Miscellaneous desk
< February 17	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 19 >

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.

February 18

GFCI again

still not getting anywhere quickly. --Jayron 32 13:12, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Going nowhere fast.--WaltCip (talk) 20:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In our last installment, I had a GFCI circuit breaker tripping more and more often, up to >1x per hour, and this stopped when I unplugged a lamp and space heater from one of the downstream outlets. We went for about a week with no trips, so I figured the culprit had been found. But we had another trip yesterday and one today, despite both of those devices being unplugged and with nothing plugged into that outlet.

Any further suggestions about how to isolate the fault? Some web pages suggest damaged insulation on wiring near the breaker panel or inside the walls. That sounds like a pain to locate. Do electricians ever use time-domain reflectometry for this sort of thing? Other ideas? Thanks. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 23:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You need to get a professional to your place and stop fooling around with internet guesswork. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baseball Bugs (talk • contribs) 23:57, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I was about to suggest burning the house down preemptively and using the insurance money to book a relaxing modern hotel suite for the foreseeable future. Ask a lawyer first, though, just to be safe. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Electricians are much more experienced than I am at installing stuff, and they know how to make sure it is up to code, but as for troubleshooting I'm not aware of any magical abilities that they have. I think I can handle basic safety procedures like not sticking my fingers into live outlets. I suspect that finding this fault will take a fair amount of muddling around whether an electrician does it ($$$) or I do it. So I'm asking what electricians do in this situation and if it doesn't involve fancy specialized equipment, I can probably at least consider it or attempt it. I just don't want to rip into any walls but I'm afraid things might be pointing that way. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:7AC0 (talk) 06:32, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We are generally prohibited from offering medical or legal advice here, and for many reasons. For similar reasons, it would be foolish of us to try to guide you through the steps of troubleshooting electrical faults, especially something in such a safety system. Electricians are trained and licensed for safety and knowledge, and that's why they cost $$$. Your question is beyond the scope of the Reference Desk; we'd be happy to research your question about Ohm's Law, but we're not coming over to your house with a test kit. Sorry. Elizium23 (talk) 07:19, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking for medical or legal advice and the stuff I've been doing (e.g.: unplug stuff until the breaker stops tripping, check outlets with a voltage tester) is far safer than driving a car or boiling water on a stove, to say nothing of even minor DIY car repairs. The earlier discussion about this issue was quite helpful. This is no scarier than someone asking about a recipe for cooking something at home. Telling them to go to a restaurant instead because the highly trained burger flippers have so much safety knowledge about hot surfaces is silly and patronizing. It isn't brain surgery. Commonsense precaution is one thing, but irrational fear is maladaptive.

I'm not going to try to replace damaged wiring (that's the sort of thing one calls electricians for, and which may be necessary here). I'm trying to locate the problem and I'm perfectly comfortable with everything discussed so far. I'm frankly more worried about leaving the possible ground fault in place and maybe eventually shocking someone. If you can suggest a book about the subject instead, that would be appreciated too. There is a lot of youtube video[1] and I've been looking at some of it, but video is way more time consuming than reading a book. Thanks. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:7AC0 (talk) 15:46, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you're too cheap to bring in an electrician, consider the cost of replacing your house. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:43, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your cheap shots are unhelpful. Yes, there is stuff electricians do that would be inadvisible for people like me. This is not one of them, at least so far. For that matter, have you ever actually called an electrician about a home repair or even an installation? It would normally not be done by someone licensed with a lot of training. They typically have unlicensed (i.e. low paid) assistants and apprentices do the work, and then the licensed electrician checks it and signs off. It's the same way with plumbers, auto mechanics, etc. If you have done stuff like this yourself and have advice or cautions based on your experience, that is great and I'm listening, but otherwise I don't think you have anything to contribute. I'm not interested in irrational FUD from people with no knowledge. But thanks anyway. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:7AC0 (talk) 17:32, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoy your house while it lasts. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:38, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how people like you manage to get out of bed in the morning and tie your own shoes. Better call a physical therapist to help you so you don't hurt yourself. As AvE would say, "Jeezless". Thanks. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:7AC0 (talk) 18:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you burn down your own house, you'll need more than a physical therapist. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:33, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Electricians are experienced at troubleshooting stuff and no magic is required. I don't know how people who expect answers to their house problems at a WikiP help desk get out of bed in the morning. Better call an electrician to help you so you don't hurt yourself. MarnetteD|Talk 18:52, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Electrical problems are more serious, and messing up while working with an electrical system has more dire consequences, than getting out of bed does. You knew that, as does 2601. But you just want to tease and belittle other people who are giving the best advice here: to hire a person who is qualified to fix such problems. --Jayron 32 19:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ok fine. Next we can work on getting the song When I'm Sixty-Four banned from the airwaves, since it mentions someone "mending a fuse" themselves instead of calling an electrician. What helplessness has taken over this place. Sheesh. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:7AC0 (talk) 02:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fuses would eventually burn out, and replacements were available in stores. Not much different from changing a light bulb. Although disabling the power panel first was a good idea. And if it burned out again soon, it was time to call the electrician. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:23, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Google the subject "house first faulty wiring" and you will find many references. Here's one.[2] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:25, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And here are some stats on death and destruction due to electrical problems.[3] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I was mostly kidding about the house burning down. Sheesh indeed now, though, seriously! If I were you for real this time, I'd sell the house to a nice young worried couple, let them fret about whether the comfort of knowing which pipes are supposed to be electrified is worth the $$$. Then I'd move into a van, down by the river. Not one of those flammable rivers, though, they're unsafe. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:24, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The fuse burning out again soon is probably because you used the toaster and waffle iron at the same time again, or the like. So before calling the electrician, identifying the big electrical loads and figuring out if they exceed the fuse capacity is a perfectly sensible thing to do. You could also pay attention to whether the fuse blowing coincides with your refrigerator motor turning on, since that causes a big current spike. If that happens, you have info to give to the electrician that can probably save him or her some time, resulting in a lower bill. That's the kind of thing I've been looking to do about this breaker tripping.

Note that I never asked how to fix the problem, but only how to find it, which is not the same. The youtube video I linked had some helpful advice: go outside the house and check for exterior lighting and outlets connected to the breaker, since those are more likely to get wet from rain and develop faults. I did that, and there *is* a light and outlet out there, so they are suspects now.

Anyway you guys worry too much. Every morning before breakfast, I make coffee, which involves pouring boiling water while in the mentally impaired state of not having had any coffee yet. Unplugging appliances to see if the GFCI stops tripping is child's play by comparison. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:7AC0 (talk) 06:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What part of "the discussion is closed" do you people not understand?--WaltCip (talk) 13:10, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

20th century

I was wondering if someone could please help me find when Tom Cruise was added to 20th century for film, television and theatre. I've gone through the view history but I can't find it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.151.68.194 (talk) 01:20, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about Category:20th-century American male actors? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's about 20th century#Film, television and theatre. I used "Find addition/removal" in the page history to find [4] from September. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Henry VIII's desire for a son

Why did Henry VIII wanted a son/male heir rather than just a daughter/female heir? 86.128.175.30 (talk) 21:44, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He wanted a male heir, could have had any legitimate heir, but also needed a clearly legitimate and unambiguous heir. English law of the time was clear (but only since 1376): women could inherit but would (as indeed happened) be lower in priority than a male, or even a younger male heir (this only changed recently).

In Henry's case though, it was more complicated. He probably wanted a male heir because they were simply valued more highly. But he was also only a generation after the Wars of the Roses (his father, Henry VII's succession to the throne marked their end), where a disputed succession had led to civil war.

Shortly before his death, Edward III had effectively chosen between his five sons' lines as to who would become the successor. His oldest son was dead and his son was young (although he became king as Richard II, he didn't last long). He thus chose (in 1376, by downgrading inheritance through the female line) to prioritise his third son's (John of Gaunt) all-male line over his second son's line (which passed through Philippa). This led to the War of the Roses, between the third son's line (Lancaster) and the fourth (!) son's line (York), who'd married into the second son's (the disputed one).

In the end, the Wars of the Roses ended through military power and politics, more than genealogy. But a genealogical solution was needed to make this plain and to provide a compromise which might give peace: Henry VII, Henry Tudor, descended from the 3rd son's Lancastrian line and married into the Yorkist line.

Henry did not want a re-run of the Wars of the Roses. So an heir was needed with no awkward questions of priority: a male heir. He did get one, Edward VI, but this was another short-lived youngster whose death left the succession no clearer than before, with a three-way conflict between Lady Jane Grey, Mary (of England, not Scots) and then Elizabeth. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just one correction, Richard II of England ruled for 22 years, 12 of which were in his majority. He was deposed, and left in a cell to starve to death, but to say it "didn't last long", is a bit inaccurate. What brought Richard down was what brought down most deposed monarchs: conflicts with the nobility over the extent of the power of the King vis a vis traditional rights of the nobility AND conflict with parliament over the funding of foreign wars (see Wonderful Parliament). --Jayron 32 13:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I blame Shakespeare. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He was good at character assassination, Andy Dingley. Consider Macbeth of Scotland, who ruled for 17 years, and went off to Rome half way through! --ColinFine (talk) 19:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Female rule was unknown territory for England. Renaissance monarchs were supposed to be skilled in battle amongst other desirable attributes; James IV of Scotland had been killed in 1513 trying to prove that point. Mary I, England's first queen regnant, got herself married to Philip II of Spain so that England could have a king, although he turned out to be an absentee one. For many, governance by a woman was believed to lack Biblical precedent, a point laboured by John Knox in his 1558 book The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstruous Regiment of Women. At the Coronation of Elizabeth I in the following year, there was an elaborate tableau comparing Elizabeth to Deborah, who in the Bible had led the Israelites to military victory. Alansplodge (talk) 19:34, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The only previous attempt at a female leader was the Empress Matilda who on occasion managed to be in effective charge of the country whilst battling King Stephen during a civil war that was so chaotic it was said that it was 'a time when Christ and his saints slept'. You can understand their reticence at not wanting to repeat that. As well as the fact that were a female to succeed to the throne and then marry a foreign ruler, it could lead to the prospect of Britain being under the control of a foreign power. Lemon martini (talk) 11:00, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine Henry charging into battle on horseback, pheasant leg held high over his head, plate mail trying to accommodate itself around his belly.... --Trovatore (talk) 19:51, 19 February 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Well, Henry led the English army at the Battle of the Spurs (1513) when he was a bit younger and leaner. He also led an army to France in 1544 but was disappointed that the only fighting was the Sieges of Boulogne. He was by then, as you say, a bit of a porker, and an immense suit of Greenwich armour in the Metropolitan Museum of Art is believed to have been made for him to wear in that campaign, which incorporates an integral corset. [5] By the way, the last British monarch to lead his troops in battle was George II at the Battle of Dettingen in 1743. By all accounts, he was a bit of a nuisance and the practice was politely discouraged thereafter. Alansplodge (talk) 21:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I confess my comment was a bit tendentious. I see Henry as a loathsome figure. Among English sovereigns who held actual power, he seems among the worst of a bad lot. But there are always more sides to a story, and this suggests a physical courage I wouldn't have been inclined to attribute to him. --Trovatore (talk) 22:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Henry VIII was quite a complex character. He seems to have been quite a good king in his early reign (at least by contemporary standards). But he suffered a serious injury in a jousting accident, which lead to a lot of other health complications, leading to obesity and mood-swings. Also, I can think of a number of English kings who would be worse than him, particularly Ethelred the Unready, who was both tyrannical and incompetent. Iapetus (talk) 11:10, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're not alone Trovatore, see Henry VIII voted worst monarch in history by a poll of historical writers; although one respondent cited Eadwig (940-959) because “Apparently his coronation had to be delayed to allow Bishop Dunstan to prise Eadwig from his bed, and from between the arms of his ‘strumpet’ and the strumpet’s mother – he was only 16 at the time”. Alansplodge (talk) 19:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Edward VIII came in second-worst??? He may have had some unfortunate political leanings, but he didn't kill anybody, as far as I know. Seems like the monarchs from the wars-of-religion era were always having their wives and cousins beheaded on one pretext or another. The pre-Norman ones, somehow they don't seem quite real to me, so it's hard to compare them, but in any case whatever Eadwig did in bed doesn't seem to be in the same category. --Trovatore (talk) 20:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's what endorsing Hitler and endangering the monarchy will do for you. Also, (relative) recentism. Fgf10 (talk) 20:32, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I incline to the view that no belief, no matter how horrifying, is really as bad as having your cousin killed because you were afraid there were people who thought she should be queen instead of you.

As for endangering the monarchy, that would tend to make me like him more instead of less.

But the "recentism" is understandable — I copped to the same thing in not considering the pre-Norman kings. --Trovatore (talk) 21:56, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

During the 16th century or Henry VIII's reign, what was the age to be king/queen? 5 years and over? 86.128.175.30 (talk) 21:47, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even a baby can be a monarch; James V of Scotland acceded at the age of seventeen months and his only surviving legitimate child, Mary, Queen of Scots, succeeded him when she was six days old. The usual procedure was the appointment of a regent who would take charge until the child reached their age of majority, usually 16 years-old. In the case of Edward VI who acceded at the age of 9,, Henry VIII had appointed a Council of Regency to run the country, but that ran into problems so the council then appointed a "Protector" who acted on the king's behalf, neither of whom did terribly well as it turned out. Alansplodge (talk) 10:44, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It goes earlier than that; John I of France became King of France as a foetus, and relinquished the throne on his death at 5 days old. --Jayron 32 13:35, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't there also a prenatal king of Spain? —Tamfang (talk) 05:28, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]