Maker Pro
Maker Pro

Washing machines

D

Derek Broughton

Jan 1, 1970
0
Bughunter said:
Last year I installed a newer, high end, top loading washing machine in my
off grid camp. A friend gave it too me. It is a very nice unit, with some
sophisticated electronics, led cycle indicators etc.

I was quite interested to see what kind of a load it put on my very modest
sized off-grid electrical system.

Just plugging it in was enough to bring my inverter out of sleep mode. It
takes 16 watts to bring my inverter out of sleep mode, so even when the
machine is OFF it is drawing at least 16 watts! That's enough to run a
100watt "equivalent" compact fluorescent light bulb!

Not that it matters, now that you've installed a wall switch, but try
checking the draw with the lid open & closed - one design I've heard of
always drew power to the timer if the lid was closed.
 
M

Mary Fisher

Jan 1, 1970
0
Derek Broughton said:
Solar Flare wrote:

A 'machine stool'?

Good Heavens! What's that?

I only bend my knees for a few seconds to load and again unload the machine,
it's good exercise- but not enough. My knees are arthritic - it's my
birthday today and the67 years are making themselves obvious :)


?

You don't need a swimming pool to get yourself clean ...
What makes you think they have higher maintenance?

Ours has had minimal since new in 1988.
They were accepted eagerly here, on superb efficiency grounds.
You've made a lot of statements here based on really bad assumptions.

I agree.

Mary
 
D

daestrom

Jan 1, 1970
0
Mary Fisher said:
A 'machine stool'?

Good Heavens! What's that?

I only bend my knees for a few seconds to load and again unload the
machine, it's good exercise- but not enough. My knees are arthritic - it's
my birthday today and the67 years are making themselves obvious :)

Yeah, I think this 'US consumers don't by them because of bending over to
put clothes in' is just some BS. While it is true that most US homes have
top-loading washers, look right next to them and you'll find a
*front-loading* dryer. Why would folks not want to put clothes in/out a
front-loading washer, but still tolerate doing exactly that with the dryer.
Yes, I'm sure many folks use clotheslines or other such instead of a
mechanical dryer, but look in any US appliance store, and they have 'matched
sets', top-loading washer, and front-loading dryer.

Most folks buy what they are used to. If mom had a top-loader, then you buy
one too. Takes a persuasive argument to get folks out of their 'comfort
zone'.

daestrom


ditto

daestrom
 
R

Ron Purvis

Jan 1, 1970
0
Derek Broughton said:
There _is_ a saving. It may not be as large if you don't use hot water
(we
don't either), but the top-load washer also needs to use a lot more power
to move all the extra water. There is no way any of the top-loaders I've
used could do a load of laundry for 170 watt-hours of electricity.
I was pointing out that there is no hot water savings that meow was
claiming. Over all there is some energy savings for a really good front
loader over a top loader. As far as there being enough energy savings to
make actual economic savings when you use zero hot water is something that
depends on the actual individual circumstances. How many loads will you use
per year, and what are the costs of water and electricity? Those three
things are critical to the equation. I looked at a high effeciency unit from
Whirlpool
http://www.lowes.com/lowes/lkn?action=productDetail&productId=162165-46-GHW9150PW&lpage=none
and it states that the energy usage is $14 a year if you use 8 loads a week
and pay 8.03 cents a kWh. For a similar sized top loader the annual cost
is $18 a year and that is figured at a more expensive 8.60 cents a kWh. Keep
in mind that the $4 a year difference is with a higher cost of electricity
for the second model and that both are using hot water. With that it would
take 37 years to save enough energy to cover the extra cost for the front
loader. Use only cold water and the same electric costs and and it will
probably take over 60 years to recoup the extra costs of the front loader
from just electricity savings. Cut the number of loads a week (I actually
only do an average of 4 loads a week) and then you could be look atover 100
years.

I am ignoring the water costs for two reasons since the amount of water
costs fluctuate tremendously. Again, there is no doubt that there are some
savings to use a front loader although it is probablyy not enough to make
economice sense for many people if they do not use hot water. That just
leaves the non economic reasons. Some people will pay extra just ot have a
specifc color. Why not to have a more conveint model?
 
D

Derek Broughton

Jan 1, 1970
0
Solar said:
Detergent doesn't get activated in cold water no matter what the
wishful thinkers say. Any chemist will tell you this.

Please read what the definition of "cold water" is on a detergent box.
It is "warm water" over 60 F minimum. Water from the ground is usually
40F - 55F and leaves detergent residue in your clothes and doesn't
remove many stains.

It's ok, it only leaves invisible stains.

What a crock! My water supply to the washer is never over 55F, even in
mid-summer. If you get detergent residue, you're using too much detergent
- I don't get any. Many stains are much easier to remove in cold water
(blood comes to mind). Hot water just sets them permanently.
 
D

Derek Broughton

Jan 1, 1970
0
Tony said:
The tide website pretty much agrees with you:

little jave popup:

Can I wash in cold water?

Water needs to be a least 55 degrees Fahrenheit for good cleaning
performance with any detergent. That means in winter, you may need to
add some hot water to raise your water temperature to the right
temperature for good cleaning.

Tide doesn't _make_ a cold water detergent
 
S

stu

Jan 1, 1970
0
Derek Broughton said:
It's ok, it only leaves invisible stains.

What a crock! My water supply to the washer is never over 55F, even in
mid-summer. If you get detergent residue, you're using too much detergent
- I don't get any. Many stains are much easier to remove in cold water
(blood comes to mind). Hot water just sets them permanently.
as long as you have the hot tap turned off..... F&P washing machines add
some hot water even to "cold wash" (or atleast they used to.........i'll see
if i still have the instruction video)
 
D

Derek Broughton

Jan 1, 1970
0
Ron said:
I was pointing out that there is no hot water savings that meow was
claiming. Over all there is some energy savings for a really good front
loader over a top loader. As far as there being enough energy savings to
make actual economic savings when you use zero hot water is something that
depends on the actual individual circumstances. How many loads will you
use per year, and what are the costs of water and electricity? Those three
things are critical to the equation. I looked at a high effeciency unit
from Whirlpool
http://www.lowes.com/lowes/lkn?action=productDetail&productId=162165-46-GHW9150PW&lpage=none
and it states that the energy usage is $14 a year if you use 8 loads a
week
and pay 8.03 cents a kWh. For a similar sized top loader the annual cost
is $18 a year and that is figured at a more expensive 8.60 cents a kWh.

I don't see that there _is_ a similar sized top-loader at Lowes (at least a
Whirlpool). The closest - the Calypso model is rated at 296kWh/yr by
Energy Star, as opposed to 180 for the Duet. Even at $0.08/kWh (which is
about the US average - so a majority of users pay that much or more),
that's over $9/yr savings over a significantly smaller model. As long as
we're disregarding actual size, my Frigidair FT530E uses less than half the
power of the Calypso.
Keep in mind that the $4 a year difference is with a higher cost of
electricity for the second model and that both are using hot water.
(I actually only do an average of 4 loads a week) and then you could be
look atover 100 years.

The Energy Star numbers are calculated for 8 loads/week, for _any_ size of
washer. Which makes sense - people buy washers appropriately sized to
their requirements. I did seriously consider buying something larger like
that Whirlpool, that would need fewer loads per week, but decided that the
peak power consumption was a little too high for me and they're quite a bit
more expensive than my Frigidaire.

For the Whirlpool GHW9150PW, Energy Star's numbers would come to $14.45 @
$0.0803/kWh - which is close to the number you cite, but the Calypso model
would be $23.76 for the same electricity rate. To get that $18 number,
you'd need something that's Energy Star rated at 224kWh/yr - the best top
loader I've found is the GE WPGT9360E, which is only 269kWh/yr (and still
much more expensive than my Frigidaire).
I am ignoring the water costs for two reasons since the amount of water
costs fluctuate tremendously. Again, there is no doubt that there are some
savings to use a front loader although it is probablyy not enough to make
economice sense for many people if they do not use hot water. That just
leaves the non economic reasons. Some people will pay extra just ot have a
specifc color. Why not to have a more conveint model?

My Frigidaire retails for CDN$899 at Sears. The two best-value top-load
models - of the same size - I found at Sears in Canada are the Whirlpool
LSW9700PQ & Maytag MAV3955EWW, using 303kWh and 285 kWh respectively, both
for CDN$649. So they would save $150 on purchase (yeah, you can get them
cheaper - but I got mine for $100 less, too). The Frigidaire uses 142kWh
for a cost of $14.10 at our rate of $0.10/kWh, saving $16 over the
Whirlpool and $14 over the GE annually. So the Frigidaire makes _economic_
sense, in about 10 years, regardless of the cost of water, water heating or
detergent.
 
D

Derek Broughton

Jan 1, 1970
0
Mary said:
For interest - what constitutes a 'load', in dry weight terms?
Not a clue :) We actually ran ours empty the first time, to get a baseline
on electrical use, and it uses pretty much the same as with our normal
load. I suspect power usage goes up when you start overloading it.
 
M

Mary Fisher

Jan 1, 1970
0
Derek Broughton said:
Not a clue :) We actually ran ours empty the first time, to get a
baseline
on electrical use, and it uses pretty much the same as with our normal
load. I suspect power usage goes up when you start overloading it.

OK, what's an 'overload'?

Mary
 
R

Ron Purvis

Jan 1, 1970
0
Derek Broughton said:
I don't see that there _is_ a similar sized top-loader at Lowes (at least
a
Whirlpool). The closest - the Calypso model is rated at 296kWh/yr by
Energy Star, as opposed to 180 for the Duet. Even at $0.08/kWh (which is
about the US average - so a majority of users pay that much or more),
that's over $9/yr savings over a significantly smaller model. As long as
we're disregarding actual size, my Frigidair FT530E uses less than half
the
power of the Calypso.
I suggest that you look again. The difference in size was 0.11 CU feet. That
is very close in size. See
http://www.lowes.com/lowes/lkn?action=productDetail&productId=123414-45535-IWL12&lpage=none
for the one that I had used in the comparison. You are right that this one
isn't a whirlpool, but the idea that because there isn't a whirlpool top
loader that size that I would just use something drastically differnt is not
only stupid on your part but it is insulting.

The Energy Star numbers are calculated for 8 loads/week, for _any_ size of
washer. Which makes sense - people buy washers appropriately sized to
their requirements. I did seriously consider buying something larger like
that Whirlpool, that would need fewer loads per week, but decided that the
peak power consumption was a little too high for me and they're quite a
bit
more expensive than my Frigidaire.
You are missing the point. It is not that energy star is figured at 8 loads
a week but that many of us do less than that and so there is less actual
savings than what the label says. Look back at the top paragraph and you can
see that I said that actual savings are based on the individual user's
circumstances. I suggest you read my post again before you

For the Whirlpool GHW9150PW, Energy Star's numbers would come to $14.45 @
$0.0803/kWh - which is close to the number you cite, but the Calypso model
would be $23.76 for the same electricity rate. To get that $18 number,
you'd need something that's Energy Star rated at 224kWh/yr - the best top
loader I've found is the GE WPGT9360E, which is only 269kWh/yr (and still
much more expensive than my Frigidaire).

If that is the best you found, you need to work on your search skills.
My Frigidaire retails for CDN$899 at Sears. The two best-value top-load
models - of the same size - I found at Sears in Canada are the Whirlpool
LSW9700PQ & Maytag MAV3955EWW, using 303kWh and 285 kWh respectively, both
for CDN$649. So they would save $150 on purchase (yeah, you can get them
cheaper - but I got mine for $100 less, too). The Frigidaire uses 142kWh
for a cost of $14.10 at our rate of $0.10/kWh, saving $16 over the
Whirlpool and $14 over the GE annually. So the Frigidaire makes
_economic_
sense, in about 10 years, regardless of the cost of water, water heating
or
detergent.

I am glad that you can make up numbers, but I used the actual numbers and it
shows that you are completely wrong. Go back and look at the actual numbers
again.
 
R

Ron Purvis

Jan 1, 1970
0
Mary Fisher said:
OK, what's an 'overload'?
When you have so much clothing in the washer that it can't circulate as
efficiently. Typically only seen when you stuff as much as much clothing
into the washer as possible.
 
D

Derek Broughton

Jan 1, 1970
0
Solar said:
You haven't read the definition of "cold water" yet and you didn't
read what I wrote either.

I did, indeed. That would be why I disagreed.
Detergents do not work below 60Faccording to the laundry detergent
chemists.

Whatever. I use _cold_ water. Never reaches 60F. And we haven't had a
problem with cleanliness. I'll trust the empirical results.
 
D

Derek Broughton

Jan 1, 1970
0
Ron said:
....
I suggest that you look again. The difference in size was 0.11 CU feet.
That is very close in size. See
http://www.lowes.com/lowes/lkn?action=productDetail&productId=123414-45535-IWL12&lpage=none
for the one that I had used in the comparison. You are right that this one
isn't a whirlpool, but the idea that because there isn't a whirlpool top
loader that size that I would just use something drastically differnt is
not only stupid on your part but it is insulting.

The only person doing any insulting here is you. I didn't check all of
Lowes, because they didn't have a very good search function. So I told you
what I found, and that there wasn't a Whirlpool close in size. You implied
you were comparing Whirlpools. Fine, so you found something else. But look
at it - it may be efficient, but it's listed at over $100 more than my
Frigidaire. So, yes, I'll be saving money over buying one of those!
You are missing the point. It is not that energy star is figured at 8
loads a week but that many of us do less than that and so there is less
actual savings than what the label says.

No, I'm not. I also pointed out that I had seriously considered getting
something the size of yours - but that it doesn't save any money, because
there's a much higher up-front cost.
Look back at the top paragraph
and you can see that I said that actual savings are based on the
individual user's circumstances. I suggest you read my post again before
you

Of course they are - but Energy Star really does compute reasonable
averages, in my experience, and the numbers work.
If that is the best you found, you need to work on your search skills.

I'd be happy to - how exactly did you find your example? Lowes doesn't let
you search by energy consumption. Neither did Sears. Energy Star lists
everything that's qualified, but it doesn't say which ones are top loaders
and which are front loaders. So I did a random sample, at the 230kWh
range, and they were all front loaders. I don't have time to do the
complete research for somebody else, when I've already done a pretty good
job of researching the ones that were actually available to me locally.
I am glad that you can make up numbers, but I used the actual numbers and
it shows that you are completely wrong. Go back and look at the actual
numbers again.

Again, you're the one doing the insulting. I didn't make up any numbers -
they came straight from Energy Star, the same source as the numbers you
were quoting. My _actual_ numbers are more like half what Energy Star
quotes, but since I can't get actual numbers for anything but what I've
tested myself, I use Energy Star's. What "actual" numbers do you want me to
look at? What you did was compare two large, expensive, washers. I
compared 3 small (though Sears classes them as "Super Size") washers. My
purchase makes sense economically.

I could compare mine to yours. My Frigidaire will probably be used over 300
times this year, based on the Energy Star numbers, that would be about
110kWh. Your Whirlpool will use half the Energy Star amount - so 90kWh.
Your washer retails for at least $100 more than mine (probably more - I'm
comparing Canadian to American, and your prices seem on average to be
lower). 20kWh savings, even at $0.10/kWh is going to take me over 50 years
to make up. If I got the Fisher you pointed to, it would never pay.
 
S

stu

Jan 1, 1970
0
stu said:
as long as you have the hot tap turned off..... F&P washing machines add
some hot water even to "cold wash" (or atleast they used to.........i'll see
if i still have the instruction video)
checked the video.. i was wrong the default option "cold wash" is "raw cold
water"(their words)... but they recommend that you change that to 20C(68F)
 
R

Ron Purvis

Jan 1, 1970
0
Derek Broughton said:
The only person doing any insulting here is you.

First, I was not insulting you as SolarFlare pointed out. I was however very
abrupt and I apologize for that. As I mentioned in another thread, it has
been a bad day today. Some days my pain meds don't help much and today is
one of them. Again I apologize for being abrupt.

I didn't check all of
Lowes, because they didn't have a very good search function. So I told
you
what I found, and that there wasn't a Whirlpool close in size. You
implied
you were comparing Whirlpools. Fine, so you found something else. But
look
at it - it may be efficient, but it's listed at over $100 more than my
Frigidaire. So, yes, I'll be saving money over buying one of those!

You didn't need to do a search. It lists the types and classifications of
the different models on the left side. It should be easy to find any washer
you want with in seconds. Also at no point did I imply that I was comparing
Whirlpools. I said a similarly sized top loader. That doesn't imply any
particualr brand.
No, I'm not. I also pointed out that I had seriously considered getting
something the size of yours - but that it doesn't save any money, because
there's a much higher up-front cost.


Of course they are - but Energy Star really does compute reasonable
averages, in my experience, and the numbers work.

I'd be happy to - how exactly did you find your example? Lowes doesn't
let
you search by energy consumption. Neither did Sears. Energy Star lists
everything that's qualified, but it doesn't say which ones are top loaders
and which are front loaders. So I did a random sample, at the 230kWh
range, and they were all front loaders. I don't have time to do the
complete research for somebody else, when I've already done a pretty good
job of researching the ones that were actually available to me locally.

Again look at the left side and see that things are broken down by
categories. This includes manufactuers, cost, energy star, size, and price.
From there just look at the models and then click on the model you want
examine. From there you can examine the energy guide for most models by
clicking on the link for it.
Again, you're the one doing the insulting. I didn't make up any numbers -
they came straight from Energy Star, the same source as the numbers you
were quoting. My _actual_ numbers are more like half what Energy Star
quotes, but since I can't get actual numbers for anything but what I've
tested myself, I use Energy Star's. What "actual" numbers do you want me
to
look at? What you did was compare two large, expensive, washers. I
compared 3 small (though Sears classes them as "Super Size") washers. My
purchase makes sense economically.

What numbers do I want you to use? The number on the actual energy guide
that says this unit will cost this much for electricity at this rate. It is
on the little yellow tag for all models.
I could compare mine to yours. My Frigidaire will probably be used over
300
times this year, based on the Energy Star numbers, that would be about
110kWh. Your Whirlpool will use half the Energy Star amount - so 90kWh.
Your washer retails for at least $100 more than mine (probably more - I'm
comparing Canadian to American, and your prices seem on average to be
lower). 20kWh savings, even at $0.10/kWh is going to take me over 50
years
to make up. If I got the Fisher you pointed to, it would never pay.

The point is that in reality when using only cold water, none of these units
will pay for themselves on electric savings only. Not the ones that I looked
at, nor the ones you looked at. The decision to buy one should be based on
other factors such as convenience or personal taste.
 
R

Ron Purvis

Jan 1, 1970
0
It is certainly incorrect all detergents only start working at 55F. They
will work better at higher temps, but that doesn't mean they don't work at
lower ones. Many of us have used cold water for years and obtained good
results by doing so. If you also look at many third world countries, a large
percentage of the people only use cold water for everything. I lived in
parts of Asia for a number of years and all of the women in the area where I
lived used cold water only. It was too difficult to heat enough water for
laundry over charcoal.
 
S

stu

Jan 1, 1970
0
The point is that in reality when using only cold water, none of these units
will pay for themselves on electric savings only. Not the ones that I looked
at, nor the ones you looked at. The decision to buy one should be based on
other factors such as convenience or personal taste.
and of course what you pay for water and detergent.
(out of interest what do you guys pay for water?)
using the cost of water/sewage here and 8 loads a week for a year, the
saving from my old top loader to my new front loader is around $125/yr. (i
am guessing guys pay a lot less) .
 
Top