http://timesonline.typepad.com/envir...lush-toil.html

"Martin Pentreath" wrote in message
...
http://timesonline.typepad.com/envir...lush-toil.html


I note that some of the comments from plumbers refer to the device in the
cistern as a "Siphon" - it isn't as it doesn't siphon the water. It is
merely a release valve.

Near where I live are some (older) houses with plastic (or hose in a couple
of cases) pipes connected to the toilet overflow to lead the water to a
rainwater hopper! Amazing how a simple ball valve defeats the d-i-y ability
of some people yet they will climb a ladder to perform a bodge.

I don't like the idea of an internal overflow - but I feel that we lost the
plot when we didn't persevere in calling the "overflow" a "warning pipe"

Martin Pentreath wrote:
http://timesonline.typepad.com/envir...lush-toil.html

When a toilet is flushed, bath plug pulled out etc, the water leaves the
house via the 5in pipes.
Where does it go?

I have always assumed that it makes it's way back to a plant somewhere for
treatment.

Then what? Is it put back into the system or flushed into the sea? Some will
leak so that ends up in the water table I would expect.

Where is the environmental disaster?

ISTM that there will always be the same amount of water, it simply moves
about a bit.

Feel free to point out the flaws in my thinking.

"R D S" wrote in message
...
Martin Pentreath wrote:
http://timesonline.typepad.com/envir...lush-toil.html

When a toilet is flushed, bath plug pulled out etc, the water leaves the
house via the 5in pipes.
Where does it go?

I have always assumed that it makes it's way back to a plant somewhere for
treatment.

Then what? Is it put back into the system or flushed into the sea? Some
will
leak so that ends up in the water table I would expect.

Where is the environmental disaster?

ISTM that there will always be the same amount of water, it simply moves
about a bit.

Feel free to point out the flaws in my thinking.

I can't find any.

Since I didn't go to the site I can't comment any more. Posting a url with
nothing else is a turn-off!

Mary

On Apr 25, 8:02 pm, "John" wrote:
"Martin Pentreath" wrote in message

...

http://timesonline.typepad.com/envir...lush-toil.html

I note that some of the comments from plumbers refer to the device in the
cistern as a "Siphon" - it isn't as it doesn't siphon the water. It is
merely a release valve.

Near where I live are some (older) houses with plastic (or hose in a couple
of cases) pipes connected to the toilet overflow to lead the water to a
rainwater hopper! Amazing how a simple ball valve defeats the d-i-y ability
of some people yet they will climb a ladder to perform a bodge.

I don't like the idea of an internal overflow - but I feel that we lost the
plot when we didn't persevere in calling the "overflow" a "warning pipe"

I think "Save the siphon - before it's too late!" suggests returning
to a "real" syphon, that cannot possibly leak. However that uses a
large amount of water per flush.
Otherwise I like the internal overflow because I can see if it's
overflowing. I seldom see an external overflow that is easily visible
by the householder.
Why do people see water running continuously and not expect their
water bill to be high?

R D S wrote:
Martin Pentreath wrote:
http://timesonline.typepad.com/envir...lush-toil.html

When a toilet is flushed, bath plug pulled out etc, the water leaves the
house via the 5in pipes.
Where does it go?

halfway down the garden to a tank, in my case, and then out into an old
dry ditch.


I have always assumed that it makes it's way back to a plant somewhere for
treatment.

Then what? Is it put back into the system or flushed into the sea? Some will
leak so that ends up in the water table I would expect.

Flushed into a river or the sea normally.


Where is the environmental disaster?


No environmental disuater, just a problem of needing more to replace it:


ISTM that there will always be the same amount of water, it simply moves
about a bit.

Feel free to point out the flaws in my thinking.


The flaws is that we need fresh treated water in the supplies.

What comes out of a sewage works is not that fresh, but is still treated
somewhat: you cant just keep recycling it round without nature doing
some evaporation and distillation.

Or make nice big desalination plants nexts to nuclear power stations.

On 25 Apr, 09:02, "John" wrote:
"Martin Pentreath" wrote in message

...

http://timesonline.typepad.com/envir...lush-toil.html

I note that some of the comments from plumbers refer to the device in the
cistern as a "Siphon" - it isn't as it doesn't siphon the water. It is
merely a release valve.

Near where I live are some (older) houses with plastic (or hose in a couple
of cases) pipes connected to the toilet overflow to lead the water to a
rainwater hopper! Amazing how a simple ball valve defeats the d-i-y ability
of some people yet they will climb a ladder to perform a bodge.

I don't like the idea of an internal overflow - but I feel that we lost the
plot when we didn't persevere in calling the "overflow" a "warning pipe"

Why am I not surprised. You didn't expect the green lobby to actually
come up with technology that actually works or saves natural resources
in the real world did you?

Philip

Martin Pentreath wrote:
http://timesonline.typepad.com/envir...lush-toil.html

Surely that should read, "Not paying attention to an overflowing cistern
when you're on a water meter is silly"? Hardly a disaster.

Nothing to do with dual flush or even internal overflows (although arguably,
a small leak down the back of the pan is less noticeable).

Tim

On 25 Apr, 10:38, "Tim" nothing@here wrote:
Martin Pentreath wrote:
http://timesonline.typepad.com/envir...lush-toil.html

Surely that should read, "Not paying attention to an overflowing cistern
when you're on a water meter is silly"? Hardly a disaster.

Nothing to do with dual flush or even internal overflows (although arguably,
a small leak down the back of the pan is less noticeable).

Perhaps replacing the float operated valve with hand-operated valve on
the intake of the cistern would help? If the default state is closed,
then an empty cistern implies a leak (or someone forgot to fill it
from the last time).

Sid

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 10:38:01 +0100 someone who may be "Tim"
nothing@here wrote this:-

Nothing to do with dual flush

Precisely, though the knockers never let mere facts get in the way
of their false assertions.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 10:38:01 +0100 someone who may be "Tim"
nothing@here wrote this:-

Nothing to do with dual flush

Precisely, though the knockers never let mere facts get in the way
of their false assertions.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

My 20 year old Siphons have a dual flush capability. Press handle and let go
for a short flush - Press and hold down for a long flush. This feature
wasn't very obvious and was activated by removing a small siphon break plug
in the body of the siphon.


The reason for change to the current type was to enable harmonisation with
Europe as they have had useless ones for years.


--


--
John

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 10:38:01 +0100 someone who may be "Tim"
nothing@here wrote this:-

Nothing to do with dual flush

Precisely, though the knockers never let mere facts get in the way
of their false assertions.

Their religion doesn't allow that :-)

Mary

In uk.d-i-y, Martin Pentreath wrote:
http://timesonline.typepad.com/envir...lush-toil.html

Bizarre. The headline is

"Dual-flush toilets are disastrous - official"

But the article itself actually says nothing about dual-flush toilets.
It also contains a lot of anecdote and nothing whatsoever about
"official" opinion. This about as low as technical journalism gets. It's
depressing that John-Paul Flintoff can earn a crust churning out this
garbage.

Moving on to the actual substance of the article, the idea that you need
to lay a piece of paper across the back of the loo to detect a leak of
3000 litres a day is laughable. Even if the water was invisibly flowing
over the porcelain, the disturbance to the water surface would be
obvious to anyone who took the trouble to look.

I think that internal overflows are actually an excellent idea. Anyone
who ignores a leak in the toilet pan itself would be ten times more
likely (in my totally unofficial opinion) to ignore a leak from an
external overflow pipe.

--
Mike Barnes

David Hansen wrote:
On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 10:38:01 +0100 someone who may be "Tim"
nothing@here wrote this:-

Nothing to do with dual flush

Precisely, though the knockers never let mere facts get in the way
of their false assertions.



A LOT to do with dual flush actually.

Since small amounts of flush are quite hard to achieve with a siphon system.

"Mike Barnes" wrote in message
...
In uk.d-i-y, Martin Pentreath wrote:
http://timesonline.typepad.com/envir...lush-toil.html

Bizarre. The headline is

"Dual-flush toilets are disastrous - official"

But the article itself actually says nothing about dual-flush toilets.
It also contains a lot of anecdote and nothing whatsoever about
"official" opinion. This about as low as technical journalism gets. It's
depressing that John-Paul Flintoff can earn a crust churning out this
garbage.

Moving on to the actual substance of the article, the idea that you need
to lay a piece of paper across the back of the loo to detect a leak of
3000 litres a day is laughable. Even if the water was invisibly flowing
over the porcelain, the disturbance to the water surface would be
obvious to anyone who took the trouble to look.

I think that internal overflows are actually an excellent idea. Anyone
who ignores a leak in the toilet pan itself would be ten times more
likely (in my totally unofficial opinion) to ignore a leak from an
external overflow pipe.

--
Mike Barnes

If the "Warning Pipe" is somewhere visible then I cant see how anyone (or
their friends) could ignore it. The trouble with the internal overflow is
that it isn't very apparent - you could easily think the bowl is just wet
from a previous flush. (Also many women (I believe) back up to the WC and
don't really normally take a look.

"Mike Barnes" wrote in message
...
In uk.d-i-y, Martin Pentreath wrote:
http://timesonline.typepad.com/envir...lush-toil.html

Bizarre. The headline is

"Dual-flush toilets are disastrous - official"

But the article itself actually says nothing about dual-flush toilets.
It also contains a lot of anecdote and nothing whatsoever about
"official" opinion. This about as low as technical journalism gets. It's
depressing that John-Paul Flintoff can earn a crust churning out this
garbage.

Mike, you don't understand that if something's in print it's official!

Even more so if it can be found on the web.

Mary

In uk.d-i-y, John wrote:

"Mike Barnes" wrote in message
d...
In uk.d-i-y, Martin Pentreath wrote:
http://timesonline.typepad.com/envir...lush-toil.html

Bizarre. The headline is

"Dual-flush toilets are disastrous - official"

But the article itself actually says nothing about dual-flush toilets.
It also contains a lot of anecdote and nothing whatsoever about
"official" opinion. This about as low as technical journalism gets. It's
depressing that John-Paul Flintoff can earn a crust churning out this
garbage.

Moving on to the actual substance of the article, the idea that you need
to lay a piece of paper across the back of the loo to detect a leak of
3000 litres a day is laughable. Even if the water was invisibly flowing
over the porcelain, the disturbance to the water surface would be
obvious to anyone who took the trouble to look.

I think that internal overflows are actually an excellent idea. Anyone
who ignores a leak in the toilet pan itself would be ten times more
likely (in my totally unofficial opinion) to ignore a leak from an
external overflow pipe.


If the "Warning Pipe" is somewhere visible then I cant see how anyone (or
their friends) could ignore it.

I've no idea what you mean by the "Warning Pipe". Could you explain?

The trouble with the internal overflow is
that it isn't very apparent - you could easily think the bowl is just wet
from a previous flush.

As I said before, the most obvious sign isn't just wetness, which if
uniform is pretty-much invisible anyway. But there will be a stream of
water actually cascading down the porcelain, or (more obviously)
disturbance to the surface of the water already in the bowl.

(Also many women (I believe) back up to the WC

I've been known to sit on the WC myself so I do know how that works.

and
don't really normally take a look.

Anyone who doesn't take an interest in their surroundings is asking for
precisely the sort of trouble we're talking about. I suspect that they
wouldn't notice water coming out of an external overflow pipe either.

--
Mike Barnes

"Tim" nothing@here wrote in message
...
Martin Pentreath wrote:
http://timesonline.typepad.com/envir...lush-toil.html

Surely that should read, "Not paying attention to an overflowing cistern
when you're on a water meter is silly"? Hardly a disaster.

Nothing to do with dual flush or even internal overflows (although
arguably, a small leak down the back of the pan is less noticeable).

Tim

I was told that the German standard is to have a small amount of
continuously running water down the back of the pan to avoid solids sticking
to it.

Mary

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 13:50:49 +0100 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-

David Hansen wrote:
On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 10:38:01 +0100 someone who may be "Tim"
nothing@here wrote this:-

Nothing to do with dual flush

Precisely, though the knockers never let mere facts get in the way
of their false assertions.

A LOT to do with dual flush actually.

Since small amounts of flush are quite hard to achieve with a siphon system.

Then presumably the siphon one may purchase at
http://www.screwfix.com/prods/44047/Plumbing/Toilet-Fittings/Toilet-Siphon-203mm-8
doesn't work. Experience says otherwise.

Also, presumably, a toilet fitted with a Variflush
http://www.peterton.co.uk/index.html will not work with the knob
on the low setting. However, they do, including the one at
http://www.sci-scotland.org.uk/index.shtml which is used by a
variety of visitors.




--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

John wrote:
from a previous flush. (Also many women (I believe) back up to the WC and
don't really normally take a look.

Ah, that must be why you hear so many stories about women
complaining about the positioning of the seat/lid. If they walked
forwards to the toilet, they'd see what state is was in, and adjust
the settings appropriately

--
JGH - Et Ovum Excoxi

"John" wrote in message
...
.....
I don't like the idea of an internal overflow - but I feel that we lost
the plot when we didn't persevere in calling the "overflow" a "warning
pipe"

The overflow and warning pipe are two different things. It is only in
cisterns of under 1000 litres that they may be combined into a single pipe,
when either name is then correct.

Colin Bignell

R D S wrote:
Martin Pentreath wrote:
http://timesonline.typepad.com/envir...lush-toil.html

When a toilet is flushed, bath plug pulled out etc, the water leaves
the house via the 5in pipes.
Where does it go?

4" soil pipes!

I have always assumed that it makes it's way back to a plant
somewhere for treatment.

If don't use a septic tank or similar then it goes to the waste water
treatment plant - or it should do!

Then what? Is it put back into the system or flushed into the sea?
Some will leak so that ends up in the water table I would expect.

Depending on where the plant is located, the treated waste is either
'dumped' into a stream, river or sea - but it ultimately ends up in the
sea - and as you say the water table. All good clean stuff though - and
according to some, fit enough to drink as it comes out of the plant! Yuk.

Where is the environmental disaster?

When it's not treated and ends up in the sea - and when you're swimming in
the sea on your hols, you are 'nutting' the hard stuff out of the way as
you're proceeding - I did a bit of that as a lad many years ago and it
wasn't pleasant!

ISTM that there will always be the same amount of water, it simply
moves about a bit.

Not quite true - but when the ice-caps melt, then there will be more to play
with but getting it to the right place will still be the problem!

If you're interested, have a read here for some info on the subject:

http://www.water.org.uk/home/news/pr...er-web--2-.pdf

Tanner-'op

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 14:26:46 +0100 someone who may be Mike Barnes
wrote this:-

Anyone who doesn't take an interest in their surroundings is asking for
precisely the sort of trouble we're talking about. I suspect that they
wouldn't notice water coming out of an external overflow pipe either.

I think it far more likely that someone will notice water flowing
out of an external pipe than flowing into the bowl. However, there
are people who will do nothing about it no matter how obvious an
overflow is.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Apr 25, 8:54*am, Martin Pentreath
wrote:
http://timesonline.typepad.com/envir...lush-toil.html

So she didn't notice a leak of 3,000 litres/day. She deserves all she
gets. Either that, or it's the usual media ****e.

MBQ

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 15:10:18 +0100, David Hansen wrote:

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 13:50:49 +0100 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-

A LOT to do with dual flush actually.
Since small amounts of flush are quite hard to achieve with a siphon system.

Then presumably the siphon one may purchase at
http://www.screwfix.com/prods/44047/Plumbing/Toilet-Fittings/Toilet-Siphon-203mm-8
doesn't work. Experience says otherwise.

Experience says it does work, but that it's not dual flush (which TNP was
obviously referring to by "small amounts of flush").

Also, presumably, a toilet fitted with a Variflush
http://www.peterton.co.uk/index.html will not work with the knob
on the low setting.

Won't work at all with cisterns designed for a top-mounted dual-flush push
button which most of the designs being complained about in this thread
have. Plus it's so cranky-looking it wouldn't get past the door in most
SWMBO-dominated homes :-)

Any idea how they work? Presumably it's all patent-protected so that
no-one can make an acceptable-looking alternative version.

--
John Stumbles

Ohnosecond
Instant in time when you realise that you've just made a BIG mistake.

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 15:49:10 +0100, David Hansen wrote:

I think it far more likely that someone will notice water flowing
out of an external pipe than flowing into the bowl. However, there
are people who will do nothing about it no matter how obvious an
overflow is.

It depends where the external warning/overflow pipe is situated: if it's in
an out-of-the-way place and/or it's winter and no-one goes out where it's
situated then it can **** away for months before anyone notices. OTOH as
people have pointed out the equivalent of a slow drip from a pipe is all
but invisible when it's down the pan, but when/if it gets to a higher rate
it's more likely to be noticeable.

--
John Stumbles

This message has been rot13 encrypted twice for added security

John Stumbles wrote:
On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 15:10:18 +0100, David Hansen wrote:

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 13:50:49 +0100 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-


Also, presumably, a toilet fitted with a Variflush
http://www.peterton.co.uk/index.html will not work with the knob
on the low setting.

Won't work at all with cisterns designed for a top-mounted dual-flush
push
button which most of the designs being complained about in this thread
have. Plus it's so cranky-looking it wouldn't get past the door in
most SWMBO-dominated homes :-)

Any idea how they work? Presumably it's all patent-protected so that
no-one can make an acceptable-looking alternative version.

I think they let air into the syphon. If you look at page 18 (or 15) of the
report on http://www.watersave.uk.net/Links/Dualflushreport.pdf you can see
what I assume is an air admittance tube fitted to the top of the syphon.

Tim

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 08:08:35 -0700, Man at B&Q wrote:

On Apr 25, 8:54Â*am, Martin Pentreath
wrote:
http://timesonline.typepad.com/envir...lush-toil.html

So she didn't notice a leak of 3,000 litres/day. She deserves all she
gets. Either that, or it's the usual media ****e.

3000 litres/day == 125l/h == 2 litres/minute. A fair flow, but running
evenly down a WC bowl could be missed by someone of the in quick, do
business, out quick school.

--
John Stumbles

Procrastinate now!

"Mike Barnes" wrote in message
...
In uk.d-i-y, John wrote:

"Mike Barnes" wrote in message
id...
In uk.d-i-y, Martin Pentreath wrote:
http://timesonline.typepad.com/envir...lush-toil.html

Bizarre. The headline is

"Dual-flush toilets are disastrous - official"

But the article itself actually says nothing about dual-flush toilets.
It also contains a lot of anecdote and nothing whatsoever about
"official" opinion. This about as low as technical journalism gets. It's
depressing that John-Paul Flintoff can earn a crust churning out this
garbage.

Moving on to the actual substance of the article, the idea that you need
to lay a piece of paper across the back of the loo to detect a leak of
3000 litres a day is laughable. Even if the water was invisibly flowing
over the porcelain, the disturbance to the water surface would be
obvious to anyone who took the trouble to look.

I think that internal overflows are actually an excellent idea. Anyone
who ignores a leak in the toilet pan itself would be ten times more
likely (in my totally unofficial opinion) to ignore a leak from an
external overflow pipe.


If the "Warning Pipe" is somewhere visible then I cant see how anyone (or
their friends) could ignore it.

I've no idea what you mean by the "Warning Pipe". Could you explain?

The trouble with the internal overflow is
that it isn't very apparent - you could easily think the bowl is just wet
from a previous flush.

As I said before, the most obvious sign isn't just wetness, which if
uniform is pretty-much invisible anyway. But there will be a stream of
water actually cascading down the porcelain, or (more obviously)
disturbance to the surface of the water already in the bowl.

(Also many women (I believe) back up to the WC

I've been known to sit on the WC myself so I do know how that works.

and
don't really normally take a look.

Anyone who doesn't take an interest in their surroundings is asking for
precisely the sort of trouble we're talking about. I suspect that they
wouldn't notice water coming out of an external overflow pipe either.

And I wonder who cleans the lavatory in his house ...

Mary

John Stumbles wrote:
On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 08:08:35 -0700, Man at B&Q wrote:

On Apr 25, 8:54 am, Martin Pentreath
wrote:
http://timesonline.typepad.com/envir...lush-toil.html

So she didn't notice a leak of 3,000 litres/day. She deserves all
she gets. Either that, or it's the usual media ****e.

3000 litres/day == 125l/h == 2 litres/minute. A fair flow, but running
evenly down a WC bowl could be missed by someone of the in quick, do
business, out quick school.

But for 6 months! At 2L per minute you'd have thought the flow noises in
the pipework/ballcock/torbeck valve would have alerted someone.

Tim

David Hansen wrote:
On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 14:26:46 +0100 someone who may be Mike Barnes
wrote this:-

Anyone who doesn't take an interest in their surroundings is asking
for precisely the sort of trouble we're talking about. I suspect
that they wouldn't notice water coming out of an external overflow
pipe either.

I think it far more likely that someone will notice water flowing
out of an external pipe than flowing into the bowl. However, there
are people who will do nothing about it no matter how obvious an
overflow is.

I reckon I could ignore (but not fail to notice) water trickling down the
back of my pan for quite a long time but then I'm not on a meter! ;-)

Tim

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 16:34:26 +0100, Tim Downie wrote:

I think they let air into the syphon. If you look at page 18 (or 15) of
the report on http://www.watersave.uk.net/Links/Dualflushreport.pdf you
can see what I assume is an air admittance tube fitted to the top of the
syphon.

Ah yes, it says the device has 3 tubes (not visible in photo) which let air
into the syphon at various levels. Similar to the Mecon device. THey
speculate that much of the device's savings was because users tended to
leave the flush volume control on the middle setting, in which case a
brick in the cistern would be just as effective.

--
John Stumbles

Fundamentalist agnostic

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 17:18:05 +0100, Tim Downie wrote:

But for 6 months! At 2L per minute you'd have thought the flow noises
in the pipework/ballcock/torbeck valve would have alerted someone.

I like to think it would have alerted me, but to a person not
technologically attuned (possibly of the venusian rather than martian[1]
type) it might just become part of the background of living with technology.




[1] to borrow a metaphor which is surely from Uranus

--
John Stumbles

Testiculate [v.t]
To wave one's arms around while talking ********.

On 25 Apr, 09:07, "R D S" wrote:

Where is the environmental disaster?

ISTM that there will always be the same amount of water, it simply moves
about a bit.

Feel free to point out the flaws in my thinking.

It needs FOGB electric pumps to move it through the treatment process
and through the mains. More water = more electricity.
That is assuming the existing pumps and pipes are big enough to cope
with the added demand. In some cases they aren't, so you get huge
disruptions and costs whilst roads are dug up to lay newer, bigger
pipes and install more, bigger pumps and processing plants.

That is also ignoring the fact that there is a finite amount of fresh
water available and we're using most of it. Reservoirs run dry, water
tables drop. Some UK rivers are 60 or 70% treated, discharged, water
near the sea (sewage with the lumpy bits removed) ISTR. It's pumped
out upstream, goes around the mains, back through the sewers, treated
and discharged back into the rivers.

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 10:18:33 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

What comes out of a sewage works is not that fresh, but is still treated
somewhat: you cant just keep recycling it round without nature doing
some evaporation and distillation.

Or ten or so of miles of river or water way to clean it up a bit more
before being absracted and cleaned again for some one elses drinking
water. "What Reading drinks today, London drinks tommorow".

--
Cheers
Dave.

Tim wrote:
Martin Pentreath wrote:
http://timesonline.typepad.com/envir...lush-toil.html

Surely that should read, "Not paying attention to an overflowing
cistern when you're on a water meter is silly"? Hardly a disaster.

Nothing to do with dual flush or even internal overflows (although
arguably, a small leak down the back of the pan is less noticeable).

I get a lot of calls (& jobs) reported as 'toilet won't stop flushing'.
What they mean is that the internal overflow is operating. Reports of water
from an external overflow are much less common, so I'd say internal
overflows are much more noticeable.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 13:11:45 +0100, Mike Barnes wrote:

In uk.d-i-y, Martin Pentreath wrote:
http://timesonline.typepad.com/envir...lush-toil.html

Bizarre. The headline is

"Dual-flush toilets are disastrous - official"

But the article itself actually says nothing about dual-flush toilets.
It also contains a lot of anecdote and nothing whatsoever about
"official" opinion. This about as low as technical journalism gets. It's
depressing that John-Paul Flintoff can earn a crust churning out this
garbage.

I remember (looong time ago) a newspaper called the Times which was a
byword for accuracy and impartiality.


I think that internal overflows are actually an excellent idea. Anyone
who ignores a leak in the toilet pan itself would be ten times more
likely (in my totally unofficial opinion) to ignore a leak from an
external overflow pipe.

I think the problem is drip/dribble level overflows which would be
visible from an external overflow pipe but are practically undetectable
(except by piece of bog paper) when running down the back of the pan. The
solution seems simple: pan makers should ensure that at drip/dribble level
flows result in water drip/running off a lip in the porcelain rim and
splashing into the water in the bowl.


FWIW I posted a reply/comment to the Times article:

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""
The problem is not dual-flush mechanisms per-se. There are two factors
involved. A cistern has two significant mechanisms: one for flushing:
letting the contents of the cistern go into the pan; and another for
refilling it afterwards, ready for the next flush. In the traditional
British cistern these are a syphon valve and a ball-cock valve.

More recent designs, especially of continental European origin, have a
"drop" valve or sometimes a flap valve for flushing. Syphon valves cannot
leak: they will only let water flow when the handle is operated (and
sometimes not even them if the valve is wearing out). The
continental-style valves, however, rely on a rubber ring or plug stopping
water leaving the cistern. Like sink and basin plugs these can leak,
especially as the rubber materials deteriorate or if grit or limescale
gets between the sealing surfaces. When they do leak water is wasted.

The other way water is wasted is if the filling valve - the ball-cock (or
modern types doing the same job by slightly different mechanisms) does not
shut off when the cistern is full. This will cause an overflow.

In the traditional British arrangement an overflow is arranged to run out
of a separate pipe out of the cistern and discharge outdoors - supposedly
in a prominent location where any overflow will be seen and, hopefully,
dealt with.

The second factor I mentioned is that internal overflow arrangements are
now permitted, where overflowing water runs down into the pan. The
disadvantage of this is that a slight overflow which would cause a drip or
trickle from an outside pipe is practically invisible when running down
inside the pan, and can thus go undetected until the overflow gets quite
intense.

(On the other hand external overflow pipes are often not in prominent
locations and if it can only be seen from somewhere in the garden a
substantial overflow can be missed for weeks or months on end during the
winter.)

To sum up it is quite possible to have a cistern with a dual-flush syphon
and external overflow to a prominent location. It is equally possible to
have a fixed-volume flush flap or drop valve with an internal overflow
which leaks like a sieve!
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""


--
John Stumbles

Xenophobia? Sounds a bit foreign to me.

On Apr 26, 6:34 am, John Stumbles wrote:
On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 17:18:05 +0100, Tim Downie wrote:
But for 6 months! At 2L per minute you'd have thought the flow noises
in the pipework/ballcock/torbeck valve would have alerted someone.

I like to think it would have alerted me, but to a person not
technologically attuned (possibly of the venusian rather than martian[1]
type) it might just become part of the background of living with technology.

How about the little wheels in the water meter whizzing around at high
speed even when all taps are supposed to be off? Would that alert
anyone?

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 15:17:04 -0700, Matty F wrote:

How about the little wheels in the water meter whizzing around at high
speed even when all taps are supposed to be off? Would that alert
anyone?

Yes. Anyone who had their head down the hole in the road the meter was
installed in.

--
John Stumbles

Blamestorming
Sitting around in a group, discussing why a deadline was missed
or a project failed, and who was responsible.

I can't find any.

Since I didn't go to the site I can't comment any more. Posting a url with
nothing else is a turn-off!

Mary


Martin Pentreath isn't exactly a new name on this group and I don't recall
him
ever posting anything dodgy

He headed his OP Dual-flush toilets are disastrous - official, so what were
you
expecting?

He posted the full URL, not a snipped one.

Come on Mary, live a little dangerously!
How on earth do you browse the WWW if you need the
credentials of each button on a web page before you dare
click it.



--
Graham

%Profound_observation%