h a l f b a k e r yYeah, I wish it made more sense too.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Water in toilets is well and good, but considerable water is wasted with each flush. I propose that instead, toilets flush using gasoline, kerosene or some other light hydrophobic substance. Many benefits would result.
1: Gasoline and its ilk are excellent solvents, and would clean the bowel better
than water.
2: Gasoline floats on water, and so odorous liquid substances would be confined to the bottom of the bowl, trapped under a layer of gasoline.
3: The floating property means that most or all of the gas could be recovered from each flush, and used again and again.
4: Whether it is bad gasses in the vicinity of the toilet or the need for thorough cleaning / sterilization - gasoline is flammable.
It occurs to me that motor oil might be just as good for this purpose, less smelly, and also opaque to conceal unsightly waste.
[link]
|
| |
//and so odorous liquid substances would be confined to the bottom of the bowl, trapped under a layer of gasoline// |
|
| |
and so odorous liquid substances would be confined to the bottom of the bowl, trapped under a layer of even more odorous liquid substances. |
|
| |
"... and would clean the bowel better than
water."
Are you *sure* you meant to say that? |
|
| |
The signs on public toilets would have to be amended to say: "No smoking - Seriously. You will die in a horrible flaming explosion of shit if you light up. We're not kidding. Don't say we didn't warn you." |
|
| |
Those signs would be stolen and put up for decoration in teenager's bedrooms across the world. LOL |
|
| |
What would be the worse death? Drowning or been blown up in a flaming shit explosion? What would a sign like that look like? |
|
| |
Point number 3, which seems to be the crux, doesn't make sense to me. Surely substituting x litres of water per flush with x litres of gasoline would result in using just as much gasoline as you would have water, regardless of relative densities. No? |
|
| |
Motor oil is only opaque when it's dirty. Gasoline is insanely dangerous. |
|
| |
There was a toilet on Trail Ridge Road in Rocky Mountain National Park that had a special fluid. I forget the details, but it wasn't flammable. |
|
| |
How about a fluid that boils at about 40 degrees F.? It would be opaque, wouldn't quite freeze your dangly bits but would cool the stinkies, and could be evaporated off the chunks and re-used. |
|
| |
// Surely substituting x litres of water per flush with x litres of gasoline would result in using just as much gasoline as you would have water, regardless of relative densities. No? // |
|
| |
He's talking about the recovery here. The gasoline would not be flushed out, but recycled. This is not necessary with conventional toilets. |
|
| |
I kinda like this one. I think there's some merit to the base concept. A lot of issues to solve, obviously, but I think they are solvable. |
|
| |
Yes, that's it precisely! Right down to the look of horror on Mr. Smokey Stick Man! |
|
| |