> But I've already done it using clean large cell comb, small cell comb and 
> natural comb. Worker cell size ranged from about 4.6mm to 5.4mm. Natural 
> comb had the full range of sizes. See:
>
> http://bwrangler.farvista.net/sunr.htm
>
> The results have been reported here. I think, such a test would only 
> benefit a few individuals, if any. Most would need to do it and should 
> 'prove' it for themselves.

As Bob said, for scientific recognition, results need to be replicated, and 
more than once, and by unrelated parties without an agenda, before they can 
be assumed to apply, especially universally.  Those of us who have worked in 
lab are acutely aware of how many ways an experiment can give misleading 
results, often several times in a row, if some apparently insignificant 
factor is assumed--or neglected.

Moreover, in regard your claims, I am not at all convinced of several 
things.  One is that you designed and carried out experiments which 
adequately isolated and tested specific claims and assumptions, and the 
second is that, although my memory is far from perfect, it seems to me that, 
at various times, your websites claimed various things that seem to me to 
have changed periodically, and now appear to me to have been altered in 
hindsight, or deleted.  I'd have to look up and study the various iterations 
of your site that I have archived over the years and compare to put my 
finger on where these discontinuities appear.  Maybe you could restore old 
periodic backups to a folder somewhere on your site so that people could 
examine your progress?

> I think there's one factor that most beekeepers, here, just don't 
> understand. And that's the different focus those who have experienced the 
> successes of small cell have, versus the focus of those who are still 
> struggling with mites and the effects of treatments...

We examine all claims and all evidence that is presented, and what we do 
notice is, and makes us cautious is 1.) attitude, and 2.)reluctance or 
downright refusal to provide or subject claims to scientific proof.  This is 
university-sponsored list, and although a wide range of hypothetical and 
speculative discussion is not out of order, the list owes some fealty to 
truth, and the need for valid proof.  Anything lacking proof, and adequate, 
tested proof, is an hypothesis and is rightly treated by members, or should 
be treated, as such.

In regard cell size, bee strains, management techniques, devices of several 
sorts, and chemicals of various toxicities, people are trying many 
permutations and combinations with various degrees of control and rigour, 
and reporting various levels of success.  It seems that there are successes 
and failures in virtually every group.

FWIW, I personally never lost a managed colony to varroa  and I treated 
*very* minimally.  My combs were a hodge-podge of whatever I bought 
second-hand plus newly drawn comb on various commercial foundations on the 
market.  I did, however, lose one test colony on natural comb. One out of 
one = 100% loss.

One thing, Dennis, I'd like you to clarify in a sentence or two, if you 
would be so kind, is how you consider yourself to be a "small cell" 
beekeeper, assuming you do, since your bees build natural comb (which I 
approve of by the way), and the cell sizes vary all over the map of known 
sizes?  Or did I get this wrong? 

-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and  other info ---