Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2014 December 17

= December 17 =

What's the newest spice ?
It seems to me they are all centuries old. Are there any recently discovered spices ? (Let's exclude new blends of old spices.) StuRat (talk) 02:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Discovered by 'whom'? I am pretty sure that any spice in the world will have been discovered by natives to the local area well before anyone else. Also, define 'spice' - if it's just something that changes the taste of the food, it could include literally anything, including moon dust or sand gathered from Mars (not that they would be particularly palatable).  KägeTorä - ( 影 虎 )  ( Chin Wag )  03:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Umami is not new, but it's being produced chemically (1908) and sold in a pure white crystalline form to home chefs as "Accent]" brand "flavor enhancer" (i.e., monosodium glutamate) is pretty recent, with Accent dating to 1947 in the US. μηδείς (talk) 03:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, that's a starting point, at 67 years. Can anyone come up with a more recently discovered spice ? StuRat (talk) 03:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * MSG is a seasoning, but not a spice. The word "spice" has a very specific definition.  Spices are specifically dried plant parts, not including the leaves (leaves of a plant are properly herbs, whether dried or used fresh).  If it isn't dried, and it isn't a plant, it isn't a spice.  -- Jayron 32 04:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Spices or herbs will do. StuRat (talk) 07:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The OP has spoken, Jayron. And the possible source of the essence is all sortsa plants and other sources.  You might as well say vanillin is not a spice.  See the better answers below, and then we're back to the chatroom discussion on the talk page, non?  I agree with KageTora the context here is a local one, but you've cruelly ruled out cilantro, so hence whither? μηδείς (talk) 06:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * There is I would suggest an additional point related somewaht . As even μηδείς has mentioned, as does our articles the umami taste has been recognised to some extent by various cultures for quite a while before the isolation of MSG. It's true that the various glutamates that stimulate this taste were only isolated fairly recently which lead to a more scientific recognition of this as a taste. OTOH, while some sweeteners like sucrose have been recognised for a long time, others are far more recent. Heck some things that stimulate the sweetness taste are naturally occuring but probably not stuff you want to eat (like lead(II) acetate and choloroform). So somewhat related to what Richard-of-Earth said below, if you're going to count MSG as a recent spice due to the recent isolation, what then with the large number of naturally occurring (let alone artificial) sweeteners? Edit: In other words, what's a new spice? Nil Einne (talk) 12:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Does Baby Spice count? First arrived in Europe 1976 and North America 1998.--Aspro (talk) 04:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * What about Old Spice?  KägeTorä - ( 影 虎 )  ( Chin Wag )  05:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Ignoring the question of whether MSG is a spice, why on earth are you taking the 67 year date? There's been commercial production by Ajinomoto since 1909, so 105 years now. If this question is the newest spice in the US that should have been stated in the question. And somewhat similar to KägeTorä's point, you'd also have to define "in the US". While international transportation before 1947 wasn't anything like it is now, it would seem unlikely there was really no one who imported MSG to the US before 1947 even if it was just a single bag or whatever they brought back for personal use. And there are surely plenty of other spices (however you define it) which were rare in the US prior to 1947 but used sometimes by someone and which are much more common now. So precisely how you want to differentiate between the two is unclear. Nil Einne (talk) 11:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't understand your dudgeon one whit, Nil. Are you calling me a racist?  I simply reported the facts I had, and provided links.  I don't read Japanese, so I don't know what products Ajinomoto markets, although I did note chemical manufacture started in 1908.  As for the spice issue, I keep it in the spice cabinet, and it's sold in the spice section of the grocery store in the US. μηδείς (talk) 17:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * ???? As shown by the identation, my comment was a reply to StuRat who is the one who chose the 67 year date despite giving no indication they wanted spices new to the US.
 * Don't get what reading Japanese has to do with anything. I don't read Japanese either. I did read our article on monosodium glutamate which you linked to so I assumed you'd read which says the commercial production as Aji-no-moto began in 1909 (~1 year after isolation in 1908). Or even if you hadn't, which was largely a moot point anyway, StuRat who is the one wanting help would have read it and chosen the most appropriate date. Which may be 1908 or 1909 but not 1947 unless they only wanted spices new to the US and even then, they'd need to properly define what new to the US means since as I indicated, under some definitions where msg being new to the US in 1947, it's likely other spices would come in at a later date.
 * Also, even if not in the US, Ajinomoto's association with msg is also fairly well known outside Japan and to people who don't read Japan and don't really give a flip about Japanese stuff (at least no more than anything in general), to the extent that Ajinomoto may sometimes refer to msg   (which was after all the origins of the name). Heck the area where I lived in Malaysia wasn't that far from an Ajinomoto factory, a somewhat prominent landmark for the area [http://cj.my/post/11990/pedestrian-bridges-what-for/        (the last link also supports my earlier claim), albeit probably far less so now given the amount of development but still enough that I was easily able to find the earlier links. I'm fairly sure I was far from the only one who always assumed they produced msg there (at least one of the links supports the idea they do), if not other stuff (not something I really thought about and again I'm guessing I'm not the only one). And the real Japanese craze in Malaysia only took off fairly late in my time there, so I'm reasonably confident it had nothing to do with any great concern for anything Japanese, simply the fact that the name Ajinomoto was associated with msg (one of the links suggests a 70-80% market share so it isn't surprising). So yes, I really have no idea what reading Japanese has to do with anything. And this only came up after your latest reply above, so I wasn't thinking it until now.
 * Nil Einne (talk) 14:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * There should be new spices all the time. Growing plants in new environments will change the resulting spice. There are also crossbreeds that would produce slightly different tastes. For instance a new variety of Cardamom has just been released by Indian Institute of Spices Research Appangala 2. One can always create a new spice mix as well. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 10:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I specifically excluded new blends of old spices. New varieties of old spices aren't really what I'm after, either. StuRat (talk) 17:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, if we exclude MSG since it's a seasoning, not a herb or spice, then what's the most recently discovered, completely new, herb or spice ? StuRat (talk) 17:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Chemists in the labs of food-processing corporations are coming up with new flavorings all of the time. This list from the FDA could be a starting point to research which of these is the most recent, though the exact date of the first formulation might be proprietary corporate information.  However, these are not spices as usually defined. Because people have been experimenting with plants in every environment from the moment they first visited that environment in prehistoric times, they probably made use in prehistoric times of nearly every edible substance that could function as a spice. I did a brief search for spices discovered in Antarctica, the most recently discovered continent, but couldn't find anything.  Of course, not much grows there.  Maybe there is a substance used by someone as a spice that came from one of the remote islands first discovered in historic times.  Marco polo (talk) 17:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * There are an awful large number of plants, fungi, etc. in the world, some of which are rare, or rather inaccessible, like truffles, and some of which only have small portions of which work as spices, like saffron, and others of which require special preparations to make them edible. So, considering all this, it seems like there should be some spices only discovered recently and others yet to be discovered. StuRat (talk) 17:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Another factor to consider is whether any spices gathered from organic products may be being genetically engineered for some reason or other, be it productiveness, flavor, longevity, etc. Honestly, given the amount of genetic engineering being done on agricultural plants and animals, I could see people saying that, at least potentially, based on the specific definition of "spice" being used, there might be new spices coming into existence on a very regular basis. John Carter (talk) 23:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * One example is Tasmannia lanceolata berries which only seems to be sold commercially in the last decade or so, although it has been usedby those with access to the plants in the past. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 15:10, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Excellent, I'll have to give that one a try. StuRat (talk) 15:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


 * You can see a few more similar lsited at List of Australian herbs and spices. THough I expect that each geographic region will have a few obscure spices that are not widely distributed. eg Candy cap available in Yunnan, UK or California. Some have unusual properties, eg Sichuan pepper stimulating the mechanoreceptors in the toungue to give a tingly sensation. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Death rumors in the 110 club likely false
In the "Recent Deaths 110+ section of "The 110 Club", Bernice Madigan and Ethel Lang are reported to have died. Has anyone that is a member of the 110 club looked into this and verified that they have died? It's got to be a hoax. I mean, I see NO SOURCE that confirms EITHER Ethel Lang NOR Bernice Madigan to have passed their earthly test. I am blocked out of the 110 club for repeatedly making disrespectful comments about SCs, so that is why I am asking the question here. Deaths in 2013 (talk) 05:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Can you link us to the 110 club since you are aware of it, and cannot you ask them? μηδείς (talk) 06:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The question appears to relate to a Wikipedia blacklisted website called "The 110 Club", a members-only discussion board on the subject of supercentenarians. (It's the top link on this search results page.) Google suggests that Bernice Madigan and Ethel Lang are both still among the living. No report of either of their deaths has been published; given their status among the ten oldest living persons, I expect it would be news if they lost that distinction.
 * As a hint to the OP, perhaps you should show more respect for your elders if you don't want to get banned from discussion sites? Just a thought. - EronTalk 22:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello,

The rumour about Bernice Madigan's death came from a post on a forum called "Voy", which has since been removed. Not a reliable source and a recent photo of her was posted on her Facebook page. Next.

I came across an obituary notice for an "Ethel Lang" who lived in Barnsley, England - the same place as the supercentenarian Ethel Lang comes from. However, there was no mention of her age or of any relatives. Since it seemed unlikely that two people with the name "Ethel Lang" lived in the same town, I posted a thread on the 110 Club entitled "Ethel Lang death?" with the hope that someone else (such as a GRG correspondent) could find out more. As it turns out, there were in fact two people with the name "Ethel Lang" in Barnsley on the electoral roll. Other things in the obituary suggested it probably was not the supercentenarian (it said "loving wife", implying that her husband is still alive). Since we have not heard anything else I think we can assume that "our" Ethel Lang is still living.

Ollie231213 (talk) 21:53, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

What're the most well-known sets of 15 and 16?
non-exhaustive,


 * XIV Stations of the Cross


 * Thirteen American Colonies


 * XII cranial nerves (all named), months, signs of the zodiac, Dodecanese islands...


 * basic English color words (ROYGBV, brown, white, black, gray, pink), major solar system objects, according to Earthlings (9 planets, Sun, Moon), objects in a horoscope (exclude the Earth, include asteroid 2060 Chiron for some reason)


 * Ten Commandments
 * Nine planets (traditional)
 * Ivies
 * Seven Deadly Sins
 * chess pieces
 * Platonic solids
 * cardinal directions, elements
 * Gods (Hindu, Mormon)
 * Gods (Zoroastrian)
 * Gods (Abrahamic)
 * Gods (atheist)

But I can't think of any sets of 15 or 16. They should exist, but I'm not sure if there's one where both the subject and number of members is relatively unobscure. For example, types of glands in a man and international airports of Scotland are relatively small, unchanging sets where the number of members is not cared about despite the somewhat important subject matter. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 08:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * And a partridge in a pear tree. Many of the items in your list seem pretty obscure to me. I'm guessing more people associate the number seven with continents than with deadly sins. 15: number of on-field players on a rugby union team. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss  &#9742;  08:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well I thought the pretty obscure ones were interesting and some of the commonest ones are cliched or boring. (days of the week?) And maybe the Gods semi-joke got religion on my mind. When you get to 14 (A US President's 14 Points, the 14 Words ridiculously paranoid racists tattoo to their skin), they're all going to be pretty obscure anyway. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Sixteen Tons, The Sixteen, The Fifteen Streets] - Q Chris (talk) 10:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * There are always 15 UN Security Council members. But the 5 permanent members are more significant. --65.94.50.4 (talk) 10:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm a big fan of this set of six. Pete "DNFFT" AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * There were 16 original Major League Baseball teams: AL: Boston Red Sox, New York Yankees, Cleveland Indians, Chicago White Sox, Philadelphia Athletics, St. Louis Browns, Washington Senators, Detroit Tigers. NL: Boston Braves, New York Giants, Brooklyn Dodgers, Cincinnati Reds, Chicago Cubs, Philadelphia Phillies, Pittsburgh Pirates, St. Louis Cardinals.  This set was unchanged from the 1900's to the 1950's.  Also, for your list, six could be the Original Six NHL franchises (Boston Bruins, New York Rangers, Chicago Black Hawks, Detroit Red Wings, Toronto Maple Leafs, and Montreal Canadiens).  -- Jayron 32 12:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * 15 stripes on the American flag at Fort McHenry. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * In computers, there are 16 bits possible numbers per digit in a hexadecimal (base 16) number, and 16 bits comes up in many places, like 16 bit color (there's also 15 bit color) and the unicode double byte character set. StuRat (talk) 15:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * But if exponential growth continues 65,536 bit will come up a lot in 2060s GPUs and I will not be considering sets of 65,536 bits in a byte to be notable :) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm sure you meant to say that there are sixteen distinct "digit" symbols in hexadecimal. Like any number, a hex number can be any length. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's what I meant. Now corrected. Thanks. StuRat (talk) 15:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


 * You can find examples in "15 (number)" and "16 (number)", and choose the best-known sets.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 20:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * ... and one splendid example from there which can fit both 15 and 16 is the 15 puzzle (for the number of tiles) aka 16 puzzle (for the number of spaces). ---Sluzzelin talk  20:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * A chess set, with one piece missing. 23:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Various old songs: "Sixteen Candles", "Sweet Little Sixteen", "Sixteen Going on Seventeen", etc. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There are 15 players in a Rugby Union team (actually on the field of play). Alansplodge (talk) 19:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Sixteen personalities in the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. —Tamfang (talk) 02:59, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * 15 mysteries of the rosary --NorwegianBluetalk 23:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Best Bollywood internet TV service available in the UK
I need something that can work through some sort of set top box (I don't have a smart TV, and the inconvenience of linking a computer to a TV is more than I wish to deal with). I primarily, but not exclusively, want it for movies and music television. Any ideas?--Leon (talk) 13:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Best way to acoustically isolate a subwoofer ?
I have a couple problems with my subwoofer:

1) It often causes something or the other in the room to vibrate, making a buzzing sound.

2) It disturbs those downstairs from me.

So far, I've solved the problem by setting it on the floor, but with a pillow underneath, to prevent it from transmitting vibrations to the floor and thus the rest of the room, and this also makes it quieter downstairs. I also turn it off at midnight. It occurred to me that suspending it from the ceiling by bungee cords might even better isolate it from the floor. However, before such an undertaking (which involves drilling lots of holes in the ceiling), I'd like to know what others have done to solve this problem, and if anyone has tried the suspension approach.

Thanks,

StuRat (talk) 15:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Check out Vibration_isolation. You can spend a fortune on an isolation system that will damp out nearly everything, see e.g. here for a nice video showing what a high-end isolation table can achieve. Also some good info on the math and physics here . I would consider mounting on four isolating feet before hanging from the ceiling. Looks like you can get 4 feet for around $30 . SemanticMantis (talk) 16:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Is there any indication that those would be better than a pillow ? Also, why on Earth does this isolation system cost well over 3 grand:  ?  I'm guessing it works with pressurized air and some powerful magnets ?  Still, that seems like it might cost a few hundred, not a few thousand.  Maybe it has some kind of active suspension, where it detects the frequency of vibration and changes the suspension to counter that ? StuRat (talk) 16:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * It costs over $3k because it can ensure that your microscope (or laser, etc) doesn't move a micrometer when someone walks by your experiment (number made up for illustrative purposes). When you're working on million dollar research, you don't want it messed up because somebody sneezed. Also it will hold up to 500 lbs. I can't easily tell if it's active or passive damping, but both forms exist. As for comparison to pillows, I honestly have no idea how to start estimating the sound damping from first principles, but some of the more reputable vendors I linked above give quantitative measurements of how much vibration can be damped. One thing about the tables and feet is that they also ensure the object stays level and on a hard surface, which is important for laboratory equipment but probably isn't much of an issue for your subwoofer. Finally, there is also a market for this kind of thing to mount high quality turntables on. You might find audiophile products to be (slightly) less expensive than scientific products. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Merely being useful doesn't alone ensure that they can charge $3000+ for it. This would imply that their competition can't provide an equivalent device for significantly less, or else there would be no market for the expensive version.  The question, then, is what technology is required which makes it that expensive to produce the device ? StuRat (talk) 21:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


 * My intuition (unsupported by any hard evidence) suggests that suspending the subwoofer from the ceiling will not be significantly better than your pillows, but you might need to put pillows under some other objects in the room if they happen to resonate with the frequency of your subwoofer output. A good thick carpet and underlay will also help, of course.    D b f i r s   19:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * A few year back I was friends with a defence engineer who was designing audio isolation accessories (initially for himself). It is quite a complex process as one is dealing with resonances that mutually interfere with each other, over a large audio spectrum. Every mass has to me matched with everything else in the whole hi-fi system,  as that can effect the overall sound – so it gets expensive. Here is a review of some of those speaker stands that are now made by his brother's company as he himself couldn't keep up with the orders. Of course these are only for connoisseurs and not for the average hoi-polloi, who only aim is to stop annoying the neighbours. Yet it gives you some idea of why the price. However, on that subject. The other-thing I discovered from his research, is that if one employs a really good amp and matching high power speakers (he swore by JBL's)  then the definition of the reproduced sound is so good and clear, that one does not have to have to have the volume up.  I don't think that is something that can easily be appreciated, until one walks out and closes the door behind one and relize that the system is only at 30% power. One needs an amp with sufficient reserve to follow the  waveform of the lower frequencies accurately. Those with lower power systems often try to get round it by turning down the treble and upping the bass and wonder why they keep wrecking their speakers. It don't sound too good either.--Aspro (talk) 22:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * That's an interesting approach, to try to minimize the transmission of vibrations by reducing the contact area between the supports and the floor. But is that really more effective than absorbing the vibrations by using a soft material to dampen them ?


 * I know a sand table is often used when making holographic pictures, where vibrations cause massive problems . But maybe there's a bit of a difference, since, in holographic photography you want to eliminate all vibrations, whereas with audio, you want to preserve the vibrations at the speaker and in the air, but eliminate them from the floor and objects sitting on the floor.  And sand apparently filters out high frequency vibrations, whereas low frequency is causing my problems.


 * And yes, I am guilty of having a cheap system. It's actually a $30 2.1 speaker system I use as external speakers for my TV, which, without them, sounds like a cheap AM radio.  By doing just as you said, turning the treble down and bass up, I can make it sound respectable on a budget, aside from the annoying buzzing I got (until I put the subwoofer on a pillow).  I guess I'll stick with that solution for now, unless anyone else has an economical suggestion for me. StuRat (talk) 12:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

What does this wire do?
At this link you can see a wiring diagram for a switch. I get the basics of the red and black (load and line) and of the ground wires but what does the white/neutral do? Thanks! Dismas |(talk) 23:05, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Just noting that to me this thread is started with what might be one of the scariest questions imaginable. ;) John Carter (talk) 23:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, cut the red wire...although "cut the red wire" gets 41 million google hits, "cut the blue wire" scores 57 million, where "cut the black wire" gets over 100 million...so maybe not. :-) SteveBaker (talk) 21:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * See Ground and neutral. It's just the "return path" for your electricity.  All active controls need four wires (if earthed) since they need a line supply independent of the controlled load.    D b f i r s   23:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Jesus H! Thimble connectors and uninsulated ground - H&S would have kittens if they saw that over here.  One hopes that they have efficient fire departments in the USA. Tevildo (talk) 23:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I can remember when these were normal in the UK (and I think I might know of one or two premises that still have them!) Does the USA not have the equivalent of IEE Wiring Regulations?    D b f i r s   00:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course we do. In the US, most in-house wiring uses bare ground wire. --jpgordon:==( o ) 18:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Bare earth wire was used in the UK also until 1966 (IEE Regs 14th Edition). It's only a problem if it touches a live terminal.    D b f i r s   23:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's still used. BASEC approved from my local hardware store here. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That's sheathed, and it has to be separately sheathed (using green and yellow striped plastic) at the socket.   D b f i r s   23:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * In the US and Canada, the junction box where the bare wire is exposed is itself commonly made of metal, and if so, is supposed to be grounded. Keeping the ground wire bare makes sense in that context. --65.94.50.4 (talk) 00:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This particular switch box is made of plastic. Dismas |(talk) 01:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * not the switch itself, the junction box in the wall which may also have metal conduit which also needs grounding (or can be the ground). Rmhermen (talk) 07:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for the responses! Dismas |(talk) 01:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Famous last words: "What does this wire do?"  Z Z  Zz aa p   p   !   μηδείς (talk) 16:15, 19 December 2014‎ (UTC)
 * What's that switch over there for? What's that switch over there for?  Ah-ah-ah-ah-ow!  Ah-ah-ah-ah-ow! Tevildo (talk) 03:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)