|
Thread Number: 70686
/ Tag: Modern Automatic Washers
2018 Regulations |
[Down to Last] |  |
Post# 936512 5/5/2017 at 11:24 (2,540 days old) by chetlaham  (United States) |
||
 | ||
|
|
Post# 936514 , Reply# 1 5/5/2017 at 11:48 (2,540 days old) by combo52 (50 Year Repair Tech Beltsville,Md) |
||
 | ||
| Post# 936546 , Reply# 2 5/5/2017 at 13:42 (2,540 days old) by johnb300m (Chicago) | ||
No offense to the knowledgeable techs here, but I've been told all sorts of nonsense by techs in the past.
The best were the delivery/install techs who delivered and set up my new oven back in Dec. They were saying that they're not Home Depot employees, but GE employees, and that the majority of appliance deliveries are done by this GE logistics company. Apparently GE delivers 3/4 of all the appliances in America, no matter the brand, and no matter the retailer. They went on to say that the vast majority of GE and LG components are interchangeable and that they share engineering since GE owns a controlling stake in LG Appliances. They went further to say that GE owns everything, including the little recycling triangle seen on all sorts of plastics, because they invented it in their old plastics division. AND, that GE gets a royalty for every time that little triangle is used. Now....if any of you need me to conduct deep research into how that's all BS.....well............give me several weeks. LOL.
View Full Size
| ||
|
Post# 936547 , Reply# 3 5/5/2017 at 13:44 (2,540 days old) by chetlaham (United States) |
||
|
| ||
| Post# 936558 , Reply# 4 5/5/2017 at 14:28 (2,540 days old) by brucelucenta () | ||
|
Well, I have expected that for a while now. | ||
| Post# 936739 , Reply# 5 5/6/2017 at 09:07 (2,539 days old) by washman (o) | ||
|
Typical goobermint goobledegook nonsense. As usual | ||
| Post# 936743 , Reply# 6 5/6/2017 at 09:43 (2,539 days old) by golittlesport (California) | ||
 | ||
| Post# 936760 , Reply# 7 5/6/2017 at 11:44 (2,539 days old) by jerrod6 (Southeastern Pennsylvania) | ||
|
Our current government administration wants to gut the EPA by slashing their budget, in fact all the information regarding clean water and air, and climate change has been removed from the EPA web site, so perhaps there will be no new regulations in 2018. | ||
| Post# 936844 , Reply# 9 5/6/2017 at 19:25 (2,538 days old) by wishwash (Indiana) | ||
|
Maybe if restrictions ease up, more people will decide to take the efficient route if they feel it is their choice. | ||
|
Post# 936855 , Reply# 10 5/6/2017 at 21:16 (2,538 days old) by gansky1 (Omaha, The Home of the TV Dinner!) |
||
Per the published regulations, the energy and water use-factor numbers are going down as of Jan 2018.
www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text... It's a bit confusing, the Energy Star site lists different (current) standards for clothes washers. www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text... Given that the Energy Star program is on the president's "cut list" from the EPA budget, perhaps they've already given up and gone for a drink? e360.yale.edu/features/killing-en...
View Full Size
| ||
|
Post# 936879 , Reply# 11 5/6/2017 at 22:40 (2,538 days old) by Launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage) |
||
 | ||
|
Post# 936899 , Reply# 12 5/7/2017 at 00:35 (2,538 days old) by tolivac (greenville nc) |
||
|
I am FOR getting rid of these ridiculous regulations-its going too far.The Energy Star program is slated to be cut---GOOD RIDDANCE!!!!Lets preserve FREEDOM OF CHOICE in appliances,light bulbs,toilets,and so on. | ||
| Post# 936922 , Reply# 13 5/7/2017 at 06:12 (2,538 days old) by Wishwash (Indiana) | ||
|
While I do agree with you about freedom of choice, it's quite silly to shred the EPA. Saving energy has good reasons... | ||
|
Post# 936923 , Reply# 14 5/7/2017 at 06:15 (2,538 days old) by tolivac (greenville nc) |
||
|
I think the EPA has outlived its usefulness-time for it to go!It has KILLED more jobs in this country do to excessive regulations. | ||
|
Post# 936925 , Reply# 15 5/7/2017 at 06:16 (2,538 days old) by tolivac (greenville nc) |
||
|
The saving of energy should be YOUR choice NOT the gov'ts. | ||
| Post# 936952 , Reply# 17 5/7/2017 at 09:42 (2,538 days old) by washman (o) | ||
|
I like phosphates. | ||
| Post# 937007 , Reply# 19 5/7/2017 at 19:14 (2,537 days old) by speedqueen (Metro-Detroit) | ||
On DDT, 
The ban of DDT was the most egregious of all bans on chemicals. DDT was and is perfectly safe. Even if you can make a case that DDT may increase the chances of cancer, the chemicals that replaced it are far worse.
The only reason that DDT was banned was because some far-left busybody wrote a book in which the claim was that DDT caused the reduction and near extinction of Bald Eagles and Peregrine Falcons. The claim was that the chemical reduced the hardness and thickness of the birds eggshell and thus they broke. This is factually inaccurate and no study has been able to reproduce this finding. Rachel Carson's Silent Spring flew off the shelves and many protested to the government for a ban on the "dangerous chemical." The government not wanting to look like it was supporting big industry at expense of the national bird banned DDT. It was only after that actual research was done. To those who say that since DDT was banned that the population of the birds in question has come back, another ban was put in place at the same time, the ban on hunting large birds of prey. Also, DDT was developed in the 1940s but Eagle and Falcon populations had been falling since the 1910s. They say that "a lie gets around the world twice before the truth gets its shoes on." People tend to forget that before the community and state wide DDT spraying in the southern US during the 1950s malaria was not just a 3rd world problem, there were yearly epidemics here too. Not only does DDT kill mosquitoes, it also has a repelling ability. To summarize, a sensational story triumphed over sensibility and research. | ||
| Post# 937021 , Reply# 20 5/7/2017 at 20:46 (2,537 days old) by johnb300m (Chicago) | ||
|
Lead is a critical nutrient that humans need for brain development.
These people in Flint and elsewhere are idiots who just don't understand they're trying to run up nonsensical municipal costs, when their lead pipes are really a health benefit. And don't get me started on the banning of leaded gasoline! It was perfectly safe! How did we become the global superpower we are today with all that lead in the air? It's all a ruse. | ||
| Post# 937024 , Reply# 21 5/7/2017 at 21:08 (2,537 days old) by speedqueen (Metro-Detroit) | ||
|
Don't get me wrong, | ||
| Post# 937081 , Reply# 25 5/8/2017 at 08:19 (2,537 days old) by Iheartmaytag (Wichita, Kansas) | ||
Vacerator: One correction please | ||
| Post# 937082 , Reply# 26 5/8/2017 at 09:02 (2,537 days old) by speedqueen (Metro-Detroit) | ||
|
I respect your opinion but disagree,
Again, I am not defending lead.
*A rather famous professor for 40 years as part of his lectures drank a small amount of DDT and lived until the age of 84 and only died whilst climbing a mountain. *The Nine Mile canals had to be dredged because of PCBs or PolyChlorinatedBiphenals which are a proven carcinogen and tend to stay in the environment. DDT in studies has been inconclusive or only slightly higher a risk. Just about every chemical currently in use for even household uses such as most cleaning products show about the same results as being mostly inconclusive or possibly carcinogenic. *Metro Beach is still open with no threat from chemicals, I swam there last year. The real concern for some beach closures is all the Canada Goose droppings and seaweed causing high bacteria levels due to the general water current patterns causing it all to stay in the bay and accumulate. If you haven't heard of the park recently, it is due to the fact that Huron-Clinton Metroparks changed the name to "Lake St. Clair Metropark" a few years ago. | ||
| Post# 937106 , Reply# 28 5/8/2017 at 12:07 (2,537 days old) by johnb300m (Chicago) | ||
|
So.....once again, as with anything.....there's a NUANCED approach.
www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/42640... From that article it looks like DDT is generally safe for humans. But there's evidence of it doing considerable damage over time to ecosystems when used in overabundance in agriculture. So because humans suck at nuance, and seem to lean towards black and white solutions, it's probably too much to ask using DDT as a positive home pesticide to battle malaria-laced mosquitoes, bed bugs etc. Without it being used and abused, en mass, for agribusiness. And just because that professor was seemingly 'fine' eating DDT for 40 years. Does not mean it would NOT be damaging to others. We just celebrated my grandfather's 90th birthday. He has chain-smoked pipes since he was 16, and he's in practically perfect health. Does that mean that we should roll back smoking recommendations? Hey everyone! Smoking is safe! This guy is 90! "Lucky Strikes are your doctor's preferred cigarettes." I may be young, but I still remember life in the early 90s on the south side of Chicago when the air would just STINK in the summer. We used to also have ozone action days when it got really hot and smoggy. You can also boat/kayak in the Chicago river without coming down with some debilitating disease now. We don't have that anymore! Nor do we have the roaring, belching industry we used to have. But it's not like it's ALL gone. Many of the industries still in the area are still building things. Ford's Chicago plant is thriving. There's other smaller shops and manufacturers that have opened up over the years, as well as an ultra-green, massive, soap factory for the Method brand. Industry is still producing, but with cleaner methods and technologies. Except Koch Industries on the south side. They still do the bare minimum, or nothing at all. And people complain all the time about the dust and pollution from their coal dust piles and such. In general, increasing efficiency is a net benefit to everyone. That's the key, everyone. Are there areas of dispute? Sure, but I'd hope we're smart enough to work through it. Those who draw a line and refuse to move forward will be left behind. Bye. | ||
| Post# 937107 , Reply# 29 5/8/2017 at 12:10 (2,537 days old) by johnb300m (Chicago) | ||
|
Wow, and how many more times does it have to be said, that just because a machine is running for 2-3 hours, does NOT mean it's using more energy?
Such a simple, elementary misnomer. These machines are using more efficient, smaller motors, some with rare earth magnets that deliver much more power and torque for their size and consumption. Fine....you don't like the time-table. But many of these are using the same or less electricity than a 60 watt bulb. And doing far more work than putting out just a little light for your living room. | ||
| Post# 937112 , Reply# 30 5/8/2017 at 12:57 (2,537 days old) by johnb300m (Chicago) | ||
|
I'll just put this right here:
www.npr.org/2017/05/08/527214026/...
Google currently has the right to pump up to half a million gallons a day at no charge. Now the company is asking to triple that, to 1.5 million. That's close to half of the groundwater that Mount Pleasant Waterworks pumps daily from the same underground aquifer to help supply drinking water to more than 80,000 residents of the area. "It's raised the issue that these resources are not limitless," he said, "that we do need to manage them." | ||
| Post# 937117 , Reply# 31 5/8/2017 at 13:28 (2,537 days old) by jerrod6 (Southeastern Pennsylvania) | ||
|
You are young? I thought you sounded like you were in your 30s or 40s. Nothing wrong with that. | ||
| Post# 937136 , Reply# 32 5/8/2017 at 15:21 (2,537 days old) by johnb300m (Chicago) | ||
|
| ||
|
Post# 937193 , Reply# 34 5/8/2017 at 19:18 (2,536 days old) by chetlaham (United States) |
||
|
| ||
|
Post# 937276 , Reply# 36 5/9/2017 at 03:12 (2,536 days old) by chetlaham (United States) |
||
|
Taken into account by me :) And yes, I think we should use the EU system. But to be fair, I think part of the issue is that most US consumers do not care about how many kg should be loaded per cycle. Most users simply stuff their machines full and walk away. In fact machines that can hold more clothes sell better.
| ||
| Post# 937488 , Reply# 38 5/10/2017 at 08:36 (2,535 days old) by vacerator (Macomb, Michigan) | ||
|
Dioxin? is it safe? | ||
| Post# 937548 , Reply# 40 5/10/2017 at 18:02 (2,534 days old) by johnb300m (Chicago) | ||
|
| ||
| Post# 937584 , Reply# 42 5/10/2017 at 20:48 (2,534 days old) by johnb300m (Chicago) | ||
|
Paulo! | ||
|
Post# 937618 , Reply# 43 5/10/2017 at 21:44 (2,534 days old) by earthling177 (Boston, MA) |
||
|
Thanks, John!!! | ||
| Post# 937705 , Reply# 44 5/11/2017 at 08:18 (2,534 days old) by mayken4now (Panama City, Florida) | ||
Buy A Seed Queen | ||
|
Post# 938066 , Reply# 47 5/12/2017 at 17:46 (2,532 days old) by earthling177 (Boston, MA) |
||
|
Oh, and just so we don't forget, I believe it was even cited on this thread: who wants to bet the Department of Energy will even *be* there in 2018, given how many departments and regulations are being sent to the trash? And the EnergyStar "regulations" are *voluntary* to begin with? | ||
|
Post# 938231 , Reply# 48 5/13/2017 at 06:53 (2,532 days old) by Launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage) |
||
|
"And the EnergyStar "regulations" are *voluntary
Well yes, but federal government gives appliance manufactures a promised sum for being in the program. What is more by now many, many, many consumers look for those yellow labels/information when buying a new appliance.
Sure we here may want washing machines or dishwashers that use more water or whatever, but what does the average American consumer say? Would such appliances of old sell in enough numbers to justify production? | ||
|
Post# 938245 , Reply# 49 5/13/2017 at 08:29 (2,532 days old) by chetlaham (United States) |
||
|
I agree with the above, but also disagree as a lot is based on assumption.
First, yes, top loaders will be going away- but only because manufactures are compelling users to switch to front load via aversive conditioning. Lousy cleaning, cycle times equal to front loaders, tearing up clothes by agitating during the fill, rough impellers, lid locks, horrible rinsing, not being able to fill and load, ect, ect- all which will force users to switch to front load washers. In truth nothing stops manufactures from replicating the Maytag dual disk design, adding a recirculating pump to mimic resource saver rinsing, and DC breaking motor so the lid lock can be ditched, multi rinse and stain options... add a touch of longevity and top loaders will be very attractive once again. Second- I do not pre-treat stains. Often I do not even sort. High end Speed Queens come with soak, prewash, second and even 3rd rinse. If I only choose once rinse, I do not have to come back for softer- just add and walk away. Third- Many top load users are also busy folks. I am to; and my Speed Queen does not interfere. Forth- you mention baby sitting. This simply untrue. There is nothing my Top load Speed Queen does that necessitates me watching over it during the 30 minute cycle. | ||
| Post# 938341 , Reply# 51 5/13/2017 at 18:08 (2,531 days old) by jerrod6 (Southeastern Pennsylvania) | ||
|
No manufacturer is required to make a washer that meets or exceeds energy star requirements. They can make one that does not,they just won't get 100+ dollars back from the government for each machine. Right? Manufactures opt in to the program for the machines they produce. | ||
|
Post# 938406 , Reply# 55 5/14/2017 at 03:10 (2,531 days old) by foraloysius (Leeuwarden, Friesland, the Netherlands) |
||
My goodness, do I understand this well? On every Energy Star washer there is a 100+ dollar subsidy by the government? I mean commercial manufacturers of white goods take money from the government for every washer they bring on the market? How much money does that cost every year? Gives a whole new meaning to the word socialism! LOL
| ||
|
Post# 938425 , Reply# 56 5/14/2017 at 05:29 (2,531 days old) by chetlaham (United States) |
||
|
@Earthling177
"I do not think that manufacturers have been conditioning customers to frontloaders 'via aversive conditioning'. That is ludicrous in and of itself,..." Then tell me what reason a top loader has for agitating while its filling for a DEEP wash: If this is about thoroughly saturating the clothes why not engage the splutch and gently pulse the whole basket like a Fisher & Paykel (and other washers) while filling? You can not tell me Whirlpool did this by mistake... The only thing that agitation is doing is wearing down the clothes. When a user is going through clothes like tissues, of course they will be compelled to switch to something a lot gentler. "What you have been complaining about is a disparate set: lousy cleaning makes me laugh, because for decades now, people who have compared Euro-style FLs to North American TLs have complained about how badly TLs clean." Euro washers clean better than most American front loads. Built in heaters mixed with 40 years of matured detergents and technology produces better results compared to something still under development that often lacks a heater. "Rough impellers, long washing times (equivalent to FLs) etc are just the manufactures trying to replicate what is *easy* to do with a FL in a TL because American people are essentially under the impression that FL are evil incarnate." True- if purely talking about low water impellers. But what about deep fill agitator top loaders that now take their time in doing absolutely everything? The very, very slow fills, long pauses, slow drains... whats the point? All it does is take traditional deep fill agitator system (that used to take 25-30 minutes) and stretch it to over an hour / hour and half. When people find that their new traditional top loader shreds clothes and takes triple the time to do what their old washer they will be considering a FL- especially when the HE impeller still has a rough side. "Ask Maytag (now WP) *why* they stopped making the "dual disk" design. Or why WP stopped making the Calypso design. They were both good HE designs, but they do not replicate a traditional toploader, so anybody that is married to the traditional TL design will reject it." Calypso was far from good- it was a disaster in all regards. It tangled anything larger than a dish cloth, produced tremendous lint and cleaning varied. They also had service problems. I remember when they came out in Sears under Kenmore. The sales people were pushing them, and they had sales banners on them. Within months the sales people no longer uttered Calypso as the sales floor and back rooms were filling up with returns more than I have ever seen of any other appliance. People were willing to give HE a try- but Calypso was simply something that only look good on paper and only did well in a lab. Much like the first front loads in the US- they had problems today's machines do not. As for the Maytag dual disk you would be correct, I do not know why they stopped, but my limited use in one was positive. It was not bad, and with more evolution I think it would have become a very good design. "But you are not the majority of the population, most of which *have* stains to deal with. And if you have no stains to contend with, by all means, just run the "quick" or "short" cycle on the new HE designs, it will clean just as well as any traditional TL used to. Here's the deal: it takes *at least* 15 minutes for *current* enzymes to work at 140F to remove stains from clothes. It takes more than 30 minutes for the same enzymes to work at 110F. And most TL's, even the ones that *offer* a pre-wash cycle, usually mean manual prewash cycle -- you start it and have to come back to start the ordinary wash. Very few TLs had/have a dispenser to hold the wash detergent and actually do a prewash and automatically follow it with a wash cycle. Very few TL's had/have a wash cycle that will run for 15 minutes without wearing out the clothing." But there are deep water top loaders that did if one wanted to spend the money. As their are FLs which are very basic and do not offer prewash/soak/pretreat and machines that go all the way up to everything and then some. "As for babysitting, I will refer people to the recent post about a TL (I believe it to be a SQ) that is banging during spin. Also the many many posts here and elsewhere with people complaining about their TLs halting the cycle when they get unbalanced. Yes, I agree, you can't win: if you halt the cycle, people complain, if you let it bang people complain." Which is user error. If I decided to wash a single large pillow in a FL on high speed spin, would I not have problems? "So, here are *two* things a lot of new FLs can do automatically and unattended: they can rebalance the load if necessary and the vast majority of them can sense oversudsing and add one or more rinses. *Some* TLs (all HE with impellers) can do both. I doubt that your TL SQ can do that, and if it can, it will take longer than 30 minutes, because each deep rinse adds more than 10 minutes to the cycle." Both are user error. You can't fix the machine to fix the user. Sometimes its better the machine give signs forcing change then having a FL (or TL for that matter) spend more water and energy to pardon user ignorance. I have been using TLs forever, and I rarely if ever have it go off balance. In fact the rare occasions it has, has been my fault. Setting the water on high while washing a few items, washing pillows and bath mats of varying sizes (one large several smalls) that will never balance well in a FL. BTW, FL, by their very nature are more likely to go of balance as the clothes take the drum in even proportions during ramp up is sometimes more probability than anything else. So yes FL need such a feature- or in the case of some commercial FL: sit and take it. "And let's be honest here. Even people who has used the same brand of detergent for the past 40 years *will* at some point, given how often manufacturers change formulas, need to provide extra-rinses for the cycle(s) they overdosed until they learn the new dosage, and if you are not nearby "babysitting" or the machine can't do that automatically, then you have poorly rinsed clothes. Most people don't care or notice. Some people have skin condition(s) that make it necessary to pay attention to such things." Your basically admitting that FL use more water without consumer knowledge to pardon customer mistakes. I don't think that is good. Again, its better to know, and no, that does not take any babysitting. | ||
| Post# 938447 , Reply# 57 5/14/2017 at 07:49 (2,531 days old) by joeypete (Concord, NH) | ||
Well truth of the matter is TL washers are still the preferred washer type in the US. FL's have become very popular, but most people still prefer a TL. So really the manufacturers are just responding to demand, which is what it's all about anyway. Because of regulations of course they've had to modify their designs to comply...and I think they are doing a pretty good job considering. Granted TL washers are a hell of a lot more "quirky" than they used to be, but they sell so I'm glad they are keeping up with modifications to make consumers happy.
Our current president wants to do away with anything environmental so all of these efforts might soon be for nothing anyway. Be interesting to see how the manufacturers respond. | ||
|
Post# 938479 , Reply# 60 5/14/2017 at 11:19 (2,531 days old) by DADoES (TX, U.S. of A.) |
||
"Dual-disc" Maytag vs. Calypso I have both a Neptune TL ("dual-disc" Maytag) and a Calypso. The Calypso has been my daily-driver for almost 9 years and I find it to be superior of the two in several respects. Calypso rinses better. There's no way for anything to come out of a Calypso without having been thoroughly doused with detergent & rinse solution and mechanically tossed Neptune TLs are interesting for sure but have a trouble with being unable to consistently roll loads of light-weight fabrics and some types of bulky loads. Of course the typical consumer would have no clue of this problem due to inability to see through the locking lid. I've washed LARGE loads of typical cotton/synthetic casual "button-down" shirts that did not roll over even once through the entire wash period without my help. I watched from the start and let it go through the full wash period to see if *maybe* it'd eventually roll ... but no. The disc could not get sufficient grip on the load to roll it. I restarted the cycle and helped it along. Some loads may roll a few times then get "stuck" for some minutes and either not roll any further, or eventually start rolling again. Two days ago I ran a small fleece/microfiber blanket and a black cotton t-shirt. Warm water. I didn't watch the load from start but I checked it toward end of the wash period. The items were jiggling between the discs, not rolling at all, and there was a blob of undissolved STPP caught in the blanket. This would not have happened in the Calypso. The Calypso has *never* gone off-balance during spin. The Neptune TL often has trouble balancing/distributing. It aborts after four tries on the before-rinse spins and does a long drain instead. It refills and tumbles after four failed attempts on the final spin, does that twice if necessary, then beeps for help. The final spin is limited to 500 RPM if the tub impacts the cabinet during any distribution attempt. Terrible tangling of some types of loads impairs separation of the items during distribution attempts which contributes to balancing trouble. The Calypso's center dome avoids this problem. I have had items damaged in the Neptune TL. Never in the Calypso. Reference this video of a bulky-items load getting "stuck" in a Neptune TL (from 0:14 to 3:03). I have seen instances of a load getting stuck after several rolls and not "breaking-free" to roll more. | ||
|
Post# 938492 , Reply# 61 5/14/2017 at 12:34 (2,531 days old) by chetlaham (United States) |
||
|
Perhaps your experience was good with Calypso- and yes these do rinse things thoroughly via recircualtion- but a lot of customers did not seem to like them. Perhaps it might have been service issues more than performance. The Maytag dual disk was a good idea IMO- but was not given enough time to mature. The discs do not reverse for one thing. Spacing needed to be tweaked more.
In truth I am sure both designs were not given the time to mature- but IMO if either one had been advanced, I think they would have done a much better job than today's impellers. Bouncing, tumbling and showering is much better than an impeller scratching a heap of fabric. | ||
|
Post# 938495 , Reply# 62 5/14/2017 at 13:02 (2,531 days old) by foraloysius (Leeuwarden, Friesland, the Netherlands) |
||
|
| ||
|
Post# 938505 , Reply# 63 5/14/2017 at 13:52 (2,531 days old) by chetlaham (United States) |
||
|
Honest opinion...
I could be wrong, but here is my honest opinion based on facts: It would be much cheaper and much simpler for manufacturers to switch to front load only. Having only a few designs, perhaps one that covers a global market- is much cheaper and much simpler then having multiple very separate and very different designs (ie TL and FL). TL machines that are made to replicate FL will always be more complicated. And in general any top loader- even a deep fill- will always have more moving parts.
I know it sounds like I am knocking on top loads, but in truth with energy requirements becoming inevitable (look at Speed Queen), front loaders are highly preferred by manufactures. However that does not mean the market will go away if consumers demand them, but at the same time it would not surprise me if manufactures try and convert people over to FL in the coming decades. | ||
|
Post# 938513 , Reply# 64 5/14/2017 at 15:11 (2,531 days old) by DADoES (TX, U.S. of A.) |
||
|
IMO much of the consumer dislike for Calypsos is inability to adapt to using them properly and misunderstanding about how they work. I read reviews long ago on the now-gone Epinions from people who clearly had no clue, and have had a few discussions with people on other message boards. One woman said her service tech told her that Calypsos reuse the wash water for rinsing. That's silly and obviously wrong if one just *listens* to the water draining and filling frequently throughout the cycle. Another said she often had items that were dry at end of the cycle. I asked her to check some of the videos on YouTube and explain how that's possible with the constant recirculation shower and she couldn't explain it. Reversing Neptune TL's tumble would involve more complex engineering. They wash nicely when the load type is appropriate but are a dud on loads that don't work. Love my Calypso. | ||
|
Post# 938542 , Reply# 65 5/14/2017 at 18:52 (2,530 days old) by chetlaham (United States) |
||
|
Reversing Neptune | ||
|
Post# 938548 , Reply# 67 5/14/2017 at 19:26 (2,530 days old) by DADoES (TX, U.S. of A.) |
||
|
Neptune TL reversing & Calypso water level Neptune TL motor does reverse, for spin. It uses a dual-shaft drive, with a sort of torque spring clutch that spins in one direction vs. releases in the other direction to rotate the discs. Higher water level in the Calypso ... you're aware that the water level is always below the wash plate and the clothes are doused only by the recirculation spray (or the fresh water spray for some of the fills & rinses)? Raising the water level above the wash plate would cause a huge amount of splashing. Raising it higher but still below the wash plate would have no appreciable effect. Probably 85% of the water usage per cycle is for rinsing. | ||
| Forum Index: |
| Other Forums: |
|
|
|
|
|
Comes to the Rescue!
