Patent No. 3266263A: Concentration Of Aqueous Solutions By Crystallization With Sonic Defoaming

Today in 1966, US Patent 3266263 A was issued, an invention of Lyle W. Pollock, for his “Concentration of Aqueous Solutions by Crystallization with Sonic Defoaming.” There’s no Abstract, although in the description it includes this summary:

Conventionally, aqueous solutions can be concentrated by crystallization involving chilling the aqueous solution to form ice crystals with subsequent separation of the ice crystals from the mother liquor. This method as `applied to the concentration of food products has become commercially acceptable as it can be carried out without damaging the taste of the food product. In this respect, concentration by crystallization represents a considerable improvement over evaporative processes which rely upon heat and/or extremely low pressure. The removal of water by evaporation also results in the removal of much of the essential oils and esters, many of which are not recoverable, so that the concentrated product can never be restored to its original freshness and flavor. Concentration by crystallization can be employed to advantage in the processing of such food products and beverages as milk, fruit juices, vegetable juices, vinegar, beer, wine, liquors and the like.

A method of concentrating by crystallization involves chilling the aqueous solution in a chiller to form a slurry of ice crystals and mother liquor and then forcing the resulting slurry into a crystal purification column such as described in the patent to Schmidt, Re. 23,810, and the patent to R. W. Thomas, 2,854,494, and comprising an elongated confined concentration zone. The crystals are moved in a compact mass into a body of crystal melt which is formed by heating the crystals in a downstream portion of the concentration zone. A portion of the crystal melt is displaced back into the advancing crystal mass. The purification column includes an upstream liquid removal zone, a middle reflux zone and a downstream melting zone. Mother liquor is removed from the crystals in the liquid removal zone and the crystals :are melted in the melting zone.

In the chilling step, a scraped-surface stainless steel chiller is conventionally employed. The scraped-surface stainless steel chiller represents a major investment cost and an overall major process expense. It would be desirable, therefore, to eliminate the scraped-surface chiller and thus substantially `reduce the process cost of concentrating aqueous solutions by crystallization.

The inventive process can be employed to advantage in the processing of such food products and beverages as milk, fruit juices, vegetable juices, vinegar, beer, wine, liquors, and the like. The inventive process is particularly applicable to the concentration of beer as the beer 3,266,263 Patented August 16, 1966 ICC withdrawn from the fermenters usually contains 1 to 2 volumes of carbon dioxide at standard temperature and pressure (60 F. and l atmosphere) per volume of liquid beer. Therefore, contacting the 4beer with carbon dioxide does not involve the introduction of a new component to the beer.

The invention will hereinafter be described as applied specifically to the concentration of beer, although it is the temperature of the beer feed is lowered to form a slurry of ice crystals. The temperature within freezer 11 can range from about 0 to 32 F. and the pressure can range from about to 50 p.s.i.g, The weight ratio of liquid carbon dioxide to beer passed to freezer 11 can range from about 1:2 to about 2: 1.

Freezer 11 is provided with a means for mixing 12 the carbon dioxide and beer feed streams. In order to prevent foaming, conventional sonic defoamers 13 are employed. Reference is made to lChemical Week, May 6, 1961, page 52, for a discussion of the effectiveness of sonic defoamers as applied to the beer industry.


Patent No. 503168A: Brewing Process

Today in 1893, US Patent 503168 A was issued, an invention of Gustav Hermann Schneider (a.k.a. G.H. Schneider), of Hamburg, Germany, for his “Brewing Process.” There’s no Abstract, although in the description it includes this summary:

My invention has relation to the art of brewing beer from the wort, and it has for its object the provision of means whereby a product is obtained whose nutritive properties are materially increased, that is not as liable to secondary fermentation and that will keep in good condition for a longer time than beer brewed in the usual way.

One of the advantages of my invention lies in the fact that the fermentation may be interrupted at any time, thereby enabling the brewer to vary the percentage of alcohol in the beer, according to requirements, and consequently preserve to the beer a larger percentage of extracts than has been possible heretofore.

A further advantage of my invention consists in obviating the cellar storage otherwise necessary, and in cheapening considerably the production of beer, notwithstanding that a product is obtained of a taste far more cess.

I attain these objects by adding hops to the wort, boiling the same by means of steam under pressure, cooling the boiled wort, filtering, and subjecting the filtered wort to a yeast fermentation, pasteurizing the fermented liquid by means of heat, cooling it down, and aerating it by means of ozonized air,and finally charging the sterilized liquid with carbonic acid, when the beer will be ready for storage, these operations, and the storage being successively carried out under exclusion of ambient atmospheric air, the liquid being forced through the various apparatuses, and finally to the receiver, by means of sterilized air. But that my invention may be fully understood, l will describe the same in detail, reference being had to the accompanying drawings, in which- Figures 1 and l show in side elevation a plant by means of which my invention may be carried out, and Fig. 2 is a sectional elevation of my improved pasteurizing and aerating apparatus.


And here’s the original drawings filed with the patent application:


Bass Vs. Cooke Brewing Co.

It seems many people think that trademark disputes are a new phenomenon, because in the age of social media and the twenty-four news cycle, everything is news, but they’re actually nothing new. Trademark disputes have been going on as long as the very concept of a trademark existed, it’s just that they used to happen mostly out of the glare of the public, and instead quietly wound their way through court documents and appearances before special tribunals created to adjudicate these specific types of disputes.

I, myself, was involved in one as the beer buyer for Beverages & more, when an East coast brewery objected to one of our private label beers. Few people know about it, because even as recently as the late 1990s, when this took place, such disputes were mostly private matters. Personally, I think that’s how it should be, because trademark is a highly technical, arcane subject, which I think is better left to experts in the field. I also think trademark law could use some updating to better reflect the real world we find ourselves in today, but that’s an argument for another day.

My point here is only that trademark disputes are old hat. A few days ago, I stumbled on one from around 1893, when the makers Bass Ale sued a Chicago brewery — the Cooke Brewing Co. — for trademark infringement. I couldn’t find out very much information about the Cooke brewery, but “One Hundred Years of Brewing” (originally published in 1903, and reprinted in 1974) includes this summary:


Apparently, in 1893, when the World’s Columbian Exposition (a.k.a. The Chicago World’s Far) took place in Chicago from May to October of that year, “Cooke Brewing Company created a display to advertise its beer. The bottles, however, were labeled with remarkable similarity to those used by Bass.” Not surprisingly, Bass sued for relief in the US Circuit Court Northern District of Illinois. While many trademark disputes are open to debate in which reasonable people may have a difference of opinion, I don’t think this is one of those cases. I think you’d be hard pressed to find anyone not employed by the Cooke Brewing Co. who didn’t believe this was one of the most clear cut examples of trademark infringement in the annals of history.

Online records, as far as I can tell, don’t go back far enough to see how this case started and progressed. The only reason the final ruling is out there, is because someone at the National Archives in Chicago came across this and decided to share it on their website and Facebook page. But take a look below at the two beer labels and see for yourself. It’s hard to believe it got this far, and Bass had to file a lawsuit at all to stop the Chicago brewers. I guess they really thought they could get away with using a red triangle on their label.

Bass-v-Cooke-1 Bass-v-Cooke-2

Patent No. 3100707A: Addition Of Dry Hectorite To Beer

Today in 1961, US Patent 3100707 A was issued, an invention of Raymond L. Mcadam, Richard G. Shaler Jr., and Richard G. Shaler, assigned to the American Tansul Company, for his “Addition of Dry Hectorite to Beer.” There’s no Abstract, although in the description it includes this summary:

This invention relates to an improvement in the process for treating beer or similar beverages such as wines and fruit juices whereby the beverages are improved in clarity, stability, and qualities or brilliance, sparkle, and taste. The invention relates to an improvement in the treatment of beer with a swelling gelling clay, preferably a montmorillonite clay such as hectoritc.

Specifically, the invention relates to a new method of “chill-proofing” beer or other beverages by the use of a dry swelling gelling clay of the montmorillonite group and preferably hectorite. When heretofore the clay has been first placed in an aqueous suspension prior to introduction into the beer, the present invention contemplates direct addition of the clay to the beer in dry pulverant form. The results show a surprising increase in yield of beer and excellent product stability.


Patent No. 2252235A: Bottle Carrier

Today in 1941, US Patent 2252235 A was issued, an invention of Nicholas Snelling, assigned to the Zimba Beverage Co. Inc., for his “Bottle Carrier.” There’s no Abstract, although in the description it includes this summary:

This invention relates to devices for carrying Orr-supporting bottles of various kinds and classes, and particularly bottles having removable closure caps; and the object of the invention is to provide a supporting device of the character described made from heavy `paper or light cardboard which is die cut, printed, lithographed, or otherwise characterized, and then folded to form a means for carrying, handling, or assembling bottled goods either individually or collectively so as to facilitate the handling and packaging as well as delivery thereof; a further object being to provide a device of the character described having an apertured portion from which or by means of which the device including the bottle or bottles thereon may be suspended or carried; a further object’ being to provide’a device of the character described wherein a number of bottles may be collectively packed in a carton or shipping case with the carrying lor suspending device attached thereto or to a number of bottles in a compact and collapsed manner and whereby the group of bottles may be simultaneously removed from the carton or shipping casein the removal of the supporting device therefrom thereby simplifying the handling of merchandise of this kind by the merchant and also facilitating the packing and carrying thereof a still further object being to provide an improved method of constructing a device of the character described `so as to adapt the same for use in a’ continuous assemblage upon a multiplicity of bottles moved relatively thereto so as to` expedite the assemblage of the device to groups of bottles, and further to incorporating a device of this character upon bottled goods in the operation of capping or sealing the same; and with these and other objects in view, the invention consists in a device of the class and for the purpose specified which is simple and economical in construction, and which may be produced and used in accordance with the method more fully hereinafter described and claimed.


Hefe Wheaties

Just when you think things can’t get stranger, the makers of Wheaties — the Breakfast of Champions — General Mills have announced that they’re making a new beer, Hefe Wheaties. Expecting people to do a spit take when reading that, General Mills blog anticipated skepticism in their announcement of the new beer. “Well, you read it correctly. Wheaties has partnered with Fulton, a craft brewery in Minneapolis, to create a limited-edition Hefeweizen beer named HefeWheaties.


Here’s how General Mills’ describes the collaboration beer on their blog.

Wheaties is not actually in the beer, but there is wheat. And that connection helped both brands try something interesting.

“We were intrigued from the get-go on this idea for many reasons, including that we’re both Minneapolis companies, and that the beer and the cereal both started from the same place in terms of raw ingredients and the same city,” says Ryan Petz, president and co-founder of Fulton.

So what about the name?

“We had been sampling a number of Hefeweizens, so we had been discussing with the Wheaties team what we liked,” says Petz. “Someone on the team said HefeWheaties, and it kind of sprung out from there.”

The Hefeweizen is a south German style of wheat beer, typically brewed with over 50 percent malted wheat, making it a natural fit for Wheaties.

The “Hefe” prefix means, “with yeast.” This German-style beer often has a cloudy appearance because of the high wheat content and has a little bit of hop bitterness.

Typically served in a traditional Weizen glass, HefeWheaties will be the first beer of this style brewed by Fulton. It’s brewed with water, malted wheat, malted barley, hops from Germany, the U.S. and Australia, and a yeast strain specifically developed for fermenting American-style wheat beers.

“This was a true partnership between Wheaties and Fulton,” says David Oehler, marketing manager, Wheaties. “Both teams were passionate about this project and got to work quickly. We enjoyed the chance to collaborate with Fulton throughout the entire process from idea generation to can design.”

The idea for HefeWheaties came up earlier this summer, thanks to some connections between Fulton’s team and employees at General Mills.

Tony Libera, who manages the social media accounts for Wheaties, chatted about the possibility of a beer partnership for the brand with a friend who was a sales representative for Fulton, and the plans were put in motion from there.

The Fulton team also has other close ties to General Mills. Petz worked for us for a few years after business school, as did Fulton’s director of operations. And the wife of another Fulton founder currently works at General Mills.

So where can you find HefeWheaties?

For a limited time, beginning August 26, it will be available in the Twin Cities market in a 16oz. tallboy can. 4-packs will be sold at limited retailers in the area, while quantities last. HefeWheaties will not be available for shipment or purchase outside of Minnesota.

Also, the Fulton taproom in Minneapolis will host several events featuring HefeWheaties, with the first being held on August 26.

“We’ll see how people react to it,” says Petz. “If it’s something everybody loves, we’ll obviously consider doing it again in a bigger and more widely distributed way in the future.”

Hmm. Breakfast beer, anybody?


Patent No. 2847309A: Brewing Process

Today in 1958, US Patent 2847309 A was issued, an invention of Harold Howard Rohrbeck, assigned to the Olympia Brewing Company, for his “Brewing Process.” There’s no Abstract, although in the description it includes this summary:

Heretofore, in the conventional brewing process, it has taken considerable time toV filter the wort through the lautering bed provided by the grain in the lauter tub and also to sparge the bed. I believe the reason for this is that the lines, which are microscopic glutinous protein matter, have collected in the interstices of the filtering bed and have restricted and even completely closed them thus slowing down the filtering step.

It is a main object of the present invention to provide a brewing process overcoming the above disadvantage.

A further object of the present invention is to provide a process in which all or part of the fines are removed from the mash prior to the mash entering the lauter tub whereby to speed up the filtering operation.

A further object of the present invention is to provide an apparatus by which the method of the present invention may be carried out.

The process -of the present invention is characterized by the steps of separating the fines from at least a part of the mash prior to the mash being conducted to the lauter tub so that the filter bed is not nearly as congested or restricted by the presence of the fines as heretofore has been the case and thus the filtering action of the bed is much more rapid than heretofore.


The Robert Smith India Pale Ale Brewery

The ad I featured yesterday in my long-running Beer In Ads series was for The Robert Smith Ale Brewing Co. of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The brewery was only called by that name from 1896 until it closed when Prohibition began. From 1887 until 1896, the brewery was called The Robert Smith India Pale Ale Brewing Co. While searching for information for the post last night, I happened upon a cool bit of history regarding the brewery from 1889. The Map Collection at the Free Library of Philadelphia includes a survey map of The Robert Smith India Pale Ale Brewing Co. created by Ernest Hexamer and included in the Hexamer General Surveys, Volume 24, published in 1889.


The brewery was located in West Philadelphia, in the 24th Ward, at N. 38th St, Girard Ave and Philadelphia and the Reading Railroad. The survey also includes some interesting tidbits in the text at the right, a laundry list of architectural facts and figures. For example, the brewery was powered by steam, had two copper kettles — a 100 bbl and 200 bbl vessel — and employed 17 people. Below is a blow-up of the brewery illustration, showing the brewery property and grounds.


Patent No. 1149256A: Bottle-Filling Device

Today in 1954, US Patent 1149256 A was issued, an invention of Joseph H. Godfrey, for his “Bottle-Filling Device.” There’s no Abstract, although in the description it includes this summary:

This invention relates to devices for filling bottles and similar receptacles with liquid, and has reference more particularly to that type of filling mechanism wherein a valve controlling the flow of liquid to the bottle is opened through the agency of an electromagnet when the empty bottle has been suitably positioned relatively to the filling device to receive the liquid, and is subsequently closed by the automatic de-energizing of the magnet to cut off the flow of liquid to the bottle when the latter has been filled to the proper or desired height.


Patent No. 2948617A: Processing Of Brewers’ Wort

Today in 1960, US Patent 2948617 A was issued, an invention of Stanley William Thomas Paine, for his “Processing of Brewers’ Wort.” There’s no Abstract, although in the description it includes this summary:

The invention is more particularly concerned with the method which comprises passing the wort in continuous movement from a mash tun as sweet wort to a fermentation vessel as hopped wort, and in the course of that movement raising the temperature of the wort to a high value, holding the wort at the high temperature in a holding vessel, reducing the temperature of the wort and passing it to a hop extraction vessel and then passing the hopped wort to a sedimentation vessel where this is required and thence through a sludge separating device and a cooling device to the fermentation vessel.