Re: [time-nuts] woodpecker sounds

On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 05:41:25 -0700 jimlux wrote: > although the analysis not by time-nuts, since their statistical analysis > of drumming rates is not of the kind with which *we* are familiar. This > is no surprise: over the past 3 years, I've been looking at literature

Re: [time-nuts] woodpecker sounds

On 4/22/16 9:18 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: In message <7521eb48-ebcd-c037-4dcc-8581ed857...@earthlink.net>, jimlux writes: For many years, physiologists eschewed the use of mathematical models. Uhm, that is not really a fair claim. It stems back to the late 19th century, when

Re: [time-nuts] woodpecker sounds

In message <7521eb48-ebcd-c037-4dcc-8581ed857...@earthlink.net>, jimlux writes: >For many years, physiologists eschewed the use of mathematical models. Uhm, that is not really a fair claim. The research field of "permanent biomonitoring" is barely five years old in terms of usable

[time-nuts] woodpecker sounds

Cornell has recordings of thousands of bird sounds.. https://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Pileated_Woodpecker/sounds and then, the frequency of woodpecker "drumming" has been the subject of some study https://sora.unm.edu/sites/default/files/journals/condor/v100n02/p0350-p0356.pdf reports,