Thread Number: 17046
Leave Our Washers Alone!!
[Down to Last]

automaticwasher.org's exclusive eBay Watch:
scroll >>> for more items --- [As an eBay Partner, eBay may compensate automaticwasher.org if you make a purchase using any link to eBay on this page]
Post# 280793   5/19/2008 at 19:06 (5,792 days old) by westyslantfront ()        

I have heard that top loaders were to have been discontinued in 2007, but now it is supposed to be in 2012. It is due to water usage. Meantime, plenty of people are watering their lawns, filling their pools, taking long showers, etc. without a care about water usage, until it comes to the washing machine. I have heard so many people say they are willing to spend more on a front loader because it saves water. Perhaps that is false economy. I have seen a Frigidaire Affinity where you could NOT see water in the tub, only wet clothes and they did NOT come clean.
Leave our washers alone and I hope that it will not come to pass that top loaders are discontinued.





Post# 280794 , Reply# 1   5/19/2008 at 19:09 (5,792 days old) by westyslantfront ()        

And as for "global warming", for all the people who claim global warming is happening, I have also heard many people claim that it has not been proven. With the people buying and selling "carbon credits" I wonder if it is not all a scam,
perhaps manufactured by Al Gore and others. Based on the last two winters in Tucson, I think we may have global cooling.


Post# 280828 , Reply# 2   5/19/2008 at 21:30 (5,792 days old) by andrewinorlando ()        

Ross, I think the folks in the Northeast would agree with you!!!

Post# 280840 , Reply# 3   5/19/2008 at 22:42 (5,792 days old) by nmaineman36 ()        

Not so...you would think that with being in the Northeast that water is abundant and it is but our water rates keep going up. Here in Lynn Mass our lovely Water and Sewer Commission is raising our rates again. Why you may ask...because people are conserving so much water that they are not making the same kinda money that they used to before conservation measures went into effect. Now to me if they want people to use less and they got that right now then I think that they should tighten their belts like the rest of us.
I have the front load washer and my dishwasher uses only 6.3 gallons for a full load and I have an Oxygenics shower head that cuts the water down and the toilet...but somehow our water bill is a nice cool $150 every quarter. Maddening I say.
In Maine for some strange reason the more you use the less you pay. Makes sense huh.....


Post# 280843 , Reply# 4   5/19/2008 at 22:58 (5,792 days old) by pturo (Syracuse, New York)        

I think this whole green thinking needs to be regionalized. Here, in upstate NY, we need big 4 wheel drive vehicles for winter for survival and to get to work. Not so a Hummer in Miami Florida or Phoenix. Why aren't they requiring solar power in the southwest, to take the energy burden off? When we have sub zero weather for a week, we should be able to apply for disaster relief for our oil bills.
People in Flordia should be driving electric golf carts that plug in to the garage outlet. There isn't a goddam hill for 400 miles. The norteast has mostly a lot of water, and good water, leave our washing machines alone. Southern California, which is a desert, should ban top loading machines or the state to give credit on taxes to make it equivalent to purchasing a top loader in price.

I think the Federal Government should let the states decide these issues because of our diverse resource and climate variances on this continent.


Post# 280855 , Reply# 5   5/20/2008 at 01:59 (5,791 days old) by rapunzel (Sydney)        

This article appeared on one of our news websites yesterday. This bloke was named 'Australian of the Year' last year. He is primarily a biologist, but, of late, has appointed himself climate expert 'number one'. In a similar vein, but a slightly shorter time-frame, Prince Charles has given humanity 18 months to stop carbon emissions, or lots of really bad climate things will happen to us after that, oh dear! I wish he, as well as Flim Flammery, Al Gore et al, would realize that the most damaging carbon emissions come from their mouths, which they appear unable to distinguish from their rear ends.

Here, again, we have solid proof that neither education, money nor fame either pre-requisite or bring about intelligence or a propensity for rational thought.

The 21st century is off to an interesting start.


CLICK HERE TO GO TO rapunzel's LINK


Post# 280857 , Reply# 6   5/20/2008 at 03:38 (5,791 days old) by tolivac (greenville nc)        

I can agree with the first entries on this-TIME TO VOTE THE WASHER BANNERS OUT!!!in the upcoming election.This issue should be a MARKETPLACE decision-not poiltical.If folks want the energy saving washers,dishwashers,and water saving potties they will buy them.My water bills average less than $25 per month-and I have TL washers and an older water hogging KA dishwasher.After all its MY water bill--not theirs.this energy mess is a big scam.And yes I can agree water and energy are LOCAL issues.they should be solved locally-love how these "green" folks complain how much water washers and dishwashers,toilets use but they dump hundreds of gallons of water on their lawns and gardens weekly.and that watering contributes to runoff pollution.Whatever fertilizer pesticides put on the lawns runs off from the watering into the enviornment.I don't use those things on my yard and don't have to water.We have had enough rains this spring here-its making up what was lost in the drought last year.I am in no market for an overpriced FL washer-for some of the prices on them-just take your clothes to the cleaners.Water worries over!Don't get me started on the "Gullible Warming " from the "Post"-Al Gore.Watched his movie---what a BORING crock!

Post# 280862 , Reply# 7   5/20/2008 at 05:26 (5,791 days old) by mrx ()        
There's no ban on them in Europe

In Europe the market ultimately did decide on the front loader way back in the 1960s and 1970s.

Top loader agitator washing machines, for a whole variety of marketing reasons, didn't take off here. The main reason was that because of WWII, the European economy was pretty much wrecked in the 1940s and 1950s and by the time the consumer spending had recovered in the early 1960s, the front loader automatic had become a practical design. In the US, the top loader agitator machine was the first automatic to be mass-marketed in the 1930s/40s and it became the dominant design.

European marketing of washing machines also tended to cause an association between top-loading agitator machines and labour intensive, old technology that wasn't fully automatic as manufacturers pushed automatics, which were almost exclusively front-loading.

The preference for the 'built-in' fully integrated kitchen in Europe also had a huge impact. People like the idea of a washing machine that fits under a counter top, rather than a free-standing machine that sits in a basement. The ability to stack washer/dryer sets also made them more attractive.

When it comes to energy efficiency over here it's really a market decision, the inefficient products are labelled as such.
Everything's rated A to G (a = efficient .. G = grossly inefficient). People tend to buy A rated machines where possible.

Water's also charged for and metered in most of Europe which tends to ensure that people opt for more water-efficient machines generally.
So, the market does decide!

The very high spin speeds found in many European machines aren't necessarily something that needed to be exclusive to front loaders. I don't think it would be that difficult to come up with a very high spin top loader if it were a priority.

In general, Europeans tend to avoid tumble drying (higher energy costs and more environmental focus). So, washing machines that could hit anything up to 2000 rpm are rather more popular. Again though, it's marketing driven. For decades the spin speed has been a major feature of most machines to the level that many of them include it in their model numbers or have it emblazened upon their front panel. No self-respecting housewife would have anything that didn't sound like an Airbus A320 engine when finishing up her washing! :)

Also, I honestly think the porthole door has a major impact on sales here. Try selling a washing machine that you can't see the clothes in! People like to see things tumbling around and it's particularly impressive when your clothes go into warp 8 too at the end of the cycle :)

Market front loaders properly, and people will opt for them if they so chose!


Post# 280878 , Reply# 8   5/20/2008 at 07:22 (5,791 days old) by toggleswitch (New York City, NY)        

toggleswitch's profile picture
~In Maine for some strange reason the more you use the less you pay. Makes sense huh.....

Bulk discounts are sometimes necessary. OTOH...

Utilites have many fixed /overhead costs (i.e. those that do not vary with usage levels) that have to be passed along to consumers regardless of level of usage of their product/service. So yes if everyone conserves, the price PER UNIT of items sold MUST go up to cover those costs. Of course variable costs follow usage and are not the point here.

This is why cellular/mobile phone service continues to become more affordable. The fixed-overhead costs are now spread over a much larger subscriber base.

Also the R.O.I. (retrn on investment) to stockholder stays in a certain range. So if the CEO and CFO make $20,000,000 per year, all said and told, the utlity will charge to cover that and still return to stockholders the "stanard" market-level return. Bottom line=> Public and semi-public utlties have little incentive at times to reduce their costs. The rates will simply be approved to be raised to cover costs and provide a "standard" R.O.I.


Post# 280879 , Reply# 9   5/20/2008 at 07:23 (5,791 days old) by toggleswitch (New York City, NY)        

toggleswitch's profile picture
~For decades the spin speed has been a major feature of most machines to the level that many of them include it in their model numbers or have it emblazened upon their front panel.

HELL for creating wrinkles however.


Post# 280885 , Reply# 10   5/20/2008 at 08:09 (5,791 days old) by westyslantfront ()        

I was just in Best Buy yesterday. At the entrance was a pair of LG's on sale. The washer and dryer EACH were marked down to
%1,999.00. With taxes, delivery, etc. I can see a total
of $4,500.00. Last September, I bought a Whirltag top loader for
$399.00. How long does it take to make up the difference in water savings? I consider it false economy to spend $4,500.00 to save water.


Ross


Post# 280890 , Reply# 11   5/20/2008 at 08:55 (5,791 days old) by tomturbomatic (Beltsville, MD)        

The top loading automatic was not the first design in the 30s and 40s. America's exposure to top loading agitator washers came from the wringer washers that were produced even before the advent of electrical power sources. The first automatic washer was built by Bendix and was a tumbler. In spite of inferior performance when compared to agitator machines, their convenience made them huge sellers before WWII halted most domestic sales. The machines were still made, but for installation on ships and in military installations. After the war, Bendix was the first company that could offer automatics for sale. As other manufacturers brought out automatics, they were mostly top loading agitator washers since it was not too difficult for companies that had made agitator type wringer washers to use those designs as stepping stones to automatic washer design. Also, agitator washers using the washing products of the time, generally gave better cleaning than the front loaders with smaller tubs and sudsing concerns. By the early 50s, Bendix was on the defensive, claiming that they had a proven, dependable design for their machine which sold for much less than newer, more complicated machines of unproven durability. Their machine had changed little since its origination and looked dated next to the newer, more highly styled machines. AVCO chose not to spend their money on redesigning the Bendix washer until it was too late then they sold the laundry line to Philco.

Post# 280899 , Reply# 12   5/20/2008 at 10:02 (5,791 days old) by mrx ()        

I was just in Best Buy yesterday. At the entrance was a pair of LG's on sale. The washer and dryer EACH were marked down to
%1,999.00. With taxes, delivery, etc. I can see a total
of $4,500.00. Last September, I bought a Whirltag top loader for
$399.00. How long does it take to make up the difference in water savings? I consider it false economy to spend $4,500.00 to save water.


Ross

Sounds grossly over priced to me.
The difference over here is that you can pick up a front loader starting from about €250 (bottom of the line and won't exactly be a great machine), but still it exists.
It seems in the US front loaders are still rather high end luxury goods.
The price will drop as they become more of a commodity item.

Also, don't even bother converting from € to $ the rates are insane at the moment and I don't think you'll get a realistic comparison, because of the dollar's recent woes anything priced in € is very expensive.

I'd say it's driving Miele's US prices through the roof.



Post# 280908 , Reply# 13   5/20/2008 at 11:05 (5,791 days old) by thomasortega (El Pueblo de Nuestra Seņora de Los Angeles de Porciúncula)        

Front loaders washer has many vantages over traditional top loaders.
Spin speeds technically can be higher, lint removal is much more efficient because the whole drum acts like a filter and due to less amount of water, itīs totally filtered more times during a cycle.
Itīs washing efficiency is better than top loaders and itīs much more gentle to the clothes.

They are more complex and a higher price is justificable because itīs manufacturing costs are higher too but, but, but... in north and south Americas they are considered luxury items yet, thatīs why they are much more expensive.
When demand on this kind of washer increases, the price will be reduced.

I love top loader washers because of the nostalgy, but even the mordern traditional top loaders are obsolete and thereīs nothing else to enhance and make them more friendly to the environment. No matter if we have enough water or if we have money to pay the water bills or the detergents. itīs not a reason for us to spend more only because we have more.

If every person in the world do his part, our world will breath better.

For example, there are many people who never used a hanger to dry the clothes, only the dryer. We could reduce a lot the impact with little actions like this.
On warm days, with a high speed spin washer, the clothes can dry quickly and with no impact.
Or, why donīt reuse the washerīs water to mop the floors? oh, yes, i forgot, "i have money to pay for the water bills so i donīt need to wait for the first spin cycle with a bucket in hands, no matter if each gallon of water saved is a gallon of water less to treat."
it seems to be insignificant, but when we think globally, this is a huge difference.
try to get only our home... multiply 1 gallon of water per person... now calculate the savings in a week... now a month... two years... 10 years.... OMG, enough to fill hundreds of swimming pools.


Post# 280912 , Reply# 14   5/20/2008 at 12:02 (5,791 days old) by decodriveboy (FL, US)        
My water bill

is about $12 a month, and that includes all water use, sewer charges, etc. This is because I take military showers, NEVER water my lawn (biggest waste of water ever -- not the laundry) and the water is always off when not in use while shaving or brushing teeth.

I agree, leave our washers the hell alone and let the public decide what is best for their needs. How is a three hour cycle saving energy? The clothes still come out stinking from being washed in a teaspoon of water.




Post# 280926 , Reply# 15   5/20/2008 at 14:06 (5,791 days old) by volvoguy87 (Cincinnati, OH)        
Water...

volvoguy87's profile picture
One thing about utilities is infrastructure maintenance and repair. Many people complain bitterly when their rates go up, even if it is to repair leaking pipes and broken equipment, not for additional water.

As for saving water, I am generally all for it, BUT...
I will not replace a serviceable appliance for a new one if the new one is inferior. Inferior to me means the following: longer cycle times, less effective, more failure prone, more flimsy, and a shorter expected lifespan. In the case of comparing my 1980 Maytag A208 against my mother's GE Adora HE front loader, the GE is inferior in every way.

There is also the matter of gray water recycling. Gray water is sewage from sinks, laundry, and showers. In many cases, it can be used to water lawns and plants. A Suds Saver is a great example of reusing gray water. If using gray water for irrigation, you could reuse ALL water from washing if you are careful not to use detergents which could kill or damage vegetation (like borax or chlorine bleach). Imagine washing without producing one drop of wastewater! If you are going to water your yard anyway, the water consumption of your washing machine in this situation is irrelevant.

Presently, due to a lack of water and drain connections, I have no hot water connection where I use my Maytag. I connect the cold water washer hose to the garden hose and drain into a large trash can. I wash with Cheer or Roma depending on the load and I sometimes use Mrs. Stewart's Bluing. None of those has adversely affected the lawn or plants, and even the pH of the soil has not been affected affected. We had the greenest garden on the street last year during the drought because the wash water, which would have ordinarily gone down the drain, was used to water the plants.

TOP LOADERS ARE THE BEST FOR ME!
Dave


Post# 280991 , Reply# 16   5/21/2008 at 03:53 (5,790 days old) by mrx ()        

"~~ I agree, leave our washers the hell alone and let the public decide what is best for their needs. How is a three hour cycle saving energy? The clothes still come out stinking from being washed in a teaspoon of water."

If that's the case you've obviously experienced some absolutely terrible front loaders!

My normal cotton cycle at 40C (104F) takes a little over 1 hour to complete and that's with 5 rinses and a very long 1600rpm spin. The clothes come out absolutely perfect and not at all 'stinking', nor do they have any stains/marks/odours other than a mild smell of detergent.

Even a 30 minute 'quick wash' at 30C (86F) will produce acceptably good results.

I really think that many people on this forum are perpetuating a myth that Europeans do all their washing in 3 hour boil-wash cycles and that this kind of washing cycle is necessary in all front loader cycles. There could be nothing further from the truth, I would suspect that most machines in Europe are never set to do a high temp whites wash. The vast majority of laundry is done at 40C or less in relatively short cycles (taking just over an hour to complete). Modern enzyme laced detergents (which have been around for decades) don't require those kinds of very high temperatures to clean effectively.

If you ran 90 degree cotton white cycles regularly, your clothes would be completely destroyed it's only suitable for sanitising 100% cotton or linen sheets. Many towels won't even survive those washes as the stitching will shrink. They're a nice option to have, but they're rarely used.






Post# 280992 , Reply# 17   5/21/2008 at 03:55 (5,790 days old) by mrx ()        

"~~ I agree, leave our washers the hell alone and let the public decide what is best for their needs. How is a three hour cycle saving energy? The clothes still come out stinking from being washed in a teaspoon of water."

If that's the case you've obviously experienced some absolutely terrible front loaders!

My normal cotton cycle at 40C (104F) takes a little over 1 hour to complete and that's with 5 rinses and a very long 1600rpm spin. The clothes come out absolutely perfect and not at all 'stinking', nor do they have any stains/marks/odours other than a mild smell of detergent.

Even a 30 minute 'quick wash' at 30C (86F) will produce acceptably good results.

I really think that many people on this forum are perpetuating a myth that Europeans do all their washing in 3 hour boil-wash cycles and that this kind of washing cycle is necessary in all front loader cycles. There could be nothing further from the truth, I would suspect that most machines in Europe are never set to do a high temp whites wash. The vast majority of laundry is done at 40C or less in relatively short cycles (taking just over an hour to complete). Modern enzyme laced detergents (which have been around for decades) don't require those kinds of very high temperatures to clean effectively.

If you ran 90 degree cotton white cycles regularly, your clothes would be completely destroyed it's only suitable for sanitising 100% cotton or linen sheets. Many towels won't even survive those washes as the stitching will shrink. They're a nice option to have, but they're rarely used.






Post# 280993 , Reply# 18   5/21/2008 at 04:38 (5,790 days old) by hotpoint9534 (UK)        

I've never had any problems with front loaders not cleaning.

It's a good idea to run a 90c wash every few months to clear all the detergent deposits which build up from inside the machine. I've seen some filthy front loaders over the years, and more often than not it's because they've never washed over 40c.

On certain models the alloy in the drum spider would start to corrode and eventually snap (used to happen on the 95 and WM series Hotpoints especially). Moldy door seals are also a common sight on neglected machines.

Tom


Post# 280996 , Reply# 19   5/21/2008 at 06:28 (5,790 days old) by mrx ()        

A good clear out is essential for any type of washing machine once in a while. The 90C cycle's certainly useful for this!



Post# 280999 , Reply# 20   5/21/2008 at 06:41 (5,790 days old) by toggleswitch (New York City, NY)        
Not bad for one's colon either.

toggleswitch's profile picture
Overdosing the detergent then masking it all with a waxy thick and goooey heavily-scented fabric softener is a great way to get a stinky wash.

Reloading one's laundry with wax from a dryer sheet is another way to ensure a stinky, dirty wash.


Post# 281011 , Reply# 21   5/21/2008 at 08:33 (5,790 days old) by hotpoint9534 (UK)        

Did anyone find out whether an Indesit Moon can do a 90c wash or not?

Perhaps Indesit expect people to pour a kettle full of boiling water into the machine to give it a good clean, either that or they don't expect the machine to live long enough to actually require cleaning.

I once came across a Zanussi front loader where the owner had been using Fairy non-bio liquid for 10 years and never washed above 40c. That machine smelled appalling! The entire seal was coated in a thick, grimy layer of Fairy.


Post# 281044 , Reply# 22   5/21/2008 at 11:42 (5,790 days old) by decodriveboy (FL, US)        

Keep in mind guys that front loaders here in the States differ greatly from European ones, and not in a good way in my opinion! All this eco, water-saving bullshit needs to stop already when it comes to laundry.

Post# 281053 , Reply# 23   5/21/2008 at 13:03 (5,790 days old) by westyslantfront ()        

Hi Patrick. Although we do need to keep some degree of conservation in mind, I think that sometimes, people have gone overboard. As the saying goes...."too much of a good thing..."


Ross


Post# 281056 , Reply# 24   5/21/2008 at 13:34 (5,790 days old) by newwave1 (Lincoln, United Kingdom)        

newwave1's profile picture
Hey tom,
the moon does NOT have a 90degree cycle. They probably don't expect people to notice or the machine to last.

Though in its defence i hear they're proving reliable to people who aren't bothered about not being able to do a fast spin on anything but white cotton!

Darren


Post# 281057 , Reply# 25   5/21/2008 at 13:36 (5,790 days old) by decodriveboy (FL, US)        

WAY too much! :)

Post# 281058 , Reply# 26   5/21/2008 at 13:41 (5,790 days old) by stainfighter (Columbia, SC)        
what kills me more...

stainfighter's profile picture
are the folks that won't recycle ANY newspaper, glass, cans - NOTHING. I think yes, folks should conserve water - and agree with not keeping the water running when brushing teeth, shaving, washing and rinsing dishes (that's also a lot of WASTED water). When possible I try to recycle the plastic forks and spoons from takeout, the plastic containers that some restaurants use can also be recycled. We may go back to a classic TL when the Frigmore's bearing finally dies (it is not on life support - yet). In this FL I recently experimented by doing a load on 'delicate' vs. 'normal' cycle. The clothes did not feel all that much different in dampness but certainly had less wrinkles. Drying time did not seem to go up that much - maybe another 10 minutes? Conservation takes on many forms

Post# 281070 , Reply# 27   5/21/2008 at 14:40 (5,790 days old) by toggleswitch (New York City, NY)        

toggleswitch's profile picture
~Conservation takes on many forms.

Having one fewer child is perhaps the best way to conserve resources.......technically.

Water usage reduction is ok, but OIL-use reduction.........

Retrain and divert military personnel that are currently overseas to the task of installing photo-voltiac (power generating) solar collectors on every roof in this country and I'll show YOU a smart use of resources to the aim of conservation, foreign oil independence and greater self-sufficiency.



Post# 281073 , Reply# 28   5/21/2008 at 14:54 (5,790 days old) by newwave1 (Lincoln, United Kingdom)        

newwave1's profile picture
Oops i forgot to add my piece on water conservation and washers!

There was a time over here when manufacturers decided to start making machines save unnecessary wastage on machines, they for a few years stuck to the 65-70litre bracket, i don't know what that is in gallons for the US guys.

Now that seemed to be a good amount, the machines didn't over use water, they rinsed to a good standard too.

then in 2000, they dropped to stupid levels, and it is no coincidence that from the year 2000, skin problems in the uk rose with the decline in washing machine water usage! & that is why every machine just about on the market for years and years has had an extra rinse facility! Because it takes a certain amount of water to Rinse detergent out effectively!!!!!!!!!!

Though it appears the manufacturers know this, as machines are slowly creeping back up in water usuage.

Cold fill is great, heating in the machine the amount of water needed.

I've always gone on the line that doing full loads & using the right amount of detergent is the best way to be do things economically, as opposed to little and often!


Darren


Post# 281135 , Reply# 29   5/21/2008 at 18:25 (5,790 days old) by westyslantfront ()        

Hi Darren. Our machines in the US generally do not heat the water. I use warm water for colors and hot water for whites.
I have had two tankless water heaters installed. They are much more expensive than the average 40 gallon hot water heater used in most homes. The tankless also required a larger gas line, larger exhaust, and an air intake.
I am all for reasonable conservation.
They came up with the 3 liter flush toilets but many times, people who have them have to flush 2 or 3 times. Where is the water savings? A low water usage toilet would be ok if it worked better.
I have found that many of the newer machines have longer cycles. That leads me to believe that they may use less water but more electricity. Again, where is the savings?

Ross


Post# 281136 , Reply# 30   5/21/2008 at 18:32 (5,790 days old) by kirk280980 ()        

Couldn't agree more :o)

Having had a washer with super-stingy water levels (Zanussi Jetsystem), I would never want another one again. It did wash well, but a normal cottons cycle with extra rinse took 2h 26m to complete, and even then the rinsing performance was consistently dreadful. Nothing particularly unusual for a Euro machine at the time, but I too am glad this trend is reversing somewhat and we now have other choices.

About a month ago I had a Hotpoint Aqualtis delivered, and the difference between the two machines is like night and day. Gives a nice, splashy wash followed by three deep rinses, or four with the extra rinse option selected. The Shirts cycle fills halfway up the door glass in each stage of the programme. It also takes a much bigger load, and the normal 40c cotton wash almost a whole hour quicker. What's not to like about that? Have to say I've been very impressed with it so far, and am not missing the old machine one bit. Only downside is the lack of a rinse hold facility, but I'm sure I'll survive without that.

There's a very fine line between being *too economical* purely for the sake of it, versus being *economical enough*. Give me the latter any day! There is absolutely nothing wrong with using a sufficient amount of water to do the job properly, as long as it's not being wasted unnecessarily.


Post# 281138 , Reply# 31   5/21/2008 at 18:45 (5,790 days old) by toggleswitch (New York City, NY)        

toggleswitch's profile picture
1 U.S. gallon (as opposed to an imperial gallon) = 3.78 litres. Therefore 4.0 litres per gallon is a quick an easy mnemonic device/method.


Let me bring you up-to-speed on the English system. (That's TRES ironic isn't it?)

1 cup = 8 fluid ounces = 230ml.
2 cups = 1 pint
2 pints = 1 quart (a/k/a 4 cups)
4 quarts = 1 U.S. gallon

There will be a quiz next week.


1kg of water is the definition, IIRC, of a litre.


One U.S. gallon of water weighs 8.345 lbs. (pounds)so figure 8 lbs. rounded. Since a U.S. gallon of water is 4 quarts with 4 cups in each, then a gallon of water is 16 cups. Therefore each cup weighs half a pound. Since there are 16 ounces per pound, each cup then weighs 8 ounce or 1/2 a pound.


How's that for useless tid-bit?
There will be a quiz nex week.


CLICK HERE TO GO TO toggleswitch's LINK


Post# 281142 , Reply# 32   5/21/2008 at 19:46 (5,790 days old) by dirtybuck (Springfield, MO)        
Uh, Toggle...

In regards to the quiz, I won't be here...I'm gonna have a uh..er, headache or something. How much will it count towards my final grade? ;)

Post# 281146 , Reply# 33   5/21/2008 at 20:42 (5,790 days old) by toggleswitch (New York City, NY)        

toggleswitch's profile picture
Cracks whip....


oh a headache is certainly not the way to get a make-up grade.

:-)


Post# 281158 , Reply# 34   5/21/2008 at 21:50 (5,790 days old) by decodriveboy (FL, US)        
"The Shirts cycle fills halfway up the door glass in ea

Something that you will never even come close to seeing in the US!

I wish our country would import some European sense.


Post# 281159 , Reply# 35   5/21/2008 at 21:53 (5,790 days old) by toggleswitch (New York City, NY)        

toggleswitch's profile picture
What I don't understand is why go from one extreme to the other----from top-loaders with plenty of water to a few tablespoons in a front-loader.

Why not a front-loader with a nice decent water-fill level?


Post# 281160 , Reply# 36   5/21/2008 at 21:56 (5,790 days old) by mayguy (Minnesota)        
Front Loader vs Top Loader

I guess it depends on the Brand of washer. I have the FridGEmore front load washer, and very please with it.. I did not want to spend over $500 for a washer. Got this washer on sale for $400, and does the job.

On normal cycle it takes about 40-45 minutes to do a load of wash.

Water is cheap here, but saved over 13,000 gallons of water in year, gas bill droped from $88 a month down to $66 a month. (dryer and water heater is gas.)

I don't know about the other guys out there like LG how long it takes to do a load. But I see no point of spending that much money.


Post# 281173 , Reply# 37   5/21/2008 at 23:20 (5,790 days old) by tuthill ()        
Why not a front-loader with a nice decent water-fill level?

Isn't it because they clean better with little water? It's better when the clothes are actually DROPPED into water, not merely twirled around with it, which was the case with earlier front loaders that did not clean very well.

Btw, if you look at my thread showing a new Whirlpool Duet, it does do a high-water level rinse, so rinsing is NEVER a issue, and the normal cycle only takes 51 minutes.

And as fas a top-loaders, they are WAY past their prime. New TL's just plain suck these days. I'd rather enjoy the rich heritage of TL's, but move on when it comes to new washers. Fl's are just a better design.


Post# 281221 , Reply# 38   5/22/2008 at 10:51 (5,789 days old) by kirk280980 ()        
Why not a front-loader with a nice decent water-fill level?

Indeed, and we're not necessarily talking about vast increases here either. Raising the water level by just an inch or two would be more than enough to satisfy most users, while still maintaining sufficient lift-and-drop wash action. Overall this would make little difference in total water consumption... a few gallons perhaps? Point is there would still be considerable savings when compared to a top loader.



Post# 281227 , Reply# 39   5/22/2008 at 11:39 (5,789 days old) by thomasortega (El Pueblo de Nuestra Seņora de Los Angeles de Porciúncula)        

It reminds me the best FL washer ever made by Electrolux
LE750
the largest cycle is 2 hours (pre wash, whitest whites and 5 rinses)
Water level is excellent, the capacity is small (5 kg) but enough to wash king size comforters.
The only contra is the spin speed, only 750 rpm, but for a 40 years old project, itīs fantastic.
This washer was discontinued in Brazil 1 year ago and many people miss it.
Hehehe i have mine and iīll never sell it.


Post# 281277 , Reply# 40   5/22/2008 at 15:44 (5,789 days old) by vivalalavatrice ()        
Every once the same....

TLHA! Why not?!

Just this to say... nothing else.

Diomede


Post# 281296 , Reply# 41   5/22/2008 at 17:33 (5,789 days old) by mrx ()        

kirk280980,

I have to agree the Aqualtis wash gets the water usage spot on. It's not wasteful, but it's not stingy. It's certainly 'Deeply different' to quote the slogan.
It's still an A,A,A rated machine!!


Post# 281324 , Reply# 42   5/22/2008 at 21:53 (5,789 days old) by kirk280980 ()        

Hi mrx,

I take it you have an Aqualtis too? It really is a cracking machine, very well thought out and unbelievably quiet too. Hopefully it will prove to be reliable in the long term, but time will tell on that one.

Now all they have to do is bring out a matching dryer!


Post# 281337 , Reply# 43   5/23/2008 at 01:40 (5,788 days old) by mrx ()        

Yeah, so far it seems like a really nicely engineered machine. I have the silver 1600rpm version.

It's really improved Hotpoint/Ariston's reputation and really has absolutely no relationship to the Hotpoint machines of the last decade +. It's a high end Ariston.


Post# 281339 , Reply# 44   5/23/2008 at 02:18 (5,788 days old) by newwave1 (Lincoln, United Kingdom)        

newwave1's profile picture
Good news Kirk & MRX,
If they get their finger out at indesitcompany, the tumble dryer is due out the end of this year!

Darren


Post# 281381 , Reply# 45   5/23/2008 at 10:26 (5,788 days old) by kirk280980 ()        

To date I haven't heard of any Aqualtis horror stories, and the online reviews from actual users appear to be overwhelmingly positive. That's no guarantee of course, but it's a good start. The fit and finish of the machine is good, and it does run very smoothly... so yes, nothing at all like the later WM and WMA Hotpoints!

Good news about the dryer too, will be sure to check those out when the time comes. Any idea if there will be a vented model, or are we just looking at condensers only?


Post# 281391 , Reply# 46   5/23/2008 at 12:24 (5,788 days old) by newwave1 (Lincoln, United Kingdom)        

newwave1's profile picture
Only a condenser for the moment!

Post# 281396 , Reply# 47   5/23/2008 at 13:56 (5,788 days old) by mrx ()        

What's with the fixation on condensers?

They're terrible!


Post# 281400 , Reply# 48   5/23/2008 at 14:55 (5,788 days old) by newwave1 (Lincoln, United Kingdom)        

newwave1's profile picture
Well from a sales point of view, They can be placed anywhere. Opens up to more people.

They dont half kick out some heat!

Darren


Post# 281422 , Reply# 49   5/23/2008 at 18:11 (5,788 days old) by launderess (Quiet Please, Thereīs a Lady on Stage)        

launderess's profile picture
Vented tumble dryers are fine if one has a wall opening for the vent, or can make one. Many parts of Europe, such as Paris for instance forbid cutting holes into outside walls hence condenser dryers and those "portable" air conditioners that have hoses one sticks out of window, or worse collects water in a drip pan.

If you own your own home,or modern buildings things may be different, but you simply cannot go around making holes in 100, or even 200 year old buildings, well at least not in Paris.



Forum Index:       Other Forums:                      



Comes to the Rescue!

The Discuss-o-Mat has stopped, buzzer is sounding!!!
If you would like to reply to this thread please log-in...

Discuss-O-MAT Log-In



New Members
Click Here To Sign Up.



                     


automaticwasher.org home
Discuss-o-Mat Forums
Vintage Brochures, Service and Owners Manuals
Fun Vintage Washer Ephemera
See It Wash!
Video Downloads
Audio Downloads
Picture of the Day
Patent of the Day
Photos of our Collections
The Old Aberdeen Farm
Vintage Service Manuals
Vintage washer/dryer/dishwasher to sell?
Technical/service questions?
Looking for Parts?
Website related questions?
Digital Millennium Copyright Act Policy
Our Privacy Policy