HOMEBREW Digest #4905 Tue 06 December 2005

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

		Digest Janitor: pbabcock at hbd.org


          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 *********

  Rejuvenating primary fermentor yeast with low gravity wort ("Steve Seeley")
  identify the style. (leavitdg)
  Re: More Hydrometers ("steve.alexander")
  Hydrometer reading - yeast contribution (Fred Johnson)
  RE: Looking for Homebrew Stores and Breweries in Michigan ("Michael Fairbrother")
  GAC and Choramine ("A.J deLange")
  Pilsner mash schedule ("Cave, Jim")
  Re: looking for opinions (Paul Waters)
  Re: Pilsner mash schedule/decoction experiment (Denny Conn)
  Refractometers, Hydrometers and Clinitest ("Dave Burley")
  RE: Chloramine removal by activated carbon filtration ("Mike Sharp")
  Achieving that typical British bitter character (RiedelD)
  RE: Name that Style ("Brian Lundeen")
  More Hydrometers ("A.J deLange")
  style to brew or brew to style ("Steve Dale-Johnson")

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 22:23:08 -0800 From: "Steve Seeley" <seseeley at hotpop.com> Subject: Rejuvenating primary fermentor yeast with low gravity wort In Digest #4902 (December 02, 2005) Jeff Renner suggested to Jim Cave to "rejuvenate his yeast from a primary fermentor with low gravity (1.025) starter wort before using it on a Barley Wine". My question is how much 1.025 starter wort would you use on a pint of yeast slurry? I brewed a English Brown a week ago for the purpose of building up yeast for a up coming Barley Wine brew session. Last Sunday I collected a quart of primary yeast slurry from the Brown. I typically boil and chill a gallon of water to rinse the trub out of the yeast with. I'll probably end up with a pint of pure yeast slurry after rinsing. I like your idea of re-oxygenating the yeast after rinsing the yeast. I don't have a stir plate but do have a air stone, aquarium pump and filter. If I put a stopper in a 2.5 gallon carboy without the air lock and run the air stone through the 1/4" hole of the stopper to the bottom of the carboy should I get enough oxygen into the starter wort to build up the yeast cell walls? Does this only affect new yeast or will it also strengthen existing yeast cells? Thanks for the help, Steve Seeley from Shingle Spring CA (Between Sacramento and Tahoe) Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 05:52:47 -0500 From: leavitdg at plattsburgh.edu Subject: identify the style. I'd say its sort of a Russian Imperial Honey Porter! Darrell Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 06:56:49 -0500 From: "steve.alexander" <-s at adelphia.net> Subject: Re: More Hydrometers A.J deLange wrote: >>As Plato is a percentage the accuracy of the >>balance as a fraction of the weight of water plus sugar sets the >>accuracy to which you can prepare solutions i.e if you are making 200 >>grams of solution and the balance has an accuracy of 0.1 gram then your >>error will be 100*sqrt(2)*.1/200 = .07P (sqrt of 2 because you are >>making 2 weighings). Oops - there's an error in your error ! I don't agree with this error analysis, tho' I believe it's better than AJ states. It's a little didactic to go through it on HBD, and I am certain AJ just committed mental typo (don't we all) but just so everyone understands well enough to calculate error on their own ... In the compounding of error through calculations, if we have an error in terms of the measured value (for example grams of error when measuring mass), then we must carry the error through the calculation we are making in a manner that depends on the calculation. Let's say we have mass measurements M1 and M2 with error amount Me1 and Me2. Now we want to calculate some function of these two readings and want to know what is the error in the result. R = F(M1, M2), Re = ??? In the general case, resulting error is Re = sqrt ( (dF/dM1)^2 * Me1^2 + (dF/dM2) * Me2^2 ) where the lower case 'd' represent the partial derivative of the the F function with respect to the variable where the measurement is inserted, and "^" exponentiation. If we are adding or subtracting two measurements, for example Mr = M1 + M2, then the partials are unity and the error of the sum is just: Mer = sqrt( Me1^2 + Me2^2 ) Same value of Mer applies if Mr = M1 - M2 If instead we are multiplying or dividing two measurements P = M1 / M2, *or* P = M1 * M2 then error calculation is: Pe = P * sqrt( (Me1/M1)^2 + (Me2/M2)^2 ) Note that (Me1/M1) and (Me2/M2) is just the fractional error, that is the percent error divided by 100.0 so %err = sqrt( %err1^2 + %err2^2 ) - -- In AJs example we are measuring Ms = mass of sugar solute, Mtot = mass of the solution(water + sugar) and the function compounding the two measurements is division: Plato = P = Ms / Mtot Pe = ??? error in Plato For 200grams of 10P solution we have Ms = 20gm, Mtot = 200gm. Then given measurement error Mes = Metot = 0.1 grams Then the error in the plato is: Pe = 10P * sqrt( (0.1/20)^2 + (0.1/200^) ) Pe = 0.05024938...P About 0.05P error, not 0.07P. Note that this error is almost entirely due to the sugar mass measurement which matches our intuition. === AJ's valuation of the air pressure impact is correct - too small to matter. I too estimated the fractional change in volume above the liquid at ~10^-4 but then (doh!) started thinking in terms of SG change rather than SG-1 or Plato something more nearly proportional to above-volume. === >>> If we measure wort at 17C, then estimate its SG at 20C by assuming >>> it acts like water, and then estimate the extract% assuming it >>> acts like sucrose solution ... that's fine - but it's several >>> leaps of faith away from any literal observation. > >A nominally 10P sucrose solution at 17C has measured density of >1.038724 and thus 17/20 SG of 1.04059. [...] >Thus the density and SG estimates are in error by 0.000122 (about >.03P). This isn't bad compared to my goal of 0.1 to 0.2P. That's a very very nice result AJ, sincere thanks, and also sincere envy of your densitometer. I absolutely hate suggesting work for others, but how would you feel about someday comparing this result for sucrose with measurements of wort extract density vs temp ? A first hunch is that majority maltose would not cause as much volumetric expansion as sucrose - but who really knows ? Was the ASBC correction table based on sucrose (I assume so). In any case my point is made; an HBer without access to a $600 ASBC correction table will blithely calculate an eighth of an SG degree error into his measurement by ignoring the fact that water and sucrose solutions have different expansion wrt a 3C temp difference. There is yet another error involved in assuming that wort solutions behave like sucrose - two actually, one wrt thermal expansion and another in assuming that Plato's sucrose relation holds accurately for wort. Note that the ASBC table isn't of much value once fermentation has begun and the ethanol expansion term swells. I agree that one cause of a 0.1 or 0.2 degree error can be ignored if we are trying to accurately determine SG to 0.5 degree, or Plato to 0.1P, but you really can't ignore too many such sources of error before ... A hydrometer is already brushing against a lot of different physical issues which impact it's accuracy. Although increasing the accuracy of a hydrometer by a few bits, for example making one with a very large V and small tube cross section is possible, it would be useless without controlling measurement conditions with great care. Ultimately all the hydrometer can determine is density, and it's numerous proxies in terms of SG, sucrose extract equivalent and so on. What we really want to determine is extent of fermentation and the dots from density to fermentation progress are a bit tenuous. -S Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 07:20:26 -0500 From: Fred Johnson <FLJohnson at portbridge.com> Subject: Hydrometer reading - yeast contribution I believe Bill Velek is essentially correct in that the yeast in suspension contribute little to the hydrometer reading. I believe bouyancy is related to the molar concentration of the solutes. Small molecules in high concentrations are largely responsible for buoying up the hydrometer. Yeast have an extremely high "molecular weight", so their molar concentration is negligible. Bill's fish analogy is a good one, every time a fish happens to bump the boat from the bottom, the boat will float a little higher momentarily, but the frequency that this happens is very small. Yeast are more plentiful than fish, but not much so compared to the dissolved salts and sugars. The same actually applies to proteins in solution also. Their molar concentrations are relatively small compared to the sugar and salt concentrations. Fred L Johnson Apex, North Carolina, USA Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 07:56:44 -0500 From: "Michael Fairbrother" <fairbrother at tenebril.com> Subject: RE: Looking for Homebrew Stores and Breweries in Michigan Jeff, I can't claim I have all of them, but hopefully most in my all things beer map. http://www.nhbrewers.com/mapbeer.html Just drag the map to view the Michigan area, and select the markers at the top for which information you are looking for. Cheers Michael Fairbrother Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 13:30:46 +0000 From: "A.J deLange" <ajdel at cox.net> Subject: GAC and Choramine GAC filtration is the method used by most small breweries (up through regionals) for chloramine removal. The relevant equations are (for monochloramine) C* + NH2Cl + H2O <--> CO* + Cl- + NH4- where C* represents an active carbon site. The oxidized carbon sites oxidize chloramine CO* + 2NH2Cl --> C* + 2H+ + 2Cl- + H2O + N2 thus restoring the GAC i.e. it is never consumed. The overal reaction is, thus 3NH2Cl - --> 2H+ + 3Cl- + NH4+ + N2. Note again that the GAC does not appear in the overall equation. Thus monochloramine is decomposed into chloride ions, nitrogen gas and ammonium ions. The nitrogen will escape and the yeast will thank you for the ammonia (the amounts are quite small as there is not much chloramine in the water to start with in most cases. If you smell chlorine after passing water through a GAC filter you didn't give it enough "contact time". Put it through again. A.J. Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 07:09:54 -0800 From: "Cave, Jim" <Cave at psc.org> Subject: Pilsner mash schedule Aaron Linder asks about pilsner mash schedules and how to achieve a nice malty pilsner. He does state whether he wants a Czech or German pilsner. I believe the most component to achieving this goal is to get a very high quality, European maritime malt, preferably German. This is vital to get the malt characteristics that you desire. BTW, I mash in at about 62-63 C for 30 minutes and step up to 65.5 for 30 minutes then to 68C, for 30 minutes then to mash-off. I find the signature of the German pilsners is that roundness of flavour at the back of your palate. You can play around with decoction mashes if you want (that is probably best for a Czech style), but is unnecessary for a German one, which is my favourite. Also, check out the archives for 1st wort hopping. Hope this helps. Jim Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 07:29:50 -0800 (PST) From: Paul Waters <pwaters3 at yahoo.com> Subject: Re: looking for opinions jeff at henze.us >What is the purpose of letting the cold break settle for 30 >minutes prior >to adding O2 to it? I've been just adding O2 as soon as I get >done putting >the wort in primary - is there an advantage to waiting? I wanted the cold break to settle out I before I added the yeast so that the yeast would be on top of the cold break and not under it mainly as I have read that it is better for the yeast. I dont have any evidence that would indicate one way or the other that this is good. The other reason I did it this way was I had to go feed cows and it was getting late. LOL They are good for getting rid of spent grains As a note the the story, I gave the slowly fermenting celebrator clone another shot of O2 and its doing nicely now. Thanks to all who responded to my 1st questions. I have a new question. I'm looking to brew a Belgian Golden/Duvel clone. Thinking about doing it the the hard way and start with the yeast from a bottle of Duvel. Is the yeast at the bottom of the bottle the real yeast or just a primimg yeast? Or would I be better off to use say Wyeast 1388 Belgian Strong Ale Yeast or White Labs WLP575 Belgian Style Ale yeast, WLP570 Blend Belgian Golden Ale? Thanks all Paul W Mad Cow Brewing Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 08:47:04 -0800 From: Denny Conn <denny at projectoneaudio.com> Subject: Re: Pilsner mash schedule/decoction experiment That was me, and I'm STILL collecting data and trying to get the article finished. I'll give you a little heads up, though...in blind tastings with BJCP judges and pro brewers, less than half identified or preferred the decocted beers! ------------>Denny At 11:34 PM 12/5/05 -0500, you wrote: >I remember back several months ago someone was doing a grand decoction vs. >non-decoction experiment with pilsner style beers. Are there any results >from that? Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 12:44:10 -0500 From: "Dave Burley" <Dave_Burley at charter.net> Subject: Refractometers, Hydrometers and Clinitest Brewsters: Once the fermentation begins neither a hydrometer nor a refractometer are any good for measuring sugar content as the alcohol content makes it impossible to determine an accurate value given two variables ( sugar and alcohol) which affect the solution density and one measurement. Clinitest is the only way to determine sugar content once fermentation has begun and especially at the end. The real beauty is that it measures it directly unlike either refractometric or hydrometric methods and bubbles don't affect it.. Takes only 2 or 5 drops or you can dilute the sample and use it for higher values than 5%. Keep on Brewin' Dave Burley Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 11:02:46 -0800 From: "Mike Sharp" <rdcpro at hotmail.com> Subject: RE: Chloramine removal by activated carbon filtration Kyle Jones asks about Chloramine removal by activated carbon filtration ("Wiscer") "I have found anecdotal evidence that filtering with activated carbon will not remove chloramines from treated water." This is probably because the flow rates are too high. It requires relatively small granules of activated carbon, and *very* slow flow rates with household AC filters. "Apparently, chloramines, when filtered through AC, break down into various products, including nitrogen gas and chlorine, explaining the chlorine smell I was getting." Chlorine is not a product of Chloramine decomposition--otherwise Chloromine would be considered a THM precursor. Chloride is, however, a product, which contributes to the increased TDS downstream of a AC filter. But then, there are other problems with AC filtration, such as bacterial seeding of downstream water. That's why one standard setup for commercial/industrial water treatment is to treat first with GAC filtration, followed by resin ion exchange (softening), followed by RO treatment. This will produce relatively high purity water (1-2 megohms), if TFC membranes are used at high pressure (approx 250psi). To improve recovery, you need a fairly high recycle flow rate for the retentate side. "Pure chlorine breaks down into chloride ions, but in its pure form, combines with organics to form trihalogenated methanes (THMs), which are suspected carcinogens." Chlorine is a THM precursor, but that doesn't necessarily mean having residual chlorine means you have THMs in the product water. There has to be organic matter involved. It depends on the source. The cedar river watershed near me produces water that is so low in organics that until recently, it wasn't even chlorinated. "It seems that AC is a good start, but needs to be followed up by RO or ion exchange in order to remove all the byproducts." I'd steer clear of AC-only filtration, because of the bacterial seeding problems associated with it. Household filters sometimes have silver in them to supposedly reduce the problem, but I suspect that helps only a little (it depends on the presence of silver in the product water), and then only if the flow rates are very low. Removing the sanitizer, and replacing it with bacteria seems like a bad idea to me. The standard treatment setup I mentioned works very well, if you're trying to produce ultra high purity water. Whether that's a good idea for brewing or not is up to you I guess. I've built water systems for UHP manufacturing that produce good quality water ( consistently greater than 17 megohm ) with the pretreatment I mentioned, followed by UV sterilization and mixed bed IX. But even the pretreatment process alone seems like a lot of trouble for brewing, unless you have other water issues (excess iron, etc) to deal with. And then you may need other treatments as well. And you'll also always have to add minerals and salts to the water. Regards, Mike Sharp Kent, WA [1891.3, 294deg] AR Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 11:27:13 -0800 From: RiedelD at pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca Subject: Achieving that typical British bitter character After sampling a Christmas offering called "Bah Humbug" from the Wychwood brewery in Witney, UK, it occurred to me that I don't seem to be able to replicate the 'typical British bitter' character. I admit it's not fair to lump all British pale, hoppy ales into one category, but I do find that ales from Conniston Bluebird Bitter, Fuller's London Pride, Blacksheep Bitter, and the aforementioned Wychwood beer to Gale's HSB all share similar attributes: a dry, hoppy (but not resinous), almost tight flavour profile commonly with what I perceive as a slight metallic edge, a balanced caramel component and a noticeable, but fairly restrained hop aroma. They are all very enjoyable beers and they all seem to elude me as a brewer! The usual approach would be to single infuse at 149-150F using good British malts of Maris Otter barley, UK hops like EKG and Fuggle, enough crystal for colour and flavour, and an English yeast strain. This alone does not seem to achieve the profile I'm looking for. Does anyone have some advice on achieving the 'British bitter' character? My next thoughts are to try a simplified hop schedule (1 bittering addition for 60' and 1 aroma addition for 1') and a proportion of sugar in the boil replacing some of the malt to encourage a lower SG finish. Any thoughts? Dave Riedel Victoria, Canada Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 18:31:49 -0600 From: "Brian Lundeen" <blundeen at mts.net> Subject: RE: Name that Style > Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 08:52:17 -0500 > From: "Randy Pressley" <RANDYP at cityofws.org> > Subject: Name that Style > > I brewed an all grain Saturday and now I need someone to help > me identify the style. > > 20 lbs pale malt > 1 lb choc malt > 2 lb crystal (50L) > 3 lbs honey > 2 oz Mt Hood Boiling > 1 oz Goldings Flavor > 1 oz Saaz Aroma > Nottingham yeast > > Yield 7 gallons > OG 1.098 > FG (to be determined) > Ooh, ooh, can I play? Can I play? I think it's a Baltic Porter. Not necessarily a great Baltic Porter, but not totally out of style either. Of course, I'm working on the assumption that your hydrometer reading is not completely out to lunch. You measured it before throwing the yeast in, right? Otherwise, we might be looking at a Dark Mild. ;-) Did I win? Did I win? Cheers Brian Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 01:48:08 +0000 From: "A.J deLange" <ajdel at cox.net> Subject: More Hydrometers Steve, Having trouble posting these (server says they are "multipart" whatever that means and, as you say, it's probably a bit over the top anyway but I'll try without reproducing your comments. I use this little formula for ratios of numbers which are of the same order of magnitude. The reasoning in the case of Plato measurement is thus: P/100 = (W1+e)/(W2 + g) = [(W1/W2) + e/W2]/(1 + g/W2) ~ (W1/W2 +e/W2)(1 - g/W2) = W1/W2 +e/W2 -gW1/W22 -eg/W1W2 ~ W1/W2 +eW2 -gW2 with the first approximation from Taylor series expansion of (1/(1+g/W2) and tossing higher order terms and the second from calling the eg terms small relative to the others and noting that W1 is at least approximately equal to W2 (remember that these are tared weights). It's a quick, dirty and easy to remember relationship sufficient for ballparking which got an answer approximately the same as your answer. Close enough for bounding. I have pondered the question of how wort behaves with temperature as opposed to sucrose and even as to how wort specific gravity as a function of extract relates to sucrose solutions. The whole thing turns on the fact that sucrose is the only one of the common sugars that is not in the least hygroscopic which means that you can work with it in the lab. We've all dumped out maltose on a humid day and seen what happens within minutes. You can't get the stuff from jar to flask by way of balance without picking up water. You can watch the numbers on the balance climb. I've concluded that this is why the Normal boys used sucrose. Perhaps working in the dead of winter in Northern Wisconsin you might be able to check out maltose and some of the other sugars. This said, the densities of maltose, glucose, and fructose solutions are very close to the densities of sucrose solutions of equal strength and even dextrines are surprisingly similar. Experimentation of this sort is of great interest and I'd be happy to add maltose vs temp to the list of things that I want to investigate. I haven't even got a complete set of sucrose data yet. There are lots of pitfalls even with a modern instrument (for example, the rate at which water leaves a volumetric flask is rapid enough that readings can get thrown off if taken over the course of a few minute) that make me appreciate all the more the work of Dr. Plato and his troops. Save your $600. The corrections are: -0.56084 +.0017885*T + .0013063*T2 for worts from 0 to 5P -0.69685 + 0.01367*T + 0.0010621*T2 for worts from 5 to 10P -0.77782 + 0.017288*T + 0.0010822*T2 for worts from 10 to 15P 0.87895 + 0.023601*T + 0.0010285*T2 for worts from 15 to 20P Temperatures (T) are in Centigrade and the corrections are degrees P to be added to a reading made on a hydrometer calibrated for 20C read at T. I think it's much easier to try to get the temperature close to 20C or whatever your hydrometer is calibrated for. At this point in the discussion I'll bring up one of my favorite analogies: the altimeter in an airplane. The connection between what that instrument says and the actual altitude is also tenuous. It does not read actual altitude. It reads barometric pressure which changes from day to day and location to location (the local barometer is reported to a pilot approaching an airport or overflying a particular region). Furthermore the instrument itself can't be calibrated to much better than 200' accuracy. But the object isn't to know exactly how high you are. It's to know that you are at the same altitude as someone else whose altimeter reads the same (within 200 feet) or more important to know that you are not at the same altitude as some one whose altimeter reads 1000 feet higher and that you won't whack into the ground in instument conditions if you come down to the minimum descent altitude (300 feet i.e. the calibration accuracy plus a 100 foot margin). So by a combination of calibrations and corrections we have a working system. It's much the same with the hydrometer. Follow the protocols of the ASBC and we can be pretty confident that your 10P wort is close to my 10P wort. Furthermore we know that when the daily drop in apparent extract levels off fermentation is complete. And better still with experience we learn what sort of a AE profile to expect from a given yeast with a given wort and can thus use AE to let us predict the time to completion of fermentation. Of course a deviation is also a clear indication of a problem. Final reflection: with all our science (in line DO meters, alcohol meters, gas flow meters, sugar spectrum analyzers etc.) AE is still the main metric used in the industry to monitor fermentation progress and I'll wager that 95% or more of breweries determine AE with a hydrometer. A.J. Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 18:43:26 -0800 From: "Steve Dale-Johnson" <sdalejohnson at hotmail.com> Subject: style to brew or brew to style Randy Pressley wants to fit a style to his brew. While I prefer to brew to a style and judge how well it fits, this one caught my imagination. <snip> I brewed an all grain Saturday and now I need someone to help me identify the style. 20 lbs pale malt 1 lb choc malt 2 lb crystal (50L) 3 lbs honey 2 oz Mt Hood Boiling 1 oz Goldings Flavor 1 oz Saaz Aroma Nottingham yeast Yield 7 gallons OG 1.098 FG (to be determined) <snip> It starts to read like an english style Red or maybe a light Porter, but then I saw the gravity. I vote for a blend between a Porter and a roundhouse kick to the head, perhaps a "Porterhouse"? ;)' Steve Dale-Johnson Brewing at 1918 miles, 298 degrees Rennerian Delta (Vancouver), BC, Canada. Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 12/07/05, by HBD2HTML v1.2 by KFL
webmaster@hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96