On Feb 5, 10:41*am, Bob Villa wrote:
On Feb 4, 4:56*pm, " wrote:





On Feb 4, 5:44*pm, Bob Villa wrote:

On Feb 4, 4:33*pm, " wrote:

On Feb 4, 2:22*pm, Steve Barker wrote:

On 2/3/2011 8:24 AM, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

....comes from the water stored in the tank, vs the incoming water pressure?
I'm referring to an old style toilet, not some dubious low flush
annoy-o-lator.

the incoming water has NO effect on the flush in a convention tank type
toilet. *you can turn the incoming valve off and still get the same result.

--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email

NOT TRUE, the water going into the dip tube helps create the wave that
flushes the bowl.

You mean the over-flow tube...try turning off the supply and see how
much difference it makes. It's just a rinse of the bowl as long as the
water is filling.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

wrong, try relocating the dip tube feed water for awhile...... into
the tank

solids wouldnt flush as well and the bowl water will tend to just
swirl around.....

thats why clogged bowl rim water causes fushing troubles.

the extra bowl rim water actually causes a bit of a wave helping the
flush.

a buddy of mine says i am a toiliteer. a degree in toilets

I have yet to find a diagram that calls anything a "dip tube".

http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/6...gram05264.jpg- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

overflow tube and fill tube........

around here its called a dip tube

On Feb 5, 9:45*am, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Feb 4, 2:22 pm, Steve Barker wrote:

On 2/3/2011 8:24 AM, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

....comes from the water stored in the tank, vs the incoming water
pressure?
I'm referring to an old style toilet, not some dubious low flush
annoy-o-lator.

the incoming water has NO effect on the flush in a convention tank type
toilet. you can turn the incoming valve off and still get the same result.

--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email

NOT TRUE, the water going into the dip tube helps create the wave that
flushes the bowl.
===========

I'm thinking this is the right answer, and here's why. A couple of weeks
ago, I was at a B&B with the girlfriend, and this place used a well & pump
for its water. We were trying to fill the jacuzzi and noticed that even at
peak pressure, the water flow was pathetic. It took almost 2 hours to fill
the tub. Then, we discovered that the toilet was seriously weak, to the
point of "Aw sonofabitch - where's the damn plunger, or a bucket." We
mentioned this to the owner, who said "What?? Nobody else has mentioned this
to me. Thank you!"

She's managing the place herself, so she'll be counting on a plumber to
figure out the situation. Two other toilets in the building were equally
weak. Weak, meaning you flush it once and if you're an experienced
homeowner, you think "Uh oh. This is going to be trouble sometime in the
next 24 hours." I didn't know what to tell her, but my first thought was
that since they're all old style toilets, but not ancient, they couldn't ALL
be stuffed, out of adjustment, or otherwise broken at the same time. Had to
be the lame water pressure. But I don't know enough about well & pump
systems.

If the water pressure's lame on a well & pump system, what do you do to
remedy the situation? Some sort of tank?

might be a simple adjustment. but theres two seperate issues.

pressure is the instaneous highest pressure on a line, and flow the
max number of gallons per hour.......

a poor flow, where the gallons per hour capacity is way too low, can
lead to a low pressure.

anemic flows tend to cause this.....

On Feb 5, 8:05*pm, " wrote:


around here its called a dip tube

What sense does that make? Fill tube makes no sense either...it
doesn't fill anything.

Bob Villa wrote:


We not taking about depth of water in the tank...the question was the
6 ft high tanks adding some great amount of pressure to the flush.

Can there really be any doubt? Certainly it would double or triple the pressure
at the start of the flush.

Harry K wrote:
But really, when the flush valve opens, the pressure is not what
operates, it is the velocity of the water. The pressure is what gets
you the velocity. Thus it doesn't matter what the pressure in the
mains is, your tank height is all that counts. Even the "pressure
assists" operate the same way.

You don't have "pressure" unless the water is confined in something.


The water is confined by the orifaces in the toilet. Otherwise, it would drain
the tank a lot faster. Try flushing a tank removed from the toilet.

If there were no pressure, they wouldn't need a gasket between the tank and the
base.

wrote:
On Feb 4, 2:22 pm, Steve Barker wrote:
On 2/3/2011 8:24 AM, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

....comes from the water stored in the tank, vs the incoming water
pressure? I'm referring to an old style toilet, not some dubious
low flush annoy-o-lator.

the incoming water has NO effect on the flush in a convention tank
type toilet. you can turn the incoming valve off and still get the
same result.

--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email

NOT TRUE, the water going into the dip tube helps create the wave that
flushes the bowl.

The only thing having the water turned changes is that it re-fills the bowl and
tank after the flush.

Steve Barker wrote:
On 2/4/2011 4:33 PM, wrote:
On Feb 4, 2:22 pm, Steve wrote:
On 2/3/2011 8:24 AM, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

....comes from the water stored in the tank, vs the incoming water
pressure? I'm referring to an old style toilet, not some dubious
low flush annoy-o-lator.

the incoming water has NO effect on the flush in a convention tank
type toilet. you can turn the incoming valve off and still get the
same result. --
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email

NOT TRUE, the water going into the dip tube helps create the wave
that flushes the bowl.


that's weird. I've never had those tubes going in the overflow and
all mine work just fine. Having that water shoot in there is mostly
unnecessary.

It re-fills the bowl.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
....comes from the water stored in the tank, vs the incoming water
pressure? I'm referring to an old style toilet, not some dubious low
flush annoy-o-lator.

Turn off the water to the toilet when the tank is full, then flush it. See any
difference from a normal flush, other than the bowl and tank don't refill?

wrote in message
...
On Feb 5, 10:41 am, Bob Villa wrote:
On Feb 4, 4:56 pm, " wrote:





On Feb 4, 5:44 pm, Bob Villa wrote:

On Feb 4, 4:33 pm, " wrote:

On Feb 4, 2:22 pm, Steve Barker wrote:

On 2/3/2011 8:24 AM, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

....comes from the water stored in the tank, vs the incoming
water pressure?
I'm referring to an old style toilet, not some dubious low flush
annoy-o-lator.

the incoming water has NO effect on the flush in a convention tank
type
toilet. you can turn the incoming valve off and still get the same
result.

--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email

NOT TRUE, the water going into the dip tube helps create the wave
that
flushes the bowl.

You mean the over-flow tube...try turning off the supply and see how
much difference it makes. It's just a rinse of the bowl as long as the
water is filling.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

wrong, try relocating the dip tube feed water for awhile...... into
the tank

solids wouldnt flush as well and the bowl water will tend to just
swirl around.....

thats why clogged bowl rim water causes fushing troubles.

the extra bowl rim water actually causes a bit of a wave helping the
flush.

a buddy of mine says i am a toiliteer. a degree in toilets

I have yet to find a diagram that calls anything a "dip tube".

http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/6...gram05264.jpg- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

overflow tube and fill tube........

around here its called a dip tube
=========

Perfect for a discussion of water heaters.

On Sat, 5 Feb 2011 22:35:22 -0800, "Bob F"
wrote:

Bob Villa wrote:


We not taking about depth of water in the tank...the question was the
6 ft high tanks adding some great amount of pressure to the flush.

Can there really be any doubt? Certainly it would double or triple the pressure
at the start of the flush.


Close enough.

According to the chart below, 2.31 feet of water is 1 psi.
That's a bit more than the height of a modern toilet tank off the
bowl.

At 6.93 feet the psi is 3.
That's also a bit more than the height off the bowl for the old high
wall tanks.

http://www.accontrols.com/documents/...toFeetHead.pdf

As Jeff has said, better design has brought the tank down.
They still sell the high tank toilets.
http://www.plumbingsupply.com/oldtoilet.html

I wonder if the bowl design is different.

--Vic

On Feb 6, 7:53*am, Vic Smith wrote:
On Sat, 5 Feb 2011 22:35:22 -0800, "Bob F"
wrote:

Bob Villa wrote:

We not taking about depth of water in the tank...the question was the
6 ft high tanks adding some great amount of pressure to the flush.

Can there really be any doubt? Certainly it would double or triple the pressure
at the start of the flush.

Close enough.

According to the chart below, 2.31 feet of water is 1 psi.
That's a bit more than the height of a modern toilet tank off the
bowl.

At 6.93 feet the psi is 3.
That's also a bit more than the height off the bowl for the old high
wall tanks.

http://www.accontrols.com/documents/...toFeetHead.pdf

As Jeff has said, better design has brought the tank down.
They still sell the high tank toilets.http://www.plumbingsupply.com/oldtoilet.html

I wonder if the bowl design is different.

--Vic

As I have said...the valve is not at the end of the pipe, it is in the
tank. Pressure would not be the same.

On Sun, 6 Feb 2011 06:29:32 -0800 (PST), Bob Villa
wrote:

On Feb 6, 7:53Â*am, Vic Smith wrote:
On Sat, 5 Feb 2011 22:35:22 -0800, "Bob F"
wrote:

Bob Villa wrote:

We not taking about depth of water in the tank...the question was the
6 ft high tanks adding some great amount of pressure to the flush.

Can there really be any doubt? Certainly it would double or triple the pressure
at the start of the flush.

Close enough.

According to the chart below, 2.31 feet of water is 1 psi.
That's a bit more than the height of a modern toilet tank off the
bowl.

At 6.93 feet the psi is 3.
That's also a bit more than the height off the bowl for the old high
wall tanks.

http://www.accontrols.com/documents/...toFeetHead.pdf

As Jeff has said, better design has brought the tank down.
They still sell the high tank toilets.http://www.plumbingsupply.com/oldtoilet.html

I wonder if the bowl design is different.

--Vic

As I have said...the valve is not at the end of the pipe, it is in the
tank. Pressure would not be the same.

Maybe not, but as soon as the water hits the bowl whatever is left
above it in the downpipe and tank still has head pressure pushing it
down.
They didn't hang them high for kicks.

--Vic

On Feb 6, 9:10*am, Vic Smith wrote:

They didn't hang them high for kicks.

--Vic

I don't think it was a bad idea...just over-kill. I remember those
tanks were open and sometimes you would feel a little spray before
they got any depth of water in them. ^L^
I like the old fixtures and dark wood like you see in "The Water
Horse".

On Sun, 6 Feb 2011 07:29:21 -0800 (PST), Bob Villa
wrote:

On Feb 6, 9:10Â*am, Vic Smith wrote:

They didn't hang them high for kicks.

--Vic

I don't think it was a bad idea...just over-kill. I remember those
tanks were open and sometimes you would feel a little spray before
they got any depth of water in them. ^L^

I have a vague recollection of the flush chain hanging down by the
toilet, and getting splashed, but was too young to remember much.
Saw a lot of them over urinals, but never paid attention to how they
flushed.

I like the old fixtures and dark wood like you see in "The Water
Horse".

Didn't see that. I used to like rich wood grain more, but not stained
too dark.
Think what changed my view is taking down the beautiful 4-piece crown
in my last house to refinish it.
PITA, and that 50 year old oak was light as balsa, or almost.
50 years had really dried it up. Just changed my view.
Might be my eyesight. Like to keep rooms light colored.
Still put new oak crown up in this house and had the oak floors
refinished, so I do like wood. All "golden oak."
Don't like it around water though. There's better materials, and they
look good enough.
When I lived summers with my grandfolks the toilet was all wood.
Outhouse. Double-seater.
Never had a partner when there though.
Maybe grand dad put 2 seats in so if you had to go bad you had an
option if one seat was occupied by spiders and their webs.
I suppose a double makes since, just never saw 2 people using an
outhouse at the same time.

--Vic

On Feb 5, 10:38*pm, "Bob F" wrote:
Harry K wrote:
But really, when the flush valve opens, the pressure is not what
operates, it is the velocity of the water. The pressure is what gets
you the velocity. *Thus it doesn't matter what the pressure in the
mains is, your tank height is all that counts. *Even the "pressure
assists" operate the same way.

*You don't have "pressure" unless the water is confined in something.

The water is confined by the orifaces in the toilet. Otherwise, it would drain
the tank a lot faster. Try flushing a tank removed from the toilet.

If there were no pressure, they wouldn't need a gasket between the tank and the
base.

God! We are talking about how a _flush_ works, not what the pressure
or anything else is in the tank prior to the flush. Any container
will have pressure when filled with _anything_.

Again: Once the water exits those "orifaces" it has no pressure, only
velocity because it is no longer confined.

BTW you can remove the tank full of water from the toilet, set it over
the bowl and flush it. It will flush fine but not as well as
designed. Try with a bucket of water.

Harry K

On Feb 5, 10:35*pm, "Bob F" wrote:
Bob Villa wrote:

We not taking about depth of water in the tank...the question was the
6 ft high tanks adding some great amount of pressure to the flush.

Can there really be any doubt? Certainly it would double or triple the pressure
at the start of the flush.

Double or triple the pressue _in the tank_ not in the bowl. There it
increases the velocity.

Harry K

On Feb 6, 8:04*am, Vic Smith wrote:
On Sun, 6 Feb 2011 07:29:21 -0800 (PST), Bob Villa

wrote:
On Feb 6, 9:10*am, Vic Smith wrote:

They didn't hang them high for kicks.

--Vic

I don't think it was a bad idea...just over-kill. I remember those
tanks were open and sometimes you would feel a little spray before
they got any depth of water in them. ^L^

I have a vague recollection of the flush chain hanging down by the
toilet, and getting splashed, but was too young to remember much.
Saw a lot of them over urinals, but never paid attention to how they
flushed.

I like the old fixtures and dark wood like you see in "The Water
Horse".

Didn't see that. *I used to like rich wood grain more, but not stained
too dark.
Think what changed my view is taking down the beautiful 4-piece crown
in my last house to refinish it.
PITA, and that 50 year old oak was light as balsa, or almost.
50 years had really dried it up. *Just changed my view.
Might be my eyesight. *Like to keep rooms light colored.
Still put new oak crown up in this house and had the oak floors
refinished, so I do like wood. *All "golden oak."
Don't like it around water though. *There's better materials, and they
look good enough.
When I lived summers with my grandfolks the toilet was all wood.
Outhouse. *Double-seater.
Never had a partner when there though.
Maybe grand dad put 2 seats in so if you had to go bad you had an
option if one seat was occupied by spiders and their webs.
I suppose a double makes since, just never saw 2 people using an
outhouse at the same time.

--Vic

I certainly did as a kid, Mama/Daddy escorted kids being toilet
trained, ones scared of the dark, etc. No grownup double occupancy
that I recall though.

Harry K

On Sun, 6 Feb 2011 08:16:27 -0800 (PST), Harry K
wrote:



I certainly did as a kid, Mama/Daddy escorted kids being toilet
trained, ones scared of the dark, etc. No grownup double occupancy
that I recall though.


Think I had 3 siblings during those years, all pre-teen and already
toilet-trained.
The outhouse was maybe thirty yards from the house.
A path through brush led to it. Ozarks.
I can't remember ever going to it in the dark, or a flashlight in the
house. I would have been one of the scared ones, believing in snipes.
But I don't trust my memories much anyway.
Been proved wrong too often.

--Vic

Vic Smith wrote:

Didn't see that. I used to like rich wood grain more, but not stained
too dark.
Think what changed my view is taking down the beautiful 4-piece crown
in my last house to refinish it.
PITA, and that 50 year old oak was light as balsa, or almost.
50 years had really dried it up. Just changed my view.
Might be my eyesight. Like to keep rooms light colored.
Still put new oak crown up in this house and had the oak floors
refinished, so I do like wood. All "golden oak."
Don't like it around water though. There's better materials, and they
look good enough.
When I lived summers with my grandfolks the toilet was all wood.
Outhouse. Double-seater.
Never had a partner when there though.
Maybe grand dad put 2 seats in so if you had to go bad you had an
option if one seat was occupied by spiders and their webs.
I suppose a double makes since, just never saw 2 people using an
outhouse at the same time.


It was a two-seater so the builder, obviously with a finely-honed sense of
humor, could mount a speaker under the seat frame and broadcast "Would you
mind moving over one, madam, I'm painting under here."

On Mon, 7 Feb 2011 05:43:17 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

It was a two-seater so the builder, obviously with a finely-honed sense of
humor, could mount a speaker under the seat frame and broadcast "Would you
mind moving over one, madam, I'm painting under here."


Still remember that one. A gas station in Missouri way I heard it
told. Not told really, read it in Readers Digest or maybe Argosy
or some such.
Maybe 40 years ago. That joke has a long beard.

--Vic

On 2/4/2011 8:53 AM, mm wrote:
On Thu, 3 Feb 2011 22:22:02 -0500, "Robert Green"
wrote:

"Jeff wrote in message
...
On 2/3/2011 12:59 PM, Bob Villa wrote:
On Feb 3, 10:22 am, wrote:
Bob Villa wrote:
On Feb 3, 8:55 am, "Robert wrote:
wrote in message

...

....comes from the water stored in the tank, vs the incoming water
pressure? I'm referring to an old style toilet, not some dubious
low flush annoy-o-lator.

Anything with a tank is gravity powered. Incoming water, AFAIK, has
nothing to do with flushing, just refilling the tank. I'll bet those
old "Godfather I" type toilets with the ceiling-high tank could
flush a bag of golf balls. Some tankless toilets run off water
pressure, but I've not seen them (here comes the flood of those that
have!) in anything but commercial structures.

--
Bobby G.

I doubt the height added pressure...it's not like it was the depth of
the water, it was just falling farther.

height does add pressure. there's that gravity thing increasing the
speed of
the falling water.

The water can only fall at a certain speed though a given
diameter...no matter what height.

Actually, the calculations are widely available as they are used in
irrigation, amongst other applications. There is not a lot of head loss
for that large a pipe. Velocity being a factor of pressure, area and
resistance. The restrictions largely seem to be in the toilet itself,
not the water column.

So are you saying that the high tank doesn't help?


They called them high suite combinations and the later toilets were low
suite.

Having a high tank has some advantage, it is a big tube and will be
full of water when it hits the bowl. But technology moved on.


Like Bob, I'm not
sure. If not, why did they use it? Why did the drug dealers buy
them?

No. They use modern toilets, the Kohler Cimmaron 1.2.

Jeff

Harry K wrote:
On Feb 5, 10:35 pm, "Bob F" wrote:
Bob Villa wrote:

We not taking about depth of water in the tank...the question was
the 6 ft high tanks adding some great amount of pressure to the
flush.

Can there really be any doubt? Certainly it would double or triple
the pressure at the start of the flush.

Double or triple the pressue _in the tank_ not in the bowl. There it
increases the velocity.


And when it hits the restrictions within the toilet, increases the pressure.

Harry K wrote:
On Feb 5, 10:38 pm, "Bob F" wrote:
Harry K wrote:
But really, when the flush valve opens, the pressure is not what
operates, it is the velocity of the water. The pressure is what gets
you the velocity. Thus it doesn't matter what the pressure in the
mains is, your tank height is all that counts. Even the "pressure
assists" operate the same way.

You don't have "pressure" unless the water is confined in something.

The water is confined by the orifaces in the toilet. Otherwise, it
would drain the tank a lot faster. Try flushing a tank removed from
the toilet.

If there were no pressure, they wouldn't need a gasket between the
tank and the base.

God! We are talking about how a _flush_ works, not what the pressure
or anything else is in the tank prior to the flush. Any container
will have pressure when filled with _anything_.

Again: Once the water exits those "orifaces" it has no pressure, only
velocity because it is no longer confined.

But to get through those orifaces with velocity, it needs pressure.