In our house the tap runs on for about a minute or 2 before we get the hot water. I usually use that to wash my hair.
In summer I just have cold showers.
Printable View
In our house the tap runs on for about a minute or 2 before we get the hot water. I usually use that to wash my hair.
In summer I just have cold showers.
You need to talk to this fellow: http://enviro.net.au/
Vas ist das?Quote:
Originally Posted by silentC
Quote:
Originally Posted by silentC
That sounds great. Do you know how much and is it hard to install.
You need one for your new bathroom. It's a Pressure Balancing Mixing Valve. They have two valves: one controls pressure and the other controls temp. A bit like a flick mixer but the difference is that the valves are seperate. We have the temperature permanently set to where we like it (fortunately there is agreement on this) and so you just use the pressure valve to turn it off and on. Never have to fiddle with it.
Normal flick mixers are inconsistent pressure-wise in that as you adjust the temp, the pressure also fluctuates.
We also put one in the kids bathroom which controls the temp of the hot water to all taps in the room. It's preset to around 38 degrees, so they can't burn themselves if they muck about with the taps. Plus, when they use the shower, they only need to turn on the hot tap and it comes out at the right temp.
A bit pricey (about $150) but worth it IMO.
The valve is $139 plus $10 post and pack.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wongo
It's dead simple to install. He recommends you put one in your vanity. When you want to have a shower, turn on the vanity hot tap, as soon as water starts to flow, you turn it off and you have primed the pipes in the bathroom with hot, so you don't waste any when you turn on the shower.
The full set up has a bladder that stores the water for the next time you turn on the cold. I would divert it to my rainwater tank instead. It needs an extra valve if you only have flick mixers though. That valve isn't available yet because he's trying to get it approved. I'm waiting for it so I can install one. Have been emailing him regularly to get updates on the progress.
Sounds good. We'll definitely have to get one installed.
Just spoke to the guy,
$169 - the basic unit
$149 - a 9L tank
$89 - valve for the tank
Hmm still thinking.
Price has gone up since I asked him then.
If you had a rainwater tank already, you could divert into that. Save yourself $240.
Thanks for the link Silent, I thought that it was a brilliant, simple invention when he had it on TV.
We have a Rinnai Infinity hot water system that for some reason takes a fair while to deliver the HW so that system will save me heaps of water.
No worries. I reckon it's a good idea too.
The valve I'm waiting for is a diapragm valve. The current set up only works with a normal tap because it has to be connected downstream of the hot water tap. You can't do that with a flick mixer, so the diaphragm valve allows the pressure in the line to keep the diversion system closed until someone turns on the tap. The drop in pressure opens the valve, which allows the cold water to divert until the thermo valve closes. Very clever actually.
Oh good, we'll have some of yours then.Quote:
Originally Posted by silentC
Building more dams, pipes etc are not real solutions. There are very few decent dam sites left, unless you want to build a few mini dams at say, Lane Cove or Berowra (Sydneycentric here, but bear with me.) You could build some on some coastal rivers, but be prepared for beaches to recede and fishing to decline.
You can put the price of water up, but then the rich companies and people will still buy all they want and waste it if they wish, while 'the environment' which can't afford to buy water will go dry, and normal families will have to ration their water.
Putting water recycling systems into greenfield developments is a good move, especially if the treament can be a low energy consumption method. Putting them into older developments would be good but expensive. Water tanks are good, but the best way of meeting water availability is to minimise our use. I'm another who takes a Darwinian approach to the garden - don't water, and if it dies it wasn't meant to be there.
The debate Australia needs to have is about our sustainable population. I'm of the side that thinks we're close to the max and approaching it too quickly. Others will disagree, but no party seems to want to have the debate.
Just out of interest, in the history of irrigation (about 5000 years) no large scale irrigation system has lasted more than about 200 years.
Is that right? (and I'm not going to argue with a broken down hydrographer :p :D )Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexS
I would have thought that the Roman aqueducts would have lasted longer than that. :confused:
They were for urban water supply, not irrigation..., and yes, they did last longer than 200 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by craigb
I bet the rich bastards used them to water (irrigate) their gardens. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by AlexS