On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 15:04:51 +0000, Andy Hall wrote:

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 14:35:27 -0000, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message

The temperature range on mine hasn't been found wanting for any of my
demands on it. And I'm very demanding.

and dries the food badly.

Eh?



The (Neff) one that we had certainly did.

Ah, well now you're falling into the trap of some other posters, making a
general statement based on your personal experience and even with only one
model.

That's not sensible, is it?


You have a point. However, I was able to compare the two side by side
briefly while the kitchen was being remodelled.

Without a comparison, I can't see how one could say whether there is a
drying effect or not.

I have foudn that agas dry food LESS than fan ovens.

OIf course, if youy stuff the roast that you did an hour earlier in te
warming oven while you make a mess of overboiled vegetables on the hot
plates..;-)

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 16:40:16 -0000 Mary Fisher wrote :
His cooker does have the advantage over mine in that its large oven
will accommodate a pig's head

As marketing slogans go I'm sure this one will work g

It would in the interest groups I live in :-)

Mary

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm
[Latest version QSEDBUK 1.12 released 8 Dec 2005]

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 17:27:01 +0000, Peter Parry
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 16:40:16 -0000, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:



I wondered that too. If you want something you pay for it. If you want the
best you pay for it.

In this case you don't get the best having paid for it.

That's your assertion based on criteria that you deem to be valid for
you. You can't say that something is or isn't the best for other
people, because their criteria are almost certainly different.


If you want
it for "lifestyle" reasons then of course logic and cost is
irrelevant. If you want to buy a cooker then both price and
performance are usually important factors.

Of course. An even more important factor than price is value. If
somebody perceives enough value in something and has the means to pay,
then the price is irrelevant. If they don't perceive value or don't
have the means to pay for it then they don't buy it - simple as that.

Performance is also a very subjective term and completely dependent on
the factors that are important to the buyer/user of a product.

Again, you can't assume that everyone's criteria are the same as
yours.



--

..andy

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 21:46:54 +0000, Peter Parry wrote:

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 20:39:20 +0000, Andy Hall
material, your nose has been scoured by the sand to bare bone.

I see no reason for the risk to be any greater with
an Aga than any other form of cooker, if one is stupid enough to do
that.

You may see no reason for it but it is. Firstly because it is much
easier for things to catch fire,

This is completelt untrue. I have had serious fires regularly with gas, a
couple of fat fires with electric, never had a single fire with an aga.

The plate temeperature is below the flash point of anything bar possibly
alcohol or gasoline.

There is no way that anythung combustible can get to the burner - unlike
gas hobs, ahich are bloody dangerious, and its easy enough to catch a
sleeve alight with them

I suspect that when your stupid girlfriend/ex wife who had an aga, dumped
you for being a stuck up prig, you took against her wellington boots as
well?

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 06:38:40 +0000 (UTC), Edward W. Thompson wrote:

snip

As for drying food out badly - mine
doesn't at all.

Then you are very lucky. Mine certainly did, and it's rather obvious
when one considers the effect of blowing air over things.


It is no different in that respect from an Aga, and
I used one of those dreadful things for a couple of years.

snip

Can you explain why there is a difference between an Aga oven and any
other in this respect. Provided there is not a loss of air from the
oven it is a closed system and moisture does not escape. Once the air
in the oven reaches saturation no further loss of moisture from the
closed system occurs. This is equally true for the 'Aga' type of
cooker and the more conventional type. Where does the moisture from
the food in the oven go? It certainly doesn't condense on the hot
surfaces of the device :-).



The fan blows it out. In a fan blown oven.

But Peter Parry in the vicinity of an aga blows so much hot air - mainly
out of his aree - and is always opening the doors to show how crap they are
at cooking, and to ensure hat teh food isn;t cooked yert, that he manages
to dry the food to a leathery wasteland.

On 16 Jan 2006 00:43:42 -0800, wrote:

Just spotted this
http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/afx...fx2451468.html .
Electric Agas? Dafter and dafter!

cheers
Jacob

Yes, they are. The cost of running them is exorbitant, and its a helluva
way to get a fashion statement.


They are for people oin Islington who dream of black labradors, with money
to burn, and no gas and nowhere to put the ugly oil tank.

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 09:22:39 +0000, Andy Hall wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 06:38:40 +0000 (UTC), Edward W. Thompson
wrote:

snip

As for drying food out badly - mine
doesn't at all.

Then you are very lucky. Mine certainly did, and it's rather obvious
when one considers the effect of blowing air over things.


It is no different in that respect from an Aga, and
I used one of those dreadful things for a couple of years.

snip

Can you explain why there is a difference between an Aga oven and any
other in this respect. Provided there is not a loss of air from the
oven it is a closed system and moisture does not escape. Once the air
in the oven reaches saturation no further loss of moisture from the
closed system occurs. This is equally true for the 'Aga' type of
cooker and the more conventional type. Where does the moisture from
the food in the oven go? It certainly doesn't condense on the hot
surfaces of the device :-).

I can only tell you what I observed.

In terms of mechanisms, the two that seem obvious are a) that the fan
oven is not a closed system and b) that there is an effect from
blowing hot air over the contents. Air at higher temperatures has
considerably more water carrying capacity than it does at lower
temperatures. These are only suggestions of possibilities. The
observations were from side by side comparisons of doing the same
things.

Its why meringues can cook nicely in a fan blown oven.

Although they are best done in the aga bottom oven over a period of several
hours..drying is what you want in this case. It takes a LONG time to dry
stuff in an aga.

Mind you, the lack of whirring noises and red lights all over it may allow
you to forget food is actually IN there.

I do admit to scraping out mummified baked potaties several days after they
had been installed.

Even an aga won't keepo things moist for EVER,

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 17:27:00 +0000 (UTC), "John"
wrote:



Come on Andy, The flue of an Aga has a draught break which entrains lots of
cool air so any temperature after such flu break is NOT an indicator of
efficiency

I used to laugh when I came across test point holes drilled after flue
breaks, usually with service record cards dutifully filled in with
combustion analyser results taken straight out of the manual but quite
obviously not the readings from the point :-(


I see your point, but was not trying to suggest a scientific
measurement. In fact, the cast iron vertical flue after the flue
break is relatively hot (I may measure it later if I have time and can
find the IR meter or thermocouple probe); however at the point where
the flue enters the loft (some metres away), it is considerably
cooler. This represents heat released within the fabric of the house.

If the cooker were a balanced or power flue type, I agree that that
would be a different matter.

--

..andy

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 10:50:27 +0000, Chris Bacon wrote:

owdman wrote:
John wrote:
[lots of stuff about Agas & Rayburns]

Or quicker and simpler - go out and buy a proper cooker!

Don't think I've ever heard of a quality restaurant (or a crap one,
even) using Agas or Rayburns to cook for their customers.. presumably
they use inferior cookers to cook their superior food.. LOL.

No, they cook food fast in restaurants, and they require massive volumes of
cookers. They can have the luxury of a cooker for every dish they do more
or less. Agas are not space efficient either - eye level ovens and gas hobs
are the way to go in a busy commercial kitchen.

Its is not customary to present the customer with fresh baked lasagne
either - like as not is is prepacked and microwaved up for the plate..or
was made yesterday.

Agas are about good HOME cooking, not good commercial cooking.

One aga can priduce a superb nmeal for 6-8 people. It can't produce an
endless stream of fast food for 10-0 cutsomers. It's not designed to
either.

You won't find many homes with planer thicknessers either, or many joinery
shops without one...

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 14:26:09 +0000, Owain wrote:

Mary Fisher wrote:
"Andy Hall" wrote
Some people do have difficulty in learning the (what are really fairly
straightforward) methods of cooking with a storage cooker.
I agree.
But what I wonder about is people wanting to do much cooking in warm weather

Jam-making? Although I understand that Agas aren't great at concentrated
batches of on-the-hob cooking like jam-making because the plates cool down.

Owain

Actually, that suits jam making. Masisve pot on to boil, then shift to the
slow hob and let it simmer and reduce..which it will.

That plate will just about sustain as simmer indefinitely..but if it
doesn't then use the hot one again for the last hour or so.

After jam making who wants to cook a roast dinner anyway? give the kids a
cold salad.

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 17:52:44 +0000, Peter Parry
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 16:16:49 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 15:51:15 +0000, Peter Parry
wrote:

Something else which needs to be factored in is price.

Why?

Because most people have to buy things and both cost and performance
are factors.

What actually matters is value to the buyer and ability to pay rather
than cost, and performance is a subjective thing in the context of a
cooker.


When the performance is mediocre and both the purchase
cost and running cost astronomic there is no sense in buying one
unless it is for other intangible reasons.

You are describing the performance as mediochre based on your
experiences of an old model and whatever criteria you subjectively
apply. I completely disagree, based on my criteria and experience of
a more recent product. It is not legitimate to make a blanket
statement suggesting mediochre performance as you have done, since
that is limited to your criteria only.

Running costs are not astronomic. I already gave you the figures that
I get, and do not regard those as astronomic. Again, this depends on
your scale of values. I could gather firewood for free and cook on
that, and argue that anything where I have to pay for the energy is
astronomic. It's a relative term.




GBP 9,600 for a cooker which then costs a further GBP500 a year to
run simply isn't worthwhile when set against its mediocre
performance.

1) At the measured rate of 700W, at a gas price of 2p a unit, that
adds up to around £120.

Yours appears to be the only Aga in the world to achieve this though.
Every other Aga manages more like 1000W standing load and this
increases up to 5,000W when cooking.

How many modern gas models have you measured at 1000W?

I can only tell you what I measured on mine, 700W quiescent.

Given that situation, it would be rather difficult fo ryou to assert
that mine is the only one that achieves those figures.


"The running costs of these cookers is about £400-500 per annum" (Aga
salesman).

From the figures Aga quote a 4 oven gas Aga uses 527kw/hr a week or
27.4 Megawatt/hrs per year. At present gas prices that is an annual
bill of GBP 540 - GBP 600 per year depending upon supplier.

If you read *all* of the data sheet you would see that the word
"typical" is used. They don't say what "typical" means or how they
measure it.


--

..andy

On 15 Jan 2006 08:23:56 -0800, wrote:

Anyway Andy, nobody would argue that you like your Aga and I'm sure you
can cook on it really well. But where you are p*ing into the wind is in
suggesting that they are in any way economical or practical. Don't let
that spoil your enjoyment.

They are economical if the space is large enough to need the heat output
anyway.

I realise few people live in the size of house we have, but frankly, the
aga is a saving over having central heating running everywhere - it heats
the bits we use in the day.

Its enough of a game this time of year fiddling with stats and so on to
control heat in the bits we don't use much.

As a cooker? well its very good at some things, covers about 85% of
everything we need, and with an electric hob, kettle and microwave, 95%,
the one exception being stir frying PROPERLY or barbequeing, but only a gas
hob and a charcoal barbecue work for those anyway. Gas barbecues taste
simply WRONG to me.

I ceratinly would not install an electric aga, unless for someone with bad
taste. I wouldn't put an aga in a small town house or a smaller suburban
property either. But for large kitchens in rural locations they do the job
very well indeed.

At least we CAN still cook when the electricity goes out, and have hot cups
of coffee. Which it does, for hours at a time, several times a year, it
seems.





Steam traction engines attract enthusiasts who spend many harmless
hours having innocent fun with them but nobody suggests that they are a
practical alternative to a modern vehicle.
Could be wrong here though - any minute now some bearded old chaps in
boiler suits could be angrily stabbing at their laptops with oily
fingers!
cheers
Jacob
PS Come to think when I had a solid fuel Rayburn a boiler suit was an
essential accessory - do they come with the kit if you buy a new one?

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
t...

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 16:40:16 -0000 Mary Fisher wrote :
His cooker does have the advantage over mine in that its large oven
will accommodate a pig's head

As marketing slogans go I'm sure this one will work g

It would in the interest groups I live in :-)

Mary

LOL

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 16:46:31 +0000, Andy Hall wrote:

On 15 Jan 2006 08:23:56 -0800, wrote:

Anyway Andy, nobody would argue that you like your Aga and I'm sure you
can cook on it really well. But where you are p*ing into the wind is in
suggesting that they are in any way economical or practical. Don't let
that spoil your enjoyment.
Steam traction engines attract enthusiasts who spend many harmless
hours having innocent fun with them but nobody suggests that they are a
practical alternative to a modern vehicle.

I don't see it in that way.

Essentially, it's an energy store that I can heat cheaply and which
adds to the space heating. The cooking is effectively free.

In terms of practicality, again no real problems by any way of
measuring that I can think of. For example, if anything, I need to
spend less time standing at the Aga than I did at the hob.

Could be wrong here though - any minute now some bearded old chaps in
boiler suits could be angrily stabbing at their laptops with oily
fingers!

:-)

cheers
Jacob
PS Come to think when I had a solid fuel Rayburn a boiler suit was an
essential accessory - do they come with the kit if you buy a new one?

Interesting point. You do get a pack of cleaning materials and a
brush though :-)

Solid fuel is almost impossible to use and a hugely dirty and labour
intensive affair. I hpope I never see a coal fired anything ever again.

I've cooked on two coal fired agas, and had to manage a coal ffred central
heating system. and they are voracious consumer of filthy coal, and require
twice daily servicing to get the new stuff in and the old stuff out. Woer
betide you if you get it wrong - they are impssoble to control temperature
wise, and if they go out, require at least an hour to get going, and about
3-4 to be up to whatever temperature they decide to be at. If the temp
drops because te coal is running low, you have two choces. Let them get
cold, or add caol, when they cool down even faster.

To actually get a coal fired appliance working properly, requires a full
time fireman.

One of the major reasons, apart from the high maintenance, that steam
engines vanished so rapidly.

In the 50's when coal was cheap and husewives were HOUSE wives, and oil was
something you saw other pople putting on the axles of steam locmotives, the
daily round of lighting the coal fired appliances after de -ashing and de
clinkering was, simply, as good as it got.

Hby got up and befoire dersssing would put te kettle on take out the ash
and clinker and add a shot of coal...then go to work...

Once the aga was up to tempreature, you could make a cup of tea before
boilig up the solied nappies in a coffer on it, and spending a merry
afternoon with a hand mangle and clothes line.

Another quick shot of coal and then down the shops for todays vegetables
and bread and milk...walking carrying your string bag, or on a
bicycle...then a quick tea and cakes to replace the lost calories before
lighting the open fire for the evening, revving up the back boiler so that
one bath might be feasible (who's having a bath tonight?) and cooking from
todays fresh ingredients everyones dinner...

This was before womens lib dears, when women actually WORKED HARD. And so
did men, because if you didn't, you ended up cold, miserable and hungry
pretty damned quick.

No even I will not sing the praises of coal fired Agas. Better than nothing
in the days when central heating was a rarity, but a last resort only these
days.

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 18:13:59 +0000, Pete C wrote:

On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 17:27:29 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

THe 700W or so output of the Aga is simply added to the heat from the
CH, so that in effect it is an additional heat source for space
heating. As a consequence, the CH boiler is running at a lower output
than it otherwise would.

In terms of the efficiency of use for space heating, I doubt whether
there is much of a difference in terms of what goes out of the flue
for either heat source.

Hi,

True, but if the Aga isn't room sealed then the ventilation
requirements will be fairly genereous.


Not really. Only in summer do you need to cool the place down, and I turn
mine off.

The air required for the burner is actually less than that specified for a
gas hob, and the ventilation requirements to extract the combustion
products are far more onerous. Agas end most of the cooking smells up the
chimney too.

No need for extractor fans.

And the efflux temperature on an aga pipe is well below that of my newish
oil CH boiler. So its apaprent its a better cinverter to low garde heat
than that is.

Condensing boilers would be similar I suspect,. however.
If you were to encase teh aga in a small room and allow it to get
insufferably hot, it most likely would use less fuel as well.


cheers,
Pete.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
No even I will not sing the praises of coal fired Agas. Better than nothing
in the days when central heating was a rarity, but a last resort only these
days.


"Perhaps you're a crap cook, who has barely learnt to boil an egg on a
gas hob, who will never get to use its full potential as you haven't
bothered to learn how these highly practical and versatile things really
work. They can be left on all year round, consuming 1/2 a bucket of coal
a day and you don't need another cooker at all unless you can't handle
the coal or don't make the Holy Ritual of the Riddle every day. Oh, they
make fabulous toast to die for, so yah boo sucks to you!"

*ROFLM effing AO*

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 17:27:01 +0000, Peter Parry
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 16:40:16 -0000, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:



I wondered that too. If you want something you pay for it. If you want
the
best you pay for it.

In this case you don't get the best having paid for it.

That's your assertion based on criteria that you deem to be valid for
you. You can't say that something is or isn't the best for other
people, because their criteria are almost certainly different.


If you want
it for "lifestyle" reasons then of course logic and cost is
irrelevant. If you want to buy a cooker then both price and
performance are usually important factors.

Of course. An even more important factor than price is value. If
somebody perceives enough value in something and has the means to pay,
then the price is irrelevant. If they don't perceive value or don't
have the means to pay for it then they don't buy it - simple as that.

Performance is also a very subjective term and completely dependent on
the factors that are important to the buyer/user of a product.

Again, you can't assume that everyone's criteria are the same as
yours.

Well said, Andy, everything.

Mary



--

.andy

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

... It is not legitimate to make a blanket
statement suggesting mediochre performance as you have done, since
that is limited to your criteria only.

It isn't, but that's what posters (who I've stopped wasting my life reading)
have been doing all through this thread, without providing any sensible
evidence.

Mary

"Owain" wrote in message
...
Ophelia wrote:
I've spent several months there - I'd advise having one leg
shortened
before going as it makes leaning into the wind much easier.
Ah, but if one happens to be short and hairy one then runs the risk
of being mistaken for a haggis and being shot.
Depends which way you are running around the mountain

Since when have haggis-hunters been sufficient gentlemen to not shoot
in the back?

Well Owain.. I don't actually know any haggis-hunters.. I thought you
might know Don't they do much of that over by the Thistle Centre?

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
t...

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

... It is not legitimate to make a blanket
statement suggesting mediochre performance as you have done, since
that is limited to your criteria only.

It isn't, but that's what posters (who I've stopped wasting my life
reading) have been doing all through this thread, without providing
any sensible evidence.

G

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
t...

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

... It is not legitimate to make a blanket
statement suggesting mediochre performance as you have done, since
that is limited to your criteria only.

It isn't, but that's what posters (who I've stopped wasting my life
reading) have been doing all through this thread, without providing
any sensible evidence.

G

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 18:21:49 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 21:46:54 +0000, Peter Parry wrote:

You may see no reason for it but it is. Firstly because it is much
easier for things to catch fire,

This is completelt untrue.

The number of fires involving Agas is greater than would be expected
from the number in use, that isn't an opinion but a fact.

I have had serious fires regularly with gas, a
couple of fat fires with electric, never had a single fire with an aga.

I can't comment on your ineptitude, the many hundreds of cooker fires
I have started were all done deliberately.

The plate temeperature is below the flash point of anything bar possibly
alcohol or gasoline

There is no way that anythung combustible can get to the burner

Seems to manage somehow.

- unlike
gas hobs, ahich are bloody dangerious, and its easy enough to catch a
sleeve alight with them

A sleeve?

I suspect

I'm sure you do.

--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 18:25:58 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 16 Jan 2006 00:43:42 -0800, wrote:

Just spotted this
http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/afx...fx2451468.html .
Electric Agas? Dafter and dafter!

Yes, they are. The cost of running them is exorbitant,

Half the energy requirement of the gas one and under a half the cost
of an oil one

--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 18:23:44 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:


The fan blows it out. In a fan blown oven.

On the pop again?

--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 18:21:00 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 17:27:01 +0000, Peter Parry
wrote:

In this case you don't get the best having paid for it.

That's your assertion based on criteria that you deem to be valid for
you. You can't say that something is or isn't the best for other
people, because their criteria are almost certainly different.

Of course, I once used to visit a shirt maker in Belfast, at the end
of their line identical shirts got put into one of three baskets at
random. One went to have a well known designers label sewn in, one
had a well known clothing stores label sewn in and one had a generic
label sewn in. These identical shirts sold for GBP120, GBP40 and
GBP10 respectively (the manufacture got GBP4 for each no matter what
the label. I'm sure each of the purchasers felt they got value for
their money because their criteria were different no matter that the
product was identical.

Again, you can't assume that everyone's criteria are the same as
yours.

I'm not, I have never underestimated human irrationality.


--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 22:21:35 +0000, Peter Parry
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 18:21:00 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 17:27:01 +0000, Peter Parry
wrote:

In this case you don't get the best having paid for it.

That's your assertion based on criteria that you deem to be valid for
you. You can't say that something is or isn't the best for other
people, because their criteria are almost certainly different.

Of course, I once used to visit a shirt maker in Belfast, at the end
of their line identical shirts got put into one of three baskets at
random. One went to have a well known designers label sewn in, one
had a well known clothing stores label sewn in and one had a generic
label sewn in. These identical shirts sold for GBP120, GBP40 and
GBP10 respectively (the manufacture got GBP4 for each no matter what
the label. I'm sure each of the purchasers felt they got value for
their money because their criteria were different no matter that the
product was identical.

Interesting anecdote, but not applicable since your comparison with
respect to cookers is between apples and pears.



Again, you can't assume that everyone's criteria are the same as
yours.

I'm not, I have never underestimated human irrationality.


With that in mind, and considering that these things are relative,
what makes you think that you are rational and others are not?


--

..andy

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 18:43:49 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 17:52:44 +0000, Peter Parry
wrote:

When the performance is mediocre and both the purchase
cost and running cost astronomic there is no sense in buying one
unless it is for other intangible reasons.

You are describing the performance as mediochre based on your
experiences of an old model

No I am not, they are all mediocre. Some users may have found their
mediocrity to be acceptable and that their style statement or social
cachet is more important; it doesn't alter the fact that they are not
very good all round cookers.

I completely disagree, based on my criteria and experience of
a more recent product.

More recent? The damn thing was last updated about twenty years ago.
It still uses the same mechanical thermostat control it did in 1970.

Running costs are not astronomic. I already gave you the figures that
I get, and do not regard those as astronomic.

You might not, even on your figures others might feel differently.
However you have singularly failed to explain why your figures are so
much at variance with the manufacturers ones. The "well they are
nice people and don't want to upset people" excuse really is pretty
lame.

I could gather firewood for free and cook on
that, and argue that anything where I have to pay for the energy is
astronomic. It's a relative term.

If you want to cook using pound notes as fuel that's entirely up to
you. Don't expect to be believed when you claim its really
economical though.

Yours appears to be the only Aga in the world to achieve this though.
Every other Aga manages more like 1000W standing load and this
increases up to 5,000W when cooking.

How many modern gas models have you measured at 1000W?

I haven't - I've used the figures issued by the manufacturer who told
me they were derived from many test measurements on many ovens and
accurate in respect of all models including the "modern" gas one.

Given that situation, it would be rather difficult fo ryou to assert
that mine is the only one that achieves those figures.

True, if I was to believe that all the manufacturers data is wrong
and your single example is the only one that is right.

"The running costs of these cookers is about £400-500 per annum" (Aga
salesman).

From the figures Aga quote a 4 oven gas Aga uses 527kw/hr a week or
27.4 Megawatt/hrs per year. At present gas prices that is an annual
bill of GBP 540 - GBP 600 per year depending upon supplier.

If you read *all* of the data sheet you would see that the word
"typical" is used. They don't say what "typical" means or how they
measure it.

Are you seriously suggesting that they would deliberately chose an
atypical pattern of use to worsen their stated figures? Don't you
think there is at least a slight possibility that the manufacturer
knows a bit more about the subject than you do? Quite possibly the
way you do (or don't) use your cooker achieves better results, if so
isn't it more likely that it is your usage that is unusual?

--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

I'm not, I have never underestimated human irrationality.


With that in mind, and considering that these things are relative,
what makes you think that you are rational and others are not?

sits back, arms folded, waiting for rational reply - it could be a long
wait :-)

In the meantime, are your hens laying, Andy?

Mary

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 22:37:57 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 22:21:35 +0000, Peter Parry
wrote:

Interesting anecdote, but not applicable since your comparison with
respect to cookers is between apples and pears.

Hot box to heat food?

I'm not, I have never underestimated human irrationality.

With that in mind, and considering that these things are relative,
what makes you think that you are rational and others are not?

Experience.

--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 22:44:37 +0000, Peter Parry
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 22:37:57 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 22:21:35 +0000, Peter Parry
wrote:

Interesting anecdote, but not applicable since your comparison with
respect to cookers is between apples and pears.

Hot box to heat food?

Bicycle and milk float will both get you from A to B?



I'm not, I have never underestimated human irrationality.

With that in mind, and considering that these things are relative,
what makes you think that you are rational and others are not?

Experience.


Ah.


--

..andy

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 22:41:22 +0000, Peter Parry
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 18:43:49 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 17:52:44 +0000, Peter Parry
wrote:

When the performance is mediocre and both the purchase
cost and running cost astronomic there is no sense in buying one
unless it is for other intangible reasons.

You are describing the performance as mediochre based on your
experiences of an old model

No I am not, they are all mediocre.

Only by your definition.


Some users may have found their
mediocrity to be acceptable and that their style statement or social
cachet is more important; it doesn't alter the fact that they are not
very good all round cookers.

Based only on your definition.



I completely disagree, based on my criteria and experience of
a more recent product.

More recent? The damn thing was last updated about twenty years ago.
It still uses the same mechanical thermostat control it did in 1970.

So what? It works perfectly effectively.



Running costs are not astronomic. I already gave you the figures that
I get, and do not regard those as astronomic.

You might not, even on your figures others might feel differently.
However you have singularly failed to explain why your figures are so
much at variance with the manufacturers ones. The "well they are
nice people and don't want to upset people" excuse really is pretty
lame.


As I have repeatedly said; I can only explain my measurements.

Aga quote "typical" figures. They don't say how they arrived at them.




I could gather firewood for free and cook on
that, and argue that anything where I have to pay for the energy is
astronomic. It's a relative term.

If you want to cook using pound notes as fuel that's entirely up to
you. Don't expect to be believed when you claim its really
economical though.

I really don't care. For the umpteenth time, I know what I have
measured and I know the costings that I get that result from it.



Yours appears to be the only Aga in the world to achieve this though.
Every other Aga manages more like 1000W standing load and this
increases up to 5,000W when cooking.

How many modern gas models have you measured at 1000W?

I haven't - I've used the figures issued by the manufacturer who told
me they were derived from many test measurements on many ovens and
accurate in respect of all models including the "modern" gas one.

Given that situation, it would be rather difficult fo ryou to assert
that mine is the only one that achieves those figures.

True, if I was to believe that all the manufacturers data is wrong
and your single example is the only one that is right.

All that I have said is what I measured. I have no idea how the
manufacturer arrived at their "typical" figures, and neither have you.



"The running costs of these cookers is about £400-500 per annum" (Aga
salesman).

From the figures Aga quote a 4 oven gas Aga uses 527kw/hr a week or
27.4 Megawatt/hrs per year. At present gas prices that is an annual
bill of GBP 540 - GBP 600 per year depending upon supplier.

If you read *all* of the data sheet you would see that the word
"typical" is used. They don't say what "typical" means or how they
measure it.

Are you seriously suggesting that they would deliberately chose an
atypical pattern of use to worsen their stated figures?

I have no idea what they do to make their "typical" measurements and I
don't really care.

Don't you
think there is at least a slight possibility that the manufacturer
knows a bit more about the subject than you do?

I'm sure they do, but it isn't relevant and doesn't negate the figures
that I measured.


Quite possibly the
way you do (or don't) use your cooker achieves better results, if so
isn't it more likely that it is your usage that is unusual?

Cooking between 1 and 3 meals per day from basic ingredients does not
strike me as unusual.


--

..andy

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 16:30:37 +0000, Andy Hall wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 13:35:28 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:


Thats it basically. If you want lightly seared tuna steaks on a bed of
couscous with roquette salad and a balsamic drizzled garnish, an aga is of
very little use to you.

I disagree. I can sear oily fish very well on the griddle. I don't
bother with the couscous and limit the balsamico.


The biggest danger of te aga - and its reputatin for gghahstly food - comes
from stupid housewives who have discocvered that the warming oven means
never having to time your meals properly..meat that gest cooked too early,
and just about anything else, goes in there to wait for te veg to be ready.
Result is soggy and disgusting.

Unnecessary as well. Timing is pretty easy.


Its far too complex for most people.

More good food is riuined by lack of having a schedule, than good food is
concocted by createive use of ingredients.


Runs a restaurant in Bray which isn't bad, although he does specialise
in scrambled egg flavoured ice cream.


Nouveau ****** then.

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 15:51:15 +0000, Peter Parry wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 13:46:07 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

In terms of being a conveniently located heater, of attractive design (in a
traditional setting), that is actually MORE efficient than an oil or gas
boiler,

They are not more efficient than a modern oil or gas boiler - the
range cooker industry even had to negotiate a category of their own
for water heating because they found it difficult to reach even 85%
efficiency, most still wallow around 75%.


Excuse me, who mentioned water heating?

I am talking about calories (fuel) in and heat (out) to the room.

Less heat goes up the stack on an aga than on an average boiler - thats
all.

You will be telling me next that an electriceater is 0% efficient because
it doesn't heat water at all.

Your other aname isn't Drivel is it?



But if at all possible, hedge yor bets. If you are on gas, get a gas
hob as well - the gas aga companion is actually nice - electric ovens, gas
hob, and a gas aga is the best of all worls..and on oil with no gas the
electric companion is also advantageous.

Something else which needs to be factored in is price. A new four
oven gas Aga today costs over GBP 7,000. If you want the companion
module - a simple double oven and hob it adds a staggering GBP 2,600.
On top of that you need to add the cost of reinforcing the floor.


Get the two oven aga then. You don't need 6 ovens...

GBP 9,600 for a cooker which then costs a further GBP500 a year to
run simply isn't worthwhile when set against its mediocre
performance.

Neither are most things people fill their houses with.

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 17:27:01 +0000, Peter Parry wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 16:40:16 -0000, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:

I wondered that too. If you want something you pay for it. If you want the
best you pay for it.

In this case you don't get the best having paid for it. If you want
it for "lifestyle" reasons then of course logic and cost is
irrelevant. If you want to buy a cooker then both price and
performance are usually important factors.


Thats a bit like saying that if all you want is a splash of color on the
wall,£80,0000 for a Tissot is a waste of money.

Agas are not JUST cookers. They are heaters of a certain character as well.

It is simply ridiculous to compare running costs with a gas cooker.

Lets say that its cheaper to heast your house with an aga than a wet
radiotor ans see what you think about that...

6500 is a fair price for an installed CH sytem let alone adding a cooker on
teh price :-)

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 22:21:35 +0000, Peter Parry wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 18:21:00 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 17:27:01 +0000, Peter Parry
wrote:

In this case you don't get the best having paid for it.

That's your assertion based on criteria that you deem to be valid for
you. You can't say that something is or isn't the best for other
people, because their criteria are almost certainly different.

Of course, I once used to visit a shirt maker in Belfast, at the end
of their line identical shirts got put into one of three baskets at
random. One went to have a well known designers label sewn in, one
had a well known clothing stores label sewn in and one had a generic
label sewn in. These identical shirts sold for GBP120, GBP40 and
GBP10 respectively (the manufacture got GBP4 for each no matter what
the label. I'm sure each of the purchasers felt they got value for
their money because their criteria were different no matter that the
product was identical.

So you think that e.g a baby belling is exactly the same product as an Aga?

Hmm.


Again, you can't assume that everyone's criteria are the same as
yours.

I'm not, I have never underestimated human irrationality.

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 17:52:44 +0000, Peter Parry wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 16:16:49 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 15:51:15 +0000, Peter Parry
wrote:

Something else which needs to be factored in is price.

Why?

Because most people have to buy things and both cost and performance
are factors. When the performance is mediocre and both the purchase
cost and running cost astronomic there is no sense in buying one
unless it is for other intangible reasons.

GBP 9,600 for a cooker which then costs a further GBP500 a year to
run simply isn't worthwhile when set against its mediocre
performance.

1) At the measured rate of 700W, at a gas price of 2p a unit, that
adds up to around £120.

Yours appears to be the only Aga in the world to achieve this though.
Every other Aga manages more like 1000W standing load and this
increases up to 5,000W when cooking.

"The running costs of these cookers is about £400-500 per annum" (Aga
salesman).

Indeed, that is consistent with my experience..BUT my heating costs with a
wet central heating system are about 50% more than that just for the
winter...in spring and autumn the aga does that job.


From the figures Aga quote a 4 oven gas Aga uses 527kw/hr a week or
27.4 Megawatt/hrs per year. At present gas prices that is an annual
bill of GBP 540 - GBP 600 per year depending upon supplier. That is
significantly more than I spend on heating the whole house, the hot
water and all the cooking fuel for a complete year.

well we don't all live in pokey little hovels with the doors shut up tight
so we can smell our own farts.

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 14:54:15 +0000, Andy Wade wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

But what energy costs? Agas are MORE efficient than CH boilers.

That's complete nonsense, surely? How can an open-flued non-condensing
appliance possibly compete with a modern condensing gas boiler?


Quite easily. It uses a long flue path to extract the heat down to an
effkux temperature up the flue of about 35C.

With CH water running at higher than that, even in a codensinng boiler,
more heat has to go out of the boiler flue than the aga flue.

The ONLY thing that marks boiler efficiency is how hot the exhaust gases
are when they leave the house and go through the insulation.

That and the initial combustion temperatures, which are fairly similar in
both cases.

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 22:12:21 +0000, Peter Parry wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 18:23:44 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

The fan blows it out. In a fan blown oven.

On the pop again?

Nope. All the fan blown ovens I have had generate a hot draught out of a
vent somewhere.

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 22:10:35 +0000, Peter Parry wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 18:25:58 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 16 Jan 2006 00:43:42 -0800, wrote:

Just spotted this
http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/afx...fx2451468.html .
Electric Agas? Dafter and dafter!

Yes, they are. The cost of running them is exorbitant,

Half the energy requirement of the gas one and under a half the cost
of an oil one

At twice the initial cost for the electricity, even on overnight rates.

On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 02:04:25 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 22:12:21 +0000, Peter Parry wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 18:23:44 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

The fan blows it out. In a fan blown oven.

On the pop again?

Nope. All the fan blown ovens I have had generate a hot draught out of a
vent somewhere.

Are you suggesting that fan ovens discharge the hot air from the oven
into the surroundings? I don't think so. I only have experience of
one fan oven and it certainly does not discharge hot air into the
surroundings. If it did why wouldn't the surroundings (kitchen)
temperature tend to rise to the temperature of the oven and the
kitchen be filled with oven fumes? What is wrong with this equation?