Miscellaneous desk
< August 2	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 4 >

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.

August 3[edit]

Paper binding technique[edit]

I'm asking about the bound side that is not shown in this illustration

Any idea what is the paper binding technique used for binding notepads, sales invoices and post-it notes? The binding feels rubbery when separated from the stack of paper. The binding also makes individual pages easy tear off but is strong enough to hold the entire ream together. I can't find any wiki pictures showing the binding so I guess this one will have to do. --Lenticel ^(talk) 07:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be just daubing on a glue called "padding compound", as explained by this how-to youtube video here. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:30, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is just glue. I've made pads similar to these before and it's a thick rubbery glue that is applied to one side of the stack of paper. It holds just enough of the edge to keep the papers from coming off when you don't want them too. But it's not so thin that it soaks into the fibers which would keep you from being able to cleanly pull a sheet off. The other three sides can then be trimmed to give a uniform appearance to the stack. Dismas|^(talk) 15:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys. It's easier than I thought :) I assume that this padding compound is sold in bookstores and craft stores? --Lenticel ^(talk) 23:51, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would doubt that it would be in book stores (I've never seen it there) but craft stores should carry it. If you can't find it yourself, ask a local graphic designer, printing shop, or sign maker who may know someone locally who prints up note pads for people. There are plenty of companies online that will print up note pads for you, if that's all you need. Dismas|^(talk) 00:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guinness Book Of Records[edit]

Inside the cover of the Guinness book of records it say's copyright ... eg.1955 is this the year it was published or the year it was released? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.238.81 (talk) 12:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It means the year it was published. I'm not sure what you mean by "The year it was released"? --TammyMoet (talk) 12:18, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In later years, it was regularly published many months before the start of the year on the cover, but that didn't apply to the first two editions. See Guinness World Records. Dbfirs 14:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Lee's Fighting Method: The Complete Edition[edit]

Is it possible for any person who does not have any prior experience in martial arts can benefit from "Bruce Lee's Fighting Method: The Complete Edition" book? I mean for any self defense purpose? Thank you--180.234.219.67 (talk) 13:53, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Condition of Roman roads in Britain—just before the industrial revolution.[edit]

Hello, again.

I've been doing some research concerning the roots of British industry, and I've run into some sharply conflicting information regarding 18th-Century logistics. Namely, how did Roman roads hold up in the intervening ages following the Fall of Britain, in 410?

For years on end, I simply couldn't stop hearing about how (unlike their civil law and much of the Latin language) Rome's luxurious, opulent architecture survived, nearly incorruptibly, for thirteen centuries following their departure. And, by extension, how the modern, British railroads and highways were simply laid down over the—still-serviceable—Roman streets.

Recently, though, I've heard many stories saying the opposite; to wit, by the pre-industrial age, the Roman roads north of London had all but completely disappeared, due to looting of materials, overgrowth of the forests, and total lack of maintenance. Furthermore, I've been told that places such as Liverpool, Manchester, and Leeds had to depend on elevated canals, built by Dissenters, to transport goods to London, before the advent of railways.

Clearly, both of these perspectives cannot be correct? By the 1750s, were Roman roads only functional in the London area? Is the notion that "standard gauge" (4' 8-1/2") was dictated by the width of Roman chariots an urban legend?

Please let me know at your earliest convenience. Thank You.Pine (talk) 23:59, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help with your main question, but the origin of standard gauge is comprehensively covered in that article. Rojomoke (talk) 04:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see the article Roman roads in Britain? It has a list of them, maybe their articles have more info on the state of them during the centuries. There may be some truth in both perspectives, some roads surviving while others disappeared. Ssscienccce (talk) 07:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A "Roman road" usually just means that a road follows the same path as the original Roman one (which itself may have followed an even older track). It doesn't necessarily mean that the actual Roman stones were still there. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the 1750s and earlier the main road from Manchester to London went through Poynton#Transport. In around 1750 it took 5 days, by 1830, after the road had been upgraded by a turnpike trust it went down to 1 day. IIRC correctly there's a book about the history of Poynton that claims that before the upgrade because the route through Poynton and further south was so frequently very muddy lots of the traffic instead went up the current A6 route through Disley then up the Goyt valley at Whaley Bridge to Buxton and on to London that way. Lots of this route follows the old roman road. You can see an old map here. So at least in this part of the world the Roman road was in better condition than a muddy main road. JMiall ₰ 13:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also had a look at Roman roads in Britain and [Turnpike trusts]] and couldn't find anything definite for you. (A sort of opposite to the once-paved, famously straight Roman roads were the wandering drovers' roads, used for walking livestock to market.) You might find some harder facts within The Turnpike Road System in England: 1663-1840, which probably explains why the need for the new system arose. Very few books are about the decline of a system, in proportion to the rise of a new one. (I except civilisational moaning: Decline and Fall of the Roman and American Empires.)

I must correct you on one matter, though: not in England, nor any other country I imagine, is the canal network overhead. Aqueducts, including those built by the Romans, transport drinking water, not goods vehicles (barges), and these conduits may be disguised as natural flow anyway, e.g. the New River, built in 1613). It is true that some small portions of canals may be raised (e.g. most spectacularly the Pontcysyllte Aqueduct) but this is as much the exception as canals boring through mountains, which of course they also do from time to time. Both tunnels and aqueducts are expensive. Our best article here is the History of the British canal system. It doesn't say so, but I suspect you are correct that many of the canals were funded by Dissenters. These early industrialists were concentrated in the manufacturing towns and the coal-rich North of England, and canals were the motorways of the Industrial Revolution. Before they were built, goods had to move by packhorse or coastal vessels. My impression is that the new-built roads were primarily for the rapid conveyance of people, either on horseback or in carriages; goods went mainly by water, where that was an option. Once the railway came along in the nineteenth century, both inter-city roads and the canal network began to decline. BrainyBabe (talk) 20:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, it may very well be that the Dissenters—so as to escape persecution—had to set up their mines, homesteads, and factories far away from the Roman roads, and in the (then-remote) areas surrounding Liverpool, Manchester, and Leeds. i.e., the Roman roads still functioned far more adequately than the later, farm-to-market ones, but, to religious minorities, such would have very much seemed a double-edged sword.

At any rate, such points became mooted (along with so much else in this world) following the Industrial Revolution, and the advent of turnpikes and, later, railroads. Of course, by then, Liverpool, Manchester, and Leeds had grown from isolated settlements into major, commercial centers. Well, thanks for all the information. Now, I'm no longer lost on the Road to Canterbury! Pine (talk) 23:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved