Miscellaneous desk
< April 26	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 28 >

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.

April 27

very old 1880's electric cure machine

This machine was used for curing everything in the late 1880-1930. The one I have is from F.G.Otto&Sons of Jersey city. It has a glass battery.I know I need to fill it with lead and acid but I don't how much of each.I would really like to restore this it is a beautiful piece.My grandmother had something similar but it had one of those large sealed batteries.If anyone has any info on the battery or this machine I would love to hear it.F.G.Otto&Sons made surgical equipment in the late 1880's.98.19.98.9 (talk) 00:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a typo, above? 1980's? Bus stop (talk) 00:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope; F.G. Otto & Sons did indeed operate in the 19th century. The original poster has an antique in his hands. Sounds pretty fascinating to me. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 01:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What did it cure -- rubber, food, diseases? Bus stop (talk) 02:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but it's still a typo - plural years don't take apostrophes - "1880s". -- JackofOz (talk) 06:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong three ways. First, it's only a "typo" if they meant to type "1880s". Second, see Apostrophe#Use in forming certain plurals. The spelling "1880's" used to be standard and is still accepted in some quarters. And third, this is not the Language Desk, so both of us are off-topic. --Anonymous, 09:58 UTC, April 27, 2009.

Some of those machines can be crazy-dangerous. I strongly advise against trying to resurrect it. Many of them radiated X-rays at dosage levels you REALLY don't want to encounter. These things were not exactly designed scientifically. SteveBaker (talk) 03:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse what Steve said with regard to the hazard. Such a machine is a relic and not suitable for operation. It looks like the Otto company was founded in 1852. By 1884 they did a large business in all sorts of medical, surgical and dental equipment, including "electric batteries for medical purposes." It appears the company was dissolved around 1903 after a patent infringement suit from the Regina Music Box Company(the made music boxes, too). Another source says they operated from 1860 to 1895. But yet another source says that in 1897 they made excellent dry cell batteries (carbon-zinc), like old lantern, ignition or flashlight batteries. Here is an article about an Otto electrical machine from 1879 which could produce strong electrical shocks from carbon-zinc batteries. The carbon-zinc cells produced a high voltage by means of an induction coil. Note that they used a hazardous mercury compound as an electrolyte. Here is a book "A manual on the treatment of diseases by electricity (1888) published by the Otto company. They have all sorts of quack treatments of diseases with electric shocks. The sadly funny one (p22) is "treating hypochondria with electricity!" They also advise treating impotence with electricity to the johnson. (not currently recommended) Their charter was void in 1908. Some batteries in the 19th century used chemicals now known to be dangerous, such as acid and zinc coated (amalgamated) with mercury. Today's alkaline batteries can produce the same voltage and current much more safely. If an electrical or electronic device is over a century old, corrosion may have caused metal components in contact with each other no longer to form a connection. Also, small wires may have corroded so that they no longer carry current, and the insulation between turns may have failed. That said, I have telegraph sounders and keys over a hundred years old which were easily restored to functioning. Quack medicine machines were popular starting in the late 1700's through modern times. Some old quack electrical gadgets, depending on the era, used high voltage to make rarefied gases glow in glass tubes, or to administer tingling shocks. There was no demonstrable benefit, other than as a placebo. Vibrators were part of this equipment, used much as today for "relief of sexual tension." In the city museum of New Ulm, Minnesota I once saw an ornate oak "electrical cabinet" which had been owned by a town physician from the 1890's or 1900 through perhaps the 1920's. It had a Wimshurst friction machine, which with Leyden Jars could produce amazing shocks from static electricity. It had a device with an induction coil for burning off warts, and it even had a fluoroscope for X-rays. I lusted after it! Edison (talk) 03:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What does it mean to say their "charter" expired? Tempshill (talk) 05:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does it imply that they are a chartered corporation? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Their business was done in law as well as in fact. They were no longer a corporation. Edison (talk) 16:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

masseuse

Plural form? Does it follow Moose, Goose, or Caboose? English format please, not interested in French format, the French, or their war record.174.146.74.92 (talk) 11:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to wikt:masseuse, the plural is "masseuses". --Tango (talk) 12:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But it's masseuses in French, so you might want to change it. —Tamfang (talk) 05:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Customer Service

how good or bad is it to inform the customer on the phone its gonnna take me 10-15 minutes to process your request.Some say its goona keep the customer informed as the phone he called from is a pay phone.Anyone?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.95.140.188 (talk • contribs) 12:21, 27 April 2009

Maybe take their number and phone them back when you're ready to handle the request—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.169 (talk • contribs) 12:41, 27 April 2009

First of all, typing for tildes (~~~~) signs your posts. Please use it, guys.

Secondly, why would it be bad if that's how long it takes? Because he might get angry? Don't you think he'll be even angrier if he thinks it'll only take a minute and it takes a lot longer than that? At least this way he can call back after fifteen minutes, or you can call him back. (Which would certainly be better customer service.) The thing is, a long wait is going to make a lot of people angry, no matter what, but if they're being leveled with so they don't feel like they're being strung along by someone who doesn't give a damn about their inconvenience, that'll probably cut down on the overall shouting. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 13:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience in customer service it is always better to keep the customer informed. But tell the truth, don't hold out false promises or give your opinion as to the outcome. i.e. don't set the customer up with an expectation unless it is guaranteed to happen.86.200.132.222 (talk) 13:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)DT[reply]

It is good to keep the customer informed in general, but certainly from my experience (and from what I hear from others) some call-handlers are over-informative. A lot of customers don't want to know exactly what you are doing, just that it will be done and a timescale for it being done. Asking to put a customer on hold makes sense when you are doing it potentially unexpectedly, but when you have just said "i'll need to put you through to X" you don't need to then say "do you mind if i put you on hold?". In this scenario I think yes pre-warning the time it will take is good - that way they can make the judgement call on whether they want to stay on line or Receive a call back. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 14:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Better to tell the customer about it. It is an act of courtesy. If they know it's going to be 10 minutes they can feed the dog, fix themselves a sandwich, etc. Similarly, I love that many automated on-hold robots now say while you're in the queue, "Based on current call volume, you'll get to talk to a human in ... three minutes. Tempshill (talk) 05:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've worked customer service before and if it were going to take that long, I'd probably just tell them that I'd call them back. Although, you say that they're at a pay phone and many of those here in the States don't allow incoming calls. Too many drug dealers using them for offices... Anyway, I agree, keep the customer informed, don't make promises that there is even a slim chance you will not be able to fulfill, and don't tell them every little thing that you'll need to do in order to get the job done. And if they ask to call you back, that might not work depending on what the call center is like. If you can give them your extension, then that's one thing but if they call back into a large call center where the person that they get may not know who you are, then the customer is forced to wait for this new person to get up to speed on what their issue is. Depending on the time of year, our call center had anywhere between 5 and 500 people working in it. So having the customer asking for "John" or "Mary" wasn't going to work during the peak times. Dismas|^(talk) 10:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is sometimes possible to tell them to call back in fifteen minutes and ask for Operator 17, or your first name, or an extension. They might demand to speak to a supervisor if told you can't fix the problem immediately. A temporary fictitious name would be good to use if allowed so you don't become the long term personal servant of an unreasonable customer. Too often, in many customer service situations, you have no way of knowing how long it will take to get them an answer or solve their problem, since it depends on the actions of a busy person at a remote location. A database into which each customer service rep types what the customer said and what the CSR said is highly useful to avoid them having to repeat everything to everyone they speak to. Giving them an incident number is an excellent way to provide followup, again with a tracking database. If a CSR calls and leaves the information with someone else at the customer's phone number, it is useful to record the name of the person spoken with, since the original complainer often does not get the word that someone called, and may complain to execusives that "No one ever called back." Edison (talk) 04:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A guitar newbie's SOS

I've decided to start learning how to play a guitar. Before I buy my first instrument, I'd like to know the price range of a moderately good guitar that is suitable for beginers like me. I'll be playing a classical (Spanish) guitar. Please help. Bonus points if you can quote prices in Indian rupees... Dollars won't be of much help to me. Thanks in advance. Cheers!! La Alquim ista 12:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In indian rupees its gonna be from 3 to 5 (for a semi aquistic with a pickup)thousand and please do not buy Pluto, its chinese and as the name suggests its unreliable and the head breaks "on its own" due to string tension. so, rather a gibson or any other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.95.140.188 (talk) 14:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

take a look around on a music retailer website (musicians friend for example), find a model you like with a price that works for you and then take a look at your local used market and/or ebay. At your beginning levels, don't worry about details you hear guitarists talking about after becoming picky and opinionated (for example what wood the guitar is made of, other things like what country it was made). As you are getting started, just find a guitar YOU like and work from there. good luck! I've been playing for over 12 years and it's one of the most satisfying hobbies I've ever had the pleasure of taking up. 12.204.178.35 (talk) 16:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree - buy something cheap. I've come across dozens and dozens of people who wanted to learn guitar - and the vast majority of them give up before they get good at it. Buying a hugely expensive instrument to learn on is silly. I don't know about prices in India - but here in the US, I bought my son a $30 acoustic, new on eBay, including shipping (yes, it is indeed a piece of junk) and it worked just fine for him to learn on - and it's cheaper than a set of strings for a decent guitar! When he got good at it, we spent $700 on a decent 7-string electric guitar - with the exact pickups he wanted, etc, etc. But the old acoustic is still perfectly playable - although it's clearly not a "good" guitar. Aside from anything else - until you've played for a while, you don't know what KIND of guitar you want. You won't be able to go into a store and play half a dozen of them to find which one has the tone and 'action' (feel) that you like...you won't know whether you really want a regular electric 6-string or a 7-string or a 12-string or a bass or an acoustic - with or without a tremulo arm - with what pickups - fretless or not. The cost of buying a cheap 'disposable' guitar is probably between 5% and 10% of the cost of the instrument you'll eventually want (if you stick with it) - so it's not a large fraction of the final cost - and it's worth going cheap to start with rather than getting stuck with a hugely expensive instrument that you can't play - or have lost interest in - or isn't what you ultimately find you want. Guitar snobs will now tell you the complete opposite of this. I advise you to ignore them! SteveBaker (talk) 19:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. A decent Yamaha acoustic will do for your initial needs. I got one for £50 for my ex-wife, and she gave it up after a few days, and I ended up using it. I started off with a £175 Squire Stratocaster, which was decent for my basic needs when I was learning, then a few more guitars along the line ended up with a present from a friend of a 1954 E-Series Ashwood Fender Stratocaster (very rare and cost thousands of pounds, plus more for the modifications to make it look exactly like Eric Clapton's Blackie, complete with cigarette burns and scratches), which I hardly touched as I wasn't playing much in bands then, and I gave it back to him for that reason. Stay low at first, but I do recommend Yamaha.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 00:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Add me to the chorus of "me toos" for buying a cheapo for your first guitar. The real "high-end" expensive guitars are only good because of their ability to produce subtle variations in tone that only skilled players would be able to play around with anyways. If you are a new player, a $100 knock-off will sound the same as a $5000 Martin. That's because for the first year, all you're going to be doing is learning how to play it real basic. You need to develop the muscle memory and finger strength and callouses and all of that sort of stuff. Basically, you're fingers have to learn how to play the guitar first, and when you're still in that stage, it will ALWAYS sound like shit regardless of how much you spent on the guitar. So buy a shitty guitar until you start to notice that it sounds like shit. Once you start hanging out in guitar stores and start to notice how much better you can make a more expensive guitar sound; then its time to upgrade. But it will seriously take a year or two before you ever get to that point, if ever. Heck, I still play the same $100 Takamine Jasmine I got when I was learning. It holds a tune for ever, and as long as I put some nice strings on it frequently, it sounds great. I mean, I have once played a Martin, and it was choice, but it wasn't worth it to me to spend that kinda cash. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I played a 1944 Martin Acoustic - Eric Clapton's very first guitar (the actual one, bought at Christie's by a friend of mine for $495,000). It had a beautiful tone to it, and a lovely smell, but I would never pay that much for a guitar, even if it IS Eric Clapton's. Jayron's advice is very well put, and very sound advice (pardon the pun).--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 11:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Company Of Heroes

Is it possible to actually make tanks and other vehicles in the skirmish scenarios of Company Of Heroes? I capture all the fuel depots, but have no use for them. There was only one campaign scenario where I have managed to do it, actually from the original HQ where all the engineers come from, but I have no idea why. It just happened, and I suspect it was built into the scenario to do that.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 17:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have to use your engineers/pioneers to construct the buildings that give you access to the tanks. Like at the start you can only build a barracks, as your build and unlock more stuff, the tank factory will become available. Chaosandwalls (talk) 18:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're talking about the new game modes that came out with Tales of Valour, then possibly not. In the classic mode, you are required to build the base buildings in the tech tree, or else gain enough command points to call them in as a special ability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.132.4.26 (talk) 00:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of Tales Of Valour, it opens up in a window rather than full-screen, and this makes it difficult to control, because when I scroll down (i.e. try to put the mouse at the bottom of the window, which is actually off-screen) it just brings up my task-bar, which I keep hidden because I use RocketDock. This is making the game unplayable. Also, after I have tried to play it and get fed up because I don't know what to do to make it work, trying to play the original Company Of Heroes is a PITA because it needs to be reinstalled, for some reason. Can anyone help me with this multitude of issues?--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 01:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.relic.com/support/ 142.132.4.26 (talk) 02:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]