Scent Lok e-mails

I was informed on May 2, 2007, that in their recent Patent re-exam, Scent Lok accuses me of trying to get them to bribe me to not post, talk about or write about my proof that their product cannot work as they claim. The truth of the matter is that I did try to get them to bribe me, in either an e-mail or a signed letter, so that I would have proof of their willingness to bribe me, so I could expose their tactics to the public. I never intended to accept a bribe from them.

I came up with the idea of trying to get them to bribe me after Mike Andrews (of Scent Lok) made the following statement to me: "We look forward to having you as one of our biggest supporters in the future." I took that as an offer to compensate me if I would no longer comment on my beliefs about how their product could not work as they claim.

5/2/2007

E-mail to Scent Lok

Scent Lok:

I understand that your company has accused me of trying to get you to bribe me in your latest patent re-exam. The truth of the matter is, is that I wanted to see if you would offer to bribe me (in an e-mail), so I could expose it to the public. What I wanted to do was show people how far your company would go to shut me up.

Obviously someone at Scent Lok correctly figured out that my belief in the fact that your product does not work (and my Christian morals) would not allow me to accept a bribe from you to keep me quiet about the fact that I do not believe your product works; and therefore Scent Lok did not attempt to bribe me.

S, my ruse failed. And you know what - I will pay for a voice stress test on myself to show that I am telling the truth in this matter. Can you say the same?

If you do not have any reference to me removed from that patent re-exam immediately I will be forced to seek legal recourse.

I have kept a record of this, and will be forwarding a copy to the Patent and Trademark Office.

I know for a fact that you are required by law to bring my explanation of this matter to the attention of the Patent and Trademark Office. If I do not receive a notification from the Patent and Trademark Office, of your notification to them of my explanation of your twisting my intent in this matter, I will contact them myself. I just got off the phone with Mr. Andy Kashnicow (sp?), and he told me who to contact and what to do.

This is all going on my web site, and it is being e-mailed to every editor I have in my database, so they will all know about your tactics.

In your current re-exam you failed to tell the Patent Office that the following quote is on my web site. It clearly states that I would not accept a bribe; you must notify the Patent Office of this too.

T.R. Michels

In the earlier response to me Mike Andrews stated:

"We look forward to having you as one of our biggest supporters in the future."

My response:

Scent Lok - you don't have enough money to buy me off, or to keep me from writing the truth about your product. My integrity and reputation as a Christian, and as an outdoor writer, author and seminar speaker - is on the line.

In another e-mail I wrote:

Scent Lok:

If I do not receive an e-mail from you by May 10th, I will contact the Patent and Trademark Office about this matter. And I will have at least one US Legislator behind me when I do it.

I also intend to contact Trish Van Pilsum at FOX news about this, she is a friend of mine.

May Yahweh bless you according to your deeds,

T.R. Michels

Some of the questions that come to mind are: "Why is my recanting of my previous testimony so important to Scent Lok? And what does my testimony, and the recanting of my testimony, have to do with any patent application?

The answer to the second question is simple: My recanting of my testimony has no business being in a patent application, because it has nothing to do with whether or not the idea has been previously patented or not, or whether Scent Lok's idea should be granted a patent or not; unless, the patent examiner has reservations as to whether Scent Lok's claims about their product are valid or not, and whether or not Scent Lok's clothing works to really eliminate human (and all other) odors, or not!

If the patent examiner has reservations about Scent Lok clothing, it could explain why my recanting of my testimony is so important to Scent Lok.

3/3/2007

No answers

From TR:

To: Mike Andrews

I have not had time to review Greg Sessleman's letter, but will do so when I have time.

Do you know the process of induction into the Activated Carbon Hall of fame, and who oversees such nominations and the Hall of Fame?

I have tried to find e-mail addresses for your experts. One of them told us he could not talk to us by his lawyers. The e-mail addresses of two of them do not work, and most of them have moved on from their former place of employment. So far none of them has responded ... Please provide me with current contact information.

Please provide me with the interviews, data and research you said you would share with me - on how your activated carbon can and does work and can be reactivated.

You still have not answered my questions.

Why have you (personally) stated that activated carbon can be regenerated, when it was Ambersol that was being talked about in the paper you cited?

Why have you used the terms "Brownian molecular motion" and "Vander Waals bond" in your advertising, publicity and promotion - when those are incorrect terms, and when the correct terms do not seem to apply to the reactivation of activated carbon in respect to odors?

How thick (in inches) is the activated carbon layer in a current Scent Lok suit?

Does the activated carbon cover the entire surface of the fabric, or can air and odors get around the activated carbon?

Are you saying that the activated carbon you use in Scent Lok suits "attracts" (similar to magnetic attraction) human perspiration odors and other odors?

If the activated carbon does not cover the entire surface of the fabric, how much of the surface does it cover?

Are you using granulated activated carbon (GAC) or powdered activated carbon (PAC)?

Why, in your patent, do you say the product you are using is a "matrix" which is not now and never was produced or sold? (it was only a prototype) And why state that this product can be bought from a company that does not exist?

How does "stripping" apply to removing perspiration (or other odors) from activated carbon?

Stripping generally involves the removal of a solid substance (such as gold) from activated carbon by the use of another chemical (such as 20-25% by weight of ethylene or propylene glycol and 2% by weight of caustic soda) and the solution is heated about 190 oF.

What hunter has access to such chemicals and such a procedure at home?

Thanks,

T.R.

From T.R. :

You still have not answered my questions.

Why have you (personally) stated that activated carbon can be regenerated, when it was Ambersol that was being talked about in the paper you cited?

Why have you used the terms "Brownian molecular motion" and "Vander Waals bond" in your advertising, publicity and promotion - when those are incorrect terms, and when the correct terms do not seem to apply to the reactivation of activated carbon in respect to odors?

How thick (in inches) is the activated carbon layer in a current Scent Lok suit?

Does the activated carbon cover the entire surface of the fabric, or can air and odors get around the activated carbon?

Are you saying that the activated carbon you use in Scent Lok suits "attracts" (similar to magnetic attraction) human perspiration odors and other odors?

If the activated carbon does not cover the entire surface of the fabric, how much of the surface does it cover?

Are you using granulated activated carbon (GAC) or powdered activated carbon (PAC)?

Why, in your patent, do you say the product you are using is a "matrix" which is not now and never was produced or sold? (it was only a prototype) And why state that this product can be bought from a company that does not exist?

How does "stripping" apply to removing perspiration (or other odors) from activated carbon?

Stripping generally involves the removal of a solid substance (such as gold) from activated carbon by the use of another chemical (such as 20-25% by weight of ethylene or propylene glycol and 2% by weight of caustic soda) and the solution is heated about 190 ^oF.

What hunter has access to such chemicals and such a procedure at home?

3/3/2007

Still no response from Scent Lok.

3/2/07

From T.R.

March 2, 2007

You might want to consider answering my questions, and responding to my comments, because all of our e-mails are posted on my web site, and we are currently receiving in excess of 400 "hits" per day. My readers want to read your responses.

The freedom of the press goes on.

God bless, (there is really no hatred or animosity on my part, just disrespect for you not telling the whole truth.)

T.R.

From Scent Lok:

TR, We are preparing a rollout of our information in the very near future. Unfortunately we won't be able to dissect any more of the info before we produce it for the public. We appreciate your questions and look forward to the final package in a few weeks.

Mike Andrews Scent-Lok VP

From TR:

I thought you said you would provide your testing methods, testing data, and results and conclusions, plus your new booklet for my review.

What happened to that offer?

And what about responding to all of my other unanswered questions and comments, like offering your finding for per review?

T.R.

3/3/2007 No answer from Scent Lok as of, and no test data or "Scent Lok Science" booklet either.

3/1/2007

Scent Lok refuses to participate in a discussion

As of Scent Lok has not responded to my request to answer questions about how thick the carbon layer is in their current product; how their product can be reactivated when the carbon reactivation industry says it can't be done; and why they use misspelled/misquoted chemical terms (in relation to chemical processes) to promote their product, when those process have nothing to do with the reactivation of their product.

And they have not seen fit to join us for a truthful discussion on our forum - as to whether or not their product can work as they claim.

3/1/07

Still no response from Scent Lok.

2/16/07

From Scent Lok:

TR,

I would like to present one last effort to help answer your question. I've asked Greg Sesselmann to review your correspondence and I've attached a letter from Greg that I hope you will read thoroughly. We will both be unavailable this afternoon but will be back in the office on Monday.

2/16/07

From Scent Lok/ Greg Sesselman: (I've added a few comments on key subjects, TR)

Friday, February 16, 2007

Dear T.R.,

Please allow me to respond to your questions. I have stayed abreast of your comments and our responses to them.

First, please know that all questions are welcome and we endeavor to provide the best, scientific and truthful answer every time. We have started this company on the science of carbon, and will continue with that. We have all of the information needed to dispel your concern for the general public and accuracy of our brand promise. We also want to state that your concerns regarding controls on the PTO and the market are unfounded and unattainable by any company.

Your and others concerns about the capabilities of carbon were reviewed, tested and answered by independent, world renowned experts in the field of human odor, textiles, chemical research and testing procedures.

RE: The technical manual we had published that "mysteriously " disappeared, in your words, was taken off the web until we received authorization from authors included in the documents. We have authorizations now and it will be back on in its entirety soon.

We have consulted with Dr. George Predi of The Monnell Labs- ;world renowned scent experts and author of the article that we have used as reference on human body odors. He selected the odors that represented whole families of odors coming from the groin, armpit, breath and body to be tested. We could not possibly test the thousands of odors coming off the body -so he chose the odors that represented the body best.

Dr. Thompson is a textile expert and testing expert who evaluated all test methods for the most appropriate method for THIS application. He studied tests and references in the 10s of thousands and certifies the test method we adopted is very applicable, and used in most odor adsorption testing and makes sense here. He supervised the testing at Intertek Testing, world renowned independent test labs and tested our fabrics specifically against competitive technologies all purchased from a retailer and not supplied by us.

The results of testing are consistent with our findings and publishing's. Scent-lok products adsorbs off the shelf far better than any other products on the market. Others that make similar claims as Scent-lok should not/cannot due to the fact they do affect odors as they claim.

Regarding reactivation at dryer temps. Dr. Thompson's tests prove that it can and does occur. Dr.s Thompson , Turk and Eichorn (and I am sure yours if you are truthful with yourself) research shows it can, predicts it can, have tests that show it can occur. The iso-thermal differences of the adsorption potential of carbon at 160F verses 80F (and below, operation temps) allows for a great deal of capacity opening from 160F treatment. We knew and never claimed complete desorption at dryer temps. We claimed and know scientifically that we can saturate our fabrics, and then reactivate in a dryer and measure the subsequent adsorption performance to be virtually the same. (In other words: you don't know if you can "completely" desorb your activated carbon once it is full of odors. TR) This was reconfirmed by the experts.

Please ask Nowicki about partial reactivation or desorption of physically adsorbed organic compounds at dryer temperatures. If any test lab is qualified to measure this process they will not deny or contest our expert's statements. The experts that we consulted are above reproach and could not be "bought" if anyone would suggest they could be.

RE: Humidity and adsorption. Pica carbon suppliers (not currently profiting from us at all) produced samples of carbon in the same sieve sizes we use, same coconut carbon we use, in 50, 70, and 80% RH, then adsorbed the odors described by Dr. Predi and found that carbon still adsorbs in high RH and can be desorbed in a dryer (Of course it can if it can't adsorb "some" odors in high relative humidity! And this comment flies in the face of US Government testing and reports. TR). Their statement is that carbon can adsorb HUGE amounts of odors in high RH, can desorb them in a dryer sufficient enough to adsorb HUGE amounts of odor again. Huge meaning up to gram for gram adsorption and certainly in the mg /g range. The body produces odors in the 10-7 to 10-12 g/hr. Meaning, as you know, carbon is the best for this application, works for this application and supports all our claims.

RE: terms like Van der Waals bonding, reactivation and Brownian motion; the PhDs have vilified us again. (So, they are wrong and you are right? TR)

RE: Is there enough carbon on the fabric or is the distribution sufficient? Our experts have helped us determine that one gram of carbon is more than sufficient to filter the entire human odor produced for a long, long time if you could direct it through it. Understand that our distribution is tens to hundreds of grams of carbon per square yard of fabric. (Which is it tens - or thousands? Hunters would like to know. TR) The carbon is a finer distribution (meaning less thick? TR), the gaps between the carbon particles are much less than it ever was before. (Meaning the gaps were too wide before? Wider than they are now??? TR) And that carbon particle is more adsorptive than ever before. Hence our suits are more adsorptive than ever before even better than the suit that you had (unqualified, TR) positive field results with in the past.

RE: patent protection. If you have one you are OBLIGATED to defend it or you loose it. Also, the whole market awaits our response upon an infringement- it is never isolated to us and the infringer- so no matter how nice of people at competitive companies might be, we are obliged to prevent infringement of everyone if we want to keep our patents. You know we cannot slip anything thru on the PTO and never have tried (You have been slipping things by the PTO since the early 1990-'s, but now your patents have been rejected. Your statement belies the truth of the matter. TR). Patents, if you ever applied, received or had to defend, are a complex mix of things. You might sometimes wonder if they are worth the effort and expense- but were designed for little guys like US! ("Little guys" as in millions of dollars of sales per year? TR) We are not a huge conglomerate controlling everything around them. (But, you do set high royalty rates on your licensees like Gore, Whitewater, Cabela's and Browning, and you do tell them what they can or cannot sell. TR).

Even though we are hurt and concerned by your efforts to make us out to be villains and abusers, all while you ask everyone to commit random acts of kindness (that we support, by the way), we have openly and with great cost to us and effort- tried our best to get you the best answer to your questions; from independent- trustworthy experts, which is why some time elapses between question and answer.

T.R., all of this work, the resumes from these experts, the analysis, the testing, the results and discussions will be published inside one month. It was a huge endeavor sparked by your questions. We appreciate your questions. Please appreciate our sincere efforts to get you expert answers and not take your attacks personally. (I have not received one single verifiable testimony or piece of laboratory testing data. TR). We were friends and (why I don't know) I still consider you one. I/we have never done anything to deserve your animosity. (No animosity, just skepticism, and disgust. TR).

If you want to critique the data in the green state we continue to cordially invite you to our offices, at our expense, and see the data; otherwise we waste valuable time from getting the info published by attempting to just answer questions as they come up. If you don't accept our offer or study openly these experts' testimony and research, then I believe you are neither a scientist or a Christian. (I never claimed to be a "scientist', and I don't think my acceptance of your "experts" will decide whether or not I am a Christian or not, that decision is up to Yahweh-God alone; certainly not you.)

We sincerely took all your questions and others too, and posed them to experts who researched and tested their answers; and we have answered all your questions, to be published on our site (and hopefully yours). We are proud of everything we have done in business. We have done it in all fairness, ethically and morally supported in the concern for our own salvation, knowing we can sleep at night having tried our truthful best. We'd fail honestly before we achieved dishonestly.

Please take us up on our offer. If after that, you still feel what you feel today, that we cheat and lie, I will publish your concerns on OUR web site; how's that for commitment. You are a very intelligent man, we'd love your criticism professionally; It will only make us better.

Please respect the fact that you have been openly and aggressively attacking, slandering and libeling us. We hope you are a just man and that you study and accept our data and if persuasive, recant your damages if you can. We look forward to having you here to study all we have and to your positive response. (I dispute the "fact" that I have slandered or libeled you, in the strict legal sense, you would have to prove that I have no basis for my statements, which I do. TR)

Get close, go undetected

Greg Sesselmann

Cc: Mike Andrews

Greg Paquin

From T.R.:

To: Scent Lok

I've taken a few statements from the letter Greg Sesselman sent me, and I need answers to some questions I have about those statements.

Your statement: "Our experts have helped us determine that one gram of carbon is more than sufficient to filter the entire human odor produced for a long, long time if you could direct it through it."

A Gram: A metric unit of mass equal to one thousandth (10^-3) of a kilogram.

A Kilogram: A kilogram is approximately equivalent to 2.205 avoirdupois pounds in the Imperial system and the customary system of weights and measures used in the United States.

Thus a gram of activated carbon weighs two thousandths of a pound.

Question: Are you telling me that a gram of activated carbon (which is equal to two thousandths of a pound) is "more than sufficient to filter the entire human odor", and any other odors that come in contact with the activated carbon, for a long, long time?

Question: How long is a long, long time?

Question: How do you direct it (human odor) through it (the limited amount of widely spaced activated carbon in you suits), when there is