On Mon, 08 Jun 2026 10:47:07 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 8 Jun 2026 15:44:19 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>wrote:
On 8/06/2026 4:49 am, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote:
On Wed, 3 Jun 2026 23:10:06 +1000, Chris Jones
<lugnut808@spam.yahoo.com> wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22ZmmZ67SMY
NE5532
. . . . just in case somebody is actually searching for info
on an actual part number.
If you're wired into the ON/TI/NXP PCN channels, you'll pick
this up in time to remove the TI part number from your list
of alternates.
Audio mfrs are pretty paranoid about sources. Chances are TI
never showed up, in the first place.
If I hadnAt stopped talking audio design seriously in about 1980, I
certainly would have when crappy compressed MP3s took over the world. >>>>>
Golden ears, my left buttock.
The ears are close to the brain for a reason. Golden ears don't seem to >>>be close to particularly good brains.
I read a study that says that bats can correlate time between their
ears with nanosecond resolution. Pretty good for wet stuff.
Bats are pretty good, but that seems a bit too good. Can you find
that study?
Thanks,
Joe
On Tue, 09 Jun 2026 12:16:26 -0400, joegwinn@comcast.net wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jun 2026 10:47:07 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 8 Jun 2026 15:44:19 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 8/06/2026 4:49 am, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote:
On Wed, 3 Jun 2026 23:10:06 +1000, Chris Jones
<lugnut808@spam.yahoo.com> wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22ZmmZ67SMY
NE5532
. . . . just in case somebody is actually searching for info
on an actual part number.
If you're wired into the ON/TI/NXP PCN channels, you'll pick
this up in time to remove the TI part number from your list
of alternates.
Audio mfrs are pretty paranoid about sources. Chances are TI
never showed up, in the first place.
If I hadnrCOt stopped talking audio design seriously in about 1980, I >>>>>> certainly would have when crappy compressed MP3s took over the world. >>>>>>
Golden ears, my left buttock.
The ears are close to the brain for a reason. Golden ears don't seem to >>>> be close to particularly good brains.
I read a study that says that bats can correlate time between their
ears with nanosecond resolution. Pretty good for wet stuff.
Bats are pretty good, but that seems a bit too good. Can you find
that study?
Thanks,
Joe
Good grief, just google
bat echolocation nanosecond
The history of science is rich with people saying "that's not
possible" when it turns out to be.
John Larkin
Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center
Lunatic Fringe Electronics
On Tue, 09 Jun 2026 12:16:26 -0400, joegwinn@comcast.net wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jun 2026 10:47:07 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> >>wrote:
On Mon, 8 Jun 2026 15:44:19 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>wrote:
On 8/06/2026 4:49 am, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote:
On Wed, 3 Jun 2026 23:10:06 +1000, Chris Jones
<lugnut808@spam.yahoo.com> wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22ZmmZ67SMY
NE5532
. . . . just in case somebody is actually searching for info
on an actual part number.
If you're wired into the ON/TI/NXP PCN channels, you'll pick
this up in time to remove the TI part number from your list
of alternates.
Audio mfrs are pretty paranoid about sources. Chances are TI
never showed up, in the first place.
If I hadnAt stopped talking audio design seriously in about 1980, I >>>>>> certainly would have when crappy compressed MP3s took over the world. >>>>>>
Golden ears, my left buttock.
The ears are close to the brain for a reason. Golden ears don't seem to >>>>be close to particularly good brains.
I read a study that says that bats can correlate time between their
ears with nanosecond resolution. Pretty good for wet stuff.
Bats are pretty good, but that seems a bit too good. Can you find
that study?
Thanks,
Joe
Good grief, just google
bat echolocation nanosecond
The history of science is rich with people saying "that's not
possible" when it turns out to be.
Legg <legg@nospam.Magma.Ca> wrote: >|-----------------------------------------------|
|"Audio mfrs are pretty paranoid about sources."| >|-----------------------------------------------|
Dear RL,
Why?
With kind regards.
(S. HTTP://Gloucester.Insomnia247.NL/ fuer Kontaktdaten!)
On Thu, 4 Jun 2026 15:22:02 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote:
On Wed, 3 Jun 2026 23:10:06 +1000, Chris Jones
<lugnut808@spam.yahoo.com> wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22ZmmZ67SMY
NE5532
. . . . just in case somebody is actually searching for info
on an actual part number.
If you're wired into the ON/TI/NXP PCN channels, you'll pick
this up in time to remove the TI part number from your list
of alternates.
Audio mfrs are pretty paranoid about sources. Chances are TI
never showed up, in the first place.
RL
If I hadnrCOt stopped talking audio design seriously in about 1980, I
certainly would have when crappy compressed MP3s took over the world.
Golden ears, my left buttock.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
It's the program material that matters and, often, the context or
venue; not the hardware.
Most distortion still from mikes, loudspeakers and other
electromechanical transducers. The rest is probably in 'your' head.
RL
On Wed, 3 Jun 2026 23:10:06 +1000, Chris Jones
<lugnut808@spam.yahoo.com> wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22ZmmZ67SMY
They changed the process on a part that's 47 years old.
Scandalous.
John Larkin
Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center
Lunatic Fringe Electronics
On Mon, 08 Jun 2026 10:47:07 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 8 Jun 2026 15:44:19 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>wrote:
On 8/06/2026 4:49 am, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote:
On Wed, 3 Jun 2026 23:10:06 +1000, Chris Jones
<lugnut808@spam.yahoo.com> wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22ZmmZ67SMY
NE5532
. . . . just in case somebody is actually searching for info
on an actual part number.
If you're wired into the ON/TI/NXP PCN channels, you'll pick
this up in time to remove the TI part number from your list
of alternates.
Audio mfrs are pretty paranoid about sources. Chances are TI
never showed up, in the first place.
If I hadnAt stopped talking audio design seriously in about 1980, I
certainly would have when crappy compressed MP3s took over the world. >>>>>
Golden ears, my left buttock.
The ears are close to the brain for a reason. Golden ears don't seem to >>>be close to particularly good brains.
I read a study that says that bats can correlate time between their
ears with nanosecond resolution. Pretty good for wet stuff.
Bats are pretty good, but that seems a bit too good. Can you find
that study?
On Tue, 09 Jun 2026 12:16:26 -0400, joegwinn@comcast.net wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jun 2026 10:47:07 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 8 Jun 2026 15:44:19 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 8/06/2026 4:49 am, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote:
On Wed, 3 Jun 2026 23:10:06 +1000, Chris Jones
<lugnut808@spam.yahoo.com> wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22ZmmZ67SMY
NE5532
. . . . just in case somebody is actually searching for info
on an actual part number.
If you're wired into the ON/TI/NXP PCN channels, you'll pick
this up in time to remove the TI part number from your list
of alternates.
Audio mfrs are pretty paranoid about sources. Chances are TI
never showed up, in the first place.
If I hadnrCOt stopped talking audio design seriously in about 1980, I >>>>>> certainly would have when crappy compressed MP3s took over the world. >>>>>>
Golden ears, my left buttock.
The ears are close to the brain for a reason. Golden ears don't seem to >>>> be close to particularly good brains.
I read a study that says that bats can correlate time between their
ears with nanosecond resolution. Pretty good for wet stuff.
Bats are pretty good, but that seems a bit too good. Can you find
that study?
Thanks,
Joe
Good grief, just google
bat echolocation nanosecond
The history of science is rich with people saying "that's not
possible" when it turns out to be.
"Bat sonar: an alternative interpretation of the 10-ns jitter result" <https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9528108/>
"In 1990 Simmons et al. reported evidence of a time resolution
hitherto unknown in any animal, namely a 10-ns jitter detection
threshold in echolocating bats."
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>wrote:
Good grief, just google
bat echolocation nanosecond
The history of science is rich with people saying "that's not
possible" when it turns out to be.
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>wrote:
Good grief, just google
bat echolocation nanosecond
The history of science is rich with people saying "that's not
possible" when it turns out to be.
FYI:
Speed of sound is 340.29 m / s
In a nano-second sound moves:
340.29 * 10^-9 = 3.4029e-07 meter
or 3.4029e-07 * 1000 = 0.00034029 milimeter
Even a 1 degree phase shift is 1/360 so about 0.000001 mm,
distance between 2 neurons.. hairs in the ear?
Not even counting <MAKING the sound.
Beep!
You can express Any Sing in nano seconds
!!!
BTW the signal from the nerves in the ear to the brain takes orders of magnitude more time
Drop your nano nano obsession!!!
Did you not got hit by crocodile sounds once?
There is a survival series here on TV every sunday .. those guys catch alligators with a hook and same bait.
I now know how to catch and kill an alligator!
Done ANYTHING with sound ever?
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 06:22:58 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>wrote:
Good grief, just google
bat echolocation nanosecond
The history of science is rich with people saying "that's not
possible" when it turns out to be.
FYI:
Speed of sound is 340.29 m / s
In a nano-second sound moves:
340.29 * 10^-9 = 3.4029e-07 meter
or 3.4029e-07 * 1000 = 0.00034029 milimeter
Even a 1 degree phase shift is 1/360 so about 0.000001 mm,
distance between 2 neurons.. hairs in the ear?
Not even counting <MAKING the sound.
Beep!
You can express Any Sing in nano seconds
!!!
I use nanoseconds (or pico of femto) to describe anything below a >microsecond. I do have old books that use millimicrosecond units, or >micromicrofarad, uuF.
BTW the signal from the nerves in the ear to the brain takes orders of magnitude more time
The prop delay between your wrist and your brain obviously makes it >impossible to play tennis.
My favorite expert-impossible was fathead boffins declaring that a
biological rotating motor was impossible. I think there is one that
runs something like 100K RPM. We would not have babies without a
spinning molecular machine.
Drop your nano nano obsession!!!
Did you not got hit by crocodile sounds once?
We helped discover some infrasonic croc calls, yes.
There is a survival series here on TV every sunday .. those guys catch alligators with a hook and same bait.
I now know how to catch and kill an alligator!
Done ANYTHING with sound ever?
I designed a guitar amp once, the Ryder 200 or 500 or something. Named
after a buddy, Frank Ryder. He wised up and married a rich German
girl and got out of audio.
And of course I designed the things that found the alligator calls in >Mississippi.
Oh, and the paging system for the New York City subway. Not very
hi-fi.
I don't like music and audio is boring and low profit, so I prefer
picosecond stuff.
On Tue, 09 Jun 2026 12:16:26 -0400, joegwinn@comcast.net wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jun 2026 10:47:07 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 8 Jun 2026 15:44:19 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 8/06/2026 4:49 am, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote:
On Wed, 3 Jun 2026 23:10:06 +1000, Chris Jones
<lugnut808@spam.yahoo.com> wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22ZmmZ67SMY
NE5532
. . . . just in case somebody is actually searching for info
on an actual part number.
If you're wired into the ON/TI/NXP PCN channels, you'll pick
this up in time to remove the TI part number from your list
of alternates.
Audio mfrs are pretty paranoid about sources. Chances are TI
never showed up, in the first place.
If I hadnrCOt stopped talking audio design seriously in about 1980, I >>>>>> certainly would have when crappy compressed MP3s took over the world. >>>>>>
Golden ears, my left buttock.
The ears are close to the brain for a reason. Golden ears don't seem to >>>> be close to particularly good brains.
I read a study that says that bats can correlate time between their
ears with nanosecond resolution. Pretty good for wet stuff.
Bats are pretty good, but that seems a bit too good. Can you find
that study?
"The transfer function of a target limits the jitter detection
threshold with signals of echolocating FM-bats" <https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16395614/>
"Some investigators have obtained results indicating that bats are
able to discriminate alternations in delay down to 10 ns, which
appears incredible for purely physical reasons."
"Bat sonar: an alternative interpretation of the 10-ns jitter result" <https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9528108/>
"In 1990 Simmons et al. reported evidence of a time resolution
hitherto unknown in any animal, namely a 10-ns jitter detection
threshold in echolocating bats."
Google Scholar produces additional papers on bat echolocation acuity: <https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=bat%20echolocation%2010%20nsec>
On 2026-06-09 19:15, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 09 Jun 2026 12:16:26 -0400, joegwinn@comcast.net wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jun 2026 10:47:07 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 8 Jun 2026 15:44:19 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 8/06/2026 4:49 am, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote:
On Wed, 3 Jun 2026 23:10:06 +1000, Chris Jones
<lugnut808@spam.yahoo.com> wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22ZmmZ67SMY
NE5532
. . . . just in case somebody is actually searching for info
on an actual part number.
If you're wired into the ON/TI/NXP PCN channels, you'll pick
this up in time to remove the TI part number from your list
of alternates.
Audio mfrs are pretty paranoid about sources. Chances are TI
never showed up, in the first place.
If I hadnAt stopped talking audio design seriously in about 1980, I >>>>>>> certainly would have when crappy compressed MP3s took over the world. >>>>>>>
Golden ears, my left buttock.
The ears are close to the brain for a reason. Golden ears don't seem to >>>>> be close to particularly good brains.
I read a study that says that bats can correlate time between their
ears with nanosecond resolution. Pretty good for wet stuff.
Bats are pretty good, but that seems a bit too good. Can you find
that study?
"The transfer function of a target limits the jitter detection
threshold with signals of echolocating FM-bats"
<https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16395614/>
"Some investigators have obtained results indicating that bats are
able to discriminate alternations in delay down to 10 ns, which
appears incredible for purely physical reasons."
"Bat sonar: an alternative interpretation of the 10-ns jitter result"
<https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9528108/>
"In 1990 Simmons et al. reported evidence of a time resolution
hitherto unknown in any animal, namely a 10-ns jitter detection
threshold in echolocating bats."
Google Scholar produces additional papers on bat echolocation acuity:
<https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=bat%20echolocation%2010%20nsec>
In my neck of the woods, when you rhetorically quote some spec in the >100-999 nm range, you normally call it "submicron", whereas anything
between 1 nm and 100 nm is "nanometer".
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
On Tue, 09 Jun 2026 12:16:26 -0400, joegwinn@comcast.net wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jun 2026 10:47:07 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> >>wrote:
On Mon, 8 Jun 2026 15:44:19 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>wrote:
On 8/06/2026 4:49 am, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote:
On Wed, 3 Jun 2026 23:10:06 +1000, Chris Jones
<lugnut808@spam.yahoo.com> wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22ZmmZ67SMY
NE5532
. . . . just in case somebody is actually searching for info
on an actual part number.
If you're wired into the ON/TI/NXP PCN channels, you'll pick
this up in time to remove the TI part number from your list
of alternates.
Audio mfrs are pretty paranoid about sources. Chances are TI
never showed up, in the first place.
If I hadnAt stopped talking audio design seriously in about 1980, I >>>>>> certainly would have when crappy compressed MP3s took over the world. >>>>>>
Golden ears, my left buttock.
The ears are close to the brain for a reason. Golden ears don't seem to >>>>be close to particularly good brains.
I read a study that says that bats can correlate time between their
ears with nanosecond resolution. Pretty good for wet stuff.
Bats are pretty good, but that seems a bit too good. Can you find
that study?
"The transfer function of a target limits the jitter detection
threshold with signals of echolocating FM-bats" ><https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16395614/>
"Some investigators have obtained results indicating that bats are
able to discriminate alternations in delay down to 10 ns, which
appears incredible for purely physical reasons."
"Bat sonar: an alternative interpretation of the 10-ns jitter result" ><https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9528108/>
"In 1990 Simmons et al. reported evidence of a time resolution
hitherto unknown in any animal, namely a 10-ns jitter detection
threshold in echolocating bats."
Google Scholar produces additional papers on bat echolocation acuity: ><https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=bat%20echolocation%2010%20nsec>
On Tue, 09 Jun 2026 16:15:44 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 09 Jun 2026 12:16:26 -0400, joegwinn@comcast.net wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jun 2026 10:47:07 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> >>>wrote:
On Mon, 8 Jun 2026 15:44:19 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>wrote:
On 8/06/2026 4:49 am, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote:
On Wed, 3 Jun 2026 23:10:06 +1000, Chris Jones
<lugnut808@spam.yahoo.com> wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22ZmmZ67SMY
NE5532
. . . . just in case somebody is actually searching for info
on an actual part number.
If you're wired into the ON/TI/NXP PCN channels, you'll pick
this up in time to remove the TI part number from your list
of alternates.
Audio mfrs are pretty paranoid about sources. Chances are TI
never showed up, in the first place.
If I hadnAt stopped talking audio design seriously in about 1980, I >>>>>>> certainly would have when crappy compressed MP3s took over the world. >>>>>>>
Golden ears, my left buttock.
The ears are close to the brain for a reason. Golden ears don't seem to >>>>>be close to particularly good brains.
I read a study that says that bats can correlate time between their >>>>ears with nanosecond resolution. Pretty good for wet stuff.
Bats are pretty good, but that seems a bit too good. Can you find
that study?
"The transfer function of a target limits the jitter detection
threshold with signals of echolocating FM-bats" >><https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16395614/>
"Some investigators have obtained results indicating that bats are
able to discriminate alternations in delay down to 10 ns, which
appears incredible for purely physical reasons."
"Bat sonar: an alternative interpretation of the 10-ns jitter result" >><https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9528108/>
"In 1990 Simmons et al. reported evidence of a time resolution
hitherto unknown in any animal, namely a 10-ns jitter detection
threshold in echolocating bats."
Google Scholar produces additional papers on bat echolocation acuity: >><https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=bat%20echolocation%2010%20nsec>
So that's a source of the 10ns stuff. The theory is that there was an >instrumentation error, which is certainly plausible as no biological
system is that fast, so biological researchers are far out of their
domain for sure.
Joe
PS: The 100,000 rpm spinner in biology is "ATP Synthase", the enzyme
system that converts between ADP and ATP in the mitochondria (in
animals) and chloroplasts (in plants).
.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP_synthase>
JMG
On Tue, 09 Jun 2026 16:15:44 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 09 Jun 2026 12:16:26 -0400, joegwinn@comcast.net wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jun 2026 10:47:07 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> >>>wrote:
On Mon, 8 Jun 2026 15:44:19 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>wrote:
On 8/06/2026 4:49 am, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote:
On Wed, 3 Jun 2026 23:10:06 +1000, Chris Jones
<lugnut808@spam.yahoo.com> wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22ZmmZ67SMY
NE5532
. . . . just in case somebody is actually searching for info
on an actual part number.
If you're wired into the ON/TI/NXP PCN channels, you'll pick
this up in time to remove the TI part number from your list
of alternates.
Audio mfrs are pretty paranoid about sources. Chances are TI
never showed up, in the first place.
If I hadnAt stopped talking audio design seriously in about 1980, I >>>>>>> certainly would have when crappy compressed MP3s took over the world. >>>>>>>
Golden ears, my left buttock.
The ears are close to the brain for a reason. Golden ears don't seem to >>>>>be close to particularly good brains.
I read a study that says that bats can correlate time between their >>>>ears with nanosecond resolution. Pretty good for wet stuff.
Bats are pretty good, but that seems a bit too good. Can you find
that study?
"The transfer function of a target limits the jitter detection
threshold with signals of echolocating FM-bats" >><https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16395614/>
"Some investigators have obtained results indicating that bats are
able to discriminate alternations in delay down to 10 ns, which
appears incredible for purely physical reasons."
"Bat sonar: an alternative interpretation of the 10-ns jitter result" >><https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9528108/>
"In 1990 Simmons et al. reported evidence of a time resolution
hitherto unknown in any animal, namely a 10-ns jitter detection
threshold in echolocating bats."
Google Scholar produces additional papers on bat echolocation acuity: >><https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=bat%20echolocation%2010%20nsec>
So that's a source of the 10ns stuff. The theory is that there was an >instrumentation error, which is certainly plausible as no biological
system is that fast, so biological researchers are far out of their
domain for sure.
Joe
PS: The 100,000 rpm spinner in biology is "ATP Synthase", the enzyme
system that converts between ADP and ATP in the mitochondria (in
animals) and chloroplasts (in plants).
.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP_synthase>
JMG
Anything less than a microsecond is astounding, inside the gooey head
of a bat flapping its wings mid-air hunting a moth.
Some [nerve impulse] speeds cited get up to 120
meters per second. A lot faster than your "meter per second" but not
fast enough for 10nsec resolution to be plausible.
On 11/06/2026 3:29 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 19:32:15 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 17:28:51 -0400, joegwinn@comcast.net wrote:
On Tue, 09 Jun 2026 16:15:44 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>>> wrote:
On Tue, 09 Jun 2026 12:16:26 -0400, joegwinn@comcast.net wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jun 2026 10:47:07 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On Mon, 8 Jun 2026 15:44:19 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 8/06/2026 4:49 am, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote:
On Wed, 3 Jun 2026 23:10:06 +1000, Chris Jones
<lugnut808@spam.yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
Sigh. I initially mentioned that there might have been some confusion
between response time and jitter. Now, you add DNA replication to the
confusion. Time for a sanity check.
What got my attention was the radical difference between the alleged
10 nsec nervous response time in bats, and the much slower nerve
conduction times in humans. (I couldn't find specific numbers for
bats).
"Nerve conduction velocity"
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerve_conduction_velocity>
"The speed of nerve impulse transmission ranges from about 0.5 m/s to
over 120 m/s".
I once watched a "cloud" of fruit bats emerging from the trees at
dusk:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_fruit_bat>
I don't know how many there were, but my guess(tm) is in the
thousands. The bats were not using their sonar for locating moths.
Instead, they were looking for fruit and using their sonar to prevent
mid-air collisions. I watched carefully and didn't see any collisions
or bats falling from the sky. In order to do that, the muscles that
move the bats wings need to quickly respond to brain signals and the
muscles need to move quite fast. 10 nsec response time isn't going to
work when the signals move at 0.5 m/s to over 120 m/s. A nerve
impulse moves at perhaps 1 meter/sec (or 10 nanometers in 10
nanoseconds). A 10 nsec nerve impulse will have moved a microscopic
distance.
For the record, I said "nanosecond resolution" not 10 nanoseconds.
But it is still nonsense.
And yes, nerve impulses are assumed move about a meter per second, yet
people play table tennis.
One possible explanation is that nerve impulses don't move meters per
second.
Possible, but not plausible. People have been measuring nerve impulse
speed for quite a while now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squid_giant_axon
There was quite a lot of fuss about that measurement back in 1952 and it >lead to a Nobel Prize - I remember it and I was only a kid at the time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerve_conduction_velocity
cites work going as far back as 1972. Some of speeds cited get up to 120 >meters per second. A lot faster than your "meter per second" but not
fast enough for 10nsec resolution to be plausible.
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
Anything less than a microsecond is astounding, inside the gooey head
of a bat flapping its wings mid-air hunting a moth.
To put it in perspective, a microsecond at the velocity of sound in air >corresponds to 0.25mm (or 0.125mm for echolocation distance
measurement).
On Thu, 11 Jun 2026 17:13:17 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 11/06/2026 3:29 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 19:32:15 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 17:28:51 -0400, joegwinn@comcast.net wrote:
On Tue, 09 Jun 2026 16:15:44 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>>>> wrote:
On Tue, 09 Jun 2026 12:16:26 -0400, joegwinn@comcast.net wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jun 2026 10:47:07 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On Mon, 8 Jun 2026 15:44:19 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 8/06/2026 4:49 am, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote:
On Wed, 3 Jun 2026 23:10:06 +1000, Chris Jones
<lugnut808@spam.yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
Sigh. I initially mentioned that there might have been some confusion >>>> between response time and jitter. Now, you add DNA replication to the >>>> confusion. Time for a sanity check.
What got my attention was the radical difference between the alleged
10 nsec nervous response time in bats, and the much slower nerve
conduction times in humans. (I couldn't find specific numbers for
bats).
"Nerve conduction velocity"
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerve_conduction_velocity>
"The speed of nerve impulse transmission ranges from about 0.5 m/s to
over 120 m/s".
I once watched a "cloud" of fruit bats emerging from the trees at
dusk:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_fruit_bat>
I don't know how many there were, but my guess(tm) is in the
thousands. The bats were not using their sonar for locating moths.
Instead, they were looking for fruit and using their sonar to prevent
mid-air collisions. I watched carefully and didn't see any collisions >>>> or bats falling from the sky. In order to do that, the muscles that
move the bats wings need to quickly respond to brain signals and the
muscles need to move quite fast. 10 nsec response time isn't going to >>>> work when the signals move at 0.5 m/s to over 120 m/s. A nerve
impulse moves at perhaps 1 meter/sec (or 10 nanometers in 10
nanoseconds). A 10 nsec nerve impulse will have moved a microscopic
distance.
For the record, I said "nanosecond resolution" not 10 nanoseconds.
But it is still nonsense.
And yes, nerve impulses are assumed move about a meter per second, yet
people play table tennis.
One possible explanation is that nerve impulses don't move meters per
second.
Possible, but not plausible. People have been measuring nerve impulse
speed for quite a while now.
They measure what's easy to measure, an electrical impulse. Maybe
that's not the information being sent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squid_giant_axon
There was quite a lot of fuss about that measurement back in 1952 and it
lead to a Nobel Prize - I remember it and I was only a kid at the time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerve_conduction_velocity
cites work going as far back as 1972. Some of speeds cited get up to 120
meters per second. A lot faster than your "meter per second" but not
fast enough for 10nsec resolution to be plausible.
Bats catch moths. Baseballs get hit.
On Thu, 11 Jun 2026 14:28:44 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
Anything less than a microsecond is astounding, inside the gooey head
of a bat flapping its wings mid-air hunting a moth.
To put it in perspective, a microsecond at the velocity of sound in air
corresponds to 0.25mm (or 0.125mm for echolocation distance
measurement).
If nerve impulses travel 100 m/s and a bat's ears are 2 cm apart, the
neural delay between ears is 200 us. And that's modulated by movement, heartbeats, things like that.
Maybe nature doesn't care about our opinions of how it's allowed to
work.
On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 19:32:15 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 17:28:51 -0400, joegwinn@comcast.net wrote:
On Tue, 09 Jun 2026 16:15:44 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>>wrote:
On Tue, 09 Jun 2026 12:16:26 -0400, joegwinn@comcast.net wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jun 2026 10:47:07 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> >>>>>wrote:
On Mon, 8 Jun 2026 15:44:19 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>>wrote:
On 8/06/2026 4:49 am, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote:
On Wed, 3 Jun 2026 23:10:06 +1000, Chris Jones
<lugnut808@spam.yahoo.com> wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22ZmmZ67SMY
NE5532
. . . . just in case somebody is actually searching for info >>>>>>>>>> on an actual part number.
If you're wired into the ON/TI/NXP PCN channels, you'll pick >>>>>>>>>> this up in time to remove the TI part number from your list >>>>>>>>>> of alternates.
Audio mfrs are pretty paranoid about sources. Chances are TI >>>>>>>>>> never showed up, in the first place.
If I hadnAt stopped talking audio design seriously in about 1980, I >>>>>>>>> certainly would have when crappy compressed MP3s took over the world. >>>>>>>>>
Golden ears, my left buttock.
The ears are close to the brain for a reason. Golden ears don't seem to >>>>>>>be close to particularly good brains.
I read a study that says that bats can correlate time between their >>>>>>ears with nanosecond resolution. Pretty good for wet stuff.
Bats are pretty good, but that seems a bit too good. Can you find >>>>>that study?
"The transfer function of a target limits the jitter detection >>>>threshold with signals of echolocating FM-bats" >>>><https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16395614/>
"Some investigators have obtained results indicating that bats are
able to discriminate alternations in delay down to 10 ns, which
appears incredible for purely physical reasons."
"Bat sonar: an alternative interpretation of the 10-ns jitter result" >>>><https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9528108/>
"In 1990 Simmons et al. reported evidence of a time resolution
hitherto unknown in any animal, namely a 10-ns jitter detection >>>>threshold in echolocating bats."
Google Scholar produces additional papers on bat echolocation acuity: >>>><https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=bat%20echolocation%2010%20nsec>
So that's a source of the 10ns stuff. The theory is that there was an >>>instrumentation error, which is certainly plausible as no biological >>>system is that fast, so biological researchers are far out of their >>>domain for sure.
It's only my best guess(tm). I didn't have much success at finding
the oldest bat related citation that included a 10 nsec response time.
Joe
PS: The 100,000 rpm spinner in biology is "ATP Synthase", the enzyme >>>system that converts between ADP and ATP in the mitochondria (in
animals) and chloroplasts (in plants).
.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP_synthase>
JMG
Sigh. I initially mentioned that there might have been some confusion >>between response time and jitter. Now, you add DNA replication to the >>confusion. Time for a sanity check.
What got my attention was the radical difference between the alleged
10 nsec nervous response time in bats, and the much slower nerve
conduction times in humans. (I couldn't find specific numbers for
bats).
"Nerve conduction velocity" >><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerve_conduction_velocity>
"The speed of nerve impulse transmission ranges from about 0.5 m/s to
over 120 m/s".
I once watched a "cloud" of fruit bats emerging from the trees at
dusk:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_fruit_bat>
I don't know how many there were, but my guess(tm) is in the
thousands. The bats were not using their sonar for locating moths. >>Instead, they were looking for fruit and using their sonar to prevent >>mid-air collisions. I watched carefully and didn't see any collisions
or bats falling from the sky. In order to do that, the muscles that
move the bats wings need to quickly respond to brain signals and the >>muscles need to move quite fast. 10 nsec response time isn't going to
work when the signals move at 0.5 m/s to over 120 m/s. A nerve
impulse moves at perhaps 1 meter/sec (or 10 nanometers in 10
nanoseconds). A 10 nsec nerve impulse will have moved a microscopic >>distance.
For the record, I said "nanosecond resolution" not 10 nanoseconds.
And yes, nerve impulses are assumed move about a meter per second, yet
people play table tennis.
One possible explanation is that nerve impulses don't move meters per
second.
On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 22:29:45 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 19:32:15 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 17:28:51 -0400, joegwinn@comcast.net wrote:
On Tue, 09 Jun 2026 16:15:44 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>>> wrote:
On Tue, 09 Jun 2026 12:16:26 -0400, joegwinn@comcast.net wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jun 2026 10:47:07 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On Mon, 8 Jun 2026 15:44:19 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 8/06/2026 4:49 am, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote:
On Wed, 3 Jun 2026 23:10:06 +1000, Chris Jones
<lugnut808@spam.yahoo.com> wrote:
And yes, nerve impulses are assumed move about a meter per second, yet
people play table tennis.
One possible explanation is that nerve impulses don't move meters per
second.
Methinks the mechanism might be similar to measuring the speed of
electrons in wires. Energy transmission in a wire moves at near light
speed. Electron drift velocity in wires (the movement of individual electrons) is about 1 mm/sec, which is much slower. I suspected that
nerve impulse transmission in bats might be similar. However, my
analogy breaks down because nerve impulse velocity can be 1 to 100 meters/sec, which is still much slower than near light speed (3*10^8 meters/sec).
"Nerve conduction velocity" <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerve_conduction_velocity>
"The speed of nerve impulse transmission ranges from about 0.5 m/s to
over 120 m/s"
"Bats are surprisingly fast decision makers" <https://www.sdu.dk/en/om-sdu/fakulteterne/naturvidenskab/nyheder-2015/2015_03_18_bat_decision>
"Sometimes we also see reaction times of only 20 milliseconds in bats,
for instance in response to loud sounds, but that is a simple reflex
reaction that does not require brain work".
20 msec response time isn't light speed it's a long way from 10 nsec.
If the flying bat is on auto-pilot, then it's making 50 course
corrections every second. Offhand, methinks that might be sufficient
to avoid mid-air collisions with other bats. Even if 10 nsec
resolution were possible, it would be overkill for a bat.
On 10/06/2026 2:44 am, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 09 Jun 2026 12:16:26 -0400, joegwinn@comcast.net wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jun 2026 10:47:07 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 8 Jun 2026 15:44:19 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 8/06/2026 4:49 am, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote:
On Wed, 3 Jun 2026 23:10:06 +1000, Chris Jones
<lugnut808@spam.yahoo.com> wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22ZmmZ67SMY
NE5532
. . . . just in case somebody is actually searching for info
on an actual part number.
If you're wired into the ON/TI/NXP PCN channels, you'll pick
this up in time to remove the TI part number from your list
of alternates.
Audio mfrs are pretty paranoid about sources. Chances are TI
never showed up, in the first place.
If I hadnAt stopped talking audio design seriously in about 1980, I >>>>>>> certainly would have when crappy compressed MP3s took over the world. >>>>>>>
Golden ears, my left buttock.
The ears are close to the brain for a reason. Golden ears don't seem to >>>>> be close to particularly good brains.
I read a study that says that bats can correlate time between their
ears with nanosecond resolution. Pretty good for wet stuff.
Bats are pretty good, but that seems a bit too good. Can you find
that study?
Thanks,
Joe
Good grief, just google
bat echolocation nanosecond
You made the claim, you do the googling.
On 12/06/2026 12:21 am, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jun 2026 14:28:44 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
Anything less than a microsecond is astounding, inside the gooey head
of a bat flapping its wings mid-air hunting a moth.
To put it in perspective, a microsecond at the velocity of sound in air >>> corresponds to 0.25mm (or 0.125mm for echolocation distance
measurement).
If nerve impulses travel 100 m/s and a bat's ears are 2 cm apart, the
neural delay between ears is 200 us. And that's modulated by movement,
heartbeats, things like that.
Maybe nature doesn't care about our opinions of how it's allowed to
work.
Obviously it doesn't. That doesn't excuse you from picking up
particularly half-baked ideas about how well it might be performing and >posting them here.
On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 17:28:51 -0400, joegwinn@comcast.net wrote:
On Tue, 09 Jun 2026 16:15:44 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>wrote:
On Tue, 09 Jun 2026 12:16:26 -0400, joegwinn@comcast.net wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jun 2026 10:47:07 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> >>>>wrote:
On Mon, 8 Jun 2026 15:44:19 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>wrote:
On 8/06/2026 4:49 am, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote:
On Wed, 3 Jun 2026 23:10:06 +1000, Chris Jones
<lugnut808@spam.yahoo.com> wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22ZmmZ67SMY
NE5532
. . . . just in case somebody is actually searching for info >>>>>>>>> on an actual part number.
If you're wired into the ON/TI/NXP PCN channels, you'll pick >>>>>>>>> this up in time to remove the TI part number from your list
of alternates.
Audio mfrs are pretty paranoid about sources. Chances are TI >>>>>>>>> never showed up, in the first place.
If I hadnAt stopped talking audio design seriously in about 1980, I >>>>>>>> certainly would have when crappy compressed MP3s took over the world. >>>>>>>>
Golden ears, my left buttock.
The ears are close to the brain for a reason. Golden ears don't seem to >>>>>>be close to particularly good brains.
I read a study that says that bats can correlate time between their >>>>>ears with nanosecond resolution. Pretty good for wet stuff.
Bats are pretty good, but that seems a bit too good. Can you find
that study?
"The transfer function of a target limits the jitter detection
threshold with signals of echolocating FM-bats" >>><https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16395614/>
"Some investigators have obtained results indicating that bats are
able to discriminate alternations in delay down to 10 ns, which
appears incredible for purely physical reasons."
"Bat sonar: an alternative interpretation of the 10-ns jitter result" >>><https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9528108/>
"In 1990 Simmons et al. reported evidence of a time resolution
hitherto unknown in any animal, namely a 10-ns jitter detection
threshold in echolocating bats."
Google Scholar produces additional papers on bat echolocation acuity: >>><https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=bat%20echolocation%2010%20nsec>
So that's a source of the 10ns stuff. The theory is that there was an >>instrumentation error, which is certainly plausible as no biological
system is that fast, so biological researchers are far out of their
domain for sure.
Why do you say that no biological system can be that fast?
Anything less than a microsecond is astounding, inside the gooey head
of a bat flapping its wings mid-air hunting a moth.
Joe
PS: The 100,000 rpm spinner in biology is "ATP Synthase", the enzyme >>system that converts between ADP and ATP in the mitochondria (in
animals) and chloroplasts (in plants).
.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP_synthase>
JMG
DNA helicase, the little gadget that splits our DNA when a cell
divides, spins at about 10,000 RPM.
<Rotating biological motors were declared to be impossible, and
rotating flagellum were known to be optical illusions.> Once.
Google the <> above.
On 12/06/2026 12:12 am, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jun 2026 17:13:17 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 11/06/2026 3:29 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 19:32:15 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>>> wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 17:28:51 -0400, joegwinn@comcast.net wrote:
On Tue, 09 Jun 2026 16:15:44 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On Tue, 09 Jun 2026 12:16:26 -0400, joegwinn@comcast.net wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jun 2026 10:47:07 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On Mon, 8 Jun 2026 15:44:19 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 8/06/2026 4:49 am, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote:
On Wed, 3 Jun 2026 23:10:06 +1000, Chris Jones
<lugnut808@spam.yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
Sigh. I initially mentioned that there might have been some confusion >>>>> between response time and jitter. Now, you add DNA replication to the >>>>> confusion. Time for a sanity check.
What got my attention was the radical difference between the alleged >>>>> 10 nsec nervous response time in bats, and the much slower nerve
conduction times in humans. (I couldn't find specific numbers for
bats).
"Nerve conduction velocity"
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerve_conduction_velocity>
"The speed of nerve impulse transmission ranges from about 0.5 m/s to >>>>> over 120 m/s".
I once watched a "cloud" of fruit bats emerging from the trees at
dusk:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_fruit_bat>
I don't know how many there were, but my guess(tm) is in the
thousands. The bats were not using their sonar for locating moths.
Instead, they were looking for fruit and using their sonar to prevent >>>>> mid-air collisions. I watched carefully and didn't see any collisions >>>>> or bats falling from the sky. In order to do that, the muscles that >>>>> move the bats wings need to quickly respond to brain signals and the >>>>> muscles need to move quite fast. 10 nsec response time isn't going to >>>>> work when the signals move at 0.5 m/s to over 120 m/s. A nerve
impulse moves at perhaps 1 meter/sec (or 10 nanometers in 10
nanoseconds). A 10 nsec nerve impulse will have moved a microscopic >>>>> distance.
For the record, I said "nanosecond resolution" not 10 nanoseconds.
But it is still nonsense.
And yes, nerve impulses are assumed move about a meter per second, yet >>>> people play table tennis.
One possible explanation is that nerve impulses don't move meters per
second.
Possible, but not plausible. People have been measuring nerve impulse
speed for quite a while now.
They measure what's easy to measure, an electrical impulse. Maybe
that's not the information being sent.
The electrical impulse isn't all that easy to measure, but at least it
is visible, if you measure carefully enough.
You can hypothesise all sorts of magic connections, but until you spell
out what one of them might be and how you'd measure it, you are just
going in for hand-waving mysticism.
It all looks very as if you got caught being even stupider than usual,
and are now trying to back off.
On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 22:29:45 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 19:32:15 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 17:28:51 -0400, joegwinn@comcast.net wrote:
On Tue, 09 Jun 2026 16:15:44 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>>>wrote:
On Tue, 09 Jun 2026 12:16:26 -0400, joegwinn@comcast.net wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jun 2026 10:47:07 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> >>>>>>wrote:
On Mon, 8 Jun 2026 15:44:19 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>>>wrote:
On 8/06/2026 4:49 am, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote:
On Wed, 3 Jun 2026 23:10:06 +1000, Chris Jones
<lugnut808@spam.yahoo.com> wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22ZmmZ67SMY
NE5532
. . . . just in case somebody is actually searching for info >>>>>>>>>>> on an actual part number.
If you're wired into the ON/TI/NXP PCN channels, you'll pick >>>>>>>>>>> this up in time to remove the TI part number from your list >>>>>>>>>>> of alternates.
Audio mfrs are pretty paranoid about sources. Chances are TI >>>>>>>>>>> never showed up, in the first place.
If I hadnAt stopped talking audio design seriously in about 1980, I >>>>>>>>>> certainly would have when crappy compressed MP3s took over the world.
Golden ears, my left buttock.
The ears are close to the brain for a reason. Golden ears don't seem to
be close to particularly good brains.
I read a study that says that bats can correlate time between their >>>>>>>ears with nanosecond resolution. Pretty good for wet stuff.
Bats are pretty good, but that seems a bit too good. Can you find >>>>>>that study?
"The transfer function of a target limits the jitter detection >>>>>threshold with signals of echolocating FM-bats" >>>>><https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16395614/>
"Some investigators have obtained results indicating that bats are >>>>>able to discriminate alternations in delay down to 10 ns, which >>>>>appears incredible for purely physical reasons."
"Bat sonar: an alternative interpretation of the 10-ns jitter result" >>>>><https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9528108/>
"In 1990 Simmons et al. reported evidence of a time resolution >>>>>hitherto unknown in any animal, namely a 10-ns jitter detection >>>>>threshold in echolocating bats."
Google Scholar produces additional papers on bat echolocation acuity: >>>>><https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=bat%20echolocation%2010%20nsec>
So that's a source of the 10ns stuff. The theory is that there was an >>>>instrumentation error, which is certainly plausible as no biological >>>>system is that fast, so biological researchers are far out of their >>>>domain for sure.
It's only my best guess(tm). I didn't have much success at finding
the oldest bat related citation that included a 10 nsec response time. >>>>Joe
PS: The 100,000 rpm spinner in biology is "ATP Synthase", the enzyme >>>>system that converts between ADP and ATP in the mitochondria (in >>>>animals) and chloroplasts (in plants).
.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP_synthase>
JMG
Sigh. I initially mentioned that there might have been some confusion >>>between response time and jitter. Now, you add DNA replication to the >>>confusion. Time for a sanity check.
What got my attention was the radical difference between the alleged
10 nsec nervous response time in bats, and the much slower nerve >>>conduction times in humans. (I couldn't find specific numbers for
bats).
"Nerve conduction velocity" >>><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerve_conduction_velocity>
"The speed of nerve impulse transmission ranges from about 0.5 m/s to >>>over 120 m/s".
I once watched a "cloud" of fruit bats emerging from the trees at
dusk:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_fruit_bat>
I don't know how many there were, but my guess(tm) is in the
thousands. The bats were not using their sonar for locating moths. >>>Instead, they were looking for fruit and using their sonar to prevent >>>mid-air collisions. I watched carefully and didn't see any collisions
or bats falling from the sky. In order to do that, the muscles that
move the bats wings need to quickly respond to brain signals and the >>>muscles need to move quite fast. 10 nsec response time isn't going to >>>work when the signals move at 0.5 m/s to over 120 m/s. A nerve
impulse moves at perhaps 1 meter/sec (or 10 nanometers in 10 >>>nanoseconds). A 10 nsec nerve impulse will have moved a microscopic >>>distance.
For the record, I said "nanosecond resolution" not 10 nanoseconds.
True. Please note that the URL's I provided were not in response to
your posting. I was responding to a question by joegwinn@comcast.net: >Message-ID: <bueg2l5gtditthqkhv407dcr924p5c07qd@4ax.com>
"Bats are pretty good, but that seems a bit too good. Can you find
that study?"
And yes, nerve impulses are assumed move about a meter per second, yet >>people play table tennis.
One possible explanation is that nerve impulses don't move meters per >>second.
Methinks the mechanism might be similar to measuring the speed of
electrons in wires. Energy transmission in a wire moves at near light
speed. Electron drift velocity in wires (the movement of individual >electrons) is about 1 mm/sec, which is much slower. I suspected that
nerve impulse transmission in bats might be similar. However, my
analogy breaks down because nerve impulse velocity can be 1 to 100 >meters/sec, which is still much slower than near light speed (3*10^8 >meters/sec).
"Nerve conduction velocity" ><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerve_conduction_velocity>
"The speed of nerve impulse transmission ranges from about 0.5 m/s to
over 120 m/s"
"Bats are surprisingly fast decision makers" ><https://www.sdu.dk/en/om-sdu/fakulteterne/naturvidenskab/nyheder-2015/2015_03_18_bat_decision>
"Sometimes we also see reaction times of only 20 milliseconds in bats,
for instance in response to loud sounds, but that is a simple reflex
reaction that does not require brain work".
20 msec response time isn't light speed it's a long way from 10 nsec.
If the flying bat is on auto-pilot, then it's making 50 course
corrections every second. Offhand, methinks that might be sufficient
to avoid mid-air collisions with other bats. Even if 10 nsec
resolution were possible, it would be overkill for a bat.
On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 17:28:51 -0400, joegwinn@comcast.net wrote:
On Tue, 09 Jun 2026 16:15:44 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>wrote:
On Tue, 09 Jun 2026 12:16:26 -0400, joegwinn@comcast.net wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jun 2026 10:47:07 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> >>>>wrote:
On Mon, 8 Jun 2026 15:44:19 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>wrote:
On 8/06/2026 4:49 am, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote:
On Wed, 3 Jun 2026 23:10:06 +1000, Chris Jones
<lugnut808@spam.yahoo.com> wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22ZmmZ67SMY
NE5532
. . . . just in case somebody is actually searching for info >>>>>>>>> on an actual part number.
If you're wired into the ON/TI/NXP PCN channels, you'll pick >>>>>>>>> this up in time to remove the TI part number from your list
of alternates.
Audio mfrs are pretty paranoid about sources. Chances are TI >>>>>>>>> never showed up, in the first place.
If I hadnAt stopped talking audio design seriously in about 1980, I >>>>>>>> certainly would have when crappy compressed MP3s took over the world. >>>>>>>>
Golden ears, my left buttock.
The ears are close to the brain for a reason. Golden ears don't seem to >>>>>>be close to particularly good brains.
I read a study that says that bats can correlate time between their >>>>>ears with nanosecond resolution. Pretty good for wet stuff.
Bats are pretty good, but that seems a bit too good. Can you find
that study?
"The transfer function of a target limits the jitter detection
threshold with signals of echolocating FM-bats" >>><https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16395614/>
"Some investigators have obtained results indicating that bats are
able to discriminate alternations in delay down to 10 ns, which
appears incredible for purely physical reasons."
"Bat sonar: an alternative interpretation of the 10-ns jitter result" >>><https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9528108/>
"In 1990 Simmons et al. reported evidence of a time resolution
hitherto unknown in any animal, namely a 10-ns jitter detection
threshold in echolocating bats."
Google Scholar produces additional papers on bat echolocation acuity: >>><https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=bat%20echolocation%2010%20nsec>
So that's a source of the 10ns stuff. The theory is that there was an >>instrumentation error, which is certainly plausible as no biological
system is that fast, so biological researchers are far out of their
domain for sure.
It's only my best guess(tm). I didn't have much success at finding
the oldest bat related citation that included a 10 nsec response time.
Joe
PS: The 100,000 rpm spinner in biology is "ATP Synthase", the enzyme >>system that converts between ADP and ATP in the mitochondria (in
animals) and chloroplasts (in plants).
.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP_synthase>
JMG
Sigh. I initially mentioned that there might have been some confusion >between response time and jitter. Now, you add DNA replication to the >confusion. Time for a sanity check.
What got my attention was the radical difference between the alleged
10 nsec nervous response time in bats, and the much slower nerve
conduction times in humans. (I couldn't find specific numbers for
bats).
"Nerve conduction velocity" ><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerve_conduction_velocity>
"The speed of nerve impulse transmission ranges from about 0.5 m/s to
over 120 m/s".
I once watched a "cloud" of fruit bats emerging from the trees at
dusk:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_fruit_bat>
I don't know how many there were, but my guess(tm) is in the
thousands. The bats were not using their sonar for locating moths.
Instead, they were looking for fruit and using their sonar to prevent
mid-air collisions. I watched carefully and didn't see any collisions
or bats falling from the sky. In order to do that, the muscles that
move the bats wings need to quickly respond to brain signals and the
muscles need to move quite fast. 10 nsec response time isn't going to
work when the signals move at 0.5 m/s to over 120 m/s. A nerve
impulse moves at perhaps 1 meter/sec (or 10 nanometers in 10
nanoseconds). A 10 nsec nerve impulse will have moved a microscopic >distance.
On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 18:02:22 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 17:28:51 -0400, joegwinn@comcast.net wrote:
On Tue, 09 Jun 2026 16:15:44 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>>wrote:
On Tue, 09 Jun 2026 12:16:26 -0400, joegwinn@comcast.net wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jun 2026 10:47:07 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> >>>>>wrote:
On Mon, 8 Jun 2026 15:44:19 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>>wrote:
On 8/06/2026 4:49 am, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote:
On Wed, 3 Jun 2026 23:10:06 +1000, Chris Jones
<lugnut808@spam.yahoo.com> wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22ZmmZ67SMY
NE5532
. . . . just in case somebody is actually searching for info >>>>>>>>>> on an actual part number.
If you're wired into the ON/TI/NXP PCN channels, you'll pick >>>>>>>>>> this up in time to remove the TI part number from your list >>>>>>>>>> of alternates.
Audio mfrs are pretty paranoid about sources. Chances are TI >>>>>>>>>> never showed up, in the first place.
If I hadnAt stopped talking audio design seriously in about 1980, I >>>>>>>>> certainly would have when crappy compressed MP3s took over the world. >>>>>>>>>
Golden ears, my left buttock.
The ears are close to the brain for a reason. Golden ears don't seem to >>>>>>>be close to particularly good brains.
I read a study that says that bats can correlate time between their >>>>>>ears with nanosecond resolution. Pretty good for wet stuff.
Bats are pretty good, but that seems a bit too good. Can you find >>>>>that study?
"The transfer function of a target limits the jitter detection >>>>threshold with signals of echolocating FM-bats" >>>><https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16395614/>
"Some investigators have obtained results indicating that bats are
able to discriminate alternations in delay down to 10 ns, which
appears incredible for purely physical reasons."
"Bat sonar: an alternative interpretation of the 10-ns jitter result" >>>><https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9528108/>
"In 1990 Simmons et al. reported evidence of a time resolution
hitherto unknown in any animal, namely a 10-ns jitter detection >>>>threshold in echolocating bats."
Google Scholar produces additional papers on bat echolocation acuity: >>>><https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=bat%20echolocation%2010%20nsec>
So that's a source of the 10ns stuff. The theory is that there was an >>>instrumentation error, which is certainly plausible as no biological >>>system is that fast, so biological researchers are far out of their >>>domain for sure.
Why do you say that no biological system can be that fast?
I did not say that, although it was widely believed in the past.
Anything less than a microsecond is astounding, inside the gooey head
of a bat flapping its wings mid-air hunting a moth.
Yes.
Joe
PS: The 100,000 rpm spinner in biology is "ATP Synthase", the enzyme >>>system that converts between ADP and ATP in the mitochondria (in
animals) and chloroplasts (in plants).
.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP_synthase>
JMG
DNA helicase, the little gadget that splits our DNA when a cell
divides, spins at about 10,000 RPM.
<Rotating biological motors were declared to be impossible, and
rotating flagellum were known to be optical illusions.> Once.
Google the <> above.
Yes. It's true that this was believed back in the day when no
microscope of the day could see these little motors.
There were ways to determine the arrangement of atoms in crystals
(X-ray diffraction), and it was possible to analyze such motors to the
degree that they could be made to form good crystals. The motor
assemblies are 10 to 15 nanometers across. Modern electron
microscopes can see them directly as little blobs, but one cannot
figure out the mechanism without using other kinds of data.
Joe
On Thu, 11 Jun 2026 14:28:44 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
Anything less than a microsecond is astounding, inside the gooey head
of a bat flapping its wings mid-air hunting a moth.
To put it in perspective, a microsecond at the velocity of sound in air
corresponds to 0.25mm (or 0.125mm for echolocation distance
measurement).
If nerve impulses travel 100 m/s and a bat's ears are 2 cm apart, the
neural delay between ears is 200 us. And that's modulated by movement, heartbeats, things like that.
Maybe nature doesn't care about our opinions of how it's allowed to
work.
John Larkin
Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center
Lunatic Fringe Electronics
On Thu, 11 Jun 2026 13:41:15 -0400, joegwinn@comcast.net wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 18:02:22 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> >>wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 17:28:51 -0400, joegwinn@comcast.net wrote:
On Tue, 09 Jun 2026 16:15:44 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>>>wrote:
On Tue, 09 Jun 2026 12:16:26 -0400, joegwinn@comcast.net wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jun 2026 10:47:07 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> >>>>>>wrote:
On Mon, 8 Jun 2026 15:44:19 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>>>wrote:
On 8/06/2026 4:49 am, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote:
On Wed, 3 Jun 2026 23:10:06 +1000, Chris Jones
<lugnut808@spam.yahoo.com> wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22ZmmZ67SMY
NE5532
. . . . just in case somebody is actually searching for info >>>>>>>>>>> on an actual part number.
If you're wired into the ON/TI/NXP PCN channels, you'll pick >>>>>>>>>>> this up in time to remove the TI part number from your list >>>>>>>>>>> of alternates.
Audio mfrs are pretty paranoid about sources. Chances are TI >>>>>>>>>>> never showed up, in the first place.
If I hadnAt stopped talking audio design seriously in about 1980, I >>>>>>>>>> certainly would have when crappy compressed MP3s took over the world.
Golden ears, my left buttock.
The ears are close to the brain for a reason. Golden ears don't seem to
be close to particularly good brains.
I read a study that says that bats can correlate time between their >>>>>>>ears with nanosecond resolution. Pretty good for wet stuff.
Bats are pretty good, but that seems a bit too good. Can you find >>>>>>that study?
"The transfer function of a target limits the jitter detection >>>>>threshold with signals of echolocating FM-bats" >>>>><https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16395614/>
"Some investigators have obtained results indicating that bats are >>>>>able to discriminate alternations in delay down to 10 ns, which >>>>>appears incredible for purely physical reasons."
"Bat sonar: an alternative interpretation of the 10-ns jitter result" >>>>><https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9528108/>
"In 1990 Simmons et al. reported evidence of a time resolution >>>>>hitherto unknown in any animal, namely a 10-ns jitter detection >>>>>threshold in echolocating bats."
Google Scholar produces additional papers on bat echolocation acuity: >>>>><https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=bat%20echolocation%2010%20nsec>
So that's a source of the 10ns stuff. The theory is that there was an >>>>instrumentation error, which is certainly plausible as no biological >>>>system is that fast, so biological researchers are far out of their >>>>domain for sure.
Why do you say that no biological system can be that fast?
I did not say that, although it was widely believed in the past.
Anything less than a microsecond is astounding, inside the gooey head
of a bat flapping its wings mid-air hunting a moth.
Yes.
Joe
PS: The 100,000 rpm spinner in biology is "ATP Synthase", the enzyme >>>>system that converts between ADP and ATP in the mitochondria (in >>>>animals) and chloroplasts (in plants).
.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP_synthase>
JMG
DNA helicase, the little gadget that splits our DNA when a cell
divides, spins at about 10,000 RPM.
<Rotating biological motors were declared to be impossible, and
rotating flagellum were known to be optical illusions.> Once.
Google the <> above.
Yes. It's true that this was believed back in the day when no
microscope of the day could see these little motors.
There were ways to determine the arrangement of atoms in crystals
(X-ray diffraction), and it was possible to analyze such motors to the >>degree that they could be made to form good crystals. The motor
assemblies are 10 to 15 nanometers across. Modern electron
microscopes can see them directly as little blobs, but one cannot
figure out the mechanism without using other kinds of data.
Joe
The breakthrough was that somebody glued a flagellum down and saw the >bacteria rotate.
On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 12:29:23 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 10/06/2026 2:44 am, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 09 Jun 2026 12:16:26 -0400, joegwinn@comcast.net wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jun 2026 10:47:07 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 8 Jun 2026 15:44:19 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>> wrote:
On 8/06/2026 4:49 am, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote:
On Wed, 3 Jun 2026 23:10:06 +1000, Chris Jones
<lugnut808@spam.yahoo.com> wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22ZmmZ67SMY
NE5532
. . . . just in case somebody is actually searching for info >>>>>>>>> on an actual part number.
If you're wired into the ON/TI/NXP PCN channels, you'll pick >>>>>>>>> this up in time to remove the TI part number from your list
of alternates.
Audio mfrs are pretty paranoid about sources. Chances are TI >>>>>>>>> never showed up, in the first place.
If I hadnrCOt stopped talking audio design seriously in about 1980, I >>>>>>>> certainly would have when crappy compressed MP3s took over the world. >>>>>>>>
Golden ears, my left buttock.
The ears are close to the brain for a reason. Golden ears don't seem to >>>>>> be close to particularly good brains.
I read a study that says that bats can correlate time between their
ears with nanosecond resolution. Pretty good for wet stuff.
Bats are pretty good, but that seems a bit too good. Can you find
that study?
Thanks,
Joe
Good grief, just google
bat echolocation nanosecond
You made the claim, you do the googling.
It's not hard to use an internet search engine. You could take a
class.
On Fri, 12 Jun 2026 02:00:02 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 12/06/2026 12:21 am, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jun 2026 14:28:44 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
Anything less than a microsecond is astounding, inside the gooey head >>>>> of a bat flapping its wings mid-air hunting a moth.
To put it in perspective, a microsecond at the velocity of sound in air >>>> corresponds to 0.25mm (or 0.125mm for echolocation distance
measurement).
If nerve impulses travel 100 m/s and a bat's ears are 2 cm apart, the
neural delay between ears is 200 us. And that's modulated by movement,
heartbeats, things like that.
Maybe nature doesn't care about our opinions of how it's allowed to
work.
Obviously it doesn't. That doesn't excuse you from picking up
particularly half-baked ideas about how well it might be performing and
posting them here.
Most ideas are half-baked at first. But hostility to ideas guarantees
that you will have none.
We need more goofy ideas; lots more. Then we need to sift out the few
good ones, not club them all to death on first sight.
On Fri, 12 Jun 2026 01:57:15 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 12/06/2026 12:12 am, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jun 2026 17:13:17 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 11/06/2026 3:29 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 19:32:15 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>>>> wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 17:28:51 -0400, joegwinn@comcast.net wrote:
On Tue, 09 Jun 2026 16:15:44 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On Tue, 09 Jun 2026 12:16:26 -0400, joegwinn@comcast.net wrote: >>>>>>>>
On Mon, 08 Jun 2026 10:47:07 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Mon, 8 Jun 2026 15:44:19 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 8/06/2026 4:49 am, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote:
On Wed, 3 Jun 2026 23:10:06 +1000, Chris Jones
<lugnut808@spam.yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
Sigh. I initially mentioned that there might have been some confusion >>>>>> between response time and jitter. Now, you add DNA replication to the >>>>>> confusion. Time for a sanity check.
What got my attention was the radical difference between the alleged >>>>>> 10 nsec nervous response time in bats, and the much slower nerve
conduction times in humans. (I couldn't find specific numbers for >>>>>> bats).
"Nerve conduction velocity"
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerve_conduction_velocity>
"The speed of nerve impulse transmission ranges from about 0.5 m/s to >>>>>> over 120 m/s".
I once watched a "cloud" of fruit bats emerging from the trees at
dusk:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_fruit_bat>
I don't know how many there were, but my guess(tm) is in the
thousands. The bats were not using their sonar for locating moths. >>>>>> Instead, they were looking for fruit and using their sonar to prevent >>>>>> mid-air collisions. I watched carefully and didn't see any collisions >>>>>> or bats falling from the sky. In order to do that, the muscles that >>>>>> move the bats wings need to quickly respond to brain signals and the >>>>>> muscles need to move quite fast. 10 nsec response time isn't going to >>>>>> work when the signals move at 0.5 m/s to over 120 m/s. A nerve
impulse moves at perhaps 1 meter/sec (or 10 nanometers in 10
nanoseconds). A 10 nsec nerve impulse will have moved a microscopic >>>>>> distance.
For the record, I said "nanosecond resolution" not 10 nanoseconds.
But it is still nonsense.
And yes, nerve impulses are assumed move about a meter per second, yet >>>>> people play table tennis.
One possible explanation is that nerve impulses don't move meters per >>>>> second.
Possible, but not plausible. People have been measuring nerve impulse
speed for quite a while now.
They measure what's easy to measure, an electrical impulse. Maybe
that's not the information being sent.
The electrical impulse isn't all that easy to measure, but at least it
is visible, if you measure carefully enough.
You can hypothesise all sorts of magic connections, but until you spell
out what one of them might be and how you'd measure it, you are just
going in for hand-waving mysticism.
It all looks very as if you got caught being even stupider than usual,
and are now trying to back off.
Not a bit. Maybe a complex chemical message travels very fast, and the electrical pulse is a system refresh that chases it.
That would be harder to detect, especially if one wasn't looking for
it.
Have you read "Finding The Mother Tree"? It would be fun to instrument
those fungi filaments in real time.
On Thu, 11 Jun 2026 09:16:05 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 22:29:45 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 19:32:15 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 17:28:51 -0400, joegwinn@comcast.net wrote:
On Tue, 09 Jun 2026 16:15:44 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>>>> wrote:
On Tue, 09 Jun 2026 12:16:26 -0400, joegwinn@comcast.net wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jun 2026 10:47:07 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On Mon, 8 Jun 2026 15:44:19 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 8/06/2026 4:49 am, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote:
On Wed, 3 Jun 2026 23:10:06 +1000, Chris Jones
<lugnut808@spam.yahoo.com> wrote:
20 msec response time isn't light speed it's a long way from 10 nsec.
If the flying bat is on auto-pilot, then it's making 50 course
corrections every second. Offhand, methinks that might be sufficient
to avoid mid-air collisions with other bats. Even if 10 nsec
resolution were possible, it would be overkill for a bat.
Some things happen locally, in the spinal cord or even closer to the
action, without having to send messages to the head and back. The
spinal cord is really just a part of the brain.
But some things, like hitting a baseball, must use an eye-brain-muscle
path fast.
I surprise myself at how fast I can catch something that I drop. This
morning I trapped an orange between the countertop and my belly, in a fraction of a second. Something decided that the belly would work
better than a hand.
I once caught a hot soldering iron in mid-air. Just once. Now
something tells my muscles to grab oranges but not soldering irons.
I surprise myself at how fast I can catch something that I drop. This
morning I trapped an orange between the countertop and my belly, in a fraction of a second. Something decided that the belly would work
better than a hand.
On 12/06/2026 3:38 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jun 2026 02:00:02 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 12/06/2026 12:21 am, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jun 2026 14:28:44 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
Anything less than a microsecond is astounding, inside the gooey head >>>>>> of a bat flapping its wings mid-air hunting a moth.
To put it in perspective, a microsecond at the velocity of sound in air >>>>> corresponds to 0.25mm (or 0.125mm for echolocation distance
measurement).
If nerve impulses travel 100 m/s and a bat's ears are 2 cm apart, the
neural delay between ears is 200 us. And that's modulated by movement, >>>> heartbeats, things like that.
Maybe nature doesn't care about our opinions of how it's allowed to
work.
Obviously it doesn't. That doesn't excuse you from picking up
particularly half-baked ideas about how well it might be performing and
posting them here.
Most ideas are half-baked at first. But hostility to ideas guarantees
that you will have none.
I've got three patents. You've got your name on one. I'm demonstrably
not hostile to new ideas, if they are any good. This isn't any kind of >brain-storming venue, and your attitude is more "gullible sucker" than >"receptive to novel ideas".
We need more goofy ideas; lots more. Then we need to sift out the few
good ones, not club them all to death on first sight.
You might. Talented people come up actual patentable ideas quite
frequently. My father and two of my friends have all managed about 25
each over their careers. People like that can afford to winnow out the >nonsense early - probably because they are whole lot better at it than
you seem to be.
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
I surprise myself at how fast I can catch something that I drop. This
morning I trapped an orange between the countertop and my belly, in a
fraction of a second. Something decided that the belly would work
better than a hand.
Whwn I started work in a radio factory I had to train myself NOT to
catch things thrown at me - they were sometimes fully-charged 500v >capacitors.
When I later worked in a laboratory, the chief technician shouted
"catch" as he threw a 1-litre round-bottomed flask at me; I stood still
and watched it shatter on the floor. He was most upset.
On Fri, 12 Jun 2026 16:34:22 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 12/06/2026 3:38 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jun 2026 02:00:02 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 12/06/2026 12:21 am, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jun 2026 14:28:44 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid >>>>> (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
Anything less than a microsecond is astounding, inside the gooey head >>>>>>> of a bat flapping its wings mid-air hunting a moth.
To put it in perspective, a microsecond at the velocity of sound in air >>>>>> corresponds to 0.25mm (or 0.125mm for echolocation distance
measurement).
If nerve impulses travel 100 m/s and a bat's ears are 2 cm apart, the >>>>> neural delay between ears is 200 us. And that's modulated by movement, >>>>> heartbeats, things like that.
Maybe nature doesn't care about our opinions of how it's allowed to
work.
Obviously it doesn't. That doesn't excuse you from picking up
particularly half-baked ideas about how well it might be performing and >>>> posting them here.
Most ideas are half-baked at first. But hostility to ideas guarantees
that you will have none.
I've got three patents. You've got your name on one. I'm demonstrably
not hostile to new ideas, if they are any good. This isn't any kind of
brain-storming venue, and your attitude is more "gullible sucker" than
"receptive to novel ideas".
We need more goofy ideas; lots more. Then we need to sift out the few
good ones, not club them all to death on first sight.
You might. Talented people come up actual patentable ideas quite
frequently. My father and two of my friends have all managed about 25
each over their careers. People like that can afford to winnow out the
nonsense early - probably because they are whole lot better at it than
you seem to be.
Patents are mostly silly ego trips or VC hype. About half are
abandoned. Only a couple per cent earn more than they cost.
I'd rather design stuff and sell it. I know of only two cases where
someone copied our designs, and both are out of business now.
On 13/06/2026 12:36 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jun 2026 16:34:22 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 12/06/2026 3:38 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jun 2026 02:00:02 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>> wrote:
On 12/06/2026 12:21 am, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jun 2026 14:28:44 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid >>>>>> (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
Anything less than a microsecond is astounding, inside the gooey >>>>>>>> head
of a bat flapping its wings mid-air hunting a moth.
To put it in perspective, a microsecond-a at the velocity of sound >>>>>>> in air
corresponds to 0.25mm (or 0.125mm for echolocation distance
measurement).
If nerve impulses travel 100 m/s and a bat's ears are 2 cm apart, the >>>>>> neural delay between ears is 200 us. And that's modulated by
movement,
heartbeats, things like that.
Maybe nature doesn't care about our opinions of how it's allowed to >>>>>> work.
Obviously it doesn't. That doesn't excuse you from picking up
particularly half-baked ideas about how well it might be performing >>>>> and
posting them here.
Most ideas are half-baked at first. But hostility to ideas guarantees
that you will have none.
I've got three patents. You've got your name on one. I'm demonstrably
not hostile to new ideas, if they are any good. This isn't any kind of
brain-storming venue, and your attitude is more "gullible sucker" than
"receptive to novel ideas".
We need more goofy ideas; lots more. Then we need to sift out the few
good ones, not club them all to death on first sight.
You might. Talented people come up actual patentable ideas quite
frequently. My father and two of my friends have all managed about 25
each over their careers. People like that can afford to winnow out the
nonsense early - probably because they are whole lot better at it than
you seem to be.
Patents are mostly silly ego trips or VC hype. About half are
abandoned. Only a couple per cent earn more than they cost.
Patents are expensive. That winnows out a lot of the silly ego trips and
the VC hype. I abandoned a provisional patent (which is very cheap) when
I realised that it was based on a misconception. On the other hand
Tektronix abandoned a patent on a better confocal microscope that made a friend of mine $A12 million.
They are rather like venture capital investments, where nineteen out of twenty fail, but the one in twenty success pays out more than the
nineteen failures cost.
The point about patents is that they aren't obvious to those skilled in
the art. They are an original solution to a problem - whether the
problem is worth solving is a different question.
I'd rather design stuff and sell it. I know of only two cases where
someone copied our designs, and both are out of business now.
You'd like to design stuff and sell it. You design skills aren't
impressive, but you do seem to be able sell what you can cobble together.
If your design skills were more impressive your stuff might be worth copying.
On Thu, 11 Jun 2026 11:03:52 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jun 2026 13:41:15 -0400, joegwinn@comcast.net wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 18:02:22 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> >>>wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 17:28:51 -0400, joegwinn@comcast.net wrote:
On Tue, 09 Jun 2026 16:15:44 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>>>>wrote:
On Tue, 09 Jun 2026 12:16:26 -0400, joegwinn@comcast.net wrote:So that's a source of the 10ns stuff. The theory is that there was an >>>>>instrumentation error, which is certainly plausible as no biological >>>>>system is that fast, so biological researchers are far out of their >>>>>domain for sure.
On Mon, 08 Jun 2026 10:47:07 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> >>>>>>>wrote:
On Mon, 8 Jun 2026 15:44:19 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>>>>wrote:
On 8/06/2026 4:49 am, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote:
On Wed, 3 Jun 2026 23:10:06 +1000, Chris Jones
<lugnut808@spam.yahoo.com> wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22ZmmZ67SMY
NE5532
. . . . just in case somebody is actually searching for info >>>>>>>>>>>> on an actual part number.
If you're wired into the ON/TI/NXP PCN channels, you'll pick >>>>>>>>>>>> this up in time to remove the TI part number from your list >>>>>>>>>>>> of alternates.
Audio mfrs are pretty paranoid about sources. Chances are TI >>>>>>>>>>>> never showed up, in the first place.
If I hadnAt stopped talking audio design seriously in about 1980, I >>>>>>>>>>> certainly would have when crappy compressed MP3s took over the world.
Golden ears, my left buttock.
The ears are close to the brain for a reason. Golden ears don't seem to
be close to particularly good brains.
I read a study that says that bats can correlate time between their >>>>>>>>ears with nanosecond resolution. Pretty good for wet stuff.
Bats are pretty good, but that seems a bit too good. Can you find >>>>>>>that study?
"The transfer function of a target limits the jitter detection >>>>>>threshold with signals of echolocating FM-bats" >>>>>><https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16395614/>
"Some investigators have obtained results indicating that bats are >>>>>>able to discriminate alternations in delay down to 10 ns, which >>>>>>appears incredible for purely physical reasons."
"Bat sonar: an alternative interpretation of the 10-ns jitter result" >>>>>><https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9528108/>
"In 1990 Simmons et al. reported evidence of a time resolution >>>>>>hitherto unknown in any animal, namely a 10-ns jitter detection >>>>>>threshold in echolocating bats."
Google Scholar produces additional papers on bat echolocation acuity: >>>>>><https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=bat%20echolocation%2010%20nsec> >>>>>
Why do you say that no biological system can be that fast?
I did not say that, although it was widely believed in the past.
Anything less than a microsecond is astounding, inside the gooey head >>>>of a bat flapping its wings mid-air hunting a moth.
Yes.
Joe
PS: The 100,000 rpm spinner in biology is "ATP Synthase", the enzyme >>>>>system that converts between ADP and ATP in the mitochondria (in >>>>>animals) and chloroplasts (in plants).
.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP_synthase>
JMG
DNA helicase, the little gadget that splits our DNA when a cell >>>>divides, spins at about 10,000 RPM.
<Rotating biological motors were declared to be impossible, and >>>>rotating flagellum were known to be optical illusions.> Once.
Google the <> above.
Yes. It's true that this was believed back in the day when no
microscope of the day could see these little motors.
There were ways to determine the arrangement of atoms in crystals
(X-ray diffraction), and it was possible to analyze such motors to the >>>degree that they could be made to form good crystals. The motor >>>assemblies are 10 to 15 nanometers across. Modern electron
microscopes can see them directly as little blobs, but one cannot
figure out the mechanism without using other kinds of data.
Joe
The breakthrough was that somebody glued a flagellum down and saw the >>bacteria rotate.
Yes, that was irrefutable. Even if they could not see what was going
on.
I do recall the initial announcement of the effect of tethering the
flagellum to a surface - the bacteria rotated at a few Hz. Ended that >debate.
On 13/06/2026 12:36 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jun 2026 16:34:22 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 12/06/2026 3:38 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jun 2026 02:00:02 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>> wrote:
On 12/06/2026 12:21 am, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jun 2026 14:28:44 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid >>>>>> (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
Anything less than a microsecond is astounding, inside the gooey head >>>>>>>> of a bat flapping its wings mid-air hunting a moth.
To put it in perspective, a microsecond at the velocity of sound in air
corresponds to 0.25mm (or 0.125mm for echolocation distance
measurement).
If nerve impulses travel 100 m/s and a bat's ears are 2 cm apart, the >>>>>> neural delay between ears is 200 us. And that's modulated by movement, >>>>>> heartbeats, things like that.
Maybe nature doesn't care about our opinions of how it's allowed to >>>>>> work.
Obviously it doesn't. That doesn't excuse you from picking up
particularly half-baked ideas about how well it might be performing and >>>>> posting them here.
Most ideas are half-baked at first. But hostility to ideas guarantees
that you will have none.
I've got three patents. You've got your name on one. I'm demonstrably
not hostile to new ideas, if they are any good. This isn't any kind of
brain-storming venue, and your attitude is more "gullible sucker" than
"receptive to novel ideas".
We need more goofy ideas; lots more. Then we need to sift out the few
good ones, not club them all to death on first sight.
You might. Talented people come up actual patentable ideas quite
frequently. My father and two of my friends have all managed about 25
each over their careers. People like that can afford to winnow out the
nonsense early - probably because they are whole lot better at it than
you seem to be.
Patents are mostly silly ego trips or VC hype. About half are
abandoned. Only a couple per cent earn more than they cost.
Patents are expensive. That winnows out a lot of the silly ego trips and
the VC hype. I abandoned a provisional patent (which is very cheap) when
I realised that it was based on a misconception. On the other hand
Tektronix abandoned a patent on a better confocal microscope that made a >friend of mine $A12 million.
They are rather like venture capital investments, where nineteen out of >twenty fail, but the one in twenty success pays out more than the
nineteen failures cost.
The point about patents is that they aren't obvious to those skilled in
the art. They are an original solution to a problem - whether the
problem is worth solving is a different question.
I'd rather design stuff and sell it. I know of only two cases where
someone copied our designs, and both are out of business now.
You'd like to design stuff and sell it. You design skills aren't
impressive, but you do seem to be able sell what you can cobble together.
If your design skills were more impressive your stuff might be worth >copying.
On 12/06/2026 2:16 am, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 22:29:45 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 19:32:15 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 17:28:51 -0400, joegwinn@comcast.net wrote:
On Tue, 09 Jun 2026 16:15:44 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>>>> wrote:
On Tue, 09 Jun 2026 12:16:26 -0400, joegwinn@comcast.net wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jun 2026 10:47:07 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--
canyon.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 8 Jun 2026 15:44:19 +1000, Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 8/06/2026 4:49 am, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote:
On Wed, 3 Jun 2026 23:10:06 +1000, Chris Jones
<lugnut808@spam.yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
And yes, nerve impulses are assumed move about a meter per second, yet
people play table tennis.
One possible explanation is that nerve impulses don't move meters per
second.
Methinks the mechanism might be similar to measuring the speed of
electrons in wires.-a Energy transmission in a wire moves at near light
speed.-a Electron drift velocity in wires (the movement of individual
electrons) is about 1 mm/sec, which is much slower.-a I suspected that
nerve impulse transmission in bats might be similar.-a However, my
analogy breaks down because nerve impulse velocity can be 1 to 100
meters/sec, which is still much slower than near light speed (3*10^8
meters/sec).
"Nerve conduction velocity"
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerve_conduction_velocity>
"The speed of nerve impulse transmission ranges from about 0.5 m/s to
over 120 m/s"
"Bats are surprisingly fast decision makers"
<https://www.sdu.dk/en/om-sdu/fakulteterne/naturvidenskab/
nyheder-2015/2015_03_18_bat_decision>
"Sometimes we also see reaction times of only 20 milliseconds in bats,
for instance in response to loud sounds, but that is a simple reflex
reaction that does not require brain work".
20 msec response time isn't light speed it's a long way from 10 nsec.
If the flying bat is on auto-pilot, then it's making 50 course
corrections every second.-a Offhand, methinks that might be sufficient
to avoid mid-air collisions with other bats.-a Even if 10 nsec
resolution were possible, it would be overkill for a bat.
Caroline Palmer's Ph.D. thesis is on the timing in skilled piano
playing. I've got a copy.
https://www.mcgill.ca/psychology/caroline-palmer
Essentially the piano key has to get the hammer to hit the string within
-a10msec of the desired time to let the performer get the desired
response from the listener. She's got a very well-instrumented piano
that let her document that.
We probably do as well as bats in our own areas of interest.
On Sat, 13 Jun 2026 02:31:22 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 13/06/2026 12:36 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jun 2026 16:34:22 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 12/06/2026 3:38 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jun 2026 02:00:02 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>> wrote:
On 12/06/2026 12:21 am, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jun 2026 14:28:44 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid >>>>>>> (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
If your design skills were more impressive your stuff might be worth
copying.
Sounds like our designs are perfectly calibrated: good enough to sell
but not good enough to copy.
I used to attend some physics conferences and hang out in the bar with competitors. We'd share what we were working on. In a small market, it doesn't make sense to have two vendors do the same stuff.
On 13/06/2026 5:37 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jun 2026 02:31:22 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 13/06/2026 12:36 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jun 2026 16:34:22 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>> wrote:
On 12/06/2026 3:38 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jun 2026 02:00:02 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>> wrote:
On 12/06/2026 12:21 am, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jun 2026 14:28:44 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid >>>>>>>> (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
<snip>
If your design skills were more impressive your stuff might be worth
copying.
Sounds like our designs are perfectly calibrated: good enough to sell
but not good enough to copy.
I used to attend some physics conferences and hang out in the bar with
competitors. We'd share what we were working on. In a small market, it
doesn't make sense to have two vendors do the same stuff.
The aim, as a vendor, is to have stuff that blows the competition out of
the water.
On Sat, 13 Jun 2026 16:32:38 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 13/06/2026 5:37 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jun 2026 02:31:22 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 13/06/2026 12:36 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jun 2026 16:34:22 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>> wrote:
On 12/06/2026 3:38 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jun 2026 02:00:02 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 12/06/2026 12:21 am, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jun 2026 14:28:44 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid >>>>>>>>> (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
<snip>
If your design skills were more impressive your stuff might be worth
copying.
Sounds like our designs are perfectly calibrated: good enough to sell
but not good enough to copy.
I used to attend some physics conferences and hang out in the bar with
competitors. We'd share what we were working on. In a small market, it
doesn't make sense to have two vendors do the same stuff.
The aim, as a vendor, is to have stuff that blows the competition out of
the water.
Not me. The aim is to sell.
On 15/06/2026 8:41 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jun 2026 16:32:38 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 13/06/2026 5:37 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jun 2026 02:31:22 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>> wrote:
On 13/06/2026 12:36 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jun 2026 16:34:22 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>> wrote:
On 12/06/2026 3:38 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jun 2026 02:00:02 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 12/06/2026 12:21 am, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jun 2026 14:28:44 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid >>>>>>>>>> (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
<snip>
If your design skills were more impressive your stuff might be worth >>>>> copying.
Sounds like our designs are perfectly calibrated: good enough to sell
but not good enough to copy.
I used to attend some physics conferences and hang out in the bar with >>>> competitors. We'd share what we were working on. In a small market, it >>>> doesn't make sense to have two vendors do the same stuff.
The aim, as a vendor, is to have stuff that blows the competition out of >>> the water.
Not me. The aim is to sell.
Having a significantly better product than your competitors does make it >easier to sell. You may never have been in a position to notice this. In
a really small market, this may not be worth the trouble.
On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 15:38:20 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 15/06/2026 8:41 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jun 2026 16:32:38 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 13/06/2026 5:37 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jun 2026 02:31:22 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>> wrote:
On 13/06/2026 12:36 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jun 2026 16:34:22 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 12/06/2026 3:38 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jun 2026 02:00:02 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 12/06/2026 12:21 am, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jun 2026 14:28:44 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
<snip>
If your design skills were more impressive your stuff might be worth >>>>>> copying.
Sounds like our designs are perfectly calibrated: good enough to sell >>>>> but not good enough to copy.
I used to attend some physics conferences and hang out in the bar with >>>>> competitors. We'd share what we were working on. In a small market, it >>>>> doesn't make sense to have two vendors do the same stuff.
The aim, as a vendor, is to have stuff that blows the competition out of >>>> the water.
Not me. The aim is to sell.
Having a significantly better product than your competitors does make it
easier to sell. You may never have been in a position to notice this. In
a really small market, this may not be worth the trouble.
Sure, blowaway products help sell.
But many customers buy stuff because it's reliable, and well
documented, and well supported, and long-term available.
That is especially important in the aerospace and semiconductor industries.
And another powerful reason people will buy from other people is
because they like one another. You may never have been in a position
to notice this.
On Thu, 4 Jun 2026 15:22:02 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs ><pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
Golden ears, my left buttock.
Your buttocks have ears?
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 70 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 37:37:52 |
| Calls: | 948 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 1,325 |
| Messages: | 280,462 |
