Things you always wanted to know the answer to [Vol. 3]

[Dr Jekyll]

Fane said:

Magazine - why do shiny newspapers and storage containers for bullets / shells share the same name?

The first magazine (as in shiny newspaper) in the UK was called 'The gentleman's magazine' to imply it contained useful stuff.

Still not sure why The Economist insists it's a newspaper though.

[Shakermaker]

Dr Jekyll said:

Why are characters in American sitcoms so rarely shown outdoors? UK sitcoms with studio audiences seem to manage with location filming.

Outdoor filming is expensive. Much more expensive than having one studio that everything is already in, with the scenery adjusted as necessary.

Also, particularly in Hollywood, the union contracts of the staff working on the film set will dictate how far outside the centre of Hollywood they can work before the studio has to pay them extra allowance. The "Thirty Mile Zone" or TMZ (same as the tv channel) is the area which attracts zero premium for working on the film set. Go outside this Thirty Mile Zone and you have to pay people a lot more, and its hard to find places within this zone which would accurately replicate every outdoor scenario you are trying to replicate in a story.

[Fane]

Dr Jekyll said:

The first magazine (as in shiny newspaper) in the UK was called 'The gentleman's magazine' to imply it contained useful stuff.

Still not sure why The Economist insists it's a newspaper though.

Well I never... thanks for that!

[Halmyre]

Dr Jekyll said:

Fane said:

Magazine - why do shiny newspapers and storage containers for bullets / shells share the same name?

The first magazine (as in shiny newspaper) in the UK was called 'The gentleman's magazine' to imply it contained useful stuff.

Still not sure why The Economist insists it's a newspaper though.

Used to puzzle me as a lad when TV listings would refer to 'Blue Peter' as a 'children's magazine programme'.

[Ayahuasca]

Halmyre said:

Dr Jekyll said:

Fane said:

Magazine - why do shiny newspapers and storage containers for bullets / shells share the same name?

The first magazine (as in shiny newspaper) in the UK was called 'The gentleman's magazine' to imply it contained useful stuff.

Still not sure why The Economist insists it's a newspaper though.

Used to puzzle me as a lad when TV listings would refer to 'Blue Peter' as a 'children's magazine programme'.

Magazine = storehouse.

For ammunition, gunpowder, bullets, or written articles.

[Dr Jekyll]

In much the same way 'album' went via meaning something you stuck a collection of records (as opposed to stamps) in to meaning one disc with lots of tunes.

No doubt in 100 years time PH will have questions as to why a 'boxed set' is so called when the films are pulled straight down a cable with no box in sight. In between the questions as to what 'pistons' have to do with cars of course.

[schmunk]

Dr Jekyll said:

No doubt in 100 years time PH will have questions as to why a 'boxed set' is so called when the films are pulled straight down a cable with no box in sight.

In 100 years' time? I've seen that question asked this month.

[TTmonkey]

Strudul said:

Badda said:

I feel I filled my car with diesel (£70) and left it ticking over, how long would it take till it ran out of fuel?
It's a 2.0 by the way.

"The estimated fuel consumption of an idling engine is 0.6 litres / hr per litre of engine displacement"

Do the maths.

http://www.ecomobile.gouv.qc.ca/en/ecomobilite/tip...

Depends if you have stop/start option fitted....

[TTmonkey]

Ayahuasca said:

Halmyre said:

Dr Jekyll said:

Fane said:

Magazine - why do shiny newspapers and storage containers for bullets / shells share the same name?

The first magazine (as in shiny newspaper) in the UK was called 'The gentleman's magazine' to imply it contained useful stuff.

Still not sure why The Economist insists it's a newspaper though.

Used to puzzle me as a lad when TV listings would refer to 'Blue Peter' as a 'children's magazine programme'.

Magazine = storehouse.

For ammunition, gunpowder, bullets, or written articles.

Does it matter if the magazine was Loaded....?

[Rostfritt]

Ayahuasca said:

Magazine = storehouse.

For ammunition, gunpowder, bullets, or written articles.

Same with battery I suppose. Went from being 'a number of pieces of artillery used together' to a number of cells for providing energy. Also arsenal has a similar history. Odd how so many collective nouns, if that is what you would still call them, come from a weaponry background.

[handpaper]

Rostfritt said:

Same with battery I suppose. Went from being 'a number of pieces of artillery used together' to a number of cells for providing energy. Also arsenal has a similar history. Odd how so many collective nouns, if that is what you would still call them, come from a weaponry background.

Also French for a drumkit.

Not too surprising - new tech brings new words; for large periods of history new tech was mainly military.

[MartG]

Rostfritt said:

Ayahuasca said:

Magazine = storehouse.

For ammunition, gunpowder, bullets, or written articles.

Same with battery I suppose. Went from being 'a number of pieces of artillery used together' to a number of cells for providing energy. Also arsenal has a similar history. Odd how so many collective nouns, if that is what you would still call them, come from a weaponry background.

Cartridge paper is so called because it was originally used to make cartridges for firearms

[Roofless Toothless]

Somebody on another thread has recently expressed surprise that another poster leaves his home heating on overnight.

I have always done this. I just set the thermostat (and individual room radiator stats) to a comfortable level and let the system get on with its business. In fact, I don't even shut the heating down in the summer. When it gets warm, the stats just close it down anyway.

I have always figured that letting the house, or the hot water, cool down overnight is a false economy, as you have to burn a lot of gas every morning to get the air temperature and the temperature of the fabric of the house up to the desired level again. All that effort, surely, must be comparable (or even less) than just keeping the system just topping up 24 hours a day.

But am I wrong or right? Getting older, I certainly appreciate a house that is warm all the time, but is this uneconomic? Anybody ever done the maths?

[RATATTAK]

Roofless Toothless said:

Somebody on another thread has recently expressed surprise that another poster leaves his home heating on overnight.

I have always done this. I just set the thermostat (and individual room radiator stats) to a comfortable level and let the system get on with its business. In fact, I don't even shut the heating down in the summer. When it gets warm, the stats just close it down anyway.

I have always figured that letting the house, or the hot water, cool down overnight is a false economy, as you have to burn a lot of gas every morning to get the air temperature and the temperature of the fabric of the house up to the desired level again. All that effort, surely, must be comparable (or even less) than just keeping the system just topping up 24 hours a day.

But am I wrong or right? Getting older, I certainly appreciate a house that is warm all the time, but is this uneconomic? Anybody ever done the maths?

Depends on the construction of your property but generally a good idea IMO provided your house is well insulated

[MartG]

The warmer an object is compared to its environment the faster it will lose heat - so allowing your house to cool overnight does save energy in the long run

[Rostfritt]

Roofless Toothless said:

I have always figured that letting the house, or the hot water, cool down overnight is a false economy, as you have to burn a lot of gas every morning to get the air temperature and the temperature of the fabric of the house up to the desired level again. All that effort, surely, must be comparable (or even less) than just keeping the system just topping up 24 hours a day.

But am I wrong or right? Getting older, I certainly appreciate a house that is warm all the time, but is this uneconomic? Anybody ever done the maths?

It will cost you more. Your house will be losing more heat overnight as the difference between inside and outside will be higher. Constantly turning on and off all night will use less each time than the massive kick it needs to give in the morning, but will be more overall. If your house was incredibly well insulated the loss in temperature overnight would be minimal, in which case it would make little difference, but if your home was really poorly insulated you would just be heating the street all night.

The only reason I would have the heating on overnight would be if the house got really cold at night or if the heating wasn't powerful enough to get it warm in the morning.

[davhill]

I expect it'd make sense if you sleep on top of the bed. However, if you have a hefty duvet or blankets/eiderdown, keeping the ambient temp up seems unnecessary. Cue purchase of thicker jimjams, bedsocks, heavy dressing gown, fluffy slippers. And a nightshirt, nightcap with long point and tassle... and a metal candleholder with anti wax drip technology.

For your name change, it's spelt Ebenezer.

[allegerita]

There is a difference between temperature and comfort. If you let the house cool down at night and warm up again the morning after the walls and floor will still be cold giving you a feeling of “cold” and discomfort even after the thermostat has modulated to the desired temperature.

Houses are generally well insulated nowadays so the losses MartG is talking off will be relatively small.

[hondafanatic]

Where does all the rubber go.

Millions of miles driven every year on the road and everyone's tyres are being eroded...so where does all that rubber end up?

[TIGA84]

hondafanatic said:

Where does all the rubber go.

Millions of miles driven every year on the road and everyone's tyres are being eroded...so where does all that rubber end up?

Download James O'Brien's Mystery Hour from last week, that very question was asked. Into the air as dust I think was the answer, eventually but I was half listening so can't be sure.