Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #1842
This file received at Hops.Stanford.EDU 1995/09/27 PDT
HOMEBREW Digest #1842 Wed 27 September 1995
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor
Contents:
BOINKNG BREWERS TO GO BALLISTIC ! (CHARLIE SCANDRETT)
Force Carbonation (Gavin Halse)
betadine ("Bummer, Paul")
PID, CO2 (harry)
Responses to Underpitching ("Herb B. Tuten")
amylase / more RIMS questions ("Keith Royster")
It's so easy to make your own chiller! (Kenneth K Goodrow)
RIMS/misc (Jim Busch)
Petitioning re: Illegal Brewing. (Kenneth K Goodrow)
Re-pitching at bottling time (Kris Thomas Messenger)
More pitching. (Russell Mast)
Periodicals (Kris Thomas Messenger)
Orders is Orders. (Russell Mast)
Hot on RIMS (Bob Sutton)
Hop family tree (dhvanvalkenburg)
More on False Bottoms ("Fleming, Kirk R., Capt")
RIMS ("Fleming, Kirk R., Capt")
Clubs: non-profit corp (hollen)
Re: RIMS spray ball? (hollen)
Brewing/Drinking Age (andrew costello)
BRAINS SPECIAL ALE (hadleyse)
Re: Beer Engines (Bird)
Mea culpa (Spencer W Thomas)
Genuine English Brass Beer Engines (Bill Marks)
Re: download (TomF775202)
******************************************************************
* 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.
#
#################################################################
NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS hpfcmgw!
Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew@hpfcmgw.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@hpfcmgw.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: Tue, 26 Sep 95 17:49:11 +1000
From: CHARLIE SCANDRETT <merino@ozemail.com.au>
Subject: BOINKNG BREWERS TO GO BALLISTIC !
Chas Peterson and Pat Babcock are the latest to post that their keg carbonation
caused bulbous expansion of their kegs. They "boinked".
This has worried me greatly so I trotted off to my local keg manufacturer and
had a chat to the tester.
His kegs are rated to 4 ATM pressure,(60psi) and routinely tested to
6ATM.(90psi)
They are also occasionally hydrostatically destruction tested. This is what
happens.
1/At 10-14 ATM (150 psi) they become bulbous, "boink".
2/At 17-20 ATM (265 psi) they burst around the neck.
3/Old battered ones burst around the bottom.
An old dented keg was half filled with water and gas pressurized. At 14 ATM the
bottom tore out, it flipped and detroyed the pallet it was standing on, then
erratically kangaroo hopped oround the yard until all the water was ejected.
Maximum altidude reached ~ 5 metres.
Maximum distance travelled ~ 25 metres
I think what is happening is that stuck fermentations are being revived by
priming and pressures in excess of 150 psi are being achieved. Sooner or later
someone is going to get seriously injured. These kegs were not designed for
carbonation by fermentation.
I STRONGLY ADVISE putting 3 ATM pressure relief valves on all natural
carbonation kegs. Your local hot water system repair man should have a bag full
of them. Have them welded/threaded securely into your system. All "boinked"
kegs are also now much weaker than before.
Please don't feel you might insult by asking others what their pressure relief
system is. A little peer pressure might save one of your friends serious
injury. I would want to be in any brewery when a keg went at 180psi !
Charlie. (Brisbane, Australia)
"What is a beer bomb? Is it smart?" CS
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 10:00:41 +-200
From: Gavin Halse <halseg@iafrica.com>
Subject: Force Carbonation
Having just spent another of those very lazy public holidays finding
every excuse why not to wash and sterilise all those bottles I decided
to try an experiment! The temptation to taste a very promising lager which
had been maturing in the secondary in the refridgerator for over a month
now was just too much! To short circuit bottle maturation and natural
carbonation I took a sample and force carbonated it using a domestic soft
drink machine. I had been warned of the spectacular problems one could
have with carbonating anything but cold water but decided to take the plunge.
The result - a quite acceptable beer in an instant and only a small mess!
Whilst the gas had to be introduced slowly to prevent foam rising and clogging
the relief valve it was a manageable system. Which brings me to my
question? Does anyone have some information on the flavour effects
carbonating in this way might have on the beer? I would class the flavour
slightly harsh. The beer had relatively poor head retention.
The beer was not flat but lacked something, but I can't put my finger
on it...
Any pointers from the experienced would be appreciated!
GAVIN HALSE
halseg@iafrica.com
Durban, South Africa
Occupation: "A homebrew beta taster"
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 95 08:08:40 EST
From: "Bummer, Paul" <bummerp@uklans.uky.edu>
Subject: betadine
Mr. Kirby asked about the use of betadine surgical scrub as
a sanitizing agent. Well I have never tried that product in
brewing, but I would like to point out that there is a
significant amount of detergent surfactant in the scrub.
Remember, the scrub is designed to remove dirt as well as
kill microbes on the skin with prolonged (approx. 2 minutes)
washing. I would be concerned that, in the absence of good
rinsing, the surfactant might remain behind and destroy any
head-retaining properties of the final product.
Paul M. Bummer, Ph.D.
College of Pharmacy
University of Kentucky
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 08:14:46 -0400
From: hbush@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (harry)
Subject: PID, CO2
Two ignorant questions (no it is not bliss!)-
In HBD 1841, Charlie Scandrett talks about heating:
> I have a machine driven stirrer, a PID controlled gas pressure valve and a
>gas
>heater under a inverted cone hot-gas/metal/fluid heat exchanger......
>Electronic temperature control, especially PID, is also great, a number of
>sensors and an averaging function is tops.
What is PID (other than something really bad that happens only to
women), and is it something I should get?
I just ordered and recieved a 10# CO2 bottle :-D !! Where do I get this
filled? Should it be pumped down (evacuated) first? Is there a "beverage
dispensing" grade of CO2 that is better than, say extinguisher grade?
That was actually five questons disguised as two...
harry
(to hell with Net etiquette, this space for rent!)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 10:07:23 EDT
From: "Herb B. Tuten" <HERB@zeus.co.forsyth.nc.us>
Subject: Responses to Underpitching
Last week I posted:
>>>I extract-brewed a batch of ale Saturday night and pitched a rehydrated
>>>14 gram Edme yeast. I've never paid much attention to yeast but now I
>>>know better, because Sunday evening there was no activity at all in the
>>>primary, not even pressure in the air-lock! Not going down without a
>>>fight, I rehydrated a 7 gram pack of M&F that I had in the frig and
>>>carefully pitched it Sunday night. Monday morning. I had wonderful
>>>activity, vigorous bubbling. Now, Tuesday morning it is slowing down
>>>and I'm thinking "7 grams was too little, maybe I should toss in another 7g
>>>to keep the fermentation going". The last thing I want is a high final
>>>gravity and I wonder if I can keep that from happening.
>>>
>>>What do you think? Would you add more yeast or is late-pitching
>>>harmful? And since there's already 14 grams of dead/inactive yeast in
>>>there, how much yeast is too much??
Thanks to everyone who e-mailed me. I've learned alot about yeast. The
major answers were:
1. Aeration was insufficient and yeast growth lagged for two days.
2. Rouse the the yeast from the bottom or swirl the container.
3, Adding more yeast late in the fermentation wouldn't hurt, but it
probably wouldn't help either.
4. Try liquid yeast next time.
5. Relax, don't worry, have a home brew.
I'm happy to report that the s.g. was 1.012 when I transferred to secondary
this weekend. ( o.g.=1.036 ) Looks like number 5 was the best advice. :)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 09:25:31 +0500 ET
From: "Keith Royster" <N1EA471@mro.ehnr.state.nc.us>
Subject: amylase / more RIMS questions
For the second time in as many batches I have had a stuck or very
slow fermentation (Amer.Pale Ale #1056 & Holiday Cheer #1338). With
both batches I "fixed" the problem by adding amylase enzymes to the
beer. I understand the general principal behind amylase: it breaks
down large, unfermantable chains into smaller ones that the yeasties
can sink their teeth into. My question is, how long will this
process continue? I added the amylase almost two weeks ago and it is
still bubbling away. I have already passed my target FG and I don't
want the beer to be too dry. Should I give it more time, or can I
crank the temp down in the fridge to near freezing causing the yeasts
and enzymes to settle out? This is what I did the first time because
I kegged it, but some of this batch will be bottled and I don't want
the enzymes to kick back in gear and explode my bottles.
- --------------------------------------------------------------------
It seems that the ever popular RIMS thread has started up again, so I
might as well jump in with a few of my own questions: First, what
*exactly* is a RIMS? This may sound like a stupid question, but I
see many comments on the HBD that seem to imply that, to have a RIMS
setup you must at least have a heating element to heat the
recirculating wort, and a nice computer chip circuit to control the
element is, while not required, almost an essential part. For
example, Charlie Scandrett comments:
>Because RIMS usually has a small heat area, (the surface of the
>element), the
>setup is suseptible to scorching and variable heating efficiency
I plan on building a system that simply heats the wort with my propane
cooker under the kettle and recirculates it to the top with a pump.
No heating element, no computer chips. But it does (R)ecirculate,
and it is an (I)nfusion (M)ashing (S)ystem, but is it a RIMS?
Also, what is the best way to control the speed of the recirculating
pump? A motor speed controller (dimmer switch?)? or a ball-valve
upstream of the pump outlet? I would like to use the same pump to
transfer the wort from the mash tun to the brew kettle during the
sparge, but I'm worried that trying to slow the pump down to a normal
sparging speed might be too slow and damage/burn the pump. Any
comments? Thanks for any/all responses!
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Beer once tasted like something. It was made out of malt and |
| hops and yeast and pure filtered water... Nowadays it is often |
| made of such gook as rice and corn grits... nothing but dirty |
| water. It's so light and clear it's nothing...ignoble swill. |
| - Charles McCabe, 1960 |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 09:54:06 -0500 (CDT)
From: Kenneth K Goodrow <goodrow@orion.etsu.edu>
Subject: It's so easy to make your own chiller!
I thank all of you who sent directions to making a chiller. It was
ridiculously easy and cost me $22 for parts and 10 minutes (or less)
labor. If anyone is considering buying a wort chiller, don't. making
your own is too cheap and easy!
cheers
Kenn
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 10:51:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jim Busch <busch@eosdev2.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Subject: RIMS/misc
Charlie writes about RIMS getting hot....
<Gee fellas, they are both heat exchangers and if you ignore first principles
<they'll both give you trouble.
Just wanted to point out that I think that Dion and I are in complete
agrement and both systems can make excellent beers. Sometimes (often?)
these Internet comments seem like flame wars and most often they arent
meant to be. Such is the context of the medium.
<Jim extols the virtures of "good even heating", that is the first principal of
<any exchanger setup. Dion, who RIMS stirs his mash with a pump assumes Jim
<stirs his with a spoon?
Actually, its a large wooden red oak paddle, one of my most prized brewing
possesions. Custom cut by my brewing buddy.
<I have a machine driven stirrer, a PID controlled gas pressure valve and a gas
<heater under a inverted cone hot-gas/metal/fluid heat exchanger.(ribs under
<it absorb the heat from the gas) I have a large area of exchange, which
<allows a controlled but low temperature differential, and the blade type
<stirring arms rotate quickly and close enough to the cone, preventing
<scorching. I can stop the arms and inject steam into the thick part for
<gelatinization of starch.
Now, Im envious!
BTW, I use a 24 jet propane burner to heat a 12 guage 316 SS bottom of
the kettle/mash tun. The burners are of the slotted cap type and provide
even gentle heating about 1/2-1 inch below the bottom of the tank.
Kit mentions his Wit:
<I just had a wit beer win 2nd runner up best of show. The judges
<commented that the lactic sourness tasted like it was added
<artificially. Well... it was. The pH of the finished beer was 4.8 and
<it definitely lack tartness. I usually adjust down to 4.2 with C&B
<acid blend. Is there another acid I could be using to avoid the
<roughness? Malic, perhaps? What do other brewers do to lower the pH?
<Pediococcus takes too long. This was judged 9 days after brewing.
It takes quite some time for the lactic edge to subside when its added
like this. There is definite differences between natural lacto and
added and this is where it is evident. It will subside over time.
Tim asks about Bell's HSA:
<I asked (in horror!) about (you knew it was coming...)
<HSA and the guide said that the spray ball is above the liquid surface of the
<mash and they still don't have any trouble with oxidation.
Some brewers are less concerned about HSA than others. It is a major
factor in making clean, light-colored, stable lagers. It is less of
a concern for heavily hopped short lived beers. Its not something you
*want* to design in to the brewery but sometimes its a fact of life. You
can modify these designs in some systems and it can improve the shelf
life and malt character of the beers. For a recirc lauter tun, Id skip
the spray ball and let it hit closer to the grain bed. Lauter grants
are another source of HSA as are most wort inlets from the lauter tun to
the kettle.
Good brewing,
Jim Busch
busch@mews.gsfc.nasa.gov
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 10:01:01 -0500 (CDT)
From: Kenneth K Goodrow <goodrow@orion.etsu.edu>
Subject: Petitioning re: Illegal Brewing.
If anyone is interested in forming a petition to change laws against
homebrewing, count me in for signing it. I have seen this done where
"signers" send their names and Email addresses to a site which compiles a
list for a petition. Any takers?
Of course, we would have to have someone to send this to (congressman,
etc.), so it anyone has a cause underway and wants some support, maybe
this would help.
Cheers
Kenn
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 07:55:14 -0700
From: Kris Thomas Messenger <kmesseng@slonet.org>
Subject: Re-pitching at bottling time
I have seen several mentions in the literature about re-pitching yeast when
bottling after long secondary fermentations. The rationale seems to be that
the yeast will have gone dormant, died off, or settled out. Thus to assure
carbonation in the bottle, it is suggested to add more yeast.
Not wanting to have cloudy beer, I am wondering how much yeast I should add
at bottling time to accomplish this. I have had some beers go for around 3
months in the secondary and become quite brilliant. A flashlight can be
seen shining through the carboy even with some fairly dark brews. Thus, it
would appear as if all the yeast has settled out.
If anyone has any first hand experience here, I would be interested in
hearing it. Another area this applies to is meads which I sometimes leave
for one or two years.
Thanks!
Tom Messenger
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 10:08:31 -0500
From: Russell Mast <rmast@fnbc.com>
Subject: More pitching.
I never get enough of this thread.
> From: mcb@abrams.abrams.com (Mark C. Bellefeuille)
> I usually don't repitch. My problem with repitching is mostly time based.
> (ie: yeast washing involves canning water and then carefully washing dregs.)
> However; for those who argue pitching on top of the dregs of your last
> batch: I also object to reusing a carboy which has a 2" 'brown scum' "ring
> around the collar".
For me, that scum ring is usually above the 'beer line', being carried up there
by the kreuzen. The only part of the next batch it usually contacts is the
kreuzen. Obviously, YMMV on this. Also, if you do a blowoff on the first
batch, the evil brown nasty yuck is the first stuff carried away. (Ever tasted
that stuff? Yuck!)
> Last night I think I came up with a method which will
> allow me to repitch more often.
That sounds similar to something Jake and I cam up with sort of
serendipidously. (How _do_ you spell that word?) Anyway, we basically
made a couple errors that lead to us not having any yeast to pitch into
a particular batch. The plan had been to bottle that day and pitch onto
the dregs. For the heck of it, we took a gravity reading on the batch
to bottle, and it was way high. Basically, the yeast crapped out. Now,
we had even less yeast, since it was highly desirable to repitch the
crapped out batch. Fortunately, we had yet another batch sitting around,
with a hefty yeast cake. (It was in primary.) We ended up siphoning some
of the yeast cake directly from the bottom of one batch into both of the
others. THe purists out there are cringing, I'm sure, and I can't blame
them. We were probably way underpitching, we were taking yeast away from
a batch even, we were rolling the infection dice (though we were especially
careful this time) and, basically, we were kludging around with many carboys
in the middle of the night due to poor planning.
To make a long story short, all three batches turned out just fine. Maybe not
as good as they could be, but pretty darned good.
This might not be a good recommendation as your standard method of yeast
harvesting, but it works in a pinch. Some modification of it might be
worth pursuing on a regular basis.
-R
ps. A big howdy to Rob Trish!
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 07:57:08 -0700
From: Kris Thomas Messenger <kmesseng@slonet.org>
Subject: Periodicals
Presently, I subscribe to Zymurgy as published by AHA. I have seen a
magazine called "Brewing Techniques" and wonder if anyone has some comments
on how the two publications compare. Thanks.
Tom Messenger
- -------
subscribe sent to homebrew!
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 10:17:23 -0500
From: Russell Mast <rmast@fnbc.com>
Subject: Orders is Orders.
In #1839 :
> From: rlarsen@squeaky.free.org (Rich Larsen)
> Subject: Wyeast 1728 Attenuation / AB yeast
> I got the impression that there were under some sort of gag order.
Perhaps that was so they can better sympathize with their customers?
-R
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 95 10:43 EST
From: Bob Sutton <BSutton_+a_fdgv-03_+lBob_Sutton+r%Fluor_Daniel@mcimail.com>
Subject: Hot on RIMS
Text item: Text_1
Ok...just when I thought it was safe to go into the brewhaus...
As an engineer, I find RIMS to be an elegant approach, conceptually. However, I
would expect RIMS to overheat the mash passing through the exchanger/heating
element, caramelizing sugars and degrading enzymes. On the other hand, a fired
system still has heat localization concerns at the wall film.
It would seem, to this innocent eye, that the damage at the wall film (assuming
decent agitation) would be less than RIMS. What exit temperature do you RIMS
advocates experience at each rest. Based on the pump rates and heat exchange
capacity I have seen in recent posts, I'd predict that exit temperatures are
well above enzyme tolerances.
Appreciate the feedback as I'm in the process of collecting widgets to support a
small scale RIMS. TIA.
BrewOn
Bob
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 95 08:49:33 PST
From: dhvanvalkenburg@CCGATE.HAC.COM
Subject: Hop family tree
Back in March (HBD 1673) I submitted a Hop family tree.
It was my first cursory look at the family tree of hops.
What I submitted generated lots of interest and some
controversy. Al Korzonas, for example wrote:
>In some cases it does help to know the genetic
>relationships of hops, but in most cases, it does not.
>Cascades, for example, were an attempt, if memory
>serves correctly, to be a fuggle replacement.
As a matter of fact, Cascade was a result of a search
for a hop that was resistant to downy mildew disease.
True, Cascade is related to Fuggle, however the
percentage is only 31% Fuggle. Over 50% of Cascade's
pedigree is unknown due to open pollination. Some
speculate that it might contain Cluster which is a safe
assumption since Cluster was the major crop of the day.
At any rate, I would have to say that true, Algis, it
does not help when you do not know much about the
pedigree, but when well documented (Cascade is not),
knowing which variety it is closest to may be useful.
Well, I continued my research into the topic and the
results are out in the current Brewing Techniques
magazine. The tree became too complex for ASCII art,
thus I would like to refer any one interested in the
subject to the article in BT. I am frankly a little
embarrassed looking back on the original tree (in HBD),
over simplified as it was, but the foundation was laid
for the tree published in BT.
I would also like to make a correction to my HBD post
back in March.
I said that all hops originated from two basic lines of
hops: Fuggle and Hallertauer. Fuggle is actually a
fairly recent selection (made by Richard Fuggle in 1875)
compared to Hallertauer which is a much older land race
variety.
The origin of hops, according to Dr. Al Haunold,
research geneticists, had three points of origin;
Europe, China and N. America. Although another expert,
Gerard Lemmens, of Morris Hanbury says that hops had a
single point of origin; Central Europe, then migrated
east and west from there. I think both would agree that
the varieties used for brewing had a single point of
origin in Central Europe. European hops were then taken
across the English channel and introduced to English
brewing in the early 1500's by Flemish weavers. Thus,
Fuggle is actually a descendant of the old land race
varieties; Hallertauer being one of these.
Some readers (of HBD 1673) wanted the results when I
finished. I apologize to those I did not respond back
to, but I lost a lot of files when a file server I use
crashed- guess I should have kept them on a disk.
Don Van Valkenburg
dhvanvalkenburg@ccgate.hac.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 95 10:31:00 MST
From: "Fleming, Kirk R., Capt" <FLEMINGKR@afmcfafb.fafb.af.mil>
Subject: More on False Bottoms
Mark Kirby (#1841) suggested using a 9" diameter false bottom and how
this small diameter helps him avoid scorching. Mark stirs the mash to
control temperature, and I don't understand how the small bottom helps.
But folks building *recirculating* systems should know I've found just
the opposite is true there.
My first design used 15 3/8" diameter disks placed above the tank drain,
leaving about 3 gal underneath the disk. We never experienced any wort
scorching with that design. The second design now uses a false bottom
abt 14 1/2" diameter placed below the same drain. The resulting volume
beneath the disk is about 3 quarts. After one batch where we didn't
pay a lot of attention to recirc rate during temperature boosts, I did
find some carmelization in the bottom of the tank. This is inconclusive
of course, but there's another reason to keep the disk size larger, IMO.
For recirculating systems, the smaller the false bottom the more likely
you are to suffer from channeling in the bed, if you believe that has
measureable effects. Also, if your design includes a manifold for
returning wort to the top of the grain bed having less than perfect
and uniform distribution, channeling would be compounded by also having
a small exit area at the bottom of the bed.
If you prefer to have less volume under the false bottom, you can easily
achieve that without having to significantly reduce disk diameter, due
to the keg bottom shape. In the zone where the keg transitions from
the straight sides to the curved bottom (chine) only slight disk size
reductions are needed to significantly increase mash tun capacity also.
The approx 1" reduction between my design 1 and design 2 lowered the
disk about 3". That's a lot of grain.
KRF Colorado Springs
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 95 11:09:00 MST
From: "Fleming, Kirk R., Capt" <FLEMINGKR@afmcfafb.fafb.af.mil>
Subject: RIMS
Charlie Scandrett says some things about Heat Exchanging Technology...
> I suggest RIMS designers maximise their heating areas in order to
> lower their temperature differentials, and increase their pump speeds
> and keep them constant
I think flow rate is hard way to go to get turbulence. Another
solution may be to use as large a heat exchanger as is practical
and drive the flow turbulent through vortex generation--force the
flow to turn as often as possible or use fins. Keep the pump speed
as low as possible to just maintain turbulence. [I don't know how
you can monitor this without a pressure probe.]
Due to a gut feeling only, I'd prefer to recirculate my wort only
to the extent needed to maintain uniform temperature in the grain
bed, and foremost only enough to ensure no scorching in the heat
exchange area (be it a chamber or a direct-fired tun). Still, I
don't see how machine stirring of the mash is any less likely to
extract phenols (or anything else) than is constant recirculation.
Also, I don't follow Charlie's "over sparging" concern...I don't
see a connection between RIMS and how much you sparge.
Another idea to address the conflicting requirements I've proposed
of low recirculation and no scorching: use the controller to fire
*both* the heating element and a pump speed controller. Each time
the heater goes on the flow rate increases as well. When the heater
is turned off the pump reverts to 'normal' speed.
KRF Colorado Springs
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 11:45:16 -0700
From: hollen@vigra.com
Subject: Clubs: non-profit corp
Small survey for homebrew clubs. Please Email your answers back to me
to save bandwidth. I will summarize back to the group shortly.
1) Have you obtained non-profit organization status?
2) How difficult/easy was it?
3) How did you do it?
4) Have you incorporated to protect individual officers from
liability?
5) If so, how protected are they?
6) If not, how do you feel about your risk?
7) Does the IRS overlook a club because it is a club, or *must*
you offically become a non-profit organization.
8) What is the extent of liablity of the officers/members
for actions of the club?
thanks,
dion
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 11:54:12 -0700
From: hollen@vigra.com
Subject: Re: RIMS spray ball?
>>>>> "Tim" == Tim Laatsch <LAATSCH@kbs.msu.edu> writes:
Tim> Harlan brought up a question about garden-variety sprinklers to
Tim> reintroduce heated mash liquor to the mash/lauter-tun in a RIMS.
Tim> I've been wondering about this also. On a recent tour of Bell's,
Tim> I was told that their mash/lauter-tun has a spray ball valve in
Tim> the top for even distribution of recirulated runnings. I asked
Tim> (in horror!) about (you knew it was coming...) HSA and the guide
Tim> said that the spray ball is above the liquid surface of the mash
Tim> and they still don't have any trouble with oxidation.
Tim> It seems as if I merely think about oxygen and I get oxidation,
Tim> so why the discrepancy here? If the spray ball valve above the
Tim> liquid surface is OK, could I find and use one for my 1/2 bbl
Tim> RIMS (under construction)? I would also be interested in hearing
Tim> about other methods of recirulation with minimal grainbed
Tim> disturbance. Would a small spray valve like you find on a
Tim> hand-pumped herbicide-type sprayer be too constrictive even on
Tim> the "out" side of the pump? Questions, questions......
While a spray ball may be fine during sparging, I too would be
concerned of HSA. I use a copper manifold which uses many T's to
create 6 1/2" outlets split from a single 1/2" input. The outlets are
all in the same plane and that plane is at a right angle to the input
down tube which comes through the lid. The output plane sits on the
grain bed and is under the level of the mash liquor. This is
essentially impossible to do in ASCII art, so I won't.
dion
- --
Dion Hollenbeck (619)597-7080x119 Email: hollen@vigra.com
Senior Software Engineer Vigra, Inc. San Diego, California
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 15:44:39 -0400
From: acostell@moose.uvm.edu (andrew costello)
Subject: Brewing/Drinking Age
Does anyone out there know if there is a legal age attached to hombrewing?
Does it vary from state to state ? I am also interested to find out your
thoughts on the 21 year old drinking age. There is a bill being introduced
in the House of Representatives that would remove the requirement on states
that they must have a 21 year old drinking age to get federal highway money.
This requirement forced many states into adopting their legal age as 21,
even though they may not have wanted to. This is sure to touch off a debate,
and I'd like to know what the brewers think. Thanks.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 95 16:16:03 EDT
From: hadleyse@pweh.com
Subject: BRAINS SPECIAL ALE
When I was visiting Cardiff, Whales a few years ago I tried some Brains
Special Ale. Its an excellent Special Bitter which I have been
attempting to emulate. I know the O.G. is 1.041. Does anyone have any
info on ingredients for brewing some Brains? Any information at all
(i.e. types of grains or hops used) would be much appreciated. Thanks
in advance.
Scott Hadley in Connecticut, USA
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 95 15:06:58 MDT
From: roberts@Rt66.com (Bird)
Subject: Re: Beer Engines
Don't tell us: the real reason the Beer Engine-powered cars
were banned is that they were too hopped up...
Baboom.
- --Doug
- --
"24 hours in a day...24 beers in a case...coincidence?"
Doug Roberts
roberts@rt66.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 16:46:40 -0400
From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer@engin.umich.edu>
Subject: Mea culpa
I have to apologize for sending out 85 lines (2600 characters) of
standard recipe form in today's HBD. I won't do it again!
=Spencer Thomas in Ann Arbor, MI (spencer@umich.edu)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 15:37:21 -0600
From: Bill_Marks@ids.net (Bill Marks)
Subject: Genuine English Brass Beer Engines
My daughter's fiance hsa presented me with a genuine English pub beer
engine. It has two strokes per pint. It has clamps to attach it to the bar
in the same manner as you would clamp down a meat grinder. I have tried it
out by clamping it onto my bar and taking a suction on a corny keg. Its
beautiful! I t is soild brass except for a plastic tray that catches the
drips and it has a ceramic handle with a hunting scene.
My question is this: Is there any interest in buying these things? He can
get 10 - 15 more of them but the weigh about 20 lbs and will cost $$$ to
ship them over here. Are they commercially available so I can price them
out and see whether it is economically feasible to ship them over for resale?
TIA
Bill
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 23:37:00 -0400
From: TomF775202@aol.com
Subject: Re: download
Rob- Why do I no longer get the entire text of HBD now through AOL? How do I
get it? and finally how do I send you a message w/o being rejected?
Thanx, Tom
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1842, 09/27/95
*************************************
-------
