HOMEBREW Digest #3482 Sat 18 November 2000

[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]

		Digest Janitor: janitor@hbd.org


          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 *********

  SWMBO (Mark J Bradakis)
  Dry Hopping and Haze ("pksmith_morin")
  wobbly keg kettle ("Bridges, Scott")
  Lager temp variability ("S. SNYDER")
  Logical Decisions In Brewing ("AYOTTE, ROGER C")
  Reprimanding Graham but recognising his talents (off topic) ("Dr. Pivo")
  re: dry-hopping a cause for haze? ("Stephen Alexander")
  dry yeast question for Rob Moline (and others?) (Robin Griller)
  off topic:but quite funny ("Jim Bermingham")
  late hop additions; the deadly SWMBO (Frank Tutzauer)
  Yeast rousing = clearer beer? (Demonick)
  Hop Aroma Lost During Fermentation (Demonick)
  Logical decisions/SWMBO? ("Stephen Alexander")
  Low-Grav brews ("Jeffry D Luck")
  Re: Some bad bottles of brew (LJ Vitt)
  More Dry Hopping for the technically inclined (Chris Swersey)
  Secondary in corny keg? (Kb9ve0)

* * 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 at hbd.org. JANITOR on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 23:14:53 -0700 (MST) From: Mark J Bradakis <mjb at cs.utah.edu> Subject: SWMBO One is certainly free to invent various possible meanings for the acronym, but I believe the origin of "swmbo" dates back to Queen Victoria. As the monarch of the empire, it was she who must be obeyed. These days, though, the popular use of the term refers to one's spouse or partner. And as a side note to relate this to beer, last night was the first brewing session we've had since spring. I got trounced in darts, but it was a good night, I've missed brewing. mjb. Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 04:33:24 -0600 From: "pksmith_morin" <pksmith_morin at email.msn.com> Subject: Dry Hopping and Haze Hi Dan - Yep, dry hopping is definitely a contributing factor in haze production. Dry hopping will introduce a great many new polyphenols into your beer, which will tend to haze, especially under post-fermentation conditions. Post fermentation, dissolved oxygen is more easily introduced and sustained, and this leads to oxidative polymerization of monomeric polyphenols. These polymerized polyphenols will complex with certain classes of proteins in your beer and voila, haze. Your instincts are sound - crash cool and cold condition (truly cold - depending on your beer strength, as low as 28F) as long as you can stand it, then fine. Cheers, Paul Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 08:06:54 -0500 From: "Bridges, Scott" <ScottBridges at sc.slr.com> Subject: wobbly keg kettle Julio (ever been down by the schoolyard? Oh, nevermind) writes: >I use a S.S. keg cut off at the top. (not just the top cut out). Works >great. Had a valve welded to the side at the bottom. My problem is that >the rim at the base of the keg is larger than the burner surface of my >outdoor cooker. Hence the keg sits on the bowl (a bit unstable). Need to >weld a wider surface to my cooker so the keg's rim sits on it. Got the >keg for $10.00, a friend cut it for free; can't beat that! I had the same problem with the keg bottom not fitting and leaving the keg unstable on the cooker. You definitely don't want that with 10+ gallons of boiling liquor. Here's my low-tech solution. I put a garden-variety rectangular barbeque grill grate on top of the cooker rim. Then I set the keg on the grill grate. Now the keg has a stable surface. No wobble. Cheap solution. HTH, Scott Brewing in SC. One of these days I'm going to get my GPS out and figure exactly what my rennerian coordinates are.... Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 09:23:10 -0500 From: "S. SNYDER" <SSNYDER at LBGHQ.com> Subject: Lager temp variability Greetings to the brewing collective: I have a question regarding lagering temperature variability. I like to use as little nonrenewable energy as possible when making my brews. I brew ales in the warm months (I can always find a place in my house between 68 and 72 then) and lagers in the cold months (my basement regularly gets to lagering temps by late October/early November). These 200 year old houses in Connecticut are great for winter lagering. My question is, how stable do the temperatures have to stay during lagering so as to prevent off flavors and a generally bad lager. I have no problem staying below 52F but I know that in some rooms I could use the temperature may range from 42 to 48 from night to day. Would a fluctuation like that have a negative effect on the final product? Thanks for over a year of great advice. Scott Snyder Rotten Rotti Brewery Danbury, CT ssnyder at lbghq.com "Civilization exists by geologic consent - subject to change without notice" Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 08:30:00 -0500 From: "AYOTTE, ROGER C" <RCAYOT at SOLUTIA.COM> Subject: Logical Decisions In Brewing John started a great discussion last Issue: Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 08:48:56 -0700 From: John Adsit <jadsit at jeffco.k12.co.us> Subject: Logical decisions in brewing What I would like to add is that when trying to make decision about what caused what in a particular brew, one has to think about how consistent one's brewing is. What I mean is, first ask yourself how many time you have brewed a particular style, recipe etc, and then ask yourself how consistent that beer was. I know that I have had very few brews that were made EXACTLY the same way with exactly the same ingredients, with exactly the same yeast, starter time, chill time, hop schedule/form/alpha acid the list goes on. When I TRY to replicate something exactly because I was pleased with a particular batch, it NEVER comes out exactly the same! Now I call myself a pretty good brewer, but if I can't replicate a brew exactly, then how can I say what particular steps in my process are responsible? For those who would like to experiment, I would only caution, brew the same beer over and over until you know what the results are, and can achieve a consistent beer, then change one thing at a time. I do have some brewing friends that are fairly consistent in their beers. I think that is because they brew with some pretty good equipment, a tower type setup with separate gas burners for strike/lauter water and kettle, use pumps for moving water/beer around, and always use a single temp infusion and the same or similar grain (pre-crushed briesse 2-row plus specialty grains). I use a variety of grains and techniques because I like to fuss and get creative, but while this type of brewing does not lend itself to much experimentation with techniques, it DOES lead to a great deal of EXPLORATION of styles, and ingredients. Roger Ayotte Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 16:15:48 +0100 From: "Dr. Pivo" <dp at pivo.w.se> Subject: Reprimanding Graham but recognising his talents (off topic) Graham wrote some pretty vitriolic stuff: > I quote from 'Moral American for Beginners' > Chapter one page 16 > > quote > > "You must treat all things with the utmost seriousness, even if it > doesn't warrant such action. Our dominance of the world and > overall righteousness must be maintained right thru every facet of > our daily lives, and as such no opportunity must be overlooked in > establishing our moral righteousness in the world Which was really unfair, but fortunately Steve put him RIGHT in his place, with: > You confuse... and <snip> > it's always an error... You wouldn't think that a guy that has sat in front of an open oven door in the Queensland heat, turning his brain into the consistancy of an over ripe custard apple would still possess such predictive powers. Dr. Pivo Ignorant? Who says I'm ignorant? Hell, I'll have you know I've been to College......Electoral College. Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 10:55:30 -0500 From: "Stephen Alexander" <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net> Subject: re: dry-hopping a cause for haze? Lyga, Daniel M asks ... >Is cloudy beer a normal result from dry hopping a beer and a longer >clarifying time necessary? [...] . Should I just wait this one out...? >Attempt cold crashing the solids out...? Finings...? Yes Dan, dry hopping often makes a clear beer cloudy. Protein+Phenolic haze is a pretty difficult topic but basically the tannoids are capable of 'gluing' together small proteins to form masses around the size of a wavelength of visible light. Get enough of these particles and they scatter the light and appear as haze. Tannoids can also glue together proteins to the extent that they will no longer stay in solution or suspension and drop out, but that takes more time & tannoids. Hops release gallotannins which are the closest phenolic compound to true tannins and have a great tendency to form cross links between protein molecules. These gallotannins are also the first tannoids lost in the break material so they are not a big factor in beer unless you dry hop. So the very odd fact is that low levels of tannoid may produce a clear beer, higher levels a cloudy beer, and higher levels yet a clear beer. Adding additional tannoids may clear the beer, but it is a balancing act and can also damage flavor. [ If you'd like to experiment with this (and are prepared to lose the beer) you *may* find that the dark soft papery very bitter material you find in some nuts (e.g. walnuts, chestnuts) is a very concentrated source of true tannins. A proper addition should clear your beer and leave no bitter flavor.] How to deal with dry-hop haze ? This, like almost all forms of haze will eventually drop but it may take several months. Cold will reduce the sedimentation time by improving P&P binding so can help a bit. The only solution once this haze has formed is to wait, filter or add tannoids. Like most haze problems, it is better prevented than cured. PVPP, PolyClarAT and gelatin are protein analogs and the first two selectively bind to phenolics that are likely to cause haze. So *BEFORE* haze has formed add one of these and then chill the beer. Chilling improves the binding of phenolic to protein analog. You can add these agents to the cloudy beer, but they will only be marginally effective if the haze has already formed (not IMO worthwhile). Dryhopping early, during late fermentation, may reduce the haze problem as some tannoids are trapped in the yeast+trub cake. Unfortunately you can't effectively add PVPP etc until the yeast are separated. -S Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 11:14:53 -0500 From: Robin Griller <rgriller at chass.utoronto.ca> Subject: dry yeast question for Rob Moline (and others?) Hi all, Perhaps Jethro can answer a question that has confused me. I usually use liquid yeasts, but on occasion use dry. I find that dry yeasts are much more susceptible to low temperature than liquid, especially at the start of fermentation. Here's what I do and what happens when I use dried yeasts (primarily lallemand, but I've also had this happen with Cooper's): -rehydrate for 15 minutes; -pitch into wort between 68-72F; -put in basement: ambient temp 64-68; results: -yeast pancake forms on top of wort after a number of hours and then just sits there for ages; Often I have to rouse the yeast to get it going after that; Now, my basement is cool, *but* (1) it is within the temperature range given for these yeasts (i.e. I have a bitter fermenting with the Lallemand Manchester right now; basement tempt is 64--the range for Manchester given is 64-70. It did the pancake and sit there thing, while (split batch) the part fermenting on yeast recovered from a bottle of Coniston Bluebird started up nicely at same temp); (2) I've only ever once had this happen with a liquid yeast (White Labs' Burton, which has a high bottom end temp IIRC) and seems to be associated with temps (if I move to slightly warmer spot they go. Do beers fermented with dried yeasts need to be started off in 'too' warm locations? thanks for any help or suggestions, Robin Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 10:17:22 -0600 From: "Jim Bermingham" <bermingham at antennaproducts.com> Subject: off topic:but quite funny Sean, Must be hard living in and being a citizen of the "ARM PIT" of the world. Been there, didn't like it, don't need it. Don't have good beer down there and the citizens don't even know it. WELCOME TO TEXAS.... Now go home. I recon this could apply for the rest of the US of A, don't know... been there, don't need it either. DON'T MESS WITH TEXAS. Jim Bermingham Millsap, TEXAS Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 11:56:47 -0500 (EST) From: Frank Tutzauer <comfrank at acsu.buffalo.edu> Subject: late hop additions; the deadly SWMBO As promised, here's a typical hop schedule for good hop flavor in an APA. 1 oz. Perle for 60 minutes, and then a half ounce Cascades at each of 30, 20, and 15 minutes with a full ounce at 5 and then again at 1 minute to go. I've used this or variations of this schedule many times on both all-grain and extract/specialty batches. Sometimes I add an addition at 10 minutes, and the early Cascades additions are timed to hit IBU levels. Target an OG in the low 1.050's and an IBU level in the low 40s. No dry hops; no hop back. And as to what a SWMBO is, Graham's definition in HBD 3384 is best: From: "Graham Sanders" <craftbrewer at cisnet.COM.AU> "...there are many dangerous creatures here in North Queensland. From genital sucking frogs, trained taipans, deadly tourist seeking stingers and 'saltie' with certain people names engrained into their skin, not to mention the Yates-Pivo dive boats tours, but perhaps the worst of all that is feared is SWMBO. This creature is feared by all mankind. It has been known to make the "Mike Tysons" of the world tremble in fear or just straight out freeze. In fact old Iron Mike was heard to say 'No way, I'm not that mad." What worse these creatures are found even in the bliss of the surburbs. Its there unpredictability thats makes them soooo dangerous. Quite and even cute one minute, they will bite your head off given half a chance. Even their tongue is venomous. The only sight worst, is when these animals form packs. Guaranteed to make the strongest man cry in fear." The only thing that I would add is that the SWMBO ranges broadly, and can be found not only in North Queensland, but in virtually all parts of the inhabited world. Be afraid, --frank Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 09:20:53 -0800 From: Demonick <demonick at zgi.com> Subject: Yeast rousing = clearer beer? I routinely rouse my yeast. Starting just after the kraeusen falls I vigorously swirl up all the yeast and trub from the bottom of the fermenter twice a day, morning and evening. I do this by tipping the fermenter and swirling it around. It is done without disturbing the airlock. The fermenter remains sealed, full of CO2, and there is no danger of oxidation. Although it is anti-intuitive, it appears to me that this helps clarify the green beer. Has anyone else noticed this? My beers tend to have almost no haze. I use irish moss in the boil for 30 minutes, but no other finings. At first rousing the gunk is fine-grained and friable. Swirling it up greatly lightens the color of the beer in the fermenter. (My current ESB looked like chocolate milk while it was fermenting. When the kraeusen fell it darkened to a cola color). At each subsequent rousing the gunks gets coarser and as a result the color change is less. Last night, the gunk chunks were so large that it looked like pieces of milk chocolate swirling around in a cola. Now, of course one may expect the brew to naturally darken as more yeast floculates, and one may expect the gunk chunks to coarsen as the yeast cake compacts. Could the rousing be "scrubbing" the yeast and gunk out of suspension? Is it just my imagination? It's been a long time since I didn't rouse a batch so I have no recent comparison with a non-roused brew. Cheers, Domenick Venezia Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 09:34:06 -0800 From: Demonick <demonick at zgi.com> Subject: Hop Aroma Lost During Fermentation From: "Peter J. Calinski" <PCalinski at iname.com> >I even tried putting a balloon over the air lock but it didn't seem to >help. I don't think that a balloon would help. Once the hop aroma has left the beer, having it in the ballon won't get it back into the brew. You'll just lose it when you remove the ballon. I don't know any way to prevent hop aroma from being scrubbed out, and the only remedy that I can imagine is to replace it by a dry-hop or a hop-tea. As regards hop teas, does anyone have any idea of the optimal water treatment for a hop-tea? I use carbon filtered, boiled, cooled, Seattle municipal water which is nearly distilled (hardness as CaCO3 is 12.3 mg/L, sulfate is 1.2 mg/L). Do any of the hop aroma components extract better at high or low pH? Cheers! Domenick Venezia Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 13:26:48 -0500 From: "Stephen Alexander" <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net> Subject: Logical decisions/SWMBO? John Adsit states ... > number of recent posts have been of the variety that goes something >like this: "I did (whatever) and got (these results). Therefore, doing >whatever) causes (these results)." > > just want to remind people that this is not a logically valid >conclusion. ("Post hoc ergo propter hoc," to be technical.) Causality as a concept has fundamental problems - this isn't the place tho'. >Brewing is >a simple process, but it involves uncountable variations and >possibilities. John is completely correct but his note should be seen as caution against injudicious reading or extravagant claims in posts. It should NOT prevent anyone from posting interesting observations, speculations, kitchen experiments or even guesses. If someone posts that "doing 'X' makes my beers better" you can be sure that in time others will try to confirm or deny the causal relationship under other brewing conditions. It may turn out the original post has limited applicability or incorrectly interpreted cause, but such a post should be read as a call for confirmation of a questionable hypothesis and not as fact. BTW - most pro-experiments test a hypothesis where the author suspects a particular and interesting result. It's the nature of any research that effort is expended where suspicions and limited observations occur, and we should thank, not punish, the good folks who bring these limited observations and guesses to our attention. If nothing else they make us think. Take every posted factoid with a grain of Burton salts. == Dennis Collins asks >SWMBO? "She who must be obeyed", orig 'Rumpole of the Bailey', BBC TV series circa 1983. Meaning functionally identical with 'SO' except that it require 2.5X the bandwidth. This minor difference explains the extensive use by Australians in their recent efforts to develop content-free posts [*]. [*] search for "Phil Yates" in HBD Archive 1999-2000 for masterful examples of this artform. -S Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 08:21:15 -0700 From: "Jeffry D Luck" <Jeffry.D.Luck at aexp.com> Subject: Low-Grav brews Catching up on HBD so I hope this still has interest. I've been an extract brewer for about 3 years now, and the low-grav beer question seems fairly obvious. First, my basic recipe for beer includes: (1) specialty grains for flavor, body, style-type, (2) sugar (LME, DME, honey, whatever) for alcohol content, (3,...) hops, water, irish moss, etc. For a standard batch, I would use 6lb sugar, plus or minus depending on what I'm after. For a low-grav batch (and I haven't done this, just thinking out loud here...) use 2 or 3 lbs. You get some flavor and body from malt extract, so increase the specialty grains by maybe 50% to make up for what you've lost. The simplified version of mashing is to replace sugar in my above process with converted sugars from the grain. So for a low-grav batch, cut your main grain bill (2-row, 6-row, etc) in half, and increase the specialty grains to make up for the lost flavor and body. Maybe add a lb of Cara Vienna just to be sure. Too simple? I realize my lack of mash experience makes my idea suspect, but this just feels right. I await enlightenment. Jeff Luck Salt Lake City, UT USA Having a wonderful wine. Wish you were beer. > Meteorologists and climatologists have documented a consistent > and persistent column of hot air rising from North Queensland, > Australia, the cause of which is unknown. He was *supposed* to alert the weather service before roasting any more grain! Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 10:51:58 -0800 (PST) From: LJ Vitt <lvitt4 at yahoo.com> Subject: Re: Some bad bottles of brew Tom Daniels <daniels at cerias.purdue.edu> asked: >Well, the 12 oz bottles were good (most of which have been drank), >but some of the 22oz'ers are really bad. Odor and taste of phenols, >I think. The off taste is somewhere between really smoky and >medicine. So, I'm guessing bad bottle sanitization??? >The off taste seems to be kind of hit and miss between bottles. >The only weird thing that I did was clean with bleach (as normal), but >instead of running them through the dishwasher, I rinsed with Iodophor >solution. Chlorophenals can develop if chlorine is left in the bottles. Without tasting your brew, noone can tell if this is the case with your bottles. The medicine taste is the reason I suggest this as one potential. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Get organized for the holidays! http://calendar.yahoo.com/ Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 14:03:54 -0700 From: Chris Swersey <cswersey at salmoninternet.com> Subject: More Dry Hopping for the technically inclined Great question, and a terrific answer from Demonick to John Peed. Lots of experience in this verbiage, and I thought I would add to it. Please try to see this through; it's a little technical, but will add to your understanding of fermentation and hops. Demonick says: "I've even heard of people stuffing a hop cone into each bottle, then filling and sealing. If anyone reading this has tried it, please post your results. You can also dry hop in a keg. My experience with dry hopping has NOT been particularly successful. In my last batch, this past weekend, a Fuller's ESB clone attempt, I used a hopback for the first time. Someone posted a URL for building a hopback from a mason jar, and I used that as a guide. Whoever that was - Thank you. It worked VERY well. DO NOT forget the copper scrubby to protect the outflow from the hopback. I found that an ounce of hops in a 1 quart jar is too much. Try 1/2-3/4 ounce. In my system the hot wort from the kettle is picked up by a gooseneck stainless pickup tube, routed through the hopback, then onto the counter-flow chiller and into the fermenter. The aroma from the East Kent Goldings was apparent. Cooling the wort in the CFC "locks in" the aroma extracted in the hopback. My only concern is that some of this aroma is scrubbed out by the fermentation. Obviously, the hopback results are not in yet. I'll offer a followup in a few weeks." As a professional brewer of 9 years and a Natural Products Chemist by training, I made a study of literature devoted to hop flavor and aroma. One influential body of work done on hop aroma origin is by Deinzer and Yang at Univ. of Oregon. The origin of many of the actual flavor components most associated with dry hopped beer has been elucidated, and is now established to be the reduction of sesquiterpene hydrocarbons and their epoxides ("terpene epoxides" from here on) to alcohols during fermentation.....Hang in there. This is important, so don't let your eyes glaze over quite yet. Terpenes and terpene epoxides are highly volatile oils. After vigorous boiling and even simple exposure to temps. at 200 F and above for as little as 15 minutes, these oils are gone. They either vaporize, or they isomerize into goo that stays in the kettle trub, or else remain unavailable for yeast metabolism. What this means is, that if you want these terpene alcohols to be produced by yeast during fermentation, you have to make sure their precursors (terpenes and terpene epoxides) are in the chilled wort in the first place. Two of the best ways to do this are using a hopback followed by immediate chilling, or, by dry hopping in the primary fermenter. Dry hopping during secondary ageing will no doubt produce beautiful beers with significant hop aroma. However, the loss of a bit of aroma quantity during primary is more than made up for the unique qualities one picks up by allowing vigorous fermentation activity of yeast upon the terpene epoxides. You only get that during primary fermentation to an extent that allows humans to detect these unique flavors and aromas. This is why Demonick's hop back will work so nicely; his final ravings will probably make you want to have more than one.... He reckons correctly that his hop back followed by immediate chilling locks in the oils needed for hop aroma. A deeper understanding of the process includes the idea that he is providing in his wory yet another class of compounds on which the yeast can and does act during primary fermentation, resulting in unique aromas that were not there before fermentation. I personally do things more simply still. I have a sack with a very fine mesh that I use to dry hop with pellets during primary fermentation (Call Mark Caspary at O & S Bag Co., Idaho Falls, ID 208-524-1324). I use a couple of stainless steel fender washers from Home Depot in there to keep the sack from floating, along with 1/3 to 3/4 ounce of hop pellets. I can certainly smell the hops during primary; I can also assure you that I have big, huge, wonderful hop aroma in the finished beer. The scrubbing can be overcome by the quantity of hops used. I also make sure I have fast primary, and get the beer off the hops in less than 5 or 6 days to avoid a vegetal quality. This also explains why dry hopping in the keg or bottle, or by using teas, pellets, cones or extracts or oils during secondary conditioning or in the cellar yield different quality aromas, and not altogether "authentic" tasting/smelling. There is no appreciable level of reduction of epoxides to alcohols; the beer will taste like beer with hops added, not like something altogether different. Best of luck, Chris Swersey JCS Consulting Brewlab N. America Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 17:31:02 EST From: Kb9ve0 at aol.com Subject: Secondary in corny keg? I was thinking of using one of my corny kegs as a secondary. Does anyone know of any reason not to do this? also any suggestions on attaching an airlock to the keg. My idea was to take the poppet out of the gas side and find a length of hose that will fit snugly over the fitting (ball lock) and putting the other end in a jar blowoff style. Any better ideas? Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 11/18/00, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96