hand crank radial extractor

[Sparky]

I just saw this one, and I like the price on it. Anyone know anythng about it? Would it be possable to fit a motor to it in the future?

http://www.beeequipment.com/products.asp?pcode=802

I like the idea of the radial, and it would do me for a long time I think. Its only $100 more than the tragent one I was looking at.

Sparky

[Michael Bush]

http://www.beeequipment.com/products.asp?pcode=831A

Here's the motorized one. If you're handy with that sort of thing and/or have an electric motor laying around to hook up to it, you could add paower to the hand crank version.

But for $52 more than the 9 frame you could get the 18 frame:

http://www.beeequipment.com/products.asp?pcode=801A

And $20 less than that one:

http://www.mannlakeltd.com/catalog/page74.htm

But then shipping is a big part of the cost, so you might want to go with the Brushy Mt one. smile.gif

[tecumseh]

I would have serious question as to whether a hand cranked radial is truely functional. Operating speed for a radial extractor is about 350rpm that must be maintained from 3 to 5 minutes for the frame to unload. I hope you have a very understanding wife or a very stout arm.

[Jim Fischer]

> I would have serious question as to whether a
> hand cranked radial is truely functional.

The specific model cited is the current version of
exactly what I have used for years. I liked them
so much, I bought 3 of them (9-framers) rather than
"upgrading" to a single larger extractor.

(We run 100% 9 frame medium supers, so at any one
time, one extractor is spinning, one is being
loaded, and one is being unloaded. This is much
better throughput in terms of supers per hour than
using a single larger extractor.)

Hand-cranking these extractors is easy and certainly
does extract the honey. Sure, everyone would like
a motor, but for a capital investment that is only
used for a few days a year in the case of a hobby
beekeeper, a motor is perhaps "too expensive".

I have motors, but they are all kludges - motors
that I picked up here and there, and turned into
belt-drive assemblies.

Anyone doubting the practicality of a hand-cranked
radial could call Steve Forest at Brushy Mtn, and
ask for the name of a happy customer near them.
Steve sells a lot of these extractors.

I would never advise anyone to waste their money
on anything other than a radial extractor, and
this model has good stainless steel, a decent
load/unload scheme, and a VERY nice spring-loaded
clutch that allows one to crank with wild abandon,
knowing that the clutch will disengage the handle
from the gears when the extractor gets spinning
at high PRMs, so that you don't get hit by the
handle.

[wbell]

I have the 9 frame handcranked extractor from Brushy and like it a lot. Extracting is a lot easier if you allow newbies to come over to help you and by doing so gain valuable experience. They are always very appreciative but for some reason never come back a second year. Seriously though, I'm about at the point ( 35 colonies) that I'm considering upgrading , and it will include a motor.

[tecumseh]

Jim Fischer adds:
Hand-cranking these extractors is easy and certainly does extract the honey. Sure, everyone would like a motor, but for a capital investment that is only used for a few days a year in the case of a hobby beekeeper, a motor is perhaps "too expensive

tecumseh adds a footnote:
Let me enter a snipped paragraph from an old, old copy of ABC-XYZ of Bee Culture. First under the subheading The Radial Principle is Not Practicable for Hand Extractors the last paragraph sezs:
'Moreover, to extract honey throughtly from the combs in a radial position a speed of a least 250 revolutions per minute is necessary and the relative long time repuired makes the radial principle impractical for a small machine.'
and the subhead that follow reads Power vs Hand Machines(skip to the second paragraph).
'In the four-frame hand-driven extractors, the residue of honey left in the cells is much greater than in any of the power-driven machines, especially the power-driven big raidal. the reason for this is plain enough-the hand power is not sufficient to maintain a high speed. One's hand or arm gets tired except in case of the two or three frame extractors.'

The author previously has provide estimate of the honey residue remaining from throughly extracted (3 to 3 1/2%-visually the comb looks perfectly dry) vs poorly extracted extracted (10 to 20%-visually a very small amount of residual honey at the base of the cell). So Jim I would suggest that perhaps you need to add these cost to your calculation of whether a motor is "too expensive".

[Jim Fischer]

> Let me enter a snipped paragraph from an old,
> old copy of ABC-XYZ of Bee Culture

There is much in the older books that has become
inaccurate as technology and knowledge has marched
on. smile.gif

> "In the four-frame hand-driven extractors, the
> residue of honey left in the cells is much greater
> than in any of the power-driven machines..."

At the time, this was correct. The "transmissions"
of the time were a joke. Nowadays, the gearing
is excellent. But regardless, YES, a motor
allows one to "clean out" the comb better.

> (3 to 3 1/2%-visually the comb looks perfectly
> dry) vs poorly extracted extracted (10 to 20%)

There's an easier way to measure this. Simply
weigh a few fully-drawn supers that have been
cleaned out by the bees with a scale that is
accurate and able to read down to ounces or
grams, and compare the average of those weights
to the average weight of a super that one has
extracted. I assure you that the modern
hand-cranked radials don't leave 10% to 20% of
the honey in the comb. The difference is more
like 3% for motor vs 5% for hand-cranked (at
least the way we cranked 'em here).

...and the motors that are "too expensive" are
the ones sold by bee-supply houses! A motor
bought just about anywhere else is much cheaper. smile.gif

[tecumseh]

Jim Fischer sezs:
I assure you that the modern hand-cranked radials don't leave 10% to 20% of
the honey in the comb. The difference is more
like 3% for motor vs 5% for hand-cranked (at
least the way we cranked 'em here).
...and the motors that are "too expensive" are
the ones sold by bee-supply houses! A motor
bought just about anywhere else is much cheaper.
tecumseh replies:
The book has a very detailed description of exactly how they arrived at the honey residue estimates. One of the more important points to note is that the 10-20% residue frames 'appears clean' but when you look at the bottom of the cell you can not see the three connecting ribs at the bottom of the cell. From an economic point of view the residue question only becomes important when you are talking about fairly large volumns and since the residue is most often placed right back on the bees, what is actually lost anyway?
As to motors... you observation about price is absolutely correct. Some of the first 'hobbie extractor' I remember seeing were run with variable speed drill motors. Simple, effective and inexpensive. As a matter of fact my little and very old (originally hand cranked) extractor is driven by an ancient 1/2 inch drill motor that is chucked directly to the reel shaft. I control the speed with an electronic bench dial style voltage regulator (essentially a very large rheostat) that I acquired from a geeky friend of mine who was using it as a door stop. Total cost of conversion, about $10.

And guess what??? I would still be using the hand crank, but I managed to have broken a tooth on one of the intermeshing gears and I had this feeling that finding a replacement gear for a 50 year old machine was not going to be easy.

[BedWetter]

Tecumseh, Do you still have the hand crank extractor. My brother is a machinist and if you would sell her to me I could get a gear made. Let me know if you are interested.

[tecumseh]

Sorry Bedwetter (funny name or at least it makes me smile) but I must have given you the wrong impression since my old hand cranked extractor now has a motor (the aforemention ancient 1/2" drill motor) and I will be using that old dog until it is too old to hunt.