Talk:Isochronous
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I wonder, why my modification ([...] "isochronous" and "anisochronous" are relationships or characteristics.) has been deleted, unfortunately without explication.
Reading the article, one should be aware that "isochronous" describes two different things. Point 2 states that it's used to describe a phase relationship - inherent to the expression, a relationship, isn't it? Alternative: think about it.
I leave it up to somebody else to change this... DvG 19:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I have added the definition of isochronous, as refers to an equal time, plus the name of the 'contour' line, plus the link to the source. IF anyone can think of a better word to use than 'contour', then change it.
Christiaan Huygens showed in the 1650s that a pendulum's oscilliation is not isochronous. This is a common example though even if it isn't scientifically correct. Some kind of note should be made about this.
______________________________________
Are you kidding me?
Most of the English reading population would have absolutely no idea as to what this article is about.
For example: "For example a pendulum's oscillation is approximately isochronous, regardless of amplitude (assuming the amplitudes in question are sufficiently small)"
...
You actually expect the common people to understand that?
How about a bit more simplicity for those of us who didn't major in isochronology in college. -__-||
Screen317 02:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
