Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Home Repair (alt.home.repair) For all homeowners and DIYers with many experienced tradesmen. Solve your toughest home fix-it problems. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Better low-flush toilets
On 12/8/2010 2:12 PM, David Nebenzahl wrote:
Having just replaced a toilet for a friend yesterday, just wanted to plop in my observations here for those who might be looking to do the same. The toilet being replaced was a low-flush one, not very old, but in a basement bath with a history of clogging problems. So my friend got a new low-flush unit which was supposed to be much better at disposing of waste. When I got a look at the tank I could see why: instead of the normal outlet and flapper, this one had a 4" opening, significantly larger. Which means that the water whooshes into the toilet a lot faster. We'll see if it makes a difference. I don't remember the make, but he got it at Home Despot, so I assume it's available pretty much anywhere. One weird thing, though: instead of being at the bottom of the tank like you'd expect, the flapper sits a couple of inches up on an extension. More gravity working for you. Water height. Got a Kohlar Cimmaron 1.28 here (literally). Beats the pants off my old toilet. Never clogs. Flushes super quick. Amazing. Jeff This is obviously by design. Seems strange to leave that much water in the bottom of the tank; there must be some reason for this. (Hydrodynamics?) |
#2
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Better low-flush toilets
On Dec 8, 4:44*pm, Jeff Thies wrote:
On 12/8/2010 2:12 PM, David Nebenzahl wrote: Having just replaced a toilet for a friend yesterday, just wanted to plop in my observations here for those who might be looking to do the same. The toilet being replaced was a low-flush one, not very old, but in a basement bath with a history of clogging problems. So my friend got a new low-flush unit which was supposed to be much better at disposing of waste. When I got a look at the tank I could see why: instead of the normal outlet and flapper, this one had a 4" opening, significantly larger. Which means that the water whooshes into the toilet a lot faster. |
#3
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Better low-flush toilets
On Dec 9, 4:59*am, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Dec 8, 4:44*pm, Jeff Thies wrote: On 12/8/2010 2:12 PM, David Nebenzahl wrote: Having just replaced a toilet for a friend yesterday, just wanted to plop in my observations here for those who might be looking to do the same. The toilet being replaced was a low-flush one, not very old, but in a basement bath with a history of clogging problems. So my friend got a new low-flush unit which was supposed to be much better at disposing of waste. When I got a look at the tank I could see why: instead of the normal outlet and flapper, this one had a 4" opening, significantly larger. Which means that the water whooshes into the toilet a lot faster. We'll see if it makes a difference. I don't remember the make, but he got it at Home Despot, so I assume it's available pretty much anywhere. One weird thing, though: instead of being at the bottom of the tank like you'd expect, the flapper sits a couple of inches up on an extension. More gravity working for you. Water height. Got a Kohlar Cimmaron 1.28 here (literally). Beats the pants off my old toilet. Never clogs. Flushes super quick. Amazing. * *Jeff This is obviously by design. Seems strange to leave that much water in the bottom of the tank; there must be some reason for this. (Hydrodynamics?) I recently installed a 1.28 gpf American Standard toilet. 3 inch flapper, large siphon hole. Flapper sits pretty much on the bottom of the tank. It flushes great, but I've got a concern about what happens after the waste leaves the bowl. We get roots in our pipes and end up with partial blockages and gurgling toilets once every year or so. $35 to rent a 100 foot snake clears the problem. The money is nothing, it's the pick-up, clean-up (yuck!) and drop off that's a pain. Anyway, my concern is that with 20% less water moving waste through the pipe I'm going to get blockages sooner since things won't be moving along quite as quickly and could get caught sooner. What I save on water will be dwarfed by what it'll cost to replace the sewer pipe to eliminate the problem.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - It's the roots that's the problem, not the toilet. |
#4
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Better low-flush toilets
On 12/9/2010 3:17 AM, harry wrote:
On Dec 9, 4:59 am, wrote: On Dec 8, 4:44 pm, Jeff wrote: On 12/8/2010 2:12 PM, David Nebenzahl wrote: Having just replaced a toilet for a friend yesterday, just wanted to plop in my observations here for those who might be looking to do the same. The toilet being replaced was a low-flush one, not very old, but in a basement bath with a history of clogging problems. So my friend got a new low-flush unit which was supposed to be much better at disposing of waste. When I got a look at the tank I could see why: instead of the normal outlet and flapper, this one had a 4" opening, significantly larger. Which means that the water whooshes into the toilet a lot faster. We'll see if it makes a difference. I don't remember the make, but he got it at Home Despot, so I assume it's available pretty much anywhere. One weird thing, though: instead of being at the bottom of the tank like you'd expect, the flapper sits a couple of inches up on an extension. More gravity working for you. Water height. Got a Kohlar Cimmaron 1.28 here (literally). Beats the pants off my old toilet. Never clogs. Flushes super quick. Amazing. Jeff This is obviously by design. Seems strange to leave that much water in the bottom of the tank; there must be some reason for this. (Hydrodynamics?) I recently installed a 1.28 gpf American Standard toilet. 3 inch flapper, large siphon hole. Flapper sits pretty much on the bottom of the tank. It flushes great, but I've got a concern about what happens after the waste leaves the bowl. We get roots in our pipes and end up with partial blockages and gurgling toilets once every year or so. $35 to rent a 100 foot snake clears the problem. The money is nothing, it's the pick-up, clean-up (yuck!) and drop off that's a pain. Anyway, my concern is that with 20% less water moving waste through the pipe I'm going to get blockages sooner since things won't be moving along quite as quickly and could get caught sooner. What I save on water will be dwarfed by what it'll cost to replace the sewer pipe to eliminate the problem.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - It's the roots that's the problem, not the toilet. I killed mine with, I believe, some kind of copper sulphate solution. Googling for root killer I ran across this: http://www.rex-bac-t.com/p-23-rootx-...FYGW7QodSkui0w Something like that may be worth a try. Jeff |
#5
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Better low-flush toilets
On Dec 9, 3:17*am, harry wrote:
On Dec 9, 4:59*am, DerbyDad03 wrote: On Dec 8, 4:44*pm, Jeff Thies wrote: On 12/8/2010 2:12 PM, David Nebenzahl wrote: Having just replaced a toilet for a friend yesterday, just wanted to plop in my observations here for those who might be looking to do the same. The toilet being replaced was a low-flush one, not very old, but in a basement bath with a history of clogging problems. So my friend got a new low-flush unit which was supposed to be much better at disposing of waste. When I got a look at the tank I could see why: instead of the normal outlet and flapper, this one had a 4" opening, significantly larger. Which means that the water whooshes into the toilet a lot faster. We'll see if it makes a difference. I don't remember the make, but he got it at Home Despot, so I assume it's available pretty much anywhere. One weird thing, though: instead of being at the bottom of the tank like you'd expect, the flapper sits a couple of inches up on an extension. |
#6
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Better low-flush toilets
DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Dec 9, 3:17 am, harry wrote: On Dec 9, 4:59 am, DerbyDad03 wrote: On Dec 8, 4:44 pm, Jeff Thies wrote: On 12/8/2010 2:12 PM, David Nebenzahl wrote: Having just replaced a toilet for a friend yesterday, just wanted to plop in my observations here for those who might be looking to do the same. The toilet being replaced was a low-flush one, not very old, but in a basement bath with a history of clogging problems. So my friend got a new low-flush unit which was supposed to be much better at disposing of waste. When I got a look at the tank I could see why: instead of the normal outlet and flapper, this one had a 4" opening, significantly larger. Which means that the water whooshes into the toilet a lot faster. We'll see if it makes a difference. I don't remember the make, but he got it at Home Despot, so I assume it's available pretty much anywhere. One weird thing, though: instead of being at the bottom of the tank like you'd expect, the flapper sits a couple of inches up on an extension. More gravity working for you. Water height. Got a Kohlar Cimmaron 1.28 here (literally). Beats the pants off my old toilet. Never clogs. Flushes super quick. Amazing. Jeff This is obviously by design. Seems strange to leave that much water in the bottom of the tank; there must be some reason for this. (Hydrodynamics?) I recently installed a 1.28 gpf American Standard toilet. 3 inch flapper, large siphon hole. Flapper sits pretty much on the bottom of the tank. It flushes great, but I've got a concern about what happens after the waste leaves the bowl. We get roots in our pipes and end up with partial blockages and gurgling toilets once every year or so. $35 to rent a 100 foot snake clears the problem. The money is nothing, it's the pick-up, clean-up (yuck!) and drop off that's a pain. Anyway, my concern is that with 20% less water moving waste through the pipe I'm going to get blockages sooner since things won't be moving along quite as quickly and could get caught sooner. What I save on water will be dwarfed by what it'll cost to replace the sewer pipe to eliminate the problem.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - It's the roots that's the problem, not the toilet.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - "It's the roots that's the problem, not the toilet" err...no sh*t. (pun intended) However, from a real life perspective, it really doesn't matter what's to blame. The point is that if 1.6 gallons move the stuff fast enough to move it past the roots but 1.28 gallons won't, my "partial blockages" might occur sooner. In other words, if I'm willing to live with snaking the pipes every 18 months but not every 6 months, then using the 1.28 GPF toilet might require me to replace the sewer pipe. From that perspective, I'd be replacing the pipe because I replaced the toilet. I have the same root problems in two houses. I have used copper sulfate for years, uncertain whether it helps. CuS has gotten pricey. I'm going to try flushing a handful of (water softener) salt pellets every couple of weeks. Hope they will get caught in roots and remain active longer than the CuS that passes through quickly. Replacing the pipe means opening the slab floors (and moving the furnace at one house). Big job. |
#7
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Better low-flush toilets
Bryce wrote:
I have the same root problems in two houses. I have used copper sulfate for years, uncertain whether it helps. CuS has gotten pricey. I'm going to try flushing a handful of (water softener) salt pellets every couple of weeks. Hope they will get caught in roots and remain active longer than the CuS that passes through quickly. Replacing the pipe means opening the slab floors (and moving the furnace at one house). Big job. Don't know if this would work, but it might be worth a try... Hang, or drop, a cloth bag of those salt pellets in the tank. Some amount of them will dissolve with each flush, keeping the drain rather briney. If you have to replenish the bag every month, the technique would seem worthwhile - once a day, not so much. |
#8
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Better low-flush toilets
On 12/8/2010 10:59 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Dec 8, 4:44 pm, Jeff wrote: On 12/8/2010 2:12 PM, David Nebenzahl wrote: Having just replaced a toilet for a friend yesterday, just wanted to plop in my observations here for those who might be looking to do the same. The toilet being replaced was a low-flush one, not very old, but in a basement bath with a history of clogging problems. So my friend got a new low-flush unit which was supposed to be much better at disposing of waste. When I got a look at the tank I could see why: instead of the normal outlet and flapper, this one had a 4" opening, significantly larger. Which means that the water whooshes into the toilet a lot faster. We'll see if it makes a difference. I don't remember the make, but he got it at Home Despot, so I assume it's available pretty much anywhere. One weird thing, though: instead of being at the bottom of the tank like you'd expect, the flapper sits a couple of inches up on an extension. More gravity working for you. Water height. Got a Kohlar Cimmaron 1.28 here (literally). Beats the pants off my old toilet. Never clogs. Flushes super quick. Amazing. Jeff This is obviously by design. Seems strange to leave that much water in the bottom of the tank; there must be some reason for this. (Hydrodynamics?) I recently installed a 1.28 gpf American Standard toilet. 3 inch flapper, large siphon hole. Flapper sits pretty much on the bottom of the tank. It flushes great, but I've got a concern about what happens after the waste leaves the bowl. We get roots in our pipes and end up with partial blockages and gurgling toilets once every year or so. $35 to rent a 100 foot snake clears the problem. The money is nothing, it's the pick-up, clean-up (yuck!) and drop off that's a pain. Anyway, my concern is that with 20% less water moving waste through the pipe I'm going to get blockages sooner since things won't be moving along quite as quickly and could get caught sooner. What I save on water will be dwarfed by what it'll cost to replace the sewer pipe to eliminate the problem. just flush it twice. Or get an old 3.5gal toilet from a sale. -- Steve Barker remove the "not" from my address to email |
#9
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Better low-flush toilets
On Dec 9, 11:43*pm, Steve Barker wrote:
On 12/8/2010 10:59 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote: On Dec 8, 4:44 pm, Jeff *wrote: On 12/8/2010 2:12 PM, David Nebenzahl wrote: Having just replaced a toilet for a friend yesterday, just wanted to plop in my observations here for those who might be looking to do the same. The toilet being replaced was a low-flush one, not very old, but in a basement bath with a history of clogging problems. So my friend got a new low-flush unit which was supposed to be much better at disposing of waste. When I got a look at the tank I could see why: instead of the normal outlet and flapper, this one had a 4" opening, significantly larger. Which means that the water whooshes into the toilet a lot faster. We'll see if it makes a difference. I don't remember the make, but he got it at Home Despot, so I assume it's available pretty much anywhere. One weird thing, though: instead of being at the bottom of the tank like you'd expect, the flapper sits a couple of inches up on an extension. More gravity working for you. Water height. Got a Kohlar Cimmaron 1.28 here (literally). Beats the pants off my old toilet. Never clogs. Flushes super quick. Amazing. * * Jeff This is obviously by design. Seems strange to leave that much water in the bottom of the tank; there must be some reason for this. (Hydrodynamics?) I recently installed a 1.28 gpf American Standard toilet. 3 inch flapper, large siphon hole. Flapper sits pretty much on the bottom of the tank. It flushes great, but I've got a concern about what happens after the waste leaves the bowl. We get roots in our pipes and end up with partial blockages and gurgling toilets once every year or so. $35 to rent a 100 foot snake clears the problem. The money is nothing, it's the pick-up, clean-up (yuck!) and drop off that's a pain. Anyway, my concern is that with 20% less water moving waste through the pipe I'm going to get blockages sooner since things won't be moving along quite as quickly and could get caught sooner. What I save on water will be dwarfed by what it'll cost to replace the sewer pipe to eliminate the problem. just flush it twice. *Or get an old 3.5gal toilet from a sale. -- Steve Barker remove the "not" from my address to email- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - "just flush it twice. " Right. Like it make sense to upgrade your toilet for better efficiency (and for other reasons in my case) and then to flush it, wait for the tank to fill up and then flush it again. |
#10
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Better low-flush toilets
Worth watching the metal. Some ionic salts are destruction to metal
parts. Might be better to flush some lumps of whatever. Water softener pellets, maybe. -- Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org .. "Bryce" wrote in message ... Hang, or drop, a cloth bag of those salt pellets in the tank. Some amount of them will dissolve with each flush, keeping the drain rather briney. If you have to replenish the bag every month, the technique would seem worthwhile - once a day, not so much. Thanks! I may try that, with frequent peeks into the tank to see how the assortment of metal (brass, copper, steel) parts are coping with the new flavor. After my earlier post, I realized it's CuSO4, not CuS. Sigh. |
#11
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Better low-flush toilets
On 12/10/2010 7:43 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Dec 9, 11:43 pm, Steve wrote: On 12/8/2010 10:59 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote: On Dec 8, 4:44 pm, Jeff wrote: On 12/8/2010 2:12 PM, David Nebenzahl wrote: Having just replaced a toilet for a friend yesterday, just wanted to plop in my observations here for those who might be looking to do the same. The toilet being replaced was a low-flush one, not very old, but in a basement bath with a history of clogging problems. So my friend got a new low-flush unit which was supposed to be much better at disposing of waste. When I got a look at the tank I could see why: instead of the normal outlet and flapper, this one had a 4" opening, significantly larger. Which means that the water whooshes into the toilet a lot faster. We'll see if it makes a difference. I don't remember the make, but he got it at Home Despot, so I assume it's available pretty much anywhere. One weird thing, though: instead of being at the bottom of the tank like you'd expect, the flapper sits a couple of inches up on an extension. More gravity working for you. Water height. Got a Kohlar Cimmaron 1.28 here (literally). Beats the pants off my old toilet. Never clogs. Flushes super quick. Amazing. Jeff This is obviously by design. Seems strange to leave that much water in the bottom of the tank; there must be some reason for this. (Hydrodynamics?) I recently installed a 1.28 gpf American Standard toilet. 3 inch flapper, large siphon hole. Flapper sits pretty much on the bottom of the tank. It flushes great, but I've got a concern about what happens after the waste leaves the bowl. We get roots in our pipes and end up with partial blockages and gurgling toilets once every year or so. $35 to rent a 100 foot snake clears the problem. The money is nothing, it's the pick-up, clean-up (yuck!) and drop off that's a pain. Anyway, my concern is that with 20% less water moving waste through the pipe I'm going to get blockages sooner since things won't be moving along quite as quickly and could get caught sooner. What I save on water will be dwarfed by what it'll cost to replace the sewer pipe to eliminate the problem. just flush it twice. Or get an old 3.5gal toilet from a sale. -- Steve Barker remove the "not" from my address to email- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - "just flush it twice. " Right. Like it make sense to upgrade your toilet for better efficiency (and for other reasons in my case) and then to flush it, wait for the tank to fill up and then flush it again. well no one's forcing these people to use these "modern" toilets, then bitch about them. I find perfectly fine and usable 3.5 gallon units at sales all the time. I always use them especially when it is a long run to the main or septic tank. -- Steve Barker remove the "not" from my address to email |
#12
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Better low-flush toilets
DerbyDad03 wrote:
"just flush it twice. " Right. Like it make sense to upgrade your toilet for better efficiency (and for other reasons in my case) and then to flush it, wait for the tank to fill up and then flush it again. 1. Well, the 1.6 gallon tank DOES fill quickly... 2. This illustrates how government agencies work at cross purposes. Follow along: a. One agency mandates low-flow toilets to save water ("It's for the children"). b. Another encourages everyone to eat more fruits and vegetables. The latter scheme results in a greater percentage of "floaters" than the previous diet of meats (which resulted in more "sinkers"). It's generally the "floaters" that mandate multiple flushes. |
#13
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Better low-flush toilets
On 12/10/2010 4:15 PM, HeyBub wrote:
DerbyDad03 wrote: "just flush it twice. " Right. Like it make sense to upgrade your toilet for better efficiency (and for other reasons in my case) and then to flush it, wait for the tank to fill up and then flush it again. 1. Well, the 1.6 gallon tank DOES fill quickly... 2. This illustrates how government agencies work at cross purposes. Follow along: a. One agency mandates low-flow toilets to save water ("It's for the children"). b. Another encourages everyone to eat more fruits and vegetables. The latter scheme results in a greater percentage of "floaters" than the previous diet of meats (which resulted in more "sinkers"). It's generally the "floaters" that mandate multiple flushes. Now THERE'S A MAN WHO KNOWS HIS TURDS...... |
#14
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Better low-flush toilets
On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 16:25:03 -0500, Smarty wrote:
On 12/10/2010 4:15 PM, HeyBub wrote: DerbyDad03 wrote: "just flush it twice. " Right. Like it make sense to upgrade your toilet for better efficiency (and for other reasons in my case) and then to flush it, wait for the tank to fill up and then flush it again. 1. Well, the 1.6 gallon tank DOES fill quickly... 2. This illustrates how government agencies work at cross purposes. Follow along: a. One agency mandates low-flow toilets to save water ("It's for the children"). b. Another encourages everyone to eat more fruits and vegetables. The latter scheme results in a greater percentage of "floaters" than the previous diet of meats (which resulted in more "sinkers"). It's generally the "floaters" that mandate multiple flushes. Now THERE'S A MAN WHO KNOWS HIS TURDS...... Smarter than ****, huh!? |
#15
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Better low-flush toilets
On Dec 10, 3:19*pm, Steve Barker wrote:
On 12/10/2010 7:43 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote: On Dec 9, 11:43 pm, Steve *wrote: On 12/8/2010 10:59 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote: On Dec 8, 4:44 pm, Jeff * *wrote: On 12/8/2010 2:12 PM, David Nebenzahl wrote: Having just replaced a toilet for a friend yesterday, just wanted to plop in my observations here for those who might be looking to do the same. The toilet being replaced was a low-flush one, not very old, but in a basement bath with a history of clogging problems. So my friend got a new low-flush unit which was supposed to be much better at disposing of waste. When I got a look at the tank I could see why: instead of the normal outlet and flapper, this one had a 4" opening, significantly larger. Which means that the water whooshes into the toilet a lot faster. We'll see if it makes a difference. I don't remember the make, but he got it at Home Despot, so I assume it's available pretty much anywhere. One weird thing, though: instead of being at the bottom of the tank like you'd expect, the flapper sits a couple of inches up on an extension. |
#16
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Better low-flush toilets
On 12/10/2010 8:51 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Dec 10, 3:19 pm, Steve wrote: On 12/10/2010 7:43 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote: On Dec 9, 11:43 pm, Steve wrote: On 12/8/2010 10:59 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote: On Dec 8, 4:44 pm, Jeff wrote: On 12/8/2010 2:12 PM, David Nebenzahl wrote: Having just replaced a toilet for a friend yesterday, just wanted to plop in my observations here for those who might be looking to do the same. The toilet being replaced was a low-flush one, not very old, but in a basement bath with a history of clogging problems. So my friend got a new low-flush unit which was supposed to be much better at disposing of waste. When I got a look at the tank I could see why: instead of the normal outlet and flapper, this one had a 4" opening, significantly larger. Which means that the water whooshes into the toilet a lot faster. We'll see if it makes a difference. I don't remember the make, but he got it at Home Despot, so I assume it's available pretty much anywhere. One weird thing, though: instead of being at the bottom of the tank like you'd expect, the flapper sits a couple of inches up on an extension. More gravity working for you. Water height. Got a Kohlar Cimmaron 1.28 here (literally). Beats the pants off my old toilet. Never clogs. Flushes super quick. Amazing. Jeff This is obviously by design. Seems strange to leave that much water in the bottom of the tank; there must be some reason for this. (Hydrodynamics?) I recently installed a 1.28 gpf American Standard toilet. 3 inch flapper, large siphon hole. Flapper sits pretty much on the bottom of the tank. It flushes great, but I've got a concern about what happens after the waste leaves the bowl. We get roots in our pipes and end up with partial blockages and gurgling toilets once every year or so. $35 to rent a 100 foot snake clears the problem. The money is nothing, it's the pick-up, clean-up (yuck!) and drop off that's a pain. Anyway, my concern is that with 20% less water moving waste through the pipe I'm going to get blockages sooner since things won't be moving along quite as quickly and could get caught sooner. What I save on water will be dwarfed by what it'll cost to replace the sewer pipe to eliminate the problem. just flush it twice. Or get an old 3.5gal toilet from a sale. -- Steve Barker remove the "not" from my address to email- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - "just flush it twice. " Right. Like it make sense to upgrade your toilet for better efficiency (and for other reasons in my case) and then to flush it, wait for the tank to fill up and then flush it again. well no one's forcing these people to use these "modern" toilets, then bitch about them. I find perfectly fine and usable 3.5 gallon units at sales all the time. I always use them especially when it is a long run to the main or septic tank. -- Steve Barker remove the "not" from my address to email Let me run the purchase of somebody else's used toilet past the wife. I'll let you know how that works out. ;-) It's a piece of frickin porcelain. Your wife needs help. -- Steve Barker remove the "not" from my address to email |
#17
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Better low-flush toilets
On 12/10/2010 8:51 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Dec 10, 3:19 pm, Steve wrote: On 12/10/2010 7:43 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote: On Dec 9, 11:43 pm, Steve wrote: On 12/8/2010 10:59 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote: On Dec 8, 4:44 pm, Jeff wrote: On 12/8/2010 2:12 PM, David Nebenzahl wrote: Having just replaced a toilet for a friend yesterday, just wanted to plop in my observations here for those who might be looking to do the same. The toilet being replaced was a low-flush one, not very old, but in a basement bath with a history of clogging problems. So my friend got a new low-flush unit which was supposed to be much better at disposing of waste. When I got a look at the tank I could see why: instead of the normal outlet and flapper, this one had a 4" opening, significantly larger. Which means that the water whooshes into the toilet a lot faster. We'll see if it makes a difference. I don't remember the make, but he got it at Home Despot, so I assume it's available pretty much anywhere. One weird thing, though: instead of being at the bottom of the tank like you'd expect, the flapper sits a couple of inches up on an extension. More gravity working for you. Water height. Got a Kohlar Cimmaron 1.28 here (literally). Beats the pants off my old toilet. Never clogs. Flushes super quick. Amazing. Jeff This is obviously by design. Seems strange to leave that much water in the bottom of the tank; there must be some reason for this. (Hydrodynamics?) I recently installed a 1.28 gpf American Standard toilet. 3 inch flapper, large siphon hole. Flapper sits pretty much on the bottom of the tank. It flushes great, but I've got a concern about what happens after the waste leaves the bowl. We get roots in our pipes and end up with partial blockages and gurgling toilets once every year or so. $35 to rent a 100 foot snake clears the problem. The money is nothing, it's the pick-up, clean-up (yuck!) and drop off that's a pain. Anyway, my concern is that with 20% less water moving waste through the pipe I'm going to get blockages sooner since things won't be moving along quite as quickly and could get caught sooner. What I save on water will be dwarfed by what it'll cost to replace the sewer pipe to eliminate the problem. just flush it twice. Or get an old 3.5gal toilet from a sale. -- Steve Barker remove the "not" from my address to email- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - "just flush it twice. " Right. Like it make sense to upgrade your toilet for better efficiency (and for other reasons in my case) and then to flush it, wait for the tank to fill up and then flush it again. well no one's forcing these people to use these "modern" toilets, then bitch about them. I find perfectly fine and usable 3.5 gallon units at sales all the time. I always use them especially when it is a long run to the main or septic tank. -- Steve Barker remove the "not" from my address to email Let me run the purchase of somebody else's used toilet past the wife. I'll let you know how that works out. ;-) Does she think all the public toilets and hotel toilets are all brand new? -- Steve Barker remove the "not" from my address to email |
#18
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Better low-flush toilets
Replaced, nightly.
-- Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org .. "Steve Barker" wrote in message ... Let me run the purchase of somebody else's used toilet past the wife. I'll let you know how that works out. ;-) Does she think all the public toilets and hotel toilets are all brand new? -- Steve Barker remove the "not" from my address to email |
#19
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Better low-flush toilets
Oren wrote:
On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 16:25:03 -0500, Smarty wrote: On 12/10/2010 4:15 PM, HeyBub wrote: DerbyDad03 wrote: "just flush it twice. " Right. Like it make sense to upgrade your toilet for better efficiency (and for other reasons in my case) and then to flush it, wait for the tank to fill up and then flush it again. 1. Well, the 1.6 gallon tank DOES fill quickly... 2. This illustrates how government agencies work at cross purposes. Follow along: a. One agency mandates low-flow toilets to save water ("It's for the children"). b. Another encourages everyone to eat more fruits and vegetables. The latter scheme results in a greater percentage of "floaters" than the previous diet of meats (which resulted in more "sinkers"). It's generally the "floaters" that mandate multiple flushes. Now THERE'S A MAN WHO KNOWS HIS TURDS...... Smarter than ****, huh!? LOL |
#20
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Better low-flush toilets
On 12/10/2010 7:52 PM, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 16:25:03 -0500, wrote: On 12/10/2010 4:15 PM, HeyBub wrote: DerbyDad03 wrote: "just flush it twice. " Right. Like it make sense to upgrade your toilet for better efficiency (and for other reasons in my case) and then to flush it, wait for the tank to fill up and then flush it again. 1. Well, the 1.6 gallon tank DOES fill quickly... 2. This illustrates how government agencies work at cross purposes. Follow along: a. One agency mandates low-flow toilets to save water ("It's for the children"). b. Another encourages everyone to eat more fruits and vegetables. The latter scheme results in a greater percentage of "floaters" than the previous diet of meats (which resulted in more "sinkers"). It's generally the "floaters" that mandate multiple flushes. Now THERE'S A MAN WHO KNOWS HIS TURDS...... Smarter than ****, huh!? I seem to remember the singing California Raisins, someone could do an ad campaign with singing...... um, never mind. :-) TDD |
#21
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Better low-flush toilets
On 12/11/2010 11:23 AM, Smitty Two wrote:
In , The Daring wrote: I seem to remember the singing California Raisins, someone could do an ad campaign with singing...... um, never mind. :-) TDD I think South Park covered that pretty thoroughly, Duf. Adolescent boys and old men like my favorite Christmas song too. :-) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKpB3E8deSw TDD |
#22
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Better low-flush toilets
On Dec 10, 10:35*pm, Steve Barker wrote:
On 12/10/2010 8:51 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote: On Dec 10, 3:19 pm, Steve *wrote: On 12/10/2010 7:43 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote: On Dec 9, 11:43 pm, Steve * *wrote: On 12/8/2010 10:59 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote: On Dec 8, 4:44 pm, Jeff * * *wrote: On 12/8/2010 2:12 PM, David Nebenzahl wrote: Having just replaced a toilet for a friend yesterday, just wanted to plop in my observations here for those who might be looking to do the same. The toilet being replaced was a low-flush one, not very old, but in a basement bath with a history of clogging problems. So my friend got a new low-flush unit which was supposed to be much better at disposing of waste. When I got a look at the tank I could see why: instead of the normal outlet and flapper, this one had a 4" opening, significantly larger. Which means that the water whooshes into the toilet a lot faster. We'll see if it makes a difference. I don't remember the make, but he got it at Home Despot, so I assume it's available pretty much anywhere. One weird thing, though: instead of being at the bottom of the tank like you'd expect, the flapper sits a couple of inches up on an extension. More gravity working for you. Water height. Got a Kohlar Cimmaron 1.28 here (literally). Beats the pants off my old toilet. Never clogs. Flushes super quick. Amazing. * * * Jeff This is obviously by design. Seems strange to leave that much water in the bottom of the tank; there must be some reason for this. (Hydrodynamics?) I recently installed a 1.28 gpf American Standard toilet. 3 inch flapper, large siphon hole. Flapper sits pretty much on the bottom of the tank. It flushes great, but I've got a concern about what happens after the waste leaves the bowl. We get roots in our pipes and end up with partial blockages and gurgling toilets once every year or so. $35 to rent a 100 foot snake clears the problem. The money is nothing, it's the pick-up, clean-up (yuck!) and drop off that's a pain. Anyway, my concern is that with 20% less water moving waste through the pipe I'm going to get blockages sooner since things won't be moving along quite as quickly and could get caught sooner. What I save on water will be dwarfed by what it'll cost to replace the sewer pipe to eliminate the problem. just flush it twice. *Or get an old 3.5gal toilet from a sale. -- Steve Barker remove the "not" from my address to email- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - "just flush it twice. " Right. Like it make sense to upgrade your toilet for better efficiency (and for other reasons in my case) and then to flush it, wait for the tank to fill up and then flush it again. well no one's forcing these people to use these "modern" toilets, then bitch about them. *I find perfectly fine and usable 3.5 gallon units at sales all the time. *I always use them especially when it is a long run to the main or septic tank. -- Steve Barker remove the "not" from my address to email Let me run the purchase of somebody else's used toilet past the wife. I'll let you know how that works out. *;-) It's a piece of frickin porcelain. *Your wife needs help. -- Steve Barker remove the "not" from my address to email Try a laxative. It'll relax you. |
#23
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Better low-flush toilets
On Dec 10, 10:36*pm, Steve Barker wrote:
On 12/10/2010 8:51 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote: On Dec 10, 3:19 pm, Steve *wrote: On 12/10/2010 7:43 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote: On Dec 9, 11:43 pm, Steve * *wrote: On 12/8/2010 10:59 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote: On Dec 8, 4:44 pm, Jeff * * *wrote: On 12/8/2010 2:12 PM, David Nebenzahl wrote: Having just replaced a toilet for a friend yesterday, just wanted to plop in my observations here for those who might be looking to do the same. The toilet being replaced was a low-flush one, not very old, but in a basement bath with a history of clogging problems. So my friend got a new low-flush unit which was supposed to be much better at disposing of waste. When I got a look at the tank I could see why: instead of the normal outlet and flapper, this one had a 4" opening, significantly larger. Which means that the water whooshes into the toilet a lot faster. We'll see if it makes a difference. I don't remember the make, but he got it at Home Despot, so I assume it's available pretty much anywhere. One weird thing, though: instead of being at the bottom of the tank like you'd expect, the flapper sits a couple of inches up on an extension. More gravity working for you. Water height. Got a Kohlar Cimmaron 1.28 here (literally). Beats the pants off my old toilet. Never clogs. Flushes super quick. Amazing. * * * Jeff This is obviously by design. Seems strange to leave that much water in the bottom of the tank; there must be some reason for this. (Hydrodynamics?) I recently installed a 1.28 gpf American Standard toilet. 3 inch flapper, large siphon hole. Flapper sits pretty much on the bottom of the tank. It flushes great, but I've got a concern about what happens after the waste leaves the bowl. We get roots in our pipes and end up with partial blockages and gurgling toilets once every year or so. $35 to rent a 100 foot snake clears the problem. The money is nothing, it's the pick-up, clean-up (yuck!) and drop off that's a pain. Anyway, my concern is that with 20% less water moving waste through the pipe I'm going to get blockages sooner since things won't be moving along quite as quickly and could get caught sooner. What I save on water will be dwarfed by what it'll cost to replace the sewer pipe to eliminate the problem. just flush it twice. *Or get an old 3.5gal toilet from a sale. -- Steve Barker remove the "not" from my address to email- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - "just flush it twice. " Right. Like it make sense to upgrade your toilet for better efficiency (and for other reasons in my case) and then to flush it, wait for the tank to fill up and then flush it again. well no one's forcing these people to use these "modern" toilets, then bitch about them. *I find perfectly fine and usable 3.5 gallon units at sales all the time. *I always use them especially when it is a long run to the main or septic tank. -- Steve Barker remove the "not" from my address to email Let me run the purchase of somebody else's used toilet past the wife. I'll let you know how that works out. *;-) Does she think all the public toilets and hotel toilets are all brand new? -- Steve Barker remove the "not" from my address to email Wow! My little joke bothered you so much you had to reply twice? Chill out...it's almost Christmas. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Better low-flush toilets | Home Repair | |||
Better low-flush toilets | Home Repair | |||
Better low-flush toilets | Home Repair | |||
Dual flush toilets | UK diy | |||
Automatic Flush Toilets | Home Repair |