Thread Number: 41676
Commercial Laundries/Laundromats & Water Use By Machine Type |
[Down to Last] |
Post# 614728   8/4/2012 at 19:49 (4,281 days old) by Launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
1    
Interesting report regarding water use by types of washing machine (top load, front loading by several weight classes), and suggest large front loading washers are more efficient than top loaders.
CLICK HERE TO GO TO Launderess's LINK |
|
Post# 614734 , Reply# 1   8/4/2012 at 20:32 (4,281 days old) by arbilab (Ft Worth TX (Ridglea))   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
1    
Danger Will Robinson. Link is to a PDF. Older systems (like mine) can lock up and require hard reset if the file is newer than the user's reader.
Much as with a broken dictaphone, 'it goes without saying' that a FL is more water efficient than a TL. My highly-dated 1998 FL manages wash and 4 1/2 rinses on 1/2 the water the Maytag TL before it managed wash and 1 1/2 rinses. (Half rinse = spray.) Frankly the Maytag scrubbed better, but even with complete fills it shortened the life of cottons at least 1/3 more than the FL does. And today's TLs don't do complete fills unless they're jiggered. Last time I looked, at least here (N TX), clothes are more expensive than water. Not that commercial laundries care about fabric life. But few of our AW users operate commercial laundries. JMO, eh? |
Post# 614736 , Reply# 2   8/4/2012 at 21:06 (4,281 days old) by Launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
|
Post# 614737 , Reply# 3   8/4/2012 at 21:08 (4,281 days old) by ronhic (Canberra, Australia)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
|
Post# 614741 , Reply# 4   8/4/2012 at 21:23 (4,281 days old) by Frigilux (The Minnesota Prairie)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
|
Post# 614745 , Reply# 5   8/4/2012 at 21:50 (4,281 days old) by arbilab (Ft Worth TX (Ridglea))   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
|