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

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

#141

Post by petra » Thu, Aug 17, 2017, 6:01 PM UTC

dingaling wrote: post #79

amelius wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Also, as a student, I didn't have the money for a patent application. That's the big probem for individuals. Patenting as an individual is expensive and as a friend learned the big companies can just sit-tight until the renewal fees become too much to bear. He had designed a self-assembly glassfibre astronomical observatory on the Buckmeister principle, with a wide-opening orifice using petal segments, and toured t…

>> None wanted to license the patent.

Where did it fail? no interest at all? weak patent ? terms negotiation ?

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

#142

Post by drewmol » Thu, Aug 17, 2017, 6:20 PM UTC

jaclaz wrote: post #55

baybal2 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>(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)

Most probably the new washing machine will have a microprocessor anyway being IoT ;), so it's just the cost of sensors and servos that adds to the BOM. As a side note, and JFYI, a celebration of connected washers (by IBM): https://www.ibm.com/blogs/internet-of-things/washing-iot-sol... Particularly: >New business transformation opportunities can be explored whereby the washing machine itself can be turned into a serv…

Washing can be the free tier, and then monetize by coverting to premium(dryer).

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

#143

Post by baybal2 » Thu, Aug 17, 2017, 6:32 PM UTC

jaclaz wrote: post #89

baybal2 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aah, this the devious "product as a service" model, at least here they properly call it leasing, unlike the companies that adopted Keurigification

I am not sure to understand, actually they (I mean the cited IBM article authors) don't call it "leasing", they explicitly promote the idea of "pay per wash".

Oh, well if it is so, then it is also an Example of Keurigification

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

#144

Post by andrewflnr » Thu, Aug 17, 2017, 6:48 PM UTC

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.

Well, you're going to have a heck of a cocktail party story now.

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

#145

Post by seanp2k2 » Thu, Aug 17, 2017, 6:53 PM UTC

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…

There are also two schools of thought on spending more now vs spending twice. $1k now or $200 4-5 times obey the same course of time misses the opportunity cost -- pay $200 now then put the $800 into index funds. This also assumes that the $200 machine works as well as the $1k machine, which is very likely false. If it's rougher on your clothes and you must replace them more often, there's another hidden cost. If it's loud and keeps you up at night, it's harder to assign a dollar value to that. If you just hate using junky crap, again that's hard to assign a number to.

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

#146

Post by pfranz » Thu, Aug 17, 2017, 6:59 PM UTC

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.

Consumers care about 'plug and play' to a sometimes confusing degree. I've heard numerous stories about products made objectively worse to make it more appealing to consumers--pretty, but tasteless tomatoes, apples, and other produce are one example. I heard (a possibly apocryphal) story that bottled smoothie companies add questionable things to keep smoothies suspended because consumers prefer not to shake their drink before consuming.

I wouldn't be surprised if this was investigated internally at multiple companies, but decided consumers wouldn't like the extra steps. I've also had many apartments explicitly disallow containers of liquids larger than a few gallons (the obvious case is fish tanks) because of insurance and liability reasons.

I hope this is successful and takes off...but I can see still see it being rejected by consumers. Maybe these are the kinds of things where a regulation is the best course forward?

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

#147

Post by ouid » Thu, Aug 17, 2017, 7:02 PM UTC

"Concrete is bad for the environment due to the amount of CO2 released in its production"

While this might be true for very large scale pours, is it really true of washing machines? burning 1 kg of gasoline produces about 3 kg CO2. Producing 1 kg of cement produces < 1kg of CO2.

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

#148

Post by netsharc » Thu, Aug 17, 2017, 7:18 PM UTC

pfranz wrote: post #146

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.

Consumers care about 'plug and play' to a sometimes confusing degree. I've heard numerous stories about products made objectively worse to make it more appealing to consumers--pretty, but tasteless tomatoes, apples, and other produce are one example. I heard (a possibly apocryphal) story that bottled smoothie companies add questionable things to keep smoothies suspended because consumers prefer not to shake their dri…

Plug and play? A washing machine already needs water input, it would be an interesting hack to pipe up the internals so that during the first run, it will first fill the ballast container, and only after that's full will the rest of the water be used for normal washing. And somehow make it so that the ballast container can be sealed off when it's full, maybe a tiny sliding door which will rise with the water, and when it's high enough, a magnet above it will pull it and seal the container shut.

And if you want to transport it, just add a mechanism that can release all the water... and also open that door.

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

#149

Post by louithethrid » Thu, Aug 17, 2017, 7:20 PM UTC

ouid wrote: post #147

"Concrete is bad for the environment due to the amount of CO2 released in its production" While this might be true for very large scale pours, is it really true of washing machines? burning 1 kg of gasoline produces about 3 kg CO2. Producing 1 kg of cement produces < 1kg of CO2.

Only slightly related- but is there research into genetic modified wood growth? As in - directly from a cell culture in a tank?

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

#150

Post by marcosdumay » Thu, Aug 17, 2017, 7:37 PM UTC

dingaling wrote: post #79

amelius wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Also, as a student, I didn't have the money for a patent application. That's the big probem for individuals. Patenting as an individual is expensive and as a friend learned the big companies can just sit-tight until the renewal fees become too much to bear. He had designed a self-assembly glassfibre astronomical observatory on the Buckmeister principle, with a wide-opening orifice using petal segments, and toured t…

That's the main failure on that argument that patents protect small inventors.

It's a wonder that the companies on your case decided to ignore the patent, instead of implementing it expecting your friend to not have enough money to sue.