# Talk:Isochronous timing

(Redirected from Talk:Isochronous)

## My modification (WikiNazi issue #459485494)

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 oscillation 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?

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)

I have removed this unhelpful text ~Kvng (talk) 04:39, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

## Isochronous vs synchronous

To me, the explanation reads as if "isochronous" is just another word for "synchronous", that's used by people who want to stay on top by using rare alternative words that nobody understands. (Eg. douchbags.)

There's an explanation of the difference between those two missing in there somewhere...

-- 88.77.131.175 (talk) 16:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right, there is a subtle difference between the two words. Synchronous refers to separate events that occur at the same time, or at equal intervals. For example a synchronous circuit is one in which all the signals change value at the same time. Isochronous refers to a repeating event whose time interval or frequency doesn't change with changes in its inputs or environment. For example, an isochronous power system is one in which the line frequency doesn't change with changes in load on the system.
And I agree we're douchebags for not telling you this. --ChetvornoTALK 06:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

## Isochrony

The word "isochrony" is rarely used; its adjective form, "isochronous", is far more common (or less rare). I'm on the brink of moving this page ("Isochronous") to "Isochrony". (First I would have to move the existing "Isochrony". (Additional study: should that become "Isochrony (phonology)" or "Isochrony (linguistics)"?))

The move might help because "isochrony" is a noun, and articles are generally nouns. (Is that a trend or a rule?) While titled "Isochronous", this article flipped multiple times because people kept deciding that it was a disambiguation page, instead of an article about a concept (noun). I hesitate to make the move because, in my field, I don't speak or write "isochrony", "isochronous", "isochronic", or even "isochrone" (a different concept) daily or even yearly, and I probably hear or read these words just as rarely.

On the word itself: Usage is a problem because isochrony implies perfection. No clock or oscillator is ever isochronous or achieves isochrony – that is merely the intention or hope or specification. "Near-isochrony" is the realistic claim; better devices are "more isochronous" or "more nearly isochronous". "Waterproof", "shockproof", and "idiot-proof" are re-rendered practicable as "water-resistant", "shock-resistant", and "idiot-resistant". "Isochronous" is only re-rendered practicable as "nearly isochronous"; or maybe the adjective form becomes a relative quality, as in "How isochronous is that signal?". -A876 (talk) 00:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not finding Isochrony in some dictionaries. Isochronous is more commonly used. ~KvnG 14:44, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
I am in favor of leaving the title as Isochronous, because of its much wider usage and also because I suspect that the noun form is mostly limited to the linguistic use detailed in Isochrony. --ChetvornoTALK 17:41, 2 August 2014 (UTC)