---

	FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
		Digest Janitor: pbabcock at hbd.org


***************************************************************
       THIS YEAR'S HOME BREW DIGEST BROUGHT TO YOU BY: 

          Northern  Brewer, Ltd. Home Brew Supplies
Visit http://www.northernbrewer.com  to show your appreciation!
               Or call them at 1-800-681-2739

    Support those who support you! Visit our sponsor's site!
********** Also visit http://hbd.org/hbdsponsors.html *********


Contents:
  Analysis of the Continuous sparging process/Viscosity issues (David Harsh)
  Re: Mashout temp and viscosity ("Peter A. Ensminger")
  The Second 2nd Annual Hogtown Brew-Off (Mark Tumarkin)
  racking of p-lambics (KEITH R BUSBY)
  Re: And another thing ! (Jeff Renner)
  Viscosity ("Spencer W. Thomas")
  RE: Subject: efficiency, 1/ batch sparge analysis (Steven Parfitt)
  Sparge efficiency, Mash out and CharlieP ("Dave Burley")
  Re: Wort Chiller Efficiency ("Craig S. Cottingham")
  RE: Wort Chiller Efficiency ("Mike Sharp")
  The Second 2nd Annual Hogtown Brew-Off (Mark Tumarkin)
  Steve Alexander and Steve Jones  re Efficiency and Batch Sparging (Bill Velek)
  Dixie Cup XXII call for judges ("rkolacny")


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*           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.

JANITORs on duty: Pat Babcock (pbabcock at hbd dot org), Jason Henning,
                  and Spencer Thomas



----------------------------------------------------------------------


Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 00:06:21 -0400
From: David Harsh <dharsh at fuse.net>
Subject: Analysis of the Continuous sparging process/Viscosity issues

Steve Alexander presents an interesting analysis of a continuous 
sparging process, but unfortunately, he hasn't modelled the grain bed 
used in any lauter tun I've ever encountered.

Look at the process as described in the model:

>   "S/2 case":
>   Step 1: remove S/2 of the original mash water.  <snip>
>   Step 2: After equilibrium, we again replace S/2 of the liquid.  
> <snip>
>    Drain:  Finally we drain the (M+X-U) volume of liquid

What is described here is a sparge process where the grain bed is 
continuously stirred in order to maintain a uniform concentration 
within the entire bed; analogous to a stirred tank reactor.  Since 
we're dealing with a fixed bed extraction, operating in unsteady state 
with varying conditions within the grain bed, the calculations here do 
not apply.

In order to properly model this system (which I think would be a 
colossal waste of time - I'd rather add the proverbial pound of grain 
if efficiency is the issue) we need to know some sort of equilibrium 
relation between the solution and the grain phase; a "sorption 
isotherm" of some sort.  That, with a suitable SWAG with regard to the 
bed characteristics, might yield useful information.  But a) I doubt it 
and b) I no longer have students to assign such problems to!  But I do 
know that the problem has been set up and solved in Carnahan's Applied 
Numerical Methods text I used back when Fortran was considered an 
advanced programming language.

If properly modelled, I doubt that the batch process would be found to 
more efficient.  I'll also comment that "efficiency" here could have so 
many meanings.  Taking the time to solve the mathematical model would 
not count as efficient in my opinion.  But I digress.

- ---------------------------
On mash viscosity-
	I always assumed that beginning homebrew books were just using 
improper terminology and that they were referring to wort or extract 
liquid viscosity, which does decrease with temperature.  The references 
provided in recent digests actually measured the viscosity of the mash 
itself, and since the grain is stationary during lautering, the mash 
viscosity would have no effect on the process - the wort viscosity is 
another matter, however.  I didn't find the lack of mash viscosity 
decrease particularly surprising though - the volume fraction of solids 
in the mash doesn't change much and that's the primary factor if you 
look at most correlations for viscosity of suspensions (see Einstein's 
pioneering work in the field).
	So why would mash out help efficiency?  Liquid viscosity decreases, 
mass diffusivity increases slightly; thus the Schmidt number decreases 
and the particle Reynolds number increases (both changes are small).  
So there wouldn't be much effect on mass transfer coefficient.  The 
only thing left is the equilibrium sorption relationship - the isotherm 
I mentioned earlier.  I would suspect if there's an effect, that's 
where we'd find it.

Dave Harsh						Cincinnati, OH
Bloatarian Brewing League



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 00:34:48 -0400
From: "Peter A. Ensminger" <ensmingr at twcny.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Mashout temp and viscosity

Yes, the effect is negligible! (as noted by -S in
http://www.hbd.org/hbd/archive/4859.html#4859-2 ). Figure 2d in J Inst > 
Brew 111(2): 165-75 is especially relevant. Under the conditions of
these experiments, an elevated mashout temperature (78C=172F) has little
effect on wort viscosity.

Anyone know of an 'el cheapo' viscometer that a poor homebrewer could
afford?

Cheerio!
Peter A. Ensminger
Syracuse, NY
hbd.org/ensmingr




Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 06:48:26 -0400
From: Mark Tumarkin <tumarkin at hogtownbrewers.org>
Subject: The Second 2nd Annual Hogtown Brew-Off

The Second Time Around; the "2nd Annual" Hogtown Brew-Off is Back!

After the first 2nd Annual Hogtown Brew-Off was canceled last year due
to a series of unasked-for hurricanes, we're back bigger than ever! This 
time,
the Second 2nd Annual Hogtown Brew-Off will be held on Saturday,
November 19th. We're looking for entries in all BJCP categories of Beer, 
Mead
 and Cider. The competition is sanctioned by both the AHA and the BJCP.
The entry window opens Monday, Oct. 24th and closes Friday, Nov. 11th.

Please check our website at www.hogtownbrewers.org for everything you'll 
need
to enter the Brew-off.  We anticipate that this page will be fully 
functional very soon
with on-line registration for judges, electronic entry forms, and the 
full details of all activities.

Check back at the website over the next several weeks for additional 
information.
If you're local, or willing to travel, we're going to need help from you 
judges to give the
entrants the best possible feedback. And as with the 1st Annual Hogtown 
Brew-Off,
we plan to show you a great time! We've got a great new location at the 
brand new
Pontiac Tavern. We'll be holding another One Pub Pub-Crawl to Stubbies. 
And of course,
we'll have another great award ceremony and dinner, with some great 
prizes and an
awesome raffle. So don't miss it - mark your calendars now.

Last time, we got some great entries from Florida and around the 
country. We're looking
forward to even more this year.

thanks,
Mark Tumarkin

Please direct any questions to Craig Birkmaier, Competition Organizer
Phone: 352 258-2543 Email: craig at pcube.com
Or judging questions to Dave Williams, Chief Judge
Email:  rdavis at gator.net



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 07:43:48 -0500
From: KEITH R BUSBY <kbusby at wisc.edu>
Subject: racking of p-lambics

Am I right in assuming that it is undesirable to rack p-lambics (or sour
beers using Wyeast Roeselaere) to secondary at all?

Keith

Keith Busby
Douglas Kelly Professor of Medieval French
Department of French and Italian
The University of Wisconsin
618 Van Hise Hall
Madison, WI 53706
(608) 262-3941
(608) 265-3892 (fax)


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 08:48:01 -0400
From: Jeff Renner <jsrenner at umich.edu>
Subject: Re: And another thing ! 

Mike Dixon of Wake Forest, NC  wrote about mash viscosity:

> What I do know is that stirring the mash I create at home becomes  
> easier as
> the temperature increases from after dough in to mashout. ... I'm fine
> with atrributing it to a lowered viscosity of the mash due to the  
> higher
> temperature.

I think it may be due to the mash enzymes acting on the starch and  
making it less viscous.  I see this all the time at a constant  
temperature when doing a cereal mash with corn meal.  It noticeably  
thins out with time at a constant temperature.

Jeff

- ---
Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan USA, jsrennerATumichDOTedu
"One never knows, do one?"  Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943
***Please note new address***




Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 09:07:33 -0400
From: "Spencer W. Thomas" <spencer at spencerwthomas.com>
Subject: Viscosity

Jeff Renner speculates:

>I think it may be due to the mash enzymes acting on the starch and  
>making it less viscous.  I see this all the time at a constant  
>temperature when doing a cereal mash with corn meal.  It noticeably  
>thins out with time at a constant temperature.
>
Yup.  If you scan the articles that have been thrown around over the
last few days, you'll see a significant correlation between viscosity
reduction and amylase concentration.  A couple of them show an
interesting *increase* in viscosity, apparently related to
gelatinization of some malt components during the temperature step up to
the first amylase rest.  This makes it pretty clear that temperature is
*not* the major determinant of viscosity in a mash.

=S



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 06:56:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: Steven Parfitt <thegimp98 at yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: Subject: efficiency, 1/ batch sparge analysis

steve does a nice job of laying out the analysis of
batch vs fly (or imcremental) sparging.

<Well my face may red, but it's others acting like
<baboons here. Continuous sparge is LESS efficient
<than batch in the general case.
<But it requires some detailed analysis to see why.

 ...snip...

<Now all mashes start with a volume of mash water M,
<and we assume that after the relatively long mash
<period that the extract both in and outside the grist
<are near equilibrium.

Ah-Ha! But are they really near equilibrium? How long
does it take to reach this equilibrium? Is a 40 minute
mash followied by a 20 minute drain, and 20 minute
wait before draining the second sparge enough?

If not, then the equations need to be driven by the
differnece between in extract solution and not in
solution in which case fly sparge creates a greater
differnetial to drive the equations. 

Therefore, IF one waits long enough to reach
equilibrium batch sparge will be more efficent. But
fly sparging may be more efficient if sparging is done
before equilibrium is achieved.



Steven, -75 XLCH- Ironhead Nano-Brewery  http://thegimp.8k.com
Johnson City, TN [422.7, 169.2] Rennerian 

"There is no such thing as gravity, the earth sucks." Wings Whiplash - 1968


		


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 09:58:48 -0400
From: "Dave Burley" <Dave_Burley at charter.net>
Subject: Sparge efficiency, Mash out and CharlieP

Brewsters:

SteveA insists that batch sparging is more efficient than continuous
sparging in terms of removing soluble sugar and expends several pages with
his examples to try to prove it, denying Chemical and Chemical Engineering
concepts to the contrary.

Here is a simple way to think about it.

At the end of the sparge in either case, the wort coming from the sparge has
a certain specific gravity. We know for sure the wort inside the grain is
probably more than the wort but If we make the simple assumption (not really
true) that the specific gravity of the wort inside the grain is the same as
the wort outside the grain, then we can see that with the batch sparge, in
which the final sparge has a specific gravity of say 1.030 or whatever, and
the continuous sparge has a value of 1.006 or less, there will be a clear
difference in the amount of sugar left in the grain.  I leave it up to the
student to calculate the amount of sugar left in the grain in both cases,
given that after the mash about a pint (I think) of water is contained in
each dry pound of malt.  

Clearly the lower specific gravity at the end of the sparge, in the case of
the continuous sparge, indicates the better efficiency of this process since
there is less sugar absorbed in the remaining brewer's grains.  Now go back
and examine the original assumption and you will see an even bigger
difference, since the continuous sparge allows the establishment of an
equilibrium of the wort in the grain with the sparge water and the much
shorter time of the batch sparge likely does not, as studies on the
efficiency of different rates of continuous sparge would indicate.  Faster
sparges are less efficient. 

When you realize that in the continuous sparge, the exiting specific gravity
is the highest value in the whole column of grain and then go back and
re-examine these cases, it becomes even clearer. 

Try the experiment I suggested in which these two sparging methods are done
with the same batch. Then add the same <volume> (say 4 cups) of drained
brewer's grains to the same amount of water (maybe a pint to cover) and
allow it to stand overnight. Measure the sugar concentration of the water in
each case with Clinitest and you will find the batch sparge will have the
higher concentration, proving it is less efficient.

- ---------------
Steve, the reason for the temperature boost at the end of the mash (aka
mashout) has nothing to do with the viscosity change (which is in fact lower
at the higher temperature, as we both now agree) but is done to clean up any
starch - avoiding a "Blue mash", as the Germans call it, and to stop any
enzyme action. Co-incidentallly, the lower viscosity of the wort will allow
faster draining and most likely a faster establishment of equilibrium at the
higher temperature, and, although I have never seen the wort viscosity given
as the reason for the mashout, I agree with you a lower mash viscosity is
not the raison d'etre. Pardon my French.

- ---------------
Steve, I wasn't denigrating CharlieP by using his own description of himself
(which I find quite amusing as I do some of his other clever attempts at
humor), just pointing out the origin of the "add another pound of malt" and
the state of the art when CharlieP wrote that. I doubt that today he would
say that, just like he now knows how to do an iodine test including the
grain and recommends longer mashes and not to spray hot wort through the
air. In fact, I think CharlieP has done a great thing for the Home Brewing
industry in the US and around the world and his position and big paycheck
(clearly more than a grade school teacher) shows people appreciate that.

- --------------
And you couldn't see me smiling when I wrote that "graininess" flavor thing,
just to get your back up. {8^)  I do find, however, that continuous sparging
does give a more complex flavor to the beer, compared to batch sparged and
malt extract beers. Whether or not a bunch of other unknown people with
other unknown preferences and experience (without commenting on the
difference in complexity) prefer it or not is irrelevant.

Keep on Brewin'

Dave Burley



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 10:33:35 -0500
From: "Craig S. Cottingham" <craig at cottingham.net>
Subject: Re: Wort Chiller Efficiency

On Oct 4, 2005, at 07:29, Pete Limosani <peteLimo at comcast.net> wrote:

> I'm trying cut down on my water usage during a brew session.
>
> I boil about 7.5 gallons down to 6 and use an immersion chiller to 
> cool it.
> It generally takes 20-25 minutes to get from boiling to 70-75*.
>
> When I first start cooling I open up the valve full throttle and the 
> water
> escaping the chiller is steaming. The difference in temperature 
> between water
> entering the chiller and exiting the chiller is great. As the wort 
> cools down,
> the difference in temperature closes and it takes longer to drop that 
> next
> degree.
>
> As the difference in temperature decreases, I am tempted to slow the 
> amount
> of water running through the chiller to save water. My thinking is 
> that less
> water will be used, but the water may extract a couple more degrees 
> while
> it is travelling.
>
> Is my logic flawed?

At first, I thought this was going to be easy to answer. Then I thought 
about it some more, and realized it was more difficult. Then I thought 
some more, and I realized it was a *lot* more difficult. A gut feeling 
became algebra, which became differential equations. Too many years 
(and beers) have passed since college; I don't have the math muscles I 
used to.

So it's back to the gut feeling.

> Will I use less water over the whole cooling cycle by keeping it wide 
> open?

I'm confident answering "no" to this.

Heat transfer is a function of temperature differential and time. The 
greater the difference in temperature between the wort and the cooling 
water, the faster heat will flow from one to the other. The *quantity* 
of heat that's transferred is this rate times the amount of time that 
the cooling water is in contact with the wort.

Twenty feet of 3/8" OD copper tubing has an interior volume of about 
0.075 gallons (a little less than 1 1/4 C). My kitchen faucet can fill 
a gallon jug in a little over 30 seconds (for a flow rate of about 2 
gal/min), and I expect without hard evidence that my garden hose could 
do it faster. At 2 gal/min, water goes from one end of your immersion 
chiller to the other in about 2 seconds. When the wort has just 
finished boiling, that's enough time to soak up a fair amount of heat, 
but as the wort temperature drops, less and less heat flows in that 2 
seconds. You can't increase the rate of heat transfer -- in fact, it's 
going down, because the temperature differential is going down -- so 
you have to increase the amount of time heat has to transfer.

In other words,

> Or will I use less water by slowing the flow and waiting a little 
> longer?

Yes.

> How do I find the best balance between the rate of flow and the rate 
> of heat
> extraction?

This is where it gets interesting. We could use math -- okay, maybe you 
could use math; I can't, because I've forgotten the necessary math 
skills. :-) So let's try to approach it empirically.

Since heat flows only when there's a difference in temperature, the 
cooling water will never get hotter than the wort. But if the 
temperature of the cooling water at the exit is lower than the 
temperature of the wort, we're leaving money on the table; there was a 
little more potential for heat transfer. What we should be aiming for 
is for the exit temperature of the cooling water to be the same as the 
wort temperature.

You could set up thermometers in the wort and the exit of the chiller, 
and monitor them closely, continuously reducing the flow rate of the 
cooling water... or you could relax and drink whatever you made the 
last time you brewed. Start your cooling water full bore. As you clean 
up, occasionally feel the water coming out of the chiller; as soon as 
you notice it feels cool or tepid instead of warm or hot, turn the 
water down.

Hope this helps.

- --
Craig S. Cottingham
craig at cottingham.net
OpenPGP key available from:
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x7977F79C



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 09:13:13 -0700
From: "Mike Sharp" <rdcpro at hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: Wort Chiller Efficiency


Pete Limosani asks about Wort Chiller Efficiency:

"I'm trying cut down on my water usage during a brew session."

If minimizing water use while chilling is important, use a counterflow
chiller. It's much more efficient than an immersion chiller (though a bit
more of a pain to use).

Regards,
Mike Sharp


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 13:02:31 -0400
From: Mark Tumarkin <tumarkin at hogtownbrewers.org>
Subject: The Second 2nd Annual Hogtown Brew-Off

The Second Time Around; the "2nd Annual" Hogtown Brew-off is 
back!!

After the first 2nd Annual Hogtown Brew-off was cancelled 
last year due a series of unasked-for hurricanes, we're back 
bigger than ever! This time the Second 2nd Annual Hogtown 
Brew-off will be held on Saturday, November 19th. We're 
looking for entries in all BJCP beer, cider & mead 
categories. The event is sanctioned by both the BJCP & AHA. 
The entry window opens Monday, Oct 24th & closes Friday, Nov 
11th.

Please check our website at www.hogtownbrewers.org for all 
info concerning the Brew-off. We anticipate that this page 
will be fully functional very soon with electronic entry 
forms, online judge-entry, and full details on all activities.

Check back at the website over the next several weeks for 
addtional info. If you're local, or willing to travel, we're 
  going to need help from you judges to give the entrants 
the best possible feedback. And as with the 1st Annual 
Hogtown Brew-off, we plan to show you a great time! We've 
got a great new location at the brand new Pontiac Tavern. 
We'll be holding another One Pub Pub-Crawl to Stubbies. And 
of course, we'll have another great award ceremony & dinner, 
with some great prizes and an awesome raffle. So don't miss 
it - mark your calendars now.

Las time, we got some great entries from Florida & around 
the country. We're looking forward to even more this year.

thanks,
Mark Tumarkin

Please direct any questions to Craig Birkmaier, Competition 
Organizer craig at pcube or to Dave Williams, Chief Judge at 
rdavis at gator.net



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 13:18:09 -0500
From: Bill Velek <billvelek at alltel.net>
Subject: Steve Alexander and Steve Jones  re Efficiency and Batch Sparging

Steve Alexander: those were outstanding posts you wrote containing the 
mathematical proof that batch sparging is actually more efficient than 
fly sparging.  Thank you.

I do have one question, though.  Early in your first post, you stated:
"Let's say we have X volume units of soluble extract (when in solution) 
and let's just estimate that this has some density in solution around 
1.55 times that of water - close to mash extract, so the mass of extract 
is then X * 1.55."

Was that extraneous info, or does it relate in some way to the math you 
have done?  No problem if it's extraneous, except that it initially 
caused me some slight confusion as I looked for it later in your post. 
I say that because the "1.55" constant never appears again anywhere in 
your math, nor can I find where you have substituted it with a variable. 
  Am I missing something?
- ---
Steve Jones: until Steve Alexander posted his mathematical proof, I was 
very much persuaded by the apparent logic of your post.  After looking 
at his math, I felt compelled to sort out the logic to try to figure out 
why they didn't seem to agree.  I _think_ I have it figured out now.  I 
think that all of your premises were/are correct, but I think that you 
and I both jumped to the wrong conclusion.  While it is no doubt true 
that the SG of the final 'batch' will always be higher than the SG of 
the final runnings on the fly (continuous sparging), that doesn't 
logically mean that there is more sugar left behind in the grain bed, 
like I think we each assumed.  I think the answer is that we should not 
consider the SG of the final batch that is _drained_, but rather we 
should consider what would be the SG of the tun when it is refilled with 
the same volume as remains when the fly sparging is stopped.  I think, 
based on the math, that we would find that when it is diluted (as if we 
were planning to do a third batch sparge), that the SG of the 3rd batch 
would be lower than the SG of what remains at the end of a fly sparge. 
I hope I'm making some sense here.
- ---
Thanks again to everyone; this was all very interesting and thought 
provoking, but now I have a couple of follow-up questions: in another 
brewing forum, I was advised of the importance of "floating" the grain 
bed in the tun by minimizing stirring in order to allow air to remain 
trapped in the grist.  But it is my understanding that when batch 
sparging, new sparge water is stirred into the grain bed to dissolve 
remaining sugars.  Because of the stirring, I assume that the bed does 
not float, per se; is that true, and does it matter when batch sparging? 
  If the bed doesn't float, are there more stuck mashes associated with 
batch sparging?

Thanks for any further info.

Bill Velek



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed,  5 Oct 2005 15:59:11 -0500
From: "rkolacny" <rkolacny at mail.ev1.net>
Subject: Dixie Cup XXII call for judges

ATTENTION:

Beer Judges Needed!!!

It is Dixie Cup time again! and we will start judging the Dixie 
Cup XXII entries soon. Please, come be a part of Dixie Cup and 
help us judge. We need beer judges of all skill levels to come and 
help out. Don't worry if you are not BJCP ranked. We will either 
put you on a panel with experienced judges or use you as a 
steward. Everyone can be a beer judge!!!

Here is the judging schedule:

10/16 First round judging at Saint Arnold Brewing Company from 9 
AM to 4 PM.

10/18 First round judging continues at Saint Arnold Brewing 
Company from 6 PM to 10 PM. (This judging session is contingent
upon progress made on Sunday).

10/21 First round judging continues Noon -

10/22 Second round judging Noon -

That's it! Please come out and give generously!

Na zdravi (to your health or cheers!)

Rob Kolacny 
Dixie Cup Coordinator
http://www.crunchyfrog.net/dixiecup/
Secondary Fermenter 
Foam Rangers
www.foamrangers.com
rkolacny at ev1.net 
979 532 8056 wk 
979 532 1932 hm 
979 533 1173 cell
 



Return to table of contents

---