Miscellaneous desk
< October 30	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	November 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.

October 31

contractor in need

I'm a general contractor in need of customers. I specialize in kithcen and bathroom remodels, we do everything from electrical, plumbing to wall additions. I need to bring in customers, i've tried many avenues. I'm asking for advise. HELP!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mibebita (talk • contribs) 04:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we won't directly help you bring in new customers, but we can give some advice on advertising, marketing and things like that (right?). So, tell us what you've tried already and we'll see what we can do. --Ouro (blah blah) 06:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on where you are located, there may be a local small business association (no article!) of one type or another that you can ask questions of. Dismas|^(talk) 09:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd advise building up a good reputation in your locality. Have you some satisfied customers who would be willing to provide a reference or be willing to have their names mentioned? Have some flyers printed and go round your locality in person, speaking to householders and leaving a flyer. Stress that you will be able to do work at a time convenient to the householder and that you will not go away to another job leaving their kitchen or bathroom half-finished (assuming that these promises are achievable). Supply your name, address and contact details so that potential customers know how to get in touch with you if there is a problem. Stress that you are a local and reliable contractor. Dbfirs 09:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Small Business Administration has some programs to advise or mentor small business owners, and there's probably an office near you. I have no experience with them, but it wouldn't cost you anything to give them a call or email and see what they could help you with. I'm sure a lot of other contractors are feeling the economic pinch these days too. Good luck to you. Textorus (talk) 10:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Administration!! Dismas|^(talk) 10:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem likely has to do with the economy. In uncertain times people are loathe to spend money on "optional" things like remodeling. The key to overcoming this might be in the way that you market your services. Viewed alone, they can be seen as an "unnecessary expense", but viewed as an alternative to buying a better (and more expensive) home, this alternative may compare favorably. Another thought, if you can find a backer, is to buy cheap homes and remodel them, with the hope of reselling them later for a profit, once real estate prices recover. Or, perhaps they could be rented out, possibly subdivided into apartments. So, you need to "think outside the (tool)box". StuRat (talk) 18:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here in the UK, we have a TV show called Homes Under the Hammer, which airs once every weekday. At least twice a week one of the people buying a house at auction for renovation explains that they are in the same position as you - a specialist contractor where the work is drying out. They have decided to buy a property at auction and renovate it, so that they can sell it on at a profit and keep their staff in work. Might be worth trying, although obviously I have no idea what the property market is like in other parts of the world. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Black Adder TV Series

Listings show episodes 2 Born To Be king & 4 The Queen Of Spain's Beard----but they are shown differently in the introduction of each episode( for example--The Queen Of Spain's Beard is displayed as episode 2).Were these programs aired in the correct order? Very Confusing.94.9.66.170 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

See Talk:The Black Adder#Episode Order. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another landlubber question - the Channel crossing

Students of English history know that for centuries, down to the age of steamships and even beyond, the Channel crossing was dreaded by nearly all travellers, high and low alike. Letters, diaries, biographies, and histories are full of innumerable examples like this one (p. 7) of otherwise butch, brave men being reduced to quivering lumps of jelly by it - to say nothing of what the crossing did to the, um, weaker sex, as it was then supposed to be. Even the mere contemplation of the journey was fearsome, and many times affairs of state had to wait for days or weeks because somebody just couldn't make that short hop. The question in the back of my mind for a long time has been - WTF?? It's only 20 miles from Calais to Dover, and even on the slow sailing ships of the time, that wouldn't take more than what, two, three hours at most, right? Even a rough, choppy trip would be over very quickly. What could be so bad about that? Textorus (talk) 12:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC) <---- whose main seagoing experience was in a large canoe on a small creek[reply]

The English prince William Adelin thought exactly the same as you, and look what happened to him! --TammyMoet (talk) 12:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by the state of the sea depicted in Turner's Calais Pier, the journey could be very rough. I've also experienced a very rough crossing some years ago onboard a large and fast catamaran... the bar closed, the alcohol shop closed and a lake of mixed spirits leaked out from under the door, people were vomiting everywhere - I've taken to calling that trip the rivers of puke and have never crossed by sea since. Astronaut (talk) 14:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Hoverspeed catamaran from Folkestone to Bolougne was known to locals as the "Vomit Comet". Alansplodge (talk) 23:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Textorus, as we saw with sailing routes out of Venice, early modern or medieval sailing ships were capable of about 6 km per hour under the best conditions. From Dover to Calais is about 24 miles or 38 kilometers, so let's say at least 40 km accounting for slippage due to tide and currents (about which more later). That works out to a 7-hour passage, and that's how long the journey took under the very best conditions. One reason that this passage was treacherous was the action of the tidal currents. See this page on swimming the Channel for some background. Tidal currents in the English Channel often run at 3 to 4 knots (6–7 kph). As you can calculate, an early modern sailing ship would make no headway against such a current, even with a favorable wind. Of course, this was a cross current, and it changed direction every 6 hours, so a ship crossing the Strait of Dover would typically travel in a V-shaped course: east-southeastward during the flood tide (toward Belgium), then south-southwestward (toward Calais) during the ebb tide. Another issue is that when the prevailing westerlies blow against the ebb tide, the friction causes a harsh chop to develop. (These are short, spiky waves that would toss a ship of pre-industrial size and tend to cause seasickness.) With a less common easterly wind, the same phenomenon would happen during the flood tide. Finally, the English Channel is completely open and exposed to westerly storms and winds blowing in from the open Atlantic. As such, winds can be quite fierce and wave heights higher than you would expect in an enclosed body of water. The Strait of Dover is relatively (but only relatively) sheltered from such winds compared to other parts of the Channel. However, it wasn't always convenient, for political or other reasons, to cross the channel at Calais. Sometimes it was necessary to cross a broader, rougher part of the Channel, where the passage (involving a zigzag course due to tidal currents) could take more than 24 hours and where an unexpected storm could founder a ship out of the sight of land. Marco polo (talk) 14:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And don't forget there's also the Goodwin Sands to contend with, where "more than 2,000 ships are believed to have been wrecked", and Varne Bank.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently these are just two of several banks or ledges that pose a shipping hazard in the Dover Strait alone. See this chart showing several others. Marco polo (talk) 16:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The waves hitting the ship sideways caused rocking action that caused seasickness in lots of passengers. Henry Bessemer, co-inventer of the Bessemer steel process, spent a large portion of his fortune as well as investments by others designing and building a ship to make the crossing smoother, the SS Bessemer. It had an internal passenger compartment which was able to swing port and starboard to cancel out the rocking and remain stationary. It did not address and longitudinal rocking, which was less of a problem. It was opersated by a hydraulic system powered by a steam engine. As tested, it was controlled by a seaman rather than an automatic gyroscopic system, but automatic operation was envisioned for later development. The ship was designed to be reversible, so no turn-around was needed in harbor. It would just "back" all the way back to England. On the maiden voyage, the anti-rocking system worked brilliantly, but poor design of the vessel's steering caused it to crash into the dock at the French harbor. Rather than perfecting the steering, the project was abandoned, which seems a shame. Edison (talk) 19:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

William Adelin should have checked with the Reference Desk first. Thanks for the great answers, y'all; I get the picture now. Textorus (talk) 22:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes it is not the crossing that is the trouble, a while ago my ferry from France to Dove could not dock in Dover because the seas were too rough even in the harbour, so we had to return to France and come home by train thru the tunnel.85.211.229.139 (talk) 08:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But that troublesome stretch of water has (together with some vigourous defensive measures) saved us from all kinds of unpleasantness over the years: see Battle of Sluys, Spanish Armada, Napoleon's planned invasion of the United Kingdom and Operation Sealion. Alansplodge (talk) 12:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, quite. Textorus (talk) 23:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This precious stone set in the silver sea,
Which serves it in the office of a wall
Or as a moat defensive to a house,
Against the envy of less happier lands.

William Shakespeare, Richard II (Act II, Scene 1)

"less happier lands". Tut tut. didn't 'whoever wrote the Shakespeare plays' learn grammar? ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sink in Laundry Room

I am purchasing a new construction home and have the choice of purchasing an upgrade to a sink in the laundry room which is downstairs. This will be my first home, and am unsure of whether or not I will use a sink in the laundry room. I am most concerned about resell value, and whether or not spending $1000 on a sink would be worth it.

It is a nice stainless steel sink with a granite counter top and cabinet underneath (downgrading to a cheap sink is not an option).

Do you kind folks value having a sink being in a laundry room? Is it something that would impact your buying of a house? Many thanks, TheGrimme (talk) 14:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not having a sink in a laundry makes no sense to me. IMHO it is an absolutely essential item, not an optional "upgrade". A sinkless laundry is terriby impractical. Roger (talk) 14:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I use the sink in the laundry room for cleaning boots, garden tools, etc. that my wife would not want me to use the kitchen sink for. There is an entrance to the laundry room from the garden and I also use it a s a "mud room" to wash hands and clean myself up before going into the rest of the house. To me a sink is pretty well essential - though any sink would do this is not one of our "fine" rooms where we would bring guests (except for muddy kids who have been playing in the garden!). -- Q Chris (talk) 14:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I get by just fine without a laundry sink. If something is really dirty, the hose outside does the job. For anything else, the bathroom sink or bathtub works. So I don't think it's a necessity. If you like the idea of a laundry sink, I would do a little research and see if you can have something functional installed for less than $1,000. The granite counter top for a messy laundry room sink just sounds excessive. Unless you are in a very upscale neighborhood where buyers expect luxury in every corner of a house, I doubt that ordinary buyers would care enough about fancy fittings in the laundry room to bid more for the house. Marco polo (talk) 14:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Might be worth checking that, if you reject the $1000 sink, the builders will at least leave you with the plumbing for a sink in case you later decide you do need a sink. Astronaut (talk) 14:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(OP) I thought about rejecting the $1000 sink and having a contractor put in a sink. The plumbing is directly behind the wall, but I figure to have them put in a decent sink it will probably cost at least $600. At that point, it makes sense to spend more and get a premium sink that matches the rest of the house. TheGrimme (talk) 15:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect what you ought to do is call a real estate agent and ask them if laundry room sinks generally affect the re-sale value of a home. They probably know better than we do whether there's a lot of demand for that sort of thing amongst buyers — whether it's the sort of thing that will really be important to someone out there. It may well be; I haven't the foggiest idea. As to whether it is practical or necessary or not, that depends on your habits. I've lived in places with sinks and without them. One can easily adapt to either situation. Personally, I think every additional sink you add also adds a significant chance you'll have to call a plumber, someday! ;-) --Mr.98 (talk) 15:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

$1000 sounds high. Can you break that down by parts and labor? If there is already laundry room plumbing, I would think the installation would cost much less. This how-to guide says $500-$1,000. Dualus (talk) 15:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I recently had a bathroom sink and counter installed for $550: $250 for a very nice sink with a fancy real marble countertop and stainless steel fixtures and $300 for labor using a licensed plumber in expensive Massachusetts. Of course, we had a vanity in place which we kept. Still, even adding the price of a vanity, which you could have installed by a handyman for much less than the plumber would charge, I think you could get a basic sink and counter installed for no more than $600. Of course if you are buying a premium home, $400 is probably trivial. Marco polo (talk) 16:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing the OP's questions: 1) Yes, I would like a laundry sink. 2) But it wouldn't make-or-break my buying a house. 3) However, a laundry sink is a "feature" that realtors and prospective buyers will be impressed with, whether they need one or not - how much reward you get at resale time is hard to say, fluctuations in the RE market might outweight that one item's value - but if the $1000 isn't keeping you from buying groceries this month, do it up pretty and relax. 4) Make sure your spouse agrees and likes it, or you may never hear the end of it. Textorus (talk) 18:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I only use my laundry sink for one thing, to receive the drain hose from the washing machine. If you don't get the laundry sink, make sure you at least have a drain suitable for use with a washing machine. StuRat (talk) 18:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I may, what kind of sink are we talking about here? The OP mentions a marble counter and such but I can't think of any laundry sink that has been that elaborate. This is what I think of when I think "laundry sink". My parent's house had one and it came in handy. And I'd really like to have one in my current house. I'd have put one in already but other things keep needing the money more (like the mortgage to have the house in the first place). It wouldn't make or break the purchase of a house for me (obviously as I don't have one now) mostly due to the low amount of trouble it is to put one in. Dismas|^(talk) 01:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would think the general expectation that there be a sink in the laundry room would depend on where in the world you are talking about, as well as the general price-range/overall quality of the house. Of the two houses I've lived in the longest, one in Buffalo and one in Seattle, neither has a laundry room sink. In fact in both the "laundry room" seems to have been almost an afterthought--crammed into whatever extra space there was. It's possible my experience is unusual, but I would find a sink in the laundry room a welcome plus, but not at all something expected as the norm. Pfly (talk) 09:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who needs a laundry tub in Seattle ? If you need to soak your clothes, just hang them outside. :-) StuRat (talk) 18:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Changing plea = perjury?

I was watching one of those many, many legal shows on TV (can't remember the title but this one starred Kathy Bates). The story raised for me an interesting point. The accused had pleaded not-guilty and had undergone cross-examination in front of the jury. Some way through, the accused said he wanted to change his plea to guilty. The prosecution asked why he didn't plead guilty earlier. That got me thinking: could the accused then have perjury added to his charges and potentially ended up with a stronger penalty (jail time or file)? After all, earlier in the trial he must have lied under oath in order to try to make himself seem innocent. Astronaut (talk) 15:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there are lawyers watching this page, your best bet would be to read some wikipedia articles about plea bargain and such stuff as that. Something to think about, though: How often do you ever hear of someone who is found guilty, also being charged with perjury just because he claims he's innocent? I'm thinking, not often, or maybe never. Now, if a witness lies, that's another matter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't legal advice and probably a lawyer will laugh at it for being too simplistic and inaccurate. But as our article notes, you can only be charged with perjury for lying under oath or affirmation to tell the truth. So if you just plead not guilty (which isn't under oath) or say your innocent in public or whatever, this doesn't mean you're guilty of perjury even if you're guilty. The problem only arises when you testify in your defence, which isn't required and can't be forced in a criminal trial in the US and quite a number of countries. And while I don't know how true this is, my impression is people are often advised not to testify in their defence, particularly if their lawyer believes they're guilty (partially because they know it's easily possible they'll be caught lieing which even if they aren't charged with perjury isn't going to help their defence and even if you don't caught in a lie it's still hard to sway a jury in your favour but easy to push them against you). And as anyone who's watched enough legal shows know, your lawyer can't subborn perjury, so can't encourage you to testify if they know you're going to lie, or encourage testimony which they know to be a lie (so they can't for example tell you what to say if they know it's not the truth) although this is a complicated issue (see our article for example) that also involves ethics, see [[1] for example.

Anyway [2] and [3] and [4] (see last post by Danimal) suggests in the US even when the defendent does testify in their defence and is later found guilty they're almost never charged with perjury, as it's generally going to be seen as a waste of the everyone's time since the original sentence is likely to be far longer then any perjury conviction and you still need to prove the person commited perjury and the sentence may end up being concurrent anyway. They also suggest if the person is found not guilty but it later becomes clear they perjured themselves in their testimony it's more likely.

Nil Einne (talk) 17:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is typical practice to only prosecute the most serious crime committed. It is obvious that during the commission of a murder, you are virtually certain to commit unlawful act manslaughter, assault (either technical or battery, probably both) probably occasioning grievous bodily harm (depending on how you killed them); you also could be found guilty of attempted murder (the attempt being successful!). So missing out perjury seems to fit this rule. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's really the same thing. Most of the stuff you're referring to is part of committing the same crime (and I strongly suspect you're wrong on the attempted murder and manslaughter bit). Commiting perjury when you are on trial for a crime isn't generally seen as part of the original crime. Nil Einne (talk) 17:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There do seem to be some crimes where they "throw the book at them", and charge them with all the "lesser included offenses", as well. Where this actually matters is sentencing. If the sentences are served concurrently, then only the longer sentence matters (although I suppose they could be pardoned or paroled on that one, in which case the others might still matter). But, when sentences are to be served consecutively, then the lesser included offense can have a major effect on the total length, and may even (collectively) dwarf the sentences for the main crime. I've never really understood the decision process behind consecutive versus concurrent sentences. StuRat (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The lesser included offenses merge with the original crime. The perjury charge would be separate though. Shadowjams (talk) 02:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's an incorrect interpretation. A person can't be convicted and sentenced for the lesser included offenses as if they were committed separately from the most serious offense. As Shadowjams notes, the merger doctrine precludes this outcome. (Among other things, it would violate prohibitions against double jeopardy.) In situations where they 'throw the book at someone', each charge represents a unique crime that may have been committed at the same time as the major offense. Consider a bank robbery—there might be a charge of armed robbery, and another of possession of an unlicensed firearm, and another of dangerous driving (in the getaway car). The defendant could be independently convicted of, and sentenced for, all three offenses. On the other hand, if he were charged with larceny (a lesser included offense to robbery), he would have to be sentenced for one or the other, but not both. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you're saying is incorrect. Charging an armed robber with possession of an unlicensed firearm, commission of crime using a gun, driving offenses, failure to stop, resisting arrest, etc., is exactly what I'm talking about. If all those are included and sentences are consecutive, then the prison term may be far longer than for armed robbery alone. StuRat (talk) 18:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that those offenses (possession of an unlicensed firearm, dangerous driving, etc.) aren't elements of the offense of robbery and therefore aren't lesser included offenses. They're separate crimes that the defendant has also committed and for which he might also be charged. You're misusing or misunderstanding the specific term of art lesser included offense; it would help a great deal if you read the articles that I and Shadowjams had linked, which explain these principles. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But whether they are "elements of the offense of armed robbery" seems open to debate. Can you commit armed robbery without a gun ? Possibly, but it's not likely to succeed. Can you commit armed robbery without a car or using a car which is properly licensed and displaying the license plate as required ? Again, it's possible, but highly unlikely to succeed. StuRat (talk) 20:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elliptical philosophical digressions aside, you're being obtuse for obtuseness' sake. Go read term of art. "Elements of the offense" are specific components of the legal definition of a particular offense—conditions that must be met for a particular offense to have been commmitted in the eyes of the law. "Elements of an offense" are not the same thing as "plot devices and props which must be present to satisfy a scriptwriter". That's as much time as I'm going to waste leading you by the nose. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for Ten's extended explanation. As for the ad hoc "practical" lines of thought, they don't tend to fly on the bar exam or in court, although I realize that's how most people think of the law. Element have very limited scopes of interpretation. Shadowjams (talk) 10:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, common sense has no place in the law, which often prides itself on being illogical. Legal fiction comes to mind as an example. StuRat (talk) 01:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can commit armed robbery without a gun. Someone was in the news here recently for a series of armed robberies that involved the use of a knife. --Carnildo (talk) 02:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's nothing - here in London, you can get away robberies armed with a cucumber. Alansplodge (talk) 15:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One he was apprehended, he was in a pickle. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the headlines: "Nation survives cuke attack !". StuRat (talk) 04:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The TV show is Harry's Law, with Kathy Bates as "Harry". StuRat (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the one, yep. It occurs to me that if a guy changes his plea to guilty, why would the prosecutor do anything to try and dissuade the accused from doing so? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about if the prosecutor considers the case an easy win, and wants the publicity, to assist him in seeking higher office ? StuRat (talk) 03:04, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

microwave ovens

why does the inside plate holder rotate counter clockwise inside a microwave? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.78.56.25 (talk) 16:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They definitely don't all rotate counter clockwise. I've owned several that rotated clockwise. --Daniel 17:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think most I've owned have reversed everytime you start them although [5] and [6] suggests it's more commonly technically random (which may have been the case for mine too, I didn't pay that much attention). Nil Einne (talk) 17:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mine alternates direction every time the door's been opened. Textorus (talk) 17:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mine always rotates clockwise, though I think it sometimes used to rotate anti-clockwise about 20 years ago. The direction of rotation makes no difference to the heating, of course. This reminds me of older electric clocks that sometimes used to start going backwards after a power-cut. In theory, synchronous motors can run either way, and starting direction "ought" to be random, but the starting-position is critical to the direction, and wear will probably determine a pattern for the position of the motor when it stops. Dbfirs 22:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And to answer the question that the OP might have been going for... The plate rotates to provide even cooking for your food. Dismas|^(talk) 01:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ding ding ding, we have a winner! Beeblebrox (talk) 02:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Mine just goes 'Ding' Richard Avery (talk) 08:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whereas mine goes "Beep. Beep. Beeeeep." Also, like Textorus's, it reverses the direction of rotation every time it's restarted: I conjecture that this is because many microwaveable products specify a pause, with or without stirring, during the heating period, and the reversal may further contribute to the evening-out of the cooking process, though I don't immediately see how. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.254 (talk) 12:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coriolis effect - which way it spins depends on which hemisphere you're in. ;-) However that brings me to another question, if anyone would like to chime in. Why don't manufacturers have it so that the plate returns to the same position each time (e.g., when you put a cup in you put it at the front - wouldn't it be nice if it always returned to the front when the time was up to make it easy to get out)? Surely this would be easy enough to program? Has anyone ever seen a microwave with this function? --jjron (talk) 14:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Usually there is a set number of seconds per revolution - if you wish the cup handle to end up in a given place, either place the cup in the proper position for the amount of time you wish, or adjust the amount of time to get an integer number of revolutions. Collect (talk) 14:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...not to mention a huge 'geek credibility' increase ;-) Richard Avery (talk) 19:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be nice though at some point, you'd have to program it not to spin at all because the cook time was too short. Imagine if you put something in for five seconds and it took ten seconds to go through one full rotation at normal speed. If the object has to now spin around in half the time, you might spill your coffee or whatever you're heating. Dismas|^(talk) 20:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And people can stop it early, too, say when it starts to boil over. I just wait 'til the time is almost up, then stop it when the object is near me. (Or add an extra few seconds when it stops on the far side.) StuRat (talk) 20:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guffaw. This rather elite sub-discussion over the extremely minor inconvenience of extending your hand a mere couple of inches further reminds me of a counter-Occupy poster I saw a few weeks ago: "To the rest of the world, you are the one percent." It doesn't come up in a Google image search, can anyone else find it? Textorus (talk) 23:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The good thing about our microwave is that it keeps turning after it stops cooking. Though, that does mean I can't calculate the time in sets of 6 seconds to make sure it always ends up back in the right place at the end. 148.197.81.179 (talk) 08:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, I do like the concept that others have thought about this somewhat nerdy problem. Yeah, I had considered the problem of too short cook times making it spin too fast, but the above IP's comment raises the possibility that it could be programmed to continue to spin after the time is up in order to return it to the starting position (i.e., spinning without cooking), which would be an elegant solution to this dilemma. Re calculating the cook time to return it to the front, or stopping it early or adding extra time at the end, well maybe I'm a bit lazy, but that seems like too hard work to me :). The point is I put something in, wander off to do something else, then come back when it's finished and I'd like it at the front - I don't want to have to manually monitor the machine, and I have very precise cooking times for various things (and to be honest I'm not sure any of the ones I regularly use spins at a consistent speed, as despite starting things at the same spot and using the same time they don't always end up at the same spot). And I think this has real practical considerations; consider my cup example - when the cup finishes in the wrong spot, it's not just a matter of inconvenience to have to reach to the back of the oven, but the handle is on the wrong side to grab, potentially leading to injuries such as burns (perhaps a lawsuit would set the manufacturers straight!). --jjron (talk) 12:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you're over the age 10, that's a truly pathetic complaint. If you are really soooo scared of burning your widdle hand in that big scary machine, why not place the cup in the center of the turntable to start with, or alternately, with the handle facing the center? Duh. Man up, dude. Textorus (talk) 15:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No need to be insulting. Burns to the hand can be quite serious, requiring hospitalization. Placing it in the center reduces the distance somewhat, but doesn't address the handle being on the wrong side. StuRat (talk) 16:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why mommy shouldn't let you play in the kitchen until you are big enough to figure out how not to burn yourself. Get real, bro. Textorus (talk) 17:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear. Textorus, I'm liking you more and more every day. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You too, Jack ? jjron and I are trying to think of ways to make a safer product, what exactly is wrong with that ? If you two don't want to participate, then don't. StuRat (talk) 01:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Humans have been aware of the possibility of burning themselves in kitchens for a very long time. That's why we have protective items like kitchen gloves, oven mitts, teatowels etc to distance our skin from hot things. That's the simple, practical, effective and cheap solution to this issue, not programming the microwave to always finish with the handle in a desirable spot. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 10:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why not ? Having it do an extra half turn at the end to return to the starting position would take less time than digging up oven gloves and then trying to fit your finger through the cup handle with those clumsy things on. Sounds like a nice feature to add, to me. StuRat (talk) 04:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Placing it in the centre significantly reduces the benefit of the turntable Nil Einne (talk) 06:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, what you need is a cup with two handles. And perhaps a lid with a little hole to drink through, to avoid spills. My brother has one such that he takes to bed with him and it works rather well, though I am not sure it is microwavable. 148.197.81.179 (talk) 08:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, perhaps if you can't make sensible and civil contributions Textorus and others you shouldn't be involved here - please take time to go and read some policy pieces such as this to try to understand useful ways to contribute to Wikipedia. FWIW, if you had any understanding of the issue you would know that putting something in the middle of the microwave oven defeats the purpose of the thing spinning, as Nil says (and if you wanted to be smart you could have suggested just taking the turntable out and sitting the thing at the front edge, as then it would be exactly where it's needed at the end, which would be much better than having it in the middle of the thing with the handle probably facing the wrong way anyway). Thanks Stu and others who have made intelligent contributions. --jjron (talk) 06:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I'm rather shocked that Jack cheered on the attack on you. BTW, my microwave has the option to turn the rotation on and off. I thought this was in case you had something too large to rotate (because it would keep hitting the walls), but perhaps it's also for cases like you mentioned. Incidentally, there was an alternate design without a rotating turntable, where instead the microwaves were deflected by a rotating disk at the top. I'm not sure why this design never caught on, but it would fix the "handle on the far side" problem. StuRat (talk) 01:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should know me better by now than to think I would ever engage in or support a personal attack, Stu. It was by no means an attack on jjron or anyone else. Textorus made light of jjron's argument, not of jjron personally. There was nothing malicious about it; its acerbity was sit-up-and-take-notice-worthy but very fitting, and it appealed to my sense of humour. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 02:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see, Textorus implied he was immature and belittled jjron's issue: "If you're over the age 10, that's a truly pathetic complaint" and "mommy shouldn't let you play in the kitchen until you are big enough to figure out how not to burn yourself". Then he talked down to him: "soooo scared of burning your widdle hand in that big scary machine". Then he finished up by questioning his manhood: "Man up, dude." How is that not a personal attack ? How would you feel if someone said such things to you ? StuRat (talk) 02:58, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Belittled his issue" = he did not belittle jjron personally. No personal attack there.

"Talked down to him" - maybe, but that's still not a personal attack.

"Man up, dude" - this is encouraging him to drop what Textorus considered a trivial complaint, and should not be seen as anything like "questioning his manhood". That really is drawing a long bow, Stu.

How would I feel? It'd depend on the context. In this context, it was all part of the cut and thrust of debate, the hurly-burly, the give and take. These discussions are never going to be sweetness and light at all times, and that's perfectly fine as long as lines don't get crossed. I am yet to be persuaded that Textorus went anywhere near such a line. I do acknowledge you feel differently about it. Maybe we can leave it at that, because further discussion is unlikely to be fruitful. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 03:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Considering how sensitive you've been to perceived insults to homosexuals in the past, I'd expect you to be more sensitive to insults to others. StuRat (talk) 15:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not go there, Stu. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My fact for the day: the Welsh for microwave oven is Popty ping. Alansplodge (talk) 16:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]