Article from Pop Mechanics on fluid drive
- Thread starter washman
- Start date
Help Support :
arbilab
Well-known member
Fluid coupling is groovy. Lets the startup slippage take place in oil which responds by warming somewhat, non-destructively. Like your automatic car sits idling at a light while still 'in gear'. The directional/sprag/roller clutch really doesn't wear much, as it locks the instant the motor reverses for spin and undergoes no friction to speak of. Your automatic car is FULL of sprag clutches, seldom a cause of malfunction. Every reversing-motor washer has one, and even non-reversing like Westinghouse 3-belts do.
So the article doesn't really answer the question, why that customer's SQ kept destroying fluid couplings. I mean, if ANYbody chronically abuses washers it's coinop customers, and SQ washers don't chronically fail in those applications. The whole idea of fluid coupling is that it's immune to abuse. But SOMEthing was happening at that household.
I'm partial to legacy Maytag's spin clutch. In spin with a static basket, the belt slacks and tightens as the basket reaches operating speed. There IS a wear element, but it's external, inexpensive, and readily replaced: the belt. There's STILL a sprag clutch for spin but Maytag experts, how often does it cause a problem?
A potential troublemaker is the legacy Whirlpool spin clutch. Much like a manual car's, it actually DOES slip friction elements. But again, Whirlpool experts, how often does THAT cause a problem, compared to others within that design?
Nowadays with all the FLs and even some TLs, spin start is done electronically. Which has the potential of being trouble free. But in practice, is it? And the answer to almost everything is 'replace the module' for over $100.
So the article doesn't really answer the question, why that customer's SQ kept destroying fluid couplings. I mean, if ANYbody chronically abuses washers it's coinop customers, and SQ washers don't chronically fail in those applications. The whole idea of fluid coupling is that it's immune to abuse. But SOMEthing was happening at that household.
I'm partial to legacy Maytag's spin clutch. In spin with a static basket, the belt slacks and tightens as the basket reaches operating speed. There IS a wear element, but it's external, inexpensive, and readily replaced: the belt. There's STILL a sprag clutch for spin but Maytag experts, how often does it cause a problem?
A potential troublemaker is the legacy Whirlpool spin clutch. Much like a manual car's, it actually DOES slip friction elements. But again, Whirlpool experts, how often does THAT cause a problem, compared to others within that design?
Nowadays with all the FLs and even some TLs, spin start is done electronically. Which has the potential of being trouble free. But in practice, is it? And the answer to almost everything is 'replace the module' for over $100.
Fluid Drive VS Clutches
The problem with SQs FD was it always slips a little and it wastes power, while not a big deal on a washing machine overall it is still not an ideal system [ notice that no washer manufacturer uses it today ]
All reversing motor washers DO NOT have springs in their drive system, example, Maytag's great helical drive washers [ 1956-2006 ] and no springs were ever used in WPs Direct Drive washers drive system.
The problem with Maytag's simple using the belt as a clutch system is that it too always slips a little under full speed spin with a heavy or slightly unbalanced load. You can demonstrate this by using a tack on the spinning wash basket and taking your food and applying force against the motor to tighten the drive belt and you will see a pickup in speed. On a WP BD or DD or even a GE FF washer there is no measurable clutch slippage once the basket is spinning for a minute or more.
The problem with SQs FD was it always slips a little and it wastes power, while not a big deal on a washing machine overall it is still not an ideal system [ notice that no washer manufacturer uses it today ]
All reversing motor washers DO NOT have springs in their drive system, example, Maytag's great helical drive washers [ 1956-2006 ] and no springs were ever used in WPs Direct Drive washers drive system.
The problem with Maytag's simple using the belt as a clutch system is that it too always slips a little under full speed spin with a heavy or slightly unbalanced load. You can demonstrate this by using a tack on the spinning wash basket and taking your food and applying force against the motor to tighten the drive belt and you will see a pickup in speed. On a WP BD or DD or even a GE FF washer there is no measurable clutch slippage once the basket is spinning for a minute or more.
I would have to assume
based upon the large number of components involved in the classic SQ setup, that cost was the primary consideration (after the purchase by Raytheon) to do away with the Arc-Q-Matic 210 along with fluid drive.
I'll bet same thing with WCI discontinuing the complicated "matic" drive of the GM produced Frigidaire TL machines.
based upon the large number of components involved in the classic SQ setup, that cost was the primary consideration (after the purchase by Raytheon) to do away with the Arc-Q-Matic 210 along with fluid drive.
I'll bet same thing with WCI discontinuing the complicated "matic" drive of the GM produced Frigidaire TL machines.
makes you wonder, they went from heavy sturdy metal constuction to cheaper metals and plastics......but the cost savings was not seen by the consumer....
even machines like the Cabrio, LG, and Samsung......there is so much plastic, and yet the prices are way upto 1000.00 or more for one machine.....which doesn't stand a chance of lasting 30 years...
people today still buy Maytag under the assumption of a dependable unit built to last.....
and most boast about the length of warranties on the tub or motor......but what really fails, and is only covered for the most part of 1 year....bearings, seals, and control boards...
even machines like the Cabrio, LG, and Samsung......there is so much plastic, and yet the prices are way upto 1000.00 or more for one machine.....which doesn't stand a chance of lasting 30 years...
people today still buy Maytag under the assumption of a dependable unit built to last.....
and most boast about the length of warranties on the tub or motor......but what really fails, and is only covered for the most part of 1 year....bearings, seals, and control boards...
arbilab
Well-known member
Are we confusing/interchanging 'sprags' and 'springs'? 'Sprag' is rather a generic term for one-way clutch which grabs in one direction but not in the other. One type of sprag (Westinghouse) uses a spring (coil actually, the axial 'springiness' of the coil is not used), the ones in cars (to which the name properly applies) do not. Not that it matters much. VERY few customers know or care what they have and neither is particularly prone to failure.
Fluid couplings take a lot of machine work to manufacture. = time + tooling = money, thus discontinued. As far as extraction efficacy, the 'slippage' of either fluid or slack-belt is negligee (sic) when your target speed is only 600RPM.
Fluid couplings take a lot of machine work to manufacture. = time + tooling = money, thus discontinued. As far as extraction efficacy, the 'slippage' of either fluid or slack-belt is negligee (sic) when your target speed is only 600RPM.
repair-man
Well-known member
Waisting power ?
I don't think it is very reasonable to say that SQ fluid drive or MT slipping belts are (and should not be) used today because they waste power. I would guess cost to be the big factor against fluid drive. Speed Queen today uses a slipping belt. And even if the clutch system that Whirlpool uses does not slip at all after full speed is reached does not mean that it is more efficient. How about all the motor energy used in a WP belt drive to constantly turn the agitate gears even when the washer is spinning (or just draining) ? I am not arguing one to be better or worse than the other. If I could I would go out today and buy a brand new WP belt drive, MT helical drive, etc. The so called "energy stars" of today may use less resources for the short time that they are in the home but all that and more is lost when it ends up in the trash after 5 years.
I don't think it is very reasonable to say that SQ fluid drive or MT slipping belts are (and should not be) used today because they waste power. I would guess cost to be the big factor against fluid drive. Speed Queen today uses a slipping belt. And even if the clutch system that Whirlpool uses does not slip at all after full speed is reached does not mean that it is more efficient. How about all the motor energy used in a WP belt drive to constantly turn the agitate gears even when the washer is spinning (or just draining) ? I am not arguing one to be better or worse than the other. If I could I would go out today and buy a brand new WP belt drive, MT helical drive, etc. The so called "energy stars" of today may use less resources for the short time that they are in the home but all that and more is lost when it ends up in the trash after 5 years.
Five years
"The so called "energy stars" of today may use less resources for the short time that they are in the home but all that and more is lost when it ends up in the trash after 5 years. "
..........would be a stretch for some brands today.
On a related note, just got done reading our erstwhile Prez's declaration that we need to cut coal fired emissions by 30%. Naturally, as has been the case since he took office, my electric bill has gone up and up and up and up (never mind all the "eco-friendly" appliances in use).
But never fear, I am told, after all what I pay more for in electricity will more than be offset in lower health care costs (!). Funny, I have yet to visit a medical practitioner because of emissions from coal fired power plants. Come to think of it, I'm not even sure we have any left in W PA. Coal fired plants that is.
But back to the article and comments posted thereafter, this has been one of my gripes from day one when joining this forum. All the wonderful eco nonsense is moot when the machines themselves are so poorly made that they don't last much beyond the warranty. Cost to repair vs cost to replace means the eco-sanctioned machine winds up on the city dump.
Then there's the so-called washing machine cleaners! If that is not a total crock of bull, then I don't know what is. I had a pre eco 1999 GE along with the current SQ. Neither are eco-sanctioned. Neither mentioned in the instructions to "run an approved cleaner ever x number of days" Why? Because both had tap hot temperature options and used plenty of water to dissolve the detergent and and dissipate the dirt removed from the clothes.
Thus the only chemical I put in the SQ is.....................detergent! Well, except for some fab softener depending on the load.
I find it somewhat amusing and depressing at the same time to read about how sheeple just simply accept what they are told and rarely question. No one looks at the laundry budget now that said user has to by Affresh or some other concoction to clean the very machine that should be designed to clean your laundry. No one has tallied up the cost of water and electricity used that does NOT clean your laundry but rather cleans the machine................(!)
I've researched many an old school machine and looked at user manuals, comments, remembrances, etc and I cannot find one single statement that directs user to run a clean cycle. Not one.
"The so called "energy stars" of today may use less resources for the short time that they are in the home but all that and more is lost when it ends up in the trash after 5 years. "
..........would be a stretch for some brands today.
On a related note, just got done reading our erstwhile Prez's declaration that we need to cut coal fired emissions by 30%. Naturally, as has been the case since he took office, my electric bill has gone up and up and up and up (never mind all the "eco-friendly" appliances in use).
But never fear, I am told, after all what I pay more for in electricity will more than be offset in lower health care costs (!). Funny, I have yet to visit a medical practitioner because of emissions from coal fired power plants. Come to think of it, I'm not even sure we have any left in W PA. Coal fired plants that is.
But back to the article and comments posted thereafter, this has been one of my gripes from day one when joining this forum. All the wonderful eco nonsense is moot when the machines themselves are so poorly made that they don't last much beyond the warranty. Cost to repair vs cost to replace means the eco-sanctioned machine winds up on the city dump.
Then there's the so-called washing machine cleaners! If that is not a total crock of bull, then I don't know what is. I had a pre eco 1999 GE along with the current SQ. Neither are eco-sanctioned. Neither mentioned in the instructions to "run an approved cleaner ever x number of days" Why? Because both had tap hot temperature options and used plenty of water to dissolve the detergent and and dissipate the dirt removed from the clothes.
Thus the only chemical I put in the SQ is.....................detergent! Well, except for some fab softener depending on the load.
I find it somewhat amusing and depressing at the same time to read about how sheeple just simply accept what they are told and rarely question. No one looks at the laundry budget now that said user has to by Affresh or some other concoction to clean the very machine that should be designed to clean your laundry. No one has tallied up the cost of water and electricity used that does NOT clean your laundry but rather cleans the machine................(!)
I've researched many an old school machine and looked at user manuals, comments, remembrances, etc and I cannot find one single statement that directs user to run a clean cycle. Not one.
of course not...because a big deal of old school machines, especially the introduction of Automatics, is it cleans itself!.....
what next....'clean' the dishwasher before you load dirty dishes!
sweep the carpet before you vacuum!
wash your hands before using the restroom!.......
just wait.....its coming!
what next....'clean' the dishwasher before you load dirty dishes!
sweep the carpet before you vacuum!
wash your hands before using the restroom!.......
just wait.....its coming!
Have to Agree, Washman
Not reluctantly, though!
I just saw the Republican Senator's comments on (our) ABC this morning - about the "Out of Control" EPA in your country. I immediately thought of you, (as well as other's) comments on the Eco-Nazi appliances of today, that are less eco than their predecessors because of their short life.
ANYWAY, just wanted to add in to the somewhat off-topic discussion going on:
IMO, I can't help but wonder if these washer-cleaners being marketed today are designed for the laundry-illerate generation who don't take the time to read the ****in manual!
They wash in Cold, on the Short cycle with tons of the cheapest detergent and fabric softener (or, heaven forbid, PODS), never in warm or hot, and NEVER leave the machine's door ajar.
ANY machine, used PROPERLY should keep itself clean, and maintenance free. Our washer (a Miele) does. I can't recall what the manual says, but it will remind you to wash in hot water every 50 washes if you don't, to help keep the machine hygienic.
That notice has not appeared for us: We wash in 60º (140ºF) at least thrice a week, and the rest is done between 40º-50º (104-130ºF) - and the machine is clean.
But I don't doubt that lack of longetevity in machines today. You only had to look at our POS Simpson washer that came before the Miele. It was two years old when it needed a new lid-lock and a "daughter board" because of some stupid electrocution risk - and it was not working properly after that, and make all manner of squeaks, clunks and squawks during operation.
Getting back on topic, the Speed-Queen fluid-drive seems like a very intelligent design, and I believe that the (far petter quality, Australian Made) Simpson washers had them. In fact, I believe member "Mayfan" (Leon) has one of those machines. Perhaps he can chime in?
Not reluctantly, though!
I just saw the Republican Senator's comments on (our) ABC this morning - about the "Out of Control" EPA in your country. I immediately thought of you, (as well as other's) comments on the Eco-Nazi appliances of today, that are less eco than their predecessors because of their short life.
ANYWAY, just wanted to add in to the somewhat off-topic discussion going on:
IMO, I can't help but wonder if these washer-cleaners being marketed today are designed for the laundry-illerate generation who don't take the time to read the ****in manual!
They wash in Cold, on the Short cycle with tons of the cheapest detergent and fabric softener (or, heaven forbid, PODS), never in warm or hot, and NEVER leave the machine's door ajar.
ANY machine, used PROPERLY should keep itself clean, and maintenance free. Our washer (a Miele) does. I can't recall what the manual says, but it will remind you to wash in hot water every 50 washes if you don't, to help keep the machine hygienic.
That notice has not appeared for us: We wash in 60º (140ºF) at least thrice a week, and the rest is done between 40º-50º (104-130ºF) - and the machine is clean.
But I don't doubt that lack of longetevity in machines today. You only had to look at our POS Simpson washer that came before the Miele. It was two years old when it needed a new lid-lock and a "daughter board" because of some stupid electrocution risk - and it was not working properly after that, and make all manner of squeaks, clunks and squawks during operation.
Getting back on topic, the Speed-Queen fluid-drive seems like a very intelligent design, and I believe that the (far petter quality, Australian Made) Simpson washers had them. In fact, I believe member "Mayfan" (Leon) has one of those machines. Perhaps he can chime in?
Wasting Power
Edward, good point about the frictional loss of having the gear train running on WPs DD washers when the machine is just draining or spinning, this type of engineering does waste power. WPs new BD TL washers do not run the transmission gears when draining or spinning, and the new BD washers use just 1/3 of the electricity compared to the old DD washers. [ or any other older style washer that uses a split-phase motor for that matter ]
SQs TL washers with a slipping belt will be very soon redesigned to reduce power consumption.
Also I am not confusing springs and one way clutches, WP BD, DD, NEW BD and MT helical drive washers do not use either in their drive system to change from wash to spin when the motor reverses.
But we must all look at the bigger picture, a new WP BD washer takes well less than 1/4 the energy to produce and transport to your home compared to an older 70s style washer, so even if it only lasted 5 years this country is way ahead in saving energy and when you factor in the savings in water consumption, hot water use, electrical consumption and the energy saved by the superior water extraction when the clothing goes in the dryer you are not even close to the amount of coal, gas and oil that were consumed with the old way of doing things.
It is also a MIRTH that 1970s SQ washers very often lasted even 10 years let alone 15 or 20. SQ TL washers in the 70s were about the LEAST reliable washer brand, even Norge and Westinghouse washers would often outlast them. I don't recall ever seeing a reversing SQ last much more than 10 years and we threw plenty away when they were just over 5 years of age.
And yes I have seen a few of WPs new BD TL washers already replaced already, but when you consider that our company has done only about 15 service calls on these new machines out of more than 7000 [ 1750 on automatic washers ] in home service calls we run a year the record on this new washer might just be better than any other washer in history. So unless one of you have a crystal ball and can tell me just how long these new machines are going to last on average, I am going to say, from my professional experience that I think they will average between 10 and 30 years before most get replaced.
Edward, good point about the frictional loss of having the gear train running on WPs DD washers when the machine is just draining or spinning, this type of engineering does waste power. WPs new BD TL washers do not run the transmission gears when draining or spinning, and the new BD washers use just 1/3 of the electricity compared to the old DD washers. [ or any other older style washer that uses a split-phase motor for that matter ]
SQs TL washers with a slipping belt will be very soon redesigned to reduce power consumption.
Also I am not confusing springs and one way clutches, WP BD, DD, NEW BD and MT helical drive washers do not use either in their drive system to change from wash to spin when the motor reverses.
But we must all look at the bigger picture, a new WP BD washer takes well less than 1/4 the energy to produce and transport to your home compared to an older 70s style washer, so even if it only lasted 5 years this country is way ahead in saving energy and when you factor in the savings in water consumption, hot water use, electrical consumption and the energy saved by the superior water extraction when the clothing goes in the dryer you are not even close to the amount of coal, gas and oil that were consumed with the old way of doing things.
It is also a MIRTH that 1970s SQ washers very often lasted even 10 years let alone 15 or 20. SQ TL washers in the 70s were about the LEAST reliable washer brand, even Norge and Westinghouse washers would often outlast them. I don't recall ever seeing a reversing SQ last much more than 10 years and we threw plenty away when they were just over 5 years of age.
And yes I have seen a few of WPs new BD TL washers already replaced already, but when you consider that our company has done only about 15 service calls on these new machines out of more than 7000 [ 1750 on automatic washers ] in home service calls we run a year the record on this new washer might just be better than any other washer in history. So unless one of you have a crystal ball and can tell me just how long these new machines are going to last on average, I am going to say, from my professional experience that I think they will average between 10 and 30 years before most get replaced.
murando531
Well-known member
Whirlpool's new BD washer
I've had the new belt-drive Whirlpool for about 4 years now, and I have to say that it's the only machine I'm impressed by amongst everything that has been produced the past 10 years. It follows the exact theory I have on how new washers should work: it uses much less energy though it has plenty of power, but also uses enough water to get the job done properly.
The design seems simple enough, an inverter motor driving a belt to a drive rotor, where a shifter is either in agitate position, which frees the agitator and basket from each other, at which point the motor itself oscillates directly, and the satellite gears in the gearbox (it's not really a transmission in the sense of past washers) convert the torque into a powerful ~180-210 degree agitation arc, or the shifter is locked into spin mode, connecting the agitator shaft and "splutch", as they call it, together. There's no slippage in the belt as you can hear the motor gradually ramping up with the speed of the basket. Even with heavy loads, I've yet to be disappointed in its performance, and *knock on wood* it seems to be very solidly built. Sure, there's an ATC sensor, but despite the addition of cold when set to Hot, the water feels decently warm for a normal load of whites/towels. When I need true hot, I just turn the cold faucet off, and it doesn't affect the load at all. I suppose I'm thankful that the machine doesn't sense the tap being turned off.
Would I take an original WP/Lady KM belt-drive or a KitchenAid direct-drive if I could? Absolutely. But given that those are precious gems that are hard to find, I'm happy that there is at least one machine on the market today that is a perfect balance of saving electricity while using a common-sense amount of water.
I wish companies today would stop appealing to the lazy and ignorant of today's society, and instead revisit brilliant machines like the Speed Queens and belt drive Lady Kenmores and Maytags, and use the qualities that made them so great while also tweaking them to save water and energy as far as physics will allow. Just watch a video of the Whirlpool impeller style washer working and you'll see that the laws of physics are not on their side.
I've had the new belt-drive Whirlpool for about 4 years now, and I have to say that it's the only machine I'm impressed by amongst everything that has been produced the past 10 years. It follows the exact theory I have on how new washers should work: it uses much less energy though it has plenty of power, but also uses enough water to get the job done properly.
The design seems simple enough, an inverter motor driving a belt to a drive rotor, where a shifter is either in agitate position, which frees the agitator and basket from each other, at which point the motor itself oscillates directly, and the satellite gears in the gearbox (it's not really a transmission in the sense of past washers) convert the torque into a powerful ~180-210 degree agitation arc, or the shifter is locked into spin mode, connecting the agitator shaft and "splutch", as they call it, together. There's no slippage in the belt as you can hear the motor gradually ramping up with the speed of the basket. Even with heavy loads, I've yet to be disappointed in its performance, and *knock on wood* it seems to be very solidly built. Sure, there's an ATC sensor, but despite the addition of cold when set to Hot, the water feels decently warm for a normal load of whites/towels. When I need true hot, I just turn the cold faucet off, and it doesn't affect the load at all. I suppose I'm thankful that the machine doesn't sense the tap being turned off.
Would I take an original WP/Lady KM belt-drive or a KitchenAid direct-drive if I could? Absolutely. But given that those are precious gems that are hard to find, I'm happy that there is at least one machine on the market today that is a perfect balance of saving electricity while using a common-sense amount of water.
I wish companies today would stop appealing to the lazy and ignorant of today's society, and instead revisit brilliant machines like the Speed Queens and belt drive Lady Kenmores and Maytags, and use the qualities that made them so great while also tweaking them to save water and energy as far as physics will allow. Just watch a video of the Whirlpool impeller style washer working and you'll see that the laws of physics are not on their side.
arbilab
Well-known member
Wouldn't 'undo' advances like inverter drive (wrote a patent proposal for one in the early 00s) or even constant-current brush drive, things that weren't practically possible in what we call the 'good old days' of capacitor/induction and various styles of clutchation. But let's not pull notions of 'energy efficiency' out of the air, or dismiss the inefficiency of remanufacturing on a shortened cycle. Even though it's China's energy doing the remanufacturing, the byproducts end up in OUR air and driving up OUR energy prices. Speaking of China, how inefficient is their institutional corruption? For that matter, how inefficient is OURS?
The slipping-belt wastes almost nothing. It sheds disproportionate load, the motor is burning less current given the near-constant-speed nature of induction motors. And generates precious little heat (waste energy) in doing so. The clunky old 3-belt Westy is even more elegant. That's a continuously-variable transmission in spin; they're trying to build those into cars for energy efficiency. It's harder to scale to that kind of power though, without making transmissions disposable (are they yet?). How hot does a legacy SQ fluid coupler get? If you can still touch it, it's not wasting much.
Lastly, let's recall the lesson of the early lowflow toilets that saved half the water per cycle but needed 4 cycles to produce similar results. If as has marginally become the case, the machine doesn't adequately perform the duty for which it was purchased and operated then MOST of the energy of making, transporting and operating it is wasted.
The slipping-belt wastes almost nothing. It sheds disproportionate load, the motor is burning less current given the near-constant-speed nature of induction motors. And generates precious little heat (waste energy) in doing so. The clunky old 3-belt Westy is even more elegant. That's a continuously-variable transmission in spin; they're trying to build those into cars for energy efficiency. It's harder to scale to that kind of power though, without making transmissions disposable (are they yet?). How hot does a legacy SQ fluid coupler get? If you can still touch it, it's not wasting much.
Lastly, let's recall the lesson of the early lowflow toilets that saved half the water per cycle but needed 4 cycles to produce similar results. If as has marginally become the case, the machine doesn't adequately perform the duty for which it was purchased and operated then MOST of the energy of making, transporting and operating it is wasted.
murando531
Well-known member
Precisely. When you have to prewash dishes completely before loading, or run the cycle twice, or wash clothes multiple times to get proper results, the word "Eco" becomes a marketing term and not much else. You end up using just as much or more of the resources but you also waste a marginal amount of time along with it.
And you're right about CVT transmissions (pardon the redundant word along with the letter, it felt weird to type CV trans lol), some amount of slippage is "intended" to reduce wear on the engine as well. Even automatic trans. in normal cars have energy loss, as the torque converter works basically the same as the fluid-drive, just as arbilab stated.
And you're right about CVT transmissions (pardon the redundant word along with the letter, it felt weird to type CV trans lol), some amount of slippage is "intended" to reduce wear on the engine as well. Even automatic trans. in normal cars have energy loss, as the torque converter works basically the same as the fluid-drive, just as arbilab stated.
Perhaps if the washer actually manages to last several years, the very minor wastage occurring in the transmission might add up to something more than "nothing" on one's energy bill.
Otherwise, its so little that it isn't worth worrying about. You'll save more energy altering your light usage, watering habits and so on than choosing a "less wasteful" washer transmission.
If there is any doubt over the efficiency of a torque converter/fluid-drive, I believe recent technologoical advances have practically eliminated most of the efficiency losses seen in early units. Cars with such transmissions are at least as, if not more efficient than their manual counterparts. And they were 20 years ago, too. Then again, they have the benefit of 8 speeds + a locking torque converter. Still...
Otherwise, its so little that it isn't worth worrying about. You'll save more energy altering your light usage, watering habits and so on than choosing a "less wasteful" washer transmission.
If there is any doubt over the efficiency of a torque converter/fluid-drive, I believe recent technologoical advances have practically eliminated most of the efficiency losses seen in early units. Cars with such transmissions are at least as, if not more efficient than their manual counterparts. And they were 20 years ago, too. Then again, they have the benefit of 8 speeds + a locking torque converter. Still...
A couple of other things you left out combo52
1. Sub components, timers, perhaps belts, certain stampings and castings are farmed out overseas in search of cheaper labor costs. You neglected to figure in the transport of said assemblies stateside for final assembly. That alone more than offests any so-called "green" gains in the device itself.
Example: CFL bulbs. Not a one is made here, but China. So while I have a factory less than 3 hours away making edison bulbs, I am forced to buy bulbs made in a non efficient factory in China, put on a container ship transported thousands of miles to a port on the west coast, then trucked to a distribution center, the trucked from distribution center to my local BIG BOX.
2. With these modern pieces of junk barely outlasting the weak warranty offered these days, they DO wind up in a junk pile someplace. Nothing is stripped and reused to fix another machine or keep it going.
That is the bane of cheap. It is cheaper to buy new than to fix what you have. Sure we can crow about "comparative advantage, low cost, non union, no regulations," yadda yadda yadda till the cows come home but look where it has gotten us these days. People flip cars like they do a deck of cards. Houses. Flat screen tvs et cetera. They simply do not last, by and large, and are replaced with alarming frequency.
And to think, most americans consider this throw away nonsense as a form of "value".
Algore had his day in the spotlight with his "Inconvenient Truth" and has been pandering to left wing nut cases ever since he lost the 2000 election. That man has, by virtue of influence, exercised more social control with his gadfly theories than anyone since Albert Einstein.
Allow me to counter with some "Inconvenient Facts."
1. There is no such thing as global warming.
2. Humans are NOT the cause of climate change.
3. The climate changes all the time, has done so before we crawled out from the rocks, and will continue to do so long after we disappear.
4. There is no water shortage on this planet. There are certain locales which are experiencing shortages, but we're nowhere close to drying up and dying of thirst.
5. Cap and trade, taxes, fees, and the like will not create desperately needed jobs but rather redistribute wealth to those who don't create it in the first place.
6. This planet, once upon a time, supported very large, cold blooded reptilian life. Long before we had SUVs mansions, and fossil burning fuels and the like. I have yet to receive a believable explanation on how that is possible.
7. Hurricanes, Typhoons, and Cyclones with regard to their size, duration, and intensity are poor examples to justify the earth is warming and why we need all these taxes and regulations. Fact: The strongest tropical cyclone to strike the US mainland occurred in 1935. Guess what else was going on during that time? Anybody? Buehler?
7a. Super Typhoon Tip, about the size of Texas at peak intensity, occurred in 1979, when Algore was...........a nobody.
8. For those who were around, remember after a few harsh winters in the 70's we were all told to prepare for the next Ice Age? That the glaciers would come a marchin' and we'd better invest in wool clothing? I do. It was a farce then like global warming is a farce now.
The only thing that has changed, really, is the stupidity of people. Thanks to a precipitous decline in the quality of a public education coupled with the absolute inability to think, you can buy air time, print time, and with amazingly little effort, get your idea to "trend" and penetrate the craniums of your typical person and 'fore long, you got 'em believing every word you say. Without question. Never mind facts, just whip up a crisis and convince the minions that radical change is needed to combat said crisis or else.....................
Remember this statement?
"“If somebody wants to build a coal-fired power plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them,” Obama said, responding to a question about his cap-and-trade plan. He later added, “Under my plan … electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”
And..........
""Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket," Obama told the Chronicle . "Coal-powered plants, you know, natural gas, you name it, whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers."
While Obama was talking specifically about cap-and-trade, he was also making a larger point that the biggest challenge will be making sure voters understand why such a plan is necessary.
"The problem is can you get the American people to say this is really important," Obama said. " Obviously yes, and it was bought hook, line, and sinker.
1. Sub components, timers, perhaps belts, certain stampings and castings are farmed out overseas in search of cheaper labor costs. You neglected to figure in the transport of said assemblies stateside for final assembly. That alone more than offests any so-called "green" gains in the device itself.
Example: CFL bulbs. Not a one is made here, but China. So while I have a factory less than 3 hours away making edison bulbs, I am forced to buy bulbs made in a non efficient factory in China, put on a container ship transported thousands of miles to a port on the west coast, then trucked to a distribution center, the trucked from distribution center to my local BIG BOX.
2. With these modern pieces of junk barely outlasting the weak warranty offered these days, they DO wind up in a junk pile someplace. Nothing is stripped and reused to fix another machine or keep it going.
That is the bane of cheap. It is cheaper to buy new than to fix what you have. Sure we can crow about "comparative advantage, low cost, non union, no regulations," yadda yadda yadda till the cows come home but look where it has gotten us these days. People flip cars like they do a deck of cards. Houses. Flat screen tvs et cetera. They simply do not last, by and large, and are replaced with alarming frequency.
And to think, most americans consider this throw away nonsense as a form of "value".
Algore had his day in the spotlight with his "Inconvenient Truth" and has been pandering to left wing nut cases ever since he lost the 2000 election. That man has, by virtue of influence, exercised more social control with his gadfly theories than anyone since Albert Einstein.
Allow me to counter with some "Inconvenient Facts."
1. There is no such thing as global warming.
2. Humans are NOT the cause of climate change.
3. The climate changes all the time, has done so before we crawled out from the rocks, and will continue to do so long after we disappear.
4. There is no water shortage on this planet. There are certain locales which are experiencing shortages, but we're nowhere close to drying up and dying of thirst.
5. Cap and trade, taxes, fees, and the like will not create desperately needed jobs but rather redistribute wealth to those who don't create it in the first place.
6. This planet, once upon a time, supported very large, cold blooded reptilian life. Long before we had SUVs mansions, and fossil burning fuels and the like. I have yet to receive a believable explanation on how that is possible.
7. Hurricanes, Typhoons, and Cyclones with regard to their size, duration, and intensity are poor examples to justify the earth is warming and why we need all these taxes and regulations. Fact: The strongest tropical cyclone to strike the US mainland occurred in 1935. Guess what else was going on during that time? Anybody? Buehler?
7a. Super Typhoon Tip, about the size of Texas at peak intensity, occurred in 1979, when Algore was...........a nobody.
8. For those who were around, remember after a few harsh winters in the 70's we were all told to prepare for the next Ice Age? That the glaciers would come a marchin' and we'd better invest in wool clothing? I do. It was a farce then like global warming is a farce now.
The only thing that has changed, really, is the stupidity of people. Thanks to a precipitous decline in the quality of a public education coupled with the absolute inability to think, you can buy air time, print time, and with amazingly little effort, get your idea to "trend" and penetrate the craniums of your typical person and 'fore long, you got 'em believing every word you say. Without question. Never mind facts, just whip up a crisis and convince the minions that radical change is needed to combat said crisis or else.....................
Remember this statement?
"“If somebody wants to build a coal-fired power plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them,” Obama said, responding to a question about his cap-and-trade plan. He later added, “Under my plan … electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”
And..........
""Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket," Obama told the Chronicle . "Coal-powered plants, you know, natural gas, you name it, whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers."
While Obama was talking specifically about cap-and-trade, he was also making a larger point that the biggest challenge will be making sure voters understand why such a plan is necessary.
"The problem is can you get the American people to say this is really important," Obama said. " Obviously yes, and it was bought hook, line, and sinker.
Post Remove Above Due to Political Nature
Please remember that political conversations need to happen in Dirty Laundry. Thanks everyone.
Please remember that political conversations need to happen in Dirty Laundry. Thanks everyone.
