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

121–130 of 166 posts

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

#121

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

ars wrote: post #116
Bjartr wrote: post #70

My top loader has damping springs at the bottom and a plastic "balance ring"[1] around the top of the basket that's filled with fluid to reduce vibrations. Certainly no concrete anywhere in it, that I could see when I took the cover/case off anyway. Though I've been having problems with it shaking too much during the spin cycle, so I wish it did have concrete. [1] http://www.appliancepartspros.com/whirlpool-balance-r…

Only front loaders have it. Top loaders don't spin fast enough to need it.

I was of the understanding top loaders don't require it because the axis of spin is oriented such that, so long as the load is sufficiently balanced, it doesn't matter how fast it spins.

Front loaders have a harder time balancing the load due to the orientation of the drum, so require greater inertial mass to stabilise them.

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

#122

Post by creeble »

rsynnott wrote: post #105
petra wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I've never been convinced about the idea of serious engineered failure for this type of device. I think there are two problems, both consumer-related; price sensitivity (adjusted for inflation, these machines are far cheaper than they used to be) and demand for features (more modes, smartphone integration, bigger drum, higher spin speed), and something has to give. If you compare a low-end washing machine, say a Whir…

"Feels flimsy" doesn't mean they can't last.

I paid usd$350 for our new Kenmore washer in 1995. I have had it apart three times in that period, all for repairs that cost less than $50 in parts and at most two hours time.

Contrast this with our 2012 $950 Bosch dishwasher, which broke three times in its second year of service (1-year warranty), and cost collectively $850 to fix because nothing was user serviceable. We threw it out when it broke the fourth time.

My experience with home appliances has been mostly that the cheaper ones last _longer_ than the expensive ones.

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

#123

Post by rasz »

ratherbefuddled wrote: post #41
avip wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes you think nobody thought of this before?

To my knowledge nobody did it, and I can't see a reason why having had the idea it wouldn't be used.

There are patents for this from 1989.

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

#124

Post by jhoechtl »

ynniv wrote: post #91
cm2187 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not if fully toped?

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

#125

Post by jhoechtl »

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?

Do you have the sand at home? If no, hoards of customers would have to fetch it one by one from some supply, actually causing more environmental damage in sum

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

#126

Post by agumonkey »

creeble wrote: post #118
Gracana wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is there actual evidence that consumer horizontal machines take less energy per cycle?

It's a very "famous" claim at least. Couldn't find quantitative evidence though.

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

#127

Post by rasz »

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.

Washing machines are build to die by design now. Most disposable brands (Samsung, LG, Electrolux, Whirlpool, anything from supermarket) use specially selected unprotected alloy in the spider (part holding drum to the shaft).

http://www.automaticwasher.org/cgi-bin/TD/TD-VIEWTHREAD.cgi?...

Fun fact - drum itself is stainless. Good brands (Miele) use stainless spider and are bulletproof.

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

#128

Post by rplst8 »

chr4004 wrote: post #63

Having a "dead weight" has it's advantages - passive, no bacteria, mold, flex, resistant to shock etc. Pretty sure billion dollar companies like Siemens have thought this through and came to the conclusion that concrete is best. The negative externality of a disappointed customer seems to be larger (medium term) than the damage being done by producing the concrete.

Better question - why can't we reuse the concrete blocks.

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

#130

Post by overcast »

resedit wrote: post #42

>"We found it worked as good as a concrete counterweight, stopping the spinning drum from heavily vibrating the machine," Sorry to be off topic, but shouldn't it be "worked as well "? Not a native speaker, but it sounds strange. Very interesting idea, though as many have pointed out, I'd be worried of leakage in the long run. A plastic container should be cheap to replace, however.

Just remember Superman does good, you're doing well.
Post reply on HN