On 3/19/2011 9:01 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

New homes are designed to be one-flush with low-flow toilets. 3" waste lines
and rat's nest plumbing are no longer used. OTOH, retrofitting a low-flow
toilet into an older home can be a problem. We don't have a problems (well,
not much[*]) with our new home, either, but I know a lot of people with older
homes that do.

[*] They don't seem to stay as clean as the older toilets.

My house was built in 1973. I have replaced two of its three toilets
with low flow toilets. The new ones work better than the old high flow
toilet.

The only problem that I had was that some idiot plumber could not mount
the flange at the proper height or level to the floor. My guess is that
the plumbing that is below the floor is probably even worse.

I used a basic Kohler model toilet.

http://www.homedepot.com/Bath-Toilet...atalogId=10053


Dan

On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 22:20:02 -0700, Dan Coby wrote:

On 3/19/2011 9:01 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

New homes are designed to be one-flush with low-flow toilets. 3" waste lines
and rat's nest plumbing are no longer used. OTOH, retrofitting a low-flow
toilet into an older home can be a problem. We don't have a problems (well,
not much[*]) with our new home, either, but I know a lot of people with older
homes that do.

[*] They don't seem to stay as clean as the older toilets.

My house was built in 1973. I have replaced two of its three toilets
with low flow toilets. The new ones work better than the old high flow
toilet.

Because you had no problems doesn't mean that there are no problems.

The only problem that I had was that some idiot plumber could not mount
the flange at the proper height or level to the floor. My guess is that
the plumbing that is below the floor is probably even worse.

I used a basic Kohler model toilet.

http://www.homedepot.com/Bath-Toilet...atalogId=10053


Dan

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 22:20:02 -0700, Dan Coby
wrote:

On 3/19/2011 9:01 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

New homes are designed to be one-flush with low-flow toilets. 3"
waste lines and rat's nest plumbing are no longer used. OTOH,
retrofitting a low-flow toilet into an older home can be a problem.
We don't have a problems (well, not much[*]) with our new home,
either, but I know a lot of people with older homes that do.

[*] They don't seem to stay as clean as the older toilets.

My house was built in 1973. I have replaced two of its three toilets
with low flow toilets. The new ones work better than the old high
flow toilet.

Because you had no problems doesn't mean that there are no problems.


Not sure why you say what you do above. I've been looking into low flows in
anticipation of some remodeling work that will begin sometime in the near
future, and I have not encountered anything that even suggests that 3"
plumbing will not work with the new toilets. Rat's nest plumbing - well,
that's a different thing, but that can't be counted on to work with
anything.

Your most recent statement above is even more confusing. If you're going to
make a leading statement like that, then how about throwing a couple/few
ideas out there that take this conversation in a specific direction. If
there are things to be mindful of that I haven't discovered or considered
yet, I'd sure like to know before I get into another of the dreaded
p-l-u-m-b-i-ng jobs.

--

-Mike-

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 22:20:02 -0700, Dan Coby wrote:

On 3/19/2011 9:01 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

New homes are designed to be one-flush with low-flow toilets. 3" waste
lines
and rat's nest plumbing are no longer used. OTOH, retrofitting a
low-flow
toilet into an older home can be a problem. We don't have a problems
(well,
not much[*]) with our new home, either, but I know a lot of people with
older
homes that do.

[*] They don't seem to stay as clean as the older toilets.

My house was built in 1973. I have replaced two of its three toilets
with low flow toilets. The new ones work better than the old high flow
toilet.

Because you had no problems doesn't mean that there are no problems.

Still, can you say that you have never had a problem with a high volume
toilet?

"Leon" wrote in
:


wrote in message
...
On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 22:20:02 -0700, Dan Coby
wrote:

On 3/19/2011 9:01 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

New homes are designed to be one-flush with low-flow toilets. 3"
waste lines
and rat's nest plumbing are no longer used. OTOH, retrofitting a
low-flow
toilet into an older home can be a problem. We don't have a
problems (well,
not much[*]) with our new home, either, but I know a lot of people
with older
homes that do.

[*] They don't seem to stay as clean as the older toilets.

My house was built in 1973. I have replaced two of its three toilets
with low flow toilets. The new ones work better than the old high
flow toilet.

Because you had no problems doesn't mean that there are no problems.

Still, can you say that you have never had a problem with a high
volume toilet?

He never had a big enough ****.




--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 22:20:02 -0700, Dan Coby
wrote:

On 3/19/2011 9:01 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

New homes are designed to be one-flush with low-flow toilets. 3"
waste lines and rat's nest plumbing are no longer used. OTOH,
retrofitting a low-flow toilet into an older home can be a problem.
We don't have a problems (well, not much[*]) with our new home,
either, but I know a lot of people with older homes that do.

[*] They don't seem to stay as clean as the older toilets.

My house was built in 1973. I have replaced two of its three toilets
with low flow toilets. The new ones work better than the old high
flow toilet.

Because you had no problems doesn't mean that there are no problems.


Not sure why you say what you do above. I've been looking into low flows
in anticipation of some remodeling work that will begin sometime in the
near future, and I have not encountered anything that even suggests that
3" plumbing will not work with the new toilets. Rat's nest plumbing -
well, that's a different thing, but that can't be counted on to work with
anything.

Your most recent statement above is even more confusing. If you're going
to make a leading statement like that, then how about throwing a
couple/few ideas out there that take this conversation in a specific
direction. If there are things to be mindful of that I haven't discovered
or considered yet, I'd sure like to know before I get into another of the
dreaded p-l-u-m-b-i-ng jobs.

When the things were first introduced umpteen years ago there was a popular
complaing about them not doing what they needed to do. I think those that
were more full of it may have had problems or feared possible problems.
Which reminds me of an old episode of Married with Children. Al was
remodeling his bathroom and was having a comercial high power flush toilet
installed in his bathroom to handle his "man sized" loads.

Like everything else, improvements are constantly being made. I have had
the opportunity, ;~) to use one on a continued basis for the last 10 years.
So as far as ten years back "all" of the ones that I have used have never
demonstrated any problems. I can honestly say that has not been the case
with the older designed full flush models.

Having said that, if you have plumbing problems it probably is not the fault
of the fixture.

About 7 minutes in, THE FERGUSON toilet!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrbEBvM7LP8

On 3/20/2011 8:46 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 22:20:02 -0700, Dan
wrote:

On 3/19/2011 9:01 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

New homes are designed to be one-flush with low-flow toilets. 3"
waste lines and rat's nest plumbing are no longer used. OTOH,
retrofitting a low-flow toilet into an older home can be a problem.
We don't have a problems (well, not much[*]) with our new home,
either, but I know a lot of people with older homes that do.

[*] They don't seem to stay as clean as the older toilets.

My house was built in 1973. I have replaced two of its three toilets
with low flow toilets. The new ones work better than the old high
flow toilet.

Because you had no problems doesn't mean that there are no problems.


Not sure why you say what you do above. I've been looking into low flows in
anticipation of some remodeling work that will begin sometime in the near
future, and I have not encountered anything that even suggests that 3"
plumbing will not work with the new toilets. Rat's nest plumbing - well,
that's a different thing, but that can't be counted on to work with
anything.

Your most recent statement above is even more confusing. If you're going to
make a leading statement like that, then how about throwing a couple/few
ideas out there that take this conversation in a specific direction. If
there are things to be mindful of that I haven't discovered or considered
yet, I'd sure like to know before I get into another of the dreaded
p-l-u-m-b-i-ng jobs.

Go to google and type "california problems with low flow toilets" into
the search window you will see hundreds of articles on the problems
caused by low flow toilets

This is a specific article that appeared on CNN recently

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/01...san-francisco/

"k-nuttle" wrote in message
...
On 3/20/2011 8:46 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 22:20:02 -0700, Dan
wrote:

On 3/19/2011 9:01 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

New homes are designed to be one-flush with low-flow toilets. 3"
waste lines and rat's nest plumbing are no longer used. OTOH,
retrofitting a low-flow toilet into an older home can be a problem.
We don't have a problems (well, not much[*]) with our new home,
either, but I know a lot of people with older homes that do.

[*] They don't seem to stay as clean as the older toilets.

My house was built in 1973. I have replaced two of its three toilets
with low flow toilets. The new ones work better than the old high
flow toilet.

Because you had no problems doesn't mean that there are no problems.


Not sure why you say what you do above. I've been looking into low flows
in
anticipation of some remodeling work that will begin sometime in the near
future, and I have not encountered anything that even suggests that 3"
plumbing will not work with the new toilets. Rat's nest plumbing - well,
that's a different thing, but that can't be counted on to work with
anything.

Your most recent statement above is even more confusing. If you're going
to
make a leading statement like that, then how about throwing a couple/few
ideas out there that take this conversation in a specific direction. If
there are things to be mindful of that I haven't discovered or considered
yet, I'd sure like to know before I get into another of the dreaded
p-l-u-m-b-i-ng jobs.

Go to google and type "california problems with low flow toilets" into the
search window you will see hundreds of articles on the problems caused by
low flow toilets

This is a specific article that appeared on CNN recently

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/01...san-francisco/

Why am I not suprised that it is once again a California problem. And in
the last 20+ years there are hundreds of articles on problems with toilets.
There are millions of these toilets in use, not having problems.

Saw this approach in Baltimore 20 years ago. So not new by any stretch.

Marty

On 3/18/2011 8:47 AM, Lee Michaels wrote:
Since there was a mention of wind energy, take a look at this.

I read about this guy. His approach is very different. He is not going
to solve our overall problems, but he is doing his best to help. Some
folks think Sauer Energy is a hot investment opportunity.

http://www.sauerenergy.com

Yeah, Right, here in Vermont all alternative power (solar, wind)
are first built with grants from state and federal governments.
Then to top if off the local utilities are required (not optional)
to purchase this power at 3 cent per KWH over the rates charged for
power from other sources (hydro and Nuke).

If the solar and wind sources have a business model that depends
upon government to build the systems and surcharges over the going
wholesale rate for power they are doomed to failure.

Marty




On 3/17/2011 4:02 PM, Edward A. Falk wrote:
In article9uidnW7sGfDNmh_QnZ2dnUVZ5tadnZ2d@giganews. com,
wrote:


I think California should shut down all nuclear facilities and go back to
conventional ways of generating elecricity. I suspect it is only a matter
of time before this polution cutter will bite you in the ass like all of the
others have. California seems to believe it can live in a cleaner
environment than the rest of the country but obviousely cannot afford or
engeneer methods support those wishes.

We're working on it. Wind, solar, geothermal. All under development.
All clean. All using free fuel.

Check out http://nanosolar.com/, not 20 miles from where I live.
They're heading towards $1/watt capacity which makes solar competitive
with any other power source.

On 3/18/2011 3:22 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
....

1. Wind power is dependent on the wind. There are very few locations
with a dependable wind source. And there's not enough wind power
available, even if used 100%, to make much of a dent in a nation's
energy needs.

....

I've posted the capacity factor records for the Gray County (KS) wind
farm previously...

For the eight years of operation, the average monthly capacity factor
has only been 40% in one of the prime locations for wind generation in
the US (western High Plains region). Months during the diurnal cycle of
early winter and late summer are generally 30% and less; even the
highest in early spring have only hit 50% in one of eight years.

Han recently asked if that weren't owing to other factors than wind
availability such as dispatch so I recently did a correlation w/ the
monthly average wind speeds and no month was below 0.8 w/ the overall at
0.90 even on such a coarse basis as monthly averages.

It can thus be concluded that on average it takes 2.5X the installed
capacity to generate a given level of power from wind and that that
factor goes even higher for significant fractions of the year (and
there's a smaller daily diurnal period as wind speed generally falls at
night as solar heating goes away). This causes two effects, neither of
which is conducive to saving much if at all economically and mitigates
the positive benefits from diversion. First, the low fuel density means
a high cost/output as well as a huge over-capacity required to make up
for at least some of the variability in supply. Second, for a reliable
grid there has to be standby generation for most, if not all, of this
capacity and this has exacerbated the rush to build natural gas-fired
co-gen units as the cheapest/quickest way to get that done. That's a
_terrible_ short term use of natural gas, btw, that will undoubtedly
come to haunt in the (not so distant) future as heating costs continue
to rise...

All in all, free fuel ain't so free after all...

--

On 3/20/2011 5:46 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 22:20:02 -0700, Dan
wrote:

On 3/19/2011 9:01 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

New homes are designed to be one-flush with low-flow toilets. 3"
waste lines and rat's nest plumbing are no longer used. OTOH,
retrofitting a low-flow toilet into an older home can be a problem.
We don't have a problems (well, not much[*]) with our new home,
either, but I know a lot of people with older homes that do.

[*] They don't seem to stay as clean as the older toilets.

My house was built in 1973. I have replaced two of its three toilets
with low flow toilets. The new ones work better than the old high
flow toilet.

Because you had no problems doesn't mean that there are no problems.


Not sure why you say what you do above. I've been looking into low flows in
anticipation of some remodeling work that will begin sometime in the near
future, and I have not encountered anything that even suggests that 3"
plumbing will not work with the new toilets. Rat's nest plumbing - well,
that's a different thing, but that can't be counted on to work with
anything.

Your most recent statement above is even more confusing. If you're going to
make a leading statement like that, then how about throwing a couple/few
ideas out there that take this conversation in a specific direction. If
there are things to be mindful of that I haven't discovered or considered
yet, I'd sure like to know before I get into another of the dreaded
p-l-u-m-b-i-ng jobs.

I agree. I also noted that krw completely ignored my statement that my
new low flow toilets actually work better then my old high flow toilet.

Dan

On 3/20/2011 1:13 PM, dpb wrote:
On 3/18/2011 3:22 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
...

1. Wind power is dependent on the wind. There are very few locations
with a dependable wind source. And there's not enough wind power
available, even if used 100%, to make much of a dent in a nation's
energy needs.

...

I've posted the capacity factor records for the Gray County (KS) wind
farm previously...

For the eight years of operation, the average monthly capacity factor
has only been 40% in one of the prime locations for wind generation in
the US (western High Plains region). Months during the diurnal cycle of
early winter and late summer are generally 30% and less; even the
highest in early spring have only hit 50% in one of eight years.

Han recently asked if that weren't owing to other factors than wind
availability such as dispatch so I recently did a correlation w/ the
monthly average wind speeds and no month was below 0.8 w/ the overall at
0.90 even on such a coarse basis as monthly averages.

It can thus be concluded that on average it takes 2.5X the installed
capacity to generate a given level of power from wind and that that
factor goes even higher for significant fractions of the year (and
there's a smaller daily diurnal period as wind speed generally falls at
night as solar heating goes away). This causes two effects, neither of
which is conducive to saving much if at all economically and mitigates
the positive benefits from diversion. First, the low fuel density means
a high cost/output as well as a huge over-capacity required to make up
for at least some of the variability in supply. Second, for a reliable
grid there has to be standby generation for most, if not all, of this
capacity and this has exacerbated the rush to build natural gas-fired
co-gen units as the cheapest/quickest way to get that done. That's a
_terrible_ short term use of natural gas, btw, that will undoubtedly
come to haunt in the (not so distant) future as heating costs continue
to rise...

All in all, free fuel ain't so free after all...

--
That should not come as a problem for those who believe they are saving
the planet by converting their food to Alcohol, to burn in their cars.

They are the one who are also clamoring about the high CO2 content in
the atmosphere, while they refuse to admit that chemically Alcohol
generates twice the CO2 as gasoline. One when fermented + one when burned.

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 10:17:26 -0700, Dan Coby wrote:

On 3/20/2011 5:46 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 22:20:02 -0700, Dan
wrote:

On 3/19/2011 9:01 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

New homes are designed to be one-flush with low-flow toilets. 3"
waste lines and rat's nest plumbing are no longer used. OTOH,
retrofitting a low-flow toilet into an older home can be a problem.
We don't have a problems (well, not much[*]) with our new home,
either, but I know a lot of people with older homes that do.

[*] They don't seem to stay as clean as the older toilets.

My house was built in 1973. I have replaced two of its three toilets
with low flow toilets. The new ones work better than the old high
flow toilet.

Because you had no problems doesn't mean that there are no problems.


Not sure why you say what you do above. I've been looking into low flows in
anticipation of some remodeling work that will begin sometime in the near
future, and I have not encountered anything that even suggests that 3"
plumbing will not work with the new toilets. Rat's nest plumbing - well,
that's a different thing, but that can't be counted on to work with
anything.

Your most recent statement above is even more confusing. If you're going to
make a leading statement like that, then how about throwing a couple/few
ideas out there that take this conversation in a specific direction. If
there are things to be mindful of that I haven't discovered or considered
yet, I'd sure like to know before I get into another of the dreaded
p-l-u-m-b-i-ng jobs.

I agree. I also noted that krw completely ignored my statement that my
new low flow toilets actually work better then my old high flow toilet.

You were simply reporting *YOUR* experience. So what? Your anecdote is not
data. IME, they don't work as well. Others, with older homes, have even
worse experiences.

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 08:34:09 -0500, "Leon" wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 22:20:02 -0700, Dan Coby wrote:

On 3/19/2011 9:01 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

New homes are designed to be one-flush with low-flow toilets. 3" waste
lines
and rat's nest plumbing are no longer used. OTOH, retrofitting a
low-flow
toilet into an older home can be a problem. We don't have a problems
(well,
not much[*]) with our new home, either, but I know a lot of people with
older
homes that do.

[*] They don't seem to stay as clean as the older toilets.

My house was built in 1973. I have replaced two of its three toilets
with low flow toilets. The new ones work better than the old high flow
toilet.

Because you had no problems doesn't mean that there are no problems.

Still, can you say that you have never had a problem with a high volume
toilet?

I have more with the low flow, certainly. The one problem that I don't have,
as has been noted here, is the overflow problem.

That said, I really don't have that much of an issue with them in *NEW*
construction. Demanding that they be retrofitted to existing construction is
dumb. The federal government in my bathroom is a real problem.

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 08:46:21 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

wrote:
On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 22:20:02 -0700, Dan Coby
wrote:

On 3/19/2011 9:01 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

New homes are designed to be one-flush with low-flow toilets. 3"
waste lines and rat's nest plumbing are no longer used. OTOH,
retrofitting a low-flow toilet into an older home can be a problem.
We don't have a problems (well, not much[*]) with our new home,
either, but I know a lot of people with older homes that do.

[*] They don't seem to stay as clean as the older toilets.

My house was built in 1973. I have replaced two of its three toilets
with low flow toilets. The new ones work better than the old high
flow toilet.

Because you had no problems doesn't mean that there are no problems.


Not sure why you say what you do above.

*Simple* logic should tell you that your experience is just that. It is not
universal law.

I've been looking into low flows in
anticipation of some remodeling work that will begin sometime in the near
future, and I have not encountered anything that even suggests that 3"
plumbing will not work with the new toilets.

It often doesn't.

Rat's nest plumbing - well,
that's a different thing, but that can't be counted on to work with
anything.

The toilet that was replaced, worked.

Your most recent statement above is even more confusing.

It confuses you to state that your experience doesn't mean that others have
different experiences? You've never heard that anecdote data?

If you're going to
make a leading statement like that, then how about throwing a couple/few
ideas out there that take this conversation in a specific direction. If
there are things to be mindful of that I haven't discovered or considered
yet, I'd sure like to know before I get into another of the dreaded
p-l-u-m-b-i-ng jobs.

Huh? I stated a simple principle of *logic*. You want to dispute that?

On 3/20/2011 12:30 PM, k-nuttle wrote:
On 3/20/2011 1:13 PM, dpb wrote:
....
_terrible_ short term use of natural gas, btw, that will undoubtedly
come to haunt in the (not so distant) future as heating costs continue
to rise...

All in all, free fuel ain't so free after all...

--
That should not come as a problem for those who believe they are saving
the planet by converting their food to Alcohol, to burn in their cars.

They are the one who are also clamoring about the high CO2 content in
the atmosphere, while they refuse to admit that chemically Alcohol
generates twice the CO2 as gasoline. One when fermented + one when burned.

They don't count that as it is all assumed to be reabsorbed by the next
growing cycle.

The real issue out here imo (and it has nothing to do w/ whether one
raises irrigated corn, soybeans, milo, wheat, whatever) is that
irrigation at current levels isn't sustainable w/ an essentially
non-renewing reservoir so that water is mined just as if it were oil,
gas, gold...

It's roughly 2-3000 gal/bu to raise 200-bu corn; the water for the
ethanol conversion is additional (but smaller, relatively, in comparison
although certainly not insignificant).

--

"k-nuttle" wrote in message
...
On 3/20/2011 1:13 PM, dpb wrote:
On 3/18/2011 3:22 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
...

1. Wind power is dependent on the wind. There are very few locations
with a dependable wind source. And there's not enough wind power
available, even if used 100%, to make much of a dent in a nation's
energy needs.

...

I've posted the capacity factor records for the Gray County (KS) wind
farm previously...

For the eight years of operation, the average monthly capacity factor
has only been 40% in one of the prime locations for wind generation in
the US (western High Plains region). Months during the diurnal cycle of
early winter and late summer are generally 30% and less; even the
highest in early spring have only hit 50% in one of eight years.

Han recently asked if that weren't owing to other factors than wind
availability such as dispatch so I recently did a correlation w/ the
monthly average wind speeds and no month was below 0.8 w/ the overall at
0.90 even on such a coarse basis as monthly averages.

It can thus be concluded that on average it takes 2.5X the installed
capacity to generate a given level of power from wind and that that
factor goes even higher for significant fractions of the year (and
there's a smaller daily diurnal period as wind speed generally falls at
night as solar heating goes away). This causes two effects, neither of
which is conducive to saving much if at all economically and mitigates
the positive benefits from diversion. First, the low fuel density means
a high cost/output as well as a huge over-capacity required to make up
for at least some of the variability in supply. Second, for a reliable
grid there has to be standby generation for most, if not all, of this
capacity and this has exacerbated the rush to build natural gas-fired
co-gen units as the cheapest/quickest way to get that done. That's a
_terrible_ short term use of natural gas, btw, that will undoubtedly
come to haunt in the (not so distant) future as heating costs continue
to rise...

All in all, free fuel ain't so free after all...

--
That should not come as a problem for those who believe they are saving
the planet by converting their food to Alcohol, to burn in their cars.

Not to mention that the harvested fuel simply replaces the fuel burned to
produce it.

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 10:38:52 -0500, "Leon"
wrote:


"k-nuttle" wrote in message
...
On 3/20/2011 8:46 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 22:20:02 -0700, Dan
wrote:

On 3/19/2011 9:01 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

New homes are designed to be one-flush with low-flow toilets. 3"
waste lines and rat's nest plumbing are no longer used. OTOH,
retrofitting a low-flow toilet into an older home can be a problem.
We don't have a problems (well, not much[*]) with our new home,
either, but I know a lot of people with older homes that do.

[*] They don't seem to stay as clean as the older toilets.

My house was built in 1973. I have replaced two of its three toilets
with low flow toilets. The new ones work better than the old high
flow toilet.

Because you had no problems doesn't mean that there are no problems.


Not sure why you say what you do above. I've been looking into low flows
in
anticipation of some remodeling work that will begin sometime in the near
future, and I have not encountered anything that even suggests that 3"
plumbing will not work with the new toilets. Rat's nest plumbing - well,
that's a different thing, but that can't be counted on to work with
anything.

Your most recent statement above is even more confusing. If you're going
to
make a leading statement like that, then how about throwing a couple/few
ideas out there that take this conversation in a specific direction. If
there are things to be mindful of that I haven't discovered or considered
yet, I'd sure like to know before I get into another of the dreaded
p-l-u-m-b-i-ng jobs.

Go to google and type "california problems with low flow toilets" into the
search window you will see hundreds of articles on the problems caused by
low flow toilets

This is a specific article that appeared on CNN recently

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/01...san-francisco/

Why am I not suprised that it is once again a California problem. And in
the last 20+ years there are hundreds of articles on problems with toilets.
There are millions of these toilets in use, not having problems.

California always leads the nation in trying out newest, greenest
things. When we went from 3.4gal to 2gal using bricks and gallon
water bottles, it worked. When we went from 2gal to 1.6gal, it worked.
But now, with the 1.4gal and 1.1gal models, **** happened.

In SF's case here, they are using so little water now that their
sewers are not being swept, so **** sits everywhere in puddles,
reeking as a result. They're saving 20 million gallons/year now and
it's causing other problems.

From the wiki article:

"US standards for low-flow and high-efficiency toilets

A pre 1994 flush-toilet or gravity-fed toilet uses 13 litres (3.4 US
gallons or 2.8 imperial gallons) or more per flush. In 1992, the
United States Congress passed the Energy Policy Act of 1992, which
mandated that, from 1994, the common flush-toilet use only 1.6 US
gallons (6 litres) of water per flush. In response to the Act,
manufacturers produced low-flow toilets, which many consumers did not
like. Manufacturers responded to consumers' complaints by improving
the toilets. The improved products are generally identified as high
efficiency toilets or HETs. HETs possess an effective flush volume of
4.8 litres (1.28 US gallons) or less.[13] HETs may be single-flush or
dual-flush. A dual-flush toilet permits its user to choose between two
amounts of water.[14] Some HETs are pressure-assisted (or
power-assisted or pump-assisted or vacuum-assisted). The performance
of a flush-toilet may be rated by a Maximum Performance (MaP) score.
The low end of MaP scores is 250. The high end of MaP scores is 1000.
A toilet with a MaP score of 1000 should provide trouble-free service.
It should remove all waste with a single flush; it should not plug; it
should not harbor any odor; it should be easy to keep clean. The
United States Environmental Protection Agency uses a MaP score of 350
as the minimum performance threshold for HETs.[13] 1.6 gpf toilets are
also sometimes referred as ULF toilets (or Ultra Low Flow) toilets."

I'm wondering if these SF toilets are meeting the HET threshold.
I'll bet not. And the sewers sure ain't!

--
"I probably became a libertarian through exposure to tough-minded
professors" James Buchanan, Armen Alchian, Milton Friedman "who
encouraged me to think with my brain instead of my heart. I
learned that you have to evaluate the effects of public policy
as opposed to intentions."
-- Walter E. Williams

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 13:03:32 -0500, "Leon"
wrote:


"k-nuttle" wrote in message
...
On 3/20/2011 1:13 PM, dpb wrote:
All in all, free fuel ain't so free after all...

That should not come as a problem for those who believe they are saving
the planet by converting their food to Alcohol, to burn in their cars.

Not to mention that the harvested fuel simply replaces the fuel burned to
produce it.

You burn more gasohol for the same power output/mile than that alcohol
they put in the gas mixtures now. Estimates on my Tundra are a 12%
loss due to the 10% ethanol they added to our fuel. That's a net
increase in fuel used per mile, an additional amount of CO2, and
higher prices on everything because damnear everything uses corn
nowadays. Ethanol is truly a cluster****, folks.

--
"I probably became a libertarian through exposure to tough-minded
professors" James Buchanan, Armen Alchian, Milton Friedman "who
encouraged me to think with my brain instead of my heart. I
learned that you have to evaluate the effects of public policy
as opposed to intentions."
-- Walter E. Williams

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 14:13:00 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 13:03:32 -0500, "Leon"
wrote:


"k-nuttle" wrote in message
...
On 3/20/2011 1:13 PM, dpb wrote:
All in all, free fuel ain't so free after all...

That should not come as a problem for those who believe they are saving
the planet by converting their food to Alcohol, to burn in their cars.

Not to mention that the harvested fuel simply replaces the fuel burned to
produce it.

You burn more gasohol for the same power output/mile than that alcohol
they put in the gas mixtures now. Estimates on my Tundra are a 12%
loss due to the 10% ethanol they added to our fuel. That's a net
increase in fuel used per mile, an additional amount of CO2, and

I've measured a 10% mileage reduction for 10% ethanol on my Ranger. Makes it
rather useless, eh?

higher prices on everything because damnear everything uses corn
nowadays. Ethanol is truly a cluster****, folks.

Yep. But lefties never let the lives of a few million people get in the way
of their ideas for a better world.

On Mar 20, 11:38*am, "Leon" wrote:
"k-nuttle" wrote in message

...





On 3/20/2011 8:46 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
wrote:
On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 22:20:02 -0700, Dan
wrote:

On 3/19/2011 9:01 AM, wrote:

New homes are designed to be one-flush with low-flow toilets. *3"
waste lines and rat's nest plumbing are no longer used. *OTOH,
retrofitting a low-flow toilet into an older home can be a problem.
We don't have a problems (well, not much[*]) with our new home,
either, but I know a lot of people with older homes that do.

[*] They don't seem to stay as clean as the older toilets.

My house was built in 1973. I have replaced two of its three toilets
with low flow toilets. *The new ones work better than the old high
flow toilet.

Because you had no problems doesn't mean that there are no problems.

Not sure why you say what you do above. *I've been looking into low flows
in
anticipation of some remodeling work that will begin sometime in the near
future, and I have not encountered anything that even suggests that 3"
plumbing will not work with the new toilets. *Rat's nest plumbing - well,
that's a different thing, but that can't be counted on to work with
anything.

Your most recent statement above is even more confusing. *If you're going
to
make a leading statement like that, then how about throwing a couple/few
ideas out there that take this conversation in a specific direction. *If
there are things to be mindful of that I haven't discovered or considered
yet, I'd sure like to know before I get into another of the dreaded
p-l-u-m-b-i-ng jobs.

Go to google and type "california problems with low flow toilets" into the
search window you will see hundreds of articles on the problems caused by
low flow toilets

This is a specific article that appeared on CNN recently

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/01...ause-stink-in-...

Why am I not suprised that it is once again a California problem. *And in
the last 20+ years there are hundreds of articles on problems with toilets.
There are millions of these toilets in use, not having problems.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

California vegetarian diet, higher in fiber.

So it may not really be a toilet problem so much as an antiquated sewer
system.

"Father Haskell" wrote in message
...
On Mar 20, 11:38 am, "Leon" wrote:
"k-nuttle" wrote in message

...





On 3/20/2011 8:46 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
wrote:
On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 22:20:02 -0700, Dan
wrote:

On 3/19/2011 9:01 AM, wrote:

New homes are designed to be one-flush with low-flow toilets. 3"
waste lines and rat's nest plumbing are no longer used. OTOH,
retrofitting a low-flow toilet into an older home can be a problem.
We don't have a problems (well, not much[*]) with our new home,
either, but I know a lot of people with older homes that do.

[*] They don't seem to stay as clean as the older toilets.

My house was built in 1973. I have replaced two of its three toilets
with low flow toilets. The new ones work better than the old high
flow toilet.

Because you had no problems doesn't mean that there are no problems.

Not sure why you say what you do above. I've been looking into low
flows
in
anticipation of some remodeling work that will begin sometime in the
near
future, and I have not encountered anything that even suggests that 3"
plumbing will not work with the new toilets. Rat's nest plumbing -
well,
that's a different thing, but that can't be counted on to work with
anything.

Your most recent statement above is even more confusing. If you're
going
to
make a leading statement like that, then how about throwing a
couple/few
ideas out there that take this conversation in a specific direction. If
there are things to be mindful of that I haven't discovered or
considered
yet, I'd sure like to know before I get into another of the dreaded
p-l-u-m-b-i-ng jobs.

Go to google and type "california problems with low flow toilets" into
the
search window you will see hundreds of articles on the problems caused
by
low flow toilets

This is a specific article that appeared on CNN recently

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/01...ause-stink-in-...

Why am I not suprised that it is once again a California problem. And in
the last 20+ years there are hundreds of articles on problems with
toilets.
There are millions of these toilets in use, not having problems.- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

California vegetarian diet, higher in fiber.

U'd think that would keep the pipes cleaned out. ;~)

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:20:31 -0500, "Leon"
wrote:

California vegetarian diet, higher in fiber.

U'd think that would keep the pipes cleaned out. ;~)

groan WHAP, WHAP, WHAP!

Sorry, Charlie. That only works on _human_ pipes, not antiquated
sewers.

--
"I probably became a libertarian through exposure to tough-minded
professors" James Buchanan, Armen Alchian, Milton Friedman "who
encouraged me to think with my brain instead of my heart. I
learned that you have to evaluate the effects of public policy
as opposed to intentions."
-- Walter E. Williams

k-nuttle wrote:


Go to google and type "california problems with low flow toilets" into
the search window you will see hundreds of articles on the problems
caused by low flow toilets

This is a specific article that appeared on CNN recently

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/01...san-francisco/

To be fair - San Francisco's problem is with their sewers, not the toilets.

--

-Mike-

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:


Not sure why you say what you do above.

*Simple* logic should tell you that your experience is just that. It
is not universal law.

WTF dude? I never even expressed an opinion, or related any experiences.
From that I conclude that your statement above is to be taken as advisement
against relying too much on the experiences you relate here.


I've been looking into low flows in
anticipation of some remodeling work that will begin sometime in the
near future, and I have not encountered anything that even suggests
that 3" plumbing will not work with the new toilets.

It often doesn't.

At this point - you are the only one to make this assertion. I'll take that
as an opion without a lot of supporting evidence.


Rat's nest plumbing - well,
that's a different thing, but that can't be counted on to work with
anything.

The toilet that was replaced, worked.

Your most recent statement above is even more confusing.

It confuses you to state that your experience doesn't mean that
others have different experiences? You've never heard that anecdote
data?

Again - please learn to read before you attempt to get clever in a
newsgroup. I made no such claims of experience. You are rapidly loosing
credibility on this matter.


If you're going to
make a leading statement like that, then how about throwing a
couple/few ideas out there that take this conversation in a specific
direction. If there are things to be mindful of that I haven't
discovered or considered yet, I'd sure like to know before I get
into another of the dreaded p-l-u-m-b-i-ng jobs.

Huh? I stated a simple principle of *logic*. You want to dispute
that?

You made no such statement. There is nothing to dispute in what you wrote
and that which I quoted, as you said nothing more substanative than to tell
another poster that he will have problems. There was nothing logical in
your post at all.

--

-Mike-

wrote in message
news
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 14:13:00 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

I've measured a 10% mileage reduction for 10% ethanol on my Ranger. Makes
it
rather useless, eh?

And that E85 fuel is worse than filling up with water... er almost.

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 22:23:57 -0500, "Leon"
wrote:


wrote in message
news
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 14:13:00 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

I've measured a 10% mileage reduction for 10% ethanol on my Ranger. Makes
it
rather useless, eh?

And that E85 fuel is worse than filling up with water... er almost.

If you could just fill up with water....

Mark

On Mar 21, 12:59*pm, Markem wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 22:23:57 -0500, "Leon"
wrote:



wrote in message
news
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 14:13:00 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

I've measured a 10% mileage reduction for 10% ethanol on my Ranger. *Makes
it
rather useless, eh?

And that E85 fuel is worse than filling up with water... er almost.

If you could just fill up with water....

Mark

I tried water. Doesn't work here in the winter.

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 22:41:18 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

wrote:


Not sure why you say what you do above.

*Simple* logic should tell you that your experience is just that. It
is not universal law.

WTF dude? I never even expressed an opinion, or related any experiences.

I had you confused with the person I was responding to. The point is still
valid. It was a statement of *simple* logic.

From that I conclude that your statement above is to be taken as advisement
against relying too much on the experiences you relate here.

Fair enough. You shouldn't. He proposed it as gospel, even though it was
anecdotal. You didn't like my statement of such.

I've been looking into low flows in
anticipation of some remodeling work that will begin sometime in the
near future, and I have not encountered anything that even suggests
that 3" plumbing will not work with the new toilets.

It often doesn't.

At this point - you are the only one to make this assertion. I'll take that
as an opion without a lot of supporting evidence.

Gee, you've been under a rock for the last couple of decades?


Rat's nest plumbing - well,
that's a different thing, but that can't be counted on to work with
anything.

The toilet that was replaced, worked.

Your most recent statement above is even more confusing.

It confuses you to state that your experience doesn't mean that
others have different experiences? You've never heard that anecdote
data?

Again - please learn to read before you attempt to get clever in a
newsgroup. I made no such claims of experience. You are rapidly loosing
credibility on this matter.

But the poster who says that everything is peachy because "I have no problems"
is credible?


If you're going to
make a leading statement like that, then how about throwing a
couple/few ideas out there that take this conversation in a specific
direction. If there are things to be mindful of that I haven't
discovered or considered yet, I'd sure like to know before I get
into another of the dreaded p-l-u-m-b-i-ng jobs.

Huh? I stated a simple principle of *logic*. You want to dispute
that?

You made no such statement.

Then you're you have no concept of even the simplest logic.

There is nothing to dispute in what you wrote
and that which I quoted, as you said nothing more substanative than to tell
another poster that he will have problems. There was nothing logical in
your post at all.

I never said anything of the kind. I said that problems were possible with
older plumbing and low-flush toilets, the OP's experience notwithstanding.
Logic really isn't your strong suit. Neither is literacy.

I'd like to point put that all of the known nuclear accidents combined,
including the current problems in Japan, have resulted in fewer deaths
than those caused by mining and burning coal for electrical power in a
single year. And the environmental degradation attributable to nuclear
power, no matter how you choose to measure it, is several orders of
magnitude less than that caused by coal mining.
--
There are no stupid questions, but there are lots of stupid answers.

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org

(Larry W) wrote in news:imut97$hf9$1
@speranza.aioe.org:

I'd like to point put that all of the known nuclear accidents combined,
including the current problems in Japan, have resulted in fewer deaths
than those caused by mining and burning coal for electrical power in a
single year. And the environmental degradation attributable to nuclear
power, no matter how you choose to measure it, is several orders of
magnitude less than that caused by coal mining.

We shouldn't let the nuclear power industry get away with recertifying 50
year-old power plants with known deficiencies without updating and fixing
all the known deficiencies.

Neither should we let the coal industry get away with carelessness as
evident from the Massey accident(s) and nor let them dump their flyash
anywhere they want to.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 3/30/2011 6:37 AM, Han wrote:
(Larry W) wrote in news:imut97$hf9$1
@speranza.aioe.org:

I'd like to point put that all of the known nuclear accidents combined,
including the current problems in Japan, have resulted in fewer deaths
than those caused by mining and burning coal for electrical power in a
single year. And the environmental degradation attributable to nuclear
power, no matter how you choose to measure it, is several orders of
magnitude less than that caused by coal mining.

We shouldn't let the nuclear power industry get away with recertifying 50
year-old power plants with known deficiencies without updating and fixing
all the known deficiencies.
....

License extensions are only granted after a thorough review.

It is simply not practical to re-engineer/rebuild an existing facility
entirely so your apparent request is to shut all operating plants.
Unfortunately, since it isn't also possible to build replacements of any
ilk in general, the US would be at a 20% shortfall if that were to
happen. Needless to say, that would have serious economic consequences,
too.

"There is no free lunch"

--

dpb wrote in :

On 3/30/2011 6:37 AM, Han wrote:
(Larry W) wrote in news:imut97$hf9$1
@speranza.aioe.org:

I'd like to point put that all of the known nuclear accidents
combined, including the current problems in Japan, have resulted in
fewer deaths than those caused by mining and burning coal for
electrical power in a single year. And the environmental degradation
attributable to nuclear power, no matter how you choose to measure
it, is several orders of magnitude less than that caused by coal
mining.

We shouldn't let the nuclear power industry get away with
recertifying 50 year-old power plants with known deficiencies without
updating and fixing all the known deficiencies.
...

License extensions are only granted after a thorough review.

It is simply not practical to re-engineer/rebuild an existing facility
entirely so your apparent request is to shut all operating plants.
Unfortunately, since it isn't also possible to build replacements of
any ilk in general, the US would be at a 20% shortfall if that were to
happen. Needless to say, that would have serious economic
consequences, too.

"There is no free lunch"

I know there is no free lunch, and I'm not advocating scrapping the
plants that do conform to safety rules. It just appears to the layman
that if nature deals you a bad hand (Japan quakes & tsunami) or a set of
combinations of other extreme factors, some power plants get into extreme
problems.

From this layman's view there ought to be something done to at least
better ensure continued operation of cooling systems. I am really in
favor of nuclear energy, but it seems we're doing not enough to ensure
safety, and counting on luck only goes so far, as the Japanese found out.
Granted there was some real bad luck and operator errors

I think that the same should go for oil and coal. (Stupid drilling,
flyash disposal).
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

In article ,
Han wrote:
(Larry W) wrote in news:imut97$hf9$1
:

I'd like to point put that all of the known nuclear accidents combined,
including the current problems in Japan, have resulted in fewer deaths
than those caused by mining and burning coal for electrical power in a
single year. And the environmental degradation attributable to nuclear
power, no matter how you choose to measure it, is several orders of
magnitude less than that caused by coal mining.

We shouldn't let the nuclear power industry get away with recertifying 50
year-old power plants with known deficiencies without updating and fixing
all the known deficiencies.

Neither should we let the coal industry get away with carelessness as
evident from the Massey accident(s) and nor let them dump their flyash
anywhere they want to.



I agree 100% on both those counts.

--
There are no stupid questions, but there are lots of stupid answers.

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org

On 3/30/2011 3:41 PM, Dave Balderstone wrote:
....

This is an interesting idea, if it can be made to work.
....

http://intellectualventureslab.com/?page_id=532

Yeah, I've looked at before.

I don't see how they're going to get around the issues of LOCA, etc.,
entirely any more than any other fission reactor--basic thermodynamics
will require a given amount of heat energy from a reactor to produce a
comparable amount of steam to drive the turbines and there's no less
decay heat from a given number of fissions/second spread over some
amorphous blob than there is in a cylindrical fuel rod of the same
number of fissioned nuclei in a conventional reactor design.

I don't see where it really solves the fundamental problems of accidents
or natural disasters however novel the physics.

I don't say there's no chance I'm missing something major here, but I
don't see it. If they're going to generate 1000 MWe, say, they've got
to have something like 3000 MWt from the reactor. What cools it any
differently?

--

On 3/30/2011 3:30 PM, Han wrote:
....


I know there is no free lunch, and I'm not advocating scrapping the
plants that do conform to safety rules. It just appears to the layman
that if nature deals you a bad hand (Japan quakes& tsunami) or a set of
combinations of other extreme factors, some power plants get into extreme
problems.

If they don't conform to the rules, they don't get licensed...you're
asking to change the rules after the kickoff, basically. That's fair
game for a new game; not so much for the one in play.

From this layman's view there ought to be something done to at least
better ensure continued operation of cooling systems. I am really in
favor of nuclear energy, but it seems we're doing not enough to ensure
safety, and counting on luck only goes so far, as the Japanese found out.
Granted there was some real bad luck and operator errors

There's very little luck intended in the design. I don't know what the
design basis earthquake for Fukushima facility was (I've posted before
that since I don't read Japanese I can't go to the source of the actual
filed FSARs and I've not seen it reported in the press) but it appears
that there wasn't much actual earthquake damage that was totally
critical from the earthquake alone. If so, that says that part of the
design was probably adequate or nearly so. US reactors are also
designed to withstand a site-specific earthquake the magnitude and input
energy waveforms which are based on best estimates for the particular site.

It appears that the problems at Fukushima that really got them were
related to the following tsunami damage--it appears quite possible that
was underestimated in the design. I agree there probably should be more
stringent siting requirements with respect to nearness to known faults
and particularly those that would be susceptible to tsunamis such that
they aren't place in low-lying tidal areas in the future.

--

I think that the same should go for oil and coal. (Stupid drilling,
flyash disposal).

Bad drivers, too...

--

On 3/30/2011 4:21 PM, Larry W wrote:
In ,
wrote:
(Larry W) wrote in news:imut97$hf9$1
@speranza.aioe.org:

I'd like to point put that all of the known nuclear accidents combined,
including the current problems in Japan, have resulted in fewer deaths
than those caused by mining and burning coal for electrical power in a
single year. And the environmental degradation attributable to nuclear
power, no matter how you choose to measure it, is several orders of
magnitude less than that caused by coal mining.

We shouldn't let the nuclear power industry get away with recertifying 50
year-old power plants with known deficiencies without updating and fixing
all the known deficiencies.

Neither should we let the coal industry get away with carelessness as
evident from the Massey accident(s) and nor let them dump their flyash
anywhere they want to.



I agree 100% on both those counts.

That would be good since neither is true.

There are always bad eggs; Massey operations were in some instances
criminal--all the laws in the world don't do anything except after the
fact for those who chose to break them.

Flyash is very much under regulation as to where it goes--they don't
just "dump anywhere they want to". Again, there's nothing man does that
doesn't occasionally go wrong so to expect there to _never_ be a problem
is simply unrealistic irregardless of how much regulation or care is
taken. Sometimes the commonplace gets less attention than it might;
certainly TVA had no intention of the Kingston flyash pond dam letting go...

--

On 3/30/2011 5:21 PM, Larry W wrote:
In ,
wrote:
(Larry W) wrote in news:imut97$hf9$1
@speranza.aioe.org:

I'd like to point put that all of the known nuclear accidents combined,
including the current problems in Japan, have resulted in fewer deaths
than those caused by mining and burning coal for electrical power in a
single year. And the environmental degradation attributable to nuclear
power, no matter how you choose to measure it, is several orders of
magnitude less than that caused by coal mining.

We shouldn't let the nuclear power industry get away with recertifying 50
year-old power plants with known deficiencies without updating and fixing
all the known deficiencies.

Neither should we let the coal industry get away with carelessness as
evident from the Massey accident(s) and nor let them dump their flyash
anywhere they want to.



I agree 100% on both those counts.

We don't let 50 year old plants be re certified with known deficiencies.
I believe it was about 10 or 12 years ago the Nuclear Plant at
Southport North Carolina, was shut down and had to be fitted with some
new modern equipment before it could be re certified.

For those complaining about spent fuel, I believe Carter made it against
the law to reprocess spent rods.