Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #1548
This file received at Sierra.Stanford.EDU 94/10/10 00:32:45
HOMEBREW Digest #1548 Mon 10 October 1994
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor
Contents:
Mail order beer (EJ McGowan)
Need HBD# of recent George Fix article (Jay Lonner)
Fermentap and Carboys (ELQ1)
Shipping beer (Harralson, Kirk)
Mash Volumes/Electric Sankey Keg Boilers (CliffR3500)
Wet Hops Correction ("Glenn Tinseth")
FWD>Project Activation of 1 ("Dianne Dranginis")
The big leap to ALL-GRAIN (TIM)
A modified RIMS system (Stephen Russell Bliss)
Yeast head reference ("Steve Veillette, WCSU Information Systems")
Air Filtration - Yet Another Improvement (Richard A Childers)
specialty malts (Domenick Venezia)
Chlorine (Domenick Venezia)
City's ozone water treatment (Domenick Venezia)
Carboy Handle Summary/ Corrections (COYOTE)
Madison Homebrewers November Classic UPDATE (uswlsrap)
Submission (BrewerLee)
Re: Specialty Malts. (Erik Speckman)
Something from England? (m.trageser)
Boots' (U.K) plastic kegs (Gilad Barak)
Rollermills.... (Jack Schmidling)
Happy Holidays reminder ("Ginger Wotring, Pharm/Phys")
******************************************************************
* NEW POLICY NOTE: Due to the incredible volume of bouncing mail,
* I am going to have to start removing addresses from the list
* that cause ongoing problems. In particular, if your mailbox
* is full or your account over quota, and this results in bounced
* mail, your address will be removed from the list after a few days.
*
* If you use a 'vacation' program, please be sure that it only
* sends a automated reply to homebrew-request *once*. If I get
* more than one, then I'll delete your address from the list.
******************************************************************
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.
FAQs, archives and other files 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: 7 Oct 94 8:54:43 ES
From: EJ McGowan <EJ_McGowan.LOTUS@crd.lotus.com>
Subject: Mail order beer
Hi Minel,
Why do I watch 90210? It only aggravates me!!! I tried to call you Wednesday
during a commercial, but there was no answer. That show id getting sooo
predictable. You predicted three weeks ago that Andrea would catch Jessie
flirting. I predicted two weeks ago that Kelly would catch Dillon and
Valerie. We predicted that Brandon's friend was going to die. They need to
get some new writers. Maybe we could apply for the job!! I bet we would do a
better job.
What is up for tonight? Write back and let me know.
See ya!!!
Kathy
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 07 Oct 1994 12:55:39 -0800 (PST)
From: Jay Lonner <8635660@NESSIE.CC.WWU.EDU>
Subject: Need HBD# of recent George Fix article
Hi,
I deleted the recent (~3 weeks old) HBD article containing George Fix's article
on mash schedules for highly modified malt. I can't get thread to work on my
local VMS account, so could someone please send me the number of the HBD in
which this article appeared? Once I have the number I can retrieve it from
sierra myself.
TIA,
Jay.
8635660@nessie.cc.wwu.edu <--- email address included to help Coyote maintain
his center
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 94 13:05:21 PDT
From: ELQ1%Maint%HBPP@bangate.pge.com
Subject: Fermentap and Carboys
Good Morning all you brewduds, hopheads and ale allies,
In this months Celebrator, is an ad for a Fermentap[pat pending] in
which an inverted carboy is placed on a stand with what appears a three
way gizmo for the bung, the ad calims to be able to; rack with out
siphoning, harvest yeast, and less oxidation/wasted beer. The idea is
a great one, but here in Quake country of CA., it seems to me to add
to the great debate on carboy disasters. the deal includes the stand and
and valve assembly for $26.95, No disclaimer, just curious.
On my primary fermentation, to avoid water being sucked into the wort
during the lag, I attach a Baggie [tm] to the carboy neck with a rubber
band until there is good gas pressure and then replace with an airlock.
Ed Quier ELQ1@PGE.COM
Please, no comments, Belive you me, I've heard them all.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 07 Oct 94 17:39:52 EST
From: kwh@roadnet.ups.com (Harralson, Kirk)
Subject: Shipping beer
Bill Cook posted information about sending beer via USPS or UPS that
he received from Craig Verver in response to an earlier post:
>in Canada. It's also technically illegal to mail or ship beer in the
>US without a distributor's license, though enforcement seems spotty.
>
>Finally, USPS doesn't typically require declaring the contents of
>the package. Whatever carrier/agent you decide to use, don't mention
>beer -- you're shipping yeast samples if anyone asks.
>-----
>
>Craig.
>
This subject has come up several times in the HBD in the last few
years, and I have purposely avoided getting involved. I realize that
people are going to ship beer by common carrier, with little regard to
what is legal and what is not. There is a big temptation to just
mislabel the package, as Craig suggests, and let it go through the
system. We handle in excess of 22 million packages/day, so
enforcement is next to impossible. Contributors to the HBD have, for
the most part, frowned upon other blatant illegal subjects in the
past, such as home distillation, using marijuana in brewing, stealing
breweries kegs for tun conversions, etc.. However, from the posts I
have read over the past few years, the majority of people seem to
think that shipping beer is some sort of gray area; that it is
"technically illegal, but...". This attitude is similar to people who
make illegal copies of software. They know it is illegal, but somehow
they justify doing it. I suppose each of us must decide which laws we
choose to obey and which laws we choose to break.
It is a federal regulation that we (United Parcel Service) cannot
accept any alcoholic beverages in our system. This can be confirmed
by calling our main information number at (800) 346-0106.
Kirk Harralson
kwh@roadnet.ups.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 07 Oct 94 17:31:29 EDT
From: CliffR3500@aol.com
Subject: Mash Volumes/Electric Sankey Keg Boilers
Hello All,
I have a question concerning mash volumes. Does anyone know how to figure out
how much space you are going to need in the mash tun based upon the amount of
grain. I am planning on expanding my 5 gallon RIMS system to a 15 gallon set
up and I want to know how big to make my mash tun. I am planning on using a
maxium of about 35 pounds of grain for sixteen gallons of finished, boiled
wort.
Below is my reckoning on the matter. The reason that I am posting this is
that it will be a significant investment to custom make the mash-tun and I
want to be sure that I got the right size. Any comments or suggestions?
Displacement of malt (35 lbs * .05) = 1.75 gal. This is from Noonan, Brewing
Lager Beer, page 174
1.3 quarts per pound mash-in water (35 lbs * 1.3 = 45.5 qts/4 qts/gal) = 11.4
gal
Total volume of mash tun needed = 13.15 gallons
I have from time to time seen posts concerning brewers using electric hot
water heater elements in a SS pot. I would be extremly grateful if one of
these users could send me instructions on how they are made and how well they
work. I have a 20 gallon boiler that I would like to convert to an electric
boiler. The idea of not having to use a jet engine to boil my wort outside
and then move the hot boiler back inside sounds very nice.
As long as I am here, I am more or less new on this mailing list and would
like to know how to get the FAQ list. I suscribe to AOL and I'm not sure how
to go about getting it.
Thanks in advance!
Cliff CliffR3500@aol.com
------------------------------
Date: 6 Oct 1994 12:57:23 U
From: "Glenn Tinseth" <glenn_tinseth@terrapacific.com>
Subject: Wet Hops Correction
Subject: Time: 12:39 PM
OFFICE MEMO Wet Hops Correction Date: 10/6/94
In HBD 1535, David Sapsis, dbsapsis@nature.Berkeley.EDU, wrote:
<DS> On another note, also relating to the use of wet hops as presented in
<DS> hop.faq, hops are *not* 80% water; that is, there is not 4 times the
<DS> mass of free water as that mass leftover after drying. Consequently,
<DS> the suggestion of using 6 times as much mass of wet hops as dry ones
<DS> is way off base. All hops are measured for moisture using a dry
<DS> weight basis, so 100% MC indicates that hops at this level of
<DS> moisture are one-half water. Thus, assuming all other things equal
<DS> between wet and dry cones, one would use twice as much fresh, wet
<DS> hops as an equivelent mass of dry ones. I suspect that some of the
<DS> reports relating to harshness from use of wet hops may be due to
<DS> using about three times the equivelent measure, and then drawing
<DS> comparisons!
To which, Jim Ancona, Jim_Ancona.DBS@dbsnotes.dbsoftware.com
responded in HBD 1537:
<JA> I recently harvested half a grocery bag of home grown hops. They
<JA> weighed 20 oz. fresh. After drying on a screen in my attic for two
<JA> days they weighed 4 oz. So in my case, they really were 80% water!
I waited a couple days to see if David would respond, but he didnUt.
When hops are grown normally and picked at the right time they do indeed
average 80% water wt/wt. 5 pounds of freshly picked hops will dry down
to 1 pound of hops at 0% moisture content or about 1.09 lbs at 8%
moisture. Sorry to be blunt but DavidUs comment above is just plain wrong.
His recommendation not to use 6 times more wet hops is well taken though.
Hop oils are decreased during drying (exposure to heat and oxygen).
Not only is myrcene content decreased, so is the content of other
compounds which are perceived as more RhoppyS than myrcene. Wet hops have
a higher oil content (on a dry basis) than dried hops--certainly not 5
times higher--but using double the wet hops vs. dry hops is a good
starting point.
Other components are reported on a dry weight basis (*and* on an as is
basis). For example, the Willamettes I just had analyzed were 5.5% alpha acids
as is and 6.0% on a dry weight basis--they were about 8.7% moisture.
Because DavidUs post was--on the whole--very interesting and credible, I
thought that this glitch should be pointed out.
Another thing to remember is that even sitting at room temp in your
house, hops dry quickly and what was 80% water decreases
rapidly. So weigh your freshly picked hops immediately after harvest and
use that number to guide your drying. It might be worth drying the heck out
of a small sample and then back calculating the water content after
weighing the dried sample. Try to dry hops until the strig is brittle
and breaks when you bend it. Then leave the hops out at room temp for an
hour or so to equilibrate and cool. Then package in barrier packaging and
freeze. Brew beer and send me some 8^)
Glenn (email gtinseth@teleport.com)
Hop questions (and answers) welcome!
------------------------------
Date: 7 Oct 1994 16:37:00 U
From: "Dianne Dranginis" <ddrangi@denitqm.ecte.uswc.uswest.com>
Subject: FWD>Project Activation of 1
Subject: Time:3:59 PM
OFFICE MEMO FWD>Project Activation of 10971BD Date:9/28/94
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 28, 1994
TO: Tyrone Larson
Holland Wireless
FROM: Gina Eckert
Project Administrator
Program Office
541-6634
RE: Project activation
The following project has been assigned a 1994 charging/tracking number and
entered on the Enterprise time reporting system as of August 28, 1994.
Proj # Project Name
Technical Lead
10971BD Holland Wireless
Tyrone Larson
It is US WEST Technologies' policy to document CECO compliance for all
projects. If this project is solely support of internal U S WEST functions
or is virtually identical to other work which has previously been approved,
then such documentation should be filed at your earliest convenience. If
this work is for an external offering or differs dramatically from previously
approved work, please contact Cathy Pyrek, USWT's MFJ Compliance Manager,
within 5 working days. Her number is (303)541-6527.
If you have any questions do not hesitate to contact me.
cc: Charles Morgan
Dianne Dranginis
Karen Meyers
Carol Wimert
Pat Hilton-Suiter
Cheryl Miller
Chris Hassler
Cathy Pyrek
Maggie Barrington
Renee MacDonald
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 07 Oct 1994 19:54:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: TIM <LAATSCH@kbs.msu.edu>
Subject: The big leap to ALL-GRAIN
Hello everyone,
I have been successfully brewing extract-based beers for about six months
now. At the urging of *countless* homebrewing counterparts, who insist that
all-grain simply makes for better beer, I have decided to make the big leap
into all-grain brewing. Being anal about preparation, I have been
exhaustively reading about mashing in Papazian's TNCJOHB. I have a few
general questions and one perplexing problem with Papazian's numbers
concerning amounts of water to add at certain times. So, please prepare for
a barrage of greenhorn questions:
1. Although the monitored-brewpot method is the cheapest way to go for a
mash-tun, I am concerned that adequate temp control cannot be achieved. I am
considering the "picnic cooler" approach. I assume there is no consensus on
the issue, so any helpful hints or experiences by e-mail would be appreciated.
2. I would like to do temperature controlled three-stage mashing. Charlie
recommends 122, 150, and 158. What are some other viable alternatives?
What's the best way to achieve the temperature changes if using the picnic
cooler method?---Papazian suggests adding specific amounts of boiling
water....which leads me to my last point. Charlie's numbers do not seem to
add up:
First, he says that 0.5 quarts of 200 F water per pound of grain will
raise the temperature by 18 F. OK. Then, he says "it would be safe to
assume that.." the same amount of 212 F water would raise the temp by about
25 F. A simple proportion shows this not to be the case:
200/18 = 212/x x=19
Am I missing something here? Then in all his recipes, the amount of water he
suggests adding would not achieve the desired temperature change according to
the information above. Look at an example for 8 pounds of grain: He says to
combine the grains with 2 gallons of 130F water for a protein rest at 122 F.
OK, no problem. THEN, to raise the temperature to 150 F, he says to add 4
quarts of 200 F water (recall 0.5 quarts/pound grain = 18 F increase). I may
be wrong, but 122 + 18 = 140, not 150. Am I just a total bonehead or does
something not add up here?? If Papazian is wrong, where can I get accurate
information on this issue. If he is right, please enlighten me.
I apologize for taking up HBD space with such seemingly trivial questions,
but to an all-grain toddler with high trepidation these are issues of life
and death. ;) TIA for your patience and any info.
Tim Laatsch ("Bones")
laatsch@kbs.msu.edu
PS What price range are the GLATT mill and MALT mill?
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 1994 18:39:28 -0700 (PDT)
From: Stephen Russell Bliss <sbliss@flute.aix.calpoly.edu>
Subject: A modified RIMS system
As a new member of HBD I have been spending *a lot* of time digging
through the archives and the docs on various RIMS setups.
I think I may have come up with a better (different at least) way to
raise the temperature of the mash. My idea is this -- First make an
immersion heating coil of copper tubing (just like an immersion cooler).
And then use the controls, pump, and electric heating element/enclosure
of an existing RIMS setup to recirculate heated *WATER* thru the
immersion heating coil placed in the mash tun.
If this works properly it would NOT:
-- Scorch the wort
-- Oxygenate the wort
-- Compact the grain bed
-- Catch on fire, if the mash stuck and the heater went
dry during unattended mashing.
it WOULD:
-- Give good control over mash temperatures.
-- Be easy to adapt to existing mash tuns
including picnic coolers.
Has anybody tried this? Will it work? What do you think?
TIA sbliss@flute.aix.calpoly.edu
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 8 Oct 1994 9:18:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Steve Veillette, WCSU Information Systems" <VEILLETTE@WCSUB.CTSTATEU.EDU>
Subject: Yeast head reference
Dear Good People,
For what it's worth, I have found the reference that I paraphrased
yesterday regarding the benefits of yeast head contact the air.
From "Overview for Designing a Brewery" by Eric Warner, Blue River
Consulting, as it appears in "Brewery Planner" compiled by The Institute
for Brewing Studies, published by Brewers Publications, 1991:
"Harvesting ale yeast or removing the post-kraeusen layer on
the surface of the green beer is easily done with an open
fermenter. In open fermenters ale yeast comes in contact with
the air above the fermenter, making the yeast more virile and
increasing the number of times it can be pitched."
"...Finally, taste tests have shown that beers from open
fermentations are often preferred to the control beers from
closed fermentations."
Perhaps I will try "open" fermentation, i.e. leaving the airlock off of
the carboy, on my next batch. Although I do not repitch, I would be
curious to see the effects (if any) it has on the kraeusen and overall
flavor of the finished beer.
HAHB,
Steve
+-------------------------------+
| Stephen P. Veillette |
| Information Systems | Ya know, I can't remember
| Western CT State University | *not* knowing how to brew.
| VEILLETTE@WCSU.CTSTATEU.EDU |
+-------------------------------+
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 8 Oct 1994 08:22:14 -0700
From: pascal@netcom.com (Richard A Childers)
Subject: Air Filtration - Yet Another Improvement
"Date: Thu, 06 Oct 94 21:05:01 EDT
From: GubGuy@aol.com
Subject: Filtration Summary (again)
< various methods eliminated in interests of brevity >
"3: The "Bubble Jar" method; ..."
"4: And the winning entry, submitted by Christopher Sack:
"The filter for the aquarium pump is very simply a 1" OD x ~6" long glass
or copper tube that is filled with aquarium activated charcoal ..."
"I actually ended up doing was something a little different. I took a small
jar ... Packed some cotton on top of the tubing, put activated charcoal on
top of that, covered with more cotton. The remaining hole ... is 'out'."
This gave me an idea.
See, when filtering air, I think the basic question is :
Is there any possible path by which particle A can enter
closed system B by entry point C, exit by exit point D,
and never, ever encounter airborne contaminant counter-
measure(s) E ( F, G, H, etc ) ?
It's a tough question. And when you look at each of the components - water
with or without sanitizing agents ... cotton ... activated charcoal - it
still seems, to me, that there are possible paths for the contaminating
particles.
- In the water, many airborne particles could be contained in a bubble,
and never touch the liquid sides of the bubble during its entire passage,
from bottom, to top, of liquid.
- I'm unclear as to the efficacy of wadded, closely-packed natural fibers
as a filter of airborne pathogens. On the other hand, maybe I'm just
being over-cautious, here. But I'm not convinced there are no possible
paths for pathogens through cotton.
- The same issues pertain to closely-packed grains of activated charcoal.
Aquarium charcoal has never struck me as being very fine ... it is coarse,
and rather granular. It is far worse than cotton. And, in any case, the
charcoal needs to be wet, to work ...
But, there's nothing to stop one from grinding the charcoal finer, and, of
course, the wetting agent could also contain hydrogen peroxide ... and it
would make sense to use some cotton, on top and on bottom ... and maybe a
airstone to generate finer bubbles, to address that first issue.
( Aquariums stores sell bubble tubing, which one could coil up in the bottom
of one's filtering jar, so that when bubbles were emitted, they were evenly
distributed across the entire filtering medium ... it's like an airstone,
but elongated to several inches or feet, and flexible. It can be used to
create a 'curtain' of very fine bubbles across the back of an aquarium. )
Also, I suspect wet cotton would expand and become somewhat more filtering.
One might wish to use foam pads in place of cotton ...
Anyhow, some thoughts which I trust will prove useful.
( By the way, does anyone know what the difference is between 'activated'
and 'unactivated' charcoal, besides the price ? I mean, what we're talking
about here is nothing more or less than a filter made out of wetted carbon
particles ... gardening-grade charcoal works in my aquariums, just fine,
and it don't cost $8.00 a box, neither. )-:
- -- richard
"I gathered I wasn't very well liked. Somehow, the feeling pleased me."
_Nine Princes In Amber_, by Roger Zelazny
richard childers san francisco, california pascal@netcom.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 8 Oct 1994 08:23:23 +48000
From: Domenick Venezia <venezia@zgi.com>
Subject: specialty malts
I don't remember who asked the original questions but the answers from
Willits by way of Flatters are a bit misleading. I will lend my
voice to the inevitable cacophony as I haven't participated in a good
cacophony in weeks! Ah ... it brings back fond memories of fine
cacophonies past, but that's another story ...
>From: Willits <willits@camelot.Stanford.EDU>
>From: Neil Flatter
>
>>I have read in different places that munich and vienna malts are
>>crystal malts and also that they need to be mashed. It was my
>>understanding that crystal malts do not need to be mashed. Is
>>this correct?
>
> Willits/Flatter answer
>
>No, not from what I have seen. Crystal has a low enzyme level, meaning
>it needs to be mashed w/ something else w/ a more enzymes. [I use a
>2-row, 6-row, Carapils (Dextrin), etc.] Munich and vienna are high in
>enzyme levels and do not need additional grains to supply necessary
>enzymes.
Crystal has no enzyme level. It is fully modified (converted) in the
husk and then kiln dried creating a little crystal of malt sugar. It
does NOT need to be mashed. However, some people include it in the
mash, others add it just before mashout or sparge, and still others
steep it in the sparge water. The issue with mashing crystal is NOT
conversion of starch to sugar (there is no starch left) it is ease
of process and possible breakdown of dextrins during the mash, and
hence loss of some of the crystal character and contribution.
>>Does dextrin malt need to be mashed?
>
> Willits/Flatter answer
>
>Yes, but it might only be a one-step infusion mash. [Read as: put the
>grains in, bring water to boil, remove grains.]
This of course is NOT a "one-step infusion mash". It is a steep, a tea
if you will, and will NOT convert the dextrin malt. Dextrin malt
(carapils) do NOT have the diastatic power to convert themselves and
they need to be mashed with something that does.
>>I have read that crystal malts can break down at mash
>>temperatures. Is it a good idea to put them in just before the mashout?
>
> Willits/Flatter answer
>
>Again, I put them in at the start of the mash because they do not
>contain the needed enzymes to convert the protein to sugars.
Again, crystal malts do NOT need to be mashed (see above). We can only
hope that "convert the protein to sugars" is a brain fart.
Domenick Venezia
ZymoGenetics, Inc.
Seattle, WA
venezia@zgi.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 8 Oct 1994 08:48:50 +48000
From: Domenick Venezia <venezia@zgi.com>
Subject: Chlorine
- ------------------------------
>Date: Fri, 07 Oct 94 09:20:32 EST
>From: dweller@GVSU.EDU (RONALD DWELLE)
and taste. This is after it's all done & bottled. I assume there
can't be chlorine in the batch, since the yeasties worked fine
during ferment and in making a nice carbonation in the bottle.
Not true. It takes much more chlorine to kill yeast than to kill
bacteria. You can brew with chlorinated tap water with no preboil
with no problem.
This was a full-mash pale ale, and the only peculiarity I can
identify is that I let the mash-out at the end go too high
(answering a phone call), and I actually got some (not
much--localized I think) boiling during mash out.
Tannins (phenols) extraction from the grain husks perhaps.
My wife says our soft city water has had more chlorine in it
lately (her sniffer is much better than mine), but I called the
city water dept and they said the only change recently is
something they've been adding to the water to treat lead pipes
You believed the City Water Department over your own wife's nose?!
Shame on you. Don't you know that government agencies at all levels
lie by knee-jerk reaction. I believe your wife's nose. They upped the
chlorine levels for the hot summer months.
You don't say whether you preboiled your mash and sparge water, but I
assume you did not. My guess is that the first batch had a double
whammy with boiling extracting phenols (tannins) from the husks and
combined with the extra chlorine courtesy of the Water Department you
got a yield on the sythesis of chlorophenols that smell a lot like
band-aids (tm).
The second batch is more muted because you didn't boil the mash.
Seattle has VERY soft water too. I turned up my water heater (it also
helps keep the basement library warm) very high (no children), and I
run 8-9 gallons of this VERY hot water into my brew kettle the night
before a brewing session and I let it sit UNCOVERED overnight to outgas
chlorine and oxygen. Seems to work. The alternative is a charcoal
filtration system. Try running 9 gallons through a Brita water filter!
Good luck.
Domenick Venezia
ZymoGenetics, Inc.
Seattle, WA
venezia@zgi.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 8 Oct 1994 09:04:58 +48000
From: Domenick Venezia <venezia@zgi.com>
Subject: City's ozone water treatment
When it rains it pours ...
In response to recent water problems in the midwest and east coast The
Seattle City Water Department has decided to switch to or add ozone
treatments to the city water supply starting soon. What is this going
to do to my brewing water? I currently let my hot tap brewing water
stand uncovered overnight to outgas chlorine and air. Will this be
sufficient for the ozone treatments.
Any Seattlites out there that know more about the local situation
please contact me. Thanks.
Domenick Venezia
ZymoGenetics, Inc. Ed (Sig-Typo) Hitchcock - Meet mt two dogs?
Seattle, WA
venezia@zgi.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 08 Oct 1994 10:15:41 -0600 (MDT)
From: COYOTE <SLK6P@cc.usu.edu>
Subject: Carboy Handle Summary/ Corrections
I'm not going to name names, cuz everyone knows who they are.
And if you don't know who you are, please report to your local
alzheimers treatment center and tell them you brew with aluminum :)
Here's the unskinny bop on those orange handled carboy handles, use
for the 5 galwater jug carboys, and 6.5/7 gal acid bottles (how BIG are they?)
For those who don't know: The handles are made of FAT wire in two pieces.
They are bent to wrap around the neck of the carboy, and the other is shaped
for a handle. THey connect via a bolt and wing nut. Orange plastic covers
the wires- for you brewing safety and comfort.
>From all I've heard it IS safe to use these for carrying full carboys.
BUT...that doesn't mean you can't have problems. Watch for stress lines
(those little bags under your eyes from worrying too much aka not enuf HB!)
around the neck. DO NOT tighten the nut down real hard. It shouldn't sqeeze
the bottle, but should hold it snug. You can still manage to bang the carboy
or balance it precariously on a table ledge while racking...etc...etc.
But- it seems that they are commonly used for transport.
Thing is the neck-ring needs to sit at the point on the neck where the
curve of the bottle ends. NOT below the threads of the acid bottle top!
MODIFICATION: to make a handle fit a 7g acid bottle.
1. The wire which wraps around the neck needs to be adjusted.
What I did (and it worked...so I'll patent it with ACME) is to slightly
straighten the loopy part (neck wrap) and also the eye-hole for the bolts.
What this leads to is a nice snug fit around the bottle neck, but...
2. The bolt needs to be lengthened by about a 1/2". Since bolts
are cheap I opted to buy a new one which was already longer. Stretching
bolts is a tiresome project. The original bolt is 2" and the minimum for
the new one is 2 1/2" 3" would work ok too. I think it's 1/4" threads.
3. Part of what this does it to all alot more slippage space for the
handle part to slide back and forth on the bolt, so you can cut some small
pieces of tubing to slide on the bolt and serve as spacers to hold it snug
in place. I found this also allows you (with a little fiddling/cutting)
to tighten the nut down snug w/o it squeezing on the bottle neck. I'd even
suggest adding some for use with a 5 gallons bottle.
I used some reinforced gas line tubing- since it's pretty firm and thick.
I ended up with three pieces. One inside the two eyelets of the handle
(very small, 1/8 in?) and one on either side (about 1/4").
I still am going to make efforts to support the carboy from below while
transporting downstairs. But it seems pretty sturdy. You need to try to
match the curve of the bottle neck with the curve of the wire.
Nice-even support. No pinpoint-stress points! Do not tear up the plastic
in the process cuz you don't want metal on metal.
FWIW: the handles seem reasonable prices at $4.50, but it is only a couple
pieces of wire, and a bolt, and I had to replace the bolt (gee. .10 more!).
But- hey, someones got a patent on them. I'm surprised they haven't come
out with the 7g model yet- those bottles are pretty popular!
***
And I've been requested to state that it was NOT in zymurgy, but in BT that
that article on the air bubble gadget appeared, so zymurgy is not publishing
faulty info/products. Well at least not in THAT article! So now our resident
technical editors should be put to at ease!
But really...I don't mean to slam zymurgy. I've been quite entertained
looking over my special issue for the last week.
Particularly liked the Scotch Heather ale article. The part about discovering
whiskey by warming a pot of brew, and drinking from a vessel which collected
drops off the ceiling of the cave. Who would'a ever guessed! Warm & cool!
***
Neil Flatter didn't flatter himself by saying:
I put them in at the start of the mash because they do not contain
the needed enzymes to convert the protein to sugars.
* Well, uh er....there may be some proteins which are saccharified and
have sugar moeities attached, but thats not where we obtain our brewing
sugars. Starches are converted to sugars. Some protiens are broken down
to amino acids (serve as nutrients) while others serve as body and head
retention agents. I think I had a couple other problems with your
conclusions, but I wasn't in the editor so I'll leave it to others.
Brew on ye' brethren of bee barley and vine-
\-/-\ John (The Coyote) Wyllie SLK6P@cc.usu.edu \-/-\
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 08 Oct 94 18:33:32 EDT
From: uswlsrap@ibmmail.COM
Subject: Madison Homebrewers November Classic UPDATE
- -------------------- Mail Item Text Follows ------------------
To: I1010141--IBMMAIL
From: Bob Paolino
Research Analyst
Subject: Madison Homebrewers November Classic UPDATE
To potential entrants and judges who requested rules and entry forms, my
apologies for the delay in sending them. There was, however, a good reason:
WE NOW HAVE A NEW SITE AND TIME FOR THE COMPETITION!
Traditionally, our competitions have been evening events at UW Memorial
Union. Madison will have a brewpub opening this fall, and we have
arranged to have the competition there during its opening week!!!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 1995. Judging starts at 12 noon at the
GREAT DANE BREWING COMPANY, 123 East Doty, downtown Madison.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judges should arrive by 11am if they want lunch.
Day of event entries will not be accepted unless they have been preregistered
at least a week in advance, as described in the rules (send the paperwork
in advance to allow us to enter data and assign entry numbers and bring the
beer to the site by 11am). Separate deadlines for shipped and hand-delivered
entries are detailed in the rules. DO NOT SHIP entries to the brewpub.
See rules for details.
Send your snailmail address for rules and entry forms. Requests to me
at uswlsrap@ibmmail.com or to:
November Classic, AHA Sanctioned Competition
Madison Homebrewers and Tasters Guild
P.O. Box 1365 / Madison, WI 53701-1365
This is also a call for judges; many palates make light work.
Come judge, meet a friendly bunch of homebrewers, and check out a new brewpub.
We'll get judging done in time for Saturday evening festivities at the pub!
Bob Paolino
Disoriented in Badgerspace
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 08 Oct 94 19:46:34 EDT
From: BrewerLee@aol.com
Subject: Submission
Ken Schroeder wrote about "A Suggestion for AHA Competitions":
> How about it AHA: require a self addressed stamped envelope from the
> entrants and require that the judging sheets be copied and mailed
> back in that envelope by the competition organizers?
Simply put.... no way. I used to think this was a good idea until
I spoke with Alberta Rager about a competition I'm organizing. The
entrants pay their entry fee (I assume there is one for these club
competitions) and expect prompt and accurate judging replys. The
money goes to something. The AHA should be bound to the same rules
as they hold regular contest organizers to. People shouldn't have to
their name, address and stamp on yet another sheet of paper.
<stepping off my soapbox> :)
-Lee Bussy
brewerlee@aol.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 8 Oct 1994 19:43:48 -0700
From: especkma@halcyon.com (Erik Speckman)
Subject: Re: Specialty Malts.
Neil Flatter wrote a confusingly formatted reply to someone in #1547 which
I think contains some false information about certian specialty grains. I
have inserted extra '>'s to try distinguish Mr. Flatter's reply from what I
think is the original post.
>
>> 1. Are caramunich and caravienna the same as munich and vienna
>>malts?
>I would use them interchangeably. Then again, I probably would use any
>one of the four for the other. They are sold by the same vendor as
>different, but I haven't seen how they differ.
Munich and Vienna are both high kilned malts, with munich being the darker
of the two. They are in many ways similar to pale malts. The main
difference is that they are kilned at higher temperatures, as a result they
are lower in diastic power than most pale malts and should not be used to
convert non-malt adjuncts.
Caramunich and caravienna are both "crystal malts" they are malted and
then raised to conversion temperature for a period of time before drying.
They will all add color to beer but using these four grains interchangeably
will certianly result in different beers. At the very least the colors
will be different, and the flavor profiles are also likely to differ.
>> 2. I have read in different places that munich and vienna malts are
>>crystal malts and also that they need to be mashed. It was my
>>understanding that crystal malts do not need to be mashed. Is this
>>correct?
>
>No, not from what I have seen. Crystal has a low enzyme level, meaning
>it needs to be mashed w/ something else w/ a more enzymes. [I use a
>2-row, 6-row, Carapils (Dextrin), etc.] Munich and vienna are high in
>enzyme levels and do not need additional grains to supply necessary
>enzymes.
Crystal malt is efectively mashed in the husk before being dried. That
means, while it lacks enzymes when it reaches the brewer, it already has
undergone conversion and so doesn't need to be mashed, just infused.
Munich and vienna are high-kiled malts. They are like pale 2-row or pale
6-row except they have been dried at higher temperatures. As a result they
are more carmelized and darker and they have lower enzyme levels, but they
still have enough enzymes to convert their own starch unless you are
reckless with your mash conditions.
Carapils (dextrin) has no appreciable diastic enzyme activity. Some
sources suggest that it should be mashed with a enzyme rich malt but it is
essentially a crystal malt that has been kilned at low temperatures to
avoid browning.
>> 3. Does dextrin malt need to be mashed?
>
>Yes, but it might only be a one-step infusion mash. [Read as: put the
>grains in, bring water to boil, remove grains.]
I wouldn't call this a mash, I would call this an infusion, like making
tea. It only sits at conversion temperature for a brief time.
>> 4. I have read that crystal malts can break down at mash
>>temperatures. Is it a good idea to put them in just before the mashout?
>
>Again, I put them in at the start of the mash because they do not contain
>the needed enzymes to convert the protein to sugars.
As I said before, crystal malts lack active enzymes but they don't need
them because they have already been mashed before kilning. ( I assume the
comment about converting protein to sugars was just a mental lapse, mashing
converts starch,a large sugar polymer, into simpler sugars).
______________________________________________________________________
Erik A. Speckman Seattle, Washington Good Brain Doesn't Suck
especkma@reed.edu especkma@halcyon.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 9 Oct 94 02:35:00 UTC
From: m.trageser@genie.geis.com
Subject: Something from England?
Howdy Folks,
I'm a relatively new brewer, (7 batches). I have enjoyed reading the
digest and have certainly learned a great deal. ---Thanks!!
I have an aquaintance who is visiting merry old England next week, leaves
Wednesday, and thought I might ask him to pick up a thing or two at
a British brew shop. Trouble is, I don't know what would be unique, or
of special interest. I thought maybe some hops from the region. Any
suggestions? Thanks to all.
- -----To Brew, or Not to Brew, THERE IS NO QUESTION!
Mickey Trageser, Eldersburg, Maryland (m.trageser@genie.geis.com)
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 9 Oct 1994 13:34:07 --300
From: gilad@orbotech.co.il (Gilad Barak)
Subject: Boots' (U.K) plastic kegs
Hi there,
First post on the HBD after about two months of browsing only.
I live in Israel and brewing information is hard to come by so thew HBD is a
great source for me. I have the same problems concerning availability of
brewing equipment and ingredients.
A friend is now in the U.K and he sent me a catalog of homebrewing equipment
sold by a department store called Boots.
They have a plastic pressure keg for storing and dispensing beer. This friend
understands nothing in beer and the catalog does not supply much information.
>From his description it is about 30-40 Liters and made of plastic. It costs
about 25 Sterling Pounds.
He could not tell me if any aditional equipment should be bought to make it
suitable for dispensing beer.
Does anyone know this product? What do I have to buy in addition to the keg?
Thank you for any information
Gilad Barak
gilad@orbotech.co.il
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 9 Oct 94 08:32 CDT
From: arf@genesis.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling)
Subject: Rollermills....
>From: Ed Hitchcock <ehitchcock@sparc.uccb.ns.ca>
> For roller mill spacing, George Fix wrote an article in the fall
1994 issue of Zymurgy that covers spacing.
George's article provided good technical background on crush analysis and the
effects of a "bad" crush but wisely left avoided dogmatic statements on
"ideal" spacing. It is my experience on several thousand mills both fixed
and adjustable, that .045" provides an excellent crush on every malt out
there. It mashes efficiently, flows well and runs clear. It is a fairly
course crush but not so course to effect proper wetting in the mash tun. The
only direction one might want to go is to a finer crush but I have yet to
come up with a good reason to do so on homebrew sized batches. I have never
been able to measure any improvement in extract by using a finer crush on 10
gallon batches.
After all is said and done, most users weigh all the grains out into one
bucket and mill them together. This, of course means that adjusting the mill
for different grains is waived in favor of simplicity.
> As for knurling, I'm sure Jack would be delighted to give you the history
as to why he switched from longitudinal to diamond knurling.
The linear knurling was used because it was similar to the groves on the
surplus rollers I used for the first 40 mills. When we designed our own
roller, it seemed prudent to stick with what worked. We can thank Dan
Listerman for the new and far more efficient knurl on the current MALTMILL.
The first thing I noted on the Philmill I bought for evaluation was the use
of a diamond knurl and pondered whether this could be the cure to the
occasional feeding problem reported by customers. The problem only occurred
on fixed mills because the adjustable could always be adjusted to find a
setting that would feed properly.
I made up a few prototypes but opted for a much coarser knurl than the
Philmil uses and never looked back. The rollers feed efficiently at much
closer spacing and without the need for gears or any active drive to the
passive roller. I suspect that the Philmil could be improved by a coarser
knurl but I am sure he has the same "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"
attitude. I am not sure why Glatt has gone back and forth between the two
but having rollers even smaller in diameter (1.25") is a self-inflicted wound
that makes feeding far more difficult in the first place and is no doubt one
of the reasons for the mandatory but infamout plastic gears.
> He will also expalain why it is cheaper to buy one of his, and if you're
in the states I think he's right.
Well, the fact is I still can't compete with someone who has a machine shop
in the basement and considers it a labor of love. One can build a mill for
$10 if really pressed but selling it at a profit is a different ball game.
>From: npyle@hp7013.ecae.StorTek.COM
>Are you saying your options are a "straight knurl" or a "diamond knurl"? I
know what diamond knurling is, but I don't understand straight knurling.
That is sort of a generic term for rolling a pattern on cylinders. This can
be anything from screw threads to straight lines and diamond patterns. It
takes massive amounts of pressure and most people run out of gas because they
can not do a proper job, on a large roller, in even a large industrial lathe.
We send our rollers to a company that does nothing else but roll.
Unfortunately, getting them there and back again adds to the cost but that is
the price of quality.
js
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 09 Oct 1994 20:53:08 -0600 (CST)
From: "Ginger Wotring, Pharm/Phys" <WOTRING@SLUVCA.SLU.EDU>
Subject: Happy Holidays reminder
The St Louis Brews are pleased to announce the return of our Happy Holidays
Homebrew Competition! This is an AHA sanctioned event, using the standards
and categories provided by the AHA, with the addition of one special beer
style, Christmas Brau. This is a winter warmer/kitchen sink type beer, with
OG > 1.060, >3 malts, >4 hops, at least one adjunct. The Happy Holidays
Homebrew Competition is also part of the Midwest Homebrewer of the Year
challenge.
Entries are due by 5pm 29 Nov. Judging will be held on the afternoon of
10 December, with a banquet and award ceremony following.
We welcome all entries, and urge everyone interested to come judge with
us! Please pass this information along to other brewers who may be
interested. If you will be visiting us, let me know. We will
have some places to stay available.
- --
Ginger Wotring, HHHC coordinator
internet: wotring@sluvca.slu.edu
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1548, 10/10/94
*************************************
-------
