Question To Ponder - Could Any Vintage Frigidiare Washer Meet Today's Energy Standards?

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

Help Support AutomaticWasher.org:

launderess

launderess

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 22, 2004
Messages
20,874
Location
Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage
Have been racking my brains thinking about this, and tough it was to expose my query to the air. Say some wealthy and tech savvy got it into his head to revive the old "Jet Action" Frigidaire washing machines, could they be made to satisfiy the damn silly US rules on energy use?

Just wondering,

L.
 
Great Question!

I would ask if a Unimatic could meet today's standards with a few changes.
1. No overflow Rinse. Instead, use a recirculating lint filter.
2. Optional cold rinse.
3. Optional second rinse.
4. Suds Saver.

I think a solid tub machine would use less water than a perforated-basket machine of the same capacity. That has to count for something!

Howza bout it?
Dave

Also, if people considered the energy and resources used to dispose of an old machine and replace it with a new POS model every 5-7 years, are they really saving much energy when compared to a good old machine that could last for 20?
 
Jet Action

hmmmmm from experience i use my '65 rollermatic and '75 1-18 washers every week for laundry....my water bill hasn't changed much from when we were using an x-large capacity whirlpool. Also just got the '60 multimatic running so will see what happens when i use all three for the next couple of months.......
Mark
 
It would have to be a machine with a high speed spin, both to compete with the front loaders and to make rinsing with a limited amount of water more effective.

The extra amount of water needed to make a recirculating filter operational would save little to nothing compared to an overflow rinse. Two non-overflow rinses or the option to have two would rinse better than one overflow rinse.

Consumer Reports would bitch about the small capacity. To increase capacity, the Three Ring Agitator would need to be used instead of the space capsule style. At 10 to 12 gallons per fill, it would use more than a front loader, but maybe not more than an HE toploader, but again you have to compare what the Frigidaire holds against the capacity claims of the Cabrio, FP etc.
 
I have wondered about that. Not just Frigidaire, but others as well. Kelvinator (my personal love) had the magic minute. What if one put in a pump and recirculated (sp) the water a la Calypso.
 
The thing about a recirculating pump in a solid tub machine is that you have to fill the tub to overflowing and enough has to overflow to provide a steady intake for the pump. Kelvinators were very poor at water extraction and did not wash a very large load since so much room was taken up by the agitator and that's not at all HE. The agitator, with all of those holes for water circulation jets, was filled with water, unlike old KM, WP, GE etc agitators in which the central column stayed dry because the dome of air inside kept water out. That extra water in the agitator adds to water consumption that cannot be used for fabric capacity and that's not an HE characteristic. In order for the Kelvinator to wash, the tub has to be pretty full of water. If you were trying to use the agitator to move clothes under a stream of water like a Calypso, it would be pretty hard on them. The older agitator with the rubber fins would take buttons off garments even with a full tub of water. Since the Calypso design has been discontinued for many reasons, and the Kelvinator could not be of the solid tub design and work like a Calypso, it's probably not a good candidate for an HE machine.
 
Recirculation in a solid tub:

Here's a thought. Instead of having an overflowing solid tub, how about one with a few holes at the bottom? The trick would be having few enough holes to allow a slow draining of the tub, and a recirculation pump for a lint filter that could put water into the tub as fast as it comes out, or maybe a little faster. The pump would have to run during filling. The machine would also have to spin out the water to achieve a reasonably quick drain.

How did the solid tub GE Filter Flos work, either with a lower water level selected for a small load, or a mini basket?

Also, could a Frigidaire-style solid tub machine be created with a larger capacity by making the tub deeper and/or wider? I know the Super Unimatic 2.0 has a larger tub than was originally shipped on residential Unimatics, but in order to compete today, it would have to have an even greater capacity. Also, could the solid tub be wrapped with some kind of waterproof insulating foam to better retain heat in the water?

Keep the ideas coming,
Dave
 
The solid tub Ge FilterFlo washers had a small hole under the Activator to allow heavy soil to escape with a slow drain of water. On full loads this was no problem, but there was a ring on the Activator indicating the minimum fill level if you used the water saver switch to prevent a full fill. During operation with less than a full amount of water, the recirculattion of water into the filter did not take place. The instructions on the underside of the lid said to add the detergent directly into the washer tub instead of the filter pan. The tub had to be filled to that ring on the agitator to allow for the diminishing level of the water in the tub due to the water that drained out through the sediment hole during wash. All during the wash, there was a loud gurgling sound from the pump, sad that it had no water to play with.

The Mini Basket, not to be confused with hypogonadism, had small holes in the bottom through which heavy soil could pass and holes around the top for overflow circulation during washing and rinsing. Our GE had the first Mini Basket which was very small. During the pause between Activation and spin, most of the water managed to run out through the holes at the base. The washer filled with 6 gallons of water on the Mini setting to provide ample water for circulation and cleaning, but an HE machine could wash, but not rinse, a whole load with that amount.
 
My '60 GE has one hole under the Activator and one hole on the side of the tub about halfway up.

Speed Queen in the early 60's had a TOL model that had a recirculating filter. In addition to the overflow at the top of the washtub, the agitator post had eight holes around the bottom of it to allow water to escape and return via the filter stream. (if you remember my photos this summer of replacing the agitator post kit on the early 70's washer - see link)

To my knowledge, this was the only SQ solid-tub washer that had a recirculating filter system.

http://www.automaticwasher.org/TD/ARCHIVE/VINTAGE/2007/12518x51.htm
 
Capacity at 18lbs shouldn't be a problem if coupled with high rpm speed final spin (>1100 rpms). Water consumption could be lowered if rinses were designed along the F&P model, that is using a series of spray rinses as default instead of deep rinses. Coupled with a sensor, the washer could simply contiune a series of spray rinses until out going water was determined to be "clear".

To really kick things up a notch, for export to countries with 220v power as normal for homes, such as Oz, a heating system could be added, and let them in on the fun as well.

L.
 
Oh yes, forgot.

Would need a powerful motor, something along 1HP or above so washer could start spinning after the wash cycle while draining (no neutral drain). This would give better rinse results as laundry in the tub would not act as a filter for mucky water as it sat sitting while water drained out.

L.
 
The extra amount of water needed to make a recirculating fil

Tom, recirc might need a gallon or less. The overflow rinse uses EIGHT or TEN.

Are you on that pipe again?
 
I think what the real question should be

is..
---And The Dept of Energy never addresses this:
How many POUNDS of clothes per gallon of water can a machine clean. Not as they do it" How many gallons per cycle does the machine use".
So looking at a 1-18 Frigidaire with 60 gallons on regular wash you come up with 18pounds/60gallons = o.3 pounds/gallon.

For a small Frigidaire front loader 12pounds/21 gallons=0.57 pounds/gallon

BUT if you take Robert's FrankenFrigdaire in the lab and you use the last rinse water for the next rinse or wash cycle then this older machine will smackulate the newer ones by a mile.

It's a relative question but the current way the DOE looks at is cockeyed because the standard was created by the current industry. Who cares how many gallons a machine uses in cycle, its how efficient it uses it that is important.
 
The Holy Spirit is up and about--HOW NICE!

Watching the fill in her 20 lb. circa 80's Norge, a friend used to ask: " Where does the water go? " Once I measured and the Norge swallows 2 whole gallons of water before any appears in the bottom of the tub.

For the same amount of water the Frigidaire is ready and able to go with a small load--advancing the dial, of course--with unparalleled washday drama.

And although I agree with your argument, the Frigidaire Irony is that it is one of the very few machines that will take the full, advertised poundage in clothes, and move them ably, and clean them completely.

We've got to get solid tubs back on the market.

Making the overflow optional, without it, you could wash and rinse 10 pounds in a Unimatic in--is it 16 or 20 gallons of water? Can't remember and have no lit on it. Does the full fill take 8 gallons or 10? As has been pointed out many times, with an eleven hundred plus rpm spin, the first rinse water is always clear.

Jon, I found an ancient mahogany Bendix radio, a million years old, in my Aunt Alice's secret storage room. Would you like to have it?
 
A 1955 10lb Unimatic fills at approx 2.5 gallons per minute so it uses:

4 min fill --- 10 gallons
1.5 min overflow wash --- 3.75 gallons
3.5 min rinse fill --- 8.75 gallons
2.5 min overflow rinse --- 6.25 gallons

28.75 gallons total

Earlier Double Rinse Machines had 3 4 minute fills with a total water usage of approx 30 gallons.
 
So the Unimatic "clicks" every half minute,

while the 1962 Multi advances just once per minute, saving space on the dial for the Wash n' Wear Cycle. From your 55 chart, I can tweak out the 62 usage.

4 min fill--10
2 min overflow-- 5....... a really effective cooldown, which I skip when suds-saving
3 min rinse fill-- 7.5
4 minute overflow rinse-- 10.... What a wonderfully decadent extravagance, especially in hot water. Attention GE lovers. The overflow and the water throw from the rinse completely fill the GE. When i do the occasioal hot rinse for a rare bleaching of sheets or towels, the GE just begs for the water to do a huge ramp activated load of blankets--keep those winter dust mites away. YAY.

32.5 Total

Why do you suppose the rinse is so long? It's really overkill. BUT I LOVE IT !!!!!!!
 
Capacity

As for the capacity issue. I like to look at it as how much laundry can you process in a given amount of time. So, if you had 40 lbs. to wash. How long would it take in a Modern machine in comparison to any solid tub?

MRB
 
Hardly anyone cares

The problem with making and selling a washer that properly cleans and rinses is,of course the Feds.The basic idea to save resources is a good one,but in typical fashion it was taken to the extreme.Please check out my final report on my new SQ in the appropriate forum.It will appear later today and addresses this issue.Here is the bottom line-Most people dont know or care nowadays whether their machine does a good job or not.I think,with most folks I know,if the machine just washed the load in cold water long enough to get them wet,with the modern no-suds detergents,then spun them out they would never know the difference.
Tom
 
Hmmm.

Is this a rhetorical question?

As noted in another recent thread, one doesn't get into using vintage washers out of a concern for water or energy efficiency. However, the 1140 rpm Unimatics certainly extracted a lot of water, resulting in less energy needed for mechanical drying. So they were efficient in that regard. And, as noted here, the solid tub machines were more water efficient than the perforated tub machines.

In terms of total water usage, well, 29 gallons for a Unimatic isn't so far from the 25 gallons a solid door Neptune uses. And my Miele 1980 washer uses about 25 gallons per 10 lb load, as well. I am estimating that by how far it fills up a 32 gallon plastic trash can by the end of the cycle and before I have to turn on the sump pump to empty the can.

The question, I suppose, is if someone were to try to manufacture a modern version of the Unimatic, would it pass increasingly stringent water and energy government regulations? I suspect not, at least not without compromising washing and/or rinsing ability. The pump action agitator requires that the laundry be fully submerged for any good results - there is no way one could shower the load ala the Harmony or Cabrio and not have the agitator pumping air instead of laundry. If one were to try to resurrect the Unimatic design I suspect the only way to get around regulations would be to supply it in kit form, for the customer to assemble on their own from a box of "parts".
 
If the early Unimatics were re-introduced, and used only one rinse instead of two, allowing the optional second rinse the way contemporary models do, they would indeed pass the federal regulations. Such machines would efficiently wash 10 pounds of laundry in 20 gallons of water.

The '47 GE uses only one rinse, and it has been mentioned by the Head Washerman many times that the first rinse on his 47 Unimatic is already clear, as is the ONLY rinse on his 1100+ rpm '47 GE. It would be just disingenuous to discount such incontrovertible data.

The engineers may have designed the Uni with two rinses out of kindness, mercy, intelligence, or respect for the landslide majority of American women who had just evolved from wringer washing where two rinses were the ancient standard.

There is no urgent need for the second rinse to automatically occur; other brands did not have one. Despite their spray rinses, they lost the rinsing contest with slow spin speeds. Also noteworthy of consideration is the fact that a Frigidaire can successfully negotiate 10 pounds of laundry. Half the fun of using one is the sheer joy of watching it gobble down the load.
 
Speed Queen's current top loader for domestic service, uses 39.1 gallons of water for 3.3 cu/ft (according to specs from SQ listed on AJ Madison's website). Speed Queen's PR rep states most energy star top loaders run about 33 gallons, give or take. This give us plenty of wiggle room for a decent "sumberged" wash in a "new" Frigidaire Jet Action machine, but some tweaks will have to be made in other areas.

As I've said, and will keep on saying, the simplest method is to take a page from F&P washers, and offer a series of spray rinses as the default in the normal cycle. It is the normal cycle that has the Fed's and tree hugger's knickers in a twist because they realise that is the cycle most users will go to first. As one has seen with numerous washers being sold today that have that silly "Energy Star" label slapped all over, work arounds can be added to give the results most people want, to get around the stingy "normal cycle".

As with F&P washers, one or even two deep rinses could be offered as an option instead of the spray rinse. If one added some sort of optical eye to sense water clarity, the machine could spray rinse until rinse water is clear. If consumer reporting type magazines are correct, sensor equipped dishwashers actually use more water than those without, therefore we may assume that a washer so equipped could probably deliver better rinsing from a well designed spray rinse system, than one with just one deep rinse.

Over flow rinses are not required, but spin drain would be useful, and of course the famous Frigidaire 1140 rpm final spin speed would match most domestic front loaders sold in the United States today. Indeed if I remember by physics correctly, because of the larger drum on say an "1-18" type Frigidaire unit, laundry would actually come out dryer than with a small 11lb front loader.

If Americans weren't so against using 220v power in the laundry room, a heater could be installed to boost 110F water to say 120, combined with ATC of course.

L.
 
Don't forget - total water usage is only part of the energy picture. A washer that uses just five gallons or less for the wash part of the cycle will use much less energy to heat water for a warm or hot wash, than a washer that uses 10 gallons or more for same (big toploaders can use up to 20 gallons for the wash part of the cycle). And heating water is the biggest energy cost in washing clothes - hence the popularity of dumbed down warm and hot water settings on some models, and the push for cold water washing. This is where a front loader eats the lunch of a traditional top loader.
 
<blockquote>A washer that uses just five gallons or less for the wash part of the cycle will use much less energy to heat water ...</blockquote>Which is where the Calypso comes in. :-)

Or F&P's EcoActive wash process, which by engineering that as the default wash selection and providing *options* for a hot-fill traditional wash, they get EnergyStar-labeled and the consumer gets a choice of two washing methods in a single machine.
 
Federal Standards.

I did some preliminary calculations and I couldn't find a way a Unimatic (even the Super Unimatic 2.0) can be Energy Star compliant, based on water usage. I didn't even get to energy usage. I did not count suds saving or modified cycles, however. Instead of searching for Energy Star compliance, I am now searching for Federal compliance.

The formula to beat for Federal energy use requirements is as follows:
Capacity (in cubic feet) / (energy used by the washing machine) + (energy used to heat water) + (energy used for drying) = at least 1.26 (this is the Modified Energy Factor, or MEF)

As for water usage standards, what is the minimum allowed amount of water per cubic foot of capacity? I don't know where to find it.
If feasible, an internal water heater that is more energy efficient than the household average may actually help the washer's efficiency ratings. 220 volt washer anyone, or even an internal gas heater!? Imagine a washer with electric, water, and gas hookups, oy! Also, what would use less electricity over the course of a cycle to power the washer, a 110 volt motor or a 220 volt motor? If it's 220, then maybe using 220 for the washer and a gas dryer might, theoretically, be in order.

Any thoughts on the matter? Also, what is the capacity of a Unimatic in cubic feet? Same for the Super Unimatic 2.0 with its bigger tub?

The link is to the Energy Star requirements which mentions the MEF (Modified Energy Factor) requirements for both minimum Federal standards (> or = 1.26) and Energy Star standards (> or = 1.72).

Time to crunch some numbers and thanks,
Dave

http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=clotheswash.pr_crit_clothes_washers
 
new train of thought....

I was wondering why Whirlpool didn't resurrect the "Filter Stream" system, used in their '57-'60 Washer-Dryer combinations.
For the uninitiated, these machines would utilize a recirculating spray during the wash and rinse cycles, instead of the tub filling with water.

I wouldn't mind seeing this (or a variation) in use today.
 
Let's think out of the box a minute...

<font size = 4>I’m about to show you guys and gals how I can wash 10lbs of clothes in a solid basket top loader using ONLY AN AVERAGE OF 16 GALLONS OF WATER PER WASHLOAD, filling the tub to the rim with water and having not one but TWO full deep rinses!</font>

First here is the machine: (Click here for the entire patent)
earlyfrigidaire.jpg


I want to share with everyone this primitive Frigidaire design from the mid-1930's. Frigidaire had designed many different prototype washers but this one is particularly pertinent to this thread. Its quite an advanced machine for its time. It uses an agi-tub style agitation, where the tub agitates the clothes, but the agitation vanes are mounted to the tub as opposed to the center agitator column. It has a special knob that allows you to select between 1 and 20 minutes of wash time. The tub oscillates back and forth for washing and rinsing and of course it spins to throw the water out of the tub and wring out the clothes. (Click here for the entire patent)

Let's imagine that I have five 10-lb wash loads to do:

1. White Load
2. Queen Sheets and Pillow Cases
3. Mixed Colored Clothes
4. Mixed Colored Clothes
5. Blue and Black Jeans (5 total)

I’m going to start with the white wash:

There are three separate 10 gallon reservoir tanks at the bottom of the washer, the user (our housewife, meaning me :) ) manually fills the left reservoir with 10 gallons of hot water and the center and right reservoirs with 10 gallons cool or cold water each. As I'm filling the reservoirs with a hose once the reservoir has reached the full 10 gallon level a signal light illuminates on the front of the machine telling me that the reservoir is full and I can move on and fill the other two reservoirs until their respective "full" signal lights come on.

Next I add my white clothes and soap to the wash tub.

I set my washing time, let’s say for 12 minutes and pull down on the front handle to start the washer.

Here is what the washer does automatically next:

#1 It starts the suction pump and pulls the hot water out of the left reservoir (water reservoir #1) and fills the tub.
#2 It agitates the clothes for the variably set wash time (12 minutes in our example here).
#3 Then the timer tells a solenoid to shift the machine into spin. The water is thrown out of the tub into the trough that surrounds the tub and all of the water is directed via an electric diverter through the pump and back into the left water reservoir where it originally came from.
#4 The tub stops spinning and the pump pulls the first rinse water out of the middle 10 gallon reservoir (water reservoir #2) and pushes it up into the tub.
#5 The tub agitates back and forth for a few minutes for the 1st rinse.
#6 The machines then shifts back into spin and spins the first rinse water into the trough and the diverter directs this water down the drain.
#7 The tub stops spinning and the pump pulls the second rinse water out of the rightmost reservoir (water reservoir #3) and pushes in into the wash tub.
#8 The tub agitates back and forth for a few minutes for the 2nd rinse.
#9 The machines then shifts back into spin and spins the 2nd rinse water into the trough and the diverter solenoid directs this water down back into the middle 1st rinse reservoir.
Total water usage: 30 gallons.

I take my nice very dry clothes out and go hang them on my line (god forbid). I return to my basement where my second load of wash is ready, one of my two colored wash loads.

Now since we still have two full reservoirs of water (soapy-wash and 1st rinse) and all I have to do now fill my 2nd rinse reservoir again with 10 gallons of fresh water. The soapy-hot water in my wash reservoir has now cooled down to a point where it’s just soapy-warm water and perfect for my 2nd color load. So I start the washer and add just a little bit more soap. The washer reuses the soapy wash water and then reuses the slightly cloudy but still clean 2nd rinse water from the previous wash load in my colored load's 1st rinse. Then for the final rinse it uses the clear fresh water! The machines again does all the same steps saving both the wash water and last rinse water for the next load.
Total water usage: 10 gallons.

Now for my third load I want to wash color load #2. So once again I reuse the soapy-wash and rinse water and only need to fill the final rinse reservoir.
Total water usage: 10 gallons

Now for my fourth wash load, I’ll wash the sheets so I will drain the left soapy-wash water reservoir and refill it with fresh clear hot water. Wash the sheets using fresh wash water/detergent and fresh final rinse water, but reuse the last rinse water for my first rinse.:
Total water usage: 20 gallons

Finally my fifth load of wash, the Jeans. I reuse my cooled down to warm hot soapy water from the wash, rinse water and refill my final rinse reservoir with 10 gallons of fresh water.
Total water usage: 10 gallons

TOTAL WATER USAGE FOR FIVE LOADS: 80 Gallons, 80 / 5 = average 16 gallons per 10lb wash load, not bad, quite good actually and you get true deep rinsing twice with high speed spinning between the wash and rinses!

Since I am now done with all my washing for the day I set the special water dial to "drain" and drain all three reservoirs into the standpipe or sink to dispose of.

Now of course for our 21st century version of this washer we could make many enhancements. Like:

1. Make it a pulsator agitator machine
2. Computer controlled.
3. reservoirs automatically fill themselves
4. You could tell the computer how many wash loads you are planning on doing and in which order so the computer could decided to save the wash water or save the 1st water instead to be used for the next wash load. The computer would always save the 2nd rinse water to be used for the first rinse.
5. Some loads are not really dirty at all and all the water could be reused.
6. For the mechanicals modern DC motors and components could be used to really save electricity.
7. Use a filtering system to filter all the water.
8. Have only one deep rinse but have a 10 gallon overflow rinse and save those ten gallons that overflow back into 1st rinse reservoir for the next wash.

I can think of many others, what about you guys/gals how else could you enhance this type of machine to save even more enery?

Oh here is the cycle chart from the patent:
earlyfrigidaire_timechart.jpg


Oh one final thing I forgot to mention about this design is that since the tanks filled with 30 gallons of water, that is ALOT of extra weight. This machine does not have much of a suspension system but would be rather stable because of all that extra weight at the bottom of the machine. So in other words this machine would not vibrate very much which of course is another positive!
 
Hey Merry Prankster

the pdf's load but the pages are blank

this is tremendous
there have been urban rumors about reservoirs inside of old washing machines
your GE actually allows the re-use of rinse water
your manuals section has directions for saving suds in the Unimatic, or by inference, rinse water since the method is the same
people sometimes get uncomfortable about re-using water, so I keep it a secret, but i always re-use the Frigidaire's rinse water for another load, and recycle water in most of my machines--all the time. I seem incapable of following this procedure: "Load it, set it forget it."

Most of the members keeps their hoses out of sight, untouched behind their machines. Once you start taking your hoses out and moving them around, the water saving possibilities are endless.

Thanks for another riveting masterpiece, now go fix the pix.
 
Hey Mike, I can see the pdf's just fine when I click on them, both here at home, on my mac and at work. Are you opening them with the adobe reader?

A washer that uses just five gallons or less for the wash part of the cycle will use much less energy to heat water ...
You know correct me if I'm wrong, but I have to say that a washer that uses five gallons of hot water in its wash cycle is not really washing in hot water, because the cold clothes and metal will cool down that water from 140 to 100-110 in just a few minutes. I've tested the water temperature in my Super Unimatic and 12 gallons of hot water go from 140 to 105 in 20 minutes when I don't use the water heater. Five gallons is much less water than the 12 and will cool even faster. Of course you can use a booster heater, but this will take quite a bit of energy to keep the water temperature up and not all of these machines have these heaters.
 
working on spray rinse efficiency

Under tundra conditions here as is most of the North, I'm not using the garage- residing Frigidaire for a few days because, although she is happy to pump away, it's too cold for me.

The question: How long will it take for a Frigidaire to effectively spray rinse a load of wash?

Issues:

#1. The Uni spins at 1140, or less, depending on what R tells the computer to do, but it has a circle jet fill system.

#2. The Multi spins at 8oo something but has a wider flume, almost double the width of the standard Unimatic flume. Have noticed that when the water hits the pulsator, there is very dramatic cyclonic water action. It seems as if the water has more force hurling off the pulsator than what the circle jet spray provides.

#3. Wondering if the Super U still has the original flume in place as an option to see if that woks better than circle jet.

Estimating that the Multi will need three minutes to rinse clear-- water usage being 7.5 gallons. Remember that since we're rinsing in a solid tub, the water must pass all the way through the laundry before exiting the inner upper holes.

Predicting very effective rinsing; let you know when the tundra goes.
 

Latest posts

Sponsored
UnlistMe
Back
Top