|
Home > Archive > Home Repair forum > February 2008 > Anyone playing with their Kill - A - Watt meter
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Anyone playing with their Kill - A - Watt meter
|
|
|
| How about doing a test on how much your computer is drawing.
I am guessing the hottest setup uses less than 200Watts most of the
time.
| |
| hallerb@aol.com 2008-02-08, 5:25 pm |
| On Feb 8, 3:37=EF=BF=BDpm, Terry <kilow...@charter.net> wrote:
> How about doing a test on how much your computer is drawing.
>
> I am guessing the hottest setup uses less than 200Watts most of the
> time.
in the winter the waste heat helps warm your home..........
| |
| Jim Redelfs 2008-02-08, 5:25 pm |
| In article
<2a0c8e12-983c-44a3-a5c5-1bb475da245e@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
"hallerb@aol.com" <hallerb@aol.com> wrote:
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
> in the winter the waste heat helps warm your home..........
Agreed.
I was amused to read the MagicJack thread where a couple of posters lamented
that it required leaving on the computer 24/7 - in this day and age of rising
utility costs! Horrors!
I haven't regularly shut down my computers for >15 years.
In my previous, electrically heated home, there were six, 100-watt
incandescent lamps illuminating the play room in the unfinished basement
directly beneath the living room upstairs.
I never chased after the kids, nagging them to turn off these lights EXCEPT
when it was COOLING season. The light bulbs made GREAT heaters (with some
incidental, "waste" light) that kept the living room floor nice and warm.
People that believe a running, but unused computer is particularly wasteful
can't see the forest for the trees. More than the equivalent power
consumption can be offset by removing one load of clothes from the dryer AS
SOON as they are dry rather than letting the machine's timer run to the end.
Hanging-out ONE load of laundry on a clothes line, rather than use a dryer,
will save more energy than is used by the idle running of a computer in its
lifetime.
--
JR
No project too small
All projects too big
| |
| hallerb@aol.com 2008-02-08, 8:25 pm |
| On Feb 8, 6:22=EF=BF=BDpm, Jim Redelfs <jim.rede...@NOSPAMredelfs.com> wrote=
:
> In article
> <2a0c8e12-983c-44a3-a5c5-1bb475da2...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> =EF=BF=BD"hall...@aol.com" <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Agreed.
>
> I was amused to read the MagicJack thread where a couple of posters lament=
ed
> that it required leaving on the computer 24/7 - in this day and age of ris=
ing
> utility costs! =EF=BF=BDHorrors!
>
> I haven't regularly shut down my computers for >15 years.
>
> In my previous, electrically heated home, there were six, 100-watt
> incandescent lamps illuminating the play room in the unfinished basement
> directly beneath the living room upstairs.
>
> I never chased after the kids, nagging them to turn off these lights EXCEP=
T
> when it was COOLING season. =EF=BF=BDThe light bulbs made GREAT heaters (w=
ith some
> incidental, "waste" light) that kept the living room floor nice and warm.
>
> People that believe a running, but unused computer is particularly wastefu=
l
> can't see the forest for the trees. =EF=BF=BDMore than the equivalent powe=
r
> consumption can be offset by removing one load of clothes from the dryer A=
S
> SOON as they are dry rather than letting the machine's timer run to the en=
d. =EF=BF=BD
> Hanging-out ONE load of laundry on a clothes line, rather than use a dryer=
,
> will save more energy than is used by the idle running of a computer in it=
s
> lifetime.
> --
> =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD
> JR
>
> No project too small
> All projects too big
another one is spending megabucks on a tankless water heater to
prevent standby losses, while all during the heating season the
standby losses help heat the home.
or spending thousands on a front load washer dryer pair......
the added cost of the unit, will never save money during the average
life of the machines. worse the machines are less reliable and cost
much more to repair
| |
|
| Jim Redelfs wrote:
<snip>
> Hanging-out ONE load of laundry on a clothes line, rather than use a dryer,
> will save more energy than is used by the idle running of a computer in its
> lifetime.
Not likely. A computer running 24/7 will use $100-$200 per year of
electricity. If one load of wash cost that much to dry, we'd have
heard about it.
--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
| |
|
| Terry wrote:
> How about doing a test on how much your computer is drawing.
>
> I am guessing the hottest setup uses less than 200Watts most of the
> time.
>
But who has only one any more?
--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
| |
| Jim Yanik 2008-02-08, 8:25 pm |
| Jim Redelfs <jim.redelfs@NOSPAMredelfs.com> wrote in
news:jim.redelfs-A9A9BA.17225808022008@news.phx.highwinds-media.com:
>
> I haven't regularly shut down my computers for >15 years.
I shut mine down nightly;electrolytic caps in the power supply and
motherboard eventually degrade,their ESRs rise and put more strain on the
PS until something fails.
also,the bearings in the cooling fans wear out.
This PC I'm using had the microprocessor fan load the PS to where it would
not start.
A surplus fan from Skycraft cured that for $8.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
| |
| Jim Yanik 2008-02-08, 8:25 pm |
| "hallerb@aol.com" <hallerb@aol.com> wrote in
news:64a32b51-b913-4320-a135-aa29df6cf5c9@q21g2000hsa.googlegroups.com:
>
> another one is spending megabucks on a tankless water heater to
> prevent standby losses, while all during the heating season the
> standby losses help heat the home.
That depends on where the water heater is located;if it's out in your
garage,it's NOT heating your house. ("megabucks"???)
and during the summer,if indoors,the tank-WH puts a higher load on the air
conditioning.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
| |
| hallerb@aol.com 2008-02-08, 8:25 pm |
| On Feb 8, 8:57=EF=BF=BDpm, Jim Yanik <jya...@abuse.gov> wrote:
> Jim Redelfs <jim.rede...@NOSPAMredelfs.com> wrote innews:jim.redelfs-A9A9B=
A.17225808022008@news.phx.highwinds-media.com:
>
>
>
>
> I shut mine down nightly;electrolytic caps in the power supply and
> motherboard eventually degrade,their ESRs rise and put more strain on the
> PS until something fails.
> also,the bearings in the cooling fans wear out.
> This PC I'm using had the microprocessor fan load the PS to where it would=
> not start.
> A surplus fan from Skycraft cured that for $8.
>
> --
> Jim Yanik
> jyanik
> at
> kua.net
frequent shutdowns lead to hard drive failures..........
| |
| Jim Yanik 2008-02-09, 3:25 am |
| "hallerb@aol.com" <hallerb@aol.com> wrote in
news:d2eb28b9-f72c-4f86-9b37-b06c9c260df3@y5g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
> On Feb 8, 8:57�pm, Jim Yanik <jya...@abuse.gov> wrote:
> A.17225808022008@news.phx.highwinds-media.com:
Have you HAD the same PC for 15 years?? No.
[color=darkred]
>
> frequent shutdowns lead to hard drive failures..........
>
define "frequent".
Hard drives wear out bearings,too.
and if your PC is "ON",any power loss harms the data on the HDs,damages the
disc surfaces when the head crashes on them.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
| |
| gfretwell@aol.com 2008-02-09, 3:25 am |
| On 9 Feb 2008 03:41:35 GMT, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:
>define "frequent".
>
>Hard drives wear out bearings,too.
>and if your PC is "ON",any power loss harms the data on the HDs,damages the
>disc surfaces when the head crashes on them.
IBM did a study on this many years ago when the 3.5" drives were
becoming the standard. They decided a power down/up cycle was worth
about 8 hours of running time based on available failure data.
Most hard drives fail because of electronics on the card or in the
enclosure. In fact when we had a lot of AS/400s that lost all the data
in the whole drive array when one drive failed, they made the drive
electronics card available as a service part and most drives came back
to life when we replaced it.
Heads don't really "crash" in PC drives, they land on the data surface
when you lose power and all drives since the late 80s autopark in the
landing zone as soon as you lose 5v, long before the drive actually
stops spinning. Way back in the olden days drives loaded and unloaded
the heads so they were not touchuing the disk when it stopped. They
also had hydraulic head actuators in those days and the drives were
the size of a washing machine.
| |
| George 2008-02-09, 1:25 pm |
| Jim Redelfs wrote:
> In article
> <2a0c8e12-983c-44a3-a5c5-1bb475da245e@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> "hallerb@aol.com" <hallerb@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Agreed.
>
> I was amused to read the MagicJack thread where a couple of posters lamented
> that it required leaving on the computer 24/7 - in this day and age of rising
> utility costs! Horrors!
>
> I haven't regularly shut down my computers for >15 years.
>
> In my previous, electrically heated home, there were six, 100-watt
> incandescent lamps illuminating the play room in the unfinished basement
> directly beneath the living room upstairs.
>
> I never chased after the kids, nagging them to turn off these lights EXCEPT
> when it was COOLING season. The light bulbs made GREAT heaters (with some
> incidental, "waste" light) that kept the living room floor nice and warm.
>
> People that believe a running, but unused computer is particularly wasteful
> can't see the forest for the trees. More than the equivalent power
> consumption can be offset by removing one load of clothes from the dryer AS
> SOON as they are dry rather than letting the machine's timer run to the end.
> Hanging-out ONE load of laundry on a clothes line, rather than use a dryer,
> will save more energy than is used by the idle running of a computer in its
> lifetime.
Actually some might think that people who suggest leaving things on is
OK for whatever reason can't see the forest for the trees. What if
someone removed the clothes and turned off the computer?
Instead of just making up assertions like that think about what you
wrote. Can I suggest that either this hypothetical dryer would be using
monumental amounts of energy or the computer consumes the power of a
single LED for your assertion to be accurate. Gather some empirical
data and try to verify your assertion. Data I have collected shows that
a minimally used typical computer uses the same amount of energy in 15
hours as used by an electric dryer used to dry a typical load.
| |
| George 2008-02-09, 1:25 pm |
| CJT wrote:
> Jim Redelfs wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> Not likely. A computer running 24/7 will use $100-$200 per year of
> electricity. If one load of wash cost that much to dry, we'd have
> heard about it.
>
For sure, numbers don't lie. One can rationalize whatever they like but
real data shows something a lot different.
| |
| gfretwell@aol.com 2008-02-09, 1:25 pm |
| On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 10:37:12 -0500, George <george@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
>. Data I have collected shows that
>a minimally used typical computer uses the same amount of energy in 15
>hours as used by an electric dryer used to dry a typical load.
I was working on a dryer yesterday (GE) and I had my clamp on ammeter
on the leads watching the load. The motor side pulls a tad over 25a
and the heat only side pulls 22 and change (when the heater is on).
When the heat cycles off you only have the 3 and change on the motor
side. The heat is not on for the whole drying cycle. In fact, when it
is in "automatic dry" the timer only runs when the heat is off. The
thermostat is in the exhaust air stack and when the clothes are wet
the air is too cool to make the stat.
My PC, flat monitor ethernet switch, KVM switch, external modem,
speakers, DSL modem, RF transmitter, ink jet printer and scanner pull
between 1.5 and 1.85a depending on what I am doing.
| |
| Nexus7 2008-02-09, 1:25 pm |
| On Feb 8, 7:11 pm, "hall...@aol.com" <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
> or spending thousands on a front load washer dryer pair......
>
> the added cost of the unit, will never save money during the average
> life of the machines.
Nonsense. A front-loader wrings out the water from the clothes much
more, leading to less drying time. In the winter, a clothes dryer
takes warm air from inside the house and dumps it outside. The less
time it runs, the better. So a front-loader saves you money there.
More importantly, a top-loader is a primitive form of "washing"
clothes, involving flapping an agitator in soapy water, and in the end
wearing clothes with half the wash detergent in them still. A front-
loader actually washes clothes. This is why the $4 machine at the
laundromat is a front-loader.
>worse the machines are less reliable and cost
> much more to repair
Nonsense. The early US-made front-loaders had problems, they were beta-
testing at the time. The Asian- and Europe-made ones did not, and the
current US ones are fine too.
| |
| Twayne 2008-02-09, 1:25 pm |
| > "hallerb@aol.com" <hallerb@aol.com> wrote in
> news:d2eb28b9-f72c-4f86-9b37-b06c9c260df3@y5g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
>
>
> Have you HAD the same PC for 15 years?? No.
>
> define "frequent".
>
> Hard drives wear out bearings,too.
> and if your PC is "ON",any power loss harms the data on the
> HDs,damages the disc surfaces when the head crashes on them.
Funny; I haven't yet noticed anyone discovering that by default or by
power settings, most machines shut down the monitor, disk drives, etc.;
everyone assumes everything is actually running 24/7. Anyone with a
decent UPS can easily see what they're using for running power; the
specs usually give the rest.
Lots of "assumers" and "me too" ers here today. Guessers, in other
words, trying to sound like know it alls.
IT's just too obvious a thing to be able to figure out for most any
thinking person.
--
Closed minds close doors
| |
| hallerb@aol.com 2008-02-09, 1:25 pm |
| On Feb 9, 1:14=EF=BF=BDpm, Nexus7 <ac2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 8, 7:11 pm, "hall...@aol.com" <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Nonsense. A front-loader wrings out the water from the clothes much
> more, leading to less drying time. In the winter, a clothes dryer
> takes warm air from inside the house and dumps it outside. The less
> time it runs, the better. So a front-loader saves you money there.
>
> More importantly, a top-loader is a primitive form of "washing"
> clothes, involving flapping an agitator in soapy water, and in the end
> wearing clothes with half the wash detergent in them still. A front-
> loader actually washes clothes. This is why the $4 machine at the
> laundromat is a front-loader.
>
>
> Nonsense. The early US-made front-loaders had problems, they were beta-
> testing at the time. The Asian- and Europe-made ones did not, and the
> current US ones are fine too.
you can buy a decent laundry pair washer and dryer for 500 bucks.
a front load pair probably 3 times that. so to ever save any money the
first thing you must do is save a grand on energy water etc.
that takes awhile and a friend who fixes appliances for a living and
owns the business says by the time you get near payback something will
fail on the machine.
maytags use a drum with intergrated bearing, cant just replace the
bearing need a whole drum assembly, over 300 bucks.
of course it kinda depends on utility costs in your area.
and dont forget the extra grand cost could of been invested elsewhere
| |
| ransley 2008-02-09, 1:25 pm |
| On Feb 8, 7:11=C2=A0pm, "hall...@aol.com" <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Feb 8, 6:22=EF=BF=BDpm, Jim Redelfs <jim.rede...@NOSPAMredelfs.com> wro=
te:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
nted[color=darkred]
ising[color=darkred]
>
>
[color=darkred]
>
EPT[color=darkred]
(with some[color=darkred]
..[color=darkred]
>
ful[color=darkred]
wer[color=darkred]
AS[color=darkred]
end. =EF=BF=BD[color=darkred]
er,[color=darkred]
its[color=darkred]
>
>
> another one is spending megabucks on a tankless water heater to
> prevent standby losses, while all during the heating season the
> standby losses help heat the home.
>
> or spending thousands on a front load washer dryer pair......
>
> the added cost of the unit, will never save money during the average
> life of the machines. worse the machines are less reliable and cost
> much more to repair- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Gas tank water heaters loose most of their heat up the chimney.
| |
| George 2008-02-09, 5:25 pm |
| gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 10:37:12 -0500, George <george@nospam.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>
> I was working on a dryer yesterday (GE) and I had my clamp on ammeter
> on the leads watching the load. The motor side pulls a tad over 25a
> and the heat only side pulls 22 and change (when the heater is on).
> When the heat cycles off you only have the 3 and change on the motor
> side. The heat is not on for the whole drying cycle. In fact, when it
> is in "automatic dry" the timer only runs when the heat is off. The
> thermostat is in the exhaust air stack and when the clothes are wet
> the air is too cool to make the stat.
> My PC, flat monitor ethernet switch, KVM switch, external modem,
> speakers, DSL modem, RF transmitter, ink jet printer and scanner pull
> between 1.5 and 1.85a depending on what I am doing.
Exactly, someone trying to rationalize something can really come to a
bogus conclusion without considering actual data. Excluding space
conditioning most household electrical energy consumption (and waste)
comes from the small things not the high wattage devices such as a dryer
or toaster. As they say slow and steady wins the race and it is very
true for the energy consumption race.
| |
|
| On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 18:32:47 GMT, "Twayne"
<nodoby@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>Funny; I haven't yet noticed anyone discovering that by default or by
>power settings, most machines shut down the monitor, disk drives, etc.;
>everyone assumes everything is actually running 24/7. Anyone with a
>decent UPS can easily see what they're using for running power; the
>specs usually give the rest.
>
>Lots of "assumers" and "me too" ers here today. Guessers, in other
>words, trying to sound like know it alls.
>
>IT's just too obvious a thing to be able to figure out for most any
>thinking person.
It is pretty clear you want us to think you have all the answers, but
you didn't share any with the group.
Thanks
for nothing.
| |
| hallerb@aol.com 2008-02-09, 5:25 pm |
|
> Gas tank water heaters loose most of their heat up the chimney.- Hide quoted text -
\
true thats the case with ALL GAS HEATERS, although its not most heat,
since none are less than 50% efficent.
but combustion by products must go somewhere.
sure electric heaters are more efficent, and lack exhaust waste but
the electric costs so much more, gas is more cost effective
| |
| Nexus7 2008-02-09, 5:25 pm |
| On Feb 9, 12:53 pm, "hall...@aol.com" <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
> you can buy a decent laundry pair washer and dryer for 500 bucks.
>
> a front load pair probably 3 times that. so to ever save any money the
> first thing you must do is save a grand on energy water etc.
I addressed that in my posting, I said you dump less of your home's
heated air outside because you run the dryer less. In any event, the
biggest difference is that a front-loader just does a far better job
on the clothes. If you want a worse wash, you can save a lot of money
by just not washing clothes.
> that takes awhile and a friend who fixes appliances for a living and
> owns the business says by the time you get near payback something will
> fail on the machine.
Does he count the extended lifetime of the clothes because of less
mutilation in the washer, and complete extraction of detergent?
> maytags use a drum with intergrated bearing, cant just replace the
> bearing need a whole drum assembly, over 300 bucks.
So what? Do they fail more? A $1000 washer is going to have better
parts quality than the $500 pair special. A lot of front-loaders are
direct drive (no transmission). Less parts to fail.
| |
| hallerb@aol.com 2008-02-09, 5:25 pm |
| On Feb 9, 4:36=EF=BF=BDpm, Nexus7 <ac2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 9, 12:53 pm, "hall...@aol.com" <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> I addressed that in my posting, I said you dump less of your home's
> heated air outside because you run the dryer less. In any event, the
> biggest difference is that a front-loader just does a far better job
> on the clothes. If you want a worse wash, you can save a lot of money
> by just not washing clothes.
>
>
> Does he count the extended lifetime of the clothes because of less
> mutilation in the washer, and complete extraction of detergent?
>
>
> So what? Do they fail more? A $1000 washer is going to have better
> parts quality than the $500 pair special. A lot of front-loaders are
> direct drive (no transmission). Less parts to fail.
obviously you bought a front loader, so did my dad. hope it works
great for you.
but when its going to cost half the price oif the machine for a couple
parts you can remember this discussion as it goes to the
landfill..........
| |
| Nexus7 2008-02-10, 3:25 am |
| On Feb 9, 5:05 pm, "hall...@aol.com" <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Feb 9, 4:36=EF=BF=BDpm, Nexus7 <ac2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
[color=darkred]
>
> obviously you bought a front loader, so did my dad. hope it works
> great for you.
What kind of an argument is that? I listed some areas where a front-
loader is qualitatively superior to a top-loader. Do you dispute any
of those?
> but when its going to cost half the price oif the machine for a couple
> parts you can remember this discussion as it goes to the
> landfill..........
Any parts these days cost an arm and a leg. They used to make that
argument for American vs Japanese cars, and these days you have to
empty a checking account before you buy parts for anything. As front-
loaders as becoming common, the economics of scale will drop the price
of parts. Already the most prominent displays in Kmart, HD, BB, etc.
are the front-loaders.
| |
| hallerb@aol.com 2008-02-10, 3:25 am |
| On Feb 9, 10:54=C2=A0pm, Nexus7 <ac2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 9, 5:05 pm, "hall...@aol.com" <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> What kind of an argument is that? I listed some areas where a front-
> loader is qualitatively superior to a top-loader. Do you dispute any
> of those?
>
>
> Any parts these days cost an arm and a leg. They used to make that
> argument for American vs Japanese cars, and these days you have to
> empty a checking account before you buy parts for anything. As front-
> loaders as becoming common, the economics of scale will drop the price
> of parts. Already the most prominent displays in Kmart, HD, BB, etc.
> are the front-loaders.
they are the most prominent becuse they cost more so theres more
profit in selling them............
| |
| clifto 2008-02-10, 3:25 am |
| Jim Yanik wrote:
> This PC I'm using had the microprocessor fan load the PS to where it would
> not start.
> A surplus fan from Skycraft cured that for $8.
How in the world did you find that?
--
God help us all.
Because we're down to PIAPS, B. Hussein or McStain,
the next President of the United States can only be a liberal Democrat,
| |
|
| On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 10:53:12 -0800 (PST), "hallerb@aol.com"
<hallerb@aol.com> wrote:
>you can buy a decent laundry pair washer and dryer for 500 bucks.
>
>a front load pair probably 3 times that. so to ever save any money the
>first thing you must do is save a grand on energy water etc.
You persist in perpetuating this lie, so I feel compelled to remind
you that people can buy front-loader washer/dryer pairs for $700-800
(as I did). Less than half of what you are claiming, in other words.
You clearly have no interest in changing your energy wasting habits,
but please don't try to stop those of us who wish to make the world a
better place.
| |
| Jim Yanik 2008-02-10, 5:25 pm |
| clifto <clifto@gmail.com> wrote in
news:qii285-kmv.ln1@remote.clifto.com:
> Jim Yanik wrote:
>
> How in the world did you find that?
>
swapped out power supply,still had problem. replaced a couple of high ESR
caps on the motherboard,still had problem.Left off fan cable while messing
with PC,problem went away. Got new fan from Skycraft,end of problem.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
| |
| Carpenter 2008-02-10, 8:25 pm |
| On Feb 9, 12:14 pm, Nexus7 <ac2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 8, 7:11 pm, "hall...@aol.com" <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Nonsense. A front-loader wrings out the water from the clothes much
> more, leading to less drying time. In the winter, a clothes dryer
> takes warm air from inside the house and dumps it outside. The less
> time it runs, the better. So a front-loader saves you money there.
>
> More importantly, a top-loader is a primitive form of "washing"
> clothes, involving flapping an agitator in soapy water, and in the end
> wearing clothes with half the wash detergent in them still. A front-
> loader actually washes clothes. This is why the $4 machine at the
> laundromat is a front-loader.
Can you prove any of these statements or are you just talking off
your .. ehm mouth?
A washer dryer combo forces you to serialize those activities, which
is enough for me to dismiss that nonsense ( i am using one of your
favorite words, see?)
| |
| George 2008-02-11, 9:25 am |
| hallerb@aol.com wrote:
>
> obviously you bought a front loader, so did my dad. hope it works
> great for you.
>
> but when its going to cost half the price oif the machine for a couple
> parts you can remember this discussion as it goes to the
> landfill..........
>
But you seem to be focusing on the period when US manufacturers chose to
ignore the successful designs used in other countries when they
introduced their units here. They made lots of mistakes and were
essentially selling beta product. Maytag was most notable for this.
| |
| me@privacy.net 2008-02-11, 1:25 pm |
| Nexus7 <ac25kV@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Nonsense. A front-loader wrings out the water from the clothes much
>more, leading to less drying time. In the winter, a clothes dryer
>takes warm air from inside the house and dumps it outside. The less
>time it runs, the better. So a front-loader saves you money there.
This depends on if the front loader LASTS long enough
to recoup that premium cost
Nine did NOT. Wore out after 7 years and couldn't be
fixed with spending $400
| |
| me@privacy.net 2008-02-11, 1:25 pm |
| "hallerb@aol.com" <hallerb@aol.com> wrote:
>that takes awhile and a friend who fixes appliances for a living and
>owns the business says by the time you get near payback something will
>fail on the machine.
That what happened to my front loader..... main bearing
and seal failed
Couldn't just replace the seal and bearing.... had to
replace entire inner tub
| |
| me@privacy.net 2008-02-11, 1:25 pm |
| "hallerb@aol.com" <hallerb@aol.com> wrote:
>but when its going to cost half the price oif the machine for a couple
>parts you can remember this discussion as it goes to the
>landfill....
Took mine to scrap steel receycler
|
|
|
|
|