Sounds cold. Mist usually loses it's heat much faster. So will I have to turn up the water heater output temp, meaning faucets are now hotter as well? How does it counter the thermal loss?
Are you currently taking a 100% hot water shower? I think you could probably use the shower mixing valve to increase the temperature to your liking without adjusting the hot water tank temperature.
Personally I don't like the rain from above type shower heads because the water is continually dripping down your face and in your eyes.
The internal warm glow of greenie smugness makes up for the loss.
Funny, but water conservation, at least in California, is not a tree hugger environmental issue as much as it is a survival issue. There is nothing green about our lawns, that's for sure. Brown is the new green around here, some are saying their lawns are 'golden'. In our case, we have to treat water like money. You don't want to blow it all unnecessarily. You need to save some for a not so rainy day.
I recently invested in Grohe's for all my bathrooms, and I can honestly say that there is no comparison to the lower-priced Home Depot-quality ones that preceded them.
Can you describe the difference?
As someone who's never used a luxury shower head, I can't imagine the qualitative difference between a regular and luxury shower head.
Funny, but water conservation, at least in California, is not a tree hugger environmental issue as much as it is a survival issue. There is nothing green about our lawns, that's for sure. Brown is the new green around here, some are saying their lawns are 'golden'. In our case, we have to treat water like money. You don't want to blow it all unnecessarily. You need to save some for a not so rainy day.
I know, Western Australia would be the same, but living in Ireland, and just having had the wettest July since 1965, water conservation is hard to take seriously at the moment.
Perth, WA, is a bit like California and had a water shortage problem and they went to the extreme length of water desalination.
Ironic that Tim Cook is being courted to back this when the Apple Watch still isn't officially rated for showering. Is this Apple's solution? Reduce the water flow rate? LOL
Except with no water pressure it takes 5 times longer to rinse your hair. OK for bald people I guess. Stupid waste of time for the rest of us.
this was the argument against low-flow toilets: "1.6 gallons won't flush *my* poop!"
your point is, well, pointless, until you can actually try on in person.
inevitably, increases in efficiency are met with resistance, and statements of how it will "never work", and the naysayers tend to be proven wrong over time. consumption does not equal performance.
inevitably, increases in efficiency are met with resistance, and statements of how it will "never work", and the naysayers tend to be proven wrong over time. consumption does not equal performance.
They studied this and found that low-flow aerators on kitchen sinks do not result in significant water savings because people use the sink for volume: to fill a cup or a pot. So flow rate does not equal consumption. You have to take it on a case-by-case basis.
All of the water that is wasted down the drain while waiting for it to warm up - that's low-hanging fruit if you're trying to conserve water, people!
This is actually one of the most common configurations in European homes with central heating. However while saving water this also consumes plenty of energy for the circulation pump (which either has to run permanently, use a timer switch or adaptive intelligence to run when it is mostly likely needed) plus the water needs to be kept at a safe high temperature to avoid bacteria from multiplying plus your essentially heating your home with the hot water circulating through the pipes...
Over here you're actually not supposed to prevent too much water from going into the sewage because otherwise they'll have to force flush the shit with fresh water which really is a common problem nowadays... Instead you're supposed to save water by not wasting it by washing your car, or sprinkling the roof to cool it down or by maintaining your own golf green with drinking water...
They studied this and found that low-flow aerators on kitchen sinks do not result in significant water savings because people use the sink for volume: to fill a cup or a pot. So flow rate does not equal consumption. You have to take it on a case-by-case basis.
cite your sources.
i am definitely *not* saying you are wrong, just questioning the actual studies of kitchen, kitchen v. bathroom, etc.
volume-based tasks would always use the same volume of water, regardless of flow rate.
but hand washing dishes, washing hands, rinsing a sponge out, etc - these are not volume-based activities, and often occur at a kitchen sink.
I'm not actually sure what the hype is all about. There're plenty of "rainforest mist" showers and other water saving fixtures available on the market already. Conserving precious resources like water is probably just a totally new concept for Californians so now Silicon Valley is making a big buzz out of it...
As someone who's never used a luxury shower head, I can't imagine the qualitative difference between a regular and luxury shower head.
Sure. No scaling so far. Fabulously powerful and smooth waterflow. Regulators that keep the pressure constant. Looks and feels solid, with mostly metal parts instead of cheap plastic. The choice of look (all of mine are brushed nickel), various types of spouts water flow, and choice of beautiful designs. Some of mine look truly stunning. No leaking or pooling of water around edges (this has been a problem with prior faucets) when turned on.
Just the general feeling that it will last me years and years. (But I won't know that for a few more years.) and the feeling of "why didn't I do this years ago!?"
In 2008 New Zealand's Labour government lost an election to the National Party, in government to this day, in part over the preposterous idea that new house builds should be required to include water saving shower heads, and energy-sapping tungsten bulbs should be withdrawn from sale. The conservatives branded this as the work of a "nanny state", and ridiculed the move as heavy socialist intervention in people's unbridled right to make wasteful choices without impediment. They've been in government ever since - and never quick to embrace a fresh idea. It's now a capitalist hero Tim Cook who's shining a light on a more eco-friendly way to be. Not that we're short of water, at this time of the year...
Interesting product IMO and will look firward to hearing more about it when it hits the market.
As usual though, you already have the naysayers out in full force that have made up their feeble static minds that it can't be anything worthwhile or it's price tag... just because... and with nothing to back it up.
Many of you should spend time in a conservation minded society like Germany, also where the utilities are rather expensive.
Almost every single home collects it's garden water in large vats under the roof drains and/or in subterranian vats holding 1000's of liters. Also water-saving faucets and showerheads are the norm, and most people shower/soap, shave, brush their teeth, etc. by turning on and off the water. Many newer houses install waste water loops with a filter system from showers, washing machines, to be used in the toilets or washing the car. Because of energy costs, plumbing is always very well insulated, planned to always travel the shortest distance, and again the water used for heating is often from the recycled supply.
In fact, German society has gotten so good at recycling and using roof run-off water, that many communities charge a tax based on the estimated run-off that they regard as theirs, because of course it's needed to keep the sewer lines clean.
I found this article to be of interest, and the battles conservationists face when bringing out something new.
Comments
Sounds cold. Mist usually loses it's heat much faster. So will I have to turn up the water heater output temp, meaning faucets are now hotter as well? How does it counter the thermal loss?
Are you currently taking a 100% hot water shower? I think you could probably use the shower mixing valve to increase the temperature to your liking without adjusting the hot water tank temperature.
Personally I don't like the rain from above type shower heads because the water is continually dripping down your face and in your eyes.
The internal warm glow of greenie smugness makes up for the loss.
Funny, but water conservation, at least in California, is not a tree hugger environmental issue as much as it is a survival issue. There is nothing green about our lawns, that's for sure. Brown is the new green around here, some are saying their lawns are 'golden'. In our case, we have to treat water like money. You don't want to blow it all unnecessarily. You need to save some for a not so rainy day.
I recently invested in Grohe's for all my bathrooms, and I can honestly say that there is no comparison to the lower-priced Home Depot-quality ones that preceded them.
Can you describe the difference?
As someone who's never used a luxury shower head, I can't imagine the qualitative difference between a regular and luxury shower head.
Funny, but water conservation, at least in California, is not a tree hugger environmental issue as much as it is a survival issue. There is nothing green about our lawns, that's for sure. Brown is the new green around here, some are saying their lawns are 'golden'. In our case, we have to treat water like money. You don't want to blow it all unnecessarily. You need to save some for a not so rainy day.
I know, Western Australia would be the same, but living in Ireland, and just having had the wettest July since 1965, water conservation is hard to take seriously at the moment.
Perth, WA, is a bit like California and had a water shortage problem and they went to the extreme length of water desalination.
No, the similarity is that they are both absurdly overpriced.
Awatch AppleWatch aWatch iWatch whatever the marketing department can think of.
Please. This is weak sauce. You can troll better.
Except with no water pressure it takes 5 times longer to rinse your hair. OK for bald people I guess. Stupid waste of time for the rest of us.
this was the argument against low-flow toilets: "1.6 gallons won't flush *my* poop!"
your point is, well, pointless, until you can actually try on in person.
inevitably, increases in efficiency are met with resistance, and statements of how it will "never work", and the naysayers tend to be proven wrong over time. consumption does not equal performance.
inevitably, increases in efficiency are met with resistance, and statements of how it will "never work", and the naysayers tend to be proven wrong over time. consumption does not equal performance.
They studied this and found that low-flow aerators on kitchen sinks do not result in significant water savings because people use the sink for volume: to fill a cup or a pot. So flow rate does not equal consumption. You have to take it on a case-by-case basis.
All of the water that is wasted down the drain while waiting for it to warm up - that's low-hanging fruit if you're trying to conserve water, people!
This is actually one of the most common configurations in European homes with central heating. However while saving water this also consumes plenty of energy for the circulation pump (which either has to run permanently, use a timer switch or adaptive intelligence to run when it is mostly likely needed) plus the water needs to be kept at a safe high temperature to avoid bacteria from multiplying plus your essentially heating your home with the hot water circulating through the pipes...
Over here you're actually not supposed to prevent too much water from going into the sewage because otherwise they'll have to force flush the shit with fresh water which really is a common problem nowadays... Instead you're supposed to save water by not wasting it by washing your car, or sprinkling the roof to cool it down or by maintaining your own golf green with drinking water...
They studied this and found that low-flow aerators on kitchen sinks do not result in significant water savings because people use the sink for volume: to fill a cup or a pot. So flow rate does not equal consumption. You have to take it on a case-by-case basis.
cite your sources.
i am definitely *not* saying you are wrong, just questioning the actual studies of kitchen, kitchen v. bathroom, etc.
volume-based tasks would always use the same volume of water, regardless of flow rate.
but hand washing dishes, washing hands, rinsing a sponge out, etc - these are not volume-based activities, and often occur at a kitchen sink.
I'm not actually sure what the hype is all about. There're plenty of "rainforest mist" showers and other water saving fixtures available on the market already. Conserving precious resources like water is probably just a totally new concept for Californians so now Silicon Valley is making a big buzz out of it...
Sure. No scaling so far. Fabulously powerful and smooth waterflow. Regulators that keep the pressure constant. Looks and feels solid, with mostly metal parts instead of cheap plastic. The choice of look (all of mine are brushed nickel), various types of spouts water flow, and choice of beautiful designs. Some of mine look truly stunning. No leaking or pooling of water around edges (this has been a problem with prior faucets) when turned on.
Just the general feeling that it will last me years and years. (But I won't know that for a few more years.) and the feeling of "why didn't I do this years ago!?"
Please. This is weak sauce. You can troll better.
FWiW, I do like your handle. I miss the Newtons. They were amazing for their day and tech.
In other words, your comment sounded funny while it was inside your head.
In 2008 New Zealand's Labour government lost an election to the National Party, in government to this day, in part over the preposterous idea that new house builds should be required to include water saving shower heads, and energy-sapping tungsten bulbs should be withdrawn from sale. The conservatives branded this as the work of a "nanny state", and ridiculed the move as heavy socialist intervention in people's unbridled right to make wasteful choices without impediment. They've been in government ever since - and never quick to embrace a fresh idea. It's now a capitalist hero Tim Cook who's shining a light on a more eco-friendly way to be. Not that we're short of water, at this time of the year...
No, the similarity is that they are both absurdly overpriced.
$299 - $399 for a shower fixture is not overpriced. It is average for a quality fixture.
As usual though, you already have the naysayers out in full force that have made up their feeble static minds that it can't be anything worthwhile or it's price tag... just because... and with nothing to back it up.
Many of you should spend time in a conservation minded society like Germany, also where the utilities are rather expensive.
Almost every single home collects it's garden water in large vats under the roof drains and/or in subterranian vats holding 1000's of liters. Also water-saving faucets and showerheads are the norm, and most people shower/soap, shave, brush their teeth, etc. by turning on and off the water. Many newer houses install waste water loops with a filter system from showers, washing machines, to be used in the toilets or washing the car. Because of energy costs, plumbing is always very well insulated, planned to always travel the shortest distance, and again the water used for heating is often from the recycled supply.
In fact, German society has gotten so good at recycling and using roof run-off water, that many communities charge a tax based on the estimated run-off that they regard as theirs, because of course it's needed to keep the sewer lines clean.
I found this article to be of interest, and the battles conservationists face when bringing out something new.
http://www.wired.com/2010/06/ff_waterless_urinal/