# Water purification in emergencies.



## Jock Campbell (22 Nov 2015)

Hi folks,

I'm the developer of a new product which I designed to be an extremely lightweight, compact, passive water purification system which can also be used as a cooking vessel in an emergency survival situation.  A similar device has been used by certain NATO departments since 1953, but it is so bulky and heavy that it wouldn't be worth inclusion in any individual's kit.  Rather, it is supplied to Naval vessels and aircraft alone.

The device I have developed (and applied for international patents on) promises to cut the weight and bulk of the prior art by a factor of ten, increase reliability and efficiency significantly and offer an alternative in-the-field use that could potentially make it a very worthwhile addition to your personal survival kit; Especially where you may find yourself in a situation where clean, fresh, drinking water may be non-existent... whether on land or at sea!  It is so light, you may carry it for ten years without even knowing it is there... but at least it WILL be there should you find yourself in a tricky situation.

Before I explain what my device is, I would like to invite members to tell me how they would seek clean water in a survival situation, what equipment they might carry and whether you believe the standard kit supplied gives you the best opportunity to preserve life in challenging situations for the least amount of kit space sacrificed and weight carried.

Your feedback will help me tailor my business plan and bring my device closer to production.

Many thanks in advance,
Jock Campbell
Product Developer.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (23 Nov 2015)

I have a 15 gallon water supply at home and a reverse osmosis filter hand pump. I have a couple of the filtered drinking straws in the cars.


----------



## Jock Campbell (23 Nov 2015)

And you carry that 15 gallons on your back?


----------



## cld617 (23 Nov 2015)

Jock Campbell said:
			
		

> And you carry that 15 gallons on your back?



If you have something which reduces the footprint and weight of an already currently used product by such a large margin, and your system works....why post here? To me it seems like this should be an easily marketed device, especially if you're willing to sell the patent. 

I smell a kitchen knife salesman.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (23 Nov 2015)

Jock Campbell said:
			
		

> Especially where you may find yourself in a situation where clean, fresh, drinking water may be non-existent... whether on land* or at sea*!  It is so light, you may carry it for ten years without even knowing it is there... but at least it WILL be there should you find yourself in a tricky situation.



The 'at sea' part grabbed my attention; maritime aircrew type.  I can't recall the exact name/model of the desalination pump we have in our life rafts are, but I think they produce an average of 1 litre/water per hour when they are working at their peak.  

Personally, in an operational theatre, I carry water purification tabs, a 2 quart canteen and a Lifestraw.  Non-op theatre, I carry just the Lifestraw.  That's a personal purchase, we are not issued them.


----------



## krustyrl (24 Nov 2015)

http://www.amazon.com/Katadyn-8013418-Survivor-06-Desalinator/dp/B000F395X0



Used in global survival kits on Can Mil Aircraft. Note that these units are strictly desalinators using a membrane and sodium metabisulphate with small amounts of glycol to prevent freezing. No purification value in freshwater.


----------



## a_majoor (24 Nov 2015)

Low cost emergency purification can be had by investing in a bottle of unscented bleach, and using the bleach to purify a larger container of fresh water. 8 drops/4l should suffice.


----------



## MJP (24 Nov 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> .  That's a personal purchase, we are issued them.



I am assuming that you meant "we aren't issued them" but wanted to clarify.  I am looking at water puri options right now.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (24 Nov 2015)

Jock Campbell said:
			
		

> And you carry that 15 gallons on your back?



I have young kids we will be bugging in, not out. The straws are to provide drinkable water if away from the home, the water stored deals with the short term after the disaster (I live in Vancouver, earthquake) the water purifier I have is to provide drinkable water from 2 natural sources nearby, which will then have to be humped back to our shelter.


----------



## Jock Campbell (24 Nov 2015)

I am testing feedback for the conceptual qualities of my device to see just how interested those who are mindful of such requirements might be, should I pour more cash into development at this early stage.  I am not exactly "well off" at the moment, so must choose where to put my money and weigh up the market attitude carefully before plunging in.  I am quietly confident those among you with objective minds will recognise the plausible value in the product, but your feedback here will influence those decisions.  So I thank all of you who can invest ten/twenty minutes of your time to help me gauge the validity of my concept.

Developers cannot invent new devices to cater for every individual's specific needs, Colin.  Your specific circumstances are for you to address.  However, my device; Low-cost, light, reliable and compact can be supplied to EACH of your family members to ensure they INDIVIDUALLY have the means to secure a subsistence level of fresh water... on land or at sea.

This also applies to a large group of people stranded in a lifeboat.  You can either rely on a single, bulky, inefficient and self-contaminating (due to sloshing around of the source saline water) inflatable solar still, which might provide as little as ten ounces of fresh water only on calm hot sunny days to provide for everyone on board, or you can each use one of my devices, which will generate perhaps four to six ounces of fresh water per person per day, and continue to produce even on cooler, overcast days... and it cannot contaminate its produce by sloshing as there is no loose water to slosh!

The Catadyn is an excellent filtration system, but costly!  It also takes up a bit of room and isn't exactly "light".  By all means, if you prefer to invest in such equipment, there's nothing to criticise.  However, I would consider my own product to be an excellent back-up device for your filter system due to its very low comparative cost and absolute reliability.  Not to mention the fact is can be used to cook a meal when not being used as a water purification device, something no filtration system has accomplished!  

Filters are great, but they need standing water to filter and parts (elements) to continue working well... and to carry one which cost you $1500 for twenty years on the off-chance that something "might" happen, is an investment few are willing to make.  

My device, perhaps retailing at as little as $50, might fill a gap in the market.  It will work without standing water (damp soil is as good a source as any).  It elegance is in its simplicity.

Thanks for the feedback so far, more thoughts please!  I'll be happy to give a detailed description of the device soon.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (24 Nov 2015)

MJP said:
			
		

> I am assuming that you meant "we aren't issued them" but wanted to clarify.  I am looking at water puri options right now.



That was a 'whoops'; we aren't issued them.  I wanted something I could use anywhere and 'with a broken wing'.  Same reason I carry a Blastmatch for a firestarter.


----------



## Jock Campbell (24 Nov 2015)

That's effectively what my device promises to deliver, Eye in the Sky... a device you can leave on the ground, wear on your person or attach to vegetation. It will allow you to passively purify a subsistence level of water for extreme survival emergencies, or larger amounts for longer-term surthrival.  

And all in just a few ounces of material.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (24 Nov 2015)

Question; how quickly does it work?  

In my 'worst case scenario', I would be drinking from my straw while dunking that 2 quart canteen at the same time; fill the belly and the bottle rickity-tick-tick and get the heck out of dodge; inside 1 minute kind of quick.  Drop purification tabs in canteen and I have water for when I am forced to be laid up/stationary.  Repeat as necessary.


----------



## Jock Campbell (24 Nov 2015)

It depends on how you use it i.e.- the specific circumstances you have found yourself in.

If there is no standing water and no additional heat source except body heat, it will supply only a subsistence level of clean fresh water.  Sufficient only to keep you alive, extracted from whatever damp sources you can find.

If you have a plentiful source of clear water (saline or otherwise) it should produce a little more without additional heat. Certainly enough to get you by if not overly exerting yourself.  (Again a subsistence level for survival).

If you have clear water and a heat source (ie an open fire), you can produce as much clean water as you can load into the device. Perhaps three litres per hour.

Obviously, without having conducted very specific tests, the exact quantities are hard to define.  And of course, every scenario has specific qualities that will effect the exact amount produced.  But there is no reason to believe the device will not perform as intended.  The technology utilised is known technology, I have merely applied modern materials and redesigned the prior art to perform in a specific, more reliable manner.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (24 Nov 2015)

With that basic info, I would think this would have a potential use in a domestic crash/ditch/survival situation in the aircrew line of work but perhaps not so in the operational survival "behind enemy lines" scenario.  Also, for good old fashion 'civilian' use.


----------



## Bearpaw (24 Nov 2015)

For water that has only bacterial contamination, a useful simple "purification" device is a clear 1.5L pop bottle.  If you fill it with contaminated water and let it sit in sunlight for 8 hours, 99% of bacteria will be killed.

This is of no use for dissolved contaminants ---- salts, resins,....


Bearpaw


----------



## Colin Parkinson (25 Nov 2015)

Jock Campbell said:
			
		

> I am testing feedback for the conceptual qualities of my device to see just how interested those who are mindful of such requirements might be, should I pour more cash into development at this early stage.  I am not exactly "well off" at the moment, so must choose where to put my money and weigh up the market attitude carefully before plunging in.  I am quietly confident those among you with objective minds will recognise the plausible value in the product, but your feedback here will influence those decisions.  So I thank all of you who can invest ten/twenty minutes of your time to help me gauge the validity of my concept.
> 
> Developers cannot invent new devices to cater for every individual's specific needs, Colin.  Your specific circumstances are for you to address.  However, my device; Low-cost, light, reliable and compact can be supplied to EACH of your family members to ensure they INDIVIDUALLY have the means to secure a subsistence level of fresh water... on land or at sea.
> 
> ...



I would then say your main competitor is the drinking straw https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LifeStraw . Simple to carry, simple to use and easy to sell at the current price. Your price is staring to compete with pumped reverse omasis filter system, which is what most people are familiar with. You are entering a market that is already well served. Even if your product is unique you are going to have to spend significant money to market that difference and since it's likely you get it made in China, you have about 1-2 years before a larger competitor pops up to take market share and fighting the copyright battle may not be worth it. Here is the MEC page and gives you an idea about price point http://www.mec.ca/shop/water-treatment-hiking-and-camping/50467+52299/?h=10%2050033%2052299


----------



## Teager (25 Nov 2015)

Just a thought but if your short on cash maybe audition for Dragons Den.


----------



## Jock Campbell (26 Nov 2015)

Hi Bearpaw,  you're quite correct, your bottle will only kill bacteria... and depends entirely upon the availability of strong sunlight.

The device I have designed will desalinate and remove harmful chemicals and bacteria (without filtration).

Lifestraw is a good product Colin, but it is a freshwater filter only.  It cannot desalinate, nor will it remove certain chemicals. Nor indeed will it provide a handy secondary function, as my own design can.

EyeintheSky, certainly it does have application in the domestic and commercial marketplace, but it is equally applicable in the tactical environment, albeit utilised (as all equipment should be) with circumspection to the particular situation.  Put it this way; Any soldier/sailor/airman *could* potentially find themselves detached from their unit and stranded in either hostile or neutral territory without the means of rescue and quite possibly without the bulk of their kit.  My device is small enough and light enough to be carried in a map pocket, will allow the user to generate a subsistence level (or more) fresh water AND be usable as a cooking vessel (if you have the skills to create fire)... essential to ensuring healthy sustenance in the wild.

I'll log in this Saturday and describe how I came to design my product and exactly what it is and how it works.

Thanks guys for your feedback thus far.  MUCH appreciated.

Jock


----------



## Eye In The Sky (26 Nov 2015)

I hope the feedback was useful, and sounds like it was.  I don't believe there are very many "perfect in all scenarios!" tools and gear out there;  I am interested in your gears ability in salt water situations as an example, because I don't have an 'individual' kit item for that problem.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (26 Nov 2015)

Jock Campbell said:
			
		

> The device I have designed will desalinate and remove harmful chemicals and bacteria (without filtration).
> 
> . . .   My device is small enough and light enough to be carried in a map pocket, will allow the user to generate a subsistence level (or more) fresh water AND be usable as a cooking vessel (if you have the skills to create fire)... essential to ensuring healthy sustenance in the wild.



I get the feeling that your gadget is a "still" - maybe small enough to fit in a pocket (or pouch), but able to go through "evaporation" and "condensation" phases without a direct heat source save for body heat or ambient temperature.  Though I've never had to rely on water distillation in a no duff situation, the use of expedient stills were part of the curriculum on some survival training I've done.  I think that there are a couple of products on the market that claim to meet some of the criteria you are suggesting that your device is capable of.  I've no personal experience with them, but most of what I've heard is that they are not particularly useful.  It will e interesting to see what you propose.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (26 Nov 2015)

Jock Campbell said:
			
		

> Hi Bearpaw,  you're quite correct, your bottle will only kill bacteria... and depends entirely upon the availability of strong sunlight.
> 
> The device I have designed will desalinate and remove harmful chemicals and bacteria (without filtration).
> 
> ...



I hope it works out well for you, I know I am being a tad skeptical, but better you get put through a bit of a grinder before you part with your hard earned cash. If your product is doing well some of the US shows like SHOT will give you good exposure and you might be able to team up with another Canadian supplier to share booth costs.


----------



## Jock Campbell (27 Nov 2015)

Guys, I'm very impressed with your thoughtful enquiries and insight.  Thanks again for all your feedback, I'll come back in tomorrow to explain things more fully.

Blackadder, I hope you'll be back soon to read my detailed description.

Eye in the Sky, yes, thus far I've had exactly the feedback I'd hoped for.  I hope I can allay your concerns and inspire your confidence in my design.

Catch you all tomorrow.

Best regards,
Jock


----------



## Jock Campbell (28 Nov 2015)

Good morning all,

As promised, i'm back to explain my patent-pending water purification survival device.

To help readers understand how it resolves the issues with the prior art, I'll explain how I came up with it...

At the moment, there are only two devices available to the market that will make sea water drinkable:

The Catadyn filter unit- http://www.amazon.ca/Katadyn-2010000-Pocket-Water-Microfilter/dp/B000RZEJPU/ref=sr_1_2/184-2519957-4462141?ie=UTF8&qid=1448728962&sr=8-2&keywords=katadyn+water+filter

And the Aquamate solar still-  http://www.amazon.com/Aquamate-Solar-Emergency-Purification-Inflatable/dp/B004TOAELS

Both products have a place;  The Catadyn is an excellent product, if a little pricey.  But it's not the kind of product commercial operations or military quartermaster are likely to purchase on the basis that it will then sit in a box, bag or life-raft for the next twenty years on the off-chance an incident requiring it *might* occur!  The Catadyn therefore is much more likely to be bought by private individuals keen to invest in "being prepared" for their travel adventures.

The Aquamate therefore continues to be chosen by commercial and military operations.  It's cheaper (although not by much) and is less likely to be stolen.  So it has dominated the military and commercial markets since its invention 60 years ago.

The Catadyn is a superior product in the sense that it is self-explanatory, simple to use, and so long as it isn't abused will do its job perfectly adequately.  By comparison to the Aquamate, it is roughly the same weight and size when packed (both units are approximately 1kg in weight and take up about 2 litres in pack volume).  But Aquamate has a number of problems...

First of all it must be manually inflated, which expends precious calories.  And unless you have an inflator, you're also likely to lose a significant amount of precious moisture blowing the device up to make it ready for use.  This at a time when both calories and fluid are precious resources!  The Aquamate must also rest upon a flat surface, either upon the ocean or the ground... both of which are likely to be cold.  Since a solar still works by trapping heat from sunlight in order to generate evaporation from the contaminated source liquid, setting the device on a cold surface reduces the efficacy of the device (as heat is absorbed by the cold surface).  The makers have used insulative materials to minimise this heat loss, but it is impossible to eliminate in a lightweight, compact unit.  Lastly, and most alarmingly, any sea swell sloshes the contaminated contents around, splashing them into the freshly-distilled and extremely-precious drinking water.  this also leaves salty residue all over the inner surfaces of the unit, meaning it must be decontaminated before fresh water can be produced!  At the end of the day, Aquamate, in my humble opinion, isn't worth the investment. 

It doesn't bode well for Aquamate, does it?  And given the price of both units, they don't exactly make themselves "ideal choices" for supply in numbers to provide employees or service personnel with an emergency back-up should the worst happen.

So I asked myself, how do I resolve Aquamate's inherent problems and undercut the price of both devices enough to encourage quartermasters and commercial operators to buy my device en-masse?  Here's what I had to resolve...

One- Inflation is not an option.  The unit must be usable right out of the package
Two- I had to get it off the cold ground/ocean surface, preferably to a location where bodyheat can be used to bolster the efficacy without adding to the user's woes (by chilling them)!
Three- I had to eliminate the sloshing of the source liquid.
Four- the unit has to be significantly lighter than prior products, light enough to carry in a pocket.
Five- It has to be significantly cheaper than prior products.
Six- If it can have a secondary function, provide one!

So it boiled down to this.. a Solar Still that is worn on the body.

The solution came to me when I visited a swimming pool.  A competition swimmer was wearing a swim cap... and that got my brain working!

If I could make a cap that was made in a supple, transparent material that was stiff enough to create a bulbous cavity above the head, I could both trap bodyheat and/or the sun's energy and concentrate it on a wetted rag, beanie hat or even dampened hair sufficiently to produce evaporation.  The clean fresh water vapour would then rise and condense upon the inner surface of the air-cooled shell and run down into a gutter that encircles the lower edge of the cap.  By adding an attachment point at the nape of the neck, I will attach a collapsible pouch bottle into which the produce of the solar still cap can drain and be stored for later consumption, detaching and re-attaching as required.

The device will not overheat the wearer, because the process of evaporation, combined with the large surface area of the cap, work to gently cool the head.  The only risk to the wearer would be to use the device on cold days where there is little sun.  On those occasions, the device may simply be laid over the damp ground/a rain puddle, where it's small surface contact area will prevent heat loss.  So long as the outer rim of the device is in contact with the ground (ie sealed reasonably air-tight) and there is sunlight, it will produce fresh water sufficient to keep the user alive.

The elasticated nature of the material means the headband (the inner rim) can fit a wide range of head sizes, or any other object that can generate moisture.  For instance, with a little trimming of spines and in taking a slice off the top of a cactus, the cap can then be set over the moisture-laden flesh where it will extract the water and make it available to the user.  Just set it up and get on with your shelter-building/hunting etc.  When you get back there will be a reservoir of clean fresh water awaiting!

To recap on the issues to be resolved;  My design eliminates the requirement to inflate before use.  It eliminates the cold surface absorption of heat from the device (in fact it bolsters it by adding bodyheat).  It also eliminates the issue of sloshing, by keeping the moisture held in a cloth or in the hair and trapping any running fresh water in a lightweight pouch (which incidentally may also be used to boil its contents over a fire).   It is much lighter than either of the other products, conceivably weighing as little as three ounces and should be no more bulky than an A4 padded envelope (when flattened).

Finally, the material I have chosen for this device is clear Platinum Silicone rubber, which can be textured, patterned or coloured to provide light-absorption or a low-visibility function.  But the material has another notable property that adds to the potential functionality of the device- Platinum silicone rubber will withstand upwards of 300 degrees Celsius, meaning the device (which is essentially an oblong bowl shape) can be inverted and suspended over an open fire and used to boil any liquid inside.  Effectively, the solar still becomes a cooking pot... a very useful item in a survival scenario!

Apart from these handy additional qualities, my device also eliminates the potential for loss of discipline aboard a life-raft where conditions have placed all aboard under extreme distress due to dehydration.  The Aquamate will only produce about 8 to perhaps 15 ounces of fresh water on a good day... a "good" day being a very hot, sunny, calm day... the kind of day when everyone bakes!  15 ounces of water among up to 32 souls (the average modern commercial life-raft capacity) is not sufficient for subsistence provision and is almost impossible to ration out and maintain discipline.  Whereas if everyone aboard had a Solarcap, they'd be able to secure their own personal supply of water, perhaps 4 to 8 ounces of clean fresh water each day.


I hope, having detailed all this, you'll lend your support, perhaps by encouraging your quartermasters to consider the product as a viable addition to military equipment stocks.  I hope to have a working prototype assembled very soon and will be raising start-up funding in the new year.

Thanks so much for your attention and feedback.  

Spot on Blackadder... a solar still it certainly is!


----------



## Bearpaw (28 Nov 2015)

Here is a Catadyn type filter unit at a more affordable price.  I bought a unit of when it was called Guardian microfilter in 2003.  I have never used it as the expedition I was involved with fell through----but it is light and seems well designed.

http://www.moontrail.com/hydration/guardian.html

Bearpaw


----------



## Jock Campbell (28 Nov 2015)

That unit will not desalinate seawater, Bearpaw.  Nor will it or the Catadyn filter extract fresh water from soil or plant flesh.


----------



## McG (28 Nov 2015)

You will get more mileage if you take your idea here:  
http://dgpaapp.forces.gc.ca/en/business-defence-acquisition-guide/submit-your-ideas.asp?id=DAG_Land-GAD_Terre&amp;title=Advanced%20Sub-Unit%20Water%20Purification%20System


----------



## Bearpaw (28 Nov 2015)

Yes----Neither the Catadyn nor the Guardian will work with dissolved salts,... and they will not work with mud or plant flesh.  I was just pointing out that the Guadian is a lot cheaper----I paid $60 for mine.  Website for Catadyn and the one I posted indicate that the filtering functionality of both products are very similar.

I do think your ideas are worth pursuing particularly for it use with salt water.

Bearpaw


----------



## Jock Campbell (28 Nov 2015)

Thanks guys,

Much obliged MCG, I'll look into that later!

Yeah Bearpaw, I feel our military quartermasters might like the concept I've proposed over filtration units, especially given that it's so light, needs no replacement elements and should be considerably cheaper than the other options.  I reckon I could supply my product (bulk wholesale) for less than $20 a unit!


----------



## Urocyon Cinereoargenteus (29 Nov 2015)

Something that can freeze would be nice. Not may people realize that all the fancy filters in the world wont do you any good once they've frozen and all the water filled cells expand and destroy the filtering properties. It also gets kind of expensive when you use your $40 straw once and then cant use it in the winter because it wont filter half the stuff out that it is supposed to.


----------



## Jock Campbell (29 Nov 2015)

Good point, Urocyon!

Yes, fine filter systems break down quickly in cold conditions.  That said, you tend to find less pathogens in ground water in colder climes.  But certainly, it should be borne in mind.  Hopefully, most survivors of incidents in colder climates put fire and shelter first, usually by carrying a fire-lighting kit and a cutting tool.  My device could certainly compliment such a set and be used over a fire to boil any suspect water.


----------



## Scott (29 Nov 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I hope the feedback was useful, and sounds like it was.  I don't believe there are very many "perfect in all scenarios!" tools and gear out there;  I am interested in your gears ability in salt water situations as an example, because I don't have an 'individual' kit item for that problem.



This.

I've had the beaver shits, it ain't fun at all. I got mine from splashing water while swimming, of all things, so I take my water purification pretty seriously. That said, and building on the above, I have a couple of solutions I use somewhat interchangeably: an MSR filter and drops.

I would add another option if it were cost effective (which this appears to be) and made sense to me (which it doesn't, yet, no pics or youtube to watch) I'm interested.

The attached photo was taken after three days on the Cape Chignecto Trail. The element on the right is the used one and the left is a ready to go element.


----------



## Jock Campbell (30 Nov 2015)

As it happens Scott, I've carried these replacement filters and a short length of tubing as part of a survival kit for years- great for most fresh water applications out in the bush.  

But it was after spending time ocean sailing that I asked myself what the available equipment was for those ditched at sea.  And upon discovering the lack of options... and how expensive they were... I started wondering if something could be made to cover all situations and could it be more simpler, lighter, less bulky and less costly than what's already available?  I think I've ticked all those boxes!


----------



## a_majoor (1 Dec 2015)

So when is the reveal?

Think of us as being from Missouri; we want to see the thing first.


----------



## Scott (1 Dec 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> So when is the reveal?
> 
> Think of us as being from Missouri; we want to see the thing first.



+1

I get that it will keep me from getting the shits, and that I could take it sea kayaking -  ig appeal there; what I now want i to see it, see a short FAQ on it, see someone post a Youtube video of it, see it in MEC so I can question their guys who question these things. Because I won't buy a two cent item unless it's shown and not just told, you dig?

Those boxes need to be ticked next.


----------



## Jock Campbell (1 Dec 2015)

Re: "The big reveal".

The mold I require to make the first working prototype is in a queue at a local machine shop.  I hope to have it by the end of January.  Then I can hand-mold the first true-to-manufactured-form models and put them through some tests.  

The whole purpose of this particular exercise was to gauge how a more experienced audience would respond to the theoretical concept, rather than relying on the opinions of friends and family.  But since you asked for something a little more substantial, here's a sketch I made for the patent application...

Note: this is a conceptual sketch and is not an accurate representation of the intended final product.

Key-
A- Headband
B- Gutter
C- Shell
D- Collection point
E- Connection nozzle

Description-  The device would be injection-molded (ideally) in transparent silicone rubber (thickness will vary between 1/32" to 1/8"depending upon performance requirements).  The condensed fresh water, having collected on the inner surface of the shell will then run down into the gutter, where it will be encouraged, by gravity and normal movements of the head to the collection point located at the nape of the neck.  The connection nozzle has a simple rubber valve which remains shut if nothing is connected to it, so fresh water will pool in the gutter of the device until you are ready to consume it.  However, by attaching a (purpose made) collapsible pouch to the nozzle, the fresh water may be drained into the pouch to act as a handy reservoir.  

As mentioned earlier, the properties of the silicone rubber allow it to resist exposure to high temperatures, so given the bowl-like geometry of the device, it may be inverted and suspended (by the attached drawstring cords) over an open fire to provide a pot in which food or indeed fresh water, may be brought to the boil.

The patent application is currently going through the international patents process via the WIPO.


----------



## McG (1 Dec 2015)

So, this captures evaporated head sweat to make potable water?


----------



## Jock Campbell (1 Dec 2015)

No MCG, go back to the main description posted Saturday and read.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (1 Dec 2015)

Jock Campbell said:
			
		

> Note: this is a conceptual sketch and is not an accurate representation of the intended final product.



Well, it's a little different than what I had visions of.  Considering that my expectation is that there would have to be some "volume" and "spacing" in order for adequate evaporation and condensation, I thought it may end looking something like this.


----------



## Jock Campbell (1 Dec 2015)

LOL... yeah, the very thought of it is kinda comical! But no, there's no need for a huge surface area like that.  

The external surface of the device can be finely textured, which will more than triple the air-cooled surface area than if it were completely smooth. The device doesn't need to be any larger than a bicycle safety helmet.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (2 Dec 2015)

My friend did a lot of prototyping in 3D to develop a product, faster than a machine shop and cheaper generally.


----------



## Jock Campbell (2 Dec 2015)

I had considered that Colin, however I'd like to be able to mold several prototypes from the same mold, because I'll be testing each one to destruction!  I reckon it'll work out cheaper to get one mold made rather than get just one prototype printed.  But I appreciate the suggestion. :subbies:


----------



## Jock Campbell (11 Dec 2015)

Just a quick update to clarify things re the Katadyn filters mentioned earlier...

Not all Katadyn filter systems will desalinate seawater, in fact, very few will and some are available by special order only.  The cheaper off-the shelf filter systems do not desalinate.

The desalination Katadyn cost upwards of $1200 and weighs in at over a kilo. Occasionally a refurbished system will be available at around $700.

A far cry from the $30-$50 price tag of my device.

Thanks for your attention.

Best regards,

Jock Campbell


----------



## Scott (28 Mar 2016)

This looks pretty frigging deadly:

http://fontus.at/

And if the price point is right, I will have one.


----------



## Jock Campbell (28 Mar 2016)

It looks excellent, Scott.  but it is bulky, and I'd imagine it'll cost a hell of a lot more than the $40 USD my own design would cost (max).

This is the point of my design, to get subsistence water purification as compact and low-cost as possible to make the product feasible for military distribution.


----------



## Scott (28 Mar 2016)

Bulky? How so? It appears to be a roll up solar mat, a USB cable, a Nalgene bottle, and some sort of implement between bottle and open air. Unless it's made of lead I can't see the weight being an issue based simply on what I am seeing in the video.


----------



## Jock Campbell (28 Mar 2016)

Compare that to a device that is the same packed shape/size/weight as an A4 padded envelope.

AND that can perform a secondary function of being a over-fire cooking pot.


----------



## Scott (28 Mar 2016)

OK.

The device the size/shape of that A4 envelope would get lost/stolen/broken/destroyed in my lifeboats, or any lifeboat I have ever been in, for that matter.

The device the size/shape of that A4 envelope would get lost/stolen/broken/destroyed in my pack/canoe/yak/bike/car.

I appreciate what you're saying about your target market, and that's fine, but you asked for feedback so I'll be happy to give it. When I read back through your concept, I see someone wearing a Trojan on their head. When I view Fontus I can't help feeling sold on the concept, for a few reasons (some of which could be disproved yet):
-a bottle for the water to simply drop into, like existing filter element type pump devices. If it mates with Nalgene then that's an increased selling point.
-the "passive" style: you bike or hike or paddle and it does it's thing.
-that USB cable has me thinking this puppy could work in concert with a BioLite, if someone was so inclined.
-it'll work in any maritime environment.
-it's ideal for survival at sea in the application I am used to.
-they are "near market", which is, perhaps, the most important. 
-it isn't just for survival.

I mean no offense and hope none is taken. Perhaps none of the above means a lick to you. Great. I wish you continued good luck. I just speak as someone who knows lifeboats in my particular application, and knows what he wants as a casual adventurer. I also know that's a broad demographic.

Cheers


----------



## Jock Campbell (28 Mar 2016)

One; the device is made from platinum silicone rubber, so cannot be "destroyed" unless it is left to be kicked around the floor of the boat, which is no different from any other device you'd purchase: Abuse it and it will not perform; Leave it in an insecure place and it will not be there when you need it.

That's simple logic in all emergency situations!  Take care of your gear!

The device I have designed may be carried in a pocket/personal pack or in a box of thirty of them packed in a lifeboat locker.

Actually, you haven't given feedback on my device, you've merely promoted another device.  Which I don't mind, just be aware of the difference between it and my own, differences that I have clarified... incidentally, without attacking yours!

Fontus looks great for a range of applications, but would you carry it for twenty years on the off-chance of requiring it maybe once?  This is where the bulk matters.  Different devices fill different situational requirements, few fill every requirement and provide functionality over and above the primary use.  

Most travellers carry a drinking vessel (cup/bottle). 
Passivity is good absolutely, though again, by comparison to my own device, it is a bulky (likely pricey) kit.
No doubt it is a great device (I haven't knocked it).  It meets a perceived need well. 
My device IS designed purely for emergency use:- Pack it and forget it until you need it.

The question is... will the military buy them en masse and supply to squaddies?


----------



## Blackadder1916 (28 Mar 2016)

Jock Campbell said:
			
		

> The question is... will the military buy them en masse and supply to squaddies?



My opinion . . . so highly unlikely as to be a "no".


----------



## Scott (28 Mar 2016)

Jock Campbell said:
			
		

> Actually, you haven't given feedback on my device, you've merely promoted another device.  Which I don't mind, just be aware of the difference between it and my own, differences that I have clarified... incidentally, without attacking yours!





			
				Jock Campbell said:
			
		

> Before I explain what my device is, *I would like to invite members to tell me how they would seek clean water in a survival situation, what equipment they might carry and whether you believe the standard kit supplied gives you the best opportunity to preserve life in challenging situations for the least amount of kit space sacrificed and weight carried.*



Jock, I am not trying to get into a pissing match with you, nor do I wish to attack, or be seen as attacking, your product or work. I am also not promoting anything, I am answering the initial call: I saw Fontus pop up on my Facebook feed and followed the link inspired by the former discussions here. I liked what I saw and felt it pertinent to share as this is a further point to discussion earlier and statements I had made about my current setup - and in the spirit of your original post. I told you what I use, what I have used, and what looks pretty slick to me. That's the best I can offer.



> Fontus looks great for a range of applications, but would you carry it for twenty years on the off-chance of requiring it maybe once?  This is where the bulk matters.  Different devices fill different situational requirements, few fill every requirement and provide functionality over and above the primary use.



Given the chance at procurement stages, I would have the bean counters look at this. I'd also drop it in the lap of the guys who model our survival, some of who who have had to do it for real. That doesn't mean I wouldn't look at other devices, but I need a device to look at, get my point? Currently I have bagged water and would likely be held to such under SOLAS, but if I am allowed to indicate what makes sense as an add on, then there you go.



> My device IS designed purely for emergency use:- Pack it and forget it until you need it.



Fair enough.


----------



## Jock Campbell (28 Mar 2016)

I'm not seeking a pissing match, I'm merely pointing out the notable differences between the two concepts in the context in which I set the topic.  The thread is also months old and your coming into at at a very late stage promoting a device that by your own admission is unlikely to be adopted by the military.  And that really is my point, Scott... and the very reason I posted this topic on a military forum website.

A simple device, that is very compact, very lightweight, virtually indestructible, and has a secondary function to boot, is far more likely to win military contract for widescale distribution to personnel.

If you don't like that, it's not my problem.


----------



## MJP (28 Mar 2016)

Jock Campbell said:
			
		

> A simple device, that is very compact, very lightweight, virtually indestructible, and has a secondary function to boot, is far more likely to win military contract for widescale distribution to personnel.
> .



The military has to have a requirement before it will create an invitation to tender.  In that tender there are many ways to judge who wins the contract but generally it boils down to the most most cost effective, technically compliant product to meet that tender.  I am not saying the requirement doesn't exist but we generally need to ID what the actual need is first before we attempt to buy anything.  You might have a great product, that doesn't meet our needs right now.


----------



## a_majoor (28 Mar 2016)

Jock, I once was the course 2I/c for a group of high school co-op students and one of my duties was to ensure they were fed.

At the time, there was a singular contractor for the entirety of 31 Brigade, and the food they served was disgusting, cold and often delivered late. I had some help finding a loophole in the contract and engaged a local caterer for the period in question, who served some very tasty food. At the end of the course, I asked (practically pleaded) the caterer to consider looking into the brigade contract. Her answer was an unqualified "NO".

She explained the hoops of fire she would have to jump through simply to _qualify_ to bid, and the extra costs in personnel, paperwork and other regulatory compliance simply added deadweight and expense for the "possibility" that she _might_ win a contract. 

In a slightly different matter, a person I know was at a "town hall" with the new Minister of Defense, and one question was why it was so difficult to get boots and other simple things into the supply system. The Minister replied there were over *300* separate steps involved with procurement, and not all of them were with DND.

So unless General Dynamics buys the system from you and markets it to the Government (for a vastly inflated price, no doubt), you are really barking up the wrong tree.

My suggestion to you is to seriously develop and market this as a camping/survival aid and use channels like "CP Gear" and Mountain Equipent Co Op sell them. IF it is as good as you say, soldiers will come out and buy them for their own use, much like they purchase jet stoves, "puffies" and other Gucci kit that is proven to be cost effective and workable.

Best of luck, and let us know when they are going on sale (buy some advertising space on this site as well!)


----------



## Scott (29 Mar 2016)

Jock Campbell said:
			
		

> I'm not seeking a pissing match, I'm merely pointing out the notable differences between the two concepts in the context in which I set the topic.  The thread is also months old and your coming into at at a very late stage promoting a device that by your own admission is unlikely to be adopted by the military.  And that really is my point, Scott... and the very reason I posted this topic on a military forum website.
> 
> A simple device, that is very compact, very lightweight, virtually indestructible, and has a secondary function to boot, is far more likely to win military contract for widescale distribution to personnel.
> 
> If you don't like that, it's not my problem.



Nice ninja edit. Your original was barely a line long and contained nothing of the above.

I didn't know I was forbidden to add further info to the thread which I thought relevant, at the very least to me (and I am sure there are others who would find it pretty neat)

I am not promoting anything, this is the second time I am stating this, and the last. I don't "like" anything more or less, and I have explained why.

I reviewed my posts in this thread and see nothing that would indicate I was doing anything but answer your original call, as I interpreted it. I'm sorry this offends you, I can't be any more clear with my intent.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 Mar 2016)

Jock,

Threads don't belong to individuals. They are property of the site. ALL members are entitled to an opinion. If a person disagrees with that opinion, it's up to them to rebutt, with fact and grace. People are allowed to inject whatever they feel (other products) is relevant. 

Please consider these facts next time you decide to answer a post.

---Staff---


----------

