|
Thread Number: 15089
A little advice on my thesis please. |
[Down to Last] |  |
Post# 255212 12/19/2007 at 11:51 (5,966 days old) by volvoguy87  (Cincinnati, OH) |
||
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 | ||
|
|
Post# 255224 , Reply# 3 12/19/2007 at 13:19 (5,966 days old) by volvoguy87 (Cincinnati, OH) |
||
|
Suds Saver & Rinse Saver?
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 | ||
|
Post# 255235 , Reply# 4 12/19/2007 at 14:08 (5,966 days old) by volvoguy87 (Cincinnati, OH) |
||
|
The spin cycle tests:
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 | ||
|
Post# 255372 , Reply# 6 12/20/2007 at 11:53 (5,965 days old) by unimatic1140 (Minneapolis) |
||
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. | ||
|
Post# 255580 , Reply# 8 12/21/2007 at 09:13 (5,964 days old) by unimatic1140 (Minneapolis) |
||
|
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 :) | ||
| Post# 255601 , Reply# 9 12/21/2007 at 11:27 (5,964 days old) by mickeyd (Hamburg NY) | ||
Hi Ralf and Robert and Volvo
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. | ||
|
Post# 255801 , Reply# 10 12/22/2007 at 14:08 (5,963 days old) by volvoguy87 (Cincinnati, OH) |
||
|
The AW6
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 | ||
|
Post# 255809 , Reply# 11 12/22/2007 at 15:11 (5,963 days old) by volvoguy87 (Cincinnati, OH) |
||
|
Another request for information.
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 | ||
|
Post# 255816 , Reply# 13 12/22/2007 at 16:05 (5,963 days old) by sudsmaster (SF Bay Area, California) |
||
 | ||
|
Post# 255817 , Reply# 14 12/22/2007 at 16:14 (5,963 days old) by sudsmaster (SF Bay Area, California) |
||
|
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. | ||
| Post# 255841 , Reply# 15 12/22/2007 at 20:36 (5,963 days old) by classiccaprice (Hampton, Virginia) | ||
 | ||
|
Post# 255932 , Reply# 17 12/23/2007 at 11:31 (5,962 days old) by volvoguy87 (Cincinnati, OH) |
||
|
The method to my madness.
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 | ||
| Post# 255986 , Reply# 18 12/23/2007 at 20:54 (5,962 days old) by classiccaprice (Hampton, Virginia) | ||
|
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) | ||
|
Post# 256004 , Reply# 19 12/23/2007 at 21:57 (5,961 days old) by volvoguy87 (Cincinnati, OH) |
||
|
Lint filters.
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 | ||
|
Post# 256017 , Reply# 20 12/23/2007 at 22:21 (5,961 days old) by sudsmaster (SF Bay Area, California) |
||
|
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. | ||
|
Post# 256024 , Reply# 21 12/23/2007 at 23:23 (5,961 days old) by volvoguy87 (Cincinnati, OH) |
||
|
Pet hair.
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 | ||
| Forum Index: |
| Other Forums: |
|
|
|
|
|
Comes to the Rescue!
