Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009 March 10

= March 10 =

Stranded on a desert island
It's a common plot point for books and movies- a plane or a ship crashes in the middle of the ocean and a group or a single survivor finds themselves the next morning on some tiny island where they are the only inhabitants. They survive there for years until they manage to flag down a passing ship. Are there any historical accounts of something similar to this actually taking place? Nadando (talk) 08:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Alexander Selkirk is a famous one although not quite the same thing. Also look at Category:Castaways. JMiall  ₰  08:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There's an almost-substantiated theory that Amelia Earhardt crash-landed on a Pacific atoll and survived there for some time, although she didn't do so well in the "flagging down a passing ship" department. --Fullobeans (talk) 09:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * One reason this doesn't happen often is that, if the island were habitable, it would be inhabited. There may be an exception for islands which are marginally habitable for a small number of people.  Thus, a small group of survivors might be able to live there for a while, but the island couldn't support a permanent population.  In modern times, some habitable islands are not inhabited because they have been made into nature preserves.  However, the islands on TV shows like Lost and Gilligan's Island seemed to be large and quite habitable, which would mean they would have large populations. StuRat (talk) 16:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There are of course exception to the "if habitable, someone would already be there" idea; Pitcairn Island was shown to be capable of suppoting a sizable population, but before these folks showed up it had no human presence. Of course, it's also one of the most remote islands in the world, so there's the difficulty of getting there, but it was a "habitable", yet "uninhabited" island.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  17:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Norfolk Island is another good example of a very habitable island that was utterly devoid of human life when James Cook discovered it in 1774. There had been earlier habitation in the 14th-15th centuries, but only a few generations, and the reason they left remains a mystery because it fully supports human existence.  Norfolk Island even supplied the early colony of New South Wales with grain and vegetables.  Lord Howe Island is another example.  It was discovered in 1788 and there's no evidence of any prior human habitation at all. --  JackofOz (talk) 20:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I should have said "all known habitable islands are likely to be occupied". Since those counterexamples were only "discovered" sometime in the 1700s, and few people, if any, knew they were there before then, there wasn't much of an opportunity for them to be inhabited.  However, since all habitable islands are certainly known by now (and probably by a century ago), the logic that "all habitable islands will be occupied" is more true now than it was then.  (I remember that part of the opening song on Gilligan's Island said that it was an "uncharted desert isle".  However, I can't imagine an island of that size being uncharted today.) StuRat (talk) 21:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Both were known and discovered (and actually once supported human life) before their current inhabitants found them, at that later time when they were thus uninhabited. There was evidence of human habitation of Pitcairn until the 1400's or so, IIRC.  Be careful not to use "discovered" to mean "found by white Europeans", in that sense.  Polynesian peoples likely tripped over nearly every rock between the Phillipines and the Galapagos, but not every one, even the habitable ones, were continuously inhabited from their likely prehistoric discovery until modern times.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  23:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That's why I put quotation marks around "discovered". I did say "few people", too.  There are some rather isolated islands which may have been found by a few people in ancient times, but their location was not recorded in a way that anyone could use to reliably find them again (I recall Pitcairn Island having this issue specifically).  Thus, when people in their tribe were thinking they needed a new place to live, that island may not have been a candidate, since they only had a vague recollection of where it was. StuRat (talk) 16:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I saw a documentary (I believe it was called something like "The Real Treasure Island") in which they say the Selkirk example was the closest to an actual "lone survivor on a desert island" story to be confirmed, and even that isn't quite the same because his ship wasn't wrecked, he asked the crew to drop him off because he thought that it would be wrecked (which it was). There have, however, been numerous examples of multiple survivors being marooned on islands after a wreck or whatever (the Bounty being the most famous), but seldom for years and years.  Wasn't JFK marooned like this for a few days in World War 2?  There are also the Japanese soldiers that stayed in the pacific islands until decades after the war was over, not knowing it was all over.  TastyCakes (talk) 19:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That is Kennedy Island. But JFK was not alone, and it was really close to Gizo, Solomon Islands a town. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Here is the article about Japanese holdouts.  TastyCakes (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

There's Marguerite de La Rocque (discovered here on the ref desk a few months ago) who spent a few years on her own marooned off the coast of Quebec. In the early history of sub-antarctic exploration/settlement/whaling shiploads were so regularly becoming marooned on various islands, the NZ government set up a string of   "castaway depots"  supplied with food, equipment and clothing. Gwinva (talk) 21:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Feeling inspired, I've now created Castaway depot. Do drop in. Gwinva (talk) 00:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * When you see shows like Survivorman - (not the crappy knock-off where there is a camera crew there) - you can see that even a survival expert who's done this a dozen times before - can have a very hard time in this kind of situation. On the show, the guy manages it for a week - but you can tell that he isn't living 'sustainably' on the land - he's often starving, dehydrated and often sick at the end of the week.   So I think that there may have been many instances of people getting stranded like this - but simply not surviving to tell the tale.  You'd have to be exceedingly lucky to find a place where an ill-equipped, unskilled survivor could keep going for months to years.  For most of us, I think it would be more like Survivor Man than Survivorman. SteveBaker (talk) 00:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * See also the 1969 TV series The New People. --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  02:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, Gilligan's Island. TastyCakes (talk) 14:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * See, generally, castaways, and Category:Castaways. Cecil Adams of The Straight Dope addressed this question in 2005 ("Not necessarily Lost: Are there actual cases of castaways who have been rescued?"). BrainyBabe (talk) 20:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Banking in West Virginia
I am aware that there are several major banks that avoid the state of West Virginia, though the surrounding states are in their footprint (two examples are PNC Bank and Bank of America). It is my understanding from talking to a banking person that West Virginia's banking laws are too business-unfriendly. Can anyone give me more information about the specifics of this that would lead these banks to avoid the state? I simply cannot find the information online. Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Not an answer, but Wells Fargo also avoids WV despite banking in Virginia proper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.167.146.130 (talk) 15:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a commercial site, but offers a summary of some West Virginia laws which may help answer your question. It says that the state forbids cash advances from some lenders, caps interest rates, and outlaws all loans over $45,000.   Ka renjc 23:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Mountaineering boots
Can I use combat boots instead of mountaineering boots? They are much cheaper...--Mr.K. (talk) 12:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Use them for what? Should we assume that you will be using them for mountaineering?  If so, I'd go with the mountaineering boots as they're purpose built.  Unless you don't intend on doing a lot of serious mountaineering, in which case, you may be able to get by with the combat boots.  Dismas |(talk) 12:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I meant for mountaineering.


 * Mountaineering boots have stiff soles and shafts to give support when climbing whilst combat boots are flexible, to allow normal walking and running. Of course, crampons can`t be used with combat boots and thermal insulation is poor.  As Dismas says, it depends on the  grade (or class, depending on the system) of the route you are planning.  If you are joining a club they may have boots for hire.  --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 13:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Original research: While I wouldn't use combat boots in place of mountaineering boots, they can usually replace hiking boots for most purposes. - EronTalk 00:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Argentineans/Anglo Argentineans incorporated into British regiments in World War One.
Does anyone have any knowledge of this? Anglo Argentines are Argentineans who can claim British/English ancestry.Argentina was never a proper colony but there were english people there from about 1850 due to trade and construction amongst other reasons,i believe.It could have occurred because of the serious losses of life/widening the net for recruiting of soldiers or perhaps because of an english contact.It would probably have been very discreet since Argentina claimed neutrality as a country.PedroBlanco (talk) 19:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There were a number of volunteers who are listed in Activities of the British community in Argentina during the great war 1914-1919, perhaps your local library can get hold of a copy. example page. Nanonic (talk) 19:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Nanonic.PedroBlanco (talk) 01:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Windmills
I have a science project, and I need some help. We need to figure out a way to improve windmills. Make them better. Produce more energy, more sturdy, stuff like that. Only, the problem is, I don't know HOW to do any of these things. If anyone does, please tell me, since other websites don't help one fucking bit. I'm going to pieces. I really need some help please! <(^_^)> Pokegeek42 (talk) 20:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The best way I can think of to improve the output of a windmill is to build it out of stronger but lighter materials. That would improve both strength (taller tower = more wind) and efficiency (easier to spin blades).  The problem is that such materials usually drive the costs of building the windmill higher.  Maybe take a look at Titanium and Carbon Fiber to start. 65.167.146.130 (talk) 20:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * For a project you could try to vary thw shape of the blades. you will need to have a power meter to measure the output of the generator attached to the windmill. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Since wind speeds are normally higher, farther up, putting the windmill on a long mast (or on the top of a hill), is a good approach. Having a mechanism to rotate the windmill into the wind would also help, but most windmills already have this.  Perhaps putting solar panels on the blades and mast could also help, as that would allow electricity to be produced when it's bright, but windless. StuRat (talk) 20:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Would more blades help? Astronaut (talk) 22:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No. Most modern turbines have 3 blades because that is most efficient. Too many and you get excessive turbulence, and extra weight, which reduce power generation. --Tango (talk) 00:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I know, but perhaps a good science project would be to show that is true through experimentation. Astronaut (talk) 13:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, it was a rhetorical question! Sorry! --Tango (talk) 13:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Look at our article Wind Farm. It has everything you want and more. Phil_burnstein (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Better lubricants would reduce friction and improve efficiency. Better gearing could improve mechanical advantage and improve energy transfer.  Just a couple of more ideas.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  22:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * What kind of project is this? Is it the kind where you have to write up things you found written elsewhere, combined with thinky thoughts? Or is it the kind where you need to do some experiments as well? I'm pretty sure lots of us could offer advice and guidance either way, but we can be extra helpful if you tell us more about what you need to do. Unless you already have all the help you need :) 79.66.56.21 (talk) 23:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It's hard to imagine any easy way to improve on the big commercial windmills that are out there. We have to imagine that they've already thought, calculated, simulated, etc and that they have the best compromise of efficiency, logevity and cost that modern engineering can produce.  I don't think that we're going to come up with anything to improve the best that there is in that realm.  On the other hand, there has been a rash of people selling 'urban' windmills that are so horrifically inefficient that in some cases the electronics needed to run them consumes more electricity than they actually produce!   Much of the problem is that people don't situate them sensibly - but that's not the only problem.  So perhaps you can fulfill your assignment by looking at some of those TERRIBLE windmills and doing what you can to suggest improvements.  Anyway - you might like to skim scoraigwind.com - they are all about build-it-yourself windmills and they have tons and tons of good advice and links.  Scroll down to "ROOFTOP MADNESS CONTINUES..." - and you'll find plenty of windmills that you could easily improve upon!  Also, read the stuff relating to "The Warwick Urban Wind Trial Project" - that's a study on actual urban windmills that describes the problem.   From what I see, the biggest thing that could be done to improve these contraptions would be to provide expertise to home owners to help them situate their shiney new windmills in the best possible way.  Good luck!  It sounds like a fun project. SteveBaker (talk) 23:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Beyond the physical characteristics of the windmill, there might be improvements found in placement and orientation to maximize what wind is available. B00P (talk) 03:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * To improve energy output it would help if you could adjust your Transmission (mechanics) to suit the wind speed. If it doesn't have to be practical you could try windmills stalking around on computer controlled tripods to always be at an optimum position of wind flow.  Otherwise I'd go with Steve's suggestion, sounds like he's nailed it as usual. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 05:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

First, the specific project is this: "Practical Technology Project". We have to find a product that's been around a while, it has to do with earth/space science, and we have to improve it in some way. Don't ask me how windmills are earth/space science, my scinece teacher told us it was a good idea. Then, we have to get a sheet of paper, write down the product, the problem that we're improving, the improvement, the effect of the improvement, and the drawback the improvement will have. We also have to make a scaled drawing of the improved product. To make things worse, he's making us work in groups of four, but that's beside the point. Here's an example he gave us: LIGHT BULB A)Product: Light Bulb B)Problem: Does not last very long, only a few hours C)Improvement: Tungsten was used as filament and light bulb lasted many more hours D)Effect: People had more time to work and were not hampered by dawn to dusk work hours E)Drawback: Cost of electricity and bulb itself increased;tungsten is not plentiful I really think a project like this is a waste of time. And personally, I think our economy needs more improving than products that work just fine and don't need improving. But, thanks for your help, anyway. Maybe he'll just decide on the easy way out and give all of us "Fs" since that what he normally gives us anyway. But, besides that, this is a fun project. You guys are a big help. <(^_^)> Pokegeek42 (talk) 15:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a sad statement. Improving existing technology is probably 99% of what scientists and technologists do.  It's exceedingly rare to work on a genuinely new thing.  In my l-o-n-g career (I'm in my 50's) - this has happened only twice (mind you, one of them was on the team that invented the CD-ROM - that was a good one!)  This project is EXACTLY the kind of thing you'll be doing out in the real world - and you'll be doing it in teams because hardly any real projects are one-person processes.  Improving lightbulbs and windmills is exactly the kind of activity that will save our planet...don't knock it...it's important stuff! SteveBaker (talk) 00:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You might also want to pay attention to what the energy produced by the windmill is used to accomplish. Since the generation, transmission, storage, and usage of electricity can be inefficient, you could likely improve efficiency by direct mechanical transmission of energy, instead.  For example, if the windmill is used to generate electricity, which is then used to drive a water pump to fill a water tower, you may be able to drive the water pump directly from the windmill, instead, to improve efficiency.  However, this would only work if the windmill and water tower were next to each other. StuRat (talk) 16:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * What products in particular are you referring to? There is vast interest in improving 'light bulbs' (used loosely to mean anything you can screw in to a socket to give you light) and windmills both historically and at this very moment (indeed probably more so now then 20 years ago), for reasons of efficiency, longevity etc. (I'm not commenting on whether I think the assignment is a good thing) Nil Einne (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Particular products that have to do with earth/space science. A light bulb isn't earth/space science, so he gave us that example so we couldn't copy it. Binoculars, seismographs, y'know, anything that can be used for earth or space. He didn't give us any more to work with than I already told you. <(^_^)> Pokegeek42 (talk) 23:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I found this interesting: It is entitled "Why do wind turbines have three narrow blades, but ceiling fans have five wide blades?" in Scientific American magazine. Bus stop (talk) 01:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * From my experience, most ceiling fans have 3 blades anyway e.g. while it has a few 4 or 5 blade ones I've never seen them in real life. Things may be different in the US but definitely it's not universally true that most ceiling fans have 4 or 5 blades... Nil Einne (talk) 10:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I've had an idea for some years now about making a windmill with no moving parts using ions. Recently I read a news article about a computer cooling fan based on the same principle. I'm not sure if one of those was ever built - spewing lots of ions into your computer sounds like a very bad idea to me - and I'm not sure if my idea would work, let alone be an improvement (it would save maintenance, perhaps, the bane of wind turbines, or perhaps not if it just needed constant cleaning). 81.131.9.25 (talk) 03:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

new years day
where in the past the year was considered to start in the middle of March, would diaries and such like have started on that day, or would people have counted the whole of march as the beginning or end of the year, to make it easier for them? And how might the new year have been celebrated, back in the 16th century? 148.197.114.165 (talk) 20:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Consider this question: Were pre-printed diaries available back in the 16th century? I strongly suspect they were not, and anyone keeping a diary would do so on blank paper or in a blank notebook. ie. they could start their diary on any day they wanted to.  Astronaut (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Often, the old year and the new year would be written together, such as "10 March 1645/1646", to avoid any ambiguity near the time of the year change. I've seen various styles of this technique used, but, unfortunately, the sources I have are probably too vague and hard-to-find to list here. --Ericdn (talk) 22:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Samuel Pepys's Diary is a good example. Weepy.Moyer (talk) 07:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Last names
Is there an article about people whose first name is also their last name? Like John John, for example.-- Wh ip it !  Now whip it good! 22:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Durand Durand from the film Barbarella? Astronaut (talk) 22:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * An example would be Sirhan Sirhan, although, I don't see a list or category linked on that article for such names. Dismas |(talk) 22:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I was thinking more of real-life people and why their parents name them like that. I recall seeing someone on the news named like that, but I can't remember exactly who... -- Wh ip it !  Now whip it good! 22:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * William Carlos Williams is one close example, and my dad had an uncle who had the same first and last name (in the interest of privacy, I will decline to name the name, but it is a semi-common french first and last name.) Other than being a rather trivial curiosity, I'm not sure we need an article about such an event, per WP:IINFO, just being a mildly interesting coincidence is not much to build a Wikipedia article on. I also knew a Germaine Jermaine once, but she married into that name. --Jayron32. talk . contribs 22:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * We need a Latin or Greek name for it. Then maybe we could even find sources on the phenomenon. Edison (talk) 23:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Jerome K. Jerome is another example. And I know of a Kelsey Kelsey IRL - an accident of marriage. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * How about James James? Also, do Boutros Boutros Ghali and Eric Djemba Djemba count? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I used to know a guy called Brian O'Brian - everyone called him "Bob". SteveBaker (talk) 23:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems that there's actually quite a few 'folks so nice, they named them twice' out there - see William Williams, Robert Roberts, Edward Edwards, Richard Richards (and probably loads more)... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * And there's Neville Neville, the father of footballer brothers Gary Neville and Phil Neville. Astronaut (talk) 01:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This Herbert and this Herman [] aren't alone either.  None of them seems to be notable, though.76.97.245.5 (talk) 05:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There is the comedian Ahmed Ahmed - I think this is less unusual for Muslim names, I know Nasser Nasser is an Associated Press photographer, and I'm sure I've seen Muhammad Muhammad as well. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe some Arabs only have one name. However, to "fit in" with Western standards, where a first and last name is required, they just use their only name as both. StuRat (talk) 16:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There's a South African TV presenter called Scott Scott Rfwoolf (talk) 09:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I seem to remember handling a book by Sherwood H. Sherwood. —Tamfang (talk) 23:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Or the fictional character Major Major Major Major? --Mr.K. (talk) 10:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

If you widen your terms a little, to allow the possessive S and the dropping of the preceeding consonant, you will find plenty of David Davis. BrainyBabe (talk) 16:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * French actor Noël-Noël is another one. It's also a relatively common practice in Italy. (Oops, I though I was logged in) --Xuxl (talk) 19:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Does Boutros Boutros-Ghali count? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

An English-Latin online translator says "repeat name" would be "revolvo nomen". There should be some technical term like "revolvonominality" to describe Sirhan Sirhan and Major Major.Any Latin scholars out there? Edison (talk) 20:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I propose didymonymy. Deor (talk) 01:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That reminds me of Thomas Didymus, and leads me to discover 6 notable Thomas Thomases. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Richmal Crompton introduced a bit-part character called Jameson Jameson, too. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There's the A. A. Milne poem about "James James Morrison Morrison Weatherby George Dupree [who] took great care of his Mother, though he was only three." BrainyBabe (talk) 18:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Since a number of folks have been citing fictional examples in disregard of the OP's question, I'm surprised that no one's mentioned Humbert Humbert. (By the way, my proposed name above [which is mine] is constructed of Greek roots meaning "twin" and "name.") Deor (talk) 21:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I am indirectly acquainted with a Nick Nicholas. Being a firstborn son, he was named after his grandfather.  The surname is because (if I remember right) when his father moved from Greece to Australia he adopted his father's given name as a surname. —Tamfang (talk) 07:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

What kind of plane is this?
From this Boston Big Picture article. 67.169.118.47 (talk) 23:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * From the context, I'd guess that it's a C-130J Super Hercules - but I count about 120 guys in there - and the C-130 is only rated to haul less than 96 people...but maybe it's some beefed-up varient or other. SteveBaker (talk) 23:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like a C-17 Globemaster III. This photo is a good match. Our article claims it's only rated for 102 passengers, but Boeing states it can seat "80 on 8 pallets, plus 54 passengers on sidewall seats". Clarityfiend (talk) 00:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not anymore it doesn't. Good ID. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)