From: Helmut E. Garz <hommes@olympus.net>
Date: Sun Dec 17, 2000 6:22pm
Subject: Re: test

Hi Dee
I shall have to digest all this for a while.
Anyway, this cubic measure is used daily not only in remote areas to
determine the quantity of concrete for instance or estimating the volume of
water in a pond. The cavities are usually random in measures and one does
not have the PhD handy to determine the amount of whatever to fill the
cavity. One measures the circumference , divides it by 4 , squares the
result and multiplies by the depth. In rough situations one takes several
measures and gets an average. The more precise the measure the more
accurate the final volume. (In a cell volume one has to omit the bottom
prism by this method as one omits the volume of the mites and food).
I measured roughly some cells that way and came up with : one side = 3m/m x
6 = 18 m/m / by 4 = 4.5 m/m x 4.5 m/m =20.25 x 11 m/m = 222.75 Qu m/m. Now,
I have measured a bunch of cells and the depth varies , but 11 m/m appears
to be a rough average valid figure.

It all depends on how an accurate measurement is taken with the tools
available for the beekeeper. And THAT is certainly a problem relating to the
Florida chad counts.

My post attempts to find out a simple way to determine the measures that
beekeepers are spared to dig through mountains of information and still end
up scratching their heads.

I have no quarrel nor doubt that what you researched has validity , but find
a requirement to condense valid information to the minimum of cut and dry
information for the utilization of the common beekeeper to arrive what Your
aim is for the good of the craft.

This is in No way a criticism or a an attempt to invalidate your research
but simply to give the average person tools for judgment in the utmost
usable simple determination of its local condition. May there is none, but
lets the members express their experiences and observations and we will see
what develops.

Sorry to be a nuisance but that's the way I am. Nothing but questions . Let
us consider that a horrendous amount of bee information was accumulated and
still it goes on and that is proof : we know darn little in the end.

H.E.Garz