HOMEBREW Digest #3649 Sat 02 June 2001

[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: H:W Huh ? (David Harsh)
  re:H:W Huh? ("Nathaniel P. Lansing")
  Cold wort oxygenation methods ("Dan Diana")
  Aussie Beer glasses ("Colin Marshall")
  re: AHA elections ("Mark Tumarkin")
  RE:kegging system options ("Walter H. Lewis III")
  re: re: H:W Huh ? (wkunze)
  RE: ice vs chiller ("Pete Calinski")
  Fermentors (Crossno Clan)
  Re: Big (CAP?) Spurments (Jeff Renner)
  cold flocculation (Demonick)
  Breweries and cold break ("Peed, John")
  Seattle Beer Scene (Anthony Rivera)
  re: H:W huh? (Frank Tutzauer)
  Hard Cider Sites (David Johnson)
  sterile water storage of yeast via White Labs ("Czerpak, Pete")
  geometry (Scott Perfect)
  More ice vs. chiller musings ("Bob Sutton")

* * 2001 AHA NHC - 2001: A Beer Odyssey, Los Angeles, CA * June 20th-23rd See http://www.beerodyssey.com for more * information. Wear an HBD ID Badge to wear to the gig! * http://hbd.org/cgi-bin/shopping * * 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, 31 May 2001 23:17:15 -0400 From: David Harsh <dharsh at fuse.net> Subject: Re: H:W Huh ? steve-alexander at att.net wrote: > I did say you can choose H:W and S:V independently and > design a fermenter. Take away the 5gal Vol requirement > (never part of the H:W argument) and it's easy. In fact, the constant volume argument IS part of the argument. The entire discussion started about the effect of fermenter shape for homebrewing. Since most of us aren't going to change our volumes drastically (I've never brewed more than 12 gallons in one batch nor less than 5), we (or at least most of us) are talking about the effects at a fixed batch size. It is no great observation that HW and SV ratios can be individually held constant while a variety of shapes of fermenters can be determined at different volumes. However, that is not what anyone has suggested and I suspect you know that. Why you suddenly think that batch size is a new restriction is a mystery. >, my use of dimensional analysis techniques to describe >the fermenter geometry is not "handwaving... > You may have facts, but until you present the > assumption, analysis method and results - you've just > posted the handwaving argument. For such detail email > would be best tho' Dave. Take any fluid mechanics text and study the parts on mixing and dimensional analysis. Transport Phenomena by Bird et al. is a good source if the math isn't beyond you, Bennet and Meyers, Momentum, Heat and Mass Transfer is a little more basic. Other people on the digest may be able to suggest good sources. I'm thinking your background in fluid mechanics is pretty weak or you'd not be asking me to reinvent the wheel to prove my point. > >On the contrary, I have been paying attention. You > >feel aspect ratio isn't the cause, something else is. > > No. You are stating this as if I agreed there was an > effect related to H:W - I don't. I don't believe that > high aspect ratio fermenters (separating out all the > unrelated factors, vol, S:V, cross sectional area, etc) > create any such effect. HELLO! Read what I'm saying. You state that some other factor would explain differences. I agree that aspect ratio does not magically cause a change in fermenting, but changes in aspect ratio introduce other changes that cause a change in fermentation. (and I won't restate my hypothesis) Of course, if we can keep all macroscopic and microscopic aspects of the fluid (velocity, shear, concentrations of solutes and byproducts, temperature, pressure, phase of moon, the list gets really long here...), no differences should be observed. Again I'll ask you if you have any idea what could cause the observed changes, or if you would rather just attack everyone else who voices an opinion. I'll stress that I think that there are certainly other possibilities and I think we need to get them out in the open - not to attack but as a basis for coming up with a way to design the experiment. > >[..] I disagree with [...] your > >interpretation of the literature on shear > >induced flocculation. > > Then please email me your reference literature citations > of shear induced flocculation of yeast and we can > compare our interpretations. I've moved my office in the past year and haven't unpacked everything. Getting through the rest, while important, isn't a priority, although when I find them I'll let you know. I'm hoping it will be sooner rather than later. My sheaf of references was about 25 or so articles out of particle technology journals, so the focus was pure particle dynamics, brewing was mentioned only in terms of describing the yeast. Now that I think of it, these studies may not be applicable to the behavior in fermenting wort, but we'll cross that when I find them. Dave Harsh Bloatarian Brewing League Cincinnati, OH Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 00:19:58 -0400 From: "Nathaniel P. Lansing" <delbrew at compuserve.com> Subject: re:H:W Huh? SA: >> Take away the 5gal Vol requirement >>(never part of the H:W argument) and it's easy. It very much was the start of the debate; George's published findings that a batch split into 2 fermenters, each 3/4 full, one with aspect of 2.5:1 and one with 1:1, have different fermentation characteristics. I suggested that the surface area:volume difference might cause added O2 uptake and improved yeast vitality in a 1:1HW fermenter. So H:W / surface:volume certainly was part of the original work cited. >> was presented as brewing related, not just >>HB, so i'd think anything from a post-slant starter to >>megabrewers tanks would be subject to the law. No body called it a law for one, one shouldn't change definitions for the sake of argument. Also, the megabrewers' tank, by your own admission, do comply with the effect. What we have yet to see is some publication where you've read that small fermenters don't comply with the effect. It is a matter of scale, a yeast bobbing around in a batch of wort is on the same scale as me diving around in Lake Superior, it wouldn't matter if I was at 100 foot depths or 600 foot depths, there would be negative effects. Deeper wort(lake) more severe effects. LaMarck wants me to point out yeast probably evolved as thin-film creatures. The shallow depth of grapes and other fruits fed their lust for oxygen and help release the CO2 that so impedes their growth. Anything deeper than a inch or so may be too deep for natural yeast activity. NPL Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 21:15:39 -0700 From: "Dan Diana" <dands at ftconnect.com> Subject: Cold wort oxygenation methods I have been using oxygen and a stainless diffusion stone to aerate my wort after cooling. When I first got the apparatus, I was doing 2 15-second bursts with the regulator full open. The typical lag time I observed before high krausen was ~12 hours. My beers would usually complete the primary on 10-14 days. I think as a result I would get a low of higher alchols , off flavors, and in two cases spoiled beers. This last bew, I reduced the flow and aerated the wort through the stone the entire time I was decanting the cold wort. This aerated the wort about 15 minutes and did not result in a lot of foam being generated. This time the beer was at high krausen within 6 hours and completed the primary fermentation in ~3.5 days. This beer is amazingly clean and I think the more thorough aeration has helped. Has anyone else had similar experiences or use the constant flow method and seen such good results? I really like the results and will use the constant flow method my next brew. Dan Diana Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 17:24:44 +1000 From: "plotek" <plotek at optushome.com.au> Subject: I like the fact that Matthew Tolley has a great enough love for beer to remember our glass sizes. We sort of adopted a funny pint in the metrication days as 600 mL sounded much easier than 580 odd mL. This meant one of two things a real schooner became the benchmark of a drinking man (or if you prefer, beerslob) or the death of the girly sized glass. We would infact call anything inferior to a schooner as a throwdown. Middies and pots, sevens and ponies are far too small and you end up getting plastered really quick. The other bad thing is the wait between drinking and lining up for a beer is reduced. There should be a florida like law against drinking out of thimbles like the middie and the seven. >From what i have heard, most of queensland has been civilised by NSW tourists and they too drink schooners now. Pints and schooners for ever Muddie Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 18:03:46 +1000 From: "Colin Marshall" <byoah at argay.com.au> Subject: Aussie Beer glasses Frank Tutzauer says "I'm not sure I'd want to drink whatever comes out of a Shetland pony". Aussie blokes down the pub drink it all the time. It's called VB - although most of us brewers know it as "Shet" beer. Sometimes it's "Ratshet" beer, and other times it could be "Shethouse" beer. And if you get a belly-full of it and overstay your allotted time at the rubbity dub, you go home and tell SWMBO a heap of "Bullshet". At which she will chuck a "Shetty", abuse the "Shet" out of you and tell you to bugger off and live with your "Shethead" mates. That's why I drink at home. Brother Shoppe. Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 08:20:19 -0400 From: "Mark Tumarkin" <mark_t at ix.netcom.com> Subject: re: AHA elections Jeff, Thanks for responding and the congrats. you wrote: "I have one comment concerning the number of votes based on total membership. Mark states that only 180 out of 10,000 members voted. Low yes but I wonder how many of those members are actually brewers. I ask this because I know of a few people that joined only to be able to attend members only events at GABF. I'm sure these guys could give a crap about voting they just want to drink. So are there any stats that might take this into consideration?" I don't know how many AHA members are non-brewers, having bought their memberships to get the members discount or into an extra session. I can find out if those kind of statistics are available (though I doubt it, how would you know? - you can't assume all memberships bought at the GABF are by non-brewers). But even if you make some large WAG, say a third or even half the total membership, that still leaves only 180 out of 5000. That is a pitifully low percentage. One of my goals will be to increase member participation in the process, and in the AHA overall. Several of the private responses I've recieved have requested on-line voting. I totally agree that this is a good idea. On-line voting was allowed at the last moment, but for next year I'd like to see it included as an option early on, and publicized in the issue of Zymurgy with the ballots and candidates statements. This should be an easy change to make. I'm more concerned with the larger issues of getting existing members more involved in the AHA and in recruiting new members. With that in mind, I'd like to say again that I'm really interested in hearing any thoughts, suggestions, complaints, etc about the AHA and the directions and programs you'd like to see. thanks, Mark Tumarkin Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 08:22:18 -0400 From: "Walter H. Lewis III" <wlewis at alliedlogistics.com> Subject: RE:kegging system options I've had my upright frig set up for about 4 years now. If I were to do it all over again I would place the faucets in the SIE of the frig. This avoids hoses tangling every time you open the door. Now in my new house I have a REAL bar. Wouldn't it be wonderful to build the bar AROUND a chest freezer and put a tower on top! now that would be sweet! Walt Lewis Greater Huntington Homebrew Association Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 07:28:46 -0400 From: wkunze at vlb-berlin.org Subject: re: re: H:W Huh ? SA screeches: > Most people hate me when I'm correct and only enjoy it when I'm wrong Oh, poor, poor baby. Maybe if you weren't such an argumentative ... all of the time (don't want to trigger those janitors into deleting my post by using foul language, now do we?) If you really want to do something that we'd all enjoy, disappear! Honestly! To think how anyone could enjoy you at all is way beyond me. And STOP quoting me. Wolfgang Kunze Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 10:06:50 -0400 From: "Pete Calinski" <pjcalinski at adelphia.net> Subject: RE: ice vs chiller Seconding Ron La Borde and his sanitized zip lock bags, before I built my immersion chiller, I used "Tupperware" style containers. They are about the size of a shoe box and hold about 5 quarts with room for the water to expand. Cost about $1.00 each. I boiled the water and let it cool in the boil pot overnight. That way I didn't warm up my freezer too much when I started to freeze them. Then I sanitized the insides of the container, flushed, added the boiled water, and froze. When I needed them, I used an ice pick to chip them into pieces and add to the wort. The chips cool things a lot faster because of the larger surface area. Simple, fast cooling and the infection risk is below the noise. Hope this helps. Pete Calinski East Amherst NY Near Buffalo NY 0^45'49.1" North, 5^7'9.5" East of Ground Zero. ******************************************************************** *My goal: * Go through life and never drink the same beer twice. * (As long as it doesn't mean I have to skip a beer.) ******************************************************************** Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 09:24:26 -0500 From: Crossno Clan <crossno at tnns.net> Subject: Fermentors Steve A. writes: "I do expect different shaped, sized, 'materialed' fermenters to give different results for various reasons." Just to add a small amount of fuel to the debate. One thing to remember is fermentor material. I have done a fair amount of split batches. Split between glass and plastic. Plastic always has a lower FG then glass, usually by 0.002. I sent several bottles off to Dave Draper(?) many years ago. He taste tested with a fellow judge and could not tell a difference. I contribute the difference to oxygen up take but it could be pressure/CO2 toxicity. On-On, Glyn Crossno Estill Springs, TN Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 10:26:38 -0400 From: Jeff Renner <JeffRenner at mediaone.net> Subject: Re: Big (CAP?) Spurments "Dr. Pivo" <dp at pivo.w.se> trolled (and hooked me): >Why a CAP? Why indeed this American insistance on brtewing beers of >which there is no longer any examples to compare it to? >... >It does seem a bit to me like having a competition about who can do the >best vocal impersonation of George Washington. I think it's more like trying to speak Indo-European. It's been extinct for millennia, but linguists have a pretty good idea of what it was by studying its extant descendants. CAP has been extinct for, say, maybe 80 years, or maybe only 50, but it was a gradual decline, and some of us oldsters can remember its remnant echoes in beers from only 30-40 years ago (like the microwave echo of the big bang). Besides, we have a good written record of recipes, techniques and ingredients from 100 years ago. I'm confident that the CAPs I brew compare favorably with beers of a century ago. And it's a damn good style! Jeff - -- ***Please note new address*** (old one will still work) Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan USA, JeffRenner at mediaone.net "One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943 Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 07:55:22 -0700 From: Demonick <demonick at zgi.com> Subject: cold flocculation From: "Paddock Wood Brewing Supplies" <orders at paddockwood.com> >... But for clear beer, then enhancing sedimentation through >finings or other methods is the goal. > >My question to the beer chemists out there is: Does cold enhance >sedimentation of yeast and/or other suspended particulate? Yes. Most finings like, polyclar, isinglass, bentonite, diatomaceous earth, even Irish Moss (I think), work through electrostatic forces not chemical forces. Electrostatic forces put particles with positive and negative charges in solution, and they are attracted to each other and clump together. These clumps then fall to the bottom of the fermenter. Unlike chemical reactions, electrostatic forces are NOT diminished by reduced temperatures. Since the electrostatic forces bringing and keeping the fining particles and the haze particles together are fighting the thermodynamic brownian motion forces attempting to keep them apart, and brownian motion is quite temperature dependent, reducing the temperature reduces the forces that inhibit electrostatic clumping. So, although reduced temperatures may not encourage flocculation, reduced temperatures do enhance sedimentation, especially when using fining agents. Domenick Venezia Venezia & Company, LLC Maker of PrimeTab (206) 782-1152 phone (206) 782-6766 fax orders demonick at zgi dot com http://www.primetab.com FREE PrimeTab SAMPLES! Enough for three 5 gallon batches. Fax, phone, or email: name, shipping address (no P.O.B.) and phone number. (I won't call. It's for UPS in case of delivery problems). Sorry, lower 48 only. Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 12:04:15 -0400 From: "Peed, John" <jpeed at elotouch.com> Subject: Breweries and cold break So how do the big guys (and the micro guys) handle cold break? Don't they take the boiled wort through a glycol chiller and then into the fermenter? Do they do anything to remove cold break before the wort gets to the fermenter? Like Dennis Collins, I am curious about the effect of cold break in the fermenter. I've read both ways, that is to say, that it's good and that it's bad. Opinions? John Peed Knoxville, TN Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 09:02:49 -0700 From: Anthony Rivera <anthonyr at qcpi.com> Subject: Seattle Beer Scene I will be in Seattle next weekend and was hoping to get a few suggestions from the collective for the best brewpubs/beerbars/restaurants in town. I checked out pubcrawler.com but it seems that most of the evaluations are a little dated. Someone suggested contacting the local homebrew store when I arrive and asking them. This seems like a great idea but I would still like somewhat of a game plan before hand. Private emails are welcome. Thanks, Antone Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 12:44:53 -0400 (EDT) From: Frank Tutzauer <comfrank at acsu.buffalo.edu> Subject: re: H:W huh? I had an informative and enlightening (but laborious!) post setting you guys straight on this H:W business, but you played nicely and straightened out the confusion yourselves, so I won't bother. I do have one nit to pick, though. Tom writes: SURF=(pi/4)*D*D VOL=(pi/4)*D*D*H Therefore, SURF:VOL = 1/H H:D = H/D And Steve writes: V=volume, S=surface area, H, W the obvious ... V = S * H so S/V = 1/H Back to me: No way would I use the term "surface" or "surface area" to describe Tom's SURF or Steve's S. Instead, this is the "cross-sectional area," i.e., the area that results from cutting the cylinder parallel to it's base. Let's call it C instead of S. Then, as correctly observed, C/V = 1/H. To me, the surface area would be the area that resulted if you cut the cylinder down the side, pressed it flat, and measured the area of the resulting rectangle, i.e., S = pi*H*W (I am not including the top or bottom of the container). It turns out that, so defined, S/V = 4/W, so whereas C:V is solely determined by height, S:V is solely determined by width (diameter). So, any two of the ratios S:V, C:V, and H:W can be chosen at will, but once two are chosen the third is determined. Similarly, fixing volume and any one of the ratios determines the other two. --frank Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 15:00:00 -0400 (EDT) From: David Johnson <dmjohnson at pol.net> Subject: Hard Cider Sites Andrew Lea's site. http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/andrew_lea/content2.htm The Real Cider and Perry Page http://web.bham.ac.uk/GraftonG/cider/homepage.htm Both are informative sites and there are good links from there. Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 15:28:20 -0400 From: "Czerpak, Pete" <Pete.Czerpak at siigroup.com> Subject: sterile water storage of yeast via White Labs I typically store post fermentation unwashed yeast slurries for repitching in the fridge. For me, I tend to store for less than about 4-6 weeks with no apparent ill effects. At 4 weeks and beyond, I use a starter solution to reawaken the little yeasts though. When I repitch I tend to use about 12 to 16 oz of this slurry which includes some amount of trub and cold break as well as the important yeast. Just was reading the White Labs website and came across an article on sterile water storage of yeast. Check it out on their site and here is a small quote from the article: "Here are some typical numbers from our tests: Percentage of viable yeast cells after two weeks of storing yeast in sterile water at room temperature, 5 percent. The percentage of viable cells in sterile water at cold temperatures (40 F), 25 percent. Typical White Labs yeast after the same time period with normal storage techniques, over 90 percent. Typical yeast viability at a commercial brewery, 25 percent." I have never done viability or vitality testing on my slurries but let the brews tell the stories for me. I've never used a "terribly old" slurry either though. Like I said 4 to 6 weeks is my maximum. I usually judge on smell as well - would a funky yeast smell develop at 6 weeks? Just wanted to pass the info along on this first friday of june. Pete Czerpak albany, NY Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 16:18:32 -0700 From: Scott Perfect <perfect at marzen.llnl.gov> Subject: geometry David writes in response to Steve: "Of course, not *every* 1:1 vessel, but we are talking about objects of the same magnitude of volume. Your comparison of the cornie to the test tube, while a valid argument, is absurd on the face of it. I thought we were restricting our arguments to homebrewing. " and "For the record, my use of dimensional analysis techniques to describe the fermenter geometry is not "handwaving", it is an accepted and mathematically sound method for dealing with computationally difficult systems. " Actually, dimensional analysis has been a cornerstone of Steve's point the entire time. You and Del have been talking about various systems of _fixed volume_. Steve has consistently been saying that H and W do not describe the fermenter - one must also prescribe volume or surface- to-volume ratio, etc. If you check Fix's web page, http://hometown.aol.com/brwyfoam/Homebrewing-with-Fix.html Follow the link "Bluebonnet 2001." He states, in part, that, "DeClerck was apparently the first to seriously study fermenter shapes. He did so in a series of carefully controlled experiments done on the nanolevel (liter fermenters), microlevel (50 liter fermenters) and on the production level. (See reference series 1)." Reference series 1 is a. DeClerck, 1957 - A Textbook of Brewing, reissued by Siebel Institute. b. Knudsen, 1978 - MBAA Tech. Qr., Vol. 15, No. 3. This was Steve's starting point. The statement that H:W will affect fermentation implies that geometrically scaled systems will behave in the same manner. That is why Steve has been referring to his test tube ferments. The test tube has supposedly terrible H:W but Steve's experience has shown no fermentation problems. Even if the hypothesis is restricted to "homebrew scale," that covers a range of volumes, no? This is also why he does not think Del's surface-to-volume hypothesis is applicable - Five gallon fermenters with a specific H:W do not have the same S:V as, say, fifteen gallon fermenters with the same H:W. If you use dimensional analysis to look at a fermenter, you will have to include thermal properties, fluid properties, geometric quantities, diffusion rates, gravitational acceleration, etc. If you consider a model and a geometrically scaled prototype, it is apparent that you cannot hold constant all of the dimensionless parameters that describe the systems. Everyone has said this in one way or another. If nothing else, one should agree that 15 gallons should be as valid as 1 - these are homebrew scales. What Steve has been saying, in part, is simply: We need to look beyond H:W as an explanation for poor ferments. The yeast cannot "feel" H:W because it only partly describes the system. Honestly, much of the arguing has been semantics and personalities, folks... A key issue of interest is the experimental results that Fix reported and the observation that cornies have high aspect ratio compared to the CC. Steve feels that one should be able to ferment in a cornie to a lower fg in less time with lower diacetyl than Fix reported. Note that Fix found an average difference (of 5 brews) of 1.8P in fg between CC and cornie. And double time to terminal. That's detectable, maybe even for me. :-) Not many can measure diacetyl but most can measure gravity reasonably well. Even if the gravity measurements are inaccurate, the relative measures are probably not too bad. Maybe a relatively simple straw-man experiment with poor controls would be enlightening. Cornie versus anything else you have around with low H:W - plastic 6.5 gal bucket for instance. Plenty of people are equiped for that one. Heck, toss in a fast ferment test too. Pivo has the right idea - any shlub can play with these things. Scott Perfect San Ramon, CA Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 23:13:58 -0400 From: "Bob Sutton" <Bob at homebrew.com> Subject: More ice vs. chiller musings Ron La Borde noted: [EXCERPT] you start with clean water (boiled, then cooled), then put it into a Ziplock bag (supposed to be sanitized, it's for food after all), then place this into the freezer. Now you have some clean, sanitized ice which you can use by opening the Ziplock and placing the ice into the wort. You can first submerge the pack into some sanitizer much as you would the yeast pack to sanitize the pack's surface just before handling and opening it. [ENDEXCERPT] Why open the Ziplock bag at all... after you've sanitized the pack's external surface with (no-rinse) iodophor, gently lower the entire sealed bag into your wort... 1. no messy dilution calculations... 2. no messy "ker-plopp" when the ice chunk drops from the bag into the wort... 3. reduced exposure of possible contaminants from inside the bag (some might suggest, why boil the water at all... just fill it with hot water from the tap and freeze... If memory serves me right... some have suggested immersing sanitized 2-liter PET bottles containing frozen water - of course you need to be sure that nasty label glue has been removed... and those ubiquitous "blue ice" containers could do the trick as well. Bob Fruit Fly Brewhaus Yesterdays' Technology Today Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 06/02/01, by HBD2HTML v1.2 by KFL
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96
Convert This Page to Pilot DOC Format