Miscellaneous desk
< October 5	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 7 >

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.

October 6

A Surgeon's Hands

Do surgeons perform exercises to increase steadiness and reduce shakiness in their hands? If so, what are some of such exercises? Or must their steady hands be a natural genetic trait? Thanks. Acceptable 01:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One's options are more varied than "exercise" vs "natural genetics". Practice and repetition can help a surgeon in the same way that they help, say, a guitarist. When one starts play guitar you can barely keep them steady much less the sort of rapid-fire precision needed to play carefully. But with lots of training and practice and reptition you gain the sort of muscle-memory needed to reproduce precision work without even thinking about it. I doubt surgeons are too different in that respect. --24.147.86.187 04:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Playing video games might help: "Three hours a week decreased mistakes by 37 percent, study finds". --Sean 14:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, playing super monkey ball on medical equipment ^^. Also I find it amusing that the doctor likes that game because it has no blood and guts- he'd probably get better practice playing the medic in TF2 or battlefield :) --⁪froth^t 19:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you can use a few hours in Trauma Center: Under the Knife practising incisions on virtual people of which you have no consequence (other than losing the game) if you "slipped" :p. --antilived^{T | C | G} 04:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the thought of litigation keeps their hands steady....or do they have to control an anxiety tremor caused by the thought? hmm Richard Avery 21:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

engine

I asked this here before but I still don't believe the answer. I've only driven an automatic so this question pertains to that I guess. When I press on the accelerator, the rpm guage immediately shoots up. As long as I don't cause it to shift gears, the harder I push, the higher the rpm and it stays constant while I hold the pedal at that position. But my speed isn't directly related to the rpm- my acceleration is. When I hold down the accelerator, the rpm shoots up and stays still, but my speed takes several seconds to get up to the maximum it'll reach at that RPM/gear. So what is the mechanical mechanism that allows a rapidly spinning rpm on the engine to gradually bleed rotational energy to the drive shaft? This can not be caused by simple gears, if that was so, the speed would always perfectly reflect the rpm, and only their "constant of proportionality" would vary. But this isn't the case- they're not proportional at all. So what mechanical mechanism allows this to occur? Friction as a clamp slips around the drive shaft? --⁪froth^t 02:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That'd be your torque converter. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which is indeed automatic transmission-related. My major gripe with that. DirkvdM 08:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is your gripe? Froth was specifically talking about automatics. With a manual transmission, there is a direct relationship between the engine RPM and the speed of the car, unless you're slipping the clutch. FiggyBee 13:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Dirk's gripe is with automatic transmission, not with TenOfAllTrades' answer. DuncanHill 13:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, having power and not being able to use it fully. DirkvdM 17:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THANK you finally! Every time I got in a car I've been grumbling "grr they have no idea what they're talking about" heh.. last time I asked a dozen people swore up and down that I was crazy and that such a thing was mechanically impossible :) --⁪froth^t 18:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, torque converters were mentioned the last time you asked, see Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Science/2007_June_12#car_engine_question. Friday (talk) 21:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oh :o I asked even before that though. this is my third try. I think the first was in 2006 or so --⁪froth^t 21:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a tricky thing. When the gearbox isn't shifting and the clutch/torque-convertor isn't slipping and the tyres aren't skidding, your speed is precusely the RPM multiplied by the overall gear ratio multiplied by the circumpherence of your tyres. Accelleration is proportional to torque - not RPM. However, in a conventional automatic, there is a viscous coupling (the torque convertor) that allows the transmission to slip - so when the RPM changes suddenly, it allows the wheels to catch up to that speed more gradually. In that case, the rate of accelleration is going to be dependent on the RPM in come complicated manner. Of course there are some cars with CVT (Continuously variable transmissions) in which the RPM hardly ever changes - and some sorts of full-on hybrids only use the engine to generate electricity - so again, the RPM and speed are pretty much unrelated. On my 1963 Mini, (stick shift) the speedometer is broken - I fitted a tachometer instead and so long as I remember the gear ratios and can do some quick mental arithmetic, I know my speed by knowing what gear I'm in and the tachometer reading. SteveBaker 21:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

......honestly officer!! DuncanHill 21:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This still sounds weird to me. I don't think it's normal that the torque converter would slip that noticeably for several seconds. Anyone have opinions on that? Friday (talk) 21:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"...the torque converter would slip noticeably for several seconds." If this is true, then is this the reason that automatics are generally smoother when driving? Acceptable 22:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you've got a locking torque converter, it's always slipping. And yes, it does make for a smoother ride. --Carnildo 06:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which everyone does (have a locking torque converter, that is). FiggyBee 06:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should one want to simulate the smooth ride-ness of an automatic, would one need to slip the clutch for a longer period of time, therefore causing more wear? Acceptable 15:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can be smoother by slipping the clutch more, and yes, this will wear it out faster. But you can be smooth without slipping the clutch excessively too. It generally going to be easier to be smooth when accelerating gently than when trying to do it quickly. Friday (talk) 15:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lava Pumice-Powered Soap Bar And Its Uses

Can you use Lava Soap for your face? I mean it seems most facial cleansers have pumice, so why can't I use my Lava to exfoliate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.153.81.7 (talk) 02:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3D weave

Has anyone ever weaved cloth in three dimentions? I recently worked out a way to do it, and I wonder if anyone has done it before. Using google, I managed to find ScotWeave which appears to have layered cloth, but I'm trying to find something where the thickness of the cloth is about the same as the length, resulting in a woven 3D object. — Daniel 19:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from double weave (two interconnected layers of cloth) and tubular weave (two layers of cloth connected only at the edges, making a seamless tube), I can't think of any examples. Possibly someone has done one as an art project, but it doesn't seem it would be a useful technique. Rmhermen 21:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you have a look at velvet or corduroy (corde du roi - so called because of its expense to manufacture - thus called Cloth of Kings). These two fabrics are both double decker weaves that are subsequently split through their conjoined thickness to produce 2 sheets of the resultant piled fabrics. 81.145.241.210 23:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what would be the midway point be

is there a site on the web that if you put a distance in from where you live it would show the place that distance from where you are

a friend that lives in los angeles would meet me half way for vacation i live in wilmington nc...ive tried different sources including mapquest and aaa cant seem to find the answer

alicia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.12.19.230 (talk) 19:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Oklahoma City is the place for you, as the crow flies, if a crow flies a great circle route. I used the ruler in Google Earth. It's a free download, no bundled malware. --Milkbreath 20:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just found a website (through Digg) for doing exactly this: http://www.happymedian.com/ — Kieff | Talk 17:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If one of you is travelling faster for whatever reason this sounds like the setup for a bad algebra word problem :(

Printing a Trade Paperback sized book

I am writing a book for my gf as an anniversary present and I want to print it out in trade paperback format. Is such a service usually available at printing studios, or is a special location necessary? Are there any in the Detroit MI - Windsor ON area? Thank you. Crisco 1492 20:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are hundreds of these so-called "Vanity Press" places on the Internet. As the somewhat derogatory name suggests, some are more reputable than others. The honest ones just print the books for some rate - others claim to be publishing and advertising the things but you pay an enormous up-front fee and wind up being stuck with a big pile of books that you don't need. For a one-off, you can do it at (for example) www.cafepress.com - mostly they do T-shirts and such - but if you dig around on their site a bit, you'll see that they'll print books for you too. SteveBaker 21:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[www.cafepress.com/cp/info/sell/products/books Here's] the direct link to the cafepress page. Seems very cool- you send them the content and set how much profit you want to make on each sale, and cafepress will handle production and payment, and charge customers the actual cost of production plus your set profit amount, then mail you the check at the end of the month. This is really slick, it doesn't look like there are any up-front fees or anything :O --⁪froth^t 22:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, they even let you print very small numbers (like 1) of copies for personal use. I'm going to get my video games walkthroughs published :D This is awesome, thanks a lot for the pointer steve --⁪froth^t 22:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So its all online now, eh? :P I definitely was hoping for a something a little closer to home. However, I will take a look at those sites and see how much to print just one book. Thanks a lot. Crisco 1492 03:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should stress that CafePress is just one of these services - there are very large numbers of them out there - some cheaper, some more expensive - depending on the quantity (most will print just one copy up to thousands - but some have minimum quantities of 50 or so). There are also wide varieties of bindings, paper quality and standards for how you send them data (mostly it's PDF files - but there are others). SteveBaker 04:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

porn question (an appropriate one)

If one wanted to get porn off the internet w/o paying any money, confirming through a credit card or checking account, or anything like that (it would still be okay if they asked for an email address for confirmation) how would one do this? does this sort of thing even exist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.23.84.129 (talk) 21:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KKch.. kkchhh. kchchhhh BWAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA --⁪froth^t 21:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gesundheit. DirkvdM 18:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So essentially you're asking how to commit credit card fraud? Considering free porn is everywhere on the Internet, committing felonies to try to get it is probably not a good idea. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 23:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

eh? he's specifically asking for porn that DOES NOT need a credit-card - so an entirely unjustified accusation of criminal intent. DuncanHill 23:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree w/ DuncaHill. That wasn't a very nice thing to say to our anon friend.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 00:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OP:Just google a bit more and you'll get all the pornography you need. --Taraborn 00:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

www.youporn.com. Aaadddaaammm 03:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

richardsrealm.com, atkingdom.com, thumbzilla.com, longestlist.com etc. etc. Need we say more? Dismas|^(talk) 13:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the Wikipedia article PornoTube. Edison 01:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sheeesh, it's hard NOT to find porn on the internet. Someone I know used Google images to look for Bob the Builder's sidekick Wendy. Sadly, she just searched for "Wendy" and her 5 year old was amused to see "boobies" on the results screen. --Dweller 09:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There is so much free porn on the Internet that I have started to wonder why people would bother paying for porn. JIP | Talk 11:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

in this case you would go to persiankitty.com, then scroll through all the crap and pick a site that matches your interests.

Freight for fashion companies

I have a questions about freight and freight costs for fashion companies. What companies do the big companies use and more specifically who do they use to transport into and from australia? Are there designated fashion freight/transport companies? Who are the biggest ones and who do the luxury brand companies use?

jeanne —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.122.119.123 (talk) 22:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try Tibbett and Britten. 81.145.241.210 23:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cost of scalpels

How much do the various types of surgical-grade scalpels cost? Thanks. Acceptable 23:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About £10 per handle, and about £30 per 100 blades, per [1] DuncanHill 23:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Oh, so they're not really that expensive, eh? Do surgeons not re-use them for hygienic reasons or because they wear out easily? Acceptable 23:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's hygiene - specifically vCJD. DuncanHill 23:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If they were really that worried about vCJD, they'd throw out everything every time, not just scalpel blades. I expect that really the reason is that at a few cents per blade, it's more cost-effective to replace than to sterilise and sharpen. FiggyBee 00:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds most likely to me, too. --Masamage ♫ 00:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What? Why would they be worried about that?.. wouldn't viral infections be more worrisome than ultra-rare TSEs? --⁪froth^t 05:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the CJD article (and the TSE article you linked to), prions may not be made inactive by simple sterilisation methods. FiggyBee 06:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can tell you that definitely scalpel blades used for surgery in the UK NHS are all disposable - blade and handle. It is done both for control of infection and on cost grounds, luckily the two coincide in the one aim. Richard Avery 21:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fast Talking in Old Movies

Does anyone know why people in older (pre-1950?) movies often speak very rapidly? Think of classic gangster movies and also of the stereotypical fast-talking newspaper reporter. Or did people back then simply speak faster than after the 1950's? Any help would be appreciated. Haute Fuzze 23:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The question calls to mind The Front Page (1931 film). If characters in a movie speak fast, it is presumably for comedic or dramatic effect. It should not have anything to do with the technology, if the sound movie was made in the 1920's or later. In some silent movies the characters move fast because of present day 24 frame per second projection of silent movies filmed at 16 frames per second or so. Edison 00:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've often wondered that myself. Noel Coward was the worst I've come across in this respect - I saw In Which We Serve, in which he spoke so quickly and clippedly that I picked up only about a half of what he said. Sort of defeats the purpose, really. -- JackofOz 01:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've wondered about that all my life watching old movies, and so have many of my friends and family. So is there any reason? My older relatives claim that people actually spoke faster back then. I don't believe that. Haute Fuzze 02:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've watched several Thirties movies lately without noticing such a phenomenon. —Tamfang 08:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, I've been noticing it for decades. This is just a theory, but it might have something to do with the social stratum at which the movies were pitched. The middle-upper classes those days tended to be better educated, more widely read, and more practised at wit, repartee and general conversational skills than the "man in the street", and they had a wider range of knowledge from which to draw and thus had more to say and thus spoke a little more quickly in order to fit it in to the available time. The movie "speed thing" was reflected in other things, not just talking. Shots of audiences at theatres always had them clapping a lot faster than I've ever seen "real" people do. They also walked faster; and they made immediate analyses of situations and instant decisions often affecting the lives of thousands of people. And orchestras in movies always played pieces faster than they do now, often rushing towards the end of a piece at breakneck speed. I've also noticed this on old recordings, so it may just have been the fashion of the day. -- JackofOz 12:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest it has more to do with the need to squeeze a story into a standard length (70 mins?) to accommodate the cinema programming: second feature, shorts, ads, main feature,86.200.4.62 14:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)petitmichel[reply]

I think I can explain why the images look fast (eg the clapping), but I don't think it applies to how fast the sounds are. Anyway, it's because old cameras took less frames per second than modern cameras - which means that because there are less frames in old films the picture is perceived to be quite fast —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.208.110.207 (talk) 06:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so much that early cameras had a lower standard frame rate, but that they were cranked by hand and thus had no hard standard (was the same true of early projectors?); the operator sometimes deliberately cranked slower to save film. With sound, the rate had to be fixed. —Tamfang 17:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]