Miscellaneous desk
< March 27	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 29 >

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.

March 28

Racing animal gender

Are race horses and racing greyhounds always male or always female or mixed? Do they compete against each other in the same races? 39.209.17.151 (talk) 03:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Horses are mixed, although they generally race horses separately based on sex, age, and castration status, in the case of males. StuRat (talk)

I think this might vary a lot from place to place. In Australian horse racing many races include all the above, although there are some races where entries are of just one age. HiLo48 (talk) 06:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No small factor in the case of thoroughbred horses, at least, is their saleability for breeding. Normal males will be of the most value because they an impregnate many females. Females less so, as they can only get pregnant once at a time. And for some odd reason, geldings have no value at all for siring. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed for greyhounds as well.[1] Rmhermen (talk) 16:49, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

British WWII Submarine range.

I just re-read the statement from Queen Elizabeth II when she stated that "The King would not leave and I will not leave the King and the children will not leave without me", or words to that effect when she was asked if the Royal Family might abdicate or go abroad should a German invasion become imminent. But given that many Heads of State do abdicate when circumstances become threatening, and had the Royal Family been urged to go abroad, and had their chosen safe haven have been, say, Australia, would a then current submarine have had that range, or would it, in all probability been escorted by a bunker ship and accompanying warships? Only curious. 77.99.122.161 (talk) 15:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

British subs of that era would not have had the range for a non-stop trip. Long-range boats of the era, such as the O class, had a range of around 8500 nm, but the safe-route (i.e. not via the Suez canal) sailing distance from the UK to Australia is more like 12000 nmi. That said, I don't think a sub would have been the vessel of choice. Consider, for instance, Churchill's first trans-Atlantic wartime trip for the Atlantic Charter -- he traveled on the HMS Prince of Wales, a battleship, presumably with escorting vessels. Any sea voyage by the royal family would probably have resembled that, and that still leaves out the possibility of reasonably secure travel out of Europe via aircraft. Bear in mind that non-nuclear subs are primarily surface vessels, and so the modern notion of submerging and voyaging unseen across the world doesn't apply in this case. — Lomn 15:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, that would be a statement by the late Elizabeth, Queen Mother (consort at the time). μηδείς (talk) 16:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LIndeed, Queen Elizabeth II only became queen in 1952, which was after the war. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 16:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, she was one of the children her mother was referring to. Rojomoke (talk) 16:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought the much closer and safer Canada would have been a more likely destination (as it was for the Dutch royals). There were fears that Australia would be invaded by Japan. Rmhermen (talk) 16:47, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They had a go in Darwin, NT (243 deaths), and Broome, WA (88 deaths). Buoyed by their success, they then had almost 100 more goes elsewhere in Australia. These attacks were mainly around the coast, but they got as far inland as Katherine, NT, 200 km from the sea. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have read, though I'm desperately trying to recall where, that the planned evacuation process for the Royal Family was; 1) Armoured car to ~~Kings Cross station~~ Euston railway station, a squadron of Yeomanry were stationed at Buckingham Palace for that purpose. 2) Royal Train to Liverpool docks, the train was kept in a tunnel on a branch line to avoid air raids. 3) A destroyer to Canada to continue the struggle. Destroyers were well armed, had several times the speed of a submerged U-boat and being fast, narrow and very maneuverable, were extremely difficult for an aircraft to hit. The destroyer bringing the Dutch Royal Family to England was attacked by German aircraft on the way across the Channel, but arrived safely. The King and Queen refusing to leave would have been a major headache for the government, as they wouldn't have been much use in German custody. In the end, I don't think that they would have been given the choice, but who can tell. This is all from memory; I'll try to find a reference. Alansplodge (talk) 18:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It might have been useful to have them around to keep the Duke of Windsor off the throne, or at least to make Hitler's placing him upon it look less legitimate. Not that that would have been a major consideration, of course. Tevildo (talk) 21:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Kings of both Belgium and Denmark elected not to evacuate, which was something of a coup for the German propagandists, who used the continued presence of royalty to try to show that things had returned to normal in those countries, despite the German occupation. The British Government would have been unlikely to repeat that mistake in my view. In the Netherlands, there could never be any semblance of normality while the Queen was in exile. Alansplodge (talk) 21:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both the Telegraph (Madresfield Court: The King's redoubt if Hitler called} and the Birmingham Mail (Secret war plans for Royal Family to be evacuated to Worcester) say that the first evacuation would have been to Madresfield Court. The Mail mentions that if necessary a ship to Canada from Liverpool would have been the next step. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 02:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that - very interesting. To clarify the point about Australia, the threat of invasion, as perceived by the British high command, receded very considerably with the invasion of the Soviet Union in July 1941, at which point, war with Japan was some months in the future and seen as a possibility rather than a probability, if I have read Alan Brooke's War Diaries correctly. So it wasn't the threat of Japanese invasion of Australia that was the determining factor in the choice of Canada; rather it was closer to Europe, which was where the enemy was, and close to the United States, which even before Lend Lease was the Empire's main external supplier of munitions and oil. Alansplodge (talk) 21:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What are some instruments that their range cover the b1-c5 range?

I would like to now a list of musical instruments that their range cover the B1-C5, so, their range can include more notes, but need to have at least the notes from b1 to c5.201.78.215.189 (talk) 20:48, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Range (music). According to that article, only the keyboard instruments (piano, organ, harp, and cimbalom) can cover that range. Tevildo (talk) 21:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm reading the chart incorrectly, but it looks to me that the tuba could also cover the given range. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The standard Bass tuba has a range of D1 to F4, so it doesn't make it either at the top or bottom of the required range. The Euphonium can do E2 to D5, so it's OK at the top, but more than an octave away from the bottom. Tevildo (talk) 21:50, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On actually reading our euphonium article [sorry], it seems that it's possible to coax them down to B0. So it might be a possible candidate, although it involves taking the instrument outside its normal range. Tevildo (talk) 21:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that B1 is only half a step below C2, based on an instrument I play that's labelled in that fashion. Thus, your Euphonium is only a fourth away, not an octave and a half, and your Bass Tuba that can get down to D1 is adequate on the low end by more than a fifth. Someone else should verify that, though, as I have no references at hand. --67.6.110.93 (talk) 22:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wolcott & Van Inwagen

I am looking for the history of a company called Wolcott & Van Inwagen located in Ithaca, NY area somewhere around 1888 <Reference> by a Ithaca, NY city directory after doing a search for Theron Van Inwagen 69.123.46.52 (talk) 22:35, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that I could find on Google was a search result for Ithica Daily News, AUGUST 29, 1898. I can't actually see "Wolcott & Van Inwagen furniture store" mentioned on the linked pdf, but Google says it's in there somewhere. Sorry, it's the best I could do. Alansplodge (talk) 22:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CDL licence in Missouri

in missouri does a person have to have a comercial drivers liscence drivers licence just because the truck has air brakes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Repeattutu2 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to the MO CDL guide: [2]. Air brakes are part of the CDL test, if a CDL is required and the vehicle has air brakes, but it does not look like air brakes alone require a CDL. See page 1-1, but it depends on the size of the vehicle, how many people the vehicle can carry, and whether or not you are transporting hazardous materials. RudolfRed (talk) 00:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]