Washing machines

[William P.N. Smith]

That's what I'm wondering. The only front-loader I have any experience with
was bolted quite firmly to the floor and mounted on coil springs. Shook
from side to side when spinning. Do all front-loaders need to be bolted
down??

The Whirlpool Duet doesn't (I believe it's got vibration sensors to
stop and retry if it gets too violent), though it shakes thehouse a
bit when it spins. Depending on the model (1000 or 1200 RPM), they
can weight almost 250 pounds, there's a _bunch_ of concrete in the
base.

 

[wmbjk]

The only front-loader I have any experience with
was bolted quite firmly to the floor and mounted on coil springs. Shook
from side to side when spinning. Do all front-loaders need to be bolted
down??

On ours (typical small European style) the entire mechanism is shock
mounted, with a counterweight (perhaps 20lbs.) on top. The rinse cycle
gives the distribution a head start. The spin cycle ramps up slowly,
with pauses, presumably to allow further evening-out. Sometimes it's
rock solid when spinning, other times it's loud and dances a bit. I
have a 1X2 laying loose on the floor to keep the machine from
contracting the side wall. The washer has a tendency to work its way
forward, every few months I push it back again.

Wayne

 

[Mary Fisher]

The Whirlpool Duet doesn't (I believe it's got vibration sensors to
stop and retry if it gets too violent), though it shakes thehouse a
bit when it spins. Depending on the model (1000 or 1200 RPM), they
can weight almost 250 pounds, there's a _bunch_ of concrete in the
base.

Our Hoover Logic (1988) doesn't need to be bolted down. Nor does it shake
the house. It sometimes shifts a bit if the load is uneven (e.g. if small
items become tangled in a sheet and it's lop-sided). As for its weight, I
don't know the actual weight because I've put the handbook away but I can
move it with ease and I'm an old woman. If Spouse wants to look inside it I
tilt and hold it.

Mary

 

[Mel]

they shake and make a bit of noise, but mine doesn't move and isn't
bolted down. It's just damn heavy It's the sort of thing that makes
you groan when you realise that you are going to have to move the
washing machine when you move flats...


I spin at 1000rpm.




daestrom a écrit :

 

[Mary Fisher]

Okay Mary, I've been thinking about these front loaders, and I have a
question.

I've only just seen this, my screen isn't showing all posts:-(

In top-loaders we have a 'spin cycle' that removes a lot of moisture from
the laundry by spinning the drum at high speed. So do front loaders from
what I understand.
Indeed.

In top-loaders, if the laundry is unbalanced when it starts spinning, the
thing can be stopped by a vibration swithc (or else it 'walks' around the
laundry room). Then you just go in and re-distribute the laundry a bit
and start it back up again. Since the drum is vertical and the agitation
distributes the laundry around the drum pretty well, this doesn't happen
too often (unless washing something unusually heavy).

How do front-loaders deal with this?

At the end of each cycle the water drains out through the perforated drum
and is pumped away before spinning. In mine there are different spin cycles
for washing and the various rinsing modes. They are short at first and
gradually become longer and faster. The final spin cycle is quite long and
very fast. I can't remember how fast but I often iron the load immediately -
I have done the first this morning.

Not every programme uses a spin at all, or the spins can be short with
tumbles (without heat) between to avoid creases.

Seems like the laundry would be sitting in the bottom after drain/rinsing,
and when starting the spin cycle all the laundry would be to one side of
the drum and very unbalanced. What keeps it from vibrating all over the
laundry room?

Oh the idea of a laundry room! Bliss ...

Ours is in the kitchen, under the work surface. It has a cupboard at one
side and shelves at the other but the machine isn't fastened to them or to
the floor or to anything else. It barely moves, it does vibrate of course
because it has a moving drum, but very little. It certainly doesn't 'walk'.

It's called 'engineering'

Mary

 

[Ron Purvis]

Derek,

I apologized for being abrupt with you. That doesn't make it any less
insulting that you flew off the handle and tried to say I would make such a
ridiculous comparison, just because you couldn't figure out how to read a
web site or someone's post. The reason you made such a mistake is that
instead of trying to understand what was written in fairly easy to
understand English, you just assumed someone was stupid and would compare
the energy usage of two totally dissimiliar products. That is insulting.

 

[Derek Broughton]

Ron Purvis wrote:


I don't know how this got through my filters, since you're supposed to be in
the kill file.

Derek,

I apologized for being abrupt with you. That doesn't make it any less
insulting that you flew off the handle and tried to say I would make such

What sort of apology is that???

a ridiculous comparison, just because you couldn't figure out how to read
a web site or someone's post. The reason you made such a mistake is that
instead of trying to understand what was written in fairly easy to
understand English, you just assumed someone was stupid and would compare
the energy usage of two totally dissimiliar products. That is insulting.

Again, you're the one who's doing the insulting. I made NO such
assumptions. I read what you wrote, responded TO what you wrote, and laid
out my thinking so that you could correct anything I got wrong. "Flying
off the handle" is what you did when you decided I was treating you as
stupid. I did my own comparison. I couldn't use yours because you didn't
tell us what you were comparing to - so I couldn't know the _cost_ of the
compared machine. When you did tell us what that machine was, I reworked
the numbers with your machine. It _still_ made economic sense to go with a
frontloader!

Now, go away, and STAY there.

 

[Ron Purvis]

Ron Purvis wrote:


I don't know how this got through my filters, since you're supposed to be
in
the kill file.

Now I can see why you weren't capable of reading a simple post or a web
page. If you can't figure out how to use the killfile, then it is obvious
you couldn't figure out the rest. Please wait until you can figure things
out before you attempt to use the internet again. It should save you much
embarassment.

Again, you're the one who's doing the insulting. I made NO such
assumptions. I read what you wrote, responded TO what you wrote, and laid
out my thinking so that you could correct anything I got wrong. "Flying
off the handle" is what you did when you decided I was treating you as
stupid. I did my own comparison. I couldn't use yours because you didn't
tell us what you were comparing to - so I couldn't know the _cost_ of the
compared machine. When you did tell us what that machine was, I reworked
the numbers with your machine. It _still_ made economic sense to go with
a
frontloader!

Again, that is not what happened. You attempted to read what I read and were
not capable of understanding so you assumed certain things that made no
sense. When you reworked your numbers you still didn't do them right which
is why you still have wrong answers. I suggest that you leave this for
others who can handle the job.

By the way, so that you know the difference, I am starting to be insulting
and not just abrupt. You have passed the line into the group of people that
deserve with you profanity in the previous post and your continuous
inability to reason.

 

[stu]

they have a distribution cycle before a fast spin. This is a gradual
ramp up of speed at around 80rpm, and is normally effective at
distributing clothes.

thats pretty much what mine does

Occasional unbalance is to be expected, and can
be quite noisy on cheaper machines.
All machines have concrete blocks to reduce drum movement, coil springs
and dampers, as completely balanced distribution doesnt happen IRL.

well just to be picky, not all.... mine uses two lumps of cast iron mounted
on the drum assembly , it weighs 160lbs

Dampers are simple friction type, and these wear over time. It is not
unusual for very old machines to be prone to dancing. By very old I
mean 20 years or so.

mine isnt that old yet, come back in 17 years

The top loader I had was a lot less troubled by all this, and I noticed
no precautions against unbalance, nor any need for them.

My F&P top loader made more noise than my front loader, this can be a
problem as with the door shut you cant hear the front loader and you dont
know when its finished. The F&P used to beep when it was finished and you
could hear it spinning. If you are worried about water use then there is
another problem with the F&P top loader, if it is out of balance it just
refills itself, washes for a short time then tries again.....and again
......and again. then it would stop and beep for help lol. I have no idea how
often if ever it had to do this but on a full load it would be using about
100 litres each try. Not sure if they still do this or if other brands do
this.

Stuart

 

[Mary Fisher]

mine isnt that old yet, come back in 17 years

Mine has two years to go but it's far more stable than I am

My F&P top loader made more noise than my front loader, this can be a
problem as with the door shut you cant hear the front loader and you dont
know when its finished.

Why is that a problem?

Our front loader is so quiet during the whole cycle that unless I'm in the
room with it I can't hear it at all, I sometimes have to go and check that I
pressed the button to start it. I've never thought of not knowing when it
finishes as a problem, in fact I'd rather have it quiet than noisy.There are
far too many noisy appliances :-(

... If you are worried about water use then there is
another problem with the F&P top loader, if it is out of balance it just
refills itself, washes for a short time then tries again.....and again
.....and again. then it would stop and beep for help lol. I have no idea
how
often if ever it had to do this but on a full load it would be using about
100 litres each try. Not sure if they still do this or if other brands do
this.

That would be a BIG disadvantagefor me. We are very concerned about water
usage and have a water meter as an extra safeguard against waste.

Are water meters common in North America? They're not in UK.

Mary

 

[Mary Fisher]

If you have more than one load to do,

I usually do three. Sometimes two, occasionally four or five.

you either have to go look to see if
its finished

Yes ...

or lose time between each load,

Well, I'm not doing nothing between loads so time isn't lost.

not a big deal
No!

but a beeper
would be nice, from memory the top of the line has a count down timer. i
must say when i was looking at machines i tohught to myself "who needs a
stinking stupid count down timer on a washing machine?" hehe(but i
still
wouldn't pay the extra $400 for it)

$400 for a TIMER???

you have a meter just so you can keep an eye on it?

No, we have a meter because we believe that we should pay for what we use,
just as we do with gas, electricity, phone etc. I believe that everyone's
water should be metered. If Brits don't have a meter they pay a 'water rate'
which is linked with the value of the house. Daft!

But I think that many people WOULD keep an eye on the meter if they had one.
I assume that most people don't deliberately waste things they pay for.

... although I don't know ... :-(

every house has one here(in melbourne australia)

Oh yes! Sorry, I forgot :-(

just like electricity, you
get charged a service charge + a usage charge, the usage charge works out
at
about $2 for 1000 litres

I can't remember what we pay. There's a standing charge and we pay for
water by the cubic metre, the sewerage charge is almost as much as the water
(I suppose on the principle that what comes in goes out) and there's an
element for 'surface water' - drainage from rainwater which is a bit unfair
since we collect all our roof water to use on the garden but we can't prove
it. We pay by direct debit and it's less than £1/week. Good value!

Mary

 

[stu]

Mine has two years to go but it's far more stable than I am


Why is that a problem?

Our front loader is so quiet during the whole cycle that unless I'm in the
room with it I can't hear it at all, I sometimes have to go and check that I
pressed the button to start it. I've never thought of not knowing when it
finishes as a problem, in fact I'd rather have it quiet than noisy.There are
far too many noisy appliances :-(

If you have more than one load to do, you either have to go look to see if
its finished or lose time between each load, not a big deal but a beeper
would be nice, from memory the top of the line has a count down timer. i
must say when i was looking at machines i tohught to myself "who needs a
stinking stupid count down timer on a washing machine?" hehe(but i still
wouldn't pay the extra $400 for it)

That would be a BIG disadvantagefor me. We are very concerned about water
usage and have a water meter as an extra safeguard against waste.

Are water meters common in North America? They're not in UK.

you have a meter just so you can keep an eye on it?
every house has one here(in melbourne australia) just like electricity, you
get charged a service charge + a usage charge, the usage charge works out at
about $2 for 1000 litres

 

[stu]

$400 for a TIMER???

well that and some other things like hot water in, delayed start(which may
have come in handy as we will be going to time of use meters here soon i
believe), faster spin 1600 v 1200rpm etc

No, we have a meter because we believe that we should pay for what we use,
just as we do with gas, electricity, phone etc. I believe that everyone's
water should be metered. If Brits don't have a meter they pay a 'water rate'
which is linked with the value of the house. Daft!

But I think that many people WOULD keep an eye on the meter if they had one.
I assume that most people don't deliberately waste things they pay for.

... although I don't know ... :-(


Oh yes! Sorry, I forgot :-(


I can't remember what we pay. There's a standing charge and we pay for
water by the cubic metre, the sewerage charge is almost as much as the water
(I suppose on the principle that what comes in goes out) and there's an
element for 'surface water' - drainage from rainwater which is a bit unfair
since we collect all our roof water to use on the garden but we can't prove
it. We pay by direct debit and it's less than £1/week. Good value!

pretty much the same as how it works here, only cheaper lol

 

[Mary Fisher]

well that and some other things like hot water in, delayed start(which may
have come in handy as we will be going to time of use meters here soon i
believe), faster spin 1600 v 1200rpm etc

I wouldn't pay that for frills.

....


pretty much the same as how it works here, only cheaper lol

Um. A penny (cent) would be less than £1 (or dollar), can you get cheaper
than that?



Mary

 

[William P.N. Smith]

I wouldn't pay that for frills.

Faster spin isn't a frill, it gets more water out of your clothes and
significantly reduces the power consumption of your dryer. You must
decide for yourself if it's worth the extra $400....

 

[Mary Fisher]

Faster spin isn't a frill, it gets more water out of your clothes and
significantly reduces the power consumption of your dryer. You must
decide for yourself if it's worth the extra $400....

We decided that we didn't need a drier That way we have zero consumption
of power for drying.

The spin cycle on ours means that the clothes can be ironed immediately -
and usually are. If I want them bone dry and they don't need ironing I hang
them on the line in the garden or more likely (and always if it's raining,
which it does from time to time in Yorkshire) on the clothes horse
overnight.

Mary

 

[Derek Broughton]

Faster spin isn't a frill, it gets more water out of your clothes and
significantly reduces the power consumption of your dryer. You must
decide for yourself if it's worth the extra $400....

I'd consider it a frill. It uses less energy than getting the moisture out
with a dryer, but much more than drying the clothes on a bilinear passive
solar moisture extraction device (ie, clothesline). We use the clothesline
year-round, despite fog & snow. I do realize ymmv - it's easy enough for
two people with a good selection of clothes to wait to do laundry when the
sun shines. It's not that simple if you've got a house full of young kids
(especially of diapering age).

 

[William P.N. Smith]

We decided that we didn't need a drier That way we have zero consumption
of power for drying.

A much better solution! Solar powered clothes dryer.

 

[Mary Fisher]

A much better solution! Solar powered clothes dryer.

S'what the group's about!

 

[Mary Fisher]

I'd consider it a frill. It uses less energy than getting the moisture
out
with a dryer, but much more than drying the clothes on a bilinear passive
solar moisture extraction device (ie, clothesline).

I'd like to think I'll remember that.

Although I think I've said that before ...

We use the clothesline
year-round, despite fog & snow. I do realize ymmv - it's easy enough for
two people with a good selection of clothes to wait to do laundry when the
sun shines. It's not that simple if you've got a house full of young kids
(especially of diapering age).

Things hung out tend to dry in all weathers except lashing rain. When it's
freezing is especially good.

When we had our first three we lived in a house with no garden and only two
rooms, we hung nappies round the coal fire overnight. The babies didn't
suffer.

Mary