|
Thread Number: 90939
/ Tag: Modern Automatic Washers
60s-70s Laudromat with FL washers and Closed TL Maytags |
[Down to Last] |  |
| Post# 1154496 7/17/2022 at 01:29 (917 days old) by bradfordwhite (central U.S.) | ||
| ||
|
Post# 1154514 , Reply# 1 7/17/2022 at 10:18 (917 days old) by Chetlaham  (United States) |
||
 | ||
| Post# 1154520 , Reply# 2 7/17/2022 at 11:17 (917 days old) by qsd-dan (West) | ||
Drought is real.
The drought is manufactured. Only 10 percent of water usage is used by the public. 40% is used in agriculture and the other 50% percent is used for "environmental" purposes aka flushed out into the ocean. We haven't even began discussing Nestle or antiquated and wasteful flood irrigation. And that is just a start.
| ||
| Post# 1154539 , Reply# 3 7/17/2022 at 13:23 (917 days old) by rinso (Meridian Idaho) | ||
|
It looks like some of the coin-op laundry equipment shown here, may need a visit from Mister Repairman. | ||
|
Post# 1154541 , Reply# 4 7/17/2022 at 13:51 (917 days old) by ryner1988 (Indianapolis) |
||
@qsd-dan | ||
| Post# 1154548 , Reply# 5 7/17/2022 at 16:11 (917 days old) by bradfordwhite (central U.S.) | ||
|
| ||
|
Post# 1154551 , Reply# 6 7/17/2022 at 16:57 (917 days old) by Launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage) |
||
"I'd also challenge the blanket assumption that front loads always clean better when it comes to soiled diapers, shop rags and exceptionally muddy/greasy work clothes."
Challenge all you like, but it's a proven fact that h-axis washing machines will get all sorts of soiled laundry cleaner using less water per pound, and with causing less stress/damage than top loaders with central beaters. Industrial/commercial laundries long have used h-axis washers to process everything from hospital linen to diaper services, and results are spot on. Now what is achievable with a truly industrial washer that has far more changes of water than most domestic front loaders, is built to withstand use of stronger chemicals, has access to or can produce hot water at temps 140F to 180F, and is allowed to used enough water per pound to get job done, well that is another matter. Average domestic front loader is being nobbled by same laws/rules on energy conservation applied to top loaders, which is silly. H-axis washers already use less water per pound than top loaders so across board standards are stupid. Here is standard diaper service wash formula from 1950's (1) Five-minute cold rinse; (2) 10-minute soak in hot suds; (3) 10-minute soak in hot suds; (4) 10-minute soak in hot suds, with bleach; (5) five hot rinses with live steam; (6) six cold rinses, and a germicide solution is used in the third cold rinse; (7) water is extracted; (8) dried in tumblers under 125 pounds of live steam; (9) ready for folding and packing. Here are some standard modern wash formulas: www.uschemical.com/wp-content/upl... What industrial laundries have over domestic washers is ability to do far more changes of water (especially flush, wash and bleach cycles), which is what carries away muck. Back in day as part of "Normal" cycles front loaders always did a pre-wash. That's gone by wayside in most part though some machines have "Heavy soil" programs which incorporate a pre-wash. But in industrial setting even that pre-wash (or first wash cycle) would be proceeded by a "flush" cycle regardless. "We Don't Wash In Dirty Water" is the maxim for laundresses, laundries and and anyone else doing the job going back ages. No laundry will ever be cleaner than the water it has come out of, so if you don't flush or otherwise remove gross muck (via many changes of water for example), you're not going to get good results. Modern commercial laundries (including those that process diapers) deal with heavily soiled loads all the time. When it comes to diapers everything goes into machines as it comes out of bags, including solid waste. | ||
|
Post# 1154552 , Reply# 7 7/17/2022 at 17:01 (917 days old) by Launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage) |
||
|
Another thing
True commercial/industrial H-axis washers will not only do all of the above, but have cycle times < 40 minutes on average. My modern AEG-Lavamat washers allot nearly one hour for rinsing and final extraction alone.
Westinghouse knew and proved H-axis washers could cope with and remove heavy muck, soil and sand far better than top loaders. This was back in 1950's! | ||
| Post# 1154553 , Reply# 8 7/17/2022 at 17:20 (917 days old) by qsd-dan (West) | ||
|
80% of the water in California is used on agriculture | ||
|
Post# 1154554 , Reply# 9 7/17/2022 at 17:21 (917 days old) by DADoES (TX, U.S. of A.) |
||
 | ||
|
Post# 1154562 , Reply# 10 7/17/2022 at 19:11 (916 days old) by Launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage) |
||
|
In our area when water restrictions are in place (thank god not for some time now), supposedly inspectors visit laundromats to observe water level via glass door (front loaders). If it is above a certain point that can mean fines.
Quite honestly don't understand why any laundromat still would have top loaders. Unless owner has very cheap water and sewer rates it just doesn't make sense. As have said several times in past haven't seen top loaders in laundromats around here in one or more decades now. Even multi-family housing such as apartment buildings and dorms are getting rid of top loaders in favor of front. | ||
|
Post# 1154563 , Reply# 11 7/17/2022 at 19:12 (916 days old) by Chetlaham (United States) |
||
|
| ||
|
Post# 1154565 , Reply# 12 7/17/2022 at 19:58 (916 days old) by Launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage) |
||
|
There isn't a direct comparison because industrial/commercial laundries don't use top loading washers.
Their standards usually are costs measured in water use per pound of laundry. Usual range is 2.5 to 3.5 gallons of water per pound of laundry. See: www.milnor.com/technical-... There are ways to get those numbers down that just aren't available to domestic washing machines. Things like water reclamation, using rinse water from final cycles as for prewash or flush cycles. Batch/tunnel washers take things to a whole other level. www.milnor.com/videos/how... | ||
|
Post# 1154567 , Reply# 13 7/17/2022 at 20:21 (916 days old) by Chetlaham (United States) |
||
|
Right, but my thinking (albeit biased toward top loaders) is that those Maytags would do a better job with heavily soiled cloth than those Dexters on the basis there is more water to hold in suspension and then flush muck away. Not that the Dexters couldn't be made to wash heavy soils, but water usage would end up approaching the Maytags IMO.
| ||
|
Post# 1154569 , Reply# 14 7/17/2022 at 20:35 (916 days old) by DADoES (TX, U.S. of A.) |
||
|
| ||
|
Post# 1154578 , Reply# 15 7/17/2022 at 23:53 (916 days old) by Launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage) |
||
|
IIRC only Miele professional washers with dump valves (not pumps) have sluice options enabled.
This makes sense as you wouldn't want muck consisting of heavy soil, faeces, and whatever else one wanted removed to sit around in sump to contaminate successive changes of water. Most industrial/commercial washers don't have pumps anyway, but drain valves. OPL washers such as Miele "Little Giants" can go either way. In general terms "sluice" simply means to rinse. Those who cloth diaper "sluice" solid waste out (usually but not recommended) by dunking in toilet. Washer/extractors or just washers marketed also as "sluice" tend to have larger diameter holes in wash tub along with special programmed designed for the job. Mind you washers or washer/extractors long were used to "sluice" heavily contaminated/soiled linen. Just the operator of washer controlled cycles (or used early programming such as cards) to raise water level for first one or two pre rinse cycles. Machines naturally already had wash tubs with holes of diameter large enough to allow muck to pass. olshs.com.au/index.phpQUESTIONMA... Here is manual for Miele PW 6065 speaking about sluice "high" or "low" cycles. www.manualslib.com/manual... Note both sluice "high" and "low" cycles max load is about half of normal "Cottons" capacity, about 4.5 kilos. If anyone likes a good read: www.england.nhs.uk/wp-con... | ||
| Post# 1154585 , Reply# 16 7/18/2022 at 00:54 (916 days old) by bradfordwhite (central U.S.) | ||
|
#1 | ||
| Post# 1154586 , Reply# 17 7/18/2022 at 01:15 (916 days old) by Maytag85 (Sean A806) | ||
Reply #16 
“No more on the nuclear garbage”. You basically are contradicting yourself since you complain about natural gas coal etc when nuclear is clean and proven and has none of the drawbacks of fossil fuels etc. You have to realize the nuclear technology is improving and moving forward each day and they are currently are doing research and development on small modular reactors which basically are a very small nuclear reactor with a 300MW output and are more fail safe than your current nuclear reactor since the control rods are held up with gigantic electro-magnets/solenoids and if the power were to be cut to those solenoids, the control rods would just drop down preventing any meltdowns or disasters which is more fail safe than ANY nuclear reactor built within the last 50 or so years.
| ||
|
Post# 1154587 , Reply# 18 7/18/2022 at 01:20 (916 days old) by Launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage) |
||
|
Everything being said, generations of housewives and mothers washed cloth diapers in semi and fully automatic washing machines. This included everything from wringer washers to twin tubs to front or top loading machines. To best of my knowledge no one died, no major outbreaks of disease occurred, babies grew up into children and healthy adults.
As to what all those mothers washed those diapers with, that's a whole other conversation. | ||
| Post# 1154589 , Reply# 19 7/18/2022 at 01:58 (916 days old) by bradfordwhite (central U.S.) | ||
|
#17
NoBODY wants nuclear.
No one will waste $$$$$$$$$$$ and time building those dangerous behemoths. The waste is horrendous. The threats are not acceptable. Dumping billions of dollars into this is simply a scam at this point. Solar is here and along with Storage batteries will take over all power generation, and that's great. Clean, fast to build, and storage that assures brown-outs are history. And people actually want and have the panels.... on their homes. When was the last time you saw a nuclear reactor on a persons roof... or a coal burning electric generator in someone back yard? How about a natural gas burner in someone front yard? An oil refinery in a neighborhood park? Oil derricks in your neighbors yard? ---We bow our heads and thank the coal burning plants, nuclear plants, the wale oil burners, the fracking thats poisoning ground water, the leaking oil lines stretched millions of miles across numerous countries....they are history or soon will be. We are grateful for them being part of the trek forward. They served us when that's al we had. But moving forward is best. Those old ways just don't make sense anymore. Banks and investors won't waste $$ on those old ways anymore because why would they. Why should they? | ||
|
Post# 1154590 , Reply# 20 7/18/2022 at 06:56 (916 days old) by Chetlaham (United States) |
||
|
Wind and Solar- Just Look At Texas
Do you have any idea how much energy it takes to desalinate just one gallon of water? Heat a nation in the middle of winter or cool it in record heat? To refine raw materials? Run the internet? Drive wheels on a car and its AC?
I'll let you in on a secret. There isn't enough wind and solar on earth to do it, let alone the entire nation's grid would trip off line every time a car hit a pole. If you want a realistic example look at Texas. Daily news alerts about possible rolling blackouts, with forced power outages taking place several times a month. And that is with horribly inefficient quick start natural gas generators adding CO2 and NOx to the atmosphere. Sadly, the rest of the US is not far behind as every state faces potential rolling blackouts this summer if weather forecasts turn out as predicted. There is also a small chance of a major blackout spanning several states this summer. www.npr.org/2022/05/20/11... Keep in mind all this is taking place in 2022. Once every home and car becomes all electrical, forget about society surviving. | ||
|
Post# 1154594 , Reply# 21 7/18/2022 at 07:39 (916 days old) by suburbanmd (Maryland, USA) |
||
|
Reply #15 My Little Giant with a drain pump has the sluice programs enabled. The printed manual lists their capacity as "max 14.3 lbs (4.0 kg)", while cotton programs' capacity is listed as "max 14.3 lbs (6.5 kg)". So sluice capacity is same as cottons, or 61% of cottons, take your pick. | ||
|
Post# 1154597 , Reply# 22 7/18/2022 at 08:06 (916 days old) by Chetlaham (United States) |
||
|
Nobody Wants Nuclear
You're right. After having to deal with designs that did not have containment domes or melted down when cooling pumps failed, I do not not blame opponents.
However, when 300 million people begin experiencing daily blackouts with all government, businesses, infrastructure, institutions, ect adding gas and diesel generators to their buildings to contain the rioting, disease, foot shortages and economic instability arising from unreliable electricity- 300 million people will demand nuclear power with great fervor. When people realize modern generation 4 nuclear reactors are not capable of sustaining a run away reaction, melting down, producing weapons grade material, overheating, leaking, and will produce minimal waste with zero environmental pollution nuclear will become a no brainier. This will become the new normal, only to get worse: The cause: www.utilitydive.com/news/... CO2 is causing much hotter summers; while wind, solar and batteries in any amount simply can not provide any meaningful amount of power. It boils down to simple science and economics. | ||
| Post# 1154602 , Reply# 23 7/18/2022 at 10:45 (916 days old) by Maytag85 (Sean A806) | ||
|
Reply #19
Solar and wind help but couldn’t sustain the current population since the demand of electricity goes up and down and can’t make the wind turbines suddenly spin faster and the sun shine brighter to generate more power. Those who are against clean nuclear power simply are falling for what the oil companies and tycoons say since they do everything in their power to convince people nuclear is bad so they can sell more oil and such which means more $$$$ in their pockets. More people have died and have been displaced from the pollution from fossil fuel power plants than every nuclear disaster that’s happened and there’s only been about 5 or 6 through out history.
| ||
|
Post# 1154604 , Reply# 24 7/18/2022 at 12:48 (916 days old) by Chetlaham (United States) |
||
|
Its the Gas Industry If Anything
What people don't currently realize is when there isn't enough solar and wind, its tens of thousands of gas turbines that make up for it. Further, as coal, oil, and nuclear plants retire, natural gas is taking over for them.
Meaning that while 38% of all electricity comes from natural gas, coal 22%, 19% nuclear, 0.5% oil and 20% renewables, as other generating stations retire gas will rise to at least 80% of all electricity generation. Because solar and wind rarely match load and can become completely unavailable due to weather, at least 90% of all generations assets will have to be natural gas to cover for a worse case renewable shortage. Mass battery farms can at most can power the entire nation for hours, not days. Lastly, you need spinning reverses. Meaning physics will not let you run 90% of the grid on just solar, wind and batteries alone unless you simultaneously have tens of thousands of large spinning masses evenly distributed through out the grid. In simple terms we'll have to leave the rotor and stator of every current power plant in place, just without the prime mover. So half the coast of a nuclear/coal/gas plant will still need to be invested even if we went with 100% solar/wind/battery. This is because inverter based technology can not output sustained short circuit current, post disturbance dampening, and then the required surge output power to allow for stalled refrigeration compressor to trip their overloads once the fault is cleared. www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/fa... www.eia.gov/energyexplained/elec... So in the end nothing has or is changing in terms of CO2 emissions. Also gas is not without its reliability problems either. Most gas in the US is transported via only a handful of major pipelines. Failure of one pipeline can lead to gas shortages in very hot or cold weather. This is already a concern in New England. | ||
|
Post# 1154605 , Reply# 25 7/18/2022 at 13:19 (916 days old) by Chetlaham (United States) |
||
|
Why Electricity
If we were to go 100% carbon free, the only viable option would be to limit all combustion sources of energy.
That would have to be done at both the generator and consumer with all electric cars, buses, trains, heat pump furnaces, heat strips, electric dryers, electric water heaters, electric stoves and ranges, electric smelting, electric mining, electric manufacturing, and the like. NYC and California has already set the ball in motion banning natural gas in new homes and businesses. | ||
|
Post# 1160118 , Reply# 28 9/22/2022 at 07:01 (850 days old) by combo52 (50 Year Repair Tech Beltsville,Md) |
||
Future power supplies for the US and world
I think the US is on a good course, natural gas will continue to be used in homes especially in the colder parts of the country and natural gas will continue to be used in power plants to generate electricity.
As Vince states large power plants are a necessary part of the power grid. However solar rooftop can do a lot as can wind energy. I highly doubt a nuclear plant will ever be built at least in my lifetime in the United States it’s simply too expensive there’s no realistic way to get the cost down to be competitive with other sources. The other major way to solve energy problems is to continue to become more energy efficient in homes and businesses we have just scratched the surface of what can be done to make homes run with less energy, with very little trouble I am living in a home that uses half as much electricity as I did 20 years ago without giving up any comfort or convenience. My 42 solar panels on the roof also generate a little bit more power than I use on an annual basis. John | ||
| Post# 1160143 , Reply# 29 9/22/2022 at 13:53 (850 days old) by vacerator (Macomb, Michigan) | ||
|
Definately will John! We had a 20 hour power failure here in late August following storms. A few around have standby generators. One house has solar panels on the roof, and they had lights on the entire time, so the batteries must store power gathered during the day. Diversifying energy sources is best. | ||
| Post# 1160227 , Reply# 33 9/23/2022 at 14:47 (849 days old) by Maytag85 (Sean A806) | ||
|
Reply #28
“I highly doubt a nuclear plant will ever be built at least in my lifetime in the United States it’s simply too expensive there’s no realistic way to get the cost down to compete with other sources.”
I very politely beg to differ. The cost of building nuclear plants many years ago was expensive since most were large power plants built on many acres of land along with all the engineering along with research and development it took to build such plants but since small modular reactors are currently in the development process, we actually might see small nuclear power plants being built since it takes less space and money to build a small nuclear power plant as opposed to the large and clunky nuclear power plants of the past. This video pretty much explains what a small modular reactor is, I suggest you check it out since it has none on the drawl backs of nuclear power plants from the past. CLICK HERE TO GO TO Maytag85's LINK | ||
|
Post# 1160244 , Reply# 34 9/23/2022 at 18:19 (848 days old) by combo52 (50 Year Repair Tech Beltsville,Md) |
||
|
Reply #33 | ||
| Post# 1160248 , Reply# 35 9/23/2022 at 18:42 (848 days old) by Maytag85 (Sean A806) | ||
|
Reply #34
The cost hasn’t been figured out yet but will most certainly cost less to build than a full size nuclear power plant which costs a lot to build since there’s a lot of engineering as well as complexity in a larger nuclear power plant vs these small modular reactors that have everything contained in a single capsule essentially. The big difference between a traditional nuclear power plant vs small modular reactors is small modular reactors can be built in a factory while a traditional nuclear power plant has to have everything specifically designed for that particular plant and has very few interchangeable parts with other plants etc.
| ||
|
Post# 1160251 , Reply# 36 9/23/2022 at 19:59 (848 days old) by combo52 (50 Year Repair Tech Beltsville,Md) |
||
|
Reply #35 | ||
|
Post# 1160296 , Reply# 40 9/24/2022 at 08:40 (848 days old) by Adam-aussie-vac (Canberra ACT) |
||
What about front loaders | ||
| Post# 1160299 , Reply# 41 9/24/2022 at 11:19 (848 days old) by WindRivers (Wind River Range, WY) | ||
|
No, that doesn't figure. What doesn't figure? That trouble-prone TL Maytags aren't as profitable as water and power saving FLs? | ||
| Post# 1160307 , Reply# 42 9/24/2022 at 13:26 (848 days old) by vacerator (Macomb, Michigan) | ||
|
No, especially on the deep water wash cycle. I had one, and my sister has a newer type with knobs. If the load was unbalanced, it kept draining, and refilling with enough water to shift the load around. Those are old dependable care Maytags at the top of the page though. | ||
| Post# 1160372 , Reply# 46 9/25/2022 at 11:00 (847 days old) by WindRivers (Wind River Range, WY) | ||
|
California...most lawns are astroturf Astroturf? Isn't that grass made of petroleum products? They really know how to go green! | ||
|
Post# 1160406 , Reply# 49 9/25/2022 at 20:13 (846 days old) by luxflairguy (Wilmington NC) |
||
|
Am I confused? What the HELL does astro turf have to do with this? Just saying! | ||
|
Post# 1160419 , Reply# 51 9/25/2022 at 22:16 (846 days old) by combo52 (50 Year Repair Tech Beltsville,Md) |
||
|
Commercial washer operating costs
Hi Jeff, a commercial Maytag dependable care washer as pictured would use over twice as much water and probably three times as much electricity to operate per load and approximately three times as much hot water if sat on the pot wash assuming all rinses are cold which they normally are.
A commercial quality frontload washer like the Dexters or a current Speed Queen will outlast two or three top loading washers as well. If I was the laundromat owner and water cost or energy Costs were hi I would definitely try to get rid of the top loading washers. Everything in life has trade-offs Astroturf is probably not much of a problem number one very few homes in California use Astroturf, and compared to the amount of gasoline and oil to run lawn cutting equipment the Astroturf probably use more ecological pretty quickly to say nothing of water Fertilizer and additional human labor etc. John L John Al | ||
| Forum Index: |
| Other Forums: |
|
|
|
|
|
Comes to the Rescue!
;){kind=link}
;){kind=link}