skirge01

February 14, 2011 at 12:58pm

After my previous comment, I did come up with one feature which could prove useful:  Water usage.  While we do get water bills that show us our total usage, this could be the Kill-A-Watt for water tracking.  The downside, of course, is that--unlike the Kill-A-Watt--you couldn't move this from faucet to faucet.

d3v

February 14, 2011 at 11:49am

It looks like a hammerhead shark.

JlzMT

February 14, 2011 at 11:47am

In addition to what the editor wrote, how about an electronic remote control for the bath, so you could command the tub to fill up (at your preffered water temperature) while you work up the strength to get out of bed, or are making your way back inside from shoveling snow.

Eoraptor

February 14, 2011 at 10:55am

Either this thing is powered by batteries, or by electrical wiring (or maybe voltage through the pipe) but ultimately, it has to be powered as the link says...

Sorry, but I have lived through enough times where a storm knocks out my power and I have to fall back to my pre-20th century survival skills for days to weeks at a time. I'd like to have running water without having to get out a wrench by candle light and remove a fancy but de-powered faucet. Likewise, I have perfectly functional analogue measureing cups that work just fine without having to fidle with buttons or a touch screen. It's a nice geegaw, but hardly practical in life's little emergencies. (and yes, I still own a corded phone for just such reasons)

axiomatic

February 14, 2011 at 10:21am

I agree with everyone else here. !00% cool idea and implementation but what problem are we solving here? Faucets get dirty with germs etc. I would think the objective is to reduce the users ability to transfer germs to the skin and to also increase the ease of use of the device itself. I'm not sure that this device acheives either goal.

• You still have to touch it.
• How can using a small touch interface be simpler than turning a knob?

 

Sorry DORO Design. You get the "E" for effort but an "F" for functional failure as you bring no added ease to the handwashing process.

 

ShyLinuxGuy

February 14, 2011 at 10:06am

Useless...I like touchless faucets (the one where you run your hand under the IR sensor)...

Plus, some five-year-old will manage to get the thingamajig wet and fry it, effectively allowing NO handwashing or sink activities to go on within that particular bathroom/restroom.

skirge01

February 14, 2011 at 7:21am

While I give this an A+ on the "geek factor" (and a C- on the design itself), how is transitioning from no-touch faucets, which are extremely common nowadays, to touch faucets any sort of progression?  Seems more like a regression.

Bobster

February 14, 2011 at 6:58am

Why would you want a faucet that you have to touch with your germy hands? We already have plenty of those.

Ledoubleu

February 14, 2011 at 5:50am

If only it were voice activated (Sink Technology I suppose).