We just had to replace our washing machine. The old one had four levels; sm all, medium, large, and super. The new one only has three; small, large, an d super. The small on the new machine is really small; it only fills about
20% of the drum. Large is like medium on the old one; haven't tried the new super yet.
Is there any way to adjust the water level on the various size selections o r is that fixed? I suppose that there's some sort of device that senses the various levels; maybe there's an adjusting screw somewhere.
New machines use much less water to do the same job as the old one. Our new Maytag has no settings and relies on sensors. The clothes get clean and are not fully submerged as in the pasr.
Without knowing any more about it -- if it's within the return period, TAKE IT BACK - even if you have to pay $50 for them to pick it up.
I have a GE with that never fills up more than 10-12 inches. For large loads the top clothes never get wet. Supposedly it washes them by flow water in when it spins -- which sounds like a jet engine taking off.
I have not analyzed the clothes for how clean they get, but I can tell that they DO NOT CLEAN as well as the 20 year old models that fill up and agitate properly.
Also mine has no lint filter. "It's not needed because the lint is ground up and flush out" say GE. This is BULL S***. The dryer removes twice as much lint as the standard machines. Also, if you have a smaller diameter drain pipe as was normal a few years ago -- the link builds up in the drain and I have to root it out at least once a year.
I am very pro-environment and pro-water saving. So what is my advice? DO NOT BUY A WATER-SAVING MACHINE. All the ones I have ever seen claim to get clothes clean but you end up wearing dirty clothes or washing them 2-3 times (wasting washer, soap, wear & tear on machine).
TAKE THE STINKING THING BACK before you are stuck with it.
levels; small, medium, large, and super. The new one only has three; small, large, and super. The small on the new machine is really small; it only fills about 20% of the drum. Large is like medium on the old one; haven't tried the new super yet.
selections or is that fixed? I suppose that there's some sort of device that senses the various levels; maybe there's an adjusting screw somewhere.
Mywife INSISTED on a front load washer just a few months ago. Frankly I DONT like it! It caused a lot of rework to install the clothes arent as clean and worse sometimes smell bad. Like mold:(
Hi, If one wants a front load, buy European made one. They used front load very long time. If my current Whirlpool top load pair goes, I am considering Miel or Bosch. When wife lived in Germany while I was running around overseas she used front load machines there. She liked them.
Even the top loaders are reducing the amount of water. Some of the top loaders don't even have an agitator; they are just a front loader on its side. 6 years ago we got a GE front loader. It was nothing but junk; didn't clean well, certainly didn't rinse the soap out. We always selected the extra rinse cycle AND then ran it through the QUICK WASH with extra rinse, but with no soap. Still, the cloths came out with soap in them. We replace it with a GE top loader and couldn't be happier. Slosh, slosh, slosh, oh the good sound of washing cloths the old fashioned way. But, they come out clean and they do rinse. But beware, even top loaders are reducing the amount of water. We routinely set it larger than the actual load so that it works properly. Ah, but we are saving the planet, even though my water comes from the ground and goes back in the ground.
period, TAKE IT BACK - even if you have to pay $50 for them to pick it up.
large loads the top clothes never get wet. Supposedly it washes them by flow water in when it spins -- which sounds like a jet engine taking off.
tell that they DO NOT CLEAN as well as the 20 year old models that fill up and agitate properly.
ground up and flush out" say GE. This is BULL S***. The dryer removes twice as much lint as the standard machines. Also, if you have a smaller diameter drain pipe as was normal a few years ago -- the link builds up in the drain and I have to root it out at least once a year.
advice? DO NOT BUY A WATER-SAVING MACHINE. All the ones I have ever seen claim to get clothes clean but you end up wearing dirty clothes or washing them 2-3 times (wasting washer, soap, wear & tear on machine).
get > wet and get clean. Good to hear. My situation may be limited to GE. Still, next time I buy anything that is labeled "earth-friendly", like a toilet, shower head, washer, dryer, water heater..... I'm ordering it from a "consumer-friendly" state -- as opposed to a regulation-heavy environut state like California.
levels; small, medium, large, and super. The new one only has three; small, large, and super. The small on the new machine is really small; it only fills about 20% of the drum. Large is like medium on the old one; haven't tried the new super yet.
selections or is that fixed? I suppose that there's some sort of device that senses the various levels; maybe there's an adjusting screw somewhere.
This sounds like my GE - top loader, no agitator. What did you replace it with?
I wouldn't buy ANY washer that does not fully submerge the clothes.
Just another gimmick mandated by the government to save water. What they dont realize is that only certain places NEED to save water. I have plenty of water from my well, and I'm not saving anything if I had to wash twice, (and would be using MORE water and MORE electricity, and MORE detergent. It's like those water saving toilets. They use less water, but you have to flush 2 or 3 times. Or the water saving shower heads that dont supply enough water, so you have to shower longer (or remove the disk inside of them that restricts the flow).
Let the government get their filthy hands on any of our building materials, and they will find a way to make them NOT work properly. Yes, I am fully in favor of protecting our earth, but not when it dont work. Example: If I have to flush a 2.0 gallon toilet 3 times to get it to rid the solids, then what am I saving? An old toilet used 5 or 6 gallons and worked well. Now I have to piss around with flushing 3 times and use the same or more gallons of water in the end. That uses the same or MORE water, and wastes my time and patience.
Just like banning Incandescent bulbs. The CFL work in a heated building, but dont work at all in my garage in cold weather. That leaves me either having to buy bootleg incandescent bulbs or paying a large amount for LED or some other alternative.
I'm glad my 20+ year old washer and dryer still work, as well as the OLD toilet I bought second hand to replace that miserable water saver.
If that's happening to you, I think you have bad luck. As of 1994, the law is 1.6 gallons or less. Before that, it was anywhere from 3.5 to 7 gallons per flush. So, the correct answer is 3.5 to 7 minus 1.6. Quite a large improvement. That can translate to lower water bills, or lower electric bills if you have a well. Also, less water in the treatment system.
How are my CFLs working in a driveway lamp post? They work fine when I'm out there shoveling snow. Still haven't had to replace one, I've lost track of how many years it's been. Way more than years 5 and they go on as soon as it's dark, stay on all night.
So far, nothing has been banned by the Feds. Recently, the first implementation of a ban was delayed to October 2015.
I get the feeling we'll all be happily using LED before we see anything actually banned by the US.
Are you saying the ban on 60w bulbs was delayed from Jan 1 2015 to Oct
2015? I was not aware of that.
Of your CFL works outdoors, either you dont get sub-zero temps, or you got some good bulbs. If I had them in my garage right now, with temps in the single digits, they would be so dim I could not see. I dont leave the garage lights on all that long, so I just use incandescent bulbs. I bought several cases of them before they banned the 100s. Thats the only size I really need.
And toilets in the 80s were already using a lot closer to or less than the 3.5 gallons. IDK where that magic 7 gallon toilet is. Probably in some hippie museum to use for propaganda.
That's great. If I was forced to keep my house at 60 that could save energy too. Should the govt do that next?
Maybe after you let them warm up for 10 mins. They perform extremely poorly if you expect to turn them on to see who's at the door, or turn them on so you can get something out of a cold garage in winter. Even worse, there is no standard, no spec so that you can figure out how fast they get to say 60% or 80% of rated output. Misrepresenting and drinking Koolaid doesn't change fact.
Your experience is very different than countless others here. An overwhelming number of us have reported that CFLs fail early. I've been through a bunch. Yes, overall, they have gotten better. But IDK anyone using them, except you, that hasn't had one fail. And again, part of that problem is there is no consistency, you can't figure out which ones will last, which are crap.
Come take a look at the dead one in my garage right now. I don't keep my garage lights on more than a typical garage. I've been through several CFLs there. Been through a couple in the kitchen, one over the stairwell, etc.,
Now you're lying. They banned manufacture and import of the common incandescent bulbs. Ask GE, they closed the last US plant that was still making them a few years ago, not because of demand, but because of the federal ban. The CFLs come from China. There go so more jobs.
He's just flat out lying. He's claiming the govt hasn't banned any bulbs.
+1 You speak the truth brother. Just today, I needed to look for a drill bit in the garage. I turned on the garage light switch, opened the door, took one look and exactly as you say, it was so dark I couldn't see a damn thing. And that's with four 100W equiv CFLs. So, I just closed the door and went off to do stuff for 5 mins. Then I didn't get back to the garage for about a half hour. So, instead of the cheap, incandescent being on for 3 mins, the CFL was on for 30. Sometimes I forget like that and they are on 12 hours.
Same thing in my kitchen. I put in CFLs, they take so long to put out enought light, that since they went in, instead of turning out the lights in the kitchen, I now leave them on all evening and even parts of the day. Those examples are like your flushing the water saving toilet 3 times deal. I'm sure some hippie will tell me that I just need to buy newer, better CFLs. The problem is, you still don't know which ones are better and wasn't the whole premise that thought they cost more, they were supposed to save money because they lasted?
I'm all for saving energy and have no objection with using new technology where it makes sense. What I do object to is the govt making those choices for me and liars who try to deny the truth. Leave me free to choose.
Expect more delays. Remember the analog TV phase out. Anyone miss analog TVs?
Central NJ. It gets pretty cold here. I expected that the bulbs would give me problems in the cold, but it hasn't happened. They are behind glass, then there is a flame shaped glass frosted cover over the bulb, then the CFL is inside that. I think the one extra layer of glass allows it to heat up.
Never had that problem. In the cold, they do take a while to get to full power, but I never had a situation where I could not see in the garage. I've used them for the doors also.
No matter, CFL is so 1990. I really like the Osram LED bulbs. So far I've converted 10 lights to them. Our preference is the daylight color.
LED is the sensible choice for some applications, not all. I don't need it in a shed, closet, attic, utility room, basement area that;s rarely used for more than a few minutes, etc. For that, the cheap 100W that you can't buy anymore is perfect.
Good article on wikipedia. I have a better idea what is going on. But I do agree we should be able to determine what we want to use. I like to save money on my electric bill as much as anyone else, but I also need to see what I'm doing in my garage, or I could be more likely to get injured or damage something when using tools. If I need incandescents, it should be MY choice.
It said something in the article that lighting accounts for 40% of energy use, but said "commercial buildings", and also stated that may be a high estimate. In my home, I doubt my lighting uses more than 10% of my electric usage. I have a well pump, heat tapes, elec space heater (in one room, to save on propane), other elec heating devices, as well as the usual refrigerator, washer, dryer, etc, and an elec water heater. (Gas cook stove). And in summer I have an AC (which I only use on the severe hot days). Either way, it's these heating devices that suck the most power, and nothing much is being done to make them more efficient, when they are the biggest electrical consumption users. [Of course, there is only so many BTUs that can be obtained from one KWH of electricity, and it dont look like much can be done to change that. I did put an insulation "blanket" on my water heater which probably helps a little.
I agree that LED will be the lighting of the future. I like it better than CFL, but they are still costly (but getting better in price). I have a LED in my outdoor porch light, and like it. The CFLs would not work well in cold temps, but the LED is fine. That LED only uses something like 6 watts, which means I dont mind leaving it on much of the night for safety (if I come home late). I can run that LED for 10 hours for what it used to cost for a 60W incandescent to be on for 1 hour. I figured out that if it's on 10 hours per night, I use about
2KWH per month, which costs me 25 to 30 cents per month. Not a bad deal! [Divided by ten, a 60W incan would have cost around $3.00 per month].
But the LEDs have some limitations too. I bought one for my bedroom light fixture. The fixture is what some people call "Boob Lights" (shaped like a woman's boob). The fixture uses a single bulb. The LED only illuminates half the room, because the light only comes out of the top of the bulb. That did not work. I had to go back to a CFL. That light is on more hours than any other light in the house, so I wanted to change it. My alternative is to buy a new fixture,(made for several bulbs), or just live with the CFL for now.
The bottom line is that there are different bulbs for different uses, and WE should be able to use what we want, while the govt. EDUCATES US about efficient uses, not FORCES us to use bulbs that dont work for the need.
And still, lighting with CFL or LED saves money, but the biggest uses of electricity are other uses, such as heating, and there seems to be little means to cut down on that....
And getting back to the original topic of this thread, if a water saving washing machine is not going to clean my clothes properly, I surely am not saving anything..... just having to deal with aggravation and smelling like an old goat..... I cant possibly see how clothes can get clean without being submerged in water. Especially when I my clothes get covered with mud and automotive crud after fixing my car.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.