Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2007 December 28

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.

December 28

Jeremy Clarkson

Does Jeremy Clarkson have any siblings? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.67.32 (talk) 00:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Three children [1] ...but clearly that doesn't answer your question...hold on...right now the answer is no Fact file:[2]...happy holidays --n1yaNt 02:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Flag of Saudi Arabia

The script on the flag is, according to the article, in Thuluth style, but there is no mention of the calligrapher who designed that particular representation of the shahadah. Is it a particular artist's work, or is it a generic example of thuluth calligraphy, like carolingian or other latin calligraphic styles? Steewi (talk) 03:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Vitrit

A diagram in the article on incandescent light bulbs identifies insulation at the base of a lightbulb as "vitrit". What is this stuff? A Google search brings up nothing, other than a site that requires you to pay to access it, which identifies it as a mineral:

http://www.mindat.org/min-23479.html

These links seem to be associating it with coal:

http://www.kgs.ku.edu/Publications/Bulletins/102_1/03_class.html

http://www.oxygentimerelease.com/A/Therapies/Germanium/b7.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lumarine (talk • contribs) 11:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I found the answer at the top of the first link:

German synonym of: Anthracite

Now, I'll just direct myself to the Wikipedia article on anthracite, and be on my merry way! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lumarine (talk • contribs) 12:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Good question. I cannot answer it except to say that I think it should be vitrite, which is a type of very hard glass. Try Googling vitrite and glass.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

"The Electrical Engineer" for Oct. 25, 1889 p 322 [3] talks about the "Vitrite Company" as making the insulating glass used in the base of light bulbs. I find a description of the base of the bulb, inside the brass screw-form base, being filled with "vitrite" in pp 68-69 of "Electricity in Mining" By Sydney Ferris Walker, Van Nostrand, New York, 1907, viewable at Google Books [4] . Before vitrite, porcelein was used, and before that plaster of paris, which absorbed moisture and which crumbled from the heat. Vitrite is described in "A Dictionary of Chemistry and the Allied Branches of Other Sciences" By Henry Watts (1869)as another name for vitrinopal, "a matrix of Bohemian pyrope, related to pitchstone, and being 83.72% silica, 3.58% ferric oxide, 7.57% lime, .67% magnesia, and 11.46% water. Unfortunately this adds up to 107%. The 1911 Britannica article on electric lamps [5] calls it "vitrite." Numerous other sources found from Google Book search spell it "vitrite." I have corrected the spelling in the Incandescent light bulb article. Edison (talk) 18:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I am an electric lamp collector and I am also researching "vitrite". Although I do not have a definite oxide composition yet, and the one given above is definitely not the type of vitrite used in the caps of electric lamps, I do know that it is a low softening point, high Lead II oxide content glass which possesses high electrical resistivity at moderately high temperatures. Even in electric lamps, at least a couple of different "vitrites" are used. The most commonly seen form looks black, although when broken into pieces, thin slivers appear a pinkey-lilac colour. I have reason to suspect that this form contains Manganese (Oxide), but in which oxidation state is unclear, probably one of the lower ones, II or III, as IV would decompose in the furnace to release oxygen and VI and VII are so unstable they would explode upon heating. Some Asian, (Korean and Japanese) and North American lamps use a blue vitrite with a considerably greater transmittance than the black form which does not need to be smashed into thin slivers to see the transmitted light colour. So, tentatively, it is a Lead II, (possibly up to 35% by weight PbO), Manganese II/III, Silicon, Calcium, Sodium, Potassium Oxide containing glass with a high electrical resistivety and low softening point which possibly allows the semi-molten material to be "poured" up against the brass cap shells at about 850*C, but I am still unsure how Aluminium Lamp Caps/Bases with Vitrite insulation are fabricated. I will be continuing to research, and if all avenues seem fruitless, I will try to take some small samples of Vitrite, both the black and blue forms, and some Wood's Glass, (of which there is some conjecture over its composition), it my local University where there is a Auger Electron Probe, an electron microscope set up to measure Auger Electron energies and characteristic X-Ray wavelengths of samples bombarded by its electron beam. Then all will be known and I will post another reply.

Mood Ring Colors Chart

To; All Wikipedians,

I consider it a compliment & am very honored that someone thought well enough of my own "Mood Ring Colors Chart" to post it here in the entry on "Mood Rings". I made a minor edit to it; removing the "= Signs" that went just before the "Mood Colors" as that is supposed to actually be the "Webding" version of that symbol (an "Oval" approximately in the shape of a "Mood Ring") & it just did not transfer over as such in the entry. I suspect, as is often the case- The "Mood Ring" entry on "The Wikipedia" will be edited yet again, to post a more traditional & smaller version of the typical "Mood Ring Colors Chart". For now though, I will enjoy the honor for just a little while (a nice "Holiday Gift") until it is changed again. If anyone is interested in viewing my "Mood Ring Colors Chart" & "The Mood Ring Poem" before it is removed from here- Go to Google & key in the blog-name; sheofmermaids (all lower-case & no spaces), & that should take you right to it! "Happy Holidays" to All!! Dawnofrabbits (talk) 17:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually inclined to delete the colour/mood chart from the article altogether. We clearly state that these rings change colour on a temperature basis and the idea that there is any relationship whatever between body temperature and mood is pseudoscience (especially since the ring is not at body temperature - it's at some temperature between the body and the ambient air). Hence that chart cannot possibly be correct and we should not put incorrect information into the encyclopedia. SteveBaker (talk) 18:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

(EC)Thank you so much for that notification. SteveBaker beat me to the removal of the list of colours, but only by seconds. If you are able to adduce any evidence whatsoever for the correlations between colours & states, then please feel free to add the list back; but if not, please do not. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

"Mood ring- apply directly to the finger. Mood ring- apply directly to the finger....." Edison (talk) 18:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the chart is an important part of talking about this subject. Of course it's pseudoscience, but we talk about what astrology and blood types are 'supposed' to mean; why not colors on the mood ring? What's the difference? --Masamage ♫ 18:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

As ever, the difference is referencing. There's a long literature for astrology, for the Japanese blood type theory of personality, for the Blood type diet, &c. Mood rings have been here for the last five minutes and have no such basis. Even were we to agree with your argument, the thrust is in the opposite direction, to remove to additional bogus lists, not to keep the one bogus list because there might be others in wikipedia. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Um, but I don't think the other lists are bogus. :P I think if you're going to discuss a thing people believe in, you ought to say what they believe about it. And what mood rings "mean" is their entire point--it's all over their marketing and is the only reason people buy them. Despite your joke, they've been around for at least 30 years, and probably longer. That's more than long enough to find a good solid reference about the phenomenon--which I entirely agree we need before it's justifiable. --Masamage ♫ 18:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I concede there are ways of introducing an illustrative list along the lines you infer, should anyone care to do so. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the "should anyone care" is really the clincher. My local library doesn't appear to have anything on the subject, which rather limits my ability to help. It's unlikely anything on the internet is sufficiently reliable. I'll keep looking around, though, I guess. --Masamage ♫ 18:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

James Fergason joined the Westinghouse Research Laboratories in 1956. He began work on liquid crystals the following year. His initial target was thermal sensors, the kind of thing you could use to check the temperature of water in a pipe-which might be carrying waste water from cooling the reactor in one of the nuclear power plants that Westinghouse was building during this period-without actually having to break open the pipe. The liquid crystals would change color depending on how hot the pipe was.

This work found an extremely popular-and entirely accidental-outlet in the shape of that psychedelic fashion accessory so beloved of 1960s hippies: the mood ring. Today, this type of material, known as cholesteric liquid crystal, is routinely sold in the form of battery checkers. Johnstone, Bob. (1999) We Were Burning: Japanese Entrepreneurs and the Forging of the Electronic Age. New York: Basic Books. p. 99.

—eric 19:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

...but according to Sagert, K.B. (2007) The 1970s.[6] p. 126 the actual ring was invented by Josh Reynolds in 1975. Any "1960s hippies" around who remember wearing a mood ring prior to 1975? The color chart provided with the original rings was:

• Dark blue: Happy, romantic, or passionate
• Blue: Calm or relaxed
• Blue-green: Somewhat relaxed
• Green: Normal or average
• Amber: A little nervous or anxious
• Gray: Very nervous or anxious
• Black: Stressed, tense, or feeling harried

—eric 19:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you win! All of that information is great. Is the chart from that book, too? --Masamage ♫ 19:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Yup, it's from an incomplete Google Books preview, but you should be able to see pages 126 and 127 following the link above.—eric 19:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

That date of invention corresponds to my misty water colored memories of days gone by. I thought something rang false when I first read that line above about "1960's hippies". --LarryMac | Talk 19:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, my mother says she thought they came in at the very end of the 60s, and that 1975 seems a little late. Either she's wrong or she's providing useful information. X) --Masamage ♫ 23:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• To be clear, whether or not mood rings are a pseudoscience has nothing to do with whether or not a colour chart should be included. Rather, verifability is what's relevant here. It is indeed forseeable that people would expect to find this information (if it exists - pseudoscience or otherwise) in an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia.
  One obstacle is if there are several sources claiming several different meanings for the colours. If there is no uniform interpretation then we can smuggle in one or more verified interpretations of the colours. Rfwoolf (talk) 04:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

WHAT!!!! We aren't in the business of "smuggling" bogus crap into the encyclopedia. That's absolutely not the goal here!

The issue here is that there isn't a 'one true color/mood chart' - there are a bazillion of them. The one listed above and the one that the OP discusses (for example) are wildly different. Which one should be considered 'authoritative'? Since they are all (for sure) utterly bogus there is no rational way to pick between them. We don't have verifiability because the various 'primary sources' don't agree you can't pick and choose which supposedly authoritative source you're going to go with. There can't be a definitive source for something pseudoscientific that people just think up out of their heads - there is no right choice.

If someone comes to Wikipedia to find out what the colours on their mood ring mean, then as an encyclopedia we have an absolute duty to explain that mood rings really only measure temperature and that they in no way measure your mood. Providing people with a 'mood decoder chart' that is just meaningless crap that someone dreamed up in order to sell more trashy rings is NOT the function of an encyclopedia. The only thing we MIGHT consider saying is something like "These rings were originally sold with a chart that purported to tell your mood from the colour of the ring - this chart read as follows: yadda yadda". In that way we are documenting the history of these things and stating a fact about how the rings were originally marketted. THAT is verifiable and truthful and informative/useful. SteveBaker (talk) 15:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Calm the hell down, please. No argument, I agree with what you say, but earlier you would have had us believe that absolutely no chart should be included. If there is a verifiable chart especially from the originally marketed mood rings, then I say we include it, even if we have to put a note explaining that this was the guide from such-and-such a date, which is what you have proposed, and similar to what I had recommended !!! Rfwoolf (talk) 15:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

And by the way, I used the word "smuggle" as a sarcasm/exaggeration. I assume you took it literally. Next time I'll put it in inverted commas. Rfwoolf (talk) 15:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

As someone who had a mood ring as a kid, and who knows that it is all about the temperature of the ring (I used to rub mine really fast on my sleeve to make it warm so I could appear "happy"), and who is against pseudo-science and all that -- I still think that some form of "colour chart" should be included because the colour chart was part of the *cultural phenomenon*. Even if we all agree that the ring is unscientific, we must also agree that wearing and "decoding" the ring was a HUGE fad and as such, the chart that accompanied the purchase and wearing and understanding of the object is pertainent contextual information. So I think SteveBaker's (latest) suggestion is the one to go with. Saudade7 14:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Which is kinda what I suggested. Anyway, I'm getting used to everyone either not reading my posts properly, or misinterpreting everything I say (i.e. "smuggling"). To enhance what Saudade7 said, if it's part of popular culture, and it's relevant (which I think it is), depending on the suitability of the source(s) we should definitely try to include (read: smuggle) at least one colour guide in, and by smuggle I mean try put it in, like I said, depending on the suitability of the source, for example the one provided above seems suitable given that it was the originally marketed guide. Rfwoolf (talk) 06:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)