Searching \ for '[EE] - Water saving - was - Legacy ports for peopl' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/ios.htm?key=port
Search entire site for: '- Water saving - was - Legacy ports for peopl'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[EE] - Water saving - was - Legacy ports for peopl'
2008\11\10@113335 by Carl Denk

flavicon
face
We have an older Maytag washer that has a water saving feature that wife
uses frequently. The used water (from a lightly soiled load) is pumped
into the was tub adjacent to the washer. Then a dirty load can be washed
where the that slightly dirty water is pumped back to the washer for the
first cycle, where the rinse is fresh water. Our water costs approx.
$20/2000 US gallons. We haven't seen this feature on current models, but
haven't looked hard for it.

Martin wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2008\11\12@061217 by Gerhard

picon face
[Default] On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 12:33:07 -0400, Carl Denk
<spam_OUTcdenkTakeThisOuTspamalltel.net> wrote:

>We have an older Maytag washer that has a water saving feature that wife
>uses frequently.

/The/ water saving "feature" most of the US could start using are
front loaders. They use only a fraction of the water top loaders use
(and, if washing hot, only a fraction of the energy). It's a feature
of the principle: instead of filling the whole tub, it is filled only
to some 10% or so for each cycle. Washes better, uses less water,
pumps less detergent into the sewer, uses less energy and the
technology has been around for at least half a century.

Gerhard

2008\11\12@073202 by Martin

face
flavicon
face
Gerhard wrote:

> /The/ water saving "feature" most of the US could start using are
> front loaders. They use only a fraction of the water top loaders use
> (and, if washing hot, only a fraction of the energy). It's a feature
> of the principle: instead of filling the whole tub, it is filled only
> to some 10% or so for each cycle. Washes better, uses less water,
> pumps less detergent into the sewer, uses less energy and the
> technology has been around for at least half a century.
>
> Gerhard
>

Come on, Gerhard, the top loaders cost $10 less.
-
Martin

2008\11\12@081524 by Justin Richards

face picon face
Two top loaders side by side works a treat.

On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 9:31 PM, Martin <.....martinKILLspamspam@spam@nnytech.net> wrote:

{Quote hidden}

> -

2008\11\12@083823 by olin piclist

face picon face
Martin wrote:
> Come on, Gerhard, the top loaders cost $10 less.

I think this was meant as a flip answer, but should actually be considered.
We're not talking about gasoline here.  Water is dirt cheap and abundant in
many parts of the world.

For example, I live in New England which has generally abundant water.  In
particular, my house sits on a shaved off esker surrounded by swamp on three
sides.  My water comes from a well with the ground water level being
basically the swamp water level.  My cost of water is the cost of the
electricity to run the pump.  Let's say the water level is 10 feet (probably
less) below the pressure tank in the basement, and the pump stops when the
pressure reaches 30 PSI, or about two atmospheres, or roughly 60 feet of
water head.  So all told, the pump does the equivalent work of raising the
water 70 feet using all around pessimistic estimates.  A gallon weighs about
40N, and 70 feet is about 20m, so that means it takes 800J to provide 1
gallon of water for use anywhere in the house.  Let's double that to account
for inefficiencies in the pump and the electric motor driving it, so my cost
is 1.6KJ of electric energy per gallon.  My incremental cost of electricity
is about $.12/KWh, or $.12/3.6MJ, or 53u$ per gallon pumped.  That means for
$10 I can get almost 200K gallons.

Yes I know I used a lot of rough numbers, but the point is $10 is a *lot* of
water for me.  The tradeoff of course is different in other parts of the
world as fresh water is far from evenly distributed.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2008\11\12@090109 by Carl Denk

flavicon
face
2 Items:
1: The Local TV station reported last night that front loading LG's had
a mildew problem leaving the washed clothes smelly
www.woio.com/global/video/flash/popupplayer.asp?ClipID1=3127270&h1=Washer%20Style%20Causing%20Lawsuits&vt1=v&at1=News&d1=215300&LaunchPageAdTag=News%20-%20Hard%20News&activePane=info&rnd=80396999
2: We have had for 31 years a 8000 gallon cistern, catching roof water.
This halves our water bill where we most of the year pay the minimum
bill. :)

Justin Richards wrote:
{Quote hidden}

>> --

2008\11\12@095801 by Martin

face
flavicon
face
Olin Lathrop wrote:
> Martin wrote:
>> Come on, Gerhard, the top loaders cost $10 less.
>
...
> Yes I know I used a lot of rough numbers, but the point is $10 is a *lot* of
> water for me.  The tradeoff of course is different in other parts of the
> world as fresh water is far from evenly distributed.
>
>
> ********************************************************************
> Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
> (978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

Indeed. The side loaders tend to be significantly more energy efficient,
having BLDC motors integrated as part of the drum. They also wring more
water out of the clothes because they spin faster.

Side loaders are probably more important in areas where people are more
densely packed (NYC), or where water is scarce (west Texas) or both (Los
Angeles.) Or for people who are worried more about energy efficiency
(which is their prerogative.)

With that said, I was being facetious.
-
Martin

2008\11\12@100346 by Joe Bento

face
flavicon
face
Carl Denk wrote:
> 2 Items:
> 1: The Local TV station reported last night that front loading LG's had
> a mildew problem leaving the washed clothes smelly
> www.woio.com/global/video/flash/popupplayer.asp?ClipID1=3127270&h1=Washer%20Style%20Causing%20Lawsuits&vt1=v&at1=News&d1=215300&LaunchPageAdTag=News%20-%20Hard%20News&activePane=info&rnd=80396999
> 2: We have had for 31 years a 8000 gallon cistern, catching roof water.
> This halves our water bill where we most of the year pay the minimum
> bill. :)
>  
It's interesting that when you Google this issue of mold in front
loading washers that it seems to be an American issue.  Europe has used
front loaders for decades, apparently mold free.  What have we done here
in the States to "improve" the front loading washer to create this problem?

Joe

2008\11\12@100526 by Chris Smolinski

flavicon
face
>Indeed. The side loaders tend to be significantly more energy efficient,
>having BLDC motors integrated as part of the drum. They also wring more
>water out of the clothes because they spin faster.
>
>Side loaders are probably more important in areas where people are more
>densely packed (NYC), or where water is scarce (west Texas) or both (Los
>Angeles.) Or for people who are worried more about energy efficiency
>(which is their prerogative.)

FWIW, we recently got a side loading washer. We bought it when our
top loader died. So far we've found several advantages. As others
have said, it uses less water - a lot less. We're on a well, so our
water, like Olin's, is close to free - the cold anyway, the hot is a
little more expensive :-) But since it use's less water, there's no
issue with running a load while taking a shower.

And as the previous poster mentioned, the clothes are wrung out
better, so they dry much more quickly. We've also noticed that it
does a much better job cleaning the clothes - kid's clothes that had
what we thought were permanent stains started to lose them.  Plus it
uses less detergent.

Overall, we're happy. We bought the cheapest model that Sear's had.
You can have mildew problems if you don't clean it regularly as
recommended, and you should leave the door open for a while after
running it, so the rubber gasket can dry out.

--

---
Chris Smolinski
Black Cat Systems
http://www.blackcatsystems.com

2008\11\12@110445 by William \Chops\ Westfield

face picon face

>> front loaders. They use only a fraction of the water top loaders use
>> (and, if washing hot, only a fraction of the energy). It's a feature
>> of the principle: instead of filling the whole tub, it is filled only
>> to some 10% or so for each cycle.

I fail to be convinced.  At the load level WE use for clothes, 10% of  
the water would result (I think) in a somewhat damp pile of cloth and  
caked soap.  Now, if the load size is supposed to be 1/4 what it is  
now, so that it can actually tumble, and we have to do 4 times the  
number of washes...  I guess I believe it will save SOME water, but  
I'm not sure that it's significant...

We'd save a lot more water adjusting the American "Cleanliness Fetish"  
and wearing fewer than two sets of clothes per day (one for work, one  
for exercise, one for lounging, one for sleeping.  Not ALL sets are  
washed after one day of wear, but the average is greater than one...)

BillW

2008\11\12@112810 by olin piclist

face picon face
William Chops" Westfield" wrote:
> We'd save a lot more water adjusting the American "Cleanliness Fetish"
> and wearing fewer than two sets of clothes per day (one for work, one
> for exercise, one for lounging, one for sleeping.  Not ALL sets are
> washed after one day of wear, but the average is greater than one...)

Save the planet.  Be clean by being dirty!

********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2008\11\12@121844 by Harold Hallikainen

face
flavicon
face

> We'd save a lot more water adjusting the American "Cleanliness Fetish"
> and wearing fewer than two sets of clothes per day (one for work, one
> for exercise, one for lounging, one for sleeping.  Not ALL sets are
> washed after one day of wear, but the average is greater than one...)
>

Clothes for sleeping? Don't tell my wife!

Harold


--
FCC Rules Updated Daily at http://www.hallikainen.com - Advertising
opportunities available!

2008\11\12@125539 by Dr Skip

picon face
Just get rid of clothes!

Laundry reduces to towels and sheets, water and detergent use goes down
proportionally, nobody can hide a gun or knife, airport screening would be
easier, etc. ;)


William "Chops" Westfield wrote:
> We'd save a lot more water adjusting the American "Cleanliness Fetish"  
> and wearing fewer than two sets of clothes per day (one for work, one  
> for exercise, one for lounging, one for sleeping.  Not ALL sets are  
> washed after one day of wear, but the average is greater than one...)
>
> BillW
>

2008\11\12@141647 by Peter Loron

flavicon
face
On Nov 12, 2008, at 3:12 AM, Gerhard wrote:

> [Default] On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 12:33:07 -0400, Carl Denk
> <.....cdenkKILLspamspam.....alltel.net> wrote:
>
>> We have an older Maytag washer that has a water saving feature that  
>> wife
>> uses frequently.
>
> /The/ water saving "feature" most of the US could start using are
> front loaders. They use only a fraction of the water top loaders use
> (and, if washing hot, only a fraction of the energy). It's a feature
> of the principle: instead of filling the whole tub, it is filled only
> to some 10% or so for each cycle. Washes better, uses less water,
> pumps less detergent into the sewer, uses less energy and the
> technology has been around for at least half a century.
>
> Gerhard

We have a front loader. Love it. Another advantage is less noise. Most  
of the less expensive top loaders are noisy. I'm sure you can get a  
quiet top loader, but then you're paying about as much as a front  
loader.

A couple of other negatives that may or may not matter for you: The  
front loaders generally take longer to do a load of wash. They also  
typically have smaller capacities than the top loaders. If you have  
huge loads of laundry to do every day, this may matter. We get by just  
fine with a non-huge front loader doing clothes for 3 adults and 2 kids.

Also note that in the US, many cities have rebates for installing a  
front loader...this can help offset the cost difference.

-Pete

2008\11\12@142015 by William Couture

face picon face
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 12:55 PM, Dr Skip <EraseMEdrskipspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTgmail.com> wrote:

> Just get rid of clothes!

Try not wearing them when it's -20F outside...

Bill

--
Psst...  Hey, you... Buddy...  Want a kitten?  straycatblues.petfinder.org

2008\11\12@144903 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 11:16 -0800, Peter Loron wrote:
> We have a front loader. Love it. Another advantage is less noise. Most  
> of the less expensive top loaders are noisy. I'm sure you can get a  
> quiet top loader, but then you're paying about as much as a front  
> loader.

FWIW, while generally less noisy in volume, some front loaders make
loads of "weird" noises. The one my parents have sounds exactly like an
airplane engine revving up when it goes into the spin cycle. Some may
find these "weirder" noises more disturbing.

TTYL

2008\11\12@171303 by McReynolds, Alan A

picon face
That "airplane take off noise" is the sound of the main bearings going out.  A $80 bearing & seal kit will set it right if you have some mechanical skills.

{Original Message removed}

2008\11\12@173131 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 22:12 +0000, McReynolds, Alan A wrote:
> That "airplane take off noise" is the sound of the main bearings going out.  A $80 bearing & seal kit will set it right if you have some mechanical skills.

I doubt it, considering it's been doing it for over 15 years, and did it
the first day my grandmother used it.

TTYL

2008\11\12@212525 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 7:12 PM, Gerhard <gelistsspamspam_OUTgmail.com> wrote:
>>We have an older Maytag washer that has a water saving feature that wife
>>uses frequently.
>
> /The/ water saving "feature" most of the US could start using are
> front loaders. They use only a fraction of the water top loaders use
> (and, if washing hot, only a fraction of the energy). It's a feature
> of the principle: instead of filling the whole tub, it is filled only
> to some 10% or so for each cycle. Washes better, uses less water,
> pumps less detergent into the sewer, uses less energy and the
> technology has been around for at least half a century.

I have used front loaders since I bought the flat 4 years ago.
Water is precious here in Singapore. The governemnt is
trying hard to create alternative sources of water by recycling
and desalination. The other two sources is local catchment
and import mainly from Malaysia.

Water in Singapore
http://www.pub.gov.sg/water/Pages/default.aspx
New Water:
www.pub.gov.sg/NEWater/Pages/default.aspx
Desalinated Water
http://www.pub.gov.sg/water/Pages/DesalinatedWater.aspx

I think most part of US are quite ok with water resources.
Even in part of California where quite big portion of water is
from other states, I can see water is still not that precious.

Xiaofan

2008\11\13@021640 by Mongol Herdsman

picon face
Olin Lathrop wrote:
> The same applies to spinning faster.  I can't think of any reason
>  why a side loader should be able to spin inherently faster.

The things are spinning in the center of mass of the sytem for a side
loader (we are talking about Direct Drive). The total mass of the
system is about 60 kg, the spinning mass is up to 10 kg.

So placing the spinning things in the center of mass will reduce the
vibration greatly compared to the case when the spinning things are
far from the center of mass (top loader).

And also the plane of rotation for a side loader is perpendicular to
the floor. This will greatly block one axes of vibration - vertical.

Thus, to stay within specs on vibration you can spin things much
faster for a side loader than for a top loader. Not exactly rocket
science, but the principles of Engineering Mechanics are the same. We
can get it through Theoretical Mechanics, but I feel this would be a
bit overkill. :-)

2008\11\13@075854 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>> That "airplane take off noise" is the sound of the main
>> bearings going out.  A $80 bearing & seal kit will set
>> it right if you have some mechanical skills.
>
>I doubt it, considering it's been doing it for over 15 years,
>and did it the first day my grandmother used it.

If it is anything like ours, it probably uses an ordinary universal motor
for the drum, and the sound may be the SCR controlling the motor speed. Ours
spins up slowly to test the weight distribution before getting up to high
speed spin.

2008\11\13@082440 by olin piclist

face picon face
Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> I think most part of US are quite ok with water resources.
> Even in part of California where quite big portion of water is
> from other states, I can see water is still not that precious.

Just the first 48 US states alone spread 3000 miles accross a continent, and
as such have a lot of different climates and scarcity/abundance of water.
The part between the Sierras/Cascades and the Rockies is rather dry and
water availability is a serious issue.  The coastal areas of northern
California, Oregon, and Washington are quite wet by any standard.  Parts are
literally rain forests.  Cross the Cascades to the east and within 50 miles
you're almost in a desert.  Go north a bit and you get soaked again,
although you'll have to add "aye" the end of all your sentences.

Even just California has a large range of climates.  The tiny part too many
people erroneously think of when you say "California" (the Los Angeles area)
is rather dry.  They get away with it because they grabbed a bunch of water
rights long ago before others caught onto the idea.  Imagine the
environmental impact statement if you were to propose flooding the Hetch
Hetchy valley today.

By the way, here's a question to think about.  What river in North America
has the largest flow?  Hint: It's not the Mississippi.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2008\11\13@094356 by Gerhard

picon face
[Default] On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 08:03:40 -0700, Joe Bento wrote:

>Carl Denk wrote:
>> 2 Items:
>> 1: The Local TV station reported last night that front loading LG's had
>> a mildew problem leaving the washed clothes smelly
>> www.woio.com/global/video/flash/popupplayer.asp?ClipID1=3127270&h1=Washer%20Style%20Causing%20Lawsuits&vt1=v&at1=News&d1=215300&LaunchPageAdTag=News%20-%20Hard%20News&activePane=info&rnd=80396999
>> 2: We have had for 31 years a 8000 gallon cistern, catching roof water.
>> This halves our water bill where we most of the year pay the minimum
>> bill. :)
>>  
>It's interesting that when you Google this issue of mold in front
>loading washers that it seems to be an American issue.  Europe has used
>front loaders for decades, apparently mold free.  What have we done here
>in the States to "improve" the front loading washer to create this problem?

I can confirm this. I've been using front loaders for all my life
(except for the period when I lived in the US and shared a top
loader), and I've never had a mold problem. Not even in Brazil, where
it's about as warm and humid as in southern Florida. (Maybe that's
because we never shut the door when it is not washing. This is
different from top loaders that even with a shut lid don't seal the
drum.)

Regarding the water bill... Try to calculate how much energy it takes
to heat a top loader to 60 degree C (I abstain from using the degree
symbol, due to ... well, we've been there :), then calculate how much
it takes to heat a front loader. 10% of the water probably translates
to approx. 15% of the energy required for heating.

Gerhard

2008\11\13@094357 by Gerhard

picon face
[Default] On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 10:05:00 -0500, Chris Smolinski wrote:

>And as the previous poster mentioned, the clothes are wrung out
>better, so they dry much more quickly. We've also noticed that it
>does a much better job cleaning the clothes - kid's clothes that had
>what we thought were permanent stains started to lose them.  Plus it
>uses less detergent.

Exactly. The better washing is due to the different type of mechanical
action on the fabric, and the lower detergent usage is due to this and
the fact that it uses much less water for washing.

>You can have mildew problems if you don't clean it regularly as
>recommended, and you should leave the door open for a while after
>running it, so the rubber gasket can dry out.

Yes, we actually never shut the door when it is empty. This is
different from the top loaders, because top loaders don't seal the
drum part when the lid is closed. Front loaders do, which is not a
good thing unless everything inside is dry -- which it rarely or never
is, if you use it normally. That's why we only shut the door for
washing; the rest of the time it's just almost closed but not snapped
in.

Gerhard

2008\11\13@094401 by Gerhard

picon face
[Default] On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 08:04:23 -0800, "William \"Chops\"
Westfield" <@spam@westfwKILLspamspammac.com> wrote:

>>> front loaders. They use only a fraction of the water top loaders use
>>> (and, if washing hot, only a fraction of the energy). It's a feature
>>> of the principle: instead of filling the whole tub, it is filled only
>>> to some 10% or so for each cycle.
>
>I fail to be convinced.  At the load level WE use for clothes, 10% of  
>the water would result (I think) in a somewhat damp pile of cloth and  
>caked soap.  

Have you ever used a front loader, or observed it in action? Washing
is not equal washing. There are several different mechanisms involved,
and they are different between front and top loaders. If you're
interested, take a good model and really look at what happens there.

Top loaders immerse the fabric in water all the time. Front loaders
never completely immerse. This results in a much lower water, soap and
heat energy use.

Due to the lower water use, it is common to have more washing and more
rinsing cycles; better machines often use 5 or more rinse cycles and
still use less water than a single rinsing cycle on a top loader. This
results in less residue on the clothes; you know that dissolving five
times in 10 liters results in less residue (without considering the
effect of five times shaking the fabric around) than dissolving one
time in 100 liters. (You also know that the US has an abnormal high
incidence of allergies. Detergent residue on clothes is probably not
something decisive for this, but with allergies it's not one factor,
it's the addition of many.)

Top loaders create mechanical friction mostly between the plastic of
the agitator and the fabric (newer models with the spiral agitator are
a bit better and try to simulate more what a front loader does). Front
loaders don't really have an agitator (except for some rounded humps
in the drum) and create mechanical friction between the pieces of
fabric. This results in both less strain on the fabric and at the same
time a better mechanical washing action. Clothes washed in a front
loader have a longer life. (Which again leads to less resource usage.)

Due to both the reduced amount of water and the better mechanical
action, the amount of soap required in a front loader can be measured
in teaspoons -- top loaders usually measure in cups :)

> Now, if the load size is supposed to be 1/4 what it is  
>now, so that it can actually tumble, and we have to do 4 times the  
>number of washes...  I guess I believe it will save SOME water, but  
>I'm not sure that it's significant...

I'm comparing same load sizes. Front loaders don't "tumble"; the
clothes are not immersed and don't float in the water. You really have
to see how that works... it's a different kind of washing.

Have you ever been in a washing saloon? They usually have both kinds.
(But the front loaders in washing saloons are not the best ones, and
neither are the top loaders. Both are usually pretty simple
representatives of their kind.) You can see the principle, even though
you can't see the finer details of a good front loader's washing
cycle.

Gerhard

2008\11\13@101926 by Mongol Herdsman

picon face
Olin Lathrop wrote:
> By the way, here's a question to think about.  What river in North America
> has the largest flow?  Hint: It's not the Mississippi.

Colorado River?
By Average Discharge at Mouth - Mississippi.
www.waterencyclopedia.com/Re-St/Rivers-Major-World.html

2008\11\13@163109 by olin piclist

face picon face
Mongol Herdsman wrote:
>> By the way, here's a question to think about.  What river in North
>> America has the largest flow?
>
> Colorado River?

Definitely not.  It sometimes doesn't even make to the ocean anymore.

> By Average Discharge at Mouth - Mississippi.
> http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Re-St/Rivers-Major-World.html

Hmm.  I've seen different figures.  It doesn't seem right that the
Mississippi is that high up.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2008\11\14@042441 by Mongol Herdsman

picon face
Olin Lathrop wrote:
>>> By the way, here's a question to think about.  What river in North
>>> America has the largest flow?
>>
>> Colorado River?
>
> Definitely not.  It sometimes doesn't even make to the ocean anymore.

There were times it did somewhat better judging on the gorge it carved
in Arizona. You did not specify the time span, so I thouhgt it would
not hurt to nominate Microchip's headquarter's state river. :-)

2008\11\14@091904 by Cdenk

flavicon
face
At the moment, I'm at the daughter's home in Atlanta. She has a Whirlpool front loader, and she said keeping the door open when the unit is idle minimizes mold growth, she does wipe the door gasket area regularly, otherwise she has no issues. A friend has mold issues, but I don't know what brand it is.

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2008 , 2009 only
- Today
- New search...