HOMEBREW Digest #3493 Sat 02 December 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 *********

  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 at 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 at 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 Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 03:07:48 -0500 From: "Stephen Alexander" <steve-alexander at 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 Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 04:10:03 -0500 From: "Stephen Alexander" <steve-alexander at 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 Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 21:25:32 +1100 From: "Stephen Taylor" <stephentaylor at 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. Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 10:27:16 +1100 From: "Grant Stott" <gstott at 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 Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 07:12:43 -0500 From: "Stephen Alexander" <steve-alexander at 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 Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 08:56:59 -0500 From: "Schneider, Brett" <Brett_Schneider at 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 Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 15:04:52 +0100 From: "Dr. Pivo" <dp at 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 Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 09:36:58 -0500 From: "Pannicke, Glen A." <glen_pannicke at 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 Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 09:44:11 -0500 From: "Walter H. Lewis III" <wlewis at 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 Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 10:54:26 -0500 From: "patrick finerty jr." <zinc at 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 at nyx10.nyx.net for PGP key http://finerty.net/pjf Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 13:42:08 -0500 (EST) From: Frank Tutzauer <comfrank at 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 Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 11:56:30 -0700 From: John Adsit <jadsit at 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 at 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 at jeffco.k12.co.us Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 16:59:57 -0500 From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer at 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 Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 17:11:55 -0500 (EST) From: kevin m mueller <kmmuellr at 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 Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 17:13:09 -0700 From: "Robert J. Waddell" <rjw at dimensional.com> Subject: Re: BarKeepers Friend Dana Edgell at "EdgeAle at 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 at 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) Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 12/02/00, by HBD2HTML v1.2 by KFL
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96
Convert This Page to Pilot DOC Format