 There's this blog by a Google that is suggesting that you can record, essentially, PPG, you know why they called it APG, right, audio. And yes, on the chat here it looks a lot like PPG, but I highly doubt you can actually do it. So, if anyone can explain to me how this would work, obviously if Google said it's working, it obviously doesn't. Well, I mean, at least you can ignore it. And here they explain how it actually works, but there is no blood pressure in the e-drum, is there? Okay, so this is vibrating with sound, so they're bombarding the e-drum with some sort of noise and looking at what's bouncing, bouncing back. How do you get any thin blood circulation measurement out of it? Yes, you had more than 80 years of PPG development. There are four or five PPG locations that work, others just don't seem to work quite well, and we tried recording PPG pretty much anywhere. So this real PPG, I mean, if it looks like that, that noise, that's probably, so you could possibly get something out of it. Now, I think that the minus thing with this normally, you don't get this dichrogic notch in it, which is a problem because if you don't have it, you're essentially recording on the blood pressure. It's not systolic, dastolic, or any other ECG parameters, so that could be a problem. So I have to see how they actually do it. Apparently there's a paper, some Google scholar, let's just have the whole... Yeah, it's hard to get the whole paper sometime. Right, so this paper, why do I have a feeling? I know it's pretty new. So this suggests that you can get a better PPG, a PPG would be a better signal from earbuds as opposed to a pulse, a medical grade, a pulse oximetry device, a finger clip. I doubt that, yeah, we could get some data from both simultaneously and compare the two. Apparently they say you don't need any hardware, you just use the noise cancelling feature of the e-bar. Have they actually tested it? Are those measurements just a model, or is it from a human recording, I suspect? I mean, they look noisy at best anyway, so you don't look anything like what they suggest over here that indicates a better signal than what you get from a standard PPG recording device. But yeah, that would be interesting. What's the method section? We're suggesting that we're recording it from patients. Can we pop all that into a chip? It's pretty dense. APG mixing, different analysis. Well, anyway, this supposedly an actual APG measurement, someone is measuring it on himself, but you can obviously notice that there's no diachronic notch. It doesn't look like a quality PPG, or APG auditory PPG, essentially, whatever they call it. I've seen something similar before. There's supposed to be a diachronic notch in that example. So they're doing some processing on it to measure the final APG signal reflects both 100 and blah, blah, blah. It looks a bit reversed as well, but that's okay, because it's the timing between peaks and the diachronic notch that is important. So they are doing some heavy processing on it, or it's cherry-picking good waveforms. And I don't even understand how it works to begin with, but yeah, worth looking again at. We'll look at that paper sometime later.