Concrete-free washing machines are lighter to transport, just as good in a spin | Hacker News Reader

Concrete-free washing machines are lighter to transport, just as good in a spin

newatlas.com

154 pointsthe-dude161 comments

Somewhat tickled to say I thought of this about 10 years ago, told everyone who would listen, and many who wouldn't.

As I was not remotely interested in developing it myself I was happy to tell anyone. Got an audience with a designer at Dyson, gave it to him straight in the clearest most open terms imaginable, to be met by nonplussed disinterest.

Just kept it for cocktail parties since then.

I've been telling this for years every time I helped people move. The thought of patenting it crossed my mind, but I always assumed this would be "too simple" an invention, that companies probably already had figured out, but couldn't use because of some patent troll or something like that. Also, as a student, I didn't have the money for a patent application.

> Also, as a student, I didn't have the money for a patent application.

That's the big probem for individuals.

Patenting as an individual is expensive and as a friend learned the big companies can just sit-tight until the renewal fees become too much to bear.

He had designed a self-assembly glassfibre astronomical observatory on the Buckmeister principle, with a wide-opening orifice using petal segments, and toured the major manufacturers in the field. None wanted to license the patent.

Shortly after he let the patent lapse due to cost, several of the manufacturers brought out their variants. That's just the way the game is played.

Maybe a space for crowdfunding? or a dreaded ICO...

>> None wanted to license the patent.

Where did it fail? no interest at all? weak patent ? terms negotiation ?

That's the main failure on that argument that patents protect small inventors.

It's a wonder that the companies on your case decided to ignore the patent, instead of implementing it expecting your friend to not have enough money to sue.

Why didn't he make it himself?

I imagine the difficulty here is not in coming up with the idea of using a water tank, but rather in designing the shape and material of a container that is sufficiently strong to survive the forces acting upon it.

Did you build one to see if it worked? A used washing machine is essentially free. Perhaps the Dyson engineer knew that success in mechanical design of an everyday machine that's expected to take decades of abuse is somewhat more difficult than having a cool idea. We don't even know how long the professionally designed machine in the article will last.

Had no clue what nonplussed was and went searching. Interesting read: http://www.punctuationmatters.com/nonplussed-definition/

I knew the correct definition so the story merely left me plussed.

Well, you're going to have a heck of a cocktail party story now.

Consumers care about 'plug and play' to a sometimes confusing degree. I've heard numerous stories about products made objectively worse to make it more appealing to consumers--pretty, but tasteless tomatoes, apples, and other produce are one example. I heard (a possibly apocryphal) story that bottled smoothie companies add questionable things to keep smoothies suspended because consumers prefer not to shake their drink before consuming.

I wouldn't be surprised if this was investigated internally at multiple companies, but decided consumers wouldn't like the extra steps. I've also had many apartments explicitly disallow containers of liquids larger than a few gallons (the obvious case is fish tanks) because of insurance and liability reasons.

I hope this is successful and takes off...but I can see still see it being rejected by consumers. Maybe these are the kinds of things where a regulation is the best course forward?

Plug and play? A washing machine already needs water input, it would be an interesting hack to pipe up the internals so that during the first run, it will first fill the ballast container, and only after that's full will the rest of the water be used for normal washing. And somehow make it so that the ballast container can be sealed off when it's full, maybe a tiny sliding door which will rise with the water, and when it's high enough, a magnet above it will pull it and seal the container shut.

And if you want to transport it, just add a mechanism that can release all the water... and also open that door.

Newer washing machines have less concrete in them that before - My guess would be that in the past the water tank would have been to large to actually fit the machine.

I also wonder how the plastic will stand up to the vibrations. You might get leaks because the plastic will flex and eventually rupture from stress.

The reason why newer machines have less counterweight is that the motors are electronically regulated these days. That means you can partly dampen vibrations with the motor instead of with weights.

3.5 kg of plastic is quite a lot though, I suppose it is because the tank is very thick.

Hell why not use rocks on a shelf?

p.s. have you heard of new washing machine motors that re-magnetize the stator between cycles? One high-torque config for agitation, then a high-speed config for spinning!

"The plastic counterweight (right) could save around 45,000 tonnes of CO2 each year in the UK..."

How about we just make machines that last instead of having to be replaced all the time.

Because no-one wants to pay for that. Washing machines which last exist, but they're expensive. They use sturdier, more easily replaceable parts, higher quality motors and control systems, etc. And sometimes _iron_ counterweights (even more CO2 there).

You can get a washing machine that might last perhaps 5-10 years for about 200-300 euro... or a Miele one that'll probably last over 20 years for 1000 euro. It's a hard sell for most people.

> You can get a washing machine that might last perhaps 5-10 years for about 200-300 euro... or a Miele one that'll probably last over 20 years for 1000 euro. It's a hard sell for most people.

The other side of the coin is that the Miele will possibly do a better job than the cheaper model.

I used to buy $100 vacuum cleaners and just replace them when they break, which they usually did after a year or two. The last time one died on me I decided that I had had enough and bought a Miele. Not only will it last longer (the 10 year warranty guarantees that it will), it also does a much better job.

Oh, yep, it'll do a better job than the cheap stuff. Most people just aren't willing to spend this sort of money on an appliance, though.

I like my Miele vacuum. But I bought it because it did a noticeably better job and was more quite than a cheapo. But I doubt the Miele dishwasher would do a better job since mine does fine. Clean is clean for a plate.

My problem is that I'm willing to spend the money but I'm worried about getting burnt. It can be difficult to ascertain what product is worth spending money on and how much extra to spend exactly.

There is zero guarantee of spending more to get higher quality and longer life. It takes a lot of research.

You need to be really, really determined to follow the "Buy It For Life" way.

The length of a manufacturer warranty is a pretty good indicator of relative expected product longevity.

Ask a repaid shop!

Of course, they're unlikely to know how well an all new model will last, but most manufacturers don't have all new components in a new model.

I bought my current machine secondhand for AU$200. When it fails beyond repair I plan on buying another on from a repairer, so I'll have the opportunity to ask them what parts commonly fail that make machines unrepairable.

repair shop

A bit less than ten years ago, I had my home built and purchased nothing but high-end industrial appliances. I admit, this was costly and I made similar viewpoint purchases for the rest of the house.

So far, I've not had to have anything repaired - at all. I haven't even had to change an appliance lightbulb. I just keep the consumables replaced on schedule.

Initially, it was quite expensive. I do think it may be cheaper on the long run.

Do cheap appliances really have longevity problems though?

My place is going on 22 years old with the same gas oven/stove top, built in microwave, and standing washer dryer combo. No repairs needed that I know of and even if they did, they are all standard, whirlpool type appliance with an abundance of cheap parts online. Even the fridge was going strong until we had an internal water leak a few years ago which was easily fixed for $100. We did recently get rid of it for a more efficient model though.

Now that I think about it, the dishwasher was replaced a few years ago. Mostly because we didn't think the old one was cleaning well enough. But the new one was barely $200 all in.

Commerical, high end versions of these appliances would need to last more than my remaining lifespan to pay for themselves.

I don't think much financial argument can be made for spending large amounts of money on regular kitchen appliances for their longevity.

I haven't crunched the numbers but I'd say the lack of hassle also has value. I'm not sure where to even get that data. If you know where it is, I'll do some math.

It's always a gamble, but I feel like your appliances probably fall in the threshold of manufacturers giving a damn about longevity.

Our 32-year-old home, with original washer/dryer, dishwasher, fridge, and oven were only recently renovated mostly because of aesthetics - not operation. Of those appliances, the dishwasher was the only real dud the last year.

1000 euros per 20 years = 50 euro per year.

250 euros per ~7.5 years = 33 euros per year.

See the problem ?

But also improving the reliability of washing machines isn't hard or expensive. Remember, you're talking about a machine that the most common source of problem with it is a broken/faulty lid switch. cheap and easy to fix.

Surely, with that level of engineered failure(or maybe extreme cost engineering), there's similar stuff hidden there.

Also a common fault is the bearings supporting the drum. These actually take a lot of beating. In the olden days, you could replace them for $15 and two hours of straight-forward work. When my ~ 5 year old Bosch failed last year, I spent an hour on the teardown just to discover they now plastic weld the drum shut, so you instead have to buy a new $150 drum assembly. Youtube had teardowns of the same model built a few years earlier, which was still repairable; there were even still bolt holes right next to the plastic weld on mine. At which point I said screw you Bosch, I'm buying a new Miele. Here's hoping it lasts 20 years.

Huh, I thought Bosch still had replaceable bearings. That's disappointing.

I've never been convinced about the idea of serious engineered failure for this type of device. I think there are two problems, both consumer-related; price sensitivity (adjusted for inflation, these machines are far cheaper than they used to be) and demand for features (more modes, smartphone integration, bigger drum, higher spin speed), and something has to give.

If you compare a low-end washing machine, say a Whirlpool or Inndesit or something, to a mid-range one (Bosch etc), to a high-end one (Miele), it's immediately obvious what's going on. On the low-end one, costs are cut to the bone; everything feels flimsy. The door, the drum, even the buttons feel cheap and flimsy. The mid-range one, things feel better (and repairs become easier; easily replaceable drums etc). The top-end one feels like an industrial machine (and durability improves; high-quality motors, the afore-mentioned iron counterweight and so on).

To a large extent, with washing machines, you get what you pay for (as long as you avoid smartphone integration and other nonsense). There's consumer demand for really, really cheap ones, so manufacturers make them, and they break quickly. You can still buy a top-end one which will last, but it'll cost you.

I'd be convinced that companies are seriously interested in offering good value combined with reliability or just repairability, when they'll start seriously marketing their products as such[1].

So far, only miele does that marketing, but sadly without the price.

[1]Gigabyte did/does that with motherboards, their ultra-durable line, when they tell you all kind of technical stuff(like "we use tantalum capacitors" which attack a common and cheap MB failure point) to convince you it's reliable.

Bosch kind of markets that way, though as mentioned elsewhere in the thread, they may not be as reliable or serviceable as they used to be.

"Feels flimsy" doesn't mean they can't last.

I paid usd$350 for our new Kenmore washer in 1995. I have had it apart three times in that period, all for repairs that cost less than $50 in parts and at most two hours time.

Contrast this with our 2012 $950 Bosch dishwasher, which broke three times in its second year of service (1-year warranty), and cost collectively $850 to fix because nothing was user serviceable. We threw it out when it broke the fourth time.

My experience with home appliances has been mostly that the cheaper ones last _longer_ than the expensive ones.

Not buying, replacing, installing, or disposing of three washers: Priceless.

There are also two schools of thought on spending more now vs spending twice. $1k now or $200 4-5 times obey the same course of time misses the opportunity cost -- pay $200 now then put the $800 into index funds. This also assumes that the $200 machine works as well as the $1k machine, which is very likely false. If it's rougher on your clothes and you must replace them more often, there's another hidden cost. If it's loud and keeps you up at night, it's harder to assign a dollar value to that. If you just hate using junky crap, again that's hard to assign a number to.

Why not both? They aren't mutually exclusive.

You also have to transport a machine if you move with furniture. Washing machines to me still appear to be one of the longest lasting appliances, I'd guess most replace the machine not because it's faulty.

Having a "dead weight" has it's advantages - passive, no bacteria, mold, flex, resistant to shock etc. Pretty sure billion dollar companies like Siemens have thought this through and came to the conclusion that concrete is best. The negative externality of a disappointed customer seems to be larger (medium term) than the damage being done by producing the concrete.

then fill it with concrete..

Manufacturers really don't care too much about shipping costs (and the secondary CO2 burden) once the machine leaves their loading dock. Their concern is to make the machine as cheaply as possible for the features involved and maximize the margin.

Costs are probably not that high anyway. For most logistic companies, volume determines capacity for trucks, not weight. Transporting a washing machine amongst other deliveries will not cost much more than other deliveries of that size (except for the additional fuel which is probably low). Carrying it in place can be done within minutes, not much longer than other deliveries.

That's probably also the reason why machines are cheap to buy online. If shipping was a constraint, buying at big stores would be cheaper.

Therefore, concrete can save some CO2 but probably not much cost. The cost of replacing faulty water tanks could be higher than the saved cost.

This. The problem is that the costs of transportation are externalized to a shipper, and the environmental costs the shipper incurs are externalized to ... future generations? And the cost of the eventual replacement is externalized to the consumer ten years from now. It may be wise for us as a society to find ways to fully account for all costs of products to use market forces to make better decisions for society as a whole, rather than enriching a segment at the expense of another.

Better question - why can't we reuse the concrete blocks.

I never knew washing machines had concrete in them :(

Yeah, check out Secret Life Of Machines 104 The Washing Machine https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baFaEvBywGc&feature=youtu.be...

they show what happens if you take the block out. Also how comercial machines do without it by balancing the load.

Damn that takes me back! I used to love watch Secret Life of Machines, back in the 80s.

The automatically filled pockets to balance industrial washing machines are very interesting.

Some very high-end ones use iron counterweights.

Only the cheaper ones use concrete I believe. High-end models use cast iron, because concrete will start to crack/crumble after 10 years

This is one of those things where I'd have to think the washing machine companies have certainly thought of this and there's a reason they don't do it that's being left out of the article. It does seem like a good idea, but curious why it's not done already.

My top loader has damping springs at the bottom and a plastic "balance ring"[1] around the top of the basket that's filled with fluid to reduce vibrations. Certainly no concrete anywhere in it, that I could see when I took the cover/case off anyway.

Though I've been having problems with it shaking too much during the spin cycle, so I wish it did have concrete.

[1] http://www.appliancepartspros.com/whirlpool-balance-ring-asm...

Only front loaders have it. Top loaders don't spin fast enough to need it.

I was of the understanding top loaders don't require it because the axis of spin is oriented such that, so long as the load is sufficiently balanced, it doesn't matter how fast it spins.

Front loaders have a harder time balancing the load due to the orientation of the drum, so require greater inertial mass to stabilise them.

No, I don't believe that's true. An imbalanced top loader will "walk" across the room if it's not heavy enough to stay put.

No, it's simply that top loaders just don't spin very fast.

> Front loaders have a harder time balancing the load due to the orientation of the drum

The opposite - it's easier for a front loader to balance the load, not harder (that's why they are able to spin faster).

A top loader has no ability to move the clothing into balance. But a front loader can - it spins slowly so that the clothing moves around, and then when it detects balance, it speeds up and locks the clothing into position.

A front loader is a better washing machine in every single way, except for one: it needs to be water tight, which means air tight, so it can grow mildew if the door is not left open when it's not in use.

Ah, yep, all going points, I think you're right. I sit corrected.

Yeah, got to leave that door open when not in use. Definitely something I always do.

Try replacing the springs, or checking to see if one is broken. Happened to me.

22 years, same washing machine.

Was posted on BBC a few weeks back and in the comments sections this was posted.

https://patents.google.com/patent/EP0326502A1/en

He has another one where it seems it pumps water through a second reservoir. Looks like that expired recently so possibly why we are seeing this? (Far from a patent expert)

https://patents.google.com/patent/EP0707670B1/en?q=D06F37%2f...

I wonder when active damping systems will come to washing machines. You'll need sensors to measure vibrations, a control unit and some small but fast actuator coupled to a small counter weight.

The technology shouldn't be much different to the noise cancelling earphones I'm wearing right now. But with a larger actuator.

My current LG washer spins the drum at startup to detect balance and load, so it probably accomplishes some active balancing by modulating the drive motor during the spin cycle. This one still has a regular concrete balance though.

Same, but I figured it was doing something more like:

    int speed = 0, retries = 0;
    for (int time = 0; time < SPIN_LENGTH; time++) {
      speed += speed < MAX_SPEED ? 1 : 0;
      if (read_shake_sensor() > TOO_MUCH_SHAKING) {
        time = speed = 0;
        if (++retries > MAX_RETRIES)
          break;
      }
      set_spin_speed(speed);
      sleep(1);
    }

While it's possible that it is this simple, spinning the drum back and forth to detect load shows a significantly more advanced understanding of control theory.

I have an LG and noticed that it takes a very measured approach to spin cycles, as if it's taking a bunch of measurements at certain speeds before going into the high speed final spin.

It can also reverse the drum to try and loosen loads that have fixed together in one lump. That has to be a huge advantage of the direct drive system and most likely something that concrete-filled belt-driven UK banger can't do.

Take the vibration amplitude over time in all three directions. Take first and second derivative per axis. Send that to something mechanical to counter it.

My 1400rpm Samsung front loader definitely does. Probably the higher spin speeds make it more necessary?

Is this a British thing?

I'm pretty sure my 22-year-old Kenmore washer doesn't have any concrete in it. I have it apart three or four times in 22 years for different maintenance (never costing more than $50 in parts) and it's not particularly heavy.

No, not a British thing. But only front loaders need it, since old top loaders don't spin very fast.

Water has a density of 1000kg/m3 whereas concrete has a density of 2300kg/m3. Your washing machine will end up a bit bigger if you want the same counterweight.

Some washers even have cast iron counterweights (7000kg/m3).

Because of better electronic regulation can probably get away with this easier now. Also front loaders seem to have taken over a lot of the market which maybe affects things?

The current concrete counterweights don't take up the full extra volume available in machines so switching to a less dense counterweight doesn't mean they'll have to increase the size of the machine overall.

what about sand? comes close to concrete but is easily (re)fillable.

and never gets moldy

This seems to be such an incredible innovation, the questions arise : is it really feasible and why has it not happened before?

it's one of those ideas that seems so obvious and sensible in retrospect it makes you wonder how many other stupid designs are hidden in plain view, and why did this problem not get solved until 2017, when there are robots on Mars and probes orbiting Jupiter and Saturn ?

I got this idea long ago but I couldn't think of a way of using this idea. Then I thought it was obvious and that it was not implemented for some non obvious reason I didn't know.

Same here.

A block of concrete is cheap and zero maintanance. And the machine typically is carried only twice in it's lifetime.

A water reservoir needs some way of filling, thus extra work for the buyer (typical ad: our washing machine doesn't need filling as those clunky reservoir ones!!!), maybe requires some maintenance. If you leave water in it for years it will rot, so probably you also need to put some disinfectants in.

So basically this idea is more environmentally sane, but more expensive. But there could be a market here, people care and are willing to spend more these days to save the env.

> thus extra work for the buyer

The soap water inlet can be a flexible tube that one can put inside the reservoir, then push a button and the exact amount of water is added (or some more and have it overflow to the drum).

> maybe requires some maintenance

Not if done correctly. And if it wasn't done correctly it seems easy to fix.

> so probably you also need to put some disinfectants in

They can just come with a bleach tablet inside.

I'm already trying hard not to fall into full alankayism [1] and this only reinforces my view.

Jobs said that many people in companies are clueless...

[1] for people that never watched his talk where he demonstrates how pretty old and forgotten software can be, enjoy this fully https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2LZLYcu_JY

Just think about the time gap between the invention of the wheel and until the 1970's when someone finally thought of attaching them to a suitcase!

Because it wasn't a priority. Plastic is more expensive than concrete. It's only now that "look how green we are" is able to tip the balance to where it's worth implementing.

If someone really wanted they could come up with a more complicated counterbalance solution and probably eliminate the dead weight entirely.

I really want to see how they came up with their numbers. I suspect that they're overly optimistic. +/-100lb isn't going to matter for fuel consumption in the last mile and the CO2 cost of picking up and replacing one that failed under warranty would likely negate many hundreds of machines worth of reduced fuel consumption before the last mile.

I somewhat doubt that a hollow plastic tank is significantly more expensive than a concrete block. Factor in the added cost of shipping the much heavier concrete block, and it seems like the manufacturer would also save money in the process.

Is it that much more expensive to ship something in bulk with additional weight? I honestly don't know how distance shipping by the container works, but I always thought it was just a case of being billed based on volume.

In bulk you basically per 40' container which are usually kept under ~45,000lbs* and have 67.7 m3 volume. So, you are either volume or weight limited, but not really both.

Note: there are a few different container sizes, but 40' is by far the most common. Weight limits also very by location.

The cost hasn't been cited in the "invention", but concrete is something that weights roughly 2,200 Kg per cubic meter, and has a cost (of course it depends on where it is produced) of less than 100 US$ per cubic meter, the 25 Kg counterbalance costs between 1 and 2 dollars, and is probably just barely comparable to a mass produced injected plastic tank, but I doubt that there will be any actual savings by the manufacturer.

And there is no real "visible" added cost of transport.

A 70 kg washing machine is typically 0.60x0.60x0.90=0.324 cubic meters, let's say 0.7x0.7x1,00=0.49-0.50 including packaging, it has a a very low "density" of 70/500=0.14.

On a truck with a platform of 2.40 m x 13.00 m (a normal large truck with a loading accepted of around 30,000 Kg ) you can usually put (in two levels) between 100 and 110 washers (2.40/0.7=3 13/0.7=18 2x3x18=108).

So you have this big truck, designed to carry 30,000 Kg and you load it with 8,000 Kg instead.

Do you think you will get a discount from the trucker?

And do you think that you will get a further discount if the load is 5,000 instead?

As well, do you think that you will get a discount from the delivery (and installing) guy if it weights 20 Kg less (but the guy needs to remove the top cover, fill the tank, re-assemble the cover)?

From an environmental viewpoint there are undoubtedly savings but the manufacturer (or the customer) won't be able to appreciate them in practice.

How much energy do you need to harvest the crude oil, transport it, and refine it into ~3kg of ABS plastic?

How much energy does it take to melt it into a slug and blow-mold it into a tank shape?

Well, it has, in other places. My kid had a basketball net playset that used a hollow base you would fill with water.

https://www.littletikes.com/item/612329/totsports-easy-score...

Now they recommend sand which probably would be less inclined to grow mold and bacteria in a warm enclosed environment.

My bigger question is: why do U.K. front loaders need a large counter vibration mass? My 10 year-old LG direct drive unit has no weights at all.

Well, concrete is solid and water is liquid.

I know it sounds obvious, but have you ever seen in your life a plastic flask or tank or jerry can that after several years leaked?

It is of course doable, but how durable will it be?

Imagine the kind of vibrations and shocks a jerry can used as a counterbalancing device in a relatively hot environment needs to bear.

A good, environment-friendly idea would be to make the concrete counterbalances a "standard" (in size and holes/bolting) and re-use them.

Nowadays in most countries (excluded the developing ones) the market for washing machine is almost exclusively a replacement one.

You get the new washing machine (without counterbalance) and you bolt on it the one from the old machine, and you save also the cost of the plastic water container.

make it metal, fill with sand

...with an added cost of some 10-15 US$ for a steel tank that being just over something generating hot, humid air all the time will rust in no time or 40-60 US$ in the case of stainless steel.

Then everyone has 20 Kg of sand at home (if you have to transport the 20 Kg of sand all the theoretical transport savings are gone).

right, didn't think of rust - but sand can be easily obtained, beside most people use installers around here, so they'd be the one with the sand.

...but most people, whether using an installer or not, don't have multiple faucets that can dispense sand. Nearly everyone _does_ have access to water though.

   Nearly everyone _does_ have access to water though.

Certainly everyone installing a washing machine.

god dammit, yet another stupid idea I thought nobody would ever like.

ps: same goes for almost every dead weight transport. Road blocks, you name it.

Someone computes the wasted energy ?

pps: what about vertical axis spinning models ? I remember people saying they were inneficient. Anyone can explain ?

ppps: I remember a guy in africa coupling a dead bike to a vertical spinning container. sigh

Horizontal axis is better because it tumbles the clothes through a small puddle of water at the bottom. Vertical axis requires lots of energy to agitate, and a lot of water.

Yeah I just read about the need for swapping clothes in vertical axis, although people added fins to move them around. Interesting.

Need? Like, there are people going around complaining that their clothes never get clean enough unless they swap them around in the washer?

I have found most washer "innovations" are simply ways for companies to sell new washers, rather than having people fix old ones.

My vertical axis washer uses probably as much as a horizontal one. The trick is in an improved impeller to properly agitate a full load in what's merely a puddle of water. Also the cycle starts with a pump spraying (recycled) water back into the basket so that all the clothes reach the same wetness therefore can have the same density and get impelled uniformly.

I always felt like vertical washers had to be harder on clothes. Horizontal washers are just flopping clothes around so the worst wear is probably on buttons. Vertical washers are scraping and stretching the fabric itself when they agitate. Especially if there's not much water to lubricate, seems like it would be tough on the fabric.

Is there actual evidence that consumer horizontal machines take less energy per cycle?

It's a very "famous" claim at least. Couldn't find quantitative evidence though.

Water-filled road blocks are not new: https://www.trafficsafetystore.com/water-filled-barriers

Ah fair enough. It's just that this summer lots of roadwork around used very large concrete mdules.

A lot of roadworks takes place well away from a convenient source of water like a hydrant so the water has to be transported out there for the water filled barriers. So there's some savings since you don't have to take the whole weight back to storage and the distance the bulk of the weight travels is probably lower.

In addition, looks like Concrete barriers are rated up to NCHRP 350 Test Level 5. Water filled Level 2, those linked to above are Level 1.

https://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/esv/esv19/05-0149-O.pdf

Very interesting link. btw I didn't mean for static normal traffic barriers, of course here, you'd want something that can absorb car-class amount of energy. Just for low speed crowded urban area roadwork.

"Concrete is bad for the environment due to the amount of CO2 released in its production"

While this might be true for very large scale pours, is it really true of washing machines? burning 1 kg of gasoline produces about 3 kg CO2. Producing 1 kg of cement produces < 1kg of CO2.

Only slightly related- but is there research into genetic modified wood growth? As in - directly from a cell culture in a tank?

I'm going to guess this will go nowhere.

There is the human time to take the cover off and fill two massive water tanks, the cost of having plugs and caps for said tanks, the risk that they leak, the risk that they don't get filled and the machine vibrates to pieces, the fatigue risk (try designing a thin plastic tank to take >200 lbs of vibrational force), the risk of a new and unproven design, etc.

All of that only saves a few cents of extra gas for shipping the machines. Probably not worth it.

Probably the plastic tank cost is more expensive to manufacture than blocks of concrete anyway. Concrete is damn cheap.

Why not force companies to standardize the size and shape of the concrete counterweight, and mandate that it must be easily removable and you can't sell them bundled with the machines themselves?

Then you could simply remove it for transport, and it many cases reuse the one from your old machine, or buy a really cheap second-hand counterweight from your local hardware store.

So it is an old idea in a new usage.Water filled road barriers have been there for ages."The Jersey barrier, also called New Jersey wall, was developed in the 1950s (introduced in current form in 1959), at the Stevens Institute of Technology,[1] New Jersey, United States, under the direction of the New Jersey State Highway Department to divide multiple lanes on a highway". Wikifelia.

Interestingly, they first used movable concrete barriers in the late 1940s, in California. The plastic ones came out in the late 60s. Some of them contain sand or concrete.

Err...

I modeled traffic. I spent as much time as I could being on-site for data collection. I've also spent way too much mental energy on learning about roads. This is because I am still largely a child, even though I'm old.

>"We found it worked as good as a concrete counterweight, stopping the spinning drum from heavily vibrating the machine,"

Sorry to be off topic, but shouldn't it be "worked as well"? Not a native speaker, but it sounds strange.

Very interesting idea, though as many have pointed out, I'd be worried of leakage in the long run. A plastic container should be cheap to replace, however.

I think this is a UK article, but I think people in the USA often say 'good' when they mean 'well'. Maybe that's crossing the Atlantic now.

This is likely correct - it's a common mistake in English on both sides of the Atlantic, and you are right that it should be "well". My clients from the UK use it about as frequently as my US clients.

You are right, proper usage is "well" there. It's an adverb, describing the way that the machine worked. "Good" is for adjectives, describing people, places or things.

Sometimes you will hear this mistake in speech (as opposed to written), and this was a quote. Even in speech, unless used for effect, that usage would (for better or worse) mark the speaker as less educated.

But if delivered with a bit of a foreign accent, all is forgiven ;-).

Just remember Superman does good, you're doing well.

I thought you were always supposed to take out the concrete block before moving the thing. It's usually very easy to do.

Can't we just fix the damn things to the walls or floor? Maybe sell a separate, universal "base"?

I'd rather my _entire_ house not rumble when my washing machine has a heavy load :)

They'll eventually tear themselves apart, especially in a damp corrosive environment.

It's better to just find a solution to the vibration (which other machines have done).

Commercial laundry equipment is generally bolted to a concrete pad full of rebar.

I find innovations like this wonderfully elegant when they're so obvious in hindsight. It boggles the mind nobody thought of this before. There must be other problems with radically better obvious-in-hindsight solutions out there too.

What makes you think nobody thought of this before?

To my knowledge nobody did it, and I can't see a reason why having had the idea it wouldn't be used.

There are patents for this from 1989.

I think that many people thought of it. Water filled counterweights are used everywhere. That a washing machine uses water certainly helps making the connection.

But ideas are easy, implementation is hard. How to deal with the lower density of water, its tendency to slosh around, how is the tank filled, how is it emptied, how to prevent leaks, staleness, what if it is improperly filled, the costs and benefits.

These are all questions manufacturers have to answer. The University of Nottingham made a small step towards the solution by having a working prototype. But as hundreds of failed Kickstarter project show, there is a world between a prototype and mass production.

Bad idea, you are shifting a problem at the transportation side to a repair nightmare.

How is having a bucket of water on top of electronics being violently shaken on a daily basis a good design?

How about we just reuse the concrete blocks? They don't wear out do they?

That seems rather inefficient and as though you'd want a standard across many models. I suspect it's worse than just crushing it up for reuse.

For those on the lazy web like me; the answer is fill a hollow plastic counter weight with water when the machine is installed rather than lug great slabs of concrete round the world.

That's like a huge "duh, why didn't they do that" sort of thing. Wow. Theoretically, they could probably make all of the free space in the washer part of a giant tupperware style container and allow filling of different compartments to precisely balance the machine.

And the answer is... cheap computing power. If the plastic balance isn't full or leaks out, the spin cycle becomes extremely dangerous. Traditionally we used a system that was not prone to this kind of failure, but now that the cycle is computer controlled and we have cheap accelerometers we can use a more complicated but lighter alternative safely.

Why do you need a precise weight? Isn't it mass just there to keep the machine from vibrating, like the heavier the better? As opposed to some weight on a propeller that are carefully calibrated to offset any asymmetry.

A container of water is highly susceptible to harmonic vibrations in a way that a slab of concrete is not.

Not if fully toped?

Only issue might be the container not being 100% full causing the water inside to slosh and increase the vibrations. (Probably not that hard to solve)

>(Probably not that hard to solve)

Yeah, just throw a 2 channel PID controller and a bunch of servos. It most likely be rather cheap (sarcasm)

Most probably the new washing machine will have a microprocessor anyway being IoT ;), so it's just the cost of sensors and servos that adds to the BOM.

As a side note, and JFYI, a celebration of connected washers (by IBM):

https://www.ibm.com/blogs/internet-of-things/washing-iot-sol...

Particularly:

>New business transformation opportunities can be explored whereby the washing machine itself can be turned into a service where the thing is not purchased, but given to the user, with the user adopting a pay per wash experience.

The first example of WAASH (Washing As A Service, Hot) I ever saw.

Aah, this the devious "product as a service" model, at least here they properly call it leasing, unlike the companies that adopted Keurigification

I am not sure to understand, actually they (I mean the cited IBM article authors) don't call it "leasing", they explicitly promote the idea of "pay per wash".

Oh, well if it is so, then it is also an Example of Keurigification

Washing can be the free tier, and then monetize by coverting to premium(dryer).

It's a washing machine, it needs to be hooked up to a pressurized water pipe anyways. Just hook up the tank (before the valve) and it should always be completely full.

> It's a washing machine, it needs to be hooked up to a pressurized water pipe anyways.

There's an Aqua-Stop (with multiple valves, including a passive, magnetic one that works even in power loss situations) right after the water pipe connection, to avoid water damage in case the pipe or a valve inside the machine breaks.

Automatically filling the tanks is dangerous, because it will lead to issues in case e.g. the air-outlet gets stuck due to rust or lime particles from the pipe entering the tank with the water.

Concrete weighs 2.5 as much per given volume 150 vs 62 pounds per cubic foot. So, there are significant trade offs involved.

Also, adding a sealed water container creates a few more ways for these things to break down which was a larger concern when washing machines lasted ~5x as long.

What if they used sand instead of water?

Then you need to pay to ship sand. The upside is it would probably be easier to install, downside if it breaks you need to deal with sand.

But it doesn't need to be shipped from the factory in China to the user. Sand can be locally sourced cheaply. Washing machine installers just need an additional material on their truck, in addition to the tools and plumbing supplies they already carry. 25kg of sand costs $0.50 from a landscaping yard.

Somehow, I don't think they ship the concrete blocks from China.

Why not? Concrete is cheap in China and shipping is cheap right now.

Well, I don't know about your house, but in my house I don't have hoses with free-flowing sand guaranteed to be right next to my washing machine when I install it. A washing machine that required you to buy sand too would have a hard time in the market; it may be irrational in some sense, but that would be perceived as a huge installation burden by the market and it would not do well.

Excellent points.

Do you have the sand at home? If no, hoards of customers would have to fetch it one by one from some supply, actually causing more environmental damage in sum

At the very least you could have removable concrete piece. What's hard to move is a big heavy thing. A big light thing and a small heavy thing are easier to transport.

> when washing machines lasted ~5x as long

Planned obsolescence is so damned depressing. Imagine how much CO2 and energy could be saved if washing machines simply lasted as long as they did 25 years ago (concrete counterweight or not!). It's sad to see these examples of how consumerism and marketing have actually reversed the progress of humanity.

Is it not possible to legally mandate a minimum level of quality for motors, bearings, repairability etc? I guess this stuff is incredibly hard to do without creating weird unintended consequences.

Washing machines are build to die by design now. Most disposable brands (Samsung, LG, Electrolux, Whirlpool, anything from supermarket) use specially selected unprotected alloy in the spider (part holding drum to the shaft).

http://www.automaticwasher.org/cgi-bin/TD/TD-VIEWTHREAD.cgi?...

Fun fact - drum itself is stainless. Good brands (Miele) use stainless spider and are bulletproof.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com