Went to the CLA Game Fair yesterday.
There, on the omlette stand, sat an example of the new revised beehaus.
So I had a closer look.
First thing I heard was the guy telling someone that it was two hives in one (not the exact words, but you get my drift).
I saw some of the 'improvements' possibly not all of them. Didn't pull the whole thing apart but noted the following:
Sides of brood are now in injection sheet form - an improvement on the correx type sheets.
Central divider is now inserted from the top into a slide (moulded as part of the brood side sheets) - hope the bees don't find it something to propolise in place, but likely OK. My thoughts on the central divider is that they ARE really marketing it as a two colony hive, one cannot fit that divider anywhere else (I didn't actually check that out), and the hump on each of the frame rails is just a pain in the derriere. Also, those mouldings might just be a platform for extra comb building if the hive is used with a brood area larger than half the hive.
The 1/2 supers now have injection moulding as sides (or is it ends?) and look much improved, but they are still a pain to use (for me, yes, - for those who need smaller boxes they are possibly good).
The brood covers are now composite fabrications of injection moulding parts - much more rigid (more stable, predictable shape than the earlier ones?). They are still air filled and will transfer heat by convection from bottom to top but that may be satisfactory as the parts seem to be ribbed, but not an ideal solution unless filled with an insulant (easy to do, I would think, for the thinking beek - just a pity the manufacturers were not so particular, if my simple observations are correct).
The guy who was there was apparently a van driver (well, so he said, and I was not going to question further!) told me that air was a very good insulator - well now, that shows a severe lack of understanding and demonstrates the mis-information being passed to the potential punters, as we are talking convection here (heat moving vertically upwards and not vertically downwards), a very important subtlety lost on that particular gentleman. I know both air and water are both very good non-conductors of heat; as an insulator they both need to be stationary, as in 'not moving''!
The dummies are now ill-fitting (in this instance) polypropylene sheets about 2 1/2 mm thick. Better idea than the 'correx' type but poorly executed (the sheet was likely too narrow to do the job properly(?)).
I did check the brood width, and it was consistent along it's length (a problem with some very early production examples).
So, some definite improvements on 'fit and finish', but no real improvements (IMO) on operation, apart from no 'correx ' type edges - so removing possible 'hidey holes' for SHB etc. and those more robust 1/2 super boxes.
So, comparing my example with the revised one - better, and I would appreciate evaluating these modified parts (over the 'weaker' options on my example), but would not go out of my way to actually purchase them. Sealing up the 'correx' with silicone sealant and filling the coverboards with polystyrene prills is a pain but not so arduous to certainly improve the under-developed earlier design.
I am wondering if the side panels still need filling with 'bags of rockwool, or similar insulant, to prevent lateral energy losses due, mainly, to the freely convecting air currents in those panels?
What did I miss? Any more thoughts (or even disagreements) with my, admittedly, hurried appraisal?
Regards, RAB
There, on the omlette stand, sat an example of the new revised beehaus.
So I had a closer look.
First thing I heard was the guy telling someone that it was two hives in one (not the exact words, but you get my drift).
I saw some of the 'improvements' possibly not all of them. Didn't pull the whole thing apart but noted the following:
Sides of brood are now in injection sheet form - an improvement on the correx type sheets.
Central divider is now inserted from the top into a slide (moulded as part of the brood side sheets) - hope the bees don't find it something to propolise in place, but likely OK. My thoughts on the central divider is that they ARE really marketing it as a two colony hive, one cannot fit that divider anywhere else (I didn't actually check that out), and the hump on each of the frame rails is just a pain in the derriere. Also, those mouldings might just be a platform for extra comb building if the hive is used with a brood area larger than half the hive.
The 1/2 supers now have injection moulding as sides (or is it ends?) and look much improved, but they are still a pain to use (for me, yes, - for those who need smaller boxes they are possibly good).
The brood covers are now composite fabrications of injection moulding parts - much more rigid (more stable, predictable shape than the earlier ones?). They are still air filled and will transfer heat by convection from bottom to top but that may be satisfactory as the parts seem to be ribbed, but not an ideal solution unless filled with an insulant (easy to do, I would think, for the thinking beek - just a pity the manufacturers were not so particular, if my simple observations are correct).
The guy who was there was apparently a van driver (well, so he said, and I was not going to question further!) told me that air was a very good insulator - well now, that shows a severe lack of understanding and demonstrates the mis-information being passed to the potential punters, as we are talking convection here (heat moving vertically upwards and not vertically downwards), a very important subtlety lost on that particular gentleman. I know both air and water are both very good non-conductors of heat; as an insulator they both need to be stationary, as in 'not moving''!
The dummies are now ill-fitting (in this instance) polypropylene sheets about 2 1/2 mm thick. Better idea than the 'correx' type but poorly executed (the sheet was likely too narrow to do the job properly(?)).
I did check the brood width, and it was consistent along it's length (a problem with some very early production examples).
So, some definite improvements on 'fit and finish', but no real improvements (IMO) on operation, apart from no 'correx ' type edges - so removing possible 'hidey holes' for SHB etc. and those more robust 1/2 super boxes.
So, comparing my example with the revised one - better, and I would appreciate evaluating these modified parts (over the 'weaker' options on my example), but would not go out of my way to actually purchase them. Sealing up the 'correx' with silicone sealant and filling the coverboards with polystyrene prills is a pain but not so arduous to certainly improve the under-developed earlier design.
I am wondering if the side panels still need filling with 'bags of rockwool, or similar insulant, to prevent lateral energy losses due, mainly, to the freely convecting air currents in those panels?
What did I miss? Any more thoughts (or even disagreements) with my, admittedly, hurried appraisal?
Regards, RAB
