> The church study says "256" cycles per second for middle C . Are cycles
the
> same as Hertz?

Herz is the 'new' term for cycles per second.  It became the standard unit
sometime in mid-twentieth century AFAIK.

> The "Fletcher Munson" study Allen provided says hearing starts at 500 to
> 1500 Hz.

I searched, but could not find any such statement.  I did find this: "From
about 500Hz to roughly 1,500Hz the line is flat on the 10dB scale", but
this does not mean the same thing at all.  Perhaps you could point us to
the exact spot?

> Which would make the quote by Michelson correct or am I missing
> something?

Well, I'm fairly sure Michelson is correct.  It seems quite clear to me
that 'inaudible' in this case was intended to suggest a low sound
amplitude, and that suggestion was so obvious to the writer, knowing as he
did that 250-300 Hz is centred well within the normal human hearing range,
that he did not see any need to explain further.

Understanding technical material requires an understanding of the topic and
the underlying definitions, as well as the assumptions and the conventions
of the field.  For those outside the field, it is very easy to
misunderstand what is being said, become very convinced of that
misinterpretation, and even cite the authority to be saying something that
was not even imagined by the writer (or speaker).

> "These sounds (250-300Hertz )are produced by the wings of the dancing bee
> and are INAUDIBLE to the HUMAN EAR"( Michelsen 1987).
>
> If 250-300 Hertz is very much within the range of human hearing as Allen
> suggests then  the above quote taken directly from pg. 286 need to be
> changed in the next edition of "The Hive and the Honey Bee".

No, IMO the passage is fine as it stands.

> Is 250-300 Hertz beyond the hearing of humans?

It can be if the amplitude is sufficiently low.

> If Allen is correct then I will contact my friends at Dadant  for a
> correction in the next edition of " The Hive and the Honey Bee".

I'll be interested in their response.

allen