Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: MtnClimber
Seems like it is the most compact geometry for cells of storage.

With shared walls between cells, why not just use squares? Less material, less calculation.

5 posted on 04/28/2016 6:27:05 PM PDT by Talisker (One who commands, must obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]


To: Talisker
With shared walls between cells, why not just use squares? Less material, less calculation.

Hexagons resist crushing much better than squares.

7 posted on 04/28/2016 6:30:54 PM PDT by GingisK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: Talisker

Racking and shear forces are greater in squares. Further, the corners do not facilitate even evaporation of the nectar they way that the more rounded hexagonal cells do. Lastly, the queen gauges fertilzation of eggs by the size of the cell as it fits her distended abdoment. Also, corners are wasted space in the development of essentially cylindrical larvae.


8 posted on 04/28/2016 6:32:36 PM PDT by WorkingClassFilth (Go Ted!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: Talisker; MtnClimber
With shared walls between cells, why not just use squares? Less material, less calculation.

Answered my own question.

From article: "...hexagonal cells require the least total length of wall, compared with triangles or squares of the same area. So it makes sense that bees would choose hexagons, since making wax costs them energy, and they will want to use up as little as possible—just as builders might want to save on the cost of bricks."

10 posted on 04/28/2016 6:33:30 PM PDT by Talisker (One who commands, must obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: Talisker

Squares use more material per volume stored.

Hexagons use the least material per volume stored in cells that have common walls. Triangles are even less efficient than squares.


14 posted on 04/28/2016 6:36:23 PM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: Talisker

Less stress by weight on top. Downward force gets distributed is my guess.


15 posted on 04/28/2016 6:37:26 PM PDT by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: Talisker
"With shared walls between cells, why not just use squares? "

It seems to me that squares (rectangles) would require offset rows for strength (like bricks). Hexes are offset anyway and they're closer to cylinders.

16 posted on 04/28/2016 6:37:36 PM PDT by Da Bilge Troll (Defeatism is not a winning strategy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: Talisker

I believe for the same volume of storage and material in the walls a hexagonal structure is stronger than one based on squares.


33 posted on 04/28/2016 7:18:45 PM PDT by ThunderSleeps (Stop obarma now! Stop the hussein - insane agenda!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: Talisker

less calculation, yes. Less material, no.

With 19 walls, 10 ft. each, you can enclose an area of 1039.23 square feet in 4 hexagonal rooms.

Now, that same 1039.23 square feet in a square pattern is 32.24 feet on a side. To get 4 rooms you need 12 walls of 16.12 feet each. 12 x 16.12 = 193.42 feet of wall.

With hexagons you need only 190 feet of wall.


39 posted on 04/28/2016 7:29:13 PM PDT by scrabblehack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: Talisker
why not just use squares? Less material

Squares would need more material. The compartment inside is a circle. And with the extra weight in the corners they'd need to reinforce everything a lot more.

43 posted on 04/28/2016 8:17:33 PM PDT by Buttons12 ( It Can't Happen Here -- Sinclair Lewis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: Talisker

I suspect that hexagons are naturally more stiff than squares - although I do not understand the math well enough to prove it.


61 posted on 04/29/2016 6:41:40 AM PDT by MortMan (Let's call the push for amnesty what it is: Pedrophilia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson