Why don't Whirlpool and GE machines have off balance switches while other washers do? I've never understood this. Won't the machine be damaged or walk across the floor?
Off Balance Switches
- Thread starter Chetlaham
- Start date
Help Support :
I don't know about that, but the off balance buzzer on our 1969 Kenmore 700 scared the crap out of me as a kid. It was so loud !!!!
The machines you mention have the combination of fairly slow spin speeds, very "accommodating" suspension, room inside the cabinet for the tub (or basket in GE's case) to move around, and a degree of "slippage" in the spin drive (either slipping belt or slipping clutch) to allow for off-balance spinning without drama. Australian Hoovers based on the US Blackstone design were the same - no off-balance switch, and the machine was engineered to cope with such loads.
Remember that the majority of off-balance problem is caused by the weight of <span style="text-decoration: underline;">water</span> in the load being unevenly distributed, not the weight of the laundry items themselves. So if the machine can get rid of most of the water in the load at very slow spin speeds, the then the unbalance becomes less significant as the water is removed, and the spin can slowly increase in speed without too much vibration. As spin speeds have increased, and larger load sizes are accommodated inside the same size cabinet (leaving less "wobble room" in the washing machine), the vibration problem increases rapidly, requiring softer suspensions, pulsed spinning to remove water early in the spin and avoid suds-lock, even slower ramp up to full spin speed, and unbalance detection and cut-off.
Remember that the majority of off-balance problem is caused by the weight of <span style="text-decoration: underline;">water</span> in the load being unevenly distributed, not the weight of the laundry items themselves. So if the machine can get rid of most of the water in the load at very slow spin speeds, the then the unbalance becomes less significant as the water is removed, and the spin can slowly increase in speed without too much vibration. As spin speeds have increased, and larger load sizes are accommodated inside the same size cabinet (leaving less "wobble room" in the washing machine), the vibration problem increases rapidly, requiring softer suspensions, pulsed spinning to remove water early in the spin and avoid suds-lock, even slower ramp up to full spin speed, and unbalance detection and cut-off.
WP (and KM) direct-drive Catalyst models have an OOB cut-off switch.
KM had OOB cut-off on WP-built belt-drives for many years while WP deemed it unnecessary on their own-branded machines ... although I vaguely recall a reference that a few early WP belt-drives had an OOB?
I never thought about it that way, though it makes a lot of sense now that you mention it. Only outlier would be a bathroom throw rug, I've had those trigger tub banging even as the absorbed water left. Does the OOB itself keep the machine from excelling to a higher speed?
Makers of many domestic front loaders at least long have cautioned against laundering bulky/large items such as bath rugs, thick or heavy cotton blankets, etc..
Later fully computer controlled washers such as my AEG can cope better than say the older Miele where control of drum is limited, and washer lacks ability to slowly rev up or down extraction.
Many a front loader has been harmed if not destroyed by laundering heavy items like those mentioned above. Tech that provides service for AEG washers doesn't recommend doing heavy blankets and so forth in washer.
All this being said modern front loaders to various extents will use combination of drum control, graduated revving up of spin, OOB detection and so on to minimize issues. However at some point if washer cannot get load balanced within accepted parameters one of several things will happen: it will abort all spinning and move to next portion of cycle, spin at lower rpms, or just shut itself down.
Like top loading washers, modern front loaders have reduced space between tub and cabinet. This allows larger tubs for increased capacity to fit in a cabinet with same footprint. What it means off bat it's a tight fit compared to machines of old. Thus while my older Miele will spin with OOB loads (banging and clanging away), most modern machines won't.
Regarding top loaders have tons of old issues of Consumer Reports. CR took points off washers without OOB sensors or whatever. IIRC many Maytag models were some of worse offenders. Housewives would return to washer when they assumed things were done; only to find the thing hadn't spun because of OOB loads or some such.
Later fully computer controlled washers such as my AEG can cope better than say the older Miele where control of drum is limited, and washer lacks ability to slowly rev up or down extraction.
Many a front loader has been harmed if not destroyed by laundering heavy items like those mentioned above. Tech that provides service for AEG washers doesn't recommend doing heavy blankets and so forth in washer.
All this being said modern front loaders to various extents will use combination of drum control, graduated revving up of spin, OOB detection and so on to minimize issues. However at some point if washer cannot get load balanced within accepted parameters one of several things will happen: it will abort all spinning and move to next portion of cycle, spin at lower rpms, or just shut itself down.
Like top loading washers, modern front loaders have reduced space between tub and cabinet. This allows larger tubs for increased capacity to fit in a cabinet with same footprint. What it means off bat it's a tight fit compared to machines of old. Thus while my older Miele will spin with OOB loads (banging and clanging away), most modern machines won't.
Regarding top loaders have tons of old issues of Consumer Reports. CR took points off washers without OOB sensors or whatever. IIRC many Maytag models were some of worse offenders. Housewives would return to washer when they assumed things were done; only to find the thing hadn't spun because of OOB loads or some such.
KM belt-drive OOB is a latching relay that kills power to the timer motor and drive motor until the timer is pulled/pushed (or pushed/pulled as may be the case) to Off/On which resets the relay. Manually redistribute the load before restarting.
Catalyst is electronic control. OOB stops spin (or Catalyst treatment) briefly for the load to settle, then restarts. Four successive triggers 1) aborts Catalyst and begins the regular wash period or 2) stops spin for an OB fault (open/close the lid to redistribute the load and resume spin, or Stop/Cancel to abort).
Reply #3
You’d have to ask waterwitch since he acquired a 1952 Whirlpool set. It might have a out of balance sensor on it but you’d have to ask waterwitch or John Lefever about that. I don’t have any experience with the early belt drives, only belt drive experience I have is with my ‘63 Whirlpool and 80’s Kenmore portable belt drive washer.
You’d have to ask waterwitch since he acquired a 1952 Whirlpool set. It might have a out of balance sensor on it but you’d have to ask waterwitch or John Lefever about that. I don’t have any experience with the early belt drives, only belt drive experience I have is with my ‘63 Whirlpool and 80’s Kenmore portable belt drive washer.
I’ve never seen a washer damage by out of balance load
With the notable exception of the new high speed Samsung, LG whirlpool or Maytag top load machines.
The damage these machines sustain has been from washing waterproof items that have a plastic covering the load is initially balance but once it gets to a fast enough speed the plastic membrane ruptures in the machine is suddenly out of balance.
The very first couple of years of Kenmore and whirlpool belt drives had a mechanical unbalanced switch that would push the timer control out and stop the machine.
Whirl pool belt drive belt washers did not need an unbalance switch because they would sustain no damage even if the load did become out of balance.
Sears used an unbalanced switch on their better models as a sales gimmick whirlpool never really use them at all. Even commercial machines and laundromats did not have unbalance switches.
Whirlpool direct drive washers did not use on balance switches either, really only washers with poor suspension systems had to have them where they couldn’t tolerate an unbalanced load without causing an undo amount of noise and vibration.
John L
With the notable exception of the new high speed Samsung, LG whirlpool or Maytag top load machines.
The damage these machines sustain has been from washing waterproof items that have a plastic covering the load is initially balance but once it gets to a fast enough speed the plastic membrane ruptures in the machine is suddenly out of balance.
The very first couple of years of Kenmore and whirlpool belt drives had a mechanical unbalanced switch that would push the timer control out and stop the machine.
Whirl pool belt drive belt washers did not need an unbalance switch because they would sustain no damage even if the load did become out of balance.
Sears used an unbalanced switch on their better models as a sales gimmick whirlpool never really use them at all. Even commercial machines and laundromats did not have unbalance switches.
Whirlpool direct drive washers did not use on balance switches either, really only washers with poor suspension systems had to have them where they couldn’t tolerate an unbalanced load without causing an undo amount of noise and vibration.
John L
One word...
Cheapskates. Save $1 per machine = $1 million saved with a million machines produced.
Some OOB designs were laughably ridiculous. On my '63 WCI Frigidaire washer, the out of balance switch was triggered from the action of a 12-6 o'clock tub movement yet an unbalanced load would cause the tub would bang into the cabinet at a 9-3 o'clock movement, never triggering the out of balance switch. Once every 3-4 spins cycles would cause the tub to bang into the cabinet due to the fast initial acceleration of the spin cycle. That was the downside of the quick spinning Frigidaire washers.
uicklt x
Cheapskates. Save $1 per machine = $1 million saved with a million machines produced.
Some OOB designs were laughably ridiculous. On my '63 WCI Frigidaire washer, the out of balance switch was triggered from the action of a 12-6 o'clock tub movement yet an unbalanced load would cause the tub would bang into the cabinet at a 9-3 o'clock movement, never triggering the out of balance switch. Once every 3-4 spins cycles would cause the tub to bang into the cabinet due to the fast initial acceleration of the spin cycle. That was the downside of the quick spinning Frigidaire washers.
uicklt x
John, I recall Kenmore coin-op toploaders at a local laundromat in the late 60s and early 70s that had OOB switches. It was in a small strip-mall type of building with a convenience store at one end, laundromat at the other end, and a hair salon in the middle that mother visited. A few times having a look-see at the laundromat there'd be a washer buzzing off-balance.
Does the OOB itself keep the machine from excelling to a hig
Does the OOB itself keep the machine from accelerating to a higher speed?
It depends... If the OOB greatly reduces as water is drained away, then it should get close to full speed.
If the load remains heavily out of balance, it spins slow.
This was the <span style="text-decoration: underline;">Aussie Hoovers</span>, any way. The spin clutch had enough slip that if there was any resistance to the tub turning - such as stiff bearings; water not pumped out causing drag; something stuck between basket and outer tub; OOB load - would cause it to spin very slowly. Not really even "spin", more like just "go round and round." The early versions (500 series) of these machines had a belt driven pump and would spin-drain, when the water level was high the tub barely turned at all, as the water level dropped it would slowly increase speed, only getting to full spin speed when there was no free water in the tub at all. The second version (600 series) had a weird device I have never seen on any other washer. It was a sort of bellows in the tub-to-pump hose - when the tub had water in it, the weight of the water would extend the device and it would mechanically block the transmission from spinning. The clutch would slip 100% while the pump out was happening, as the water level dropped to zero the device would retract and release the transmission, allowing it to spin. This changes the Hoovers from spin-drain to neutral drain. I guess the devices weren't reliable, as I have seen many 600 series Hoovers over the years with it removed. The next series, the 700 series, had an electric drain pump and timer changes so it would fully drain before attempting to spin.The clutch was inside the transmission, immersed in oil, so the slippage was never a wear issue.
Where this becomes of interest to chetlaham is that the 700 and later series had a "tighter" clutch with less slip, to make sure that it got up to full spin speed even if a bit out of balance.
My partner had a 700 series when we first met, it was a rugged good machine that never ever failed to spin. (though it was always loaded properly so it didn't get OOB.) Eventually we gave it to an idiot friend of my mother, she would wash a single rubber-backed bath mat in it and it would either splash water everywhere or get off balance and not spin well. She couldn't get her head around how to use it properly, so eventually I gave her some other machine and rescued the Hoover from her. It went to my sister and worked perfectly for years, even washing cloth nappies (diapers) for her baby son. (Now over 30.) It was a fabulous machine. Rust In Peace.
Their main opposition machines, Simpson, used a slipping belt to achieve the same - similar idea to Maytag's sliding motor mount, but Simpson's was pivoting not sliding, crude and had to be adjusted just right. (tensioner spring had a line of holes in the base to choose from, if more or less tension required, you just selected a different hole.) In my early time messing with washing machines I thought I would make a machine spin better by increasing the tension.... There was now no slippage in the belt, so the motor struggled to spin a full tub of water to full speed and burned out in about a minute. Ooops. I never liked Simpsons...
Does the OOB itself keep the machine from accelerating to a higher speed?
It depends... If the OOB greatly reduces as water is drained away, then it should get close to full speed.
If the load remains heavily out of balance, it spins slow.
This was the <span style="text-decoration: underline;">Aussie Hoovers</span>, any way. The spin clutch had enough slip that if there was any resistance to the tub turning - such as stiff bearings; water not pumped out causing drag; something stuck between basket and outer tub; OOB load - would cause it to spin very slowly. Not really even "spin", more like just "go round and round." The early versions (500 series) of these machines had a belt driven pump and would spin-drain, when the water level was high the tub barely turned at all, as the water level dropped it would slowly increase speed, only getting to full spin speed when there was no free water in the tub at all. The second version (600 series) had a weird device I have never seen on any other washer. It was a sort of bellows in the tub-to-pump hose - when the tub had water in it, the weight of the water would extend the device and it would mechanically block the transmission from spinning. The clutch would slip 100% while the pump out was happening, as the water level dropped to zero the device would retract and release the transmission, allowing it to spin. This changes the Hoovers from spin-drain to neutral drain. I guess the devices weren't reliable, as I have seen many 600 series Hoovers over the years with it removed. The next series, the 700 series, had an electric drain pump and timer changes so it would fully drain before attempting to spin.The clutch was inside the transmission, immersed in oil, so the slippage was never a wear issue.
Where this becomes of interest to chetlaham is that the 700 and later series had a "tighter" clutch with less slip, to make sure that it got up to full spin speed even if a bit out of balance.
My partner had a 700 series when we first met, it was a rugged good machine that never ever failed to spin. (though it was always loaded properly so it didn't get OOB.) Eventually we gave it to an idiot friend of my mother, she would wash a single rubber-backed bath mat in it and it would either splash water everywhere or get off balance and not spin well. She couldn't get her head around how to use it properly, so eventually I gave her some other machine and rescued the Hoover from her. It went to my sister and worked perfectly for years, even washing cloth nappies (diapers) for her baby son. (Now over 30.) It was a fabulous machine. Rust In Peace.
Their main opposition machines, Simpson, used a slipping belt to achieve the same - similar idea to Maytag's sliding motor mount, but Simpson's was pivoting not sliding, crude and had to be adjusted just right. (tensioner spring had a line of holes in the base to choose from, if more or less tension required, you just selected a different hole.) In my early time messing with washing machines I thought I would make a machine spin better by increasing the tension.... There was now no slippage in the belt, so the motor struggled to spin a full tub of water to full speed and burned out in about a minute. Ooops. I never liked Simpsons...
Heavy Bulky rugs---------
So, last month I went to wash two large bathroom rugs the size of small runners.
First I put them in the Collapse-O thinking it has a Bulky cycle and room to move them around. Big mistake. It almost chocked to death on them and was making serious knocking noises. I really like the machine, so I cancelled the cycle.
At first I was going to put them into the 1-18, but, thought against it as I was afraid it might wear the rubbery backing on the rugs.
Sooooooo, I put them in the old 1964 Maytag A-300 Highlander.
No problems at all. No unbalance issues either. Perfectly laundered.
Somehow, even with today's technology, the old Maytag pulled through for me once again.
So, last month I went to wash two large bathroom rugs the size of small runners.
First I put them in the Collapse-O thinking it has a Bulky cycle and room to move them around. Big mistake. It almost chocked to death on them and was making serious knocking noises. I really like the machine, so I cancelled the cycle.
At first I was going to put them into the 1-18, but, thought against it as I was afraid it might wear the rubbery backing on the rugs.
Sooooooo, I put them in the old 1964 Maytag A-300 Highlander.
No problems at all. No unbalance issues either. Perfectly laundered.
Somehow, even with today's technology, the old Maytag pulled through for me once again.
You bring up an interesting point about clutch slippage. I've seen several post FF GE washers, mine included, that were damaged from tub banging. They accelerated to full speed within seconds, whereas WP took time. Slow acceleration I think is key, which basically says hey put a pump on the drive motor and forget about neutral draining. Sanity peaked at one point in time.
