[mmaimcal] Re: subarrays

[Larry D'Addario]

Bryan Butler writes:
 > i thought michael just provided us with a list of benefits?  i think
 > we could most likely expand it as well.

No, he just provided a list of possible uses.  It was not at all
quantitative, yet you demand a quantitative cost.  What fraction of
the time would >2 arrays be useful?  Which of the observations could
be done in another way with no loss of efficiency?  Are *any* of the
observations impossible without more subarrays?

>From your previous email: "sure, we can get by with only 2 subarrays,"
I take it that you are answering my earlier question in the negative:
you cannot think of any science that is impossible with only 2
subarrays.  When you say, "this is going to mean that it will take us
significantly longer to do some ... things," you should realize that
that might be perfectly OK.  If it takes twice as long to do something
that is only done 0.1% of the time, then the efficiency is reduced by
only 0.1%.  And some things on Michael's list are needed 0% of the
time.

--Larry