Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2012 February 8

= February 8 =

Energy consumed by a smartphone?
Approximately how much is the energy per second consumed by an iPhone and/or other smartphones? And how much energy can the battery of these cellphones store at a time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.119.79.70 (talk) 02:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Depends on the state of the phone. If it sits idle in your phone doing nothing except waiting for someone to call you, it may consume on the order of 20 milliwatt. If you're watching a video or playing a game, it goes up to 1-2 watt. The battery contains on the order of 5 watt-hours. --Itinerant1 (talk) 06:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * My Killawat plugged into my iphone at full charge is 0.0... meaning the trickle charge is miniscule. The charge on larger items, like a laptop, tend to hit around 13 watts or so... maybe i'll run down my iphone all day trying to figure out an answer. Shadowjams (talk) 11:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * If you use it for it's "primordial" purpose and make an actual phone call with it, the power consumption could go as high as 3 to 4 watts. Roger (talk) 12:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I would hope so since trickle charging a lithium ion (including lithium polymer) cell is a good way to make it blow up.  Nil Einne (talk) 21:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * A few ballpark figures for the G1:
 * Startup: ~1.2W
 * Idle, dim backlight: 0.3-0.5W
 * Idle, full backlight: 0.7-1.2W
 * WiFi: 0.5-2.0W on top of other functions
 * Source 131.111.255.9 (talk) 14:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * 0.5W on idle is too high. That level of consumption could make sense while the screen is on, but it wouldn't last more than 10-12 hours on one charge if it spent 0.5 watt idle.--Itinerant1 (talk) 05:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Hence 'dim backlight'. I did mean to include true idle, but forgot. IIRC, this was on the order of 0.01W but of course this will spike unless the radios are turned off. 131.111.255.9 (talk) 17:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

v8 s10 swap
I have a 1989 5.7 with computer and wiring harness still attached. taking out a 1989 4.3. as I was unplugging the wiring harness from the 4.3 i noticed the wires were different colors. question is. Will the 1989 5.7 wiring harrness plug into the 1989 4.3 fuse block? or do i have to chang any of the wires ? this is a 1989 s10 2wd blazer. if so what wires do i need to change ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.132.175.230 (talk) 15:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I know this is something about cars, but it would be really useful to tell us which car (make, model) and in which country. Astronaut (talk) 17:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably the Chevy S10 pickup truck. RudolfRed (talk) 00:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Charles A. Mercier, M.D. (1852-1919)
Can you find someone who can write a biographical article on the above person? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.31.177.79 (talk) 17:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No. Can you?
 * Joking apart, I suggest you choose a WP:WikiProject appropriate to him and ask there. --ColinFine (talk) 18:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It looks like he would satisfy WP:BIO so I will write up an article on him. He was a noted doctor who wrote several books on criminal psychology, mental illness, and education, some of which won prizes. He rejected Lombroso's view that there were "criminal types," and argued instead that "every man is a potential criminal" if circumstances exceed his "breaking point." (from his 1919 obituary). Edison (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Humm, yes. Interesting. It is easy enough to find his works (long out of copyright, of course) for download, and a quick scan through the chapter on 'Melancholy' (something I know about from personal experience) in his Sanity and Insanity suggests that he is worth reading even now. Definitely a good subject for an article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Principal Gentlemen of Quality
At the Proclamation of accession of Elizabeth II, some mysterious "Principal Gentlemen of Quality" were mentioned. Who were they exactly? -- Kvasir (talk) 17:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Although those who issued the proclamation described themselves as "the Lords Spiritual and Temporal of this Realm, being here assisted with these His late Majesty's Privy Council, with representatives of other Members of the Commonwealth, with other Principal Gentlemen of Quality, with the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of London", most of that is merely historical hangover (from 1603, would you believe?). Contemporary account summarise the actual meeting as having been of 150 Privy Counsellors and the Prime Minister. - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 18:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I can appreciate the superfluous language used in formal circumstances like these. I'm more interested in WHAT it refers to originally -- GQs (in our modern sense) who were upstanding members of society or someone with a respectable professions? --Kvasir (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's just a catch-all term to describe anyone else that was there. A gentleman is a member of the nobility (although not necessarily titled - the titled ones fall under "Lords Temporal") and "Principal" and "Quality" are just saying they are important gentlemen, as evidenced by the fact that they were there at all at such an important event. --Tango (talk) 20:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have tried and failed to find any other references to "Principal Gentlemen of Quality" outside the context of an Accession Council. I think, therefore, that they way this should be read is like this: "WE, therefore, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal of this Realm, being here assisted with these His late Majesty's Privy Council, with [as well as] representatives of other Members of the Commonwealth, with  [and] other Principal Gentlemen of Quality, with  [namely] the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of London, do now..." The representatives, the aldermen and the citizens of London would not necessarily have been Privy Councillors, but would have been Gentlemen of Quality. Although, as Jarry1250 says, the phrase doesn't really have a contemporary application now. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 21:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think a citizen would necessarily be a gentleman. A citizen has to be a freeman (that's what freedom of the city originally referred to), but there are levels between serf and gentleman (serfdom was abolished about 30 years before James I acceded to the throne, so actually by then everyone was free - they weren't all gentle, though). --Tango (talk) 01:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "Gentlemen of Quality" is a frequently-used term. This book notes that lords lieutenants and their deputies were the "prime gentlemen of quality in the counties". Warofdreams talk 11:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Progressing on those lines (I fixed your link btw, hope you don't mind) one might argue that the "Lieutenants, deputy Lieutenants, Sheriffes, justices, & all Maiors, Bailiffes, Constables, Headboroughes, and all other Officers and Ministers" referred to later on could be reasonably included in Gentlemen of Quality - or more, a subset of them, rather than all of them, which would have been impossible to organise. - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 12:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Excellent answers! Thank you all! -- Kvasir (talk) 19:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)