Not really the right solution. The flush volume can be reduced, but the
amount of reduction possible with reliable flushing is modest. I didn't
measure it, but internal markings seem to indicate that the old toilet
was designed for 6 gal/fl. I have had it set lower for years, but
probably no less tha 5 gal. Below that, it don't work right. The new one
uses 1.6 gal., a very substantial reduction. There are significant
design changes in the newer designs that allow effective flushing at
very low volumes. Typical inner diameter of the plumbing hs gone up from
1 1/8" to 2", an increase of crossection area of over 300%. Some also
advertise that the internal passages are glazed, revealing that they
weren't in the past. That amounts to a huge change in resistance to flow
of solids. If you look at them on display, you can see changes also in
the internal water paths vs the typical old design of a simple trap.
Moose
iddibhai@xxxxxxx wrote:
>On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 01:50:58 -0700, Gordon J. Ross <gordross@xxxxxxx>
>wrote:
>
>
>
>>Hi Jim and Moose:
>>
>>The cheapest way to save without replacing the toilet is to put a couple
>>of
>>bricks in the bottom of the tank, and/or for the mechanically adept, to
>>adjust the float to restrict the height the water can achieve in the
>>tank.
>>There is also the old standby of 'if its yellow let it mellow, if its
>>brown
>>flush it down', perhaps too old world for our sanitary psyches.
>>
>>Gord
>>
>>
>
>better to stick a jar filled with water, dont want that stuff to crumble
>and settle, plus if you let it mellow, you'll probably end up using more
>water and nasty chemicals trying to clean it later (deposits and such).
>
The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
To contact the list admins: mailto:olympusadmins@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus
List Problem"
|