panasonicvac
Well-known member
What does the wash action of the Calypso look like? I'm curious to see for myself.
Speed Queen TR washers
- Thread starter whirlpool862
- Start date
Help Support :
There several user channels on YouTube that have videos.
This is mine, 15 yrs ago so the quality is somewhat wanting, with background noise from the camera's tape/recording mechanism. The full cycle is there, in five parts due to limitations of the at-the-time camera's recording duration. I added text overlays via a YT annotation feature to highlight various operational functions but YT eliminated the feature and the notations disappeared. Increase the playback speed to clearly see that the load rolls over while it rotates CCW through the recirculation shower.
Calypso was a good concept though as stated by D-todd Kenmore buyers absolutely did not like it to say the least. I remember when it first came out Sears sales associates were eager to push Calypso, only to have literally entire store sales floor fill up with returns soon after. I don't know the details but it appears consumers became very angry at the results Calypso was producing. Which to be honest I don't understand. Calypso in videos appears to produce excellent results. I do not think Whirlpool would release anything without extensive testing and pre-approval.
One thing I've always wondered / fantasized about is a spin tub washer. One where the washer starts spinning at 650 rpm with dry clothes and then fills with about 4-8 gallons of water while it is recirculated at about 15 gallons per minute. During the re-circulation period the tub periodically coasts down then reveres direction picking up speed back to normal. After the washer drains, starts spinning again and sprays the clothes with clean water until the final spin.
Though considering a spin tub washer has never been offered on the market leads me to think lab testing has shown it not very promising?
One thing I've always wondered / fantasized about is a spin tub washer. One where the washer starts spinning at 650 rpm with dry clothes and then fills with about 4-8 gallons of water while it is recirculated at about 15 gallons per minute. During the re-circulation period the tub periodically coasts down then reveres direction picking up speed back to normal. After the washer drains, starts spinning again and sprays the clothes with clean water until the final spin.
Though considering a spin tub washer has never been offered on the market leads me to think lab testing has shown it not very promising?
Catalyst
Here is an example of what I have in mind regarding recirculating soapy water while spinning:
Internals:
I'd do away with all the detergent dispensers and extra valves but just keep the recirculation system in place.
I've always wondered if the whole cycle could just be one giant catalyst. Just spin and recirculate for 30-40 minutes, then rinse recirculate, then spin to off. I'd imagine concentrating detergent down to a few gallons of water males for great cleaning.
Here is an example of what I have in mind regarding recirculating soapy water while spinning:
Internals:
I'd do away with all the detergent dispensers and extra valves but just keep the recirculation system in place.
I've always wondered if the whole cycle could just be one giant catalyst. Just spin and recirculate for 30-40 minutes, then rinse recirculate, then spin to off. I'd imagine concentrating detergent down to a few gallons of water males for great cleaning.
<blockquote>[color=#ff000]I'd imagine concentrating detergent down to a few gallons of water males [sic] for great cleaning.[/color]</blockquote> Isn't that Calypso's concept?
It is the concept behind most HE washers. Less water but more detergent. The difference in my idea is that instead of nutating, tumbling or running a wash plate the clothes are spun.
One disadvantage however would be sand, grit and silt would remain trapped in between the folds of the fabric so theoretically you would need have periods where the fabric can relax, flex and release its trapped contents.
Clutch if used would need to be beefed up and away from the motor (friction heat output) considering it would be slipping more than an agitate machine during the 40 minute spin recirculate.
The plus side is that it would make a vastly simpler machine in that you would need only one shaft, fewer seals, no mode shifter, no agitate gears, no nutate mech, ect.
One disadvantage however would be sand, grit and silt would remain trapped in between the folds of the fabric so theoretically you would need have periods where the fabric can relax, flex and release its trapped contents.
Clutch if used would need to be beefed up and away from the motor (friction heat output) considering it would be slipping more than an agitate machine during the 40 minute spin recirculate.
The plus side is that it would make a vastly simpler machine in that you would need only one shaft, fewer seals, no mode shifter, no agitate gears, no nutate mech, ect.
Just spin your laundry clean
And more stupid ideas from Chets sandbox, it’s amazing. Nobody ever thought of that before or more likely they did and obviously anybody with a lick a sense would know that wouldn’t possibly clean clothing.
And it needs to have a clutch in it with a cooling system because it’s gonna slip and get so hot more idiocy, no washing machine built uses a clutch anymore it’s not necessary with variable speed motors.
You are correct and that it would be very simple to build this machine, the only problem is it wouldn’t work at all. It would easily be the worst automatic washer probably ever built or sold, lol
John L
And more stupid ideas from Chets sandbox, it’s amazing. Nobody ever thought of that before or more likely they did and obviously anybody with a lick a sense would know that wouldn’t possibly clean clothing.
And it needs to have a clutch in it with a cooling system because it’s gonna slip and get so hot more idiocy, no washing machine built uses a clutch anymore it’s not necessary with variable speed motors.
You are correct and that it would be very simple to build this machine, the only problem is it wouldn’t work at all. It would easily be the worst automatic washer probably ever built or sold, lol
John L
Thats why I'd like to see the idea put to the test in a lab so I'd know exactly why it doesn't work or isn't practical to further pursue. In theory saturating than compressing than re saturating clothes over and over would result in mechanical manipulation of the fabric that cleaning will take place more or less.
Consider what the TR series is, its worth researching the idea further.
Yes it is not necessary to have a clutch with a VFD, but I'd like to see washers without any electronics in them.
Consider what the TR series is, its worth researching the idea further.
Yes it is not necessary to have a clutch with a VFD, but I'd like to see washers without any electronics in them.
Just to clarify, in my thread about the worst washer in America, I voted for Calypso because of how the u-joint boot would tear and then replacing it required a puller, and also the wash plate seal at the edge would curl up and then things would go underneath. Also, lots of complaints of black marks because the wash plate would wear on the basket over time. There were pump problems too.
As for the VMW machines, let's make sure we are talking about the same thing. When I say VMW, I refer to the machine that replaced the direct drive, the one that has the motor and shifter, not the one with the rotor and stator. My Sears customers would complain that it filled with so little water that the clothing wouldn't get wet.
If I were to choose an HE machine that seemed to hold promise but left too soon, it would be the Neptune TL.
As for the VMW machines, let's make sure we are talking about the same thing. When I say VMW, I refer to the machine that replaced the direct drive, the one that has the motor and shifter, not the one with the rotor and stator. My Sears customers would complain that it filled with so little water that the clothing wouldn't get wet.
If I were to choose an HE machine that seemed to hold promise but left too soon, it would be the Neptune TL.
<blockquote>As for the VMW machines, let's make sure we are talking about the same thing. When I say VMW, I refer to the machine that replaced the direct drive, the one that has the motor and shifter, not the one with the rotor and stator. My Sears customers would complain that it filled with so little water that the clothing wouldn't get wet.</blockquote> There are/were early deep-fill VMW models with a traditional-type water level control having multiple settings. I've done a couple repairs on a WTW4930XW1 (S/N 2012) my neighbor has for the tenents at one of his rental properties.
<blockquote>If I were to choose an HE machine that seemed to hold promise but left too soon, it would be the Neptune TL.</blockquote> Have you used one? They're unique, interesting and fun to have, but quirky. Very sensitive to spin balancing, interim spins sometimes are skipped due to limitation on the number of balance attempts. Some types of loads/fabrics may not roll over. I once watched a load of 21 shirts not roll even once through the entire (medium soil) wash period. The bottom of the load got a drubbing. The rest upwards through the "pile" received less to nothing. Items on top were exposed only briefly to detergent via what initially hit them out of the dispenser during fill. I restarted the cycle and helped it roll through another full wash period.
I personally don't care about any of the negativity the VMW platform gets. I've had several of them and except for the Maytag Bravos lemon I got back in 2011, all the rest were porcelain wash baskets machines with true center post agitators in them. All carried over from the days of the direct drives.
The Whirlpool commercial probably cleaned the best of them with its combination of short and long strokes. That to me was an excellent machine.
The Whirlpool commercial probably cleaned the best of them with its combination of short and long strokes. That to me was an excellent machine.
Actually back in 2021 or 2022 SW change the SW, the agitators rotation was increased by so many degrees and then immediately reverse, increasing the speed of the water flowing through the laundry. Before Consumer Reports reported poor cleaning but with the SW change rated it acceptable. The initial design with the poor rating was why I brought TC5
I'd rather take a Speed Queen Classic or a Whirlpool/Maytag Commercial or even a GE commercial any day of the week. What the heck is wrong with Speed Queen Laundry and their perfect wash?
I don't actively seek-out TR videos but I recall at least one on which I speed-up the playback which showed that there was, at least in that instance, some reverse rollover, although it was slow.
I hope Speed Queen doesn't make their TR platform much worse than it already is.
Love my TR5, it washes just fine and is built like a tank. It’s located on the main level of my home and it’s significantly quieter than my older Maytag transmission model it replaced. I can do laundry anytime of the day without creating an annoying racket. It’s wash action is also imuch easier on my clothes. It’s also compact and fits well in its space.
mark_wpduet
Well-known member
I recall they did decently on thin items... it was anything puffy or thick that it was absolutely horrible with. Didn't move in the least. What was on top stayed on top, what was on the bottom stayed on the bottom.. and this was NOT overloaded either. It was like a regular load of jeans. Again, this was when they were first introduced.... If they changed the way it washes it may be different now. I honestly have no clue..
I'd take the commercial Whirlpool/Maytag.
That's why agitator machines have been equipped with a gentle cycle on 2 speed machines since about 1955.
