow. The high heat needed to curdle milk is around boiling point, which not even the hottest summer day will produce in a cow. Lower temperatures on a hot day are just speeding the growth of bacteria which contribute to the curdling. - KoolerStill (talk) 09:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Rennet being made from cow stomaches is certain to be found in cows - just not in the right place. Rmhermen (talk) 16:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The closest thing to this might be Mastitis. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 22:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Rescheduling a job interview
I've been invited to interviews for two jobs I applied for, but on the same day. They are in different cities and I can't make it to both. I've already confirmed my attendence at the first interview (before I heard about the second) and it would be unprofessional to go back and ask to change it. The second one is an assigned date which I wasn't told about beforehand. What are my chances of rescheduling the second interview, and what's the least bad way to do so? 86.154.105.253 (talk) 18:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd tell them as soon as possible that you have a prior engagement on that day that you can't get out of (probably best not to mention that it is another job interview). What your chances of getting it rescheduled are, I don't know - it probably depends mostly on their recruitment process/schedule. If they have multiple interview days and you were just randomly assigned that one, then you might stand a good chance, if they plan to interview everyone on one day, you have a much poorer chance. You may need to decide which interview you would rather go to - if the 2nd is your preferred one, you should word your request in a way that allows you to accept the interview on that day if that is the only option. --Tango (talk) 18:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If you absolutely cannot change the second, changing the first may not be *that* bad, though it depends. If you scheduled it with some secretary or office assistant, then they can likely change their boss's schedule without the boss even knowing that you had to re-schedule.  You could also tell a little white lie and say that you're significant other just told you of a commitment that cannot be broken, or some other thing that they would be clueless about the legitimacy of.  Dismas |(talk) 19:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I scheduled the first interview with a recruitment agency. It was this morning at 11.30, and I don't know if they've contacted the employer yet. Three hours later I got an email about the second interview. I could call back the agency tomorrow, but I'd rather not risk it if there's much risk involved. If these were offers, not interviews, I'd take the first job like a shot. 86.154.105.253 (talk) 22:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I would advise against trying to reschedule the first one - it implies that there is something more important in your life than attending the interview...not good. For the second one - you can make up any number of reasonable excuses, but a "pre-existing business engagement" should be vague enough - yet truthful.  It's not really a bad thing if one company knows you're interviewing at another - they aren't trying to share out the available people - they want the best, and discovering that you are in high demand is no bad thing.  It's in their interests to try to recruit the people their competitor wants. SteveBaker (talk) 19:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with SteveBaker. I don't think it's at all bad for a prospective employer to know that you are highly-enough thought of to be interviewing elsewhere; and you should keep the appointments that you verify if possible.  Tempshill (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Make personal contact now with both employers if you can. The aim is to make yourself known and find out who is running the interviews. Asking some questions that are easy to answer like "Did my CV arrive alright?" or "Can you give me driving directions?" can get you talking. Be very uptone and positive about the coming interview and bring up the idea of rescheduling as something that would make it "even better" for you. Think this way: there is a 50/50 chance that an interview can be rescheduled. If the 1st employer you contact says No, smile and say that you look forward to coming. There is only a 1 in 4 likelihood that BOTH employers say No to rescheduling, which is pretty good odds. Even in the worst case of both saying No, you still have 2 cards to play. They are to go back and state firmly what date(s) are acceptable to you. Good luck. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Where do you get that 50/50 from? Just because there are two possibilities does not mean they are equally likely. --Tango (talk) 21:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In the absence of data for relative probabilities of alternative outcomes estimating equal probabilities is the best approximation. In this context 50/50% is Merely corroborative detail intended to give artistic verisimilitude. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I am reminded of Tom Hanks character in the movie The Terminal 65.121.141.34 (talk) 19:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Once I ask, I've let the cat out of the bag. If the answer is no, I would have assumed there's little point in even going to that interview, now that I've shown myself up as not making it my first priority. No? Thanks for all replies btw! 86.154.105.253 (talk) 22:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say so. It's not just a matter of priorities, it's a matter of keeping commitments. If you have already committed yourself to one engagement then keeping that engagement doesn't necessarily mean you think it is more important than something which came up later. --Tango (talk) 22:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what the two prospective employers are like, but a little tact couldn't hurt. If one (or both) of them thinks that no intelligent person in his/her right frame of mind could even think of working for anyone but their exalted organization (purely for hypothetical example: Microsoft, General Electric, the U.N., the Vatican, the White House, the Royal Household, Balliol College, The New York Times), tell them that you needed a backup because you know how fierce and qualified the competition for such a dream job must be. —— Shakescene (talk) 22:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, good point :-) 86.154.105.253 (talk) 22:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * In light of you saying the first job is the better job, I suggest you leave that arrangement as has already been agreed. Take a look at the second email, does it state "your interview is on: " or does it ask "would you be able to come for interview on: ?"  The second case would be a lot easier to rearrange by simply saying you have another appointment that day, but stressing that it is the only day you are unable to attend.  Astronaut (talk) 03:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Moderately smart dress
In the brochure for the Culham Plasma Physics Summer School i read the following: On Thursday 16th July a banquet will be held at St Edmund Hall for all students and lecturers. The evening will commence with sherry at 19:00, followed by a four-course dinner. Moderately smart dress is appropriate for this occasion. How, would you say, should "moderately smart dress" be interpreted for males? A suit? Just shirt and trousers? Thankful for advice! —Bromskloss (talk) 21:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd take that to mean a jacket, but not a tux. An ordinary business suit, or a blazer and slacks would do fine. If you're a student then probably wear a tie. If you get there and find nobody else is wearing one, just nip into the bathroom and take it off. 86.154.105.253 (talk) 21:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No way to know. I hate vague dress codes like that. You'll have to contact the organisers and clarify. They could mean anything from "don't wear trainers" to a suit and tie. They probably don't want Black tie or White tie, but how much less than that is acceptable is anyone's guess. I would guess you should wear a suit and tie - sherry followed by four courses sounds like a fairly formal meal. --Tango (talk) 22:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, remember that a jacket and tie can be removed if you are overdressed. But if you don't have them in the first place, you can't put them on if you are underdressed.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  22:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * When I was at university, we occasionally had formal dinners/banquets. Most guys turned up in a suit and tie.  As the evening wore on, the ties and jackets would come off and the alcohol would flow pretty freely.  Of course, if you have somewhere to keep a change of clothes (even if it's in the car), you could take several alternatives with you.  Astronaut (talk) 03:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In my personal experience, the community of Plasma Physicists is not prone to great formality. I attended a few Plasma Physics summer schools in my day in the United States, where dress was far from "formal."  But, I have had only limited contact with U.K. researchers, so it's possible that there's a more ... "European" atmosphere over there.  Nimur (talk) 04:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I have now contacted the secretary that administers the summer school (why didn't I do this in the first place?) and have gotten the reply that smart trousers or chinos and a shirt, with or without a tie, would be fine. She also wrote that some might bring suits, but that it is very hot at the moment and that suits are not necessary. Thank you all. —Bromskloss (talk) 08:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * ¿Would it be all right now to mark this question ? —— Shakescene (talk) 00:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Button shirt; no jeans and no trainers (sneakers). The jacket-and-tie is very easy to set aside if you feel overdressed. You might also ask someone you know who is also attending what he is wearing. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Natural Gas
Why is it since there is such a push for natural gas and other alternative fuels that you can not find natural gas available at regular gas stations? Why are they available at just alternative fueling stations? I heard that natural gas doesn't work as effectively as regular gas, is this true? What are the negatives and positives of using natural gas in our cars? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.137.245.78 (talk) 22:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you mean liquefied petroleum gas (LPG)? That's not quite the same thing as natural gas. Note that "gas" in this context refers to the phase of matter (as in "air is mixture of gases") not the abbreviation of "gasoline". --Tango (talk) 22:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Which one is CNG, the one they use for cars and to heat homes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.137.245.78 (talk) 22:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Compressed natural gas, that is natural gas. I wasn't aware it was used in cars, but I see it is starting to be. LPG is more commonly available, at least in the UK. --Tango (talk) 23:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * According to the Wikipedia articles (Natural gas vehicle,Propane), there are 7 million CNG vehicles and 13 million propane ones. A bit more than "starting" for CNG. Rmhermen (talk) 02:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Your average gas stations will, generally, sell products that sell in high volumes. If the gas form you want is something of a niche product at the moment then it may be that the Supply chain is not advanced enough to service the requirements of most gas-stations. One of the biggest issues faced with replacing 'petrol' powered cars is building (or entering and supplying to) the infrastructure that exists for petrol. ny156uk (talk) 22:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * LPG is available in the overwhelming majority of petrol stations in Australia. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * My father used to convert cars to run on LPG in the UK - so I know a bit about it. It's just propane - the same stuff you might use in your gas barbeque.  The conversion he did involved putting a LARGE pressurised cylinder into the trunk of your car (or into the bed of a truck, etc).  There was a switch on the dash that let you switch between propane and petrol (aka gasoline).  The gas from the LPG cylinder tends to freeze everything up as it expands - that means that it has to be heated - and for that reason it was generally necessary to use petrol to start the car - then to switch over to propane once it was up to temperature.  The modification was pretty simple - and it didn't affect the way the engine ran on gasoline at all.  Because you still had your normal petrol tank in the car - if you couldn't find an LPG station to refill at, you could just run on petrol for a while.  The cars generally got pretty similar mileage on LPG and petrol - but in the UK, LPG didn't get taxed as heavily - so it was a cheaper alternative.  My father's LPG station was the only one within maybe 50 miles.  But most of the people who converted were taxi's, ambulances, local delivery vehicles, post office vehicles and such - people who do a lot of miles within a small service area - and who don't suffer too badly from losing their trunk.  That got around the infrastructure issues and the system worked to everyone's benefits for many years.   What eventually killed the system was that 'Calor' - the company who sold the LPG got complaints from their usual retailers (people who filled gas cylinders for barbeques and other uses) because my father could dramatically under-cut them)...they eventually jacked up the 'automotive' LPG to the point where it was no longer economic.


 * LPG is fairly plentiful stuff - which makes it an attractive alternative to gasoline - but it produces just as much CO2 as gasoline - so going to a lot of expense to switch over to using it would be highly counter-productive from a global warming perspective.


 * SteveBaker (talk) 00:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

(reset indent) I can think of one disadvantage here in the Philippines. When an LPG powered taxi has/had a leak, then the cab smell likes hell.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's because propane and natural gas, being odorless, are impregnated with methyl mercaptan or some other sulfur-containing compound. Unlike higher-molecular-weight hydrocarbons which have distinct odors, propane and methane have no odor, so it would be impossible to detect a leak until it went BOOM!  The sulfur-based dopants are added because insignificant amounts of them can be used, and still smell strongly enough to be detected without altering the combustion properties of the fuel. --Jayron32. talk . contribs  02:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A disadvantage to LPG users in the UK, is that you can't take the car to France via Eurotunnel. Astronaut (talk) 03:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * LPG is widespread in Australia because it was widely adopted initially by Sydney taxis (which did the conversion and mileage experiments in the late 1960s. WP:OR) . The aim was to reduce the then crippling fuel costs for gasoline. The first LPG plant was expected to produce solely for export, but a small local market having been established, the Federal Government kept the excise low on LPG and legislated it to be never more than 50% of gasoline prices (currently it is around 45%). This produced local sales for Australian gas fields, where 80% of the nation's LPG comes from in naturally occurring reserves. In a country with around 10 million vehicles, some 650,000 run on LPG, mostly for high-mileage applications, making it viable to have many outlets selling it. Conversion costs are around $4000, of which the Government has been paying half for the past 3 years, to reduce dependency on expensive gasoline. As LPG does not have great emission savings, it is chosen on economics grounds; it will only become widespread if the prices allow the recovery of the conversion cost in a reasonable time, ideally 3 or 4 years. It is not regarded as good value for owners of older vehicles, which may not survive long enough, although moving the equipment into another vehicle is only around $500.


 * I imagine they don't allow gas vehicles in the Chunnel for fear of exlosion? The two in-vehicle explosions I've seen were fireless, caused by distortion of the pressure cylinder in crashes, the force barely enough to dent the boot (trunk) lid with the shrapnel. Any sparking caused by the tearing metal won't light the gas, which at that stage is liquid or too rich a mixture to burn. I have seen a 20,000 litre bulk storage tank take off from its cradle like a rocket, but that originally blew a hole from the expansion of the gas inside, the tank having been "cooked" by a grass fire under it. This requires 238 C, from memory, a temperature at which the tunnel would already be in big big trouble. - KoolerStill (talk) 10:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * When my father was doing these conversions, the claim was that fracturing of the gas cylinder in a crash wasn't a great concern - the biggest worry was if the petrol tank caught fire (and it's generally mounted right under where the LPG tank is) - that the resulting gasoline fire might be enough to heat the LPG tank until it exploded. However, this was claimed to rarely be a problem since people generally stay well clear of a gasoline fire - and it takes quite a long time for the LPG tank to heat up to that degree, so the gasoline fire will typically be put out before there is a major problem.  I'm not sure I believe much of that - but it was the claim at the time.  (I should point out that my father was doing this in the early 1980's).  The LPG they sold in the UK hardly smelled at all - just enough so you knew it was leaking.  Much less noxious than an equivalent gasoline leak.  LPG is still very popular for powering fork-lift trucks - at least in the UK and in the USA - because it produces no carbon monoxide and no nasty NOx or SOx by-products - so it's quite safe to drive an LPG vehicle indoors. SteveBaker (talk) 12:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I worked for a company that made several thousand propane tanks over the years and I don't recall even one report of a tank breaching in a crash (and we saw some pretty gnarly pictures of actual crash results). As I recall, the bigger worry was that the tank might shear its mounting bolts and find its way to something pointy. As I recall too, all our tanks (Canada) had safety valves set at 90% of the yield pressure of the material. This would give you a single jet of flame, which is not too bad. The same thing could happen if the fittings got knocked off the tank, which is a bigger risk than the tank itself being breached. Franamax (talk) 19:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)