Beesource Beekeeping Forums banner

1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,409 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
So there I was this morning, doing something completely unrelated, when I allowed my mind to wander - and for some reason I started to focus on the Vapourising of Oxalic Acid by heat. Now as we know, this produces a dust cloud of micro-fine crystals - and that's the only reason that heat is used - to produce those tiny particles. For, as we also know, dribbling or spraying a solution containing Oxalic Acid also works. But - the disadvantage of these two 'wet' methods is that they require dismantling of the hive in order to access each comb in turn to perform the application.

But - what if a fine mist - more of a fog really - of a solution containing Oxalic Acid was injected into the hive - would this be comparable to any of the existing methods of application ?

At first I started wondering whether a standing-wave fogging device would carry larger molecular components into the fog, or would it separate molecules of different sizes - but then quickly realised that this technology has already been optimised in the form of medical nebulisers - which of course are used to deliver therapeutic compounds into an air-stream.

The power requirements of this technology are a fraction of that required for existing heat-operated vapourisers, and portable devices are fairly common. I wonder - is the cold-fogging of Oxalic Acid worth researching ?

Thoughts ?
LJ
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,915 Posts
I am going to guess not. Hot fogging OA failed, I would expect cold fogging to as well
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,409 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
I am going to guess not. Hot fogging OA failed, I would expect cold fogging to as well
Are you sure ? I know fogging with FGMO (Food Grade Mineral Oil) failed, but there are plenty of OA hot-foggers currently advertised for sale - some of which appear to be the multi-dose equivalent of what are already proven, others are propane-powered. I suppose much depends on what is meant by 'fogging'.
LJ
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,409 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Been doing a Google - I can see now what went wrong with hot-foggers - the solubility of OA Dihydrate is 230g/L in ethanol - so that's what many chose as a solvent to then inject onto a very hot surface (barmy, or what ?).

The solubility of OA Dihydrate in water is 100g/L at room temperature - so it would be necessary to inject a minimum of 10ml of that solution per box in the form of steam using a hot-fogger, or the same voiume as fog in a cold-fogger. I wonder how long that would take. Hmmm ...
LJ
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,112 Posts
LJ " THoguhts?" - What problem are you trying to solve with respect to OAV - energy consumption? Better distribution? Faster application?

I have thinking about a similar thing but for a different purpose.
 

·
Registered
5 ,8 ,10 frame, and long Lang
Joined
·
2,529 Posts
LJ, so why have the need for the "carrier at all" what if finely ground OA was blown in sand blaster like. Somewhat like powder in a Spray paint device like for painting a car. The end goal is to have the carrier/ethanol evaporate, so what if it was not needed. What particle size would work, and how much pressure would be required to spread it around inside the hive?

GG
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,692 Posts
If doing it the 'dry dust' way, I'd just use powder sugar dusting with hives on open screen bottom boards. It worked pretty well for me back 14-15 years ago.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,409 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
LJ " THoguhts?" - What problem are you trying to solve with respect to OAV ...
Well, I wasn't - and therein lies the error. I had one of those sudden 'light-bulb' moments regarding the particle size of OA and how it's currently being achieved: "so why not ... use a nebuliser ?". That would get molecular-sized particles into the hive using well-proven technology, and without the need to dismantle anything beforehand.

Inasmuch as I thought about any advantage over existing methods, it was that a cold airflow device would have a fairly instant on/off characteristic - no warm-up or cool-down time, and could - I believe - be a hand-held battery device.

Then, I found myself sitting at the computer, and so posted what I did without doing any homework first. Sorry about that. On further consideration, I believe a nebuliser would work ok, but without any clear advantage over the current Inverting Band-Heater designs. The limiting factor would be the time taken to fog 10ml of liquid per box - I'm only guessing, but I'd say that would take maybe 15-20 minutes.

If another dust-like material - such as sugar, or talc - would do the same job - then yes, I like the idea of using those. That would be a fairly speedy method of application. But you're right Robert, one should always define the objective (problem to be solved) first.

I'm currently in the process of making a number of custom bases which are designed to house uber-cheap $5-7 non-inverting band-heater units (think band-heater Varrox's) which will allow multiple units to be used together. Although each sequence will be slow - say, 10-15 min - when 4 to 6 devices are used together, it then becomes more practicable.
I've looked at using cartridge heaters in order to make slimmer units, but can't get excited by them. Band-heaters really are bullet-proof in comparison. Pity about their height (for my application) - but can't have everything ...

The really important characteristic of the non-inverting band-heater design is - just like a Varrox - it becomes possible to operate the device from a distance, so that the need for wearing PPE is avoided - even when there are fluky winds eddying around the apiary.
LJ
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top