Did everyone see the recent episode on the subject show where the
plumbing guy visited the plumbing parts manufacturer and they showed
him how they tested (among other things) toilets?

No wonder we have such hopeless toilets. They tried golf balls and,
wow, it passed all of them. And then little pieces of hose and again
wow, they all passed (for the sarcasm-impaired, this is sarcastic).
And then they had a bunch of single sheets of toilet paper and
those--wow--passed as well. A couple of other equally useless tests
the details I don't remember and of course the dumper passed those
too.

(If only people would ask me....g) In the case of toilet paper what
they should have tested are three feet of paper wadded up and glued
(loosely) together, and another three foot piece similarly wadded into
a couple of inches, and another...about five in total. Then put in a
couple of ripe, peeled but uncut bananas. Let all this settle for a
couple of minutes to simulate the reading of yet another chapter of
War and Peace and then flush. Break out the plunger!

To simulate certain members of my family a banana is only about half
the required size (length and diameter) so the mfg is getting off
really easily.

In article , (SpamFree) writes:

| Did everyone see the recent episode on the subject show where the
| plumbing guy visited the plumbing parts manufacturer and they showed
| him how they tested (among other things) toilets?

I don't know about everyone, but I saw it.

| And then they had a bunch of single sheets of toilet paper and
| those--wow--passed as well.

I think the paper was actually wadded.

What I would like to have seen is a simple dye test. Drop in some food
coloring. Mix. Flush. On the low-flush toilet that came with my house
the water would not be clear after a single flush...

Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com

Glad to see that you are a student of 'what goes down the toilet bowl'.
:-)

I remember once, when I was working in a machine shop, a LARGE piece of
human excrement got stuck in the bowl. The guy who noticed this passed
the word around about what he had seen and several of the guys went
into the rest room with calipers and actually MEASURED it.

Then, of course, there was a lot of spectulation as to who could have
passed it.

Lewis.

***********

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 07:11:52 +0000, Dan Lanciani wrote:

In article ,
(SpamFree) writes:

| Did everyone see the recent episode on the subject show where the |
plumbing guy visited the plumbing parts manufacturer and they showed |
him how they tested (among other things) toilets?

I don't know about everyone, but I saw it.

| And then they had a bunch of single sheets of toilet paper and |
those--wow--passed as well.

I think the paper was actually wadded.

What I would like to have seen is a simple dye test. Drop in some food
coloring. Mix. Flush. On the low-flush toilet that came with my house
the water would not be clear after a single flush...

We need a new bathroom fixtu a combination faucet and bucket hook, with
a volumetric valve to automatically refill the bucket. That way, you
would always have an extra gallon or two of water to make that damn
Federally-mandated "water saving" toilet actually work when you really
need it to. For the rest of the world: it is now _illegal_ in the United
States to install an old-style 3-gallons-per-flush toilet.

Steve Rush wrote:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 07:11:52 +0000, Dan Lanciani wrote:

In article ,
(SpamFree) writes:

Did everyone see the recent episode on the subject show where the |
plumbing guy visited the plumbing parts manufacturer and they showed
| him how they tested (among other things) toilets?

I don't know about everyone, but I saw it.

And then they had a bunch of single sheets of toilet paper and |
those--wow--passed as well.

I think the paper was actually wadded.

What I would like to have seen is a simple dye test. Drop in some
food coloring. Mix. Flush. On the low-flush toilet that came with
my house the water would not be clear after a single flush...

We need a new bathroom fixtu a combination faucet and bucket hook,
with a volumetric valve to automatically refill the bucket. That
way, you would always have an extra gallon or two of water to make
that damn Federally-mandated "water saving" toilet actually work when
you really need it to. For the rest of the world: it is now
_illegal_ in the United States to install an old-style
3-gallons-per-flush toilet.

Most if not all new toilets have that built in. Try holding the handle
down for a few extra seconds.

Frankly, while there was a real problem with the early models, today the
problem is not really low water usage, it is a matter of poor and cheap
design. Most everyone has the standard contractor toilet. Cheap is the
word to describe them. There are plenty of, not too expensive, models out
there with very good designs (including large fully glazed traps) available
today.


--
Joseph Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math

Maybe they should just hire your family, they sound perfect

In article , Joseph Meehan says...



Frankly, while there was a real problem with the early models, today the
problem is not really low water usage, it is a matter of poor and cheap
design. Most everyone has the standard contractor toilet. Cheap is the
word to describe them. There are plenty of, not too expensive, models out
there with very good designs (including large fully glazed traps) available
today.



You mean, one's that weren't seemingly designed for small to medium-sized people
with high roughage content in their diets?

Makes and models, please!

Banty

"SpamFree" wrote in message
...
Did everyone see the recent episode on the subject show where the
plumbing guy visited the plumbing parts manufacturer and they showed
him how they tested (among other things) toilets?

No wonder we have such hopeless toilets. They tried golf balls and,
wow, it passed all of them. And then little pieces of hose and again
wow, they all passed (for the sarcasm-impaired, this is sarcastic).
And then they had a bunch of single sheets of toilet paper and
those--wow--passed as well. A couple of other equally useless tests
the details I don't remember and of course the dumper passed those
too.

(If only people would ask me....g) In the case of toilet paper what
they should have tested are three feet of paper wadded up and glued
(loosely) together, and another three foot piece similarly wadded into
a couple of inches, and another...about five in total. Then put in a
couple of ripe, peeled but uncut bananas. Let all this settle for a
couple of minutes to simulate the reading of yet another chapter of
War and Peace and then flush. Break out the plunger!

To simulate certain members of my family a banana is only about half
the required size (length and diameter) so the mfg is getting off
really easily.


I agree with your testing comments, however... about a week ago, we had the
American Standard Champion installed. We haven't had a clog yet. There have
been occasions where the old toilet definitely would have clogged.

On 21 Feb 2005 06:53:33 -0800, Banty wrote:

In article , Joseph Meehan says...



Frankly, while there was a real problem with the early models, today the
problem is not really low water usage, it is a matter of poor and cheap
design. Most everyone has the standard contractor toilet. Cheap is the
word to describe them. There are plenty of, not too expensive, models out
there with very good designs (including large fully glazed traps) available
today.



You mean, one's that weren't seemingly designed for small to medium-sized people
with high roughage content in their diets?

Makes and models, please!

Banty

Toto Drake, Dalton, UltraMax, Carlyle, Baldwin, Dartmouth, Carrollton

American Standard Cadet

Gerber Ultra Flush

These are all in the $300 to $500 range, but they will do the job.

Dick

Thanks for sharing. Now why exactly is it that you inspect your
families ****?

American Standard Cadet is less than $150 at Home Depot.
Never a double-flush required.

"Dick" LeadWinger wrote in message
...
Toto Drake, Dalton, UltraMax, Carlyle, Baldwin, Dartmouth, Carrollton

American Standard Cadet

Gerber Ultra Flush

These are all in the $300 to $500 range, but they will do the job.

Dick

Banty wrote in
:

In article , Joseph Meehan
says...



Frankly, while there was a real problem with the early models,
today the
problem is not really low water usage, it is a matter of poor and
cheap design. Most everyone has the standard contractor toilet.
Cheap is the word to describe them. There are plenty of, not too
expensive, models out there with very good designs (including large
fully glazed traps) available today.



You mean, one's that weren't seemingly designed for small to
medium-sized people with high roughage content in their diets?

Makes and models, please!

Banty



The Briggs models I installed last year do really well. And they are
regularly stress tested here.

Patriarch

Matt posted for all of us....

Thanks for sharing. Now why exactly is it that you inspect your
families ****?


He wants to know his ****!
--
Tekkie

"Matt" wrote:

Thanks for sharing. Now why exactly is it that you inspect your
families ****?

Who do you think has the pleasant job of using the plunger.

Steve Rush wrote:

We need a new bathroom fixtu a combination faucet and bucket hook,
with a volumetric valve to automatically refill the bucket. That
way, you would always have an extra gallon or two of water to make
that damn Federally-mandated "water saving" toilet actually work when
you really need it to. For the rest of the world: it is now
_illegal_ in the United States to install an old-style
3-gallons-per-flush toilet.

This is but another example of our government working at cross-purposes.

On the one hand, as you point out, there are federal regulations on toilets
designed to conserve water.

On the other hand, there are minions in the government encouraging us to eat
more fruits and vegetables.

Now fruits and vegetables generate a lot of "floaters," whereas meat (yum)
generate more "sinkers."

The "sinkers" flush easily, whereas the "floaters" are difficult to wash
down, resulting in more flushes and, in extreme cases, having to be removed
from the bowl by hand!

There ought to be a department of "Setting Priorities."

"JerryMouse" wrote:

Steve Rush wrote:

We need a new bathroom fixtu a combination faucet and bucket hook,
with a volumetric valve to automatically refill the bucket. That
way, you would always have an extra gallon or two of water to make
that damn Federally-mandated "water saving" toilet actually work when
you really need it to. For the rest of the world: it is now
_illegal_ in the United States to install an old-style
3-gallons-per-flush toilet.

This is but another example of our government working at cross-purposes.

On the one hand, as you point out, there are federal regulations on toilets
designed to conserve water.

On the other hand, there are minions in the government encouraging us to eat
more fruits and vegetables.

Now fruits and vegetables generate a lot of "floaters," whereas meat (yum)
generate more "sinkers."

The "sinkers" flush easily, whereas the "floaters" are difficult to wash
down, resulting in more flushes and, in extreme cases, having to be removed
from the bowl by hand!

There ought to be a department of "Setting Priorities."

And the requirement for chlorination removes getting "the runs" which
would solve the problem entirely.

Yes, I like this idea. I think a camera should also be mounted in the
bowl. Then they could have a sweepstakes to see what viewer can
identify which show personality, based upon ass and stool
characteristics. Like I bet Norm has a big fat pasty white hairy ass,
and his turds are probably huge. Bob, on the other hand, probably has a
tanned ass, and rarely if ever takes a ****.

They could even base a reality show on this..... contestants would have
to crap in dangerous places, like in a lions den or maybe from a
highwire; or face eviction from the island. Whoever craps the biggest
would be tribal leader.

They could also sneak into the homes of the ladies and leave them a
gift in
their toilets. Then set up a hidden camera and watch if she screams
when
she opens the toilet lid.

Sort of like candid toilet cam!

Hell yes. If they bought seinfeld, this would surely get picked up. An
even wackier idea would be to leave them a gift in the bathroom or
kitchen sink, perhaps even on a counter or the floor. And then on
halloween, they could set up in a single persons house; wait till the
person went in the shower, and then put a turd in the toilet. That
would really scare people.

Matt posted for all of us....

Yes, I like this idea. I think a camera should also be mounted in the
bowl. Then they could have a sweepstakes to see what viewer can
identify which show personality, based upon ass and stool
characteristics. Like I bet Norm has a big fat pasty white hairy ass,
and his turds are probably huge. Bob, on the other hand, probably has a
tanned ass, and rarely if ever takes a ****.

They could even base a reality show on this..... contestants would have
to crap in dangerous places, like in a lions den or maybe from a
highwire; or face eviction from the island. Whoever craps the biggest
would be tribal leader.


I will "pass" on being a judge in the swirley bowl...
--
Tekkie