GE2800 Photos

Automatic Washer - The world's coolest Washing Machines, Dryers and Dishwashers

Help Support :

GE DW Motors

Barry you need to get some facts together not just a bunch of your opinions if you want to have serious discussion. The 1.45 amps is printed on the Siemens motor and my testing verifies this rating. Ge started to abandon those crappy motors almost 20 years ago on their better model DWs.

 

Yes the old GE SPM do put out OVER 400 Watts of waste heat. What seems sensible to you does not make it true. As refrigerators have moved away from SPMs for fans power consumption has in most cases gone down 25-30 watts to 4 watts and the new motors have more starting torque. And even though the old GE SP DW motors were simple they probably had 20 or more times the failure rate of the newer PSC motors, in fact I can not recall a single instance of one of the newer motors failing. The SPM all though the late 1980s on had serious problems with loose fans and open windings, we saw hundreds fail.

 

One of the most common problems with the old SPM was VERY LOW STARTING TORQUE. Ask ANY GE repair person how many hundreds if not thousands of GE DWs with SPM that would not start because the motor is so weak that it could not overcome the water seals friction. We did and still do many of these every month where we have to turn the HUGE fan by hand to get it started again every time someone lets a GE DW sit unused for a few weeks.

 

And your ridiculous notion that water will travel horizontally a foot or more and then jump straight up into a glass in the corner of a rack,,,,,, You need to prove this as many here have seen DWs work with plastic fronts or even watching a lawn sprinkler will show that nothing like this ever  happens, maybe in a different universe or planet LOL.
 
John, it is you who continually makes global generalizations versus facts.

Show us all where the GE motors (or any motor for that matter) is only 30 percent efficient. This is just a random figure you pulled out of the air, that you thought would prove your point.

Show us the data indicating rpms of the older GE DW motor versus the newer PSC motors. (maybe the are the same, maybe not--it would be interesting to see)

Show us your data that proves GE had the "most inefficient motor ever put in a dishwasher." Maybe it's true, maybe it isn't. Let's prove it, to everyone, and quite making up things.

Even if it is true that in the entire history of the dishwasher, this is the most inefifficient motor ever made. GE still managed to outperform Maytag, KitchenAid and Whirlpool in washing performance as per mid 1980's performance data from Consumer Reports. If I recall correctly, GE's did this with less current draw, for the motor than the Maytag RR. I am not sure what the KitchenAid and Whirlpools motors drew, but probably very close to, if not exceeding GE's 5.5 amps.'

Also, if GE wasn't capable of washing dishes/g;assware in the corner of their upper racks, this would have downrated their performance scores by Consumer Reports and would most certainly been mentioned by CU.

No, my friend, a GE DW motor is not putting out almost 500 watts of heat energy. Can you imagine a 500 watt heating element in that small enclosed space beneath a dishwasher glowing for close to an hour?

Go back to back issues of Consumer Reports and look at the repair ratings for General Electric dishwashers for the 1970 through the 1980's--impressively good.

I have nothing against the newer 1.8 amp China-made PSC motors. I think they are better than Frigidaire's and some of the other brands. I got one in my kitchen right now, but i don't like it as well as the motor in my GSD 2800 in my kitchentette. And I get better washability in the 2800.

Yes, water does deflectm and change direction when it hits a stationary object. To say water doesn't deflect, is one of the most ignorant statements I have ever heard you make. When an object or fluid with a given trajectory encounters another object with mass, especially with equal or greater mass, a change in the trajectory will occur. You should have learned this in Physics 101.

If this didn't occur, water would not enter up into glassware when its at an angle. A colloquial term for the change of trajectory, is called splashing.

Remember the video, John, of the impeller dishwasher that one of our members posted on this site. When there were no plates in the lower rack, water coverage on the top rack was close to nill.

When the member put plates in the lower rack, the water was directed (deflected) to the upper rack with impressive force.
 
GE DWs

Really not worth responding to Barry, almost every statistic you made in you last post just changed, I won't even try to keep up with your changing opinions.

 

I will let Mark do some testing later this month, eventually when I get my WALL OF DISHWASHERS installed we will do some real comparisons. But I should really know better than debate someone that also thinks that the GE series wound disposers were a great product LOL.
 
I still miss our old potscrubber.

Wasn't as fancy as those though, ours had the timer dial you actually turn and the options were

Potscrubber|Normal Wash Heated Dry|Evergy Saver.

Though, it did have a "light wash" option that you could turn the timer to.
 
Tell me, tell all of us, what statistics changed, John. Tell us exactly.

I am not the one who fabricates figures to support an argument.

We're all still waiting to see your data source for the speed and efficiency ratings for the older GE dw motors versus sthe newer PSC.

I was going to ignore your comment on the dispoer, as you are getting off topic for the thread.

Go back and re-read the thread a few months back on disposers. You were the one who thought that food waste disposers had spinning blades. I was the one who had to explain to you how they actually functioned. Not only did you not know how a disposer worked, but you condoned putting caustics, like lye, in one.

Those two things alone, I think totally negate any opinions you might have on disposers. LOL

I too, am bowing out on this thread. This site is for sharing information (and opinions) on appliances. I enjoy bantering with you, John. But it seems to be getting personal, and I don't want it to.

Yes, we should get together and run some performance tests. However, we will probably have to put boxing gloves on now and then. HeHe Maybe we could ask Robert to referee. But, I bet we would have a lot of fun.[this post was last edited: 5/10/2012-22:06]
 
Old GE mechanism vs new GE mechanism

Adding my 2 cents here I think what might be behind Mr. Bwood's observations are the fact the new style pumps have slimmer, redesigned bodies. This does not appear to make much of a difference in low water models that have a restricted wash arm orifice, but in older models with a metal wash arm and partial telescoping tower with a full opening (to the pump outlet) I do notice less water pressure.

I did do a test once where I placed a newer style motor on an older wide body pump and from my observations the water pressure was equal to what had been in there prior (old motor and old pump body).

Also, I want to point out that the listed amp draw by itself for both motor means little. First the listed current draws are practically estimates, anticipated values under maximum specified conditions. That is current draw under a listed rpm driving a listed torque under listed voltage. (Think laboratory conditions). Come real world the motor will be driving more or less (usually much less) than what was asked for when building said motor, and thus its current draw will certainly vary in use from its listing. By how much is often best answered by a clamp on amp meter. The values listed on any appliance are more along the lines of worst case scenarios telling an electrician how to size the circuit for code purposes. Which motor received the worst case fudge factor is hard to say without testing.

Second current draw on a motor is not just watts, but a combination of power factor (VA) and watts (W). Its possible to have a low power factor motor drawing lots of current in the form of VA with less current dedicated to watts (torque x speed and heat), and its possible to have a motor drawing little power factor (reactive power) while being mostly all watts (heat and torque x speed). As mentioned, watts are subdivided into two categories: output power and waste heat. It certainly is possible that the shaded pole motor is putting out 100 watts of rpm x torque, 250 watts of heat (3 amps) and the remaining 2.5 amps being nothing but reactive power which gives off no heat or torque.
 
VERY LOW STARTING TORQUE

I agree 100%, any engineering book on motors will tell you an SPM has next to no starting torque, but that does not reflect on running torque. Not saying one motor puts out more shaft power than the other, just that much more plays a role then being discussed here.
 
dishwasher motor power consumption

My observations about dishwasher motor power consumption come from placing an amp meter on the leads to the motor. The newer style GE motors to drawl only about 1 1/2 A roughly 150 W. The older style shaded pole motors do you draw nearly 6 A or around 600 W of power.

Your claim that 250 W of power just evaporates as reactive power don't make any sense you should explain it to the power supply people Lol. I can assure you that all 600 W is either going into pumping water or heat it's that simple really.

Thanks for reviving this fun old interesting thread.
 
I don't know what the waste heat rate was of the SPM. But as a kid, I was able to touch the running motor with my hand. If it was in excess of 60 or 100 watts, I doubt i'd be able to touch it.
Granted it blew off tons of heat, but c'mon, near 400 watts of waste heat?
That's ridiculous. It would've melted the plastic tub after time at that rate.

They certainly had low starting torque.... If any.
In fact, many GE dw manuals had instructions on how to unstick a stuck SPM pump.

As for that missing wattage loss? It's possible a lot of power went to actually driving that giant sheet metal fan.

Another point too, to reiterate.....is.... As crappy as a motor as GE put I millions of dishwashers.....they were surprisingly market competitive for many decades.
 
6 amps does not automatically equal 600 watts.

"Your claim that 250 W of power just evaporates as reactive power don't make any sense you should explain it to the power supply people Lol. I can assure you that all 600 W is either going into pumping water or heat it's that simple really."

I never said that. Notice how I clearly made the distinction between the two by using the term "watts" and "VA". 250 Watts, which would be restive looses within the motor (heat radiated into space) having nothing to do with reactive power.

"you should explain it to the power supply people Lol"

Pure assumption...
 
Power factor and Shaded pole motors

Not to confuse, but this is a good starting point.

"The disadvantages of shaded pole induction motor are


Low power factor.


The starting torque is very poor.


The efficiency is very low as, the copper losses are high due to presence of copper band.


The speed reversal is also difficult and expensive as it requires another set of copper rings."

http://www.electrical4u.com/types-of-single-phase-induction-motor/

Page 10 compares the different types:

http://www.tcf.com/docs/fan-enginee...irrel-cage-motors---fe-1100.pdf?Status=Master

As stated in both, and as I have long known, the power factor of a shaded pole motor is not unity but rather only 50 to 60%, or .5. This automatically means it is physically impossible for that motor to be generating 500 watts of waste heat with only 5.5 amps.

Reactive power:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AC_power

I will post more to back up my claims latter.
 
Shaded pole verified

I remember seeing some comments on whether the older Hot motor was shaded pole or not.
Just wanted to show for the audience, straight from GE themselves, the old motor was indeed shaded pole.
And they refuse to horsepower rate their motors.

johnb300m-2016100611415405773_1.png
 
Horse Power

Thanks, so they are indeed SPM :)

Thinking about the numbers and talking with others Id say 1/6 max, probably less. But that is not something GE wanted out on the market considering every competitor was bragging about a 1/3 HP motor.
 
Fascinating thread Chet, but there doesn't seem to be a conclusion.
Did I miss it?
Am I to understand the SPM would put out around 200w of waste heat?
That's still ridiculous lol.
Silly GE.
I suppose nobody cared back then.
And the market for quiet dishwashers is likely what really pushed them to PSC.
 
Thanks, and lol, like many threads on that forum it does get lengthy. But basically we are trying to find the exact values, or at least those close to them with the information given. An actual power factor reading done by a kilowatt meter can help narrow it down, and knowing the amount of power the impeller and fan consumes will give exact numbers. However in so far the estimated waste heat is around 200 watts.

I am sure the number will get more refined and I will post them as they do. Not going to give up this easily, Ive always wondered about it but never had the guts to ask.
 

Similar threads

T
Refinishing wooden washer tub
Replies
0
Views
16
trompczynski
T
R
does anyone have this washer or know where to get it!?
Replies
13
Views
14
turbokinetic
T
barcoboy
Acquired some Kenmore 80 and 90 series machines
Replies
11
Views
58
barcoboy
barcoboy
l86810
Potential future Electrolux range? (Europe)
Replies
3
Views
4
rolls_rapide
R
D
Is this even possible to do without creating irreparable damage?
Replies
7
Views
17
combo52
combo52

Latest posts

Back
Top