Does activated carbon clothing work or are hunters being duped out of their hard earned cash. Click this link to read an interesting article and then make you own decision.
10 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Hmmmm... a very interesting argument. I've always been skeptical and am even more so now. I think I'm going to stick with that one big factor for hunting. It's called the wind:):)
Very interesting article...thanks for the post. I agree with Arthur that the big factor is wind. One cautionary statement about the article, however, is that the author frequently intertwines what he calls 'science' with what he admits is 'opinion' (i.e., claiming his opinion is based on science). While stating that the clothing companies do not offer scientific evidence to support their claims, the author also makes an opinion without hard scientific evidence. What's needed is a clinical trial, much like the trials conducted by pharmaceutical companies. Unfortunately, I don't think that we'll get a trial anytime soon. However, if the clothing is what causes you to be more conscious of your hygiene and the wind, then it may in fact be worthwhile.
I have a friend who trains dogs for Search and Rescue, Law Enforcement and Military. A big part of his job involves trying to trick those dogs' sense of smell and vision, in order to put them to the test.
And every time, they find the human.
So my friend has started approaching various scent-control companies (I won't name any of them) with the request to test some of their clothing against his dogs. This is practical science at its best, by the way.
As of today, he has not had one single manufacturer willing to let him test their equipment.
Personally, it's never made sense to me anyway. Unless you coat yourself in an impermeable bubble (made of scent-free material), you'll never keep your scent inside of any amount of clothing.
Use key hunting skill, including playing the wind, and you'll be successful. Most gadgets are simply designed to fool hunters, not game.
There is actually another article over on www.fastestbows.com that details a scent dog trial. I don't have the link but the results were the same...the suits did not fool the dogs.
I am skeptical about the value of activated carbon for hunting but I am a scientist with a Ph.D. in biochemistry. The article uses scientific terminology but it is easy for me to see that they are using isolated facts to draw a desired conclusion.
Citing high temperatures as needed to completely reactivate carbon is misleading. What they are not saying is how much time the carbon has to be kept at the required temperature. Nor are they considering what percentage of the carbon needs to be reactiviated. Whereas 1200 degress for a minute or 2 might reactivate the carbon to 99%, 100 degrees for 20 minutes might be enough to reactivate it 3%, which may or may not be enough to be effective. I don't know what percentage of the carbon needs to be reactivated in these garments nor does the writer of this article.
I am not sure if these cloths work, but I am absolutely sure that this article is only touching the surface, and is citing the requirements for complete reactivation of carbon to argue that partial reactivation may not be enough.
Regarding dogs, the fact that a hound can find a person in a local area during a field test is completely artificial. What we hunters are trying to achieve is to dilute our scent enough so that a buck who is 30, 40, 50 or 60 yards away does not detect our diluted scent in the swirling, drifing wind. Any improvement in terms of scent reduction improves our chances of preventing detection.
This is not an all or none scenario.
I am just a guy like you trying to figure out how much to spend on scent reduction. I have no connection to any companies.
For more scientific information you can read the articles on "Activated Carbon Science and Facts" at www.TRMichels.com. I found the inforamtion very interesting.
Again, what you are reading on that site is not "scientific." It is a diatribe by a non-scientist who is on a vendetta for some reason and is trying to extract anti-Scent-Lok interpretations from the literature and through hearsay from Ph.D. scientists. Virtually all of the scientists he mentions say that partial regeration is in fact possible, but he chooses not to hear that part.
The question is not whether 100% activation can be achieved. That is a ridiculous and unnecessary assumption/goal. The question is whether a deer is less likely to detect a hunter who is properly wearing an activated carbon suit.
In my area deer are smelling people virtually 100% of the time. There is usually no more than 1 quarter mile between houses and the deer live all among the people. So the odors are there. the question for the deer is, is that a distant, non-threatening odor, or is it immediate and strong and in a location that I don't expect it? Again, it is not an all or none proposition. If the suit can reduce the odors enough so the threat does not seem local and immediate to the deer, that may give the hunter an advantage.
It is ludicrous to say that because the carbon cannot be 100% reactivated, as would be required in an industrial application, that the conclusion is that the suit can't work. The very effort to make that point is unscientific at face value.
The guy on that web site strikes me as a nutty gadfly with a chip on his shoulder. there is nothing scientific a bout him at all.
And by the way, Brownian motion is driven by exactly the same molecular motion that causes the release of molecules from activated carbon. The guy is out of his gourd for using that example to denigrate the comments of the ScentLoc folks.
Oh, and by the way, I have 28 issued US patents and have never once been asked to or would I ever cite the comments of a web blogger or unpublished letters as relevant art in a patent prosecution.
The guy is a nut if he thinks his unsupported comments that have never been peer reviewed and published in a scientific journal have any relevance to a patent examination.
Thanks for the input on this subject. In talking with sportsmen it is pretty clear that the majority are using these suits even if no one can totally prove or disprove their effectiveness. I guess that in the end those who can afford the suits will buy them. Even if they only help a little it may be enough to score on that trophy we all seek. I remember a Podcast I listened to where the guy being interviewed stopped eating meat 2-3 months prior to hunting season and also took some type of internal cleanser, all in an effort to eliminate human scent. His thought was that if you didn't eat meat and got completely cleaned out...yuck, you would not produce human scent or as he said, the scent of a predator.
I would like too agree with Jim on this issue. The scientific facts just aren't there and the assumption that 100% reactivation is needed to lessen deer detectable send is unrealistic considering that regular sent elimination is known to work. I also want to add an extra bit of science fact, activated crabon can be reactivated through two methods the one mention and through chemical activation. Chemical activation is where you add certin chemical compounds to the carbon then heat it. In this case the temp. needed for ractivation is around 200 C. not quite what a dryer reaches(175 C.) but enought to activate most of the carbon. That is why you ues special carbon clothes wash, it contains the chemicals needed. Some of which are phosphoric acid, potassium hydroxide, sodium hydroxide or salts like zinc chloride.
I saw some research data on Deer and Deer Hunting (a TV program) that indicates many of the chemical signatires in human odor were eliminsated or reduced by the clothing. One commentator surmised that, though not 100% effectvie, the clothing may reduce or diffuse human odor enough to fool the deer into thinking you were there yesterday or that you are further away than you actually are.
10 comments:
Hmmmm... a very interesting argument. I've always been skeptical and am even more so now. I think I'm going to stick with that one big factor for hunting. It's called the wind:):)
Very interesting article...thanks for the post. I agree with Arthur that the big factor is wind. One cautionary statement about the article, however, is that the author frequently intertwines what he calls 'science' with what he admits is 'opinion' (i.e., claiming his opinion is based on science). While stating that the clothing companies do not offer scientific evidence to support their claims, the author also makes an opinion without hard scientific evidence. What's needed is a clinical trial, much like the trials conducted by pharmaceutical companies. Unfortunately, I don't think that we'll get a trial anytime soon. However, if the clothing is what causes you to be more conscious of your hygiene and the wind, then it may in fact be worthwhile.
Take this for what it's worth.
I have a friend who trains dogs for Search and Rescue, Law Enforcement and Military. A big part of his job involves trying to trick those dogs' sense of smell and vision, in order to put them to the test.
And every time, they find the human.
So my friend has started approaching various scent-control companies (I won't name any of them) with the request to test some of their clothing against his dogs. This is practical science at its best, by the way.
As of today, he has not had one single manufacturer willing to let him test their equipment.
Personally, it's never made sense to me anyway. Unless you coat yourself in an impermeable bubble (made of scent-free material), you'll never keep your scent inside of any amount of clothing.
Use key hunting skill, including playing the wind, and you'll be successful. Most gadgets are simply designed to fool hunters, not game.
There is actually another article over on www.fastestbows.com that details a scent dog trial. I don't have the link but the results were the same...the suits did not fool the dogs.
I am skeptical about the value of activated carbon for hunting but I am a scientist with a Ph.D. in biochemistry. The article uses scientific terminology but it is easy for me to see that they are using isolated facts to draw a desired conclusion.
Citing high temperatures as needed to completely reactivate carbon is misleading. What they are not saying is how much time the carbon has to be kept at the required temperature. Nor are they considering what percentage of the carbon needs to be reactiviated. Whereas 1200 degress for a minute or 2 might reactivate the carbon to 99%, 100 degrees for 20 minutes might be enough to reactivate it 3%, which may or may not be enough to be effective. I don't know what percentage of the carbon needs to be reactivated in these garments nor does the writer of this article.
I am not sure if these cloths work, but I am absolutely sure that this article is only touching the surface, and is citing the requirements for complete reactivation of carbon to argue that partial reactivation may not be enough.
Regarding dogs, the fact that a hound can find a person in a local area during a field test is completely artificial. What we hunters are trying to achieve is to dilute our scent enough so that a buck who is 30, 40, 50 or 60 yards away does not detect our diluted scent in the swirling, drifing wind. Any improvement in terms of scent reduction improves our chances of preventing detection.
This is not an all or none scenario.
I am just a guy like you trying to figure out how much to spend on scent reduction. I have no connection to any companies.
Jim
For more scientific information you can read the articles on "Activated Carbon Science and Facts" at www.TRMichels.com. I found the inforamtion very interesting.
Hunter
Again, what you are reading on that site is not "scientific." It is a diatribe by a non-scientist who is on a vendetta for some reason and is trying to extract anti-Scent-Lok interpretations from the literature and through hearsay from Ph.D. scientists. Virtually all of the scientists he mentions say that partial regeration is in fact possible, but he chooses not to hear that part.
The question is not whether 100% activation can be achieved. That is a ridiculous and unnecessary assumption/goal. The question is whether a deer is less likely to detect a hunter who is properly wearing an activated carbon suit.
In my area deer are smelling people virtually 100% of the time. There is usually no more than 1 quarter mile between houses and the deer live all among the people. So the odors are there. the question for the deer is, is that a distant, non-threatening odor, or is it immediate and strong and in a location that I don't expect it? Again, it is not an all or none proposition. If the suit can reduce the odors enough so the threat does not seem local and immediate to the deer, that may give the hunter an advantage.
It is ludicrous to say that because the carbon cannot be 100% reactivated, as would be required in an industrial application, that the conclusion is that the suit can't work. The very effort to make that point is unscientific at face value.
The guy on that web site strikes me as a nutty gadfly with a chip on his shoulder. there is nothing scientific a bout him at all.
And by the way, Brownian motion is driven by exactly the same molecular motion that causes the release of molecules from activated carbon. The guy is out of his gourd for using that example to denigrate the comments of the ScentLoc folks.
Oh, and by the way, I have 28 issued US patents and have never once been asked to or would I ever cite the comments of a web blogger or unpublished letters as relevant art in a patent prosecution.
The guy is a nut if he thinks his unsupported comments that have never been peer reviewed and published in a scientific journal have any relevance to a patent examination.
Jim, Ph.D.
Thanks for the input on this subject. In talking with sportsmen it is pretty clear that the majority are using these suits even if no one can totally prove or disprove their effectiveness. I guess that in the end those who can afford the suits will buy them. Even if they only help a little it may be enough to score on that trophy we all seek. I remember a Podcast I listened to where the guy being interviewed stopped eating meat 2-3 months prior to hunting season and also took some type of internal cleanser, all in an effort to eliminate human scent. His thought was that if you didn't eat meat and got completely cleaned out...yuck, you would not produce human scent or as he said, the scent of a predator.
I would like too agree with Jim on this issue. The scientific facts just aren't there and the assumption that 100% reactivation is needed to lessen deer detectable send is unrealistic considering that regular sent elimination is known to work. I also want to add an extra bit of science fact, activated crabon can be reactivated through two methods the one mention and through chemical activation. Chemical activation is where you add certin chemical compounds to the carbon then heat it. In this case the temp. needed for ractivation is around 200 C. not quite what a dryer reaches(175 C.) but enought to activate most of the carbon. That is why you ues special carbon clothes wash, it contains the chemicals needed. Some of which are phosphoric acid, potassium hydroxide, sodium hydroxide or salts like zinc chloride.
I saw some research data on Deer and Deer Hunting (a TV program) that indicates many of the chemical signatires in human odor were eliminsated or reduced by the clothing. One commentator surmised that, though not 100% effectvie, the clothing may reduce or diffuse human odor enough to fool the deer into thinking you were there yesterday or that you are further away than you actually are.
Post a Comment