Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2015 June 4

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 4

Hurricanes, Tornadoes and Bushfires in Christmas (cont.)

There are hurricanes, tornadoes and bushfires in Christmas? But Christmas is in winter and hurricanes, tornadoes and bushfires usually occur in summer.

117.120.18.136 (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

As was pointed out in your earlier thread, [1] your question was ambiguous - were you referring to one of the many places named 'Christmas' (which your use of the word 'in' would apppear to imply), or to the time of year? If the former, certainly there are places of that name that experience hurricanes etc - and if the latter, Christmas occurs during the summer in the southern hemisphere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Please don't be quite so grumpy; the poster probably just isn't a native English speaker, and prepositions are hard to get right in foreign languages. "Christmas is in winter" removes any possible interpretation that Christmas didn't mean the holiday (or that approximate time of year). --174.88.135.200 (talk) 05:54, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Christmas can also occur in the dry season or wet season instead. In the north, bushfires are typically called forest fires. Down south, hurricanes are typically called cyclones. Tornadoes can happen in winter, outside of trailer parks and do not skip buildings. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Except the section you linked to explains how they do, in fact, skip buildings while still calling it a myth. Rmhermen (talk) 15:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I think the idea is that it is true that tornadoes can destroy one building but leave a nearby one unscathed, but that the previously proposed explanations and mechanisms for this "skipping" turned out to be untrue. I guess it depends in part on what you consider a "skip". SemanticMantis (talk) 16:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The way I read it, it seemed like people think there's some sort of natural pattern at play, like sidewinder sand tracks, Fibronacci shells or a scratched record. Or that it skipped in a conscious Duck, Duck, Goose style. But nope. Basically luck and chaos. A supercomputer might be able to predict a path, given all the variables that day, but trying to game the system and buy a house in the safe district of Tornado Alley is out of the question.

But yeah, I'd asked on that Talk Page what "skip" means when it's scare/sarcastic/neologism quoted. Maybe I guessed wrong. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I just figured it out. Or read it explained. It means "skip" in a hopscotch sense, literally jumping off the ground and over a house. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Your question is very weird since belong apparently currently residing in Australia, you yourself edited the Christmas in July article [2] editing the text which concerns this very fact so one would have thought you're well aware Christmas occurs in the summer months in Australia and other parts of the southern hemisphere. Of course as people have also pointed out above "summer" and "winter" are mostly meaningless in places close to the equator. Nil Einne (talk) 01:19, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

BTW, please sign your posts properly with your current IP or user name. If you want to keep the same identifier as your sole signature, you'll need to sign up for an account. If you don't want to register, you could sign with your current IP, but also include mention your former IP. You should not only include your former IP as it makes it confusing who actually left a comment. [3] Nil Einne (talk) 01:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Safe to use 100W Bulb in 60W Desk Lamp?

I Googled it, but got a slurry of different answers. Is it safe to use 100W incandescent lightbulbs (GE Reveal 100W) in a metal desk lamp rated for 60W bulbs? I've had these 100W bulbs in my desk lamp for a few months now, unaware that my lamp is rated only for 60W, and have had no ill effects. The lamp shade does get very hot, but it is made from metal, so I'm not worried about it melting. I'm not worried about damage to the lamp either, but will this cause a fire or anything? ie. if something was to break/short, would it likely already to have happened? Thanks. Acceptable (talk) 06:02, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of the answer, I am deeply puzzled why you would even want to. Surely that would be far far too bright anyway? 60W seems very excessive for a desk lamp already. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 07:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The product marketed as a "desk lamp" may be placed on or clamped to a piece of furniture and positioned to illuminate a larger area, e.g. bounced off a nearby wall for indirect room lighting, requiring over 60w. If only an incandescent bulb will do rather than one of the newer technologies giving more lumens with less heat, the question would be better directed to a person competent in materials engineering and knowledgeable about the effects of undue heat, electrical load, etc. when exceeding the manufacturer's stated limitations. -- Deborahjay (talk) 08:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

No, it is definitely not safe. The shade may be metal, but the fittings (flex, bulbholder, switch) will be plastic which could overheat and become brittle or melt and cause a short-circuit. The bulbholder has probably become brittle already and will crumble when you next change the bulb.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Though you could safely use a fluorescent or LED bulb with the equivalent light output of a 100w incandescent bulb. -- Q Chris (talk) 13:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's a viable option, assuming the CFL/LED bulb would fit. Unfortunately the labeling of CFL bulbs is a little confusing in the USA. For instance this box says "23w=100w*" [4] - which is of course nonsense, but they mean that the CFL produces as much light in lumens as a conventional 100w incandescent bulb. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

It's only nonsense if you don't see the * and hunt down the footnote, which says exactly that. --174.88.135.200 (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Meh, in my world, '=' and 'W' mean very specific things, and while the * footnote does offer some additional explanation, it doesn't make the string "23W=100W" any less nonsensical. I'd prefer just to have listings in lumens or lux as appropriate, but we're talking about a country that has resisted metrication for a hundred years or so, despite considerable cost and harm to itself. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

As the shade is metal, the 60W rating is probably because it has a plastic lamp holder. These ratings however have to assume that you are using the light for indefinite periods so you probably won't have noticed any problems. If you are going to continue using it with a 100W bulb, my advice would be to not use it for prolonged periods or leave it unattended.--Ykraps (talk) 14:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for the responses. I am indeed aiming the lamp at a white wall to use it as bounce lighting. I went through many 100W bulbs with my current lamp without noticing that the bulbs are of a higher wattage than what the lamp socket is rated for. But in interest of safety, I'll swap them out for 60Ws instead. Acceptable (talk) 14:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, if the shade is tulip shaped, because of its proximity to the bulb, the manufacturers may also be concerned about it getting hot and causing burns.--Ykraps (talk) 14:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

You might go through so many bulbs because the bulb overheats in the lamp, reducing its life time. In general, a) you should stick with manufacturers limits in all things electric, but b) most end user products are designed with sufficient safety factors that the odds of a serious problem maybe increased, but still low. If something happens, you might be in trouble, of course. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I thought 100W incandescents were being phased out? In any case, maybe try on LED and see what happens. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Phase-out_of_incandescent_light_bulbs - I don't know where OP is, but as usual, USA wants to drag its feet, see the (as common, misleadingly named) U.S._Lighting_Energy_Policy#Better_Use_of_Light_Bulbs_Act, which actually was designed to repeal extant laws specifying minimum energy efficiencies for light bulbs. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

According to the map in that first article, most of the world is either dragging its feet or doing nothing at all. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Seems like it was mostly designed so they could call it the "BULB Act". Adam Bishop (talk) 00:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Congress is nothing if not clever. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I was able to purchase these GE 100W REVEAL bulbs on Amazon. Acceptable (talk) 21:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree it is a bad idea to use a 100 watt bulb in a 60 watt limit holder. Regular A19 100 watt incandescent lamps were phased out years ago in the US. (A means the usual bulb shape and 19 means 19 eighths of an inch diameter). They are no longer manufactured or shipped to warehouses and stores. Someone might find a carton of old stock bulbs and sell them, but that's it. Ditto the 75 watt incandescent bulbs. I now see halogen bulbs which use far less power to produce the same light as the incandescent they replace. They cost many times as much per lamp. Little peanut-sized halogen bulbs are placed in the same big A19 glass bulb as the older incandescents and sold to consumers who prefer the look of incandescent lighting as opposed to fluorescents or LEDs. Manufacturers are de-emphasizing watts in favor of lumens in labelling, but it will take a while to catch on. The law was aimed at he most popular bulbs, so it has not restricted specialized bulbs such as 3 way lamps. I don't know offhand if the Reveals are "specialty" or if they are really halogens. Edison (talk) 15:54, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

convention on biodiversity

What are the interlinkages between convention on biodiversity and Food And Agricultural Organization(FAO) Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.102.126.244 (talk) 19:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a homework assignment. What have you found on the internet so far? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I just found that the Nagoya protocol that is a part of CBD does not cover resources covered by the FAO treaty on Plant Genetic Resources. Kartikay021 (talk) 20:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Is there anything else that links the convention and the treaty? 14.102.126.247 (talk) 03:38, 5 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.102.126.247 (talk) 03:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)