|
Thread Number: 4779
gotta love the oasis |
[Down to Last] |  |
|
Post# 106441 , Reply# 1 1/28/2006 at 21:00 (6,654 days old) by sudsmaster  (SF Bay Area, California) |
||
 | ||
|
Post# 106456 , Reply# 3 1/28/2006 at 21:30 (6,653 days old) by appnut (TX) |
||
 | ||
|
Post# 106462 , Reply# 4 1/28/2006 at 21:46 (6,653 days old) by pulsator (Saint Joseph, MI) |
||
 | ||
|
Post# 106477 , Reply# 5 1/28/2006 at 23:06 (6,653 days old) by frigilux (The Minnesota Prairie) |
||
 | ||
|
Post# 106478 , Reply# 6 1/28/2006 at 23:08 (6,653 days old) by frigilux (The Minnesota Prairie) |
||
|
| ||
|
Post# 106479 , Reply# 7 1/28/2006 at 23:14 (6,653 days old) by frigilux (The Minnesota Prairie) |
||
|
| ||
| Post# 106533 , Reply# 9 1/29/2006 at 09:54 (6,653 days old) by peterh770 (Marietta, GA) | ||
 | ||
| Post# 106854 , Reply# 11 1/30/2006 at 17:34 (6,652 days old) by kenhe4t () | ||
|
well Yes it is much bigger than a duet. were talkin 3.8 vs 4.5 cuft. | ||
|
Post# 106858 , Reply# 12 1/30/2006 at 18:28 (6,652 days old) by goatfarmer (South Bend, home of Champions) |
||
 | ||
| Post# 106970 , Reply# 14 1/31/2006 at 07:50 (6,651 days old) by kenhe4t () | ||
|
thanks sacto!! your a big help, now thats the store where its been sited right. so ill tell ya what i find out. 
| ||
|
Post# 107025 , Reply# 17 1/31/2006 at 15:06 (6,651 days old) by foraloysius (Leeuwarden, Friesland, the Netherlands) |
||
Just for the record, the pictures came originally from THS, I saved them and put them in the other thread. If you want to read the thread on THS then click on the link. There are some more threads on THS in which the Oasis is mentioned. CLICK HERE TO GO TO foraloysius's LINK | ||
| Post# 107623 , Reply# 19 2/3/2006 at 17:58 (6,648 days old) by cvillewasherbo () | ||
|
New Oasis We've gotta get pics of this one in action! Went to sears.com today and nodda ting there. | ||
|
Post# 107646 , Reply# 20 2/3/2006 at 20:01 (6,648 days old) by launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage) |
||
 | ||
|
Post# 107659 , Reply# 21 2/3/2006 at 20:38 (6,648 days old) by frigilux (The Minnesota Prairie) |
||
|
Launderess, as much as I would drop my FL'er in a second if the Jet Cone came back onto the market, I'm afraid it'll never happen. There are probably energy efficiency issues and patent issues and all sorts of roadblocks like that. Plus, the Dual-Action agitators (at least the hyper-fast KM and WP's) sorta kinda mimic the "pull the clothes downward" action. Kinda. Sorta.
| ||
|
Post# 107815 , Reply# 22 2/4/2006 at 16:49 (6,647 days old) by launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage) |
||
|
Don't think Jet Cone washers are/were any less energy effcient than some of the current top loaders out there today. Here is how I would do it: Get the final spin speed back up to 1140 rpms. This would cut drying time thus save energy. Introduce a spray rinse feature similar to what Unimac twin tub washers have in place of a set deep rinse (make the deep rinses an option). Unimat twin tub washers have a unique spin/rinse basket where a fine spray of water comes from above and IIRC sides of tub while the tub spins at the proper rpm for optimal saturation of laundry. That is the water simply does not bounce off the laundry as it would during a high speed spin. After a period of "spraying" the water goes off and the unit hits high rpm spinning. This can be done one, two or as many times as needed and would still use less water than a deep rinse. To get really fancy, some sort of sensor could perhaps be fitted in to "see" when spin/rinse water is draining clear, thus signal the unit to continue with high speed spinning cycle. L. | ||
|
Post# 107818 , Reply# 23 2/4/2006 at 17:12 (6,647 days old) by sudsmaster (SF Bay Area, California) |
||
|
Even with spray rinses only, there would still be the problem of energy (and water) loss from having to heat 20+ gallons of water for the wash portion of the cycle. This is why no traditional top loader design will ever be very likely to see the light of day again, not even the wonderful GM Frigidaire pulsating agitator design. | ||
|
Post# 107828 , Reply# 24 2/4/2006 at 18:31 (6,647 days old) by launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage) |
||
|
What Exactly Are The Mandatory Standards | ||
|
Post# 107833 , Reply# 25 2/4/2006 at 19:10 (6,647 days old) by sudsmaster (SF Bay Area, California) |
||
|
Who said anything about mandatory standards?
As far as I know, there are no mandatory energy regulations for washing machines across the USA. That might change in the future, and California may lead the way. There is mandatory energy guide labeling of new washers sold in the USA. But this law only requires discolsure up front of the machine's energy consumption, it does not stipulate what that consumption must be. In some communities, especially in the arid Southwest, water conservation can be enough of an issue to warrant penalites for various types of conspicuous water consumption (like watering the lawn, or letting car wash water run into the gutter). But as far as I know, no local authorities as yet in the USA are invading laundry rooms to confiscate top loaders. CLICK HERE TO GO TO sudsmaster's LINK | ||
| Forum Index: |
| Other Forums: |
|
|
|
|
|
Comes to the Rescue!
