Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #3493
HOMEBREW Digest #3493 Sat 02 December 2000
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Digest Janitor: janitor@hbd.org
***************************************************************
THIS YEAR'S HOME BREW DIGEST BROUGHT TO YOU BY:
Northern Brewer, Ltd. Home Brew Supplies
http://www.northernbrewer.com 1-800-681-2739
Support those who support you! Visit our sponsor's site!
********** Also visit http://hbd.org/hbdsponsors.html *********
Contents:
Re: Review: Rock Bottom Brewery - Portland, OR ("D. Schultz")
re:Fluid Flow Study of False Bottoms ("Stephen Alexander")
Enzyme Kinetics - part 5 ("Stephen Alexander")
mash/lauter tun plate ("Stephen Taylor")
Re;fluid flow ("Grant Stott")
correction to Corn flavor/Tangled web .../repitching/pitch/zinc ("Stephen Alexander")
Hennepin Yeast been Captured? ("Schneider, Brett")
More bizarre thought regarding viscosity (cat. 2) ("Dr. Pivo")
Degree Confluence Project & Yeast Washing ("Pannicke, Glen A.")
So What SS false bottom to get? ("Walter H. Lewis III")
Re: Which pitch? ("patrick finerty jr.")
Cloudy Star San Solution (Frank Tutzauer)
Jim's Humor (John Adsit)
fact vs supersitition (Spencer W Thomas)
Celis (kevin m mueller)
Re: BarKeepers Friend ("Robert J. Waddell")
*
* Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy!
*
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 FROM THE E-MAIL
ACCOUNT YOU WISH TO HAVE SUBSCRIBED OR UNSUBSCRIBED!!!**
IF YOU HAVE SPAM-PROOFED your e-mail address, you cannot subscribe to
the digest as we canoot reach you. We will not correct your address
for the automation - that's your job.
The HBD is a copyrighted document. The compilation is copyright
HBD.ORG. Individual postings are copyright by their authors. ASK
before reproducing and you'll rarely have trouble. Digest content
cannot be reproduced by any means for sale or profit.
More information is available by sending the word "info" to
req@hbd.org.
JANITOR on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 23:36:20 -0800
From: "D. Schultz" <d2schultz@qwest.net>
Subject: Re: Review: Rock Bottom Brewery - Portland, OR
Dave Sweeney commented on one of Portland's Brew Pubs....
Dave, I hope you got a chance to check out some of Portland's better brew
pubs while you were here. It would be a shame for you to have come all this
way and leave with the taste of Rock Bottom's Beer as your only experience
in this great brewing city.
BTW, Portland's Winter Beer Fest is this weekend!
Burp,
-Dan
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 03:07:48 -0500
From: "Stephen Alexander" <steve-alexander@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: re:Fluid Flow Study of False Bottoms
Brian Lee, Brian writes ...
>Regarding John Palmer's post a couple of issues back:
...
>This is the type of information I love to see in the HBD.
Same here - it's the post of the year IMO. I congratulated
John Palmer offline but he certainly deserves the online
praise too.
Brian continues ...
>I've also debated in the past if it would not be better to go to a
>manifold type setup and scrap the false bottom. Guess I'll stick with what
I
>know and love
I'm not suggesting you abandon any lauter system you love Brian, but you
have to take John Palmer's result in context of practical HB results. Given
that I'm not about to give up my insertion manifold lauter (tho I may well
redesign it based on John's post). For manifold systems according to John,
"grainbed was not rinsed anywhere below the horizontal manifold. [...] I
then angled the manifold at 10 [...]. This time, the grainbed was rinsed
behind/under the manifold due the horizontal component of the vectored
manifold".
My insertion manifold system has less than 3 pints of wort below the
manifold in it's current design. In the worst case scenario I'm brewing a
Xmas ale and I leave 3 pints of 1.065 wort (25 deg-gal) in the tun. This
loss will cost me about 40 cents worth of malt but the trade-off is that
don't have to transfer 5 or 10 or more gallons of mash from a mash tun to a
lauter tun w/ false bottom creating a hot, sticky, and potentially oxidized
mess. That's a no-brainer - pay the 40 cents and shove an insertion
manifold into the mash tun. Heck I'd pay the 40 cent just to avoid the
extra tun cleanup.
I do think John's experiment tells us a lot about lauter flow that we didn't
know before, but just because a properly designed FB gives superior
lautering performance to a manifold doesn't outweigh it's other
disadvantages in every application.
-S
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 04:10:03 -0500
From: "Stephen Alexander" <steve-alexander@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Enzyme Kinetics - part 5
= Effects of Substrate Concentration on rate of Catalysis (cont)
Last time we expressed the Michaelis-Menten relationships this way
13/ v0 = V / ( 1 + (Km/[A]))
but what happens if the enzyme reaction has two substrates, and
why do we care. ?
Two-substrate Reactions
A much more interesting and relevant case occurs when two substrates
are involved. The derivation of the rate equations proceeds
analogously to the single substrate case and results in product rate
equation:
14/ v0 = V / ( 1 + (Ka/[A]) + (Kb/[B]) + (Ka * Kb / [A] [B]) )
where V is the maximum velocity of the product formation, determined
under conditions of excess substrate, and Ka, Kb equal the Michaelis
concentrations of the respective substrates at which the reaction rate
falls to V/2, given the other substrate is available in excess. Under
special conditions not covered here the third term in the denominator may
be slightly altered or equal zero, but this is exceptional.
Relevance to brewing
In practice many of the most important enzymatic reaction in brewing
are performed by enzymes grouped under the heading of hydrolases.
Hydrolases generally break chemical bonds and then use parts of water
molecules to replace the missing bond points. When an amylase breaks
a 1-4 or 1-6 bond in a starch molecule, one side of the cleave
receives a hydrogen molecule (+H), and the other a hydroxyl group
(-OH). The amylases are hydrolases and have two substrates, water and
glucose polymers. It's a little hard to encompass, but water is both a
substrate and a solvent for the amylolytic reactions, and some of the
proteases.
The rate of amylase activity during an uninhibited initial equilibrium
condition can be expressed by the equation above.
v0 = V / (1 + Kw/[W] + Ks/[S] + (Kw*Ks/[W]*[S]) )
with 'w' representing water and 's' starch (sort of).
during a typical mash, even a very thick one, the concentration of
free water molecules greatly exceeds the related Michaelis-Menten
constant ([W] >> Kw) and so the equation can be approximated as:
v0 ~= V / ( 1 + Ks/[S] )
very similar to the zero order case.
I will emphasize the term "free" water, since in the mashtun much of
the water is initially bound to the gelatinizing starch and is
unavailable for amylolysis. I have a paper this indicates that in a
thick mash of 1.9L/kg (0.95qt/lb) that the free water concentration is
roughly 20*Kw the amylases. This means that under this
thick-mash condition the approximation is a bit rough, but note too
that the concentration of free water increases as the entrapping
starches are degraded and the water molecules are more available
for hydrolysis.
What does our approximate rate equation mean ? When the substrate (or
starch [S]) concentration is very high, then the product is formed at
near the maximal rate (V), but when the concentration is relatively
low compared to Ks, then the rate of product formation is (by a second
approximation)
v0 ~= V*[S] / Ks
A plot the rate of product formation rate (v0) versus the substrate
[S] gives a curve which rises almost linearly from (0,0) with a slope
V/Ks, but with a soft knee in the plot around [S] = Ks. Above [S] =
Ks the curve flattens and approaches a limiting product rate of V.
When the mash begins water is at worst reasonably available and so the
hydrolytic reactions proceeds forward at a rates of nearly V. As the
mash proceeds, the concentration of substrate declines and so does
the rate of product formation. Other factors not yet considered lead to
further slowing of the hydrolases, late in the mash.
- --
Next time a very brief consideration of factors beside temperature which
impact enzyme catalysis rates.
-S
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 21:25:32 +1100
From: "Stephen Taylor" <stephentaylor@one.net.au>
Subject: mash/lauter tun plate
hello to all,
I have a mash -lauter tun made out of a 50 ltr keg, i had
the old bottom cut off and a flat heavy one welded on,at half an inch above
this a quarter inch rim was welded in to support aflat disc of sts drilled
with many holes.This disc maybe becauseof the holes has twisted and ,
warped, i dont know it sits on a gas ring , the heat may have done it, now
takes longer to clear when sparging, any thing up to 2-3 gallons imp, and i
now wonder about my sparge water flow through the grain bed after reading
lately of this.A copper out flow pipe is welded off one side over the boiler
fitted with a sts tap.It can be strengthened by welding some ribs all over,
make anew one out of thicker sts, could pack some rolled up sts fine mesh
all around the rim and push the plate down on it but maybe some one else
has had this happen and came up with a permanent easier way out
Stephen Taylor Newcastle, NSW, in OZ.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 10:27:16 +1100
From: "Grant Stott" <gstott@primus.com.au>
Subject: Re;fluid flow
Thanks John,
thats exactly the type of info I was after, after about 3 years of juggling
pots that are too small, I'm about to build a 3 tier stand & convert a keg
& move my brewing outside. So major changes are about to happen to my
brewing process.
After this I will be giving your suggestions a try. I had always had a
nagging suspicion that having the manifold against the wall might encourage
channelling.
BTW of the batches that I achieved increased efficiency, one was indeed a
greater grain bed depth. (trappist ale) Another was the first batch with my
new mill. (Mr Listermann kindly confirmed that taking so long to crush was
due to crushing too fine.) My records are not quite precise enough to state
categorically, but I'm fairly confident that the other occasions can be put
down to the pump effect of accidentally allowing the mash tun to almost run
dry between sparge water additions.
Grant & Yvonne Stott
Geelong Vic. Australia
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 07:12:43 -0500
From: "Stephen Alexander" <steve-alexander@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: correction to Corn flavor/Tangled web .../repitching/pitch/zinc
I apparently let a Microsoft tool rewrite ..
>The corn aroma is most likely to be diethyl sulfide (DMZ) and
Ouch - it's dimethyl sulfide of course (DMS).
==
viscosity = gravity - Right !!! I told Pivo that sterno wasn't a
beverage.
===
Several comments on direct repitching of yeast.
Infection ... enough said.
The wort/trub residue will carry roast malt and hops flavors unless you wash
the free of trub, and washing yeast (even water washing) can have a negative
impact on viability. This isn't a problem if you are repitching your mild
yeast into an IPA, but if you carry the wrong hops flavor or roast malt
flavor into a beer you can impact the final flavor.
The viability of the yeast under storage is a highly variable thing. I've
seen very high viability maintained in yeast under cold beer for many weeks
and I've also seen extremely low viability develop over several days.
Yeast can be dramatically weakened by having to ferment out a high gravity
wort. I wouldn't bother to try repitching yeast from 1.060 SG or above wort
and I'd be wary as you approach that figure.
Repitching has some hazards associated with it, but if you watch the above
and especially keep the storage times low you shouldn't have problems.
===
John Peed, John ....
>So when you make a starter, what do you pitch? [...]
>I add it all, including the liquid. Should I be decanting it and
>pitching only the stuff that accumulates on the bottom?
You're doing fine. If the starter is in full kreusen as it should be, it's
difficult to separate yeast which are in suspension I know people who will
build up a full starter, chill it to drop the yeast, decant, then hit the
yeast with a small amount of wort at the beginning of brewday. This keeps
the amount of extract wort added low if this is important to you. A lot of
work otherwise.
>And what the heck constitutes trub in the fermenter?
You do have a LOT of hop particle and protein and yeast debris (including
break components) and dead yeast in the 'yeast cake'. Cold break continues
to form and sediment long after wort is chilled. Hops compounds also attach
to the yeast cell exteriors (taste it sometime - much more bitter than from
unhopped starter yeast). Under a microscope I am always amazed at the amount
of plant cells (hops I suspect) in the cake. You have a lot less of all the
undesirables in a secondary 'yeast cake' tho'.
>What's the difference between dead yeast and dormant yeast?
One will revive if you hit it with fresh wort, the other will autolyze.
Toward the end of fermentation yeast should have built up storage
carbohydrates levels within each cell. It may not have much if the growth
conditions and were suboptimal. We'd expect these end-phase yeast cells
from brewing to have low lipid levels too. The cells use lipids to maintain
membranes and this is important to keep stuff like ethanol out and to
maintain proper internal cell ionic levels. If lipids are low the cell
requires more energy to 'bail' the ions, around 'leaky' membranes. Also
the near mythical yeast alcohol tolerance becomes a factor with poor lipid
levels.
These resources (storage carbs and lipids) get used up or energy and cell
maintenance during storage, along with existing proteins as a nitrogen
source. In this low energy maintenance mode (dormancy) if it uses up all of
the reserves the cell can no longer maintain it's integrity, dies, and
naughty things begin to happen pretty quickly thereafter. The cell vacuole
ruptures causing the release of fatty acids, proteases, sulfur compounds and
other bad stuff into the beer. This kills head, shifts pH noticeably, funky
flavors (rubber, rancid meat) appear. BTW high zinc levels promote
autolysis so watch that.
You can improve dormancy condition, but how exactly is likely to be yeast
specific. I wouldn't store yeast under hi-grav beer or in a particularly
saline beer (like a burtonized ale), but a certain amount of calcium and
potassium ions in solution is probably a very good thing. Reportedly if you
add trehalose, one of the yeast storage carbs, to a storage medium you can
improve storage life but the stuff is expensive. The easiest things which
seems universally applicable is to chill down the yeast during storage and
at least dilute the beer over the stored yeast with distilled water.
If you pitch some dead cells along with a lot of live growing ones the
lipids and most of the off-flavor stuff are consumed by the little
cannibals. It's later when yeast cease growing (beer sitting on a yeast cake
or slurry in storage) that autolysis is a big problem.
(Water) washing the yeast will remove a large amount of dead cell debris.
Acid washing will dramatically reduce infections too. I'd perform a water
wash immediately before reusing the yeast, after storage not before. I
think acid washing is too much trouble for homebrewers. Cheaper and simpler
to resurrect or buy a new starter.
===
John Palmer asks about zinc additions. I've been doing this for a long time
by adding about 0.5ppm of zinc from unflavored bogus cold remedy drugs. It
really can have a nice impact on fermentation. Crush the tablet and measure
from a suspension, 10mg of zinc in a 5gal/20L fermenter is all you need (and
may be excessive if your water contains zinc). I'm sure I posted on this
several years ago.
-S
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 08:56:59 -0500
From: "Schneider, Brett" <Brett_Schneider@bose.com>
Subject: Hennepin Yeast been Captured?
Our local homebrewers have been trying with limited success to capture from
bottles the Hennepin yeast for a clone competition next year within the
Boston Wort Processors.
I'm sort of the keeper of yeast for the club and would be interested in
hearing from people who may have captured this yeast, and might be
interested in sharing and or trading for something we have that you might
not have been able to locate.
Direct email replies are best as I infrequently read the digest these days
(time permitting)....
Thanks!
Brett Schneider
Boston Wort Processors
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 15:04:52 +0100
From: "Dr. Pivo" <dp@pivo.w.se>
Subject: More bizarre thought regarding viscosity (cat. 2)
Scienterrific alert!
Pure category 2 stuff here! (speculations based on theory, without a
shread of practical experience to back it up)
Recently posted some thoughts on use of hydrometer correction factors,
as a means of determining viscosity.
I received a couple of nice posts, both by people who are probably much
better informed on the subject than I, which prompted some more
pondering.
Firstly, regarding viscosity in general... Consider: most liquids have a
decreased viscosity with increasing temperatures.... at higher temps,
gases the opposite.
How to resolve this paradox? One would think that increased viscosity in
gases is purely a product of "number of atom collisions" as the stuff
gets more active.... in liquids, the decreased viscosity should be
explained by "average intra-atom distance" (The farther apart they are,
the less they collide, and the less viscous drag caused by friction),
and be a product of volume expansion during heating (which is, of
course, the inverse of density which is what your hydrometer measures).
Eventual frictional losses through increased movement (as in the gas
case), would work in the opposite direction, but I will promptly ignore
this...... because it might make my head hurt to think of so many things
at once.
So viscosity should be in inverse to the thermal expansion coefficient .
This would be all well with most liquids, but unfortunately not water
(which I think we can consider wort as).
Anybody who is interested enough in this subject to have read this much
of this most boring crap, should already know that water has a very
bizarre thermal behaviour, first shrinking (non linear) until 4C, and
then expanding (non linear) from there.
My guess is that the viscosity of water, should pretty much parallel the
inverted thermal behaviour.
The graph of thermal behaviour should not be hard to find, and I'd be
pretty willing to guess that the most viscous point of water as a liquid
is at 4C, and the least at 100C. If you can find those two values,
enter them on an inverted thermal expansion graph as values on the "x"
axis, and I would guess you have a fairly fine approximation of
viscosity of wort vs. temperature.
Been about 25 years since I've had to tackle such problems, so my
thinking may be rusty, but I think this should work. I seem to recall
that something called "Mark's Handbook of Mechanical Engineering" or
some such, seemed to have a graph, table of coefficients, and formulas
for damned near anything you'd ever want to figure out, and this
shouldn't be so hard to piece together.
I'd be interested to hear if this works out, or if someone has a better
way to get there (other than finding the bloody chart, of course!)
Dr. Pivo
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 09:36:58 -0500
From: "Pannicke, Glen A." <glen_pannicke@merck.com>
Subject: Degree Confluence Project & Yeast Washing
Jeff Renner wrote:
>I've just discovered a project that I think would appeal to the likes
>of homebrewers - the Degree Confluence Project
>http://confluence.org/. From the web site: "The goal of the project
>is to visit each of the latitude and longitude integer degree
>intersections in the world, and to take pictures at each location.
>The pictures and stories will then be posted here."
OK Jeff, you asked for it. You know how HBD members will report their
locations if they participate in this. I'm currently looking for my camera
and that Rennerian beer compass I made from the fuzzy barleywine bottle ;-)
John Peed had questions regarding yeast washing:
>I add it all [the starter], including the liquid. Should I be decanting it
and
>pitching only the stuff that accumulates on the bottom?
Some add it all, some chill & decant. If you add it all, keep the starter
wort "generic" or similar in nature to your batch. The good thing about
using this method is that you can add very active yeasts to your fermenter
and the lag times will be very low. The drawback is that the beer in the
starter may not have the same flavor as your batch and it's addition may
effect the overall flavor of the batch. If you chill and decant, you avoid
the whole flavor quandry but you may shock the yeasts into a dormant state,
possibly even kill a bunch of them off. Hence, lag times will be longer.
Whatever you do, don't pour off and discard the liquid of an ale yeast
starter (unless it was previously chilled). Being a top fermenting yeast,
you will just have dumped out the cream of the crop. It's OK to do that for
lager yeasts as they are bottom-feeders... I mean fermenters. Sorry,
bottom-feeders are lawyers and politicians... ;-)
>Hops? Trub? Most of us won't have hops in our fermenters, least of all
>loose. And what the heck constitutes trub in the fermenter? In the
>boiler, I'd say it's hop residue, hot break and cold break. But in the
>fermenter???
Hops... I can honestly say that I have never had *floating* hop particles
in my fermenter. Secondary fermenter when dry hopping? Yes. Primary? Not
me. But you will get some sinkers that make it into the fermenter anyway
regardless of how good your break is in the kettle. These get bound up in
the trub. I think 'trub' really is German for 'crud' because that's what it
is - precipitated aggregations of varied proteins, fats, lipids, tannins,
pectins, etc... - crud. In your beer, a little trub helps to feed your
yeasts, especially when dissolved oxygen levels are low. In excess it can
effect the flavor of your beer. In your recovered yeast it can provide a
hiding place and breeding ground for wort-spoiling bacteria. Remove most of
it, but don't obsess over it.
>What's the difference between dead yeast and dormant yeast?
Dead yeasts will never make beer again. They will only turn good beer bad.
The cell walls eventually deteriorate and burst their contents into your
beer giving it that "yeasty" flavor or "bite". They also provide nutrients
for beer-spoiling bacteria. Dormant yeasts on the other hand, are just
waiting around for their next feeding. When environmental conditions do not
favor growth (eg. no food or extremes in pH or temperature) yeast will just
become inactive and wait out the hard times. And they can wait a very long
time too. I've cultured yeast from 3 year old barley wines which have
produced good subsequent fermentations.
Hey, I love yeast topics. Hope this helped.
Carpe cerevisiae!
Glen Pannicke
http://www.pannicke.net
"He was a wise man who invented beer" - Plato
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 09:44:11 -0500
From: "Walter H. Lewis III" <wlewis@alliedlogistics.com>
Subject: So What SS false bottom to get?
So with the recent EXCELENT article on fluid flow I think it might be
time to consider a SS false bottom for my converted Sanke system.
The question is who's false bottom works best/has been successful for
those in this group.
Please post experience/sources/design for SS false bottoms.
Walt Lewis
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 10:54:26 -0500
From: "patrick finerty jr." <zinc@finerty.net>
Subject: Re: Which pitch?
howdy,
i prepare 2 L of starter per 10 gal of wort. however, my starters are
grown to fairly high density in a lab shaker and i generally add more
maltose during the growth to keep the cells happy. i'll determine the
final OD of the cells and their wet weight tomorrow and post that.
i'm trying to make a Chimay Premier type Belgian tomorrow. we'll see
how it goes. to obtain Chimay yeast i plated nearly all of the yeast
from the bottom of a bottle of Chimay on three YPD plates. i only got
eight colonies which is a little disturbing. hopefully they're not
wild!
slainte,
patrick in Toronto
On November 30, 2000, Peed, John wrote:
>
> So when you make a starter, what do you pitch? I generally start with 1/3
> cup of dry malt in 1 pint of water, then juice it nightly with a similar
> mixture (and on brew day), for a total of about two to three quarts of
> liquid. I add it all, including the liquid. Should I be decanting it and
> pitching only the stuff that accumulates on the bottom?
- --
"There is only one aim in life and that is to live it."
Karl Shapiro,(1959) from an essay on Henry Miller's Tropic of Cancer
finger pfinerty@nyx10.nyx.net for PGP key
http://finerty.net/pjf
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 13:42:08 -0500 (EST)
From: Frank Tutzauer <comfrank@acsu.buffalo.edu>
Subject: Cloudy Star San Solution
Ok, I checked the archives and Star San should be "renewed" when it
turns cloudy. Here's what happened at last night's brew session.
While the wort was boiling, I mixed up some Star San solution and put
it in my sanitizing pot. Fifteen or twenty minutes later, the
solution goes cloudy. Now, there's nothing in the pot yet, so, geez,
what, it sanitizes the sides of my pot and poops out? I pulled a
small glassful of the solution from the pot and put it in a clear
glass. Cloudy. Ok, so I add a few drops of the concentrated Star San
to the glass, and like magic, it goes clear. Back to the pot. I
start adding fresh concentrate. A few drops. Nothing. A few more
drops. Still nothing. Still more, still nothing. At this point I
say screw it and use it as is. I've used cloudy Star San in other
brew sessions (before I knew cloudy meant bad), and I don't anticipate
any problems this time. My questions are, first what made it go
cloudy so quickly (it was a clean but unsanitized pot), and second,
how much additional concentrate can I add before I jeopardize its
no-rinse properties? Ok, one more question: Does it still sanitize if
cloudy, say with a longer contact time or something?
If it matters, 1 oz. per five gallons (label directions) scales down
to 1 teaspoon per 3 qts, 10 oz. It is this smaller amount that I
mixed up.
And for what it's worth, I used to hate the foam, but now I find it
comforting.
--frank
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 11:56:30 -0700
From: John Adsit <jadsit@jeffco.k12.co.us>
Subject: Jim's Humor
Jim,
Like you, I am only now catching up on back posts. I assure you that I
did indeed miss your humor. I guess that's the danger of print--I
missed the tone of your voice and thought you were coming in with guns
blazing. Sorry.
I had an unfortunate experience this summer with someone who had a
similar message that was not remotely in jest,
and it apparently sent me off on the wrong trail.
> Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 12:35:00 -0600
> From: "Jim Bermingham" <bermingham@antennaproducts.com>
> Subject: Texas Humor
>
> John Adsit seems to be able to see humor in Sean's posting putting down the
> U.S. but not mine responding to Sean. --
John Adsit
Boulder, Colorado
jadsit@jeffco.k12.co.us
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 16:59:57 -0500
From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer@engin.umich.edu>
Subject: fact vs supersitition
A cautionary tale:
Joe: what's your job?
Bob: Keeping the elephants out.
Joe: But there are no elephants around here!
Bob: See what a good job I'm doing!
You figure out how it applies to your brewing... :-)
=Spencer
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 17:11:55 -0500 (EST)
From: kevin m mueller <kmmuellr@engin.umd.umich.edu>
Subject: Celis
my brother forwarded this to me, and I thought the collective might be
interested...
Miller shuts taps on Austin's Celis Brewery
Big brewer to close Austin operation and try to sell it and Celis
trademark.
http://www.localbusiness.com/eStory/0,1533,AUS_522153,00.html
Kevin
Brewin' in Redford MI
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 17:13:09 -0700
From: "Robert J. Waddell" <rjw@dimensional.com>
Subject: Re: BarKeepers Friend
Dana Edgell at
"EdgeAle@cs.com" queried:
"I have been unable to locate Barkeepers Friend in any of the stores I've
tried. Can some-one please point me to a what stores/departments I should be
looking in."
Dana, I finally found mine at www.hometrendscatalog.com . I purchased
several cans over a year ago, so I don't know if they are still carrying
it, but
give them a try. It works very well for bathtub/shower cleaning as well as
the Brew-Haus. A little goes a long way, as I've only used one can so far.
Wear gloves, and protect your eyes; it has oxalic acid in it. (Plaid won't
protect you.)
This vendor also carries the old Fuller Brush products for those of us old
enough to remember them. ;-)
Good Luck
I *L*O*V*E* my [Pico] system. 'Cept for that
gonging noise it makes when my wife throws it
off the bed at night.
Women...
--Pat Babcock
*** It's never too late to have a happy childhood! ***
****************************************************************************
RJW@dimensional.com / Opinions expressed are usually my own but
Robert J. Waddell / perhaps shared.
Owner & Brewmaster: Barchenspeider Brew-Haus Longmont, Colorado
****************************************************************************
(4,592 feet higher than Jeff Renner)
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #3493, 12/02/00
*************************************
-------
