My partner has a fairly recently fitted loo, with the latest diddy flush.
(I forget, it's 7l or something.)  I dread taking a dump in it, as 9 times
out of 10 the first flush is unsuccessful.

Does anyone know who specified the BS turd that is supposedly used to test
these devices ?  I'd like to send him/her one of mine as a challenge.

Wouldn't it have been easier to have a dual-flush system, small one for pee
and a proper big one for you-know-whats ?  That would save much more water
than the current pathetic offerings which need multiple flushes as often as
not.

[Apologies for the tone.  Normal service may be resumed shortly.]

-- 
The end move in politics is always to pick up a gun.

John Laird wrote:


> Wouldn't it have been easier to have a dual-flush system, small one for pee
> and a proper big one for you-know-whats ?  That would save much more water


Many *are* sual flush.... have you tried holding the lever/button down 
while it flushes?

-- 
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
|          Internode Ltd -  http://www.internode.co.uk            |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
|        John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk              |
\=================================================================/

on 06/09/2005, John Laird supposed :

> My partner has a fairly recently fitted loo, with the latest diddy flush.
> (I forget, it's 7l or something.)  I dread taking a dump in it, as 9 times
> out of 10 the first flush is unsuccessful.
>
> Does anyone know who specified the BS turd that is supposedly used to test
> these devices ?  I'd like to send him/her one of mine as a challenge.
>
> Wouldn't it have been easier to have a dual-flush system, small one for pee
> and a proper big one for you-know-whats ?  That would save much more water
> than the current pathetic offerings which need multiple flushes as often as
> not.
>
> [Apologies for the tone.  Normal service may be resumed shortly.]


Many of the more modern ones are dual flush, or can be set to dual 
flush. You remove a seal and it dual flushes. Quick press of the handle 
then causes short flush, hold it down and you get the full flush.

-- 

Regards,
        Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.org

"Harry Bloomfield"  verbally sodomised 
in news:mn.3cd97d59dcdb888b.8412@tiscali.co.uk: 


> Andy Hall explained on 07/09/2005 :
>> However, AIUI, this requirement is not related to the BS turd, but to
>> the ubiquitous Euroturd.
> 
> For which I heard they use ping pong balls for the actual test.
> 


Or bullshit.

-- 
Phil Kyle  
Uno
Dos
Tres
Cuatro
CINCO!!!!!!

"Be very aware that my willingness 
to continue to criticise your sig 
is infinite." -- Neil Barker

"Harry Bloomfield"  verbally sodomised 
in news:mn.38047d5992254764.8412@tiscali.co.uk: 


> on 06/09/2005, John Laird supposed :
>> My partner has a fairly recently fitted loo, with the latest diddy
>> flush. (I forget, it's 7l or something.)  I dread taking a dump in it,
>> as 9 times out of 10 the first flush is unsuccessful.
>>
>> Does anyone know who specified the BS turd that is supposedly used to
>> test these devices ?  I'd like to send him/her one of mine as a
>> challenge. 
>>
>> Wouldn't it have been easier to have a dual-flush system, small one for
>> pee and a proper big one for you-know-whats ?  That would save much
>> more water than the current pathetic offerings which need multiple
>> flushes as often as not.
>>
>> [Apologies for the tone.  Normal service may be resumed shortly.]
> 
> Many of the more modern ones are dual flush, or can be set to dual 
> flush. You remove a seal and it dual flushes. Quick press of the handle 
> then causes short flush, hold it down and you get the full flush.
> 


Some things just won't flush, though.

-- 
Phil Kyle  
Uno
Dos
Tres
Cuatro
CINCO!!!!!!

"Be very aware that my willingness 
to continue to criticise your sig 
is infinite." -- Neil Barker

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 23:12:19 +0100, John Laird 
wrote:


>My partner has a fairly recently fitted loo, with the latest diddy flush.
>(I forget, it's 7l or something.)  I dread taking a dump in it, as 9 times
>out of 10 the first flush is unsuccessful.
>
>Does anyone know who specified the BS turd that is supposedly used to test
>these devices ?  I'd like to send him/her one of mine as a challenge.


Captain's Log, stardate 2005-09-06

I would think that that would be the Deputy Prime Minister since his
department oversees building regulations.

I'm sure he'd appreciate one of your offerings.

However, AIUI, this requirement is not related to the BS turd, but to
the ubiquitous Euroturd.



>
>Wouldn't it have been easier to have a dual-flush system, small one for pee
>and a proper big one for you-know-whats ?  That would save much more water
>than the current pathetic offerings which need multiple flushes as often as
>not.
>
>[Apologies for the tone.  Normal service may be resumed shortly.]


-- 

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

John Laird wrote:


> My partner has a fairly recently fitted loo, with the latest diddy flush.
> (I forget, it's 7l or something.)  I dread taking a dump in it, as 9 times
> out of 10 the first flush is unsuccessful.
>
> Does anyone know who specified the BS turd that is supposedly used to test
> these devices ?  I'd like to send him/her one of mine as a challenge.


Heh, I have a similar problem, (not wanting to have a no 2 in my own
loo) but for different reasons.

I changed the old (pink, ugh) loo for a nice new cheapy one with a push
button flush from B&Q. Unfortunately the back of the loo is shallowly
raked, so it's a bit like drawing with crayons.

Top tip diy'ers : choose a loo with a steeply raked back so you can hit
the U bend in one shot.

This has been a public service announcement from the "ban the loo
brush" brigade.

Cheers

Paul.

In message , Andy Hall 
<andyh@hall.nospam> wrote


>However, AIUI, this requirement is not related to the BS turd, but to
>the ubiquitous Euroturd.


You will never flush a  Mandleson.

-- 
Alan
mailto:news2me_a_2003@amacleod.clara.co.uk

In article ,
Harry Bloomfield  wrote:


>Many of the more modern ones are dual flush, or can be set to dual 
>flush. You remove a seal and it dual flushes. Quick press of the handle 
>then causes short flush, hold it down and you get the full flush.


Oddly enough, our new loo which has a central column flush thingy does
it the opposite way round - push the button on top of the lid and keep
it pushed for a short flush, or push & let go for a long flush!

Gordon

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 00:52:25 +0100, Andy Hall <andyh@hall.nospam>
wrote:


>On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 23:12:19 +0100, John Laird 
>wrote:
>
>>My partner has a fairly recently fitted loo, with the latest diddy flush.
>>(I forget, it's 7l or something.)  I dread taking a dump in it, as 9 times
>>out of 10 the first flush is unsuccessful.
>>
>>Does anyone know who specified the BS turd that is supposedly used to test
>>these devices ?  I'd like to send him/her one of mine as a challenge.
>
>
>I would think that that would be the Deputy Prime Minister since his
>department oversees building regulations.
>


I wouldn't have guessed the DPM produces small turds.

Mr F.

"John Laird"  wrote in message 
news:em4sh1ljr6vckf51j1rlnktka3h9shaueu@4ax.com...

> My partner has a fairly recently fitted loo, with the latest diddy flush.
> (I forget, it's 7l or something.)  I dread taking a dump in it, as 9 times
> out of 10 the first flush is unsuccessful.
>
> Does anyone know who specified the BS turd that is supposedly used to test
> these devices ?  I'd like to send him/her one of mine as a challenge.
>


You should worry - we have these (newly fitted) at work. They are supposed 
to save water but, in the men's toilets at least, everyone has to flush 
twice, which needs MORE water and more time. Go figure. I too cannot 
understand why all toilets are not *required* to be dual flush.

Bob Mannix

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 23:56:41 +0100, John Rumm
 wrote:


>John Laird wrote:
>
>> Wouldn't it have been easier to have a dual-flush system, small one for pee
>> and a proper big one for you-know-whats ?  That would save much more water
>
>Many *are* sual flush.... have you tried holding the lever/button down 
>while it flushes?


Nope, but what emerges looks like the "standard" volume of water.  It just
doesn't hit the pan with enough oomph to move the contents round the U-bend,
that's all.  (The designers probably cut the top off the cistern, and what
they should have done was made it narrower.)

Thanks for all responses ;-)

-- 
Gooooooood Morning Cyberspace

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 23:12:19 +0100, John Laird  wrote:

| My partner has a fairly recently fitted loo, with the latest diddy flush.
| (I forget, it's 7l or something.)  I dread taking a dump in it, as 9 times
| out of 10 the first flush is unsuccessful.
| 
| Does anyone know who specified the BS turd that is supposedly used to test
| these devices ?  I'd like to send him/her one of mine as a challenge.
| 
| Wouldn't it have been easier to have a dual-flush system, small one for pee
| and a proper big one for you-know-whats ?  That would save much more water
| than the current pathetic offerings which need multiple flushes as often as
| not.

Eat more fruit and vegetables, which gives softer turds.
Boxed UHT Orange juice, is just as good, a liter a day gives you the runs.
Oranges was the standard nanny's cure for childhood constipation in
Edwardian/Victorian times

-- 
Dave Fawthrop <dave hyphenologist co uk> 
"Intelligent Design?" my knees say *not*.
"Intelligent Design?" my back says *not*.

On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 08:09:06 +0100, "Bob Mannix" 
wrote:

Go figure. I too cannot 

>understand why all toilets are not *required* to be dual flush.
>

Don't give the ODPM ideas :-(

-- 
Frank Erskine

"Frank Erskine"  wrote in message 
news:hv6th1djr6p8adu3vq5480fjeuje6p4di3@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 08:09:06 +0100, "Bob Mannix" 
> wrote:
>
> Go figure. I too cannot
>>understand why all toilets are not *required* to be dual flush.
>>
> Don't give the ODPM ideas :-(


Ooops. I left the word "new" out before "toilets" and came over more 
draconian than intended ;o)

Bob Mannix

zymurgy@technologist.com wrote:


> I changed the old (pink, ugh) loo for a nice new cheapy one with a push
> button flush from B&Q. Unfortunately the back of the loo is shallowly
> raked, so it's a bit like drawing with crayons.


Hmmm, yes will second that....  BTSTDIGTT

Although the spacing is beter suited to the ankle biters!


-- 
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
|          Internode Ltd -  http://www.internode.co.uk            |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
|        John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk              |
\=================================================================/

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 23:12:19 +0100, John Laird  wrote:


> My partner has a fairly recently fitted loo, with the latest diddy flush.
> (I forget, it's 7l or something.)  I dread taking a dump in it, as 9  
> times
> out of 10 the first flush is unsuccessful.


Have you tried holding down the handle to the completion of the flush? I  
am not referring to the King of Spades, BTW. ;-) See below.


> Does anyone know who specified the BS turd that is supposedly used to  
> test
> these devices ?  I'd like to send him/her one of mine as a challenge.


No, but the thing certainly exists. Perhaps I should change my reading  
matter to Barbara Cartland and Harold  Robbins.


> Wouldn't it have been easier to have a dual-flush system, small one for  
> pee
> and a proper big one for you-know-whats ?  That would save much more  
> water
> than the current pathetic offerings which need multiple flushes as often  
> as
> not.


They have existed for years, since at least the late '70s. Short  
lever-down for number 1, long for number 2. Typically deliver one gallon  
per excretion number. Is this where you are <ahem> getting the job wrong?

John Schmitt

-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 00:52:25 +0100, Andy Hall <andyh@hall.nospam> wrote:


> Captain's Log, stardate 2005-09-06

                                                        i
                                                       i
                                                      i
                                                     i
                                                    i
                                                   i
                                                  i
                                                 i
                                                i
                                               i
Don't beam me up now, Scotty, I'm having a shi

John Schmitt

-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

Frank Erskine wrote:

> On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 08:09:06 +0100, "Bob Mannix" 
> wrote:
> 
> Go figure. I too cannot 
> 
>>understand why all toilets are not *required* to be dual flush.
>>
> 
> Don't give the ODPM ideas :-(
> 

http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/water/industry/wsregs99/guide/section9.htm

Water Supply (Water Fittings) Regulations 1999
Guidance Document relating to
Schedule 1: Fluid Categories and
Schedule 2: Requirements For Water Fittings
[See Regulation 4(3)]
SECTION 9

Schedule 2: Paragraph 25: WC's, flushing devices and urinals

d. no flushing device installed for use with a WC pan shall give a 
single flush exceeding 6 litres;

g. a flushing cistern designed to give flushes of different volumes-

    1. shall have a readily discernible method of actuating the flush of 
different volumes; and
    2. shall have instructions, clearly and permanently marked on the 
cistern or displayed nearby, for operating it to obtain the different 
volumes of flush;


-- 
David Clark

$message_body_include ="PLES RING IF AN RNSR IS REQIRD"

zymurgy@technologist.com wrote:

> I changed the old (pink, ugh) loo for a nice new cheapy one with a push
> button flush from B&Q. Unfortunately the back of the loo is shallowly
> raked, so it's a bit like drawing with crayons.
>


Cheapy push button flush from Homebase has dual flush and would work
fine except that the U bend is so tightly curved and so small that any
decent sized log just gets stuck half way round.

MBQ

John Laird wrote:

> My partner has a fairly recently fitted loo, with the latest diddy
> flush. (I forget, it's 7l or something.)
> Wouldn't it have been easier to have a dual-flush system, small one
> for pee and a proper big one for you-know-whats ?  That would save
> much more water than the current pathetic offerings which need
> multiple flushes as often as not.



We had one fitted a year ago and it is button operated "dual flush"
pressing the middle of the button gives a small flush whilst pressing
down the big button gives a full flush, looks a bit like :-
http://www.imaginemanchester.org.uk/html/building/toilet1.jpg
which removes virtually everything, there is the odd occasion where we
have to flush twice but we had that with the old system.  Bring back the
old high level cisterns that held 3 gallons (mind you I am in Scotland
so water conservation is not a biggy).
-- 
This post contains no hidden meanings, no implications and certainly no
 hidden agendas so it should be taken at face value.  The wrong words
may be used this is due to my limitations with the English language .

yours S
Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione

So it wasn't just me then - glad I moved house not long after fitting
it!  I was getting fed up trying to batter them to pieces using the loo
brush (and having to buy a replacement loo brush every fortnight!)

Mine wasn't helped by the fact the plumber had to fit a 90' pipe on the
straight out on the back, and chose the narrowest one available.

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 10:21:23 GMT, DJC 
wrote:


>d. no flushing device installed for use with a WC pan shall give a 
>single flush exceeding 6 litres;


Egads, I thought it was 7l.  (Old loos are about 9, iirc.)

Madness.

-- 
Pour encourjay lays ortras.

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 10:55:28 +0100, "John Schmitt"  wrote:


>(dual-flush loos)
>Is this where you are <ahem> getting the job wrong?


No, it's a single (small) flush.  Apologies for not pointing that out.

-- 
He's always been close to the spirit of the thing.

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 08:40:06 +0100, Dave Fawthrop
 wrote:


>On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 23:12:19 +0100, John Laird  wrote:
>
>| My partner has a fairly recently fitted loo...
>
>Eat more fruit and vegetables, which gives softer turds.


Ah, she's a veggie.  Maybe the problem will resolve itself in time ?!

[Slightly more seriously, one's poos are supposed to be firm and
well-formed, I thought.]

Perhaps we should be grateful the EU isn't imposing the "marvel at that"
style with the in-built shelf.

-- 
God does not play dice with the universe. - Albert Einstein

In article <DazTe.104005$G8.96440@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
DJC  <an.rnser.is.reqird> wrote:


>g. a flushing cistern designed to give flushes of different volumes-
>
>    1. shall have a readily discernible method of actuating the flush of 
>different volumes; and
>    2. shall have instructions, clearly and permanently marked on the 
>cistern or displayed nearby, for operating it to obtain the different 
>volumes of flush;


Weird... The new toilet/cistern I fitted recently had very vague
instructions and it took a bit of experimentation to work it out - you
push and hold the button for a half-cistern flush (it stops flushing
halfway, then you take your finger off the button), or push and release
for a full flush. If you release at any time before the half-flush is
finished, it does a full flush (so guess how often we actually bother
with the half-flush!!!)

Gordon

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 13:22:00 +0100, John Laird wrote:

 

> Perhaps we should be grateful the EU isn't imposing the "marvel at that"
> style with the in-built shelf.


As in The Brown Russian?

John Laird wrote:

> My partner has a fairly recently fitted loo, with the latest diddy flush.
> (I forget, it's 7l or something.)  I dread taking a dump in it, as 9 times
> out of 10 the first flush is unsuccessful.


I have a 2-litre jug (it's actually a Tesco Value Bleach bottle with the 
neck cut off) next to the WC, which can be filled from the bath-tap and 
poured from shoulder height to augment the flush if I suspect it will be 
inadequate.

Owain

"John Laird"  wrote in message 
news:em4sh1ljr6vckf51j1rlnktka3h9shaueu@4ax.com...

> My partner has a fairly recently fitted loo, with the latest diddy flush.
> (I forget, it's 7l or something.)  I dread taking a dump in it, as 9 times
> out of 10 the first flush is unsuccessful.
>
> Does anyone know who specified the BS turd that is supposedly used to test
> these devices ?  I'd like to send him/her one of mine as a challenge.
>
> Wouldn't it have been easier to have a dual-flush system, small one for 
> pee
> and a proper big one for you-know-whats ?  That would save much more water
> than the current pathetic offerings which need multiple flushes as often 
> as
> not.



This post exemplifies the reason I refuse to have a modern device installed. 
I've never used one which works better than ours and most work much worse. 
The exceptions are some in service stations but, I suspect, they are 
electrically powered and we don't want that.

Our 1930s ceramic one is the right height, functional and with no gimmicks. 
OK, the chrome on the lever is wearing off, showing the more beautiful brass 
underneath but I can live with that - and I imagine the whole suite will see 
us out.

Recently, in an enthusiastic fit of water-saving, we put a device supplied 
by the water company in the cistern. It swelled with water and reduces the 
flush. This is not satisfactory in our opinion, the flush is now inadequate 
to deal with Spouse's floating products.

For I time I saved washing water from the adjacent bathroom to flush the 
lavatory, it doesn't work as well as the designated full flush even though 
we were using far more water than is delivered by the cistern.

It seems that the designer employed by that inter-war manufacturer knew what 
he was doing. He'll probably be dead now but he lives on in our grateful 
memories.

Most of our liquid only output boosts the compost bins so we're not wasting 
water by unnecessary flushes.

Mary

John Laird wrote:

> Perhaps we should be grateful the EU isn't imposing the "marvel at
> that" style with the in-built shelf.


Germany already has them, I  have been led to believe it was so they
could have a quick look for worms and things as they ate so much rubbish
(ersatz (?)).




-- 
This post contains no hidden meanings, no implications and certainly no
 hidden agendas so it should be taken at face value.  The wrong words
may be used this is due to my limitations with the English language .

yours S
Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione

"soup"  writes:

>John Laird wrote:
>> Perhaps we should be grateful the EU isn't imposing the "marvel at
>> that" style with the in-built shelf.
>
>Germany already has them, I  have been led to believe it was so they
>could have a quick look for worms and things as they ate so much rubbish
>(ersatz (?)).


Err, no. It's believed to be because they eat so much pork.


-- 
       "The road to Paradise is through Intercourse."
        [email me at huge [at] huge [dot] org [dot] uk]

Huge wrote:

> "soup"  writes:
> > John Laird wrote:
> > > Perhaps we should be grateful the EU isn't imposing the "marvel at
> > > that" style with the in-built shelf.
> >
> > Germany already has them, I  have been led to believe it was so they
> > could have a quick look for worms and things as they ate so much
> > rubbish (ersatz (?)).
>
> Err, no. It's believed to be because they eat so much pork.



Hence the "led to believe ... " bit.   The story (it was twenty years
ago and I am working from memory) may well have been 'cos they ate/eat
so much pork sausage and I have taken that as meaning all the other crap
that is in their rather than the pork, but I am in no way confident so
will accept your version unreservadly.
-- 
This post contains no hidden meanings, no implications and certainly no
 hidden agendas so it should be taken at face value.  The wrong words
may be used this is due to my limitations with the English language .

yours S
Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione

On 7 Sep 2005 14:04:39 GMT, huge@ukmisc.org.uk (Huge) wrote:


>"soup"  writes:
>>John Laird wrote:
>>> Perhaps we should be grateful the EU isn't imposing the "marvel at
>>> that" style with the in-built shelf.
>>
>>Germany already has them, I  have been led to believe it was so they
>>could have a quick look for worms and things as they ate so much rubbish
>>(ersatz (?)).
>
>Err, no. It's believed to be because they eat so much pork.


They eat their pork rare and the parasites or their eggs can survive
the cooking, whereas in UK we're content to recommend "pork should
always be well done".

DG

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 10:21:23 GMT, DJC
 wrote:


>Frank Erskine wrote:
>> On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 08:09:06 +0100, "Bob Mannix" 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> Go figure. I too cannot 
>> 
>>>understand why all toilets are not *required* to be dual flush.
>>>
>> 
>> Don't give the ODPM ideas :-(
>> 
>http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/water/industry/wsregs99/guide/section9.htm
>

<snip>

Oh dear :-|

-- 
Frank Erskine

I have a new dual flush low level cistern - made in the UAE - 3 or 6
litres depending upon which button you push. 3 litre flush takes care
of 95% of everything - and the 6 litre flush has never so far failed on
the remaining 5%.

Phil wrote:


> I have a new dual flush low level cistern - made in the UAE - 3 or 6
> litres depending upon which button you push. 3 litre flush takes care
> of 95% of everything - and the 6 litre flush has never so far failed on
> the remaining 5%.


To be fair the the B&Q "Barcelona" (I think that was the range), it also 
flushes very well (gives a very short but very forceful flush). Shame 
about the geometry of the pan however - as refered to elsewhere!

-- 
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
|          Internode Ltd -  http://www.internode.co.uk            |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
|        John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk              |
\=================================================================/

In message <PqCTe.104096$G8.4912@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, soup 
 writes

>John Laird wrote:
>> Perhaps we should be grateful the EU isn't imposing the "marvel at
>> that" style with the in-built shelf.
>
>Germany already has them, I  have been led to believe it was so they
>could have a quick look for worms and things as they ate so much rubbish
>(ersatz (?)).
>

Or rather to wave it goodbye


-- 
geoff

Andy Hall explained on 07/09/2005 :

> However, AIUI, this requirement is not related to the BS turd, but to
> the ubiquitous Euroturd.


For which I heard they use ping pong balls for the actual test.

-- 

Regards,
        Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.org

In message , Harry Bloomfield 
 writes

>Andy Hall explained on 07/09/2005 :
>> However, AIUI, this requirement is not related to the BS turd, but to
>> the ubiquitous Euroturd.
>
>For which I heard they use ping pong balls for the actual test.
>

I used to have the DIN spec once upon a time

Ping pong balls and bratwuerst IIRC

(before you ask - A340 toilet system, and it wasn't my "job")

-- 
geoff

soup wrote:

> John Laird wrote:
> > My partner has a fairly recently fitted loo, with the latest diddy
> > flush. (I forget, it's 7l or something.)
> > Wouldn't it have been easier to have a dual-flush system, small one
> > for pee and a proper big one for you-know-whats ?  That would save
> > much more water than the current pathetic offerings which need
> > multiple flushes as often as not.
>
>
> We had one fitted a year ago and it is button operated "dual flush"
> pressing the middle of the button gives a small flush whilst pressing
> down the big button gives a full flush, looks a bit like :-
> http://www.imaginemanchester.org.uk/html/building/toilet1.jpg


I dare say there's an inextricable link between that hosting domain and
the picture referred to! ;-)

Mathew

John Laird wrote:

> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 10:21:23 GMT, DJC 
> wrote:

>>d. no flushing device installed for use with a WC pan shall give a 
>>single flush exceeding 6 litres;

> Egads, I thought it was 7l.  (Old loos are about 9, iirc.)


read on:

  (5) Until 1st January 2001 paragraphs (1)(a) and (d) shall have effect 
as if they provided as follows-

    1. "every water closet pan shall be supplied with water from a 
flushing cistern or trough of the valveless type which incorporates 
siphonic apparatus;"
    2. "no flushing device installed for use with a WC pan shall give a 
single flush exceeding 7.5 litres;".

(6) Notwithstanding sub-paragraph 1(d), a flushing cistern installed 
before 1st July 1999 may be replaced by a cistern which delivers a 
similar volume and which may be either single flush or dual flush; but a 
single flush cistern may not be so replaced by a double flush cistern.


-- 
David Clark

$message_body_include ="PLES RING IF AN RNSR IS REQIRD"

"Harry Bloomfield"  verbally sodomised 
in news:mn.3cd97d59dcdb888b.8412@tiscali.co.uk: 


> Andy Hall explained on 07/09/2005 :
>> However, AIUI, this requirement is not related to the BS turd, but to
>> the ubiquitous Euroturd.
> 
> For which I heard they use ping pong balls for the actual test.
> 


Or bullshit.

-- 
Phil Kyle  
Uno
Dos
Tres
Cuatro
CINCO!!!!!!

"Be very aware that my willingness 
to continue to criticise your sig 
is infinite." -- Neil Barker

"Harry Bloomfield"  verbally sodomised 
in news:mn.38047d5992254764.8412@tiscali.co.uk: 


> on 06/09/2005, John Laird supposed :
>> My partner has a fairly recently fitted loo, with the latest diddy
>> flush. (I forget, it's 7l or something.)  I dread taking a dump in it,
>> as 9 times out of 10 the first flush is unsuccessful.
>>
>> Does anyone know who specified the BS turd that is supposedly used to
>> test these devices ?  I'd like to send him/her one of mine as a
>> challenge. 
>>
>> Wouldn't it have been easier to have a dual-flush system, small one for
>> pee and a proper big one for you-know-whats ?  That would save much
>> more water than the current pathetic offerings which need multiple
>> flushes as often as not.
>>
>> [Apologies for the tone.  Normal service may be resumed shortly.]
> 
> Many of the more modern ones are dual flush, or can be set to dual 
> flush. You remove a seal and it dual flushes. Quick press of the handle 
> then causes short flush, hold it down and you get the full flush.
> 


Some things just won't flush, though.

-- 
Phil Kyle  
Uno
Dos
Tres
Cuatro
CINCO!!!!!!

"Be very aware that my willingness 
to continue to criticise your sig 
is infinite." -- Neil Barker

On 7 Sep,  
     Dave Fawthrop  wrote:



> Eat more fruit and vegetables, which gives softer turds.
> Boxed UHT Orange juice, is just as good, a liter a day gives you the runs.
> Oranges was the standard nanny's cure for childhood constipation in
> Edwardian/Victorian times
> 

Are the PTB wanting us on a /healthy/ diet, so that the loos built to their
regulations actually work?

-- 
  B Thumbs
  Change lycos to yahoo to reply

On 7 Sep,  
     John Laird  wrote:


> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 10:21:23 GMT, DJC 
> wrote:
> 
> >d. no flushing device installed for use with a WC pan shall give a 
> >single flush exceeding 6 litres;
> 
> Egads, I thought it was 7l.  (Old loos are about 9, iirc.)


Old loos are 9L, new loos are 12L (They always need two flushes.)

-- 
  B Thumbs
  Change lycos to yahoo to reply

Mary Fisher wrote:

> Our 1930s ceramic one is the right height, functional and with no gimmicks.
> OK, the chrome on the lever is wearing off, showing the more beautiful brass
> underneath but I can live with that - and I imagine the whole suite will see
> us out.

<Snip>

> Most of our liquid only output boosts the compost bins so we're not wasting
> water by unnecessary flushes.
>
> Mary


Are the compost bins also the right height?  Dosn't it get a little
draughty in winter?

Mary Fisher wrote:

> Recently, in an enthusiastic fit of water-saving, we put a device supplied
> by the water company in the cistern. It swelled with water and reduces the
> flush. This is not satisfactory in our opinion, the flush is now inadequate
> to deal with Spouse's floating products.


You need the open bag type water saver. You can cut down the bag to get
a bigger flush until it works for you.

MBQ

wrote in message 
news:1126185521.146247.240380@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

>
> Mary Fisher wrote:
>> Our 1930s ceramic one is the right height, functional and with no 
>> gimmicks.
>> OK, the chrome on the lever is wearing off, showing the more beautiful 
>> brass
>> underneath but I can live with that - and I imagine the whole suite will 
>> see
>> us out.
>
> <Snip>
>
>> Most of our liquid only output boosts the compost bins so we're not 
>> wasting
>> water by unnecessary flushes.
>>
>> Mary
>
> Are the compost bins also the right height?  Dosn't it get a little
> draughty in winter?


It's poured in from cans. No, it's not draughty.

Mary

> 

wrote in message 
news:1126189012.957438.28730@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

>
> Mary Fisher wrote:
>> Recently, in an enthusiastic fit of water-saving, we put a device 
>> supplied
>> by the water company in the cistern. It swelled with water and reduces 
>> the
>> flush. This is not satisfactory in our opinion, the flush is now 
>> inadequate
>> to deal with Spouse's floating products.
>
> You need the open bag type water saver. You can cut down the bag to get
> a bigger flush until it works for you.


We had one of those, it was useless, kept moving round the cistern and 
interfering with the flush mechanism.

I suspect that we'll go back to a full flush. I've no idea what the volume 
of the cistern is but I don't think it's huge. One day I'll measure it.

Mary

>
> MBQ
> 

manatbandq@hotmail.com wrote:

> Mary Fisher wrote:
> > Recently, in an enthusiastic fit of water-saving, we put a device supplied
> > by the water company in the cistern. It swelled with water and reduces the
> > flush. This is not satisfactory in our opinion, the flush is now inadequate
> > to deal with Spouse's floating products.
>
> You need the open bag type water saver. You can cut down the bag to get
> a bigger flush until it works for you.
> 
> MBQ


Or use a brick.

"Harry Bloomfield"  verbally sodomised 
in news:mn.3cd97d59dcdb888b.8412@tiscali.co.uk: 


> Andy Hall explained on 07/09/2005 :
>> However, AIUI, this requirement is not related to the BS turd, but to
>> the ubiquitous Euroturd.
> 
> For which I heard they use ping pong balls for the actual test.
> 


Or bullshit.

-- 
Phil Kyle  
Uno
Dos
Tres
Cuatro
CINCO!!!!!!

"Be very aware that my willingness 
to continue to criticise your sig 
is infinite." -- Neil Barker

"Harry Bloomfield"  verbally sodomised 
in news:mn.38047d5992254764.8412@tiscali.co.uk: 


> on 06/09/2005, John Laird supposed :
>> My partner has a fairly recently fitted loo, with the latest diddy
>> flush. (I forget, it's 7l or something.)  I dread taking a dump in it,
>> as 9 times out of 10 the first flush is unsuccessful.
>>
>> Does anyone know who specified the BS turd that is supposedly used to
>> test these devices ?  I'd like to send him/her one of mine as a
>> challenge. 
>>
>> Wouldn't it have been easier to have a dual-flush system, small one for
>> pee and a proper big one for you-know-whats ?  That would save much
>> more water than the current pathetic offerings which need multiple
>> flushes as often as not.
>>
>> [Apologies for the tone.  Normal service may be resumed shortly.]
> 
> Many of the more modern ones are dual flush, or can be set to dual 
> flush. You remove a seal and it dual flushes. Quick press of the handle 
> then causes short flush, hold it down and you get the full flush.
> 


Some things just won't flush, though.

-- 
Phil Kyle  
Uno
Dos
Tres
Cuatro
CINCO!!!!!!

"Be very aware that my willingness 
to continue to criticise your sig 
is infinite." -- Neil Barker

"Harry Bloomfield"  verbally sodomised 
in news:mn.3cd97d59dcdb888b.8412@tiscali.co.uk: 


> Andy Hall explained on 07/09/2005 :
>> However, AIUI, this requirement is not related to the BS turd, but to
>> the ubiquitous Euroturd.
> 
> For which I heard they use ping pong balls for the actual test.
> 


Or bullshit.

-- 
Phil Kyle  
Uno
Dos
Tres
Cuatro
CINCO!!!!!!

"Be very aware that my willingness 
to continue to criticise your sig 
is infinite." -- Neil Barker

"Harry Bloomfield"  verbally sodomised 
in news:mn.38047d5992254764.8412@tiscali.co.uk: 


> on 06/09/2005, John Laird supposed :
>> My partner has a fairly recently fitted loo, with the latest diddy
>> flush. (I forget, it's 7l or something.)  I dread taking a dump in it,
>> as 9 times out of 10 the first flush is unsuccessful.
>>
>> Does anyone know who specified the BS turd that is supposedly used to
>> test these devices ?  I'd like to send him/her one of mine as a
>> challenge. 
>>
>> Wouldn't it have been easier to have a dual-flush system, small one for
>> pee and a proper big one for you-know-whats ?  That would save much
>> more water than the current pathetic offerings which need multiple
>> flushes as often as not.
>>
>> [Apologies for the tone.  Normal service may be resumed shortly.]
> 
> Many of the more modern ones are dual flush, or can be set to dual 
> flush. You remove a seal and it dual flushes. Quick press of the handle 
> then causes short flush, hold it down and you get the full flush.
> 


Some things just won't flush, though.

-- 
Phil Kyle  
Uno
Dos
Tres
Cuatro
CINCO!!!!!!

"Be very aware that my willingness 
to continue to criticise your sig 
is infinite." -- Neil Barker

On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 16:57:45 +0100, Mathew Newton   
wrote:



>> You need the open bag type water saver. You can cut down the bag to get
>> a bigger flush until it works for you.

> Or use a brick.


Empty bottles upright in the cistern achieve a similar result. The  
advantage of this is that you need to empty the bottles beforehand. :*)

John Schmitt

-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 10:32:17 +0100, "John Schmitt" 
wrote:

| On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 16:57:45 +0100, Mathew Newton   
| wrote:
| 
| 
| >> You need the open bag type water saver. You can cut down the bag to get
| >> a bigger flush until it works for you.
| 
| > Or use a brick.
| 
| Empty bottles upright in the cistern achieve a similar result. The  
| advantage of this is that you need to empty the bottles beforehand. :*)

Bottles full of water and the caps replaced will do the job better. 
Be careful not to interfere with the ball valve. 

-- 
Dave Fawthrop <dave hyphenologist co uk> 
"Intelligent Design?" my knees say *not*.
"Intelligent Design?" my back says *not*.