|
Home > Archive > Alternative Power sources > June 2005 > Front Load washers (was Tidal Power Generation
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 |
Front Load washers (was Tidal Power Generation
|
|
| Derek Broughton 2005-06-21, 12:25 pm |
| Jesse Spencer wrote:
quote:
> Many things possible that are econemically and energy efficient.
> One of many examples: Front load washing machines. The cost a lot more
> right now but the long term savings make sense for a changeover there.
> I got one, it uses lots less hot water, electricity, soap, and bleach.
> I test weighed one load, it was 4 lbs less water than my expired
> toploader. So the real saving is in dryer time which has cut in half.
> When demand forces the production of more front loaders the price
> difference comes down.
> Our single greatest energy use by far is: waste
Our next significant purchase will be a front-load washing machine (we use a
laundromat now), but can anybody explain to me _why_ front-loaders are more
efficient? It doesn't seem reasonable to me that just reorienting the
drive system does the job, so why couldn't there be an efficient
top-loader?
--
derek
| |
| John W. Hall 2005-06-21, 12:25 pm |
| On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 09:15:59 -0300, Derek Broughton
<news@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
quote:
>... can anybody explain to me _why_ front-loaders are more
>efficient? It doesn't seem reasonable to me that just reorienting the
>drive system does the job, so why couldn't there be an efficient
>top-loader?
Part of it is the smaller volume of water. In a top loader, all the
clothes have to be submerged in water. In a front loader, clothes
spend part of the time above the water level.
My AEG fills with cold (it has only a cold inlet pipe - no hot), and
heats it electrically. This makes sense - because of the low fill
volume it would probably never get hot water from a hot supply
(because of having to clear the cooled water in the supply pipe).
Most(?) front loaders also spin faster/drier than most top loaders. I
can't see any technical reason why this is so - perhaps European
(where most of the top loaders come from) makers and customers just
care more about efficiency.
--
John W Hall <wweexxsseessssaa@telus.net>
Cochrane, Alberta, Canada.
"Helping People Prosper in the Information Age"
| |
| Derek Broughton 2005-06-21, 12:25 pm |
| John W. Hall wrote:
quote:
> On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 09:15:59 -0300, Derek Broughton
> <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>
>
> Part of it is the smaller volume of water. In a top loader, all the
> clothes have to be submerged in water. In a front loader, clothes
> spend part of the time above the water level.
OK, that makes sense. The literature always mentions less water, but I
couldn't see why it inherently needs less water...
quote:
> My AEG fills with cold (it has only a cold inlet pipe - no hot), and
> heats it electrically. This makes sense - because of the low fill
> volume it would probably never get hot water from a hot supply
> (because of having to clear the cooled water in the supply pipe).
Interesting. And it still uses less electricity than a top-loader - so the
cost of water-heating is even built in to the total power consumption.
I'm glad I asked this. In our new bathroom, it takes two gallons to clear
the cold water. The utility room should be less, but well over 1 gallon,
anyway. otoh, I wonder if I have the electrical supply for heating water.
--
derek
| |
|
|
"Derek Broughton" <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote in message
news:3hqei4Fidrg7U1@individual.net...
quote:
> Jesse Spencer wrote:
>
>
> Our next significant purchase will be a front-load washing machine (we use
a
quote:
> laundromat now), but can anybody explain to me _why_ front-loaders are
more
quote:
> efficient? It doesn't seem reasonable to me that just reorienting the
> drive system does the job, so why couldn't there be an efficient
> top-loader?
> --
> derek
I heat my water with gas. Gas is cheaper to heat water with. I went with the
Neptune over a year ago.
Washer about 30 feet from the water heater. Water gets hot pretty quick. I
only do 6 loads of hot wash a month so the idea of heating water for that
seemed like an expense that I did not need. Both in the extra cost of the
washer and operating costs.
Different situations require creative solutions.
| |
| John W. Hall 2005-06-22, 4:25 am |
| On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 11:32:03 -0300, Derek Broughton
<news@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
quote:
>I'm glad I asked this. In our new bathroom, it takes two gallons to clear
>the cold water. The utility room should be less, but well over 1 gallon,
>anyway. otoh, I wonder if I have the electrical supply for heating water.
My AEG washer & dryer are both 240v. The dealer supplied a box with
two outlets for the European 240v plugs, and a cable with a North
American 240 dryer plug, so both W&D are supplied from the normal
dryer outlet.
I don't know if the breaker on the 240v outlet would support
simultaneous use of the w&d - I just use them serially.
--
John W Hall <wweexxsseessssaa@telus.net>
Cochrane, Alberta, Canada.
"Helping People Prosper in the Information Age"
| |
|
| If you can find a front loader with a double inlet, go for it - pretty=20
much everywhere in the world electricity is more expensive than all=20
other heat sources (gas, propane, wood boilers, solar...)... and if you=20
get a domestic solar hot water system (which I sincerely hope every one=20
will one day), why pay for heating your water when you can have it free, =
right?
Not to mention that for those used to washing at 60=B0C or over (here I=20
hope everyone is saying "not me!"), the great majority of the=20
electricity used will be to heat the water...
Once again, I only know local conditions (in France) but where to find a =
front loading washer with a double entry is one of the most repeated=20
questions without an answer that the local energy agencies get - because =
the only way you can get one here is to import it yourself - even=20
dealers in Switzerland and on the German border have been told they may=20
not import one for thier clients... something to do with warranties and=20
after sales service maybe?
Mel
John W. Hall a =E9crit :
quote:
> On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 11:32:03 -0300, Derek Broughton
> <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>=20
>=20
ear[vbcol=seagreen]
n,[vbcol=seagreen]
er. =20[vbcol=seagreen]
>=20
>=20
>=20
> My AEG washer & dryer are both 240v. The dealer supplied a box with
> two outlets for the European 240v plugs, and a cable with a North
> American 240 dryer plug, so both W&D are supplied from the normal
> dryer outlet.
>=20
> I don't know if the breaker on the 240v outlet would support
> simultaneous use of the w&d - I just use them serially.
>=20
| |
| Derek Broughton 2005-06-22, 12:25 pm |
| Mel wrote:
quote:
> If you can find a front loader with a double inlet, go for it - pretty
> much everywhere in the world electricity is more expensive than all
> other heat sources (gas, propane, wood boilers, solar...)... and if you
> get a domestic solar hot water system (which I sincerely hope every one
> will one day), why pay for heating your water when you can have it free,
> right?
Not a problem. I described this discussion to my wife last night, and was
told we'll be washing with cold water :-) She's perfectly happy with some
of the cold water detergents.
--
derek
| |
| Pete C 2005-06-22, 11:25 pm |
| On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 10:22:05 -0300, Derek Broughton
<news@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
quote:
>Mel wrote:
>
>
>Not a problem. I described this discussion to my wife last night, and was
>told we'll be washing with cold water :-) She's perfectly happy with some
>of the cold water detergents.
'Biological' detergents use enzymes to break down proteins which need
water at 40C or below, most machines with hot/cold fill will still use
cold only and heat it for 40C programs for this reason.
With a thermostatic valve, delay relay and changeover valve it should
be possible to make the cold fill to 40C for the start of the wash
program, bit too much hassle/expense unless you're off grid.
cheers,
Pete.
| |
|
|
quote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>Our next significant purchase will be a front-load washing machine (we use a
>laundromat now), but can anybody explain to me _why_ front-loaders are more
>efficient? It doesn't seem reasonable to me that just reorienting the
>drive system does the job, so why couldn't there be an efficient
>top-loader?
Front-Load washers do not _F I L L _ the tub like top-loaders.
They only fill to the bottom of the "window" or so.
Front loaders are superior in every respect - less water; less soap;
better faster spin; fewer problems with un-balance;
John T.
| |
| nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu 2005-06-25, 12:25 pm |
| _jj_ <NOSPAMtabbertj@NOSPAMperth.net> wrote:
quote:
> Front-Load washers do not _F I L L _ the tub like top-loaders.
>They only fill to the bottom of the "window" or so.
About 30% less water and soap.
quote:
>Front loaders are superior in every respect...
Some horizontal axis machines (Philips makes a top-loading "front loader")
also spend most of their wash time soaking. They jostle for 1-2 secs, then
pause for 30 sec, instead of running the motor constantly.
Nick
| |
|
|
<nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu> wrote in message
news:d9jakm$42e@acadia.ece.villanova.edu...
quote:
> _jj_ <NOSPAMtabbertj@NOSPAMperth.net> wrote:
>
>
> About 30% less water and soap.
>
>
> Some horizontal axis machines (Philips makes a top-loading "front loader")
> also spend most of their wash time soaking. They jostle for 1-2 secs, then
> pause for 30 sec, instead of running the motor constantly.
>
> Nick
our old F&P top loader used about 200litres for one full load
our Asko front loader on its longest cycle uses about 52 litres
the "quick wash" uses about 35 litre's
the top of the line model does have a hot water inlet, but it would have to
be very close to the hot water tank. they fill a couple of litres then
pause, then another couple of litres, then pause, etc
| |
|
|
"_jj_" <NOSPAMtabbertj@NOSPAMperth.net> wrote in message
news:fa1pb1pecr6tudl24juerd56iefsrkcudq@4ax.com...
quote:
>
>
>
use a[vbcol=seagreen]
more[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>
> Front-Load washers do not _F I L L _ the tub like top-loaders.
> They only fill to the bottom of the "window" or so.
> Front loaders are superior in every respect - less water; less soap;
> better faster spin; fewer problems with un-balance;
> John T.
They do is what people did for 1000s of years by hitting their clothes on a
rock. They bang the clothes about a bit and dunk and undunk at the same
time. No being full immersed in water.
|
|
|
|
|