pill bottle for GC

[+the_bell_dingers]

cool Hot topic!!! answers that Question! 50 is the hot topic #.

 

hey Knigkt2000, how did you get the bowing emoticons?

[+Wogus!]

Furthermore, and assuming my previous calculations are correct, maximum dimensions for each size would be as follows:

 

Micro: 1.8" x 1.8" x 1.8" for a total volume of 6.02 cu inches

Small: 3.93" x 3.93" x 3.93" for a total volume of 60.7 cu inches

Regular: 10.68" x 10.68" x 10.68" for a total volume of 1,218 cu inches

Large: Obviously enough anything biggerer than "Regular" puts you in "Large" territory.

 

 

Edit to correct punctuation... Thanks to GOF & Bacall.

Edited September 15, 2009 by Jupiter_Jack

[+goosefraba1]

Pill bottles are nice to use because they are inexpensive... depending on your health insurance plan. : /

[GOF and Bacall]

Pill bottles suck to find because they are not water tight.

 

Extra large bison tube = about 5 bucks

Small Lock-N-Lock = about 3 bucks

Cachers who use pill bottles = ignore list

 

Please, don't be cheap.

[GOF and Bacall]

Furthermore, and assuming my previous calculations are correct, maximum dimensions for each size would be as follows:

 

Micro: 1.8" x 1.8" x 1.8" for a total volume of 6.02 cu inches

Small: 3.93' x 3.93' x 3.93' for a total volume of 60.7 cu inches

Regular: 10.68" x 10.68" x 10.68" for a total volume of 1,218 cu inches

Large: Obviously enough anything biggerer than "Regular" puts you in "Large" territory.

 

3.93' as in nearly 4 feet? I'd call that a large.

[+Wogus!]

3.93' as in nearly 4 feet? I'd call that a large.

D'oh! Fixed...

[+GRANPA ALEX]

In our area, the rule of thumb is that film cannisters and smaller are the 'micro' size . . . 'smalls' begin at a size just larger than a film can. So, if it is or fits into a film can, it is a micro, more than that is a small. Works for us! This, also, makes most pill bottles be considered smalls as they are larger than a film can.

 

Personally, the 'cost of a container' does not relate to the quality of the hide, the expertise of the camo, the location of the hide or the value of the cache in any terms one might consider . . . a good hide is a good hide, no matter the container cost or if it needs a log that is bagged.

Edited September 16, 2009 by GRANPA ALEX

[GOF and Bacall]

In our area, the rule of thumb is that film cannisters and smaller are the 'micro' size . . . 'smalls' begin at a size just larger than a film can. So, if it is or fits into a film can, it is a micro, more than that is a small. Works for us! This, also, makes most pill bottles be considered smalls as they are larger than a film can.

 

Personally, the 'cost of a container' does not relate to the quality of the hide, the expertise of the camo, the location of the hide or the value of the cache in any terms one might consider . . . a good hide is a good hide, no matter the container cost or if it needs a log that is bagged.

 

My concerns are not cost related. If the container requires a baggie to keep the log dry it is a poor choice for a container. I don't care if it was free or you spent fifty bucks on it. A baggie should be your second line of defense against a wet log, not the primary.

[Clan Riffster]

a good hide is a good hide, no matter if it needs a log that is bagged.

That seems like a contradiction to me. Of course I am more biased than most. If I come across a waxpaper McDonald's cup, in a McDonald's parking lot, with a baggied logbook floating in 2" of rain water, with a poorly written cache page, I would consider that a bad hide, even though it is potentially within the guidelines. Take that same soggy cup and give it a glowing write up, and place it next to a scenic vista, and I would still call it a bad hide. (Remember though, I am biased.) Why would I call either one a bad hide? Because the cache owner intentionally utilized a container utterly incapable of protecting its contents.

 

Kinda like those folks who use black & grey film cans or prescription bottles in environments with mote than 0.01% annual humidity.

 

A crappy container, for me, equals a crappy hide.

[+the_bell_dingers]

well the reason I asked about the pill bottle is that when I co on canoeing trips in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area, we use old pill bottles as match containers.

 

also, I did a test and my pill bottles are waterproof enough to hold up to a few minuets under water. I think this will be enough seeing that they wont go underwater and the rain here in Duluth isn't a super soaker most of the time...

[+Team Cotati]

Is this allowed?

 

I'm wondering Dinger, do you have enough information at this juncture to formulate a reasonable answer to your question?

[+the_bell_dingers]

oh, of course not

[Clan Riffster]

For me, the real test isn't rain or even submersion. What I like to test for is humidity.

Drop a litmus strip in your prescription bottle and toss it outside for a couple months.

If it shows no change, you've got a fairly decent container.

[+the_bell_dingers]

humidity... hmmm...

[+ArcherDragoon]

Seems someone found more smilies...

[+the_bell_dingers]

[+the_bell_dingers]

Hey what about an altoids tin? would that work?

 

 

EDIT: dont answer this question here, there is a topic for it!

Edited September 17, 2009 by the_bell_dingers

[Clan Riffster]

That depends on your objective.

If it is your goal to have people experience the joys of dealing with rusty containers and moldy logs, Altoids tins work great.

If not, maybe not so much.

[+the_bell_dingers]

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=231815

 

Moved Topic to The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly. Thanks!