Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #1779
This file received at Hops.Stanford.EDU 1995/07/12 PDT
HOMEBREW Digest #1779 Wed 12 July 1995
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor
Contents:
Edinburgh 1 (A. J. deLange)
Use of Bad Batch (Chris Strickland)
RE: alcohol=drug=evil (Not!) (Art Steinmetz)
Religion....Blueberry Brew. (Kenneth K Goodrow)
SAFETY-Pressure Vessel Query- T. Tegners HBD #1770 (CHARLIE SCANDRETT)
Water advice (Dave Fletcher)
Questions about specific gravity and extract (Sergio Escorza)
Temperature Control (Eric Marzewski)
Tubes that suck (Joseph.Fleming)
Not the R-word. (Russell Mast)
Alcohol (kpnadai)
Northwestern Extract ("Jim Herter")
Re: Homebrew Entry (Dion Hollenbeck)
Re: Uflecku (sp?) (Dan Roman)
"PAGE DOWN" key (Jay Reeves)
No religion please! (Pete Bronder)
Boiling water to remove bicarbonate - details (Nimbus Couzin)
Filtering Trub (GRMarkel)
Re: Blow-off Bucket: Just Water? (Jay Reeves)
Beer and Babies ("Colgan, Brian P.")
Re: No religion please! (Russell Mast)
Pale Ale Mash, 1056 fruit flavor? (Tim_Fields_at_Relay__Tech__Vienna)
Stuck?/Crushed grain life/rebottling/syrup VS dme/airlock H2O (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583)
******************************************************************
* 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.
******************************************************************
#################################################################
#
# YET ANOTHER NEW FEDERAL REGULATION: if you are UNSUBSCRIBING from the
# digest, please make sure you send your request to the same service
# provider that you sent your subscription request!!! I am now receiving
# many unsubscribe requests that do not match any address on my mailing
# list, and effective immediately I will be silently deleting such
# requests.
#
#################################################################
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@alpha.rollanet.org
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: Mon, 10 Jul 1995 19:39:41 -0500
From: ajdel@interramp.com (A. J. deLange)
Subject: Edinburgh 1
Edinburgh 1
This is the eighth in a series of posts on the formulation
of waters similar to those of famous brewing cities of the world. They
are based on ion concentration profiles given by Dave Draper in
his post in #1704 (10 April 95). See my post "Water Series" (#1763) for
explanatory material (correction: in the Line 3 explanation read 1.8 ml of
1 N sulfuric acid, not 18 ml). Quick reminders: all ion concentrations and
salt quantities are in ppm which is the same as mg/l. The water to
which the salts are added is assumed to be ION FREE (i.e. it is
DISTILLED WATER or REVERSE OSMOSIS WATER).
This profile comes from Westerman and Huige "Fermentation Technology". It
is one of the most difficult profiles we have had to deal with thus far
because it specifies about three times as many mEq of cation as anion.
Noonan, "Scotch Ale" in the chapter on mashing lists a range of ion
concentrations which approximate Edinburg water: calcium 80 - 120 ppm
(Edinburgh 1 calls for 140); magnesium 10 - 25 ppm (Edinburgh 1 call for 60);
sodium 10 - 30 (here 80); sulfate 70 -140 (here 96);
carbonate 120-200 (here 140) and chloride 30 - 60 (here 34) thus the cations in
this profile all substantially excede Nonnan's recommendations while the anions
are all within his range. This further emphasises the imbalance towards the
cation side.
If, nevertheless, we ask for a pH 7 formulation for the Edinburgh 1 profile
with maximum salts and external acid the result is:
Formulation I
n: 810000 Temp: 0.000964 Energy (rms %): 27.789469
Edinburgh 1 Desired Cations: 15.400 Anions: 4.839 mEq/L Ratio: 0.314
ION WT DESIRED REALIZED ERR, % SALTS AMOUNT
Ca 1.00 140.000 71.494 -48.93 NaCl 5.299
Mg 1.00 60.000 39.364 -34.39 Na2CO3.10H2O 312.587
Na 1.00 80.000 60.807 -23.99 CaCL2 46.230
K 1.00 0.000 0.000 0.00 CaSO4.2H2O 84.879
CO3 1.00 140.000 184.859 32.04 CaCO3 87.506
SO4 1.00 96.000 108.981 13.52 MgCL2 4.691
Cl 1.00 34.000 36.238 6.58 MgCO3 93.844
H 1.00 3.674 0.000 -100.00 KCl 0.000
Na2SO4 26.252
MgSO4.7H2O 112.529
H2SO4 0.000
NaHCO3 0.000
HCl 0.000
Carbonic: 0.5956 Bicarbonate: 2.4827 Carbonate: 0.001188 mM
Total Required Hydronium: 3.6738 Sulfuric Hydronium: 0.0000 mEq
Hydrochloric Hydronium: 0.0000 mEq
3.6738 mEq additional hydronium required to maintain pH 7.00
Solubility Products - CaCO3: 8.70E-09 MgCO3: 2.60E-05
Ion Products - CaCO3: 2.12E-09 MgCO3: 1.92E-09
Alkalinity: 2.45 mEq; 122.66 ppm as CaCO3.
Temporary hardness: 6.16 mEq; 307.94 ppm as CaCO3
Permanent hardness: 0.65 mEq; 32.29 ppm as CaCO3
>From this we see that we are shy in all cations while in excess in all
anions. It almost seems abvious from looking at Formulation I that we
could simply add more gypsum but if, for example, we added 10 mg/L more
CaSO4.2H2O the error in calcium would decrease only a little to -47.27%
while the error in sulfate would increase more to 19.33% and the overall
rms % error would increase slightly to 27.867%. Thus, as we would expect
if the algorithm is working correctly, we have the best solution under
the definition of best we have chosen.
In keeping with our recent perception that we can solve difficulties like
this by adjusting the carbonate we set the error weight for crbonate to 0
so that the algorithm looks for a solution without regard to how much or
how little carbonate was used. The result is Formulation II
Formulation II
n: 850488 Temp: 0.000927 Energy (rms %): 0.039167
Edinburgh 1 Desired Cations: 15.400 Anions: 4.839 mEq/L Ratio: 0.314
ION WT DESIRED REALIZED ERR, % SALTS AMOUNT
Ca 1.00 140.000 140.074 0.05 NaCl 14.851
Mg 1.00 60.000 60.022 0.04 Na2CO3.10H2O 327.605
Na 1.00 80.000 80.002 0.00 CaCL2 16.591
K 1.00 0.000 0.000 0.00 CaSO4.2H2O 45.447
CO3 0.00 140.000 380.506 171.79 CaCO3 308.420
SO4 1.00 96.000 95.972 -0.03 MgCL2 17.772
Cl 1.00 34.000 33.974 -0.08 MgCO3 164.499
H 1.00 7.400 0.066 -99.11 KCl 0.000
Na2SO4 55.008
MgSO4.7H2O 81.523
H2SO4 1.666
NaHCO3 13.583
HCl 1.170
Carbonic: 1.2259 Bicarbonate: 5.1103 Carbonate: 0.002446 mM
Total Required Hydronium: 7.4003 Sulfuric Hydronium: 0.0340 mEq
Hydrochloric Hydronium: 0.0321 mEq
7.3343 mEq additional hydronium required to maintain pH 7.00
Solubility Products - CaCO3: 8.70E-09 MgCO3: 2.60E-05
Ion Products - CaCO3: 8.55E-09 MgCO3: 6.04E-09
Alkalinity: 5.05 mEq; 252.47 ppm as CaCO3.
No permanent hardness. Temporary hardness: 11.93 mEq; 596.29 ppm as
CaCO3
We note that a full salt complement is required, that the carbonate goes to
almost thrice what was specified and, as might be expected, a lot (7.4 mEq) of
external acid is required to offset the alkalinity of all the carbonate.
Furthermore
hardness of this formulation is almost 600 ppm compared to the maximum of
350 published by Noonan. We would
think that most brewers would not want to have to use so much external acid and
so recommend saturating with CO2 which should bring the pH of this formulation
to 5.96 at which time total carbonates would be at 2755 ppm. Aeration to the
pH's in the following table gives the values of total carbonate and PaCO2
indicated.
pH CO3,ppm PaCO2, mmHg
6.38 1490 281.5
7.00 386.9 28.3
7.37 148.6 5.3
7.40 136.1 4.5
Thus we are able to obtain close to the desired profile (including carbonate at
about 140 ppm) by synthesis using dissolved CO2 at pH around 7.39. Note
that there
will be minimal precipitation of calcium carbonate to the extent of less than
1 ppm calcium at all the pH's above 6.38. Nevertheless, we do not recommend this
profile. Edinburg 2 is better balanced and is adequately realized with minimum
salts. We will also give Edinburgh 3, a profile which we took from the mid
range of each of Noonan's numbers and think that it is probably the most
reasonable
to use for Scotch ales.
A.J. deLange Numquam in dubio, saepe in errore!
ajdel@interramp.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 1995 20:55:56 -0400
From: cstrick@iu.net (Chris Strickland)
Subject: Use of Bad Batch
I've been reading about folks purposely making bad beer to create a Guiness
clone. Makes me wonder, has anyone tried using beer from a bad batch in a
new batch to see what flavor it adds. Just pouring it in during the last
fifteen minutes of the boil?
- --------------
Chris Strickland
cstrick@iu.net
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 95 22:18:11 EDT
From: (Art Steinmetz)
Subject: RE: alcohol=drug=evil (Not!)
Keith Royster sez:
"The point is, there is a large gap between the perceived pro/con
ratio for alcohol and the actual ratio, and that needs to be
changed."
You're right. One problem is the BATF has criminalized saying anything about
the pros of alcohol. Bert Grant tried to put nutrition labeling on his beer
and look where it got him.
- -- Art
asteinm@pipeline.com
76044,3204@compuserve.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 1995 22:45:28 -0500 (CDT)
From: Kenneth K Goodrow <goodrow@orion.etsu.edu>
Subject: Religion....Blueberry Brew.
Thanks to all of you who have thrown in your two bits on the religion and
brewing issue (I now have a heap of change). Please send any other
messages on this topic to my address and not to the digest out of respect
for those who want to keep religious discussions private. I don't want
to offend anyone, though I do think it is a critical discussion topic
because it has to to with the image of brewing.
Also, I am searching (along with Mr. Royster) for a list for discussion
of the above topics and others similar. If anyone has any input, mail me.
Finally, Blueberry Brew -- I want to make some, have access to a patch of
free blueberries, but have no recipes. I see so many raspberry recipes,
but not blueberry. Let me know what you know. Thanks.
Cheers.
Kenn Goodrow
Brewing in the Bible Belt
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 95 16:37:27 +1000
From: CHARLIE SCANDRETT <merino@ozemail.com.au>
Subject: SAFETY-Pressure Vessel Query- T. Tegners HBD #1770
In HBD1770, Terence asked why a copper pressure vessel had a 1mm wall and a
stainless pressure vessel had a 3mm wall.
Other post has spoken of steam infusion and repairing kegs.
As I've been building a 70 litre test bed for a micro-brewery, Ihave been
looking things up and talking to boilermakers.
PRESSURE VESSELS ARE BOMBS-BE CAREFUL
Copper is less than half the tensile strength of steel of any sort. If the
copper vessel was thinner then it must be rated to a much lower pressure OR it
had a much smaller diameter.
The weakest segment of a pressure vessel is its circumfrential hoop. The force
is called "hoop stress" and the formula is
f=p.D/2.t
where f= hoop stress in megapascals (this is limited by the tensile
strength of the material) , p= pressure in megapascals, D= diameter of cylinder
in mm, and t= thickness of the wall in mm
The maximum hoop stress allowable in a material for a pressure vessel is
usually 1/5 the actual tensile strength, this is a five to one safety factor
because of the danger of explosion and the variability of welds.
example.
For a pressure fermenter rated to a safe working pressure of 50 psi and with a
350mm diameter and made of stainless steel.
The maximum allowable hoop stress would be about 75 MPa for the steel and 50
psi = .345 MPa working pressure. (A meteorology book says Atmospheric pressure
is .103 MPa or 14.7 psi)
75= .345 MPa x 350mm/2.t thus the thickness would be .8 mm of stainless.
This would be about 2.5mm of copper, thus Terrence's copper 1mm vessel should
be about 150mm diameter to be safe to 50psi?
Most beer kegs are about 350mm diameter and 1.5mm thick.
Actually the metric/imperial units can be mixed in this formula so long as
stress/pressure and diameter/thickness are in the same system of units.
I'm building a clear plastic tube inspection line down the side of my
fermenters, at this tiny diameter the tensile strength of plastic is more than
enough for 150 psi !
DANGER
Heating to maleability, or bending sheet steel changes its tensile strength
(corrosion too), it is not a good idea to buy or repair bent or damaged kegs.
Licenced pressure welders use exacting gas purged welding environments, then
sonic test the welds and hydrostatically test the completed vessel. (If it
bursts when full of water, they only get their soxs wet!)
Never make your own pressure cooker, steam is the most dangerous of gases, it
blows your head off AND cooks you! Please use expert advice with pressurised
steam or HBD will need an obituary column!
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 04:04:00 GMT
From: fletch@poohs.com (Dave Fletcher)
Subject: Water advice
Some time back, I asked my local water department for a water analysis, and
did so if for no other reason than I wanted to be able to compare some
numbers. Now that I have the numbers, I haven't the foggiest idea what
they mean to my beers, and I know so little about water chemistry (as it
relates to beer) that I'm not entirely sure what I should be asking the
collective wisdom of the digest, but here goes...
The facts:
I am an extract/partial brewer.
I brew mostly IPA's, but also brew stouts, porters, browns, bitters, etc.
Water:
Carbonates 75mg/l
Phosphates .2mg/l
Sulfates 69mg/l
Sodium 26mg/l
Hardness 75mg/l
Alkalinity 28mg/l
Flouride 1.10mg/l ...this is all I received.
Since I am currently an extract brewer, I understand that the water may not
have as significant an effect on the final product as it would if I were
using it for mashing grains, but is there anything I might do to my water
to make it more "appropriate" for any of the styles I listed above? What
characteristics might be missing from my beers based on the above analysis?
What effect might it have on hops in the boil? Etc., etc., etc.
To put it simply, I would like any advice that might help me improve the
quality of my water so that my beers might be more on target with respect
to expected style guidelines, or maybe my water is suited for a particular
style as is. And too I just want to understand the nature of my water so
that I might be able to better relate to all the "water talk." It's my
weak area, and I want to know more. FAQ's and the sort haven't been too
helpful as they aren't using MY water or MY language! :-) Send E-mail
please.
fletch!
fletch@poohs.com
- ---
* KWQ/2 1.2i *
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 02:00:37 -0700
From: sescorza@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Sergio Escorza)
Subject: Questions about specific gravity and extract
The following is a copy of a message I sent Martin Manning relating his
article in BT vol. 1 No. 3 about specific gravity and extract. Since the
second part of question 2 and question 3 are not directly related to his
article, and may be someone else has beeb wondering about this, I'm sending
a copy to this forum, and see what the "gurus" have to say :-)...
----------------------------
Hi Martin,
I've been reviewing your article in BT vol. 1 No. 3 about specific gravity
and extract, and I came across what, to my limited knowledge, seem like some
inconsistencies. Let me explain (it might take a while) what I've been
doing. For the sake of clarity, I'll divide this in 3 questions:
1) In page 34 of that BT issue, you conclude that sucrose produces a
specific gravity increase of 46.31 points/lb/gal. Nevertheless, if I work my
way finding the percent sucrose by weight in solution, I come with a
different result. Let's see it. If we disolve 1 lb of sucrose in 1 gallon of
water (assuming a water density of 0.9990 Kg/l or 8.338 lb/gal at 60 F), the
percent sucrose in solution will be:
1 lb of sucrose divided by 9.338 lb of solution (8.338 lb water + 1 lb
sucrose) = 0.1071, or 10.71% (10.71 Plato).
Using your equation [3] of the BT article (also used to get that figure of
46.31 you provide) to convert from Plato degrees to SG points (the formula
being SG = 259/(259-P)), we get:
SG = 259/248.29 = 1.04313, that is to say, we got 43.13 points, not 46.31.
2)If we convert the above figure to points/Kg/liter, we get:
43.13 points x 2.205 lb/Kg x 3.785 liters/gallon = 43.13 x 8.346 = 359.96
points/Kg/liter, not the 386.5 you provide in the same article (note,
though, that we agree, obviously, in the conversion factor: 8.346).
Nevertheless, the most puzzling thing is that if I, again, make my way
finding the percent sucrose by weight in solution, I come with, yet, another
different result. Let's disolve 1Kg of sucrose in 1 liter (again, density
0.9990 Kg/liter at 60 F) of water. The percent sucrose will be:
1 Kg sucrose/1.9990 Kg of solution (1 Kg sucrose + 0.9990 Kg water) =
0.5003, or 50.03% (50.03 Plato). Using again your equation for converting to
SG, we get:
SG = 259/208.97 = 1.23941, that is to say, 239.41 points, very far away from
any of the 2 figures above (359.96 04 386.5). This difference cannot be
accounted for by the error in the conversion formula.
I would really appreciate if you could comment on all this, since I'm really
puzzled and, clearly, lost.
3)And, since we are talking about extract, I guess I'll throw in another
question. Could you tell me who, how and/or why decided on using SG as the
standard for homebrewers, while Plato as the standard for professional
brewers, at least in the USA? I would really like to know what is the
"standard" used by homebrewers in other countries, especially those who use
the metric system.
Thanks a lot in advance. I look forward to your answer.
(as always, I'll summarize private answers, though I guess we have plenty of
space on the HBD right now for a public discussion)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sergio Escorza Trevi~o |
Scripps Institution of Oceanography | Dormir de dia es a
University of California at San Diego | lo que mas aspira
e-mail: sescorza@sdcc3.ucsd.edu | un tipo como yo
phone: (619)546-7095 FAX: (619)546-7003 |
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 08:10:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: Eric Marzewski <ca385a19@nova.umuc.edu>
Subject: Temperature Control
Some thermostats on the market aren't so good. Could someone suggest one
that they believe to be a great product. (around 28F-80F) Plan to use in a
chest freezer.
Thanks
Eric Marzewski
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 95 09:18:57 est
From: Joseph.Fleming@gsa.gov
Subject: Tubes that suck
Ray Daniels does not believe in the reverse-pressure, blow-off sucking
boogeyman. I do not dispute your calculations and respect your 100 batch
experience but I have personally witnessed this phenomenon (of course I am
a Calvinist whose mother drank moderately during pregnancy). The batch in
question was chilled to below 70F and placed in a 68F basement, and drank
thirstily from the blowoff bucket filled with a weak iodophor solution in
a few hours. Its been water for me since (in a sanitized bucket it goes
without saying).
On alcohol and pregnancy-
OK, so maybe moderate consumption is fine during pregnancy. Is that a
risk you are willing to take? Look at what's sacrificed and what's being
wagered.
(Two healthy young'uns, no alcohol)
Joe - joseph.fleming@gsa.gov
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 09:28:37 -0500
From: Russell Mast <rmast@fnbc.com>
Subject: Not the R-word.
> From: jds@equinox.shaysnet.com (John Shearer)
> Subject: aged grain
> Crushed grains: how long will they last before
> their quality deminishes significantly,
I've used grains that had been crushed 4 weeks prior, and noticed a bit of
staleness to the taste. Significant? Yes. Useless? No.
> what can someone do to help them last longer (if the need arrises),
Keep them cool, dry, out of sunlight. Just like other foods. Not sure what
the ideal parameters are, but use common sense - store it like bread.
> what can someone do to help their batch
> if using aged grains (like adding another 1/2 lb?),
That might help. The problem with aging grains is not just the reduction of
the "good" flavors, but an increase in "bad" flavors. Just like some styles
call for aged hops, it's possible that you could invent a good beer with aged
grain, one that makes clever use of the unique flavors in the aging. I'd say
after two or three hundred tries, you should have a nice recipe together.
Please post it when you do. :-)
> and finally, what is it
> that actually happens to the grains when they age?
Chemical stuff, probably. Some bacterial and mold activity. Not real sure.
> From: "pratte" <PRATTE@GG.csc.peachnet.edu>
> Subject: Re-bottling
>
> O.K., it has been over a week since this was sent with no replies, so
> I'll try again.
I promise, it won't happen again.
> The problem is that, while I have about 15
> beers left, only 3 of them are in unmarked brown bottles. Is there a
> way to transfer the beer from marked brown bottles to unmarked ones?
> If I do, will it greatly affect the taste of a beer that has been
> aging for 1.7 years (If so, will it make it better so that I might
> want to drink it :))?
I can't think of any good way to do it. You'd probably have better results
trying to unmark those bottles. (?) Perhaps you should do some experiments
with it and let us know any methods that work. I guess you could just siphon
and re-prime. Sounds fishy, though. GOod luck.
> From: Guy Mason <guy@opus.matrixnet.com>
> Subject: Dry Malt vs. Syrup
> Every beer that I've made that got rave reviews from brewers and
> non-brewers alike was made using malt syrup. The brews made with dry malt got
> "It's good, but not like that Rat's [cEnSoReD] Stout you made last month!"
Weird. It might be the specific brands you're using, the way they've been
stored, etc. I've generally had better results with dry. What brands are you
using? Doesn't ound like a technique problem to me.
> From: /O=PRDMSMAC/S=HUMPHREY/G=PATRICK/@x400.pprd.abbott.com
> Subject: Homebrew Entry
> What is the "normal" number of bottles requested for a competition?
Two or three. Six seems high to me. Maybe it's a perq for the judges.
Of course, I'm only an all-grain brewer, so...
> From: Norman C. Pyle <npyle@hp7013.ecae.StorTek.COM>
> Subject: Chillers
> For example, a friend of mine uses an immersion chiller, but the chiller is
> immersed in ice-water, not wort, and the coolant is only moved around by
> stirring every once in a while. The wort flows through the chiller, but it
> is in no way a "counter-flow" chiller. This is an incremental chiller
> immersed in ice-water. It has much more in common with a CF chiller than an
> immersion chiller, but its construction and use is more akin to the immersion.
> It is most definitely an incremental chiller though, as the wort is cooled a
> little bit at a time.
That's exactly like mine. I don't know _what_ to call it. A coutner-top
chiller? (I used to mostly use it in the bathtub, but the rubber duck would
get too cold with all the ice. I now use it in a large laundry-sink.
> Incremental (in-line) chillers ...
> Since they cool only a small portion of the wort at once,
> the chilling is quicker, and better cold-break is said to be achieved.
That, to me, is the big advantage.
> They are also more difficult to construct.
Mine was a breeze. It's just a 30' length of 3/8" copper pipe. Shaping it was
a bit difficult, and cleaning was also an issue (a big pain in the issue, in
fact), but it wasn't hard at all. I usually use it with a hop-back, which is
just my old "Zapap" lauter tun. (Makes a great hop back, made a bad lauter
tun.)
-R
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 95 08:53:45 PDT
From: kpnadai@adsnet.com
Subject: Alcohol
>From: "Kempisty, Mark (HT-MS)" <mkempisty@gic.gi.com>
>Subject: Alcohol swabs
>
>
>In HBD #1777 Ken B. mentions using leftover alcohol swabs for sanitizing
>yeast packs and such.
>
>A year or so ago when I took my kitty to the vet for his check-up and shots
>I asked the doctor why do they just poke the needle in without trying to
>sterilize the skin. He replied that the alcohol is merely used as a solvent
>to make sure the skin is clean and does not guarantee sterility (though
>kitty is taken care of in that department too). According to him, the
>needle's sterility is more important because it is penetrating the skin.
>
Quickly before the AI Robot gets me:
As a massage therapist, I use alcohol to wash down my table in between
patients. I do this for sanitary purposes, not sterilization. The
health department advises a solution of 1/2 oz of fresh bleach per
gallon and a contact time of five minutes.
No, I don't sterilize. I don't wear a mask when I meet patients either.
Wow! I didn't think I could fake out the AI Ro@*O0o...
************************* subscriber terminated *********************
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 09:29:00 -0500 (EST)
From: "Jim Herter" <James.M.Herter.1@nd.edu>
Subject: Northwestern Extract
This may have been covered in previous threads - but has anyone experienced
high final gravities when using Northwestern extract. I recently brewed an
IPA using a 3.3 lb. box of light NW with a 3.53 lb. can of Geordie Dark.
I pitched a very healthy starter that was a second generation Wyeast London
Special (#1968 I believe). The strong ale that I brewed just before that
started at 1.074 o.g. and finished at 1.020 - so I don't believe it's the
yeast. The old ale also didn't have any NW extract in the recipe.
This IPA started at 1.060 and seems to have finished at 1.020 after four
days. I was really looking for a 1.015 f.g. Last night I took my racking
cane and gently roused the top layer of trub-yeast. This morning there is
only about 1 bubble\20 seconds out of the air lock. I've brewed several
batches before with NW and seen the same situation. Any thoughts?
Jim Herter
Business Manager
Notre Dame Food Services
(219)631-0113
james.m.herter.1@nd.edu
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 95 08:12:09 PDT
From: hollen@megatek.com (Dion Hollenbeck)
Subject: Re: Homebrew Entry
>>>>> "Pat" == O <O> writes:
Pat> I am a relatively new brewer (six batches) and I have never
Pat> entered a beer in any type of competition. I am considering
Pat> entering a couple in a local competition but I am wondering if
Pat> their request for six (6) 10-14 oz bottles of each brew is out of
Pat> line. This seems like alot and since I brew 5 gallon batches, I
Pat> don't have many bottles of the beer(s) I want to enter left. ;-)
Pat> What is the "normal" number of bottles requested for a competition?
Normally three. One for the first round, a second one in case the
category is so large it had to be split into more than one panel of
judges, the top beers from each panel then go up against one another
to pick the ribbons and then entry in Best of Show. Then the third
beer goes on to Best of Show judging.
If this is an AHA "Club Only" competition, then only club members can
participate and 6 or 7 is normal. The club uses the first three to
determine what single entry to send to the regional and the remaining
bottles are used at the regional level as above.
dion
- --
Dion Hollenbeck (619)675-4000x2814 Email: hollen@megatek.com
Staff Software Engineer Megatek Corporation, San Diego, California
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 1995 09:28:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: romand@dialogic.com (Dan Roman)
Subject: Re: Uflecku (sp?)
A couple of weeks ago someone, who's name I can't remember, asked about
making a clone of a beer a friend of his had in the Czech Republic
called Uflecku. Well, U Flecku is a tourist trap and it's the name of
the bar not a beer. Your friend could have had one of a variety of
Czech beers (at higher prices than at other places in the vicinity). I
got this info from a frequent traveler to the Czech Republic and
Slovakia so it's second hand.
- --
Dan Roman | Internet: romand@dialogic.com +
Compliance Engineer | Personal: danno@intac.com R/C ==O==
Dialogic Corp, NJ | Homebrew is better brew! Amiga after C=? ./ \.
------------------------------
Date: 11 Jul 95 11:21:52 EDT
From: Jay Reeves <73362.600@compuserve.com>
Subject: "PAGE DOWN" key
OK kids, no one's holding a loaded gun to your full fermentor
and MAKING you read the stuff about religion (or anything else
for that matter). If some want to talk about religion and beer - let
'em!
Scan your keyboard and find the "Page Down" key. Lightly rest
your wort-soaked right ring finger on it. When the subject
"religion" is encountered, push hard on that key. I find this
technique works well for me - YMMV.
This is kinda like...no...make that exactly like, the TV and radio
bit: no one's making you watch those vulgar channels so why do
you object to them being on? You don't HAVE to watch them. I
live in the bible belt and there are quite-a-few folks that object to
the strip-bars being around - no body's making them go in there,
so why do they whine about it!?
If you attack the "religion" thread because it's not brewing
related, why not attack the "pregnancy" thread, or the "soda"
thread?
Now back to your boiling pot-o-wort before it boils ov....oh
&*#@, too late!
-Jay Reeves
Huntsville, Alabama, USA
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 11:36:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: Pete Bronder <pb0q+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: No religion please!
>But, if we're talking about how religion relates to homebrew, that is
appropriate here.
The only reason why "WE" are talking about religion on this bboard is
because someone inappropriately posted about it. The original post was
not in reference to homebrewing but to alcohol in general. If someone
posted on how alcohol relates to car accidents then does that justify
opening up a disscussion on a bboard that is devoted to MAKING beer?
NO, not in the reasonable homebrewer's mind. Let's keep faiths/beliefs
away from a disscussion group concerning how to make the beer. Although
you may feel strongly about them, your religious beliefs will not help
me make my next batch. Take it to a disscussion group on religion or
create your own bboard for the topics that relate to beer but have
nothing to do about making beer. On the other hand, history relating to
brewing is probably of interest.
If we don't don't draw a line as to what relates to beer making then we
are opening the door to the same kind of posts that pollute other
disscussion groups. For example, drink beer, get drunk, have sex. Then
we will have postings of 900/800 telephone numbers for "hot girls who
drink beer". Hardly the kind of thing the majority of us want to be
disscussing or having to sort through headers to find the posts that
relate to what this bboard was intended for. I now regret taking up
bandwidth for this post. Reply directly to me if you want to disscuss
this.
I pray to god this will stop (that was humor).
Pete
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 11:04:05 -0500
From: Nimbus Couzin <nimbus@physics.purdue.edu>
Subject: Boiling water to remove bicarbonate - details
Hi.
I have hard water here, with plenty of bicarbonate in it. It has
a pH of 7.4, and for brewing a pale ale (all grain) my mash
pH would remain quite high without treatment.
So I preboil my water to precipitate out the bicarbonate, and then
add gypsum during the mash to bring the pH down to a proper level.
Question : In Noonan's book, Brewing Lager Beer, he says that one
should boil the water and then aerate as well as possible. Then,
after a brief rest, decant off the precipitate.
SO VAGUE! What does he mean by brief!!?? He goes on to point out
that if you wait too long, the bicarbonate can recombine, which
would obviously be bad.
So.
How long should one wait?
Thanks,
Nimbus
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 12:21:03 -0400
From: GRMarkel@aol.com
Subject: Filtering Trub
In my brewing system I boil and then cool the wort with an immersion chiller.
During the cooling cycle I try not to disturb the wort and let the trub and
cold break settle. I then rack to a carboy, pitch yeast, etc.
I still get varying amounts of trub which I usually don't worry about, but it
would be nice to eliminate it. Looking at my Zap-Pap I figured I have a
pretty good filter bed of spent grains, it is still warm (140 deg.) so should
be free of bacteria, just haven't had the nerve to pass a finished batch
through the grain on its way to the carboy. Has anyone ever tried this? Is it
even worth a try? Will it even filter out the trub?
------------------------------
Date: 11 Jul 95 13:53:47 EDT
From: Jay Reeves <73362.600@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Blow-off Bucket: Just Water?
In #1778, Ray Daniels sez:
>many people chill their wort to a temperature colder than room
>temperature. Therefore the wort temperature is actually
>RISING rather than falling during those first few hours.
True, but for the first few hours the tube will actually suck the
water/sanitizer back up the tube a small distance (3"-6" above
the level in my case) - reason: the head space air temp is
warmer than the cool wort, thus the cool wort is causing
the headspace to cool at a quicker rate than the wort is warming
and expanding, therefore it WILL (and does) suck in this scenario.
I use a 7 gal carboy with a 3/8" blow-off tube for a settling tank
before pitching. I chill my wort to about 66-68F and room temp
is around 75F. I would imagine this "sucking" phenomena would
lessen with smaller head-space.
Never had one suck it back into the tank though.
-Jay Reeves
Huntsville, Alabama, USA
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 95 14:45:32 EST
From: "Colgan, Brian P." <bcolgan@sungard.com>
Subject: Beer and Babies
Scott Howe writes: howe@appmag.com
> This is covered in an article a few months back in a cool Beer magazine
>called All About Beer. The author gave some history about what used
>to be called groaning Beer, which was given to pregnant women during
>Labor.
>He also quoted some studies saying that Beer during pregnancy IN
>MODERATION
>(as usual) is fine. The general consensus on "IN MODERATION" meant no
>more
>than one Beer at a sitting. He also stated that the health of the woman
>improves with moderate consumtion, so: Obviously for health reasons
>alcohol (IN MODERATION) is IN.
> I have a friend who had similar cravings, and bless her heart, had a Beer
>in her fourth month and LOVED it. I think she had a Simpatico, so it
>wasn't high in alcohol (or taste, for that matter). She had her baby a
>few months ago, and mother and child are doing fine.
I can attest to moderate beer consumption during pregnancy (well, actually,
my wife can ;>)). A small glass of my homebrew would do the trick in
heading off premature labor every time. And for those worry-warts out
there, both of our young-uns are in the 95+ percentile as far as height,
etc.
So relax, don't worry, give a homebrew to your pregga-potomus!
Brian Colgan "So barmaid, bring a pitcher, another round of brew"
bcolgan@sungard.com "Honey why don't we get drunk, and screw?"
(610) 527-8896 - Jimmy Buffett
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 14:52:30 -0500
From: Russell Mast <rmast@fnbc.com>
Subject: Re: No religion please!
Pete Bronder whines :
> The only reason why "WE" are talking about religion on this bboard is
> because someone inappropriately posted about it.
And others of us "inapprpriately" found it interesting and useful.
Shame on us.
> I now regret taking up bandwidth for this post.
But you don't regret not having cancelled the post? It's never too late
to save bandwidth.
> I pray to god this will stop (that was humor).
Humor? How is that supposed to help me with my next batch of beer?
Please, no more humor unless it's directly beer related. (Sheesh.)
I honestly have found this discussion educational and I think it
helps my 'whole brewing experience' as much as most of the stuff here.
If you don't like it - don't read it.
-Russell (with two L's. Good one, Norm!)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 95 16:04:29 EST
From: Tim_Fields_at_Relay__Tech__Vienna@relay.com
Subject: Pale Ale Mash, 1056 fruit flavor?
I am working my way into mashing, which is certainly ground covered by many
of you already :-) I'd like to find what I would call a "basic pale ale"
(or perhaps an IPA) single infusion mash recipe to cut my teeth on; either
all-grain or partial mash. I searched CM3 for partial mash with little
success (pulled 11 recipes; mostly porters) - will try the all-grain
recipes next. If any of you have such a recipe, I'd greatly appreciate
your posting a cc or emailing it to me.
RE Wyeast 1056, I am finding several of my 1056 beers to have a pronounced
flavor of fruit/citrus. Not a bad flavor by any means; just not my
preference. Ferment temps run 66 degF to 70; averaging just about 68. They
do hit 70 once or twice during ferment. Extract has been Alexander's; hop
pellets cascades for flavor and aroma. Thanks to HBD advice, plenty of
aeration and good pitch rates :-)
Initially I put this fruit flavor off to the cascades, which is described
as being citrusy/fruity/even grapefruit. It's been pointed out that Sierra
Nevada and Liberty don't have this fruit flavor and suggested that this
fruit could really be from the 1056. Does 1056 tend to produce fruity
flavors in these temp ranges?
-Tim
Tim Fields / Vienna, VA, USA / timf@relay.com
------------------------------
Date: 11 Jul 95 15:07:00 -0500
From: korz@iepubj.att.com (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583)
Subject: Stuck?/Crushed grain life/rebottling/syrup VS dme/airlock H2O
Tom writes:
>It seemed to be fermenting like mad in the carboy
>for the first 24 hours but then bang! Dead nothing doing the top of the beer
>was flat.
Depending on the ambient temperature and the original gravity, it is not
unreasonable that your ferment may be over. If you are concerned, you can
buy a hydrometer and check the SG. If it is in the low teens (say, 1.015 or
less) then I would simply wait a week till the yeast settles and bottle.
If the SG is in the 20's or higher, it could be that your extracts were not
very fermentable (sorry, I'm not familiar with the brand you used). When
you say "Dead nothing," did you wait five minutes? Shaking the carboy will
release some of the dissolved gas, yes, and then it will take some time,
an hour maybe, for that very slow ferment to resaturate the beer with CO2.
Until the beer is saturated, it will not outgas any CO2 on it own and thus
will not move the airlock.
***
John writes:
>Crushed grains: how long will they last before
>their quality deminishes significantly, what can someone do to help them
>last longer (if the need arrises), what can someone do to help their batch
>if using aged grains (like adding another 1/2 lb?), and finally, what is it
>that actually happens to the grains when they age?
Few people will take a shot at these questions because there is no *sudden*
change from good grain to bad and therefore the answer to your first question
is quite dependent on your standards. If you have low standards, you can
brew with grain that was crushed 10 years ago and kept in a mouldy cellar
in a paper bag. If you are trying to win the AHA Nationals Best of Show,
you might discard grain that was crushed a week ago and kept in a gasketted
polyethylene bucket. I've heard of people storing grain in Cornelius kegs!
If the need arises to use older pre-crushed grain, add 10 to 15% more grain
That's what I've heard some breweries do. My knowledge in this area is more
pragmatic than scientific, so I'll leave it to others to explain what
processes might be taking place in this (slack) malt, but my experience has
shown that in general, "stale" grain tends to produce a beer with less malt
flavour and if conditions were right (or wrong, depending on your perspective)
metallic flavours can appear in the finished beer. My understanding is that
these metallic flavours come from the hydrolysis of lipids in the grain,
followed by oxidation of unsaturated free fatty acids.
***
John writes:
>Is there a
>way to transfer the beer from marked brown bottles to unmarked ones?
You could pour it from bottle to bottle, but you will lose a significant
portion of the carbonation. Cooling the beer to near freezing would help
reduce this loss. If you pour slowly, the outgassing CO2 will blanket
the beer in the receiving bottle and therefore there should be very little
degradation of the beer in the short term. Don't do the rebottling too
far in advance and only do as many as you need. Keep the rebottled beer
as cold as possible to reduce any oxidation.
***
Guy writes:
>Every beer that I've made that got rave reviews from brewers and
>non-brewers alike was made using malt syrup. The brews made with dry malt get
>"It's good, but not like that Rat's [cEnSoReD] Stout you made last month!"
Not only are there quality and fermentability differences between liquid
and dry malt extract, but also among different brands too. A recipe that
tastes great with one extract can taste off with another. In my experience,
DMEs tend to age more gracefully than syrups, i.e. they tend to stay good
longer. Note again that Laaglander and "Dutch" DMEs are far less fermentable
than most extracts in either liquid or dry form and this can cause an imbalance
in your recipe. That might be your problem.
***
Ray writes (quoting me):
>"I use water, yes, water. Ideally, boiled (to sanitize) water. Why?
>Because if the temperature changes and any liquid gets sucked up into the
>carboy, I'd rather it be water than iodophor or bleach. Let me ask you
>this question: unless you plan to let it sit there for a year, why would
>you want to put sanitizer in your blowoff bucket? Nothing is going to
>crawl up the blowoff hose and into the fermenter, so why worry?"
>
>A few quick calculations show that the temperature would have to drop 20
>degrees (from 70 deg F to 50 deg F) for the shrinkage on 5 gallons of wort
>to suck a blowoff tube full of liquid and actually start delivering sanitizer
>to the beer. (Assumptions: 0.25 inch or 6.35 mm ID, 1 meter long blow off
>hose.)
You forgot another assumption: that the carboy is *full* of liquid. Do the
calculation again with 2L of air in the top of the carboy and see if the
temperature drop needs to be that big.
>IMHO, if your temperature control for fermentation is that bad, you'll have
>worse problems than getting sanitizer in your beer.
Personally, I use a (sanitized) 1.25" OD hose for blowoff so I'll bet
a 50F temperature change would not suck liquid up into the fermentor,
but I targeted my post to the most general of reader, perhaps one who uses
Charlie's (bad) advice of a racking hose as a blowoff tube. Even without
a temperature change you can suck airlock liquid into your fermentor if
you lift a plastic (pail) fermentor. Also, as you pointed out, some people
do chill down to 60F and then ferment at an ambient temperature of 65F,
but I'll be willing to bet that an order of magnitude more chill down to
only 80 or 90F and then put their fermentor in a 65F cellar. What about
those who pitch at 65F and then immediately put the fementor into the
fridge?
I have personally seen blowoff bucket solution rising almost up to the neck
of a fementor in a narrow-ID hose... not in my last 160+ batches, but among
my first dozen or so. Also I've fielded midnight calls from more than one
hysterical homebrewer whose airlock was running in the reverse direction.
It's not a myth.
Al.
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1779, 07/12/95
*************************************
-------
