Warré hives

[Finman]

.
Have your heard that other hive types are too cold kill bees in Britain?
.long hives, for excample?

 

[user 6228]

A square, as opposed to a rectangle, is surely closer to a tall, thin cavity?

The shape factor and there for the heat loss for a square crossection tube is smaller than the shape factor for a non square rectangular tube of the same internal area. The trouble here is:
1) we dont have a tall tube in most hives i.e. the height is not very greater than the width or length. So the roof plays an important part
2) The heat source is suspended in a gas so the roof is important again
3)We have an partially open bottom to the tube So the vertical distances from the heat source to the openings beneath it is important.

All things being equal(which can be very difficult) cylinder better than square better than rectangle

 

[user 6228]

.
Have your heard that other hive types are too cold kill bees in Britain?
.long hives, for excample?

Depends on the details of long hive construction and how its used. Surprisingly they can be substantially better than wooden conventional hives if the partition is moved to fit the amount of bees.
When closed up like that the thicker wood of the top bars provides a better insulation than the thin plywood of some crownboards. When I was testingthe less conventional hives I was careful to enquire how they would be used correctly in winter.

 

[Finman]

When I was testingthe less conventional hives I was careful to enquire how they would be used correctly in winter.

Finland was full of Longhives 50 y ago, and now number is zero. And hives were too small to modern queens.

Very unpractical.

If Warre is so good, why it is so rare. Yeasy to nurse, as they say.

Huge waste of bees' energy without foundations' wax recycling. Not at least an energy saver.

.

 

[user 6228]

Finland was full of Longhives 50 y ago, and now number is zero. And hives were too small to modern queens.

Very unpractical.

If Warre is so good, why it is so rare. Yeasy to nurse, as they say.

Huge waste of bees' energy without foundations' wax recycling. Not at least an energy saver.

.

I am only expressing the thermal research, not how useful they are to beekeepers

 

[Finman]

I am only expressing the thermal research, not how useful they are to beekeepers

I am saying the same, if you notice that.
.

 

[Madge]

.
Have your heard that other hive types are too cold kill bees in Britain?
.long hives, for excample?

No, I only mean that in a rectangular hive like a Langstroth, the ends of the frames may become cold - or colder than in a box that is more square in shape, like a National or, ideally, a Warré. But as LJ implied, that's not the only criterion in deciding on the shape of a hive box.

A long hive is not a problem because one can reduce unwanted space with a follower board.

Kitta

 

[Madge]

... If Warre is so good, why it is so rare. Yeasy to nurse, as they say.

Huge waste of bees' energy without foundations' wax recycling. Not at least an energy saver.

Yes, I agree. I'm only thinking of Warrés that use frames.

 

[Finman]

.

A long hive is not a problem because one can reduce unwanted space with a follower board.

Kitta

You can do the same in every box with dummy board, or you put the colony into a nuc box.

 

[Madge]

You can do the same in every box with dummy board, or you put the colony into a nuc box.

Yes, you can reduce extra space, but the box is a rectangle, and the frames are long rectangles - particularly Langstroths. The ends might therefore become cold. But I agree, it's not a big issue.

 

[Finman]

Yes, you can reduce extra space, but the box is a rectangle, and the frames are long rectangles - particularly Langstroths. The ends might therefore become cold. But I agree, it's not a big issue.

4-5 Langstroth winter nuc hives are very usual.

If you are afraid, join them before winter.

I put into them a terrarium heater.
.

You need warre hive to over winter colonies....

 

[Little John]

Just who exactly are you accusing of being delusional? ...

Not 'who', but 'what' - the process itself, not any individual person.
Tree cavities often have huge splits in them - tree cavities are only 'natural' in the sense of occurring in nature (i.e. without any human contact). They are not-natural in the sense of occurring with any predictability or regularity - i.e. it is 'natural' for trees to have roots, leaves, a trunk and branches - it is not 'natural' for trees to have cavities. They are randomly formed, invariably by the result of accidental damage to the bark. Thus each tree cavity is unique.

Of course you can play at mathematics with data collected from observations, play at averages and so forth - but it's just so much scientific game-playing - because there's no way of knowing in advance what the next tree cavity you encounter will be like. Therefore, as you cannot make such predictions, this type of activity falls outside of the normal scientific remit, where predictabiity is a key component.
'Delusional' is exactly what this type of activity is.

Much of what you propose is 'fantasy physics', because it involves - not the predictable forces and relationships which can be seen in the Laws of Boyle, Hooke and Newton, for example - but involves sentient organisms with the capacity to both heat and insulate themselves and adjust their immediate environment accordingly. As I have mentioned to you on previous occasions, this is the province of biology, and not physics.

Why you keep insisting on imposing your physics agenda on the craft of beekeeping is beyond me. Hundreds of thousands of beekeepers worldwide keep bees quite satisfactorily without becoming obsessed with issues of insulation, and for a relative newcomer to the craft of beekeeping to be now suggesting that so many people are misguided, does present as a somewhat arrogant viewpoint.

btw one hypothesis (unproven) for the A.m chimney fixation might be they prefer thick walled nests

Why play at science ? Why not simply build hives in that format. If they work, then they work (which they seem to do). The proof of the pudding, as they say, lies in the eating of it.
LJ

 

[Little John]

If it's a Warre hive with frames ... would you not be better off with national boxes ?

[...] the 300 x 300 x 210 internal measurement is largely irrelevant today...

FWIW, those are the measurements for the fixed-comb hive. The framed version was larger, at 325 x 325.

... there is no reason why you cannot run a set of national boxes ...

Indeed - dummy-down a National Deep to 8-frames, and you've got yourself a Warre box. Or - build yourself some 'National-Warre' boxes from condemned scaffold boards for less than a fiver each: http://heretics-guide.site90.com/
LJ

 

[psafloyd]

Huge waste of bees' energy without foundations' wax recycling. Not at least an energy saver.

.

Ah, but Finman, I want to harvest their wax untainted by foundation for making cosmetics.

These hives would have that specific purpose, rather than providing honey alone.

 

[user 6228]

Not 'who', but 'what' - the process itself, not any individual person.
Tree cavities often have huge splits in them - tree cavities are only 'natural' in the sense of occurring in nature (i.e. without any human contact). They are not-natural in the sense of occurring with any predictability or regularity - i.e. it is 'natural' for trees to have roots, leaves, a trunk and branches - it is not 'natural' for trees to have cavities. They are randomly formed, invariably by the result of accidental damage to the bark. Thus each tree cavity is unique.

Of course you can play at mathematics with data collected from observations, play at averages and so forth - but it's just so much scientific game-playing - because there's no way of knowing in advance what the next tree cavity you encounter will be like. Therefore, as you cannot make such predictions, this type of activity falls outside of the normal scientific remit, where predictabiity is a key component.
'Delusional' is exactly what this type of activity is.

Much of what you propose is 'fantasy physics', because it involves - not the predictable forces and relationships which can be seen in the Laws of Boyle, Hooke and Newton, for example - but involves sentient organisms with the capacity to both heat and insulate themselves and adjust their immediate environment accordingly. As I have mentioned to you on previous occasions, this is the province of biology, and not physics.

Why you keep insisting on imposing your physics agenda on the craft of beekeeping is beyond me. Hundreds of thousands of beekeepers worldwide keep bees quite satisfactorily without becoming obsessed with issues of insulation, and for a relative newcomer to the craft of beekeeping to be now suggesting that so many people are misguided, does present as a somewhat arrogant viewpoint.



Why play at science ? Why not simply build hives in that format. If they work, then they work (which they seem to do). The proof of the pudding, as they say, lies in the eating of it.
LJ

the view you portray of physics is really archaic..Such determinism as you paint physics with, disappeared at the beginning of the 20th Century.
Do you understand the mathematical concepts in probability?
Go read a book on statistical mechanics or quantum mechanics and then tell me that physics is all about determinism. But before that you will need to graduate from Hooke to Navier & Stokes then Maxwell before taking on Planck let alone Dirac.
And before you say quantum mechanics has nothing to do biology, I suggest you correlate human behaviour parking in a multi-story car park with Fermi-Dirac statistics

 

[Swarm]

Another topic derailed.

 

[Erichalfbee]

Another topic derailed.

I'm fascinated
I didn't realise there were so many English words I didn't understand