I'm not going to bother with a leangthy quote of the respose from B. Jeffries.
This may be just semantics on my part but it seems that that is just what this
is all about. To me, refering to a device which causes something to levitate as
"A" levitator seems natural and normal, and part of the language of physics.
Refering to a specific device which causes something to levitate as "THE
Levitator" sounds like something which can be (and apparently is) trademarked.
It is the application and protection of this trademark which needs to be handled
carefully. For example, Vernier Software has a program called "Graphical
Analysis". If I try and market a similar program, and in my literature I say
that this program can be used for "the graphical analysis of data gathered in
the lab", I do not believe that that is an infringment upon Vernier's
copywrite. However, if I try and name my program "REAL Graphical Analysis" or
"Graphical Analysis for everyone" I am stepping over the line. Forgive me if I
am upsetting anyone, but the use of the term levitator is not going to be given
up by the scientific community. However, THE Levitator is a name for a product
which has been taken and I would not officially refer to any other levitator as
"The Levitator" unless is was just that. But, I would still say to students,
friends, or other people who sometimes idulge my long winded explainations, that
"If you take a blah blah blah, and do yadda yadda yadda, you can creat a
levitator that will allow you to whatever."
My two cents worth.
--
Hans G. Ammitzboll physics@mindless.com
Drew University Physics Dept.
Madison NJ 07940
"Grow up, not old. Be childlike, not childish."
-Me