Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2012 August 8

= August 8 =

Snowflake uniqueness
Okay, so according to the snowflake article, "... it is very unlikely for any two snowflakes to appear exactly alike...". I've tried reviewing the sources, but they don't seem to clarify either; does that mean that of all the snowflakes that have ever fallen in the history of the Earth, it's very unlikely that any two were identical, or that in some undefined, arbitrary sample size, you're very unlikely to find two that are alike? If it's the latter (which I'm guessing), I think we should specify what scale we're talking about. Like, all the snowflakes that fall in a single snowstorm, or that which are in a cubic meter of snow. ❤ Yutsi Talk/  Contributions  ( 偉特 ) 23:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It means "ever," because the snowflakes shapes are caused by very specific local conditions that are constantly in flux. But it shouldn't be construed as "never", as the paragraph explains — it's just very, very unlikely. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The first source given estimates the number of varieties of snowflakes to be in the ballpark of 10500. That number is huuuuge. The entire observable universe only has about 1080 atoms. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The Birthday problem seems relevant here, but I can't even guess the number of snowflakes in a cubic metre or in a snow storm.Sjö (talk) 07:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You can think of it as a generalized birthday problem in a year with 10500 days, which requires somewhere around 10250 snowflakes before two of them are likely to be the same. Now, what follows is an illogical assumption, but it serves as an upper bound. If you assume that for every atom in the observable universe there is a snowflake, and each snowflake is reformed randomly every second, then you're still left with less than 1098 snowflakes that have ever existed in the history in the universe. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

"Alike" is a relative term. See the most excellent website, http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/snowcrystals/class/class.htm μηδείς (talk) 04:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Mars Science Laboratory average speed
The news mentioned a total trip of around 567 million kilometers for NASA rover Curiosity and duration of about 36 weeks. One can conclude an average velocity of about 93750 kilometers per hour; however I couldn't find any details discussing this except that speed reduced from around 20,000km/h before entering Mars's atmosphere. Does anyone have some clue about the velocity profile and if an gravity assist was conducted during the trip?--Almuhammedi (talk) 01:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Mars has a mean orbital velocity of 24.13 km/s around the Sun, so just catch up to it from behind. 88.112.47.131 (talk) 05:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think that 567 million km figure is very useful. That's something like 10X the distance between the Earth's orbit and that of Mars.  So, what I think is happening is that the while Curiosity was moving from the orbit of Earth to that of Mars, it was also rotating about the Sun, initially at the same speed as the Earth (107,200 km/h) and later at the same speed as Mars (86,677 km/h).  So, most of that travel is nothing more than the same distance an object would travel if sitting on Earth or on Mars.  In this context, the relative speed of Curiosity with respect to the Earth and Mars is more significant than its speed relative to the Sun. StuRat (talk) 05:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * A nice animation can be found in the MSL multimedia archive here, about 3/4 into the "The Cruise to Mars" video. As the MSL trajectory converges with the Mars orbit, Mars would actually be moving faster than the MSL.  The MSL flight path is actually an elliptic "Hohmann transfer" orbit that is tangent to both the Earth orbit and the Mars orbit.  Earth and Mars are in the proper relative position for such a transfer roughly once every 2.13 years.   --  Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 08:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

What is happening to me?
We cannot offer medical advice. Please see the medical disclaimer, and contact an appropriate medical professional. BigNate37(T) 02:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Heater and refrigerator conflict
Is positioning a fridge right beside the heater that's used to keep a room warm in winter a bad plan? I imagine the fridge might have to work harder, but I don't know whether this would be significantly inefficient, or even true. Card Zero (talk) 13:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Assuming the heater is beside it, but not actually pointing at it, there should be no issue - the fridge won't work any harder than it will anyway just because the room is warmer. You can easily check though - just feel the sides of the fridge - if the side of the fridge feels a little bit warmer on the side facing the heater, than on a side facing away, then the fridge will be working a little harder - if not then it isn't.  How much work the compressor does is roughly proportional to the difference between the temperature of the fridge outside walls, averaged over its surface, and the average of the temperatures inside - the freezer box temperature, meat box (if it has one) and the general food are temperature - assuming the heater is not directly heating the condenser (the black witres or black plate on the back of the fridge).  Keit120.145.72.208 (talk) 14:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Refrigerators work by moving and producing heat. So long as the heater does dot directly attack the refrigerator (see IP 120's response), all will be for the relative best, since refrigerators are heaters. μηδείς (talk) 04:02, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * However, the compressor is isolated from the chilled chamber for a reason. I'd say the fuller answer is that, yes, the heater is to some degree increasing the workload of the refrigerator but that the fridge is likely to be so well insulated that the increase would be negligible. 120 is actually incorrect in one point; most modern refrigerators include a thermometer and adjust the amount of time / level at which the compressor operates and so, to the extent that the ambient temperature of the room does influence the internal temperature of the fridge, then yes, it will make the compressor work harder.  But again, given the level of likely insulation on the appliance and the fact that the heat in the room should be mostly evenly dissipated (assuming your average living environment) proximity between the two devices should be a virtual non-factor (assuming, as has been stated above, that the heater is not blowing directly on to the fridge).  Snow (talk) 05:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I could be wrong, this isn't my specialty, or anything, but I'd think that the fridge would make the heater work less (in any setup that'd normally occur, at least) Heaters stop once the room reaches a set temperature, and since the fridge also puts out heat, this would require less of the heater. As for a higher temperature in the room causing the fridge to work harder, wouldn't the room still be at the same temp if the heater were farther away since the heater is going to have to keep a decent area at the target temperature anyways. So, unless the heater is to weak to hit the target temp in the fridge area unless it is right beside it or we are talking about a heater that has no target temp, I can't see where it would have any impact at all (and maybe this is what you're talking about, still shouldn't be drastic though.) Phoenixia1177 (talk) 08:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hard to say, depends mostly on the effect it has on the airflow over the condenser coil and grill at the back of the fridge. Could increase or decrease the flow, depending on convection patterns; for example the convection of the heater (or the fan if it has one) could suck air from the other side of the fridge, providing better cooling; however, in a slightly different setting the heater could decrease the natural convection of air behind the fridge, or reverse it's direction. And as Phoenixia1177 says, if it's an electric heater, it doesn't matter. Ssscienccce (talk) 23:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Why doesn't the Mars rover walk on legs?
Most animals use legs, so legs are a well tested way to get around on different types of terrain, you don't get easily stuck as with wheels. I know that legs are more difficult to implement in robotics, but in recent years a lot of progress has been made. Count Iblis (talk) 16:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Still not enough progress to be as reliable as wheels - although each wheel is in fact mounted on the end of a "limited" leg of sorts. The legs have limited movement compared to for example a cockroach's legs, but that minimises the amount of operator input required to move the rover. The communication cycle starting with the rover sending "Houston we have a problem" and ending with a solution arriving back in the rover's on-board computer takes several hours - the better part of an entire day in fact. So the less the rover needs to "phone home" for fresh instructions the better. Roger (talk) 16:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * How long does it take for one small bit of information to traverse the distance between Mars and Earth? It is traveling at the speed of light, isn't it? Bus stop (talk) 17:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * A few minutes. But somebody has to diagnose the problem and figure out a feasible solution, and it has to be double checked and probably even triple checked because the slightest mistake could effectively terminate the mission. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The one way latency is evidentally 14 minutes . However I wonder how little the information would be anyway. As any regular at the RD knows, someone just saying they're stuck is pretty useless information when they need help. Obviously the information flow will be optimised for what's needed to make the decision, no matter how complex the problem it's unlikely they're not going to require 100FPS 360 degrees stereo 4K 128 bit (including non visible EM spectrum) video, but it could easily be enough that it would require 30 minutes or so just to get all you need even for a simple problem (and remember one of the problems with such high latencies there needs to be a prediction of what is needed, it's not like in realtime or close to realtime communication where you can quickly ask for additional info if you decide you need it based on the other info you received). Nil Einne (talk) 18:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The 14 minutes must be an average, with a delay more like 5 minutes when Mars is near Earth and more like 22 minutes when Mars is on the far side of the Sun. Presumably the rover has the intelligence to detect when it's stuck, then take pictures of the stuck wheel and send those, in which case the info could be sent quite quickly, with the main delay being the time to move the cameras into position.  The rover could also be programmed with certain moves to try on it's own to get unstuck (like reversing direction or lifting the stuck wheel), but there is a risk that it could get stuck further, as a result, say be digging a rut or falling over. StuRat (talk) 18:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * More likely 14 minutes is the current latency. Nil Einne (talk) 21:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The same question could be asked on Earth. That is, why don't we used legged vehicles here ?  Of course, having nice paved roads makes wheels work better here, but we also have off-road vehicles with wheels, not legs.  The ASIMO robot has legs, but I have to think that's just to make it look human.  ASIMO has a walking speed of just 2.7 km per hour (1.7 mph) and a running speed of 6 km per hour (3.7 mph).  So, not very fast, compared with our wheeled vehicles.


 * Wheeled vehicles just seem fundamentally more efficient, compared with legs, because, while the vehicle is moving at constant speed, they do, too. Legs, on the other hand, are constantly accelerating and decelerating.  This type of reciprocating motion is harder on both machinery and organisms, but organisms can continuously repair the damage.


 * Perhaps we should then ask why organisms don't use wheels. The  answer appears to be that there is no evolutionary path that leads there.  An exception seems to exist for the entire organism rolling, like a tumbleweed. StuRat (talk) 18:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Organisms can't use wheels because a wheel by definition must be an entirely discontiuous part separate from the rest of the object - it's attachment is purely by interlocking shapes. You can't have nerves, blood vessels, skin, ligaments, or anthing else solid crossing the boundary between wheel and not-wheel because that would prevent the wheel from turning freely and thus not be a wheel. Roger (talk) 18:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I picture the wheels being like antlers, growing with a blood supply something like the velvet on antlers, then the velvet falls off and the wheel is moved into position. It could be a non-drive wheel, in which case it can just rotate around an axle (like a tusk), with a lubricant produced similar to sebum.  Drive could still be from legs, with the wheels used to bear most of the weight (and all of the weight while coasting).  This system would work best for an animal that lives on a flat plain, like desert scrub. StuRat (talk) 19:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * There's the flagellum. Apparently there is a rotating locomotion in living systems article. Nice.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 19:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * If the wheel is a non-living unit mounted on a living axle, the axle could have flexible projections or a deformable surface that nudge against cogs on the wheel. We already have evolved peristalsis to allow muscles to move "completely unattached" items, just need to turn the components inside-out or sideways. Heck, we can already move relative to other objects by crawling or monkey-bar'ing, so we just need to do that action directly on the wheel, which then transfers motion to the ground. It could be like living inside a hamster wheel of sorts. DMacks (talk) 19:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Or, sticking with the model of the entire organism rolling, you could have something like an armadillo, which lives on the top of a hill, and, to escape danger, forms a ball and rolls down the hill. Unlike the above scenario, there seems to be an evolutionary path here. StuRat (talk) 19:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * That evolutionary path ends at the bottom of the hill where the waiting predator has learned to lie with its mouth open. 112.215.36.172 (talk) 14:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * StuRat, the reason why we don't have machines that use legs is because it's far more difficult to make a machine that moves using legs. The question is in line with asking why don't we have flying cars, or why don't we have batteries that have energy densities that allow laptops to run for months at a time. It's a matter of technological limitations we have. Making a machine that walks is incredibly difficult. As for whether they have any advantages over wheels, certainly. They are more agile, maneuverable, have all terrain movement, etc. They are incredibly hard to make though. A leg requires a large range of motion in different joints. Transfering energy to wheels is easy. Transfering energy to all the parts of a leg is far more challenging. The Asimo is a marvel of technology and robotics, but compare the capabilities of the Asimo to a human, and you can tell we have a long way to go still before the technology is where it needs to be. Before you think wheels are superior to legs, ask yourself if you would trade your legs for wheels. I'm sure people forced to use wheel chairs would gladly trade, and give you their parking permit as an added bonus. 148.168.40.4 (talk) 17:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * My idea was more for wheels to supplement legs, rather than replace them. StuRat (talk) 05:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * This is interesting. (Click on video.) Bus stop (talk) 19:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You might be interested in the work of Rodney Brooks, who has spent his career trying to come up with very clever and unusual modes of robot locomotion. Some of them are quite successful. But at the moment I don't think any of them are as reliable as wheels. If we were shooting dozens of these things to Mars every year or so you could imagine them getting creative, but at the rate they're going you can see why they are conservative. (Brooks would probably advocate that shooting lots of little missions is a safer and more interesting idea that one big expensive mission every once in awhile, but that's something of a separate question.) Don't underestimate the difficulty of bipedal or even four-legged locomotion — it's a non-trivial technical thing to replicate, though it can somewhat be done. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * No one has mentioned the Hoop snake.. Vespine (talk) 23:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, please. This is not legendary.  I have seen it on many holidays, weekends, and vacation days. μηδείς (talk) 03:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * DARPA is trying to make robots twenty times as energy efficient in movement. That's exactly how bad they suck now.


 * http://www.eweek.com/c/a/IT-Infrastructure/DARPA-Officials-Aiming-for-More-Efficient-Robots-301700/


 * Ouch! Hcobb (talk) 18:02, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

One way human tripulated mission to Mars
Are there any plans to send humans one way to Mars? It sounds shocking at the first glance, but if some people would commit suicide here on Earth, why not volunteer to flight first to Mars and die there? OsmanRF34 (talk) 16:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * See Mars One. They say they intend to select astronauts next year, get SpaceX and other companies to make their hardware, and fund it by making a reality TV show out of it. Yeah. 20.137.18.53 (talk) 16:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * As our Manned mission to Mars and Mars to Stay notes, the idea has had serious consideration since at least 1990. However these plans generally involved either long term pioneers or older people, people who understand and accept the risks and the likely shorted lifespan but who are truly interested in the mission rather then people who just want to die. In the short term, it is unlikely anyone would want to pay to send suicidal people or any else with significant psychological problems on even a short trip in to space let alone a long trip like to Mars. (Even if they're suicidal but aren't considered to have psychological problems, it's still unlikely to get much consideration.) Nil Einne (talk) 17:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm 100% ready to volunteer. At least I might be useful instead of doing nothing here.--Almuhammedi (talk) 18:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * And I'm 100% ready to volunteer some people I know. I can leave them hog-tied by NASA's front door whenever they are ready. :-) StuRat (talk) 21:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * This isn't a new concept, really. During the Cold War race to the Moon, one of the ideas bandied about at NASA involved a desperate strategy to land a single man on the Moon, and keep him supplied with regular remote-controlled deliveries until they could figure out a way to bring him back: . TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * "Bandied about" in the sense that a pair of independent engineers once proposed this approach and were immediately shown the door by bemused NASA officials. Your link actually doesn't contain reference to this incident (though it is immortalized in a great scene in From the Earth to the Moon), but does note that NASA never had any attention of leaving an astronaut stranded on the moon under any circumstances. Snow (talk) 22:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Somebody wasn't paying intention to their spelling... :-) StuRat (talk) 05:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hah, you should know by now that I'm capable of much more impressive typos than that! (Though I'll grant you it is an ironic one). Snow (talk) 11:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we should call that a "thinko", since you seemed to spell the wrong word correctly. StuRat (talk) 05:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Analog Alarm (Wrist) Watches
Of course, digital wrist-watches with alarms are all around and familiar to every kid, but are there any analog Wrist-Watches with alarms. In that case, how do they work in such small space ? 124.253.90.126 (talk) 18:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * By analog, do you just mean a watch with hands? There are plenty of those these days, but they're not very interesting — they likely just have a tiny little digital alarm circuit in them and run off the same battery than runs the quartz crystal in the watch. If you mean a truly 100% mechanical watch, they do apparently exist. Here's a video of one. Pretty cool. The watch shown there obviously just has some sort of little buzzer than is powered by a manually wound spring. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

What is this insect?
I observed an ant-like insect, about one inch long, red-orange body with broad horizontal black stripes around its abdomen. It was crawling on dry mulched landscaping in a parking lot. August, 2012, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA What was it?StaGrace (talk) 19:43, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a termite? File:Termites shedding wings.jpg. BigNate37(T) 19:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a cow killer. See these pics. μηδείς (talk) 20:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * That was my first thought as well. To the OP, note that these are wasps that are (typically) wingless and should be approached with a degree of caution.  Funny, that's insect ID requests on two days running. :) Snow (talk) 22:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I posted an insect ID req here for a friend almost exactly a year ago for a dragonfly species, and have been told it has returned. Seems it is the summer of the insect in NA at least. μηδείς (talk) 00:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Did you ever get a positive ID on the dragonfly? Snow (talk) 04:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Science/2011_July_28#Please_identify_this_Dragonfly_species μηδείς (talk) 17:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, she's a pretty one! Snow (talk) 20:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I have seen them all over South Jersey this month, everywhere except down the shore, where you get the verdammten greenhead fly. μηδείς (talk) 02:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Whiteboard that isn't
I left some dry erase marker writing on the board too long, and it became "permanent". Windex won't remove it. Would straight ammonia be better ? Any other suggestions, or should I just toss it out ? StuRat (talk) 19:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I have had great successes writing over the permanent marks using a whiteboard marker. It may just be that a chemical in the ink is doing the hard work. I've found from personal experience that the green markers tend to stain, but blue whiteboard markers erase particularly well. BigNate37(T) 19:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * There's a whole bunch of suggestions on WikiHow: []. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Alcohol on a paper towel works well for this situation. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Acetone works well for me. As Dominus Vobisdu's link notes, it may melt the plastic surface of some kinds of whiteboard, so test it in an unobtrusive location first. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 21:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Shannon Lush suggests methylated spirits, or rotten milk curds. Zoonoses (talk) 01:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I just did some testing myself on a "white"board that has been mostly blue for God knows how long. 95% ethanol seemed to do wonders. I assume you'd get a similar effect with rubbing alcohol. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * What about that spray that's supposed to be designed specifically for whiteboards? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I didn't even think to look, but there is a webpage that predicted Stu's question and answered it to death: . Someguy1221 (talk) 02:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Specifically, they've got a winner, a particular brand of fluid designed for whiteboard cleaning. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * What's the active ingredient(s) ? StuRat (talk) 05:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It doesn't say. You might have to find a bottle and read the fine print. Googling it indicates it's available at Wal-Mart, which suggests it should be anywhere, although I would try an office supply store first. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks all. Some rubbing alcohol and scrubbing seemed to do the trick. StuRat (talk) 08:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

E=mc2
Is E=mc2 and E=mcc same thing ?
 * Yes, because c2 means c*c. - Lindert (talk) 20:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Though the latter notation has fallen out of favour. See Exponentiation. BigNate37(T) 20:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have followed the link and been entirely beflummoxed. Where does it say anything about cc not being the same as c*c? (Forgive me, as having gotten a 5 in AP Calculus, and hence tested out of the bio major requirement, and so never having taken any new math after high school.) μηδείς (talk) 00:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Where did anyone say it wasn't? Someguy1221 (talk) 01:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well. if this were an article I'd put a big effing "with whom" tag. So, please do tell, with whom?  Do they not teach the dot as meaning multiplication anymore? μηδείς (talk) 03:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think BigNate37 meant to say that it is now unusual to write cc or c*c; people write c2 instead, 'the latter' referring to E=mcc. - Lindert (talk) 08:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * They mean that putting "xx" in place of "x2" has fallen out of use, which is true. Though, while you could write "c * c", I don't think anyone would do this; unless, maybe, they were being explicit in some derivation that had an "a * b" in it and it later turned out a = b = c. Using an exponent is the preferred notation for powers that I have seen in countless books and papers that are from the modern era, I don't think that's really disputable.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 08:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That makes more sense. μηδείς (talk) 17:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

My first thought: "Is this an act of service center sabotage??"
(The following was what I gathered when they called me today.)

Update on my auto woes: While the service guys at the dealership pushed my car into the service garage, when Troy turned the key to the position to unlock the steering wheel, smoke came in from under the dash on the driver's side. Troy said he removed the key for it to stop smoking.

Advisor Steve said that to fix this new issue by making some bypasses with the wires and etc., is another $340. (Some of the original parts that worked with the wires on the 2002 PT Cruiser, were no longer made, so "bypassing" was their alternative.)

This happened over a week after I elected to buy the replacement PCM from a different source for a discount (to save ~$300.)

If someone at the service center doesn't like me, I would easily envision the shorted & melted wires being an act of sabotage in order to milk me out of more $$$ than the original issue was worth. (As I said some time ago, Steve gives off a pretty unfriendly vibe. I can easily see him committing (or ordering his direct subordinates to commit) sabotage this way.)

If anyone would like to chime in their thoughts, then please do. How likely is this new problem (which occurred at the service lot, of all places) an act of sabotage? Given that my car has over 96,000 miles, and it's a 2002 PT Cruiser ("Limited" trimline), how exactly would it happen on its own?

I plan to go to the General Manager this evening after they finish working on my car, in order to voice my concerns that somebody at the service department may have sabotaged the PT Cruiser in order to get me to pay more. (Do the Service Advisors and mechanics themselves get paid by commission? If so, that would be an even bigger motivation to rip me off like this.) --70.179.170.114 (talk) 21:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I've worked in the automotive service industry as a service adviser for a Honda dealership so I can speak with some authority on these issues. Service advisers are usually paid a base wage supplemented by a bonus system that works like this: Number of hours billed minus number of hours actually worked by technicians.  The bigger this number the larger the bonus.  However, you can't bill whatever you want.  There are standardized rates for virtually any job and while there is some wiggle room, customers can make complaints to a state bureau of automotive repair if your over bill them which can land your shop in hot water.  It is a motivation to do as much big ticket work as possible, but it is counter balanced by a variety of avenues for customer recourse.  On top of that, service advisers need repeat customers.  When I started there I didn't have any of my own customers and had to live off the dregs, mostly doing negative hour lube jobs.  I had to build my customer base by gaining people's trust and eventually had people coming to me to have their transmission and engine replaced which are typically big hour jobs.  If you rip off customers it is bad for you in the long run.  That isn't to say there aren't shady dealings at service shops, advisers are usually not trying to save you money. but they are not also incentivized to rob their customers.


 * I think it is extremely unlike that they sabotaged your vehicle's wiring in the way that you described. For one thing, the payout of a few hundred dollars is way too small to be worth the risk.  Dealership service departments are pulling in hundreds of thousands of dollars a week, the risk of losing their bureau registration is not worth three hundred dollars.  Especially considering that what your adviser would take home more like $10 from this sabotage operation. Secondly, The PT Cruiser is known for having electrical issues, especially concerning the ignition system.  While I haven't heard of this problem before, it doesn't surprise me on a car of this vintage.  Finally, I think you posted before about how you've already raised a fuss with these people, talking to the general manager and so forth.  The only thing we would want to do with customers like this is get them out the door and never see them again, they are almost never worth the effort.  The last thing we would try to do is rip them off for a few bucks.  Unless you have some kind of proof or evidence that they sabotaged your car, the general manager is likely to tell you to get lost.  I once had a customer berating me over some complete nonsense.  My manager over heard and told the customer that if he ever wanted to come back to our shop he'd have to apologize to me, which he eventually did.


 * Businesses like these require trust. If you don't trust this shop, take it somewhere else.


 * I feel for you but I'd question if this is a question for the science ref desk. Sounds more like a request for opinions and anecdotes. Vespine (talk) 22:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It just happening to have smoke come out from under the steering wheel while you just happen to be there to witness it, at the dealership, does sound rather suspicious, to me. However, I see no point in complaining to the service manager without proof.  This can only make things worse.  Instead, if I have any suspicion about the honesty of a business, I take my business elsewhere.  If you absolutely must make your opinion known, do so by phone or email to the manager, as auto mechanics might very well attack you physically if you are present.  You could also complain to the consumer reporting agencies or regulatory agencies.  (I don't see them doing much based on your complaint alone, but, if this is a pattern at that dealership, then they might.)   StuRat (talk) 23:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Huh? "auto mechanics might very well attack you physically"? This is a reference desk StuRat, please back up such an outrageous statement with an article link or reliable source, or strike it out. You've broken new ground on your insistence on having something to say on any and all topics. So now back it up with some sources please. Franamax (talk) 01:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * While it's impossible to prove what might happen, until it does, which we really want to avoid in this case, here's an example of a dealership where threats of violence (against employees, in this case) were commonplace: . StuRat (talk) 01:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Stu, they told me this over the phone. I was never there today, though that may have helped. While my car sat there for a week when I waited for my PCM to arrive, any one of the guys could have easily sabotaged my vehicle.


 * If any mechanic were to attack me, I'd let it be known to THOUSANDS. Ford headquarters would know about it, (as it's a Ford Dealer. I bought the Chrysler from them "certified pre-owned.") and so would any media outlet I could contact. The assailants would lose their jobs and see jail time. I'd win a lawsuit MASSIVE enough to pay off all my student loans (and even try to make the terms of the lawsuit include a brand-new Lincoln SUV, fully-loaded, all paid, with all registration, insurance, service/repairs and fuel free of charge, paid for by Ford themselves, for the next 10 years.)


 * And thanks for the suggestion about the agencies, Stu. I hope they have a bureau in Manhattan, Kansas. --70.179.170.114 (talk) 23:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I said this the last time, but I'll say it again. Dealer mechanic shops are for cars that are under warranty.  They mostly work on newer cars.  I've never had a good experience with them except when my car was under warranty.  If you know someone who's a car person, ask them if they can recommend a good shop.  Also, call ahead first.  If you just drop your car off somewhere and say "how much?", they might feel like you're at their mercy.  You're already out the towing and the diagnostic fees, so I say cut your losses and go somewhere else.  If they were going to charge you $300 more than the market value for the part, do you really think they'll give you a fair deal on the other repairs?  Jerk182 (talk) 23:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)