Advertise Here

 

T.R. Michels'

Trinity Mountain Outdoors Magazine TM

News, Articles and Information for the Serious Outdoorsman TM

 

Special Edition 

Activated Carbon / Scent Lok

Patent Re-examination

Fraud Lawsuit

   Index (of information on other pages)

 

Index

There are over 170+ pages of information here.

Scent-Lok / Activated Carbon Introduction

Activated Carbon Articles by T.R. Michels I Misleading Terms & False Statements used by Scent-Lok

E-mails between Scent-Lok and Scent-Lok owner Greg Sesselman & T.R. Michels

E-mails by AC Experts and Hunters to T.R. Michels I Scent-Lok Patent Status and Lawsuit Updates

 

 

LINKS

Trinity Mountain Outdoors Home Page

Trinity Mountain Outdoor Products Catalog

T.R. Michels' Guide Service / Hunting Trips

Whitetail / Turkey / Elk / Waterfowl Hunting & Guide School

T.R.'s Hunting Tips & Articles

 

 

Daily Updates on National Outdoor News

 

 T.R. Michels' Seminar Schedule

 

Christian Witness / Articles

 

Advertising Pages / Links to Other Websites

TRMichels.com Webring / Hunting Site Directory

Join TRMichels.com Webring

Advertising & Public Relations

 

Contact Us

 

 Whitetail Information

Whitetail Rut Dates Chart

Whitetail Activity Graphs

Whitetail Communication / Calls

Whitetail Articles

Whitetail Management

Whitetail Hunting Tips

 

Turkey Information

Peak Turkey Gobbling Dates Chart

Turkey Gobbling Graphs

Turkey Communication / Calls

Turkey Articles

Turkey Hunting Tips

 

Elk Information

Peak Elk Bugling Dates

Elk Activity Graphs

Elk Communication / Calls

Elk Articles

Elk Hunting Tips

 

Waterfowl Information

Duck & Goose Communication

Duck & Goose Articles

Duck & Goose Hunting Tips

 

Other Information

State / Provincial Wildlife Offices & Information

 

NOAA's National Weather Service

Sunrise & Sunset

 

Sport Show Listings

New Lawsuit - As the House of Cards begins to Fall

7/30/2010 10:01 AM - I just received this e-mail from a very credible source. Here is the e-mail I just received.

Lawsuits have taken a new twist. Now Scent Blocker and Scent-Lok are in court against each other.

It sounds like the house of cards is about to fall. You can bet that if the Scent Lok patents are not good, or royalties paid to them by other companies, are based on patents that were never valid, that demands may be made to get those royalties paid back, from Scent Lok to the companies that paid royalties. This is what I had expected to occur, sooner or later. Will Cabela's, Gander Mountain or Browning be next?

 You can read the Court document here.

7/30/2010 11:32 AM - I just sent Greg Sesselman, owner of Scent-Lok, this e-mail.

Greg,
How are you doing. I know that if I was you I'd be under a lot of pressure and I would not be sleeping well at night. I hope you do have a relationship with Yahweh, to help you through these trying times.
You've had a lot thrown at you in the last year, with losing your patents and losing the MN fraud trial. If you do not have a personal relationship with Jesus, did you ever stop to think, that maybe He is trying to get your attention, so that you will turn to Him for help? Or that you will turn to Him even if you do have a relationship with Him.
Forgive me if I see it that way, because of my belief that you knew you were misleading people with your advertising claims. And if I am right, you wronged most of the people who bought your products. If I am correct, then you owe them all an apology, and their money back, because they were defrauded. But, I could be wrong.
If I was you, and I realized what I had done, accepted the fact that I had done wrong, and wanted to set things straight, I would start by asking God's forgiveness, and for His help to deal with all of your problems. Then I would make a public apology, come to a settlement in all of the 8 other cases, take my losses and try to get back on the right road.
To that end I am willing to make either the magazine on my website, or my message board, a forum for you to clear the air, and tell your side of the story in this new lawsuit against Robinson.
No matter what, I will be praying for you because God put it in my heart to forgive you and to try to help you if I can, and to pray for you to feel God's comfort during this time of trial. If there is anything I can do for you, let me now - I'm here to help.
And if you want to use my site to tell your side of the Robinson lawsuit, feel free to do so. I'm going to make the same offer to Scott Schultz and Robinson.
May God bless you and your family, and help you through this time of trouble.
Your brother in Christ,
T.R.
7/31/2010 4:47 AM
I sent this e-mail to Scott Schultz of Robinson Outdoors,
 
Scott,
I offered to let Greg Sesselman use either my website or my talk forum to explain why he is suing you for the information and testing he wants. I'm making the same offer to you, to explain why you think he is doing this and what he is looking for.
I think the public would like to know. Would you like to take advantage of this offer?
T.R,

NEW - ScentBlocker's Claims

Well, here we go again. In the aftermath of the Scent Lok trial, the sharks can smell the blood, and they are circling for their own piece of the action. Not less than a few months after the highly publicized MN Scent Lok trial, which found Scent Lok guilty of fraud (misleading, false statements), and after Robinson Outdoor Products settled their fraud lawsuit in New York, Robinson has come out with its own set of outlandish statements, in an effort to get a bigger piece of the pie in the Odor Reducing / Activated Carbon Clothing Market. In a Press Release on their website, and to several publications, Robinson states -

"The Court's ruling supported Robinson's ScentBlocker product claims and found as fact: a.) activated carbon can adsorb human odor, b.) ScentBlocker contains more carbon, c.) ScentBlocker carbon is applied into the garment by unique technology and methodology, d.) ScentBlocker tests superior to other carbon and non-carbon apparel."
As I understand it, the lawsuit and court case were about whether or not Robinson Outdoors used false or misleading statements in regard to their ScentBlocker activated carbon clothing. It had nothing to do with, or said anything about, how well Robinson's products performed when using "human" odor as a test product.
This is from the court order
9. 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 (hexane, not human perspiration 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.
Although, at first glance there is nothing false about Robinson's statements, they are in fact misleading. There is no mention of human odor, or any of several compounds found in human perspiration odor. As I understand it Robinson used Hexane as a test subject in their testing at the University of MN. But, Hexane only has a boiling point of 158 degree F., which is below the boiling point of many compounds in human perspiration, many of which are above 200 degrees F. Since Scent Lok used EMA in their testing, Robinson cannot compare the tests of the two companies, and come to any justifiable conclusion.
I have to wonder how far these companies will go to make a buck - or delude a hunter into thinking he can get a buck ... by using their products.

This is in "BLOG configuration", with the newest updates at the top of each page.

 Misleading Terms & False Statements used by Scent-Lok

The reason I bring this up is because Scent Lok repeatedly uses false or misleading terms to give their sales pitch a more than realistic, exaggerated, scientific sounding appeal, which it uses to suggest that their products can do more than they can really do- thereby duping the public into thinking their products will keep animals from smelling them at all; and selling their less than perfect products.

.

2008

Stores Cannot Carry Contain

My information is that at least one chain of retail stores was asked not to carry Contain clothing, because it competes with Scent Lok - Heaven forbid! I don't understand this philosophy, because Contain uses a completely different process to help hunters reduce human odors, by using an anti-bacterial to kill bacteria and microbes, which produce the odors associated with human perspiration. Contain in no way infringes on the non-patent of Scent Lok. I'd think retailers would like to offer the newest, best products to their buyers.

I've also learned that a US senator or congressman made an inquiry about the case to the Commissioner of the Patent Office. It is my understanding that after such an inquiry the Patent Office has 30 days to respond, and then some kind of final decision should be made as to whether or not some of the Scent Lok patent claims are valid and enforceable.

It is also my understanding he has done this because Scent Lok appears to be re-submitting their old claims, using new and more inclusive "words" and "terms" in an effort to keep some of their current claims (which may be no good), to delay the patent claim rejection (so they can continue to collect high royalties), or in order to receive new, more inclusive, farther reaching patent claims (which they may use to keep other companies from developing, designing, manufacturing, promoting and selling other competing "scent reducing or elimination clothing" that uses better and newer technology).

 

 3/1/07

Misleading Terms used by Scent Lok

Physical Adsorbtion

Using the new term "physical adsorbtion" Scent Lok now claims that they can regenerate the powdered activated carbon in their suits by a process known as "stripping" - during which steam heating of activated carbon can, and does, remove some of the odors sorbed by activated carbon.

However, the term "stripping" is primarily used in respect to the removal of gold from activated carbon by heating it to remove gold from activated carbon.

The web site at http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7056948.html states:

"Loaded carbon must be desorbed in order to recover the gold absorbed.
 

The web site at http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7056948.html states.

"There are several methods that use caustic soda or alcohol working temperatures between 70 to 140 C. Caustic soda has the advantage of low cost and reduces the time required for desorbing the gold.
A typical stripping solution contains 20-25% by weight of ethylene or propylene glycol and 2% by weight of caustic soda. Sodium cyanide is sometimes added to the solution, but is frequently unnecessary. The solution is heated about 190 oF and pumped through the carbon stripping vessel ..."

Conclusion: The term "stripping" has nothing to do with the removal of human perspiration and other odors from activated carbon, especially at the temperatures that can be achieved in a household dryer.

 

Scent Lok also used the term "mechanical entrapment" in its description of how perspiration odors were removed from air and "trapped" or sorbed to activated carbon.

 The web page at http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:jO813Cb4J9cJ:goldbook.c60.kiev.ua/M03800.pdf+mechanical+entrapment&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us describes "mechanical entrapment" as:

"1. The process of random incorporation of comparatively small quantities of other phases (e.g. water, dust, particles, etc.) in the bulk of a precipitate during its formation.
2. The deliberate capture of small quantities of such phases by the deliberate addition of solids to a liquid phase. (The term inclusion is not recommended).
O.B. 85
IUPAC Compendium of Chemical Terminology
2nd Edition (1997)"

Conclusion: The term "mechanical entrapment" has nothing to do with the sorbing of human perspiration odors by activated carbon.

 

I've also questioned whether or not the activated carbon in a Scent Lok suit can be re-activated in a household dryer as Scent Lok claims?

 In response to my questions about activated carbon Dr. Mellor, Technical Director of Purification Products Limited in Great Britain, which manufactures activated carbon stated:  

Q. As an expert in activated carbon I would like to ask you if you have examined the minute amount of activated carbon in some of the suits worn by hunters?
Mellor response: In virtually all cases more is better - more activated carbon of the same physical form and activity on a material with the same physical parameter will adsorb more odours."
Q. If you have examined these suits, do you believe they can stop "all" human and other unnatural odors (to deer) from escaping the suits, or can some of the odors go through the parts of the material that are not covered by activated carbon, allowing deer or other animals to smell human or other odors?
Mellor Response: "If one is being strictly literal - then no filter can be 100% efficient - nothing is that good or efficient. ... carbon doesn't like amines or organic sulfur compounds or even water for that matter. If 'air' passes through a part of a garment with no carbon, then the odours carried by that 'air' will not be adsorbed - water running through a colander doesn't just avoid the holes just because some 'scientist' says it does ..."

Conclusion: Human perspiration odors will go around the extremely small amount of activated carbon in a Scent Lok suit if they can, which they can easily do in a Scent Lok suit as we can see by examining the photo of their fabric.  

 Q. In your experience can powdered activated carbon, such as is used in may of these suits, be reactivated or de-adsorbed, or de-adosrbed, of "all" (every last bit) of the human perspiration odor in them at 150-180 degrees F., or will some of the odors remain?
Mellor response: Heating of carbon containing fabric in a domestic dryer will not remove all of the adsorbed components and never can. To stand a chance of removing an appreciable proportion of the odours adsorbed on a suit would require approaching the boiling point of the odour. For example; laboratory tests using a very low molecular weight (and therefore low boiling point) organic compound can show 90% regeneration after heating for an hour at 230 F. ... To stand a chance of removing 'all' adsorbed species (from activated carbon) would require 60F and 10-4 Torr vacuum (about a 7millionth of atmospheric pressure!) for several hours.

 Conclusion: This statement makes it clear that activated carbon that is full of human perspiration and other odors cannot be re-activated or de-sorbed of those odors in a household dryer at temperatures between 150 and 180 degrees F. This suggests that Scent Lok's statements that their suits can be re-activated or re-generated - is false or misleading.

 

3/1/07

Questionable Statements by Scent Lok

Scent Lok has repeatedly used "altered, false, misspelled or misleading terms and processes" to describe the capture (sorbtion) and re-generation or release of sorbed human perspiration or other odors from the activated carbon in their suits.

In response to my questions as to why Scent Lok would use these "altered, false or misleading terms or processes" to describe the sorbtion of human perspiration and other odors to the extremely limited amount of activated carbon in their suits, and the subsequent attempts by hunters to re-activate or re-generate these suits per the instructions and claims of Scent Lok Greg, company owner Sesselman responded:

"RE: terms like Van der Waals bonding, reactivation and Brownian motion; the PhDs have vilified us again."

Conclusion: Greg Sesselman does not have a valid response to the above question, he is simply trying to minimize the fact that these terms do not apply to the powdered activated carbon in Scent Lok suits.

 

10/18/06

Claims will Stand

I've just been informed that the re-submittal of Scent Lok's patent claimss will stand, until each and every one of the 20 or so Patent claim submissions is challenged, by someone willing to do it, who has enough money to do it, even though Scent Lok is re-submitting different-worded claims, but using the same technology.

As long as the claims are not challenged, Scent Lok can continue to either ask other scent elimination/reduction clothing manufacturers and companies for royalties, or take them to court to stop them from manufacturing newer and better technology for scent elimination/reduction. All this in spite of the fact that the original Patent claim was rejected (because the technology is in general public use), and in spite of the fact that testing shows activated-carbon does not work to control human scent as the manufacturers claim.

Conclusion: Greg Sesselman does not have a valid response to the above question, he is simply trying to minimize the fact that these terms do not apply to the powdered activated carbon in Scent Lok suits.

 

9/26/06

Deceptive statement from the Scent Lok web site:

"Pristine Material: This is material that is in perfect condition. Greater amounts of scent is exposed to the fabric to the point where it is virtually saturated.
Regenerated Material: This is the same material as in the pristine material test only it has been regenerated in a drying cycle at 160 F. for 45 minutes. Then after regeneration exposed to greater amounts of scent until virtually saturated.
Conclusion: As the test data shows, after a regeneration cycle the regenerated performs equally as well as the new pristine material. This confirms that like a sponge, scent can be virtually wrung out to give our fabrics the capacity to adsorb odors time and time again."

My question is this: "What test data? Was the exact same fabric, with the exact same amount of activated carbon that is used on clothing for sale - used in the test? Whose fabric was it? Was the test done by an independent laboratory; or by Scent Lok or someone paid by Scent Lok? If it was an independent laboratory please provide the results to us.

My understanding is this: While some desorption can occur when activated carbon is exposed to temperatures lower than 750 to 1200 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 was originally available on the Internet by logging on to: http://www.ce.vt.edu/program_areas/environmental/teach/wtprimer/carbon/sketcarb.html

My Conclusion: Of course the "regenerated material performs equally as well as the new pristine material". If, according to all the data I have, the original material worked poorly in the first place, or didn't work at all; then the regenerated material would perform similarly to the pristine material.

In addition, the statement that "in a drying cycle for 45 minutes" could regenerate the material flies in the face of the research from the Virginia Technical University study, because, according to their study, the material would have to be heated to at least 212 degrees F before it could be partially desorbed or "regenerated".

 

Scent Lok originally stated their product could be re-activated by placing the clothing in a household dryer for 10-30 minutes; not 45 minutes. And now they are using the word "regenerated" instead of re-activated. Simply semantics, possibly. It might be they are using those terms to re-word their latest patent claim proposal.

The Scent Lok Science web site at http://www.seattlefabrics.com/scent-lok_science previously stated:

The bonding process

In the Scent-Lok products the odor adsorbing linings are designed so that the human odors, gases, and moisture pass through the fabrics, make contact with the activated carbon, and are then expelled as "filtered" air. Once through the suit the air no longer contains human odor. The scientific name for this molecular attraction to carbon is called the VanderWaal's bond.

In this statement Scent Lok clearly states that human odors have to make contact with the activated carbon in their suits in order or adsorb those odors. As I have already noted, their is not enough activated carbon in their suits to do this, because those odors can go though the suit without coming into contact with any activated carbon.

There is no reference to "VanderWaal's bond" on the Internet. However, there are references to "Wan der Waal's interactions","Van der Waal's force" and "Van der Waal's broadening". Note the possible deliberate differences in spelling used by Scent Lok.

Definition of "Vander Waal's bond" from Wikepedia

Van der Waals interactions are observed in noble gases, which are very stable and tend not to interact. This is why it is difficult to condense them into liquids. However, the larger the atom of the noble gas (the more electrons it has) the easier it is to condense the gas into a liquid. This happens because, when the electron cloud surrounding the gas atom gets large, it does not form a perfect sphere around the nucleus. Rather, it is only spherical if averaged over longer times and generally forms an ellipsoid, which has a slight negative charge on one side of the major axis and a slight positive charge on the other. The atom becomes a temporary dipole. This induces the same shift in neighboring atoms and spreads from one atom to the next. Unlike charges attract, and the induced dipoles are held together by dispersion force (or Van der Waals force). Van der Waals forces are responsible for certain cases of pressure broadening (Van der Waals broadening) of spectral lines.
Definition of "noble gases" from Wikepedia:
The noble gases are the elements in group 18 of the periodic table. They are the most stable due to having the maximum number of valence electrons their outer shell can hold. Therefore, they rarely react with other elements since they are already stable. Other characteristics of the noble gases are that they all conduct electricity, flouresce, are odorless, colorless and are used in many conditions when a stable element is needed to maintain a safe and constant enviroment.

 

Scent Lok also uses the term "mechanical entrapment" in its patent application.

 The IUPAC (International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry) Gold Book (informally known as the IUPAC Compendium of Chemical Terminology) at http://goldbook.iupac.org/M03800.html defines "mechanical entrapment", "capture", "precipitation", "adsorbtion" and "interface" as:

Mechanical Entrapment
1. The process of random incorporation of comparatively small quantities of other phases (e.g. water, dust, particles, etc.) in the bulk of a precipitate during its formation.
2. The deliberate capture of small quantities of such phases by the deliberate addition of solids to a liquid phase. (The term inclusion is not recommended).
Source: Orange Book, p. 85
Capture
A process in which an atomic or nuclear system acquires an additional particle. In general, a specification is added of the type of the captured particle or its energy.
Source: PAC, 1994, 66, 2516 (Nomenclature for radioanalytical chemistry.)
Precipitation
1. The sedimentation of a solid material (a precipitate) from a liquid solution in which the material is present in amounts greater than its solubility in the liquid.
Source: PAC, 1990, 62, 2207 (Glossary of atmospheric chemistry terms.) See also: Orange Book, p. 84, PAC, 1994, 66, 589 (Definition of terms relating to phase transitions of the solid state.)
Adsorption
An increase in the concentration of a dissolved substance at the interface of a condensed and a liquid phase due to the operation of surface forces. Adsorption can also occur at the interface of a condensed and a gaseous phase.
Source: Orange Book, p. 85, PAC, 1990, 62, 2171 (Glossary of atmospheric chemistry terms.)

 

 The following article is from the Cameron carbon web site at http://www.cameroncarbon.com/spent_carbon.html

Cameron Carbon offers spent activated carbon reactivation (recycling) services at a fully permitted reactivation facility. Spent carbon is recycled in specially designed high temperature furnaces that can restore the carbon's pore structure to new or near new quality. The organics that are vaporized from the spent carbon are fully destroyed downstream of the furnace by an air pollution control system. Certification of VOC (volatile organic compounds) destruction can be provided upon request.

The above article states that "reactivation" (the word Scent Lok uses) occurs when activated carbon is placed in "specially designed high temperature furnaces", and ONLY THEN is it restored to new or nearly new quality. NO hunter I know of has access to such a facility.

 

The following article is from the CMCC-AC web site at http://www.cmcc-ac.co.jp/english/product/catalog1.html

Activated carbon that has dropped its adsorbing capability can be recovered in its performance by the reactivation process and can be used in the adsorption process again. When activated carbon adsorbs impurities, a balanced relationship of adsorption is established among the adsorbate (i.e. substance adsorbed by activated carbon), activated carbon, and medium (i.e. substance surrounding the adsorbate and activated carbon such as water or gas).

Reactivating means that this balanced relationship of adsorption is changed and adsorbate is separated from activated carbon. Depending on the reaction mechanism, there are 6 types of reactivation; decompression reactivation, heating and leaving reactivation, chemical reactivation, solvent reactivation, substitutive reactivation, and oxidation and decomposition reactivation.

I don't know of any hunter who has access to 5 of the reactivation types, and we have already established that even partial reactivation, or "desorbption" as it is called, must occur at temperatures over 212 degrees F.

 

The following article is from the Siemens web site at http://www.usfilter.com/en/Corporate/Technologies/activated_carbon_regeneration_technologies?OverrideChannel=%2FChannels%2Fen%2FCorporate%2F

Our carbon reactivation facilities process RCRA hazardous and non-hazardous liquid and vapor phase spent carbons. After inspection and acceptance, the spent carbon is heated to 1600F to ensure proper reactivation. The cooled reactivated carbon is identified by lot numbers. Each carbon lot is sampled and analyzed in accordance with Westates' QA/QC program. This process assures you receive the highest quality reactivated carbon. The entire process is computer controlled and monitored, ensuring the facility meets or exceeds federal and state regulatory requirements for air and water discharges. A "Certificate of Reactivation" can be issued for each shipment of recycled carbon. This certifies that the spent carbon has been recycled in a manner that meets or exceeds all applicable RCRA and Benzene NESHAP regulations.

 

I don't know of any hunter who has a 1600 degree dryer.

I personally spoke to a Chemist at 3M here in St. Paul, MN. He told me that due to the length of the human perspiration odor it would be impossible to desorb and gasify it (release human perspiration odors / smells) from activated carbon at temperatures below not 1200 degress F. 1200 degrees F, can anyone say "Incineration"?

 

The following article is from the FreePatentsOnline web site at http://freepatentsonline.com/6423657.html

United States Patent 6423657

Abstract:

"A process and a set of equipment for reactivating spent activated carbon onto which pollutants were adsorbed. The present process comprises subjecting the activated carbon to be reactivated in a mixed solution consisting of ethanol, sodium hydroxide solution and water to effectuate the desorption of the pollutants adsorbed on the activated carbon. The equipment includes (A) a mixing tank for mixing given amounts of water, ethanol and sodium hydroxide solution which are supplied from the respective receptacles thereof; (B) a reactivation reactor for receiving the mixed solution from the mixing tank and subjecting the spent activated carbon filled therein to the mixed solution to effect the desorption of the pollutants adsorbed on the spent activated carbon, wherein the reactivation reactor includes a unit for regulating temperature of the mixed solution; and (C) a storage tank for receiving the reactivated carbon."

Does any hunter have access to this means of reactivation?

Page 2 - Activated Carbon Articles by T.R. Michels