Subject:
|
Re: "Reusable" Containers for Storage
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.storage
|
Date:
|
Wed, 19 Oct 2005 17:39:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
7379 times
|
| |
|
|
Eric Lind wrote:
> In lugnet.storage, Frank Filz wrote:
> > I definitely agree with the point about inefficient containers
> > (though I use some re-usable containers to on my work table to hold
> > a working set of parts). But key is that's space efficiency. My
> > system is less time efficient. You need to find the right balance
> > between at least the following tradeoff factors:
> >
> > - Space
> > - Cost
> > - Time to sort parts into the system
> > - Time to retrieve parts from the system
> > - Neatness of storage (will your wife let you have it in the living
> > room? in the spare bedroom? confined to the basement?)
> >
> > Note that shelving/drawers/furniture is part of the equation also.
> > Also, these factors are all interrelated (a more space efficient
> > system could improve retrieval speed, but it can also hinder it).
> >
> > Frank
>
> My primary factor, at the moment, is cost. I have a large enough
> collection that better storage is necessary (how large, exactly, I'm
> not sure - it's big enough to fill a good-sized, non-walk-in closet),
> but I don't have the money to go to something more permanent. In that
> the containers seem to be stacking 5-6 high without tipping on
> carpet, I'm not too concerned with tippage. Ultimately, I wanted to
> be able to organize quickly and cheaply. I just figured I'd share
> with others who might have been disparing at the thought of spending
> a good chunk of change on a storage system. Would I like something
> more drawer-ish? Sure. Will I be able to get that soon? Nope. Will
> this work in the interim? I think so.
Definitely sounds like the right method for you. If it fits in a non-walkin
closet, your collection is probably under 100,000 pieces. At that size, your
method has low cost, can be stored in a decent space (with good neatness)
and sorting and retrieval should be pretty efficient.
My post was pointing out that while I agree that at some point the space
inefficiency of the re-useable containers becomes an issue, with different
collections and circumstances, it's not an issue (and those containers would
be fine for a 500,000 piece collection if you had a huge room with shelves
around the walls so such a system would be very efficient for retrieval also
[and could be made efficient for sorting - you just need different
containers to sort into, like the advent calendar insers, which you then use
one insert per shelf unit, and then walk around the room with those to put
the pieces into the appropriate tubs] - you can bring exactly the containers
you need to the build table - they don't work for me because the containers
to hold 500,000 pieces would not fit in my available space).
Hmm, you hinted at another factor to consider, how well does the system
contain the pieces and keep them from dumping on the floor.
Frank
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: "Reusable" Containers for Storage
|
| (...) My primary factor, at the moment, is cost. I have a large enough collection that better storage is necessary (how large, exactly, I'm not sure - it's big enough to fill a good-sized, non-walk-in closet), but I don't have the money to go to (...) (19 years ago, 18-Oct-05, to lugnet.storage)
|
6 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
