#translated from the enlarged and revised german edition

[tristealven]

I’m tired, can’t think of a thing, and my sole wish is to lay my head in your lap, feel your hand on my head, and stay that way through all eternity—

Franz Kafka, Letters to Milena; translated by Philip Boehm (Schocken Books, 1990)

[asfaltics]

subfluence merged in an ornamental lake

  but these very subfluences       1 subfluence over boundaries or lands       2 subfluence which natural causes have on the limity of the reflection       3 subfluence, recording occurrences       4 subfluence over ennui. I had not the       5   subfluence. What do we do? What does the       6 subfluence, discoverable or unexplained       7 subfluence, at nights       8 subfluence in production or waste, used freely       9 subfluence literally incalculable, the principle on which       10   the heart-beat is subfluence.       11 subfluence diffused       12 subfluence full of romance       13 lies, and other caustic or irritant subfluence       14 subfluence, the signaling, the adjustment of huge mechanisms       15   subfluence merged in an ornamental lake       16 subfluences subdued       17 his special subfluence, for he was an omnivorous reader, and had a picturesque and even romantic outlook on       18 subfluence, with the colors still       19 subfluence the entire cotton trade       20   subfluence spread far and wide.       21 subfluence, the possibility of human flight       22 subfluence for lack of language : error       23 Subfluenz-Prozesse       24 Subfluenz, einer varistischen       25  

sources (most, and mostly OCR misreads)

1 OCR misread for “substances,” at “Of points wherein we and Papists differ, viz., Transubstantiation, &c.,” in John Rawlet (1642-86 *), A dialogue betwixt two Protestants, in answer to a Popish Catechism (Third edition, corrected; London, 1686) : 82 2 ex “A sketch of the life and public services of Gen. William Henry Harrison.” in (Isaac Rand Jackson?), General William Henry Harrison, Candidate of the People for President of the United States (Baltimore, 1840) : 6 Harrison (1773-1841) would have a short (31-day) tenure as president, but had done enough damage in previous roles, particularly with regard to indigenous people. see wikipedia 3 ex “Scripture and Geology” (by N), in The Mirror of Literature, Amusement, and Instruction (Saturday, August 14, 1841) : 99-103 (100) see wikipedia for its publisher John Limbird (1796?-1883) 4 ex “Druids and Bards,” being an extensive notice/review of three books — J. B. Pratt The Druids Illustrated (1861), John Williams, ed., Brut y Tywysogion (1860), and Godfrey Higgins, The Celtic Druids (1829), in The Edinburgh Review, 118 (American Edition; July 1863) : 20-36 (35) 5 ex “A Rolling Stone.” By George Sand, translated from the French by Carroll Owen, in Library of Famous Fiction 2 (1879) : 1-113 (109) 6 OCR cross-colum misread, involving M. H. Cobb, “Common Sense Applied to Living” (pp 5-7) and “A Parlor Drama, in Two Acts” by Augusta De Bubna (pp 7-13), in The Brooklyn New Monthly Magazine, Henry Morford (1823-81), editor and manager; 1:1 (January 1880) : 7 7 ex A. Ernest Sansom, “The Dyspepsia of Infancy,” in The New York Medical Times 19:2 (May 1891) : 33-37 (34) 8 involving obituaries (memorials) for James Holmes and David Wright, in the section “Connexional Biography” in The Primitive Methodist Magazine 73 - London, 1892) : 51 on “Connexionalism” (and its relation to “network”), this, from wikpedia — “The United Methodist Church defines connection as the principle that ‘all leaders and congregations are connected in a network of loyalties and commitments that support, yet supersede, local concerns.’ Accordingly, the primary decision-making bodies in Methodism are conferences, which serve to gather together representatives of various levels of church hierarchy.” 9 ex “Brief Gleanings : The treatment of Leanness and Obesity” in The Medical Brief (A Monthly Journal of Scientific Medicine; J.J. Lawrence, Proprietor) 20:10 (St. Louis, Mo; October 1892) : 1240 10 ex W. Garden Blaikie, “St. Paul’s Pastoral Counsels to the Corinthians.�� in Exegetical and Expository Section, The Homiletic Review 29:5 (May 1895) : 451-453 11 Aloysius O. J. Kelly, “Essential Paroxysmal Tachycardia — Report of Four Cases.” (Read October 14, 1896), in Proceedings of the Philadelphia County Medical Society 17 (Session of 1896) : 166-180 (171) Kelly (1870-1911) obituary at Boston Medical and Surgical Journal (now NEJM) March 9, 2011) : 360 12 out of chronology (and unlinkable snippet, only), mea culpa, ex The Evangelical Magazine and Missionary Chronicle 21 (1813) : 328 13 snippet only, evidently from Chapter 9 “Signs and Tokens” of Charles Dickens, Bleak House (1852-53), here ex Works Volume 3 (1899) : 374 14 misread involving “Milk a Universal Antidote” and “School-Meals for Underfed Children” in The Dietetic and Hygienic Gazette (A monthly journal of physiological medicine) 16:1 (January 1900) : 20 15 ex Edward Nelson, “Electricity in Service on British Battleships,” in Electricity 29:23 (December 6, 1905) : 311-313 16 preview snippet only, at (Commonwealth of Australia) Parliamentary Debates 57 (1910) : 3207 17 ex index of volume, Proceedings of the American Society for Psychical Research (Section “B” of the American Institute for Scientific Research) vol. 5 (New York, 1911) : 771 18 ex entry (by “C. L. G.”) for Meredith White Townsend (1831-1911), in Dictionary of National Biography, edited by Sidney Lee. Second Supplement vol. 3, Neil – Young (New York, 1912) : 532 19 preview snippet only, ex The American Year Book 5 (1915) : 300 20 § 816. Corners... in William Herbert Page, The Law of Contracts Second edition; revised, rewritten and enlarged with forms. Volume 2. (Cincinnati, 1920) : 1441 21 ex “Balboa Day, September 17th, 1919 in Honolulu,” in Bulletin of the Pan-Pacific Union (January 1920) : 6 22 misread, involving report on “The Langley Flying Machine” (and some controversy between S. P. Langley and the Wright brothers), and “The Impurity of Pure Substances” (review of A. Smits, Theorie der Allotropie (1921)) in Nature 108 (November 3, 1921) : 298 23 misread, involving Booth et al v. Floyd (No 2358) and Blackstone v. Nelson, Warden (No 2457) in The Southeastern Reporter 108 (August 27 - December 3, 1921) : 114 24 H. J. Behr, “Subfluenz-Prozesse im Grundgebirgs-Stockwerk Mitteleuropas.” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Geologischen Gesellschaft 129 (1978) : 283-318 25 K. Weber, “Das Bewegungsbild im Rhenoherzynikum Abbild einer varistischen Subfluenz.” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Geologischen Gesellschaft 129 (1978) : 249-281 referring to the Variscan Orogeny (wikipedia)  

method

1

There is no word “subfluence,” or only barely one. This started with the self-written biographical note of poet Jack Hirschman, in A Caterpillar Anthology (Clayton Eshleman, ed., 1971) —

“They are lyrical poems, in verse or free-form, as distinguished from the poems in this anthology, which are breath forms reflecting a more total slavery to the conditions of the spirit’s war-torn years. The major influences on my works are influence itself, in as many levels of order, disorder, disaster, paranoia, joy and ecstasy as the deathless magic of being alive permits a vessel now of fire, now of air, to spark, glow, flame and ember according to the law of nature.”

“Influence” — that word — led to thinking about variations, e.g., effluence, outfluence, pre-fluence... “subfluence” — an underground stream a less-than fluency (stammering, stuttering) a brittleness?

Little — or nothing — surfaced in a google books search, save for errors — typically a “sub” at the end of one line, a “fluence” at the start of the next (in a different column). Quite enough for present purposes. And so these subfluence derivations are built around a word that isn’t quite a word. Some license has been taken with the text in this post: dispensing ellipsis or [brackets] where text is erased (or rather, dropped); in some instances, some words that preceded the subfluence, are moved to follow it.

2

And yet, the word does appear, in some (and only a few) geological texts, typically having to do with the geotectonic unterströmungshypothese (undercurrent) concepts — and field work done in the Northern Calcareous Alps — of and by Otto Ampferer (1875-1947). More on Ampferer to come. For now, these references —

Wolf-Christian Dullo and Fritz A. Pfaffle, “The theory of undercurrent from the Austrian alpine geologist Otto Ampferer (1875-1947) : first conceptual ideas on the way to plate tectonics,” Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 56 (2019) : 1095-11 here

Karl Krainer und Christoph Hauser, “Otto Ampferer (1875–1947): Pioneer in Geology, Mountain Climber, Collector and Draftsman,” in: Geo.Alp Sonderband 1 (2007) : 91–100 here (pdf)

wikipedia (in German)

Dr. Otto Ampferer. “Über das Bewegungsbild von Faltengebirgen” (On the movement pattern of folded mountains), in Jahr. Geol. Reichsanstalt (Yearbook of the Austrian Geological Survey), 56:3-4 (1906) : 539-622 “Mit 42 Zinkotypien im Text” here

3

“Subfluence” also surfaces as a company name, social media handle, &c., &c.

—

all tagged subfluence  

[resistantbees]

evidence that the bee cells were smaller in the past, denial of history (Erik Österlund)

from Erik Österlund ->  more evidences that the cell size of bee comb has been artificially enlarged It appears now and then articles in especially the German language stating that the enlarging of cellsize historically never have occurred, but instead what’s happened is going back to normal larger cellsize. And those decreasing cellsize is doing something unnatural. How come? In the English language there are many sources from the 19th and 20th century leaving no doubt an enlarging have taken place. Wildman, Cowan, Root, Cheshire, Bee World in the 1930th, etc. The icon Enoch Zander One of the old German icons in beekeeping is Enoch Zander (1873-1957). His book “Die Zucht Der Biene” was first published in 1920.  After his death new editions changed name to “Haltung und Zucht der Biene” because they were revised by Friedrich K Böttcher. It was published in its 12th edition in 1989. The book is a classic beekeeping book in Germany. The picture shows a part of page 236 from the 5th edition from 1941. Click on the picture and enlarge it so you can read it easier. (If you can read German with these old letters.) To go back to this page click on the return button in your browser in the upper left corner. One passage here says translated into English: “The whole question has recently been cleared somewhat by Hofmann (1937). He found that natural comb and the first foundation molds by Mehring had 748-750 cells/dm2 . Around 1860, Graberg from Switzerland , for strange reasons, produced molds with 835 cells , there were even some with 1120 cells/dm2 . So today’s production of large cells is indeed no enlargement, but a reversion back to the natural.” My calculations to mm translations are made with the formula X=100÷√(A÷2.315) where X=cellsize in mm and A=cells/dm2. Backcheck the formula with A=23150÷X2 Earlier in the book there are some figures which contradict this statement. Cellsize figures given by a couple of Russian beekeepers, Tuenin and Bogdanov. In the 12th edition from 1989 they say that Tuenin in Tula (120 km south of Moscow) had measured cellsizes ranging between 4.99 mm and 5.26 mm. Bogdanov had in Leningrad measured 5.53 mm to 5.69 mm. (I’m not sure if these cellsizes are from comb with or without foundation. And if without if it’s from a colony whose bees are born in a colony with foundation of large cells. If for example the Leningrad figures come from a swarm from a colony on cellsize 5.4-5.7 it may well draw the given cellsizes the first time they are doing it without wax foundatin. Next generation will draw even smaller if given the chance.) The contradiction between these figures and the conclusion is even more clear if you also have the 5th edition to compare with. In this edition the Tuenin figures from Tula is given to be 4.74 mm to 5.00 mm. The revision in the 12th edition made the contradiction milder changing the figures a little (couldn’t do much harm could it?). The influence of the classic book The majority of  beekeepers in Germany I think still read this book and of course trust the authority. The icon can’t be wrong, can he? I think this book is a big reason why this opinion keep coming up that it’s never been an enlarging of the cellsize. Tobias Stever is a beekeeper that has covered the cellsize on his website with an article. His conclusion is that no enlargement has been done and therefore the regression down in size today is not natural.  http://www.bienenarchiv.de/veroeffentlichungen/2003_zellengroesse/zellengroesse.htm Historical measurements This conclusion of Stever is contradicted by his own list of historical measurements of cellsizes. When you read his article and other articles on cellsizes it’s hard to find insight that different sizes in the hive mostly are used differently by the bees. And that the different sizes are often found in certain places on the comb and in the hive. The cellsizes in a hive T W Cowan (1890) in a book mentions that larger cells normally are found at the edges of the wax combs and smaller at the center. Today if you study a topbar hive (TBH) which has deep combs enough, you will see that largest worker cells are generally found at the top and furthest away from the entrance. That’s mainly where honey is stored and not where brood is reared. If such a hive is not started with large cell bees you will probably find 5.1 and smaller cell sizes closer to the bottom and the entrance. A topbar comb with Dennis Murrel in Montana. Smallest cellsizes at the bottom close to the entrance. Biggest away from the entrance and at the top. Samples for measurement So with all these measurements, where are the samples taken that are measured? And how many are they? Is the whole of the hive covered when samples are taken? Have the bees built the combs without the help of wax foundation? Is it a swarm from a large cell colony or is it a colony that has lived for some generations on combs built and rebuilt by themselves? In some cases you are given the smallest and the largest cellsizes found, so there you know that more than one sample is taken, but also you rarely are presented with the number of samples taken and from where in the hive. The conclusion is that you have to read the original books and articles where the figures are presented to see if you can find out how accurate the measurements are concerning how natural the cellsizes of these bees are. Cowan One good book in this respect is ”The Honey Bee-Its Natural History, Anatomy and Physiology”, Houlston & Sons (1890), T W Cowan, pages 179-181. The book can be read online here: http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=wu.89094199411;view=1up;seq=10 Some literature Thomas Wildman in England in his “A Treatise on the Management of Bees” (1770) gives 4.6 mm to 5.1 mm cellsize. T W Cowan in England in his ”The Honey Bee-Its Natural History, Anatomy and Physiology” (1890) gives 4.72 to 5.36 mm , page 181). Cowan also gave the average to be 1/5 of an inch ≈ 5.08 mm. That’s an easy figure – 5 cells to the inch (a common way of naming this size of wax foundation was 900 cells/dm2, which once was how wax foundation also was called, by how many cells/dm2 they gave).  A I Root in USA adopted 5 cells to the inch for the first commercial wax foundation milling rollers in 1876. Enlarging Usmar Baudoux from Belgium in the late 19th century propagated for enlarging bees to get longer tongues in the bees and bigger honey crops. He thought 700 cells/dm2 was a good size (5.74 mm cellsize). He published a number of articles in the magazine Bee World in 1933-34 on the subject.  H Gontarski published in 1935 his work on using large cellsize. He came to the conclusion that 5.8  mm cellsize was the upper limit. Bigger cellsize and the bee colony couldn’t grow in strength. Here we are talking about cellsizes for the brood. An illustration in Bee World January 1934 by Baudoux showing the differenses of the sizes of worker bees born in different cellsizes. The biggest bee (no 1) born in 6.0 mm cell. The smallest (no 9) born in 4.7 mm. All but Frank Cheshire in England worked for larger bees, he said in his classic book (two volumes) defending 5 cells to the inch. “Bees & bee-keeping : scientific and practical”, L Upcot Gill (1886-1888), Frank R. Cheshire, part 1, p 176, part 2, pages 315-318. It can be read online through this link: http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/005782980 Some text examples from the book of Frank Cheshire. What happened then? The understanding why there was a difference in cellsizes even on the same comb seemed to be lacking. Different cellsizes are most often used for different purposes, brood in smallest, honey in the biggest. New foundation was most often given to bees in the honey supers above the brood, where sizes normally are bigger than in the broodnest.  Remember 5.1 mm cellsize (5 cells to the inch) was an average for all sizes of cells in the bee colony. Now these bees earlier born in smaller cells helping to draw smaller cellsizes correctly weren’t there, they were not born any longer with the arrival of wax foundation. What size of the cells bees draw naturally depends a lot on - how big the bees themselves are, - on their genetics and - the food they get. And the food is also dependent on the cellsize. Sometimes this created problems for the bees to draw the foundation well enough, especially when the honeyflow was rich – the bees wanted honey storage cells. The best place for drawing out small cells is below the broodnest, the next best in the middle of or at the sides of and close to the broodnest. In Gleanings of Bee Culture, December 1938, the son of A I Root, E R Root, argued for two things, 1. that cellsize shouldn’t be smaller than 5.2 mm and 2. that cellsize shouldn’t be bigger than 5.2 mm. The argument for not smaller was that the bees drew the 5.2 foundation better than 5.1. The argument for not bigger was the same as Frank Cheshire in England used. Cheshire strongly argued against enlargement as the bees would come out of tune with nature. But Cheshire argued to not enlarge from 5.1 mm. Some newer measurements Thomas Seeley’s measurements in Arnot forest in northeastern USA of feral bees are used sometimes as argument against small cells. His result is though 5.2 mm cellsize – in average. And you know what average means don’t you. Smaller cellsizes where the brood is and the biggest sizes where honey is stored. The inbetween sizes used for both when needed. Tom Seeley gave a number of excellent talks on the London Honey Show in October 2011, which I listened to. One described in detail his work investigating feral bees in the Arnot forest. 2002 Leif Hjalmarsson in southern Sweden took care of a colony from a widow that had lost her husband 10 years earlier. He had been a beekeeper with ten colonies. No one touched them after his death. It might have been a swarm that had entered one of the hives, or a surviver, that Leif took care of. Many combs were reworked by the bees. Evidently the cellsize of the foundation once used had been 5.4 mm. Now the cellsizes ranged between 4.77 and 5.4 mm. A couple of the measurements from reworked comb from the colony Leif Hjalmarsson took care of. Myself I have measured down to 4.55 mm for sizes where my bees have had foundationless combs or similar. Quite common sizes were around 5.0 and sometimes up to 5.4 mm. I normally use 4.9 mm cellsize foundation in the broodnest. Most of my bees have no problems drawing 4.9 foundation well. After selection for varroa resistance they even draw 4.9 foundation well in the supers.  A coincidence or a side effect? They winter well, give good honey crops and don’t swarm more than when I had them on large cells.  Here my bees didn’t follow the 4.9 pattern of the foundation when they rebuilt some cellwalls after I had taken them down for easier grafting larvae when queen rearing. Here they had drawn them 4.55 in the area rebuilt and the queen had layed eggs in the cells. I like to think my small cell bees are more in tune with nature, more biologically optimized and therefore better armed for living a healthy life with little or no special help from me. Read the full article