Talk:Penta Water

Untitled

Can someone tell me if I'm doing the right thing with the trademark on the first occurence of Penta in the article.Christianjb 02:40, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The ™ doesn't do any harm, but as far as I can tell is unnecessary in this context. Although corporations get very anal-retentive about its inclusion, prestigious independent style guides say different:

Medical Library Association: "Although owners of trademarked names may suggest otherwise, publishers are not obligated to denote the trademark status of a name when that name is mentioned in text".

ACS Style Guide from Oxford University Press USA: "In ACS publications, do not use trademark (™ ) and registered trademark (®) symbols".

IEEE: "We do not include the trademark symbol in articles published in IEEE Computer Society periodicals and proceedings. Trademark law does not apply to the press because using a product name in the headline or text of an article does not constitute an attempt to capitalize on the reputation of the company or the product".

Chicago Manual of Style, quoted here: ".The symbols ® and ™, which often accompany registered trademark names on product packaging and in advertisements, need not be used in running text".

(Besides, you only need to look at a few newspaper websites - eg Ben Goldacre's articles or this USA Today piece - to see they don't use it. Raygirvan Apr 21 2005

Cool! Thanks. I suggest leaving the trademark sign in the first mention anyway so that people know that Penta Water is a brand-name.Christianjb 04:47, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also- if anyone has a pdf/ps copy of the Raman paper on Penta, can they send it to me. I've written to the lead author but have (surprisingly!) received no reply. Christianjb 03:01, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Update. I finally got Penta UK to give me a copy of the paper. I'll be writing a subsection about the paper in the next few days. Let me know if anyone needs a copy.

Update. This page is now available for download from the Aquaphotonics website. (See main article.)

Suggestion

After reading the paper by Gvozdev et al., it seems at least possible that the faster rate of dissolution of COM crystals may be due to impurities in the penta water (as the same paper pointed out that addition of iron or aluminum chlorides quintupled the dissolution rate). A look through Scifinder Scholar reveals no information pertaining to the purity of this product. Have there been any independent assays relating to the purity? If the purity cannot be verified, then it would seem reasonable to point out in this article the various conclusions that can be drawn from that paper.

-Will

James Randi Discusses this page!

See [1]. BTW, yes I know this isn't just 'Christian Burnham's' article- it's a collaborative effort and I'd like to thank all the people who have corrected my poor spelling and have improved the article! Christianjb 20:11, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Patented

Our article claims that the process for Penta-ing water is patented.

Thing is, Penta has been available since at least 2001. While I've not been able to locate the specific patent (patent searches are not my specialty), if it was patented then, that patent no longer applies, as patents run out after 20 years.

This does not mean that there isn't some currently applicable patent; they could have changed the process and acquired an additional patent along the way. However, we should be careful of accepting claims that the process is patented at this point (although the "patented" claim still stands on the Penta website.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 02:49, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Wait, I've found the patent. US patent 6,521,248, applied for in 2000, granted in 2003. There is a second patent, 7,198,254, applied for in 2003, granted in 2007. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 03:00, 8 September 2024 (UTC)