December 27

How large is a "load" of laundry?

For those of you who say that this is not a unit of measure, I see it used on product packaging as a unit of measure. If a bottle of detergent contains enough for eleventeen "loads" of laundry, that is eleventeen times what quantity? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.44.221.221 (talk) 01:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The amount of clothing held in an evenly-packed washing machine is considered "one load." It will vary by size of machine, so you've got do a little guessing, but standard is usually around 8 pounds. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) 8 pounds is quite a small capacity - are you sure Amory? I doubt there is a precise definition. Most domestic washing machines have a maximum capacity of around 8 kg (dry weight) of washing and your bottle of detergent will have enough to run the washing machine "eleventeen" times. If you wash a lot less per run of the machine, you might be able to reduce the amount of detergent (and water if you use a "reduced load" feature) and therefore get more than eleventeen washes per bottle. On the other hand, if you own a large capacity machine (my sister's machine can take 11 kg) or use a laundrette you may have to use more detergent per wash. Astronaut (talk) 02:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if this should be included on the list of unusual units of measurement. — Michael J 02:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Washing machine gives some (not many) numbers. One gives a value of 6kg and another suggestion under 5kg for efficient, one person usage. I was assuming a standard being for one person, and in my experience those have been 8-10 pounds, although I usually cram more in. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also worth noting, detergent manufacturers like to sell their product, therefore are likely to overstate the required amount of detergent per load. Also worth considering is how dirty your clothes are. I've noticed that for my clothes, sometimes nothing more than a rinse is required.Aaronite (talk) 17:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bottled detergent is usually for washing dishes and washing powder is usual for laundry. Either is sometimes sold with a measuring aid, such as the bottle cap, which may define what the manufacturer considers the dose for one "load". Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which country are you basing that on? In the UK, detergent for laundry comes in both bottled liquid and boxes of powder. There's a whole marketing thing whereby people are usually either liquid or powder washers, hence why we don't just have washing tablets (for the powder washers) but also liquitabs (for the liquid washers), and then the gel-based wash-stuff to add extra excitement. Is it the case in your country that people only ever use powder? 86.176.48.114 (talk) 00:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the article Laundry detergent. Where both powder and liquid forms are marketed either may be preferred. Powder laundry detergent is usually the cheapest when bought in the largest available size of cardboard box. Liquid laundry detergent is sometimes used but has disadvantages of the weight of a large bottle and the creation of plastic bottle waste. AFAIK originally only powder was marketed on TV in the UK under brand names such as Omo, Daz, Persil, Surf, Tide and Ariel (the first with enzymes). Cuddlyable3 (talk) 00:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the relatively recent popularity of front-loaders, the vast majority of home washing machines in the US are top-loaders. I'd imagine that a "load" is the typical load of an average-size top-loader designed for home use. Do a search on top-loading washing machines and see what their rated capacities are. A "load" should be close to the (statistical) mode of the capacity numbers. --71.185.178.230 (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it hurt when you are punched in your stomach? 72.130.134.122 (talk) 05:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know this isn't a really useful answer, but here it is anyway. Why does it hurt, no matter where you are punched? Blunt force at a high speed causes pain. Nerves react to trauma, and the pain is there to alert you to the potential for damage.Aaronite (talk) 06:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably something to do with Celiac plexus. Bus stop (talk) 06:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It caused the death of Harry Houdini. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pain is one of your body's ways of saying this is a bad idea, please stop using me as a punchbag. Dmcq (talk) 13:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being full of important organs and unprotected by bones (like the chest is), it's a very vulnerable point, as well as being highly deformable. This makes it important to tell you when it's been hurt, so you can protect it. If you reduce the deformity by tensing the muscles of your abdomen, it hurts a lot less - also the reason Harry Houdini died, since he was caught off-guard and didn't have chance to do exactly this. Vimescarrot (talk) 13:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our article mentions the doubts to this story in a pretty offhand way, but Snopes calls it simply false. "Most modern medical experts assert that appendicitis caused by blunt trauma is impossible and/or unknown in medical history..." Matt Deres (talk) 19:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief. QI leads me wrong again! Vimescarrot (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the diaphragm is affected by a punch, it is very hard to breathe for a time. "Oof, ya got me in the breadbasket!" Edison (talk) 02:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it physically possible to get a robust, small digital camera with low shutter lag and high optical zoom? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 08:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would depend on your definition of robust, small, low shutter lag and high optical zoom. --Phil Holmes (talk) 12:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Small and high optical zoom don't go together ell because of interference effects no matter how accurately the lens is ground. Small, high optical zoom and high speed don't go well with the requirement to capture enough photons to form a decent picture except in bright daylight. Robust and small aren't too hard to get together, in fact making things small can make them more robust, for example a watch tends to be more robust than a grandfather clock when knocked onto the ground. Dmcq (talk) 13:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robustness sometimes refers to waterproofing or shockproofing (safe falling a certain distance). These both require additional size for padding and protective covering. Perhaps if the questioner indicated what he/she meant. Certainly a camera like the Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZR1 (8x zoom) or the larger ZS1 (12x), or the Canon PowerShot SX200 (12x zoom) offer considerable power in a compact camera form factor with reasonable speed of operation (they don't focus instantly, but once focussed will respond quickly). You could check the details via Google or on dpreview.com --82.41.11.134 (talk) 23:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recently took an extensive road-trip round Europe and because I simply do not have enough clothes (or bags to pack them in) to let me travel for more than a couple of weeks, I had to find a way to wash my clothes. Here in the UK, laundrettes are quite common with most small towns having at least one; and when I have travelled in the USA, I find most small towns will have a laundromat. However, in my experience they are a very rare thing in continental Europe: In Italy the nearest appeared to be in a town over 100 km away (only to find I had gone to the home of the owner of a laundrette); in Budapest my hotel receptionist kept directing me to dry-cleaning places; in Krakow my hotel receptionist had never heard of such a thing; and in Germany I was able to find one in a town some 50 km away. Without resorting to paying a hotel 4 EUR to wash each pair of socks and 8 EUR to wash each shirt, how do people get their clothes washed when on a road-trip in Europe? Astronaut (talk) 10:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have to hand wash them and find some way of drying them (or, more likely, leaving them to dry). --Richardrj ^{talk email} 11:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take along your own washing line and get practice in looking for things at different sides of your shower room to tie it to. (This by the way is one reason to splurge on rooms that come with their own showers.) And clothes pegs and the works. The people who clean hotel rooms while their occupants are away during the day are used to seeing this; just don't let wet clothes drip onto any carpet. I can't count the number of European nations whose hotels have hosted my washing lines. -- Hoary (talk) 16:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page has some tips [1] and you can get special travel wash gel[2] to save carrying a big box of powder around. Alansplodge (talk) 17:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A quick google for "Amsterdam Laundry" finds a number of self-service "Wasserettes", and similar for Berlin finds a number of "Waschsalon", a few of which combine that with being a cafe. I'd imagine that most places on the main backpacker itinerary will have these, squirrelled away. Many of the larger backpacker hostels will have laundry facilities (which I'd be astonished if they wouldn't let a non-resident use), and surely all will know where to go. I'm not surprised fancy hotel people don't (or claim not) to know where such things are. For Krakow there's Pepe and Frania, both of the cafe-laundry type. I don't have one to hand, but I'm pretty sure this is covered in the rough-guide type travel books (those that cater for dirty-ish hippies, rather than the higher end of the market). 217.43.149.157 (talk) 19:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There were a couple in Prague a few years back that largely served foreign residents and travelers. Every Czech apartment seems to come with a washing machine, although it's sometimes a 30-year-old model serving as one of Communism's lasting legacies. And no one there seems to have ever heard of a tumble dryer. So there's little reason for locals to ever use a coin laundry. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've had no trouble finding a laundromat, or whatever you like to call it, when traveling in France, Switzerland, Belgium, Austria, Switzerland, and Denmark; but in all cases I was looking for them in major cities like Brussels and Copenhagen. The other solution besides washing in the hotel sink and hanging things up to dry may be to use the hotel's cleaning service, if they have one, but this can be very expensive. --Anonymous, 00:20 UTC, December 28, 2009.

In Spain and in Guatemala, I've just asked around for someone local who does laundry. It is nearly always the mother, sister, aunt, or cousin of the person (waiter, bellman, shop owner, taxi driver) I ask who will, as a favour, do a wash for me. The price is always quite reasonable and, as long as the risk of handing over your clothes and never seeing them again is not too much uncertainty for you, it seems to work. It takes 24 hours or so, longer if it is raining heavily. They often come back mended and with buttons replaced. YMMV Bielle (talk) 00:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some good references by skeptics about Valentich Disappearance? --Qoklp (talk) 15:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may count me among those you identify as skeptics but who merely need convincing that an unlikely event occurred in the way one unavailable person may have said it did over a radio link. Such claims as 'The fact that they have found no trace of him really verifies the fact that UFOs could have been there' (sourced at Valentich Disappearance) are laughable. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name a device that one can use to locate one's parked car. Saying "just remember it" or "write it down" will not do. Neither will anything which begins "every time you park your car, remember to...". If no such device exists, say so.

I have had it with losing track of where I parked. My calendar watch tells me what day it is without me having to update it manually every day; I want something similar for where I parked a car. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.44.221.221 (talk) 18:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This link will probably help you find what you are looking for. I hope this helps. JW..[ T..C ] 19:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These devices are very useful within wireless range, but if you have walked some distance from your car, you might prefer to carry a GPS receiver (which you must remember to set by pressing the "mark position" button as you leave the car). Most such hand-held devices have an arrow to point to your car, but will not tell you what level for multi-storey parking, in fact they will usually not work well in an area with tall buildings and narrow streets. Perhaps someone should market a self-setting unit that combines the two technologies? Dbfirs 19:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of 'apps' for the iPhone which do this, and tell you what level you are on!--85.210.188.64 (talk) 20:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are several handy ideas at the Google Answers link provided by JW above. The first idea of remotely hooting the car horn is however antisocial and even illegal in some areas, such as near hospitals. To the OP, your wording is in the form of demands; please note that we are volunteers who are happy to deal with civil questions. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One lo-tech solution, assuming you know approximately where you've parked your car, is to attach something distinctive to the aerial (antenna), which you can see from a reasonable distance. As long as it's attached securely and is reasonably weatherproof, you don't need to worry about "activating" it when you leave the car. Tevildo (talk) 22:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know a number of folks who do that, me included. There is also the "panic" button that exists on many electronic keys. You only need to hear it once or twice to figure out about where your car is, and hopefully no one will get all that upset about it. A lot of cars honk once anyway, when the doors are locked externally/remotely. These ideas assume that you're within theoretical sight of the car. If you're several blocks away, the GPS might work. But how would lugging a GPS around be any more convenient than simply writing it down on a slip of paper? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(to BB)You are less likely to lose a GPSr than a piece of paper! ( ... and many people "lug" mobile phones around with them.)
My patent will be for a combined electronic key with inbuilt remote light flashing (and horn-sounding for emergencies) and GPS (with a small screen to show distance and direction, but optional audio output for the short-sighted) that self-sets when removed from the car. Any offers to design & market this? It's all possible, it just needs funding! How much would a customer be willing to pay for such a device? (as much as they paid for the car?) Dbfirs 23:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then they could enter it in their PDA. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All TomTom satnav's do this automatically, when you remove the device from it's cradle or windscreen dock it marks the location. Then you can either select the 'last docked' menu item or, in some models, it will show the straight-line route back to your car automatically. Plus it's a handy feature that makes sure stupid people don't leave the device stuck to their window waving a big STEAL ME flag above it's head when they wander off shopping. Nanonic (talk) 00:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to buy a new TomTom (mine is old and doesn't have a docking station). My suggestion for integrating the technology into a key fob was for those (like me) who are gradually losing their memory and wouldn't remember to write down the location or enter it into a PDA. I have used a walking-type GPS receiver in the past to mark the position of my car when left in obscure back streets. The combination of this with a street map and shortest walking route would be a useful addition. Has it already been included in the latest TomToms? Dbfirs 07:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a feature of them since at least December 2006 (when I bought my TomTom Go 710) and according to the instruction manuals available on the TomTom website - it's been a feature on most models since. Nanonic (talk) 18:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My TomTom maps don't show real walking routes, so I really must buy an up-to-date model. Have they really included non-road routes? This provides a good answer to the OP's question. Do the GPS receivers (+ applications & maps) incorporated into mobile phones have the same feature? Dbfirs 23:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I had the briefest thought just now: Where do cabs and cars in New York City drive to replenish their fuel? Given that normal gas stations have very little in terms of height (normally a single-floor building that takes up a lot of area), I'd assume rent prices for these lots to be too pricy to accommodate for fuel stores. Not to mention the storage tanks of the fuel would likely be some sort of hazard, or at least difficult to plan for and replenish. Do gas stations dot downtown Manhattan like in other places? Maybe in the periphery, near the docks? Thanks in advance for your help! 77.18.9.130 (talk) 19:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on a little googling, the price of gas in NYC seems to be about 10 cents a gallon more expensive than the national average (that's about 4% higher), so that might cover some of the high rents. It's not enough to completely explain it, though - I'm sure the rent per square foot in NYC is more than 4% higher than the national average. --Tango (talk) 20:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google Maps shows at least 10 of them in Manhattan (although if you keep zooming in there seems to be hundreds). In Toronto (which is of course just like New York, without all the stuff), there are a few gas stations downtown, but not in the few blocks that are really downtown (the financial/entertainment areas). The ones that do exist downtown are always full of taxis. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, on further inspection a lot of those are just corporate offices. But there are some; there's a Gulf station at FDR Drive and East 23rd Street, if that counts as downtown. And 11th Avenue and West 51st Street, that seems pretty downtown to me. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've also got to imagine the volume is a lot higher for stations in a downtown area, considering the amount of traffic in the vicinity and the comparative lack of competition. And much of the profit at gas stations comes from retail-store sales anyway, and operating a 24-hour convenience store in the heart of Manhattan must have its advantages. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are a handful of gas stations in Manhattan, but none in the high-rent business districts of Midtown or Downtown Manhattan. If you search "gas stations" in "New York, NY" in Google Maps, the vast majority of listings are not gas stations. They seem mostly to be either 1) convenience stores (which tend to entail gas stations elsewhere, but not in Manhattan) and 2) offices of petrochemical corporations or businesses serving petrochemical corporations. Gas stations in Manhattan are scattered in low-rent former (or current) industrial districts some distance from the central business districts, in the Lower East Side, the Far West Side of Midtown, and scattered locations in Upper Manhattan. Manhattan gas prices tend to be higher than prices in other New York City boroughs (e.g. Queens, the Bronx), so people tend to fill up when they are off the island. (And most vehicles traveling in Manhattan start and/or end their day's journey off the island.) The few gas stations in Manhattan still get a high volume of business from taxicabs, who can't afford to leave Manhattan just to fill up, and from the rich and people on corporate expense accounts, for whom convenience will always trump price. Marco polo (talk) 03:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that Manhattan has one of the lowest rates of vehicle ownership in the United States, likely in the entire western world, given the uniquely dense population of Manhattan and the equally excellent public transportation system. Gas stations in Manhattan are few because cars are few; nearly all of the cars you see are from outside of the city, from places like the Outer Boroughs or New Jersey or somewhere like that; and in those areas there are many more gas stations. I seem to remember a gas station on West Side Highway the last time I was there, but there are not many gas stations at all. Most people likely fill up elsewhere since just about everyone in Manhattan uses some form of public transportation (Subway, Bus, Taxi, or Tramway). --Jayron32 20:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OP here. Thank you, Marco Polo and the rest, for excellent answers. These go a long way in answering my question, and I am thoroughly thankful! 77.18.0.143 (talk) 13:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We need to set up a lengthy one-time conference call (~1 hour) between half a dozen people all on landlines or mobiles in the continental US. Skype can do this (by calling the landlines from a computer whose sound is muted), but the quality is unacceptably poor (frequent dropouts). An operator-assisted conference call would presumably work but it seems to be ludicrously expensive (hundreds of dollars per hour). The call is supposed to happen today (Sunday) in a few hours, so anything that would require a business day to set up is out of the question. There are a bunch of web sites claiming to offer this service but we don't know which to trust. Any suggestions from someone who's been through this before? -- BenRG (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've used one of those services. They are pretty much interchangeable, AFAIK. You sign up with your credit card and they give you a local number and an 800 number that the callers can call, and they give you 1 or 2 "participant code"s that the callers enter in order to join the same conference (and ensure you get billed). It doesn't take a day to set up, if memory serves. Comet Tuttle (talk) 01:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

why are people in wheelchairs considered a fire hazard? Are they more combustible than walking people? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.24.71 (talk) 22:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To answer this question seriously, it's (theoretically) because a wheelchair user will find it more difficult to evacuate the building in the event of fire, and are at risk of being burnt if a fire breaks out. (Assuming the staff of the premises can't assist them). However, such an argument would be unlikely to work against a claim of discrimination, where anti-discrimination legislation exists. Tevildo (talk) 22:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As well as the hazard to themselves, they take up more floor area than other people and may have to move more slowly, so they might get in the way of those who otherwise could evacuate faster. --Anonymous, 00:24 UTC, December 28, 2009.

Many of them move much faster, especially on a down slope. The answer to the OP's question is "They aren't considered to be a fire hazard." Wheelchair seating in Ontario, Canada, is required by fire code to be next to an exit. Staff is supposed to be assigned and trained in the event of a fire to get the wheelchairs out first and away from the building. One of the reasons is mentioned above; the chairs themselves, if left in place, can create a barrier and if stuck anywhere on the exit route (which is why staff is trained to move them out) create a dangerous bottleneck. The other reason is the same one used for clearing "women and children" first in a lifeboat. They are considered to be less capable of taking care of themselves as the situation deteriorates and thus are attended to first. (I didn't write the rules; I am just reporting on them.) One fallen person in front of a wheelchair is a barrier the wheelchair cannot pass, even though "walkies" could just step over the obstacle. Bielle (talk) 00:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And of course with all the lifts in a building automatically moving to the ground floor as soon as the fire alarms are activated, aiding wheelchair users can slow up the evacuation of others. This is why many countries have made it law for buildings of multiple floors to include 'Wheelchair refuges', 'safe' areas for those in wheelchairs or otherwise disabled to await rescue by the Fire dept. Nanonic (talk) 01:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]