Subscribe to EDN

Washing machine motor efficiency and the Law of Unintended Consequences

September 18, 2007

Higher motor efficiency is a Good Thing – It’s unlikely that any design engineer ever said, “Gee, if only I could find a really inefficient motor for my next design.” When I was working on an article this summer on designing with energy-efficient permanent magnet motors and how their use is expanding in home appliances, washing machines were the poster-child application that all control electronics vendors and motor manufacturers used. However, most people buy washing machines not because they are energy-efficient, but because they want to get their clothes clean, and according to Consumer Reports, many of the new washing machines are pretty poor at cleaning clothes.

Front-loading washer-dryer setAccording to Consumer Reports, “As of January [2007], the U.S. Department of Energy has required washers to use 21 percent less energy, a goal we wholeheartedly support. But our tests have found that traditional top-loaders, those with the familiar center-post agitators, are having a tough time wringing out those savings without sacrificing cleaning ability, the main reason you buy a washer.”

Happily, the new front-loading washers, which universally use permanent magnet motors, meet the energy efficiency standards and do a good job of cleaning clothes without destroying them. Unhappily, they cost in the neighborhood of $1000 for a washer/dryer set. And most consumers seem to prefer top-loaders, both out of familiarity and because they’re less expensive. But the top-loaders gave up cleaning ability when they gained energy efficiency, and most consumers will probably stay with the less expensive, less effective top-loaders.

Remember the water-conserving toilets that many states started requiring about 30 years ago? The joke was, yeah, they theoretically save water but you have to flush everything twice, which kinda defeated the purpose. Are washing machines really energy efficient if you have to wash your clothes twice?

OK, cheap shot. I hope the water-closet analogy is correct, because it didn’t take too long before plumbing designers got it right: Today’s water-conserving toilets and shower heads work just fine. But here’s a hint: you might want to hold off a few years on purchasing a top-loading washing machine.

Posted by Margery Conner on September 18, 2007 | Comments (5)

January 3, 2010
In response to: Washing machine motor efficiency and the Law of Unintended Consequences
Laura commented:

My new washer (side loading) and dryer are extremely slow, particularly the dryer. It takes me, at least, double the amount of time to do a load. I am quite disappointed.


August 30, 2009
In response to: Washing machine motor efficiency and the Law of Unintended Consequences
dyetreard commented:

Questions and answers about 1973 oldsmobile 442 and Intrigue oldsmobile recall.


October 11, 2007
In response to: Washing machine motor efficiency and the Law of Unintended Consequences
Alex Hiley commented:

Regarding the shocking short life of today's cheap equipment, in Europe a new set of regulations called WEEE (something like waste electronic equipment) is now making the manufacturers pay to take back and recycle old equipment. With a bit of luck this will force them to design easily repairable longer lasting equipment rather than making it as cheap as possible.


September 25, 2007
In response to: Washing machine motor efficiency and the Law of Unintended Consequences
Kyle B commented:

Hmmm Hope I have better luck with our new Maytag appliances. Last January we bought everything for the kitchen (dishwasher, stove, Over-the-Stove microwave & fridge). No problems with anything thus far. About 3 years ago we got matching Maytag washer & dryer ('cuz, according to my wife, a matched set cleans better... ha ha) Anyhow, only 1 problem there so far - the main bearing in the washer tub failed. Probably due more to my wife loading about 30 towels in at a time. New bearing was a different design - guess I wasn't the first. Anyhow, knock on wood --- hope the rest lasts a while, at least until I get done paying for it all!!! (Why did I buy all Maytag? The local store carries 'em and I like to support the locals)


September 19, 2007
In response to: Washing machine motor efficiency and the Law of Unintended Consequences
Water Saver commented:

I replaced my water hungry toilet with a water saving toilet about 10 years ago. I had to flush my old water hungry toilet at least twice to complete the task. I only have to flush my water saving toilet once to complete the task.

POST A COMMENT
Display Name
captcha

Before submitting this form, please type the characters displayed above. Note the letters are case sensitive:

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
About EDN   |   Site Map   |   Contact Us   |   Subscription   |   RSS
© 2012 UBM Electronics. All rights reserved.
Use of this Web site is subject to its Terms of Use | Privacy Policy

Please visit these other UBM Canon sites

UBM Canon | Design News | Test & Measurement World | Packaging Digest | EDN | Qmed | Pharmalive | Appliance Magazine | Plastics Today | Powder Bulk Solids | Canon Trade Shows