Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - bunderbunder

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
Zymurgy / Re: eZymurgy Q's
« on: December 19, 2012, 01:06:18 AM »
Ha, as soon as I ask I think to check and see if it works in Chrome on the same computer.  Turns out it does. 

Zymurgy / eZymurgy Q's
« on: December 19, 2012, 01:03:59 AM »
First off, just wondering if there's still an eZymurgy mobile app in the works.  Did some Googling, but haven't found anything said about it since late 2011.  And of course the ever-present "Coming in 2012" bullet point on the webpage.

Second, I'm not sure where to submit it but I've been having trouble reading eZymurgy on my Mac.  (Works fine on the PC.)  The first few pages of each issue will load, but after maybe the 5th page or so they all come up blank.  Not even the "Loading" progress indicator.  This is with OS X 10.7.5, Safari 6.0, and Flash 11.5.502.136. 

General Homebrew Discussion / Re: copper v.s. stainless steele
« on: December 18, 2012, 09:18:01 PM »
Might be fun do do a back-of-the-envelope calculation for starters.  Was that 1/2" ID or OD?

Equipment and Software / Re: Going Fermometer?
« on: December 18, 2012, 08:16:54 PM »
The main drawback is that if you submerge one in water for an extended period it will stop working.

Good to know.  I'm going to go put clear boxing tape over all mine now.

General Homebrew Discussion / Re: copper v.s. stainless steele
« on: December 18, 2012, 08:13:20 PM »
Copper has a much higher thermal conductivity than stainless steel - about 400 W/(mK) versus 15 or 20.

I'd assume that means that a copper chiller will cool the wort more quickly than a stainless steel one, all other factors being equal.  But I haven't done any calculations, so I'm not sure how great the difference would actually be. Probably fairly small, since your average immersion chiller as a wall thickness of much less than a meter.  That and copper and stainless steel pipes probably don't need the same wall thickness, perhaps steel pipe ends up being enough thinner to mitigate a lot of what difference there is.  So maybe it's not really an issue in practice.

Commercial Beer Reviews / Re: Crispin Artisanal Ciders
« on: December 18, 2012, 03:32:12 PM »
I'll agree with that.  The Landsowne might just be the most disheartening thing I've ever poured out of a bottle.  And I'm pretty sure I like molasses more than just about anyone else I know.

Commercial Beer Reviews / Re: Crispin Artisanal Ciders
« on: December 17, 2012, 06:45:21 PM »
As far as major commercial ciders go, I think they're fine.  There's all sorts of better stuff out there, sure, assuming you're lucky enough to have a good local ciderer, or live near a liquor store that's curated by someone with an interest in cider.  For something that's readily available, though, Crispin Original (blue label) is pretty decent as a go-to.

That said, I'll agree that most of their "artisanal reserve" stuff is more gimmicky than good.  Just like most things that feature the word artisanal prominently on the label, really.

For that matter, I still find it interesting that the cap on how much beer you could make and still qualify as a "craft brewery" suddenly got tripled when it seemed that a certain large publicly-traded company with a market cap of $1.8bn and a ubiquitous national brand was about to blow past that limit.

I realize the BA needs to have an identity.  But it still strikes me as being stuck in the amusing position of being a punk band that became popular.  I'll be interested to see how (or if) they manage to reconcile their mission of expanding sales and mass market appeal with their desire to maintain an image of representing the beer counterculture.

They're saying "this is what craft brewing is" and they're defining it as small, independent, with no adjuncts to "lighten flavor," whatever that means.

I fear it means they've gotten so hung up on trying to define themselves in terms of what they aren't that they're in danger of losing sight of what they are.  There's a whole lot of great traditional beer that uses adjuncts to lighten the flavor.  I mean, at the very least it's kind of hard to ignore that great big elephant in the room named Belgium. 

Now maybe if they wanted to criticize the use of adjuncts purely as a cost-cutting measure in the interest of making cheap mass-market beer. But implying that it's anathema for one's explorations in adjusting the flavor of beer to stray outside the narrow lines of malted grain?  Might as well try passing the Reinhetisgebot off as a "beer quality law" while you're at it.

(Edit:  And a little more rant about their apparently strong conviction that using adjuncts in beer makes it somehow not "traditional."  I'm a budding beer history nerd, starting to get into recreating historical recipes.  Yesterday's brew was a first step in that direction - a mid 18th century Porter.  Heck yeah there was adjunct in there.  If it didn't have any adjunct, it wouldn't be what my great-great-great grandparents were drinking.)

Yeast and Fermentation / Re: Slowing Fermentation advice
« on: December 11, 2012, 09:22:37 PM »
Also piling on here, but after counting off 6 points for the lactose you're at 73% apparent attenuation.  That sounds pretty good for S-04.

General Homebrew Discussion / Re: These guys need to clean up their act
« on: November 14, 2012, 08:42:36 PM »
. . .the movie, the song, the coffee houses, the software co, etc. are in totally different lines of business that have, with the possible exception of the movie, nothing to do with beer.

The software, too.  It's similar to BeerSmith.

General Homebrew Discussion / Re: These guys need to clean up their act
« on: November 13, 2012, 04:00:05 PM »
Agreed.  Even so, the value of the Trademark should bear some weight in the argument - here they took a name that was already widely used by others for a use relating to beer and want to close the door behind them for future use by others where little to no confusion in the marketplace is occurring.  Sometimes the law has to catch up to the facts in order to properly apply.

However, if their business were to grow then confusion would become a much bigger issue.  And they've got an online store, so no doubt they do intent to grow.  It's better to handle any potential problems earlier rather than later.  I'm coming around to thinking that the HBS is right to ask the brewery to change their name.

I've still got a bad taste in my mouth over the way they've apparently charged into the situation guns a-blazing.  They were right to seek legal advice before starting the conversation, but I think it would have been more classy to start by personally contacting the brewery's owners with a message that had been vetted by their lawyer rather than sent by him.  When you choose to have the conversation start with an attorney's letterhead, you inevitably come across looking like a bully.  Perhaps it worked out that way because of the lawyer's advice, though.

General Homebrew Discussion / Re: These guys need to clean up their act
« on: November 11, 2012, 03:31:07 PM »
Strange Brew trademark (that is alive) was registered in 2007 for beer and beer supply retail.

The federal trademark is registered for the homebrew shop. The strange brewing brewery was established in 2010 and by the trademark has no chance to win this dispute.

From the homebrew shop perspective. They have to defend their trademark otherwise they would lose the trademark. It is that cut and dry. I do not think that homebrew shop owner is happy to pay the legal fees ether.

There's even a piece of homebrewing software called Strange Brew that's been around since well before they registered that trademark.

Is there a provision similar to prior art in patent law? Would they also lose their trademark (or at least their claim to rights over disparate business types across a wide geographic area) if it comes out in court that somebody else was there first?

General Homebrew Discussion / Re: These guys need to clean up their act
« on: November 09, 2012, 08:33:58 PM »
Tinfoil hat alert! One of the big brewers is behind this:

I'm not so convinced.  Reading the attorney's letter, it sounds more like there was some confusion, particularly with one of their suppliers, that inconvenienced or irritated the owners, and they're (over)reacting to that situation.

Sad that they didn't think to try handling it in a more grown-up manner, first. 

I don't feel like there's much difference between buying a kit and following a recipe, as long as the ingredients are the same.

Last time I went to Northern Brewer's brick and mortar store I got stuff to make one of their kit beers and one beer from a recent issue of Zymurgy.  They only have pre-assembled versions of their extract kits sitting in boxes on the shelves, for grain you have to measure out and crush it yourself. So only real difference between the recipe and the NB "kit" was where the ingredients list came from:  One was written on a sheet of paper I brought from home, and the other I found in a 3-ring binder in the grain room. 

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4