Okieracer Posted March 31, 2009 Posted March 31, 2009 Ok I'm jumping onto the science box real quick. "Molecules" by definition are a cluster of atoms. I find it hard to believe that a bass's chemo receptors would be small enough or sensitive enough in the first place to sense a molecule. Particles, on the other hand, are more likely what the receptors can detect. And if, for instance, oil can disperse to a molecule thick, there should be ZERO problem that a bass could detect the particles of scent released from the oil. Oil is just the carrier of the scent and in my opinion would be a good one since it clings to baits. Now what can be debated is the release rate of oils compared to gels. But if someone is going come to a forum and post an article about facts it should be written with enough detail and supporting facts so as not to be debatable. Show me the actual facts behind your so called "facts" and if I'm wrong I'll apologize and back down. But until then I won't just take it on faith that someone who has a vested interest in a company has or is telling all of the information.
SimonSays Posted March 31, 2009 Posted March 31, 2009 Ok I'm jumping onto the science box real quick. "Molecules" by definition are a cluster of atoms. I find it hard to believe that a bass's chemo receptors would be small enough or sensitive enough in the first place to sense a molecule. Particles, on the other hand, are more likely what the receptors can detect. And if, for instance, oil can disperse to a molecule thick, there should be ZERO problem that a bass could detect the particles of scent released from the oil. Oil is just the carrier of the scent and in my opinion would be a good one since it clings to baits. Now what can be debated is the release rate of oils compared to gels. But if someone is going come to a forum and post an article about facts it should be written with enough detail and supporting facts so as not to be debatable. Show me the actual facts behind your so called "facts" and if I'm wrong I'll apologize and back down. But until then I won't just take it on faith that someone who has a vested interest in a company has or is telling all of the information. Molecules in a biological sense are simply small particles at the cellular level, chemists define it as a small unit of atoms bound together. So when he says a molecule it could be one molecule of the oil, whatever it is, which can actually be extremely long hydrocarbon chain. You can think of it as a puzzle piece, no matter how small or large it is if it doesn't fit properly into the certain receptor the nerve won't send the signal to the brain. So you can jam pack the receptor full of as much oil or whatever you want, but if they don't bind together properly nothing happens
Okieracer Posted March 31, 2009 Posted March 31, 2009 If it comes in a spray and is an oil base= it is basically worthless. THE OIL IS JUST THE CARRIER OF THE SCENT!!! And if the oil can disperse to only a molecule thick the particles of the actual scent ARE going to be released. Now if you said a different base for the scent has a higher release rate, that is a different story. But to come out and say oil based products are worthless is completely wrong. I would expect someone who has so much experience in the industry to understand the BASIC concepts of such things. I'm a 22yo with no college education and even I can see the flaws in your "facts".
Super User roadwarrior Posted March 31, 2009 Super User Posted March 31, 2009 Ok I'm jumping onto the science box real quick. "Molecules" by definition are a cluster of atoms. I find it hard to believe that a bass's chemo receptors would be small enough or sensitive enough in the first place to sense a molecule. Particles, on the other hand, are more likely what the receptors can detect. And if, for instance, oil can disperse to a molecule thick, there should be ZERO problem that a bass could detect the particles of scent released from the oil. Oil is just the carrier of the scent and in my opinion would be a good one since it clings to baits. Now what can be debated is the release rate of oils compared to gels. But if someone is going come to a forum and post an article about facts it should be written with enough detail and supporting facts so as not to be debatable. Show me the actual facts behind your so called "facts" and if I'm wrong I'll apologize and back down. But until then I won't just take it on faith that someone who has a vested interest in a company has or is telling all of the information. Well, why don't you give MegaStrike a try and see how you like it. After using half the tube, ask Bobby for a refund, tax included! You don't need to send it back or even explain what you don't like, just send an e-mail or PM with your mailing address. Those of us that use MegaStrike REALLY like it and believe the product increases the number of bites as well as improving landing ratios. If you find that is not the case, it will cost you nothing. -Kent a.k.a. roasdwarrior Global Moderator
tyrius. Posted March 31, 2009 Posted March 31, 2009 I find it hard to believe that a bass's chemo receptors would be small enough or sensitive enough in the first place to sense a molecule. You may find it hard to believe, but that is exactly how the sense of smell works (even in humans). For humans air passes through the nasal passages and individual molecules in that air stimulate the neurons in the nose. In fish the water passes through the nares and individual molecules stimulate the olfactory nerves inside the nares. The olfactory nerves contain individual receptors which are "capture" the individual "scent" molecules. Particles, on the other hand, are more likely what the receptors can detect. Do some research on this. You're incorrect. And if, for instance, oil can disperse to a molecule thick, there should be ZERO problem that a bass could detect the particles of scent released from the oil. Except in the case where the molecule is too big to activate the individual receptors in the olfactory nerves. But if someone is going come to a forum and post an article about facts it should be written with enough detail and supporting facts so as not to be debatable. I'd say the same thing about someone who is trying to disprove/make fun of another's viewpoints.
Okieracer Posted March 31, 2009 Posted March 31, 2009 Don't get me wrong. I'm not attacking Megastrike at all. Mike Iaconelli is my favorite angler and if its good enough for him its good enough for me. I've never once said Megastrike doesn't work. I just wanna see the proof that oil based products are as useless as he stated. I mean that's pretty much an attack on his part on half the fishing scent industry. I haven't used Megastrike before but I'm sure its an excellent product since many of you love it. Maybe oil based scents don't work as well as the gel form because of dispersion rates or something along those lines. But I wanna see the facts if someone is going to come out and say something does not work. I just want you guys to understand I'm not downing Megastrike in an way, shape, or form. I don't use scents very often but I'll probably pick some up the next time I'm in the market to give it a try.
Bobby Uhrig Posted March 31, 2009 Author Posted March 31, 2009 Okie- believe me I have gone through this many times before . I am not hiding anything here. I try to state as much fact as I can without giving away trade secrets. I have stated previously that the reason I didn't patent Megastrike was when you patent something you tell the world what you are doing. If i give out one hint on a public forum it could open up a can of worms larger than the one we opened here.Therefore having a larger company or other smaller companies take the technology and use it to bid against myself. It makes no sense. There was a great commercial about two years ago that these corporate headhunters tried to get this gentleman to give them the information he developed. His response was "Hire me and I will tell you" I take it he got the job. As one answer- the oil molecules I was talking about that other companies use are certain fish oils.NOT THE CARRIER BASE. these are the molecules that group up or coagulate together. The oil slick that you see on the water after spraying an "attractant" pretty much bind together. The secret is to break them up. Ok I'm done. how bout those bears.
Super User roadwarrior Posted March 31, 2009 Super User Posted March 31, 2009 Six pages is about enough... Goodnight Irene -Kent a.k.a. roadwarrior Global Moderator
Recommended Posts