> Now as to cooling beer by immersing it in liquid propane, ... there
are
> easier ways. Such as drinking it quickly under a strong negative
differential
> pressure. This  leads to vapor and aerosol formation and rapid
cooling of the
> residual liquid!

whatever.

anyway, it's obvious to any casual observer that ..
(a) beer is merely a different form of propane.

1. this can be verified by sniffing beer-induced flatulence ... notice
the similar smell. now, the smell-chemical(s) are added to propane, i
suppose, much like those added to LNG so you can smell it when your
furnace starts leaking, right before it blows up the house. point
being that the same chemicals must ergo ipso facto have been added to
beer ... hence the similarity in smells. why would any sane, greedy
company spend extra money to add such chemicals unless it was (i)
required by law, or (ii) required for the digestion of the
aforementioned product (beer). now, it might be actually required by
law in some states or even by federal mandate .... so you can
identify, should some future governmental need arise, the beer
drinkers in a crowd, say by sniffer dogs. but it's more likely, i
think, that the chemicals are required for digestion. similarly, we
can deduce that the chemical-smell is added to propane to aid
combustion (merely a different form of 'digestion').

2. at sufficiently high temperatures, beer burns. but it's a liquid
... like liquid propane (which also burns). therefore one may conclude
that they are the same. Q.E.D.

3. beer flatulence is also known in some less aspicious scientific
circles as a form of methane. see the ending: -ane?? same as in
propANE. same stuff, different form.

4. it has already been stated that burning propane yields CO and
water. 'digesting' (another form of burning) beer yields CO2 (breathed
out) and water (and the aforementioned beer farts). how much more
proof do you need??!

(b) what was the question again??

:)