Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2989
HOMEBREW Digest #2989 Sat 27 March 1999
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Digest Janitor: janitor@hbd.org
Many thanks to the Observer & Eccentric Newspapers of
Livonia, Michigan for sponsoring the Homebrew Digest.
URL: http://www.oeonline.com
Contents:
POSSIBLY Incomplete Message: Poor Extraction Causes (Dan Listermann)
CO detector recall (BsmntBrewr)
wheat lager ("Mary Schramer")
Question: Reheating Wort in Microwave to Maintain Grain Bed Temp..OK ? (darrell.leavitt)
Yeast Storage on Slant --- Age? (Bob Noonan)
Alcohol Estimation Comparison (AJ)
Where is "unitconv"? ("Alan McKay")
MI Beer Bars ("Matthew Hahn")
Water/Diacetyl (AJ)
Where in the World is Norm Pyle? ("Drew Avis")
Re: homebrew shops (John Wilkinson)
Apologies (Dan Listermann)
info on lager yeast cultures ("Marc Sedam")
Homebrew Judging - why? (MaltHound)
Maple Syrup and Diacetyl (Wade Hutchison)
Brewshops need all of us (KLGT)
Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy!
Madison Homebrewers and Tasters Guild's 13th annual Big and Huge - 28
March 1999: Rules and forms at www.globaldialog.com/madbrewers
Send articles for __publication_only__ to post@hbd.org
If your e-mail account is being deleted, please unsubscribe first!!
To SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE send an e-mail message with the word
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to request@hbd.org.
**SUBSCRIBE AND UNSUBSCRIBE REQUESTS MUST BE SENT FROM THE E-MAIL
ACCOUNT YOU WISH TO HAVE SUBSCRIBED OR UNSUBSCRIBED!!!**
IF YOU HAVE SPAM-PROOFED your e-mail address, the autoresponder and
the SUBSCRIBE/UNSUBSCRIBE commands will fail!
Contact brewery@hbd.org for information regarding the "Cat's Meow"
Back issues are available via:
HTML from...
http://hbd.org
Anonymous ftp from...
ftp://hbd.org/pub/hbd/digests
ftp://ftp.stanford.edu/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer
AFS users can find it under...
/afs/ir.stanford.edu/ftp/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer
COPYRIGHT for the Digest as a collection is currently held by hbd.org
(Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen). Digests in their entirity CANNOT be
reprinted/reproduced without this entire header section unless
EXPRESS written permission has been obtained from hbd.org. Digests
CANNOT be reprinted or reproduced in any format for redistribution
unless said redistribution is at absolutely NO COST to the consumer.
COPYRIGHT for individual posts within each Digest is held by the
author. Articles cannot be extracted from the Digest and
reprinted/reproduced without the EXPRESS written permission of the
author. The author and HBD must be attributed as author and source in
any such reprint/reproduction. (Note: QUOTING of items originally
appearing in the Digest in a subsequent Digest is exempt from the
above. Home brew clubs NOT associated with organizations having a
commercial interest in beer or brewing may republish articles in their
newsletters and/or websites provided that the author and HBD are
attributed. ASKING first is still a great courtesy...)
JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 20:56:48 -0500
From: Dan Listermann <72723.1707@compuserve.com>
Subject: POSSIBLY Incomplete Message: Poor Extraction Causes
DL:<"I trust that Jack means that the moisture can increase vary 20% from
what is is supposed to be such as 5% to 6% instead of adding 20
percentage points to the content such as going from 5% to 25%??>
JS:<Sorry but I DID mean it as a variation in absolute moisture content.
Shocking, isn't it? Malt is extrememly hygroscopic and will absorb
vast amounts of water if given a chance.>
I just soaked some DC pils in water for about four hours and measured the
moisture content. (Microwave on lowest for a hour to dry ) It was about
25%. I have never seen grain that I was not malting that damp. I very
much doubt that that much moisture could be picked up without intentional
abuse. Folks should try this themselves. It is easy and enlightning.
DL:<If the moisture content did vary, I doubt that that the extraction
rate
could be measured on a practical level. Say that you had a malt that was
spec'ed at 36 points on a coarse grind dry basis with 4% moisture and
your
system's efficiency was 90%. 36 * (1-.04) * ..90 = 31.10 points. Add
25%
more moisture ( 1% ) and you get 5% moisture. 36 * (1-..05) * .90 =
30.78
points. Not that many common hydrometers could reliably pick up a .0032
change in gravity. While this is a 1% difference in extraction, it is
not
much to measure.>
Jack's contribution to context:
DL:"If the moisture content did vary, I doubt that that the extraction
rate
could be measured on a practical level....>
JS:<Precisely my point and precisely why worrying about it and debating
it is such a waste of energy unless you include all the variables
starting with hydrometer accuracy. The crush quality is only one
of the many variables but it's effect is much farther into the noise
than moisture content. >
JS:<For some anecdoatl experience, I was never able to achieve
extraction above the mid 20's no matter what I did until I change
to DC Belgin malt. It immediately went to the low 30's and has never
changed in 5 years.
"What does this say? It's in the malt folks.>
DL:<That is a huge change to blame on moisture. Let us see if we can
calculate how much moisture it would take to go from 25 to 30 points per
pound per gallon. The typical spec sheet for DC Pils is 35.6 points
extraction for coarse grind dry basis. Moisture is listed as 4.2%. Lab
extraction on an "as is" basis would give you 35.6 *(1-.042) = 34.1
points.
88% efficiency gives you 30 points per pound per gallon. Assuming the
same 88% efficiency 25 / .88 = 28.4 points. (35.6 - 28.4 ) / 35.6 =
.20 or
20% moisture. In other words to account for this extract change a malt
would have to absorb enough water to go from 4.2% to 20 %. I doubt that
you will ever see malts with that kind of moisture and if you did, you
could quickly tell that something was very wrong by chewing.>
JS:<I said "it's the malt" not the moisture. DC malt is packaged and
shipped in plastic lined bags and I store it a humidity controlled
room so the moisture content is very low. My judgement was that
the DC malt is a very high quality malt that produces a very high
yield relative to what I was using before.
Malt can't get much dryer than when it leaves the kiln. All it can
do is add moisture and this increases the weight so one thinks he
is using more malt and his "yield" is less.>
DL:<OK, That is a huge change to blame on malt moisture content.
DL:<I think that Jack may be right that the change in malt caused his
apparent increase in extraction, but it is not for the reasons he
believes
-stale and old malt. More likely the DC malt crushed better at the gap
his
mill was set at and the other malts needed a tighter gapped mill.>
JS<:I have run many if not all of my tests using the same DC
pils malt and as long as all the grains are crushed, it matters
not a twit what the mill is set at or for that matter, whose mill
I used. There is no way a grain of any malt I know of can pass
through a .045" space without getting crushed, ergo, fixed mill
produces same yeild as tweeked mill.>
I think that we can agree that uncrushed malt would give very poor
extraction. I am not so sure that you will agree that floured malt will
give the greatest extraction, but let us assume that you would. If one
were to plot a scale of "crush" against extraction, as one progressed
from
no crush to flour the extraction rate would increase. The line would
probably look like x = tan y or a curve similar to landau bars on a
hearse.
The object would be to find a point on the curve that gave the greatest
extraction before lautering problems set in due to the lack of filter
material. This curve can be found.
I have started to do a sort of "congress mash" using different crushes
gauged with standard sieves. The preliminary data is starting to show
this
curve. The grist remaining on the #10 screen seems to be a good
indicater
of extraction since it retains the endosperm attached to hulls that is
not
crushed to flour and not ful
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 23:34:31 EST
From: BsmntBrewr@aol.com
Subject: CO detector recall
Brewers,
I don't recall seeing any post on the subject so I thought I would chime in.
Last week I heard a blurb on the radio that Nighthawk and Saber CO detectors
are being recalled. It appears that some detectors are giving inaccurate
readings, going off late or not going off at all. I guess you need to contact
the manufacturer or retailer for details. The news blurb didn't provide the
specifics for returns, exchanges or refunds.
I thought this might be of some importance for the indoor brewers using
propane and natural gas.
Brew On!
Bob Bratcher
Roanoke, VA
Star City Brewers Guild
http://hbd.org/starcity
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999 04:44:23 PST
From: "Mary Schramer" <maryschramer@excite.com>
Subject: wheat lager
anybody ever make a wit type brew using lager yeast?
if so what was the result and what strain did you use?
thanks
kevin F schramer
_______________________________________________________
Get your free, private email at http://mail.excite.com/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999 08:17:23 -0500 (EST)
From: darrell.leavitt@plattsburgh.edu
Subject: Question: Reheating Wort in Microwave to Maintain Grain Bed Temp..OK ?
I use a Zappap sort of...and realize that a good deal of heat is lost in the
recirculation and sparge...I have tried insulating,.. but also have tried
drawing off a pint, zapping it in the microwave, then returning it to the top
of the grain bed. I have found that this DOES help to maintain the
temperature of the grain bed...but wonder whether I may be getting something
else that I may not want by heating the sweet wort in this manner. I have
never let it boil, but I am certain that I have let the heated pint go over
170 F. Does anyone know of problems that can/ may be encountered in this
way, or is it perfectly ok to reheat this way....OR, may this depend upon the
style of brew that I am attempting to make?
..Darrell
<in Plattsburgh, NY>
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999 13:58:09 GMT
From: bnoonan@acadia.net (Bob Noonan)
Subject: Yeast Storage on Slant --- Age?
Hi HBD readers
This is one of the few posts I have had in the last few years of
lurking. I have a Brewer's Resource large slant of yeast that I bought
about a year ago. I used it once and resealed it with Paraseal and
have kept it refrigerated since. Question is should I just through it
out, Use it or what? If I made a starter with it what should I look
for? So what's the opinion of the collective should I not be so cheap
and just buy a new slant or what.
Posts or private E-mail OK. Thanks :-)>
So Many Beers ... So Little Time.
Bob
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999 14:11:38 +0000
From: AJ <ajdel@mindspring.com>
Subject: Alcohol Estimation Comparison
Given the discussions of the last couple of weeks on alcohol content
determination I thought readers might be interested in some comparative
numbers from my last effort, an IPA of sorts.
1. Apparent attenuation (method I posted in #2969): 5.84% ABV
2. Ebuliometry, 1:1 dilution: 5.44% ABV
3. Ebuliometry, no dilution : 5.63% ABV
4. Enzyme: 5.64% ABV
5. Distillation/gravimetry: 5.46% ABV
With regard to the first method note that I never actually measured the
gravity in the fermenter. The OG I used in the calculation was based on
gravity measured in the kettle and the subsequet dilutions it went
through in coming up with the final volume of beer (which includes
addition of water to replace evaporation). The final gravity measurement
was made with a hydrometer (narrow range). Even so, the result is not
too bad in comparison with the others.
Ebuliometers are great for wine (dry) and not so good for beverages with
high content of sugars, proteins, etc. These substances cause the
boiling point to be increased (the alcohol causes it to decrease) and
correction factors are published. The main problem with beer is that it
froths, foams, bumps etc. within the boiler making it hard to get a
stable temperature reading. It helps if the beer is warm and, therefore,
thoroughly degassed but dilution 1:1 with water helps greatly in
obtaining a stable temperature reading and, in addition, lowers the
protein - sugar concentration to the point where the correction is less
that 0.04%.
The standard deviation for this set of measurements is 0.162% with the
largest deviation (that of the most approximate measure i.e. the first)
being 0.24%. From these data at least, it looks as if the apparent
attenuation method is pretty good. We must not, of course, draw global
conclusions from measurements on 1 beer. More data!
- --
A. J. deLange
Numquam in dubio, saepe in errore.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999 08:27:14 -0600
From: "Alan McKay" <amckay@nortelnetworks.com>
Subject: Where is "unitconv"?
Hi folks,
About a year ago someone out there sent me a copy of their "unitconv"
program. After several system upgrades, I go looking and it is no
longer on my system.
Anyone know the program I'm talking about? It converted just
about anything under the sun.
thanks,
-Alan
- --
Alan McKay
OS Support amckay@nortelnetworks.com
Small Site Integration 613-765-6843 (ESN 395)
Nortel Networks
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999 10:15:26 -0500
From: "Matthew Hahn" <mchahn@earthlink.net>
Subject: MI Beer Bars
I will be vacationing in St. Ignace, MI, on the lower part of the Upper
Peninsula (near Mackinac Island) this summer. Any good beer bars/brewpubs in
the area, or between there and Cleveland that anyone could recommend? TIA.
Private emails welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999 10:35:03 -0500
From: AJ <ajdel@mindspring.com>
Subject: Water/Diacetyl
Alessandro asks
> 1) Is it possible to calculate alkalinity (with reasonable precision)?
given Ca, Mg, SO4, Na, HCO3-, pH and hardness. Yes. Assuming that the pH
is less than 8.6 or so simply divide the bicarbonate mg/L by 61 to get
alkalinity in milliequivalnets per liter. Then multiply by 50 for the
more familiar alaklinity in ppm as CaCO3.
>2) Is it possible to predict how the same water parameters will be
*after
boiling*, with the only measurement of post boil Ph?
No. If the water was hard enough to precipitate chalk you will have,
post boil, a solution of calcium carbonate and bicarbonate in
equilibrium with solid chalk. Eventually this will come into equilibrium
with the air and the pH will depend on the partial pressure of CO2 in
the atmosphere on that day. What you can do is measure either the
alkalinity or the hardness (both simple tests but the alkalinity one is
simpler) before and after. Alkalinity and hardness in ppm as CaCO3 will
both decrease by approximately the same amount. pH will change, possibly
by a couple of points, and Mg will change a little. Na, Cl, SO4 will not
change (except to the extent that water is evaporated during the boil).
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Jeff Renner asks for speculations as to why the diacetyl level in the
same beer in the same pub from the same delivery might differ over time.
The obvious answer is the one he suggests: continued fermentation with
diacetyl production. Remember that the final step in diacetyl formation
is an oxidation so the speculation about O2 at kegging, which they don't
seem to worry about much in British kegging operations, might indeed be
a factor. I'd like to suggest contamination with undesired organisms. As
everyone knows, cask conditioned ale _will_ become contaminated with
lactos if it isn't finished in a few days. The soft spile is porous and
while I don't know if that is the source, it stands to reason that it
could be. In the same time period Jeff was "researching" Ridleys, I was
"researching" Theakstons. On three successive nights in 3 different pubs
I got one pint that was definitely lactic, one that was spot on and one
that was phenolic to the point where I could hardly finish it. I assume
that the latter picked up some wild yeast. This suggests to me that a
variety of orgainisms have the opportunity to get into the beer at the
brewery and in the cellar. Perhaps one of these was the source of the
diacetyl Jeff tasted.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999 08:01:29 PST
From: "Drew Avis" <andrew_avis@hotmail.com>
Subject: Where in the World is Norm Pyle?
Sorry to bother the entire HBD with this, but I need a working email,
phone #, or address for Norm Pyle, author of the Hop FAQ
(http://realbeer.com/hops/FAQ.html). His last post was courtesy of Rob
Moline, so I don't know if he's even on email any more. Thanks! -Drew
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999 12:27:59 -0600
From: John.Wilkinson@aud.alcatel.com (John Wilkinson)
Subject: Re: homebrew shops
>Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 19:32:15 -0600
>From: Linus and Lila Hall <lnlhall@bellsouth.net>
>Subject: homebrew shops
>
>For the love of God and all that is holy,
>
>Stop with the Homebrew Shop Thread(tm)!
As an atheist, am I compelled to continue the thread?
If so, I don't know what to say as I am completely satisfied with my local
homebrew shops.
John Wilkinson - Grapevine, Texas
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999 13:27:22 -0500
From: Dan Listermann <72723.1707@compuserve.com>
Subject: Apologies
I evidently accidently sent a draft posting to the HBD yesterday. Very
sorry.
Dan Listermann
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999 14:26:06 -0500
From: "Marc Sedam" <marc_sedam@unc.edu>
Subject: info on lager yeast cultures
I'm just getting into lager fermentations and saw confusing information on
how to propagate lager yeast for fermentation. Normally (for all two lagers
I've done) I pitch the yeast in a smack pack as is in 2.5 gallons of 1.040
oxygenated wort, ferment for a week at 45F and transfer to a secondary, wash
the yeast/trub cake from the primary fermenter, and pitch the washed yeast
directly in a 5 gallon batch. I asked David Logsdon of Wyeast Labs (no
personal interest in co., blah, blah, blah) to tell me how Wyeast steps up
their cultures. A snippet of his e-mail is included below.
<SNIP>
Our prodcures for lager yeast propagation is to start it at 65-75 F. for 24
hours. Drop it approx. 10 F per day. An example would be to start at 75, 24
hrs, bring in wort at 65, set fermenter temp at 55, ferment at that temp or
turn down to 45 the following day. Your practice of harvesting yeast and
pitching at 45 F is not uncommon. Some brewers prefer a long lag on lager
fermentations, with the slow start. It is also common to allow the
fermentation temp to rise to 57F at terminal gravity.
<SNIP>
Having not yet compared the two procedures, clearly David feels that my
process creates a long lag time comparatively speaking. If I notice a
dramatic difference in these processes I'll post the results.
I didn't see similar instructions in the yeast FAQ, so I thought this might
be of general interest.
Cheers!
Marc
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999 15:00:14 EST
From: MaltHound@aol.com
Subject: Homebrew Judging - why?
Warning: The following post is a bunch of philosophical ramblings that IS
intended to bait further discussion.
For some time now I have wondered why there is such an apparently strong tie
between homebrewing and a compelling need to have it judged and scored. For
some reason (unknown to me) competitive judging is inextricably associated
with homebrew and homebrewing at all levels. Why is this?
Certainly, I can understand that when brewers are starting out they need
reassurance that what they are producing is of a reasonable quality.
Identification of defects through unbiased tasting is of value especially to
those with an untrained palate.
Perhaps as they begin to reach their brewing goals they enjoy the egotistical
gratification of winning awards and prizes. Everybody like to be stroked now
and then, eh? The part of the whole homebrew competition scene that I don't
understand is this:
What would make an accomplished brewer who knows fully well that they make
excellent beer want to submit their beer for evaluation?
To begin with, the premise that all competitions are born from is that a
winning beer is one that most exactly matches a particular style. These
styles are defined by descriptions and guidelines that are established by the
same people that perform the judging of these events. This means that all
beer competitions are merely "target shooting" to hit a particular style
guideline. I think a lot of entrants are (at least subconsciously) of the
impression that the best beer will be the winner. I suppose that depends on
how you define what "best" is.
There has been a flurry of discussion about the fallibility of human judges as
well as the entire judge certification process. Certainly it should come to
no big surprise to anyone that humans are prone to err. There is absolutely
no way possible to have a process that relies on human analysis that is truly
objective. Doesn't that all put a shadow of doubt in anyone else's mind about
the intrinsic value of judging homebrew?
An interesting exercise would be to submit a sample of commercially produced
beer that is generally accepted to be the epitome of that style to several
different homebrew competitions and see what scores and comments are assigned
to it. Is it possible to have a homebrew that scores higher than the
"benchmark" of a particular style? I would pose that it should not be since
the style guides were created to express that beer not vice versa.
Personally, I went through a period where it was important for me to send my
beers for tasting and evaluation. I won some prizes and have some ribbons and
tee shirts to show for it. But eventually, I realized that (for me) the whole
homebrew competition thing is a meaningless exercise.
If there are other (perhaps even more) accomplished brewers out there that
feel the same way about competitions, doesn't that mean that the people that
*are* entering these competitions are competing against a limited field? In
other words, (and I realize this is not true) if all of the truly good brewers
felt that homebrew competitions were a waste of their time, wouldn't that mean
that the only people actually competing were less than great brewers? What
would that do to the meaning of winning first prize?
I would imagine that subscribers to this list are apt to represent a greater
percentage of "advanced" brewers than the general population since we all tend
to devote a larger amount of time and energy to the hobby on average. So I
ask the wise and experienced collective:
What would make you enter into competitions fully knowing the limitations that
exist?
What makes those brewers that have multiple ribbons on their brewery walls
continue to enter?
Why do so many homebrewers in general feel the need to compete?
Fred Wills
waxing philosophically and donning asbestos suit
in Londonderry, NH
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999 15:35:08 -0500
From: Wade Hutchison <whutchis@bucknell.edu>
Subject: Maple Syrup and Diacetyl
Comments on Al's comments:
>
>Pete writes:
>>I am going to be brewing a maple amber in the coming weeks to appease my
>>SO. I checked the archives but opinions vary on when to add the syrup
>>for maximum maple flavor and aroma. I have about 1 to 2 qts to work
>>with for a 3 to 5 gallon batch. I'm not sure which size I'll be
>>doing.....
I did several extract batches with maple syrup, and 2 or 3 quarts of grade-A
syrup produced a nice subtle flavor in a 5 gallon batch. I _did_ notice
that fermentation was slower, and bottle conditioning was
very slow in both batches. Is there something in the syrup that
inhibits yeast growth? I've wondered about that for a few years now.
>>
>>When is it best to make additions of syrup to retain maple flavor and
>>smell though bottling. I have also seen that it takes longer to
>>ferment.
>
I added at the last 10 minutes of the boil - add the syrup, and turn off
the heat when the wort comes back to a boil. Didn't seem to hurt the
flavor or aroma any.
Sorry if you've gotten 30 answers to this already - but it was (finally)
something I have experience with.
>Jeff writes (quoting John):
>>>I recently tried using a diacetyl rest on my CAP. <snip>
>>>Unfortunately for me, I definitely smelled diacetyl at bottling.
>>
>>I hate diacetyl in lagers myself, so I sympathize. You can take solace,
>>perhaps, in the fact that many historic American lagers had the stuff,
>>according to Fix. Ugh.
>
>Depends on the lager... recall that moderate diacetyl is acceptable in
>Bohemian Pilsners. Look for diacetyl in Pilsner Urquell... yes, it's
>in there.
>
>Al.
>
Now theres a good question - is there a guide somewhere that lists what
flavors can be found in some commercial beers? I don't really know what
Diacetyl tastes like, so is there a reference beer that I can find to get
an idea of the flavor without going to a beer doping kit? What would
be a good example of diacytel? phenolic? Any other consistant flaw?
-----wade hutchison
whutchis@bucknell.edu
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999 19:54:59 -0500
From: KLGT <kimlgt@usa.net>
Subject: Brewshops need all of us
>From a retailer's point of view, may I add this one tidbit?
There is no such thing as a bad customer, with the small exception of the
customer that shoplifts or bounces checks.
All customers, defined as those spending money, are needed and wanted in
any business.
The idea of loyalty is good and I hope the stores that deserve it and earn
it, get some. (including mine-I hope)
But this is a big bad world. The market forces that control commerce will
prevail. The businesses which treat customers well, will survive, the
others won't. So don't worry. Spend your money where it makes you feel good.
You can't do anything about a store that will have to go out of business
because their rent is too high, or health insurance went up 17% this year .
You can't help it if Yellow Page ads cost thousands per year. So, relax,
you are a good customer.
You can't help it. All customers are good.
Forgive this unsigned post.
I just didn't want to taint it, by making it into an advertisement for my
business.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Get Your Own Free Pop or Web Based Email and a
10MB Web Site for FREE at: http://www.nettaxi.com!
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #2989, 03/27/99
*************************************
-------
