MRS. CLEAN wrote:
On Mar 18, 12:55 pm, Speedy Jim wrote:

My dream toilet holds 50 gallons of water. When you flush, it's a
gusher through one inch water passage ways around the ring underneath
the seat. This toilet won't plug in a million years. In fact, you
need to stand back!

Toilets are a good example of how the government works at cross-purposes.

On the one hand, there is whatever agency that mandates low-volume toilets.
They do this, they say, in an effort to conserve water.

On the other hand, there are government agencies that encourge the eating of
more fruits and vegetables. These alleged food stuffs generate more
"floaters," which are notoriously hard to flush.

So, if we are going to have low-flow toilets, we should be eating more meat
(umm! meat!) that results in "sinkers." If "floaters" are the goal, we need
high-volume toilets.

No wonder people are schizoid.

On Mar 18, 3:01*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
MRS. CLEAN wrote:
On Mar 18, 12:55 pm, Speedy Jim wrote:

My dream toilet holds 50 gallons of water. *When you flush, it's a
gusher through one inch water passage ways around the ring underneath
the seat. *This toilet won't plug in a million years. In fact, you
need to stand back!

Toilets are a good example of how the government works at cross-purposes.

On the one hand, there is whatever agency that mandates low-volume toilets..
They do this, they say, in an effort to conserve water.

On the other hand, there are government agencies that encourge the eating of
more fruits and vegetables. These alleged food stuffs generate more
"floaters," which are notoriously hard to flush.

So, if we are going to have low-flow toilets, we should be eating more meat
(umm! meat!) that results in "sinkers." If "floaters" are the goal, we need
high-volume toilets.

No wonder people are schizoid.

One more lesson: government insisted on less water in toilet tanks
but manufacturers did re-design the flow and failed to enlarge the
water passages to compensate for reduced flow.

Sucks, don't it?

One more lesson: govmint insisted on less water in toilet tanks
but manufacturers failed to re-design the flow and failed to enlarge
the
water passages to compensate for reduced flow.

Sucks, don't it?

On Mar 18, 5:42 pm, "MRS. CLEAN" wrote:
One more lesson: govmint insisted on less water in toilet tanks
but manufacturers failed to re-design the flow and failed to enlarge
the
water passages to compensate for reduced flow.

Sucks, don't it?

Where do you get your information? Almost every ad I see in the trade
mags touts the larger trap sizes in modern toilets. Do you think that
the manufacturers simply put a 1.6 gallon tank on top of a bowl
designed for a 5 gallon flush?

JK