We finally got some serious rain here yesterday, so today I retrieved the various containers I've had sitting in the woods for a month in my follow-up leakage test. The results:

* Last time, I had one small prescription pill container, auburn transparent base with a white push-and-turn top with a separate part inside for sealing, fail. I couldn't believe it failed, so I tested it again. It failed again.

* Last time, I had a large prescription pill container, auburn transparent base with a white one-piece reversible push-and-turn/screw-on top, fail. Tested again, again in the push-and-turn position, this time it passed.

* Last time, I tested three old-style Kodak canisters (lids with smooth bottoms) and one failed. I tested those three again, and the same one failed again, the other two passed again.

* Last time, I tested three new-style Kodak canisters (lids with ribs underneath) and all passed. This time I retested those three plus ten more in order to get a statistically significant test. Of the ten, one failed, the other nine passed. Of the original three, though, two failed this time! Whassup with that?

* Last time, I had one Fuji film canister fail. I modified that very container by wrapping some fine stainless steel wire around the base over the sealing area. Did a beautiful job, it really looks pretty with that banding on it. Passed, too. Unfortunately, I've decided this is an unworkable scheme for letterboxing use; that wire banding is right next to where you must push to get the cap off, and there's nothing really preventing pushing the banding off with it.

* I tested eight other Fuji film canisters. Of these, two were the ones that succeeded last time. Four had already been taped together butt-to-butt into two double-ended containers and painted with camo paint. One individual container had been camo'd with black duct tape but no paint.

One of the eight failed miserably, standing water inside. Six passed. The one with black duct tape was found several feet from where it had been left, top off, slip of paper gone, and teeth marks all over it.

That's right, folks; of 27 containers all scattered around one small area, the only one that suffered an animal attack was the only one that had duct tape but no paint. The ones with duct tape but paint over the duct tape were not bothered.

CONCLUSIONS: I think the one clear conclusion is that film canisters are not reliable for protection from moisture. However, the odds aren't too bad; if you use either the Fuji or the newer Kodak, it appears your odds are better than 80% or so that you'll get a good seal. IMHO, this is probably good enough for a hitchhiker or flea (which will hopefully spend most of its time either inside a letterbox or in some boxer's bag) but not good enough for outdoor micro hides. It perhaps is good enough for using as the inner container for a nested inner/outer container assembly for outdoor hides.

I've been considering trying several of these film canisters with either of two provisos:

1) Each time closing them up, giving the cap a few twists, perhaps two full turns. Maybe it would help it seal.

2) Applying some K-Y jelly to the seal area, closing it up, twisting the cap a bunch of times, then opening it back up and wiping away all the jelly. I am fairly confident that just applying the jelly would effect a good seal; it should work sorta like vacuum jelly on a Bell jar. But whether applying and then wiping away would have any lasting effect, I dunno. The idea is that perhaps the jelly would stay put in some microscopic flaws that are causing the container to leak.

Anybody think either test would be worth conducting? Or have we learned all we need to know about film canisters?

I think the K-Y jelly is going to end up in Boxers 'n Briefs with a reference to the panty liner. Set yourself up for that one.

Fiddleheads

I think the K-Y jelly is going to end up in Boxers 'n Briefs with a reference to the panty liner.

Ya think? :)

-wassamatta_u

From your tests, I wouldn't want to use film canisters for microboxes.

I think adding anything to the containers would be beyond most boxers, plus who is to say that the jelly won't wash out.

What other containers would you be willing to test? I just saw these online: http://www.sciplus.com/singleItem.cfm/terms/487/cartLogFrom/froogle. They look like a container I've seen The Yorkshire Tortoise use, only blue instead of clear.

Bravo! Good test...fascinating results.

We can probably safely say film canisters are not bullet-proof containers.

I would like to see some more tests on the duct tape/ paint theories about animal attacks. I usually paint my lock&locks, but have always wondered if I should go with duct tape instead. But if that would lead to animal attacks, I would reconsider.

Does anyone have a pet rodent we could set containers up in the cage? Hahaha.

Quote

What other containers would you be willing to test? I just saw these online: http://www.sciplus.com/singleItem.cfm/terms/487/cartLogFrom/froogle.

Those look nice -- but based on experience with other screw-top jars, I wouldn't use them for outdoor letterboxes without adding a gasket under the cap. Fortunately, I'm now really good at cutting gaskets from shower liner.

I might just order a bunch of those containers. Twenty cents each ain't bad. How bad will I get raked for shipping? Maybe I need to order a LOT of them!

Quote

How bad will I get raked for shipping? Maybe I need to order a LOT of them!

Answered my own question. A $10 minimum on each order, plus shipping, so I'd have to order a bunch -- or something else, which is a definite possibility. And shipping is at least $5.95.

Anyone who's ordering a bunch of stuff from this place is welcome to send me a container or two for testing. Just contact me off-forum for an s-mail address.

WOW! That's a lot of testing! I'm impressed!

My question is where were these containers placed? Were they directly on the ground or in trees/logs? Were the ones that leaked on the ground versus the ones that didn't leak placed in trees?

See what I'm getting at? Maybe the leakage has to do with the placement and not the container itself.

Quote

My question is where were these containers placed? Were they directly on the ground or in trees/logs? Were the ones that leaked on the ground versus the ones that didn't leak placed in trees?

All were on the ground, laying on their sides, since I consider that the most severe test within reason. There may yet be some differences; water may tend to flow past one spot or another during a gullywasher, and some may have been leaning a few degrees one way or the other (land isn't truly level, especially for something as small as a film canister).

Quote

See what I'm getting at? Maybe the leakage has to do with the placement and not the container itself.

Leakage cannot be caused by the placement. Either the container leaks, or it doesn't. Now, it is possible for placement to protect a container -- it stays dry despite not being properly sealed -- but if it is properly sealed, it wouldn't matter where it's placed, in a tree, on the ground, under water, etc.

Quote

Leakage cannot be caused by the placement. Either the container leaks, or it doesn't. Now, it is possible for placement to protect a container -- it stays dry despite not being properly sealed -- but if it is properly sealed, it wouldn't matter where it's placed, in a tree, on the ground, under water, etc.

This is true. I was just curious if your locations were as equal as possible or if the results may have been skewed by preferential placement of some containers. Seems to me after reading your results, most of these containers would be 99.99% effective if they were placed in a somewhat protective environment.... hole in tree, etc. If a container was in a protected area and has a little opening in a seal, it probably wouldn't leak if it just had a little water dripping over it. The water probably wouldn't work it's way into the box. But, if it was sitting in standing water for a prolonged period, the water would find it's way in for sure.

I wasn't really trying to say that leakage was caused by location. But in any container that's prone to leaking, the probability of that happening has to be a great deal more likely if it's laying on the ground as opposed to tucked into a cubby.

Anyway, thanks for all the test data. It was interesting to see how different things worked out.

Quote

Seems to me after reading your results, most of these containers would be 99.99% effective if they were placed in a somewhat protective environment.... hole in tree, etc. If a container was in a protected area and has a little opening in a seal, it probably wouldn't leak if it just had a little water dripping over it.

Many, many containers would work pretty well if they were always returned to the hiding place right-side-up; rain would run off the top and around the container. Heck, you could hide your stamp just wrapped in a plastic bag if you're careful enough with the placement. But my intent in testing containers was to determine if these containers sealed reliably enough to use in any hide, without too much worry that each finder rehides it properly.

You should also remember that I live in Florida. It's so humid here that, even without rain getting in, things will get soggy and mildewy inside if not sealed against the elements.

Quote

But in any container that's prone to leaking, the probability of that happening has to be a great deal more likely if it's laying on the ground as opposed to tucked into a cubby.

Precisely why I laid them on the ground. I was trying to replicate a worst-case scenario.

I wonder how these would hold up. I want some, and this is the best price I've found on them yet.

http://www.testtubesonline.com/Baby_Soda_Btls_Giant_Test_Tubes_p/207-0031w.htm

Can you carry those, dixie?

Applying some K-Y jelly to the seal area

Aside from the obvious B-n-B self-setup here...

K-Y is water-soluble, so it'll wash away. What you need is silicon grease.

*S

Quote

I think the K-Y jelly is going to end up in Boxers 'n Briefs with a reference to the panty liner. Set yourself up for that one.

Oh, thank GOD!!! I thought I was the only one thinking this and thought "As a teacher, shouldn't my mind be on more uplifting things???" (hur, hur, hur!)

Every dark cloud has its silver lining and for me, it was finding out that the containers I use for diabetes test strips make very, very good micro boxes/caches (yeah, yeah, I know). They are a little slimmer than a film canister, have a snap on lid, and best of all, there is a white lining which is actually solid desiccant. I sold a ton of these on eBay with a geocaching label on 'em (yeah, yeah, I know). As long as the lid is snapped down tight, they will not leak. Geocacher James Montgomery says this in his blog about the containers: "I tested these canisters by closing a dripping wet piece of paper into one. Over the period of a day and a half the paper was dried completely. So, I soaked the paper again. And again, the paper dried completely. I’m sure there is a limit to the amount of water the desiccant can absorb, but clearly it is enough to keep all but the most abused geocache dry for a very long time through many rainy days/months of logging. And heck, even if you are not concerned about moisture, the size and the attached lid still make these one of the best micro-cache containers I’ve ever seen . . ."

I've got probably 20 of these right now. Write to me off-thread if you want to try one and I'll send it to you free as long as they last.