Peggie Hall wrote in news:qprGf.10211$2O6.4708
@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com:

Your note that manual works better than the electric is true of all
"electrified" manual toilets. Putting motors on manual toilets does
nothing more than replace the pump handle...they're still manual pumps,
and motors do not do as good a job of pumping as people do.

Peggie


Whatever happened to Monomatic recirculating toilets? I replaced the cheap
RV flusher on a motorhome I had a long time ago with a Monomatic. With the
recirculating toilet dumping into a 33 gallon holding tank, you only had to
go to a dump station once a trip! I got the Monomatic for free from an
Airstream owner whos squeemish wife just couldn't understand flushing with
the same water over and over...(c;

Those things still made? They worked great!

Well, I have a couple of Lavacs. With five years live aboard use I've
had three re-builds -- easy but not fun -- and two clogs that required
disassembly. Most of my marine sanitation problems have been with the
Y-valves and I can't blame Lavac for them. Some folks don't like the
seats on Lavacs. They take more cleaning because the seals leave a
mark and they can be a bit damp if cycled quickly... All in all
they're pretty good kit.

-- Tom.

Larry wrote:
Whatever happened to Monomatic recirculating toilets? I replaced the cheap
RV flusher on a motorhome I had a long time ago with a Monomatic. With the
recirculating toilet dumping into a 33 gallon holding tank, you only had to
go to a dump station once a trip! I got the Monomatic for free from an
Airstream owner whos squeemish wife just couldn't understand flushing with
the same water over and over...(c;

Those things still made? They worked great!

It was discontinued about 25 years ago 'cuz you were one of the few
people who liked it.

Danforth also made a recirculator for a while in the '70s...it didn't
last as long as the Monomatic, for the same reason.

The marine versions were actually certified as Type I MSDs, intended to
be discharged overboard when full. They weren't too bad when used that
way, 'cuz they only held 5 gal, 3 of which was the "charge" of chemical
and water...they were dumped often enough to keep 'em from stinking. But
when they had to go into a tank, PEEEEEUUUW!

--
Peggie
----------
Peggie Hall
Specializing in marine sanitation since 1987
Author "Get Rid of Boat Odors - A Guide To Marine Sanitation Systems and
Other Sources of Aggravation and Odor"
http://shop.sailboatowners.com/books...ku=90&cat=1304

Peggie Hall wrote in news:7AAGf.23192$Jd.6763
@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net:

It was discontinued about 25 years ago 'cuz you were one of the few
people who liked it.



Thanks for the info. Guess I'm not grossed out as easily as most of the
population. It smelled like the chemical mix in it, formaldehyde-based
which was probably its demise.

Larry wrote:
Thanks for the info. Guess I'm not grossed out as easily as most of the
population. It smelled like the chemical mix in it, formaldehyde-based
which was probably its demise.

Formadehyde wasn't the reason...there are still several formaldehyde
holding tank products on the market. And some "non-formaldehyde"
chemical products that are equally, if not more, lethal.

Recirculating waste works well in large systems like those on
jetliners...it's an aesthetic horror, both sight and smell, in small
systems.


--
Peggie
----------
Peggie Hall
Specializing in marine sanitation since 1987
Author "Get Rid of Boat Odors - A Guide To Marine Sanitation Systems and
Other Sources of Aggravation and Odor"
http://shop.sailboatowners.com/books...ku=90&cat=1304