ISE washing machines

[Appin]

The message from Rod contains these words:

Historically, American machines averaged around 20 years. However since they're generally kept in the basement which in most instances will have bare concrete/concrete block/stone walls, the appeareance isn't generally an issue.

How poorly they washed is another issue entirely, of course. And the undies and the dishtowels tend to be washed together in cold or warm water :-(. No wonder they have to add bleach :-)

The current generation of American machines are a lot less solidly built and durability seems to be dropping rapidly.

[Theo Markettos]

Bottom-of-the-range cooker, 1984: 200 pounds (Which magazine) Bottom-of-the-range cooker, 2004: 200 pounds (Argos catalogue)

Features were roughly similar.

Theo

[Huge]

Nine kids? I think you'd have been better off buying a TV. :o)

[Huge]

200 pounds in 1984 is worth roughly 464 pounds today, so the cooker has more than halved in price.

[Steve Firth]

The figures given above aren't that accurate either. The New World Gas Cooker is the cheapest offering in the Argos catalogue at £150. It's exactly the same specification at the New World Gas Cooker fitted in most rented houses back in 1974. Again it cost around £200 in the early

80s.

[Rod]

And by the time you have paid for a Corgi-registered person (of suitable type) to disconnect old cooker and fit new one (and the additional work they find needs doing), it will probably cost at least 464 pounds now... :-)

[Appin]

The message from Huge contains these words:

What -- and miss out on all the fun ? :-)

[Martin Bonner]

You don't need a Corgi-registered person to unplug a bayonet fitting, and plug in a new one - that's the one piece of gas work that I /do/ regard myself as competent on.

[Alang]

In 1984 you could buy a bottom range electric cooker for a hundred quid less a penny in Comet. Cheapest in Currys today £149.99

[Rod]

It was followed by a smiley. :-)

I think that a new (or even secondhand) cooker should be installed by a competent person. That is, it is not expected that users will be competent (though some may well be, and more likely here than most places).

There are issues of complying with ventilation requirements, checking that the cooker works OK, and so on which are non-trivial.

Undoing and re-doing a bayonet for cleaning purposes is not the same as installing afresh.

If anyone thinks I am wrong, do let me know. It has been known.

[Alang]

In the 50s my mother used to take a big spanner and uncouple the gas pipe from the cooker so she ould drag it out to clean behind it. After cleaning she would ease the cooker back into position and tighten up the gland nut. Used to do that a couple of times a year. She didn't like corgis either.

[Alang]

Yes you're wrong. We managed quite well for a hundred years or so connecting our own gas appliances

[Rod]

But a hundred years backwards is not really very relevant for now and forwards. Whatever you or I think about the rules/laws, I remain convinced that competence is required by them for installing a new cooker. (With the usual big question over how that competence is defined.)

[Alang]

If it worked for a hundred years or more there is no reason to change it.

Some people cannot tie their own shoelaces. Most people can.

[Bob Mannix]

You are (as always with this argument) both right. The fact that we have done it perfectly well for a hundred years may be very relevant to safety but has nothing whatsoever to do with the law and is completely irrelevant to Rod's point. Any work on gas appliances is required to be done by a "competent" person (who may or may not actually be competent). An easy way to ensure "competence" in the eyes of the law is to be CORGI registered. Proving "competency" otherwise is tricky. The likelihoood of having to prove "competence" is very low however, if you are actually competent IYSWIM.