blacktailslayer Posted November 28, 2009 Report Share Posted November 28, 2009 Scent Lok Lawsuit Update http://trmichels.com/ActivatedCarbonScience.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blacktailslayer Posted November 29, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 29, 2009 By: Brent(MassDriver) “The carbon has been done working LONG before you even bought the garment. Probably before the garment was sewn. Scent lok is INEFFECTIVE. http://www.naturalsolutions1.com/whatcarb.htm What is a ACTIVATED CARBON? Before we explain Activated Carbon to you we first want you to understand how Carbon works with odors, gases and vapors. Many sellers of air cleaners with carbon in them simply DO NOT know how Carbon works and INCORRECTLY explain it. Once you understand HOW carbon works you will understand why MORE carbon is better and WHY those thin carbon pads on many cheap air cleaning units are useless. What is Absorption and Adsorption? Many times we see the statement: "Activated Carbon absorbs airborne odors and vapors." This is not a true statement. A true statement is: "Activated carbon adsorbs airborne odors and vapors." Do you see the difference? The word adsorb is important here. When a material adsorbs something, it means that it attaches to it by chemical attraction. The huge surface area of activated carbon gives it countless bonding sites. When odors and vapors pass next to the activated carbon surface, they attach to the surface of the carbon. They are added to the surface of the carbon, they are not absorbed by the carbon. They are adsorbed. To be absorbed by carbon the odors and vapors would have to be diffused into the carbon, not simply attached to it's surface. Carbon DOES NOT absorb, it adsorbs! Here is a good example of the difference between the words "ABsorb" and "ADsorb": If you have a cake and eat and swallow it, you are ABsorbing it. If someone throws a cake in your face, your face ADsorbed it! Here is another one: If you use a sponge on your counter to clean up spilled milk and cookies, the milk is ABsorbed into the sponge. The cookie crums are ADsorbed to the outside 0of the sponge! So, in air cleaning with carbon you NEVER ABSORB anything into the carbon. You ADSORB it onto the surface of the carbon! History Carbon is the most adsorbent material known to man and has been used to purify air and water for thousands of years. In fact, the use of carbon dates so far back into history that its exact origin has been impossible to document. Historians do know that as far back as 1500 BC the ancient Egyptians were using carbon to adsorb odors from festering wounds and from within the intestinal tract or to purify their water and that carbon filters were used for ventilating vapors and gases from 17th century London sewers. However it was the 20th century that saw the development of specially ‘activated’ granular carbon. With the introduction of poisonous gases during WW I, the military developed large scale production methods for adsorbent carbons suitable for use in gas-masks, which has led to a post-war expansion in commercial production and applications of this amazingly versatile substance. What is Activated Carbon? Many natural substances are used as the base material for producing carbon. The most common base materials used are wood, coal and coconut shell. These base materials are subjected to a process called carbonization. Carbonization is a heating process where by the base material is subjected to high temperature which drives out any volatiles. To activate the carbon it is subjected to a second heat and steam treatment. The activation of the carbon is what gives it it's unique adsorption characteristics. The activation of the carbon creates carbon which is highly porous providing a large surface area of the carbon for adsorption. Carbon that is ‘activated’ undergoes a process which opens up millions of tiny pores and fissures to enhance the material’s adsorbent properties. The process creates a very large internal surface area, which is key to the power of activated carbon – the more surface area - the more the carbon can adsorb. Interesting to note that only 1 lb of activated carbon has typically a surface area of 125 acres or 200 linear miles of fissures. Due to the large internal surface area of activated carbons it can actually adsorb up to 60% of its weight. Good carbon filters of 10 lbs. or more, depending on the environment in which they are used, can last anywhere from 2 up to 5 years before all of the pores are full. Are ALL Activated Carbon filters the same? NO! Activated carbon can be enhanced and impregnated and/or custom blended to be a more specialized adsorbant. For an example: Using standard Activated Carbon (such as used for common household odors) is NOT effective in a Beauty Salon where ammonia and formaldehyde fumes are. The Activated Carbon for a Beauty Salon would be enhanced for those specific pollutants found in a Beauty Salon. Does it matter how much activated carbon there is? YES! Activated carbon adsorbs to it's surface. When there is no more surface left to adsorb to the carbon it is depleted of it's capability to be effective. Large amounts of carbon will last longer then small amounts because it has larger amounts of surface area for adsorption. Also, depending on amounts of pollutants being adsorbed, a small amount of carbon can be depleted within weeks making it useless. Does it matter how thick an activated Carbon filter is? YES! The more contact time the activated carbon has with a pollutant, the better chances of it adsorbing it. The thicker the carbon filter the better it's adsorption. If the pollutant has to go through a long maze of activated carbon it's chances are also greater of being adsorbed. Which is more effective, a pad impregnated with carbon or granular activated carbon? Granular Activated Carbon is more effective then a 1" or 2" thick impregnated carbon pad. Granular activated carbon will have much more surface area for adsorption than a impregnated pad. Also, an impregnated pad will have to be changed much for frequently then a canister of activated carbon. Keep in mind that the contact time the carbon has with a pollutant is less in a pad so it's adsorption rate is also less. After the activated carbon has adsorbed all it can is there a way I can re-activate it at home? NO! In order to re-activate activated-carbon, it must undergo a process called Pyrolysis. (The thermal decomposition of organic material through the application of heat in the absence of oxygen.). To fully re-activate saturated activated-carbon, you must heat it to approximately 1,472 °F, in a controlled atmosphere of low oxygen concentration to reduce the possibility of combustion. This fact is even stated in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – Engineering and Design, Adsorption Design Guide, Design Guide No. DG1110-1-2.” Brent Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blacktailslayer Posted December 4, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 4, 2009 Here is some information that I found someone said about the case. I’m not sure if it is true or not. Quote: “Not to defend Scent Lok, I don't use their product, and I really don't know much about them as a company this post is the first time I ever looked at this, I thought I would point a couple things out. First the request to enjoin a class action lawsuit was denied in August. That actually helps Scent Lok in a couple ways. First, each plantiff will have to bring a seperate action with a different and unique set of case facts and request for damages. Each plantiff will seperately have to prove not only that the product was defective, was sold knowingly defective with intent to deceive, and that each plantiff had specific damages related specifically to their product. Assuming that all these things could be proven the question becomes; what are the damages in the case. There are really two calculations, actual damages and puntative damages. Actual would be based on the cost of the Scent Lok product. Respondents counter would be that the cost of a scent lok product is relatively the same as another hunting garment and the plantiff did receive a usable hunting garmet. It would be up to a judge to decide the equity of that arguement but it ultimately will only be for a fairly small amount of money. The question becomes whether there is a substantial chance of receiving punatative damages. In that case the judge, (possibly jury) would decide if there was substantial enough evidence that the company operated in bad faith and wanted to punish them by awarding money. The risk that you have to take is whether your case, as a plaintiff, is strong enough that you will be awarded enough punative damages to cover your legal fees. Sometimes legal fees are awarded but it is never a sure bet and a plantiff is just as likely to lose and have to pay Scent Lok. Second, on the topic of marketing claims, especially advertising slogans, it is really buyer beware.” Viator 12-2-09 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom2008 Posted December 4, 2009 Report Share Posted December 4, 2009 Ok then what is the difference between Scent-Lok and Scent Blocker. Does it mean Scent Blocker doesn't work either? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruttinbuc Posted December 4, 2009 Report Share Posted December 4, 2009 (edited) Why don't I give a rat's tail about this thread? :ninja: If ALS loses do I get all my money paid for Scentlok clothes back...doubt it! Edited December 4, 2009 by ruttinbuc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blacktailslayer Posted December 4, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 4, 2009 Ok then what is the difference between Scent-Lok and Scent Blocker. Does it mean Scent Blocker doesn't work either? They are the same type of product. Scent Blocker does not work either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kid Posted December 4, 2009 Report Share Posted December 4, 2009 Why don't I give a rat's tail about this thread? :ninja: If ALS loses do I get all my money paid for Scentlok clothes back...doubt it! right nuff said Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkeygirl Posted December 4, 2009 Report Share Posted December 4, 2009 Anything to make money....that's what it all comes down to... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The high road Posted June 26, 2010 Report Share Posted June 26, 2010 ScentBlocker is different They are the same type of product. Scent Blocker does not work either. I don't think you are correct on your comment. The tests and the federal courts say that ScentBlocker is different and performs better. I'm glad I bought ScentBlocker... The big Deer on my wall might not be though... the good part of the federal court ruling from page 3. entire court ruling enclosed. 3 The parties stipulate that carbon can adsorb human odor. The parties stipulate that the amount of carbon in the product and the process used to embed the carbon to the product impacts the carbon’s effectiveness. The parties further stipulate that Robinson’s carbon-embedded clothing contains substantially more carbon and uses a different application process than other carbon-embedded hunting clothing products currently on the market. Robinson has produced evidence of expert testing that establishes that its garments containing activated carbon are effective at blocking the transmission of odor through the garments and the amount of carbon used and the process by which the carbon is embedded in the liner of the hunting clothing makes the odor- blocking ability of the Robinson products more effective at reducing human odor than other hunting garments containing carbon as well as non-carbon hunting garments. 10. Robinson has provided evidence of expert testing that establishes that, after washing and drying, its carbon fabrics continue to be effective at reducing odor permeation. 11. Robinson has provided expert testing that shows that after washing and drying its carbon fabrics are “reactivated” and such clothing is restored to some extent for continued beneficial use. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flintlock1776 Posted June 26, 2010 Report Share Posted June 26, 2010 This is getting to be a boring subject either way it gets resolved Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blacktailslayer Posted July 2, 2010 Author Report Share Posted July 2, 2010 I would agree that the scent blocker works right after it is made. I would assume they used new clothing in the court case. Now after the clothing is full of odor; how much can the clothing hold then? Is it only 5% of what it could hold after the first wash and then only 1% after the second wash? That is a question I would like to know the answer to. Quote: "What is this "huge" difference? No carbon filter can be regenerated or reactivated in a household dryer, period. Since you say it is "fact" I would love to see the published data that proves Scentblocker's carbon can be regenerated or reactivated at temps anywhere near the low temps dryers are able to reach. I can very easily provide the facts and references for the use of activated carbon as a VOC filter and trust me...those will not back up the use of carbon as a filter in clothing once the carbon is spent. Like I said..show me the data, not a statement. By data...I mean real life, unbiased scientific data. If Scentblocker really had a way to reactivate carbon at low temperatures they would forget the hunting market and be a giant in the environmental field. This would mean that they have figured out what all other engineers and scientists around the world have not been able to figure out and utilize in the real life use of activated carbon as VOC filters. If I had a real dog in the fight it would be very easy to set up a controlled experiment to show just how quickly any of the carbon clothing manufacturer's clothing is rendered useless for filtering out VOCs...and how a dryer does nothing to change that...but I don't care that much about it. A swatch of fabric, a VOC medium in a glass container, and a PID with timed detections of VOCs passing thru the fabric...pretty easy experiement. Wash and dry according to directions and repeat. Hmmm... I said in this thread early on that no matter what the reality of activated carbon reactivation and regeneration is...there are plenty of convinced hunters that will continue to purchase because they just believe that somehow their clothes defy what is known about carbon filters. I have also said many times, and still say that I believe if the carbon clothing companies can continue to make money, more power to them." Robin@AimLow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blacktailslayer Posted July 3, 2010 Author Report Share Posted July 3, 2010 I just read this somewhere. Does anyone know anything about this? Quote: "Independent testing ? Scent blocker is now claiming that they have done independent testing to prove how effective their product is reducing odor (Not Human) They choose Hexane to use in the testing. According to Wikipedia” hexanes are significant constituents of gasoline. They are colorless liquids at room temperature with boiling points between 122 and 158 with gasoline like odor. ( Carefully chosen to fit into the dryer temperature. Just as Scentlok chose EMA with a boiling point of 96 in the Intertek testing.) They are widely used as cheap , relatively safe , largely unreactive , and easily evaporated non-polar solvents. “ It has always surprised me why these companies chose to use compounds other than human odor for testing purposes and then turn around and state their findings. Scott Schulz knows better than anyone that when his product is tested with animals it fails miserably as revealed in the Fox Investigative report and other test that he is aware of. Yet Haxane is proof positive of the superior product that they claim to have even it has nothing to do with human odor. Why won’t a hunter with a chemist background like Lee Lakosky come out and be honest and upfront with the hunting public ? We know from the transcripts that he notified Scentlok that their product was not working and he was being winded." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blacktailslayer Posted July 5, 2010 Author Report Share Posted July 5, 2010 (edited) I just read some new information. Anyone else hear about this? Quote: "Scent Blocker’s Schultz makes a mockery out of US District Court Ruling. Schultz the CEO of Robinson entered into a settlement agreement for his company and personally that was issued by the US District Court. Scent blocker and Schultz were sued in regard’s from the marketing of carbon lined clothing. The parties stipulated to this final order for settlement. The findings stipulated herein are for settlement purposes only. The parties have agreed ….. except for the performance of the settlement obligations. Schultz is quoted in a release to Hunting News that the Court has found Scent Blocker’s products superior. The whole article is full of half- truths and falsehoods. They were sued for false advertising not how their product performed and the court in its decision never stated about how their products actually worked. For Schultz to make the statements he did to Hunting Net shows contempt for the hunting public and he knows these statements are not true. It is becoming, in my opinion, that the truth is lost in the search for the almighty dollar. The media and the magazines are not interested in whether a product actually works but only in the revenues it can produce. They failed to do any amount of checking to see if the claims made by carbon clothing makers are accurate and true. One program gave Scentlok a full half hour to spread the claims that the US District Court found to be false. The media is largely responsible for where we find ourselves today. Human Odor Testing by Scentlok and Scent Blocker In order to show how effective carbon was in reducing human odor in clothing these company’s chose to do what they call” independent testing” even though they paid for the testing. Scentlok hired Intertek labs to do their testing and the compound that they chose to test was EMA (Ethyl Methylamine- which has a low boiling point of 97-99 degrees) Scent Blocker went to the University of Minnesota and chose Hexane to test which in turn has a boiling point of 158 degrees. Why EMA and Hexane were chosen was because they had boiling points the fit into the temperature of a home dryer not because of any real relationship to human odor. Essentially what Scentlok and then Scent Blocker did was to rig the test to get the results they wanted, to fool the hunting public that their products worked despite the courts clear ruling that they did not." Edited July 5, 2010 by blacktailslayer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casey Posted July 5, 2010 Report Share Posted July 5, 2010 I would agree that the scent blocker works right after it is made. I would assume they used new clothing in the court case. Now after the clothing is full of odor; how much can the clothing hold then? Is it only 5% of what it could hold after the first wash and then only 1% after the second wash? That is a question I would like to know the answer to. Quote: "What is this "huge" difference? No carbon filter can be regenerated or reactivated in a household dryer, period. Since you say it is "fact" I would love to see the published data that proves Scentblocker's carbon can be regenerated or reactivated at temps anywhere near the low temps dryers are able to reach. I can very easily provide the facts and references for the use of activated carbon as a VOC filter and trust me...those will not back up the use of carbon as a filter in clothing once the carbon is spent. Like I said..show me the data, not a statement. By data...I mean real life, unbiased scientific data. If Scentblocker really had a way to reactivate carbon at low temperatures they would forget the hunting market and be a giant in the environmental field. This would mean that they have figured out what all other engineers and scientists around the world have not been able to figure out and utilize in the real life use of activated carbon as VOC filters. If I had a real dog in the fight it would be very easy to set up a controlled experiment to show just how quickly any of the carbon clothing manufacturer's clothing is rendered useless for filtering out VOCs...and how a dryer does nothing to change that...but I don't care that much about it. A swatch of fabric, a VOC medium in a glass container, and a PID with timed detections of VOCs passing thru the fabric...pretty easy experiement. Wash and dry according to directions and repeat. Hmmm... I said in this thread early on that no matter what the reality of activated carbon reactivation and regeneration is...there are plenty of convinced hunters that will continue to purchase because they just believe that somehow their clothes defy what is known about carbon filters. I have also said many times, and still say that I believe if the carbon clothing companies can continue to make money, more power to them." Robin@AimLow :sleep1::sleep1::sleep1::sleep1::sleep1: Is it over yet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blacktailslayer Posted July 6, 2010 Author Report Share Posted July 6, 2010 Here is another little article I got sent to me. Quote: Scent Wars “The first volley in the war between Scent Blocker and Scentlok was sent by Scent Blocker in a news release to Hunting Net News. All over the internet and on most of the hunting blogs are postings stating that the Federal Court has found that Scent Blocker products are superior. Superior to what ? This was never stated by the court or is part of the settlement agreement. Despite entering into a settlement agreement in 9 separate lawsuits filed against Scentlok and their CEO Scott Schultz to avoid being found guilty. Scent Blocker took advantage of the court by presenting some false data that they told the court showed that Scent blocker was superior to Scentlok. Scent Blocker presented to the court a testing program done by the University of Minnesota and claiming to the court that Hextane related to human odor. A careful study reveals “ hextanes are significant constituents of gasoline. They are all colorless liquids at room temperature with boiling points between 50 and 70 degrees C with gasoline like odors. They are widely used as cheap, relatively safe , largely unreactive and easily evaporated non-polar solvents.”( Wikipedia) Sent Blocker specifically chose Hextane to use for testing purposes because it fit into the temperatures of a home dryer. Just as Scentlok had used EMA’s as their testing compound with Intertek Scent Blockers sole effort was to fool the hunter into actually believing that the product worked on human odor. The testing had nothing to do with human odors with boiling points of compounds that are higher than reached in a dryer. By testing against Scentlok , which has already been found guilty, Scent Blocker is trying to increase their market share. The bottom line is that although Scent Blocker for years relied on Scentloks patents and testing to bring their product to market, paid thousands of dollars in royalities has now chosen to try to undermine their competition with some very false and misleading statements to the court and the public. The is an old saying “ you shall know the truth and the truth will set you free “ Scent Blocker and CEO Schultz know full well that their product has been tested ,using their directions , and failed to stop enough human odor to keep a search and rescue dog from finding an individual in their clothing using their sprays as well. It seems that after making millions at the expense of hunter’s the truth would be refreshing.” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blacktailslayer Posted July 21, 2010 Author Report Share Posted July 21, 2010 Has anyone heard anything about this? Quote: "I guess you saw the superior statement from Scent Blocker. That statement earned then a lawsuit in Minnesota. They essential laughed in the face of the court. On June 23,2010 a new lawsuit was filed against them im Minnesota District court.(0:2010cv02584)." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The high road Posted August 31, 2010 Report Share Posted August 31, 2010 It looks like Scent Blocker has been proven to work and work better than any other scent elimination out there. Testing and court ruling. http://www.bowhunting.net/artman/publish/NEWS/Robinson_Outdoors_Court_Finding.shtml http://www.bowhunting.net/artman/publish/NEWS/ScentBlocker_Products_Declared_Superior_by_Federal_Court.shtml Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.