Washers and Dryers

By -
Is there a reason that washing machines usually are started by pulling a knob out, while dryers are usually started by turning a knob? Even when you get a twinned set from one manufacturer, the interface to starting the washer is different from that of starting the dryer. Is there something about washing machines that makes them naturally a "pull-the-knob-to-start" sort of machine, while dryers are characteristcally "turn-the-knob-to-start" devices?

Comments

  1. Rachael Anne4:58 PM

    I don't know. Our washer and dryer are a "matched set," and they have digital interfaces, and they both start the same way--you push the Power button, and then the Start button.

    ReplyDelete
  2. John Goes12:55 AM

    My dryer just asks that you push a button to start it, after you turn the dial to the appropriate place. The button just starts the motor.

    Washer's are more complicated because you have solenoids and such that need to be opened in a certain pattern, and apparently the traditional ones are designed in a clever way that turning the dial will open up certain solenoids and only allow in so much hot or cold water, which is activated when you pull the knob. From a short search the answer seems to have something to do with these solenoids, but I couldn't find a clear answer.

    ReplyDelete
  3. gcallah3:56 PM

    I've never had a digital interface washer or dryer.

    Sob.

    ReplyDelete
  4. John Goes2:58 AM

    If you just turn the dryer handle it will turn on? The interface on mine isn't digital, but I think pushing the button sends a current through the motor, kickstarting it so to speak. This is why if you push it fast it will start briefly but not catch, you have to hold it down.

    I was thinking to, maybe you have to pull to start it because at the end of the cycle it's easier for the dial to "fall" back into place at the end rather than popping back out, at least if the two options are pushing it in or pulling it out. Pulling is probably easier on the whole than having springs push the dial back out at the end.

    Gene, you might really like Nicholson Baker if you haven't read some of his books already, it's filled with this sort of trivial stuff that makes up life.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more