Travelling in the USA at the moment and the toilets over here are different
from those in the UK but reasonably consistent.

Firstly they are a much shallower pan than the average UK bog, and secondly
they are generally viciously siphonic.

In general terms I think I prefer them.
Any delicate souls should look away now :-)
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
Firstly the broad shallow pan eliminates the "long drop" of the average UK
pan and also avoids the large splash you tend to get when you deposit
something impressive.
The only down side is the habit of something floating into view between your
legs as you sit there contemplating life.

Secondly, the extra water held in the pan assists in the cleansing of the
toilet bowl when you flush.
This, coupled with the strong siphonic action, seems to generally clear the
bowl effectively.
However the siphonic flush is very aggressive - a fierce jet of water seems
to be shot across the U bend which rips the contents of the pan away down
the pipe work accompanied by a large roaring noise.
This can be quite alarming where there is an automatic flush which attempts
to detect when you have finished and avoid the necessity of you touching any
handle or button.
Especially alarming when you haven't even started ;-)

So why are toilets so different in the USA?
I suspect that they use more water in the pan, and so may fall foul of some
old water board regulation.
I suspect that the syphonic part may use mains pressure water, again falling
foul.
However they do seem to be a better overall design than the UK ones in terms
of efficiently removing crap.

The more mature and well travelled will probably also remember the French
Colonial style of toilet which consists of a hole in the ground and a pair
of porcelain footprints.
These never seemed to catch on in the UK.
They are probably also much better for you physically as they are closer to
the natural way of doing things if you don't have modern plumbing.
Less comfortable though, if you are catching up on the back issues of the
Times.

So is there a good reason why our toilet pans are designed the way they are,
and not like those in other countries, or is this just some kind of random
variation?

Quite tempted by the US style toilet but I suspect that they wouldn't meet
current UK regulations.
I say this because I think they directly use mains pressure water and I seem
to recall that this is banned (or was at one time) in most parts of the UK
which insisted on cisterns to control water usage.

Amazing what your mind turns to late at night in a foreign country.

Cheers

Dave R

David WE Roberts wrote:
Travelling in the USA at the moment and the toilets over here are
different from those in the UK but reasonably consistent.

Firstly they are a much shallower pan than the average UK bog, and
secondly they are generally viciously siphonic.

In general terms I think I prefer them.
Any delicate souls should look away now :-)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Firstly the broad shallow pan eliminates the "long drop" of the
average UK pan and also avoids the large splash you tend to get when
you deposit something impressive.
The only down side is the habit of something floating into view
between your legs as you sit there contemplating life.

Secondly, the extra water held in the pan assists in the cleansing of
the toilet bowl when you flush.
This, coupled with the strong siphonic action, seems to generally
clear the bowl effectively.
However the siphonic flush is very aggressive - a fierce jet of water
seems to be shot across the U bend which rips the contents of the pan
away down the pipe work accompanied by a large roaring noise.
This can be quite alarming where there is an automatic flush which
attempts to detect when you have finished and avoid the necessity of
you touching any handle or button.
Especially alarming when you haven't even started ;-)

So why are toilets so different in the USA?
I suspect that they use more water in the pan, and so may fall foul
of some old water board regulation.
I suspect that the syphonic part may use mains pressure water, again
falling foul.
However they do seem to be a better overall design than the UK ones
in terms of efficiently removing crap.

The more mature and well travelled will probably also remember the
French Colonial style of toilet which consists of a hole in the
ground and a pair of porcelain footprints.
These never seemed to catch on in the UK.
They are probably also much better for you physically as they are
closer to the natural way of doing things if you don't have modern
plumbing. Less comfortable though, if you are catching up on the back
issues of
the Times.

So is there a good reason why our toilet pans are designed the way
they are, and not like those in other countries, or is this just some
kind of random variation?

Quite tempted by the US style toilet but I suspect that they wouldn't
meet current UK regulations.
I say this because I think they directly use mains pressure water and
I seem to recall that this is banned (or was at one time) in most
parts of the UK which insisted on cisterns to control water usage.

Amazing what your mind turns to late at night in a foreign country.

LOL!

Yes. I have used loos as you describe in the States. Being naturally
inquisitive, I lifted the cistern lid on one and was surprised to see a
round metal canister with domed ends in there - there was no visible stored
water. I presumed that mains water pressure refilled the canister after a
flush and that created a vacuum that was released when the flush was
operated. As you say - the removal of waste from the bowl was rapid and
very noisy!

When I got home I did a bit of Googling to try and learn more. I couldn't
find anything at all - although I haven't looked recently.

I completely replaced my bathroom a couple of years ago and made the mistake
of choosing the toilet from a showroom brochure. It was a 'Nocode Igloo' and
looks very modern and smart - rather 'egg shaped' and with no gap at the
back so no waste pipes or water pipe on view.

The problem is that as you look into the bowl, the water trap is in the
centre (rather than at the back of the bowl), and is very small. In order
to ensure that waste drops into the water (rather than onto the porcelain)
you have to sit very far forward - and even then you often have to use the
brush after use. A superb design on the outside - a terrible design on the
inside!

Sorry if I've put anyone off their breakfast...!

--
Kev

Ret. wrote:

Yes. I have used loos as you describe in the States. Being naturally
inquisitive, I lifted the cistern lid on one and was surprised to see
a round metal canister with domed ends in there - there was no
visible stored water. I presumed that mains water pressure refilled
the canister after a flush and that created a vacuum that was
released when the flush was operated. As you say - the removal of
waste from the bowl was rapid and very noisy!

When I got home I did a bit of Googling to try and learn more. I
couldn't find anything at all - although I haven't looked recently.

Just done another Google and come across this:

http://www.theplumber.com/fhb.html

If old pipes are your problem, you may be interested in the power-assist
toilets that many toilet makers now offer. These are toilets that use
compressed air to force the waste down the trap.

Although a few power-assist toilets require compressors, most use the
pressure of the home's water supply to get the job done-with the help of a
pressure tank. The Sloan Valve Company's Flushmate Flushometer
(800-533-3450) is the industry leader in toilet pressure tanks. New on the
market is the PF/2 Energizer System (W/C Technology Corp.; 888-732-9282).

Both work similarly: Water from the supply line is forced into the
air-filled pressure tank at the house pressure of 60 psi or so, which
compresses the air and exerts force on the water in the tank. When the flush
button is pushed, the water jets into the bowl.

One benefit of a power-assist flush is that the water is contained inside
the pressure tank, which is inside the china toilet tank. That insulation
results in little or no tank sweating. Drawbacks include noise and price:
Power assist generally adds $ 100 or so to the cost of a toilet.

Water rushing from the pressurized tank can be quite loud and startling.
However, Bruce Martin, the engineer who developed both pressure-assist
systems (he sold the Flushmate technology to Sloan), said his new PF/2
Energizer is much quieter than the Flushmate. "It's as quiet as a gravity
toilet," he said.

Currently, only about 5% of toilets sold contain any type of pressure tank.
Martin said the price of power-assist toilets will decrease, thanks in part
to competition and volume sales. For now, only specially designed toilets
can accept pressure-assist units. Martin is working on an adapter unit to
convert ordinary gravity toilets to pressure-assist.

-----------

So there we go - you learn something new every day!

--
Kev

Ret. wrote:
Ret. wrote:

Yes. I have used loos as you describe in the States. Being naturally
inquisitive, I lifted the cistern lid on one and was surprised to see
a round metal canister with domed ends in there - there was no
visible stored water. I presumed that mains water pressure refilled
the canister after a flush and that created a vacuum that was
released when the flush was operated. As you say - the removal of
waste from the bowl was rapid and very noisy!

When I got home I did a bit of Googling to try and learn more. I
couldn't find anything at all - although I haven't looked recently.

Just done another Google and come across this:

http://www.theplumber.com/fhb.html

If old pipes are your problem, you may be interested in the
power-assist toilets that many toilet makers now offer. These are
toilets that use compressed air to force the waste down the trap.

Although a few power-assist toilets require compressors, most use the
pressure of the home's water supply to get the job done-with the help
of a pressure tank. The Sloan Valve Company's Flushmate Flushometer
(800-533-3450) is the industry leader in toilet pressure tanks. New
on the market is the PF/2 Energizer System (W/C Technology Corp.;
888-732-9282).

Both work similarly: Water from the supply line is forced into the
air-filled pressure tank at the house pressure of 60 psi or so, which
compresses the air and exerts force on the water in the tank. When
the flush button is pushed, the water jets into the bowl.

One benefit of a power-assist flush is that the water is contained
inside the pressure tank, which is inside the china toilet tank. That
insulation results in little or no tank sweating. Drawbacks include
noise and price: Power assist generally adds $ 100 or so to the cost
of a toilet.

Water rushing from the pressurized tank can be quite loud and
startling. However, Bruce Martin, the engineer who developed both
pressure-assist systems (he sold the Flushmate technology to Sloan),
said his new PF/2 Energizer is much quieter than the Flushmate. "It's
as quiet as a gravity toilet," he said.

Currently, only about 5% of toilets sold contain any type of pressure
tank. Martin said the price of power-assist toilets will decrease,
thanks in part to competition and volume sales. For now, only
specially designed toilets can accept pressure-assist units. Martin
is working on an adapter unit to convert ordinary gravity toilets to
pressure-assist.

-----------

So there we go - you learn something new every day!

And even more information, for anyone remotely interested (!), he

http://www.toiletology.com/sloan.shtml

--
Kev

On Sat, 7 May 2011 23:40:14 -0700, "David WE Roberts"
wrote:

So is there a good reason why our toilet pans are designed the way they are,
and not like those in other countries, or is this just some kind of random
variation?


Could it be to do with the fact that your average US citizen has the equivalent
output of the average UK family ? ;-)

However they do seem to be a better overall design than the UK ones
in terms of efficiently removing crap.

For some values of better?

I have not spent much time in the USA but agree with most of what you
say. However I would offer the thought that I recall many US TV
programmes/films in which toilet plungers feature. I cannot recall ever
seeing one feature in a British programme/film. This bears out my
limited experience: I have never had a bog block in Britain as a result
of normal (or indeed abnormal) bodily crap. I have had to use a plunger
in New York (in a fairly plush Upper East Side apartment with modern
plumbing).

That said, the design of US bogs does seem to lend itself to effective
use of plungers so perhaps they come out on top after all.



--
Robin
PM may be sent to rbw0{at}hotmail{dot}com

"Robin" wrote in message ...

However they do seem to be a better overall design than the UK ones
in terms of efficiently removing crap.

For some values of better?

I have not spent much time in the USA but agree with most of what you
say. However I would offer the thought that I recall many US TV
programmes/films in which toilet plungers feature. I cannot recall ever
seeing one feature in a British programme/film. This bears out my
limited experience: I have never had a bog block in Britain as a result
of normal (or indeed abnormal) bodily crap. I have had to use a plunger
in New York (in a fairly plush Upper East Side apartment with modern
plumbing).

That said, the design of US bogs does seem to lend itself to effective
use of plungers so perhaps they come out on top after all.



--
Robin
PM may be sent to rbw0{at}hotmail{dot}com


I have also pondered on the fact that the public "men's rooms" have screens
between the urinals (like we had until recently) - yet the WCs have large
gaps around the doors. When did public toilet designers decide that men
didn't need a privacy screen. Nothing worse than taking a number one and a
curious kid comes and stands next to you. Worse are some where the urinal is
next to a wash basin or hand drier.

On 08/05/2011 07:40, David WE Roberts wrote:
Travelling in the USA at the moment and the toilets over here are
different from those in the UK but reasonably consistent.

As an obvious afficionado of such matters, you should really try to take
a trip to Japan, then. Having had the opportunity to travel there last
year, naturally enough I photographed a toilet (as you do):

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images...6288small.jpg/

These khazis are a truly fascinating experience... you can probably see
just below the rim at the back there are two little nozzles, which aim
water jets upwards and forwards, in slightly different directions in
order to target different bodily orifices (and they are uncannily
accurate, as SWMBO confirms) as you can see from looking at the
different 'spray' icons on the control panel buttons (yes, honestly -
sitting on this thing is like piloting the Starship Enterprise)...

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images...6285small.jpg/

The other controls - the one on the far left is to adjust the power of
the water jets; others are for water temperature, electrically-heated
seat temperature, the hot-air drier, and the motor which raises and
lowers the seat (oh yes, really)... Other features you often get include
a slot to insert an SD card, so you can crap along to Black Sabbath or
the Nolan Sisters as the mood takes you.

Also of interest is the top of the cistern, where you can just see a
vertical tube: this is actually a tap; when you flush the toilet, the
clean water comes out of the tap and into the basin formed from the
cistern lid, whereupon it runs into the cistern to flush the toilet - so
the water coming out of the tap is used for washing your hands before it
is used to flush with. Quite ingenious, both in terms of saving water
and space.

Bit worried about the bonding cable just lying on the floor, wired into
the toilet but not connected anywhere else - however a very common sight
in Japan.

David

On Sat, 7 May 2011 23:40:14 -0700, "David WE Roberts"
wrote:

Travelling in the USA at the moment and the toilets over here are different
from those in the UK but reasonably consistent.

Firstly they are a much shallower pan than the average UK bog, and secondly
they are generally viciously siphonic.

In general terms I think I prefer them.
Any delicate souls should look away now :-)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Firstly the broad shallow pan eliminates the "long drop" of the average UK
pan and also avoids the large splash you tend to get when you deposit
something impressive.
The only down side is the habit of something floating into view between your
legs as you sit there contemplating life.

Secondly, the extra water held in the pan assists in the cleansing of the
toilet bowl when you flush.
This, coupled with the strong siphonic action, seems to generally clear the
bowl effectively.
However the siphonic flush is very aggressive - a fierce jet of water seems
to be shot across the U bend which rips the contents of the pan away down
the pipe work accompanied by a large roaring noise.
This can be quite alarming where there is an automatic flush which attempts
to detect when you have finished and avoid the necessity of you touching any
handle or button.
Especially alarming when you haven't even started ;-)

So why are toilets so different in the USA?
I suspect that they use more water in the pan, and so may fall foul of some
old water board regulation.
I suspect that the syphonic part may use mains pressure water, again falling
foul.
However they do seem to be a better overall design than the UK ones in terms
of efficiently removing crap.

The more mature and well travelled will probably also remember the French
Colonial style of toilet which consists of a hole in the ground and a pair
of porcelain footprints.
These never seemed to catch on in the UK.
They are probably also much better for you physically as they are closer to
the natural way of doing things if you don't have modern plumbing.
Less comfortable though, if you are catching up on the back issues of the
Times.

So is there a good reason why our toilet pans are designed the way they are,
and not like those in other countries, or is this just some kind of random
variation?

Quite tempted by the US style toilet but I suspect that they wouldn't meet
current UK regulations.
I say this because I think they directly use mains pressure water and I seem
to recall that this is banned (or was at one time) in most parts of the UK
which insisted on cisterns to control water usage.

Amazing what your mind turns to late at night in a foreign country.

Cheers

Dave R



My strangest toilet was the one in my German apartment in the 1970s.
It had a ledge, with the water outlet at the front of the ledge. So
everything you "did" first landed on the ledge. This was apparently
designed so that you could check for blood and thereby pre-empt any
serious medical condition. (The Germans were/are extremely finickety
about their health.) That design seems to have vanished now, since all
the German houses I frequent nowadays have a "normal" UK-style toilet
bowl.

MM

On Sun, 8 May 2011 08:34:14 +0100, "Ret." wrote:

David WE Roberts wrote:
Travelling in the USA at the moment and the toilets over here are
different from those in the UK but reasonably consistent.

Firstly they are a much shallower pan than the average UK bog, and
secondly they are generally viciously siphonic.

In general terms I think I prefer them.
Any delicate souls should look away now :-)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Firstly the broad shallow pan eliminates the "long drop" of the
average UK pan and also avoids the large splash you tend to get when
you deposit something impressive.
The only down side is the habit of something floating into view
between your legs as you sit there contemplating life.

Secondly, the extra water held in the pan assists in the cleansing of
the toilet bowl when you flush.
This, coupled with the strong siphonic action, seems to generally
clear the bowl effectively.
However the siphonic flush is very aggressive - a fierce jet of water
seems to be shot across the U bend which rips the contents of the pan
away down the pipe work accompanied by a large roaring noise.
This can be quite alarming where there is an automatic flush which
attempts to detect when you have finished and avoid the necessity of
you touching any handle or button.
Especially alarming when you haven't even started ;-)

So why are toilets so different in the USA?
I suspect that they use more water in the pan, and so may fall foul
of some old water board regulation.
I suspect that the syphonic part may use mains pressure water, again
falling foul.
However they do seem to be a better overall design than the UK ones
in terms of efficiently removing crap.

The more mature and well travelled will probably also remember the
French Colonial style of toilet which consists of a hole in the
ground and a pair of porcelain footprints.
These never seemed to catch on in the UK.
They are probably also much better for you physically as they are
closer to the natural way of doing things if you don't have modern
plumbing. Less comfortable though, if you are catching up on the back
issues of
the Times.

So is there a good reason why our toilet pans are designed the way
they are, and not like those in other countries, or is this just some
kind of random variation?

Quite tempted by the US style toilet but I suspect that they wouldn't
meet current UK regulations.
I say this because I think they directly use mains pressure water and
I seem to recall that this is banned (or was at one time) in most
parts of the UK which insisted on cisterns to control water usage.

Amazing what your mind turns to late at night in a foreign country.

LOL!

Yes. I have used loos as you describe in the States. Being naturally
inquisitive, I lifted the cistern lid on one and was surprised to see a
round metal canister with domed ends in there - there was no visible stored
water. I presumed that mains water pressure refilled the canister after a
flush and that created a vacuum that was released when the flush was
operated. As you say - the removal of waste from the bowl was rapid and
very noisy!

When I got home I did a bit of Googling to try and learn more. I couldn't
find anything at all - although I haven't looked recently.

I completely replaced my bathroom a couple of years ago and made the mistake
of choosing the toilet from a showroom brochure. It was a 'Nocode Igloo' and
looks very modern and smart - rather 'egg shaped' and with no gap at the
back so no waste pipes or water pipe on view.

The problem is that as you look into the bowl, the water trap is in the
centre (rather than at the back of the bowl), and is very small. In order
to ensure that waste drops into the water (rather than onto the porcelain)
you have to sit very far forward - and even then you often have to use the
brush after use. A superb design on the outside - a terrible design on the
inside!

Sorry if I've put anyone off their breakfast...!

I don't know WHY people are so precious when it comes to discussing
bodily functions. The other day I read that many parents don't want
their young children to be taught sex education in schools, and I
think, man, such stupid people don't deserve to be parents.

MM

On Sun, 08 May 2011 10:34:19 +0100, Lobster
wrote:

On 08/05/2011 07:40, David WE Roberts wrote:
Travelling in the USA at the moment and the toilets over here are
different from those in the UK but reasonably consistent.

As an obvious afficionado of such matters, you should really try to take
a trip to Japan, then. Having had the opportunity to travel there last
year, naturally enough I photographed a toilet (as you do):

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images...6288small.jpg/

These khazis are a truly fascinating experience... you can probably see
just below the rim at the back there are two little nozzles, which aim
water jets upwards and forwards, in slightly different directions in
order to target different bodily orifices (and they are uncannily
accurate, as SWMBO confirms) as you can see from looking at the
different 'spray' icons on the control panel buttons (yes, honestly -
sitting on this thing is like piloting the Starship Enterprise)...

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images...6285small.jpg/

The other controls - the one on the far left is to adjust the power of
the water jets; others are for water temperature, electrically-heated
seat temperature, the hot-air drier, and the motor which raises and
lowers the seat (oh yes, really)... Other features you often get include
a slot to insert an SD card, so you can crap along to Black Sabbath or
the Nolan Sisters as the mood takes you.

Also of interest is the top of the cistern, where you can just see a
vertical tube: this is actually a tap; when you flush the toilet, the
clean water comes out of the tap and into the basin formed from the
cistern lid, whereupon it runs into the cistern to flush the toilet - so
the water coming out of the tap is used for washing your hands before it
is used to flush with. Quite ingenious, both in terms of saving water
and space.

Bit worried about the bonding cable just lying on the floor, wired into
the toilet but not connected anywhere else - however a very common sight
in Japan.

David

Another thing I don't understand is why modern technology has not yet
come up with a way of having crap eat itself inside the bowels,
leaving just a small, dry, powdery residue - about a teaspoonful a
day, maybe, that you would "fart" out in specially designed "fart"
rooms as a modern replacement for toilets. There'd be a powerful fan
to suck up, then disperse the powder over your garden - or the
neighbour's garden after suitable contracts had been exchanged.

Why we can have (if we have the money) pretty much anything we want,
we still need to go every day. Madness.

MM

MM wrote:
On Sat, 7 May 2011 23:40:14 -0700, "David WE Roberts"
wrote:

Travelling in the USA at the moment and the toilets over here are
different from those in the UK but reasonably consistent.

Firstly they are a much shallower pan than the average UK bog, and
secondly they are generally viciously siphonic.

In general terms I think I prefer them.
Any delicate souls should look away now :-)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Firstly the broad shallow pan eliminates the "long drop" of the
average UK pan and also avoids the large splash you tend to get when
you deposit something impressive.
The only down side is the habit of something floating into view
between your legs as you sit there contemplating life.

Secondly, the extra water held in the pan assists in the cleansing
of the toilet bowl when you flush.
This, coupled with the strong siphonic action, seems to generally
clear the bowl effectively.
However the siphonic flush is very aggressive - a fierce jet of
water seems to be shot across the U bend which rips the contents of
the pan away down the pipe work accompanied by a large roaring noise.
This can be quite alarming where there is an automatic flush which
attempts to detect when you have finished and avoid the necessity of
you touching any handle or button.
Especially alarming when you haven't even started ;-)

So why are toilets so different in the USA?
I suspect that they use more water in the pan, and so may fall foul
of some old water board regulation.
I suspect that the syphonic part may use mains pressure water, again
falling foul.
However they do seem to be a better overall design than the UK ones
in terms of efficiently removing crap.

The more mature and well travelled will probably also remember the
French Colonial style of toilet which consists of a hole in the
ground and a pair of porcelain footprints.
These never seemed to catch on in the UK.
They are probably also much better for you physically as they are
closer to the natural way of doing things if you don't have modern
plumbing.
Less comfortable though, if you are catching up on the back issues
of the Times.

So is there a good reason why our toilet pans are designed the way
they are, and not like those in other countries, or is this just
some kind of random variation?

Quite tempted by the US style toilet but I suspect that they
wouldn't meet current UK regulations.
I say this because I think they directly use mains pressure water
and I seem to recall that this is banned (or was at one time) in
most parts of the UK which insisted on cisterns to control water
usage.

Amazing what your mind turns to late at night in a foreign country.

Cheers

Dave R



My strangest toilet was the one in my German apartment in the 1970s.
It had a ledge, with the water outlet at the front of the ledge. So
everything you "did" first landed on the ledge. This was apparently
designed so that you could check for blood and thereby pre-empt any
serious medical condition. (The Germans were/are extremely finickety
about their health.) That design seems to have vanished now, since all
the German houses I frequent nowadays have a "normal" UK-style toilet
bowl.


One of these?

http://i428.photobucket.com/albums/q...020/img086.jpg


--
Adam

On 08/05/11 11:05, ARWadsworth wrote:


My strangest toilet was the one in my German apartment in the 1970s.
It had a ledge, with the water outlet at the front of the ledge. So
everything you "did" first landed on the ledge. This was apparently
designed so that you could check for blood and thereby pre-empt any
serious medical condition. (The Germans were/are extremely finickety
about their health.) That design seems to have vanished now, since all
the German houses I frequent nowadays have a "normal" UK-style toilet
bowl.


One of these?

http://i428.photobucket.com/albums/q...020/img086.jpg

That's also a common design in the Netherlands.


--
Bernard Peek

Nothing worse than taking a number one and a curious kid comes and
stands next to you.

Reminds me of standing in a posh hotel[1] loo in Boston when a man comes
in with a toddler and very loudly states "Now son learn the first rule
of the men's room: don't touch anything which isn't yours".

[1] I was only using the facilities, not staying there
--
Robin

On May 8, 10:48*am, MM wrote:
On Sun, 8 May 2011 08:34:14 +0100, "Ret." wrote:
David WE Roberts wrote:
Travelling in the USA at the moment and the toilets over here are
different from those in the UK but reasonably consistent.

Firstly they are a much shallower pan than the average UK bog, and
secondly they are generally viciously siphonic.

In general terms I think I prefer them.
Any delicate souls should look away now :-)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Firstly the broad shallow pan eliminates the "long drop" of the
average UK pan and also avoids the large splash you tend to get when
you deposit something impressive.
The only down side is the habit of something floating into view
between your legs as you sit there contemplating life.

Secondly, the extra water held in the pan assists in the cleansing of
the toilet bowl when you flush.
This, coupled with the strong siphonic action, seems to generally
clear the bowl effectively.
However the siphonic flush is very aggressive - a fierce jet of water
seems to be shot across the U bend which rips the contents of the pan
away down the pipe work accompanied by a large roaring noise.
This can be quite alarming where there is an automatic flush which
attempts to detect when you have finished and avoid the necessity of
you touching any handle or button.
Especially alarming when you haven't even started ;-)

So why are toilets so different in the USA?
I suspect that they use more water in the pan, and so may fall foul
of some old water board regulation.
I suspect that the syphonic part may use mains pressure water, again
falling foul.
However they do seem to be a better overall design than the UK ones
in terms of efficiently removing crap.

The more mature and well travelled will probably also remember the
French Colonial style of toilet which consists of a hole in the
ground and a pair of porcelain footprints.
These never seemed to catch on in the UK.
They are probably also much better for you physically as they are
closer to the natural way of doing things if you don't have modern
plumbing. Less comfortable though, if you are catching up on the back
issues of
the Times.

So is there a good reason why our toilet pans are designed the way
they are, and not like those in other countries, or is this just some
kind of random variation?

Quite tempted by the US style toilet but I suspect that they wouldn't
meet current UK regulations.
I say this because I think they directly use mains pressure water and
I seem to recall that this is banned (or was at one time) in most
parts of the UK which insisted on cisterns to control water usage.

Amazing what your mind turns to late at night in a foreign country.

LOL!

Yes. I have used loos as you describe in the States. Being naturally
inquisitive, I lifted the cistern lid on one and was surprised to see a
round metal canister with domed ends in there - there was no visible stored
water. I presumed that mains water pressure refilled the canister after a
flush and that created a vacuum that was released when the flush was
operated. *As you say - the removal of waste from the bowl was rapid and
very noisy!

When I got home I did a bit of Googling to try and learn more. I couldn't
find anything at all - although I haven't looked recently.

I completely replaced my bathroom a couple of years ago and made the mistake
of choosing the toilet from a showroom brochure. It was a 'Nocode Igloo' and
looks very modern and smart - rather 'egg shaped' and with no gap at the
back so no waste pipes or water pipe on view.

The problem is that as you look into the bowl, the water trap is in the
centre (rather than at the back of the bowl), and is very small. *In order
to ensure that waste drops into the water (rather than onto the porcelain)
you have to sit very far forward - and even then you often have to use the
brush after use. A superb design on the outside - a terrible design on the
inside!

Sorry if I've put anyone off their breakfast...!

I don't know WHY people are so precious when it comes to discussing
bodily functions. The other day I read that many parents don't want
their young children to be taught sex education in schools, and I
think, man, such stupid people don't deserve to be parents.

MM

On May 8, 10:48*am, MM wrote:

The other day I read that many parents don't want
their young children to be taught sex education in schools, and I
think, man, such stupid people don't deserve to be parents.

However that reticence, and its own origins, is also more likely to
have made them parents in the first place.

On May 8, 10:34*am, Lobster wrote:

Also of interest is the top of the cistern, where you can just see a
vertical tube: this is actually a tap; when you flush the toilet, the
clean water comes out of the tap and into the basin formed from the
cistern lid, whereupon it runs into the cistern to flush the toilet

I want one of those for our outside loo. Anyone know of a source?

On May 8, 10:46*am, MM wrote:

My strangest toilet was the one in my German apartment in the 1970s.
It had a ledge, with the water outlet at the front of the ledge. So
everything you "did" first landed on the ledge. This was apparently
designed so that you could check for blood and thereby pre-empt any
serious medical condition.

Friend of mine (French) is after one of these for UK installation.
Anyone have a source?

On 08/05/11 12:17, Andy Dingley wrote:
On May 8, 10:46 am, MM wrote:

My strangest toilet was the one in my German apartment in the 1970s.
It had a ledge, with the water outlet at the front of the ledge. So
everything you "did" first landed on the ledge. This was apparently
designed so that you could check for blood and thereby pre-empt any
serious medical condition.

Friend of mine (French) is after one of these for UK installation.
Anyone have a source?

Google 'Washout Toilet'
http://www.duravit.co.uk/products/ca...seo6ptmaz.html


--
djc

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember MM saying
something like:

Another thing I don't understand is why modern technology has not yet
come up with a way of having crap eat itself inside the bowels,

If you're constipated long enough, the "evils of re-absorption" start to
happen, according to the first biology textbook I read that mentioned
it. So, we already do it, but it's quite toxic, iirc.

On 8 May 2011 09:31:11 GMT, Huge wrote:

The more mature and well travelled will probably also remember the

French Colonial style of toilet which consists of a hole in the
ground
and a pair of porcelain footprints. These never seemed to catch on
in
the UK. They are probably also much better for you

What, scraping turds out of your trousers is good for you?

The position used is a better one for defacation, you don't get crap
on your trousers, you have to be a little more careful with the aim
of ones urine though. Ladies can, apparently, suffer splash back.

The French might think it's OK to squat in the corner of a field,

The squat toilet is commoin in many parts of the world. I spent 6
weeks travelling through China and only saw a western style loo once.
In an expensive hotel catering for westerners... And yes one of the
ones I used did have the sloping channel, into which one preformed,
out through the back wall ending up in a paddy field. Or the rather
rusty hole in the floor in a train where you could see the ballast of
the tracks rushing by. Or the larger public loo with cubicles made of
walls on three sides about 4' high and wide with a 6" wide channel
linking them all together with water flowing down it, no door or
curtain on the fourth side.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On May 8, 8:41*am, "Ret." wrote:
Ret. wrote:
Yes. I have used loos as you describe in the States. Being naturally
inquisitive, I lifted the cistern lid on one and was surprised to see
a round metal canister with domed ends in there - there was no
visible stored water. I presumed that mains water pressure refilled
the canister after a flush and that created a vacuum that was
released when the flush was operated. *As you say - the removal of
waste from the bowl was rapid and very noisy!

When I got home I did a bit of Googling to try and learn more. I
couldn't find anything at all - although I haven't looked recently.

Just done another Google and come across this:

http://www.theplumber.com/fhb.html

If old pipes are your problem, you may be interested in the power-assist
toilets that many toilet makers now offer. These are toilets that use
compressed air to force the waste down the trap.

Although a few power-assist toilets require compressors, most use the
pressure of the home's water supply to get the job done-with the help of a
pressure tank. The Sloan Valve Company's Flushmate Flushometer
(800-533-3450) is the industry leader in toilet pressure tanks. New on the
market is the PF/2 Energizer System (W/C Technology Corp.; 888-732-9282).

Both work similarly: Water from the supply line is forced into the
air-filled pressure tank at the house pressure of 60 psi or so, which
compresses the air and exerts force on the water in the tank. When the flush
button is pushed, the water jets into the bowl.

One benefit of a power-assist flush is that the water is contained inside
the pressure tank, which is inside the china toilet tank. That insulation
results in little or no tank sweating. Drawbacks include noise and price:
Power assist generally adds $ 100 or so to the cost of a toilet.

Water rushing from the pressurized tank can be quite loud and startling.
However, Bruce Martin, the engineer who developed both pressure-assist
systems (he sold the Flushmate technology to Sloan), said his new PF/2
Energizer is much quieter than the Flushmate. "It's as quiet as a gravity
toilet," he said.

Currently, only about 5% of toilets sold contain any type of pressure tank.
Martin said the price of power-assist toilets will decrease, thanks in part
to competition and volume sales. For now, only specially designed toilets
can accept pressure-assist units. Martin is working on an adapter unit to
convert ordinary gravity toilets to pressure-assist.

-----------

So there we go - you learn something new every day!

--
Kev

The stand/squat and deliver toilets are very common in Asia. But not
usually in tourist hotels.

Armitage Shanks made a syphonic toilet back in the 70's. Dunno why
they gave up.
The syphon was induced by an air ejector that screwed on to the bottom
of the tank with close coupled system. Only a small amount of water
came out of the rim. It sucked air out of the space between two
water traps.
We had one, it worked well and was almost totally silent.

On Sun, 8 May 2011 04:13:55 -0700 (PDT), Andy Dingley
wrote:

On May 8, 10:48*am, MM wrote:

The other day I read that many parents don't want
their young children to be taught sex education in schools, and I
think, man, such stupid people don't deserve to be parents.

However that reticence, and its own origins, is also more likely to
have made them parents in the first place.

There is NO excuse. Parents happily teach their children to wash their
hands before meals and after using the toilet. They teach them to
cross the road safely, not to bolt their food, treat others politely
and so on. Yet when it comes to one of the most important aspects of
human life, they're too embarrassed to speak and instead come up with
daft explanations like the baby is in mummy's tummy. I think, however,
that this is peculiar to Anglo-Saxon countries -- maybe because we,
as I have said in uk.legal, are thick beyond measure. I'm sure that
one will find the opposition to sex education for children in schools
is mainly represented by the chav section of British society, as more
educated people will not have such inhibitions. The Scandinavians, the
Dutch, even the Germans are much more enlightened, and they are in the
main better educated than British people.

MM

On Sun, 08 May 2011 15:03:41 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

.... where you could see the ballast of
the tracks rushing by.

That used to be the case on British trains, too.

MM

On 8 May 2011 10:04:32 GMT, Huge wrote:

On 2011-05-08, MM wrote:

My strangest toilet was the one in my German apartment in the 1970s.
It had a ledge, with the water outlet at the front of the ledge. So
everything you "did" first landed on the ledge. This was apparently
designed so that you could check for blood and thereby pre-empt any
serious medical condition.

Actually, given the German consumption of pork, it was so you could check for
worms.

Them, too.

MM

On Sun, 08 May 2011 13:41:29 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article ,
Bernard Peek wrote:

On 08/05/11 11:05, ARWadsworth wrote:

My strangest toilet was the one in my German apartment in the 1970s.
It had a ledge, with the water outlet at the front of the ledge. So
everything you "did" first landed on the ledge. This was apparently
designed so that you could check for blood and thereby pre-empt any
serious medical condition. (The Germans were/are extremely finickety
about their health.) That design seems to have vanished now, since all
the German houses I frequent nowadays have a "normal" UK-style toilet
bowl.

One of these?

http://i428.photobucket.com/albums/q...020/img086.jpg

That's also a common design in the Netherlands.

Completely disgusting IMO.

Why? It's only a style of toilet! You sound typically British,
typically insular. Wait until you are invited to participate in the
NHS bowel cancel screening programme and you have to smear samples of
poo on a test card. Some people chuck the invitation in the bin,
preferring not to know, and some of those statistically will die early
of bowel cancer.

MM

On 08/05/2011 17:58, MM wrote:
On Sun, 08 May 2011 15:03:41 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

.... where you could see the ballast of
the tracks rushing by.
That used to be the case on British trains, too.

Yes but only when you pulled the lever to flush it, not while you were
sat on it.

--
Mike Clarke

On 5/8/2011 12:58 PM, MM wrote:
On Sun, 08 May 2011 15:03:41 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

.... where you could see the ballast of
the tracks rushing by.

That used to be the case on British trains, too.

Still is, on some trains.

Lobster :
On 08/05/2011 07:40, David WE Roberts wrote:
Travelling in the USA at the moment and the toilets over here are
different from those in the UK but reasonably consistent.

As an obvious afficionado of such matters, you should really try to
take a trip to Japan, then.

The Wikipedia article makes good reading...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toilets_in_Japan

--
Mike Barnes

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.co.uk...

On 8 May 2011 09:31:11 GMT, Huge wrote:

The more mature and well travelled will probably also remember the

French Colonial style of toilet which consists of a hole in the
ground
and a pair of porcelain footprints. These never seemed to catch on
in
the UK. They are probably also much better for you

What, scraping turds out of your trousers is good for you?

The position used is a better one for defacation, you don't get crap
on your trousers, you have to be a little more careful with the aim
of ones urine though. Ladies can, apparently, suffer splash back.

The French might think it's OK to squat in the corner of a field,

The squat toilet is commoin in many parts of the world. I spent 6
weeks travelling through China and only saw a western style loo once.
In an expensive hotel catering for westerners... And yes one of the
ones I used did have the sloping channel, into which one preformed,
out through the back wall ending up in a paddy field. Or the rather
rusty hole in the floor in a train where you could see the ballast of
the tracks rushing by. Or the larger public loo with cubicles made of
walls on three sides about 4' high and wide with a 6" wide channel
linking them all together with water flowing down it, no door or
curtain on the fourth side.

--
Cheers
Dave.

I would have to come home!!

MM wrote:
On Sun, 08 May 2011 13:41:29 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article ,
Bernard Peek wrote:

On 08/05/11 11:05, ARWadsworth wrote:

My strangest toilet was the one in my German apartment in the
1970s. It had a ledge, with the water outlet at the front of the
ledge. So everything you "did" first landed on the ledge. This
was apparently designed so that you could check for blood and
thereby pre-empt any serious medical condition. (The Germans
were/are extremely finickety about their health.) That design
seems to have vanished now, since all the German houses I
frequent nowadays have a "normal" UK-style toilet bowl.

One of these?

http://i428.photobucket.com/albums/q...020/img086.jpg

That's also a common design in the Netherlands.

Completely disgusting IMO.

Why? It's only a style of toilet! You sound typically British,
typically insular. Wait until you are invited to participate in the
NHS bowel cancel screening programme and you have to smear samples of
poo on a test card. Some people chuck the invitation in the bin,
preferring not to know, and some of those statistically will die early
of bowel cancer.

I've done two of those so far. Not particularly pleasant - but only a
complete idiot would not participate in the test.

--
Kev

On Sun, 08 May 2011 18:02:28 +0100, MM wrote:

On Sun, 08 May 2011 13:41:29 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article ,
Bernard Peek wrote:

On 08/05/11 11:05, ARWadsworth wrote:

My strangest toilet was the one in my German apartment in the
1970s. It had a ledge, with the water outlet at the front of the
ledge. So everything you "did" first landed on the ledge. This was
apparently designed so that you could check for blood and thereby
pre-empt any serious medical condition. (The Germans were/are
extremely finickety about their health.) That design seems to have
vanished now, since all the German houses I frequent nowadays have
a "normal" UK-style toilet bowl.

One of these?

http://i428.photobucket.com/albums/q...020/img086.jpg

That's also a common design in the Netherlands.

Completely disgusting IMO.

Why? It's only a style of toilet! You sound typically British, typically
insular. Wait until you are invited to participate in the NHS bowel
cancel screening programme and you have to smear samples of poo on a
test card. Some people chuck the invitation in the bin, preferring not
to know, and some of those statistically will die early of bowel cancer.

Yes, not the most pleasant thing in the world. OTOH, I knew someone who
died of bowel cancer; in the final stages she was paralysed from the
waist down. So the screening is worth it.

--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

On 08/05/2011 10:48, MM wrote:
On Sun, 8 May 2011 08:34:14 +0100, wrote:

David WE Roberts wrote:
Travelling in the USA at the moment and the toilets over here are
different from those in the UK but reasonably consistent.

Firstly they are a much shallower pan than the average UK bog, and
secondly they are generally viciously siphonic.

In general terms I think I prefer them.
Any delicate souls should look away now :-)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Firstly the broad shallow pan eliminates the "long drop" of the
average UK pan and also avoids the large splash you tend to get when
you deposit something impressive.
The only down side is the habit of something floating into view
between your legs as you sit there contemplating life.

Secondly, the extra water held in the pan assists in the cleansing of
the toilet bowl when you flush.
This, coupled with the strong siphonic action, seems to generally
clear the bowl effectively.
However the siphonic flush is very aggressive - a fierce jet of water
seems to be shot across the U bend which rips the contents of the pan
away down the pipe work accompanied by a large roaring noise.
This can be quite alarming where there is an automatic flush which
attempts to detect when you have finished and avoid the necessity of
you touching any handle or button.
Especially alarming when you haven't even started ;-)

So why are toilets so different in the USA?
I suspect that they use more water in the pan, and so may fall foul
of some old water board regulation.
I suspect that the syphonic part may use mains pressure water, again
falling foul.
However they do seem to be a better overall design than the UK ones
in terms of efficiently removing crap.

The more mature and well travelled will probably also remember the
French Colonial style of toilet which consists of a hole in the
ground and a pair of porcelain footprints.
These never seemed to catch on in the UK.
They are probably also much better for you physically as they are
closer to the natural way of doing things if you don't have modern
plumbing. Less comfortable though, if you are catching up on the back
issues of
the Times.

So is there a good reason why our toilet pans are designed the way
they are, and not like those in other countries, or is this just some
kind of random variation?

Quite tempted by the US style toilet but I suspect that they wouldn't
meet current UK regulations.
I say this because I think they directly use mains pressure water and
I seem to recall that this is banned (or was at one time) in most
parts of the UK which insisted on cisterns to control water usage.

Amazing what your mind turns to late at night in a foreign country.

LOL!

Yes. I have used loos as you describe in the States. Being naturally
inquisitive, I lifted the cistern lid on one and was surprised to see a
round metal canister with domed ends in there - there was no visible stored
water. I presumed that mains water pressure refilled the canister after a
flush and that created a vacuum that was released when the flush was
operated. As you say - the removal of waste from the bowl was rapid and
very noisy!

When I got home I did a bit of Googling to try and learn more. I couldn't
find anything at all - although I haven't looked recently.

I completely replaced my bathroom a couple of years ago and made the mistake
of choosing the toilet from a showroom brochure. It was a 'Nocode Igloo' and
looks very modern and smart - rather 'egg shaped' and with no gap at the
back so no waste pipes or water pipe on view.

The problem is that as you look into the bowl, the water trap is in the
centre (rather than at the back of the bowl), and is very small. In order
to ensure that waste drops into the water (rather than onto the porcelain)
you have to sit very far forward - and even then you often have to use the
brush after use. A superb design on the outside - a terrible design on the
inside!

Sorry if I've put anyone off their breakfast...!

I don't know WHY people are so precious when it comes to discussing
bodily functions. The other day I read that many parents don't want
their young children to be taught sex education in schools, and I
think, man, such stupid people don't deserve to be parents.

MM

I don't think most parents have any objection to their children
receiving sex education, we certianly don't, but some councils seem to
want to push sex education (combined with diversity education) at
innapropriately young ages. We just want our children to have
uncomplicated lives, without too many adult themes, until we consider
them are old enough.

My wife's sex education started in the first year of secondary school,
whereas mine started in the final year of juniors. As some girls periods
start much earlier than others, the final year of juniors seems
reasonable, although parents must be ready to answer questions much
earlier, if it becomes necessary.

SteveW

MM wrote:
On Sun, 8 May 2011 04:13:55 -0700 (PDT), Andy Dingley
wrote:

On May 8, 10:48 am, MM wrote:

The other day I read that many parents don't want
their young children to be taught sex education in schools, and I
think, man, such stupid people don't deserve to be parents.

However that reticence, and its own origins, is also more likely to
have made them parents in the first place.

There is NO excuse. Parents happily teach their children to wash their
hands before meals and after using the toilet. They teach them to
cross the road safely, not to bolt their food, treat others politely
and so on.

Did you mean SOME parents?

--
Adam

Ret. :
MM wrote:

Why? It's only a style of toilet! You sound typically British,
typically insular. Wait until you are invited to participate in the
NHS bowel cancel screening programme and you have to smear samples of
poo on a test card. Some people chuck the invitation in the bin,
preferring not to know, and some of those statistically will die early
of bowel cancer.

I've done two of those so far. Not particularly pleasant - but only a
complete idiot would not participate in the test.

If you've ever discovered that a crown's come off your tooth, and the
only place it could have gone is down your throat, you'll know that
things can get less pleasant. (Yes, it's now back in my mouth :-).

--
Mike Barnes

On Sun, 8 May 2011 20:33:52 +0100, Mike Barnes wrote:

If you've ever discovered that a crown's come off your tooth, and the
only place it could have gone is down your throat, you'll know that
things can get less pleasant. (Yes, it's now back in my mouth :-).

He he, I wonder how many people now have their keyboards in soak
after up chucking on 'em?

Not sure which is worse fertelling through your own poo or someone
elses. I've done the latter after the lad swallowed a 3/8" dia ball
bearing.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 8 May 2011 19:02:03 GMT, Huge wrote:

The French might think it's OK to squat in the corner of a field,


The squat toilet is commoin in many parts of the world.

So what? So are fatal diseases, deformed children and sewage running
in the streets.

Just pointing out that France is not unique in using the squat loo.

I spent 6 weeks travelling through China and only saw a western
style
loo once. In an expensive hotel catering for westerners...

(Been There, Didn't Do That - when we were in China, we tried only to
do #2s in the hotel(s) ...

Posh western style hotels I guess... I was travelling light and
cheaply, less than £10/day all in, food & drink, room (inc the
optional heating) and bus/train fares.

... - upon seeing the strip of concrete littered with turds that had
missed the holes that passed for the average Chinese toilet, I suddently
lost interest.)

Whimp. B-) I did decide that taking a shower in one place was
pushing it a bit too far. It was a small shower cubicle next to the
coal fired boiler, it was dark and there was no light, peering in
using the distant ambient light, I couldn't decide if the walls and
floor where black with coal dust or mould. Decided I'd probably come
out muckier than I went in.

--
Cheers
Dave.

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.co.uk...
On 8 May 2011 19:02:03 GMT, Huge wrote:

... - upon seeing the strip of concrete littered with turds that had
missed the holes that passed for the average Chinese toilet, I suddently
lost interest.)

Whimp. B-) I did decide that taking a shower in one place was
pushing it a bit too far. It was a small shower cubicle next to the
coal fired boiler, it was dark and there was no light, peering in
using the distant ambient light, I couldn't decide if the walls and
floor where black with coal dust or mould. Decided I'd probably come
out muckier than I went in.

Ah but have you ever showered where you need to take half a pint of paraffin
with you to fuel the burner on the wall that heats the water?

Mike

Steve Walker wrote:
On 08/05/2011 10:48, MM wrote:
On Sun, 8 May 2011 08:34:14 +0100, wrote:

David WE Roberts wrote:
Travelling in the USA at the moment and the toilets over here are
different from those in the UK but reasonably consistent.

Firstly they are a much shallower pan than the average UK bog, and
secondly they are generally viciously siphonic.

In general terms I think I prefer them.
Any delicate souls should look away now :-)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Firstly the broad shallow pan eliminates the "long drop" of the
average UK pan and also avoids the large splash you tend to get
when you deposit something impressive.
The only down side is the habit of something floating into view
between your legs as you sit there contemplating life.

Secondly, the extra water held in the pan assists in the cleansing
of the toilet bowl when you flush.
This, coupled with the strong siphonic action, seems to generally
clear the bowl effectively.
However the siphonic flush is very aggressive - a fierce jet of
water seems to be shot across the U bend which rips the contents
of the pan away down the pipe work accompanied by a large roaring
noise. This can be quite alarming where there is an automatic flush
which
attempts to detect when you have finished and avoid the necessity
of you touching any handle or button.
Especially alarming when you haven't even started ;-)

So why are toilets so different in the USA?
I suspect that they use more water in the pan, and so may fall foul
of some old water board regulation.
I suspect that the syphonic part may use mains pressure water,
again falling foul.
However they do seem to be a better overall design than the UK ones
in terms of efficiently removing crap.

The more mature and well travelled will probably also remember the
French Colonial style of toilet which consists of a hole in the
ground and a pair of porcelain footprints.
These never seemed to catch on in the UK.
They are probably also much better for you physically as they are
closer to the natural way of doing things if you don't have modern
plumbing. Less comfortable though, if you are catching up on the
back issues of
the Times.

So is there a good reason why our toilet pans are designed the way
they are, and not like those in other countries, or is this just
some kind of random variation?

Quite tempted by the US style toilet but I suspect that they
wouldn't meet current UK regulations.
I say this because I think they directly use mains pressure water
and I seem to recall that this is banned (or was at one time) in
most parts of the UK which insisted on cisterns to control water
usage. Amazing what your mind turns to late at night in a foreign
country.

LOL!

Yes. I have used loos as you describe in the States. Being naturally
inquisitive, I lifted the cistern lid on one and was surprised to
see a round metal canister with domed ends in there - there was no
visible stored water. I presumed that mains water pressure refilled
the canister after a flush and that created a vacuum that was
released when the flush was operated. As you say - the removal of
waste from the bowl was rapid and very noisy!

When I got home I did a bit of Googling to try and learn more. I
couldn't find anything at all - although I haven't looked recently.

I completely replaced my bathroom a couple of years ago and made
the mistake of choosing the toilet from a showroom brochure. It was
a 'Nocode Igloo' and looks very modern and smart - rather 'egg
shaped' and with no gap at the back so no waste pipes or water pipe
on view. The problem is that as you look into the bowl, the water trap
is in
the centre (rather than at the back of the bowl), and is very
small. In order to ensure that waste drops into the water (rather
than onto the porcelain) you have to sit very far forward - and
even then you often have to use the brush after use. A superb
design on the outside - a terrible design on the inside!

Sorry if I've put anyone off their breakfast...!

I don't know WHY people are so precious when it comes to discussing
bodily functions. The other day I read that many parents don't want
their young children to be taught sex education in schools, and I
think, man, such stupid people don't deserve to be parents.

MM

I don't think most parents have any objection to their children
receiving sex education, we certianly don't, but some councils seem to
want to push sex education (combined with diversity education) at
innapropriately young ages. We just want our children to have
uncomplicated lives, without too many adult themes, until we consider
them are old enough.

My wife's sex education started in the first year of secondary school,
whereas mine started in the final year of juniors. As some girls
periods start much earlier than others, the final year of juniors
seems reasonable, although parents must be ready to answer questions
much earlier, if it becomes necessary.

I agree 100% with that. Allow children to have a childhood before pushing
adult issues on to them. The way things are going, they will be wanting to
teach sex education in pre-school nurseries next.

--
Kev

Mike Barnes wrote:
Ret. :
MM wrote:

Why? It's only a style of toilet! You sound typically British,
typically insular. Wait until you are invited to participate in the
NHS bowel cancel screening programme and you have to smear samples
of poo on a test card. Some people chuck the invitation in the bin,
preferring not to know, and some of those statistically will die
early of bowel cancer.

I've done two of those so far. Not particularly pleasant - but only a
complete idiot would not participate in the test.

If you've ever discovered that a crown's come off your tooth, and the
only place it could have gone is down your throat, you'll know that
things can get less pleasant. (Yes, it's now back in my mouth :-).

LOL! Oh dear...

--
Kev