Hi steve333, good question. I always said I'd never buy HF panels again, but when I was faced with the purchase, I caved! It was a combination of price, and convenience. At the time, I priced 4mm twinwall polycarbonate at a number of greenhouse supply companies. The best price at the time was through FarmTek (cheaper than Charlie's or any other source I tried.) Their product had a ten year warranty, and was truly UV-protected. However, the cost to purchase enough material (just for the roof) with crating and shipping fees to my address, was $410. The cost to order more Harbor Freight roof panels, with shipping, was $135. That difference was enough to give me pause. Hmmmm. Note, it's possible folks living closer to urban areas with more businesses would have found better deals on shipping, but down here in southern NM, the only things close to us are lizards and cactus. Also, the HF panels arrive sized to fit; if you buy better polycarbonate from a greenhouse supply company, you'll have to cut the material to size yourself for each part. Not difficult, but it does take time, so I factored the convenience in as well. Also, occasionally I consider upgrading to a larger home-built greenhouse, so kicking the can down the road doesn't bother me as much as it would if I was positive I wanted to keep this small greenhouse another ten years. I think an argument could be made for both sides. If rtyu's and my experimentation with the Top Secrets clear epoxy product pans out, though, it will definitely tip the scales towards using the (clearly lower quality) HF panels and protecting them with the coating, especially if folks can apply it to their new greenhouses, and avoid the need for panel replacements. Fingers crossed. I think much of the appeal of the Harbor Freight greenhouses is cost/value. They appeal to folks who want to try greenhousing but don't want to make a major investment. I haven't tallied it up exactly for a while, but scrounging supplies, materials, and labor, I figure we have around $2500 in ours total, including kit, benches, sink, plumbing, electric, heaters, thermostats, shadecloth, pavers, and the new roof panels. Over six years that's roughly $400 a year (not including heating costs, which aren't too bad in my climate.) So I think many folks who are attracted to the HF structures also enjoy keeping costs low. It's just one option in the world of greenhouses, and not the right fit for everyone. Happy New Year!

Martin, From a strictly technical viewpoint, the aerobic reaction is an oxidation reduction. Oxidation because the sugar is combined with oxygen, reduction because the sugar is reduced to carbon dioxide and water. From this perspective, it is not accurate to refer to the process as "fermentation". Still, given that there are lots of webpages that refer to "aerobic fermentation", there is an argument of common use that can be made. We also know that alcohol is produced and that the only possible way for that to happen is if part of the process is anaerobic. We also know that the liquid is more acid after 5 days of fermenting than it was at the start. The only way for it to increase acidity is through anaerobic fermentation. Please note that I am neither attacking you nor defending Carolyn. My only purpose is to try to get to the truth of this question. I don't care whether the process is aerobic or anaerobic or some combination of the two. I have no axe to grind nor cud to chew. I do care that the process works and that it is fairly easy to do. Yeast does not "break down H2O" Breaking H2O into its components requires a huge energy input. It normally occurs only in chlorophyll containing plants that use the suns energy as a pump to cause that separation. You can do a search for photosynthesis and chlorophyll if you want to see the mechanisms that make this possible. Since yeast does not normally contain chlorophyll, and since yeast is extracting energy, it does not separate water into its components. Re flipflopping, I make it a point to change my opinion promptly and completely when evidence is presented to indicate that I am on the wrong path. I have not flipflopped at all since doing some real research about the process of fermenting tomato seed. Clear evidence including a few references has been presented that many statements you have made are incorrect. Have you changed your position as a result? If not, why? The oxygen barrier in an open fermenter used in producing beer is a layer of carbon dioxide that accumulates above the fermenting vat. A lid is placed over the open fermenter which tends to trap the CO2 that is produced by the yeast. So long as that CO2 layer is minimally disturbed, a very effective oxygen barrier is produced which causes the beer fermentation to be anaerobic. All of the information I have at this point indicates that tomato seed fermenting is composed of an early aerobic process followed by an anaerobic stage. Most important to me is that BOTH stages are required to achieve the desired end result. It doesn't stop there though. There appears to be a bacterial stage after the yeast has run out of sugars to digest. The bacterial stage is the point at which the acidity increases and is the point at which pathogens are probably eliminated from the seed. Fusion

okay, okay okay! I'm an I D I O T ! lol.. I called office depot and they said they had them. Well, I've spent 1/2 hour THREE TIMES looking around for them. They are NOT with the copier paper! I have been spending my time looking around all the "specialty papers".. glossy photo paper, glossy card stock.. etc.. it is with overhead projectors! AACCCCCCCCKKKKKKKKKKK! lol.. thanks! thank you Arsty! lol I went to office depot and bought there brand as it is WAY cheaper! lol....

chas045, you are correct that measuring in oz may not have high enough resolution. It did occur to me that I should have set the scale to measure in grams. 1/100 of a gram is better than 1/100 of an oz. However, the visual inspection with the microscope convinced me that there was no corrosion on the aluminum. Optically, light wavelengths are not far from atom sizes. The change in light on a reflective surface can be effected by thickness of a few atoms. The anti-reflection coating on a camera lens makes the lens reflection bluish. A few atoms of oil (oil slick) on a puddle of water make the reflection of light in rainbow colors. The microscope inspection of the aluminum foil showed no difference at all on the tested surfaces. Like all metals, including stainless steel, can be subjected to corrosion when two dissimilar metals are in an electrolytic solution, depending on their respective locations on the Periodic Chart. That�s what happens a lot when you see discoloration or pitting on aluminum. It is a scientific mystery that, aluminum being the third most abundant substance on earth, our body has not developed much use for it. There are not too many aluminum compounds which are toxic to the body (as I remember), because of that, sometimes I think by reacting to impurities, aluminum can render some toxic substance harmless. dcarch