Miscellaneous desk
< January 18	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 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.

January 19

rv propane systems

I have a fifth wheel travel trailer with dual propane tanks. Each tank is on the opposite side of the trailer from the other. Both tanks feed into a automatic switch over valve. The side furthest from the dual regulator does not feed enough gas to operate the furnace when the valve on the other tank is turned off. If both valves are turned on and the selector switch is pointed to the problem tank it will operate the furnace until the tank is about half full, but will not completely empty the tank. The problem side has a separate pressure regulator feeding into a black iron pipe to cross over to the opposite side of the trailer. The pressure regulator is listed as 18 psi. Could this regulator cause a low supply of gas if it is failing?

Sounds possible, yes. Another possibility is a blockage in the pipe. For example, if it was left open without the propane tank attached, insects might have nested in there. You might try blowing air through the pipe, while open at both ends, with a wet/dry vac. StuRat (talk) 05:20, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting that a tank when it is about half full, fails to deliver sufficient gas. I am wondering if the 'propane' tanks that arrives contains a high proportion of butane. Nothing wrong with butane (it is more valuable that propane) but the pressure could fall off as the propane will gasify first. You are not unique in having this sort of set up and so it is probably worth going to an expert, who has not only seen this problem before but knows how to fix it. If it we me, I would fit variable pressure regulators and adjust them... but then again, it it not my trailer that is going to blow up if I get it wrong. Not-that-I -ever-get-anything-wrong - I might add – just ask my wife.--Aspro (talk) 21:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Nothing more than an expensive toy"

I've often heard people criticize new inventions as being just pricey toys, and many of those went on to revolutionize the industry, like cars and airplanes. Now I'd like to know about the opposite, things which were supposed to change the world, but never did. One that comes to mind is the Segway Scooter. Flying cars and jet packs might be other examples. StuRat (talk) 16:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sinclair C5 --Viennese Waltz 16:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Gravity powered aircraft" [1] —E:71.20.250.51 (talk) 17:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HOTOL. Tevildo (talk) 20:26, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although it's probably covered by "flying cars", the idea of the personal helicopter has been around since the 1930's without ever really getting anywhere. And, of course, MSN was originally going to replace the Internet, although it wasn't really a failure. Tevildo (talk) 20:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Videophones - in terms of them making voice calls obsolete? I'm also old enough to remember a time when it was claimed that shoelaces would no longer be needed in the future, due to the invention of a dial that you twisted to tighten your shoes (haha, no - it really wasn't that long ago, but I had a pair of trainers that had one of those). --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 20:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Voice calls are mostly obsolete as far as I am concerned. I only ever make calls using facetime or Skype, or using my work phone, which has also a screen and a video feed. --Lgriot (talk) 15:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But videophones are revolutionary in other ways (for instance, communication in visual languages), and I don't think they belong in this category personally. - Purplewowies (talk) 03:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stu's question involves the words "things which were supposed to change the world". (My emphasis.) My question is, who said they were supposed to change the world? Typically it's marketing people, or the media, or both. And to my mind, they're often just plain wrong to start with. I could never see how the Segway was going to change the world. Who wants to stand up on their journey if there's an option to sit down? Jet packs were always going to be fuel hungry, heavy and challenging to control. Flying cars were going to need some sort of anti-gravity mechanism to overcome the same problems. And air traffic control was an issue that always came to mind. So maybe the question should more about somebody's gullibility. HiLo48 (talk) 21:07, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And there are "things which are going to change the world when someone gets them to work", such as fusion power and 3D television... Tevildo (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

True, and some things just start off slowly. Cars, for example, were first invented in the 1890's, but most families didn't own one until maybe the 1950's. And those early models really were just rich men's toys, not something of any practical value. StuRat (talk) 15:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The thing that makes the Segway so interesting from this perspective (and I think what StuRat is after) isn't that it failed to be a huge success - it's that it was PROMOTED as a world-changing thing - and turned out to be a joke. There are plenty of other similar toys that didn't get long-term popularity - but it's hard to come up with things that were hyped as being the most revolutionary thing ever to happen to mankind, and then turned out to be a toy.

Initially, they said that "Ginger" or just ("IT") would change how cities are designed, revolutionize everything about the way we live...but that was at a time when the product itself was completely secret...they wouldn't even say what kind of a thing it was! "Buy our thing! It'll change the world!" So people speculated and came up with all sorts of fascinating and exciting ideas over what Ginger might be...would it be a new free-energy source? A new kind of plane? A new kind of building technique? A household robot? A nanotechnology replicator? Their secrecy was so good that nobody knew anything beyond that it's a world-changing technology leap! Then they showed the Segway to a few select people - heavily editing their reactions to it so it seemed as if they said things like "Wow! It's just like flying!" - and "It seems like it can just read your thoughts!"....which made they hype even worse! And then when they actually launched it - a massive anticlimax. It wasn't even particularly new - they'd been making a two-wheeled balancing wheelchair for disabled people called "iBOT" - and during the "Ginger" hype, several people mentioned this product as something the same company had worked on - and kinda said "Well, it can't possibly be *THAT*!"...

The fundamental problem of what you do with the thing when you arrive at your destination really dooms it as a technology. It's really heavy to carry - it'll probably be mud-splattered and wet - unless you're rather short, you can't ride it through doorways and it won't go up and down staircases - and it's REALLY expensive to leave padlocked to a bike rack. It's not that people would want to redesign cities because of it...it's that without radically redesigning cities, the darned thing is useless! Basically it loses to bicycles for "green travel" and loses to electric cars for convenience and to skateboards for fun. Just like the infamous Sinclair C5 - it's useless as anything other than a curiosity - except in some very niche applications (Mall cops, for example). An electric scooter is simpler, cheaper and just as effective - that invention didn't change the world - so why would anyone imagine that having two side-by-side wheels and some fiendishly clever balancing mechanism would? Marketing gone nuts! SteveBaker (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with your excellent assessment of why the Segway is so useless, but I don't agree that the interesting thing about it is the way it was marketed. Any idiot can make hyperbolic statements, and there are plenty of supine media outlets ready to lap them up. No, what I find more interesting is the sheer hubris and ignorance of the device's inventor (Dean Kamen, it seems). How could anyone who claims to be an inventor come up with something so stupid? What on earth possessed him to (presumably) spend large sums of money on bringing to market something so patently ridiculous? --Viennese Waltz 12:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is off-topic of course, but I just want to say how glad I am that the Segway has not caught on. I don't begrudge them to anyone with physical limitations who otherwise wouldn't be able to get around and see stuff. But for everyone else — you're going to let a machine walk for you? Really? Shouldn't you be embarrassed? --Trovatore (talk) 20:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I don't think it's completely useless, just a niche market item. It certainly isn't a replacement for a car, as it can't carry passengers or much cargo, can't go nearly as fast, and can't protect you from the weather. It does have one advantage over bicycles, though, in that you don't have to sit on a seat so small that all your weight is balanced on your scrotum. StuRat (talk) 23:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but there are other bicycle designs, electric scooters, skateboards and even powered rollerskates that have that problem covered...and those aren't especially popular either. SteveBaker (talk) 16:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even on a standard bike, it's usually a solvable problem if you get the right saddle and figure out how to use it right. I support my weight partly using my feet on the pedals, and partly with my thighs gripping the saddle (too big or too soft a saddle is actually bad for this purpose), and keep it off the pudendal nerve. This has the added advantage of moving my center of gravity backwards. --Trovatore (talk) 20:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As for technologies that claimed to be revolutionary - but weren't - I recall a piece of software from the 1980's called "The Last One" - which was an application the purported to write computer programs for you (hence it would be "The last one" - the last computer program ever written by hand. Needless to say, it was pretty much useless - it basically translated a more English-like (and heavily restricted) language in to BASIC...so you still had to know how to program in order to use it - and (as you can tell!) it most definitely wasn't the last program ever to be written! SteveBaker (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There were high hopes in the early 1970s for the British-developed linear induction motor which was going to allow trains to travel at hundreds of miles an hour at minimal expense. See 300 MPH Monorail of the Future, Popular Mechanics, Nov 1971. Alansplodge (talk) 17:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise the hovercraft (aka Ground Effect Machine) was expected (at least by Arthur C. Clarke) to supersede other forms of land and sea transport. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 09:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you know why hovercrafts never caught on, of course. The wretched things kept filling up with eels. Now, how was Clarke supposed to have predicted that? --Trovatore (talk) 10:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Eels ? StuRat (talk) 23:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty Hungarian Phrasebook. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC) [reply]

I see. I saw that sketch, but didn't recall that particular phrase. StuRat (talk) 03:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Kibbutz Shmaryahu

Can any user please inform me where I may find information on Kibbutz Shmaryahu which was situated in Wiltshire England in 1945? Thank you Simonschaim (talk) 17:41, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not proving easy to track down. It was in Bosham (Sussex, not Wiltshire), and I believe it (along with two other establishments, one at Hurst Grange, near Reading, and one at Horsham) was founded by David Eder. See this unsigned article describing the author's time at the Hurst Grange kibbutz. I'm sure there's more information to be found, though. Tevildo (talk) 20:13, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Sussex one does seem to have been in Wiltshire until 1946, when it moved to Bosham. The term for these farms appears to be hachshara - a communal farm where young people (16+) prepare for agricultural work in an Israeli kibbutz. There's a short memoir from someone who lived in the Wiltshire one on page 8 of this document. No better clues as to the exact location in Wiltshire. - Karenjc (talk) 21:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Using "Kibbutz Shmaryahu" and "Wiltshire" to search, the only other result that I could find was a brief mention on this message board, which perhaps you could post on? Another line of enquiry might be the The Jewish Museum London. Alansplodge (talk) 18:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Simonschaim (talk) 16:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]