I have all the orchids together assigned a number. The number gets an * in front if it is gone for any reason and I don't reuse the number. I have a column for a species/hybrid indicator. The genus, the species, the whole tag contents, flower picture ID, plant picture ID, OrchidSpecies.com page ID, a collection/excess/for-sale indicator and what it is potted in. All that is sliced and diced and sorted with notes, which are separate files, depending on if the relate to the species or the specific plant. Printed lists are: one line per species (I take to buying opportunities so I don't get more), plants that need a flower picture, plants that need a plant picture. And of course the web plant list and individual plant web pages. I am still filling in the pictures. I had a lot of plants before I did the inventory, but every new plant now gets a picture. The flower pictures are only of that plant, not somebody elses plant, so I have to wait for a bloom for that.

Sunday was fabulous, on the cool side, but so clear and sunny, it's rare to see the sky so crystal clear in May, this is the sort of weather you normally get late in the Fall in Central California and mid-Winter in Southern California. I am actually glad the weather has been cool as I discovered several fireblight strikes in my Asian pear tree. The cold weather stopped the infection from spreading. Plus the lack of heat and late rains has meant that I've not had to turn on the irrigation system yet. There is a thick layer of wood chip mulch in the orchard, and underneath it the soil is soaking wet.

"Here you are actually creating and describing a SELECTIVE test that actually demonstrates the validity of something completely different to your claim!" That is so funny, it's not different in any way. Just keeping the buckets in the shade does not protect them from air temp. The buckets still absorb heat, that heat radiates inside the buckets. Like it or not. You will never be able to prove otherwise. "What you have made-up here is not even remotely analogue to your claim, not conform to a typical application, nor close to the actual case we are debating (E/F buckets filled with media). It's a classical fallacy, where the experiment is intentionally set up or selected to fit the expected curve! As long as you are falling for such self fulfilling prophecies in reasoning, you'll never end up being factual nor objective, neither with others nor with yourself! " According to your theory then if the buckets have growing media in it them the temp will automatically remain 65-75 degrees F, no mater what the air temp is. Where is your proof, as you so often demand from others. I'm demanding it from you. Good luck with that, because it does not exist. And none of your "fulfilling prophecies" mater. "Do you really need to compare oranges with apples, to actually end up in a badly constructed argument and point here? It's even more constructed than the previous. It merely is a classical BAD analogy by the book. And yet, house/home insulation is in fact only working in combination with AC and rather hermetical conditions," You are still so blind. The insulation is to keep the cool temps in, and keep the warm temps out (R value). The cool nutrient solution is the "AC" for the inside of the buckets. You don't believe that nutrient solution temp maters, so naturally it would never work for you. The inside of the buckets will never be lower than the water temp. "External and internal temps will equalise and sooner or later accumulation of heat or cold is an inevitable fact. " Re-read the above statement!!! KEEP THE NUTRIENT SOLUTION COOL, something you have never herd of (sorry don't believe in). "In fact some similar negative effect would obviously happen with a E/F bucket, when despite the insulation it will heat up over time." Re-read the above statements!!! KEEP THE NUTRIENT SOLUTION COOL. "This reverse effect is actually very well known by experts and affected people alike! And after all, house insulation is commonly used and has PROVEN to be effective under SPECIFIC conditions - while bucket insulation has NOT yet! Name one expert that says if you keep the inside temp cool (Of any object) there is no need for any insulation, and it wont do any good because it will simply stay cool without it. "In fact some similar negative effect would obviously happen with a E/F bucket, when despite the insulation it will heat up over time. And in fact even if actually effective with lower and interrupted heat cycles, the negative reverse effect will happen in prolonged and extreme heat where the expected positive effect should actually matter and make the difference." Of coarse in your systems, you have not learned to KEEP THE NUTRIENT SOLUTION COOL The insulation also helps KEEP THE NUTRIENT SOLUTION COOL. "Do I need to add, that such painfully achieved (even not exactly known) lower root zone temperatures aren't exactly synonymous with an actual improvement in quality, health or similarly important aspects of plants, with SPECIFIC SETUPS, any SPECIFIC CROPS and under any SPECIFIC other CIRCUMSTANCES." All I can say is that you read the wrong books. That is such a inaccurate statement. You have not proven that anything I have said is inaccurate, you just claim so, and just because you don't agree with something, you just dismiss it as selective observance, when in fact that is all you are expressing. "However, if ever testing the real thing - you have to be objective and your goal would be to put the actual and verifiable improvement to the test. The real thing means any crop related quality at the end of the equation. Any decent test is about testing what is actually helpful and of common interest- not to prove your- or to disprove anyone's claims... LOL" LOL indeed, you just make claims, you have not proven or dis-proven one thing. You have not tested one thing. You have not provided any study's that dis-prove anything that I have said either, in any way shape or form. Just because you are too cheep to take a few bucks and try something new, does not mean it wont work. "That is indeed a perfect example where you demonstrate how you systematically and deliberately distort or even imagine that others are saying, and turn it into a fallacious rhetoric argument. I never ever said that root temperatures don't matter - in fact I have explicitly expressed the contrary, - that they have always mattered and still matter! You only need to actually read- to see it confirmed in the previous post. Also, I have never ever said that insulation isn't keeping temperatures cool under some specific conditions. What I was saying is that with an E/F bucket based system of the kind we are discussing here, an insulation doesn't actually matter and will not improve this kind of setup because temperatures will equalise anyway ( I may add and specify here again: especially with prolonged exposure- which means when it would really matter)" You are not reading what I have said. KEEP THE NUTRIENT SOLUTION COOL OR IT WONT WORK, KEEP THE NUTRIENT SOLUTION COOL OR IT WONT WORK, KEEP THE NUTRIENT SOLUTION COOL OR IT WONT WORK, KEEP THE NUTRIENT SOLUTION COOL OR IT WONT WORK KEEP THE NUTRIENT SOLUTION COOL OR IT WONT WORK, KEEP THE NUTRIENT SOLUTION COOL OR IT WONT WORK, "For the record: The one who is claiming that insulation OF BUCKETS in an E/F system will bring an improvement is in fact bringing up a controversial claim compared to what is commonly text book and in use. Hence THEY have the burden of proof." This is such a load of bull. I can say anything I say is in books and shift the burden to you, but does that make it true? Fact is I am not claiming that there is anything written at all about it either way. But I do know what I have done and what works for me. That is what you want to dispute. It's up to you to prove that it doesn't work for me, you are the one making that claim. "The one who refers to what is commonly accepted, used and done, confirmed with more than sufficient proof, doesn't need to prove the obvious, do they?" Then why do you keep demanding that I do? "Why shall I proof what I have never claimed anyway, and why shall I attempt to prove what has already been proven and was largely demonstrated by many others and since decades!?" You are calming all over the place that insulating the containers does absolutely no good, don't hand that line of junk out unless you can do it without making me fall off the chair luffing. I know for a fact that insulating the containers does make a difference. I have not done it for decades, but why should I need to prove what already been proven as well. I could care less about what "many others" have only been doing for decades simply because they are too old to learn something new. That's there problem (but it's just a claim, with no proof). I guess what you are saying in the long run is that I'm just smarter than anyone everyone else, after all I have had good results and they haven't. So I must just be smarter. Again They grow in climate controlled greenhouses, I don't. I'm not claiming that I have done extensive controlled research, and can say that plants grown in insulated containers (in my heat) are significantly better. I am simply saying I have been able to keep the root zone temps, as well as nutrient solution temp lower because of insulating them. You are the one claiming that doesn't work, or matter.

Hi, OP. Hometown = Gig Harbor. College in Seattle. Four of my eight siblings still live around the Sound. Your post really caught my eye because it has seemed to me for the last several decades that Seattle would be a tough market for a mom and pop real estate investor. Your post only confirms that. It just seems to me to be a difficult market for good cash flow. I now live in Tulsa, Oklahoma, a place with no mountains or ocean, but in the old part of town, especially, where the oil workers lived during the 20s boom, there are some amazing deals to be had for small-time investors like me (who aren't afraid to hustle and work hard). I own several absolutely stunning 1920s brick duplexes, all purchased under $100K. I tell my family back home, and they are pretty agog at how cheap that is. And you know what? I'm getting good rent out of them! My own house is a dead ringer for the one you posted. I bought it ten years ago for $92K. I have put a lot of sweat equity into it, and I would imagine that it would sell now for about $140K. I miss the PNW like crazy, but now that I'm acquiring more and more good real estate, I don't mind being away so much. The midwest is still rich with opportunities like this. (My good friend lives in Springfield, MO, and her town has great old lofts and houses for sale for reasonable prices.) It is just the midwest thing. Real estate is (for the most part) fairly reasonable in the great swath that comprises the middle part of the country. And many of us make salaries almost to the equal of our west coast counterparts. We can do a lot with our money. My Oklahoma and midwest friends don't have the perspective that I do. They just take what they have for granted. Seattle's my favorite city in the country. Don't get me wrong! But every time I return there I am sort of wowed by the lack of investment opportunities. There are so many smart hustlers there that it's tougher for a small-time-y individual to find overlooked opportunities. I know most of the readers here are probably averse to being a landlord, but I have found it to be rewarding. The cash flow is more than worth the effort involved.