OT: all animals need 37 seconds to pee

[Winfield Hill]

Years ago I read a study, which showed that all
animals, whether large or small, need 37 seconds
to pee (fully empty their bladder). When I take
our dog out for his nightly emptying, and he only
takes about 5 seconds, I know we have a problem.
If I wait until 10:30, we get more, but tonight
at 9pm, that's all we got. Sometimes I can meet
the 37-second rule, but if not, what's that mean?


--
Thanks,
- Win

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, October 19, 2019 at 12:15:14 PM UTC+11, Winfield Hill wrote:

Years ago I read a study, which showed that all
animals, whether large or small, need 37 seconds
to pee (fully empty their bladder). When I take
our dog out for his nightly emptying, and he only
takes about 5 seconds, I know we have a problem.
If I wait until 10:30, we get more, but tonight
at 9pm, that's all we got. Sometimes I can meet
the 37-second rule, but if not, what's that mean?

The dog isn't emptying it's bladder. It is using its urine to mark it's territory. He's going to mark more than one place - if you let him - so he doesn't use up the whole of his stock of urine in the first place he marks.

The message is probably more complicated than "I am male and pee here"

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On 18 Oct 2019 18:15:00 -0700, Winfield Hill <winfieldhill@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Years ago I read a study, which showed that all
animals, whether large or small, need 37 seconds
to pee (fully empty their bladder). When I take
our dog out for his nightly emptying, and he only
takes about 5 seconds, I know we have a problem.
If I wait until 10:30, we get more, but tonight
at 9pm, that's all we got. Sometimes I can meet
the 37-second rule, but if not, what's that mean?

Two significant digits for timing of a bodily function, any bodily
function, across all examples of all species at all times? Really?
You believe that? Sorry, it doesn't pass the laugh test.

 

[Winfield Hill]

krw@notreal.com wrote...

On 18 Oct 2019, Winfield Hill wrote:

Years ago I read a study, which showed that all
animals, whether large or small, need 37 seconds
to pee (fully empty their bladder). When I take
our dog out for his nightly emptying, and he only
takes about 5 seconds, I know we have a problem.
If I wait until 10:30, we get more, but tonight
at 9pm, that's all we got. Sometimes I can meet
the 37-second rule, but if not, what's that mean?

Two significant digits for timing of a bodily function,
any bodily function, across all examples of all species
at all times? Really? You believe that? Sorry, it
doesn't pass the laugh test.

Large animals have large orifices? Actually, a Google
search shows my memory may be wrong, it's 21 seconds.

https://www.livescience.com/46625-most-mammals-take-21-seconds-to-pee.html

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/seriouslyscience/2013/10/17/regardless-bladder-size-mammals-urinate-approximately-21-seconds/#.XapnQH97loE

What, 21 seconds? Now I know I'm in trouble.


--
Thanks,
- Win

 

[Winfield Hill]

Bill Sloman wrote...

On Saturday, October 19, 2019 at 12:15:14 PM UTC+11, Winfield Hill wrote:
Years ago I read a study, which showed that all
animals, whether large or small, need 37 seconds
to pee (fully empty their bladder). When I take
our dog out for his nightly emptying, and he only
takes about 5 seconds, I know we have a problem.
If I wait until 10:30, we get more, but tonight
at 9pm, that's all we got. Sometimes I can meet
the 37-second rule, but if not, what's that mean?

The dog isn't emptying it's bladder. It is using
its> urine to mark it's territory.

Yes, I know that, but he's not going to get to go
out for another 10 to 12 hours. We don't want to
hear anything about it, during the night.


--
Thanks,
- Win

 

[Lasse Langwadt Christense]

lørdag den 19. oktober 2019 kl. 04.28.45 UTC+2 skrev k...@notreal.com:

On 18 Oct 2019 19:07:55 -0700, Winfield Hill <winfieldhill@yahoo.com
wrote:

krw@notreal.com wrote...

Still not buying two significant digits as an
across-species number for anything biological.
"Approximately 21 seconds" doesn't sound very
scientific, either.

It's customary to add one digit past the standard
deviation. Saying 21 is better, because it places
the observed value closer to that, than 20 would,
which could be 10 to 40, or even 5 to 80. This
implies that the observations were tighter than
you might imagine.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

back in 1850 something surveyors measured the height of Mount Everest to be
exactly 29000 feet, to avoid people thinking it was just an estimate they announced it was 29002 feet

 

[Winfield Hill]

krw@notreal.com wrote...

Still not buying two significant digits as an
across-species number for anything biological.
"Approximately 21 seconds" doesn't sound very
scientific, either.

It's customary to add one digit past the standard
deviation. Saying 21 is better, because it places
the observed value closer to that, than 20 would,
which could be 10 to 40, or even 5 to 80. This
implies that the observations were tighter than
you might imagine.


--
Thanks,
- Win

 

On 18 Oct 2019 18:36:57 -0700, Winfield Hill <winfieldhill@yahoo.com>
wrote:

krw@notreal.com wrote...

On 18 Oct 2019, Winfield Hill wrote:

Years ago I read a study, which showed that all
animals, whether large or small, need 37 seconds
to pee (fully empty their bladder). When I take
our dog out for his nightly emptying, and he only
takes about 5 seconds, I know we have a problem.
If I wait until 10:30, we get more, but tonight
at 9pm, that's all we got. Sometimes I can meet
the 37-second rule, but if not, what's that mean?

Two significant digits for timing of a bodily function,
any bodily function, across all examples of all species
at all times? Really? You believe that? Sorry, it
doesn't pass the laugh test.

Large animals have large orifices? Actually, a Google
search shows my memory may be wrong, it's 21 seconds.

https://www.livescience.com/46625-most-mammals-take-21-seconds-to-pee.html

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/seriouslyscience/2013/10/17/regardless-bladder-size-mammals-urinate-approximately-21-seconds/#.XapnQH97loE

What, 21 seconds? Now I know I'm in trouble.

Still not buying two significant digits as an across-species number
for anything biological. "Approximately 21 seconds" doesn't sound
very scientific, either.

 

On 18 Oct 2019 19:07:55 -0700, Winfield Hill <winfieldhill@yahoo.com>
wrote:

krw@notreal.com wrote...

Still not buying two significant digits as an
across-species number for anything biological.
"Approximately 21 seconds" doesn't sound very
scientific, either.

It's customary to add one digit past the standard
deviation. Saying 21 is better, because it places
the observed value closer to that, than 20 would,
which could be 10 to 40, or even 5 to 80. This
implies that the observations were tighter than
you might imagine.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[Phil Allison]

Krackpot Wanker Williams k...@notreal.com wrote:

------------------------------------
Winfield Hill <winfieldhill@yahoo.com>

It's customary to add one digit past the standard
deviation. Saying 21 is better, because it places
the observed value closer to that, than 20 would,
which could be 10 to 40, or even 5 to 80. This
implies that the observations were tighter than
you might imagine.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

** So the trolling fool fails to understand "significant digits" and rounding.

The number 21 has two of 'em, while 20 has only one.

So, the uncertainty band inherent in "21 seconds" is between 20.5 and 21.5

The uncertainly band is saying "20 seconds" is between 15 and 25.

If my DMM displays 2.000 that is 4 digits with an error band of +/-1 digit.

But if displays 0.002 that is only 1 digit with the same error band.



...... Phil



...... Phil

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, October 19, 2019 at 1:11:19 PM UTC+11, Winfield Hill wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote...

On Saturday, October 19, 2019 at 12:15:14 PM UTC+11, Winfield Hill wrote:
Years ago I read a study, which showed that all
animals, whether large or small, need 37 seconds
to pee (fully empty their bladder). When I take
our dog out for his nightly emptying, and he only
takes about 5 seconds, I know we have a problem.
If I wait until 10:30, we get more, but tonight
at 9pm, that's all we got. Sometimes I can meet
the 37-second rule, but if not, what's that mean?

The dog isn't emptying it's bladder. It is using
its> urine to mark it's territory.

Yes, I know that, but he's not going to get to go
out for another 10 to 12 hours. We don't want to
hear anything about it, during the night.

The dog's priorities are probably different from those of elderly human males.

It presumably wants to retain enough urine in its bladder to allow it to mark territory if you took it out again at 3.00am.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Mikko OH2HVJ]

krw@notreal.com writes:

On 18 Oct 2019 19:07:55 -0700, Winfield Hill <winfieldhill@yahoo.com
wrote:

krw@notreal.com wrote...
It's customary to add one digit past the standard
deviation. Saying 21 is better, because it places
the observed value closer to that, than 20 would,
which could be 10 to 40, or even 5 to 80. This
implies that the observations were tighter than
you might imagine.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

Significant digits as a way to convey the measurement accuracy depends
on the 10-base system.

If the result would be 21s +/-3s, it's not 2 digits, but one digit would
not give credit to the tight distribution.

The correct way is to ditch significant digits and give accuracy
separately, but usually digits is good enough.

--
mikko

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 19/10/19 02:15, Winfield Hill wrote:

Years ago I read a study, which showed that all
animals, whether large or small, need 37 seconds
to pee (fully empty their bladder). When I take
our dog out for his nightly emptying, and he only
takes about 5 seconds, I know we have a problem.
If I wait until 10:30, we get more, but tonight
at 9pm, that's all we got. Sometimes I can meet
the 37-second rule, but if not, what's that mean?

Take him for a walk, and note the (exponential?)
curves of pee duration and time between successive
pees. Make predictions.

Daughter's dog has a cast iron bladder. If it is
raining and isn't out for a walk, won't voluntarily
go outside until the early/mid afternoon.

Given the size of the dog and the amount it does
pee on a regular walk, it simply must have Tardis-like
interior.

Some people equate size of dog with energy, which
is a mistake. Hers is a Dachsund / Jack Russell
cross, with legs about 6" long.

After 45 mins walking, it is becoming bored with
smells, and wants to be social with other dogs.
It takes 2/3 hours for is to become tired.

When chasing a tennis ball across a football pitch
it can hit 24mph, with a spine like a cheetah's.
It didn't even notice the GPS receiver attached to
its harness

 

[Phil Allison]

Tom Gardner wrote:

-------------------

Some people equate size of dog with energy, which
is a mistake. Hers is a Dachsund / Jack Russell
cross, with legs about 6" long.

(snip)

When chasing a tennis ball across a football pitch
it can hit 24mph, with a spine like a cheetah's.

** Though that might sound implausible, Google assures me it is not.

Jack Russell terriers are often raced and can reach 34mph.

Which is faster the even than Usain Bolt ( 28mph max)

If fact most healthy, young dogs are too - in short bursts.

And so are most cats.

Puts things in perspective - no ?



..... Phil

 

[legg]

On 18 Oct 2019 19:11:04 -0700, Winfield Hill <winfieldhill@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote...

On Saturday, October 19, 2019 at 12:15:14 PM UTC+11, Winfield Hill wrote:
Years ago I read a study, which showed that all
animals, whether large or small, need 37 seconds
to pee (fully empty their bladder). When I take
our dog out for his nightly emptying, and he only
takes about 5 seconds, I know we have a problem.
If I wait until 10:30, we get more, but tonight
at 9pm, that's all we got. Sometimes I can meet
the 37-second rule, but if not, what's that mean?

The dog isn't emptying it's bladder. It is using
its> urine to mark it's territory.

Yes, I know that, but he's not going to get to go
out for another 10 to 12 hours. We don't want to
hear anything about it, during the night.

You ( or is it youse when there's two of you? ) need to cover more
territory, regularly. When he pretends to mark something, without
issue, he's done.

RL

 

On Sat, 19 Oct 2019 10:23:43 +0300, Mikko OH2HVJ
<mikko.syrjalahti@nospam.fi> wrote:

krw@notreal.com writes:

On 18 Oct 2019 19:07:55 -0700, Winfield Hill <winfieldhill@yahoo.com
wrote:

krw@notreal.com wrote...
It's customary to add one digit past the standard
deviation. Saying 21 is better, because it places
the observed value closer to that, than 20 would,
which could be 10 to 40, or even 5 to 80. This
implies that the observations were tighter than
you might imagine.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

Significant digits as a way to convey the measurement accuracy depends
on the 10-base system.

If the result would be 21s +/-3s, it's not 2 digits, but one digit would
not give credit to the tight distribution.

But that's the whole point. There is no way a biological measurement,
any biological measurement, can be that tight across all species and
all examples of even a single species.

The correct way is to ditch significant digits and give accuracy
separately, but usually digits is good enough.

Now, read the thread again. Two significant digits is just silly for
this "measurement".

 

On Fri, 18 Oct 2019 20:13:59 -0700 (PDT), Phil Allison
<pallison49@gmail.com> wrote:

Krackpot Wanker Williams k...@notreal.com wrote:

------------------------------------
Winfield Hill <winfieldhill@yahoo.com


It's customary to add one digit past the standard
deviation. Saying 21 is better, because it places
the observed value closer to that, than 20 would,
which could be 10 to 40, or even 5 to 80. This
implies that the observations were tighter than
you might imagine.

That makes no sense whatsoever.



** So the trolling fool fails to understand "significant digits" and rounding.

The number 21 has two of 'em, while 20 has only one.

So, the uncertainty band inherent in "21 seconds" is between 20.5 and 21.5

The uncertainly band is saying "20 seconds" is between 15 and 25.

If my DMM displays 2.000 that is 4 digits with an error band of +/-1 digit.

But if displays 0.002 that is only 1 digit with the same error band.

Now try reading the thread, Phyllis.

 

[mpm]

On Friday, October 18, 2019 at 9:15:14 PM UTC-4, Winfield Hill wrote:

Years ago I read a study, which showed that all
animals, whether large or small, need 37 seconds
to pee (fully empty their bladder). ... Sometimes I can meet
the 37-second rule, but if not, what's that mean?

A) The bladder is half full.
B) The bladder is half empty.
C) The bladder is twice as large as it needs to be.

or
D) You just don't have anything better to think about.

 

[Rheilly Phoull]

On 19/10/2019 10:06 pm, mpm wrote:

On Friday, October 18, 2019 at 9:15:14 PM UTC-4, Winfield Hill wrote:
Years ago I read a study, which showed that all
animals, whether large or small, need 37 seconds
to pee (fully empty their bladder). ... Sometimes I can meet
the 37-second rule, but if not, what's that mean?

A) The bladder is half full.
B) The bladder is half empty.
C) The bladder is twice as large as it needs to be.

or
D) You just don't have anything better to think about.




The whole thing seems piss weak to to me.

 

[bitrex]

On 10/19/19 3:14 AM, Tom Gardner wrote:

On 19/10/19 02:15, Winfield Hill wrote:
  Years ago I read a study, which showed that all
  animals, whether large or small, need 37 seconds
  to pee (fully empty their bladder).  When I take
  our dog out for his nightly emptying, and he only
  takes about 5 seconds, I know we have a problem.
  If I wait until 10:30, we get more, but tonight
  at 9pm, that's all we got.  Sometimes I can meet
  the 37-second rule, but if not, what's that mean?

Take him for a walk, and note the (exponential?)
curves of pee duration and time between successive
pees. Make predictions.

Daughter's dog has a cast iron bladder. If it is
raining and isn't out for a walk, won't voluntarily
go outside until the early/mid afternoon.

Given the size of the dog and the amount it does
pee on a regular walk, it simply must have Tardis-like
interior.

Some people equate size of dog with energy, which
is a mistake. Hers is a Dachsund / Jack Russell
cross, with legs about 6" long.

After 45 mins walking, it is becoming bored with
smells, and wants to be social with other dogs.
It takes 2/3 hours for is to become tired.

When chasing a tennis ball across a football pitch
it can hit 24mph, with a spine like a cheetah's.
It didn't even notice the GPS receiver attached to
its harness

A friend of mine has a Saluki (hers in photo here):

<https://imgur.com/a/7tdY8hl>

which according to wiki:

"In 1996, The Guinness Book of Records listed a Saluki as being the
fastest dog, capable of reaching a speed of 68.8 km/h (42.8 mph)."

Despite being bred for raw speed they're an affable and reserved dog,
not that rambunctious and apparently somewhat easier to care for than
some more common breeds. Sometimes ribcage is easily seen thru the skin
like the dog is starving but I'm told that's normal in healthy Salukis.