design [Design Issues]

posted by kumarnaidu – Mumbai, India, 2013-12-31 09:24 (4562 d 22:36 ago) – Posting: # 12117
Views: 22,413

Hello everyone,

❝ But, I would stick to the below mentioned sequence if I were you


❝ RT1RT2

❝ T1RT2R

❝ T2RT1R

❝ RT2RT1


I am little bit confused with the above sequence. I think there might be some imbalance can occur for the above sequence sequence

RT1RT2 for T1 - RT1R
T1RT2R for T1 - T1RR
T2RT1R for T1 - RT1R
RT2RT1 for T1 - RRT1
Here we will get RT1R twice ??. According to me we should go with the three sequence.
Can we keep the below sequence.

T1T2RR for T1- T1RR and for T2-T2RR
RT1T2R for T1- RT1R and for T2-RT2R
RRT1T2 for T1- RRT1 and for T2-RRT2

Let's take the opinion from other members.

Kumar Naidu

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,655 posts in 4,993 threads, 1,570 registered users;
278 visitors (0 registered, 278 guests [including 16 identified bots]).
Forum time: 09:01 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Most scientists today are devoid of ideas, full of fear, intent on
producing some paltry result so that they can add to the flood
of inane papers that now constitutes “scientific progress”
in many areas.    Paul Feyerabend

The Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum is hosted by
BEBAC Ing. Helmut Schütz
HTML5