Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #1871
This file received at Hops.Stanford.EDU 1995/10/31 PST
HOMEBREW Digest #1871 Tue 31 October 1995
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor
Contents:
Pete's Wicked Bottles (David Pike)
Toasted Malt, Bitterness ("William D. Knudson")
Comments on Oct 26th HBD (w.r.) crick" <crick@bnr.ca>
Comments on Oct 26th HBD (w.r.) crick" <crick@bnr.ca>
Secondary Fermentation (Mitch Hogg)
Re: False Bottoms (hollen)
Re: Pump Sale (hollen)
Re: PH/airlocks/yeast washing (Tim Fields)
Mail Order Scientific Outlets? ("Michael A. Owings")
Wort Storage -- Summary ("Michael A. Owings")
UNSUSCRIBE (Scott Mayhew)
Carmelized Mashes and Propane Scare (Don Put)
Bulging cans of extract (bean)
new poster, info please (Steve Comella)
re: Mason Jars 101 (Dick Dunn)
propane burners indoors (Rob Lauriston)
False Bottom Performance (Kirk R Fleming)
propane indoors (blacksab)
Using a Blowoff Hose (John W. Braue, III)
Schneider Weisse (Rolland Everitt)
EASYSPARGER (Jack Schmidling)
SABCO Kettle as a Boiler (Phil Brushaber)
ftp stanford.edu (Richard Buckberg)
silicone and latex (David Hill)
Re: mead (Sean Cox)
Airlock Fluid (dludwig)
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!! October 3 thru October 13: The digest
!!! will be unmanned! Please be patient if
!!! you make any requests during this time
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
******************************************************************
* 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: Fri, 27 Oct 1995 14:39:39 -0700
From: David Pike <davep@cirrus.com>
Subject: Pete's Wicked Bottles
I thought I read somewhere that Pete's is selling 22oz.
bottles through their (T-shirt) catalog. Has anybody else
heard of this and what is the price, contact number, etc?
Dave Pike
davep@cirrus.com
------------------------------
Date: 27 Oct 95 18:43:34 EDT
From: "William D. Knudson" <71764.203@compuserve.com>
Subject: Toasted Malt, Bitterness
In HDB 1865 Eric Miller discusses the bitterness related to home toasted malt.
Maybe you've hit a green version of the elusive historically accurate version of
Porter. One thing we do know about the 'Porter Craze' of the late 18th and and
early 19th Century in Europe is that this stuff was aged for months, sometimes a
year, prior to dispening. Wasn't this to round out the malt bitterness?
Michael Jackson's book on beers of the world has a picture of a Coors label from
the 1870's that indicates the Porter was aged for 8 months. (It was't a big
three yet - No Flames)
So, don't give up on this beer! Let it sit around till next Spring and let us
know how the bitterness progressed!
In any case, input from the maltster world would be interesting: What is the
effect on beer bitterness by aging roasted malt prior to brewing? Was malt
aging a practice for this purpose in the porter brewing days of the 18th
Century?
Tschuss!
Bill
Ich kann besser Deutsch, wenn ich etwas Bier getrunken habe!
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 1995 15:54:00 -0400
From: "bill (w.r.) crick" <crick@bnr.ca>
Subject: Comments on Oct 26th HBD
Just a few comments on the Oct 26th digest.
Jerry Cunningham: The recipe you have presented has a greater
than 99% chance of producing beer. The Style of this beer is a
little known style called "Bottom of the Box Ale". There are not
commercial examples of this beer;-)
Gene Rafter on Chlorox use. I've used it for over a decade, with
no problems. Note that plastics can absorb it if the
concentrations, and/or contact time are too long, and this can
leach out later into your beer. If you use concentrated hot
solutions on glass, apparently it can etch the glass. I noticed
this when I started soaking hard to clean bottles with a strong
solution of Chlorox and hot water. The bottles I did this seemed
to need this treatment every time I used them after this. The
dishwasher lady at our cafeteria told me not to clean a teacup
with Chlorox, because it gets harder to clean because it affects
the glaze, which seem to support this theory.
Regarding cleaning, and or boiling caps. I've used about 10,000
of them right out of the box, with never a problem. The few
gushers I've ever had are ussually poorly cleaned bottles.
Diaphrams in regulators: They can be removed, but I don't know
where you would get a replcement. It could be the little pressure
relief valve is dirty. You can disassemble a regulator by
screwing the body apart. Most have a hex shaped portion in the
middle of the body. Remember how it came apart, clean and dry the
parts, and reassemble. I learned how to do this after plugging my
regulator set at 20PSI onto a overfull 30PSI keg. The regulator
vented the pressure back to 20PSI, forcing about a cup of beer
through the regulator and out of a little vent hole on the back
of it. Don't do this. It makes a mess! Make sure you screw the
main pressure adjusting screw out so the initial pressure when
you turn it on is low. There is no calibration required if you
don't change any parts. Be cautious of substituting parts like
the spring, or diaphram, or you could end up with a regulator
with a dramatically different output pressure range.(can you say
800PSI stainless steel beer rocket;-) )
Someone mentioned a sight glass on a kettle? Why? I supose if it
was large enough to allow free circulation through it, you could
judge the hot break?
Bill Crick
Brewius, Ergo Sum!
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 1995 15:54:00 -0400
From: "bill (w.r.) crick" <crick@bnr.ca>
Subject: Comments on Oct 26th HBD
Just a few comments on the Oct 26th digest.
Jerry Cunningham: The recipe you have presented has a greater
than 99% chance of producing beer. The Style of this beer is a
little known style called "Bottom of the Box Ale". There are not
commercial examples of this beer;-)
Gene Rafter on Chlorox use. I've used it for over a decade, with
no problems. Note that plastics can absorb it if the
concentrations, and/or contact time are too long, and this can
leach out later into your beer. If you use concentrated hot
solutions on glass, apparently it can etch the glass. I noticed
this when I started soaking hard to clean bottles with a strong
solution of Chlorox and hot water. The bottles I did this seemed
to need this treatment every time I used them after this. The
dishwasher lady at our cafeteria told me not to clean a teacup
with Chlorox, because it gets harder to clean because it affects
the glaze, which seem to support this theory.
Regarding cleaning, and or boiling caps. I've used about 10,000
of them right out of the box, with never a problem. The few
gushers I've ever had are ussually poorly cleaned bottles.
Diaphrams in regulators: They can be removed, but I don't know
where you would get a replcement. It could be the little pressure
relief valve is dirty. You can disassemble a regulator by
screwing the body apart. Most have a hex shaped portion in the
middle of the body. Remember how it came apart, clean and dry the
parts, and reassemble. I learned how to do this after plugging my
regulator set at 20PSI onto a overfull 30PSI keg. The regulator
vented the pressure back to 20PSI, forcing about a cup of beer
through the regulator and out of a little vent hole on the back
of it. Don't do this. It makes a mess! Make sure you screw the
main pressure adjusting screw out so the initial pressure when
you turn it on is low. There is no calibration required if you
don't change any parts. Be cautious of substituting parts like
the spring, or diaphram, or you could end up with a regulator
with a dramatically different output pressure range.(can you say
800PSI stainless steel beer rocket;-) )
Someone mentioned a sight glass on a kettle? Why? I supose if it
was large enough to allow free circulation through it, you could
judge the hot break?
Bill Crick
Brewius, Ergo Sum!
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 1995 08:49:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mitch Hogg <bu182@freenet.toronto.on.ca>
Subject: Secondary Fermentation
I thought I'd de-lurk to post my thoughts on secondary fermentation, largely
because it's a subject on which I actually *have* some thoughts (sheesh,
you guys and your "how much oxygen can one safely dissolve in the
double-axel beta amylase rest of a mason jar full of dog-show judges"
threads). At any rate, as far as I can tell, the cons of secondary
fermentation are as follows:
1) Infection
2) Spilling beer on the floor
whilst the pros are:
1) Keeping the beer from sitting on the bottom-dwelling crud (is that a
technical term?) for too long
2) Freeing up the primary for another batch (or to use as a priming vessel)
3) Ease of dry hopping
4) Glass carboy allows one to see the beer (and check for clarity, etc)
5) Aeration
As far as the cons are concerned, I don't think either one is a serious
potential problem. Regarding 1), I think everyone here knows that you
can't even *glance* at a batch of beer without risking infection, so be
sure to keep your racking as clean as possible. And as for 2), just be
careful where you point that hose.
As for the pros, 1) is (like everything else here) a matter of personal
taste, but I find that racking to the secondary reduces the element of
sediment surprise in the final bottles. 2) I find is very helpful in
keeping track of the progress of each batch. It's like an assembly line:
primary; secondary; bottle. As for 3), this is what I've been told. Maybe
I'll even try it someday. 4) is probably my strongest incentive. In my
early days doing this, using only an opaque plastic pail, I bottled (and
worse yet, offered to unsuspecting friends) some pretty cloudy beer.
With a glass secondary, you can actually see what's happening and know
when the beer is clear enough to bottle. In fact, my secondary
fermentation is a fermentation in name only; I usually leave it in the
primary for about a week and it's just about done all it's going to do before
I transfer it to the secondary. I know this is unorthodox, so correct me
if I'm doing something horribly wrong (yeah, like I had to ask:)).
Ditto for 5). Works for me, but if others want to open up the
to-splash-or-not-to-splash debate again, I'll be happy to listen to
reason (or, as is most likely, reasons. A lot of 'em; mostly contradictory).
And that's my half hour at 60C about secondaries.
YM, as usual, MV.
I will resume my ever-vigilant lurk.
Mitch.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 1995 07:34:07 -0700
From: hollen@vigra.com
Subject: Re: False Bottoms
>>>>> "Kirk" == Kirk R Fleming <flemingk@usa.net> writes:
Kirk> Jay Reeves <73362.600@compuserve.com> asked about: False Bottoms
>> Has anyone used the size of perf-plate that Martin specifies? Does
>> the grist get through the holes and do you have any scorching?
Kirk> Hole size: Yes. Hole spacing: No. You don't need that much
Kirk> open area (1/3 that much will work fine, even at 5 gpm recirc
Kirk> rates) altho I don't say it hurts.
I am beginning to suspect that this is not true. I am using a Phil's
Phalse bottom which, as close as I can determine, is 7/64" holes on
11/32" centers. When I do a mash of 14# grain in a 10 gal. Gott
cooler, everything is fine. When I get up to 18# like for my last
Belgian Strong Ale, then the 1/8hp pump I have at full bore has a very
hard time keeping a decent recirculation rate. I don't know what the
open area of this is, but I think I need to go to a much larger open
area. I am thinking of drilling some massive holes in the PPB and use
it as a framework only and put some 70% open SS mesh on to actually be
the false bottom.
Anybody have any thoughts? I am going to begin experimentation, and
will post any results back. This is a little daunting because I need
to brew such big beers to test out the performance. I am open to
other false bottom suggestions anyone may have for the Gott.
dion
- --
Dion Hollenbeck (619)597-7080x119 Email: hollen@vigra.com
Senior Software Engineer Vigra, Inc. San Diego, California
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 1995 08:30:28 -0700
From: hollen@vigra.com
Subject: Re: Pump Sale
>>>>> "GRMarkel" == GRMarkel <GRMarkel@aol.com> writes:
GRMarkel> I just received a sale paper from MSC (Manhatten Supply Co.)
GRMarkel> featuring pumps. What caught my eye was the price of a
GRMarkel> Little Giant magnetic coupled pump model 3X-MDX. This model
GRMarkel> has been mentioned several times in the HBD and seems to be
GRMarkel> generally accepted as a good pump for brewing systems. The
GRMarkel> description is as follows:
GRMarkel> "Model 3X-MDX [...] 1/50 HP.
While this is a great price and yes this is a great little pump for
transferring brewery liquids, it will be inadequate for a RIMS
system. The minimum for a RIMS is at the 1/20hp range and that will
only do for grain bills under about 15 lbs. While false bottom
geometry also comes into play, a pump this small has a hard time
pulling through a false bottom and large grain bed and trying to pump
it back up any significant distance.
While this pump may work fine in some instances even in RIMS, I would
be very cautious in buying it for a RIMS because you may find it is
not enough. Better to look for used surplus pumps with excess
capacity. I use a 1/8hp version that I got for $15 at a garage sale,
an MD-SC. Used mag pumps are available from time to time in the
surplus catalogs for about $50 or so.
dion
- --
Dion Hollenbeck (619)597-7080x119 Email: hollen@vigra.com
Senior Software Engineer Vigra, Inc. San Diego, California
------------------------------
Date: 28 Oct 95 11:56:43 EDT
From: Tim Fields <74247.551@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: PH/airlocks/yeast washing
In #1869, Paul Sovcik's <U18183@UICVM.CC.UIC.EDU> question leads me to another:
>Subject: pH testing for all grain brewing
>
> Miller states that testing the pH of the sparge water is critical
>because of increased tannins with a high pH. Of course, everything Miller
>does is " critical", so Im not sure I believe him completely. Seems to me
>that testing the runnings for sweetness and astringency would be all that
>is necessary, and checking pH is an optional step, much like checking SG..
>If you taste astringency, you add a bit of Ca to the sparge water.
>
> So whats the deal? Does everyone who brews all-grain check pH?
I began testing the PH of my mash because of low extraction rates. I use
the low cost PH test strips but have found it difficult to effectively
read them. Also, they are not what I would call "real accurate". For
the same reasons, I also tried to test the PH of sparge water with
absolutely no luck - the strip didn't react well at all to plain water.
My question (given the premise that assessing and adjusting PH is
important): is there any more accurate testing method out there between
the $3 test strips and the $80+ electronic Rolls Royce models?
- -------
Ken (krkoupa@ccmail2.srv.PacBell.COM) writes:
> What do you use in your bubbling-type air lock? Water? Vodka?
> Something else? I've been using water and a couple of times I've grown
algae-like
> stuff in the air lock.
Preboiled, cooled water poured into a sanitized airlock. I use whatever
happen to be in the tea kettle. Never had problems, and it's fair to say
I've had suck back airlock water drawn back into the carboy) in every batch.
>Besides, I'd hate to have a shot of vodka go undrunk.
>
I doubt algae would grow in vodka :-)
- ----------
rbarnes@sdccd.cc.ca.us follows up on the yeast washing thread:
> I have also done this successfully, but I have a question about
> the agitation of the yeast in order to promote settling of the
> layers into a "crud" layer on the bottom and a "clean" layer in
> the middle. It seems to take a while (over an hour) for a moderate
> amount of separation to occur.
I found that agitating several times, not just once, helped to achieve
disctict separation. I The yeast FAQ does mention several agitations, but
doesn't really state directly that it is helpful. I also placed the jars
into a cold water bath on the guess it would speed settling.
"Reeb!" Tim Fields ... Fairfax, VA
timf@relay.com (non-brewing time)
timfields@aol.com (weekends)
74247.551@compuserve.com (weekends)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 1995 09:38:07 -0700 (CDT)
From: "Michael A. Owings" <mikey@waste.com>
Subject: Mail Order Scientific Outlets?
Does anyone know of a good mail order scientific equipment outlet that
sells to the public? I'm looking for petri dishes, flasks, culture
tubes, etc. Thanx a bajillion in advance ...
-- mikey
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 1995 09:44:26 -0700 (CDT)
From: "Michael A. Owings" <mikey@waste.com>
Subject: Wort Storage -- Summary
The general HBD consensus on long-term storage of (large amounts) of wort
seems to be that it shouldn't be done, even at temps of around freezing,
for more than a day. Other suggestions included:
- Use nitrogen to take up excess carboy head space, CO2 might react w/
the wort.
- Do a mash-out to deactivate any enzymes that might have a chance to
work over the storage period
- Cool the wort prior to storage to minimize DMS production.
Thanx to all who responded. -- mikey
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 1995 10:35:37 -0600
From: bv977@Freenet.UCHSC.EDU (Scott Mayhew)
Subject: UNSUSCRIBE
UNSUBCRIBE
- --
Scott Mayhew bv977@freenet.uchsc.edu
University of Colorado
Health Sciences Center
Denver, CO
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 1995 10:36:05 -0700 (PDT)
From: Don Put <dput@cello.gina.calstate.edu>
Subject: Carmelized Mashes and Propane Scare
John Palmer wrote (Hey, John, how's the baby doing?):
>I dont think we touched on scorching of the mash, and in all fairness I
>will let Martin field that question. Again, my concern would be loss of
>heat transfer and scorching of grain that got beneath it; maybe its not a
>problem with the right hole diameters and size plate.
I can comment on this based on experience. I've always wanted to use my
mash tun as a combination mash/lauter tun, but, since I use a burner (a
nice, very controllable three-ring type) to do my temperature controlled
programs, I was worried about scorching and/or carmelizing the liquid under
the false bottom, especially once the mash converted and a heavy sugar
concentration would be found there. So, I constructed a lauter tun with a
1/2" SS drain directly in the center of the bottom, designed and built a
false bottom out of a piece of copper plate I found at a scrap yard, and
conformed the false bottom to the contour of the tun (Sankey keg) until
there was about 3/8" of dead space underneath. After mounting my motorized
mash mixer, I gave it a try. What do you think happened? Yeah, you got it.
Even with the mash mixer going the whole time, the sugars under the the
false bottom carmelized, then scorched into a solid, black mess. I went
ahead and finished the batch, but ended up tossing it (gee, is that a
painful experience or what?) because it tasted like burnt beer, and it's a
flavor that doesn't go away no matter how long it ages.
Even though I thought this might happen when I started the test, I did think
that by minimizing the dead space under the false bottom and stirring
constantly I could avoid the problem. Not so in my case. The only way to
avoid this with my setup would be to have a steam-heated mash tun, which I
don't think I'll construct at this point as it only takes a few minutes to
transfer the mash to the separate lauter tun.
>From: joep@informix.com (Earl the Pearl)
>Subject: gas burners indoors
>Don't do it! Propane is extremely dangerous. It's heavier than air and
>will seek out the lowest part of the room (house) and hang out. If
>there's a spark anywhere near it, say goodbye to your family, house, and
>everything inside it.
>Please use propane only ina *well* ventilated area (read this as
>*outdoors*)!
This is more than just a tad bit reactionary. While I agree that propane
can act in this manner, there are quite a few houses--mine being one of
them--up where I live that use propane-fired gas furnaces and they are
installed under the house, inside the house in closets, and in many other
tight, cramped places, and the installations conform to the UBC. Yes,
propane will "seek out the lowest" area of anywhere it's confined, but
there has to be a _leak_ first.
So, folks, the sky really isn't falling just yet. If the system has been
carefully checked for leaks, by using either the soap solution or manometer
leak-down methods, then I don't think propane is any more dangerous than
using natural gas under similar circumstances. ANY gas buildup in a
confined area is trouble waiting to happen, although I agree that
propane concentrations can build up faster because of it's heavier-than-air
properties. BTW, we have numerous propane suppliers up here and every time
a person switches from one to another, the new supplier has to do a leak-down
test; it is required by law and their insurance carriers.
Now, I personally would be more worried about carbon monoxide
concentrations building up from a burner in a small area. In fact, the last
time I had my heater checked, which I did at the start of the current heating
season two weeks ago, the technician was very careful to pull
the burner out and make sure that the heat exchanger wasn't cracked. Once
the heat exchanger cracks, it can allow less-then-healthy concentrations
of CO into the house along with the heat. This can be as deadly, in a much
more insidious way, as any explosion from gas buildup.
When was the last time you had your heat exchanger checked? According to
the guy who checked mine, he finds quite a few of them each year. With
some brands of gas-fired furnaces, this can happen over a few heating
seasons.
Sorry about the off-topic info on the heat exchangers, but after talking to
this heating guy I have a whole new interest in one of those things we tend
to take for granted like our house's heating system. I always thought just
changing the intake filters was all the maintanence that was required.
Cheers,
don (dput@cello.gina.calstate.edu)
"A long time ago, being crazy meant something."
-Charles Manson
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 1995 12:04:33 PDT
From: bean@seattle.email.net
Subject: Bulging cans of extract
I don't necessarily think htat I am enough of a brewer for you too heed my
advice, I do however think the old woman who livd next door to me as a child
was enough of a baker. I remember one year we we making pumpkin pies and
came across a bulging can of that mystery pumpkin pie filling. I being the
innocent child that I was, opened it with the can opener. The pie filling
sprayed all over the kitchen. At this point all pie making stopped and we
had to clean ourselves and the kitchen from top to bottom. Apparently, a
bulging can is a warning sign of botchilism (sp?). I don't know much about
botchilism, except that it can make you EXTREMELY sick. I would throw out
the bulging can......you can always buy more extract :)
Sabine
bean@seattle.relay.ucm.org
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 1995 17:33:54 -0700
From: brew2u@azstarnet.com (Steve Comella)
Subject: new poster, info please
Hello from the Tucson desert!
Inititially, I would like to thank the HBD collective for the enormous
amount of good (and
occasionally not so good : - ) ) information previously and currently posted
to the digest. I look
forward to the additional wisdom to come.
That said, I need some assistance. I am currently generating a "program" in
Excel, utilizing
data from the hop faq, Zymurgy's current grain issue, and other sources.
The "program" will
use drop-down menus to select which style you plan to brew, and which
grains, adjuncts, hops
and yeast you would like to use. What it will do is allow you to match your
recipe to your
specified target (so far it has worked ok on published recipes) by
calculating the expected
OG and color using your grain/adjunct bill, print a shopping list,
print/save your recipe including procedures, et al. No, I haven't figured
out how to get it to make my b'fast ;-).Yet.
Anyhow, what I need is data regarding the average color (L) and points per
pound of the malt extracts available to homebrewers. I realize that it
would be a rather large amount of data, but I don't care (are most CPA's
like this?). I think I have exhausted nearly all of the Net resources
available, hence this post.
I will also be generating a program based upon the water analysis' of world
famous brewing areas using the info previously posted; this will (hopefully)
generate the deficiencies/overabundances in comparing your water to the
chosen target.
Of course, when all of this has been tested in practice and passed, I will
make it available to whomever wants it.
Feel free to e-mail me directly. If there is any other interest re: this
info, I will be happy to post.
TIA
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Didn't your mother ever tell you not to play with your balls by the road?, I
asked the juggler.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Steve Comella
brew2u@azstarnet.com
------------------------------
Date: 28 Oct 95 18:29:57 MDT (Sat)
From: rcd@raven.eklektix.com (Dick Dunn)
Subject: re: Mason Jars 101
Pat Babcock (pbabcock@e-mail.com) wrote:
> > In HBD 1866 Dick Dunn comments on the design of Mason Jars to vent excess
> > pressure...
>
> Unfortunately this isn't quite right. When packing jars to go into the canner,
> the rings are tightened only 'finger-tight'; ie. they are tightened just
> enough to prevent the contents from spilling out of their own volition. It is
> this loose fit that gives the pressure relief to which you refer,...
"Screw the band down firmly..." (Ball _Blue_Book_) is not a "loose fit".
What Pat calls "finger tight" really amounts to "Do not use jar wrench or
other device to tighten the screw band." It's expected to be tight, just
not enough to damage the seal or prevent normal pressure release during the
processing. I figured that if you tried to put homebrew in it, you'd
tighten the lid the same as a home canner would, and so the jar would
start to vent at about the same pressure as it does in canning.
I'm not claiming this makes them useful for homebrew! Pat and I agree
completely that canning jars are no good for this. As I said before,
"it's using the design backwards" because the seals are intended to hold
by partial vacuum, not pressure. I only meant to point out that the
jars ARE designed for some amount of pressure during processing--as much
as the lid allows before it starts to vent--and that there is a pressure-
release mechanism designed in. That's another reason not to use them for
brewing--who wants a container that automatically lets the carbonation
out?!?
- ---
Dick Dunn rcd@talisman.com -or- raven!rcd Boulder, Colorado USA
...Simpler is better.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 95 17:56 PDT
From: robtrish@mindlink.bc.ca (Rob Lauriston)
Subject: propane burners indoors
Bruce Taber <BRUCE.TABER@NRC.CA> asked about using propane indoors. Joe
Pearl <joep@informix.com> gave a good warning of the potential dangers, but
I think he went a bit too far:
>Don't do it! Propane is extremely dangerous....
>Please use propane only in a *well* ventilated area (read this as *outdoors*)!
You must have ventilation, but lots of indoor situations allow this. You
just have to keep in mind that you and the flames need enough air to
breathe, you don't want to breathe much of the 'exhaust', and you don't want
unburned gas to accumulate. I think the biggest danger is that someone
might leave their boil unattended, have a boil-over that extinguished the
flame, and then have a gas build-up and explosion. To the warning that
there must be good ventilation, I'd add that it needs to be supervised. I
store the tanks outside too, and only bring them in when I'm using them.
(They also get used for 'canning' pickles, jams, relishes and such. "You
see dear, they're not just for brewing!" I think the religion thread got
started in order to avoid what Ken G. started asking about in that post --
brewing and the significant other ;-)
Since my brewing buddy Don Moore has some of his equipment in my basement, I
end up having two 35,000 BTU burners going under a 1.5' x 2.5' window with
fan in the window blowing outwards, or blowing across the top of the pots
towards the window. There's also a level-entry door open about fifteen feet
away.
There might be some problems in the depths of winter if one is reluctant to
let the winter winds inside. Compared to other parts of this country,
winters aren't too severe here, but as a former Ottawa Valley boy, I know
you have to coddle your brass monkey in the old country.
I was hesitant to use propane inside, but I love the effectiveness of the
gas burners. My question is, would I be any better off with natural gas
(like the hot water heater and furnace which are also in the basement)?
Rob Lauriston <robtrish@mindlink.bc.ca>
The Low Overhead Brewery Vernon, B. C.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 1995 18:47:38 -0600
From: flemingk@usa.net (Kirk R Fleming)
Subject: False Bottom Performance
In #1867 Reeves said:
> Martin calls for a 20 gauge 3/32" holes on 5/32" centers (33% open..
and I responded "You don't need that much open area (1/3 that much
will work fine, even at 5 gpm recirc rates) altho I don't say it hurts."
Dion, in #1869 responds:
> I am beginning to suspect that this is not true. I am using a Phil's
> Phalse bottom which <snip> is 7/64" holes on 11/32" centers. When I
> do a mash of 14# grain in a 10 gal. Gott cooler, everything is fine.
> When I get up to 18# <snip> then the 1/8hp pump <snip> has a very hard
> time keeping a decent recirculation rate. I don't know what the
> open area of this is, but I think I need to go to a much larger open
> area.
I compute you have about 8% open area, assuming this hole pattern is
across the entire plate. By my calculation Martin's is about 28%, and
Rodney Morris (in The RIMS Article) is a 70% open system.
Here's my data, although I don't draw too many conclusions from it.
Grain bill weights are given for batches done with three different
false bottom designs described in the notes to the right of the table:
Grain (lbs)
- -----------
1. 5.5 -Grain bills 1-6 were mashed using a false bottom that was
2. 11.5 15 3/8" in diameter, having 900 holes 3/32" on 3/8" centers
3. 22.0 for an approx. 3.3% open area. Depth of the grain bed was
4. 18.25 about 12-14" on the larger bills.
5. 21.5 -Grain bill 7 was done with a 14 5/8" diameter bottom with
6. 20.5 2120 5/64" holes on 1/4" centers, for a percentage open area
7. 20.5 of about 6.2%. Depth about 12-14", from memory :-)
31. 6.5 -Grain bill #31 was the largest run so far with a small
stovetop system, the false bottom for which is a 11 3/4"
diameter plate having 1350 holes 5/64" dia on 1/4" centers
and a percentage open area of 6.0%. Depth of grain bed was
approx 6", +/- 1/2".
You have my approx grain bed depths and can see how they compare to
yours. Without knowing the dimensions of a 10 gal Gott, all I can say
is this: Since I could easily recirc with just 3.3% open, and certainly
had no problems with 22lb bills using 6% open, your 8% should be more
than adequate for any recirc rate you want. That leaves the unknown
data: your grain bed depth. If it's 50-100% deeper than mine, then that
may be the significant difference in our setups. As a sanity check on
how deep I'm claiming by beds are, runs 1-7 above are in a Sanke
(15 5/8" ID), and run 31 above is in an 11 3/4" dia vessel.
If flow is okay with 14 lbs of grain, but jams up with 18 lbs, I might
conclude grain bed compaction is the problem. But that increase in
grain weight still isn't up to the nearly 22 lbs of Run 5 above, PLUS
you have 30% more 'openess' in your plate, AND larger holes. IOW, not
only is percentage of open plate greater, each individual hole is also
larger than mine. Doesn't make sense.
I can't reason out how plate design couples with bed compaction. To me
it doesn't follow that a more open bottom will improve the situation.
I'm not saying it won't or I wouldn't try it. It just isn't *obvious*
to me why it would help. Was this a single data point, and if so is it
possible flow was restricted elsewhere in the system?
Two more points: 1) I'm able to allow the grain bed to drain quite a bit
(as in run dry) and still maintain *at least* sparging rates of
circulation. I would expect this dramatic reduction in buoyant force
on the bed would mimic a much deeper bed. 2) Pump power is probably not
a factor with centrifugal (not positive displacement) pumps. Mine is
a 1/25 hp unit and NOT a factor in pulling wort thru the bed.
Finally, Dion also asked:
> Anybody have any thoughts? I am going to begin experimentation, and
> will post any results back. This is a little daunting because I need
> to brew such big beers to test out the performance.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yeah yeah yeah. That's the same line I use with my wife when she asks
why I have so many bags of grain when I walk out of the supply shop.
"I need to do a few experiments." Don't think she always buys it, but I
just insist I need more *data*, heh heh heh. :-)
KRF Colorado Springs
- ------------------------------------------------------
"We can help the cause of pale ale both by drinking it
and brewing it as much as possible." Terry Foster
- ------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 1995 01:15:02 -0600
From: blacksab@siu.edu
Subject: propane indoors
I have been using a Cajun Cooker clone in my basement for a while now with
absolutely no problems. I'm also extremely careful. Here's what I see to be
the potential dangers:
1. Carbon monoxide
2. Lack of oxygen
3. Leaking tanks, hoses and fittings, and the ensuing fire
4. Explosion
I see Carbon Monoxide as the greatest danger to safety. Colorless, odorless,
and extremely deadly. However, an adequate ventilation hood and a CO
detector solve that problem. I think it is insructive to note that the fires
under the Woks in Chinese restaurants are considerably larger than the
burners that most of us use. There are usually more of them and they burn
for considerably longer periods of time than the 4-hours or so that it takes
to mash and boil a batch of beer. A CO detector sure doesn't hurt, and eases
the concerns of most skeptics.
Lack of oxygen is less of a problem in most houses since most houses leak
like sieves anyway. I'm a remodeling contractor and I see it all the time.
HOWEVER, lack of oxygen is a real concern in tightly constructed,
superinsulated houses; in fact, indoor air pollution in general is a problem
in such homes. The oxygen problem can be solved by feeding the fire with
outside air--a small fan and some flexible clothes-dryer hose works fine.
Leaking gas joints are ALWAYS a problem, be it propane or naural gas. But
not necessarily because an explosion might occur (although it might). The
more likely problem is starting something else on fire, and then freaking
out. Most leaks are very small, and if they ignite at all, can usually be
blown out and corrected. BUT ALL JOINTS SHOULD BE TIGHT IN THE FIRST PLACE
and tested before a match gets anywhere near them.
Finally, although it is true that propane is heavier than air and thus
sinks, so too does natural gas. This is really only a problem if a leaking
pipe is neglected for a goodly length of time. Gas stinks, and it becomes
nauseating long before it becomes explosive. Gas explosions are usually hot
water tanks because we keep them in out of the way, confined spaces where no
one can smell them, and kablooey! Portable Propane tanks should NEVER be
stored in the basement or the garage! Keep them outside away from the house
and away from children.
With proper care and consideraion, brewing in the basement is IMHO, a safe
and pleasant place to brew. A little caution goes a long way. Whether you
brew or not, every house should have adequate fire extinguishers, smoke
detectors, and Carbon Monoxide detectors that are KNOWN to function. Check
everything regularly.
Hope this helps, and please, no flames...
--Harlan
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 1995 09:48:45
From: braue@ratsnest.win.net (John W. Braue, III)
Subject: Using a Blowoff Hose
Gene Rafter <grafter@creighton.edu> asks:
> My ? is have many of you who have used the blowoff method
>described in The Complete Homebrew Guide found any benefit from this
>besides reducing the risk of contamination? I made an Octoberfest 2
>weeks ago and yea it was kind of fun watching the carboy blowoff the
>Kreausen and all but when I transfered to a secondary carboy I noticed
>how much I lost. I'm not going to notice anything till I try my beer but
>I thought I would ask a more experienced brewmeister what he/she thinks
>of this method.
>
Being a homebrewer when I have time (somebody find me a contract
that doesn't involve so much overtime!), I have fermented both with
and without a blowoff hose. I don't know about protection from
contamination, but I find a blowoff hose helps with reducing the
risk of overflowing fermenters.
I basically brew two types of beer: a sort of stout/porter hybrid
with an OG of 1.07, and a red ale with an OG of about 1.045. The
red ale ("Rotbrau") is a well-behaved brew that ferments vigorously
but decorously in a 6.5 gallon plastic bucket with a standard
fermentation lock attached. The stout/porter hybrid ("Grossbrau")
is a wild, out-of-control thing that typically threatens to blow
the top off of the fermenter, makes whining noises that scare my
wife, and would probably eat the parakeet if I didn't keep an eye
on it. A blowoff hose is a practical necessity to prevent a
world-class mess from developing every time I brew it (not that my
household is any stranger to world-class messes...)
Recommendation: ferment any given recipe with a fermentation lock
on the fermenter the first time. If you awaken to find two
gallons of spilled beer/kraeusen oozing out of the crevices,
ferment it with a blowoff hose in the future.
- --
John W. Braue, III braue@ratsnest.win.net
I prefer both my beer and my coffee to be dark and bitter; that way,
they fit in so well with the rest of my life.
I've decided that I must be the Messiah; people expect me to work
miracles, and when I don't, I get crucified.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 1995 09:59:57 -0500
From: af509@osfn.rhilinet.gov (Rolland Everitt)
Subject: Schneider Weisse
A few days ago I enjoyed a bottle of Schneider Weisse at a local
restaurant. Noticing the yeast in the bottle, I decided to take
the bottle home and try to culture the dregs. I seem to have
something going - but what is it? Anyone ever use this yeast,
or have any idea what they use?
Rolland Everitt
af509@osfn.rhilinet.gov
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 95 10:47 CST
From: arf@mcs.com (Jack Schmidling)
Subject: EASYSPARGER
Michael Wood ponders the virtues of developing a continuous
sparger and suggests that he may be re-inventing the wheel.
Well, it is (was) called the EASYSPARGER (TM) and after
three years of trying to convince the hb community that it
was as good an idea as the EASYMASHER and the MALTMILL, I
sold about a dozen and removed it from the product line.
It did more to simplify my brewing process than any other
gadget I have come up with but I guess I did not try hard
enough to convince the hide-bound-gotta-do-it-the
traditional-way crowd.
Basically, it is a one gallon kettle with a hose that hooks
onto the kitchen fawcet and another short hose an inch lower
on the front where the hot water dribbles out into the mash
tun. It sits on the stove and makes as much sparge water as
needed and about as fast as required. When all done it
stows away in the EM kettle and and totally eliminates all
the hassle of batch sparging.
I still have a few dozen kettle and some parts but no
interest in making them. MM's and EM's keep my busy enough.
If anyone wants to give it a whirl and is willing to pick
them up, they are here for the taking.
js
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 95 08:57:00 -0600
From: phil.brushaber@lunatic.com (Phil Brushaber)
Subject: SABCO Kettle as a Boiler
I finally came up with the bucks to buy a SABCO kettle (reconditioned
15.5 gallon keg). I was quite please with the clean, professional
restoration. And it's nice to have legal stuff.
I am not using this as a mash/lauter tun, just a boiler, so I got the
basic kettle plus a stainless steel drain and a brass spigot. SABCO
installs the drain hole as low as feasible on the bottom outside edge of
the keg. However this still has about 1 - 1.5 gallons of wort remaining
in the keg after it is drained.
Before I start experimenting with brass elbows inside the keg. I thought
someone might pass along their good solution to lowering the drain on
the SABCO. BTW after four years of homebrewing and now not having to use
a pan to "bail" my hot wort out of my standard Volrath kettle, I now
know of the pleasure of whirlpooling the hotbreak and hops to the bottom
center of the kettle and gently draining wort from the side of the
kettle.
Now I just need to know how to effectively get at more of the "goodies"
without desturbing the hop/break "pyramid" in the center.
- ----
The Lunatic Fringe * Richardson, TX * 214-235-5288 * Home Of FringeNet
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 1995 14:04:22 -0800
From: Richard Buckberg <buck@well.com>
Subject: ftp stanford.edu
I have been trying to ftp from the Stanford archives for most of the past
week. Every time, at all hours, the connection is closed by the host
without allowing login.
Is something wrong with the site? Or is it just so busy that I can't get an
anonymous ftp slot?
What I'm after is a file of the 1995 GABF winners. If someone could mail me
that file, or direct me to another source, I'd be much obliged.
Thanks!
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 09:18:03 +1100
From: davidh@melbpc.org.au (David Hill)
Subject: silicone and latex
Could anyone who knows please advise any adverse effects of using either
latex or silicone in beer dispensing system.
Latex in uni directional valves & silicone to seal leaks
I cannot find "food grade" silicone only the plumbers/ glazers variety.
many thanks
David Hill
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 95 18:01:40 EST
From: scox@factset.com (Sean Cox)
Subject: Re: mead
>From: "James Giacalone" <JGiacalone@vines.ColoState.EDU>
>Subject: Mead
>
>I have a 5 gallon carboy of mead that I made in June.
>I used sterile techniques handling the mead from the start.
>It has benn racked twice and the problem is that I am begininng to see
>white spots arond the top edge of the mead.
>Is this yeast ( I hope) or is it contaminated? It smells fine.
>Please help! TIA
I've had this happen when I use "raw" or "unprocessed" honeys. The
stuff floating on top of the mead looks like little odd-shaped "colonies" of
something (probably evil) but turn out to be coagulated beeswax that was in
the honey. If you take one of the specks out and try to crush it in your
fingers, it should smear like wax, not like "evil creatures". This has
happened particularly in honey beers that I've made, so if you boiled or
heated your must I would almost expect it.
The wax itself is harmless, but I try to remove the big pieces by
skimming so they don't gum up the bottling equipment.
--Sean
=== Sean Cox, Systems Engineer ==================== FactSet Data Systems ===
=== scox@factset.com ==================== Greenwich, CT ===
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 00:07:31 -0500
From: dludwig@ameritel.net
Subject: Airlock Fluid
Ken Koupal asked about what to put in your airlock. Use clorox at around 1/4
cup to 5 gal (ala papazian). If you sanitize with this, you should have
plenty around. If you have an algae problem, you're probably getting too
much sunlight.Keep it dark around your fermenter.
dludwig@atc.ameritel.net
dave ludwig
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1871, 10/31/95
*************************************
-------
