boelle:
retrolefty:
might just be me, but going over a set temp means waste to me, i agree that i will just get the clothes done more quickly, but i like to go as precise as possible
OK, but the more pertinent question is do you pants care as much as you do?
A closed loop control based on a 'it's dry enough' sensor would be a more beneficial method and I believe some dryers have that optional control mode?
Lefty
I think for a short cycle with high heat it would not matter much, but my goal is to lower the temp and run a bit longer since rotating the drum is not the most expensive part.
Also a pid control is not that expensive, all it takes is a zero cross detection chip and a triac... i have most the idea from this page: http://www.over-engineered.com/projects/sous-vide-pid-controller/
I found a board with all the bits here: http://www.inmojo.com/store/inmojo-market/item/digital-ac-dimmer-module/My dryer is a closed loop or i would say must be since it does not blow the heated air to the outside, so there must be some way it can detect when the air is dry enough... again i think there could be a bit saved by lower temps and longer cycle...
Yes and others have stated that opinion also, but I'm still skeptical of that. I'm of the opinion that it takes a certain total BTU consumption to dry a given load of laundry, and you will pay for the same total amount energy, regardless if you run twice as long at half the temperature vs half the time at twice the temp. There must be some fundamental law of thermodynamics that can prove or disprove that. Plus the constant tumbler motor energy consumption kind of adds a bias against using longer runs. Just because some energy saving idea may seem intuitively better, does not in fact mean it is. **It should first be able to be proven mathematically, no? **