Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #0799
This file received at Mthvax.CS.Miami.EDU 92/01/10 08:54:42
HOMEBREW Digest #799 Fri 10 January 1992
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Rob Gardner, Digest Coordinator
Contents:
JSP Grainmill review - very long! (Russ Pencin)
hop history ("KATMAN.WNETS385")
Chicago brewpubs/micobreweries? (Daniel S Robins)
Stainless Pots, Sale (repost) (solo)
re: Samuel Smith's CORRECTION (darrylri)
ss ferment (Russ Gelinas)
Radioactive isotopes used in breweries (Peter Karp)
re: boil-over preventer (Dan Kerl)
cleaning copper (Russ Gelinas)
Northwestern malt -- Weiss vs. Weizen? (dbreiden)
Extract in box (Robin Garr)
Homebrew Subscription (Hank Chambers)
Iodine, grain bed depth (Carl West)
Anchor's Grant (C.R. Saikley)
Schlather Brewery? (Scott Bickham)
Re: Metal brew / Boiling water (farleyja)
Re: fermentation times vs vessel size (korz)
Recirculating mash & blowoff (Bob Jones)
Re: Oxidation (korz)
pH Pen Review ("Rad Equipment")
pH Pen Review Time:2:44 PM Date:1/9/92
mead.boil water ("KATMAN.WNETS385")
Hot Wort Aeration (Jay Hersh)
ADS (jack schmidling)
STUFF (jack schmidling)
Send submissions to homebrew@hpfcmi.fc.hp.com
Send requests to homebrew-request@hpfcmi.fc.hp.com
[Please do not send me requests for back issues!]
Archives are available from netlib@mthvax.cs.miami.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 8 January 1992 1:04:10 pm
From: pencin@parcplace.com (Russ Pencin)
Subject: JSP Grainmill review - very long!
Disclaimer - I am not connected to JSProductions in any way. I am merely a
customer. I have not received, nor do I expect to receive, any compensation
for the following review of the JSP GRAINMILL.
My intention is to take Jack's original description of the GRAINMILL and
describe my experience with the unit. I am evidently the first real customer
for this unit, which sorta surprises me. My overall impression of the
GRAINMILL is that it is that it beats a Corona Grinder hands-down in every
respect except esthetics, and with slight re-work will be totally
indispensable to this 2 batch-a-month all-grain brewer.
...........................
jsp> Anyone who uses whole grains quickly realizes that [...] unsuited for milling
>malt [....] They pulverize or shred the husks, which severely limits the
quality of the
>filter bed when sparging [....]nothing else is available that fits the budget of
>even the affluent home brewer. [...] It is a genuine roller mill.
>It crushes malt, leaving ALL of the husk in tact and a minimum of flour.
>Not one grain can get through it without being properly milled. It does
>exactly what a malt mill is supposed to do.
Jack's right-on here. The Corona works, but the husks are shredded. The
GRAINMILL, on the other hand, really does "implode" the grain. When the
rollers spacing is properly set, the husks are cleanly split into two pieces
and the kernel is broken into several ( read, more than 6 ) little granules
about the size of coarse table salt. The roller spacing can be set via an
ecentric on the idler, however, it turned out that the optimum setting
exactly coresponded to natural resting point of the ecentric, any closer
spacing than this causes the motor to stall with every type of grain I tried.
jsp> The mill consists of two, 12" long rollers, 1.5" in diameter. The
rollers have
>meshing teeth running their entire length. In cross section, they look like
fine
>toothed gears. However, the rollers are spaced about .025" apart so the
teeth do
>not actually mesh. Their purpose is to pull the grain through the rollers. The
>spacing assures that the grain will only be crushed enough to expose the
>contents without tearing the hulls or unduly compacting the malt.
Exactly as advertised. My unit did have the addition of the eccentric for
adjustment, but this proved to be all but useless due to the extremely low
power of the motor. My first test was to crush 1 lb. of Edme Pale Ale Malt.
This malt is rather 'soft', so I expected no problems. Well the problem was
that I had "cranked" the eccentric, and the motor stalled. I released the
eccentric, letting it find its natural resting point, and re-tightened it. I
proceeded to crush the pound of grain in about 20 seconds. I examined the
crush and found what seemed to be some un-crushed kernels. I picked a couple
of these up and found that indeed they were crushed but the husk had not been
separated. Bearly pressing on one of these kernels caused the husk to fall
away, leaving about 6 granules of starch in my palm. So as a test, I counted
100 kernels of Edme ( anal, ain't I ) and ran them through the mill. I then
counted the "un-broken" kernels, there were eight. Again, they were crushed
just not husked. At this point I'm pretty happy with the product on 'soft'
grains. I retested it on 80L English Crystal. This grain is slightly harder
than Edme, maybe firmer is a better word. 100 kernels, zero (!) un-husked
pieces - and the most beautiful crush I have ever seen - perfect husks and
thousands of little "crystals" everywhere. Final test was 100 kernels of
CaraPils malt. Now this stuff is unbelievably hard - more like rock than malt.
The rollers stalled on the first kernel. I proceeded to hand crank the
kernels through the mill (a very easy task with the 10 inch pulley) and
inspected the crush - 28 un-husked and un-crushed kernels. I ran this crush
through again - resulting in another 'perfect' crush - no stalling, perfect
husks, and thousands of pretty little 'cara-pills crystals'.
jsp>One of the rollers is driven by a 1/30 HP electric motor or a hand crank,
>depending on the model. The motor drives the roller through a set of reduction
>pullies at a speed of about 140 RPM. In the hand cranked model, the crank turns
>the roller directly. The second roller is driven by the first, through a rubber
>friction ring. The motor driven unit is designed to stall in the event of unwitting
>attempts to mill fingers. It will smart but not much more. The assembly is
>mounted on a plywood base, 16 inches square. It is intended to sit on a table,
>with the business end hanging over the edge.
This should say "one of the rollers is 'bearly' driven by an under-powered
motor". If I had it to do over again, I'd buy the hand crank unit and spend
the extra money on a 1/4 horse motor and pulleys. The asthetics of the unit
leave alot to be desired. Externally, the whole thing looks like something out
of junior-high woodshop. The hopper is made from press-board mounted on two
triangles of 'fake-wood'. There is no exit chute for the grains, so they tend
to 'implode' in a pretty wide area around the bottom of the unit. The hopper
suffers from 'lack-of-slope' and capacity. I plan to replace it immediately
with a "sheet metal / pop-rivet" hopper with high slope and 5 lb. capacity.
Which leads me to suggest that you try to buy just the roller/casting assembly
and save Jack the work. While the outside looks very amatuerish, the roller
assembly is absolutely top-quality. The castings are cast aluminum with
pressed bearings at roller contact points. The rollers are a sight to behold -
exactly what Jack described - like little gears - but they don't mesh. I hope
Jack will consider just selling the business part of the mill and let the buyer
decide to do the finish work.
jsp>Operation consists of slowly pouring the grain into a hopper and catching the
>milled product in a pan or bucket underneath. It takes less than a minute to
>mill a pound of grain with either the motor or hand crank. The motor driven
>model could be made to work much faster but I was more concerned about
>safety than speed.
Slowly is the key phrase here! If the slope of the hopper were higher and the
motor were stronger the unit would have no problem milling 5 lbs in 3 minutes
max. I understand Jack's concern for safety - but it kinda feels like the
helmet law, the seat belt law, the warning label on alcohol, etc.... Just sell
me the parts with a disclaimer that this unit is sold as a paper-weight, the
seller accepts no responsibility for any other application.
jsp>The product that emerges looks like a picture out of a text book on brewing.
>This is normally only obtainable through a series of rollers whose spacing gets
>progressively closer. By using the toothed rollers, we are able to achieve the
>same results in one step.
Again, exactly as advertised. The Edme crush was an absolute dream crush -
perfect in every way. With a larger hopper, an exit chute, and 1/4 hp motor
this unit will challenge any roller mill I seen, and I've seen a dozen and
used 3.
jsp>the price is $200 plus shipping. The hand-cranked model is $100.
>[...] he who hesitates, may be lost.
I believe I got what I paid for. Obviously, alot of labor intensive
construction went into my unit, but I would have liked to do the labor (of
love) myself - of course, I will any way. My recommendation is order the
motorized one if you are not mechanically inclined, oeder the hand crank one if
you can get an in-expensive 1/4 hp motor, pulleys and belt cheaply, or, if you
are a fanatic like me, try to talk Jack into just selling the business part of
the unit and flesh it out yourself. But the bottom-line is order one if you
and/or your friends currently grind more than 20 pounds of grain a month - you
won't be sorry.
Russ
"Overpaid tool freak"
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 92 12:13 GMT
From: "KATMAN.WNETS385" <6790753%356_WEST_58TH_5TH_FL%NEW_YORK_NY%WNET_6790753@mcimail.com>
Subject: hop history
Date: 09-Jan-92 Time: 07:12 AM Msg: EXT02606
Hi folks,
A friend wants to know some things about hops. This may have been asked
recently, but my memory is bad (age and all :)
1) If you make beer without hops, what do you get?
2) When were hops first used, and what did they use before then?
3) Why did someone decide to use hops?
I'd look in the Zymurgy hops issue, but I don't have it yet (but I have a
birthday coming up in a few months... :)
Lee Katman == Thirteen/WNET == New York, NY
=Do not= use REPLY or ANSWERBACK, I can not receive mail in that fashion.
Please send all mail to
INTERNET katman.wnets385%wnet_6790753@mcimail.com
OR
MCIMAIL EMS: wnet 6790753 MBX: katman.wnets385
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 92 8:10:50 EST
From: Daniel S Robins <dsrobins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Subject: Chicago brewpubs/micobreweries?
I am heading out to Chicago from Columbus, OH next weekend and would
like some suggestions for brewpubs, in particular, to visit. Probably best
to keep the suggestions within the city limits since my keen sense of
direction may not be suited for the jungle out there. Thanks a bunch!
Dan Robins
Department of Chemistry
The Ohio State University
dsrobins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 92 08:38:37 EST
From: solo@thor.mlb.semi.harris.com (solo)
Subject: Stainless Pots, Sale (repost)
This is a repost of something I posted earlier, reformatted to fit in
72 columns. s.
###
I just received a sale flyer from Superior Products.
They are a discount foodservice equipment supplier, and they have,
among other things, Vollrath stainless steel 'stock pots' on sale
(catalog says sale ends Feb 7, 1992).
>From the catalog:
Stainless Steel Stock Pots by Vollrath
Made of 18.8 _stainless_ for greater resistance to pitting and
corrosion, plus heat conductive base to save energy. Flat covers allow
stacking to save space. *In Stock.
$List $SPECIAL
7-L-100 7-1/2 qt. 4 lbs 77.00 43.00
7-L-103 11-1/2 qt. 6 lbs 83.00 46.00
7-L-105 16 qt. 6 lbs 108.00 59.00
7-L-107 20 qt. 8-1/2 lbs 121.00 65.00
7-L-129 24 qt. 9 lbs 130.00 70.00
7-L-130 38-1/2 qt. 13 lbs 172.00 90.00
7-L-492 60 qt. 15 lbs 255.00 130.00
Covers:
7-L-123 For 7-1/2 qt. 15.00 9.90
7-L-125 For 11-1/2 qt. 19.00 12.40
7-L-127 For 16,20,24 qt. 29.00 18.40
7-L-136 For 38-1/2 qt. 38.00 22.00
7-L-494 For 60 qt. 39.00 23.00
They also have other goodies like restaurant-quality beer glasses and
mugs, and lots of draft beer equipment and plumbing. There is a
'stainless steel beer chiller' which is used to chill beer inline on
its way to the draft arm which could be used as a wort chiller. They
also have CO2 tanks and regulators, etc.
Superior Products can be reached at (800)328-9800; their catalog is
free.
I am in no way affiliated with Superior Products, I am just a happy
customer who thought he'd pass some info along. Bottoms up!
s.
------------------------------
Date: Thu Jan 9 05:46:55 1992
From: darrylri@microsoft.com
Subject: re: Samuel Smith's CORRECTION
I just want to point out that korz's observations on the Yorkshire slate
squares are a bit misleading (but that's certainly not his fault). It's
true that the vessel you see in Foster's book is about 4 feet high, and
full of foam right to the lip. What you don't realize is that that vessel
is entirely full of yeast.
There is a second vessel lying directly
underneath, with a hole in the center between them. The lower cube is
filled with wort and as the fermentation progresses, the yeast flocculates
out in the upper square--sort of a giant blow off system, but with a 3 foot
tube instead of 1 1/8".
I don't know what Sam Smith's used to do before pumps, but when
I took the tour, there was a fellow walking around with a portable pump,
and he would throw a pickup tube into the bottom fermenter and spray some
of the yeast back into the beer. (Yes, "spray", and it clearly was taking
up air on its way back in; I'd be proud to get that kind of aeration
going into the primary. On the other hand, the amount wasn't very much
compared to the volume of beer in the fermenter, so perhaps it doesn't
matter.)
BTW, if you get to England, it's definitely worth taking the
tour, although my experience was that I couldn't understand a single word
the guides said. The tours occur occassionally, so you need to call ahead.
They are conducted in the evening and begin in The White Horse and Angel
pub next door--ah if that were only my local.
--Darryl Richman
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1992 9:36:20 -0500 (EST)
From: R_GELINAS@UNHH.UNH.EDU (Russ Gelinas)
Subject: ss ferment
I just racked a light lager to secondary last night. I dry-hopped
it with an oz. of Saaz. It's actually gonna be more of a steam beer (TM),
since it's been fermenting at about 50 degF. Anyway, the important info
is that the primary was done *in the brewpot*. I cooked it up, chilled it
with an immersion chiller, pitched, covered, and moved it to the cool room.
It was a Rapids 10 gal. pot. It worked great. The cover is loose enough to
allow CO2 out. One odd thing is that the brewpot is now as clean as it has
ever been. There were minor scorch marks on the bottom, from the 2 gas flames
I use to cook with, but now the bottom is absolutely clean. Hmmmm. The
pot itself cleaned *very* easily. Obviously, if you're concerned about
racking off the cold break, this is not for you. But it's quick and easy.
We'll see how the beer turns out. Recommended, so far.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 92 09:44:35 EST
From: Peter Karp <karp@cs.columbia.edu>
Subject: Radioactive isotopes used in breweries
On the news last night there was a piece about low-level radioactive waste
disposal. The usual sources of this waste were mentioned; medical and
nuclear power plants. But also mentioned were breweries that apparently
used radioactive isotopes for measuring the level of beer in bottles.
Does anyone know how this method works? Are isotopes mixed into the beer
and then detected when it reaches a specified height in bottle or is
beer bombarded and detectors sense some change when the bottle is filled?
Is there a different isotope for ale and lager?
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 92 9:24:19 CST
From: kerl@cmack.b11.ingr.com (Dan Kerl)
Subject: re: boil-over preventer
I used to have one of these gadgets (it broke).
I never observed that is was much good at preventing boilovers involving
foaming liquids (cooking spaghetti, hardboiled eggs that crack, etc.).
However, it seemed to be effective at preventing boilovers caused by
superheated water (where the liquid temperature goes above boiling without
generating steam). This happens to me when I try to boil water in a clean
glass pot (one of those Whistler-brand things), which I used to make tea.
The pot would just sit there on the burner and do nothing - until you bumped
it or dropped a teabag into it, whereupon it would eject half of its
contents on whatever happened to be close.
It appeared that this glass disc would provide nucleation sites for steam
bubbles to form, limiting the liquid temperaure in the pot to the boiling
point. It doesn't quite make sense that a smooth glass disc would provide
more nucleation sites than the smooth glass walls of the pot, but this is
what I've observed.
-Dan Kerl
kerl@cmack.b11.ingr.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1992 10:44:08 -0500 (EST)
From: R_GELINAS@UNHH.UNH.EDU (Russ Gelinas)
Subject: cleaning copper
I'm surprised that no one has mentioned this, since I got it from this
list, and it works great - use a dilute vinegar solution to remove the grease
from copper tubing. I boiled my immersion chiller in a vinegar solution,
and it came out shiny. You could probably run the solution through the
tubing if you were making a counter-flow chiller. It really works great.
Use about so much vinegar in about that much water ;-)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 92 10:51:14 -0500
From: dbreiden@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
Subject: Northwestern malt -- Weiss vs. Weizen?
I made a batch of something wheatish using one bag of Northwestern
Wheat extract and one bag of N'Western Amber malt extract. I used
the dregs from a friend's wheat beer to culture up some yeast--I think
he used WYeast of some sort. It turned out pretty good, although not
at all weisen like--at least it didn't have any clove taste or smell.
It just tasted like a good beer. Kind of ale-like even.
Would anyone care to explain briefly and clearly the difference between
Weiss beer and Weizen? That's one distinction I've never figured out.
Thanks.
Danny
------------------------------
Date: 09 Jan 92 11:20:52 EST
From: Robin Garr <76702.764@compuserve.com>
Subject: Extract in box
In HB798, Mike Gildner asks:
> Has anyone every tried Northwestern Brand malt extract? The syrup is
> packaged in plastic bags inside a cardboard box.
Yes! It's a high-quality extract, and the bag-in-box is handy, easy to use
and lightweight. Bill McKinless of The Home Brewery's new retail shop in
Teaneck, N.J., recommended it to me for an Oktoberfest, and I was pleased.
For what it's worth, The Home Brewery has shifted their contract for
production of Yellow Dog Amber from Alexander's to Northwestern, and the old
Dawg is coming out in bag-in-box now.
Robin Garr | "I have enjoyed great health at a great age because
Associate Sysop | every day since I can remember I have consumed a bottle
CompuServe | of wine except when I have not felt well. Then I have
Wine/Beer Forum | consumed two bottles." -- A Bishop of Seville
76702.764@compuserve.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 92 10:59:43 CST
From: hank@hank.b17a.ingr.com (Hank Chambers)
Subject: Homebrew Subscription
Hello, I recently started to homebrew and would like to be included
on the homebrew subscription list. My address is:
hank@hank.b17a.ingr.com
Sincerely,
Hank Chambers
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 92 11:17:35 EST
From: eisen@kopf.HQ.Ileaf.COM (Carl West)
Subject: Iodine, grain bed depth
For those folks who have a difficult time discerning whether there
has been a color change when you do an iodine-starch test there is
help. There's such a thing as `decolorized' tincture of iodine.
The only difference I find on the lable is that the red stuff has
sodium iodide and the clear has potassium iodide and costs twice
as much :-( You have to go to the druggist and ask for it.
Having read about the A-B coffee can lautering system experiment
(I can`t remember whether it was here, Miller, or Papazian, oh well)
where they taped a bunch of coffee cans into a 4-5' column makes me
wonder about doing somthing of the sort myself. Anyone have any
insight on the benefits/drawbacks of a tall skinny lautering system?
Carl
When I stop learning, bury me.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 92 07:53:12 PST
From: esri!robert@uunet.UU.NET (Robert West)
TO: MIKE GILDNER
RE: NORTHWESTERN BRAND MALT EXTRACT
My brew partner and I have tried the dark and weizen
(unhopped) malt extracts from Northwestern and were very pleased.
The local brewery supply store also recommends it highly.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 92 09:28:48 PST
From: grumpy!cr@uunet.UU.NET (C.R. Saikley)
Subject: Anchor's Grant
I posted this a couple of days back, but it never appeared. Sorry if it
eventually shows up twice.
>From Russ Wigglesworth :
>This arrangement of spigots is called a "grant". Anchor uses one in their
>system. I once inquired as to the reason for this step in the brewing and was
>told by the brewer on duty (Mike Lee, if I remember correctly) that it was
>"traditional, it came with the brewery" and he knew of no specific advantage to
>it. Nor was he aware of any problem with oxidation. He also told me it could
>be by-passed and was when they made Old Foghorn. I'll be over there later this
>week and ask again.
I had a similar exchange with Bruce Joseph, another brewer at Anchor.
When I asked him about the purpose of their grant, he shrugged and said,
"Hell if I know", or something to that effect. Then he grabbed a glass,
filled it with some of the sweet wort that was passing thru the grant
and gave it to me while mumbling something about those pesky homebrewers
with their endless steam of questions.
The only real use for a grant that I've ever heard of is that it makes it
easy to asses the color and clarity of the runoff.
CR
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 92 13:04:56 -0500
From: bickham@msc2.msc.cornell.edu (Scott Bickham)
Subject: Schlather Brewery?
Has anyone out there heard of The Schlather Brewery which existed in Cleveland
in the early 1900's? It was owned by the grandfather of a friend of mine, and
he believes it was bought by The Toledo Brewing Co. around 1917. He would
be interested in obtaining the original recipe if possible or at least a
discription of the beer. Please reply directly to me at:
bickham@msc2.msc.cornell.edu (INTERNET)
or bickhma@crnlmsc2.bitnet (BITNET)
Thanks!
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 92 14:15:07 EST
From: farleyja@sol.crd.ge.com
Subject: Re: Metal brew / Boiling water
Concerning my metal brew problem:
Joe Palladino suggested that I might have used too little extract
in my wort. Although this seems a very possible cause of the kind
of taste I've gotten, the can was a double-sized one, which I
forgot to mention in my original post.
Al Korz answers:
> What brand was it? Maybe other Digesters have had problems with this
> extract?
Good question. I left the label back in Massachusetts, and it was
mistakenly thrown away. I can't remember the brand name, but I hope to
venture to my local homebrew shop to try to find it, since I remember
what the label looked like.
Concerning the water boiling issue:
Bill Thacker writes:
> About 2 weeks later, we
> noticed a slight plastic flavor and smell to our beer, which within a week
> or two became so strong that the beer was undrinkable.
I've had the same problem with the water in Schenectady, and have boiled
tap water used for brewing ever since. I blamed the chlorine levels,
which seem pretty high by my taste.
Jim Farley
farleyja@sol.crd.ge.com
GE Corporate Research and Development
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 92 15:03 CST
From: korz@ihlpl.att.com
Subject: Re: fermentation times vs vessel size
Sorry this is a bit dated, but I ran across it while editing some old
digests:
William writes:
>cpstnd3.alliant.com (Chris Shenton)
>> I've done a few wheat beers semi-recently and noticed something odd in
>> the last 2-3 batches. I did 10 gallon batches, then split into two
>> carboys, one a 5-gallon, the other a 7-gallon. The larger one -- which
>> was not filled all the way to the top -- finished in a week or so as
>> usual. The smaller, filled all the way up to the neck, is on it's
>> third week.
>
>> Any ideas? Thanks.
>
>I have seen this effect before. I think it is not related to the size
>of the vessel but to the amount of headspace in the vessel. I think
>when you fill the vessel to the neck you remove the trapped air (oxygen)
>used by the yeast during the first stage of fermentation. This limits
>the total population to a value lower than optimum and the fermentation
>takes longer.
The reasoning seems sound, and it is true that oxygen-deficient wort
will cause your yeast to have trouble reproducing, but 2 gallons of
air sitting on top of your 5 gallons of wort are not going to enter
the wort unless you shake. I think the rate that the air will dissolve
into the wort, if it simply sits quietly, is very slow and aeration
during the filling of the carboy would be several orders of magnitude
more than aeration from the air sitting quietly. Comments?
Al.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1992 13:03 PDT
From: Bob Jones <BJONES@NOVA.llnl.gov>
Subject: Recirculating mash & blowoff
To : M. Sharp
I tried your idea on a recirculating mash tun, al la R. Morris/Zymurgy.
I screwed around with it for about a year, and had BAD luck. The problem
most likely is with the mash tun geometry. Too tall a mash tun will cause
too much grain compaction therefore slowing the flow thereby burning or
overheating the liquid. You are trying to maximize two things in nature
that naturally oppose. Also there is a problem with just how much heat
or energy you can get from household voltage. You can get much more energy
from a burner of any sort. The electronics is the easy part the fluid mechanics
can kill you. Be forwarned!
To : N. Pyle
I also had a carboy spew about 80% of its contents on the ceiling years ago.
Your idea of a loose fitting f-lock may not save you because the fermenting
beer/foam will slowly seal/glue the stopper very well before the pressure
builds up enough to blow. I'm sure the pressure we are talking about here is
very low.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 92 15:48 CST
From: korz@ihlpl.att.com
Subject: Re: Oxidation
Again, another interesting post I found while editing:
JaH writes:
>In way of a little additional comment on Thom M's question about possibly
>oxidizing the results of a partial mash by straining, I wanted to point out
>that many European Breweries, notably Pilsener Urquell among them, use a system
>where the sweet wort that goes from the mash tun into the boiling tank
>is drained from the mash tun via a number of spigots. The brewer controls the
>flow rate out of the mash tun by the number of spigots opened. These spigots
>run the sweet wort into a trough, where is collects and then flows into
>the boiling tank. I have seen this in operation. Yes the sweet wort gets
>aerated here , on it's way from the mash tun to the boiling tank. PU does a
>triple decoction, so this happens 3 times, yet there wasn't a hint of oxidation
>in the fresh Pilsener Urquell.
>
>I think perhaps too much worrying is being done here. The temperature of
>post boil wort is typically 40F higher than the sparge temps Thom cited,
>The rate of the oxidation reaction is temperature dependent, so I think at the
>lower temperature of sparging it is sufficiently slower that the amount
>of oxidation components produced are not critical before this liquid reaches
>the boil, and of course as I had mentioned this volume is diluted into the
I don't know a lot about melanoidins (maybe there's something about
them in George Fix's "Priciples of Brewing Science" book -- I haven't
checked yet -- I hope there is), but from what I've read recently, they
are somehow associated with the level of caramelization of the sugars
in the mash/wort. If this is true, maybe the fact that PU is generally
pretty pale and doesn't have a lot of melanoidins is why the grant
doesn't cause oxidation problems. Comments?
Maybe the reason PU is not REALLY pale is due to the oxidation and maybe
the "cardboard smell/flavor" is from hop oxidation (there aren't any hops
in the mash). Comments?
Wouldn't there be less oxidation in the case of PU's triple decoction
than in aerating an entire batch of (our) beer at 200F because:
1. the temperature would be lower (120F to 168F),
2. only part of the mash is taken and not the whole thing, and
3. that part of the mash gets boiled only a few minutes later and
the dissolved air gets boiled out (this goes back to someone's question
of how long does it take for the oxidation to take place... at say, 150F?)?
Comments?
Al.
------------------------------
Date: 9 Jan 92 14:46:54 U
From: "Rad Equipment" <rad_equipment@rad-mac1.ucsf.EDU>
Subject: pH Pen Review
Subject: pH Pen Review Time:2:44 PM Date:1/9/92
Hardware Review
Litmustik pH Pen
Model PHH-1X
$44.00 + $2.95 S&H
Omega Engineering, Inc.
PO Box 4047
Stamford, CT 06907
1-800-826-6342
I have been interested in purchasing a digital pH tester ever since I checked
the pH of my first batch with test papers and found them nearly impossible to
read with any accuracy. Until recently the cost of these devices has been in
the neighborhood of $80. About a year ago I began noticing advertising for
units in the $40 range so I waited to see what reviews surfaced prior to buying
one. So far I have yet to find such a review, except in the sales material of
several retailers. I had occasion to purchase a couple of dial thermometers
from Omega in order to complete my 1/2 barrel system this Fall. I noticed that
they sold a pH pen for $44 I suppose I was feeling extravagent when I placed
the order for the thermometers and tacked on the pen as well as some buffer
solution for calibrating the unit.
I was a little dismayed when the pen arrived. Now bear in mind that I have no
experience with such devices so what may be obvious and expected by frequent
users was not so with me. The advertising copy had stated the pen had a range
of 32 to 122 degrees F. It does, however it needs to be calibrated at the same
temperature that the sample will be read at so, either I had to heat the buffer
or cool the sample. Not a big deal, I chose to cool the mash sample to room
temp. The sales literature also stated "single point calibration" with a range
of 0-14 and an accuracy of +/- .2 pH. Foolishly I thought that meant that you
calibrate it at 7 and it figures out the 0-14 range. Not so... The
specifications which come with the pen are more specific adding "+/- 3 pH units
from standardization point". This means you need to calibrate the pen with a
standard buffer solution close to the range (within 3 points) which you intend
to measure. Again, this is not a large problem, but I would have liked to know
it ahead of time. Standard solutions are available at 4 and 7 pH. Not exactly
ideal for brewers who are looking for 5.0 - 5.5 pH. I am investigating making
my own standard solution by mixing portions of the standards.
The other characteristic of this device which I was unaware of when I purchased
it is the fact that you must keep the probe moist. This isn't a problem for me
as I tend to brew at least once a month and usally more. The instructions
suggest immersion in tap water once a week for improved performance. The cap
has bit of felt in it to assist with the task, however this is one more bit of
maintenence which makes the pen risky for casual brewers.
So after all that, how does it work? Quite well. I was very happy to be able
to read a pH of 5.7 after mash-in and 5.3 after an addition of gypsum. I
suspect though that I don't really need this toy. If I could find a nice set of
pH papers which would be readable once immersed in a stout or porter mash I
would do as well. Yet I could make the argument that the pen will pay for
itself by my not needing to replace my supply of papers as they run out. At
current prices, that ought to be in about 200 batches...
One last comment. Along with the pen came an advertisment for a "NEW!" model
PHH-2X pen with "ATC" (Automatic Temp Correction?, Auto Touch Calibration?) and
improved Accuracy & Range for $49.50 + S&H. Hmmm...
Russ Wigglesworth CI$: 72300,61
|~~| UCSF Medical Center Internet: Rad Equipment@RadMac1.ucsf.edu
|HB|\ Dept. of Radiology, Rm. C-324 Voice: 415-476-3668 / 474-8126 (H)
|__|/ San Francisco, CA 94143-0628
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 92 18:37 GMT
From: "KATMAN.WNETS385" <6790753%356_WEST_58TH_5TH_FL%NEW_YORK_NY%WNET_6790753@mcimail.com>
Subject: mead.boil water
Date: 09-Jan-92 Time: 12:25 PM Msg: EXT02617
Hi there,
Mead takes longer to ferment than beer, but some activity should be noticeable.
Your fermentation lock should be bubbling every minute or 5.
Our local brewery (Elm City, New Haven CT) boils all their water, and told me
to do the same. We have lots of bacteria and they just throw in more chlorine
(we don't have so much chlorine that it's a major taste factor in plain water
or tea). I think they said boil for about 20 minutes or so, but don't quote me
on that.
(Kinny, is this more readable? This is using hard returns instead of word wrap.
I too have problems with some posts running off the edge, although I think it's
people with word wrap who go beyond column 80 that bug my machine, such as it
is.)
Lee Katman == Thirteen/WNET == New York, NY
=Do not= use REPLY or ANSWERBACK, I can not receive mail in that fashion.
Please send all mail to
INTERNET katman.wnets385%wnet_6790753@mcimail.com
OR
MCIMAIL EMS: wnet 6790753 MBX: katman.wnets385
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 92 21:04:24 EST
From: Jay Hersh <hersh@expo.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Hot Wort Aeration
George F> JaH and JF: I promise there will be no more about this!
No need to make such promises. It is interesting to note your experiences,
I think many people will also find them interesting. My comments were based
on an observation of what is done commercially, a little knowledge of the
temperature relationship to the speed of the reaction (ie it occurs slower at
sparging temps than boil temps), and only minor direct experience.
I certainly couldn't argue that PU has any kind of stability. The bottles i
carried home had shown noticeable flavor changes in only weeks despite being
stored cold. I wouldn't dare to attribute this to their use of a splash grant,
but perhaps the casuality you suggest merits concern.
I think some research and/or discussion with some commercial brewers could shed
some light here. If I had the time I'd hit the library, but I'm very busy these
days.
- Jay
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 91 22:04 CDT
From: arf@gagme.chi.il.us (jack schmidling)
Subject: ADS
To: Homebrew Digest
Fm: Jack Schmidling
From: Greg Roody - dtn 237-7122 <roody@necsc.enet.dec.com>
Subject: Shameless ad's - this is too much
>Now before "ARF" gets bent all out of shape, this is not a flame.
That seems to contradict your "Subject". It appears that you have already
drawn your conclusion.
>Can I call for a vote on how many people found the ad for Jacks video to be
too commercial for the purposes of this file?
>So, how many people would like to see (even "non-profit") ads limited to
either 5 lines maximum or banned outright?
I vote for 5 lines.
>I really don't want to get into the debate over using the internet for
commercial gain, I just want to address signal to noise issues.
Is it safe to presume that when you get your number, you are then going to
ask me how many inquiries I received? If I can prove that more people
showed interest than you can show grouches, I win.
Aside from that a few other points. First of all, more bandwidth has been
wasted whining and rationalizing the ad than in the ad itself.
Secondly, on usenet, I posted a brief product announcement, with no price and
asked that interested persons email for more info.
I assumed that HBD was moderated and if the ad was unacceptable, it would be
rejected. If this is incorrect, I apologize. If someone does read the stuff
before adding to the HBD, then finger him/her, not me.
BTW, I had previously offered the HBD "editors" a preview copy of the video
so they could pick it apart but never got a response.
js
p.s.
Date: Mon, 07 Oct 91 20:59:06 -0400
From: gonzalez@BBN.COM
Subject: Papazian Book-Signing in Boston
Barleymalt & Vine, a local homebrew supplier, is hosting a visit by
Charlie Papazian, who will be signing copies of the new edition of his
_Complete_Joy_Of_Homebrewing_. He'll be at the Framingham store (280
Worcester Road == Route 9) from 10am to 2pm, and at the West Roxbury
store (4 Corey Street, just off the VFW Parkway) from 2:30pm to 6pm. A
dinner and beer-tasting is to follow at the Boston Fencing Club.
tickets for the dinner are $30 (for $37 they throw in a copy of the
book), and reservations may be made by calling the Framingham store
at 508-820-3392.
-Jim.
Just how does this fit into your value system? Looks like a blatent
commercial for a brew supplier and Papzian to me.
js
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 91 22:05 CDT
From: arf@gagme.chi.il.us (jack schmidling)
Subject: STUFF
To: Homebrew Digest
Fm: Jack Schmidling
Date: 07 Oct 91 19:01:48 EDT
From: Jeff Frane <70670.2067@compuserve.com>
Subject: On #738 & 739
To Jack Schmidling:
>I'm not concerned that you list me as a source, I'm concerned that you
describe the transcription of my notes on a five-minute telephone
conversation as "research."
Why do you assume that was the extent of my research? You simply got me
started on the right track.
> I'm also somewhat nonplussed to hear that you've never tasted anyone
else's homebrew. Howcum?
It is not a very popular pastime in my "crowd". I'm a recluse. I doubt that
I can name five people, that I know personally, who have EVER made beer.
Actually, I can think of only three and two of them are dead.
> The guy who suggested your beer would taste "cidery" because of oxidation
has got it wrong. Oxidized beer generally tastes remarkably like cardboard
You're sure to LOVE my video because after complaining about billowing foam
at bottling time, I pointed the camera at him and told him to tell us all
about oxidation.
>The cidery quality comes from an excessive amount of non-malt sugar.
I would certainly find that reasonable but he was ready to buy billions and
billions of videos and I wasn't about to argue with him. I have never tasted
either in my beer so I can offer no opinion.
js
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #799, 01/10/92
*************************************
-------
