The water miser washing machine

[CDB-3]

 reputed to only use 250ml of water and might be available form next
year if you're a business customer.

No ball park figure of the price though.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/greenerliving/5597786/Washing-machine
-that-uses-one-cup-of-water.html
--
cdb,  on 24/06/2009



--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Gerhard Fiedler]

cdb wrote:

> reputed to only use 250ml of water and might be available form next
> year if you're a business customer.
>
> No ball park figure of the price though.
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/greenerliving/5597786/Washing-machine-that-uses-one-cup-of-water.html

"The appliance, which could save billions of litres of water a year, has
been developed at the University of Leeds."

Good luck with achieving its potential.

The appliance that could save billions of liters of water has been
developed at least 50 years ago and is ready to be purchased at least
since that time. If all the vertically rotating washing machines were
replaced by typical horizontally rotating ones, the savings would be as
much if not more. Yet it doesn't happen... for some strange reason :)

Gerhard
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Herbert Graf-5]

On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 11:34 -0300, Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
> The appliance that could save billions of liters of water has been
> developed at least 50 years ago and is ready to be purchased at least
> since that time. If all the vertically rotating washing machines were
> replaced by typical horizontally rotating ones, the savings would be as
> much if not more. Yet it doesn't happen... for some strange reason :)

I don't see the reasons as strange.

The fact is different regions have different factors that influence
appliance design.

In many areas of the world water is a scarce expensive resource. In
others it's not.

Where I live water is so cheap one barely notices when the water bill is
paid (the water bill in my area only arrives every 3 months, and it
often less the $100). As a result, the added expense of a horizontal
washing machine simply makes no sense for most from a purely economical
point of view. While the prices have come down, the fact is they are
still more expensive then the "water wasters", and over the life of the
product, because of our low cost for water, you'll never recoup those
costs.

Now, cost is almost never the only factor, and often isn't the primary
factor, so most mid to upper end machines are now of the "european"
design.

TTYL

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Richard Prosser]

2009/6/25 Herbert Graf <hkgraf@...>:

> On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 11:34 -0300, Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
>> The appliance that could save billions of liters of water has been
>> developed at least 50 years ago and is ready to be purchased at least
>> since that time. If all the vertically rotating washing machines were
>> replaced by typical horizontally rotating ones, the savings would be as
>> much if not more. Yet it doesn't happen... for some strange reason :)
>
> I don't see the reasons as strange.
>
> The fact is different regions have different factors that influence
> appliance design.
>
> In many areas of the world water is a scarce expensive resource. In
> others it's not.
>
> Where I live water is so cheap one barely notices when the water bill is
> paid (the water bill in my area only arrives every 3 months, and it
> often less the $100). As a result, the added expense of a horizontal
> washing machine simply makes no sense for most from a purely economical
> point of view. While the prices have come down, the fact is they are
> still more expensive then the "water wasters", and over the life of the
> product, because of our low cost for water, you'll never recoup those
> costs.
>
> Now, cost is almost never the only factor, and often isn't the primary
> factor, so most mid to upper end machines are now of the "european"
> design.
>
> TTYL
>
> --

A Water Bill - What's that ??
(And we still have a horizontal machine.)

(Water costs are included in our rates, but although there is a meter
outside, it's never read). Water shortages in summertime are covered
by limiting hose usage and are infrequent anyway.

RP
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[William "Chops" Westfield]

On Jun 24, 2009, at 1:15 PM, Richard Prosser wrote:

> A Water Bill - What's that ??

A recent report on California water issues (there is mandatory  
rationing (sort of) in some places) pointed out that some areas,  
including the state capital, have large areas where water usage is not  
even metered...

BillW

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[CDB-3]

:: If all the vertically rotating washing machines were
:: replaced by typical horizontally rotating ones, the savings would
:: be as much if not more.

Coming from Europe I was surprised to find how entrenched top loading
WM's were in Australia - though front loaders are becoming more
popular now.

One of the reasons given is 'It means I have to bend down' (which is a
bit like the queensland/WA excuses for not having summertime hours -
'the extra sunblight would fade the curtains' ).

Bendix under one of their secondary labels used to market a horizontal
drum (aimed at the Japanese markets small kitchen needs) that was
accessed in the same way as a top loader, thereby combining the best
of both worlds. Sadly they only provided it in a 5kg size and never
really marketed it here, and the price didn't help.

I would have liked a Dynex WM the one with the counter rotating drums
and all made out of plastic - sadly it was never imported to Oz and is
now not produced - it also used very little water - my Asko is 15
years old and still going strong.

Yes, that is a deliberate play on words.

Colin
--
cdb, colin@... on 25/06/2009
 
Web presence: www.btech-online.co.uk  
 
Hosted by:  www.1and1.co.uk/?k_id=7988359
 

 
 
 
 

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Justin Richards]

> One of the reasons given is 'It means I have to bend down' (which is a
> bit like the queensland/WA excuses for not having summertime hours -
> 'the extra sunblight would fade the curtains' ).
>
> I think I understand the need to keep politics out of the list as I so much
want to comment on Daylight savings, extended trading hours and pokies here
in WA

Now, where's a good venue to express my backward, hillbilly redneck views.

Justin
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Gerhard Fiedler]

Herbert Graf wrote:

>> The appliance that could save billions of liters of water has been
>> developed at least 50 years ago and is ready to be purchased at
>> least since that time. If all the vertically rotating washing
>> machines were replaced by typical horizontally rotating ones, the
>> savings would be as much if not more. Yet it doesn't happen... for
>> some strange reason :)
>
> I don't see the reasons as strange.
>
> The fact is different regions have different factors that influence
> appliance design.
>
> In many areas of the world water is a scarce expensive resource. In
> others it's not.

Someone mentioned California. Horizontals are still quite common in
SoCal, for some strange reason.

Besides, it's not only about water. Heating up water is expensive in
terms of electrical energy, too: the more water, the more electrical
energy for heating it up.

> As a result, the added expense of a horizontal washing machine simply
> makes no sense for most from a purely economical point of view. While
> the prices have come down, the fact is they are still more expensive
> then the "water wasters", and over the life of the product, because
> of our low cost for water, you'll never recoup those costs.

Have you factored in the increased electrical energy? The diminished
lifetime of fabric? The increased allergies? (Due to the lower numbers
of clean water cycles after washing, the residues of detergent in
clothes are more. This is probably just one (small) factor that helps
explain the high incidence of allergies in the USA.)

Also, if the prices have come down (I assume you mean in relationship to
the vertical drum machines), it seems that the price difference is not
that much due to differences in construction (which haven't come down).

Gerhard
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Brooke Clarke]

Hi:

I'm in Northern California and purchased a horizontal drum washing machine a
couple of years ago, mainly to save water (we now have been told to cut our
water use in half: no watering plants (dead lawns), no washing cars, no hosing
driveways, etc.)  It must have a micro controller since the drum speed varies a
lot.

A nephew lives in Sacramento and he says the water company saved a lot of money
by not installing or maintaining meters and more importantly by not hiring
people to read the meters and send bills based on the meter reading.  The money
charged for water service needs to pay all the expenses of the business and a
little profit.  The bill is based on the size of the supply pipe.

Some months back I got a phone call from the water company saying I may have a
leak.  The meter reader saw the dial moving and/or the billing department saw a
step increase.  I fixed the leak.

--
Have Fun,

Brooke Clarke
http://www.prc68.com
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Volker Soffel-2]

 >From: Gerhard Fiedler <lists@...>


 >Someone mentioned California. Horizontals are still quite common in
 >SoCal, for some strange reason.

 >Besides, it's not only about water. Heating up water is expensive in
 >terms of electrical energy, too: the more water, the more electrical
 >energy for heating it up.

Hi Gerhard,
all the top loaders I know of in the US do NOT have a built-in
electric water heater
contrary to the European front loaders. They are connected
directly to the house's hot water line and the house hot water
is typically generated by a gas fired hot water heater.

Point being: using gas to heat water is much cheaper (as gas costs less than
electricity for the same amount of energy/heat produced) and more efficient
than using electricity, consequently even if those machines use more
hot water, you actually pay ***less*** for energy than
with a machine with built-in electric heater.

In addition a top loader finishes a standard wash cycle in 20...30 mins;
a front loader takes close to an hour - so more electricity to run
the motor of a front loader.

The built-in heater (or lack thereof) is, btw, one of the reasons
why the top loaders are cheaper. The other is a much simpler
motor and motor control (on- off versus variable speed).

Of course the end result of the front-lader's longer wash cycle is
cleaner cloths
- which may or may not matter depending on how often you replace the
stuff in your closet
with new one. ;-)

Along with the  much lower price to buy a top loader, being done quicker
is actually considered a benefit in a country where time is money.
These factors  seems to outweigh to most people (in US) the drawbacks of
the top loader approach .

--- sarcasm on ----
Who cares that we don't have enough water, as long as you
still only pay pennies for it.  There can't be a water shortage as
long as water still comes
out of the faucet, right ? ;-)

Heck ~45% of the total US ***domestic*** water usage is
used to water the lawn, what's a few gallons  more  to wash your cloths?
---sarcasm off -----

This will only change once the price of a gallon of water
approaches that of a gallon of gasoline. The market will eventually
regulate it
via the price of the resource (water, gas, electricity, whatever).
Just look what a few years of rising gasoline prices did to those car companies
that built their entire future on selling SUVs and pickup trucks.

P.S. don't get me wrong on above - I'm a big fan of the front loaders,
I have one myself, but as usual there are many sides to the story and
no easy solution.
The easy solution would be to just outlaw top loaders ;-), along with
gas guzzling SUVs and having
1/4...1/2 acre lawns in font of every house in the desert (Las Vegas,
Palm Springs, etc..) -
but hey,  then we wouldn't be the land of the free.

P.S2: You are expecting too much from the average consumer to go through
a cost-benefits analysis as you did and consider long-term cost
versus short-term cost
- not to mention impact on the environment - in their buying decision.

Most people only see the upfront price, that's why people buy inkjet printers
and then pay through the nose for new ink. The same principle is
successfully applied to entry level laser printers, Razor blades,
cell phones (IPone for $100
& $2000 for a 2 year cell contract), etc, etc.

It can even get more subtle than this: The other week a Costco:
energy saving light fixture including fluorescent light for only $9.9
-what a deal right?
You do something good for the environment and you save "lots" of money both
in buying the fixture and in your electricity bill.

The catch: The energy saving fluorescent fixture uses a
***circular*** fluorescent tube:
replacement cost $17 (!) versus $1...1.50 if the light fixture would
actually use
a fluorescent  **bulb*** (that is just as energy efficient and bright) .

How do you stop deceptive marketing like this?

best regards
Volker

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Richard Prosser]

Hi Volker,
I'm not sure I 'd agree that gas is more efficient than electricity
when it comes to heating water. It may be so in the case where a
thermal station is used to generate the electricity to heat the water
using an immersion heater.But what about a hydro plant powering a heat
pump type water heater? Even the simple immersion type water heater is
very close to 100% efficient, while a gas boiler will still have some
heat losses - some of which are required to exhaust the burnt gas up a
chimney or vent or whatever.

I'd agree with most of the rest of what you say however.

RP

2009/6/26 Volker Soffel <volker.soffel@...>:

>
>  >From: Gerhard Fiedler <lists@...>
>
>
>  >Someone mentioned California. Horizontals are still quite common in
>  >SoCal, for some strange reason.
>
>  >Besides, it's not only about water. Heating up water is expensive in
>  >terms of electrical energy, too: the more water, the more electrical
>  >energy for heating it up.
>
> Hi Gerhard,
> all the top loaders I know of in the US do NOT have a built-in
> electric water heater
> contrary to the European front loaders. They are connected
> directly to the house's hot water line and the house hot water
> is typically generated by a gas fired hot water heater.
>
> Point being: using gas to heat water is much cheaper (as gas costs less than
> electricity for the same amount of energy/heat produced) and more efficient
> than using electricity, consequently even if those machines use more
> hot water, you actually pay ***less*** for energy than
> with a machine with built-in electric heater.
>
> In addition a top loader finishes a standard wash cycle in 20...30 mins;
> a front loader takes close to an hour - so more electricity to run
> the motor of a front loader.
>
> The built-in heater (or lack thereof) is, btw, one of the reasons
> why the top loaders are cheaper. The other is a much simpler
> motor and motor control (on- off versus variable speed).
>
> Of course the end result of the front-lader's longer wash cycle is
> cleaner cloths
> - which may or may not matter depending on how often you replace the
> stuff in your closet
> with new one. ;-)
>
> Along with the  much lower price to buy a top loader, being done quicker
> is actually considered a benefit in a country where time is money.
> These factors  seems to outweigh to most people (in US) the drawbacks of
> the top loader approach .
>
> --- sarcasm on ----
> Who cares that we don't have enough water, as long as you
> still only pay pennies for it.  There can't be a water shortage as
> long as water still comes
> out of the faucet, right ? ;-)
>
> Heck ~45% of the total US ***domestic*** water usage is
> used to water the lawn, what's a few gallons  more  to wash your cloths?
> ---sarcasm off -----
>
> This will only change once the price of a gallon of water
> approaches that of a gallon of gasoline. The market will eventually
> regulate it
> via the price of the resource (water, gas, electricity, whatever).
> Just look what a few years of rising gasoline prices did to those car companies
> that built their entire future on selling SUVs and pickup trucks.
>
> P.S. don't get me wrong on above - I'm a big fan of the front loaders,
> I have one myself, but as usual there are many sides to the story and
> no easy solution.
> The easy solution would be to just outlaw top loaders ;-), along with
> gas guzzling SUVs and having
> 1/4...1/2 acre lawns in font of every house in the desert (Las Vegas,
> Palm Springs, etc..) -
> but hey,  then we wouldn't be the land of the free.
>
> P.S2: You are expecting too much from the average consumer to go through
> a cost-benefits analysis as you did and consider long-term cost
> versus short-term cost
> - not to mention impact on the environment - in their buying decision.
>
> Most people only see the upfront price, that's why people buy inkjet printers
> and then pay through the nose for new ink. The same principle is
> successfully applied to entry level laser printers, Razor blades,
> cell phones (IPone for $100
> & $2000 for a 2 year cell contract), etc, etc.
>
> It can even get more subtle than this: The other week a Costco:
> energy saving light fixture including fluorescent light for only $9.9
> -what a deal right?
> You do something good for the environment and you save "lots" of money both
> in buying the fixture and in your electricity bill.
>
> The catch: The energy saving fluorescent fixture uses a
> ***circular*** fluorescent tube:
> replacement cost $17 (!) versus $1...1.50 if the light fixture would
> actually use
> a fluorescent  **bulb*** (that is just as energy efficient and bright) .
>
> How do you stop deceptive marketing like this?
>
> best regards
> Volker
>
> --
> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Gerhard Fiedler]

Volker Soffel wrote:

>> Someone mentioned California. Horizontals are still quite common in
>> SoCal, for some strange reason.
>
>> Besides, it's not only about water. Heating up water is expensive in
>> terms of electrical energy, too: the more water, the more electrical
>> energy for heating it up.
>
> all the top loaders I know of in the US do NOT have a built-in
> electric water heater contrary to the European front loaders. They
> are connected directly to the house's hot water line and the house
> hot water is typically generated by a gas fired hot water heater.

I've asked a German manufacturer about this. Their response was that the
sudden inshoot of hot water sort of "burns" the existing stains into the
fabric, making them more difficult to remove (requiring more chemicals);
that's why they heat slowly. This applies of course to any washer, no
matter the drum orientation.

> In addition a top loader finishes a standard wash cycle in 20...30
> mins; a front loader takes close to an hour - so more electricity to
> run the motor of a front loader.

This depends. My front loader doesn't run all the time; the motor goes
on and off all the time (even during the washing cycle), and given the
duty cycle, I'd estimate that it's on even less time. Much of the
additional time are the additional rinse cycles; I wouldn't trade them
in.

> Of course the end result of the front-lader's longer wash cycle is
> cleaner cloths - which may or may not matter depending on how often
> you replace the stuff in your closet with new one. ;-)

Cleaner clothes, or equally clean clothes with lower temperature, less
detergent and even lesser of the "hard" chemicals, longer lifetime of
the fabric, less chemical residue on the fabric.

> Along with the  much lower price to buy a top loader, being done
> quicker is actually considered a benefit in a country where time is
> money.

There's no reason why one couldn't choose a fast cycle with a front
loader; it simply means less time washing (same time as the top loader
that's the time standard) and less time rinsing (same time as the top
loader that's the time standard). There's nothing inherent in the drum
position that would require more time, to the contrary: given the
shorter time that's needed until the water level has reached its
operating level in the drum, the active washing/rinsing time is longer
with a front loader than with a top loader with an equivalent program.

Gerhard
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Herbert Graf-5]

On Thu, 2009-06-25 at 09:26 -0300, Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
> Herbert Graf wrote:
> Besides, it's not only about water. Heating up water is expensive in
> terms of electrical energy, too: the more water, the more electrical
> energy for heating it up.

Well, first off, in much of north america the hot water used by a
washing machine is sourced from the water heater in the house. In many
houses the water heater is gas/propane.

That said, I almost never wash in hot water anyways. Most of my laundary
is done with just cold water. The odd time I'll do a very small run of
hot, but that's rare.

> > As a result, the added expense of a horizontal washing machine simply
> > makes no sense for most from a purely economical point of view. While
> > the prices have come down, the fact is they are still more expensive
> > then the "water wasters", and over the life of the product, because
> > of our low cost for water, you'll never recoup those costs.
>
> Have you factored in the increased electrical energy?

Absolutely. Every machine has a sticker on it stating estimated annual
usage. That said, electricity for me is quite cheap (about
$0.10CND/kWh), the difference in the most efficient machine vs. a lesser
machine is perhaps $10-$20 a year.

> The diminished
> lifetime of fabric?

I hadn't considered this. That said, I don't really spend that much on
clothes.

> The increased allergies? (Due to the lower numbers
> of clean water cycles after washing, the residues of detergent in
> clothes are more. This is probably just one (small) factor that helps
> explain the high incidence of allergies in the USA.)

Perhaps, I haven't been affected.

> Also, if the prices have come down (I assume you mean in relationship to
> the vertical drum machines), it seems that the price difference is not
> that much due to differences in construction (which haven't come down).

Absolutely. The vertical machines are "chic", they demand a premium
simply because they are "European better".

TTYL

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Wouter van Ooijen]

> Point being: using gas to heat water is much cheaper (as gas costs less than
> electricity for the same amount of energy/heat produced) and more efficient
> than using electricity, consequently even if those machines use more
> hot water, you actually pay ***less*** for energy than
> with a machine with built-in electric heater.
>
> In addition a top loader finishes a standard wash cycle in 20...30 mins;
> a front loader takes close to an hour - so more electricity to run
> the motor of a front loader.

Did you really do the calculation? I would guess that the energy
required for heating dwarfs the energy for rotation. (I don't know much
about top loaders, they are extinct over here. Do they rotate all the
time? The front loaders here certainly don't.) Electrical heating in the
machine is ~ 100% efficient, electricity generation ~ 50% (very rough
figures). Assuming that gas-to-water heating is ~ 100% efficient, a
top-loaser must use less than twice the water a front loader uses. I
would guess it uses more.

As for price: do top-loaders dry the wash?

> Heck ~45% of the total US ***domestic*** water usage is
> used to water the lawn, what's a few gallons  more  to wash your cloths?

I would guess that the amount of soap used is a bigger issue that the
amount of water.

PS at what temperature does your average top-loader wash? We typically
wash at 60 C (white underwear, bed clothing, towels, etc), and 30 C (the
rest). I guess this has more to do with the washing powder than with the
machine?

--

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: www.voti.nl/hvu

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[M.L.-2]

On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 5:48 PM, Volker Soffel<volker.soffel@...> wrote:

> This will only change once the price of a gallon of water
> approaches that of a gallon of gasoline. The market will eventually
> regulate it
> via the price of the resource (water, gas, electricity, whatever).
> Just look what a few years of rising gasoline prices did to those car companies
> that built their entire future on selling SUVs and pickup trucks.


Water will never be expensive in some places i.e. Boston. It rained
for 3 weeks straight. Last I checked oil doesn't drop from the sky
incessantly.

Purifying water, if just enough to be used for non-potable uses, will
always be cheaper than any form of petroleum. I'm pretty sure you knew
this, I just don't like the constantly restated mantra that water will
somehow become more expensive than oil.

--
Martin K.
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[M.L.-2]

On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 1:24 AM, Wouter van Ooijen<wouter@...> wrote:

>> Point being: using gas to heat water is much cheaper (as gas costs less than
>> electricity for the same amount of energy/heat produced) and more efficient
>> than using electricity, consequently even if those machines use more
>> hot water, you actually pay ***less*** for energy than
>> with a machine with built-in electric heater.
>>
>> In addition a top loader finishes a standard wash cycle in 20...30 mins;
>> a front loader takes close to an hour - so more electricity to run
>> the motor of a front loader.
>
> Did you really do the calculation? I would guess that the energy
> required for heating dwarfs the energy for rotation. (I don't know much
> about top loaders, they are extinct over here. Do they rotate all the
> time? The front loaders here certainly don't.) Electrical heating in the
> machine is ~ 100% efficient, electricity generation ~ 50% (very rough
> figures). Assuming that gas-to-water heating is ~ 100% efficient, a
> top-loaser must use less than twice the water a front loader uses. I
> would guess it uses more.

My impression is that side-loaders are more efficient because they
typically use a direct-drive permanent magnet arrangement where the
top-loader uses a multi-speed AC induction motor, some sort of
transmission, and a belt drive (variants exist)

Side loaders are well beyond the technology that cheap top-loaders
use. The last time I looked, the cheap top-loaders still used
electromechanical timers to turn on solenoid valves, the pump, the
motor, etc. Side loaders claim to be able to measure the amount of
clothes in the drum which will then adjust the water to an optimal
level. Most top loaders have a manual "load size" pot at best, at
worst they run a full tank of water for even the smallest load.
(laundromats)

>
> As for price: do top-loaders dry the wash?

No. Most side loaders (in the US) do not either.

>
> PS at what temperature does your average top-loader wash? We typically
> wash at 60 C (white underwear, bed clothing, towels, etc), and 30 C (the
> rest). I guess this has more to do with the washing powder than with the
> machine?

I would guess it's typically the same. I've been washing clothes on
warm (~20-25C) with less detergent. My clothes just aren't that dirty.
I'm not a farmer or mechanic.
-
Martin
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Herbert Graf-5]

On Fri, 2009-06-26 at 07:24 +0200, Wouter van Ooijen wrote:
> As for price: do top-loaders dry the wash?

The spin cycle extracts as much water as possible, then it's either on
the clothes line or the dryer. Many dryers are also gas powered.

> > Heck ~45% of the total US ***domestic*** water usage is
> > used to water the lawn, what's a few gallons  more  to wash your cloths?
>
> I would guess that the amount of soap used is a bigger issue that the
> amount of water.

Absolutely.

> PS at what temperature does your average top-loader wash? We typically
> wash at 60 C (white underwear, bed clothing, towels, etc), and 30 C (the
> rest). I guess this has more to do with the washing powder than with the
> machine?

I wash in cold water, so whatever the temp of the water is. Considering
how energy conscious Europe is I'm surprised you guys even heat your
water for clothes washing.

When I do a hot load the temp is whatever I have my water heater set to,
usually around 60C (but again, I rarely wash in anything other then cold
water).

TTYL

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Gerhard Fiedler]

Herbert Graf wrote:

>> PS at what temperature does your average top-loader wash? We
>> typically wash at 60 C (white underwear, bed clothing, towels, etc),
>> and 30 C (the rest). I guess this has more to do with the washing
>> powder than with the machine?
>
> I wash in cold water, so whatever the temp of the water is.
> Considering how energy conscious Europe is I'm surprised you guys
> even heat your water for clothes washing.

It helps reduce the amount of chemicals used to clean the clothes. For a
typical 4kg load I use something like a spoonful of detergent.

Gerhard
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Herbert Graf-5]

On Fri, 2009-06-26 at 11:53 -0300, Gerhard Fiedler wrote:

> Herbert Graf wrote:
>
> >> PS at what temperature does your average top-loader wash? We
> >> typically wash at 60 C (white underwear, bed clothing, towels, etc),
> >> and 30 C (the rest). I guess this has more to do with the washing
> >> powder than with the machine?
> >
> > I wash in cold water, so whatever the temp of the water is.
> > Considering how energy conscious Europe is I'm surprised you guys
> > even heat your water for clothes washing.
>
> It helps reduce the amount of chemicals used to clean the clothes. For a
> typical 4kg load I use something like a spoonful of detergent.

I actually use the same amount of detergent as I do with a "hot" load,
as recommended on the bottle, so for me there doesn't seem to be any
advantage to going "hot".

TTYL

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Wouter van Ooijen]

>> As for price: do top-loaders dry the wash?
>
> No. Most side loaders (in the US) do not either.

Most washing machines over here do, although a dedicated centrifuge
might do somewhat better.

> I would guess it's typically the same. I've been washing clothes on
> warm (~20-25C) with less detergent.

At such temperatures I'd expect the energy needed for water heating to
be quite low.

 > My clothes just aren't that dirty.
> I'm not a farmer or mechanic.

I am a father of 3 (5,7,9) so some serious washing is sometimes needed.

--

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: www.voti.nl/hvu

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist