Miscellaneous desk
< April 1	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 3 >

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

April 2

Domestic flight in Germany without Schengen visa?

I will be flying from Bulgaria to the US in May, and I was just looking up plane tickets online. With my citizenship I need a tourist visa to enter the Schengen zone. Expedia suggested an itinerary where I would connect through Vienna and Frankfurt. However, since the flight between Vienna and Frankfurt is a domestic flight, will I have to have a Schengen visa to be able to board it? As far as I understand, I would have to go out of Vienna's international terminal to board a domestic flight, and I would therefore have to go through passport control. Are there any regulations that would allow me to do this without holding a visa? I will appreciate any input on this situation. Thanks! AR TYOM 01:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you're saying a flight between Vienna and Frankfurt is a domestic flight. Vienna, Austria and Frankfurt, Germany are in different countries. Corvus cornix_talk 01:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but isn't a flight between two Schengen countries considered a domestic flight? AR TYOM 01:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do Travel agents still exist where you live? While lots of business has gone online, there are some situations, such as navigating confusing border and customs situations, where a good travel agent will be able to set everything up correctly and advise you on what to do... --Jayron32 02:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you will still need a Schengen visa so you can pass from non-schengen arrivals to schengen departures at Vienna. And if you are returning via the same route, a schengen visa so you can pass from intercontinental arrivals to schengen departures at Frankfurt. However, you might not need a schengen visa if you were to remove Vienna or Frankfurt from your itinerary; in which case you might be able to transfer at the airport without entering the schengen area (and it will give them one less chance to lose your baggage). Of course, you could always avoid the Schengen area completely and change flights somewhere like London or Istanbul. Astronaut (talk) 08:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To the best of my knowledge (supported by some googling to the relevant embassy sites), it depends on your nationality. US residents (and a stack of others) do not require a visa and can air-transit without any document. Indeed, you may stay for 90 days just on the basis of your passport. If, as seems possible on the basis of your user page, you are Russian you will require a visa to switch planes in Vienna and Frankfurt. If you do not want to use the services of a travel agency you may be able to contact the embassy or a consulate of the two countries. They all have phone / fax numbers and eMail addresses which you can get from the internet. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 15:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phone the embassy of Austria or Germany located in your country closest to you. If you're lucky, they'll be able to help. (If you're unlucky, they can be completely clueless or unfriendly.) – b_jonas 08:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it's best if you can talk to a travel agent or to the national embassies, but in many cases it's OK for you to be in a country's airport without a visa. Just don't try to leave the airport on anything but an outbound plane! --M @r ē ino 13:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some international airports may have multiple terminals which are not connected, so depending on your nationality you may need to get a transit visa (or equivalent) in order to even change planes at the same airport, since as you exit one terminal and go to the other you will be entering the territory of the aiprort and then leaving it when you enter the other terminal. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A dictionary of medical terms

Is it just me, or are many of the entries in this work completely made up? For example, on page 400, "etæristria: A female whose clitoris is so large as to cause her to be regarded as a hermaphrodite." The section on feigned diseases also seems particularly ridiculous. The article on Robley Dunglison makes him seem pretty reputable, so what's going on with this? 149.169.153.214 (talk) 04:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't preview that book, but "hetairistria" is a synonym for "tribas" (meaning "lesbian"), according to LSJ. This is related to hetaira, a courtesan. I can imagine the Greeks being confused, either jokingly or seriously, about the role of both women in the relationship, and assuming one of them must have a penis or at least a very large clitoris. This still happens today, although maybe not in exactly the same way, when people wonder which one is the man/woman. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, the exact same phrase appears in another of Dunglison's works, his Medical Lexicon (which I can preview); but this time tribade is the medical term. However, bear in mind these books are over 150 years old. Astronaut (talk) 08:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

гетеристрия[1] hetairistria[2]. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One should expect a book of medical terms from 1895 to have some pretty weird things in it. "The past is a foreign country," and the history of medicine is particularly unrecognizable until the last six decades or so. Especially with regards to sexuality. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first one, as far as terminology goes, I don't recognize in the least. But the idea isn't crazy. See our articles on intersex and clitoromegaly. Perhaps it's just a matter of terms being updated and revised. Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reelz Channel

Why are the images on Reelz Channel so huge? Can't they reduce the size of the picture so that it can be tolerable to watch? They have great programs, but the images are so enormous you can't watch them unless you are 20 feet away from the television. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.169.67.8 (talk) 14:21, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 3.5 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking general knowledge questiosn which can be answered with Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. Best of luck. --Jayron32 14:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to SMPTE guidelines[3] for optimum TV viewing ditances, the nearest television viewing distance should be twice the width of the television. It also says that the farthest TV viewing distance should be five times the width of the television. If you move closer than twice the width of the television you will see the scanning lines, pixels and other video artifacts. That would distract the television viewing experience. If you watch from farther than the farthest distance specified you will miss out on the picture details. It would be sensible for you to use a TV screen of a size that is tolerable to watch in your room. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking about use of close-ups ? They can seem "in your face" at times, especially if you are close to the TV. I'm not aware of the Reelz Channel having shows with more close-ups, but, if that is the issue, you have some options:

1) Sit farther from the TV.

2) Reduce the total image size on the TV. Depending on the technology used, this may or may not be possible.

3) Reduce the size of the window on which you are viewing Reelz. If watching on computer this is usually easy. On a TV, perhaps one which can show multiple channels at once might provide this capability.

4) Get a smaller TV.

I also find that turning the brightness, contrast, and volume down reduces the "shock value". StuRat (talk) 16:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SkyDigibox Question

Does anyone know how to change the size of the video on Amstrad DV3 SkyDigiboxes to suit the TV size? As you will probably know, one particularly common filming method is to have two characters talking to each other at exact opposite ends of the screen with the background showing between them. All we get is a picture of a room with the sound of two people talking. Cheers. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 15:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Generally it's Services - System Setup - Picture Settings. Don't forget to select 'Save your settings' too. Nanonic (talk) 15:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers!! --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 15:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spotting Sharon Gless

was sharon gless in 101 dalmations —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.135.154 (talk) 15:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added a title. StuRat (talk) 15:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are probably thinking of Glenn Close: [4]. StuRat (talk) 15:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the Entertainment Desk is the best place for these types of questions. StuRat (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And it's "Dalmatians". Corvus cornix_talk 02:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rodrigues Alves

When was this guy born? It says he was born in 1845 and died at the age of 70 in 1919. That's mathematically incorrect. B-Machine (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How strong are the magnets in the LHC?

I don't really have any experience in physics, so could someone provide me with a laymen's analogy of the maximum strength of the magnets in the Large Hadron Collider? Suppose if I was to put the maximum magnetic strength of the LHC into an electromagnet (so that I can turn it on and off) the size of a household fridge magnet and stand in the middle of Times Square, NYC and turn it on, what would happen? Would cars and billboards fly towards me? Acceptable (talk) 21:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the benefit of other contributors, the magnets are about eight teslas. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And the magnetic field strength of Earth is 31 µT. Acceptable (talk) 22:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

according to the "tesla (unit)" article a typical loud speaker magnet is 1 - 2.5 teslas. So the 8 teslas would. be a strong magnet but it wouldn't drag cars around Phalcor (talk) 00:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC) Incidentally, the strongest magnets I've ever heard of were built in the early days of the Manhatten(atom bomb)project. They were used in giant telutrons. Designed to seperate U235 from U238 but there wasn't sufficient time for experimentation/developement so when the telutron was turned on the first time, way too strong, they were said to have pulled nails out of the walls and discombuberated everything around. Emergency shut down.Phalcor (talk) 00:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean Calutron. The calutron magnets had a magnetic field of something like 7000 G — less than 1 tesla.[5] Those are powerful enough to be felt (don't wear a watch, and you can walk around with nails in your shoes though it will feel "muddy", according to that account), and did occasionally pull nails out of the walls, apparently.

In general I would not be surprised if the magnets in particle accelerators were of the large-but-weak variety — you are bending the paths of charged particles in a vacuum, which isn't that difficult. The harder part from a physics perspective, as I understand it, is getting the fields set up so that you are focusing the beams correctly and keeping them from getting outside of the field. I don't think the fields themselves need to be particularly strong, though. A modern MRI machine uses much more magnetic force. See Orders of magnitude (magnetic field). One thing I wish was on that page was the force of a junkyard crane — I think adding that would help conceptualize these things (rather than levitating a frog, which is cool but too weird to understand intuitively in terms of magnetic force). --Mr.98 (talk) 16:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone needs to remember that the tesla is a unit of magnetic field (or magnetic flux density) not a total 'strength' score. It tells you about the magnetic flux per square meter, not about total lifting capacity. For example, your typical car-lifting junkyard electromagnet generates a field of about 1 T across its surface. On the other hand, your little rare-earth permanent 'supermagnets' can top out at more than 1.4 T, but since they're generally coin-sized and smaller, you can't lift more than a few kilograms with them.

For comparison, the LHC bending electromagnets top out at around 8.3 T, and they maintain this field along nearly 18 kilometers of beamline. The current through these electromagnets is about 12 kiloamps, and the total energy stored in the superconductors is 11 gigajoules (more than 3 megawatt hours). While Mr. 98 blithely describes bending the paths of charged particles in a vacuum as not being 'that difficult', it's worth remembering just how energetic the particle beams are in the LHC. The relativistic mass of the protons at 7 TeV is more than seven thousand times their rest mass; each proton has more kinetic energy than a mosquito in flight, and the entire beam has the kinetic energy of an Airbus A320 at landing speed. One meter of dipole magnet imposes a force of about 400 tons on the steel collars fixing it in place. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]