RE: Scentlok Savanna
 

You keep talking about sponges and water. Thisis ,in my opinion, a poor example for comparison. A sponge soaks up water bythe process of absorption where as activated carbon works by the process of adsorption.They sound very similar (look similar too as they only have one letter different) but they are completely different processes. To be more precise , the difference between adsorption and absorption is that adsorption is the attraction between the outer surface of a solid particle and a contaminant, whereas absorption is the uptake of the contaminant into the physical structure of the solid. In absorbtion theliquid has simply been drawn inside the physical structure of the sponge and held there by weak Van der Waals type forces. It is therefore easily expelled by even a gentle sqeeze. In adsorbtion the organic compounds haveformed a physicochemical bondto a receptor site on the surface of the carbon. This bond is not easily broken.

So let me get this straight. You claim that Scent-Lok has scientificdata backing all your claims butthey just can't release it to the general public due to confidentality agreements.With who? That really doesn't seem to make any sense. If it's raw scientific data about your own product how can you be restricted from the free and open use of that information? The only entity that could impose such a restriction would be Scent-Lok.

Again no one doubts that virgin uncontaminated activated carbon will adsorb molecules that cause odor. The questionsare: A. How rapidly does it become saturated? I mean even at the time of intial purchase it's already been hanging on arack exposed toopen air for maybe months. It's been exposed to every browser passing by wearing perfume/cologne; wearinggrease, chemical or gas soaked clothing; and people withjust plain bad body odor. And B. How can it be reactivated by a common house dryer when everything I know and science tells us about the properties of activated carbon indicate that this is impossible.

Yeah but the difference is that a dishwasher actually works to remove food particles and enough bacteria from pots and pans to make them safe for home use again. A household dryer doesn't get hot enough to regenerate activated carbon. So you see your claim is actually more like telling me that I could actually use my dishwasher as an autoclave. Something I know it can't do!

RE: Scentlok Savanna
 

This feels way too much like science class.

RE: Scentlok Savanna
 

I here ya PSE

If you don't believe in the stuff, then don't buy it and you don't have to worry about it. If you believe in it, buy it. I don't know why we need to sit here and debate it, those of you that have allready made up your minds are never going to change your mind anyways.

RE: Scentlok Savanna
 

Amen. I had a lot more written befor I saw your reply. But you said it best. I still think event after our raw testing was out that you still would not believe.

I do have another refrence for you in the "Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology" 4 Ed. vol. 4. gives two examples of how activated carbon can be "wrung out", even by using nothing more then a vacuum. Also, the technical notes of Rohm and Haas's Ambersorb, Carbonaceous Adsorbents (Aug. 1992) reveals 85-90% contaminant removal can be done at dryer temperatures.

Thanks again for the post.

RE: Scentlok Savanna
 

It amazes me that information and experiences like these..........along with proven scientific facts are discounted by so many.........yet they have no problem accepting stories of deer downwind and random observations in the woods as more reliable information.

RE: Scentlok Savanna
 

Perfect example ;)



Nothing personal wholelottagobble..............just using your quote as an example because it is the first one I noticed that illustrated what I said above.

How were they positively sure less deer winded them?

RE: Scentlok Savanna
 

A company that has proof it's product works.............and knows very well that many question that claim.........yet they won't publish the information?? Sounds weird. I would think that if there was proof that the suits worked it would be in full page ads in every hunting magazine out there.


It's just a line graph.............without all the information that went into coming up with that data it is meaningless. The first thing anyone in the scientific community would ask you is "How did you come up with these figures?"

I highly doubt that if you thought my opinions were "lone".......that you would be here ;)

You continue to poke at the study that showed the scent suits had no effect on animals ability to smell the wearer as not scientific.........at least it is all out in the open for everyone to see and then decide for themselves if the results are worthy of merit or not. All you have provided is a line graph and a list of chemistry lab equipment. Labeling his study as worthless and then providing nothing of your own to back those statements up is not fair IMO.


No one called you a liar.

My mind is made up based on all the facts currently available on this subject. I don't "believe".........and I don't put "faith" in what people tell me a product can and will do. I am a detail focused person and I just want black and white proof. Either it does it or it doesn't. Don't tell me a bow shoots 300 fps.........I will believe the chrono before I believe a magazine cover.

Again, no one is calling you a liar............I just don't like taking people's word for things........ESPECIALLY when they are trying to sell me something.

You are saying a lot...........but you haven't proven anything.


You are selling the product..........I shouldn't have to test it for you. Not only that........these are the kinds of comments you asked others not to send your way or you would leave. I think you should give everyone else here the same respect you asked for and leave snide remarks like this out.

Again we are left with taking your word for it as the only option.

Why is it when someone questions one of your claims it is "obsessing" but when you rattled off 20 questions about the dog study it was ok??


How can you call bias on someone when the only info you have quoted comes from the company website??........that is the definition of bias. There is no scientific merit to anything you have said in this entire thread either without factual data to back it up. All you have done is said a lot of stuff and asked people to take your word for it.


You said yourself that your product is not a matter of public safety and yet you treat these lab tests as if they are national secrets...........why on earth would a company agree to have testing done if they knew they could not publish the results??

RE: Scentlok Savanna
 

What does washing your suit do to it that decreases it's effectiveness??

RE: Scentlok Savanna
 

If you don't believe in it..........don't buy it?? You really think that is a good philosophy?

Should you be required to "believe" in a product?

Does Summit ask us to "believe" the tensile strength of their cables or the weight capacity??

Does Bowtech ask us to "believe" the speeds they say their bows put out??

Does Rocky ask us to "believe" their boots are waterproof and warm??

RE: Scentlok Savanna
 

Hey Scent-Lok G.,

Welcome. Good post. I don't own a suit but have pondered it often. I have a friend who bought one last year and is absolutely sold on his. I'm pretty sure he doesn't know or care how it works or really even if it does. Let's just say it has become his new "lucky" hunting suit in which he seems to see more deer and closer. I think I may never buy one, not because I doubt they have some effectiveness, but moreso because they just seem too expensive. I try to get out alot and being so dang hot here in Texas, it seems like I'd be wearing a suit out pretty quick. Anyway, good luck and hope you stick around and enjoy.