Quote:
Originally Posted by Xenon  Hi Terry,
Well, yes I have the same question as yourself, if I go with all N11, can't you just flip some upside down, following the Barker code? |
Hey xenon, ask collo! (or lupo when he comes back)
I'm just here as the sidekick! The Baldrick to Blackadder I spose.
Quote:
|
Another question: what is gained (beyond a bit of closer mic-ing, and loss of LF), between 2x N11 and 1x N23?
|
I just make the assumption that you will have better dispersion with the higher primes. That leaves out ease of manufacture of course, but I have a 'theory' that says there are always compromises, swings and roundabouts in engineering. What you gain in one area you lose in another.
So at the cost of extra difficulty and complexity, you should gain better diffusion with a higher prime. Alternatively, at the cost of better diffusion you gain ease of building with a lower prime.
You takes your chances.
In my case (tho the available space for me is not as big as yours) I'd prob take ease and quickness of building, tho I could be tempted IF I had the space of yours!
Quote:
Originally Posted by collo The "five repeats" comes from page 238:  |
Ah, so you are suggesting I should have gone backwards as well as forwards from the page you linked to?
Hmm, that might stand me in good stead later in life. Must remember that one!!
Quote:
|
Unfortunately, the last 3 paragraphs referred to would be on page 237, which is not present in the Google book preview. This is like one of those "treasure hunt" movies...
|
Funny, page 237 appeared for me!
Quote:
|
Flipping a normal panel over 180 degrees and presenting the back face to use as an inverse, only works if the panel is made to the full design depth. This of course negates the 4/7 gain you get with an N7.
|
I think we are (again???!!) mixing terms? I mean by rotating 180 the wells go 1234567 to 7654321, rather than 'turn it over' or upside down.
Think pinwheel.
At least, that is how I understand it.