How prices have changed.

A friend of mine who was on a bomber crew over Japan in 1944/45, told
us how after that he sold major appliances for Gimbels in Philly.

He said that a Kelvinator model, the first one to have side by side
doors for freezer and fridge, sold for 399 dollars in 1945. Isn't
that interesting. You can buy a refridgerator for the same price now,
I think, and a side by side for probably not much more.


An ad was accidentally printed once in the Philly newspaper that said
the price was $3.99, and a potential customer came in insisting on
buying it at that price, but he wouln't sell it to him.

"mm" wrote in message
...
How prices have changed.

A friend of mine who was on a bomber crew over Japan in 1944/45, told
us how after that he sold major appliances for Gimbels in Philly.

He said that a Kelvinator model, the first one to have side by side
doors for freezer and fridge, sold for 399 dollars in 1945. Isn't
that interesting. You can buy a refridgerator for the same price now,
I think, and a side by side for probably not much more.

That was in incredible amount of money back then. Wages were probably a
buck an hour.

When we got married in 1966, we bought a TV, 19" B & W portable for $170. A
small room AC the next year was $200 or so. We also lived pretty well on
about $120 a week.

On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 22:18:47 -0400, mm
wrote:

How prices have changed.

A friend of mine who was on a bomber crew over Japan in 1944/45, told
us how after that he sold major appliances for Gimbels in Philly.

He said that a Kelvinator model, the first one to have side by side
doors for freezer and fridge, sold for 399 dollars in 1945. Isn't
that interesting. You can buy a refridgerator for the same price now,
I think, and a side by side for probably not much more.


An ad was accidentally printed once in the Philly newspaper that said
the price was $3.99, and a potential customer came in insisting on
buying it at that price, but he wouln't sell it to him.

Legally, an ad is an offer for you the customer to make an offer.
Mistakes are not binding. Some stores honor mistakes just because it
****es off too many customers not to and because of the hassel.

My grandparents had a gas refrigerator that had no electricity going
to it. It made ice and kept milk cold.

mm writes:

You can buy a refridgerator for the same price now,
I think, and a side by side for probably not much more.

If you don't count the electricity, which is most of the true cost of
ownership, and which is way more now than in 1945, even inflation-adjusted.

Valve,

We had a gas fridge when I was a kid. The light and fan were electric
though. Probably built in the late 1940s.

Dave M.

"mm" wrote in message
...
How prices have changed.

A friend of mine who was on a bomber crew over Japan in 1944/45, told
us how after that he sold major appliances for Gimbels in Philly.

He said that a Kelvinator model, the first one to have side by side
doors for freezer and fridge, sold for 399 dollars in 1945. Isn't
that interesting. You can buy a refridgerator for the same price now,
I think, and a side by side for probably not much more.


Same with computers. In 1989, my graphic design department bought me a "top
of the line" 386 PC with an Apple Laserwriter printer. The bill was over
$10,000. Mind boggling.

They still use gas refrigerators in RV's and places with little or no
electric.

Those old gas friges were loaded up with Ammonia and hydrogen.
Always nice things to have around the house!


On Jun 25, 11:54 pm, ValveJob wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 22:18:47 -0400, mm
wrote:

How prices have changed.

A friend of mine who was on a bomber crew over Japan in 1944/45, told
us how after that he sold major appliances for Gimbels in Philly.

He said that a Kelvinator model, the first one to have side by side
doors for freezer and fridge, sold for 399 dollars in 1945. Isn't
that interesting. You can buy a refridgerator for the same price now,
I think, and a side by side for probably not much more.

An ad was accidentally printed once in the Philly newspaper that said
the price was $3.99, and a potential customer came in insisting on
buying it at that price, but he wouln't sell it to him.

Legally, an ad is an offer for you the customer to make an offer.
Mistakes are not binding. Some stores honor mistakes just because it
****es off too many customers not to and because of the hassel.

My grandparents had a gas refrigerator that had no electricity going
to it. It made ice and kept milk cold.

On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 22:18:47 -0400, mm
wrote:


He said that a Kelvinator model, the first one to have side by side
doors for freezer and fridge, sold for 399 dollars in 1945. Isn't
that interesting. You can buy a refridgerator for the same price now,
I think, and a side by side for probably not much more.

BTW, I don't know if fridges are made in Mexico, or somewhere off
shore, or if prices have gone down because of that, but even before
prices that would have happened, they still weren't much higher than
they are now. Nowhere near 400 adjustedd for inflation.

Edwin Pawlowski writes:

That was much more expensive that what most
regions are now factoring inflation.

Some regions yes, some no.

Efficiency of refrigerators is
much better now, of course.

Today's frost-free refrigeration is inherently wasteful, for the sake of
convenience.

Every salesman tells you efficiency is better now than whevever you last
bought, even though not much has changed since the energy crisis of the
1970s. Every generation thinks it invented the best of pop music.

People still parrot that silly advice to wrap a blanket around your water
heater.

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:

-snip-
Not from what I've seen. According to this
http://www.blackhillspower.com/chapter4a.htm
it was about 3¢ in 1945. That was much more expensive that what most
regions are now factoring inflation. Efficiency of refrigerators is much
better now, of course.

According to the inflation calculator at
http://www.westegg.com/inflation/

that 3 cents would have been 33 in 2006.

Lots more than my current electric even with all the surcharges, taxes
& delivery thrown in. [mine was about .17 last month]

Jim

"Richard J Kinch" wrote in message

Today's frost-free refrigeration is inherently wasteful, for the sake of
convenience.

Every salesman tells you efficiency is better now than whevever you last
bought, even though not much has changed since the energy crisis of the
1970s. Every generation thinks it invented the best of pop music.

I used to have a second refrigerator in the basement, a 12 cubic foot with
small freezer. it was not frost free at all. It was probably made in the
1960's. I replaced it with a frost free 18 cu ft model that takes less than
half the energy for a larger space. My electric bill dropped $10 a month.
Sounds more efficient to me.

I'm saving energy with the larger frost free over the older, smaller,
standard model.

Edwin Pawlowski writes:

I'm saving energy with the larger frost free over the older, smaller,
standard model.

It may be true for your specimens (although "my electric bill dropped"
isn't conclusive--my bill drops all the time by far more than that), but a
frost-free necessarily uses more, all other things being equal.

And no fair comparing a piece of rotating machinery that has been running
for 40 years. Do you think motor oil is as good as new after that long?

"Richard J Kinch" wrote in message

It may be true for your specimens (although "my electric bill dropped"
isn't conclusive--my bill drops all the time by far more than that), but a
frost-free necessarily uses more, all other things being equal.

And no fair comparing a piece of rotating machinery that has been running
for 40 years. Do you think motor oil is as good as new after that long?

The electric bill is amazingly steady during most months compared to the
same time previous year. Air conditioning is the exception depending, on
weather. Most of my lights are on times so use is hte same during Dec, Jan
Feb, after adjusting for daylight it will be the same in April, May, June.
It was conclusive, IMO

Just look at the nameplate on both units. I forget the exact numbers, but
the new newer frost free uses about 50% of the older manual defrost.
Something line 4.3A versus 7.8A., going from memory. Compressors are more
efficient, insulation is better. Facts are facts.

I agree that a frost free may use a bit more, but I'm betting it is the
tiniest bit more. There is also a cost of defrosting. The unit has to be
turned off, heated up, ice removed, then re-chilled from ambient. There is
a cost to do that once or twice a year. People often use hot water or hair
dryers to defrost and that takes considerable energy.

Edwin Pawlowski writes:

I agree that a frost free may use a bit more, but I'm betting it is
the tiniest bit more.

It's not tiny.

Consider just the ice making process in a frost-free refrigerator.

First, you pay to pump the heat of fusion to make the ice to start with,
with some heat of vaporization from the liquid.

Second, you pay for a fan motor to circulate air in the frost-free
design, rather than using convection as in the old way.

Third, you pump the heat of fusion *and* vaporization, as a substantial
amount of the made ice is sublimated by the circulating air, ice turning
into vapor, as your ice cubes shrink.

Fourth, you pay for the heat of fusion and vaporization, to condense the
sublimated water vapor onto the evaporator coils.

Fifth, you pay the heat of fusion to melt the frost off the evaporator,
the liquid frost water going into a pan at the bottom of the unit.

Sixth, you pay to evaporate this frost water out of the pan into the
house air.

Seventh, you pay yet again to condense this vapor out of the house air
via your air conditioner, and finally get this waste out of the house.

So in making ice in your frost-free, quite a lot goes into wasted ice
making several energy-hogging thermodynamic round trips from liquid
and/or solid to vapor.

Try turning off your frost-free ice maker, and removing all exposed ice
from the freezer. You'll be amazed how much lower your duty cycle is.
Ice making and ice waste makes up a large percentage of frost-free
energy costs, and doesn't quite make it into the federal formulas used
to make the imaginary yellow energy-cost stickers.

In article ,
Richard J Kinch wrote:

Edwin Pawlowski writes:

I agree that a frost free may use a bit more, but I'm betting it is
the tiniest bit more.

It's not tiny.

Consider just the ice making process in a frost-free refrigerator.

First, you pay to pump the heat of fusion to make the ice to start with,
with some heat of vaporization from the liquid.

Second, you pay for a fan motor to circulate air in the frost-free
design, rather than using convection as in the old way.

Third, you pump the heat of fusion *and* vaporization, as a substantial
amount of the made ice is sublimated by the circulating air, ice turning
into vapor, as your ice cubes shrink.

Fourth, you pay for the heat of fusion and vaporization, to condense the
sublimated water vapor onto the evaporator coils.

Fifth, you pay the heat of fusion to melt the frost off the evaporator,
the liquid frost water going into a pan at the bottom of the unit.

Sixth, you pay to evaporate this frost water out of the pan into the
house air.

Seventh, you pay yet again to condense this vapor out of the house air
via your air conditioner, and finally get this waste out of the house.

So in making ice in your frost-free, quite a lot goes into wasted ice
making several energy-hogging thermodynamic round trips from liquid
and/or solid to vapor.

Try turning off your frost-free ice maker, and removing all exposed ice
from the freezer. You'll be amazed how much lower your duty cycle is.
Ice making and ice waste makes up a large percentage of frost-free
energy costs, and doesn't quite make it into the federal formulas used
to make the imaginary yellow energy-cost stickers.

I'm confused. What does ice-making have to do with frost-free?

This whole energy-inefficiency of refrigerators started a few decades
ago, when manufacturers got cheap with the insulation, and also wanted
to maximize internal usable space without increasing outside dimensions.
So they made the walls thinner.

Now with thin walls and insufficient insulation, the cold air inside the
fridge started to make its way to the outer shell. Then condensation
formed on the outside if there was any reasonable amount of humidity.
So, they put little heating wires just inside the outer shell, to keep
condensation from forming.

Naturally, some of that heat made its way into the interior,
necessitating longer run times.

Quite the vicious cycle of engineering stupidity. But wait, there's
mo Manufacturers started to put a little switch inside, and labeled
it an ENERGY SAVER. The switch turned off the heating coil. The consumer
was advised that if condensation formed on the outside, he or she should
switch the "energy saver" switch to the "energy waster" position.

Ask the guys who are off the grid, trying to generate power with
miniature hydroelectric plants in their urinals, how to make a real
energy efficient refrigerator. They'll tell you to build it with eight
inches of insulation. And they do.

"Richard J Kinch" wrote in message

Consider just the ice making process in a frost-free refrigerator.

First, you pay to pump the heat of fusion to make the ice to start with,
with some heat of vaporization from the liquid.

Second, you pay for a fan motor to circulate air in the frost-free
design, rather than using convection as in the old way.

Third, you pump the heat of fusion *and* vaporization, as a substantial
amount of the made ice is sublimated by the circulating air, ice turning
into vapor, as your ice cubes shrink.

Fourth, you pay for the heat of fusion and vaporization, to condense the
sublimated water vapor onto the evaporator coils.

Fifth, you pay the heat of fusion to melt the frost off the evaporator,
the liquid frost water going into a pan at the bottom of the unit.

Sixth, you pay to evaporate this frost water out of the pan into the
house air.

Seventh, you pay yet again to condense this vapor out of the house air
via your air conditioner, and finally get this waste out of the house.

So in making ice in your frost-free, quite a lot goes into wasted ice
making several energy-hogging thermodynamic round trips from liquid
and/or solid to vapor.

Try turning off your frost-free ice maker, and removing all exposed ice
from the freezer. You'll be amazed how much lower your duty cycle is.
Ice making and ice waste makes up a large percentage of frost-free
energy costs, and doesn't quite make it into the federal formulas used
to make the imaginary yellow energy-cost stickers.

I think you may be on to something. I'm exhausted of all my energy just
reading all the steps involved.

My first question is about the ice making frost free or not, we still make
and use ice. That part of the equation remains the same, no? It is the
frosting of the walls of the freezer that is the problem. Getting rid of it
does involve some energy use, of course, but we have to consider all the
factors. Is a standard unit with a half inch of ice buildup operating as
efficiently as a clean unit? Does a two inch buildup of frost affect the
operation? Theory aside, they are real life issues in every day households
that do not use a frost free model.

You listed a very long process and voyage of water in either solid or vapor
form. I don't have any idea where to get the numbers that go with it, but
you've not convinced my to give up on having ice and having frost free.
There is loss in having a frost buildup too and lost energy in defrosting
manually. We really need the numbers of a full year of operation under the
same circumstances of door openings, ice use, and total energy used in all
forms to keep the units operating well.

I'm at home now and looked at the actual current draw of my 18 cut ft frost
free and it is 4.75A. Not bad. My 22 cu. ft. frost free with ice maker
takes 6.5A at full load. Both of these are less than the old 12 cu. ft that
I had. My 18 cu. ft. freezer, not a frost free, has a load of 2.0 A. What
really needs to be done is record actual run times to get total use.

Edwin Pawlowski writes:

I don't have any idea where to get the numbers that go with it, but
you've not convinced my to give up on having ice and having frost free.

The point is not that anyone should be giving it up.

It's just that so-called frost-free refrigerators are not efficient, and
never will be, because they use inherently wasteful techniques to produce
convenience. A prime example is how they evaporate the water into the room
instead having a drain connection or having you empty a collection bottle.
Or how they blow air over an open bin of ice, wasting it through
sublimation.