|
Thread Number: 71039
/ Tag: Modern Automatic Washers
Con Rpts said what? |
[Down to Last] |  |
|
Post# 940437 , Reply# 2 5/26/2017 at 21:53 (2,519 days old) by wayupnorth  (On a lake between Bangor and Bar Harbor, Maine) |
||
 | ||
|
Post# 940444 , Reply# 3 5/26/2017 at 22:11 (2,519 days old) by Tomturbomatic (Beltsville, MD) |
||
|
CU reported some time ago that new HE machines were rougher on fabrics than vintage front loaders because they use so much less water. CU is drinking deeply of the KoolAid, itself made with too little water and it makes me more than suspicious of everything they publish. | ||
| Post# 940457 , Reply# 4 5/26/2017 at 23:26 (2,519 days old) by speedqueen (Metro-Detroit) | ||
I personally believe that CU is wrong and I think that all this water saving is more nonsense than not. Clothes rubbing has almost nothing to do with cleaning, the action of the detergent(enzymes and surfactants), and forcing water through the clothes is what gets clothes clean. FL machines get higher marks because of the fact that today's detergents are more like solvents than the ones of old because of the addition of enzymes. You could get the same effect by setting clothes in a wash tub for 2 hours because the long cycle time is only for the enzymes to work. If SQ were to take their TL machine and have a 30 min wash period consisting of 1 min agitation and a two minute soak alternating as to prevent clothes wear the performance would be far better in my estimate than any front loader and at a total cycle time of around 45 minutes it would beat or be on par with most FL machines quick cycle.
The action of an agitator is far more efficient at forcing water through clothes than tumbling which is why the 1950s FL machines which had comparable cycle times to TL machines, were considered by CU as poor in washing. | ||
|
Post# 940462 , Reply# 5 5/26/2017 at 23:43 (2,519 days old) by chetlaham (United States) |
||
I said it before
CU is a propaganda machine. The powers that be have deiced that 40 gallons of water per cycle is no longer going to happen, so they have to get everyone on board using what ever means possible.
Do I agree with that statement? No, because the fins at the bottom do the rubbing (and agitator itself). Even then, washers that touted water movement over rubbing against some part of the agitator like Maytag still got clothes very clean. | ||
|
Post# 940463 , Reply# 6 5/26/2017 at 23:44 (2,519 days old) by chetlaham (United States) |
||
|
@Speedqueen | ||
|
Post# 940475 , Reply# 7 5/27/2017 at 01:36 (2,519 days old) by tolivac (greenville nc) |
||
|
Iam also here on NOT believing the BS CU constantly prints in their rag-yes dropped my subscription to them years ago.CU is absolute NONESENSE!!!!And again they seem to want to take away your freedom of choice-many folks don't want water mizer machines rammed down their throats! | ||
|
Post# 940509 , Reply# 10 5/27/2017 at 10:15 (2,518 days old) by Logixx (Germany) |
||
Rolls_rapide | ||
|
Post# 940513 , Reply# 11 5/27/2017 at 10:40 (2,518 days old) by chetlaham (United States) |
||
|
Wear and tear | ||
|
Post# 940540 , Reply# 14 5/27/2017 at 16:51 (2,518 days old) by logixx (Germany) |
||
|
Oh, I was talking about their domestic washers. Their capacity is also over-rated at 8 kilos, yet they still get the job done fairly quickly.
CLICK HERE TO GO TO logixx's LINK | ||
| Post# 940561 , Reply# 15 5/27/2017 at 19:34 (2,518 days old) by mark_wpduet (Lexington KY) | ||
A LOONG time ago
around 2005 when I got my Duet FL washer - there was a discussion on this. We were are talking about different things we noticed with our "then new" FL washers compared to the TL washers we were used to - one of the things being dryer lint.. We pretty much all agreed that there was less lint on the dryer screen. I'd say maybe 30 to 40 % less than when I was using my Whirlpool TL washer from around 2002. I'm just scratching my head at this - because if these new low water machines are causing clothes to wear out more quickly, I'd assume there would be a crap load more lint on the dryer screen - NO?
| ||
|
Post# 940571 , Reply# 16 5/27/2017 at 20:38 (2,518 days old) by petek (Ontari ari ari O ) |
||
 | ||
|
Post# 940622 , Reply# 18 5/28/2017 at 07:07 (2,517 days old) by logixx (Germany) |
||
|
| ||
| Post# 940647 , Reply# 20 5/28/2017 at 11:52 (2,517 days old) by mark_wpduet (Lexington KY) | ||
|
@ washerdude
I think so too - I've never had an impeller top load machine, only the traditional TL of the past and newer FL washers - and there is definitely less lint on the dryer screen than with the traditional TL washer. I will say that over the going on 13 yrs of owning this FL machine, I have ended up with a few random mystery holes in T shirts (not many) But if I'm doing a small colored load, I've been known to throw a pair of jeans in there with them so the zipper could have done it. It's pretty rare overall for me too see a hole in any clothing so I've not given it much thought.
| ||
| Post# 940654 , Reply# 22 5/28/2017 at 13:06 (2,517 days old) by Rolls_rapide (.) | ||
|
@Jerrod6 Are you using liquid detergents? | ||
| Post# 940773 , Reply# 23 5/29/2017 at 08:46 (2,516 days old) by jerrod6 (Southeastern Pennsylvania) | ||
|
Rolls I was using Persil Megaperls for whites and Megaperls for colors and once in a while alternating those with Miele for whites and Miele for colors. All of these are powders. All of the Miele powders except the one for sensitive skin have been removed from the USA web site so maybe I won't be using them anymore. | ||
|
Post# 940787 , Reply# 25 5/29/2017 at 11:39 (2,516 days old) by Tomturbomatic (Beltsville, MD) |
||
|
What is even more galling is that with this limited water use, they are still advocating cold water washing. | ||
| Post# 940799 , Reply# 26 5/29/2017 at 14:11 (2,516 days old) by jerrod6 (Southeastern Pennsylvania) | ||
|
My oily gunk is not in the washer. It is in the sump pump attached to the laundry sink and the water drains in the basement floor. | ||
| Post# 940809 , Reply# 27 5/29/2017 at 15:22 (2,516 days old) by Rolls_rapide (.) | ||
|
Yes, but could the oily gunk be derived of fabric conditioners? | ||
| Post# 940830 , Reply# 28 5/29/2017 at 17:59 (2,516 days old) by jerrod6 (Southeastern Pennsylvania) | ||
|
That could be. I don't know the exact ingredient origin of any detergents or fabric softener. Softeners used to contain animal fat but I don't know what replaced that unless it is silicone. If it is due to softeners I need to find out what is in Comfort,Vernel,and Miele softeners because that's what I was using at that time. | ||
|
Post# 941070 , Reply# 32 5/30/2017 at 21:26 (2,515 days old) by cuffs054 (MONTICELLO, GA) |
||
|
Wow Warm, I must be heading for a real problem. Not only does the Tag use no water, but I'm approaching the age when I'll be peeing in my BVD's! Oh, the humanity! | ||
|
Post# 941843 , Reply# 34 6/5/2017 at 04:49 (2,510 days old) by mrboilwash (Munich,Germany) |
||
I think CU`s statment is as usual way too general, lacking the details. There have been water hogs out there which gave excellent results and others that didn`t. Same is true for the frugal washers with more "rubbing action".
But even if it was only propaganda it is still a given fact that some parts of the USA have been facing serious water shortages for a long time. I guess some here just don`t give a s**t whether there`s a single drop left in Colorado River for the Mexicans or not. Jerrod, my parents have a similar setup in the basement, a chamber with a pump where the washer is connected to because the sewer line is located above. My Mom is rather frugal with detergent but she loves her fabric softener in abundance. We need to clean out the chamber about once in a year because a lot of lint accumulates which the pump fails to pump out but there is no such thing as black oily slime. I believe your plumber didn`t know what he`s talking about. The phenomenon you describe sounds like you`re having a severe build up of a bio film from a mixture of bacteria, sebum and soil from clothes, detergents, lint and so on. This has in my opinion nothing to to whether the detergents are derived from petrochemicals or from natural fats and oils. I suspect the reason my Mom is not facing a similar problem is because she is doing boilwashes on a regular basis. I wonder if an occasional use of chlorine might solve your problem. Earthling, I think you are spot on when you say just because detergents and fabric softeners are made from fats and oils does not mean they *contain* the original fats anymore only that the fats were reacted with other chemicals to make the product. One thing I don`t agree with is that the cationic surfactants used as the main "active substance" in FS (those ester quats) are still derived from tallow, palm oil, coconut oil. However mineral oil as a raw material for FS and the resulting cationic surfactant DSDMAC has been fallen out of favour in the early 90s because of poor biodegradability and besides it had a much more pronounced negative effect on absorbance of fibers, but all kinds of natural oils are still used to produce the surfactants. | ||
| Post# 942687 , Reply# 35 6/9/2017 at 15:45 (2,505 days old) by UncleDave (California) | ||
Wether one is" running out of water" or not is wholly dependent on where you live.
We pay an awful lot for water in Southern California. We nearly depleted the Sierra system last year and were lucky to have the first wet season in a decade fill everything up. The water municipalities switched us over to the Colorado systems much harder water and its been a relief to go back to the softer water. UD | ||
| Forum Index: |
| Other Forums: |
|
|
|
|
|
Comes to the Rescue!
