Talk:Beeswax

message: Look in  Beesource.com  It contains more info than you want to know.
Shoefly 02:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Filtering beaswax 

message: Removed this source from the article because it doesn't seem to reference anything. Dumping it here: 
Source: Characterization of Fine Particle Emissions from Burning Church Candles Environmental Science Technology, 33 (14), 2352-2362, 1999 Web Release Date: June 4, 1999
--Rifleman 82 01:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed source

message: Who stole from who:  The source seems to read identically in key passages. Both articles have information unique to themselves, so I can't tell which came first. 131.96.47.17 (talk) 19:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible copyright violation

message: I removed "The empirical formula for beeswax is C15H51COOC30H61" because, first, it is not an empirical formula at all, and second, it gives the false impression that the wax is a pure compound and not a mixture of several. --24.34.222.177 (talk) 18:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes but it is just being used as a "simple expression" of the atoms etc. This was a referenced piece of information you removed. Tell me please. How do the bees "mix" their wax? You do understand where BEES wax comes from don't you? I'm reverting your edit.--Sting Buzz Me... 00:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formula 

message: What is wax made by non-Apis bees called? --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 20:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Beeswax isn't it 213.94.179.251 (talk) 15:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-Apis wax 

message: The article seems to indicate that the honey is transformed into wax, in the same way nectar was transformed into honey. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say the bees consume honey to fuel their metabolic processes, which include the synthesization of fatty acids and alcohols? In other words, we don't say a cow "turns grass into milk" or we "turn meat into hair."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 (talk) 00:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Honey to wax 

message: Everyone cites the Whitcomb 1946 experiment for the 6.66 to 8.80 pound number.  This has produced numerous misconceptions, including many people claiming it takes 8 pounds of honey to draw a comb, or that it takes 8 pounds of honey to make the comb for 1 pound of honey, i.e., that you'll get 9 times as much honey if you reuse comb.
I've tried to clear up the simple misinterpretations by citing how much wax the bees use to store honey.  Unfortunately, some sources cite 22 pounds of honey in 1 pound of wax; some sources cite 50g of beeswax left after extracting 5kg of honey; and some sources cite 100g of wax can hold up to 4kg of honey.  These range from a wax-to-honey ratio of 22:1 to 4000:1.  I have used the conservative number which, even assuming the 8 pound number, suggests a cost of 0.36 pounds of honey to store 1 pound of honey.
Crowder's experiment deployed five top bar hives and five Langstroth hives, crushing the comb from the top bar hives and reusing the Langstroth combs.  The top bar hive produced 80% as much honey, but 600% as much wax, suggesting a ratio of 30:1.  Crowder has elsewhere cited 75%-80% ("20%-25% less"), so I specified 24-30.  At 30:1 and 22:1, this means each comb contains the same amount of honey as is used to produce 660 empty combs.  Bees do build comb much faster than they can fill it with nectar and honey; I suspect they also gain material and energy from pollen (protein), but that is irrelevant to the discussion, plus conjecture.
Without an actual explanation of Whitcomb's experiment anywhere and no primary source asserting this, I refuse to accept it as valid citation.  I have asked Crowder for an explanation of his method posted in a public place (Web site, mailing list, book).  I don't know what to do with Whitcomb's experiment, since it's continuously cited wrong and the primary source is inaccessible.  I can at least show Crowder directly stating his honey and wax production, and a secondary account of Crowder's method; this is only slightly better, and I am trying to get a primary source.  --John Moser (talk) 00:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe this book may be the original source.  It's un-cited on the blog I linked to.  I will acquire the book and see what it actually says. --John Moser (talk) 00:56, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

text: It was in the book.  Source updated. --John Moser (talk) 02:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whitcomb experiment requires citation 

message: Problem with Reference 17: edit? remove?
Beeswax article section 4: Uses
Last paragraph, Line 7, which reads:
Pure beeswax can also be used as a "surfboard wax" (17).
Selecting "surfboard wax" opens a small info box overlying this paragraph
with information about surfboard wax.
In section 7: References, Item 17:
"Raw beeswax uses" MoreNature
"Raw beeswax uses" is an active link to a COMMERCIAL WEBSITE: MoreNature.com
The morenature.com website is aggressively selling so-called "natural" beeswax.
There are numerous pop-up style ad boxes centered on this page, and except for
the last section, every paragraph recommends purchasing their products, in bold.
At the very bottom of this commercial webpage, they have very thoughtfully added 
information on surfboard wax, suggesting 3:1 beeswax to coconut oil +/- resin.
I don't believe there is any place on wikipedia, including/especially within the
references, where the sources supporting wikipedia's information are listed,
for self-interest of any kind, let alone trying to create salea.
I haven't made any edits as definitive as removing a listed reference yet,
so I've written this here to find outif/ how to proceed ... ?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeacefulPlanet3 (talk • contribs) 04:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference 17 is a commercial link 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Beeswax. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131019120321/http://www.webmd.com/vitamins_supplements to http://www.webmd.com/vitamins_supplements
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Beeswax. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110713020710/http://faostat.fao.org/site/339/default.aspx to http://faostat.fao.org/site/339/default.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110713020710/http://faostat.fao.org/site/339/default.aspx to http://faostat.fao.org/site/339/default.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:54, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Beeswax. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140729214736/http://www.beesfordevelopment.org/what-we-do/information-and-education/info/file/1327 to http://www.beesfordevelopment.org/what-we-do/information-and-education/info/file/1327
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070808184841/http://www.egyptologyonline.com/mummy_portraits.htm to http://www.egyptologyonline.com/mummy_portraits.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110713020710/http://faostat.fao.org/site/339/default.aspx to http://faostat.fao.org/site/339/default.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In  we read, inter alia:
Density at 15 °C is 958 to 970 kg/m³. … The specific gravity at 15 °C (59 °F) is from 0.958 to 0.975, …
These statements disagree slightly with each other about the upper limit.  Since we normally use the comparative measure, specific gravity, for physical materials, I'm going to delete the first statement, and wikilink specific gravity.  If anybody has an authoritative source for the actual measurements, please add a cite.
yoyo (talk) 02:32, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictory information 

message: says: "If beeswax is heated above 85 °C (185 °F) discoloration occurs." not clear what kind of discoloration is meant here. also the nearest source cited in No.7.:Material Safety Data Sheet-Beeswax is not dealing with this. also i just heated beeswax in a container submerged in boiling water (100 celsius) and no unusual color appeared. however: beeswax as freshly produced by bees is white, yet after melting it out from the debris of a hive (honey, dead bees, shedded skin from pupa, propolis, pollen) the wax takes on a light yellow color, as somewhere in WP said from the pollen. the rest of the debris is dark brown. i also suspect the brownish color of propolis (itself mostly tree sap) contributing to the yellow hue of the end product. but this discoloration doesnt seem to be dependent on the above mentioned 85 celsius temperature. so my suggestion is to remove the ominous sentence unless a source can be found. or else tag it with "citation needed". anyway it is not a very disturbing misrepresentation of facts, probably just a poorly worded sentence. 89.134.199.32 (talk) 20:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because the water which you submerged the container containing beeswax into was 100 degrees Celsius does not mean that the beeswax itself reached that temperature. it very likely, if not almost certainly, did not. I'll give you that that claim should be cited, though Firejuggler86 (talk) 20:38, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  section - Physical characteristics 

message: A hatnote was added to the bottom of the production section in April, saying that the wording of the section is unclear/confusing for readers. I am not entirely certain what they mean by their questions, nor how the article text could be worded any more clearly than it is. "when do you mean a bee must eat [this much] honey to make [this much] wax? when do you mean it takes [this much] wax to make [this much] honey, or what?" It seems fairly obvious to me that the wax produced by bees is not the very same wax that used to make to make the honey that they consumed in order to make it! it rather sounds like a chicken-and-egg type confusion. It takes a chicken to make an egg, and it takes an egg to make a chicken. likewise, it takes honey to make beeswax and it takes beeswax to make honey. I think this is fairly obvious to the vast majority of readers, and it would be superfluous to state the obvious in such a way.. Firejuggler86 (talk) 21:27, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing hatnote from (bottom of) Production section