Talk:Beehive

Flow Hive

The "Flow Hive" is getting a lot of press lately, most appearing to be unquestioning publications of the company's own press releases. The design is being met with deep skepticism by established beekeepers - see, for example, the in-depth discussion of this design on BEE-L. There is skepticism both about whether the fundamental design can ever work (there are no published examples independent of the company itself) and of whether this is at its root a crowdfunding scam. I do not believe this belongs in the encyclopedia at all but if we must include it, the article should be based on more than press releases. Rossami (talk) 17:33, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I added Flow Hives because it's making a lot of buzz (so to speak), so it became noteworthy. However, after reading up a bit on it, I'm getting a bit skeptical myself. The way the cells split makes it look like the caps on the cells would probably be broken by the process. Plus, I'm seeing a lot of skepticism, as you are, in the community literature.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 17:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Former patent examiner here, noting similarity to previous ideas (i.e., the 1939 patent). Looking at the Flow Hive's pre-grant publications (it's not yet patented!), they mention that particular invention and note that their system opens the cells in a different way - i.e., splitting the top and bottom of the cells versus splitting the back wall of the cell prevents vacuum from inhibiting draining, which was a problem with the 1939 hive. I make no claim to the feasibility of the system, but am qualified to speak to the patent/invention issue.

98.28.195.61 (talk) 04:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I see you Clappingsimon, a more experienced Wikipedian than I, tweaking away madly at the Flow Hive section. Clap', some of your edits seem to make the section much more commercial. They also seem to suggest you are "fixin' for a fight" (edit war) with respect to the earlier referenced 1940 patent. I suggest that either the structure of the article be changed so that "Automated Hives" or "Hive Automation" is a section under which separate paragraphs appear for the earlier "Garriga Hive", the "Flow Hive" as well as any other hives, methods or gadgets that will come along in the future. Or, that the Garriga Hive get its own paragraph. Furthermore references to patent relationships is futile and only "fans the flames". Personally I think it is obvious that the Anderson Hive and the Garriga Hive certainly have at least one bonding feature in common: they empty the honey when you turn some part. Whatever the patent examiners will say remains to be seen. I am trying to avoid edit wars about which design is better and/or how the patents may affect one another. Only customers and patent examiners can settle those scores. I am suggesting each hive be factually, accurately and non-commercially described in Wikipedia. Would you (and others) please give this some consideration, comment and make your edits accordingly? Thanks. Disclaimer: I am a Flow Hive owner. Jess (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jess, noted. Clappingsimon talk 00:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Why is the Flow Hive on the list of "Hive" types? Since it's actually a new type of honey "Frame" instead. And it's designed to fit in the standard Langstroth Hive Maybe move/create a component of a hive section if it means that much to you. The Flow Hive frames are designed to fit inside of most/any Langstroth hive. Here's their page on it... http://www.honeyflow.com/faqs/what-are-the-dimensions-of-the-flow-frames/p/70 And they'd like to be thought of as the Hive "System" for Langstroth Hives. Also, why the BeeHaus too, for the exact same reasons. They style of hive already exists on the list, it being constructed out of different materials than wood doesn't make it a new style of Hive. It's a long box hive, which itself is just a modified Langstroth. Should we put the quilt top hive on the list to, since like the Flow Hive it's just a modification of existing Langstroth supers... I guess I'm say this article isn't very helpful, you list as different hives thing which are just a new'ish componant to existing hives, or new materials of existing hives. And if new materials on and existing design does somehow make it an all new hive, should the list be 4 or 5 times longer? Apimaye has a Thermo hive made exactly like the BeeHaus, and like the BeeHouse it copies an existing design Langstroth hive Dadant Varient. And why isn't the Dadant on here? It's basically a modified Langstroth. Maybe put a list of varients by name under the Lonstroth listing, then add a bit more info about each on the Langstroth page. And if you feel strongly enough, then make a page dedicated to whatever variant you feel deserves its own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.107.138.23 (talk) 11:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I have removed the flow hive section for tech reasons discussed above. It is not a hive. If someone wants to build a new section as jess described above, feel free. Until then I think it should not live on a page discussing hives.Cliff (talk) 06:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

here is a copy of the removed material.

   ==== Flow Hives ====

   The Flow Hive is a prototype easy-harvest hive describing a design for supers filled with a split plastic deep comb. The Flow Hive became the subject of a crowdfunding campaign, collecting just over US $12 million as of 2015 Apr 20.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/flow-hive-honey-on-tap-directly-from-your-beehive|title=Flow Hive: Honey on Tap Directly From Your Beehive|work=Indiegogo}}</ref>  A patent was applied for in 2011.

   The bees use their wax to seal the splits, build out the comb and fill the cells with honey. According to the 2011 patent, once the comb is filled with honey and capped, turning a crank splits the hexagonal cells in the artificial comb vertically, allowing the honey to flow down the resulting zig-zag channels into a sealed trough and out of the hive. According to the inventors, this allows harvesting the honey with minimal disruption to the bees who are standing on the still capped comb. When drained, the crank is used to reset the comb. The bees then chew open the capping, reseal the splits and refill the cells.

References

Why is this article all about a few species of Apis?

IF a 'beehive' is being considered something a bee makes rather than the man-made structure that bees are kept in, what are the places that Apis dorsata live in called? They hang their comb without any outside walls This article is lacking a lot of factual data about other species of bees too such as Melipona. Why is this article singling out Apis?

This article really aught to be called 'Apis Beehives'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlotte L Powell (talk • contribs) 21:01, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

My understanding, from reading the section above (Talk:Beehive#What_means_hive) is that what the lay person thinks of as a hive is technically termed a nest. The hive itself is the man-made structure used to house a nest. I think we should make a page Honeybee nest. Hope this helps.Cliff (talk) 23:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

removed from symbolism

I removed the following from symbolism because there is no indication of what meaning their use carries. It seems like these are cultural uses of the symbol, not symbolism. Should we have a cultural references section? I hate those.

In Wellington, New Zealand, the round building used for Parliamentary offices is known as the "Beehive".

Beehive Brand matches made by Bryant and May popular in New Zealand have a logo based on the traditional skep beehive design.

Cliff (talk) 06:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Bee Gums

Near the end of the Bee Gums section are two Sources but they are not linking to live links, does anyone know what are the correct addresses, can you fix them? Bibby (talk) 15:07, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

References

Top Bee space

Hi, Tell me what exactly you call "removed un-referenced and un-encyclopedic comments". Your action may be interpreted as an unjustified attack. You are not the new Wikipedia editor so you probably know this is not a spiteful place, but a collaborative place. What I wrote about beespace is widely known and included in other Wikipedia articles. The fact that Langstroth put the wrong dimensions in his patent you can check for yourself. A link to this patent has already been provided under this article, and I have listed for the reader's convenience (second column on the text page numbered 2). Regards Aserafin (talk) 07:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

You moved my request and where it is, I can not find link to that. Also I do not see the necessity to do so. And where is your answer? Aserafin (talk) 09:02, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

At this edit I removed an un-referenced assertion that Langstroth got bee space wrong. Referencing the actual size of Langstroth's bee space "1/2 inch (please see his US 9300 patent page 2 column 2)" is not a reference for the assertion. To include this material in Wikipedia we would need scientific studies that substantiate the claim, properly referenced. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:16, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for the link. I have nothing against staying there at Beehive talk, except that in the past others ignored to "replay". I would like to clarify the subject as soon as possible. So, my request is - as you are more efficient and experienced to do the correction. If you say the reference is done incorrectly please help me to do it better. I Provided the page and the column and the reference possibly would be numbered as 31 in the Reference list. The place where the 1/2 inch space is mentioned is page 2 column 2 near the top. Now, regarding studying the error, if you are a beekeeper or only read the beekeeping books you will notice that the beespace is 1/4 to 3/8 no more no less. Even 1 millimeter more results very possibly in bees building comb in this place. Also in Wikipedia article "Langstroth" you can examine using keywords "bee space" and confirm my assertation. Aserafin (talk) 10:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

You have given a reference that does not support your assertion. And this article does not need to reiterate the points made in Bee space. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:59, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

So tell me what it is.

Lines 66-85 of the Patent 9300

“The bees, before entering the spare honey

receptacles, are made to enter a chamber

about half an inch deep, or just shallow

enough to prevent them from occupying it

with comb, they pass from this chamber, by suitable apertures, into the honey receptacles.

This shallow chamber may be

connected in various ways with the main

hive, but to answer all its purposes to the

best advantage, it ought to be over the to

shows the way in which I usually construct

this shallow chamber. The rabbets which

receive the movable frames or bars, are

deep enough to form this chamber between

the frames and the cover A. This cover is

elevated in Fig. 2, and is shown in its proper

position for holding the spare honey receptacles, in Fig. 1. It should be about

half an inch thick, and clamped to prevent

warping.” Aserafin (talk) 11:30, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

You have my reply on Beehive Talk page Aserafin (talk) 11:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

You assert that Langstroth "definitely made a mistake" with his value for top bee space. You don't need to provide any further references to what Langstroth wrote - the reference to U.S. patent 9,300 is fine for that. You would need to provide references for the assertion that Langstroth's slightly vague estimate ("about half an inch deep, or just shallow enough to prevent them from occupying it with comb" is incorrect. And no, quoting other expert opinion is not sufficient. Though modern expert opinion would suffice to insert something to the effect that modern authorities in the United States give a value less than half an inch for top bee space. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:55, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

You see I think you are not a beekeeper or you disregard the fact that 1/2 inch is 12.5 mm and 3/8 is 9.5 mm. The difference is +3 mm from the maximum bee space. The 3 mm is big, big difference, not tolerated by bees. Using the words "or about" just confirms Langstroth's ignorance and inaccuracy. The claim that he created the first functional top-opened beehive is wrong, the same as the claim he discovered bee space. Obviously no US "expert" will acknowledge the fact, as you do not acknolege it. It is obviously unscientiffic and unjust. However yes I will found for you the deffinition of beespace in modern American literature. I will combine it with reference to the Patent. However when you request to <<provide references for the assertion that Langstroth's slightly vague estimate "about half an inch deep, or just shallow enough to prevent them from occupying it with comb" - is incorrect.>> is a classic Catch 22. As I say, the US experts do not want to hear the truth and even more to spell the true, I know it from my personal experience. However facts are facts Langstroth DO NOT constructed "the first successful top-opened hive with movable frames", as the article says, and at least this wrong assertion/sentence should be removed. No practicing beekeeper will agree that "about half an inch thick" is correct for the space under the hive top cover, it must be 3/8 or less.

You have last my reply for today on Beehive talk page Aserafin (talk) 12:59, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

This is the last message for you today, I will be back in few days.

Best regards, Aserafin (talk) 12:57, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I do hope that you will read Wikipedia:RIGHTGREATWRONGS meanwhile. A quotation from it: "on Wikipedia, you'll have to wait until it's been reported in mainstream media or published in books from reputable publishing houses. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or original research. Wikipedia doesn't lead; we follow. Let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements. What we do is find neutral ways of presenting them." Best wishes Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:12, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

This is my proposal for the addition to the "Modern beehive'. Please review it and tell me your opinion.

---

Langstroth is glorified as the discoverer of bee space and a top-opened hive , however, Langstthroth used Bevan's invention for the top-opened as he mentioned himself he did read of the Bevan's book. Also, the bee space, which is presently known as 1/4-3/8 inch is not employed between the frames' top bars and the cover in his hive . Instead, Langsthroth uses 1/2 inch space, cite: "The bees, before entering the spare honey receptacles, are made to enter a chamber about half an inch deep, or just shallow enough to prevent them from occupying it with comb,.." Langstroth refers to the spacing in his hive as "about 1/2 inch" and "about 3/8 inch"[sic.] everywhere in his patent; also he does not mention 1/4 inch as the low limit of the bee space. In fact, the self-spacing beehive frame used up today in the so-called Langstroth hive, with the exact spacing required for well functioning movable hive, was introduced by Julius Hoffman, a Dzierzon student who immigrated to the US from Poland

---

Regards, Aserafin (talk) 17:47, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

At this edit I have tried to use your thoughts to improve the article. I hope you approve. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

References