So, Tim broke the dryer the other day. His load had finished and he was taking his dry clothes out, but some articles were hanging on those shelf-like protrusions that help spin the clothes. He spun the cylinder manually (as so many of us do) and heard a loud snapping sound. Then, the cylinder wouldn't move when the dryer was on. Great.
Yesterday we disassembled the thing and found the problem: the belt that spins the cylinder wasn't connected to anything. We also found a pulley unattached, lending one to believe that this was somehow the problem. Here's the catch: The belt is, topologically, a donut. As is the pulley (with a slight fuzziness applied to forgive the fact that it's a wheel attached to a axle with a little space between, and probably some bearings. The point is, the axle forms a loop with the mounting bracket, so there's no way to get the belt to go around the pulley. It's like trying to do that magic trick where you take two separate rings and transform them to be interlocked, like links of a chain. Now, I know how that works, but this belt wasn't designed with magicians in mind. We figured out how it worked: and I will try to explain this without using pictures. Good luck understanding it. You can skip the rest if you don't care how our dryer works.
First, one should note that there was a motor near the cylinder (but not touching) with an extended drive shaft (connected to the motor at one end, but left free on the other so the belt could be attached.) It was clear that the belt should go around that. The belt should also go around the cylinder. So the only question is what the hell to do with the pulley.
There were holes near the motor, on the inner surface of the bottom of the dryer body (not the cylinder) to attach the pulleys' mounting bracket, and what you're supposed to do is push a loop of the belt through the space between the pulley and it's mounting bracket, and have that loop go around the drive shaft connected to the motor. Since the pulley is close to the motor this takes very little length from the belt. The rest of the belt (on the other side of the pulley) goes around the dryer cylinder, and the tension is enough that of the loop that got threaded through the pulley and it's mounting bracket, only one direction actually touches the pulley. So to clarify: imagine you're looking at the dryer from the front. You have a large circle (the cylinder you put clothes in), and outside it, below and to the right, there's a small circle (the drive shaft connected to the motor.) Closer to the bottom of the cylinder (to the left of the drive shaft) there's a pulley (a circle larger than the drive shaft but much smaller than the dryer cylinder.) The belt, starting from the top of the cylinder and going clockwise, goes around the right side of the cylinder until you get near the bottom Let's say 4:30. There, it departs on a tangent from the cylinder and wraps around the pulley, heading right again. This begins the loop that was pushed through that I mentioned earlier. The belt then goes around the drive shaft in a clockwise fashion (let's say from 11:00 to 6:00) and departs on a tangent from the drive shaft, now heading left. Now, this part goes through the loop formed by the pulley and its mounting bracket, but doesn't touch anything there, finishing the loop that was pushed through. It then continues to meet the dryer cylinder at around 6:00, and stays on the cylinder the rest of the way up.
Aren't you sorry you read all that?
Anyway, that fixed it, and the dryer now works. Plus, we somehow wound up with an extra screw after reassembling the dryer. That's probably not good, but I doubt one screw is going to make that much of a difference. Unless, you know, that screw was holding down the "do not randomly detonate" button.
Thursday, January 20, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
On a completely different note, has anyone else noticed the reports coming out since the election that George Bush may not be as stupid as he acts on camera? I've now read an article in Newsweek and a couple of articles in the Post that say not only does Bush read things--lengthy things, like novels without pictures and legislation--and is detail oriented, but that he is also the brains of the operation, rather than Rumsfeld, Cheney, or Rove. If this is true and he actually is some sort of backwoods genius, than it's particularly sad that we find America in it's current state (ruine foreign relations, a war with no end, massive deficit, etc.), as it would seem he purposefully put us there. Perhaps even more depressing is that they made him look like the village idiot so that the majority of Americans would vote for him in this past election, which really says something about the state of the people in our country. So not only would they have played the American people into making them think a smart man is a moron, they did it betting that the American people want a moron to be their leader. Of course, the other option is that he is an idiot, which at least makes for decent explanation as to why we did things like invade Iraq without a plan for "winning the peace" and ruining our pretty decent world standing. Of course, one way or another the American people still voted for a dunce. I ask you though, if we didn't get what we thought we were paying for, can we return it?
-Will
Post a Comment