GE

[Kenmorepeter5]

I look of a picture about the GE front-load, how cylinder run about both revenue tumble action or non-revenue action?

 

[Kenmorepeter5]

GE Combination

Is GE Washer Combination run of the cylinder for one direction or two direction?

 

[appnut]

one direction. All the combos you've seen here tumble in one direction.

 

[Kenmorepeter5]

Show Exhibit

I'll go to the privater house to see the vintage washer machines to see GE combination by next 2 years.

 

[tomturbomatic]

Peter, the GE combos tumbled in one direction for washing and rinsing, but at the end of the wash and each of the three rinses, there was a pause. Then the motor reversed to drain the water so the tub tumbled in reverse for drain, did all of the spinning in that same reversed direction and tumbled dry in the reverse direction because all three of these operations involved pumping water out of the machine.

 

[kenmore1978]

GE combos

I read about the system (complicated) WP devised for their combos to get around the Bendix patents, so how did GE do it? And for that matter Maytag, Easy, and Westinghouse?

 

[tomturbomatic]

No other combo manufacturer got around the Bendix patents except by building combos that did not spin fast enough to cause problems with vibration and most of them had sensitive off balance switches that would return an off balance spin to a tumble and then try to spin it, although there were exceptions. The first WP combinations had a bar across the rear of the frame that was supposed to hit the off balance switch, but in the first models, the bar was too flexible and let the big combos walk out of their installed locations without switching from spin to redistribute and back to spin. GE combos had the spin speed controller attached to the left front leveling leg. Some times an overly sensitive switch prevented the machine from ever developing the maximum spin speed. That switch is why you hear a GE combo ticking while it is spinning. That switch will allow just so much vibration before it limits the spin speed. That is also the reason why GE undercounter combos did slightly better at water extraction; they were more solidly held in place by the channels in the base plate which was screwed to the floor. GE also had BIG cups that could be screwed to the floor for the front feet of the free-standing combo to keep the machine steady. Of course, sitting on the left front corner of the machine would help it spin faster, no matter what the load balance situation was. Manufacturers invested a lot of money in the combos' initial design and setting up of the manufacturing facilities. Whirlpool was the only one to radically redesign their product and they could not have done that except for the money they had from making Sears laundry appliances. Maytag did withdraw their combo from production for some fine-tuning and GE dumped the transmission, water heating and 4 vaned drum in the first model for a simpler speed changer, a 6 vaned drum for better air movement during drying and no water heating button in the later models and then changed the window/door/seal in 1968. Combos, which enjoyed good owner satisfaction when they were all Bendix Duomatics, got a bad rep as more manufacturers put their badly compromised machines on the market. Once sales started dropping, there was not enough return on the initial investment to finance further improvements, especially with the patent mess. Then in the early 1960s, the economy took a downturn, big cars like Oldsmobiles got small and the times were not right for big expenditures by either consumers or corporations. The Murray Corporation and later the Hupp corporation owned Easy. They put most of their investment into the combos because they believed they were the future of laundry appliances and, while combos were a painful financial venture for many makers, the combo has been blamed for the financial failure of the Hupp Corporation.

 

[peterh770]

Tom,

With the money Hupp sank into their combo, was it at least a good machine? A suitable rival to Philco-Bendix? Sounds to me that if they were that serious about their machines, we would find more of them around.

 

[tlee618]

Tom thanks for all that interesting information. Like Peter I am also wondering how good the Easy Combo was. I have only seen pictures of these. Does anyone in the club have one? Thanks again for sharing your knowledge. Terry

 

[tomturbomatic]

Well, the early ads touted the Easy Combo's 27" width. In fact, one early magazine ad had three sections of a tape measure arranged around the perimeter of the page that you could cut out, paste together and have a 27" tape measure to see all of the places the Easy combo would fit. The first thing the ad said was that the Easy was able to be so compact because it did not waste room on bulky springs or shock absorbers. It had cups for the front feet to keep the machine from moving around on the floor during its spin rinsing which was interesting. The Easy had two motors above the tub, a tilt tub and a strange timer. The spin surge rinsing used the tumble motor along with the Accellux motor that pulsed on and off to give the load a rinsing that sought to prevent tangling. The same motor was used for the spinning, which consisted of short bursts of speed followed by coasting. These bursts of speed, especially in the rinse phase were what caused the machine to creep on the floor if it was not anchored by cabinets and the cups screwed to the floor. The original timer could be set to stop at any point and if you were not careful, it would go through a whole wash and dry program and then start washing all over again. The mother of a friend had one, briefly, but she did not like it and it was replaced by an Easy automatic in the kitchen and a big old Bendix dryer with the door with the knob in the middle out on the carport. Poor Easy. They tried. They offered electric drying models in both vented and condenser types and a vented gas drying model. They were nothing like the Philco. They did not extract water well and were slow to dry. The tilt tub with "Tum-bl-ator" action was said to be able to provide a deep pool for the clothes to fall into while keeping water use to a minimum.

 

[tlee618]

Thanks Tom, boy Easy really did go all out trying to make a perfect combo. I guess it just wasn't meant to be. I wonder if they sold very many of them? Terry

 

[Unimatic1140]

Tom, you sure are correct when you said that the original Whirlpool combo had a tendency to walk during spin. Mine walks even with a reasonably balance load. About six months ago it walked enough to pull out the vent tube from the wall! After that I decided that is it and I installed two of those screw in foot cups and now it is much more stable and I can use it without worrying that it won’t be there when I get back.

 

[jetcone]

I had the same problem with my 1969!

It was designed to rock on the back two feet, there are three feet in the back, the outer two are on rockers. This was needed so that the balance mechanism could kick in. BUT my rear feet are seized due to years of leaking water and so the machine actually HOPS even with a very small load.
So what John did was bring two of those Stove Anti-Tip devices and anchored the front two feet with them. Now it can rock again and engage the balance, it does this for about 2/3 the spin phase and by then the tub is so smooth it ramps right up to a whooping 400 RPM??[ Tom had posted that the later KM spin was reduced from 550 to 400. It looks fast.]

NOW When i was at Mike's in the UK I observed something interesting.
His friend brought a tabletop sized plastic twin tub washer to play with along with that Frigidaire Spinner.

Both machines spun at 2000 RPM. Both machines could hold 6 and 9 pounds respectively and both machines had no balance system at all. AND at top speed both machines never moved!!

I think the diameter of the tub is the crucial thing not the weight of the load. Roberts' ASKO spins at 1600 and hardly rocks! It has a small diameter tub unlike the Bendix or Kenmore tubs.