DIpps, you cannot start a new basil plant from a dry leaf. One normally may grow a new plant from a stem cutting, BUT I would NOT try to propagate a new plant from this scale-infested one you have as it is a near 100% probability that the scale insects will come with it. Must strongly disagree with floral_uk about the adventitious root theory! But yes - daily watering is too much. I was interested to see that two people have posted photos of basil showing scale infestation. In all my decades of gardening I never have seen scale attack basil. I only have scale problems on my 3-year-old potted bay tree, and then only starting indoors in January. Outdoors during the summer it is fine. I am assuming there must be enough predators controlling the pests then. Indoors, I must resort to the alcohol swab cleaning technique.

The end of the arm looks as though it was sawn off and a small filler soldered in the end. The lamp holder also seems to be soldered to the arm in an odd way, and I can see two modern screws attaching the arm to the ring holding the bowl. These three things don't look like 19th century craftsmen to me. I wish I could see a pic from above looking down into the bowl. I suspect the elbows where the horizontal and vertical rods connect are done in a similiar fashion, as well as the lamp lighting the bowl. There are a lot of other things that don't add up with this fixture. Yes, there were gas and oil chandeliers that hung from pulleys and used counterweights so that they could be pulled down for lighting, cleaning, etc. Pull-down gas lights had a special gas fitting called a "water slide" which allowed the supply tube to be extended when the fixture was pulled down. If that were the case with this one, there are a whole lot of missing parts. But what I see as a more obvious problem is that there are not enough pulleys, no weights, no water slide (or gas supply for that matter) and there is no handle, ring, knob or finial for one to grab to pull it down. The bowl, if it is original, would make a terrible handle. All of the pull-down chandeliers I have seen have had something to pull it down with. If it were indeed an original gas fixture, the gas would need a path to follow from the ceiling to the burners at the ends of the arms, and to some sort of burner in the center to illuminate the bowl. There are no valves or fittings that I can see, the three individual tubes do not seem to be joined at any common supply union, and the pulleys screwed in the top ends of each of the three arms would make it impossible to connect them to gas. So if it wasn't a gas chandelier, maybe it was oil lamps held at the end of each arm, raised and lowered by pulleys and weights. Could be, but again, the bowl doesn't make sense because, it could not be illuminated by an oil lamp, and it doesn't provide a handhold to grasp in order to lower it for lighting/refilling. The final thing is the rosette doesn't fit with an oil light. It most definetly looks like an 1860's gasolier ceiling rosette. It has the pierced design to provide ventilation of the combustion fumes, and it also has a center hole for the gas supply tube. The three downrods seem to go through the holes in the rosette, but I can't see from the pictures if those holes look like they were part of the original casting or drilled later. Also, there's the fact that there are no gas fittings and the pulleys prevent connecting a gas supply. I might believe that someone has created your chandelier using parts of various other fixtures he had on hand, but the trouble with that idea is it doesn't make sense either. Why would someone with the skill to join all these pieces together go to the trouble of using pulleys to put it together at the top, when it would have been so much easier to use washers and nuts to attach the tops of the three rods directly through the holes in the rosette and then hang the whole thing from a threaded down rod through the center of the rosette? Wish I had a better answer for you, but it is a mystery to me. But the only thing that really matters is that it looks really cool and you like it.

Open the door of the clock and carefully examine the inside for a label or marking. Paper labels usually were put on the inside surface of the back and positioned to be hidden when the door was closed. If you find no clues here, look on the outside back of the case for clues. You have a very nice clock case. It is complete with the finial (top decoration). Often, the finial hid the top pulleys for the weight cords. However, I note that there are internal pulleys for the weights in an inverted arrangement, thus there may not be external pulleys at the top. Details such as these are needed to identify and date your piece. The pendulum appears as a simple pendulum without temperature compensating pieces placing this in a class of ordinary clocks or possibly before clock makers learned how to make temperature compensating pendulums. A temperature compensated pendulum was an extra cost item. Early clock faces with roman numerals positioned the numerals around the face with all pointing toward the center, thus the numerals at the bottom of the dial were upside down, as on your clock. At some point in history (I don't recall the date) roman numerals were rearranged such that the ones on the bottom of the dial were rightside up. However, this is not a given for dating because a modern maker could have made a dial in the older fashion manner to simulate an antique. Not all clock makers made their own dials, but specified and purchased these from a maker specialising in dials and decorative itmes. A clock may have been built with mix and match subassemblies, i.e., movements, penudlum, dials, weights, pulleys, and door decorations, each of these manufactured by different makers. The finished product was defined by the case, arrangement of the assemblies, and quality of workmanship. Most tall clocks made after 1825 used metal movements and gears. Earlier clocks may have had wood gears. All metal movements were consider superior.

Your KitchenAid is a Whirlpool direct-drive machine. The design was produced from early 1980s until approx 2010 under brand names Whirlpool, Kenmore, KitchenAid, Roper, Estate, Inglis ... and Maytag, Admiral, and Amana after 2006 (when Whirlpool bought Maytag). Also Crosley at some point. The motor can be put under excess load if the coupler isn't installed correctly (each half of the coupler must be pressed on flush with the end of the motor shaft and transmission shaft). I suppose there's a possibility your servicer didn't do it quite right. Other than that, examination of the machine would be necessary to determine what may be the cause of the burning odor. Could be there's a loose connection on a wire to the motor or some other issue. Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if the servicer "sabotaged" something in response to your comeback about finding the transmission at a cheaper price online, in regards to their overall attitude at the situation. The transmission holds 16 oz. of oil so a few drops or even up to an ounce or two missing is of no large concern. Whirlpool Transmission Part # 3360629 Whirlpool Transmission Internal Parts PartSelect - Replacing Whirlpool Transmission 3360629 Be aware if you search for more videos that there's a newer washer design known as VMW that also has a transmission but it's not the same as yours.