Miscellaneous desk
< April 4	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 6 >

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 5

Anyone know what the item shown in this link is?

This item was found on a farm. It's about 3 feet long. http://wonderley.com/Misc/whatsthis.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wonderley (talk • contribs) 03:24, 5 April 2014 (UTC) Wonderley (talk) 03:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did anyone else have a problem with not being able to use the back button after clicking on that link ? StuRat (talk) 03:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yup mine too. Richard Avery (talk) 15:29, 5 April 2014 (UTC) [reply]

I'd guess it goes around an animal's neck, perhaps a sheep, to secure it while shearing off the wool ? StuRat (talk) 03:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shearers have for centuries been using a traditional method of holding sheep with one hand while shearing with the other, besides, the pincer end don't seem to open very wide, just the bendiness of the arms, given the block on the left to which the arms are secured. The handle attached to the 'upper' arm looks as though it is to open the arms, but not much. Maybe a device to put into a bovine or equine mouth to administer drenches although searching doesn't throw up much of use. Of course, we should not discount a rural joker making a device that looks old and purposeful but has the main purpose of making them city folk puzzle awhile. Richard Avery (talk) 15:29, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this device is for particularly mean rams. And it might have been quite a bit more flexible when new (maybe made of green wood) than it is now. And those blocks to which it's attached might be secured with screws, allowing it to be opened up as needed. StuRat (talk) 15:35, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As for the problem of not being able to use the back button. My domain name wonderley.com reroutes to my current IP address, so "back" just reroutes back to wonderley.com. For any link that reroutes, just click back twice fairly quickly. Sorry for the trouble. Wonderley (talk) 01:22, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or people could go to Preferences > Gadgets > Browsing and click the check box to have external links open in a new tab. Dismas|^(talk) 04:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah although I couldn't confirm because this doesn't seem to be a problem on my mobile browser (although I did see the redirection), I expected and was going to suggest the same thing as it's something I encounter occasionally on a variety of pages which similarly redirect to something. The other alternative if you are having problems clicking the back button fast enough, on most browsers (including IE, Firefox and Chrome) in Windows desktop (probably any computer with 2 button or more mice) you can right/secondary click on the back button which should show you the history. You can then choose the wikipedia page to go back to and skip the intermediate website. On computers without 2 button mice, I guess you'd need to use whatever is the alternative, e.g. hold touch for touch screen devices or command+ or ctrl+ or hold click if you have a 1 button mouse. Nil Einne (talk) 05:10, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Getting back to the subject at hand... it might help if you could describe it a little more. For example, on the right hand side we see two wedges; how securely are they joined to the "arms" of this thing? At the top there's a kind of handle; does it swivel or pivot or anything? Or is it solidly attached? It's about three feet long, but how wide is it? I'm guessing about four inches, but depth can be tricky in this perspective. Matt Deres (talk) 14:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then there's my Q of whether those wedges are attached with screws, so can be loosened up as needed. StuRat (talk) 14:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GOT it!!! Found another one here with more description: http://www.farmcollector.com/tools/january-2013-mystery-tools-d-and-e.aspx#axzz2yBiwKf5S and an answer to what it is : http://www.farmcollector.com/tools/january-2013-mystery-tool-answers.aspx#axzz2yBiwKf5S It is a Leather-work vise. A patent for something like it. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. I DO think their item and this one are the same (even though the "handle" is the opposite direction, but did you look at the link to the patent that gave them this conclusion? The leather work vice in the patent is NOTHING like this item. Wonderley (talk) 17:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Taoka Mitsuru

According to [1], Taoka Mitsuru was the son of Taoka Kazuo und a filmproducer. Are there any other sources about him? --Dandelo (talk) 12:44, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about this? Oda Mari (talk) 15:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Car cameras on masts

Automakers finally seem to be figuring out that they can add backup cameras and such to cars. One safety problem I've noticed in heavy traffic is the inability to see past the car in front of you, which reduces your warning of a problem ahead (you can try to increase your following distance to compensate, but other drivers will just pull into any gap you leave open). A camera on a mast on top of your car might solve that problem without blocking the view of the cars behind you (as just getting a taller vehicle would). My questions:

1) Is anybody doing this now or working on it ?

2) Would it be legal in most jurisdictions ? Some rather tall CB antennas were in use a few decades ago, although those had flexible masts, while these would need to be rigid.

3) I'm thinking some type of image stabilization program would need to be run on the image to compensate for swaying. Are such programs cheap and available ? (If not, I suppose you could still see taillights lighting up ahead on it.)

StuRat (talk) 16:09, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't seen the Infiniti Q50 commercial (ad nauseum) boasting of the feature that warns you about a possible collision "two cars ahead"? (Oddly enough, it's not mentioned in either that article or Collision avoidance system.) It sort of talks about it here, but doesn't really explain anything. It does say "Radar scanners, laser scanners, and cameras are installed around the car to constantly capture the car’s surroundings", but in reference to a different feature. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unless that radar can pass through the cars in front of you, I don't get how it could do what they claim, unless they do intend to use a mast, as I suggested. StuRat (talk) 04:27, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stu, how would your rigid "mast" cope with low clearance bridges? One I'm familiar with is 1.9 metres (6 feet) high. HiLo48 (talk) 04:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is one low bridge. We have trucks here, and bridges are designed to let them fit under, so any reasonable length mast ought to work. I did think that having the ability to fold it down would be smart for places like parking garages with low clearances. Maybe it could unfold, then telescope up, to fully deploy it. StuRat (talk) 06:01, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It could raise and lower like a periscope. → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 11:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would require a vertical tube in the passenger compartment to receive it, and that might not be welcomed by consumers. StuRat (talk) 15:01, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go. Infiniti says it sends "a radar pulse underneath the car just in front of you that locks onto the second vehicle". Clarityfiend (talk) 15:35, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit skeptical that such an approach would work reliably. How about low ground clearance sports cars ? How about rises, dips, potholes and bumps in the road ? If it's trying to bounce off the pavement under the car in front, those things would be a problem, not to mention gravel or dirt roads (or paved roads with snow or salt on them). If trying to send a direct signal under the car in front, the radar signal and detector unit would need to be very close to the ground, making them likely to be damaged. StuRat (talk) 15:44, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't necessarily need to be central on the car, so it could retract into a side pillar rather than the passenger cabin. MChesterMC (talk) 08:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It need not even be that tall. Even just six inches would give you much more of a view when you factor in the distance between the roof and the eyes of the driver. Dismas|^(talk) 08:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

6 inches might not be enough to see over the SUV in front of you (although, admittedly, if there's a commercial truck in front of you, it may not be possible to see over that). I do think a central location would be better, too, as that makes it less likely to hit things on the side, like overhanging trees in need of a trim. If it were placed on one side, the driver's side would be better, giving a view more in line with their location and being less likely to hit anything there. StuRat (talk) 15:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

People who married each other more than once

I seem to be forever coming across cases of notable people who married someone, divorced them, then married them again (and sometimes divorced them again). Liz Taylor and Richard Burton are one well-known example, but there are a whole heap of others. We can do with a comprehensive list, but I don't want to recreate the wheel, as it were. Is there a handy list somewhere already? I've had a look around but nothing's coming up. Thanks. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:03, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See 26 Celebrities Who Married the Same Person Twice. Wikipedia can have Category:People who remarried the same person and "List of people who remarried the same person".

—Wavelength (talk) 20:20, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just pointing out that it double counts the Burton/Taylor marriages since it is listing individual celebs and not couples. Dismas|^(talk) 01:45, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Wavelength, that's a good starting point. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:31, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The new category and the new list can be in Category:Married couples.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]