The broken dishwasher
Oh great.
The other day while opening the dishwasher, a “sproing” sound was heard, and now the door’s springy thing doesn’t work — that is, once open, it just drops down to horizontal with gravity, rather than a gentle drop or springing back towards closed like it was before. And it triggered an F1 alarm, which according to the manual is the Flood switch being triggered.
But does that affect the actual washing? Perhaps yes. On the first go, the F1 error triggered again, about halfway through. It used to do that with a U1 alarm. Then, as now, I’ve been able to run a couple of rinse cycles to get things finished, but it’s not as good, of course.
This is a Fisher and Paykel Nautilus DW920. It’s not clear to me how old it is, as I inherited it with the house in 2005. The manual says it’s from 2004, but it’s not clear if the unit is that old, or if that’s just when the manual was last revised — comments on the ProductReview site suggest this model goes back to around 2000.
It does appear that new springs (non-genuine) are available on eBay for about $15. Thanks to the interwebs, others have managed to replace the springs themselves. No doubt I’ll pay through the nose if I get a repairman out to do it.
Given recent experience with the fridge and the washing machine (and even the old car) — paying a bunch to find out something wasn’t worth repairing — I wonder if instead I should be thinking about replacing it altogether.
In the meantime, I hope this doesn’t mean I need to do the dishes myself.
Update lunchtime. Rae and Roger left comments about fixing it myself, which I’d agree with, but I just don’t have the time. I rang F+P this morning; someone will be out today (handy as I’m at home unwell, with two sick kids too). It’ll cost me $121 plus parts, which is expensive, sure, but it’ll be done quickly with no mucking about.
Update 2pm. The repairman came and went. $154.10 for his presence and expertise, 3 x washer spray arm bearings, 1 x door spring. Ah well.
Tags: dish washers, kitchen, repairs
10 comments
Sinister letter
This letter arrived in the mail. It’s going back Return To Sender. But note the rather ominous text on the envelope.
Debt collectors?
Overdue medical test?
What could it be?
(No cheating/Googling now.)
Tags: mail (snail)
10 comments
When not to use CFLs
Letter the other week in The Age:
Not worth the cost
AM I the only person having trouble with expensive ”green globes” alleged to last 10,000 hours? Used eight hours a day, a globe should last more than three years. I have replaced the globe in one lamp four times already this year. I want my cheap, long-lasting, environmentally unfriendly globes back.
Leone Garro, Northcote
My CFLs are lasting ages… provided they’re in the right places.
I would bet the globes referred-to above are switched on for short durations (less than 15 minutes), many times a day. That kind of usage is bad for CFLs, and it’s precisely why I’ve avoided using one in the toilet, for instance, and also in the bedrooms — our particular usage there seems to predominantly involve ducking in to get something/drop something, then out again.
For those types of spots, it’s far better to stick to non-CFLs, such as the energy-saving incandescents still available. (My local supermarket has the Philips EcoClassic products, which for instance provide 100w of light but burn 70w of power.)
Evidently this message isn’t isn’t getting through.
Or possibly Leone’s light fitting or wiring is faulty, but I’m betting it’s the former.
(Previous blog post on this topic)
Tags: CFLs, electricity, light bulbs
15 comments
Why are they surprised?
I have a similar view of doorknockers (hawkers) to that of Charity Muggers.
I just want to get on with my day. They are wasting my time.
If I wanted to change my electricity company, or my gas company, or my phone company, or whatever, I’d just go ahead and do it. (Just as I am switching my web hosting right at the moment.)
The number one reason I’d do such a thing was if I was unhappy with the service: if it was unreliable or the billing was continually screwed up or I felt I was being ripped-off price-wise.
Someone knocking on my door and pleading with me to switch is not going to do it. It’s a waste of my time and theirs.
The Salvation Army are about the only ones who will get a warm welcome. They didn’t seem to visit me this year during the Red Shield Appeal, though I saw them in my street. I wonder if they deliberately didn’t knock because they know I donate via direct debit?
If you’re trying to sell me something (other than good karma) and you want to make a pitch, send me junk mail. Oh wait, I have a No Junk Mail sticker. Well then pitch via advertising or something. Don’t get in my face.
(Maybe I need a No Hawkers sticker by the front gate. But it would look a little odd, I think.)
What puzzles me the most is why the doorknockers look surprised when as soon as they say where they’re from, I say politely (it’s a crap job, nothing against them personally) but firmly “Not interested, thank you” and shut the door in their face. I’ve had the same reaction from Chuggers in the street when I say “No thank you” keep on walking, not breaking pace.
Do these people actually believe that we want them to waste our time?
Or am I out of step with everybody else?
Glasses
And now for something completely different. Glasses.
I’ve got a few different types of glasses in my kitchen, many of them remnants from previous collections.
From left to right:
(1) These used to come as IXL jam jars. You’d use up the jam, dispose of the label and the lid, and get to keep the jar as a glass. Given that was a good 11-12 years ago, I’m amazed they’ve lasted this long, though I only have a couple of them left.
(2) When I first moved out on my own in 2000, I bought a pack of The Price Brand (eg the cheapie brand) glasses at K-Mart. This is the very last of them that has survived.
(3) This one is tall and fat in the middle, and is one of a pair left behind by Iris when she went home to Israel back in early 2001. (A colander, a dish rack, some mugs and some plates were also part of that collection. She chose well; they’re all still in use.) These glasses have got a heavy base, which means they’re quite top-heavy when placed into the dishwasher upside-down.
(4) I’ve got a bunch of these ones. This glass shape is my preference for new purchases, because it’s tall (but not too tall) and narrow, it makes the best use of space in the dishwasher. Like my strategic purchase of more cutlery, this helps ensure I don’t have to run it more than every 2-3 days.
Tags: glasses, kitchen
13 comments
Stuff I’ve learnt from Radio National
Often when I listen to Radio National, I’ll learn something I didn’t know before. In this case, I was listening to Saturday Extra last week.
Cutting power consumption?
One item talking about electricity efficiency noted that enormous amounts of money are being invested in distribution networks, instead of being spent on measures to cut consumption (and thus GHG emissions) so you don’t need to upgrade distribution (or at least not as much).
GERALDINE DOOGUE: In the Lend Lease proposal… they say for every dollar spent on demand management, studies have shown the need for investment in energy infrastructure is deferred or reduced by $6.50. …
TOM CAWLEY (Energy Efficiency Council): In California what they’ve done is spent a lot of the money that would be spent on the electricity infrastructure on energy efficiency. And it’s easy to do in California because the power companies are vertically integrated. That is that the same company owns the power station, owns the power lines, and owns the retailers. We don’t have that situation in Australia…
GERALDINE DOOGUE: Keith Orcharison, who’s been a very prominent commentator over many years, writing in Business Spectator last week wrote something I think most of us wouldn’t know: that there will be forty to fifty billion outlayed in the next four to five years on distribution and transmission network systems. …
TOM CAWLEY: There’s no business case for the distributors to spend money on energy efficiency. There’s no structure for them to do that. … The other problem here is that with energy efficiency, you’re talking about [spending] at the point of use. Now, if demand keeps growing, then they need to keep spending money on infrastructure to deliver that energy. The idea is that if we can spend that money at the usage point, then we can reduce the demand.
So basically the electricity industry is structured in such a way that they can’t do the sensible thing and spend those billions on making electricity consumption more efficient; instead they have to assume demand will grow and so all that money goes into building capacity to distribute more power.
That’s just silly.
The mining “super tax”
Who coined the phrase “super tax” in its current context (that is, a proposed 40% tax on “super profits” on the mining sector)? According to a search of Google News (hardly the most scientific method, I know) It appears to have been Joe Hockey, shadow treasurer, quoted in an AAP report on April 24th.
With a nickname like that, it’s no wonder the mining companies joined in.
But it was interesting to hear the Financial Review’s Laura Tingle talking about it — both the negatives and the positives, which haven’t really got an airing:
LAURA TINGLE: The resources we’ve got in the ground are a finite item, they’re owned by all of us, and therefore when people go to buy them, you should try to get a return to the taxpayer for that…
There is a very potent argument to say… well, even if it does slow the pace of resources development a bit, that’s not a bad thing because we’ve got infrastructure problems, skilled workforce problems flowing from the resources boom in the rest of the economy, and it helps even-out the level of activity across the economy, so you don’t have interest rates rising, you don’t have the exchange rate making the rest of business uncompetitive.
(The issues around infrastructure were echoed the other day on 774 when the editor of The Weekly Times, I forget his name, noted that rail transportation of grain had dropped markedly, in part because so many grain hopper carriages are elsewhere serving the mining industry instead.)
And Tingle made the point that the government’s done an absolutely hopeless job attempting to tell people what the benefits are, so it’s not surprising that the Opposition and the mining companies have dominated the debate.
It’d be nice to see this debate become a little less one-sided. It’s hard to gain an informed view when one side is completely dominating.
Using less water
My latest water bill arrived, and I’m feeling pretty smug about it because without even trying, my water consumption has dropped by about 20% compared to a year ago.
A few years ago household use had been around 250 litres per day. A switch to a water-efficient showerhead in 2007 saw it drop by about 20% to 200 litres per day, or 110 litres per person per day (taking into account the normal 13 “person nights” in the house per week).
This latest bill shows household use has dropped again to 165 litres per day, or 89 litres per person per day, not too far over half the “Target 155″ goal.
The only recent change I can think of is the new Bosch washing machine I got in November, replacing a 15 year-old Hoover. I don’t know how water-efficient the Hoover was, but it seems the Bosch (at 56 litres per wash, and with a larger capacity) beats it hands down.
I’m quite impressed.
(Update lunchtime: To be clear, the Hoover washing machine broke down, and had to be replaced.)
Tags: washing machine, water
9 comments
Blade vs electric
I’m sure most men wish they could flick a switch to stop their facial hair growing.
Yesterday, for the first time in well over a decade, I tried blade shaving. I had been pondering switching back from electric, since my Phillishave shaver’s rechargable battery is wearing out, and it needs a new blade and filter thingy.
So I picked up a three-blade shaver and some cream from the supermarket, and gave it a go.
The result was more blood in the bathroom than Hitchcock’s shower scene. (No, not really, not quite.) (Sorry, no pics.)
You know that scene in one of the early Simpsons with Homer teaching Bart to shave, and then him putting lots of bits of paper over the numerous cuts? Yeah, like that.
The main culprit was a small (but permanent) lumpy thing on my chin, which poured out blood like a geyser (no, not really), and took quite some time to stop.
On the plus side, the shave was certainly smoother. But on the minus, apart from the blood (which would go away with practice and accuracy and once my face is “used” to blades again), it didn’t look noticeably better than with an electric shaver.
That is, despite the closer shave, the same amount of stubble was visible — it was just shorter. So what is the point?
It all made me remember why I switched to electric in the first place, and I’ll be heading down to the Shaver Shop ASAP to refresh the parts on my electric shaver.
* * *
How do you shave? If you feel like it, click an option below.
* * *
Update Monday: Survey results:
Tags:
31 comments
