Відео

@@LiamColt not much at all

@@annbarnard7440 thanks so much :)

Staples :)

Awesome

Yeah around 48 hours for 30 quid isnt bad

Pretty much this is it

Yeah I really wish Ryan and Seth had at least 2-3 bitter fights during the course of this show. Not physical fights, because Ryan would wreck Seth, just some angry verbal fights. It would have been a lot more realistic. Even people who care about each other blow up at each other sometimes.

That build up paid off tho.

Some friends don't ever fight you know lol come on

40s for the whole thing including excavation

@@robgoldsmith5 No way!! That's amazing. Good job 👏 👍

Amazon

I use methanol instead of ethanol because i have methanol for other things yet methanol burns faster thean ethanol but burns cleaner.

Methanol fumes are bad.

www.imaginfires.co.uk/

Around 60p. An electric heater looks awful and cheap though while a real burning fire brings calm and design to a room while also eco friendly.

Here is your cost for 3kwh (comparible) electric heating - www.sust-it.net/heating-energy-calculator.php

Instead of criticism I would suggest that A you thank the poster for his time and B if you want to know things ask folk politely. Would the OP please let me know how much the fire cost originally and if your still happy with the output of heat etc? We want one to take the chill off the conservatory, it's a well built efficient glass conservatory but still drops by a few degrees overnigjt so thinking this sort of thing would be the answer?

@@1983lparker hi thanks for the message. Yes i love it. The cost second hand was 260 which was vastly cheaper than the 4000 we were quoted for a wood burner. With a closed door we generally get up 2 or 3 celcius in an hour which is ideal. We buy bottles in 12 packs which works out at 80 to 90p an hour right now. Not the cheapest but lovely to watch the flames. Thanks

@@robgoldsmith5 still doing well with this? we'd need an external flue so 3-4k for a wood burner and all we're after is something to make a lounge a bit cosier now and then

Yes not too bad!

@@robgoldsmith5 thanks, been thinking about ordering one and been looking for a video like this 👌

No, time kills you, regardless of what you're doing.

Taylor was better for Ryan than Marissa, because she didn't ever drag Ryan down. People said they were forced, but, I don't really think so. However, I think Ryan and Marissa still had more chemistry.

Normally I am all for the big romantic couple but the way Marissa acted with the Oliver situation had me rooting against her and Ryan. Ryan needed to run as far away as possible from her.

The writers actually wrote for Taylor. The problem with Marissa is that the writers only made her a sadgirl.

@@Joe_ParmesanTaylor was “healthier” because her life wasn’t a living hell unlike Marissa. Also Ryan and Marissa brought each other because both of them constantly saved each other and tried to play hero. But they would have figured it out I believed if they went separate for a while and found themselves more. When they killed her they inadvertently killed the show.

@@AstroSully (Hey!) - That's a good point. Marissa gets some benefit of the doubt because of having some massive trouble, especially everything involving Trey. Also, if Marissa lived, Ryan may have never dated Taylor. She was someone he needed so badly in his life and brought out a different side to his personality. Marissa and Ryan still had undeniable chemistry though and an understanding of each other that would've at least kept them as friends, regardless if they were together or not. For the sake of the show, whether they got and stayed back together, I wish that we got to see Marissa's evolution, because I always liked her