Patent No. 2898209A: Method Of Extracting Hops

patent-logo
Today in 1959, US Patent 2898209 A was issued, an invention of James E. Grant, Charles J. Krueck, Milton E. Lavrich, Justin J. Murtaugh, and Donald G. Ruff, assigned to the Blatz Brewing Company, for their “Method of Extracting Hops.” There’s no Abstract, although in the description it includes this summary:

Our invention relates to a new and improved hop extract; to a new and improved method of making a hop extract; and to a new and improved hopped beverage, such as alcoholic malt beverages exemplified by beer and ale.

While the invention applies to the treatment of any part of the hop plant, it refers particularly to the treatment of the cones of the hop plant. These cones are preferably extracted in the whole state, but they may be cut, ground, or otherwise comminuted.

After a lengthy discussion, in the last page of the application, they set forth their claims, summarized:

1. A method of extracting solid starting material, said stafting material having substantially the composition of vine-fresh hops, which consists in extracting said material with methanol at a maximum temperature of 65 C. to produce an original liquid extract of said starting ina– terial, said original liquid extract including water which is extracted from said starting material, said water being mixed with said methanol in said original liquid extract, said original liquid extract including water-insoluble and methanol-soluble material which is extracted from said solid starting material and which is dissolved in the methanol of said original liquid extract, said original liquid extract including water-soluble and methanol-insoluble material which is extracted from said solid starting material and which is dissolved in the water of said original liquid extract, said methanol-soluble and waterinsoluble extracted material including alpha-resin and beta-resin, the weight of said alpha resin being at least 40% of the weight of the total soft resin; separating said original liquid extract from the undissolved, residual part of said starting material; flowing the separated, original liquid extract forwardly through an externally heated zone in the form of a thin, rapidly forwardly-flowing stream to heat said forwardly-flowing stream substantially uniformly within’ said heating Zone without substantially evaporating methanol or water from said forwardly-flowing stream within said heating zone, forwardly flowing said forwardlyflowing stream within said heating zone at a sufliciently high velocity to substantially prevent the solutes of said forwardly-flowing stream from coating the inner face of said heating zone; flowing said forwardly-flowing stream out of the outlet of said heating zone into an evaporation chamber; evaporating a part of the methanol and water in said evaporation chamber from the stream which is flowed into said evaporation chamber and thus providing a residue of said stream within said evaporation chamber, flowing the evaporated methanol and water out of said evaporation chamber; flowing the residue of said stream out of said evaporation chamber forwardly through said heating zone and back into said evaporation chamber in cyclic succession while evaporating a part of the methanol and water from the stream which is flowed into said evaporation chamber during each cycle and flowing the part of the methanol and water which is thus evaporated durmg each cycle out of said evaporating chamber, maintaining said evaporation chamber at a maximum temperature of substantially 65 C. and at a maximum pressure of substantially millimeters of mercury, and continuing said cyclic succession to produce a concentrate of said original extract in which the weight of said alpha-resin is at least 40% of the weight of the total soft resin.

2. A method according to claim 1 in which substantially all the methanol is evaporated in said cyclic succe’ssi’on within said evaporation chamber from said original extract.

3. A method according to claim 1, in which the cyclic succession is stopped when said concentrate includes an aqueous phase of residual water and a non aqueous methanol resin phase in which said resins are dissolved, and said aqueous phase is separated from said methanol resin phase. I

4. A method according to claim 3, in which said aqueous phase is separated from said methanol resin phase by dissolving a water-soluble salting-out agent in said aqueous phase.

5. A method according to claim 3, in which the weight of said aqueous phase is at least substantially 70% of the weight of said concentrate.

Untitled

When Is A Brewhouse Not A Brewhouse?

brewhouse
I know that title sounds like a riddle, but it’s not meant to be. It’s meant to start a discussion about something I’ve been noticing lately that’s starting to confound and annoy me, at least a little bit. I was on a family vacation last week, taking a road trip to the L.A. area to visit some beaches and some friends. As we began our holiday, we stopped for two days in Pismo Beach, and as we drove into town, I could see an intriguing sounding place from the highway called the Shell Beach Brewhouse. Since this was strictly a family holiday, I hadn’t done any reconnaissance on breweries but was secretly happy I’d spotted one. So after a quick dip in the pool (which are like strong magnets for my kids) we headed out for dinner and a few beers. It turned out that by “brewhouse,” they meant taphouse restaurant. Which was fine up to a point. The food was decent, the beer list almost passable, though the service was subpar. But it brings me to the larger point. When is a Brewhouse not a Brewhouse?

Earlier this year — or was it last year? — during a weekend trip to Monterey, I went to the Cannery Row Brewing Company while the rest of the family was shopping. At this point you probably won’t be surprised to learn that it was NOT a brewery, but a taphouse restaurant. Is this a growing trend, calling yourself something that suggests, implies or downright claims that you brew beer? Is it dishonest? I can see an argument that a brewhouse is a house with brews in it, but when I see the word brewhouse, I think of a place where people start to brew beer, with kettles, tuns and raw ingredients … oh, and hoses. Don’t forget the hoses.

ABE-brewhouse

Clearly, there’s no consensus on a naming convention. The Brewhouse in Santa Barbara does brew their own beer, as does the Barrel Head Brewhouse in San Francisco. Fitger’s Brewhouse in Duluth, Minnesota actually brews, as does Rupert’s Brew House in Kalamazoo, Michigan, the Audacity Brew House in Denton, Texas and the Covington Brewhouse in Covington, Lousiana. Also brewing their own beer is the Trinity Brewhouse in Providence, Rhode Island and the Crescent City Brewhouse in New Orleans. And so is the Northwinds Brewhouse & Eatery in Ontario, Canada and the Glacier Brewhouse in Anchorage, Alaska.

Skirting the naming, sort of, is the Temple Brew House in London, England, which serves its own beer, but the brewery itself is known as the Essex Street Brewing Company, which they explain as:

The Essex Street Brewing Company was founded in November 2014 to create great artisan beers, on site, and delicious to the good people of Temple. We’re really proud of our brewery, which is why it was built at the heart of the pub and the first thing you see as you walk down Essex Street.

But the BJs Restaurant and Brewhouse only used to, and today contracts their beer and trucks it to each location. I mean they … er to be fair, by they, I mean Michael Ferguson, brews the beer at a remote location, but the BJs themselves, which have “brewhouse” in their name, do not brew the beer onsite any longer even though it is exclusively brewed for them, by them.

There’s also the Flipside Brewhouse in Rohnert Part, the town right next to me, The BrewHouse in San Juan Capistrano, and Scotty’s Brewhouse operates a dozen locations in Indiana. Then there’s the Brown Iron Brewhouse in Washington, Michigan and The Brew House in Maryland Heights, Missouri. What do all of these brewhouses have in common? They don’t brew their own beer.

Also not brewing any beer is the Broadway Brewhouse of New Philadelphia, Ohio, and all three McKenzie Brewhouse locations in Pennsylvania, Joe K’s Brewhouse in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, the Upright Brew House in New York City, L.A.’s Blue Palms Brewhouse, and the 2nd Street Brewhouse in Philadelphia.

The Brew House & Bistro in Forest City, North Carolina, the Brewhouse Pub & Grille in Helena, Montana and The Brew House Bar and Restaurant in Pearl River, New York, along with many others, at least hint that they’re not actually brewing by including the word or words bar, pub, grille or restaurant in their names, too. That helps, at least a little bit, but still seems slightly misleading.

But what’s clear is that there’s no consensus. There’s plenty of examples of businesses with the word “brewhouse” featured prominently in their name that both brew beer onsite and do not. My list above is by no means complete or scientific, but the result of looking at the first few pages of a Google search for “brewhouse.” It does give a good indication that the use of the term “brewhouse” is all over the map. The actual definition, however, seems less open to debate.

The Dictionary.com definition of a brewhouse is quite simple:

brewhouse [broo-hous]
noun, plural brewhouses [broo-hou-ziz]
1. brewery.

Even the Oxford Dictionary definition is pretty succinct: “noun; A brewery.” And those definitions are not just a recent development indicative of a word in transition. The Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary from 1828, as updated in 1913, defines a brewhouse as ” n. A house or building appropriated to brewing; a brewery.” So it’s fairly unambiguous, there’s little room for nuance in those definitions. Which is comforting, because that’s certainly the sense in which I’ve always understood the word.

new_10_hl_fully_automatic_operated_copper_brewhouse_25_10831

When a bar uses the word(s) brewing company or brew pub in their name that seems even more questionable since the words are less ambiguous even than brewhouse. While the Cannery Row Brewing Company is the only one I can remember by name, I’m pretty sure I’ve run into a couple of others over the years. If you know of a place that calls itself a “brewing company” but isn’t, let me know in the comments below, please. For obvious reasons, it’s much harder to search for businesses with brewing in their name but that don’t brew. Google doesn’t parse that information, sadly.

Brewpub, or brew pub, however, seems even trickier. A much newer term, at least in common use, I would not have thought anyone would call themselves one without actually being a brewpub. But the Iron Horse Bar & Grill, in Montana, used to be called the Iron Horse Brew Pub, but changed their name, perhaps bowing to consumer pressure. I don’t know exactly when it changed its name, but the 2012 edition of the “Moon Spotlight Missoula & Northwestern Montana” travel guidebook still lists the brew pub name (and discloses their lack of brewing) so it must be pretty recently. Their website URL is still “ironhorsebrewpub.com.” Since they opened in 1991, that suggests that they were known incorrectly as a brew pub for at least 21+ years. Or is it technically a pub that serves brews, and that makes the name okay? That seems to be stretching things, but perhaps that’s the argument.

So it seems clear that a brewhouse in the ordinary meaning of the word is a brewery. And brew pub, brewpub or brewing company seem even more obviously misleading if brewing is not done onsite. Yet a number of bars, restaurants and the like are calling themselves a “brewhouse” without doing any actual brewing on premise, and there are at least a few instances of the other variety.

My question for the beer collective hive mind is this: Should an establishment not brewing beer be permitted to call itself a brewhouse, brewpub or brewing company, or is it misleading the public? Or does it simply not matter? I realize that there’s probably not any meaningful way to actually stop someone from calling their bar or restaurant whatever they want. But it seems like social pressure could be brought to bear. Or maybe I’m just being a pedantic grammar nutcase. What’s your take?

Patent No. PP20200P3: Hop Plant Named ‘Apollo’

patent-logo
Today in 2009, US Patent PP20200 P3 was issued, an invention of Roger D. Jeske and Joe Brulotte, assigned to S.S. Steiner, Inc., for their “Hop plant named ‘Apollo.'” Here’s the Abstract:

A new and distinct variety of hop, Humulus lupulus L., named “APOLLO” is characterized by its exceptional high percentage of alpha acids, excellent storage stability of alpha acids, low CoH value for an alpha variety, and resistance to hop powdery mildew strains found in Washington. The new variety was cultivated as a result of a cross in 2000 at Golden Gate Roza Hop Ranches in Prosser, Wash., United States and has been asexually reproduced in Prosser, Wash., United States.

Untitled
Untitled

Patent No. 2647521A: Hop Picking Machine

patent-logo
Today in 1953, US Patent 2647521 A was issued, an invention of George E. Miller, for his “Hop Picking Machine.” There’s no Abstract, although in the description it includes this summary:

My invention relates to mechanism for use in removing hops from hop vines. Numerous machines have been developed from time to time, many of them patented by me, for the purpose of removing hops from vines mechanically. One of the difficulties is that hops are quite delicate and must be handled with great care and another factor is that substantially all of the hops ‘must be removed from the vine for economic can be brought for picking, and also adaptable for use in a portable machine movable through a field of growing hops to remove the hops from the vine.

Another object of my invention is to provide a hop picking machine effective to remove substantially all of the growing hops from the vines, but capable of operating with sufficient delicacy so that the hops are not injured by the mechanical picking and handling.

Another object of my invention is to provide means for removing the hops from the vines without removing a large quantity of leaves and stems; that is, a device for selectively removing the hops while leaving, as far as possible, the leaves and stems undisturbed.

A further object of the invention is to provide I a hop picking machine having flexibly mounted hop picker elements effective to rove throughout 7 portions of the hop vine being picked, so that the hops are engaged from various different directions and in various different attitudes to promote their removal in the most expeditious fashion.

A still further object or the invention is to provide a hop picking machine in which the action of the picker elements is so gentle as not to injure or cut or tear the hops themselves.

Untitled
Untitled
Untitled

Patent No. 6209567B1: Foam Trap For Beer Or Other Gas Propelled Liquid Dispensing Systems

patent-logo
Today in 2001, US Patent 6209567 B1 was issued, an invention of Robert C. Gustafson, for his “Foam Trap For Beer or Other Gas Propelled Liquid Dispensing Systems.” Here’s the Abstract:

A foam trap or FOB for a gas propelled or mechanically pumped liquid dispensing system, having an upper ball stopper valve seat and gas vent port at the top and a lower ball stopper valve seat and liquid outlet port at the bottom, with two floating ball stoppers that are raised and lowered by the level of liquid unless locked into a seated position on a valve seat by pressure. Ball stoppers can be independently mechanically dislodged and constrained from reseating on either valve seat by externally accessible means. The interior geometry inhibits the ball stoppers from competing or blocking access to respective valve seats when liquid is falling or rising. The trap automatically shuts off outflow when liquid is depleted, permitting a container change, opening of the vent port, and purging of gas or air in the trap by refilling the trap with liquid before closing the vent port and reopening the outflow. The trap may be integrated into an automated container switching system for liquid dispensing systems.

Untitled
Untitled
Untitled

Untitled Untitled

Untitled

Patent No. 3596810A: Keg-Tapping System

patent-logo
Today in 1971, US Patent 3596810 A was issued, an invention of Roy A. Taubenheim, for his “Keg-Tapping System.” Here’s the Abstract:

A beer keg-tapping device which consists of a keg unit that is permanently attached to the keg and a coupler unit detachably connected to the keg unit. Both units have liquid and gas passages which communicate when the units are coupled; a single valve element automatically closes both passages of the keg unit when units are not coupled. During coupling the passages of the two units are connected before the valve element is unseated, so that coupling is accomplished without spraying of beer.

Untitled
Untitled

Untitled Untitled

Patent No. WO2010043235A8: Post Fermenting Optimizer (PFO) For The Preparation Of Beer

patent-logo
Today in 2010, US Patent WO 2010043235 A8 was issued, an invention of Patrick Accristo, Michel Aubanel, Cyril Denis, Dave Mawby, Matthew Servini, Nilabh Singh, and John Terry, assigned to Cargill Incorporated, for their “Post Fermenting Optimizer (PFO) for the Preparation of Beer.” Here’s the Abstract:

The present application relates to a method of preparing a beer or beer-like beverage by adding a Post Fermenting Optimizer (PFO) in form of an infusion of roasted malt or a distillate thereof after fermentation. This addition of PFO provides the beer or beer-like beverage with additional body, base flavour and/or top notes. The present invention relates also to the PFO infusion itself, its distillate, the methods for preparing them and their use for reducing staling during beer or beer-type product shelf-life.

Untitled

Patent No. 5334400A: Beverage Package

patent-logo
Today in 1994, US Patent 5334400 A was issued, an invention of Robert Purdham, assigned to Guinness Brewing Worldwide Limited, for his “Beverage Package.” Here’s the Abstract:

A sealed beverage package has a bottle 1, a neck 4 of which provides a narrow mouth 5. A hollow insert 7 is submerged in beverage 13 in the bottle. A headspace 14 in the bottle is at a pressure greater than atmospheric and when the package is opened to de-pressurise the headspace 14, gas and/or liquid under pressure in the insert 7 is ejected through an aperture 8 into the beverage to cause a head of froth to develop on the beverage 13. The insert 7 is retained in position by an open framework 9 of struts 10 which extend between the insert and a retaining ring 11 that frictionally engages in a bore 6 adjacent to the mouth 5 of the bottle. The insert 7 can be attached to the framework 9 or formed integral therewith.

It’s also described thusly:

The present invention relates to a beverage package and a method of forming such a package. More particularly it concerns a sealed package of the kind containing beverage having gas in solution and within which beverage is located a hollow insert containing gas under pressure which, upon opening of the package, causes a gas and/or liquid to be ejected from the insert by way of a restricted orifice to cause, or assist in, the formation of a head of froth on the beverage by the evolution of gas dissolved therein. The ejection of the gas and/or liquid from the hollow insert results from the opening of the package when a headspace of the beverage which, in the sealed package, is at a pressure greater than atmospheric rapidly reduces to atmospheric pressure so that a pressure differential is created which permits the gas and/or liquid under pressure greater than atmospheric in the insert to be ejected into the beverage in the container.

Untitled
Untitled
Untitled

Patent No. 2756917A: Valve For Counter Pressure Filling Apparatus

patent-logo
Today in 1956, US Patent 2756917 A was issued, an invention of John T. Kline, for his “Valve For Counter Pressure Filling Apparatus.” There’s no Abstract, although in the description it includes this summary:

Briefly outlined they are as follows: The charged liquid is supplied to a reservoir by piping connected to a continuous source of supply forming a closed circuit; air or gas under pressure, such as carbon dioxide, is also supplied to the reservoir by suitable piping leading from a continuous source forming a closed circuit, thereby providing a head above the liquid in the reservoir; and a plurality of filling heads, each one of which contains a rotary fiat valve and means to temporarily seal the containers, is joined to the bottom of the reservoir and connected with the interior thereof by suitable piping to permit removal of the liquid and/ or the air or gas confined therein. By positioning the valve in each filling head in a predetermined pattern, a filling sequence is accomplished which permits the filling of the containers without excessively foaming or effervescing the liquid. This sequence consists of temporarily sealing the container to the filling head; then positioning the valve to permit the air or gas under pressure in the reservoir, commonly called counter pressure, to enter into the container to equalize the pressure between them; then positioning the valve to permit the liquid in the reservoir to enter into the container under its normal hydrostatic pressure and to return the air or gas (counter pressure) in the container back to the reservoir as it is being displaced by the liquid; then positioning the valve to out off the flow of the liquid and the air or gas (counter pressure) to and from the container; then exhausting any air or gas remaining in the container and finally permanently sealing the container.

My invention, while relating generally to apparatus for transferring gaseous liquids from a source of supply to containers, specifically relates to the rotary fiat valve employed by such apparatus and is specifically directed to the method employed in conveying the liquid and air or gas from the reservoir to the container.

Untitled
Untitled

Patent No. 1235231A: Apparatus For Cooling And Rousing Beer-Wort And For Precipitating Sludge From Same

patent-logo
Today in 1917, US Patent 1235231 A was issued, an invention of Leopold Nathan, for his “Apparatus for Cooling and Rousing Beer-Wort and for Precipitating Sludge from Same.” There’s no Abstract, although in the description it includes this summary:

In the brewing of beer, especially in breweries in which special stress is laid on the production of high-class beers, the cooler is still in almost general use for cooling down the worts. The cooler, however, constitutes the primary and worst source of infection in the preparation of beer. Owing to the very rapid cooling of. the wort in the cooler, germs which have settled down on the cooler before it is charged with wort are not all killed. Moreover, fresh germs make their appearance during the cooling process, and these are not killed, especially at temperatures from 60 downward.

In spite of these defects of the cooler, it has been impossible hitherto, owing to its valuable properties for certain special types of beer, to dispense with this appliance. In addition to the cooling effect produced in the cooler, vapors are eliminated which carry off with them unpleasant odors formed in consequence of the inevitable access of air. Through the access of air and simultaneous cooling, considerable quantities of protein substances and hop resins are precipitated, and the only way in which these can be separated from the liquid is by allowing them to settle down, for which purpose the extensive surface of the cooler is highly advantageous.

The method employed by me in connection with the apparatus of the present invention consists in the first place in freeing the wort from the said aromatic and flavoring substances by the passage of a current of air or carbon dioxid, or both. If, as was hitherto the case, in this treatment the gas be forced or drawn into the wort from below, a very strong frothing is produced, which prevents the complete removal of the vapors.

The operation is directed, in the first place, to preventing this frothing or to nullifying its ill effects. With this object, the gas is carried, in a powerful current, along the wort in a finely-divided state so as to carry off the vapors from the surface of the liquid. At the same time a cooling effect is also produced; nevertheless the essential portion of the elimination effect can only be accomplished fully by treating the hot wort with a current of gas. The complete deposition of the cooler sludge, occurring as cooling progresses, is facilitated in a special manner, and the possibility of carrying it out in a closed, sterile vessel is afforded, by setting up in said vessel a frame containing a large number of superimposed stages having a total superficial area corresponding to that of the cooler. In order to remove the sludge this staged frame must be taken out of the vessel. The resulting infection is neutralized by allowing the next charge of wort to run into the vessel in a sufficiently hot condition.

This operation can be carried out in two vessels: one for the elimination treatment and one for the deposition of the sludge; or one and the same vessel may be used for both purposes.

Untitled
Untitled
Untitled