Hi Alex, Pancakes are yummy. But rather than try to calculate how yummy they are, I will return to the Boron and zinnias thing. First, I will try to provide some solid justification for the 0.25 ppm elemental Boron figure. That figure appears several places on the Web, but I think the basis for it is this study by Redington and Peterson. All we can see on that page is the Abstract, but that is sufficient, as it provides this statement. "Boron was investigated as the possible cause of bud blasting and non-development in Zinnia elegans. Blasting is characterized by a blackening of the developed bud as a result of necrosis of the scales, unopened calyx and enclosed tissue. Plants were subjected to boron levels of 0, 0.0025, 0.025, 0.25 and 2.5 ppm. Plants grown without added boron and at the lowest level supplied showed extreme new leaf chlorosis, thickening and distortion of older leaves, stunted growth and abnormal flower development including blasting. Plants grown at 0.025 ppm level showed moderate chlorosis and, to a slight extent, the other deficiency symptoms. Plants were healthiest when grown at the 0.25 level of boron. Boron at 2.5 ppm produced plants with marginal leaf necrosis, reduced height and root weight, and slower flowering when compared to the 0.25 treatment level. Analysis of boron in plant tissue confirmed that decreased levels of boron in the medium resulted in decreased levels of boron in various plant tissues." The bold emphasis was provided by me, because that is the justification for the 0.25 ppm Boron target. I provide elemental Boron via boric acid, and that is the main ingredient of the insecticide you have on hand. The chemical formula for boric acid is H3BO3. Wikipedia provides this information about boric acid. From which we glean that its molecular weight is 61.83302 and the fraction of elemental B to boric acid is 10.811 / 61.83302 = 0.1748 rounded to four figures. There are 4.92892 milliliters in a teaspoon, so our 1/4 teaspoon of boric acid in the gallon of stock solution is 1.23223 ml. Next comes a tricky part, converting that volume of boric acid into a weight of Boron. Wikipedia gave the density of pure Boric acid as 1.435 grams per cc, which is considerably more dense than water. But that figure is for the solid material and we have a powder, which includes quite a bit of entrained air. If you drop a quarter teaspoon of boric acid into water, you will notice that the "glob" floats. I eliminated the surface tension of water as the explanation by replacing the water with some water to which a small amount of Dawn dishwashing liquid was added. Same result. The glob of boric acid powder continued to float, admittedly quite low in the water. If I had a laboratory balance, the simple solution would be to drop 1/4 teaspoon of boric acid powder onto the scale and see how much it weighed. That would give us a good figure for the density of the powder as well as the weight of boric acid powder and, by multiplying by the 0.1748 factor, the mass of elemental Boron in the gallon of stock solution. I will probably purchase an inexpensive laboratory scale in the future (I am curious what some of my zinnia seeds weigh, and I have several trace element chelate powders that I need to weigh). But for the time being, I will make an estimate for the density of my boric acid powder. The glob floated rather low in the water, so, for the time being, I will use an estimate (guess) of 0.9 for the specific gravity of my boric acid powder. So, with that estimate, we can calculate: 1/4 teaspoon = 1.23223 ml x 0.9 g/ml = 1.109007 grams of Boric acid in the gallon of stock solution. And multiplying that by the weight ratio (0.1748) of elemental Boron to Boric acid, gives us an estimate of 0.1939 grams of elemental Boron in the one gallon of stock solution. We note that accepting that 1 ml of water weighs 1 gram and assuming that our stock solution density does not vary significantly from that, we can say: 1 US gallon = 3.7854 liters = 3785.4 ml = 3785.4 grams. Therefore we can say that our stock solution contains 0.1939 grams elemental Boron per 3785.4 grams of solution, which amounts to 5.1223 x 10-5 grams B per gallon. We want the concentration of Boron in the plant water to be the target value of 0.25 grams Boron per 1,000,000 grams of plant water. Let's do a little algebra, and let y represent the grams of elemental B in a gallon of plant water. So lets equate that concentration to the target concentration. y / 3785.4 = 0.25 / 1000000 Solving that equation for y: y = 0.25 x 3785.4 / 1000000 = .00094635 grams of Boron in a gallon of plant water. Now lets solve algebraically for the amount of stock solution, S, needed to supply that much elemental Boron. .000051223 grams B per gram of stock x S = .00094635 grams B S = .00094635 / .000051223 = 18.475 grams of stock solution per gallon of plant water Assuming that the density of stock solution doesn't vary much from the density of pure water, lets convert 18.475 grams of stock solution to a more useful form. 18.475 grams x ( 1 gallon / 3785.4 grams ) x (16 cups / gallon) = .07809 cups Its not practical to use that small a fraction of cups, so let's convert that to tablespoons. .07809 cups x (16 tablespoons / cup ) = 1.249 tablespoons So, if I haven't made some kind of stupid mistake, the target Boron level in the plant water is achieved by including only about 1.25 tablespoons or 3.75 teaspoons of stock solution in a gallon of plant water. And that is subject to how well my estimate of 0.9 specific gravity for the Boron powder fits reality. If these results are reasonably correct, I have been overdosing my zinnias by a factor of 2 or 3 on Boron. Fortunately, I would have to overdose them by a factor of 10 to see the phytotoxicity reported in the Redington and Peterson reference. I have convinced myself that I need some sort of little weighing device. I'm sure glad this message didn't get "technical". Now I have a craving for pancakes. ZM This post was edited by zenman on Wed, Oct 8, 14 at 23:48

Tecumseh with plastic bowl - if it is flooding, at the bottom of the bowl on the side is a screw. Remove that and inside is a plastic piece, this meters the flow of fuel and if missing can explain flooding. Also carb is extruded aluminum and there is a small hole drilled in it for the bowl to breath, that could be the other cause. Lastly dirt is holding the carb needle open- hold the carb bowl in your hand off the carb and let the gas flow in and see if the bowl overflows while outside the carb. If it only runs for a sec, upon removing the screw from the bowl the plastic piece inside - get a drill and drill it just a hair larger - so far this personaly worked for me 3 for 3 of these. Do this after trying cleaning it out the same piece with a paperclip. Sorry all if parts of my post are a repeat. ihwall50- black smoke, too much gas from dirty air filter, try banging the filter on the street curb knocking dirt loose and try again. if it improves, get a new filter.

I don't put any sulfur in the holes of the roses pictured. The other holes with sulfur didn't bloom well. My heavy clay is very retentive, there is no leaching here. Here's a quote from Nutrient Stewardship site: "Phosphorus is the nutrient most affected by pH. ..Nitrogen, Potassium, and sulfur are less affected. At alkaline pH values, greater than pH 7.5, phosphate ions tend to react quickly with calcium (Ca) and magnesium (Mg) to form less soluble compounds. At acidic pH values, phosphate ions react with aluminum (Al) and iron (Fe) to again form less soluble compounds." It's good to test if one's tap water is alkaline, some cities add lime to water so pipes won't corrode. Calcium in lime will bind with phosphorus, and less is available. In my 12 years of growing flowers in pots, the year that I got continuous MOST blooms despite my pH 8 water was when I used high phosphorus SOLUBLE fertilizer, and low nitrogen. Granular phosphorus like bone meal and 46% superphosphate are useless in the planting hole here in alkaline clay. My results confirmed what University of Colorado stated "bone meal and rock phosphate can only be utilized at or below pH 7". My pH 7.7 soil was tested most deficient in phosphorus. Here's a quote from David Neal, CEO of Dyna-Grow Plant Nutrition in CA: "There is some evidence to believe that low N helps to convince a plant to stop its vegetative growth and move into its reproductive phase (flowering), but environmental factors are probably more important. P is typically 5th or 6th in order of importance of the six macronutrients. There is little scientific justification for higher P formulas, but marketing does come into play ...." He's right, just a tiny bit of SOLUBLE phosphorus made more blooms and more roots - but beyond that is wasteful. The site, Robert Morris NOBLE plant foundation, rated the mobility of NPK: "Let's compare the mobility of NPK on a scale of 1 to 10. Nitrogen is a 10 ... extremely mobile and can be lost to leaching. Potassium is a 3. It has limited movement in the soil. Phosphorus has a rating of 1. It is immobile in the soil and is likely to stay wherever it is placed." Here is a link that might be useful: Soil pH and availability of plant nutrients

Daisy, I brought out my copy of G.S. Thomas's book and consulted it when I was making up my order. I agree totally about the appeal of his writing: Thomas is an excellent descriptive writer, who makes you fall in love with roses simply through clear sober description, rather than by employing purple prose. He's a model stylist. Kippie and Marianne, thanks for your comments. Kippie, DH and I are not the only ones working in the garden; I know you've had plenty to do and have done it well. Your place sounds like it's a lot of fun. Marianne, I'll keep your comment about 'Cynthia Brooke' in mind. Who knows if one day I might have it? a cutting exchange, perhaps? I seem to recall you have 'Radiance'. Pam, yes, we regularly amend with old hay, the more rotted the better. I'm coming around to thinking that Strawberryhill is right, that hay works but that peat-based potting soil as an amendment in our soil is a bust. I do try to keep the hay away from direct contact with the roots, which get a kind of clay "sleeve", but then fill the hole with alternating layers of clay and hay. With the increased volume and reduced compactness we end up with a greater volume of soil, so that we can better terrace up the planting hole. This helps drainage in wet weather and also retains water when it rains in dry periods. We employed this method last year for our fall planting, and the roses did well with it, and the soil looks good. I imagine you have some tricks of your own: do you have any advice? Lux, You're right, of course, and though I've lived all my life in various Zone 8's I have been some places where it got genuinely cold. BUT, such cold as Italy gets, it leverages to the max. Right now we're in the middle of an unusually chilly December, and when the temperature is only about 30F, but never warms up; when the puddles are frozen, the sky is a lowering gray, the landscape is covered with snow; when the roads are icy and you have to drive with chains, and you get about eight hours of dim daylight and have to keep the wood stove roaring every waking hour, LORD it feels cold. By the way, we were actually rather lucky concerning our weather when we planted the roses: it was the only time this month that conditions were tolerable for working outside.