[terry j]

Originally Posted by Xenon

Terry, you wrote: For sure, if you have the room to spread out about 200 fins, 200 faces, 32 frame members, stain 5 times with spray, while flipping each part, then drying without too much dust, and storing it all (and we do have rain here in the tropics!) ... You see the problem? As a unit, we are compact, easily maneuverable, and portable. That is we avoid the nightmare of hundreds of separate parts. And then, what if they get scratched in handling, what if you need to trim something?

I do understand that, but you rip (what I presume are the equivalent of 8*4) sheets down don't you?

Ie, you don't go out and buy the 40 odd mm strips of ply in bundles.

So, I am not talking about staining 200 fins and 200 faces etc individually, I would stain the 1200 by 600 sheet as a complete piece, even varnish it too, THEN rip it into individual strips.

No nightmare of hundreds of separate parts. Just one big sheet, which you are destined to handle in any case.

It is highly possible that the cut 'face' would need some sort of stain, it is then a simple matter to use the side of a brush dipped in the stain and gently wipe along the edges (usually only one is required).

I mean it's too late now, but when you are trying to get stain inside wells, on faces, not have runs, then do it all again with lacquer....however many times.

An alternative (which for all I know you are going to do) is spray. I have not tried it, but I can just imagine the spray droplets acting like the soundwaves...diffusing and bouncing back out of it in a cloud of mist!!!

Anyway, the die has been cast, onward and forward!

(off topic, but on the topic of amazing rooms). Though I think Collo's point is that with a near symmetrical period, merely flipping it upside-down isn't going to create the 'opposite' (-1 to the +1) in Barker, right?

hah, if anyone can take this thread off topic, surely it's you!!??

I must say, I fully and totally see collos point. I am not arguing against him at all. But it *seems* that the method outlined by jason is, somewhere, somehow, accepted and used as a valid implementation of the barker code.

Then again, I personally am very wary of internet lore, and in this case there does seem to be valid objections???

So, where does the truth lie.

Boy, I must be quite skeptical at heart, re the RPG 'claims'...well there is of course always the advancement of knowledge, no-one is denying that.

But equally, there is also defending one's turf, and there are many ways to do that job. (I feel for them, in the sense that here we are trying to back engineer all *their* work...)

It makes sense to 'advance' the technology from your competitors..

hmm, being cynical can also tie you in knots!!

Let's just sort what WE can eh? And that is forget about secret schroeder advancement voodoo, and just get the twenty year old technology correct first.