> If anyone is still listening even, 
> I suggest you obtain a piece of 
> natural comb as I have

I remain willing to try my best to contribute whatever hard-won findings
from other fields that might help us to better understand what we see in
beehives, even if I am compared unfavorably to Ruth Rosin as a reward for my
effort.

> You can see the comb being extended 
> along the edge by the addition of planes 
> at the correct angle, not concave bowls. 

As explained before, the deformation happens as the comb is constructed, as
the surface tension increases to deform the cell "bowl" precisely as the
cell "bowl" is created, so one never sees the "bowl" stage.  About the only
real-world human-scale examples I can offer are:

DOME TENTS
The assembly of a dome tent that uses the long poles that run from one
bottom edge, over the peak of the tent, and down to another bottom edge
seems a magical thing, as one goes from a "sail", flapping in the wind and
rain, to a fully-formed tent once one gets the two crossing tension poles
into place.  The third tent pole is a nice-to-have, but utterly optional
addition from a purely structural standpoint.  All it does is make the tent
that much roomier.  I have never assembled a tent in good weather, so I have
firsthand experience.  

GASSES IN LIQUID
As in the aforementioned "Hippo Farts" example, where the perfect sphere
forms all by itself, without any help from the hippo producing the gas in
the water.

I also quoted Darwin, who gave the bees a very thick hunk of wax as a repair
patch between two existing drawn sections of comb, and saw the bees excavate
the exact concave depressions that Peter continues to claim do not exist.
Anyone who wants could do the same, providing the bees with "very thick
foundation", and letting them chew away at it, first to make concave
depressions, and then, when they chew away enough, to make cells "as we know
them".

> The fluid wax theory is a pleasant but unnecessary fantasy

"Fluid wax theory", is a misleading label with two errors.  There's no
"fluid", and no "theory".  There is only wax, and it is not a fluid in this
context.

"Fluid" is a technical term to describe something that can flow over time.
For example, pitch at room temperature seems solid, but is a fluid, even at
room temperature.  

http://smp.uq.edu.au/content/pitch-drop-experiment
or
http://tinyurl.com/87c8ldr

and, exciting recent news about the pitch drop:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/the-pitch-drops-science-experiment
-going-for-69-years-caught-on-film-for-first-time-8720320.html
or
http://tinyurl.com/mjxhags

But wax is not a fluid, and need not be a fluid for the effects of surface
tension to deform it into the Toth-like structures with which bees are
familiar.
 
"Theory" is also a massive misnomer, as we encounter here something rare,
something that has been elevated to an actual LAW, with formal mathematical
proof.  "Plateau's Laws" are one of a very small number of things that have
earned the designation "Law", so even those who might wish to mislead about
the meaning of "theory" cannot do so here.

What we have here nothing more than a common application of one of the most
basic forces of Nature, one that I think I have explained sufficiently, and
provided links to those who wish to learn more.  

The actual fantasy is a romantic and anthropomorphic one about bees who just
HAPPEN to build structures that are identical to those that appear through
the application of surface tension, Plateau's Laws, and the well-understood
universal natural forces that require nothing more than FLEXIBLE surfaces. 

Anyway, there's no place like comb.

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html