Thread Number: 3252
GE |
[Down to Last] |
Post# 82350   9/8/2005 at 22:02 (6,804 days old) by Kenmorepeter5 ()   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
I look of a picture about the GE front-load, how cylinder run about both revenue tumble action or non-revenue action? |
|
Post# 82613 , Reply# 1   9/9/2005 at 22:06 (6,803 days old) by kenmorepeter5 ()   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
Is GE Washer Combination run of the cylinder for one direction or two direction? |
Post# 82617 , Reply# 2   9/9/2005 at 22:33 (6,803 days old) by appnut (TX)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
|
Post# 82668 , Reply# 3   9/10/2005 at 11:43 (6,802 days old) by kenmorepeter5 ()   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
I'll go to the privater house to see the vintage washer machines to see GE combination by next 2 years. |
Post# 82750 , Reply# 5   9/11/2005 at 07:05 (6,802 days old) by kenmore1978 ()   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
I read about the system (complicated) WP devised for their combos to get around the Bendix patents, so how did GE do it? And for that matter Maytag, Easy, and Westinghouse? |
Post# 83263 , Reply# 7   9/14/2005 at 11:48 (6,798 days old) by PeterH770 (Marietta, GA)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
|
Post# 83368 , Reply# 10   9/14/2005 at 22:34 (6,798 days old) by tlee618 ()   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
Thanks Tom, boy Easy really did go all out trying to make a perfect combo. I guess it just wasn't meant to be. I wonder if they sold very many of them? Terry |
Post# 83398 , Reply# 11   9/15/2005 at 08:47 (6,798 days old) by Unimatic1140 (Minneapolis)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
Tom, you sure are correct when you said that the original Whirlpool combo had a tendency to walk during spin. Mine walks even with a reasonably balance load. About six months ago it walked enough to pull out the vent tube from the wall! After that I decided that is it and I installed two of those screw in foot cups and now it is much more stable and I can use it without worrying that it won’t be there when I get back.
|
Post# 83425 , Reply# 12   9/15/2005 at 13:46 (6,797 days old) by Jetcone (Schenectady-Home of Calrods,Monitor Tops,Toroid Transformers)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
It was designed to rock on the back two feet, there are three feet in the back, the outer two are on rockers. This was needed so that the balance mechanism could kick in. BUT my rear feet are seized due to years of leaking water and so the machine actually HOPS even with a very small load. So what John did was bring two of those Stove Anti-Tip devices and anchored the front two feet with them. Now it can rock again and engage the balance, it does this for about 2/3 the spin phase and by then the tub is so smooth it ramps right up to a whooping 400 RPM??[ Tom had posted that the later KM spin was reduced from 550 to 400. It looks fast.] NOW When i was at Mike's in the UK I observed something interesting. His friend brought a tabletop sized plastic twin tub washer to play with along with that Frigidaire Spinner. Both machines spun at 2000 RPM. Both machines could hold 6 and 9 pounds respectively and both machines had no balance system at all. AND at top speed both machines never moved!! I think the diameter of the tub is the crucial thing not the weight of the load. Roberts' ASKO spins at 1600 and hardly rocks! It has a small diameter tub unlike the Bendix or Kenmore tubs. |