• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Wonder washing machine 'virtually waterless'

Still uses detergent. I wonder how they get the detergent out of the clothes? In a normal washing machine they use a rinse. But they cannot use a rinse as that would use water.

Interesting that I cannot find anyone else with the story.
 
Doesn't seem anything intrinsically incredible about the claim - after all abrading clothes is a traditional way of cleaning clothes. (Some of us even remember washing boards and mangles!)

I'd like to see an answer to rjh01' question as the majority water in a current automatic washing machine is used to rinse the clothes not in the wash cycle. And since the description seems to be referring to an abrading process I wonder how gentle or not it is on the clothes?
 
Darat said:
Doesn't seem anything intrinsically incredible about the claim - after all abrading clothes is a traditional way of cleaning clothes. (Some of us even remember washing boards and mangles!)

I'd like to see an answer to rjh01' question as the majority water in a current automatic washing machine is used to rinse the clothes not in the wash cycle. And since the description seems to be referring to an abrading process I wonder how gentle or not it is on the clothes?
Click to expand...
As I understood it, the detergent and water still do the cleaning, the chips are then used to absorb and remove the dirty water from the washing machine.

Xeros washing machine
The technology employs the use of half-centimeter plastic chips to do the actual cleaning. The machine heats what little water (mixed with detergent) is used to dissolve the dirt which is then absorbed by the plastic chips. These chips, which are loaded into the machine at 44 pounds per cycle, can be reused within a six month timeframe.

Here's the University of Leeds' page on the Xeros system.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for that link - makes it tad clearer. I still wonder about the rinsing at the end of wash cycle and the abrasive effect of the chips.
 
Here is the university's press release.

rjh01: Why are you saying the process would still use detergent? The press release says nothing of the sort.

Matty1973: A bit over-skeptical! Who are you suggesting could be the fraud? The university? Professor Burkinshaw? I'm confident the university would not have based a spinout company on this technology without some pretty convincing evidence that it works, and has good commercial potential.
 
Darat said:
But the artciles linked to do say detergent is still used.
Click to expand...
True, I had only read the press release, which doesn't mention detergent. The detergent used would obviously be only a tiny amount, in proportion to the water.
 
Lucky said:
True, I had only read the press release, which doesn't mention detergent. The detergent used would obviously be only a tiny amount, in proportion to the water.
Click to expand...
Surely the same proportion to water, but only an overall tiny amount in proportion to "regular" machines? :)
 
Lucky said:
True, I had only read the press release, which doesn't mention detergent. The detergent used would obviously be only a tiny amount, in proportion to the water.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't the amount of detergent be proportional to the amount of dirt?
 
I assumed the plastic did an electrostatic more than abrading. Sort of like the way they use resin beads to soften water, the minerals stick to the resin?

Some plastics are very slippery, some are very abrasive. Some materials choice required.

I wonder if buyers should keep their old machines, to wash the beads in every six months?
 
I thought of a way to make a dryer that doesn't use heat. You just suck the air out, creating a vacuum, and the water will evaporate out at room temperature.

Thinking about it, though, it's probably a lot easier to build a durable machine that heats things up than one that creates and maintains a vacuum. Probably uses less power, too.
 
aggle-rithm said:
I thought of a way to make a dryer that doesn't use heat. You just suck the air out, creating a vacuum, and the water will evaporate out at room temperature.

Thinking about it, though, it's probably a lot easier to build a durable machine that heats things up than one that creates and maintains a vacuum. Probably uses less power, too.
Click to expand...
Ahahaha.

No really, the atmospheric pressure is 14 pounds per SQUARE INCH. Assuming your proposed dryer is a perfect sphere with 5 cubic feet of interior space, it needs to be able to resist 21 TONS of atmospheric force pressing on the outside of said sphere.

Vacuum chambers tend to be small for some reason...

This system does seem interesting. Guess it depends on how cheap/easy the chips are to produce.
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
Doesn't seem anything intrinsically incredible about the claim - after all abrading clothes is a traditional way of cleaning clothes.
Click to expand...
The story reminds me of the sales pitch from inventor of dry cleaning in The Man Who Wasn't There: :)
That's right! Dry cleaning--remember the name. It's going to revolutionize the laundry industry, and those that get in early are gonna bear the fruit away.
Click to expand...
Interesting concept, though guess there may be an environmental issue of how the decomposing the plastic chips.
 
EHocking said:
Surely the same proportion to water, but only an overall tiny amount in proportion to "regular" machines? :)
Click to expand...
OK, perhaps I should have said "In order to be in proportion to the amount of water, only a tiny amount of detergent would be used".

I think my use of the comma precludes the meaning you inferred .... and which one of us is being pedantic?! ;)



Acleron said:
Wouldn't the amount of detergent be proportional to the amount of dirt?
Click to expand...
No, because the wetting and cleaning effects of the water/detergent mix don't increase by over-concentrating the detergent.
 
If the detergent was still in proportion to the water then wouldn't the claim be a 98% reduction of water and detergent? This would be even more amazing.

I must confess to still being skeptical. As they say 'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' - I do hope it is basically true, but I would imagine there is some kind of cost involved which may be a poorer standard of cleaning, damage to the clothes, expensive/toxic ingredients in the chips, high energy cost or some other kind of negative side effect. All pure speculation though.

Lucky - You are based in Yorkshire as is the university in question. I hope that connection is not making you a bit under-skeptical!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqrOJLUibjo
"Don't talk to me about sophistication? I've been to Leeds!"
Apologies for the unwarranted personal attack but that was a funny sketch!
 
Last edited:
casebro said:
I assumed the plastic did an electrostatic more than abrading. Sort of like the way they use resin beads to soften water, the minerals stick to the resin?
Click to expand...

As far as I knew, water softening resins actually do ion-exchange.

The polymer matrix is stuffed with Na+ ions that exchange with the nasty scum-forming Ca2+ ions. Since two Na+ ions have to be exchanged for every Ca2+ ion, the water ends up with twice as many ions in solution as it started with. More enthalpy of solvation and more entropy driving the process to the exchanged state.

Powder detergents perform the same trick with zeolitesWP (molecular sieves). A good proportion of powder detergent isn't detergent at all, it's Na-containing zeolite that softens the water before the wash cycle starts.
 
Lucky said:
OK, perhaps I should have said "In order to be in proportion to the amount of water, only a tiny amount of detergent would be used".

I think my use of the comma precludes the meaning you inferred .... and which one of us is being pedantic?! ;)
Click to expand...
Oh, most definitely myself in this case!
No, because the wetting and cleaning effects of the water/detergent mix don't increase by over-concentrating the detergent.
Click to expand...
Well, I believe that this is the European Patent I don't believe it helps much, the abstract is a load of gobbledygook. OK, I can understand it, I presume it's written in such a wibbly wobbly way so as to cover any attempts of idea theft by embracing as many variations of each of the variables in the statement. For instance, "substrate". They did indicate that the technology was not able to applied to cleaning clothes but stripping dyes and other contaminants from solutions.

But still...

Abstract of WO2007128962
Click to expand...
The invention provides a method and formulation for cleaning a soiled substrate, the method comprising the treatment of the moistened substrate with a formulation comprising a multiplicity of polymeric particles, wherein the formulation is free of organic solvents. Preferably, the substrate is wetted so as to achieve a substrate to water ratio of between 1:0.1 to 1:5 w/w. Optionally, the formulation additionally comprises at least one cleaning material and, in this embodiment, it is preferred that the polymeric particles are coated with the at least one cleaning material. Preferably, the cleaning material comprises a surfactant, which most preferably has detergent properties. Most preferably, the substrate comprises a textile fibre. Typically, the polymeric particles comprise particles of nylon, most preferably in the form of nylon chips. The results obtained are very much in line with those observed when carrying out conventional dry cleaning processes and the method provides the significant advantage that the use of solvents, with all the attendant drawbacks in terms of cost and environmental considerations, can be avoided.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom