|
Thread Number: 17181
Will Somebody Please Explain? |
[Down to Last] |  |
|
Post# 282456 , Reply# 2 5/30/2008 at 08:29 (5,803 days old) by polkanut  (Wausau, WI ) |
||
From my understanding and usage, all machines that were so equipped did basically the same thing. They had a diverter valve which when activated, would pump the wash water into a holding receptacle. When it was time to pump the water back into the machine, one would either flip a switch, push a button, or move the dial to a certain spot, and the pump would draw the wash water back into the machine. You then would add approx. 1/2 cup detergent to subsequent washes. This could be done as many times as one wished. When you no longer wanted or needed the water you would set the machine to drain. A very economical way to save water, soap, gas and/or electricity IMO. If anyone has a better explanation, go for it.
| ||
| Post# 282458 , Reply# 4 5/30/2008 at 08:40 (5,803 days old) by maytagbear (N.E. Ohio) | ||
|
Oh, yes- rinse water was always fresh. L/Mb | ||
| Post# 282472 , Reply# 6 5/30/2008 at 09:51 (5,803 days old) by iheartmaytag (Wichita, Kansas) | ||
There was an article about 10 or so years ago in "Mother Earth News" where they were making their own water saving washers. These machines, however, saved the rinse water to reuse for the next wash. This way you had cleaner wash water and always used fresh rinse water. Some were more elaborate where it diverted the water to an outside rain barrel. There they let the sediments settle and then used the water on their gardens. Through this process nothing was lost. | ||
| Post# 282475 , Reply# 7 5/30/2008 at 09:57 (5,803 days old) by fa_f3_20 () | ||
|
Sounds like some of the really old automatics that retained the rinse water inside the machine, in the pre-fabric-softener days. | ||
| Post# 282483 , Reply# 8 5/30/2008 at 10:37 (5,803 days old) by drewz (Alexandria, Virginia) | ||
AKA's | ||
|
Post# 282484 , Reply# 9 5/30/2008 at 10:55 (5,803 days old) by kenmoreguy64 (Charlotte, NC) |
||
Agitation with suds water re-entry
Kenmore and/or Whirlpool may have said the machines agitated to whip up suds during return, but the machines are design limited in this regard. It is necessary for the machine to agitate while suds re-filling because the pump settings (mechanically) needed to bring the water back in are only available when the machine is in agitate. The pumps in the agitate setting are normally used to recirculate water that comes in from a lint filter. If the machine does not have a lint filter, the pump operates dry during agitation. Pumps are needed to operate in the reverse flow direction during suds return vs. normal pump out, and the only way to do this is to shift the machine back into agitate. This may have had a sideline benefit of "refreshing" the water but in the initial low levels the water was very very splashy, especially if using a straight-vane agitator model. At times the straight-vane can soak the entire top end of the cabinet with over-splash. It is not uncommon to find an older straight vane machine with a lot of rust on the inside cabinet walls due to this. Interesting note - later (70s and 80s) water saver machines had different pumps than their non-saver counterparts. A new pump was devised in the mid-70s that moves vast amounts of water, FAST, but it was not used in suds models so those reverted back to the old pumps of the 60s. | ||
| Post# 282487 , Reply# 10 5/30/2008 at 11:12 (5,803 days old) by fa_f3_20 () | ||
|
Kenmoreguy, thanks for the info. I presume that the reason the '70s new pump wasn't used on the suds models was because it wasn't capable of pumping in the reverse direction? | ||
|
Post# 282489 , Reply# 11 5/30/2008 at 11:38 (5,803 days old) by kenmoreguy64 (Charlotte, NC) |
||
|
I wondered about that when I wrote the post, and I suspect you're right, but I'm not completely sure. I'll have to try it to find out some time. The other reason I thought of involves the tub outlet hoses - water flows through the high volume pump so incredibly fast as compared to the others that the reverse direction could have caused leaks where the tubs mount to their drain hoses/button trap grommets. These can be leaky anyway, so with high pressure water being pumped through them backwards, they may not have been able to contain the flow. The high volume pump can empty a full big-tub 18lb. machine in about 15-20 seconds, half or less of the time the old pumps need (this is a rough guess on my part). It has been necessary at my house and at my mother's to secure the washer's drain hose to the rough-in box in the wall with tape and/or wire to keep the hose from flying out and flooding the floor. | ||
|
Post# 282513 , Reply# 12 5/30/2008 at 16:51 (5,803 days old) by volvoguy87 (Cincinnati, OH) |
||
Suds Savers are in my thesis.
They are a great idea with minimal complexity. One thing not mentioned specifically thus far is the importance of letting the used wash water sit stagnant throughout the rinse and spin cycles. While stagnent, the solid dirt (sand, dirt, etc.) sunk to the bottom of the tub sink and the oils, lint, and hair floated to the top (usually in the suds layer). The suds return hose was long. The tip of its angled end was supposed to rest just on the bottom of the tub sink used for wash water storage. When it "Returned" the suds, it would suck in water from just above the bottom of the tub. Once the water reached the top of the angles cut, the washer's pump would start to suck air instead of water. This left about an inch or so of water in the bottom of the sink which contained, on the bottom, the sand and heavy soil, and the oils, lint, and hair on top. It's so simple, it just might work! Dave | ||
|
Post# 282531 , Reply# 13 5/30/2008 at 19:40 (5,802 days old) by launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage) |
||
Suds savers were the most automatic work around in a logical step from wringer and twin tub washing machines. Both of the latter allowed one to reuse wash and or rinse water to conserve, and both relied upon "older" wash methods; that is doing least soiled laundry first to reuse only slightly soiled water for subsequent loads, and allowing water to sit for period where dirt and soils would settle towards the bottom. While many women in the 1960's to even the 1980's were well used to using semi-automatic washing machines, their daughters and grand-daughters wanted, for the most part nothing to do with such labour intensive wash days. However were circumstances demanded saving water and or energy, appliance makers came up with "suds-saving" washers. These did away with moving laundry to different tubs to save, rather the water transferred instead. In a case of everything old is new again, many commercial laundries now have various "suds saving" systems where wash and or rinse water is diverted from going down drains, but instead flows to various tanks and or systems to be filtered (sometimes) and reused. Suds savers would go along way to helping persons who still wish to use good top loading washing machines with good water levels, still save water and energy. However many people today view resuse of wash and or rinse water as "gross", dirty and unsanitary. L. | ||
|
Post# 282563 , Reply# 14 5/30/2008 at 22:32 (5,802 days old) by bajaespuma (Connecticut) |
||
A Regional choice?
I have been interested in washing machines since very young, so I would always "check-out" the laundry areas of neighbors, cousins and friends houses. I have NEVER in my life seen a suds saver in person(no exaggeration). It might be that it's a regional preference and, at least in the greater NY metro area, no one in my constellation needed/wanted one. Also, obviously you would need a significant laundry area with a deep sink. When my grandmother switched from her wringer to a 1963 GE automatic she didn't opt for one even though she had a big clean basement with a huge sink. I think my Mother convinced her to forgo basement washing in favor of installing the machine in the kitchen to save her the schlepping. A wise choice IMHO. Consumer's Reports always denegrated them back in the day. I wonder what they would say about them now. I would use the suds saver feature to soak clothes which is something I do frequently. Seems to me it would be a good way to save some water if using a top loader was your preference. | ||
|
Post# 283791 , Reply# 15 6/7/2008 at 20:26 (5,794 days old) by neptunebob (Pittsburgh, PA) |
||
Actually, the suds saver was popular in my neighborhood and I think in suburban areas where people had basements with double wash tubs. Some people even had an insulated tub for the wash water. I think Whirlpool should bring the suds saver back, as in our area, we have been hit with unusually high sewer bills, and people would be able to keep their top loaders. Maybe people don't want to bother with the suds saving process but I think some people do "get it".
| ||
| Forum Index: |
| Other Forums: |
|
|
|
|
|
Comes to the Rescue!
