spinning RPM's

[washerboy]

This may have been answered in the past but..if you please. I noticed in todays POD it says "spins at 1140 rpm's" and things can be ironed right out of the machine. Do today's machines spin like that?..if not why?..looks like it would be a major savings in electric and gas in drying time.

 

[Unimatic1140]

Actually only Frigidaire washers from 1947-1958 spun at 1140rpm as well as GE Washers from 1947-1950.

No top loader to date has ever broken the 1140rpm record of the Frigidaire and GE.

 

[kenwashesmonday]

Is the tub bearing on these 2 machines known to wear due to the speed?

Ken

 

[DADoES]

GE Harmony does 1010 RPM like a RapidDry. F&P is advertised as 1000 RPM, but my IWL12 does 1010 per the diagnosic feedback screen. Oasis and Cabrio reach similar speeds, 1000 or 950 I think.

Robert, how does your Harmony's spin compare to your Unimatics? Does the Harmony have a fairly large diameter basket for similar G-force? How much effect does a perf'd basket have on extraction performance compared to a solid basket? Oasis and Cabrio also have large wash baskets.

 

[Unimatic1140]

Hi Ken, as for the bearings in the GE we don't really have much info to go on, there is only one working machine left known in the world at this time. As for the Unimatic they will spin perfect for 50 years without any bearing issues as long as the top seal stays intact and does not allow any water to get into the mechanism. If water gets to the bearings they will go out almost immediately. I've seen that happen on a few machines, but this was only after years of use.

Hi Glen, the Harmony spins well, but I don't think it spins as well as an 1140rpm 4 minute spin, but I'm not exactly sure. It certainly does not spin out as well as a 8 minute 1140rpm spin in my Super Unimatic using my Hot Suds-Towel Cycle.

You know what would be fun, I have a 25lb scale in the basement, it would be fun to take four large towels and put them through a rinse and spin in each of my machines and weigh the towels after the final spin and see how each machine does, including the Harmony and Maytag Neptune Top-Loader. Oh why do I do this to myself.

 

[appnut]

Oh why do I do this to myself.

Because it's FUN!! It's INTERESTING!! It's FSCINATING DATA we all wanna know!! It answers our quest for endless washer performance trivia!!

 

[mcmodern]

1-18 spin speed(s)

I was thinking the last real Frigidaires had a higher than average spin speed, not quite 1140, but still pretty speedy. Mine has two spin speeds, normal and slow. I discovered only the regular cycle spins at normal (one can learn a lot by reading the inside of the lid!) and normal looks pretty fast.

Also out of curiosity, in the video of the Unimatic Imperial final spin (Robert's '58, no doubt) the agitator does a brief happy dance at the end of the cycle. Why? Did engaging the transmission slow the spin down, or did someone somehow know that people like us would enjoy seeing it?

 

[appnut]

Kelly I love it "brief happy dance". I've seen those since age 6 and never thought of that in those terms, but it's a perfict description.

 

[panthera]

It's the victory dance!

I think the slow spin speed of most TLs is a result of several factors. One, the larger the diameter of the drum, the harder it is to balance the load being spun. If I remember my physics, if the diameter is doubled, the problem increases by a factor of four; if the diameter is trebled, the problem by nine and so on...
Secondly, these early machines with their very high speeds were built by engineers. The generations after them - every one - were built down in quality to fit specific niches. Those niches were and are specified by marketing in-duh-vi-duals.
If they spun that fast, their little baskets would just burst at the seams.
But water extraction is not exclusively a factor of speed; AEG back in the 1970's managed to get nearly as much water out through a well designed spin cycle running at 800rpm then SIEMENS machines running at 1000...
FLs have several balancing advantages over TLs. For the same size load, their baskets are smaller, so have less "force" to cope with.
It is also easier and cheaper to balance them using chunks of concrete on top of the drum.
Finally, direct drive (the real stuff) motors or even belt driven electronically controlled motors are old, old technology in FLs. Engineers learned decades ago how to use fuzzy logic to achieve enough balance to really spin the clothes out at high speed.
I am looking forward to Robert's little experiment. Enquiring minds so want to know!

 

[jonv112]

The Oasis/Cabrio step-spin up to 1050 RPM. The clothes come out VERY dry, and with little wrinkling.

 

[nasadowsk]

Funniest was my parents Kitchenpool they got in the 90's. Dealer was all about how it spun slower 'to save energy'. Yeah, only the clothes come out sopping wet.

I'm guessing the Feds, in their finite wisdom, had something to do with it, just like those stupid 1.5 gallon toilets you have to flush 6 times....

(when is doubt, blame the government, since they're generally behind this BS anyway)

 

[lederstiefel1]

RPM

Yes, I don't know either why modern washers (1950-2000) didn't have such a good spinnig efficiency anymore...?!?
The newest come out onto the market now in the US with much a better spinning efficiency.
Machines here in Germany have spinning rates with 1400-1800 rpm for ages, which leave the washing just damp-dry!
And British TwinTubs, like my Hotpoint, have spinners with 3100 rpm - ironing dry for many items!
What I guess meanwhile is the following: chiefs of big companies often are not only managers of one company but have their fingers also in businesses of many others - like energy companies! So why not reduce the spinning efficiency to boost the electricity consumption (or better energy waste in this case) with the driers - to make more money out of it?
And I found parallels to this mismanagement here in Germany/Europe as well!
Why on earth does a modern machine use still 7-11 watts of energy even if it is completely switched off but still connected to the socket? If you pull the plug nothing goes wrong with the machine at all....!?!? Same thing with electronic items like videos, PCs, dvd-players, TVs, etc.
Last but not least: what for have vaccuum cleaners 1800-2000 watts energy consumption here in Germany, although tests of STIFTUNG WARENTEST (Consumer Report) have revealed that more than 800 watts does not bring any progress in cleaning efficiency??? So, I have to state that on one hand they tell us to stop the unnecessary use of energy and buy up to date technology and modern machines and insulate our homes and buildings as much as possible, while on the other hand the wastage is tolerated tacitly!?
Meanwhile the Americans have become the biggest energy wasters in the world - and now we get the bills....... Global Warming! (Still even we use much too much energy in Europe, but are trying to reduce it step by step for years already, although, I believe, we could gain more progress in that, if we restricted the waste of it more stricly, as I have just mentioned above!)
So, quickly, there must be something done!
Kick out the TLs - buy FLs !!!
One step ahead into the correct direction, I think. But even TLs could be improved - cold wash, suds saver, better wash performance, improved agitators, faster spinning...etc..
What do you think?
Cheers from over the big pond! Ralf

 

[tomturbomatic]

GET THESE PEOPLE OFF MY BACK

Ralph, America uses more energy than many parts of the world because we have machines do many jobs that are done by people and animals in other economies. And burning dung, wood, and other low grade fuels in poorly designed cooking devices or in just a circle of stones does nothing toward lowering any of the greenhouse gases. The main problem in the world is that countries like the USA, UK and many Western European countries with advanced medical research facilities came up with many cures for terrible diseases that had kept the population stable in many parts of the world, which is a benevolent use of technology. But old superstitions, and I include the religions endemic to the areas as well as the efforts of missionaries, did not allow the benefits of birth control to be mentioned or made available so the population grew to where in many places the land cannot sustain the number of people living on it. Just like the USA cannot supply its own energy demands so we import oil and keep building SUVs, people in these other countries have food supplied to them, usually free through organizations like the UN or at greatly subsidized prices, to feed their people and the people keep on having babies at the same rate, or perhaps at a higher rate, than they did when infant mortality was high and other diseases struck down people in the prime of their productivity. Now films are shown of people wandering the edge of the desert, trying to farm and looking for water and the emphasis is on how the desert is overtaking farm lands due to global warming, which is a factor, but the real truth is that resources would not be as strained and people would not need to be living in these semi-desert areas if there were not so many people. We have seen that Earth has undergone mass extinctions in the past and nothing points to the impossibility of that now. Meteors are still flying past, huge volcanos are simmering, tectonic plates are still moving and grinding against each other and stalling from time to time which creates the buildup of stress that is relieved in earthquakes. Maybe as some have suggested, the Earth is some kind of living organism that can react when the life on its surface becomes irritating or endangers the very life of the planet or maybe it is just the Creator taking care of creation. We might be close to a demonstration of one of these drastic actions.

 

[northwesty]

On that happy thought

I think I’ll load up the old Kenmore and watch the water splash around. I have a special exemption from these problems since the machine is over 50 years old.

BTW I’m replacing the new white toilet in the laundry room with a practically mint 1956 seafoam green Kohler toilet. It’s practically a work of art, worth a little extra water.

I don't anticipate everyone else doing this, though

 

[lederstiefel1]

GET THESE PEOPLE OFF MY BACK

Hi Tom !
I do agree 101% with your oppinion!!
During the antique times (romans, greeks) about 1 billion human beings have lived on this planet, when my mate was born in 1953 there were about 2.5 billion inhabitants living on this planet - some 50 years later we have become nearly 8 billions!!! A pest for this world! I say it as it is!
Nontheless.....we can't (or can we and just do not dare it or are to scared to?) suicide ourselves or kill eachothers, so what to do with all these beings? I do not want to freeze in winter nor do I want to live in a cave - cost it whatever it costs! I wasn't asked, if I wanted to be made nor do I have a second life - this one or none and I want it to be a nice life - I've had enough trouble for two lifes already, thanks, that should suffice! But we have to DO something! And we can hold the same level of comfort with a third of the energy we use for it today with just some slight changements in our behaviour - and that is, what has to be done! And it has to be done quickly - time is runnig out!
Ralf