Do modern toilets still accept a low pressure supply?
I am replacing a 1970s bathroom and, for some reason, a low pressure supply
was laid on to the original toilet, despite having the rising main going
straight past.

Also, what are opinions on the new 6 litre flush limitation?
Having had a drain block last year, I prefer to stand the cost of slightly
higher water usage and send a good slug of water down, particularly where
"solid matter" is involved.
Has anyone suffered from increased drainage problems due to the reduction in
water flow?
I believe that all modern toilets have a 6 litre maximum capacity (hence the
rather pathetic looking -IMHO -diminutive cisterns). Is this correct?

TIA

Phil

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 08:14:10 -0000, "TheScullster" wrote:

Do modern toilets still accept a low pressure supply?
I am replacing a 1970s bathroom and, for some reason, a low pressure supply
was laid on to the original toilet, despite having the rising main going
straight past.

Also, what are opinions on the new 6 litre flush limitation?
Having had a drain block last year, I prefer to stand the cost of slightly
higher water usage and send a good slug of water down, particularly where
"solid matter" is involved.
Has anyone suffered from increased drainage problems due to the reduction in
water flow?
I believe that all modern toilets have a 6 litre maximum capacity (hence the
rather pathetic looking -IMHO -diminutive cisterns). Is this correct?

TIA

Phil


As far as I am aware you just need a low pressure insert for the cistern valve: or you just buy a
valve for low pressure.

No idea about the 6 litre limit: is this some drought measure ?

Steve

"TheScullster" wrote in message
...

I believe that all modern toilets have a 6 litre maximum capacity (hence the
rather pathetic looking -IMHO -diminutive cisterns). Is this correct?

I've recently fitted a modern toilet with a non-diminutive
cistern, although it is preset to the 6 litre mark. It could be
adjusted up to the (internal) overflow, but has worked OK.

Do modern toilets still accept a low pressure supply?

The valves are the same. When using high pressure (i.e. mains) a flow
restrictor is inserted into the valve. This normally consists of a threaded
plastic insert that you screw into the water passage.

I believe that all modern toilets have a 6 litre maximum capacity (hence
the
rather pathetic looking -IMHO -diminutive cisterns). Is this correct?

Modern toilet pans are designed for the lower water flow. They work just
fine (and I'm quite capable of testing them to the limit). Don't fit a 6
litre cistern on an old pan, though, unless you do some testing first, as
they might not be reliable.

Christian.

"Steve Gontarek" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 08:14:10 -0000, "TheScullster"
wrote:

Do modern toilets still accept a low pressure supply?
I am replacing a 1970s bathroom and, for some reason, a low pressure
supply
was laid on to the original toilet, despite having the rising main going
straight past.

Also, what are opinions on the new 6 litre flush limitation?
Having had a drain block last year, I prefer to stand the cost of
slightly
higher water usage and send a good slug of water down, particularly where
"solid matter" is involved.
Has anyone suffered from increased drainage problems due to the reduction
in
water flow?
I believe that all modern toilets have a 6 litre maximum capacity (hence
the
rather pathetic looking -IMHO -diminutive cisterns). Is this correct?

TIA

Phil


As far as I am aware you just need a low pressure insert for the cistern
valve: or you just buy a
valve for low pressure.

No idea about the 6 litre limit: is this some drought measure ?

Sort of. As 1/3 of most water used is used for flushing, reducing this by
1/3 is desirable. This year rainfall is approx 1/3 down on average, yet no
hose pipes bans. OK the water companies fixed many of their leaking pipes,
but low water usage appliances have mad a difference.

Using a flap valve it is possible to use 5 litres per flush. Have the
cistern in the loft and 4 litres will do.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.524 / Virus Database: 321 - Release Date: 06/10/2003

TheScullster wrote:
Do modern toilets still accept a low pressure supply?
I am replacing a 1970s bathroom and, for some reason, a low pressure
supply was laid on to the original toilet, despite having the rising
main going straight past.

Also, what are opinions on the new 6 litre flush limitation?
Having had a drain block last year, I prefer to stand the cost of
slightly higher water usage and send a good slug of water down,
particularly where "solid matter" is involved.
Has anyone suffered from increased drainage problems due to the
reduction in water flow?
I believe that all modern toilets have a 6 litre maximum capacity
(hence the rather pathetic looking -IMHO -diminutive cisterns). Is
this correct?

TIA

Phil

The pressure of the supply is compensated for by different nozzle/washers in
modern filling valves.
Disadvantages of having toilet rising main fed are a) can't use it when
water is cutoff. b) Lots of condensation on cistern for 5 months of the year
when the incoming water is cold. This is esp bad in a steamy bathroom.

All new toilets and refurbs have to flush with 6 litre of water max. Thats
been in the building regs for a couple of years at least.
You won't be able to buy a new toilet that uses more.
I have 2 new type and one of them is quite easy to block if more than a
average amount of paper is used.
Its such a nuisance that I'm thinking of putting a sign of the door
"No solids in the downstairs lavatory please" as in League of Gents :-)

"Christian McArdle" wrote in message
t...
Do modern toilets still accept a low pressure supply?

The valves are the same. When using high pressure (i.e. mains) a flow
restrictor is inserted into the valve. This normally consists of a
threaded
plastic insert that you screw into the water passage.

I believe that all modern toilets have a 6 litre maximum capacity (hence
the
rather pathetic looking -IMHO -diminutive cisterns). Is this correct?

Modern toilet pans are designed for the lower water flow. They work just
fine (and I'm quite capable of testing them to the limit). Don't fit a 6
litre cistern on an old pan, though, unless you do some testing first, as
they might not be reliable.

Christian.

Respectfully beg to disagree.
I was contemplating starting a thread on this topic (although not for the
queasy) as I have noted that our new and new(ish) toilets do not seem to
flush efficiently.
I generally have to flush twice to clear all the 'debris' which defeats the
object of reducing the cistern size.

My main thought was 'how do they decide how much water should be used, and
how do they test it'?

Is there a British Standard Turd (BST)?
If so, where is it produced?
Also which committee defined it?

Are we now standardising to a Eurocrap?

Can you get an MSc in Advanced Faecal Transmission Science?

The list of questions is (unfortunately) endless :-)

Cheers
Dave R

"TheScullster" wrote in message
...
Do modern toilets still accept a low pressure supply?
I am replacing a 1970s bathroom and, for some reason, a low pressure
supply
was laid on to the original toilet, despite having the rising main going
straight past.

Also, what are opinions on the new 6 litre flush limitation?
Having had a drain block last year, I prefer to stand the cost of slightly
higher water usage and send a good slug of water down, particularly where
"solid matter" is involved.
Has anyone suffered from increased drainage problems due to the reduction
in
water flow?
I believe that all modern toilets have a 6 litre maximum capacity (hence
the
rather pathetic looking -IMHO -diminutive cisterns). Is this correct?

TIA

Phil



I've recently installed a new WC (Doulton) however the water trap tends
towards the front of the bowl. It needs brush cleaning and flushing twice
to clean it - so much for saving water. Discovered over lunch(!) that all
the family have the same problem so I'm now looking for a better design.
Does anyone want a second hand (crap design) system?

Peter

David W.E. Roberts wrote:
Is there a British Standard Turd (BST)?

There is! Although is been flattened by the european one now.
Annex F of BS EN 997 gives details of 'test specimens'
Also the ability to flush 20g of fine sawdust spread evenly round the bowl.

From DEFRA -
"When tested as described in Clause 11, for the first six flush cycles, or
for a minimum of eight out of ten flush cycles, each of the four test
specimens shall be completely evacuated from the WC bowl and pan's outlet.
The recorded after-flush volume in each flush cycle shall be no less than
40% of the full flush volume."

--
Toby.

'One day son, all this will be finished'

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:44:27 -0000, "David W.E. Roberts"
wrote:

My main thought was 'how do they decide how much water should be used, and
how do they test it'?

But you have to take into account the other EU legislation which seeks
to reduce waste being created.

From 1st April 2000 all EU citizens are supposed to use one square of
toilet tissue to wipe their nether regions, and also to ensure that
they defacate 3 times a day so as to ensure that the material being
dumped into the toilet is of a quantity that can be safely flushed by
the new limit on the cistern.

That way the toilet flushes successfully.

I'm surprised you weren't aware of this EU directive!

PoP

"PoP" wrote in message
...

From 1st April 2000 all EU citizens are supposed to use one square of
toilet tissue to wipe their nether regions

In days gone by my old man told me the limit
was three squares of paper: one up, one down, one to polish!

Mungo :-)

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 19:34:18 +0000 (UTC), "Mungo Henning"
wrote:

In days gone by my old man told me the limit
was three squares of paper: one up, one down, one to polish!

Jeez. I cannot imagine what a night out on the curry (or Guinness)
might have done for me.....

PoP

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 20:11:11 +0000, PoP
wrote:

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 19:34:18 +0000 (UTC), "Mungo Henning"
wrote:

In days gone by my old man told me the limit
was three squares of paper: one up, one down, one to polish!

Jeez. I cannot imagine what a night out on the curry (or Guinness)
might have done for me.....

PoP

Talking of that, are we still on for next week?


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 17:51:38 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

Talking of that, are we still on for next week?

Yes. But although I know how to navigate there I've forgotten the name
of the ale house. Can you remind me?

PoP

Peter

Funny you should mention this.
The pan I am removing is susceptible to the same fouling.
It is original 1970's model, so you would have thought that they'd have
ironed out these wrinkles in the 30 plus years they've had for R&D!

Phil

"TheScullster" wrote in message
...
Peter

Funny you should mention this.
The pan I am removing is susceptible to the same fouling.
It is original 1970's model, so you would have thought that they'd have
ironed out these wrinkles in the 30 plus years they've had for R&D!

Phil



The only solution is to eat more fibre. :-))


---
www.basecuritysystems.no-ip.com

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.535 / Virus Database: 330 - Release Date: 01/11/03

"BigWallop" wrote in message
news

"TheScullster" wrote in message
...
Peter

Funny you should mention this.
The pan I am removing is susceptible to the same fouling.
It is original 1970's model, so you would have thought that they'd have
ironed out these wrinkles in the 30 plus years they've had for R&D!

Phil



The only solution is to eat more fibre. :-))

err....quite the opposite, I think.
..
..
look away if you are squeamish
..
..
..
..
..

One problem with my low flush system is that a cloud of fibre is left behind
after the first flush (indigestibles such as tomato skins etc.)

A low fibre high protein streamlined turd with medium flexibility, which
crackles gently when rolled between thumb and forefinger and emits a dull
'thong' when struck with a regulation toffee hammer zips round the bend and
leaves no discernable residue.

Curry slurry, on the other hand, requires multiple flushes.

HTH
Dave R

"David W.E. Roberts" wrote in message
...

"BigWallop" wrote in message
news

"TheScullster" wrote in message
...
Peter

Funny you should mention this.
The pan I am removing is susceptible to the same fouling.
It is original 1970's model, so you would have thought that they'd
have
ironed out these wrinkles in the 30 plus years they've had for R&D!

Phil



The only solution is to eat more fibre. :-))

err....quite the opposite, I think.
.
.
look away if you are squeamish
.
.
.
.
.

One problem with my low flush system is that a cloud of fibre is left
behind
after the first flush (indigestibles such as tomato skins etc.)

A low fibre high protein streamlined turd with medium flexibility, which
crackles gently when rolled between thumb and forefinger and emits a dull
'thong' when struck with a regulation toffee hammer zips round the bend
and
leaves no discernable residue.

Curry slurry, on the other hand, requires multiple flushes.

HTH
Dave R



ROFLMAO !!!!!

Now why didn't I look away when I saw the warning ? :-))