Ellen & Jenn - A copy/paste job from a reply I wrote on another thread: How large a container can or should be, depends on the relationship between the mass of the plant material you are working with and your choice of soil. We often concern ourselves with "over-potting" (using a container that is too large), but "over-potting" is a term that arises from a lack of a basic understanding about the relationship we will look at, which logically determines appropriate container size. It's often parroted that you should only move up one container size when "potting-up". The reasoning is, that when potting up to a container more than one size larger, the soil will remain wet too long and cause root rot issues, but it is the size/mass of the plant material you are working with, and the physical properties of the soil you choose that determines both the upper & lower limits of appropriate container size - not a formulaic upward progression of container sizes. In many cases, after root pruning a plant, it may even be appropriate to step down a container size or two, but as you will see, that also depends on the physical properties of the soil you choose. Plants grown in slow (slow-draining/water-retentive) soils need to be grown in containers with smaller soil volumes so that the plant can use water quickly, allowing air to return to the soil before root issues beyond impaired root function/metabolism become a limiting factor. We know that the anaerobic (airless) conditions that accompany soggy soils quickly kill fine roots and impair root function/metabolism. We also know smaller soil volumes and the root constriction that accompany them cause plants to both extend branches and gain o/a mass much more slowly - a bane if rapid growth is the goal - a boon if growth restriction and a compact plant are what you have your sights set on. Conversely, rampant growth can be had by growing in very large containers and in very fast soils where frequent watering and fertilizing is required - so it's not that plants rebel at being potted into very large containers per se, but rather, they rebel at being potted into very large containers with a soil that is too slow and water-retentive. This is a key point. We know that there is an inverse relationship between soil particle size and the height of the perched water table (PWT) in containers. As particle size increases, the height of the PWT decreases, until at about a particle size of just under 1/8 inch, soils will no longer hold perched water. If there is no perched water, the soil is ALWAYS well aerated, even when the soil is at container capacity (fully saturated). So, if you aim for a soil (like the gritty mix) composed primarily of particles larger than 1/16", there is no upper limit to container size, other than what you can practically manage. The lower size limit will be determined by the soil volume's ability to allow room for roots to 'run' and to furnish water enough to sustain the plant between irrigations. Bearing heavily on this ability is the ratio of fine roots to coarse roots. It takes a minimum amount of fine rootage to support the canopy under high water demand. If the container is full of large roots, there may not be room for a sufficient volume of the fine roots that do all the water/nutrient delivery work and the coarse roots, too. You can grow a very large plant in a very small container if the roots have been well managed and the lion's share of the rootage is fine. You can also grow very small plants, even seedlings, in very large containers if the soil is fast (free-draining and well-aerated) enough that the soil holds no, or very little perched water. I have just offered clear illustration that the oft repeated advice to 'only pot up one size at a time', only applies when using heavy, water-retentive soils. Those using well-aerated soils are not bound by the same restrictions. AL

From what I recall (vaguelyÂas I was planting several new beds at the same time) the first Frances Williams was nice in the pot, but not THAT impressive when I bought and planted it. Then the next summer, I sat up and took notice. And more "wow" since. I donÂt need it to grow faster, this was fast enough for me. Compared to other varieties I have, and IÂm not a huge collector; it was a bigger transformation. Other varieties are more or less the same as when they were potted, maybe the leaves a little bigger and of course, the whole plant bigger. (For me, comparing with what I have, that means Gold Standard, June, Guacamole, Sagae, Regal Splendor, Krossa Regal, Love Pat, Fire and Ice, Abby, and Golden Tiara.) When I shopped yesterday, nothing stood out as being distinctive enough. Though under the shade of a mature Mugho pine, it is a very visible garden right next to the front sidewalk. I want things that will "glow" in the shade. It gets morning sun and filtered afternoon shade. I only bought the Frances Williams because I was on the lookout for one. I really like wide leaves and contrasting edges: but probably only want some puckered. I looked at Wide Brim but put that back. IÂm hoping to find a nice blue too. I'm hoping for maybe 3 medium to big ones (but not tall) in total, and the rest smaller. I wonder what other varieties have such a distinctive change, that I might be overlooking because they are not so "special" when young?

Twin-tank systems are sized very differently than single-tank systems. I think with only 18gpg a 2.5 or 3.5cuft softener is not needed. I don't have the Fleck 9100 data sheet with me but I could use a Kinetico twin to compare. The model I would recommend would be a MACH 2100s OD. This is a paraflow (as opposed to an alternative flow) unit. That means water is passing through both tanks at the same time except during regeneration (90 minutes). At 18 gpg you would regenerate every 957 and use about 5.5 lbs. How often that would happen depends on the volume you use on a case by case basis. The back wash rate maximum is only 3gpm which would be a lot less than much larger units. These tanks contain 1.5 cuft of resin each in a standard mesh. With your level of iron, a turbulator is unnecessary and a standard mesh resin will be more than satisfactory. Although maximum SFR should always be a consideration, in reality it is an extremely rare occurance and as you have said most likely no more than three people using water at once. The 2100 has 21gpm flow rate with 31gpm peak flow rate. Unfortunately, Fleck doesn't make this variation. The 2100 is designed with 1.25" plumbing and comes wioth a bumper to bumper warranty---including resins. These flow rates are calculated at the point where pressure drops 15psi not where hardness necessarily comes through. I do recommend a sediment prefilter, if it 'is not needed' then it would not clog up and serve as a cheap protection against the occassional sediment problem and it would not be a hinderance to flow rate. I tend to disagree that a softener should serve as a 'filter'. Resins were neither designed to act as a filtration system and can be negatively affected by continuous sediment intrusion. Your idea of parallel two big blue filter filter with pressure gauges is a very professional and excellent choice. Most don't do that to that extent (usually one 10 x 2.5") and do so without issue. I would go with a 20-micron, though. Pleated fliters are reusable to a point. These will definitely not restrict flow to any degree noticable and your pressure gauges will attest to that. You always have the option of leaving them empty. And if they did get clogged, give yourself a pat on the back for not dumping all that foreign matter into your expensive unit. Often sediment is heavier than resin and falls to the bottom of the tank where it accummulates and isn't backwashed out. I have seen a lot of mug coming out of old junk softeners where a prefilter would have gretly extended service life. A very cheap and good insurance; that is a good choice. I would say you have a very firm and sound understanding of water treatment as a homeowner. Andy Christensen, CWS

In my adult life, I've slept in a king, a queen, both alone and with my husband, and now an extra-long adjustable twin that's actually part of a "split king". I've liked them all at various times and for various reasons. We got the adjustable split king (2 extra-long twins) from Costco several months ago for a couple of reasons (and BTW, it's expensive!). My husband now wakes up several times most nights from leg cramps or to go to the bathroom, and at least one of those times would wake me up and I couldn't get back to sleep, so I'd have some rather unproductive days. So going back to a king, or the split king were the choices we considered. Even though expensive, the split king won, because I have GERD and veinous insufficiency, and he has acid reflux. I'd tried several different slanted pillows to raise my head for several years, but I didn't sleep well, since if I relaxed I'd slide down the pillow by morning and be almost flat, which made my esophagus irritated. And raising my legs by putting a pillow under them didn't work. Having both my head and feet raised to about the zero gravity position have totally solved the problem. The bed has a memory foam mattress with a pillow top over it, so it's very comfortable. My husband and I are able to stay in the same room, I can get a good night's sleep, and he also likes his head raised. This position only works if you have medical reasons, or like to sleep on your back--on your side doesn't work well. I understand it's also good for those with sinus or asthma problems, and possibly sleep apnea. I'm mentioning this here, because you can also buy just a twin that is adjustable, and because the info might help someone else who might have the same issues I do, or might need an adjustable bed as they get older for medical reasons. All it takes is money! We're retired, and decided to skip taking a couple of trips to buy the bed instead. Great decision! Anne