# Scent-Lok Science



## ScentLok Design (Dec 14, 2005)

Well, everybody we finally did it. After much hard work we have launched a science site for you to look over and see we have nothing to hide. 

www.scentlokscience.com

This is a collection of tests, proceedures, testimonials and results that shows you can be confident in the woods using our products. This site will be continualy added to as we test more products and fabrics. 

I welcome your comments and will guid you to the answer you need. Most of you will want to focus on tab 12 as that test shows a piece of fabric that is fill to capacity; put into a dryer and resubjected to scent. It come through with flying colors.

Thanks
Nick


----------



## PatriotDually (Oct 14, 2005)

Thanks Nick, now i got alot of reading to do lol. And yes i am a skeptic, but i have an open mind. So on with the reading!


----------



## bowhunter_21_03 (Oct 20, 2002)

I just briefly looked over it. Very interesting what I did read. I've always thought it worked, but after a few regenerations I figured it lost its power. Maybe not...... I need some free time to read more.


----------



## cutter10x (Jan 13, 2004)

i would really like to see these kinds of tests done by an independent source......not by the company who makes the product


----------



## ScentLok Design (Dec 14, 2005)

This is as independent as you will probably get. In addition these tests were verified by a competitor (you can see who in the Dr. Thompson's testimonial) to their validity. I can assure you that if there was any hole in these tests, the laywers would've fought it tooth and nail. They (the laywers) look much deeper into these tests then most of us.


----------



## PatriotDually (Oct 14, 2005)

I am no lawyer, but that looked to be as fair of a test as one could do. And seeing that it was requested by the courts, i would have to say it is def for real. And it seems it works just as well as advertised. WTG ScentLok


----------



## Marvin (Feb 17, 2005)

ScentLok Design said:


> This is as independent as you will probably get. In addition these tests were verified by a competitor (you can see who in the Dr. Thompson's testimonial) to their validity. I can assure you that if there was any hole in these tests, the laywers would've fought it tooth and nail. They (the laywers) look much deeper into these tests then most of us.


Right....Lawyers....verified by a competitor...sure they would want to follow along...or their stuff would be deemed junk if the tests showed that. if i made that kind of money of of this "stuff" i would probably hush up(or go along)too.

hey I just spent a weekend with two does 10 yards from me (on the ground) and they did not wind me....in cotton and wool no less. I am a gypsie...


----------



## fasst (Oct 1, 2004)

Very interesting website, I will be sure to finish reading it as soon as possible.
Great job!


----------



## Marvin (Feb 17, 2005)

*Update your website scentlok*

website says 150 degrees for 30-40 minutes ( is that internal temp or vent temp?)

test run at 160 for 45 minutes. ( thats vent temp ) 

I guess I would have liked to see how is does at 150 for 30 as suggested.... 

Test also suggest that the owner should be able to regenerate the clothing for ever when compared to the pristine material regenerated....i am guessing that longevity/ stability was not tested either? Thats tab 12 for for you onlookers.

Also why is there articles in there stamped draft?


----------



## ScentLok Design (Dec 14, 2005)

Marvin said:


> Test also suggest that the owner should be able to regenerate the clothing for ever when compared to the pristine material regenerated....i am guessing that longevity/ stability was not tested either? Thats tab 12 for for you onlookers.


Well we have stated that we can do this for the life of the garment; with us that is defined as twenty washings. Lee and Tiffany (our Pro-Staff hunters) wash their stuff four to five times a season. I am pretty confident they hunt well above the average hunter in terms of time in the field. That would equate to four years that the suit would be able to be regenerated.

For the average hunter, they shouldn't have to wash their suits that much. The exception being people in the South where humidity and heat are extreme in the early season . Much of our pro-staff down there say they wash their suits about that amount.

In the end, we claim that the suits will be performing through the entire life of the garment.



Marvin said:


> Also why is there articles in there stamped draft?


These were scanned from the original exhibits from a lawsuit. However, I don't actually see the word "draft." I see DAT on one page and RA T on another. Am I looking in the right area? (Tab 4)?


----------



## ciscokid (Apr 26, 2006)

Thanks for the info, Do you have a point in posting this?
Please forgive me if i missed it but, Most of us i think are not scientist to decifer the stuff we need to make us decide if we will stick with the product or not.
Is this just for confirmation of the product's ability? Is there some uncertainty behind this reinforcement?

I briefly looked at the documents and i have 2 issues:

1. Why does it have draft stamped on the documents?

To me this means not the final data.

2. Reading step #8 "Start an empty load and calibrate the washing machine water inflow temperatureby adjusting the mixing valve on th einlet plumbing and measuring with a digital TC meter"  

You have go to be joking. I don't think i will ever go through this much trouble to wash any type of clothes.

Bottom line, i think a comparison to similar products on the market done by an independent source would be ideal.

I own a pair of baselayers, head cover, and gloves. The is the issue i have with the gloves. I just got them 2 months ago and they are wearing out quick. The material doesn't seem to be very durable. The material frays pretty quickly even with the slightest touch.

In the off season, I normally don't have any body odor even after working in the sun. I am a little puzzled as to why in the winter, after wearing the baselayers they seem to give off some kind of odor. I can only think that it may just be the combination of my sweat and the product. So , i wash it after every use. Will this degrade the product faster?

Did the scientist test the effectiveness of the product after long term use?


----------



## ScentLok Design (Dec 14, 2005)

Cisco- You may or may not have seen the posts across the internet questioning our products abilities. In addtion many questioned the charts we show on our regular site ScentLok.com. 

What this shows is the testing data and proceedures we go through to prove our products work. We have independent testing labs on there and documentation on how those tests were completed. 

To your first statement please read above or direct me to the statment you are looking at. These are scanned originals from exhibits presented in a litigation.

To your second point, no you don't have to be that specific with our products. This is only to create a controlled testing environment for testing purposes. 

As I have said several times, we do have a product guarantee. If you are having issues or questions, call our customer service at 800.315.5799

Lastly, yes tab 11 testes out to 20 washings.


----------



## Marvin (Feb 17, 2005)

ScentLok Design said:


> Cisco- You may or may not have seen the posts across the internet questioning our products abilities. In addtion many questioned the charts we show on our regular site ScentLok.com.
> 
> What this shows is the testing data and proceedures we go through to prove our products work. We have independent testing labs on there and documentation on how those tests were completed.
> 
> ...



You'll see it makes a bit more sense to test real time situations for regenerations than it does what you proposing in this confined test. it may not be repeatable at home as it is in your "unbiased" tests. there are some many factors( varaiables) you ignore on regenereation its really quite funny.


----------



## ScentLok Design (Dec 14, 2005)

Marvin said:


> You'll see it makes a bit more sense to test real time situations for regenerations than it does what you proposing in this confined test.


So you confirm this is a confined test; meaning no variables.



Marvin said:


> there are some[sic] many factors (varaiables) you ignore on regenereation its really quite funny.


AND it isn't a confined test because it has variables? Which is it?


----------



## Marvin (Feb 17, 2005)

ScentLok Design said:


> So you confirm this is a confined test; meaning no variables.
> 
> 
> 
> AND it isn't a confined test because it has variables? Which is it?


Your tests shows that your garment work within the confines of a "independant lab" I.E. controlled environment. how is that relevant to real world applications? It's not that hard a question even for marketing people. Most people have laundry rooms not labs .... Which is it? your lawyers are slipping up. I suggest you get a refund. Your should explain to them how a household dryer works. Unless your fresh air source to the dryer is provided VOC free air i am not sure how its really gonna work( there are so many at one time its hard to even start a list). or how is a dryer that has just been loaded up with dryer sheets the load before not going to contain VOC's that will ADSORB into the garment in the cool down cycle? Pretty sure your gonna have fun with those tidbits so i won't hold my breath.


----------



## bowhuntnsteve (Jul 1, 2006)

Found this interesting…….



http://www.fastestbows.com/articles/corrigan/scent_suits.htm 


makes much sense to me, if these suits collect scent in their pores, then why do they not comein a scent bag instead of on a hanger to be hung out on racks to collect all the scents in a store and fill its pores again??


----------



## Crashman (Jan 20, 2005)

So my scentlok camo suit is 4 years old, has been hunted ALOT, and the camo/outer fabric is still is in great condition. Does this mean that the scentlok lining is worn out? Do I have to tear it out of the garments to remove any stink that can't be heated out? I put alot of money into this suit thinking it was a lifetime investment, now I hear directly from the manufacturer that the life of the garment is only 4 to 5 years.  

I think i will support a different company when i buy my next camo suit.


----------



## ciscokid (Apr 26, 2006)

Thanks for the feedback ScentLok Design. I now understand where you are coming from. I don't plan on trying to get my money back on the product. If someone would try to take you up on that guarantee, would you just replace the item no questions asked? If so what is the length of the "warranty" 





bowhuntnsteve said:


> Found this interesting…….
> 
> makes much sense to me, if these suits collect scent in their pores, then why do they not comein a scent bag instead of on a hanger to be hung out on racks to collect all the scents in a store and fill its pores again??


Very good thinking. I can get a "scent bag" and put my clothes in it overnight. In the morning, it will be ready for action in the morning scnt free. But what if i get in my truck and my clothes absorb the odors in my truck that i can't smell. BTW, i spray down the inside of my truck the evening before just for that reason. 

In my experiments, so far the X-scent base layers seem to work better with controlling my scent. I say this only because i don't smell myself when i come out the woods with x-scent. I tested it on several weekends trips. One day i wear base layers, the next day i wear x-scent. The weather for each day was the same -/+ 2-3 degrees. I also did the same work each day. I will continue to do this until i know without a doubt what the issue is. I will let you know my findings.


----------



## ScentLok Design (Dec 14, 2005)

*Marvin -* We use a standard household dryer. In tab 12 we subjected the cloth to odors until 80% saturated. Then put it into a household dryer (read this as "Non VOC free" ventilation) and resubjected it to odor. I performed as well as the original cloth that came from the store (that was hanging on racks). 

*bowhuntsteve -* As shown in our site, the bag you referr to is unneeded for the reasons stated above. The cloth we test came from a store just like you could purchase tomorrow.

*Crashman -* The suit isn't useless after a specific time period. I used that as a typical timeframe. You suit maintains its full effectiveness to twenty washings, after that the lamination process begins to break down. The life of our suits are not measured in time, but rather washings.

*ciscokid -* We have always recommended putting activated carbon products in an airtight container after they have been regenerated. We also sugges dressing in the field. So for sure utilize a dry bag or something airtight to be ready for the morning. 

One thing I will point out to you about X-scent is that it is an anti-microbial. Tab 10 is a section detailing the odors that come off a human's body. There are over 350 of them. Anti-microbials deter the growth of bacteria and do nothing for any existing odors on the body nor do they do anything to the odors that are unrelated to bacteria (which there are over 250). 

I hope this helps.


----------



## Marvin (Feb 17, 2005)

ScentLok Design said:


> *Marvin -* We use a standard household dryer. In tab 12 we subjected the cloth to odors until 80% saturated. Then put it into a household dryer (read this as "Non VOC free" ventilation) and resubjected it to odor. I performed as well as the original cloth that came from the store (that was hanging on racks).
> 
> .


Actually it was not hanging on your racks. It was sealed in a plastic bag. ( see report) first time i have seen that with your clothing.:wink: Sure its non VOC free air...in a lab where everytyhing is generally sterile(including the air).....more testing please and use all dryer cycles cause i doubt 90 % of you purchasers realize they cannot use the normal setting they do the everyday laundry with.


----------



## ScentLok Design (Dec 14, 2005)

Marvin said:


> Actually it was not hanging on your racks. It was sealed in a plastic bag. ( see report) first time i have seen that with your clothing.:wink: Sure its non VOC free air...in a lab where everytyhing is generally sterile(including the air).....more testing please and use all dryer cycles cause i doubt 90 % of you purchasers realize they cannot use the normal setting they do the everyday laundry with.


Hate to point this out but you missed something here. In Tab 2 under "Testing Of Garments" first paragraph. First sentence 
_"Samples of the ALS Scent Lok [sic] Savanna EXT and the Dan River No Trace Indian Summer Heavyweight shirt were ordered from Cabela's (a major retailer of hunting supplies) and sent directly to Intertek from Cabela's. I examined the boxes containing the Scent-Lok and No Trace when I arrived at Intertek. The shipping packages were unopened, and all garments were in the original packaging used for retail shipments."_ 

This then shows a photo of a garment in a bag. That is how we ship to stores and I just checked with our dstribution and that bag is in no way airtight. As a matter of fact it has holes in it so we can push it down when it is in a box to fit more product per box. In addition to that all the garments have been shipped from their cut and sew factories then to our distribution center in Michigan (this is a month-long process) then opened, inspected and boxed again waiting for order fulfillment. Then shipped to Cabela's where it is put into a warehouse waiting for an order. All this time the garment is adsorbing odors. :wink: 

I don't know about you, but every household dryer I have seen has a vent coming from outside. I think in most places it is a code violation to have an internally vented dryer. This would lead me to believe that the dryer, even in a lab, would be vented from the outside. In addition, since you seem to be a bit of a scientist yourself, to suggest the assumption that a lab is totally sterile is quite a stretch. Granted it isn't dirty, but labs doing any scientific testing would never assume they are sterile.


----------



## ScentLok Design (Dec 14, 2005)

*ciscokid -* I forgot to answer your guarantee question. We will do what we can to make it right. We usually field the call and ask about your routine and suggest anything that may improve your success. I certain cases we would ask for the suit to be sent back to check it out first hand. If all fails, which rarely happens, we would refund you.

As for your gloves, give us a call and we'll take care of you. 

Nick


----------



## MEMORIES (Oct 19, 2005)

*Sorry Scent-Lok*

Hello all. I am the outdoor writer who wrote perhaps the first in-depth rebuttal(s) to Scent-Lok’s claims. You know - the ones posted on FastestBows.com. I’ve taken some time to review the document(s) posted by Scent-Lok and although the tests do hint to more of an “independent” review, the tests that were conducted were essentially irrelevant. In short, the tests are not applicable to the intended use of the garments. Let me explain further, the tests conducted are nothing more than the same type of tests conducted on activated carbon to determine its effectiveness as an adsorptive media. NO ONE DENIES THAT AC IS AN EFFECTIVE ADSORPTIVE MEDIA. What we all want to know is, how well do the garments work in a real-world hunting scenario. The lab tests conducted do not account for high relative humidity (i.e. water vapor). It is common knowledge that activated carbon’s ability to adsorb “airborne” odors is greatly diminished when the air stream being filtered has a relative humidity of 50% or more. 

Question: What do you think the relative humidity level is of the air between your skin and a Scent-Lok garment? Well above 50% I guarantee it… Here is another question: What do you think the relative humidity level is of the air between your skin and a Scent-Lok garment when you are walking to your stand? If you sweat, then you are looking at a relative humidity level of 100% or more. With that said, here is another common fact regarding activated carbon and its ability to adsorb “air borne” odor: Activated carbon cannot filter “air” when it is wet. Think about it. If the AC particles are soaking wet, how can “air” make contact with the pores?

Here is my response to Scent-Lok and the tests that have been conducted to date. Run the same adsorption test(s) in a relative humidity environment of 50% or more. Also, lets see a real-world hunting scenario type test with trained or tamed whitetails (if such a beast exists). Test their response to users decked out in Scent-Lok apparel and those with regular cotton apparel (control groups). I’m guessing the results will be similar to the those obtained in a year 2002 test conducted with trained scent dogs. Here is the link to the published test results:




In my mind, the trained scent dog test is absolute proof that Scent-Lok garments provide absolutely no advantage to the hunter. In critiquing the referenced report, the only thing I would like to see now is a more extensive test using as many as 50-different trained scent dogs to simply increase the number of trials. Aside from that, the referenced test is ironclad proof…. It was a truly scientific test (i.e. the scientific method was applied) using control groups as a comparison (folks in regular cotton apparel). The test was well organized, was conducted under a real-world application setting and can be repeated over and over with similar results – A true scientific test of Scent-Lok Clothing’s ability to provide an advantage to hunters.


----------



## bardman (Oct 18, 2006)

I havent read the above referenced document.

With that said, I gotta say I am a simpleton.

I am definatly not a scientist, rocket or otherwise.

However: how does scent loks competitor put that pine thing with the little piece of scent blocker over it, sorry I had to mention it, and you cant smell the pine smell?

I check it everyday I go into the shop. Same garment. Been there for a while.


----------



## ScentLok Design (Dec 14, 2005)

bardman said:


> However: how does scent loks competitor put that pine thing with the little piece of scent blocker over it, sorry I had to mention it, and you cant smell the pine smell?
> 
> I check it everyday I go into the shop. Same garment. Been there for a while.


Are you talking about Scent-Blocker or some other type of technology?


----------



## mnbob (Sep 26, 2006)

*Scent Dog study Challange*

Why doesnt Scent do a truely indepent dog stedy as suggested by Memorries above. This would be a real life test unlike those in the lab Every dog study has shown that having carbon clothing on to avoid detection froom an animals sense of smell has failed. Scentlok in their magazine (Point Blank 2995) stated that most reachers agree that a cannine nad a deers sense of smell is the same. How do they expain the scientific fact that the dogs find the subjects in the same amount of time whether they are dressed in Scentlok or not ? If Scentlok is so great lets have a truely independent test with dogs and let the chips fall where they may ? I think not !


----------



## mnbob (Sep 26, 2006)

*Scent Dog study Challange*

Why doesnt Scent do a truely indepent dog study as suggested by Memorries above. This would be a real life test unlike those in the lab Every dog study has shown that having carbon clothing on to avoid detection froom an animals sense of smell has failed. Scentlok in their magazine (Point Blank 2995) stated that most researchers agree that a cannine and a deers sense of smell is the same. How do they expain the scientific fact that the dogs find the subjects in the same amount of time whether they are dressed in Scentlok or not ? If Scentlok is so great lets have a truely independent test with dogs and let the chips fall where they may ? I think not !


----------



## HJMinard (Oct 18, 2006)

MEMORIES said:


> In my mind, the trained scent dog test is absolute proof that Scent-Lok garments provide absolutely no advantage to the hunter. In critiquing the referenced report, the only thing I would like to see now is a more extensive test using as many as 50-different trained scent dogs to simply increase the number of trials. Aside from that, the referenced test is ironclad proof…. It was a truly scientific test (i.e. the scientific method was applied) using control groups as a comparison (folks in regular cotton apparel). The test was well organized, was conducted under a real-world application setting and can be repeated over and over with similar results – A true scientific test of Scent-Lok Clothing’s ability to provide an advantage to hunters.


Memories, I don't doubt that the test you referenced proves that dogs (and likely other mammals) can pick up some human scent through carbon-activated garments. I do question, however, how "real world" a test is when you're using trained search and rescue dogs. These animals are obviously trained to actively seek out human scent ... that is their sole goal and activity during a search. They're "activated" by getting a sample of someone's scent, and then they actively pursue that scent. They're generally quite good at what they do.

A wild deer meandering through the woods, while alert and wary and always checking the wind, is not (unless otherwise alerted) actively searching for humans or human scent in the intense manner of those dogs. If carbon-activated apparel even partially limits human scent in a given area, then it might be effective.

Don't get me wrong ... I'm not saying the stuff works. I have no idea. I'm just saying the dog test seems kind of "loaded" to me.


----------



## crewm (Nov 8, 2006)

*Reactivation=Regeneration?*

I am confused. What is the difference between reactivate and regenerate?
Do they mean the same thing?


----------



## DEC (Dec 10, 2004)

crewm said:


> I am confused. What is the difference between reactivate and regenerate?
> Do they mean the same thing?


In the true science community ... yes, the terms are interchangeable and are one in the same.

In the Scent Lok special science world ... no. ScentLok claims that reactivation occurs at high temperatures like most of us who are scientists and engineers commonly know. They claim that regeneration is a special science that only they have figured out and can be achieved at clothes dryer temperatures.

You can decide for yourself, if you want to take their claims, or those of real scientists and engineers.

I printed off every page of their "new science" document and I intend to read it thoroughly because as an engineer with extensive carbon adsorption back ground I am very interested in this new science that they claim they have developed. As I get into it I fully expect that I will find more holes then those produced by my three ring punch made for the binder it now sets in.

Give me time, it is hunting season here, but I'll get back with my assessment of their "new science" report. 

Funny how the other day I had deer all around me, even down wind ALL DAY, and with out a grain of carbon on me, I never got winded.


----------



## MEMORIES (Oct 19, 2005)

*Sorry Scent-Lok*

The folks @ Scent-Lok continue to avoid the "MOISTURE ISSUE". Scent-Lok please comment.... You claim that clean air and moisture pass through the fabric. How does moisture vapor magically pass through your fabric without being trapped and “loading” the AC particles? WET CARBON CANNOT ADSORB AIRBORNE ODORS !!! This is common knowledge. How is your AC different? In a 50% relative humidity environment, how long does it take until the AC particles are “saturated” with moisture? I don’t know about anyone else but unless you hunt in a dessert, a relative humidity level of 50% or more is commonplace where I hunt.

By the way, I believe the lab that Scent-Lok used to test their fabric (Intertek Testing Services) is the same lab they claimed to use back when I wrote my articles (posted on FastestBows.com). This is the same lab that was “fined $9 million for falsifying results at its former laboratory in the Dallas suburb. The tests of air, soil, pesticides, nerve gas agents and other hazards were used to make decisions for severely polluted areas called "Superfund" sites, at Department of Defense facilities and other hazardous waste locations.”…. as reported in this article:

http://www.mindfully.org/Water/2003/Labs-Fake-Tests22jan03.htm

and in this Dept. of Justice Report:
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2002/December/02_civ_720.htm

This leaves doubt in my mind as to how credible the lab they used really is.


----------



## ScentLok Design (Dec 14, 2005)

*Response to MEMORIES*

Hello All. I am the inventor of Scent-Lok, a materials engineer, with years of education and experience in aerospace research, materials development, and as an avid outdoorsman all my life.

Regarding Mr. Corrigan’s recent remarks I have a few points to offer.

Mr. Corrigan references a “hint” of independence in our recent science publication on our web site. As a matter of fact, the independent lab is one of the foremost research testing facilities in the country and was used in a truth in advertising court case against a company that appears to have ties to Mr. Corrigan.

The courts used one of the world’s most qualified experts in human odor, Dr. Predi. Dr. Predi suggested the human odor compounds to use in these tests. Also Dr. Don Thompson, a renowned PhD in material testing from the University Of North Carolina conducted the tests. Dr. Thompson personally purchased the garments that were used at a retail store of his choice. He determined the test procedures to be relevant, and was present to certify the results. Scent-Lok personnel were not involved any of the tests. Therefore Mr. Corrigan’s remark of “hint” of independence is ridiculous.

Regarding irrelevance, Mr. Corrigan is no expert. The scientist involved in our testing and this study are real scientists with real doctorates, credentials and are experts in the field. They have actually performed scientific tests and have used real science; something that Corrigan has never been able to produce to substantiate any of his “theories”.

Regarding “real world hunting situations; Corrigan was offered free access to our test data, thousands of letters of satisfied customers, and to meet with our research team at our offices. He refused any of it therefore he really is not the scientist as he portrays because a real scientist is interested in the truth and will study all data and observations available.

Mr. Corrigan again shows ignorance regarding the adsorption capabilities of activated carbon in high humidity. If that is true, then I have a few questions for Corrigan.

A. How then does activated carbon work in air purification? Apparently according to Corrigan, they are useless in any environment unless the humidy is zero.

B. How can carbon work as a water purifier? Apparently the aquarium filters, water filters and environmental products on the market today don’t work either. Another ridiculous claim.

C. How does activated carbon work in Dr. Scholl’s Odor Eaters? Is there any area of the body that produces more humid condition than the foot? Why isn’t Corrigan writing about the irrelevancy of that product that has been on the market for 50 years?

D. It is well known that military chemical warfare suits use activated carbon. If they don’t work in humid conditions, apparently according to Corrigan the military is making a big mistake since our troops in the Middle East and around the world will not have any protection if they are sweating on duty.

The experts have read Corrigan’s opinions and have termed them “laughable”. Before the humidity opinion it was “carbon cannot be reactivated.” Our proof for that incorrect opinion appears on our www.scentlokscience.com under tab 12.

My company spends hundreds of thousands of dollars every year to challenge our fabrics to ensure quality. Mr. Corrigan has done nothing other than offer his unqualified opinions and has never produced any real data.

*So once again, in front of all to see, we offer again, to Mr. Corrigan a free trip to our office to review our testing procedures, data and results, quality control procedures, relative testing of competitive products and technology. To read for himself the thousands of testimonials from satisfied customers, many describing in detail the field notes from first-hand observations of having deer downwind. And finally to challenge the experts with his questions and opinions.*

*And finally we offer Mr. Corrigan a free hunt, in the field with 100% wild and 100% free range deer to evaluate first-hand the results, something he has declined in the past.*

I ask Mr. Corrigan to produce his test reports, data and documents before he continues to disparage my company and our products in public.

Mr. Corrgan reply to these challenges here in this public forum.
Greg Sesselmann


----------



## HJMinard (Oct 18, 2006)

So, Memories ... are you connected in any way to Dan River?


----------



## mnbob (Sep 26, 2006)

*Responce to Scentlok Vs Corrigan*

mr. Sesselmann:

Since you are challenging people to respond publically ,would you please explain to everyboby why the United States Patent Office has you patent under re-exam and have rejected claims 1-10 of the original patent and the new claims 11-59. Also why have you changed the way that odors are captured from a "bond" to an "ionic bond" to "mechanical entrapment" to which chemist and scientist reject! To personal attack Mr. Corrigan is not cool. Check the Trinity Mountain web site and comment on their article concerning activated cardon clothing


----------



## skin_dog1 (Dec 13, 2003)

Great post Greg. I've always been a skeptic but the data on your site will help clear up things hopefully.


----------



## SOLIDEAGLE (Dec 19, 2005)

Mr. Sesselmann,

I'm somewhat sceptical myself. I'll take you up on the free trip to your office and the free hunt if Mr. Corrigan will not go.


----------



## HJMinard (Oct 18, 2006)

mnbob said:


> To personal attack Mr. Corrigan is not cool.


I don't see any personal attacks on Mr. Corrigan ... nothing about his personal life, personality, family, etc.

When you repeatedly and publicly question a company's products and (more importantly) their ethics, you open yourself to scrutiny. I don't know yet what to think about this argument, but I'm trying to keep an open mind. It is completely fair for Scent-Lok to question Mr. Corrigan's qualifications, just as it is fair for him to question the qualifications of the people referenced on Scent-Lok's website.

I will say, though, that if Mr. Corrigan is not (_*in any way*_) affiliated with Dan River as insinuated, then Mr. Sesselmann owes Mr. Corrigan a sincere apology for that remark. If he _*is*_ affiliated - he needs to come clean. It would, obviously, make his "testimony" questionable.


----------



## mnbob (Sep 26, 2006)

*Corrigan and No Trace*

Mr.Corrigan is in no way a part of No Trace. As you probably know the original No Trace was forced out of business by a lawsuit filed by ALS (Scentlok) in the Western District Court and then dropped. If you could look up a program that was on wwmt=tv Corrigan was also put down by Scentlok.

I also was just informed that the will be an "Investigative Report done on activated carbon" airing and you will be able to watch it on the internet by
www.myfoxtwincities.com after it airies on thur.Nov 9 at 9 oclock news.


----------



## HJMinard (Oct 18, 2006)

mnbob said:


> Mr.Corrigan is in no way a part of No Trace. As you probably know the original No Trace was forced out of business by a lawsuit filed by ALS (Scentlok) in the Western District Court and then dropped. If you could look up a program that was on wwmt=tv Corrigan was also put down by Scentlok.
> 
> I also was just informed that the will be an "Investigative Report done on activated carbon" airing and you will be able to watch it on the internet by
> www.myfoxtwincities.com after it airies on thur.Nov 9 at 9 oclock news.


You appear to have a vested interest in this discussion. Since you're new to the forums I would assume you joined primarily for this thread? Are you affiliated with No Trace (now or in the past), or a friend of Mr. Corrigan?

Those of us who are independent, interested, parties (and consumers!) need to know who we're listening to ...

I'll certainly watch for that investigative report.


----------



## TRMichels (Sep 26, 2006)

Do Activated Carbon Hunting Suits Work? 
Have hunters and the hunting industry been duped?
By T.R. Michels, Trinity Mountain Outdoors

Over the last few years several questions have arisen as to whether or not activated carbon clothing suits work as advertised to keep hunters from being detected by deer (that might smell the odors given off by humans, or any unnatural odors associated with the humans while they are hunting). The questions asked include: Is there enough activated carbon in the scent-elimination suits for them to work as the manufacturers claim they do? How long will activated carbon continue to work? Can the suits be re-activated as the manufacturers claim they can be? Are activated carbon suits adversely affected by humidity? 

Activated carbon is used as a filter medium because it has an affinity to "volatile organic compounds". When humans perspire they emit volatile organic compounds and other chemicals, such as hydrogen sulfides, which can be trapped by activated carbon. The manufacturers of activated carbon scent-control suits claim their clothing works because the activated carbon (which is glued to or impregnated into the fabric of the clothing) blocks the release of human odors, or "traps" the odors by a chemical bonding process called "adsorption". 

Adsorption occurs when activated carbon grabs and holds other compounds, including gases, scents and odors, at the molecular level. The amount of odor that an activated carbon filter medium holds is determined both by the amount of activated carbon in the entire medium and by how thick the layer of activated carbon on the fabric is. In the case of a scent-elimination suit, the carbon layer is very thin, which means there is very little activated carbon in the suit. In fact, the scent elimination suits are so thin that they hold relatively small amounts of activated carbon, and the activated carbon is so widely spaced in some suits that the suits allow air and odors to go through the suit without coming into contact with and being trapped by the small amounts of carbon in the suit. 

One of the problems with trapping odors by adsorption is that adsorption continuously occurs, unless the activated carbon is kept in an airtight unscented bag from the moment it is first activated. Since activated carbon will eventually become full of odors, it cannot work any great length of time. If activated carbon clothing is not put into a sealed bag the moment it is activated, and kept that way until it is used for hunting, it will have adsorbed numerous odors. Depending on how thick the layer of activated carbon is in the suit, it may not work to stop human odors the very first time it is used. 
In an attempt to bring some legitimacy to their products, the manufacturers of scent-control clothing have acknowledged this to some extent. Many manufacturers recommend that the clothing should be immediately washed, and then "re-activated" by placing the suits in a clothes dryer as soon as they are purchased. 

Do activated carbon suits fool the nose? 
When the laboratory at Purification Process was asked to test a popular activated carbon scent-control suit they found there wasn't enough in the suit to even test. In a test with search dogs, by JA Shivik, Ph.D., forty-two people were hidden from Colorado search and rescue dogs. Twenty-one of the people wore activated carbon suits; twenty-one did not. The dogs found all twenty-one people who didn't wear activated carbon suits, and twenty of the people who wore activated carbon suits. There was no noticeable difference in the time it took the dogs to find the humans. It took the dogs 2.7 minutes to detect the humans who were not wearing activated carbon suits, and 3.4 minutes to find the humans who were wearing activated carbon suits.

Shivik's report states, "That the dogs detected humans wearing the suit indicates that the system failed to prevent detection of human odors." Since deer have a sense of smell equal to if not better than dogs, it is safe to assume that deer would have detected the humans too. 
The report adds, "The suits are probably not worth the cost to researchers or managers who want to approach canids undetected." They probably aren't worth $150 to $300 to hunters either, if they can't keep deer from detecting the hunters. You can view this article at this address http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ws/nwrc/is/annpub2002.html, by scrolling down to report number 02-93 Shivik and downloading the PDF file. 

The military also uses activated carbon clothing, commonly referred to as Chemical Warfare Suits, but they are limited-use, disposable garments, not intended for multiple use, because, according to the paper The War Next Time: Countering Rogue States and Terrorists Armed with Chemical and Biological Weapons, the new JS-LIST suits worn by the armed services "provide 45 days of wear versus 22 days for the BDOs." 
These chemical warfare suits have several times more activated carbon in them than the suits currently being offered for hunting purposes; and they only last for 45 days! This document can be viewed on-line at http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cpc-pubs/war_next_time/schneider2.pdf, or just type the words "JSList suits" in the search box on Google to read the above quote. 

An interesting comment in the document states, "In addition they can be washed up to six times without losing protective qualities." 
This suggests that clothing made with activated carbon becomes less effective every time it is washed. It also suggests that after six washings, the Chemical Warfare Suits, which are made to US Government specifications, and have more activated carbon in them than the activated carbon suits worn by hunters, are ineffective after six washings! And yet, the loss of activated carbon due to washing, and the eventual ineffectiveness of the suits due to washing, is not clearly stated by the manufacturers of the activated carbon scent-elimination suits in any of their literature, or on their web sites. Note the reference to heavy perspiration in the following article, which will be talked about later. 

In 2005, the Scent Lok web site at http://www.scentlok.com stated: 
"When and how to wash: During warm weather when only a T-shirt is being worn as an undergarment and heavy perspiration is occurring, it is advised to wash your suit periodically. During cool weather when heavier undergarments or layers are worn, there is no need to wash the suit. Washing does not have anything to do with reactivation, but does get rid of unwanted body oils (caused by perspiration), blood, and dirt. Washing a Scent-Lok suit can be done 1-4 times per season without fear of losing carbon from the suit. The permanent ClimaFlex treatment, that is on all Scent-Lok branded suits made during and after 2001, aids in the extraction of unwanted body oils in high perspiration areas when washed. Use only non-scented liquid clothes wash or preferably carbon wash. Once a garment is washed per label instructions it should be put in the dryer on a no heat setting until dry. Once the garment is dry, follow the reactivation instructions. ClimaFlex treatment is also a wicking agent, which adds to the overall comfort of the suit during warm weather." 
Note: This article has since been removed from the web site.
The comments in the US Government document mentioned above suggest that it is likely that the actions of both household washers and dryers may result in the loss of some of the activated carbon in the scent-elimination clothing worn by hunters. 

Can Activated Carbon suits be re-charged as manufacturers claim?
Scent-Lok, one of the largest producers and the only licensor of activated carbon suits, states that their suits can be re-charged by placing them in the clothes dryer for 20 to 30 minutes to re-activate the carbon. On their web site in 2005 they also stated that heat from a clothes dryer causes "Brownian molecular motion" causes the scent to move very fast, which breaks the molecules free from the activated carbon particles, which supposedly re-activates the suits. 

In 2005 the Scent Lok web site stated: 

"How are odors released?
It is common knowledge that heat makes molecules move more rapidly. Reactivation is only obtained by using a clothes dryer. Reactivation is achieved by placing the suit in a dryer for twenty to thirty minutes on a medium to high heat setting or according to the label instructions. The heat from the clothes dryer creates what is scientifically known as Brownian molecular motion, which causes the scent molecules to move rapidly. This movement breaks the molecules free from the surfaces of the activated carbon particles and interior pores of the carbon, and allows them to eventually exit out of the dryer vent." 
Note: This article has since been removed from the site.

In order to re-activate activated carbon a process referred to as "Pyrolysis" is used. To completely re-activate an activated carbon suit saturated with human perspiration it has to be heated to about 800 °C, or 1472 °F. And it would have to be done in a controlled atmosphere with low oxygen concentration to reduce the possibility of combustion. This is clearly stated in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Engineering and Design, Adsorption Design Guide, Design Guide No. DG1110-1-2, which can be viewed on the internet. At 500 degrees F the suit will be nothing but carbon. Even if desorbtion was possible most household clothes dryers do not reach temperatures over 200°F, which is not high enough to release the trapped odors in the scent-elimination suits. It is highly unlikely that activated carbon suits for hunting use can be recharged, with the result that the suits will eventually become full of odors, to the point where the charcoal will no longer trap odors.

In defense of their statements that their suits can be re-activated Scent Lok maintains that the word "reactivation" is a loosely used term. In reality "reactivation", as it applies to activated carbon, means that the adsorption capability of the carbon has been totally and completely re-activated. They have stated that the garments aren't "totally reactivated" after they are first washed and put in the dryer, but that they are partially "regenerated" or "desorbed". Supposedly this partial regeneration is enough to allow the clothing to again adsorb more odors. 

While some desorption can occur when activated carbon is exposed to temperatures lower than 750 to 1500 degrees F, there is a point when the temperature is too low to desorb activated carbon. A Virginia Technical University study shows that activated carbon can be partially desorbed between temperatures of 100 to 649 degrees Celsius. One hundred degrees Celsius is 212 degrees Fahrenheit. This is the extreme low temperature during which "partial desorption" of odors and gases may occur. However, as stated above, most household clothes dryers produce less than 150 degrees Fahrenheit; which suggests that the activated carbon suits sold to hunters cannot even be "partially regenerated or desorbed". (The above-cited study is study was originally available on the Internet by logging on to this page. An interesting comment on the page states " This is done primarily with granular activated carbon because PAC particles are too small to be effectively re-activated." Activated carbon suits use particles, not granules; therefor they cannot be effectively re-activated.

The use of the term Brownian molecular motion on the Scent-Lok web site is also inaccurate. The use of this scientific term seems to add some credibility to the claims about activated carbon. There is no reference to Brownian "molecular" motion on the internet, because Brownian motion does not involve "molecules", but rather small particles. 
This web site states, "Brownian motion (or Brownian movement) can be defined as "the random movement of microscopic particles suspended in a fluid. " 

Brownian motion has nothing to do with the re-activation or de-adsorbtion of activated carbon, because the term is only used only in reference to "particles suspended in a fluid," not to the motion or activity of gaseous odor molecules released by activated carbon that is subjected to heat in a clothes dryer. 

Are activated carbon suits adversely affected by humidity? 
One of the statements on the Scent Lok web site in 2005 mentioned "heavy perspiration", which may occur as a hunter walks to their hunting site, and may result in high humidity between the hunter's skin and the suit for several hours after the hunter stops walking. The Army Corps of Engineers document cited above also states: "Relative humidity above 50 percent may result in adsorbed and condensed water vapor blocking the pores of the particles and interfering with the diffusion of the contaminants to the adsorption pores." 

What this means is that if a hunter wears activated carbon clothing while hunting, when the relative humidity conditions are above 50 percent, or if he sweats, the suit won't work. No matter what the relative humidity conditions are outside, activated carbon clothing may not work, because the act of walking alone will cause the human body to sweat, resulting in a relative humidity of 50 percent or more between the body and the suit. By the time the hunter arrives at their hunting site the activated carbon in the suit will be saturated with moisture, and it will be useless. Hunters can find this government document on the Internet, and so can the manufacturers of activated carbon clothing. But, neither it, nor the information in it, is mentioned by any of the activated carbon clothing manufacturers in their advertising, nor is it mentioned on their web sites. 

Conclusion: If there is not enough activated carbon in the suits to trap human odors; if the suits used for Chemical Warfare lose effectiveness after six washings and are effective for a maximum of 45 days; if activated carbon scent-elimination suits do not keep dogs from detecting humans; if the effectiveness of activated carbon is affected by humidity above 50 percent; then it is unlikely that scent-elimination suits using activated carbon can work to keep hunters from being detected by deer during hunting situations, especially if the clothing is worn more than 45 days, or washed more than six times. Many hunters use their suits more than 45 days in a year, and wash it more than six times in a year, which means they will probably have to buy a new suit every one to two years. 

T.R. Michels


----------



## MEMORIES (Oct 19, 2005)

*Sorry Scent-Lok*

Response to Scent-Lok Design

I am aware of a truth in advertising court case against your company but I am in no way affiliated with the party who is taking action against your company. 

I am please that you responded to the MOISTURE ISSUE.

Your Question:
A. How then does activated carbon work in air purification? Apparently according to Corrigan, they are useless in any environment unless the humidity is zero.

My Response:
AC is an excellent air purification media. NO ONE DISCOUNTS THIS!!
AC used in air filtration applications works great – BUT NOT IN SITUTIONS WHERE RELATIVE HUMIDITY IS 50% OR MORE. Were you listening????

Your Question:
B. How can carbon work as a water purifier? Apparently the aquarium filters, water filters and environmental products on the market today don’t work either. Another ridiculous claim.

My Response:
You have used this argument over and over again and it is ridiculous. AC will filter water in water… Dry AC will filter air (don’t forget,,, only air that has a relative humidity value of about 50% - before quickly becoming saturated with water)…. But WET AC WILL NOT FILTER AIRBORNE ODORS!!! Is evyone clear on this now?? There is not a single application I can think of where wet AC is used to filter air… Infact through my extensive environmental experience (formerly employed by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection) I can point out specifics…. In environmental applications where contaminated air is to be filtered with AC media, the air stream is usually run through a de-humidifier to remove water vapor prior to pulling the air stream through the AC filter media. Why? Because engineers know that WET AC WILL NOT FILTER AIRBORNE ODORS.


Your Question:
C. How does activated carbon work in Dr. Scholl’s Odor Eaters? Is there any area of the body that produces more humid condition than the foot? Why isn’t Corrigan writing about the irrelevancy of that product that has been on the market for 50 years?

My Response:
Dr. Scholl’s Odor Destroyers (insoles) are not designed to adsorb airborne odors. They were designed to adsorb foot “sweat” as well as odor causing bacteria contained in that moisture – as indicated on the product packaging. It seems the folks at Dr. Scholl’s understand that AC will adsorb moisture unlike the folks at Scent-Lok. By the way, Dr. Scholl’s Odor Destroyers (insoles) have a very short effective life span. They may continue to provide cushion for your foot but they quickly loose their effective odor adsorption properties because all the pore spaces eventually become loaded with moisture. Here’s an idea,,, just throw them in your clothes dryer and reactivate the carbon in them. I wonder why Dr. Scholl’s doesn’t push this concept for their insoles? 


Your Statement:
D. It is well known that military chemical warfare suits use activated carbon. If they don’t work in humid conditions, apparently according to Corrigan the military is making a big mistake since our troops in the Middle East and around the world will not have any protection if they are sweating on duty.

My Response:
Comparing your garments to AC containing military garments is absurd. The application(s) of the two are totally different and the principles that the military garment works under are completely …. Forget it… To provide a detailed explanation here will only confuse and pull readers off task… But I will say this,,, military chemical suits are a one-time use and throw away item (after a chemical attack)…. The manufacturers do not push the concept of reactivating the garment in a household dryer… Are you professing that the military is throwing away perhaps millions of dollars of chemical suits when all they have to do is reactivate them in a household dryer or at least a similar device?


I look forward to providing more rebuttals to any additional product comparisons you may have.


----------



## TRMichels (Sep 26, 2006)

I'll start this out by stating that I was probably one of the first hunters, who actually did deer research, to really "test" Scent Lok. I got a suit sent to me by Greg Sesselman; who I have now known for about 10 years. At first I thought they worked, but, as I did some background research on activated carbon, I began to realize the suits could not work as suggested by Scent Lok. 

I have recanted my testimony on their site; not because there is any bad blood between myself and Greg Sesselman (probably between Greg and Me), but because the research I have looked at says activated carbon cannot work for more than a few weeks at most. I'm just here to get to the facts of the matter, as is Michael Corrigan. 

T.R. Michels


Here is another piece of information from the Scent Lok web site: (as of 9/26/06)

"Pristine Material: 
This is material that is in perfect condition. Greater amounts of scent is exposed to the fabric to the point where it is virtually saturated. 

Regenerated Material:
This is the same material as in the pristine material test only it has been regenerated in a drying cycle at 160° F. for 45 minutes. Then after regeneration exposed to greater amounts of scent until virtually saturated.

Conclusion: 
As the test data shows, after a regeneration cycle the regenerated performs equally as well as the new pristine material. This confirms that like a sponge, scent can be virtually wrung out to give our fabrics the capacity to adsorb odors time and time again." 

(end quote)

My question is this: "What test data? Was the exact same fabric, with the exact same amount of activated carbon that is used on clothing for sale used in the test? Whose fabric was it? Was the test done by an independent laboratory; or by Scent Lok or someone paid by Scent Lok? If it was an independent laboratory please provide the results to us. 

My understanding is this: (from my article) While some desorption can occur when activated carbon is exposed to temperatures lower than 750 to 1500 degrees F, there is a point when the temperature is too low to desorb activated carbon. A Virginia Technical University study shows that activated carbon can be partially desorbed between temperatures of 100 to 649 degrees Celsius. One hundred degrees Celsius is 212 degrees Fahrenheit. This is the extreme low temperature during which "partial desorption" of odors and gases may occur. However, as stated above, most household clothes dryers produce less than 150 degrees Fahrenheit; which suggests that the activated carbon suits sold to hunters cannot even be 'partially regenerated or desorbed'.

(The above-cited study was originally available on the Internet by logging on to: http://www.ce.vt.edu/program_areas/environmental/teach/wtprimer/carbon/sketcarb.html)" 

My Conclusion: Of course the "regenerated material performs equally as well as the new pristine material". If, according to all the data I have, the original material worked poorly in the first place, or didn't work at all; then the regenerated material would perform similarly to the pristine material. 

In addition, the statement that "in a drying cycle for 45 minutes" could regenerate the material flies in the face of the research from the Virginia Technical University study, because, according to their study, the material would have to be heated to at least 212 degrees F before it could be partially desorbed or "regenerated". 

And, if I remember correctly, Scent Lok originally stated their product could be re-activated by placing the clothing in a household dryer for 10-30 minutes; not 45 minutes. And now they are using the word "regenerated" instead of re-activated. Simply semantics, possibly. It might be they are using those terms to re-word their patent proposal.


*The questions we as hunters should be asking ourselves are this. *

Do we want to use products that research suggests can't work? 

Do we want companies to keep other companies (that offer products that compete with their products) from offering their products by taking them to court, or suggesting they will take them to court, especially when those products don't infringe on a patent that may or may not be valid? 

Or, do we want several companies competing with each other to provide us with the latest, newest technology and products? 

ACTIVATED CARBON CLOTHNG UPDATE
My latest information is that at least one chain of retail stores was asked not to carry Contain clothing because it competes with Scent Lok - Heaven forbid! I don't understand this philosophy, because Contain uses a completely different process to help hunters reduce human odors, by using an anti-bacterial to kill bacteria and microbes, which produce the odors associated with human perspiration. Contain in no way infringes on the supposed patent of Scent Lok. I'd think retailers would like to offer the newest, best products to their buyers. 

I've also learned that a US senator or congressman has made an inquiry about the case to the Commissioner of the Patent Office. It is my understanding that after such an inquiry the Patent Office has 30 days to respond, and then some kind of final decision should be made as to whether or not some of the Scent Lok patents are valid and enforceable. It is my understanding he has done this because Scent Lok appears to be re-submitting their old patent, using new and more inclusive "words" and "terms" in an effort to keep some of their current patents (which may be no good), to delay the patent rejection (so they can continue to collect high royalties), or in order to receive new, more inclusive, farther reaching patents (which they may use to keep other companies from developing, designing, manufacturing, promoting and selling other competing "scent reducing or elimination clothing" that uses better and newer technology). 

October 18, 2006: I've just been informed that the re-submittal of Scent Lok's Patents will stand, until each and every one of the 20 or so Patent submissions is challenged, by someone willing to do it, who has enough money to do it, even though Scent Lok is re-submitting ifferent wording, but using the same technology. 

As long as the Patents are not challenged, Scent Lok can continue to either ask other scent elimination/reduction clothing manufacturers and companies for royalties, or take them to court to stop them from manufacturing newer and better technology for scent elimination/reduction. All this in spite of the fact that the original Patent was rejected (because the technology is in general public use), and in spite of the fact that testing shows activated-carbon does not work to control human scent as the manufacturers claim. 

Questions for Scent Lok:

Why was the referenece to "Brownian motion or activity", which has nothing to do with activated carbon and airborne scents used on the website to advance the idea that activated carbon works?

Why won't you let other manufacturers, who do not infringe on your (questionable) patents, and hwo use completely different technology to reduce or eliminate scents, come out with theire newere and better technology?

Don't you believe hunters have the right to purchase the best products and technology available? Or do you believe only you should be able to dictate what hunters use? 

How much of a royalty are Gore, Whitewater, Browning, Cabela's etc, paying your company so you will allow them to sell activated carbon clothing? 10%?, 20%?, 30%, or more? As a camouflage designer I know that the standard on most camo patterns is 10%. 

Does anyone know how much an activated carbon suit can be manufacgtured for? If so please let us know. 


On his FREE hunt will MIchael Corrigan be wearing a NEW suit or 1 year old suit (washed more than seven times, and worn more than 30 times)? And, incidentally how long will a suit last??? 

I remember you personally telling me that, becasue I spend about 150 days a year in the woods, it would last me no more than a year. 


T.R. Michels


----------



## TRMichels (Sep 26, 2006)

Sorry Greg,

When you refused to take my testimony off your site (which I asked you to do here on this forum, and in an e-mail to your company), you left me no alternative but to defend my position. 

As a Christian I am only trying to get to the truth of the matter, and I firmly believe that the hunting public has not been told the truth. 

Why not let other companies come out with their products?

How can you argue with the science of the US Government? 

How can you continue to try to get a Patent on something that has already been patented? Haven't you made enough money, or is it that no one there can admit they are wrong in any aspect of this? 


T.R. Michels


----------



## TRMichels (Sep 26, 2006)

Did anyone mention that FOX television in Minneapolis / St. Paul will be airing an expose on activated carbon clothing tonight at 9:00 PM Central Time, and that other FOX stations are picking it up? 

I understand they did a dog study too. I'm looking forward to watching it. 

T.R. Michels


----------



## mnbob (Sep 26, 2006)

*Where's Scentlok Designs Responces ?*

I am patently waiting for Scentlok Design to answer all these guestions that have been raised. It is one thing for you to put all this data on line but its a different thing to anwser valid questions. How about a responce ?


----------



## HJMinard (Oct 18, 2006)

I am waiting for mnbob (and now TRMichels) to tell all of us regular, unaffiliated AT members what your vested interest is in this discussion. Both of you obviously joined this forum for the sole purpose of disputing Scent-Lok. Are you affiliated with a competitor, past, present, or future?


----------



## DanDaMan (Aug 24, 2004)

*Sticky this*

Hey Mods, yal should put this in the sticky section and after we get all the facts about this subject, kick it over to the hunting section. Thanks for all the good research on everyones part. 
Dan


----------



## MEMORIES (Oct 19, 2005)

*Sorry Scent-Lok*

On page-1 of this thread Mr. Greg Sesselmann posed the following question to me:
_B. How can carbon work as a water purifier? Apparently the aquarium filters, water filters and environmental products on the market today don’t work either. Another ridiculous claim._

*My Response:*
Mr. Sesselmann has compared the Scent-Lok garment application to an aquarium filter. This is down right silly. This is not the first time he has done this. Activated carbon is not used as a filter media in the traditional sense in an aquarium filter application. In fact “activated” carbon is not even used in an aquarium filter application. The carbon is just granular carbon and it used simply as a “substrate” for beneficial bacteria to grow on…. Beneficial bacteria grow and multiply on the massive surface area of the granulated carbon… As water is drawn across and through the carbon, the beneficial bacteria remove nutrients from the water and metabolize them (i.e. breakdown those nutrients). This is how an aquarium filter works… Particulate matter falls to the bottom of the aquarium and is trapped in the gravel bed. Feel free to call any pet shop to confirm this. In theory you never have to replace the carbon filter media in an aquarium.. Why would you want to….you would just be getting rid of your beneficial bacteria.

Take this same concept and apply it to Scent-Lok garments… After all Mr. Sesselmann made the comparison – not me. If you think about it, the activated carbon in Scent-Lok garments simply provide for a massive breeding ground for bacteria…even more so than an ordinary cotton garment. As you perspire, your perspiration is “wicked” into the fabric along with bacteria “hitch-hikers”. The moist activated carbon in Scent-Lok garments provides for a wonderful breeding ground for bacteria and nutrients in your sweat feed the bacteria so they can multiply and make lots of “stink”. More bacteria means more odors… Think about that Mr. Sesselmann before you use the aquarium filter analogy in the future… I hope this demonstrates just how little thought has been put into the Scent-Lok garments for use in a hunting application. In my opinion, the folks at Scent-Lok truly took a simple concept (that being AC is a good filter media) and ran with that assumption before truly thinking through the intended application of their product.


----------



## TRMichels (Sep 26, 2006)

HJMinard,

Evidently you didn't read my post, I said I Field Tested Scent Lok and endorsed the product for years, until I did the research on it, and found out there is no way it could work as suggested.

Then I learned that in spite of my recanting my testimony, they still had it posted on their site. Then someone from here suggested that because I had written an article about it in 2004 or 2005, which they had read, that I respond to the Scent Lok claims on this forum 2-3 moths ago; and contacted me. And I responded, because I was being attacked for my beliefs. 


I have no vested interest in any scent elimination clothing competitor of Scent Lok. 

I have nothing to gain, except the knowledge that I write what I believe, based on a lot of research about the product, and about the practices of some manufacturers. 

I have worn Contain, No Trace and Eliminator, and have read the research, and believe they all work as proclaimed. I have not tried x-Scent, but I know of the US Government usage of silver thread clothing, and the research, and believe it can work. I cannot say that about activated carbon clothng, because the Government research shows it cannot work as suggested. 


What I do as an outdoor writer, publisher and editor (as you would know if you have read anything on my site) is do a lot of game animal research, field test products, dispel myths like the peak breeding - moon phase correatlion hypothesis, the overhead/underfoot moon position - deer activity hypothesis, and now the activated carbon clothing nonsense; and tell the truth about things to the best of my knowledge. 

I don't like being decieved, nor do I like it when others are being decieved. And they have been decieved.

It appears you adhere to Christian principles. So, as one who proclaims to be "born again" spirit filled, charismatic Christian, who happens to be a Catholic, I tell you that all is not right with the claims about activated carbon clothing eliminating/reducing human related scent. Science shows it cannot be reactivated, it cannot work in humid conditions, and due to the extremely limited amount of carbon in the clothing (I have personally torn one apart and was able to see right through the carbon layer) it is extremely unlikely it can stop over 50% of any human related scent when worn on the human body, because the scent can go right around the carbon; or that it can last longer than a Chemical Warfar Suit, which the US Governmant says is only good for 42 or so days, or 6-7 washings, which the average hunter will do in one 3month hunting season. 

And what Scent Lok asked for royalties from one company was outrageous, and if they are still getting that royatly, you could be getting an activated carbon suit for half the price. 

Then there is the issue of suing people over a patent that never was valid, because it has been in the public domain due to the patent of the US Government on activated carbon for clothing, and previous patent applications for scent elimination. And I believe Scent Lok knew about the previous patent, because their original patent application was extremly similar to the US Patent. If they dint' knwo it then, they sure now about it now, becaue their patent had been rejected. 

I have a problem with suing people over an invalid patent; it is wrong. 

I know they bankrupted one of the original innovators of No Trace; that, in light of the facts, was wrong - it is not what Jesus would have done. I doubt they have offered to pay back the money that person lost in the patent fight, which we no know was invalid. What would Jesus have done? 

They have stopped, or tried to stop, several companies, using different technology, from coming out with these different and non-patent infringing competing products by threatening to sue them or sueing them in court, so they could have the market all to themsleves. Is that what you want, is it what Christians do? Is it what free enterprise is all about? Is it moral, is it even ethical? 

You should know the whole story before you make assessments or back one side or the other. 

You've questioned my motives. I have explained them ...

It is about right and wrong! 

May Yahweh-God bless everyone who has posted here, and let us all forgive any percieved slights or insults to each other,

T.R. Michels
Trinity Mountain Outdoors


----------



## TRMichels (Sep 26, 2006)

Memories,

As a former manager of 4 pet shops, and as a tropical fish breeder and wholsesaler for over 10 years, I can attest to the use of carbon filters for aquatic usage; it is to grow bacteria and break down ammonia and other toxic waste - not to remove scent.

Obviously someone at Scent Lok does not know the true use of activated carbon for most pusposes, or they do know the truth but prefer to manipulate or distort the truth and the scientific evidence. Kind of like the "Brownian motion or activity" reference they had on the site, which has absolutely nothing to do with airborne scents, odors or molecules, but rather to the "random action of particles suspened in a liquid". Anyone with a lick of sense (who was really interested in what it is) could have found the truth of it on the internet, just like I did. 

And I'm still wating for answers on why they used it, and anwers to all of the other questions I asked. 

You know they are monitoring this thread. Why not answer - truthfully? With no spin or whitewash. 


T.R. Michels 
Trinity Mountain Outdoors


----------



## HJMinard (Oct 18, 2006)

T.R., thanks for the clarification. Yes, I questioned your motives - and you answered. I appreciate that greatly. Another poster has exposed his motives to me via P.M., and I will share them with the forum if he does not.

Having certain motives does not make him, or you, wrong about Scent-Lok, and I never meant to say otherwise. But it certainly is something for us neutral observers and consumers to consider when we try to decipher the truth. Your testimony is easier to believe than the testimony of someone who has a very personal beef with ALS.

I *am* trying to obtain the whole story (including motives), and I haven't backed anybody in this discussion. I simply want to know who is arguing, and why. It is impossible to make an informed decision without that knowledge.

As to a few other points:

An invalid patent is for the courts to decide, not you or I. Are you saying they were already found to be invalid, and ALS still sued so their competitor would have to pay legal fees? Our were they found to be invalid _during_ the lawsuit?

Royalties charged are a business decision. You don't think a business should be able to set their price? If it's too high, people won't buy it. There is nothing unethical about supply and demand.

Thanks again for your response, and for repeating (sorry) your motives. I hope everyone involved in the discussion will be as forthright.


----------



## ScentLok Design (Dec 14, 2005)

I want to mention here that our president Greg Sesselmann wants to contiune to personally respond to this thread and topics. I am going to keep him updated and informed about the challenges you ask. So bear with me on the lack of instant responses.

I will mention again that these the two individuals that have written rebuttals of our products cannot claim to be "unbiased" nor proper scientists. A scientist in the true sense of the word is always on a quest for information, from all sides and angles. Both of these individuals have been invited several times to oversee our testing operations. We have been met with zero response. Is this how a true scientist would act? 

*MEMORIES -* Again Mr. Corrigan you have skirted our request. What are you risking by our invitation? If you are declining, enlighten us as to why. 

*TR -* *I have no vested interest in any scent elimination clothing competitor of Scent Lok. *

You claim to nothing to gain? Are you sure? 

http://www.trmichels.com/Eliminator.htm
Oh! You are endorsing "Eliminatior Clothing" using what technology? Cyclodextrin the same technology as No Trace.
In addition you have refused any contact with us for several years. How can you even claim to come close to an "un-biased" opinion. 

*So again, what is it? Free trip to our shop to see these tests, proceedures, scientists first hand? Or are you going to hide again? The ball is in your court. Their are many people who have got to be wondering why you both would turn down this chance after claiming to be "unbiased" scientists.*


----------



## Bob_Looney (Nov 17, 2003)

I have yet to see where any scent eliminating clothing has evaded tracking dogs. If yours has please let me know. I will then believe in your product and purchase it for the next hunting season.


----------



## ScentLok Design (Dec 14, 2005)

*HJMinard -* I appreciate you in this conversation as you do seem to be in the dead center. I would like to ask you to stay involved in this for the sake of the public. I think we can start a "comment" thread so that people may speak up with their thoughts.

If this would be ok, could we keep this thread to the main parties involved. I think this is the type of conversation many consumers have wanted to see for a long time. 

Nick


----------



## HJMinard (Oct 18, 2006)

ScentLok Design said:


> *HJMinard -* I appreciate you in this conversation as you do seem to be in the dead center. I would like to ask you to stay involved in this for the sake of the public. I think we can start a "comment" thread so that people may speak up with their thoughts.
> 
> If this would be ok, could we keep this thread to the main parties involved. I think this is the type of conversation many consumers have wanted to see for a long time.
> 
> Nick


I'll stick around as my schedule permits.

In the interest of full disclosure I'll admit that I've already (about 2-3 years ago) forked over some hard earned cash for a Scent-Lok suit.

Does it work? Heck, I don't know, but I sure hope it does. Seems like it sometimes ... but I'm pretty careful about scent control and wind and such. I'm hoping to find some nuggets of truth in this discussion before I spend any more money (I'm "outgrowing" my current apparel, so a purchase might be in my future).

I ask everyone involved (in the interest of fairness and objectivity) to expose any affiliations with competitors. Heck, while you're at it add a new thread on AT telling us about the positive traits of your stuff.


----------



## MEMORIES (Oct 19, 2005)

*Sorry Scent-Lok*



ScentLok Design said:


> I want to mention here that our president Greg Sesselmann wants to contiune to personally respond to this thread and topics. I am going to keep him updated and informed about the challenges you ask. So bear with me on the lack of instant responses.
> 
> I will mention again that these the two individuals that have written rebuttals of our products cannot claim to be "unbiased" nor proper scientists. A scientist in the true sense of the word is always on a quest for information, from all sides and angles. Both of these individuals have been invited several times to oversee our testing operations. We have been met with zero response. Is this how a true scientist would act?
> 
> ...



Mr. Sessellmann. I’m not sure how by me refusing to accept an offer to come to your headquarters has any bearing on my credibility. Furthermore, I have absolutely no affiliation, financial or otherwise to your competitors or those who may be seeking legal action against your company. I challenge you to demonstrate otherwise. Besides, it would be a whole lot cheaper for you to simply put all of your “alleged” research data in a box and send it to me for review. That is how simple this is. Many others and myself have asked for this from you REPEATEDLY. Now all you have is a Draft report that shows the adsorptive ability of activated carbon. Is this the best you have? Where’s the data from all the previous years of alleged studies you have conducted and spent thousands upon thousands of dollars on in the process? The tests that were recently conducted do not account for 50% or higher relative humidity conditions and are nowhere near as real world based as the trained scent dog study performed in 2002. SHOW ME THE DATA. Put it in a box and send it to me. I have no desire to be brow-beat at your facility in an attempt to be swayed into believing your twist on how activated carbon works in the Scent-Lok garment application. No thanks. That is not my cup of tea. Furthermore, I fail to see how me attending a paid for hunt will demonstrate the effectiveness of Scent-Lok garments. Is the hunt going to be conducted within the confines of a controlled scientific based experiment? I think we all know the answer to that.

As for all the “testimonials” you have received to date from happy customers….. Testimonials mean absolutely zero in the world of science. All of the testimonials you have received to date were not conducted under a controlled scientific trial… There were no control groups. Those who testified to the abilities of the garment did not use the “scientific method”. Many in this form can attest to situations where deer were dead down wind of their stand location and were not winded – and they were not wearing Scent-Lok apparel. Many in this forum have attested to being winded by deer wearing head to toe Scent-Lok apparel. What are we to conclude from this? There is a whole host of reasons why deer may or may not detect a hunter who is perceived to be upwind of the deer’s location. The testimonials you have received have absolutely no scientific basis what so ever to support the claims you make.


----------



## Totemkopf (Oct 26, 2006)

Doesn't the dog test performed by JA Shivik, Ph.D prove that there is a benefit to wearing an activated carbon suits? The search and rescue dogs didn't find everyone wearing an active carbon suit, right. It also took the dogs over 40 seconds longer to find someone wearing an active carbon suit.


----------



## fasst (Oct 1, 2004)

I, too, feel this thread needs to be stuck to the top for awhile. Once more information becomes available, I will let it drop down again. Seems to be alot of interest and good points from both sides. Keep it civil, and good debating fellas :wink: 

Travis


----------



## LeesburgGamecoc (May 25, 2004)

TRMichels said:


> Memories,
> 
> As a former manager of 4 pet shops, and as a tropical fish breeder and wholsesaler for over 10 years, I can attest to the use of carbon filters for aquatic usage; it is to grow bacteria and break down ammonia and other toxic waste - not to remove scent.



This is a small point, but that statement is erroneous. The primary use of activated carbon in aquariums is to remove impurities. Serving as a site for bacteria to colonize is a secondary benefit that can be realized if you leave it in beyond its chemical filtration useful life. Read the box, or read any aquarium site. Pick up medication at a aquarium store, and it all reads something to the effect of "remove activated carbon prior to using this medication". That is because the carbon will adsorb the medication. If you use medicine that dyes the water, you can add carbon to the filter, and it will remove the dye which I have done. Nothing to do with bacteria, except as a secondary benefit, and almost everybody uses other filter media for that, saving carbon for chemical filtration uses only.


----------



## 3DZapper (Dec 30, 2002)

TR, What does the effectiveness of chem warfare suits loosing their ability to protect their users from the extremely deadly effects of VX gas after 6 washings have to do with odor? After those 6 washings, the user's human odor would not escape even in death. As to working in humidity, the chem suits are water repellent and trap moisture yet they are still effective against VX or is the Army running under a false assumption. 

I am no scientist. Yet by casual observation, I have had deer three feet downwind of me, on the ground, and my odor was not alarming to them while wearing Scent Lok brand garments. Yes the deer were suspicious of that strange "lump" in their home turf but continued to feed and act normally.

The only gripe I have ever had was the structural integrety of the inseam stitching when the garments were new 8 or so years ago. Thank you Mother-In-Law!

I now wear Robinson Labs Scent Blocker over my light weight Scent Lok suit. Bought the RL suit cheap because of the lawsuit. 

Disclaimer: I am in no way connected in a monetary or any other way with any company in the garment industry. Well except that I wear clothes.:wink: 

Rick


----------



## ciscokid (Apr 26, 2006)

I just read several articles about carbon suits not having enough carbon in them to be %100 effective. I am starting to remember the first few times i wore the baselayers. Upon coming out of the woods, i remember my skin was kind of itching. upon taking off my top i noticed having small black particles all over my skin. It appeared to be a very fine black sand. Is this the carbon coming out of the garment? Is this normal after the first few times of use? I assume it was excess carbon because after a couple of washes i don't remember ever seeing it anymore. Is my garment still working? It does have the carbon smell like it had before. Now I am a little curious...


----------



## TRMichels (Sep 26, 2006)

I never claimed to be a scientist, because I am not, although I did go to university to become one. I am simply a researcher. 

Does Scent Lok expect me to go see them, when there is all this animosity from them to me? I expect Michael Corrigan feels the same way. 

I do not need to go to see the Scent Lok facilities, because I have read the research papers and findings of the US Government. 

I have not ducked Scent Lok for years, that is a false statement. I had not been contacted by Scent Lok since I wrote my first article in 2004, until they asked me to contact them on this message board in September of this year, 2006. In fact, they have ashunned me since I was subpoenaed in a cour case against them. 

As to the Eliminator Clothing link on my site, I simply built them a web page, and hosted it on mysite; for which I was not paid. I do design web sites and pages for other people. 

If you look closely at my articles I also say good things about Contain, NO Trace, and X-Scent. I have researched the use of cyclodextrin for odor elimination, and all of the research shows that it does work to eliminate and/or reduce odors. 

I have never been paid a single dollar by No Trace, Contain or Eliminator to endorse their product. I have no contract with any of those companies, for now, or in the foreseable future. Anyone who says I have is a either mistaken or a liar.

If any of those companies wants to pay me to endorse a product I belive in I will do it. I sure could use the money. 

I will mention that it appears that I hve been black-balled by all of the major magazines for submitting my article to them, because many of them take advertising dollars from the activated carbon suit industry. Good thing I have my own on-line magazine. :tongue: 


Next Item: What is the problem with Scent Lok allowing No Trace to manufature and sell clothing that has nothing to do with regeneration or de-sorbtion of activated carbon? (which is what they were sued for, and why one man went bankrupt) 

As to the question of the Patent, some people believe Scent Lok knew about the Governmant Patent (which means it is open to the public, and cannot be patented by anyone else) before they applied for their now rejected patent, because the wording in the Scent Lok Patent is so similar to the Government patent as to suggest it was used to formulate the Scent Lok patent.

Even if the patent was found to be invalid after the first two or three law suits (which it was), does that mean it is ethical NOT to return the royalty fees? If all of the patent claims are found to be invalid, it appears that governing law would find that all of those royalties must be paid back to the licensees. 

So, the question of whether the patent was found to be invalid before or after the court cases is a moot point. If the patent is invalid, it was wrong to sue. 

One reason why law suits may not have been filed for damages is because the money generated by sales of activated carbon suits is so great that the licensees are willing to pay the royalty fees. They are all making big profits for a product that research shows cannot work as suggested. Why rock the boat. 

But, that may all change. 

I just watched the FOX expose, and when a Scent Lok representative was asked why they used the term regenerate instead of "desorb", the representative said it was because it was a term hunters could relate to (or some phraseology similar to that). Then Trish VanPilsum, the reporter mentioned that it would be more honest to use the term de-sorb. 

I believe it was also mentioned that desorbtion cannot occur in a household dryer, which all the research supports. So, if it cannot be desorbed how long is it good for? 

FOX also did a serach dog study; and the dog found the reporter in 17 seconds. Then they interviewed Shivik, who conducted the Colorado dog study, and he said there was no difference in the time needed to find humans not wearing the suit, and those wearing the suit. It didnt work. 

The reporter also sat in a tree in deer habitat, and stated that some deer appeared to have scented her, while one deer may not have scented her. 

All in all in was not good for Scent Lok. But, according to Scent Lok they have become a 100 million dollar company. 


My feelings are this: 

The hunting public has been decieved by the claims of the manufacturers (look at the "Browning motion" statement; it has nothing to do with activated carbon). Activated carbon cannot be re-activated in a household dryer. 

Scent Lok was granted a patent that the Patent Office later concluded should not have been granted. Yet they keep changing the wording of the patent and trying to become more "all inclusive", probably so they can keep even those people who are now in business (using different technology) from selling those products. 

Meanwhile Scent Lok has kept one group of people from coming out with a competing product that did not infringe on the patent, even if it was a valid patent. And I'll bet those people will never get their money back. 

They also have at least one other manufacturer about to quit selling their product, for fear of being sued, even though the patent application is in question; and their product does not contain activated carbon. 

T.R. Michels
Trinity Mountain Outoors


----------



## TRMichels (Sep 26, 2006)

Cisco, 

After tearing open a Scent Lok suit and seeing how little cabon is in them I'd say it wasn't "excess carbon" because they need al the carbon they can get. And that is proabably what it was. 

However, I'm sure Scent Lok will have some other answer minimizing the loss of carbon.


----------



## TRMichels (Sep 26, 2006)

3D,

You are missing the point. If the Chem suits are no longer efective after 6-7 washings, because the carbon is saturated with chemicals, odors or detergent residue or whatever, and they have several (dozens, hundreds???) times more carbon in them than the hunting suits, how many washings will it take to completely fill the extremely sparse and non-fabric covering layer of carbon in the hunting suits to be completely filled up with detergent residue, human scent, chemicals or human odors. They will fill up at some point, and the research suggests they cannot be reactivated in a household dryer. 

Greg Sesselman, innovator or the Scent Lok suit told me that since I wore my suits about 120-150 days a year, I would need a new suit every year, which is why they sent me a new suit every year or so. 

T.R. Michels

Question for all of you here: 

Have you read the US Government reportson Chemical Warfare suits, or the University reports on how many degrees of heat it takes to "desorb" and "partially desorb" actibvated carbon. If not I suggest you simply type the words "desorb" or "desorbtion of activated carbon" in the search box on Google and do your own research. 

If you dont come to the same conclusions as Corrigan and myself, you aren't digging far enough. 

Look up Cyclodextrin and Febreze too. 

T.R.


----------



## TRMichels (Sep 26, 2006)

Totemkopf,

Only 1 person of 20 people wearing activated carbon wasn't found, that is insignificant in this conversation. 

According to Shivik's report there was no noticeable difference in the time it took the dogs to find the humans. It took the dogs 2.7 minutes to detect the humans who were not wearing activated carbon, and 3.4 minutes to find the humans who were wearing activated carbon suits. That is also insignificant, you are still busted by the deer. 

The report further states, "That the dogs detected humans wearing the suit indicates that the system failed to prevent detection of human odors." 

T.R.


----------



## ciscokid (Apr 26, 2006)

I kinda figured that. I guess i will just use my baselayers now to stay a little warmer and keep the skeeters from biting me!

BTW, chemical suits work much longer than people think. Had to use them all the time. Man i hated those days....


----------



## TRMichels (Sep 26, 2006)

Mr. Corrigan, 

I can attest to the fact that at least on of those giving a testimonial to Scne Lok did not do a "test" under a controlled set of circumstances, or used any control, because I only reported what I saw, and realizing my mistake I lter recanted. 

And yet, my testimony was (at least until recently) on the top of the testimonial page. 

Even when I asked them to take it down, and explained I no longer believes it worked, they kept using it; on top. 

What does that say about "truth or ethics in advertising or testimonials" by Scent Lok?

May Yahweh God bless all of you, and I pray that I see all of you in heaven, 'cause I will be there (God said! And I believe). 

T.R.


----------



## ciscokid (Apr 26, 2006)

*FOx video*

http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/myfo...n=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=VSTY&pageId=3.1.1

Haven't seen it yet but here it is....

Tell me if this would work for deer testing:
Take a rag and run it all over yourself and wrap it in a scentlock garment. Leave along a trail for deer to pass by it and record their reaction.

Does anyone know how true this is?
A dog's internal alarm picks up the slightest scent.
A deer's internal alarm has an acceptable level of human scent before it is "triggered".


----------



## HJMinard (Oct 18, 2006)

TRMichels said:


> Does Scent Lok expect me to go see them, when there is all this animosity from them to me?


I don't think they're going to whisk you off in a black helicopter (never to be seen again). If you're truly an unbiased researcher, I think you should take them up on their offer.



> I do not need to go to see the Scent Lok facilities, because I have read the research papers and findings of the US Government.


I apologize if I missed it earlier, but do you have a link to these research papers and findings? 



> As to the Eliminator Clothing link on my site, I simply built them a web page, and hosted it on mysite; for which I was not paid. I do design web sites and pages for other people.


Really? You designed and host a website for them to sell their products, and you get nothing at all? From the same company you've expressed a willingness to accept endorsements? Are they personal friends?



> I have researched the use of cyclodextrin for odor elimination, and all of the research shows that it does work to eliminate and/or reduce odors.


Can you (please) provide links to this research? Has the "dog test" been performed for cyclodextrin apparel?



> I will mention that it appears that I hve been black-balled by all of the major magazines for submitting my article to them, because many of them take advertising dollars from the activated carbon suit industry. Good thing I have my own on-line magazine.


Have you tried Consumer Reports? They love consumer fraud type stuff. (That's a serious question - not being sarcastic.)



> Next Item: What is the problem with Scent Lok allowing No Trace to manufature and sell clothing that has nothing to do with regeneration or de-sorbtion of activated carbon? (which is what they were sued for, and why one man went bankrupt)


Wasn't the lawsuit about truth in advertising (as opposed to patent infringement)?



> As to the question of the Patent


I'm a little confused by all this patent stuff. Does ALS currently have any legitimate patents (legitimacy as determined by patent office and/or courts, not someone's opinion)? Do the cyclodextrin apparel folks currently hold any legitimate patents?



> I just watched the FOX expose, and when a Scent Lok representative was asked why they used the term regenerate instead of "desorb", the representative said it was because it was a term hunters could relate to (or some phraseology similar to that). Then Trish VanPilsum, the reporter mentioned that it would be more honest to use the term de-sorb.


Ya gotta admit that "de-sorb" is clunky terminology. Besides, I don't think your average hunter is being fooled into buying Scent-Lok because it regenerates instead of de-sorbs, or vice versa. Look at the zillions of dollars made by deer pee in a bottle manufacturers (when are you going after them?). Hunters are P.T. Barnum's dream customers. An easy mark ... second only to fishing zealots. 



> I believe it was also mentioned that desorbtion cannot occur in a household dryer, which all the research supports.


Link?


Keep sharing the info, T.R. ... I would be particularly interested in the research that shows the efficacy of cyclodextrin apparel.


----------



## TRMichels (Sep 26, 2006)

I see my "recanted" Testimonial is still #1 on the Scent Lok web site as of Nov. 9, 2006, 11:20 PM Central Standard Time. 

Hows that for being honest?????

Go ahead Scent Lok -leave it up - it only proves my point. How many times to I have to ask you to take it down. You no longer have my permission to use it. (right here in public)

T.R. Michels
Trinity Mountain Outdoors


----------



## HJMinard (Oct 18, 2006)

ciscokid said:


> Does anyone know how true this is?
> A dog's internal alarm picks up the slightest scent.
> A deer's internal alarm has an acceptable level of human scent before it is "triggered".


I would say that's probably pure conjecture, and impossible to prove. I would also say, however, that the dogs being used in these tests are very well trained and their _entire_ focus is on finding human scent. Dogs are likely a little more intelligent than deer, too (although I certainly don't know that for sure). Deer, on the other hand, are focused on many things when they're wandering through the woods, and while wary of any prey animal scent, they're not focused on that task to the same degree as the dogs.

Pure conjecture on my part. But I'm not convinced the dog test tells the whole story. If the cyclodextrin stuff passes the dog test, however ... I'm sold!!


----------



## TRMichels (Sep 26, 2006)

HJMinard said:


> I don't think they're going to whisk you off in a black helicopter (never to be seen again). If you're truly an unbiased researcher, I think you should take them up on their offer.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


A: I don't know of cyclocextrin clothing studies, but the link to the science is on the Eliminator link. There is no reason it won't work, and I think No Trace or a fabric finisher has done research.


----------



## ciscokid (Apr 26, 2006)

I agree now that you put it that way. 

I would think that dogs can interpret what they smell and make a decision unlike deer . 

I talked to a guy who has a deer farm and started making scents a few years ago. He told me a story about how one of his bucks started making agrressive gestures towards him as he got closer to the fence. He had never seen the buck act this way before. The buck has always let him get within 5 feet from him. Not this day. 

Come to find out he was bottling some Buck urine from another pen and a friend came over to see his deer. He finished with the bottle he was working on and wiped his hands before he stepped out the shop. Obviously he still had some urine on him. 

He concluded that the deer trusts his nose before anything else. He claims the deer thought he was an intruder ... According to the deer he was...


----------



## TRMichels (Sep 26, 2006)

HJ,

Maybe you haven't hunted as long as I have, or watched or researched deer as long as I have, but I can tell you that at least 80% if the time a deer has come across my scent (as I watch my back trail) they have spooked, and that is whether or not I have used a suit. I've even had them swing wide down wind trying to locate my exact position by sight. 

I completely disagree with you, and so would most professional hunters; hard hunted deer are aware of every smell around them, especailly humans during the hunting season. 

Since 1994 I have spent over 4000 hours just watching and learning from and about deer, without hunting, and I write it all down. 

A little known fact is that deer often try to verify danger or a human by two of the three senses; sight, sound and smell. When they hear or see humans they often try to verify it with one or more of the other senses. But, when a deer smells a human it is a closed circuit that leads to a "hide or flee" response, because smell goes directly from the nose to the hypothalmus, and needs no secondary signal to cause a response. Usually they flee, and most of the time we never see them, so we can't accurately judge how many deer really do smell us; unless, you sit and watch them from afar, or don't hunt at all.


----------



## HJMinard (Oct 18, 2006)

TRMichels said:


> A: I don't know of cyclocextrin clothing studies, but the link to the science is on the Eliminator link. There is no reason it won't work, and I think No Trace or a fabric finisher has done research.


TR ... you don't know of cyclodextrin clothing studies? There is no reason it won't work? You *think* someone has done the research? Above you said you researched the efficacy of cyclodextrin. Are you saying you read Proctor & Gamble's website ... is that your "research"? You're slamming Scent-Lok for a lack of real world testing, yet you proclaim this other stuff works based on dryer sheet technology (or whatever P&G is using it for)?

You're really stretching your credibility, in my opinion.



> From your website: _"I use Eliminator Hunting Clothing, because I've done the research, and it works. If it didn't work, I wouldn't wear it. I've worn activated carbon suits, and found that they don't work - I've switched to Eliminator." T.R. Michels_


(1) You've done the research, and it works. Please direct me to your research, and please tell me it's more than a Proctor and Gamble link.

(2) No endorsement money? You're providing a personal endorsement on a page where the product is being sold, and you're not receiving anything? Free clothing?


----------



## ScentLok Design (Dec 14, 2005)

TRMichels said:


> Maybe you haven't hunted as long as I have, or watched or researched deer as long as I have, but I can tell you that at least 80% if the time a deer has come across my scent (as I watch my back trail) they have spooked, and that is whether or not I have used a suit. I've even had them swing wide down wind trying to locate my exact position by sight.


OK. 80%. Let's see your proof. I want your research on this subject to claim an 80%. I also assume this research to be verified by and independent source and signed as fact by a competitor as our data that we have presented has been. 



TRMichels said:


> I completely disagree with you, and so would most professional hunters; hard hunted deer are aware of every smell around them, especailly humans during the hunting season.


Again, show me the testimonies of *most* professional hunters. Or again is this opinion?



TRMichels said:


> Since 1994 I have spent over 4000 hours just watching and learning from and about deer, without hunting, and I write it all down.


Again, if this is anywhere close to establishing credit, we need to see it. And we'll add to that, let's see verified log sheets of 4,000 hours. Again, I assume those will be verified? 



TRMichels said:


> A little known *fact* is that deer often try to verify danger or a human by two of the three senses; sight, sound and smell. When they hear or see humans they often try to verify it with one or more of the other senses. But, when a deer smells a human it is a closed circuit that leads to a "hide or flee" response, because smell goes directly from the nose to the hypothalmus, and needs no secondary signal to cause a response.


Since this is absolute *fact* please point us in the direction of this research.



TRMichels said:


> Usually they flee, and most of the time we never see them


If you never see them, how do you know they were there? Where's any remote sign of proof.

Let me quote first your site that you built for Eliminator and address some issues:
_"I use Eliminator Hunting Clothing, because I've done the research, and it works. If it didn't work, I wouldn't wear it. I've worn activated carbon suits, and found that they don't work - I've switched to Eliminator." T.R. Michels - nationally recognized game animal researcher, product designer, field tester, professional guide/outfitter, and seminar speaker/writer/author.
_

This is why we kept your testimonial up on our site. Where is any bit of consistency in your statements? We added 1994 under your testimonial for a reference to that date as to not mislead. That testimonial is our property and we will use it as long as you contridict yourself with these statements, and publish articles refuting our claims. 

Secondly, again, show us your proof that you mention in that statement that shows it works. Both testimonials and lab proof that Eliminator works. I would also need to know who did the testing, dates, labs, methods...etc.



TRMichels said:


> I have not ducked Scent Lok for years, that is a false statement. I had not been contacted by Scent Lok since I wrote my first article in 2004, until they asked me to contact them on this message board in September of this year, 2006. In fact, they have ashunned me since I was subpoenaed in a cour case against them.


First we placed several calls to you from our VP of Marketing on June 16 and 19-21, 2006. In addition Greg Sesselmann called you several times in that same period for discussion about your claims.

Secondly, Let me quote an e-mail that we have received from you:
_I will no[sic] engage in any conversation with you or anyone else involved with Scent Lok as long as it concerns Scent Lok._
and
_"I will delete all further correspondence. Please do not bother me again, I don't need anymore stress in my life. Things are bad enough."
This was sent on Sept 26, 2006 to my personal e-mail address. We attempted to contact you. 

We showed science. The data is there. The labs are there. The results are there. It has been verified by courts and signed off by the people who brought us to court. Where is any shred of you reserch? Let's put your research up against the world's foremost experts who wrote much of the facts about human odor, biochemical applications, modern activated carbon technology and modern fabric technology. 

Fact is TR, you don't have and have never shown any proof or facts nor any basis to write an article like you've done. And lastly, if you cannot provide this proof, I think it would be necessary for you to publicly retract your article._


----------



## ScentLok Design (Dec 14, 2005)

*Mr Corrigan -* I would like to point out that you refusal to meet and discuss this technology severly damages you creditabiliy to opine on this subject as it relates to your two fronts.

First, as a scientist, your education as a Biologist and an Environmentalist form no basis nor qualifies you to analyze the data from activated carbon, human odor or fabrics testing. We cannot let you form an opinon on limited knowledge and not certified expertise.

We are giving you th opportunity to speak with the world's foremost experts in this field. We would like you to present your thoeries to them and discuss in detail the true capabilities of not only our products but activated carbon. Since you have written three "scientificlly based" papers, let's present them to the scientists who wrote much of the literature about human odor, modern activated carbon applications and fabric technologies. Let's have them answer your questions and let's create an open forum for discussion on the subject.

Secondly as a investigative journalist your refusal puts holes in your body of writing. You are quoted:
_"My objective when I wrote the article was to simply educate bowhunters. I wanted to give them a straightforward non-marketing based perspective. I am not affiliated with any competitors of these scent-elimination clothing manufacturers, I’m not trying to sell anything, nor do I have a grudge. I believe I reached most folks who had an open mind on the subject and/or those who already had some suspicions."_
By _not_ meeting with these experts, you are turning your back on _facts_ and analysis on a subject that is a major part of your career in the last few years. You feel your opinion is above the aforementioned experts. I am not a writer, but I do know that a true investigative reporter would look at _all_ the facts; then presents a case.

We want to provide you from experts themselves; first hand. These people have devoted their careers to this type of technology and research. This is your chance to challenge both their and our qualifications and procedures. This is you opportunity to show the people who have read your articles, and put weight in them, your prowness as a journalist.

When you turn your back on this offer, you are forcing tunnelvision. You are _forcing_ a hypothesis and not simply presenting "straightforward non-marketing based perspective".

Fact is you are marketing something aren't you? Yourself.


----------



## TRMichels (Sep 26, 2006)

Scent Lok, 

As noted no one contacted me in all the previous years, and yes I refused to contact you, and I don't remember receiving any calls from Greg Sesselman. I can caegorically state I never talked to Greg since about 2000 or so at an AMO show, when we basically said hi as he walked by me.

And boy is it easy to attack me about my studies when you I told you that everything I had, all my computers, clothing, furniture, kitchenware, library, my wife's wedding dress my father's memorial flag, my Bibles and my biblical research have been illegally confiscated by and disposed of or sold by an unscrupulous landlord. That includes all of my research data. 

I sent an e-mail (probably to you) or whoever first contacted me here, to tell everyone at Scent Lok about it. Low blow. 

I also said that we were currently in a lawsuit against the landlord, and that we have been living in a hotel for the last two years, because my business was destroyed, and we were living hand to mouth. It is easy to attack someone when they are down and you know it - isn't it? 


Are you hinting at the beleif that I am not telling the truth? 

However, why not contact some of my editors at the NRA, N***, Buckmasters, Petersen's Bowhunting, NA Whitetail, Fur-Fish-Game to see if they think I did the research I say I did. 

Greg is the one who told me that because I spent all that time doing research I would need a new suit every year (120-150 days). 

I have looked at the research (researched it on he internet or read papers on it) on activated carbon, and on cyclodextrin in the same manner. 

I have never taken a red scent from No Trace (using cyclodextin) or Contain (using anti-bacterials), and I have never gotten free cyclodextrin product from No Trace or Eliminator. I was sent a "second" from Contain to field test. And I have probably been sent 5-10 Scent Lok suits. 


If I misled anyone by using the word research instead of Field Test when refering to Field Testing products, I am sorry. It was not my intent to deceive or mislead, and it was an honest mis-wording or "mis-phraseology" - I never even thought about it how it might be mis-construed or mis-understood. 


However, I have done over 4000 hours of in-field research into deer behavior, and many more hours of elk behavior. Now that I think of it, you will see some of my data on my site, it has been there for years for anyone to look at, and it has been published in several national magazines. And the references are often shown with the graphs or text. My deer, elk and turkey research papers have been shared with several top deer and turkey biologists, and my elk research was e-mailed to a biologist in China so it could be presented at a red deer/elk symposium there. 

In fact, your company used my Whitetail Addict's Manual, which contains many references to my data, to support their negotiations or law suit with Gore and Whitewater, because the lawyer who subpoenaed me for a deposition in that case showed me your reference to it from court documents. And NOW you want to disclaim my research and findings, because it doesnt' suit you. 

My citations about deer acivity are from memory, but I know my data extremely well. Not exact dates or places, but the findings.


I can neither afford to come to your facility, nor do I have the time, nor am I healthy enough. And, I would be extremely skeptical of any information received from anyone you quote, cite or use. 

I do however trust the reports from the US Government, and Shivik, and the University study from Virginia (I believe it is), because they have nothing to do with your company, and are only presenting their findings, which were not meant to refute your findings (but does), but to get to the facts of the matter. So, they hae no stake in your claims or anything to gain ... 

I am not marketing a scent elimination clothing product, I simply built the web page. And since the person who requested that page is afraid of being sued by you, even though the technology he uses is not remotely related to activated carbon, he has quit offering his product (as you would have noted if you bothered to look), or did you just chose NOT to mention that the page clearly states that no more product is being sold. At this point I don't know if it ever will be offered again. 

And I never received any money or any kind of compensation to write or host that page. 

I do recommend (I don't even know if endorse is the correct word, but it could be applied) several products for which I have never been paid for. Yes, as an outdoor writer I do get a lot of free product to use or field test, but there is never any pressure to endorse it if I don't want to. 

The only company I have ever gotten paid by is Wildlife Research Center, the only company I ever received product (to sell) as compensation was (I state was) Haydel's Game Calls, and I don't believe either of them has ever had any litigation with your company; they are not involved in odor elimination clothing production in any what that I now of.

However, I did receive several suits from your company, and I was never on Pro Staff, and yet I sent them a FREE (but uniformed poorly field tested) testimonial; which you have prominently place on your web site, in spite of the fact that I have recanted my beliefs at that time, because they were flawed. And as of yesterday it was still there. *Why *is it there? 

Have I ever been paid anything by Scent Lok, have I ever been on Pro Staff, did I not send them a FREE testimonial? Did I not "talk up" their product for many years in my articles, and in my Whitetail Addict's Manual. Was there any compensation, other than new suits to try? 

Can I not do the same for another company now? 

T.R. Michels


----------



## TRMichels (Sep 26, 2006)

I've tried to answer all of you questions, I've supplied links to or references to all of the research I have cited in my articles,it is all I can do, anyone can look it up. 

You are pretty good at firing back with questions and avoiding our questions? 

Why not answer our questions???

Why not post all of the patent applications on this site, so everyone can see how they have changed over the years?

Incidentally, why don't you answer the question as to what the disposition of this patent is and provide current documents to prove it?

Why not post the research findings of an independent lab here? I've cited documents and studies that refute your claims. 

Why not post the findings of the University study here? 

Why not post the Shivik study here?(it may be on the FOX TV link). 

Why was Brownian activity or motion cited as support for your product? 

Why has my recanted testimony not been removed from your site? 

Don't you think the hunting public should have the right to purchase the best technology available to reduce, eliminate, hide or cover up unnatrual scents, even if it competes with your product? 

How many companies has Scent Lok sued, how many have they settled with, how many have they put out of business, how much royalty do licensees pay so that Scent Lok is now a 100 million dollar company? 

Until you answer my questions I will answer no more of yours. 

In fact I may be gone for several days, because I have to attend to this law suit against our landlord, and I have to try to find a way to make some moeny, so my family and I can find a place to live other than a motel. 

I trust Mr. Corrigan will carry on with here; about your marketing campaign.

You know what I'd like? I'd like to get some really realiable independent chemists (2 or 3 of them) on here, who have nothing to do with clothng or the hunting industry, to try to get the bottom of this matter, maybe someone here knows who they might be, get them over here. Live. 

T.R. Michels.
Trinity Mountain Outdoors

Has everyone seen the FOX report????


----------



## TRMichels (Sep 26, 2006)

Here is the link to the FOX TV video: 

http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/myfo...n=2&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=VSTY&pageId=3.1.1

Here is the link to the FOX TV article: 

http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/myfo...n=2&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.1.1

The article and video states: "In fact, home dryers are not able to reach temperatures high enough to reactivate the carbon in the clothing."


----------



## HJMinard (Oct 18, 2006)

TRMichels said:


> The article and video states: "In fact, home dryers are not able to reach temperatures high enough to reactivate the carbon in the clothing."


I heard that in the video, but what was their source for that claim?


----------



## TRMichels (Sep 26, 2006)

HJ,

Ask them I suspect they did a study themselves or referred to the stduy I cite below. Why argue with research that was not done to refute Scent LOk's claims, but was only done to inform (probably industrial?) users of activated carbon? 

Here are the document citings I have used, and parts of some of the articles I have written. 

Do activated carbon suits fool the nose? 
When the laboratory at Purification Process was asked to test a popular activated carbon scent-control suit they found there wasn't enough in the suit to even test. 

In a test with search dogs, by JA Shivik, Ph.D., forty-two people were hidden from Colorado search and rescue dogs. Twenty-one of the people wore activated carbon suits; twenty-one did not. The dogs found all twenty-one people who didn't wear activated carbon suits, and twenty of the people who wore activated carbon suits. There was no noticeable difference in the time it took the dogs to find the humans. It took the dogs 2.7 minutes to detect the humans who were not wearing activated carbon suits, and 3.4 minutes to find the humans who were wearing activated carbon suits.

Shivik's report states, "That the dogs detected humans wearing the suit indicates that the system failed to prevent detection of human odors." Since deer have a sense of smell equal to if not better than dogs, it is safe to assume that deer would have detected the humans too. The report adds, "The suits are probably not worth the cost to researchers or managers who want to approach canids undetected." They probably aren't worth $150 to $300 to hunters either, if they can't keep deer from detecting the hunters. You can view this article at this address http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ws/nwrc/is/annpub2002.html, by scrolling down to report number "02-93 Shivik" and downloading the PDF file. 

The military also uses activated carbon clothing, commonly referred to as Chemical Warfare Suits, but they are limited-use, disposable garments, not intended for multiple use, because, according to the paper The War Next Time: Countering Rogue States and Terrorists Armed with Chemical and Biological Weapons, the new JS-LIST suits worn by the armed services "provide 45 days of wear versus 22 days for the BDOs." 

These chemical warfare suits have several times more activated carbon in them than the suits currently being offered for hunting purposes; and they only last for 45 days! This document can be viewed on-line at http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cpc-pubs/war_next_time/schneider2.pdf, or just type the words "JSList suits" in the search box on Google to read the above quote. 

An interesting comment in the document states, "In addition they can be washed up to six times without losing protective qualities." This suggests that clothing made with activated carbon becomes less effective every time it is washed. It also suggests that after six washings, the Chemical Warfare Suits, which are made to US Government specifications, and have several times more activated carbon in them than the activated carbon suits worn by hunters, are ineffective after six washings! And yet, the loss of activated carbon due to washing, and the eventual ineffectiveness of the suits due to washing, is not clearly stated by the manufacturers of the activated carbon scent-elimination suits in any of their literature, or on their web sites. Note the reference to heavy perspiration too, which we have talked about. 

While some desorption can occur when activated carbon is exposed to temperatures lower than 750 to 1500 degrees F, there is a point when the temperature is too low to desorb activated carbon. A Virginia Technical University study shows that activated carbon can be partially desorbed between temperatures of 100 to 649 degrees Celsius. One hundred degrees Celsius is 212 degrees Fahrenheit. This is the extreme low temperature during which "partial desorption" of odors and gases may occur. However, as stated above, most household clothes dryers produce less than 150 degrees Fahrenheit; which suggests that the activated carbon suits sold to hunters cannot even be "partially regenerated or desorbed". 

An interesting comment on the page states "This (desorbtion, _TR_) is done primarily with granular activated carbon because PAC particles are too small to be effectively re-activated." *WHOA, what was that??? *Activated carbon suits use particles, not granules; therefore, according to this sceintific paper, they cannot be effectively re-activated.

The above-cited study is study was originally available on the Internet by logging on to: http://www.ce.vt.edu/program_areas/environmental/teach/wtprimer/carbon/sketcarb.html. 

There is the evidence you all have asked for.


----------



## ScentLok Design (Dec 14, 2005)

I have some statements into Greg Sesselmann for approval, however I will not be available this weekend to post them. I will continue this discussion on Monday morning. 

I think it would be wise, since there is so much valuable information in a singular place to lock this thread for the weekend. That way the public will not have to wad through pages of comments for research. Is this kosher with the other parties? 

Nick


----------



## HJMinard (Oct 18, 2006)

ScentLok Design said:


> I have some statements into Greg Sesselmann for approval, however I will not be available this weekend to post them. I will continue this discussion on Monday morning.
> 
> I think it would be wise, since there is so much valuable information in a singular place to lock this thread for the weekend. That way the public will not have to wad through pages of comments for research. Is this kosher with the other parties?
> 
> Nick


Works for me, but I'm not a mod. I think it would keep the topic on track.


----------



## mnbob (Sep 26, 2006)

*request to scentlok*

This is quite the discussion hopefully we can start with some facts that everybody agrees to accept.
1. The Fox study shows that activated carbon suits do not cover human scent from detection from canines.

2. ALS patent 5,935,930 is under re-exam by the United Stares Patent Office 
and the original claims 1-10 have been rejected and subsequent new claims 11-59 also have been rejected *http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair* put in 90007331, click on image file wrapper) This gives the history of the re-exam process. 5-11-2005 entry shows rejection of ALS claims 1-10 ; entry on 2-22-2006 shows rejection of ALS claims 1-59.

3. ALS filed a patent infringement lawsuit against RES (NO Trace) in the western District Court of Michigan ( case no.1;04-CV-0042) and then filed an Order for Dismissal Without Prejudice. Personal note: This lawsuit forced RES (No Trace) out of business.

Can we all agree on these facts ?


----------



## Marvin (Feb 17, 2005)

ScentLok Design said:


> I don't know about you, but every household dryer I have seen has a vent coming from outside. I think in most places it is a code violation to have an internally vented dryer. This would lead me to believe that the dryer, even in a lab, would be vented from the outside. In addition, since you seem to be a bit of a scientist yourself, to suggest the assumption that a lab is totally sterile is quite a stretch. Granted it isn't dirty, but labs doing any scientific testing would never assume they are sterile.


Short bus moment for you here nick...When I said air i meant air SUPPLY. dryers are forced air systems that use heat in conjunction with the air movement to dry clothes the air does not come from out side, it comes from inside the room( lots of VOC is most houses Nick) . Duh it vents outside( i.e the air leaving the dryer) . So it loks like you need to get back to the drawing board. You should also test the effects of residual fabric softeners on your clothing. I believe those molecules can be left over after a load is complete:wink: ( no you don't use them with scent lok but can be left over from the load previous. ) Every dog has his day TR . good to see you here. :cocktail:


----------



## Marvin (Feb 17, 2005)

ScentLok Design said:


> I have some statements into Greg Sesselmann for approval, however I will not be available this weekend to post them. I will continue this discussion on Monday morning.
> 
> I think it would be wise, since there is so much valuable information in a singular place to lock this thread for the weekend. That way the public will not have to wad through pages of comments for research. Is this kosher with the other parties?
> 
> Nick


I am not jewish nor am i a pickle so No locking this up. You have to lie in the bed you make.:wink:


----------



## Marvin (Feb 17, 2005)

After some more thought, i find one thing really funny. IF scent lok works as advertised, they are seriously dense. they have a product that will change the world. so many other industries rely on this stuff day in and day out. Why are they staying small potatoes with just the hunting industry? Cause were easily fooled? dumb ********? man if I were them I would be SPRINTING to the government and seeking out some FAT government contracts. Yet they plod along just filling teh hunting small market niche. Odd


----------



## HJMinard (Oct 18, 2006)

mnbob said:


> This is quite the discussion hopefully we can start with some facts that everybody agrees to accept.
> 1. The Fox study shows that activated carbon suits do not cover human scent from detection from canines.


I request a qualifier: They do not cover human scent from detection by *trained search and rescue or police canines*.



> 2. ALS patent 5,935,930 is under re-exam by the United Stares Patent Office and the original claims 1-10 have been rejected and subsequent new claims 11-59 also have been rejected *http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair* put in 90007331, click on image file wrapper) This gives the history of the re-exam process. 5-11-2005 entry shows rejection of ALS claims 1-10 ; entry on 2-22-2006 shows rejection of ALS claims 1-59.


I will definitely check out your link, but I haven't heard ALS dispute your patent claims so I assume they're true.



> 3. ALS filed a patent infringement lawsuit against RES (NO Trace) in the western District Court of Michigan ( case no.1;04-CV-0042) and then filed an Order for Dismissal Without Prejudice. Personal note: This lawsuit forced RES (No Trace) out of business.


Appears to be true.



> Can we all agree on these facts ?


In that spirit ... another truth that (in the interest of fairness) the forum deserves to know about mnbob. (Since he didn't share the information as I requested via PM.) This is part of a PM mnbob sent to me, and it provides perspective with regard to his motivation. (Note: His motives don't necessarily make his information erroneous, but they should be known, nonetheless.)

****Private messages are PRIVATE. DO NOT publicly display private messages or any portion thereof. RK, AT Administrator****


----------



## bobcat91 (Oct 18, 2006)

*Questions for Scentlok?*

After looking through the material listed in the Scentlok science website, it appears to the casual observer that the activated carbon outperforms the cyclodextrin based clothing. If this is the case then why did Scentlok file a patent infringement lawsuit against NoTrace since through the course of time it would be proven to be less effective? 

Could it be that the fact is that NoTrace is about 50% less expensive and is very effective? I use NoTrace and have had excellent results with it. Perhaps Scentlok can reply as to why they would bother trying to put a "less effective" scent reducing clothing maker out of business when the mechanism of action of the two garments is completely different?


----------



## ScentLok Design (Dec 14, 2005)

mnbob said:


> This is quite the discussion hopefully we can start with some facts that everybody agrees to accept.
> 1. The Fox study shows that activated carbon suits do not cover human scent from detection from canines.


Yes, but the canines, as we have went over eariler in this article are trained to pick up on minute amounts of specific scent molecules then react to them be stringing together stronger and stronger amounts. 
This is where the dog test fails. A deer doesn't react on every single molecule of human odor. For survival it has to ignore some of the "scent background noise" or else, especially in heavily populated hunting areas, it would constantly be running itself mad. 



mnbob said:


> 2. ALS patent 5,935,930 is under re-exam by the United Stares Patent Office
> and the original claims 1-10 have been rejected and subsequent new claims 11-59 also have been rejected *http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair* put in 90007331, click on image file wrapper) This gives the history of the re-exam process. 5-11-2005 entry shows rejection of ALS claims 1-10 ; entry on 2-22-2006 shows rejection of ALS claims 1-59.


Patents are a process. They are constantly being review and altered. 



mnbob said:


> 3. ALS filed a patent infringement lawsuit against RES (NO Trace) in the western District Court of Michigan ( case no.1;04-CV-0042) and then filed an Order for Dismissal Without Prejudice. Personal note: This lawsuit forced RES (No Trace) out of business.


Yes, people challenge us, and we will defend those patanet with the best possible defense. That's the cost of doing business. 



mnbob said:


> Can we all agree on these facts?


Can you tell me what this has anything to do with activated carbon suits working as we claim or not?


----------



## ScentLok Design (Dec 14, 2005)

HJMinard said:


> In that spirit ... another truth that (in the interest of fairness) the forum deserves to know about mnbob. (Since he didn't share the information as I requested via PM.) This is part of a PM mnbob sent to me, and it provides perspective with regard to his motivation. (Note: His motives don't necessarily make his information erroneous, but they should be known, nonetheless.)
> 
> _What I don't appreciate the fact tha ALS intentional destroyed a friends company and his personal life to keep him from competing with them. While you are challenging my motives I rather suspect that you also are afraid of the truth_


Thank you for this I have made note for our records.


----------



## ScentLok Design (Dec 14, 2005)

bobcat91 said:


> After looking through the material listed in the Scentlok science website, it appears to the casual observer that the activated carbon outperforms the cyclodextrin based clothing. If this is the case then why did Scentlok file a patent infringement lawsuit against NoTrace since through the course of time it would be proven to be less effective?
> 
> Could it be that the fact is that NoTrace is about 50% less expensive and is very effective? I use NoTrace and have had excellent results with it. Perhaps Scentlok can reply as to why they would bother trying to put a "less effective" scent reducing clothing maker out of business when the mechanism of action of the two garments is completely different?


As you can see "odor-eliminating clothing" is a sticky subject. Why would we want an inferior product make claims that they outperform us, support writers who distort the truth and ultimately provide products that don't work. 
We didn't force a company to make false claims, we even cautioned them several time to stop the claims.


----------



## Marvin (Feb 17, 2005)

ScentLok Design said:


> Thank you for this I have made note for our records.


publically displaying private messages is a direct violation of website rules. This will be noted for our records too. :wink:


----------



## Tronjo (Feb 4, 2004)

I don't think scent-loc is for me. Even if it does work.


----------



## wookie (Oct 11, 2002)

Tronjo said:


> I don't think scent-loc is for me. Even if it does work.


Me neither. I don't know if it works or not, but its not for me. I do watch this thread for entertainment value though


----------



## ScentLok Design (Dec 14, 2005)

*Re: Fish Tank Filtration:*
Thanks *LeesburgGamecoc* for handling that one. Evidently Corrigan believes if you say something affirmatively it's true. Is your Brita filter a bacteria farm or an impurity remover? Geez-come on Corrigan

*Re: Humidity & Utility of Chemical Warefare suits:*
So let me get this straight. From what you are saying our soldiers in Iraq and around the world are using a usless suit in humidity levels above 50%? You mean they will not sweat under the extreme level of exertion in a battle situation with chemical warheads raining down. In addition, your breath creates an extremely humid environment especially when sealed in a gas mask. Corrigan, does that render the millions of gas masks around the world useless? The absurdity of your argument is laughable.

In addition you point out that the chemical suits and our products are different animals, which is true. However your argument is about the effectiveness of activated carbon, which cannot be denied at any, yes any, humidity level.

*Re: Dog Studies:*
*HJMinard* touched on it before but let me clarify a bit further. We design garments to fool wild animals, not trained dogs. I believe it may be possible to create a "dog proof" system. I don't think you could bypass the disturbed vegatation that a trained dog could pick up on. However a tracking dog's brain is wired to pick up on one singular molecule then link it with another. Whenever that scent drops, even remotely, he knows he is going the wrong way. When that concentration is at its maximum he reacts to the trainer that he has found the source the corrilating scent, then the result is a reward. In other words his mind is solely looking for a specific scent and scent signature out of a plethora of scents. Finding that specific scent directly results in a reward for the dog. 

However a wild animals, specifically deer are much different. Yes, they have similar tolerances that a dog, but they do not look specifically for an individual odor. A deer, depending upon where he lives has a tolerance level he must accecpt as not dangerous, a level of sensation that arouses concern (and possibly curiosity) and levels of sensation that absolutely turns them inside out and causes immediate flight. You probably have seen all these reactions in the woods. We have always stated that we bring a hunter's scent below the level that would cause the alarming sensation for deer. 

In addition, I believe it is much easier to fool a highly pressured deer in a heavily populated area then an Iowa deer with thousands of unmanned acres. In low pressured areas, I usually recommend in the off season hanging tree stands and scouting in without Scent-Lok to get whitetails accustomed to high levels of scent. When the season comes around I suggest using the Scent-Lok system so it drops your scent concentration below what those deer have typically associated with a dangerous human. This in turn results in deer thinking the hunter is farther away from an area then he actually is, he may know he is in the woods, but thinks he is at a safe distance due to the low concentration of odor. 

All of this aside, deer, especially pressured deer, simply couldn't survive if they spent their entire lives running from each molecule of human odor it detects. Our products, as we have always stated, drop the level of scent below the "background noise" of scent, resulting in unalarmed deer.

*Re: TR Michels*
I have known T.R. as pretty much the man he claims to be; a Christian, hard hunting, game knowledgable and a good writer. I don't know what nor when he bacame disillusioned with Scent-Lok or felt we didn't like him - I'd break bread with him today, I wish him peace in life.

But he relies too heavily on his opinion and not science. Forget me and what I think I know. I cannot pack up a whole library of tests and information to send to Mr. Michels or Mr. Corrigan. What I am asking is to talk directly with the experts in human odor (see tabs 1, 2 & 3), experts in testing (see tabs 4, 5, 6,8 & 12). 

His opinion and unverified research has led him to endorse products that just plain don't work. He has brought up these main points, that we have proven through lab testing support our products:

Can we reactivate at dryer temperatures? Yes see tab 12. (Note: Even *Marvin* says this test is valid)
How do activated carbon fabrics compare to Cyclodextrin fabrics? See tab 2 & 8.
How do activated carbon fabrics compare to anti-microbial treated fabrics? See tab 8.
How do activated carbon fabrics compare to normal cotton, polyester and nylon? See tab 8.
How has activated carbon worked for full paying customers that owe us nothing and have no affiliation to us. See tab 17. In addition the busload we have from over the years (Note: We are currently uploading an additional 200+ testimonials this week) 

We have always asked you to challenge our methods and analysis and now we are asking you to challenge those points with them...directly! Any challenge always results in improvements as far as we're concerned. We are not perfect — just a whole lot better than we were and we were pretty good to begin with.

To finish, *Mr. Corrigan and Mr. Michels have both denied science.* We have continually asked them to present their opinions, which they believe is fact, to an expert panel. They have declined, why? Because they have * nothing* to back it up other then small conjectures with no scientific backing. 

Corrigan and Michels know that cyberspace is the only forum where you can get away with porviding affirmative opinions as fact without providing *any* support to an editor. They also know, when they are proven wrong so goes their press time. 

Sorry guys, but your opinions don't count to anybody anymore. We have showed you direct science from experts, where's yours? 

Get Close, Go Undetected
Greg Sesselmann


----------



## Marvin (Feb 17, 2005)

ScentLok Design said:


> *Re: Fish Tank Filtration:*
> Thanks *LeesburgGamecoc* for handling that one. Evidently Corrigan believes if you say something affirmatively it's true. Is your Brita filter a bacteria farm or an impurity remover? Geez-come on Corrigan
> 
> *Re: Humidity & Utility of Chemical Warefare suits:*
> ...



Oh greg, your really sad. doing in a lab and doing it home are two different arenas. i noticed you ran like a bullied school child from my "at home" comparisons. to many at home variable that show your product is HIGHLY suspect on its best day. 

water purification, funny you should mention that thats kinda my business....bacteria in water? hardly. if you understood the chemicals added to the water to even send it in the pipeline it would scare most people to death. They don't claim to make your water pure, just help remove impurities. your company slogan on the other hand is misleading at best. go undetected? how do you know that? supposively lowering the scent level as to not bother whitetails in not "going undetected". 

Greg, are you a whitetail expert now? we liked nick better anyway. 

hey greg, if you are using VOC heavy air to dry the clothes, how is your product going to get desorbed?

didn't ELIMINTRAX beat the dogs?

Oh heaven's i had to edit for this conjecture...


"Elimitrax have been documented to be undetectable to both wild game animals and trained bloodhound tracking dogs, but what matters most to hunters is that Elimitrax have been proven 100% effective in thousands of real hunting situations. Outfitters who require their clients to wear Elimitrax report that their hunter’s success rates soared and that their stands still produce even after extensive hunting. (top)"

Not good greg...not good.


----------



## Marvin (Feb 17, 2005)

after some research of "Forget the wind just hunt" products it appears the best purchase is *Scentblocker* clothing. Their product does not have a "life expectancy" like scent lok. they also recommended not using a commercial dryer....said it gets TOOO hot.. Thats interesting. maybe it was just for their water proof clothing.... anywhoooo thier waterproof stuff says to use low to medium heat...


----------



## ScentLok Design (Dec 14, 2005)

Marvin said:


> after some research of "Forget the wind just hunt" products it appears the best purchase is *Scentblocker* clothing. Their product does not have a "life expectancy" like scent lok.


Yes they make some excellent products. By all means check them out. I heard their Dream Season is killer!


----------



## Marvin (Feb 17, 2005)

ScentLok Design said:


> Yes they make some excellent products. By all means check them out. I heard their Dream Season is killer!


nah, witchcraft gets people in trouble. :wink: I am doing fine with my current selection. Much cheaper and reliable. Nothing like getting out in the woods and having your 40 hour suit life expire in the middle of the hunt.....


----------



## RecordKeeper (May 9, 2003)

This one is locked for now.:wink:


----------



## fasst (Oct 1, 2004)

Ok

This thread is now unlocked and I will stick it again.
This is going to be strictly a debate thread.
No "theories"
If you state facts, please provide a link or at least tell us where you retrieved your information.
Replies are welcomed, along with lively debate, but no name calling, personal attacks, etc.

This is a thread that deserves to be debated by both parties in a manner that will allow the public to view each side of the case and form their own opinions on activated carbon and clothing.

If you make a post on this thread that is not contributing to either side, it will be removed.

My PM box is wide open and on. :wink: 

Travis


----------



## Bob_Looney (Nov 17, 2003)

Scent-Loc, thanks for the in depth post above. It clears up a lot.


----------



## Marvin (Feb 17, 2005)

fasst said:


> Ok
> 
> This thread is now unlocked and I will stick it again.
> This is going to be strictly a debate thread.
> ...


Is it okay to state an observation? How much does it cost to be a sponser so we don't get edited?


----------



## MEMORIES (Oct 19, 2005)

*Sorry Scent-Lok*

Mr. Sesselman,

*Your Question:*
_Re: Fish Tank Filtration:
Thanks LeesburgGamecoc for handling that one. Evidently Corrigan believes if you say something affirmatively it's true. Is your Brita filter a bacteria farm or an impurity remover? Geez-come on Corrigan_

*My Response:*
Your product does not work under the same principles as a Brita water filter. You have used this argument over and over again and it is ridiculous. AC will filter water in water… Dry AC will filter air …. But *WET AC WILL NOT FILTER AIRBORNE ODORS!!! *Is everyone clear on this now?? There is not a single application I can think of where wet AC is used to filter air… Infact, through my extensive environmental experience (formerly employed by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection) I can point out specifics…. In environmental applications where contaminated air is to be filtered with AC media, the air stream is usually run through a de-humidifier to remove water vapor prior to pulling the air stream through the AC filter media. Why? Because engineers know that WET AC WILL NOT FILTER AIRBORNE ODORS. Your argument related to military or gas mask is not accurate. In most applications outside air is drawn in through a gas mask filter media and air that is exhailed is routed through a one-way valve NOT through the filter media.. Therfore, moisture from the user's breath is not routed through the filter media. By the way, the filter media used in gas masks is a one time use media and you can not toss it in a household dryer to re-activate it.

The folks @ Scent-Lok continue to avoid the "*MOISTURE ISSUE*". Scent-Lok please comment.... You claim that clean air and moisture pass through the fabric. How does moisture vapor magically pass through your fabric without being trapped and “loading” the AC particles? *WET CARBON CANNOT ADSORB AIRBORNE ODORS !!! *This is common knowledge. Have you tested the effects of moisture (i.e. a relative humidity level of 50% or more) on the Scent-Lok fabric and its ability to adsorb odors? In a relative humidity level environment of 50% or more – how long will it take until the small amount of AC in the Scent-Lok garment becomes fully saturated with water and thus unable to adsorb air-borne odors. HOW LONG? *Just answer the question and provide independent research data to substantiate your position.*


*Your Question:*
_To finish, Mr. Corrigan and Mr. Michels have both denied science. We have continually asked them to present their opinions, which they believe is fact, to an expert panel. They have declined, why? Because they have nothing to back it up other then small conjectures with no scientific backing. 

Corrigan and Michels know that cyberspace is the only forum where you can get away with porviding affirmative opinions as fact without providing any support to an editor. They also know, when they are proven wrong so goes their press time. 

Sorry guys, but your opinions don't count to anybody anymore. We have showed you direct science from experts, where's yours?_

*My Response:*
Mr. Michels and I have NOT denied any of the science pertaining to AC. We continue to provide “literature citations” from *published credible sources*, including university and U.S government based documents to support our position(s). The science has already been shown ladies and gentlemen. The ways in which AC function(s) in a water filter application and air filter application is already common knowledge. And every ounce of literature identified to date does not support the claims made by Scent-Lok…. The biggest of all being that WET AC WILL NOT FILTER AIRBORNE ODORS. Do you deny this fact? YES or NO ???

I would very much like to have a discussion or debate with your panel of experts. I simply do not feel it is necessary for me to make a trip to your headquarters to do so. In today’s digital age, it is unnecessary. Please have your panel of experts log on to Archery Talk and join us in our discussion. This way the entire debate can be documented for posterity sake. The entire world would love to read what your panel of experts have to say. In some ways you are correct that “_cyberspace is the only forum where you can get away with providing affirmative opinions…. _The major Bowhunting based magazines will have nothing to do with this debate… Period end of story. They accept too much in advertising dollars from Scent-Lok to print anything that is not Pro – Scent-Lok. If Scent-Lok is truly open to continuing this discussion instead of going in circles… bring on your panel of experts. Have them join us here on Archery Talk.


----------



## mnbob (Sep 26, 2006)

*Responce to Scentlok from Mnbob*

I want to try and center on 1 fact at a time to zero in on this subject. As i mentioned in a previous thread that there is public statements from the United States Patent Office that they have posted on their offical website that they have rejected ALS (Scentlok) claims for patent 5,539,930 .Anyone can look this up. First on 2-7-2005 the USPTO reject the original claims 1-10. Following this Scentlok amended their patent by adding new claims 11-59 which in turn were also rejected by the USPTO The examiner( Lindsey)stared "that the claims5-9 are unpatentable over either the Whitetail Publication Or the Deer Hunters Yearbook publication". The examiner further stated " It is agreed that consideration of either the Whitetail Hunting publication or the Deer Hunters Yearbook publication raises a substancial new question of patentability" A study of the USPTO web site reveals that patent 5,539,930 is the foundation of all ALS as they all refer back to it.
The basis of a patent being re-examined is for one of two reasons. Either the patent applicant has tried to patent something that is allready in an existing patent (Examiner cited many such patents) or the patent doesnt work as claimed. In new claim #22 Scentlk now is claiming that no longer are odors held by an "ionic bond" but now by the means of "mechanial entrapment" . If such a claim is accepted we would have to throw out the last two hundered years work of all the leading physicts and scientist according to Dr. Richard Mellor of Purification Products of Great Britian ( ALS cites in all their patents that Purification products makes a similar product as theirs ). Dr Mellors responce has been filed with the USPTO.
In a new patent application by ALS ( 10,050,2030 the patent examiner (Mai) has reject the application and part of the reasons given was the the United States Army already had listed Milspec 443926J and Mil C43858 ie Militarty Chemical 
Hopefully Scentlok Design will admit to these facts and we can move on to another aspect of our discussion.


----------



## MEMORIES (Oct 19, 2005)

*Sorry Scent-Lok*

Mr. Sesselmann,

OOPS… I forgot to provide a reference or citation (as the moderator requested) to substantiate one of my claims…. Regarding gas mask filter media and the effects of *MOISTURE and HIGH RELATIVE HUMIDITY*. I did a quick google search so I could find a web site for folks to navigate quickly (just to make my point)… There are several other web sites you can go to for the same information.

Here is the web site link:

http://www.earthquakestore.com/gasmask_filters_2.html

Here is the “pertinent” information contained on the web site (*see bold text for the strong points*):

_Filter respirators
Size of filter
Gas filters can be assigned to three different filter classes, depending on their intended application. Only two classes occur in practice, i.e. class 1 (mainly intended for half masks), and class 2 (mainly intended for full masks). A class 2 filter has roughly 2 - 5 times higher adsorption cap~ city than a class 1 filter7 but at the expense of higher weight and greater resistance to breathing. Consequently, under given conditions, a class 2 filter will last about 2 5 times longer than a class 1 filter.

Ambient humidity and temperature
If a type A filter is used for organic solvents, the humidity in the air will be competing with the solvent for space in the filter, *i.e. the higher the ambient humidity, the shorter the useful life of the filter. **It should also be borne in mind that the filter will adsorb moisture even when not in use, unless it is well sealed while in storage. *

The temperature also affects the useful life of the filter. It is then also largely a moisture problem. Consider a case in which a type A filter is used as protection against some solvent. If the filter has a certain capacity when the ambient air is at Soc and at a relative humidity of 80%, its capacity will basically be halved at 200C and 80% relative humidity. This is mainly due to the fact that, in the latter case, the air contains much more water per unit of volume. *Similarly, if we maintain a constant temperature of 200C and change the relative humidity from 70% to 80%, the adsorption capacity will again be halved.*

*The above factors definitely occur in reality.* The useful life of a type A filter can very well be evaluated for a certain work situation indoors during the winter. If this is done on a cold, clear day when the indoor temperature is around 200C, the relative humidity is very likely to be below 30%. Six months later, the weather may be sultry and thundery, with showers from time to time. The relative humidity may then very well be above 70%, and the adsorption capacity of the filter may be half that recorded on the evaluation occasion._


----------



## TRMichels (Sep 26, 2006)

As long as my testimony is on the Scent Lok site I will be forced to respond. 

A Fox Television segment on activated carbon suits states: 

(begin quote) 

Two deer were upwind, about 35 yards away. They’re spooked by her trail. But a hunter accompanying her saw a deer get within 20 yards without scenting her. The next night a doe catches her scent at 60 yards.
Here is the link to the article, and the actual program:
http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/myfo...n=2&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.1.1 I don't know how long it will be on th4e internet. 

(end quote) 

This shows that at least 66% of the time the human wearing a suit was detected by the deer, I don't know how much more real life you can get. 


When the laboratory at Purification Process was asked to test a popular activated carbon scent-control suit (Scent Lok) they found there wasn't enough activated carbon in the suit to even test. This suggests it could not work to reduce or eliminate human scent. 


The report of JA Shivik, Ph. D., with search and rescue dogs and activated carbon suits states, "The suits are probably not worth the cost to researchers or managers who want to approach canids undetected." This is probably the only "controlled" test we can perform, unless you have search and rescue deer. It has been noted that der and dogs sense of small is similar. You can view this article at this address http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ws/nwrc/is/annpub2002.html, by scrolling down to report number "02-93 Shivik" and downloading the PDF file. 


These US Government uses chemical warfare suits that have several times more activated carbon in them than the suits currently being offered for hunting purposes; and US government report states that they only last for 45 days! This document can be viewed on-line at http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cpc-pubs/war_next_time/schneider2.pdf, or just type the words "JSList suits" in the search box on Google to read the above quote. 


The following article is from the civil Engineering Department of Virginia Tech. It was not written to refute the claims of the activated carbon hunting suit industry, but rather to explain how activated carbon works, and how it can, or in the case of the powdered carbon used to manufacture cannot be reactivated at temperatures under 212 degrees Fahrenheit. Link: 
ewr.cee.vt.edu/environmental/teach/wtprimer/carbon/sketcarb.html - 19k - Cached - Similar pages



(begin quote) 

The "spent" carbon, as it is called, is removed and sent for re-activation treatment. This is done primarily with granular activated carbon because PAC (powdered activated carbon) particles are too small to be effectively re-activated. This process allows for recovery of approximately 70% of the original carbon. This number also allows for any physically lost in the shipment process. The re-activated carbon is then mixed with a portion of new carbon for higher effectiveness and is then returned to its place in the plant process (Clark, 1989). 

Reactivation Process Specifics

Desorption, 100-649 degrees C, volatile materials (scent molecules) driven off
Gasification, 649-1038 degrees C, vapors and residues from previous stages driven out of pores 

# Stage Temperature (degrees C) Action 
1 Drying < 100 GAC dewatered to 50% of original weight 
2 Desorption 100 - 649 (212 F +) volatile materials driven off (gases and scent molecules) 
3 Pyrolysis 100 - 649 heavy organics burnt leaving residue 
4 Gasification >>649 and >>1038 vapors and residues from previous stages driven out of pores 

(end quote) 

The above article clearly shows that the minimal amount of activated carbon (which does not even cover the entire surface of the fabric) used in a Scent Lok suit, cannot be reactivated in a household dryer, because household dryers rarely produce temperatures in excess of 150-180 degrees, and the article clearly states the release of volatile materials (scent molecules) are not driven off (be desorbed or re-activated) until activated carbon reaches 212 degrees F. Some vapors (human perspiration odors?) may not be driven of until the temperature is raised to 649 C. No hunter has access to such a dryer. 


The Following article is from the NORIT Activated Carbon web site. Note that it is about activated carbon used for air; not only water. 

(begin quote) 

NORIT’s reactivation service is a cost-effective and environmentally sound solution. 'The recent implementation of the EU Landfill Directive in the UK is further boosting interest in thermal reactivation of exhausted GAC,' comments Mark Currier, NORIT UK Sales Manager. During thermal reactivation, the exhausted granular activated carbon (GAC) is heat treated in dedicated kilns at temperatures exceeding 900 C. Adsorbed organic compounds are cracked and oxidised. Following reactivation, the GAC's adsorptive properties are restored to a level comparable to that of virgin GAC. As a result, the GAC can be reused in the same or a similar application.

Exhausted carbon: green and amber;
The relevant EU regulation categorises exhausted GAC as either green (used in water purification and food production) or amber (used in the treatment of gas/air or wastewater). NORIT reactivates green and amber GAC in completely separate systems, precluding the risk of cross contamination.

(end quote)

The above article shows that activated carbon for air is reactivated (de-sorbed) at temperatures above 900 degrees C. Again, no hunter has access to such a dryer, and if he did, it would incinerate his suit.


----------



## TRMichels (Sep 26, 2006)

I have two issues:

1. I believe the hunting public has been deceived by the activated carbon clothing manufacturers, because scientific research and reports show that activated carbon cannot be desorbed as they claim.

2. In spite of the fact that Scent Lok appears not to have a patent, and should not have been granted a patent (because the application of "odor eliminating clothing" was previously patented by Popper and Floyd, and because the use of activated carbon clothing for airborne particles and gases has been patented by the US Government; which means the patent application is open to the public, which in turn means no person can patent that use or application and keep others from developing, manufacturing, using, marketing or selling products using the patent application); Scent Lok has threatened to sue, or sued, several companies, to keep them from selling products similar to the non-patent of Scent Lok, and they have bankrupted at least one person that I know of; which was and is wrong. 

As a Christian I cannot sit idly by and watch what I personally believe is wrong and deceptive to happen to the hunting public. 

As a Christian, a hunter, and a professional writer, I am obliged to stand up for the huntng public.

In case no one has realized it, I am doing this for all of the rest of you. I'm certainly not doing it for me; all I have gotten is "black-balled" by the major hunting publications, and I have been besmirched (fancy word huh :wink here. 

I don't need to do this. I belive in what I write. 



Scent Lok

Do you currently have a valid patent on activated carbon clothing? If so for what? 

Why was "Brownian motion or activity" cited on your site when it does not apply to airborne particles? 

What is the Scientific meaning (not your meaning) of "mechanical entrapment" used in your patent submission?

Does the activated carbon you currently use in you suits work to eliminate human and other unnatural odors (to deer), when the humidity between the hunter and the suit is above 50%? When the hunter sweats at all? 

Can the activated carbon used in your current suits (which appears to be powdered or particles, not granular) be desorbed (not reacivated as per your terminology) at temperatures under 212 degrees Fahrenheit? 

Do you think the hunting public should be denied the use of products (that do not infringe on your non-patent) that help reduce or eliminate odors; because of your lawsuits? 

Shouldn't hunters have access to the newest and possibly better technology than what you offer, or should they be left with only the one option whereby you make money? 

How much royalty are Gore, Whitewater, Browning, Robinson/Scent Blocker, Cabela's etc. paying you so they can sell activated carbon suits? 

Why did one of the owners tell me that a Scent Lok suit would only last me one session of yearly deer research, which is 120-150 days? 

I have posted my citations. 

I eagerly await your response to my questions. 

I won't hold my breath though, because no anwers have come yet, only questions about my beliefs. 

One way to avoid answering a question is to question the beliefs, thoughts, theories of the questioner. But, it does nothing to advance the debate - or the truth.


----------



## TRMichels (Sep 26, 2006)

Hey Marvin, 

I like your style, and your character (and you are one). I'd like to meet you some day.

God bless everyone else here, and may we not let our personal beliefs on hunting and hunting products keep us from knowing the truth about Yahweh-God, or affect our lifes, beliefs and actions as Christians. 

I hope to see everyone of you in Heaven,

May God bless all of you, and good hunting,

T.R. Michels
Trinity Mountain Outdoors
www.TRMichels.com 

"Commit a ranodm act of kindness everyday, and give the credit to God"


----------



## TRMichels (Sep 26, 2006)

Someone just informed me that the Scent Lok claim that their suits can be reactivated in a household dryer has or will be sent to the FTC, because someone felt it was "false advertising", accoring to all the sceintific reports they have.


----------



## mdewitt71 (Jul 20, 2005)

I am gonna post mainly to subscribe to this but also to "chime in"....


Desert Storm 1991......after crossing into Iraq and heading into a suspected chemical area we donned our chemical suits (MOPP level 4) and ended up living in our suits for 16 days straight. I being a "Good" ( but you can call it "nervious") Private never took mine off except to do the business :wink: only to wipe and quickly get it back on. 
No showers, no Baby wipes, 16 days of eating MREs, living in the clothes on our back and all the funk inside them ol' pickle green Army issue chemical suits. 
After the mission was over, I can say them suits soaked up alot of body funk.ukey: 
Never could smell it till ya cracked the zipper or dropped your pants  
I do know for a fact the carbon does soak it up, I also know our suits would never get that stink washed out, we gladly burnt em. 
Now...present day, I splurged my "not too impressive" G.I issue $$$ and bought a Scent Lok Savanah from Cabelas on my birthday, to include hood and gloves. 
After using it for the 2nd season this year, would I go out and buy another suit when this one wears out....probibly not. 
I do find that the suit holds in body scents like my old Army chem suit....but to what extent, I am not too sure.......Heck you can fart in a ziplock and keep it safe from game if needed :wink: 
Does it effectively clear the scent when "recharged' better than the Army issue did, I sure hope so, but I am not too sure..... 
*Bottom Line for Me:*
- I have not noticed a better hunt quality just because of the suit......
- I will still use it but next time I will opt for my multi layered clothes using good wicking material as a base layer and call it "Good 2 Go"


----------



## TRMichels (Sep 26, 2006)

As of today at 6:25 PM, the Scent Lok site stateshttp://www.seattlefabrics.com/scent-lok_science.htm http://www.seattlefabrics.com/scent-lok_science.htm) 

(begin Scent Lok quote) 

The bonding process 
In the Scent-Lok products the odor adsorbing linings are designed so that the human odors, gases, and moisture pass through the fabrics, make contact with the activated carbon, and are then expelled as “filtered” air. Once through the suit the air no longer contains human odor. The scientific name for this molecular attraction to carbon is called the *VanderWaal’s *bond.

(end)

Definition of "VanderWasl's bond" from Wilkepedia

Van der Waals interactions are observed in noble gases, which are very stable and tend not to interact. This is why it is difficult to condense them into liquids. However, the larger the atom of the noble gas (the more electrons it has) the easier it is to condense the gas into a liquid. This happens because, when the electron cloud surrounding the gas atom gets large, it does not form a perfect sphere around the nucleus. Rather, it is only spherical if averaged over longer times and generally forms an ellipsoid, which has a slight negative charge on one side of the major axis and a slight positive charge on the other. The atom becomes a temporary dipole. This induces the same shift in neighboring atoms and spreads from one atom to the next. Unlike charges attract, and the induced dipoles are held together by dispersion force (or Van der Waals force). Van der Waals forces are responsible for certain cases of pressure broadening (Van der Waals broadening) of spectral lines.

Definition of "noble gases" from Wilkepedia: 

The noble gases are the elements in group 18 of the periodic table. They are the most stable due to having the maximum number of valence electrons their outer shell can hold. Therefore, they rarely react with other elements since they are already stable. Other characteristics of the noble gases are that they all conduct electricity, flouresce, are odorless, colorless and are used in many conditions when a stable element is needed to maintain a safe and constant enviroment.

Scent Lok: What the heck do "noble gases" (Helium, Neon, Argon, Krypton, Xenon etc.) have to do with elimination of human perspiration odors????? 



(begin Scent Lok Quote) 

How are odors released?
It is common knowledge that heat makes molecules move more rapidly. Reactivation is only obtained by using a clothes dryer. Reactivation is achieved by placing the suit in a dryer for twenty to thirty minutes on a medium to high heat setting or according to the label instructions. The heat from the clothes dryer creates what is scientifically known as *Brownian molecular motion*, which causes the scent molecules to move rapidly. This movement breaks the molecules free from the surfaces of the activated carbon particles and interior pores of the carbon, and allow them to eventually exit out of the dryer vent.

(end)

Definition of Brownian motion from Wilkepedia: 

The physical phenomenon where minute particles, immersed in a fluid or floating on its surface, move about randomly; or 


Scent Lok: What the heck does "Brownian molecular motion", which refers to "particles, immersed in a fluid", have to do with human perspiration odors in the air???? 


Seems someone is back to questionable statements, and possibly more "false or deceptive promotion of products".


----------



## Marvin (Feb 17, 2005)

TRMichels said:


> Hey Marvin,
> 
> I like your style, and your character (and you are one). I'd like to meet you some day.
> 
> ...


TR, i am just and educated ******* with a bulldog personality. hate seeing good people steered into the ditch. We will meet up one day, in this life or the next. Save me a seat.:tongue:


----------



## TRMichels (Sep 26, 2006)

Marvin,

I really mean it, and if I get there first I will save everyone here a seat, 'specially them Scent Lok guys. 

T.R. 


Scent Lok, 

Want facts????? Here they are. 

Sorry for using some of the same quotes, I've been saving quotes for quite some time now, because I have thoroughly researched this subject, and use unbiased reports and papers, not "paid for" chemists. But, my mouse won't let me highligh, copy or past, so I just hit "select all" then "copy" then paste. 

The following article is from the civil Engineering Department of Virginia Tech. 

It was not written to refute the claims of the activated carbon hunting suit industry, but rather to explain how activated carbon works, and how it can, or in the case of the powdered carbon used to manufacture cannot be reactivated at temperatures under 212 degrees Fahrenheit. 

(begin quote) 

The "spent" carbon, as it is called, is removed and sent for re-activation treatment. This is done primarily with granular activated carbon because PAC (powdered activated carbon) particles are too small to be effectively re-activated. This process allows for recovery of approximately 70% of the original carbon. This number also allows for any physically lost in the shipment process. The re-activated carbon is then mixed with a portion of new carbon for higher effectiveness and is then returned to its place in the plant process (Clark, 1989). 

Reactivation Process Specifics

Desorption, 100-649 degrees C, volatile materials (scent molecules) driven off
Gasification, 649-1038 degrees C, vapors and residues from previous stages driven out of pores 

# Stage Temperature (degrees C) Action 
1 Drying < 100 GAC dewatered to 50% of original weight 
2 Desorption 100 - 649 (212 F +) volatile materials driven off (gases and scent molecules) 
3 Pyrolysis 100 - 649 heavy organics burnt leaving residue 
4 Gasification >>649 and >>1038 vapors and residues from previous stages driven out of pores 

(end quote) 

The above article clearly shows that the minimal amount of activated carbon (which does not even cover the entire surface of the fabric) used in a Scent Lok suit, cannot be reactivated in a household dryer, because household dryers rarely produce temperatures in excess of 150-180 degrees. The article states that the release of volatile materials (scent molecules) are not driven off (desorbed or re-activated) until activated carbon reaches 212 degrees F. Some vapors (human perspiration odors?) may not be driven of until the temperature is raised to 649 C. No hunter has access to such a dryer. 


The Following article is from the NORIT Activated Carbon web site. Note that it is about activated carbon used for air; not only water. 

(begin quote) 

NORIT’s reactivation service is a cost-effective and environmentally sound solution. 'The recent implementation of the EU Landfill Directive in the UK is further boosting interest in thermal reactivation of exhausted GAC,' comments Mark Currier, NORIT UK Sales Manager. During thermal reactivation, the exhausted granular activated carbon (GAC) is heat treated in dedicated kilns at temperatures exceeding 900 C. Adsorbed organic compounds are cracked and oxidised. Following reactivation, the GAC's adsorptive properties are restored to a level comparable to that of virgin GAC. As a result, the GAC can be reused in the same or a similar application.

Exhausted carbon: green and amber;
The relevant EU regulation categorises exhausted GAC as either green (used in water purification and food production) or amber (used in the treatment of gas/air or wastewater). NORIT reactivates green and amber GAC in completely separate systems, precluding the risk of cross contamination.

(end quote)

The above article shows that activated carbon for air is reactivated (de-sorbed) at temperatures above 900 degrees C. Again, no hunter has access to such a dryer, and if he did, it would incinerate his suit. 

The following quote is from the CPL Carbon Link web site at http://www.activated-carbon.com/5-1.html. 

(begin quote) 

Reactivation restores the activated carbon to a state where it is virtually identical to the properties of the virgin pre-cursor. This is done by undergoing the process of activation a second time rather than simply displacing adsorbed organic material by processing at high temperature. The organic compounds removed from the spent adsorbent are passed through a sophisticated multi-stage treatment system ensuring the reactivation system does not cause pollution while undertaking a recycling operation. 

(end) 

The above article states that "reactivation" to the state of the virgin precursor occurs after both high temperature has been used to "desorb" the carbon, and then it has to be reactivated "a second time". It appears that "reactivation" (which is the term used by Scent Lok) is even more difficult than desorbtion. And it is unlikely any hunter has access to a facility to reactivate their suit; or the money to do it. 

The following quote is from the Chemviron Carbon web site at http://www.chemvironcarbon.com/cci/introcci.htmhttp://www.chemvironcarbon.com/cci/introcci.htm

(begin quote) 

Activated Carbon Cloth (ACC) was originally developed by the British Ministry of Defence for use in chemical warfare suits. Since the early 1970’s Charcoal Cloth International (CCI) a subsidiary of Chemviron Carbon has been developing and manufacturing ACC under the ZORFLEX® brand name for a wide range of demanding markets. 

(end)

The above article shows that activated carbon cloth (used in hunting suits) was used for a variety of purposes as early as the 1970's, which shows that the use or application of activated carbon began much earlier than the non-patent of Scent Lok for the same use or application in the early 1990's. Their patent is invalid; as it stands, they had no right to sue anyone, threaten to sue anyone, require royalties from anyone, or stop anyone from selling activated carbon suits. 

The following article is from the Inist web site at http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=16558801

(begin quote) 

Bench-scale experiments investigated the effect of electrolyte mixing on the effectiveness of an electrochemical reactor for the reactivation of granular activated carbon (GAC). Two different GACs (F-400 and WV-B) were loaded with phenol via batch adsorption tests, then electrochemically reactivated and finally reloaded with phenol. Reactivation was conducted in a recirculating flow reactor with a 0.1 M NaCl solution as the electrolyte. Cathodic reactivation was more efficient than the anodic reactivation and increasing the degree of electrolyte mixing decreased the cathodic reactivation efficiencies, while there was no significant change in the anodic reactivation efficiencies. Higher degrees of electrolyte mixing decreased the local pH at the cathode and consequently reduced the desorption driving force and therefore reduced the reactivation efficiency. The electrolyte mixing lowered the cell voltage. However, this advantage was overshadowed by the increased energy consumption required for the electrolyte pumping, the reduction of the oxidation rate of phenol, and a 20% reduction in the reactivation efficiencies. Thus, electrolyte mixing of the electrolyte is not recommended in the electrochemical reactivation of GAC.

(end) 

Note that this method includes "electrochemical reactivation", which no hunter I know of has access to. 

The following article is from the Cameron carbon web site at http://www.cameroncarbon.com/spent_carbon.html 

(begin quote)

Cameron Carbon offers spent activated carbon reactivation (recycling) services at a fully permitted reactivation facility. Spent carbon is recycled in specially designed high temperature furnaces that can restore the carbon's pore structure to new or near new quality. The organics that are vaporized from the spent carbon are fully destroyed downstream of the furnace by an air pollution control system. Certification of VOC (volatile organic compounds) destruction can be provided upon request.

(end) 

The above article states that "reactivation" (the word Scent Lok uses) occurs when activated carbon is placed in "specially designed high temperature furnaces", and ONLY THEN is it restored to new or nearly new quality. NO hunter I know of has access to such a facility. 

The following article is from the CMCC-AC web site at http://www.cmcc-ac.co.jp/english/product/catalog1.html

(begin quote) 

Activated carbon that has dropped its adsorbing capability can be recovered in its performance by the reactivation process and can be used in the adsorption process again. When activated carbon adsorbs impurities, a balanced relationship of adsorption is established among the adsorbate (i.e. substance adsorbed by activated carbon), activated carbon, and medium (i.e. substance surrounding the adsorbate and activated carbon such as water or gas).

Reactivating means that this balanced relationship of adsorption is changed and adsorbate is separated from activated carbon. Depending on the reaction mechanism, there are 6 types of reactivation; decompression reactivation, heating and leaving reactivation, chemical reactivation, solvent reactivation, substitutive reactivation, and oxidation and decomposition reactivation.

(end)

I don't know of any hunter who has access to 5 of the reactivation types, and we have already established that even partial reactivation, or "desorbption" as it is called, must occur at temperatures over 212 degrees F. (Ever wonder why? Probably because the adsorbed liquids (including water; human perspiration) must be heated to boiling point in order to return them to a gas that can then be released from the activated carbon.)

The following article is from the Siemens web site at http://www.usfilter.com/en/Corporat...ogies?OverrideChannel=/Channels/en/Corporate/

(begin quote)

Our carbon reactivation facilities process RCRA hazardous and non-hazardous liquid and vapor phase spent carbons. After inspection and acceptance, the spent carbon is heated to 1600°F to ensure proper reactivation. The cooled reactivated carbon is identified by lot numbers. Each carbon lot is sampled and analyzed in accordance with Westates’ QA/QC program. This process assures you receive the highest quality reactivated carbon. The entire process is computer controlled and monitored, ensuring the facility meets or exceeds federal and state regulatory requirements for air and water discharges. A “Certificate of Reactivation” can be issued for each shipment of recycled carbon. This certifies that the spent carbon has been recycled in a manner that meets or exceeds all applicable RCRA and Benzene NESHAP regulations.

(end)

I don't know of any hunter who has a 1600 degree dryer. 

I personally spoke to a Chemist at 3M here in St. Paul, MN. He told me that due to the length of the human perspiration odor molecule (a volatile organic) it would be impossible to desorb it from activated carbon at temperatures below 500 degress F. Can anyone say "INCINERATION"?


----------



## ScentLok Design (Dec 14, 2005)

I think we all made the points we are going to make. Plus I have some time booked in the woods. Bottom line here is we provided independent testing of our products that prove they work, can work and will work for hunters in the field. From gas masks to patents that is all sidebar in relation to what the end consumer needs to make and educated purchase. 

Do I think I will see the day when Corrigan and Marvin are in our suits, probably not. Activated Carbon suits aren't for everybody. We know that. However we will maintain our position until somebody proves us wrong. 

Good luck and Happy Hunting!

Nick and Greg


----------



## TRMichels (Sep 26, 2006)

Where do I find the "independent" testing you speak of on this site? 

I honestly can't seem to find it. Show all of us. 

How about answering our questions????? Honestly - straight forward.


----------



## Marvin (Feb 17, 2005)

ScentLok Design said:


> I think we all made the points we are going to make. Plus I have some time booked in the woods. Bottom line here is we provided independent testing of our products that prove they work, can work and will work for hunters in the field. From gas masks to patents that is all sidebar in relation to what the end consumer needs to make and educated purchase.
> 
> Do I think I will see the day when Corrigan and Marvin are in our suits, probably not. Activated Carbon suits aren't for everybody. We know that. However we will maintain our position until somebody proves us wrong.
> 
> ...


Hey i am all ears Nick and Greg. Lots of speculation around this topic. just address the issues and I would be sold. Lots of people with similair educational background dissagree with you and I noted holes in your tests. I know for a fact testimonies can be bought for one reason or the other. I am *NOT* saying you did but you do have a lot to lose. Your silence is deafening.


----------



## nodog (Mar 1, 2005)

Can't say anything about the science and have learned a few things about the product from these threads that has I'm sure saved me some cash. I've done my own test this year, never washed the stuff, just put it in the dryer when I flet like it. It was more often than perscribed. Bibs, pants, jacket, head cover and scent blocker gloves. Nothing large or small ever winded me. 6deer down. Watched many feed with 2 doe's at eye level for an hour not 15 yards away WITH UNWASHED CLOTHES, HAD OVER 100 HOURS ON THEM BY THEN. I do scent control on myself (no cover scents) and the clothes I wear under the Scent-lok, don't wear them to field dress and take them off after leaving the woods and I wear them in. Wind was not always good. If washings the killer I just saved a years worth of wear. I figure if I only wash them once a year I got 20 years to wear the stuff.


----------



## TRMichels (Sep 26, 2006)

I did a little more "unfounded", "unsuported" research over the weekend (who me? Go figure. )

I think you will ALL find it interesting. 


The following article is from the civil Engineering Department of Virginia Tech at http://www.ce.vt.edu/program_areas/environmental/teach/wtprimer/carbon/sketcarb.html. It was not written to refute the claims of the activated carbon hunting suit industry, but rather to explain how activated carbon works, and how it can, or in the case of the powdered carbon used to manufacture cannot be reactivated at temperatures under 212 degrees Fahrenheit. 

(begin quote) 

The "spent" carbon, as it is called, is removed and sent for re-activation treatment. This is done primarily with granular activated carbon because PAC (powdered activated carbon) particles are too small to be effectively re-activated. This process allows for recovery of approximately 70% of the original carbon. This number also allows for any physically lost in the shipment process. The re-activated carbon is then mixed with a portion of new carbon for higher effectiveness and is then returned to its place in the plant process (Clark, 1989). 

*Reactivation Process Specifics*
Stage 1: Drying, greater than 100 degrees C (212 F), granulated activated carbon (not powdered activated carbon, as is used in most hunting suits) is dewatered to 50% of original weight. 

Stage 2: Desorbtion, 100-649 degrees C (212-1200 degrees F), volatile materials are driven off.

Stage 3: Pyrolysis, 100-649 degrees C, heavy organics are burnt, leaving residue

Stage 4: Gasification, between 649 and 1038 degrees C, vapors and residues from previous stages are driven out of the pores of granulated activated carbon 


(end quote)



*NOTE:* To set the stage for this explanation of how the (powdered) activated carbon in a Scent Lok cannot be "reactivated" as Scent Lok representatives claim it can be, we must first define what the terms "reactivation", "desorbtion", "gasification", "volatile materials", "vapors" and "human perspiration odor" mean. 

*Reactivation*
As shown by the above article "reactivation" of activated carbon involves four different processes (drying, desorbtion, pyrolysis, gasification); not just "desorbtion" as it appears Scent Lok refers to when it says that their product can be "reactivated" in a household dryer (which generally produce maximum temperatures between 150 and 180 degrees F. 

*Gasification *
The web site at http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/organics/Conversion/Gasification/ states: 

(begin quote)

Gasification is a process that uses heat, pressure, and steam to convert materials directly into a gas composed primarily of carbon monoxide and hydrogen. Gasification technologies differ in many aspects but rely on four key engineering factors:
1. Gasification reactor atmosphere (level of oxygen or air content). 
2. Reactor design. 
3. Internal and external heating. 
4. Operating temperature. 

Typical raw materials used in gasification are coal, petroleum-based materials, and organic materials. The feedstock is prepared and fed, in either dry or slurried form, into a sealed reactor chamber called a gasifier. The feedstock is subjected to high heat, pressure, and either an oxygen-rich or oxygen-starved environment within the gasifier. Most commercial gasification technologies do not use oxygen. All require an energy source to generate heat and begin processing.

There are three primary products from gasification:
 Hydrocarbon gases (also called syngas). 
 Hydrocarbon liquids (oils). 
 Char (carbon black and ash). 

(end quote) 

It is during this "gasification" process that "vapors (some of the compounds of human perspiration odors) are "driven out of the pores" of activated carbon. 

*Volatile Materials*
The US EPA web site at http://www.epa.gov/iaq/voc.html states: 

(begin quote)

Organic Gases (Volatile Organic Compounds - VOCs)
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are emitted as gases from certain solids or liquids. VOCs include a variety of chemicals, some of which may have short- and long-term adverse health effects. Concentrations of many VOCs are consistently higher indoors (up to ten times higher) than outdoors. VOCs are emitted by a wide array of products numbering in the thousands. Examples include: paints and lacquers, paint strippers, cleaning supplies, pesticides, building materials and furnishings, office equipment such as copiers and printers, correction fluids and carbonless copy paper, graphics and craft materials including glues and adhesives, permanent markers, and photographic solutions.

Organic chemicals are widely used as ingredients in household products. Paints, varnishes, and wax all contain organic solvents, as do many cleaning, disinfecting, cosmetic, degreasing, and hobby products. Fuels are made up of organic chemicals. All of these products can release organic compounds while you are using them, and, to some degree, when they are stored.

EPA's Total Exposure Assessment Methodology (TEAM) studies found levels of about a dozen common organic pollutants to be 2 to 5 times higher inside homes than outside, regardless of whether the homes were located in rural or highly industrial areas. Additional TEAM studies indicate that while people are using products containing organic chemicals, they can expose themselves and others to very high pollutant levels, and elevated concentrations can persist in the air long after the activity is completed.

(end quote) 

Volatiles, are substances that can be "desorbed" may include some components of "human perspiration odor"

*Vapor*
Wilkepedia defines vapor as:

(begin quote)

Vapor or vapour (see spelling differences) is some matter in gaseous state, while being normally a solid or liquid at room temperature.

Although vapor and gas are frequently (incorrectly) used interchangeably, vapor refers to a gas phase in a state of equilibrium with identical matter in a liquid or solid state below its boiling point, or at least capable of forming solid or liquid at the temperature of the vapor. The term gas refers to a compressible fluid phase, as in common usage. Fixed gases are gases for which no liquid or solid can form at the temperature of the gas (such as air at standard temperature). A liquid or solid does not have to boil to release a vapor. The atmospheric boiling point of a liquid is the temperature at which the vapor pressure is equal to one atmosphere (unit). See the entry on vapor pressure for more information on this topic.

The vapor pressure is the equilibrium pressure from a liquid (or solid) at a specific temperature. The vapor pressure of a liquid or solid (pure or a mixture) is not affected by the pressure in contact with the liquid or solid.

(end quote) 

*Odor*
Wilkepedia defines odor (as in human perspiration odor) as: 

(begin quote) 

An odor or odour (see spelling differences) is a chemical dissolved in air, generally at a very low concentration, which we perceive by the sense of olfaction. Odors are also called smells, which can refer to both pleasant and unpleasant odors. In contrast, stench and stink are used specifically to describe an unpleasant odor. The terms fragrance, scent, or aroma are used primarily by the food and cosmetic industry to describe a pleasant odor, and is sometimes used to refer to perfumes.

(end quote) 

*Human Perspiration Odor*
Thus human perspiration odor is a gas or vapor, which contains substances such as uric acid, leucine, valine and lactic acid, that may be "driven out of (the) pores" of activated carbon during the "desorbtion" stage of reactivation of activated carbon. 

*Can the activated carbon used in Scent Lok suits be "reactivated" as the term is defined above? *

The above article states that "desorption" (which Scent Lok refers to as "reactivation") of GAC (granulated activated carbon) occurs between 100-649 degrees C (above 212 degrees F). This is when volatile materials are driven off. This clearly is not how any form of activated carbon can be reactivated, because human perspiration odor does not consist soley of "volatile organic compounds". 

The article goes on to state that "gasification" (using temeratures between 649-1038 degrees C) of "vapors" and residues (airborne gases and scents such as some of the compounds of human perspiration odor) from the previous stages of the "reactivation process" are "driven out of pores" of granulated activated carbon. 

The article clearly shows that the minimal amount of activated carbon (which does not even cover the entire surface of the fabric used in a Scent Lok suit), cannot be "reactivated" (or be completely "desorbed" of human perspiration odors) in a household dryer, because household dryers rarely produce temperatures in excess of 150-180 degrees. The article clearly states that vapors (human perspiration odors) are not driven off (are "desorbed" or re-activated) until activated carbon is raised to 649 C (1200 degrees F). No hunter has access to such a dryer. 

It must also be noted that Scent Lok uses PAC (powdered activated carbon) in its suits. The above article states that "PAC particles are too small to be effectively re-activated". 

This all suggests that Scent Lok is engaged in questionable advertising. In fact "re-activation" is the basis for Scent Lok's claim that their suits are effective because they claim they can be "reactivated", and can therefore be used for an indefinite period of time. 

May Yahweh-God bless you all, and good hunting, 

T.R. Michels


----------



## ciscokid (Apr 26, 2006)

*Base Layers*

Does anyone know how much carbon is in each piece of clothing? Lets talk about the head garment for instance. Does it have about 1 cup of carbon? How does it stay in the garment?


----------



## TRMichels (Sep 26, 2006)

Several points need to be made here:

1. I'm fairly sure, that because acitvated carbon does not "attract" odors, but that the odors have to be passed through (be forced through?) the carbon, that many of the odors given of by humans can get through the suit without ever coming into contact with, or being traped by, any of the carbon particles in a Scent Lok Suit. This makes the suit ineffective. 

2. If you sweat at all while you are wearing an activated carbon suit, and the humidity level between your skin and the suit is above 50%, then research suggests that "airborne" scents can't come in contact with the activated carbon, because the activated carbon particles are covered with water or perspiration liquid. That makes sense to me. 

3. If, as it appears, Scent Lok and all the other manufacturers are using PAC (powdered activated carbon) particles in their suits, it is extremely difficult to desorb or re-activate the carbon in those suits. That means the suits cannot be reactivated. 

4. Even if Scent Lok and other manufacturers were using GAC (granulated activated carbon) it CANNOT be even "partially re-activated" (desorbed) at temperatures below 212 degrees F, and it cannnot be (close to) "totally re-activated" at temperatures below 1200 degrees F. Does anyone here even know how you can re-activate an activated carbon suit at temperatures above 1200 degrees F, without burning up the entire suit, and having nothing left but carbon???

So, the questions are: 

How long does a suit last after it has been exposed to the air, to the point where it is full of molecules and will no longer hold anymore molecules? 

How long will it be until and activated carbon suit can no longer be re-activated, to the point where it can't hold any more molecules and will be ineffective? 

If the activated carbon suits designed for hunting are ineffective within days of being exposed to the air, and cant be re-activated at some point, are they worth the expense? 

Can the claims of Scent Lok be considered as "questionable" or "false" advertising? 

As my article asks, "Have hunters and the hunting industry been duped?" 

T.R. Michels


----------



## ShootingABN! (Nov 1, 2005)

*Some that believe?*

I never have bought into it......

Then again I have never killed a PY buck.....

Well it is some in VA, I just can't conect.......

Maybe a carbon suit..... NOT...


----------



## mnbob (Sep 26, 2006)

*Responce and challenge to Scentlok Design*



ScentLok Design said:


> I think we all made the points we are going to make. Plus I have some time booked in the woods. Bottom line here is we provided independent testing of our products that prove they work, can work and will work for hunters in the field. From gas masks to patents that is all sidebar in relation to what the end consumer needs to make and educated purchase.


We all know from this responce that SCENTLOK DESIGN probably isn't going to respond to any more threads' 
It seems to me that one has to be awful arrogant and think that the consumer is a fool to state that the United States Patent office is a sidebar issue. Everyone can see for them selves that they have rejected Scentloks claims. Must be a reason !!You can see from the responces in these threads that the is amply evidence for the USPTO to reject Scentloks claims.
If patents are a sidebar issue for Scentlok Design will Scentlok make a promise that they will no longer sue anyone who tries to provide the consumer with scent control clothing ?
I tied my own dog test this weekend and its something that most of us can try for ourselves. I wrapped a pheasant in Scentlok fabric hid it from my dog(German Shorthair) and wanted to see if he could find it. No problem finding it and pointing it out. Then I tried it with No Trace fabric and the dog was unable to locate it. Try this little test yourself and let me know the results.
I contacted the local Sheriffs Department this morning and they will do a field test with their dogs to try and find a controlled substance wrapped in these two different fabrics used in Scent Control. I'll let you know the results.Seeing that Scentlok Designs discounts real scientific studys done by trained dogs as being a sidebar issue try these test yourself.
From my point of view there are only a few ways to have a resolution .
1. Have a truely indepent test done by an indepent source who can set up 
up acceptabe testing methods.

I was given the name of an individual who is considered the top expert on 
carbon in the US ( He has testified 43 times as an expert witness on 
carbon) He would be willing to do testing if Scentlok Design is willing to 
submit to the testing. I would be willing to accept his findings
2. Find a way to submit all the facts from both points of view to a jury of our 
peers and let them decde on the evidence submitted.
3. Have enough dissatisfied consumers to file a class action and again let a 
third party decide on the evidence?
4. Send a complaint to the Federal Trade Commission and let them decide on 
the merits of the facts presented by Scentlok Design to answer the
complaint. 

I for one would like to see all these guestions answer once and for all. There 
can't be to two different answers to some of these questions (i.e. Are patents imporant or not ?)Lets hope that Scentlok Design will respond ?


----------



## ScentLok Design (Dec 14, 2005)

We are indeed going to respond. Like I said we had some other things going on other then this site. You will se something shortly.


----------



## Marvin (Feb 17, 2005)

ScentLok Design said:


> We are indeed going to respond. Like I said we had some other things going on other then this site. You will se something shortly.


How about that OSU game? :wink: :tongue:


----------



## mnbob (Sep 26, 2006)

*Scentlok Science Listing Denied*



ScentLok Design said:


> We are indeed going to respond. Like I said we had some other things going on other then this site. You will se something shortly.


When you respond can you please put back your web site that has all your testing data. www.scentlokscience.com Either it was taken down by mistake or you don't want us to be able to view it any more I tried and it said "Directory Listing denied " ? What happened ???


----------



## Marvin (Feb 17, 2005)

mnbob said:


> When you respond can you please put back your web site that has all your testing data. www.scentlokscience.com Either it was taken down by mistake or you don't want us to be able to view it any more I tried and it said "Directory Listing denied " ? What happened ???


same here  all that hard work down the tubes:sad:


----------



## DEC (Dec 10, 2004)

Oh my friends it is not lost. *I printed every single page of it out.* It is in a 3 ring binder at my house as I type this. It would take a while, but it could easily be scanned for all to see.

I've been spending all my free time in the woods, but I assure you that I will personally read every word in that long document in the near future and I will make my expert comments known.

Until then, I'll let all of you fight this battle and let the consumers make their choice. Personally, I'd use my money for Christmas presents for the kids rather then feed the carbon fat cats.

Good hunting all!


----------



## ScentLok Design (Dec 14, 2005)

Something happened and our host is working at it. I'm not sure what the cause is. Should be back shortly. 

Nick

Marvin: Very pleased with the OSU game.


----------



## Steve Bartylla (Nov 20, 2006)

OK, first let me begin my post by publicly stating that I am indeed on Scent Lok’s pro staff. Furthermore, though I am not a Scent Lok employee, I do receive free suits and quarterly checks from them. Next, the only reason I am here is because they mentioned this thread to me and asked, if I was comfortable with it, if I’d provide my opinion. So, if all of this destroys my credibility, so be it. However, they certainly didn’t try to strong arm me into posting in any way or instruct me on what to write. 

Furthermore, I believe it is very safe to say that anyone that has followed my writings at all closely hopefully has realized that I am EXTREMELY careful in choosing the products I endorse or companies I pro staff for. The way I look at it, archery companies, deer show promoters, magazine editors &/or the TV show producers that I work with are not my bosses. Ultimately, the audience/viewers/readers are. Before I wrote my first article, I made a hard and fast rule with myself that I would never pro staff for or endorse any product that I didn’t believe in or would want to use if I had to buy myself. Though it has cost me a lot of money over the years, I have never broken that rule.

In my opinion, what is being lost in all of this is whether Scent Lok suits work on deer or not. I believe that every other “test”, “fact” or “opinion” is completely irrelevant to almost all hunters. Though I do have a BS in biology, I am certainly not a scientist and believe it is extremely dangerous for any hunter, no matter how many hours they spend a year in the woods, to generate fact based conclusions on their limited experiences. I also firmly believe that what works great for one hunter doesn’t always work well for the next.

Here’s what I can tell you. Before using Scent Lok, I washed all my clothing in baking soda, stored them in sealed containers with moss and pine brows, wore them no more than one trip into the woods, showered every time (washing your hair in baking soda is a true pain, btw) and used cover scent. After all that, I’d get winded by somewhere over half the deer that would enter bow range. 

At the same time I began using Scent Lok I also started using Wildlife Research Center products. The only changes to my routine was using Scent Killer spray, soaps and detergents, wearing Scent Lok and no longer storing my hunting clothing with “woods” odors. In the last 10 years or so, until late season begins (Dec 1st), I can count on one hand how many times I’ve been winded, and I no longer hunt the wind at all. After late season starts, I hunt the wind (much less natural cover scents and ultra skittish deer).

Personally, I don’t believe that it is practically possible to destroy, trap or otherwise eliminate 100% of human odor. However, I have no doubt in my mind that it’s possible to reduce it to the point that deer either don’t pick it up, believe it was left long ago or that it is coming from a great distance. I don’t pretend to know which of the 3 explanations are correct (and never will until someone discovers how to talk to deer). I also have no doubt in my mind that Scent Lok has allowed me to harvest far more bucks than I otherwise ever would have. Heck, the great buck I just took in IL nudged the doe he was tending straight down wind of me, where she stood for over a minute before he came to her.

Now, what I believe is lost for most hunters is that a deer could care less if they smell the hunter, their grunt tube, their bow, the stand that was stored in the garage all off season or any other object they bring in the woods. I have no doubt that a deer’s nose can consistently be defeated, and that Scent Lok can be a great aid in that. However, everything brought into the woods must be treated to consistently accomplish that feat.

To me, dog tests mean nothing at all. I’m not hunting dogs. All I care is if I can get by the nose of that 162 7/8ths inch 12 point. Thankfully, last Wednesday morning, I did just that. Without exaggeration, somewhere over half the bucks I’ve taken in the last 10 years or so have appeared downwind of my position and gave no indication that they had a clue I was ever there. I can’t even begin to tell you how many total unalarmed deer I’ve had down wind in that time. I can say that it’s safe to say that the number is closer to 1000 than 100. Do I believe Scent Lok deserves 100% of the credit for that? No, but it deserves a heck of a lot of it! Without wearing Scent Lok I don’t believe I could make that statement.

I have no desire to argue tests or anything else. All I’ll say is that, like everything I’ve ever written, I firmly believe what I’ve just wrote. I’ll also say that if someone shows me a better product, I’ll start using it tomorrow. I scout and hang all my own deer stands. My career depends on doing all I ethically can to not blow the limited opportunities I have. I work far too hard at this to not use what I believe are the best products. To date, nothing I’ve seen compares to what the combination of Scent Lok, Scent Killer and Vanishing Hunter (use it as a mouth wash, not a pleasant experience, but very effective. No, I get nothing from VH, but odor free breath and a vile taste in my mouth) does to help me defeat a buck’s nose.

Steve Bartylla


----------



## Marvin (Feb 17, 2005)

Steve Bartylla said:


> OK, first let me begin my post by publicly stating that I am indeed on Scent Lok’s pro staff. Furthermore, though I am not a Scent Lok employee, *I do receive free suits and quarterly checks from them.* Next, the only reason I am here is because they mentioned this thread to me and asked, if I was comfortable with it, if I’d provide my opinion. So, if all of this destroys my credibility, so be it. However, they certainly didn’t try to strong arm me into posting in any way or instruct me on what to write.
> 
> Furthermore, I believe it is very safe to say that anyone that has followed my writings at all closely hopefully has realized that I am EXTREMELY careful in choosing the products I endorse or companies I pro staff for. The way I look at it, archery companies, deer show promoters, magazine editors &/or the TV show producers that I work with are not my bosses. Ultimately, the audience/viewers/readers are. Before I wrote my first article, I made a hard and fast rule with myself that I would never pro staff for or endorse any product that I didn’t believe in or would want to use if I had to buy myself. Though it has cost me a lot of money over the years, I have never broken that rule.
> 
> ...


How can you use the bolded parts in the same writing? Send me some free stuff...oh and the *FAT* checks too.


----------



## wookie (Oct 11, 2002)

Steve Bartylla said:


> Furthermore, though *I am not a Scent Lok employee*, *I do receive* free suits and *quarterly checks from them*.


I assume you meant cheques, not checks.

In this one single sentence you have lost all credability with me. If you receive money (checks or cheques) from Scent Loc, then you are paid to use and promote thier products. Sounds alot like a marketing position to me.

The rest of your post sounds to me like you are towing the company line.


----------



## crewm (Nov 8, 2006)

*BS in Biology*

Though I do have a BS in biology, 

At the same time I began using Scent Lok I also started using Wildlife Research Center products. 
Steve Bartylla[/QUOTE]


With your degree in biology, would consider the fact that deer come into heat for about thirty six hours and maybe urinate about 40 ounce of urine. Where does your other sponsor get all the Doe in Heat they sell. Maybe that is what a "B S" of biology is.


----------



## Marvin (Feb 17, 2005)

EDITED TO REFLECT THE RULES .....SORRY RK

****Enough. There is no need to make this personal. RK, AT Administrator****


----------



## Steve Bartylla (Nov 20, 2006)

I may have lost all credibility by disclosing that I pro staff for them, but it is the truth and it needed to be included. As I said in the original post, “if all of this destroys my credibility, so be it.” Frankly, I’d feel like someone was trying to sucker me if they didn’t disclose that myself. I could have just as easily left it out and I doubt anyone would have known. I also realized that I was opening myself up for this by including it. However, as cheesy as it may sound, I do believe that honesty is always the best policy. 


As far as how I can include both "I do receive free suits and quarterly checks from them" and "I work far too hard at this to not use what I believe are the best products" in the same writing goes, I can do it real easy. I got paid a lot more at the day job than I’ll ever get doing this. I do this because of job satisfaction, not because of money. It’s simple supply and demand economics. The supply of hunters wanting a career as a hunter/writer/TV celebrity is far higher than the demand. Therefore, fat checks don’t exist. Very slim ones are the rule for those lucky enough to get them. Free stuff, on the other hand, is comparatively easy to get. 

I’m truly blessed to be able to make enough to almost starve the kids. I’m also truly blessed to have had a good day job for the first 7 years of doing this. Because of that, I was able to set this up the way I wanted to and play it by my own rules. You are kidding yourself though if you think that not hunting high fences or jumping from one outfitter’s stand to another isn’t hard work. Heck, I still hunt public lands every single season (never understood how one hunter could pretend to be able to teach another something when they don’t hunt in situations remotely similar). I’m extremely lucky to make the money I do at this, but I work much harder for it than I ever did at the day job. If I don’t shoot good bucks every year, I’m out of a job. That is why I use the products that I believe are the very best. Are they the best? I can’t answer that, but I sure can say that I believe they are, without a shred of doubt.


----------



## TRMichels (Sep 26, 2006)

CdnArcher, 

You're kind of "straying from home" aren't you? :wink: I didnt think you Canadians left the "Frozen Tundra", unless it was an emergency.

Glad to see you here. E-mail me if you want some traffic on your site on this subject. There is no reason we shouldn't take this across the border. Heck, here in Minnesota I'm pretty close anyhow. 

T.R. Michels

MN Bob,

Very interesting "home study". Sounds like good emperical data to me. 

DEC, 

If you have the Scent Lok Science book on your hard drive, or on a CD, send it to me as an e-mail attachment, so I can study it in-depth. 

I think MIchael Corrigan copied it too, but just in case, we need to have it saved. 

God bless and good hunting to all,

T.R. Michels


----------



## KOZMAN4907 (Sep 23, 2004)

*lurking*

:angel: :moviecorn :behindsof


----------



## Marvin (Feb 17, 2005)

Has anyone been able to access the "science" website? Very odd that its still down whith all that hard work:embara:


----------



## DEC (Dec 10, 2004)

T.R. I sent you a PM.

I have a hard copy, I never thought to save the files on my computer. But yes, I do have a paper copy of it. It is about 1 1/2" thick.


----------



## TRMichels (Sep 26, 2006)

Moderators, 

Since my credibility has been impugned here angry: ukey: :teeth: see I CAN use big words), I thought I should post this. If it is improper please remove it. 


Since 1989, when I first began writing hunting articles, I have been interested in getting to "the truth of the matter" of some of the more widely publicized myths about hunting, animal biology and behavior, and some of the claims of the manufacturers of hunting products. 

And I am proud to say that my studies, research and questions about several topics and products have been the impetus for several people, including several well respected and well-known wildlife biologists, to conduct further research studies to get to the truth of the matter on at least two subjects that I can remember. 

I also did an article on how there are not enough captive deer in NA to fill all the deer urine bottles on the shelves of stores in NA. This was based on the reports of two deer breeders, and deer urine providers, who were just interested in telling the truth, and their statement about how much urine a deer produces in a day was backed up by the findings of several deer biologists and their research papers. 

1. Deer Are Color Blind: After reading and hearing that deer see only in black and white for several years, and then reading a research paper by Dr. Jay Neitz, on the vision capabilities of pigs, I contacted Jay, spoke to him at length, and then put him in touch with deer researcher Dr. Larry Marchinton at the University of Gerogia, who I had been talking to for several years. 

With my suggestion they Larry and Jay together to find out "what deer see and how", and came to the conclusion that deer can see some colors, especially the UV light in florescent orange required to be worn by many gun hunters. It was concluded that deer are red-green color blind, but they do see the colors blue and yellow, plus light in the Ultra-Violet range.

2. Peak Breeding Dates of White-tailed Deer are Affected by the Phase of the Moon: After reading and hearing the hypothesis put forth by people like LaRouche, Dr.'s James Kroll and Ben Koerth, Jeff Murray and Charles Alsheimer, about how peak breeding of white-tailed deer was influenced by or correlated with the phases of the moon, I got hold of the research paper findings of a group of deer biologists in Minnesota, including Dr. Al Berner, who had done a research study between 1980 and 1987 to find out when peak breeding of White-tailed deer occurred in Minnesota - before the "peak white-tailed deer breeding / moon phase" hypothesis ever came out. 

I sent the results of that study to Dr. Karl Miller at the University of Georgia, with the suggestion that he or someone else there conduct a study to find out if there was any validity to the hypothesis. After putting Karl in touch with Al Berner here in Minnesota, he got hold of several other studies on the conception dates of over 2,500 white-tailed deer does, in 10 states, from Florida to Maine and from Minnesota to Texas. 

They found that there was no correlation between the peak conception dates of white-tailed deer and any moon phase, and came to the conclusion that the phase of the moon does not affect peak breeding dates of white-tailed deer. 

My research papers on white-tailed deer, elk and turkey have been sent to and read by several biologists, including Dr. Larry Marchinton, Dr. Kent Kammermeyer, Dr. John Ozoga, Dr. Larry Marchinton, Dr. Valerius Geist (all who should be recognizable to those who read Deer & Deer Hunting) and Dr. Dick Kimmel, Dr. Lovett Williams III, Dr. James Earl Kennemer (all who should be recognizable to those who read Turkey Call), with responses and communications between us for several years.

My research papers on elk were presented to the Deer Symposium in Su Chou, China, (I hope I spelled that correctly), several years ago. 

Scent Lok used my Whitetail Addict's Manual as an exhibit in one of their law suits. 

Much of my research, and my articles are on my site, FREE for anyone to see. 

I have been an independent hunting product consultant and patent researcher for the University of Wisconsin, Stevens Point, for several years. 

Animal Planet TV producers have contcted me on three occassions in the last two years, to use or cite my research findings, and to use my services as a wildlife researcher for their programs. 

I have never been paid a cent by any company who develops, manufactures, promotes or sells odor elimination clothing for the hunting industry, and I have never received a cent for developing and hosting the three web pages I am not the owner of on my website. They are friends of mine, and I do it free because I can, and because I am a Christian.

T.R. Michels


----------



## crewm (Nov 8, 2006)

Good credentials TR


----------



## ScentLok Design (Dec 14, 2005)

As most of you might agree, this issue has become a dead horse, so to speak. We have provided reams of data and will continue to provide the type of guarantee that eliminates any risk from trying our products and enjoying the results that we see day in and day out in the field. We are making some adjustments to our “Scent-Lok Science” web site and hope to have that up and running very soon. We apologize for this interruption. At the same time we will be updating the science portion of Scentlok.com to contain more information and data regarding our science and product information. 

Our detractors here have merely obscured the fact that hundreds of thousands of customers have purchased our products year after year and dealers across the country are continuing to expand our category. This doesn’t happen with products that don’t work...period. Our return rate nationally is less than 1%. 

It is our hope that these types of undocumented “theories” from individuals with very few credentials in the world of science doesn’t deny legitimate hunters from enjoying the results that we know are achieved every day. They are providing no service to the world of hunting and are showing their true motives by not accepting our offer to see our operations, research data and field test our products. 

Thank you all for your interest and we look forward to continued success for all of you in the field. Our toll free phone number is available for anyone who may want further information or have questions of their own.

Thank you and have a great Thanksgiving and Hunting Season.
~Scent-Lok


----------

