Thoughts on new clothes washer

[Howard 538]

Laundromat customers always bitch about the water level as they assume high water level and lots of suds means better cleaning.  That is why Maytag took the glass away from the smaller front loaders as they did not want people bitching.  Whenever a customer would complain about water level I just explained that what they saw was the optimum water level as determined by the manufacturer and told them if they were ever not satisfied with how clean the clothing were we would run the machine again for them at no cost.  I think I was taken up on that offer twice in 12 years of operation.

 

BTW I am sure your machine has a setting where you can increase the water level if you are not happy.  If not the level is most likely controlled by a pressure switch that has a small tube feeding into a diaphragm.  There should be a set screw, turn it to increase or decrease the water level to make you happy.

[Howard 538]

Stay away from LG, my buddy is a manager @ PCR & he says they suck!  too many issues.

I've had my LG units for four years and never a single issue and I know several people that have them as well and no issues.

[Newtonian 453]

Laundromat customers always bitch about the water level as they assume high water level and lots of suds means better cleaning.  

 

BTW I am sure your machine has a setting where you can increase the water level if you are not happy.  If not the level is most likely controlled by a pressure switch that has a small tube feeding into a diaphragm.  There should be a set screw, turn it to increase or decrease the water level to make you happy.

More water + same number of wash/rinse cycles = better cleaning. There is no arguing this, it is physics/chemistry. Think of two bullets traveling at the same velocity, one 40 grain, one 230 grain. Which has more energy?

 

It doesn't surprise me that you were hardly ever taken up on the offer. It's easier to go to a different 'mat next time than to schlepp your clothes back. Besides, unless you're very perceptive and/or smell your clothes after they come out the effect is cumulative. 

 

I will look for the water level adjustment but I was under the impression that the machine uses a weight sensor to determine how much water to use. If you're right and I can adjust this I'm sure the machine will work better.

[Vlad G 345]

More water + same number of wash/rinse cycles = better cleaning. There is no arguing this, it is physics/chemistry.

 

Holly crap. 

 

I wanna drink whatever you are drinking

[Newtonian 453]

Holly crap. 

 

I wanna drink whatever you are drinking

Right now coffee. In 4-5 hours who knows

 

See this article on washing/extraction: "The processes of extraction and washing are mechanically the same.  Extraction refers to the recovery of a desired substance from a complex mixture, while washing denotes the removal of unwanted material."

 

Now see equation 4 in this article. It clearly shows that the more solvent (water + detergent) used the more schmutz you will remove from each wash or rinse operation.

 

There is also the issue of agitation, which we've ignored. A top loader agitates the crap out of the clothes that are completely submerged, whereas a front loader basically lets them tumble over one another as barely a pint of lukewarm piss water trickles around them. 

 

The only way, according to the laws of physics, that a front loader could be better is if it used the same amount of water as a top loader (which they clearly don't, not even close) but dispensed/removed it in portions. Every chem student knows that extraction with 100 ml in three equal portions is better than 100 ml in one portion.

 

But if they really did use less water they couldn't make you feel warm and fuzzy about saving the planet.

 

By the way, several studies have shown that modern front-loading energy-saving laundromat washers are absolutely crawling with bacteria, e.g. coliform. 

[Vlad G 345]

Do you really need to talk to your friendly medical specialist and perhaps actually read the manual of appliances. Specially the how to clean them section and how to you know .. operate the damn thing.  Or maybe just let your wife do it, if you think it isn't manly enough for you. 

 

But wtf, I'm bored .. tell me more about which law of physics you are referring to, chapter and verse please, because the paper you linked have nothing to do with clothes washers where it turns it it is mostly a mechanical process anyway, not a chemical one. 

 

Or .. you can follow my suggestion and go wash your clothes in a river with a wash board, because if top loaders were better we would have invented them 2000 years ago. Or something. 

[dman2112 6]

We have had our Samsung front loaders for six years and beat the piss out of them and moved across the country with them and they still run great

[Howard 538]

More water + same number of wash/rinse cycles = better cleaning. There is no arguing this, it is physics/chemistry. Think of two bullets traveling at the same velocity, one 40 grain, one 230 grain. Which has more energy?

 

It doesn't surprise me that you were hardly ever taken up on the offer. It's easier to go to a different 'mat next time than to schlepp your clothes back. Besides, unless you're very perceptive and/or smell your clothes after they come out the effect is cumulative. 

 

I will look for the water level adjustment but I was under the impression that the machine uses a weight sensor to determine how much water to use. If you're right and I can adjust this I'm sure the machine will work better.

More water + same number of wash/rinse cycles = better cleaning perhaps in a top load machine where the clothing sit submersed in water.  In a top load machine if you don't fill it with water then the clothing at the top does not get wet.  Front load machines are a totally different animal. I know I can't convince you because you seem to know the answer to this better than someone that was in the industry, better than the manufacturers and better than those that operated these machines as a business.

 

The reason no one asked for a rewash is that they were always happy with the output, just concerned about the input.  These same people that complained almost always became long term customers.

[Kingsoverqueens 10]

So you guys are still at it, huh?

 

I got a small stain...little splatter of balsamic vinegar...on my white dress shirt during lunch.  Tiny, but I know it's there.

 

Any suggestions from the brain trust on how to clean it best that I can share with my wife.

 

I really LIKE this shirt.  

 

It's important.

[DeerSlayer 241]

If my clothes washer ever stops working I can always kick her out of the house, get a stack of singles, head to the go go bar and find another just like her. Only a newer and more sporty model. Maybe she will have a Russian accent this time around as well. B)

 

[Howard 538]

So you guys are still at it, huh?

 

I got a small stain...little splatter of balsamic vinegar...on my white dress shirt during lunch.  Tiny, but I know it's there.

 

Any suggestions from the brain trust on how to clean it best that I can share with my wife.

 

I really LIKE this shirt.  

 

It's important.

Don't know off hand, but I would tend to treat it as a wine stain.  This is a good resource for stain removal:  http://www.tide.com/en-US/stains/top-stains.jspx

[raz-0 1,259]

So you guys are still at it, huh?

 

I got a small stain...little splatter of balsamic vinegar...on my white dress shirt during lunch.  Tiny, but I know it's there.

 

Any suggestions from the brain trust on how to clean it best that I can share with my wife.

 

I really LIKE this shirt.  

 

It's important.

 

 

Fire, fire cleans everything. 

[Newtonian 453]

 

But wtf, I'm bored .. tell me more about which law of physics you are referring to, chapter and verse please, because the paper you linked have nothing to do with clothes washers where it turns it it is mostly a mechanical process anyway, not a chemical one. 

 

Or .. you can follow my suggestion and go wash your clothes in a river with a wash board, because if top loaders were better we would have invented them 2000 years ago. Or something. 

1. See the quote. As I've been saying washing and extraction are the same.

2. Everybody on this forum knows that you can dissolve more stuff in a gallon of water than in a shot glass of water. Why is it so difficult to fathom extracting more dirt into 25 gallons than into four? 

3. Every company's product or design is better than everyone else's. Didn't you know? My former smoke, Camel, used "doctors" in ads to certify their product's healthfulness. I'm sure more than one high school dropout back in the 1940s "knew" more than those M.D.s and the manufacturers themselves. When did cynicism regarding a $100 million dollar propaganda marketing campaign become idiotic?

4. I can't speak about front loaders of a generation ago. I do know that many things today are sold on the basis of bogus claims related to health and/or saving the environment. I myself got sucked into the "less water, less heat, less detergent" scam. We eat that kind of shit up and eventually convince ourselves of things that cannot in the physical realm be true.

[Howard 538]

Modern day front load machines have wash, rinse and extract stages - and they are all different.  Wash is the physical rubbing of the clothing in water with detergent which both aides in the removal and prevents the dirt that is physically removed from being redeposited on the fabric.  Rinse, well we all know what that is.  Extraction is the mechanical spinning to remove water.

 

You can dissolve more stuff in the ocean than in a gallon of water, but sometimes a shot glass is all you need.  Once you can fully dissolve the solute it does not matter how much extra water you have.

 

If you really believe that more soap is the answer then pour an entire bottle of detergent in your washer and see how well it works.

 

Front load washers clean best with very low water levels for the wash cycle with a higher level for the rinse cycle.

 

If you really don't believe this it is probably best that you do a science experiment.  Go to your kitchen sink with very dirty hands and pour lots of liquid dishwashing soap on them and wash them.  What you will find is the soap acts as a lubricant and you don't get very much friction when you rub your hands together and it becomes very difficult to rinse all the soap off unless you use lots and lots of water - and your hands don't get that clean.  Now go out and dirty your hands again.  This time wet your hands just a little bit and put one or two drops of that same liquid soap on your hands, now rub them a bunch and then rinse - the soap will all come off quickly and your hands will be much cleaner than the first time you did this.  Modern front load washers use the second method to clean.

 

What you knew as fact in the past is no longer the case today.  Different technology works differently.  Old cars could get you from point A to B using a gallon of gasoline to take you 8-12 miles.  Newer cars with new technology will do the same and can do it yielding you 30-50 miles per gallon or more.

[PK90 3,570]

Hence, a Glock 19 Gen4 is better than a Glock 19 Gen3, right?

[Newtonian 453]

 Newer cars with new technology will do the same and can do it yielding you 30-50 miles per gallon or more.

I never said that an entire bottle of detergent was better, but that more "solvent" was better. Always was, always will be. Per omnia saecula saeculorum. You can't change that no matter how many washing machines you have to sell this week.

 

Newer cars are lighter and have more efficient engines and a more efficient transmission of energy from the fuel to the wheels. This is within the reasonable expectation of immutable physical law and improved engineering. But believing that you can extract more dirt with less water because the manufacturers and tree-huggers tell you so is ridiculous.

 

What really irks me about this discussion is that no respondent has addressed the specific scientific issues I raised. Kind of reminds me of how anti-gunners attack us. Facts don't matter, only propaganda, one's political persuasion, one's employment or former employment.

 

Buy any clothes washer you like. And don't forget, those of you who can, to carry a BB airsoft pistol for self defense. After all who needs 15 rounds of .45 when our children are being killed, 5,000 a day?

[voyager9 3,434]

The real question is: which one will get the blood stains out of my underwear better? I eat a lot of chipotle.

[Howard 538]

Geeze. I gave you the science experiment to try at your kitchen sink yet you still argue. Go try it and you will see. Just like new car utilize technology to move you with less energy new washers use a different method to clean clothing utilizing more physical contact and less water to get the same or better results.

[DeerSlayer 241]

The real question is: which one will get the blood stains out of my underwear better? I eat a lot of chipotle.

I saw that episode of South park too lol.

[Newtonian 453]

 Just like new car utilize technology to move you with less energy

Wrong, wrong, wrong, impossible. Get into the 17th century dude. You need the same "energy" to move this 100 kg fatboy in 2015 as you might have in 1515. You can spend less energy (fuel) doing so, but that's only a function of efficiency, of the fact that the machines are more efficient. Less heat generated, but same point.

 

Maybe I should teach a class in thermodynamics in this forum. 

[Barms 98]

And how do you pretreat under arm pit brown stains? Sometimes a regular wash seems like it does nothing to the pits

[Howard 538]

Wrong, wrong, wrong, impossible. Get into the 17th century dude. You need the same "energy" to move this 100 kg fatboy in 2015 as you might have in 1515. You can spend less energy (fuel) doing so, but that's only a function of efficiency, of the fact that the machines are more efficient. Less heat generated, but same point.

 

Maybe I should teach a class in thermodynamics in this forum.

Well yea theoretically it takes the same energy, but you don't buy net energy you buy gross energy and thus you use less because of efficiency, we all get that DUH! But you still use a fraction of the energy input due to that efficiency today.

[brucin 923]

I've had my LG units for four years and never a single issue and I know several people that have them as well and no issues.

7 years on my LG's and never an issue.

[Vlad G 345]

Wrong, wrong, wrong, impossible. Get into the 17th century dude. You need the same "energy" to move this 100 kg fatboy in 2015 as you might have in 1515. You can spend less energy (fuel) doing so, but that's only a function of efficiency, of the fact that the machines are more efficient. Less heat generated, but same point.

 

Maybe I should teach a class in thermodynamics in this forum. 

 

wow ... please tell me more about your thermodynamics in a vacuum for spherical objects.

 

Are you saying that and object on earth takes exactly the same energy to move regardless of shape, and mass is the only thing that matters?  Are you saying that the auto industry has been lying to us with all their improvements in aerodynamics, rolling resistance, gearing, reducing drive train parasitic drag, etc?   It takes the same enegery to move 100kg of sail at 70mph as it takes 100kg of arrow?

 

How interesting.

[Kingsoverqueens 10]

It's not interesting.

 

Not at all.

 

Is it me or is Newtonian an unfunny smarty pants?

[Newtonian 453]

wow ... please tell me more about your thermodynamics in a vacuum for spherical objects.

 

Are you saying that and object on earth takes exactly the same energy to move regardless of shape, and mass is the only thing that matters?  Are you saying that the auto industry has been lying to us with all their improvements in aerodynamics, rolling resistance, gearing, reducing drive train parasitic drag, etc?   It takes the same enegery to move 100kg of sail at 70mph as it takes 100kg of arrow?

 

How interesting.

When you talk about moving a mass in physics you begin with ideal conditions. Later on you learn about friction and drag and efficiency, and in engineering you consider the efficiency of the "mover" (a mechanical device) that burns fuel or uses electricity. 

 

So yes, it still and always will take one Newton (unrelated to my present abode) to accelerate a 1kg object 1 m/sec/sec. You have to put in more force if you're dragging it across concrete, and more if it's a 1kg sailboat across concrete. But that's a function of efficiency. The kg is still experiencing one Newton of force. Whatever other force you may need to apply is moving air or converted to friction related heat. This is a freaking law of physics!

 

Same with extraction and washing. The more solvent per cycle you use -- all other things being equal -- the more crap you get out. If you guys looked it up instead of trying to sell me a front-loader you'd see that this is correct. Anybody who has studied chemistry will tell you this. Instead you're reading the Maytag advertisements.

 

"Aha, but all other things are not equal!"

 

Correct, and this favors top loaders as well. A top loader agitates clothes much more vigorously and completely than today's front loaders, which merely tumble them, and rather gently. There is no comparison. The extra agitation makes top loaders even better for whatever quantity of water is used.

[Vlad G 345]

You are either excellent at trolling or .. well .. I don't want to consider the alternative. 

[Howard 538]

When you talk about moving a mass in physics you begin with ideal conditions. Later on you learn about friction and drag and efficiency, and in engineering you consider the efficiency of the "mover" (a mechanical device) that burns fuel or uses electricity. 

 

So yes, it still and always will take one Newton (unrelated to my present abode) to accelerate a 1kg object 1 m/sec/sec. You have to put in more force if you're dragging it across concrete, and more if it's a 1kg sailboat across concrete. But that's a function of efficiency. The kg is still experiencing one Newton of force. Whatever other force you may need to apply is moving air or converted to friction related heat. This is a freaking law of physics!

 

Same with extraction and washing. The more solvent per cycle you use -- all other things being equal -- the more crap you get out. If you guys looked it up instead of trying to sell me a front-loader you'd see that this is correct. Anybody who has studied chemistry will tell you this. Instead you're reading the Maytag advertisements.

 

"Aha, but all other things are not equal!"

 

Correct, and this favors top loaders as well. A top loader agitates clothes much more vigorously and completely than today's front loaders, which merely tumble them, and rather gently. There is no comparison. The extra agitation makes top loaders even better for whatever quantity of water is used.

So you are agreeing with us that your original answer is BS, as in the real world dealing with real equipment theoretical stuff means zero as you have to factor in such things as friction and efficiency.  Those were all the things we were talking about until you decided to make this a theoretical physics course.

 

As far as washing you are confusing a solvent's theoretical ability to dissolve a solute or keep particles in suspension.  In a top loaders the only physical rubbing takes place at the agitator, the rest of the clothing has virtually no rubbing due to the lubricity of the water and surfactants in the detergent.  You do agree, don't you, that there is more friction between dry surfaces than those that are coated by water or oil?  Thus there is actually more friction over greater surface areas in clothing in front load washers versus top load washers.  This has nothing to do with what a given manufacturer has to say - this is reality.  I've seen many of the studies done by various laundry trade associations and they all show that front load washers clean clothing better.

[Newtonian 453]

My starting point for this discussion was that my particular 2-3 year old front loader did not properly clean my white clothes and left a certain smell on other clothes, especially towels. As a scientist by training (if lawyers and cops can strut their stuff on here so can I) I very quickly concluded that these washers' selling point -- using less water -- was the likely reason for my machine's poor performance.

 

Anyone interested in smelling my towels or ogling my undies message me privately. 

 

If your machine works to your satisfaction God bless you! If you believe the "science is settled" in favor of front loaders may He bless you again and hold you in His bosom! I don't give a shit, I'm just stating my informed opinion based on my experience.

 

These boards often feature lively discussions on technical firearms issues. I tend to stay out of those threads because as I've stated I'm a lot less experienced with guns than most of you. But I do know something about washing/extraction, and I do have the aforementioned experience.

 

If you guys want to believe that every new gadget is an improvement, that marketing and trade groups are always and forever truthful, that environmental loonies haven't influenced appliance design, or that you can fit more peanuts in a baseball cap than in a minivan, go right ahead. 

 

Funny how you're all so cynical about just about everything else but not about the sale of washing machines.

 

I'll end my participation in this thread with a prayer: Great Washing Machine in the Sky: May the underwear of the unlettered all-believing front-loader-hugging pungent masses fall like cat turds into a heap at the most inopportune time. Amen.

 

[Vlad G 345]

 

 

If you guys want to believe that every new gadget is an improvement, that marketing and trade groups are always and forever truthful, that environmental loonies haven't influenced appliance design, or that you can fit more peanuts in a baseball cap than in a minivan, go right ahead. 

 

Funny how you're all so cynical about just about everything else but not about the sale of washing machines.

 

 

 

This isn't about belief or cynicism. I actually own a product and it functions great, it is a personal experience based on real life objects, not based on reading advertisements.  I understand that your device doesn't work as well as you would like but that doesn't mean your experience is universal or applicable to every other washing machine.  You might want to actually apply the scientific method to your experiment and tell me you think you have a valid data set to draw your conclusions from.