Speed Queen if listening- Brastemp got it right

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

Help Support AutomaticWasher.org:

Chetlaham

Well-known member
Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2013
Messages
5,105
Location
United States
Been researching Mexican washers and I have to admit I like what I see. There is no reason why Speed Queen could not have incorporated a mechanical timer, splutch, tub break, and normal eco cycle with minimal electronics. 30 year old Brastemp:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-AmLGduhWAcQ/U54RJSDkjWI/AAAAAAAAAY4/us0D8m-rc88/s1600/Bll22mab+mondial.jpg

Machine fills via 6B (US machine would have a few extra contacts for temp section) until the pressure switch is satisfied closing into PR which energizes the motor control via 4B. The motor control cycles power between AM and VM each second achieving agitation by clockwise and counter clockwise of the motor. The motor control can be designed to provide any stroke necessary at near any speed. The PSC motor is very efficient- much more than the centrifugal start it replaces. 4B opens and then 4T closes activating the pump and shifter solenoid. The solenoid engages the clutch while simultaneously releasing the brake band around the drive tube drum. As the water pumps out the pressure switch resets closing RO. This is to assure the machine does not go into spin with a full tub of water as there is no clutch or belt to slip to take the strain off the motor. Once empty, 8B closes energizing VM directly putting the tub into spin.

It is possible to configure the control such that when 8B is closed, the back feed into terminal motor control VM activates a timer and relay which makes and breaks continuity between MR and BR/RR- a gradual spin ramp up sequence the lasts 1 to 2 minutes and then terminates allowing full uninterrupted spinning.

This ramp up sequence can reduce the risk off balance tub banging and be used on the start of the normal ECO to saturate clothes. On the start of the normal ECO bypass 2T can be closed allowing a 1 minute timed increment or a 2 or 3 minute increment(s) with a sub interval 8B. As the machine fills for the first minute or more, the motor control (or even timer if SI) pulse spins the motor. This saturates all the clothes and has them fall to the bottom. The timer advances out of the spin & wet increment into a 1 minute timed fill only to lead the timer out of the first- making sure that a condition of both 4B and 8B closed can not take place. The timer advances into a new increment where the Bypass opens and the machine is allowed to fill until the pressure switch is satisfied. The catch is that on the normal eco cycle a different pressure switch is used allowing only a 1/10 tub fill- for the other cycles it is shunted out.

The eco cycle continues like the others- and for rinsing a series of spay rinses is used.

It is possible that one could add a 3B or 3T terminal and another lead to the motor control that does slow speed agitation- good for delicates and the normal eco due to the reduced fill.

I think if Speed Queen had gone this route it would have been a win-win for everyone.

chetlaham-2018013100583503317_1.jpg
 
And

If power is cut and the lid is opened: The solenoid disengages letting the break band slow the tub to a halt. During agitation the band prevent the tub from turning allowing for better cleaning and roll over.

The rest takes care of itself.
 
Yup- right and correct. :) The difference is that they use use a splutch and brake band which allows for driving the agitator independently of the tub- no lid lock- and no indexing. Most of the timing is done via an electronical timer as well. Nothing fancy and no error codes.

The design may be Whirlpool's version here- but its not much different from the ones that existed in Asia decades prior. All of which dirve the agitator or impeller independently of the tub.
 
Now that it's clearly proven VMW style machines can function like WE would want them to I wonder how hard it would be to hack one into doing so. Also begs the question, if it's not the design of the machine itself (which I always thought it was) then why won't they program them to work properly? Could it be with the intention to steer people toward more expensive front loaders?
 
Not sure why "minimal" electronics are a good thing. Electronics could very well be more reliable then mechanical controls today. Electronic controls are much better today then several decades ago. And with cost cuts I'll wager that a mechanical timer is no where near as good as one made decades ago.

I'd never buy a machine today with a crude mechanical timer. We can do so much better today.
 
WP VMW Washers

Yes SQ could have built a new TL washer like this, BUT these have never been very durable washers, you name a part of these machines and it breaks in normal use far too soon.

 

WP has been selling these machines in various forms since the late 80s here in the US, GE now has their own version of it as well [ I have a GE in the shop now that I pulled off the recycle pile that is less than two years old that Jason put a motor in last weekend that is now working ] But when you look at the general design of these machines they are not very long lived.

 

Cool Video you posted Jon, it is always impressive to see how clever people are fixing things when you don't have much money but have more time to work on things.

 

I do take issue with the idea that lip seals are not as durable as face type seals in washing machines, if you look at the washer designs with the most durable bearings almost all of them use lip type seals, for example, all WP TL washers ever built, SQ TL washers the last 15+years and the old ST SQ Washers as well, all old WH FL washers, and all FL washers today.

 

John L.
 
"Speed Queen if listening . . ."

How could they not be, judging from the racket that machine makes?

 

It would just be another no-win situation for Alliance to move from a silent, ineffective swirler to something that cleans better but sounds like it's on its last legs -- which it seems to be right out of the box, based on John L's assessment.
 
That's how all machines were made in AU from the early 80's until the end of manufacturing in 2003ish. (Excluding hoover which was from the early 90's onwards)

These machines had a Splutch with a planetary gearset to reduce the agitate speed and a brake band in the plutch to control spin.

There were no electronics at all, it was a substantial motor that reversed.

These machines would run for 10-15 years with only minor repairs. If you use quality components it can work and be reliable.
 
That's fascinating Brisnat.
I had no idea other countries' older machines had reversing motors.
When did those start? I thought you needed more modern electronics to do that?
When did they get rid of the reciprocating transmissions like we used to have in the States up till just recently?
 
Hi John,

I've attached a previous post that Gizmo explains how it works. Scroll down to nearly the bottom.

We had the Reversing motor machines in the Simpson models by the mid 80's, with Hoover following in the early 90's with some models. Aside from F&P they were our three manufacturers left by that point.

Someone might be able to correct me, but I'm pretty sure they were single speed motors, for Gentle Agitate its just very very short sharp strokes with pauses. For gentle spin they did a sequence of Ramp ups and ramp downs.

This one is dirty, but its one of the last of the original non electronic design


The Japanese had reversing motor machines from the mid 70's with the GE Compact style machines, some of those had the Impeller other had the agitator.

http://www.automaticwasher.org/cgi-bin/TD/TD-VIEWTHREAD.cgi?13034
 
I've been saying it for two months now but no one listens to me- the VMW design is absolutely nothing new. Its a copy from the Asian market 40 years ago, which latter spread around the world outside of America.

The VMW design is simpler, cheaper, more efficient, and easier to fix. You do not need electronics, just something that will cycle power between the two (out of three) motor leads.

Speed Queen could have copied this design while being old school and not having a single semiconductor in the machine.
 
VMW Machines Are Easier To Fix

Hi Chet, They could be but are not necessarily cheap or easy to fix.

 

The WP machines that I have the most experience with from the 80s onward pretty much total themselves as soon as the main seal goes, it literately costs as much as a new washer if you use new WP parts to fix them and even though the current 2010 and forward WP VMW machines are designed to be easier to fix the cost of parts is prohibitive and we are junking them every week.

 

The WP DD washers for example are actually still cost effective to put new transmissions in etc.

 

John L.
 
I would agree. However with good seals a VMW SQ could last 25+ years without a problem. Once that goes, or the gear case, it would involve junking the machine much like today's transmission SQs (assuming the same suspension is kept which I think should be).
 
I believe you Chet.
And the guy from AU.
I learned something and didn’t know the basic VMW architecture was around for so long.
 
"Speed Queen could have copied this design while being old school and not having a single semiconductor in the machine."

But then you lose all the ability to ramp and brake the motor in a controlled fashion. I just don't seem to see the advantage of needlessly making a machine crude.

I find it an interesting paradox using the Internet to share views of the fear of semiconductors...
 
Back
Top