Miscellaneous desk
< June 25	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 27 >

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 26

Genealogy

Hi, I've searched for months and I'm stick. Is there a way to connect a person to another person??????? Example - I've traced my tree back Isaac Robinson (1768-1833). I AM VERY SURE that there is a connection with the following:- Christopher Robinson/Priest/died for Treason in 1598, Henry Robinson/Bishop/(1553-1616), John Robinson/Mayflower organizer/(1575-1625). I can't understand where they came from OR went to. Thanks for any advice you can give me. Once again, Thank You, Cathy Robinson Fitzpatrick.Limeycat (talk) 14:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are websites that will help you do this. Search "genealogy" on Google. Ancestry.com is one that's widely advertised, but I don't know what it's like. Exploding Boy (talk) 14:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some websites like that are free, but many make you pay a subscription. With these paid sites you can access certain records available online. Ancestry.com is a paid site, I think. There's usually a monthly subscription to use sites like that, although as I've said already there are free ones out there. I have no idea what any of them are like, as I've never used them. Chevy monte carlo 14:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm puzzled how you can be VERY SURE that there is a connection to two people who died well over a century before the earliest ancestor you've traced, unless you've got some documents that establish the relationship. --ColinFine (talk) 22:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree. It might be just a coincidence. Chevy monte carlo - alt 09:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the OP is doing it backwards. You find evidence, then you work out what you can be sure of. You don't start from a position of being sure of something and try to justify it. Robinson is a very common name, so you need far more than just the name to even suspect a close relationship. --Tango (talk) 13:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

no moon ?? new moon?

Why do we call a night without moon a new moon day? Shouldn't it be called no moon day? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myownid420 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read our new moon article? It discusses the origin of the phrase. However, "new moon day" is a phrase that I don't think has much common use. — Lomn 17:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted, however, that during a new moon, the moon itself is in the sky almost entirely during the "daytime". A new moon should rise at about 6:00 AM and set at about 6:00 PM (with variances due to local time zones). This is because of the geometry involved in the phases of the moon. I agree, however, that the phrase itself is not in common use. --Jayron32 17:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My grandmother used to turn round three times when she saw a new moon. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have they unscrewed her yet?--SigmundColin (talk) 22:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The ref desk has just sunk to a new low. Talk about unscrewing one's grandmother. I blush at the very idea! -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]

What else would you expect from Elsie? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Schema for doing as much quality work as possible

I have a lot of deskwork and paperwork that will take weeks or months to do. I'd like to get through it as soon as possible. It is not routine, so I've got to stay alert and motivated as well. I am not an employee so can work how and when I like.

What would be the best scheme for doing the greatest amount of quality work? Working non-stop would rapidly lead to tireness and loss of motivation, so clearly work needs to be alternated with breaks. What routine should there be for breaks, and what should I do within those breaks? Would taking one or more days off each week pay back in greater efficiency on the other days? Thanks 92.15.5.103 (talk) 20:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everything depends on your lifestyle, actually. Do you prefer working earlier in the day or later? Are you an early bird? Do you have a family? Will there be factors which will hinder you periodically?

For me, I'm an early riser, and even though I work from home and can do it when I please, I endeavour to get up early (of my own accord - even before 7 am) because I prefer to start early than to work late into the night. When I have to deal with large amounts of work to a deadline that's fairly loose but still impending, I try to divide the stuff into fairly equal larger chunks, and afterwards break these up to get the idea of the daily workload I need to complete. Then, in the beginning, I usually try to do the daily workload +10/20% extra if possible, to have an edge for the upcoming parts of the work in case I stumble upon unforeseen difficulties. I try to plan in a small break every hour (like five minutes to brew fresh tea, a sandwich) and larger breaks every three hours (a walk, a larger meal). You have to work out practically what's best for you. Just here to help. --Ouro (blah blah) 07:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like to get up early as well, and for breaks I take about 15 minutes every hour. I go cycling, read the paper or catch up on podcast episodes. I think that taking maybe half a day off a week as well as the weekend would be a good plan, but it's up to you. Chevy monte carlo - alt 09:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Half a day off a week as well as the weekend"!!!! That's hardly working. 92.28.242.168 (talk) 21:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A trick they seem to teach in every school/college/&c is to take a short break about once an hour whilst working for a long time, apparently it helps to maintain concentration. As well, Bucky had some interesting ideas about sleeping for a few minutes whenever he felt tired, or once every six hours, apparently managing to get by on two hours a day, leaving twentytwo for his work. 80.47.203.9 (talk) 17:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On a Tim Russert interview show several years ago, Phil Rizzuto commented that Joe DiMaggio used to occasionally take what Phil called a "power nap" in a corner of the dugout. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking about the best stategy for working solidly for many weeks or months, not just a couple of days here and there. 92.15.1.65 (talk) 13:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, which is why it is especially important that you take regular breaks, and give yourself time off. That will make the work you do higher quality, and you'll have less of a tendency to slow down during your work sessions. If you need to work solidly for weeks or months, you need regular days off to maintain that. Honestly, taking a few minutes off every hour, and a couple of days off a week, will lead to more work done in the long run. As will ensuring you get enough sleep. Motivation is much easier if you decide beforehand (and stick to) a set amount of work (maybe 45-50 minutes) followed by a set break (10-15 minutes). If you try to just work straight through for days on end, you will burn out and produce very little work for the time you're investing. It is inefficient to avoid time off. 86.164.57.20 (talk) 15:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thats mostly repeating what the OP said in the 2nd paragraph. 92.29.119.46 (talk) 21:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Children's book

Looking for a childrens book I had as a child in the 1960s. Was about a boy with hair made up of/or colours of the rainbow. I think it had some pop ups. Poss titles I have tried are boy with the rainbow hair/rainbow boy - no luck. Writing from UK81.157.87.26 (talk) 20:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Struwwelpeter. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bicycling up a hill

So, I'd love to commute to work on a bicycle. After all, I only live three miles from work, which would be a pretty simple ride. Problem is, I live on top of a hill. My question is threefold:

Where can I look to find the specific grades of streets in Cincinnati, Ohio, USA? I tried some googling, but my google-fu proved inadequate to the purpose
At what grade would we consider a street to be (a)a brisk bit of exercise (b) pretty darn tough (c) stupid to try to bicycle
How much difference would it make if I bought an electric bicycle? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Easy answer: Just try it once! How hard it is depends very much on how fast you go and how good your bicycle is. For me, 15% is about where it stops being fun. I'm fbf, and have two rather decent bikes. A good indicator for me is hearth rate...up to 150 bpm im ok, 160 is uncomfortable, and at 165 I drop off the bike. Any good E-Bike will make the hill essentially irrelevant, but it will also reduce the training effect. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doubtful of that. I've seen people on electric bikes having to pedal furiously to drag the heavy bike up a hill. Going uphill is going to exhaust the batteries pretty quick. 92.29.114.87 (talk) 10:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- (ec) Don't know offhand.
- For me, it starts to get noticeably difficult at maybe 7% or so, but I can do that for miles if I want to, which I often do. I can pull off 20% for very short distances, maybe in the hundreds of yards at most.
- Don't get an electric bike. That's just cheating; might as well drive. Well, not quite; I suppose it's gentler on the planet than a car. But it doesn't do you any more good. --Trovatore (talk) 23:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel that you're beginning to slow down whilst climbing the hill, even when you're in the lowest gear and pedalling hard, then the hill's too steep! I think an electric bike is good in a city environment, for example after a green light to give you a burst of speed to get you started. Using the electric motor all the time is pointless though. Chevy monte carlo - alt 09:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel that you're slowing down, it's too steep? What kind of lazy advice is that? If it doesn't slow you down, it's not a hill. If you can climb it faster than about 5 mph (on a sustained basis), go look for a steeper hill.

Climbing is the soul of cycling, and it's supposed to be hard. --Trovatore (talk) 09:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re electric bikes: I was thinking about a Pedelec which augments pedalling - the engine does not take over. Modern ones in Europe are barely recognisable as such - they are useful bicycles to begin with. If that makes you cycle, it's better than commuting by car. Wether augmented or not, exercise in fresh air is so much better than sitting in a tin can ;-). But yes, nearly every 3 mile distance is also reasonable to commute with a plain bicycle. As for "the soul of bicycling" - if you cycle to get somewhere, as opposed to cycling for the fun of it, issues like breath and sweat do play a certain role... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I used to work at a startup about eight miles from my home (but not much elevation change), and I would bike in trying to maintain a moving average of 16 mph (stretch goal; managed it sometimes — this was on a mountain bike as I hadn't bought my cyclo-cross at that time). I took a change of clothes in my backpack. It did take about half an hour to cool down enough to really focus on my work. --Trovatore (talk) 09:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, besides which: The original poster says he lives on a hill. So the climbing part would be going home; presumably he can be as sweaty as he likes when he gets there. --Trovatore (talk) 10:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I used to get around San Francisco by bicycle. As you probably know, it is a hilly city. My strategy was to use a topographic map and plan routes that avoided steep grades up hills. San Francisco is built on a grid, so this often involved taking a street that ascended a flank of the hill rather than ascending directly to the summit. At some point, often a little past the summit, I would turn uphill perpendicularly to ascend across another flank of the hill. Eventually, using this method, you reach a point where the hill levels out and you can make a direct approach to the summit without ascending too steeply. Another suggestion would be to get a mountain bike with very low gears. If you are bicycling in a hilly area, whether on a mountain bike or a road bike, you definitely need to know how to shift down to deal with uphills. Marco polo (talk) 01:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the exercise enthusiasts are quite finished, I’d like to thank the original poster for his decision to find an alternative to automotive travel. As such, an electric bike is entirely appropriate and the views of those who cannot conceive of a bicycle as simply a means of transportation may be ignored. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm sure we'd all like to thank DOR for her interjection :P 86.164.57.20 (talk) 22:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Electric bikes are a waste of money, do not buy one. They are heavier so more effort to pedal up hill, even if assisted. Riding an ordinary bike will soon make you fit enough not to need or want an electric bike. Electric bikes have problems with the batteries needing replacing after a while. You can get off and walk uphill, which is what I do, but using a low gear will work too. I prefer hub gears. 92.15.1.65 (talk) 13:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This site mashes up google maps and a topographic map. --Sean 16:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Sean! Using that, assuming I'm reading it correctly, I can see that the hill is probably too steep for me at my current fitness level, or at any fitness level I'm likely to reach in the foreseeable future, so if I want to be environmentally friendlier, a non-motor-assisted bicycle is probably out. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you choose a low enough gear, then you can get up almost any hill with the same effort as going along the flat, although slowly. Riding the bike will soon make you fit. Electric bikes still require peddling uphill, so you are not any better off. 92.24.188.76 (talk) 19:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your comments, but I am afraid I find it difficult to believe that bicycling up a steep hill takes the same amount of effort as bicycling on flat road, or that an electric bike takes more effort than a non-electric one. I hate to doubt you, but those ideas seem so contrary to what my own experiences and reason tell me that I'm afraid I am not able to believe you without a good source that backs you up. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest buying borrowing or hiring a bike and trying it. You could do it just one day a week, for example, to work your way into it. You says its downhill to work - that suggests that you will be able to freewheel all or most of the way there. You can use the bike for other trips also - you may find it liberating. I enjoy cycling in the countryside, but you may live in a different situation. It is true that cycling up a hill in low gear requires no more effort than cycling up the flat - but you move very slowly. You would have to do exactly the same thing with an electric bike, but you've got the much greater weight of the electric bike as well. I tend to get off my bike and walk up very steep hills. You will soon get more fit - possibly something you will not expect if you are not acustomed to exercise. 92.24.183.139 (talk) 10:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[unindent] New set of questions: are you already in Cincinnati? And if not, are you very familiar with the city? Neighborhoods such as Hartwell (wow, what a messy article!) are far flatter than Clifton. Another thing you must consider is the paving material — if I remember rightly, there are some brick streets in the city, and steeply sloping brick streets are significantly harder to ride than steeply sloping asphalt streets; when I tried riding around in Freedom, Pennsylvania (northwest of Pittsburgh), I found it far easier to walk and push my bicycle, due to the uneven state of the bricks. Nyttend (talk) 17:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the bit about choosing a low enough gear is true: if you're going up a decently steep hill but have a granny gear, you can move with very little effort. The catch is that you're going to be moving extremely slowly; if you don't have too far to go, you might be able to move faster by walking and pushing your bicycle than you could by pedalling in granny gear. Nyttend (talk) 17:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I can see that the hill is probably too steep for me at my current fitness level, or at any fitness level I'm likely to reach in the foreseeable future" The easiest and most pleasant way to raise your fitness level is to get on a bike. A virtuous circle. In any case you were not aware of low gears or just getting off and wal;king up hills. 92.29.114.87 (talk) 10:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]