How wet would clothes be from a FL washer that only tumbled for 5 minutes after the final rinse?
Wet Clothes
- Thread starter Chetlaham
- Start date
Help Support AutomaticWasher.org:
sudsmaster
Well-known member
Probably too wet to wear.
Obviously lol, but would they be dripping wet?
Yes, I have had a few single tub topload H-axis washers that didn't spin. Even after 30 minutes I'm sure they would be dripping.
Your clothes dripped? How long was the tumble?
I'm cornfuzed about the question. Was it not spinning?
Extremely wet, dripping
I've actually tested that when I made the Niagara (15 minute tumble) and it indeed removed some water, like 2 cups.
I've actually tested that when I made the Niagara (15 minute tumble) and it indeed removed some water, like 2 cups.
Sometimes I let the clothes sit in the washer for 30 minutes and do another drain. When I took them out afterwards they still would be dripping. Less, but still.
Sounds like a no go.
sudsmaster
Well-known member
How about fixing the machine so it spins?
In the 1960s it was not that uncommon here to have an automatic (usually a TL but with a drum that tumbled) that did not spin at all as a cheaper alternative to a "Vollautomat" (fully automatic washer)
Some people still had a separate spin dryer anyways from the days where clothes were washed in a pulsator washer or with a brush on a wash table and then boiled in a wood fired copper.
Early fully automatic`s spin speeds were rather poor which was another reason to go with just an automatic that did not spin at and take advantage of a separate spinner.
Washers also did not always offer a short spin after the rinse hold of a delicates or easy care cycle, sometimes you could only choose to pump out the water and hang things to drip dry or give them a full spin which kind of negated the purpose of a special cycle in the minds of engineers back then.
I don`t think those cycles saw much use if someone had a BOL washer without the option of a short spin.
But anyways it really doesn`t make a lot of difference if a washer tumbles while draining or not, if there`s no spin cycle it`s always a terrible mess to unload the soaking wet clothes whether you hang them on the line or put them in a spinner.
Some people still had a separate spin dryer anyways from the days where clothes were washed in a pulsator washer or with a brush on a wash table and then boiled in a wood fired copper.
Early fully automatic`s spin speeds were rather poor which was another reason to go with just an automatic that did not spin at and take advantage of a separate spinner.
Washers also did not always offer a short spin after the rinse hold of a delicates or easy care cycle, sometimes you could only choose to pump out the water and hang things to drip dry or give them a full spin which kind of negated the purpose of a special cycle in the minds of engineers back then.
I don`t think those cycles saw much use if someone had a BOL washer without the option of a short spin.
But anyways it really doesn`t make a lot of difference if a washer tumbles while draining or not, if there`s no spin cycle it`s always a terrible mess to unload the soaking wet clothes whether you hang them on the line or put them in a spinner.
Any pics or details on those none spinning washers?
I've mentioned my Constructa before. Here's a thread about it:
https://www.automaticwasher.org/cgi-bin/TD/TD-VIEWTHREAD.cgi?15015
You can also use the search function on this website for the most famous German twintub, the Turnamat. It's similar but with a built on centrifuge.
https://www.automaticwasher.org/cgi-bin/TD/TD-VIEWTHREAD.cgi?15015
You can also use the search function on this website for the most famous German twintub, the Turnamat. It's similar but with a built on centrifuge.
Thank you! Is there a wiring diagram to this machine by chance? I like what I'm seeing.
Is there a wiring diagram to this machine by chance?
No
No
jeb
Well-known member
Didn't Okeefe & Merrit make a combo in the 50's without a spin but very high drying temp to make up for it?
Yes
It was a 36" wide combination, it was first sold under the name Automatic Washer Company and later showed up on the west coast under the Okeefe & Merritt name in the late 50s and into the early 60s.
It did not spin at all, they were built only in gas heated models for drying, it had a 29,000 BTU burner, it did not run any hotter than most dryers, but probably ran a lot longer with heavy loads.
We have a pink one at the museum thanks to Kevin B in California, I did most of the restoration on it but never hooked it to gas to fully test.
John L.
It was a 36" wide combination, it was first sold under the name Automatic Washer Company and later showed up on the west coast under the Okeefe & Merritt name in the late 50s and into the early 60s.
It did not spin at all, they were built only in gas heated models for drying, it had a 29,000 BTU burner, it did not run any hotter than most dryers, but probably ran a lot longer with heavy loads.
We have a pink one at the museum thanks to Kevin B in California, I did most of the restoration on it but never hooked it to gas to fully test.
John L.
launderess
Well-known member
Distribution tumbles have absolutely nil to no effect on water retention of fabrics. Their purpose is to get wash broken up evenly so water drains faster, and to make spinning a bit easier (no big knots of wash). Other than that things tumbling to and fro for five, six, ten or whatever minutes will be just as wet as they where after final rinse.
There are two basic ways of doing laundry; either you shift the water, or you shift the wash.
Early washing by hand, semi-automatic or in case of commercial "washers" (but not extractors), did the latter. At end of things you had to remove wash and put it either through a mangle or into an extractor. That or wrung things out by hand. Either way it was laborous, hard, work and often left wash area with wet (and dangerous) floors.
Second method is what came in after fully automatic washer/extractors arrived. The machine does both functions of cleaning and removing water.
Braun was first to offer washer/extractors to commercial laundries (IIRC), and one of their selling points was that it reduced labor and equipment costs. But also promoted safety as put an end to sopping wet floors.
Early twin tub washers (Easy, GE and others offered them), weren't a huge success . This even though spinning removed more water than best power wringers (mangling equals about 230 rpms), so American housewives stuck with wringer washers (for many reasons) until post WWII when fully automatics began taking over.
There is no benefit to taking things sopping wet out of wash and hanging or whatever to "drip dry". Well maybe for synthetic fabrics which are hydrophopic and thus don't absorb much water anyway, but for everything else...
Extraction either by spinning, wringing, mangling is the second part of cleaning wash. It forces out muck, soils, soap/detergent, etc... giving a better result.
Early washers both commercial and domestic that didn't spin between rinses used far more water because more rinse cycles were needed to dilute and flush out things. Machines that only washed presumed things were going to be extracted some how elsewhere.
One reason spin dryers never really took hold in USA was American housewives went from wringer washers to fully automatics. Aside from things like Hoover twin tubs no one bothered with hauling wet laundry to a different machine to remove water. If people wanted to do that they would have remained with mangles.
Have done a fair amount of hand wash loads when there isn't enough to warrant using Miele or other washers. And am here to tell you jeans, bed linens, clothing, etc... are heavy when sopping wet. You won't be hanging them to dry on anything but the strongest contraptions because weight if just a few items will cause lines to sag if not collapse.
Also when said sopping wet laundry is bunged into spin dryer you can see how much muck/residue was still trapped in wash. This even after two, three or four deep tub rinses and water was dripping away clear.
There are two basic ways of doing laundry; either you shift the water, or you shift the wash.
Early washing by hand, semi-automatic or in case of commercial "washers" (but not extractors), did the latter. At end of things you had to remove wash and put it either through a mangle or into an extractor. That or wrung things out by hand. Either way it was laborous, hard, work and often left wash area with wet (and dangerous) floors.
Second method is what came in after fully automatic washer/extractors arrived. The machine does both functions of cleaning and removing water.
Braun was first to offer washer/extractors to commercial laundries (IIRC), and one of their selling points was that it reduced labor and equipment costs. But also promoted safety as put an end to sopping wet floors.
Early twin tub washers (Easy, GE and others offered them), weren't a huge success . This even though spinning removed more water than best power wringers (mangling equals about 230 rpms), so American housewives stuck with wringer washers (for many reasons) until post WWII when fully automatics began taking over.
There is no benefit to taking things sopping wet out of wash and hanging or whatever to "drip dry". Well maybe for synthetic fabrics which are hydrophopic and thus don't absorb much water anyway, but for everything else...
Extraction either by spinning, wringing, mangling is the second part of cleaning wash. It forces out muck, soils, soap/detergent, etc... giving a better result.
Early washers both commercial and domestic that didn't spin between rinses used far more water because more rinse cycles were needed to dilute and flush out things. Machines that only washed presumed things were going to be extracted some how elsewhere.
One reason spin dryers never really took hold in USA was American housewives went from wringer washers to fully automatics. Aside from things like Hoover twin tubs no one bothered with hauling wet laundry to a different machine to remove water. If people wanted to do that they would have remained with mangles.
Have done a fair amount of hand wash loads when there isn't enough to warrant using Miele or other washers. And am here to tell you jeans, bed linens, clothing, etc... are heavy when sopping wet. You won't be hanging them to dry on anything but the strongest contraptions because weight if just a few items will cause lines to sag if not collapse.
Also when said sopping wet laundry is bunged into spin dryer you can see how much muck/residue was still trapped in wash. This even after two, three or four deep tub rinses and water was dripping away clear.
The Reason Twin Tub Washers Did Not Catch On In The US
Was cost and the fact that machines like Easy Spin Dryer machines were also larger.
Almost everyone agreed even before WW2 that spin dryer type washers were much better, there no no love of Wringer washers, everyone that used them knew how dangerous they were and how hard on clothing they were.
Once the Bendix automatic arrived on the seen with others soon following few people would buy machines like an Easy if they could have an automatic for just a little more.
The only reason WWs sold so well was they were cheap and reasonably compact.
John L.
Was cost and the fact that machines like Easy Spin Dryer machines were also larger.
Almost everyone agreed even before WW2 that spin dryer type washers were much better, there no no love of Wringer washers, everyone that used them knew how dangerous they were and how hard on clothing they were.
Once the Bendix automatic arrived on the seen with others soon following few people would buy machines like an Easy if they could have an automatic for just a little more.
The only reason WWs sold so well was they were cheap and reasonably compact.
John L.
Would a washer that tumbled at 250 rpm be able to clean clothes? I take it not... 
launderess
Well-known member
250 rpm is extraction/spin
No H-axis washer tumbles at 250 or even 100 rpms; wash would cling to sides of drum and never be "lifted and dropped" which is what does cleaning.
Depending upon cycle, water levels and other factors most washers tumble at specific rhythms.
No H-axis washer tumbles at 250 or even 100 rpms; wash would cling to sides of drum and never be "lifted and dropped" which is what does cleaning.
Depending upon cycle, water levels and other factors most washers tumble at specific rhythms.
Figured as much. Guess there is no balance between cleaning and moisture removal. Not without two speeds.
"Would a washer that tumbled at 250 rpm be able to clean clothes?"
Chetlaham, Pleas ehelp me understanding what kind of frankenstein you're trying to make.
250rpm wash, no spin, tumble dry.
Will it also release fabric softener on wash and detergent on final rinse "just to be different"?
I'm really not understanding your concept...
Chetlaham, Pleas ehelp me understanding what kind of frankenstein you're trying to make.
250rpm wash, no spin, tumble dry.
Will it also release fabric softener on wash and detergent on final rinse "just to be different"?
I'm really not understanding your concept...
Hi Thomas, It is not even worth thinking about, Chelsea is off her meds again.
John
John
John.
Not always! As a designer, the very first thing I learned in college was thinking out of the box.
Many inventions that are extremely popular today came from people "off their meds".
What she's doing may sound stupid sometimes and actually obsolete because some of the concepts were tried or even used before and abandoned because they didn't work, however, she's thinking out of the box and I'm liking that. It's like a brainstorm, among several ideas that sound stupid a brilliant idea may come up. She may not have the knowledge you have (By the way the very best repairman I've ever met and You know I look forward for the day you can come here to tune up my whole collection) or the knowledge I have (decades designing appliances) but she's curious, curiosity is good. We both wouldn't have reached the excellence levels we have if we weren't curious.
Not always! As a designer, the very first thing I learned in college was thinking out of the box.
Many inventions that are extremely popular today came from people "off their meds".
What she's doing may sound stupid sometimes and actually obsolete because some of the concepts were tried or even used before and abandoned because they didn't work, however, she's thinking out of the box and I'm liking that. It's like a brainstorm, among several ideas that sound stupid a brilliant idea may come up. She may not have the knowledge you have (By the way the very best repairman I've ever met and You know I look forward for the day you can come here to tune up my whole collection) or the knowledge I have (decades designing appliances) but she's curious, curiosity is good. We both wouldn't have reached the excellence levels we have if we weren't curious.
sudsmaster
Well-known member
Easy solution:
Get a damn ringer.
Get a damn ringer.
I see you're triggered again John. Which customer did you upset this time around? I'd take your very own advice of not taking it out on other people. In addition to letting Jason run the business, negative reviews regarding behavior aren't coming from him.
"Again this is beyond our control. Please do not take it out on our staff!"
http://www.alcoappliance.net/
@thomasortega: Don't listen to John, or anything he says about me. Its all made up. I'm simply another person that he wants to ride off this site.
I'm thinking of a combo machine. In so far I'm abandoning the 250 rpm idea. It won't wash well enough in addition to pushing water up into vents made for drying.
"Again this is beyond our control. Please do not take it out on our staff!"
http://www.alcoappliance.net/
@thomasortega: Don't listen to John, or anything he says about me. Its all made up. I'm simply another person that he wants to ride off this site.
I'm thinking of a combo machine. In so far I'm abandoning the 250 rpm idea. It won't wash well enough in addition to pushing water up into vents made for drying.
250 RPM
Comes from having a single 10 pole motor which in theory would allow both washing and spinning at a lower cost, in addition to perhaps allowing the machine to get away without having a suspension.
The 250 rpm spin would prevent the clothes from going into dry while still dripping wet.
Comes from having a single 10 pole motor which in theory would allow both washing and spinning at a lower cost, in addition to perhaps allowing the machine to get away without having a suspension.
The 250 rpm spin would prevent the clothes from going into dry while still dripping wet.
"...in addition to perhaps allowing the machine to get away without having a suspension."
No way at all.... Using the Niagara as an example.... even tumbling with no water would make the washer start dancing like Paula Abdul.
The water weight helps keep the washer in place during wash... and... sometimes it moves sideways depending on the load and how the load "fell" in one specific revolution.
No way at all.... Using the Niagara as an example.... even tumbling with no water would make the washer start dancing like Paula Abdul.
The water weight helps keep the washer in place during wash... and... sometimes it moves sideways depending on the load and how the load "fell" in one specific revolution.
Right, but I'm thinking a larger full size machine. My understanding is the old combos did not have a suspension and actually spun at 250 RPM without dancing then went into dry.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
1959 Lady Kenmore, freshly restored
- Latest: laundryguysf
-
