exploder321
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2006
- Messages
- 980
We need more towels and i want some.. Plus i wanna see how my Frigidaire Does...
Time to go find a target in another area...
Time to go find a target in another area...
The Big Question - Extraction Ability
- Thread starter Unimatic1140
- Start date
Help Support :
My 12 towels weigh......
Exactly 7 pounds just like Roberts!! Now we'll see how well the Blackstone does with its deep drain troughs!!
Exactly 7 pounds just like Roberts!! Now we'll see how well the Blackstone does with its deep drain troughs!!
mickeyd
Well-known member
Very very pretty
but I only count eleven, so the run on towels is true
but I only count eleven, so the run on towels is true
There's 3 of each color
the 3rd blue is tucked up under the pea green ones.
I certainly wouldn't buy these for my house but for testing they are fine.
the 3rd blue is tucked up under the pea green ones.
I certainly wouldn't buy these for my house but for testing they are fine.
exploder321
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2006
- Messages
- 980
I am sure there the crappy ones, but for dog towels i am sure they would be fine.
mickeyd
Well-known member
Oh God, jetcone
You've got that Blackstone
you lucky dog--I forgot
how 'bout a ton of pix or a flick
You've got that Blackstone
you lucky dog--I forgot
how 'bout a ton of pix or a flick
You guys will have to check back later to see how even the Maytag Power Wringer did in the tests! The final machine is going through it's test right now.
exploder321
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2006
- Messages
- 980
Ewww....Thats nifty...
arrrooohhh
Well-known member
That was so much fun!
Thanks for providing us with all that information.
Tell me though what kind of lid switch is on the harmony and how you override it?
Thanks for providing us with all that information.
Tell me though what kind of lid switch is on the harmony and how you override it?
Out of curiosity which results are you surprised at?
Here in Europe it is also common to compare machines to "residual moisture" what means if there is 1 kg water in 1kg dry fabric left after the spin, then it is called 100% residual moisture. Modern efficient machines are around or even below a 50% range.
So I calculated and converted.
First I was suprised about the Bendix, because if asumed 7 lbs of remaining water is 100% then 17,25lbs - 7 lbs = 10,25, what means around 146% "rest moisture". Even at a very low spin I would have expected at least 100%, so I guess line dried towels would start to drip and make a puddle after a while when spun in the Bendix.
I also found the result of the GE Harmony very surprising. An average small Euro drum with 1000 rpm can get clothes to 62% or even 60% rest moisture. But the GE only managed a lousy 76%, I had expected a far better result because I suppose the drum diameter is bigger than a typical 5 kg Euro drum.
Here in Europe it is also common to compare machines to "residual moisture" what means if there is 1 kg water in 1kg dry fabric left after the spin, then it is called 100% residual moisture. Modern efficient machines are around or even below a 50% range.
So I calculated and converted.
First I was suprised about the Bendix, because if asumed 7 lbs of remaining water is 100% then 17,25lbs - 7 lbs = 10,25, what means around 146% "rest moisture". Even at a very low spin I would have expected at least 100%, so I guess line dried towels would start to drip and make a puddle after a while when spun in the Bendix.
I also found the result of the GE Harmony very surprising. An average small Euro drum with 1000 rpm can get clothes to 62% or even 60% rest moisture. But the GE only managed a lousy 76%, I had expected a far better result because I suppose the drum diameter is bigger than a typical 5 kg Euro drum.
Yes that does make sense Stefan. The reason the GE Harmony performed so poorly was the 1000rpm spin is only done for 1.5 to 2 minutes of the 9 minute spin cycle, the rest of the time is wasted in the 400 to 600 range (ho hum). When the 18 minute spin is selected the results are better, but who wants to wait 18 minutes! The average Unimatic cycle is 26 minutes total.
As for the Bendix, yes that is correct. If you read the last paragraph from the first column from this 1946 report it sort of confirms my results as well. Although their test load was a 9lb load as opposed to my seven pound load...
As for the Bendix, yes that is correct. If you read the last paragraph from the first column from this 1946 report it sort of confirms my results as well. Although their test load was a 9lb load as opposed to my seven pound load...
Thanks for posting Robert. I just love your vintage Consumers Reports! So the water left in clothes expressed as a percentage of dry weight isn`t new at all.
I think the little difference in results with the Bendix can be explained with the different rinse temperatures. You used cold water to make extraction compareable with todays machines.
BTW is there a chance to see an expanding of the Vintage Libary with some dryers reports ?
I think the little difference in results with the Bendix can be explained with the different rinse temperatures. You used cold water to make extraction compareable with todays machines.
BTW is there a chance to see an expanding of the Vintage Libary with some dryers reports ?
Residual Moisture Content!!!!
And there was me thinking it was a new fangled equation from the Euro washer police!!!....Lol
Stephan , I started to convert the figures last night but got such high %'s I was thinking I was calculating wrong....
Cant wait to do the same with our UK washers & twinnys....
Mike
And there was me thinking it was a new fangled equation from the Euro washer police!!!....Lol
Stephan , I started to convert the figures last night but got such high %'s I was thinking I was calculating wrong....
Cant wait to do the same with our UK washers & twinnys....
Mike
I think the little difference in results with the Bendix can be explained with the different rinse temperatures.
I think that is part of it and I also suspect that a bigger part of the difference is that the Consumer Reasearch Bulletin test was of mixed fabrics and not all towels. Towels really hold onto the water during extraction better than other lighter weight items.
And there was me thinking it was a new fangled equation from the Euro washer police!!!....Lol
Sorry Mike as always, what's old is new again! LOL
I think that is part of it and I also suspect that a bigger part of the difference is that the Consumer Reasearch Bulletin test was of mixed fabrics and not all towels. Towels really hold onto the water during extraction better than other lighter weight items.
And there was me thinking it was a new fangled equation from the Euro washer police!!!....Lol
Sorry Mike as always, what's old is new again! LOL
Oh and before I forget you guys, what is the forumla for figuring out Residual Moisture Content?
If I play with it for a while in Excel I would figure it out, but I don't feel like thinking right now LOL.
Thanks.
If I play with it for a while in Excel I would figure it out, but I don't feel like thinking right now LOL.
Thanks.
Run on towels
Yes, it's true, there's a run on towels -- Jetcone bought everything but the white, beige and lavender towels...
(Oh, and he didn't even drop by to visit us!)
So what was I to do, but buy a dozen of the lavender ones. ;-)
Yes, it's true, there's a run on towels -- Jetcone bought everything but the white, beige and lavender towels...
(Oh, and he didn't even drop by to visit us!)So what was I to do, but buy a dozen of the lavender ones. ;-)
In some EPA document about washing machine efficiency, the pluses and minuses of greater water extraction were discussed and at the time, the Miele W1918 with the 1600 rpm spin was rated best at extraction for turning out loads with 44% res. moisture.
Solid tub washers in the American machines were able to spin faster, not that all did, because the construction was stronger without perforations and the clearance between the inner and outer tubs was not critical to water consmuption like in perforated inner tubs. Also, and I think this was one of Maytag's reasons for not spinning faster, was that faster spinning forced the fabrics into the holes in the tubs where they could pick up scum deposits and possibly be damaged as the fibers would break over time.
In training, and I do not know if this is completely accurate or true, we were told that the tub in a WP direct drive washer came apart at 850 rpm.
Unlike our two domestic front loaders, the high speed spins in European machines are facilitated by the three spider legs extending from the hub at the back of the drum to the tub vanes through which rods connect the front of the tub to the back support and add structural integrity. Granted these are thinner stainless steel drums and the old Bendix and WH tubs were porcelain on a heavier gauge steel, but they were not built for the stresses of high spin speeds.
Solid tub washers in the American machines were able to spin faster, not that all did, because the construction was stronger without perforations and the clearance between the inner and outer tubs was not critical to water consmuption like in perforated inner tubs. Also, and I think this was one of Maytag's reasons for not spinning faster, was that faster spinning forced the fabrics into the holes in the tubs where they could pick up scum deposits and possibly be damaged as the fibers would break over time.
In training, and I do not know if this is completely accurate or true, we were told that the tub in a WP direct drive washer came apart at 850 rpm.
Unlike our two domestic front loaders, the high speed spins in European machines are facilitated by the three spider legs extending from the hub at the back of the drum to the tub vanes through which rods connect the front of the tub to the back support and add structural integrity. Granted these are thinner stainless steel drums and the old Bendix and WH tubs were porcelain on a heavier gauge steel, but they were not built for the stresses of high spin speeds.
Tom
Your knowledge always impresses me.
I suspect there are many factors involved here. Since centripedal force increases by a factor of X^2 as radius increases, it is easy to see why FLs can have higher spin speeds than FLs for the same capacity.
The FLs which spin at 1600 and above have considerably beefed up bearings, supports, different electronics and other structural elements to take the additional force as compared to the units spinning at slower speeds. The speed of 1400 seems to be a breaking point for conventional designs. You don't find much cheap stuff spinning faster than that.
Your knowledge always impresses me.
I suspect there are many factors involved here. Since centripedal force increases by a factor of X^2 as radius increases, it is easy to see why FLs can have higher spin speeds than FLs for the same capacity.
The FLs which spin at 1600 and above have considerably beefed up bearings, supports, different electronics and other structural elements to take the additional force as compared to the units spinning at slower speeds. The speed of 1400 seems to be a breaking point for conventional designs. You don't find much cheap stuff spinning faster than that.
Robert,
Thanks for retesting the Bendix. But I guess I should be more careful what I ask for, because the Bendix did even worse, comparatively speaking.
It's interesting that the dripping wet weight was lower the second time around. I would attribute this to the towels being somewhat less fluffy (and perhaps having less dry mass as well), and therefore they hold slightly less water after all the testing. I didn't mean to imply that the dry mass loss would skew the results, but rather that less dry mass means less terrycloth mass to hold water.
When Mom had that Bendix (similar model as yours), she did all the drying on the clothesline. I remember her struggling with frozen laundry in the winter... lol... And I think some must have gotten hung up to dry in the basement on rainy/snowy days.
Thanks for retesting the Bendix. But I guess I should be more careful what I ask for, because the Bendix did even worse, comparatively speaking.
It's interesting that the dripping wet weight was lower the second time around. I would attribute this to the towels being somewhat less fluffy (and perhaps having less dry mass as well), and therefore they hold slightly less water after all the testing. I didn't mean to imply that the dry mass loss would skew the results, but rather that less dry mass means less terrycloth mass to hold water.
When Mom had that Bendix (similar model as yours), she did all the drying on the clothesline. I remember her struggling with frozen laundry in the winter... lol... And I think some must have gotten hung up to dry in the basement on rainy/snowy days.
mickeyd
Well-known member
Jetcone I see you're up and about, Buddy
Are the Blackstone shots of the rinsing towels ready yet. Dyin' to see.
Are the Blackstone shots of the rinsing towels ready yet. Dyin' to see.
