Thread Number: 74274  /  Tag: Modern Automatic Washers
Speed Queen if listening- Brastemp got it right
[Down to Last]

automaticwasher.org's exclusive eBay Watch:
scroll >>> for more items
Post# 980677   1/31/2018 at 04:58 by chetlaham (United States)        

chetlaham's profile picture
Been researching Mexican washers and I have to admit I like what I see. There is no reason why Speed Queen could not have incorporated a mechanical timer, splutch, tub break, and normal eco cycle with minimal electronics. 30 year old Brastemp:


4.bp.blogspot.com/-AmLGduhWAcQ/U5...


Machine fills via 6B (US machine would have a few extra contacts for temp section) until the pressure switch is satisfied closing into PR which energizes the motor control via 4B. The motor control cycles power between AM and VM each second achieving agitation by clockwise and counter clockwise of the motor. The motor control can be designed to provide any stroke necessary at near any speed. The PSC motor is very efficient- much more than the centrifugal start it replaces. 4B opens and then 4T closes activating the pump and shifter solenoid. The solenoid engages the clutch while simultaneously releasing the brake band around the drive tube drum. As the water pumps out the pressure switch resets closing RO. This is to assure the machine does not go into spin with a full tub of water as there is no clutch or belt to slip to take the strain off the motor. Once empty, 8B closes energizing VM directly putting the tub into spin.


It is possible to configure the control such that when 8B is closed, the back feed into terminal motor control VM activates a timer and relay which makes and breaks continuity between MR and BR/RR- a gradual spin ramp up sequence the lasts 1 to 2 minutes and then terminates allowing full uninterrupted spinning.


This ramp up sequence can reduce the risk off balance tub banging and be used on the start of the normal ECO to saturate clothes. On the start of the normal ECO bypass 2T can be closed allowing a 1 minute timed increment or a 2 or 3 minute increment(s) with a sub interval 8B. As the machine fills for the first minute or more, the motor control (or even timer if SI) pulse spins the motor. This saturates all the clothes and has them fall to the bottom. The timer advances out of the spin & wet increment into a 1 minute timed fill only to lead the timer out of the first- making sure that a condition of both 4B and 8B closed can not take place. The timer advances into a new increment where the Bypass opens and the machine is allowed to fill until the pressure switch is satisfied. The catch is that on the normal eco cycle a different pressure switch is used allowing only a 1/10 tub fill- for the other cycles it is shunted out.


The eco cycle continues like the others- and for rinsing a series of spay rinses is used.


It is possible that one could add a 3B or 3T terminal and another lead to the motor control that does slow speed agitation- good for delicates and the normal eco due to the reduced fill.


I think if Speed Queen had gone this route it would have been a win-win for everyone.




  View Full Size



Post# 980678 , Reply# 1   1/31/2018 at 05:00 by chetlaham (United States)        
And

chetlaham's profile picture
If power is cut and the lid is opened: The solenoid disengages letting the break band slow the tub to a halt. During agitation the band prevent the tub from turning allowing for better cleaning and roll over.



The rest takes care of itself.


Post# 980679 , Reply# 2   1/31/2018 at 05:08 by chetlaham (United States)        
Mechanism in action

chetlaham's profile picture





Post# 980681 , Reply# 3   1/31/2018 at 05:24 by chetlaham (United States)        
Ayoo- Alliance!

chetlaham's profile picture











Belt drive:







Post# 980682 , Reply# 4   1/31/2018 at 05:36 by chetlaham (United States)        
See it wash

chetlaham's profile picture
and the spray rinse starting at 9:42:







Post# 980683 , Reply# 5   1/31/2018 at 05:58 by DADoES (TX,†U.S. of A.)        

dadoes's profile picture

Brastemp is a part of Whirlpool, yes?† This is basically a VMW machine (world washer), yes?

The "belt drive" video in Reply 3 is an old-style WP belt-drive.


Post# 980685 , Reply# 6   1/31/2018 at 06:20 by chetlaham (United States)        

chetlaham's profile picture
Yup- right and correct. :) The difference is that they use use a splutch and brake band which allows for driving the agitator independently of the tub- no lid lock- and no indexing. Most of the timing is done via an electronical timer as well. Nothing fancy and no error codes.


The design may be Whirlpool's version here- but its not much different from the ones that existed in Asia decades prior. All of which dirve the agitator or impeller independently of the tub.


Post# 980686 , Reply# 7   1/31/2018 at 06:22 by chetlaham (United States)        

chetlaham's profile picture
*electromechanical- excuse auto correct lol.

Post# 980717 , Reply# 8   1/31/2018 at 10:40 by GusHerb (Chicago/NWI)        

Now that it's clearly proven VMW style machines can function like WE would want them to I wonder how hard it would be to hack one into doing so. Also begs the question, if it's not the design of the machine itself (which I always thought it was) then why won't they program them to work properly? Could it be with the intention to steer people toward more expensive front loaders?

Post# 980719 , Reply# 9   1/31/2018 at 10:58 by kb0nes (Burnsville, MN)        

kb0nes's profile picture
Not sure why "minimal" electronics are a good thing. Electronics could very well be more reliable then mechanical controls today. Electronic controls are much better today then several decades ago. And with cost cuts I'll wager that a mechanical timer is no where near as good as one made decades ago.

I'd never buy a machine today with a crude mechanical timer. We can do so much better today.


Post# 980730 , Reply# 10   1/31/2018 at 11:44 by chetlaham (United States)        

chetlaham's profile picture
I've always suspected thats intentional. If the powers that be want us to have FLs, then we will have FLs- what ever it takes.

Post# 980741 , Reply# 11   1/31/2018 at 13:17 by Jetcone (Schenectady-Calrods,Monitor Tops,Toroid Transformers)        
If I understand correctly

jetcone's profile picture
That machine is driven directly by the motor, no tranny and the agitate is driven by reversing the motor. THat spin sure looks a lot faster than a 550 WP. What do you mean by VMW???

Post# 980749 , Reply# 12   1/31/2018 at 13:45 by johnb300m (Chicago)        

johnb300m's profile picture
Jetcone you're absolutely right.
Electronics CAN be far more reliable than mechanical controls of yesteryear.
However....and in my own experience, companies just refuse to pay for better, more robust electrical components.


Post# 980754 , Reply# 13   1/31/2018 at 14:17 by Jetcone (Schenectady-Calrods,Monitor Tops,Toroid Transformers)        
This guy

jetcone's profile picture
Rebuilds the whole mechanism, wow those tub pullers are big! He talks a mile a minute I donít think i heard him breathe once !!!

Shaft seals can be a dog! They never last as long as face seals do.



CLICK HERE TO GO TO Jetcone's LINK


Post# 980823 , Reply# 14   2/1/2018 at 07:24 by combo52 (Beltsville,Md)        
WP VMW Washers

combo52's profile picture

Yes SQ could have built a new TL washer like this, BUT these have never been very durable washers, you name a part of these machines and it breaks in normal use far too soon.

 

WP has been selling these machines in various forms since the late 80s here in the US, GE now has their own version of it as well [ I have a GE in the shop now that I pulled off the recycle pile that is less than two years old that Jason put a motor in last weekend that is now working ] But when you look at the general design of these machines they are not very long lived.

 

Cool Video you posted Jon, it is always impressive to see how clever people are fixing things when you don't have much money but have more time to work on things.

 

I do take issue with the idea that lip seals are not as durable as face type seals in washing machines, if you look at the washer designs with the most durable bearings almost all of them use lip type seals, for example, all WP TL washers ever built, SQ TL washers the last 15+years and the old ST SQ Washers as well, all old WH FL washers, and all FL washers today.

 

John L.


Post# 980829 , Reply# 15   2/1/2018 at 07:58 by chetlaham (United States)        

chetlaham's profile picture
Well they are durable enough that Whirlpool is placing them in their full size washers.


SQ could design a heavy duty version of the drive train and keep the suspension like they have with the agitub.


Post# 980858 , Reply# 16   2/1/2018 at 12:34 by rp2813 (The Big Blue Bubble)        
"Speed Queen if listening . . ."

rp2813's profile picture

How could they not be, judging from the racket that machine makes?

 

It would just be another no-win situation for Alliance to move from a silent, ineffective swirler to something that cleans better but sounds like it's on its last legs -- which it seems to be right out of the box, based on John L's assessment.


Post# 980861 , Reply# 17   2/1/2018 at 12:56 by chetlaham (United States)        

chetlaham's profile picture
Well, the noise doesn't deter Whirlpool from their new Maytag which will most likely outsell SQ for a number of reasons. I think several members are forgetting that the so called VMW is in almost every new top load Whirlpool made washer today.

Post# 980864 , Reply# 18   2/1/2018 at 13:58 by johnb300m (Chicago)        

johnb300m's profile picture
Just because the parts on the VMW platform are on the flimsy side, doesn't mean that beefy parts in the same architecture could not be used to make it more durable and reliable.

Post# 980874 , Reply# 19   2/1/2018 at 16:09 by brisnat81 (Brisbane Australia)        

That's how all machines were made in AU from the early 80's until the end of manufacturing in 2003ish. (Excluding hoover which was from the early 90's onwards)

These machines had a Splutch with a planetary gearset to reduce the agitate speed and a brake band in the plutch to control spin.

There were no electronics at all, it was a substantial motor that reversed.

These machines would run for 10-15 years with only minor repairs. If you use quality components it can work and be reliable.


Post# 980883 , Reply# 20   2/1/2018 at 17:37 by johnb300m (Chicago)        

johnb300m's profile picture
That's fascinating Brisnat.
I had no idea other countries' older machines had reversing motors.
When did those start? I thought you needed more modern electronics to do that?
When did they get rid of the reciprocating transmissions like we used to have in the States up till just recently?



Post# 980886 , Reply# 21   2/1/2018 at 18:04 by cuffs054 (MONTICELLO, GA)        

What is that neat long thingy attached to cap?


Post# 980907 , Reply# 22   2/1/2018 at 20:52 by brisnat81 (Brisbane Australia)        

Hi John,

I've attached a previous post that Gizmo explains how it works. Scroll down to nearly the bottom.

We had the Reversing motor machines in the Simpson models by the mid 80's, with Hoover following in the early 90's with some models. Aside from F&P they were our three manufacturers left by that point.

Someone might be able to correct me, but I'm pretty sure they were single speed motors, for Gentle Agitate its just very very short sharp strokes with pauses. For gentle spin they did a sequence of Ramp ups and ramp downs.

This one is dirty, but its one of the last of the original non electronic design




The Japanese had reversing motor machines from the mid 70's with the GE Compact style machines, some of those had the Impeller other had the agitator.


CLICK HERE TO GO TO brisnat81's LINK


Post# 980927 , Reply# 23   2/2/2018 at 00:29 by chetlaham (United States)        

chetlaham's profile picture
I've been saying it for two months now but no one listens to me- the VMW design is absolutely nothing new. Its a copy from the Asian market 40 years ago, which latter spread around the world outside of America.


The VMW design is simpler, cheaper, more efficient, and easier to fix. You do not need electronics, just something that will cycle power between the two (out of three) motor leads.


Speed Queen could have copied this design while being old school and not having a single semiconductor in the machine.


Post# 980928 , Reply# 24   2/2/2018 at 01:07 by chetlaham (United States)        
Eco water level

chetlaham's profile picture
Posted before, but for SQ / the Archives:









Said rinse water level can become the wash water level.




Post# 980940 , Reply# 25   2/2/2018 at 07:10 by combo52 (Beltsville,Md)        
VMW Machines Are Easier To Fix

combo52's profile picture

Hi Chet, They could be but are not necessarily cheap or easy to fix.

 

The WP machines that I have the most experience with from the 80s onward pretty much total themselves as soon as the main seal goes, it literately costs as much as a new washer if you use new WP parts to fix them and even though the current 2010 and forward WP VMW machines are designed to be easier to fix the cost of parts is prohibitive and we are junking them every week.

 

The WP DD washers for example are actually still cost effective to put new transmissions in etc.

 

John L.


Post# 980943 , Reply# 26   2/2/2018 at 07:26 by chetlaham (United States)        

chetlaham's profile picture
I would agree. However with good seals a VMW SQ could last 25+ years without a problem. Once that goes, or the gear case, it would involve junking the machine much like today's transmission SQs (assuming the same suspension is kept which I think should be).

Post# 980965 , Reply# 27   2/2/2018 at 10:18 by Johnb300m (Chicago)        

johnb300m's profile picture
I believe you Chet.
And the guy from AU.
I learned something and didnít know the basic VMW architecture was around for so long.


Post# 980966 , Reply# 28   2/2/2018 at 10:21 by norgeway (mocksville n c )        
They will all go broke

If they depend on me to buy their garbage!Not as long as I can find a vintage machine!

Post# 980974 , Reply# 29   2/2/2018 at 11:00 by kb0nes (Burnsville, MN)        

kb0nes's profile picture
"Speed Queen could have copied this design while being old school and not having a single semiconductor in the machine."

But then you lose all the ability to ramp and brake the motor in a controlled fashion. I just don't seem to see the advantage of needlessly making a machine crude.

I find it an interesting paradox using the Internet to share views of the fear of semiconductors...


Post# 981024 , Reply# 30   2/2/2018 at 15:54 by Jetcone (Schenectady-Calrods,Monitor Tops,Toroid Transformers)        
So Phil

jetcone's profile picture
I thought that motor was electronically controlled,, its not?? That motor reverses on its own somehow??

That Simpson is the machine my cousin had in Cairns




Post# 981025 , Reply# 31   2/2/2018 at 16:12 by speedqueen (Harrison Twp, Michigan)        
Not so much a fear of semi-conductors,

speedqueen's profile picture
but a fear of cheaply made electronic controls. I think that it is quite apparent, with the number of board failures on modern machines vs the number of timer failures on slightly older machines, that while QUALITY electronics are more reliable than mechanical timers, the electronics made at a competitive price point to a quality timer are simply not. A fair quality mechanical timer is likely priced at around what the cheapest electronics cost, henceforth why timers lasted so long and why the replacement electronics on modern machines fail so soon. Even the electronics on TOL '80s and '90s machines were of better quality because they were not built to a price point.

Might I add to this with a reminder the average SQ customer did not want electronics at all cost. Also, electronics add no more features than timers could on TL machines, in fact I think that they are less flexible. You are stuck with the cycle programming and the options they gray out. Also, since when does everyone need 25 cycles of which there are only likely 4 real cycles backing them up with only minor changes changes to what the cycle lets you select. For example, I ask what is the difference on a TL washer with a separate full fill option between "Bulky" and "Heavy-Duty"?


Post# 981027 , Reply# 32   2/2/2018 at 16:26 by chetlaham (United States)        

chetlaham's profile picture
@Johnb: Thanks and no hard feelings :) Yup- its been around for a very long time- simple and elegant. And you aren't behind- I am learning a lot as well.




@Kb0nes:

"But then you lose all the ability to ramp and brake the motor in a controlled fashion. I just don't seem to see the advantage of needlessly making a machine crude."


You don't need that level of precision control in a VMW. A simple rotating drum and a rapid advance timer is enough do mimic an electronic triac or thyristor control. For agitation you simply cycle power to each motor lead for 1/4 of a second with 1/5 of a second pauses in between. Far simpler then an electronic inverter polluted with computer chips generating 3 sine waves 120 degrees apart.

As for braking that has nothing to do with the motor. The timer drops power to the spin direction lead, and then a few seconds latter the pump shuts off which also causes the solenoid to let go applying the brake band to the drum. Even if electronics were present in the machine, they still would not be responsible for breaking.





"I find it an interesting paradox using the Internet to share views of the fear of semiconductors..."



Semiconductors have their place- but in a clothes washer I'd rather pass. My computer doesn't throw error codes, and when (if) it does there are automatic software updates to fix those bugs.


Post# 981042 , Reply# 33   2/2/2018 at 18:45 by Stricklybojack (San Diego, CA)        

stricklybojack's profile picture
.
This link provides a component by component comparison of the build quality of th DD vs VMW machines.


CLICK HERE TO GO TO Stricklybojack's LINK


Post# 981044 , Reply# 34   2/2/2018 at 19:33 by kb0nes (Burnsville, MN)        
Jon, Jetcone

kb0nes's profile picture
"I thought that motor was electronically controlled,, its not?? That motor reverses on its own somehow??"

I was referring to the machine that was mentioned in reply #23 that didn't have the scourge of any semiconductors in it apparently. Not sure what that machine was but it seemed a silly way to design something today. Sounds like there is some contactor that just flips states and reverses the motor or something. Hope they picked a good one or those contacts will fail before any transistor would.

This would be a good choice for those that really fear electronics, alas some convenience might be lost. lol



  View Full Size
Post# 981080 , Reply# 35   2/3/2018 at 03:29 by chetlaham (United States)        

chetlaham's profile picture
Thats one way, or being less silly, a separate rotating disk or drum in the timer which rapidly cycles the two leads. Most washers did it that way before semiconductors came along. It worked well with no issue.




Forum Index:       Other Forums:                      



Comes to the Rescue!

The Discuss-o-Mat has stopped, buzzer is sounding!!!
If you would like to reply to this thread please log-in...

Discuss-O-MAT Log-In



New Members
Click Here To Sign Up.



                     


automaticwasher.org home
Discuss-o-Mat Forums
Vintage Brochures, Service and Owners Manuals
Fun Vintage Washer Ephemera
See It Wash!
Video Downloads
Audio Downloads
Picture of the Day
Patent of the Day
Photos of our Collections
The Old Aberdeen Farm
Vintage Service Manuals
Vintage washer/dryer/dishwasher to sell?
Technical/service questions?
Looking for Parts?
Website related questions?
Digital Millennium Copyright Act Policy
Our Privacy Policy