II. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED
Robinson is hereby permitted to continue to use its phrase odor eliminating technology but only in conjunction with other words or phrases that expressly make clear that the clothing in question can only reduce the release of human odor. Robinson may not use the phrases elimination or odor eliminating or scent eliminating alone or in conjunction with words or graphics that say or depict scent-free, odor free, 100%, all or every trace or every bit of odor as removed by the clothing.
Robinson is hereby permitted to continue to use the word regenerate or reactivate as a description of the process of removal of some trapped odor from the clothing, as long as they do not include additional words or graphics that say or depict regeneration or reactivation as a process that will restore the clothing to pristine or like new condition.
ORIGINAL: Marc Anthony
bmorris, If you want a copy of this test, I would contact Virginia Tech directly and ask for their study. If I had a copy handy, I would happily email you one. I do know right after it was finished, Natural Predator, the company that makes Tru Carbon was anxious to mention it on their website. It was not funded by any outside source, that I'm sure of.
OK, so then just HOW MUCH does the dryer "regenerate" it? 80%? 60%? 20%? Fact is, ANYTHING less than 100% means that after so many dryings that it can not be regenerated at all. Even if it regenerates at 90% that would mean that after 10 dryings that it's done. This would also explain why a lot of carbon clothing users state that It worked great at first, but then not so well after a year or so."
So what is it? Are we supposed to take Scent-Loc/Blocks word for it? They don't have much "word" left.
ORIGINAL: Woods Walker
And just WHY is it that those of you that do won't answer a few basic honest questions about your use of it in regards to what's be proven about it?
Any of you can ask me anything you like about my methods, and you will get an answer that's to the best of my ability. You might not care for my answers, and that's fine. But we WILL discuss it if you like. I don't avoid the questions.
And we don't have to prove a thing about carbon clothing. The court and science has already done that. What were discussing here are those very realities.
Well, its really no different than your boots getting cracks in the rubber over time, your camouflage fading with multiple washes, holes forming in your socks. Lots of stuff has a finite life span. The problem with we humans, is we can see the hole in our socks, but we don't have a very good nose so we don't know exactly when the capability of an activated carbon garment is "fading" or "getting holes." You basically have to go with the manufacturers recommendation. How long it lasts depends largely on how closely you follow the manufacturer's recommendations. If you eat breakfast in it, sit around a fire, gas your vehicle, wear it in the house, field dress a deer while wearing it, it won't last all that long. However, if you keep it sealed in a container at all times, only touch it after you have showered with gloved hands, take it off immediately after the hunt is finished, it will last for years. In that respect it is no different than a pair of rubber boots. If you let them sit outside in direct sunlight for a year, you will ruin them. I f you store them properly in a closed area, they may last you 10 years.
Nonetheless, without question, the manufacturers convinced the court that their clothing was effective and could be regenerated.
Users browsing this forum: MSNbot Media and 3 guests