My information comes from Gene Larew himself & Dr. Glen Carver Ph.D.

I guess they could have been wrong

Catt, your going to have to help me understand the snooty attitude and sarcasm  in an otherwise good thread.  While I don't doubt your association with Mr. Larew, the documented facts don't seem to support your story and Jim Zeiner is as knowledgeable about these things as most.  I guess we will have to disagree on this one.

 

 

Gene Larew, a retired engineer, set out to make a plastisol fishing lure that would have a salty taste for a prolonged period in water, as compared with the salty baits then known.   It is explained in the Larew patent that a striking fish will retain a salty-tasting lure for a longer time, thereby improving the fisherman's chance to set the hook.Mr. Larew's attempts to develop and manufacture a plastic salty lure encountered great skepticism within the fishing lure trade.   Although he had made samples by hand he was rebuffed by manufacturers of plastic lures, who expressed strong doubts about the feasibility of manufacturing such a device, as well as doubts about its properties if it could be made.   Two such manufacturers testified on Larew's behalf in response to Arkie Lures' motion for summary judgment.   They explained that salt is an undesirable additive for a plastic lure because it tends to roughen the smooth texture of the surface of the lure;  that the presence of salt reduces the tensile strength of the plastic, rendering the lure susceptible to tearing and interfering with its flexibility;  and that it is unsafe to mix chemicals such as salt with plastic, because such mixing can cause violent explosions.Upon extreme persistence by Mr. Larew the product was eventually produced.   The first commercial salt-impregnated plastic lure was called the “Gene Larew Salty Frog.” It was an immediate commercial success.   Arkie Lures copied the Larew lure and, declining Mr. Larew's offer of a license, brought this declaratory judgment action.   The district court granted Arkie Lures' motion for summary judgment of invalidity, concluding that Larew's invention was “not sufficiently different” from the prior art as to render it nonobvious. - See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-federal-circuit/1188371.html#sthash.Wn4O4DSi.dpuf

mister twister hawg frog.....

Y'all think that suit was about that frog & if Gene could put salt in plastisol?

That was not the only suit between the two companies.

That document also says the frog was "an immediate commercial success" ROFLMAO!

Beleive want ya want