Dual-flush toilets are disastrous - official

[Martin Pentreath]

[John]

I note that some of the comments from plumbers refer to the device in the cistern as a "Siphon" - it isn't as it doesn't siphon the water. It is merely a release valve.

Near where I live are some (older) houses with plastic (or hose in a couple of cases) pipes connected to the toilet overflow to lead the water to a rainwater hopper! Amazing how a simple ball valve defeats the d-i-y ability of some people yet they will climb a ladder to perform a bodge.

I don't like the idea of an internal overflow - but I feel that we lost the plot when we didn't persevere in calling the "overflow" a "warning pipe"

[R D S]

house via the 5in pipes. Where does it go?

I have always assumed that it makes it's way back to a plant somewhere for treatment.

Then what? Is it put back into the system or flushed into the sea? Some will leak so that ends up in the water table I would expect.

Where is the environmental disaster?

ISTM that there will always be the same amount of water, it simply moves about a bit.

Feel free to point out the flaws in my thinking.

[Mary Fisher]

I can't find any.

Since I didn't go to the site I can't comment any more. Posting a url with nothing else is a turn-off!

Mary

[Matty F]

I think "Save the siphon - before it's too late!" suggests returning to a "real" syphon, that cannot possibly leak. However that uses a large amount of water per flush. Otherwise I like the internal overflow because I can see if it's overflowing. I seldom see an external overflow that is easily visible by the householder. Why do people see water running continuously and not expect their water bill to be high?

[The Natural Philosopher]

halfway down the garden to a tank, in my case, and then out into an old dry ditch.

Flushed into a river or the sea normally.

No environmental disuater, just a problem of needing more to replace it:

The flaws is that we need fresh treated water in the supplies.

What comes out of a sewage works is not that fresh, but is still treated somewhat: you cant just keep recycling it round without nature doing some evaporation and distillation.

Or make nice big desalination plants nexts to nuclear power stations.

[philipuk]

Why am I not surprised. You didn't expect the green lobby to actually come up with technology that actually works or saves natural resources in the real world did you?

Philip

[Tim]

when you're on a water meter is silly"? Hardly a disaster.

Nothing to do with dual flush or even internal overflows (although arguably, a small leak down the back of the pan is less noticeable).

Tim

[unopened]

Perhaps replacing the float operated valve with hand-operated valve on the intake of the cistern would help? If the default state is closed, then an empty cistern implies a leak (or someone forgot to fill it from the last time).

Sid

[David Hansen]

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 10:38:01 +0100 someone who may be "Tim" wrote this:-

Precisely, though the knockers never let mere facts get in the way of their false assertions.

[John]

for a short flush - Press and hold down for a long flush. This feature wasn't very obvious and was activated by removing a small siphon break plug in the body of the siphon.

The reason for change to the current type was to enable harmonisation with Europe as they have had useless ones for years.

[Huge]

Nope.

Someone in the USA has mandated "water saving" toilets that only use a small amount of water. Actually. they use more water, since you have to flush them 2 or 3 times to make #2s go away. Great.

[Mary Fisher]

Their religion doesn't allow that :-)

Mary

[Mike Barnes]

"Dual-flush toilets are disastrous - official"

But the article itself actually says nothing about dual-flush toilets. It also contains a lot of anecdote and nothing whatsoever about "official" opinion. This about as low as technical journalism gets. It's depressing that John-Paul Flintoff can earn a crust churning out this garbage.

Moving on to the actual substance of the article, the idea that you need to lay a piece of paper across the back of the loo to detect a leak of

3000 litres a day is laughable. Even if the water was invisibly flowing over the porcelain, the disturbance to the water surface would be obvious to anyone who took the trouble to look.

I think that internal overflows are actually an excellent idea. Anyone who ignores a leak in the toilet pan itself would be ten times more likely (in my totally unofficial opinion) to ignore a leak from an external overflow pipe.

[The Natural Philosopher]

A LOT to do with dual flush actually.

Since small amounts of flush are quite hard to achieve with a siphon system.

[John]

If the "Warning Pipe" is somewhere visible then I cant see how anyone (or their friends) could ignore it. The trouble with the internal overflow is that it isn't very apparent - you could easily think the bowl is just wet from a previous flush. (Also many women (I believe) back up to the WC and don't really normally take a look.

[Mary Fisher]

Mike, you don't understand that if something's in print it's official!

Even more so if it can be found on the web.

Mary

[Mike Barnes]

I've no idea what you mean by the "Warning Pipe". Could you explain?

As I said before, the most obvious sign isn't just wetness, which if uniform is pretty-much invisible anyway. But there will be a stream of water actually cascading down the porcelain, or (more obviously) disturbance to the surface of the water already in the bowl.

I've been known to sit on the WC myself so I do know how that works.

Anyone who doesn't take an interest in their surroundings is asking for precisely the sort of trouble we're talking about. I suspect that they wouldn't notice water coming out of an external overflow pipe either.

[Mary Fisher]

I was told that the German standard is to have a small amount of continuously running water down the back of the pan to avoid solids sticking to it.

Mary

[David Hansen]

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 13:50:49 +0100 someone who may be The Natural Philosopher wrote this:-

Then presumably the siphon one may purchase at

doesn't work. Experience says otherwise.

Also, presumably, a toilet fitted with a Variflush will not work with the knob on the low setting. However, they do, including the one at which is used by a variety of visitors.