BackpackGearTest
  Guest - Not logged in 

Reviews > Eye Protection and Binoculars > Cleaning and Defogging Products > Sven Can See Xtreme > Test Report by joe schaffer

Sven-Can-See Anti-Fog Gel

REVIEWER INFORMATION:
NAME: Joe Schaffer
EMAIL: never2muchstuff(at)yahoo(dot)com
AGE: 69
GENDER: Male
HEIGHT: 5 ft 9 in (1.75 m)
WEIGHT: 175 lb (79 kg)
CHEST: 42 in (107 cm)
BELLY MAX: 39 in (99 cm)
HOME:  Bay Area, California USA

     I started backpacking when I was 11. I enjoy California's central Sierras, camping every month with a goal to better my age in nights out each year; about 30 solo. For comfort I lug tent, mattress, chair and such. Typical summer trips run 5-8 days; 40 lb (18 kg), about half food and water related; about 5 miles (8 km) per hiking day. I winter base camp most often at 6,000 to 7,000 ft (1,800 to 2,000 m); 2 to 3 nights; 50 lb (23 kg); a mile or so (1.6 km) on snowshoes.


Product: Anti-Fog Gel & Anti-Fog/Anti-Frost Gel

Manufacturer:  Cross Research and Development, Inc.sven products
    Website: www.svencansee.com

Description (from website):
    No Odor
    No Alcohol
    No Fumes
    Biodegradable
    For use on non-prescription goggles, sunglasses, and safety glasses
    Safe for Kids.
    For Use On: Sunglasses, Snowshoe and Ski Goggles, Snowmobile Visors,
        Hockey Visors, Shooting and Hunting Glasses, and Safety Glasses.
    In extreme cold, use Sven Can SeeŽ Anti-Fog/Anti-Frost Xtreme Cold Spray Gel
    Net weight: Anti-Frost Gel .338 oz/10ml; Anti-Fog Gel .27 oz/8ml
    Package amount should be good for about 100 applications to glasses.
      
My Specs:
    Weight (gross):
       Anti-Fog: 3/4 oz (20 g)
       Anti-Frost: 5/8 oz (19 g)
    Length: 5 1/4 in (13.3 cm)
    Diameter: 9/16 in (14 mm)      
   
MSRP: $10.95 US for either

Warranty: 100% satisfaction money-back guarantee

Received: February 9, 2016

Product Description:
    Both products intend to prevent the formation of fog on devices placed over the eyes; and one adds frost to the equation. The product received is packaged in a pump-spray cylinder emulating a fat pen with a clip holder slip-on top covering the pump. The product comes out as a very thick liquid. One drop is sprayed on a lens and that amount is sufficient to treat both sides of both lenses. After a minimum of ten minutes the lenses can be buffed clear. Instructions suggest that the longer the wait before buffing the longer the treatment will be effective. The product is claimed safe for prescription lenses in the product marketing section; but in the FAQ section the product is disclaimed for use on prescription lenses. Either is claimed to work in any condition; though the Anti-Fog/Anti-Frost gel should work better in extreme cold.
   
Impressions:
    The first thing I noticed was no fewer than three admonitions to use only one small drop. I found that impossible to squirt. I wound up with more than enough for both sides of both lenses, which as it turns out, is what the instruction video says to do. I'd think a squeeze bottle would provide better control for product delivery.
    It was not difficult to apply and seems odorless to me. I got distracted and did not pay attention to how long I waited after application before buffing, but much longer than the minimum.
    To the attention-challenged the two packages look identical. They are pretty small, and it would be difficult to present words any larger to differentiate them. Perhaps there could be a color difference. I've read the website descriptions and I'm feeling somewhat confused about the practical differences between the two. I wonder if there might be objective data indicating a certain humidity and temperature threshold where one works better.

Field Conditions:
    1. Feb 11-13/17:
Blodgett Forest, El Dorado National Forest, CA. Camp only 50 yd (45 m) from car; sunny and temps way above freezing.
    2. Feb 28-Mar 3/17: Herring Creek, Stanislaus NF, CA. Heavy exertion toting a 25 lb (11 kg) backpack and tugging an 80 lb (36 kg) sled 1 1/4 mi (2 km); 50-35 F (10-2 C); 4 hours of day shoeing in 50-60F ( C); and sitting in sunny camp.
    3. Apr 20-23, 2017: Gooseberry Trail, Stanislaus National Forest, CA. Seriously slushy snow deteriorating in high temps; 30 lb (14 kg) backpack; 40 lb (18 kg) sled; 1 mi (1.6 km); 60-40 F (16 to 4  C).
    4. May 2-4, 2017: Pt. Reyes, CA. Backpacking in warm temperatures, 13 mi (21 km) total. Sunny and mostly warm with low humidity.
    5. May 14-15, 2017: Clark Fork, Stanislaus National Forest, CA. Car camping, as it turned out, on dry ground.  Blustery 60 F (16 C).
    6. May 22-26, 2017: Seven hours driving in sun. Stanislaus National Forest and Yosemite Wilderness, California; 31 hours woods-wearing, mostly bright sun on a 15 mi (24 km) backpack, 4,660-6,480 ft (1,420-1,975 m).
    7. Jun 5-8, 2017: Loon Lake, El Dorado National Forest, California. 400 mi (645 km) driving; 10 mi (16 km) backpack; and two mi (3 km) day hike; three sunny days and one rainy day.
    8. Jun 13-16, 2017:Bergson Lake, Carson Iceberg Wilderness, California, 6,420 ft (1,957 m). 10 mi (16 km) backpack/3 mi (5 km) road hike. 80-65 F (27-18 C), bright, hot sun.
    9. Jun 20-23, 2017: Shasta National Forest, California. 8 mi (13 km) backpack. 90-70 F (32-21 C), sunny and mostly calm. 5,720-6,840 ft (1,745-2,085 m).

Impressions:
    1. Blodgett Forest didn't provide much of a test. I did some easy day hiking and sitting around. Blowing the steam off my hot chocolate clogged up one lens but not the other. I'd rubbed in one application two nights before. It occurred to me that I might consider treating one lens and not the other for the purpose of testing, but I had treated both lenses and only one fogged up. That result suggests to me that such a test effort may not be revealing.

    2. Herring Creek was perfect as the air was getting colder as I was getting hotter under very heavy exertion trudging in. Noticeable heat streamed up from my zip-up base layer top, a condition that often frustrates efforts to maintain clear vision. I had the night before made two applications, letting the second sit overnight before buffing. Neither lens fogged. I was impressed. Subsequent day trips were not accompanied by physical struggle, but I did shoe for a couple hours each day through sun and shade uphill and down without fogging. It may not be entirely objective to assert effectiveness one way or the other, but my impression is that I paid little mind to my glasses in conditions I would otherwise have expected to cause annoyance. In 4 days of hiking on the snow I found myself not once having to clear the lenses.

    3. Gooseberry was very warm hiking on snow and tugging the sled makes the work even harder. This time the lenses watered up, whether with condensation or sweat I'm not sure. The glasses wrap around fairly snugly. When I pushed the glasses down my nose a little for more circulation, the lenses cleared. At night, though, sipping my hot chocolate I could blow on the mug and the steam clogged the lenses. I don't know if that makes for an appropriate test component, or if there is anything that would prevent fogging under those conditions--cool temperatures and steamy drink.

    4. For Pt. Reyes I treated another pair of sunglasses and had them on during most daylight hours. The backpacking was strenuous enough with 40 lb (18 kg) that I had plenty of heat coming up out of my shirt. I had no issues. Hiking into Glen Camp felt like entering a hot house with so much heat and humidity, but even there the glasses remained clear.

   
5. I either didn't ask the right questions or I got the wrong answers about where the snow would be in the Clark Fork area. I was prepared for another eye wear-torturing sled-fest but could find no snow on which to sled. I wasn't outfitted for backpacking up to the snow, so I was forced to camp next to my car and pout. That level of activity does not support testing conclusions. For the record, I had a new pair of sunglasses which I gooped twice in the days before leaving. I walked around in the woods a while gathering firewood and toted water about a 1/4 mi (0.4 km); not sure either got me hot enough to test the preparation in heat coming up from my jacket, but there was no fogging. Perhaps the better chance would have been in the car driving out of the woods in a heavy rain, and while the windshield wanted to misbehave, the sunglasses were of so little notice that I didn't think to take them off for that rainy hour of driving. Perhaps the Sven's made a contribution.

    6. I didn't have any fogging on the Stanislaus/Yosemite trip. Probably the only conditions that might have prompted fogging occurred at night, so this trip probably doesn't offer much test input.

    7. I was loaded pretty heavy for the Loon Lake trip and putting pedal to metal to keep up with my younger associate. I thought I might fog up in shaded areas, especially trundling over snowdrifts. I'd done the application the day before, buffing the lenses waiting for my buddy to show up. I had no fogging. There were coolish times drinking hot chocolate that I would have expected to fog up, but either Sven was on the job or the wind was blowing too hard.

    8. The Bergson trip was HOT! There were a few times toward evening on the hike in that I might have tested the preparation's effectiveness. The trail fell from ridge tops to valleys very quickly, and into deep shade where the temperature probably was 20 F (11 C) cooler and I could feel a lot of heat coming up out of my shirt. No fogging. I didn't see any elephants either, but I'm going to say the goop helped.

    9. Shasta NF was REALLY hot! There were a couple occasions I found myself in shaded notches with slopes of snow where I could feel substantial temperature differential. Working as hard as I was hiking up those slopes to get around the snow (really steep, and no self arrest tool) I might have expected to fog up, especially heaving for a rest breath as often as I needed. No fogging. As I drove back to the Bay Area the temp dropped to about 80 F (27 C) and I turned off the air conditioner. My windshield started to fog up in a few minutes, but my sunglasses did not.

SUMMATION: It seems to work. I may not have found the prescribed minimalist touch in application amount, but I found buffing the haze from the lenses was a bit of process. For those times I felt like the anti-fog property was effective, though, it made the application effort more than worthwhile.

Quick shots:
    a) compact packaging
    b) easy-enough application process
    c) seems to work
   
Thank you Sven-can-see and BackpackGearTest.org for the opportunity to test this product. This concludes my test.



Read more reviews of Sven Can See gear
Read more gear reviews by joe schaffer

Reviews > Eye Protection and Binoculars > Cleaning and Defogging Products > Sven Can See Xtreme > Test Report by joe schaffer



Product tested and reviewed in each Formal Test Report has been provided free of charge by the manufacturer to BackpackGearTest.org. Upon completion of the Test Series the writer is permitted to keep the product. Owner Reviews are based on product owned by the reviewer personally unless otherwise noted.

If you are an avid backpacker, we are always looking for enthusiastic, quality reviewers. Apply here to be a gear tester.


All material on this site is the exclusive property of BackpackGearTest.org.
BackpackGearTest software copyright David Anderson