Miscellaneous desk
< June 9	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 11 >

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.

June 10

M16 caliber terminology

I know nothing about guns, and no, I'm not a terrorist. I'm completing edits on a novel, and I'm currently working on a scene where a character is trying to find (and purchase) ammunition for an M16 rifle. As the dialogue now stands, he asks for thirty-caliber rounds, which, judging from our pertinent articles, I'm almost certain is incorrect. The M16 uses the 5.56×45mm NATO cartridge, but that's a big mouthful. What I'm wondering is whether there's a more common (United States) shorthand for the sort of round an M16 fires. The character comes from a military background, if that makes a difference. Thanks in advance. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:57, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If your character buys any form of "thirty-caliber rounds", they will be useless in any standard issue M16. If he buys .223 Remington (223Rem) on the other hand, he'll get ammunition that is more-or-less interchangeable with the standardized 5.56×45mm NATO. For firearms safety though he would be better of specifying the correct ammunition, since the two are not 100% identical.

As a side note, simply asking for "thirty-caliber rounds" can get you any number of different ammunition which is not interchangeable... some things are better to ask for by specific name :) WegianWarrior (talk) 04:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That helped! Thank you! :) Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An M16 is to a .30 caliber round as a Nova is to a Ford F350. You probably shouldn't be writing about guns if you don't know anything about them (although, perhaps you belong in hollywood), but the caliber of a round describes the bullet's diameter. Much more important is the entire packages of the "round" (which would be a widely accepted term). An M16 shoots a round that looks like this. A .22 short, which is the quintessential Mark Twain kinda squirrel shooting round, looks like this. The diameter difference is .001 mm. Yet you can clearly see, the 556 has immensely more powder behind it.

There's a long history and debate behind bullet caliber, and rounds more generally. But the general trend in military and law enforcement has been towards smaller bullets with higher velocities. You can't tell that alone from the round's name. You'll be amazed how many of the same "caliber" of very different rounds exist.

And if you want a 30 Caliber, you're thinking any number of rounds, from the M1 Garand 30-06 to the M14. Shadowjams (talk) 05:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Technically I'm not writing about guns; I'm writing about a character who happens to use a gun. I put "thirty-caliber" in there as a placeholder, and I'm sure I have a note to that effect somewhere. Anyway, the first response told me what I needed to know. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:29, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hottest temperature

What is the hottest temperature that a human can survive at for a long period of time, assuming access to plenty of drinking water and little / no activity? 188.191.207.70 (talk) 08:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This page has some plausible-looking information, including the statement that "most people will suffer hyperthermia after 10 minutes in extreme humidity and heat - 140 degrees Fahrenheit (60 degrees Celsius)". For comparison, today's forecast for Kuwait City is 49 Celsius (though with low humidity). AndrewWTaylor (talk) 10:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to assume that "a long period of time" is much longer than 10 minutes, such that the person will reach the equilibrium temperature for that environment. There are two forms of cooling possible I can see that would keep their body temperature below the ambient temp for a long time period. One is evaporative cooling, which stops working at 100% humidity. The other is if they drink cold water. If the water is the same hot temperature, and the air is 100% humidity, then I would expect that whatever body temperature would kill a person, like 110F, would also be the fatal air temperature, eventually, once their body reaches that temp. StuRat (talk) 16:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The chart at Heat index#Effects of the heat index (shade_values) implies that a heat index above 130F (54C) isn't survivable. --Carnildo (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That chart lacks a time element. It says above 130F heat stroke is imminent. However, I would argue that above 110F it will occur eventually. It's rather similar to the chart I've seen showing how long it takes to die in cold water, but they forgot to include the time element here. Small children will die first, as they have a higher surface-to-mass ratio, so the heat absorbed through their skin will more quickly change their lower thermal inertia. Staying still will keep you from dying as quickly, both because your body generates less heat and because a cooler layer of air will form around you (although it might also be more moist, if the air is at less than 100% humidity). StuRat (talk) 15:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It really depends on (1) the level of humidity and (2) how long is "a long period of time." I've worked in temperatures as high as 120 degrees Fahrenheit for periods of several hours, so it's not like temperatures at that level result in immediate death, assuming proper clothing, low humidity, and access to water. (Actually, access to Gatorade would be better - just having water to drink gave me heat cramps.) In New Delhi, temperatures have reached 115 degrees Fahrenheit or more for the past several days and, while the heat wave has resulted in deaths, it isn't like everyone is dead there now. Apparently it's actually more of a problem that nighttime temperatures are not dropping enough. John M Baker (talk) 20:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably most people in India know how to keep cool, by finding someplace cooler in the hottest parts of the day. The interior of a stone building should stay cool for quite some time before the heat of the day makes it's way inside, and, by then, the outside temp might not be so bad. Or, they can take a swim in a river when it gets dangerously hot. (As long as the river is in the shade, it's probably quite a bit cooler than the air temp.) If there's a wooded area nearby, that's likely to stay a bit cooler on hot days, too. And, while many in India don't have A/C, they may well have access to some building with A/C, like a movie theater, where they can go when overheated. (In the US we also have "cooling centers" set up just for people without A/C to cool down on dangerously hot days.)

I agree on the critical importance of the nighttime lows, though, as this gives everything and everyone a chance to cool down and prepare for another hot day. Without that, the heat just accumulates to deadly levels. StuRat (talk) 05:38, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Entry level jobs vs graduate schemes

Are entry level jobs good alternatives to graduates who can't find any success with graduate schemes? 90.198.85.70 (talk) 16:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. An entry level job means the first job you must take, since you lack experience. Even college grads must typically take such jobs, since they lack work experience. An exception is if they took part in a work-study program. StuRat (talk) 16:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I mean many graduates apply for graduate schemes which are designed fast track schemes which allow graduates to gain the experience and skills they need to get to senior positions quicker. And I mean entry level jobs as in jobs which don't necessarily require a degree. 90.198.85.70 (talk) 16:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, yes, if they can't get a fast track position, any job at a company that can get them the experience they need to move up in that company (or others) is better than nothing. Of course, they might also be able to work freelance or start their own company. StuRat (talk) 17:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It rather depends on the jobs themselves. Junior burger flipper is as much an entry level job (by your definition of "not needing a degree", which most would disagree with) as runner for a visual effects studio, admin at a law firm, postman, apprentice to a trade, mechanic, or PFY for company IT, but the benefits, tasks, and chances of further promotion are going to be very different. 91.208.124.126 (talk) 08:26, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

However, being already in a job – any job, even be it flipping burgers – makes success in applying for a job you really want much more likely than if you were unemployed/on Welfare/being supported by family. It demonstrates to potential employers in your preferred field that you're not a layabout/scrounger/loser/insert-your-own-negative-stereotype. Being in some form of further education or training scheme (e.g. "night school") relevant to your intended career also gives a favourable impression and makes at least attaining an interview more likely. I write as one who has been there, several times. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.197} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 12:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Countries with curious currency denominations

Having spent some time in the Cook Islands and returned with a $3 bill featuring a buxom woman riding a shark (I kid you not), and a triangular $2 coin, I was wondering what other countries had such curious currency, i.e. non-conventional values (e.g. $3) or odd shaped coinage (e.g. triangular). The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I personally find the Quarter a non-conventional value. I'm from Australia and I now live in the UK, and we have 20c and 20p, which to me makes more sense as it is a decimal currency. Back in the days when both countries used the £sd system, most of the coins were of "strange" values (IMO). Maundy Money comes in 1, 2, 3 and 4 penny coins which is sort of "strange" although there was a regular 3d coin in the £sd system. --TrogWoolley (talk) 21:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Quarter (United States coin) provides some insight. The Quarter (Canadian coin) seems to have taken its lead from the US. Regarding decimals, the American cent and dime are of course decimal fractions of the dollar. Keep in mind that the worldwide obsession with decimal fractions is relatively recent. Fractional quantities such as 1/2, 1/4, 1/8 and so on are a lot older. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've always found it peculiar that the US dime says on it "One Dime" instead of "Ten Cents". But it's hard to beat the old £sd for peculiar denominations. At various times and in various places there were coins for almost every conceivable division and multiple of the shilling:

quarter farthings (1/192)

half farthings (1/96)

farthings (1/48)

ha'pennies (1/24)

pennies (1/12)

tuppences (1/6)

threepenny bits (1/4; the new pound coins are the same shape and have the same purchasing power)

groats (4d) (1/3)

sixpences (1/2)

shillings

two bob/florins (2)

half crown (5/2)

crown (5)

ten bob note (10)

pound (20)

guinea (21)

I remember shilling- and two-shilling pieces still being in circulation long after decimalisation, as well as the decimal ha'penny. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Florin" was the name we gave to 2/- (2 shilling) coins down here. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:57, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that was the case here too, but it's a bit before my time that they were in regular use for their original purpose. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:19, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was. The word for 4d bit was groat. I'm sure I have encountered double florins (4s) in catalogues of old coins, and I think 3s pieces as well, though I'm not sure about that one. --ColinFine (talk) 10:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - corrected. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:21, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on the double florin, as well as the half guinea, three halfpence and third farthing (really). Various other values of gold coin circulated before the Union, including the noble (6s8d), unite (20 or 22s), etc., up to the Civil War era extreme of the triple unite (60s!) - in gold value alone this one would be worth around US $1000 today. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:07, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The word "dime" actually means "one-tenth [of a dollar]",[1] although the average American may not be aware of that specific fact. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm aware of the etymology - it's the French word for a tithe, too. But I'm curious as to why it's labelled as though (like the shilling) it was an intermediate-scale currency unit, rather than just a coin worth so many cents. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:19, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs's point is that it was (and in law still is) an intermediate-scale currency unit; its meaning in popular use shifted so that now it just means the coin. There actually were four currency units originally defined in 1792 (see the last section here), successive multiples of 10: the mill (originally mille), cent, dime (disme), and dollar. Note that this was the same era when the original metric system was being designed and it also worked in multiples of 10—millimeter, centimeter, decimeter, meter—and not stepping by 1000 at a time as in later metric units like the micrometer and nanometer or 100 as in most later currency units. There used to be US coins labeled half cent and half dime as well as the half dollar that still exists, so the presence of a quarter-dollar coin doesn't look so odd when you set it beside those other fractions. Whether you find the 5-10-20 pattern more natural and convenient than 1/4-1/2-1 just depends on what you're used to. --69.158.92.137 (talk) 03:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article Dime (United States coin) reminds us that "dime" and "cent" are consistent in their naming: "tenth" and "one-hundredth" respectively. For some odd reason, the cent is discussed under Penny (United States coin) even though its name is "cent", not "penny". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The penny is the physical representation of the intangible cent. It's not a cent itself, just worth one. That article's more about design, circulation and other material material. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or a "one-cent piece". In contrast to the intangible dime, whose physical representation (a "ten-cent piece") is also called a dime. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Give me five bees for a quarter!", they'd say. English is built on odd reasons. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, but you shouldn't try to milk a bull. Ships trade "cargo" to "Dutch" in the Netherlands, and things get complicated on the way. While I'm rambling, may as well mention the 1916 D-Mercury dime is sometimes worth $30,000, but only contains $1.39 of silver. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit disappointed to see that the Cook Is. $2 is not a Reuleaux triangle. —Tamfang (talk) 23:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That reminds me - in answer to the OP - the old 3d and the new £1 are both twelve-sided; and in post-decimal currency, the 20p and 50p are both seven-sided. I forgot to mention shape while discussing denomination. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Susan B. Anthony dollar is round though it has a sort of inset with 11 sides. As of 1975, Malta had an octagonal 25 cent piece. The Australian fifty-cent coin is 12-sided. Our Half-union article doesn't mention it but according to United States Mint coin sizes, that coin used to be octagonal. Dismas|^(talk) 23:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For weird-shaped Canadian coins, see Toonie (bimetal coin with ring of one metal containing disk of another metal) and Loonie (11-sided).

There are round coins with open holes in the center (sometimes round, sometimes square) in some other countries, for running a string between them: [2].

There are some small rectangular gold bars that could be called "coins": [3]. StuRat (talk) 23:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The most outrageous currency may very well be Rai stones. Dismas|^(talk) 00:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, some of these coins can give it a run for it's money: [4]. Don't spend it all in one place, now ! StuRat (talk) 00:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

US coin denominations aren't quite so weird, but we have had 1/2 penny, 2 penny, and 3 penny pieces (1/200th, 1/50th, and 3/100ths of a dollar, respectively). StuRat (talk) 00:26, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some U.S. half-cents even listed the value as

{\tfrac {1}{200}}

. Cents of the same era read

{\tfrac {1}{100}}

. → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 04:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Holy crap, a Loonie does go to 11. Seems terribly unmetric.

If anyone happens to see a man walking around Hamilton with 11,000 of them, call the cops. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The loonie has 11 sides and not, say, 10 or 12 because its shape is a curve of constant width (like a Reuleaux triangle or the 7-sided British coins) and therefore the number of sides must be odd. Canada did have 12-sided coins in recent decades, with straight sides: both the penny and the nickel at different times. --69.158.92.137 (talk) 07:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Burmese kyat has both some 'odd' shaped coins (Diamond and scalloped edges) and also notes in values of 45 and 90. Nanonic (talk) 06:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I always found the old Dutch currency awkward for a few days until I got used to it - it had 5, 10, 25-cent, 1, 2.50, and 5 guilder coins, and 10, 25, 50, 100, 250, and 1000 guilder notes. Never had a 1000 guilder note, but I once had a couple of 250's which would pay for a couple of nights in a hotel. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 07:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth remembering that the United States has minted both three-cent and three-dollar coins. The last of each was minted in 1889; in total, more than fifty million three-cent pieces entered circulation—so 'curious' is in the eye of the beholder. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:06, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't resist mentioning the colourful but rather non-PC phrase bent as a nine-bob note, which of course does not refer to an actual denomination. Googling the phrase leads to some pages that give a lot more information than Wiktionary does. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 17:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the US we have the expression "As phony as a 3 dollar bill". While we have had $3 coins, and both $2 coins and bills, there's not $3 bill in US history, AFAIK. StuRat (talk) 17:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

$2 coins in the US? Citation needed! Stu might be thinking of the quarter eagle or $2.50 coin (incidentally, early versions of this were not marked with any denomination; later they were marked "2½D."). As for US $2 bills, see here. --69.158.92.137 (talk) 21:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, quite right, it was a $2.50 coin, not $2. StuRat (talk) 13:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And that's precisely why I started this thread, that the US readers believe a $3 bill to be phoney but it's commonplace in the Cook Islands... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A $3 US bill is phoney. But let's be charitable. I'm sure quite a lot of Americans know that there are more countries in the world than just the USA. Why, there might even be a couple of dozen, once you get counting. (Countries, that is.) :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I always heard that expression as "queer as a 3 dollar bill", and by the time I was old enough to hear it, "queer" definitely specifically meant homosexual, so it was always used in reference to a person suspected of being gay. So, the Limp Bizkit album Three Dollar Bill, Y'all was taken (by certain idiots) as an admission that Fred Durst was gay. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:21, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The equivalent expression here in the UK used to be "as queer (or bent) as a nine-bob note" - a reference to the fact that for a time there were ten-shilling notes. I haven't heard of a post-decimal version of this expression, but maybe someone else can enlighten me. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The ariary of Madagascar and the ouguiya of Mauritania are odd in that they're not decimal-the main coin is divided into fifths Lemon martini (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Truly digital coin denominations ?

Does any country just make denominations of $0.01, $0.1, $1, $10, $100, etc. ? (Listed as dollars for convenience, pounds or any other units would work, too.) This would require a whopping 18 bills and 18 coins to pay a $99.99 bill with exact change, but then again, maybe doing this would stop them from setting prices like that, and they'd make them all $100 instead. StuRat (talk) 13:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or binary? 1,2,4,8,16,32,64 and 128 units in the next stage up.

I recall that the UK pattern (1,2,5,10,20,50,100) is better than the US pattern (1,5,10,25,50,100) in that (on the average) it takes fewer coins to make change - but you need to have more denominations in your pocket - so the likelyhood of you being able to make exact change with whatever coins you happen to have is no better. That trade-off is at its most extreme if you had a currency with 100 different coins (1,2,3,4,5...,99,100) where you could always make change with a single coin, but you'd need hundreds of coins in your pocket to reliably be able to do so! At the other extreme if you had just one coin, the 1 unit denomination where you'd only need one kind of coin in your pocket - so you could always make change so long as you had enough money to do so...but again, you'd need hundreds of coins in your pockets. The UK decimal system is very uniform - the 1,2,5 pattern repeats as 1,20,50 and again at 100,200,500 and 1000,2000,5000. The US system has the 25 cent coin - but no $2.50 or $25 note as you might expect. SteveBaker (talk) 19:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Environmentally concerned driving

A buddy and I were arguing about what was more environmentally friendly: driving with the air conditioning on or having the windows rolled down (and using up more gas because it's less streamlined). What do you guys think? --Jeevies (talk) 22:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mythbusters tested this. The answer is: it depends on your speed. At low speeds, opening the window is better; at high speeds, running the A/C is better. The changeover point depends on the precise aerodynamics of your vehicle, but it usually occurs somewhere around typical highway speeds. --Carnildo (talk) 23:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks! --Jeevies (talk) 23:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

The inside temperature also matters. When you first get in a car that's been out in the sunlight, put the windows down (and open the doors, if parked) until you get the inside temperature down to match the outside temperature. After that, put the windows back up and crank the A/C, in recirculate mode (sometimes called "MAX"). The recirc mode is important, as you only need to cool down the already cool inside air that way, not the hot outside air. Of course, when somebody farts, all bets are off. :-) StuRat (talk) 00:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's best to drive away with the windows still open, and the fan (but not the A/C) cranked up, to blow out as much of the superheated air as possible, and as quickly as possible. Once that's been done, roll up the windows and turn on the A/C. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:45, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As previously explained, that answer is completley untrue. At high speeds, having the windows rolled down causes aerodynamic drag that consumes more energy than the A/C compressor - so the windows should be kept closed. At low speed, the cost of running the A/C exceeds that of the additional drag, so it's more environmentally friendly to roll down the windows and shut off the A/C. From an environmental perspective, it doesn't matter how long you've been driving. Of course there is an issue of whether (in a given set of weather conditions) you actually need the A/C, even at low speeds, just to be comfortable...but then there is no environmental trade-off to be made, so the answer is not relevant to this OP's question. SteveBaker (talk) 19:15, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat was saying to roll the windows down, which is correct but is not enough. I'm saying (based on what my car's owner's manual says) that you should drive for a while with the fan on and the windows down, as that will blow the superheated air out faster than standing still. Once you're at that equilibrium temperature, then your axiom applies. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the original question was "what is more environmentally friendly". I think Steve is saying that, even if the compressor is running full tilt, then in high-speed driving, it still degrades fuel efficiency less than opening the windows. In that case, the answer to the original question as literally understood would be Steve's.

However, if you don't care about the comfort of the occupants, you can do still better by leaving the windows up and the AC off.

So presumably we do care about comfort, at least somewhat, and in that case opening the windows for the first minute or two to get rid of the existing hot air can cool down the car much faster than the AC alone. That's probably the reason for the recommendation in your owner's manual. --Trovatore (talk) 19:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. You wan to get rid of the superheated air as soon as possible. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But where's that established? I've never been a great fan of Mythbuster tests who often seem to do a very poor job but in any case, while their findings may have some relevance generally, I doubt even they suggested their results applied in this specific case unless they actually tested it. (Admitedly one of the reasons why I dislike them is because of how sloppy they often are with their wording, implying their often limited number of sometimes poorly designed tests with a few repetitions, and usually no clear statistical analysis somehow answer a question for certain.) The AC could easily be working harder in such a case so opening your window briefly to let the hot air out may easily use less fuel even at highway speeds.

Note that if doing such a test, you'd need to run the test for a few minutes until the temperature for both roughly reaches the set temperature, at a minimum. (We're expecting the never open window to take longer so that's probably the limiting factor.) Because even if the 'open window' car use more fuel for a brief time at the beginning, it's possible it will use less after that when you close the windows, compared to the car which was never driven with open windows and is therefore still at a higher internal temperature for the same drive period. And so the originally open window car may end up using less fuel in the end once both reach the set temperature.

When I looked in to this once, IIRC certain high end cars have fairly accurate fuel consumption readings. So testing it youself for you specific car may not be implausible. Perhaps you'd even get higher quality results than Mythbusters. Of course, SB and Trovatore are correct that it's unlikely to be what the manual was thinking of, so it's no help either.

Nil Einne (talk) 02:39, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a practical matter, most of us don't live on the entrance ramp to a freeway, meaning we have to drive a bit on slower streets to get to a place where we actually can drive fast. I find that this is more than enough time to get the air in the car down to the ambient temperature, so I put the windows up long before I hit the highway. Also, I wouldn't want the windows down on the highway, as the sound would be deafening and my hair would end up looking like I had been in a tornado.

BTW, I am assuming power windows here. If you have manual windows and are alone in the car, you are pretty much limited to cranking your own window up and down, while moving, as reaching across to adjust any other windows would be dangerous. With a single window down, it will take quite a bit longer to cool the car to the ambient temperature, so it might be advisable to open all the doors, while still parked, and give it a few minutes to cool down there. (I often load something into the hot car before driving anyway, such as groceries, so this gives me a few minutes to cool the car off with all the doors open.) StuRat (talk) 05:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]