Have seen lately publicity for new dishwashers that actually WANT the user to not rinse off particlate matter before placing item in DW. They seem to claim that the DW is actually DESIGNED to work better with a lil' bit of schmutz.

I can see catering to very lazy people by not requiring rinsing before insertion, but redesigning the whole thing for them?

This sounds nuts to me. Is it true? If so, is there a solid technical reason why the DW is so designed?

TIA

On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 12:34:47 -0800 (PST), Higgs Boson
wrote:

Have seen lately publicity for new dishwashers that actually WANT the user to not rinse off particlate matter before placing item in DW. They seem to claim that the DW is actually DESIGNED to work better with a lil' bit of schmutz.

I can see catering to very lazy people by not requiring rinsing before insertion, but redesigning the whole thing for them?

This sounds nuts to me. Is it true? If so, is there a solid technical reason why the DW is so designed?

TIA

It was a liberal thing from you liberals that government knows best.

You can't think for yourselves. How's that Hope and Change thing
working out?

Higgs Boson wrote:
Have seen lately publicity for new dishwashers that actually WANT the
user to not rinse off particlate matter before placing item in DW. They
seem to claim that the DW is actually DESIGNED to work better with a lil' bit of schmutz.

I can see catering to very lazy people by not requiring rinsing before
insertion, but redesigning the whole thing for them?

This sounds nuts to me. Is it true? If so, is there a solid technical
reason why the DW is so designed?

TIA

I don't know about the "schmutz" factor nor your laziness claim, but
Consumer Reports says it's about the energy that's wasted when pre-rinsing.

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/n...-job/index.htm

Not only do you waste water (6000 gallons per year?) but you waste the
energy required to heat it.

Higgs Boson writes:

Have seen lately publicity for new dishwashers that actually WANT the
user to not rinse off particlate matter before placing item in DW.
They seem to claim that the DW is actually DESIGNED to work better
with a lil' bit of schmutz.

I can see catering to very lazy people by not requiring rinsing before
insertion, but redesigning the whole thing for them?

People that know you don't need to rinse are "lazy"?
You're weird.

This sounds nuts to me. Is it true? If so, is there a solid
technical reason why the DW is so designed?

http://tinyurl.com/c5ch36w

Rinsing dishes before loading the dishwasher can do more harm than good.

Today's advanced detergents are designed to attack food particles left
on dishes. "If there isn't food soil, they tend to attack glasses,"
says Edwards. "Some glasses are more susceptible to this kind of
attacking than others."

Sounds a little fishy to me.
But rinsing when you don't need to is a waste of time, water, and energy.

--
Dan Espen

Higgs Boson wrote:
Have seen lately publicity for new dishwashers that actually WANT the user to not rinse off particlate matter before placing item in DW. They seem to claim that the DW is actually DESIGNED to work better with a lil' bit of schmutz.

I can see catering to very lazy people by not requiring rinsing before insertion, but redesigning the whole thing for them?

This sounds nuts to me. Is it true? If so, is there a solid technical reason why the DW is so designed?

TIA

Hi,
We never rinse plates or whatever. To waste water? DW does the cleaning.
that is why we use DW. Don't we?

On 11/13/2013 4:05 PM, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 21:38:21 +0000 (UTC), DerbyDad03
wrote:

Oren wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 12:34:47 -0800 (PST), Higgs Boson
wrote:

Have seen lately publicity for new dishwashers that actually WANT the
user to not rinse off particlate matter before placing item in DW. They
seem to claim that the DW is actually DESIGNED to work better with a lil' bit of schmutz.

I can see catering to very lazy people by not requiring rinsing before
insertion, but redesigning the whole thing for them?

This sounds nuts to me. Is it true? If so, is there a solid technical
reason why the DW is so designed?

TIA

It was a liberal thing from you liberals that government knows best.

You can't think for yourselves. How's that Hope and Change thing
working out?
(snipped)

Seems to me; here, people do not agree!

I cannot speak for the Mormon!

What is a " schmutz" brought forth by the OP?

Schmutz is a noun slang meaning dirt, filth, garbage, or something
similar. BTW - the Hope and Change thing is working out just fine for me
and many others.

On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 23:00:42 +0000 (UTC), Red Green
wrote:

Why can't we get back to leaving posts that are actually relevant to
a.h.r. alone and just answer the question? Why does every thread have
to end up as a bashing of one political side or the other?

Because it's the Internet...plain and simple.

....all based on the Usenet hierarchy. AHR is in a single group of
Anarchy. As with other groups preceded with *ALT.x.x* (anarchy)

Red Green wrote:
DerbyDad03 wrote in
:

Oren wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 12:34:47 -0800 (PST), Higgs Boson
wrote:

Have seen lately publicity for new dishwashers that actually WANT
the user to not rinse off particlate matter before placing item in
DW. They seem to claim that the DW is actually DESIGNED to work
better with a lil' bit of schmutz.

I can see catering to very lazy people by not requiring rinsing
before insertion, but redesigning the whole thing for them?

This sounds nuts to me. Is it true? If so, is there a solid
technical reason why the DW is so designed?

TIA

It was a liberal thing from you liberals that government knows best.

You can't think for yourselves. How's that Hope and Change thing
working out?

Are you taking lessons from Stormy?

Why can't we get back to leaving posts that are actually relevant to
a.h.r. alone and just answer the question? Why does every thread have
to end up as a bashing of one political side or the other?

Because it's the Internet...plain and simple.


BS

Stolen without permission from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet

"The Internet is a global system of interconnected computer networks that
use the standard Internet protocol suite (TCP/IP) to serve several billion
users worldwide. It is a network of networks that consists of millions of
private, public, academic, business, and government networks, of local to
global scope, that are linked by a broad array of electronic, wireless and
optical networking technologies."

Nothing in that definition even remotely explains the rationale behind
someone reading a simple home repair related question and responding with
comment in which they either express their own political views or bash
someone else's.

My question goes unanswered, but you know what? I'm not really looking for
an answer. I just hoping that perhaps I can plant a seed that might make
people think twice before hijacking a thread right from the get-go.

I've been reading a.h.r since the 80s. Others have been here even longer.
Back in the day, a.h.r. questions were responded to with relevant
suggestions and advice using essentially same internet that we use today.
You can't blame it on a technology, you can only blame it on people. It's
people who decide what to type and it's people who decide whether to hit
send or not.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=H27l-de9OjI

On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 12:34:47 -0800 (PST), Higgs Boson
wrote:

Have seen lately publicity for new dishwashers that actually WANT the user to not rinse off particlate matter before placing item in DW. They seem to claim that the DW is actually DESIGNED to work better with a lil' bit of schmutz.

I can see catering to very lazy people by not requiring rinsing before insertion, but redesigning the whole thing for them?

This sounds nuts to me. Is it true? If so, is there a solid technical reason why the DW is so designed?

Sounds more like marketing to me.

On Wednesday, November 13, 2013 1:38:21 PM UTC-8, DerbyDad03 wrote:
Oren wrote:

On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 12:34:47 -0800 (PST), Higgs Boson

wrote:


[...snip....]


Are you taking lessons from Stormy?



Why can't we get back to leaving posts that are actually relevant to a.h.r.

DerbyDad03 writes:

Oren wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 12:34:47 -0800 (PST), Higgs Boson
wrote:

Have seen lately publicity for new dishwashers that actually WANT the
user to not rinse off particlate matter before placing item in DW. They
seem to claim that the DW is actually DESIGNED to work better with a lil' bit of schmutz.

I can see catering to very lazy people by not requiring rinsing before
insertion, but redesigning the whole thing for them?

This sounds nuts to me. Is it true? If so, is there a solid technical
reason why the DW is so designed?

TIA

It was a liberal thing from you liberals that government knows best.

You can't think for yourselves. How's that Hope and Change thing
working out?

Are you taking lessons from Stormy?

Why can't we get back to leaving posts that are actually relevant to a.h.r.
alone and just answer the question? Why does every thread have to end up as
a bashing of one political side or the other?

Derby,

I think the problem here is that you are not using your kill file to
full advantage.

Before your reply I had no idea this thread had gone off the rails like
so many others.

--
Dan Espen

On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 17:39:05 -0800 (PST), Higgs Boson
wrote:

Derby, my man, these people's song consists of one note and one note alone. They are poorly informed, not well-educated, but that doesn't bother them; their thing is to react rather than think --on a kindergarten level.

What makes you think of yourself as a superior thinker? Your superior
intellect or ignorance? Tell us why you are better than others.

How have you figured that you are superior to others?

On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 20:44:29 -0500, Dan Espen
wrote:

Before your reply I had no idea this thread had gone off the rails like
so many others.

Figures.

Others replied and you missed it.

....cry me a river of tears, will ya

I'll get you a tissue.

Dan Espen wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/c5ch36w

Rinsing dishes before loading the dishwasher can do more harm than
good.

Today's advanced detergents are designed to attack food particles
left on dishes. "If there isn't food soil, they tend to attack
glasses," says Edwards. "Some glasses are more susceptible to
this kind of attacking than others."

Sounds a little fishy to me.
But rinsing when you don't need to is a waste of time, water, and
energy.

You can avoid that damage by using less detergent. No problem.

I have certainly seen pitted glasses.

Tony Hwang wrote:
Higgs Boson wrote:
Have seen lately publicity for new dishwashers that actually WANT
the user to not rinse off particlate matter before placing item in
DW. They seem to claim that the DW is actually DESIGNED to work
better with a lil' bit of schmutz. I can see catering to very lazy people
by not requiring rinsing
before insertion, but redesigning the whole thing for them? This sounds nuts
to me. Is it true? If so, is there a solid
technical reason why the DW is so designed? TIA

Hi,
We never rinse plates or whatever. To waste water? DW does the
cleaning. that is why we use DW. Don't we?

I rinse because I may not run the DW for days. At that point stuff dries on and
stays.

On 11/13/2013 3:34 PM, Higgs Boson wrote:
Have seen lately publicity for new dishwashers that actually WANT the user to not rinse off particlate matter before placing item in DW. They seem to claim that the DW is actually DESIGNED to work better with a lil' bit of schmutz.

I can see catering to very lazy people by not requiring rinsing before insertion, but redesigning the whole thing for them?

This sounds nuts to me. Is it true? If so, is there a solid technical reason why the DW is so designed?

TIA


Right, new DW do not need rinsing. They have soft food disposals built
in so most anything can go in. Personally, I do give the worst of the
dishes a quick pssst under the faucet, but that's about it. Maybe the
dirt bits act as an abrasive like a sandblaster?

Two weeks ago I installed a new KitchenAid. My last one was good, this
one is great. I use the "Pro Wash" ccle and the sensors determine the
cycle. Everything comes out perfect and sparkles. They should at the
cost of the better machines.

One caution. Do not fill the detergent cup all the way. You don't need
that much.

"Bob F" wrote:
Tony Hwang wrote:
Higgs Boson wrote:
Have seen lately publicity for new dishwashers that actually WANT
the user to not rinse off particlate matter before placing item in
DW. They seem to claim that the DW is actually DESIGNED to work
better with a lil' bit of schmutz. I can see catering to very lazy people
by not requiring rinsing
before insertion, but redesigning the whole thing for them? This sounds nuts
to me. Is it true? If so, is there a solid
technical reason why the DW is so designed? TIA

Hi,
We never rinse plates or whatever. To waste water? DW does the
cleaning. that is why we use DW. Don't we?

I rinse because I may not run the DW for days. At that point stuff dries on and
stays.

As I'm sure you are aware, your situation is not what the "do not
pre-rinse" instruction apply to.

In any case, have you you figured out whether or not a rinse only cycle
would use less energy than your sink rinse? That's also what some DW
manuals suggest, but of course it depends on how many dishes you are
rinsing. For one plate and a glass, the sink probably is better.

On Wednesday, November 13, 2013 6:54:13 PM UTC-8, Bob F wrote:
Tony Hwang wrote:

Higgs Boson wrote:

Have seen lately publicity for new dishwashers that actually WANT

the user to not rinse off particlate matter before placing item in

DW. They seem to claim that the DW is actually DESIGNED to work

better with a lil' bit of schmutz. I can see catering to very lazy people

by not requiring rinsing

before insertion, but redesigning the whole thing for them? This sounds nuts

to me. Is it true? If so, is there a solid

technical reason why the DW is so designed? TIA



Hi,

We never rinse plates or whatever. To waste water? DW does the

cleaning. that is why we use DW. Don't we?



I rinse because I may not run the DW for days. At that point stuff dries on and stays.

That's actually why I rinse -- run the DW only every 2-3 days. Someone else in the house can't seem to realize that dried gunk doesn't clean as well.

BTW, when I refer to "rinsing", I mean a very fast pass under the faucet, which IMHO uses very little water. Not, as some may have inferred, running a rinse cycle in the DW.

Besides which, the "new" DW (1 year old) is a crappy piece of plastic compared with the 13-year-old TANK I mistakenly replaced.

HB

On Wednesday, November 13, 2013 6:54:46 PM UTC-8, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 11/13/2013 3:34 PM, Higgs Boson wrote:

Have seen lately publicity for new dishwashers that actually WANT the user to not rinse off particlate matter before placing item in DW. They seem to claim that the DW is actually DESIGNED to work better with a lil' bit of schmutz.



I can see catering to very lazy people by not requiring rinsing before insertion, but redesigning the whole thing for them?



This sounds nuts to me. Is it true? If so, is there a solid technical reason why the DW is so designed?



TIA





Right, new DW do not need rinsing. They have soft food disposals built

in so most anything can go in. Personally, I do give the worst of the

dishes a quick pssst under the faucet, but that's about it. Maybe the

dirt bits act as an abrasive like a sandblaster?



Two weeks ago I installed a new KitchenAid. My last one was good, this

one is great. I use the "Pro Wash" ccle and the sensors determine the

cycle. Everything comes out perfect and sparkles. They should at the

cost of the better machines.



One caution. Do not fill the detergent cup all the way. You don't need

that much.

Ed, speaking of detergent cups, what do you -- and others -- think of these little "pillows" -- presumably containing both detergent and film-removal (can't think of proper term) which are inserted in the detergent cup. They take the place of powdered detergent in its cup and liquid [whatsitcalled) in its reservoir.

I got a box of them at Costco which is lasting a long time. They are somewhat more expensive, but very convenient and seem to be doing the job for me..

Your opinion?

HB

On Thu, 14 Nov 2013 01:18:53 -0800 (PST), Higgs Boson
wrote:




that much.

Ed, speaking of detergent cups, what do you -- and others -- think of these little "pillows" -- presumably containing both detergent and film-removal (can't think of proper term) which are inserted in the detergent cup. They take the place of powdered detergent in its cup and liquid [whatsitcalled) in its reservoir.

I got a box of them at Costco which is lasting a long time. They are somewhat more expensive, but very convenient and seem to be doing the job for me.

Your opinion?

HB

For years, I've used Cascade gel and it works well. KitchenAid
though, recommends using the Cascade pillows like you have, but they
still recommend using a rinse aid in the dispenser. The samples worked
well and I may switch once I use up what we have.

I have to wonder though, it they want you to use them for superior
cleaning or if there is some sort of financial arrangement. They also
tell you to use Affresh once in a while to clean out the machine. So
does Maytag washers now and it is made by Whirlpool.

On Wednesday, November 13, 2013 4:20:46 PM UTC-5, net cop wrote:
Higgs Boson writes:



Have seen lately publicity for new dishwashers that actually WANT the

user to not rinse off particlate matter before placing item in DW.

They seem to claim that the DW is actually DESIGNED to work better

with a lil' bit of schmutz.



I can see catering to very lazy people by not requiring rinsing before

insertion, but redesigning the whole thing for them?



People that know you don't need to rinse are "lazy"?

You're weird.


I've never rinsed dishes before putting them in the dishwasher.
They come out nice and clean. It seems to me people that wash
them are wasting their time and hot water/energy, doing unnecessary
work. I just scrape off anything large, that's it.

On the other hand, I've seen people who practically wash
the dishes clean by hand before putting them in the
dishwasher. That's nuts to me.







This sounds nuts to me. Is it true? If so, is there a solid

technical reason why the DW is so designed?



http://tinyurl.com/c5ch36w



Rinsing dishes before loading the dishwasher can do more harm than good.



Today's advanced detergents are designed to attack food particles left

on dishes. "If there isn't food soil, they tend to attack glasses,"

says Edwards. "Some glasses are more susceptible to this kind of

attacking than others."



Sounds a little fishy to me.

I'd say it's more than a little fishy. The vast majority of
dishes are only going to have food on a small portion of the
surface. To rely on food covering the dishes to prevent
damage would be nuts.



But rinsing when you don't need to is a waste of time, water, and energy.


+1

On Wednesday, November 13, 2013 10:30:49 PM UTC-5, DerbyDad03 wrote:
"Bob F" wrote:

Tony Hwang wrote:

Higgs Boson wrote:

Have seen lately publicity for new dishwashers that actually WANT

the user to not rinse off particlate matter before placing item in

DW. They seem to claim that the DW is actually DESIGNED to work

better with a lil' bit of schmutz. I can see catering to very lazy people

by not requiring rinsing

before insertion, but redesigning the whole thing for them? This sounds nuts

to me. Is it true? If so, is there a solid

technical reason why the DW is so designed? TIA



Hi,

We never rinse plates or whatever. To waste water? DW does the

cleaning. that is why we use DW. Don't we?



I rinse because I may not run the DW for days. At that point stuff dries on and

stays.



As I'm sure you are aware, your situation is not what the "do not

pre-rinse" instruction apply to.



In any case, have you you figured out whether or not a rinse only cycle

would use less energy than your sink rinse? That's also what some DW

manuals suggest, but of course it depends on how many dishes you are

rinsing. For one plate and a glass, the sink probably is better.

I only run the dishwasher here every few days. I don't rinse
by hand or run a rinse cycle. No problems with the dishwasher
not cleaning everything just fine. The only thing I will do is
if I have something exceptional, like raw egg in a mixing bowl
or cake batter, then I will rinse that off by hand first. But
regular dishes, utensils, etc go in without rinsing and when
run a couple days later, they come out fine.

On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 20:58:51 +0000 (UTC), DerbyDad03
wrote:

Higgs Boson wrote:
Have seen lately publicity for new dishwashers that actually WANT the
user to not rinse off particlate matter before placing item in DW. They
seem to claim that the DW is actually DESIGNED to work better with a lil' bit of schmutz.

I can see catering to very lazy people by not requiring rinsing before
insertion, but redesigning the whole thing for them?

This sounds nuts to me. Is it true? If so, is there a solid technical
reason why the DW is so designed?

TIA

I don't know about the "schmutz" factor nor your laziness claim, but
Consumer Reports says it's about the energy that's wasted when pre-rinsing.

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/n...-job/index.htm

Not only do you waste water (6000 gallons per year?) but you waste the
energy required to heat it.

That was what I learned when I bought one a few years ago. They
recommend not scraping. That had no impact on the Significant Other
who insists on prewashing. I just shove them in unless they're just
too icky; then I also rinse them. They usually come out fine without
being pre-rinsed.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2013 01:18:53 -0800 (PST), Higgs Boson
wrote:




that much.

Ed, speaking of detergent cups, what do you -- and others -- think
of these little "pillows" -- presumably containing both detergent
and film-removal (can't think of proper term) which are inserted in
the detergent cup. They take the place of powdered detergent in its
cup and liquid [whatsitcalled) in its reservoir.

I got a box of them at Costco which is lasting a long time. They
are somewhat more expensive, but very convenient and seem to be
doing the job for me.

Your opinion?

HB

For years, I've used Cascade gel and it works well. KitchenAid
though, recommends using the Cascade pillows like you have, but they
still recommend using a rinse aid in the dispenser. The samples worked
well and I may switch once I use up what we have.

I have to wonder though, it they want you to use them for superior
cleaning or if there is some sort of financial arrangement. They also
tell you to use Affresh once in a while to clean out the machine. So
does Maytag washers now and it is made by Whirlpool.

Any pre-measured detergent would be a horrible waste for me with my soft water.
If they pre-measure, they have to make it strong enough to work well with very
hard water, unless the manufacturer makes special batches for every local. Ain't
gonna happen.

Fill the cup up? That would be maybe 5-10 times what I need to do the job.

DerbyDad03 wrote in
:

Consumer Reports says it's about the energy that's wasted when pre-rinsing.

Our "pre-rinse" cycle is to set the dishes on the floor for the dog to lick clean. Dishes emerge
from the dishwasher sparkling.

On Thursday, November 14, 2013 1:41:27 PM UTC-8, Doug Miller wrote:
DerbyDad03 wrote in

:



Consumer Reports says it's about the energy that's wasted when pre-rinsing.



Our "pre-rinse" cycle is to set the dishes on the floor for the dog to lick clean. Dishes emerge from the dishwasher sparkling.

Darn it! If we could just teach the CAT to do that! But he is SO picky about his food! I think he actually has a food neurosis. He can have a full dish of chow plus a dish of canned food sitting right there. But he will come back to the office, jump on my computer keys and otherwise become a nuisance until I give up & go out to the kitchen to perform the ceremonial act of adding a few grains to his dish. Thus served, the Prince will condescend to eat.

HB

Doug Miller wrote:
DerbyDad03 wrote in
:

Consumer Reports says it's about the energy that's wasted when pre-rinsing.

Our "pre-rinse" cycle is to set the dishes on the floor for the dog to lick clean. Dishes emerge
from the dishwasher sparkling.

Hi,
Some new DWs even has soil sensor which dictates wash/rinse cycle when
operating.

Tony Hwang wrote in
:

Doug Miller wrote:
DerbyDad03 wrote in

g:

Consumer Reports says it's about the energy that's wasted when
pre-rinsing.

Our "pre-rinse" cycle is to set the dishes on the floor for the
dog to lick clean. Dishes emerge from the dishwasher sparkling.

Hi,
Some new DWs even has soil sensor which dictates wash/rinse
cycle when operating.

Yes, ours does -- all the more reason to let the dog clean the
plates as much as possible first, which shortens the dishwasher
cycle.

"Higgs Boson" wrote in message
...
Have seen lately publicity for new dishwashers that actually WANT the
user to not rinse off particlate matter before placing item in DW. They
seem to claim that the DW is actually DESIGNED to work better with a lil'
bit of schmutz.

I can see catering to very lazy people by not requiring rinsing before
insertion, but redesigning the whole thing for them?

This sounds nuts to me. Is it true? If so, is there a solid technical
reason why the DW is so designed?

TIA


My dishwasher just scraps the plates into the trash can before washing.
She better, if she doesn't want another black eye.

On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 18:02:13 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 17:39:05 -0800 (PST), Higgs Boson
wrote:

Derby, my man, these people's song consists of one note and one note alone. They are poorly informed, not well-educated, but that doesn't bother them; their thing is to react rather than think --on a kindergarten level.

What makes you think of yourself as a superior thinker? Your superior
intellect or ignorance? Tell us why you are better than others.

How have you figured that you are superior to others?

Lefties always think they're superior to everyone else, including
other lefties. It defines the stupid *******s.

On Thu, 14 Nov 2013 19:48:25 -0500, "Two doors"
wrote:

My dishwasher just scraps the plates into the trash can before washing.
She better, if she doesn't want another black eye.


Q: What do you tell a dishwasher with two black eyes?

A: Nothing. You already told her twice.

On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 20:58:51 +0000 (UTC), DerbyDad03

I don't know about the "schmutz" factor nor your laziness claim, but
Consumer Reports says it's about the energy that's wasted when pre-rinsing.

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/n...-job/index.htm

Not only do you waste water (6000 gallons per year?) but you waste the
energy required to heat it.


Consumer Reports uses the worst possible scenario figures. No reason to
heat the rinse water. Where did the 16 gallons a day come from? I bet
I don't use half a gallon on the worst day. I gave up reading CR
decades ago for just that reason. Can't trust them.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 20:58:51 +0000 (UTC), DerbyDad03

I don't know about the "schmutz" factor nor your laziness claim, but
Consumer Reports says it's about the energy that's wasted when pre-rinsing.

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/n...-job/index.htm

Not only do you waste water (6000 gallons per year?) but you waste the
energy required to heat it.


Consumer Reports uses the worst possible scenario figures. No reason to
heat the rinse water. Where did the 16 gallons a day come from? I bet I
don't use half a gallon on the worst day. I gave up reading CR decades
ago for just that reason. Can't trust them.

That why I added the ? after the 6000. Sounded outrageous high to me too.

However, the comments related to the wasting of water and energy if you use
hot water to rinse, as I'm sure many, many people do, is valid.

On Thursday, November 14, 2013 7:36:27 PM UTC-8, DerbyDad03 wrote:
Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 20:58:51 +0000 (UTC), DerbyDad03



I don't know about the "schmutz" factor nor your laziness claim, but

Consumer Reports says it's about the energy that's wasted when pre-rinsing.



http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/n...-job/index.htm



Not only do you waste water (6000 gallons per year?) but you waste the

energy required to heat it.





Consumer Reports uses the worst possible scenario figures. No reason to

heat the rinse water. Where did the 16 gallons a day come from? I bet I

don't use half a gallon on the worst day. I gave up reading CR decades

ago for just that reason. Can't trust them.



That why I added the ? after the 6000. Sounded outrageous high to me too.



However, the comments related to the wasting of water and energy if you use

hot water to rinse, as I'm sure many, many people do, is valid.

I need to find out whether you and Ed and others, when discussing pre-rinsing, mean RINSE CYCLE IN DW or (as I intend) QUICK RUN UNDER WATER FAUCET.

Would make vast differences in projected water usage.

(However, even when just "quick run under water faucet", must take into account energy used in heating water, so pref, use cold.)

We are only one modest-using household. But multiplied by millions, some more profligate, and given future water shortages in some areas of the country, it behooves us to define our terms. (One of the two buzzwords way back at university. The other was "what's your frame of reference". Both quite useful.)

HB

On Thursday, November 14, 2013 10:36:27 PM UTC-5, DerbyDad03 wrote:
Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 20:58:51 +0000 (UTC), DerbyDad03



I don't know about the "schmutz" factor nor your laziness claim, but

Consumer Reports says it's about the energy that's wasted when pre-rinsing.



http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/n...-job/index.htm



Not only do you waste water (6000 gallons per year?) but you waste the

energy required to heat it.





Consumer Reports uses the worst possible scenario figures. No reason to

heat the rinse water. Where did the 16 gallons a day come from? I bet I

don't use half a gallon on the worst day. I gave up reading CR decades

ago for just that reason. Can't trust them.



That why I added the ? after the 6000. Sounded outrageous high to me too.



However, the comments related to the wasting of water and energy if you use

hot water to rinse, as I'm sure many, many people do, is valid.

The reason most people will use hot water when rinsing dishes by
hand is that it's not very comfortable running cold water over your
hands in winter. And I know people who just about wash them clean
before putting them in the dishwasher, which is done easier with warm
water than cold. Grease doesn't come off very well with cold water.

On Friday, November 15, 2013 8:42:08 AM UTC-5, Higgs Boson wrote:
On Thursday, November 14, 2013 7:36:27 PM UTC-8, DerbyDad03 wrote:

Ed Pawlowski wrote:



On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 20:58:51 +0000 (UTC), DerbyDad03







I don't know about the "schmutz" factor nor your laziness claim, but



Consumer Reports says it's about the energy that's wasted when pre-rinsing.







http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/n...-job/index.htm







Not only do you waste water (6000 gallons per year?) but you waste the



energy required to heat it.











Consumer Reports uses the worst possible scenario figures. No reason to



heat the rinse water. Where did the 16 gallons a day come from? I bet I



don't use half a gallon on the worst day. I gave up reading CR decades



ago for just that reason. Can't trust them.







That why I added the ? after the 6000. Sounded outrageous high to me too.







However, the comments related to the wasting of water and energy if you use



hot water to rinse, as I'm sure many, many people do, is valid.



I need to find out whether you and Ed and others, when discussing pre-rinsing, mean RINSE CYCLE IN DW or (as I intend) QUICK RUN UNDER WATER FAUCET.


Both approaches have been mentioned, but in what I wrote above
and what I think they are talking about is rinsing by hand.




Would make vast differences in projected water usage.




And which way do you think uses vastly more?



(However, even when just "quick run under water faucet", must take into account energy used in heating water, so pref, use cold.)



I would think a quick run under the faucet for most of what
goes into the DW could easily use a lot more water than running
the rinse cycle on the DW.





We are only one modest-using household. But multiplied by millions, some more profligate, and given future water shortages in some areas of the country, it behooves us to define our terms. (One of the two buzzwords way back at university. The other was "what's your frame of reference". Both quite useful.)



HB

I already don't rinse. So no issue here at all.

Higgs Boson wrote:
On Thursday, November 14, 2013 7:36:27 PM UTC-8, DerbyDad03 wrote:
Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 20:58:51 +0000 (UTC), DerbyDad03



I don't know about the "schmutz" factor nor your laziness claim, but

Consumer Reports says it's about the energy that's wasted when pre-rinsing.



http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/n...-job/index.htm



Not only do you waste water (6000 gallons per year?) but you waste the

energy required to heat it.





Consumer Reports uses the worst possible scenario figures. No reason to

heat the rinse water. Where did the 16 gallons a day come from? I bet I

don't use half a gallon on the worst day. I gave up reading CR decades

ago for just that reason. Can't trust them.



That why I added the ? after the 6000. Sounded outrageous high to me too.



However, the comments related to the wasting of water and energy if you use

hot water to rinse, as I'm sure many, many people do, is valid.

I need to find out whether you and Ed and others, when discussing
pre-rinsing, mean RINSE CYCLE IN DW or (as I intend) QUICK RUN UNDER WATER FAUCET.

Would make vast differences in projected water usage.

(However, even when just "quick run under water faucet", must take into
account energy used in heating water, so pref, use cold.)

We are only one modest-using household. But multiplied by millions, some
more profligate, and given future water shortages in some areas of the
country, it behooves us to define our terms. (One of the two buzzwords
way back at university. The other was "what's your frame of reference".
Both quite useful.)

HB

I can only speak for myself, but I meant that you probably waste more water
and energy by using the sink to rinse the dishes vs. using the Rinse cycle
of the DW. I've never measured the usage, but it would be easy enough to do
just by checking the meter.

However, the energy usage required to heat the water is a bit harder to
quantify, especially if you only rinse one or 2 dishes per sink based
pre-rinse. In other words, if you wait for hot water to sink rinse a plate
or 2 at breakfast, then do it again after lunch and then after dinner, I'd
imagine you'd waste more energy than if you stuck them in the DW and ran
the Rinse cycle once a day.

Trust me, most dishes can sit unrinsed for more than a day in the DW and
still come out perfectly clean once the full cycle is done. We do it all
the time.

On 11/15/2013 8:42 AM, Higgs Boson wrote:

However, the comments related to the wasting of water and energy if you use

hot water to rinse, as I'm sure many, many people do, is valid.

I need to find out whether you and Ed and others, when discussing pre-rinsing, mean RINSE CYCLE IN DW or (as I intend) QUICK RUN UNDER WATER FAUCET.

Would make vast differences in projected water usage.

(However, even when just "quick run under water faucet", must take into account energy used in heating water, so pref, use cold.)

We are only one modest-using household. But multiplied by millions, some more profligate, and given future water shortages in some areas of the country, it behooves us to define our terms. (One of the two buzzwords way back at university. The other was "what's your frame of reference". Both quite useful.)

HB


I'm referring to the running under the faucet when loading the DW. I may
use a quick "psst" under the faucet on the really messy stuff. I've
measure it to be about 4 ounces of water and I may do that on four
items, total 16 ounces per day. That is 45 gallons a year of cold
water, not the 6000 gallons of hot water referenced by CR.

We never use the Rinse Only cycle. When it is full, or nearly so, it
gets run.

On 11/15/2013 9:23 AM, wrote:

The reason most people will use hot water when rinsing dishes by
hand is that it's not very comfortable running cold water over your
hands in winter. And I know people who just about wash them clean
before putting them in the dishwasher, which is done easier with warm
water than cold. Grease doesn't come off very well with cold water.


I hold the dish by the edge and my hand stays dry. I let the machine
take care of great, I just get rid of big solids.

On Friday, November 15, 2013 10:43:35 AM UTC-8, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 11/15/2013 9:23 AM, wrote:



The reason most people will use hot water when rinsing dishes by

hand is that it's not very comfortable running cold water over your

hands in winter. And I know people who just about wash them clean

before putting them in the dishwasher, which is done easier with warm

water than cold. Grease doesn't come off very well with cold water.





I hold the dish by the edge and my hand stays dry. I let the machine

take care of great, I just get rid of big solids.

That's about the way we operate. We don't worry about grease; that's what DW is for. But of course scrape as much as possible into trash to avoid future line problems. As to cold water on hands (horrors!g) c'mon!

What I DO worry about -- shifting topic slightly -- is the long time it takes for the hot water to get from kitchen boiler to bathroom, while faucet runs, WASTING water. Some people actually keep a bucket in the shower and use cold water for plants, etc.

I made a huge mistake decades ago when remodeling bathroom in NOT installing one of those electric heaters -- "point of demand" or some such terminology.
By now, the technology must be light-years ahead.

This area (So. Calif) would be a desert if water hadn't been brought down from the Sierra Nevada (100 years since Mulholland!). With global warming ----ing everything up world-wide, if the snowpack in the Sierra is scarce for several years, water will be scarce and rationing might follow. What a can of beans, considering how some people cooperate -- but many do not.

HB