December 7

Over this past summer I have dutifully swapped out approximately 8 lights in my home with CFLs, in most cases changing from 60W to 13W bulbs. In my house, this covers fixed lamps, the light over the sink, the light over the shower, etc -- lights that are on for 15 minutes to a few hours per day. (The big lights are all on dimmers, and I'm not going there yet.) So, I'm trying to get a handle on how much my efforts are saving me, as opposed to how much some theoretical saving might help a hypothetical family.

I get hung up because a Watt is actually a rate, not an absolute measure of energy, right? If so, I have to multiply by some unit of time to get actual joules or watthours or whatever. I'll post some assumptions, and the engineers and other evangelists can review this and tell me where I've erred.

• Suppose my 8 lights are on throughout the house for a total of one hour apiece on average. My savings is 47W * 8 bulbs * 1 hour = 376Wh. (I think that's high, because I think one hour per lamp is high, but round numbers are good enough here.)

OK, the reality checks:

• If I turn on the space heater in the bathroom before I get in the shower, and it runs for 10 minutes, how much of my savings have I used up? I think 1800W * 1/6th hour = 300 Wh = almost all of it.
• If I stand in the shower for 7 minutes instead of 5, how much energy (to heat water) does the extra two minutes use? I have no idea how to compute this or compare it to light bulb savings.
• Another facet: I'm driving down to my kid's school for their Christmas Concert this afternoon. It's 50 miles each, which I can drive at an average speed of 60 mph on the freeway or 45 mph on county roads; the latter is 6 miles shorter but longer timewise due to traffic lights, which means some stop/start driving as well. Suppose that translates to 32 mpg on the freeway vs 26 (does that seem reasonable?) How do I convert that to something I can compare to the CFLs -- in other words, how does one round trip compare to a day's electricity savings?
• That car gets pretty good mileage. Just for grins, let's compare that to two semitrailer trucks, one driving at 60mph on the freeway, the other barrelling down the same road at 70. I understand that 6mpg is the high end of efficiency for big rigs, but let's assume that one truck gets 5 and the other 7mpg. How much energy does the faster one "waste" compared to the slower one -- in one hour, say -- and how does that compare to my 8 CFLs for a day?

See, I have the nagging doubt that saving 376 watts per day on lighting is small potatoes -- it may be low-hanging fruit in ease of execution, but the results are noise in the real signal-to-noise ratio. (Heck, leaving my computer on all day probably burns more electricity than two of those lights are saving!) The only calculations I have any confidence in (the space heater, above) leads me to believe that I can do far more with just about anything else I can think of, and that tolerating CFLs is probably best left for when I get to trying to squeeze out just one more kilowatthour someplace. But, I can't be sure without some math help!

DaHorsesMouth (talk) 01:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to check the Energy Literacy blog posts currently running on BoingBoing, which to some extent cover the ground you're interested in - notably EL3, which points to a number of apropos wikipedia pages:

• Orders of magnitude (power)
• Orders of magnitude (energy) --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To me you seem discouraged that the change you made is not drastic enough? Maybe this will help -

Imagine you've got 300 cups of water sitting in front of you, and a bathtub to fill. Each cup is an example of some resource you use in your life, and that bathtub is the daily net. You've just changed all your lightbulbs, so you remove one cup and replace it with a thimble of water. Now, if you were to toss everything into the bathtub the change in water level would likely be imperceptible. However, there has been a change! And this is why you should ignore the bathtub and simply focus on taking things one cup & thimble at a time. Don't lose perspective! Eventually, once you've swapped enough cups for thimbles, that bathtub WILL be clearly less full!

Hope that helps! 218.25.32.210 (talk) 02:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've just convinced me to go back to incandescents. APL (talk) 02:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think part of your disappointment stems from the fact that you seem to have replaced only your lights that you burn the least. People who can easily replace the majority of their lights would see a greater result. (But lights are the low-hanging fruit. Especially compared to HVAC systems and automobiles. )

Anyway, this may help you in your calculations --> Energy Density of Gasoline] APL (talk) 02:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look at it this way - what is the effect of replacing one incandescent with one CFL?

• Over the life of the CFL, you'll safe $30 in electricity.
• CFL's last 10 times as long as incandescents - so you'll save the energy cost of manufacturing 9 light bulbs.
• At todays prices, a 26W CFL is around $8. You can buy a four-pack of 60W incandescents for the same price.
• You'll add some mercury to a landfill someplace about a decade from now when the CFL craps out. That's not great - but until LED lamps get cheap enough, it's the best we've got.

So completely aside from modest savings for the environment - you buy a CFL - you save ($30+(10x$8/4-$8)) = $42 over the life of the bulb...it pays for itself in a year or two. I suspect your estimate for the number of lights you have on though the day is likely to be a serious under-estimate - not many households have that little usage.

It's a start. If we don't make a start - how will we make any difference? So yeah get CFL's - and the next time you buy a car, find one with better MPG (they way I drive, mine does a pretty solid 40mpg - twice as good as the national average - and not a battery in sight). When you move house next time - find one with better insulation (ours has foot-thick walls and uses a fraction of the amount of energy compared to our neighbours). Get a thermostatically controlled attic fan. Do you REALLY need that space-heater on for 10 minutes when you shower? Will 8 minutes do? Consider 6 minutes. When you next buy a household appliance (especially a heater, airconditioner, washing machine or fridge) - actually look at the energy ratings on the label.

This is not one single-point solution. There is no one thing you can do that'll solve the problem - you're kidding yourself if you think there is. CFL's are a part of the solution - but you certainly can't expect to solve global warming by changing a few lightbulbs. Yeah - you need a more efficient way to take that shower, you need a more efficient car (heck, even people who drive Prius's need a more efficient car!) We need to move less stuff by truck - partly by moving less stuff (Buy local!) - partly by having more efficient hybrid trucks for long haul routes - partly by using railways - partly by having people buy less stuff. Maybe eventually by making our own stuff using things like 3D printers.

However, that doesn't mean we shouldn't change lightbulbs...it's just a part of a larger solution...and for the incandescent hold-outs - bad luck, incandescents are gonna be legally outlawed in so many countries around the world that you'll have no choice but to buy CFL's or LED lamps as your incandescents die off.

I have LED lamps in a couple of places where the light is turned on the most (family room) and in fan fittings where the vibration would rapidly kill off a CFL (CFL's don't like vibration - it shortens their life to about the same as an incandescent). But really, truthfully, LED lamps aren't cheap enough yet.

SteveBaker (talk) 06:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If recent skeptic arguments are to be believed, you should stop worrying and live your life as before. Astronaut (talk) 10:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, if you're saving money you're saving money regardless of whether global warming is real or not. Nil Einne (talk) 12:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem being that those "recent skeptic arguments" are not to be believed - so please continue to worry. SteveBaker (talk) 15:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might like to consider whether the dimmer function on the main lighting is a luxury you could afford to do without, and whether you are prepared to substitute (if you can) a cheaper option in equipment or usage behavior. Not preaching - it's your money. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 17:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is Magus Peter H. Gilmore, High Priest of the Church of Satan's date of birth? Korvulite (talk) 03:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)There isn't one on his page, and I can't find an answer elsewhere on the internet.[reply]

He was born on May 5, 1958 as Peter Howard Gilmore. Source: [1]. I hope that helped. JW..[ T..C ] 04:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, plenty of time to look for an appropriate birthday card . . . 87.81.230.195 (talk) 22:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do I find out which bank owns a home in CT, USA?--Reticuli88 (talk) 03:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)?[reply]

There's no need to shout. People can read your question just fine if you use lower case letters. --Jayron32 04:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, changed--Reticuli88 (talk) 04:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't dealt with this kind of property question myself, and I don't know the exact system in the Nutmeg State, but I think that the appropriate Town Clerk, City Clerk, County Clerk and/or Secretary of State would keep the records of property and deeds that establish ownership of real estate, as well as recording liens and other claims upon it. If it's no intrusion on anyone's privacy (and don't be shy about declining to answer this), in what Connecticut town or city is the home located? You can find the website for the Connecticut Secretary of State from the National Association of Secretaries of State at http://www.nass.org . —— Shakescene (talk) 05:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Connecticut doesn't have county governments, so that's one less thing to check. APL (talk) 15:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the situation in Connecticut for sure, but I'm fairly certain that mortgages and deeds are public records, as they are here in Massachusetts. In my Massachusetts county, all land records (mortgages, deeds, liens, etc) are searchable online for free. In Connecticut, land records are recorded in the office of the city or town clerk of the city or town where the land is located. This site provides contact info for all local clerks' offices in Connecticut. Most of them do not offer online searches, but if you show up during business hours, you can probably search through the records yourself. Just call first to make sure that's correct. What you are looking for is the most recent deed for the property, showing transfer from the previous owner to the bank, or, if that hasn't been recorded yet, the most recent mortgage will show which bank would be foreclosing. Marco polo (talk) 00:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your local recorder's office will have that info. You might try Zillow too, see if that gets you anywhere. Shadowjams (talk) 10:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I was curious if you had a photo of the new Triumph Thunderbird cruiser?

Thanks,

NirocFX —Preceding unsigned comment added by NirocFX (talk • contribs) 08:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So the Triumph Thunderbird 1600 article didn't give you a hint where to find images - such as taking a look at the Official site? I assume you were talking about Triumph Motorcycles, since there has not been a new Triumph car since the Triumph Acclaim in 1981. Astronaut (talk) 09:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I use a plug-in timer to switch on some lights while I'm out. I would like to use energy efficient CFL lights, but the box clearly indicates they shouldn't be used with timers, dimmers or photo-cells. I don't have dimmers or photo-cells, why can't I use a timer with CFL lights? Astronaut (talk) 10:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with you. I have my energy saving light blubs attached to an old style timer - with a circular dial, lots of little plastic pegs - using a mecanical switch. They is no problem whatsoever as I would expect. If your timer is those posh digital one with a few silicon rubber button and a small LCD with uses solid state switch, I would understand why it might not work - my guess is that it is possibly okay. I can't think of any harm to try it out. --Chan Tai Man 10:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chantaiman (talk • contribs)

Is there anything specific that this 1st Google result [2] and 6th Bing result [3] doesn't answer? Nil Einne (talk) 13:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Old-style mechanical timers are OK - old-style dimmers aren't. Very recent electronic timers and dimmers are sometimes labelled as "CFL-compatible" - but mostly they aren't - so they are NOT OK. The reason is to do with the way they turn the CFL on - I'm not sure of the details but it does bad things to the "Electrical ballast in the CFL and can damage it - so don't do that! SteveBaker (talk) 15:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Darnley Sycamore is a Heritage Tree of Scotland, situated on the outskirts of Glasgow near Junction 3 of the M77. It is an Acer pseudoplatanus but I need to know the exact variety. Can anyone help please

The actual spelling is Acer pseudoplantanus. If it's as old as it's claimed, there would have been no cultivars at that time which would have had a third name added, so I think you're safe just calling it "Acer pseudoplantanus". I've searched the Kew database and the Forestry Commission website and can't find anything which says anything to the contrary. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it appears to be Acer pseudoplatanus (only one "n") - Muphry's law strikes again! 87.81.230.195 (talk) 17:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well no: the Kew site has both spellings, confusingly. The Forestry Commission has both "n"s. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confusingly also known as the Darnley Plane. Alansplodge (talk) 18:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Royal Horticultural Society's Encyclopedia of Garden Plants, The Collins Concise English Dictionary, The Concise English Flora in Colour by Rev. W. Keble Martin and The Tree Book by J Edward Milner all list the sycamore as Acer pseudoplatanus. Google returns over 3 million hits for 'Acer pseudoplatanus' and only 600,000 or so for 'Acer pseudoplantanus'. I think it is time for a spell-check at Kew and the Forestry Commission. Richard Avery (talk) 22:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

lol! I stand corrected. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of confusion in this area, given that 'sycamore' is used to refer to three different trees in different families. The original name (in Greek) meant 'fig mulberry', and referred to a kind of fig (ficus sycomorus). In the UK a 'sycamore' is a kind of maple with leaves resembling a plane (hence (acer pseudoplatanus,or 'pseudo-plane maple'). In the US it is generally a plane (platanus). --ColinFine (talk) 00:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are suppressed gun's shots weaker than those of normal gun?--AM ^(talk) 14:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is a suppressed gun shot? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is he/she means using a Suppressor (commonly called a 'silencer'). Our article says "It generally takes the form of a cylindrically shaped metal tube with various internal mechanisms to reduce the sound of firing by slowing the escaping propellant gas and sometimes by reducing the velocity of the bullet.[1][2]" so my guess is, 'yes at least sometimes'. It probably has more detail but I'm not really that interested in firearms to read more Nil Einne (talk) 14:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I meant bullets from a gun with suppressor. Sorry, My bad English skill. Thank for your answer. I got the point :P--AM ^(talk) 14:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - it certainly reduces the speed of the bullet because in order to reduce the speed of the propellant that's behind the bullet - it also has to reduce the speed of the air that was in front of the bullet that's being pushed out of the end of the barrel as the bullet travels forward. That increases the pressure of that air inside the barrel - which reduces the pressure differential on either end of the bullet - which impedes its progress down the barrel. Slower muzzle velocity means "weaker" shots. Maybe not by much though - a lot depends on the type of silencer. SteveBaker (talk) 15:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much.--AM ^(talk) 15:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My friend has a house in foreclosure and some bank owns it. Its in short sell (i don't know what that meand) because they found someone to buy it. So my friend said me and another guy can live there for free because we are looking to move to another place but we need to save up some fundage. We have been there a month 1/2. We opened all utilities for here.

But I didn't know that the guy I am living with is a thief and stole my itouchand my stereo equipment. Other things were missing in my bedroom. Can't all the cops cuz we are not supposed to be there. I moved my valuable stuff somewhere else and Im looking for somewhere to stay. but until then I have no where else to sleep. This dude has been hiding in his room and probably hid my stuff somewhere off the property. I just want my stuff back but he claims that "he has no idea" where it is.

I'll completely move out in two days and sleep on a friends couch until I find my own place. I want to call the bank anonymously and let them know that there is someone trepassing on their property because legally we should not be living there at all. Do I call the cops? Do you think that this is a good move? I'm just so mad he took my stereo and my iTouch and probably sold it!

BTW - my friend who owns the house (or did) doesn't want to get involved. errr! --JBikeride (talk) 14:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We do not give legal advice. But for what its worth, the circumstances under which you are in the house, and the fact of a theft, are entirely distinct. In your position I'd have called the police yesterday. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's clear up the terminology here: A "short sell" is where the bank agrees to allow the owner to sell the house for less than the person owes on their mortgage - hand the proceeds over to the bank and then to call it quits on the loan. The bank loses whatever the difference between the 'short' selling price and the amount owed on the mortgage is - but it's generally cheaper and easier than going through all of the foreclosure/eviction nonsense (and then having to sell the house themselves). The owner(s) win because they don't have a bad hit on their credit report - and they can walk away from the mortgage without owing a penny.

It seems to me that since this is a Short sale (real estate) and not a full foreclosure that the bank doesn't ever own the house (that's why they agree to do things this way - they don't want to own the house!) - and the new buyers don't own it until they pay the money and go though all of the title transfer nonsense. So it's likely that this friend still owns the house (assuming he didn't lie to you about the details) and is therefore perfectly within his rights to let you live there until the sale is complete. It doesn't seem reasonable that you should have to know the state of the sale - so if he gave you permission to stay there then you aren't breaking any law. If he sells the house and signs off the title and doesn't reveal to the buyers that he has "sitting tenants" (ie you) - then that's his fault, not yours. You might have to leave in a hurry - but you should be OK (assuming you can prove that he gave permission - or he admits that he did). We can't give legal advice here - so this has to be your call - but in your position, I'd certainly call the cops and explain everything. Look after the house though - if you trash it and it doesn't belong to your friend after all - or if you hook up the utilities in your name and don't pay for them - you could be in a world of pain. SteveBaker (talk) 15:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All the utilities is in that a55hole's name which is goo. But if I call the cops, I can't prove that he took it. --JBikeride (talk) 16:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, but you can report that the things have gone missing, relate your suspicions, and hope that they'd investigate. Police do not normally expect such proof from the victim. But there's no certain cure for this sort of ailment, and you may have to chalk it up as a lesson learned. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure - and who knows - the guy might blurt out what someone did acording to a Paul Harvey broadcast once - "Oh, you must be here about the TV I stole." (It was actully officers collecting money for charity.) :-) 209.244.187.155 (talk) 21:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On your way back from the police station check local pawn shops and see if your stuff has turned up. APL (talk) 17:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that your pic of John wesley hardin is a pic of the outlaw blue duck. Please respond —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.126.106.154 (talk) 19:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please add this to the "talk page" of that article by clicking the "discussion" tab at the top of that article to get to the Talk page, then by clicking "new section" on the Talk page, and asking there. That's where editors interested in the subject are likely to read the question. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

done --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some friends of mine want to call their soon-to-be-born son "Alber" (sic). They claim to have seen this name in dictionaries of boys' names, but I'm sceptical. I can't find any reference to it as a boy's name either on Google or on Wikipedia. Has anyone ever come across it? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 22:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Albert, yes. Alber? Not any I have ever heard of. Googlemeister (talk) 22:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Albert, as pronounced in French, sounds that way - but it is definitely still spelled Albert. Nimur (talk) 22:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) The article on Alber Elbaz has his name spelt that way in the title, then as Albert for the rest of the article. However, Time Magazine agrees that the correct spelling is without the 't' (but is equally confused as to why). I don't know if this man's name would appear in a list of boys' names, anyway. --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 22:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our article does not list that as an international variant. Nimur (talk) 22:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It probably doesn't matter much anyways. Parents are free to invent completely unique names for their children. --Jayron32 23:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While it may not matter legally, setting your son up for getting beaten up in the schoolyard on a regular basis is not a good move. It might almost be considered child abuse. Why not just name him "Sue" and have done with it? B00P (talk) 23:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It worked out OK for Johnny Cash did it not? --Jayron32 02:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He still hated that name! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, and more to the point, if they are really just mis-pronouncing "Albert", or it looks like they are, that can be bad. It is seen as an indication of low-class, generally speaking, to have "misspelled" names, which can certainly affect one's future shot at things (advertising things like race and class in a name have definitely been shown to have negative effects, all other variables being the same). --Mr.98 (talk) 00:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In North America I don't think that's been true for several decades now. "Misspelled" names are very widely used, especially for women. People over 40, like me, may dislike the trend, but I don't see it as a class marker at all. Just as an example, the top 20 contestants on the current season of So You Think You Can Dance included a man named Jakob (American, not German or something) and women named Ashleigh, Mollee, and Ellenore.

Does Wikipedia have an article on this practice? I can't think of what title to look for. --Anonymous, 08:48 UTC, December 8, 2009.

I'm not sure a reality show (or the entertainment sector in general, which thrives on the odd) is a good indicator of how these kinds of trends would affect the average child. As a class-jumper myself (and one not over 40), I am fairly acutely aware of the way in which people of my "new" class perceive "ugly" names. Again, it depends on what one's ambitions are in life, but blind studies have shown that having names that advertise "I am African-American and probably of a low class", for example, does impact how one's job applications are received. --98.217.71.237 (talk) 15:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parents are free to invent names in some countries, but not all. In some countries there is an approved list of names and you need special permission to name your child something not on the list. --Tango (talk) 00:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds fascistic, but when you see kids stuck with names like Chastity or River, you start to think there's something to it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awfully subjective of you, Bugs. I happen to find River a pleasant name. Certainly no worse than "Meadow" or "Brooke" - which are obviously all from the same category. 218.25.32.210 (talk) 06:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Tiaamii Crystal Esther Andre. The prosecution rests. --Tango (talk) 12:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talula Does The Hula From Hawaii! -- Arwel Parry (talk) 21:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of these tops "Number 16 Bus Shelter", which was overruled by a New Zealand court as a form of child abuse. Sorry, was upheld as legal by a New Zealand court. Nimur (talk) 16:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was 4real but I can't remember what eventually happened with that [4] Nil Einne (talk) 10:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can be an anglicization of the rare medieval italian name Albero [5], [6], [7], a short form of Adalbero, from Adalberto. So, it seems etymologically related to Adalbert and Albert. We have also a German Alber: [8]. Another possibility is that it can be a phonetical rendering of the French pronunciation of Albert (with the silent t at the end). --151.51.10.133 (talk) 09:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With Alber Elbaz I linked to above, considering he was born in Morocco, that French connection would make perfect sense to me. The 't' was probably lost after being transliterated into Arabic, and then into Hebrew, and then back into English when he moved to America. Just guessing this, but it seems the most logical explanation other than 'his parents just felt like spelling it that way anyway' (which may have been the case). --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 16:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My area is expecting its first major snowfall this year tomorrow night (7-12 inches), which got me thinking about removing the ice or thin layer of packed on snow from my driveway--something that always seems to happen no matter how well I shovel or snowblow it. I was just musing to myself and remembered how the excavation team digging up a woolly mammoth used some sort of plastic covering over a small area to melt the frozen tundra by means of the greenhouse effect. I have a relatively small driveway and I was wondering if something akin to that would be a feasible solution for the ice instead of having to use salt. Any ideas or suggestions? This is more for fun, but it would be neat if someone could come up with some practical advice for trying out a little science experiment! --98.108.36.249 (talk) 23:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Science Desk loves this kind of question. BrainyBabe (talk) 23:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The greenhouse effect is where light penetrates something (in this case a clear sheet), is turned into heat, which cannot escape through the clear sheet. Assuming you are in North America, your efforts to utilize this effect are likely to hampered by the lack of sunlight between now and tomorrow morning.

I would however recommend clearing the ice, as ice under a cover of snow is particularly treacherous. Depending on how cold it's going to be you may find salt is not useful at this time - salt lowers the melting temperature of ice, but only by a few degrees. It's best applied in the morning. DJ Clayworth (talk) 23:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you put the plastic sheet down before it snows? Then you can remove most of the snow with your snowblower and pick up the sheet to reveal the non-icy driveway beneath. (One homeowner in my neighborhood had his driveway, as well as the sidewalk in front of his house, ripped up, a system of warm-water tubes installed [like underfloor heating], and the driveway and sidewalk rebuilt. The snow melts as fast as it falls, and it's always restful to come to that clear stretch of sidewalk after slogging through half a foot or more of snow on the rest of one's trip to the grocery store. Not a practicable solution if it's going to snow tomorrow night, though.) Deor (talk) 02:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In New England, everyone I knew used a manual lawn edger. See this image for the round-bladed version. They sell these in round and square versions, both work just fine. Home Depot and Lowes should carry them. They have a nice long pole for leverage, and a narrow blade which can get between the ice and the driveway. You just shovel the loose snow off of the driveway, and (especially if you had the forsight to salt BEFORE it snowed) the hardpack and ice could be scraped away pretty easily with on of these. You can use them in two modes. If you hold them at a high angle, perpendicular to the ground, you get a lot of good force to chip the ice. If you bring them in at a shallow angle, close to the ground, you can get them under the ice. Both modes work well together to clear ice off of a driveway. --Jayron32 02:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're keen on increasing the greenhouse effect, why not consider purchasing a heated driveway? Nimur (talk) 16:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the England, people commonly use salt for this purpose, especially very coarse salt. But then again, we don't get that much snow (and when it does snow, the country falls to pieces) and it's not usually all that cold compared to the kind of temps you guys get in N America, so perhaps I should shut up and listen... Then again, this option sounds a lot cheaper and easier than the others, and I like saving money and being lazy. --Dweller (talk) 15:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]