Bees have no idea what hexagon is, don't care about the hexagons, and don't really build hexagons as commonly believed.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3730681/Honeybee combs: how the circular cells transform into rounded hexagons
I find the inclination of the cells equally intriguing - how do they know - beforehand - the uses to which those cells will be employed ? Such amazing structures created by the tiniest of brains ...He doesn't address the 3 dimensional aspect of honeycomb that I have always found intriguing and is a primary key to its strength. That is how the intersection of 3 walls on one side becomes the centerpoint of a cell on the opposite side of the comb. Also the fact that a honeycomb, though hexagonal (some debate this point) on the top, tapers to a rounded base. A wonder of nature certainly.
But really, all you have to do - build a cylinder around your own body and heat it to +45C.......... during construction, each bee is hard up against 'the coal-face' (as it were) working without any overall guidance ... and usually in the pitch dark.
He is not - agreed...........-he's not suggesting bee engineering departments re "bees have no idea what hexagon is"! ...
LOL You seem to want to belabor a point that you may or may not have an explanation for, and disregard other intriguing portions of the comb, such as the point of the Y and the slope of the "tubes" as mentioned. Hexagons in other nests you pointed out would either have to be formed by the same occurrence as you state or it's possible there is some other reason common to this family of insects. In the garden I like the design of a stalk of brussels sprouts.He is not - agreed.
But why the excessive fascination (almost religious)?
Sit in a bath tab and make some soapy foam while in it.
Watch how it works.
That is the same principles of surface tension that exists all around us (except that the bubble walls are already "soft" enough and require no heating).
From that article I hang up - you can emulate the bee comb building by many plastic straws packed together and heating them just to the melting point - they will transform into a "honey comb" due to the same surface tension physics.
I sort of agree, but often it is the reporting of the mathematician's or scientist's work where the message gets jumbled. Researchers I know are keenly aware they are modeling the real world. A model is proposed, flaws are found, the model is patched, and the cycle repeats; science works. In my view it is often poor science reporting that gives a false impression of the strength of researcher's conclusions. Their published work states "our data indicate.... suggesting that...." and somehow that turns into "scientists say Y is caused by X". Ummm.... no they don't. And also they aren't "baffled" when new data doesn't fit their existing model.I think mathematicians often have a tendency to put the cart before the horse - in that they fail to recognise that their way of viewing and understanding the world is based upon human interpretations of natural events, and not - as they so frequently appear to suggest - nature obeying human-determined mathematical structures.
https://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com...05/25/mike-riter-hornets-environment/9456687/They are very good at this, far better than honeybees which by comparison are slipshod in their building.
While I can see the slop of the cell is predominantly upwards (only predominant), the "Y" theory is a total BS.......... disregard other intriguing portions of the comb, such as the point of the Y and the slope of the "tubes" as mentioned. .........
Everything is possible.MJC417 said:Since there is no support for the comb couldn't it be possible that the bees are building hexagons and the shape is being distorted to circles due to heat or fresh wax?