Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #1301
This file received at Sierra.Stanford.EDU 93/12/18 00:49:01
HOMEBREW Digest #1301 Sat 18 December 1993
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Rob Gardner, Digest Coordinator
Contents:
First batch success (Paul Beard)
beer clip art (George Tempel)
...hydrometers (Ed Hitchcock)
New Brewer...HELP (LUKASIK_D)
Specific Gravity Notes (Geoff Reeves)
Re: Making separate messages out of HBD (Bob LaGesse)
extract editorials / good enough (TODD CARLSON)
Re: cloying sweetness (Jim Grady)
RE: James Clark's Update (Keith MacNeal 17-Dec-1993 1125)
Re: O2 & stuff (Jim Busch)
New Brewer...HELP cont. (LUKASIK_D)
Re: Bob's address (Andy" <alanders@mwc.vak12ed.edu>
Cheap do-it-yourself kegging system (correction) (Steven Tollefsrud)
Cheap do-it-yourself kegging system... (Steven Tollefsrud)
Comments on Several Items ("Palmer.John")
Sierra Nevada Nirvana (scott mclagan)
Rager's polynomial (Domenick Venezia)
hops question revisited (Robert Jordan)
Tun Design (U-E68316-Scott Wisler)
Cornelius Keg Pressurization (JEBURNS)
re: appearance and "pride" ("Doug Olson, BPDA West, Palo Alto CA")
First batch question...not much carbonation? (Scott Robertson)
Send articles for __publication_only__ 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, BUT PLEASE NOTE that if
you subscribed via the BITNET listserver (BEER-L@UA1VM.UA.EDU),
then you MUST unsubscribe the same way!
If your account is being deleted, please be courteous and unsubscribe first.
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 don't send me requests for back issues - you will be silently ignored.
For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to lutzen@novell.physics.umr.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1993 08:00:45 -0500
From: paul.beard@gatekeeper.mis.tridom.com (Paul Beard)
Subject: First batch success
Just a short note to say I tasted my first bottle from my first batch and
found it drinkable (actually, pretty good).
I was attempting to emulate a Newcastle Brown style, so I used M+F Nutty
Brown extract, and at the urging of the shop, added 2 Alexander's Malt
Kickers. The yeast was what came with the extract.
Three weeks later, I have 50+ bottles of something that doesn't resemble
Newkie so much as Theakston's OP (in color: almost black, with a gleam of
ruby red when viewed against a light). It's quite malty and a lot stronger
than I expected (I figured 3%, based on TNCJOHB calculations).
You guys are way over my head with a lot of your mashing and whole grain
stuff; I'll likely be an extract man for a while. To get in at this level
is so easy; if you can boil water and read, you're there!
If anyone else is lurking without brewing, get busy.
Paul Beard
AT&T Tridom, 840 Franklin Court, Marietta, GA 30067
404 514-3798 * FAX: 404 429-5419 * tridom!paul.beard/beardp@tridom.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1993 09:02:20 +0000 (U)
From: George Tempel <tempel@MONMOUTH-ETDL1.ARMY.MIL>
Subject: beer clip art
beer clip art
Rick Gontarek asks about brew clip art:
I have assembled _some_brewing clip art (and now John
'Coyote' Wylie has some too!) for the Mac.
Send me email on what/how/where you want it; I too
use canvas, but also use streamline and color-it
to alter/convert the images if need be. Perhaps we
could swap a brew or two via private carrier?
george
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1993 10:26:11 -0400
From: Ed Hitchcock <ECH@ac.dal.ca>
Subject: ...hydrometers
> This means that if a hydrometer has to cover a range of specific
> gravities from 1.000 to 1.100 using a linear scale, there will be
> a 10% error in the measurement from one end of the scale to
> the other (due to the delta_SG**2 term).
So, why don't they make homebrew hydrometers with a NON-LINEAR
scale? Would that make too much sense?
____________
Ed Hitchcock ech@ac.dal.ca | Oxymoron: Draft beer in bottles. |
Anatomy & Neurobiology | Pleonasm: Draft beer on tap. |
Dalhousie University, Halifax |___________________________________|
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1993 09:53:33 -0500 (EST)
From: LUKASIK_D@sunybroome.edu
Subject: New Brewer...HELP
New Brewer...HELP
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1993 08:16:07 -0700
From: reeves@lanl.gov (Geoff Reeves)
Subject: Specific Gravity Notes
I've noticed some postings that make me believe some clarification of the
measurement of specific gravity might be appreciated. One representative
example is...
The SG was 1.0XX "but that included all the particles from the crystal malt
that immediately settled to the bottom."
Undisolved particles (including colloids) do not affect the measurement of
specific gravity. A easy to visualize example is to imagine a lake of pure
water with a specific gravity of 1.000. What is the specific gravity of the
water if a boat is floating on the surface? What is the specific gravity if
the boat sinks? What is the specific gravity while the boat is sinking? It
remains 1.000.
The caveat is that anything that sticks to the side of your hydrometer
_will_ affect the specific gravity _measurement_ because it will change the
wieght of the hydrometer. When you pull the hydrometer out if there is
stuff sticking to the side you should let the junk settle and take the
measurement again. The most common thing to stick to the side is bubbles
which will add boyancy to the hydrometer and give you too high a specific
gravity measurement. It may go against your expectations but if you have a
lot of junk floating around that sticks to your hydrometer it actually
gives you too low a SG reading because it will make the hydrometer sink a
little further.
Of course for those that are inclined to excessive worry I should point out
that I brewed for six years before even doing a temperature correction for
SG!
Geoff
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| A brewery is like a toothbrush, everyone should have their own. |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Geoff Reeves: NIS-2, Mail Stop D-436, Los Alamos National Laboratory |
| reeves@lanl.gov (internet) or essdp2::reeves (span) |
| Phone (505) 665-3877 |
| Fax (505) 665-4414 |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1993 10:30:35 -0500 (EST)
From: bobml@msd.measurex.com (Bob LaGesse)
Subject: Re: Making separate messages out of HBD
Here's my contribution for all the Unix "geeks" 8^). I wrote a 'nawk' script
which splits up the e-mail message. Typically, I use 'elm' to read my mail
and its "|" subcommand to split the messages into a separate mail file for
later perusing. The script follows ....
#!/bin/sh
cd $HOME/Mail
rm -f /tmp/hbtemp$$ /tmp/msgcnt$$
if [ $# = 0 ] ; then
echo2 "\07Usage: unpkmsg \"mail_file_name\""
exit 1
fi
if [ $# -ge 2 -a "$1" = "-h" ] ; then # add mail header at beginning of file
cat <<-EOF > /tmp/hbtemp$$
From Home_Brew `date`
Received: by `hostname`
Date: `date "+%a, %d %b %y %X %Z"`
From: homebrew <homebrew@hpfcmi.fc.hp.com>
Subject: Home Brew Daily Digest
EOF
shift
fi
cat >> /tmp/hbtemp$$ # read stdin and add to temp file
if [ -d $1 ] # create output mail file name
then mail_filename=$1/`date "+%y%m"`
else mail_filename=$1
fi
today=`date`
hostname=`hostname`
nawk "\
BEGIN {
msgcnt = skipline = 0;
getline line1;
getline line2;
getline line3;
hostname = \"$hostname\";
today = \"$today\";
}
/^--*$/ { \$0 = \"--------\"; }
/^From:/ {
++msgcnt;
if (match(\$0, /<.*>/))
useraddr = substr(\$0, RSTART + 1, RLENGTH - 2);
else
useraddr = \$2;
gsub(\" \", \"_\", useraddr);
if (skipcnt > 0)
printf \"From %s %s\nReceived: by %s\n\", \
useraddr, today, hostname;
}
{
if (line1 == \"\" && line2 == \"--------\" && line3 == \"\"\
&& \$1 == \"Date:\")
skipcnt = 3;
if (skipcnt > 0)
--skipcnt;
else
print line1;
line1 = line2; line2 = line3; line3 = \$0;
}
END {
print \"Split out\", msgcnt, \"mail messages to =$mail_filename\" \
> \"/tmp/msgcnt$$\";
}
" < /tmp/hbtemp$$ >> $mail_filename
cat /tmp/msgcnt$$
rm -f /tmp/hbtemp$$ /tmp/msgcnt$$
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 93 11:03:21 EST
From: carlsont@GVSU.EDU (TODD CARLSON)
Subject: extract editorials / good enough
In Papazian's book he says that all malt extracts are not
created equal and in the recipie section he recomments
cerain extracts for certain recipies because of their unique
characteristics. But I have never seen much in the way of
specific recommendations (for or against) various malt
extracts. So here is your invitation to editorialize. When
I go to the beer store and see oodles of different malts,
which should I try first? Which should I avoid? I just
started my garage lager last night with Bierkeller amber.
What can I expect? (the label says "preimium german malt",
but with truth in advertising being what it is ...?). As
always responses should use appropriate Intenetiquitte.
In respons to Tim sixberry's comments/question of yesterday:
"...the basics of making good beer are very simple ... why
complicate matters?"
I second the motion.
Of course "advanced" beer makers are free to make things as
complicated as they want. But I agree that many people get
forget that others have a different agenda. We read "relax,
don't worry, have a homebrew" and then get pages and pages
and kilobites and kilobites of things to worry about. I
suspect that there is a lot of home brew equipment around
gathering dust in the basements of people who were turned
off by unnecessary complications. (IMHO).
Todd (chill in the sink / aerate by shaking) Carlson
carlsont@gvsu.edu
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 93 11:04:13 EST
From: Jim Grady <grady@hpangrt.an.hp.com>
Subject: Re: cloying sweetness
Taylor Standee asks about a cloying sweetness and flattish beer after 2
weeks in the bottle:
It sounds to me like the beer just needs more time. I have often had
batches that were too sweet & flat after only two weeks. Some of the
factors seem to be:
1. Temperature where the bottles are sitting &
2. How much the beer cleared before bottling. Usually, the more it
has cleared, the longer it takes (and the less sediment in the
bottle which means less sediment/more beer in my glass!).
I've never used DME but I hear that DME tends to take longer than corn
sugar. So, give it a couple of more weeks and it should be fine.
- --
Jim Grady |"Immediately after Orville Wright's historic 12 second
grady@an.hp.com | flight, his luggage could not be located."
| S. Harris
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 93 11:31:40 EST
From: Keith MacNeal 17-Dec-1993 1125 <macneal@pate.enet.dec.com>
Subject: RE: James Clark's Update
>From HOMEBREW Digest #1300:
>From: jeclark@ucdavis.edu (James Clark)
>Subject: update
>3) because of the high gravity boil the beer is not as bitter as i want it,
>so i was thinking about dry hopping in a secondary. is there a recomended
>time to do this or can i do it any time after the kreusen settles? also,
>can someone give me a range for the amount of hops to use in the secondary
>(i know i didn't say how bitter our beer is right now, but i just want to
>know if most people use 0.5 oz. or 8 oz when they dry hop)?
I don't think dry hopping will do much for you in terms of bitterness. It
will give you hop nose and flavor. I used 1 oz. of Cascade hop plugs to dry
hop 5 gallons of an IPA recently. I liked it and so did my friends. The
flavor of the hops really came through. I've read recipes where more (as much
as 5 oz. of a hop) or less (0.5 oz.) have been used.
Keith MacNeal
Digital Equipment Corp.
Hudson, MA
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1993 11:45:55 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Busch <busch@daacdev1.stx.com>
Subject: Re: O2 & stuff
> From: reeves@lanl.gov (Geoff Reeves)
> Subject: Bottle Inspection
>
> >The AHA beer judging form starts off, after identification of the
> >
> >What is the purpose of this section? Recently I received comments in
> >this section of "short fill" and "low fill line". e
THis is one of my pet peeves too. I think the inspection is fine for
rings, yeast cake/cloudiness, etc, but comments on "low fill levels"
can be erroneous. The problem seems to stem from homebrewers who bottle
condition being sensitive to fill levels, and thinking the "correct" fill
level is within 1/2" of the crown. When I am competing, I usually fill
from the keg, counterpressure, and acheive a fill level very close to
what you find in a quality micro, 1.5 - 2" below the crown. This
invariably begets a comment on "low fill". If the local micro fills
bottles above this line, they can have legal action brought against
them for selling more than 12 oz in a 12 oz bottle.
> ------------------------------
> From: ulick@michaelangelo.helios.nd.edu (Ulick Stafford)
> Subject: Oxygen and hydrometers
>
> In hbd 1298 Jim Busch mentions oxygen use. I would warn him that levels
> over 14 ppm can be harmful. I read this figure in a chemical technology
> encyclopedia's section on beer (Kirk-Othmer, I think). From a practical
> point of view, this means that care must be exercised when O2 is used to
> oxygenate. The limit of oxygen solubility when air is used is around
> 8 ppm, which is related to the partial pressure of oxygen in air, 0.21.
> This means that aeration with air, while safe, is less than optimum.
> However, wort saturated with oxygen may have over 30 ppm of oxygen (the
> dissolved sugars may lessen the amount of oxygen that can dissolve
> in wort relative to water, but probably not by toomuch). Breweries,
> naturally, will have the money to pay for dissolved oxygen probes, but these
> are not within homebrewers budgets.
This contradicts the data I have. Experiments have shown that the maximum
(absolute saturation levels) vary between a low of 4 mg/L (SG = 1.080, T=
30 C) and a high of 7.5 mg/L (SG=1.030, T=15C). I believe Rajotte has
quoted much higher numbers, but these are not supported by experimentation
using a Zahm and Nagel O2 inline injector. These data are supported by
another author, Dr. Ingledew, who found levels of 8-9 mg/L as the maximum.
It is certainly well known that the saturation levels of O2 are a function
of temperature and sugar density (OG) so these are important factors in
the equation, but practically speaking, levels above 8 mg/L are not seen
in breweries, nor are they required as typical brewers strains require
O2 levels between 2-8 mg/L. It is also interesting to note that yeast
will respire the O2 in a matter of hours if not less, at these levels.
I can assure you that a 2 hour bubble of O2 has lead to quite healthy and
successfull ferments (quicker, and cleaner, less esters/fusels).
> Someone wanted Jim Koch address to send poison pen letters. The letter I
> received from him today mailed without a stamp from Nashua, NH listed
> The Boston Beer Works, The Brewery, 30 Germania St., Boston MA 02130 as an
^^^^^^^^^^
This is obviously a freudian slip, as the works are the
ones Koch sues all the time. His is the Boston Beer Co.
> ------------------------------
> From: "Rad Equipment" <rad_equipment@rad-mac1.ucsf.edu>
> Subject: O2, Bottle inspection Quest
>
> Two possible issues come to mind. FDA O2 as used for medical applications has
> been rumored to contain an anti-fungal agent. I have not been able to get this
> firmly confirmed nor denied by my contacts in the medical world. Industrial
> grade O2 may not contain any bugs but may contain oil or other contaminants
> which do not cause problems with normal applications.
I have recently been told that the brewers O2 goes by the name Therepy??
Anyone heard of this? BTW, the .2 micron filter shows no sign of
contamination yet.
RE:fuggles
> Terry Foster was waxing a bit snobbish. Fuggles is, in fact, a fine hop
> (so is its clone: Willamette), and makes a very nice late addition. Of
> course the Classic (TM) finishing hop for English ales is East Kent
> Golding -- but there are a lot of really good English hops that British
> brewers use, including Fuggles.
I also have had good success recently using Willamette as a kettle hop.
Good brewing,
Jim Busch
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1993 11:52:20 -0500 (EST)
From: LUKASIK_D@sunybroome.edu
Subject: New Brewer...HELP cont.
Sorry, little computer glitch on my end....So to start again.... I am new
to the homebrew scene (two weeks, three batches, lots of fun) and have a few
questions that I hope some more experienced brewers can answer. My first
batch was a basic Yorkshire Bitter Kit with a lb of dry malt replacing some
of the sugar. It all went smoothly and was bottled about a week ago. The
second batch is my own Olde Ale recipe using all malt (11 lbs), some grain
(crystal and choc.) and a lot of hops. This batch started with an SG of
1.062, was extremely active in about 8 hours, blew CO2 like crazy for the next
20 hours and had the krause (?) settle aftert 2 1/2 days. I then racked it
into the secondary at which point it slowly bubbled away. Well, five days
later it is still bubbling at a rate of about every 3 seconds which is
completely different than batch 1 and batch 3 (an Australian Lager using
Ale yeast). Is this normal activity or have I done something wrong? Is it
due to using so much malt ext.? Is it safe to bottle while it is still
fermenting like this? Is there any good way to get a second SG reading
without the risk of contaminating the brew? I would really like to get this
batch into the bottle so I can expedite the drinking (hopefully be able to
have a few with friends on New Years!!!)
Other questions: Are Australian Light Malts supposed to produce a golden
colored beer/ale/lager (this is the color of straw)? Could someone send me
a recipe for Cider as I have seen this in my first reading of the digest and
think it sounds great? How close will a dopplebock be to the real thing if I
use ale/beer yeast (I am not yet sett up to do real Lagers)?
The list is great. I am sure already it will answer many of my questions and
give me the insights I am looking for. Thanks for the help in advance!!!
Doug
"SodBuster Suds"
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 93 12:01:59 EST
From: "Adrian L. Anderson (Andy" <alanders@mwc.vak12ed.edu>
Subject: Re: Bob's address
Brewers,
Not long ago I asked for some help in curing a yeast taste
problem. One of the responses came to me directly from Bob
Milstead. I attempted to send a note back with a thank you
and some other information but it was returned. The address I
used was rmilstead@zellar.vantage.gte.com. If anyone knows how
to get in touch with Bob or if Bob is reading this, please let
me know.
Thanks,
- --
____________________________________________
Andy Anderson Winchester, VA
alanders@mwc.vak12ed.edu
"I'm a peripheral visionary... I see into the future
but way off to the side."
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 93 16:18:16 +0100
From: steve_t@fleurie.inria.fr (Steven Tollefsrud)
Subject: Cheap do-it-yourself kegging system (correction)
re: CO2 "resevoir"
No, this is NOT the French spelling, it should be "reseRvoir"
normally. Maybe it was the homebrew?!
Relax...
steve tollefsrud
valbonne, france
e-mail: steve_t@fleurie.compass.fr
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 93 16:03:39 +0100
From: steve_t@fleurie.inria.fr (Steven Tollefsrud)
Subject: Cheap do-it-yourself kegging system...
>Dave Burns (jeburns@ucs.indiana.edu) writes...
>I have two Cornelius kegs that I would like to use. I can't afford
>a CO2 tank and reg. So I would like to use them for parties (drink it all
>before any oxidation). I can order the connectors and a dispenser but
>I would have to rig up some sort of a pump to displace the beer. Would
>this work? Any suggestions for pumps? I was thinking about a foot operated
>bike pump. They also make a small CO2 bike pump, how many cartridges would
>it take for 5-gallons of brew?
The bicycle pump method does work well, but unless you plan to empty
the entire Cornelius keg in one go, don't use this method. It would
corrupt the protective CO2 in the headspace of the keg, oxidizing and
ruining the beer after a day or two.
I have the same situation, I have two Cornelius kegs, and an assortment
of hoses and connectors, but living in France, I do not have convenient
access to compatible CO2 tank and regulator systems. Instead, I devised
the following simple two-keg closed system which preserves the natural CO2
gas generated by the fermentation and uses it as a pressure source. Since
the system is closed and the beer is protected by pure CO2, it can be
kept fresh and carbonated indefinitely.
Parts: 2 Cornelius kegs
4 Cornelius connectors
Some sort of valve for dispensing (I found a 3/8" air valve at
a hardware store, which works nicely)
~10' 3/8" food grade clear plastic hose
a 3/8" water faucet adapter w/ clamp
1. One Cornelius keg will serve as the beer-keg. The second will serve as a
CO2 resevoir. Cut a length of hose long enough to run between the the
two kegs and put Cornelius connectors on both ends. Connect the "INPUT"
side of the beer-keg to the "OUTPUT" side of the CO2 resevoir. When your
beer is fermented and ready to prime, siphon it into the beer-keg and
prime it with triple your normal quantity of priming sugar (I use about
6 cups of malt extract per 5 gals). Fill the CO2 resevoir with enough
alcohol based sterilizing solution to cover the bottom half inch of the
"OUTPUT" pipe (don't use other sterilant: there is a minimal risk that it
could be sucked up into the beer keg if the temperature of the beer keg
drops).
hose
_____________
out / in out \ in
__H___H__ __H___H__
| | | | | |
|ooooooo| | | |
|:|:::::| | | |
|:|:::::| | | |
|:|:::::| | | |
|:|:::::| | | |
|:|:::::| | | |
|:|beer:| | | |
|:|:::::| | | CO2 |
|:|:::::| | | |
|:|:::::| | | |
|:|:::::| | | O |
|:\:::::| | \ O |
|::\::::| | \ o |
|:::\:::| |:::\:o:|
|_:::::_| |_:::o:_|
beer keg CO2 resevoir
2. Leave the clamp of the CO2 resevoir loosely open for about 1/2 a
day to allow CO2 from the beer keg to purge the CO2 resevoir keg of air.
3. Clamp shut the CO2 resevoir and allow 1-2 weeks for "conditioning".
4. After beer is conditioned and CO2 resevoir is pressurized, switch the
"polarity" of the hose connection on the CO2 resevoir, so that the hose
is connected to the "INPUT" side of the CO2 resevoir. Construct a beer
dispenser hose out of 3'-5' of hose, one Cornelius connector and the beer
dispensing valve. Connect this to the "OUTPUT" side of the beer keg and
test by dispensing some beer into a glass. If necessary, release pressure
slightly from the CO2 resevoir using the pressure bleeder valve on the
top of the Cornelius keg.
5. To increase the CO2 pressure at any time, construct a second length of
hose with a Cornelius connector at one end and a water faucet connector at
the other. Connect the water faucet end first, then connect the other end
to the "OUTPUT" side of the CO2 resevoir, and force a few pints of water
into the CO2 resevoir (more than the volume of the beer that was consumed).
This should definitely be done when you want to store the beer after having
tapped off a few pints, in order to maintain the carbonation in the beer.
>|<
tap hose hose __O_
>________ _____________ _______________/
/ out\ / in in \ /out water
: __H___H__ __H___H__ faucet
: | | | | | |
|: |_ | | | | | |
|:::| | | | | | | |
|:::|_| | | | | | |
\:::/ | | | | | |
|ooooooo| | | |
mug |:|:::::| | | |
|:|beer:| | | |
|:|:::::| | | |
|:|:::::| | | |
|:|:::::| |:::::|:|
|:|:::::| |:H2O:|:| <-- water added to increase
|:\:::::| |:::::/:| pressure of CO2 by decreasing
|::\::::| |::::/::| volume.
|:::\:::| |:::/:::|
|_:::::_| |_:::::_|
beer keg CO2 resevoir
Advantages:
1. It's cheap!
2. Closed system: beer stays preserved indefinitely
3. Naturally conditioned in the traditional English manner
Disadvantages:
1. Finding the optimum dispensing pressure is a bit trial & error
at first with pressure bleeder.
2. Ties up two Cornelius kegs for one 5 gallon batch.
It isn't elegant, but hey, it's cheap and it works!
Comments?
Steve Tollefsrud
VALBONNE, France
e-mail: steve_t@fleurie.compass.fr
------------------------------
Date: 17 Dec 1993 09:27:44 U
From: "Palmer.John" <palmer@ssdgwy.mdc.com>
Subject: Comments on Several Items
Hey Group, Happy Holidays!
I have been trying lots of different commercial beers, lots of Winter Warmer
types, to gain experience with different styles. I have discovered that
I don't care for Pumpkin Ale; I can't finish a Spiced Christmas Ale
(tho I did find out that the Christmas Ale I brewed turned out true to style)
its just too weird; but I did like the Samual Smiths and Young's Winter
Warmers very much. So, I think this style and IPA will be my styles for the
new years brewing.
Okay, More James Questions (why do I like ribbing this guy? I dunno:)
Why Wort Chillers? Because when you start doing full boils, 5->10 gallons,
that is too much wort to carry to the bathtub.
Short Ale Fermentations? When you use Extract with lots of active yeast,
then you can have quick fermentations because of the simple sugars present;
compared to All Grain where more complex sugars are present.
How much to Dry Hop? A good rule of thumb for ANY hop addition is 1 ounce.
YMMV. Also, Cascade hops has a Vibrant nose.
Capping Champagne bottles - All of the domestic champagne bottles can be
recapped with standard bottle caps. There are some French ones that have
bigger openings.
I want a copy of that Shrimp Creole recipe!
A few days ago, someone mentioned that their Bottles had a Milky Layer around
the top of the bottle and thought it might be more foam. From what I have been
told this is Micro Derm, a bad bacterial infection. It is ground dwelling but
can be stirred up into the air by kicking up dust, etc. It is dangerous but
easily detected due to the milky layer at the top and horrid smell when
opening.
And on Jordans Hops Addition based on Papazian's formulas:
Well I assumed you are making five gallons. Starting with 6 lbs of Pale Malt
Extract (Syrup? DME? =>Syrup), yielding an approximate OG of 1.032. Boiled in
1.5 gallons of water gives an Adjusted Gravity of 1.28. Putting this in my
spreadsheet ala Rager, using 1.5 ounces for 45 minutes gives 21.95 or 22 IBU.
Which seems to be what you wanted. HBU equaling %AA x Wt. = 1.5x5.5 = 8.25
And finally, my opinion on HBD diction and grammar.
I prefer to read concise questions and answers. I can appreciate certain
regular personalities on the Digest who write like they probably speak; it
does add a certain amount of color to the digest and makes it more of a
gathering of friends to discuss a shared hobby. However, writing like you
speak is regarded as poor practice when trying to effectivly communicate.
Imagine if I started writing in Surfer speak, or my semi-native West Virginian
drawl, it would be very tiresome for many of you to read. The same can be said
of expletives and colloquialisms. This is an open forum for the communication
of ideas on homebrewing. Effective communication would seem to be in order.
John Palmer
Space Station M&P
Merry Christmas, a Happy Brew Year and Visualize Whirled Peas.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 93 09:59:12 -0800
From: mclagan@sfu.ca (scott mclagan)
Subject: Sierra Nevada Nirvana
Last weekend I got my long-awaited chance to try Sierra-Nevada
Pale Ale (We took a trip into Washington). Needless to say, I was
NOT disappointed. Wow! Hops with an attitude. Can a brew get any
better than this? My only mistake was to promise to save a bottle
for my wife :)
Does anyone have a recipe to emulate this wonderful brew? If not,
what is the variety and method of hopping? I suspect it is dry-hopped,
which is something I've been meaning to try.
If numerous recipes are mailed, I will summarize for the digest.
Thanks in advance,
Scott McLagan <mclagan@fraser.sfu.ca>
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1993 10:17:03 -0800 (PST)
From: Domenick Venezia <venezia@ZGI.COM>
Subject: Rager's polynomial
The recent thread about hop utilization and Rager's utilization numbers
from Zymurgy past, and Ed Hitchcock's request for a polynomial got me
thinking. Although this is not what Ed was requesting, I ran a least
squares fit on the center points of Rager's utilization ranges and derived
the coefficients of a cubic polynomial. When plotted against Rager's
ranges this polynomial is everywhere "between the lines" except for less
than about 3 minutes (where it's fairly flat at about 5.5%) and at greater
than 55 minutes (where it tops out at about 30.3%). So, keeping in mind
the standard disclaimers and the fact that your results may vary, here it is:
u(t)=5.738336 - (2.032614e-01)*t + (2.905735e-02)*t^2 -(3.140576e-04)*t^3
or with less than anal precision:
u(t) = 5.738336 - 0.203261*t + 0.029057*t^2 - 0.000314*t^3
Note that this yields percent values, for fractional quantities divide by
100.0.
For those for who Rager's numbers do not come trippingly off the tongue,
they are:
Minutes % Util
- ------- ------
0-5 5.0
6-10 6.0
11-15 8.0
16-20 10.1
21-25 12.1
26-30 15.3
31-35 18.8
36-40 22.8
41-45 26.9
46-50 28.1
51-60 30.0 Note the double size bin
If one examines a plot of Rager's ranges there appears to be a discontinuity
at 41-45 minutes in an otherwise smooth curve. My esthetic sense from
the plot is that utilization tops out at about 33-34% at 60 minutes.
One observation is that at time=0 I would expect a 0% utilization.
Plotting the center points of Rager's numbers and extrapolating gives
something around 4%. By "playing" with Rager's numbers I generated a more
"esthetically pleasing" curve. I threw out Rager's numbers for 0-20
minutes and substituted 0% at 0 minutes. I also tossed out his numbers
above 45 minutes and added 3 of my own at 48, 53, and 58 minutes. The
curve so generated agrees extremely well with Rager over the range, 23-43
minutes, but yields higher utilization values at times over 46 minutes,
and lower utilization values at times under 22 minutes.
Min Rager Rager's Pleasing
Poly Poly
- ---- ----- -------- --------
0 NA 5.738336 0.000000
5 5.0 5.409206 1.206269
10 6.0 6.297400 3.290587
15 8.0 8.167375 6.102309
20 10.1 10.78359 9.451752
25 12.1 13.91049 13.14923
30 15.3 17.31255 17.00507
35 18.8 20.75422 20.82957
40 22.8 23.99995 24.43305
45 26.9 26.81421 27.62584
50 28.1 28.96144 30.21824
55 NA 30.20611 32.02058
60 30.0 30.31267 32.84317
The more "pleasing" poly (read fantasy) is:
u(t)=3.903961e-02 + (1.290914e-01)*t + (2.213545e-02)*t^2 - (2.529119e-04)*t^3
After all this, a question springs to even my mind, "So what?" Are there
any other hop utilization numbers besides Rager's out there? How about
in Malting and Brewing Science? Help! I need a reality check.
You know, I can get carried away on the weirdest things.
Domenick Venezia
ZymoGenetics, Inc.
venezia@zgi.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1993 12:41:46 -0600 (CST)
From: Robert Jordan <JORDAN@ANLBEM.BIM.ANL.GOV>
Subject: hops question revisited
Thanks to Spencer Thomas for pointing out my misuse of the formulas I asked
about in HBD 1300. Obviously (now, at least) by using my method it doen't
matter what the %utilization is, the formulas will always give you the same
weight of hops to use. This must be why I went into Biology and not
Mathmatics. Anyway, my questions still remains.
Given that I know the ~%utilization, the final volume of my batch, and the
approximate HBUs I want for my beer, how can I calculate the amount of hops
to use?
Again, I apologize if this has been answered recently, but from what I've
read the formula I'm looking for just isn't jumping out at me.
Thanks,
Rob
RJordan@anl.gov
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 93 13:43:36 EST
From: U-E68316-Scott Wisler <wisler_scott@ae.ge.com>
Subject: Tun Design
js:
> It looks to me like another classic example of
> how scaling down commercial equipment to hombrew sized batches just does not
> work very well.
I disagree, as outlined below. A more appropriate statement would be
`inappropriately scaling down commercial equipment to homebrew sized
batches, without understanding the function of the dimensions, sometimes
does not work very well'.
js:
> 3/32" holes are probably too large for the geometry of a homebrew tun.
Hersh:
> Can you explain the basis of your comment linking the size
> to the scale of the brewery??
js:
> I probably couldn't before receiving another letter from the originator of
> the thread.
If the example was truly `classic', would you have difficulty
explaining why?
js:
>My only argument was that if 3/32" holes work in large tuns but
>not in a small one, it must have something to do with geometry.
The switch from the plural to the singular is at odds with the
generality you made two days ago, and therefore cannot be `your only
argument'.
js:
>The larger holes only
>work well with a large depth to diameter ratio but smaller holes would be
>more forgiving. I am not sure why one would want larger holes and thereby
>put such constraints on the aspect ratio but therein at least, seems to be
>the answer.
It seems to me that the `answer' depends on whether the sieve or the
grain husks do the filtering. If the husks do the filtering, as you
have advocated in the past, then with an appropriate grain depth, the
size of the holes, within limits, is not too important. I would say that
in a false bottom tun, a grain bed depth which is appropriate for a given
size hole/porosity is a better geometry characteristic than aspect ratio.
js:
>For the record, the screen I use on the EM has 32 mesh screen and taking the
>wire diameter into consideration, the hole size is roughly ten times smaller
>than the "professional" size.
TNCJOHB advocates 1/8" holes on the ZapPap tun, which is 25% bigger than
"professoinal" size. It works just fine for a large number of people.
For Dennis Lewis - the origional poster:
I realize that the Brewer's Warehouse sheets are expensive! I wouldn't
want to throw it out (If you do, or you have unused scraps, write me). The
keg is probably too big to lauter in because the bed depth is small. You
could cut down the screen and make a better false bottom tun, or convert
to the em. There is a way to use the screen you cut in a converted keg
boiler, so it won't be wasted.
>Broken records tend to annoy people and my mission is to share what I have
>learned with others and learn what they have learned from them.
I advocate neither false bottoms or ems, and have yet to design a dream
tun. (hope you share the final result and thought processes, Norm).
If there is anything I've learned from this digest, its that there are
many equally effective ways of doing all the process in brewing. To say
that "[false bottoms] are simply not ... useful in homebrew lauter tuns"
is irresponsible, and simply false.
scott
swisler@c0431.ae.ge.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 93 13:45:30 CDT
From: JEBURNS@ucs.indiana.edu
Subject: Cornelius Keg Pressurization
From: PO1::"steve_t@fleurie.compass.fr" 17-DEC-1993 13:15:01.92
To: jeburns@ucs.indiana.edu
CC:
Subj: Cheap do-it-yourself kegging system...
>I have two Cornelius kegs that I would like to use. I can't afford
>a CO2 tank and reg. So I would like to use them for parties (drink it all
>before any oxidation). I can order the connectors and a dispenser but
>I would have to rig up some sort of a pump to displace the beer. Would
>this work? Any suggestions for pumps? I was thinking about a foot operated
>bike pump. They also make a small CO2 bike pump, how many cartridges would
>it take for 5-gallons of brew?
The bicycle pump method does work well, but unless you plan to empty
the entire Cornelius keg in one go, don't use this method. It would
corrupt the protective CO2 in the headspace of the keg, oxidizing and
ruining the beer after a day or two.
I have the same situation, I have two Cornelius kegs, and an assortment
of hoses and connectors, but living in France, I do not have convenient
access to compatible CO2 tank and regulator systems. Instead, I devised
the following simple two-keg closed system which preserves the natural CO2
gas generated by the fermentation and uses it as a pressure source. Since
the system is closed and the beer is protected by pure CO2, it can be
kept fresh and carbonated indefinitely.
Parts: 2 Cornelius kegs
4 Cornelius connectors
Some sort of valve for dispensing (I found a 3/8" air valve at
a hardware store, which works nicely)
~10' 3/8" food grade clear plastic hose
a 3/8" water faucet adapter w/ clamp
1. One Cornelius keg will serve as the beer-keg. The second will serve as a
CO2 reservoir. Cut a length of hose long enough to run between the the
two kegs and put Cornelius connectors on both ends. Connect the "INPUT"
side of the beer-keg to the "OUTPUT" side of the CO2 reservoir. When your
beer is fermented and ready to prime, siphon it into the beer-keg and
prime it with triple your normal quantity of priming sugar (I use about
6 cups of malt extract per 5 gals). Fill the CO2 reservoir with enough
alcohol based sterilizing solution to cover the bottom half inch of the
"OUTPUT" pipe (don't use other sterilant: there is a minimal risk that it
could be sucked up into the beer keg if the temperature of the beer keg
drops).
hose
_____________
out / in out \ in
__H___H__ __H___H__
| | | | | |
|ooooooo| | | |
|:|:::::| | | |
|:|:::::| | | |
|:|:::::| | | |
|:|:::::| | | |
|:|:::::| | | |
|:|beer:| | | |
|:|:::::| | | CO2 |
|:|:::::| | | |
|:|:::::| | | |
|:|:::::| | | O |
|:\:::::| | \ O |
|::\::::| | \ o |
|:::\:::| |:::\:o:|
|_:::::_| |_:::o:_|
beer keg CO2 reservoir
2. Leave the clamp of the CO2 reservoir loosely open for about 1/2 a
day to allow CO2 from the beer keg to purge the CO2 reservoir keg of air.
3. Clamp shut the CO2 reservoir and allow 1-2 weeks for "conditioning".
4. After beer is conditioned and CO2 reservoir is pressurized, switch the
"polarity" of the hose connection on the CO2 reservoir, so that the hose
is connected to the "INPUT" side of the CO2 reservoir. Construct a beer
dispenser hose out of 3'-5' of hose, one Cornelius connector and the beer
dispensing valve. Connect this to the "OUTPUT" side of the beer keg and
test by dispensing some beer into a glass. If necessary, release pressure
slightly from the CO2 reservoir using the pressure bleeder valve on the
top of the Cornelius keg.
5. To increase the CO2 pressure at any time, construct a second length of
hose with a Cornelius connector at one end and a water faucet connector at
the other. Connect the water faucet end first, then connect the other end
to the "OUTPUT" side of the CO2 reservoir, and force a few pints of water
into the CO2 reservoir (more than the volume of the beer that was consumed).
This should definitely be done when you want to store the beer after having
tapped off a few pints, in order to maintain the carbonation in the beer.
>|<
tap hose hose __O_
>________ _____________ _______________/
/ out\ / in in \ /out water
: __H___H__ __H___H__ faucet
: | | | | | |
|: |_ | | | | | |
|:::| | | | | | | |
|:::|_| | | | | | |
\:::/ | | | | | |
|ooooooo| | | |
mug |:|:::::| | | |
|:|beer:| | | |
|:|:::::| | | |
|:|:::::| | | |
|:|:::::| |:::::|:|
|:|:::::| |:H2O:|:| <-- water added to increase
|:\:::::| |:::::/:| pressure of CO2 by decreasing
|::\::::| |::::/::| volume.
|:::\:::| |:::/:::|
|_:::::_| |_:::::_|
beer keg CO2 reservoir
Advantages:
1. It's cheap!
2. Closed system: beer stays preserved indefinitely
3. Naturally conditioned in the traditional English manner
Disadvantages:
1. Finding the optimum dispensing pressure is a bit trial & error
at first with pressure bleeder.
2. Ties up two Cornelius kegs for one 5 gallon batch.
It isn't elegant, but hey, it's cheap and it works!
Comments?
Steve Tollefsrud
VALBONNE, France
e-mail: steve_t@fleurie.compass.fr
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 93 11:22:13 PST
From: "Doug Olson, BPDA West, Palo Alto CA" <olson@sx4gto.enet.dec.com>
Subject: re: appearance and "pride"
> I've also commented things that are obviously unrelated to the beer
> quality, such as a totally grungy bottle. Someone who wants me to
> judge their beer should at least have enough pride in their product to
> present me with a clean bottle. But, as you note, it doesn't affect
> the score.
Spencer Thomas imagines that I'm presenting him my beer to judge out
of "pride". Actually, I'm presenting it for feedback about the contents
of the bottle. I already know if I had to scramble to scrape labels off
the bottles because of the available beers the cleaner bottles happen to
have already been consumed. I already know how flippin' painful it was
to scrape my fingers as well as the label because I'm cleaning three
bottles for each of the eight beers I'm entering. I already know, fer
chrissake, that the clean bottle rules exist to prevent unfair identifting
marks from biasing the judges, and not to soothe their aesthetic sensibilities.
What I DON'T know is how true my beer is to style, and that's what I paid
the entry fee to find out.
There's nothing that pisses me off more than getting more comments on a
judging sheet about the state of the bottles than the state of the beer.
DougO
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1993 11:55:17 -0800 (PST)
From: scott@nit.PacTel.COM (Scott Robertson)
Subject: First batch question...not much carbonation?
Yes...it's another novice first batch question...
Here's the story: Brewed, fermented, and siphoned into bottling
bucket. Before siphoning I boiled a pint of water with the
bottling sugar and put that in the bottom of the bucket. The instructions
didn't say anything about stirring...so I didn't. After bottling
all of the beer from the spigot at the bottom of the bucket..
I noticed that there appeared to be a separation in the last little
beer in the bottom...beer on top, sugar mixture on the bottom.
So, it's been 5 days, and I tried a bottle that came from near the end of
the bucket. There was a little pssst when I opened the bottle, but
very little carbonation. I understand it is a little early to expect
a lot, but is it possible that I screwed up by not mixing the sugar mix
in the bottle bucket? Is there anyway to test the potential outcome
without waiting? any insight would be great..
reply to scott@nit.pactel.com
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1301, 12/18/93
*************************************
-------
