Miscellaneous desk
< May 1	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 3 >

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.

May 2[edit]

Pitch detector[edit]

Where can I find a free (online) pitch detector? -- Ypnypn (talk) 00:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does Electronic tuner help? I didn't see a free online one after a quick read. Some of the blue wikilinks may link to them though.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://instrument-tuner.software.informer.com/ Found some.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! -- Ypnypn (talk) 01:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Space Debris Removal[edit]

Hi,

I've presented this question at least 5x's to various organization's an met with just red tape that eventually turn's to, "We don't know who?"

Its a simple question that I ask, "Whom can have scrap right's to the space debris that no one wants in Space? Not only is it useless but it can pose definite threat's! An when I present the case to whom ever I get nowhere. I have the capacity to REMOVE it with the exception of any nuclear powered engines or anything that contain's nuclear waste or material in it. An the fight rages on between the various group's that do know its a threat but nothing ever gets done!

I want the salvage right's to the stuff that (no one wants) its simple. Yet impossible to get an answer to this question only very strange looks. EVERYONE AN ANYONE DOESN'T WANT IT YET NOTHING SEEMS TO BE DONE TO GATHER IT. I will gather it up an scrap the material simply put. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrapper11 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your question. Unfortunately, we aren't able to give legal advice - which is what this question boils down to. Nevertheless, you may find some useful information through Googling 'Space salvage laws' or similar terms. For instance, this article, "Space Junk and the Law of Space Collisions". - Cucumber Mike (talk) 18:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? Have you tried even just googling "space junk cleanup"? Pretty much ALL the articles are about how something desperately needs to be done and ideas of how it could be acheived. I have absolutely NO doubt that if you actually had a viable plan, you'd be winning grants and sponsorships and salvage rights without ANY problem. The far more likely scenario however is that you just don't understand why this is such a hard problem. It costs a LOT of money to launch space ships and the "scrap" you'd like to salvage, of which there are tens of thousands of pieces by the way, won't cover anything close to a meaningful fraction of your operating costs. Vespine (talk) 23:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you are talking about the value for selling off the items as scrap, then yes, I agree. However, some items, like intact but dead satellites, might go for millions of dollars to the appropriate museum or collector. StuRat (talk) 05:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But even if true for some items, I don't see that would significantly affect Vespine's final comments. Nil Einne (talk) 04:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just salvage some of the junk and see if anyone even notices! If someone does notice and then takes you to court, you could set a precident! 99.250.103.117 (talk) 03:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you actually could do this and make a profit my guess is most of the owners would be willing to pay you a bit more to gather junk that might otherwise not be worth your while. Otherwise they are very likely to be fully liable for any damage their junk causes. There may be some bits that people would want to control like spy satellites but really most of the junk satellites up there have no value from the strategic point of view that I know of and use out of date technology. Even for spy satellites I'd guess the owners would just like to be able to pick it up immediately once it is retrieved. Dmcq (talk) 10:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way what I'd like eventually instead of just removing the junk by burning it in the earth's atmosphere or dumping it in the oceans, is to have an automated orbiting recycling and manufacturing plant where the bits are directed to. There's lots of refined materials in the junk and producing simple bits from them for bulk structures should be possible and possibly some small bits can be reused. Dmcq (talk) 10:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For our original poster, to be brutally honest, your claims are very hard to believe. If you aren't already affiliated with some large space-related business or a national space agency - then it's entirely reasonable that nobody wishes to discuss your idea with you. Those are busy people - and you simply don't come across as a credible, professional expert in the field...I don't mean to insult or demean you - but that is most certainly the impression you give.

The problem here is that once you're up there in orbit, the economics are entirely different than they are here down on earth. Down here, exotic metals are very expensive and bricks are not. Up there in orbit, the horrific cost of getting something into orbit in the first place means that bricks and lumps of solid gold with identical mass have very similar costs! But then we run into the extreme difficulty of building anything like an orbiting factory that could consume a scrap brick or a scrap lump of gold - and turn it into something that someone would want up there in orbit.

Recycling things in-orbit and leaving them in orbit is therefore an entirely different set of economics than collecting scrap in orbit and returning it to earth. I strongly suspect that the cost to fly a mission to collect scrap by far exceeds the value of that scrap down here on earth...but if you could find a way to collect scrap in orbit and use it for some good purpose up there - then perhaps you're on to something.

To that end, it has been suggested that if satellites were made by combining standardized modules (like Lego bricks for Satellites), then it would be possible to have robotic craft that could be employed to dismantle a failed satellite and to store all of the modules that DIDN'T fail (which is probably all but one of them!). It would then be able to use those standardized parts to repair other satellites. It could also be given the ability to de-orbit unrepairable failed modules.

SteveBaker (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'd have thought all the mass must be usable for something if it could be made safe if only as a shield.. Mass is the expensive thing to send up, not the intelligent little components. An ion rocket that could turn anything into a gas even little bits of metal would be good too. Dmcq (talk) 11:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see the Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket is already going towards having the sort of characteristics I'd want - not the highest efficiency but long life and able to handle most any stuff as fuel. Dmcq (talk) 13:46, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I once had an idea about attaching a very strong and large net to very long, strong and extendible legs. It would be like straining fish from a stream. Seemed like a good (but crazy expensive) idea, till I realized the Earth (and any giant nets on it) moves at the same speed as the junk. So I wouldn't recommend that, if that was your idea, too. I hope not. But I would guess the legal owners are still the people who owned them when they weren't junk. There are no laws in space, but once you bring it back to Earth, the old rules apply. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To the OP: if you wish to be taken seriously with organizations that you believe could properly answer your questions, it's important to make sure your writing is clear, proper and coherent. While we are able to work out what you want (you may not be a native English user), other organizations may toss your correspondence on first glance with all the grammatical errors. Normally I wouldn't comment on this, but it's important to be aware that such things do matter when trying to present a case. Mingmingla (talk) 19:23, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that there are pretty clear laws covering the rights of finders to claim Flotsam and Jetsam. Part of the answer to this question would relate to whether such laws also apply in space (or whether anyone has proposed that they should, or shouldn't.) HiLo48 (talk) 04:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I once heard that when they built the George Massey Tunnel a gold miner staked a claim on the sand pile they had dredged out. He didn't work it very much but they were forced to buy him out to use the sand. Could be an urban myth but interesting if true.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Turducken origin[edit]

Is the origin of this meal American or English? It is listed as an English meal but the article itself seems to indicate a US origin, however it is without sources. Does anybody know the history of this funny meal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.49.33.138 (talk) 21:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you check our Turducken article? It says that the general idea of stuffing one bird into another has been around since the Romans...and claims to have three references to back that. SteveBaker (talk) 21:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've never encountered it here in the UK. Not sure who'd want to eat a food whose name begins 'turd'...AlexTiefling (talk) 22:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's an innovation in the UK promoted by the big supermarket chains, who have wisely avoided the "t" word, going for "three bird roast" instead.[1] The Romans may well have eaten it, but the Romans weren't English. Alansplodge (talk) 23:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Come on folks, the turkey is an American bird. Everyone knows Rush Limbaugh both invented the meal and the innovation of deep frying it. μηδείς (talk) 01:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You do also realize it is pronounced terDUCKen, not TURDecken? μηδείς (talk) 08:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. But the sound doesn't go away just because it's not stressed. And that pronunciation guide has serious consequences for the pronunciation of the tofu-based alternative... AlexTiefling (talk) 08:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ack, chewally the loke aishin of the sih lubble bough & dairy is vair eeyimp ortant.μηδείς (talk) 01:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What would that be - tofu stuffed inside a load of tripe and brains, stuffed inside a squid? Where does one go to vomit around here? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 11:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suspect (without wishing to ruin my lunch by checking) that it will involve a layer each of tofu, seitan and tempeh. I love cooking with tofu, but I don't suppose that using it to replicate a turducken will be much less repulsive than the original dead-poultry version. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hail seitan Foofish (talk) 14:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm torn between repulsive and repugnant. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 11:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But not as torn as a duck that's just been forced to swallow a chicken! SteveBaker (talk) 14:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would that be a ruptured duck? --Carnildo (talk) 01:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I nearly choked to death trying not to laugh at a French restaurant when the waiter said the the special of the evening was "a duck stuffed with a mousse." Edison (talk) 01:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they bought their supplies from these people. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:35, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And the show has reached a new low. Shadowjams (talk) 07:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]