This thread keeps being resurrected. I assume that these guys have customers of some sort or another since they are still in business and I further assume that you are similar to the typical customer. Which is to say: you are using this injector in in-ground soil with a dry granular fertilizer similar to miracle gro. Ok, fine. You set it up and it appears to be working for you. But have you checked? Do you have a high quality EC meter with which you can monitor the concentration of the fertilizer that is being applied to your plants? I have one and I've checked (something they say on the website we could do but they hope that we'll "trust them"). The unit does not function as advertised even using the typical dry granular fertilizer. And yet you are still happy with it. Why? Because you see plants that are in your view doing fine and you see the fertilizer being used eventually. The fact that there is unevenness in application is not apparent to you from the plant (because you don't have consistent applications to compare it to) nor from testing of the output from the unit. But it *is* to me and it *should* be to you. The fact that you're almost certainly using mineral soil will mitigate some of the downsides of the unit - but you'd still be much better off with a steady application of a known quantity of fertilizer. Plant vigor would increase and you would have better control over the timing of concentration at certain times of the year. Anyone who will be happy with the fact that this unit will take fertilizer and in some way or another put it on your plants at some dosage or another will be happy with the unit! *That is not what they say it will do.* To answer some of your questions: No, they did not offer me a refund. For that I would have had to send it back to the company from which I purchased it - at my expense. The acid has nothing to do with anything. I also tested this unit with straight liquid fertilizer (with which they claim the unit will function as advertised - it doesn't) - and I had the same result. I was attempting to use it with acids at first, but when that didn't work I did further testing and found the unit doesn't function as advertised in *any* scenario that I tested. Here's the thing: if this unit does not apply fertilizer in a consistent concentration (and it emphatically does *not* do that) - then what is the POINT of the unit? Anyone who wants fluctuating concentrations of fertilizer should just be applying a dry granular product directly to the soil. And - most importantly - using the correct dry products directly in the soil one could almost certainly achieve more even concentration of available fertilizer than with this unit! Get yourself some sulfur coated urea or polymer coated urea products (or equivalent) and your plants would be better off, you will likely have saved money on the fertilizer itself, and you will not have had to purchase this sham of a product. Or if you want more control then spring for a quality fertilizer injector that does the job a fertilizer injector is supposed to do: provide consistent concentration of fertilizer for maximum plant vigor and control. There are quite a few companies which make products that work. Some are even in the same price range as this piece of junk (venturi injectors) though they still have the downsides discussed in earlier posts.

What a a well thought out landscape and lovely collection of plants. I so love your sidewalk planting - so much more interesting than a lawn. I think your Sasaella will be fine, so many plants are wrongly zoned anyway. I grow Sasaella albostriata and it is perfectly hardy for me. From the looks of the perennial plants you are growing, there really doesn't seem to be any zone difference at all between Zone 5 and Zone 3.

HELLO AGAIN EVERY ONE, after my post on Sunday I discovered a few typos after I printed my tome out. Additionally I wanted to respond to saydes post. FIRST THE TYPOS-THE MAJOR ONES ANYWAYS: A. When I was talking about using a 6-burner module in a 4-burner range I stated you must " jump small blades 4 and 6 together and then ground them to a screw on the range. Not a big deal." IT SHOULD READ SMALL BLADES 5 AND 6. B. LEGAL DISCLAIMER: "BUT YOU KNOW WHAT YOU GET FOR FEE" SHOULD READ WHAT YOU GET FOR FREE. C. When discussing the procedure to re-build/mount new flat top igniters, item #9, I stated you should put one or two washers under the screw so the igniter sits flat and thus stands straightThe washers should be placed under the old reused mounting flange so the igniter sits flat. The screw will go through the old flange, new washers and into the burner as it did with the old igniter. D. The new flat top igniters will have a mounting flange that sits 90 degrees from where you want the old flange to be glued. This new flange will just sit on both sides of the burner and will not interfere with anything at all. In fact it will probably make the new/rebuilt igniter more stable when attached to the burner. This will be very oblivious to you when you do a dry run as per #6 E. When I was discussing how to figure out which wires ran to which igniters if you got those wires mixed-up I said " the igniter will click, and you will know it is "wire/circuit x" so just mark that on the burner holder. In the next sentence I said plug the igniter wire from burner 3 to small blade 3, test it and you are all done. WELL IN ORDER TO DO THIS TEST TO FIND OUT WHICH WIRE GOES TO WHICH IGNITER ALL THE IGNITER WIRES WOULD HAVE TO BE PLUGGED INTO THE SMALL BLADES AT ONE TIME and YOU WOULD ATTACH THE BIG BLADES ONE AT A TIME, TEST, LABEL(the burner) REMOVE AND GO TO THE NEXT ONE. AS TO THE SMALL BLADES SINCE THEY ARE ALL PLUGGED IN YOU WOULD JUST REARRANGE EACH ONE SO IT WOULD BE ON THE CORRECT BLADE, IE: wire/circuit #1 to small blade # 1, etc NOW AS TO saydes post. There are two distinct problems. One being the igniters, which is the device mounted on the burner which sparks and the second being the ignition module which is the electronic device which produces the energy for the spark and monitors whether or not the burner is still lit. It is very hard to tell from the guybanks web site which ignition module(s) is new or old as the four of them listed, 2 white,( one obviously Invensys) and 2 blue (one of which I know is a Tytronics), all have multiple Viking ranges associated with them. The part I received (PA020042) was labeled as having been made in 2005. However the 4 igniters I received were all made in May of 2008 so I assume these are the new Viking igniters. So to answer your questions: yes, you can fix your Bluestar once and for all using the new Viking "flat top igniters" and Tytronics ignition module. As far as Vikings igniter problem I would say they have it fixed as long as the model you purchase has the flat top igniters. Viking appears to have switched from Invensys ignition modules to Tytronics, so as long as the Tytronics work better or are of a better design or quality then I would thing that problem is solved, although Im not sure if there is a Tytronics replacement for every Viking model. For those of you who dont want to go through the hassle of switching from Invensys to Tytronics, well now you have a place to buy them, somewhat less expensive and much more response( from what some posts say) Guybanks ships orders out in a day or two by USPS.

tcake, You pose an interesting question. Are you referring to Fisher & Paykel's new Aquasmart impeller washer? I assume that you are, because the impeller version of the Cabrio is actually quite a bit different from the agitator based F&P washer. Unfortunately, I don't know nearly as much about the Aquasmart as I do about F&P's agitiator washers, but I will try to compare the two products based on what I do know. The biggest difference between the Aquasmart and the Cabrio is the drum capacity. Whirlpool claims 4.5 cubic feet IEC drum capacity, whereas F&P currently claims 3.7 cubic feet IEC drum capacity for their washers, which is actually cheating on their part, because the "IEC' capacity rating was originally intended for washers without agitators, and until now F&P's washers have all had agitators. They justify this by claiming that their washers are HE rated, and so the rating applies to them as well, but they are wrong. The rating only refers to usable wash capacity, not energy efficiency, or water consumption. Anyway, the "true" capacity of these washers is 3.9 cubic feet for the Cabrio, and 3.0 cubic feet for the F&P. This is for F&P's agitator washers, so the Aquasmart with impeller will have more than this, probably something close to 3.1 cubic feet, which means that the Cabrio has a 0.8 cubic feet drum capacity advantage over the Aquasmart, or 26% more usable capacity. This is a lot. Cabrio obviously has the clear advantage in this regard. Unfortunately however for Cabrio, this capacity advantage requires a larger size washer. The Cabrio is 27 inches square, while the Aquasmart is 25 inches square. This means that the Aquasmart will fit into a lot more laundry closets, a clear advantage for Aquasmart. The Cabrio has a porcelain top with a tempered glass lid, while the Aquasmart uses plastic for both the top and the lid. This is definitely an advantage for Cabrio, because plastic tops and lids are not nearly as durable, and will probably start to look scratched and dingy after just a few years of use. The Cabrio has a rotary dial cycle selector, while the Aquasmart has an LCD display. This is probably more of a personal preference thing, but I'm inclined to favor the Cabrio rotary dial for more ease of use. The Aquasmart probably uses spray rinses, while the Cabrio doesn't. This will result in significant water savings for Aquasmart over Cabrio, but it requires the user to specifically select a deep fill rinse if they want to use fabric softener. In my view however, this is the better compromise, because water savings are important. However, it's important to remember that spray rinses will not be as effective as a deep fill rinse for particulate soils and pet hair. I think the Aquasmart lets the user choose a deep fill wash, while this choice isn't directly available to Cabrio users. It is possible to cheat a little however, because there are some Cabrio cycles that use more water than others. These are the major differences. Other than these the machines are probably quite similar. As far as which machine is best, if you have the space, and want the extra capacity, then the Cabrio is a good choice. If not, then the Aquasmart is probably a pretty good choice as well.