Wet Clothes

[Chetlaham]

Wet clothes are fun to think about, makes for a simpler machine. Less intellectual expenditure on my part. Not much to screw up with a tub solidly connected to the cabinet, single 16 pole motor, 2 pumps, three glowing calrods below the inner basket and a blower. Two channels, one which doubles as a full flume. EM timer. Simple, long lasting, reliable... why not?

 

[foraloysius]

Add a separate spindryer or an attached spindryer and most of the problems are solved.

 

[Chetlaham]

Right, but I can't see someone taking the clothes out, putting them in a spin dryer than putting them back in to dry. It wouldn't be an automatic washer Though I do get your point, time and energy are wasted trying evaporate all that extra water.

 

[foraloysius]

"but I can't see someone taking the clothes out, putting them in a spin dryer than putting them back in to dry."

I have shown you this machine before. That's exactly what was done in it in the 70's in Europe.

The text says: From the laundryroom to the drying attick is only 11 centimeters.

 

[foraloysius]

Here is a working one.

 

[Chetlaham]

I know it was done in Europe, but modern day 2020 I don't think people will settle with a spin dryer.

My mind is still on the combination washer-dryers sold in the US that washed then dried without any human involvement.

 

[gizmo]

"Simple, long lasting, reliable... why not? "

because an electronic control, properly engineered and not built to lowest possible price, will be more reliable than a mechanical timer and gives the ability to drive a  direct drive, infinitely variable speed motor like LG washers that needs no belt or pulleys. The technology is very cheap to manufacture. (the fact that machines using that technology are often expensive reflects greedy corporate culture not manufacturing cost.) It would be able to spin out water when needed. You don't only need to spin to extract water before drying, you also need it to squeeze out sudsy water between rinses. Older front loaders used to rinse without intermediate spins, and had to do 5 or 6 rinses to do a reasonable job with only 1 intermediate spin. Modern machines that spin before every rinse can do 2 or 3 rinses yet rinse better than the old water hogs.

If you want to build a one-off water and energy waster for your own amusement, knock yourself out. But don't try to go to market with it - it would be a fast track to bankruptcy.

 

[Chetlaham]

I agree it will need more water for better rinsing. There is no way around that hence why I was asking about a 250RPM spin which will help at least some.

However, respectfully, how do you know it wouldn't sell? The incredibly low cost will appeal to a certain percentage of the market who are purely price conscious. The reduced weight from not having counter weights will further lower the price. A $300 combo is a killer deal.

For some water usage will not matter since they are used to top loads anyways.

Energy usage will be a bit perky, yes. Thats the sacrifice.

I've seen plenty of singer timers last 30-40+ years without issue. If it worked back then it will work today.

 

[mrboilwash]

"The reduced weight from not having counter weights will

further lower the price"

Don`t you get it, there cannot be a reduced weight if you build a washer without suspension even at 250 RPM unless it`s bolted down.
They have been around in the past and vanished for a good reason.
Was thinking about a Cordes machine where I changed the belt for a friend eons ago, but decided to delete my post because I saw myself dragged into a stupid political discussion which is not only pointless if someone ignores the facts but also against the rules.
There`s also a Zanussi in the Pink Forum that spins without suspension and it certainly hasn`t a reduced weight at 194 lbs.

Loading…

www.automaticwasher.org

 

[Chetlaham]

I thought the old combos had no counterweights and were not bolted down? Could be wrong though as I've never seen or taken apart a vintage combo in person.

 

[Chetlaham]

Ignoring Facts

I'm not ignoring anything. I understand this concept will take more water and energy, I never once disputed that fact.

I also know high speed spin need a suspension or a bolt down. Low speed spin will not work on a smaller plastic washer. I know the old combos spun without a suspension at 250 rpm and thus I assumed the weight of the washer itself kept them stationary but now I get the feeling those had counterweights in them?

I wouldn't call this discussion political pointless. Most threads here center around energy efficiency and government involvement.

There is also the fact that when I do post in regards to subjects I deal with day in and day out my posts are skimmed over and not taken seriously simply because I don't pass the appliance knowledge test.

I don't have a collection of major appliances, I don't service appliances for a living, and I've restored only a handful of machines. So yes I have absolutely no clue in some regards especially when it comes to vintage FL and combos.

 

[foraloysius]

There is a load of information about older combos on this website. Perhaps you should go through some threads about them. One of the thing you would find out is that they were all very heavy. I think it's time to start reading first and then think things over again.

 

[mrboilwash]

Sorry for not being clear on this one but I was referring to those biased, lobby driven "facts" about nuclear power which I decided better not to be involved in. Not in the Blue Forum at least.

Considering how well you know how to trigger Louis, John, me and many others again and again all the credit goes to you!

 

[Chetlaham]

Thats what you don't understand. Those statements regarding NP are neither biased nor are they lobby driven. They are rooted in physics and practicality. Same physics that has the sun splitting atoms instead of burning coal. NP doesn't take idiots, it takes the best and brightest humanity has to offer.

Once NP becomes dominate, energy consumption will no longer be an issue. Minus capitol and maintenance (which will be less in the long run compared to renewables and batteries), NP is 100% free and 100% carbon free.

 

[Chetlaham]

Yahhh, not surprised. They do use metal, and lost of it. Perhaps 250 rpm no suspension is a no go, which is good that I have that part figured.

 

[mrboilwash]

Even if it was safe to generate NP, do you think uranium is an unlimited resource like the sun and wind?

Can you tell only one single nation on the planet which has already found a way to store all the nuclear waste safely forever?

 

[Chetlaham]

There is enough thorium and uranium in the earths crust to last for millennia. By then I'm sure we will find other sources of energy like using space vehicles to harvest power from stars assuming we don't create one on earth.

Newer designs use fuel more efficiently, and there are experiments being conducted in recycling the fuel down to something more safe/manageable.

Still then caskets of spent fuel rods + generating stations take up a small fraction of space compared to solar and windfarms of the same MW output.

 

[Chetlaham]

Also check this out, from 2007:

Loading…

www.heritage.org

 

[combo52]

This thread needs to be in dirty laundry so we can really discuss NP and your silly machine ideas that will set us back to the Stone Age in energy usage etc.

 

Chelsea I have upgraded you so you can join the discussion and also let other people add their opinions freely.

 

John L.

 

[Chetlaham]

I'm standing behind what I said, once nuclear becomes dominant, energy usage will not matter. A low cost combo would be worth marketing.

Thanks for the upgrade, but you need avoid terms like "being off meds" because I'm not crazy in any way for having these ideas.