You could root prune a spider plant with a weed whacker and it would be fine afterwards. Start with those if you're feeling nervous, or have specific worries about being too rough with exposed roots. The steps as I understand it are: Remove plant from pot There's often another step after this, which is 'chop off the base of the pot-shaped rootball'. It's sadly common that you'll see lots of circling roots around the bottom of the pot, and there are several reasons to carve the rootball like a turkey before you do anything else at all. 1. You're quite likely to damage them if you try and untangle them, and then you'll just have to remove them anyway. 2. The thick, relatively unbranching roots are the ones that ferry collected nutrients to the top part of the plant. They don't do much collection themselves, and the woody ones don't do any. In a pot, all they do is take up space. 3. They get in the way when you're trying to take the rest of the soil off, especially if they're woody and have woody corners. 4. They get in the way when you're trying to repot, especially if they're woody and have woody corners. Overall it's a lot of effort for very little return, and takes time you might not have. It's less traumatic all round to lop them off and be done with it. If the plant isn't pot-bound, great. Straight onto the next step. Remove as much of old dirt as possible For this you can use a root rake, a chopstick, a jet of water, or your fingers. Whatever you use, take care not to scratch the skin on the roots. Some species tolerate that more than others, but no species likes it. Cut off dead roots, roots growing in a circle around the pot You can do this as part of the previous step. As you're taking the soil off, remove roots that are circling, dead, heavily damaged, or just plain long. These long roots are more trouble than they're worth, being hard to keep undamaged and requiring their own special space in the new pot. You can also cut off old woody roots that are getting in your way, if they don't have many fine roots at the end. You may need to take off a swathe of old roots near the base anyway, so you can get all the soil out of the very centre of the root ball. You may also need to take off another layer of bound roots, if the plant was previously potted up while rootbound. Cut a slit in the corner of this new rootball, going directly through the bundle of roots, and make as many cuts as you need to get access to the interior of the old pot. Once you're done with that, tidy the roots up. Take off root sections that have a single deep wound / multiple scratches, have ends that curve upwards or back towards the plant, have no fine roots branching off near the end (NB: change where the end is; don't cut the whole root at the base!), or cross over other roots. While it's best to correct all of these problems, at this point you may not have many fine roots left. Take the worst offenders, or the ones that are crowding more desirable roots, or the ones with lots of mass but hardly any fine roots, and leave the rest for next year. Cut wedges out of the root ball (this is the one that makes me really nervous) Not always necessary, and redundant if you're bare-rooting. Bare-rooting (and the subsequent pruning) creates space for new, fine roots by removing unwanted roots and sections of unwanted roots while leaving as much fine rootage as possible. Wedges create space for new roots by bulldozing an area of the existing root system, from the thickest roots down to the thinnest and without regard for whether or not those roots are entirely inside the wedge taken. That's not to say wedges are bad -- while the effect on the worked area is... dramatic, the rest of the roots are left undisturbed. Add gritty or 5-1-1 mix to new similar-sized new pot, or well-cleaned old pot Settle plant in new pot, water thoroughly Do not fertilize for awhile (not sure how long) Fertilise when you start seeing new growth. That means the plant is taking up enough water to do more than keep itself turgid, and you can start making osmosis a little less easy by adding fertiliser salts. How long does that take? Depends on the current health of the plant, the potential vigour of the plant, the time of year, and the conditions the plant is exposed to after being repotted.

The newer saw design has rendered those types obsolete, IMO. The advantage of these dwarf bow saws was that it allowed the use of a thinner blade but the advent of the "tricut" blade eliminates much of the clogging caused by sawdust and allows faster cutting than the best "wire saws" ever made. The bar holding the thinner blade interfered with access anyway. I recommend Silky Gomtaro, 300 mm course cut if you want a serious pruning saw and I've tried many other models including much more expensive ones with longer blades. For a home orchard, the blade should last several seasons without sharpening. I replace the blades rather than sharpening them as tricuts are a difficult design to sharpen. I get mine from A. M Leonard but there are other sources.

I was going to write much the same type of reply that skydawggy already did, but his reply made that unnecessary. I went to replacement window link and I was amazed at how much misinformation was posted there, which is a shame, because I happen to agree that in the right circumstances restoration is the way to go. But, there is so much about the information on that link that is either way outdated or was simply never true at all. One example from the preservation article is comments on laminated glass ---- " ¼ ", laminated glass has better UV protection than all the low-e coatings. It also approaches similar thermal capabilities as insulated glass, is more soundproof, is safer and cost less than insulated glass". Safer? Yep, it is. More soundproof? Again, that is a yes versus either single pane or standrad dual pane windows. If someone is specifically interested in sound blocking ability, then that is another issue entirely. Less expensive than an IG? Not typically, but there are exceptions. More energy efficient? Nope. A laminated glass lite has pretty much identical thermal or energy characteristics as a monolithic lite of the same thickness. There is no energy advantage to using laminated glass in place of monolithic glass. Better at blocking UV? Yep. But while laminated glass does block over 99% of UV light from coming thru a window - which is more than any LowE coating will block and which I assume is specifically referencing fading protection - fading is also related to visible light as well as UV and while laminated glass will provide extensive UV protection, the correct LowE coating may be even better at fading protection. And, my take on restoration versus replacement, if anyone is interested............... First, when the "restoring versus replacing" argument comes around to the energy performance differences (if any) between the restoration window and the replacement window, they will eventually be lost in the rhetoric of the aesthetic reasons for restoring versus replacement. And these are often very valid reasons by themselves. Second, because no matter what the numbers show about individual unit performance, ultimately the individual window is still part of the overall structure of the home and its performance as part of that overall structure is what is important - not necessarily how well does it perform in the lab environment. As I mentioned previously, I happen to really like old windows when they are a significant part of the architecture of a home. I believe that they are so much a part of the charm of an older home that it is worth every possible effort to try to save them. I certainly understand the appeal of replacing older windows for the potential improvements that replacements will bring in energy consumption, comfort, and the potential ease of maintenance; but I also understand the desire of many people to try to do everything possible to save the original windows in a classic home. There are a lot of misconceptions about old windows versus new windows and many opinions often based on opinions and feelings and not on facts that come up in discussions like this one. I would offer a few for consideration: FACT if a homeowner was to opt for top-quality replacement windows, he or she could get them made in any style that they wanted in wood, fiberglass, aluminum, steel, and yep, even that old villain vinyl. There are available styles that would fit their home and that would be virtually indistinguishable from the original windows in the home and, these windows could last every bit as long as the home. But note that I said "top-quality" spelled $$$$$$$$. FACT a low end replacement window doesnt come close to meeting the same sort of standards as does a top-quality product from the materials used, to the glass used, to the hardware used it could be like comparing a Yugo to a Ferrari (and whatever happened to Yugo BTW?) and from a performance standpoint a good restoration will almost always be a much better investment of time, trouble, and money than changing to a junk replacement. The guy in the Sunday paper who promises to replace every window in a home at "$99.95" with his "sooper-dooper-highest-quality" vinyl or aluminum window likely has neither the highest quality window nor does he have the homeowners long term interest at heart. He needs to get in and to get out and what happens in five or 10 years? Thats no longer his problem. A very common comment from folks who favor restoration over replacement is that restoring a single-pane window and storm window combination will result in energy performance numbers that are comparable to any new window on the market regardless of any glass coatings or gas used with the new window. Fact the newest dual or triple pane windows made with LowE2 or LowE3 coated glass and argon or krypton fill are substantially more energy efficient than old windows single or double pane. A triple pane window with LowE2 coating on surfaces 2 and 5 combined with krypton gas infill and a low conductance spacer system can achieve energy performance numbers as much as 10 times better than an original single pane window and as much as six times better than a single pane with storm (or a low-end dual pane window as well). R-values aside, since they measure only conductive thermal transfer, and any discussion of windows has to include radiant performance (60% plus of total window performance), the primary advantage of multi-pane windows over dual panes is the ability of a multi-pane window to include LowE coatings. The coatings improve both conductive and radiant performance of the window over clear glass. If one wants to discuss R-values in window systems, then the current "highest" measured R-value glass currently on the market has an R-20. A good triple pane window with LowE2 coatings on glass surfaces 2 and 5 can achieve an R-10. A dual pane with a single LowE on surface 2 can theoretically achieve an R-5. But, again, that is ONLY a measure of conductive performance and it is far from the full story. Comment old windows may have lasted 50, 75, 100, or more years and new windows will always fail in short order only lasting 5 or 10 years. Fact quality products will outlast non-quality products no matter when produced. For all of the older windows that are on homes today and that deserve the chance to be around even longer, there are tens-of-millions of windows that were made in the last few centuries that didnt make it into todays world for a wide variety of reasons including simple window failure often as a result of poor or non-existent maintenance. The ones that have made it thru are often the best that were produced and they likely had a good bit of maintenance at some point. These are all very good things that make the idea of keeping them around even longer worth serious consideration. Ultimately, older windows have lasted as long as they have because they are of simple, uncomplicated construction that has had the distinct advantage of using a material (old growth lumber) that is no longer widely available. The pyramids will easily outlast a modern skyscraper that doesn't make a pyramid inherently superior than the skyscraper - it is simply different. Old growth lumber can be worth preserving if only for itself. And as an aside, when I am talking about "older" windows, I am not necessarily talking about much of the junk that popped up during the post WWII building boom. I am considering classic houses with architecturally classic windows. Obviously there is quality and there is junk from any era. Just because something is old, there is no reason to consider it "better". The better, newer, dual and triple pane window systems now on the market and installed all over Europe and North America should easily reach 50 years life expectancy - many will go well beyond that time. There are vinyl windows in Europe that were installed over 50 years ago that are performing flawlessly today. Comment restoring old windows is good for the environment and helps with energy performance. Fact while this is certainly true, it isnt the entire story. Despite comments from folks who love their old windows and there are a variety of very good reasons for that feeling those reasons are primarily aesthetic, not primarily efficiency. Replacing older windows with available higher-end energy-saving products will directly save energy over restoration. But, restoration and the addition of a good storm window can still be a huge improvement over windows that are stuck, painted-over, drafty, and without storms and it will keep those windows out of the landfill. Fact many old houses have their original windows and some of these windows (if they have had adequate maintenance for their lifetime) are in very good shape. And some are also in very poor shape, most are somewhere in between. But, they have all made it this far and if they are worth restoring, then by all means that should be considered as a very definite option. Again, most (but not all) older windows are made with old growth lumber which is inherently better than almost any lumber available today - which while being absolutely true and rather sad in some ways - in the end this is what our ancestors left us with. Makes me wonder sometimes what we will be leaving our descendents?. Fact older double hung windows with sash cords are inherently energy wasters because that open spot where the weights hide is an energy black-hole. There are alternatives to the sash-weight pocket that can improve this energy dump, but while replacing the sash cords and weights will improve energy performance, not everyone would consider that to be a viable option. And there are other options involved with keeping sash cords that will help as well. Fact many people like the look of wavy glass which was the norm in windows made long ago; yet the waves and bubbles in glass are technically a flaw in the manufacturing process. Glass producers did their best to avoid such embellishments, but it was the best that could be mass produced at the time using the sheet glass process. Actually, for higher-end (spelled $$$$) folks they could produce glass with much less waviness, even back at the turn-of-the-century, but it was expensive and few folks wanted to, or could afford to, spend the money for it, which of course doesnt mean that such ornamentation doesn't add the charm and character of the window and subsequently the home. Lots of "flawed" items have a certain charm and character of their own. And btw, I very much like "flawed" wavy glass and it is available today, made in the exact same process that was used 100 years ago, only today it is considered decorative and is therefore expensive. Finally at the end.

I understand how people can be about holding tight to their original idea and looking for approval more than input. I assure you that is not the case in my circumstance. I am not fully educated in the electrical code. Therefore, I need good advice. I have spent time researching and reading up so that I don't ask stupid questions as much as possible. I want to wire everything exactly to code and even update where necessary to meet the requirements. I also want to understand the basic principles or reasoning behind some of the rules. This is why I asked about the OTR microwave versus a counter top microwave. I just wanted to understand. Excuse me for jumping to conclusions when I read "because I said so, that's why." Perhaps I did not make my question clear enough and for that I apologize. As far as the instant hot, I am not trying to argue as I don't have the experience and knowledge to do so. I am only trying to understand and share what I have found that lead me to my original conclusions. The biggest problem for me is that this is an older home with nearly every item in the kitchen wired to the same circuit and shared with other items. I am trying to sort out all this mess and "fix" all the problems I can find in the house with regards to electrical during this kitchen remodel. It is very time consuming and difficult. I only have so many spots on my panel and accessing the panel to change or modify it is extremely difficult and tricky. My situation is not ideal. Short of tearing down all the walls and running all new wire to a new panel, I may not be able to fix everything. As you can imagine this can be frustrating. We are already into the remodel, having purchased the appliances. However, paying to have all the electrical done is out of the budget at this time. I just don't know what the code dictates as far as forcing you to update old wires and circuits that have been in the home for years and years simply because you want to add an instant hot, OTR microwave and new appliances. I think though that this forum has been incredibly helpful and I will pursue getting double breakers and wiring everything on separate circuits as advised here.