Patent No. 1976173A: Barrel Stave

Today in 1934, US Patent 1976173 A was issued, an invention of Edward W. Hutchings, for his “Barrel Stave.” There’s no Abstract, although in the description it includes this summary:

This invention relates to the manufacture of staves for barrels and other containers and the object is to utilize thoroughly seasoned and dried lumber which is now available and which will render unnecessary steaming of the stave in order to bring it into the desired shape. Staves for barrels and kegs, especially for beer kegs, have heretofore been cut from white oak and then subjected to steaming in order to be bent into the required curvature. White oak, however, at the present time, is very scarce and the steaming process is expensive and time-consuming, while there is available a plentiful supply of thoroughly dried and seasoned lumber which may be utilized for the production of staves. It is an object of the present invention to utilize available lumber, and especially lumber which would otherwise be treated as waste, for the production of staves by a method which is expeditious and inexpensive. The invention will be herein fully described in connection with the accompanying drawings and resides in certain novel features which will be particularly pointed out in the appended claims.


Patent No. 586323A: Bung-Starter

Today in 1897, US Patent 586323 A was issued, an invention of Henry Sternkopf, for his “Bung-Starter.” There’s no Abstract, although in the description it includes this summary:

The object of this invention is to provide improved means for starting or withdrawing bungs from barrels, casks, kegs, and like receptacles.


Patent No. 1962322A: Cooling Apparatus For Beer Or Other Beverage Contained In Casks

Today in 1934, US Patent 1962322 A was issued, an invention of Frederick Lewis Staite Murray and Thomas Staite Murray, for their “Cooling Apparatus For Beer or Other Beverage Contained in Casks.” There’s no Abstract, although in the description it includes this summary:

The object of the invention is the provision of improvements in such apparatus and the invention consists broadly of apparatus comprising a heat interchanger constituting a self contained unit adapted to be mounted in the bung hole or other single hole in the wall of the cask so as to project into the beverage, said heat interchanger being adapted to be connected to an outside refrigerating system whereby a refrigerant is continuously circulated through it from said system, for cooling the beverage.


Patent No. 2938643A: Closure

Today in 1960, US Patent 2938643 A was issued, an invention of Milton L. Geiser and George L. Herr, assigned to Armstrong Cork Co., for his “Closure.” There’s no Abstract, though it’s described this way in the application. “This invention relates to a bung, and more particularly to an elastomeric bung to replace the cork bung for insertion in the bung bushing of a barrel.” Which is fairly vague, so here’s quite a bit more explanation:

In order for a bung to function properly for this purpose, it is necessary that it be designed so that it can be driven easily into the bung bushing with existing driving equipment, will be held securely in position in the bung bushing to prevent the pressure developed in the keg from blowing the bung out of its sealing position, and also can be driven on through the bung bushing into the keg when the tap pump is inserted to remove the beer from the keg. Due to the fact that it must be driven into the keg and also due to the fact that the interior of the bung is in engagement with the contents of the keg, it is essential that the bong be produced from materials which will not have a toxic or other deleterious effect on the contents of the keg.

Several attempts have been made to produce bungs from plastic material such as polyethylene, and the general trend has been toward a bung which forms a seal by providing a continuous ledge around the bottom edge of the bung which is exerted against the shoulder or bottom surface of the bung bushing. In order to insure this seal, it is necessary to have a rather heavily reinforced bottom edge on the skirt of the bung which is usually deformed during the insertion of the bung into the keg, which deformation impairs the sealing characteristics of the bung. When this reinforcing ring is compressed during insertion, there is no space provided into which the compressed material can be distributed. Because of this material distribution, the bottom skirt either develops a fold or the reinforced ring assumes an oval shape in the opening in the bung bushing. In the case of the fold, the material forming the bung is usually ruptured, resulting in an improper seal; and in the case of the assumed oval, the bung is cocked in the bushing to such an extent that the top edge of the opening in the bushing gouges sections from the side of the hung. in either instance the sealing qualities of the bung are greatly impaired.

Other plastic bungs have been developed having a scrim of ribs around the skirt of the bung, giving line contact between the bung and the bushing at several points in the bushing. This line contact has not been satisfactory due to the fact that bushings through reuse become scored on their inner or sealing surface. With these score marks, it is not easy to seal the contents of the barrel with a polyethylene bung having several line contact points throughout the depth of the bung. In structures having a plurality of sealing rings around the skirt of the bung, these rings are of necessity of such nature that they serve as reinforcing rings and prevent the expansion of the bung to permit the wall of the bung to be urged against the bushing by the internal pressure on the bung. Here again, with a plurality of reinforcing rings surrounding the bung, there is no opportunity for the material in the rings to be redistributed; therefore, the ring tries to assume an oval shape and in so doing cocks the hung in the opening in the bushing, causing areas near the top of the bushing to be gouged.

Keeping in mind the limitations of the existing bung’s, the hollow, cup-shaped bung of this invention was ‘developed to be easily inserted without deformation ‘of “the bottom of the cylindrical skirt and without cocking of the bung in the opening of the bung bushing, leaving a relatively large area of the skirt of the bung for sealing engagement with the internal surface of the bushing, and at the same time provide suitably reinforced rings for sealing score marks in the bung bushing.


Patent No. 1125735A: Keg Or Container

Today in 1915, US Patent 1125735 A was issued, an invention of Frank A. Schaum and Eugene F. Wales, for their “Keg or Container.” There’s no Abstract, but the description explains that the “invention relates to kegs or other containers and has for its object reinforcing devices for strengthening the container.” They continue. “A further improvement is devices for holding the hoops in place. These devices may be made part of the reinforcing structure.”

Build A Beer-Keg Radio

Here’s a fun one for the DIY crowd, from the June 1938 issue of Popular Science.


The two-page instructions explained to readers how to build their very own Beer-Keg Radio. It was for your, you know, “game room.” Who doesn’t have one of those?


It seems DIY was a lot less spoon-fed with detailed instructions back in the 1930s. There were only vague directions, giving a lot of flexibility to the project. Here’s the parts list you’ll need to build the radio:


And here’s the schematic you’re meant to follow and duplicate:


The introduction is priceless, here’s how they start out:


Curiously, they actually tell readers to get a wine barrel and that they can later turn it into a beer keg. By 1938 were wooden beer barrels already that scarce? I honestly don’t know, obviously, but that seems like strange advice.


Here’s what it would look like, before closing the top of the keg.


After closing, the radio works with two knobs on top.


After it’s done, “‘you’ll get a barrel of fun’ from this novel radio.”


If you want to see the pages full size and build one yourself, here’s Page 1 and Page 2.

Session #48: Bottle, Can, Keg or Cask?

beer-bottle-brown beer-can-beer keg cask-firkin
Our 48th Session is hosted by Simon Johnson of the Reluctant Scooper. He’s chosen as his topic the age-old question about which package is best: “Cask, Keg, Can, Bottle?.”

The method of beer dispense often raises the hackles of even the most seasoned beer drinker. Some evangilise about living, breathing cask as being the one true way. Others heartily support the pressurised keg. The humble tinny has its fans. Lovers of bottled beer, either conditioned or pasturised, can be equally voiciferous.

Perhaps you think that one method magnifiies a beer’s impact. Perhaps you won’t try a beer if it’s dispensed in a way you don’t agree with. Perhaps you’ve tried one beer that’s been dispensed every which way.

The question is simple but your answer may not be: Cask, Keg, Can, Bottle: Does dispense matter


I’m not necessarily a champion of any one beer delivery system over the rest. It seems to me that each contributes something to the final product, the beer. And while I applaud CAMRA’s efforts, especially early on, they seem to be stuck in the past these days continuing to promote the idea that cask beer is the only beer, whereas many forward-thinking British brewers are making great beer that’s kegged and bottled. I personally feel they should embrace any beer that tastes good and lose their preoccupation with one delivery system. (I have been a member of CAMRA, but my membership is currently lapsed.) I should also say that’s only how CAMRA seems to me from 5,000 miles away, it’s just my perception. I could be totally off base on that.

keg-wooden That being said, I must confess a weakness for cask beer, and generally order a beer on cask or in a firkin if a bar offers one. But that has more to do with wanting to encourage every bar, or at least all the good ones, to keep at least some cask or firkin beer on their menu. That, and cask beer in the U.S. is still uncommon enough that I still get excited when I discover that a new place has some. I suspect if I lived in England where it is far more common, that my choices might be different. Certainly whenever I visit the UK I rarely order beer that’s not on cask, unless it’s something special that’s not available on cask, as is increasingly the case from small artisanal British and Scottish brewers.

I really do love cask beer, especially when comparing the same beer on cask and on keg or bottled. While many people complain about cask beer seeming flat, I think the lack of carbonation allows you to taste more of the flavors of the beer that are often masked by the CO2 in non-cask beer.

keg Which brings us to kegs, which for many, many beers work just fine, as far as I’m confirmed. Certainly nitrogen kegs have a smooth taste as a generality and many regular CO2 kegs have that bubbly carbonation that for some beers works quite well, many lager styles for example seem to me to be improved by the carbonation, which give them a cleanliness of sorts — scrubbing bubbles is how I often think of them.

beer-bottle-brown Bottles, of course, allow us to be able to drink many more beers from around the country and the world because they make it possible for the beer to travel farther and last longer. Of course, clear bottles and green bottles pervert those advantages with new problems, but brown seems to do a pretty good job. I once read that red bottles would actually offer the most UV light protection, but apparently they’re prohibitively expensive for some reason (or perhaps it’s just a matter of little or no demand?). I’ve actually only seen one red bottle, which was a specialty beer I picked up at the Trumer Brauerei in Salzburg, Austria. I’ve also seen white and blue bottles, too, but have no idea how they compare.

Then, of course, there’s bottle-conditioned beers, with live yeast in them that continue to ferment in the bottle. For me, they’re the preferred bottle for many, if not, most styles of beer. Interestingly, the Sierra Nevada Pale Ale in bottles — which is bottle-conditioned — uses a slightly different recipe for their kegged pale ale, and have been experimenting with essentially a keg-conditioned version that they’re hoping will more closely approximate the bottled version.

growler-2 Of course, the question also leaves out the hybrid package: growlers. Growlers are essentially a hand-bottled keg or cask beer that you can take home with you, but you have only a day or two in which to drink it. So it’s not exactly the best of both worlds, but it is a great way to try a draft-only beer in another setting.

beer-can-beer Cans are the wild card, I think. For so long, they were dismissed as a package. Back in the early days, brewers and other beer folk (myself included) hailed the brown beer bottle as the package for craft beer. So convincing was the argument at the time that I think it’s actually slowed the acceptance of craft beer in cans. Because the issues of beer in cans — specifically metal turbidity, which is metal leeching into the beer — have been largely solved. And beyond that, cans have many advantages over bottles. I’ve been involved in several side-by-side tastings of canned vs. kegged beer and the consensus in every case has been that no discernible difference can be detected. Is anyone yet doing a can-conditioned beer?

In the end, yes, I think the package does matter, but not to the point where I’d ever pass on a beer on that basis alone. Ultimately, it’s what the beer tastes like that’s most important. The package may determine that to some extent, and some do a better job with certain beers, but enough certainly seem suited to their primary package for it not to matter. As long as it ends up in my glass, I’m going to drink it, and I’ll probably enjoy it, too.

Zythophile Examines 40 Years Of CAMRA

With the 40th anniversary of the Campaign For Real Ale (CAMRA) just around the corner, one of my favorite beer historians, Martyn Cornell, takes a close look at some mistakes they’ve made along the way and some things they might have done better. He writes Maybe They Should Have Kept to ‘Revitalisation’. And Dropped the ‘Ale’at his wonderful blog Zythophile. Full disclosure, like Martyn, I’m also a CAMRA member.

Bay Area Firkin Fest This Weekend

This Saturday, April 24, the 7th annual Bay Area Firkin Fest will be held at Triple Rock Brewery in Berkeley. Doors will open at 11:00 a.m. and tickets are $20. Admission includes a commemorative logo glass and six 4-oz. pours. Additional samples may be purchased for $2 each (or 3 for $5). This is one of the most fun festivals of the season, especially if you love cask beer. See you there.