Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #1904
This file received at Hops.Stanford.EDU 1995/12/08 PST
HOMEBREW Digest #1904 Fri 08 December 1995
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor
Contents:
Air Heating (Merino Lithographics)
Weizen (Gauthier Louis-Charles)
wine, thanks, Greenville, SC, DMS (CLAY)
Request - Summery mint brew? (John Meredith)
RE: Riverside Brewing? ("Brown, Scott")
Orifice size clarification/correction (claytonj)
PH and SG of sparge ("Taber, Bruce")
Re: low tech aeration (Steve Zabarnick)
Quality (Craig Amundsen)
faster carbonation (again) (ESMPD)" <gcunning@Census.GOV>
Lambic Digest Address request (wyatt)
Re:CO2 in solution, high/low temp conditioning (Gary McCarthy)
counter-flow chillers (Ronald Moucka)
REPLY (SHORT, COGENT ;-)) TO "QUALITY (LONG, RAMB ("BATLAN -D1FKV0W")
Stuck kettle runoff (Scott Kaczorowski)
stove/mini lauter tun (Jeff Smith)
Brandy? Not! (Domenick Venezia)
RE EXTRACT FAQ / Ziplock Oxygen Barrier Bags (Tim Fields)
Canning kit report (ED, QUANTUM PE, (508) 770-2251)
Oven mashing ("Dave Draper")
Pittsburgh beer sources (Carl Hensler)
Re: CO2 in solution, high/low temp conditioning (Kelly Jones Intel Portland Technology Development)
water loss/set mashes/CO2 in solution/DMS OOPS!/decoctions (Algis R Korzonas)
Propane again ("William G. Rucker")
Split decoction mash mess ("Mark A. Melton")
******************************************************************
* 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: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 20:20:17 +1000
From: merino@cynergy.com.au (Merino Lithographics)
Subject: Air Heating
Rob Wallace posted
> I came across a variable temp heat gun which blows high velocity
>heated air (350 to 1,000+ ^F, adjustable) out its business end. My first
>thoughts were to try to build an "air-manifold" which would NOT have small
>holes or slits in it, but would coil several times in the mash and then be
>vented out the top of the mash tun (I use a 10 gallon Gott). Obviously one
>would not want to increase AIR flow *through* the tun, but some sort of hot
>air flow through copper tubing could possibly be used to boost mash temps
>(ever touch a hot exhaust pipe?). This would essentially be a "reverse wort
>chiller" made from several lengths of 5/8" or 3/4" soft copper tubing
>sufficient to allow high volume flow of air through coils (no condensate!)
>submerged in the mash and out through open (opposite) ends of the tubes (i.e
>low, if any, back pressure to the blower), substituting hot (very hot) air
>for cool water. Benefits of this system might be that the heat source could be
>switched on and off easily, and the air temperature could be easily adjusted;
>(steam never gets above 100^C unless superheated right?), there is no
>explosion hazard, nor is there the need to replenish water to be boiled.
>Furthermore it would free the brewer from the use of a stove, propane cooker,
>or hotplate. I like the idea of electric temperature boosts without the use
>of resistive elements in contact with wort....
And Ken Schwartz replied
>1) Copper actually IS a pretty good heat conductor, so you would get at
>least the benefit of minimal thermal resistance between the air & the mash.
2) Would the temperature gradient from "inlet" to "exhaust" cause problems
with "hot spots"? Continuous stirring might be necessary.
3) Perhaps you could *partially* fill the coil with water, and "bubble" the
hot air through it. Depends on the force of the air from the gun.
Basically, what wattage(power) is this air gun? To heat a 40 litre (10 gal)
mash the basic 0.5C (~1F) per minute you will need at least (4.19 * 40 * 0.5
* 60) 1400 watts with no losses in exhausted hot air. You will probably need
>3000W. If it is a paint stripper gun it is probably about 2000 watts.
The copper tube is practically irrelevant to calculating heat flow. The real
barriers are the air/metal and metal/wort interfaces and any laminar flow
boundary layers. The overal heat transfer coefficient (air/matal/water)from
hot exhaust gases to water is about 140W/m2K, watts per square metre per
degree Kelvin temperature differential for *turbulent flow*. (Kelvin =
absolute entigrade)
The area of you tubing depends on the temperature differentials. Lets take a
look at the worst case scenario. Air at 176C (350F)in and 90C(195F)exit and
mash at 70C (160F). The log mean temperature difference is thus 51K. That
means 140 * 51K = 7.14 kilowatts/m2. That is 0.2 square metres of copper in
a perfect system. Unfortunately you will have to vigoursly stir your mash to
maintain turbulent flow in the mash. Your turbulent flow (no insulating
boundary layer) problems suggest you should overbuild to about 0.5 square
metres. In 25mm tube (1 inch) this is about 6.25 metres (20 feet)
I suggest 25mm because air is essentially incompressible at the velocities
of fans. This means it has to go faster in the tube than out of the gun, in
proportion to their cross sectional areas. The increase in friction
resistance and the energy needed to accelerate it are loads your air gun may
not handle. At reduced air velocities through the gun it will overheat and
burn out. This is why I suggest the lowest heat setting. Remember it was
designed for use in an open room.
The gun being able to push the air through the tube is your biggest problem.
Also air is capable of maintaining laminar boundary layers at high
velocities and without convection at the tube wall, the conduction
properties of air are about 1/23th those of water, which is about 1/280th
that of copper. Some method of roughening the inside of the tube would help.
Don't put water in it, too much air flow resistance.
Why use the air at all? If you want a hot coil in your mash, your local
heating element maker could wip up a SS low density element for about
US$120, which he could shape into a coil.
Making beer sometimes is so complex, it is a wonder it was made at all!
Charlie (Brisbane, Australia)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 08:08:00 -0500 (EST)
From: Gauthier Louis-Charles <gauthiel@ERE.UMontreal.CA>
Subject: Weizen
A question for the collective.
I received a bottle of Dunkles Hefe Weizen (Tucher) from a friend and I
want to make one using the yeast from that bottle. Do any of you know if
that yeast is the right one or is it just for carbonation?
While I'm at it, I've been looking for a receipe for a Spatan clone. Is
there one out there?
Thanks in advance
Louis-Charles Gauthier
gauthiel@tornade.ere.umontreal.ca
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 1995 08:21:52 -0500 (EST)
From: CLAY@prism.clemson.edu
Subject: wine, thanks, Greenville, SC, DMS
Wine, oops, nevermind...
1) Brewpubs in Greenville, SC?
2) I find that I like a little DMS flavor (that's the "corn" overtone, right?)
in lighter brews. Any advice on how to produce _controllable_ amounts? I
am strictly an extract-brewing weenie, so no "you must mash like _this_, my
son" advice, please.
Thanks in advance,
C
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 00:49:36 -40962758 (CST)
From: John Meredith <johnm@byron.apana.org.au>
Subject: Request - Summery mint brew?
Seeings as summer is well on it's way down under, I was wondering if
anyone has brewed a beer using mint with any success. IMHO a nice mint
drink is extremely refreshing during summer (even a hot mint tea), but I'm
unsure as to weather the beer should be based on a lager or something
substantially sweeter. Recipes and comments appreciated.
Regards,
John.
- --
"A cynic is a person searching for an John Meredith
honest man, with a stolen lantern." Tel. ++61 369 1483
-- Edgar A. Shoaff Email: johnm@byron.apana.org.au
------------------------------
Date: 6 Dec 1995 08:31:53 -0800
From: "Brown, Scott" <sbrown@msmail3.hac.com>
Subject: RE: Riverside Brewing?
>A buddy and I will be in Riverside, California next week. Anyone know
>of a good spot for great beer? We'll be staying near the University.
The Riverside Brewing Co. is on 7th and University very near the school. They
have two or three GABF medal winners, but all of their beers (~5) are very
good. Also, the Fullerton Hoffbrau is about 45 minutes west on the 91 freeway
in Fullerton on State College. They also have several good brews to choose
from. I am particularly fond of their Duke's Bock. If I am not mistaken,
they brew 5 standards and one seasonal (Christmas, I think is a rasberry
weizen).
Scott B.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 09:43:32 -0500
From: claytonj@cc.tacom.army.mil
Subject: Orifice size clarification/correction
Howdy folks,
I received a message from Scott Kaczorowski (thanks Scott!) saying the
orifice sizes on his burner were both larger than the .035" I mentioned
in my previous post. Last night I checked them with some drills from my
whimpy drill set and found the propane orifice was approximately 1/16" or
.063" and the natural gas was approximately 3/32" or .094". I called the
gas company where I purchased the burner for clarification and found that
he didn't say .035" but a #35 drill or .110" which is just over 7/64".
Sorry for the confusion.
I received a bunch of private email for additional information so I'll
pass it along here:
Superb Gas Products: (618) 234-6169 fax# (618) 234-5218
48 Empire drive, Belleville, IL 62220
I purchased the model 35k BTU 16-20E "Professional Cooker"
They don't sell directly but they gave me the 800 number of a distributor
800 441-4223. I can't find the paper that I wrote the price they quoted
but I think it was $85 - $89 before shipping. I called Superb for some
local distributors and they were able to provide them but it took a while
on the phone, their database was not very user friendly for the person on
the phone.
I got mine locally at Van Dyke Gas in Centerline MI (810) 757-8500 for
$71.90 plus $39 for the extra gas valve, nipple, 10' of rubber gas hose
with fittings, and an extra stove control valve with the new .110"
orifice. BTW he just used the #35 drill in a battery screw driver to
drill out the orifice. No precision involved. He said that home gas
pressure varies and the opening can be enlarged a bit if I wasn't getting
enough heat. My chart shows 1/8 as the next fractional size which is
.0125 or close to drill #31 (not a recommendation disclaim, disclaim,
disclaim :-) ).
They sell legs for the stove for an additional $15 but the stove would be
about 36" (my estimate) off the ground which is too high, in my opnion,
with the converted keg I plan to use. I wouldn't be able to see inside
or stir the wort (I'm only 5'9"). The guy at VDG said he can sit on the
burner with legs and he was 185 lbs. so it seems sturdy enough.
Sorry for the confusion and I hope this helps.
Cheers,
Joe Clayton
Farmington Hills, MI USA
ak753@detriot.freenet.org (preferred)
claytonj@cc.tacom.army.mil (if you must)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 95 09:45:00 EST
From: "Taber, Bruce" <BRUCE.TABER@NRC.CA>
Subject: PH and SG of sparge
I need some help on the correct procedure for sparging. Last week
I asked the collective about the recommended rate for sparging (gal / hr)
To summarize the responses (thanks y'all), it seems that the rate of
sparging is not too important. What IS important is that you continue to
sparge until the runnings reach a SG of 1.010 or a PH of about 6.0 .
It was suggested that the minimum time involved should be no less
than 45 min. Some responses did suggest flow rates of about 1qt/min.
Well I understand the concepts of stopping the sparge at SG 1.010,
(this keeps the sugar content of the wort high enough), and stopping
at a PH of 5.5 - 6.0 (this stops excess tannin extraction from the grains)
But how do you measure these?
The runnings are at about 75 deg. C. There would have to be a
significant correction factor added to any SG reading taken with a
hydrometer. Is this the procedure followed? What is the correction
factor?
Are those test papers really accurate enough to nail the PH to within
a half a point? What about the correction due to the high temperature
or the runnings?
One last question. A few days ago someone in the HBD mentioned
that they add 1/4 tsp of acidblend per 10 gal. of sparge water to
ensure the PH stays below 6.0. This seems like an interesting idea.
Any opinions on this procedure?
Well bye for now. I've got to go and frig with my fridge.
Bruce Taber (in rural Ontario)
taber@irc.lan.nrc.ca
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 09:56:57 -0400
From: steve@snake.appl.wpafb.af.mil (Steve Zabarnick)
Subject: Re: low tech aeration
In HBD #1902, Joe Fleming writes:
> Was making a starter the other day that I wanted to take off
> quickly, so I broke out the electric hand beaters. Talk aboout foam!
> There was no wort left!
>
> Is this an objectionable procedure to aerate a full batch? Does
> the violent action of the beater create any undesired circumstances
> that the "gentler" aeration stone or venturi wand does not?
Sounds like it is time again for a "FOOP" discussion! BTW, FOOP = Foam only
once proteins, which is a theory previoulsy proposed on the digest that
proteins, which may be denatured by foam formation, are no longer able to
form foam after violent bubbling or shaking. I believe this theory was
mostly discounted after numerous empirical studies of the foam stability of
shaken/unshaken beer.
Steve Zabarnick
Dayton, OH
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 09:10:27 -0600 (CST)
From: Craig Amundsen <amundsen@biosci.cbs.umn.edu>
Subject: Quality
Hi -
I've just got to weigh in on the "quality" thread. ;^)
It is my opinion that, in the beer world, the word quality has gone the way
of 'premium'. Premium beer comes from the era when large breweries first
started transporting beer long distances from the brewery. This beer cost more
than the locally produced beers: you had to pay a premium when you bought it.
For some reason, premium now means good not more expensive.
When thinking about quality I like to keep the words accuracy and precision
in mind. A quality beer is one that is produced in an accurate and precise
manner. In the world o' science, a measurement is accurate if you get the
same number when you repeat the measurement. The precision of a measurement
is how many units (furlongs, hogsheads, microliters, etc) separate two
divisions on your measuring tool. So, a quality beer is one that tastes the
same from one batch to another and that taste is exactly the taste that is
desired. By this measure Budmilloormolatts make quality beer. So does Fritz
Maytag. So does Jim(tm) Koch(tm). I do not. My beers, while usually pleasing
to my taste buds tend to taste different from batch to batch and I'm never
really sure what the beer will taste like when it's done. Budmilloormolatts
have managed to convince the beer drinking public that quality means good
not repeatable.
Just my $0.02
- Craig
+-----------------------------+------------------------------------------------+
| Craig Amundsen | DILBERT - Sometimes I wonder if it's ethical |
| amundsen@biosci.cbs.umn.edu | to do these genetic experiments. But |
| (612) 624-2704 | I rationalize it because it will |
| 250 Biological Sciences | improve the quality of life. |
| 1445 Gortner Avenue | DOGBERT - What are you making? |
| Saint Paul, MN 55108 | DILBERT - Skunkopotamus. |
+-----------------------------+------------------------------------------------+
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 10:42:11 -0500 (EST)
From: "Jerry Cunningham (ESMPD)" <gcunning@Census.GOV>
Subject: faster carbonation (again)
In #1899, I wrote:
>>In Dave Miller's new book, _Dave Miller's Homebrewing Guide_, he states
>>something to the effect that, when priming with corn sugar, the corn
>>sugar in the bottle get fermented very quickly - something like 24 - 48
>>hours. All the (newly produced) CO2 is in the head space at this point.
>>It's the disolving of the CO2 _back into the beer_ that takes 2-3 weeks.
In #1902, Kelly wrote:
>I haven't seen this book, but what you have written makes no sense to me.
>The newly produced CO2 is produced _in solution_, not in the headspace.
>By what mechanism would it all come out of solution in 24-48 hours, and
>then spend 2-3 weeks trying to get back in? I believe this is an error.
>
>Kelly
O.K., here's the direct quote from _Dave Miller's Homebrewing Guide_ ,
Chapter 25, p. 218:
"In practice, saturation is not always easy to achieve. For example,
with bottle-conditioned beer, the priming sugar will ferment in 24
hours or less. At the end of that time, all of the gas is in the bottle.
However, most of it is in the headspace, because it just rises through
the beer as it is produced. It can take weeks for the headspace gas
to dissolve into the beer until, finally, equilibrium is achieved and
the beer is saturated."
I messed up when I said _all_ the gas is in headspace, Miller said _most_
of the gas. Is Miller wrong on this one?
Thanks,
Jerry Cunningham "Bud Lite is the perfect beer for me, cuz
- Annapolis, MD my body doesn't even realize that it's beer"
- actual quote from a friend of mine.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 95 07:51:49 pst
From: wyatt@Latitude.COM
Subject: Lambic Digest Address request
I have developed an interest in brewing Lambics lately but misplaced
the address of the Lambic digest. If anyone has it or has any other
info about lambics and related topics I would be interested in your
input especially about yeast cultures, hop aging, etc. I would also
be interested in the problems associtaed with brewing lambics in
relation to other brews. Will having lambic cultures around cause
problems with infection in other beers? This is a particular fear of
mine and part of the reason I have hesitated to try them. I realize
that the Lambic digest is a better place for this discussion but I
thaought I'd poll te general Brewing population as well. Thanks.
Wyatt Jones
WyattJ@Latitude.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 95 08:54:57 -0700
From: gmccarthy@dayna.com (Gary McCarthy)
Subject: Re:CO2 in solution, high/low temp conditioning
Kelly writes(in HBD 1901):
>The newly produced CO2 is produced _in solution_,
>not in the headspace
Beep, wrong!!! (Disclaimer: I'm no chem engr or hydrologist, but.) The CO2 is
produced by the yeasties. It is not "in solution", ie it has not been
absorbed between the water and other molecules in solution. So a portion
escapes to a lower pressure area, ie the headspace. As the pressure from the
gathering CO2 grows, some CO2 is forced back down into the solution,
producing carbonation. So the triggering mechanism you desire is pressure.
When you open a bottle, you heard the hiss, those are gases escaping to a
lower pressure environment. Then you pour the carbonated beverage into a
glass. You see the bubbles of CO2 bubbling out of the solution - escaping to
a lower pressure environment!
Conclusion: Pressure is responsible for a great many systems in this world
(to name a few: carbonation, weather, software releases!).
Gary McCarthy Cousin Cocaine, came and laid his cool,
gmccarthy@dayna.com cool hand on my head. Stones
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 15:21:33 GMT
From: rmoucka@omn.com (Ronald Moucka)
Subject: counter-flow chillers
Fellow Brewers,
I need your help on deciding which type of counter-flow chiller
to purchase. I currently use an imersion type, but will be
switching to the counter-flow to use with my almost finished RIMS
system. I'm undecided as to whether to buy/make the copper
tubing in the garden hose type or the coiled tubing in the PVC
pipe style. The garden hose type seems a bit cumbersome, but I'm
a little apprehensive about the efficiency of the PVC type. I
currently brew 5 gallon batches, but would like to move up to 8-
10 gallon.
Opinions and/or experiences?
Thanks very much for your help. Private email is fine. I'll
post results if there is enough interest.
.:.
:.:.
_|~~~~|
( | D | Ron Moucka, Brewmaster
\| B | DayBar Brewing, Ltd., Fort Collins, Colorado
`----' rmoucka@omn.com
------------------------------
Date: 06 Dec 1995 11:25:11 GMT
From: "BATLAN -D1FKV0W" <D1FKV0W@BATLAN.BELL-ATL.COM>
Subject: REPLY (SHORT, COGENT ;-)) TO "QUALITY (LONG, RAMB
From: Robert A. West (d1fkv0w@batlan.Bell-Atl.com)
To: HBD
Subject: Quality
In HBD#1902, Russell Mast <rmast@fnbc.com> writes:
>Ed Lingel writes :
>> "Quality" means different things to different people. From
>> discussions I've read ... "quality" means "I like the taste"...
> I've been thinking about this more and more lately, and I am still
> convinced there is more to it than "personal taste".
Phil Crosby, who originated the term "zero-defects", gives a relevant
definition of "quality", which I paraphrase from memory:
Quality is conformity to specifications, or the process
whereby a specification is changed to what the producer
and the customer really need.
Thus, when I underhopped my English Pale Ale, I got a brew that lots
of people liked, but it was a low-quality product, because it did not
conform to the specifications for an English Pale Ale. If my intent
had been to redefine English Pale Ale, and I had succeeded, then my
effort would have been a quality product.
> (Notice that one argument about brew categories says we should
> just drop them and judge the "excellence" of beers. ...)
Excellence? Judged against what standard? I recall a college
conversation about some ice cream "liberated" from the kitchen.
"This is the worst chocolate ice cream I have ever eaten!"
"Uh, Pete? It's black raspberry ice cream."
"Oh!" Pete tastes some more. "It's pretty good black raspberry."
Robert A. West (d1fkv0w@batlan.Bell-Atl.com)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 95 10:28:38 PST
From: Scott Kaczorowski <kacz@aisf.com>
Subject: Stuck kettle runoff
I'm having trouble with runoff from the kettle in my three-tier.
The system is new (only three batches so far), but the runoff from
the kettle has stuck immediately and completely on the last two.
There seems to be no correlation between OG or hopping. The first
batch was a Dunkelweizen that came out way too big at 1.068 and 2
oz hops. The second was a Belgian Strong at OG 1.096 and 1 oz hops
and some curacao and coriander (plus 3 oz in hop bags that were
removed before cooling). The third was a Scottish Ale at OG 1.062
and 4 oz hops. All hops were whole and all were 11 gallon batches.
The base malt for all has been domestic 2-row.
When I did the Belgian Strong Ale, I used hop bags. And that is
why I didn't worry too much about a repeat of the problem for the
Scottish: I'd brewed the BSA previously at a friend's, and there was a
very large amount of hot break which clung to the hops in the kettle.
I figured with the break clinging to the hops, it was out of the way
and my error was not giving the break something to latch on to in
the BSA. Well, even with 4 oz of hops to filter out the break, the
Scottish stuck just as hard. However, none of this occurred with
the DW, though I don't remember a spectacular hot break with that one.
The manifold in my kettle is slotted copper tubing. It is a short
length of tubing with an "S" bend in it so that about 3" of tubing
(the part that's slotted) sits right down in the very bottom of the
kettle. It is therefore buried absolutely as deep as it can go in
the trub and hops and whatever other muck is in there. I used to
wonder what people were talking about when they discussed hot break.
Now I know. I never used to see this stuff in my old stovetop system.
I think I need to get the manifold above the crud and take the loss
(about a gallon of wort!) Who said "Life is short, grain is cheap"?
My thought is to make a large circular manifold that runs along the
top of the bottom bowl of the keg. Whirlpool, let things settle,
and everything should proceed smoothly, yes? (This was suggested
a while back by someone whose name I forget, and sounds like a good
idea to me.)
Another idea: I can get SS screen, and my neighbor suggested that I
wrap the manifold in two layers of screen with the outer layer being
fairly course and the inner fairly fine. There would have to be some
space between all the layers, of course. This would also require that
I get the manifold up off the bottom a little. Seems to me that the
thing would still be buried in muck and break material would make it
into my fermenter (that is, no different than the situation I have
now with emergency siphoning).
I do not want to go to a false bottom if it can be at all avoided.
Thanks in advance for any ideas or encouragement.
Scott Kaczorowski
Long Beach, CA
kacz@aisf.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 13:06:15 -0600
From: snsi@win.bright.net (Jeff Smith)
Subject: stove/mini lauter tun
Howdy neighbors,
On Mon, 4 Dec Mike White wrote:
>For instance if I set it on 150 degrees F. (which is 110 degrees in my
>screwed up oven) it will heat up until it reaches 165 degrees then shut off
>the heating element until it cools to 135 degrees. This cycling will
>continue , thereby averaging 150 degrees, for as long as the oven is on.
>
>Not being an all grain brewer I'm not sure how this cycling will affect your
>wort. However after his experience and after watching several chefs on
>television discussing temperature variations in ovens I suggest you at least
>buy an oven thermometer from your local department store (about $4 American)
>and put it in your oven.
Mike for the most part the stove is only used to hold the temperature of the
mash. I only set my stove on warm and then turn it off half way though the
mash. This keeps the mash from losing any degrees during the mash and of
coarse if the mash temp does drop you can always heat easily enough.
To Jeff Hewit who wrote:
>I am also considering buying a mini lauter tun, and
>putting it in the oven. Is this idea any good?
I've had a mini lauter tun for about 1-1/2 years and I love it. The only
problem is that it's a "MINI" lauter tun. If it's Phills' mini it will only
hold 5lb. I've wanted to move to all grain batches but have yet to acquire
a larger one. (The a five gallon picnic cooler on the porch that I've had
my eye on.)
As for putting a plastic bucket in the stove, I wouldn't do it. Just in case.
Jeff Smith <snsi@win.bright.net>
Barnes, WI
(-3 at 6:30 am)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 11:30:54 -0800 (PST)
From: Domenick Venezia <venezia@zgi.com>
Subject: Brandy? Not!
> HBD #1902 aesoph%ncemt.ctc.com@ctcga.ctc.com (Aesoph, Michael) posted:
>Just thought I would post a Brandy Recipe given to me by a friend. Give
>it a try.
>
> ....
>
>It's really kind of disappointing brewing anything but beer. Wine,
>Brandy, liquors and other stuff generally don't require boiling... No
Just as a point of information, Brandy is a distilled liquor. Either
distilled from grape wine or from fermented fruit. Brandy is typically
about 80 proof (40% alcohol).
I'm not sure what the recipe (which I have omitted) will produce, but it
is not brandy.
Domenick Venezia
Computer Resources
ZymoGenetics, Inc.
Seattle, WA
venezia@zgi.com
------------------------------
Date: 06 Dec 95 15:39:20 EST
From: Tim Fields <74247.551@compuserve.com>
Subject: RE EXTRACT FAQ / Ziplock Oxygen Barrier Bags
In #1902, Bill Shelton (william_shelton@nt.com) writes:
>Is there a FAQ on malt extracts somewhere? I know from previous HBD =
>threads that I can expect higher FG with Laaglander, but are there other =
>things that I should know about other extracts.
There is a very good article on extracts in a back issue of Zumurgy.
They brewed with many of the available extracts and measured the results.
It's a very good comparitive piece IMHO. I imagine you can purchase
the issue from AHA.
- --------------------
I searched the archives unsuccessfully for a source for zip lock oxygen
barrier bags. Does anyone know of a source?
"Reeb!" Tim Fields ... Fairfax, VA
timf@relay.com (non-brewing time)
74247.551@compuserve.com (weekends)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 16:18:24 -0500
From: iaciofano@leds.shr.tdh.qntm.com (ED, QUANTUM PE, (508) 770-2251)
Subject: Canning kit report
Hi,
Not to beat this to death, but I just wanted to update everyone.
There were alot of private requests about info. on the canning kit.
For those of you who might be interested but didn't E-mail me,
my suggestion is to get the make and model number of your electric
stove and go to an appliance store to order it. The kit probably will
not be in stock. Be sure to follow the (rather simple) instructions!
(CYA disclaimer: consult an electrician if you have any questions).
Onward. I finally had the chance this week to try this thing out.
I boiled about 3 1/2 gallons of very-late-to-be-made (extract) Holiday
Ale wort in my 4 gal. pot. Maybe I'll call it "Spring Celebration Ale".
Now then, it seemed that the wort reached boiling sooner than usual, and
boy was there alot of foaming! Kind of like those science experiments
I did as a kid. Anyway, as another check, fewer of the coils were glowing
orange when I lifted the pot, which means more of them were in direct
contact. The pot was supported *very* securly on the burner. I took
someones private E-mail suggestion and lined the stove top with extra
wide aluminum foil. This worked great to avoid my other big problem
of burnt wort drops on the stove top. I lost the message, but to
whomever sent it a big "thank you".
For me this kit is a winner. At $58.00 though, it is kind of pricy
in my opinion for what you get and it interestingly enough is
about the same price as some of the propane setups around here. Buying
this is kind of like a commitment/investment in electric stove top
brewing, because you really don't need the kit for anything else, except
maybe canning veggies. Your price may be different depending on your stove.
Further testing is of course planned.
If anybody has anymore questions feel free to E-mail me. I'd also be
interested in the opinions of anybody else that decides to use one of these
kits.
/Ed_I
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 10:00:23 +10
From: "Dave Draper" <david.draper@mq.edu.au>
Subject: Oven mashing
Dear Friends, I'd like to add to the thread on mashing using the oven
and stove top combo. It does in fact work great, and one need not
restrict oneself to very small mashes.
I do this just about every time, about 50 batches so far since I
moved from extract + specialty. I can mash up to 4 kg (8.8 lb) of
grain in my 17 L (4.5 US gal) SS pot (it was cheap--A$25 at the local
Kmart equivalent). These days I rarely get below 29 pt/lb/gal,
usually better than 31, so that it is no problem getting normal batch
sizes of 1040 to 1045 beers just from the grain if need be. I
usually add 0.5 to 1 kg (1.1 to 2.2 lb) of extract syrup because I
make lots of 1050-1060 OG beers.
Multi step mashes in my setup go like this: dough in stiff for the 40
C rest, then infuse boiling water for the 60 C rest, which brings the
water:grain ratio to target values; then heat directly on the stove
for the 70 C rest and the mashout. Takes only about 5 min for each
boost. Then transfer to the lauter tun (slotted copper manifold) and
away we go.
I find that at 40 C virtually no insulation is required because the
mash loses only about a degree in the 30 min of the rest, so I just
let it sit there on the stove (on a cool burner of course). During
this time I have preheated the oven on its lowest setting, and leave
it there for both the 60 and 70 degree rests. My temperatures are
virtually invariant.
If you have an oven that cycles badly, like we heard about recently,
then just preheat the oven and then leave it shut off during the
rests. All you want if for heat loss to be minimized, and the oven
is a well-insulated box to start with. The higher heat capacity of
malt + water, plus its thermal mass, will keep things in good shape
for the duration of the mash period (90 min in my case).
Hope this helps, Dave in Sydney
"That's all very well in practice; but will it work in *theory*?"
- ---Ken Willing
- ---
***************************************************************************
David S. Draper, Earth Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney NSW Australia
Email: david.draper@mq.edu.au Home page: http://www.ocs.mq.edu.au/~ddraper
...I'm not from here, I just live here...
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 15:34:44 -0800
From: carlh@atlas74.West.Sun.COM (Carl Hensler)
Subject: Pittsburgh beer sources
Where are good places to drink and buy good beer in the Burgh,
especially the South Hills area? I know about Chiodo's, the Bloomfield
Tavern and the Penn brewpub. Is there a beer distributor that sells
anything more exotic than Penn Pilsener? Please reply to me, not the
HBD, to avoid wasting bandwidth. If you want to know what I find, ping
me. Thanks for your help!
Carl
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 95 15:37:00 -0800
From: Kelly Jones Intel Portland Technology Development <kejones@ptdcs2.intel.com>
Subject: Re: CO2 in solution, high/low temp conditioning
Gary McCarthy wrote:
>Kelly writes(in HBD 1901):
>>The newly produced CO2 is produced _in solution_,
>>not in the headspace
>
>Beep, wrong!!! (Disclaimer: I'm no chem engr
I am! :)
>The CO2 is
>produced by the yeasties. It is not "in solution", ie it has not been
>absorbed between the water and other molecules in solution.
Let's think for a minute about how CO2 is produced. Yes, they are
produced by yeast, but on a deeper level, they are produced inside
yeast cells (which are mostly water) by enzymatic reactions involving
a single sugar molecule, and producing a single CO2 molecule. A single
CO2 molecule produced in an aqueous environment will quickly dissolve,
as CO2 is highly soluble in H2O. Miller's view, that this single CO2
molecule is generated inside a yeast cell, diffuses across the cell
membrane, and works its way past 'billions and billions' of H2O
molecules in order to reach the headspace, without ever dissolving,
seems absurd to me.
It is a fairly common procedure to monitor the degree of
carbonation of a naturally conditioned beer by monitoring the pressure
in the headspace. As the liquid becomes carbonated, some of the CO2
outgasses into the headspace in order to reach an equilibrium
condition. The pressure thus gradually rises as carbonation
progresses. If Miller's view were correct, then monitoring the
headspace pressure would show a rapid rise (over 24-48
hours) to a pressure many times the equilibrium pressure, then
gradually drop over the next couple weeks as the headspace CO2 worked
its way back into solution. This just doesn't happen.
Kelly
Portland, OR
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 95 14:05:17 CST
From: korz@pubs.ih.att.com (Algis R Korzonas)
Subject: water loss/set mashes/CO2 in solution/DMS OOPS!/decoctions
Ken writes:
>More than 0.1 gal/lb absorption is possible especially if the grind was fine
>(lots of flour).
While you are right that more water will be trapped in a finely ground
grist, it's not because of the flour -- the flour is starch and should,
if you run you mash well, be converted to sugar and swept away in the
runnings. No, I believe that the reason for more absorption is that
the finely ground husks trap more water.
A few days ago someone blamed a set mash on too much water in the tun
"compacting the grain bed." I don't believe this to be true either.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I believe that the most common
cause for a set mash is too fine a crush, where the husks are overly
pulverized. Other reasons for set mashes are very gummy worts from
high percentages of things like unmalted barley, rye, wheat, oats and
even malted rye and wheat. Even with these grains, if your crush is
not too fine and you have included sufficient beta-glucan and protein
rests, you shouldn't have a problem (what I'm saying is that if you
add these grains to a simple mash program that never had problems with
slow runoff, you can have problems). Now there may be those among
you that will say, "my crush wasn't too fine and I still had a set mash"
but then crush quality is so subjective and what seems "coarse" to you
may be "fine" to someone else.
As an exercise, I pose this question: Have any of you had a set mash
(stuck runoff) while using a non-adjustable (one less variable) JSP
MaltMill(tm) on an all-barleymalt mash? My guess is no.
***
Kelly writes (quoting Jerry):
>>In Dave Miller's new book, _Dave Miller's Homebrewing Guide_, he states
>>something to the effect that, when priming with corn sugar, the corn
>>sugar in the bottle get fermented very quickly - something like 24 - 48
>>hours. All the (newly produced) CO2 is in the head space at this point.
>>It's the disolving of the CO2 _back into the beer_ that takes 2-3 weeks.
>
>I haven't seen this book, but what you have written makes no sense to me.
>The newly produced CO2 is produced _in solution_, not in the headspace.
>By what mechanism would it all come out of solution in 24-48 hours, and
>then spend 2-3 weeks trying to get back in? I believe this is an error.
I had never thought about it, and although I have Miller's new book, I
have not read that part yet, I believe that Miller may have a point. How
long would it take to a completed batch of beer (assuming it hasn't been
sitting for two weeks) to ferment 1/2 cup of sugar if you did not put it
into a bottle and seal the cap? Probably three days, no? Now, there may
be some additional complexity in this issue regarding the yeast working
under pressure, but I would be hesitant to immediately say that Miller is
wrong and that the pressure causes the fermentation of a measly 1/2 cup
of glucose to take 2 weeks. That's what you're saying, Kelly, isn't it?
When I read Jerry's post, I started thinking about this and realized that
I don't know enough about how yeast work under pressure to answer this
question definitively. Does anyone? An experiment to prove or disprove
this would be to prime a bottle with double the amount of corn sugar and
then to open it (venting the CO2 produced) after two days, recap it and
then see if, after two weeks, the carbonation is:
1. close to normal (in which case Miller is right), or
2. overcarbonated (in which case Miller was wrong).
Do I have this experiment right? Any alternate suggestions?
As for Kelly's assertion that "The newly produced CO2 is produced
_in solution_..." I think that it is possible that it is not. Note
that when you bottle the beer, it already contains as much CO2 as it
can in solution at whatever temperature it was fermenting. It will
lose a bit of dissolved CO2 during siphoning because of the partial
vacuum just past the peak of the siphon setup. However, as the CO2
gets produced, the CO2 would have to go somewhere and it can't so
that pressure would increase. It is this increase in pressure that
causes more CO2 to go into solution in the beer. Where the pressure
builds is an odd question because liquids are incompressable, for
the most part, right? Time to hand off to the physicists...
Whoop, just thought of another experiment:
Bottle two bottles, primed normally. After three days, shake one to
dissolve the alleged CO2 in the headspace. After one more day, open
both.
1. If the shaken one is close to normally carbonated, then Miller is
right, but
2. if they are both flat and sweet, then Miller is wrong.
Furthermore, you could probably do this even less subjectively:
Bottle ten bottles, normally primed measureing the specific gravity of
the *primed* beer and recording it. Every day, for 10 days, open a
bottle and measure the gravity.
1. If it plummets the first three days and then stays steady, then Miller
is right, but
2. if it drops slowly over the course of the ten days, then Miller is wrong.
I'm not about to bet either way, but my *gut* feeling (after saying all that)
is that Kelly is right and Miller is not. I do still want proof, though.
***
I wrote:
>The two factors that most strongly
>contribute to DMS under *normal* conditions are low SMM in the malt
>(related to the time and temperature of kilning -- paler malts have
>more SMM) and the speed with which the wort is cooled (faster cooling,
>less DMS).
I goofed. I changed the sentence and mucked it up. This should have read:
"The two factors that most strongly contribute to DMS under *normal* conditions
are *HIGH* SMM in the malt (related to the time and temperature of kilning --
paler malts have more SMM) and the speed with which the wort is cooled (faster
cooling, less DMS)."
Sorry about that. S-methyl methionine (SMM) is the precursor of Dimethyl
Sulfide (DMS). More SMM == more DMS.
***
Ed writes:
>2) Removing excess water, boiling and returning. (partial decoction)
It is important to add that this should *only* be done for the final
decoction. Except for the final decoction (going from saccharification to
mashout), you should *not* remove and boil the *liquid* from the mash for use
in raising the mash temperature -- you must use the *thick* part of the mash
-- the *grain*. The liquid part contains the enzymes! For the final
decoction you *should* use the liquid because boiling the grain in the final
decoction may release some starch which will not, after the mashout, have
any enzymes to convert it to sugars.
Al.
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korz@pubs.att.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 95 23:23:11 EST
From: "William G. Rucker" <ruckewg@naesco.com>
Subject: Propane again
>From: YOUNGBRUCE@aol.com
>Subject: Propane Indoors
>Using propane indoors is not dangerous.
Wrong Wrong Wrong!!! There is no such thing as using something
volatile such as propane without risk, indoors or out!! Propane and NG
are used because they are highly combustible. They can be controlled
however, and therefore the risk is mitigated. How you control it
(bringing the tank inside or leaving it out) will dictate how well you
mitigate the risk. Many things we do are dangerous but we either
accept the risk or we try to lessen it somehow. Lets try not to fool
ourselves into thinking that propane isn't dangerous. It is, but
knowing the risks will help us to protect ourselves from them.
About SA and the BBC -
I have read most of the fluff written on this subject. I have my own
opinion and that is "If you like Jim Kochs products and his business
practices don't offend your better sensibilities, buy them and drink
them, if either of these things bother you about him or his products,
don't."
Far be it from me to tell you (the collective you) what not to buy and
why, but most importantly, don't tell me what I should and should not
buy based on your opinions.
That's it for now, back to lurking status.
Get over it!!!
Bill Rucker System Administrator-Seabrook Nuclear
Power Station
ruckewg@naesco.com
brewzer@peanut.mv.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 20:38:20 -0800
From: "Mark A. Melton" <melton@aurora.nscee.edu>
Subject: Split decoction mash mess
Many thanks to Spencer Thomas, Al Korzonas, Eric Miller, Russ Brodeur,
and Steve Alexander, all of whom know much more about decoction mashing
than I do, and all of whom leapt on my error in heating the *liquor*
instead of the grist; about the only thing I had right was that I knew
that this destroys the enzymes. However, where does it say that the enzymes
are mostly in the liquor? If it does I have missed it (obviously).
There is one point that might be of interest: using the first- runnings
sp. gr. with the original volume of mash liquor instead of the final
volume after sparging with the final sp. gr. to calculate E.R. As usually
calculated the E.R. includes both the effect of mash-conversion
efficiency and the effect of extraction efficiency. I think there might
be some merit in knowing what the conversion efficiency is independent of
the extraction, and the way I did it should give that, n'ext-ce pas?
Mark A. Melton
melton@aurora.nscee.edu
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1904, 12/08/95
*************************************
-------
