Richard Clark wrote:
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 04:31:54 GMT, "Tom Donaly"
wrote:

I suspect Chuck's phrase is little more than an attempt to
seem technically erudite without, alas, conveying any information to the
reader. In short, bafflegab if done intentionally, self deceit otherwise.


Hi Tom,

Well considering "virtual bi-directional coaxial phasing/delay line."
in isolation, I find it rather un-remarkable (if this is in fact an
accurate quote). Afterall, each and every aspect is perfectly
achievable by any NEC modeler on the market (even ones with less than
standard GUIs).

Virtual? That is the first approximation of modeling from the outset.

Bi-directional? There is nothing to impede direction in any
interpretation.

Coaxial? This is merely a tedious exercise in construction.

Phasing/delay line? This follows of necessity and application of ANY
design of wire described within ANY modeler.

Is there something special about the combination of the isolated terms
that invalidates their being realized in ANY modeler? That is, is
there something special about a "virtual bi-directional" anything that
is not achieved separately as "virtual" or "bi-directional?"
Further, is there some unique entity of "bi-directional coaxial" that
fails resolution in a model? Or is "coaxial phasing/delay" unknown in
the art of modeling? I see nothing original and foreign about
"phasing/delay line" within the practice of modeling.

Does this arcane art only appear at the third order of terms? That
is, is there something unachieved by modelers in regard to "virtual
bi-directional coaxial?" This goes again to the simple tedium of
description of the various wires to construct one - tedium is not
unique unfortunately as anyone who has watched the Republicans
unsuccessfully try to pass their own agenda within their own
majorities can attest.

Perhaps it arrives at the fourth order of chaining terms. However, at
this point it becomes regressive evidence of that same tedium, which
can be simply resolved without a dictionary if only one were practiced
in the art of modeling. Let's see, there are 5! ways to de-convolve
this conundrum and none appear to be outside of the scope of rendering
in a model. As such, it appears to be through the poverty of the
carpenter rather than of the tool.

Barring testimonials, I may be wrong and my ignorance be disclosed by
evidence. Or some may call me stupid but not Ishmael ;-)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Hi Richard,
that's a good analysis. Some inventors like to make up
high-sounding names for their brain children, motivated by the
same reason John of Trevisa said people learned "Freynsch" in
the fourteenth century: "for to be more y-told of."
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH