Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #1058
This file received at Sierra.Stanford.EDU 93/01/19 00:21:54
HOMEBREW Digest #1058 Tue 19 January 1993
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Rob Gardner, Digest Coordinator
Contents:
party ball revisited (Sandy Cockerham)
CO2 Pressure Correction (Lou Casagrande)
Keep it private David ("John E. Lenz")
Keg priming (Bruce Mueller)
The Answers, Natural Carbonation in Kegs (Bruce Mueller)
Beer in Aus & NZ (adietz)
CO2 (Brian Bliss)
Decoction mashing (Conn Copas)
Corona Grain Mill adjustments ("John L. Isenhour")
Phil's Phalse Bottom (STROUD)
BEST iodine (idophor?) ("John L. Isenhour")
Under Pressure (Ulick Stafford)
Grain, Volume vs Weight (K.W.) Golka" <golka@bnr.ca>
RE: enzymes in pale malt (Darryl Richman)
Send articles for __publication__ to homebrew@hpfcmi.fc.hp.com
(Articles are published in the order they are received.)
Send UNSUBSCRIBE and all other requests, ie, address change, etc.,
to homebrew-request@hpfcmi.fc.hp.com
Archives are available via anonymous ftp from sierra.stanford.edu.
(Those without ftp access may retrieve files via mail from
listserv@sierra.stanford.edu. Send HELP as the body of a
message to that address to receive listserver instructions.)
**Please do not send me requests for back issues!**
*********(They will be silenty discarded!)*********
**For Cat's Meow information, send mail to lutzen@novell.physics.umr.edu**
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 18 Jan 1993 08:12:01 -0500 (EST)
From: Sandy Cockerham <COCKERHAM_SANDRA_L@LILLY.COM>
Subject: party ball revisited
Seeing the post today about the party ball system was somewhat ironic. I just
purchased one yesterday at Great Fermentations, Indianapolis. The one I got is
in the traditional Coors party ball configuration, that is, once the seal is
punctured, the beer should be consumed within 24 hours. Hey, its only a 2.5 gal
keg... shouldn't be a problem.
My questions are: how much priming sugar do I add? and what is the time frame
for the beer to be ready? Once primed & carbonated (and still sealed) can this
keg be stored in my fridge for a month or two?
Since the initial beer is pushed out of the keg by CO2, could the basic rubber
stopper counter pressure bottle filler also mentioned in today's post be used
to fill a couple of bottles (just in case you wanted to) ?
Sandy C.
From: COCKERHAM SANDRA L (MCVAX0::RX31852)
To: VMS MAIL ADDRESSEE (IN::"homebrew@hpfcmi.fc.hp.com")
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 93 08:58:24 EST
From: casagran@gdstech.grumman.com (Lou Casagrande)
Subject: CO2 Pressure Correction
Fellow Brewers,
Okay, I blew it big time. In the last issue I submitted what turned
out to be some very premature calculations of the priming pressure
for a five gallon brew. First of all, when I got home Friday night, I
checked a conversion table for confectioner's sugar (the closest
thing I could find to brewer's sugar) and found that there are only 4
1/2 oz in one cup, meaning that in the standard 3/4 cup priming
sugar, there are only 0.21 lb, or 0.53 mol of glucose. So now my
calculations were off by a factor of 5, at best.
I admit, I also forgot about that standard high school chemistry
property of solubility. I checked the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and
Physics, and CO2 is soluble in H2O at 1.45 g/l at 25 C. Upon
reflection, the brew is probably saturated from the primary
fermentation, since 1.45 g/l is only 27.4 g in 18.9 l (5 gal), or
0.62 mol, less than even the 1.07 mol from priming. Even forgetting
for a moment that pressure will drive this solubility higher, the
1.07 mol CO2 will produce an overpressure of 6.5 atm in 4 l, or ~1/5
my original estimate. As I said, solubility will be driven higher by
the pressure, and the pressure correspondingly lowered. Anyway, I'll
think before I leap next time.
I still do not know, though, what the exact proportions of CO2
produced by fermentation are. My gut instinct says they must be less
than a simple chemical equation, otherwise where does the material to
make new little yeasties come from?
Yeast-headidly,
Lou Casagrande
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 93 10:42:05 EST
From: "John E. Lenz" <JELJ@CORNELLA.cit.cornell.edu>
Subject: Keep it private David
David Van Iderstine,
Your posting in Monday's digest was uncalled for. If you have a such a
petty gripe, with Jack or anyone else, please settle it via private e-mail.
I tried to do this privately (and less politely) but the address
on your posting was as worthless as the posting.
John
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1993 11:01:18 EST
From: Ming-chung Lin <MARS@suvm.acs.syr.EDU>
Subject: Coffee stouts and porters
In regards to Leo Woessner's questions about coffee
beer. Late last year I made a clean out all our
ingredients brew with a friend. I think we started with
some kind of bitter kit, added some spraymalt, didn't
have enough fermentables so we added 1-2 lbs corn sugar
(boohiss), and a pot of very strong french roast coffee
(along with bittering and aroma hops). I forget if we
used any adjunct grains. The result was surprisingly
drinkable. We brought a bottle to the local homebrew
supply store and the proprietor thought it tasted like
an imperial stout (we didn't tell him what it was until
AFTER he tasted it). We named it BOOTPOLISH, and anybody
who has tasted it and likes strong stouts has liked it.
So, Leo, experiment!
Lisa St. Hilaire <MARS@SUVM.acs.syr.edu>
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 93 10:27:19 PST
From: Bruce Mueller <mueller@sdd.hp.com>
Subject: Keg priming
Lou, this isn't a flame, just trying to keep the facts straight.
You made the following statement regarding priming the now notorious
HDPE jug.
>meaning that in the standard 3/4 cup priming sugar, there are only 0.21 lb, or
>0.53 mol of glucose. So now my calculations were off by a factor of 5, at best.
Using 3/4 cup priming sugar sounded scary to one who kegs. I force carbon-
ate, so I had to check back issues of the digest for a reference from a
natural carbonator. In HBD#1003, Robert Haddad said 1/2 cup of corn sugar
gave him about 25 psi at serving time. Unless he kegs much differently than
I do, there would be very little headspace in the keg.
Lou, you correctly mentioned that CO2 is soluble in water. Using Henry's Law
(ooh nooo, Chemistry!), you can calculate just how much does dissolve and thus
the remaining pressure. I will leave that as an exercise for whoever wishes
to, because I'm very satisfied with Robert's empirical evidence. For you
thrillseekers, CO2's constant is 1.64 x 10^3 atm at 25C. The formula you want
is
p(CO2) = H(CO2) x x(CO2)
where p(CO2) is the equilibrium pressure
H(CO2) is the constant above
x(CO2) is CO2's mole fraction; you can safely assume that water contains
55.6 moles/ l (CO2 is negligible where Henry's law applies)
thus,
x(CO2) = moles(C02) dissolved/ l / 55.5
Have fun, don't worry!
Bruce Mueller
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 93 11:10:52 PST
From: Bruce Mueller <mueller@sdd.hp.com>
Subject: The Answers, Natural Carbonation in Kegs
Hi all,
Well, I just couldn't resist the chance to do a simple theoretical chemical
calculation. In a 5 gal. container, assuming all the CO2 dissolves, 1/2
cup yields 16 psi and 3/4 cup only 24 psi. Well, my fear was unfounded
regarding this higher priming level. However, I bet the beer would initially
gush pretty good with the latter pressure behind it.
Robert Haddad overestimated his pressure by about 55% way back in HBD#1003.
That's all folks!
Bruce Mueller
------------------------------
Date: 18 Jan 1993 12:49 EST
From: afd@hera.cc.bellcore.com (adietz)
Subject: Beer in Aus & NZ
I'm travelling to Australia (Cairns area) and onto New Zealand (all over)
in a couple weeks. Would appreciate info on the brewpub and homebrewing
scene in these areas, or even talking beer with local brewers.
-A Dietz
Bellcore, Morristown NJ USA
afd@cc.bellcore.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 93 11:28:17 CST
From: bliss@csrd.uiuc.edu (Brian Bliss)
Subject: CO2
>But how much
>pressure is generated by priming? My assumption before reading his
>posting was that there would not be too much. However, it seems that
>this might not be correct: Assume 1 lb priming sugar, glucose
>(C6H12O6), or 454.5 g at 180 g/mol gives us 2.53 mol. Now assume that
>every glucose molecule gives us 2 ethanol and 2 CO2 (I'm not sure
>about this): C6H12O6 --> 2C2H5OH + 2CO2. Now we have 5.05 mol CO2.
>Using the perfect gas law (imperfect, yes, but sufficient for our
>purposes), pV=nRT, rearranging gives p=nRT/V.
> n=5.05 mol
> R=0.0821 l atm/mol-K
> T=298 K
> V=4 l (I'm assuming you're using 5 gal of a 6 gal jug)
>p=30.9 atm! Am I going bonkers, or is this a lot? Even if I'm off by a
>factor of 2 somewhere, there is still 15 atm of pressure generated.
you're forgetting how much CO2 is dissolved in solution (over 90% of
the CO2 in a typical bottle is in solution). It doesn't all go in the
headspace. Also, most homebrewers don't give their beer time enough for
all the priming sugar to ferment - if you did, you would only need about
2-3 oz per 5 gal beer to obtain average carbonation. Anybody with a kegging
setup can tell you that there is around 1-1.5 atm (14-21 psi) in (on?)
carbonated beer at serving temps.
bb
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 93 18:47:18 GMT
From: Conn Copas <C.V.Copas@lut.ac.uk>
Subject: Decoction mashing
James, quoting from Noonan's "Brewing Lager Beer", writes:
"temperatures below 149F(65C), on the other hand, seriously limit
dextrin formation while favoring the formation of maltose by Beta
amylase. Because starch granules are not gelatinized or dispersed
below 149F, Beta amylase activity at lower temperatures serves only
to eliminate the dextrins formed in the decoction, without further
significant starch reduction."
My practical experience causes me to question this. I haven't read Noonan, but
I have found that starch conversion often tastes as if it is 50% complete by
the end of a half hour _protein_ rest at 50C. (By the way, why does the mash
effervesce? I have never seen this phenomenon even mentioned). Regarding the
problem of extracting unconverted starch during sparging, I am wondering how
significant this is in practice. When one considers that the brew will ferment
for 1-2 weeks, then condition for at least another 3 weeks, it is worth
considering how much starch will actually remain in suspension by the time of
serving. My gut feel is that protein and glucan hazes are much more enduring.
- --
Conn V Copas
Loughborough University of Technology tel : +44 509 263171 ext 4164
Computer-Human Interaction Research Centre fax : +44 509 610815
Leicestershire LE11 3TU e-mail - (Janet):C.V.Copas@uk.ac.lut
G Britain (Internet):C.V.Copas@lut.ac.uk
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1993 10:55:30 CST
From: "John L. Isenhour" <isenhour@lambic.fnal.gov>
Subject: Corona Grain Mill adjustments
I'm trying to adjust my Corona Grain Mill to minimize the uncracked grains that
pass through. I ground the tip of the stem (which presses against the ball
bearing in the clamp-on arm) flat, this stopped the adjustable grinding plate
from changing depth during turning.
The outer grinding plate is held on by a cotter pin, and it is free-floating
(i.e. it wobbles around). This would seem to allow some grain to escape. I'm
wondering if I should try to affix the adjustable plate to the stem in such a
way that it could not wobble and yet maintained a parallel position in respect
to the other plate. Anyone tried this?
I'd also like to motorize this operation. Anyone done anything with a pully or
something?
tnx!
John, The HopDevil
john@hopduvel.uucp
isenhour@lambic.fnal.gov
------------------------------
Date: 18 Jan 1993 14:59:37 -0500 (EST)
From: STROUD%GAIA@leia.polaroid.com
Subject: Phil's Phalse Bottom
In HBD # 1056, Jim Busch commented on the commercially available "Phils Phalse
Bottom.":
>My complaint with the Phils system is that the tube
>from the false bottom has to rise up out of the false
>bottom to then exit the bucket. This can lead to a
>problem with an air bubble forming inside the tube.
>I have seen extremely slow runoffs that I think are
> due to this design.
For those people who are not familiar with this piece of equipment, it consists
of a circular piece of plastic shaped like an inverted dome. This sits on the
bottom of an Igloo/Gott-type cooler. It is perforated with small holes,
effectively operating as a false bottom by holding back the grains/husks, but
permitting sweet wort to pass through unimpeded. The amount of "dead space"
under the dome is reasonably small, certainly much less than with a Zapap-type
of lauter tun. There is a 90 degree plastic elbow that rises up out of the
centerof the false bottom, and a connection can be made between this elbow
and the outlet hole at the bottom of the cooler with plastic tubing or a
rigid tube.
A friend of mine bought one of these this past fall and I have used his a couple
of times. The first time I simply ran a piece of plastic tubing from the elbow
through a rubber stopper which was wedged into the outlet hole. I then attached
an adjustable tubing clamp to control flow and directed the effluent from the
lauter tun directly into the bottom of the boiling kettle.
Unfortunately I ran into the exact problem described by Jim. Try as I might, I
could never get a very quick flow of sparge from this setup. Lke Jim, I first
assumed that I had an air bubble stuck in the line that would not permit flow of
liquid. However, upon examining the situation more closely (and reading the
directions that came with the Phalse Bottom!), I concluded that the problem
actually was due to the collapse of the plastic tubing in the lauter tun, caused
by the relatively hot temperatures of the mash/sparge water.
When I used the Phalse bottom a second time, I butted a rigid plastic tube right
up to the plastic elbow and connected them with a VERY short piece of plastic
tubing. The rigid tube was then run through a stopper wedged into the outlet
hole in the cooler, and a piece of tubing was attached to direct the sparge into
the boiling kettle.
This arrangement worked quite well, and I had no trouble with a slow runoff.
When used this way this false bottom works reasonably well and is a cheap way
to quickly convert an Igloo-type cooler to an insulated lauter-tun (though
there are other even cheaper ways of doing this that aren't much more work). I
think that it certainly superior to the grain bag/vegetable steamer combo
commonly used by many homebrewers.
I think that the holes in the false bottom are a bit large and would like
to see this unit manufactured with smaller holes and more of them. It would
also be easy to replace the plastic elbow with a threaded copper one,
so that one could attach a piece of copper tubing to this via a compression
fitting, by-passing the use of plastic tubing entirely.
Steve Stroud
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1993 10:42:33 CST
From: "John L. Isenhour" <isenhour@lambic.fnal.gov>
Subject: BEST iodine (idophor?)
I just got some BEST iodine type sterilant, and was wondering about the
dilution of it. Handwritten on the bottle was "1 1/4 teaspoons per gallon".
I cannot locate any tables that convert teaspoons to milliliters, and when I
tried measuring 1.25 teaspoons with various kitchen measures, I was getting
different results when I measured it in milliliters (on a 2 ml pipette).
I was trying to make up a quart of solution, and I ended up adding 1.5 ml
of BEST. In a mason jar, this looked like american pilsner, and I used it on
my glass racking canes and carboys. When I drained it, it had left suds behind
and I was concerned about not rinsing it (so I did).
Could someone with experience give some advice? How many ml's in a teaspoon?
tnx!,
John - The HopDevil
john@hopduvel.UUCP
isenhour@lambic.fnal.gov
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 93 13:55:32 EST
From: Ulick Stafford <ulick@bernini.helios.nd.edu>
Subject: Under Pressure
In hbd1057 Lou Casagrande did some calculation that achieved a
pressure of 30 atm priming 5 gallons in 6 gallons with 1 lb sugar.
The main error was a failure to allow for the amount of CO2
dissolved in the beer, which at 0C would be around 171 ml/100ml.
Adjusting the calculations thus gives a pressure of around 3
atmospheres - still high, but then 1lb is a lot of priming sugar.
Ulick Stafford
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1993 17:18:00 +0000
From: "Kevin (K.W.) Golka" <golka@bnr.ca>
Subject: Grain, Volume vs Weight
On the weekend we brewed an all grain lager. The recipe was similar
to a Pilsner we had made before but our intention was to increase the
volume of water and end up with more beer with a lower OG.
Specifically our original Pilsner has a starting OG of 1053 for 23 L.
By scaling up the grains and adding more water we were hoping to obtain
an OG of 1047 for 29 L.
After the protein rest was finished and we added the mash water, my
friend commented on the amount of head space we had left in the tun.
We use a cylindrical drink cooler. With similar volumes of grain in the
past (13 lBs) we expected to have only a 2" to 3" of head space. We
ended up with about 7".
Since we were concerned about head space we ran the protein rest a bit
stiffer than usual. We had overall 2 L less water in the tun. This
would account for 1" to 2" of head space. We suspected that we some how
measured the grain incorrectly and had left out about 2 lbs. We
decided to proceed as is and live with this since we had reached the
desired strike temperature.
When we finished the collected volume of 20 L gave an SG of 1074. This
was pretty close to our original target SG assuming 13 lbs of grain and
an efficiency of 28 pts/lb/gal (US). So we actually did have the
correct amount of grain in the tun all along!
So how did we end up with all of this head space? The grain we used
came from the same 45 kg bag we have been using all along so it should
have had the same volume per weight.
Is there a rule of thumb for grain volume vs weight? I suppose this
depends on the moisture content but what are the extremes, 0 % moisture
(if possible?) and 100 % moisture.
Any thoughts would be appreciated.
Kevin Golka, 613-763-3474
These opinions are my own and not necessarily those of NT or BNR.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 93 14:13:47 PST
From: Darryl Richman <darrylri@microsoft.com>
Subject: RE: enzymes in pale malt
Jeff Benjamin <benji@hpfcbug.fc.hp.com> writes:
> > <Also, make sure your later grain bills didn't include disproportionately
> > <high percentages of specialty malts like Munich or crystal. If you
> > In general, this is not true. Domestic malts will contain more enzyme
> > potential than you could ever use. Even modern continental malts will
> > have enough enzymes for just about any all malt beer. The use of Munich
> > and crystal malts in just about any reasonable percentage will work fine.
> Whoops, sorry if I mislead anybody. When I said "disporportionately
> high percentages" I was thinking of ridiculous percentages, like
> *replacing* your pale male with Munich. I'm sure someone out there has
> tried it (no, not me :-).
Let's clear up a misconception here. Real Munich malt, whether
domestic or imported, has enzymes. It has sufficient enzymes to
convert itself, and perhaps just a bit more. If you want to make a
real dark Munich lager, then use Munich malt. I've made several bocks
with high percentages of Munich (60-80%) and it works just fine.
In particular, the imported 2 row Munich malt is far superior to the
domestic 6 row "Munich" malt because it is prepared differently. The
domestic is regualr pale malt that is given a final kilning at a higher
temperature to increase the color. It does do this, but not a lot, and
it doesn't prepare the malt to produce the malty aromas that are really
appropriate for most of the dark lager beer styles. Read Fix's "Vienna
* Maerzen * Oktoberfest" for more discussion about this. The imported
2 row Munich malt is prepared by heating it briefly while still moist
and then drying it. This produces the most color and malt aroma for
the temperatures.
Crystal malts are prepared in the same general way, but rather than a
brief heating while moist, the malt undergoes as complete a
saccarification as possible, and then is subjected to higher heating
temperatures for longer periods to really enhance the color formation.
They have no enzymes left because of the higher, longer heating. They
also have much darker color ratings than Munich malt.
--Darryl Richman
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1058, 01/19/93
*************************************
-------
