Skip to main content

review - platypus 1L meta bottle

Here is my 1L Platypus Meta bottle. It cost about $30 for the first bottle and then I located a $25 bottle on Amazon. I had been struggling between using a mini sawyer, smartwater bottles and hydration bags. My friend has a Camelbak that has a side door making it simple to see the remaining volume. Mine was not as well designed in that respect and required taking the bag apart to check the levels. Of course I forgot th mission....
Any time I'm near water I promise to check my levels and make more if I need it.
This weekend it was more of the same with this bottle. Frankly I missed the instant access of the hydration bag and even thought my meta bottle was on the top of the pack I hated stopping to drink.


The filter is slightly offset. Presumably so that the filter doors dip lower into the water.


Notice there is a white filter inside the clean end with a smaller opening just below it.


This is the dirty end of the filter. It's one of 4 inputs to the filter. Once the water level is below about 50% the remaining 2 ports allow water into the filter and seem to effect the water flow.


Here is one of the side ports. There is an identical set on the exact opposite side.


Here is a better view of the clean side. I call your attention to the opening below the filter. And in the next image there is a structure (one way valve) just below the secondary filter ports. This structure is a one-way valve that lets you blow air into the bottle making it easier to squeeze the over pressurized bottle giving some mechanical advantage to generate more water.

I just watched a video where the presenter was demonstrating how to determine if a sawyer mini was damaged. It had to do with running water through the filter and then trying to blow air through the filter. If the filter allowed air to pass then the filter was damaged.



Not all of the water was processed. There is about 8 ounces left at the bottom. There is no foreseeable way to empty the bottle.


The sawyer team is particular about squeezing water from the dirty bag through the filter to the clean container at an angle to prevent cross contamination. In one of my practice runs with tap water I noticed that the main seal was leaking. That means testing the seal before drinking. Furthermore since the clean side of the filter is only protected by the screw cap it is possible that the cap might hide contaminated water. While the container can hold dirty water and there must be a belief that the last little bit contains sediment that it's better to discard instead of drink. Lastly there is that small one-way port. Like all of the other single points of failure this is the strangest. If that port is in contact with the dirty water then there is a chance that some capillary action will draw dirty water or bugs into the mouth piece bypassing the filter altogether. (remember to use drops in addition to the filter)

I have reached out to Platypus customer service and have not received a response. I would not recommend this bottle for hiking especially long hikes. Stick with the sawyer.

Popular posts from this blog

Prometheus vs Bosun

In conclusion... while Bosun(B) is still not the ideal monitoring system neither is Prometheus(P).

TL;DR;

I am running Bosun in a Docker container hosted on CoreOS. Fleet service/unit files keep it running. However in once case I have experienced at least one severe crash as a result of a disk full condition. That it is implemented as part golang, java and python is an annoyance. The MIT license is about the only good thing.

I am trying to integrate Prometheus into my pipeline but losing steam fast. The Prometheus design seems to desire that you integrate your own cache inside your application and then allow the server to scrape the data, however, if the interval between scrapes is shorter than the longest transient session of your application then you need a gateway. A place to shuttle your data that will be a little more persistent.

(1) storing the data in my application might get me started more quickly
(2) getting the server to pull the data might be more secure
(3) using a push g…

Entry level cost for CoreOS+Tectonic

CoreOS and Tectonic start their pricing at 10 servers. Managed CoreOS starts at $1000 per month for those first 10 servers and Tectonic is $5000 for the same 10 servers. Annualized that is $85K or at least one employee depending on your market. As a single employee company I'd rather hire the employee. Specially since I only have 3 servers.

The pricing is biased toward the largest servers with the largest capacities; my dual core 32GB i5 IntelNuc can never be mistaken for a 96-CPU dual or quad core DELL

If CoreOS does not figure out a different barrier of entry they are going to follow the Borland path to obscurity.

Weave vs Flannel

While Weave and Flannel have some features in common weave includes DNS for service discovery and a wrapper process for capturing that info. In order to get some parity you'd need to add a DNS service like SkyDNS and then write your own script to weave the two together.
In Weave your fleet file might have some of this:
[Service] . . . ExecStartPre=/opt/bin/weave run --net=host --name bob ncx/bob ExecStart=/usr/bin/docker attach bob
In sky + flannel it might look like:
[Service] . . . ExecStartPre=docker run -d --net=host --name bob ncx/bob ExecStartPre=etcdctl set /skydns/local/ncx/bob '{"host":"`docker inspect --format '{{ .NetworkSettings.IPAddress }}' bob`","port":8080}' ExecStart=/usr/bin/docker attach bob
I'd like it to look like this:
[Service] . . . ExecStartPre=skyrun --net=host --name bob ncx/bob ExecStart=/usr/bin/docker attach bob
That's the intent anyway. I'm not sure the exact commands will work and that's partly why we…