On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 17:48:03 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

In article ,
S Viemeister wrote:

On 8/21/2012 9:08 AM, Tim Streater wrote:

Really? Everywhere I've lived they've had water meters. France, US,
Switzerland.

Our place in the US is metered, but the one in Scotland is not. It's a
flat rate, paid along with the council tax.

People in the UK have a funny attitude to metering water. Like, water
falls out of the sky for nothing, so constant uninterrupted pure water
should be piped to my house and the sewage taken away for nothing.

No...we just pay a flat rate. Not free.
--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

Dave Liquorice wrote:

Water meters are a fairly recent, 20 to 30 years, addition to the UK
housing stock. I think all new build has to have one and if you retrofit
the property is stuck with it ie you or new owner can't go back to
un-metered and billing based on rateable value.

With Severn Trent (maybe other suppliers) if you have a meter fitted,
you can choose to go back to non-metered bill, but any subsequent
occupier will have to have a metered bill.

In message , Tim
Streater writes
In article ,
"ARWadsworth" wrote:

Now the rationing has finished why not:-)

Because it *costs* to deliver water to houses, oddly enough.

Rather - it's "owned" by a company which has to make a profit for the
shareholders



--
geoff

On 21/08/2012 10:04, MM wrote:
On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 09:52:38 +0100, Allan
wrote:

On 20/08/2012 19:10, ARWadsworth wrote:
MM wrote:

[snip]

What does 2.5m³ of water cost?

I reckon my water's on about £5-£6 per cu. metre

Is that in the UK?

Anglian Water charges me (from 27/Jun/12) 183.36 pence per m³, no
standing charge (So-Low tariff).

MM

I'm with Anglian and they charge me £1.36 per c/m + 7p daily standing
charge.

On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 22:30:49 +0100, Andy Burns wrote:

Water meters are a fairly recent, 20 to 30 years, addition to the UK
housing stock. I think all new build has to have one and if you
retrofit the property is stuck with it ie you or new owner can't go
back to un-metered and billing based on rateable value.

With Severn Trent (maybe other suppliers) if you have a meter fitted,
you can choose to go back to non-metered bill, but any subsequent
occupier will have to have a metered bill.

Hum, maybe that was it. Can't say I've ever paid that much attention as I
have no intention of fitting a water meter unless forced. The no get out
if moving to a place with a meter rings a bell.

It might be worth fitting a meter when the kids have left home but this
is a large house, no water meter would be a selling point to any one with
a family...

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 20:44:07 +0100, Phil L wrote:

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 12:08:48 +0100, MM wrote:

I've just read the meter under the pavement ...

Water meter?

Is there any other kind under the pavement?

I donno all we have in our water supply is a street stop cock 10
yards down the road.

Aren't you metered then?

Nope, that's why I'm wondering what these water meter things are. B-)
Never lived in a place with a water meter. Water costs about £300/year
supply only, no mains drain.

My water rates for supply and sewerage was £410 per year, paid in two halves
each totalling £205.
I had a water meter installed and now pay £14 per month

Similar on rateable charges here, but now £7pcm and just dropped to £3 for a
while to absorb the surplus.
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway

On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 22:06:24 +0100 (BST), Dave Liquorice wrote:

On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 20:44:07 +0100, Phil L wrote:

My water rates for supply and sewerage was £410 per year, paid in two
halves each totalling £205. I had a water meter installed and now pay
£14 per month

Be nice to reduce the water bill by nearly 50% but I note you use a
singular "I". So I guess you live on your own or just you and SO. I have
a family, one of which is a teenage daughter. She'll get through 2m^3 of
water a week just for her "quick baths" that normally take 3hrs...

No wonder women go so wrinkly...
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway

On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 23:55:22 +0100, Justine Time
wrote:

On 21/08/2012 10:04, MM wrote:
On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 09:52:38 +0100, Allan
wrote:

On 20/08/2012 19:10, ARWadsworth wrote:
MM wrote:

[snip]

What does 2.5m³ of water cost?

I reckon my water's on about £5-£6 per cu. metre

Is that in the UK?

Anglian Water charges me (from 27/Jun/12) 183.36 pence per m³, no
standing charge (So-Low tariff).

MM

I'm with Anglian and they charge me £1.36 per c/m + 7p daily standing
charge.

The So-Low tariff still works out slightly cheaper for me, but not by
much. At an annual usage of 50m³ I would spend £91.68 on So-Low, but
£93.55 on your rate with the 7p daily standing charge.

On 40m³ the saving would be slightly mo £73.34 compared to £79.95

My usage varies but hovers around 48m³ per year. The cut-off for being
allowed on to the So-Low tariff is 75m³

MM

On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 19:48:07 +0100, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
S Viemeister wrote:

On 8/21/2012 9:08 AM, Tim Streater wrote:

Really? Everywhere I've lived they've had water meters. France,
US, Switzerland.

Our place in the US is metered, but the one in Scotland is not.
It's a flat rate, paid along with the council tax.

People in the UK have a funny attitude to metering water. Like, water
falls out of the sky for nothing, so constant uninterrupted pure water
should be piped to my house and the sewage taken away for nothing.

Now the rationing has finished why not:-)

Just jout a friend considering buting a house that has meterered water. He's
not happy. 2 kids and one on the way plus all the vehicles to wash, and hot
tub.

As he is moving up a council tax bracket (or maybe 2) from his previous
house I suspect he will pay around the same price for his water per year
(apart from when the extention is built)

Being metered has saved me money compared to the flat rate down in
Bucks. At least with a meter, you can ration your usage if necessary.
And with flat rate there's no doubt that people waste huge amounts.
For example, leaving the hose tap on. That wastage comes out of MY
pocket, but with flat rate, who cares?

MM

On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 22:19:34 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article o.uk,
"Dave Liquorice" wrote:

On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 14:08:37 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

Never lived in a place with a water meter.

Really? Everywhere I've lived they've had water meters. France, US,
Switzerland.

Yes, really, that's from 30's semi near Birmingham, flat conversion in
Bristol, 70's or so town house in St Albans and this old farm house in
Cumbria.

Water meters are a fairly recent, 20 to 30 years, addition to the UK
housing stock. I think all new build has to have one and if you retrofit
the property is stuck with it ie you or new owner can't go back to
un-metered and billing based on rateable value.

Umm. We had one put in 18 months ago (it has halved our water/sewage
bill). I'm sure on the paperwork it said we could revert to rateable
value if we wanted to.

Eventually everyone will be on a meter. It's the only sensible way.

MM

In article o.uk, Dave
Liquorice scribeth thus
On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 20:44:07 +0100, Phil L wrote:

My water rates for supply and sewerage was £410 per year, paid in two
halves each totalling £205. I had a water meter installed and now pay
£14 per month

Be nice to reduce the water bill by nearly 50% but I note you use a
singular "I". So I guess you live on your own or just you and SO. I have
a family, one of which is a teenage daughter. She'll get through 2m^3 of
water a week just for her "quick baths" that normally take 3hrs...

--
Cheers
Dave.



Anyone done any research into why teenage girls can take so long in a
bathroom and use so much shower water?..
--
Tony Sayer

On Monday, August 20, 2012 7:54:21 PM UTC+1, Phil L wrote:
MM wrote:

On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 19:18:56 +0100, The Medway Handyman

wrote:



On 20/08/2012 18:53, MM wrote:

Came back at least two hours later to find I'd forgotten to turn off

the garden hose after watering the plants, then going shopping. It

was only on at a moderate flow -- more than a trickle, but

significant. I've just read the meter under the pavement and worked

out (extrapolating from my previous bill) how much has gone. The

estimated reading for 20/Aug/12 based on past consumption should be

446. The actual reading is 448.68, so I've wasted over 2.5m�, which

is a heck of a lot. So I'm planning on emergency measures like

all-over washes instead of baths for the next three months.



But as I get older and more forgetful, is there a gadget I can fit

to either turn off the tap automatically or warn if it's left on?





Yup. Clockwork hose timer, adjustable up to 2 hours;



http://www.toolstation.com/shop/Land.../sd3226/p49191



Yes, I like the look of that one. And the price is not bad, either.



It would be cheaper to forget about the hosepipe once in a while.

cheaper still to tie a bit of string around your neck or finger with the words "I've left the hosepipe on". This morning I wanted to take my ipad to work so I sent myself an email, but I left the ipad on my clothes so I wouldn't forget.
Then this mornign I wondered why I had sent myself as email, oh it was to remmebr to collect the take the ipad :-).

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...


Anyone done any research into why teenage girls can take so long in a
bathroom and use so much shower water?..

Its because you let them.
No research required.

On 22/08/2012 11:25, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , geoff
wrote:

In message ,
Tim Streater writes
In article ,
"ARWadsworth" wrote:

Now the rationing has finished why not:-)

Because it *costs* to deliver water to houses, oddly enough.

Rather - it's "owned" by a company which has to make a profit for the
shareholders

As is anything that's any good.

NHS not only keeps me alive, it does a very good job of it. To me that
counts as good.

None of the best education comes from a company which has to make a
profit for the shareholders.

There we go, two massive counterexamples to your delusional idealism.

dennis@home wrote:


"tony sayer" wrote in message
...


Anyone done any research into why teenage girls can take so long in a
bathroom and use so much shower water?..

Its because you let them.
No research required.

Its because they dont pay for it.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 03:32:30 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave
wrote:

On Monday, August 20, 2012 7:54:21 PM UTC+1, Phil L wrote:
MM wrote:

On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 19:18:56 +0100, The Medway Handyman

wrote:



On 20/08/2012 18:53, MM wrote:

Came back at least two hours later to find I'd forgotten to turn off

the garden hose after watering the plants, then going shopping. It

was only on at a moderate flow -- more than a trickle, but

significant. I've just read the meter under the pavement and worked

out (extrapolating from my previous bill) how much has gone. The

estimated reading for 20/Aug/12 based on past consumption should be

446. The actual reading is 448.68, so I've wasted over 2.5m?, which

is a heck of a lot. So I'm planning on emergency measures like

all-over washes instead of baths for the next three months.



But as I get older and more forgetful, is there a gadget I can fit

to either turn off the tap automatically or warn if it's left on?





Yup. Clockwork hose timer, adjustable up to 2 hours;



http://www.toolstation.com/shop/Land.../sd3226/p49191



Yes, I like the look of that one. And the price is not bad, either.



It would be cheaper to forget about the hosepipe once in a while.

cheaper still to tie a bit of string around your neck or finger with the words "I've left the hosepipe on". This morning I wanted to take my ipad to work so I sent myself an email, but I left the ipad on my clothes so I wouldn't forget.
Then this mornign I wondered why I had sent myself as email, oh it was to remmebr to collect the take the ipad :-).

I've got a spare Basic Stamp handy and am thinking of a device that
would sound an alarm if water is detected flowing through a pipe.
Anyone got an idea what kind of sensor I'd need? I wouldn't want to
cut the pipe of course. There must be something that can detect water
flow through a standard copper pipe, no?

MM

On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 11:07:29 +0100, tony sayer
wrote:

In article o.uk, Dave
Liquorice scribeth thus
On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 20:44:07 +0100, Phil L wrote:

My water rates for supply and sewerage was £410 per year, paid in two
halves each totalling £205. I had a water meter installed and now pay
£14 per month

Be nice to reduce the water bill by nearly 50% but I note you use a
singular "I". So I guess you live on your own or just you and SO. I have
a family, one of which is a teenage daughter. She'll get through 2m^3 of
water a week just for her "quick baths" that normally take 3hrs...

--
Cheers
Dave.



Anyone done any research into why teenage girls can take so long in a
bathroom and use so much shower water?..

Look up "self abuse".

MM

On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 15:13:47 +0100, MM wrote:

I've got a spare Basic Stamp handy and am thinking of a device that
would sound an alarm if water is detected flowing through a pipe.
Anyone got an idea what kind of sensor I'd need? I wouldn't want to
cut the pipe of course. There must be something that can detect water
flow through a standard copper pipe, no?

Bog standard flow detector but you'f have to cut the pipe to install it.

FX: google

But why bother:

http://www.toolstation.com/shop/Clea...l%20Water%20Fl
ow%20Alarm/d50/sd2866/p89459

Note it's under the clearance section and there is sod all info about it.

http://www.rapidonline.com/Electroni...ied-Flow-Switc
h-0-5l-min-61-1358

Need to cut the pipe but gives a simple switch closure on flow
0.5l/min, so the stamp just needs to monitor that and alarm if the switch
is closed for a long time. FSVO "long".

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 22/08/2012 16:34, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Clive George wrote:

On 22/08/2012 11:25, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , geoff
wrote:

In message ,
Tim Streater writes
In article ,
"ARWadsworth" wrote:

Now the rationing has finished why not:-)

Because it *costs* to deliver water to houses, oddly enough.

Rather - it's "owned" by a company which has to make a profit for the
shareholders

As is anything that's any good.

NHS not only keeps me alive, it does a very good job of it.

It may be keeping you alive, but you have no idea whether they're doing
a good job ("good" in this context means at something approximating to
the lowest possible cost while still achieving the desired end).

Goal post shifting there. A good job doesn't necessarily have to be
lowest cost - from the end user's point of view it merely has to be
acceptable cost.

Is there any health system you regard as better than the NHS? You can't
mean the US one, because that's way more expensive and therefore doesn't
count as doing a good job in your book.

To me that counts as good.

Keep dreaming.

None of the best education comes from a company which has to make a
profit for the shareholders.

Really? You know this, do you?

Um, yes. Do you have any counterexamples? Even the best schools in the
private sector aren't profit-making.

You make the typical error of assuming
that people working for private companies are *only* motivated by
profit.

Um, no.

Profit has to be made, shareholders or not, because otherwise
the enterprise goes bust. Which is a good way of weeding out outfits
that are wasting society's resources.

There are other motives beyond profit, and profit isn't required to stay
afloat, merely the lack of loss. It is possible to run successful
private organisations without profit. Many private schools are examples.

There we go, two massive counterexamples to your delusional idealism.

Nice try. Don't give up the day job though.

Seem to be spanking you right now.

In article , dennis@home
scribeth thus


"tony sayer" wrote in message
...


Anyone done any research into why teenage girls can take so long in a
bathroom and use so much shower water?..

Its because you let them.
No research required.


Ah!, I take it you haven't got teenage daughters then Den...
--
Tony Sayer

On 22/08/2012 17:45, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Clive George wrote:

On 22/08/2012 16:34, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Clive George wrote:

On 22/08/2012 11:25, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , geoff

wrote:

In message ,
Tim Streater writes
In article ,
"ARWadsworth" wrote:

Now the rationing has finished why not:-)

Because it *costs* to deliver water to houses, oddly enough.

Rather - it's "owned" by a company which has to make a profit
for the
shareholders

As is anything that's any good.

NHS not only keeps me alive, it does a very good job of it.

It may be keeping you alive, but you have no idea whether they're doing
a good job ("good" in this context means at something approximating to
the lowest possible cost while still achieving the desired end).

Goal post shifting there. A good job doesn't necessarily have to be
lowest cost - from the end user's point of view it merely has to be
acceptable cost.

But that's meaningless in this context. In the UK, the end-user's cost
is zero. So as I said above, you've no idea whether they're doing a good
job or not. Except that when there are stories in the media about e.g. a
woman dying of dehydration in front of the nurses' noses, you start to
wonder.

We both know that the end-user's cost for the NHS is not zero. A fairly
simple sum involving how much tax you pay and the proportion going on
the NHS yields the answer.

Is there any health system you regard as better than the NHS? You
can't mean the US one, because that's way more expensive and therefore
doesn't count as doing a good job in your book.

That's right. I'd be more inclined to look at the French, or German
ones, which seem to be provided in large part by the private sector,
without the childish hangups about "profit" that we see in the UK.

Would you like the associated higher tax rates etc? I'd like the French
or German models, and would be prepared to pay for them, but I've never
seen you expressing anything but the desire to go the other way.

When
I lived in Switzerland, health cover had by law to be provided by the
employer - so everyone was covered. There were less than 100 people out
of work in the whole country at the time. Today that model would be
slightly broken, I imagine, and I don't know what the story there is
now.

Small rich countries are a lot easier to provide services for.

I had two ops in Geneva, one done in a private clinic, the other in
a private hospital. No problems with either, and they were done at the
day/time previously specified.

I've had two ops done in the UK in the past few years, both in a public
hospital, no problem with either, and performed at the required day/time.

To me that counts as good.

Keep dreaming.

None of the best education comes from a company which has to make a
profit for the shareholders.

Really? You know this, do you?

Um, yes. Do you have any counterexamples? Even the best schools in the
private sector aren't profit-making.

You make the typical error of assuming
that people working for private companies are *only* motivated by
profit.

Um, no.

Profit has to be made, shareholders or not, because otherwise
the enterprise goes bust. Which is a good way of weeding out outfits
that are wasting society's resources.

There are other motives beyond profit,

That's my point.

Not your original point.

and profit isn't required to stay afloat, merely the lack of loss. It
is possible to run successful private organisations without profit.
Many private schools are examples.

Profit in the sense of paying shareholders, agreed. But they still have
not to make a loss - i.e. break even or make a profit. The difference
with the state sector is *competition*, which forces them to be more
efficient.

Funny, this started with you stating the difference was profit.

Competition isn't necessarily the best way to achieve the efficiencies
you desire. It's not a natural state of many markets, and there are
plenty of places where trying to force a competitive market doesn't
actually help.

MM wrote:
On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 19:48:07 +0100, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
S Viemeister wrote:

On 8/21/2012 9:08 AM, Tim Streater wrote:

Really? Everywhere I've lived they've had water meters.
France, US, Switzerland.

Our place in the US is metered, but the one in Scotland is not.
It's a flat rate, paid along with the council tax.

People in the UK have a funny attitude to metering water. Like,
water falls out of the sky for nothing, so constant uninterrupted
pure water should be piped to my house and the sewage taken away
for nothing.

Now the rationing has finished why not:-)

Just jout a friend considering buting a house that has meterered
water. He's not happy. 2 kids and one on the way plus all the
vehicles to wash, and hot tub.

As he is moving up a council tax bracket (or maybe 2) from his
previous house I suspect he will pay around the same price for his
water per year (apart from when the extention is built)

Being metered has saved me money compared to the flat rate down in
Bucks. At least with a meter, you can ration your usage if necessary.
And with flat rate there's no doubt that people waste huge amounts.
For example, leaving the hose tap on. That wastage comes out of MY
pocket, but with flat rate, who cares?

It's the wasting water my friend will have to watch out for. Believe me, he
does not know how to turn a hosepipe off when doing DIY that needs a
hosepipe.

And the reason I have not washed the van this year is not to save money,
it's because I am a lazy **** who can no longer use the drive thgough car
wash due to roof bars being installed.

I once went 50K miles without washing the last van and then it got washed 5
times in one hour. I was swapping the outside lights at a hand car wash and
the owner liked the place to look busy so he drove it round for a wash when
there were no customers in:-)



--
Adam

In message , Tim
Streater writes
In article , geoff
wrote:

In message ,
Tim Streater writes
In article ,
"ARWadsworth" wrote:

Now the rationing has finished why not:-)

Because it *costs* to deliver water to houses, oddly enough.

Rather - it's "owned" by a company which has to make a profit for the
shareholders

As is anything that's any good. So your point was *what*, precisely?


What are you on about ?



"Like, water
falls out of the sky for nothing, so constant uninterrupted pure water
should be piped to my house and the sewage taken away for nothing.

Now the rationing has finished why not:-)"

--
geoff

tony sayer wrote:
In article , dennis@home
scribeth thus

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...

Anyone done any research into why teenage girls can take so long in a
bathroom and use so much shower water?..
Its because you let them.
No research required.


Ah!, I take it you haven't got teenage daughters then Den...

You don't think any woman is gonna get shagged by Den? If there is
anything else available.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

tony sayer wrote:
In article o.uk,
Dave Liquorice scribeth thus
On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 20:44:07 +0100, Phil L wrote:

My water rates for supply and sewerage was £410 per year, paid in
two halves each totalling £205. I had a water meter installed and
now pay £14 per month

Be nice to reduce the water bill by nearly 50% but I note you use a
singular "I". So I guess you live on your own or just you and SO. I
have a family, one of which is a teenage daughter. She'll get
through 2m^3 of water a week just for her "quick baths" that
normally take 3hrs...

--
Cheers
Dave.



Anyone done any research into why teenage girls can take so long in a
bathroom and use so much shower water?..

Well when I was married to a teenager it was because I used to join her in
the shower.

A couple of later studies after the divorce also found the same thing.


--
Adam

ARWadsworth wrote:

tony sayer wrote:

Dave Liquorice scribeth thus:

I have a family, one of which is a teenage daughter. She'll get
through 2m^3 of water a week just for her "quick baths" that
normally take 3hrs...

Anyone done any research into why teenage girls can take so long in a
bathroom and use so much shower water?..

Well when I was married to a teenager it was because I used to join her in
the shower.

A couple of later studies after the divorce also found the same thing.

A 30something bloke marrying a teenage foreign bird, what could possibly
go wrong? In fact, I can't think of anyone I know that got married at
18 or 19 where it has lasted ...

ARWadsworth wrote:

What does 2.5m³ of water cost?

Costs me nothing (extra), all watering for the garden is done from the
water in a butt. Our water is unmetered and the reservoir is two miles
up the road AND it iPsses with rain ALL the time (slight hyperbole),
mind you I am in Scotland.

In article , The Natural Philosopher
scribeth thus
tony sayer wrote:
In article , dennis@home
scribeth thus

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...

Anyone done any research into why teenage girls can take so long in a
bathroom and use so much shower water?..
Its because you let them.
No research required.


Ah!, I take it you haven't got teenage daughters then Den...

You don't think any woman is gonna get shagged by Den? If there is
anything else available.


Aww ;.. thats a bit below the belt NP;!...
--
Tony Sayer

On 22/08/2012 22:27, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Clive George wrote:

We both know that the end-user's cost for the NHS is not zero. A
fairly simple sum involving how much tax you pay and the proportion
going on the NHS yields the answer.

Obviously. But the end user doesn't see the costs directly and the
organisation itself has no incentive to do anything about them. That is
the point.

Um, the organisation has a massive incentive to do things about them.
That's why there's outsourced cleaning, paid for car parks, etc, and
that's ignoring budgetary tightness on the medical side.

Is there any health system you regard as better than the NHS? You
can't mean the US one, because that's way more expensive and therefore
doesn't count as doing a good job in your book.

That's right. I'd be more inclined to look at the French, or German
ones, which seem to be provided in large part by the private sector,
without the childish hangups about "profit" that we see in the UK.

Would you like the associated higher tax rates etc? I'd like the
French or German models, and would be prepared to pay for them, but
I've never seen you expressing anything but the desire to go the other
way.

Are there higher tax rates related to their systems?

Their governments spend more on health care, so yes, to do the same here
would require higher tax rates.

In article ,
Andy Burns wrote:
ARWadsworth wrote:

tony sayer wrote:

Dave Liquorice scribeth thus:

I have a family, one of which is a teenage daughter. She'll get
through 2m^3 of water a week just for her "quick baths" that
normally take 3hrs...

Anyone done any research into why teenage girls can take so long in a
bathroom and use so much shower water?..

Well when I was married to a teenager it was because I used to join her in
the shower.

A couple of later studies after the divorce also found the same thing.

A 30something bloke marrying a teenage foreign bird, what could possibly
go wrong? In fact, I can't think of anyone I know that got married at
18 or 19 where it has lasted ...

my wife was just 20 (by 3 weeks) when we got married. That was a bit over
49 years ago.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

In message , tony sayer
writes
In article , The Natural Philosopher
scribeth thus
tony sayer wrote:
In article , dennis@home
scribeth thus

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...

Anyone done any research into why teenage girls can take so long in a
bathroom and use so much shower water?..
Its because you let them.
No research required.


Ah!, I take it you haven't got teenage daughters then Den...

You don't think any woman is gonna get shagged by Den? If there is
anything else available.


Aww ;.. thats a bit below the belt NP;!...

Almost completely true, though



--
geoff

In message , Andy
Burns writes
ARWadsworth wrote:

tony sayer wrote:

Dave Liquorice scribeth thus:

I have a family, one of which is a teenage daughter. She'll get
through 2m^3 of water a week just for her "quick baths" that
normally take 3hrs...

Anyone done any research into why teenage girls can take so long in a
bathroom and use so much shower water?..

Well when I was married to a teenager it was because I used to join her in
the shower.

A couple of later studies after the divorce also found the same thing.

A 30something bloke marrying a teenage foreign bird, what could
possibly go wrong? In fact, I can't think of anyone I know that got
married at 18 or 19 where it has lasted ...

Having seen this happen so often, I made myself a rule that I wouldn't
get married before I was 40

worked for me ...


--
geoff

On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 16:16:24 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 15:13:47 +0100, MM wrote:

I've got a spare Basic Stamp handy and am thinking of a device that
would sound an alarm if water is detected flowing through a pipe.
Anyone got an idea what kind of sensor I'd need? I wouldn't want to
cut the pipe of course. There must be something that can detect water
flow through a standard copper pipe, no?

Bog standard flow detector but you'f have to cut the pipe to install it.

FX: google

But why bother:

http://www.toolstation.com/shop/Clea...l%20Water%20Fl
ow%20Alarm/d50/sd2866/p89459

That one looks like it's just strapped to the pipe, i.e. no pipe
cutting needed.

MM

dennis@home wrote
tony sayer wrote

Anyone done any research into why teenage girls can take
so long in a bathroom and use so much shower water?..

Its because you let them.

Doesn't explain why they started doing it that way as teenagers.

No research required.

Fraid so.

The Natural Philosopher wrote
dennis@home wrote
tony sayer wrote

Anyone done any research into why teenage girls can take so long in a
bathroom and use so much shower water?..

Its because you let them.
No research required.

Its because they dont pay for it.

They dont before they are teenagers either, so that can't fly.

On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 07:23:06 +0100, MM wrote:

Bog standard flow detector but you'f have to cut the pipe to install
it.

FX: google

But why bother:

http://www.toolstation.com/shop/Clea...g/Universal%20
Water%20Flow%20Alarm/d50/sd2866/p89459

That one looks like it's just strapped to the pipe, i.e. no pipe
cutting needed.

Hence the "why bother" over a standard flow detector. What worries me
about the above is lack of info and being in clearance. A quick google
for it found no other information other than a couple of amazon sellers
with identical descriptions...

--
Cheers
Dave.

In article , charles
scribeth thus
In article ,
Andy Burns wrote:
ARWadsworth wrote:

tony sayer wrote:

Dave Liquorice scribeth thus:

I have a family, one of which is a teenage daughter. She'll get
through 2m^3 of water a week just for her "quick baths" that
normally take 3hrs...

Anyone done any research into why teenage girls can take so long in a
bathroom and use so much shower water?..

Well when I was married to a teenager it was because I used to join her in
the shower.

A couple of later studies after the divorce also found the same thing.

A 30something bloke marrying a teenage foreign bird, what could possibly
go wrong? In fact, I can't think of anyone I know that got married at
18 or 19 where it has lasted ...

my wife was just 20 (by 3 weeks) when we got married. That was a bit over
49 years ago.


Mine was 21 and I was 41 but thats been going now quite sometime despite
all the differences;!...
--
Tony Sayer

Andy Burns wrote:
ARWadsworth wrote:

tony sayer wrote:

Dave Liquorice scribeth thus:

I have a family, one of which is a teenage daughter. She'll get
through 2m^3 of water a week just for her "quick baths" that
normally take 3hrs...

Anyone done any research into why teenage girls can take so long
in a bathroom and use so much shower water?..

Well when I was married to a teenager it was because I used to join
her in the shower.

A couple of later studies after the divorce also found the same
thing.

A 30something bloke marrying a teenage foreign bird, what could
possibly go wrong? In fact, I can't think of anyone I know that got
married at 18 or 19 where it has lasted ...

I enjoyed the first year, the second year was OK, the third year was crap.

Still, I was married for 10 years as it took another 7 years after
separating before we divorced - a DIY divorce for £300 or so quid.

--
Adam

On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 10:58:03 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 07:23:06 +0100, MM wrote:

Bog standard flow detector but you'f have to cut the pipe to install
it.

FX: google

But why bother:

http://www.toolstation.com/shop/Clea...g/Universal%20
Water%20Flow%20Alarm/d50/sd2866/p89459

That one looks like it's just strapped to the pipe, i.e. no pipe
cutting needed.

Hence the "why bother" over a standard flow detector. What worries me
about the above is lack of info and being in clearance. A quick google
for it found no other information other than a couple of amazon sellers
with identical descriptions...

I cannot fathom how it does it, if true. But then, the Royal Society
Christmas Lectures always amaze me!

MM