Jump to content

Talk:Dishwasher

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dishwashers, mechanical?

[edit]

What is the definition of a mechanical device? Is it because the final function of the dishwasher, the use of water and detergent to rinse cookware, is mechanical/chemical? I'd call a dishwasher at least partly electronic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexanderM (talk • contribs) 13:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jet dry

[edit]

I was directed to this site from my question about Jet dry. I'd still like to know what it is and how it works. I don't think this article answered my questions on that subject.--69.122.62.231 (talk) 22:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison with washing by hand

[edit]

According to Energiek, winter 2012: a dishwasher with energyclass A+++ consumes about 30% less electricity and twice less water than a dishwasher of 10 years ago. This makes using a dishwasher more economical than washing by hand.

The energy classes (which also incorporate water use) are not discussed in the article at present, and energy use isn't discussed either.

80.200.237.152 (talk) 10:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


2015.01.09.: the only way to compare hand vs machine dishwashing efficiency is to measure the amounts of elecricity, water, detergent consumption - which seems unfeasible mainly because there is no standard for hand washing. as the article says it can be highly variable depending on local settings and personal preferences (eg.:running water vs. washing in a bowl, the latter - i belive - not practiced anymore outside of the third world or the most rural remote spots of developed countries). i suggest to shorten the section dealing with this comparison in the article because it uses too vague assumptions about the amount of water (and others) spent to support any meaningful conclusion. perhaps it would be fine to delete the (not sufficiently supported) conclusion from the article but leave the raw data used in the comparison - the reader should be able to compare numbers themselves.94.21.190.113 (talk) 10:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


besides i see nothing that would assure me that this kind of comparison is not just a way of marketing for the dishwasher machines. it seems like comparing a bad enough handwashing setting with the best (in terms of efficiency) dishwasher machine available in an optimal setting and then conclude that dishwasher machines are generally more environment-friendly so go buy one today.94.21.190.113 (talk) 10:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I consolidated this energy comparison, along with issues of dishwasher damage, in a new section on differences between dishwashers and hand washing. There had been a long non-encyclopedic, unsourced section on damage, which someone else deleted 2017-12-29, so I put relevant encyclopedic material here with sources. Numbersinstitute (talk) 01:01, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Too western centric

[edit]

This article fails to discuss at all the use of and hisotry of diswashers in India, Africa, the Middle East, China or other areas. This is a major shortcoming in what is meant to be a worldwide encyclopedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Salt and Energy Efficiency

[edit]

This article seems very out of date with respect to modern low-energy dishwasher tech. It also says absolutely nothing about dishwasher salt and water softening. Do dishwashers use ion-exchange resins as I have seen claimed or do they just add salt to the wash water? Stub Mandrel (talk) 11:06, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They use ion exchange resins- just adding salt to the wash water wouldn't do much. However some all-in-one dishwasher tablets have built-in water softening that doesn't require the use of salt.
State of the art dishwashers now use less than 10 litres of water, and less than one kWh of electricity. GliderMaven (talk) 23:21, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dishwasher. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:22, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New article - Phosphates in detergent

[edit]

I just created phosphates in detergent. On that article's talk page I described how I moved content about "phosphates in detergent" from these articles to there.

I put a brief summary of the concept here and am directing readers there for a fuller presentation. I did this because the concept was forked by being independently developed in all these articles, when instead they should all point to one central article. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:50, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

History of this article - a review

[edit]

I reviewed the history of this article to check whether anything major and important had ever been deleted, and when major changes were made generally. I did this because I wanted to be confident to make more changes to the article without overlooking anything useful which another editor might have added in the past, but which was deleted. I also wanted to know if there was ever any particular controversy in this article. In case anyone else wants a summary of how this article developed, here are some events that I thought were significant.

In reviewing I spot checked small edits and looked more closely at anything which added or removed more content. I think this has been a stable article with good quality Wikipedia editor moderation and watching. There has never been a major controversy. Anyone should feel encouraged to develop this content knowing that the content in it now has been reviewed by the Wikipedia community and that nothing major ever submitted as been overlooked. Even minor edits seem to have been checked regularly by many editors, and there have been multiple people to review the entire article over the years. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Was this done as part of a school project? It is generally not necessary to perform an extensive review of the entire history of an article before making edits to it. I also would not expect an article about the dishwasher to be highly contentious or a source of controversy. Some guy (talk) 20:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Some guy I work for Consumer Reports, a nonprofit organization which does product testing and which provides information to consumers about products like dishwashers and dishwasher detergent. I wanted to look more deeply than normal at this article to understand the development life of an example article about an appliance. I am exploring what kind of information my organization might have for developing this article.
I was thinking of removing everything that is not backed by a citation. Right now there are two problem templates here - "contains original research" and "needs more citations". I would not normally be so thorough but this article got about 180,000 views in 2016 so it is rather popular. If I remove the content without a citation, then that could be ~60% of the content here, so I wanted to be more sure that I do not remove content which was ever mismanaged by, for example, losing citations to sources somehow in the past. I thought your 2011 edit was interesting because you also removed unsourced information. When I looked at the edit history, I thought you made one of the bolder and more thoughtful edits in this article's history, and so I made a note about what you did.
Even though I want the article to be backed by good sources, I also do not want a bare article. I am thinking about what sorts of sections should be in an article on a product class and where I can get the basic information. Thanks for what you did in 2011 and thanks for checking in again now. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bluerasberry No problem, thanks for your hard work and good luck with your improvements! Some guy (talk) 19:49, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions

[edit]
How about rather than being a deletionist, you work on those citations that you are demanding be present for every sentence? Finding good citations is a lot of work and many people don't want to bother because it often requires paid access to journals and engineering libraries and technical documents that are not freely available. We are not being paid or reimbursed for trying to do quality citation searches on our own private time and money, so it is understandable that citations may be lacking. You are apparently a professional and probably an engineer so it is likely you have access to these technical documents and libraries that most of us here do not. -- DMahalko (talk) 16:00, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DMahalko The problem with unsourced material is that there is no way for other users to know if it is accurate. You might write a very long, detailed, and accurate description of how something works, but if there are no sources then there is no way for a reader to know whether the information is accurate, full of mistakes, or downright made up. If you are concerned about using your unpaid free time writing material and then having it deleted, I encourage you to only write new material when you have reliable sources to back it. However, you should be aware that even well-sourced material can be revised, restructured, or rewritten by other users, and there is always the possibility that your hard work will be lost over time. This is a normal part of the editing process at Wikipedia and just something we have to accept when we spend our time here. I am not an appliance professional or engineer and wouldn't easily be able to cite technical sources; Bluerasberry mentioned that he is exploring what kind of information his organization can lend to the article, so perhaps he can help. Some guy (talk) 20:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@DMahalko: I am just noticing your comment now.
I am not sure what you are thinking, but you seem cautious, so I will try to talk some things through. You call me a WP:deletionist. I am not sure what you see that I deleted.
Here is how I edited this dishwasher article - I hardly did any deletions here, except that I copy/pasted content verbatim to dishwasher detergent and dishwasher salt. Like any other wiki editor, I do not want to lose good content, but also I felt that the cleaning agents and the machine were separate concepts and that the information about cleaners could take their own articles.
I do not think I deleted anything from the dishwasher detergent article.
I do not have library access through work. I use the The Wikipedia Library, the Wikipedia resource exchange, and sometimes the local public library (United States) to get access to some technical documents. I get more access to sources than many people but it is still not easy for anyone to search all the sources they want. In all my looking around I did not identify any fundamental text or research paper about dishwasher fundamentals.
I do advocate that people post citations for all the content they add to Wikipedia because I feel like citations prove that Wikipedia's information is accurate. For myself, I always add citations. I would not propose deletion of sentences unless that I thought they were inaccurate or WP:UNDUE as WP:OR. If I do delete something, I would bring it to the talk page to ask for other opinions. Any content added to Wikipedia is valuable and should not be lost without making a way for anyone to find it and reconsider it.
Thanks for the feedback. I know that Wikipedia is mostly volunteer. I am doing my own experiments here to try to bring more expert information into Wikipedia, like for example by asking people at academic conferences to edit Wikipedia. It is challenging to say how experts should interact with the wiki community. I want everyone to have fun and make the encyclopedia. If you have any specific advice for how you think I or anyone else from an expert organization should edit then I would appreciate hearing whatever you have to say. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dishwasher. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:43, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

REF 12

[edit]

Does not work. his is probably what ylu want.

https://www.homestratosphere.com/dishwasher-history/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arydberg (talk • contribs) 13:30, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned

[edit]
  • Nowhere in this article is there a mention of fat, which is very effectively cleaned off frypans by the hot spray, and only becomes a problem years later when enough has coalesced to form a blockage in the pipes under your house, not mentioning any contribution to the fatberg further on, which SEP.
  • No mention anywhere of the flexible hose that connects your machine to the water supply. They have a braided outer to prevent rupture due to water hammer that occurs several times during the wash cycle, but does not prevent development of a pinhole (at least with the washing machine you have a tap to turn off when you go on holidays).
  • Also not mentioned is the amount of cutlery and crockery you need to meet the "environmental benefits", which are predicated on full loads (with no sneaking out a few items) as against a sinkfull of scalding-hot water after every meal. Or the storage space you sacrifice for the machine. Or the length of time before the "squeaky clean" plates are no longer sterile (if that is a real problem).

Yes, we do have one, so this is all WP:OR Doug butler (talk) 00:50, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Discrepency

[edit]

I'm reading the article and under the history section there's either a grammar mistake or some part of the story is missing.

Basically, it states that Europe's first electric washing machine was invented in 1929 and consequently manufactured. But the next paragraph states that the dishwasher was, in fact, invented in 1926, similarly in Europe.

So these statements are clashing, in my opinion unless there's some cultural difference I'm missing here as an American.

P.S. Why does it say Europe's first electric washing machine? Shouldn't it say the world's first washing machine? 198.232.116.14 (talk) 18:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And then the advertisement for electric dishwashers is dated to 1917! 198.232.116.14 (talk) 18:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dishwasher&oldid=1210864837"