Talk:Auricle (anatomy)

message: Erm.. why does the second image (photo) look to me like a left ear and not a right ear as it is described.. Brianweaver1 (talk) 03:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Left hand does not know what right hand is doing

message: This article should list some of the divisions of the outer ear (helix, antihelix, crest of the helix and lobule). Maybe a better image would be helpful too. The outer (and inner) ear divisions can be seen here: http://www.hearingcenteronline.com/anatomy.shtml.   — Chris Capoccia  T⁄C 23:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The Pope—how many divisions has he got

message: This article should feature a link to and one-sentence description of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinnate . One of the anatomical features of a compound leaf is the pinna (plura: pinnae), and only by a Google search was I able to find the Wikipedia article I was looking for. What would be the most clear way of expressing this? "For information on the pinnae of a compound leaf, go here"? Peppygrowlithe 20:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: First they ignore you, ...then they fight you, then you win

message: "more sophisticatedly reckoned"??? What a pomous and awkward phrase. 139.68.134.1 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: An army of pomous [sic.] phrases... in search of an idea

message: "The diagram shows the shape and location of these components:" No, the diagram does NOT show many of the listed components.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.68.134.1 (talk) 19:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: In pretty good shape for the shape you are in

message: "Pinna (Latin for feather)".   Yes, it means 'feather', but it also means 'wing', and considering its shape surely this would be a more appropriate translation.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.105.41 (talk) 09:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Lost in Translation

message: It talks about the human pinna and gives some pictures thereof, and gives pictures showing the pinnae of two other mammals and explaining their adaptations.  Moreover, it seems to most of us that only mammals have pinnae.  Is this the case?  For instance, in birds, is the pinna obscured by feathers, or do they not have a pinna at all? The article really should address this topic.  Can we find somebody with the necessary knowledge to add this information? — Smjg (talk) 21:22, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your comment, . I'm one of the editors at WikiProject Anatomy (come join us if you like!) so this page is on my watchlist. Unfortunately this article isn't well-tended, but I, and I'm sure future readers would be very grateful if you did some research using other sources available online or in print and uploaded this information. It may require some confidence, but I'd encourage you to try and would be happy to help out along the way. Kind regards, --LT910001 (talk) 22:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about non-mammals? 

message: ...after 7 years wait, make pinnae redirect to the pinna disambiguation page, and not here. See the same request in the "First they ignore you…" section above. It is silly to have the singular and plural forms of an anatomical term, with both zoologic and botanic uses, not redirect to the same page. Hence, readers have to be misdirected initially to a narrow meaning by a plural search (where the broad meaning is arrived at only by the search of the singular term). I imagine this occurred because of the Latin form, but still, we are an encyclopedia.  71.239.87.100 (talk) 21:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone with WP markup experience, please 

message: So on the various visible ear abnormalities, why is there no notes on multiple pinnae?  Cats have the mutations that cause random ears extras so one would think there is some research someplace about it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vamphorse (talk • contribs) 05:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple ears anyone? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Auricle (anatomy). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131109031214/http://www.adhb.govt.nz:80/newborn/teachingresources/dermatology/EarAnomalies.htm to http://www.adhb.govt.nz/newborn/teachingresources/dermatology/EarAnomalies.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I am not an expert on anatomy or audiology. But I do have a pretty good understanding of wave behavior including sound waves. The outer ear is a gatherer of sound power. It it  cannot amplify sound power. It and the inner ear can act as an impedance transformer. That is analogous to a lever to convert sound in air to an impedance level more appropriate to  drive sound into a liquid medium as found in the cochlea. It is also the equivalent of an electrical transformer that can change voltage and current so as to drive devices from our wall sockets that require different voltages from what the wall socket delivers.
For sound, the acoustic impedance is Z = ρ c where ρ is the density of the medium and c is the speed of sound in the medium. Both of these properties are much larger for a water-like medium than for air. If you tried to couple sound from air into a cochlea, most of it would be reflected because of the impedance mismatch. The middle ear takes the low pressure fluctuations in the sound and increases it by a large factor. This is not really amplification. The speed of the vibrating motion in the liquid ideally gets divided by the same factor the pressure gets multiplied. In fact however, there are losses so that there is a LOSS of power not an amplification of  power. But more power gets into the cochlea than with no impedance matching.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by PEBill (talk • contribs) 06:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is amplification being confused with impedance transformation?