Hi all
I don't think the effects of smoke on bees can be duplicated by the smell of smoke. I think there are chemicals in smoke that produce the observed effects. Unfortunately, a lot of these chemicals are nasty:

> The constituents of wood smoke typically include carbon monoxide, nitrous oxides, respirable suspended particulates, polyaromatic hydrocarbons and formaldehyde.

Hence, it would be great if we could come up with some substitute for smoke. Ultrasonic vibrations have been tried, and many other things, like misting syrup laced with peppermint oil.

The fact is, the bee smoke is a really great invention. When properly lit, it can deliver carefully metered puffs of smoke, a steady stream, or clouds of smoke, -- as needed. Many devices can't give this range of response; for many it's all or nothing. 

A viable smoker substitute would deliver a non-toxic aromatic with an effect equal to or better than smoke, and be controllable to the extent that a bee smoker is. Patents have been issued for such devices, but I guess they never caught on.

PLB

             ***********************************************
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