On 30 Oct, 10:04, Cicero wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:50:07 +0000, Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-10-30 09:17:14 +0000, Cicero said:

==================================
The Press page on the 'Tadpole' site states that it was patented by the
inventor, Stan Whetsone of Barlby North Yorkshire. It seems unlikely
that a patent would be granted for what appears to be little more than a
basic air separator unless the makers of those already in use failed to
patent their idea. Genuine independent and controlled tests rather than
anecdotal 'case studies' would be more convincing.

Cic.

Like those tests that the electromagnetic water conditioner suppliers
publish? They *look* scientific and controlled.

It also rather depends on *what* was patented.

==================================
I said, "*Genuine* *independent* and *controlled* tests.......". Given
those three provisos it should be possible to arrive at a genuine result
to establish the truth about the inventor's claims one way or another.

Cic.

You also don't need to prove that what you are patenting actually
works commercially. It just has to have the right characteristics of
novelty, invention and practical manufacture. If a patent has been
granted, its then up to the market place to see whether the patent has
any commercial viability, hence the usual stories in the quiet news
periods when "daft" patents are reported for a bit of a laugh.

Matt