Shower 2.0: now with more air, less water

As much as we'd love to stand in the shower all day while our robot butler wrote these snarky posts, it's pretty unconscionable to waste a kiddie pool's worth of water on a daily basis (not to mention the fact that we don't actually have a robot butler nor any desire to be taunted with "pruneface" remarks). Well even though we can't while away the hours under a soothing stream of aqua, a new invention out of Australia may at least help us prolong what has unfortunately become the best part of our day; since the aerated showerhead invented by researchers at Melbourne's CSIRO Manufacturing Materials Technology uses 30% less water than traditional fixtures, we'd be able to take a 30% longer shower each morning (does that also translate to 30% more cleanliness?). The CSIRO team's device employs a so-called Venturi tube to mix air into each water droplet -- essentially creating hollow drops -- but differs from previous implementations in that test subjects "detected no difference in water pressure, sensation, or overall perception of showering." CSIRO is currently looking for a manufacturing partner to mass produce the ~AUD$20 ($15) unit, so we're putting our bosses on notice right now that we'll soon be 30% later to work than we normally are.

[liquid @ Nov 9th 2006 11:45PM]

we'll have all the extra water we need when the polar caps start melting.

[arkowi @ Nov 9th 2006 11:54PM]

i am 30% interested.

[Blacknimbus @ Nov 9th 2006 11:56PM]

Likely 30 percent more suckiness. This is what science has wrought in the name of 'conservation'. Toilets that don't flush properly, so you have to cycle them 3 times (using more water in the process) and low flow showerheads that just extend bathing rituals an extra 10 mins in the morning and make us all late for work.

[solotak @ Nov 9th 2006 11:58PM]

This is great news for Melbourne, we need all the water saving we can get and the price sounds affordable for everyone so i hope this helps save our water problem :)

[John G @ Nov 10th 2006 12:11AM]

you are now only 70% clean after a shower :/

weak

[Andir3.0 @ Nov 10th 2006 12:31AM]

No matter how many water saver things they come up with I still keep going back to that beautiful, cheap, high-flow Water-Pik showerhead.

[M@ @ Nov 10th 2006 12:49AM]

Actually, a 30% reduction in water use means a much longer shower - not just 30% longer.

Suppose your shower currently uses 100L / min and you shower for 10 mins. You use 1000L of water.

Now suppose your shower uses 30% less - 70L / min. Our 10 min shower now uses only 700L of water.

So let's make our shower 30% longer - we shower for 13 mins and 20 seconds.

A shower of 13 mins 20 seconds at 70L / min would only use 933L - so we're still saving water with a 30% longer shower!

How much longer can we shower before we use up the 1000L of our standard nozzle 10 min shower?

1000 / 70 = 14.285 mins - roughly 14 mins and 17 seconds - or around 43% longer than our original shower!

Saving water kicks ass!


http://braininavat.net/

[jason @ Nov 10th 2006 9:40PM]

at M@

I'm glad I'm not the only one to realizez engadget can't do math properly. You and I should go talk to their accountants and strike a deal...

They start with $100,000 and we start with $100,000. We'll give them 30% of our money, after that they give us 30% of their money. 9% instant return!

[Say What? @ Nov 10th 2006 11:44AM]

Replying to "M@" -- your calculations are correct, but you don't seem to have have a clue about plumbing. A shower using 100L of water per minute would be akin to a waterfall. "Low-Flow" showerheads nowadays use 2.5gpm, or about 10L/min. To further illustrate how silly-high your example numbers are -- we live on a well, and use pump, filtration system and water-softener to meet the water needs of the five people living here (two adults, three kids). We use between 200 and 250gallons PER DAY, which translates to 800-1,000L per day (your example for a 10 min shower). Aside from that, our well-pump is a "heavy-duty" model capable of pumping 22gpm, or ~85L per minute. It couldn't even power your hypothetical 100LPM shower head.

[Nick @ Nov 10th 2006 12:50AM]

1st half of this post = blahblahblah

[... @ Nov 10th 2006 1:30AM]

Umm, venturi's have been around since the late 1700's, and aerated shower heads since the 1970's, so I don't quite see what is no new/revolutionary about this one... Heck, in California you are required by law to use an aerated shower head; or live with the trickle of water that you get from 2.5gpm of water...

[MPG @ Nov 10th 2006 1:34AM]

True. There's practically no news in this post.

[Austin Kim @ Nov 10th 2006 2:20AM]

let's all just leave the shower on and waste more water.

[Olaf @ Nov 10th 2006 5:52AM]

How about just have a normal length shower and save the planet?
Typical american types!

[Pipeline2112 @ Nov 10th 2006 8:44AM]

I still subscribe to Chevy Chase's advice on saving water...

Shower together.

[Oddmanout @ Nov 10th 2006 10:03AM]

I remember these things. I live in Cali, and about 10 - 12 years ago we had a bunch of stuff done to our house to make it more 'efficient'. I adapted well enough I suppose to all the weather stripping (I eventually stopped tripping over it), but the shower heads just suck.

Eventually we added on to our house, and when my sister took over the upstairs bathroom, the downstairs one became mine. Eventually the heater died, and I complained to dad about it. "If you're old enough to complain about that son," intoned my father, "you're old enough to fix it.". 'You mean it dad ? I can use the tools and 'fix' stuff myself from now one ?' I responded. And yeah, the word was given...

The next day I came home with a big grin and a small plastic bag. "That don't look like no new heater to me boy." barked dad. 'Screw the heater, I ain't gonna freeze. But that piece of #@$#@$ shower head is history, man!"

I did eventually replace the heater as well. But as far as being "required by law to use an aerated shower head; or live with the trickle of water that you get from 2.5gpm of water" in California that's news to me. Is it possible that contractors are simply required to INSTALL them along with the gloriously ineffective low-flow toilets, as opposed to higher flow stuff ? Because I purchased a fairly conventional shower head/massager from the local hardware store with NO trouble. I had my choice of 15 different models too...

[Churba @ Nov 10th 2006 10:23AM]

This is better for us than you'd think, American Commenters - After all, you are not the ones in the guts of a major drought.

Practicly no news in this post?

Of course not.

You don't hear every damned day about how low the water levels in your dams are, and then in the same breath hear about how the Almost Moorewellian moonbats shoot down every scientifically viable solution offered, without knowing a damned thing about what they are protesting - all while giving stupid advice like "Well, you could install rainwater tanks!" - Thus Really kinda missing the point that we are in a Drought, Which means that it rains 4/5ths of 5/8ths of Bugger all.

Hey, at Least your country has enough of a pair to declare and continue a war despite it being the unpopular path.

Ours doesn't even have the Balls to stand up and tell a bunch of Dumbass hippies where to shove it, and just do something that might just possibly be the right thing to do, despite that it might make them a little more unpopular.

[Adrian @ Nov 10th 2006 10:35AM]

its funny how americans complain about their toilets when ours use less water and work all the time it is because americans cant admit when they did it the wrong way and keep using an inferior design just because it is theirs

[jason @ Nov 10th 2006 9:40PM]

@Adrian-

"Use it the wrong way?"

When I was in eurpoe I had several sit-downs (as I like to say) and I had to flush two or three times. My cousin laughed because it took him a while to get used to flushing several times as well.

I mean, how do you take a crap wrong (other than forgetting to pull down pants and underwear)? Was I supposed to sit facing the resevoir? Was I supposed to flush as things came out?

[fraggle_rocker @ Nov 10th 2006 11:16AM]

I didnt think standing under water got me clean, i thought thats what the soap and all that jazz was for, the water just washes all the gank off me.

If the showerhead can wash the soap off you at the same pace with 30% less water, well, thats just dandy. Dont know why people would call you 30% more dirty :-S

[Chocolate Starfish @ Nov 10th 2006 11:16AM]

It's because everything is bigger in America. Even our shits.

[Luke @ Nov 10th 2006 11:38AM]

Doesn't look like anyone's concerned about the findings at Wake Forest last year regarding inhaling pollutants in the shower. It would seem that water further mixed with air would be that much easier to breathe into the lungs. Maybe I'm wearing a tinfoil hat here, but beyond Manganese (see link below - or search headline) I bet regional differences in the amount of water pollutants would put _some_ people who buy a showerhead like this at risk...

"Does Manganese Inhaled from the Shower Represent a Public Health Threat?"
http://www1.wfubmc.edu/news/NewsArticle.htm?Articleid=1633

[Raia @ Nov 10th 2006 12:12PM]

I think the water vapor that you inhale is the main culprit. That's how most pollutants get into your system. Wether that means 30% less water is better for you, who knows. I got a shower filter from New Wave Enviro (i think) for like $40 bucks, and would never wanna shower without it. Take all the garbage out beforehand. Im in NYC and we have disgusting water, despite what many will tell you.

[SHOTT3R @ Nov 10th 2006 12:24PM]

I think he was just demonstrating the math that reducing something by 30% and then increasing the result by 30% does not yield the original, but actually less.

[M@ @ Nov 10th 2006 7:33PM]

Yes, you're right. I don't have a clue about plumbing. But I wasn't making any claims about plumbing. I was showing that a 30% reduction in flow allows for a 43% longer duration for the equivalent volume and I was using nice round example numbers to clearly illustrate the reasoning.

Plug in whatever numbers you like and the reasoning works just the same.

[LikesGadgetsWillTravel @ Nov 10th 2006 12:27PM]

Raja, that evo shower filter is not going to take out manganese, chlorine, or any of the stuff that's actually important. It's an activated carbon filter, which pretty much just pulls out aromatics -- stuff that makes your water smell or taste bad. And judging by the size of the filter, it probably doesn't have a life-span of more than a year or so -- that's 1,000-2,000 gallons, assuming you shower 15 min a day at 3-4gpm. If you've had it for more than a year, it'll most likely decrease your water quality, by festering bacteria and such (very similar to Britta filters, which are a haven for the nasties).

[LikesGadgetsWillTravel @ Nov 10th 2006 12:28PM]

Yes, that's what he was trying to do. But even good math doesn't help if the facts are off by an order of magnitude.

[Raia @ Nov 10th 2006 12:38PM]

Gadgets,
$hit, I was under the impression it filtered at least chlorine. Any other options that you would recommend?

[M@ @ Nov 10th 2006 7:25PM]

Not trying to do - did. And I didn't make any factual claims, I was illustrating how the mathematical reasoning works. Note the use of the word 'suppose' ...

Plug in whatever the actual numbers are and you'll find the reasoning works just the same.

[jon @ Nov 10th 2006 1:13PM]

Uh, Bucky Fuller invented a 'fog shower' for his Dymaxion House prototype in the 1930's. It probably would have consumed a dixie cup of water. Probably wouldn't have been a very good shower experience, even if sufficient for cleansing.

But aren't there plent of 1 gpm shower heads out there already?

Not to mention on/off valves that screw in right behind your showerhead, so you can turn the water flow off entirely while you're soaping up.

With those 2 items it's probably pretty easy to use 1/4 of typical water use or less, and still have a very fine shower. Good experience and no extra time involved. Probably costs $10-20, and takes about 15 minutes to install...

Lots of sturdy, cheap old-tech out there waiting for wider adoption.

Glad to see folks are focused on their quality of showering experience!


jon

[James @ Nov 10th 2006 2:11PM]

Just turn of the water when you are applying the soap then turn it back on when you need to rinse! Saves more water that way and you can still get cleaned... Don't waste your money on gimmick products. If you don't change your habits, you won't save anything...

[Supercat @ Nov 10th 2006 4:53PM]

Why not waste water? In case you environmental wackos didn't know, it's a renewable resource. You know, the whole water cycle and all that? That stuff that falls down from the sky every once and a while?

[Adrian @ Nov 10th 2006 10:05PM]

i meant the differant styles of toilets in australia compared to the US because here there is only a small amount of water in the bowl and when you flush the water comes out and pushes the umm sh poo down the toilet which works better than the american ones which are already full and the water only goes down the drain due to gravity

[marc @ Nov 11th 2006 10:52AM]

i'm surprised nobody else noticed that their 30% longer shower will make them 30% later to work...so the only thing you do in the morning before getting to work is take a shower? or is it that taking a longer shower will also delay eating breakfast, getting dressed, commuting, petting the cat, etc.?

sorry, just had to add to the snarkyness.

[Mario @ Apr 30th 2008 7:41PM]

Water would still be wasted down the drain while waiting for hot water to reach the nozzle! The Hot Water Lobster would eliminate this waste of time and water! The Hot Water Lobster Instant Hot Water Valve is The best home water conservation product I've found! It's a recirculation system that uses my existing plumbing! It saves me a lot of time and water by not waiting for hot water! I installed the temperature adjustable recirculation valve under the sink farthest form my water heater and now I have instant hot water throughout my entire home. I have had it for almost 3 years and it still works perfectly!

It%u2019s pump free so it creates no noise. The pumps I've had in the past have been noisy, not to mention I went through 2 of them in 3 years! The Hot Water Lobster is made in the U.S.A. and has a 10-year warranty! I installed it myself in 10 minutes! I bought it from their sit for only $179.95! I have saved that much already! Here's their site:

[Kelly O. @ Apr 30th 2008 7:45PM]

Water would still be wasted down the drain while waiting for hot water to reach the nozzle! A longer shower would also be necessary because of the lack of water. The Hot Water Lobster would eliminate this waste of time and water! The Hot Water Lobster Instant Hot Water Valve is The best home water conservation product I've found! It's a recirculation system that uses my existing plumbing! It saves me a lot of time and water by not waiting for hot water! I installed the temperature adjustable recirculation valve under the sink farthest form my water heater and now I have instant hot water throughout my entire home. I've had it for almost 3 years and it still works perfectly!

It's pump free so it creates no noise. The pumps I've had in the past have been noisy, not to mention I went through 2 of them in 3 years! The Hot Water Lobster is made in the U.S.A. and has a 10-year warranty! I installed it myself in 10 minutes! I bought it from their sit for only $179.95! I have saved that much already! Here's their site:

http://www.hotwaterlobster.com