Posted on 06/21/2009 2:43:57 PM PDT by Sub-Driver
Green-friendly washing machine uses just one cup of water Bill Westwater, chief executive of Xeros Peter Stiff
Hippies may not be the most frequent visitors to the launderette, but soon they will have no excuse not to wash their clothes, thanks to a new environmentally friendly washing machine — that uses only one cup of water and leaves clothes virtually dry — set to go on sale next year.
The technology, developed at the University of Leeds, aims to save up to 90 per cent of water used by conventional machines, use 30 per cent less energy and have the environmental impact of taking two million cars off the road.
The machine works by replacing most of the water with thousands of tiny, reusable nylon polymer beads, which attract and absorb dirt under humid conditions.
Only a small amount of water and detergent is needed to dampen the clothes, loosen stains and create the water vapour that allows the beads to work. After the cycle is finished, the beads fall through a mesh in the machine’s drum and can be re-used up to a hundred times.
Xeros, the company behind the technology, is aiming initially at the commercial washing market, including hotels and dry cleaners. Its chief executive, Bill Westwater, said that growing pressure on companies and consumers to cut water usage and carbon emissions should boost demand for the system.
(Excerpt) Read more at business.timesonline.co.uk ...
I wonder if these guys are also working on the three-shells method of “freshening up” after using the facilities.
Exactly. High-tech nylon beads don’t just drop out the sky, like water does. And if they can only be re-used “up to” 100 times, what becomes of them after they’re worn out? Do they end up dumped in the ocean, killing marine life that mistakes them for food?
It seems to me it would make a lot more sense to design a washing machine that reclaims the water it uses, instead of using virtually no water in the first place. There is a machine that does washing and drying all in the same machine, and with no vent, by using condensation to dry the clothes. The water from both the washing and the condensation-drying just gets drained out and it uses more energy than a regular dryer, but moving in this general direction could make a lot of sense. The water used to wash and rinse the clothes could be either largely reclaimed via filtering, or diverted as “gray water” (for water lawns, etc).
Me, personally, I’m not wearing any clothes that were “washed” in a machine using only a cup of water and no other solvents.
I have a low-water-usage front-loader, too. Love it! I don’t give a flying FReep about being “green” - nuke the Environment! - but we’re threatened with water rationing at least 2 out of 3 years, so it’s worth it to cut the water use by 3/4. Higher capacity than my old top-loader, too, and uses less electricity, if only because it’s newer.
They are much easier on your clothes, though, so they should last longer. I put some clothes through our front loader that I used to take to the dry cleaners, so I'm definitely saving money all the way around.
..and your bunkmate on the other side was Maj. Major Major Major...
A dozen or so years ago I was consulting for the Arcelik company in Turkey. Among other things, they made washing machines. In order to sell in Europe, they had to meet EU standards. The way it worked was this. Every year, the EU examined all the washing machines on the market, and determined the water and electricity consumption of each. For the next year, the minimum standard was a few percent lower than the worst of a given year’s achievements. That is, the standard kept creeping down as the machines on the market got better.
One of the issues Arcelik was concerned about was, what was the limit? Just how far down could you push water consumption? The eventual conclusion was that you couldn’t get it lower than enough water to wet all the clothes in the machine. At that limit, though, I didn’t think the machine would do a good job of washing. This absorbent bead gimmick is simply a way of getting around the absence of enough water to carry off the dirt.
Typical bureaucratic nannyism.
We have a guy in washington who nannies all the washers and dryers in the country too. I spoke to him. Unbelievable.
Put down the straw and step away from the powder...
Some people will (literally) believe anything!
Remember during the Carter years? How Earth homes were the answer to saving energy? Then later, people had to move out of them because the mold and fungus growing on the inside walls started talking to them.
Haha. That was my first thought. And, if we just checked the air pressure in the washing machine tires, and gave it regular tune-ups, wouldn't that fix everything?
Are you old enough to remember gas powered washing machines? Wouldn’t the greenies sh** bricks if someone brought out a new 2 cycle Washer/Dryer combination for use in Vacation cabins or something similar? Kinda makes me want to make up an ad for one and distribute it in some liberal city!
My Mother-In-Law had a machine with a suds saver (she had 8 kids). When the washer drained, the water went into a separate barrell (the suds saver) and then you used it for as many loads as you wanted. When her machine broke down and couldn’t be fixed she wanted to buy another one with the wonderful suds saver and couldn’t find one. It about broke her hear to have to drain away good soapy water. My opinion was she couldn’t find another one cause people today would say “YUCK!” I could see using the same water for two loads if they weren’t filthy dirty clothes but that would be my limit!
The modern low water usage front loading machines are slower than their older, water wasting top loading brothers. To equal the cleaning power of a 35 minute cycle in a top loader takes an hour or more in an HE machine.
Decades ago there were front loaders which filled the tub about halfway with water. They used the same detergent as a top loader and took about the same time to complete a cycle. I wish it were possible to get one today, other than as an expensively restored antique machine.
In between the two is, I have heard, something called a Staber washer. It has a drum that pivots vertically to allow top loading then turns to a horizontal axis to do the actual washing. It is more tolerant of normal detergents than is the typical HE washer. You don’t get a view of the washing laundry, however.
Where do these idiot liberals think the water goes after it’s done with the wash?
back into the system, lake, river or ground it was pumped from.
Using more water does not mean there is less water available. It gets treated and recycled. Has been for millions of years.
These people are morons.
Thanks for the reply. More support to justify getting one
Somehow I don’t believe just one cup of water and a whole ton of any kind of beads will begin to remove this old codgers skid marks.
And three gallons of dihydrogen monoxide.
An old style wringer washer side by side with a modern one would allow “suds saving.” Wash and wring in wringer machine (not draining suds until finished), rinse in modern machine.
Or maybe one could get funky with some valves, an immersible pump, some hoses of appropriate size, and a large plastic garbage can. Use the can to catch the suds drain water and the pump to feed the suds back into the washer for each subsequent wash. This requires channeling the rinse drain water elsewhere for each wash, obviously.
Get a set of nose plugs, no water needed.
I predict . . . no change in the smell of most hippies.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.