The water miser washing machine

[Wouter van Ooijen]

> Many dryers are also gas powered.

Funny thing is that gas dryers are unobtainable here (Netherlands). They
were more expensive compared to electric dryers when we bought ours some
10y ago, but nowadays there are simply none in the shops.

--

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

[Michael Rigby-Jones-2]

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: piclist-bounces@...
> [mailto:piclist-bounces@...] On Behalf Of M.L.
> Sent: 26 June 2009 13:52
> To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
> Subject: Re: [OT]The water miser washing machine
>
> 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)
>

All the side-loaders ("Front loaders" in the UK) I have ever seen inside
use a universal (brushed) AC motor and drive belt arrangement, though
there may be some very modern ones that build the motor into the drum.
Certainly seems like a reasonable idea, though any strong permanent
magnetic fields extending into the drum might not be so clever as it
will collect any ferrous particles.

Regards

Mike

=======================================================================
This e-mail is intended for the person it is addressed to only. The
information contained in it may be confidential and/or protected by
law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must
not make any use of this information, or copy or show it to any
person. Please contact us immediately to tell us that you have
received this e-mail, and return the original to us. Any use,
forwarding, printing or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.
No part of this message can be considered a request for goods or
services.
=======================================================================

--
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]

At 09:19 AM 6/26/2009, you wrote:

>From: Richard Prosser <rhprosser@...>
>
>
>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

Hi Richard,
yes a electric immersion heater is almost100% efficient, but where is
the electricity coming from?
and what is the cost per kWh for electricity versus the cost per kWh
(BTU) of gas?

Your electricity is most like produced in an oil/coal/gas fired power plant,
efficiency less than 70%. Then it is transmitted over power lines to
your house -
which means transmission loss.

The gas on the other hand comes to your house with no transmission
loss (assuming no gas leaks) ;-)
and is directly converted into heat. Typical water heater as used in
most US households
is also about 70% efficient. So if you look at the entire energy
chain, both electric and gas
are about the same efficiency.

So the whole thing comes down to the cost of electricity versus gas:
Where I live:
1kWh of electricity = $0.15  (including all the surcharges)
1 term of gas = $1.35
1 term = 100,000 btu = 29.310 kWh
so 1kWh of gas = $1.35/29.31kWh = $0.046 per kWh

To heat one gallon of water it takes the same amount of kWh (energy)
regardless whether you use electricity or gas as the energy source.

So it is $0.15/$0.046 = 3.26 times CHEAPER to heat water with gas
than with electricity.
Assuming electricity is 100% efficient and the gas heater is only
70%, then it is
still 2.28 times cheaper to heat water using gas.

The same is true btw for electric cloths dryer versus gas clothes dryer.

Of course for some more money you can also get gas water heaters that are about
95...98% efficient and if you use a tankless there are also no standby losses.

Using solar hot water (solar collectors, not solar PV), you can get
hot water even cheaper
than with gas, but at the cost of an significant up-front investment.

regards
Volker

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

[CDB-3]

:: I am a father of 3 (5,7,9)

Looks like a mathematical algorithm at work there :)

Colin
--
cdb, colin@... on 27/06/2009
 
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

[CDB-3]

:: I have ever seen inside
:: use a universal (brushed) AC motor and drive belt arrangement

I'm pretty sure Fisher and Paykel, and some of the German
manufacturers use a direct drive brushless motor. I know the F&P ones
are in great demand for DIY wind power generator tinkerers.

I never quite imagined that a topic about a water saving washing
machine would get quite so erm heated - it'll all come out in the wash
I'm sure.

Colin
--
cdb, colin@... on 27/06/2009
 
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

[Tamas Rudnai]

On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 10:54 PM, cdb <colin@...> wrote:

> :: I am a father of 3 (5,7,9)
>
> Looks like a mathematical algorithm at work there :)


The number 9 does not look like a prime to me ;-)

Tamas

>
>
> Colin
> --
> cdb, colin@... on 27/06/2009
>
> 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
>

--
http://www.mcuhobby.com
--
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:

> 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".

The "recommended" amount is of course recommended by the manufacturer of
the detergent. I guess we can just guess what their incentives are...
probably not suggesting that any technique might use less detergent :)

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

[John Gardner-3]

>  ~45% of the total US ***domestic*** water usage is
used to water the lawn

Hmm. "Domestic"... Sure that does'nt amount to ~1% of the total ?

The farmers that live an hours drive upstream of me pay a penny
for a dollar's worth of water here. Unless I was an industrial user,
in which case I'd pay 2-20 cents, depending on where I fit into
the pecking order.

You notice the loudest advocates of "markets" don't talk about "free",
or "efficient" markets.

Jack
--
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,
It comes down to where you live.
Here in NZ, 80% of the power is generated by hydo, while the gas is
mostly obtained from imported crude IIRC.
Transmission losses are small, but gas has to be delivered by truck -
I don´t  think there is any gas retriculation remaining in the South
Island, and only a little CNG in the North.

I pay about $NZ0.20 per kWh for power and close to $NZ20 for a 9kg
bottle of LPG.

LPG has a gross heating value of about 12000kcal/kg or about 50MJ/kg
so that works out to about 50*9/20 = 22.5MJ/$NZ compared to 3.6/0.2 =
18Mj/$NZ for electricity. Take your 70% efficency for the gas burner
and electricity is actually cheaper.

We also use solar to augment the water heating but itś only really
effective in the summertime.

So it depends where you live.

Richard P


2009/6/27 Volker Soffel <volker.soffel@...>:

> At 09:19 AM 6/26/2009, you wrote:
>>From: Richard Prosser <rhprosser@...>
>>
>>
>>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
>
> Hi Richard,
> yes a electric immersion heater is almost100% efficient, but where is
> the electricity coming from?
> and what is the cost per kWh for electricity versus the cost per kWh
> (BTU) of gas?
>
> Your electricity is most like produced in an oil/coal/gas fired power plant,
> efficiency less than 70%. Then it is transmitted over power lines to
> your house -
> which means transmission loss.
>
> The gas on the other hand comes to your house with no transmission
> loss (assuming no gas leaks) ;-)
> and is directly converted into heat. Typical water heater as used in
> most US households
> is also about 70% efficient. So if you look at the entire energy
> chain, both electric and gas
> are about the same efficiency.
>
> So the whole thing comes down to the cost of electricity versus gas:
> Where I live:
> 1kWh of electricity = $0.15  (including all the surcharges)
> 1 term of gas = $1.35
> 1 term = 100,000 btu = 29.310 kWh
> so 1kWh of gas = $1.35/29.31kWh = $0.046 per kWh
>
> To heat one gallon of water it takes the same amount of kWh (energy)
> regardless whether you use electricity or gas as the energy source.
>
> So it is $0.15/$0.046 = 3.26 times CHEAPER to heat water with gas
> than with electricity.
> Assuming electricity is 100% efficient and the gas heater is only
> 70%, then it is
> still 2.28 times cheaper to heat water using gas.
>
> The same is true btw for electric cloths dryer versus gas clothes dryer.
>
> Of course for some more money you can also get gas water heaters that are about
> 95...98% efficient and if you use a tankless there are also no standby losses.
>
> Using solar hot water (solar collectors, not solar PV), you can get
> hot water even cheaper
> than with gas, but at the cost of an significant up-front investment.
>
> 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:

> So it is $0.15/$0.046 = 3.26 times CHEAPER to heat water with gas than
> with electricity. Assuming electricity is 100% efficient and the gas
> heater is only 70%, then it is still 2.28 times cheaper to heat water
> using gas.

Given that a front-loader typically uses less than 20% of the water that
a top-loader uses (for the same cycle)... what's the outcome?

Anyway, I'm not necessarily proposing that it makes sense economically,
but that it makes sense. There's more to life than economy (as expressed
in dollars, whether Canadian or US :)  If "makes sense economically"
isn't aligned with "makes sense", the problem generally is /not/ with
"makes sense"...

Gerhard
--
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]

At 09:19 AM 6/26/2009, you wrote:

>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.

My point was not on how long the motor runs, but how long the entire wash cycle
takes.

I do not disagree with you that the front loaders are
superior in any way and I'm not asking you to trade your front loader
for a top loader,
I wouldn't trade mine either.

I just want to present some of the views
and arguments you get from your "average" consumer as to why, despite
the "superiority" of the front loader, they still prefer to buy a top loader:
Upfront- cost (purchase price) being the top reason and washing cycle time
being a distant 2nd.

Your argument that the front loaders are more energy efficient
and cost less in energy cost does not hold however, as I have demonstrated
with my calculation example on cost to heat hot water using gas
versus electricity
in prior post.

Now if they would make a front loader
with integrated gas hot water heater - that would be it.
They make gas cloths dryers, why can't they make gas heated washing machines?

>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.

Yes of course, but not the point.  Based on my experience
most people never change the "default wash cycle"  Same with dish washers,
how many people ever change the cycle from the "standard wash"?
And in the standard cycle a top loader takes 20 min, a front loader
takes 1 hour. That's what people see, you are asking for too much
sophistication
on the part of the average consumer to try different wash cycle
settings - sad but true.
Not everyone is an engineer tinkering with all the possibilities a
gadget offers.
How many people don't know how to program a VCR, only use
their cell phone to make calls, etc....

But anyway, the overriding factor is cost. If you could get
front loaders for the same price of top loaders, I'm sure much more people
would jump at it.

As someone pointed out "front loaders" are "superior" European technology
and most things with the label "European" in the US carry a 3x...4x mark-up.

I'm building a house right now and wanted to get the "European style"
external roller shutters that you have on every house in Europe.
If you want to have some fun look for prices for those in the US versus what
those are in Germany (US$300+/per window versus <$100) - so the shutter
is actually more expensive than the window itself.

Same with the "European style" towel warmer radiators ($500+ versus $80);-)

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

[Chris McSweeny]

Can I just point out that the argument over external gas heating of
the water vs. internal electric heating isn't an argument about the
merits of top loaders vs. front loaders. Our old front loader (was
over 12 years old when it finally died due to multiple organ failure
last year) had both hot and cold water inlets, hence used gas heated
water. It's more an argument between older machines and modern ones -
it's just that presumably in the US top loaders are all old tech and
front loaders are new tech (wouldn't really know about top loaders in
the UK - the only ones you see are ancient ones at campsites etc.)
Certainly front loaders here all used to have both hot and cold
inlets, but ISTR there was something with the new machine commenting
about a cold only inlet being more efficient and washing better. The
new machine also uses less water than the old one.

Of course it's also worth pointing out that the original article is in
a UK paper, so the context is that it's far better than the front
loaders we currently have - we live in a country where some parts
regularly get problems with water supply in the summer.

Chris
--
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: John Gardner <goflo3@...>
>
> >  ~45% of the total US ***domestic*** water usage is
>used to water the lawn
>
>Hmm. "Domestic"... Sure that does'nt amount to ~1% of the total ?

See: http://esa21.kennesaw.edu/activities/water-use/water-use-overview-epa.pdf

Note the graphic on page 3 , the water we are interested in is "total
freshwater withdrawal" in the left column,
NOT the "consumptive use" (which includes sea water and reclaimed
water) in the right column.

Domestic is 7.5% of the total daily fresh water withdrawal.
But you are absolutely correct , farming irrigation with 40% of fresh
water is the lion share and tons
of water are wasted there, because farmers have no incentive
whatsoever to conserve water
or use irrigation methods with less waste/off-run, because, as you
correctly point out,
they only pay pennies.

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

[Volker Soffel-2]

At 09:08 AM 6/27/2009, you wrote:

>From: Richard Prosser <rhprosser@...>
>
>Hi Volker,
>It comes down to where you live.
>Here in NZ, 80% of the power is generated by hydo, while the gas is
>mostly obtained from imported crude IIRC.
>Transmission losses are small, but gas has to be delivered by truck -
>I don´t  think there is any gas retriculation remaining in the South
>Island, and only a little CNG in the North.
>
>I pay about $NZ0.20 per kWh for power and close to $NZ20 for a 9kg
>bottle of LPG.

Yes Richard you're right, it really depends where you live and whether
or not you have access to a public natural gas distribution system.
If you need to buy LPG, it many times it is more expensive than electricity,
also here in the US.

So as far as washing machines and other appliances that require heat
are concerned, in my opinion the best solution would be
if the consumer actually had a choice whether to use electricity or
gas (domestic hot water) and manufacturers should actually make an effort
to educate the consumer how to determine which option is the most economical.

Here in our area people have access to "cheaper" natural gas,
nevertheless most have an electric clothes dryer because the gas version
is about $100 more (compared to the same electric model)
(and most of our power comes from coal/oil/gas).


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

[Volker Soffel-2]

At 09:08 AM 6/27/2009, Gerhard Fiedler <lists@...>wrote:
Volker Soffel wrote:
 >> So it is $0.15/$0.046 = 3.26 times CHEAPER to heat water with gas than
 >> with electricity. Assuming electricity is 100% efficient and the gas
 >> heater is only 70%, then it is still 2.28 times cheaper to heat water
 >> using gas.

>Given that a front-loader typically uses less than 20% of the water that
>a top-loader uses (for the same cycle)... what's the outcome?

Really? Where is that 20% number coming from, any references?
The numbers I've seen are more in the range of 40% **less** water
usage for front loaders
compared to top loaders, which would mean a front loader uses 60% of
the water of a top loader.

>Anyway, I'm not necessarily proposing that it makes sense economically,
>but that it makes sense. There's more to life than economy (as expressed
>in dollars, whether Canadian or US :)  If "makes sense economically"
>isn't aligned with "makes sense", the problem generally is /not/ with
>"makes sense"...
>
>Gerhard

I don't disagree with you at all on the "makes sense" part.
I don't even disagree that long term it makes even economically sense,
depending on the energy cost at your location - unfortunately the majority
of people does not base their buying decisions on either criteria.

As far as washing machines are concerned it is for most people:
- why would I pay 2...3x the price to get a front loader?
- why would I even care about lower water usage of my washing
machine, if domestic is
only 7.5% of the total and of that 7.5% already  45% is used to water the lawn
and if the farmer a few miles up from me  has thousands of gallons
wasted in run-off water every day and only pays pennies for his water?

(not that I agree with those viewpoints)

Yes, this mentality is sad, but it is the reality, which is probably one of the
reasons that this world is in such a mess.

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

[William "Chops" Westfield]

On Jun 28, 2009, at 11:17 AM, Volker Soffel wrote:

> Here in our area people have access to "cheaper" natural gas,  
> nevertheless most have an electric clothes dryer because the gas  
> version is about $100 more (compared to the same electric model)

There are also (perceived?) safety issues with gas, and it also  
requires plumbing gas to a location that is frequently far away from  
other gas uses in a household.  I don't think I've ever seen a gas  
clothes dryer, although many of the places I've lived have used gas  
for water and space heating...

BillW

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

[Chris McSweeny]

On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 7:41 PM, Volker Soffel<volker.soffel@...> wrote:

> As far as washing machines are concerned it is for most people:
> - why would I pay 2...3x the price to get a front loader?
> - why would I even care about lower water usage of my washing
> machine, if domestic is
> only 7.5% of the total and of that 7.5% already  45% is used to water the lawn
> and if the farmer a few miles up from me  has thousands of gallons
> wasted in run-off water every day and only pays pennies for his water?
>
> (not that I agree with those viewpoints)
>
> Yes, this mentality is sad, but it is the reality, which is probably one of the
> reasons that this world is in such a mess.

One part of this world is in such a mess maybe. Why is it different
here in the UK, where you can't even walk into a normal shop and buy a
top loader?

Chris

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

[CDB-3]

:: I don't think I've ever seen a gas
:: clothes dryer

I've never seen a gas domestic dryer, but in the UK certainly most
launderette driers are gas heated.

My washing machine takes domestic hot and cold water (in which case it
only uses it's internal heater if the hot water is not up to temp) or
it can use purely cold water and heat it if necessary.

My only beef with modern washing machines is that they don't have the
flexibility in programs as my mothers' trusty old Hoover Keymatic (the
one with the nice sloping front and the reverse spinning impeller
verses drum rotation).  Only want to spin dry clothes - bung in the
correct lump of plastic in the slot and you had short spin, long spin
etc.

I can only perform a long spin with my Asko if I fill the drum with
last rinse water first, otherwise the only spin easily available is a
short low rotation spin for 'delicates'.

Colin
--
cdb, colin@... on 29/06/2009
 
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

[Chris McSweeny]

On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 10:36 PM, cdb<colin@...> wrote:

> My only beef with modern washing machines is that they don't have the
> flexibility in programs as my mothers' trusty old Hoover Keymatic (the
> one with the nice sloping front and the reverse spinning impeller
> verses drum rotation).  Only want to spin dry clothes - bung in the
> correct lump of plastic in the slot and you had short spin, long spin
> etc.
>
> I can only perform a long spin with my Asko if I fill the drum with
> last rinse water first, otherwise the only spin easily available is a
> short low rotation spin for 'delicates'.

As with all things, it depends what machine you have. Just been to
double check our modern (<1 year old) machine, and sure enough there
are both slow spin and fast spin programme options on the programme
dial. Strangely the only obvious thing I can think of it doesn't do is
rinse followed by a slow spin!

Chris

--
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 25, 2009, at 5:26 AM, Gerhard Fiedler wrote:

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

I suspect that a big part of this is that often, people don't actually  
"pick" a washing machine.  You use whatever came with the house or  
apartment.  If it happens to break within the time you live in that  
place, you MIGHT think about replacement type, but it's at least as  
likely to get replaced by some nameless entity without much thought in  
between owners/renters.

BillW

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