Re: Digest Number 3078

In a message dated 8/28/2002 8:24:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
BackpackingLight-hHKSG33TihhbjbujkaE4pw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:


> 
> Still here? Ok, here's your argument:
> > A filter is faster, easier, lighter, and there's 
> > (almost) instantly cool water to drink.
> 
> Faster? Most filters appear to fall somewhere between 1-2 minutes per 
> liter. If boiling on a stove takes 4 minutes, that's 2-3 minutes 
> extra per liter. If I treat 6 liters per day, that's 12-18 minutes of 
> additional time I spent on my treatment method. As someone else 
> observed recently in reference to stove boil-time comparisons, we're 
> walking here -- we're not in a hurry. Is this 12-18 minutes time I 
> spend actively treating the water? No, at most I'm monitoring the 
> stove periodically. I can also be taking pictures, eating a meal, etc.
> 
> Easier? My experience with my own filter was that it required 
> frequent maintenance to keep it working. It also required me to pump 
> the durn thing about a hundred times per liter when it was in peak 
> condition, and much more as it began to clog. That's easier than 
> running a stove? 
> 
> Lighter? I already carry a stove and pot. I will be leaving 15+ oz of 
> filter behind, and at most will be carrying an additional .5 oz of 
> battery to treat several days of water. Because I use a Zip stove, I 
> don't carry any fuel. Boiling will mean a roughly 15oz total weight 
> savings. 
> 
> Instant? This isn't really a requirement for me. My experience with 
> filters was that it was far from instant. Chemicals are VERY far from 
> instant. Heat should fall somewhere in between, and be cheaper and at 
> least as reliably effective (probably much more). 
> 
> My friend, if you like your filter, trust the level of safety it 
> provides, and accept the cost, then by all means use it. I don't 
> think a filter works for me. I would rather run my stove for 4 
> minutes than pump for 2 to get a liter of water, and I'm happier 
> knowing that my low-tech treatment will eliminate 100% of the 
> bacteria, protozoans, and viruses in the water (very few filters do 
> this -- just the ones with a chemical treatment component). Please 
> don't insult me because I choose a different solution than you. 
> 
> -Clint
> 

to Clint:
I doubt you will be able to "take pictures, eat" , etc., while boiling water 
with a Zip stove. You'll be gathering wood or tending the stove while waiting 
for the water to boil. 
I curious about something. Where do you put the boiled water while waiting 
for it to cool? Or do you carry a 6- liter pot? Is it hard to pour boiling 
water into a canteen or other container. How many bladders have you ruined 
with boiling water? 
Also how long must you wait until then water is cool enough to drink?
You say you don't have to carry extra weight because you already have a pot 
and stove. I carry a SMALL pot, so the weight difference is less than you 
indicate.
 I didn't intend to insult you, but I agree that some thin-skinned people 
would be insulted by my unintentional poor choice of words. Sorry if you were 
bothered by my comments. 
And please don't patronize me by referring to me as "My friend."

Roger


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]