A little advice on my thesis please.

[sudsmaster]

Um, a modern front loader doesn't do as good a job of creating and filtering lint as an older top loader. There are multiple reasons for this: the tumble action is more gentle than agitation so the fabrics don't produce as much lint in the first place; there is less water so there is less water current to slosh lint away; the lint filter is in the drain and is "self cleaning". Most front loaders don't have a recirculation pump so they don't continuously filter lint out of the wash water like older agitator equipped top loaders.

It's not a simple matter of having a better lint filter. The general design of a front loader produces less lint from the fabric than a traditional top loader. Extraneous foreign matter like pet hair is a different matter, but I submit it's more energy efficient to vacuum or shake that off prior to washing in a front loader than to try to heat four times as much wash water to get rid of it in a top loader. That said, of course a vintage top loader with overflow rinses and waterfall lint filters are far more entertaining to watch, but energy efficiency is not a reason to use one.

 

[volvoguy87]

Pet hair.

My cat was a short hair, but what she lacked in hair length she more than made up for in sheer volume of shedding. She never went bald, and she was healthy, she just shed... A LOT! She also liked to perch on people's left shoulders, depositing enough cat hair in the process to cover another cat. We brushed her every day but still, my life was adrift in a sea of kitty fuzz. No amount of shaking, vacuuming, or even lint-rollering ever seemed to tame it. Each load in the A208 resulted in a 3-inch of glob (mostly cat hair) on the lint filter. Since I moved (and temporarily left my kitty behind) the glob is down to about the size of a nickel.

I agree that a less-aggressive washing action reduces the amount of lint created in the washing process, but one of the reasons why I wash clothes is to get rid of the lint and hair they seem to collect outside of the washer. I have yet to be satisfied with the results from a washer lacking a lint filter or featuring a self cleaning lint filter.

Incidentally, the best lint filtering I have ever encountered is on my grandmother's GE Filter Flo. It is probably later 1970s, with toggleswitches and an extra rinse knob. It's strange, to me, in that it has a str8 vane agitator, instead of a ramp. Its strokes are so short and fast, I can only imagine the amount of lint created by that violent washing action. Which performs better, given the violent agitation, the str8 vane, or the ramp activator?

For the record, I do not think that a conventional top-loader, even reusing wash water and 1 tub of rinse water, is likely to be more efficient than a front loader. I do believe that the water use of conventional top loaders can be significantly reduced by reusing the water from some cycles. This reduced water usage, combined with better cleaning abilities, for both oil and lint, and much shorter cycle times, may make conventional top loaders a viable option in the marketplace again without having to reinvent laundry day. Front loaders have their place, but so do top loaders.

This is a fun thread
Dave

 

[lederstiefel1]

Hi Dave!

Sorry, but couldn't reply earlier, as I wasn't on the computer for whole X-mas long!

I agree totally with what you write - and always did so, since the age of about 14/16 when evberybody called me nuts about my ideas... I never minded though as many still do!

Today, at the age of 46, I still believe in that theory, especially as it has been proved in several situations throughout my time on this planet! (wickedly grinning...!!)

As I said already - tub-washers are a pure luxury and total waste as long as they are fully automatic, meaning in this case using the (wash-)water only once!

I've heard so often that allegedly agitating is more agressive to the fabric than tumbling, but my experiences throughout a time of 30 years of washing in many machines tells me something different! As long as a machine is CORRECTLY loaded (not overloaded) a quick bathing in a lot of suds is much less stressing than a tumbling for about 2 to 2.5 hours in a drum! Just think about the rubbing when a load (nowadays 6-10 kg machines) of 24-40kg of wet fabric (garments soak up 3 times their own weight of water!) is rolling, kneeding and tumbling over eachother in a revolving drum whereas the same amount in a tub-washer is swimming in the wash-water! I agree that especially pulsator-machines with a one-way driving impeller isn't the most delicate way to do a wash (e.g. HOOVER) but because of the short wash-times it is impossible to me to believe the story of strain to the fabric.
There is one significant sign that shows me how abbrasive tumbling is: I once made a test with several guest-towels (four and all the same) which I washed each one in a load in a different type of machine (pulsator Hoovermatic, agitator SpeedQueen, agitator Hotpoint TwinTub and tumbler Quelle Matura). The results: all towels which came out of a tub-washer had a very smooth and equal appearance of the fabric, looking like newly bought actually, compared to the one out of the FL: very well done but the fabric looked harsh, crumbled and all the terry-cloth's meshs were disarranged and cluttered. Also were all others in no need of a softener as the fibres were not mat together which occurs in a dry-rigour later during line-drying when not tumbled dry.

Second thesis of mine:
It is hard to avoid the following question!
Isn't it obvious that there was once an arrangement between the companies that produce washers and dryers (and other energy consuming appliances) and the providers of energy!
They just needed to force the inhabitants of a whole nation (e.g. US, Canada, Australia) to use more energy by leaving no escape not to do so!
But to control a whole nation and force it to consume more and more energy, filling the pockets of the bosses and shareholders regardeless to the environment, it needed a plan which is as easy as effective.
First every household needed to get an AUTOMATIC machine instead of wringer washers and twin-tubs. ("no more washing days!") Well, first a lot of women may have complained of the higher costs these machines would evoke but that was easily rationalized away when they offered machines with a suds-saver option, which was mostly manual and not automatic (in the sence of optional)! Women got used to led the machine run without suds-saving more and more often, first by forgetting to set it and later...well just doing it no more...
Next gerenation of machines had NO suds-saver anymore and these suds-saver models disappeared completely from the market... Now every new washer was fully automatic and one-way...
After a few years, when society was accustomed to it also the fluff filtering disappeared and dryers became more and more a need... (" no more drying drugdery!")
But that wasn't the end of the spiral - there was even more energy to be used and even more money to be made...
Just slightly drop the spin-speed from once 1100 rpm to somewhat 650 rpm ("less wrinkles - less ironing" was the slogan!) and parallely make more powerful (and more energy consuming) dryers to compensate the drying-time.
And so they were all on a drip of the industry filling their bosses pockets and could not escape from it...

But mankind had made the bill without the universe!
Uninhibited energy consumption ends up in a change of the climate worldwide with all the consequences...
We have already gone so far that a full braking is inevitable. FLs appear on the market within a blink of an eye in the countries named above and these with an energy consumption and water usage that is going to hit the physical limits. (Again industry tells you: The dead of the conventional TL washer is just a matter of time and an agreed fact. A new generation of washers with a much better washing performance will hit the market now, namely FLs! - strange to say that this type of washers is known since the beginning of washer production worldwide (e.g. Bendix)...isn't it?)

What was the saying in The Lord of The Rings?
"One ring to bind them all!"

Have a nice time and think it over - there's not only that ring on the way on mother earth!

Ralf