I found a sentence in this scientific article (last-but-one pharagraph) I have trouble with understanding it:

In addition we think the accumulation that there is energy in the centre of light beam of Bessell where energy is lower in intensity.

It just seems broken english to me. AFAIK, "accumulation" means gradual gathering, so I'd expect the structure be like "the accumulation that (...) results in (...)" But the second half seems to be missing. (and to me the tense of the whole pharagraph seems to be off...)

Could you explain me what they wanted to say there?

edit: never mind, that article is 100% rubbish as is.


However, the ability of Bessell’s light beam is cutting quality and side wall shape and receiving quite good result. In fact, it contributes to dispersing and accumulating energy to the laser orbit of large area that the pulse width of second flies. In addition, we think the accumulation that there is energy in the centre of light beam of Bessell where energy is lower in intensity. Prove very successful to make the stealthy cut of the sapphire with Bessell’s light beam too.

  • 3
    It seems like broken English because that's what it is. It sounds like that of a non-native speaker unsure of the basic rules of English grammar and syntax who should have had the article proofed and edited before submission. (Possibly the author ran the original through Google translate—it's that bad.) In my view, this would cast doubt on the publisher's competence.
    – Robusto
    May 23, 2017 at 13:49
  • @Robusto aggreed, that "article" is an accumulation of shit (excuse me). I just ran through it fast and didn't realize this before I asked this question, reasonably... :p
    – Neinstein
    May 23, 2017 at 14:03
  • @Neinstein I can't speak for the scientific validity of the article, which might be fine, but it just seems like it was printed without being properly edited. It's just an incorrect English sentence, the kind of mistake everyone makes. Otherwise it seems you understand the meaning well enough.
    – Andrew
    May 23, 2017 at 14:06
  • Jep, it's an unreferenced Google-translated theft of this (?) article: link
    – Neinstein
    May 23, 2017 at 14:15
  • Which was stolen from this.
    – Neinstein
    May 23, 2017 at 14:22

1 Answer 1


It would appear that the article you've cited is a bad translation from somewhere.

In fact, if you check the rest of Dave Ross' blog, you will see that they all have this same characteristic. I'm not sure if there is a bot behind this, but it does not appear to have been written by a person with any proficiency in English.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .