Kitchen Aid Ultra Power Blender

[Paul Kelly]

Wondering if the rubber or black composite material rotating drive transfer of the base unit can easily be replaced. It looks as if the thing comes off easily so that the cover over the motor and controls could be removed.

(This item is illustrated in the second picture down from the top in

connects with bar on lowest photo on the web site and the problem is that the black drive in the middle photo has had all the tips removed as thought the blade in the blender has been forcibly restrained. The blender has been used for ice and was chopping soft cheese at the time of this damage. The top picture had been taken from the instruction manual.

The model number is 5KSB52BER5.

The whole thing is very robust and heavy and it will be obviously much cheaper on postage to replace the black drive if that is possible. The item is not very old, say 2 years - it is probably within the 3 year warrantee period but we have no receipt so a charge has to be born.

[John Rumm]

So to paraphrase the ad: "Will it mend"?

(if that makes no sense see youtube with a search of "will it blend")

[Andrew Gabriel]

I felt sure this thread was going to be about the V8 powered kitchen blender I saw on Top Gear (replay?) last night.

[Paul Kelly]

In message , Paul Kelly writes

Got through to them as they opened on the phone this morning - it sounds as if the top part pulls off and the replacement part comes with spanner/puller.

Anyway they looked up the serial number and it was within the three years guarantee so the part will be supplied (an American company - awesome) (but I supply the effort).

Thanks to John Rumm and Andrew Gabriel for responding to the original enquiry.

Pity it will not blend anything at the moment. (See

the iPhone blend effort).

The V8 (must have been on Dave) blender was a bit of a thing but

[John Rumm]

I am not convinced that my contribution was that helpful in this case... but ta all the same!

[remove y]

A small part of the wall of this old cottage has several damp spots in a line down the wall

I have found the source of the water and am allowing the wall to dry out which at this time of year is a slow business even if there are now no wall coverings or plaster in situ. Meanwhile wondering what to do for the best. The damp places are small, cement, coloured but might be an old mortar between the old stones or rocks. However they do appear out of very hard and what seems like cement based rendering which leads to the subject line. As the bulk of the rendering seems dry is this a natural state for a cement based product. If so this is holding dampness in the wall.

So I am planning to leave well alone except for a skim of plaster - when dry there will be no problems.

Is that a good idea? Is there something that should be done?

[Phil L]

Your post seems a bit garbled.

Is the damp iside the house or outside? - likewise the rendering? - what is the external construction if you mean the rendering is inside? What was the cause of the water ingress?

[The Natural Philosopher]

render is porous simply because whilst there is enough cement to bind the sand grains together there isn't enough to fill the voids as well.

waterproof render means a lot of cement. Its almost that simple. Concrete boats have been made, and float.

[Paul Kelly]

Are we talking 1:1 or something like that.

[Tim W]

Paul Kelly wibbled on Friday 08 January 2010 11:59

3:1 I think which is reckoned to be more of less the strongest practical mix.

And SBR additive will improved the vapour and water resistance further still.

[Andrew Gabriel]

Waterproof render does not necessarily use lots of cement - that would fail in many applications.

You have to define what you mean by waterproof... Doesn't deteriorate when wet, or Doesn't pass water through at some specified pressure, or Doesn't even wet.

1:5 scratch coat with waterproofer added will prevent a wet wall wicking any moisture through to a gypsom finish coat, and it can still breath, although it probably won't work in a cellar with significant static water pressure where tanking is likely to be required.

I might even have done 1:1:6 with waterpoofer too.

[The Natural Philosopher]

1:2 is pretty much impermeable. There's a theorem somewhere..packing density. If sand were uniform spheres, the answer would be the ratio of 8-4PI/3 or about 1 and a bit to one sand to cement.

But sand isn't uniform spheres: To an extend small grains fill the gaps between big grains, and they are not spheres either. so they pack better than spheres.

So 2:1 sand to cement is about as high as you ever need to go to ensure that mortar or concrete is essentially not carrying any moisture within it's pores.

Strong cement like that is specified for freezing conditions for that reason, otherwise spallation may take place. Typically low wall levels below damp course and foundations.

Where render is concerned, though its very porous. Its typiucally 4:1 or

5:1 so if water uptake is a concern, its best to paint it with a plastic waterproofing layer.

Then of course it cannot breathe, so it is important to fully waterproof it everywhere, or you will find spallation happening from water trapped BEHIND the waterproofing.

[Halmyre]

And if, say, the Hoover Dam wasn't waterproof the engineers would have looked pretty bloody silly.

-- Halmyre

[Bruce]

Too much cement means too much heat of hydration while it cures (sets) and this causes too much cracking. This results in a render that is a long way from being waterproof. It doesn't matter how much cement you put in the mix, a cement render won't be waterproof unless it contains a waterproofing admixture.

Old render also cracks due to thermal expansion and contraction and movement of the structure due to settlement and creep.

[The Natural Philosopher]

you had better tell that to the civil engineering industry then. I am sure they will want to know.

As they habitually build watertight structures out of concrete.

And they do not add anythig to it, either.

[Bruce]

Yes, that's because they build them out of *concrete*, not render.

You really are a twit, aren't you.

;-)

[The Natural Philosopher]

concrete and render are all mixtures of sand, stone and cement.

There is not sudden point at which one becomes the other.

a 2:1 render with stone added IS concrete.,

I think the honour belongs to you in this case.

[remove y]

Well there has been a lot to learn in this thread. Many thanks for all your wisdom.

Garbled nature of first message may be due to the fact that it is hard to pose questions when you know nothing of the answers - not helped by having a subject line that did not stand out.

Many thanks for explaining things.

[Clot]

Good response and appreciated.