Front-loaders are actually in use in the US more than you might think, in certain applications. I’ve seen the “stackable” washer-dryer combo pretty regularly (both, of course, being front-loaders), and that seems popular for smaller spaces, like apartments or small houses in regions without basements. (Which is a lot like the reasons other people have said that people in the UK prefer front-loaders.)
I do have a theory as to why more Americans haven’t switched over, given the long-term cost savings. Generally, you replace a washing machine only when you absolutely have to (at least in my family). The old one has just died and spewed water all over the basement, or otherwise given up the ghost. So you track on down to the local appliance dealer. You want to buy something decent, but not too expensive. So are you going to spring for the extra few hundred bucks (on an unexpected expense) for something that promises to be cheaper sometime next year? I bet most people wouldn’t.
On the other hand, if you’re replacing appliances as part of a planned remodelling job, I bet you’d be more likely to examine the choices closely and then go with a more efficient front-loader.
First, just one correction to one of your previous comments:
It’s not atmospheric pressure, it’s a vacuum. The vacuum is created by evacuating the air in the cup with pressure. Then the rigid rubber from the cup tries to push away from the surface creating a small suction (vacuum) under the arch of the cup.
That could be it, except that the outer door didn’t move when this was occuring, but maybe there was a floating inner ring that got pulled tighter. Pulling the door tighter is one way to create a vacuum. I never indicated that a vacuum pump was used.
Sorry, but no, it is atomospheric pressure which holds it. A vacuum can’t do anything, its empty space. Reminds me of a scene from Star Trek:TNG were there was a hull breach and Riker says the crew were “sucked out”. Data corrected him, “Blown out, sir”.
Sorry, but no, it is not atomospheric pressure… or atmospheric pressure, for that matter. If you’re going to nit pick, then I have to agree with you, there’s no vacuum under the cup. Of course, there’s no vacuum anywhere that we know of… they are all partial vacuums. i.e.there is a negative pressure relative to the surrounding atmospheric pressure. However, the atmospheric pressure is not the source of the adhesion. It’s the absence of an equal atmospheric pressure inside the suction cup that is responsible for the force that holds the cup. It’s the force of the deformed rubber that is responsible for this negative pressure.
If your theory were correct, then a suction cup would never be able to resist the force of anything more than 14.7 psi (one atmosphere). I’ve seen suction cups exceed 200 psi.
Now that looks interesting and I would like to know more about it. I am slightly aware that there are research labs that have some pretty exotic stuff but no more than that.
What I do know, however, is that once there is a pressure drop across a diaphragm, such as a suction seal, atmospheric pressure will force the seal into greater mechanical contact. One effect of this will be to increase the number and strength of temporary chemical bonds between the seal and the mating surface, giving greater grip.
I think I’ll put up a thread in GD about vacuums, see what turns up.