Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #4489
HOMEBREW Digest #4489 Tue 02 March 2004
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Digest Janitor: janitor@hbd.org
***************************************************************
THIS YEAR'S HOME BREW DIGEST BROUGHT TO YOU BY:
Beer, Beer, and More Beer
Visit http://morebeer.com to show your appreciation!
Support those who support you! Visit our sponsor's site!
********** Also visit http://hbd.org/hbdsponsors.html *********
Contents:
Re: Fermentation Bubble Counter ("Greg 'groggy' Lehey")
malted oats (darrell.leavitt)
Burton-on-Trent water and Sulfate additions (Fred Johnson)
molasses used to feed yeast ("Doug A Moller")
Alcohol Content ("A.J deLange")
Re: Wheat questions (Jeff Renner)
Re: Burton-on-Trent water and Sulfate additions (Jeff Renner)
Culturing German Lager Yeast (Eric Schoville)
RE:micros in Paris (Kevin Brown)
CO2 saturation dynamics ("Fredrik")
Multi-tier infusion mashing system ("Brian Schar")
RE: mass flow meters ("Mike Sharp")
Making a beer with 2 kits. ("William Erskine")
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* The HBD Logo Store is now open! *
* http://www.hbd.org/store.html *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* Suppport this service: http://hbd.org/donate.shtml *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* 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 cannot reach you. We will not correct your address
for the automation - that's your job.
HAVING TROUBLE posting, subscribing or unsusubscribing? See the HBD FAQ at
http://hbd.org.
LOOKING TO BUY OR SELL USED EQUIPMENT? Please do not post about it here. Go
instead to http://homebrewfleamarket.com and post a free ad there.
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 or read the HBD FAQ at http://hbd.org.
JANITOR on duty: Pat Babcock and Spencer Thomas (janitor@hbd.org)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 16:28:21 +1030
From: "Greg 'groggy' Lehey" <grog at lemis.com>
Subject: Re: Fermentation Bubble Counter
On Saturday, 28 February 2004 at 9:33:53 -0600, Kevin Eggemeyer wrote:
> I've been very interested in the recent posts regarding CO2 generation
> as a means of analyzing/recording fermentation characteristics. I had
> been planning a way to measure this activity by tracking the
> fermentation temperature vs. ambient temperature. However, I think
> there are too many difficulties with this approach.
Yes, I've found that my temperature control leaves a lot to be desired
as well.
> I like the idea of being able to use 'bubble frequency' to tell me
> (within reason) when the fermentation began, how active it has been,
> and where it is with regard to completion. The fermentation curve,
> as Fredrik pointed out and gave an example graph of, would allow a
> more complete picture of the fermentation than hydrometer readings
> alone.
>
> I'm more inclined to use this in a general sense (number of bubbles)
> than in an exact sense (volume of CO2 generated). This is mainly
> because I don't know how to build a flow meter, but I think I could
> make a bubble counter. I envision using the parallel port an older
> PC to make the count (I currently have plans to use this type of
> setup to monitor/control fermentation temperature - so why not add
> on a bubble counter?).
Yes, this pretty much sums up my interest in the matter at the moment.
> Would anyone out there be interested in working on this project off
> line?
Certainly. I'm copying the list in case there are any more. I can
set up a separate mailing list if people think it worthwhile.
> To me, the real question is how to design the sensors. I use a
> blow-off tube; many other brewers use air locks of various designs.
> Perhaps a group of us could work up some sensor and software
> solutions to present back to the HBD?
I'd suggest that each of us work out a method which works with our
equipment. For my airlocks, I still think that an optical method is
the best.
> Kevin Eggemeyer
> O'Fallon, MO
> [Somewhat south of Mr. Jeff.]
Greg
Echunga, SA
[Quite a bit to the SW of both of you]
- --
Note: I discard all HTML mail unseen.
Finger grog at lemis.com for PGP public key.
See complete headers for address and phone numbers.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2004 06:35:10 -0500
From: darrell.leavitt at plattsburgh.edu
Subject: malted oats
Chet;
I have spoken to the local supplier of Fawcett's malted oats
(NorthCountry Malt Supply) and he says that due to the higher oil content
in the malted oats on should use a couple of pounds in a 5 gallon
batch...otherwise head retention is bad...
I am uncertain/ don't remember/ as to the diastatic power of the oats...
..Darrell
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 07:23:05 -0500
From: Fred Johnson <FLJohnson at portbridge.com>
Subject: Burton-on-Trent water and Sulfate additions
Jeff recently posted the use of gypsum to achieve the sulfate content
of Burton-on-Trent water:
> ... Burton-on-Trent water that was famous for
> pale ale. Primarily among these ions are calcium and sulfate, and I
> think that adding just CaSO4 (gypsum) is sufficient. You typically
> add a teaspoon per five gallons ...
One teaspoon of gypsum weighs about 3.8 grams by Byron Burch's
measurements (Brewing Quality Beers), which would provide 140 ppm of
sulfate to five gallons. The sulfate values I've read for
Burton-on-Trent water are more in the neighborhood of 820 ppm,
requiring as much as 27 grams or about 7 teaspoons of gypsum if you are
starting with deionized water and not much less than that if you start
with most water sources in the US. (Incidentally, the ion
concentrations in the final product, i.e., after boil-off, would be
even higher.)
Jeff et al., am I missing something here? What does ProMash report?
What values are being used by other calculators? And how wide is the
range of values reported for Burton-on-Trent water?
Fred L Johnson
Apex, North Carolina, USA
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 06:25:24 -0600
From: "Doug A Moller" <damoller at intergate.com>
Subject: molasses used to feed yeast
Hello, Does anyone know what type of molasses to use to feed yeast to grow a
volume?
Sorghum molasses is unprocessed and black strap is what's left after sugar
refinement?
Please help
Doug
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 12:36:24 +0000
From: "A.J deLange" <ajdel at cox.net>
Subject: Alcohol Content
Yes, you can estimate the alcohol content from the difference between
the true and apparent extracts. The catch is that the multiplier
depends somewhat (but not too strongly) on the original extract. For
example at OE of 1 P the multiplier is 2.2010 and at 20 P it is 2.2483.
You can do a linear interpolation between these extremes and come up
with a number which is pretty close to the tabulated ones if you have
any idea about the original extract or just use a value half way
between these two numbers, .
Note that the true and apparent readings are in Plato and that the
resulting alcohol concentration is by weight. Example: apparent extract
is 2 P and true extract 4 P. Multiplying by 2.2246 (half way between
the extreme values above) gives 4.45% ABW and multiplying this by 1.25
gives 5.56% ABV.
Needless to say, this is not a high accuracy estimate.
A. J.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 09:16:21 -0500
From: Jeff Renner <jeffrenner at comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Wheat questions
Chet Nunan <katjulchet at yahoo.com> writes from apparently somewhere
in the Pacific time zone:
>I'm planning to make a hefe-weizen and am considering
>using all wheat malt (except for some hulls). I do an
>infusion mash in a cooler - will this convert an all
>wheat mash? Or does it require a step mash?
You can certainly do a single step mash though with all wheat, a
short protein rest might not hurt. I've done 70% wheat (no hulls)
with a single step with no trouble.
>Also, my homebrew supplier carries both white wheat
>and red wheat - is one preferable to the other in an
>all wheat mash (easily convertable in a single step
>infusion mash)?
White wheat has lower tannin levels in the bran layer, so it would
potentially be a better choice, but it's hard to say if it would make
a practical difference. It's always my choice, though.
>While I'm on the subject, how about an all malted oat
>beer? Would a single step infusion mash do the trick
100% malted oats would be a challenge, I think. I did a midieval
recreation of a dark ale with 50% home malted oats (before
commercially malted oats were available here). It produced a viscous
beer that took forever to lose its oily (10W30) viscosity. As I
recall, the runoff went fairly well.
I wrote Fawcett Malting http://www.fawcett-maltsters.co.uk, the
producer of malted oats that are available in the US, about this
product, and got this reply from James Fawcett (parts 1-3 were on
brown and amber malt):
"3) Oat malt laboratory worts are normally slightly hazy rather
than clear. Oats are not normally low in protein and are quite
difficult to modify from a protein viewpoint, which could well
explain this. Our current stock gives values of 11.8 % total protein
with an index of modification of 27.8%.
"4) As far as mash schedules are concerned we would suggest you
ensure temperatures are between 63 degrees C and 68 degrees C during
mashing in with a one hour minimum stand after mashing in a grist
composed of 50% oat malt and 50% lager malt.
"5) You should aim at a liquor/grist ratio of between 2.5:1 and 3:1.
"6) Oat malt needs very close mill settings to achieve an
acceptable grist. For normal malts our standard mill setting is 62
thou top and 58 thou bottom- for oat malt we drastically reduce these
settings to 48 thou top and 42 thou bottom. Certainly a point to
watch to produce an optimal grist for mashing."
Please report back on your results.
Jeff
- --
Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan USA, JeffRenner at comcast.net
"One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 11:59:07 -0500
From: Jeff Renner <jeffrenner at comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Burton-on-Trent water and Sulfate additions
Fred Johnson wrote from Apex, North Carolina, USA:
>Jeff recently posted the use of gypsum to achieve the sulfate
>content of Burton-on-Trent water:
>
>>... Burton-on-Trent water that was famous for
>>pale ale. Primarily among these ions are calcium and sulfate, and I
>>think that adding just CaSO4 (gypsum) is sufficient. You typically
>>add a teaspoon per five gallons ...
Actually, I didn't intend to mean that this would achieve
Burton-on-Trent salt levels, but rather than one would typically use
this level for typical beers, not historic IPAs, to achieve at least
50 ppm Ca+2. A teaspoon of gypsum (not Burton salts) would give
about 60 ppm ca++ and 150 ppm SO4-2 (see below).
This is a reasonable level for many beers, you might want to add more
for pale ales and bitters for the sulfate. Terry Foster (_Pale
Ales_) suggests 100-200 ppm for Ca+2 and 200-500 ppm for SO4+2 for
pale ales and bitters. I find the upper level rather high. )For
lagers and dark ales, I like to use CaCl2).
>What values are being used by other calculators? And how wide is the
>range of values reported for Burton-on-Trent water?
Foster suggests that a teaspoon of gypsum weighs 5 grams, and this is
about what I get, which he says will give the levels I gave above,
60/150. He suggests these ranges for Burton water:
Calcium, Ca++ 270-300 ppm
Magnesium, Mg++ 20-40
Sodium, Na+ 20-30
Bicarbonate, HCO3-1 200-250
Sulfate, SO4-2 450-700
Chloride, Cl-1 35-40
Last summer I made a historic 1.072 British IPA with a gizillion IBUs
(well, actually 100+ calculated, but that much doesn't go into
solution) based on recipes in the Durden Park Beer Circle's _Historic
British Beers and How to brew Them_. I used the lower range of these
values.
My water has a bicarbonate level upwards of 200ppm. I used all pale
Maris Otter malt, and was pleased to see that the Ca++ and the malt
overcame the bicarbonate alkalinity to give me a normal mash pH. I
didn't calculate residual alkalinity, just flew by the seats of my
pants. It has turned out very well with no harshness whatsoever,
which I was concerned with, but it needs more time to mellow the
bitterness.
Hope this helps. I can't address your Promash questions as I drive a
Mac and so don't use it. I am going to get an old PC laptop, though,
so I can.
Jeff
- --
Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan USA, JeffRenner at comcast.net
"One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2004 13:47:56 -0600
From: Eric Schoville <eric at schoville.com>
Subject: Culturing German Lager Yeast
Hello all,
Has anyone successfully cultured a German lager yeast from an import?
If so, what have your results been and with which beers? I thought it
might be interesting to try. I get to drink the beer, and use the yeast.
Thanks!
Eric Schoville
Madison, WI
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2004 16:17:16 -0400
From: Kevin Brown <kbrown at uvi.edu>
Subject: RE:micros in Paris
My wife and I ended up at the 'Au Trappiste' bar almost everyday on our
trip to Paris. Many Belgium beers and lots of good stuff on tap too. At
that time (about 3 years ago) they also had a great "Happy Hour" special on
mussels, lots of different sauce styles and a very hardy serving too. I
highly recommend it.Some info on the place can be found here:
http://www.paris-menus.com/en/01/trappiste/trappiste.htm
Cheers,
Kevin
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 23:05:23 +0100
From: "Fredrik" <carlsbergerensis at hotmail.com>
Subject: CO2 saturation dynamics
> > Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 16:50:04 -0500
> > From: "Dave Burley" <Dave_Burley at charter.net>
> > Subject: Twoey's old metab 'ite, bubble counting,Clinit*st
Dave, I remember that you pointed these things out before to me :) but I
also said I think the dynamics can be worked out, I am stubborn enough to
not give up until it works or until the failure is written in my forehead. I
haven't posted any formulas because I don't want to obscure the ideas with
technical solutions that tend to be very unreadable to many. I prefer to
focus on the target, and if one tool doesn't do it, on with the next. The
technical solutions are not the interesting part to me, and second I am
still working on the entire thing, so it's not yet settled. So I may only
add confusion by posting something that's not done. A beer is certainly a
non-equilibrium system, which is also the reason why I think there is need
for a computer simulation. It is a framework, and you can easily replace the
CO2 subset for another one as improvements are found.
But just as a basic idea so far to maybe resolve some misunderstandings,
I've put some formulas on this page regarding the CO2 dynamics on the link.
It's too messy to write math in emails, there may be typos but it's the idea
that's important. It's just taken from my old paper notes so beware. I'll
probably regret posting this at this point(!) because there may be faults in
there but anway: http://hem.bredband.net/frerad/beer/CO2dyn.jpg
Some explanations:
"Production" means the CO2 produced by yeast at any time. Of course this
involves a whole set of equations itself that are coupled to these ones, but
that should not be relevant to the CO2 discussion.
the parameters k2,k3,k4 all depend on temperature and wort composition. I'm
assuming a basic arrhenius form of these temperature dependances. The
dependance on wort composition, sugars etc can most certainly be worked out,
it is probably available as tables somewhere. I didn't post these, because
it's only gets unreadable. They are supposed to be functions. Once you've
got these DE's you can just plug them into excel and do the simulation.
The backpressure is the back momentum from the bubbling. this was just an
idea, I haven't fiddled yet to see if its' significant. There may be more
issues like this, that will be added in the end.
Maybe the formulas made the idea more clear. I know you know alot about this
Dave so if you can find anything obviously wrong in the ideas it would be
great. I have not been focusing on the CO2 part at all because I don't think
that is the troublesome part, though it certainly has some issues but the
yeast thing is the heavy part, at least for me. Eventually of course the
entire model will be simulated and debugged and then tested against some
real batches to tune in all the unknown parameters. I have some backup plans
in case I will observe some resonance phenommenon in the airlock at certain
flow rates. I haven't estimated the resonant frequencey yet, but in theory
there might be some resonance phenomena. But if that is the case I will
model that too.
Still of course there will be an element of unpredictability since the
initial conditions are not known, but that is a problem of reality, not a
problem of the modelling.
/Fredrik
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 15:32:39 -0800
From: "Brian Schar" <schar at cardica.com>
Subject: Multi-tier infusion mashing system
I am planning to build some kind of stand for a multi-tier
infusion mashing system. Currently, my hot-liquor tank
is my brew kettle; I place the mash tun on the ground
next to the kettle and fill it. I then move the mash tun
up onto an old cooler, put the kettle on the ground and
drain the mash tun into the kettle. Then I have to
lift the full kettle onto my burner. The problem is that
my kettle is a 15 gallon Polarware, and trying to lift
that sucker with 10+ gallons in it is impossible.
My wife is a saint and helps me lift it. However, it's
a hassle, and one of us is bound to get hurt at some
point.
I want to build a more-traditional 3-tier system for
safety's sake. I also think I will brew more when it's
easier to do, and I don't have to coordinate my brew
schedule to match my wife's being home to help
me heft the kettle. I am thinking about two options:
1) Buy one of those Wal-Mart turkey fryers as a
hot liquor tank and use the propane burner underneath
it to heat up the water. This option has the virtue of
being cheap in terms of the HLT. However, it makes
stand design more complex, because the top tier
of the stand has to withstand the heat and/or
flame produced by the burner. This puts me in
metal-working land, potentially.
2) Use an Igloo cooler as an HLT, and purchase a
pump such as a March pump. I can heat the water
in the kettle, then pump it to the HLT. This option is
more expensive, and brings AC power into the mix,
but it may simplify the construction of the stand
significantly. I could use good old wood or other
material without worrying about the heat and flame
from an HLT burner.
Any opinions from HBD land?
Brian Schar
Menlo Park, CA
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 17:58:01 -0800
From: "Mike Sharp" <rdcpro at hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: mass flow meters
-S says:
-S: "I wish I had time for a full response but ..."
If that was an abbreviated response, I'd hate to see the full one. Good
thing I'm several timezones away. Geez, you'd think I was recommending
clinit*st to measure residual CO2!
-S: "Mike portrays himself as an MFM expert"
Oh no, not at all. I rely on my instrument vendors for that. Really. But
if you'd called the vendor before you slammed me, you'd have found that the
coriolis MFMs you were talking about don't read within two orders of
magnitude of your needs. Forget a 500:1 turndown. It doesn't mean anything
here. You're not trying to measure flow rates in the SCFM range! And you
keep ignoring the pressure drop across the instrument that is required to
get those numbers!
-S: "I found a Brooks Quantim around 4L/min FS CO2 and an ABB unit around
2L/min."
How about some model numbers? AFAICT, the Brooks is for liquids only. So
is the ABB. The Brooks Quantim you describe carries the tag line: "Taking
Coriolis Technology to the Low Flow Market." And in their market, they
truly are. So I can see you might think they would be a good candidate,
assuming they worked for gas. But let's see what they mean by "Low Flow,"
shall we?
"Minimum full scale flow rate: 50 grams/hour"
But the lowest value of measurement and control within the stated accuracy
specifications is 5 grams/hour, and the zero stability is stated as "better
than 0.5 gram/hour."
More telling is the stated density range:
"Density Range: 0.5 to 2.0 grams/cc
Accuracy: +/-0.05 grams/cc
Repeatability: +/-0.005 grams/cc"
And what about the gas we're trying to measure? Well, in your words, we
need to measure "a few ml per minute", and 3 std ml/min of CO2 is in the
neighborhood of about 0.006 grams per minute. Unfortunately, the density of
CO2 is a bit outside the 0.5 to 2.0 grams/cc range.
Do I see a disconnect here? How do you propose *accurately* measuring a
flow on the order of 0.006 g/min with this? Of course, as I said before,
the only low-flow Brooks I can find is intended for liquids, not gases;
thus, the source of Steve's disconnect. I can't find a gas version, so a
model number would be worth more to me than reading several paragraphs of
ranting about how ignorant I am.
-S: "I haven't time to do a thorough search right now, but I see no reason
based on the principles of operation why a coriolis meters can't be made
with a full-scale of 500-1000ml/min."
I see a reason. They're inherently mechanical. They measure mass by
measuring the deflection of a vibrating tube. The process fluid must have
enough mass to deflect the sensor tube. The literature is full of cautions
regarding using Coriolis MFMs at low flows and with gases and vapors,
because of this reason.
-S: "Coriolis meters, unlike thermal units, measure true mass, so they are
normally rated in grams per minute flow."
Bull. You're being misleading. They both measure mass flow. Neither one
"infers" mass flow as other meters must. The primary physical
characteristic each one measures is directly related to mass flow.
Come on, Steve. Instrument ratings are often specified in units according
to the industry or process they're intended for. If it was a standard
industry unit, you can bet there would be instruments rated in furlongs per
fortnight.
-S: "I'd like to find one around 1 or 2gm/minute."
I presume you mean at max flow. You need one with a resolution about ten
thousand times *less* than that, if you want to measure flows as low as
0.002 g/min of C02 gas. 2 g/min is about 1 std liter/minute for CO2. We
all agree that this is a suitable upper limit for a 5 gallon fermentor. It's
the lower limit that we disagree on. To get that sort of turndown in a
coriolis MFM means you're going to have significant pressure drop across the
sensor at max flow, because they are mechanical. Being mechanical, the
energy to deflect the tube has to come from somewhere! How are you going to
achieve this?
-S: "Of course Mike should be aware that lower range meters exist for both
technologies."
Well, I'm certainly aware of thermal MFMs in the low ranges. If you recall,
I pointed out a thermal MFM that goes from 0 to 20 std ml/min, full scale,
and will tell you flow rate to within 0.2 std ml/min or 0.0004 g/minute for
CO2. They don't require any pressure drop to function. And Brooks has (no
doubt for a lot more money) a thermal MFM (model SLMF 60/61/63) that goes
from 3 sccm to 2500 slpm with an accuracy of 1% of rate up to 1200 slpm and
1% FS above that. There are, no doubt, plenty of options for thermal MFMs.
But I don't know of a single suitable coriolis MFM within two orders of
magnitude of that range. In fact, for *low density* process fluids like
gases, I don't know of a single coriolis MFM within 3 orders of magnitude of
your requirement. Percent of rate accuracy isn't all that wonderful if it
only holds true for relatively high rates. It's pretty well accepted that
for mass flow measurement of industrial gases, you use thermal MFMs. What
coriolis MFM will tell you gaseous CO2 mass flow to within 0.0004 g/minute?
Face it Steve, they simply don't make a Coriolis MFM anywhere near the flow
ranges you're talking about needing! "Low flow" for a coriolis MFM is on
the order of hundreds of grams/hour. So arguing that a Coriolis MFM is more
accurate and therefore better than a thermal MFM is ridiculous. That's like
saying a forklift is ideal for putting beer in your fridge. It might be
true if we were placing a PALLET of beers in a refrigerated warehouse. But
it simply ain't true for a homebrewer.
Regards,
Mike Sharp
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 21:24:06 -0500
From: "William Erskine" <werskin at sympatico.ca>
Subject: Making a beer with 2 kits.
Dear kit brewers,
Does anyone have any experience with making a batch of beer using 2
Cooper's kits and no other ingredients? The instructions say to add
the can of extract (from a hopped kit) and 1 kg. of dextrose. I've done
this and ended up with cidery beer. My local homebrew supply doesn't sell
Coopers unhopped malt extract, even though I've asked. This is also not
something I want to order by mail-order.I am suspicious of
their dry malt extract. I'm afraid it's 5 years old and stale. So while I
am
acquiring the equipment for all grain which I am anxious to start, I thought
I might try brewing a batch with two kits done to 23 litres of volume.
Does this produce a beer with two much bitterness? Is it too high in
alcohol? Please note: I would not be boiling it this time.
Thanks for your insight.
William Erskine
London, Ontario.
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #4489, 03/02/04
*************************************
-------
