Miscellaneous desk
< February 3	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 5 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 4[edit]

claddagh how to pronounce[edit]

could you help with correct pronunciation of claddagh please —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.85.185 (talk) 04:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are more likely to get an answer at the Language reference desk. --Anonymous, 04:27 UTC, February 4, 2011.

Or in a dictionary. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

pot cleaning[edit]

I overcooked some noodles in a stainless steel pot so there is a thick layer of burnt carbon stuck to the bottom. I tried soaking for several days in water and in a fairly strong solution of automatic dishwashing gel, which may or may not have helped loosen it. Scrubbing away with a steel wool pad gets the stuff off, but it's quite slow and strenuous (might take hours). I'm wondering if there's a better way. I'm seeing suggestions of vinegar (acid), ammonia or baking soda (alkaline), or oven cleaner (alkaline?). I'm thinking of getting a wire brush like this and attacking the pot with an electric drill, but am not sure whether I should care about scratching up the pot's finish. That would be from a functionality perspective only, since it's already a beat-up old pot and I don't care about the cosmetics. Any advice? Thanks. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 04:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I use a drill all the time for that. Use a cup type plastic grit brush and you won't damage the metal much (not a wire one, and certainly not knotted steel - or you'll make holes in the pot). Like this one: http://www.harborfreight.com/2-inch-80-grit-shaft-mounted-cup-brush-91367.html (also a cup is a lot easier to handle than a wheel). Put a small amount of water in the pot to catch the dust, and rinse it out when it gets too dark to see where you need to sand. It makes some sanding swirls on the bottom of the pot, but nothing serious. Ariel. (talk) 05:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try sodium bicarbonate and soapy water. Put them in the pot and boil the water for a while. Be careful that the water would easily boil over. You can scrape the layer with a wooden spatula while boiling if you want to. After boiling 10 to 15 minutes, leave the pot till the water gets cold or for several hours. Then wash the pot with a sponge. Repeat the process, if there's some carbon left. Oda Mari (talk) 06:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Oda Mari & OP - I do similar but using hot water and a large dollop of washing up liquid (I don't boil it but use boiling water from the kettle) and leave it with a lid on for half hour - pretty much wipes clean most pans I have... gazhiley.co.uk 10:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Ariel "I use a drill all the time for that" with deepest respect, don't you think more care with your cooking might help avoid the hard work, uses of earth resources and exposure to potentially carcinogenic material. Caesar's Daddy (talk) 07:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What in the world could you possibly be talking about Caesar? I should clarify I mean "I do it all the time [that I burn a pot]." I don't burn pots very often, but when I do the drill works very nicely. What carcinogenic material could you possibly be referring to? And using a drill uses probably 1/10, maybe even 1/100 of the energy of the hot water methods other people are suggesting. Ariel. (talk) 15:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My theory is, if it doesn't wash off with that much scrubbing, it isn't going to come off in the next food you cook. It doesn't always work, though. Try using an oven or microwave instead. 148.197.121.205 (talk) 09:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The pot cleaning task is similar to decarbonising an engine cylinder head, where the head is often cast from light alloy that is liable to damage. Here are some tips collected from motoring sites: "the carbon deposits should be removed from the combustion spaces using a scraper and a wire brush fitted into an electric drill[1]...With an exhaust valve the deposits are very much harder and those on the head may need a rub on coarse emery cloth to remove them. An old woodworking chisel is a useful tool to remove the worst of the head deposits. Remove most of the carbon deposits from the combustion areas and valve heads by using a soft non-scratching tool, like the round end of a brass door key.[2] Carefully use a blunt screwdriver (or something) for more stubborn deposits...Polish with metal polish (to slow down the future build up of carbon). Scrape away all traces of carbon from the cylinder head, piston barrel, using a soft metal scraper. A final clean with wire wool and oil should remove the last of the carbon.[3] We can add a solution that will help removing light deposits from the piston. It is called Yamaha Ringfree[4]. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could try a mixture of Sodium Hydroxide 15% as the caustic agent and 2-Butoxyethanol 5% as the solvent. Or buy a branded product like “Carbon Off” which is the same thing but ready mixed. Also handy for barbecues and things.--Aspro (talk) 17:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the responses, I'll try baking soda first. Is Carbon Off similar to oven cleaner? I did find some online vendors for it and will see if I can get it locally. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 09:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Usually when I do this I use a strong solution of biological washing powder and about an inch of water in the bottom of the pan. Heat gently over a low heat for a couple of hours. Pour the resulting gunk down the sink and you should be able to remove the remaining carbon deposit with a scourer or blunt knife. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unidentified automobile[edit]

The photo to the right is categorized in "Unidentified automobiles." Do you know what automobile it is? -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a 1929 Lincon from this image, the front bumper is distinctive. Mikenorton (talk) 12:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On looking further, it seems that Lincolns from as far back as 1923 had this distinctive bumper [5]. Mikenorton (talk) 16:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I went with the Lincoln Model L category. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coin nominal values[edit]

Why is it not good to have both 20 cent and 25 cent coins in a single currency? --84.61.176.167 (talk) 15:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why aren't there any 2, 20, or 200 yen coins? --84.61.176.167 (talk) 15:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why weren't there any 0.20 or 0.25 DM coins? --84.61.176.167 (talk) 15:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In modern currency, it is rare to have denominations which do not divide evenly into larger denominations. In modern American currency, nearly every piece of currency is a whole-number fraction of every larger piece of currency. So, 5 pennies makes a nickel, five nickles makes a quarter, four quarters makes a dollar, and so on. The exceptions are the dime and the ten dollar bill; but they persist because they provide convenient multiples of ten. Anyone having worked a cash register in the U.S. will confirm, however, that the ten dollar bill is a pretty superfluous currency; its often the bill you have the least of in your drawer and you don't miss it if you run out since two fives aren't that much of a bigger deal. In the U.S., the same sort of redundancy is what caused pieces like the half dollar and the two-dollar bill to all but disappear; they don't provide a substantial advantage over the quarter and one-dollar bill in convenience, and having too many denominations gets confusing. So currency systems have to balance having enough coins and bills to be useful for making change, but not so many as to be confusing. It didn't always used to be so well organized, in pre-decimal money systems there were often a multitude of coins which didn't work out well mathematically with other coins in the system. The most famous I can think of is the 21-shilling Guinea coin which was used alongside the 20-shilling Pound sterling coin for a long time. --Jayron32 15:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is that true? The Pound Sterling uses 1p (£0.01), 2p, 5p, 10p, 20p, 50p, £1, £2, £5, £10, £20, £50, (£100 [only some issuers]). The values double (approximately) each time, as per preferred_number#1-2-5_series. The Euro, Australian dollar, and New Zealand dollar use the same scheme. Coming back to the OP's question, what would the point of both 20c and 25c coints, when you can just use 20c + 5c. BTW, the Deutch Mark hasn't been a valid currency since 2002. CS Miller (talk) 15:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are using the decimalized pound sterling. Prior to Decimal day the exhange rate was 240d = 20 s = 1L, or 240 pence = 20 shillings = 1 pound sterling. The guinea was 21 shillings, or a "Quid and a Bob". There were other odd coinage, such as the farthing (1/4 penny), the Groat (4 shillings or 1/5 pound) and the Crown (5 shillings or 1/4 pound) . --Jayron32 16:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure a groat was 4d, not 4s, and hence a third of a shilling. The article agrees with me. 212.183.128.47 (talk) 16:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And of course then we did have a florin and a half crown, respectively a tenth and an eighth of a pound, not to mention the threpenny bit. Mikenorton (talk) 17:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have this vague memory from the days of Australia's conversion from pounds, shillings and pence to dollars and cents (1966) that there was some international standard, or at least a guideline, that recommended that coinage and notes come in 1s, 2s and 5s at each level of currency. This meant that the ideal system would have 1c, 2c, 5c, 10c, 20c, 50c, $1, $2, $5, $10, $20, $50, $100.... Australia's conversion was initially limited to just issuing new coins and notes that exactly matched the old ones, but the gaps were filled in the years soon after. HiLo48 (talk) 17:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Answering the precise question: When two coins are too close in size, confusion results. Thus the US $3 coin was short-lived, as it was too close to the $2.50 coin. At the time of the UK conversion, old crowns were worth 25np. And commemorative 25p crowns were issued after decimalization. Bothe the US and Canada have had 20 cent coins, by the way. The US has the distinction of producing dollar coins which were specifically not legal tender in the US, as they had too much silver in them. Collect (talk) 17:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: Collect is referring to the Trade Dollar, a weird US coin intended for export whose legal tender status was revoked in the US after a while (see the article for details). The article on the US 20-cent piece is Twenty-cent piece (United States coin), which actually lacks any discussion of why the piece, which was only minted for two years, was never accepted by the public. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having both a 20c and a 25c from 1876, I can tell you they are not all that easy to tell apart at a glance. Googlemeister (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that his has also been asked at the Mathematics Refdek - My answer from there, summarized is that the 1,2,5,10 split seen most often is a compromise between a binary logarithmic scale (easiest way to make change) and a desire to match a decimal number system. Outliers, such as the US Quarter, have pre-decimalization historical reasons. As for the yen, the article notes that originally it had the 1,2,5,10 split, but mostly at single digit and sub-yen denominations. With inflation, Japan seems to have settled on a 1,5,10 system, with the 2000 yen note being primarily commemorative, and rare in the market. I'm not sure why the 2x denominations fell out of favor in Japan. -- 174.24.195.38 (talk) 22:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't comment on Japan or Germany but in Malaysia there was a 20 ringgit normal note a long time ago but this was abandoned. As for lower values, there was a 1 ringgit note before the 1 ringgit coin and then later 2 ringgit note (I think the 2 ringgit note was introduced partially because people were complaining about it being bothersome to carry/deal with so many heavy coins) was introduced and until these were both abandoned and the 1 ringgit note reintroduced (I think people still weren't happy with the coin issue). The 20 sen coin still remains. (The 1 sen coin has now been abandoned but there was never a 2 sen coin.) From my experience particularly when you are talking about notes instead of coins the absence of the 2x isn't really that big a deal. Sure it's slightly more unwieldy but you also have less types of notes to worry about. (And Malaysia is still a cash oriented society.) Perhaps one of the only issues is ATMs tend to either give out RM50 or RM50 and RM10 notes and the RM50 are not favoured by some small traders. Nil Einne (talk) 14:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for a Website[edit]

Helloo, im looking for a huge music database wwebsite, it works like that if you Search for a specific song by someone you can find the song and covers by other bands/people, its a huge database of songs and other versions of them :( all help really appreciated :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.220.99.211 (talk) 23:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.allmusic.com Cheers. --Jayron32 23:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but this is not the website it's similar, but more about covers of the original songs, and it has youtube link of every song on it. 85.220.99.211 (talk) 23:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.discogs.com/ ....? Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, It's not a vinyl website, It's more like you search for a song and there comes up the song you searched for and then a list of Songs Sampled of that particular song! 85.220.99.211 (talk) 00:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not covers but samples http://www.whosampled.com/ meltBanana 13:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

flat faced golf sticks.[edit]

why do all golf sticks have flat faces,(putters,irons,hybrids etc.) except drivers, and to a lesser degree, fairway woods? Even professionals and clubmakers seem confused about the reason. The curve on the face of the latter from one side to the other,( i am not referring to top to bottom) must surely create a bad result unless the ball is always struck with the centre of the club head,(sweet spot) on every occassion, which as any average golfer knows is not the case. regards....ringoron. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ringoron (talk • contribs) 23:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

one word. schyler (talk) 02:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A golfer uses a wood when range is more important than accuracy. The slight convex (bulge) face shape of its head makes the motion imparted to the ball dependent more on the head momentum vector than the angle of the face. BTW fiddlers use sticks but golfers use clubs.