Maker Pro
Maker Pro

Washing machines

M

Mary Fisher

Jan 1, 1970
0
(in another thread)
Well, that's a gross exaggeration, as we have energy efficient machines
here in the USA (modeled after the European ones, no doubt) that are
very close in efficiency. I have a Sears front loader washer that takes
1/3rd the electric and water of my previous unit.


I'm curious to know why you always refer to a 'front loader' washing
machine. Is any other kind still produced in USA?

I don't think other kinds are available in UK - but I could be wrong.

Mary
 
G

GeekBoy

Jan 1, 1970
0
BobG said:
I'm curious to know why you always refer to a 'front loader' washing
machine. Is any other kind still produced in USA?
=======================================
Lots of top loaders around here still.


Yes and still very popular because the women do not have to stoop over to
put clothes in.
 
D

Derek Broughton

Jan 1, 1970
0
GeekBoy said:
Yes and still very popular because the women do not have to stoop over to
put clothes in.

otoh, my wife can actually reach the bottom of the front loader. I always
used to find socks in the top loader that she hadn't been able to reach.
 
M

Mary Fisher

Jan 1, 1970
0
GeekBoy said:
Yes and still very popular because the women do not have to stoop over to
put clothes in.

Stooping is bad for your back. They should bend their knees.

Or get the men to do it.

Mary
 
M

Mary Fisher

Jan 1, 1970
0
Derek Broughton said:
otoh, my wife can actually reach the bottom of the front loader. I always
used to find socks in the top loader that she hadn't been able to reach.

What on Earth were you doing groping in the washing machine???

That's woman's work.

Hrumph.

Mary
 
S

Steve Spence

Jan 1, 1970
0
Mary said:
(in another thread)


I'm curious to know why you always refer to a 'front loader' washing
machine. Is any other kind still produced in USA?

I don't think other kinds are available in UK - but I could be wrong.

Mary

Top loaders are more popular, and cheaper. Front loaders are more
expensive, but much more efficient.
 
M

Mary Fisher

Jan 1, 1970
0
Steve Spence said:
Top loaders are more popular, and cheaper. Front loaders are more
expensive, but much more efficient.

I suspect that there's another benefit. Our houses are mostly smaller than
yours. Our kitchens are proportionately less spacious. Most UK washing
machines are in the kitchen (few have utility rooms). A front loader can be
positioned under a counter (work surface), thus saving space.

But with the new awareness of energy usage and emissions I'd have thought
that USA would have been encouraging more efficient front loaders.

As for expensive - my image of USAians isn't that they're on the breadline
....

There was a time when top loaders and front loaders were available, side by
side, in the shops here. It was quite a long time ago. People preferred the
front loaders - they were marketed as "automatics", I don't think we ever
had automatic front loaders. Consumers voted with their purses.

On the other hand, I've just googled. There are quite a lot of top loaders
available for UK buyers. They're very expensiveto buy.

I'd imagine that they're also expensive in water and power terms but I don't
know.

MaryMary
 
S

Steve Spence

Jan 1, 1970
0
Mary said:
I suspect that there's another benefit. Our houses are mostly smaller than
yours. Our kitchens are proportionately less spacious. Most UK washing
machines are in the kitchen (few have utility rooms). A front loader can be
positioned under a counter (work surface), thus saving space.

Most folks here put the laundry in the basement along with the furnace
and the water heater.
But with the new awareness of energy usage and emissions I'd have thought
that USA would have been encouraging more efficient front loaders.

We are encouraging them, but the high prices attached make it difficult
for many folks to justify. Off-gridders do see the benefit quickly.
As for expensive - my image of USAians isn't that they're on the breadline
...

You have a poor image. The breadline is in view of many Americans.
 
M

Mary Fisher

Jan 1, 1970
0
Steve Spence said:
Most folks here put the laundry in the basement along with the furnace and
the water heater.

Oh bliss - the idea of a basement ...
We are encouraging them, but the high prices attached make it difficult
for many folks to justify. Off-gridders do see the benefit quickly.


You have a poor image. The breadline is in view of many Americans.

I suppose everything's relative.

We, the Fishers, think that we live very well. We have everything we need,
don't want anything we don't need and we have money in the bank which we
don't need. But our income is well below the average and we're only just
above the official 'poverty line' as defined by HM Government.

Part of our 'poverty' is not having a television, video, microwave,
holidays, car each etc (all from choice).

I remember real poverty in the 1940s when I knew children who didn't have
shoes or coats. I had a new pair of shoes once a year, the toes were cut out
when my feet grew too big for them. I didn't think of us as poor because I
knew those other children.

Our children had a pair of new shoes when they outgrew their old ones but it
was sometimes very hard, we still never thought we were poor because I had
the image oft hose shoeless children in my mind.

Then I came across the saying about thinking 'I was poor because I had no
shoes until I met a man with no feet'.

I've only spent two three week sessions in USA and both times I had 'poor'
people pointed out. Their houses were bigger than the 70 yo one we live in
(which is bigger than most new houses in UK) and they mostly had cars,
albeit as old as ours.

The notion of poverty and breadlines is a difficult one. I didn't have a
washing machine of any kind until my mother bought me one after our fourth
child was born. Until then I washed everything by hand, in the kitchen sink.
In the house before that we didn't have hot water. Or a kitchen! One ground
floor room, one bedroom for us and three babies. And we still didn't feel
poor :)

But I wouldn't want to go back to that. When you're young things are easier.

Mary
 
D

daestrom

Jan 1, 1970
0
Steve Spence said:
Most folks here put the laundry in the basement along with the furnace and
the water heater.

I used to be the same way. Built a house with the laundry upstairs between
bedrooms and bath, and won't ever go back if I can help it. :)

daestrom
 
W

wmbjk

Jan 1, 1970
0
I've only spent two three week sessions in USA and both times I had 'poor'
people pointed out. Their houses were bigger than the 70 yo one we live in
(which is bigger than most new houses in UK) and they mostly had cars,
albeit as old as ours.

Don't kid yourself. There are lots of poor people in the US, including
plenty in my area who live off-grid in mouse-infested trailers, have
no telephone, and haul water in barrels. Most living that kind of life
do have vehicles of a sort, but there's no shortage of others who do
without. I could show you some who make the Gallaghers of Shameless
look like fat cats. ;-)

Wayne
 
S

Steve Spence

Jan 1, 1970
0
Mary said:
I suppose everything's relative.

We, the Fishers, think that we live very well. We have everything we need,
don't want anything we don't need and we have money in the bank which we
don't need. But our income is well below the average and we're only just
above the official 'poverty line' as defined by HM Government.

Part of our 'poverty' is not having a television, video, microwave,
holidays, car each etc (all from choice).

I remember real poverty in the 1940s when I knew children who didn't have
shoes or coats. I had a new pair of shoes once a year, the toes were cut out
when my feet grew too big for them. I didn't think of us as poor because I
knew those other children.

Our children had a pair of new shoes when they outgrew their old ones but it
was sometimes very hard, we still never thought we were poor because I had
the image oft hose shoeless children in my mind.

Then I came across the saying about thinking 'I was poor because I had no
shoes until I met a man with no feet'.

I've only spent two three week sessions in USA and both times I had 'poor'
people pointed out. Their houses were bigger than the 70 yo one we live in
(which is bigger than most new houses in UK) and they mostly had cars,
albeit as old as ours.

The notion of poverty and breadlines is a difficult one. I didn't have a
washing machine of any kind until my mother bought me one after our fourth
child was born. Until then I washed everything by hand, in the kitchen sink.
In the house before that we didn't have hot water. Or a kitchen! One ground
floor room, one bedroom for us and three babies. And we still didn't feel
poor :)

But I wouldn't want to go back to that. When you're young things are easier.

Mary

Around here, many folks live in leaky 30 year old mobile homes (900 sq.
ft. or less), get food and toy baskets taken to them at Christmas so the
kids won't see an empty tree. They get free food and medical from the
county because dad has been out of work (all 3 factories have shutdown
or are in shutdown mode). If they have a car, it's 20+ years old, rusted
out, and gets 10 mpg because someone got a tax deduction for giving it
to them. We have a 17% poverty rate, with a per capita income of $15,994
 
D

Derek Broughton

Jan 1, 1970
0
Mary said:
But with the new awareness of energy usage and emissions I'd have thought
that USA would have been encouraging more efficient front loaders.

In Canada and the US, there's really very little "awareness" of energy
usage. Energy is still too cheap. There's certainly no encouragement to
buy front load machines.
On the other hand, I've just googled. There are quite a lot of top loaders
available for UK buyers. They're very expensiveto buy.

I'd imagine that they're also expensive in water and power terms but I
don't know.

Very.
 
M

Mel

Jan 1, 1970
0
Mary Fisher a écrit :
(in another thread)


I'm curious to know why you always refer to a 'front loader' washing
machine. Is any other kind still produced in USA?

I don't think other kinds are available in UK - but I could be wrong.

Mary


After having lived in several countries:

frontloaders: best efficiency, low water use, but for those that wash
hot, wastefull as most do not have a hot water entry. (hot water heated
by electric element). CLothes are cleaned by friction in a reduced
amount of water with teh drum spinning on a horizontal axis (ie the
clothes are satured with water but not in a "tub" of water")
dimensions - a square block about 60cm by 60cm IIRC (or is that 80cm?)


toploaders :

type 1 - pretty much the same as a front loader, but the metal spinning
drum is accessed through a hatch on top. Very popular here in France
(tiny tiny kitchens)
dimensions - slimmer, IIRC 40cm by 60cm

type 2 - water guzzlers; the clothes sit in a tub/drum and the drum
spins on a vertical axis. Major advantage; always have hot & cold water
entries but use so much more water that it's hard to know if it's
worthwhile... (I'm talking hundreds of litres here as opposed to tens of
liters for the other types of washing machines)
same dimensions as the front loader but generaly about 1m or more tall
(frontloader standard bench height)
 
D

Derek Broughton

Jan 1, 1970
0
Mel said:
After having lived in several countries:

frontloaders: best efficiency, low water use, but for those that wash
hot, wastefull as most do not have a hot water entry. (hot water heated
by electric element).

Hot water washing is wasteful and unnecessary, anyway, but it's probably not
more wasteful to heat it in the machine, than to use a central hot water
system, and most front-loaders available in North America have hot water
plumbing.
 
D

danny burstein

Jan 1, 1970
0
In said:
Mel wrote:
Hot water washing is wasteful and unnecessary, anyway, but it's probably not
more wasteful to heat it in the machine, than to use a central hot water
system, and most front-loaders available in North America have hot water
plumbing.

If the water in the plumbing lines is heated by oil or gas,
then it costs significantly less t do so than heating it
up via electrical elements in the washer [a]. If you've
got an electric water heater, then it's, ahem, a wash.

[a] I've never seen a clothes washer in the US that
heats its water. Quite a few dishwashers, though.
 
D

Derek Broughton

Jan 1, 1970
0
danny said:
In <[email protected]> Derek Broughton
Mel wrote:
Hot water washing is wasteful and unnecessary, anyway, but it's probably
not more wasteful to heat it in the machine, than to use a central hot
water system, and most front-loaders available in North America have hot
water plumbing.

If the water in the plumbing lines is heated by oil or gas,
then it costs significantly less t do so than heating it
up via electrical elements in the washer [a].

I wasn't arguing cost, merely that it is not more wasteful.
If you've got an electric water heater, then it's, ahem, a wash.

Well, no it isn't. You lose heat in the plumbing. Do you lose enough heat
in the plumbing to make up for the difference in cost between electric &
gas heat? That would depend on your particular circumstances but I suspect
the answer is far from always being "no".
[a] I've never seen a clothes washer in the US that
heats its water.

I don't know that I've ever seen a US-built washer with its own heating
element, but you can certainly buy European-made ones in North America
(Bosch comes to mind).
Quite a few dishwashers, though.

Dishwashers do it to get water up to what is considered an unsafe
temperature for faucet supplies.
 
S

stu

Jan 1, 1970
0
Derek Broughton said:
danny said:
In <[email protected]> Derek Broughton
Mel wrote:
After having lived in several countries:

frontloaders: best efficiency, low water use, but for those that wash
hot, wastefull as most do not have a hot water entry. (hot water heated
by electric element).
Hot water washing is wasteful and unnecessary, anyway, but it's probably
not more wasteful to heat it in the machine, than to use a central hot
water system, and most front-loaders available in North America have hot
water plumbing.

If the water in the plumbing lines is heated by oil or gas,
then it costs significantly less t do so than heating it
up via electrical elements in the washer [a].

I wasn't arguing cost, merely that it is not more wasteful.
If you've got an electric water heater, then it's, ahem, a wash.

Well, no it isn't. You lose heat in the plumbing. Do you lose enough heat
in the plumbing to make up for the difference in cost between electric &
gas heat? That would depend on your particular circumstances but I suspect
the answer is far from always being "no".
[a] I've never seen a clothes washer in the US that
heats its water.

I don't know that I've ever seen a US-built washer with its own heating
element, but you can certainly buy European-made ones in North America
(Bosch comes to mind).
Quite a few dishwashers, though.

Dishwashers do it to get water up to what is considered an unsafe
temperature for faucet supplies.

I've had both top and front.
A full load in the top loader used over 200litres a load, the front loader
takes about 35litres(on quick wash which i use most of the time). While the
top of the line top loader model does have hot water in, the machine does
up 95C washing temp. Hot water in might help, but the hot water system would
have to be very close to the washer, as my machine fills for a few seconds
then stops, turns the drum a little, then fills a little more, until it has
the clothes just wet. If the HWS was to far from the machine(mine is about
40ft) you would get very little hot water out(remembering that it only uses
about 10litres to fill). Even thought it uses its own element to heat the
water, it uses so little water it would still cost less.(i would guess that
my top loader used about 50litres of hot water a load). most of my washing i
do are 30C anyway
the stats that came with the machine say that on its "heavy wash" it uses 52
litres, it also has a "super rinse" option that increases the number od
rinses from 3 to 7 so that would of course use more water
the worst problem with front loaders is that they can take alot longer, on
"heavy wash" it takes 135minutes!!! "quick wash" only takes 58minutes and
"super quick wash" only 35 minutes

Stuart
 
M

Mary Fisher

Jan 1, 1970
0
After having lived in several countries:
frontloaders: best efficiency, low water use, but for those that wash
hot, wastefull as most do not have a hot water entry.

Ours does.
toploaders :
type 1 - pretty much the same as a front loader, but the metal spinning
drum is accessed through a hatch on top. Very popular here in France
(tiny tiny kitchens)


But the need to keep the top free isn't convenient in a tiny kitchen ...

Mary
 
M

Mel

Jan 1, 1970
0
Mary Fisher a écrit :
hot, wastefull as most do not have a hot water entry.

Ours does.

What brand? I've managed to find 1 brand that sells 1 model in
Switzerland,, Belgium and the Netherlands (but the dealers have been,
they tell me, requested NOT to export to France for after sales service
reasons) Other wise nothing.

drum is accessed through a hatch on top. Very popular here in France
(tiny tiny kitchens)


But the need to keep the top free isn't convenient in a tiny kitchen ...

Mary


You only need to keep the top free when you want to wash; and the 20cm
in width that is gained is really important; and very often this
difference in width is the difference between having a washing machine
and not having a washing machine at all.
 
Top