It is impossible to have two of everything. But smart to have a back up of things that are important to you.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

 

Important things is good to Have two of. What is "important" to some may not be to others.

What I hear alot of is people stocking up On something "just to use it for barter" at a later point. Stocking something you never plan on useing seams like a total waste of space, time and money to me when you could stock something that you can actualy use.

 

try this " if you like something buy two, they're going to stop making it."
in the words of John Bender " Screws just fall out all the time, the world is an imperfect place."

if you gather al the parts to repair something you have the parts to build that thing, it's usually cheaper to buy the total thing than it is to buy the parts.

 

try this " if you like something buy two, they're going to stop making it."
in the words of John Bender " Screws just fall out all the time, the world is an imperfect place."

if you gather al the parts to repair something you have the parts to build that thing, it's usually cheaper to buy the total thing than it is to buy the parts.

nice Breakfast Club reference!

 

Just remember that new in the box doesn't guarantee it works - pays to test things to make sure they are up for the task.

 

I have 67 screwdrivers and 26 hammers. I think I'm good in the tool catagory.

 

I stopped at church sale and there were some tools for sale at a good price, one was a good claw hammer. I bought them to add to the multiple other hammers I have. I was driving in Florida one day and turned around to pick up a claw hammer I saw lying on the side of the road. Yay!! Another hammer!! And when the business I was working at a few years back went out of business, I took home some tools, one of which was a nice claw hammer. Hey, if I'm working on a project and you show up, I'm pointing at the pile of hammers and telling you to help or go away.

 

Just because it says "2 is 1, 1 is none" does NOT mean it has to be a duplicate.

2 ways to do the same thing. Multi use items.

So... say, I have 1 hammer, and 1 hatchet that has a hammer head on it.
An RV with a Generator, and a 110v inverter if the generator won't start but the RV will.
A Generator, and a Solar Panel set up... to produce power.
A camper, and a tent.
A truck, and say a car with a pull behind trailer.
A car, and a bicycle.
A bicycle, and a skateboard... hmmm... NOT any more, lol

You have the First Choice... but if that breaks, or isn't available, then the 2nd choice comes into play.
Sure... the 2nd choice might not be as good, BUT IT'S BETTER than NO choice.

 

This is essentially how I look at it too, only different in the terminology maybe. Don't recall where I first heard it, a survival BBS or usenet maybe, but the general recommendation was to have at least 3 methods of obtaining the essentials needed for survival. Plan A, B, and C - where "A" was the most desirable for whatever reasons and the next levels usually more difficult or costly in terms of energy, time, or quantity. For potable water the plans might be: A) Well and pump, B) rain water catchment and filtering, C) haul from nearby surface water source and then disinfect and filter.

Redundancy, or "2 is 1, 1 is none", to me means having spares and/or spare parts for each plan level so I don't have to move down to the next level. A second well, spare well pump, and plumbing supplies to keep plan "A" working so I don't need to move to plan "B".

 

Canon,

I believe the the original term started out as "built in redundancy".

My type of redundancy makes sense since it's worked prior both from a functional analysis and a financial analysis.

For example, my hard hat is also a kit. It has face shields mounted on it, a whistle, a beekeepers net stuffed insode rigging next to extra batteries for the 2 helmet mounted lights. Also has color photo ID laminated inside. This kit is also an ANSI I helmet upgraded to ANSI II for evacs. This is "built in redundancy" as I use the term.

Another example: medical / surgical tape can replace duct / goose tape when factoring in weight and volumn concerns along with assigning costs to wt and vol. This is redundancy at it's best for my purposes.

Since I wear H suspenders for emergencies, my pants' belt loopsused for paracord and some 107 lb test braided fabric fish line for shelter setup (not elaborate but for to/from a boat to/from shore especially during adverse weather).

......

Althoug we have different arrangements, some Forum members tell of foods also serving as medicinal products eg honey. This qualifies as something with the perimeters of built in redundancy - and especially with my focus on land evacuations when weight and vol factored in.

All zipper-pulls are coiled 107 lb fish line - various lengths.

 

There's this thing called "comon sense". It's a useful attribute, often developed to a high degree by those that live and work in the real world, such as military members.

Two is one, and one is none, as used in practice, is based on the idea that one both possesses and exercises that attribute.

Two is one, and one is none, is based on the reality that military stuff breaks, or gets lost. Either due to being crap, or due to being used under extreme conditions by your typical soldier.

It doesn't mean you should have a spare M240 in your pocket. It means that, if you have ONE M240 in your platoon....you can't count on it being available and functioning at a 100% confidence level at the moment when you most need it.

But at no point did "two is one and one is none" ever mean you need to go so deep into debt on preps that you can't breathe, nor does it mean carrying a double load of everything in your pack.

This idea of never fully trusting anything to work out as you planned is helpful in dealing with real life.

IF YOU CAN...you carry spares.
IF YOU CAN....you have backups, and even backups to your backups.

And if you CAN'T do that....you recognize that things may break and/or go missing, and you plan accordingly, and go easy on that engine that has no more spare parts, and you go easy on your mag dumps because you don't have another complete full load out of mags in your ruck, and you ration your food a bit because you only have "enough" and not twice as much as you need.

 

If you are prepping for the end of society, having one of something isn't going to get you far. An example - I know the boots I like. When I buy a new pair, I buy two extra pairs. Once I get to a determined number of extras, I' m done buying. I know I kill a pair about every two years. If I make it 30 more years, I'll be doing good. If I had 15 pair of boots now, I'd consider myself "done" for them.

 

The list of things you cannot "make yourself" is a lot longer than the list of things you can.
Whether they are things you depend upon, or just things you like, we've already seen how easy it is for them to suddenly become not available. Even when available, they will almost certainly cost more in the future than now. So why not have 2 (or more)?
Worst case, you die without needing the spare. So will it to a friend or neighbor.

Just one example: I can't build a deep well pump. But the extra one I bought a few years ago cost around $100, the same thing now is $500.

 

I have 'extra' for what I deem is needed. My money, my choice.

You can do as you wish. Just don't come begging to me when you are freezing your ass off because you can't get a fire started.....

 

You cannot guarantee an outcome. All you can do is improve your odds.

There's a concept called "single point of failure," where if that point in a system fails, the entire system fails. The Space Shuttle had some single points of failure, the most famous of which were the external tiles which prevented the shuttle from burning up. Lose those, or enough of them, and it doesn't matter what other backups or redundancies there are--you're going down, and not in a glide.

It's often difficult to identify these things. I have a reloading shop that any survival group would be happy to have. In that shop I have some digital scales because they're much easier to use than balance scales. But if I lose those, either due to EMP or no longer having batteries, I still have a backup--an RCBS balance scale.

I bought a pressure canner. I looked at the cheaper ones and all required a specific gasket to work. I eventually decided on the All American canner because it doesn't have a design requiring a consumable, i.e., a gasket. So while there's no backup, it's a robust design.

I have the Country Living Grain Mill. I have a TON, literally, of grains I plan to grind using that mill. Because the parts are replaceable, I bought a backup set of various parts.

I believe it's useful to think on these things as possible single points of failure. If you lose it, are you screwed? If you are, you need either backups (2 is 1...) or spare parts or an incredibly robust design.

That doesn't mean everything needs a backup--pots and pans, for example. Lose one and you likely have other implements that will serve. A Solar Power system? Lots of potential points of failure, so if it's important to maintain that capability, backups and spare parts are the rule of the day.

* * *​

Cody Lundin wrote a book titled "98.6" in which his argument was that maintaining one's core temps at or about that level is what survival is about.

That's a huge single point of failure--be too warm or too cold, and you're toast (sorry about mixing metaphors here).

I was struck by the profound simplicity of this. Everything we do is with the goal of maintaining that body temperature. Fire for warmth, shade for cooling, water for drinking, food for eating, avoiding poison, avoiding infection--they're all single points of failure if you do not approach them as vitally important.

Redundancy in fire starting? It's vitally important. Backup signal mirror? Not so much.

If it threatens your life or health, it's worth having the backups, or a robust enough system that you can trust it with your life. Because you will have to.

 

the saying in the survivalist community 20 years ago did not mean 2 of everything. It meant that items should have multiple uses. That specialization in tools should be limited where possible. It has now been distorted into meaning buy multiples of everything you can. This in turn advances the ideology in our community of buying cheap items. The logic is that you can buy cheap because you have a backup..That of course lacks any and all logic as when the time comes that you need that tool to perform as in a survival situation you cant afford for it to break no matter how many replacements you may have...

 

Redundancy kinda sucks........

 

You can say that again

 

Redundancy can mean multiple of the same item but it doesn't have to. A pocket knife and scissors both cut stuff but they're not the same.

Its really just about the odds of success in a task. If you end up stuck in the woods alone with 1 lighter maybe there's a 80% chance it works to get a fire going. If you have a second method of fires starting and it has an 80% chance to work your total odds of success increase to 96%. Add in some easy to light tinder, maybe it's now 99.5%.

 

Great replies from all- thank you!

I suppose i could have done a bit better with the original post, or at the very least worked a little harder on the disclaimers... oh well, my bad!

In the interest of narrowing the focus of the discussion a little id like to flesh out what im driving at a little better-

Basically, im trying to point out a potential pitfall when building systems.

-------

If youre building a system with the mentality of replacing components if/when they wear out/break it will likely culminate to a system which CAN wear out/break.

Now comparitively

If you were to design a system for the same purpose, but this time do so with the mentality that it cannot fail and no replacements will be available i think it would ultimately culminate to a better and more robust system because your design criteria is much more stringent.

The latter system may reuqire you to learn some skill(s) to compensate for the lack of replaceable components thereby improving your personal capabilities in the process. Forcing you to achieve a higher level of "excellence" as it were.

Obviously MANY system components are wear items by design, the use of which makes you dependent on the supply of replacements- the question then becomes: is there a different approach to solving the problem without the need for a system which wears out?

That obviously isnt always possible, but is likely possible more often than we think if we can simply think outside the box.

The statement i wrote is 2 is 1 and 1 is none, obviously this doesnt apply to items that are designed naturally to wear out and be replaced. Those item's number of replacements is ultimately decided by the timeframe in which the system is designed to last. 2 is 1 and 1 is none usually denotes non consumable items which can suffer from failure but are not supposed to in general need constant replacing.

Thoughts?

 

Great replies from all- thank you!

I suppose i could have done a bit better with the original post, or at the very least worked a little harder on the disclaimers... oh well, my bad!

In the interest of narrowing the focus of the discussion a little id like to flesh out what im driving at a little better-

Basically, im trying to point out a potential pitfall when building systems.

-------

If youre building a system with the mentality of replacing components if/when they wear out/break it will likely culminate to a system which CAN wear out/break.

Now comparitively

If you were to design a system for the same purpose, but this time do so with the mentality that it cannot fail and no replacements will be available i think it would ultimately culminate to a better and more robust system because your design criteria is much more stringent.

The latter system may reuqire you to learn some skill(s) to compensate for the lack of replaceable components thereby improving your personal capabilities in the process. Forcing you to achieve a higher level of "excellence" as it were.

Obviously MANY system components are wear items by design, the use of which makes you dependent on the supply of replacements- the question then becomes: is there a different approach to solving the problem without the need for a system which wears out?

That obviously isnt always possible, but is likely possible more often than we think if we can simply think outside the box.

The statement i wrote is 2 is 1 and 1 is none, obviously this doesnt apply to items that are designed naturally to wear out and be replaced. Those item's number of replacements is ultimately decided by the timeframe in which the system is designed to last. 2 is 1 and 1 is none usually denotes non consumable items which can suffer from failure but are not supposed to in general need constant replacing.

Thoughts?

Canon,

Ref: Thoughts;
Re: "the later system";

Do note that the "later system" implies the timeline involvement also.

Skills can be learned throughout the tieline, less, of course, the "end times" of one's being.

The newly-learned skills could have physical requirements that prepper no loner has, whether permanently or temporarily.

For example, arthritic hands means limited time at the hand crank grinding stone, the time allocation for using a rat tail file, both used in the field.

Ditto: re walking around scavaging for stuff.

I am a firm believer in trying never to operate alone if this can be realistic planning. Otherwise, results must be realistically factored into recovery.

 

I think the one is none, two is one concept was created at the beginning of WWII by the Department of Redundancy Department.

One is none, two is one is not a canon that must be followed.

But since we are talking about it, what do you feel is necessary to have a back up for?

 

I think the one is none, two is one concept was created at the beginning of WWII buy the Department of Redundancy Department.

One is none, two is one is not a canon that must be followed.

But since we are talking about it, what do you feel is necessary to have a back up for?

The first thing that comes to mind is an extra magazine for my ccw- its not just for the extra capacity but a handguns magazine tends to be where most of the reliability issues arise and being able to clear malfunctions with an extra mag is the main reason i carry it even though i do greatly appreciate the extra capacity. I dont carry a back up gun on my person though fwiw i trust the reliability of my primary, the BUG does ride in my vehicle though its highly unlikely to ever see use.

I think its a good idea to have a backup light when in the woods, i say this because i am inept at electronics and dont have the neccesary knowledge, tools and skills to repair my lights (yet) if they malfunction. Perhaps someday ill be confident enough in the tech to cut the weight of a second light but for now, my edc light + a headlamp are constants.

So theres 2 examples for ya.

I dont carry 2 bush knives, or 2 crossbows or 2 ferro rods fwiw, just one is fine for me when it comes to most of my equipment. Its a taboo but i also dont carry a bic lighter or storm matches 😅

I do have ALOT (imo well beyond the point of diminishing returns) of redundancy in my stationary systems just cause i have space for it and it gives me some peace of mind but most of it seems somewhat useless when i look at it critically.

 

To me redundancy is having an immediate backup for a system. Things will break, especially cheap stuff including a cheap backup. Cheap generators will run and MAY be ok for a few weeks or months of heavy use. I chose one with an excellent long term track record, it was more expensive. Yes I do have 2, if I couldn't afford a 2nd unit I would at least have an extra carb and ignition components on hand. I also believe in using the backup by alternating between the 2.

After read you updated post
Learning to cut the need for electricity would eliminate the need for a generator or at least a large one. Solar with a battery system can easily support basic power requirements if needed

 

I do not think doubling up is a good idea, but you got money to burn, do what you please. I rather buy once, try it out, and decide to keep it or get something else.

 

I think this is the 23rd post about redundecy

 

The 'two or one' axiom has been around for a long time; basic survival tribal knowledge shared by others to bring the noobs up to speed.

On purpose, I bought a spare sump pump 4 years ago. A flood in our Doom Room would cause a kerfuffle. We have a spare manual can opener, too. Last year, I bought three Pull Starter Recoils, I pulled the rope off of older generator a couple of times. Found that replacement rope from Ace Hardware was only a little cheaper than a complete Recoil from Ebay. Fit's my snowblower, too, but it gets electric started mostly. I pulled this rope out a couple times and was restrung with paracord.

We have options with multiples of generators, vehicles, TV's, firearm's, shelter, refrigerators, stoves, and heaters. We stock and consume these things: meat, butter, booze, TP, PT, lighters, fuels, tape, various hardware fasteners, construction plastic, & etc. for convenience.

 

Redundancy needs a purpose for requirements you deem essential. The irony is that I’ve got almost 30 years of military service where in operational planning, redundancy is an essential aspect for mission success. We used the acronym “P.A.C.E.” Primary, Alternate, Contingency, Emergency. Back before the multiband radios, I did communications planning based on this. Communications were essential for team operations.

Fast forward to my distance backing hobby, I look for one item that can do multiple things; almost the exact opposite of redundancy. Still, your reasoning has merit, but in practice, it’s not necessarily easy. Sure, call it discipline, but for anyone who’s been in extremely dynamic, stressful, difficult environmental conditions…the proverbial “poop happens” is simply reality.

My son is currently in his Infantry basic officer’s course. He’s been enlisted Infantry and has been a platoon leader for the past year. He’s a full time LEO and SWAT trained. He’s a rockstar in the field, but made a grievous mistake during his night land-navigation qualification after a massive rain storm, swampy area, and swollen creaks. Everything is dummy corded, everything. NVGs, weapons, knives, lights, compass, map case, etc. Well, after only four hours of sleep in the past 30 hours, wet, cold, tired, he left his admin pouch open and while crossing a fallen tree across a swollen creek, he heard the “plop, plop, plop” sound in the water. All his map markers, pen, pencil, etc. fell in the water. They’re kind of important to write down your navigation points. He improvised and found a fire pit and used some wood charcoal. The point is that you simply can’t plan for everything, poop happens. He now keeps a pen in his pocket and not all his markers in one egg basket.

Still, redundancy can be important for certain areas. For me, what I find critical when outdoors is navigation, lighting, fire, water, signaling, and my tool(s). Simple P.A.C.E. methodology, but I usually use my hardest skill method first for some, like fire or signaling:

Primary: Firesteel
Alternate: Bic
Contingency: Matches
Emergency: Flare

Primary: Phone/radio/beacon
Alternate: Whistle
Contingency: Strobe/laser (both integrated into my flashlight)
Emergency: Small signal panel or marking tape; signal mirror

You need balance and smart application of multitude items can actually help mitigate onerous redundancy to where it impacts mobility, organization, or efficiency; redundancy should never replace skill and knowledge, but it should augment it.

Assessing and building redundancy needs both discipline and experience. You can easily “what-if” pack your pack to over 100 pounds. Also, proper PCCs and PCIs will help make sure that your primary items are fully functional and secure if/when needed.

ROCK6

 

I like the acronym PACE quite a bit! Ill remember that one and run my kits through it to see if i have any holes- so thank you for that!

I also agree completely with what you are saying in defining the specific purpose of redundancy. I also agree with the whole "**** happens" mentality but prefer to carry less gear and more skills based competencies when adapting to ****ty situations. Obviously id feel differently if i was participating in some sort of millitary operation where id assume effectiveness > sustainability. for my less critical wilderness adventures in a very mild environment i dont think alternative messures need be so extreme- i will say i do reccomend road flares to less experienced folks often because if you do need a fast fire in an emergency they are hard to beat!

Sometimes i wish i had some MIL experience because it really does speak to people- if i say "discipline yourself and build skills and protocols" people tend to take it as an insult as if im saying they are inadequate.

If you say use proper PCCs and PCIs people are like hell yeah! Lets do it thats sounds badass!

I mean, dont get me wrong sometimes ill use a millitary acronym here and there, but generally i feel that the application doesnt always track with what im usually talking about. i certainly dont want to rely only millitary language when communicating because i think it sends the wrong message about where im coming from.

Whats your advice to a guy who generally goes to great lengths to NOT be considered a millitary poser but still wants to get the point across? My communication obviously needs to improve.

 

I don't do full redundancy and don't plan to. To me just have an idea of what happens if a system or service goes down. Do you have a plan to deal with it? shelter, heat, food, water, security, transportation, health/medecine ... basics don't need redundancy, I'm not in any way going to try to maintain a lifestyle in an emergency, I'm going to try to make it through best I can and expect it to be difficult and inconvenient and depending on what event is taking place, maybe rather painful and difficult, but I have some kind of plan for just about everything, but - having a backup for a service or a plan, isn't redundancy at all IMHO. I have multiples of things that I do not think are expensive and I have space for and extra supplies on shelves, but not what a lot of people have.

Generally speaking, if there is a service we use that I don't control, food supply, electrical service, you name it - that service can dissapear for a good while, and in my mind anway I fully expect to just drudge on through it fine. My general theory is to be set up so that in say October of a year, it all goes away ... no power, no food, no nothing from the outside, and I expect to be able to make it through that winter with no real difficulty, and take everyone else I'm responsible for through it as well. After that - I'll figure it out.

 

I partially agree with you, but don’t agree either 😄

I understand where you’re coming from.

Looking from a wider context of experience >50 years: I’ve seen people bemoaning it Recently.
They’ve had something for 4-5 years and need a part, but model was discontinued soon after they bought it, and company stopped making parts couple years later, so they cant repair it.

I got an old chainsaw I like, and only thing wrong with it is throttle/choke spring. They discontinued parts for it 10 years ago. It’s old but Doesn’t have lot of hours use.

One of best compound bows I ever had 5 years after bought it they discontinued all parts for it. Being stubborn I went without one for 10 years.
I looking for parts for item I have now that isn’t old. Everything been out of stock for months.
And many more instances.

So from that context I understand the concept of 2 is 1, but I would/do limit what I’d have 2 of.

 

The "2 is 1" thing is mostly about essentials; the things you cannot live without. It does not mean you need to have two of everything, but 2 or more of the essentials.

For example, I totally agree with ajole above.

When I was getting all the survival training I went through back in the day, I learned that a lot of primitive fire starting methods really stink if you are trying to do them under less than ideal conditions (injured, soaking wet, cold, hands shaking, in terrible weather, etc). It really does not matter how good you get at them (and I'm the first to admit I am WAY out of practice on most primitive methods) under bad conditions they are unnecessarily hard to do.

To this end I carry multiple fire making kits in both my preps and all my camping and hiking stuff. I even carry vacc sealed ones inside the frame and spacer slots on packs and the like as a back up to backups.

Same goes, in my mind anyway, for a knife.I always have a fixed blade, with a lock blade back up, and most of my kits also have a second fixed blade of some sort.

To me, the "2 is 1" thing has always been all about the things you really cannot do without and cannot easily "BS" a replacement for.