Okay, so this is a random question...

So when I was younger, we lived in a very old house with on of those old toilets that use an incredible amount of water when someone flushes. My mother put a brick in the back of it, because when she was younger she was told that this was an easy, effective way to create a "low flush" toilet that would conserve water and save money. ((we have newer ones now that are already low flush, so she stopped doing it))

Anyway, is there any truth to this? And if so, how does putting a brick in the back of a toilet conserve water? I want to try it in my apartment but honestly I am somewhat skeptical (sorry Mom)

So yes, it is in fact effective. When your toilet flushes, it releases the whole tank of water. When it refills, it goes until the water level gets a certain set height above the bottom - height, not volume (it's set to the appropriate volume). Adding a brick decreases the total amount of space available for water, but doesn't change the level at which it stops, effectively decreasing the total amount of water available each flush.

A suggestion though: bricks degrade over time - small pieces come off, and not only do you use more water, but you also mess up your pipes with all this crud. So use a 2-liter soda bottle. It's a known volume (you can calculate water savings as 2-liters/flush) and it's essentially impervious to everything (hence other problems with it. Just fill it with sand and it'll work out great.

Thanks, that helped a lot. I'm definitely going to do the water bottle thing.

Not that it's a bad idea...but wouldn't that cause the toilet to get clogged more easily? Either that or (when you have a big #2) you 'd have to flush twice and you wouldn't be saving water. But overall (since the event happens less that #1) it would be effective.

I think most toilets use far more water than is truly necessary. Also, so long as you use a soda bottle and not actually a brick, it shouldn't tend to get clogged more often. The only problem toilets would be ones with fairly low pressure to begin with - most low flow toilets have a much higher pressure to compensate for using less water.

Some of those public toilets...talk about using more water than necessary!!! Yiles!

In Australia, they had toilets that dual flush toilets, "1" for normal waste and "2" for..ahem, larger loads...but I found that using "1" actually worked for 99% of all loads. This is sorta an uncomfortable post...

This is generally an awkward topic. What fun!

The way I look it is this...Everyone does both, so why be embarassed, right

Update: Empty Absolut bottles work perfectly. Just the right size. Who knew my roommate's expensive taste in alcohol could eventually prove so useful in crazy environmental experiments....

Excellent. And glass is really annoying to recycle anyway (heavy and inefficient vs. plastic), so double benefit!

I remember about 10 years ago our city had the same project and they called it "Give me a BRICK!" What they suggested was put a brick inside a strong plastic and it was supposed to lessen the water flushed.

But I do think that an empty water bottle is more effective.

Well, an empty water bottle will probably float, but a full one is quite effective. Wrapping the bricks in plastic makes sense, though I can't see why bricks and heavy plastic would be more available than 1-2 L bottles .