Is there U.K. equivalent ?

[fred]

OK Its an amusing ad but is there an equivalent product available this side of the pond ?

[Syd Rumpo]

HTH

Cheers

[fred]

No that's a brush. Its a good FLUSH I'm after

[Richard]

[sm_jamieson]

Those US toilets that "suck" stuff out are frightening. However my observation was that they seemed to have a very narrow outlet from the bowl.

Simon.

[sm_jamieson]

A good old elevated cistern would do the trick. Have a neck at six foot of head. Our old outside loo could have flushed down a live cat. Simon.

[mark.bluemel]

Are you speaking from experience?

[Dave Plowman (News)]

I've still got one. Genuine Thomas T cistern, and two piece bowl. And it's actually no better at flushing than a modern low level type.

[harry]

These are called a syphonic toilets. There are two traps, it works by sucking the air out between them and starting a syphon. A small amount of water washes the bowl. They just seem to have a bit more water.

Armitage Shanks made them back in the 70s, haven'tseen one for a long time in the UK.

[harry]

Bit more info here.

[charles]

we have one: apparently they can't have dual amount flushing system and so use too much water, so don't comply with current regs.

[Tim+]

That so pisses me off. We were in the U.S. recently and saw some great syphonic pans that were very efficient and didn't use that much water. Never a need to flush twice. Are there any sources of "black market" syphonic pans in the UK?

Tim

[Bill Wright]

Evidence?

Bill

[fred]

Many years ago my friend had a syphonic toilet in his house. I disliked it because there was a large area of surface water and I do like to have a quiet splash free pee. have they changed since ?

[sm_jamieson]

s side of the pond ?

t because there was a large area of surface water and I do like to have a q uiet splash free pee.

Oh yes I remember those - seemed to be around in the early 80s. A great big "pond" of water in the thing, and it seemed to swirl as it exited. A frien d had one and I remember thinking it was weird. It wasn't quite the same as the US ones though, which seem much more ferocious. I think the US ones use water pressure to generate more of a vacuum.

Regarding the US smaller outlet size I have noticed, Wikipedia says for a s ingle trap syphonic toilet:

"The waterways in these toilets are designed with slightly smaller diameter s than a non-siphoning toilet, so that the waterway will naturally fill up with water, each time it is flushed, thus creating the siphon action."

Simon.

[Huge]

A question I'd like an answer to, also, since I'd like a loo like my mother's (*), which "fires" the poo down the pipe using pressurised water from a vessel inside what would be the cistern. It uses very little water & unlike crappy(!) UK "water saver"(+) loos, will remove substantial logs.

(* She lives in the USA).

(+ Which aren't because of the need to flush 2 or 3 times.)

[harry]

You don't actually see the water that powers the flush. There is a hidden air ejector on the underside of the tank. Sucks out the air between the traps.

The water you do see is just to wash off the bowl. So, not very economic in water use at all. Nothing from the USA is efficient.

[Huge]

[24 lines snipped]

Au contraire. Squatting toilets are the spawn of the devil.

[Mike Tomlinson]

En el artículo , Tim Streater escribió:

I actually quite like those. Squatting for a shit is a more natural position than sitting down and seems to facilitate a more, um, complete evacuation.

[Tim Watts]

It would make my kneecaps fall off...