Is there any way to plug a clothes dryer on the 220V oven plug?

Hi, I was wondering if someone could help me. I have only one 220V plug (for the oven) in my appartment and I would like to use an oven and a
clothes dryer. Would it be safe to plug the dryer on the oven plug? Is there any adaptor I could use? Thanks.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

The problem is your dryer needs 30a overcurrent protection and the oven circuit is probably 40 or 50a.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 08:06:04 -0500 snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:
| wrote: | |>Hi, |>I was wondering if someone could help me. I have only one 220V plug |>(for the oven) in my appartment and I would like to use an oven and a |>clothes dryer. Would it be safe to plug the dryer on the oven plug? |>Is there any adaptor I could use? |>Thanks. | The problem is your dryer needs 30a overcurrent protection and the | oven circuit is probably 40 or 50a.
I wish they would lower that requirement. Sure, it would annoy people that want to overheat their clothes. But over 3840 watts to dry clothes? These things are electricity hogs. Too bad there is too much politics going on between two different fundamentally corrupt political parties in the USA for anyone to be able to get a requirement into the energy bill in Congress to lower the standard clothes dryer power needs. Try today to even find one that can run on a 20 amp circuit.
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 14 Dec 2007 14:12:11 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote:

It is simply physics. You have to evaporate "X" amount of water. If you dropped the power used per hour you would have to use it longer.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com says...

...wasting even more power (the motor will run longer).
--
Keith

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| snipped-for-privacy@aol.com says...
|> |> >I wish they would lower that requirement. Sure, it would annoy people |> >that want to overheat their clothes. But over 3840 watts to dry clothes? |> >These things are electricity hogs. Too bad there is too much politics |> >going on between two different fundamentally corrupt political parties in |> >the USA for anyone to be able to get a requirement into the energy bill |> >in Congress to lower the standard clothes dryer power needs. Try today |> >to even find one that can run on a 20 amp circuit. |> |> |> It is simply physics. You have to evaporate "X" amount of water. If |> you dropped the power used per hour you would have to use it longer. | | ...wasting even more power (the motor will run longer).
There is an optimal rate. The motor can only run at a fixed speed to allows the clothes to tumble properly. Too fast and they don't fall in time to avoid just following the drum around in a circle. At this rate of tumbling, there is only so much effective air flow that can be used optimally. That dictates the heat rate. Yes, you can push it to dry faster at a higher temperature. But it is less optimal when you do that.
Modern dryers are more efficient than dryers of decades ago when the 30 amp "standard" came about. Back then, the dryers lost heat in a number of ways, and were not operating at maximum air flow efficiency. You could feel the outside of the dryer being hot; that's wasted heat. They run cooler on the outside today, so less power is needed for that optimal temperate and evaporation rate.
And the motor is actually a small fraction of the power involved, especally when on the high setting. By simply eliminating the high setting, you can have a dryer that can still have 2 or 3 heat levels, or use the automatic evaporation sensing mode, and never need more than 16 amps at 240 volts (with the motor figured it wired to 240 volts instead of 120 volts).
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
says...

the motor speed is irrelevant. Lower power implies longer drying, which means the motor will run longer. The heater will take the same energy but the motor more.

Ok, but that's irrelevant to your point. You whined that they should be using lower power now. Power isn't the issue, rather energy. They are.

Good grief!
--
Keith

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| says...
|> |> |> |> >I wish they would lower that requirement. Sure, it would annoy people |> |> >that want to overheat their clothes. But over 3840 watts to dry clothes? |> |> >These things are electricity hogs. Too bad there is too much politics |> |> >going on between two different fundamentally corrupt political parties in |> |> >the USA for anyone to be able to get a requirement into the energy bill |> |> >in Congress to lower the standard clothes dryer power needs. Try today |> |> >to even find one that can run on a 20 amp circuit. |> |> |> |> |> |> It is simply physics. You have to evaporate "X" amount of water. If |> |> you dropped the power used per hour you would have to use it longer. |> | |> | ...wasting even more power (the motor will run longer). |> |> There is an optimal rate. The motor can only run at a fixed speed to |> allows the clothes to tumble properly. Too fast and they don't fall |> in time to avoid just following the drum around in a circle. At this |> rate of tumbling, there is only so much effective air flow that can be |> used optimally. That dictates the heat rate. Yes, you can push it to |> dry faster at a higher temperature. But it is less optimal when you do |> that. | | the motor speed is irrelevant. Lower power implies longer drying, | which means the motor will run longer. The heater will take the same | energy but the motor more.
The motor speed is very relevant. If you could make the clothes tumble around in the air faster, then blowing the air through faster and running more heat would make the clothes dry faster in the same proportion. But you need to have all of these elements going at the advanced rate to make things work equally well in that lesser period of time. The problem is the motor speed for the drum CANNOT be increased because the clothes will not tumble through the air at other than a small range of speed. Ever wonder why dryers do NOT come with adjustable tumble speed (other than the ones with a dual belt position to adjust for 50 Hz vs. 60 Hz power to keep the tumbler at the same speed in all countries)?
|> Modern dryers are more efficient than dryers of decades ago when the 30 |> amp "standard" came about. Back then, the dryers lost heat in a number |> of ways, and were not operating at maximum air flow efficiency. You |> could feel the outside of the dryer being hot; that's wasted heat. They |> run cooler on the outside today, so less power is needed for that optimal |> temperate and evaporation rate. | | Ok, but that's irrelevant to your point. You whined that they should | be using lower power now. Power isn't the issue, rather energy. They | are.
The ability to turn the heat up beyond the optimal level for total energy efficiency should be discouraged. I don't want to prohibit it, just make it necessary for someone to go an extra step to get the higher heat if they really want it.
|> And the motor is actually a small fraction of the power involved, especally |> when on the high setting. By simply eliminating the high setting, you can |> have a dryer that can still have 2 or 3 heat levels, or use the automatic |> evaporation sensing mode, and never need more than 16 amps at 240 volts (with |> the motor figured it wired to 240 volts instead of 120 volts). | | Good grief!
I think you will find that the greatest efficiency of a dryer is actually the lowest or 2nd to lowest heat setting (depending on actual values of those settings). What I want is for dryers to be made available on the market that people can choose which are made for just this lower heat level that is most efficient. Such a dryer would do with smaller elements and smaller electrical wiring and switches. The plug would be smaller, too, using NEMA 6-20P or NEMA 6-15P instead of NEMA 14-30P. The circuit wiring for new work would also be less costly. People would save money on the product. Some people would save money on the circuit wiring. People would save money on their electrical bill. Everyone would be better off. But if you really want to toast your clothes and your electric bill, then go ahead and buy one that has a double heating element and uses a big NEMA 14-60P plug, ceramic tumbler, and microwave thermal source!
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
says...

Not to this discussion it's not.

Irrelevant the the discussion at hand. If you'll remember, you were claiming that modern dryers used way too much power. You can reduce the power, but the time will increase. The motor will run longer, wasting power.

They already do. It's called "normal" mode (vs. "permanent press"). You're barking up the wrong tree.

Good grief!
--
Keith

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
krw wrote:

Phil is as dense as DimBulb. :(
--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 23:25:30 -0500 Michael A. Terrell
| krw wrote: |> |> Good grief! | | | Phil is as dense as DimBulb. :(
Come on. You can be more creative that that.
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| says...
|> | says...
|> |> |> |> |> |> >I wish they would lower that requirement. Sure, it would annoy people |> |> |> >that want to overheat their clothes. But over 3840 watts to dry clothes? |> |> |> >These things are electricity hogs. Too bad there is too much politics |> |> |> >going on between two different fundamentally corrupt political parties in |> |> |> >the USA for anyone to be able to get a requirement into the energy bill |> |> |> >in Congress to lower the standard clothes dryer power needs. Try today |> |> |> >to even find one that can run on a 20 amp circuit. |> |> |> |> |> |> |> |> |> It is simply physics. You have to evaporate "X" amount of water. If |> |> |> you dropped the power used per hour you would have to use it longer. |> |> | |> |> | ...wasting even more power (the motor will run longer). |> |> |> |> There is an optimal rate. The motor can only run at a fixed speed to |> |> allows the clothes to tumble properly. Too fast and they don't fall |> |> in time to avoid just following the drum around in a circle. At this |> |> rate of tumbling, there is only so much effective air flow that can be |> |> used optimally. That dictates the heat rate. Yes, you can push it to |> |> dry faster at a higher temperature. But it is less optimal when you do |> |> that. |> | |> | the motor speed is irrelevant. Lower power implies longer drying, |> | which means the motor will run longer. The heater will take the same |> | energy but the motor more. |> |> The motor speed is very relevant. | | Not to this discussion it's not.
Sure it is. If the motor speed could be varied to match the thermal emission rate, then it would not be relevant. But since it cannot be made to match, it therefore does affect the efficiency curve that is a function of what thermal rate (temperature driven) is involved.
|> If you could make the clothes tumble |> around in the air faster, then blowing the air through faster and running |> more heat would make the clothes dry faster in the same proportion. But |> you need to have all of these elements going at the advanced rate to make |> things work equally well in that lesser period of time. The problem is |> the motor speed for the drum CANNOT be increased because the clothes will |> not tumble through the air at other than a small range of speed. Ever |> wonder why dryers do NOT come with adjustable tumble speed (other than |> the ones with a dual belt position to adjust for 50 Hz vs. 60 Hz power |> to keep the tumbler at the same speed in all countries)? | | Irrelevant the the discussion at hand. If you'll remember, you were | claiming that modern dryers used way too much power. You can reduce | the power, but the time will increase. The motor will run longer, | wasting power.
Or you can increase the heat, and while the whole running time will be less, it will NOT be inversely proportional to the temperature difference used. An increased temperature _will_ be a less efficient process.
There is a temperature which is the optimal rate, in terms of total energy used to complete the drying, and it is NOT the highest temperature position.
|> |> Modern dryers are more efficient than dryers of decades ago when the 30 |> |> amp "standard" came about. Back then, the dryers lost heat in a number |> |> of ways, and were not operating at maximum air flow efficiency. You |> |> could feel the outside of the dryer being hot; that's wasted heat. They |> |> run cooler on the outside today, so less power is needed for that optimal |> |> temperate and evaporation rate. |> | |> | Ok, but that's irrelevant to your point. You whined that they should |> | be using lower power now. Power isn't the issue, rather energy. They |> | are. |> |> The ability to turn the heat up beyond the optimal level for total energy |> efficiency should be discouraged. I don't want to prohibit it, just make |> it necessary for someone to go an extra step to get the higher heat if |> they really want it. | | They already do. It's called "normal" mode (vs. "permanent press"). | You're barking up the wrong tree.
The "permanent press" mode is there to continue the drum tumbling after the heat is gone to ensure the clothes are not in a constant position during cooldown. This is used to reduce the wrinkles that would result if cooldown were to take place with the tumbling stopped. It uses more energy to have this effect, but it is necessary to get the correct effect.
|> |> And the motor is actually a small fraction of the power involved, especally |> |> when on the high setting. By simply eliminating the high setting, you can |> |> have a dryer that can still have 2 or 3 heat levels, or use the automatic |> |> evaporation sensing mode, and never need more than 16 amps at 240 volts (with |> |> the motor figured it wired to 240 volts instead of 120 volts). |> | |> | Good grief! |> |> I think you will find that the greatest efficiency of a dryer is actually |> the lowest or 2nd to lowest heat setting (depending on actual values of |> those settings). What I want is for dryers to be made available on the |> market that people can choose which are made for just this lower heat |> level that is most efficient. Such a dryer would do with smaller elements |> and smaller electrical wiring and switches. The plug would be smaller, too, |> using NEMA 6-20P or NEMA 6-15P instead of NEMA 14-30P. The circuit wiring |> for new work would also be less costly. People would save money on the |> product. Some people would save money on the circuit wiring. People would |> save money on their electrical bill. Everyone would be better off. But if |> you really want to toast your clothes and your electric bill, then go ahead |> and buy one that has a double heating element and uses a big NEMA 14-60P |> plug, ceramic tumbler, and microwave thermal source! | | Good grief!
That kind of response is not very informative.
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 11:19:38 -0500 snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote: | On 14 Dec 2007 14:12:11 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote: | |>I wish they would lower that requirement. Sure, it would annoy people |>that want to overheat their clothes. But over 3840 watts to dry clothes? |>These things are electricity hogs. Too bad there is too much politics |>going on between two different fundamentally corrupt political parties in |>the USA for anyone to be able to get a requirement into the energy bill |>in Congress to lower the standard clothes dryer power needs. Try today |>to even find one that can run on a 20 amp circuit. | | | It is simply physics. You have to evaporate "X" amount of water. If | you dropped the power used per hour you would have to use it longer.
That's not quite true. You can only tumble the clothes just so fast. More heat doesn't work as effectively in removing the water if there is more heat than the air flow rate allows evaporation of. Sure, there is a higher evaporation rate. But it is not linear with respect to the power used. If you pump twice the wattage in, you do not get twice the water out, in since given time frame.
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:19:38 -0700, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote

The solution is in the washer. My friend has a Miele washer that spins the clothes at a very high speed which extracts the maximum of water from the clothes. The result: shorter drying time required.
Why all manufacturers don't design this same high-rpm spin into their washers (or why it's not required by law) is a mystery...
Dave
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:19:38 -0700, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote
| |> It is simply physics. You have to evaporate "X" amount of water. If |> you dropped the power used per hour you would have to use it longer. | | The solution is in the washer. My friend has a Miele washer that spins the | clothes at a very high speed which extracts the maximum of water from the | clothes. The result: shorter drying time required. | | Why all manufacturers don't design this same high-rpm spin into their washers | (or why it's not required by law) is a mystery...
Maybe they do. I know mine has a high spin setting. I don't know what the actual RPM is or if it matches the Miele one. But I do notice the clothers are significantly dryer if it is used. I do use it on most of my clothes.
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In article <0001HW.C38A94D60007943EF0305600
snipped-for-privacy@nothereorthere.com says...

It's available if people want to buy it (our Whirlpool is 1000RPM). Since they don't...
--
Keith

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
----------------------------

There are now many high efficiency front load washing machines on the market- all the major manufacturers have got on the bandwagon that started in Europe where energy saving became important long before it caught on here. In the early 50's, Westinghouse had a front loader which had some of the advantages of modern machines in terms of water usage but it didn't have the high spin speed. For some reason, this machine disappeared (was it more expensive to build and maintain when both energy and water were cheap? ).
--

Don Kelly snipped-for-privacy@shawcross.ca
remove the X to answer
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| ----------------------------
| |>> |>> > It is simply physics. You have to evaporate "X" amount of water. If |>> > you dropped the power used per hour you would have to use it longer. |>> |>> The solution is in the washer. My friend has a Miele washer that spins |>> the |>> clothes at a very high speed which extracts the maximum of water from the |>> clothes. The result: shorter drying time required. |>> |>> Why all manufacturers don't design this same high-rpm spin into their |>> washers |>> (or why it's not required by law) is a mystery... |> |> It's available if people want to buy it (our Whirlpool is 1000RPM). |> Since they don't... |> |> -- |> Keith | There are now many high efficiency front load washing machines on the | market- all the major manufacturers have got on the bandwagon that started | in Europe where energy saving became important long before it caught on | here. In the early 50's, Westinghouse had a front loader which had some of | the advantages of modern machines in terms of water usage but it didn't have | the high spin speed. For some reason, this machine disappeared (was it more | expensive to build and maintain when both energy and water were cheap? ).
Front loading washing machines are still more expensive to buy in the USA compared to the top loading ones. It's not quite double the cost, but it is sufficiently more so that most people will get the top loaders. What I see in that price difference is partially some increase in materials and manufacturing cost, but also partially some increase due to the smaller market size. In other words, if people did buy the front loading ones more than the top loading ones, the economy of scale would reduce the price of the front loaders, and increase the price of the top loaders, to about the same. The problem, is there will also be bottom-end competition that keeps people going for whatever is cheaper. Until there are mandates, this will probably continue to be the case.
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@shaw.ca says...

Unfortunately, the front-loaders, at least the ones sold in the US, are crap. I wouldn't (and didn't) waste the money on one. We'll see if the Whirlpool is any better.
--
Keith

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

They are not really such energy hogs, relatively speaking, when you consider that the average home dryer is in use, perhaps just one, or two (if that much) hours per day. In addition, most modern dryers have a heating element duty cycle much less than that (tied to a moisture sensor). Much of the moisture removal process take place just by air blowing through the clothes. The heating element makes this more efficient by insuring that most of that is dry air.
No, it's not as cheap or as efficient as a clothesline, but an electric dryer sure is convenient when you have a basket full of wet clothing.
Beachcomber
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.