We just had to replace our washing machine. The old one had four levels; small, medium, large, and super. The new one only has three; small, large, and super. The small on the new machine is really small; it only fills about 20% of the drum. Large is like medium on the old one; haven't tried the new super yet.

Is there any way to adjust the water level on the various size selections or is that fixed? I suppose that there's some sort of device that senses the various levels; maybe there's an adjusting screw somewhere.

Paul

"Pavel314" wrote in message
...
We just had to replace our washing machine. The old one had four levels;
small, medium, large, and super. The new one only has three; small, large,
and super. The small on the new machine is really small; it only fills about
20% of the drum. Large is like medium on the old one; haven't tried the new
super yet.

Is there any way to adjust the water level on the various size selections or
is that fixed? I suppose that there's some sort of device that senses the
various levels; maybe there's an adjusting screw somewhere.

Paul



Paul, I'm glad you axed that question............... Er, now where was I?

On 1/3/2015 4:28 PM, Pavel314 wrote:
We just had to replace our washing machine. The old one had four levels; small, medium, large, and super. The new one only has three; small, large, and super. The small on the new machine is really small; it only fills about 20% of the drum. Large is like medium on the old one; haven't tried the new super yet.

Is there any way to adjust the water level on the various size selections or is that fixed? I suppose that there's some sort of device that senses the various levels; maybe there's an adjusting screw somewhere.

Paul


New machines use much less water to do the same job as the old one. Our
new Maytag has no settings and relies on sensors. The clothes get clean
and are not fully submerged as in the pasr.

Without knowing any more about it -- if it's within the return period, TAKE IT BACK - even if you have to pay $50 for them to pick it up.

I have a GE with that never fills up more than 10-12 inches. For large loads the top clothes never get wet. Supposedly it washes them by flow water in when it spins -- which sounds like a jet engine taking off.

I have not analyzed the clothes for how clean they get, but I can tell that they DO NOT CLEAN as well as the 20 year old models that fill up and agitate properly.

Also mine has no lint filter. "It's not needed because the lint is ground up and flush out" say GE. This is BULL S***. The dryer removes twice as much lint as the standard machines. Also, if you have a smaller diameter drain pipe as was normal a few years ago -- the link builds up in the drain and I have to root it out at least once a year.

I am very pro-environment and pro-water saving. So what is my advice? DO NOT BUY A WATER-SAVING MACHINE. All the ones I have ever seen claim to get clothes clean but you end up wearing dirty clothes or washing them 2-3 times (wasting washer, soap, wear & tear on machine).

TAKE THE STINKING THING BACK before you are stuck with it.



"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message ...
On 1/3/2015 4:28 PM, Pavel314 wrote:
We just had to replace our washing machine. The old one had four levels; small, medium, large, and super. The new one only has three; small, large, and super. The small on the new machine is really small; it only fills about 20% of the drum. Large is like medium on the old one; haven't tried the new super yet.

Is there any way to adjust the water level on the various size selections or is that fixed? I suppose that there's some sort of device that senses the various levels; maybe there's an adjusting screw somewhere.

Paul


New machines use much less water to do the same job as the old one. Our
new Maytag has no settings and relies on sensors. The clothes get clean
and are not fully submerged as in the pasr.

Mywife INSISTED on a front load washer just a few months ago. Frankly I DONT like it! It caused a lot of rework to install the clothes arent as clean and worse sometimes smell bad. Like mold

She now runs the clean cycle often.....

On 1/3/2015 7:38 PM, Snuffy "Hub Cap" McKinney wrote:
Without knowing any more about it -- if it's within the return period, TAKE IT BACK - even if you have to pay $50 for them to pick it up.

I have a GE with that never fills up more than 10-12 inches. For large loads the top clothes never get wet. Supposedly it washes them by flow water in when it spins -- which sounds like a jet engine taking off.

I have not analyzed the clothes for how clean they get, but I can tell that they DO NOT CLEAN as well as the 20 year old models that fill up and agitate properly.

Also mine has no lint filter. "It's not needed because the lint is ground up and flush out" say GE. This is BULL S***. The dryer removes twice as much lint as the standard machines. Also, if you have a smaller diameter drain pipe as was normal a few years ago -- the link builds up in the drain and I have to root it out at least once a year.

I am very pro-environment and pro-water saving. So what is my advice? DO NOT BUY A WATER-SAVING MACHINE. All the ones I have ever seen claim to get clothes clean but you end up wearing dirty clothes or washing them 2-3 times (wasting washer, soap, wear & tear on machine).

TAKE THE STINKING THING BACK before you are stuck with it.

We're very happy with our Maytag. Don't have your problems. Clothes get
wet and get clean.

bob haller wrote:
Mywife INSISTED on a front load washer just a few months ago. Frankly I DONT like it! It caused a lot of rework to install the clothes arent as clean and worse sometimes smell bad. Like mold

She now runs the clean cycle often.....

Hi,
If one wants a front load, buy European made one. They used front load
very long time. If my current Whirlpool top load pair goes, I am
considering Miel or Bosch. When wife lived in Germany while I was
running around overseas she used front load machines there. She liked them.

On 1/3/2015 4:28 PM, Pavel314 wrote:
We just had to replace our washing machine. The old one had four levels; small, medium, large, and super. The new one only has three; small, large, and super. The small on the new machine is really small; it only fills about 20% of the drum. Large is like medium on the old one; haven't tried the new super yet.

Is there any way to adjust the water level on the various size selections or is that fixed? I suppose that there's some sort of device that senses the various levels; maybe there's an adjusting screw somewhere.

Paul

Even the top loaders are reducing the amount of water. Some of the top
loaders don't even have an agitator; they are just a front loader on its
side. 6 years ago we got a GE front loader. It was nothing but junk;
didn't clean well, certainly didn't rinse the soap out. We always
selected the extra rinse cycle AND then ran it through the QUICK WASH
with extra rinse, but with no soap. Still, the cloths came out with soap
in them. We replace it with a GE top loader and couldn't be happier.
Slosh, slosh, slosh, oh the good sound of washing cloths the old
fashioned way. But, they come out clean and they do rinse. But beware,
even top loaders are reducing the amount of water. We routinely set it
larger than the actual load so that it works properly. Ah, but we are
saving the planet, even though my water comes from the ground and goes
back in the ground.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message ...
On 1/3/2015 7:38 PM, Snuffy "Hub Cap" McKinney wrote:
Without knowing any more about it -- if it's within the return period, TAKE IT BACK - even if you have to pay $50 for them to pick it up.

I have a GE with that never fills up more than 10-12 inches. For large loads the top clothes never get wet. Supposedly it washes them by flow water in when it spins -- which sounds like a jet engine taking off.

I have not analyzed the clothes for how clean they get, but I can tell that they DO NOT CLEAN as well as the 20 year old models that fill up and agitate properly.

Also mine has no lint filter. "It's not needed because the lint is ground up and flush out" say GE. This is BULL S***. The dryer removes twice as much lint as the standard machines. Also, if you have a smaller diameter drain pipe as was normal a few years ago -- the link builds up in the drain and I have to root it out at least once a year.

I am very pro-environment and pro-water saving. So what is my advice? DO NOT BUY A WATER-SAVING MACHINE. All the ones I have ever seen claim to get clothes clean but you end up wearing dirty clothes or washing them 2-3 times (wasting washer, soap, wear & tear on machine).

TAKE THE STINKING THING BACK before you are stuck with it.

We're very happy with our Maytag. Don't have your problems. Clothes get wet and get clean.

Good to hear. My situation may be limited to GE. Still, next time I buy anything that is labeled "earth-friendly", like a toilet, shower head, washer, dryer, water heater..... I'm ordering it from a "consumer-friendly" state -- as opposed to a regulation-heavy environut state like California.

"Art Todesco" wrote in message ...
On 1/3/2015 4:28 PM, Pavel314 wrote:
We just had to replace our washing machine. The old one had four levels; small, medium, large, and super. The new one only has three; small, large, and super. The small on the new machine is really small; it only fills about 20% of the drum. Large is like medium on the old one; haven't tried the new super yet.

Is there any way to adjust the water level on the various size selections or is that fixed? I suppose that there's some sort of device that senses the various levels; maybe there's an adjusting screw somewhere.

Paul

Even the top loaders are reducing the amount of water. Some of the top
loaders don't even have an agitator; they are just a front loader on its
side. 6 years ago we got a GE front loader. It was nothing but junk;
didn't clean well, certainly didn't rinse the soap out. We always
selected the extra rinse cycle AND then ran it through the QUICK WASH
with extra rinse, but with no soap. Still, the cloths came out with soap
in them. We replace it with a GE top loader and couldn't be happier.
Slosh, slosh, slosh, oh the good sound of washing cloths the old
fashioned way. But, they come out clean and they do rinse. But beware,
even top loaders are reducing the amount of water. We routinely set it
larger than the actual load so that it works properly. Ah, but we are
saving the planet, even though my water comes from the ground and goes back in the ground.

This sounds like my GE - top loader, no agitator. What did you replace it with?

On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 19:12:50 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

New machines use much less water to do the same job as the old one. Our
new Maytag has no settings and relies on sensors. The clothes get clean
and are not fully submerged as in the pasr.

I wouldn't buy ANY washer that does not fully submerge the clothes.

Just another gimmick mandated by the government to save water. What
they dont realize is that only certain places NEED to save water. I
have plenty of water from my well, and I'm not saving anything if I had
to wash twice, (and would be using MORE water and MORE electricity, and
MORE detergent. It's like those water saving toilets. They use less
water, but you have to flush 2 or 3 times. Or the water saving shower
heads that dont supply enough water, so you have to shower longer (or
remove the disk inside of them that restricts the flow).

Let the government get their filthy hands on any of our building
materials, and they will find a way to make them NOT work properly.
Yes, I am fully in favor of protecting our earth, but not when it dont
work. Example: If I have to flush a 2.0 gallon toilet 3 times to get it
to rid the solids, then what am I saving? An old toilet used 5 or 6
gallons and worked well. Now I have to **** around with flushing 3
times and use the same or more gallons of water in the end. That uses
the same or MORE water, and wastes my time and patience.

Just like banning Incandescent bulbs. The CFL work in a heated
building, but dont work at all in my garage in cold weather. That
leaves me either having to buy bootleg incandescent bulbs or paying a
large amount for LED or some other alternative.

I'm glad my 20+ year old washer and dryer still work, as well as the OLD
toilet I bought second hand to replace that miserable water saver.

writes:

Example: If I have to flush a 2.0 gallon toilet 3 times to get it
to rid the solids, then what am I saving?

Weak rant.

If that's happening to you, I think you have bad luck.
As of 1994, the law is 1.6 gallons or less.
Before that, it was anywhere from 3.5 to 7 gallons per flush.
So, the correct answer is 3.5 to 7 minus 1.6.
Quite a large improvement.
That can translate to lower water bills, or lower
electric bills if you have a well.
Also, less water in the treatment system.

Just like banning Incandescent bulbs. The CFL work in a heated
building, but dont work at all in my garage in cold weather. That
leaves me either having to buy bootleg incandescent bulbs or paying a
large amount for LED or some other alternative.

How are my CFLs working in a driveway lamp post?
They work fine when I'm out there shoveling snow.
Still haven't had to replace one, I've lost track
of how many years it's been. Way more than years 5 and
they go on as soon as it's dark, stay on all night.

So far, nothing has been banned by the Feds.
Recently, the first implementation of a ban
was delayed to October 2015.

I get the feeling we'll all be happily using LED before
we see anything actually banned by the US.

--
Dan Espen

On Sun, 04 Jan 2015 18:13:36 -0500, Dan Espen
wrote:

So far, nothing has been banned by the Feds.
Recently, the first implementation of a ban
was delayed to October 2015.

Are you saying the ban on 60w bulbs was delayed from Jan 1 2015 to Oct
2015? I was not aware of that.

Of your CFL works outdoors, either you dont get sub-zero temps, or you
got some good bulbs. If I had them in my garage right now, with temps
in the single digits, they would be so dim I could not see. I dont
leave the garage lights on all that long, so I just use incandescent
bulbs. I bought several cases of them before they banned the 100s.
Thats the only size I really need.

On Sunday, January 4, 2015 6:13:41 PM UTC-5, net cop wrote:
writes:

Example: If I have to flush a 2.0 gallon toilet 3 times to get it
to rid the solids, then what am I saving?

Weak rant.

If that's happening to you, I think you have bad luck.
As of 1994, the law is 1.6 gallons or less.
Before that, it was anywhere from 3.5 to 7 gallons per flush.
So, the correct answer is 3.5 to 7 minus 1.6.

And toilets in the 80s were already using a lot closer to or
less than the 3.5 gallons. IDK where that magic 7 gallon toilet
is. Probably in some hippie museum to use for propaganda.

Quite a large improvement.
That can translate to lower water bills, or lower
electric bills if you have a well.
Also, less water in the treatment system.

That's great. If I was forced to keep my house at 60 that could
save energy too. Should the govt do that next?



Just like banning Incandescent bulbs. The CFL work in a heated
building, but dont work at all in my garage in cold weather. That
leaves me either having to buy bootleg incandescent bulbs or paying a
large amount for LED or some other alternative.

How are my CFLs working in a driveway lamp post?
They work fine when I'm out there shoveling snow.

Maybe after you let them warm up for 10 mins. They perform
extremely poorly if you expect to turn them on to see who's at
the door, or turn them on so you can get something out of a
cold garage in winter. Even worse, there is no standard, no spec
so that you can figure out how fast they get to say 60% or 80% of
rated output. Misrepresenting and drinking Koolaid
doesn't change fact.


Still haven't had to replace one, I've lost track
of how many years it's been.

Your experience is very different than countless others here.
An overwhelming number of us have reported that CFLs fail early.
I've been through a bunch. Yes, overall, they have gotten better.
But IDK anyone using them, except you, that hasn't had one fail. And
again, part of that problem is there is no consistency, you can't
figure out which ones will last, which are crap.


Way more than years 5 and
they go on as soon as it's dark, stay on all night.

Come take a look at the dead one in my garage right now. I
don't keep my garage lights on more than a typical garage. I've
been through several CFLs there. Been through a couple in the kitchen,
one over the stairwell, etc.,



So far, nothing has been banned by the Feds.

Now you're lying. They banned manufacture and import of the common incandescent bulbs. Ask GE, they closed the last US plant that was
still making them a few years ago, not because of demand, but because
of the federal ban. The CFLs come from China. There go so more jobs.


Recently, the first implementation of a ban
was delayed to October 2015.


Lie.


I get the feeling we'll all be happily using LED before
we see anything actually banned by the US.

--
Dan Espen

Lie.

On Sunday, January 4, 2015 6:35:55 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sun, 04 Jan 2015 18:13:36 -0500, Dan Espen
wrote:

So far, nothing has been banned by the Feds.
Recently, the first implementation of a ban
was delayed to October 2015.

Are you saying the ban on 60w bulbs was delayed from Jan 1 2015 to Oct
2015? I was not aware of that.

He's just flat out lying. He's claiming the govt hasn't banned
any bulbs.



Of your CFL works outdoors, either you dont get sub-zero temps, or you
got some good bulbs. If I had them in my garage right now, with temps
in the single digits, they would be so dim I could not see. I dont
leave the garage lights on all that long, so I just use incandescent
bulbs. I bought several cases of them before they banned the 100s.
Thats the only size I really need.

+1
You speak the truth brother. Just today, I needed to look for a drill
bit in the garage. I turned on the garage light switch, opened the
door, took one look and exactly as you say, it was so dark I couldn't
see a damn thing. And that's with four 100W equiv CFLs. So, I just
closed the door and went off to do stuff for 5 mins. Then I didn't
get back to the garage for about a half hour. So, instead of the cheap,
incandescent being on for 3 mins, the CFL was on for 30. Sometimes
I forget like that and they are on 12 hours.

Same thing in my kitchen. I put in CFLs, they take so long to put out
enought light, that since they went in, instead of turning out the lights
in the kitchen, I now leave them on all evening and even parts of the day.
Those examples are like your flushing the water saving toilet 3 times
deal. I'm sure some hippie will tell me that I just need to buy newer,
better CFLs. The problem is, you still don't know which ones are better
and wasn't the whole premise that thought they cost more, they were
supposed to save money because they lasted?

I'm all for saving energy and have no objection with using new technology
where it makes sense. What I do object to is the govt making those choices
for me and liars who try to deny the truth. Leave me free to choose.

writes:

On Sun, 04 Jan 2015 18:13:36 -0500, Dan Espen
wrote:

So far, nothing has been banned by the Feds.
Recently, the first implementation of a ban
was delayed to October 2015.

Are you saying the ban on 60w bulbs was delayed from Jan 1 2015 to Oct
2015? I was not aware of that.

Latest budget bill.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-o..._legislatio n

Expect more delays. Remember the analog TV phase out.
Anyone miss analog TVs?

Of your CFL works outdoors, either you dont get sub-zero temps, or you
got some good bulbs. If I had them in my garage right now, with temps
in the single digits, they would be so dim I could not see. I dont
leave the garage lights on all that long, so I just use incandescent
bulbs. I bought several cases of them before they banned the 100s.
Thats the only size I really need.

Central NJ.
It gets pretty cold here.
I expected that the bulbs would give
me problems in the cold, but it hasn't happened.
They are behind glass, then there is a flame shaped glass
frosted cover over the bulb, then the CFL is inside that.
I think the one extra layer of glass allows it to heat up.

Maybe bare CFL bulbs wouldn't work as well.

--
Dan Espen

On 1/4/2015 6:52 PM, trader_4 wrote:

+1
You speak the truth brother. Just today, I needed to look for a drill
bit in the garage. I turned on the garage light switch, opened the
door, took one look and exactly as you say, it was so dark I couldn't
see a damn thing. And that's with four 100W equiv CFLs. So, I just
closed the door and went off to do stuff for 5 mins. Then I didn't
get back to the garage for about a half hour. So, instead of the cheap,
incandescent being on for 3 mins, the CFL was on for 30. Sometimes
I forget like that and they are on 12 hours.

Same thing in my kitchen. I put in CFLs, they take so long to put out
enought light, that since they went in, instead of turning out the lights
in the kitchen, I now leave them on all evening and even parts of the day.

Never had that problem. In the cold, they do take a while to get to
full power, but I never had a situation where I could not see in the
garage. I've used them for the doors also.

No matter, CFL is so 1990. I really like the Osram LED bulbs. So far
I've converted 10 lights to them. Our preference is the daylight color.



I'm all for saving energy and have no objection with using new technology
where it makes sense. What I do object to is the govt making those choices
for me and liars who try to deny the truth. Leave me free to choose.


Do the math. LED is the sensible choice.

On Sunday, January 4, 2015 9:05:21 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 1/4/2015 6:52 PM, trader_4 wrote:

+1
You speak the truth brother. Just today, I needed to look for a drill
bit in the garage. I turned on the garage light switch, opened the
door, took one look and exactly as you say, it was so dark I couldn't
see a damn thing. And that's with four 100W equiv CFLs. So, I just
closed the door and went off to do stuff for 5 mins. Then I didn't
get back to the garage for about a half hour. So, instead of the cheap,
incandescent being on for 3 mins, the CFL was on for 30. Sometimes
I forget like that and they are on 12 hours.

Same thing in my kitchen. I put in CFLs, they take so long to put out
enought light, that since they went in, instead of turning out the lights
in the kitchen, I now leave them on all evening and even parts of the day.

Never had that problem. In the cold, they do take a while to get to
full power, but I never had a situation where I could not see in the
garage. I've used them for the doors also.

No matter, CFL is so 1990. I really like the Osram LED bulbs. So far
I've converted 10 lights to them. Our preference is the daylight color.



I'm all for saving energy and have no objection with using new technology
where it makes sense. What I do object to is the govt making those choices
for me and liars who try to deny the truth. Leave me free to choose.


Do the math. LED is the sensible choice.

LED is the sensible choice for some applications, not all.
I don't need it in a shed, closet, attic, utility room, basement area that;s
rarely used for more than a few minutes, etc. For that, the cheap 100W that
you can't buy anymore is perfect.

On Sun, 04 Jan 2015 19:07:35 -0500, Dan Espen
wrote:


Are you saying the ban on 60w bulbs was delayed from Jan 1 2015 to Oct
2015? I was not aware of that.

Latest budget bill.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-o..._legislatio n

Expect more delays. Remember the analog TV phase out.
Anyone miss analog TVs?


Good article on wikipedia. I have a better idea what is going on. But
I do agree we should be able to determine what we want to use. I like
to save money on my electric bill as much as anyone else, but I also
need to see what I'm doing in my garage, or I could be more likely to
get injured or damage something when using tools. If I need
incandescents, it should be MY choice.

It said something in the article that lighting accounts for 40% of
energy use, but said "commercial buildings", and also stated that may be
a high estimate. In my home, I doubt my lighting uses more than 10% of
my electric usage. I have a well pump, heat tapes, elec space heater
(in one room, to save on propane), other elec heating devices, as well
as the usual refrigerator, washer, dryer, etc, and an elec water heater.
(Gas cook stove). And in summer I have an AC (which I only use on the
severe hot days). Either way, it's these heating devices that suck the
most power, and nothing much is being done to make them more efficient,
when they are the biggest electrical consumption users. [Of course,
there is only so many BTUs that can be obtained from one KWH of
electricity, and it dont look like much can be done to change that. I
did put an insulation "blanket" on my water heater which probably helps
a little.

I agree that LED will be the lighting of the future. I like it better
than CFL, but they are still costly (but getting better in price). I
have a LED in my outdoor porch light, and like it. The CFLs would not
work well in cold temps, but the LED is fine. That LED only uses
something like 6 watts, which means I dont mind leaving it on much of
the night for safety (if I come home late). I can run that LED for 10
hours for what it used to cost for a 60W incandescent to be on for 1
hour. I figured out that if it's on 10 hours per night, I use about
2KWH per month, which costs me 25 to 30 cents per month. Not a bad
deal! [Divided by ten, a 60W incan would have cost around $3.00 per
month].

But the LEDs have some limitations too. I bought one for my bedroom
light fixture. The fixture is what some people call "Boob Lights"
(shaped like a woman's boob). The fixture uses a single bulb. The LED
only illuminates half the room, because the light only comes out of the
top of the bulb. That did not work. I had to go back to a CFL. That
light is on more hours than any other light in the house, so I wanted to
change it. My alternative is to buy a new fixture,(made for several
bulbs), or just live with the CFL for now.

The bottom line is that there are different bulbs for different uses,
and WE should be able to use what we want, while the govt. EDUCATES US
about efficient uses, not FORCES us to use bulbs that dont work for the
need.

And still, lighting with CFL or LED saves money, but the biggest uses of
electricity are other uses, such as heating, and there seems to be
little means to cut down on that....

And getting back to the original topic of this thread, if a water saving
washing machine is not going to clean my clothes properly, I surely am
not saving anything..... just having to deal with aggravation and
smelling like an old goat..... I cant possibly see how clothes can get
clean without being submerged in water. Especially when I my clothes
get covered with mud and automotive crud after fixing my car.

On Sun, 4 Jan 2015 18:12:46 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote in


LED is the sensible choice for some applications, not all.
I don't need it in a shed, closet, attic, utility room, basement area that;s
rarely used for more than a few minutes, etc. For that, the cheap 100W that
you can't buy anymore is perfect.

+1
--
Web based forums are like subscribing to 10 different newspapers
and having to visit 10 different news stands to pickup each one.
Email list-server groups and USENET are like having all of those
newspapers delivered to your door every morning.

On Sunday, January 4, 2015 9:41:09 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sun, 04 Jan 2015 19:07:35 -0500, Dan Espen
wrote:


Are you saying the ban on 60w bulbs was delayed from Jan 1 2015 to Oct
2015? I was not aware of that.

Latest budget bill.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-o..._legislatio n

Expect more delays. Remember the analog TV phase out.
Anyone miss analog TVs?


Good article on wikipedia. I have a better idea what is going on. But
I do agree we should be able to determine what we want to use. I like
to save money on my electric bill as much as anyone else, but I also
need to see what I'm doing in my garage, or I could be more likely to
get injured or damage something when using tools. If I need
incandescents, it should be MY choice.

It said something in the article that lighting accounts for 40% of
energy use, but said "commercial buildings", and also stated that may be
a high estimate. In my home, I doubt my lighting uses more than 10% of
my electric usage. I have a well pump, heat tapes, elec space heater
(in one room, to save on propane), other elec heating devices, as well
as the usual refrigerator, washer, dryer, etc, and an elec water heater.
(Gas cook stove). And in summer I have an AC (which I only use on the
severe hot days). Either way, it's these heating devices that suck the
most power, and nothing much is being done to make them more efficient,
when they are the biggest electrical consumption users. [Of course,
there is only so many BTUs that can be obtained from one KWH of
electricity, and it dont look like much can be done to change that.

They have done a lot to improve efficiencies of most of those
things on your list. The AC and refrigerator, for example, are a lot
more efficient today than they were 30 years ago. Back then, 10 SEER
was the common AC. Today it's more like 14 and you can get 18 if you
want to pay more. The problem is, as you point out, that you can only
improve efficiencies so much, it becomes a declining benefit for a lot
more cost problem, and you're running up against the limits of physics.





I
did put an insulation "blanket" on my water heater which probably helps
a little.

I agree that LED will be the lighting of the future. I like it better
than CFL, but they are still costly (but getting better in price). I
have a LED in my outdoor porch light, and like it. The CFLs would not
work well in cold temps, but the LED is fine. That LED only uses
something like 6 watts, which means I dont mind leaving it on much of
the night for safety (if I come home late). I can run that LED for 10
hours for what it used to cost for a 60W incandescent to be on for 1
hour. I figured out that if it's on 10 hours per night, I use about
2KWH per month, which costs me 25 to 30 cents per month. Not a bad
deal! [Divided by ten, a 60W incan would have cost around $3.00 per
month].

But the LEDs have some limitations too. I bought one for my bedroom
light fixture. The fixture is what some people call "Boob Lights"
(shaped like a woman's boob). The fixture uses a single bulb. The LED
only illuminates half the room, because the light only comes out of the
top of the bulb. That did not work. I had to go back to a CFL. That
light is on more hours than any other light in the house, so I wanted to
change it. My alternative is to buy a new fixture,(made for several
bulbs), or just live with the CFL for now.

The bottom line is that there are different bulbs for different uses,
and WE should be able to use what we want, while the govt. EDUCATES US
about efficient uses, not FORCES us to use bulbs that dont work for the
need.


Bingo. If new technology is good, cost effective, and works, people
don't need to be forced to adopt it.

On 1/4/2015 2:41 PM, Sasquatch Jones wrote:
"Art Todesco" wrote in message ...
On 1/3/2015 4:28 PM, Pavel314 wrote:
We just had to replace our washing machine. The old one had four levels; small, medium, large, and super. The new one only has three; small, large, and super. The small on the new machine is really small; it only fills about 20% of the drum. Large is like medium on the old one; haven't tried the new super yet.

Is there any way to adjust the water level on the various size selections or is that fixed? I suppose that there's some sort of device that senses the various levels; maybe there's an adjusting screw somewhere.

Paul

Even the top loaders are reducing the amount of water. Some of the top
loaders don't even have an agitator; they are just a front loader on its
side. 6 years ago we got a GE front loader. It was nothing but junk;
didn't clean well, certainly didn't rinse the soap out. We always
selected the extra rinse cycle AND then ran it through the QUICK WASH
with extra rinse, but with no soap. Still, the cloths came out with soap
in them. We replace it with a GE top loader and couldn't be happier.
Slosh, slosh, slosh, oh the good sound of washing cloths the old
fashioned way. But, they come out clean and they do rinse. But beware,
even top loaders are reducing the amount of water. We routinely set it
larger than the actual load so that it works properly. Ah, but we are
saving the planet, even though my water comes from the ground and goes back in the ground.

This sounds like my GE - top loader, no agitator. What did you replace it with?

I replaced the GE frontloader with a GE toploader. But, this model did
have a real agitator. There were other GE topload models that had a
pimple on the bottom of the drum, where the agitator belonged. The sales
guy said they will probably all be that way in the future. Don't know
what purpose it provides ... probably a picture would have worked just
as good.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

On Mon, 5 Jan 2015 05:25:26 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:


They have done a lot to improve efficiencies of most of those
things on your list. The AC and refrigerator, for example, are a lot
more efficient today than they were 30 years ago. Back then, 10 SEER
was the common AC. Today it's more like 14 and you can get 18 if you
want to pay more. The problem is, as you point out, that you can only
improve efficiencies so much, it becomes a declining benefit for a lot
more cost problem, and you're running up against the limits of physics.


I noticed you only mentioned COOLING devices. Yes, they have improved
somewhat. Much only becuse of better insulation. And they claim some
motors are more efficient, and I suppose there is some truth to that.
But when it comes to heating devices, there are only so many BTUs in a
watt, and it CANT be improved. Heating devices are my biggest drain in
cold weather. My elctric bill in winter is at least $200 more than in
summer. But I do use an electric space heater almost all the time,
because I cant tolerate 55 to 60 deg in the house, and it would use too
much propane to heat the whole house to 70deg. I just heat one room
with the electric space htr to around 70, and stay in there most of the
time.

But I also have heat tapes on pipes, and other heating devices to keep
stuff from freezing. And being a farm, I have livestock tank heaters
too, and they are a big draw. There is no way around most of this.

A neighbor bought one of those infared space heaters advertised on TV,
and said they use much less electric than a conventional "hot coil" type
of heater. They have heat lamps (bulbs) inside and a small fan blows
the hot air out. She was bragging how efficient they are. Then I was
talking to her landlord, who pays the electric bill, and he was bitching
about her electric bill doubling in winter...... Once again, you can
only get so many BTUs out of a watt of power.

About the only thing I have been able to do with heating devices is to
insulate more. Example, water heater blanket, foam insulation around
livestock tanks (which dont last long), and more insulation around heat
tapes. I also keep my space heater on the LOW setting, an shut it off
when I go away.

On Mon, 05 Jan 2015 09:10:28 -0500, Art Todesco
wrote:

I replaced the GE frontloader with a GE toploader. But, this model did
have a real agitator. There were other GE topload models that had a
pimple on the bottom of the drum, where the agitator belonged. The sales
guy said they will probably all be that way in the future. Don't know
what purpose it provides ... probably a picture would have worked just
as good.


HUH???????
How is that supposed to work?????

Pretty soon we'll have to go back to the bucket and scrub board!

Oh well, there are lots of older washers around and they are not that
hard to fix. The timers seem to go first in most of them. Every washer
I have ever had to junk, because of major issues, always still had a
good motor. I always save them.....
I had one washer that I used for years with a dead timer. I just had to
advance the knob manually, Kind of a pain, but it did the job. The
timer was too costly to replace. I finally got another washer from a
relative who just wanted a new one, and he old one still worked fine.

On Monday, January 5, 2015 3:39:34 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Mon, 5 Jan 2015 05:25:26 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:


They have done a lot to improve efficiencies of most of those
things on your list. The AC and refrigerator, for example, are a lot
more efficient today than they were 30 years ago. Back then, 10 SEER
was the common AC. Today it's more like 14 and you can get 18 if you
want to pay more. The problem is, as you point out, that you can only
improve efficiencies so much, it becomes a declining benefit for a lot
more cost problem, and you're running up against the limits of physics.


I noticed you only mentioned COOLING devices. Yes, they have improved
somewhat. Much only becuse of better insulation. And they claim some
motors are more efficient, and I suppose there is some truth to that.

It's not mostly insulation. There isn't any insulation that amounts
to anything in the typical compressor/condensor unit, ie the typical
ventral AC unit. The improvements have come from better compressor designs
and better coils.

But when it comes to heating devices, there are only so many BTUs in a
watt, and it CANT be improved.

That's true if it's resistance heat. But that's certainly not a
mainstream heating source, never has been. It's not true of heat pumps,
which are a form of using electric to heat. There we've made similar
gains in efficiency as in AC systems.




Heating devices are my biggest drain in
cold weather. My elctric bill in winter is at least $200 more than in
summer. But I do use an electric space heater almost all the time,
because I cant tolerate 55 to 60 deg in the house, and it would use too
much propane to heat the whole house to 70deg. I just heat one room
with the electric space htr to around 70, and stay in there most of the
time.


With propane, that's probably a reasonable option. But with NG,
if it cost me $200 more a month in electric to run a space heater
for one room, I'd be better off just keeping the whole house at the
higher temperatre.
I tried the electric space heater approach last winter. Like you found,
the electric bill went up substantially, enough that I concluded I'm better off
burning NG in my 94% eff furnace. Of course the results will vary,
based on the cost of fuels.


But I also have heat tapes on pipes, and other heating devices to keep
stuff from freezing. And being a farm, I have livestock tank heaters
too, and they are a big draw. There is no way around most of this.

A neighbor bought one of those infared space heaters advertised on TV,
and said they use much less electric than a conventional "hot coil" type
of heater. They have heat lamps (bulbs) inside and a small fan blows
the hot air out. She was bragging how efficient they are. Then I was
talking to her landlord, who pays the electric bill, and he was bitching
about her electric bill doubling in winter...... Once again, you can
only get so many BTUs out of a watt of power.

I have an infrared heater. It does work and do what it claims to
do, but it's the type with a parabolic dish and no fan. It's very
good and efficient at heating whatever is right in front of it.
By doing that, it's not having to heat the whole room. The drawback
is that it's hard to get it pointed where you need it and even
then the heat isn't uniform. It's not at all suited to certain needs,
like when lying on a sofa watching TV.




About the only thing I have been able to do with heating devices is to
insulate more. Example, water heater blanket, foam insulation around
livestock tanks (which dont last long), and more insulation around heat
tapes. I also keep my space heater on the LOW setting, an shut it off
when I go away.

Yes, having proper insulation, sealing drafts, can make a substantial
difference.

On 1/5/2015 3:45 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jan 2015 09:10:28 -0500, Art Todesco
wrote:

I replaced the GE frontloader with a GE toploader. But, this model did
have a real agitator. There were other GE topload models that had a
pimple on the bottom of the drum, where the agitator belonged. The sales
guy said they will probably all be that way in the future. Don't know
what purpose it provides ... probably a picture would have worked just
as good.


HUH???????
How is that supposed to work?????

Exactly what I meant. The pimple is just about as worthless as a
picture. I don't know if GE still makes them, but the washer I bought
has a real agitator and really sloshes the cloths around.

Pretty soon we'll have to go back to the bucket and scrub board!

Oh well, there are lots of older washers around and they are not that
hard to fix. The timers seem to go first in most of them. Every washer
I have ever had to junk, because of major issues, always still had a
good motor. I always save them.....
I had one washer that I used for years with a dead timer. I just had to
advance the knob manually, Kind of a pain, but it did the job. The
timer was too costly to replace. I finally got another washer from a
relative who just wanted a new one, and he old one still worked fine.




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

On Tue, 06 Jan 2015 07:46:51 -0500, Art Todesco
wrote:


Exactly what I meant. The pimple is just about as worthless as a
picture. I don't know if GE still makes them, but the washer I bought
has a real agitator and really sloshes the cloths around.

I remember when new products were tested by experts and later by a panel
of selected consumers who were paid or given the product free for
evaluating it.

It seems the latest trend is to just sell these new things to the
public, and let them suffer with poor products.

Just look at all the car recalls, some of which have been deadly. And
when it comes to software it's even worse. I've heard many times that
when a new operating system is relased, to avoid it for several months
until the bugs are worked out. Apparently they're now doing this with
appliances too, and even some building materials.

I guess it's not just because we live in the age of greed, but we live
in a time when the younger people cant exist without constant upgrades
which often do nothing. Then add to that all the stupid laws that keep
forcing products to change and often ruins a once good product.

On Tuesday, January 6, 2015 8:20:48 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Tue, 06 Jan 2015 07:46:51 -0500, Art Todesco
wrote:


Exactly what I meant. The pimple is just about as worthless as a
picture. I don't know if GE still makes them, but the washer I bought
has a real agitator and really sloshes the cloths around.

I remember when new products were tested by experts and later by a panel
of selected consumers who were paid or given the product free for
evaluating it.

I think you'll find that this is still done today, probably more
than it was 50 years ago.




It seems the latest trend is to just sell these new things to the
public, and let them suffer with poor products.


In the case of washing machines, I would think the real problem is
govt regulations that limit the amount of water and electricity they
can use. It's hard to make a washing machine that works well and uses
little water and also make it cost the same as the basic model it
replaced. Front loaders use less water, but they have always been
more expensive. And they come with their own problems, the stinky
door seal being one.


Just look at all the car recalls, some of which have been deadly.

Of course 50 years ago, there were few recalls because the manufacturers
could just ignore safety problems. The incidence of actual serious
accidents or deaths from those defects is very small compared to the
number of cars. I would suspect that 50 years ago those kinds of
things were just lost in the noise, considered normal, etc. And the
consequnces to the manufacturers was acceptable. They weren't worried
about 100 millon dollar lawsuits, the govt hitting them with fines,
the laws didn't even exit to cover that. Now if you have some minor
problem that affects 100 cars out of a million, it may get recalled.




And
when it comes to software it's even worse. I've heard many times that
when a new operating system is relased, to avoid it for several months
until the bugs are worked out. Apparently they're now doing this with
appliances too, and even some building materials.

I guess it's not just because we live in the age of greed, but we live
in a time when the younger people cant exist without constant upgrades
which often do nothing. Then add to that all the stupid laws that keep
forcing products to change and often ruins a once good product.

It's hard to believe that greed is any more prevelant today than it was
100+ years ago.

On Tue, 06 Jan 2015 07:19:03 -0600, wrote in


Just look at all the car recalls, some of which have been deadly. And
when it comes to software it's even worse. I've heard many times that
when a new operating system is relased, to avoid it for several months
until the bugs are worked out.

Or even better: skip it entirely unless it a) fixes a feature that you
need that is currently broken; or b) provides a new functionality that
you want to have. I'm still running WinXPsp3 and nothing since does
(a) or (b) for me. Of course, when my hardware dies I will likely be
forced to upgrade.

I guess it's not just because we live in the age of greed, but we live
in a time when the younger people cant exist without constant upgrades
which often do nothing. Then add to that all the stupid laws that keep
forcing products to change and often ruins a once good product.

+1 on that.
--
Web based forums are like subscribing to 10 different newspapers
and having to visit 10 different news stands to pickup each one.
Email list-server groups and USENET are like having all of those
newspapers delivered to your door every morning.

On 1/6/2015 8:19 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 06 Jan 2015 07:46:51 -0500, Art Todesco
wrote:


Exactly what I meant. The pimple is just about as worthless as a
picture. I don't know if GE still makes them, but the washer I bought
has a real agitator and really sloshes the cloths around.

I remember when new products were tested by experts and later by a panel
of selected consumers who were paid or given the product free for
evaluating it.

It seems the latest trend is to just sell these new things to the
public, and let them suffer with poor products.

Just look at all the car recalls, some of which have been deadly. And
when it comes to software it's even worse. I've heard many times that
when a new operating system is relased, to avoid it for several months
until the bugs are worked out. Apparently they're now doing this with
appliances too, and even some building materials.

I guess it's not just because we live in the age of greed, but we live
in a time when the younger people cant exist without constant upgrades
which often do nothing. Then add to that all the stupid laws that keep
forcing products to change and often ruins a once good product.

I agree with that last statement. I have a relatively new cell phone
that is now a piece of junk. It is a Motorola RAZR M. The latest OS
upgrade (actually downgrade) broke the phone. You now only get a few
hours out of the battery and it gets so hot that you have to take it out
of your pocket. I am not, buy any means a power user. And, Android won't
let you go back. Just fix it by buying a new phone. A Verizon guy
recently told me to only upgrade a new phone when you buy it and only
once after that, because the software is made for the newer more
powerful phone and will bog down older hardware. Was he right! Sorry for
the soapbox and hijacking.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

On Wednesday, January 7, 2015 10:01:08 AM UTC-5, Art Todesco wrote:
On 1/6/2015 8:19 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 06 Jan 2015 07:46:51 -0500, Art Todesco
wrote:


Exactly what I meant. The pimple is just about as worthless as a
picture. I don't know if GE still makes them, but the washer I bought
has a real agitator and really sloshes the cloths around.

I remember when new products were tested by experts and later by a panel
of selected consumers who were paid or given the product free for
evaluating it.

It seems the latest trend is to just sell these new things to the
public, and let them suffer with poor products.

Just look at all the car recalls, some of which have been deadly. And
when it comes to software it's even worse. I've heard many times that
when a new operating system is relased, to avoid it for several months
until the bugs are worked out. Apparently they're now doing this with
appliances too, and even some building materials.

I guess it's not just because we live in the age of greed, but we live
in a time when the younger people cant exist without constant upgrades
which often do nothing. Then add to that all the stupid laws that keep
forcing products to change and often ruins a once good product.

I agree with that last statement. I have a relatively new cell phone
that is now a piece of junk. It is a Motorola RAZR M. The latest OS
upgrade (actually downgrade) broke the phone. You now only get a few
hours out of the battery and it gets so hot that you have to take it out
of your pocket. I am not, buy any means a power user. And, Android won't
let you go back. Just fix it by buying a new phone. A Verizon guy
recently told me to only upgrade a new phone when you buy it and only
once after that, because the software is made for the newer more
powerful phone and will bog down older hardware. Was he right! Sorry for
the soapbox and hijacking.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com


From what I know, you can go back to a previous version of the Android OS.
It may not be trivial to do, but if the phone is that bad, I'd look into
it. Some googling should be productive. There are various help and hack
forums that can probably guide you.

Did that phone come from the carrier? What do they say? Any chance it's
a bad battery issue and just a coincidence?

So far, I haven't had any problems with OS or app upgrades. But, I
know what you mean. Google released a new version of news and weather
app a few months ago. I like the way the current one works and still
haven't let it install the new version, because it's a very different
look/feel and I'm not sure how I'll like it. From what I understand,
you can go back to the old version, if you can find the image file and
self install it.

Regarding software updates, The Fidelity Financial website is almost impossible to use compared to the previous version. When I complained to a local Fidelity office worker about the web site, he said that they were getting a lot of complaints. He also said that the new (crappy) website was put in service just a couple of months after Fidelity got an award for the best financial website. New and improved NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

On Wednesday, January 7, 2015 11:29:49 AM UTC-5, wrote:
Regarding software updates, The Fidelity Financial website is almost impossible to use compared to the previous version. When I complained to a local Fidelity office worker about the web site, he said that they were getting a lot of complaints. He also said that the new (crappy) website was put in service just a couple of months after Fidelity got an award for the best financial website. New and improved NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

An example of that drives me nuts is the Microsoft Office Apps.
I only use them occasionally. They've gotten to the point where it's
almost impossible to do anything because they've changed them so much.
I'll be like probably 95% of the users, I don't use any of the advanced
features that they have piled on. And they changed the look/feel so
much that it's hard to figure out how to do the most basic stuff that
I want to do. Maybe the new features and look are great for someone
that's a power user and needs them, but it sure has screwed the rest of us.

On 1/7/2015 10:16 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Wednesday, January 7, 2015 10:01:08 AM UTC-5, Art Todesco wrote:
On 1/6/2015 8:19 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 06 Jan 2015 07:46:51 -0500, Art Todesco
wrote:


Exactly what I meant. The pimple is just about as worthless as a
picture. I don't know if GE still makes them, but the washer I bought
has a real agitator and really sloshes the cloths around.

I remember when new products were tested by experts and later by a panel
of selected consumers who were paid or given the product free for
evaluating it.

It seems the latest trend is to just sell these new things to the
public, and let them suffer with poor products.

Just look at all the car recalls, some of which have been deadly. And
when it comes to software it's even worse. I've heard many times that
when a new operating system is relased, to avoid it for several months
until the bugs are worked out. Apparently they're now doing this with
appliances too, and even some building materials.

I guess it's not just because we live in the age of greed, but we live
in a time when the younger people cant exist without constant upgrades
which often do nothing. Then add to that all the stupid laws that keep
forcing products to change and often ruins a once good product.

I agree with that last statement. I have a relatively new cell phone
that is now a piece of junk. It is a Motorola RAZR M. The latest OS
upgrade (actually downgrade) broke the phone. You now only get a few
hours out of the battery and it gets so hot that you have to take it out
of your pocket. I am not, buy any means a power user. And, Android won't
let you go back. Just fix it by buying a new phone. A Verizon guy
recently told me to only upgrade a new phone when you buy it and only
once after that, because the software is made for the newer more
powerful phone and will bog down older hardware. Was he right! Sorry for
the soapbox and hijacking.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com


From what I know, you can go back to a previous version of the Android OS.
It may not be trivial to do, but if the phone is that bad, I'd look into
it. Some googling should be productive. There are various help and hack
forums that can probably guide you.

Did that phone come from the carrier? What do they say? Any chance it's
a bad battery issue and just a coincidence?

So far, I haven't had any problems with OS or app upgrades. But, I
know what you mean. Google released a new version of news and weather
app a few months ago. I like the way the current one works and still
haven't let it install the new version, because it's a very different
look/feel and I'm not sure how I'll like it. From what I understand,
you can go back to the old version, if you can find the image file and
self install it.

The only way to go back is to root the phone. And this is not officially
allowed by Android/carriers. I actually should have done that, however,
there is a risk of bricking the phone. So, it's off to the store for a
new phone. I'll be careful this time.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

On Wednesday, January 7, 2015 3:51:17 PM UTC-5, Art Todesco wrote:
On 1/7/2015 10:16 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Wednesday, January 7, 2015 10:01:08 AM UTC-5, Art Todesco wrote:
On 1/6/2015 8:19 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 06 Jan 2015 07:46:51 -0500, Art Todesco
wrote:


Exactly what I meant. The pimple is just about as worthless as a
picture. I don't know if GE still makes them, but the washer I bought
has a real agitator and really sloshes the cloths around.

I remember when new products were tested by experts and later by a panel
of selected consumers who were paid or given the product free for
evaluating it.

It seems the latest trend is to just sell these new things to the
public, and let them suffer with poor products.

Just look at all the car recalls, some of which have been deadly. And
when it comes to software it's even worse. I've heard many times that
when a new operating system is relased, to avoid it for several months
until the bugs are worked out. Apparently they're now doing this with
appliances too, and even some building materials.

I guess it's not just because we live in the age of greed, but we live
in a time when the younger people cant exist without constant upgrades
which often do nothing. Then add to that all the stupid laws that keep
forcing products to change and often ruins a once good product.

I agree with that last statement. I have a relatively new cell phone
that is now a piece of junk. It is a Motorola RAZR M. The latest OS
upgrade (actually downgrade) broke the phone. You now only get a few
hours out of the battery and it gets so hot that you have to take it out
of your pocket. I am not, buy any means a power user. And, Android won't
let you go back. Just fix it by buying a new phone. A Verizon guy
recently told me to only upgrade a new phone when you buy it and only
once after that, because the software is made for the newer more
powerful phone and will bog down older hardware. Was he right! Sorry for
the soapbox and hijacking.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com


From what I know, you can go back to a previous version of the Android OS.
It may not be trivial to do, but if the phone is that bad, I'd look into
it. Some googling should be productive. There are various help and hack
forums that can probably guide you.

Did that phone come from the carrier? What do they say? Any chance it's
a bad battery issue and just a coincidence?

So far, I haven't had any problems with OS or app upgrades. But, I
know what you mean. Google released a new version of news and weather
app a few months ago. I like the way the current one works and still
haven't let it install the new version, because it's a very different
look/feel and I'm not sure how I'll like it. From what I understand,
you can go back to the old version, if you can find the image file and
self install it.

The only way to go back is to root the phone. And this is not officially
allowed by Android/carriers. I actually should have done that, however,
there is a risk of bricking the phone. So, it's off to the store for a
new phone. I'll be careful this time.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

If it's basically unusable as is, and you're probably going to get a
new phone anyway, then why does the risk of bricking it to try to fix
it matter?

I also assume you went through all the apps, particularly things like
GPS, to make sure they aren't on? My Android, in the power settings,
you can see what is using the power. Did you try that to see what the
power hog is? Like maybe it's not the new OS perse, but somehow some
setting got changed in the process, the new OS let's some app run
that wasn't previously, etc?

On 1/7/2015 5:01 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Wednesday, January 7, 2015 3:51:17 PM UTC-5, Art Todesco wrote:
On 1/7/2015 10:16 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Wednesday, January 7, 2015 10:01:08 AM UTC-5, Art Todesco wrote:
On 1/6/2015 8:19 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 06 Jan 2015 07:46:51 -0500, Art Todesco
wrote:


Exactly what I meant. The pimple is just about as worthless as a
picture. I don't know if GE still makes them, but the washer I bought
has a real agitator and really sloshes the cloths around.

I remember when new products were tested by experts and later by a panel
of selected consumers who were paid or given the product free for
evaluating it.

It seems the latest trend is to just sell these new things to the
public, and let them suffer with poor products.

Just look at all the car recalls, some of which have been deadly. And
when it comes to software it's even worse. I've heard many times that
when a new operating system is relased, to avoid it for several months
until the bugs are worked out. Apparently they're now doing this with
appliances too, and even some building materials.

I guess it's not just because we live in the age of greed, but we live
in a time when the younger people cant exist without constant upgrades
which often do nothing. Then add to that all the stupid laws that keep
forcing products to change and often ruins a once good product.

I agree with that last statement. I have a relatively new cell phone
that is now a piece of junk. It is a Motorola RAZR M. The latest OS
upgrade (actually downgrade) broke the phone. You now only get a few
hours out of the battery and it gets so hot that you have to take it out
of your pocket. I am not, buy any means a power user. And, Android won't
let you go back. Just fix it by buying a new phone. A Verizon guy
recently told me to only upgrade a new phone when you buy it and only
once after that, because the software is made for the newer more
powerful phone and will bog down older hardware. Was he right! Sorry for
the soapbox and hijacking.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com


From what I know, you can go back to a previous version of the Android OS.
It may not be trivial to do, but if the phone is that bad, I'd look into
it. Some googling should be productive. There are various help and hack
forums that can probably guide you.

Did that phone come from the carrier? What do they say? Any chance it's
a bad battery issue and just a coincidence?

So far, I haven't had any problems with OS or app upgrades. But, I
know what you mean. Google released a new version of news and weather
app a few months ago. I like the way the current one works and still
haven't let it install the new version, because it's a very different
look/feel and I'm not sure how I'll like it. From what I understand,
you can go back to the old version, if you can find the image file and
self install it.

The only way to go back is to root the phone. And this is not officially
allowed by Android/carriers. I actually should have done that, however,
there is a risk of bricking the phone. So, it's off to the store for a
new phone. I'll be careful this time.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

If it's basically unusable as is, and you're probably going to get a
new phone anyway, then why does the risk of bricking it to try to fix
it matter?

I also assume you went through all the apps, particularly things like
GPS, to make sure they aren't on? My Android, in the power settings,
you can see what is using the power. Did you try that to see what the
power hog is? Like maybe it's not the new OS perse, but somehow some
setting got changed in the process, the new OS let's some app run
that wasn't previously, etc?

Yes, I virtually killed everything. I even got the service provider
involved and he had me do some other things I wasn't aware of. Sometimes
it's not too bad, but at other times, it's horrible. Last night it was
supposed to get down to single digits. The phone should help keep me warm!

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

On Wed, 07 Jan 2015 10:01:04 -0500, Art Todesco
wrote:

I agree with that last statement. I have a relatively new cell phone
that is now a piece of junk. It is a Motorola RAZR M. The latest OS
upgrade (actually downgrade) broke the phone. You now only get a few
hours out of the battery and it gets so hot that you have to take it out
of your pocket. I am not, buy any means a power user. And, Android won't
let you go back. Just fix it by buying a new phone. A Verizon guy
recently told me to only upgrade a new phone when you buy it and only
once after that, because the software is made for the newer more
powerful phone and will bog down older hardware. Was he right! Sorry for
the soapbox and hijacking.


Not sure what to tell you about that phone, and your company, but if the
phone is getting that hot, DO NOT USE IT. Just google some stuff about
exploding cellphone batteries.

I had a battery explode on a cordless tool once, and it's not just a
little bang. There were pieces all over the room, and a chunk of
plastic stuck in the skin on my arm, which I had to dig out and bandage.
It could have been much worse if it was an eye or ?????

Why not file a complaint with the Better Business Bureau!!!! (you can do
it online).

Pavel314 posted for all of us...



We just had to replace our washing machine. The old one had four levels; small, medium, large, and super. The new one only has three; small, large, and super. The small on the new machine is really small; it only fills about 20% of the drum. Large is like medium on the old one; haven't tried the new super yet.

Is there any way to adjust the water level on the various size selections or is that fixed? I suppose that there's some sort of device that senses the various levels; maybe there's an adjusting screw somewhere.

Paul

He wants to void the warranty with some kludge because he couldn't buy the
washer his wife really wanted. Why not rewind the motor and install an
Allison transmission?

--
Tekkie *Please post a follow-up*

bob haller posted for all of us...



Mywife INSISTED on a front load washer just a few months ago. Frankly I DONT like it! It caused a lot of rework to install the clothes arent as clean and worse sometimes smell bad. Like mold

She now runs the clean cycle often.....

Dats nize! Who cares?

--
Tekkie *Please post a follow-up*

Dan Espen posted for all of us...



writes:

Example: If I have to flush a 2.0 gallon toilet 3 times to get it
to rid the solids, then what am I saving?

Weak rant.

If that's happening to you, I think you have bad luck.
As of 1994, the law is 1.6 gallons or less.
Before that, it was anywhere from 3.5 to 7 gallons per flush.
So, the correct answer is 3.5 to 7 minus 1.6.
Quite a large improvement.
That can translate to lower water bills, or lower
electric bills if you have a well.
Also, less water in the treatment system.

Just like banning Incandescent bulbs. The CFL work in a heated
building, but dont work at all in my garage in cold weather. That
leaves me either having to buy bootleg incandescent bulbs or paying a
large amount for LED or some other alternative.

How are my CFLs working in a driveway lamp post?
They work fine when I'm out there shoveling snow.
Still haven't had to replace one, I've lost track
of how many years it's been. Way more than years 5 and
they go on as soon as it's dark, stay on all night.

So far, nothing has been banned by the Feds.
Recently, the first implementation of a ban
was delayed to October 2015.

I get the feeling we'll all be happily using LED before
we see anything actually banned by the US.

Off topic

--
Tekkie *Please post a follow-up*