# Foundation thickness what is thicker 75 -100 years ago?



## bentonbee (Jan 31, 2007)

I have always wondered if brood comb foundation made years ago ...was it thicker? I read the old books and I don't read of them wiring their foundation. C.C. Miller did use foundation splints. What do you all know about this? Root's used to make 3 ply foundation with some veg wax in the middle to make it stiffer I think.
Mike in Iowa


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

The bees don't care how thick the foundation is but they make theirs very thin to conserve wax. They also do not install wires BECAUSE they don't spin their comb out. When they want honey they uncap a cell one by one and sip the honey. We on the other hand are in a hurry and basically lazy so we invent machines that will satisfy our needs.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>I have always wondered if brood comb foundation made years ago ...was it thicker?

It came in more different thicknesses. When you buy wax foundation you'll see that most of it, if it's not surplus or thin surplus is "medium brood". The "medium" is not the size frame it goes in but the thickness of the wax. When they were being most specific they would say how many sheets to a pound. Otherwise it was: heavy, medium, surplus and thin surplus. A lot of people who used foundation would use "heavy" because it would sag less and they were convinced that providing the wax would make more honey and thicker foundation gets pulled until it's thin by the bees so the wax doesn't get wasted.

>I read the old books and I don't read of them wiring their foundation. C.C. Miller did use foundation splints. What do you all know about this?

First came frames. Then came extraction. Then came foundation. Then came wiring. It was an evolution of ideas.

> Root's used to make 3 ply foundation with some veg wax in the middle to make it stiffer I think.

Yes, the middle layer was carnauba, but he soon gave up on it and the US beekeeping industry agreed that they needed to use only 100% beeswax in order to be able to market their beeswax. Beeswax rendered from foundation that was not pure beeswax would not be pure beeswax. Also the bees, according to Root, did not like it. This is discussed in may of the editions of The ABC and XYZ of Bee Culture.


----------



## bentonbee (Jan 31, 2007)

Michael Bush said:


> >I have always wondered if brood comb foundation made years ago ...was it thicker?
> 
> It came in more different thicknesses. When you buy wax foundation you'll see that most of it, if it's not surplus or thin surplus is "medium brood". The "medium" is not the size frame it goes in but the thickness of the wax. When they were being most specific they would say how many sheets to a pound. Otherwise it was: heavy, medium, surplus and thin surplus. A lot of people who used foundation would use "heavy" because it would sag less and they were convinced that providing the wax would make more honey and thicker foundation gets pulled until it's thin by the bees so the wax doesn't get wasted.
> 
> ...


Thanks Michael for the detailed reply. I learned something. The reason I asked was I was reading an old bee book by Alexander from New York. He had like 500-750 hives in one super location with buckwheat all around. He made the statement in his book his combs had no wire in them, like some people did. And I was wondering how he could get good combs with out sagging with out wires? So I reasoned that foundation must of been thicker in order to do this. I have tried with today's brood foundation to not have wires and I get the sagging combs.


----------



## kilocharlie (Dec 27, 2010)

I'm pretty sure that the flat rollers for sizing the wax came after the embossing rollers shape the foundation. Before that, it must have been difficult to control the thicknesses, even for the book-type molds.

As control improved, honey-in-the-comb demanded thinner and thinner rib sections for show quality. This is called "Thin Surplus" foundation. Don't order it for frames that will be extracted.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Don't order it for frames that will be extracted.

The only down side is keeping it from sagging. Once it's drawn out the midrib is the same thickness no matter how it started out. I've extracted from thin surplus with no wires many times.


----------



## NeilV (Nov 18, 2006)

Does anybody know what "surplus" refers to or the origin of that term?


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Does anybody know what "surplus" refers to or the origin of that term?

Yes. The original terms for thickness were generally given in sheets per pound. Surplus refereed to getting a surplus of sheets per pound.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Michael Bush said:


> Once it's drawn out the midrib is the same thickness no matter how it started out.


Thinking out loud here ... If the bees reshape the foundation then I am wondering for those that make their own if you could roll the wax out flat and put a hex pattern in the sheet with a second operation? Would this give the bees enough of a suggestion to build comb based on the impression? I know this would not be an efficient method of producing comb but it would be easier for a back yarder.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Acebird said:


> We on the other hand are in a hurry and basically lazy so we invent machines that will satisfy our needs.


A pretty cynical and pessimistic way of looking at things, imo.


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

Acebird said:


> Thinking out loud here ... If the bees reshape the foundation then I am wondering for those that make their own if you could roll the wax out flat and put a hex pattern in the sheet with a second operation? Would this give the bees enough of a suggestion to build comb based on the impression? I know this would not be an efficient method of producing comb but it would be easier for a back yarder.


Now that is the way to word a question instead of making it an unfounded statement of fact!

Rep for Ace!


----------



## kilocharlie (Dec 27, 2010)

Michael B has a lot of years experience on most of us, and he probably has quite a touch in extracting, even with thin surplus. 

I'm just not that good at it yet. I just hate exploding a frame in the extractor, as the bees eat so much of the honey while I'm struggling to get it up and running again, and getting disproportionately stickier than usual. Then the truck arrives with another load. stRESS...inch:

That's why I said not to use it for frames that will be extracted, but if you're only extracting a few frames away from the bees, just go slow and be careful. You'll probably get away with it. I'm just too chicken and therefore use wired foundation for the extracted honey and thin surplus for the HITC shallows.

Not getting beaky with the great MB. Just different as my situation dictates.

Ace - yes, the boards get dipped into the wax vat, they get peeled into sheets with a scraper-knife, the peels get rolled flat to a thickness tolerance between two sheets of tissue paper, and then they get embossed with hexagon / pyramid shapes. But it is not quite so simple as I make it sound. Ask others who have a few more runs under their belt, I'm still pretty newb at making foundation.


----------



## Steven Kluck (Mar 21, 2015)

bentonbee said:


> He made the statement in his book his combs had no wire in them, like some people did. And I was wondering how he could get good combs with out sagging with out wires?


Is it possible that he used shallow supers in order to avoid sagging without using wires? Would that have helped?


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

kilocharlie said:


> Ace - yes, the boards get dipped into the wax vat, they get peeled into sheets with a scraper-knife, the peels get rolled flat to a thickness tolerance between two sheets of tissue paper, and then they get embossed with hexagon / pyramid shapes. But it is not quite so simple as I make it sound. Ask others who have a few more runs under their belt, I'm still pretty newb at making foundation.


Just so we are clear... Typically the embossing is a raised hexagon. What I am suggestion is a sunken hexagon Which is way easier and cheaper to do. What I don't know is whether the bees will fill in the hex and continue drawing it out.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Brian, have you seen a foundation mill? Have you seen foundation? Certainly your aren't suggesting that you know a better way of making foundation than the tried and true method?


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Yes Mark I have seen both. I am not looking for a better way to make foundation. It would be silly for a backyard beek to invest in the tooling and machinery that it takes to make foundation the way it normally is made. Foundation is a suggested pattern for the bees to copy. I am asking the question if that suggestion could be made with a sunken pattern instead of a raised pattern? The sunken version would be easier and cheaper for a backyard beek to do. So has there ever been an attempt to make foundation this way?


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Bees don't copy the pattern of foundation, they build up off of it. How are bees supposed to build their cells from indented cell bases. It seems that you are suggesting the mirror image of what is the normal way things are done. It wouldn't work. Foundation mimics the way bees build comb. Watch a colony of bees building comb without foundation and you will see how they do it.


----------



## BeeCurious (Aug 7, 2007)

This thread has been thoroughly Acebirded... 

Most hobbyists quickly realize that making / molding their own foundation is an astronomical waste of time.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

I agree. But I usually get in trouble when I point out things like that. lol Must be style.


----------



## thehackleguy (Jul 29, 2014)

BeeCurious said:


> Acebirded...


Look Ace! You've made it to verb status! :applause:


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

sqkcrk said:


> It seems that you are suggesting the mirror image of what is the normal way things are done.


 Yes I am. If no one has actually done it and failed I might be the first to do it and see. I don't know if I have enough wax to try it and I need to get a sheet of plastic foundation for the pattern.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

BeeCurious said:


> Most hobbyists quickly realize that making / molding their own foundation is an astronomical waste of time.


Not the ones that are concerned about keeping toxins out of their hives.


----------



## biggraham610 (Jun 26, 2013)

BeeCurious said:


> This thread has been thoroughly Acebirded...


:lpf: Now that's a good one :lpf: G


----------



## BeeCurious (Aug 7, 2007)

BeeCurious said:


> This thread has been thoroughly Acebirded...
> 
> Most hobbyists quickly realize that making / molding their own foundation is an astronomical waste of time.





Acebird said:


> Not the ones that are concerned about keeping toxins out of their hives.


Yes, and the vast number of them are going foundationless. They are not molding or milling sheets of foundation. 

Molds are seldom used by the people who have them:
http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...our-homemade-foundation-press-mold-experience


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Acebird said:


> Yes I am. If no one has actually done it and failed I might be the first to do it and see. I don't know if I have enough wax to try it and I need to get a sheet of plastic foundation for the pattern.


If you actually try this, I hope you will take pictures along the way and show us what you did. But I doubt you will. Whenever I suggest that people try what they propose they hardly ever, verging on never, do what they propose. May we be pleasantly surprised.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Acebird said:


> Not the ones that are concerned about keeping toxins out of their hives.


If that's your concern, then don't use foundation at all. Let the bees make all of their comb. That will be the purest possible, I believe.

They will build comb even in wired frames if you make them.


----------



## kevindsingleton (Jun 6, 2014)

sqkcrk said:


> A pretty cynical and pessimistic way of looking at things, imo.


Some might call it a realistic way of looking at things.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

sqkcrk said:


> If you actually try this, I hope you will take pictures along the way and show us what you did. But I doubt you will.


Certain people said that about my extractor. Certain people said it wouldn't work. I videoed it. They still say it wouldn't work. I guess the laugh is on me.


----------



## kevindsingleton (Jun 6, 2014)

Acebird said:


> Yes I am. If no one has actually done it and failed I might be the first to do it and see. I don't know if I have enough wax to try it and I need to get a sheet of plastic foundation for the pattern.


I won't pretend to be able to think like a bee, but I believe that bees are smart enough to work with this. So far, the only reason I've seen to avoid trying this is, "It seems that you are suggesting the mirror image of what is the normal way things are done. It wouldn't work."

If "the normal way things are done" is a barrier, then we should all still be scraping honeycomb out of hollow trees. Seems like a pretty cynical and pessimistic way of looking at things, doesn't it?


----------



## BeeCurious (Aug 7, 2007)

Acebird said:


> I need to get a sheet of plastic foundation for the pattern.


Really? 

What for? 

Explain this to us....


You might get bonus Reputation Points for a timely and accurate explanation.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

Ace, you are talking about the extractor you made where the motor is *inside *the tank, *underneath* the frames, is that right? And the motor is a _vented _motor, have I got that right?

:gh:





Acebird said:


> I guess the laugh is on me.


If you say so! :lpf:


----------



## BeeCurious (Aug 7, 2007)

Rader Sidetrack said:


> Ace, you are talking about the extractor you made where the motor is *inside *the tank, *underneath* the frames, is that right? And the motor is a _vented _motor, have I got that right?
> 
> 
> :gh:


Was that the ceiling fan motor that came out of the asbestos contaminated dumpster?


----------



## kevindsingleton (Jun 6, 2014)

BeeCurious said:


> Really?
> 
> What for?
> 
> ...


How will you know if his response is accurate?


----------



## jwcarlson (Feb 14, 2014)

Rader Sidetrack said:


> Ace, you are talking about the extractor you made where the motor is *inside *the tank, *underneath* the frames, is that right? And the motor is a _vented _motor, have I got that right?





BeeCurious said:


> Was that the ceiling fan motor that came out of the asbestos contaminated dumpster?


It all makes sense now why he thought making a plywood extractor without sealing it was perfectly acceptable.


----------



## biggraham610 (Jun 26, 2013)

sqkcrk said:


> If that's your concern, then don't use foundation at all. Let the bees make all of their comb. That will be the purest possible, I believe.
> 
> They will build comb even in wired frames if you make them.


X2................:thumbsup: G


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

BeeCurious said:


> Really?
> 
> What for?
> 
> Explain this to us....


It is not obvious? After you have a flat sheet of wax you lay the plastic foundation over the wax and push the impression into it one side at a time.

Mark, why do you use foundation? It is a convenience. The bees build straight comb and attach it on all sides. Some might use it to decrease drones. I don't.


----------



## BeeCurious (Aug 7, 2007)

Acebird said:


> It is not obvious?  After you have a flat sheet of wax you lay the plastic foundation over the wax and push the impression into it one side at a time.


Sorry, 

But no points for you. 

You didn't explain the *easy *way that a hobbyist gets their sheets of foundation.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

kevindsingleton said:


> Some might call it a realistic way of looking at things.


Is that why we invent machines, Kevin? Because we are lazy? Or is it because we want to get more done with less labor input, more efficient use of manual labor? I pulled a pit saw for many years, back in my younger days. I often wondered about the number of calories it took to produce a plank and whether the same number of calories is expended whether one uses manual labor or mechanical means. I never really got a good answer to that question. But I have noticed over the years that people who work in saw mills work pretty darned hard whether their saws are run by hand, steam, water, diesel, or electricity. I don't see the laziness.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Acebird said:


> Certain people said that about my extractor. Certain people said it wouldn't work. I videoed it. They still say it wouldn't work. I guess the laugh is on me.


Yes, I remember your extractor and thought to mention it. It isn't a better extractor than what's on the market though, is it? Let's see if you follow through with the making of foundation. Maybe you will revolutionize the bee industry. Maybe you will find out that the way it is already done works best. Some folks have better things to do. Show us.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

kevindsingleton said:


> I won't pretend to be able to think like a bee, but I believe that bees are smart enough to work with this. So far, the only reason I've seen to avoid trying this is, "It seems that you are suggesting the mirror image of what is the normal way things are done. It wouldn't work."
> 
> If "the normal way things are done" is a barrier, then we should all still be scraping honeycomb out of hollow trees. Seems like a pretty cynical and pessimistic way of looking at things, doesn't it?


Some might call it realistic. All of my best ideas have already been thought of and tried and found wanting. Except for a few which already produced items or methods. There is absolutely nothing wrong with questioning tradition and authority. One can understand a lot by looking at how things got the way they are. There is nothing new under the Sun. Very little anyway. Other than putting the same things we already have together in new ways.

If you could look into the past and see why foundation came into existence and how foundation mills came into existence one might just find what Brian is proposing and also find out why the idea was rejected. It would be a lot more efficient to do so then it would doing the development without the research. Do you suppose that people who do Research and Development for a living are doing things backwards? Developing ideas and items before doing their Research?

Look it up. You have all of the knowledge in the World at your finger tips. Look it up. Then, if you still want to spend time doing so, build whatever it is you want to build. Knowing what you find will only add to the likelihood of success.

He who ignores the past is doomed to repeat it.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Acebird said:


> It is not obvious? After you have a flat sheet of wax you lay the plastic foundation over the wax and push the impression into it one side at a time.


And what are the bees supposed to build their cells off of, the indentations? Besides, a sheet of wax thick enough to press a sheet of plastic foundation into from both sides would have to be thicker than the way foundation is made. And how are you going to get each side oriented properly?


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Acebird said:


> I am asking the question if that suggestion could be made with a sunken pattern instead of a raised pattern?


What? You can't have one without the other. This is semantics!


----------



## kevindsingleton (Jun 6, 2014)

sqkcrk said:


> Is that why we invent machines, Kevin? Because we are lazy? Or is it because we want to get more done with less labor input, more efficient use of manual labor? I pulled a pit saw for many years, back in my younger days. I often wondered about the number of calories it took to produce a plank and whether the same number of calories is expended whether one uses manual labor or mechanical means. I never really got a good answer to that question. But I have noticed over the years that people who work in saw mills work pretty darned hard whether their saws are run by hand, steam, water, diesel, or electricity. I don't see the laziness.


Because we are _in a hurry_ and lazy, yes. Isn't "get more done with less labor input" the "lazy way"? My father and grandfather would have said so. 

A pit saw? When was that? Even the Amish have progressed beyond the pit saw! That has to go way back! There is no way the operators of modern mill saws are expending the calories you were burning to produce the same quantity of lumber pulling a pit saw, no matter how hard they're working. That doesn't mean they're lazy, but, they're too lazy to do it the way you did it!


----------



## maudbid (Jul 21, 2014)

kevindsingleton said:


> Because we are _in a hurry_ and lazy, yes. Isn't "get more done with less labor input" the "lazy way"? My father and grandfather would have said so.
> 
> A pit saw? When was that? Even the Amish have progressed beyond the pit saw! That has to go way back! There is no way the operators of modern mill saws are expending the calories you were burning to produce the same quantity of lumber pulling a pit saw, no matter how hard they're working. That doesn't mean they're lazy, but, they're too lazy to do it the way you did it!


Seems to me one could substitute the word "smart" for the word "lazy" and it would still read correctly, and in a more positive way. And, it would reflect my father and grandfather more accurately.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

kevindsingleton said:


> Because we are _in a hurry_ and lazy, yes. Isn't "get more done with less labor input" the "lazy way"? My father and grandfather would have said so.
> 
> A pit saw? When was that? Even the Amish have progressed beyond the pit saw! That has to go way back! There is no way the operators of modern mill saws are expending the calories you were burning to produce the same quantity of lumber pulling a pit saw, no matter how hard they're working. That doesn't mean they're lazy, but, they're too lazy to do it the way you did it!


Not just the calories expended by those laboring, but the machines too. How many calories, the basic unit of energy, does it take to produce a 2X4 using a pit saw or an electric powered saw mill? One with a great deal of human labor involved and another with less human labor involved.

I guess I equate "lazy" more with what we are doing now, communicating via computer, then I do with actual productive sweat equity work, like what I was just doing a while ago. Was I being lazy and in a hurry using electricity to heat a bottling tank while I was doing other things, rather than warming honey over some other heat source which would require more f my attention? Or was I being efficient and using someone's ingenuity to get a job done in a timely fashion under my own personal situation and circumstance?

Seems to me that oft times we who think we are thinking outside of the box do so with a certain arrogance and as a way of saying we know a better way and are better people because we think we think outside the box, as if no one else does. Were it not for a perceived necessity someone would not have been prodded to think outside the box and come up with a solution to a problem, foundation. I really do think something could be learned by looking back at what prompted that invention. A lot more than delving into doing the opposite just for the sake of contrariness. Of which I know quite a bit about, being a devout Contrarian, myself. As some of my Tailgater friends can attest to the fact.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Oh, yes, and that was between 1979 and 1984 that I pulled a pit saw, cut down trees with ax and crosscut saw, hewed timbers with felling ax and broad ax, cut joints with saws, augers, and chisels. Helped fire thousands of bricks in a wood fired clamp. It was a wonderful time. A time afforded to few. Now I keep bees for a living and am too lazy to want to try making beeswax foundation.

But I will gladly trade the sweat of my brow for someone else's labor and ingenuity who can produce a quality product useful to me. After all of Acebird's efforts, what are the chances he will come up with anything usable, fit to be used, let alone useful, of practical purpose?


----------



## kevindsingleton (Jun 6, 2014)

sqkcrk said:


> Some might call it realistic. All of my best ideas have already been thought of and tried and found wanting. Except for a few which already produced items or methods. There is absolutely nothing wrong with questioning tradition and authority. One can understand a lot by looking at how things got the way they are. There is nothing new under the Sun. Very little anyway. Other than putting the same things we already have together in new ways.


Nobody can argue the "nothing new under the Sun" bit, once you throw in the "putting the same things we already have together in new ways" part. Of course, there is plenty that is new, and more, every day. Has Varroa always existed? How about Nutella? How about scuba diving? Or, the ubiquitous Glock? Lots of new stuff, and not all of it is stuff.



sqkcrk said:


> If you could look into the past and see why foundation came into existence and how foundation mills came into existence one might just find what Brian is proposing and also find out why the idea was rejected. It would be a lot more efficient to do so then it would doing the development without the research. Do you suppose that people who do Research and Development for a living are doing things backwards? Developing ideas and items before doing their Research?


It's possible that indented foundation has been tried, and found lacking. Nobody has presented any evidence to support that assertion, though. I am absolutely certain that the people who do Research and Development frequently start with ideas (often not their own) and items before doing their research. I could lean around the corner and point to a few that I know, for a fact, have done exactly that, since July of this year. 



sqkcrk said:


> Look it up. You have all of the knowledge in the World at your finger tips. Look it up. Then, if you still want to spend time doing so, build whatever it is you want to build. Knowing what you find will only add to the likelihood of success.


I'm perfectly happy with my "Rite Cell" foundation, so I won't be building a new machine to make something different. I will try to look for any indication that what Ace has proposed has been tried. Early efforts haven't produced anything useful.



sqkcrk said:


> He who ignores the past is doomed to repeat it.


If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always got!


----------



## kevindsingleton (Jun 6, 2014)

maudbid said:


> Seems to me one could substitute the word "smart" for the word "lazy" and it would still read correctly, and in a more positive way. And, it would reflect my father and grandfather more accurately.


It might work, in this instance, but I don't think any of us are going to equate "smart" with "lazy", universally. Compare and contrast your father and grandfather with any two teenage boys facing farm chores!


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

kevindsingleton said:


> If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always got!


A stitch in time saves nine.
Look both ways before crossing the street.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. (somehow "If it isn't broken, don't fix it." seems more correct, but it just doesn't have the same ring.)
It's easier to get forgiveness than it is to get permission.

Gotta go ring some handbells. H'ain't got the lazy way figured out yet.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

kevindsingleton said:


> Compare and contrast your father and grandfather with any two teenage boys facing farm chores!


Ask your Father and Grandfather, if they are both still around if they would agree with the OLD tried and true saying, "Work smarter, not harder." Learned that from my Grandpa Porter a while ago. He farmed 200 acres with horses in Iowa until he could convince the Bank to lend him money for machinery. Sent all his children to College. Or, at least they all went to College. One stayed on the farm until he got all the debts paid after Grandpa died. Then he went to work at the College he attended doing grounds keeping.


----------



## kevindsingleton (Jun 6, 2014)

sqkcrk said:


> Not just the calories expended by those laboring, but the machines too. How many calories, the basic unit of energy, does it take to produce a 2X4 using a pit saw or an electric powered saw mill? One with a great deal of human labor involved and another with less human labor involved.
> 
> I guess I equate "lazy" more with what we are doing now, communicating via computer, then I do with actual productive sweat equity work, like what I was just doing a while ago. Was I being lazy and in a hurry using electricity to heat a bottling tank while I was doing other things, rather than warming honey over some other heat source which would require more f my attention? Or was I being efficient and using someone's ingenuity to get a job done in a timely fashion under my own personal situation and circumstance?
> 
> Seems to me that oft times we who think we are thinking outside of the box do so with a certain arrogance and as a way of saying we know a better way and are better people because we think we think outside the box, as if no one else does. Were it not for a perceived necessity someone would not have been prodded to think outside the box and come up with a solution to a problem, foundation. I really do think something could be learned by looking back at what prompted that invention. A lot more than delving into doing the opposite just for the sake of contrariness. Of which I know quite a bit about, being a devout Contrarian, myself. As some of my Tailgater friends can attest to the fact.


It's pretty easy to convert calories to watts, and back (1 cal = 4.1868 Ws). I'm not worried about the machines getting tired, and calling in sick, though. The reason I use a chain saw to cut down a tree is because I use less energy than I would swinging an axe, not because the saw, or axe, come out of it more refreshed. I bet you still used more energy pulling that pit saw than the big circular saws they have, now, are using, to produce the same quantity of lumber. Maybe, if we convert calories and watts to dollars, we could come to a conclusion that the "lazy" way is preferred, for most of us cheapskates!

I spend most of my work day banging on a keyboard, and I consider that pretty lazy, compared to the guys who are swapping out the broken urinal in the bathroom. I know which I'd rather be doing, though, and it pays (slightly) better. Given that you are able to perform other tasks while heating the honey with electricity, I'd say that was more efficient than lazy, but, just looking at the honey-heating as a standalone process, then electricity is the "lazier" way, when compared to other, more labor-intensive methods. You could have warmed it with body heat for the ultimate Paleo experience!

I agree that there may be something to be learned about the history of beehive frame foundation (maybe we should start a series of riveting college courses!), but, in the absence of any evidence that indicates that impressed comb works less well than raised comb, where's the harm in testing it out? I don't consider asking the questions and testing the theories to be arrogance. That sounds more like science!


----------



## kevindsingleton (Jun 6, 2014)

sqkcrk said:


> Ask your Father and Grandfather, if they are both still around if they would agree with the OLD tried and true saying, "Work smarter, not harder." Learned that from my Grandpa Porter a while ago. He farmed 200 acres with horses in Iowa until he could convince the Bank to lend him money for machinery. Sent all his children to College. Or, at least they all went to College. One stayed on the farm until he got all the debts paid after Grandpa died. Then he went to work at the College he attended doing grounds keeping.


They're both gone, but they probably would agree with the "smarter, not harder" saying, while still doing things the harder way! I think that we, all, at some point, stop absorbing the "new and better" methods, and stick to the "tried and true". It likely happens at different stages of life for each of us, and is likely dependent upon dozens and dozens of variables, but, if we live long enough, eventually, the world begins to pass us by, and we see the modern methods as less worthwhile, even if they are labor-saving. You should break out that pit saw, and have another go at it!


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Barry said:


> What? You can't have one without the other. This is semantics!


It is assumed referencing from the original flat surface.

Mark looking for an easier way is usually a sign of laziness. Looking for a cheaper way is a sign of industriousness. I am both lazy and cheap. Looking for a way that will do the job that doesn't cost a fortune is both industrious and clever.

Keven, I am certain what I am proposing has been tried before even though it may not be known to the whole beesource community. I know why it isn't done that way today by a supplier because it uses too much wax. I have some wax accumulated and it will accumulate even more when I extract this years honey. Not having a use for the wax got me thinking about making foundation. All the other methods I have seen for making foundation by small beekeepers is both labor intensive or costly.


----------



## kevindsingleton (Jun 6, 2014)

What's the labor intensive and costly part? Can't you just flatten some wax to a particular thickness (rolling pin, perhaps?), trim it to size (big "cookie cutter"?), then press two sheets of Rite Cell into it (one on each side), then peel them off?


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

NO! Or people would be doing it already. You know, there are people who have actually worked with making wax foundation, and then there are some who dream about working with it. I'm in the first group.


----------



## biggraham610 (Jun 26, 2013)

Not to mention, I cant buy time. What is your time worth an hour? How long would you expect it would take to achieve the desired thickness, repeat that and the rest of the steps you propose, for say 100 sheets of "Might work" Homemade foundation? Don't hold me to this, but I am pretty sure unwired foundation is under a dollar a sheet. Math don't add up in a best case scenario for me. Maybe in China. G


----------



## kevindsingleton (Jun 6, 2014)

Barry said:


> NO! Or people would be doing it already. You know, there are people who have actually worked with making wax foundation, and then there are some who dream about working with it. I'm in the first group.


So, everything that's worth doing is already being done? Tell us, what's the difficult part?


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

The difficult part is trying to come up with an idea that improves on what already is!


----------



## BeeCurious (Aug 7, 2007)

Acebird said:


> All the other methods I have seen for making foundation by small beekeepers is both labor intensive or costly.


Could you please enumerate the various homemade foundation techniques that you have seen and compare them to your method* which you suggest will be more economical.

*Acebird's foundation will have a recessed comb design. 










It's an exciting time to be alive!


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

kevindsingleton said:


> What's the labor intensive and costly part? Can't you just flatten some wax to a particular thickness (rolling pin, perhaps?), trim it to size (big "cookie cutter"?), then press two sheets of Rite Cell into it (one on each side), then peel them off?


Keven one way of making the flat sheet is to melt the wax and then coat a board by dipping the board in the wax. To get it to the same thickness you run it between rolls at a fixed gap. You might be able to use a rolling pin on the Rite Cell and might not. If not then you may have to run it between fixed rolls. You have to do each side one at a time and you will need a method of registering the Rite Cell so the front and back are 1/2 cell offset from each other. A simple printing registration should work. It will take some experimenting with depth of impression to see if the bees have any preference for a deep impression or a shallow impression. It might even be an advantage to sand blast the Rite Cell so the impression edge is rounded off.



> What is your time worth an hour?


Absolutely nothing as a back yard beek.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

kevindsingleton said:


> Tell us, what's the difficult part?


Keven, there is nothing difficult about making the foundation. If you use the mold method it will require a lot of work to make the mold. If you use the machine method it will cost you several thousand dollars for the tooling. Neither is desirable to me.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

kevindsingleton said:


> in the absence of any evidence that indicates that impressed comb works less well than raised comb, where's the harm in testing it out? I don't consider asking the questions and testing the theories to be arrogance. That sounds more like science!


Let's ask ourselves a question before any more time is spent. Does what bees do naturally when building new comb look more like what foundation looks like or what the opposite of what foundation looks like? Trying to produce the opposite, which to my minds eye would take more wax, seems contradictory to the way bees would do it and therefore be doomed to failure.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

kevindsingleton said:


> They're both gone, but they probably would agree with the "smarter, not harder" saying, while still doing things the harder way! I think that we, all, at some point, stop absorbing the "new and better" methods, and stick to the "tried and true". It likely happens at different stages of life for each of us, and is likely dependent upon dozens and dozens of variables, but, if we live long enough, eventually, the world begins to pass us by, and we see the modern methods as less worthwhile, even if they are labor-saving. You should break out that pit saw, and have another go at it!


It wasn't mine. And it takes two. I tend to work alone.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

BeeCurious said:


> *Acebird's foundation will have a recessed comb design.


Which I would wager the bees would not know what to do with.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Acebird said:


> Absolutely nothing as a back yard beek.


And as an engineer?


----------



## BeeCurious (Aug 7, 2007)

sqkcrk said:


> Which I would wager the bees would not know what to do with.


I wonder what everyone would think about Acebird's foundation idea over in the "I think I can" thread? 

What Acebird is suggesting would require twice as much wax, and a life-draining amount of time.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

There's an "I think I can." Thread?


----------



## BeeCurious (Aug 7, 2007)

sqkcrk said:


> There's an "I think I can." Thread?


Yes, http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?318268-Belief-in-Beekeeping


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Har har, very funny.


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

I was always lead to believe that "thin surplus" foundation was used in basswood section comb honey for the bees to store their SURPLUS honey. 

Sqkcrk - I believe, if your pit saw was as sharp and efficient as a modern band/circle saw, that both of you would expend the same amount of energy to break the bonds of the wood fiber.

As for the foundation design, I believe for every peak on one side, there is a corresponding valley on the other side, and they must be correspondingly aligned. Therefore Ace's idea is novel, and can be found applied by Alice in a novel by Lewis Carrol, and in most bathrooms.

Crazy Roland


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

duplicate, sorry


----------



## jwcarlson (Feb 14, 2014)

Think he'll ever get around to doing it? I mean he's got that hive to winterize, so probably too busy. Sure makes it sound like a piece of cake, though. Classic "idea man" who's never done. Horrible bosses live guys like him. 

I suspect they are much more likely to build up from the edges of the impressions which would be big cells. But if you could somehow make a mold of the inside of the combs and imprint the "cell bottoms" onto the wax it might work. But then you pretty much have regular foundation... Just not quite so pretty


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

I believe we have spent more time thinking about this idea and arguing about it then Brian will spend doing it.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

sqkcrk said:


> Which I would wager the bees would not know what to do with.


OOOOh, the betting man.


sqkcrk said:


> And as an engineer?


Engineers spend countless number of hours that they don't get paid for because the thinking process never stops.


BeeCurious said:


> and a life-draining amount of time.


For three hives the most I would need for frame rotation is 24 frames per season. I suspect it will take me 5 minutes per sheet which is about 2 hours. Yup, a life-draining amount of time.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

I suspect your "suspect" is way off. First you have to have in your possession a device that actually works. When you get to that point, come back and let us all know how many hours/days it took to get there.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

Acebird said:


> For three hives the most I would need for frame rotation is 24 frames per season. I suspect it will take me 5 minutes per sheet which is about 2 hours. Yup, a life-draining amount of time.


2 hours??? :scratch:

Well, Ace, *my *bet is that even given two MONTHS from now, you _won't _have manufactured 24 sheets of usable foundation.



... be sure to post as soon as you have it done! :lpf:


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

The two hours is process time not development time.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Looks like you understand our point!


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Barry said:


> Looks like you understand our point!


Apparently you don't understand my point. Development time is fun time and the end result could be satisfying.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Forever living in the "could be" time. I'm off to live the "what is" time.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Acebird said:


> The two hours is process time not development time.


And how much unpaid engineer thinking time did you spend? Or was it a bolt of lightening sort of thing? 

Don't Engineers usually work on a Salary Basis, not an hourly basis? When you work a salaried position, if you think about work when you are away from your place of employment you are earning a salary for that. You may not be able to claim Workers Comp should you hurt yourself thinking, but you still get paid for the thoughts and ideas, doesn't one?

Is there anywhere in the thought process wherein one would think, "Nah, that's a bad idea. That won't work. Or, not the way I think it might."?


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Acebird said:


> Apparently you don't understand my point. Development time is fun time and the end result could be satisfying.


Taken any concrete steps yet? And I don't mean those steps one finds in front of trailers.


----------



## kevindsingleton (Jun 6, 2014)

sqkcrk said:


> Let's ask ourselves a question before any more time is spent. Does what bees do naturally when building new comb look more like what foundation looks like or what the opposite of what foundation looks like? Trying to produce the opposite, which to my minds eye would take more wax, seems contradictory to the way bees would do it and therefore be doomed to failure.


I suppose we'll need to define "failure". 

I'm pretty sure Ace's idea will require the bees to produce slightly more wax than with the opposite, standard design. Ace's idea will, also, require much, much less wax than foundationless frames, so the tiny bit of extra wax isn't going to make a huge difference, in my opinion. When you think about it, since bees will draw comb based on nothing more than a flat stick of wood (in a top bar hive, for instance), or even a tree branch, in nature, it's pretty clear that they don't really care all that much about what we consider to be "foundation". 

Does that amount to "failure"? I'd say, no.


----------



## kevindsingleton (Jun 6, 2014)

BeeCurious said:


> I wonder what everyone would think about Acebird's foundation idea over in the "I think I can" thread?
> 
> What Acebird is suggesting would require twice as much wax, and a life-draining amount of time.



"Twice as much" as what? Bees routinely draw comb with no foundation, at all. How'd they do it before we "invented" foundation?


----------



## kevindsingleton (Jun 6, 2014)

Roland said:


> As for the foundation design, I believe for every peak on one side, there is a corresponding valley on the other side, and they must be correspondingly aligned.


I doubt that the offset alignment is a requirement. The bees probably do that on foundationless comb because it adds strength and increases the longevity of the comb. If there is anything between the two sides of the comb to add that strength, the misalignment is probably unnecessary. Besides, if the bees can't see through the foundation to the other side, how will they know whether it's aligned, or not? Are they taking their little tape measures and verifying the alignment?


----------



## kevindsingleton (Jun 6, 2014)

sqkcrk said:


> And how much unpaid engineer thinking time did you spend? Or was it a bolt of lightening sort of thing?
> 
> Don't Engineers usually work on a Salary Basis, not an hourly basis? When you work a salaried position, if you think about work when you are away from your place of employment you are earning a salary for that. You may not be able to claim Workers Comp should you hurt yourself thinking, but you still get paid for the thoughts and ideas, doesn't one?
> 
> Is there anywhere in the thought process wherein one would think, "Nah, that's a bad idea. That won't work. Or, not the way I think it might."?


I'm an engineer, working on a contract for Bayer, and I'm paid hourly.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

When a sheet of wax is run through the foundation mill/wax press the opposite sides line up and structural strength is built in.

Since the cell wall bases would be indented in Acebird's design, if I am imagining things as others are, the bees would have to start off filling in the troughs in order to build the cells. Structural integrity would probably come from the double thick sheet of wax needed to make this even begin to work.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

kevindsingleton said:


> I'm an engineer, working on a contract for Bayer, and I'm paid hourly.


Okay. Learned something new today. May I ask what kind of engineer you are? Brian/Acebird is an engineer too.


----------



## BeeCurious (Aug 7, 2007)

Acebird said:


> Development time is fun time and the end result could be satisfying.


I'm looking forward to the fun you are going to have... 

It's truly a Brave New World. 

What would you call this new found foundation? 

I think that the word "thick" and or "double" should be in the name. 

I would propose "Acebird's Double Thick Heavy Duty Life Draining Crevice Comb Foundation" as being an acceptable name.


----------



## kevindsingleton (Jun 6, 2014)

sqkcrk said:


> Okay. Learned something new today. May I ask what kind of engineer you are? Brian/Acebird is an engineer too.


Network. Right now, my time is mostly consumed with splitting multiple Citrix farms.


----------



## kevindsingleton (Jun 6, 2014)

sqkcrk said:


> When a sheet of wax is run through the foundation mill/wax press the opposite sides line up and structural strength is built in.
> 
> Since the cell wall bases would be indented in Acebird's design, if I am imagining things as others are, the bees would have to start off filling in the troughs in order to build the cells. Structural integrity would probably come from the double thick sheet of wax needed to make this even begin to work.


I wonder why you couldn't take an existing sheet of plastic foundation and just use that as a die. You would need a release agent, but that shouldn't be too complex (Pam, perhaps?). Press that, gently, into each side of a sheet of wax, and strap it into a frame. How thick is the wax sheet, to begin with?


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

As an engineer, why don't you study combs that bees build naturally and see how that aligns with your hunches?


----------



## kevindsingleton (Jun 6, 2014)

Barry said:


> As an engineer, why don't you study combs that bees build naturally and see how that aligns with your hunches?


If you're asking me, my answer is, "I don't care that much".


----------



## BeeCurious (Aug 7, 2007)

kevindsingleton said:


> Ace's idea will, also, require much, much less wax than foundationless frames


I would say that your estimate is off... 



kevindsingleton said:


> How thick is the wax sheet, to begin with?


It's all imaginary, or "in development" as Acebird says.

It will require a thick sheet of wax. I would say that it would require nearly 3 times the wax as normal foundation.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Great, so we end up with page after page of discussion by members who "don't care that much" about what they're discussing.

When members who actually have hands on experience with making foundation council against an idea someone with no experience has, wouldn't it be wise heed their input?


----------



## Little-John (Jun 18, 2015)

Couple of bits of info that might bring this topic back on track ...

This is a report which clarifies that no matter how thick the donated foundation mid-rib is - the bees will engineer it to their own specification.

http://www.planbee.org.uk/uploads/Low cost Foundation _21_.pdf

It's quite an interesting paper, I think, except for the initial making of wax sheets. Their suggestion of using a narrow deep tank would require a lot of wax to initially 'prime' the tank - whereas a shallow flat tank needs much less. There's a very good Youtube video by the FatBeeMan which shows very thin sheets of wax being made - easy enough to do, once you've seen how it's done. He then inserts those sheets between rollers. For a small operation, an embossed wax press would make more economic sense. Again, such tools are easy enough to make - once you understand what's required.

LJ


----------



## jwcarlson (Feb 14, 2014)

It should take about 15 minutes to make Ace's idea happen. And even then most of that will be waiting for the wax to melt in the pot. Best part is it can be toss back into the pot and used for something not quite so hairbrained once the idea fails.

Two hours... give me a break.


----------



## maudbid (Jul 21, 2014)

Ace is proposing using plastic foundation as a positive mold (a mold in the shape of what you really desire) to make a negative structure (a structure which is opposite of the structure you really want). He is wondering if a negative structure would work, and whether the bees would be able to overcome this basic design flaw. I think that is an interesting question, but not one which is worth my time to investigate. I think it would be very cheap and easy to try, once you figure out how to produce a thin sheet of wax. (spoiler: here is a video on one way to do this https://youtu.be/T7VxZVSLm4E ). I hope Ace tries it and publishes his results. As a control, I would love to see him also use just a flat sheet of wax with no embossing.

The standard process would be to use that plastic foundation to make a negative mold, which is then used to get the structure you want, a positive structure which looks like foundation. This is a standard production process for producing replicas of any number of items in a wide variety of materials. 

There are a lot of videos on youtube where people are doing this exact process to produce wax foundation. you will have to spend time and money to make a positive mold, but then you have a mold which would probably last many years at Ace's expected usage rate.

Here is just one example:
Making a mold
https://youtu.be/kgfHrN3nFuk

Using the mold
https://youtu.be/kgfHrN3nFuk


----------



## kevindsingleton (Jun 6, 2014)

BeeCurious said:


> I would say that your estimate is off...


I'm talking about the wax that the bees would have to add to draw comb, as compared to building out from nothing.





BeeCurious said:


> It's all imaginary, or "in development" as Acebird says.
> 
> It will require a thick sheet of wax. I would say that it would require nearly 3 times the wax as normal foundation.


Why would imaginary foundation require a thick sheet of wax? How thick is thick? Why would it need 3 times the "normal" thickness? That makes no sense. It seems as if you're making this up as you go along!


----------



## kevindsingleton (Jun 6, 2014)

Barry said:


> Great, so we end up with page after page of discussion by members who "don't care that much" about what they're discussing.
> 
> When members who actually have hands on experience with making foundation council against an idea someone with no experience has, wouldn't it be wise heed their input?


Only if we were trying to save the world. Did you think we were writing a new Beekeeping Bible, here? I'm just having fun between server installs.


----------



## jwcarlson (Feb 14, 2014)

kevindsingleton said:


> Why would imaginary foundation require a thick sheet of wax? How thick is thick? Why would it need 3 times the "normal" thickness? That makes no sense. It seems as if you're making this up as you go along!


In a given comb volume is there more wax or more cell contents? 
The answer is obviously that there is more contents (air, honey, pollen, brood, etc). Ace is basically wanting to mold the part that it normally air in hopes that the bees would then build from the spaces of air.

Which makes perfect sense when you think about it...


----------



## maudbid (Jul 21, 2014)

BTW, the typical videos show making silicon molds for casting. But I could envision making a positive out of a stronger, stiffer material and use it for embossing.


----------



## BeeCurious (Aug 7, 2007)

kevindsingleton said:


> Why would it need 3 times the "normal" thickness? That makes no sense.


Don't quit the day job.


----------



## kevindsingleton (Jun 6, 2014)

BeeCurious said:


> Don't quit the day job.


No plans to. 

Why not just answer the question, instead of subtly insulting me, though?


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

kevindsingleton said:


> Why not just answer the question, instead of subtly insulting me, though?


'
You mean this question .... :s


kevindsingleton said:


> Why would imaginary foundation require a thick sheet of wax?


"_Imaginary_" foundation, and you want a serious answer?


----------



## kevindsingleton (Jun 6, 2014)

jwcarlson said:


> In a given comb volume is there more wax or more cell contents?
> The answer is obviously that there is more contents (air, honey, pollen, brood, etc). Ace is basically wanting to mold the part that it normally air in hopes that the bees would then build from the spaces of air.
> 
> Which makes perfect sense when you think about it...


Isn't that precisely what they do in top bar hives?


----------



## kevindsingleton (Jun 6, 2014)

Rader Sidetrack said:


> '
> You mean this question .... :s
> 
> 
> "_Imaginary_" foundation, and you want a serious answer?


No, I mean the question to which he responded, and which he actually quoted in his post: Why would it need 3 times the "normal" thickness? 

If you read the thread, you'll likely notice that it was he who originally identified the foundation as "imaginary", and then began defining its dimensions. C'mon, man!


----------



## BeeCurious (Aug 7, 2007)

I believe that the midrib thickness would be approximately the same thickness as the pressed in comb pattern. And what do we, or you imagine that depth to be, 1/64"? 1/32"? Deeper? 

Add the two pattern depths to the midrib thickness and you will have the approximate thickness of the required wax sheet.


----------



## jwcarlson (Feb 14, 2014)

kevindsingleton said:


> Isn't that precisely what they do in top bar hives?


Huh?

They build inverted comb in top bar hives? Interesting. I guess my top bars weren't true top bar hives then...?

Kevin, I think you're misunderstanding what Ace wants to do. Imagine wax poured over a sheet of plastic foundation. Imagine peeling that wax off.

That's what Ace want's to give the bees.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

kevindsingleton said:


> Network. Right now, my time is mostly consumed with splitting multiple Citrix farms.


lol That explains a lot and nothing at all to someone like myself. lol

What is a Network Engineer? What does a Network engineer do? "splitting multiple Citrix farms"? Is "Citrix farms" the name of a conglomerate of farms? Or what? Would I find "Citrix farms" if I websearched it?


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Barry said:


> When members who actually have hands on experience with making foundation council against an idea someone with no experience has, wouldn't it be wise heed their input?


Yes, but that would put all of the wheel re-inventors out of work. Our economy is bad enough already.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

jwcarlson said:


> It should take about 15 minutes to make Ace's idea happen. And even then most of that will be waiting for the wax to melt in the pot. Best part is it can be toss back into the pot and used for something not quite so hairbrained once the idea fails.
> 
> Two hours... give me a break.


I just did the most efficient thing a beekeeper can do with wax that could be used to make foundation. I sold 4 one pound blocks to two different people. One and individual and the other a store owner where I sell honey. Also got another honey order. Now I can buy lunch and foundation.


----------



## jwcarlson (Feb 14, 2014)

sqkcrk said:


> Now I can buy lunch and foundation.


How much lunch and how much foundation?


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

maudbid said:


> I think it would be very cheap and easy to try, once you figure out how to produce a thin sheet of wax.


Why would the sheet of wax have to be thin in order to see whether bees will do anything with an embossed sheet of wax. Seems like he could do one side and stick it in a hive and see if bees use the embossed surface as a guide, foundation if you will.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

jwcarlson said:


> How much lunch and how much foundation?


$30.00 worth, divided which ever way I wish. One block bought me a Taco Bell lunch.


----------



## maudbid (Jul 21, 2014)

sqkcrk said:


> Why would the sheet of wax have to be thin in order to see whether bees will do anything with an embossed sheet of wax. Seems like he could do one side and stick it in a hive and see if bees use the embossed surface as a guide, foundation if you will.


True, but then I didn't define thin, did I?  The video link I provided shows this is a trivial task anyways.

Seriously, this is a great idea of only embossing one side, it goes along with my earlier suggestion of having a flat sheet without recesses to see if the bees would work it any differently than a sheet with recesses.

As I said before, I'm curious if bees would use recesses as a guideline to build out sidewalls.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

bentonbee said:


> I have always wondered if brood comb foundation made years ago ...was it thicker? I read the old books and I don't read of them wiring their foundation. C.C. Miller did use foundation splints. What do you all know about this? Root's used to make 3 ply foundation with some veg wax in the middle to make it stiffer I think.
> Mike in Iowa


What are foundation splints? Not very many of us know anything about the thickness of foundation from back in the early days of foundation. Was it thicker? Thicker than today's wax foundation? Wax foundation comes in different thicknesses depending on what one wants to use it for. And plastic foundation may be thicker still.

Comb honey foundation is pretty darned thin and comb honey was how people produced and consumed honey back before extractors, barring the honey press. So I think that early foundation was probably as thin as foundation can be made before it become too fragile. I don't know why it would be thicker then than now or why it would be thicker now than then. The ability to make foundation as thin as one wants has been around since the foundation mills came into existence.


----------



## BeeCurious (Aug 7, 2007)

jwcarlson said:


> How much lunch and how much foundation?



Have a serving of split citrus....


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

maudbid said:


> As I said before, I'm curious if bees would use recesses as a guideline to build out sidewalls.


Come to the Fall Meeting of the Empire State Honey Producers Association, November 20 and 21, East Syracuse, NY and we can talk about it over an award winning glass of mead. eshpa.org


----------



## kevindsingleton (Jun 6, 2014)

jwcarlson said:


> Huh?
> 
> They build inverted comb in top bar hives? Interesting. I guess my top bars weren't true top bar hives then...?
> 
> ...


"build from the spaces of air" is what I was referring to. We're only talking about a tiny little "channel" into which the bees would have to build a little wax. That's far less trouble than building an entire comb, as they do in a foundationless frame. Why are we assuming that it's too much for the bees, when we already know they can do so much more?

I agree that Ace's idea probably isn't the best foundation we could give the bees, but I don't see it as so different that they wouldn't be able to figure out what to do with it.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

sqkcrk said:


> Taken any concrete steps yet?


No, most good engineers spend a good amount of time in the "think tank" phase before they cut chips.


kevindsingleton said:


> I doubt that the offset alignment is a requirement.


I wouldn't even attempt not having the offset because it adds stiffness to the comb which would make a difference on a warm day. I don't think the bees do this by accident.



sqkcrk said:


> Since the cell wall bases would be indented in Acebird's design, if I am imagining things as others are, the bees would have to start off filling in the troughs in order to build the cells. Structural integrity would probably come from the double thick sheet of wax needed to make this even begin to work.


This is my original thought but if the backing plate was a thin layer of foam it would create a raised edge on the back side very similar to standard foundation. Think of a tin ceiling.


----------



## kevindsingleton (Jun 6, 2014)

BeeCurious said:


> I believe that the midrib thickness would be approximately the same thickness as the pressed in comb pattern. And what do we, or you imagine that depth to be, 1/64"? 1/32"? Deeper?
> 
> Add the two pattern depths to the midrib thickness and you will have the approximate thickness of the required wax sheet.


You "believe"? Which thread is this? 

Since we're depressing the comb pattern into the midrib, instead of raising it, the thickness wouldn't change, would it? So, if we started with a slab of wax that's 1/32" thick, we'd still have a slab that's about 1/32" thick, when we're finished. I'm not seeing "three times the thickness", are you?


----------



## kevindsingleton (Jun 6, 2014)

maudbid said:


> True, but then I didn't define thin, did I?  The video link I provided shows this is a trivial task anyways.
> 
> Seriously, this is a great idea of only embossing one side, it goes along with my earlier suggestion of having a flat sheet without recesses to see if the bees would work it any differently than a sheet with recesses.
> 
> As I said before, I'm curious if bees would use recesses as a guideline to build out sidewalls.


It's not likely that the bees will just ignore the wax that's hanging in their space, so maybe they will draw it out, following the recessed pattern, or maybe they'll do something else. Now is probably not the best time to test it, in this hemisphere, but Ace has all winter to produce some samples for testing. We already know that bees will draw comb with no foundation, at all, pretty much following the eons-old pattern that produced the phrase "honeycomb".


----------



## biggraham610 (Jun 26, 2013)

kevindsingleton said:


> We already know that bees will draw comb with no foundation, at all, pretty much following the eons-old pattern that produced the phrase "honeycomb".


Yes, and I expect they will recycle Ace's work and do Exactly that.  G


----------



## jwcarlson (Feb 14, 2014)

kevindsingleton said:


> "build from the spaces of air" is what I was referring to. We're only talking about a tiny little "channel" into which the bees would have to build a little wax. That's far less trouble than building an entire comb, as they do in a foundationless frame. Why are we assuming that it's too much for the bees, when we already know they can do so much more?
> 
> I agree that Ace's idea probably isn't the best foundation we could give the bees, but I don't see it as so different that they wouldn't be able to figure out what to do with it.


A foundationless frame is air... not wax with little spaces.

I think they will take a sheet of wax like that and make it into whatever they want. Same as I think they would with just a plain sheet of wax. 

Bees like to follow the lead of what's already there... an "edge". It's why sharp edges work in foundationless frames to give them a guide on where to start drawing the midrib in the case of foundationless. And in foundation the peaks allude to cell walls for the bees. If you ever catch a queenless swarm or have the privileged of having a package reject the caged queen and end up queenless, you'll notice that they don't build comb at all or very little comb. And what comb they build is on whatever high spots the cluster is on. For example, this queenless swarm located on a lightpost for however long they were there, laid nice comb down on all the ridges of the light post contained in their cluster.









I have a better picture elsewhere, but this will serve to illustrate the point. This same swarm had spit wax on the raised edges of the inside corner of the cardboard box they were in for a few hours during the day before I picked them up.

Flipping foundation on it's head (as Ace plans)... I'd be more inclined to think they may build from the high parts of whatever Ace were to mold. And they'd maybe build up from the edges of the impression rather than "filling it in with wax" and then using that as a guide (makes no sense that they'd do this). We'll see whenever Ace does it (never).


----------



## kevindsingleton (Jun 6, 2014)

Acebird said:


> I wouldn't even attempt not having the offset because it adds stiffness to the comb which would make a difference on a warm day. I don't think the bees do this by accident.


I'm sure it's no accident, but its value diminishes with the increasing thickness of the midrib.



Acebird said:


> This is my original thought but if the backing plate was a thin layer of foam it would create a raised edge on the back side very similar to standard foundation. Think of a tin ceiling.


"Backing plate"? If you're planning to add a backing plate, sandwiched between each side of the foundation, then the offset is a moot point, and all this discussion of "three times the thickness" goes right out the window. A suitably stiff and strong backing plate alleviates all the concerns about structural integrity produced by the midrib, and eliminates the need for any thickness beyond what is needed to create the depressions.


----------



## kevindsingleton (Jun 6, 2014)

biggraham610 said:


> Yes, and I expect they will recycle Ace's work and do Exactly that.  G


It's entirely possible.


----------



## BeeCurious (Aug 7, 2007)

Acebird said:


> This is my original thought but if the *backing plate* was a thin layer of foam it would create a raised edge on the back side very similar to standard foundation.


Please note that there isn't a "back side" on standard foundation... 

So, it seems that your original idea is down the tubes... 

And now you are "imagining" a hybrid wax-foam composite.

Note to kevindsingleton: adding foam between wax won't reduce the thickness. It's nice that Acebird has someone on his side...


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

jwcarlson said:


> Imagine wax poured over a sheet of plastic foundation. Imagine peeling that wax off.
> 
> That's what Ace want's to give the bees.


Which ends up being the exact copy of the other side of the foundation. D'oh!


----------



## kevindsingleton (Jun 6, 2014)

BeeCurious said:


> Note to kevindsingleton: adding foam between wax won't reduce the thickness. It's nice that Acebird has someone on his side...


Sure, it would. How thick is the wax on a new Rite-Cell foundation?

I'm not, necessarily, on Ace's side. I'm arguing the concept.


----------



## kevindsingleton (Jun 6, 2014)

Barry said:


> Which ends up being the exact copy of the other side of the foundation. D'oh!


I think Barry is missing some critical information. The embossed wax would be a negative of the plastic foundation, not a copy of the other side.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

And the term "foundation" is being thrown around in this thread as if it's one standard item, which it's not. Foundation ranges from just the bottom rhombus imprint to varying heights of the cell wall include.


----------



## kevindsingleton (Jun 6, 2014)

BeeCurious said:


> Please note that there isn't a "back side" on standard foundation...
> 
> So, it seems that your original idea is down the tubes...
> 
> And now you are "imagining" a hybrid wax-foam composite.


"Backing plate" is not equal to "back side".


----------



## BeeCurious (Aug 7, 2007)

kevindsingleton said:


> Sure, it would. How thick is the wax on a new Rite-Cell foundation?


I'm talking about the overall thickness.... 

Anyway, enjoy yourselves.... :gh: I'm finished with this absurdity.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

kevindsingleton said:


> I think Barry is missing some critical information. The embossed wax would be a negative of the plastic foundation, not a copy of the other side.



I think you're missing something. Like saying the half filled glass of water is half empty, not half filled. I think what is not clear in your use of the word "foundation" is related to post #134.


----------



## kevindsingleton (Jun 6, 2014)

BeeCurious said:


> I'm talking about the overall thickness....
> 
> Anyway, enjoy yourselves.... :gh: I'm finished with this absurdity.


Without defining the thickness of the backing plate, there is no way to tell. What if Ace used transparent aluminum?


----------



## BeeCurious (Aug 7, 2007)

Barry said:


> I think you're missing something. Like saying the half filled glass of water is half empty, not half filled. I think what is not clear in your use of the word "foundation" is related to post #134.


You should award some reputation points....


----------



## maudbid (Jul 21, 2014)

Acebird said:


> No, most good engineers spend a good amount of time in the "think tank" phase before they cut chips.


So, you should be able to do it with a lot less time?  ( I kid, I kid.)



> This is my original thought but if the backing plate was a thin layer of foam it would create a raised edge on the back side very similar to standard foundation. Think of a tin ceiling.


What I think you are referring to as a backing plate is the support for the wax as you emboss it with the foundation? (not as a permanent part of the foundation as others are assuming). Thus, you would have indents on one side, and raised impressions on the other, correct? 

I doubt they would be very sharp, especially if the wax deforms around the tool rather than just distorting away from it. You could try different temps for the wax sheet, and different durometer ratings for the backer foam. Of course, it could be substances other than foam, such as cardboard, rubber sheets, etc.

I hope you follow through on this, it would be fun to watch.


----------



## kevindsingleton (Jun 6, 2014)

Barry said:


> I think you're missing something. Like saying the half filled glass of water is half empty, not half filled. I think what is not clear in your use of the word "foundation" is related to post #134.


It appears that everyone has understood the use of the word, throughout the thread. Is someone confused about the way "foundation" has been used, here?


----------



## maudbid (Jul 21, 2014)

sqkcrk said:


> Come to the Fall Meeting of the Empire State Honey Producers Association, November 20 and 21, East Syracuse, NY and we can talk about it over an award winning glass of mead. eshpa.org


Hmmm, I'll have to look into it. A glass of mead and conversations about bees seems like a fun time.


----------



## kilocharlie (Dec 27, 2010)

Wow! 7 pages since I chimed in.

So has anyone realized how obsolete foundation mills will be once 3-D printers are making *drawn comb* from melted bees wax that bees accept and lay eggs in? 

Combine that with Lauri Miller's arrangement of 1/2 a foundation of worker-sized cells in the middle of the frame with 4" of open space for the bees to draw out drone/honey storage sized cells, and the mites are removed with the capped drone brood.  All done with wax that I know which blocks have seen treatment and which blocks are clean.

Beekeepers could get back to having the upper hand again. Monitoring mite levels with Randy Oliver's alcohol wash cup/technique and Lauri Millers foundation arrangement makes IPM depend a lot less on chemical treatments, and drawn combs would mean that a lot less honey is consumed in the Spring's main nectar/pollen flow - most of that would get stored. Gotta do like Randy says, though, stay AHEAD of the mite situation!

Ace - I suggest getting together with some geeks building home-made 3-D printers with a wax melting hopper instead of a plastic melter. From that you can make either foundation OR drawn comb! 

Oh, BTW, "geeks" is no longer politically incorrect. The years have turned it all around - they are now proud to be the computer geeks, most kids admire them, even depend on them.


----------



## biggraham610 (Jun 26, 2013)

Put me on your list Kilo. I will give em a try. Shipping could be touchy.......... G


----------



## biggraham610 (Jun 26, 2013)

maudbid said:


> Hmmm, I'll have to look into it. A glass of mead and conversations about bees seems like a fun time.


Mark, how bout you send me a bottle, and we will Skype the conversation about bees........ G


----------



## kevindsingleton (Jun 6, 2014)

kilocharlie said:


> Wow! 7 pages since I chimed in.
> 
> So has anyone realized how obsolete foundation mills will be once 3-D printers are making *drawn comb* from melted bees wax that bees accept and lay eggs in?
> 
> ...


I thought there was nothing new under the Sun? Look at you, innovatin'!


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

maudbid said:


> What I think you are referring to as a backing plate is the support for the wax as you emboss it with the foundation? (not as a permanent part of the foundation as others are assuming). Thus, you would have indents on one side, and raised impressions on the other, correct?


Yes! Holy cow I was laughing my butt off reading all these posts. I tend to forget that not everyone is an engineer and I must leave words out that confuse people but you got it right Maudbid.

If the soft backing plate technique would work the foundation could be thin.

3D printing can only be used economically for prototyping. It is far to slow for production. We already know what size cells we want within a range so regular printing methods could be use for volume runs if printing was the answer. Neither process makes any sense for someone with three hives.


----------



## maudbid (Jul 21, 2014)

A 3d printer could be used to make a tool... hmmmm...


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Acebird said:


> This is my original thought but if the backing plate was a thin layer of foam it would create a raised edge on the back side very similar to standard foundation. Think of a tin ceiling.


Which would make your "foundation" different on each side. If you pushed the pattern through the wax sheet you'd probably punch through it and tear it.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

biggraham610 said:


> Mark, how bout you send me a bottle, and we will Skype the conversation about bees........ G


I don't have a bottle to spare. I am hoping that the Mead Contest entries will be available to buy and consume at the mtng. How about if I send you the conversation and Skype the mead?


----------



## BeeCurious (Aug 7, 2007)

sqkcrk said:


> Which would make your "foundation" different on each side.


It's not what was being proposed in the beginning is it. I guess the Think Tank decided that it was time to lower people's expectations... 

Oh well....


----------



## jwcarlson (Feb 14, 2014)

Acebird said:


> 3D printing can only be used economically for prototyping. It is far to slow for production.


Now what kind of attitude is that. You've gotta believe! An engineer, beekeeping expert, inventor, land lord, storage unit mechanic, over-the-road trucking consultant, parenting expert, and manufacturing extraordinaire aught to be able to figure something out.


----------



## biggraham610 (Jun 26, 2013)

sqkcrk said:


> I don't have a bottle to spare. I am hoping that the Mead Contest entries will be available to buy and consume at the mtng. How about if I send you the conversation and Skype the mead?


Fair enough. Well, at least enjoy a glass for me. Too far to drive. G


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

maudbid said:


> A 3d printer could be used to make a tool... hmmmm...


It would be invaluable for making the tool because it would give the options of changing the shape so the wax would draw instead of shear and break. This is where a 3D printer shines, prototyping.

Actually if you had a 3D printer you could simply make two embossing plates and emboss the sheets exactly as the foundation is made now. The tooling would be plastic instead of steal. More than adequate for the volume of sheets a back yard beekeeper needs.


----------



## BeeCurious (Aug 7, 2007)

Acebird, 

What is the volume of your Think Tank?


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

sqkcrk said:


> Which would make your "foundation" different on each side. If you pushed the pattern through the wax sheet you'd probably punch through it and tear it.


You still have to offset and do both sides. Granted it would not come out perfect. The second side would come out more pronounced then the first. The unknown here is how much of a suggested pattern do the bees need to follow it? The answer might be in how "they" arrived at the height of the embossing that we have today. Housel positioning might make a big difference on acceptance whereas it doesn't seem to matter with standard foundation.


----------



## BeeCurious (Aug 7, 2007)

Acebird said:


> *Housel positioning *might make a big difference on acceptance whereas it doesn't seem to matter with standard foundation.


Wow! This could be the "Big Bang" of beekeeping! All that has past before was just a gathering of particles...


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

For those of you wondering what "Housel positioning" is, here you go ... 

http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?276748-Housel-positioning


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Acebird said:


> with standard foundation.


I looked up the meaning of "standard foundation" and couldn't find it. Can you point me to where it is?


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Rader Sidetrack said:


> For those of you wondering what "Housel positioning" is, here you go


Post #4 is a must read. Ties in nicely with this thread, which of course has gone . . .


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

Barry, could we get that image made into a 'smiley'? 


... would likely get quite a bit of use ...


----------



## maudbid (Jul 21, 2014)

Rader Sidetrack said:


> For those of you wondering what "Housel positioning" is, here you go ...
> 
> http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?276748-Housel-positioning


I can't believe I didn't start beekeeping sooner, there would have been so much more laughter in my life for so much longer. Getting it in one dose like this makes my ribs hurt and my "pee" brain spin. :lpf:


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

BeeCurious said:


> Acebird,
> 
> What is the volume of your Think Tank?


I think it's turned up to 11 and I still can't hear it.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

maudbid said:


> my "pee" brain spin. :lpf:


lol Your ""pee"" brain? Where is that anatomically located? I know where some women think some men's brains are located, but I never heard it referred to in that way.


----------



## maudbid (Jul 21, 2014)

sqkcrk said:


> lol Your ""pee"" brain? Where is that anatomically located? I know where some women think some men's brains are located, but I never heard it referred to in that way.


You'll have to ask Ace. 



Acebird said:


> Is that any clearer for your pee brain?


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Do you have all of Acebird's examples of misspelled words on file somewhere, or what?


----------



## BeeCurious (Aug 7, 2007)

sqkcrk said:


> Do you have all of Acebird's examples of misspelled words on file somewhere, or what?


I deleted most of my Acebirdism's and files of misspellings. I'm using the disc space for videos now...


----------



## rwurster (Oct 30, 2010)

BeeCurious said:


> I deleted most of my Acebirdism's and files of misspellings. I'm using the disc space for videos now...


That must have freed up a few gigs :lpf:


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

Mark, the "pee brain" phrase was on one of Ace's posts in the "Housel positioning" thread linked earlier in this thread. I suspect _maudbid _ read that thread and then simply picked it up because he/she found it amusing - and a representative summary of Ace's comments in that thread.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Thank you.


----------



## BeeCurious (Aug 7, 2007)

What is the latest news concerning this project?


----------



## jwcarlson (Feb 14, 2014)

Still in the tank. No chips cut yet.


----------



## bentonbee (Jan 31, 2007)

Steven Kluck said:


> Is it possible that he used shallow supers in order to avoid sagging without using wires? Would that have helped?


Steven,
I read Alexander's book and he did not use shallow supers. All he used for a super was ONE deep langstroth box! Just one then when it was full enough they extracted it and put it back on! He made that very clear! I was surprised! So I don't know how they got good combs on a consistent basis with out much drone comb. Thus why I asked if brood foundation was thicker back then.

Mike T


----------



## jwcarlson (Feb 14, 2014)

Canvt wait to see a pic of Ace's anti-foundation!


----------

