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

91–100 of 166 posts

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

#91

Post by ynniv »

cm2187 wrote: post #36
ynniv wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A container of water is highly susceptible to harmonic vibrations in a way that a slab of concrete is not.

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

#93

Post by switch007 »

rsynnott wrote: post #76
italicbold wrote: post #71

"The plastic counterweight (right) could save around 45,000 tonnes of CO2 each year in the UK..." How about we just make machines that last instead of having to be replaced all the time.

Because no-one wants to pay for that. Washing machines which last exist, but they're expensive. They use sturdier, more easily replaceable parts, higher quality motors and control systems, etc. And sometimes _iron_ counterweights (even more CO2 there). You can get a washing machine that might last perhaps 5-10 years for about 200-300 euro... or a Miele one that'll probably last over 20 years for 1000 euro. It's a har…

My problem is that I'm willing to spend the money but I'm worried about getting burnt. It can be difficult to ascertain what product is worth spending money on and how much extra to spend exactly.

There is zero guarantee of spending more to get higher quality and longer life. It takes a lot of research.

You need to be really, really determined to follow the "Buy It For Life" way.

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

#94

Post by jrs235 »

jerf wrote: post #33
jrs235 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Excellent points.

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

#95

Post by petra »

rsynnott wrote: post #76
italicbold wrote: post #71

"The plastic counterweight (right) could save around 45,000 tonnes of CO2 each year in the UK..." How about we just make machines that last instead of having to be replaced all the time.

Because no-one wants to pay for that. Washing machines which last exist, but they're expensive. They use sturdier, more easily replaceable parts, higher quality motors and control systems, etc. And sometimes _iron_ counterweights (even more CO2 there). You can get a washing machine that might last perhaps 5-10 years for about 200-300 euro... or a Miele one that'll probably last over 20 years for 1000 euro. It's a har…

1000 euros per 20 years = 50 euro per year.

250 euros per ~7.5 years = 33 euros per year.

See the problem ?

But also improving the reliability of washing machines isn't hard or expensive. Remember, you're talking about a machine that the most common source of problem with it is a broken/faulty lid switch. cheap and easy to fix.

Surely, with that level of engineered failure(or maybe extreme cost engineering), there's similar stuff hidden there.

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

#96

Post by thinkcontext »

italicbold wrote: post #71

"The plastic counterweight (right) could save around 45,000 tonnes of CO2 each year in the UK..." How about we just make machines that last instead of having to be replaced all the time.

Why not both? They aren't mutually exclusive.

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

#97

Post by otterley »

switch007 wrote: post #93
rsynnott wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because no-one wants to pay for that. Washing machines which last exist, but they're expensive. They use sturdier, more easily replaceable parts, higher quality motors and control systems, etc. And sometimes _iron_ counterweights (even more CO2 there). You can get a washing machine that might last perhaps 5-10 years for about 200-300 euro... or a Miele one that'll probably last over 20 years for 1000 euro. It's a har…

My problem is that I'm willing to spend the money but I'm worried about getting burnt. It can be difficult to ascertain what product is worth spending money on and how much extra to spend exactly. There is zero guarantee of spending more to get higher quality and longer life. It takes a lot of research. You need to be really, really determined to follow the "Buy It For Life" way.

The length of a manufacturer warranty is a pretty good indicator of relative expected product longevity.

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

#98

Post by ynniv »

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.

Did you build one to see if it worked? A used washing machine is essentially free. Perhaps the Dyson engineer knew that success in mechanical design of an everyday machine that's expected to take decades of abuse is somewhat more difficult than having a cool idea. We don't even know how long the professionally designed machine in the article will last.

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

#99

Post by creeble »

Is this a British thing?

I'm pretty sure my 22-year-old Kenmore washer doesn't have any concrete in it. I have it apart three or four times in 22 years for different maintenance (never costing more than $50 in parts) and it's not particularly heavy.

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

#100

Post by dx034 »

italicbold wrote: post #71

"The plastic counterweight (right) could save around 45,000 tonnes of CO2 each year in the UK..." How about we just make machines that last instead of having to be replaced all the time.

You also have to transport a machine if you move with furniture. Washing machines to me still appear to be one of the longest lasting appliances, I'd guess most replace the machine not because it's faulty.
Post reply on HN