Brookston Beer Bulletin

Jay R. Brooks on Beer

  • Home
  • About
  • Editorial
  • Birthdays
  • Art & Beer

Socialize

  • Dribbble
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Flickr
  • GitHub
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • Pinterest
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

Powered by Genesis

Patent Nos. 548587A & 548588A: Machine For Blowing Glass

October 22, 2016 By Jay Brooks

patent-logo
Today in 1895, both US Patent 548587 A and US Patent 548588 A were issued, and both are related inventions of Michael J. Owens, under the same name: “Machine For Blowing Glass.” There’s no Abstract, although in the description it includes these claims for the first one:

This invention relates to a partially-automatic machine for blowing glass into pastemolds, the object being to provide a machine which is susceptible of practical use for the rapid production of large quantities of glass vessels or objects of a given shape.

The machine of this invention embodies a means for supporting the blow-pipe with its one end in communication with the air-supplying device and its other in operative proximity to or within the mold; certain means for automatically admitting air through the blow-pipe; a sectional mold, which is adapted to be closed about or adjacent the gathering end of the blowpipe and to be also automatically opened, whereby the paste covered inner surface thereof may be subjected to a sprinkling action; means for automatically effecting the closing and afterward the opening of the mold-sections and for imparting to them while they are closed rotary motions, and means for automatically causing a sprinkling of the paste-lined mold-sections while opened. The automatic operations are instituted by and in consequence of the placing of the blow-pipe which has the gathering of glass thereon in the machine in its position of support and for the reception of air communication therethrough.

US548587-0
US548587-1
US548587-2

And here’s a description of the claims for the second patent:

This invention relates to improvements in machinery for blowing glass into sectional [O molds, and particularly to the organization in a machine of means for severally and respectively performing automatically and mechanically operations which heretofore have been done manually or through the operation of implements or devices which have been manipulated or in some manner actuated by or dependent upon hand, foot, or lung power.

US548588-0
US548588-1
US548588-2
US548588-3
US548588-4
US548588-5
US548588-6

With these two patents under his belt, Michael Owns co-founded, along with Edward Drummond Libbey, the Owens Bottle Machine Co., which today is Owens-Illinois. O-I supplies a lot of beer bottles to the brewing industry, of course.

Owens-Illinois_logo

Filed Under: Beers, Breweries, Just For Fun, Politics & Law, Related Pleasures Tagged With: Bottles, Glassware, History, Law, Patent

Patent No. 548618A: Steep Tank

October 22, 2016 By Jay Brooks

patent-logo
Today in 1895, US Patent 548618 A was issued, an invention of William H. Prinz, for his “Steep Tank.” There’s no Abstract, although in the description it includes these claims:

This invention relates to a novel construction in a steep-tank employed for steeping barley and like cereals, and more especially relating to a steep-tank for steeping barley to bring the same to a condition for germinating in the manufacture of malt.

The object of the invention is to provide a construction whereby the steeping can be can ried on and the steep-tank emptied under the most favorable circumstances, at the same time providing means whereby the steep-water can be admitted from the upper or lower end of the tank.

US548618-0

Filed Under: Beers, Breweries, Just For Fun, Politics & Law, Related Pleasures Tagged With: Brewing Equipment, History, Law, Patent, Science of Brewing

The London Beer Flood Of 1814

October 17, 2016 By Jay Brooks

flood
Today was a dark day in a certain part of London, known as the Parish of St. Giles. On October 17, 1814, an incident which became known as the London Beer Flood took place. Here’s the basic account, from Wikipedia:

At the Meux and Company Brewery on Tottenham Court Road, a huge vat containing over 135,000 imperial gallons (610,000 L) of beer ruptured, causing other vats in the same building to succumb in a domino effect. As a result, more than 323,000 imperial gallons (1,470,000 L) of beer burst out and gushed into the streets. The wave of beer destroyed two homes and crumbled the wall of the Tavistock Arms Pub, trapping teenage employee Eleanor Cooper under the rubble. Within minutes neighbouring George Street and New Street were swamped with alcohol, killing a mother and daughter who were taking tea, and surging through a room of people gathered for a wake.

One source claimed this engraving appeared shortly after the incident, an artists rendition, so to speak, but I’ve since learned it very recent, created by a London artist, Chris Bianchi, for Completely London, and given the title “It’ll All End in Beer.”

londonbeerflood

The flood occurred at Meux’s Brewery Co Ltd., which was established in 1764, It was a London brewery owned by Sir Henry Meux. Meux, like many modern brewers, bought out smaller breweries. One of the breweries it acquired was the Horse Shoe Brewery (founded by a Mr Blackburn, and famous for its ‘black beer’), located on the junction of Tottenham Court Road and Oxford Street, London. Atop the Horse Shoe stood several large vats of beer. The largest was the porter vat – a 22-foot-high monstrosity that held 511,920 litres of beer, in turn held together by a total of 29 large iron hoops. For some idea of its vastness, The Times report of 1 April, 1785 read:

There is a cask now building at Messrs. Meux & Co.’s brewery…the size of which exceeds all credibility, being designed to hold 20,000 barrels of porter; the whole expense attending the same will be upwards of £10,000.

meuxbwy-1830
Meux’s Horse Shoe Brewery, c. 1830.

The following account of the incident is from Historic UK:

On Monday 17th October 1814, a terrible disaster claimed the lives of at least 8 people in St Giles, London. A bizarre industrial accident resulted in the release of a beer tsunami onto the streets around Tottenham Court Road.

The Horse Shoe Brewery stood at the corner of Great Russell Street and Tottenham Court Road. In 1810 the brewery, Meux and Company, had had a 22 foot high wooden fermentation tank installed on the premises. Held together with massive iron rings, this huge vat held the equivalent of over 3,500 barrels of brown porter ale, a beer not unlike stout.

On the afternoon of October 17th 1814 one of the iron rings around the tank snapped. About an hour later the whole tank ruptured, releasing the hot fermenting ale with such force that the back wall of the brewery collapsed. The force also blasted open several more vats, adding their contents to the flood which now burst forth onto the street. More than 320,000 gallons of beer were released into the area. This was St Giles Rookery, a densely populated London slum of cheap housing and tenements inhabited by the poor, the destitute, prostitutes and criminals.

The flood reached George Street and New Street within minutes, swamping them with a tide of alcohol. The 15 foot high wave of beer and debris inundated the basements of two houses, causing them to collapse. In one of the houses, Mary Banfield and her daughter Hannah were taking tea when the flood hit; both were killed.
In the basement of the other house, an Irish wake was being held for a 2 year old boy who had died the previous day. The four mourners were all killed. The wave also took out the wall of the Tavistock Arms pub, trapping the teenage barmaid Eleanor Cooper in the rubble. In all, eight people were killed. Three brewery workers were rescued from the waist-high flood and another was pulled alive from the rubble.

All this ‘free’ beer led to hundreds of people scooping up the liquid in whatever containers they could. Some resorted to just drinking it, leading to reports of the death of a ninth victim some days later from alcoholic poisoning.

‘The bursting of the brew-house walls, and the fall of heavy timber, materially contributed to aggravate the mischief, by forcing the roofs and walls of the adjoining houses.’ The Times, 19th October 1814.
Some relatives exhibited the corpses of the victims for money. In one house, the macabre exhibition resulted in the collapse of the floor under the weight of all the visitors, plunging everyone waist-high into a beer-flooded cellar.

The stench of beer in the area persisted for months afterwards. The brewery was taken to court over the accident but the disaster was ruled to be an Act of God, leaving no one responsible.

The flood cost the brewery around £23000 (approx. £1.25 million today). However the company were able to reclaim the excise duty paid on the beer, which saved them from bankruptcy. They were also granted ₤7,250 (₤400,000 today) as compensation for the barrels of lost beer.

This unique disaster was responsible for the gradual phasing out of wooden fermentation casks to be replaced by lined concrete vats. The Horse Shoe Brewery was demolished in 1922; the Dominion Theatre now sits partly on its site.

The_manor_house_of_Toten_Hall_-_1813
Toten Hall house in Tottenham Court Road, destroyed by the beer flood.

This is from h2g2 The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition.

Come October of 1814, the beer had been fermenting atop the brewery for months (as was the need with porter), and the metal and wood of this huge vat was, unbeknownst to the majority of the brewery workers3, beginning to show the strain of holding back the thousands of litres. Suddenly, at about 6.00pm, one of the heavy metal hoops snapped and the contents of the porter vat exploded out – quite literally – causing a chain reaction with the surrounding vats. The resulting noise was apparently heard as far away as five miles!

A total of 1,224,000 litres of beer under pressure smashed through the twenty-five foot high brick wall of the building, and gushed out into the surrounding area – the slum of St Giles. Many people lived in crowded conditions here, and some were caught by the waves of beer completely unaware. The torrent flooded through houses, demolishing two in its wake, and the nearby Tavistock Arms pub in Great Russell Street suffered too, its 14-year-old barmaid Eleanor Cooper buried under the rubble. The Times reported on 19 October of the flood:

The bursting of the brew-house walls, and the fall of heavy timber, materially contributed to aggravate the mischief, by forcing the roofs and walls of the adjoining houses.

Fearful that all the beer should go to waste, though, hundreds of people ran outside carrying pots, pans, and kettles to scoop it up – while some simply stooped low and lapped at the liquid washing through the streets. However, the tide was too strong for many, and as injured people began arriving at the nearby Middlesex Hospital there was almost a riot as other patients demanded to know why they weren’t being supplied with beer too – they could smell it on the flood survivors, and were insistent that they were missing out on a party! Calm was quickly restored at the hospital, but out in the streets was a different matter.

Back at the brewery, one man managed to save his brother from going under the vast wave, but as the tide receded the true damage could be discovered. The beer tsunami left nine people dead4; many had drowned (like Mary Mulvey and her 3-year-old son Thomas), others were swept away in the flood and died of the injuries they sustained (two young children: Hannah Banfield, 4, and Sarah Bates, 3), and the final victim actually succumbed some days later of alcohol poisoning – such was his heroic attempt to stem the tide by drinking as much beer as he humanly could.

Because of the poverty of the area, relatives of the drowned took to exhibiting their families’ corpses in their homes and charging a fee for viewing. In one house, though, too many people crowded in and the floor gave out, plunging them all into a cellar half full of beer. This morbid exhibition moved locations, attracting more custom – and eventually the police, who closed the doors on the horrible circus. Later, the funerals of the dead were paid for by the St Giles population, coins left on their coffins. The stench of the beer apparently lasted for months, and after the initial excitement, many found both their homes and livelihoods swept away with the flood. In amongst the misery of clearing away the dead and cleaning up the streets, though, there was compassion. The Times concluded:

The emotion and humanity with which the labourers proceeded in their distressing task excited a strong interest, and deserves warm approbation.

The Meux Brewery Company was taken to court over the accident, but the judge ruled that although devastating, the flood was an ‘Act of God’ and the deaths6 were simply by ‘casualty’. In other words, no party was to blame, and the company continued working despite the incident. Up until 1961 that is, when it was sold to Friary, Holroyd and Healy’s Brewery Ltd of Guildford. The firm became Friary Meux Ltd for only three years, before being bought outright by Ind Coope (& Allsop) of Burton-on-Trent.

Apparently the only eyewitness account to the flood was from an American tourist who chose the wrong shortcut:

All at once, I found myself borne onward with great velocity by a torrent which burst upon me so suddenly as almost to deprive me of breath. A roar as of falling buildings at a distance, and suffocating fumes, were in my ears and nostrils. I was rescued with great difficulty by the people who immediately collected around me, and from whom I learned the nature of the disaster which had befallen me. An immense vat belonging to a brew house situated in Banbury street [sic – now Bainbridge Street], Saint Giles, and containing four or five thousand barrels of strong beer, had suddenly burst and swept every thing before it. Whole dwellings were literally riddled by the flood; numbers were killed; and from among the crowds which filled the narrow passages in every direction came the groans of sufferers.

St-Giles-rookery

There are quite a few more accounts, such as History Nuggets, Damn Interesting, the History Channel, and The Independent. But naturally, the best account os from Martyn Cornell, the Zythophile, in So what REALLY happened on October 17 1814?

meux-brewery
Meux’s Horseshoe Brewery, around 1906.

This version of the story, a bit altered from reality, appeared in the comic book “Doctor Who #4” (December 2012), with a script by Brandon Seifert, pencils by Philip Bond, inks by Ilias Kyriazis, colors by Charlie Kirchoff, and letters by Tom B. Long:

1017-dr-who-1

1017-dr-who-2

Layout 1

Layout 1

And here’s a short video on the flood, from American Adventure Survival Science (and please note, the host is wearing a Bagby Beer Co. shirt):

Filed Under: Beers, Breweries, Just For Fun, Related Pleasures Tagged With: England, History, London

Patent No. 266126A: Beer Pump

October 17, 2016 By Jay Brooks

patent-logo
Today in 1882, US Patent 266126 A was issued, an invention of John Fowler, for his “Beer Pump.” There’s no Abstract, although in the description it includes these claims:

This invention has relation to beer-pumps used in distilleries for pumping beer and mash; and it consists in the novel construction and arrangement of parts, as will be hereinafter fully described, and particularly pointed out in the claims.

US266126-0

Filed Under: Beers, Breweries, Just For Fun, Politics & Law, Related Pleasures Tagged With: Brewing Equipment, History, Law, Patent, Science of Brewing

Patent No. 286637A: Beer Chip

October 16, 2016 By Jay Brooks

patent-logo
Today in 1883, US Patent 286637 A was issued, an invention of Edward Fitch, for his “Beer Chip.” There’s no Abstract, although in the description it includes these claims:

My invention consists in a “beer-chip,” so called, for clarifying the beer, which is perforated for the purpose of increasing its superficies and allowing a-circulation of liquid, the holes extending in parallel rows with those of the other, one row alternating with those of the other, so as to least weaken the article; also, in producing a roughened splintery edge on the veneer by breaking or splintering the same.

Heretofore beer-chips have been cut to a certain width by means of saws, knives, or shears, which gives the chip a comparatively smooth, edge,to which no particles in the beer will adhere, confining the clarifying functions to be performed solely through the surfaces of the chip. Should, as sometimes happens, two chips lie one upon the other, (which is never the case with the edges of a chip,) the surfaces of such chips, and consequently the chip itself, will be inoperative and useless as a clarifier in the vat. In order to meet this deficiency and increase the clarifying properties of the chip in general,l make the edges of the chip splintery. as shown in Fig. 2. Amore minute description of forming such splintery edges in the chip is given hereinafter. It will be seen and admitted that to the splintery edges of a chip impurities in the beer will readily ad here and be retained until cleansed and removed by the action of the water in the re= by subjecting the wood or veneer to the action of a pair of cutting-rolls. The wood or veneer is passed through the said-cutting-rolls, is wedged between the male and female cutters, which breaks or slits the veneer into chips, producing the desired splintery edges on the chips.

US286637-0

Filed Under: Beers, Breweries, Just For Fun, Politics & Law, Related Pleasures Tagged With: History, Law, Patent, Science of Brewing

Patent No. EP1979462A1: Use Of Cacao Polyphenols In Beer Production

October 15, 2016 By Jay Brooks

patent-logo
Today in 2008, US Patent EP 1979462 A1 was issued, an invention of Herwig Bernaert, for his “Use of Cacao Polyphenols in Beer Production.” Here’s the Abstract:

The present invention relates to a solvent-derived, cocoa extract comprising between 25 and 65% by weight of polyphenols, and uses thereof for improving a beer production process and the resulting beer product. The invention further relates to a method for improving a beer production process as well as the beer product resulting from it. The invention further relates to a beer product with improved quality such as enhanced colloidal, taste and flavor stability. The invention also provides a beer with exogenous polyphenols and a beer comprising at least one cocoa polyphenol. Furthermore, the present invention includes a use of exogenous polyphenols as process enhancer and a use of cocoa for enhancing filtration processes.

Cacao-roasted

Filed Under: Beers, Breweries, Just For Fun, Politics & Law, Related Pleasures Tagged With: adjuncts, Chocolate, History, Law, Patent, Science of Brewing

Patent No. 2451156A: Process And Apparatus For Producing Alcohol By Fermentation

October 12, 2016 By Jay Brooks

patent-logo
Today in 1984, US Patent 2451156 A was issued, an invention of Annibal Ramos De Mattos, for his “Process and Apparatus for Producing Alcohol by Fermentation.” There’s no Abstract, although in the description it includes these claims:

This invention relates to a process and apparatus for yeast fermentation and, more particularly, for producing alcohol by fermentation.

Commercially, alcohol is customarily produced by a batch or a modified batch process. In such processes the yeast necessary to convert the nutrient medium or wort into alcohol must be grown on the wort or on an outside nutrient medium. Yet as the conversion of the wort to alcohol takes place and the concentration of alcohol increases, the medium becomes toxic to the yeast. As a result, the alcohol ultimately present in high concentration kills a certain portion of the yeast, and the wort consumed in the production of this yeast is lost. Additionally, in such processes the concentration of yeast and its contact with the nutrient medium is seldom best adapted for optimum rate of alcohol conversion.

In the production of alcohol by conventional fermentation processes, it is usually necessary to kill or prevent the growth of bacteria which are deleterious to the propagation of the yeast or impede the conversion of the nutrient medium to alcohol. These deleterious bacteria are controlled either by subjecting the wort to heating at sterilization temperatures or by the introduction of chemical bactericides such as sulfuric acid, hydrochloric acid, fluorides, copper sulfate, and the like. It is also known that nutrients suitable for conversion to alcohol by fermentation, particularly cheaper nutrients such as low grade sugar, seldom contain all the elements necessary for the nutrition and propagation of the yeast which convert the nutrient into alcohol. As a result, the conventional nutrient medium must be complemented by the addition of so called stimulants such as the various mineral salts including, for instance, sulfates and nitrates of ammonia, calcium super-phosphates, and the like, or organic substances such as urea, malt, peptone, and the like.

The known commercial processes of producing alcohol by yeast fermentation may be divided roughly into four types; namely, progressive filling, division, continuous feeding, and a fourth process in which the yeast is recovered and reused in subsequent fermentation vats.

In the first-mentioned process a group of vats is placed in series and fermentation initiated in one of the vats. When the fermentation has reached a desired point, a portion of the fermenting wort in the first vat is transferred to a second vat to initiate the fermentation therein and so on for any desired number of vats.

In the second-mentioned process the contents of one vat is used for the purpose of inoculating other vats. For instance, after a group of vats has been used for fermenting wort to alcohol, one of the group is not discharged but is retained for the purpose of distribution to the vats which have been discharged for the purpose of initiating the fermentation of fresh wort.

The third-mentioned continuous feeding process is a very old process introduced by Guillaume, involving inoculating a multiplicity of fermentation vats from a culturing vat.

The fourth process is of more recent origin and was patented by Melle and Bolnot. In this last-mentioned process the pH of the fermenting wort is carefully controlled to approximate a pH of 3. When the fermentation is nearly complete, the partially spent wort and yeast are passed into a centrifuge where the yeast is recovered in the form of a liquid containing a high concentration of yeast. This liquid is used for the purpose of initiating the fermentation of a new charge of wort. This latter process has a number of disadvantages involving, as it does, the necessity for controlling pH of the fermentation mass and requiring the addition of conventional stimulants and the like used in other fermentation processes. The centrifuging device involves added equipment costs. The process makes possible some saving in fermentation equipment but not nearly so much as is possible in accordance with my continuous process described in detail hereinafter.

US2451156-0

Filed Under: Beers, Breweries, Just For Fun, Politics & Law, Related Pleasures Tagged With: Brewing Equipment, History, Law, Patent, Science of Brewing

Patent No. EP0091322A2: A Brewing Unit

October 12, 2016 By Jay Brooks

patent-logo
Today in 1983, US Patent EP 0091322 A2 was issued, an invention of Noel Roy Wilkinson, for “A Brewing Unit.” Here’s the Abstract:

An improved brewing unit in which energy is saved by providing a mash tun (14), hot water tank (10) and kettle (8) in a single unit (1), by partially enclosing the mash tun with the tank and if necessary pre-heating the water supply to the tank by using the heat from wort coolers provided between the unit (1) and fermentation tank (83, 85); further improvements are provided by constructing the kettle as a combined kettle and whirlpool in a single chamber having a circular wall (2) and a tangential inlet (92) to the wall, a pump (53) and wort boiler (6) being in circuit with the kettle so that wort is continuously circulated through the boiler and tangential inlet to the kettle whilst the worts are boiled. The combined kettle and whirlpool saves space and enables the process of brewing to be shortened with resultant savings in both energy and brewing time.

0091322-imgf0001

0091322-imgf0002

Filed Under: Beers, Breweries, Just For Fun, Politics & Law, Related Pleasures Tagged With: Brewing Equipment, History, Law, Patent, Science of Brewing

GABF Awards With Photographs 2016

October 11, 2016 By Jay Brooks

gabf-2014
On Saturday, October 8, the winners of the 34th Great American Beer Festival were announced. A record 7,227 beers were judged in 96 categories by 264 judges, of which I was again privileged to be one. I was on hand at the awards ceremony and thought I’d share the results again, this time along with some of the photographs I took during the awards.

gabf-medals

IMG_4859
The theater quickly filled up for the awards ceremony.

SAM_7414
And competition director Chris Swersey read each of the medal winners’ names.

SAM_7468
This was the 35th GABF, and former Wynkoop Brewing co-owner, and current Colorado governor, John Hickenlooper, stopped by in the middle of the awards ceremony to present Charlie Papazian his own award.

SAM_7465
Two, actually. One for the 35th anniversary and Charlie’s own gold medal.

[Read more…]

Filed Under: Beers, Breweries, Just For Fun, News Tagged With: Awards, GABF, United States

Patent No. 4409246A: Yeast Strain For Fermenting High Plato Value Worts

October 11, 2016 By Jay Brooks

patent-logo
Today in 1983, US Patent 4409246 A was issued, an invention of Graham G. Stewart, Thomas E. Goring, and Ingeborg Russell, assigned to the Labatt Brewing Company, for their “Yeast Strain For Fermenting High Plato Value Worts.” Here’s the Abstract:

The specification discloses a novel brewers’ yeast strain and a method of manufacturing the same. The yeast is a strain of Saccharomyces cerevisiae and has been deposited at the National Collection of Yeast Cultures, Norwich, England under the number 962. Morphologically the giant colony of the novel strain can be described as a circular colony having a slightly serrated periphery, a convex surface topography with a central, globular dome and exhibiting primary concentric convolutions and secondary radial convolutions which, in combination, impart a rough appearance to the surface. The novel ale strain has the advantages that it is effective in worts having high plato values and is a bottom-cropping strain.

US4409246-1

Filed Under: Beers, Breweries, Just For Fun, Politics & Law, Related Pleasures Tagged With: History, Law, Patent, Science of Brewing, Wort, Yeast

« Previous Page
Next Page »

Find Something

Northern California Breweries

Please consider purchasing my latest book, California Breweries North, available from Amazon, or ask for it at your local bookstore.

Recent Comments

  • Bob Paolino on Beer Birthday: Grant Johnston
  • Gambrinus on Historic Beer Birthday: A.J. Houghton
  • Ernie Dewing on Historic Beer Birthday: Charles William Bergner 
  • Steve 'Pudgy' De Rose on Historic Beer Birthday: Jacob Schmidt
  • Jay Brooks on Beer Birthday: Bill Owens

Recent Posts

  • Historic Beer Birthday: Oliver Hughes May 20, 2026
  • Historic Beer Birthday: Benjamin, Lord Iveagh May 20, 2026
  • Historic Beer Birthday: Eduard Buchner May 20, 2026
  • Historic Beer Birthday: Louis de Luze Simonds May 20, 2026
  • Historic Beer Birthday: Johann Adam Lemp May 20, 2026

BBB Archives

Feedback

Head Quarter
This site is hosted and maintained by H25Q.dev. Any questions or comments for the webmaster can be directed here.