First, I apologize if I've been disrespectful to anyone. I'm passionate about hunting, and the equipment I use. I am what you could call "one obstinate individual".... If I take a piece of equipment into the field, it's the best for what I'm doing. Over the years, I've literally designed quite a bit of the equipment I use now in the field because there wasn't anything that fit MY need. Equipment that I've designed includes: Treestands, climbing sticks, safety harness's, chairs, bows, saws, pole saws, etc.... I live and breath this stuff everyday from being a hunter, manufacturer, designer, engineer, and importer. My work is my life, my life is centered around whitetails. I didn't move to Iowa for the skiing that's for sure!
For me to promote a gimmick would essentially go against my moral code, my goals of being a true Christian; and more importantly is NOT what I got into this business for. I'm lucky, I don't have to sell "crap" in-order to pay my mortgage or a very expensive time slot on some outdoor network. If I were truly all-about the $$$ and pimping products, ask yourself why I wear Predator camo - and they aren't even a sponsor of mine? If it was all-about money, I would be the stupidest businessman in the industry to NOT be wearing Realtree or Mossy Oak; because not wearing these two patterns pretty much eliminates ANY potential to get our hunts on a TV show. If I hunted for $$ or my ego, take a wild guess what camo would be on my back. It surely wouldn't be Predator.
I'm not a product pimp, I'm a hunter. I promote the products that make me a better hunter through my years of using them. I won't even put my name on a product if someone contacts me ready to write a check. I tell them all the same thing. Let me and some of my guys test "it" for a year, then we'll talk. Did that with Epek broadheads this year as well. I'm now doing a big promotion for them on our new DVD because they are the best heads I've ever tested, used, or killed anything with. What are they paying me you should ask - ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! I'll get some free heads, but other than that, they are the best, so I won't shoot anything else. Someday it might work into something better, but for the moment; solving a BIG problem with arrow flight for my fellow whitetail beasts will have to suffice.
I assure you on my family's name and on my pet cat's head that Ozonic's is NOT a gimmick; it just happens to be the first scent eliminate product on the market that ISN'T a gimmick. I use multiple units because I can; however, the first 2 years using them, we only used (1) per guy. When I'm solo hunting, I only bring 1 sometimes, 2 depending on the winds that day and the set.
It "can" work for 2 reasons: 1. It produces far more ozone than needed. 2. It has a powerful fan that pushes this over-abundance of Ozone out at a rate and speed that can be manipulated into your scent stream so that you "can't" get busted.
As far as the noise, here is a good example. I shot a buck late season here in Iowa, December 23rd. I had 2 bucks come in. A 180+ inch 4 year old, and a 12 year old 100" 6-pointer. I killed the 12 year old, and the 4 year old just stood there not knowing why his buddy ran away so quickly. He got a little nervous and headed straight to my tree, right through my wind. I was 18 ft. up, and he stopped directly under my tree. He didn't have a clue until I zoomed into his rack. He actually heard the zoom on my camera. I know this because it's very clear when I start to zoom and you can hear the zoom itself, and see him snap his head up at me. I had 2 ozonic's in the tree, and he didn't have a clue until I zoomed in on him. I've had the same thing happen at even lower heights from the ground where the deer just don't hear them. Deer can hear excellent; but they don't have super-hearing. The sound of an ozonic's fan is more like an agricultural noise than anything. A single metal "tink" however, and you are done. That's also why I use LW treestands.
Peace!
sent control....
- WKPTodd
- Posts: 415
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 3:34 am
- Facebook: Todd Pringnitz
- Status: Offline
- Southern Man
- 500 Club
- Posts: 3827
- Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 7:04 am
- Location: Extreme Western Kentucky
- Status: Offline
Re: sent control....
I don't see that you've been disrespectful to anyone. You're sold, convinced, and believe in Ozonics, that's for sure and that's great. It seems not everyone here is and that's ok too. We're not all gonna go out and buy one, regardless of the guarrantee or price or how well it works. It's just that simple and no offence intended at all to you.
Ozonics doesn't guarrantee that you'll kill a mature buck, just like other products out there. And quite frankly, I don't want a product that does if there ever is one. For me, I don't want to pack anything else in the woods, I'm actually trying to cut what I already do carry in. The last thing I need is something else to set up, fool around with, wonder if it's workin right while I'm tryin to kill a deer. The benefits you claim of using one doesn't seem to be a real issue with me, there are other obstacles I need to overcome that seem more important at this time. And really, I'd personally like to get rid of all the gadgets I have that we've been told we need to hunt deer. It's all unnecessary in my opinion.
But if it works for you, great. Keep using it.
Ozonics doesn't guarrantee that you'll kill a mature buck, just like other products out there. And quite frankly, I don't want a product that does if there ever is one. For me, I don't want to pack anything else in the woods, I'm actually trying to cut what I already do carry in. The last thing I need is something else to set up, fool around with, wonder if it's workin right while I'm tryin to kill a deer. The benefits you claim of using one doesn't seem to be a real issue with me, there are other obstacles I need to overcome that seem more important at this time. And really, I'd personally like to get rid of all the gadgets I have that we've been told we need to hunt deer. It's all unnecessary in my opinion.
But if it works for you, great. Keep using it.
You Can't Argue With A Sick Mind
- PK_
- 500 Club
- Posts: 6894
- Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 5:10 am
- Location: Just Off
- Status: Offline
Re: sent control....
Ozone generators have been around for a long time.
I used one years ago to get rid of the cigarette smell (that is no easy task!!!)in an apartment I used to rent. My friend actually used to sell them when they first hit the the market, like 10 years ago. They have been scientifically proven to eliminate odors. Do some research.
Ozonics simply rebranded the product, something I thought of years ago. But I'm just a broke, die hard hunter with no venture capital and really no desire to make a living in the hunting industry. No offense intended to any of you who do, I just don't envy the fact that you are constantly under the microscope from your peers.
I used one years ago to get rid of the cigarette smell (that is no easy task!!!)in an apartment I used to rent. My friend actually used to sell them when they first hit the the market, like 10 years ago. They have been scientifically proven to eliminate odors. Do some research.
Ozonics simply rebranded the product, something I thought of years ago. But I'm just a broke, die hard hunter with no venture capital and really no desire to make a living in the hunting industry. No offense intended to any of you who do, I just don't envy the fact that you are constantly under the microscope from your peers.
No Shortcuts. No Excuses. No Regrets.
Everybody's selling dreams. I'm too cheap to buy one.
Everybody's selling dreams. I'm too cheap to buy one.
Rich M wrote:Typically, hunting FL has been like getting a root canal
-
- Posts: 610
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 8:28 am
- Status: Offline
Re: sent control....
I don't know what others look at to determine the science behind a product or claim, but I like to look scientific journals for my info, not websites generally, especially those selling something. My opinion on ozone generators & odors comes from that, and my own use of one. Still, I think they are valuable for sanitizing my gear and there is pretty good evidence (wkp videos specifically) that show deer downwind not reacting negatively while in the scent stream. I think they can work, but they don't work like they say they do, by destroying scent. If it works, it works, but I am the kind of person who wants to know why :)
J Air Waste Manag Assoc. 2009 Oct;59(10):1239-46.
Could ozonation technology really work for mitigating air emissions from animal feeding operations?
Li Q, Wang L, Liu Z, Kamens RM.
Source
Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7625, USA. qli5@ncsu.edu
Abstract
Among various mitigation technologies for ammonia (NH3) emission control at animal feeding operations (AFOs), room ozonation technology is the most controversial. This paper aims to present full perspectives of ozonation techniques through a literature review and a series of laboratory experiments. In the literature review, ozone chemistry was summarized to address (1) ozone and NH3 reactions, (2) ozone and odor reactions, (3) ozone and particulate matter reactions, and (4) ozone and microorganism reactions. A series of laboratory experiments were conducted in a dual large outdoor aerosol smog chamber (270 m3). NH3 and fine particle number concentrations from ozone-treated and control experiments were compared. The experimental results indicated that (1) ozone has no significant effect on NH3 emissions/concentrations or NH3 decay of an outdoor chamber; and (2) with ozone treatment, high concentration of particles in the "high-risk" respiratory fraction (in submicron range) are generated.
PMID:
19842331
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Environ Sci Technol. 2007 Sep 1;41(17):6177-84.
Ozone-initiated chemistry in an occupied simulated aircraft cabin.
Weschler CJ, Wisthaler A, Cowlin S, Tamás G, Strøm-Tejsen P, Hodgson AT, Destaillats H, Herrington J, Zhang J, Nazaroff WW.
Source
International Centre for Indoor Environment and Energy, Technical University of Denmark, DK-2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark. weschlch@umdnj.edu
Abstract
We have used multiple analytical methods to characterize the gas-phase products formed when ozone was added to cabin air during simulated 4-hour flights that were conducted in a reconstructed section of a B-767 aircraft containing human occupants. Two separate groups of 16 females were each exposed to four conditions: low air exchange (4.4 (h-1)), <2 ppb ozone; low air exchange, 61-64 ppb ozone; high air exchange (8.8 h(-1)), <2 ppb ozone; and high air exchange, 73-77 ppb ozone. The addition of ozone to the cabin air increased the levels of identified byproducts from approximately 70 to 130 ppb at the lower air exchange rate and from approximately 30 to 70 ppb at the higher air exchange rate. Most of the increase was attributable to acetone, nonanal, decanal, 4-oxopentanal (4-OPA), 6-methyl-5-hepten-2-one (6-MHO), formic acid, and acetic acid, with 0.25-0.30 mol of quantified product volatilized per mol of ozone consumed. Several of these compounds reached levels above their reported odor thresholds. Most byproducts were derived from surface reactions with occupants and their clothing, consistent with the inference that occupants were responsible for the removal of >55% of the ozone in the cabin. The observations made in this study have implications for other indoor settings. Whenever human beings and ozone are simultaneously present, one anticipates production of acetone, nonanal, decanal, 6-MHO, geranyl acetone, and 4-OPA.
J Air Waste Manag Assoc. 2009 Oct;59(10):1239-46.
Could ozonation technology really work for mitigating air emissions from animal feeding operations?
Li Q, Wang L, Liu Z, Kamens RM.
Source
Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7625, USA. qli5@ncsu.edu
Abstract
Among various mitigation technologies for ammonia (NH3) emission control at animal feeding operations (AFOs), room ozonation technology is the most controversial. This paper aims to present full perspectives of ozonation techniques through a literature review and a series of laboratory experiments. In the literature review, ozone chemistry was summarized to address (1) ozone and NH3 reactions, (2) ozone and odor reactions, (3) ozone and particulate matter reactions, and (4) ozone and microorganism reactions. A series of laboratory experiments were conducted in a dual large outdoor aerosol smog chamber (270 m3). NH3 and fine particle number concentrations from ozone-treated and control experiments were compared. The experimental results indicated that (1) ozone has no significant effect on NH3 emissions/concentrations or NH3 decay of an outdoor chamber; and (2) with ozone treatment, high concentration of particles in the "high-risk" respiratory fraction (in submicron range) are generated.
PMID:
19842331
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Environ Sci Technol. 2007 Sep 1;41(17):6177-84.
Ozone-initiated chemistry in an occupied simulated aircraft cabin.
Weschler CJ, Wisthaler A, Cowlin S, Tamás G, Strøm-Tejsen P, Hodgson AT, Destaillats H, Herrington J, Zhang J, Nazaroff WW.
Source
International Centre for Indoor Environment and Energy, Technical University of Denmark, DK-2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark. weschlch@umdnj.edu
Abstract
We have used multiple analytical methods to characterize the gas-phase products formed when ozone was added to cabin air during simulated 4-hour flights that were conducted in a reconstructed section of a B-767 aircraft containing human occupants. Two separate groups of 16 females were each exposed to four conditions: low air exchange (4.4 (h-1)), <2 ppb ozone; low air exchange, 61-64 ppb ozone; high air exchange (8.8 h(-1)), <2 ppb ozone; and high air exchange, 73-77 ppb ozone. The addition of ozone to the cabin air increased the levels of identified byproducts from approximately 70 to 130 ppb at the lower air exchange rate and from approximately 30 to 70 ppb at the higher air exchange rate. Most of the increase was attributable to acetone, nonanal, decanal, 4-oxopentanal (4-OPA), 6-methyl-5-hepten-2-one (6-MHO), formic acid, and acetic acid, with 0.25-0.30 mol of quantified product volatilized per mol of ozone consumed. Several of these compounds reached levels above their reported odor thresholds. Most byproducts were derived from surface reactions with occupants and their clothing, consistent with the inference that occupants were responsible for the removal of >55% of the ozone in the cabin. The observations made in this study have implications for other indoor settings. Whenever human beings and ozone are simultaneously present, one anticipates production of acetone, nonanal, decanal, 6-MHO, geranyl acetone, and 4-OPA.
-
- Posts: 26
- Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 12:37 am
- Status: Offline
Re: sent control....
Bump
[ Post made via iPhone ]
[ Post made via iPhone ]
-
- Advertisement
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 100 guests