Boil Washing a la Francais

[launderess]

Again, have the same washer as you, though with a solid door, and can do a boil wash jst as easily in the Miele, but range top boil washing does have it's advantages.

One, at least here gas is much cheaper than electric.

Two, great for doing one or two large items or several small ones without tying up the Miele for the hour or so a "Short" or "Normal" boil wash cycle takes.

Three, much less water required for the wash.

Finally as stated above, for fine linen and or delicate items one wishes whiten and or remove stubborn stains, heat will not harm linen, but being thrashed about for an hour or so,can cause damage, especially at very high wash temperatures.

Now one could use the "Extended Pre-Wash" cycle on our machines, which is basically a deep soaking cycle. However that cycle uses lots of water and energy to heat that water.

As for spinning, much of my fine linen is not spun dry at all,but rather a quick pulse spin, then hung out on the lines to drip dry until damp, then ironed. If laundry is not going to be ironed right way, after totally line dried, it is put away; when time comes to iron it will be sprinkled and allowed to dampen.

L.

 

[sudsmaster]

Let's see.

Beg to differ.

Gas ranges are notoriously inefficient. Most of the heat goes up around the sides of the pot instead of heating the water within. The reason to want to use gas for cooking is control, not energy efficiency. The completely immersed heating element in the Miele washer is 100% efficient. Even considering that electricity costs about twice per BTU as gas, the Miele is probably more efficient at heating water for a boil wash than an equivalent amount of water on top of your gas range.

But please, Launderess. You don't need to justify your use of the stovetop contraption on energy efficiency grounds. It's simply a very cool, low tech approach to getting fabrics sparkling clean. In fact I think it would be wonderful if you were to snap more photos of the process, and even make a video of it if you can. You are to be commended for your dedication to true vintage laundry technique.

 

[sudsmaster]

Any news on old lessiveuse?

One is dying to see before and after shots of virtually irreversibly soiled fabrics rendered sparkling white again by virtue of this antique technology.

Not to mention more shots of the contraption in action.

Please don't abandon your fans, Lessiveusess!

 

[launderess]

Sorry, Luv

Have been busy with other things, and it has been much to warm lately to stand over a boiling laundry pot. *LOL*

L.

 

[sudsmaster]

Qu'elle domage

 

[MrX]

Heating something on a gas stove isn't actually all that energy inefficient, it just depends on what the alternatives are.

An immersed electric element isn't very efficient either! It's just more efficient than heating something indirectly.

If you consider that your power is quite likely generated from fossil fuels, at least a large % of it the amount of CO2 produced by your Miele heating water could be much worse than that ancient French contraption.

If you generate power using natural gas for example you lose a huge amount of energy, even in the most efficient combined-cycle power plants. Most are barely 60% efficient.

In a typical power plant in Ireland here's what happens:

Natural Gas is burned and passes through a gas turbine driving a generator producing electricity (energy loss)
The exhaust from that turbine is then used to super-heat steam (energy lost)
That steam is then used to drive turbines (energy lost)
Those turbines drive generators (energy lost)

The power from both sets of generators is fed into transformers to bring it up to the voltage on the national grid (energy lost)
Power is transmitted long distances (energy lost)
Step down transformers from high voltage (400kV or 220kV) to 38kV (Medium Voltage) for distribution. (Energy lost)
Final step down to 220V (Energy lost)

+ all the energy loss in the wiring systems that carry it!

Then when you get to your washing machine only a certain % of the electricity is actually producing heat and then that heat has to be transferred to the water. All of this is quite inefficient too!

If you were in France however, almost 90% of the power would be produced using nuclear fission! While that's got its potentially scary downsides, when it's run well it safe and CO2 free.

Also, in most countries, certainly in Europe and North America anyway, there's an ever increasing % of renewables in the mix. So, at least there's some plus sides to using electricity.

Direct use of natural gas is usually much less CO2 inefficient than electricity though, despite the fact that burners aren't all that efficient, at least you're using it locally rather than indirectly via thousands of miles of wires and transformers!

 

[sudsmaster]

An immersed heating element is very efficient - the efficiency ratings for electric water heaters are in the range of 90+%, close to 100%, I think, whereas gas water heaters always suffer some loss due to heat lost in the exhaust stream.Gas water heaters typically are at best efficient in the 80% range.

A gas range burner is far less efficient than a gas water heater. Only about 30% or less of the heat supplied by the burner goes into the water. The rest heats the room. This essentially wipes out the inefficiency of generating electricity from natural gas. It's a wash, I think. Plus, the amount of energy used on a stove top is minuscule compared to that used to heat (or cool) living spaces.

All that said, I vastly prefer a gas cooktop to a resistance electric cooktop. But not for reasons of efficiency, but rather for reasons of control and, in my opinion, safety (I always know when a gas burner is on - not so with an electric burner).