|
RE: Do you think Scent Lok is a must?
Well Atlas, as usual you have reduced the discussion to insulting someone's intelligence. But I forgot , you "ARE ALL THAT".
[qoute]archer, your lack of understanding in this arena is obvious. It makes having this discussion rather difficult."[quote/] How do you know? |
RE: Do you think Scent Lok is a must?
ORIGINAL: LouisianaTomkat No, my friend, the chemical smell, to you, is dirt. But the "fact" that deer can break down scents to so many parts per million more than you, let's me know that they probably can smell way more in that "compound than you can. Are you having trouble following that? Here ended the lesson. |
RE: Do you think Scent Lok is a must?
ORIGINAL: Germ So first you said you may have contacted scentLok, now we see you did, but it was informal. I would think they would have jumped at it. Nick is a nice guy, I hope you were all business when you contacted them and did not say "What is it worth to you guys" or something like that;) the Science of Atlas rocks;)  |
RE: Do you think Scent Lok is a must?
ORIGINAL: archer58 Well Atlas, as usual you have reduced the discussion to insulting someone's intelligence. Too bad you feel that way archer..........it was not my intention. There is a big difference between education and intelligence. I know nothing about engines and would not be able to have a very good conversation with a mechanic..........that's all I meant. |
RE: Do you think Scent Lok is a must?
Intersting
Have a good one. |
RE: Do you think Scent Lok is a must?
atlas, you are obviously educated in the science of all this, and as a point of curiosity and not belittlement, what is your education in this matter? I think you've posted that in one of these debates before, but I can't recall.
And again, as a point of interest and NOT belittlement, I ask you to prove why it doesn't work. |
RE: Do you think Scent Lok is a must?
ORIGINAL: mobowhuntr atlas, you are obviously educated in the science of all this, and as a point of curiosity and not belittlement, what is your education in this matter? I think you've posted that in one of these debates before, but I can't recall. And again, as a point of interest and NOT belittlement, I ask you to prove why it doesn't work. Believe it or not mo..........I really don't feel like retyping all that crap right now. I am gonna go to Gander and grab some arrows or something because I have been sitting here typing in the hopes it would stop raining so I could go shoot but it doesn't look good. I'm sure this will be pages longer by the time I get back so at least you will know I wasn't ignoring you. |
RE: Do you think Scent Lok is a must?
ORIGINAL: Arthur P The military is engaged in searching for economical ways to reactivate their chem suits so they don't have to dispose of them and have apparently had some success. You can't access the full document on the net, but here is the abstract for methods of reactivating activated carbon clothing. In the near future, chemical protective combat uniforms may be worn by Army personnel on a continuous basis. Activated carbon, the operative component, has diminished capacity for sorbing chemical agents after it has been exposed to dirt, sweat, cigarette smoke, engine exhaust, petroleum products and numerous other elements routinely present in the battlefield environment. This report summarizes the development of two nondestructive methods for cleaning and reactivating soiled chemical protective garments. Complete reactivation was achieved when the aqueous i-propanol iodine displacement method of Manes, which removed all but pure hydrocarbon oil soils from the current overgarment Type III foam or Kynol activated carbon fiber material, was applied in nonaqueous solvent. Subsequently, a nonaqueous solvent method that requires less handling was chosen in designing a truck-mounted system. It features non-agitative flow of methylene chloride and methanol around the chemical-protective garments suspended between ultrasonic transducers. Both methods restore full sorptivity to the Type III foam liner. There is a one-time 10% loss of activated carbon without any loss of sorptivity. The volatile solvents are more easily removed, and can be economically recovered. Read Arthur P's post and you will see that this very problem is trying to be tackled by the U.S. government for our troops. They are dealing with the same stuff...Activated Carbon.....and they are having trouble re-activating/re-generating them so what makes you think you can do it in your dryer? I guess the military should just contact Scent-lok and be done with it...problem solved.:eek::eek::eek: Until someone can prove to me that the suits can be re-generated/re-activated back to a usable state I won't waste my money on it. |
RE: Do you think Scent Lok is a must?
That's cool atlas....In fact, if you've done that before and can find the link, just post up the link dude.....That's good enough.
|
RE: Do you think Scent Lok is a must?
I'd like to add a point in regards to the carbon that the military is using.
In a few of the military articles I came across, a reference was made to the amount of carbon being used. The military uses much more carbon than you would find in a SL suit. I remember a thickness of 1/4" being referenced. The military uses carbon to keep chemical warefare agents "OUT" and is not trying to adsorb an odor from within. The uses are of an obvious difference. As such, I would think the re-activation process necessary would be dramatically different. Logic would dictate that it takes alot more heat/regeneration processes to work on a 1/4" of carbon than a thin layer that is in SL. That being said, keep in mind that SL is not trying to adsorb a deadly chemical agent..... Unless you ate suicide wings the night before.  |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:47 AM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.