Competition tapping into Tennant's eco-friendly claims

This story sounds surprisingly incomplete...just like every other environmentally friendly story...

http://www.examiner.com/economic-policy-in-mi...

How can Tennant claim this process works when they don't even have a patent for it?
I'm no Harvard M.B.A. but if it is really a breaktrhough technology wouldn't you file a patent?
It's 'green' and that's all that matters.

And if you want to read the test results as I did.
http://www.nilfisk-advance.com/Group/NewsList...

Tennant’s Response:

Tennant stands behind our claims that ec-H2O cleans better than detergents or ordinary tap water.

Our own scientists have reviewed the study and found the tests to have been conducted only on petroleum-based soil.

Tennant Company has never claimed that ec-H2O is effective on petroleum-based applications. We recommend FaST or traditional scrubbing for these applications.

In order to achieve the results they claim using detergent, they used very high concentrations of a high-performance degreaser. It is unrealistic to believe that this amount of degreaser would be cost-effective to use in a majority of real world applications.

The Nilfisk study basically confirmed what we already knew: that in a minority of heavy industrial applications, where petroleum-based soils are prevalent we would recommend FaST or traditional scrubbing for these types of soils.

Tennant's claim is totally Bunk, and their competition is calling them on it.

But 'green' consumers are, by this time, used to believing fairy tales and magic in the claims made to them. snake oil, magic elixers, electrolytic water, whatever.

Bill,

Read the second line of the article Tennant does have multiple patents.

Tennant Co.'s biggest competitor is taking aim at one of the Golden Valley-based company's most successful floor-cleaning technologies, a patented system that is an integral piece of Tennant's growth strategy

CA: Editorial: Green jobs cut despite government subsidy

Listening to outgoing Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and incoming Gov. Jerry Brown, Californians might think the California economy's salvation lies in so-called "green jobs," which now account for about 3 percent of the state's workforce.

What boosters of green jobs don't usually mention is most of these jobs require substantial taxpayer subsidies and other special government treatment even to exist in a competitive market. It appears now that even a half-billion dollars in government aid is no guarantee of success.

President Barack Obama, center, poses for a photo with construction workers building a new Solyndra, Inc., a solar panel manufacturing facility, in Fremont, Calif., Wednesday, May 26, 2010.(AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

Despite a $535 million loan guarantee from the federal government, Solyndra, a maker of solar panels in the southeast San Francisco Bay Area city of Fremont, will close one of its manufacturing plants, lay off 40 permanent and 150 contract workers, delay expansion plans of a new plant largely financed with the government-guaranteed loan and scale back production capacity more than 50 percent.

Despite the hype and tax money, Solyndra seems unable to compete with Chinese manufacturers, whose prices are lower. This is the latest bad news for the company touted by Mr. Schwarzenegger and President Barack Obama as one of the green industry's supposed shining lights. President Obama visited Solyndra in May, calling the operation "a testament to American ingenuity and dynamism."

But, truth be told, Solyndra is more of a testament to taxpayers' hard-earned money pledged to guarantee 73 percent of the cost of building its new facility. Closure of its older plant, located nearby, is a testament to the reality that, even if massively underwritten by taxpayers, renewable energy operations aren't certain to find a profitable niche in the open market.

(Excerpt)

http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/solyndra-27...

If a company touts "green" anything, i'm not suporting them. I'm tired of the enviromental Nazi's tellimg me how i need to live my life. If they all wanna live in a lean two, and eat pine cones...go for it. But don't tell me how to live my life.

I believe one of the selling points is not so much that it's "green" but that it is also a cost savings. No need for institutions such as schools to buy chemical floor cleaners.

I'm as skeptical as the next person about anything "green." But the concept of ionization is not new, and this product was in development longer before the Obungler and the "Green" movement became en vogue. I also know someone who works for them making these pieces of equipment and know that Minnesotans, not some Dutch competitor half way across the world, are making a living thanks to this product. I'd be more interested in tests of how clean a school's floors are (and devoid of chemical byproducts for the kids to breath in) than some convoluted study by a competitor looking to plug their product using a curious study. Using a product as it was never intended to be used is not exactly a "gotcha" moment. I'd be more cautious of the other company if anything for employing such tactics. How are the rest of their business ethics?

David wrote:

Bill,
Read the second line of the article Tennant does have multiple patents.
Tennant Co.'s biggest competitor is taking aim at one of the Golden Valley-based company's most successful floor-cleaning technologies, a patented system that is an integral piece of Tennant's growth strategy

David,
The article is wrong. Tennant does not have an issued patent for this technology.

I would think Nilfisk would be better served spending their time, money and energy trying to come up with their own new technologies rather than trying to "disprove" one that the market has demanded and is obviously buying.

No wonder Tennant is cleaning up. Pun intended.

The Dude wrote:

I would think Nilfisk would be better served spending their time, money and energy trying to come up with their own new technologies rather than trying to "disprove" one that the market has demanded and is obviously buying.
No wonder Tennant is cleaning up. Pun intended.

you would rather let your potential customers be bamboozled by a marketing claim that is proven to be false?

If Chevy started marketing that the Silverado now comes with flying capabilities, you would expect Ford to try to develop flight controls for the F150? Or would you expect Ford to say that Chevy's claim is full of shit?

How can you patent something that dates back to the 1800's? I don't care what the machine looks like, The process is still the same. These big Chemical companies do not want this stuff on the market! They stand to lose Billions if not Trillions of dollars! Don't take my word for it, just google Electrolyzer Corporation, they were brought out by EcoLab for 8 Million dollars, one of the largest chemical companies on the planet. They took all the patent rights and machines and placed them on a shelf never to be used or sold again. One down! I wonder how much money it's going to take to buyout Tennant? Two down!