Why are toilet tanks so low?
AlanKngsly
and as I worked to plunge it out, I recalled a contractor acquaintance telling
me that the newer toilets have smaller tanks to save water, but that this
results in less pressure to clear the drain pipes. I am all for saving water
(it seems extremely wasteful to use clean, drinkable water to flush toilets
anyway), but it would be nice to have enough pressure to do the job right.
Then I thought: why not have the tank up by the celing? You wouldn't need much
water then. And after thinking this, I began to think I had seen this design
in other countries, either while traveling or in movies.
So....why isn't this the preferred design here?
Alan
Joisey Goil
They are in use in other areas of the world, and they are still in
use in many older buildings in our country. It's the original design
as invented by Thomas Crapper, actually.
Robert William Vesterman
>My toilet clogged the other day (I dared throw half a paper towel in there),
>and as I worked to plunge it out, I recalled a contractor acquaintance telling
>me that the newer toilets have smaller tanks to save water, but that this
>results in less pressure to clear the drain pipes. I am all for saving water
>(it seems extremely wasteful to use clean, drinkable water to flush toilets
>anyway), but it would be nice to have enough pressure to do the job right.
>Then I thought: why not have the tank up by the celing?
Because then it would be inconvenient to place magazines on top of it?
Bob Vesterman.
--
This is the coolest of all sig files.
Lalbert1
(AlanKngsly) writes:
>My toilet clogged the other day (I dared throw half a paper towel in there),
>and as I worked to plunge it out, I recalled a contractor acquaintance
>telling
>me that the newer toilets have smaller tanks to save water, but that this
>results in less pressure to clear the drain pipes. I am all for saving water
>(it seems extremely wasteful to use clean, drinkable water to flush toilets
>anyway), but it would be nice to have enough pressure to do the job right.
>Then I thought: why not have the tank up by the celing? You wouldn't need
>much
>water then. And after thinking this, I began to think I had seen this design
>in other countries, either while traveling or in movies.
>
>So....why isn't this the preferred design here?
As the Joisey Goil said, that design is still found in older buildings. It's a
safe guess that it was replaced with the present day lower tank because it
would require standing on a very tall ladder just for simple tank repairs, and
you still would not be able to see what you were doing.
By the way, why is it not desirable to use "clean, drinkable water" to flush
toilets?
Les
Curtis Tack
>
[...]
> Then I thought: why not have the tank up by the celing? You wouldn't need much
> water then. And after thinking this, I began to think I had seen this design
> in other countries, either while traveling or in movies.
>
> So....why isn't this the preferred design here?
>
One reason would be simple aesthetics.
CT
Marc Lombart
>Then I thought: why not have the tank up by the celing? You wouldn't
>need much water then. And after thinking this, I began to think I had
>seen this design in other countries, either while traveling or in
>movies.
>
>So....why isn't this the preferred design here?
>
Accessability in case of need to fix something in it?
Marc
Marc Lombart
>By the way, why is it not desirable to use "clean, drinkable water" to
>flush toilets?
>
It is a question of wasting potable water, since potable water is not
necessary [unless you have a dog or cat] in the watercloset.
Marc
rob...@bestweb.net
conveniently manufactured, shipped, and installed with the toilet bowl as a
single unit.
The reason the original poster had for thinking the high tank is better
is faulty. Additional pressure going into the toilet doesn't translate
directly to increased pressure flushing it out, because the toilet bowl
isn't a closed system. The flush is caused by the siphon action of the
drain, not pressure from the tank.
Robert
Net-Tamer V 1.11 - Registered
JmG
>By the way, why is it not desirable to use "clean, drinkable water" to flush
>toilets?
Because those gallons of clean, drinkable, water come at a price. Better to use
gray water for the purpose and let it work twice for you.
Jeff
--
[www.bongoboy.com] 100% commercial free!
JmG
>isn't a closed system. The flush is caused by the siphon action of the
>drain, not pressure from the tank.
I didn't know that!
FrancotheElder
two.
Franko
mlo...@lobo.civetsystems.com
> lalb...@aol.com (Lalbert1) wrote:
>
> >By the way, why is it not desirable to use "clean, drinkable water" to flush
> >toilets?
>
> Because those gallons of clean, drinkable, water come at a price. Better to use
> gray water for the purpose and let it work twice for you.
A gray-water recycling systems also costs money, and judging from
the number of houses I have seen with them, [mumbling, 'those two, the
one by that place, carry the one...'] NONE, I would guess they cost
more money than the fresh water they save.
M.
Bermuda999
>rob...@bestweb.net wrote:
>
>>isn't a closed system. The flush is caused by the siphon action of the
>>drain, not pressure from the tank.
>
>I didn't know that!
StarChaser <Anti spam feature in address.>
>Probably the main reason for having the toilet tank low is that then it's
>conveniently manufactured, shipped, and installed with the toilet bowl as a
>single unit.
> The reason the original poster had for thinking the high tank is better
>is faulty. Additional pressure going into the toilet doesn't translate
>directly to increased pressure flushing it out, because the toilet bowl
>isn't a closed system. The flush is caused by the siphon action of the
>drain, not pressure from the tank.
Yes and no...some toilets have an extra hole in the bottom, that
shoots a jet of water into the drain to speed up the siphon...
--
Visit the Furry Artist InFURmation Page! Contact information,
and information on which artists do and do not want their
work posted!
http://home.icubed.net/starchsr/table.htm
Address munged for the inconvienence of spammers:
My address is starchsr <at> icubed dot net
AlanKngsly
>As the Joisey Goil said, that design is still found in older buildings. It's
>a
>safe guess that it was replaced with the present day lower tank because it
>would require standing on a very tall ladder just for simple tank repairs,
>and
>you still would not be able to see what you were doing.
Still, they ought to make them at least somewhat higher, maybe two or three
feet higher than they are now. Another possibility would be to recess the
bottom of the stool into the floor.
>By the way, why is it not desirable to use "clean, drinkable water" to flush
>toilets?
Seems fairly obvious: because it's a waste of fresh water, a resource which is
becoming more and more in short supply in some places (particularly the
Southwest).
Alan
AlanKngsly
>flush
>> >toilets?
>>
>use
>> gray water for the purpose and let it work twice for you.
>
>A gray-water recycling systems also costs money, and judging from
>the number of houses I have seen with them, [mumbling, 'those two, the
>one by that place, carry the one...'] NONE, I would guess they cost
>more money than the fresh water they save.
>
>M.
Or could it be that people are used to doing things a certain way, and don't
bother to make changes which could save a valuable resource? A new sort of
plumbing system will likely only be cost effective if it is in wide
use--allowing the parts to be mass-produced, and for plumbing contractors to
become proficient in installing them.
Alan
AlanKngsly
>>
>
>
>CT
How so? I see no aesthetic advantage to the usual design.
Alan
JmG
>A gray-water recycling systems also costs money, and judging from
>the number of houses I have seen with them, [mumbling, 'those two, the
>one by that place, carry the one...'] NONE, I would guess they cost
>more money than the fresh water they save.
Years ago I saw gray water systems in the Caribbean, the desert southwest and
several in West Virginia and I'm sure we'll see them in Phoenix and Los Angeles
as soon as we start charging the real price for potable drinking water.
Jeff
--
Bongo Boy never litters! [www.bongoboy.com]
JmG
>>One reason would be simple aesthetics.
>>
>How so? I see no aesthetic advantage to the usual design.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Perry Farmer
with, the easier it is to recycle. Plus why would we want to run a
separate gray water line to the toilet, unless you mean something like
using the bath water?
Perry
-> Les (LAlbert) wrote:
-> >As the Joisey Goil said, that design is still found in older
-> buildings. It's >a >safe guess that it was replaced with the present
-> day lower tank because it >would require standing on a very tall
-> ladder just for simple tank repairs, >and >you still would not be
-> able to see what you were doing.
-> Still, they ought to make them at least somewhat higher, maybe two or
-> three feet higher than they are now. Another possibility would be to
-> recess the bottom of the stool into the floor.
-> >By the way, why is it not desirable to use "clean, drinkable water"
-> to flush >toilets?
-> Seems fairly obvious: because it's a waste of fresh water, a resource
-> which is becoming more and more in short supply in some places
-> (particularly the Southwest).
-> Alan
Perry Farmer
and so on.
Perry
-> >> So....why isn't this the preferred design here?
-> >>
-> >
-> >One reason would be simple aesthetics.
-> >
-> >CT
-> How so? I see no aesthetic advantage to the usual design.
-> Alan
rob...@bestweb.net
>>A gray-water recycling systems also costs money, and judging from
>>the number of houses I have seen with them, [mumbling, 'those two,
>>the one by that place, carry the one...'] NONE, I would guess they
>>cost more money than the fresh water they save.
>>M.
>Or could it be that people are used to doing things a certain way,
>and don't bother to make changes which could save a valuable
>resource? A new sort of plumbing system will likely only be cost
>effective if it is in wide use--allowing the parts to be
>mass-produced, and for plumbing contractors to become proficient in
>installing them.
>Alan
I brought up gray water to my Environmental Science classes in passing this
spring, but given that they're survey courses with a lot of ground to cover,
I didn't get into the problem in depth. I'm no plumber, but if you think
about it you can see it's pretty complicated.
First, you need to decide which water you'll be reusing for the purpose.
Then the drains from those uses must be plumbed as sources for the toilets.
It's not likely the first uses will all be on the upper floors, and the
second use (toilet flushing in this case) will all be on the lower floors,
unless you re-design the whole building and your lifestyle around water
reuse. Therefore one needs pumps to move the water back up. You'll also
need a reservoir for the grey water.
Now, what are the chances that exactly the same amount of water's going to
be required for the second use as for the first? You're going to need an
inlet system and a drainage system leading for that reservoir, to make up
deficiencies or excesses, respectively. The drainage can be fairly simple
-- an overflow pipe -- but what about the inlet? For that you'll need a
feed system like that for boilers -- either automatic or by hand. Whatever,
you'd better make sure there's no way the used water can back up into the
fresh water.
Curtis Tack
>
> On 1999-05-31 alank...@aol.com(AlanKngsly) said:
>
<they both said something about the use of fresh water vs gray water in
toilet plumbing>
Why hasn't someone from St. Pete, FL, (or a comparable city) chimed in
about "brown water"?
Michael O. Brandt
>
> Why hasn't someone from St. Pete, FL, (or a comparable city) chimed in
> about "brown water"?
"If it's brown, drink it down. If it's black, send it back."
OK, it's not Plato, but it *is* Homer.
-- MB
Michael Will
>Why hasn't someone from St. Pete, FL, (or a comparable city) chimed in
>about "brown water"?
You mean purple water. <g>
That's the color of the pipes/lines carrying 'reclaimed' water around
here. (OK, so I'm just north of St. Pete, but still in Pinellas County)
Watering restrictions are in effect for regular and well water, but
reclaimed water is exempt from the restrictions here. Not sure they'd
let you use it indoors or that you'd want to. The regular water can
smell bad enough as it is.
- Michael
AlanKngsly
>not sanitary, and the tank doesn't seem like much of a better option to
>me.)
(Kettir)
For me, both fall in the category of "things I would only do for monetary
compensation." Drinking from the bowl would have to be paid anywhere from tens
of thousands of dollars (if freshly cleaned) to millions (if dirty), but I'd
drink out of the tank for, say, twenty bucks per ounce.
Alan
AlanKngsly
>I brought up gray water to my Environmental Science classes in passing this
>spring, but given that they're survey courses with a lot of ground to cover,
>I didn't get into the problem in depth. I'm no plumber, but if you think
>about it you can see it's pretty complicated.
>
>First, you need to decide which water you'll be reusing for the purpose.
>Then the drains from those uses must be plumbed as sources for the toilets.
>It's not likely the first uses will all be on the upper floors, and the
>second use (toilet flushing in this case) will all be on the lower floors,
>unless you re-design the whole building and your lifestyle around water
>reuse.
Once you mention this, I see that the best, most forward-looking, plan would be
to build houses with toilets only on the bottom floor (something kind of
instinctively gross about having them above you anyhow, when you think about
it), and put the showers upstairs.
> Therefore one needs pumps to move the water back up. You'll also
>need a reservoir for the grey water.
>
>Now, what are the chances that exactly the same amount of water's going to
>be required for the second use as for the first? You're going to need an
>inlet system and a drainage system leading for that reservoir, to make up
>deficiencies or excesses, respectively. The drainage can be fairly simple
>-- an overflow pipe -- but what about the inlet? For that you'll need a
>feed system like that for boilers -- either automatic or by hand. Whatever,
>you'd better make sure there's no way the used water can back up into the
>fresh water.
Definitely. Seems like the best way to do that would be for the "grey water"
reservoir to have a minimum level (enough to supply a couple of toilet
tankfuls, say) and to use a system similar to that in a toilet tank to supply
the water. Or, if this was judged to pose too great a danger of backing up
grey water into clean water, make the system electronic and simply make it turn
on the washing machine for a quick "rinse cycle."
Alan
AlanKngsly
>separate gray water line to the toilet, unless you mean something like
>using the bath water?
That's exactly what I would want to do. Doing that would eliminate the amount
of water used for the toilet or the bath (whichever is less in a given house)
multiplied by the hundreds of millions of plumbed households.....we're talking
a lot of water here!
Alan
Carl Fink
<perry....@thefarm.wa.com> wrote:
>For the most part, the water is recycled, the cleaner the water to start
>with, the easier it is to recycle.
This is not true, unless you're on a spacecraft. Even ships at sea
do not routinely recycle sewage. Yes, it's recycled in the very long
term: the treated sewage is eventually evaporated from an ocean,
falls as rain, and may be taken up for use as municipal water.
Actually current spacecraft don't recycle sewage either, last I
heard.
>Plus why would we want to run a
>separate gray water line to the toilet, unless you mean something like
>using the bath water?
To save money by not treating the water for drinking quality, then
just using it to rinse a toilet.
--
Carl Fink ca...@dm.net
"This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy."
-Martin Luther on Copernicus' theory that the Earth orbits the sun
Greg Goss
>My toilet clogged the other day (I dared throw half a paper towel in there),
>and as I worked to plunge it out, I recalled a contractor acquaintance telling
>me that the newer toilets have smaller tanks to save water, but that this
>results in less pressure to clear the drain pipes. I am all for saving water
>(it seems extremely wasteful to use clean, drinkable water to flush toilets
>anyway), but it would be nice to have enough pressure to do the job right.
>Then I thought: why not have the tank up by the celing? You wouldn't need much
>water then. And after thinking this, I began to think I had seen this design
>in other countries, either while traveling or in movies.
>
>So....why isn't this the preferred design here?
I own one of those new tiny-tank toilets. I routinely use up to three
paper towels in it per flush. The fourth will clog it.
The pressure you need is from the bowl to the drain. This BETTER NOT
be more than the pressure "head" from the lip of the bowl to the
drain, or you will have water on the floor. Raising the tank will
make the water more splashy as it runs around the bowl, but this
motion will have no effect on the drain. By the time it reaches the
drain, it will have the pressure driven by the height of the water in
the bowl or the suction of the height of the remaining water between
the clog and the "stack".
The high tank makes the "washing action" of the flush sound more
dramatic. I don't know if it actually does anything useful. Raising
the tank above the seated person's head level provides a dramatic
amount of space saving. I've seen this twice in North Amercian
ensuite bathrooms where they're trying to fit an entire washroom into
fifteen square feet or so.
Europe always seems to be shorter on space than we are. I suspect
that the tank at the ceiling you see in Europe is to free up the space
that the tank uses at seating level.
mlo...@lobo.civetsystems.com
> >A gray-water recycling systems also costs money, and judging from
> >the number of houses I have seen with them, [mumbling, 'those two, the
> >one by that place, carry the one...'] NONE, I would guess they cost
> >more money than the fresh water they save.
> Or could it be that people are used to doing things a certain way, and don't
> bother to make changes which could save a valuable resource?
My house is full of devices that have become available in only the
last few years -- I am using one now. I have seen house heated by the
sun, by pipe of hot-water buried in the foundation, by the warmth of
rotting biomass. I have seen houses that get their water from rain,
from wells, even from desalination. Mysteriously, people ARE willing
to innovate in their own interests.
I have never seen or heard of a house that recycles gray-water. I do
not argue that such a house does not exist. Probably in some desert
area somewhere, it is worthwhile. In the vast majority of cases, it
is clearly not.
> A new sort of
> plumbing system will likely only be cost effective if it is in wide
> use--allowing the parts to be mass-produced, and for plumbing contractors to
> become proficient in installing them.
Perhaps so -- the learning curve is part of the cost of an innovation,
and should be accounted for as such.
M.
mlo...@lobo.civetsystems.com
> Years ago I saw gray water systems in the Caribbean, the desert southwest and
> several in West Virginia and I'm sure we'll see them in Phoenix and Los Angeles
> as soon as we start charging the real price for potable drinking water.
The market price for water (at the tap) would be considerably lower
than the current price, since a heavy agricultural subsidy is built
into the price. The price of *rice*, however, would skyrocket (since
it is a major beneficiary of subsidized agricultural water).
I eat a lot of rice, myself, but I'm willing to make the sacrifice for
principle.
M.
AlanKngsly
>dramatic. I don't know if it actually does anything useful. Raising
>the tank above the seated person's head level provides a dramatic
>amount of space saving. I've seen this twice in North Amercian
>ensuite bathrooms where they're trying to fit an entire washroom into
>fifteen square feet or so.
>
>Europe always seems to be shorter on space than we are. I suspect
>that the tank at the ceiling you see in Europe is to free up the space
>that the tank uses at seating level.
Ah....interesting--thanks!
Alan
Shawn Wilson
AlanKngsly <alank...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990531110734...@ng-cg1.aol.com...
> > Plus why would we want to run a
> >separate gray water line to the toilet, unless you mean something like
> >using the bath water?
>
> That's exactly what I would want to do. Doing that would eliminate the
amount
> of water used for the toilet or the bath (whichever is less in a given
house)
> multiplied by the hundreds of millions of plumbed households.....we're
talking
> a lot of water here!
Why should humans waste time and resources recycling water when Mother
Nature will do it for free?
StarChaser <Anti spam feature in address.>
>jmg...@bestweb.net (JmG) writes:
>
>> lalb...@aol.com (Lalbert1) wrote:
>>
>> >By the way, why is it not desirable to use "clean, drinkable water" to flush
>> >toilets?
>>
>> Because those gallons of clean, drinkable, water come at a price. Better to use
>> gray water for the purpose and let it work twice for you.
>
>A gray-water recycling systems also costs money, and judging from
>the number of houses I have seen with them, [mumbling, 'those two, the
>one by that place, carry the one...'] NONE, I would guess they cost
>more money than the fresh water they save.
'They cost more money', stop. Nobody wants one because there's no
economic way of doing it, so they cost too much so nobody wants one
because...
Alan Hamilton
<shawn....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Why should humans waste time and resources recycling water when Mother
>Nature will do it for free?
She's been known to get behind, and doesn't necessarily pick it up
from and deliver it to the destinations we prefer.
--
/
/ * / Alan Hamilton
* * al...@primenet.com
Joisey Goil
<mich...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>Curtis Tack wrote:
>
>>Why hasn't someone from St. Pete, FL, (or a comparable city) chimed in
>>about "brown water"?
>
>You mean purple water. <g>
>
>That's the color of the pipes/lines carrying 'reclaimed' water around
>here. (OK, so I'm just north of St. Pete, but still in Pinellas County)
I may as well jump in on this newly waxing rainbow waters thread...
Here in New Jersey we have streams and lakes of "Cedar Water".
It has the color and appearance of strong tea, and is supposedly
formed by minute particles shed from cedar trees which are held in
colloidal suspension by the water. I've always wondered if that was
true because while we have our fair share of cedars, I don't see them
as being so abundant as to color huge water systems that way. I've
always had my suspicions that the water is actually colored by its
proximity to low grade iron ore (AKA: "bog iron") which is QUITE
abundant in South Jersey (iron, and then glass were the state's
earliest industries). When you swim in cedar water, every hair on your
arms and legs gets coated with this orange-brown particulate to a
thickness of about 2-3 times the thickness of the normal hair. Looks
strange, but it washes off clean and easily with fresh water without
need of any soap or anything.
Just an aside for the colored waters scheme...I now return you to
your regularly scheduled topic....
rob...@bestweb.net
>I may as well jump in on this newly waxing rainbow waters thread...
>Here in New Jersey we have streams and lakes of "Cedar Water".
>It has the color and appearance of strong tea, and is supposedly
>formed by minute particles shed from cedar trees which are held in
>colloidal suspension by the water. I've always wondered if that was
>true because while we have our fair share of cedars, I don't see
>them as being so abundant as to color huge water systems that way.
>I've always had my suspicions that the water is actually colored by
>its proximity to low grade iron ore (AKA: "bog iron") which is QUITE
>abundant in South Jersey (iron, and then glass were the state's
>earliest industries). When you swim in cedar water, every hair on
>your arms and legs gets coated with this orange-brown particulate
>to a thickness of about 2-3 times the thickness of the normal hair.
>Looks strange, but it washes off clean and easily with fresh water
>without need of any soap or anything.
>Just an aside for the colored waters scheme...I now return you to
>your regularly scheduled topic....
Not before I continue this sub-thread. There's an easy way for you to
determine whether ferric oxide is a substantial contributor to this red
color. If you have red iron oxide (ferric oxide) in the water, you also
have a considerable amount of free Fe+++. Dissolve some sodium
hexametaphosphate in the water and see if you get a black precipitate. If
you have no pure sodium hexametaphosphate handy, use Calgon Bouquet (the
bath salts); the color may distract you, but the black particles that form
on the bottom should still be easily visible if Fe+3 is present.
Is the subsoil in the area red too?
Shawn Wilson
<rob...@bestweb.net> wrote in message
news:J%Q43.760$T24....@newshog.newsread.com...
Or you could just run a mgnet through the water and see if the stuff sticks.
mlo...@lobo.civetsystems.com
> On 30 May 1999 22:09:53 -0700, mlo...@lobo.civetsystems.com wrote:
> >jmg...@bestweb.net (JmG) writes:
> >> Because those gallons of clean, drinkable, water come at a price. Better to use
> >> gray water for the purpose and let it work twice for you.
> >A gray-water recycling systems also costs money, and judging from
> >the number of houses I have seen with them, [mumbling, 'those two, the
> >one by that place, carry the one...'] NONE, I would guess they cost
> >more money than the fresh water they save.
> 'They cost more money', stop. Nobody wants one because there's no
> economic way of doing it, so they cost too much so nobody wants one
> because...
That's why no-one insulates his house. Insulation costs money and we
are just too freaking stupid to do a cost-benefit analysis.
Jeez.
M.
StarChaser <Anti spam feature in address.>
I'm going to assume that was humor, and not directed at me.
The difference there is that people noticed that having thicker walls
made their houses hold heat better. Paper walls required a lot of
heating to keep warm in winter, heavy sod walls did pretty well with a
small fire. There wasn't a 'cost benefit analysis' done of it, it just
growed. Eventually some suit had one done and announced it like a huge
surprise.
You might be surprised that I think the greywater flush thing is a
good idea. I was not addressing that. I was pointing out that yet
again, any question that begins 'Why don't they' is always answered by
'money'. IF someone came up with a reasonably effective way of doing
it that didn't cost a ridiculous amount of money or cause a huge
change in lifestyle, I think people would do it.
Someone else's idea of having all the bathrooms on the bottom floor
wouldn't work...nobody'd want to have to go all the way downstairs to
take the 3am leak, and what happens to houses that are only one story?
<Conjecture based on 'This Old House' renovation of a building
somewhere in England following>
At least some houses in England have tanks in the attic to store
water...the 'city' water is piped into them, then runs down to the
outlets. We could set up a similar system for greywater, dump it into
a holding tank, pump it to the attic, then let it run down from there,
with appropriate filtering and so on to remove lumpy bits, and trivial
additions for topping off with clean water as necessary.
HpstrDufuz
>I was pointing out that yet
>again, any question that begins 'Why don't they' is always answered by
>'money'.
Don't forget sloth!
Por Dios Y Espana
Mark Brader
> water...the 'city' water is piped into them, then runs down to the
> outlets.
Right. As noted in a current thread in alt.folklore.urban, in these
houses typically only one tap (in the kitchen) gets water straight from
the mains and you'd use that one for cooking and for drinking water.
I think the idea of the tank was that a temporary shortfall in the water
supply would be less of a problem.
> We could set up a similar system for greywater, dump it into
> a holding tank, pump it to the attic, then let it run down from there,
> with appropriate filtering and so on to remove lumpy bits, and trivial
> additions for topping off with clean water as necessary.
In a climate where rainwater was plentiful enough to fill this tank,
you could eliminate the pump if$ the tank could be placed below the
level of the eavestroughs (roof gutters). Just arrange them so that
the water running off the roof first reaches a pipe leading to the
tank; if that pipe is already full of water (because the tank is full),
it goes to an overflow drain leading to wherever the water would go
without this system.
Of course, in order to use the maximum amount of rainwater for the size
of the attic tank, there would need to be a valve so that mains water
would be used for the toilet only if the attic tank was empty. This
could be either manual or automatic.
$ - In a house designed for rainwater recovery, even if the roof extends
lower than where you would want the tank, you could have an extra set
of gutters higher up that would catch water from most of the roof.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "Tools, not solutions. :-)"
msbr...@interlog.com -- Henry Spencer
My text in this article is in the public domain. If any of the
inventions described herein are original, I release those into the
public domain also.
StarChaser <Anti spam feature in address.>
wrote:
>> At least some houses in England have tanks in the attic to store
>> water...the 'city' water is piped into them, then runs down to the
>> outlets.
>
>Right. As noted in a current thread in alt.folklore.urban, in these
>houses typically only one tap (in the kitchen) gets water straight from
>the mains and you'd use that one for cooking and for drinking water.
>I think the idea of the tank was that a temporary shortfall in the water
>supply would be less of a problem.
I dunno why, but that sounds good...I kind of figured it was a problem
with low pressure, but they never said, or I don't remember, one...
>> We could set up a similar system for greywater, dump it into
>> a holding tank, pump it to the attic, then let it run down from there,
>> with appropriate filtering and so on to remove lumpy bits, and trivial
>> additions for topping off with clean water as necessary.
>
>In a climate where rainwater was plentiful enough to fill this tank,
>you could eliminate the pump if$ the tank could be placed below the
>level of the eavestroughs (roof gutters). Just arrange them so that
>the water running off the roof first reaches a pipe leading to the
>tank; if that pipe is already full of water (because the tank is full),
>it goes to an overflow drain leading to wherever the water would go
>without this system.
I don't really know climates other than florida, but here, you would
have too much rain part of the year and none at all otherwise...
>Of course, in order to use the maximum amount of rainwater for the size
>of the attic tank, there would need to be a valve so that mains water
>would be used for the toilet only if the attic tank was empty. This
>could be either manual or automatic.
Automatic would be better, with a manual backup. If people had to
climb into the attic to use the manual topoff, they wouldn't...Would
be trivial to design something like this...
>$ - In a house designed for rainwater recovery, even if the roof extends
> lower than where you would want the tank, you could have an extra set
> of gutters higher up that would catch water from most of the roof.
Sounds pretty good...Would require some reworking, you'd have to
greatly reinforce the rafters that the tank sat on <Water is
HEAVY...>, but the rest of it should be just piping, really. Maybe put
the 'catch tank' for the grey water underground, and have the basement
drain into it, then use the usual basement sump pump to run it up to
the 'use tank' in the attic...
The biggest problem I see is acceptance...the engineering could pretty
easily be done, but people would want to know why the flush water has
more bubbles then they put there...would likely not be clear, either,
and that'd take some getting used to...people would complain because
they couldn't get the bowl clean...
AlanKngsly
>are just too freaking stupid to do a cost-benefit analysis.
>
>
>M.
I've seen exactly this tendency in Missouri. In a really northern area like
Duluth (where I went to high school) or Minneapolis (where I lived for a few
years in my twenties) they really need to insulate, or they will be killed by
heat bills in the winter. But here (in Missouri) the philosophy seems to be
"aaah, don't worry about insulating, as the winter is not that long (though
bitterly cold at times), so we'll just crank up the furnace during the cold
spells." Rather shortsighted, for the utility bills add up over the long run,
and it is a terrible waste of energy resources. But I've rarely seen a
well-insulated home here; they are generally drafty, often with only screens
(no storms) on the windows.
And something nearly universal in Minnesota that ought to be in use in any area
that gets cold in the winter: the foyers (or "airlocks," as I thought of them
when I first came to Minnesota as a kid) that require going through two doors
to go in or out. If people keep the inner door closed, it really prevents
massive gales of cold air from swooping in, as they tend to here.
Alan
AlanKngsly
>>$ - In a house designed for rainwater recovery, even if the roof extends
>> lower than where you would want the tank, you could have an extra set
>> of gutters higher up that would catch water from most of the roof.
>
>Sounds pretty good...Would require some reworking, you'd have to
>greatly reinforce the rafters that the tank sat on <Water is
>HEAVY...>, but the rest of it should be just piping, really. Maybe put
>the 'catch tank' for the grey water underground, and have the basement
>drain into it, then use the usual basement sump pump to run it up to
>the 'use tank' in the attic...
>
>The biggest problem I see is acceptance...the engineering could pretty
>easily be done, but people would want to know why the flush water has
>more bubbles then they put there...would likely not be clear, either,
>and that'd take some getting used to...people would complain because
>they couldn't get the bowl clean...
That's probably true. Here's where I'd like to see government step in and
provide a one time--but substantial--tax credit to anyone who switched to this
system. Their water bill would go down, too. If it was marketed as a good
idea for the environment, a fair number of people could go for it. If it was
collected from rainwater, mightn't you be able to use it for lawn sprinklers
and garden hoses as well?
Alan
Nick Spalding
> I dunno why, but that sounds good...I kind of figured it was a problem
> with low pressure, but they never said, or I don't remember, one...
It virtually eliminates fluctuating pressure. The tank is typically
about a couple of hundred gallons and its level doesn't drop much
during any particular draw-off.
--
Nick Spalding
Curtis Tack
rob...@bestweb.net
>I've seen exactly this tendency in Missouri. In a really northern
>area like Duluth (where I went to high school) or Minneapolis
>(where I lived for a few years in my twenties) they really need to
>insulate, or they will be killed by heat bills in the winter. But
>here (in Missouri) the philosophy seems to be "aaah, don't worry
>about insulating, as the winter is not that long (though bitterly
>cold at times), so we'll just crank up the furnace during the cold
>spells." Rather shortsighted, for the utility bills add up over
>the long run, and it is a terrible waste of energy resources.
HOW LONG a run? Are you familiar with the concept of rate of return on
investment? There are lots of investments which could be said to eventually
pay themselves back, IF you don't dount the interest. Maybe you should've
taken my environmental science class.
rob...@bestweb.net
too.
StarChaser <Anti spam feature in address.>
wrote:
Ah, so desu ka...So if someone's taking a shower and somebody else
flushes, the guy in the shower doesn't get boiled...Makes sense...and
is a good idea, too...
StarChaser <Anti spam feature in address.>
>Starchaser:
>>The biggest problem I see is acceptance...the engineering could pretty
>>easily be done, but people would want to know why the flush water has
>>more bubbles then they put there...would likely not be clear, either,
>>and that'd take some getting used to...people would complain because
>>they couldn't get the bowl clean...
>
>That's probably true. Here's where I'd like to see government step in and
>provide a one time--but substantial--tax credit to anyone who switched to this
>system. Their water bill would go down, too. If it was marketed as a good
>idea for the environment, a fair number of people could go for it. If it was
>collected from rainwater, mightn't you be able to use it for lawn sprinklers
>and garden hoses as well?
If it was collected from rainwater, yeah, but this started off as
'grey water', and you wouldn't want to dump old soapy water on your
lawn...I don't think, anyway; I have heard of 'surfactants' being used
in liquid fertilizer, but those would be more carefully measured...
mlo...@lobo.civetsystems.com
> That's probably true. Here's where I'd like to see government step in and
> provide a one time--but substantial--tax credit to anyone who switched to this
> system.
That's a good idea -- subsidize the upper-middle-class homeowners.
God knows they're hard pressed, what with all the paperwork for the
mortgage deduction and all.
M.
Dr H
On 30 May 1999, Marc Lombart wrote:
}Lalbert1 wrote in <19990530133241...@ngol07.aol.com>:
}
}>By the way, why is it not desirable to use "clean, drinkable water" to
}>flush toilets?
}>
}
} It is a question of wasting potable water, since potable water is not
}necessary [unless you have a dog or cat] in the watercloset.
While this may well be a valid argument for desert areas like LA, in
the Pacific Northwest we generally tend to have a surplus of water;
the problem is not "wasting" it, but how to get *rid* of it. :-)
Dr H
Dr H
On 31 May 1999, AlanKngsly wrote:
}>jmg...@bestweb.net (JmG) writes:
}>
}>A gray-water recycling systems also costs money, and judging from
}>the number of houses I have seen with them, [mumbling, 'those two, the
}>one by that place, carry the one...'] NONE, I would guess they cost
}>more money than the fresh water they save.
}>
}Or could it be that people are used to doing things a certain way, and don't
}bother to make changes which could save a valuable resource? A new sort of
}plumbing system will likely only be cost effective if it is in wide
}use--allowing the parts to be mass-produced, and for plumbing contractors to
}become proficient in installing them.
When I was a kid, the typical toilet tank held around 5-gallons of water.
In the early 80s the National Plumbing Code was changed to make the norm
3-gallons, to conserve water/energy. In the late 80s this was further
reduced to the 1.6-gallon modern tank.
NPR did a spot on toilet tank capacity about a year or so back, concerning
a legislator (I forget which) who was trying to get the code changed back
to allow 3-gallon tanks. The reason was that most plumbers concurred
that the typical 1.6-gallon toilet didn't move a sufficient volume of
water to completely clear the bowl, resulting in more system failures.
Moreover, it was found that many people were flushing twice to solve
this problem, thus using -more- water (3.2-gallons) than they would
have with a single 3-gallon flush.
Dontcha love progress...?
Dr H
Dr H
On Mon, 31 May 1999 rob...@bestweb.net wrote:
}I brought up gray water to my Environmental Science classes in passing this
}spring, but given that they're survey courses with a lot of ground to cover,
}I didn't get into the problem in depth. I'm no plumber, but if you think
}about it you can see it's pretty complicated.
[snip, some of the difficulties of recycling gray water...]
The other consideration is that you will be storing "contaminated" water
in the toilet take, which can get pretty smelly after a while. You'd
probably either need some sort of closed, revented system, or else
you'd have to filter or chlorinate the recycled water.
Dr H
Matt Ackeret
StarChaser <Anti spam feature in address.> <at> wrote:
>Ah, so desu ka...So if someone's taking a shower and somebody else
>flushes, the guy in the shower doesn't get boiled...Makes sense...and
>is a good idea, too...
An article in the local paper within the past week talked about some kind
of pressure-regulated valves that you can buy (that were recommended for
all new installations) that prevents this from happening. How do they
work?
--
mat...@area.com
Matt Ackeret
Dr H <hiaw...@efn.org> wrote:
> NPR did a spot on toilet tank capacity about a year or so back, concerning
> a legislator (I forget which) who was trying to get the code changed back
> to allow 3-gallon tanks. The reason was that most plumbers concurred
> that the typical 1.6-gallon toilet didn't move a sufficient volume of
> water to completely clear the bowl, resulting in more system failures.
>
> Moreover, it was found that many people were flushing twice to solve
> this problem, thus using -more- water (3.2-gallons) than they would
> have with a single 3-gallon flush.
Dave Barry writes about illegal toilet smuggling from Canada fairly often..
But anyway, while this 'logic' seems valid at first, people do far more
#1s than #2s, and the amount of water saved from the smaller #1 flushes
more than makes up for the (sometimes?) double flush #2.
--
mat...@area.com
rob...@bestweb.net
>'grey water', and you wouldn't want to dump old soapy water on your
>lawn...I don't think, anyway; I have heard of 'surfactants' being
>used in liquid fertilizer, but those would be more carefully
>measured... --
Soap in any reasonable concentration used in washing won't hurt a lawn,
provided the rinse water cycles thru too. - RG
StarChaser <Anti spam feature in address.>
Read about a design once that was a 'dual flush' toilet...press the
handle down to clear liquid, pull it up for a more powerful flush to
clear solids...Most people would reflexively use the push down, so if
they forgot it wouldn't waste water...seemed like a good idea to me,
but don't know what happened to it...
StarChaser <Anti spam feature in address.>
I don't know exactly how they work, but what they do is even out the
flow of hot and cold water, so that when the pressure from the cold
reduces <Someone flushed>, the hot lowers the same amount, so you end
up with less water at the same temperature, instead of about the same
at really hot.
Alan Hamilton
>An article in the local paper within the past week talked about some kind
>of pressure-regulated valves that you can buy (that were recommended for
>all new installations) that prevents this from happening. How do they
>work?
I believe they work by reducing the flow of hot water when the cold
water pressure drops.
--
/
/ * / Alan Hamilton
* * al...@primenet.com
AlanKngsly
>#1s than #2s, and the amount of water saved from the smaller #1 flushes
>more than makes up for the (sometimes?) double flush #2.
>mat...@area.com
Seems to me there ought to be urinals at home.
Alan
AlanKngsly
> In the early 80s the National Plumbing Code was changed to make the norm
> 3-gallons, to conserve water/energy. In the late 80s this was further
> reduced to the 1.6-gallon modern tank.
>
> a legislator (I forget which) who was trying to get the code changed back
> to allow 3-gallon tanks. The reason was that most plumbers concurred
> that the typical 1.6-gallon toilet didn't move a sufficient volume of
> water to completely clear the bowl, resulting in more system failures.
I heard the same thing from a plumber. So, if I understand the way the toilet
works before (my earlier perception was admittedly wrong), couldn't they just
make the toilet bowl smaller too, to balance it out? You would still want the
sewer pipe the same size, for obvious reasons.
Alan
Paul Guertin
wrote:
> Read about a design once that was a 'dual flush' toilet...press the
> handle down to clear liquid, pull it up for a more powerful flush to
> clear solids...
It's common in Japan.
Paul Guertin
p...@sff.net
Curtis Tack
>
>
>
> NPR did a spot on toilet tank capacity about a year or so back, concerning
> a legislator (I forget which) who was trying to get the code changed back
> to allow 3-gallon tanks. The reason was that most plumbers concurred
> that the typical 1.6-gallon toilet didn't move a sufficient volume of
> water to completely clear the bowl, resulting in more system failures.
>
> this problem, thus using -more- water (3.2-gallons) than they would
> have with a single 3-gallon flush.
>
This is indelicate, but my complaint with the 1.6 gallon flushers is not
that the solid waste is not adequately removed but rather that the depth
of water is not enough to preclude "skid marks" in many (maybe most)
cases.
rob...@bestweb.net
>Read about a design once that was a 'dual flush' toilet...press the
>handle down to clear liquid, pull it up for a more powerful flush to
>clear solids...Most people would reflexively use the push down, so
>if they forgot it wouldn't waste water...seemed like a good idea to
>me, but don't know what happened to it...
>--
It was invented by Richard Kobler, who also invented the Dictaphone and some
other items. I had a Kobler electric shaver, although I don't recommend it.
I know someone who worked with Richard Kobler on language teaching
equipment.
Robert
Greg Goss
>In article <37585d5a...@169.132.11.13>,
>StarChaser <Anti spam feature in address.> <at> wrote:
>>Ah, so desu ka...So if someone's taking a shower and somebody else
>>flushes, the guy in the shower doesn't get boiled...Makes sense...and
>>is a good idea, too...
>
>An article in the local paper within the past week talked about some kind
>of pressure-regulated valves that you can buy (that were recommended for
>all new installations) that prevents this from happening. How do they
>work?
Our apartment building uses common heated water for everyone. When we
bought it, the developer bragged about the "pressure balanced" shower
valves.
I've never noticed any temperature fluctuation in 2.5 years of living
here.
Lalbert1
(AlanKngsly) writes:
This past weekend I read in one of the local newspaper columns that reports on
the doings of the rich and foolish, the new shtick for the super wealthy is to
have urinals installed in their homes.
Les
Lalbert1
>In article <Pine.GSU.4.05.990602...@garcia.efn.org>,
>Dr H <hiaw...@efn.org> wrote:
>>
>> Moreover, it was found that many people were flushing twice to solve
>> this problem, thus using -more- water (3.2-gallons) than they would
>> have with a single 3-gallon flush.
>
>
>But anyway, while this 'logic' seems valid at first, people do far more
>#1s than #2s, and the amount of water saved from the smaller #1 flushes
>more than makes up for the (sometimes?) double flush #2.
I think we are looking at this problem through the wrong end of the telescope.
Instead of concentrating on toilet design vs water usage, we should be asking
how we can reduce defecation.
Les
Matt Ackeret
Lalbert1 <lalb...@aol.com> wrote:
>This past weekend I read in one of the local newspaper columns that reports on
>the doings of the rich and foolish, the new shtick for the super wealthy is to
>have urinals installed in their homes.
This topic comes up every once in a while. Penn (of Penn & Teller) has a
urinal in his home, and somewhere there's a web site with pictures of his
home.
--
mat...@area.com
Matt Ackeret
Alan Hamilton <al...@primenet.com> wrote:
>On 2 Jun 1999 17:58:17 -0700, mat...@area.com (Matt Ackeret) wrote:
>
>>of pressure-regulated valves that you can buy (that were recommended for
>>all new installations) that prevents this from happening. How do they
>>work?
>
>water pressure drops.
Sorry to be snide -- but ok, I get that much, obviously.. What I mean is
technically how it works. I can't think of a passive way of doing this.
--
mat...@area.com
Matt Ackeret
AlanKngsly <alank...@aol.com> wrote:
>I heard the same thing from a plumber. So, if I understand the way the toilet
>works before (my earlier perception was admittedly wrong), couldn't they just
>make the toilet bowl smaller too, to balance it out? You would still want the
>sewer pipe the same size, for obvious reasons.
Isn't it the pressure as well as the absolute amount of water used important
too?
It seems to me that you can use the same amount of water more effectively by
making a tall narrower column of water in the toilet tank, rather than a
rectangular solid they are now. (Though someone else said that it's not the
gravity pulling the water down that pushes the stuff through the
toilet..)
BTW, I think all of us in this thread qualify for George Costanza status.
He was fascinated with toilets.
--
mat...@area.com
StarChaser <Anti spam feature in address.>
>StarC...@look.in.my.sig (StarChaser <Anti spam feature in address.>)
>wrote:
>
>> Read about a design once that was a 'dual flush' toilet...press the
>> handle down to clear liquid, pull it up for a more powerful flush to
>> clear solids...
>
>It's common in Japan.
Seems a good idea...would save doubleflushing the 'water saving'
ones...
>Paul Guertin
>p...@sff.net
<grins> Is it just me, or does your address sound like a blocked
sneeze? "Ah...ah...PG! Snff..."
StarChaser <Anti spam feature in address.>
Superglue and pressure valves? When your gauge hits 'red' you get put
into a little room till you explode, then they hose it off..
Wim Lewis
I'm coming into this thread late, but it seems like a bimetallic strip
should be able to do this[1]. They're frequently used in thermometers
and thermostats. It should be pretty easy to build one that chokes off
the hot water when the temperature of the mixed water rises past a
certain point. I don't know if the reaction time would be fast enough
to prevent scalding, though.
[1] they're also a good way to arouse your android lover.
--
Wim Lewis * wi...@hhhh.org * Seattle, WA, USA
Lalbert1
(StarChaser <Anti spam feature in address.>) writes:
>On 03 Jun 1999 17:32:52 GMT, lalb...@aol.com (Lalbert1) wrote:
>
>>I think we are looking at this problem through the wrong end of the
>>telescope. Instead of concentrating on toilet design vs water usage, we
should >>be asking how we can reduce defecation.
>
>Superglue and pressure valves? When your gauge hits 'red' you get put
>into a little room till you explode, then they hose it off..
>
I was thinking more along the lines of the "Zero Defecation" project performed
by Dr. Henry Marplot. His experimental work was discussed in this newsgroup a
few years ago.
Les
JELink
>
>>On 03 Jun 1999 17:32:52 GMT, lalb...@aol.com (Lalbert1) wrote:
>>
>>>I think we are looking at this problem through the wrong end of the
>>>telescope. Instead of concentrating on toilet design vs water usage, we
>should >>be asking how we can reduce defecation.
>>
>>Superglue and pressure valves? When your gauge hits 'red' you get put
>>into a little room till you explode, then they hose it off..
>>
>I was thinking more along the lines of the "Zero Defecation" project
>performed
>by Dr. Henry Marplot. His experimental work was discussed in this newsgroup
>a
>few years ago.
>
>Les
>
Actually, there WAS a case of Zero Defectation described in Scientific American
more than 100 years ago. (and I'm NOT making this up).
A woman reportedly had not had a bowel movement for more than a month.
So, the Good Doktors hooked her up to a new-fangled device, obviously a
battery, and gave her the juice.
As "S/A" reported straight-facedly:
"Relief was immediate."
********************
"Using unsuspecting customers as beta sites since 1977."
*****
*******************
StarChaser <Anti spam feature in address.>
>In article <375d59bd...@169.132.11.13>, StarC...@look.in.my.sig
>(StarChaser <Anti spam feature in address.>) writes:
>>Superglue and pressure valves? When your gauge hits 'red' you get put
>>into a little room till you explode, then they hose it off..
>>
>I was thinking more along the lines of the "Zero Defecation" project performed
>by Dr. Henry Marplot. His experimental work was discussed in this newsgroup a
>few years ago.
Well, from some things I've seen from The Man himself, you CAN'T
totally eliminate <ahem> elimination, if for no other reason than
leftovers from your own body, like bilirubin, dead blood cells...could
probably cut it WAY down...but would be a pretty boring diet, I think,
and not a very high energy one...
Beckett209
wrote in:
>Message-id: <19990602033257...@ng-cg1.aol.com>
>I've seen exactly this tendency in Missouri.
>here (in Missouri) the philosophy seems to be
>"aaah, don't worry about insulating, as the winter is not that long (though
>bitterly cold at times), so we'll just crank up the furnace during the cold
>spells."
I know!! My house (also in MO), circa early 1900's, has NO insulation in
the walls... and the original furnace... although, to be fair, it doesn't burn
coal anymore, just natural gas. The best use for it is to scare visiting small
children during family holidays so that the adults can have the basement to
themselves.... (It looks like a VW bug- sized octopus, upside down...)
We plan to move before things get any worse...but our gas bills the winter
before last were $400 per month!! YIKES!!!
Beckett
AlanKngsly
>>"aaah, don't worry about insulating, as the winter is not that long (though
>>bitterly cold at times), so we'll just crank up the furnace during the cold
>>spells."
>
> I know!! My house (also in MO), circa early 1900's, has NO insulation in
>the walls... and the original furnace... although, to be fair, it doesn't
>burn
>coal anymore, just natural gas. The best use for it is to scare visiting
>small
>children during family holidays so that the adults can have the basement to
>themselves.... (It looks like a VW bug- sized octopus, upside down...)
> We plan to move before things get any worse...but our gas bills the
>winter
>before last were $400 per month!! YIKES!!!
> Beckett
Yeah, that sounds familiar. It's really pleasant when you rent (and thus can't
do anything about the insulation or lack thereof) but are responsible for the
heating bills. These libertarian free marketeers will try to claim this is all
sensible somehow, but regardless of what they have to say, I KNOW it's not a
good idea to burn up precious fossil fuels and pollute the environment, just to
avoid putting in some insulation.
Alan
Mark Brader
> the walls... and the original furnace... although, to be fair, it doesn't
> octopus, upside down...)
That'd be a gravity-air system, as opposed to the modern forced air. I've
seen "octopus" actually used as a nickname for them. For those who've never
seen one, instead of the little pipes of a hot-water or steam system, or
the 6-inch ducts of a forced-air system, gravity air has these gigantic
ducts like something out of the movie Brazil, maybe 12 or 15 inches.
That's because, as the name suggests, there's no fan -- it's designed on the
basis that warm air rises. And so it does, but not very fast, which explains
the monster ducts and some of the cost, and it also means the furnace *has*
to be below the ground floor.
I saw one once when I was house-hunting. Gravity-air gas is abbreviated in
the real estate listings as GAG. No further comment!
--
Mark Brader, Toronto, msbr...@interlog.com
"Have you ever heard [my honesty] questioned?"
"I never even heard it mentioned." -- Every Day's a Holiday
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Beckett209
wrote in:
>Message-id: <7jaddn$f...@shell1.interlog.com>
>
>
>That'd be a gravity-air system, as opposed to the modern forced air.
Also known in repairman parlance as "Holy.....(muffled) ...what the..."
It sounds like it's breathing at you, too.
:) Beckett
Anton Sherwood
Lalbert1 <lalb...@aol.com> writes
: I was thinking more along the lines of the "Zero Defecation" project
: performed by Dr. Henry Marplot. His experimental work was discussed
: in this newsgroup a few years ago.
--
Anton Sherwood *\\* +1 415 267 0685 *\\* http://www.jps.net/antons/
I'm a libertarian: I want to expand the gray area between the mandatory
(or subsidized) and the forbidden. Statists strive to contract it.
Lalbert1
jel...@aol.comspamTHIS (JELink) writes:
>Actually, there WAS a case of Zero Defectation described in Scientific
>American more than 100 years ago. (and I'm NOT making this up).
>
>A woman reportedly had not had a bowel movement for more than a month.
>So, the Good Doktors hooked her up to a new-fangled device, obviously a
>battery, and gave her the juice.
>As "S/A" reported straight-facedly:
> "Relief was immediate."
>********************
I wasn't aware of that report. I was referring to the work performed in the
1930's by Dr. Henry Marplot at the Windrush Institute in England. Apparently
Dr. Marplot was influenced by experiments in hydroponic science where plants
are grown without soil, and are given their necessary nutrients directly
through chemical feedings. Marplot thought humans could be fed the same way to
achieve ZD (zero defecation). It was a very large project; many subjects were
recruited, and each of them had to be studied to determine their ZD food needs.
Near the conclusion there were no less than 722 people housed at the Windrush
Institute, and it was the large number of subjects that ultimately led to the
disastrous end of the project.
The formulas fed to each subject has to be studied, modified, re-studied, etc.
for 722 people housed in an old building that did not have a central air
circulation system, and although the goal of ZD was being achieved, nobody
thought about the one thing that would always remain as an end-product of
digestion: GAS! The building was silently filling up with it. It was
everywhere. Nobody noticed the smell because they had all become accustomed to
it.
One evening after a celebratory dinner honoring the conclusion of the research,
Dr. Marplot and his staff lit cigars and the entire west wing of the Windrush
Institute disappeared in a massive flatulant expolosion! It was said that the
fart could be heard throughout most of central England. All of the ZD research
records were lost. Fortunately no lives were lost, but Zero defecation
investigation received a "black eye" and was never funded again.
Les
ctbi...@earthlink.net
> jmg...@bestweb.net (JmG) writes:
>
> > Years ago I saw gray water systems in the Caribbean, the desert
southwest and
> > several in West Virginia and I'm sure we'll see them in Phoenix and
Los Angeles
> > as soon as we start charging the real price for potable drinking water.
>
> The market price for water (at the tap) would be considerably lower
> than the current price, since a heavy agricultural subsidy is built
> into the price. The price of *rice*, however, would skyrocket (since
> it is a major beneficiary of subsidized agricultural water).
>
> I eat a lot of rice, myself, but I'm willing to make the sacrifice for
> principle.
>
There are probably import restrictions on rice since the people growing
the rice using under-market priced water don't want competition.
Elilminate the water subsidy and the import restrictions and you could
have cheaper water and cheaper rice.
Charles
mlo...@lobo.civetsystems.com
>It's really pleasant when you rent (and thus can't
> do anything about the insulation or lack thereof) but are responsible for the
> heating bills.
Of course, you can do something about it: move.
(If you signed a lease that included paying utilities without seeing
a bill, you deserve what you get.)
> These libertarian free marketeers will try to claim this is all
> sensible somehow, but regardless of what they have to say, I KNOW it's not a
> good idea
"Knowledge" in the absence of fact coming up ahead.
> to burn up precious fossil fuels and pollute the environment, just to
> avoid putting in some insulation.
Since, of course, insulation is free and installing it is free and
disposing of it is free and none of those activities have any
environmental impact at all.
And we won't even talk about what a boon to the environment asbestos
siding was...
M.