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

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded 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

Good office chair for leaning back in

I bought a nice leather chair a while ago, I think it was a Broyhill. It seemed very comfortable and it was of the type where you have to screw in the arm rests into the back of the chair with an Allen Key.

Recently, i noticed on one side that the plate in the back accepting these screws was coming out, and eventually pulled entirely off, ruining the chair. The metal plate was only secured into the back by a slot in the back, and the back only seemed to be made of some sort of sturdy foam(?).

I realize my nice wheeled office chair was probably not meant for leaning back. The part that made the seat was in a fixed position with regard to the back, and by leaning backward on it, i was applying angular pressure against this fixed position which probably caused a failure.

I have looked around the internet for chairs more made for leaning back, with very few results. I want something comfortable in leather like i have, with wheels and i figure if there was somehow a design where the back wasn't fixed to the arm rests it would work.

What i HAVE found so far is really complicated and ugly (in my opinion), and im not even sure it can lean back or not. See this image:

http://qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-9050707b1e9f5f8cb90c37aa47886950?convert_to_webp=true

Is there any place that has nice comfortable leather chairs that support this ability, and wont result in me having another broken chair after a while? Thanks!

216.173.144.188 (talk) 13:57, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You might run into trouble with lawyers here. That is, if they made a public claim that their chair was designed for leaning backwards, and somebody did so, fell over, and suffered brain damage, then they would be legally responsible. So, the lawyers won't allow them to make this claim. That doesn't mean that some aren't better in this respect than others, just that they can't make that claim. I suggest going to furniture stores and looking at the critical bits yourself, rather than relying on their claims. (Some chairs seem to have a separate back piece that's on a spring, so the back moves without the seat moving, but that doesn't sound like what you want, to me.) StuRat (talk) 21:46, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recliner. μηδείς (talk) 23:55, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This looks comfortable. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting note about legal issues, this makes sense sadly given the warnings McDonald's now has to do that say hot coffee is HOT!

... GREAT suggestion by InedibleHulk, i am seriously considering this model. It costs about 3 times what i paid for my other one, but it almost exactly fits the criteria i was thinking of!

216.173.144.188 (talk) 07:30, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The story behind the "hot coffee" is a little more detailed than that, and much more about McDonalds doing unsafe things for the sake of avoiding complaints Mcdonalds coffee incident. Of course, whether the amount of compensation is reasonable or not depends on your opinion on punitive damages. MChesterMC (talk) 08:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC) [reply]

It can always be worse. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:46, 11 June 2015 (UTC) [reply]

The OP seems to focused on my first choice of manufacture as his dislike. Ergohuman. Next time you look at politicians on the TV look at what their sitting on. After all, you should not begrudge your hard earned tax dollars, so that they are sitting comfortably when deciding the next tax tax avoidance legalization for the rich. With such a chair, all one then needs is a $2000 pair of rose tinted contact lenses and one can lean back, think and grow rich in comfort. If these chairs are good enough for them and you don't like them then maybe your not ready. --Aspro (talk) 14:20, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One critical property of office chairs that relates to leaning back in them is the number of legs. Chairs with four legs are seriously dangerous - but those made with five are relatively safe. This is backed up by OSHA who describe four legged chairs as "Potential hazards" for that reason.

The chair you linked to looks like a "Raynor Ergohuman" chair - which is one of the many knock-offs of the classic Aeron chair. Both the Ergohuman and the Aeron have strong reputations - but the Aeron is the one that almost all good software companies buy for their employees these days. Whether you consider it "ugly" or not is a matter of personal preference - but the original Aeron is such an iconic product that it's been included into the Museum of Modern Art's permanent collection. You can certainly lean back in them, and they are extremely comfortable. The Raynor Ergohuman has a reputation for having more available adjustments than others like it - and it certainly has the ability to lean back, along with an adjustment for how far you can lean and how much force is required to make it lean.

Leather chairs are OK - but for me, they make my back get sweaty in warm weather...and (as you've discovered) even the nice-looking ones can be made quite shoddily because you can't see how they're put together until they fail. With the Aeron chair and it's copy-cats, you can see how every element is put together.

SteveBaker (talk) 12:35, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prohibition Signs (Standards)

(Legal Disclaimer noted.) Does anyone here have library access to British Standards (or equivalent)?

I had technical question which was as follows...

For a prohibition/restriction sign (i.e Do not.), the following information:

 (i) Size of sign (diamater)
(ii) Border width (outer red band)

(iii) Prohibitory stroke angle and width.

I was wanting to know this so that I could update a non-standard sign of my own creation( ) to be reasonably conformant.

If it's not possible to provide the BS based data the equivalent DIN/EN 7010 figures would suffice. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:01, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. A simpler way (if you live in Britain) would be to measure and compare a few signs. Or, if you're sure there's a standard, just one. I'd use measuring tape, a protractor and a notepad, but if you have a smartphone, I wouldn't doubt there's an app for that, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:25, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think this diagram gives the information you need. The diameter of the sign can vary from 270mm to 1200mm, depending on the situation in which it is used (the Traffic Signs Manual gives more details on when and how different sizes are used), but the standard size is 600mm. On a 600mm sign the border is 60mm wide and the diagonal stroke is 50mm wide at an angle of 50°. For other sizes the widths are reduced or increased proportionally. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 08:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes for traffic signs that's a help ... I was asking about prohibition signs in a different context :) Thanks anyway :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The context was that I was working out a sign here (Commons:File:Do_not_cross_tracks_here!.svg) , and wanted to base it one the relevant standards for Safety signs as opposed to road signs... ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Answer battle going on to "Where was the first Tomato and Mayo sandwich originated from in the USA " . Down South or The East Coast?

I was hoping you could find the answer to this on going battle on the internet. People from the south insist they came up with the Tomato and Mayo on white bread First. People on the East Coast swear that It was originated in New York or New Jersey. I have been trying to search the Internet for 3 days and now I'ts become a mission for me to get the correct answer. I know Wikipedia is the #1 site that everyone goes to around the world for the correct answers to everything and anything. So is it possible that the information to this question can finally be answered by your site? You are the best there is. Thank you so much, A big fan of Wikipedia.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.108.164.150 (talk) 17:57, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mayonnaise originates in Europe, and something as simple as tomatoes and mayo on white bread could easily be "invented" hundreds or thousands of times. See also Mayonnaise#North_America. μηδείς (talk) 18:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Medeis is right that this combination could easily have been invented in multiple places. However, I would point out that New Jersey was an early center of commercial tomato farming. Marco polo (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The same simplicity that makes this question virtually unanswerable is also why we know very little about where the general sandwich came from. Even the etymology is a bit dubious. Same goes for any sort of sandwich made from common food. The easier question is "Who started selling the tomayo?"

If you'd like to change your question, I still don't know, but someone probably does. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:49, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure the questioner would be happy to hear who first popularized this particular sandwich. Our List of American sandwiches does include the BLT but not the simple tomato sandwich (despite it being the best sandwich in the universe. Here is an interesting n-gram comparison of the two terms. -- ToE 22:06, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if that would be answerable either. Maybe we could find the first instance of an advertisement in a newspaper, but that doesn't mean somebody wasn't selling it without advertising, or with just a sign at their entrance as their ad. StuRat (talk) 22:03, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but a bit less unanswerable. I'd look for the menus, rather than the signs. Especially since Today's Special is usually on a chalk or dry-erase board. Those don't stand the test of time well. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can imagine people keeping menus from famous restaurants, like Delmonico's, but for your average restaurant, it would have to be hit-or-miss. StuRat (talk) 00:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard of it. Does it sell this sandwich? In any case, yeah, it's a daunting task, even for just the US. Probably why the Internet is still (apparently) battling it out. I'm going to guess the East Coast wins in the end, but not a single clue here. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:02, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

<Homer Simpson looking at a doughnut voice> "Sweet, delicious red-link"</Homer Simpson> --Shirt58 (talk) 10:12, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"It's just a little blue, it's still good!" InedibleHulk (talk) 22:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC) [reply]

@InedibleHulk:: how about a Lucha de Apuesta? If you start an article about the Cheese and tomato sandwich before I do, my Lucha libre mask is yours and I'll retire from Wikipedia. If I start it first, you have to PayPal me a toonie. How's that sound? El diablo tasmanico aka the quite possibly the former editor known as --Shirt58 (talk) 11:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That probably would have sounded like a braver challenge if I'd seen this on time. Hair vs hair on tomato and simulated bacon bit sandwich? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC) [reply]

If we are going to mention Jersey Tomatoes, I'll point out that I grew up in South Jersey where they were (and still are) sold by the roadside in local farmer's stands. But mayonnaise on sandwiches is an abomination with its origins in New York, so far as people from the Delaware Valley are concerned. Alansohn may have a comment on the topic. μηδείς (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Round my way, Jersey Tomatoes come from Jersey. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 13:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if fresh tomatoes first became popular in South Jersey, and mayonnaise entered the American diet in New York City, then the mayo and tomato sandwich seems likely to have arisen in a place in contact with both, such as perhaps the Jersey Shore. It is so simple that it seems more likely to have been invented by a housewife or domestic servant and to have spread among households than to have appeared first on a restaurant menu. Marco polo (talk) 14:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, commercial mayonnaise in jars was first sold in Philadelphia, according to our article Mayonnaise. Perhaps Medeis is right that it wasn't used in sandwiches, though that seems an obvious way to use it. Marco polo (talk) 15:22, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mayo is mostly used in tuna and potato salad in the Philly area, or by non-natives. On sandwiches you may be asked if you want mayo in local SJ restaurants, but it would very rarely automatically be put on sandwiches. A big difference between NYC and Philly is that in Philly hoagies are made with olive oil, while NYC subs come with mayo. That freaked me out when it first happened to me when I ordered a hoagie in NYC.

You'll also get mayo (and orange American cheese) on sandwiches from chain restaurants, while white cheese and no mayo unless requested are the defaults in the Philly area. Mayo also comes on BLT's since they are so dry, but again, waitrices will usually ask if you want the mayo, since many don't. In NYC, mayo is a common substitute for cheese on meat sandwiches, since the combination of meat and cheese in one meal is not kosher. μηδείς (talk) 18:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Medeis, I grew up on Long Island in the 70s, and at that time you did not order subs, you ordered heroes, and they were made with olive oil, not mayo. It sounds as though, sadly, things have changed. Marco polo (talk) 19:49, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, although I was born in NY I didn't return there until I was in my early 20's, so my experience should be taken as at best tangentially anecdotal. In any case, I did find it necessary to mention that I did not want mayo on things like a chicken sandwich from Wendy's in lower Manhattan or a chicken sandwich from a Jewish deli in Riverdale. I'm somewhat glad to hear that olive oil was used on heroes in LI, but I only spent about 18 months there, and never ordered a sub during that period. μηδείς (talk) 20:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Following the sun

I like mid summer. The Summer solstice is a sad day. So if I decided I wanted every day to be a solstice, how far would I have to walk each day to keep up with the sun so it was always at the highest position above my head at the height of the day?

And which direction from my location? Just south? Or slightly south west?

To the editors who know I refer to, please AGF. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.140.226 (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sun will always be at its highest position for the day at midday even if you stay in the same location. That highest position just shifts with the seasons. If you are looking to keep the sun at the same position in the sky as it is at summer solstice in your location while traveling the shortest distance possible, then you could just walk due south, but depending on your location, you are likely to hit a large body of water eventually if you head due south, so you'd need to plan a route that takes you around large bodies of water. This table in effect shows you the position in degrees latitude of the line of latitude where the sun is at zenith at a given date. That position shifts slowly around the dates of the solstices and fastest around the equinoxes. The days before and after the equinox are the days when you would have to travel farthest: a total of 24 minutes of latitude. Each minute of latitude equals 1.84 km (or 1.15 mi), so on those days, you would need to travel 44 km or 27.6 miles. If you are fit and the terrain is not too difficult, it is possible to walk that distance in a day, but the detours around bodies of water and difficult terrain would probably make such a journey impossible. Assuming that it somehow were possible, to keep the sun at zenith in the middle of the day, you would need to start your journey at the Tropic of Cancer on the June solstice (assuming you are in the northern hemisphere) and reverse direction at the Tropic of Capricorn at the December solstice. If you just want to keep the sun at the same number of degrees above the horizon as it is at your location, then you need to move the same number of degrees south as the position of the sun at its zenith each day. Marco polo (talk) 21:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "The sun will always be at its highest position for the day at midday" ... only if you mean true midday (midway between sunrise and sunset), not noon according to your time zone and possibly daylight savings time. StuRat (talk) 21:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you hadn't added the "please AGF" bit, no one might have noticed you've been in arguments recently. Be that as it may, there is only one summer solstice and one winter solstice. But if you want to avoid the short days of winter, your best bet would be to move to an equatorial region, where the daylight hours don't vary much. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only way you could have every day be a solstice would be to move to a planet with an axial tilt of 0.0 degrees. {The poster formerly known as 87.83.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 13:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But here on Earth, the summer solstice is the longest day of the year and there can be only one. Alansplodge (talk) 21:30, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am a bit confused here. Wouldn't the solstices vary along a sinusoidal curve between the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn? This seems really to be a question for the math desk. μηδείς (talk) 04:33, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The solstices are a function of the earths semi-axial tilt and as such does not vary between different places on the globe. The articles on summer solstice and winter solstice makes this reasonable clear. If the OP finds shorter days depressing a full spectrum sunlight lamp may be a worthwhile investment, and signicantly cheaper and easier than to adjust the tilt of the earth to 0.0°. WegianWarrior (talk) 05:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See if I've got this right: The summer solstice is the longest day of the year in the northern hemisphere, while the winter solstice is the longest day of the year in the southern hemisphere. On those days, the day is longest at the respective pole, but the sun would be directly overhead at the appropriate Tropic latitude. On the spring and fall equinoxes, daylight and night are half-and-half around the world, but the sun is going to be straight overhead at the equator. So between solstice and equinox, the OP would have to move between the two Tropic lines to achieve what he apparently wants. If he's starting from farther north (or south) than a given Tropic, he has to make the daily increments of his journey larger than if he started at the Tropic. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:07, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your optimum strategy for long days is to spend the entire northern hemisphere summer as far north as you can, and the entire northern hemisphere winter as far south as you can. Everywhere between the tropic and the polar circle in a given hemisphere, the days are unambiguously longer throughout local summer the further you get from the tropic. (Inside the tropics, and inside the polar circles, it's a bit trickier - inside the tropics, there's at least one day when the sun is on the 'wrong' side of you relative to the poles, and inside the polar circles, there's at least one day with no sunrise or sunset.) If you spent 21 March to 21 September in, say, Luleå, and then flew to Punta Arenas for the rest of the year, you'd have vastly more daylight than night all year - the equinox would be your minimum amount of daylight, instead of the average (which is what it is if you stay in any one place). AlexTiefling (talk) 11:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]