Jump to content
Mr Romanov Saviour of HMFC

Things you've always wondered about but couldn't be bothered to find out

Recommended Posts

A Boy Named Crow
1 hour ago, ri Alban said:

Your heart only has so many beats, why use them up so quick.

I can’t argue with this. I used to use the same logic when, as a boy, I’d get pulled up for dropping a t - wa’er for water, bu’er for butter etc. I’d say I was saving them so as not to run out later in life...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FWJ

Why is does frost develop on your windscreen before on other windows and is harder?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hughesie27
47 minutes ago, FWJ said:

Why is does frost develop on your windscreen before on other windows and is harder?

It's less of an angle so easier to settle?

 

Probably also to do with the dkrecrion the cars facing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I P Knightley
2 hours ago, A Boy Named Crow said:

I can’t argue with this. I used to use the same logic when, as a boy, I’d get pulled up for dropping a t - wa’er for water, bu’er for butter etc. I’d say I was saving them so as not to run out later in life...

All you've done is redress the balance with Yorkshiremen using t' all the time. Similar to how Scots have frrreedom to use the letter R as much as we like since English people hardly touch it.

 

10 hours ago, Jambos_1874 said:

 

What an odd thing to wonder but I'm now intrigued! 😂

I'm a fairly recent newcomer to dog ownership. What else am I supposed to do while he's curling one out? There's not enough time to do a Sudoku puzzle.

 

Now that the mornings have turned cold and frosty, though, I see a benefit in bagging up the poo🐕:poopile:. A low cost hand-warmer :D

 

 

10 hours ago, luckyBatistuta said:

 

IP can lick his own a-hole, who’d have thought it.

:biglaugh: I'm not sure what leap of logic you applied to get to that conclusion but I'm so old and stiff and sore that it's not going to be long before I can't even wipe the thing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ri Alban
4 hours ago, I P Knightley said:

All you've done is redress the balance with Yorkshiremen using t' all the time. Similar to how Scots have frrreedom to use the letter R as much as we like since English people hardly touch it.

 

I'm a fairly recent newcomer to dog ownership. What else am I supposed to do while he's curling one out? There's not enough time to do a Sudoku puzzle.

 

Now that the mornings have turned cold and frosty, though, I see a benefit in bagging up the poo🐕:poopile:. A low cost hand-warmer :D

 

 

:biglaugh: I'm not sure what leap of logic you applied to get to that conclusion but I'm so old and stiff and sore that it's not going to be long before I can't even wipe the thing!

Aye but the English  make amends for all those lost gs in Scotland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maple Leaf

I'm hoping that one of the maths geniuses on JKB can complete this statement.

 

An atom is to a grain of salt, as a grain of salt is to .... what?

 

I know that atoms can be different sizes, so let's assume it's a hydrogen atom.  Let's also assume that it's a grain of ordinary table salt.

 

It's not that I can't be bothered to find out, it's that my maths (or chemistry) skills are not good enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
graygo
15 hours ago, Maple Leaf said:

I'm hoping that one of the maths geniuses on JKB can complete this statement.

 

An atom is to a grain of salt, as a grain of salt is to .... what?

 

I know that atoms can be different sizes, so let's assume it's a hydrogen atom.  Let's also assume that it's a grain of ordinary table salt.

 

It's not that I can't be bothered to find out, it's that my maths (or chemistry) skills are not good enough.

 

A muckle shooge hing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I P Knightley
16 hours ago, Maple Leaf said:

I'm hoping that one of the maths geniuses on JKB can complete this statement.

 

An atom is to a grain of salt, as a grain of salt is to .... what?

 

I know that atoms can be different sizes, so let's assume it's a hydrogen atom.  Let's also assume that it's a grain of ordinary table salt.

 

It's not that I can't be bothered to find out, it's that my maths (or chemistry) skills are not good enough.

It's not a maths bod you need, it's either physics or someone who'd good with general quiz-type knowledge.

 

I'm going to say "a planet" as I'm guessing it's one of these questions that's supposed to make your jaw drop when you hear the answer. A bit like, if a flea was the size of a human, it would be able to leap over the whole of Edinburgh. Or sump'n.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Justin Z
16 hours ago, Maple Leaf said:

I'm hoping that one of the maths geniuses on JKB can complete this statement.

 

An atom is to a grain of salt, as a grain of salt is to .... what?

 

I know that atoms can be different sizes, so let's assume it's a hydrogen atom.  Let's also assume that it's a grain of ordinary table salt.

 

It's not that I can't be bothered to find out, it's that my maths (or chemistry) skills are not good enough.

 

Edit: Nah, that's all wrong :lol:

 

Edited by Justin Z

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lemongrab
15 hours ago, Maple Leaf said:

I'm hoping that one of the maths geniuses on JKB can complete this statement.

 

An atom is to a grain of salt, as a grain of salt is to .... what?

 

I know that atoms can be different sizes, so let's assume it's a hydrogen atom.  Let's also assume that it's a grain of ordinary table salt.

 

It's not that I can't be bothered to find out, it's that my maths (or chemistry) skills are not good enough.

It's been a fair while since I studied chemistry. Best get that in first.

 

To calculate the number of atoms in a grain of salt, you'd need to know the size of the grain. Knowing that, and using Avogadro's constant, you'd be able to work out the number of atoms in the grain. As grayo says, it will be a 'muckle shooge hing';  probably over 100 billion, so the answer to the statement could be something like comparing a grain of salt to a star in the Milky Way.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FWJ

A hydrogen atom is about 1x10 to the minus 10 and a grain of table salt is about 0.5mm so 5 x 10 to the minus 4.

So a grain of table salt is about 5 million times as large as an atom.

5 million x 0.5mm is about 2.5 kilometres.

 

(it’s about 40 years since I did maths so this might all be bolloughs)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Justin Z
13 minutes ago, FWJ said:

A hydrogen atom is about 1x10 to the minus 10 and a grain of table salt is about 0.5mm so 5 x 10 to the minus 4.

So a grain of table salt is about 5 million times as large as an atom.

5 million x 0.5mm is about 2.5 kilometres.

 

(it’s about 40 years since I did maths so this might all be bolloughs)

 

That's kind of the route I took. Came up with a slightly larger number.

 

But then was like "crap, volumes are cubed" and just gave up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maple Leaf
32 minutes ago, FWJ said:

A hydrogen atom is about 1x10 to the minus 10 and a grain of table salt is about 0.5mm so 5 x 10 to the minus 4.

So a grain of table salt is about 5 million times as large as an atom.

5 million x 0.5mm is about 2.5 kilometres.

 

(it’s about 40 years since I did maths so this might all be bolloughs)

 

Excellent.  I know that there isn't a precise answer to the question so that looks good enough to me.

 

When you say 2.5 km, I'm assuming that's a cube with each side 2.5 km.  Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FWJ
1 minute ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

Excellent.  I know that there isn't a precise answer to the question so that looks good enough to me.

 

When you say 2.5 km, I'm assuming that's a cube with each side 2.5 km.  Thanks.

Erm ... erm .... yeah. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lemongrab
11 hours ago, FWJ said:

A hydrogen atom is about 1x10 to the minus 10 and a grain of table salt is about 0.5mm so 5 x 10 to the minus 4.

So a grain of table salt is about 5 million times as large as an atom.

5 million x 0.5mm is about 2.5 kilometres.

 

(it’s about 40 years since I did maths so this might all be bolloughs)

 

I think sodium and chlorine atoms average at roughly twice the size of a hydrogen atom, so that might half your answer. Maybe. Who knows. :olly:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Salad Fingers

This is quite a recent one I've wondered about. When travelling to work and back on the train in the middle carriage there is a loud bang followed a couple of seconds later by another similar bang. Does anyone know what this is? I know they use detonators on lines at times but this happens quite often. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
milky_26
13 minutes ago, Salad Fingers said:

This is quite a recent one I've wondered about. When travelling to work and back on the train in the middle carriage there is a loud bang followed a couple of seconds later by another similar bang. Does anyone know what this is? I know they use detonators on lines at times but this happens quite often. 

The fat controller has had enough of Thomas's nonsense

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A Boy Named Crow

If we describe a hilly road as undulating, why do we not describe a flat road as dulating?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lemongrab
9 hours ago, A Boy Named Crow said:

If we describe a hilly road as undulating, why do we not describe a flat road as dulating?

 

I was wondering why my aunties aren't called 'cles'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jambo89
10 hours ago, A Boy Named Crow said:

If we describe a hilly road as undulating, why do we not describe a flat road as dulating?

 

Because dulate isn’t a word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A Boy Named Crow
1 hour ago, jambo89 said:

 

Because dulate isn’t a word.

But why isn’t it a word? “Un” at the start implies the opposite of the word without “Un”, but there is word without “Un” at the start.

 

It seems somebody screwed up!

Edited by A Boy Named Crow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gjcc
38 minutes ago, A Boy Named Crow said:

But why isn’t it a word? “Un” at the start implies the opposite of the word without “Un”, but there is word without “Un” at the start.

 

It seems somebody screwed up!

 

You seem to “derstand” that the routes of words are often different. 

 

The word undulate late is thought to stem from the Latin word unda, meaning wave. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jambos_1874

Why is it often so much cheaper to fly from Edinburgh to London compared to the train? Surely fuel costs alone should make flight costs much higher? I know the rail infrastructure must be expensive to maintain but airlines must pay for airport, radar etc infrastructure via landing fees etc? Purely from an environmental perspective something should be done to ensure trains are cheaper to use?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jambo89
44 minutes ago, Jambos_1874 said:

Why is it often so much cheaper to fly from Edinburgh to London compared to the train? Surely fuel costs alone should make flight costs much higher? I know the rail infrastructure must be expensive to maintain but airlines must pay for airport, radar etc infrastructure via landing fees etc? Purely from an environmental perspective something should be done to ensure trains are cheaper to use?

 

Ive never understood why it’s so expensive for the train either.

 

It must be a time thing!? You can have 3 flights to London and back in the time it takes you to get from Edinburgh to London!? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jambos_1874
1 minute ago, jambo89 said:

 

Ive never understood why it’s so expensive for the train either.

 

It must be a time thing!? You can have 3 flights to London and back in the time it takes you to get from Edinburgh to London!? 

 

Possibly a factor but you can get a lot more people on a train compared to a couple of small shuttle flights so the cost per passenget should be lower. I prefer to fly but it just seems wrong that it's cheaper. Similarly, how can it be cheaper to fly to Gran Canaria than to train it to London!!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gjcc
7 minutes ago, Jambos_1874 said:

 

Possibly a factor but you can get a lot more people on a train compared to a couple of small shuttle flights so the cost per passenget should be lower. I prefer to fly but it just seems wrong that it's cheaper. Similarly, how can it be cheaper to fly to Gran Canaria than to train it to London!!?

 

It will not be one single thing making it cheaper, but a combination of several things.

Journeys take less time by plane so staff aren’t required for as long.

Turnarounds are far quicker for a plane. 

I think air travel is zero rated and probably don’t need to pay fuel duty. 

 

Probably not an exhaustive list. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jambos_1874
4 minutes ago, gjcc said:

 

It will not be one single thing making it cheaper, but a combination of several things.

Journeys take less time by plane so staff aren’t required for as long.

Turnarounds are far quicker for a plane. 

I think air travel is zero rated and probably don’t need to pay fuel duty. 

 

Probably not an exhaustive list. 

 

I should habe just googled it; see below - an interesting read.

 

https://1010uk.org/articles/why-flying-cheaper-getting-train

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A Boy Named Crow
2 hours ago, gjcc said:

 

You seem to “derstand” that the routes of words are often different. 

 

The word undulate late is thought to stem from the Latin word unda, meaning wave. 

See I didn’t know that, now I do. This thread works!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Justin Z
1 hour ago, A Boy Named Crow said:

See I didn’t know that, now I do. This thread works!

 

Pretty gruntled with that, tbf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lemongrab

Why do flammable and inflammable mean the same thing, but combustible and incombustible mean the opposite? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jambo89

Is Scotland the same size as England?

 

I seem to recall being told that it was at some point!? It either used to be the same size when the border was lower down (near York?) it is still the same size when you account for the land mass of the islands!? 

Edited by jambo89

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lemongrab
34 minutes ago, jambo89 said:

Is Scotland the same size as England?

 

I seem to recall being told that it was at some point!? It either used to be the same size when the border was lower down (near York?) it is still the same size when you account for the land mass of the islands!? 

I think Scotland is roughly 2/3 the size of England. I don't know if that includes the islands. 

 

Mainland Scotland has a longer coastline than England. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gjcc
4 hours ago, Lemongrab said:

Why do flammable and inflammable mean the same thing, but combustible and incombustible mean the opposite? 

 

Mental floss did something on this a while back. 

From what I remember: it stems back to “in” having two different roots in Latin (possibly before Latin though?)

“En” , meaning into, in, onto etc. 

And “Ne”, meaning not/without etc. 

 

There are other words that can draw up the same double meaning. Impregnable is an antonym if itself. 

Ive heard folk using nonplussed to mean both bothered and unbothered. 

 

“Off” can also convey two opposite meanings depending on its context. “The Alarm went off”

 

 

 

Stupid English (language)

Seasons  Greetings. :santa2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Boof
48 minutes ago, Lemongrab said:

 

Mainland Scotland has a longer coastline than England. 

 

Wales' coastline is 1 mile longer than Shetland's coastline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gjcc
3 minutes ago, Boof said:

 

Wales' coastline is 1 mile longer than Shetland's coastline.

 

Is there a standardised method of measuring a coastline? I assumed that the closer and more detailed you went then the longer the coastline would become. 

Might google that. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Morgan
On 30/10/2018 at 18:08, Dawnrazor said:

As I get older I find women my own age attractive, I find early 20 somethings less so the older I get, will I eventually only be attracted to OAP's😳😳😳

It’s a bit of a [email protected] when you actually see a woman older than you and yid still ‘bob It’.

 

There’s this wee ...

 

 

Och, forget it..  :lol: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Boof
54 minutes ago, gjcc said:

 

Is there a standardised method of measuring a coastline? I assumed that the closer and more detailed you went then the longer the coastline would become. 

Might google that. :lol:

 

I suppose fractal theory would suggest every coastline is infinitely long 😅

 

There must be a standardised method - I mean length would depend if the tide was in or oot. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gjcc
4 hours ago, Boof said:

 

I suppose fractal theory would suggest every coastline is infinitely long 😅

 

There must be a standardised method - I mean length would depend if the tide was in or oot. 

 

Numberphiles discussion on the topic is quite good.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Samuel Camazzola

In Gremlins, one of the rules is not to feed the mogwai after midnight. At what time is it safe for them to eat again? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
graygo
14 minutes ago, Samuel Camazzola said:

In Gremlins, one of the rules is not to feed the mogwai after midnight. At what time is it safe for them to eat again? 

 

Before midnight obviously  ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Samuel Camazzola
5 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

Before midnight obviously  ;) 

Sehr gut! 👍

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A Boy Named Crow

In a car that has three seatbelts across the back, why is the buckle for the middle one different to the buckle for the ones on the outside? It just leaves you with a 50/50 choice on the side with the middle and the side option...a choice I get wrong a lot more than 50% of the time. The right/wrong ratio is much the same as that of trying to plug in a USB!

why don’t they just make the buckles all the same?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
redjambo
On 03/12/2018 at 22:27, I P Knightley said:

How come my dog can do a shite and then, minutes later, do a piss? Not just a dribble of a piss, a proper stream of it.

 

If I'm doing a shite, there's no way on earth that I could hold in a piss of that nature.

 

I realise that my dog is a different species but, by and large, we've got the same component parts in roughly the same proximity to each other.

 

Given that dogs piss to mark their territory, I imagine that they have a great deal more control over their peeing than we humans do. Have you ever tried to stop a piss after a short while like a dog does? So, when dogs shit, they hold in their piss (probably without thinking about it) because they might have a great number of opportunities left during that walk to mark their territory and they don't want to waste good marking ink.

 

I guess if we humans marked our territory by pissing then we'd have the same control.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
redjambo
On 23/12/2018 at 22:24, Morgan said:

It’s a bit of a [email protected] when you actually see a woman older than you and yid still ‘bob It’.

 

There’s this wee ...

 

Och, forget it..  :lol: 

 

I've got to the stage that often when I see women who look older than me, it turns out that they're actually younger then me. I'm older than I think! :D

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
peter_hmfc

Take the statement "Some of the things Aisling Bea does is/are outrageously adorable.".

 

It is "is" or "are"?

 

"Some of the things Aisling Bea does is outrageously adorable.".

"Some of the things Aisling Bea does are outrageously adorable.".

 

Neither sounds right.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ulysses
5 minutes ago, peter_hmfc said:

Take the statement "Some of the things Aisling Bea does is/are outrageously adorable.".

 

It is "is" or "are"?

 

"Some of the things Aisling Bea does is outrageously adorable.".

"Some of the things Aisling Bea does are outrageously adorable.".

 

Neither sounds right.

 

 

 

I was told that you should use the "countable" rule.  If the some refers to something you can count, then use plural.  If you can't, use singular.

 

Example: Some beer has spilt on the floor.  Some fellas are trying to drink it anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
peter_hmfc
Just now, Ulysses said:

 

 

I was told that you should use the "countable" rule.  If the some refers to something you can count, then use plural.  If you can't, use singular.

 

Example: Some beer has spilt on the floor.  Some fellas are trying to drink it anyway.

 

Just doesn't sound right, "some of the things she does are".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lemongrab
41 minutes ago, peter_hmfc said:

 

Just doesn't sound right, "some of the things she does are".

That sounds right to me.

 

What doesn't sound right to me, is using a singular verb when talking about a football team; eg 'Hearts is the biggest team in Edinburgh'.  No matter how much I tell myself it's right, 'are' just seems the more natural thing to say.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ulysses
1 hour ago, peter_hmfc said:

 

Just doesn't sound right, "some of the things she does are".

 

Some of the things are...

 

Some of the things I've seen are...

 

Some of the things she does are...

 

Fair enough, IMO.

 

 

On the other hand, here's one from the Irish Bar Council's grammar advice to students, pointing out that it is grammatically incorrect to say:

 

1. A number of people were arrested.

2. There are a number of reasons for this.

 

The grammatically correct versions are:

 

1. A number of people was arrested.

2. There is a number of reasons for this.

 

The reason: You are referring to plural people and plural reasons, but the subject of the sentence in each case is "a number", which is singular.

 

Technically I get the logic, but I just don't like it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ulysses
4 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

 

On the other hand, here's one from the Irish Bar Council's grammar advice to students, pointing out that it is grammatically incorrect to say:

 

 

In fairness to the Bar Council, the above grammar advice is actually from King's Inns, which trains and admits people to the Bar.  :whistling:

Edited by Ulysses

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×