hardcorehunter

No one doubts carbons ability to filter odors, chemicals, etc. What is common knowledge with us naysayers of the carbon clothing,is carbons inability to be regenerated or reactivated at temperatures in a homeowners dryer.

http://www.justnorth.com/Articles/ArticleLibrary/tabid/612/articleType/Arti
cleView/articleId/48/Default.aspx






Deer Hunting - Do activated-carbon garments really work?
By Team JustNorth :: 713 Views :: 0 Comments :: :: Hunting - General, Hunting - Deer

















[/align]
Do activated-carbon garments really work?
I have been a bow hunter for more than twenty years; during this time I have watched the commercialized hunting arena develop.
[hr]

The extreme commercialization of bow hunting has, in my opinion, resulted instances where hunters have been duped. In fact, I can think of several products that are down right gimmicks and obviously seek to play upon consumer ignorance and slob hunters looking for success shortcuts.
I was once asked, “What do you think is the biggest gimmick on the (outdoors equipment) market is today?” I will warn you up front that my response to the question, which follows, may be a bit painful. Furthermore, I will say that if you do find my response painful, it’s likely that you spent your hard earned wages on the product that I’m about to scrutinize.
Here goes: I believe the biggest gimmick on the outdoors equipment market today is activated-carbon scent elimination clothing that are being marketed under various brand names. You know the ones I’m talking about, so I won’t name names. I’m talking about all of them.





The question has been raised: Can activated-carbon scent elimination clothing really give you an edge against the nose of this animal?
If you’re a bow hunter and believe in the effectiveness of these special garments, hopefully you aren't so angry that you stop reading this article. Because if you read this in its entirety, I promise that you will learn something.

There is a difference between ignorance and stupidity, and I would never dream of calling my fellow bow hunters stupid. It’s the ignorance (i.e. the lack of knowledge) factor that has led many quality and even professional bow hunters to be fooled by the claims made by the manufacturers of scent elimination clothing.

I plan to educate you, not point fingers or spit propaganda. Before I do though, I’ll tell you a bit about myself. I am a biologist by education and received my Bachelor of Science degree from Florida State University. I’ve worked in the environmental protection field for more than ten years.

I have worked with various forms of activated-carbon, the same material that is used in the many brands of scent elimination clothing. Many of you have read articles by authors that claim their scent elimination clothing was pinnacle in helping them tag the biggest buck; without it, the hunt would not have been successful.

What’s new? That is a common marketing strategy used to push new equipment. Bow hunters, despite what gear they choose, are a traditional bunch. Many of us have gained knowledge on how to hunt our query and what equipment to use through word of mouth and testimonials of other perceived more knowledgeable bow hunters.

When Chuck Adam, for instance, talks or writes, I listen and pay attention. I’d be crazy if I didn’t. He is without question a knowledgeable bow hunter and we all stand to learn a lot from an experienced bow hunter like him.

The problem with these scent elimination garments is, unless you have a science background and to an even greater extent, have worked in the environmental protection / remediation profession, you simply cannot posses a clear understanding of how activated-carbon works.





Structure of coconut husk activated-carbon seen through an electronic microscope.
So, as I promised, I am going to tell you how activated-carbon works and why it is my opinion that activated-carbon scent elimination garments are ineffective. Then you can take the information presented here and make an educated decision for yourself.
activated-carbon comes in several forms and is used in many applications as a filtering or cleansing media. activated-carbon can be manufactured from carbonaceous material, including coal (bituminous, subbituminous, and lignite), peat, wood, or nutshells (i.e., coconut shells or walnut shells).

The manufacturing process consists of two phases: carbonization and activation. The carbonization process includes drying and then heating to separate by-products, including tars and other hydrocarbons, from the raw material, as well as to drive off any gases generated. Heating the material at 400–600°C (752-1472°F) in an oxygen-deficient atmosphere that cannot support combustion completes the carbonization process.

activated-carbon comes in the form of a very fine powder, which is impregnated or weaved into the textile fibers of garments. It also comes in a granular form. Both forms are used in various applications including to purify both water and air. Some of the popular drinking water filters and mechanical air filters on the market use activated-carbon as a filter media.

activated-carbon is an extremely porous material with high ratios of surface area to unit weight. One pound of activated-carbon contains up to 100 acres of surface area!

activated-carbon has a particular affinity to organic materials such as volatile organic compounds or VOC’s. Human odor is composed of different gaseous molecules of VOC’s and other chemicals such as hydrogen sulfides, which are absorbed by activated-carbon.

Think of activated-carbon as a common sponge that you would use to wash dishes with. Take a sponge and place it in a cup of water. What happens? It soaks up the water. The sponge, like activated-carbon, has thousands of little pores and channels running through it. When activated-carbon soaks up human “stink” odors, it does so through a process called adsorption.

Stinky gasses (i.e. human odors) are adsorbed into the many micro pores on and within the activated-carbon and are retained there. Now, what happens when a sponge becomes saturated?
A sponge that is saturated with water cannot adsorb any more. Hold a saturated sponge full of water in your hand and you will observe water dripping from it. When activated-carbon in a water or air filter becomes saturated it is called breakthrough.




Forms of activated-carbon











www.chemvironcarbon.com

In short, when a water’s or air filter’s filter media (i.e. activated-carbon) becomes saturated with contaminants, the filter is rendered useless and the contaminants contained in the water or air stream pass through the filter. After a while, you will be drinking dirty water or breathing stinky air until the filter is replaced. Makes sense right?
Think of activated-carbon as a molecular sponge. As is the case with any sponge, activated-carbon can only hold or adsorb so much stinky stuff. Once activated-carbon becomes saturated with contaminants, it must be reactivated or replaced entirely.

What do you do with a sponge that is saturated with water? You squeeze it to release the adsorbed water so you can reuse it. Or, you simply get a new dry sponge. Like the sponge analogy, activated-carbon must be “squeezed out” so to speak, in order to reactivate it for reuse.

Now you know how activated-carbon works. Most of the information I just provided can be found on some of the more popular scent elimination garment manufacturers’ web sites.

So far you might be thinking to yourself “Wow, activated-carbon really works”. Well, it does work, sort of.

activated-carbon is a fine filter media, but using activated-carbon as the key component in a scent elimination garment is not a practical application.

Unlike a common kitchen sponge, you can’t just leave it on the counter and let it dry out. In order to re-activate activated-carbon, it must undergo a process called Pyrolysis. To fully re-activate saturated activated-carbon, you must heat it to approximately 800 °C or 1,472 °F, in a controlled atmosphere of low oxygen concentration to reduce the possibility of combustion.

This is scientific fact and is even stated in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – Engineering and Design, Adsorption Design Guide, Design Guide No. DG1110-1-2, if you’d like to check it out for yourself. This fact is not however mentioned on any of the popular scent elimination clothing manufacturers’ websites.

One of the most popular scent elimination clothing manufactures instructs consumers to simply place worn garments in a common household clothes dryer for 20 to 30 minutes to re-active the carbon in the garment. The average temperature generated by a clothes dryer does not even come close to being able to generate the extreme temperatures necessary to drive out contaminants absorbed in the many micropores and channels of activated-carbon. In fact, most residential clothes dryers only heat up to a temperature that is well under 200°F.

Those of you, whom use water filters or air filters in your homes, think about it. Why can’t you just boil your filters in hot water or throw them in the oven or microwave for a few minutes to re-activate the carbon filter media. You can’t; that’s why. You don’t own special multi million-dollar pyrolysis thermal regeneration equipment that produces enough heat to re-activate carbon. Therefore, you have to buy new filters every now and then.

Re-activating carbon for industrial uses is big business. Type in the words “activated-carbon” in your favorite Internet search engine and you will see what I’m talking about here. In order to fully reactivate the activated-carbon in one of the many scent elimination garments on the market, you might as well just throw the garment in your campfire, because the extreme heat necessary to re-activate the carbon would likely destroy the garment anyway.

Forgive my sarcasm, but I tend to get irritated when I see good folks getting duped. And as a class, I think bow hunters are a pretty good bunch. So as a product, I think all the activated-carbon scent elimination clothing products on the market are nothing more than gimmicks.

I do not believe, based on sound science, these garments are even effective the first time you use it. Think about it. Each garment would have to be manufactured and placed in a sealed, scent proof bag when shipped and remain sealed on the shelf at retail stores. This is not the case, however.

From the minute the clothing is manufactured, it begins to adsorb “stink” and continues to adsorb “stink” while awaiting an ignorant, misinformed consumer to purchase it. It is likely that the activated-carbon contained in the garment is already completely saturated with “stink” upon being purchased.

Many of the scent proof garment manufacturers somewhat acknowledge this, in an attempt to bring some legitimacy to their product. They recommend that you immediately wash and re-activate garments by placing them in a clothes dryer as soon as the product is purchased. Funny, they also happen to recommend their own brand of laundry detergent that is special made for these special garments.

As I explained above, washing and drying the garment is merely an exercise in futility. At best, the only way these garments could be manufactured and utilized effectively would be if they were designed for one time use. In other words, they would have to be disposable.

The military actually uses activated-carbon suits as a kind of chemical protection garment, but they’re a single-use, disposable garment and not intended for multiple washings.

Here is something else you should consider before purchasing one of these products: activated-carbon’s adsorption effectiveness when used in an air filter application becomes greatly reduced when it is wet. So what happens when you sweat during those humid early season bow hunts? That’s right, your clothing gets wet and becomes even less effective.

A leading manufacturer of activated-carbon garments admits that no laboratory testing has been conducted to determine the effectiveness of the clothing when it is wet from hunter’s perspiration.

So why the craze? Why are so many hunters rushing out to purchase these garments, when the science-based fact is that they don’t work?

As I mentioned earlier, consumer ignorance is one reason. I think another reason is that many hunters so badly want to believe that they can purchase something that will render them invisible to a whitetail’s or elk’s nose.

As I said earlier, many of you have read articles by authors that claim their scent elimination clothing was pinnacle in helping them tag the biggest buck; with out it, the hunt would not have been successful. I truly believe the fact that these hunters who wore these garments while achieving success, can be chalked up to being merely a coincidence. Many of the authors who wrote these type articles failed to mention they were wearing their lucky hat and that their lucky rabbits foot was in their pocket at the time.

All sarcasm aside, I think many successful hunters who wear these special garments fail to recognize that they have been consciously paying closer attention to personal hygiene techniques before every hunt.

You must understand that none of the success story articles that push these special garments are based on science studies. They are opinions; misinformed ones at that.

I’ve talked to a few technical representatives with some of the more popular scent elimination clothing manufacturers and none of them have performed controlled scientific studies to demonstrate the true effectiveness of these garments. However, they claim to have “field tested” the garments. Come on folks. How do you field-test these garments?

It is said that a deer can smell nearly 1,000 times better than humans. You cannot legitimately observe the effectiveness of these garments or read a whitetail’s mind. No one, to the best of my knowledge, has contracted a non-biased independent laboratory or university to demonstrate the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of this clothing.

It is my belief that the manufacturers of these specialty garments know what the results of such a study would show; therefore it would not behoove them to undertake such an exercise. So they just claim the garments are field tested by the product-pushing pros.

As stated earlier: This is just my opinion, but it’s one based on sound science, education and a realistic view of product marketing techniques.

Now you can form your own opinion. Good Hunting.

Biologist and environmentalist Michael Corrigan is an avid bow hunter and enjoys educating other bow hunters.

hardcorehunter

http://www.outdoorscentral.com/artman/publish/article_169.shtml


Whitetail Deer Hunting
[hr]






Whitetail Deer Hunting - Scent Control
By T.R. Michels
Jun 17, 2006, 16:34


Emailthisarticle
Printerfriendlypage

Activated carbon is used as a filter medium because it has an affinity to "volatile organic compounds". When humans perspire they emit volatile organic compounds and other chemicals, such as hydrogen sulfides, which can be trapped by activated carbon. The manufacturers of activated carbon scent-control suits claim their clothing works because the activated carbon (which is glued to or impregnated into the fabric of the clothing) blocks the release of human odors, or "traps" the odors by a chemical bonding process called "adsorption".

Adsorption occurs when activated carbon grabs and holds other compounds, including gases, scents and odors, at the molecular level. The amount of odor any activated carbon filter medium holds (such as a scent-elimination suit) is determined both by the amount of activated carbon in the entire medium (the suit) and by how thick the layer of activated carbon on the fabric is. In the case of a scent-elimination suit, the carbon layer is very thin, which means there is very little activated carbon in the suit. In fact, the scent elimination suits are so thin that they hold relatively small amounts of activated carbon, and the activated carbon is so widely spaced in some suits that the suits allow air and odors to go through the suit without coming into contact with and being trapped by the small amounts of carbon in the suit.

One of the problems with trapping odors by adsorption is that adsorption continuously occurs, unless the activated carbon is kept in an airtight unscented bag from the moment it is first activated. Since activated carbon will eventually become full of odors, it cannot work any great length of time. If activated carbon clothing is not put into a sealed bag the moment it is activated, and kept that way until it is used for hunting, it will have adsorbed numerous odors. Depending on how thick the layer of activated carbon is in the suit, it may not work to stop human odors the very first time it is used.

In an attempt to bring some legitimacy to their products, the manufacturers of scent-control clothing have acknowledged this to some extent. Many manufacturers recommend that the clothing should be immediately washed, and then "re-activated" by placing the suits in a clothes dryer as soon as they are purchased.

Do activated carbon suits work as claimed?
When one independent laboratory was asked to test a popular activated carbon scent-control suit they found there wasn't enough carbon in the suit to chemically adsorb the amount of scent claimed by the manufacturers, especially the human perspiration molecules, which are quite complex. In fact, they found there wasn't enough activated carbon in the suit to even test.

In a test with search dogs, by JA Shivik, Ph.D., forty-two people were hidden from Colorado search and rescue dogs. Twenty-one of the people wore activated carbon suits; twenty-one did not. The dogs found all twenty-one people who didn't wear activated carbon suits, and twenty of the people who wore activated carbon suits. There was no noticeable difference in the time it took the dogs to find the humans. It took the dogs 2.7 minutes to detect the humans who were not wearing activated carbon, and 3.4 minutes to find the humans who were wearing activated carbon suits.

Shivik's report states, "That the dogs detected humans wearing the suit indicates that the system failed to prevent detection of human odors." Since deer have a sense of smell equal to if not better than dogs, it is safe to assume that deer would have detected the humans too. The report adds, "The suits are probably not worth the cost to researchers or managers who want to approach canids undetected." They probably aren't worth $150 to $300 to hunters either, if they can't keep deer from detecting the hunters.

The military also uses activated carbon clothing, commonly referred to as Chemical Warfare Suits, but they are limited-use, disposable garments, not intended for multiple use, because, according to the paper The War Next Time: Countering Rogue States and Terrorists Armed with Chemical and Biological Weapons, the new JS-LIST suits worn by the armed services "provide 45 days of wear versus 22 days for the BDOs." These chemical warfare suits have several times more activated carbon in them than the suits currently being offered for hunting purposes; and they only last for 45 days! This document can viewed on-line at: http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cpc-pubs/war_next_time/schneider2.pdf

An interesting comment in the document states, "In addition they can be washed up to six times without losing protective qualities." This suggests that clothing made with activated carbon becomes less effective every time it is washed. It also suggests that after six washings, the Chemical Warfare Suits, which are made to US Government specifications, and have more activated carbon in them than the activated carbon suits worn by hunters, are ineffective after six washings! And yet, the loss of activated carbon due to washing, and the eventual ineffectiveness of the suits due to washing, is not clearly stated by the manufacturers of the activated carbon scent-elimination suits in any of their literature, or on their web sites.

In 2005 the washing instructions on the Scent-Lok web site recently stated that during warm weather "when perspiration is occurring" their undergarments should be washed periodically. And that the suits can be washed "1-4 times per season without fear" of the suit losing carbon. Note the reference to heavy perspiration, which will be talked about later.

In 2005, the Scent Lok web site at www.scentlok.com stated:
"When and how to wash: During warm weather when only a T-shirt is being worn as an undergarment and heavy perspiration is occurring, it is advised to wash your suit periodically. During cool weather when heavier undergarments or layers are worn, there is no need to wash the suit. Washing does not have anything to do with reactivation, but does get rid of unwanted body oils (caused by perspiration), blood, and dirt. Washing a Scent-Lok suit can be done 1-4 times per season without fear of losing carbon from the suit. The permanent ClimaFlex treatment, that is on all Scent-Lok branded suits made during and after 2001, aids in the extraction of unwanted body oils in high perspiration areas when washed. Use only non-scented liquid clothes wash or preferably carbon wash. Once a garment is washed per label instructions it should be put in the dryer on a no heat setting until dry. Once the garment is dry, follow the reactivation instructions. ClimaFlex treatment is also a wicking agent, which adds to the overall comfort of the suit during warm weather."

Note: This article has since been removed from the web site.

One of the things hunters noticed about Scent-Lok suits in the early 90's was that the activated carbon often made their skin black, and there was often black residue in the washing machine after they washed their suits. This black residue (of activated carbon lost from the suits) appears to have been addressed as much as possible by the manufacturers. However, as any hunter knows, the abrasive action of clothing being tumbled dry in a clothes dryer removes some of the fabric from both the inner and outer surfaces of the fabric, which results in "fading" of the colors of the camouflage printed on the fabric. The comments in the US Government document mentioned above suggest that it is likely that the actions of both household washers and dryers may result in the loss of some of the activated carbon in the scent-elimination clothing worn by hunters.

Can Activated Carbon suits be re-charged as manufacturers claim?
Scent-Lok, one of the largest producers and the only licensor of activated carbon suits, states that their suits can be re-charged by placing them in the clothes dryer for 20 to 30 minutes to re-activate the carbon. On their web site in 2005 they also stated that heat from a clothes dryer causes "Brownian molecular motion" causes the scent to move very fast, which breaks the molecules free from the activated carbon particles, which supposedly re-activates the suits.

In 2005 the Scent Lok web site stated:

"How are odors released?
It is common knowledge that heat makes molecules move more rapidly. Reactivation is only obtained by using a clothes dryer. Reactivation is achieved by placing the suit in a dryer for twenty to thirty minutes on a medium to high heat setting or according to the label instructions. The heat from the clothes dryer creates what is scientifically known as Brownian molecular motion, which causes the scent molecules to move rapidly. This movement breaks the molecules free from the surfaces of the activated carbon particles and interior pores of the carbon, and allows them to eventually exit out of the dryer vent."
(end quote)

Note: This article has since been removed from the site.

According to a chemist employed by 3M, this statement is not correct, because it is not possible to recharge activated carbon by putting it in the dryer for twenty to thirty minutes on a medium to high heat setting. According to the chemist, the human sweat molecule is so complex that the activated carbon would have to be heated to over 700 degrees F before it would release human sweat odors. At 500 degrees F the suit will be nothing but carbon. At that temperature there would no longer be any cloth left, there would only be carbon!

In order to re-activate activated carbon a process referred to as Pyrolysis has to be used. To completely re-activate a saturated activated carbon suit, it has to be heated to about 800 °C, or 1472 °F. And it would have to be done in a controlled atmosphere with low oxygen concentration to reduce the possibility of combustion. This is clearly stated in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Engineering and Design, Adsorption Design Guide, Design Guide No. DG1110-1-2, which can be viewed on the internet.
Most household clothes dryers do not reach temperatures over 200°F, which is not high enough to release the trapped odors in the activated carbon in scent-elimination suits. It is highly unlikely that activated carbon suits for hunting use can be recharged, with the result that the suits will eventually become full of odors, to the point where the charcoal will no longer trap odors.

In defense of their statements that their suits can be re-activated the manufacturers of activated carbon clothing maintain that the word "reactivation" is a loosely used term. In reality "reactivation", as it applies to activated carbon, means that the adsorption capability of the carbon has been totally and completely re-activated. Some manufacturers of activated carbon scent-elimination clothing have stated that the garments aren't "totally reactivated" after they are first washed and put in the dryer, but that they are partially "regenerated" or "desorbed". Supposedly this partial regeneration is enough to allow the clothing to again adsorb more odors.

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 is study was originally available on the Internet by logging on to: http://www.ce.vt.edu/program_areas/environmental/teach/wtprimer/carbon/sketcarb.html)

The use of the term Brownian molecular motion on the Scent-Lok web site is also inaccurate. The use of this scientific term seems to add some credibility to the claims about activated carbon. There is no reference to Brownian "molecular" motion, because Brownian motion does not involve molecules, but rather small particles.

The web site at http://xanadu.math.utah.edu/java/brownianmotion/1/ states, "In 1827 the English botanist Robert Brown noticed that pollen grains suspended in water jiggled about under the lens of the microscope..."


The web site at http://schools.matter.org.uk/Content/BrownianMotion/Default.htm states, "Brownian motion (or Brownian movement) can be defined as 'the random movement of microscopic particles suspended in a fluid.' "

The definition of Brownian Motion at http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/BrownianMotion.html states, "The random walk motion of small particles suspended in a fluid due to bombardment by molecules obeying a Maxwellian velocity distribution. The phenomenon was first observed by Jan Ingenhousz in 1785, but was subsequently rediscovered by Brown in 1828. Einstein used kinetic theory to derive the diffusion constant for such motion in terms of fundamental parameters of the particles and liquid, and this equation was subsequently used by Perrin to determine Avogadro's number. Brownian trajectories are continuous, but of infinite length between any two points."

Brownian motion has nothing to do with the re-activation or de-adsorbtion of activated carbon, because the term is only used only in reference to "particles suspended in a fluid," not to the motion or activity of gaseous odor molecules released by activated carbon that is subjected to heat in a clothes dryer.

Are activated carbon suits adversely affected by humidity?
One of the statements on the Scent Lok web site in 2005 mentioned "heavy perspiration", which may occur as a hunter walks to their hunting site, and may result in high humidity between the hunter's skin and the suit for several hours after the hunter stops walking.

The Army Corps of Engineers document cited above also states: “Relative humidity above 50 percent may result in adsorbed and condensed water vapor blocking the pores of the particles and interfering with the diffusion of the contaminants to the adsorption pores.”

What this means is that if a hunter wears activated carbon clothing while hunting, when the relative humidity conditions are above 50 percent, or if he sweats, the suit won't work. No matter what the relative humidity conditions are outside, activated carbon clothing may not work, because the act of walking alone will cause the human body to sweat, resulting in a relative humidity of 50 percent or more between the body and the suit. By the time the hunter arrives at their hunting site the activated carbon in the suit will be saturated with moisture, and it will be useless.

Hunters can find this government document on the Internet, and so can the manufacturers of activated carbon clothing. But, neither it, nor the information in it, is mentioned by any of the activated carbon clothing manufacturers in their advertising, nor is it mentioned on their web sites.


Conclusion: If there is not enough activated carbon in the suits to trap human odors; if the suits used for Chemical Warfare lose effectiveness after six washings and are effective for a maximum of 45 days; if activated carbon scent-elimination suits do not keep dogs from detecting humans; if the effectiveness of activated carbon is affected by humidity above 50 percent; then it is unlikely that scent-elimination suits using activated carbon can work to keep hunters from being detected by deer during hunting situations, especially if the clothing is worn more than 45 days, or washed more than six times. Many hunters use their suits more than 45 days in a year, and wash it more than six times in a year, which means they will probably have to buy a new suit every one to two years.

Licensing Agreements
In the early 1990's Scent-Lok applied for and received a patent on the use of activated carbon for several different applications and/or articles of clothing used in conjunction with the control, reduction or elimination of scents, including human related or human produced odors, while hunting. Since the granting of that patent Scent-Lok has done what any company holding a patent does; they have aggressively protected the patent, warning several companies not to produce clothing meant to control, reduce or eliminate unwanted odors while hunting, whether the clothing contained activated carbon or not.

Is the Scent-Lok patent valid?
Recently some questions have arisen as to whether or not the Scent-Lok Patent is valid. That is a question that should be answered by the end of 2005. On May 11, 2005, the United States Patent and Trademark Office mailed a document to Scent-Lok, notifying them that "Claims 1-10" of their patent were temporarily "subject to reexamination" and were temporarily "rejected". According to the document, Scent-Lok had until July 11, 2005 to respond to this document. Failure by Scent-Lok to respond "will result in termination of the process and issuance of an ex parte reexamination certificate in accordance with this action."

The document cites "Popper" and "Floyd" as previous patent holders and may imply that Claims 1-10 of the Scent-Lok patent are invalid, because either Popper or Floyd covers the claims under previous use. Previous use of those claims would invalidate the portion of the Scent-Lok patent making those same claims. The Patent Office document states, "The clothing of Popper is capable of being used to avoid detection of wildlife through the senses of smell as the clothing in its normal use is worn on the body." This seems to suggest that several of the claims in the Scent-Lok patent were already patented in the Popper patent.

If Scent-Lok claims the same claims as a previous patent, it would be considered "'double patenting".
The document further states, "The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the 'right to exclude' granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees."

If the Scent-Lok patent is invalid, hunters could benefit, by seeing several new products designed to help keep them from being detected (by smell) by the big game animals they hunt.

As of 2006 the Patent claims 1-10 of the originally applied for Scent Lok patent on activated carbon suits used for the purpose of eliminating human scent or odors hunting have been rejected.

Do hunters have other options?
Fortunately for hunters there are other types of clothing designed to reduce or eliminate human odors on the market. One of them is No-Trace, which uses cyclodextrene (the same active ingredient used in some popular new air fresheners) to trap human odors. The manufacturers claim that placing it in a washing machine with unscented hunter's detergent can recharge their clothing.

Does anti-bacterial or anti-microbial type clothing work?
Hunters can also use anti-bacterial type suits work for the reduction or elimination of odors caused by bacteria when used for hunting purposes. These suits include Contain, which uses anti-bacterial ingredients in the fibers of the fabric of the clothing, and X Scent, which uses silver threads in the fabric of the clothing. Both products reduce or kill the bacteria or microbes that produce the odors associated with human perspiration, thus they reduce the amount of human odors that might be detected by deer and other big game animals.

www.huntersnetwork.com

www.huntersnetwork.com

aeroslinger

T.R. Michels OR Chuck Adams? You be the judge.

hardcorehunter

http://www.chemvironcarbon.com/en/reactivation

Reactivation
Once granular carbon is saturated or the treatment objective is reached, it can be recycled, by thermal reactivation, for reuse. Reactivation involves treating the spent carbon in a high temperature reactivation furnace to over 800°C. During this treatment process, the undesirable organics on the carbon are thermally destroyed. Recycling by thermal reactivation is a highly skilled process, to ensure that spent carbon is returned to a reusable quality. Chemviron Carbon operates Europe’s largest reactivation facilities and daily recycles large quantities of spent carbon for a diverse range of customers. Recycling activated carbon by thermal reactivation meets the environmental need to minimise waste, reducing CO2 emissions and limiting the use of the world’s resources.

hardcorehunter

Here is an indepth story about Chuck and not once does he mention carbon clothing as a secret to his success, or is there any mention of carbon clothing. There are also sound bites at the bottom of the page and he never mentions carbon clothing. Maybe if he is associated with a carbon clothing now maybe it is called having a sponsor.I know I talked with him in person at the Iowa Bowhunters' Association and I also sat through his entire seminar and NOT ONCE did he talk about carbon clothing.

http://www.bowsite.com/bowsite/features/interviews/chuckadams/

aeroslinger

Are you disputing the quotes were from Chuck Adams? That's hilarious. You talked to him? I'm sure Mr. Adams has talked to thousands of people he probably doesn't remember five minutes after he gave them his autograph. Does his quotes say anywhere that he attributes any of his success to carbon clothing? Did I say he said or meant that? The answer is NO. Take the time to read what he says. Do you doubt he's "tested scent-blocking garments around hundreds of deer, and these genuinely make a difference. " I'm sure you questioned why he sold out when you were "talking" to him.

archer58

Hardcore,
The term "reactivation" is where the problem occurs. You don't "reactivate" a Scent-Lok suit because the carbon is not used up , it's pours are full of scent molecules. The heat of a dryer (150+) opens the pours of the carbon and releases the scent molecules. On one search I found a month ago, the Army Corps of Engineers used carbon suits for something ,I don't remember what they were using the suits for. Their temp. for "reactivation" (if that's what we'll call it) was 150 - 170.
I believe there are different types and levels of carbon being referenced, and for different purposes.

As far as T.R. Michaels goes, I'll stick w/ Chuck.

BTW, I spoke w/ Scent-Lok about the T.R. M thing and they will be publishing a 15 page test reportsoon . RUMOR has it , and it's only Rumor, T.R. was involved.

As soon as I get it I'll post it.

hardcorehunter

You guys that want to believe in carbon clothings ability to be reactivated/regenerated in a homeowners dryer, keep on buying the stuff. Whatever floats your boat. Just don't accuse us that don't buy it of not wanting to spend the money on it because we can't afford it and are too tight. We don't buy it because we have educated ourselves as intelligent shoppers, nothing more.
I find it amazing that NOT ONE hunter with a chemistry degree or knowledge on carbon will stand up on these forums for the carbon clothing industry. NOT ONE!!!All we get out of carbon clothingusers are testimonials that they think it works because they had a deer downwind and it didn't smell them. They have blown money on a snake oil and WANT to believe they didn't get ripped off. I have it happen at times too, it is called a lucky thermal, or being good and high in a stand and just getting away with not being scented. Bring on the science and chemistry guys so that they can dispute what the military states about reactivation of carbon, Chevron, Siemens, and these other carbon company giants that dismiss the idea that carbon can be even slightly regenerated/reactivated in a homeowners dryer. Bring them on, I want to believe
I am done with the carbon threads; guys have at it. It is motorcycle season and turkey season. I don't need carbon for either.

aeroslinger

And all we get out of the bashers is the same old tired arguments that it doesn't work and we're not as smart or got duped, googling up the same old biased writings by someone who possibly has a different agenda, pulling out the same old tired technical data that was written for industrial use of carbon, not pertaining to the item at hand. And for what? That's the odd part. Who gives a rat's behind what the other guy does or wears. If it makes him happy and its legal, how's that hurting anybody else's feelings? Why the compulsion to just slam? 99 out of 100 USERS differ. They can read and are just as "educated" as the bashers. Plus they actually use the stuff as it is supposed to be used. Not just buying a pair of gloves or just a jacket and then proclaiming they're experts on the stuff.

solocamcan

I work in the chemical industry and we use CARBON filters to filter out unwanted purities in EVERYTHING, in size's from a pencil, to 500LB tray's located in the (smoke)stack, and it work's like a charm. How Carbon relate's to clothing, I have no idea, because clothing is not air tight, like most carbon filters are.

And with that being said, Carbon does need to be heated at extreme heat for a long amount of time to "re-activate it, it is such a difficult process in fact, that we just discard the "used" filters and replace them with new one's.