Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2017 April 15

= April 15 =

Refueling on the move
So we've got tanker planes that can refuel other planes in flight. Why haven't we got anything like that whilst I'm driving down the motorway? I hate having to stop at refuelling stations, getting out of the car etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.234.140 (talk) 11:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That would be dangerous and expensive compared to the minor inconvenience of stopping a car. But if there were many people willing to pay extra to not get out of the car then many filling stations would enable that with drive-through services using filling station attendants. Some already do. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Aeroplanes can refuel in flight, but that's only used by military aeroplanes in special circumstances. Ships can refuel whilst on the move. A fuel tanker comes alongside, they're tied together, connect some hoses and pump fuel. Trains have never refueled at speed (unless you call drawing electric current out of a wire refuelling; in that case most trains refuel on the move, as do trolleybuses), but steam trains have rewatered at speed. See water trough. As you can see in the images in that article, it wastes quite some water. Do this with petrol and you'll get a smelly and polluted place. Combined with the fact that refuelling at a petrol station doesn't take that much time, it seems obvious why cars don't refuel on the move. Some sort of wired electric power seems more feasible. PiusImpavidus (talk) 14:39, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Mostly right but replenishment at sea requires both ships to steer on a parallel course at identical speeds, they're not "tied together" except for the lines that support the fuel hoses. The technique was only developed after a lot of trial and error, the original British method was for the warship to steam directly behind the tanker, but we changed over to the US method of side-by-side refuelling, which requires a special gantry on the tanker and a lot of training.
 * It is possible to refuel a car on the move, see YouTube - Record Breaking 85mph ReFuel of Nissan GT-R, but my dynamic risk assessment foresees a few minor difficulties with this method on a public highway. Alansplodge (talk) 16:14, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You can be right. I was thinking of ships refuelling on the rivers and canals of the European continent. I guess the presence of waves makes a difference. PiusImpavidus (talk) 19:16, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Or move to Oregon, which still prohibits self-service at many gas stations. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:12, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * NJ also prohibits it. μηδείς (talk) 21:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

...a nuclear-powered vehicle like Cyclops, The Big Bus, that (almost) traveled non-stop between New York City and Denver. 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:AC43:3B49:CF5E:E4EF (talk) 07:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * While I think it's silly, it should be technically possible. The tanker would have a rear overhang, and the car would pull under it. The tanker would then engage the car and take it under tow automatically, and then fuel it. This would be insanely expensive and at least somewhat dangerous, for at most a trivial savings in time. I think most drivers are bladder-limited, not gas-tank-limited. -Arch dude (talk) 03:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If you really hate filling stations, an electric car would be the way to go. Just have a charging station installed at your home parking space. ApLundell (talk) 05:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Or...

Refueling trucks with oversized loads
This makes me wonder how they refuel a truck with such an oversized load that it can't pull into a gas station. For example, one transporting a house. They could park in the road, near the gas station, then fill portable gas containers and pour each into the tank. This would block traffic and be time-consuming, though. Do they have a better way ? StuRat (talk) 16:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * You mean road trains like those used to trek the desert in Australia? The truck fuels up first - enough for the trip - and then the trailers are attached. Where there are stations, the station is designed specifically for trucks with multiple trailers. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 18:24, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * No, I mean a case like this: . StuRat (talk) 21:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * "You don't have permission to access "http://image1.masterfile.com/getImage/700-00642397em-truck-transporting-house-stock-photo.jpg" on this server." is the error that I get on that link. † dismas †|(talk) 23:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Oh well, it's just a pic of a truck hauling a house. StuRat (talk) 23:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * It's just the same for any kind of haul. They fill her up for the whole trip and if this is not possible (though those trips are usually not thaaaat long anyways) they unhook the trailer to get gas or have gas cans prepared and ready to go. No fancy stuff here. (I trust my other half on this)--TMCk (talk) 00:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Many motorway service stations in the UK have a HGV fuelling station close to the car fuelling station - this is built with a higher roof, wider lanes, and longer hoses. It would surprise me if there is anything which is legal to have on the roads which could not be filled up at at least some stations.  MChesterMC (talk) 10:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Would a truck hauling a house fit in one ? StuRat (talk) 22:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Likely not, but one of the accompanying trucks would. Oversized loads cannot travel alone. 71.85.51.150 (talk) 00:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Greco-Bactrian Kingdom v. Dayuan
According to the Dayuan article on an ancient urban kingdom based completely it seems on Chinese sources, it was a great power north of Greco-Bactrian Kingdom. But the article Greco-Bactrian Kingdom although mentioning Chinese sources and references to Dayuan does not acknowledge this other kingdom to its north and in the main map it appears that the area of Dayuan was part of the Greco-Bactrian empire. How to account for this seeming contradiction? Is the Greco Bactrian Kingdom article simply short on detail and Dayuan was a relatively independent vassal that could generally be counted as part of the Greco Bactrian holdings but also a power in its own right? Muzzleflash (talk) 12:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Never assume any Wikipedia article on any subject is intended to be complete when you read it. If you find missing information, and have a reliable source to cite, you're expected to fix it yourself.  It is unlikely anyone here wrote much text in that article, so no one here can tell you why something is missing.  In short, Wikipedia articles exist because people who care fix them.  If you care, you should fix it.  The article Alexandria Eschate, which is probably the same city as Dayuan, mentions connections to Greek Bactria.-- Jayron 32 13:38, 15 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I had a look at the article, but I'm afraid I'm a bit out of my depth. Therefore, I have posted User:Muzzleflash's question at Talk:Dayuan in the hope that someone there who has a grasp of the subject can help. Alansplodge (talk) 22:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks Alan for posting the question. Jayron32 that was an unnecessary reminder. My question is clearly searching for an answer based on encyclopedic sources. Muzzleflash (talk) 07:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The Chinese language version of Greco-Bactrian Kingdom has a fuller discussion of its possible identification with Daxia, rather than Dayuan. Our article Dayuan explains its relationship with th eGreco-Bactrian Kingdom, and it's not clear to me why you think it is inconsistent that Dayuan would be marked as part of it in some maps, since it was part of that kingdom for a period. Our article Fergana Valley has further information. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)