Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2014 July 1

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.

July 1

Why was Saddam able to raise an effective army, but US can't?

Hope this doesn't count as opinions, but I can't seem to find the answer elsewhere online.

Why was Saddam Hussein able to raise and train an effective fighting force, but the US cannot with the current crop of Iraqi soldiers? Surely, ISIS would not have been able to take over Mosul this easily when Saddam was in power right? Acceptable (talk) 17:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Being as how the US military defeated Saddam, his force wasn't that effective. But being as how Saddam was a Sunni, if he were still in power there wouldn't likely have been an ISIS. And keep in mind that Saddam ruled with an iron fist for decades. There hasn't been time for his replacement to establish that kind of power. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

It's hard to know where to begin here. First, to counter BB, the Iraqi Army was in fact reasonably effective, for example during the Iran-Iraq War, before years of US sanctions and sabotage wore it down. It was only after years of that process that the Iraqi Army melted away in the face of the US invasion. Next, the OP is comparing apples and oranges. It is one thing for an indigenous leader, almost no matter how autocratic, to organize and, probably more importantly, motivate an army around patriotic ideals. It is quite another for an invading power to motivate a subject army in an occupied country. Frankly, the latter doesn't have much chance of success. If the United States were invaded and occupied by China, China might have similar trouble putting together a motivated subject American army. (Or, if the OP is a Brit, imagine, say, Russia conquering the UK and trying to organize an effective UK force under Russian control.) Finally, the United States is not presently trying to raise and train "the current crop of Iraqi soldiers". US forces have not been active in Iraq for more than two years. During the intervening period, until very recently, the Iraqi government has not been open to a US military presence. Meanwhile, the Maliki government has systematically replaced effective military commanders with cronies and sycophants with little or no military expertise. At the same time, the Maliki government has undermined its own legitimacy with pervasive corruption and repression of minorities. While Saddam repressed minorities, he kept avenues open for advancement, especially in the military, for loyal members of minority groups, and he made effective use of propaganda and other motivational techniques. The Maliki government has done none of those things. Marco polo (talk) 18:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

(ec) He was a local who ruled with a sadistic iron fist, aided by a brutal intelligence service. His soldiers feared him much more than any enemy. The US, on the other hand, was viewed as a conquering outsider and couldn't go around shooting or torturing people, raping their wives and daughters, etc. out of hand. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

(ec) And, "other motivational techniques" can be effective, assuming one doesn't want to "disappear" along with the rest of one's extended family.  —71.20.250.51 (talk) 18:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there's any fundamental disagreement between the three responders so far. The OP's operating from a flawed premise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:53, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, Saddam was willing to do whatever it took, including using poison gas on civilians, to crush any rebellion. Imagine what would happen if the US did that or trained the current Iraqi soldiers to do that. Quite possibly there is no method, short of that, which will hold together a nation cobbled together out of 3 major ethnic and religious groups (Sunnis, Shia, and Kurds) and other minor groups. Allowing them to go their separate ways might be better than forcing groups which hate each other to live together. Of course, ISIS is not a good choice to lead the Sunnis, so we might want to take them on, but not to return control to the Shia, who are determined to oppress them, but rather to a secular democratic Sunni government. The Shia had their chance to govern them, and failed miserably. The Shia portion of Iraq will likely become a client state of Iran, but that's better than all of Iraq becoming so. Iraqi Kurdistan should be a good partner in the region, and hopefully can retain control of some of the oil fields in the north. StuRat (talk) 23:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

You've hit upon the answer to the success of ISIS. They are willing to do "whatever it takes", no matter how brutal it may appear. The only way to defeat those guys is to kill them all. Which is easier said than done, obviously. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

And they've been fighting in Sunni areas, where their natural base of support is. As they move into Shia and Kurdish areas they will encounter major resistance for the first time. StuRat (talk) 02:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

It could be entertaining to watch rival warring factions anihilate each other, if it weren't for the oil factor. I recall something Will Rogers said about what would happen if Germany were to move next to Japan and if they would start a war with each other: "If they want to fight, let 'em fight, who cares? We'd run excursions to a war like that!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Yea, if the terrorists of different factions would just target each other with suicide bombs, etc., that would be ideal. Unfortunately, they all target civilians, instead, as that's what makes them terrorists. Also, the military training and weapons they get during such wars are inevitably turned against the West as soon as that war ends, or perhaps even before. I believe a Syrian militant already launched an attack in Europe, for example. StuRat (talk) 16:13, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

''kill them all" - that's a depressingly inhuman and outright stupid comment. Indeed, it exhibits the same level of willingness to do "whatever it takes" that you assume for the other side. Humans have free will - they can change their opinion and behaviour, and indeed, do so all the time. The proper way to handle fanaticism is with reason, understanding, and argument, not with counter-fanaticism. Very few people get up in the morning with a maniacal laugh like The Joker and plan to "do evil". Of course, a measured, careful, thinking approach to the problem is a lot harder than just trying to bomb people back into the stone age (or, according to your comment, into the Pliocene). But at least it has a chance to succeed. And even if it fails we have one beacon of civilisation left, not just two groups of murderous fanatics. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I was quoting Bill O'Reilly. Obviously you can't literally kill them all. But when you're dealing with brutes who won't negotiate, there's little else to be done. The choices are (1) let them take over, or (2) stop them from taking over. You're making the Neville Chamerlain argument - reason with Hitler and everything will be OK. Right. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

That's an impressive display of begging the question, false dichotomy, and Godwin's law in one paragraph. And I'm assuming for your sake that mentioning Bill O'Reilly was for informational purposes only, and not an appeal to authority... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:22, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

No, just to let you know that he said it before I did. So, Neville, how do you plan to get ISIS to negotiate? Why would they want or need to? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Saddam Hussein could "raise" an effective army. define "effective"? They committed genocide, they fought the Iranians for over a decade, but were NOT "effective" fighting US armed forces. The US can't [raise an effective army]. This is an OPINION and furthermore is contrary to the facts. Do you mean that the Iraq Army, which was organized and taught with a lot of help from the US has shown to be ineffective when confronted with ISIS? I would suggest if you actually have a question, you articulate it in a clear fashion. Are you wondering why the Iraq Army hasn't been effective? But that's not what you wrote, you said "the US can't". Which is simply and obviously inflammatory opinion. There are two good ways I can think of to answer a sincere question on this topic: 1) Refer to the latest "fitness" reports on the various divisions of that armed force. My recollection is that, in general, only specific units were rated as competent but most were not (prior to US withdrawal in 2011). What the reports (if the reports) have changed since then, you are free to inquire to the Iraqis about. 2) No clear picture has emerged. Debriefing of an enormous number of deserters would be required to answer you. This may or may not occur in the decades to follow, but should be considered a question for historical study, not current events. It will require a lot of scholarship and time, if it is to be answered. As far as opinion, I've got some of those too. A) Most democracies can't nation build (too squeemish about spilling blood of its own troops, or the blood of innocents) B) Nation building takes decades, and requires being willing to do what it takes - in terms of cost, blood, and resources. C) Iraq was and is a sectarian country roughly divided between the Kurds, Sunnis and Shia. There is enormous distrust between these ethnic/religious groups, the current Shia government has made a great effort to marginalize Sunni power, although under Saddam Sunni's were the group in power. Add pervasive government corruption, disinclination to be inclusive and the resulting "country" was highly unlikely to survive. (As anyone who has paid attention to the USSR, South Africa, Yugoslavia, and countless other examples down through history will demonstrate).173.189.75.163 (talk) 17:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

"kill them all" is a depressingly human comment 2A01:E34:EF5E:4640:D476:E179:A1F5:15A6 (talk) 11:20, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

If you've got a better solution for dealing with ISIS, let us know. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:30, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

There are many approaches to dealing with a military threat, short of killing every one of them. Taking out their command and control is perhaps the best choice here. They might continue to operate as individual cells of suicide bombers, etc., but wouldn't be as able to hold much ground without central control. StuRat (talk) 14:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

undertile heating in a bathroom

Hello. I am having some renovations done in my house and am considering having undertile heating in the bathroom. This is in a no-sunlight basement, south-facing, in Auckland. Has anyone got undertile heating installed and, if so, do you use it? Can anyone offer unbiased advice on the pros and cons? thanks in advance, Robinh (talk) 21:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Can you be more specific ? Are you talking about hydronic heating ? The floor heating method should help if you have a problem with a cold floor. Do you intend to heat the room full-time, or only when in use ? In the latter case, a heat lamp on a timer can be a more effective method to get the room up to an acceptable temperature quickly, and also avoid leaving it on. A heated toilet seat is also a nice touch, especially for women (who spend more of their bathroom visits seated) with a rug on the floor so you don't feel those cold tiles. Aiming the heat lamp at the toilet seat is an alternative.

Also, is there a shower or tub on the bathroom ? If so, then you also have to worry about condensation on the cold exterior walls and windows. So, you will need to focus on warming those, or you may get mold growing as a result of that condensation. A good ventilation system can also help, if it gets the moist air out of there quickly, before much condensation can occur. StuRat (talk) 21:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

(OP) Thanks guys. The system is electric. There is a bath in there and a shower cubicle. I'd have the floor switched on only for short periods (morning, I guess); the builders tell me that we can install a timer switch. I worry that the floor would be expensive to run. We have a heated towel rail in there too; there will be an extractor fan too. We already have a DVS but no vent in the bathroom. best wishes, Robinh (talk) 22:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

That certainly would be an expensive method to heat the bathroom full-time, but won't be an issue if you only heat it when in use. However, it will take quite a while to heat the bathroom that way, as the heat must pass by through the floor tiles, whereas the heat lamp/radiant heating method starts to heat up the bathroom instantly. Unless you think you can turn on the floor heat, wait an hour, then use the bathroom, I wouldn't recommend that method. Also, the floor might get uncomfortably hot if you crank the heat up to max to heat the whole room quickly.

I'm also a bit uncomfortable mixing electricity and water like that. Presumably the electrical wires will be properly installed and insulated so no water can get to them, but you need to think ahead, decades, when cracks might develop and water from the shower or an overflowing sink, tub, or toilet could leak down into the wires. At that point you could have a dangerous situation. StuRat (talk) 22:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

(OP) Thanks StuRat. The installation guys are 100% competent, and working to very strict oversight from the local authority, and have done many similar systems in the past, so I'm not at all worried about safety. IIRC there is a thermostat in there too so it won't get too hot. Perhaps in 10 years time, underfloor bathroom heating will be the norm (like en-suite bathrooms are now) so it will be difficult to sell a house without one? Robinh (talk) 23:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, like I said, I'm confident that it will be installed safely, but such a system is inherently dangerous, so that if the floor cracks as the foundation settles, etc., it will then become dangerous. I'd like to see all electrical wires well above the floor to prevent that risk, which, of course, leaves out under-tile heating. As for the time delay issue, I suggest you find somebody who has such a system, and visit them on a cold day to see for yourself how long it takes to heat the bathroom that way. My guess is that it will be an unacceptably long period.

Also, I should mention that the install cost of the heat lamp/radiant heater is far less, and maintenance or replacement is far easier, quicker, and less expensive. (Just replace the bulb, as opposed to ripping up the floor.) StuRat (talk) 23:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

As for "inherently dangerous", perhaps you have heard of Ground fault circuit interrupters? (They're probably called something else in New Zealand; there are many names for them, as the article indicates.) --50.100.189.160 (talk) 03:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, those are designed to improve safety for inherently dangerous situations like this. Avoiding such inherently dangerous situations in the first place is another option. StuRat (talk) 04:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

My parents have that, hot water from a wood burner circulates under the floor. The main benefit that other forms of heating don't provide is that if you run it under the tub then the water stays warm no matter how long of a bath you take. Cats love it too. Katie R (talk) 12:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that's quite the same. That's the hydronic system I mentioned in my first post, while the OP is talking about having electrical wires under the floor to provide heating. The hydronic system would at least alleviate my fears of water and electricity mixing, and also overheating leading to fires seems less likely, but I still wonder how quickly it could heat the room. What's your experience ? How long does it take the room (not just the floor) to go from ice cold to warm ? StuRat (talk) 16:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I know it isn't the same as the electric system, but I thought I would out the nicest feature I had noticed with underfloor heating. It also warms your towel if you leave it on the floor. Nothing about the system is comparable for performance so I didn't bother with details there. It's on the same zone as the living room and kitchen, and if the water isn't warm (no fire, circulator pump isn't running because tank is still warming up, etc) then the house's gas furnace kicks in as a backup, so I don't think I've ever seen it try to warm up the bathroom from cold temperatures.

I guess I'm not as worried about the electrical under the floor - it certainly is a potential problem, but I'm also assuming that the installation will include GFCI breakers or other protection to prevent it from becoming an actual safety issue. If it breaks it could still be a service nightmare because it is under tile. I installed the water tubing beneath the floor where it is easy to service because I had access from the basement, but that's not really an option for you. There is underfloor heating in the basement too, but foundation was actually poured around it, encasing the tubes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katie Ryan A (talk • contribs) 19:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I can guarantee you that water will, sooner or later, find its way into the floor. You, the OP, don't seem to want to hear that. OK, fine. Ask your contractor about what the warranty period is (and what's covered) and if it were to fail, what would be required to fix it? (tear up floor and start over, probably). Have they been in business for 10 years? If not, then you have your answer. If so, then talk to a customer who has had a similar installation for 10, 15 or 20 years. Most water heating systems are designed to run full time, but I'm no expert. Why in the world would you want a heated towel bar, LOL! A bread-warmer type cabinet would leave the (unused, folded) towels so nice and toasty, nice. A towel bar? Lame(IMHO). I don't understand your reluctance to use 1) hot air or 2) IR lighting. A couple of rugs on the floor would keep toes comfortable. Anyway, you should be very interested in finding out how long it takes for the floor to warm up, and need to find that out by experiencing it, imho. (and get the wattage details, too). I just put a cutout rug around my toilet and its so nice when I get up in the middle of the night not to be shocked by my feet on cold tile...If the room is damp, the floor won't help much...good warm air ventillation is the way to go (push in at floor, pull out at ceiling). I guess if your schedule is almost always the same (within 5 -10 minutes) then the heat will be there when you want it. My bathroom visits are far too random for anything but "always on" to work. My most important recommendation is to make sure you understand what the maintenance requirements will be (keeping tile sealed?) and when (not if) it breaks, what then? Specifically, I don't know any electrical resistance heating element that should be expected to last for 20 years of daily use, do you? Oh, by the way, I don't think lights heat the floor very fast, and if they do they are too intense - I feel like I'm being broiled. A really neat thing I saw in Japan was heated (from behind) mirrors...never foggy...so cool to shave by. Perhaps the devil's in the details. Does the timer system work both by (say) time and also have a motion detector...if someone comes into the basement will it fire up (for 20 minutes, say)?173.189.75.163 (talk) 17:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Yea, rugs are definitely the way to go to keep from getting cold feet. The toilet seat is the other problem, and, if not a heated toilet seat, they might want to get a soft seat. Those have foam with a plastic liner. They aren't such a shock on cold days, but do need to be replaced every couple of years, as flexing the plastic causes it to tear eventually. But, of course, changing a toilet seat is no big deal. As for the towel warmer, maybe that's an attempt at drying the wet towels before they mildew. Personally, I installed a towel rack outside the bathroom, where the wet towels can be spread out and dry quickly, in a less humid environment. StuRat (talk) 02:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

These products may be new to some reference desk answerers but they are quite common. A quick google finds multiple companies making these systems and warranties of 25 and 30 years.[1][2] I think a little too much personal preferences is getting into the answers. 75.41.109.190 (talk) 02:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The first link only warranties the controls for 2 years, so it doesn't sound like they have much faith in those. The second link also describes different length warranties for different products, from 1 year to 30 years. However, they only cover "normal use and maintenance", so that would exclude any water leak that got to the heating elements.

Such a system might be fine where flooding wouldn't be expected, like in a living room. But bathrooms, kitchens, and basements should all be expected to flood occasionally. In this case, the OP is talking about a bathroom in a basement, so there's a double risk of flooding. StuRat (talk) 02:54, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I have a small electric mat under stone tile in a half-bath, which has worked well for 15 years. By code and common sense such installations are required to be protected by a GFCI. They can in fact be installed under showers nowadays: the wiring is insulated and encased in a mat suitable for application between layers of thinset grout. The GFCIs are proprietary. Installation instructions are very specific and require extensive continuity testing. Acroterion (talk) 03:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The GFCI, if it functions properly, should prevent electrocution. However, you'd still need to rip out the floor once water started leaking down there, to replace everything. 15 years isn't bad, but I'd hope to never have to rip up my floor, once it's installed. StuRat (talk) 04:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

(OP) [unsure of outdent etiquette]. Thanks everyone! @StuRat: it's not really a basement, more of ground floor flat with a house on top, on a slope. It's well above ground level on the downslope side of the house, but below ground level on the upslope side. We have ample drainage channels (scoria). An unbiased person has pointed out that the new rooms on the lower floor have no source of built-in heating except for what we put in the bathroom, and suggested strongly that we install the underfloor heating, to keep the basement dry as much as anything. I've been given a 10-15 minute warmup time too. I appreciate all the advice! This is a difficult decision for me. Thanks again, Robinh (talk) 03:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Is that 10-15 minutes to warm up the floor, or the entire room ? That might be fine to warm it up before bathing, but you probably don't want to wait that long each time to use the toilet. As for using the underfloor heating to fight moisture, then you would have to leave it on full time, and that will get expensive.

Is electrical heating the only option ? It's not a bad choice for occasional zone heating, but heating large areas electrically, full-time, will get expensive. Venting the bathroom humidity outside, instead of into the house, is also important to keeping it dry, so you may want to invest more money there so you can keep the bottom floor cooler without getting mold. StuRat (talk) 04:13, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

thanks StuRat. we have an extractor fan and DVS, but I still worry about dampness. The plan is to have it on for 20 mins each morning from 5:40-6:00am, surely not too expensive in terms of electricity. I have a follow-on question which I'll add below. Best wishes, Robinh (talk) 04:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Keep what on for 20 minutes, the extractor fan or heat ? In any case, that's probably not enough to drive the moisture out after a bath or shower. You would want to keep both on until all of the water in the shower stall and on the damp towels has evaporated. This will likely take hours. After that, you can turn the extractor fan off, but you still need to keep the area warm. If you don't, there's the danger that the temperature will drop below the dew point, and condensation will cause mold. The outside dew point will affect this, as, no matter how well sealed a house seems to be, outside humidity finds it's way inside. I should ask, is dampness on the lower level a problem now ? StuRat (talk) 14:24, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I meant the electric heating wires on for 20 mins. I don't know if dampness on the lower level is a problem because most of the structure is newly built. The DVS is very effective at keeping the upper level dry, but whether it will work on the lower level I don't yet know. This is one of the reasons I'm weighing up the benefits of underfloor heating so carefully. Best wishes, Robinh (talk) 19:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

StuRat statement is likely misleading. I've looked in to before, and even if you are in a gas network area (I'm not sure what percentage of Auckland houses are but I'm pretty sure it's well under 50%), a heat pump (which is effectively heating your house electrically) will generally have a lower operating cost than natural gas or any other non electrical forms of heating. I'm not sure if the OP is considering a heatpump, but StuRat's comment seemed to be general. Even resistive heating is not necessarily that much more than natural gas, and may be better than some other forms of non eletrical heating. See e.g. [3] [4] [5] . Of course, as noted in the forum link, there is a risk you may end up using your heat pump for cooling even though it isn't necessary which may negatively effect your costs but that wasn't part of StuRat's comment.

Also is 173.189.75.163 really suggesting the OP only use a towel once, or am I misunderstanding something? In any case, while I'm not sure of the relevance, probably a large percentage of Auckland water heaters are connected such that they can be turned off at peak times by the supply company so they are unlikely to be running 24/7. In fact it probably isn't that uncommon people choose to connect them to a night only meter instead.

P.S. 50.100.189.160 is of course correct. In New Zealand, any new circuit in a damp area, including those in bathrooms, is legally required to be connected to an RCD. So too any new power outlet. I think this has been the case for 10 years or more. [6].

Nil Einne (talk) 14:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I see nothing in this question about heat pumps, so did not discuss that possibility. StuRat (talk) 14:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

But the OP hasn't said anything at all about how they plan to heat the house generally either. They only mentioned how they plan to heat the ground floor basement flat of indeterminate size, with undertile heating (and they also have DVS). Yet you specifically said "Is electrical heating the only option ? It's not a bad choice for occasional zone heating, but heating large areas electrically, full-time, will get expensive". As I pointed out already, a heatpump can effectively heating a large area electrically and it very likely has a cheaper running cost than any other form of heating in the OP's specific locale. So your statement which suggested heating large areas 'electrically' will 'get expensive' is frankly wrong (since the cheapest form of heating for the OP, which you didn't discuss because it wasn't mentioned even though the OP didn't mention anything else either, is potentially 'electrically') and in any case irrelevant (at least in accordance with your latest reply) since we have no idea of how the OP plans to heat large areas. The OP has also given no indication any is expect to live in the basement throughout the day, so it's unclear why you believe there is any plan to heat it 'full-time'. Not to mention, as I also said, it's unclear if your statement is true even if we're only talking about electrical resistive heating. Nil Einne (talk) 15:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

As they clarified later, it's not really a basement, and they also mentioned the need to keep it heated to avoid moisture accumulation. This would require full-time heating, although perhaps to a lower temperature than the rest of the house. And, to clarify, by "heating large areas electrically", I meant resistive heating. I wouldn't call a heat pump "heating an area electrically", but rather "heating an area with outside heat, using electricity to transport that heat". I use fans at night to cool my home with outside air, but wouldn't call that "cooling my home electrically", either. StuRat (talk) 15:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. I don't care if it's a basement. (Actually I know it's not really a basement since probably less than 1% of houses in Auckland have a basement. In fact I was very surprised with all this basement talk but since the OP did mention a basement, I held my tongue. With the OP's more recent description, I have some idea of what the OP may be referring to as I happen to have a relative with a very similar house albeit not newly built. ) My point is that it sounds like it may not be a large area of the OPs house. Also there's no reason to think full time heating makes sense to avoid moisture accumulation (at most perhaps in the early mornings), there are likely better options with a lower running cost if the OP does find it a problem. Note that there's no indication the OP plans to heat the house full time either, I don't know why you believe they do. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on the electrical point but I don't think it's the first time you've been asked to be clearer on what you're referring to. Nil Einne (talk) 15:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

The OP said "An unbiased person has pointed out that the new rooms on the lower floor have no source of built-in heating except for what we put in the bathroom, and suggested strongly that we install the underfloor heating, to keep the basement dry as much as anything". This is what suggested to me they were considering using electrical resistive heating, full-time, to keep the lower floor dry. I agree that this is not a good idea, and this was the whole point in my comment on the expense involved. Also, it should have been clear from the context that I wasn't talking about a heat pump, so you seem to be looking for any opportunity to nitpick. StuRat (talk) 15:29, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

No it was entirely unclear to me that you were referring to electrically resistive heating. Actually it sounded to me a lot like you were referring to all form of electrical heating, by which I include heat pumps as it is a manner of heating a house using electricity. Please don't accuse me of doing things I am not. And there's nothing in the OPs comment suggesting that they felt the need to heat the lower floor full time to keep it dry. They may need to use it for a small part of the day if that. But if they needed to use for the whole day to keep it dry, then since they live in Auckland there's probably something seriously wrong with their house design and a far better suggestion would be for them to look back in to their design first. Not to mention, even if they do use electrical resistive full time to raise the temperature 2 degrees or whatever, you've still provided no evidence it would be cheaper let alone "very expensive" compared to other options. Nil Einne (talk) 15:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

By the way, I've actually avoided mentioning a bunch of other stuff which hasn't been addressed by others but seems to reflect a complete lack of understanding of house design in NZ or Auckland because it didn't seem particularly relevant (particularly given the OPs earlier mention of it being a basement or their latest clarification that the house was on a slope, their mention of tile floors and it being mostly newly built). E.g. the fact that probably most houses in NZ have elevated/raised floors probably partially because with timber floors, you really don't want much moisture reaching it [7] [8]. Or the fact that this and other factors means it's quite common to have at least some electrical wires under the house and that while there are some associated risks, there are also advantages such as being easier to inspect by the homeowner and that I'm pretty sure it's not generally specifical discourage by anyone to have such under house wiring. (The ceiling crawlspace also generally should be accessible, but I think people are much more relucant to go there for obvious reasons.) No one is saying that you have to have a perfect idea of what things are like in a foreign location or that you have to research it before answering, but if the stuff you are saying may be irrelevant to the location you are referring to, it's best to at least mention that in your post. As others have already mentioned, there seems to be a lot here which is really just personal biases based on limited experience with various things being referred to yet there seems an amazing lack of indication by the respondents that's what it is. E.g. heated towel ranks are quite common in NZ and for most people they work resonably well (although you may want to consider a timer). To me, they definitely seem better than only using your towel once and pointlessly heating up all your towels, or whatever 173 was recommending but perhaps there's something I'm missing on what 173 is referring to hence my earlier careful statement. Nil Einne (talk) 16:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

(OP). thanks everyone. I've read everyone's opinions, but I'm no closer to making a decision! Some clarifications: the upper storey was built in the 1960s out of wood; the lower storey was a carport or workshop/shed or similar and the building work we are doing is basically to make it livable. We have a heat pump in the upper storey but not the lower; installing one is an option for the future. I suspect I've been using the word basement differently from how many people understand it. best wishes, Robinh (talk) 21:36, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Chicken cutlets/cutlets in general

I am doing something wrong. Every time I make cutlets my breading doesn't adhere well. I fry it and then it always flaps up in places. I do the standard recipe: dip in flour, shake, dip in well beaten egg batter, shake, dredge in bread crumbs, shake, make sure the oil is fairly hot and fry to a golden brown. Any cooks have a suspicion where I might be going awry? Lady in polka dot (talk) 22:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

What is the temperature of the cutlets to start ? StuRat (talk) 22:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm seeing a few different possibilities, including crowded pan (which effectively reduces the temperature), not enough time between coatings (perhaps do the coating, and let it sit in the fridge for a half hour to let it all bind?), flipping too often, and meat being too wet during the initial flour dipping. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you let the breaded chicken rest? I give them 15-20 minutes before frying, on the theory that egg-water-flour-breadcrubms will form glue and firm up. In your egg add a tablespoon of water or flavorful liquid of choice (worcestershire, whatevs) to help the breadcrumbs join the glue party. 88.112.50.121 (talk) 23:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Overcrowding is a likely culprit, and the suggestion to let stand is also good. Other consideration: what type of pan are you using? A cast iron pan will lose less heat than stainless steel, and in my experience non-stick cookware is the worst for producing a nice golden brown breading. Here's a recipe from America's_Test_Kitchen, which is generally reliable [9]. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)