360 



THE BINGHAM 



Gleanings in Bee Culture 



\psiW ©®[p[p®g[p®m](i]®m© 



AND JONES 

 PARED. 



the 



A Wide or Narrow Bevel — Which? 



BY R. F. HOLTERMANN. 



FIG. I 

 BINGHAM 



We have seven or eight honey -knives 

 from which to select (hiring the extracting 

 season, and there are two old knives of the 

 b. A. Jones ]uittern that are general favorites 

 with all our expert uncapi)ers. These knives 

 are always the first to be selected for use by 

 those wlio know their business. 



Fig. 1 shows the Bingham knife, and Fig. 

 2 the old .Tones knife. The sectional views 

 ^ive all the differences there are in the con- 

 struction of the two knives. Jiy comparing 

 Fig. 1 with Fig. '2 it will be seen that the 

 contact surface of the .Jones knife is broader 

 than that of the JMng- 

 ham, and also that the 

 bevel is carried only a 

 short distance on the 

 comb, or from A to V> in 

 Fig. ;5. In Fig. 2 it is 

 carried all the way to the 

 middle of the knife- 

 that is, from C to D. 



In theory there should 

 be less friction when cut- 

 ting with the Bingham 

 knife, as the surface of 

 contact is less; but the 

 angle at which the knife 

 is held in cutting ismore 

 difficult to maintain 

 than with the old Jones 

 knife. It is practically 

 impossible to estimate 

 the correct angle when 

 cutting with the edge A, 

 in Fig. 3. When the 

 correct angle is not main- 

 tained, the knife will 

 either be pressing into 

 the comb at the heel B 

 or the knife will be held 

 at such an angle that 

 the dei)th of capping will be increased. 

 Either is objectionable; but in the former 

 case the resistance will be much more in- 

 creased because the heel B will be digging 

 into the comb and flattening the cell walls. 



In Fig. 4 there is much more to guide the 

 knife when cutting, and therefore it is less 

 difficult to kee]i the knife in a proper i)Osi- 

 tion for cutting. Of course we know that, 

 where honey is acting as a lubricant, friction 

 will play no im])ortant part; but to have the 

 knife atjwint B jjiess into the comb increases 

 the force recjuired to unca]), to some extent. 

 This is an argument in favor of the Jones 

 knife. 



The strongest ]iroof of all, however, is that 

 I have found so many uncappers who, by 

 practical experience, have fountl the old 



KNIVES COM- Jones knife to do its work better than 

 more modern Bingham. 



Another desirable feature in any honey- 

 knife is that, when laid flat down on a 

 straight surface, the shank and point shall 

 not touch the surface. The blade, in other 

 words, should be on a general cur\e instead 

 of being straight. 



Brantford, ()nt., Can. 



[Mr. Holtermann i)resents some pretty 

 strong arguments in favor of the wide-bev- 

 eled knife as shown in the cross-section, 

 Figs. 2 and 4. Doubtless some of our readers 

 have used both kinds of knives. In order 

 to get at the truth of the matter, we should 

 like to receive an expression from every one 

 who has tried them side by sitle. Several of 

 our Canadian correspondents have already 

 told us that the Jones model was better than 



FIG. 2. 

 JONES 



-C 



FJG.A'. 



the regular standard Bingham; and it would 

 seem reasonable to sui)i)ose that the wide 

 bevel would make more even work in un- 

 capping. In the hands of an exjiert, possi- 

 bly one would do as good work with the 

 Bingham model as with the Jones blade; 

 but we are sure of this: That with the ordi- 

 nary Bingliam knife the average ftfY///<//er, 

 at least, gouges in and out of the comb in a 

 way that entails considerable work on the 

 part of the bees in reconstructing the comb, 

 and at the same time throws an unnecessary 

 amount of honey and wax into the uncap- 

 inng-can or the capping-melter as the case 

 may be. 



This is an exceedingly i)racticable subject 

 for discussion, and we ho|)e our readers will 

 talk. The manufacturers will be willing, of 



