Quote:
Originally Posted by collo  Ah, there lies the confusion. |
Maybe it is. It could be I grabbed the wrong end of the stick.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Jones or you can use a diffuser and for your "second" diffuser you flip the diffuser so it is oriented the opposite way of the first, or you could use diffusion and an absorber. Jason |
Quote:
Originally Posted by terry j Found this last night, on ethans forum!! Thanks ethan 
Jason has already answered it, but this earlier reply from ethan's forum fleshes it out a bit We need two different diffusers for this to work. It can be the diffuser and the same diffuser "upside down"...or it could be a 7 well diffuser and a 5 well diffuser. Pick one of these (or one configuration "right side up" or "upside down"). This will be diffuser 1. The other diffuser or configuration will be diffuser 2. Set them up like this:
1112212 or 2122111
You have now modulated your sequence. Stand up with pride and make that
"Star Trek V thingy" with your right hand. 
Jason |
As I said, I could have completely misunderstood it, but to me that says 1234567 goes to 7654321.
I remember it did confuse me just a little, as I had kinda seen your explanation drawings in THE BOOK
Quote:
Originally Posted by terry j In the cox book when they give the example of the -1 of the barker code, well I guess a good enough word would be 'the inverse'..and stangely enough it starts behind the normal ones, ie goes deeper. Heck, may as well make all of them deeper and diffuse lower! if you follow. |
Which shows the need for the extended fins.
But the trouble is, I can't interpret Jasons comments and get your answer. Not saying you or he are wrong, only that I just can't see any other way of understanding what he said, which I take to mean rotating the existing qrd as described before.
Your drawings (from memory) are exactly as in The Book, with the reverse qrd 'behind' the others and fins extended to the same level.
It would be good to clear this up. For whichever reason I have that interpretation from Jasons comments (my money is on I am an idiot, coupled with what will no doubt turn out to be a humourous misunderstanding) none-the-less it is from an 'authority', so is kinda sticking.
I presume you made those drawings to illustrate (ie did not use qrdude) as in qrdude I simply do not see those super fins in the proper inverse panel. Does that mean then that when we build an inverse per qrdude, it is not 'proper' in every way, it too has some compromises?
Dunno whether it's worth trying to explain what elementary point I am missing, I am happy to just follow 'rules', once we know what the rules are that is!
And so on that front, I am still stuck with my interpretation of Jasons posts.