On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 18:02:49 -0800, "Simon Schnizzard"
wrote:


"Tim Wescott" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 16:25:12 -0500, Pre-Meltdown wrote:

Awl--

Couldn't a front loading washer be filled with media to tumble parts?
As opposed to these noisy noisy vibratory tumblers?

I'm thinking 18 or 20 ga material could be riveted in to protect the
probably fragile-walled tub.
A frontloader can handle water, and the inlet could be rigged for a drip
water feed, and the drain already exists!

Natcherly you wouldn't wash clothes in such a modified washer.

I'm assuming that the rotation speed, which allows the clothes to drop
off at the top of the arc, would provide a suitable tumbling action,
like the itty bitty ones you see for jewelers (HF).

Sheeit, you can *buy* a NEW front loading washer for the price of *just
relining* used vibratory ones.

Opinions? Yea? Nay?

I've been wondering if a clapped-out front loader couldn't supply the
core of a good trummel for separating dried manure from gravel.

If we happen to meet at a yard sale in Iowa, and each is willing to drive
1200 miles with a clapped-out front loader to our respective coasts --
IT'S MINE! MINE MINE MINE MINE MINE!


The newer ones run a three phase motor and vs--should be able to get any
action desired if you retro with a vfd and plc.

The Maytag Neptune uses a switched reluctance motor. Hack the
electronics (rots o ruck) or replace them, speed control range is much
wider than an induction motor with VFD.

The barrels in Harperizers were MUCH heavier than the thin metal (or
plastic) tubs in a clothes washer -- and they still wore out
eventually.