The spacing is designed to offer useful milestones on the fretboard.

Take the notes on the 6th string (in standard tuning), for example:

Open (0th fret) is E. The F is only 1 fret away, why put a marker on the 1st fret?

It's already marked by being the first fret

The G is on fret 3, so put a marker there.

The A is on fret 5, which is a perfect 4th from the open string, so it deserves a marker.

B follows on fret 7, which is a perfect 5th from the open string, so another marked fret.

Why there's a mark on fret 9

, I'll never know, I wish it was on 10 for D instead of 9 for C#

But you need a marker on 12, for certain - it's the octave!

The 15, 17, and 19 are just 3, 5, and 7 + 12 (an octave), respectively.

Maybe lost to history, the dots are references for the Fibonacci series, which when harmonics are considered, give a pure major chord with octave and perfect fifth redundancies.

The dot at the 9th fret marks 2/5ths of the string length.

The harmonic there is of the 5th partial (the major third) -- this is the one that throws you off.

This is my observation, and it is so easy once seen, that I have little doubt that many people have stumbled across it.

Nonetheless, Gibson and Martin guitars had nothing to say about it, and so far as I could see, nothing to see in google searches.

THE DOTS MARK

THE HARMONICS COMPRISING

A PURE MAJOR CHORD.

Are the dots an atavism from pre-equal tempered tuning?

In historical paintings of fretted instruments, or in museums, when are the earliest dots seen in their modern location??

string open = 1 =

do dots 12 =

2nd partial = do (octave over root) 7 = 3rd

partial = sol (perfect 5th + octave over root)

5 =

4th partial = do (double octave over root)

9 = 5th partial = mi (double octave + major third over root) 3 =

6th partial = sol (double octave + perfect 5th over root)

The frets that are highlighted are the equal-tempered equivalents of the basic fractions, as seen in the table below.

(The first column is the fraction, the second column is the corresponding number of half-tones): 1 0 = 0

6/5 3.156 ~ 3 4/3 4.980

~ 5 3/2 7.020 ~ 7 5/3 8.844 ~ 9 2 12 = 12 (from now on, it's simply an octave up, i.e., 12/5 15.156 ~ 15 times 2 for the fractions and +12 for the frets)

8/3 16.980 ~ 17 3 19.020 ~

19 10/3 20.844 ~ 21 One can ask why 6/5 and not 7/5 , 8/5 or 9/5 .

I don't know exactly, but the fractions used have the lowest possible sum of numer+denom in the interval [1,2] .

(I'm not 100% precise here, we omit 5/4 which gives 3.863 ~ 4 , but you wouldn't place two dots adjacent since it would only confuse people, would you?)

This as well explains why 9 got there and not 10 : It corresponds to a very low-entry fraction.

One can as well notice that you can try flajolets on bars 12 , 7 and 5 easily, and with some adjustments on 3 , 4 and 9 as well, but these don't sound quite strong.

Flajolets on other positions are even more difficult.

They are at important intervals: minor third, fourth, fifth, major sixth, octave.

Then they repeat for the second octave: minor third, fourth, fifth, major sixth.

I always thought the ninth fret marker was simply aesthetics.

Being that the marker after the twelth is three frets away, the marker before the the twelth is the same distance away.

It centers the twelve marker.

Practically speaking, the twelve marker is also more noticeable.

The white dots are typically placed at harmonic points on the string.

The first harmonic of the open string is the octave, halfway along the string at the 12th fret.

The second harmonic is one-third the string length, and that falls at the seventh fret.

On some models, you'll see that fret marked with a double-dot as well, as it's a very prominent harmonic: The woman holding the guitar here is pointing at the octave marker, but you can see the seventh fret is also double-dotted.

You'll notice the above guitar also has fewer dots; there isn't one on the third fret, and the second octave doesn't match the first.

The above layout is a more harmonic-oriented one; the average player, with a little practice, can coax out a harmonic at each of the marked frets.

Now, because harmonics, by their nature, are Pythagorean "just temperament", while the guitar's fretboard is designed for "equal temperament", the actual location of the harmonic usually won't be over the fret marked by the dots, so this layout isn't an exact guide

but it's useful at a glance.

Most fretboards have the frets marked as you describe, and this is a "compromise" layout of sorts that can be repeated on both octaves of the fretboard, so the guitarist can play in both octaves without losing his place.

This layout is more a straight-up positioning guide, but it is still useful for identifying harmonic points.

Other harmonics of the open string besides the ones in the above picture are less prominent, though a skilled player with a well-made guitar can get them to speak.

Jaco Pastorius was famous for coaxing third and even second-fret harmonics from his Jazz Bass: Jaco Pastorius - Loop Jam (incorporates part of his "Portrait of Tracy" solo).

I think it's to signify intervals as much as anything else.

The 12th fret is the most obvious - it's the octave.

The 3rd fret is pretty obvious because it gives you some general orientation for most open chords.

The 5th and 7th frets are valuable because they signify the 4th and 5th interval of the open strings.

Question: I was wondering why the white dots in the fretboard are usually placed in fret numbers 3, 5, 7, 9, 12, 15, 17, 19, and 21.  I know that their general purpose is for counting, but what I wonder is: Why are they placed on precisely those frets, and not different ones?   For example: Why are there two frets between the dots on 7 and 9, and three frets between the dots on 9 and 12?

Position of white dots in guitar fretboard

S0: The spacing is designed to offer useful milestones on the fretboard. Maybe lost to history, the dots are references for the Fibonacci series, which when harmonics are considered, give a pure major chord with octave and perfect fifth redundancies.

The spacing is designed to offer useful milestones on the fretboard. The dots are placed at those particular frets to identify useful intervals on the fretboard. The dots reference the Fibonacci series, which when harmonics are considered, give a pure major chord with octave and perfect fifth redundancies.


A good multi-tool, like one by Leatherman, is a nice addition to your case.

They include slot and phillips head screwdrivers, pliers, diagonal cutters (good for emergency wire stripping), a file (useful for fingernails).

In addition, I throw in a small set of real diagonal cutters for changing strings, because they work more easily than the one on the multi-tool.

It's surprising how strong strings can be and these will make short work of cutting the string after you've detuned it until its slack.

Finally, I keep a small socket driver sized to fit 1/4" jacks on effects and guitars and amps, because, sure as shooting, they'll loosen.

A small bar towel is good for wiping off sweat and grime; Sometimes we get rushed during set up and don't get a good chance to cool off, so you can drape that over the upper bout of the guitar to keep a sweaty forearm off the finish.

Sweat soaks in fast and takes a lot of work to get out so its better to avoid it.

Towels also come in handy when you drop an amp on your finger, spill water, soda, beer, etc.

Just toss it in the laundry and throw a clean one back in the case.

In addition, one or two small micro-cloths can help for touchups, especially if they have a bit of carnuba wax (or whatever sort of wax you use.)

My final thing is personal choice - I keep all my picks in an Altoids tin.

In the old days it would'a been a Sucrets throat-lozenge box.

On top of everything else, it is always useful to have a kit of Allen keys, like these ones are very useful.

The smaller ones are used for adjusting action and intonation on some types of guitar bridges, the larger ones, are for adjusting truss rods, if you do that sort of thing yourself.

To add to @the Tin Man's already awesome answer, you can try this little guy out for all the nuts/sockets on your guitar.

I don't have personal experience with it, but the concept seems sound.

I usually keep one of these in my guitar case.

It's great for doing on the spot setups for other players, and double checking to make sure my own instrument is kosher.

You could also keep one of those little string windy combination peg puller thingees (yes, that's a technical term), but in my experience they are very cheaply made and usually end up breaking after a couple of hundred string changes.

Here is what I have in my kit (although I am sure my kit is probably a little overkill) and to be honest I don't use all of these tools, they're just there in-case I need them.

Battery powered string winder.

(kind of looks like a cordless drill)

handy for getting your guitar stringed up fast.

ToneGear String Cleaner or GHS Fast Fret .

Handy for cleaning your strings after use, although I always forget to use this, hence why my strings rust badly.

Big Bends Nut Sauce Tuning Lubricant.

This stuff is awesome, seriously.

Handy if you know what it's like to buy new strings, only to have them break while you're restringing your guitar (it happens).

A screwdriver set that has both phillips and flat head tips in it .

A good variety of small and large screwdrivers is a good idea, especially for those tiny screws you sometimes encounter on pick guards.

A multi-tool.

As mentioned by everyone here, the bike riding ones are generally the best.

Try and stay away from the cheapy ones, don't be lured and fooled by the cheap prices, once you've cut a couple of strings, the wire cutting snips on the tool will go blunt and sometimes break.

A small allen key set.

Even though a multi-tool sometimes has allen keys, you'll find that you might need a size that your multi-tool doesn't have.

A nice cotton cloth.

You can use it to wipe down the body of the guitar.

I use a little bit of lemon juice when cleaning my guitar and it works so damn well.

You can use it for your fretboard as well.

Multi-tools made for bike riders can be very handy.

They're compact and have screwdrivers, and allen keys built in.

Other than that I tend to carry a pair of needle nose pliers with wire cutters built in.

A guitar-specific multitool (e.g. the Guitar Gizmo or the Roadie Rench ) will cover a lot of ground.

In addition to the Roadie Rench, I have a microfiber cloth (for wiping off the guitar), a CLEAN cotton diaper (for wiping my face and hands), a bar towel (for spills etc.), a spare guitar cable, a spare speaker cable, a spare set of new strings (and the last set pulled off), a dull sharpie pen (for my friends use), a sharp sharpie pen (for me!), a cheap back up guitar strap, a small bottle of Lysol spray & Fabreeze (to disinfect and freshen bad breath mics) (business cards, replacement fuses, a spare phone charger, a regular Bic pen, a spiral bound notepad and a ground adapter plug (to eliminate 60 cycle ground hum).

Question: What tools should every guitarist have to do most small/medium projects for their guitars? (change strings, tuners, knobs, pickups)

What tools should every guitarist have?

Every guitarist should have a multi-tool, a small set of allen keys, a nice cotton cloth, tuning lubricant, battery powered string winder, a set of diagonal cutters, a screwdriver and string cleaner.

Guitarists recommend a multi tool, string clippers, a socket driver, Allen keys, cloths and towels, string winder, nut lubricant, and screwdrivers.


Cant think of any reason why not - all the Uke's I have seen have symmetric nuts and bridges.

usually, if it is a cheap uke that does not have a compensating saddle then the answer is yes.

You might not even have to work on the nut slots; nylon strings are closer in diameter to each other than are steel guitar strings.

I have revised my answer after some more experience Original answer : I didn't even bother - I just re-tuned the strings in their original places.

Because of the 're-entrant tuning', the top and bottom strings are very close in diameter, (as are the middle 2).

(G<->A are only 2 semitones apart, and C<->E are only 4 semitones apart)

It seemed to work fine, but having said that I was a complete beginner

and I switched to right-handed after a month

(I realised I find it fine playing righty).

EDIT:

Having played righty for a few months, I tried re-tuning to lefty again (without switching strings), and it sounded wrong - and felt very wrong.

So, I switched strings and it sounds great.

Just don't take all strings off at once (switch inners together, and outers together), and you should be all good.

I didn't have any issues with slot width or anything.

There is one problem to consider.

All acoustic string instrument soundboards (tops) have strips of carved wood called braces (sometimes called tone bars ) glued to the underside to strengthen the top but also to tune the vibrations for various pitches.

The braces are never symmetrical; they are different under the side of the instrument with the lowest pitched strings compared to how the braces are configured under the other side of the instrument, with the highest pitched strings.

This is a carefully-planned design to optimize the vibrations of the different pitches that the strings produce.

So, in theory, if you simply reversed the order of the strings, the sound of the instrument would change markedly and the tone quality would suffer.

Ideally you would purchase a left-handed ukelele whose soundboard would be braced in an inverse fashion to accommodate the reversed order of the strings.

This is commonly available for acoustic and classical guitars, and they usually cost more, because the luthiers who build it have to do extra work that they're not accustomed to doing in large numbers.

However, an inexpensive ukelele is a simple instrument, not very sophisticated, and I doubt that you would hear much difference in the overall sound of the instrument once you reverse the strings.

You will, however, want to pay a luthier to construct an entirely new nut and a new bridge saddle if you want the instrument to play clearly and loudly and in-tune, without buzzing strings or problems with the action of the instrument.

None at all, I have done it on a really cheap one for my son and it was OK.

Question: I know that you wouldn't necessarily jump on doing this on a guitar, but I'm wondering on a fairly inexpensive ukelele if the strings could be reversed without issue.

Any issues with restringing a right-handed ukelele to be left-handed?

There are no issues in re-stringing a right-handed ukele for a left-handed player.

it is widely accepted that there should be no problem at all in changing ukulele strings from right to left handed. However, the bracing may not be correct under the soundboard.

There should be no problem at all in changing ukulele strings from right to left handed.

You my consider the bracing not being correct under the soundboard.


I have made a couple and it isn't that difficult...but in saying that it does depend on exactly what you want to build.

Acoustic guitars - really hard work, as every decision will have impact on tone

, so I'll just talk about electrics:-)

We have discussed winding your ownpickups - doable, but probably not agood use of your time.

Necks - can be very challenging.

Thisis one area I haven't mastered, soended up buying ESP necks (which Ilike as they make some very fast,reasonably slim necks)

The body is a piece of cake - as longas you have decent woodworking toolsand experience.

A table router makeseverything really easy.

Choose yourwood sensibly (for my first one Ichose a really hard Malayan pine, andwent through router bits incrediblyfast - but that guitar has lasted me23 years so far, so it is prettystrong)

Electrics make a big difference.

There are plenty of example circuits, all of which sound different, so if you are a beginner I would go with one similar to the classic Stratocaster circuitry.

Passive and very simple.

I would recommend two books above all others.

The Melvyn Hiscock "Make your own Electric Guitar" and Ralph Denyer's "The Guitar Handbook" as they are very well laid out and explain the trickier bits well.

Best of luck with it - it takes a long time to do well, but it is so rewarding to use your own guitar up on stage.

Out of all my guitars, the one which feels fastest is still my original home built one.

I would strongly advice getting a book for this, as there are many steps and you will want a complete thorough step by step guide.

I would suggest reading through the book before starting the project.

This way you wont get any nasty surprises in the middle of building.

I don't think you will find a good enough source online (at least for free) to make a really good guitar.

By reading the book you minimize the risk of doing the same mistakes that other first time builders do.

Here are a couple from Amazon:

Build your own electric guitar

Make your own electric guitar You will need a lot of patience and a lot of time.

The hardest part to build is the neck, so you might want to think about buying a neck and only build the body.

However, if you have time and some skill there is no reason not to build the neck as well.

I would have low expectations for the quality of your first own built guitar.

It won't be a PRS...

But you will learn a lot while building and your second one will already be a lot better.

However if you do things right you will get a very nice and at least personal guitar!

I have built one myself

and I never use it, since I like my Tele better...

But I am totally going to build another one sometime when I have time and a place to do so.

One more advice: When deciding on the shape of the body I would recommend building a shape that does not exist (unless you really want it to be a Strat or Les Paul) since this will make your instrument a lot different and much more personal than by just making a copy of something else.

Good Luck!

Just to add to @mrbuxley's great answer: Unless you have access to some serious equipment this is going to be a very expensive and time consuming venture

You might be better off purchasing a pre-made neck and body from a reputable manufacturer such as Warmoth and then assembling all the parts yourself.

The fun part about this (well for me anyway) is picking out the finish, all the hardware, building the electronics with my own crazy circuits, and knowing that I have an instrument specifically designed and suited to my every whim.

Also, if you go this route you could have the instrument in playing condition less than a couple of weeks.

If you build your own from scratch--including purchasing blanks to mill the body and neck from, you are going to have a lot of scratch in the guitar.

Also, finishing a guitar is a black art.

I have friends who have tried and gotten varying degrees of success--but as @mrbuxley indicates your first attempt will never be as high quality as what a professional painter can do; and likely your second, third fourth, fifth, and well you get the idea.

You could spend a couple of years perfecting your technique in this single area in order to get to luthier grade quality.

So, my recommendation is to head over to Warmoth's site, find a body you are in love with, pick a neck that compliments it, go buy all your hardware, and be up and running with your new guitar in a couple of weeks.

However, if you truely are hardcore, and wish to build watch your instrument go from a solid block of wood to something beautiful then prepare for a serious learning experience and a very time consuming but rewarding process.

And who knows, if you get really good at it, you could be the next John Suhr selling your guitars to the likes of John Mayer, Mark Knopfler, and David Gilmour.

There's been a lot of advice to buy a ready made neck, and if your woodworking skills aren't top notch that is a very good plan to begin with, but if you want to get a little more adventurous you can buy pre-slotted fretboards from some places like

stewmac which takes a big part of the pain out of the equation, especially if you want to do something different to a traditional bolt-in neck, like a neck through construction or something.

I'm not sure how "from scratch" you want to be.

If you find yourself in over your head starting from say, a large tree and a mound of iron ore, you might want to look at some kits or components .

Question: I want to make an electric guitar by myself from scratch. How can I do this?

Building an electric guitar from scratch

The  Melvyn Hiscock "Make your own Electric Guitar"  and  Ralph Denyer's "The Guitar Handbook"  are excellent books if you want to build your own electric guitar as they are very well laid out and explain the trickier bits well.  The hardest part to build is the neck, so you might want to think about buying a neck and only build the body. You might be better off purchasing a pre-made neck and body from a reputable manufacturer such as Warmoth and then assembling all the parts yourself.

The  Melvyn Hiscock "Make your own Electric Guitar"  and  Ralph Denyer's "The Guitar Handbook"  as they are very well laid out and explain the trickier bits well.  By reading the book you minimize the risk of doing the same mistakes that other first time builders do. The hardest part to build is the neck, so you might want to think about buying a neck and only build the body. However, if you have time and some skill there is no reason not to build the neck as well.  You might be better off purchasing a pre-made neck and body from a reputable manufacturer such as Warmoth and then assembling all the parts yourself.


It won't warp the neck.

The force of gravity on the neck is much less than the force asserted on the neck by those strings under tension.

I would still not advise long term storage of guitars by hanging them on the wall.

The safest place for your guitar is in its hard shell case.

While hanging on the wall your guitar is far more susceptible to changes in humidity and temperature.

And these changes can definitely have an adverse effect on the wood your guitar is made from.

You can also experience finish issues with some nitrocellulose-based finishes when they're left in contact with rubber and foam, such as you might find covering the guitar hanger's hooks, for any period of time.

It can discolour the finish and even rub it off the guitar with little effort.

And then there's the accident factor: a guitar hanging on the wall is far more likely to be bumped, banged, knocked, touched, dropped, sneezed on, puked over, drooled on, viewed by potential theives...

you get the idea.

It's just not wrapped in the layers of protective foam and plywood that a case provides.

I doubt it.

Every single music store I have ever been in hangs instruments from the headstock.

If it caused damage I don't think use of them would be so widespread.

It won't except for the effect of weather.

But no matter what you do, don't let it lay flat on a surface without supporting the neck.

It'll do less damage than your kid running into the guitar on its floorstand and knocking it over, then falling on your precious instrument.

I'm doing it for many years now, without any problem... except the kids issue mentioned before of course :-)

Question: I like to leave my guitars out, otherwise I don't play them. I have a couple of wall hangings and stands all over the place too. Will hanging a guitar from the wall damage it at all? Warp the neck? etc.

Will hanging a guitar by its headstock damage it?

S3: The safest place for your guitar is in its hard shell case.  While hanging on the wall your guitar is far more susceptible to changes in humidity and temperature. And then there's the accident factor: a guitar hanging on the wall is far more likely to be bumped, banged, knocked, touched, dropped, sneezed on, puked over, drooled on, viewed by potential theives...

Hanging a guitar by the headstock will not warp the neck. While hanging on the wall your guitar is far more susceptible to changes in humidity and temperature. And then there's the accident factor: a guitar hanging on the wall is far more likely to be bumped, banged, knocked. The safest place for your guitar is in its hard shell case.

You can also experience finish issues with some nitrocellulose-based finishes when they're left in contact with rubber and foam, such as you might find covering the guitar hanger's hooks, for any period of time. You can also experience finish issues with some nitrocellulose-based finishes when they're left in contact with rubber and foam, such as you might find covering the guitar hanger's hooks, for any period of time.


the only difference to anormal bass is the shape.

The shape may result in a slightly different tone from the bass, but otherwise it is just a normal bass with a violin shaped body.

The most famous user is probably a little guy called Paul McCartney...

This "violin bass" is basically a knock-off of the famous Hofner bass used by Paul McCartney in the Beatles.

While it will play and function similar to a regular solid body bass, a hollow body does change the character of the sound.

(This applies to electric guitars as well).

The Hofner violin bass has a very distinctive sound, and frankly, most of the knock-offs do NOT have this sound.

If you are trying to get the Hofner sound, buy a Hofner.

If you play bass and think this has a cool look, you may want to try before you buy (or make sure they have a good return policy).

It will sound different from a conventional solid body bass.

The classic Höfner "violin bass" design, from circa 1958, is a hollow-body archtop instrument with a spruce top, like an archtop guitar but without F-holes.

It has a "floating" wooden archtop bridge.

It has a short-scale neck which is small and has a narrow fingerboard width and string-spacing.

It should be strung with the original-specification flatwound strings to get the classic Höfner sound.

Because it is a hollow-body archtop with a short scale, it sounds quite a bit different than a conventional long-scale solid-body bass guitar.

1962 model Höfner Violin Bass

All of the attention paid to this bass is as a result of Paul McCartney of the Beatles using it as his main bass throughout his career.

Today, Höfner makes several models, including some hand-carved in Germany with the highest grade woods and appointments; these are very expensive.

However in recent years they have added two different models built in China that are very affordable.

Epiphone and other companies have long made copies of this design that are basically only similar in their external shape; they tend not to copy the design principles or the sound of the original.

If you play bass in a Beatles tribute band, you have to have a violin bass.

Other than that, this style of bass has seen very little use in other music.

before I looked at the picture, I thought you were talking about one of the various electric upright basses.

Usually looks like a stripped-down "doghouse" bass with no acoustic sound at all, just a center support for the bridge, fingerboard, and electronics.

You play 'em just like a normal upright bass, either with fingers or bow.

Note that this bass has 30.5" length, and therefore will sound differently (muddy and warm, 60s-to-early-70s-ish).

That's besides sounding like crap, as many cheap no-name brands usually do.

Although there's always a chance for one of those sounding OK, I wouldn't count on it until I both read positive testimonials and hear samples.

A violin bass is just a hollow body electric bass guitar with a violin shaped body.

The sound apparently sounds like a double bass with the Hofner model but otherwise its an electric bass guitar.

It's originally a VERY small double bass with electrical pickups.

Sounds, in a way, like the ol' big double bass.

The Hofner Violin Bass has a unique sound that is very tradional.

The best way to describe it is to think of an upright bass scaled down with frets.

The German made Hofner bass provides a thick low end that does not get lost with the sounds of guitars or keyboards.

Bright sounding bass guitars (like Fenders or Rickenbackers) can intertwine with the low end of guitars.

Especially when guitars are tuned low, it is sometimes difficult to distinguish who is actually producing the low notes.

The Beatle bass has a commanding tone and presence that is all "bass".

The Hofner's body shape sets it apart from any other instrument ever made.

Today there are many choices for copy models (from companies like: Rogue, Epiphone, Jay Turser and Stadium, etc...)

their all pretty good but don't capture

the totally feel or sound of the original.

If you're serious about obtaining the real sound, feel and experience of a Hofner you're best to buy one.

It is an investment that you will enjoy for a lifetime.

Question: I have seen advertised, electric violin bass guitars such as the following:   Are they really any different from a normal bass guitar, and if so what makes them different and how then should they be best used?

What is a violin electric bass?

A violin bass is just a hollow body electric bass guitar with a violin shaped body. While it will play and function similar to a regular solid body bass, a hollow body does change the character of the sound. The German made Hofner bass provides a thick low end that does not get lost with the sounds of guitars or keyboards. The Beatle bass has a commanding tone and presence that is all "bass".

The classic Höfner "violin bass" design, from circa 1958, is a hollow-body archtop instrument with a spruce top, like an archtop guitar but without F-holes. It has a floating wooden bridge and a short-scale neck. It has a traditional, unique sound. It is very bassy. However, some may say the only difference is in the shape.

The only difference to a normal bass is the shape.

The original Hofner Violin Bass has a traditional, unique sound. It is very bossy.


From: Music Notation Drawing Rests Theory Project 2: Preparing Scores To draw the quarter rest, draw the right side of a letter “R”, omitting the vertical, or start with a number “2”, but pull the horizontal line down on the right.

Put the hook on the bottom and it’s done.

The quarter rest is a letter “R” suitable for being placed next to a letter with a vertical right side.

It’s right out of Gutenberg’s Bible.

The hook on the bottom is merely embellishment.

The “classical” quarter rest is a mirror-reversed 8th rest.

Don’t use it.

Some people draw a version of the “S” rest which was introduced in the very early 1800’s to replace the “classical” rest.

The “S” rest is like an S or backwards “Z” with the top and bottom concave instead of convex or straight.

Another way to draw it is to make a line down and curving left, straight to the right, and then curving left and down.

That is the easiest way to start, and I recommend it to you.

If you rotate that clockwise you have an “S” rest.

Or copy the eighth doubled and backwards.

Or chop away half of both curves of a Gutenberg rest.

There is a lot of variation to be found in the quarter rest.

The problem with the Gutenberg rest is that it takes too much vertical space and therefore collides with other rests or notes too often.

For handwriting music, the Gutenberg rest and the classical rest are the worst, in my opinion.

I was taught to use a lower case z with a lower case c under it, with the bottom of the z touching the top of the c.

I draw a quarter note using two pen strokes.

In the picture below I've used a narrow ballpoint pen.

If you use a slightly fatter pen the 2-3 and 4-5 lines will touch, creating the impression that the character was drawn with an italic pen.

The change in width is a valuable visual clue and makes it look much more like a printed quarter note rest.

This is easy to write and looks better than a quarter note drawn with a single pen stroke.

Also, its appearance is more familiar and easier to read than the reverse eighth note rest suggested elsewhere.

I was always taught to write a slanted 2 and then make a c below it.

In Britain we would simply draw a lower case z in the middle of the stave, and this is considered legible.

It's what we teach children, too.

Question: It seems to me that the quarter rest we see everywhere was drawn with a calligraphy pen. I don't have one of those - I have a sharpened/mechanical pencil or a ball-point pen. So usually when I try to imitate the shape of a quarter rest, it looks a lot like a  3 .  What is a proper/accepted "thin" version of the quarter rest symbol?

How do you draw a quarter rest with a pen/pencil?

From:  Music Notation Drawing Rests    Theory Project 2: Preparing Scores   To draw the quarter rest, draw the  right side of a letter “R”, omitting  the vertical, or start with a number  “2”, but pull the horizontal line down  on the right. In Britain we would simply draw a lower case z in the middle of the stave, and this is considered legible. Others consider that the quarter rest  is a letter “R” suitable for being  placed next to a letter with a  vertical right side. Thus, no real consensus.

The quarter rest can be drawn by  simply drawing a lower case z in the middle of the stave, or writing a slanted 2 and then make a c below it. From Music Notation, Drawing Rests: To draw the quarter rest, draw the  right side of a letter “R”, omitting  the vertical, or start with a number  “2”, but pull the horizontal line down  on the right.

This can be drawn by  simply drawing a lower case z in the middle of the stave, or writing a slanted 2 and then make a c below it. From Music Notation, Drawing Rests: To draw the quarter rest, draw the  right side of a letter “R”, omitting  the vertical, or start with a number  “2”, but pull the horizontal line down  on the right.


If you are wanting to stick with standard tuning, then obviously there's no note lower than the low E in the open E chord - but as a chord , this D/F# (or 'first inversion' of D) might give some impression of being lower, partly because two of the strings (A and D) play a note that is a tone lower than in the open E chord: %2/.0/.0/.2/.3/.2/[D

/F#]

Here's a video tutorial on how to play it.... ...

but to make it sound low you might want to just play the bottom 3 strings - in which case it's a very simple, one-finger chord: %2/.0/.0/.X/X.X/X.X/X[D/F#]

Use a Drop-D tuning along with the traditional open D-major chord.

Or alternatively try a DADGAD tuning and finger accordingly.

How should I do this?

You have to re-tune the guitar strings so that they are low enough to play the notes you want.

The technical terms for this is scordatura although in common guitarist lingo it's usually called alternate tuning. ...

I am writing a piece You need to know how to indicate it in your score.

There are two basic ways: tab and staff notation.

In tab the lines representing the strings should give the letters for tuning.

Below are examples showing standard tuning and "drop D" tuning where the low E string is lowered a whole tone.

In staff notation you put some indicator at the head of the staff for guitar.

Violin and guitar scordatura have different indications, but I thought it would be instructive to show both: ...note the re-tuned string number give in a circle along with the tone letter it should be tuned to (Bach, BWV 998.) ...

violin family scordatura lists all the string tunings as whole notes on staff - with clefs - before the actual music staff (Kodaly, Op. 8.)

Using standard tuning, it's really not going to happen.

To make it sound lower, the bottom string at least is going to be tuned to D, which means that any other notes played on that string then need to be fretted two frets higher, which may/not cause other problems.

By tuning the whole guitar down a tone, but playing the rest of the song two frets higher, you can find that low chord.

Or - play the whole song a tone higher in standard tuning, and instead of the 'low D chord', make that chord an open E.

Try this chord.

I've heard it called an "inverted root", or in this case an "inverted D".

But the reverse chord analyzers call it "A6sus"..

Just try it in your song and see if it works.

Standard Tuning, fret it like the lower portion of a barre chord: 554xxx

I probably wouldn't know it, except that it's used by Weezer on the Blue Album in "The World has Turned", which is how I came to know of it and the only place I've ever encountered it.

You can hear it for yourself in this guy's guitar cover .

FWIW

I'm not endorsing this as a great guitar cover--I actually disagree with his 3rd chord, but he gets the second chord correct, with the fat, 'lower than E' sound you might be looking for.. Also @topomorto's suggestion (F#/D) is descent, but I usually leave-off the high-D, fretting it like.. 2x023x ..

which makes it sound a little lower.

It works well in situations where you're walking down from a G, similar to the Weezer song but outside the context of barre chords.

But since this version is open-fretted, it sounds a little bright--which of course you may prefer!

Question: I am writing a piece and I am trying to write a D major chord that is lower than the open E major chord on guitar. How should I do this? I am relatively new to guitar and I have no idea what this chord might be.

How to play a D major chord lower than the open E major chord on guitar?

to play a D major chord lower than the open E major chord on guitar is not possible using standard tuning. To make it sound lower, the bottom string at least is going to be tuned to D, which means that any other notes played on that string then need to be fretted two frets higher, which may/not cause other problems. By tuning the whole guitar down a tone, but playing the rest of the song two frets higher, you can find that low chord. Or - play the whole song a tone higher in standard tuning, and instead of the 'low D chord', make that chord an open E.

To make it sound lower, the bottom string at least is going to be tuned to D, which means that any other notes played on that string then need to be fretted two frets higher. By tuning the whole guitar down a tone, but playing the rest of the song twoFrets higher, you can find that low chord.


Assuming you can count Stan Lee out, since he makes a cameo in almost every Marvel movie, then without a doubt it's Chris Evans.

He has played 4 roles derived from comic books: Johnny Storm in Fantastic Four

(2005) - Based on the Marvel Comics book Jake Jensen in The Losers (2010)

- Based on the Vertigo comic book Lucas lee in Scott Pilgrim vs The World (2010) - Based on the graphic novel Scott Pilgrim Steve Rogers in Captain America (2011)

- Based on the Marvel Comics

book and (for the sake of completeness) 1 role in a movie which spawned a comic book: Nick Grant in Push (2009)

- Spawned the Wildstorm mini series

Lou Ferrigno has five … …if we count different incarnations of the same character as "unique".

Hulk — Films related to The Incredible Hulk TV series

The Incredible Hulk (1977 pilot film)

The Incredible Hulk Returns (1988 made for TV film)

The Trial of the Incredible Hulk (1989 made for TV film)

The Death of the Incredible Hulk (1990 made for TV film) Security Guard —

Hulk (2003) Hulk (voice) —

Hulk (2003) Note that this film is not in continuity with either the TV series or the Marvel Cinematic Universe, thus this is a different Hulk than than those ones.

Security Guard —

The Incredible Hulk (2008)

While this is the second time Lou Ferrigno has played a security guard in a Marvel movie, the two films are in different continuities and are not implied to be related.

Hulk (voice) —

Marvel Cinematic Universe films

The Incredible Hulk (2008)

The Avengers (2012) Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015) Thor:

Ragnarok (2017) Wikipedia notes that Ferrigno was credited for The Incredible Hulk , but had uncredited "voice collaborations" for the remaining films.

Donal Logue : Gotham (DC, TV)

- Harvey Bullock Ghost Rider (Marvel, movie) -

Mack Blade (Marvel, movie) -

Quinn Also, when it comes to TV & Movies, both live action and animated, there are many actors that play multiple characters and voices.

Here are two that come to mind that have played MANY roles and voices.

Micheal Rosenbaum Clancy

Brown - Just glancing at his IMDB page, he has over 30 roles in Marvel and DC movies, TV shows, and games.

Stan Lee, he plays a different character in every Marvel movie.

Another thread already has a fairly updated list going https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/37092/actor-with-the-most-comic-book-movie-roles

Depending on whether his role as Commissioner Gordon is up to scratch on Justice League and The Batman, J.K Simmons would have played J Jonah Jameson, a chaotic Marvel character and Jim Gordon, a more calm character.

Besides @johnny's answer I would like to add (as a honorable mention)

actor Josh

Brolin who played/currently playing 3 comic book characters from both DC and Marvel: DC's Jonah Hex in the movie Jonah Hex (2010) .

Marvel's Thanos in Guardians of the Galaxy (2014) , Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015) and the two upcoming Avengers: Infinity War (2018) and Untitled Avengers film (2019) .

Marvel's Nathan Summers / Cable in the upcoming Deadpool 2 (2018) which is in post-production (shooting is complete).

Note:

The reason I added Josh Brolin, even though he is beaten by some other actors in the other answers, is because of the importance of his characters and the size of his roles in the aforementioned movies.

I'd say Alfre Woodard , who played two very different characters in the MCU alone: Miriam Spencer , a grieving mother in "Captain America: Civil War" and Mariah Dillard , a shady Harlem councilwoman and a villain in Netflix series "Luke Cage", seen here with her gangster brother 'Cottonmouth'

Like Chris Evans, Ryan Reynolds is now a veteran with many roles under his belt: Hannibal King in Blade: Trinity Green Lantern in Green Lantern Deadpool in Deadpool 1 & 2 Nick Cruz in RIPD

Arguably, the character he played in X-Men Origins

: Wolverine is a different one from Deadpool as

Deadpool shoots him in the end credits of Deadpool 2

Question: I'm fairly certain this hasn't been asked yet based on my search, but apologies if it has. I'm curious what actor has had the most unique roles as a Marvel or DC character in movie adaptations of either universe. Not limited to the MCU or DCEU explicitly, but any film adaptation of the comic books. Off the top of my head I can only think of Chris Evans who has played at least 3: Captain America, The Human Torch and Jensen (from The Losers).

What actor has played the greatest number of unique Marvel or DC characters in movie adaptations?

Like Chris Evans, Ryan Reynolds is now a veteran with many roles under his belt:   Hannibal King  in Blade: Trinity    Green Lantern  in Green Lantern    Deadpool  in Deadpool 1 & 2    Nick Cruz  in RIPD. Arguably, the character he played in X-Men Origins: Wolverine is a different one from Deadpool as Deadpool shoots him in the end credits of  Deadpool 2


You could chop all your veges with a knife once a week and put them in containers...

If you are set on a machine, pick up a Food Processor (like a Cuisinart).

It has attachments to slice or grate your veges quickly and uniformly, and has many other uses too (quick bread dough, sauces, puree soups, etc.)

A Mandolin slicer will also work, and you can julienne things, but make sure to get a good one.

I am not happy with mine at all.

The advantage to this is you can change the thickness of your slices (i.e. thick cucumber slices, thin radish slices).

The tomatoes you will just have to cut by hand though.

There are tools for that, but I haven't seen a consumer version (giant slicers/wedgers at McDs, many decades ago).

Not trying to be flippant here, but perhaps the 5 minutes it takes to make your daily salad is not worth the added efficiency of a device of some sort.

Vegetables like carrots and celery can be prepped during less hectic days of the week.

Likewise, cucumbers can be marinated in wine vinegar, water & spices, to add a piquancy to the salad.

Cherry or grape tomatoes are much easier than slicing a big tomato.

Bell pepper strips last longer than chopped bits.

Lastly, there's a lot of veggies not mentioned by your use of 'etc' after the list of your favorites.

What else do you do with your salad?

Do you add non-veggies like seeds or nuts?

I'm firmly in the mandoline camp.

The break even point comes at about 200 g of vegetables for me, below that knife is quicker because of the cleanup time.

It also doesn't add to your electricity bill and is by extension environmentally friendlier than running a 0.5 KW food processor daily.

If your knife speed is different, your break even point will be at another amount.

Because a real food processor requires much more cleaning, I find that the break even point for it vs mandoline comes at about 800 g of vegetables.

I have never made good experience with small handheld choppers like the one in your first link.

Maybe I just happened upon bad products, but they were clumsy and didn't cut well.

A good use for them is raw onions - the enclosed cutter reduces tears because only very little of the vapors escape.

I have never used tools like your second and third link.

But I'm very skeptical about them.

If their cutting surfaces aren't razor-sharp, they will smash the vegetable rather than cut it properly.

You'd need a softish vegetable for them anyway

, I doubt that they can do carrots or potatoes.

Even if they are perfectly sharp when you buy them, they will go dull with time and there is no way to sharpen them.

Thank you very much for your help!

I eventually decided to get this tool

(Genius Salad Chef Junior).

Works like a charm.

Here's what I've tried it with: Cucumbers - great Tomatoes - works, but a bit hard to push through completely Apples - great Cheese - very hard to push through, but works Carrots - great Smoked salmon - doesn't work

It should be sufficient for most salads.

The bowl is sealable and can be used to store several portions.

I would STRONGLY advise a GOOD chef's knife.

I am not a professional, but I would not trade either of my chef's knives for a gadget.

For anything LESS than MASS PRODUCTION (think "cooking for 50"), the knife is quicker and more versatile in the results.

Let me emphasize a GOOD chef's knife.

It should either be an 8" or a 10" knife.

The blade should be 1.5"-2" thick from top to bottom.

It should have a smooth blade, not serrated.

Hold the knife in one hand, and the vegetable in the other.

Make sure you hold the vegetable with your finger tips, but bend your hand so that the knuckles is closest to the knife blade, not your finger tips.

That gives you a good grip on the food without putting the fingertips under the blade, and the knuckles are high enough off the food that you should use them as a guide.

Hold the cutting spot of the knife against your knuckles and use them as a cutting guide.

With each slice, slide your fingertips away from the blade just enough to make the next slice uniform with the 1st.

Alton Brown on FoodTV gives a very good video lesson on knife use.

Until I got my 1st chef's knife (I have both the 8" & the 10", and I use them differently, depending on the size of what I am chopping), chopping vegetables was a horrible experience trying to use a carving knife - it was a long, slow, tedius, dangerous process.

Question: I like eating a salad for lunch, but would like to somehow optimize the time it takes to cut the vegetables. My salad usually contains tomatoes, cucumbers, bell pepper, carrot, etc.   I  could  buy an electrical blender, but the end result is usually not as tasty since the vegetable parts are too small. Therefore I tried to look-up for some alternatives:  Starfrit Chopper  Prepworks Chopper  Freshware Chopper  Anyone have experience with such devices? Perhaps there's some great alternative that I haven't found yet?

Best tool for quickly cutting vegetables into a salad?

Food processors and mandolins are recommended tools for larger quantities, but otherwise a good chef's knife is quicker and more versatile. In many cases, egetables like carrots, celery and bell peppers can be prepared in advance to save time and cut enough to .

Vegetables can be prepared in advance in many cases to save time. However, for faster chopping, food processors and mandolins are recommended tools. On the other hand, a good chef's knife is both quick and versatile.

Many vegetables can be prepped in advance to cut down on preparation time on busy days.

Food processors and mandolins are good tools for chopping vegetables. Food processors are particularly suitable for very large quantities.

A good chef's knife is the best vegetable chopping tool. It is quick and versatile unless you are dealing with mass production.


You might also want to look into a good pair of compression socks.

Also, take a look at this page for a list of exercises you can do on the plane to keep your blood flowing.

I've found that "paying attention to my feet" helps keep them from swelling up in my shoes and makes them feel a bit less achey afterward.

These instructions will also help prevent DVT , incidentally.

Tighten your calves.

Flex your feet and raise your toes 15 times per set.

This will tighten your calf muscles and promote proper blood flow through your legs.

Turn your ankles.

With your feet off the floor, move one foot clockwise, the other, counterclockwise.

Repeat, only switch directions.

Lift your feet.

With your heels on the floor, raise your toes up; then lower them to the ground.

Then do the opposite — heels up, balls of your feet on the floor.

Roll those shoulders.

In one smooth circular move, raise your shoulders and bring them forward, then down, and then backward.

I find slip-on shoes more comfortable on inter-continental flights as it allows me to take them off if I feel like it, and it's easy to wear them again without feet feeling sore.

While I haven't used them, some people advocate wearing flight socks that prevent your feet and ankles from getting sore.

Most times when I fly with budget airlines though I don't have space to pack two pairs of shoes as I take only carry-on luggage.

In this case, I wear my running shoes, but ask for an aisle seat during check-in which gives so much more space to stretch my legs.

The same helps during long-haul flights too.

I also check up SeatGuru for crowd-sourced data on what seats are best on a particular type of aircraft / airline and then ask for those ones during check-in.

I'm a fan of just taking off my shoes if I'm not wearing sandals.

For a long flight I would always go with flip-flops.

When flying long distance carriers always provide a commodity bags where you can find some sockets.

So basically if you are scared of getting cold (because it is cold up there) you can just put them on.

In order to be polite, I go until boarding with regular shoes and once in the place switch them.

I don't have room in my carryon for a set of shoes that are just for the airplane, so whatever I wear on the plane needs to also be what I wear in the airport.

There's a lot of walking

so it's vital

the shoes be comfortable - I choose them carefully.

Flat pumps work for me and they slip off on the plane if I want to tuck my feet up under me in my seat or just give them a bit of a rub.

Tieing and untieing shoelaces in the cramped confines of an airplane seat is a non-starter for me.

You can find pumps and get your feet into them even if you can't see them.

Whether or not the airline provides socks for you varies wildly.

SAA is the only one I've got socks from in economy.

Generally everyone gives them in business.

Question: Does anyone have recommendations for great shoes for a long flight?  I usually wear running shoes, but my feet often get very uncomfortable after a few hours.

Shoes for long flight

To avoid discomfort on a long flight it is best to wear shoes that are easy to remove during your flight and to put back on before landing like slip-on shoes and flat pumps.Another option is to simply wear open shoes like flip-flops or sandals. However, Many people advocate wearing flight socks to prevent discomfort during their flight.

Many people advocate wearing flight scks to prevent discomfort during their flight.


I think the simplest, yet most idiomatic way to say that in English would be this: Cover her eyes with your hands.

Or, as was suggested by brichins down below, the sentence can be made even shorter: Cover her eyes.

if it's implied that it is your hands that you're going to use to cover her eyes.

"Put your hands over her eyes" would be most natural to me.

("Over" seems more natural than "on" but I can't really explain why.

Perhaps "on" feels like you're saying to touch her eyes, which would be painful.)

If you said "blindfold her with your hand(s)", that would be understood perfectly.

Catch her eyes off" makes no sense to me and I wouldn't be able to guess what you meant.

None of your examples feel natural to me.

As an American in the western U.S., we would simply say "close your eyes," it being implicit that the eyes may need to be covered (by one's hands or something else) to ensure the necessary blindness or surprise.

It is a common enough concept in my area that a surprise should be met with covered eyes that I don't hear people say anything more explicit.

If the situation requires the eyes to be covered by hands (whether it be a playful moment with a child or an intimate moment with a lover), I'd use "cover your eyes."

If asking a third person to cover the second person's eyes, it would be most natural to say, "please cover her eyes."

Again, the use of hands being implicit.

It would be tedious to say "cover her eyes with your hands" as it suggests there are multiple ways to cover the eyes and the most appropriate is with your hands.

This would be highly circumstantial.

Ignoring situations with sexual overtones, I could see using it at a child's birthday party where a blindfold was used by children striking a piñata — until one with a runny nose took a turn, afterwhich the blindfold couldn't be used.

You might then ask a second child to "cover her eyes with your hands" to take the place of the blindfold.

As an American (who has lived in the midwest and east coast), a common phrase I would use is Shield her eyes! to indicate covering their eyes so they cannot see.

This has the same meaning as "cover", but the use of "shield" adds a sense of urgency or need to avoid danger.

Because it sounds exaggerated, I most often hear this in playful and joking contexts.

(For example, I was very shy and modest when I was younger, and a friend teased me by saying "oh no, shield your eyes!"

when two characters had a PG kissing scene in a movie.)

Note that "shield" can also mean "protect" in a purely functional sense,

as in the case of debris or wind, which does not necessarily imply that the person is unable to see.

The context should make it clear which is meant, but to avoid ambiguity or for a more serious situation, Cover her eyes! is appropriate and to-the-point.

It would seem a little strange to specify "with your hands", since that is already the most likely method of covering someone's eyes.

But if you would like to specify, Put your hands over her eyes.

is a natural way to phrase it, since the use of "put" requires that you explain what you are going to use, rather than tacking on a prepositional phrase to the "cover" sentence.

I'm reminded of one of my favorite songs by Weird Al (Everything You Know is Wrong).

In the song you hear the lyrics: "When suddenly a guy behind me in the back seat Popped right up and cupped his hands across my eyes"

It's a variation of the other answers here, but especially the word "cupped" in this case

sounds like the right way to me.

Also, I think where space is at a premium in song lyrics, if there were a shorter way to say this, he likely would have used it.

As a Mississippi native, to ask a person to do this to themselves: Hide your eyes!

To ask someone to do it to someone else:

Hide her eyes!

Not appropriate for the particular case in question, but closely related:

There's a little rhyme you say to small children:

Open your mouth And close your eyes, You're going to get A big surprise!

When the child closes its eyes, you pop a sweet into the child's open mouth.

Question: I would like to know how do you say this action in common spoken English.  Suppose that someone puts their hand on someone's eyes in order not to let them see.   So, someone is ordering someone else to this action:   A. Put your hand on her eyes.   B. Blindfold her with your hand.   C. Catch her eyes off ...       So what's the way saying it?

What is an idiomatic way to tell someone to put their hands on someone's eyes in order to not let them see?

"Cover your/her eyes" is the most common suggestion.

"Cover her eyes with your hands" would be understood, although "with your hands" is probably unnecessary. "Put your hands over her eyes" or "blindfold her with your hand(s)" would also be understood. However, "Catch her eyes off" would make no sense to most speakers.


"Who should I say is calling?"

As far as politeness goes, the following examples, along with what JeremyC has already suggested, would also be some of the safest ways to ask people for their names when talking with them over the phone:

Could you please tell me who I'm speaking with?

May I ask who's calling?

Would you mind telling who's talking?

In my experience, "Who is this?" is generally perceived as more polite than "Who are you?" or similar.

I don't have a good reason for it.

There are other more-polite forms, as noted in the other answers, but "Who is this?" is direct, reasonable, and unlikely to offend.

ell.stackexchange.com/users/6186/R.. GitHub STOP HELPING ICE

May I tell X who is calling? has always worked for me.

If they refuse, I hang up.

There's not one perfect answer for every situation.

If you don't hear the name the 1st time, just say that.

Or, if the caller just gives his/her 1st name, state that you need the last name as well, and the reason why.

I encounter this often.

Although I am a native English speaker, most of my callers speak Spanish.

So, I am confronted with two problems:

First, the need to know the full name of the caller; and second, the fact that I am not trained in the culturally-appropiate way to ask my client's identity in Spanish.

(And the most appropriate way to ask this, may vary from country to country, anyway.)

My advice is to listen to the caller, and to respond in a way that seems correct for that situation.

Your tone of voice, and your attitude, probably are more important than the exact words that you use.

Question: Say, you're working in a company. The phone rings and you pick it up. On the other line, someone wants to speak to one of your co-workers. You want to tell your co-worker who this person is.  I think asking "May I know who you are?" is a bit rude? What's a more common or softer alternative?

What's a polite way of asking "who are you?" on the phone?

"Who should I say is calling?", "May I ask who's calling?", "Would you mind telling who's talking?" and "Could you please tell me who I'm speaking with?" are all polite questions. However, the more direct "Who is this?" is also  reasonable.

"May I ask who's calling?" or "Could you please tell me who I'm speaking with?" are both acceptable ways of asking. "Who is this?" is more direct, but unlikely to offend.


Since it's not being said unambiguously: yes, it's correct; it works the same as Spanish .

When you have zero of something you use the plural:

0 hours, no cows, zero degrees, etc.

The singular is used exclusively for when there is exactly one of something.

Stylistically, "0 hours and 5 minutes" is not usual, but can be appropriate when you have tasks of varying lengths in the minutes to hours range and want to express the times in the same style.

It's not "incorrect," but normally you'd omit the hours instead:

The process required five minutes.

I suppose there are some exceptions.

For example, I can see where an author might decide keep the zero for the sake of parallelism: Process A required 2 hours and 12 minutes.

Process B required 1 hour and 47 minutes.

Process C required 0 hours and 14 minutes.

J.R.'s answer is the correct one, deserves the tick, and all the rest

but since no one else mentioned it—

No , it's highly unusual to bother mentioning “ zero hours ” of time but,

yes , it is common military jargon to say “ zero hundred hours .”

It’s not talking about a time period of 0 hours but about the time of day 00:00 (i.e., midnight).

It’s part of the military’s way of reading their 24-hour clock but, of course, the hours don’t actually include 100 minutes, just the normal 60.

Not typically.

I can't think of any situation other than where text has been produced artificially.

The correct way of saying it would be: The process required 5 minutes Because zero by its definition means nothing, it's not included.

As a former technical writer (and native speaker), I answer “yes and no.”

It is correct usage to use the plural for zero.

However, in writing, it is better to spell out short numbers instead of using digits.

Defining “short” in this context is tricky.

I think almost all would agree anything under ten.

For me personally, it’s any single-word number.

For example, seven, seventeen, seventy, hundred, but digits for 77, 101, etc.

Not to be too contrarian, but there are some idioms that use 'zero' with 'hour' singular, not plural.

To quote Elton John/Bernie Taupin in "Rocket Man":

"She packed my bags last night, pre-flightZero hour:

9:00 a.mAnd I'm gonna be high as a kite by then" "Zero hour" is the start of something.

The universe's zero hour was the moment of the Big Bang.

Question: Spanish uses the singular to refer to one and the plural to refer more than one or zero of something. Is the same for material things and other abstract concepts, for example, time measures: hours, minutes, seconds...  Examples:   Tengo 1 hora libre.       Faltan 2 horas para terminar.       Finalizará en 0 horas 5 minutos y 2 segundos.   Is it correct, in English, to say, for example?   The process required 0 hours and 5 minutes.

Is it correct to say "0 hours"?

When you have zero of something you use the plural. The singular is used exclusively for when there is exactly one of something. However, stylistically, "0 hours and 5 minutes" is not usually used but can be appropriate when you have tasks of varying lengths in the minutes to hours range and want to express the times in the same style. Normally you would omit the hours if the number of hours was zero.

As in Spanish, the singular is only used when there is one of something.

While "0 hours and 5 minutes" is not usual, it could be used to highlight that there are no hours.


There are various options you can try to achieve to complete the second way (2).

Placing the mints in a little bag - instead of carrying them around in a metal container, where they're bound to rattle, you could instead carry them in a little pouch type bag.

( Albeit un-stylish, it removes the rattling ).

Something like below is what I imagined would suit

You could place a piece of cloth/fabric inside - placed inside the container, into the empty space, essentially "filling" the container so much so that the mints don't rattle.

Padding the container with foam/cloth - albeit an extreme option, instead of filling the empty space with cloth, you could pad the container on the inside (If it annoyed you to the point of killing someone).

Basically, padding the whole inside of the container as marked in this image below.

What you want to do is pad anywhere the mints have contact to the inside of the container.

Essentially making a nice snug fit and "noise proofing" it.

As for your first issue, is the glove compartment empty?

Which causes it to easily rattle?

Or have you got other stuff inside there and the mints container is on top of that?

to prevent the box from rattling, you could 'stabilize' the box by using adhesive velcro on the back of the box and its assigned spot in the glove box.

as far as rattling inside you could try: a "food safe" sealant or coating. try copy-flex liquid mold making silicone.

http://www.makeyourownmolds.com/copy-flex adhesive felt sheets like the ones used to line jewelry boxes - found at any craft store or use food safe epoxy to attach your choice of foam.

check out thefoamfactory.com you could line it in leather or any choice of fabric (wool, cotton, synthetic) too.

the trick is finding a food safe adhesive.

Pad the inside of the box with a layer of cotton balls.

Pill bottles used to come like this, although I haven't seen it as much recently.

Try placing the container on its a side.

That way the mints will stack on top of each other in a smaller space and not rattle.

Neither will they be bouncing on a flat sounding board.

You can try to do what Darren did with one variation: Put it in a sock.

The sock is pretty soft and should effectively muffle the banging sound.

The sound is created since the container and mints have a large space to bounce and bang into.

If you limit the space the mint box has to bounce and bang in, there will be little or no sound.

You can effectively do this by: Putting it in your cup holder Putting it in a bag filled with stuff like clothes or lots of paperwork You pants' pocket A small side pocket in any type of bag similar to this one: A backpack or luggage bag

This should significantly lower or eliminate the sound from the metal box and mints.

I hope this helps you!

For preventing the box from rattling against the glove compartment, what about keeping it in a seat pocket or on top of your visor instead?

Question:
I like to keep fresh breath mints in my car. They come in a box like this:

The problem is they rattle in two ways:

The box is metallic and it rattles against the glove compartment (or other compartment) of the car
Inside the box, the mints start to rattle once the box is less than 1/2 full.
Short of always filling the box and wrapping it in a sock, what are some ways to prevent the rattling?

Prevent mints from rattling in the car

There are a few ways that you can prevent mints from rattling the car. A simple way would be to pad the container with cloth or cotton balls. Similarly, you could keep your mints in a little bag instead of a metal container. You could also keep the container in a sock to reduce the rattling sound.

Options are to put the mints in a bag, pad the container with foam or cloth, stabilise the box using velcro, put cotton balls into the box, place the box on its side, put a sock in it or put it in a seat box.

Try putting the mints in a bag, pad the container with foam or cloth, stabilise the box using velcro, put cotton balls into the box, place the box on its side, put a sock in it or put it in a seat box.

Try putting the box in the glove compartment or a seat pocket.