Equipped To Survive Equipped To Survive® Presents
The Survival Forum
Where do you want to go on ETS?

Page 6 of 7 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >
Topic Options
#1978 - 10/14/01 04:16 PM Re: Condoms for water storage
Anonymous
Unregistered


Upgrade on the codom.<br>I use 2 Ultrasound Probe Cover made by Durex in my survival tin <br>This is simular to a heavy duty version of the standard condom and will hold more water.<br>Got them from a hospital supply company over here in the UK.

Top
#1979 - 10/14/01 04:21 PM Closing bags (was Re: Oven bag and zip lock test)
Anonymous
Unregistered


I appreciate knowing the results- I'll keep an eye out for the small ones next time I'm in an office supply- sounds like they may be worth the space.<br><br>I'd guess that the 1/4" size would work for the small (10" x 16") oven bags I'm using. They do seem to fold flatter than the polyethylene bags, and when I spun/twisted the top to tie them, it was pretty thin.

Top
#1980 - 10/15/01 08:30 AM Re: Condoms for water storage
Anonymous
Unregistered


Made my eyes water when I realised what was being probed!<br><br>But these are great - sterile, non lubricated, round ended and far tougher. Great suggestion, but my nurse friend still can't believe what I wanted them for! <br><br>

Top
#1981 - 10/15/01 05:47 PM more Ziplock tests
Anonymous
Unregistered


The more testing I do with Ziplock-style bags, the less enamored of them I am becoming. It seems that the original sample I was testing was very good, but that level of quality hasn't been consistent across other samples I have tested. The problem I am seeing is some very slight leakage from the zipper, which could result in significant water loss over time. <br><br>The leaky zipper problem seems to affect the pleated designs I tried of both the Ziplock brand and the Glad brand. Because these bags stand-up, it is less of a problem, but still not good. Of the flat-style bags, the Glad brand seems to be of better quality, but testing shows that some of them do leak anyway. I still like the idea of a zipper bag as a compact water storage option, but I will be testing any bag that I intend to pack before I add it to my gear.

Top
#1982 - 10/16/01 10:46 AM 4mil zip lock bags
jet Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: 03/06/01
Posts: 220
You might want to check out the Clear Zip Lock Poly Storage Bags at Safety Central. I have ordered various sizes of these. They are excellent 4mil thick versions, which should stand up to more abuse than your average grocery store brands. When filled full with water and turned upside down, they do leak little drops of water. When filled full with water and laid on their sides, they leak little drops somewhat more slowly. So no, they are not "watertight", at least not when full, not unless stored upright and not if squeezed harshly or otherwise manhandled. But then again, my mil-spec 5qt water bag and mil-spec 2qt soft canteen each did the same thing. I had to make sure I kept them hanging or sitting upright if they were full or nearly so, or they would slowly leak, at least for a while until they had less water in them. So, I consider these particular zip lock bags to be as "watertight" as mil-spec canteens often are, which is to say, good enough for me in an emergency.<br><br>(For what it's worth, I ultimately took my canteens to a local hardware store and fitted their caps with appropriately sized O-rings. That solved the leaking problem. I make sure to keep an extra O-ring for each, along with my Potable Aqua, in the little pockets provided in the canteen covers for the iodine tablets, in case I lose the O-rings already in the caps.)<br><br>The 6"x8" bags (which are actually more like 6"x9") hold 40oz when completely full (roughly 1180ml or so), but will leak somewhat less and are much more managable if fillled with only 30oz or so (900ml). The bigger bags hold ridiculous amounts of water... far more than I would consider realistically portable.<br><br>Oh, and despite the images used to illustrate the product, these bags are, indeed, clear.

Top
#1983 - 10/17/01 11:12 PM excited about condoms
jet Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: 03/06/01
Posts: 220
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>PresumedLost said:<br><br>"I'll be the first to admit that I haven't tried to use a condom at all for water storage, much less in a wilderness environment. Perhaps it distends more easily than I had envisioned, perhaps it unties more easily as well. Doug seems to have experimented with it to at least some degree; I have not, at all.<br><br>On the other hand, there have been some new alternatives proposed here, especially in billvann's post. I respectfully suggest that we all try to stay open to new alternatives. We're all interested in the best options available, not just in proving pet theories, are we not?"<p><hr></blockquote><p>I've never understood how you could get water into a condom in any useful quantity. It seemed like a silly idea, but those who know more than I all seemed to recommend them. When the idea was called into question here on the forum, I immediately thought, "Oh, good. I was right." End of thinking, end of learning, as it were.<br><br>But then Doug said, "After unrolling, you can pull them through the water, holding the opening open, to fill." That made sense, but I still wasn't sure how much water it would hold. Balloons resist being "blown up". You need pressure to make them do it against their will. Would a condom "inflate" simply from "swishing pressure"? As quoted above, perhaps it distends more easily than I had envisioned. Deciding that perhaps I did indeed need "to stay open to new alternatives," and reminding myself that I should remain "interested in the best options available, not just in proving pet theories," I decided to test out a condom in the wild wild terrain of my apartment bathroom sink.<br><br>Not having stocked up on Penrith Survival Condoms or any other similarly specialized such item, I grabbed one of the basic non-lubricated non-reservoir tipped condoms that I had purchased for my kits. Upon opening it, I found it to have a light layer of dry powder coating it, much like some surgical gloves. Before filling my sink, I rinsed the condom off, turned it inside out and rinsed it off again. Then I began to swish. It worked. I got it full of water. At least a whole whopping 5oz worth (150ml)! Boo, hiss!<br><br>Wondering if I could stretch it out to hold more, I emptied it and blew it up like a big baloon. I estimate it contained a minimum of 450oz (13,500ml)! "Great," I thought, "that should do it." I left it that way for a while, then deflated it. I... could imagine... if I tried... that it was bigger. But then, I could just as easily imagine not. Phooey!<br><br>Then I thought, "What if I squeezed the water to the bottom of the condom? It expanded tremendously when I inflated it; what if I forced it to expand by forcing the water to the bottom with the fingers of one hand, while holding the opening open with the other for another swish?" It took a little bit of dexterity, but it worked. Since I could get about 5oz into the tube of the condom during a normal swish, I'm guessing I could get about 4oz into the tube of the condom while I was squeezing the water already present into the bottom "bulb" which I was creating. Basically, I held the condom in both hands, all 8 fingers wrapped around the tube. I would gently hold the mouth of the condom with the forefinger and thumb of my left hand, while reseasing the tube with all my other fingers except the pinky of my right hand, which was sealing off the bulb at the bottom. Once the tube was filled, I would pinch closed the mouth with the forefinger and thumb of my left hand and then squeeqe each finger closed around the tube one at a time, each one forcing the water in the tube nearer the bulb. Finally, I would release the right pinky and squeeqe the water in the tube into the bulb, before sealing the bulb off with my right pinky again. Each time I did this, I forced the condom to expand like a baloon to accept the additional 4-5oz of water I was squeezing into it.<br><br>After doing this several times, and after the bulb had begun to grow, I would realize that my hands had slowly worked their way toward the mouth of the tube, and that I was getting only perhaps 3oz per swish. When that happened, I would lift the condom out of the water and hold the mouth of it up with my left hand. The weight of all the water in the bulb stretched the condom into a loooong teardrop shape, and it was easy to re-set my right hand lower, with my pinky just above the bulb. When reinserted into the sinkful of water, I was again getting 4oz or so with each swish.<br><br>I continued this process, amazed at how big the bulb of water was growing! Just looking at it, it seemed as much as one of my 500ml store bought water bottles contained! I was impressed! Eventualy, I gave in to curiosity, deciding to see how much water I had collected, rather than trying to see how much I could. I emptied the condom into my graduated Nalgene bottle... it was 34oz (1000ml)! An entire liter! I was astonished. It didn't look like that much when it was in the condom.<br><br>Just for the principle, I did it again; this time filling the condom with more. I wanted to completely fill my 1qt mil-spec canteen. After judging it to be enough, I filled the canteen. Then, I poured the remaining water into my Nalgene bottle... 12oz (350ml)! And that's just where I decided to leave off, it was not at all the most I could squeeze into the condom, and it was an entirely manageable package. The bulb of water it created was a reasonable size, and the condom still had plenty of resiliency and stretchiness left to resist abrasion through flexing. Obviously, it could still be punctured, but it seemed that, with thoughtful handling, it would serve just fine if ever actually needed.<br><br>So, it's official: filled from standing water, a condom can hold more than some canteens. :-)<br><br>Now, how about, as Doug commented, trying to fill a condom from a trickle, siphon or seep? I have no idea. Obviously, this method wouldn't work. But, I suppose, if you could dig and fill a hole, or dam up a trickle to make a pool, then this method would provide a nice quantity.<br><br>Once full, I held the mouth up again, and allowed gravity to pull the bulb down, stretching the rubber tube nicely. Then, I grapped that tube and curled it around into a loop, tying it into a half-bow. This was the only problem with the whole operation, for when trying to UNtie the knot, little bitty droplets of water that were in the bow-loop portion of the knot actually blocked the bow-loop from being able to pull freely through the knot! That was unexpected and troublesome, but I suppose you could just tie the knot around... I don't know... a pencil stub... matches... something?... and that would solve it.<br><br>Anyway, from now on, I will at least consider a condom as a viable Very Small, Emergencies Only water storage device, something I previously have not considered it to be.

Top
#1984 - 10/18/01 12:05 AM Re: Survival Tins and Water?
Anonymous
Unregistered


Is that a record? 2000 views, Woah!

Top
#1985 - 10/18/01 02:24 AM Re: Survival Tins and Water?
Anonymous
Unregistered


>>Is that a record? 2000 views, Woah! <<<br><br>And we didn't even put "condoms" in the subject line!

Top
#1986 - 10/18/01 03:17 AM Re: excited about condoms
Anonymous
Unregistered


Wow.<br><br>First, thanks for experimenting and sharing the results.<br><br>Many of the reasons that we pick different items for our kits boil down to expecting different scenarios. I may experiment with condoms, but I think I’ll stick with the oven bags (Reynolds 10” x 16” Oven Bags). Here’s why:<br><br>1. What you describe having to go through sounds like a great deal of work and trouble.<br><br>2. I’m mildly concerned about the powder coating you describe. That’s also been described with balloons, by the way. I’m also concerned about untying one, especially without that coating, when the rubber adheres to itself.<br><br>3. Most important, in my time backpacking up and down the Appalachians, I don’t think I’ve seen more than a few water sources where you could submerge a condom all the way and pull it through the water. On the principle that losing altitude in the wilderness is usually foolish and often painful (what goes down must come up), most sources you come accross are near the ridgeline and thus small, just trickles and seeps. If I saw enough water to do what you describe, I’d suspect I was too far downstream, and I might be better off getting my drinking water closer to the source where it's less likely to have been bathed in, or worse. In many of the cases where there was that much water at a spring, say, you wouldn’t want to go through that routine anyway, it would stir up silt and mud that might take a long time to settle.<br><br>Things probably work differently out West where you get a lot more pools and pockets in bare rock, and maybe get a lot more water from larger streams running over rock. It seems like a paradox, but, while there’s generally more water in the East, there’s much less available for drinking in the woods. Ask anyone that’s been on both the Pacific Crest and Appalachian trails. There's also much less chance out West of finding that the creek you just drank water from is straddled by an entire housing development somewhere out of sight upstream. Filters and iodine don't do much for detergent.<br><br>You might want to try one of the oven bags in your experiments. I think I sort of expected them to be sturdy and easier to open and close, which they seem to be, but what impressed me was how small they fold, with a little care to eliminate air. One of these, folded carefully and tightly, takes little more room than a condom, fits easily even in the Altoids-size kit- and I think it might be a lot easier to use.<br>

Top
#1987 - 10/18/01 01:21 PM Re: Oven bag and zip lock test
billvann Offline
Old Hand

Registered: 05/10/01
Posts: 780
Loc: NE Illinois, USA (42:19:08N 08...
The folks at Kordon are sending me some samples of their breathable bags, which are used for shipping tropical fish. I will conduct a similar experiment to the oven bags as a comparison. I suspect that the oven bags will be a preferred choice simply becasue of availability. The Kordon bags are not avalable through retail channels yet.<br><br>An interesting aspect of the breathable bags is their ability to pass oxygen and carbon dioxide through the palstic. (all plastic bags do this but to a much lesser degree.) I recall reading that oxygen plays a part in the chemical reaction with iodine in the tablets. Would the Kordon bags have an impact on this process? Or doesn't it matter?
_________________________
Willie Vannerson
McHenry, IL

Top
Page 6 of 7 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >



Moderator:  Alan_Romania, Blast, cliff, Hikin_Jim 
March
Su M Tu W Th F Sa
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31
Who's Online
0 registered (), 444 Guests and 28 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
GallenR, Jeebo, NicholasMarshall, Yadav, BenFoakes
5367 Registered Users
Newest Posts
What did you do today to prepare?
by dougwalkabout
03/27/24 11:21 PM
Zippo Butane Inserts
by dougwalkabout
03/27/24 11:11 PM
Question about a "Backyard Mutitool"
by Ren
03/17/24 01:00 AM
Problem in my WhatsApp configuration
by Chisel
03/09/24 01:55 PM
New Madrid Seismic Zone
by Jeanette_Isabelle
03/04/24 02:44 PM
EDC Reduction
by EchoingLaugh
03/02/24 04:12 PM
Newest Images
Tiny knife / wrench
Handmade knives
2"x2" Glass Signal Mirror, Retroreflective Mesh
Trade School Tool Kit
My Pocket Kit
Glossary
Test

WARNING & DISCLAIMER: SELECT AND USE OUTDOORS AND SURVIVAL EQUIPMENT, SUPPLIES AND TECHNIQUES AT YOUR OWN RISK. Information posted on this forum is not reviewed for accuracy and may not be reliable, use at your own risk. Please review the full WARNING & DISCLAIMER about information on this site.