Today I was reminded, while reading James Randi’s blog, that there is a potential patent clash in the near future between the absurd ADE651® from Cumberland Industries and the equally absurd KTT (or MOS) from Danie Krügel (where is your “®” Mr. Krügel?).
A summary of what each of these devices claims to do should immediately make it clear that these pseudo-scientific dowsing rods are claiming that they do exactly the same thing.
|Goal||To locate concealed substances or people.||To locate missing people, concealed substances and the “source” of specific items.|
|Potential customer||Law enforcement agencies and Governments.||Law enforcement agencies, commodity producers and mineral mining companies.|
|Programming||A plastic card (which is produced by Cumberland and contains the “signature” of the substance to locate) must be inserted into the machine.||An actual sample of the substance to find the “source” of must be loaded into the machine in an unspecified manner. The “signature material” of the loaded substance is used to find anything with the same “signature”.|
|Maximum Range||Between 10m and 5km.||Unknown – The KTT has been used in a publicised detection over approximately 400km but, for some reason, must be in the same country.|
|Technology||A vague reference to “electrostatic (ionic) attraction”.||A vague reference to “compassionate quantum physics” – a non-existent field of physics.|
|Use||“It was not designed as a pin point locator, but is designed to define the area to be searched.”||Has been demonstrated in several cases to identify “lines of search priority” and not specific locations, search teams (or psychics 😉 ) would have to refine the data provided.|
If, for the sake of the argument, we assume these dowsing rods are not fake and actually do everything that they claim then there should be a patent race on between Danie Krügel and Cumberland Industries. These devices have been described as working in similar ways to attain the same results, someone should be really upset here about infringement on their territory – the question is who? Which one of these two parties is willing to demonstrate that their device does as claimed in double-blind, scientific testing and thereby trump the other party?
My prediction is that neither can claim ownership of this idea because the idea is patently absurd.