Posted by Wayne Parham [ 151.193.213.23 ] on February 23, 2006 at 15:23:12:

In Reply to: Re: We've discussed this before posted by Earl Geddes on February 23, 2006 at 15:00:41:

The study indicates that random placement was good. It also indicates that four corner placement is equally good. Like you said, if there are a lot of subs involved, their placement matters less. But I am still concerned though about the "roll of the dice" issue. The decorrelation idea by random placement sounds good, but I can't help but wonder how many random placements happen to line up nodes in an undesirable way.

Replies:

• Re: We've discussed this before - Earl Geddes 15:36:14 02/23/06 (3)
  • Re: We've discussed this before - Wayne Parham 16:02:33 02/23/06 (2)
    • You don't seem to listen - Earl Geddes 16:15:20 02/23/06 (1)
      • Re: You don't seem to listen - Wayne Parham 17:30:58 02/23/06 (0)