An off-grid, flat-packable washing machine
Posted by ohjeez 1 day ago
Comments
Comment by adiabatichottub 1 day ago
PS: As an example, note the sheet-metal construction. In an industrialized country we would laser-cut all these parts. If you wanted to make this in an area with less infrastructure you might use a template and carbide gas torch to cut out the large shapes, then a hand punch to make the screw holes. More labor intensive, but still doable.
Comment by PeterStuer 1 day ago
Comment by Spivak 20 hours ago
Comment by 20after4 19 hours ago
The lid safety switch which prevents you from disabling the lid lock. It has a complex design with lots of anti-tamper circuitry. It's highly prone to failure and very expensive to replace compared to the price of the whole machine.
Comment by jayanmn 23 hours ago
https://www.thewashingmachineproject.org/
That alone will be revolutionary.
Comment by robtherobber 1 hour ago
Comment by infinet 14 hours ago
Metal work seems very expensive in some places. In a 2025 paper [1], a cooking pot looks like several aluminium rings welded together, about 50 cm tall and 70 cm in diameter, is 416 USD in Ghana, which is one of the destinations of this hand-crank washing machine.
1. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266711312...
Comment by robtherobber 1 hour ago
Comment by infinet 22 hours ago
One more thing, the water is not always easy to get in poor places. It is often much easier to carry laundry to a well, creak, or river than transport water to home. The path to the water sources may be a narrow trail often going up and down hills, so even with wheels on the machine, it is impractical to drag the machine to the water.
Comment by abdullahkhalids 21 hours ago
What you do is fill it with water. Add soap. Then put in first load of clothes and run it for 15 minutes. Then take out the clothes and put them in a tub. Repeat with second load of clothes in same soapy water. Once, all loads are done, then put in fresh water. Run all loads through it to get the soap out. You are done.
(Relatively) richer people might have another machine that acts as a spinner. Otherwise, you just hang up the wet clothes outside.
Comment by codedokode 19 hours ago
Comment by ErroneousBosh 21 hours ago
The automatic timer part is almost certainly the cheapest part of any washing machine.
Comment by blacksmith_tb 20 hours ago
Comment by ErroneousBosh 19 hours ago
Comment by 20after4 19 hours ago
Comment by ErroneousBosh 6 hours ago
Comment by bgnn 19 hours ago
Growing up in a developing country in 90s we used to use this type of machine for bigger loads because our normal front loader machine was only 6kg capacity. This + a bathtub was the way to go for washing the blankets, bedsheets etc. It costs now sth like 20-30 usd.
Comment by makeitdouble 1 day ago
https://youtu.be/iMOkxrdP6kY?si=HWf_Sb-zwk5Vi8ES
(sold for about 10,000 yens https://item.rakuten.co.jp/thanko/000000003846/)
The metal design in the article is still more flexible and durable. I also assumed the Japanese version would be targeted at disaster situations and/or remote mountain areas and be more repairable, but the cost saving part seems to be a major selling point.
Comment by vanderZwan 18 hours ago
Comment by supportengineer 1 day ago
Comment by makeitdouble 1 day ago
The clothes falling down from the upper half is described on the slides, so I assume the rotation isn't fast enough for the clothes to stick to the walls, or it has an elliptical rotor to make sure there a speed difference ?
(edited as I'm not sure how it exactly works)
Comment by dtgriscom 23 hours ago
Comment by supportengineer 9 hours ago
Comment by kjellsbells 23 hours ago
Comment by tehwebguy 1 day ago
Comment by prirun 1 day ago
Comment by tehwebguy 20 hours ago
Comment by firebot 1 day ago
Comment by temp8830 21 hours ago
Comment by 20after4 19 hours ago
Comment by araes 1 day ago
Probably sell well in a lot of developed world markets for people who just want to limit their electricity use, live away from the grid, have less reliance on complicated electronics, or minimize money use in an expensive society.
Comment by SoftTalker 1 day ago
Oh and separate your laundry. Don't throw towels, blankets, and clothes in all at the same time.
Comment by bgbntty2 1 day ago
As for separating colors - in my life I've had a piece of clothing stain other clothes 2 or 3 times. Once I put some white shirts and they came out pink because of another red shirt. Funny thing is, the pink was very uniform, so it looked as if the shirts were originally pink.
If my washing machine breaks, I'll get a second hand one. If I get a brand new washing machine, it will have to have a manual mode where I can set the desired program manually. For example, what is "towel setting"? If I can't see and modify the setting (e.g., A temperature for B minutes at C RPM, then D temp for E min for F RPM, etc.), I wouldn't use it.
Comment by SoftTalker 1 day ago
If you wash items of different weights, fabrics, etc. together the load can get unbalanced more easily. Such as as single heavy towel or jacket in with a bunch of light synthetic items.
The "towels" setting uses warmer water and faster spin speed but an overall shorter cycle (at least on my washer) compared to the "normal" cycle. This probably presumes that towels usually are made of cotton and aren't very dirty.
I agree that a fully manual mode would be nice. My washer (LG) doesn't have that but by knowing what the various cycles and optional settings (e.g. soil level, extra rinse) do you can get pretty close to what you want.
Comment by dylan604 21 hours ago
Sadly, with fast fashion, we've regressed to the point places like Shein/Fashion Nova sell pool attire vs swim suit that is not meant to get wet due to the dyes not holding when wet.
Comment by dzhiurgis 1 day ago
Enter "why wifi on your washing machine makes sense"
Comment by butvacuum 21 hours ago
Comment by bgbntty2 10 hours ago
Comment by jopsen 1 day ago
I was always confused doing laundry in the US. Warm cycle or cold cycle?
I have 30C, 40C and 60C depending on what I'm washing. I probably have more programs, but never use them. For pillows and stuff I adjust spinning, from 1200 to 400 RPM. And I use special short, low rpm handwash program for wool.
(Side loaded ofcourse, that way the dryer can be on top)
Comment by SoftTalker 20 hours ago
Comment by dzhiurgis 1 day ago
Top loader uselessness is my pet peeve.
Front loaders (just like one in video) wring clothes as they spin. The result difference is day and night.
Comment by sarchertech 23 hours ago
Comment by dzhiurgis 16 hours ago
Comment by fc417fc802 1 day ago
Also if you pay close attention you'll notice that things don't come fully clean (old machines didn't either) just "clean enough". Throw some well used dog bedding in with your shirts and this fact might become more readily noticable. So it makes sense to wash like-use with like-use for that reason alone.
Comment by tgsovlerkhgsel 22 hours ago
Comment by fc417fc802 19 hours ago
Comment by bgbntty2 10 hours ago
Comment by noosphr 1 day ago
Wash.
Is clean?
Yes: put in drier.
No: GOTO wash.
Comment by tehwebguy 20 hours ago
Comment by tgsovlerkhgsel 22 hours ago
Comment by ornornor 1 day ago
Same thing for dishwashers, the “eco” program is often not the best especially if you have an “auto” one.
Comment by tgsovlerkhgsel 22 hours ago
Comment by LUmBULtERA 1 day ago
Comment by ornornor 1 day ago
But for machines that have a table showing power and water use, it’s never the most efficient one (in all the ones I checked). There is always a better program, it’s usually called “auto”.
Maybe it’s different in North America, idk what the rules are there.
Comment by giantg2 1 day ago
Comment by matthewmacleod 1 day ago
Regulation 1016/2010 (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2010/1016/oj/eng) is the thing that establishes the various requirements for home dishwashers. It's pretty straightforward (most of the content establishing how efficiency is calculated). It basically just requires the default program to be "suitable to clean normally soiled tableware and that it is the most efficient programme in terms of its combined energy and water consumption for that type of tableware".
I could imagine some issues with how these numbers are calculated that reward "less efficient" devices or something like that, but it's pretty hard to figure out what that could be. Bit of a mystery!
Comment by PeterStuer 1 day ago
Comment by dzhiurgis 1 day ago
Comment by ornornor 1 day ago
Eco is just the standard program they have to ship and must use for the energy efficiency rating.
Comment by tgsovlerkhgsel 22 hours ago
Comment by ornornor 19 hours ago
Whereas with other programs they can adjust the settings and times to make it wash better AND use less water/energy.
Comment by dmurray 19 hours ago
Comment by f6v 23 hours ago
Comment by syntaxing 1 day ago
Comment by frompdx 1 day ago
Comment by thatfrenchguy 1 day ago
Comment by jihadjihad 1 day ago
Comment by bob1029 1 day ago
Comment by AngryData 1 day ago
Comment by fc417fc802 1 day ago
But still I'm inclined to agree with the general sentiment of not micro optimizing things in ways that make people's lives more difficult.
Comment by adiabatichottub 1 day ago
Comment by fc417fc802 1 day ago
Comment by noosphr 1 day ago
Comment by bryanbuckley 1 day ago
Comment by giantg2 1 day ago
Comment by makeitdouble 1 day ago
I understand they had a very good idea to begin with, and more importantly their heart in the right place And then further made it better with more input.
Reading the comments here the better solution for us is probably not to go back to "dumb" washing machines, but to regain control of how these machines are designed, for who and for what.
I'm thinking about Linux, which can be stripped down as small and nimble as needed to run a single board micro controller, or be large as needed to have everything to run an enterprise service. Being able to do the same with a washing machine would absolutely change their usefulness and place in our society.
I don't know how it could start, perhaps with an IKEA washing machine that actually needs assembly, for users to then tweak the parts, start comminities so we get at least in a KALLAX situation ?
Comment by xbmcuser 1 day ago
Comment by nataliste 1 day ago
I lived off-grid and did all of our laundry, a family of four (including a baby in cloth diapers), by hand, even in the winter (below -20F).
You know what works as well? A wash tub and a stick. Or a bucket and plunger. Or a posser if you're really fancy. I used a 30 gallon garbage can and a hand-carved posser. In mild or hot climates you can just stomp on it.
Same principle: Draw water, add cleanser, agitate for a couple of minutes, let it soak, return at some time in the future, agitate again. Remove laundry and let drip dry while you draw fresh water (mangles and spinners speed this up and are more effective, but not necessary). Squeeze wet laundry at lowest point where water has gathered. Repeat entire process with clean water, then lay it out in the sun prioritizing any sides with stains.
The secret sauce of clean laundry isn't how you agitate the laundry. It's just time and chemistry.
Water access, cleansing agents, and patience are fundamentally more important than providing "revolutionary" contraptions. It's the same difference between teaching people about no-knead bread and giving them hand-cranked stand-mixers. One solves the need for intensive manual labor and the other doesn't, but introduces a new point of failure.
And even importing enzyme-containing detergent is unnecessary. Plant ash (a source of alkali) and aged urine (a source of ammonia) are all you need to create what's known as bucking lye which cleans just as effectively and uses byproducts that they themselves produce by default. Residual stains are removed via UV from sun drying.
There's absolutely no need to complicate this.
Comment by nchmy 1 day ago
So much is possible if you just look at how nature, in one way or another, can do the work for you. No knead bread (or, better, periodic stretch and folds over the course of a few hours) is a perfect example. Or making a composting toilet/latrine by just adding sawdust, ash etc. Or simple and cheap rocket stoves that burn the smoke. Or cover crops and cultivating soil structure and microbes. Etc
The key for what you shared (and, i suppose this machine) is how little agitation you actually need, and how there's plenty of ways to do it with no fancy equipment. Can you share more about your experience, or even share some links, about the amount of agitation needed, how "cleaning" actually works (you said time and chemistry - but how?), and how to make effective, low-cost detergents anywhere?
Thanks!
Comment by ffuxlpff 6 hours ago
Comment by nataliste 1 day ago
Take the rocket stove as an example. It's an "improvement" over three stone and hearth fires, right? Less particulate in the air, less smoke, less ash, and more efficient use of fuel, all good things, right? Everyone has to work less to gather fuel, everyone's lungs are happier, and so on.
But not quite.
The rocket stove reduces ash yield, reducing one universally useful by-product. The rocket stove minimizes smoke production, so instead of creosote deposits on the walls acting as a general biocidal agent and lowering air humidity, there's now high humidity with exposed walls, an ideal climate for mold growth. Ever wonder why traditional pit-houses and earth-lodges rarely had issues with mold and damp and typically annually fumigated their entire homes with smoke? Or why women in some Northern and Eastern Europe peoples gave birth in saunas even prior to the advent of germ theory? The answer is smoke is useful, not only for creating relatively sterile environments, not only from molds, but also bugs.
Chronic smoke exposure imposes real respiratory costs, but traditional societies tolerated those costs because smoke simultaneously provided insect control, food preservation, fumigation, and moisture regulation. Interventions that remove smoke without deliberately replacing those functions often trade one health burden for several others. And the simplest way to achieve all of those functions is the same way humans have been doing it for hundreds of thousands of years.
The rocket stove minimizes fuel use, so instead of heating and cooking, you just end up with cooking (and note that the rocket mass heater doesn't solve this problem, which is just banking heat rather than using it more efficiently). This separation "works" in hotter climates, but at that point, why are you cooking indoors to begin with? And again, the reduction in smoke makes insects (namely mosquitoes) much more likely to discern where breathing humans are and able to reach within biting distance.
Generally, traditional practices often encode systems-level knowledge that modern interventions ignore. Diffusion of traditional practices will generally be better than trying to invent a better mousetrap.
As far as cleaning goes, as in the saponification and misculation of fats, the gist is to treat a fat with an alkali with agitation and time. Heat speeds up the process (hot process), but enough time completes the reaction (cold process). Soap and detergents are just rapid versions of this process, but aren't at all necessary, so long as you have water and ash.
This understanding is called the sinner's circle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinner%27s_circle
It's the same reason when washing your hands you're "supposed to" sing happy birthday twice while agitating your hands. The soap is engaging in a chemical reaction with the fats on the your hands that takes more time because the human body can only tolerate so hot a temperature of water. You can use cold water and wait longer and have the same effect. The same thing is true of washing clothes, dishes, or whole bodies.
The Romans understood this. The baths were alkaline. They rubbed themselves with olive oil, used a stirgil (something like a frosting knife) to squeegee off the oil, then went in the pool. The alkali in the warm water combined with the residual olive oil and basically creates soap on your skin that is then rubbed off.
It's the same reason that Romans were able to have lily-white togas despite not having modern enzymatic cleaners and chlorine-based bleaches. They had lant and wood-ash alkali:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lant
In short, my experience is that I've improved my own life by observing what the time-rich resource-poor peoples of the world do rather than the inverse.
Comment by infinet 14 hours ago
Saving fuel is a matter of life and death in the ancient world. Winter is brutal to the poor largely because gathering fuel is difficult, especially in areas that have supported large population for centuries.
Comment by nchmy 19 hours ago
You've evidently never left your ivory tower to live in a sheet metal (or worse) shack, which a significant proportion of the world's poorest try to eek out an existence in.
And especially haven't carried the load of smoke-fueled, sleep-deprived women who exist to serve as household appliances.
There's so much so disgracefully wrong with what you said that i don't even know where to begin with setting the record straight.
I'll simply point out the absurdity of saying that there's wisdom in filling homes, eyes and lungs with creosote (and worse) when more people die from smoke inhalation than malaria and aids combined. And saying people shouldn't reduce their biomass consumption 4-fold, which saves forests, erosion, co2, and extremely limited and time/money - just so they can have a bit more ash to make some lye with.
Go live in extreme poverty somewhere for a while - it'll do you some good.
Comment by ffuxlpff 7 hours ago
Comment by aljgz 1 day ago
For many reasons, I expect to see a lot of new products and solutions going against the main trends of locking down the user, planned obsolence, rent seeking from buyers, and limiting their choices.
Imagining a company shipping the home appliances equivalent to Frame.work laptops: open, reparable, hackable, and upgradable. I would happily connect them to my home wifi, program them the way I want, and have one hub that allows me to monitor health, upgrade firmware, control functionality.
Comment by cocoto 1 day ago
Comment by sa-code 15 hours ago
Comment by teruakohatu 1 day ago
I think within no time it will be modded with motors, maybe salvaged from broken electrical appliances and it will come full circle.
Comment by throwaway173738 1 day ago
Comment by AlotOfReading 1 day ago
Comment by teddy-smith 56 minutes ago
Comment by makeitdouble 1 day ago
It might be down a few hours every day, or completely cut for days after storms or infra degradation, or the current fluctuate too much for delicate electronics. Many places could also get hold of a gasoline generator.
These kind of variations could require more thinking on the design, but being able to use electricity when available and hand power when needed would be the best.
Ideally the people on the ground thinking about their specific issues and having open ways to adapt the machine for it opens the door for many kind of evolutions.
Comment by xnx 1 day ago
Comment by Tarsul 1 day ago
Comment by ChrisMarshallNY 1 day ago
Designing stuff for real humans to use, is really difficult, and really humbling.
In my experience, defense contractors really have to take the user context into account. It can be life or death. I used to work for one, and seeing the stuff come back from the field, was a lesson in humility.
Comment by christkv 1 day ago
Comment by hn_throwaway_99 1 day ago
Comment by ungreased0675 1 day ago
Comment by Animats 1 day ago
Comment by markbao 1 day ago
Comment by constantcrying 21 hours ago
"Step forward the ‘fully biodegradable’ shoe that leaves no footprint" - Hilariously awful idea. Which sane person wants shoes which are designed to literally disintegrate?
"The smartphone for children that blocks porn" - AI being used to surveil children phones for nudity. (???)
"Solar project reimagines railway network as clean energy lifelines " Literally Solar roadways again. Which is a idea worthy of so much ridicule.
Comment by rsyring 12 hours ago
The article mentions that all detection happens on the device, and the manufacturer doesn't collect any user data. I have no idea if that's true, but they are at least aware of the risks and saying they are addressing them.
Comment by burnt-resistor 19 hours ago
Washing Machine SCAM EXPOSED! The Truth About SEALED Drums: Naming & Shaming
Multiple manufacturers (i.e., Bosch, Miele, Siemens, AEG, Zanussi, Beko, Hoover, Hotpoint, Indesit) no longer offering split drums and individual components, instead sealing drums with heat welding and bolts, and selling only very expensive assemblies that cost almost as much as a new appliance.
Video is by an independent appliance repair shop owner in the UK who tears apart old and new appliances showing the difference in parts.
Comment by mythrwy 19 hours ago
I got something called a "breathing washer" which looks kind of like a toilet plunger and a big tote which I put in the bathtub for use. These breathing washers work really well and in my opinion get your clothes much cleaner than agitating and spinning.
Then I got something called a "spin dryer" that is basically a small centrifuge that spins a lot faster than a regular washing machine and leaves fabrics like light polyester nearly dry coming out.
Finally I got an inflatable plugin dryer.
This setup was more work than a regular washing machine but maybe not more work than bundling up clothes and taking to the laundrymat and sitting there for an hour or two. One thing I really liked about it was short time to process. I could have washed and dried clothes much faster than a conventional washer/dryer setup.
I've been in a house for a long time now and admittedly having a washer and dryer is much nicer and less work, but that setup was acceptable and much better than laundromats for whatever it's worth if someone is in a similar situation.
Comment by flanked-evergl 21 hours ago
Comment by hiddencost 1 day ago
Comment by petermcneeley 1 day ago
Comment by mystraline 1 day ago
Comment by tomcatfish 1 day ago
> Enter Navjot Sawhney, who founded the UK-based social enterprise The Washing Machine Project (TWMP) to tackle this, and has now shipped almost 500 of his hand-crank Divya machines to 13 countries, including Mexico, Ghana, Iraq *and the US.*
Comment by throwaway173738 1 day ago
Comment by tbrownaw 1 day ago
Comment by denkmoon 1 day ago
Comment by Brian_K_White 1 day ago
Comment by Forgeties79 22 hours ago
Comment by worik 18 hours ago
Good people in the UK spending their time dreaming up solutions to "problems" far away
The people who live "far away" have agency and can solve their own problems, if given the chance.
Westerners do not know better, are not better, and generally should mind their own business. It would be much be much better to work on local problems in their own societies
Comment by NedF 1 day ago
Comment by superultra 1 day ago
Comment by lostlogin 1 day ago