Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2015 September 13

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.

September 13

Karate vs. aikido

In a fight between two people of equal size, one highly skilled in karate and the other one in aikido, who would win? 2601:646:8E01:9089:DCFB:3468:F080:7753 (talk) 07:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Unanswerable question. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 14:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

But many have tried: see Aikido vs Karate Demonstration, Aikido vs Karate 1 and Aikido VS Karate 1e. You may also be interested in A COMPARISON OF TWO TRADITIONAL, YET SEEMINGLY DIFFERENT, JAPANESE STYLES: Karate-do and Aikido by Tom Muzila. Alansplodge (talk) 15:14, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

KägeTorä is right, this isn't an answerable question. For a start, karate is a generic name for a number of Japanese martial arts. Even if we talk about diffirent scenarios, we still wouldn't be able to give a definitive answer because on one day it might be one, and on the next, the other. Different styles sometimes have their own unique techniques but most styles borrow from others. Aikido for example relies on using an opponent's weight and momentum and uses a lot of throws which is great if you have the space, but not so useful in a packed nightclub. Goju Ryu on the otherhand uses a lot of close up techniques such as elbow strikes, knee strikes and locks (yes, I know Aikido employs locks too). Perhaps if you tell us why you want to know, we could be of more help. Are you thinking about taking up a martial art?--Ykraps (talk) 16:00, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Samurai vs. Vikings

I realize that this must have been asked before, but here goes: Suppose a hypothetical scenario where a large raiding force of Vikings landed in Japan and was met by an equally-sized force of samurai -- in this scenario, who would win? (Assume both sides have equipment and training typical for their own side at the beginning of the High Middle Ages; also assume both sides have a proportional mix of spearmen and archers as called for by their own military doctrine, but no cavalry -- the Vikings couldn't bring their horses with them, and the samurai didn't have time to saddle theirs.) 2601:646:8E01:9089:DCFB:3468:F080:7753 (talk) 08:00, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

They would generally settle down to a trade agreement. Vikings were traders, and not invaders. They only invaded when the local population was against them. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 13:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Which was often. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

On an individual levle - List_of_Deadliest_Warrior_episodes#Episode_2:_Viking_vs._Samurai. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

"Suppose a hypothetical scenario" is the kiss of death for a Ref Desk question. Right at the top of this page, it says "We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.". This is definitely at least two out of three of those. We can't possibly know what would happen in such a hypothetical situation - who knows what other situations would apply? Where on earth do you expect us to be able to find this answer? Clearly it's not something that's ever been carefully studied by experts - certainly not with all of your detailed caveats and restrictions. There are so many vast unknowns here that any answer that anyone here gives will be no better than flipping a coin...so I'm flipping...it's tails - so I can tell you with 100% confidence that the Vikings were so sick of being at sea for over a year in a piddly little longboat that they gave up at the first sign of trouble. Even if your question made sense - and fell within our rules - the Samurai were around for around 800 years - going through ten distinct and total changes in culture, tactics, weaponry and armor and the Vikings were active for at least 300 years and underwent similarly large changes.

Sorry - we can't answer this - it's a meaningless question with the only possible answers being useless, unreferenced junk. Go flip a coin...

SteveBaker (talk) 17:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Stain of sperm

Hi, I'd like to know how to clean an old and dry stain of sperm on a fleece jacket. Notice that I already tried to clean it in a washing machine. Thank you for any advice. Anonymous.--85.171.139.208 (talk) 15:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Have you tried an approach smmilar to that use for raw egg? (see-http://web.extension.illinois.edu/stain/staindetail.cfm?ID=9)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfan00 IMG (talk • contribs)

The enzymes in saliva are good for dissolving all sorts of natural substances. You could try licking it off.--Ykraps (talk) 16:03, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

We do have an article on stain removal, but it's not one of our better ones. This site has some useful tips - a long soak in salt water is effective on most organic stains, or you can use an enzyme-based stain removal product. Tevildo (talk) 17:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Years ago, I don't remember the source, I read that hair spray gets sperm stains off cloth. It was some behind the scenes sort of interview thing, if you wondering how something might come up. Dismas|^(talk) 22:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm assuming we're talking about semen here, not spermatozoa separated out of the semen. There's a lot more in semen than just the wriggly fellers. But then, I wonder why we don't call sperm whales "semen whales". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:40, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Because seamen hunting semen whales would be weird. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@JackofOz, probably because the whale's 'sperm', or properly spermaceti, has nothing to do with semen but everything to do with Greek and Latin nomenclature. Richard Avery (talk) 06:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Technically it doesn't, but word-origin-wise it does. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:16, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Specifically, its called that because thats what people thought it was. Iapetus (talk) 10:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Right. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Richard. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Fabric 6" under the soil

I was at a friend's house today. The friend's husband was digging a ditch to put in a water line. I didn't want to bother anyone with the question at the time, so here I am.

In this photo, you can see a fabric that is about 6" under the soil. The ditch was being dug between the gravel driveway and a barn. What is that fabric for? Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 22:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

It's funny, because I was just talking about this with a neighbour who was telling me about some construction he did. The membrane is a water barrier, and it is typically covered with sand and gravel, as you can see here with the natural clay subsurface beneath. The purpose is to protect the layers above the membrane from groundwater damage. Unfortunately my informant just said it was called "membrane" which is obviously not the technical term. I'll see if I can find out an article to link to when I next speak to a relative who's an engineer. μηδείς (talk) 22:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

See Damp proofing. Nanonic (talk) 22:24, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, thinking about it, it may be too far from the building. It could also be part of a groundwater run off into a french drain (or other) elsewhere on the property to prevent waterlogging or flooding of the topsoil. Of course it may have been part of the moisture protection barrier of a previous structure. Nanonic (talk) 22:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• Weed barrier.--TMCk (talk) 22:39, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• It's geofabric. This is a kind of damp proofing, but it certainly will not work as a weed barrier except in very specific cases. μηδείς (talk) 00:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• Could be geofabric as well but it sure has nothing to do with "damp proofing".--TMCk (talk) 00:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

These seem to be reasonable articles under which to start. I know almost nothing of the subject, so I am only reporting what I have been told by an engineer and a construction worker in their 70's, both of whom have mentioned the subject, and it matches what I have been told in the past. μηδείς (talk) 01:06, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Geofabric for a gravel driveway makes sense. Keeps the soil in place, prevent potholes, allows water to drain and keeps gravel separated from the base. Judging by the google results it's not an uncommon application. Ssscienccce (talk) 05:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

What makes you think he's putting it in? To me it looks like he's laid down some builder's plastic to heap the excavated soil onto.--Ykraps (talk) 07:19, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any implication he's putting the fabric in' rather it looks as though it was cut through to dig the trench. Dismas didn't say this, and if you look at it, the edges are torn. It seems apprent this was laid down on top of the rather clayey looking soil, and gravel and sand were layered above it.

Hmmm, well I don't think it's geofabric because firstly that is a fabric and this looks more like plastic, and secondly one might reasonably expect to find bark or gravel or even brick pavers above. One certainly wouldn't expect to find weeds! And I don't think its a damp proofing membrane because this would prevent surface water drainage and one would expect the ground above to be wetter than it appears. If by water line we are talking about a water supply pipe (taking water to somewhere as opposed to taking it away), there is no requirement, in the UK at least, to employ any DPC, gravel or weed proof membrane so like you, I don't think it's going in either. If it is, as you appear to be suggesting, something that was already there, I propose that it's a piece of refuse which was either buried or has become buried. If one is temporarily removing soil however, one would almost certainly put it on something like builder's plastic because scraping soil off grass directly is damn near impossible. Without more information though, this is all guesswork.--Ykraps (talk) 21:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Which game is this?

I am looking for information (name(s), origin, varieties) on a certain game. So far the closest I've found online looks like this, where it is titled "Hammerspiel" ("hammer game"), but googling that term didn't really lead me any further.

The variety I know is slightly different: It has three goals per player (instead of the two on the photo I linked to), and the goals are made of metal, just like the pegs. The hole in the middle has a peg inside which can be made to protrude (and push the metal ball lying on top) by means of a mechanism driven by a wooden thingy you hit with your fist. You can hit it soft or harder, and the ball will jump accordingly, sort of like a high striker (but this is just how you get the ball in play). I couldn't spot anything like that on the photo either.

The playing surface is a bit more elevated in the middle than at the rim, basically like a very flat volcano (or cone).

Four people play the game, and their aim (individually or in teams of two) is to receive as few goals as possible. You wield a mallet to hit the ball (no fingers allowed), and your mallet always has to be coming from under one of your goals — you have to direct it through the goal in order to play the ball.

Friends of my parents have owned one of these since the 1960s, but they have no idea what it was called then.

Any pointers, leads, anecdotes etc. are welcome. Thank you in advance! ---Sluzzelin talk 22:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

With some searching, I came across this page [1] about "Chüngel" and a google image search on this shows a lot of rabbits and various similar wooden boards [2]. And the board called Felsberger Chüngel has three goals per player and this game is described by the page I found as the best known. -Modocc (talk) 23:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Also known as "Hamertjesspel" or ‘little hammer games’ in Flanders and Holland per [[3] and an image search on Hamertjesspel shows only the game boards [4] and no bunnies. --Modocc (talk) 23:39, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Goodness, Modocc, you got it! The example I am most familiar with is exactly the one pictured in your link to the Felsberger Chüngel. (and it's the one that made my pacifist and normally placid grandmother smack my grandfather's wrist with her mallet. It's really a great game!). Amazing help (I am a keen googleur, and live in Switzerland to boot, but I couldn't find it. You're a star! ) In case anyone's interested: the "wooden thingy" I mentioned above, for flinging the ball into play, is the dark blob at the top (north) side of the board in the image of Modocc's link. And thanks for the varieties too. I now also saw the Luxembourg link I gave has a French version too, where the game is called "jeu des marteaux" (again "game of hammers/mallets"), a google image search whereof yielded yet more varieties. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

This is the first I've seen any of these and I've enjoyed finding the game. When I was in college, I may have spent more time winning and playing free pinball games than studying. :-) --Modocc (talk) 02:16, 14 September 2015 (UTC)