[Greenbuilding] low flow shower heads

[Reuben Deumling]

On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 12:32 PM, Jason Holstine <jason at amicusgreen.com>wrote:

>  *slight shape or design difference*—bigger, rounder, oblonger,
> squarer....
>
style = higher price; fine.

There are definitely *performance differences *though, obviously in the
> potential water and energy savings—most are 1.75 to 2.5GPM—and especially in
> the pressure...many on this list would be fine with a Navy shower or weak
> shower,
>
This is what I'm interested in, but I'm surprised you lump Navy with weak.
My sense of the value of the button is precisely that it does not in any way
interfere with the 'strength' or other qualities of the shower. It
represents an opportunity to change the coincidence of acts performed in the
shower with water consumption, but I'd be inclined to separate pressure and
the presence or absence of a soap valve.


> but the other 99.2% of the populace is much more picky.
>
I'm not sure we know this. Most folks I've mentioned the shower valve/soap
button to haven't heard of it and seem to immediately like the idea--which
of course doesn't mean they go out and find one and install it and live
happily ever after, but it makes me suspicious of your percentage figure.


> *Durability and place of origin* also factors.
>
Say more. I happen to be inclined toward favoring both when I shop for
shoes, appliances, etc., but it hadn't occurred to me that a showerhead (a)
would be identified as domestically produced, or (b) that there were
significant differences in durability. I'm curious--what are the wear parts
on a showerhead?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20110513/2c6d2237/attachment.html>