78 



AMERICAN BEE JOURMAi.^ 



^////i4un0j/(((///,//i/»/,,,Mu,,,,,, '". 



What Advantage in a Flaring:- 

 Top Comb-Rack ? 



Query 854.— 1. Is not an extractor having: 

 a flaring top to its comb-rack, the best? 2. 

 Is it not best for the following reasons, viz. : 

 That the honey-frames will the better stay in 

 place, and also that the downward slope thus 

 given to the honey-cells will be aided by gravi- 

 tation ?— Subscriber. 



1. Yes. — E. France. 



1. Yes. 2. Yes. — M. Mahin. 



Don't know. — Mrs. Jennie Atchlky. 



1. Yes, I think so. — Mrs. L. Harri- 

 son. 



Pass me by. I'm like Dr. Miller — I 

 dunno. — W. M. Barnum. 



Extractors work well enough without 

 flaring sides. — P. H. Elwood. 



1. Possibly, but I think it would need 

 several experiments to fully establish it. 



— G. M. DOOLITTLE. 



1. I have never used this kind of an 

 extractor. Your points seem meritorious. 

 — J. M. Hambaugh. 



Try it in actual practice. In such case 

 an ounce of practice is worth a pound of 

 theory. — C. C. Miller. 



It is said to be the best, though in 

 practice I have never found much dififer- 

 ence. — J. P. H. Brown. 



1. I think not. 2. No. Gravitation 

 ceases to affect the flow, when the revo- 

 lutions are rapid. — J as. A. Stone. 



1. No. 2. This matter has been tested 

 ofttimes, and the flaring sides are found 

 to be no improvement. — J. E. Pond. 



Centrifugal force holds them in place 

 any way, and I doubt if there would be 

 any advantage. — Mrs. J. N. Heater. 



I fear that your points are too small 

 and unimportant to be of practical 

 value, if ever so true. — James Heddon. 



1. Probably it would do no hurt, but I 

 think one with a perpendicular basket 

 would answer every purpose. — S. I. 

 Freeborn. 



1. No. 2. With a straight frame 

 holder the speed will be the same top 

 and bottom ; with the other style it will 

 not. — H. D. Cutting. 



1. I could never see any advantage to 

 speak of, though I have used both for 

 years. 2. I don't think that in practice 

 there is special advantage. — A. J. Cook. 



1. Yes, I think this an improvement, 

 as the honey will leave the cells with 

 less motion, and consequently less labor 

 and liability to breakage. — C. H. Dib- 

 bebn. 



1. I should not care a dime which way 

 the extractor was built, if it was strong 

 and durable. 2. Not necessarily. The 

 theory seems to be all right but in prac- 

 tice.— J. H. Larrabee. 



1. No. 2. When a good extractor is 

 running, the centrifugal force is so much 

 greater than that of gravity, that the 

 sloping cells would tend to impede 

 rather than to aid in releasing the 

 honey. — R. L. Taylor. 



1. I think not ; besides it is doubtful 

 if a good reversible extractor could be so 

 made. 2. If the power of gravitation 

 was of any consequence, I do see that 

 we would need a honey extractor. The 

 only force available in extracting honey 

 is centrifugal force. — G. L. Tinker. 



I have seen both the forms of " reels" 

 you mention, and I have seen but little 

 difference in their working, except that 

 the frames will sometimes topple inward 

 when first set into the straight reel. But 

 the straight reel is not affected as much 

 by the difference in the weight of the 

 combs, as the flared reel. Both forms, 

 however, work well under my care. — G. 

 W. Demaree. 



1. No. It is true that the frames 

 will lie in place somewhat better, but 

 this advantage is more than counter- 

 balanced by the fact that the centrifugal 

 force is greater at the top than at the 

 bottom, so that if there is unsealed 

 brood in the frame, it is liable to be 

 thrown out the top before the honey Is 

 extracted from the bottom of the comb. 

 2. The part that gravitation would play 

 would be but trifling. — Jameb A. Gbkxs. 



Have You Bead that wonderful book 

 Premium offer on page 69 ? 



