Miscellaneous desk
< July 12	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 14 >

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 13

WELSHMAN BOB PATON FILED A PATENT ABOUT FLYING AROUND 1896

WELSHMAN BOB PATON FILED A PATENT ABOUT FLYING AROUND 1896. I watched a program on Sky Tv in New Zealand just recently and it talked about this Welshman Bob Paton flying what amounted to an aircraft which was a cross between a propellor driven plane with wings. It had a sort of a balloon fuselage with short wings with a pedal driven Propellor driven from a smaller box suspended below the main fuselage. It also showed very quickly a photo of the Patent he filed for it. He evidently claimed he flew the aircraft/Ballon for 500 yards across a paddock outside a small Welsh village not fr from the coast in Northern Wales. Being a New Zealander, there is a claim by a man called Pierce flew a motor propelled aircraft in a paddock not far from what was then a town called Timaru. This plane is now shown in the Museum of Technology in the suburb of Grey Lynn in the City of Auckland also before the American Wright brothers who only flew a glider the distance of about 50 yards. Can you please show a copy of this Bob Paron's please?

Walter Booth, New Zealand, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.252.192.115 (talk) 04:49, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not an answer, but note that balloon travel had been around for many decades before planes. Mating a balloon with a prop is an improvement, like modern blimps use, but that doesn't make it an airplane. Lighter than air vehicles are basically a dead end, only good for niche markets, as they are slow and strong winds blow them off course. StuRat (talk) 05:00, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a little unclear what you're asking for. I've done a few searches for a copy of Bob Paton's patent, but haven't turned up anything other than some unrelated stuff by a guy at the University of Edinburgh. Are you sure of the spelling? As our articles on Early flying machines, History of aviation, and History of ballooning make clear, the historical record is full to bursting with claims of precedence, but very short on proof. I know nothing of Bob Paton's claim, but it seems obvious that all such claims need to be taken with a grain of salt. Matt Deres (talk) 14:46, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the first British airship flight (an airship is a propeller-driven steerable balloon) is generally attributed to Stanley Spencer who first flew in June 1902. I agree with Matt's comments above; after a thorough Google search, it seems that if Robert (or Bob) Paton existed, he wasn't well documented. I tried Robert Patton too. Alansplodge (talk) 17:46, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suspect OP meant William Frost. Nanonic (talk) 18:04, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From the description - it's definitely William Frost. Flying 500 yards and hitting a tree with a cross between a balloon and a plane is a set of facts that's unlikely to have come from anyplace else. SteveBaker (talk) 19:59, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rainbow pattern on Google Maps

Hello,

At this [1] location on Google Maps, there is a strange rainbow effect. I know about "rainbow airplanes" on Google Maps and this location is in line with one of the runways of Amsterdam Airport, but that is probably a coincidence. It looks like it has to do with the roof of the greenhouse to the southeast. How does this work, optically?

Thank you, 84.106.222.101 (talk) 12:06, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't get a good answer here, I'd suggest moving this question to the Science desk instead. My non-expert opinion is that you're basically correct: the triangular glass roof of the greenhouse is acting as a prism. Sunlight shining from roughly southeast is passing through the glass and refracting and dispersing out the other side. I'm sure it's quite annoying for the people working in that other building. We have a lot of relevant articles, but you can start with the ones I've linked and work your way out from there. Matt Deres (talk) 13:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That was weird, when I clicked on the OP's link, I first saw the page they described, then was kicked out to the Dutch Google page. Anyone else have this happen ? StuRat (talk) 15:06, 13 July 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Nope; worked fine for me after I allowed google.nl in NoScript. Matt Deres (talk) 15:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was not sure which desk to post this on. I thought it could also be a glitch or something in post-processing. 84.106.222.101 (talk) 18:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lens flare inside the aerial photography camera optics perhaps? 88.112.50.121 (talk) 15:14, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The effect is caused by internal reflections in the satellite camera lens when four shiny rooves reflected sunlight directly towards the camera. The sunlight is white but the secondary ghost images are largely purple. This is typical of Anti-reflective coatings that are optimised for the middle of the visible range (400 - 700 nm). 84.209.89.214 (talk) 15:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A minor point, but much of the Google imagery where you can make out small details as in the image shown are taken by plane, not satellite. Zzubnik (talk) 13:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but can you explain why there is a 200 meter offset between the main image and the ghost image? Or more generally, I am trying to understand the paths the light takes. (To me it's like trying to understand a regular rainbow. Even if you understand refraction and reflection, it's not trivial to see how it works.) It seems things need to line up pretty exactly for this to happen, because this whole area is covered in greenhouses and I only see this phenomenon here. 84.106.222.101 (talk) 18:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that a tiny, fraction-of-a-millimeter ghost at the sensor results in an apparent 200-meter displacement in the image. As for how this happens, here's the simplified ASCII sketch. Light enters the figure at the lower right corner, headed upwards.

ghost   original
------------------------Sensor
   \      \
    \      \
     \      \
      \      \
       \      \
   ---------------------- Glass surface
         \     /\
          \   /  \
           \ /    \
            V      \
   ---------------------- Glass surface
                     \
                      \
                       \
                    incident light

The light encounters an optical element (a lens or plate of glass). Most of it goes straight through, but a small fraction gets reflected at each interface between glass and air (or glass and vacuum, or glass and anything else with a different refractive index): the face of a glass plate, a lens, etc. I've sketched one such path; it's the beam deflected back down and left. If this beam is again reflected back upwards, it strikes the sensor (the very top of the figure) displaced a small distance to the left, as a much-fainter ghost. We can only see this 'ghost' in one part of the Google image because there's only one area with a super-bright specular reflection of sunlight. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I warned you my opinion was non-expert... Matt Deres (talk) 20:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great diagram. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I think I understand it now. 84.106.222.101 (talk) 18:42, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a doctor on board?

I was recently on a flight where somebody collapsed and the crew made an announcement asking if there was a doctor on board, just as in the movies... There were two. How often would a 100-passenger plane travelling between two European cities typically carry a medical doctor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayttom (talk • contribs) 18:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In Western Europe, doctors typically make up about 0.3% of the population: about 3 doctors per 1000 people. (See the WHO interactive graphic on physician density: [2].) Roughly speaking, pulling a completely random person from Europe gets you a doctor on about 1 draw in 300; on a smaller, hundred-passenger airliner your odds of having a doctor aboard would therefore be about 1 in 3.

However, the likely number of doctors on board gets skewed upwards by a number of factors. Physicians are better paid than the average employee (I state this without offering references, but I'm sure someone can find figures) and are more likely to be able to afford air travel for leisure. Physicians may also travel 'on business' for international conferences, meetings, and training. The number may also be skewed upward depending on the point of departure or destination; Geneva, for instance, is home to a number of international aid organizations. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:42, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am reminded of an anecdote I read somewhere recently, where a teenage girl at a Saturday morning field hockey training session had a minor injury and no fewer than three of the fathers in attendance were doctors, confirming the stereotype of field hockey as a sport for the elite (in my country at least). 84.106.222.101 (talk) 18:46, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment assumes the stereotype of doctors being members of the elite. I make no comment on the accuracy or otherwise of that stereotype. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Lol yeah i think that was his point. Shadowjams (talk) 03:30, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being related to a doctor who flies a lot, I am told that such a question would often not identify all the doctors on board. This person has responded to such calls, but on some occasions, having already seen another doctor respond, has just sat quietly and kept out of the way. A plethora of doctors is rarely better than one in an emergency. HiLo48 (talk) 09:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When I saw the edit summary for the above post, I expected another kind of doctor. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:30, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it depends significantly on other details of the anecdote anyway? For example, unlike possibly in the UK, rugby isn't generally seen an elite sport in NZ. Yet I strongly suspect if you were to ask here in a number high decile big name schools playing against each other (or internally) for rugby or really any sport with at say 30-40 children involved, it wouldn't be that uncommon to get 2 doctors (which considering we're only talking about one case could easily be 3 doctors on occasion) for the simple reason that what TOAT said does apply here and doctors have relatively high salaries compared to the median (although I don't think the difference is as big as in some places like the US) regardless of whether they are members of the elite, and so their children are more likely to be in such schools. Even if I'm wrong, you could throw in other factors like a higher profile game so not only are most parents of all possible participants involved but probably even a fair few parents of children who won't be playing (and generally all parents for the child in attendance). In fact it's probably true even though it wouldn't surprise me if the children of at least some doctors (like ER, orthopedics, neurology, and the related fields and probably GPs too) are less likely to play rugby for reasons like [3]. Nil Einne (talk) 16:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC) [reply]

This [4] woman had a spot of good luck when she had a heart-attack on a transatlantic flight. There were 15 cardiologists on her flight, attending a major conference. CS Miller (talk) 13:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good point this brings up. To elaborate on ToaT's comment, I would not be surprised if the average medical doctor flew many more person miles than the average citizen, in fact, I think it's true. Even disregarding salaries and leisure travel, there are many conferences, and, if we include research MDs in the category, they might travel to several conferences a year (I personally know many research professors average about 5 professional trips a year, but I don't work in medicine). If my claim is true, that would make the odds of a doctor on a plane much higher than a naive estimate based on proportion of the population. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to one study published in The New England Journal of Medicine which looked at 11,920 in-flight medical emergencies resulting in calls to a physician-directed medical communications center from five domestic and international airlines January 1, 2008 - October 31, 2010 (1 medical emergency per 604 flights), "physician passengers provided medical assistance in 48.1% of in-flight medical emergencies" while other passengers in the medical profession such as nurses provided help in another 28 percent of cases. ("Outcomes of Medical Emergencies on Commercial Airline Flights" Drew C. Peterson, M.D., Christian Martin-Gill, M.D., M.P.H., Francis X. Guyette, M.D., M.P.H., Adam Z. Tobias, M.D., M.P.H., Catherine E. McCarthy, B.S., Scott T. Harrington, M.D., Theodore R. Delbridge, M.D., M.P.H., and Donald M. Yealy, M.D. N Engl J Med 2013; 368:2075-2083May 30, 2013DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1212052) ---Sluzzelin talk 18:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On one transatlantic flight, with my ex-wife (who is a nurse) - there was a call for a doctor, but no volunteers - so then they asked for "anyone with medical training" - and a couple of nurses stuck up their hands. Fortunately, it was a situation where not much more than general bedside manner and hand-holding was needed. But in a life-or-death situation, even someone like a dentist or even a vet may have been a pretty good alternative - and statistically, there really ought to be at least one of those in ever 100 people. Even if a doctor is available - a lack of equipment and suitable drugs would sharply limit what could be done in such an emergency. SteveBaker (talk) 03:21, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Groucho: "Is there a doctor on board?" Passenger: "I'm a doctor!" Groucho: "How're you enjoying the flight, Doc?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a sad example of the conference thing mentioned by several people above, various reports are that up to 100 of the people onboard MH17 may have been heading to the XX International AIDS Conference, 2014 organised by the International AIDS Society. I'm not sure the number is correct (perhaps it includes families) and the nature of the conference means plenty of them would not have been medical doctors, but it's easy to imagine there were at least a few doctors on board. (The circumstances of the shooting down and crash make it include anyone ever called for them.) Nil Einne (talk) 13:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]