Other Answers (18)

• Do you really want to have less flushing power? Sometimes you really do need to have your maximum water load to properly get everthing flushed.
  Are you actually %26quot;saving%26quot; water? NO! You don%26#039;t spend water like it was money. The flushed water goes to the sewers and out to a water treatment plant. There it is purified, and they it goes back out to the lake to river to continue on. Water isn%26#039;t lost. And you do not actually save much money, pennies a month, if that. BUT if putting a brick in you toilet makes you think you are helping something somehow, then you go right ahead. 0% 0 Votes 0% 0 Votes
• It does conserve water provided you don%26#039;t have to flush twice. Doesn%26#039;t hurt the toilet. 0% 0 Votes
• A brick will displace water from the tank and result in less water to raise the level high enough to stop the flow. You can, though, just adjust the float in your tank by either bending the rod downward or in some cases, adjust the rposition of the rod with an adjusting screw. These methods are better than a brick in the tank. Bricks will break down over time and add sediment to the water. This can get stuck in the valve and cause leakage and stains in your bowl 0% 0 Votes
• yes, or use a plastic liter bottle filled with rocks 20% 1 Vote
• No ! Logic, aka common sense. 0% 0 Votes
• I was told by a plumber that the brick will eventually break down and hurt the toilet. He said I should use a 20-24 ounce plastic soda bottle and fill it with water. It saves a lot of water with repeated use. 20% 1 Vote
• Yes - obvious physics - refer to other answers I%26#039;m only adding to the thread to suggest you put a brick in your fridge too. That helps maintain low temp and offset the loss with frequent opening and closing. Really saves energy. 0% 0 Votes
• Traditional toilets used a certain amount of water to flush with for a very good reason. And that reason was to get a complete flush. The new toilets that %26quot;save%26quot; water flush so ineffectively that they have to be flushed twice, and sometimes more. So they really don%26#039;t %26quot;save water.%26quot; What they do however is make a hell of a lot of money for manufacturers, and plumbers. It%26#039;s the same old story, when something is forced into obsolescence, rather than becoming obsolete when something truly better comes along. It makes money. It%26#039;s the same with all this baloney about how much %26quot;better%26quot; flourescent light bulbs are than incandescent. If they were better, would people not have to be bribed, and brow-beaten with propaganda in order for them to use them? There is talk in California and Nevada about outlawing incandescent bulbs. Now why in the world would they have to do that if flourescent bulbs were really better? People will use the best product without being told to, or forced to. As far a brick in a toilet goes....if you take a good healthy dump, and want it all flushed, leave the brick and the water bottle out. 0% 0 Votes
• If you have an older toilet, it is a great idea. 0% 0 Votes
• Yes, it works and no, it won%26#039;t hurt the toilet. It actually displaces about 1 gallon of water per flush. 0% 0 Votes