Archery Talk Forum banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 57 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
774 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I just sent this e-mail to Scent Lok.

I would appreciate if you would remove my testomnial from your website. After extensive research I no longer belive activated carbon can work to "eliminate" or even substantially reduce hunman or other unnatural odors.

Do not bother to respond to this e-mail. I will not respond, the company has already harmed several people I know through their litigation.

I will be posting this on several talk forums. So, please remove the testimonial.

T.R.

I sent the testimonial back in the early 1990's before I did the research on it. I don't belive it CAN work.

T.R. Michels
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,001 Posts
AHH HA....I thought something was strange when a Scent Lok guys was toting a testimonial from a guy that's been instrumental in building the agrument against it....

At least there's no confusion where TR stands, regardles of what you believe yourself.

Thanks Marvin!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
774 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Since i have been the topic of discussion here, and my testimnoy (as of today 9/26/06 is place on the rop of the testimoy page at Scent Lok, I felt I needed to respond.

I don't mind my article or name being in the middle of a debate here. I think it is great that members are allowed to express opinions and discuss all sides of an issue.

Keep it up Administrators and Moderators, and if you don't mind I'll put in my 2cents worth on some subjects, providing you don't mind.

Let me know if you don't want me to post here.

T.R.
[email protected]

To Scent Lok:

You left me no alternative!!!


Just to make things very clear. I think I've been "black-balled" from many print publications (magazines) already, so I'M not afraid of getting sued, 'cause I'm broke. :mg:

My article on activated carbon suits, available on my site and several other web sites, was sent to every major hunting publication that I could think of. They all declined it, possibly because many of them take advertising dollars from Scent Lok or some other activated carbon clothing manufacturer. And I can understand them not wanting to publish negative comments about one of their advertisers products. If money is the bottom line, they did the right thing.

Since I sent the article out I have not sold a single article to any major print publication, and I used to sell several a year.

My purpose as a Christian, and as an outdoor writer, author and seminar speaker has always been to tell the truth. No matter the consequences, because I report to a higher authority.

It all boils down to several things:

1. From the data I have there is no way activated carbon suits can work to "eliminate" or even "effectively reduce" human or other unnatural odors, so that a nosy whitetail can NOT detect them.

2. From the data I have there is no way activated carbon can be "re-activated" or de-sorbed below about 750+ degrees F. So eventually it will fill up with odors, and according to the US Government it will probably occur within about 7 washings, or (since there is very little cabon in the suits) within 1-2 weeks of being exposed to ANY air. Then you have to purchse a new suit.

3. Since the US Government previously patented activated carbon for use in Chemical Warfare Suits, the patent is in the "public domain" meaning no one else can patent it, and everyone else can use it. Plus the Patent Office found that "Popper" and "Floyd" previously patented the use of clothing for scent reduction purposes, meaning Scent Lok had no right to a patent.

4. Scent Lok has been defending this non-patent by taking several companies to court, preventing them from coming out with new products, and asking for roylties from companies that it does license to develop, manufacture and sell activated carbon suits. This has kept the cost of the suits higher than need be, and it has cost many people and companies lots of money.

The questions are:

Do we as hunters want the best technology possible, the best products available, at the best price possible?

Do we want to pay high prices for products that don't even appear to work, and do we want some companies to keep other ompanies from developing new technolgy, and keep them from coming our with new scent-control/elimination products and clothing?

Or do we want some companies to show us unbiased research, from am independent labratory, thst their products do work?

And do we want activated carbon companies to allow other companies to develop and come out with new technology and products for scent control?

I made a big mistake by not researching the data on if and how activated carbon could work to eliminate human odors while humans hunt. I, like sevearl other writers and seminar speakers, should not have relied on our personal, limited observations, and looked more at scientific research and data.

Had I done that before I wrote the testimony, I would not have written it.

T.R. Michels
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
774 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Here is the testimony I wrote in the early 1990's, which I sent to Scent Lok, which they have obviously chosen to post first on their testimony page at http://www.scentlok.com/testimonials/ in order to refute my own article, written after years of research in 2005. The properties of this page indicate it was present on their site as of 9/26/2006.

"I thought I would write you and tell you of some of my experiences with your clothing. First, having been a biology student in college and having worked in the medical industry, I know charcoal is one of the best filter mediums known. However, I was skeptical about it's use in clothing. But not now. My first experience was in October when early in the morning I walked through a group of bedded does and fawns in an open field on the way to my stand. The deer heard me and spooked. When they snorted I held still, snorted back and they snorted again. I took out my grunt call and grunted, as I alternately grunted and snorted to the deer they approached me downwind. This was with an eight mile an hour wind with 80% humidity. These were optimal conditions for the deer to scent me. They actually came back to me within 15 yards. All the time I expected them to wind me and spook but they didn't They finally moved slowly away. I would like to say it was because of my camouflage but I know better, it was your Scent-Lok.

The next day, under the same conditions a doe and fawn approached me when I was just glassing my area. I was not wearing Scent-Lok and when the doe got downwind she literally turned inside out. She didn't see me but reacted to my smell.

Since then I have had nine more deer in 11 days within 150 yards downwind, including one eight point buck I grunted in within 18 yds and another that I rattled in to within five yards. When I attempted to take his picture he spotted me. He spooked but I grunted to stop him then rattled him back in again to within seven yards. During this time I had about a ten mile an hour wind and the buck was at all times downwind. He definitely should have smelled me. There is no question in my mind that Scent-Lok is the reason for my success. This is a GREAT product and it should be part of every big game hunter's wardrobe.

...Thanks for a great product, I wish I had though of it." T.R.

www.trmichels.com
T.R. Michels - Minnesota


Here is another piece of information from the Scent Lok web site.

"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 someone paid by Scent Lok? If it was an independent laboratory please show it 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 it would perform similarly to the regenerate material.

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

And if I remember correctly Scent Lok originally stated their product could be re-activated by placing the clothes in a household dryer on a high setting for 20-30 minutes: not 45 minutes.

And now they are using the word "regenerated" instead of re-activated. Simply semantics? Ppossibly - it may be how they "re-worded" their newest Patent submittal.

T.R. Michels
[email protected] (just so you know it is really me :mg:)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
774 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Obvioulsy there is no need for me to contact your company. We stand on opposite ends of this debate.

I don't see any way I can benefit by contacting you.

Tell your boss I was really turned off by the way his staff treated me after I was subpoenaed in an earlier lawsuit, in which I, as a Christian, under oath in a Federal Case, had to tell the truth (but it has nothing to do with my current actions). I don't hold a grudge, I just have nothing to say.

I am presenting the data now as I was I faile to originally do, as I find it by researching this subject.

Sorry if it hurts your cause.

T.R. Michels

PS: For the sake of this forum, please do not contact me here again.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,275 Posts
ScentLok Design said:
I pulled it. I thought I was in personal messaging and I was on the public.

Nick
I hate it when that happens. :zip: :embara: :cry: you can edit it.....Lower right corner. no need to pull it.
 

·
Registered User
Joined
·
7,984 Posts
I locked the thread, the same way I will lock this one if it turns into a "I like it, I don't, well I do, well I don't" scenario.

And I have no beef in the issue, never used ScentLok myself. So....it isn't a personal thing :wink:
 

·
Bow Bender
Joined
·
6,302 Posts
T.R., I don't know who you are, but I have seen these studies and think there HAS to be merit in it. I have done a good bit of reading on this matter, and at one point I was sold on Scent-Lok. I really liked the MT050 stuff Cabelas puts out with Gore-tex, and was convinced that it was the ticket for getting the edge on a Whitetail. But after all the reading on this subject, I find it hard to believe it is doing what is claims. What really killed me was one day I was walking through Wal-Mart and saw a ground blind that had an "activated carbon liner" in it. Well, I thought that was a bunch of hooey, how can you wash a ground blind and then dry it to reactivate the carbon? I saw the answer a few lines down...."Carbon re-activated by sunlight" I thought to myself you have got to be kidding. Sit your smelly blind out in the sun and all the stink will magically melt away....that's a good one.

But good for you on this post and what you are doing with the company. If you have done your research and it proves to you a product is not doing what it says it is, and there is data to back that up, not to mention questionable practices of patent infringement (or non-infringement depending on how you look at it), I would retract your testimony and have them pull if from their site. Glad to see someone stand up for what they believe. Good job.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,275 Posts
Super 91 said:
T.R., I don't know who you are, but I have seen these studies and think there HAS to be merit in it. I have done a good bit of reading on this matter, and at one point I was sold on Scent-Lok. I really liked the MT050 stuff Cabelas puts out with Gore-tex, and was convinced that it was the ticket for getting the edge on a Whitetail. But after all the reading on this subject, I find it hard to believe it is doing what is claims. What really killed me was one day I was walking through Wal-Mart and saw a ground blind that had an "activated carbon liner" in it. Well, I thought that was a bunch of hooey, how can you wash a ground blind and then dry it to reactivate the carbon? I saw the answer a few lines down...."Carbon re-activated by sunlight" I thought to myself you have got to be kidding. Sit your smelly blind out in the sun and all the stink will magically melt away....that's a good one.

But good for you on this post and what you are doing with the company. If you have done your research and it proves to you a product is not doing what it says it is, and there is data to back that up, not to mention questionable practices of patent infringement (or non-infringement depending on how you look at it), I would retract your testimony and have them pull if from their site. Glad to see someone stand up for what they believe. Good job.

I second that motion. I have spent a ton of time researching just that past few days and even asking for help looking at what they were basing their design on and still came up with the same answer.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
774 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
91, and everyone else.

If you know me from any other forums, you know I don't back down from what I believe.

And hopefully I've learned the futility of long drawn out debates and arguments, they accomplish nothing, 'cause you often can't change peoples minds. So, I will not "debate" this issue. "I done said my piece." :zip:

I did not mean to start a ruckus here, only my name was "bandied about" (how do you like that old term :confused:), and Scent Lok was posting a testimonial I later recanted. So, I had to speak up.

If you guys have questions on game animal biology or behavior, or need hunting tips and techniques, I'll be glad to do what I can to help you. Just yell loud for me.

May Yahweh-God bless all of you,

T.R.
 

·
Bow Bender
Joined
·
6,302 Posts
I hope my posts in this thread are not seen as a bash, but more of what T.R. believes in. If I endorsed a product to find out later that I thought it truely did not work, I would do the same thing.

For me, the evidence appears that Scent-Lok does not work, but if you think it does, then use it. I'm not going to tell anyone any different.

An analogy is this. My best friend loves this one type of arrow. To most this arrow is outdated and most people think there are better shafts on the market today. We were building some arrows and I was teaching him how as I have always done it for him. He was really enjoying himself but has been really frusterated with his shooting the last few days. He told me that he loved those old shafts; they always did such a good job for him and had a lot of advantages for him. He was looking at my Gold Tip Pro Hunter 7595's and mentioned that there was probably better shafts out there. I told "No, not for you. You have 110% confidence in these old shafts, and you don't need to use anything else." He agreed. Any time he has tried another shaft, he goes back to these because he knows they work so well for him. For him there is no other shaft! Proof is in the pudding. Maybe that applies to Scent-Lok too.

So if he truely believed Scent-Lok worked for him, I would not get all over him telling him that is did not work! If he believes it, so be it. I might tell him of my findings, but I would let him make up his own mind.

Same goes for what is posted here about this subject. Many get mighty offended when someone says that Scent-Lok doesn't work. Don't be that insecure. Just put the facts on the table and let the individuals decide for themselves. And let's not get into the "you are damaging my sales" and all that. I think Scent-Lok will be around for a long time. It just isn't what I will be wearing this season....
 

·
Registered User
Joined
·
7,984 Posts
TRMichels said:
"I thought I would write you and tell you of some of my experiences with your clothing. First, having been a biology student in college and having worked in the medical industry, I know charcoal is one of the best filter mediums known. However, I was skeptical about it's use in clothing. But not now. My first experience was in October when early in the morning I walked through a group of bedded does and fawns in an open field on the way to my stand. The deer heard me and spooked. When they snorted I held still, snorted back and they snorted again. I took out my grunt call and grunted, as I alternately grunted and snorted to the deer they approached me downwind. This was with an eight mile an hour wind with 80% humidity. These were optimal conditions for the deer to scent me. They actually came back to me within 15 yards. All the time I expected them to wind me and spook but they didn't They finally moved slowly away. I would like to say it was because of my camouflage but I know better, it was your Scent-Lok.

The next day, under the same conditions a doe and fawn approached me when I was just glassing my area. I was not wearing Scent-Lok and when the doe got downwind she literally turned inside out. She didn't see me but reacted to my smell.

Since then I have had nine more deer in 11 days within 150 yards downwind, including one eight point buck I grunted in within 18 yds and another that I rattled in to within five yards. When I attempted to take his picture he spotted me. He spooked but I grunted to stop him then rattled him back in again to within seven yards. During this time I had about a ten mile an hour wind and the buck was at all times downwind. He definitely should have smelled me. There is no question in my mind that Scent-Lok is the reason for my success. This is a GREAT product and it should be part of every big game hunter's wardrobe.

...Thanks for a great product, I wish I had though of it." T.R.
Regardless of what can be proven "scientifically", these were the actual words from TR after he used ScentLok, why he chose to retract his "actual" experience with the product is none of my concern, I read this from him, and testimonials from others, and, even if it only gives me a slight edge, at least I am willing try it.
 

·
One Shot
Joined
·
9,181 Posts
I'd bet next weeks paycheck a bloodhound can follow someone covered up in Scentlok. That'd be all the testing I'd need to see.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,094 Posts
fasst said:
Regardless of what can be proven "scientifically", these were the actual words from TR after he used ScentLok, why he chose to retract his "actual" experience with the product is none of my concern, I read this from him, and testimonials from others, and, even if it only gives me a slight edge, at least I am willing try it.
Uh ho, is that the first "I like it"?:nod: :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,275 Posts
fasst said:
Regardless of what can be proven "scientifically", these were the actual words from TR after he used ScentLok, why he chose to retract his "actual" experience with the product is none of my concern, I read this from him, and testimonials from others, and, even if it only gives me a slight edge, at least I am willing try it.
so your willing to ignore blatant facts and loop holes
 
1 - 20 of 57 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top