Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2010 April 28

= April 28 =

running a car before driving away
I was recently criticized by a coworker because when leaving work at 6am I simply start my car and drive off. He claims that "you have to wait at least one minute" so that "the fluids can circulate". I think this is crap. Obviously if it's cold out, it makes sense to wait a bit - but if it's not cold, is there a point? Am I "damaging my engine" by not doing this?

For some background by "cold" I mean 4 Celcius and below.

flagitious 01:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flagitious (talk • contribs)


 * In general, even in cold weather, a modern vehicle (anything with electronic fuel injection, basically) needs no more that one minute – and often closer to 15 to 30 seconds – for an initial 'warmup':, . The onboard computer will rev the engine a bit higher for a few seconds after you start to 'get the fluids moving', as it were.  Once the revs drop back to regular idle, then you're good to go.  Sitting any longer wastes fuel, increases wear and tear, and increases emissions.  In warm weather, by the time you adjust your seatbelt, check your mirrors, fiddle with the radio, and check for traffic &mdash; you're good to go. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * thanks so much, that's what I figured. In cold weather, I'll normally let the engine run a bit so that windows can defrost, the car can warm up etc. Although my co-worker still says that what you're saying, ten, is not "necessarily" true. flagitious 02:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flagitious (talk • contribs)


 * It's true that modern engines are much better at this than engines of 20 or more years ago. The advice back then was indeed to let the engine idle at low RPM until the water got hot enough to cause the thermostat to open and allow water to circulate - which could take several minutes.  Running the engine at high RPM while it was still cold would definitely wear it out prematurely.  Modern cars are much better - but they still aren't perfect.  It's considered advisable to avoid going above maybe 3000 to 4000 RPM for the first minute or so after starting the engine from cold.  For most of us, that's enough to reverse out of the parking space/garage/driveway - to roll down a side street - and get to the nearest main road.  By then, you can safely floor the gas pedal to get out into traffic if you need to.  So 99% of the time, just behaving normally is enough to protect your engine - and the additional wear from the occasional 1% of the time when you do start the engine and immediately stomp on the pedal isn't going to make much difference.  The thing to avoid is habitually starting the engine and immediately flooring the gas pedal...if you do it a lot, that will shorten your engine life, even with modern engine designs.  SteveBaker (talk) 05:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This might clarify things still further. It points out that most engine wear occurs during the critical moments following a cold start due to the oil not yet circulating. As Steve says modern cars are better and that's down to better engine  oil (see fig one). When cars had proper oil pressure gauges on the dashboard, one could see the initial oil pressure reduces as it circulated and became warm enough to drive off.  The owners hand book, should always state how long you need to wait for (for  your model) for the oil to liberally coat all surfaces,  before driving off.  The only other problem from cold start would be in Arctic conditions were one needs to consider thermal shock and uneven expansion. I've heard anecdotal reports that owners that use electrical sump and head heaters suffer fewer mechanical problems in the long term. Cars with hydraulic tappets probably don't have the same problem as those with mechanical ones, were too much of a gap when very cold can cause hammer wear. So in short,  read the hand book. --Aspro (talk) 20:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think (without any evidence) that heating up the oil is the more important issue. I've heard that some cars, especially those with turbos, need to rest for a short time before shutting down, so that it can cool better, but I always questioned that and I never have seen anything definitive to back it up. Shadowjams (talk) 05:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

" I shouldn't be alive " on DVD ?
one episode i viewed about a man on vacation at some Island to water ski and fish alone. it rained that night as he sleeps in his sleeping bag when he has a visitor with him ( a snake ). when he moves it startels the snake and it bites him in the face and near his neck. finds his cell phone and runs to a light house for help but NO ONE LIVES THERE. when he gets a good phone signal, calls 911. and is saved by helicoptor hours later. IF anybody KNOWS where I can BUY this DVD... I would love to know. signed autotech7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Autotech7 (talk • contribs) 04:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * How about the internet. Googling "i shouldn't be alive dvd" gives this: .  You can peruse the availible DVDs at your leisure.  -- Jayron  32  04:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Just curious: How did he water ski to the island alone? Astronaut (talk) 12:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * He got there using a poetic licence. Caesar&#39;s Daddy (talk) 14:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Luckily he was in a part of the ocean that has a downhill slope. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Oil companies investing in molasses?
According to the "World War II" section of Standard Oil, threats of an antitrust lawsuit caused plenty of panic among the companies that were created by the breakup of Standard Oil: "the top directors of many oil companies agreed to resign and oil industry stocks in molasses companies were sold off as part of a compromise worked out" with the US government. Why would oil companies be investing in molasses, and why would the feds care about oil companies owning shares in molasses companies? Most of the text of the section, including the molasses companies, was added in this edit, so it's not driveby vandalism. Nyttend (talk) 04:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It is actually related to the sentance before it: "It also brought new evidence concerning complex price and marketing agreements between DuPont, a major investor in and producer of leaded gasoline, U.S. Industrial Alcohol Co. and their subsidiary, Cuba Distilling Co." Presumably, the Cuba Distilling Company and the U.S. Industrial Alcohol company were making industrial-grade ethanol, likely as a fuel (remember that the Model T originally ran on ethanol as a fuel).  Given the connection to Cuba, such ethanol fuel was probably Sugarcane-based ethanol; and the syrup extracted from sugar cane in preparation for making rum and other distilled spirits is molasses.  The Standard Oil trust was likely buying up molasses companies to either gain control of the ethanol-based fuel market OR they were buying them up to shut that market down, in favor of their own petroluem-based fuel market.  -- Jayron  32  04:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As an aside, the 1919 Boston Molasses Disaster was caused by a rupture of a molasses tank from an industrial grade ethanol producer, Purity Distilling Company. So it was clearly being used as a industrial grade chemical at the time, and molasses appears to have been a primary feedstock in industrial grade ethanol production.  -- Jayron  32  04:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, okay; I had no idea that molasses was good for anything except human consumption, either as (1) pure molasses, or (2) an ingredient in baked goods. I definitely didn't expect that it could be converted for use as a vehicular fuel.  Nyttend (talk) 05:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems that this ethanol link also makes molasses a good additive in explosives as well. Nanonic (talk) 06:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Chair Repair
I have a plastic chair with 5 wheels. The 5-arm stand connecting the wheels to the seat has broken in two places (about halfway along two of the arms). I would like to repair it instead of getting a new chair and as it's a cheap chair I can't buy the stand separately.

So how can I repair the chair? Superglue failed instantly due to its low shear strength. Same case with plastic glue. Keep in mind this connection will need to support a 200 lb man. TheFutureAwaits (talk) 11:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I've gone through many cheap office chairs which unfortunately I found impossible to repair, so I don't hold out much hope. They never cope well with anyone leaning back in them. I don't think any glue will accommodate the tensile stresses; you might have more luck with applying lots of duct tape round and round the length of the arms as a temporary fix.--Shantavira|feed me 12:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Try constructing a splint with some wood and some duct tape. Astronaut (talk) 12:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This will work better if the surfaces to which you attach the splints are flat. Put splints on every side of the broken arms.  You might also want to do the same thing on the other arms, as a preventive measure, lest they break, too. StuRat (talk) 13:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * ...or you might just want to get a better chair, rather than spending a lot of time and effort on a ghetto solution that probably won't last a week anyway. :) FiggyBee (talk) 13:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * My mother-in-law wanted a favourite computer chair refurbished last week and had 3 quotes between £200 - £220 and £240. We took her to a local charity shop where she got one in really good condition, in green leather to match her carpet, delivered free-for £25.92.30.100.139 (talk) 13:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. In the US, the Salvation Army runs such stores.  My current computer monitor, microwave oven, toaster, and new shirt all came from there, for as little as 10% of the original prices. StuRat (talk) 14:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Aha! As it happens, the chair I'm sitting in at this very moment broke in just that way. Each 'arm' is in reality a 'loop' of dense black plastic with some metal bits embedded in it where the bolts go into the back and seat of the chair.  Both of the arms broke in the same place one day when I leaned back in the chair.  I absolutely hate having to by new things that are likely no better than the ones that just broke - so I decided to repair them.
 * I took a couple of strips of steel, drilled four holes through both bits of metal and the arm-rest and 'splinted' it together with lots of epoxy glue between the broken edges of the plastic and between plastic and steel splints. That worked for about a week and I was beginning to feel proud of my work when one arm broke in another place - so I splinted it there too and pretty soon it cracked at the weak point I'd created by the drilling holes for the first splint and I couldn't easily repair it again.  So I took the remains of one arm, traced roughly around it onto some very thick (3/4") plywood and cut out a pair of arms using a jigsaw.  Before cutting it out, I 'thickened up' the arm to make it chunkier than the original - and glued several thicknesses of plywood at the actual point where your arms rest on the armrest.  (Drilling holes through the plywood to accept the original bolts into the original seat and back).
 * I tested them and after they'd survived for about a week of use, I took them off again, painted them matt black and padded them using soft leather from an old coat for comfort. This has resulted in a pair of arms that have (so far) outlasted the original parts by about a year.  The result looks a bit 'different' - but it's every bit as comfortable as the original and - so far - seems to be fairly indestructable.  The only weird thing is that the bolts that hold the back of the chair onto the arms seem to slowly undo - I've had to re-tighten them several times - so I think I'm going to have to resort to some loctite to prevent that. SteveBaker (talk) 04:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge the Chair of SteveBaker (redlink) with Ship of Theseus. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 08:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Greek economic recovery levers.
Please - this is not a question intended to promote a discussion as such - it is a serious question about what might be the best approach to dealing with the resurrection of the failing Greek economy?''

I was in Rhodes last year and was amazed at the laissez-faire attitude of SOME locals (taxi-drivers, bus-drivers, toilet attendants, waiters/esses etc). When I asked why that might be (of a knowing hotel receptionist), she said that as Rhodes had been occupied by the Ottoman Empire for 700 years and were now a part of Greece enjoying its freedom and membership of the European Union, there was a general reluctance by Rhodians and most other Greeks to be answerable to foreign,or even domestic, rulers and their directives. If that truly is so, I was wondering what might their reaction be to having strict controls imposed by the EU bale-out funders and also those of the IMF. I am thinking particularly of tourism, a major economic element for Greece. My gut feeling is that they should take the hit and reduce all their tourist related prices so as to attract ever more tourists (like Cuba, where I was in January). But I also have this empirically based notion that the Greeks will not want to do that because it would mean working longer hours, giving better service, for lower wages and profits. Instead, I suspect they will naively INCREASE their tourism costs and consequently sink even further into the mire when tourists will take their Dollars and Euros etc., elsewhere for their holidays and vacations, paradoxically perhaps, to Turkey. 92.30.100.139 (talk) 13:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you have a serious question? Post restored. Please do not edit another's post. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The questions come up: "best for whom ?" and "over what time frame ?":


 * A) The best thing for Greece, in the short-term, and without concern for others, is if they get a massive injection of funds from other nations, which could be used to create a stimulus package with massive work programs, tax reductions, price subsidies, etc. However, over the long-term, this could result in dependency on foreign aid.


 * B) The best thing for all parties, over the long run, is probably the austerity program you mentioned.


 * C) Since we are concerned with both the short-term and long-term, some combo of the above is in order. StuRat (talk) 14:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Stu. I always look forward to your objective and rational analysis. Being a European (loosely - UK), I am going to ask my local "bookie" what odds he will give me on Greece INCREASING their tourist prices in their (anticipated) vain hope that those measures will bring in extra "foreign" currency. BTW - It's all Greek to me. 15:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.6.15 (talk)
 * I don't think Greek tourism is nationalised, so individual businesses will do whatever makes sense for them. Whether that will be increasing their prices, I don't know. There are bookies (big chains only, I would think) that will let people bet on things that they've come up with, so you might be able to get odds on this - you would need to work out a precise way of assessing it (pick a basket of tourism related goods and compare it to general inflation, probably). --Tango (talk) 16:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Greece could introduce or increase taxes on tourism-related services and goods (subject to EU and WTO rules). If the Euro remains low, it might be able to do this without pricing itself out of the market.  Given that it is a popular holiday destination, this could be a useful way to get more foreign currency. Warofdreams talk 11:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Increasing taxes won't necessarily increase prices. That will only happen if the current profit margin is minimal and the only way to stay profitable is to increase prices. Otherwise, it will usually be better to absorb the taxes, since you are already charging your customers the price that maximises revenue. Exchange rates are only relevant if a significant portion of the tourists are coming from outside the Eurozone - is that the case? Bringing in foreign currency isn't very important, since most of Greece's trade is with the Eurozone. --Tango (talk) 14:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Caucasian
Why are white people refered to medically as caucasian? I realize that the Causases are in europe but why not slovakian, as this is central where as the Caucuses are on the bridge between europe and Asia. Thanx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 14:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Our article on Caucasian race summarizes the history of this term and its usage. ---Sluzzelin talk  14:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * (e/c)I suggest you read the article on Caucasian race. This states:- "The concept of a Caucasian race or Varietas Caucasia was developed around 1800 by Johann Friedrich Blumenbach, a German scientist and early anthropologist.  Blumenbach named it after the peoples of the Caucasus (from the Caucasus region), whom he considered to be the archetype for the grouping."  The concept is now, of course, largely discounted in scientific terms.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * In the UK, this term is not used, and does not have the same sense as is given to it in USA. MacOfJesus (talk) 09:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

EU
Macedonia has been trying to join the EU, but has been blocked mostly by Greece who feel that Macedonia should be part of Greece. With the current headache that Greece is giving the EU, would this increase the chances of Macedonia becoming part of the EU, or how has it affected MAcedonia, if at all. Also why is MAcedonia rarely mentioned as a potentail member when it is so completely part of Europe while Turkey, is often bandied about as soon to become part. Turkey is Asia, and Islamic, which are not in line with European culture, nothing against Asians and Islamicism, bust that it is Asian rather than European. Or am I completely wrong in my views of Turkey Thanx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 14:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that the dispute between Greece and Macedonia isn't over territory, but simply over the name "Macedonia". There is a region of Greece called "Macedonia" and Greece objects to the country of Macedonia using that name (which is why it is often called the Former Yugoslav Republic (FYR) of Macedonia). I think it is unlikely that the current economic situation will make any difference. I haven't heard any mention of France or Germany making Greece dropping its objection to Macedonia's EU membership a condition of the bailout and it doesn't seem likely. The only way I can see it making a difference is if Greece leaves the EU (which is probably the only way they could leave the Euro, which would allow them to devalue their currency, which is one way to help their economic problems). If Greece left the EU then it would no longer have a veto on new members and Macedonia may well be able to join. The reason Turkey gets talked about so much is precisely for the reasons you give - having a predominantly Islamic country join the EU would be a big step towards improving relations between the Islamic world and the Western world (by making them overlap). There is also not much to talk about regarding Macedonia's membership - the situation hasn't significantly changed in years and doesn't seem likely to. --Tango (talk) 16:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please do not post the same question on multiple desks. Googlemeister (talk) 16:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Isiah 23
Why does it state, Wail oh ships of tarnish for Tyre is destroyed and left without house and harbour. A Tyre is still a fully functioning city today and B what is meant by ships of tarnish? Thanx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 14:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all, it says "ships of Tarshish" (another city), not tarnish (a form of metal decay)! As to the other reference, I'm not entirely sure: it may concern the Siege of Tyre, at a guess, but you'd have to find a Bible commentary for an authoritative view. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► person of reasonable firmness ─╢ 14:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Think about it... Tyre may have been built and destroyed many times through the centuries.Froggie34 (talk) 15:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If you're asking how it is that the Bible predicts that Tyre will be permanently destroyed, when in fact it exists today, one possible explanation is that the Bible was written by human beings who did not know the future, and so some of their predictions did not turn out to be correct. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In the modern critical reading, the Book of Isaiah is not attributed to Isiah, but to several authors. It's quite common for biblical writers to ascribe certain works to an earlier prophet who then, "miraculously", makes correct predictions all the way up to the lifetime of the real author. In fact, the point where prophesies suddenly go awry is one element used in dating these books. In this case, it's quite likely that the author of Isaiah 23 (the "original Isaiah") wrote his books during the siege of Tyre by Shalmaneser V, and simply assumed that Shalmaneser would win (he didn't). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * @FisherQueen: Unless I'm reading this incorrectly, the passage did not say anything about Tyre being destroyed permanently. Verse 17 says:
 * "And it shall come to pass after the end of seventy years, that the LORD will visit Tyre, and she shall turn to her hire, and shall commit fornication with all the kingdoms of the world upon the face of the earth." (KJV)
 * I'm not a Bible scholar but doesn't that mean the city will rise again after 70 years? --Kvasir (talk) 17:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * See the "History" section of Tyre, Lebanon. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

____


 * Isaiah 23 & 2:16


 * Tarshish is Tartessos in Spain - "the ends of the earth". "Ships of Tarshish" means; great ocean-going vessels.


 * The literal sense is not meant here.


 * A prophet is one who speaks God's word, not his own, and usually begins: "Thus says The Lord..."


 * Hence, the sense is; those who are mighty and great and relying on their own efforts and are smug in their financial greatness are the subject of this oracle, Isaiah 23.


 * Hence, those who make their pride in their financial greatness and feel protected against any "crash" in the future build, and have no regard for the weak and poor, this oricle is aimed here.


 * MacOfJesus (talk) 08:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This chapter from Isaiah makes reference to Assyrian dominance of Tyre. When the passage says that Tyre is without house or harbor, I don't think it literally means that the place has been destroyed, but that the former rulers of Tyre no longer control their houses or (the revenues from) their harbor.  See our article on Luli, whose dates overlap those of Isaiah.  Marco polo (talk) 17:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Mass/Weight question
Do pokemone have Mass/Weight when in a Pokeball? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CONDORLORE (talk • contribs) 16:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If they do, it's negligible at best. Pokeballs contain an entire environment for Pokemon to enjoy, all of which they cram into a ball about an inch across in its shrunken form. Characters can still carry around Pokemon such as the 2000-pound Groudon with no noticeable increase in weight. Vimescarrot (talk) 17:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There's an entire environment inside them? I just thought they were stored as energy like a star trek transport buffer 82.43.89.71 (talk) 17:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Strange...Slapped wrist for me; I thought I'd read it somewhere but didn't look for references. The Bulbapedia article on Pokeballs doesn't mention the artificial environment at all. Either way...the Pokemon inside are still near-enough weightless. Weight does make a difference to the ball, though, as balls are specifically designed to catch heavy Pokemon. Vimescarrot (talk) 18:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The whole thing seems awfully cruel to me, truth be told. basically, these kids capture wild pokemon, trap them in these tiny balls that make veal crates look comfortable, and only let them loose to force them into combat with other pokemon.  Michael Vick looks like a member of PETA by contrast.  we really should start PETCaC (People for the Ethical Treatment of Cartoon Creatures) and put a stop to this horrendous practice.  -- Ludwigs 2  21:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently, the Pokemon love it. Certain moves are more powerful the more your 'Mon likes you, and they can become extremely potent. And of course, if a Pokemon really doesn't like his or her ball, he might get lucky and never have to use it. Especially if he's a lead character of sorts... Vimescarrot (talk) 21:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Why did Steve Wright kill?
I've been watching the BBC Docudrama 'Five Daughters' (which is very good by the way). One thing it doesn't seem to cover, and neither does the Wiki article, is the killer's motive. Did he ever reveal his motive? Or will we never know, seeing as the girls weren't sexually assaulted and had no money worth stealing, removing the obvious motives for murder.

Thanks, Prokhorovka (talk) 16:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess you mean Steve Wright (serial killer). It seems he's never admitted to the crimes for which he was convicted, which means he's not saying (and which makes psychiatric analysis of his motivations difficult).   The article says he gambled and drank heavily and had tried suicide, so you might infer that he wasn't in the best mental health.  Beyond that it seems you're left with the tabloids' favourite tautologies, "he's mad", "he's bad", and other speculations. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 18:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I do mean that Steve Wright. Thank you. Prokhorovka (talk) 22:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The Sitting Man
I was a one mam theatrical production a number of years ago at the Grahamstown English Festival in Grahamstown South Africa, I would like to know who the actor was that put on this show. Has he done any other acting work? Any information would be greatlyu appreciated. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 19:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think what you meant to say is, "I was at a one man...." The way it reads now is that YOU were the actor and you are asking who YOU were. Which, now that I give this even more thought, could just be a witty way of stating a riddle. Dismas |(talk) 21:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This and other sites suggest it was James Cairns. There is a little more information on his work here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Cornered hats
A hat with three corners is a tricorn. A hat with two corners is a bicorn. Does that make a hat with one corner a unicorn? And if so, does such a thing exist? --Carnildo (talk) 22:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't quite picture a hat with one corner. You mean like tear drop shape? --Kvasir (talk) 22:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Number prefix: tri- is a Latin or Greek cardinal prefix, bi- is a Latin multiple prefix, so yes, it seems "unicorn" could be right. Vimescarrot (talk) 23:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Some forms of the stereotypical "Robin Hood hat" are teardrop shaped with a single point at the front. I don't know what the correct name for such a hat is. FiggyBee (talk) 23:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * List of headgear would be a good place to start! -- Jayron  32  02:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Which does not list bycoket the general style of the typical "robin hood hat". There is also pointy hat, is a corner a point?  meltBanana  02:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe a Smurf hat? Buddy431 (talk) 02:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure a Bycoket is something entirely different; the description in the article sounds nothing like a Robin Hood hat. FWIW, a quick google search turns up terms like "Woodsman's Hat" (see this link) and "archer's hat" (see this link)  Though, neither term seems to refer unambiguously to the Robin Hood hat, i.e. there are other obviously unrelated hats called "Archer's hat" or "Woodsman's hat".  The most wide-spread term is literally the term "Robin Hood hat" or alternately a "Peter Pan hat"; both characters used it, but it does not appear to antedate the Erol Flynn portrayal of Robin Hood.  Later Robin Hoods simply copied the Erol Flynn character's hat, as did the Disney version of Peter Pan; the original Peter Pan didn't wear a hat.  The hat does not appear to have any historical basis.  -- Jayron  32  03:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * NM. It looks like Douglas Fairbanks wore one in an earlier Robin Hood movie: .  And these earlier filmed Robin Hoods are wearing a similar hat: .  OK.  Now I am stumped.  This hat must have some sort of more formal name.  Unfortunately, google is no help... -- Jayron  32  03:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Nevermind everything I said. It is a bycocket: .  It seems it was much more associated with Italian nobility than with Midlands outlaws.  Not sure how it got to be associated with Robin Hood and Peter Pan tho... -- Jayron  32  03:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well in Robin Hood's case, if I remember correctly, he was former nobility. · AndonicO  Contact. 10:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The OED doesn't list the bycocket spelling, although it lists several other versions, and I expect the change in bycoket was influenced by the name of the cocked hat. It is important to point out this spelling irregularity because such mistakes caused the bycoket to be called a abacot for much of its history. As the article says, the name was chosen because the two different hats, the italian and english, both appeared to look like a small castle on a hill, rather that one hat being a direct descendant of the other. One of the early references to robin started "Robyn Hode in Scherewod stod / hodud and hathud, hosut and schod" that is "Robin Hood in Sherwood stood / hooded and hatted, hosed and shod". The point is made that he wore both a hat and hood but, as andonico said, he was thought to be part of the nobility so hooded and hatted was probably used to emphasise his previous rich estate that could afford a nobleman's headgear while also wearing a typically peasant hood.  meltBanana  12:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there a technical name for a dunce cap? Googlemeister (talk) 19:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. The technical name for the dunce cap is the dunce cap. Vimescarrot (talk) 20:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Manual Coffee Grinder
I'm not a coffee drinker and I only stock coffee paraphernalia so that I can entertain guests at home. Even though I'd only make coffee for entertaining purposes, I enjoy the ritual of preparing a pot of moka and steeping with a French press. Which is why I would only buy a manual coffee grinder and I agree with this article. The trouble is, I can't seem to find any for sale having scoured most box stores and special kitchen stores around the city. Do I have to resort to eBay? Will coffee taste better than electric grinder given I grind the beans correctly? (I frankly wouldn't be able to tell anyway) Thx. --Kvasir (talk) 22:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I doubt very much that in a controlled double blind study anyone would be able to tell the difference between manualy ground coffee or electrically ground coffee, as long as you don't totally over or under grind it. In either case, which is actually better would probably be a matter of opinion anyway! Having said that however! Drinking coffee is probably about as far away from a controlled double blind experiment as you can get and I do not doubt for a second that the effort you go to MAKE the coffee could directly influence the enjoyment your guests receive from drinking the coffee. I have experienced this myself with the satisfaction you get when it looks like the barista does their job with care and looks like they're enjoying it rather then just slapping coffees out like a chore. So totally, if you enjoy pleasing your guests get a manual grinder, I'd be impressed, just don't hide in the kitchen when you're doing it:) as to where to source one from, I don't think there's anything wrong with ebay if you have tried all the other options you can think of. Vespine (talk) 23:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * May I suggest you give a bit more of a think to who you're trying to "impress" (not really the right word here), you or your coffee-drinking friends; who gets the most satisfaction from your effort, you or your coffee-drinking friends; etc. As a coffee-drinker myself, I'm always appreciative when someone is capable of producing a decent cup after dinner -- and the details don't really matter.  More along the lines of, "It's the thought that counts", or "I don't need to be impressed by the process if the results are acceptable".
 * DaHorsesMouth (talk) 02:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You got me there. I consider it a conversation piece and I usually make it clear to my guests that I know nothing about tasting coffee and they are always happy to help and give pointers. Definitely anything that gets the guests talking is good. --Kvasir (talk) 04:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Plus, the quality of the brewing has far more to do with the quality of the final product than the grinding, so unless your friends are really over-the-top coffee snobs, don't sweat it.
 * DaHorsesMouth (talk) 02:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I used to own a manual coffee grinder, and it was very hard to adjust it to produce the fine grind I desired. An electric grinder was far more satisfactory. Edison (talk) 03:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I would probably not make Turkish coffee with it then. --Kvasir (talk) 04:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * One thing I've learned about coffee construction is the crucial importance of keeping everything clean. It's surprisingly difficult - some of the oily stuff is pretty tenacious - but the test is: Does anything you prepare coffee in or around smell of coffee after you've cleaned it.  If it does - then you didn't do it right.  That being the case, the number one criterion for a coffee grinder is that you can dismantle it easily and attack it with brushes and vicious amounts of detergent!  This scupulous attention to cleaning seems to me to have more of an impact on the final flavor than the other tiny details of how the coffee is made - yet it also seems to be one of the most overlooked. SteveBaker (talk) 04:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I read that with a moka pot you don't wash the oil layer off? --Kvasir (talk) 04:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I have come across these in Charity Shops. In fact, most such shops have a variety of them on offer. (UK).


 * MacOfJesus (talk)


 * I find the claim that manually ground coffee is preferable to electric-ground to be a little suspect. I drink the latter, and the flavours are still exquisite. I suspect your endeavour will prove more trouble than it is worth -- but what do I know. Vranak (talk) 14:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * From my limited exepience of this: If you ground the coffee beans too much the boiling water seems to be inhibited somewhat.  I have a combination machine, and I still marvel at the engeneering that went into it!


 * MacOfJesus (talk) 16:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

There are some great ones in http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Coffee_grinders including this one which we have (pictured). It's second hand, bought in a vide grenier in France. I'd let you have it, only we need it to amuse guests. But really, it's not hard to find one. I've just looked on amazon and there are some.--Annielogue (talk) 09:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)