Washing Machines

Easy with a manual machine

pump rinse water in container

spin etc

syphon or decant

wash

discharge

rinse

etc

An automatic machine would need some program changes and another pump

Offhand, this sounds a pretty good idea. I am very fortunate to have always lived where water is plentiful, but I can see this has some potential in places where the luxury of plentiful water may not be available, at any price.

Heating water for wash, storing for extended time (keep insects, kids and animals out of it)... there are a few problems, but a noble overall idea.

I've come to the conclusion that I'm a dumb as&, and my first explanation is stupid.

lol..I like the manual

I'm fairly sure that some older machines had a setting to re-use the water.

Also they either had a way of reversing the pump or had a second hose to pump the used water from a tub, back into the machine for the next wash load.

I don't think you can do this easily with new machines, other than by saving the wash water into a separate tub, & bucketing back into the machine at the beginning of the next load.

Our new, spiffy front loader saves the last rinse water all by itself.

Here is a link to machines that have "Suds Save"

But they re use the wash water - not the rinse water. Meaning you have to run the loads in order of 'filth' - or the next load is being washed in 'liquid dirt'

I changed my top loader, with this feature, to save the rinse water for the next wash - as your forbear did. It/they all, require a 'laundry tub' adjacent for the 'saving'.

It's a much more 'effective' approach as a significant amount of detergent is in the rinse water anyway, so just a top up is required for the next load.

I have no idea why manufactures don't do it the 'effective' way.

If stagnant water is saved for some length of time between loads, it is likely to breed bacteria and smell funny. Maybe a timer circuit could detect this and dump water that is too old.

I'm quite sure it could be done with a two way valve and a pump, but let us keep in mind that the soap loosens the dirt and the rinse carries the dirt away. but then back then you had time to watch the wash and switch the valve. Now you have to shop for supper, pick up the kids, finish the lawn and dust the house and visit on the phone.

Mom back in the 60's had one that would do just that. Not sure whether it was the wash or rinse water to reuse. Wasn't something that your dad did special a lot of the washer had the ability.

Probably more popular when more folks had their own wells for water.

I am not a hydraulic/pneumatic engineer, but couldn't a valve be set up such that when the water pump "sucks" water back in from the sink, the valve is closed (due to the vacuum required), but when the pump starts "sucking air" from the input pipe, causing a loss of vacuum, the valve opens?

This may only be an indigenous arrangements as some automatic and some manual.

I had been using like it myself in 1980s to save water as well as detergent mixed water.

Have a tub or a tank fixed above the water feed tray [which is actually detergent and conditioner tray] with a cock fitted hose. As the used water is pumped, it may be in the tank.

When there is shortage of water and resorces you have to design your own processes.

You may find a bit of information on sud savers here . There are available conversion kits for some makes if you are interested. I would argue in favour of front loaders or even the new extra large top loaders now available. These units use about 40% of the water of a standard top loader and also about 40% of the power without all the extras you would need to add to make a top loader a suds saver. These sud saver washers will use more water than the standard top loader and as much as 50% more. That is what will be required to top up water losses in successive loads.

There are savings to be had in front loaders as compared to standard top loaders by California here. The newer top loaders are capable of washing a double standard load and use the same amount of water as a front loader. This is an added savings in energy and water. The new top loaders do not have the agitator normally found in top loaders and have higher spin rates. The extra capacity may be a great saving for a family doing many loads of laundry. Unfortunately, most new items on the market cost more money....$800-1000.00. I would take a close look at replacing the old appliance with newer technology rather than going to suds saver type. Not as cumbersome and real dollar savings in energy and water consumption. Likely a 4 to 5 year pay back in energy costs with new technology plus added water savings.

Automatic Suds saving machines had a diverter valve - one inlet from the pump and 2 outlet hoses - 1 outlet hose had a longer end to the bottom of the laundry tub which saved the water and the other outlet hose (short end) drained the rinse water either into a second tub or a stand pipe leading to the laundry drain.

These machine had a reversing motor and transmission - in one direction the machine spun and the pump, which was connected to the motor either by belt or direct drive, pumped out the water. In the other direction, which could be selected on the control dial, the motor transmission and PUMP reversed and sucked in the water (and the agitator reciprocated).

In some machines there was only one outlet hose and the suds save function could still be achieved more manually by manipulating the hose and dial.

Some home laundries only had a single tub and no additional stand / drain pipe but there were still two other ways to do it. One was a separate tank - eg a garbage bin.

The other way required a special sink stopper with a tall pipe through the middle - the short end rinse water drain hose fitted into this pipe and the rinse water drained straight out and the sudsy water (Long end) drain hose fed into the tub where the suds water was stored until required.

From the 60's to the 80's most machines sold in Australia were top loaders and many machines had a suds saving possibility and whilst I repaired many machines I never found anybody using the feature. Sometimes the actuating solenoid which operated anyway, burnt out and I needed to simply disconnect it and or the second hose, which was a nuisance for most people, could be dispensed with.

Sometimes the identical solenoid was used for another function on the machine eg actuating a spin or agitate clutch or circulating water from the outer tank to the inner wash tub eg Simpson 'Fluid Drive', so if a new solenoid was required for that other function, the unused suds save solenoid could be cannibalised to save the cost of a spare part.

I saw three types of diverter valves - one comprise a die cast body with a pair of diaphragm valves rocked by the solenoid and linkage, the second type comprised a frame incorporating hoses which were pinched or opened when the solenoid operated and the most popular valve used on several different brands was manufactured by a company called Goyen - it was plastic bodied and the solenoid actuated a rod with a rubber ball on its end within the valve - opening or closing either outlet.

Washing machines over the years have used a huge variety of ingenious mechanisms to achieve their various functions.

'Twin Tub' washing machines, which were once very popular prior to Automatic Machines, used a separate wash and spin tub and some people did reuse the wash water, sometimes adding additional soap.

Stuart Fox, Bondi Beach, Australia

To suck in the water the machine was put

Further to my previous post on this subject I should add that some washing machines did not reverse the motor and transmission for wash and spin and were able to 'suck' the suds back by reversing the water flow. The Simpson Fluid drive made in Australia, which I believe was patterned after the American Speed Queen ? , was one example of this machine - solenoid operated clutches engaged either wash or spin - the Simpson used a fluid coupling to allow the spin to start slowly, minimizing motor load and filtering of the dirty water through the freshly washed clothes - it also had a solid (non perforated bowl) and a 'fluted' tub wall to facilitate this. The water centrifuged into the outer tub from whence it was pumped to the drain. The initial fill was to the outer tub from where it was pumped into the inner tub, water level being controlled by a diaphragm water level switch - some early machines had 3 diaphragm switches, later machines had a multi - level switch.

(Some machines used other methods of pumping the water out to avoid filtering the wash water through the clothes - Hoover used a 'static pump out' - this used the water being pumped (3 port pump belt drive pump) out to inflate a diagphragm which pushed a link to an arm which prevented the rotating transmission from turning - this was later replaced by an electric pump. 'Pope' (later Simpson Pope) machines used a spring pulled swinging motor which allowed the transmission belt to slip until the water had been pumped out, lessening the drag of the water between the inner and outer tub, when all or most of the water had left the machine the bowl reached top speed - this system was much cheaper to build than the Simpson fluid coupling system involved and worked well and although there was wear on the slipping belt they lasted many many years before requiring replacement or mostly spring adjustment.

Westinghouse used a solenoid operated jockey pulley to loosen the belt.)

Whirlpool was another machine which operated with a single direction motor and transmission, again with solenoid operated clutches for Wash and Agitate, the smaller solenoids in this case being used in a pilot fashion to use the power of the motor to actually 'shift', there also being a neutral position when only the pump operated. Whirlpool pumps were either 2 or 4 port pumps, the 4 port being for recirculation / filtering, the filtering being achieved on early machines by passing the water through a 'brush' / bristle filter in the top Hob of the machine - removable for cleaning manually. Later machines passed the water through a maze (tortuous path) and one face of this filter had a rubber diaphragm. In one water flow direction the unit filtered and in the other direction the diaphragm lifted under greater pressure and lint flowed to waste - both types of filter worked well.

The pump also incorporated a 'flapper' valve (similar to a lollipop) which facilitated changing water flow direction through the pump. This valve was actuated by an arm connected to its shaft which in turn was operated by a linkage to the agitator cam bar of the transmission, which in its turn was shifted by the WASH solenoid . The Wash and Spin solenoids were called 'wig wags because they oscillated under the power of the transmission. Typical faults in the system were broken wires to the solenoids due to continual twisting, especially if not correctly routed and the rubber flap disengaging from the shaft.

The water flow circuit for the Whirlpool was very complicated - one wonders who designs these things. It is very well illustrated if you enter the following on Google -

'Whirlpool suds saver pump' go to 'Automatic washer - Whirlpool Appliances' > adcxns1.whirlpool.com/Service/SrvTech

From memory the Hoover Keymatic - launched in the 60's - also had a suds saver function, it was unusual for the time in having an electric pump - I think the water could be syphoned back into the machine - there was only one hose and I think it had a 'switch' on the hose - probably closed or opened an air gap which prevented syphoning.

Keymatic machines had other interesting features including 2 wash systems - either the oblique barrel rotated or a ribbed pulsater at the back of the barrel (similar to the pulsater on the Hoover single and Twin Tub washing machines) - this machine had terrible (= expensive) drive and bearing problems but washed well. The most unique feature was the control system - a square Key or 'biscuit' with various notches was inserted into a slot and operated program switches connected to a special timer. The biscuit could be inserted 4 ways and also inverted + there was also a cold plate so one had 16 program options. The timer was made in Germany by a company called Holzer - upon inserting the key the timer self advanced to the correct starting position for the program selected and then the machine commenced.

Some other brands later introduced machines with competing control systems which were generally called "Fully Programed." Instead of having a timer knob which had to be turned to a desired setting there were many push button program switches - upon pushing the desired button a motor on the timer rapidly advanced it to the desired starting position - the motor then stopped and the normal timer slow advancing motor took over - saved the user from having to turn a knob - and appealed to those who liked many buttons but was more expensive and much more difficult to fault find although thankfully it eventuated as a quite reliable control system.

Whirlpool also used another system of buttons adjacent to the timer knob - several buttons either side - this actuated various stop pins - the user pushed the desired button and then turned the knob as far as it would turn - then pulled the knob out to start - saved the user from having to check carefully that they set the knob at the correct starting position.

Stuart Fox, Bondi Beach, Australia

Stuart:

Thank you. As others pointed out it was the machine, not the installation. I will see what I can find out, about availability. I find it interesting that it hasn't been revived with all the hoopla with low water toilets.

I live in Puerto Rico, on the eastern boundary of a rain forest. While water is plentiful, it is expensive (about $.10 gallon at the tap). The infrastructure is so bad the repairs are astronomical. It is not uncommon to see water spouting from a leaking pipe for several days. In 2008 we had a dry spell. The governor ordered everyone with a plumbing license to "volunteer" time to fix leaks in the municipal system.

Inglis/ Whirlpool were the ones that did that. The drain system had a diverter solenoid valve.

You could set the controls for either fresh water or to reuse the grey water for the first wash cycle.

They were ahead of the time.

Unfortunately the valves had a bad failure rate.

The alternative solution is to collect the drained water in a pit and pump it to flush toilet or gardening. If you add recommended chemicals you may be able to re-use to wash clothes