Miscellaneous desk
< October 18	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 20 >

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 19

how many tabs from soda cans fit into a milk jug?

how many tabs from soda cans fit into a gallon milk jug? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.8.100.70 (talk) 05:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I measured a soda can's pull tab, and I found that it is pretty much 3/4 of an inch by 1/2 an inch by 1 millimeter. Converting those measurements makes it 19.05mm x 12.7mm x 1mm or 241.935 cubic millimeters. A gallon milk jug obviously holds one gallon, which converts to 3,785,000 cubic millimeters. Dividing 3,785,000 by 241.935 results in a total of 15,644.69796 tabs. However, that would also require getting all the can tabs in their nice and neatly, which would be impossible, so that 15,645 should be the theoretical maximum. Realistically you'd get a bit fewer than that. But I'll leave that calculation up to someone else. My source for conversions was this site. Useight (talk) 06:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine this is a Fermi problem, in which case a guesstimate is expected, rather than an exact answer. Taking the volume of a tab to be between 150 and 300 mm³ and a gallon to be about 3.75 litres, you get between 10,000 and 20,000 tabs per gallon. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It also depends on the shape of the jug. I know that here in the US, the type of jug that I've seen the most does not have a handle that is wide enough for any tabs to fit in. Though, the handle is hollow, so it does add to the volume of a liquid. Dismas|^(talk) 17:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unidentified building

What building is this? From webpage text it's something in St. Petersburg. Avnas Ishtaroth _{drop me a line} 08:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's the Kazan Cathedral. Nanonic (talk) 08:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which I have just moved to Kazan Cathedral, St. Petersburg. jnestorius^(talk) 21:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supports for a 2x4

I have to cover a 13' span with 2"x4"x14' southern pine planks. I find there is a small sag in the middle of a plank even if there is no load on the plank (except the planks weight itself). I find that as the plank absorbs water from the atmosphere, the sag becomes deeper. How many supports evenly across the length of the board do I need to make the amount of sag unnoticeable. Is there a rule of thumb or some table I can use to answer this question for various sizes and loads? Phil Burnstein (talk) 10:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Every 14"-16" would be about the usual I think--Artjo (talk) 13:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Sagulator might well help: http://www.woodbin.com/calcs/sagulator.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.153.189 (talk) 14:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That sagulator is great. Thank you. Phil Burnstein (talk) 08:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A 2" x 4" x 14' pine plank will sag under its own if laid flat (the 4" part on the top and bottom).
The same plank will remain pretty strait if mounted on edge (the 2" part on the top and bottom)
The amount of sag will of course increase if any load is placed on the boards especially if the boards are laid flat (4" on the top and bottom).
The additional sag due to water absorption is most likely due to the unequal absorption, the bottom usually absorbs more and causes more sag.
Spanning a 14' length with 2" x 4" pine lumber without interim supports seems unwise.
If you really want to make that span unsupported from below then a thorough analysis by an architectural or structural engineer would be strongly recommended. -hydnjo talk 06:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you do not plan to put any load on these 2 x 4's, and that they will be protected from ice buildup and high wind. They sound barely self supporting. Edison (talk) 19:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Food/What is Scrapple and how do you make it?

I would like to know about an old-fashioned dish called Scrapple and how would you make it? Connie, Bryan TX —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.113.234.32 (talk) 17:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you might look at the article Scrapple. The first link under "External links" leads to one recipe. Deor (talk) 17:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the nutritional data, I suggest you obtain a "license to kill" from your local but secret agency prior to your domestic alchemy. Of course, if, in a Bond sequel to come, you observe the hero decimating the ubiquitous villains with large helpings of scrapple, you know who invented this fiendish plot of lethal weaponry... --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 17:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, you get a pig. You take all the stuff you'd use to make pork chops, ribs, bacon, ham, etc. The stuff that's left over from that, you make sausage from. Anything that wasn't good enough to make sausage, that's scrapple. Yummy. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My dad always used to describe cheap sausages as being made from "lips 'n' arseholes". Apparently not, those are saved for scrapple. ~ mazca ^t|c 18:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The recipes I have use things such as port sausages, pork shoulder or butt, pork loin, or just ground pork. There are lots of different ways to make it, some use cornmeal or buckwheat flour, some use thyme, others nutmeg, etc. Doug Weller (talk) 19:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My "Granny" considered scrapple and "head cheese" or "souse" as the same dish. She would take the head of the hog, boil it, then scrape off all meat (except for the eyeballs) and put it in a crock to cool. The natural gelatine in it would cause it to congeal into a translucent mass with visible and recognizable bits of the animal. It could then be refrigerated, sliced and fried. Delicious. I have seen a product in stores called "Imitation Bologna" made of lips, snouts, ears, and fat which was about the same thing. Both seemed a step below Spam. Edison (talk) 20:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, scrapple has a lower gelatin-to-meat ratio than headcheese. Its also got cornmeal mixed with it; scrapple is more of a meatloaf than a head cheese. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, scrapple is also described in the Xbox game Whacked!. Useight (talk) 02:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GRAB A PIG, PUT IT IN A CAN, SCRAPPLE! Avnas Ishtaroth _{drop me a line} 05:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proper License for a Written Work?

Hi, I'm releasing a written work (like a autobiographical story) onto the internet, and I am having trouble finding a license that reflects the rights I would like use for it. I want to allow people to share, sell, and allow people to do whatever they would like with it, with the sole exception being that the text should not be changed. Extracting parts of the work and distributing them is perfectly fine; I just want to preserve the integrity of what was originally written. I'm thinking a Creative Commons No Derivative Works License might be what I want, but I want to allow people to quote sections of it and include any number of paragraphs in any work they create. Taking a section and using it in your work would count as a derivative work, right? Or is a derivative work only where the words and possibly meaning are changed? Thanks for the help! —Pie4all88 ^{T C} 19:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We can't give legal advice here, and that probably qualifies. You should either contact a lawyer, or contact Creative Commons. --Tango (talk) 21:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, what? The entire point of CC licenses is that people can figure them out without being lawyers. They are not cryptic. If one cannot ask about how copyleft licenses work on Wikipedia, then all is lost! --98.217.8.46 (talk) 22:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't an existing CC license for what you want. Basically you want ND except for unlimited partial quotation or extraction provided the extracts are not modified. That's not very standard.

What you might do is release it as CC-ND, but then put an additional note on it that allows the specific forms of derivative works as you say. There is nothing in the CC deed that says you can't grant additional rights beyond those given in the CC-deed (you just can't withhold rights). --98.217.8.46 (talk) 22:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that's a good possibility. Thank you for the advice, 98! —Pie4all88 ^{T C} 03:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is something contradictory in what you ask here. If people are allowed to quote short sections - then they can leave out a sentence they don't like - quote the sections either side of it and add their own sentence in-between - thereby "editing" your work in ways you don't want to allow. IMHO, if you aren't going to make a profit on the thing (which it looks like you aren't) then your best bet is to allow people to edit it - but to require them to provide full disclosure to their readership along with a link to the original document (eg "This work was written by Pie4all88 but has since been edited by AwfulEditor99 - the original document is at http://www.pie4all.com"). SteveBaker (talk) 13:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How does pie4all.com not exist?!? FiggyBee (talk) 15:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a bad idea, Steve, and you're correct that I don't plan on making a profit from it. I think, though, that as long as the reader can determine what was in the original document and what was added by the editor (which they would be able to do because the excerpts would be enclosed by quotation marks), the integrity of the piece would not be lost. Paraphrasing sections in between quotations would be fine, so I want to be sure to allow that. I also hate to impose restrictions like the disclaimer you mentioned on other people, since it is annoying to have to include. I'll probably use 98's idea or simply release it into the public domain since it's getting somewhat complicated. Thanks for the help, though! —Pie4all88 ^{T C} 03:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infant Mortality Rate, Under-5 Mortality Rate and Death Rate

What was the infant mortality rate, under-5 mortality rate and death rate in ancient times and the Middle Ages? Bowei Huang (talk) 01:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... indeed, our infant mortality article doesn't seem to cover those time periods well. If you find good answers (from reliable sources) during your research, please consider adding them to the appropriate part of Wikipedia! --Scray (talk) 01:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At 0AD when Jesus was born during Herod's time, it was 100%, apparently.--ChokinBako (talk) 11:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, it was 99.999999%. Jesus was missed. 216.49.181.128 (talk) 00:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As with so much in the Bible a)It's disputed. b)We have an article on that. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 15:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, Givnan & 216.49.181.128, what do you have against women? CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 09:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]