I think I would prefer a hidden switch on the edge of the vanity that you leaned on to make it run. That way you don't have to touch anything and donlt need a complicated motion sensor but using just the water you need becomes just a part of the handwashing motion
That was kind of where I was thinking with floor pedal, but this sounds like a much better implementation. In particular, there's no off switch and no artificially set duration, just the exact time you need.
I really like the pedal solution, e.g. for portable hand washing stations. You use only the water you need because you have to do something active for every surge of water you want. It can also be implemented without water pressure, since the pedal can attach to a lever that lifts water above the faucet.
The advantage of the current faucet design is simplicity and lack of a need for electricity (needed for motion sensors and the like).
The disadvantage is that recommended hand-washing practice really, really, encourages wasting water. Ideally, you are supposed to wet your hands, scrub with soap for at least 20 seconds, paying special attention to the area around the nails and between the fingers, rinse under water, dry using a fresh, clean, paper towel, and then turn off the water using the paper towel. "Easy to turn off with a wet hand" is the wrong design criterion (you turned it on with a dirty hand, turning it off with a clean, wet, hand is counterproductive).
Something which allows you to turn it on and off without touching anything with your hand is an advantage.
It also needs to be obvious how it works. Otherwise you get awkward questions like "What are the three sea shells for?".
I was thinking more about home use, as commercial sinks are already designed differently and often have digital settings. I hope you're not using paper towels at home every time you wash your hands.
Having a minimal-contact on/off switch is the next best thing to having a zero-contact switch. vrimj's suggestion, above, sounds optimal.
I think that proximity-activated sinks have already proved themselves in commercial settings--some designs working far better than others, of course--with easy-on, easier-off, and either long battery life or A/C connection, not sure which is prevalent.
So, if we accept as given that people not concerned with wasting water aren't going to pay attention to the rate of flow, how do you address the following scenario?
1) Wasteful person starts sink 2) Wasteful person discovers rate of flow is unsatisfactory, increases flow via twist knob 3) Wasteful person, who isn't completely and utterly wasteful, turns off faucet via button
What state is the faucet going to be in, next time it's turned on? Since the user is not concerned with excessive flow rates, but only with insufficient ones, the tendency over time will be to maximize the flow rate setting. If the faucet will include a self-adjust functionality, and return to the default setting, the user will become frustrated after a few times, curse and, given the slightest opportunity, replace the damned thing.
I'd propose instead a faucet that *appears* to have excessive flow, but doesn't actually. Aerator heads already do this.
This isn't an area where I expect legislating conservationist principles to achieve the desired effect. It's *plumbing*, for crying out loud. You're adding a device that can, almost invariably, be removed with a pair of pliers and a wrench, and need not be replaced. You're also adding numerous points of failure that are not present in the current system (the most obvious one being that the system is likely going to need a continuous supply of power at each faucet). What's being proposed is more failure-prone, more complex, and more expensive to manufacture and install than the existing system. Haven't we just gone through a similar process with CF bulbs?
To clarify: CF bulbs have been touted as a massive energy-saving device. Instead, the pressure to lower their retail costs resulted in a product that is still 3-5 times more expensive than the incandescent bulbs, contains neurotoxins, and has a very high failure rate; the actual lifespan isn't even close to the advertised 10,000 hours.
While we're at it, I'd like to see a design for selecting water temperature that involves an electric heater with thermostat built into the tap (sorry I'm calling them taps, I'm english) and a small preheating chamber where the water stays until it reaches the desired temperature. So you turn the tap on, there is a pause, and then you get water at the desired temperature. Instead of, you turn the tap on, run water until it gets to the right temperature, etc.
Heating water on-demand (even with electricity) is more efficient than storing it in an insulated tank then transporting it across the house, so this should have energy-saving benefits as well as water-saving and as well as general niceness. :)
Of course this thought was partly brought on by the taps at work which have those crazy 'warning! water is very hot!' stickers (and the stickers are true, once it runs enough to reach that temperature). Why are they heating water to scalding temperatures just so that you can hurt your hand and they have to put stickers above the tap?
Sure, demand water heaters exist - my parents have one (runs on gas), it's fine. The innovation I'm suggesting... which may well be impractical, I don't know... is more about precision - the water doesn't run, at all, until it's heated to the specified temperature.
The showers I used in Central America that had hot water generally used a similar system. An electric device (typically with slightly sketchy-looking wires strung right near water) with a small (quart?) reservoir sat on top of the shower head with three settings: off, half, on. When on (I never tried half), it produces a fixed amount of instantly-heated hot water. You control the temperature of the shower by modulating the total flow; since the heater has a finite capacity, increasing the flow leads to more cold water in the final blend. Consequentially, the more pressure in your shower, the colder it is. That's disappointing to luxurious North American shower aficionados, but it is essentially limitless in duration.
This sort of a solution is, I would think, vastly cheaper and easier to install in a third world dwelling than a water heater tank solution.
Comments 27
Reply
Reply
Reply
The disadvantage is that recommended hand-washing practice really, really, encourages wasting water. Ideally, you are supposed to wet your hands, scrub with soap for at least 20 seconds, paying special attention to the area around the nails and between the fingers, rinse under water, dry using a fresh, clean, paper towel, and then turn off the water using the paper towel. "Easy to turn off with a wet hand" is the wrong design criterion (you turned it on with a dirty hand, turning it off with a clean, wet, hand is counterproductive).
Something which allows you to turn it on and off without touching anything with your hand is an advantage.
It also needs to be obvious how it works. Otherwise you get awkward questions like "What are the three sea shells for?".
Reply
Having a minimal-contact on/off switch is the next best thing to having a zero-contact switch. vrimj's suggestion, above, sounds optimal.
Reply
Reply
1) Wasteful person starts sink
2) Wasteful person discovers rate of flow is unsatisfactory, increases flow via twist knob
3) Wasteful person, who isn't completely and utterly wasteful, turns off faucet via button
What state is the faucet going to be in, next time it's turned on? Since the user is not concerned with excessive flow rates, but only with insufficient ones, the tendency over time will be to maximize the flow rate setting. If the faucet will include a self-adjust functionality, and return to the default setting, the user will become frustrated after a few times, curse and, given the slightest opportunity, replace the damned thing.
I'd propose instead a faucet that *appears* to have excessive flow, but doesn't actually. Aerator heads already do this.
Reply
Which is why one eventually doesn't give them the option to do so, as in low-flow toilets.
Reply
Reply
I'm very hopeful about the first entry being submitted for the L Prize. Would the prize have even been introduced if we'd simply legislated the CFL as the only available option?
Reply
Heating water on-demand (even with electricity) is more efficient than storing it in an insulated tank then transporting it across the house, so this should have energy-saving benefits as well as water-saving and as well as general niceness. :)
Of course this thought was partly brought on by the taps at work which have those crazy 'warning! water is very hot!' stickers (and the stickers are true, once it runs enough to reach that temperature). Why are they heating water to scalding temperatures just so that you can hurt your hand and they have to put stickers above the tap?
Reply
Reply
Reply
This sort of a solution is, I would think, vastly cheaper and easier to install in a third world dwelling than a water heater tank solution.
Reply
Leave a comment