Programs on my new washing machines last 2 hours or notably more (at low temperatures). There is an option "timecare", but it does not change duration notably. I asked in the shop; they say that all washing machines now have very long programs. I sent an email to the manufacturer; they did not answer. Such long washing seems strange and unnecessary to me.
The reason that modern clothes washers (and dish washers) have such long cycles is an effort to wash using less water. This conserves both water and energy (because less energy is used to heat less water). A washer from 20+ years ago used abundant water and accompanying vigorous agitation to quickly remove soil from clothes (or dishes). Modern washers us a small fraction of the water, and much more time to achieve the same result. A side benefit of the gentler agitation is that it may be easier on fabrics (depending on the design of the actual washer).
The water and energy savings that are achieved are considerable.
How much energy is required to dry the clothes (in an automatic clothes dryer) is a function of the rotational speed at which a washer spins the water out of the clothes, as well as how long if spins. Some old washers were quite effective at spin-drying, and some new ones are not terribly good. The progress in the energy savings related to spin-drying is much less uniform than what has been achieved through the low-water washing cycles. Aggressive spin-drying has a down-side of wrinkling some fabrics more that is the case with less aggressive spin-drying.
All modern washers that I am aware of have an option of a water-wasting "quick cycle." I suppose there are some exceptions to be found.
I will add that the new, more energy-efficient, clothes and dish washers both tend to be much quieter than their predecessors. The choice is a loud noise for a short period of time, or a quieter noise for a longer period of time
I agree that there is much that is irrational about many current technology design decisions. In the USA, logic isn't taught much anymore.
The electronic control panel failed on my previous clothes washer (a high-end, front-loading machine). The replacement part would have cost more than the entire new high-efficiency, top-loading washer that I replaced it with.
While one might assume that the washing process is mainly determined by the laundry detergent, this is not correct: an at least equally important part of "washing" is the mechanical work of tumbling the laundry. Periodically interrupted by phases of letting the laundry soak again. In the general approach to reduce energy, detergent and water consumption, there has to be some kind of compensation. Which is achieved by at least not shortening the time tumbling the laundry.
BTW: did you know that an excess of laundry detergent might deteriorate the laundry result?
If there's too much foam upbuild (due to an excess of detergent), the effect of tumbling decreases (the foam reducing the effect of tumbling on the laundry).
I graduated computer science in 1978. Technology looked great at that time: everything looked reasonable, and everything was useful. In 1992 I reached the conclusion that technology (manufacturers) began to play strange games with users, maybe with the aim to break them mentally. They can do whatever they want; our duty is to believe them and to obey. (They became like a new religion. I wrote about that in my book "On People and Machines").
Let me mention a small example: an application (system) for email. The Old version had "print selection" (which I used a lot). The Middle version: no "print selection"; "print page" was still there. The New version: no "print page"; I must print the entire mail (or copy/paste a piece of text in other fail). In my communications with students (about a final thesis, with many replies) mails may be several pages long.
Why do I buy new versions if I do not like them? I do not. My university simply install new versions of everything on my machine, sometimes without a notice (I make a backup of my contents every day, just in case).
I see everywhere how devices (new Operating systems, etc.) are getting more and more sophisticated, overloaded with superfluous things, and so forth.
Regarding washing & detergents, I consulted the lady who sells washing machines, and she explained me everything, so I use the machine in the proper way. And the lady shares my critical view about washing machines and other devices.
Technology brings about many good things, of course. In my view, the problem is in "innovation", which has become an imperative! When something becomes good, an innovation (upgrading) makes it worse. I have an excellent printer. I needed one more (at a different place). I wanted to buy the same model, but that model is not produced any more; they gave me the model that replaced the old one. For me, the new model is horrible in comparison with the old one. It prints worse, makes more noise, spend more ink, and blinks old the time, which irritates me enormously. I must cover it, not to watch that blinking. In sum, I loved technology; I do not love it any more. Or, I hate the way things have been designed and produced.
"Dish washers have fast programs (with some energy waste) and the economic programs that take 3+ hours. ..."
Three hours and more! Horrible. Let me reveal you my great discovery in this regard: I keep my dish in the refrigerator and do usually not wash it at all. There is no need for me to spend & eat detergents. This is the fastest and most ecological way of "washing dishes".
Anyway, I would surely not endure three hour of noise made by any machine.
The reason that modern clothes washers (and dish washers) have such long cycles is an effort to wash using less water. This conserves both water and energy (because less energy is used to heat less water). A washer from 20+ years ago used abundant water and accompanying vigorous agitation to quickly remove soil from clothes (or dishes). Modern washers us a small fraction of the water, and much more time to achieve the same result. A side benefit of the gentler agitation is that it may be easier on fabrics (depending on the design of the actual washer).
The water and energy savings that are achieved are considerable.
How much energy is required to dry the clothes (in an automatic clothes dryer) is a function of the rotational speed at which a washer spins the water out of the clothes, as well as how long if spins. Some old washers were quite effective at spin-drying, and some new ones are not terribly good. The progress in the energy savings related to spin-drying is much less uniform than what has been achieved through the low-water washing cycles. Aggressive spin-drying has a down-side of wrinkling some fabrics more that is the case with less aggressive spin-drying.
All modern washers that I am aware of have an option of a water-wasting "quick cycle." I suppose there are some exceptions to be found.
I will add that the new, more energy-efficient, clothes and dish washers both tend to be much quieter than their predecessors. The choice is a loud noise for a short period of time, or a quieter noise for a longer period of time
I agree that there is much that is irrational about many current technology design decisions. In the USA, logic isn't taught much anymore.
The electronic control panel failed on my previous clothes washer (a high-end, front-loading machine). The replacement part would have cost more than the entire new high-efficiency, top-loading washer that I replaced it with.
Mario Radovan go through below link,
https://www.whitegoodshelp.co.uk/washing-machine-take-long-wash/
Matthew, thank you for your thorough explanation.
"The water and energy savings that are achieved are considerable."
I am happy if this is really so, but I am not sure it really is.
"All modern washers that I am aware of have an option of a water-wasting 'quick cycle'."
It has, but it is slightly too quick: "30 centigrade 20 minutes". And this is the only programme (cycle) which does not allow changes (for example, "40 centigrade 30 minutes").
Anyway, the washing machine is not noisy; it works well. My new printer is noisier than the old model.
Praneeth, thank you for the web address.
I think it is absolutely no need for a wash machine to wash longer than the normal time. It is wast of energy, and time.
I focused on the "Why?" but perhaps some quantitative values will help.
Just two examples:
An LG front-loading, high-efficiency model tested by the US EPA Energy Star standard protocol for energy consumption produces an "annual energy consumption" value of 105 kWatt-hours (I picked this one because it is the current version of the model I previously owned and I thus knew that it was very efficient)
A Maytag top-loading, agitator washer model (but still advertised as "high-efficiency," meaning this isn't your mothers washing machine) tested by the same protocol produces an "annual energy consumption" value of 254 kWatt-hours.
When I bought the my LG washer (taking advantage of a government energy conservation rebate), I was able to notice the reduction in both my water consumption and natural gas consumption on my utility bills (I was using it with an electric clothes dryer, so for most of the year water heating dominates my natural gas consumption).
Another good question to ask is this: Does the twice as efficient LG machine really cost more than twice as much to manufacture? It does cost more that twice as much to purchase at a retail store.
That is why, when the LG's electronics broke after 12 years of use, I replaced it with a cheaper, less efficient, top-loading washing machine. The government rebate is a once per household deal.
From the link that Praneeth SIlva provided, it is would appear that the washing machines available in the USA are considerably different from the ones available in the UK. Thus, it would be interesting to know how much diversity there is around the globe in automatic clothes washing machines. I had foolishly assumed that it was a global market, such as is the case with consumer items like mobile phones and computers. I'm trying to figure out why a Korean firm like LG would have significantly different models for the USA and the UK since it appears that such is the case.
Basically, washing machines are a global market, but exemptions apply: the US (and maybe Canada, NZL and Australia as well) tend to wash way more:
provided you can afford it, changing clothes several times per day and wearing them only once during washes seems to be a widespread habit. Thus US laundry machines tend to accept higher laundry loads (maybe 8 kg instead of the wider spread 4.5 - 5 kg), and the washing quality might be less important as the laundry will hardly be "really dirty".
No idea about Asia, and Africa might give an inhomogeneous picture - wherever tap water and electricity are available at all.
My knowledge about washing machines was close to zero, but I now learned a lot! Anyway, my clothes are not dirty (I mainly read and write), and I would prefer that my machine do not wash too long. But it works well: it is not noisy, it washes well, etc. So, I am not unhappy with it, except for the fact that it works notably longer than the previous one.
Not much faster: 40 centigrade, cotton: 2 hours. With "time care", an hour and half. This is the best result (shortest) I managed to find. But I now know that such is the "global trend"; I thought that I have bought a wrong machine.
"So your machine is about state-of-the-art in terms of ecologic compliance"
So, I should be proud of my machine! But it actually irritates me.
"What washing machine do you have, if I may ask?"
This question does probably not regard me, and I would rather not answer to it, because of my critical view of the "state-of-the-art" machines in general.
"... But it actually irritates me."
What shall I say? My last car (built in 2003) required only Diesel fuel. The new one will refuse to start once it runs out of AdBlue, although this has absolutely nothing to do with engine operation itself. "Only" with exhaust gas treatment.
These are the modern times resp. the contributions to pay for a somewhat more eco-friendly operation of our "toys".
Well, it does not irritates me much, but it does. Because if I have to wash two machines, I must deal with this task four hours. At the temperature of 40 centigrade. I do not know (I did not dare to try) how the washing would last at 60 or 90 centigrade.
Incidentally, why does speller not accept plural: "centigrades"? I should maybe say "degrees centigrade".
The units (i.e. degrees) are plural, the scale (centigrade) is singular because it is only one scale. Just as I would refer to 4 fingers on Mario, not 4 Marios. In common usage, temperature units (degrees) are implicit, and thus often skipped, while the scale will always be uncertain until the US switches. While that situation might raise some peoples hackles, I don't know that many would be happy with a switch to degrees Kelvin, as strict adherence to SI units would require. As a geophysicist, I still miss using gamma as the unit for magnetic anomalies, but that shows my age and the fact that I was raised by a geophysicist.
Fahrenheit scale is nice. It is trivial to take that water freezes at 0 degrees and boils at 100. It is much more poetic to have freezing point at 32 and boiling at 212. I checked in my digital Britannica; it does not tell much about the reason for such a choice of values. Kelvin scale is not needed for common purposes (such as washing), because the Celsius scale is good enough for such purposes.
Different washing machines have different times and settings. There is a difference between a regular washer and a high efficiency washer, which takes a longer wash time because it uses less energy and water. Generally, a wash cycle should take about 30 minutes per load and a dry cycle lasting about an hour. However, a normal load with normal settings should take about 30 minutes. But, settings other than normal wash, such as extra rinse, the wash time can take up to 50 minutes, whilst with quick settings, the cycle will be completed in 20 minutes.
"for which temperature are the values in °F and °C the same?"
There is a formula by which we can compute one temperature from the other; that formula should allow to compute when the two are equal. If they ever are. They could be, somewhere below freezing perhaps.
PS: It is at -40, if I am not wrong.
That's spot on - with the F and C comparison.
Maybe it is too obvious but did you try reading the machine's manual Mario Radovan ?
Zuzana Herrera - I hate reading manuals, because they are written poorly; as a former computer programmer, I expect precision & completeness; manuals are far from it. But I have read the manual (and took notes from it), and everything works well, except for the fact that programmes are too long. There is one short ("30 degrees 20 minutes"), but this one is too short and uses too low temperature. Anyway, I got used to this brave new world. I use mostly "Mix 40" with "timecare".
U. Dreher The formula for conversion from C to F, in Britannica, says:
F = (9/5 C) + 32
Assume F = C = X; you get:
X = (9/5 X) + 32;
subtract (9/5 X) from both sides of the equation; you get:
4/5 X = 32
multiply both sides by 5; you get:
4X = 160
divide both sides by 4; you get
X = 40
Where does "-" come from (for "-40"), I do not know.
I know that it cannot be "+40", because "+40 C" is:
(9/5 x 40) + 32 = 360/5 + 32 = 72 +32 = 104 F
So, it should be that "-40 F" = "-40C"
U. Dreher - It seems that you are right. My compliments!
Incidentally, I am writing something else. Can you maybe tell me how bad the following sentence is (especially times & tenses).
"If Sisyphus were building a temple, a lighthouse, or a brothel on the hill, people would have not said that his efforts were completely futile and that his existence has been totally devoid of meaning, in the sense they look like in the original story about his activity and fate."
I do not like long sentences, but this one happen to be rather long.
"... people would have not said ..." --- in Sisyphus time and now; I am not sure whether this is good/correct
"... his existence has been ..." ---- Sisyphus is still rolling his stone.
"... they look like ..." ---> "they" are Sisyphus' "efforts & existence"
Every correction & advice is welcome! I mean, everybody can make a critical remark.
Somewhat difficult. Provided you intend to use past tense:
"Provided Sisyphus had been building a temple, a lighthouse or a brothel on the hill, people would not have said that his efforts were completely futile and his existence were totally meaningless. That is in the way they are perceived from the original story about his fate."
Be warned: I'm not a native English speaker (although my English seems to be considerable).
As you can see, I've tried to split the single sentence into two and omitted the "activity" part as it is enclosed in his "fate".
Whether his activities were really less meaningless if he had had an aim (considering the stone rolled back repeatedly), is be open for philosophical discussions.
Anyway: "Nobody is meaningless: he may still serve as a bad example for others."
Thank you very much!
"Somewhat difficult." - Yes, this is why I asked. I wrote many sentences today, but this one seemed particularly problematic to me. I will consider your suggestions carefully.
"... open for philosophical discussions." - Surely; that is what I have been writing. The claim that "people" would not have said does not mean that I personally would not say.
"If Sisyphus were building a temple, a lighthouse, or a brothel on the hill, then people would have not said that his efforts were completely futile and that his existence was totally devoid of meaning; the way they assess the original story about his activity and fate."
You set up a hypothetical situation in the past tense ("would not have said" and "were" and thus should continue the hypothetical in the past tense ("was").
An alternative, if you want to pretend that the mythical character of Sisyphus is still at his task: "If Sisyphus had been assigned to build a temple, a lighthouse, or a brothel on the hill, then people would not say that his efforts are completely futile and that his existence is totally devoid of meaning; the way they assess the original story about his activity and fate."
I agree with U. Dreher that breaking it up into two sentences would make it easier to read, but sometimes it is appropriate to make one's readers work.
"If Sisyphus had been assigned to build a temple, a lighthouse, or a brothel on the hill, then people would not say that his efforts are completely futile and that his existence is totally devoid of meaning. People assess the original story about his activity and fate as the archetype of pointlessness". Or even shorter sentences: "If Sisyphus had been assigned to build a temple, a lighthouse, or a brothel on the hill would people perceive his fate differently? People assess the original story about his activity and fate as the archetype of pointlessness. Would they no longer think that his efforts are completely futile? Would they still think that his existence is totally devoid of meaning."
All that said, if Sisyphus had been assigned to build anything that was immediately torn down upon completion, then I think people would still view it in the same way. It wasn't (isn't) so much the task assigned as it was (is) the futility of the work being immediately undone. I do agree that the menial nature of the task does contribute somewhat to the story.
Matthew Mabey - Thank you! I will read your text carefully, and try to learn as much as I can; in the meantime, I slightly simplified this sentence. I work on a text under the title "On Life and Death"; so, Sisyphus must be included in this story. Let me just mention that I learn by reading; I never studied grammar, which I should have done.
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Ecology