From: John De Armond
Newsgroups: rec.outdoors.rv-travel
Subject: Re: RVers Fight City Hall
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 14:02:42 -0500
Message-ID: <indut2p4uboaggkai1cncu09qsp4o5ca68@4ax.com>

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 05:36:34 -0500, "Newby" <nobody@nowhere.net>
wrote:


>> Nah!!!! You can't put the washing machine on the porch. That's where the
>> 15 hounds sleep.
>>
>> Lon
>
>Did the washing machine run on kerosene?

The old Maytags ran on gasoline.  They would run on kerosene once
started but most folks didn't bother.

I still remember my great-granny kicking the sh*t out of her old
Maytag.  The magnetos had weak magnets and that made them a Nu Yawk
b*tch to crank.  Granny weight 60 lbs soaking wet so the cranking
routine was a spectacle.  Like a l'il bitty Hoss stomping a bedbug.
No, it wasn't on the front porch.  It came with a long flexible
exhaust that was tossed out the back door.

Once cranked, they actually did a pretty decent job of cleaning.  When
REA and TVA brought power to the  part of rural Alabama they lived in,
she got a newfangled electric washer.  She hated it, claimed that it
didn't do nearly as good a job of washing clothes as her gas Maytag.

Here are some photos of a gas Maytag in action at an antique engine
show.  The second photo shows the outside exhaust just like Granny's.
The third shows the engine.  They came in one and two cylinder
versions.  I hear the 2 cylinder versions were easier to start but
Granny's was a single.

http://www.neon-john.com/RV/Trips/Daytona_Turkey_Run_2003/slides/DSCN5353.html
http://www.neon-john.com/RV/Trips/Daytona_Turkey_Run_2000/slides/DCP_0786.html
http://www.neon-john.com/RV/Trips/Daytona_Turkey_Run_2000/slides/DCP_0785.html

John

From: John De Armond
Newsgroups: alt.energy.homepower
Subject: Re: Front Loading Washer KillaWatt readings?
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 05:11:56 -0400
Message-ID: <i0unc39p2o9euuro9qje7unrki3j6fuvlo@4ax.com>

On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 17:27:59 +1000, "stu" <nowhere@justyet.com> wrote:


>> Might be that washing in cold water only on a top
>> loader approaches the efficiency of a front loader
>> anyway? What you think?
>
>Depends what your water costs. Here it's about $2 for 1000 litres so thats
>about $0.40 a load for my old top loader and about $0.10 a load for my front
>loader
>

Holy shite!  Where is "here"?  That water rate is pretty out there.  When I lived in
the city, the rate was $1.52 per 750 gallon unit.  Yours works out to $5.68 per unit.
Daaaamn.

Out here in the country, of course, the water is practically free, the only minimal
cost being the electricity to pump it from a relatively shallow well.

Even at your outrageous water rate, it's going to take a LOT of loads to offset the
cost of that front loader.  Playing with some numbers.

Basic top loader - $250 new.
Neptune -         $1000
Difference -       $750

Savings per load - 0.40-0.10 = $0.30 per load.

$750/0.30 = 2500 loads.

I run about 2 loads a week.  2500/2 = 1250 weeks/52 = 24 years

3 loads a week is 2500/3 = 833 weeks/52 = 16 years.

A load a day is 2500/7 = 357 weeks/52 = 7 years.

This calculation ignores the time value of the money and assumes that the thing lasts
that long.

Nah, I think I'll stick to my old top loaders.

John

From: John De Armond
Newsgroups: alt.energy.homepower
Subject: Re: Front Loading Washer KillaWatt readings?
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 07:59:00 -0400
Message-ID: <3q7oc354m9b1lmcheismd3h1vv2kocuet2@4ax.com>

On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 21:18:53 +1000, "stu" <nowhere@justyet.com> wrote:


>> Holy shite!  Where is "here"?  That water rate is pretty out there.
>> When I lived in the city, the rate was $1.52 per 750 gallon unit.
>> Yours works out to $5.68 per unit. Daaaamn.
>
>"here" is Australia, the $2 includes the sewerage charges

In my old city, the sewer charge is $2.79 per unit which makes a total of $4.31.
Converting to those l'il Aussie bux, AU$5.39 per unit.  OK, your water rate doesn't
look so bad in that light.  Damn, I'm glad I moved away from the city!  I didn't
realize until I looked it up how badly they were raping us on sewer charges.  They
snuck that one way up since last time I looked.


>I like my front loader much more than my top loader. Uses less detergent and
>is easier on the clothes, but have only had it for about 3 years so will
>just have to see how long it lasts(they say a load a day for 15 years).

I'm still trying to make my mind up on the Neptune.  It IS a little easier to move
the wash to the dryer - after all, once yer back is bent it can stay that way until
the load is moved.

I would have absolutely hated the front loader had I left it on the floor.  I built a
2X4 platform for both appliances to sit on that raises the openings to about chest
level.  MUCH nicer that way.  Were I to do it over, I'd raise it a bit higher to
about shoulder level.  That way I'd not have to bend over at all.

John

From: John De Armond
Newsgroups: alt.energy.homepower
Subject: Re: Front Loading Washer KillaWatt readings?
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 03:17:10 -0400
Message-ID: <f1dqc3hq90dqlq8mf8a32t5h3q7gn1f3n9@4ax.com>

Absolutely zero vibration.  Remarkable, acutally.  Whomever figured out the dynamic
balancing thing really did his homework.

John

On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 16:25:49 -0500, me@privacy.net wrote:

>Neon John <no@never.com> wrote:
>
>>I would have absolutely hated the front loader had I left it on the floor.  I built a
>>2X4 platform for both appliances to sit on that raises the openings to about chest
>>level.  MUCH nicer that way.  Were I to do it over, I'd raise it a bit higher to
>>about shoulder level.  That way I'd not have to bend over at all.
>
>had any vibration problems for the Neptune?
>
>especially since its setting up higher on platforms
>made of wood?
>
>My Kenmore front loader vibrated like hell.... as it
>was on a plywood floor of home with just a crawlspace
>(no concrete floor basement)

From: John De Armond
Newsgroups: alt.energy.homepower
Subject: Re: Wringer Washing Machine for Off-Grid?
Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 15:39:06 -0400
Message-ID: <cfaj341oejrv29adr10sitedov7vtd6vio@4ax.com>

On Sun, 25 May 2008 08:33:55 -0700, "Ulysses" <eatmyspam@spamola.com/> wrote:

>> 70 minutes to this point, .21kWh. Removed clothes and weighed, about
>> 1.5lb gain. Too wet to hang up IMO. Clothes would probably drip, and
>> dry crispy.
.....
>>
>> Total time 1:45. Total consumption .45kWh. No detectable weight loss
>> since spinning, but my scale was too useless to tell. Clothes were
>> definitely drier though, plenty dry enough to hang up. Shirts clammy
>> but wearable in a pinch on a summer day. Although I'm sure that any
>> self-respecting yuppie would leave them in at least another half hour.
>>
>> *******************

Just for shits'n'grins, I ran my 1955 model Whirlpool washer (the one my Dad
bought Mom to celebrate my birth :-) against the Kill-A-Watt.  This one has a
BIG full framed motor with lots of iron and copper.

About 10 lbs of clothes (no wife present to confuse things :-)  Cycle time,
about 15-20 minutes. Washing watts 382 with a PF of 0.50. Spinning watts, 395,
PF 0.51. Power used, 0.08kWh.  No, I didn't drop a decimal point.  This
includes the 20 watt appliance light behind the control panel.  I ran another
load with a different KAW to make sure.  Same result.  Interestingly enough,
when I set the water level from MED to FULL and ran a third load, the total
energy draw went to 0.10kWh.  Guess it took a little more energy to slosh
around that extra water.

The clothes come out moist but not wet and far from dripping.  Suitable to go
directly to the dryer or clothes line.  I am NOT impressed with that
Splendide!

>
>The general consensus seems to be for me to get it out of my head.  I am
>going to have to take a look at those engine-powered machines though, if
>only for fun.

One of the most vivid recollections from my early childhood is watching my
great-granny kickin' and cussin' her gas powered Maytag.  She was a tough,
wiry snuff-using lady who probably weighed 80 lbs soaking wet.  Normally a
Church-going, God-fearing country Christian, that Maytag could make her lapse
into cussing like a sailor!  More often than not, she'd give up, get out the
wash tub and scrub board and do the laundry over a fire in the back yard like
God intended :-)  Hers was exactly like this one including the flex exhaust
hose that got tossed out the back door.

http://www.neon-john.com/RV/Trips/Daytona_Turkey_Run_2000/slides/DCP_0793.html
http://www.neon-john.com/RV/Trips/Daytona_Turkey_Run_2000/slides/DCP_0786.html

After having played with several of the Maytag engines, the problem with hard
starting became obvious.  The magneto was so weak that it could barely light
things off even under the best of conditions. The flywheel magnet had only
barely detectable magnetism.  Drilling out the magnet faces and epoxying in
rare earth magnets solved that problem.  First kick start almost every time.

BTW, there's a guy on the net out in the midwest who is selling off a massive
collection of Maytag engines - over a thousand of 'em.  I stumbled across his
page awhile back.  Reasonable prices too. $150 for a single cylinder one, I
think.  Google should find him.

>From what I've read the $1500 front-loading washers only save
>about $12/year and probably cost a lot more to repair.

I have a Maytag Neptune front loader that a friend gave me after he got pissed
off at it because it wouldn't release the door latch, yanked it open and broke
the latch.  The replacement door latch is going to cost me more than I've ever
paid for a washing machine.  I may fabricate one instead.  It has a few other
problems that are probably sensor related.  Funny, my 1955 Whirlpool doesn't
have ANY sensors and only has one water level switch :-)

>
>Now my wife and daughters can stop worrying.
>

Heh.  Sounds like what you need to do is to find an OLD washer so you can save
some energy over what these new "energy efficient" washers use.

My Whirlpool never exceeded 800 watts even when bringing the wet clothes up to
speed on the spin cycle.  It would probably comfortably run on a 1500 watt
inverter.  I can find out if you'd like. All that iron and copper in that
motor really does make a difference.  This is more or less confirming my
suspicion that those skeletal framed, aluminum wire wound motors being
installed in current production washing machines are heaters that also just
happen to turn.

John

From: John De Armond
Newsgroups: alt.energy.homepower
Subject: Re: Wringer Washing Machine for Off-Grid?
Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 19:50:46 -0400
Message-ID: <o7uj34plsiaq41pb3raavm0bd68qca58pq@4ax.com>

On Sun, 25 May 2008 15:35:33 -0700, "Ulysses" <eatmyspam@spamola.com/> wrote:



>> My Whirlpool never exceeded 800 watts even when bringing the wet
>> clothes up to speed on the spin cycle.  It would probably comfortably
>> run on a 1500 watt inverter.  I can find out if you'd like. All that
>> iron and copper in that motor really does make a difference.  This is
>> more or less confirming my suspicion that those skeletal framed,
>> aluminum wire wound motors being installed in current production
>> washing machines are heaters that also just happen to turn.
>
>I have the motor from the old Whirlpool and it it fits that description.
>Now I'm beginning to regret having tossed the rest of it.  With what I've
>learned in the last few years I could probably repair it.  BTW my wife made
>be go back to the used washing machine store and get the matching dryer.
>When the igniter coil burned out on the Kenmore dryer I looked in the
>Whirlpool and it was exactly the same part.  Matter-of-fact the entire
>insides look exactly the same only reversed.  Kinda makes me think it was
>made by Whrilpool.
>
>I blew up a 2000 watt inverter accidently when I *thought* it was connected
>to a generator.  Oops.  That was with the Kenmore washer.  I also melted the
>stator coils on a 5000 watt generator with the same washing machine (it was
>a crappy generator anyway).  I'm not worried about damaging my OB inverter
>cause they just plain seem to be built to take it.  I think I did actually
>overload it once and it simply shut down.  This may be beside the point but
>I'm surprised that a whole house, with all the usual appliances, can be run
>with a single 3600 watt inverter.  When I bought the two I inquired about
>adding more later, if needed.  One of the very nice features of the OBs is
>that to get more power all I have to do is flip a switch and turn on the
>other one.  It will automatically (so they say) balance the loads and take
>care of any 240 volt loads etc.  I have tried running the Kenmore with small
>generators (1500-2000 watts) and they would always have problems when the
>spin cycle started which is why I was interested in the wringer machines.

The way this machine works (and like most machines up through the 70s at least
worked) is that the motor has to be turning before the solenoid can shift the
transmission into spin or agitate or whatever.  Therefore the motor inrush is
all over with by the time the spin cycle starts.

One thing that limits the power draw during the spin cycle start is that the
belt is fairly loose.  It is a major mechanical operation to change the belt,
involving dismantling part of the clutch and gearbox and so I haven't done it.
The belt is in good shape - it's just stretched a little.

This might be a strategy that would make an older model washer live happily on
either a smaller inverter or a small generator.  One could even put a delay
timer module on the spin cycle solenoid to let everything settle down before
applying the load.

This type of machine COULD be run directly from a gas engine.  Only the
controls require electricity and that could be converted to 12 volts or simply
run on a small inverter.  The motor can run all the time - the transmission
engages the various loads when needed.

A hybrid option that wouldn't be very expensive but would get the electrical
load off your inverter would be a hydraulic drive.  Hydraulic motor inside the
washer and an engine/pump assembly outside.  If the engine is electric start,
the washer operation could be pretty much as automatic as with the electric
drive.

If you were really clever you could harness the engine's waste heat to dry
your clothes.

>
>If I can ever manage to find a 6-8" pulley that will fit on a 7/8" shaft I'm
>going to try running my alternator/battery charger with a 10 HP engine and
>see how many amps I get.  I can get up to about 34 (including phantom loads)
>with the Honda 4 HP engine.  I don't know exactly how much the internal
>diodes will withstand but if I can get 45 amps or so I can just run the
>battery charger while the well pump is going and I should break about even.
>I can't believe how hard it is to find pulleys or how much they want for one
>that might work.

Have you checked the farm stores like Tractor Supply?  I'm pretty sure I've
seen stamped steel pulleys that large there.  The stamped steel ones aren't
very expensive.

John

From: John De Armond
Newsgroups: alt.energy.homepower
Subject: Re: Wringer Washing Machine for Off-Grid?
Date: Sat, 24 May 2008 21:30:44 -0400
Message-ID: <sufh34di5t431bfeqp6n9qdb1e0fc8p2s8@4ax.com>

On Sat, 24 May 2008 12:43:13 -0700, "Ulysses" <eatmyspam@spamola.com/> wrote:

>I've only seem them in old movies and perhaps at an antique store but it
>seems like wringer washing machines would use much less power than a
>convential machine.  I'm guessing they fill up with the available water
>pressure, use gravity to drain, and the electric motor is only used to
>agitate the clothes.  Anyone actually used one?  Are they a PITA to wring
>out the water?  Anyone know how much power they use?  A servo to
>automatically fill and drain the tank would be nice and should use little
>power.

Still available

http://www.lehmans.com/jump.jsp?itemType=PRODUCT&itemID=613

Hang on to your wallet, though.

My granny used one when I was young.  PITA!  Ever heard the term "tit caught
in the wringer"?  It happens.....

No way I'd give up my automatic washing machine.  Even if I had to adapt an
external gas engine or something similar, my clothes get washed on automatic.
period!  No way I'm going to relive the historical "wash day".  I'm into "wash
5 minutes" every few days :-)

John