Scent containment carbon clothing question continued
09-22-2006, 08:57 PM
#21
Boone & Crockett
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Michigan/Ohio
Posts: 11,682
RE: scent lok question continued
ORIGINAL: atlasman
I didn't see anyone tell someone else what to wear..............they just gave factual reasons why they feel a certain product is a waste of money. No different then if someone asked about the Deer View Mirror..........I'm sure plenty of people would say why they think it's a waste of money and would never buy it. Happens here all the time with products of all sorts.
ORIGINAL: ghemry
I find it a bit funny that some of same hunters who go nuts when others tell them what to shoot, are the same guys who tell others what they should wear[&:]
LOL
I find it a bit funny that some of same hunters who go nuts when others tell them what to shoot, are the same guys who tell others what they should wear[&:]
LOL
I didn't see anyone tell someone else what to wear..............they just gave factual reasons why they feel a certain product is a waste of money. No different then if someone asked about the Deer View Mirror..........I'm sure plenty of people would say why they think it's a waste of money and would never buy it. Happens here all the time with products of all sorts.
Atlas I was not talking about you[8D]
09-22-2006, 09:00 PM
#22
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 97
RE: Apology
Scentlok Designer... peace. Time for all of us to agree we disagree. And you are right, there are many things on the hunting market that are very difficult to prove that they do what they say also. My biggest problem with scent blocker type clothing(not just scentlok)is the hassel I would have to go through to use it properly. As I posted earlier ... I am about to buy a new camo outfit... it would cost me about another $150 or so to make the entire outfit a scent blocker type... but to me that is a waste of money. Why? Because I know that I personally would not faithfully and regularly go through the ritual required to keep it properly activated... assuming my dryer is hot enough to do the job. That's just me... I know there are plenty of guys who would do that faithfully. I also think that scent blocker type outfits also fall into the same category as many other hunting products... the category where the claims are very difficuly if not impossible to prove. Why, because to prove it we would need a large sampling of a scentlok group and a control(placibo) group that doesn't have scent blocker clothing(but they think they might)... then you would need a controlled environment where both groups encounter the exact same conditions and also encounter the same variances in conditions over time. That's almost impossible to control when you are talking mother nature, lay of the land(mountains, river bottoms, swamps, ridge, ravenes etc), thermal currents, humidty, air pressure, etc etc. The next variable is the deer you encounter... everyone is different and each can react differently to human scent.
I can tell you one thing... if you guys had a decent open camo pattern I may have bought it... why? You do have some nice stuff... regardless ofwether it hasscentlok or not.
I can tell you one thing... if you guys had a decent open camo pattern I may have bought it... why? You do have some nice stuff... regardless ofwether it hasscentlok or not.
09-22-2006, 09:30 PM
#23
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,329
RE: scent lok question continued
ORIGINAL: MichaelT.
Josh,
First of all I feel as though I detect a certain tone to your note, and I am not sure howfeel about it. But I will give you the benefit of the doubt.
Now, why you chose to address me, I am not really sure. I have not addressed you at all in my postings. Perhaps you would care to help me understand.
Next, I never said you where bashing my company, as I said I have never addressed you. I also never said anything about a "waste facility", I simply said I workedfor a Major Fortune500 Chemical company. Now exactly what that has to do with you I'm not real sure.
Next, You say if I do work there, and if I am educated. Please understand Josh, I do not answer to you, nor do I have to explain myself to you nor do I need to send you my college transcripts or my w-2's for the last 18 years to prove that I know of that which I am speaking.
Next, I do not know the molecular structure of their carbon compounds. I was not the one who formulated it.My company is not scent-lok, and I would be willing to bet that if you checked, the technology has been patented and the formulation would there-fore be propritary. But even if it is not, I don't know, and further I don't care. But that might be something that youcan do your Doctoral Thesis on to REALLY try to impress people. I don't think the people here care that you know big words.
And finally in that last post, if you rise above yourself you will find humor in those sentences. You know, Josh, That a fart would be so bad, so strong, so powerful that the carbon couldn't contain it. So calm down, and if you really want to know, research it, and appease your own appitite, because I do not care. Thank You for your time.
Josh,
First of all I feel as though I detect a certain tone to your note, and I am not sure howfeel about it. But I will give you the benefit of the doubt.
Now, why you chose to address me, I am not really sure. I have not addressed you at all in my postings. Perhaps you would care to help me understand.
Next, I never said you where bashing my company, as I said I have never addressed you. I also never said anything about a "waste facility", I simply said I workedfor a Major Fortune500 Chemical company. Now exactly what that has to do with you I'm not real sure.
Next, You say if I do work there, and if I am educated. Please understand Josh, I do not answer to you, nor do I have to explain myself to you nor do I need to send you my college transcripts or my w-2's for the last 18 years to prove that I know of that which I am speaking.
Next, I do not know the molecular structure of their carbon compounds. I was not the one who formulated it.My company is not scent-lok, and I would be willing to bet that if you checked, the technology has been patented and the formulation would there-fore be propritary. But even if it is not, I don't know, and further I don't care. But that might be something that youcan do your Doctoral Thesis on to REALLY try to impress people. I don't think the people here care that you know big words.
And finally in that last post, if you rise above yourself you will find humor in those sentences. You know, Josh, That a fart would be so bad, so strong, so powerful that the carbon couldn't contain it. So calm down, and if you really want to know, research it, and appease your own appitite, because I do not care. Thank You for your time.
Tom
09-22-2006, 09:42 PM
#24
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,329
RE: scent lok question continued
I think this may be one of the few times that Atlasman and I see eye to eye.
Mike,
There is scientific evidence that scentretarding clothing that uses carbon as the filter agent (not company specific) can't effectively stop your scent. Why do I care that folks are being fleeced? I guess I don't!
Tom
Mike,
There is scientific evidence that scentretarding clothing that uses carbon as the filter agent (not company specific) can't effectively stop your scent. Why do I care that folks are being fleeced? I guess I don't!
Tom
09-22-2006, 10:24 PM
#25
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: El Dorado, Arkansas
Posts: 2,174
RE: scent lok question continued
Statjunk, I never claimed to be a comedian.
About the evidence, That's my point. If you have evidence, research papers, lab analysis, whatever, bring it forward, and tell people , and approach the people of influence ( with the clothing companies, or if they won't talk - then the media ) and present the evidence you have. But if you don't have it with you then all it boils down to is finger pointing and a does not / does too argument. An argument no one can win, because they cannot present the facts to the people. Believe me, I understand your position. No one wants to be misled or taken advantage of. And Most people don't like seeing others taken advantage of, but what happened tonight accomplished nothing. It was just a no win argument. That's why my earlier post said " get the facts together and tell people". I also said I would listen. But in this Country it is innocent until proven guilty. And a finger pointing argument is not proof. Like I said, I don't own any of it, and I never will, but ultimately each person has to take all of the facts available to him at that time and make his own decision.
About the evidence, That's my point. If you have evidence, research papers, lab analysis, whatever, bring it forward, and tell people , and approach the people of influence ( with the clothing companies, or if they won't talk - then the media ) and present the evidence you have. But if you don't have it with you then all it boils down to is finger pointing and a does not / does too argument. An argument no one can win, because they cannot present the facts to the people. Believe me, I understand your position. No one wants to be misled or taken advantage of. And Most people don't like seeing others taken advantage of, but what happened tonight accomplished nothing. It was just a no win argument. That's why my earlier post said " get the facts together and tell people". I also said I would listen. But in this Country it is innocent until proven guilty. And a finger pointing argument is not proof. Like I said, I don't own any of it, and I never will, but ultimately each person has to take all of the facts available to him at that time and make his own decision.
09-23-2006, 07:53 AM
#26
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: NY
Posts: 4,668
RE: Apology
ORIGINAL: MichaelT.
I took that statement as a point towards those seven pages in the other post. I believed he was saying that with the mob type mentality that was going on towards the end, that nothing at that time would have sufficed. I also can say I have seen that happen before. People get upset, start throwing words around, and then if you give them your facts, they say it's made up, or it's biased, you must have paid a lot of money for that study.
I took that statement as a point towards those seven pages in the other post. I believed he was saying that with the mob type mentality that was going on towards the end, that nothing at that time would have sufficed. I also can say I have seen that happen before. People get upset, start throwing words around, and then if you give them your facts, they say it's made up, or it's biased, you must have paid a lot of money for that study.
The so called "mob mentality" that this subject faces so often is a DIRECT result of the lack of information put out by the companies that market these products. Basically it comes down to claims being made that contradict scientific laws of chemistry and physics.............which is fine.......as long as you can PROVE them. When asked for proof none is ever given. Like I have said before.......you can stand up and say anything you want in the world of science..............but you better be able to prove it through the PROPER kinds of studies, just like everyone else has to. Like I said, I don't know if you are a scientist at your company or not, but if you are you know any and all claims are welcome in the world of science.........but when you can't prove them is when you get laughed off the stage.
No different then someone saying that gravity does not exist..........I am willing to bet you would want some pretty serious proof of that before you jumped from your treestand.
And yes I am a Chemist. Wheather I believe they work or not is irrelevant. And finally I still think that stuff with the fart and carbon can only hold so much was funny.
Good luck, Good hunting, and God Bless.
Good luck, Good hunting, and God Bless.
09-23-2006, 07:57 AM
#27
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: NY
Posts: 4,668
RE: scent lok question continued
ORIGINAL: ghemry
Who said I was talking about 1 thread.
Who said I was talking about 1 thread.
Since the Let 'em grow antlers........and Scent guarentee thread are the ones everyone is talking about..........it is only logical to draw that conclusion.........anyhing is possible though.
Atlas I was not talking about you[8D]
09-23-2006, 08:23 AM
#28
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: NY
Posts: 4,668
RE: Apology
ORIGINAL: wicchunter
Scentlok Designer... peace. Time for all of us to agree we disagree. And you are right, there are many things on the hunting market that are very difficult to prove that they do what they say also. My biggest problem with scent blocker type clothing(not just scentlok)is the hassel I would have to go through to use it properly. As I posted earlier ... I am about to buy a new camo outfit... it would cost me about another $150 or so to make the entire outfit a scent blocker type... but to me that is a waste of money. Why? Because I know that I personally would not faithfully and regularly go through the ritual required to keep it properly activated... assuming my dryer is hot enough to do the job. That's just me... I know there are plenty of guys who would do that faithfully. I also think that scent blocker type outfits also fall into the same category as many other hunting products... the category where the claims are very difficuly if not impossible to prove. Why, because to prove it we would need a large sampling of a scentlok group and a control(placibo) group that doesn't have scent blocker clothing(but they think they might)... then you would need a controlled environment where both groups encounter the exact same conditions and also encounter the same variances in conditions over time. That's almost impossible to control when you are talking mother nature, lay of the land(mountains, river bottoms, swamps, ridge, ravenes etc), thermal currents, humidty, air pressure, etc etc. The next variable is the deer you encounter... everyone is different and each can react differently to human scent.
I can tell you one thing... if you guys had a decent open camo pattern I may have bought it... why? You do have some nice stuff... regardless ofwether it hasscentlok or not.
Scentlok Designer... peace. Time for all of us to agree we disagree. And you are right, there are many things on the hunting market that are very difficult to prove that they do what they say also. My biggest problem with scent blocker type clothing(not just scentlok)is the hassel I would have to go through to use it properly. As I posted earlier ... I am about to buy a new camo outfit... it would cost me about another $150 or so to make the entire outfit a scent blocker type... but to me that is a waste of money. Why? Because I know that I personally would not faithfully and regularly go through the ritual required to keep it properly activated... assuming my dryer is hot enough to do the job. That's just me... I know there are plenty of guys who would do that faithfully. I also think that scent blocker type outfits also fall into the same category as many other hunting products... the category where the claims are very difficuly if not impossible to prove. Why, because to prove it we would need a large sampling of a scentlok group and a control(placibo) group that doesn't have scent blocker clothing(but they think they might)... then you would need a controlled environment where both groups encounter the exact same conditions and also encounter the same variances in conditions over time. That's almost impossible to control when you are talking mother nature, lay of the land(mountains, river bottoms, swamps, ridge, ravenes etc), thermal currents, humidty, air pressure, etc etc. The next variable is the deer you encounter... everyone is different and each can react differently to human scent.
I can tell you one thing... if you guys had a decent open camo pattern I may have bought it... why? You do have some nice stuff... regardless ofwether it hasscentlok or not.
The main issue is being clouded here..............no one is debating whether carbon clothes work in the field. That is absolutely impossible to prove because the independent variable of a whacky whitetail can never be quantified.
The issue is the claims of the performance of carbon as an adsorptive material and it's longevity as such a medium. Carbon DEFINATELY adsorbs odors, cleans air, water, etc.........it's an amazing filter media........with limits. It "fills up" and then is useless........it also requires the product being filtered to be forced over and through the carbon so it's vast surface area can filter out polutants. This causes problems on 2 levels for carbon suit companies. First of all the laws of physics prove that air and every other substance will follow the path of least resitance. Air will not just "flow" through your jacket like some semi-permeable membrane.......it will get forced out through motion of the garment against your body as you move or shift around.......the path of least resistance will be out the neck, sleeves, and waist..........not through the material. This fact removes much of the usefullness of any filter media in the jacket.........it's like putting a carbon filter on the table in a camp full of cigar smoking, chili farting hunters and wondering why it isn't removing the stink..........it doesn't work that way............put that filter in the furnace where ALL the air gets forced through it mechanically and now you have a functioning product. The second isuue is the regeneration myth..........carbon exists in tons of products out there...........except they all understand the limits of carbon and when it gets used up it has to be thrown away or regenerated........if not it is just a useless pile of small rocks..........the catch comes in the fact that carbon products are usually not very expensive and therefore people don't mind tossing them out and buying another (Odor eaters, Britta water filters, aquarium filters etc).......since no one is going to buy a $500 carbon suit every couple weeks a story had to be invented to make buyers believe they could renew the adsorptive ability of their product, and a household dryer conveniently fit the bill (it delivers heat, is used for clothes, and everyone has one)............this is where anyone who knows better asks for proof.........and it is never given. Ask Odor eaters or Britta if you can put their products in the dryer and make them work again. When they stop laughing the answer will be no.
There are other problems as well.............but these 2 are BIG ones.
09-23-2006, 08:30 AM
#29
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: NY
Posts: 4,668
RE: scent lok question continued
ORIGINAL: MichaelT.
Statjunk, I never claimed to be a comedian.
About the evidence, That's my point. If you have evidence, research papers, lab analysis, whatever, bring it forward, and tell people , and approach the people of influence ( with the clothing companies, or if they won't talk - then the media ) and present the evidence you have. But if you don't have it with you then all it boils down to is finger pointing and a does not / does too argument. An argument no one can win, because they cannot present the facts to the people. Believe me, I understand your position. No one wants to be misled or taken advantage of. And Most people don't like seeing others taken advantage of, but what happened tonight accomplished nothing. It was just a no win argument. That's why my earlier post said " get the facts together and tell people". I also said I would listen. But in this Country it is innocent until proven guilty. And a finger pointing argument is not proof. Like I said, I don't own any of it, and I never will, but ultimately each person has to take all of the facts available to him at that time and make his own decision.
Statjunk, I never claimed to be a comedian.
About the evidence, That's my point. If you have evidence, research papers, lab analysis, whatever, bring it forward, and tell people , and approach the people of influence ( with the clothing companies, or if they won't talk - then the media ) and present the evidence you have. But if you don't have it with you then all it boils down to is finger pointing and a does not / does too argument. An argument no one can win, because they cannot present the facts to the people. Believe me, I understand your position. No one wants to be misled or taken advantage of. And Most people don't like seeing others taken advantage of, but what happened tonight accomplished nothing. It was just a no win argument. That's why my earlier post said " get the facts together and tell people". I also said I would listen. But in this Country it is innocent until proven guilty. And a finger pointing argument is not proof. Like I said, I don't own any of it, and I never will, but ultimately each person has to take all of the facts available to him at that time and make his own decision.
What kind of a post is that from a chemist?? We are not talking about subjective material here. The chemical properties of carbon are not up for debate. Evidence has been posted time and time again showing the requirements needed to regenerate carbon. Again, the chemical and physical laws of carbon are not the issue here..........those have been established for MANY years. Claims that are contrary to these known laws are what need to be proved. You have the "innocent until proven guilty" part backwards. Carbon laws are proven(innocent) and any claims against them(guilt) need to be proven........not the other way around.
09-23-2006, 10:06 AM
#30
Dominant Buck
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Ramsey , Indiana
Posts: 22,545
RE: scent lok question continued
Substitute a dead horse .Not one of the carbon clothing companies has ever provided verifiable , scientifically repeatableevidence that their products actually work as advertised , and hiding behind the veil of "proprietary information" they won't until their patenets wear out , if at all . Fine , that's their privelege. I've done my own admittedly less than scientific testing , and I know what conclusionsit's led me to . I've seen the results ofunbiased testing , and I'm inclined to believe what they found . It would be interesting to see what Consumer Reports would have to say about them , have they tested these garments ? If theyare or have could someone please post the results ? I think we can all agree that they would be honest .