And around that point it'll be coming and going, with the picture
blocky and the sound in little bursts.
It will, just in a different form.
dropped pixels .0001% of the time.
dropped pixels .01% of the time.
dropped pixels .1% of the time.
dropped pixels 2% of the time.
dropped pixels 10% of the time.
dropped pixels 40% of the time.
dropped pixels 90% of the time.
dropped pixels 99.1% of the time.
with similar erratic audio.
That's NOT "all or nuttin'".
I don't believe the actual reception curve will look anything at all
that smooth from the very low to the very high as it is in analog.
There will be a sharp cutoff from essentially undetectable to unusable
w/ digital in practice.
In general, those will be in what I would describe as "essentially
undetectable" for those who are used to watching marginal analog reception.
In fact, I would say that as long as there's sufficient signal that a
signal locks and decodes frames, any such former viewer will have
significantly better picture than previously. It will, however, be so
that when the signal formerly was in the really bad snowy, marginal
color and sound level that was still at least something moving on the
screen the digital will be zippo...
my friends on OTA report a watchable usable analog signal is being
replaced with a blank digital signal.....
of coursew everyt one of those friends currently uses bunny ears and
completely refuses even the thought of a outdoor antenna.
pittsburgh terrain is tough with many hills and ghosts no doubt making
the situation worse.
they should allow analog to continue indefinetely, sets normally last
10 years minimum. more sets need to attrition out.
plus many converters dont support analog pass thru, so the low power
and translator stations will be shut out, when everyone is forced to
use a converter.
the entire program is a excellent example of government failure
I have a low flow toilet that works perfectly on one flush. Of course, I
suppose YOU could deposit a load of shit that no toilet would be able to
| Like the water saver toilets that take 3 flushes to work properly.
| When will congress learn to do the things it needs to do and keep
| their noses out of all the rest?
I think some are designed so that when you give the handle a quick
push, only enough water is released to flush pee.
And to flush something substantial, you have to hold the handle
down for a bit so that the entire tank will empty into the bowl....
At least, that's the way mine seems to work....
Andy in Eureka, Texas
Like the water saver toilets that take 3 flushes to work properly.
When will congress learn to do the things it needs to do and keep
their noses out of all the rest?
Old designs were like that. Our new ones have been perfect. Seems silly to
use 5 gallons of water to flush 8 oz. of urine or a tiny turd when you can
do it with 1.2 gallons. Get a Kohler or the new American Standard Cadet 4.
Mine is a Toto Drake and it makes sort of a quick gurgle, then fills very
quickly. Not loud enough to disturb anyone.
| many water saver toilets espically the power flush are very noisey,
| waking the entire home at 4 am isnt good. they sound like a jet at
| take off
Some things are not about money, they are about working properly and
convenience. I'm just suggesting that there are viable alternatives today.
The OP condemned all low water flush toilets when the new ones work very
I wasn't following thread closely- I thought OP was talking about
replacing an old toilet, not one of the early low-flow ones.
You are right, of course- life is too damn short to keep fighting with a
cranky toilet. I have no idea if the ones in this house are low-flow or
not, and since I live in a water rich state, and have well and septic,
and live alone, I don't really care. Given their age, I guess they
probably are low-flow, but they have only needed plunging maybe once
each in 3 years, so I guess I am satisfied with them.
the toilets made 20 years ago before Al Gore got involved worked fine, and
never should have been redesigned by the government.
the government, and Al Gore, have no business being in the toilet business.
I can totally assure you 100% that Al Gore doesn't have one of these
useless devices in any of his homes.
A modern toilet that flushes well with less water can be had for about
half the price you mentioned, and most people who inhabit this
newsgroup are here because they like to do things themselves.
Installing a toilet is a pretty simple job, even the first time you do
The ROI is of no consequence in the larger scheme of things. What is
the ROI on all that hot water you use every morning for a shower? The
benefits sure don't last very long.
That said, the reason low flow toilets have been mandated is that when
everybody is required to use them, it saves enough water to greatly
reduce the costs of supplying the water. So you save not just the cost
of the water used, but also help keep your cost per gallon for all
water you use at lower rates. They don't have to keep adding
infrastructure and workers to keep up with demand.
What about audio?
There's one station here like the above (a frame once or twice in a
5-6 minute period, otherwise a "no signal" message). The others are
usually good enough to watch (if the antenna is turned right). They
got like Gary H described this September when Hurricane Ike passed by.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.