|
Thread Number: 50379
Spin Drain vs Neutral Drain |
[Down to Last] |  |
| Post# 726062 1/8/2014 at 09:05 (3,759 days old) by ken (NYS) | ||
I almost posted this in the recent thread started by jkbff (Joshua) asking for TL suggestions but then decided it may be better to start a new thread rather than hijacking the other.
Been giving some serious thought to buying a SQ TL myself after seeing the recent discussion here about them still being a straight forward "old school" design. Thought I should get one before they go the way of electronics. From YT vids I see SQ uses a spin drain. Would have to believe this places much more load on the machine as a whole but most importantly the mechanical system as opposed to a neutral drain machine? Ive seen debate concerning spin drain vs neurtal drain as to which leaves clothes cleaner. And comments that some neutral drain machines leave a ring around the tub and develop an odor. I have to say our 2003 GE, which is a neutral drain, doesnt leave the clothes dirty. It doesnt have a dirt ring around the tub or any funky odors. I saw a YT vid of a late 60s GE's that did a spin drain. So I assume somewhere along the line GE changed to neutral drain. IIRC most vids Ive seen of many different brands of 50s-60s washers used spin drain. I guess the manufacturer takes this into consideration when building the machine and all should be okay? | ||
|
Post# 726064 , Reply# 1 1/8/2014 at 09:10 (3,759 days old) by Kenmore71  (Minneapolis, MN) |
||
 | ||
| Post# 726065 , Reply# 2 1/8/2014 at 09:12 (3,759 days old) by ken (NYS) | ||
|
| ||
|
Post# 726072 , Reply# 3 1/8/2014 at 09:27 (3,759 days old) by Yogitunes (New Jersey) |
||
theres pros and cons to each design, as with anything.......
for my own machines with neutral drain, never seen an issue, we are the exception to the rule, so take us out of the equation.....but watch others.....for instance, I have SIL, who washes the world in COLD water only, to her the clothes come out clean, and doesn't seem to be a ring in a neutral drain machine, but once a year I have to open the machine, and clean the scum ring build up around the inner and outter tub, plus scrub the heck out of the splash shield......of which HOT water makes is all melt away... then again, I have a brother who's a mechanic, and washes his greasy work clothes(hot water) in a Maytag spin drain, and it leaves a grimy film all over the entire machine... so it can happen to any given type of machine.....I think what works best for any machine, is proper temp and wash time, and enough detergent to hold the dirt in suspension until it can be drained and rinsed away....so throwing a monkey wrench into any one of these variables can start to show a build up over time if continued... | ||
| Post# 726073 , Reply# 4 1/8/2014 at 09:28 (3,759 days old) by golittlesport (California) | ||
 | ||
| Post# 726080 , Reply# 6 1/8/2014 at 09:54 (3,759 days old) by dnastrau (Lords Valley, PA) | ||
|
GE FF = spin drain We had an early '90s GE Filter Flo that did a spin drain. They must have stayed with this at least until they totally redesigned their washers around 1995 or so. | ||
|
Post# 726118 , Reply# 7 1/8/2014 at 11:52 (3,759 days old) by mattywashboy (Perth, Western Australia) |
||
There is a Sharp machine made in Malaysia that still appears to spin drain. I have not seen a video but from their advertising material it seems that way. They advertise a "Hole-less Drum" designed to save water. Take a look....
Also, for the Australian market, Speed Queen eliminated the spin drain from their domestic machines. Not quite sure why as the commercial machines in the laundromats all still spin drain. The Speed Queen we have at work does not spin drain but it sure empties the tub fast!, such a powerful pump! CLICK HERE TO GO TO mattywashboy's LINK | ||
|
Post# 726123 , Reply# 8 1/8/2014 at 12:29 (3,759 days old) by mattywashboy (Perth, Western Australia) |
||
|
| ||
|
Post# 726135 , Reply# 9 1/8/2014 at 13:41 (3,759 days old) by rp2813 (Sannazay) |
||
Where Is That Eye-Roll Button When You Need It? | ||
| Post# 726151 , Reply# 11 1/8/2014 at 15:01 (3,759 days old) by thefixer () | ||
|
A simple timer swap would not do it. Most likely, in addition to a different timer, they would be using an electric pump or a major design change in the drivetrain. | ||
|
Post# 726166 , Reply# 12 1/8/2014 at 16:00 (3,759 days old) by mayfan69 (Brisbane Queensland Australia) |
||
Australian SQ's
Hi Jeff
Yes, Australian SQ's for domestic use have electric pumps and have done this for probably 20+ years now. The timer is different with the added electric pump. Dependable Care Maytags from 1994 onwards for the Australian market also had electric pumps fitted with a different timer. Cheers Leon | ||
|
Post# 726172 , Reply# 13 1/8/2014 at 16:17 (3,759 days old) by Kenmore71 (Minneapolis, MN) |
||
|
| ||
| Post# 726173 , Reply# 14 1/8/2014 at 16:20 (3,759 days old) by JeffG () | ||
|
Thanks for the info. Do you know if Alliance kept provisions for an added pump (mounts, blank terminals etc) in US models? If so it sounds like an easy project. | ||
|
Post# 726177 , Reply# 15 1/8/2014 at 16:42 (3,759 days old) by mayfan69 (Brisbane Queensland Australia) |
||
|
Specific reasons.....
@ Mark: from what i can gather, the reason both companies went to neutral drains was for complaints regarding linting. You have to remember that the vast majority of Australians hang their washing on a clothes line and don't use big dryers like you do, so any lint will always show up once the clothes are dried. Whereas, when our US and Canandian cousins wash their clothes, they mostly immediatly put it in the dryer.
I do have a Kleenmaid service bulletin (which Speed Queen were branded as here in Oz for many years) which does mention this and SQ Australia provided serviceman with a conversion kit for existing spin-drain SQ's to convert them to neutral drain machines. I will have to dig it out and see what it entails. Jeff, i'll need to find the wiring diagram for my AWN 552 SQ and maybe email it to you. Cheers Leon | ||
| Post# 726182 , Reply# 16 1/8/2014 at 16:51 (3,759 days old) by DigAPony () | ||
|
That's very curious about Australian Speed Queens That is because the Coriolis deflection force causes water to drain backwards south of the equator. So rather than redesign washers for the southern hemisphere Speed Queen retrofitted them to a neutral drain... | ||
|
Post# 726650 , Reply# 17 1/10/2014 at 08:28 (3,757 days old) by chetlaham (United States) |
||
wiring diagram for my AWN 552 SQ  Send me one to, Im dying to know how an electric pump washer works! Ive noticed it to, most top loads outside of the US made within the US and else where are all neutral drain.
Coriolis effect, might be a reason. however, just to note Ive seen older GEs spin counter clockwise while other spin drain washers spin clock wise like speed queen. | ||
|
Post# 726657 , Reply# 18 1/10/2014 at 09:35 (3,757 days old) by Unimatic1140 (Minneapolis) |
||
Hi guys, I've been quiet on this subject for a while, but I throw in my opinion on all this. The reason I should give my opinion on this is because I've skimmed many a threads where this has been discussed and I see a lot of "information" given out that I've rolled my eyes at. The reason for that is because I actually HAVE all different kinds of these machines currently hooked up in my basement and use them. My experience with this is current and I'm not talking through memories or what I've heard somewhere.
Here are some things I've seen claimed: Claim #1: "Neutral drain is superior because a perforated-tub spin drain will leave specs and lint all over the clothes, due to the water re-sloshing back over the top of the tub during spin-drain process." Well I have both a Maytag 806 and a perforated-tub GE Filter-Flo hooked up that I use all the time. I never, ever remember seeing any residual lint or other schmootz left on the clothes and believe me I do look for stuff like that. If that was truly the case Consumer Reports would have said something about that and wouldn't have rated spin-drain machines so high over the years. I've been using these machines for years and have no evidence of this happening, ever. Claim #2: Neutral drain is like straining through a filter. Well it sort of is, but any good neutral drain washer will have a quick spray rinse to alleviate this issue. I have a belt-drive, neutral drain Lady Kenmore and I also never remember seeing anything of substantial left on the clothes. I've also used DD Whirlpool design washers and again it seems to be a none issue. Claim #3: Whirlpool went out of their way to create a neutral drain washer early on. Well I've seen no evidence of this in their early patents, while I might have missed that one, I have yet to find it. I spent quite a lot of time researching patents for the Patent of the Day. I believe the reason Whirlpool went for a neutral drain in the 1940's is their design was not conducive to a spin drain and would have put a major strain on it's system due to the way it was designed. My spin-drain machines wouldn't have lasted for 60 years if spin-draining was somewhat of a major strain, that's because they were designed to properly handle the extra strain. I do know that early on the DD was a spin-drain, but I had read somewhere that they had issues with leaks and that was the major reason for them returning to a neutral drain. I'll have to look for that document and post it, I know I have it somewhere. Claim #4: All manufacturers will go to a neutral-drain. I suspect this is a correct claim, but not because a neutral drain is superior in any way. I believe it is cheaper to design a neutral-drain machine because you do not have to consider the strain on the components and it necessary to have having a tighter, more expensive seal system to prevent leaks the top of the outer tub. Claim #5: Solid-tub washers leave residue on the clothes because a majority the water goes in towards the agitator first before it exits.That is true, I've see the water do this, yet at the same time I never have any issue with material left of on the clothing in any of my solid-tub machines, and I have many different designs in my collection. The overflow rinse gets rid of most if not all of the floating material. I do believe solid-tub washers are superior in rinsing, at least that has been my experience over the years. With non-recirculating solid tub washers, once the water and dirt is spun out of the tub, there is no way for it to ever come in contact with the clothes again in subsequent loads, even if it stays in the outer tub. Granted if you have heavy grit or sand in the clothes it's best to shake them out a bit, but that would be a non-issue in most households. On rare occasions when I do find a bit of left over, it always seems to be at the bottom of the tub and not on the clothes, it's easy to wipe away once the machine is unloaded. So to sum it up, my opinion on there really isn't much difference between neutral and spin drain, just spin drain IMO is more fun to watch! Of course that is the most important aspect of it all :-) | ||
|
Post# 726683 , Reply# 20 1/10/2014 at 12:13 (3,757 days old) by Kenmore71 (Minneapolis, MN) |
||
|
One minor thing I will add to Robert's comments and this is truly a "niche" issue. I have had a hell of time with my Maytag "perforated tub in a solid tub" AMP washer and sand. I foolishly washed some work clothes that had a fair amount of sand on them a while back and 10 loads later that dang thing still has sand in it! My two options at this point are to remove the inner perforated basket and clean it OR just wait it out. I think that ONLY the 1947 Unimatics and the Maytag AMPs used this perforated basket in a solid tub design.
| ||
|
Post# 726689 , Reply# 21 1/10/2014 at 12:35 (3,757 days old) by Unimatic1140 (Minneapolis) |
||
|
Yes I totally agree with Mark. From my experience the double tub design was flawed from the start. The only other US made machine that has that design is the Philco, but it is different in the fact that the liner only goes down the side of the tub and does not cover the bottom of the tub. This helps to prevent sand from getting trapped between the two tubs. I suspect that is why Frigidaire only made that design in 1947 and 1948, and changed it in 1949 to a single tub.
| ||
|
Post# 726709 , Reply# 23 1/10/2014 at 13:57 (3,757 days old) by Unimatic1140 (Minneapolis) |
||
|
Hi Dave, there is no "emergency drain" so to speak in solid tub washers. A few times I had machines need service with the tub full of water, but I have a hand pump that will drain the tub easily in about five minutes.
That said, many perforated tub washers will have the exact same issue, because they run the hose up and out near the top so just laying the hose down wont drain the machine. | ||
| Post# 726731 , Reply# 24 1/10/2014 at 15:49 (3,757 days old) by DigAPony () | ||
|
The coriolis effect has absolutely no discernable effect Just a small gag on my part, heh.. I was wondering when someone would notice and smack that one down... | ||
| Post# 726789 , Reply# 25 1/10/2014 at 19:24 (3,757 days old) by DirectDriveDave () | ||
|
Hose near the top with perforated tub Wow really? I wonder why they did that. | ||
| Post# 726894 , Reply# 27 1/11/2014 at 09:06 (3,756 days old) by thefixer () | ||
|
"On most machines, the drain is like 5 minutes" Neutral drain on Whirlpool DD's is 2 minutes. What machine has a 5 minute neutral drain? | ||
|
Post# 726906 , Reply# 28 1/11/2014 at 10:08 (3,756 days old) by Chetlaham (United States) |
||
|
Long neutral drains
From personal observation older whirlpools used to do 4 minute drain based on the cycle charts on the back of the machine. The water would usually be gone in about 1 minute 30 seconds, but the machine would just it there. Im guessing it was done around worst case senerio conditions?
Plasti tub GEs have a long drain period but never timed it. I do know the newer portables have a 6 minute drain time but I think that has to do more with the fact its draining into a sink. | ||
|
Post# 726915 , Reply# 29 1/11/2014 at 10:38 (3,756 days old) by Yogitunes (New Jersey) |
||
|
Whirlpools super capacity belt drive machines have a 4 minute drain, mainly because of the extra water...standard capacity only ran for 2 minutes...
some portables had a longer drain phase, only because of the chance of using the unicoupler which was a smaller hose, and taking longer to drain.... a lot of electronic machines gauged drain times based on the pressure switch resetting, and allowing enough time to drain the outter tub, and then kick into spin.....this saved the most time for when washing a small load.... | ||
| Post# 727018 , Reply# 30 1/11/2014 at 17:37 (3,756 days old) by mrb627 (Buford, GA) | ||
Whirlpool belt drive | ||
|
Post# 727024 , Reply# 31 1/11/2014 at 17:53 (3,756 days old) by DADoES (TX, U.S. of A.) |
||
 | ||
| Post# 727032 , Reply# 32 1/11/2014 at 18:28 (3,756 days old) by washman (o) | ||
|
Malcolm my mom's 80's era WP was a neutral drain and it had the bed-of-nails lint filter as opposed to the self cleaning (as her older Kennmore did). It took about 3-4 minutes to drain before the timer kicked the trans into spin. | ||
|
Post# 727034 , Reply# 33 1/11/2014 at 18:41 (3,756 days old) by Yogitunes (New Jersey) |
||
|
I have a 1985 Supreme large capacity......it has both the underbasket comb filter, and a bed of nails manual filter...and it drains in about 90 seconds, the rest is just wasted time....
the standard capacity just has a bed of nails manual filter, and roughly over a minute its empty... I always had standard capacities of the models from the 60's and 70's, and a variety of filters, they all seemed to just have a 2 minute drain... actually I was looking more at not which was better or preferred, but why each manufacturer picked the one that they did... | ||
| Post# 727083 , Reply# 35 1/11/2014 at 21:35 (3,756 days old) by beekeyknee (Columbia, MO) | ||
Fluid drive in a washing machine is kind of like an automatic transmission in a car. The rotors or turbine fins in the drive are close together with oil in the compartment. When one rotor spins the oil pushes against the other rotor and transfers the motion or energy w/o direct contact. The same principle applies in jet engines, electricity production and so forth. The differences are what substance is used to transfer the energy, such as air, water, transmission fluid (oil), burning jet fuel and steam. Magnetic drive and turbo-electric are other examples of non-direct energy transfer.
| ||
| Post# 727123 , Reply# 37 1/12/2014 at 04:03 (3,756 days old) by arbilab (Ft Worth TX (Ridglea)) | ||
When Maytag did spin drain (old days) only the belt took up the slack (so to speak) and it was readily replaceable. Whirlpools at the same time were neutral; if they weren't they would have needed new clutches every year or so (they didn't).
Fluid coupling was the most mechanically elegant, at the cost of an additional machined assembly. Maytag was the most economically elegant, did the job by slipping the cheapest part. I don't know how GE did it (someone here does). I also don't know exactly what was inside the original Westinghouse gearbox, besides a planetary gearset. The later Ws were pretty ingenious, with roughly a 2:1 startup ratio provided only by the belt and sliding sheave, inexpensive and easily replaced parts. Both W models were 'neutral' though tumble speed continued during drain. No idea what Bendix did. Or how Easy accelerated its spin basket. I know how Panasonic did in their twintub, a direct drive 1800RPM motor designed to limit its own startup current. As today's HE airconditioners do with their fan motors. | ||
|
Post# 727177 , Reply# 38 1/12/2014 at 11:17 (3,755 days old) by cleanteamofny ((Monroe, New York) |
||
Gravity plays a big roll!
Still both ways has pro and cons and achieving the ultimate goal of remove water from clothing. The thing I do not like about spin drain is that the wash is sitting in dirty water for close to 2 minuets before timer advances to drain. As for neutral drain, the water is immediately pumped out and with the motor vibration has a ultrasonic effect that helps keep the dirt in suspension which does not filter through clothing re-depositing.
The straining effect is more so in the spin drain motion because the heavy dirt particle is the last to leave the tub since the water is held in suspension for a long period of time before spinning is commence and then at the same time dirt getting trapped in the folds of fabric while being pushed up against the basket waiting for the spray rinse to dislodge these particles. Take a step back and look at the theory and then make judgment on who comes out on top! | ||
|
Post# 727182 , Reply# 39 1/12/2014 at 11:50 (3,755 days old) by chetlaham (United States) |
||
|
Frigdaire Unimatics | ||
| Post# 727244 , Reply# 40 1/12/2014 at 16:54 (3,755 days old) by DirectDriveDave () | ||
|
Not an expert on Unimatics But from what I have read, I don't think there was any clutch, it was all a (more or less) direct connection. | ||
|
Post# 727263 , Reply# 41 1/12/2014 at 17:54 (3,755 days old) by Unimatic1140 (Minneapolis) |
||
|
To reiterate what I was trying to say above, we hear a lot about theory and supposed problems associated with both types of draining. I hear that neutral-drain causes one set of issues and spin-drain causes another set of issues. The trouble with all that is I'm finding in real life applications, having these machines hooked-up side by side each other, they generally perform nearly the same by the end of the cycle. The end result is clean, particulate free clothing from both drain types and all of the things that are claimed to be an issue don't seem to actually show up, at least not in our machines. Believe me both Fred and I are very particular about everything being clean, the house, dishes, clothes and ourselves and we would notice right away if something is off, which it isn't. The only difference between the two is the amount of water left in the clothes simply due the difference in spin speed. Now I'm talking automatics 1967 and earlier, I've never used an Atlantis so it might have a linting issue, but that could be caused by many things and not necessarily a spin-drain.
It would be fun to come up with some test to see how the machines perform, but again if it take test cases to cause these issues that do not show themselves normally in real life applications, then at least in my book they really aren't issues after all. As for the Unimatic yes there is no clutch whatsoever, it is 100% direct drive, so it goes from 0 to 1140rpm in 30 seconds! Like everything that process has good and bad points. The bad is that on smaller loads revving up so fast has a tendency to throw the load out of balance and trip the unbalance switch, on the positive there is no waste of time and washload is properly spun in only 4 minutes and the wash-day drama is over-the-top {(pardon the pun :-)}. | ||
|
Post# 729929 , Reply# 43 1/23/2014 at 16:37 (3,744 days old) by DADoES (TX, U.S. of A.) |
||
Doe's anyone know if its possible to force an older belt drive WP/KM into spin drain?Spin-drain can be done by holding the water level switch at mid-position, or at reset if it's a variable control. Spin solenoid runs through the water level circuit and will energize only when the water level switch is in "reset/empty" mode. However, spin-drain will result in leaking through the mounting slots at top of the tub for the tub ring clips if the water kicks up that high. | ||
| Post# 729945 , Reply# 44 1/23/2014 at 18:10 (3,744 days old) by thefixer () | ||
|
"Spin-drain can be done by holding the water level switch at mid-position, or at reset" That won't work because the timer won't be closing it's contact for the spin solenoid until the drain period (2-4-5 minutes or whatever it is for belt drives) has ended. | ||
|
Post# 729966 , Reply# 45 1/23/2014 at 20:06 (3,744 days old) by DADoES (TX, U.S. of A.) |
||
|
| ||
|
Post# 729968 , Reply# 46 1/23/2014 at 20:21 (3,744 days old) by cleanteamofny ((Monroe, New York) |
||
|
| ||
| Post# 729976 , Reply# 47 1/23/2014 at 20:46 (3,744 days old) by thefixer () | ||
|
It cannot spin until the water level switch is in empty position and the 2 minute drain period has ended. Timer chart that I have for a belt drive shows a 2 minute drain period. | ||
| Post# 730035 , Reply# 48 1/24/2014 at 04:24 (3,743 days old) by mrb627 (Buford, GA) | ||
|
Water Level Switch | ||
|
Post# 730041 , Reply# 49 1/24/2014 at 05:18 (3,743 days old) by DADoES (TX, U.S. of A.) |
||
|
TheFixer, As I and others have explained, belt-drive Whirlpool and Kenmore washers can be tricked to do a spin-drain, but it is a manual, hands-on procedure. I did this many times on a 1962 Whirlpool. Procedure: 1) When the timer gets to a drain period, either after wash agitation or rinse agitation ... manually advance it to spin. 2a) If the water level switch has fixed positions, hold the knob between any two positions to force it to "reset." 2b) If the water level switch is variable, turn and hold the knob at the designated Reset position. 3) Voila! Spin-drain. Also as I said previously, leaking will probably occur if the water kicks up high enough. Surely on high water level, less likely on a small load ... medium loads depends on the circumstances. I stuck putty around the tub clip slots in an attempt to stop the leaking, which it worked for the most part but accelerated rusting of the tub clips since water routinely got up there when it normally doesn't. | ||
|
Post# 730076 , Reply# 51 1/24/2014 at 08:10 (3,743 days old) by DADoES (TX, U.S. of A.) |
||
|
If the water level switch is not manually held to reset, a belt-drive machine set to spin with a full load of water will remain in neutral drain until the water drains enough to reset the switch (like on a perm press cool down drain), then spin will start. When the swirling water kicks up high enough to trigger the switch again, it'll revert back to neutral drain until the water drops down, then back to spin. Spin --> neutral-drain --> spin --> neutral-drain --> spin will repeat until the remaining water no longer kicks up high enough during spin to trigger the pressure switch. | ||
| Post# 730095 , Reply# 53 1/24/2014 at 10:20 (3,743 days old) by LLMaytag (Southern California) | ||
Spin Drain vs Neutral Drain
I've always preferred spin drain, and I always thought that Maytag may have used it because at one time, it was perhaps a simpler design and appeared easy to implement with one motor. When the motor drives the belt in one direction the transmission agitates, and the pump does nothing, or at least doesn't pump water out. When the motor turns in the other direction, the transmission spins the tub, and the pump drains out the water. On the surface, that seems a simple design, perhaps easier to implement for a small tub, like the original Maytag automatics, and it lasted forever.
Like someone else mentioned, one thing I like about the spin drain is that the clothes are spread across a larger area of the tub during spin which I think provides better extraction and perhaps allows the spin-spray to have better results. Observing my SQ AWN432 and AWN542, it pumps the water out very quickly even as the tub is still picking up speed and I've never observed the water sloshing the top....I think it's pumped out too quickly. My 542 drains into a laundry tub/sink and when we ran it for the first time, water jetted out from the hose so quickly that it splashed all over the room! This tub has a special thingy on the corner with a hole intended for the insertion of the drain hose from the washer, but we had to put a section of PCV pipe of larger diameter over the hose which is held in place by the rubber fitting that came at the end of the washer hose. This PCV section hangs several inches short of the bottom of the tub so it controls the splash. Anyway, that SQ tub drains completely, less than a minute, even when I force the water level higher by holding the level sector down, {I still have to open it up and make the adjustment so I don't have to hold the selector down}. | ||
| Post# 730098 , Reply# 54 1/24/2014 at 10:30 (3,743 days old) by washman (o) | ||
|
I dig spin drain and my SQ is the first machine I owned that has it. I really get excited when I hear the 1/2 HP motor wind up and move the tub with authority. | ||
|
Post# 730334 , Reply# 56 1/25/2014 at 07:56 (3,742 days old) by chetlaham (United States) |
||
|
| ||
|
Post# 730336 , Reply# 57 1/25/2014 at 08:28 (3,742 days old) by DADoES (TX, U.S. of A.) |
||
|
| ||
|
Post# 730343 , Reply# 58 1/25/2014 at 09:29 (3,742 days old) by cleanteamofny ((Monroe, New York) |
||
|
| ||
|
Post# 730724 , Reply# 59 1/26/2014 at 16:20 (3,741 days old) by chetlaham (United States) |
||
|
Thanks! | ||
|
Post# 732388 , Reply# 61 2/1/2014 at 21:26 (3,735 days old) by DADoES (TX, U.S. of A.) |
||
|
| ||
| Forum Index: |
| Other Forums: |
|
|
|
|
|
Comes to the Rescue!
