SQ water usage

[arbilab]

"you forget human work is a resource"

No, I am retired, human work is a SURPLUS. I have LOTS of it. Whereas money for supplies and utilities is a paucity, to be supplanted by surplus time whenever possible.

Yeah it just happens to save the whales. As if 5 gallons weren't a teaspoon to a whale. Or as if whales didn't do just fine for a half million years before I was born. Besides, what did they ever do for me?

Not only is the twin the least resource-intensive way for me to meet my laundry obligation, it also escapes being confiscated as contraband in my retirement poorhouse.

You launder for SIX people? Then our perspectives are going to differ, now aren't they?

 

[rapunzel]

"Someone needs to invent a standalone unit that would convert and washing machine into a suds saving unit."

They kind of do that already on the international space station, I believe. Of course a self-contained unit designed for domestic use here on earth wouldn't have to be that sophisticated, but could include a basic filtration system to allay the fears of people like henene4, that a dissolved snot ball might contaminate the entire wash.

Personally I don't see why placing normal laundry tubs into laundry spaces has become such a challenge. Once upon a time, when houses were much smaller, large laundry tubs, that could easily hold 25 gallons of suds, were standard issue. Now our houses are among the biggest in the world and come equipped with super-sized laundry rooms, some of them as big as a standard-size English bedsit, but with built-ins. However, laundry tubs have largely disappeared or been replaced with something the size and appearance of a kitchen sink. Clearly those who design these spaces don't really care to understand what that space is or could be used for and it all seems to be more for show rather than function. [this post was last edited: 5/18/2015-08:32]

 

[maylingsmom]

I emailed Speed Queen about the amount of water in my AWN432 for each fill level and this is what they replied:
The approximate water usage for each is:

Gallons:
Mini
16.3
Small
18.0
Medium
19.7
X-Large
21.5

 

[henene4]

@arbilab

As I am not entirely sure what you want to say, I'll try to cover all options. And this post is not ment ironic.

1. If I somehow attacked you: Sorry. That REALLY wasn't my intention.
2. If you say that I misunderstand you: Well, human worktime is still a resource for you. It's just there plenty.
3. If you want to say I'm one of the Eco people: Yeah, kind of. Not because of my surroundings. Because of me.
One day we'll all die. But that day most likely will come earlier for you than for me. I really don't want to offend you with this, but by the time you're gone by, I'll be round about 30-40, maybe. This means by statistic I'll have still ~40 years to go. And if climate change should be more drastic than we can think of, that will then be my problem. Not yours. Or the problem of a following generation.

And to all who think I'm crazy about reusing wash water: Yeah! I would really hate the idea to reuse the water that dissolved the dirt in about 10 pounds of laundry to wash another 10 pound load. I think it's neither appropiate for its gain nor somewhat "clean" for me. (And btw, what happened in this thread is exactly what I ment when I said people get into extremes on here to easy on another thread.)

I thought Whirlpools machines once used the same hose to do so? Or was I wrong about that?

 

[rapunzel]

So they offer three basic top-loading washers, but with four different tub sizes?

 

[rapunzel]

" (And btw, what happened in this thread is exactly what I ment when I said people get into extremes on here to easy on another thread.)"

Nobody is being 'extreme' - we are discussing our experiences with something that you are unfamiliar with. Anyway, nobody is forcing you to buy a top loader with suds save function, but I would like to have that choice again, because I believe, based on my experience, that it is a very good idea.

 

[logixx]

Don't some Chinese people reuse their clean bathwater to wash their clothes? I think so.

Miele makes suds savers for their commercial washers.

 

[brisnat81]

Hi Henrik,

The Cheaper Simpsons and Hoovers in Australia could do Suds Save with one hose, the process was as follows.

Load Clothes and Detergent
Turn Suds Save switch on
Start the Wash cycle

At the end of the Wash the machine stops before it drains, you put the plug in and then set the Suds Save switch to Normal. The pump then starts. Once the machine finishes draining, you put the hose into the standpipe and the rest of the cycle continues as normal.

The water returns via a syphon action, not pumping, so the process for that is as follows

Put the hose back into the Laundry tub full of water
Set the Program Dial to suds Return
The machine then fills with approx. 3 inches of water
The machine then pumps the water into the laundry tub
The machine then stops and all going to plan, the water starts syphoning back into the machine.

This system let them add a suds save option to a basic machine, with nothing more than an option switch and a slightly different timer.

Regards

Nathan

 

[rapunzel]

Hi maylingsmom

On my SQ the mini or smallest fill uses approx. 6 to 7 gallons, not 16, and I can set any kind of water level from that to the maximum of approx. 19 gallons. The figures they quoted for their lower fill levels don't sound right. 19 (US) gallons is equivalent to 71 liters. 16 gallons = almost 61 liters, that's almost full. Maybe the people at SQ have got their numbers wrong?[this post was last edited: 5/18/2015-17:15]

 

[rapunzel]

Henene4

Nobody is suggesting that you buy yourself a top loader with suds save function. I, however, would love to have one, but can't get it anymore because, with all this focus on 'eco', the smartest among us have decided to do away with such a simple and effective way to save water. It proves though that 'modern' isn't always better and younger generations don't do things smarter and they are just a bit clueless.

[this post was last edited: 5/18/2015-18:50]

 

[maylingsmom]

Rapunzel-- I thought the numbers for mini and small sounded off. I have thought about pouring water in myself to see if I can figure out roughly how much it is.

 

[rapunzel]

Maylingsmom - don't pour in, just fill her up and on the drain measure what comes out. Just make sure you don't flood your house and get electrocuted (my disclaimer).[this post was last edited: 5/18/2015-19:24]

 

[askolover]

Like Mr B said

 

"Someone needs to invent a standalone unit that would convert and washing machine into a suds saving unit. Amazed it hasn't happened already. "
  

Those pedestals under a unit could be designed as a holding tank for recycling the water therefore not taking up any more room.  Hmmm, that gives me an idea!

 

[rapunzel]

"Those pedestals under a unit could be designed as a holding tank for recycling the water therefore not taking up any more room. Hmmm, that gives me an idea!"

Don't they already have some kind of reservoir tank in dishwashers to catch the clean rinse water and recycle that for the next new load of dirty dishes? In front loaders one could easily use the last rinse water (without conditioner) or saved warm suds for a pre-wash fill. Even top loaders could incorporate a water recycling reservoir that might also act as part of the tub balancing system. I could have sworn that Simpson had a top loader decades ago, which did hold suds in a reservoir tank underneath the washbowl. It wouldn't surprise me if they did come up with something like that in the future and brand it as "new and revolutionary".

 

[DADoES]

 
The quoted SQ numbers of concern may be for a full cycle ... wash fill, rinse fill, & any spin-sprays involved.

 

[logixx]

As I've said above, Fagor and Electrolux had a washer that stored rinse water (before the softening rinse) for the next wash. The Lux model was quite a while ago, but the Fagor was fairly recent. The Reason washing machine also had a holding tank underneath the drum - not sure if it recycled the water, though.

 

[rapunzel]

"The quoted SQ numbers of concern may be for a full cycle ... wash fill, rinse fill, & any spin-sprays involved."

That would make sense for the mini and small fills, but not for the medium and extra large figures quoted.

 

[rapunzel]

"As I've said above, Fagor and Electrolux had a washer that stored rinse water (before the softening rinse) for the next wash. The Lux model was quite a while ago, but the Fagor was fairly recent. The Reason washing machine also had a holding tank underneath the drum - not sure if it recycled the water, though."

 

 

Instead of experimenting around with nearly waterless top and front loaders, maybe engineers should look to the past and learn from previous experience.

 

On another note, what I really liked about my suds saving Westinghouse top loader was the level of control I had over the entire laundry process. It was completely automated, but, at the same time, I was able to control and change every step of the cycle to what I wanted, which is next to impossible with most modern machines.

 

[henene4]

Doing the math, a full-fill TL with SudsSave is STILL not as efficent as a HE FL.
The TL can cut out about one fill. For the SQ, that's about 19 gal. So we'd have 3 full fills needed (wash water and 2 rinse water fillings). So 2 usual loads need just about 60 gal.

A modern FL needs 10-15gal at most for one cycle. So, down to 20-30gal for 2 loads. That is 1/3 to 1/2 of the water, even with suds saveing.

Even if one would use the WP Resource saver spray rinse system on top, you'd use about 40gal for 2 loads. Still, at least 10gal more.

It isn't that efficent. It make a TL a bit more efficent. But not anywhere near HE. And if I take the diverter valve, the additional pump for pumping back (given you don't use a DD pump), that adds a lot of production costs. And If one would add the RS rinsing, you'd need even more parts. And you still need a laundry tub. Or you'd have to fit the storage tank into the machine which makes the mechanism even more complicated.

I really don't see why a FL isn't smart just because it's simpler. Being smart dosen't mean makeing it more complicated.

 

[arbilab]

No worries. There are too many variables to support "one right way". Like say, one might suds-save their way through an entire week of 'office' clothes. Less likely, athletic wear and UNlikely, trade wear (mechanics et al).

When we visited grandma (fullsize TT) she washed for 7 in one suds fill but nothing was 'really' dirty. OTOH when sissy wet the bed that was a whole load unto itself (grandma got a little irked).

I'm pretty eco myself. Probly shouldn't have used the N-suffix, sensitivities being what they can be. Aimed at g'ments dictating how little water they can spare for hygiene. Trend however, seems that mfrs make a g'ment cycle to satisfy numb numbers then alternate cycles that behave more like a machine intended to CLEAN something.

Alas, buyers are left to tiptoe through the shards to find what actually works. The less agile left with grayer whites and.... what IS that smell?