Cliff Stamp wrote:rodloos wrote:
Yes, I have had zip-lock bags fail, many times, double-bagged even.
Were they bagged in the manner in which I described?
You mean this?
Cliff Stamp wrote:Making a waterproof container is trivial, a ziplock bag and an elastic does it
I'm not sure what you mean by "an elastic" - is that what I know of as a rubber band? Item gets placed in the bag, excess air squeezed out, ziplock sealed, extra bag material rolled/folded over, then placed into another bag, process repeated.
Cliff Stamp wrote:How exactly did they fail?
Umm, moisture got inside? Could there have been abrasion through multiple layers? Possibly, I just know I have had them fail too many times.
Cliff Stamp wrote:If you want to be extremely paranoid you can use a bag larger than the lighter, put the seam on the inside, run a layer of adhesive outside the closed seal, fold the sides in, tape that down, then roll it up and repeat it. In order for water to penetrate this, then multiple layers of redundancy have to fail severe enough to flood two independently sealed compartments with three mechanical closures none of which can be directly loaded in accidental use.
I'm not sure I quite understand what you are describing - "put the seam on the inside" turn the bag inside-out? "run a layer of adhesive outside the closed seal" - are you saying run silicon caulk on it? What kind of tape are you using? And you find that re-sealable after use? (I need to be able to rely on it the second day at the next campsite.) Sounds like a lot of trouble, both to prepare, and to get the lighter out when you need it -- and the bag *is* still vulnerable to things like abrasion in a pocket (it's of no use to me if it is in a pack and my pack gets lost in event of canoe/kayak overturning etc.
Cliff Stamp wrote:
But again, this is a moot point because even if you can't figure out how to wrap a lighter to keep it waterproof, then o-ring, thread locker sealed containers are easy to buy and if you want to be really paranoid you just put one inside the other and again you now have to fail two water tight compartments. The probability of this happening is so extreme that preparing for it to happen is similar to taking equipment which is specifically designed to fight off vampires.
Sure, you could put the lighter into a Pelican-type case, I have used them for cell phone/camera/electronics, but it becomes far less pocketable. Even if you succeed in keeping the lighter dry, the lighter can fail. I *have* had them fail on me. I have *never* had a firesteel fail to give sufficient spark to light tinder to start a fire.
I have also been in a situation where the rain was about to hit, and it was way too windy for a cheap lighter to work (maybe one of your expensive wind-proof lighters would have worked) but I was able to use my firesteel to get the fire going. It is *not* that much more difficult to use a firesteel and tinder to start a fire compared to a lighter, you still need to prepare the kindling etc. Now I do know people whose method is a lighter plus about a quart of charcoal lighter fluid to start a fire, but I don't think that is what you are advocating?
Cliff Stamp wrote:
As to why they are popular, popularity is a self-feeding condition, ferrocerium rods, like single bevel blades (Mora's and such) have long past the point that discussion about them is rooted in reality. It has become a continuous source of misinformation.
Are you really saying that people who like and use a firesteel and promote it, are
not rooted in reality?!!
misinformation?!!
Cliff Stamp wrote:
This dialog then enables learning and the removal of ignorance. Yes its great when someone tells you that you are brilliant, but if you want to learn something then go talk to the person who thinks you are wrong and can make a rational argument to that effect. I would simply ask, why do you want to believe wrong things.
Dialog is useful, and it sounds like you truly believe the popularity of firesteels is like a heresy that needs to be corrected. I think they can be a very useful alternative method for starting a fire.
In the context of this thread, it sounds like you don't think Spyderco should produce a firesteel because they are just toys or worse, and they are popular because of misinformation? Whereas I agree Spyderco shouldn't produce a firesteel, but only because there are already so many sources for them inexpensively that I think it would be hard for Spyderco to turn a profit with them.