Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Concrete-free washing machines are lighter to transport, just as good in a spin

newatlas.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 166 posts

Re: Concrete-free washing machines are lighter to transport, just as good in a spin

#11

Post by joezydeco »

the-dude wrote: post #2

This seems to be such an incredible innovation, the questions arise : is it really feasible and why has it not happened before?

Well, it has, in other places. My kid had a basketball net playset that used a hollow base you would fill with water.

https://www.littletikes.com/item/612329/totsports-easy-score...

Now they recommend sand which probably would be less inclined to grow mold and bacteria in a warm enclosed environment.

My bigger question is: why do U.K. front loaders need a large counter vibration mass? My 10 year-old LG direct drive unit has no weights at all.

Re: Concrete-free washing machines are lighter to transport, just as good in a spin

#12

Post by diroussel »

I wonder when active damping systems will come to washing machines. You'll need sensors to measure vibrations, a control unit and some small but fast actuator coupled to a small counter weight.

The technology shouldn't be much different to the noise cancelling earphones I'm wearing right now. But with a larger actuator.

Re: Concrete-free washing machines are lighter to transport, just as good in a spin

#13

Post by Murkin »

andy_ppp wrote: post #5

For those on the lazy web like me; the answer is fill a hollow plastic counter weight with water when the machine is installed rather than lug great slabs of concrete round the world.

Only issue might be the container not being 100% full causing the water inside to slosh and increase the vibrations. (Probably not that hard to solve)

Re: Concrete-free washing machines are lighter to transport, just as good in a spin

#14

Post by omtose »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #6
the-dude wrote: post #2

This seems to be such an incredible innovation, the questions arise : is it really feasible and why has it not happened before?

Because it wasn't a priority. Plastic is more expensive than concrete. It's only now that "look how green we are" is able to tip the balance to where it's worth implementing. If someone really wanted they could come up with a more complicated counterbalance solution and probably eliminate the dead weight entirely. I really want to see how they came up with their numbers. I suspect that they're overly optimistic. +/-1…

I somewhat doubt that a hollow plastic tank is significantly more expensive than a concrete block. Factor in the added cost of shipping the much heavier concrete block, and it seems like the manufacturer would also save money in the process.

Re: Concrete-free washing machines are lighter to transport, just as good in a spin

#15

Post by agumonkey »

god dammit, yet another stupid idea I thought nobody would ever like.

ps: same goes for almost every dead weight transport. Road blocks, you name it.

Someone computes the wasted energy ?

pps: what about vertical axis spinning models ? I remember people saying they were inneficient. Anyone can explain ?

ppps: I remember a guy in africa coupling a dead bike to a vertical spinning container. sigh

Re: Concrete-free washing machines are lighter to transport, just as good in a spin

#17

Post by jaclaz »

the-dude wrote: post #2

This seems to be such an incredible innovation, the questions arise : is it really feasible and why has it not happened before?

Well, concrete is solid and water is liquid.

I know it sounds obvious, but have you ever seen in your life a plastic flask or tank or jerry can that after several years leaked?

It is of course doable, but how durable will it be?

Imagine the kind of vibrations and shocks a jerry can used as a counterbalancing device in a relatively hot environment needs to bear.

A good, environment-friendly idea would be to make the concrete counterbalances a "standard" (in size and holes/bolting) and re-use them.

Nowadays in most countries (excluded the developing ones) the market for washing machine is almost exclusively a replacement one.

You get the new washing machine (without counterbalance) and you bolt on it the one from the old machine, and you save also the cost of the plastic water container.

Re: Concrete-free washing machines are lighter to transport, just as good in a spin

#18

Post by avip »

ratherbefuddled wrote: post #9

I find innovations like this wonderfully elegant when they're so obvious in hindsight. It boggles the mind nobody thought of this before. There must be other problems with radically better obvious-in-hindsight solutions out there too.

What makes you think nobody thought of this before?

Re: Concrete-free washing machines are lighter to transport, just as good in a spin

#19

Post by baybal2 »

Murkin wrote: post #13
andy_ppp wrote: post #5

For those on the lazy web like me; the answer is fill a hollow plastic counter weight with water when the machine is installed rather than lug great slabs of concrete round the world.

Only issue might be the container not being 100% full causing the water inside to slosh and increase the vibrations. (Probably not that hard to solve)

>(Probably not that hard to solve)

Yeah, just throw a 2 channel PID controller and a bunch of servos. It most likely be rather cheap (sarcasm)

Re: Concrete-free washing machines are lighter to transport, just as good in a spin

#20

Post by jon-wood »

omtose wrote: post #14
dsfyu404ed wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it wasn't a priority. Plastic is more expensive than concrete. It's only now that "look how green we are" is able to tip the balance to where it's worth implementing. If someone really wanted they could come up with a more complicated counterbalance solution and probably eliminate the dead weight entirely. I really want to see how they came up with their numbers. I suspect that they're overly optimistic. +/-1…

I somewhat doubt that a hollow plastic tank is significantly more expensive than a concrete block. Factor in the added cost of shipping the much heavier concrete block, and it seems like the manufacturer would also save money in the process.

Is it that much more expensive to ship something in bulk with additional weight? I honestly don't know how distance shipping by the container works, but I always thought it was just a case of being billed based on volume.
Post reply on HN