LOL, Zap, that's how it all starts! The first year or so you try to plan then eventually you just start buying more and more that you "have to have" and pretty soon you're out of space and still buying and the next thing you know you're into pots! As for those pots, you can grow any rose in a pot. I've had everything from micro-minis to a towering 8ft Reine des Violets and everything in between growing in a pot at one tme or another. I've grown Austins and two different climbers in pots as well. They all did fine as long as the pot was big and there was some support for them. In your zone they are never going to be as big as they would be in a warm zone and because of our shorter growing season they take much longer to out grow the pots to where they need root pruning. Enjoy and post pictures!

When the effluent rises it has some velocity, and hence momentum. When it enters the hood it has a tendency to "reflect" and curl downward and potentially escape. If the hood is deep enough (top to bottom) and the hood fan flow is high enough (cfm) the curling effluent will remain captured and will be exhausted. The barrel design in the picture looks to me (without examining one) like it has adequate depth. W.r.t. ya think's question a few messages up: First I would say that the change from vertical to horizontal should be as large a radius curve as you can fit to minimize pressure loss (as well as noise). The effluent momentum (which is a vector) is being changed in direction. This is akin to stopping it and starting it up again. If it can slide along a curve, the momentum loss is significantly less. There is one commercial ducting source I came across once that uses 90-degree transitions, but embeds a curved shape within the duct to improve the flow. I find it hard to answer the question of what questions to ask. Usually, the answers aren't available. Ideally, one would want to know the fan curve (flow vs. static pressure) and try to estimate all the pressure losses (including the pressure one might pull the house down to with or without make-up air) to see what the real maximum flow rate will be. This can then be compared against estimates of effluent generation rate calculated from the reference below. The power used might be adjusted to represent your cooking style, as rarely would one have all burners on maximum and cooking at the highest pan temperature. One thing is certain, flow rate in the hood has to at least equal the flow rate from all the active burners and pans, and arguably should be higher due to imperfect effluent collection. Implied above is that the hood manufacturer can supply pressure loss of the filters vs. flow rate, as well as that of the hood transitions. Getting that data, even if it were ever measured, would be unlikely, me thinks. I suggest that various hoods be "audited" in showrooms to gain a feel for their noisiness versus their designs. The reference worth reading, even if one doesn't intend to use it for calculations, is "Thermal plumes of kitchen appliances: part 2 cooking mode," by Risto, Hannu, and Pekka. (I've found it on-line whenever I've looked for it. Part 1 is also interesting.) If you do use it for calculations, please note the following apparent errors in their Equation 1: The constant should be 0.05 not 5. The units of phi should be kW, not W. (these corrections make their tables consistent with the equation) You will need a scientific calculator or counterpart software to do the exponents (unless you are very old school and know how to do logarithms). You will also need to convert BTU to kW and cubic meters per second to cubic feet per minute. This is left as an exercise for the student. [insert sociopathic laugh here] kas

Stacy, I wouldn't change a thing. Use the same amount of cranberries as well as the same amount of sugar, and don't bother soaking the berries first. You know, you've reminded me that I still have several bags of fresh (well, they ain't so fresh anymore) cranberries buried somewhere in the freezer that need rescuing. Maybe, that's what I'll make today. Sol

" ... but it is also potentially boring." But that's why there are other places in the yard and they require different things instead of a continuation of the singular screen. BTW, a screen has the duty of a wall. It visually and physically separates side-by-side areas. It is not a ceiling, floor or opening. (Later, it will become a ceiling, too, but that's not the reason for its implementation.) I don't think the question of the exact word it's called -- a "garden" or a "landscape" -- makes much difference in what solutions work best, though it may indicate how people feel about their outdoor space. In the USA almost no one refers to their outdoor space as a landscape, but call it the front or back yard. The people who are plant lovers may call it a garden. But just as often as not, if one is really into plants (as many people here are) they tend to sacrifice appearance for plant acquisition, collecting and hoarding. I must confess I have no idea what "showing feelings for plants" would look like. To me, all the materials that are used in assembling a landscape ... are materials. Yet that hardly makes me (or many others) immune to appreciating their beauty when well put together and especially, for the plants when they age well. I don't think the crabs are going to be any smaller than Amelanchier. 3 large shrubs (grown in the tree form) would screen the back neighbor's house. ... Lilac, beautybush, certain Viburnums, Burning bush ... that sort of thing.