What gets the clothes clean?

[Hooverpom69]

I have seen a number of discussion suggesting that in order for a washing machine to get clothes clean it needs to use a significant amount of water. I don't believe that this is true.

When I was living in the UK, I worked for a company thay supplied electronic components to Hotpoint. We worked with their R&D engineers in selecting the most suitable components for their latest washing machines.

One day one of our staff asked the Hotpoint engineers, which of their machines got the clothes the cleanest? "None of them" was the answer.

The engineer went on to explain that it is not the washing machine that gets your clothes clean, but the detergent. The washing machine uses water to get the detergent through the fibres of your clothes, where it can work on the dirt and uses water to carry away this dirt.

When looking at a washing machine in operation any water you can see between the clothes, such is in a centre post agitator type loader is doing nothing, it is just filling up the space between your clothes instead of air. Also washing machines that use more water need more detergent, in order to ensure the detergent solution is at an adequate strength to work.

HE washing machines have been designed so that they don't use this excess water and detergent.

Saying that I do agree that there is a threshold below which rinsing is not as effective. Here in Australia, I use an Ariston front loader, with a rated water usage of 67 litres per cycle (15.2 Gals). My partner and I love the beach so we often have sand laden towels and swimmers to wash. Even on the quick cycle all of the sand is washed out. However, the other week we were staying at a holiday apartment in Hervey Bay, which had a Bosch front loader. This used 54 litres per cycle (12.2Gals) (according to the rating label still on the machine). When our swimmers came out of this machine, there was still sand on them.

In most cases if the instructions for an HE type washing machine (Front or Top loader) are followed, the wash should be good.

Governments will continue to mandate for more water efficient machines. As our populations increase there is a greater demand put on our fresh water resources. Unlike electricity we cannot manufacture more water. Recycling waste water and desalination is expensive (Australians will tell you what happens to water bills, when such plants are built), so using less is the best option all round.

 

[henene4]

Cleaning

Miele put itt well.
They once had a nice picture about the 4 corners of washing.
You need:
- Chemicals
- Mechanical Action
- Time
- Heat

Chemicals help to dissolve hydrophobic stains in water.
Mechanical action works dirt out of the fiber. That mechanical action includes agitation and as a result water.
Time is a "multiplicator" to the all factors.
Heat has an effect on fibers as well as on the chemicals.

All points work as a web of influences.
You can substitute one by another.
For example, you can reduce time, and counteract by more heat and action.
You can reduce the temperature, and just add loads of time.
You can use less chemicals, but more time or more action.

There isn't one factor. Thats why more water dosen't solve the problem. It can, but not has to.

 

[Practigal]

And what did you do with the clothes in the Bosch?

I don't think that anyone will disagree that certain detergents work better. Of course, the ingredients making up a detergent can have serious resource consequences...
Did you run your clothing through another cycle to get the sand out or buy a new detergent?
I think one of the purposes of this forum is for us to tell each other what works (in your example Ariston) and what is marketing hype (in your example Bosch)...
Detergent is certainly part of the cleaning equation....but sadly the old water guzzler machines with so-so detergent frequently do work better than many of the new lower water usage machines on the market regardless of detergent. And if the lower water usage machines either don't work or you cannot get the detergent out of your clothes you would prefer the water guzzler. But the real issue is not the water usage or the detergent, it is planned obsolesce. The older machines were built to last, relatively simple to understand and if you can get your hands on the part, relatively easy to fix. There has been a water guzzler in my house for 32 years (it came with the house), it has never broken down. There appears to be legislation in the UK that a machine must last at least 7 years, so let's be generous and say that during that 32 year period I managed to get 10 years from each newer machine - that would mean that by now three whole washers would have been sent to recycle or to a landfill. In thinking through the use of resources more than water is in play, what about the cost of mining, smelting, etc. all of the components that a washer is made of? And the cost of dumping it all in a landfill? All of which could have been avoided had they made a better machine in the first place- which they could easily do but there is a problem: our economists base everything on consumption-it is super easy to measure how many tons of ore were extracted and processed, how many units of a product were shipped every month, if a product last many many years than less of everything will be needed over time, planned obsolesce forces more sales, sales are revenue, revenue is reflected in the pricing of a stock, the price of the stock is reflected in the market indices, interest rates, your salary and the cost of living are measured by different indices. Using more efficient detergents would help save resources but I think we need to raise the idea of starting a new type of index so that consumption does not play such a major role in the indices that run the stock markets...

 

[henene4]

@Practigal

Planned obsolence is a thing. Sad, but true.
However, that's completly of topic.
To build a bridge: We had a Panasonic NA148VG4. It was by far outperforming anything I washed with before.
It only lasted 1 1/2 years.

 

[jerrod6]

No detergent is going to move sand anyplace, regardless of the amount of heat used or the time the clothes are in the washer. I don't think detergents will dissolve sand. So in this case water combined with hand work or mechanical action is going to be required to flush it away.

My Miele DW manual tells me not to wash ash trays in the DW because there is not enough water in play to flush ashes away and the detergent is not going to dissolve them.

I do agree with Henene4 regarding the Miele thoughts. You need all four of these components to get the job done and if you decrease one of them you need to increase another but in the case of sand you need a wash program that uses more water to flush it away or you need to rinse the sand off by hand before you toss into the machine.

 

[DADoES]

 
I don't think service life or obsolescence has a relation to whether a washing machine is HE or a water-guzzler.  It just happens that newer machines nowadays are much more likely to be HE.

Among the various factors that come into play on service life and creating today's throw-away economy:

1. Consumers nowadays are by-and-large not having broken appliances repaired for even the simplest of problems, particularly after 5 to 7 years of age.  Thus, it's commonly said "Such-and-such brand/model washer only lasted 5 years" ... without qualifying that it was the consumer's choice to replace instead of repair a simple problem.  I've brought up several times that the Whirlpool toploader my parents bought in January 1962 had *many* repairs over its 15 years of use, including belts, pumps, wigwag, leaks and overflows, complete bearing replacement, the bakelite agitator cracked, lid switch bracket rusted off, etc.

2. Contributing to the no-repair situation, manufacturers are discontinuing some kinds of replacement parts (particularly electronics) within 10 years or less, so some repairs can't be done even if the consumer desires it.

3. Cost of repairs, which may include separate line-items for diagnostic, trip, labor, and parts.  Calling-out a servicer to replace a $5 to $10 part may result in a bill of $150 to $200, instead of $20 to $40, which makes it hard to justify the repair when a new lower-end toploader can be had for ~$350.

 

[henene4]

Parts

On a side note: We had our litle Panasonic adventure. Long story that is not important.

However, I just remembered today that I could not find any parts concerning the electronic modul, which sometimes (sometimes not AFAIK) included the Inverter, the UI-panel and the PCB in one unit.

So, I phoned Panasonic today 3 times, requesting prices for such units for 3 models: A NA16VX1, NA168VG3 and a NA148VG4 (the one we had). After what I knew about the tech-support, I don't trust them one word. But everytime, they either refused to give an estimation of the price of either the part or a complete repair, or just said the part is no longer avaible (that only happend on the VX1).
So, these VX1s havw beem released in 2009/2010, if I'm not mistaken. So (if they once said the truth) they are basicly doomed to die.

Haveing seen the bords in the VG4, I can tell you they just want you to pay for a service visit that will let you trash the machine. Either because they tell you there is nothing you can do at all, or just because of the price.
I know Miele PCBs are expensive. I know Miele UIs are expensive. I know Mieles FU-Motors including their controlers (as seldomly as they fail) are as well.
Now, imagine a part that could only be exchanged as one unit, including all 3 controlers. A massive unit, partially actively cooled, spread through the whole machine. And now, think about its price.

I really loved that machine, it's design, its results.
But thinking about it now, I feel the cold crawling through my body.

 

[richnz]

Sand trapped in swimmers is difficult to move

It really does get trapped in the elasticated fibres. It is also more tricky when its the shell-type sand as opposed to white sandy-beach type sand. Maybe washing with a full load may help as there will be more items to rub against.

@henene4
Why did the PCB fail. Random failures from nothing rarely occur. Was it due to overuse?
Modern electronics cannot take being used non-stop. Transformers have been replaced by lightweight components that cannot take "constant use" and cannot tolerate any bumps (Like if the dampers where hot and the drum contacted the inside of the washer).

 

[earthling177]

Sand disposal

It seems to me that when it comes to sand the amount of water used is irrelevant -- there were plenty of water guzzlers in the past that also couldn't get rid of sand.

It's very likely that the Bosch had one of the newer baskets which not only has much smaller holes, but also way fewer holes than the more traditional baskets. They do that to protect the clothes, but it makes it harder to dispose of hair and sand too. Same as the old solid tub toploaders that used to be more common in the past.

And no, I don't mean to say those machines were worse or bad. It's a tradeoff and some people will prefer to shake the sand off before loading the clothes in the washer, other people will say durability of clothes isn't very important, they just want to load the washer and let it deal with the soil.

In any case, if you ever find an old dryer that has a perforated drum, you can set it for air fluff and put the sandy clothes inside, and you'll get rid of nearly all of the sand without even using any water, just by tumbling the clothes and having the sand pass thru the drum. You just don't want to do that to a dryer you care about.

Cheers,
-- Paulo.

 

[henene4]

We had a series of failed PCBs in applainces and we think we found the fault.

It was actually quite an accident we found it. There was something wrong with the actual main power for our house that probably caused random voltage spikes. But we are not sure about it. It was recognized when one of our electric meters randomly broke down and a service technician installed a digital meter for a few months as a replacement. It showed an overvoltage message several times, so they brought out an analog one again and checked everything and found an old, wonky connection on the main fuse (its a standard here to have a main, sealed ultra-high amperage fuse thats only disconnected if something really severe happens or a house is taken of grid). We can't say for sure yet if it was the cause. But we are hopeing it was.

On the Panasonic:
There was a physicly disconnected resistor on the PCB. However, after the service reconected it, nothing changed. That broken resistot caused Panasonic to deny any repair, though, neither could we or they proof whos fault it was. So, we don't actually know. And this washer was certanly not run any bit more or less.

 

[laundromat]

Gravity,friction, soft water from Luke warm to boiling hot,detergent and oxygen or chlorine bleach. Vertical oscillating agitators stare fabrics from too much friction and eastern water,detergent and electricity. The impeller type are better but also are more abusive in fabric care. Front loaders not only use less water and detergent but save the fabrics by tumbling them,not tearing the fibers like top loading machines. They spin out more water,hold more fabric per square inch including bulky items like bedspread,sleeping bags,shoes,pillows and rugs. They have as many as seven rinses (Asko) and can spin up to 2,000 rpms. Being the first automatics,theyve made a great comeback in the appliance industry and filled me full of joy to see the industry reinvent them to almost commercial quality. I know a lot of folks here disagree. I'm their Koolaid,not mine. My neighbors swear I wash my laundry twice. They see me hanging the clothes out to dry and say I hang the cleanest line from here to Mona side. I use Gain and Persil,Clorox,Oxyclean,Calvin and Gain fabric softener. No pre treating. No pre wash. No soaking. I wash towels and clothes together. Separate from clothing without fabric softener to keep the absorption in them thirsty. Whites separate from colors and color fast separate from fading,bleeding fabrics. Hot or warm wash with warm or cold rinse,highest spin speed and at least two full rinses

 

[davetranter]

'All 3 controllers'

My Electrolux uses a timer with good old mechanical contacts, and a capacitor. It washes clothes reasonably well, and has done so for years. Since it was given to me (about 15 years ago) I have had to rebuild the pump once. Are we not getting caught up with technology for technology's sake????

Sorry if this is getting off-topic, but this old beast gets laundry clean, if not particularly dry. ;-)

All best

Dave T

P.S. I'm assuming that one of the 'three' controllers in a modern washer controls the motor..... What the H*ll do the other two do???? (Seriously... I haven't a clue!!)

 

[launderess]

OP's Advice Was Actually

For the most part quite correct.

Long before washing machines were invented (semi, non or automatic) and before detergents or even soaps it was discovered you could clean textiles by mere chemical action alone.

In France and one assumes elsewhere in Europe laundry was done by merely steeping things in a vessel and pouring water over ashes. That percolated down through the wash was caught and simply poured over again and again. This went on until whomever thought things were clean enough. Things were then hauled to a river or another body of water/vessel and rinsed. Perhaps any remaining soil would be soaped and or beaten out of the wash, but by and large that was it.

Alkaline substances work quite well in opening up textile fibers, saponifying fats/oils and so forth. The proplems start in terms of damage when you begin going higher on the pH scale.

Have to see if one kept the bookmark but there was an old laundry manual; IIRC it was for Thor washing machines that explained to housewives that it was the chemical (soap) that did the work of cleaning laundry. This was opposed to the scrubbing, beating and other mechanical methods employed of the day.

Yes, mechanical action does work but it does so by pushing whatever chemical through the fiber thus shortening the required contact time.

Have said this before; it is totally possible to "soak" laundry clean especially with today's modern detergents. Have left soiled/stained table linens soaking overnight and upon next day 99.8% of the stains/soil were gone. I do this often for fragile items that do not want subject to long cycles in the Miele or AEG.

Mechanical action does help with soils that are deeply embedded in textile fibers. Again more because you are pushing chemicals through the material than anything else. It is the properties of the detergent or soap that are doing a bulk of the work. Just pushing plain water would remove *some* of the soil but not all.

When you add enzymes to the mix it changes everything. Like Piranha fish the stuff is attracted to specific soils. Enzymes will continue to work with or without mechanical action until they are stopped.

 

[bvf]

jobs created

Shows you people work for min wage and they could repair washers and dryers for a lot less than 150 or 200 dollars ..where are the smart people in america… My business is about 30 % less across the board and im doing quite well in america…Im tired of throw away society and that is corporate bs started so no one repairs anything..Buy vintage and life is less stressful…..My roof on my house is 85 years old and does not leak and my heater is same age …works fine buy the best vintage and your life is perfect…Progress is for fools...

 

[henene4]

"Progress is for fools"

And you ask for smart people...
BTW you got a big logic gap in your way of thinking:
You say progress is for fools.
You want people to change their mind and move towards older&#92vintage stuff.
So you want them to PROGRESS away from the main stream way of buying.
Progress stays progress even if it means going backwards.
Oh, and, if you have a repair business, you'd should be happy to have a lot of jobs to do. If everything would be build like in the 50s and such, you business probably wouldn't run quite as good.
And you do what the big manufacturers do as well: They try to be cheaper to get a max profit.