I'm sure this topic was brought up many times on this forum. I washed bathroom rugs today only to find a tub full of lint! Seems that neutral drains are no good for very linty wash loads. Do neutral drains have any advantages? I have heard many say that they don't filter dirt through the clothes like a spin drain does but have always found this odd since the dirt just filters downward instead of outward.
Neutral Drains...
- Thread starter wishwash
- Start date
Help Support :
I would rather have a bunch of lint left in the bottom of the tub instead of embedded in the rug, at least you can just scoop it out.
Neutral Drain
Its cheaper to build a neutral drain washer then a spin-drainer. Whirlpool for example created the neutral drain mechanism on their DDs because it wore down the clutches faster.
FWIW when most top load washer that were (ie Maytag) and still are (Speed Queen) spin drainers often get converted to neutral drain on the export market. No idea why, but somehow spin draining is not desired.
With that said I like spin drainers.
Maybe I am blinded by ideology, but I have always felt clothes come out with less lint and debris in a spin drainer.
Its cheaper to build a neutral drain washer then a spin-drainer. Whirlpool for example created the neutral drain mechanism on their DDs because it wore down the clutches faster.
FWIW when most top load washer that were (ie Maytag) and still are (Speed Queen) spin drainers often get converted to neutral drain on the export market. No idea why, but somehow spin draining is not desired.
With that said I like spin drainers.
Maybe I am blinded by ideology, but I have always felt clothes come out with less lint and debris in a spin drainer.
It's cheaper to build neutral drain washers?
That thought is totally wrong to have a machine do both a spin at a neutral drained requires extra complication an extra cost, whirlpool direct drive washers never had any problems with clutch where in either form.
And even if where were problem it would not effect the cost of building the washer.
Speed Queen washers are built with a more costly neutral drain system for export to Australia because they line dry clothing and all the lint left on the clothing [ from forcing all the dirty linty water through the clothing ] is objectionable when you don't use a dryer.
That thought is totally wrong to have a machine do both a spin at a neutral drained requires extra complication an extra cost, whirlpool direct drive washers never had any problems with clutch where in either form.
And even if where were problem it would not effect the cost of building the washer.
Speed Queen washers are built with a more costly neutral drain system for export to Australia because they line dry clothing and all the lint left on the clothing [ from forcing all the dirty linty water through the clothing ] is objectionable when you don't use a dryer.
I think neutral drains have their pros and cons. Having had a Kenmore that had a neutral drain I don't think my whites were as white as they could have been. Personally, I didn't care for that type of drain. I felt the dirty water just settled back onto the clothes, just my opinion. I'd have a hard time with that with diapers.
To be fair, the Speed Queen throws the water at such force many home plumbing pipes cannot cope. The wrinkles seem to set in with spin-drain though.
To be fair, the Speed Queen throws the water at such force many home plumbing pipes cannot cope. The wrinkles seem to set in with spin-drain though.
I've had no linting trouble with the various WP/KM/KA belt-drive and direct-drive neutral-drain washers I've used (although a 1984 spin-drain model was involved for a few years), and also no trouble with my neutral-drain F&Ps.
Spin draining for automatic washing machines
IIRC grew out of the wash day habit of lifting laundry out of dirty water (wringers, hand washing, twin tubs and other semi-automatics), and of course when soap still was queen of wash day.
Idea was that between over flow rinsing and spin draining muck, soap and other residue would not be pulled down through the wash (as in a neutral drain) but sent out of the tub. Well that was the theory I suppose anyway.
Old laundry practices called for never allowing mucky/soapy water to drain through laundry. That is you wouldn't pull the drain plug and let the water out of a tub allowing your washing to "strain" it like a sieve.
When detergent replaced soaps and as the former improved its soil suspension capabilities in theory netural draining shouldn't matter.
One of the reasons didn't really get on with the Whirlpool compact washer was the amount of lint/muck it left on my wash. Dark laundry especially looked like who did it and ran. Even after tumble drying things still needed a lint or clothes brush.
IIRC grew out of the wash day habit of lifting laundry out of dirty water (wringers, hand washing, twin tubs and other semi-automatics), and of course when soap still was queen of wash day.
Idea was that between over flow rinsing and spin draining muck, soap and other residue would not be pulled down through the wash (as in a neutral drain) but sent out of the tub. Well that was the theory I suppose anyway.
Old laundry practices called for never allowing mucky/soapy water to drain through laundry. That is you wouldn't pull the drain plug and let the water out of a tub allowing your washing to "strain" it like a sieve.
When detergent replaced soaps and as the former improved its soil suspension capabilities in theory netural draining shouldn't matter.
One of the reasons didn't really get on with the Whirlpool compact washer was the amount of lint/muck it left on my wash. Dark laundry especially looked like who did it and ran. Even after tumble drying things still needed a lint or clothes brush.
jerrod6
Well-known member
What about front loaders? Do some have neutral drains and others don't? I guess in this case it would be that a neutral drain would be done with the tub stationary vs. the tub still tumbling?
There have been FLs with spin-drain in the past. They were rare but they existed.
Some brushless motor driven just went right into spin mode with still the tub half full of water (at rinse water level) and accerlerated slowly as the water drained. Others (the carbon brush type) had distribution spins at approximately 70 rpm which also started with all the water still in the tub.
The purpose was to provide a more evenly distributed load at a time when electronic balance control was either not jet invented or still too expensive for use in lower end machines. Both systems did not always give the desired results and in the case of induction motors which gradually increased speed sudslocking was a common problem.
All that "no dirty water should be drained through clean clothes" is just marketing blah IMO. At least in times of man made surfactants. As long as the detergent is sufficiantly dosed it should be capable to keep all soils suspended during the wash AND rinse.
Some brushless motor driven just went right into spin mode with still the tub half full of water (at rinse water level) and accerlerated slowly as the water drained. Others (the carbon brush type) had distribution spins at approximately 70 rpm which also started with all the water still in the tub.
The purpose was to provide a more evenly distributed load at a time when electronic balance control was either not jet invented or still too expensive for use in lower end machines. Both systems did not always give the desired results and in the case of induction motors which gradually increased speed sudslocking was a common problem.
All that "no dirty water should be drained through clean clothes" is just marketing blah IMO. At least in times of man made surfactants. As long as the detergent is sufficiantly dosed it should be capable to keep all soils suspended during the wash AND rinse.
@Combo
What extra cost? You need a beefier drive system and you need a clutch- that costs money. In the early 2000s onward GE was even able to eliminate the clutch as with most modern washers because they do not need to slip a tub full of water. There is also no need to design the outer tub cap as to prevent water from leaking out when spinning and in turn sloshing over.
As for DD going neutral drain thats what several repair men have told me. Perhaps its just a rumor- but its hard to argue the added over engineering needed to spin that much water.
What extra cost? You need a beefier drive system and you need a clutch- that costs money. In the early 2000s onward GE was even able to eliminate the clutch as with most modern washers because they do not need to slip a tub full of water. There is also no need to design the outer tub cap as to prevent water from leaking out when spinning and in turn sloshing over.
As for DD going neutral drain thats what several repair men have told me. Perhaps its just a rumor- but its hard to argue the added over engineering needed to spin that much water.
iheartmaytag
Well-known member
I am not a repairman, don't work on appliances
But I was told by a Maytag man in 1995 that the reason for the Neutral drain was that the motors were not strong enough to spin a full tub, hence they drained it then spun.
My vote:
I hate neutral drain.
My Maytag, Duet clone FL doesn't neutral drain, it distribute tumbles while draining and then spins.
But I was told by a Maytag man in 1995 that the reason for the Neutral drain was that the motors were not strong enough to spin a full tub, hence they drained it then spun.
My vote:
I hate neutral drain.
My Maytag, Duet clone FL doesn't neutral drain, it distribute tumbles while draining and then spins.
Yes, frontloaders (or H-axis toploaders) with spin-drain: Philips (and relabeled ones like Bauknecht, Erres, Ruton, Electra and Ignis), Constructa and Indesit are the brands that come to mind right now.
No 1/2 HP motor is strong enough to spin a tub full of water at full speed- its just that: only 1/2 HP max. Its not practical either, both in the sheer size of the motor required and the force of the water that would exist. You could of course try spinning directly with the 1/2HP (no clutch), but the load would slow down the motor to much, which would appreciably slow the pump out rate (perhaps preventing pump out with a tall drain) and prevent the motor from dropping its start winding which leads to over heating. Thus as such clutch is employed, either a slipping belt or shoe & drum. This allows the motor to reach full speed within half a second while gradually bringing the tub up to Speed, ie the full resistance of the tub is not just dropped on the motor.
Now modern washers like the VMW are different. Because there is no tub full of water to slip, and that permanent split capacitor motors can tolerate taking several seconds to gain speed (but minutes would still be to much)- the clutch can be eliminated all together. Not having to drive a pump, engage/disengage a break plus over coming a large transmission means a low torque motor can be selected without issue such as a permanent split capacitor instead of a high torque centrifugal start motor. But to be fair GE did have a clutch free washer with a transmission and brake.
Now modern washers like the VMW are different. Because there is no tub full of water to slip, and that permanent split capacitor motors can tolerate taking several seconds to gain speed (but minutes would still be to much)- the clutch can be eliminated all together. Not having to drive a pump, engage/disengage a break plus over coming a large transmission means a low torque motor can be selected without issue such as a permanent split capacitor instead of a high torque centrifugal start motor. But to be fair GE did have a clutch free washer with a transmission and brake.
cornutt
Well-known member
Wasn't the Unimatic direct drive for spin?
not that they also didn't get out of balance at times.....
I always thought of the neutral drain on most machines was to lower the center of gravity of the load, as well as sort of help keep the unit leveled and balanced..
but one could argue, which would be better, a load spaced out and thinly placed against the tub for spinning, or bunched up along the bottom?.....
there are pros and cons for each......but by todays standards, by proper washing techniques, most of all grime is contained in suspension until the drain/spin....
I always thought of the neutral drain on most machines was to lower the center of gravity of the load, as well as sort of help keep the unit leveled and balanced..
but one could argue, which would be better, a load spaced out and thinly placed against the tub for spinning, or bunched up along the bottom?.....
there are pros and cons for each......but by todays standards, by proper washing techniques, most of all grime is contained in suspension until the drain/spin....
Yes Unimatic washers did it with a direct drive, along with early Norge belt-drive washers. They would spin the full tub of water out with 1/3hp motors and without the need for any sort of clutch or belt-slip. The pump out time is a non-issue in solid tub washers. Belt-drive Frigidaire Pulsamatic washers also had no clutch or belt-slip, Multimatic washers had sort of a clutch, but they were not designed to slip during spin-startup.
I prefer spin-drain washers overall, especially solid tub machines.
I prefer spin-drain washers overall, especially solid tub machines.
"no dirty water should be drained through clean clothes&
As one said, not draining mucky water through laundry was from the early days of laundry right through early to middle 20th century. All this was when things were done by hand and or semi-automatic washing machines *and* soap was still queen of laundry day. Furthermore top loading washers and or tubs with mangles dominated.
In fact one reason TSP and other participating water softening substances weren't *that bad* when used with soap back then was because of how wash was extracted. Things either were lifted out of mucky water and put into the mangle or spin drier. Either way much of the soils, hard water minerals and other gunk was left in the water.
Better wringer washers like Maytag's had "sediment" zones/traps at bottom of tub to catch (in theory) much of the muck. Still users were advised at intervals to stop washing, lower the drain house/turn on pump to remove a bit of the dirty water. Things were then topped up with more clean fresh hot water, a bit more soap/detergent was added and then things carried on.
Also as one said previously modern detergents are streets ahead of soap and even earlier versions in terms of soil suspension and anti-redeposit properties. Thus the matter of scum clinging to washing is less of an issue than in past.
As one said, not draining mucky water through laundry was from the early days of laundry right through early to middle 20th century. All this was when things were done by hand and or semi-automatic washing machines *and* soap was still queen of laundry day. Furthermore top loading washers and or tubs with mangles dominated.
In fact one reason TSP and other participating water softening substances weren't *that bad* when used with soap back then was because of how wash was extracted. Things either were lifted out of mucky water and put into the mangle or spin drier. Either way much of the soils, hard water minerals and other gunk was left in the water.
Better wringer washers like Maytag's had "sediment" zones/traps at bottom of tub to catch (in theory) much of the muck. Still users were advised at intervals to stop washing, lower the drain house/turn on pump to remove a bit of the dirty water. Things were then topped up with more clean fresh hot water, a bit more soap/detergent was added and then things carried on.
Also as one said previously modern detergents are streets ahead of soap and even earlier versions in terms of soil suspension and anti-redeposit properties. Thus the matter of scum clinging to washing is less of an issue than in past.
Unimatic
Yup, it has no clutch that I know of. But the basket was a lot smaller and the water was flung out quiet rapidly. Machine also drew some good current during that period.
Yup, it has no clutch that I know of. But the basket was a lot smaller and the water was flung out quiet rapidly. Machine also drew some good current during that period.
Louis, Zanussi (mostly sold as Privileg here) is another brand to complete your list. They used the accelerating spin drain for at least some of their induction typ machines and later went for a distribution spin drain at a fixed speed when those pesky carbon brush motors became the norm. Didn`t know about Constructa.
