Miscellaneous desk
< January 30	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	Current desk >

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

January 31[edit]

Identify a tree[edit]

Can anyone tell me what kind of tree this is? Thanks. --Viennese Waltz 09:44, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like an Oak to me, but very hard to truly identify without sight of the leaves. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:53, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry, I didn't think one needed to see the leaves to identify it. I thought the main distinguishing features of any tree were its branches and trunk. --Viennese Waltz 15:12, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The bark looks very like pedunculate oak, known here as "English oak". Compare with this image. If so, the buds will be brown and scaley in clusters. The leaves take a while to break down, so you would expect to find lots of these lobed leaves on the floor, although obviously, other leaves can get blown in too. It's a very unusual form; but may be a grown-out coppice tree, or specimens planted for ornament were sometimes "bundle-planted" by 18th century landscape gardeners to produce a large tree quickly, hoping for this result, but yours may have been a bit more wayward. Alternatively, several saplings may have grown up naturally together, but you would expect one to have become dominant early-on. Alansplodge (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think I see some rather unnatural transitions in the bark at the base of the center two trunklets. The grown out coppicing would indeed be odd, but I also expect trees grown in their natural habit to have smoother transitions in bark. OP, while some experts can get a good guess at a tree from its silhouette and bark (and location, and surrounding), most anyone else needs buds, flowers, or leaves (ideally all of the above) to get any degree of certainty on species level ID. I think we all agree it's a oak of some sort, but getting beyond that from this photo alone will be tough. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with everything you say Mr Mantis, but in this case, I'm 99% certain that it's a Quercus robur and would happily bet a small sum of money on it. We have lots of them here. Alansplodge (talk) 13:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Splodge then I posit you are indeed somewhat of an expert on identifying your common local trees from growth habit and bark texture alone :) SemanticMantis (talk) 15:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only somewhat. :-) Alansplodge (talk) 19:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Viennese Waltz: Where was the picture taken? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CIA’s UFO information[edit]

I’m looking for the information CIA sited in their website about UFOs. I would appreciate if someone could provide the direct/correct link to the page, here in this post. Regards. -- Mr. Zoot Cig Bunner (talk) 11:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is their page specifically on Project Blue Book, this is the introduction page for their UFO document collection, and this is the main index. Tevildo (talk) 12:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tev. Regards. -- Mr. Zoot Cig Bunner (talk) 18:33, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whisky tasting[edit]

Whenever I read whisky reviews, I see reviewers finding hints of over 20 different flavours in the whisky's aroma and taste, ranging all the way from fruits via candies to types of wood. I myself find it tastes mostly of malt and alcohol, with hints of smoke and peat. How can the reviewers detect so many different flavours? Or are they somehow faking and exaggerating it? JIP | Talk 19:16, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if they actually do this, but you could reduce the overpowering alcohol flavor by letting it sit out for a while, so most of the alcohol would evaporate. StuRat (talk) 19:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is most certainly not true. The alcohol content will not drop significantly in reasonable amounts of time. A common misconception. Even overnight, you only lose 30% of the alcohol (Cooking_with_alcohol#Alcohol_in_finished_food). I assume that was done with wine, so the rate is probably a bit higher for spirits, but still not much. Also, the 'alcohol flavor' [sic] is an integral part of the taste of any spirit. Fgf10 (talk) 20:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even 30% is enough to be significant, but you could speed it up by blowing a fan over the surface, heating it, and/or agitating it. StuRat (talk) 20:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blowing a fan over the surface? Really? If you don't like spirits, don't drink them. Remind me not to let you near any of my spirits if you're going to be ruining them like that. Fgf10 (talk) 20:52, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's a big diff between drinking it and trying to determine all the ingredients. Getting rid of the alcohol may be useful in the latter case, which is what this Q seems to be about. Of course, you could also do a chemical analysis, if you have the equipment. StuRat (talk) 23:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The OP never said they wanted to detect all ingredients, rather they were wondering how people could detect all these flavours under normal conditions. Note in any case under both scenarios your proposal won't actually work. It should be obvious why it won't work for the scenario the OP actually stated. But even under the scenario you invented, it may enable you to taste some ingredients you would have trouble detecting otherwise but it still wouldn't enable you to detect all ingredients because amongst other things, you may have evaporating these ingredients with the flavour. Plus some ingredients are relatively tasteless anyway. Note there's a difference between an ingredient (what you said) and a flavour or taste (what the OP seemed to be discussing), and that this loss problem will also apply to the OP's scenario. Nil Einne (talk) 14:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We do have an article on whisky tasting - see also wine tasting and the (not particularly good, I'm afraid) sensory analysis. It mainly comes down to employing a standard terminology, and skill in separating the individual components from the overall gustatory picture. Note also that whisky "tasting" is mainly done with the nose rather than the mouth, and it's usual to taste the whisky both with and without water. Tevildo (talk) 19:39, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer is, practice. The more tasting you do, the better at it you will become and the more flavours you will be able to identify. The whisky tumbler however is not the best glass for tasting, you will be better off using a copita which allows the aromas to concentrate. Taste a small amount of whisky, without water, and let it cover all areas of the mouth, then add a little water if you wish. Don't expect to identify all the flavours in one tasting. It is possible of course, that if all you detect is alcohol and malt, you might be drinking shit whisky.--Ykraps (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the whisky is shit. After all, I've tried several single malts from famous Scottish distilleries. I think my problems are (1) too little experience, (2) using the wrong glass, (3) sipping the whisky too quickly without first sniffing it thoroughly and adding water. And I didn't say alcohol and malt was all I could taste, even I can detect flavours of smoke and peat. JIP | Talk 19:59, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That was half said in jest. Yes, if you're just necking it, obviously you won't taste much, better to nose it first, and don't ignore the finish (after taste) there are usually more flavours to enjoy there. I confess that I struggle a bit with smoky whiskies as the peat taste is so powerful. I would suggest getting your tastebuds going with Speyside or Highland malts which are sweeter and more delicate.--Ykraps (talk) 20:16, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind wine tasters cannot even reliably figure out the color of their wine [1] (Guardian piece links to several scientific studies), and are highly influenced by label, price, etc. See here [2] for a nice cartoon on the subject from SMBC.

That is not to say experienced tasters of spirits are lying or exaggerating. They are just reporting subjective feelings and qualia. Sometimes they even can agree with each other on basic characteristics. Sometimes those reports are useful and resonate with readers/buyers/critics, sometimes not. One thing that is scientifically true - most of the non-ethanol flavor in whiskey comes from the wood its aged in or the smoke that dries the barley [3]. Finally, if you're interested in whisky, try some good American bourbon whiskey as well; it's rather different than Scotch, and you might find the oak/"buttery" flavors easier to taste when it's not so bogged down by peat. Sometimes, we can even track down specific compounds that have specific flavors, e.g. Diacetyl is what gives many liquors a buttery taste [4]. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are such a wide variety of Whiskies beyond just bourbon and scotch as well. Canadian whiskey/rye whiskey and Irish whiskey are two that are, as classes, are both distinctive from bourbons and scotches (there's also Tennessee Whiskey, but that's more like bourbon from Tennessee, and often overlaps in taste with bourbons). Heck, even moonshine/white lightning is sometimes classified as a "whiskey" even though it's closer related to vodka in terms of flavor. --Jayron 32 19:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The most reasonable algorithm here is to drink the cheapest whiskey whose taste you like. Hence, in my case, cheap vodka if I am paying or 100 proof Absolut if you're paying. Beers and wines have a lot more emphasis on taste, and what sort of food they go with. This video on switching labels is generalizable in many cases. Sommelier and oenology apply to wine as well, but the ideas are widely applicable. μηδείς (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I used to be a whiskey fanatic and one my party tricks was to say which distillery it was from from the smell and taste. I don't think I could have ever have identified 20 separate flavors from a whiskey, but somebody with sensitive olfactory and taste senses probably could. As you've already said you can taste the malt, smoke and peat so I assume you're referring to Islay malts? They have an overpowering taste, very peaty, but try a Bruichladdich, also from Islay, and you'll probably taste salt as well - try a Lowlands malt and you'll taste honey. Mike Dhu (talk) 08:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]