Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #1648
This file received at Hops.Stanford.EDU 1995/02/03 PST
HOMEBREW Digest #1648 Fri 03 February 1995
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor
Contents:
Summary of helpful hints ("Andy....pbx 5152")
Infrared NOT!!! ("Harralson, Kirk")
Re: Motorizing Grain Mills (Dion Hollenbeck)
hokey blue glow.... (Dan Kerl)
Cleanliness (ESMPD)" <gcunning@Census.GOV>
RE:Jockey box/dishwasher/PLASTIC SMELL/TX brew/leaky chiller/UVL (usfmchql)
dishwasher / "stuck" fermentation (Bob Paolino Research Analyst)
Orange and purple colors (Pierre Jelenc)
Good chiller connections. (Mark Kempisty - 957-8365)
Raspberry imperial stout (JUKNALIS)
Re: Cask conditioning (Tel +44 784 443167)
Hops Questions (npyle) <npyle@hp7013.ecae.StorTek.COM>
Malt extracts ("Brian Shewchuk")
Control Theory (npyle) <npyle@hp7013.ecae.StorTek.COM>
suscribe homebrew digest (Ray LeBlanc)
DC BREWING COMPANY ("CHICAGO 708-606-4019.................SKY #5707909, ...CDPD FIELD EXTRAORDINAIRE")
RE:Halogens vs Stainless Steel... (Patrick G. Babcock)
orange peel , Kirk has seen the light (Jay Weissler)
IBU's revisited (Ed Hitchcock)
Re: Infrared light (UV light) (00bkpickeril)
sparging the grain bag/honeymoon?/carbonation/Laaglander DME (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583)
Jim Koch: whada nice guy (Paul Baker)
ffts (ANDY WALSH)
Good Canadian Stuff, Eh? (Lori Lathrop)
******************************************************************
* 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.
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
ARCHIVES:
An archive of previous issues of this digest, as well as other beer
related information can be accessed via anonymous ftp at
ftp.stanford.edu. Use ftp to log in as anonymous and give your full
e-mail address as the password, look under the directory
/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer directory. AFS users can find it under
/afs/ir.stanford.edu/ftp/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer. If you do not have
ftp capability you may access the files via e-mail using the ftpmail
service at gatekeeper.dec.com. For information about this service,
send an e-mail message to ftpmail@gatekeeper.dec.com with the word
"help" (without the quotes) in the body of the message.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 1995 09:50:39 EST
From: "Andy....pbx 5152" <copea@kenyon.edu>
Subject: Summary of helpful hints
Hello,
First of all, thank you to all that wrote to help me with a fermentation
that seemed to be stalled. I promised to write a summary so that other
novice homebrewers might benefit and here it is.
To recap: I had my second batch that did not seem to be showing any
activity in the airlock and wondered what was wrong.
Most of the responses told me that these things could have happened.
- I pitched the yeast when the wort was a bit too cool. This won't kill
the yeast but will slow down the initial process. Look for an ale
yeast like EDME to be pitched at 70-75 degrees F. Moving the fermentor
to a warmer area should help if the initial temp was too low.
- I did not re-hydrate the yeast. This is perhaps the most significant
of the responses I received. The simplest way seemed to be to heat
3-4 oz. of water to 100 deg and then add the yeast and allow it to
hydrate for about 15-20 minutes. Then add it to the wort. This should
get the yeast going in advance and will also reveal if the yeast has
gone bad, as no activity will occur. People also mentioned making
yeast starters using the actual wort, but that's a bit more complicated
and I'm not sure I could do it justice here.
- Aerating the cooled wort was also a suggestion. Siphoning to another
container should add some oxygen to the wort before the yeast is added.
I was told not to do this while the wort is warm as this may cause the
"wet cardboard" taste to make an appearance.
- It was also likely that my plastic fermentor might not be airtight
and the lack of bubbling in the lock doesn't mean that nothing is happening.
This is of course one of the drawbacks of plastic bins, you can't see what's
going on in there very easily. However, taking a final hydrometer reading
and checking to see if it's roughly 25% lower than the initial reading
(oops, 25% of the initial reading I mean..) then the brew may in fact be
done.
That was the bulk of the advice I received. I took a final hydrometer
reading last night and sure enough, it was done. I tasted a bit, and it
was terrific. So I primed and bottled and all looks to be in order.
The edme yeast may have worked while I wasn't looking and the gas might
have escaped in other ways besides the airlock. So to all novice brewers,
I hope this might help. If you want more details, send me a private
e-mail, cause I learned quite a bit.
Sincere thanks go out to Steve Shultz, Lee Bussy, Dave Harsh, Clark
Isachsen, John Stolar, John Decarlo, Sean MacLennan, Tom Parent,
The Sheckinator, Mike Koscal, Guy Garnett, Eamon McKernan, PWM2,
Bob Ledden, Terry McGravey, and any others who I might have forgotten.
I read every post, so if I didn't mention your name, I still read
your advice.
Thanks again and sorry for the long post.
Andrew
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 95 09:57:04 EST
From: "Harralson, Kirk" <kwh@roadnet.ups.com>
Subject: Infrared NOT!!!
Let me be the first to flame myself -- I meant to say ULTRAVIOLET, not
infrared light was being used to sanitize water at the fill-your-own
dispenser. I apologize for being careless. Next time, I guess I
won't be so quick to delete that cancel string message the listserver
sends me.
A few people have responded privately that UV light is an excellent
way to sanitize water, and is used widely in some industries.
Kirk Harralson
Bel Air, Maryland
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 95 07:28:41 PST
From: hollen@megatek.com (Dion Hollenbeck)
Subject: Re: Motorizing Grain Mills
>>>>> "Manning" == Manning Martin MP <manning_martin_mp@mcst.ae.ge.com> writes:
Manning> My Glatt mill is now powered by a 30 in-lb gear motor that
Manning> turns at 156 RPM. Power transfer from the gear motor PTO to
Manning> the mill is through a split coupling. A direct drive
Manning> arrangement such as this is very compact, and avoids the
Manning> hazard of a belt and pulleys.
Very clever, but extremely dangerous to your mill. The first time you
encounter a small rock that jams your rollers, you're gonna strip
those gears right off the shaft. In a conversation with Greg Glatt he
*strongly* recommends some sort of clutch, definitely *not* direct
drive. When you use pulleys and a V belt and use the weight of the
motor as the only thing giving enough friction on the V belt to keep
it moving, then as soon as the driven pulley stops, the driving pulley
immediately starts to hop and spin on the V belt.
If you have a problem with belt and pulley safety, either just don't
stick your fingers in there or spend $10 for a sheet of aluminum and
make a cover for the drive mechanism.
dion
- --
Dion Hollenbeck (619)675-4000x2814 Email: hollen@megatek.com
Staff Software Engineer Megatek Corporation, San Diego, California
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 95 9:26:15 CST
From: dlkerl@cmack.b11.ingr.com (Dan Kerl)
Subject: hokey blue glow....
>
> Date: Tue, 31 Jan 95 11:04:21 EST
> From: "Harralson, Kirk" <kwh@roadnet.ups.com>
> Subject: Leaky chiller, infrared light
Kirk said
<material deleted...>
>
> A local grocery store has one of those fill-your-own-bottle super pure
> water dispenser. I noticed a purplish glow near the dispenser that
> turned out to be coming from an infrared light that is turned on and
> surrounds the water when pouring. I asked about this, and was told it
> was for sanitary purposes. I don't have a clue what the connection
> could be. It looked really hoky, but it isn't exactly my field of
> expertise... Has anyone else seen one of these, or could shed some
> light as to what it is for?
This is probably a mercury-vapor lamp, which emits lots of short-wave
ultraviolet light (not infrared). The UV rays kills a percentage of any
bacteria remaining in the water. Also called 'germicidal lamps' these
things also produce ozone (O3, a funky, sweet, slightly nauseating-smelling
gas) from diatomic oxygen (O2) in the surrounding air. They were installed
in clothes dryers a number of years ago.
It's interesting to note that it's UV rays that are responsible for modifying
hop oils to cause 'skunkiness' in beer, so these lamps are probably not
a hot idea for sterilizing wort.
Dan Kerl
dlkerl@ingr.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 1995 10:46:47 -0500 (EST)
From: "Jerry Cunningham (ESMPD)" <gcunning@Census.GOV>
Subject: Cleanliness
Hi all,
Last night I read an article in the Feb. 95 Reader's Digest that might be
of interest to homebrewers. It's called "My Day with Doctor Clean" or
something like that, and it's about this Phd who goes around collecting
nasties (my term) from kithchen counter tops, toilets, etc. and
analyzing/classifying them using a microscope or whatever. There is some
interesting stuff. He says that bacteria can live for up to 5 _weeks_ on
a counter top in very humid environments. For all of you "bathtub
wort-chiller users", he explains the "aerosol effect" - when you flush a
toilet, thousands of tiny water droplets are shot into the air. He says
if you keep your toothbrush within 6 feet of the toilet, you're
"basically brushing with toilet water". (BTW, he says even if you flush
with the lid closed, these nasties get shot out the next time you open it!).
Take this for what it's worth, I'm not a scientist...
Jerry Cunningham
Annapolis, MD
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 1995 10:53:54 EST
From: usfmchql@ibmmail.com
Subject: RE:Jockey box/dishwasher/PLASTIC SMELL/TX brew/leaky chiller/UVL
-=> KBONNEMA asks about using Cu tubing for a jockey box...
I used Cu in mine with no (known) adverse effects. However, most
'professional' units use SS for the coils...
-=> Jonas Hartzler asks about cleaning bottles in a dishwasher...
Detergent-using dishwashers are great for this purpose; liquid-using
dishwashers tend to leave a dish-soap film behind (I don't know if the same
may be said for Jet-Dry compounds???). The high heat of the drying cycle also
serves to sanitize the bottles...
-=> Terry McGravey asks if the plastic smell/flavor of his CO2 hose will be
imparted to his beer...
Not in my experience. I used similar smelly tubing for both gas and beverage,
and never noticed it. If it _worries_ you, try an overnight TSP soak (use the
'degreasing' concentration as noted on the package). Rinse _thoroughly_
afterward! Others have reported good results with overnight sodium bicarbonate
(baking soda) soaks...
-=> Davis G. Hunt asks about brewing lagers in Texas without buying a spare
fridge...
Don't know who to credit for the original post (here, AOL, or *P*), but it
suggested the following:
Get a plastic garbage can just larger and taller than your fermenter and
airlock. Make a styrofoam and fiberglass (insulation) disk for the bottom, and
wrap the sides in fiberglass. Use a *TON* of duct tape so no fiberglass is
exposed. Wrap the lid in a similar fashion (now you have a _HUGE_ cooler). Put
your fermenter in, and fill with H2O (don't let the fermenter float, though!).
Now you can regulate the temperature through the addition of ice or warm
water! (Again: don't allow the fermenter to float! Remove H2O as necessary...)
Haven't tried it, but it seems reasonable to me...
-=> Kirk Harralson wants to fix his leaky chiller. He also asks about 'The
Purple Glow' at the water dispenser...
Get a flaring tool and put a flair in the end of the copper tubing. Force the
hose over it, and clamp. You should find your leak gone...
The 'Purple Glow' you saw was ultraviolet light. You also see it over
instruments in your doctor's, dentist's, and barber's office/shop. I'm not an
expert, but I believe that it keeps bacteria away by killing it, pissing it
off, or something like that. I also believe it is a post-sanitation measure;
not a substitute. The barber probably doesn't (he has the 'purple fluid'), but
the doctor and dentist process their instruments through an autoclave prior to
placing them under the light.
Can't say what effect this would have at the water dispenser, though. In
retailing, it's probably more gimmick than useful... (Just my opinion) ;-)
-=> Quote for the day:
"If we weren't meant to drink it, beer wouldn't be so damned good..." -
Insightful Lush Overheard at the Box Bar, Plymouth, Michigan (Wasn't me!
Honest...)
Pat Babcock
President, Chief Taste-Tester, and Consumer Numero Uno
Drinkur Purdee pico Brewery
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 1995 10:53:59 EST
From: Bob Paolino Research Analyst <uswlsrap@ibmmail.com>
Subject: dishwasher / "stuck" fermentation
Jonas Hartzler asks about sanitising bottles in the dishwasher:
A popular topic, indeed. First keep your stock of bottles CLEAN. I give 'em a
rinse as soon as feasible after emptying, and then I load them in the
dishwasher with the dishes. That takes care of CLEAN. To SANITISE, run a
bottles only load, no detergent, bleach if you want it (but probably
redundant) and run on the heat-dry cycle.
The "detergent" that someone was recommending was probably one of those
solutions that bars use for beer-clean glasses. I haven't used it for
bottles,but it might not be a bad idea. I don't know how well it will work in
the dishwasher--they use automatic brushes in bars to clean glasses. It's
readily available in restaurant supply stores, and even some homebrew stores. I
don't think it's necessary, but it might work well (?)
Philip Hofstrand asks about his stuck fermentation:
Sounds like a combination of different things. First, I think the homebrew
store guy is right on target. Five days in primary for a higher gravity beer is
not enough time with the yeast. You said "visible fermentation" had "slowed"
after 4 days. By "visible," do you mean activity in the airlock or did you
observe the beer itself? I tend to doubt that after only four days and at a
lower temperature that the beer itself would have the appearance of little
fermentation. If you were referring to the airlock, bubbles aren't exactly the
world's most reliable measure, particularly if you're fermenting in plastic
with a not-completely-tight-fitting lid.
1.072 isn't all that high, but it's still "above average" and you need to give
it more time on the yeast. (AT LEAST 7-10 days in primary, particularly at the
lower temperature, is more like it.) If something closer to 1.100 finished
around 1.030 I wouldn't worry much, but 1.072 to 1.030 isn't enough alcohol to
leave your yeast drunk and staggering :-)
Others ought to comment on it, because I don't have the luxury of experience
with fermenting in the 50s(F), but PERHAPS a gradual increase in temperature
for the secondary fermentation (back to the recommended 62F, anyway) might
help. The other thing to consider is a fresh dose of healthy yeast. I had that
question almost a month ago, but that was for a 1.109 wort. My question had
been about how to introduce that yeast and how much, given that you certainly
don't want to aerate fermenting beer, so you need to have a reasonably big
starter. I got a variety of different answers here and by private email. (I
also have a question in to Dave Miller's column in BT that might show up in
print sometime.) I put in about 750-1000 ml (I'd have to check my notes) of
starter after racking to secondary at 1.060 (after almost 2 weeks in primary)
That's not an exceptionally large starter, but it seems to have been
enough--active fermentation did start up again, but I haven't checked gravity
yet, and it's too early to say whether the beer is excellent, or merely good:-)
I don't know that I would endorse the recommendation to go with a higher
temperature with the higher gravity brews. What was suggested to you isn't so
high a temperature and probably wouldn't be okay, but generally speaking you
want to watch out for higher alcohols and other products of warm ferments. If
the yeast you're using is designed to work a little cooler, give it the time to
work; don't ferment too warm if you can avoid it (some of us can't for lack of
easy temperature control,and we use yeasts better suited for those conditions).
Yes, the Laaglander is notorious for the reasons you mention. I don't use it
anymore, because some of those "unfermentables," I speculate, eventually do
partially ferment and have left some of my beers overcarbonated over time.
(BTW, for the time I've used it, I did because it was the only "extra light"
DME I could find. More recently, I found a new(?) M&F extra-light--can anyone
comment on that product?)
Yes, a longer time in primary would have been the way to go, but what to do
about what you have now? I'd go with some more yeast if the SG hasn't fallen
significantly in secondary. Laaglander or not, it's not ready to bottle at
1.030. See what other advice you get, but that's my thirty-two cents' worth.
Now go have a beer,
Bob Paolino / Disoriented in Badgerspace /uswlsrap@ibmmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 95 11:08:07 EST
From: Pierre Jelenc <pcj1@columbia.edu>
Subject: Orange and purple colors
In HBD #1646 hollen@megatek.com (Dion Hollenbeck) says:
> In talking with a representative of EcoLab who makes sanitizers, he
> mentioned that neither iodophor nor quatenary sanitizers can be
> evaluated for their effectiveness based on the color of the solution.
Quaternary ammonium salts are essentially colorless, so of course color
means nothing in their case; and I have never read anyone claim the
contrary, either. However, in the case of iodophors the iodine _is_
colored, and _is_ the active ingredient, so that as long as the solution
still has the original hue, it is fully active. Your salesman is either
full of hot air or is trying to increase consumption.
"Harralson, Kirk" <kwh@roadnet.ups.com> asks:
> A local grocery store has one of those fill-your-own-bottle super pure
> water dispenser.I noticed a purplish glow near the dispenser that turned
> out to be coming from an infrared light that is turned on and surrounds
> the water when pouring.I asked about this, and was told it was for
> sanitary purposes.
That is not IR but UV; it is a germicidal lamp. Very bad for the eyes!
Pierre
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 1995 11:12:39 -0500 (EST)
From: Mark Kempisty - 957-8365 <MKEMPISTY@gic.gi.com>
Subject: Good chiller connections.
In HBD #1646 Kirk Harralson complains of a leaky immersion wort chiller where
it connects to the faucet.
I made one last year out of 0.5 inch O.D. copper tubing, 0.5 inch I.D. vinyl
tubing, hose clamps to fit and a 0.5 inch garden hose coupler repair kit.
The vinyl tubing slips snugly over the copper. I added hose clamps to make
sure it did not leak and would not slip off. The last thing my wife needs to
see me do is hose down the kitchen. It was bad enough when I bumped the trig-
ger on the bottle washer and washed the kitchen ceiling.
As for connecting the tubing to the female garden hose connecter it is a little
more work. This coupler is made to go VERY tightly into 0.5 inch garden hose.
You then are supposed to bend down ten or so steel tabs to hold the hose in
place. To get the vinyl tube to go on the hose coupler, I placed it in boiling
water for 30 seconds. This softened the vinyl enough that I could slide it
over the end of the coupler. When everything cooled, it looked like it would
never come off. However, I added a hose clamp for good measure. The original
tabs just stick out. They get in the way a little when screwing it to the
faucet. However, I can live with that.
To hook it to the faucet I use the same addapter that I use for the bottle
washer. It works perfectly even at full open. No leaks.
Isn't it great to bring boiling wort down to 110 F in 5 to 10 minutes?
Mark - mkempisty@gic.gi.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 1995 11:09:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: JUKNALIS@arserrc.gov
Subject: Raspberry imperial stout
Hey Folks-
Has anyone made the "Breakfast of Champions Imperial Stout Framboise"
found on p. 73 of the 1990 Zymurgy Hops issue? In particular I am
curious about the timing of addition of raspberry/syrup & the use of
11oz of hops in a 5 gallon batch. Yow!
TIA
Joe
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 1995 12:55:51 +0000
From: Brian Gowland <B.Gowland@rhbnc.ac.uk> (Tel +44 784 443167)
Subject: Re: Cask conditioning
In HBD 1642, <ferguson@zendia.enet.dec.com> wrote:
> >
> >Kirk asks:
> >
> ><What is the distinction (for American amateurs) between
> >cask conditioning and priming in the keg? The terms seem
> >to be synonymous as I've seen them used.
>
> [Main answer deleted]
>
> cask-ale _might_ be a bit cloudy, however, this being undesirable,
> lots of english brewers producing cask ales _do_ filter and/or use
> isinglass.
>
I'd be interested to know which English breweries (assuming
you mean commercial breweries) filter their Real Ales (cask-conditioned
ales). If they did, it would have to be a very coarse filtering as, by
definition, cask-conditioned ales undergo a secondary fermantation in
the cask (as you yourself mentioned). Reducing or removing yeast content
would impede or stop any conditioning activity. Isinglass or a similar
fining agent is, to my knowledge, used by most if not all UK breweries
in their cask-conditioned Real Ales. This removes the need to filter
and the fining agent does not impede the conditioning process. Isinglass
in particular is a very useful fining agent as it has the ability to
re-fine the beer if the cask is disturbed (during delivery to a pub for
instance).
In saying that, however, there are two occasions when a UK brewery
would filter their beers. The first is if the beer is destined for keg
storage and dispensing. After primary fermentation and perhaps a short
conditioning period in storage tanks in the brewery, the beer would be
filtered and put into keg for CO2 dispensing. Many breweries keg their
beers as well as supplying them in casks as there are varying preferences
to the two methods in different parts of the country. The second
occasion would be when a special purchase is made from the brewery, often
by a private individual for a social occasion such as a wedding or birthday
party etc. In this case, it may not be possible to allow the beer to settle
for a sufficiently long period of time and so the brewery will provide
conditioned Real Ale that has been filtered and is ready to drink. This is
known as "Bright" beer. It is possible that some UK breweries may supply
Bright ales to pubs for dispensing by hand-pump but these cannot be considered
to be cask-conditioned ales.
As for the issue about cask-conditioned ales possibly being cloudy
and the need for Isinglass, my homebrewing experiences show that this is
rarely the case if the brewer is sufficiently patient. Commercial breweries
need to brew, ferment, cask and deliver ales in maybe as little as two
weeks. Once delivered, the pubs need to serve the beer as quickly as possible
and hence the need for Isinglass etc. In the homebrew environment, after
the primary fermentation, my "Real Ales" go into plastic pressure barrels for
a maturation and conditioning period of a minimum of three weeks before
drinking - I do not prime and I do not fine. At three weeks, I have never
had an ale that was cloudy as a result of yeast/sediment (I suffer from
the occasional protein haze on certain ales but thats another issue).
Anyway, this isn't meant as a criticism - just some views from
an Englishman who rarely drinks anything other than cask-conditioned ales. :)
Cheers,
Brian
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 95 9:38:10 MST
From: Norman Pyle (npyle) <npyle@hp7013.ecae.StorTek.COM>
Subject: Hops Questions
Regarding the hops utilization question from Al Folsom, yes it has been beat
to death, but the bottom line is this: there is no concensus. The Rager
numbers may not be perfect but they give a decent foundation with which to
build on. I use them and make some minor adjustments to them, which seems to
work very well for me. From what I've heard, the people using the Garetz
numbers have been brewing overly hopped beers. His analysis makes logical
sense but the actual values have little practical application.
**
Phil Miller asks about rinsing his hops:
>...................I feel that, by rinsing the hops, I rinsed off
>more hop oils than I desire (recall the hop amounts were not high for my
>standards (never more than 1 oz boiling hops, usually cascade, kent goldings,
>brewer's gold, or fuggles). Also, letting the hops sit in the cooling
>water could also draw extra hop oils from the hops, IMO.
>I realize I changed a lot of variables in my brewing process, but the end
>result has been an excellent wheat beer, pale ale, and brown ale. I feel
>that the biggest differences have been not boiling th specialty grains and
>not rinsing the hops, the latter being the cause, IMO, of my original problem.
>I welcome comments, and if my opinions about rinsing the hops are not
>correct, please correct me. Post or email is fine.
Phil, it is not the hop oils that would give you excess bitterness, but the
alpha acids from the hops. Also, some hops give a more harsh bitterness than
others, Brewer's Gold for example. You might check the type of hops in each
batch to see if this undesirable feature isn't a function of hop type as well
as quantity. Letting them steep in hot wort while it is cooling will give
better utilization of late additions, adding to the final bitterness, but
rinsing them probably has little effect.
Norm (the Hops FAQ guy)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 95 11:46 EST
From: "Brian Shewchuk" <BMS8@PSUVM.PSU.EDU>
Subject: Malt extracts
I have a question regarding malt extracts: Extracts are described by their
color (light, amber, dark etc.). Are these different types achieved by
adding different amounts of different specialty grains to a pale malt base in t
he mash, or by using only one malt, roasted to varying degrees ( I realize that
enzyme activity would have to be maintained somehow)?
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 95 9:50:46 MST
From: Norman Pyle (npyle) <npyle@hp7013.ecae.StorTek.COM>
Subject: Control Theory
Teddy Winstead goes into some detail about control systems, including
"Bang-bang", PD/PID, and AI (artificial intelligence). What you neglected to
mention Teddy is another method called AI (Actual Intelligence). A little
trial and error gets you to the final result much quicker than you might think
from reading textbooks. Overshoot isn't even the biggest problem with
"bang-bang". Frying the enzymes in the small sample being heated is the
biggest problem area with this type of system. So, using Actual Intelligence,
one would adjust flow rates and heating power to avoid overheating the
recirculating liquid, and this inherently avoids overshoot. Think about it.
I would recommend manual control of these parameters (possibly just one of
them) for a few reasons: it is simple, less-expensive, and keeps you
involved in the brewing process (which I consider a good thing). A side
benefit is of course, you don't have to do all that studying about control
theory!
Cheers,
Norm
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 95 13:27:48 AST
From: rleblanc@hfx.shl.com (Ray LeBlanc)
Subject: suscribe homebrew digest
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 1995 13:06:00 -0500 (EST)
From: "CHICAGO 708-606-4019.................SKY #5707909, ...CDPD FIELD EXTRAORDINAIRE"
Subject: DC BREWING COMPANY
SAW YOUR MESSAGE ON THE BEER PAGE ON INTERNET....THERE IS A GREAT
ONE JUST OUTSIDE D.C. IN GAITHERSBURG MD. CALLED......OLDE TOWNE TAVERN +
BREWING COMPANY.
IT OPENED ABOUT 10 MONTHS AGO AND THERE FIRST BREW WENT ON SALE IN
JUNE.. IT'S QUITE A POPULAR PLACE.
227 E. DIAMOND RD. GAITHERSBURG, MD.
301-948-4200
IN RESPONSE OF MSIITH@MAILZ.LMI.ORG
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 1995 13:24:56 EST
From: Patrick G. Babcock <usfmchql@ibmmail.com>
Subject: RE:Halogens vs Stainless Steel...
*** Resending note of 02/01/95 12:50
* Man's mind, stretched by a new idea, never goes back to its *
* original dimension. - Oliver Wendell Holmes *
Subject: RE:Halogens vs Stainless Steel...
-=> Gunther points out that all halogens attack stainless, so sodium- or
potassium-metabisulfate should be used...
Your point is valid regarding halogens; however, per my sources (and, again,
I'm not an expert), chlorine is particularly reactive with stainless steel. I
don't know exactly where Iodine falls on 'the scale', but it is my
understanding that it is substantially less reactive than chlorine; and
somewhat more reactive than bromine.
It is my opinion that sanitizing solutions of iodine may damage stainless
steel over the life of the product (ie. keg). Sanitizing solutions of chlorine
have been demonstrated to damage (ie. perforate) SS in as little as 24 hours.
The difference between using solutions of bleach and iodophur is sort of like
the difference between standing in front of a pedestrian and a train. Either
way, you're going to get hit; but one of them is more likely to kill you. <G>
Just my opinion.
Another point to consider: Metabisulfites/ates do not sanitize. They only
inhibit growth.
(Gunther: Sorry to blind-side you like this, but I lost your note. Therefor, I
couldn't return the courtesy of an advance copy. Again, I apologize!)
Yes. Me again...
P.G. Babcock
President, etc.
Drinkur Purdee pico Brewery
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 95 12:46:40 -0600
From: jay_weissler@il.us.swissbank.com (Jay Weissler)
Subject: orange peel , Kirk has seen the light
Can anyone give me a pointer to a mail order source for either (or
both) bitter and sweet orange peel?
Also, Kirk Harralson has seen the light in a bottled water machine.
(isn't Rising Sun near Bel Air? Don't they grow a lot of mushrooms up
there? sorry, for the foolishness) Anyway, UV sterilizers (no, not
sanitizers) are used by a lot of people with aquariums to zap all the
unwanted life growing in the tank. I don't use one. I thought the zap
to my wallet was too big and I'm not sure that I don't want all the
life in my tank, but they seem to work.
jayw
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 1995 17:23:39 -0400 (AST)
From: Ed Hitchcock <ehitchcock@sparc.uccb.ns.ca>
Subject: IBU's revisited
I've been pretty darn busy of late, so I'm a little behind in my
response to the IBU thread, but here's my delayed contribution, FWIW.
We are all aware that the utilization rate of alpha acids will
vary from brewery to brewery, especially on the home brewery scale.
Given that, I still find it useful to calculate IBU's using a
mathematical formula, because I'm one of those types of people. In the
discussions on utilization in the past few days' HBD's I didn't notice
any reference to the type of hops, by which I mean whole, compressed
whole (type 100 plugs) or pelletized (Type 90), and in my experience this
is much more significant than many other factors. So on to the numbers.
I use a modified version of the equation in the Hops FAQ as follows:
For whole hops:
%utilization = 18.11 + 13.86 X htan((time-31.32)/18.23) - (5 - y)
For plugs:
%utilization = 18.11 + 13.86 X htan((time-31.32)/18.23) - (3 - y)
For pellets:
%utilization = 18.11 + 13.86 X htan((time+15-31.32)/18.23) + 2
^^^^^
Where htan (pronounced "than") is the hyptan function, and can be
calculated as follows: htan(x) = (e^x - e^(-x)) / (e^x + e^(-x)),
and the variable "y" is a correction for batch size,
such that y = batch volume(in Litres) / 20, (if y > 5 then y = 5).
To justify it so far, it has been noticed that homebrewers tend
not to get the utilization rate that large breweries get, hence the
correction factor for batches less than 1 hL. The corrections at the end
are for differences in maximal utilization for each type of hop. Pellets
will give you the most aa/gram, whole uncompressed hops give the least.
Plugs are a happy medium. Note that if you take your fresh whole hops
and turn them into dust in your coffee maker, your results may look more
like those for pellets. The "time + 15" I borrowed from a friend (thanks
Miles) who noted that late additions of pellets still gave considerable
bitterness. I attribute that to the fact that the lupulin glands are
already well ruptured, so initial rate of dissolution is increased.
The same friend who gave me the + 15 tip also had a number of his
beers tested, and I tweeked the equations above to try to match his
recipes with the measured bu's in the end product. In all cases the
results were within 10%, within 5% in about half, and bang on for two or
three. But of course, your mileage as well as mine may vary.
By this point I'm sure at least half a dozen have already started
composing flames or questions, so I'll continue. Once you have taken the
utilization numbers and plugged them into your favourite function for
determining total IBU's (taking wort gravity into account and all that,
and using the appropriate constants for SI, US or Imperial units...)
you will get an expected value for IBU's. However, there is a tendency
for utilization to go down with increased dosage. This is messy to work
out, since you would have to recalculate all your utilizations all over
again. So, as they used to say in the candy-bar commercial, here comes
the fudge: once you have calculated your IBU's, do the following:
IBU = IBU - .0012 * IBU^2
(where = is the assignment operator, not an equality sign, of course).
With this, there should be little difference in any normal IBU range, but
once you get up over 50 IBU, you will start to notice a drop in achieved
vs expected. Of course, this is a fudge, and will get out of hand if you
get to 150 IBU's or above, but I mean let's be reasonable here...
Hope this helps.
ed
----------------
ehitchcock@sparc.uccb.ns.ca
the Pick & Fossil Picobrewery
brewers of Ed's Paleo Pale Ale and Right Coast IPA
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 1995 16:53:54 -0500 (EST)
From: 00bkpickeril@bsuvc.bsu.edu
Subject: Re: Infrared light (UV light)
Kirk Harralson<kwh@roadnet.ups.com> said:
> The connection on the "water in" side of my immersion chiller is
> A local grocery store has one of those fill-your-own-bottle super pure
> water dispenser. I noticed a purplish glow near the dispenser that
> turned out to be coming from an infrared light that is turned on and
> surrounds the water when pouring. I asked about this, and was told it
> was for sanitary purposes. I don't have a clue what the connection
> could be. It looked really hoky, but it isn't exactly my field of
> expertise... Has anyone else seen one of these, or could shed some
> light as to what it is for?
We have one of those machines here, for reverse osmosis (RO) water. I'd
guess that's what you have, too. The purplish glow is likely from a
ultra-violet light. I think UV is pretty good at killing some nasties,
so it's a good thing.
I really like using RO water for brewing. I just brew extracts and some
partial mashes, and pour (dare I say sparge?) the wort ala CP into 3
gallons of chilled RO water. Be sure to sanitize the jugs before filling
them, of course. At $.25/gallon, it's cheap and has definitely improved
my brews. I'd prob'ly try to use it for all-grain, too, but I don't know
if it would require any ph adjustments. Probably would not have enough
(any) minerals necessary for all-grain brewing, but could perhaps be used
to reduce minerals to desired levels if tap water was too hard. (Besides,
I haven't _done_ all grain yet. :-)
- --Brian Pickerill <00bkpickeril@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu>
------------------------------
Date: 1 Feb 95 14:59:00 -0600
From: korz@iepubj.att.com (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583)
Subject: sparging the grain bag/honeymoon?/carbonation/Laaglander DME
Keith writes:
>Something else you might try is rinsing (sparging) your grain bag and
>putting the rinsate in the wort kettle. If you are simply throwing
>away the grain bag without rinsing it first, you are throwing away a
>lot of fermentables.
Perhaps, but it's better to throw away a .001 than to brew an astringent
beer. You have to watch the pH of the water with which you rinse your
grains whether they are an all-grain mash or just a pound of crystal
malt in your extract batch. I made this mistake myself -- when I switched
to 5 gallon extract batch boils, I steeped my crystal malts in the whole
5-6 gallons. This resulted in a pH (with my water) of about 7.2. When
I realized what I was doing, I started steeping the crystal in only 1 gallon
of water (which resulted in a pH of only 5.3, with my water). Gone was
the astringency that I had in all my pale beers.
************
My cousin is about to get married and he's a fan of good beer. I spent
my honeymoon drinking nothing by Red Stripe and the occasional Guinness
when I ventured out of the compound (Sandals). Do any of you have some
suggestions for honeymoon places that my cousin-in-law-to-be would enjoy,
but that also have some good beer? They are getting married in October,
so it would have to be in a warmer climate (i.e. they are sunbathers as
opposed to snow skiiers). Private email please: korz@iepubj.att.com.
Thanks.
*************
Kevin writes:
>I brewed my first batch of beer recently and it's only _very_ slightly
>carbonated after a week in the bottles. Is it possible that it will develop
>more carbonation with more time? If not are there any possibilities to
>remedy the problem?
>
>The beer is a standard ale recipe which was supposed to produce 5 gallons.
>When I racked it to my secondary I screwed up a bit on the siphoning and
>lost a few quarts. When I bottled it I slightly lowered the amount of
>priming sugar (from 3/4 cup to 5/8 cup) to compensate for the decrease in
>volume. Did I lower the priming level too much?
One week is not that long, especially if the bottles are in a cool place.
3/4 cup is the standard amount for an "American-style" carbonation. If
you want a Belgian-style carbonation, you would use slightly more (like
7/8 cup). For an English-style carbonation, 1/2 cup or even 1/3 cup is
used. Note that these quanitities are all in terms of corn sugar priming.
So, I recommend you wait another week or raise the temperature to about
70F and wait another week. 5/8 cup is not an unreasonable amount of priming
sugar even for all 5 gallons.
*************
Philip writes:
>My OG was 1.072, and at bottling time my brew
>had only reached 1.032 (5.2% ABV, 54% apparent attenuation). Here are
>the relevant details:
> 7 lb Laaglander DME
<other ingredients deleted>
Your problem is the brand of extract. Laaglander is notorious for leaving
a high finishing gravity.
>I discussed
>this with the supply shop where I bought my ingredients, and was told
>that most labs test their yeast strains at around 1.048, and that
>higher gravity worts require higher temperatures (65-70F). Does anyone
>else's experience confirm this?
Absolutely not. Higher gravity wort require more temperature *control* (if
you can arrange it, via refrigeration) because higher gravity worts will
result in more heat produced during fermentation (fermentation is exothermic).
There are plenty of high gravity lagers out there (like Salvator) which are
fermented in the mid-to-upper-40's F.
>They also felt that I didn't allow
>enough contact time with the yeast in the primary: 7-10 days was
>recommended, so that may be a contributing factor.
When the fermentation noticably dies down, you should still give the beer
some time to ferment-out... i.e. you should not bottle the day after the
sudden slowdown in CO2 production, but 7-10 days with a good starter and
a fast yeast like 1007 should be plenty, even at 62F. No, the real reason
for the high FG is the Laaglander. Laaglander is a fine extract, but you
must keep in mind that it will leave a high FG and work that into your
recipe (e.g. use it for sweet stouts, etc.).
Al.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 95 17:02:00 PST
From: Paul Baker <bakerp@amhsgwy.jpl.nasa.gov>
Subject: Jim Koch: whada nice guy
NOTE: <tm> are implied wherever appropriate in the following...
That Jim Koch is such a nice guy. I hardly ever buy any of his
beer and normally others drink what I do buy, but he still sends
me presents. The latest is a nifty desktop calendar with a different
quote or saying for each day. My favorite so far is January 5Th:
Social reformer Lady Astor ended a lengthy temperance speech:
"I would rather commit adultery than drink a glass of beer."
A voice from the crowd bellowed back: "Who wouldn't?"
Mr. Koch also sent me a nice Boston Beer Company t-shirt last year.
I also get quarterly mailings from him that are a combination personal
letter/historical perspective/egotistical advertising. How nice!
Except, I am starting to feel a bit guilty in this almost one-way
relationship.
I am thinking about sending Jim a couple bottles of homebrew and
calling it even.
[On a more serious note]
For my next brew I have decided to make a style that I have not made before.
After
browsing the AHA Style Guidelines that Mark Simpson sent me last week
(thanks Mark) I decided on a Belgian Dubbel. The only problem is after
checking
all my brewing books and searching though back issues of Zymurgy I can't
find a recipe. There is probably one or more in the Belgian Ale Classic
Style book,
but I don't own that one. If some kind sole would please send me a recipe
it would be greatly appreciated. All grain preferred, but I am not extract
conversion
impaired. TIA
Paul
Telos Corp./Jet Propulsion Laboratory
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 95 12:30:07 +1100
From: ANDY WALSH <awalsh@ozemail.com.au>
Subject: ffts
Spencer wrote about Pierre Rajotte recommending forced fermentations
for Belgian ales at the Spirit of Belgium.
He recommends this in "Belgian Ale" too. I often make Belgian
ales but have never tried this, as it is difficult to maintain a mini-fermenter
(bottle) at 25C. I always use fresh priming yeast, but only bottle after
(say) 1-2 weeks primary (20C) followed by 2-4 weeks secondary(15C),
until the beer looks completely still and clear. My reasoning is that even
though the yeast might be pooping out, if you leave it this long you can
be pretty sure all the fermentables will be gone, and the final gravity
will be the same as that from your fft anyway. I have always wondered
why the fft approach is the recommended one, as a long secondary
maturation certainly does nothing to harm the beer.
Am I wrong about this, or is the fft thing just of benefit in being able to
bottle the beer (and hence drink!) at the earliest opportunity?
Andy.
------------------------------
Date: 01 Feb 95 20:31:24 EST
From: Lori Lathrop <76620.456@compuserve.com>
Subject: Good Canadian Stuff, Eh?
Hi. Rusty Iron Dave here on my wife's ID.
While traveling in Canada a couple months ago, I ran across a place in
Calgary called PRAIRIE BREWERS and purchased an extract kit for
"traditional ale" which turned out great. Just perfect for after work and
with dinner.
I lost the paperwork which accompanied it and would like to order some if
someone would be kind enough to refer me to a distributor.
I have also read a few comments here regarding grain mills - is a plan
available for one I could build from old boiler tubes from work?
Thanks in advance.
Iron Dave
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1648, 02/03/95
*************************************
-------
