BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Robert Mann <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 30 Nov 2000 13:19:08 +1300
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (56 lines)
>At 05:04 PM 11/28/00 -0000, Jerry B wrote:
> it isn't as simple as it sounds

...

> We had a 27 mg chip that worked on a bee, but it was too heavy and fat
>for a worker to carry and would have been knocked off a queen.  We know of
>a less than 10 mg chip that will work.

        Many will recognise the first number as a typical worker payload;
around 1/1000th of an ounce, for all us nostalgic Imperial types (mainly
Yanks these days  -  we Kiwis were forced to go metric 3 decades ago).
Taking it down to one-third of that burden does not necessarily make it a
negligible load.


>  But then you have to redesign the
>signal receiver.  And the chips cost more than the queen.
>
>4.  The antennae is still the killer obstacle (we have a way to fix this,
>but the initial tooling up will cost a bundle).

        How many?  Strung out along which body parts?


>5.  The receiver has to penetrate some distance, and hives have metal
>parts, etc. so the signal bounces around.  So, you can't buy the receiver
>(hand-held wand, off the shelf).
>
>6.  All of this is doable, but the startup costs are still prohibitive.

>7.  We do know how to do this and have working prototypes - it is making
>the transition to a commercial, affordable product that is the problem.
>Only a few hobbiest and researchers would ever buy a system where the
>receiver cost several thousand dollars and each chip costs more than a
>queen.  You need a cheap receiver, and an inexpensive miniature chip.

        I'm afraid I'll predictably chime in with some Precautionary
Principle stuff.
What flux of RF is needed?  What studies have been done on the biological
effects of that  -  on the bees, and on us?  The fear of cell-phones is not
entirely unreasonable.  Electromagnetic radiation does not have to be of
ionizing wavelengths, or to heat the absorbing tissue, for it to cause harm.

        I am impressed with the technical accomplishments of Jerry & team,
but I would deprecate the whole plurry project.  Is the need so great?


R

-
Robt Mann
consultant ecologist
P O Box 28878   Remuera, Auckland 1005, New Zealand
                (9) 524 2949

ATOM RSS1 RSS2