Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 08:00:20 -0400
Message-Id: <199807221200.IAA02332 at brew.oeonline.com>
To: judge at hbd.org
From: judge-request at hbd.org (Request Address Only - No Articles)
Reply-to: judge at hbd.org (Posting Address Only - No Requests)
Errors-to: judge-request at hbd.org
Precedence: bulk
Subject: Beer Judge Digest #25 (July 22, 1998)


Beer Judge Digest #25		             Wed 22 July 1998


	FORUM ON BEER JUDGING AND RELATED ISSUES
		Digest Custodian: custodian at hbd.org
		Many thanks to the Observer & Eccentric Newspapers of 
		Livonia, Michigan for sponsoring the Beer Judge Digest.
				URL: http://www.oeonline.com


Contents:
  IBU methodology (Louis Bonham)
  Re: Beer Judge Digest #24 (July 20, 1998) (MaltyDog)
  Re: Beer Judge Digest to be turned off (Chuck Cox)


     Have you organized a competition lately?
Send articles for __publication_only__ to judge at hbd.org
  (Articles are published in the order they are received.) 

If your e-mail account is being deleted, please unsubscribe first!!

To SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE send an e-mail message with the word
  "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to judge-request at hbd.org. 
**SUBSCRIBE AND UNSUBSCRIBE REQUESTS MUST BE SENT FROM THE E-MAIL
**ACCOUNT YOU WISH TO HAVE SUBSCRIBED OR UNSUBSCRIBED!!! 
IF YOU HAVE SPAM-PROOFED your e-mail address, the autoresponder and
  the SUBSCRIBE/UNSUBSCRIBE commands will fail!

YOU MUST BE A BEER JUDGE OR BE REFERRED BY ONE TO SUBSCRIBE!!! 
You MUST be a subscriber in order to post articles!!! 

Requests for back issues will be ignored. 

CUSTODIANS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (custodian at hbd.org)

              "Not a publication of the BJCP"


----------------------------------------------------------------------


Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 06:49:20 -0500
From: Louis Bonham <lkbonham at phoenix.net>
Subject: IBU methodology

Hi folks:

AJ asks a few questions about the IBU experiment:

> The variation among the beers is less surprising to me than the
> disparity between the predicted and mean levels. In the few of my own
> beers that I've tested the discrepancy is more like predict 40 and
> measure 42 -44. Were  commercial beers measured for sanity checking ( I
> measure Pilsner Urquel at 37 though Miller says it's 43)?

I routinely check Coors Light (actual IBU's: 9.25, +/- 1), and everything was
seemingly OK.  We also tested a number of other beers that day, and the results
were more in synch with "expected" values.

> A 1 cm cuvette (the MOA isn't very definite about this but it's pretty clear
> that 1 cm
> is what's called for)?

Yup.  Matched set of quartz 1 cm cuvettes.

> The instrument has been recently calibrated?

Few months ago.  I asked Dr. Farnsworth about whether the spec could have been
so out of whack as to give significantly inaccurate readings, and he said that
it wasn't likely (his quote was "they don't vary *that* much.").

> Measured against an octanol - octane blank?

Yup.  Instrument checked and rezeroed every couple of tests.

> I'm not trying to shoot holes here just wondering what might cause such a
> disparity (and
> wondering if I should be wondering at all - maybe the formulas are really that
> bad).

Given Mark Garetz's adjusted guestimate of 65, Rager's result of 61, and the 60
result published in this AM's BJD, methinks it' just that the "standard" Tinseth
and Garetz formulas that can be off under the right conditions.

> How about the hops - were they measured (shake half an hour!)?

All hops measured on the same scale, to the nearest 0.1 g.

If any of you will be in Portland, look me up.  My talk will be Thursday PM ('No
Sparge Brewing"), and BT is currently working to get me the stuff needed to have
me demonstrate IBU's testing at their booth on Friday.

And thanks to Pat and Karl for all the efforts in keping the fires going.

Louis K. Bonham


------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 09:21:16 EDT
From: MaltyDog at aol.com
Subject: Re: Beer Judge Digest #24 (July 20, 1998)

In a message dated 98-07-20 00:05:40 EDT, Karl Ludsen writes:

<< As it is back online, and I've
 heard from several subscribers saying to shut this one down, (none to 
 absolutely keep it alive), this digest will be shut down on Friday 
 July 24 (Thursday is the last digest). >>

This seems a little premature to me. I was a previous subscribe to Judgenet,
and I subscribed again, and I have yet to receive an issue of the "revived"
Judgenet. Are we really sure it's back up and running?

Bill Coleman
MaltyDog at aol.com


------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 13:17:03 -0400
From: Chuck Cox <chuck at synchro.com>
Subject: Re: Beer Judge Digest to be turned off

I would like to thank Karl & Pat for their efforts and cooperation during
the JudgeNet outage.  They not only filled in while JudgeNet was down, they
were gracious and cooperative when it returned.  They will continue to help
by maintaining a backup of the subscriber list and are ready to take over
if JudgeNet goes down again.  

Thanks guys.

 - Chuck Cox 
 - SynchroSystems
 - <chuck at synchro.com>


------------------------------
End of Beer Judge Digest #25, 07/22/98
*************************************
-------