# Temps inside the hive !!



## Phoebee (Jan 29, 2014)

There will be a large variation in temperature depending on just where in the hive you measure. If you had a thermocouple already in place in the exact center of the cluster, you might get a temperature of 80 F or higher. If they are raising brood, maybe in the 90's. Elsewhere in the hive will be much lower.

Sticking a thermometer probe in blindly could give anything. It might take a couple of minutes for it to come to a steady temperature, and if the bees think it is an invader messing with the cluster, they could ball it. If that happened, you could see temperatures close to 110 F.

All I want is a quick peek to satisfy myself there actually is a cluster. I pull out the entrance reducer, brush out any dead bees, and shoot my thermal imager up to show that there is warmth in the bee space between frames. That will give a reading lower than the cluster itself would, but does not disturb the bees at all.

Not that you'll run out and spend $2000 for a thermal imager just for this, but it is one more use for this handy gadget.

Temperatures at the top of brood frame:









Temperatures at bottom entrance:


----------



## shinbone (Jul 5, 2011)

Thermal imager = I want.


----------



## Dave Burrup (Jul 22, 2008)

In my experience with readings of 60 degrees, your probe was in the cluster. If the bees are clustered, the readings I have taken are very near ambient. If the disturbance causes the cluster to break the temperature in the hive will rise dramatically. Did you miss the thread a while back about bees heating the hive or just the cluster. There was a large amount of information traded back and forth. In my opinion I believe that cold does not kill healthy bees with adequate food that they can reach. What kills bees is the inability to reach their food supplies. If there is food above the cluster they can handle very cold temperatures. If the bees are on the top bars with nothing above them, they can get into trouble quickly. Do not make the mistake of closing off the ventilation out of fear of the cold. Poor ventilation and the subsequent high moisture levels will kill your bees.
Dave


----------



## laketrout (Mar 5, 2013)

The temp seemed to settle at 60 on both hives , it was in my pocket and registered 46 when I put it in the top entrance and stopped at 60 and it was to cold to wait for it any longer .I can't think I was in the cluster ,the probe is 4 or 5 '' long and it felt like it was resting on the top bars of the frames where my sugar bricks are , I'm thinking they were in there eating sugar bricks and the probe disturbed them enough for them to check things out .I'll check the other thread you mentioned but from this it seems like there is heat coming up off the cluster .


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>We are getting blasted with 22 MPH winds and temps in the single digits at night and high's in the mid 20's here in northeast Pa. I can't help but wonder how my bee's can manage in such cold temps 

It was 8 F this morning here. I'd guess it was about 30mph... not a bad winter day for Nebraska. They generate heat.


----------



## shinbone (Jul 5, 2011)

http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?291469-Winter-time-fun&highlight=winter+time


Temperature measured at the top of the hive's interior for 11 hives, and ambient:


Ambient#1#2#3#4#5#6#7#8#9#10#111017.632.423.827.934.178.3--25.733.3----17.133.6--41.734.645.1----32.239.4----928.8--29.732.042.5----28.732.771.237.9-0.616.1--18.624.933.8----19.823.779.932.521.237.6--32.438.547.6----36.235.273.841.242.362.858.166.964.176.875.4--66.555.473.661.3


----------



## laketrout (Mar 5, 2013)

Shinbone that seems more reasonable than the 60 degrees I got , I was right on the top bars though , when you say top of the interior are saying right under the top cover and therefore the temps would be lower than mine .


----------



## shinbone (Jul 5, 2011)

The temp probe was positioned between the top of the frames of the top super and the inner cover. So, right under the _inner _cover


----------



## laketrout (Mar 5, 2013)

I'm going to put a fresh battery in my thermometer and check it again tomorrow , 60 sounds to warm .


----------



## mjfranks (May 24, 2014)

It was 20 degrees and windy in South East Michigan this morning. I stuck a probe thermometer in the vent hole of one of my double deep Nucs and was more than a little amazed at the 95 degree reading. The probe was in the center of my 2" deep candy box which is right under the quilt box. My quilt box has 6 screened 1" vent holes. The Nuc is so warm that the bees are feeding heavily on Laurie's sugar cake recipe. 
My thermometer is accurate and reads exactly 32degrees in ice water.

I measured several of my 10 frame hives which have 2 deeps, 1 medium super, candy and quilt boxes and the readings in the candy boxes ranged from 68 - 72 degrees.


----------



## jwcarlson (Feb 14, 2014)

laketrout said:


> I'm going to put a fresh battery in my thermometer and check it again tomorrow , 60 sounds to warm .


I put 1/2" hardware cloth in a couple of our top bar entrances a few days ago on a 10 degree morning. No wind, but when I had my hand over the entrance it felt like there was something blowing warm air out. Amazingly warm. We have windows and it was neat to see them. Amazed how much movement was going on, honestly. And a few bees stranded on comb/dead.


----------



## psfred (Jul 16, 2011)

The bees stay clustered up and greatly restrict the airflow through the cluster, and usually through a good deal of the hive. Self insulating, so to speak. The bees on the outside of the cluster will be fairly cold, but in the center it will be quite warm. As long as they have food, they will be fine provided they are healthy to start with, and you are much more likely to lose a hive in early March than February -- once they start brooding up, if they run short of stores they can freeze quickly.

Remember that they are all bunched up -- this restricts air movement through the cluster, and the frames of comb greatly restrict the flow of air through the hive even where there are no bees. A small top entrance (and I keep my outer covers pushed more or less closed in the winter) and a restricted lower entrance means even on a windy day there isn't that much air moving inside the hive. The bees stay warm, you just need to provide an exit for the water vapor they produce to prevent condensation dripping on them.

Peter


----------



## laketrout (Mar 5, 2013)

Maybe my 60 degree temp is right then and it seems at temps over 50 -55 the bee's are moving freely inside the hive to some extent , in both hives I checked bee's came out to see what was going on .I'm really surprised bee's could be in such a warm environment with temps in the single digits and would think they would eat there stores in know time .


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Phoebee said:


> Temperatures at the top of brood frame:
> 
> View attachment 14591
> 
> ...


How do you have the camera set to read a point or an area? If you are trying to read air temp you need to exclude the hot spots because they are bees. The areas between the hot spots look pretty dark to me. Technology is wonderful if you know how to use it.


----------



## BeeCurious (Aug 7, 2007)

Acebird said:


> If you are trying to read air temp you need to exclude the hot spots because they are bees.
> 
> 
> Technology is wonderful if you know how to use it.


Someone familiar with the technology would know that air doesn't reflect IR radiation...


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

I believe that our idea of what it takes to heat skews our opinion of what sort of energy the bees require to keep the cluster warm. Something can be kept very warm with very little energy. if that heat is not allowed to escape. Food consumption would be in accordance with energy use.

Now we know that in many ways bees are extremely efficient. They often take it beyond anything that is reasonably considered possible. For example they take a highly nutritious food source. And then concentrate it. Sort of like making the best even better???. The shape of comb is a testament to efficiency itself. It has been shown to be the strongest structure for the material used. Only a few lbs of wax support the weight of possibly hundreds of lbs of honey. pollen nectar and bees.

So knowing what we know about bees. what does that indicate we can suppose about heat production? I say it indicates they are also very efficient with that also.

I don't think heating according to how we are used to things being heated apply. I think we need to be looking at biological and heat generation on the microscopic level.

Here is on possible issue I have never seen mentioned. Is it possible that bees use fermentation or decay in other forms to generate heat? Take a compost heap for example. it produces heat. in fact you can heat your home with it. Some people do. How much is the honey pollen or other substances in the comb of the hive producing heat? I also find it highly unlikely they do not take advantage of such heat sources as the sun. Bees setting in the sun warming themselves return to the cluster. and bring that heat energy with them. I can think of a few more. but the basic idea that bees warm the cluster. the question is how. I think they have multiple methods. and many of them require very little use of energy.

I once saw a photo of a cluster that showed the bees that are producing heat. it is not nearly every bee in the cluster. but a random one here and there. To me it would seem they are just keeping the temperature topped off.

As has been mentioned. break up the cluster and the temperature rises considerably. this is an indication that the cluster in fact holds the heat they produce.

Heat that is measured out side the cluster is no indication of the heat in the cluster. at worst it is a measurement of the heat that escaped the cluster. It is one of those little twisted things you need to keep in mind when digesting this subject. You measure heat where it is. not where it came from. A hive at 60 degrees did not necessarily get that way due to the bees. not when we know the cluster or the core of the cluster is at about 90 or so. a hive being heated by a 90 degree heat source. would be 90 degrees. Or at least on it's way to it. But form 90 to 60 means the heat is not getting out of the cluster. Just like the inside of your thermos may be nearly 200 degrees the outside is 70 that means the heat is not getting out. IF 90 degree temps where escaping the cluster. you would measure them.


----------



## BeeCurious (Aug 7, 2007)

Good Grief! 

We've entered the Twilight Zone once again...


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

BeeCurious said:


> Good Grief! We've entered the Twilight Zone once again...


Producing heat while while consuming _very little_ energy seems related to perpetual motion and cold fusion. So far it appears to be still in the developmental stage.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

Well, its cold outside (most places), so the temperature/discussion at Beesource is heating up! 

For anyone that missed the earlier version, enjoy ....  http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...-the-Cluster-Not-the-Hive&highlight=heat+hive

:kn:


... next up ...
... does a _black _ 5 gallon _bucket o' water_ lose more heat overnight than a _white _bucket? ... :lpf:


----------



## Phoebee (Jan 29, 2014)

Acebird said:


> How do you have the camera set to read a point or an area? If you are trying to read air temp you need to exclude the hot spots because they are bees. The areas between the hot spots look pretty dark to me. Technology is wonderful if you know how to use it.


The camera has a menu allowing you to choose the way it uses that central area. It can do a spot temperature reading at the center, or scan the box in the middle for "Area Max" or "Area Min". It also comes with software so you can dig into an image and get multiple spot or area temperatures. If you really dig into the data, you can extract the temperature of all the points in the 140 x 140 pixel image. The camera was set for "Area Max" in the images above. 

As for the air affecting the reading, at close range with dry air there is usually little effect. However, water vapor does affect IR readings on my camera. Steam looks like flame to it, and it can also see hot water vapor from propane combustion. Readings at long range in high humidity will appear cooler than the object being imaged actually is.

Thermal imagers are subject to errors. "Low emissivity" surfaces read cool when they are actually hot. Clean metal surfaces are typically low emissivity. Shiny surfaces may reflect heat from other sources. And things you think are transparent probably are not. The band mine uses won't go thru glass.


----------



## Phoebee (Jan 29, 2014)

Rader Sidetrack said:


> Well, its cold outside (most places), so the temperature/discussion at Beesource is heating up!
> 
> For anyone that missed the earlier version, enjoy ....  http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...-the-Cluster-Not-the-Hive&highlight=heat+hive
> 
> ...


A black bucket of water will absorb more heat in direct sunlight than a white bucket will (if the sun is hitting the bucket). But in the IR band where thermal radiation occurs, the black plastic and white plastic or organic-based paint most likely have almost the same emissivity. Not much difference. The black may cool ever so slightly faster.

We have got to get Daniel some heat flow sensors to play with! These work: http://www.mpja.com/Thermoelectric-Cooling-Module-127-couple-12VDC/productinfo/30207 PM/


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

Phoebee said:


> But in the IR band where thermal radiation occurs, the black plastic and white plastic or organic-based paint most likely have almost the same emissivity. Not much difference. The black may cool ever so slightly faster.


Of course the black bucket will lose the additional heat overnight. If that didn't happen, then the black bucket would continue to get hotter and _hotter _(compared to the white bucket) on a daily basis! Doesn't seem reasonable to me.

I posted similar comments although specifically about the hive bodies - not buckets, to this hive wrapping thread.


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

I dont think you will get real world effects on a behive by studying the different heat loss/gain avenues in isolation. For instance the heat transfer due to convection will be much higher than by radiation. They can be additive or cancelling. Outside air temperature is a big issue so what pertains to wiinter in Alabama won't in Alaska. Insulation can be so much more of a controlling factor for internal temperature, that surface color and texture that affects radiant transfer becomes practically irrelevant.

The average water temperature in the pail compared to the average air temperature will depend on the hours of sunshine vs darkness. Where I live, and at the moment, the pail would freeze and burst on the second night and your experiment would get all discombobulated.:ws:


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Phoebee said:


> Thermal imagers are subject to errors.


I don't call out the device making errors because the sensor reads what it reads. The interpretation of the image is where the errors come in.

If I was trying to read air temperature at the top of the frames I would limit the area right on top of the frames because the wood should be close to the air temp and I would exclude any hot spots because they are obviously bees. Yes beecurious you can't read air temp with an IR gun unless it has a lot of moisture in it. Check out the radar scans for predicting weather. Any distance from the top of the frames would be impossible to read with an IR gun. But, but if you were to put a temperature prob in a hive you could see that with an IR gun. Using two guns 90 degrees out of phase to each other you could tell a 3D location of that temperature probe for distance. You could also tell if bees were climbing on the probe.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Rader Sidetrack said:


> then the black bucket would continue to get hotter and _hotter _(compared to the white bucket) on a daily basis!


As the temperature rises the solar gain decreases and as the temperature rises the heat loss increases. An equilibrium temperature will be reached.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

Acebird said:


> As the temperature rises the solar gain decreases and as the temperature rises the heat loss increases. An equilibrium temperature will be reached.


Then there is no heat gain value to having a black bucket over a 24hr period - and the same applies to a black hive vs white hive. Finally, Ace and I can agree on _something_! :lpf:


----------



## Phoebee (Jan 29, 2014)

Rader Sidetrack said:


> Then there is no heat gain value to having a black bucket over a 24hr period - and the same applies to a black hive vs white hive. Finally, Ace and I can agree on _something_! :lpf:


To have a significant solar gain effect you need a dramatically different heating versus cooling mechanism. The simplest is a greenhouse system. Glass with a dark thermal mass to absorb and store heat will have solar gain. Interesting variation: a large, flat "bucket", or pool, with a layer of dense salt water under a layer of fresh water. That system will heat the salt water layer like all get-out.

The problem with a passive insulated body such as a wooden Lang hive is that the insulation (what little there is) works both ways. It may reduce the rate of cooling at night, but it also resists heat getting in during the day.

But put a heat source in the Lang hive and the balance changes. The bees will heat the air in the hive up some, but it also allows them to build a cluster that conserves heat.


----------



## beepro (Dec 31, 2012)

Don't worry, bee happy!
As long as they have enough foods they will survive this long cold winter. That is why it is so important to 
have an easy way to slip in the extra sugar cake when they needed the most. The hive temp at 60 doesn't matter
as long as there are enough bees to regulate the hive temp everything will be alright. We all know the difference in 
the outer and inner core cluster temp, right. If you have resourceful bees then even better for winter survival. They have
been doing this for million of years. I'm testing a wrap hive vs a no wrap hive and a single vs a double queen nuc hive to see
their winter survival ability and Spring build up comparison. All hives have the same amount of foods and approximately the number of bees.
Yours should be o.k. until then.


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

A black bucket would warm faster under any given conditions than a white bucket. 
So if you take the factors of color. volume or area along with time exposed. a black object will in fact get hotter than a white one.

I am not sure what I did with the numbers but I had them at one time.

I used a heavy aluminum chamber. it weighed about 50 lbs. filled it with about a half gallon of honey comb and left it setting in the sun. after a full days exposure to full sun it never reached a temperature that would melt wax.

I Then painted the container black. The first melted wax cam out of the container after about two hours of exposure. It would stop and then start again. it continued like this for the entire day. Keep in mind as wax melted and poured out of the container it took heat with it. 

I reloaded the container set it in the same location but placed a reflector around it. Melted wax appeared in about 30 minutes and continued until all wax was melted. it took just about an hour total.


----------



## laketrout (Mar 5, 2013)

The hive temp of 60 through the feed shim at least eased my concern that they were loosing heat from to much ventilation , I was afraid I had to much air circulating through the hive and chilling the bee's to the point they would freeze or so cold they couldn't break cluster to get to more feed .With 22 mph winds and single digits you would think they might have a hard time .Seems like such a fine line between to much ventilation and not enough ventilation , were getting a nice warm up this weekend into Monday in the 50 - 60 range so it will give me a chance to check the quilt box's for moisture and adjust the vent holes accordingly and see if there eating the sugar bricks .


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

Daniel Y said:


> A black bucket would warm faster [HIGHLIGHT] under any given conditions [/HIGHLIGHT] than a white bucket.
> So if you take the factors of color. volume or area along with time exposed. a black object will in fact get hotter than a white one.


So you think a black bucket will warm faster than a white bucket at _NIGHT_??? :kn:


:ws:

... even at the North Pole during summer solstice that isn't likely to be true ....


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

Rader Sidetrack said:


> So you think a black bucket will warm faster than a white bucket at _NIGHT_??? :kn:
> 
> 
> :ws:
> ...


Yes, but other conditions for an object to gain heat must also be met. Many of those where discussed in other parts of the conversation. try to gather it all up and see the entire picture Graham. or just set back and wait for those that can to get it figured out for you.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

Daniel Y said:


> Yes, but other conditions for an object to gain heat must also be met. Many of those where discussed in other parts of the conversation. try to gather it all up and see the entire picture Graham. or just set back and wait for those that can to get it figured out for you.


Daniel, *you *were the one that specified "_under ANY given conditions_", here ...


Daniel Y said:


> A black bucket would warm faster [HIGHLIGHT] under any given conditions [/HIGHLIGHT] than a white bucket.


... and now you are saying that the black bucket will _gain _heat AT NIGHT _faster _than a white bucket, but only under some apparently _secret _additional conditions.

_Riiiiiight _....   


Maybe you can sell those buckets to the _Mystery Spot_, in Santa Cruz CA where water runs _uphill_. 
:banana:


----------



## Beeonefarms (Nov 22, 2013)

Rader Sidetrack said:


> Well, its cold outside (most places), so the temperature/discussion at Beesource is heating up!
> 
> For anyone that missed the earlier version, enjoy ....  http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...-the-Cluster-Not-the-Hive&highlight=heat+hive
> 
> ...


Why does it have to be a black bucket losing more heat. than the white bucket.... why does it all ways have to be about the bucket card


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

> why does it all ways have to be about the bucket card

Well, of course the same heat gain/loss concept (based on color) applies to _hive bodies_ as well. Please note that I said as much in several posts in this other current thread:
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?304956-Wrapping-hives-in-cold-climates



As for buckets, they have many uses in an apiary, including 'hurricane' _hive holddowns_. :banana:



I love buckets!  ... and scrounge them at every opportunity.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

....and on a related matter I saw these the other day in a store and it immediately got my curiosity up and seemed to contradict everything I learned in science class about the transformation of light energy into heat energy. How can light reflective materials affect the inside of a jacket....where there is no light? I'm waving the b*** s*** flag. 
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YKe6098nmAo


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

Well, many people would agree that infrared radiation can be interpreted as 'heat'. And infrared and visible light are just different (but closely related) frequencies on the electromagnetic spectrum:

*Visible light is only a small portion of the full electromagnetic spectrum.​*







Photo Credit

The graphic is from NOAA. More info at their page.
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/srh/jetstream/clouds/cloudwise/learn.html#color

-----------

An interesting conundrum: 

Two identical closed rooms (no windows), one with an "on" 40 watt incandescent light, and the other with an "on" 40 watt fluorescent light. Which room heats up faster? ... and why? 


.


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

Rader Sidetrack said:


> An interesting conundrum:
> 
> Two identical closed rooms (no windows), one with an "on" 40 watt incandescent light, and the other with an "on" 40 watt fluorescent light. Which room heats up faster? ... and why?


No difference: law of conservation of energy. 40 watts is a measure of energy consumed and it will all be dissipated within the room. The flourescent bulb will appear brighter as it is more efficient at producing light in the visible spectrum but that is incidental to temperature rise of the room.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Ok first of all let me say that science was never my best subject but it seems that the answer to Graham's question isn't that simple. A cfl bulb will emit more light energy but less heat energy. Dosent the question then become whether there are enough heat absorbing (dark) materials in the room to absorb the additional light that is put out by the cfl bulb........right?


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

I think that I'll give DY an opportunity to chime in before I expound further on the light bulb issue. opcorn:


----------



## jwcarlson (Feb 14, 2014)

jim lyon said:


> Ok first of all let me say that science was never my best subject but it seems that the answer to Graham's question isn't that simple. A cfl bulb will emit more light energy but less heat energy. Dosent the question then become whether there are enough heat absorbing (dark) materials in the room to absorb the additional light that is put out by the cfl bulb........right?


No, it's a trick question. One room is in Alaska in February the other is in Arizona in August.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

Not a trick question. Note that in my earlier post I specified "identical" rooms. That means that all conditions _exterior _to the room are the same, and the walls of the rooms are identical in terms of construction/insulation etc.


Tip:  This page doesn't answer the question directly, but it does provide some hints: :shhhh:
http://www.quora.com/A-source-of-li...would-we-be-able-to-detect-light-for-eternity


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

Graham, I have no interest in conducting a conversation with someone incapable of even limited reasoning.


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

Rader that was not a good report card! Pull up your socks, man!


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

Well, now that DY has declined to participate, we can declare _Crofter _in post #39 is correct. 

The tie-in with the clue I linked in post #43 is that the walls of the rooms act as _imperfect _mirrors. 

In both cases, the light bounces off the walls, but since the walls are not _perfect _mirrors, a portion of the light is not reflected and that non-reflected portion of light is absorbed by the wall. So in _both _rooms, the light just bounces around the room until it is ALL absorbed by the walls. The absorption of the light by the walls warms up the walls in a similar manner to radiant heat from a heater would. The temperature in the two rooms will be the _same_.

Note that the additional light emitted from a fluorescent bulb also means that there is _less _non-visible radiation compared to an incandescent. In both cases the 40 watt lights consume 40 watts of electricity, and regardless of whether the fluorescent light is more efficient in terms of producing _visible _light, in the end *all *the light output (plus the "waste" heat from the bulbs) is converted to the same 40 watts of heat.


----------



## Phoebee (Jan 29, 2014)

Ah, but does a 60W incandescent bulb produce the same heat as a "60W" LED bulb?

And the answer is "no" because bulb manufacturers have given up trying to educate us about lumens and instead are selling LED bulbs with the same lumens as a 60 W incandescent bulb as a 60W mumblemumblefineprint bulb.

Considering that vacuum cleaner and circular saw marketing still hypes how many amps their motor pulls and not how much work they do, they probably have decided that we'll buy the highest number we can get for the $$$. And it works on cordless drills, where they sell on battery voltage, never mind the tiny little M12 lithium batteries on my Milwaukees will run most 18V drills under the table. If voltage were the dominant factor, we might realize how good the old 120 V corded drills were.


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

Beeonefarms said:


> Why does it have to be a black bucket losing more heat. than the white bucket.... why does it all ways have to be about the bucket card


Graham, The big secret that is no secret. it has been mentioned several times. is that the bucket only need to be colder than it is outside. In finer detail a dark bucket would actually be capable of gaining additional heat even if it where not colder than it is outside.

This temperature difference has been mentioned several times. You are the one that stated there is a gain going on in these buckets. you simply asked me which would be gaining faster. So it is obvious that the buckets are colder than it is outside. and the buckets are warming up to that outside temperature.

What I am curious about is what makes you think heat has anything to do with light? Light is a completely different form of energy.

Do you think I can just place an ice sculpture outside at night and it could not possibly gain any heat and melt. Is the heat unable to find it's way in the dark?
Oh I just could not take the risk. someone might leave a porch light on and all would be ruined. But thanks for the tip.

Maybe that is why so many people find it to hard to sleep in mid summer. their bodies are completely incapable of loosing heat once it is night. I have a suggestion though. next time you find it to hot to sleep. just leave the light on. that way the heat can find it's way out.

Now you may say the the buckets are in a colder outdoor environment. And they will in fact cool or loose heat. there is no such thing as lost heat. No heat energy is ever lost. It is simply transferred or it can be converted to other forms of energy. all of which result in all energy eventually returning to heat.

Now pardon me as I suspect I am already well into concepts you are incapable of grasping. For this reason I need to dumb down the terminology. As a result exactness in detail is lost. I am not interested in being exact. I am interested in explaining basic principals to a wide audience.

So to be more precise and exact. A dark object will retain heat to a greater degree than a light one. Now I suspect that for many the word Retain would not convey the same meaning as the word gain. and the entire significance of retention rather than gain will never be understood by most. But in either case a bucket loosing heat or gaining heat. it is in fact only an issue of retention. and the black buckets retention is greater than that of the white one under any circumstances. 

Now that you have had your little pointless side track, can we continue with some constructive conversation?


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

Phoebee said:


> Ah, but does a 60W incandescent bulb produce the same heat as a "60W" LED bulb?
> 
> And the answer is "no" because bulb manufacturers have given up trying to educate us about lumens and instead are selling LED bulbs with the same lumens as a 60 W incandescent bulb as a 60W mumblemumblefineprint bulb.
> 
> Considering that vacuum cleaner and circular saw marketing still hypes how many amps their motor pulls and not how much work they do, they probably have decided that we'll buy the highest number we can get for the $$$. And it works on cordless drills, where they sell on battery voltage, never mind the tiny little M12 lithium batteries on my Milwaukees will run most 18V drills under the table. If voltage were the dominant factor, we might realize how good the old 120 V corded drills were.


No. But a bulb, technically correct since that now seems to be a requirement. is called a lamp. Is not made to make heat. It is made to make light. The only reason and lamp produces heat is that it is inefficient and converts some energy to a form it was not intended to. A 60 watt incandescent lamp in fact uses 60 watts of electrical power. A 60 watt LED will also use 60 watts of power but will convert that energy to far more light than the incandescent will. It will also result in less heat energy because that energy which would have become heat became light.


----------



## Phoebee (Jan 29, 2014)

Daniel Y said:


> So to be more precise and exact. A dark object will retain heat to a greater degree than a light one. Now I suspect that for many the word Retain would not convey the same meaning as the word gain. and the entire significance of retention rather than gain will never be understood by most. But in either case a bucket loosing heat or gaining heat. it is in fact only an issue of retention. and the black buckets retention is greater than that of the white one under any circumstances.


Daniel, I don't get how you think, all other things being equal, a black bucket will _retain_ heat better than a white bucket.

Set's put both buckets in the same environment, at the same starting temperature. Let's say the themal mass in the bucket is water ... not sure anyone has specified it but water would allow us to determine energy content in BTUs, calories, etc. What are the heat loss mechanisms? Evaporation of the water, convection, conduction, and radiation. Only radiation has anything to do with the color. At any temperature at which you can have liquid water at sea level pressure, the temperature of the water will be in a range assuring that radiation will be longwave IR. So we look up the thermal emissivity of ... take your pick, black and white polyethylene, black and white vinyl, or black and white organic paints. The emissivity values of these materials will all be in the range of about 0.90 to 0.98. Black materials may have slightly higher values than white, but not much, as long as the binding material is an organic compound.

So that being the case, the heat loss of a black bucket to the surrounding environment will be almost exactly the same as that of an otherwise identical white bucket, and if anything, slightly _higher_. So a black bucket is expected to cool off at the same rate or just a little faster as a white bucket.

A polished stainless steel bucket, on the other hand, will have low emissivity, maybe down in the 0.1-0.2 range, and will radiate less heat. But it may lose more to conduction than the plastic buckets. It will reflect sunlight better than any white plastic bucket, and thus not heat up as fast in sunlight.

What IS dramatically different is the response of black materials versus white for absorbing sunlight. Black does get hotter faster.


----------



## Phoebee (Jan 29, 2014)

Daniel Y said:


> No. But a bulb, technically correct since that now seems to be a requirement. is called a lamp. Is not made to make heat. It is made to make light. The only reason and lamp produces heat is that it is inefficient and converts some energy to a form it was not intended to. A 60 watt incandescent lamp in fact uses 60 watts of electrical power. A 60 watt LED will also use 60 watts of power but will convert that energy to far more light than the incandescent will. It will also result in less heat energy because that energy which would have become heat became light.


The problem is ... and this infuriates me to see it in the stores recently ... is that they are labeling the packages of 15W LED lamps as 60W, but then putting "equivalent light output" in fine print under it. There was a brief attempt over the last couple of years to educate consumers about lumens, but they seem to have abandoned the effort and gone with a convenient lie.

Gotta watch the term "lamp". You're right that it does refer to what most people call "bulbs", but then you get into the definition of lighting fixtures and you have the UL/NEMA term "portable electric lamp", and we'll all end up in another pointless argument. And don't get me started on "plugs."


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

Phoebee said:


> never mind the tiny little M12 lithium batteries on my Milwaukees will run most 18V drills under the table.


Sort of funny that you would mention this.

Now I find this point interesting because I just had a conversation concerning these two battery types with a trades person the other day. They actually prefer the 18 volt tools over the M12's. I asked why. they said the M12 do not deliver the rpm's to the drill needed for their work.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

Daniel Y said:


> What I am curious about is what makes you think heat has anything to do with light? Light is a completely different form of energy.


Huh. :kn:

If you _really _need a reference, how about this page from _Argonne National Laboratory_:
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00653.htm

A snippet from that page ...


> Light itself is a form of energy. Scientists have discovered that one form of energy can be converted into another. There are several different kinds of energy. Some examples are: chemical energy, electricity, light, and heat. All forms of energy are convertible into heat.
> 
> http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00653.htm



OK, Daniel, I have provided my response. Now how about you providing a _reference _for your position that light and heat are "_completely different_"? Or a more complete explanation? :s:scratch:


----------



## Phoebee (Jan 29, 2014)

Daniel Y said:


> Sort of funny that you would mention this.
> 
> Now I find this point interesting because I just had a conversation concerning these two battery types with a trades person the other day. They actually prefer the 18 volt tools over the M12's. I asked why. they said the M12 do not deliver the rpm's to the drill needed for their work.


At the risk of more thread drift, comparing my M12 angle drill to an 18V Skil, the Skil with a fresh charge does indeed have a somewhat higher RPM, but will go dead as a doornail in a matter of minutes of use. And that's after replacing the original batteries, which got so they would not hold a charge _at all_. I can run it down faster than I can charge the backup battery. The M12 will usually run all day, and the charger always stays ahead of battery use. And the M12 drill has much better torque ... I usually use it as a power screwdriver and the Skil to drill pilot holes.

Milwaukee does make an 18V line as well, and I expect they are excellent, but the cheap consumer lines bear watching. I find you get no more than you pay for.

To make this bee-related, the last major project using both together was my bear-proof bee enclosure.


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

Rader Sidetrack said:


> Well, many people would agree that infrared radiation can be interpreted as 'heat'. And infrared and visible light are just different (but closely related) frequencies on the electromagnetic spectrum:
> 
> *Visible light is only a small portion of the full electromagnetic spectrum.​*
> 
> ...


I didn't see this before my previous post. apply my post to this question and you have my answer.


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

Phoebee said:


> At the risk of more thread drift, comparing my M12 angle drill to an 18V Skil, the Skil with a fresh charge does indeed have a somewhat higher RPM, but will go dead as a doornail in a matter of minutes of use. And that's after replacing the original batteries, which got so they would not hold a charge _at all_. I can run it down faster than I can charge the backup battery. The M12 will usually run all day, and the charger always stays ahead of battery use. And the M12 drill has much better torque ... I usually use it as a power screwdriver and the Skil to drill pilot holes.
> 
> Milwaukee does make an 18V line as well, and I expect they are excellent, but the cheap consumer lines bear watching. I find you get no more than you pay for.
> 
> To make this bee-related, the last major project using both together was my bear-proof bee enclosure.


This is because rpm is related to amps or current flow. Batteries are measured in amp hours 1 HR is equal to one amp for one hour. a higher rpm requires more amperage that can only be provided for less time.

The wasting away thing has to do with what happens to the chemicals inside the battery. there are two chemicals that are separate in a charged battery. they release electrical energy a they combine. recharging a battery is simply running electricity through the battery backwards which causes these chemicals to separate again. eventually they stop separating as well until finally they don't separate at all. You can no longer get a charge on them. It all works on something similar to magnetism but eventually the chemicals stop reacting to the magnetic type force. Magnetism Gravity and electricity are all forms of energy that we know exist and we have some degree of an explanation of why they work the way they do. some to a greater degree than others. but no one is certain those explanations are even correct.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Phoebee said:


> And the M12 drill has much better torque .


My what a science lesson we are getting on this thread.

If gearing is the same torque is amperage not voltage. Voltage affects speed.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

Daniel Y said:


> This is because rpm is related to amps or current flow. Batteries are measured in amp hours 1 HR is equal to one amp for one hour. a higher rpm requires more amperage that can only be provided for less time.


I don't agree that RPM is related to amps at all. A cell phone "vibrator" is actually a small motor with an 'offset' weight attached, and the motor runs at high speeds, typically around 8000-12000 RPM, and yet a cell battery does not provide high amperage at all. Then compare that to an automobile starter motor that draws very high amperage and has a 'no-load' RPM of around 5000 RPM.

RPM in a DC motor - as in a battery powered tool - is related to motor design, not voltage or amps.


However, the combination of (amps * volts) = watts, and watts are not only a measure of electricity, but also a measure of _heat_!  And the HEAT from bees in a hive can also be measured in watts! Amazing how that all ties together! :lpf:

.


----------



## Phoebee (Jan 29, 2014)

Daniel Y said:


> This is because rpm is related to amps or current flow. Batteries are measured in amp hours 1 HR is equal to one amp for one hour. a higher rpm requires more amperage that can only be provided for less time.


Careful with the lessons, Danny. I do this stuff for a living and am holding back on account of trying to be audience-appropriate. Degrees in Electrical Engineering Technology and Biology, have experience in nuclear rocket science, did lab testing of consumer products under contract with CPSC, have a fair amount of experience in heat and heat transfer experiments, and could rig a dynamometer up to compare work output of two drills if I had the inclination. And I'm handy enough at chemistry to know about the various electrochemical storage cells in some detail, which don't in any appreciable way depend on gravity or magnetism to store energy. Amp hours don't fully reflect watt-hours, which would give actual energy storage. 

And I expect I'm the only guy in the room with his own thermal imager. 

Top: Incandescent lamp
Bottom: LED lamp
About the same light output, both turned on at the same time.


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

Graham, same principal dramatically different scales. Motors convert electrical energy to mechanical via magnetic forced produced directly by current flow. Current flow is also known as amperage.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

Well, _without _current flow (amps/milliamps etc), there will be _NO_ motor RPM at all, but that is about the only relationship between volts/amps and RPM (unless you are referring to a single _specific _motor). 

I repeat, motor RPM is a function of motor design, not a particular current flow and not a particular voltage.


Shall we talk about putting a solar cell *inside* a hive with bees to capture electrical energy from their heat output? Perhaps, over enough time, we can charge up that drill/driver!


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Daniel, you got it all wrong.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Rader Sidetrack said:


> I repeat, motor RPM is a function of motor design, not a particular current flow and not a particular voltage.


Rader, don't make it complicated. Use the same motor and vary the voltage. It will speed up and slow down as the voltage varies. Now load up the motor (which is torque). The amperage will increase and decrease with torque. Same motor. I am not a scientist with a flair camera but what I say is basic.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

Acebird said:


> Rader, don't make it complicated. Use the same motor and vary the voltage. It will speed up and slow down as the voltage varies. Now load up the motor (which is torque). The amperage will increase and decrease with torque. Same motor. I am not a scientist with a flair camera but what I say is basic.


Well, Ace, can you at least agree that RPM change depends on the *motor design*? :scratch:

For instance, a synchronous motor does not change RPM based on the voltage. Synchronous motor RPMs are controlled by frequency (Hz) of the supply power, not voltage.

For another instance, an AC induction motor will _not _respond in a nice manner:no: to a lower voltage. If you are lucky, it will simply overheat and shut down. If you are unlucky, it could self destruct. 

Again, it depends on the _MOTOR DESIGN_! :lpf:


I do agree that for a _given _DC motor, varying the voltage _may _result in reasonably proportional change in RPM.

:gh:

... I am not a scientist - _nor an engineer_, but what I say is basic ...


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

Daniel Y said:


> Graham, I have no interest in conducting a conversation with someone incapable of even limited reasoning.


lol


----------



## Phoebee (Jan 29, 2014)

Rader Sidetrack said:


> Shall we talk about putting a solar cell *inside* a hive with bees to capture electrical energy from their heat output? Perhaps, over enough time, we can charge up that drill/driver!


You could do it with those Peltier cooling chips I keep pushing on you guys as heat flow sensors. A cluster of bees probably could charge a drill battery in a couple of years.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

Phoebee said:


> You could do it with those Peltier cooling chips I keep pushing on you guys as heat flow sensors. A cluster of bees probably could charge a drill battery in a couple of years.


Hey, if you did this in the summer (when the bees are trying to cool the hive), there might be less need for the bees to haul in cooling water, and then more bees could be released to be out foraging more nectar! :lookout:



... more honey + free electricity ... what a concept:lpf:
... sell the Feds on the idea and the BPA could become the _*B*ee *P*ower *A*dministration_ ...


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Rader Sidetrack said:


> Well, Ace, can you at least agree that RPM change depends on the *motor design*? :scratch:


I think design is the wrong word. Replace it with "motor type" and I would agree. The discussion was about dc motors (battery operated drills).


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

Acebird said:


> Rader, don't make it complicated. Use the same motor and vary the voltage. It will speed up and slow down as the voltage varies. Now load up the motor (which is torque). The amperage will increase and decrease with torque. Same motor. I am not a scientist with a flair camera but what I say is basic.


Ace V (Voltage) = I (Current/amps) X R (Resistance)

Now if voltage is 1 then the above would be correct if I and R are both 1.

If you in fact have an increase in Voltage to 2 then you in fact also have an increase in I or R or both.

Since Amps are the only other thing in teh exuasion that will vary without actually physically changing the circuit. then it is I that changes. So you would then have 2=2X1.

So which did you really change. the voltage or the amperage? Or both. Which actually was the cause of the increased RPM? 

Since a motor operates on the magnetic fields produced by current passing through a wire. I say it is the amps that directly cause the increased RPM. The voltage either increases the amps or is increased by an increase in current. depending on how you choose to describe it. Voltage does not create magnetic fields, current does. It is the physical motion of electrons in a wire that create that magnetic force. That is in fact current.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Daniel Y said:


> So which did you really change. the voltage or the amperage? Or both. Which actually was the cause of the increased RPM?


Daniel I am not a motor scientist either but I know that a DC motor that operates within its normal speed range will increase in speed as the armature voltage is increased and while doing so the torque is fairly constant. I also know that if you have a DC motor that has field wiring you can make the motor go way beyond it's nameplate speed by varying the voltage on the field. This puts the motor into constant horsepower where as before the horsepower increases with speed. Thirdly, if the voltage on the field goes to 0 then take cover because the motor will overspeed until it blows apart. I can't explain to you what goes on with V=I*R but I know what I described is real.

If you are still suspect you can go to a motor repair house that repairs dc drives and they can prove it to you. However they are not going to self destruct a motor. it is not safe to do that.


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

Acebird said:


> I think design is the wrong word. Replace it with "motor type" and I would agree. The discussion was about dc motors (battery operated drills).


 A DC motor works exactly the same as an AC motor with alterations to it physical components and how they need to be arranged. It is electrical current being converted to magnetic forces that cause the motor to rotate. I found this in just one explanation of the process.

It is Frenchman Andre-Marie Ampere (1775�1836), a mathematician and physicist, who discovered what happens to a wire winded in a coil when current flows within. The current will generate a magnetic field around the coil, as shown in the following drawing:

This magnetic field is then used to cause the rotation of a motor. But that is no longer electrical once it becomes an magnetic force. The only part of electricity that causes this magnetic force or flux is current. Both types of motors still work based upon these magnetic fields.


----------



## Phoebee (Jan 29, 2014)

Daniel Y said:


> Ace V (Voltage) = I (Current/amps) X R (Resistance)
> 
> Now if voltage is 1 then the above would be correct if I and R are both 1.
> 
> ...


Daniel, you've got some remedial work to do. Yes, E = I*R if those really are the parameters you're working with. And yes, if you have one volt and one amp then and the load is a resistance then the resistance must be 1 ohm. However, you could have 1 volt, 100 amps, and 0.01 ohms, or 1 volt, 0.01 amps, and 100 ohms. 

And more importantly, motors are not resistors. They're electromagnetic devices with very non-resistor-like volt-amp relationships, in which current is affected by torque and rpm. DC motors, for example, produce maximum torque and also maximum current draw when at 0 RPM (the stalled rotor condition). DC motors may turn into generators if you apply external mechanical drive to them, and all electromagnetic motors produce "back EMF" when in operation. Modern motors running on electronic speed controls are even more complex and less like resistors.

Current thru a coil produces a magnetic field, but in a motor, the tendency of a coil moving relative to a magnetic field also produces voltage and current, and you cannot understand the operation of a motor without considering these generator-like effects. Interesting DC motor effect: if you suddenly switch off the "field windings" of some DC motor types, with no load on the motor shaft, the torque capability of the motor will drop, but the RPM will race to incredibly high levels, likely destroying the motor. Apply higher field winding current to a DC motor and it will actually slow down!

Ampere did absolutely brilliant work on basic electromagnetism considering he'd seen only one quick demonstration of Ørsted's compass and wire experiment. However, he never built a motor or generator. He understood that current could make a magnetic field, but the understanding that a moving magnetic field could make a current had not been discovered at that time. Breaking that secret came later, and it was Michael Faraday who figured out how to make motors. I dispute, by the way, that AC and DC motors are the same. "Universal" brush motors can operate AC or DC, but induction motors can only run on DC if provided with an inverter to make DC into AC. Feed an induction motor DC and it just sits there and smokes. An induction motor is a rotating AC transformer, and will have no current in the armature windings unless the power source is AC.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

Daniel Y said:


> Ace V (Voltage) = I (Current/amps) X R (Resistance)
> 
> Now if voltage is 1 then the above would be correct if I and R are both 1.
> 
> ...



The problem with this analysis is that the effective "R" (resistance) in a motor is not fixed. As the motor rotates in response to the supplied power, in effect the magnetic fields generated by the supplied power (and the resulting rotation of the armature) also create 'back-emf' which in effect acts _opposite _to the supply voltage. 'Back emf' is what allows a DC motor to have high starting current but then be self limiting current at operational speeds. The net effect of this is that the Ohm's law equation cited by DY above is not static when talking about an operating motor.

A reference on 'back-emf':
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/302l/lectures/node93.html


----------



## Phoebee (Jan 29, 2014)

Yup, Acebird. In our motor lab we had these big old 5 HP DC motors to experiment with, with the rotor and field winding connections patchable.

Standard safety instructions said, if you heard one of these running away, it was because the field windings were disconnected. The end result was likely to be for the motor to race to failure, whereupon several hundred pounds of iron and copper was likely to go flying about the lab. Anyone near the motor was to get away and take cover. Anyone near the power patch panel was to kill power to the lab.

Yup, Rader. You say what I say with a lot less words. As usual.


----------



## PAHunter62 (Jan 26, 2011)

My first winter beekeeping, I had two hives right behind my shed. I was curious and purchase a couple indoor/outdoor thermometers with 10 foot probes. That allowed me to mount the thermometer inside the shed and have the probe into the hive and between two frames in the center of the top box.

I remember getting readings of the outside (which was inside the shed) of 11 degrees, and readings from inside the hive of 93.5. I'm assuming that was in the middle of the cluster.


----------



## Phoebee (Jan 29, 2014)

PAHunter, thanks for getting us back on topic.

That temperature sounds credible, although a little high for just clustering, based on what I've read. Bees do like to keep brood at that temperature, though. What time of year did you get that reading? Maybe still raising winter bees, or just starting spring brood?

Most of those little indoor-outdoor thermometers use a temperature sensor that is remarkably accurate. They're probably not quite spot on to the tenth of a degree, but they are rarely off more than a few tenths. If that was the reading, that's what they were producing.


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

Phoebee said:


> Daniel, you've got some remedial work to do. Yes, E = I*R
> 
> 1. And more importantly, motors are not resistors.
> 
> ...


1. Never said they where.

2. one thing at a time.

3. never said he did. I said motors run on the magnetic effects of current through a wire. I never considered Ampere discovered any such thing. he just discovered the magnetic properties of a winding.


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

Rader Sidetrack said:


> Shall we talk about putting a solar cell *inside* a hive with bees to capture electrical energy from their heat output? Perhaps, over enough time, we can charge up that drill/driver!


This is a joke, Right? I don't mean the obvious. I mean the "Solar Cell" Inside the hive of course. and producing electricity from heat.

Yeah it has to be a joke.

Of course if it is not. It explains nearly everything.


----------



## Phoebee (Jan 29, 2014)

Daniel Y said:


> This is a joke, Right? I don't mean the obvious. I mean the "Solar Cell" Inside the hive of course. and producing electricity from heat.
> 
> Yeah it has to be a joke.
> 
> Of course if it is not. It explains nearly everything.


Solar cell in a hive, of course that won't work. One of these, arranged so there is heat flow thru it, will produce a small amount of power. They can convert about 4% of the heat energy flowing thru them into electrical power. I calibrate them for use as heat flow sensors. They are thermopiles.

http://www.mpja.com/Thermoelectric-Cooling-Module-127-couple-12VDC/productinfo/30207 PM/

You did, in fact, try to suggest that the math for a motor was just Ohm's law, failed to understand that Ampere did not know about electromagnetic induction, thus showing us why you think motors are simply a matter of current thru a coil, and if you think we can understand motors by saying "one thing at a time,", well, that's the reason you are not qualified to work with electric motors. 

But let's skip this foolishness, which is entirely off topic, and I guess that's my fault. Though you really didn't need to go into a lecture on motors about which you clearly know only enough to dig yourself into a very deep hole.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

Daniel Y said:


> This is a joke, Right? I don't mean the obvious. I mean the "Solar Cell" Inside the hive of course. and producing electricity from heat.
> 
> Yeah it has to be a joke.
> 
> Of course if it is not. It explains nearly everything.


Ahh, Daniel .... you deny that electricity can be generated from 'heat'? :scratch: Really? :kn:

How about a graphic from the this _PowerPot _ product page ...








Read the technical explanation here: http://www.powerpractical.com/how-thermoelectric-generators-work

$149 for your own bee colony '_heat' to electricity_ generating plant! :lpf:Order here

:gh:


Of course, I did mean the exercise (as I posted it earlier) as a joke, but there is nothing funny about "_generating electricity from heat_". Most electric power plants in the USA do exactly that. Solar, nuclear, coal and natural gas plants all generate electricity from heat. Hydro (dams) is the only one that comes to mind at the moment that does not use heat for power generation.

:ws:

Of course, if you _fail to recognize _that light is just another form of heat then I can see how you could be so confused about how all this works.


----------



## Phoebee (Jan 29, 2014)

I'm telling ya, Graham, you gotta look at those Peltier coolers. MPJA is out right now because of that sale price, but they may cut the price of a TEG.

Better yet, there's been some work on tin selenide alloys that may hit 18% conversion. These, painted black and with heat sinks on their back, might work better in sunlight than photovoltaic cells. 

http://phys.org/news/2014-04-tin-selenide-efficiently-electrical-energy.html

And there's some theoretical work going on with graphene that suggests 60% or better may be possible. At which point one might actually hope to use waste heat from hives for something useful.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

Well, the PowerPot product page that I linked in post #80 includes references to Peltier, and the PowerPot product is essentially a Peltier device.

The first Peltier product that I owned was a 12 volt (cigarette lighter) cooler (Coleman, maybe) that has long since bit the dust, but it did work. Of course, there the objective was to pump hear in/out of the cooler, but in a different application, such as the PowerPot product electricity can be generated.


So, who will be the first at Beesource to add another product to his/her line of apiary products? 
Go _BEE-Power_! :lpf: 



... talk about '_off the grid_' .... 

---------------------------

I didn't want to further complicate my post #80, but there _are _'solar cells' that can generate electricity from _infrared _heat:
http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2012/infrared-photovoltaic-0621

While the article references infrared radiation from the sun, certainly many other objects emit infrared radiation, and that can be captured also. The only difference is that a bee colony only emits a _small _amount of infrared radiation, so it really is not cost effective to harness that infrared radiation in any conventional application. However, the concept is still valid.

A thermocouple on a gas (propane/natural gas) fireplace 'log set' controls the _electric _gas valve, shutting off the gas if the flame goes out. That thermocouple is a fine example of a small inexpensive device generating electricity directly from 'heat'. And once more, 'light' is just another form of heat. Note that the gas log sets that I am referring to have no _external _source of electricity.

.


----------



## Phoebee (Jan 29, 2014)

I've proposed to the think-tank of wild-eyed science fiction authors that let me hang around, that, for a number of reasons, which seem to involve graphene, carbon nanotubes, and buckyballs as the primary players, we seem to be entering the "carbon age."

http://www.sigmaforum.org/


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

Rader Sidetrack said:


> Ahh, Daniel .... you deny that electricity can be generated from 'heat'? :scratch: Really? :kn:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, I did mean the exercise (as I posted it earlier) as a joke, but there is nothing funny about "_generating electricity from heat_". Most electric power plants in the USA do exactly that. Solar, nuclear, coal and natural gas plants all generate electricity from heat. Hydro (dams) is the only one that comes to mind at the moment that does not use heat for power generation.


You just sort of make up whatever it is you wanted to read and then argue those points..

I never said anything about weather electricity could or could not be generated by heat.

Now for one that seems to hold others to technical exactness. I am holding you to that same standard. 

Now technically Solar Cell, Solar being "Of, or pertaining to the sun". would mean you are saying you literally obtained a cell from the sun. That must have been some hum dinger of a biopsy.

But Even I will give you some latitude in that you simply used a technically incorrect but commonly used name for what is actually a Photovoltaic cell. Even through by your rules I shouldn't' so you get at least half a strike for that one.

So I assume we can agree that what you meant was Photovoltaic cell, maybe not. But then even the average village idiot knows that Photo cells produce electricity from light not heat. But no you suggest placing it inside the hive. this is when I start wondering if you just constructed a masterful joke. I honestly wish it had been.

And then you suggest that this cell you biopsied from the sun that generates electricity in the dark will in fact produce electricity from heat.

Okay at this point I can only make even the most feeble explaination for you by saying. He does not really mean solar cell and he does not really even mean photovoltaic cell and He does not really mean making electricity in the dark with a device that makes electricity with light but he really means placing a thermocouple in the hive. and generating electricity from the heat from the bees. 

I mean common man just how far do I have to bend your own standards to keep you in compliance? You fail and you fail in grand style. It would have been an extremely creative joke. it is very sad that it is not.

Now I accept the charging comment was intended as a joke. The rest is a display of near utter ignorance as to what components are what and how they function and to what degree.

I was making no claims as to the ability to produce electricity from heat or the properties of light.

But if you think that a photo cell will eventually produce electricity in the dark you knock yourself out with that one. Evidently you think you can generate electricity with a thermocouple with light as well. I suggest you attempt both at once in the interest of saving time.

I am stunned you where actually serious about any part of your statement.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

So, DY, did you even _click_ on any of the links I posted? :scratch: Did you read the content? :s

Was there some part(s) that you did not understand? 

:bus


----------



## Phoebee (Jan 29, 2014)

Daniel, you're just getting desperate now, with your ridiculous semantic arguments, but since you insist, the devices we're referring to are not single thermocouples but thermopiles, Moreover, they specifically semiconductor thermopiles made with bismuth telluride, making them many times more efficient than thermopiles made with more common thermocouple materials.

They work on any heat flow, which might be radiant heat from the sun, but it could also be invisible radiant longwave IR from a warm body, or phonons from heat conduction. I've got half a dozen of these things an arm's length from me, and they'll produce a reading just from my body heat a meter away, readable on a conventional digital multimeter. I also work with thermocouples, and it takes very special equipment to read a thermocouple with that little temperature differential. So with the semiconductor thermopiles such as bismuth telluride or the super-efficient new tin selenide, we actually can make thermoelectric "cells" that can use any radiant energy, visible light or not, to produce electricity. 

The fact is, you're looking really desperate right now to prove what a scientific genius you are, and its really getting pathetic, because with every attempt, you make it clear that you have only the shallowest notion of what you're talking about, and are probably trying to look up something, anything to support your argument by googling the topics between posts. 

Now, do you, or do you not, have anything useful to say about temperatures inside a beehive? Just how many thermocouples and heat flow sensors do you have in your hives, and what have you learned from analyzing the data? This would be helpful, because, while I definitely am setting up to instrument my hives, I kinda got caught up in actual beekeeping this summer and mine are not fully instrumented yet. I'm stuck with occasionally getting readings with the thermal imager.


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

Phoebee said:


> Daniel, you're just getting desperate now, with your ridiculous semantic arguments, but since you insist, the devices we're referring to are not single thermocouples but thermopiles,


Not sure what you read or how you think you know better than me what I was referring to. But it was not your thermophiles. My thoughts as I read grahams post where. 
1. they are not Solar Cells, they are Photovoltaic cells.
2. put them in a hive? Is he serious?
3. no way he even means photovoltaic cells be must be talking about thermocouples.

I then looked at it and thought about it for a while and actually thought he had made a big but maybe not so obvious joke. sort of like a series of expectation from components that do not even perform in those conditions. calling a photovoltaic cell a Solar cell. expecting a photo cell to produce electricity in the dark. expecting a thermocouple to produce enough energy to charge a battery.

So in fact I meant a thermocouple that is why I wrote thermocouple. Not sure just why you think your post had so much control over my comment or thoughts. I'm sure you think I am wrong about that also.

thanks for the lengthy but unnecessary explanation of thermophiles. I am perfectly aware of what they are. I hope someone finds it useful.

Now are you claiming that ohms law is not in fact V=I*R? or that turbines do not in fact generate electrical power by magnetic fields and windings. or that Power in electricity is not in fact measured in watts. What exactly and in detail is not correct in my comments. Am I incorrect that current is in fact electrons moving in a conductor? It is far to easy to deceitfully claim my understanding is shallow. I want you to support that claim with every error you can find. Then correct them.

It seems to me that you and graham are certain that I do not think electricity can be generated from heat. and you must be right and cannot be told otherwise. What is true is that neither one of you had any idea what I was seeing as a possible joke. I'm not sure either one of you understand the entire issue well enough to see the potential joke I do.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Rader Sidetrack said:


> Note that the gas log sets that I am referring to have no _external _source of electricity.
> 
> .


I want to know how they get a spark to ignite a gas water heater with no pilot? Are they using the gas pressure to cycle a piston in a coil? Still how do they turn that on?


----------



## BeeCurious (Aug 7, 2007)

Acebird said:


> I want to know how they get a spark to ignite a gas water heater with no pilot? Are they using the gas pressure to cycle a piston in a coil? Still how do they turn that on?


I would suggest that you go to a library and do a little research.....


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

Ace asks an interesting question, but I have not identified a product that doesn't have a 'full-time" pilot or else an electrical connection. How about a model# or a link to something that operates that way?


There are strategies to _reduce _gas consumption lost to regular pilot lights. Some tankless w/h use a second (smaller) pilot light that serves to light the main (on demand) pilot that ignites the (on demand) main burner. For example:







Photo Credit
Note the main burner is not shown in that image, there are 2 pilots, one 'full-time'.



Plan B is to connect to the house wiring, either directly, or through a transformer.

Plan C is to use a battery. This one uses two "D" cells:
http://www.overstock.com/Emergency-...PG-Tankless-Water-Heater/3967058/product.html

.

*** WARNING *** BEGIN JOKE *** WARNING *** BEGIN JOKE *** WARNING *** BEGIN JOKE
_That line above was so DY doesn't get the wrong idea. 
_
Use your bee colony as a source of heat to generate electricity to ignite the 'on-demand' pilot in your on-demand tankless water heater!

Use:
A) a 'solar cell'* that can utilize the infrared radiation from a bee colony; or
B) a Peltier device* that can utilize the 'heat' from a bee colony; or
C) a thermopile* that can utilize the 'heat' from a bee colony.

*** WARNING *** END JOKE *** WARNING *** END JOKE *** WARNING *** END JOKE

*see my previous posts for links to products that could generate (small) amounts of electricity from bee heat. 


:gh:

.


----------



## Phoebee (Jan 29, 2014)

Daniel Y said:


> Not sure what you read or how you think you know better than me what I was referring to. But it was not your thermophiles. My thoughts as I read grahams post where.
> 1. they are not Solar Cells, they are Photovoltaic cells.
> 2. put them in a hive? Is he serious?
> 3. no way he even means photovoltaic cells be must be talking about thermocouples.


You keep doing it. Evidently you don't know the difference between a thermocouple, thermopile, and thermophile, so you just dug yourself deeper.

Thermocouple: A pair of junctions of dissimilar metals that produces current when the two junctions are at different temperatures via the Seebeck effect.

Thermopile: A whole bunch of thermocouple junction pairs in series, used to produce power in thermoelectric generators and also used as heat flow sensors. With power applied to them they exhibit the Peltier effect, serving as heat pumps. The Peltier devices usually use semiconductor materials such as bismuth telluride instead of traditional thermocouple metals.

Thermophile: A living organism that likes heat. And it might be argued that bees are thermophiles, but that's not what Graham and I were talking about. 


Yup, that's Ohm's Law (we traditionally capitalize the names of people, BTW. Now, are you going to recognize that electric motors are not resistors, and do not have a fixed linear relationship between voltage and current? Quit trying to apply Ohm's law to a device in which E and I depend on a whole slew of factors.

It is hard to decipher your comments about turbines and magnetic fields and windings, but you really ought to proof your posts: "turbines do not in fact generate electrical power by magnetic fields and windings." That's curiously true, once you dissect that fractured statement. Turbines are mechanical devices for turning fluid flow into rotary motion, and are not electrical, and you managed to put in a "do not" which negates what I suspect is your real point, that generators and alternators (which may be driven by turbines) DO generate electricity. Yes, power is measured in Watts, ... glad you finally figured it out because in your earlier post you just suggest it is determined by Amps. And you said "Power in electricity is not in fact measured in watts". which says you think power is *not *measured in watts. 

You persist in trying to toss us statements about Boy Scout electricity merit badge stuff to defend your earlier highly incorrect statements about motors, statements which in many cases contradict your earlier statements, and in no way support or defend your original errors. 

Now, if you would like to turn this discussion back to thermophiles, by which I mean bees liking a nice, warm hive to cluster up in all winter, please do. If you want to keep embarrassing yourself on the subject of electromagnetic machines, just be aware I've got a degree in this stuff. Drop it.


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

Rader Sidetrack said:


> So, DY, did you even _click_ on any of the links I posted? :scratch: Did you read the content? :s
> 
> Was there some part(s) that you did not understand?
> 
> :bus



Oh I see, I am supposed to sort out all your drivel for you? Well that makes being accurate much easier,now doesn't it.

In the future if you are confused with anything I say at all. please consult the internet until you are all straightened out on the issue will you.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

Well, Daniel, I DID _"consult the internet_" to improve my understanding of your position. And I found something that we can _BOTH _agree with!



Daniel Y said:


> If shallow mindedness is what works for you then work it to death. Btu some people actually think things over. it is how new things are discovered. It is how any process is refined. so leave the thinking to those that can. you will benefit from it greatly later. For all you know there are hundreds of people out there benefiting greatly from this very conversation. So if it embarrasses you or annoys you go back to the corner and set quietly with the rest of society. Some of us can speak and are not shy about doing so.


:lpf:


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

Phoebee said:


> You keep doing it. Evidently you don't know the difference between a thermocouple, thermopile, and thermophile, so you just dug yourself deeper.
> 
> Thermocouple: A pair of junctions of dissimilar metals that produces current when the two junctions are at different temperatures via the Seebeck effect.
> 
> ...


So a thermopile is in fact a bunch of thermocouples just as I originally said it was. that they are smaller grouped together and made form different material does not change the fact they rare thermocouples and I didn't need you to tell me that. I just noticed that my spell check does not recognize thermopile as a word. that would explain me using phile. I am writing it correctly but the computer does not agree. i don't care enough to double check the computer. Live with it. i have covered my opinion of correct spelling in the past. Be greatful I give it as much attention as I do I guess.

Take responsibility for making your own desires a reality. If you want to stop having this conversation then drop it yourself. I have a degree in electronics and have for 27 I am not familiar with a degree in "Stuff".

You are the only person in this conversation that has mentioned Energy So I have no idea where you get the idea I was referring to it anywhere at any time. I am not to certain you are capable of figuring out what E is.

The only place I can think of that you might have even mistakenly thought so was when I was referring to Ohm's law in relation to Watts. For someone supposedly with a degree in this "Stuff" that could not possibly be a point of confusion. You also may be referring to the comments I made in regard to weather it is amps, resistance, voltage or any combination of them that controls RPM.

I have been saying nothing more on that issue than current is what causes the fields and you can effect the current by manipulating the voltage or resistance. but it is still current that has any effect on the fields. Voltage does not directly effect the RPM of a motor even though RPM can be controlled by adjusting voltage. It is an exact detail issue. Now to claim otherwise and convince me you have to show me somewhere that is says voltage produces n electromagnetic field in a conductor.

When someone introduced the issue of power. I then extended this idea of current actually being the working component of electricity to the formula for watts. Now my entire reasoning in that argument I agree is probably far to complex to try and present in this setting and only served to be confusing.

I am also uncertain about where you got the idea I was calling a motor a resistor or even consider it as one. At some point I had mention load. If you then assume I am thinking that is a resistor again your assumptions are your responsibility

So if I wouldn't like to turn this conversation back to thermophiles. I don't have to? again an opportunity to hone your skills at assumptions. But you seem to assume the things there is absolutely no evidence of. I would think it obvious that I am quite content with this conversation.

So okay I am wrong about everything I have said. and you obviously have the knowledge to give us all the correct explanation so lets see it.


----------



## Phoebee (Jan 29, 2014)

People with degrees in electronics use E (electromotive force), not V, it equations such as Ohm's law. So I'd call you out on your claim to have a degree in electronics, except that your answer would not be worth the bits it takes to send it.

But you're right on one thing ... it is unforgivable that I've continued to bother to respond to you on such a wildly drifted thread. So we're done.


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

Phoebee said:


> People with degrees in electronics use E (electromotive force), not V, it equations such as Ohm's law. So I'd call you out on your claim to have a degree in electronics, except that your answer would not be worth the bits it takes to send it.
> 
> But you're right on one thing ... it is unforgivable that I've continued to bother to respond to you on such a wildly drifted thread. So we're done.



Ask me if I am shocked that you are incapable of offering even one correction to what you claim is my complete error.

You do not offer one explanation of your own but you seem to know all about how wrong mine is. You are such a paper tiger you.

Okay not sure what world you live in but in my world E is Energy. such as in E=MCsquared. Not sure just where you got your degree. but in mine was studied Ohm's law and power in terms of Watts. I never studies motors specifically so not sure just where electromotive energy would have applied. So please grace us with the explanation of electromotive energy.

Assuming you would not be any more capable of providing an explanation of EMF than you are anything else. I looked it up. I get the confusion now. the symbol for EMF is not really E. But I understand the limitations of the keyboard. You could have been far more accurate far more simply by simply saying EMF. Me thinks you are intentionally trying to be deceptive and unclear. The symbol for EMF looks emore like the mirror image of a 3 than an E. Sort of like trying to type the symbol for an ohm though.

I also noticed that it is measured in Volts. which without looking any further indicates to me it is some measurement of potential energy. 

Well my my just one more sentence in reveals this.
The word "force" in this case is not used to mean mechanical force, measured in newtons, but a potential, or energy per unit of charge, measured in volts.

So they are not measuring power of a motor at all. they are measuring potential force. and it has notion to do with a motor either. it has to do with batteries. As I have said several times. Voltage is a measurement of potential energy. It is basically the same thing here and it is a method of measuring the potential energy in relation to a battery and even at that in relation to charging a battery. and has nothing to do with a motor at all.

prior to my previous quote is this.
Electromotive force, also called emf[1] (denoted \mathical{E} and measured in volts), is the voltage developed by any source of electrical energy such as a battery or dynamo.

It does eventual list Generators, as one source that provides EMF. Close enough to a motor for me. It also lists the earths magnetic field.

It goes on with this description.

In the case of a battery, charge separation that gives rise to a voltage difference is accomplished by chemical reactions at the electrodes.[6] Chemically, by separating positive and negative charges, an electric field can be produced, leading to an electric potential difference.[6][7] A voltaic cell can be thought of as having a "charge pump" of atomic dimensions at each electrode, that is:[8]

A source of emf can be thought of as a kind of charge pump that acts to move positive charge from a point of low potential through its interior to a point of high potential. … By chemical, mechanical or other means, the source of emf performs work dW on that charge to move it to the high potential terminal. The emf ℰ of the source is defined as the work dW done per charge dq: ℰ = dW/dq.

Now for some reason in that cut and paste the correct symbol for EMF is showing.

Now in that formula just exactly how dW(work) and dq(charge) are calculated is not explained. But this is looking more to me like how much work you can expect to get out of each charge of a battery to me.

In my understanding all of this is nothing more than calculating the potential energy to drive current backwards through a circuit which is what I described previously is necessary to charge a battery. Charging a battery is often the task a photovoltaic cell is doing. they are on the list of devices that will produce EMF.

So I am not sure just how any of this applies to an electric motor from this information. Unless it is that a motor could be used or more accurately a generator to drive that current.

The only other thing it even light touches on is EMF in regard to electromagnetic induction. Which simply put is the amount of potential energy you will get form each complete loop of wire in an electromagnet. I seem to recall this being mentioned at some point but it was not anything we spent enough time on to remember.

So from this source at least I am not seeing how EMF has anything to do with an electric motor unless you are running that motor from a rechargeable battery and need to know something about designing the charger or calculating charge times or battery life.

Now given this information came from Princeton University I am not going to question it or really do to much to look further.

At the very most I would say this possibly applies to a motor in regard to it's potential to perform work. None of which is applicable to the conversation taking place here. Maybe in regard to when the conversation brushed up horsepower and Watts. but even then only remotely and still completely out of place. but then that is how your comments have seemed to me from the beginning. almost like you are having a completely different conversation. and now I understand more of why that is.

We are talking electric motors and you are talking generators at best. And that is giving as much latitude as I possibly can.


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

This is starting to remind me of the "Frankenstorm" thread


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

It seems to me that Frank _forgot _ to provide an actual link to that thread .... so here it is: 

http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?275563-Frankenstorm

Be sure to grab some _popcorn_opcorn: ... that thread has 99 posts. :shhhh:


----------



## laketrout (Mar 5, 2013)

Got up to the hives today to check temps , the gauge stopped at 60 again, same as before but much warmer and no wind about 30 degrees out . Any ideas why the temp inside the hive would be exactly the same with such a difference in outside temps .


----------



## Cessna180 (Jan 31, 2009)

Ya the way you explain the system is very good. Think about this, very little heat is escaping because they are putting the heat back into the cluster by redirecting it. just a causal observation. Not backed by science.


----------



## Phoebee (Jan 29, 2014)

laketrout said:


> Got up to the hives today to check temps , the gauge stopped at 60 again, same as before but much warmer and no wind about 30 degrees out . Any ideas why the temp inside the hive would be exactly the same with such a difference in outside temps .


The bees are actively regulating the cluster temperature. The cluster is much warmer than the hive and does self-insulate, but bees are not exactly think pink fiberglass, so they leak heat at a fairly constant rate into the interior of the hive.

The hive body is a windbreak and the wood offers a little insulation (R 1 or a little less) so it retains part of the heat the bees make.

When conditions are "mild" (and 30 degrees is not a great challenge for a healthy hive), the bees probably can afford to leak a little more heat into the hive itself. Holding it at 60 may permit a few workers to run errands, such as breaking cluster to move stores around. So it could be that they are deliberately keeping the hive at a temperature where individual bees can safely break cluster for a short time.

I'll admit that's pure speculation, but now you have me thinking about instrumented hives again, and that it is time to get back onto setting up the hardware for it.


----------

