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

31–40 of 166 posts

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

#31

Post by Retric »

jon-wood wrote: post #20
omtose wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In bulk you basically per 40' container which are usually kept under ~45,000lbs* and have 67.7 m3 volume. So, you are either volume or weight limited, but not really both.

Note: there are a few different container sizes, but 40' is by far the most common. Weight limits also very by location.

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

#32

Post by Retric »

jrs235 wrote: post #27
Retric wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Concrete weighs 2.5 as much per given volume 150 vs 62 pounds per cubic foot. So, there are significant trade offs involved. Also, adding a sealed water container creates a few more ways for these things to break down which was a larger concern when washing machines lasted ~5x as long.

What if they used sand instead of water?

Then you need to pay to ship sand. The upside is it would probably be easier to install, downside if it breaks you need to deal with sand.

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

#33

Post by jerf »

jrs235 wrote: post #27
Retric wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Concrete weighs 2.5 as much per given volume 150 vs 62 pounds per cubic foot. So, there are significant trade offs involved. Also, adding a sealed water container creates a few more ways for these things to break down which was a larger concern when washing machines lasted ~5x as long.

What if they used sand instead of water?

Well, I don't know about your house, but in my house I don't have hoses with free-flowing sand guaranteed to be right next to my washing machine when I install it. A washing machine that required you to buy sand too would have a hard time in the market; it may be irrational in some sense, but that would be perceived as a huge installation burden by the market and it would not do well.

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

#34

Post by jmkd »

Somewhat tickled to say I thought of this about 10 years ago, told everyone who would listen, and many who wouldn't.

As I was not remotely interested in developing it myself I was happy to tell anyone. Got an audience with a designer at Dyson, gave it to him straight in the clearest most open terms imaginable, to be met by nonplussed disinterest.

Just kept it for cocktail parties since then.

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

#35

Post by quickben »

diroussel wrote: post #12

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.

Take the vibration amplitude over time in all three directions. Take first and second derivative per axis. Send that to something mechanical to counter it.

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

#36

Post by cm2187 »

ynniv wrote: post #21
rplst8 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's like a huge "duh, why didn't they do that" sort of thing. Wow. Theoretically, they could probably make all of the free space in the washer part of a giant tupperware style container and allow filling of different compartments to precisely balance the machine.

And the answer is... cheap computing power. If the plastic balance isn't full or leaks out, the spin cycle becomes extremely dangerous. Traditionally we used a system that was not prone to this kind of failure, but now that the cycle is computer controlled and we have cheap accelerometers we can use a more complicated but lighter alternative safely.

Why do you need a precise weight? Isn't it mass just there to keep the machine from vibrating, like the heavier the better? As opposed to some weight on a propeller that are carefully calibrated to offset any asymmetry.

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

#37

Post by fps »

Retric wrote: post #32
jrs235 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if they used sand instead of water?

Then you need to pay to ship sand. The upside is it would probably be easier to install, downside if it breaks you need to deal with sand.

But it doesn't need to be shipped from the factory in China to the user. Sand can be locally sourced cheaply. Washing machine installers just need an additional material on their truck, in addition to the tools and plumbing supplies they already carry. 25kg of sand costs $0.50 from a landscaping yard.

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

#38

Post by cm2187 »

Retric wrote: post #25
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.

Concrete weighs 2.5 as much per given volume 150 vs 62 pounds per cubic foot. So, there are significant trade offs involved. Also, adding a sealed water container creates a few more ways for these things to break down which was a larger concern when washing machines lasted ~5x as long.

At the very least you could have removable concrete piece. What's hard to move is a big heavy thing. A big light thing and a small heavy thing are easier to transport.

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

#39

Post by Gracana »

agumonkey wrote: post #15

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

Horizontal axis is better because it tumbles the clothes through a small puddle of water at the bottom. Vertical axis requires lots of energy to agitate, and a lot of water.

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

#40

Post by amelius »

jmkd wrote: post #34

Somewhat tickled to say I thought of this about 10 years ago, told everyone who would listen, and many who wouldn't. As I was not remotely interested in developing it myself I was happy to tell anyone. Got an audience with a designer at Dyson, gave it to him straight in the clearest most open terms imaginable, to be met by nonplussed disinterest. Just kept it for cocktail parties since then.

I've been telling this for years every time I helped people move. The thought of patenting it crossed my mind, but I always assumed this would be "too simple" an invention, that companies probably already had figured out, but couldn't use because of some patent troll or something like that. Also, as a student, I didn't have the money for a patent application.
Post reply on HN