I am putting the finishing touches on my thesis for my MFA degree in historic preservation. I have this community to thank for the inspiration behind it all (Thanks y'all!). The topic of my thesis is: Learning Sustainable Building Design From Historic Buildings. Basically, my thoughts are that historic buildings (and appliances) can be a great deal more energy efficient than we give them credit for, especially when considering the energy and resources used to dispose of an old one, create a new one, and the service life of old vs. new. A water/energy thrifty appliance is great, but if it only lasts a short while it's kind of a waste.

One device I have learned about on AW.org that I have never seen in person is a Suds Saver. I am including the Maytag suds saver as an example of old water saving technology that is no longer available, but still viable. My question is, when did Maytag stop offering suds savers? I'm certain they were available into the 1980s, or even 1990s, but I could really use an exact year.

Also, the tank in Robert's GE AW6 that saves the water from the second rinse is something I would like to cite. Does anyone out there in Washerland know what years the rinse-saving tank was component of the machines? Did any other washers use a rinse-saving tank?

I am proposing that these two items can be brought back, resulting in a new generation of washing machines that use more water per cycle than the way-too-dry front loaders of today. Hopefully this would result in cleaner, better-rinsed laundry with shorter cycles while using less water over the course of laundry day than a conventional top-loader.
My thoughts on the new stuff are that a new, energy-efficient appliance is worthless if it cannot do the job implied by its name. I have a Maytag A208, and my mother has a GE front-loader (not the FriGEMore, the bigger one, I just can't remember its name). My A208 washes a load in about 30 minutes, rinses clean and the laundry coming out is always clean. My mother's GE can filter neither lint nor hair. It is very good, however, at knotting up the laundry and forming a giant knotted ball. It also likes to rip holes in my new bedsheets. (Quiet Toggleswitch!). It does all this in up to 2 hours per cycle! The new GE has taught me that new is not always better.

If y'all have answers to my questions about vintage energy-saving appliance designs, please let me know. I am also citing AW.org in my paper, but not citing specific posts or people in order to protect people's privacy. Also, some items have been discussed numerous times by lots of people and trying to determine who first brought it up years ago is virtually impossible. Besides, lots of the information I'm looking for is available from the companies that made the products. It's just that the people here are a lot nicer, better-organized, more accurate, and actually give a darn.

Thank you all for your input, both now and for the last several years. Without you, my thesis couldn't exist.
Dave

Hi Dave!
So I'm not the only one here preparing a thesis...
I've been studing Industrial Design and I'll get my degree of course before Christmas (don't let me say the exact day as I'm incredible scaramantic)...!!!

The title is...guess what..."WASH"...then the subtitle is "Historical, technological adn social analysis of clothes washing forward new sustainable behaviours" so the sustainability is a common topic nowadays in thesis as you see...:-)

Oh don't forget as I did to thank formally AW.org and why not Oldwash.com Lee Maxwell museum webiste...have a look

You cannot imagine how useful was to know about that extraordinary feature of vintage WM such as that it became a miliar stones of all my congeptures...

You could use thi "right" amount of water to wash and recycling it with this manner you save water but you don't have to wash witn "drops"...

How much water does it take to wash clothes with 1 wash cycle and 2 rinse cycles?

How much water (%) would be saved if using a Suds Saver AND a Rinse Saver like on the GE AW6? (The AW6 I think saves the rinse water from the second rinse and uses it again for the first rinse on the next load). If this system were to be utilized, the machine would have to fill with fresh water every 1st load of the day, but could then use a suds saver and and/or rinse saver for each following load that day. In theory, the machine, at its thriftiest could, in one cycle, use re-used wash water, re-used rinse water, and only need fresh water for spray rinses, topping off, and the final rinse, which could be reused later.

Not counting how to use bleach, bluing, and fabric softener, this could work.

What do you think?
Dave

A few months ago, some people bought some new towels and weighed them then ran them through rinse and spin cycles in different washing machines, weighing them (the towels, not the machines) after each use to determine which ones (the machines, not the towels) had the most effective spin cycles. I can't find that thread in the search, nor anything else for that matter. If anyone still has the before and after tables I would like to include them as an appendix in the thesis.

Thanks a million, or at least a 1140,
Dave

Well, then I will give all my knowledge here, hoping it helps a littlebit, especially for you, Dave.

First the facts:
In the following I will explain the details only on COTTON as an example for other fabrics as well.
Synthetics and other delicate fibres have the same characteristics but just need a bit a different suds-proportion and mechanical treatment as well as different temperatures and different detergents or spin-processes.
But generally spoken washing is washing!

You need about 3 liters of water for a kilogramme of dry COTTON to get it totally saturated, meaning dripping wet. This means 300% of water-residue it can hold because 100% is one liter/kilogramme of water/liquid per 1 kilogramme of dry garments ("% Restfeuchte" = "% of humidity-residue" we call it here in Germany, as we do not give the spin-efficiency on machines, like in Britain, and I will use this term throughout my demonstration here).

A good spin (e.g. Hotpoint TT with 3,100 rpm) leaves behind somewhat of 35% of humidity-residue, meaning a spin-efficiency of 65% in Britain.

Concerning the proportion of wash-water to washing we speak of floating-proportion in Germany.
To obtain a good washing you need about 5 liters of wash-water (suds) per kg dryweight [l/kgDW] of COTTON; 3 for the saturation and 2 liter as process-water for the machine (space between outer container, sump and so on) and to keep the dirt in solution. This is regardeless of what type of washing-process you follow: manual or mechanical. So generally someone can speak of a "floating-proportion" of 1:5 for a general wash.

Modern frontloaders (tumblers) tend to go for a proportion of 1:4 or even 1:3.5, which means that dirt will be nicely loosened because of the concentrated chemical treatment but no process-water is left behind to wash away the loosened partikels, especially as there is not enough water during the rinsing process either.

Toploaders, or better tub-washers, need more water, as everyone knows, because they agitate the WATER WITH THE WASHING WITHIN whereas FLs or any other kind of tumble-washer (globe, single-drum, rocker-washers, etc.) turn over the WASHING WITH THE WATER WITHIN.
Thus turns out the dilemma.
Automatic washing usually means that the suds are used ONCE and then will be drained to get the process container (drum, tub) clear for the following rinsing-process.
Because tumblers use only the amount of suds that is really necessary, the same as washing by hand with wash-board, dolly or plunger, no wastage of detergents, energy and water occurs.

On the other hand any tub-washer, automatic (TL) or not (wringer-washer), needs a floating-proportion of 1:15 up to 1:30, depending on the driving system it uses (agitator, pulsator, jet-pump, plungers, etc.).

Now it depends on what happens to the suds when a load is washed in it.

Actually, speaking of the amount of water, there can be washed 3-6 loads in the same water, which isn't practicable nor recommended for several reasons:
1. the amount of suds will drop as (look above concerning spin efficiency and water-residue) each load will "rob" suds when leaving the machine.
2. some ingredients of the detergent (bleach, optical brightener) have their peak of performance when just diluted in the wash-water, so during the first load in the "fresh" suds.
3. the suds become the more overloaded with partikels (fluff, sand, dust, soot, dye, etc.) the "older" it gets with the ongoing wash-process.
4. last but not least: a tub-washer can wash with the same performance as a drum-washer even with a weaker solution of detergents because of the bigger amount of water; water is a carrier and dissolver, too! So, the solution usually is automatically thinner anyway!
Possible is to wash 2-4 loads in the same water, depending how soiled the washing is and if the machine has the opportunity to catch parikels like fluff and bits (strainer, sieve, filter) to keep the suds as clean as possible from first to last load and also depending of the type of driving system aquivalent to the floating-proportion (see above).
Also one must top up the suds level with water and detergent after each load to keep the suds-level always adequate, which partly freshens up the suds each time as well.

And another rule from olde tymes should be observed as well:
Never wash dark or black and white or light-coloured items in the same suds!

Prepare one for the whites and light-coloureds and wash from white down to light-coloured and bright-coloureds.

The second wash-water goes from black to dark like grey and brown (not the other way round!) to keep blacks really black!

But the vantages are visible: washing in a tub, to me, is always better than rubbing garments in a tumbler for ages, as long as the suds-proportions are kept within its limits because an overloaded tumble-washer will never ruin clothes just leave them dirty and unrinsed but a tub-washer becomes a shredder if gets over-loaded!

After I thought all these facts over and over again, and after having done hundreds of loads of washing in dozens of machines, I came up to the point that the only real washing-process that has it all is using a good tub-washer with very good suds filtration and do several loads in the same water, regardeless if it is done by suds-saver or twin-tub technology.

Now one could argue that rinsing in a spinner isn't that much recommended as there the same disadvantages as in a tumbler will occur: the clothes will just be saturated with fresh water but not moved in a big amount of water. Well, true and not!
As the tub-washer, unlike it's sister the tumbler, has allready washed away all bits and stuff in the wash procedure, there's no need to flush fluff away anymore but just to thin down the chemical solution called suds as far as possible.
Here again one of my slogans fits again: Well spun is half rinsed!

So far ....

Did I forget something?

Go for a question!!

Awaiting your responses, sincerely yours...

Ralf (lol)

Also, the tank in Robert's GE AW6 that saves the water from the second rinse is something I would like to cite. Does anyone out there in Washerland know what years the rinse-saving tank was component of the machines? Did any other washers use a rinse-saving tank?
Dave the GE AW6 doesn't have a "special tank" to save the rinse water, it simply spins out the water into the outer tub where the electric drain pump sends it down the drain. During the final spin the drain pump is not turned on so the water spun out of the wash tub sits at the bottom of the outer tub. When you start the next wash cycle the water in the outer tub is then pumped back up into the wash tub (via the 2nd electric pump-the recirculation pump) so it can be used as the water for the next wash cycle. In 1947 there was no fabric softener so you could reuse the lukewarm rinse water for a dark or colored wash load. If you didn't want to reuse the rinse water for the next wash you select "Empty" on the dial to drain the water before the next load.

How much water (%) would be saved if using a Suds Saver AND a Rinse Saver like on the GE AW6? (The AW6 I think saves the rinse water from the second rinse and uses it again for the first rinse on the next load).
It would save 13-15 gallons. Again it can't save the water for two cycles down, it has to use the saved water right away in the next load.

An 1930's GM Frigidaire patent showed an oversized automatic washer that has three 10 gallon tanks attached to the side of the machine, one tank was for the wash cycle, one for the 1st deep rinse and 1 for the 2nd deep rinse. The housewife would manually fill each tank with water from a hose connected to the sink (temperature of her choosing) and the washer would take the water out of the tank according to the cycle it was performing. When that cycle was over the water was spun over the top of the tub and sent back into the tank that it came from. So in theory you could use the same sudsy wash water for many loads and you could change (or not) the rinse water between loads as you pleased. It was a very interesting idea.

That sounds interesting with the three tanks, but what a hugh circumstance and how space consuming either!

Why then not use a TwinTub? Keeping the suds anyway and only uses adequate fresh rinse-water for each load!
PLUS: two loads (actually even three loads, when counting the first load to be hung up on the line during the next two are running) can be done at the same time!

Ralf

Why then not use a TwinTub? Keeping the suds anyway and only uses adequate fresh rinse-water for each load!
Hi Ralf, well yes, but the problem was that Frigidaire had a goal of designing an completely automatic washer where the user wouldn't have to monitor the process what so ever. Once she filled the tanks with water, put the clothes and soap into the machine she's done, off to shopping and the spa :)

but then the elves at Frigidaire said well we can't very well have a gigantic four tub sleigh. That would scare all the children away. So they went back to work and decided to keep the water on board. and they made a special hose with a square neck instead of a gooseneck, and they added a spring-loaded ball to slip and pop over the opening in the hose.

That way you could hold the wash water as the tub threw the water, pull the load out, add a new load, and watch in fascination as the hot sudsy water gushed back in from the square hose that fit over the tub perfectly to meet the hopping pulsator. Splash Splash Splash. Oh what fun it is to ride the Frig Sudsaving Sleigh

Ot you could save rinse water. As Robert has pointed out some time ago, after the amazing 1140 spin, the rinse water in the first rinse of his "49 is already clear
And for all overflow rinsing models, the water is so fresh by the end of the rinse period that it practically begs for re-use, especially if you're rinsing in warm.

Later on, Frigidaire added a smaller pump, and two drain hoses to accomplish the suds-return the way Whirlpool did it. They did not perfect this system and abandoned it. There were multiple problems: the small pump had to be timed to match the four minute fill; it had to be primed a lot; and the suction would break often halfway through the return.

Thanks for responding. It has made the process of wrapping up my thesis much easier.
Robert, I can't seem to be able to find the thread in which you described how your GE AW6 works. Would you please post a link so I can find it? As a method of using historic technology to conserve energy and resources, I think the AW6's rinse water saving feature is unique and valid, I just need to re-read how it works so I can think of a way to also incorporate a wash water suds saver.

I want to figure out a way to save the wash water and the 2nd rinse water. I think that could cut down on water use per cycle and allow people to wash clothes with sufficient water to get them clean while saving water.

If modern front loaders used any less water, I think they might be suitable for dry cleaning!

Thanks a bunch,
Dave

A while ago some people bought some towels, weighed them, and then ran them through rinse and spin cycles in a variety of machines, weighing them after each cycle, to determine which ones (the machines) had the most effective spin cycles. I would like to use that information in my thesis. If someone saved the tables showing the results, please e-mail me a copy or post them again. Right now I'm writing about why a higher g-force spin cycle (resulting in significantly decreased dryer time) saves more energy than an "energy efficient" dryer. I know a clothes line is even more efficient than that, but a clothesline isn't automatic either.

Thanks, and I feel like my brain has been spun at 1140,
Dave

All has finished for me yesterday morning... I got it!
I only can say you Dave GOOD LUCK! And don't forget that every effort you make has got its pay-off!

BTW, may I ask you however you decided to write a thesis just about the sustainability?

Oh adn do not hesitate to ask if you're in trouble, if you need of a schematic draw showing how it could be a new scenary of washing wiht solar plants and sud savin I'll post it there...

As I recall, it was Robert, Unimatic1140, our webmaster, who did the towel spin tests on various washers. Of course, the GM Frigidaire that spins at 1140 rpm came out as best at extracting water ;-).

Perhaps if Robert is reading this thread he can direct us to an archived copy of his test results.

Also, in terms of energy and water efficiency, perhaps on old wringer washer offers the most economy. As I understand it, a washing person could have two laundry tubs in addition to the wringer washer. One could receive the hot soapy water from the first wash (whites), the other could receive clear rinse water (second rinse). The hot wash water could be re-used for the next loads, if the wash is segreated into increasingly dirty/darker colors. The saved rinse water could be used for the first rinse, and so forth. Also, some energy might be saved by not having a spin cycle - a hand operated mangle would not consume any electricity, and I'm guessing that even a motorized mangle would consume significantly less electricity than a spin cycle. Of course the trade off is the much increased manual labor of the washing person. Whether that is an energy cost or merely good exercise is perhaps debatable.

Going back even further, there's the tub and wash board, with the motorized washer eliminated entirely. Then there were various hand operated mechanical devices that approximated the action of motorized washers but helped to keep one's hands out of hot, soapy, alkaline water.

It would appear that a lot of laundry was done out of doors, with the washer draining directly into the ground. While natural soaps were used, this probably wasn't a big deal. Modern detergents, with lots of washing soda and other chemicals, might be more of a concern. But I suppose a lot of older homes had big enough yards that having a vegetation free zone that received sometimes phytotoxic wash effluent wasn't a big problem. Of course more compact living arrangements would have necessitated directing the wash water into a sanitary drain of some sort.

Good luck Dave! Your thesis sounds intreaging, any chance of posting/publishing it online for the group to look over when you are finished? I'm sure the rest of the club would be as interested as I in reading it.

Today think the wringer washer is too much of a safety hazard-and they can break buttons.spinners don't have those problems.the spinner certainly uses less power than a dryer-and the spun clothes can be line dried or damp pressed.I feel the Easy spinner-washer should be brought back for energy-water saving fans-the spinner in the Easy rinses as well as spins.Also other candidates would be the Hoover twin tub impeller-spinner washers.And either of those designs is much less expensive than a state of the art front loader.

I'm a historic preservationist, and in my experience I have found all sorts of truly innovative gadgets, methods, and designs that were intended to save energy and increase comfort while being easy to use. Sadly, much of this technology has been forgotten. I believe that just because something is old, it is not automatically obsolete, and that a good idea 50+ years ago can still be valid today and in the future.

The whole point of my thesis is to propose the use of existing, but largely forgotten, technology, hiding in plain sight, to increase comfort, efficiency, and improve results. For example:

My mother has a relatively new GE Adora (I think that's the right name) front loader. It takes between an hour and a half and 2 hours to run one load, and the "speedwash" takes 38 minutes, provided it can balance on spin. The GE Adora also is completely incapable of removing lint and hair from clothes. When I moved back home from Savannah and had to leave my beloved cat behind, I brought home a lot of cat hair, which the GE did not remove. My 1980 Maytag A208 removed nearly all the cat hair, and consistently outperforms the GE in terms of cleaning, extraction, and cycle-time. When washing items individually, such as some sweaters or blankets, the GE Adora will not balance and spin at all. In this case, the rinsing is poor and the clothes come out literally pouring water. The A208 ALWAYS spins, and now that I have leveled the feet, it always balances too. The A208 uses much more water than the GE Adora, but it runs its loads in about 30 minutes, start to finish, about a quarter of the time required by the GE to do a heavy duty wash, and the A208 always gives better results.

The reasons why I wrote my thesis are:

New efficient appliances often take significantly more time to complete their tasks than old ones.

The performance of new efficient appliances is often inferior to that of old ones.

The durability of new appliances is often inferior to that of old ones.

Old appliances were designed to be expensive, long-lasting, and maintainable; new appliances are designed to be cheap, disposable, and maintenance-proof.

In the case of laundry, I believe that the use of things like suds savers can make older, better-performing washers more competitive against the new ones. It is not an even match, but there is more to a machine than its water usage.
I think that rather than just looking at water usage, people should also consider effectiveness and cycle time. A washer that uses little water is useless if it won't clean clothes, especially if it takes a long time to not clean clothes.

Other things in my paper include:
Using transoms above doors to allow for interior air circulation and natural light penetration inside buildings, having operable windows to improve indoor air quality and comfort on nice days, and using building materials, and appliances, that, with proper maintenance, can last a very long time.

I really hate vinyl replacement windows because they usually have a very short lifespan when compared to old wooden single-pane windows. A vinyl window is relatively cheap, but it has 3 major components: the upper sash, the lower sash, and the fame. If one of these parts gets damaged or wears out, the entire part must be replaced (when the seal between the 2 panes of glass fails and the sashes fog up, when the balancing mechanism fails, if the glass cracks or breaks, or even if the homeowner wants to change the color of the window, etc.). If a pane of glass cracks, it is possible to replace the entire sash, provided you can even get a new one that fits, which may be difficult in 10 or 15 years. If a new part is unavailable, it is necessary to replace the ENTIRE window. On the other hand, an old wooden window's parts are all individually repairable or replaceable, and they are generally not specialized, proprietary parts. Each pane of glass can be replaced without affecting the rest of the window for little expense. Instead of an integrated spring, there is a counterweight, a pulley, and a cord or chain, each of which can be replaced or repaired relatively cheaply. The stops (the pieces of wood that define the tracks in which the sashes go up and down) can be replaced and/or adjusted to compensate for wear, so a loose sash can easily be tightened up again. Adding a storm window can increase efficiency, as can replacing the panes of glass with low-e glass. The point is: Although a vinyl window is more energy efficient while in use, the energy required to produce a vinyl window, install it, and dispose of the old one is significant, especially considering that they seldom seem to last beyond 20-25 years, while I have personally seen and used wooden windows approaching 200 years of service. Also, a wooden window can be easily dismantled and the glass recycled, the wood will then rot away in a few years in a dump. A vinyl window is not easily recycled, and it will not deteriorate in a human timescale in a dump.

I'm not saying that all new technology is bad, I'm just saying that some old technology can still be valid. Also, that it is essential to consider the environmental impact of production and disposal, not just energy use while a product or component is in use. To reduce the environmental/resource impact of production and disposal, a longer useful life is essential.

I hope my very rough generalizations haven't offended anyone. In the paper, this is all much more thorough and well-explained.

Thank you everyone, your patience and input has been my greatest help,
Dave

All I can say Dave is you have a valid point. Perhaps your thesis can change a few minds in our throw away society. Did you mention something about the lint filter in the '80 in the paper? That was a great feature, Wes and I both thought it was a great idea that needs a comeback. Call me when you have a chance.

Will
(Dave's friend from college)

Actually I did mention lint filters in washers. Without one (or a modern poor one) the dryer seems to become necessary for lint removal. If the washer had a good lint filter, the clothes coming out would be entirely clean, and could be hung up to dry without needing to be de-linted in the dryer. I think the lint filter is a big part of why my A208 outperforms my mother's GE Adora.

Dave

Um, a modern front loader doesn't do as good a job of creating and filtering lint as an older top loader. There are multiple reasons for this: the tumble action is more gentle than agitation so the fabrics don't produce as much lint in the first place; there is less water so there is less water current to slosh lint away; the lint filter is in the drain and is "self cleaning". Most front loaders don't have a recirculation pump so they don't continuously filter lint out of the wash water like older agitator equipped top loaders.

It's not a simple matter of having a better lint filter. The general design of a front loader produces less lint from the fabric than a traditional top loader. Extraneous foreign matter like pet hair is a different matter, but I submit it's more energy efficient to vacuum or shake that off prior to washing in a front loader than to try to heat four times as much wash water to get rid of it in a top loader. That said, of course a vintage top loader with overflow rinses and waterfall lint filters are far more entertaining to watch, but energy efficiency is not a reason to use one.

My cat was a short hair, but what she lacked in hair length she more than made up for in sheer volume of shedding. She never went bald, and she was healthy, she just shed... A LOT! She also liked to perch on people's left shoulders, depositing enough cat hair in the process to cover another cat. We brushed her every day but still, my life was adrift in a sea of kitty fuzz. No amount of shaking, vacuuming, or even lint-rollering ever seemed to tame it. Each load in the A208 resulted in a 3-inch of glob (mostly cat hair) on the lint filter. Since I moved (and temporarily left my kitty behind) the glob is down to about the size of a nickel.

I agree that a less-aggressive washing action reduces the amount of lint created in the washing process, but one of the reasons why I wash clothes is to get rid of the lint and hair they seem to collect outside of the washer. I have yet to be satisfied with the results from a washer lacking a lint filter or featuring a self cleaning lint filter.

Incidentally, the best lint filtering I have ever encountered is on my grandmother's GE Filter Flo. It is probably later 1970s, with toggleswitches and an extra rinse knob. It's strange, to me, in that it has a str8 vane agitator, instead of a ramp. Its strokes are so short and fast, I can only imagine the amount of lint created by that violent washing action. Which performs better, given the violent agitation, the str8 vane, or the ramp activator?

For the record, I do not think that a conventional top-loader, even reusing wash water and 1 tub of rinse water, is likely to be more efficient than a front loader. I do believe that the water use of conventional top loaders can be significantly reduced by reusing the water from some cycles. This reduced water usage, combined with better cleaning abilities, for both oil and lint, and much shorter cycle times, may make conventional top loaders a viable option in the marketplace again without having to reinvent laundry day. Front loaders have their place, but so do top loaders.

This is a fun thread :)
Dave

Sorry, but couldn't reply earlier, as I wasn't on the computer for whole X-mas long!

I agree totally with what you write - and always did so, since the age of about 14/16 when evberybody called me nuts about my ideas... I never minded though as many still do!

Today, at the age of 46, I still believe in that theory, especially as it has been proved in several situations throughout my time on this planet! (wickedly grinning...!!)

As I said already - tub-washers are a pure luxury and total waste as long as they are fully automatic, meaning in this case using the (wash-)water only once!

I've heard so often that allegedly agitating is more agressive to the fabric than tumbling, but my experiences throughout a time of 30 years of washing in many machines tells me something different! As long as a machine is CORRECTLY loaded (not overloaded) a quick bathing in a lot of suds is much less stressing than a tumbling for about 2 to 2.5 hours in a drum! Just think about the rubbing when a load (nowadays 6-10 kg machines) of 24-40kg of wet fabric (garments soak up 3 times their own weight of water!) is rolling, kneeding and tumbling over eachother in a revolving drum whereas the same amount in a tub-washer is swimming in the wash-water! I agree that especially pulsator-machines with a one-way driving impeller isn't the most delicate way to do a wash (e.g. HOOVER) but because of the short wash-times it is impossible to me to believe the story of strain to the fabric.
There is one significant sign that shows me how abbrasive tumbling is: I once made a test with several guest-towels (four and all the same) which I washed each one in a load in a different type of machine (pulsator Hoovermatic, agitator SpeedQueen, agitator Hotpoint TwinTub and tumbler Quelle Matura). The results: all towels which came out of a tub-washer had a very smooth and equal appearance of the fabric, looking like newly bought actually, compared to the one out of the FL: very well done but the fabric looked harsh, crumbled and all the terry-cloth's meshs were disarranged and cluttered. Also were all others in no need of a softener as the fibres were not mat together which occurs in a dry-rigour later during line-drying when not tumbled dry.

Second thesis of mine:
It is hard to avoid the following question!
Isn't it obvious that there was once an arrangement between the companies that produce washers and dryers (and other energy consuming appliances) and the providers of energy!
They just needed to force the inhabitants of a whole nation (e.g. US, Canada, Australia) to use more energy by leaving no escape not to do so!
But to control a whole nation and force it to consume more and more energy, filling the pockets of the bosses and shareholders regardeless to the environment, it needed a plan which is as easy as effective.
First every household needed to get an AUTOMATIC machine instead of wringer washers and twin-tubs. ("no more washing days!") Well, first a lot of women may have complained of the higher costs these machines would evoke but that was easily rationalized away when they offered machines with a suds-saver option, which was mostly manual and not automatic (in the sence of optional)! Women got used to led the machine run without suds-saving more and more often, first by forgetting to set it and later...well just doing it no more...
Next gerenation of machines had NO suds-saver anymore and these suds-saver models disappeared completely from the market... Now every new washer was fully automatic and one-way...
After a few years, when society was accustomed to it also the fluff filtering disappeared and dryers became more and more a need... (" no more drying drugdery!")
But that wasn't the end of the spiral - there was even more energy to be used and even more money to be made...
Just slightly drop the spin-speed from once 1100 rpm to somewhat 650 rpm ("less wrinkles - less ironing" was the slogan!) and parallely make more powerful (and more energy consuming) dryers to compensate the drying-time.
And so they were all on a drip of the industry filling their bosses pockets and could not escape from it...

But mankind had made the bill without the universe!
Uninhibited energy consumption ends up in a change of the climate worldwide with all the consequences...
We have already gone so far that a full braking is inevitable. FLs appear on the market within a blink of an eye in the countries named above and these with an energy consumption and water usage that is going to hit the physical limits. (Again industry tells you: The dead of the conventional TL washer is just a matter of time and an agreed fact. A new generation of washers with a much better washing performance will hit the market now, namely FLs! - strange to say that this type of washers is known since the beginning of washer production worldwide (e.g. Bendix)...isn't it?)

What was the saying in The Lord of The Rings?
"One ring to bind them all!"

Have a nice time and think it over - there's not only that ring on the way on mother earth!

Ralf