|
Home > Archive > Alternative Power sources > December 2005 > Efficient European clothes dryers
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 |
Efficient European clothes dryers
|
|
| nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu 2005-11-25, 2:21 pm |
| http://www.crosslee.co.uk/cl847.html
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI....Y_BID_Stores_IT
Further info:
>Declared/published performance of the 847 A Class machine is:
>With test conditions as stipulated in EN 61121- European standard.
>Dry cotton load = 5kg, Room temperature 20C
>Energy to dry the above load in A class mode = 2.5 kWh
>Wetted condition of test load = 70% so 3.5kg of water or 7.7 lbs
>Time to dry the test load under these conditions = 8hrs.
>
>Please note that modern washing machines spin dry at higher spinning speeds
>than when the standard was written so better performance can be expected...
.... 2.5kWhx3412/7.7lb = 1108 Btu/lb. Given the long drying time, this might
be vented indoors... 7.7/8 = 0.96 lb/h, so it would only raise the indoor
humidity ratio of an average house in Phila with 224 cfm of air leakage in
January to 0.0025+0.96/(60x224x0.075) = 0.00345, ie 22% RH at 70 F.
But is there a non-heat-pump machine that dries with less than
1000 Btu/lb of electrical energy, like an indoor clothesline?
Nick
| |
| Antipodean Bucket Farmer 2005-11-25, 6:21 pm |
| In article <dm7e6i$50t@acadia.ece.villanova.edu>,
nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu says...
> http://www.crosslee.co.uk/cl847.html
>
> http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI....Y_BID_Stores_IT
>
> Further info:
>
>
> ... 2.5kWhx3412/7.7lb = 1108 Btu/lb. Given the long drying time, this might
> be vented indoors... 7.7/8 = 0.96 lb/h, so it would only raise the indoor
> humidity ratio of an average house in Phila with 224 cfm of air leakage in
> January to 0.0025+0.96/(60x224x0.075) = 0.00345, ie 22% RH at 70 F.
>
> But is there a non-heat-pump machine that dries with less than
> 1000 Btu/lb of electrical energy, like an indoor clothesline?
Yeah. An indoor clothesline. It is very common in my
area to use a folding wire rack, sold expressly for
that purpose. Works especially well if you have direct
sunlight coming in your window.
I would only go back to using mechanical dryers if I
were living in an extremely small space, and/or had to
use a public laundromat, where I didn't want to haul
wet clothes back home.
Cost: One-time $15 for the rack, plus zero ongoing.
Why do people have such an attachment to those
mechanical power-hogs?
--
Get Credit Where Credit Is Due
http://www.cardreport.com/
Credit Tools, Reference, and Forum
| |
| Dr. Hardcrab 2005-11-25, 7:21 pm |
|
"Antipodean Bucket Farmer" <usenet2005@THE-DOMAIN-IN.SIG> wrote
>
> Why do people have such an attachment to those
> mechanical power-hogs?
With 5 kids and all of them playing some kind of organized sport, where in
the world would I be able to hang clothes up to dry?
Besdies, my dryer is not a power hog. It nibbles.....
| |
| William P.N. Smith 2005-11-25, 8:21 pm |
| nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu wrote:
>But is there a non-heat-pump machine that dries with less than
>1000 Btu/lb of electrical energy, like an indoor clothesline?
Whatever happened to those microwave clothes dryers they talk about
occasionally?
| |
| Anthony Matonak 2005-11-25, 10:21 pm |
| William P.N. Smith wrote:
> nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu wrote:
>
>
> Whatever happened to those microwave clothes dryers they talk about
> occasionally?
No doubt they had troubles with metal zippers, snaps and buttons
or the melting of plastic fibers due to spot heating.
There is a method of mostly drying clothing without using heat.
Those high speed spin dry units are pretty good at getting the
majority of water out of clothes, leaving less for the regular
heat style dryer.
Anthony
| |
|
| On 25 Nov 2005 11:30:10 -0500, nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu wrote:
>http://www.crosslee.co.uk/cl847.html
>
>http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI....Y_BID_Stores_IT
>
>Further info:
>
>
>... 2.5kWhx3412/7.7lb = 1108 Btu/lb. Given the long drying time, this might
>be vented indoors... 7.7/8 = 0.96 lb/h, so it would only raise the indoor
>humidity ratio of an average house in Phila with 224 cfm of air leakage in
>January to 0.0025+0.96/(60x224x0.075) = 0.00345, ie 22% RH at 70 F.
>
>But is there a non-heat-pump machine that dries with less than
>1000 Btu/lb of electrical energy, like an indoor clothesline?
>
>Nick
I can't answer your question, but since we're on the topic, for
interest I just monitored one of our typical laundry loads.
Machine is a Splendide 2000, vented model. Capacity advertised at 5kg
washing, 3kg washing/drying. Set for regular wash, warm/cold, high
spin, half heat, 30 minutes drying.
Load was a mix of shirts, T-shirts, hand towels, washcloths, socks and
underwear. 5lb according to an electronic bath scale which is too
crude for the purpose. IMO the machine would be quite happy with a 50%
larger load. But since my wife disagrees and I don't need any more
chores... ;-)
Assuming I didn't miss anything (I didn't stand over it the whole
time), it filled once and spent about 45 minutes washing. In this mode
it spends about 12 seconds turning one way, rests for 5, reverses.
About 180W while turning according to a KillaWatt, on which the
display never really stabilized due to the constantly changing
consumption.
After the wash cycle, the machine drains and refills for rinse, short
wash action, drains and spins for a short time. Repeats, two rinses
total.
Next it enters spin mode, perhaps 10 minutes of various tumbling, spin
speed ramp-up and pumping. Power consumption tops out at about 400W
until it goes into scary-spin mode, about 500W steady for another 10
minutes.
70 minutes to this point, .21kWh. Removed clothes and weighed, about
1.5lb gain. Too wet to hang up IMO. Clothes would probably drip, and
dry crispy.
Replaced clothes for drying, 700W steady for 20 minutes. Vent air is
very gentle flow, barely warmer than room air. Last 10 minutes is by
design tumbling with heat off. Consumption down to about 100W when
drum is turning, about 150W with pump combined.
Total time 1:45. Total consumption .45kWh. No detectable weight loss
since spinning, but my scale was too useless to tell. Clothes were
definitely drier though, plenty dry enough to hang up. Shirts clammy
but wearable in a pinch on a summer day. Although I'm sure that any
self-respecting yuppie would leave them in at least another half hour.
Wayne
| |
| Nick Pine 2005-11-28, 3:21 am |
| wmbjk <wmbjkREMOVE@citlink.net> wrote:
http://www.crosslee.co.uk/cl847.html
[color=darkred]
>Machine is a Splendide 2000, vented model...
>
>... it filled once and spent about 45 minutes washing. In this mode
>it spends about 12 seconds turning one way, rests for 5, reverses.
The Philips machine I used in France rested about 5 minutes.
>Next it enters spin mode, perhaps 10 minutes of various tumbling, spin
>speed ramp-up and pumping. Power consumption tops out at about 400W
>until it goes into scary-spin mode, about 500W steady for another 10 minutes.
Scary-spin mode sounds like fun. UK machines are rated by rpm.
>70 minutes to this point, .21kWh. Removed clothes and weighed, about
>1.5lb gain.
>Replaced clothes for drying, 700W steady for 20 minutes. Vent air is
>very gentle flow, barely warmer than room air. Last 10 minutes is by
>design tumbling with heat off. Consumption down to about 100W when
>drum is turning, about 150W with pump combined.
>
>Total time 1:45. Total consumption .45kWh. No detectable weight loss
>since spinning, but my scale was too useless to tell.
Hmmm. The 5 pounds of clothes still weighed 6.5 pounds after "drying"?
The energy consumption was low, but this experiment seems inconclusive.
Nick
| |
| wmbjk 2005-11-28, 11:21 am |
| On 28 Nov 2005 01:25:10 -0500, nick@acadia.ece.villanova.edu (Nick
Pine) wrote:
>wmbjk <wmbjkREMOVE@citlink.net> wrote:
>
>http://www.crosslee.co.uk/cl847.html
>
>
>
>The Philips machine I used in France rested about 5 minutes.
I didn't stand over it, so it may have rested longer at times. And I'd
expect that the other programs would include less washing, perhaps
less rinsing as well. A chart in the manual seems to confirm that. For
the "knits and delicates" program it shows "S" agitate speed, and 650
spin speed. But the energy for agitating on our machine is perhaps
60Wh per load, so there's not a lot to save regardless.
>
>Scary-spin mode sounds like fun. UK machines are rated by rpm.
Perhaps they should be rated in Gs to account for drum diameter. :-)
Anyway, I looked it up for you - 1100 RPM max. How does it compare?
>
>
>Hmmm. The 5 pounds of clothes still weighed 6.5 pounds after "drying"?
More correctly, the load weighed that much after spinning. My scale
wasn't accurate enough to detect the weight loss after drying so I
described it as best I could. We have one of those chintzy baby scales
as well, so I may try using that on another load for interest. Since
the thinner items were relatively dry, I expect that most of the
moisture still remaining was in the towels and washcloths. I don't
generally pay this much attention to the washing, but in my new role
as Iaundry critic, I noticed this morning that those towels are
definitely crispy to the touch. I suppose for maximum efficiency one
could remove the lighter items after a half-hour and leave the heavy
ones in longer. But I will *not* be making any recommendations. :-)
>The energy consumption was low, but this experiment seems inconclusive.
It wasn't an experiment, merely some quick and dirty observations to
give an idea of how one machine works and how we use it. Perhaps I'll
post similar notes on the dishwasher as well since these per-use
energy consumption figures with setting details seem to be hard to
come by.
Wayne
| |
|
|
wmbjk wrote:
>
> Perhaps they should be rated in Gs to account for drum diameter. :-)
> Anyway, I looked it up for you - 1100 RPM max. How does it compare?
Like 30 years ago, I had a European Hoover mini-washer, the kind you
rolled in and clamped onto the faucet. (You can see one in use in the
movie "Performance" which is worth seeing even if you're not interested
in European washers). All very water and energy and space efficient.
Anyway, you had to pull the clothes out of the washer part yourself (so
you could thriftily reuse the water for the next load) and stuff them
in a little centrifuge spin dry chamber, then let er rip. Scary-spin
indeed. I think that baby would have separated heavy water out. Of
course the clothes came out barely damp, so you saved all that energy
not having to dry them as much.
| |
|
|
| Steve Spence 2005-11-30, 11:21 am |
| wmbjk wrote:
> It wasn't an experiment, merely some quick and dirty observations to
> give an idea of how one machine works and how we use it. Perhaps I'll
> post similar notes on the dishwasher as well since these per-use
> energy consumption figures with setting details seem to be hard to
> come by.
>
> Wayne
My sears front loader spins at 1000 rpm. I'll put the kWh meter on it today.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
| Solar Flare 2005-11-30, 7:21 pm |
| Yup. I burned up a good pair of electric socks once,
trying to dry them in a microwave oven.
"Steve Spence" <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote in
message news:438dafc2$1_4@newsfeed.slurp.net...
> William P.N. Smith wrote:
with less than[color=darkred]
clothesline?[color=darkred]
they talk about[color=darkred]
>
> metal buttons and zippers? keys and change left in
pockets?;-)
>
>
> --
> Steve Spence
> Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
> Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
> http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
| Solar Flare 2005-11-30, 7:21 pm |
| Does it have a fan blade on it too? I think they are
talking about the clothes drum, not the blower...LOL
"Steve Spence" <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote in
message news:438db695_4@newsfeed.slurp.net...
> wmbjk wrote:
>
dirty observations to[color=darkred]
use it. Perhaps I'll[color=darkred]
these per-use[color=darkred]
seem to be hard to[color=darkred]
>
> My sears front loader spins at 1000 rpm. I'll put the
kWh meter on it today.
>
> --
> Steve Spence
> Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
> Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
> http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
|
|
| Solar Flare 2005-12-01, 10:21 pm |
| ditto. I was a very obvious joke. (LOL may indicate
this)
That's a pretty fast spin cycle. It's a good thing they
are only off balance when they first start up. Mine has
danced across the rom a few times before the pinball
tilt switch picks up on it and shuts it down.
"Steve Spence" <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote in
message news:438f1d28$1_1@newsfeed.slurp.net...
> Solar Flare wrote:
are[color=darkred]
blower...LOL[color=darkred]
>
> Hmm.. You seem to have problems comprehending again.
Yes, it's the drum
> that spins at 1000 rpm .....
>
> --
> Steve Spence
> Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
> Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
> http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
| nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu 2005-12-06, 8:21 am |
| wmbjk <wmbjkREMOVE@citlink.net> wrote:
http://www.crosslee.co.uk/cl847.html
.... of electrical energy, vs 0 Btu/lb for an indoor clothesline.
I wonder how often the drum moves and how much of that energy
comes from the motor.
[color=darkred]
>
>Perhaps they should be rated in Gs to account for drum diameter. :-)
They are, on some sites.
>Anyway, I looked it up for you - 1100 RPM max. How does it compare?
I'm not sure. One US DOE site lists "Remaining Moisture Content" standards
after spins...
warm spin cold spin
15 min 4 min 15 min 4 min
100 Gs ~45% ... 50%
...
500 Gs 24% ... 30%
[color=darkred]
Digital scales are getting cheaper...
~~~~~
If we can tumble-dry a load of clothes containing 5 pounds of water in
0.5 hours at 130 F with Ps = 4.53" Hg and Pd = 0.374 (?) (70 F at 50% RH
with wd = 0.00788, approximately) and 0.1A(Ps-Pd)0.5 = 5, using an ASHRAE
swimming pool formula, we might say their equivalent area A = 24 ft^2.
Let's arbitrarily reduce this to 10 ft^2, with no tumbling, which makes
the numbers easy: drying time = 5/(Ps-Pd).
So an indoor clothesline in free air at 70 F and 50% RH might dry in 5/0.374
= 13.3 h at an approximate Twb = 9621/(22.47-ln(460+70+37.4-Twb). Plugging in
510 R (50 F) on the right makes Twb = 522 on the right, then 516, 519, 517.3,
518.5, 517.8, 518.2, and 518.0 R (58.0 F)
If we dry clothes in 20 hours in a closet with C cfm of airflow at 0.25 lb/h,
Pd = 29.921/(1+0.62198/(0.00788+0.25/(4.5C)) = (4.2441C+29.921)/(11.338C+1)
and Ps = e^(17.863-9621/(460+T)) = Pd + 0.25 = (7.0583C+30.171)/(11.338C+1).
If the only heat comes from room air, (70-T)C = 1000P = 250, so T = 70-250/C
= 9621/(17.863-ln(Ps))-460, ie C = 250/(530-9621/(17.863-ln(Ps))). Plugging
in C = 100 on the right makes C = 60 cfm on the left, then 74, 67, 70, 68.5,
69.0, and 68.8, which makes T = 70-250/68.9 = 66.4 F, approximately.
If we speed this up with closet insulation and heat, 10 hours at 100 F makes
Ps = 1.979 "Hg, Pd = Ps - 0.5 = 1.479, wd = 0.62198/(29.921/Pd-1) = 0.03234
= 0.00788 + 0.5/(4.5C), and C = 4.54 cfm (not much), with 10h(100-70)4.54
= 1363 Btu of heat, about 0.4 kWh, only 27% of the water's latent heat :-)
With good insulation, longer drying times and higher temps and less airflow
minimize the electrical energy needed for drying: 5 hours at 120 F make Ps
= 3.579 "Hg, Pd = Ps - 1 = 2.579, wd = 0.62198/(29.921/Pd-1)) = 0.05867, and
C = 4.38, with 5h(120-70)4.38 = 1094 Btu, ie 0.32 kWh... 10 hours makes Pd
= Ps - 0.5 = 3.079, wd = 0.62198/(29.921/Pd-1)) = 0.07134, and C = 1.75 cfm,
with 10h(120-70)1.75 = 875 Btu, ie 0.26 kWh. This might come from a Holmes
HFH111 1500 W fan space heater ($12.88 at Wal-Mart) with its thermostat set
to 130 F (if that's below the upper temp limit) running 100x260Wh/(1500Wx10h)
= 1.7% of the time.
If we dislike stiff clothes and don't mind extra labor, we might put
a dryer inside the closet with a sequencer that only turns it on for
1 out of every 10 minutes and a humidistat and fan that circulates
room air through the closet when the RH reaches 80%.
Nick
| |
| Lectron_Nuis 2005-12-09, 10:21 am |
| " Solar Flare" <sf.lare@hotmail.invalid>, HAS blest us all with:
> I was a very obvious joke
...finally !
The wanker recognises TRUTH.
| |
| Lectron_Nuis 2005-12-09, 10:21 am |
| " Solar Flare" <sf.lare@hotmail.invalid>, HAS blest us all with:
>Yup. I burned up a good pair of electric socks once,
>trying to dry them in a microwave oven.
>
huh! ?
You burn them every day on Usenet!
Ln
| |
| nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu 2005-12-17, 11:21 am |
| http://www.crosslee.co.uk/cl847.html describes
[color=darkred]
.... of electrical energy, about 10% more than the latent heat, vs 0 Btu/lb
for an indoor clothesline. How often does the drum move and how much of
that energy comes from the motor? US dryers have no yellow energy labels,
but they probably use a lot more, on the order of 5kW x 1 hour.
If we can tumble-dry a load of clothes containing 5 pounds of water in
0.5 hours at 130 F with vapor pressure Ps = 4.53" Hg near the clothes and
Pd = 0.374 "Hg(?) in dryer air (70 F at 50% with wd = 0.00788, approximately)
and 0.1A(Ps-Pd)0.5 = 5, using an ASHRAE swimming pool formula, we might say
their equivalent area A = 24 ft^2. Let's arbitrarily reduce this to 10 ft^2,
with no tumbling, which makes the numbers easy: drying time = 5/(Ps-Pd).
An indoor clothesline with lots of 70 F airflow might dry clothes in 5/0.374
= 13.6 hours.
Drying in 20 hours in a T (F) closet with C cfm of airflow at 0.25 lb/h
makes wd = 0.00788+0.25/(60x0.075C) and Pd = 29.921/(1+0.62198/wd)
= (4.2441C+29.921)/(11.338C+1) and Ps = Pd+0.25 = (7.0583C+30.171)/(11.338C+1).
If heat only comes from room air, (70-T)C = 1000P = 250 Btu/h, approximately,
T = 70-250/C = 9621/(17.863-ln(Ps))-460, ie C = 250/(530-9621/(17.863-ln(Ps))),
using a Clausius-Clapeyron approximation. Plugging in C = 100 on the right
makes C = 60 cfm on the left, then 74, 67, 70, 68.5, 69.0, and 68.8, which
makes T = 66.4 F, approximately.
Drying in 8 hours in a 130 F closet makes Pd = 4.53-0.625 = 4.47 "Hg, and
T = 9621/(17.863-ln(Pd))-460 = 128 F at 100% RH, so we might condense 5 lb of
water on a 128 F or cooler surface. If P pounds of water starts at 70 F and
warms to 128, (128-70)P = 5000 Btu makes P = 86 pounds, eg 20 2-liter 4"x12"
soda bottles in a 16"x20"x12" tall box, adding no water vapor to house air,
with 5000 Btu of drying energy from a heater, with perfect closet insulation.
Now suppose we have 2 86 pound heat batteries, A at 70 F and B charged up to
about 130 F with condensation from drying a load of clothes, and we remove
the clothes and put in another load and use B to heat closet air until A
reaches 100 F, then use the heater to warm closet air until A reaches 130
and the clothes are dry, with half the usual energy. Then we cool B to 70 F
with room air and repeat the cycle. What can we do with 3 batteries?
Is there a continuous- vs discrete-battery process that can dry clothes with
a small fraction of their latent heat? An efficient condensing clothes dryer
might use very little energy to move liquid water from one place to another.
Nick
| |
| meow2222@care2.com 2005-12-18, 1:21 pm |
| Nick Pine wrote:
> wmbjk <wmbjkREMOVE@citlink.net> wrote:
>
> http://www.crosslee.co.uk/cl847.html
>
>
>
> The Philips machine I used in France rested about 5 minutes.
>
>
> Scary-spin mode sounds like fun. UK machines are rated by rpm.
800 rpm spin is basic, 1000 so so, top end ones do 1400 now. At 800
clothes come out saturated, at 1300 they come out no more than damp.
Theres really no need for a dryer if youve got a fast spin washer, but
for some reason driers have become common anyway.
(The old twintubs used to do around 2000-2500 rpm, but that was with a
much smaller drum.)
Machine design is an ongoing issue, getting them to do high spin speeds
without jumping about, pummelling other nearby appliances or dancing
across the floor. This is a common fault mode. Modern machines need to
have off balance load sensors so they dont try to spin up when not
distributed correctly, If they did, the drum housing would break. As
you can guess, heavy vibration is normal.
NT
| |
| Gene S. Berkowitz 2005-12-18, 11:21 pm |
| In article <1134925270.950742.156720@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
meow2222@care2.com says...
> Nick Pine wrote:
>
> 800 rpm spin is basic, 1000 so so, top end ones do 1400 now. At 800
> clothes come out saturated, at 1300 they come out no more than damp.
> Theres really no need for a dryer if youve got a fast spin washer, but
> for some reason driers have become common anyway.
>
> (The old twintubs used to do around 2000-2500 rpm, but that was with a
> much smaller drum.)
>
> Machine design is an ongoing issue, getting them to do high spin speeds
> without jumping about, pummelling other nearby appliances or dancing
> across the floor. This is a common fault mode. Modern machines need to
> have off balance load sensors so they dont try to spin up when not
> distributed correctly, If they did, the drum housing would break. As
> you can guess, heavy vibration is normal.
My Miele could spin at 1600 rpm, and the vibration was barely
perceptible. Of course, it had 150 lbs of concrete in its base...
--Gene
| |
| meow2222@care2.com 2005-12-19, 12:21 am |
| Gene S. Berkowitz wrote:
> In article <1134925270.950742.156720@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> meow2222@care2.com says...
>
> My Miele could spin at 1600 rpm, and the vibration was barely
> perceptible. Of course, it had 150 lbs of concrete in its base...
>
> --Gene
... and was a Miele, which is not your average machine. Were the clothes
creased much at 1600?
NT
| |
| meow2222@care2.com 2005-12-19, 12:21 am |
| On the subject of offgrid driers, I expect it would make more sense to
use solar heat, either passing solar hot air through a standard drier,
or else putting a rotating drum or even just clothes line in the solar
heater itself.
NT
| |
| Gene S. Berkowitz 2005-12-19, 12:21 am |
| In article <1134962330.992144.41970@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
meow2222@care2.com says...
> Gene S. Berkowitz wrote:
>
>
> .. and was a Miele, which is not your average machine. Were the clothes
> creased much at 1600?
Nobody said anything about "average", just "modern".
We generally used the maximum spin for cottons like towels and undies,
never noticed any creasing.
--Gene
| |
| Steve Spence 2005-12-19, 11:21 am |
| Gene S. Berkowitz wrote:
> In article <1134962330.992144.41970@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> meow2222@care2.com says...
>
>
>
> Nobody said anything about "average", just "modern".
> We generally used the maximum spin for cottons like towels and undies,
> never noticed any creasing.
>
> --Gene
>
My sears unit runs at 1000 rpm, very little water left in the clothes,
no creasing.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
| William P.N. Smith 2005-12-19, 12:21 pm |
| Gene S. Berkowitz <first.last@comcast.net> wrote:
>My Miele could spin at 1600 rpm, and the vibration was barely
>perceptible. Of course, it had 150 lbs of concrete in its base...
Yeah, our Whirlpol Duet does 1200RPM, and it was a real bear for the
poor delivery guys to get installed, as it's got a bunch of concrete
in the base as well. Doesn't move, but it can shake the floor and
reverberate thru the downstairs office. No creasing that I can
detect... Probably should have put it against an outside wall, but
that would have further complicated the plumbing install for it.
|
|
|
|
|