Re: [Texascavers] RE: OT- aluminum bottled beer

2007-10-30 Thread Mike Flannigan

I don't know a whole lot about this subject, but what about
the claim that the sides and bottom of the can don't have
enought Al to recycle.  I'm told they only recover the Al
in the top of the can.  I guess they just trask the rest.


Mike


On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, riordan.br...@gmail.com wrote:
>Subject:   Re: [Texascavers] RE: OT- aluminum bottled beer
>   Date:   Mon, 29 Oct 2007 14:18:45 -0500
>   From:   "Brian Riordan" 
> To:   "Minton, Mark" 
>CC:   "Texas Cavers" 
>
>
>
>I had some guy pitch the aluminum bottle as an engineering marvel that makes 
>beer colder somehow... I think
the reality of the matter is that aluminum conducts
>heat far better than glass, so when you put your hand around an aluminum 
>bottle, all the cold from your beer
inside is quickly and efficiently being transfered to
>your warm hand.  Glass on the other hand will stay cold on its inner wall and 
>warm on its outer- making it
seem like the beer is warmer.
>
>In short: aluminum cans and bottles will not only get colder in your cooler 
>quicker, but also get warmer in
your hand quicker.


-
Visit our website: http://texascavers.com
To unsubscribe, e-mail: texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com
For additional commands, e-mail: texascavers-h...@texascavers.com



Re: [Texascavers] RE: OT- aluminum bottled beer

2007-10-30 Thread J. LaRue Bills
The beer may not be different, but now you can take a longneck into a TX State 
park and I guess that's worth something. Jacqui
  - Original Message - 
  From: Minton, Mark 
  To: Texas Cavers 
  Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 2:08 PM
  Subject: [Texascavers] RE: OT- aluminum bottled beer


David Locklear said:

  >What is up with the aluminum bottle?
  >Is the only benefit, colder beer? Or colder beer for less energy?

I don't think beer in an aluminum bottle is any different than beer in 
an aluminum can.  

Re: [Texascavers] RE: OT- aluminum bottled beer

2007-10-29 Thread Ron Rutherford
How are we to ever have a decent bar fight with bottles don't have any sharp
edges?  One more thing to tell you kids/grandkids "I remember when..."

On 10/29/07, Minton, Mark  wrote:
>
>Louise Power said:
>
> >Do glass beer bottles still make sharp shards? I dropped one on my
> concrete front porch last year and, after getting over the horror of wasting
> a beer, noticed that most of the bottle had crumbled into a sand-like
> consistency. No sharp corners, even on the bigger pieces.
>
>   Interesting!  I've never seen that, but it would be a great
> innovation if easily and cheaply implemented.
>
> Mark Minton
>

-- 
Ron Rutherford


Re: [Texascavers] RE: OT- aluminum bottled beer

2007-10-29 Thread Brian Riordan
I had some guy pitch the aluminum bottle as an engineering marvel that makes
beer colder somehow... I think the reality of the matter is that aluminum
conducts heat far better than glass, so when you put your hand around an
aluminum bottle, all the cold from your beer inside is quickly and
efficiently being transfered to your warm hand.  Glass on the other hand
will stay cold on its inner wall and warm on its outer- making it seem like
the beer is warmer.

In short: aluminum cans and bottles will not only get colder in your cooler
quicker, but also get warmer in your hand quicker.

-B

On 10/29/07, Minton, Mark  wrote:
>
>David Locklear said:
>
> >What is up with the aluminum bottle?
> >Is the only benefit, colder beer? Or colder beer for less energy?
>
>   I don't think beer in an aluminum bottle is any different than beer
> in an aluminum can.  It certainly won't get any colder.  It's just a can of
> a different shape - a marketing gimmick.
>
> >Is that better for the environment than a glass bottle?
>
>   Depends on how you look at it.  Aluminum is almost certainly more
> environmentally damaging to produce than glass, but on the other hand, it
> won't break and leave sharp shards lying around.  Aluminum is also lighter
> weight, so it takes less energy to transport.  Biologically, glass is pretty
> inert, whereas aluminum has been implicated toxicologically in a few areas
> for both plants and animals.  I don't see a clear advantage either way.
>
> Mark Minton
>