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

151–160 of 166 posts

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

#151

Post by ars »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #121
ars wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, I don't believe that's true. An imbalanced top loader will "walk" across the room if it's not heavy enough to stay put.

No, it's simply that top loaders just don't spin very fast.

> Front loaders have a harder time balancing the load due to the orientation of the drum

The opposite - it's easier for a front loader to balance the load, not harder (that's why they are able to spin faster).

A top loader has no ability to move the clothing into balance. But a front loader can - it spins slowly so that the clothing moves around, and then when it detects balance, it speeds up and locks the clothing into position.

A front loader is a better washing machine in every single way, except for one: it needs to be water tight, which means air tight, so it can grow mildew if the door is not left open when it's not in use.

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

#152

Post by agumonkey »

drewmol wrote: post #140
rtkwe wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of roadworks takes place well away from a convenient source of water like a hydrant so the water has to be transported out there for the water filled barriers. So there's some savings since you don't have to take the whole weight back to storage and the distance the bulk of the weight travels is probably lower.

In addition, looks like Concrete barriers are rated up to NCHRP 350 Test Level 5. Water filled Level 2, those linked to above are Level 1. https://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/esv/esv19/05-0149-O.pdf

Very interesting link. btw I didn't mean for static normal traffic barriers, of course here, you'd want something that can absorb car-class amount of energy. Just for low speed crowded urban area roadwork.

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

#153

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

ars wrote: post #151
TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, I don't believe that's true. An imbalanced top loader will "walk" across the room if it's not heavy enough to stay put. No, it's simply that top loaders just don't spin very fast. > Front loaders have a harder time balancing the load due to the orientation of the drum The opposite - it's easier for a front loader to balance the load, not harder (that's why they are able to spin faster). A top loader has no abilit…

Ah, yep, all going points, I think you're right. I sit corrected.

Yeah, got to leave that door open when not in use. Definitely something I always do.

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

#154

Post by jjeaff »

KGIII wrote: post #131
switch007 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A bit less than ten years ago, I had my home built and purchased nothing but high-end industrial appliances. I admit, this was costly and I made similar viewpoint purchases for the rest of the house. So far, I've not had to have anything repaired - at all. I haven't even had to change an appliance lightbulb. I just keep the consumables replaced on schedule. Initially, it was quite expensive. I do think it may be chea…

Do cheap appliances really have longevity problems though?

My place is going on 22 years old with the same gas oven/stove top, built in microwave, and standing washer dryer combo. No repairs needed that I know of and even if they did, they are all standard, whirlpool type appliance with an abundance of cheap parts online. Even the fridge was going strong until we had an internal water leak a few years ago which was easily fixed for $100. We did recently get rid of it for a more efficient model though.

Now that I think about it, the dishwasher was replaced a few years ago. Mostly because we didn't think the old one was cleaning well enough. But the new one was barely $200 all in.

Commerical, high end versions of these appliances would need to last more than my remaining lifespan to pay for themselves.

I don't think much financial argument can be made for spending large amounts of money on regular kitchen appliances for their longevity.

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

#155

Post by jjeaff »

Mister_Snuggles wrote: post #84
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…

> 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 hard sell for most people. The other side of the coin is that the Miele will possibly do a better job than the cheaper model. I used to buy $100 vacuum cleaners and just replace them when they break, which they usually did after a year or two. The last t…

I like my Miele vacuum. But I bought it because it did a noticeably better job and was more quite than a cheapo. But I doubt the Miele dishwasher would do a better job since mine does fine. Clean is clean for a plate.

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

#157

Post by KGIII »

jjeaff wrote: post #154
KGIII wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A bit less than ten years ago, I had my home built and purchased nothing but high-end industrial appliances. I admit, this was costly and I made similar viewpoint purchases for the rest of the house. So far, I've not had to have anything repaired - at all. I haven't even had to change an appliance lightbulb. I just keep the consumables replaced on schedule. Initially, it was quite expensive. I do think it may be chea…

Do cheap appliances really have longevity problems though? My place is going on 22 years old with the same gas oven/stove top, built in microwave, and standing washer dryer combo. No repairs needed that I know of and even if they did, they are all standard, whirlpool type appliance with an abundance of cheap parts online. Even the fridge was going strong until we had an internal water leak a few years ago which was e…

I haven't crunched the numbers but I'd say the lack of hassle also has value. I'm not sure where to even get that data. If you know where it is, I'll do some math.

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

#159

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #120
switch007 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ask a repaid shop! Of course, they're unlikely to know how well an all new model will last, but most manufacturers don't have all new components in a new model. I bought my current machine secondhand for AU$200. When it fails beyond repair I plan on buying another on from a repairer, so I'll have the opportunity to ask them what parts commonly fail that make machines unrepairable.

repair shop

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

#160

Post by tomcam »

slumberlust wrote: post #104
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.

Had no clue what nonplussed was and went searching. Interesting read: http://www.punctuationmatters.com/nonplussed-definition/

I knew the correct definition so the story merely left me plussed.
Post reply on HN