Note: The Engineering Tradition of Searching for Non-Obvious Communication Channels: From the Incandescent Lamp to the S-Switching Model

The note is not part of the ontological MBM model. It is a historical-methodological digression devoted to the engineering tradition of searching for non-obvious channels of information transmission. An example from the history of Soviet industrial television of the late 1940s is given: the development of devices allowing speech to be read from changes in the glow of an incandescent lamp filament and from oscillations of glass. It is shown that this engineering search is structurally close to contemporary ontological models (for example, the S-switching model), which also seek a path of signal transmission where standard physics does not see it. Methodological parallel: engineers of the 1940s sought a non-obvious physical carrier (lamp glow, glass oscillations); contemporary theoreticians seek a non-obvious topological carrier (a fold between configurations of S). In both cases, what is at issue is the search for a channel that is not visible in the standard picture of the world but can be used for information transmission. The analogy has its limits. Engineers of the 1940s worked with classical physical effects that could be measured and reproduced. The S-switching model works with topological structures that have not yet been confirmed by experiment. Moreover, the engineering devices of the 1940s did not violate causality. The S-switching model, as shown in [2], violates causality. This is a fundamental difference. Nevertheless, the methodological continuity is preserved: in both cases, what is at issue is the search for a non-obvious channel, not the creation of "magic." The note does not introduce new ontological concepts and does not claim scientific novelty. Its goal is to record the connection between the engineering tradition of the 20th century and contemporary theoretical searches. The search for non-obvious communication channels began long before the S-switching model. It continues today. It is important to remember this continuity: it reminds us that science is done by people, and that behind "speculative" models there are often real engineering traditions and family memory.