Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #1953
This file received at Hops.Stanford.EDU 1996/02/05 PST
HOMEBREW Digest #1953 Mon 05 February 1996
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor
Contents:
carboy cleaning (Rolland Everitt)
help ("DP2 Yonkin")
Warm Pilsen (CCGDTWO)
Warming up Lager (CCGDTWO)
Early HSA, bugs (Charles Wettergreen)
Re: oscura? ("Edmund C. Hack")
Re: bugs and <oh no!> blowoffs (Jeff Frane)
killians red/michael sheas (Jason Hartzler)
Re: Hot break/Cold break (Robert Bush)
Cleaning carboys (C. Rosen)
Jeff's bugs (CLAY)
More on carbonation ... experimenal result (Steve Alexander)
Starter stepping / Oscura ("Dave Draper")
Kansas City Brewpub (Raybans7)
oxidation of wort (Rob Lauriston)
Williams Mini-Keg (JOHNMARONEY)
Re: Carboy Cleanup (Jay Reeves)
Stopped runnings at 1.018 ("Richard J. Smith")
Don't blow off the blow-off (Tom Lombardo)
Good Times? -- Hah! (John W. Braue, III)
RE: Good Times Virus Hoax (Tom Messenger)
Re: internet virus - look out - HOAX!! (Stan Fisher)
Grain Heat Capacity & Volume Part 2 (KennyEddy)
Grain Heat Capacity & Volume Summary Part 1 (KennyEddy)
Valley Mill (JP)
"Good Times" Virus... (RedHat744)
******************************************************************
* 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, 2 Feb 1996 06:16:06 -0500
From: af509@osfn.rhilinet.gov (Rolland Everitt)
Subject: carboy cleaning
Most of my brews are fermented completely in glass carboys, and
I have to deal with the scumline at cleaning time. The best
method I've found is to put two or three quarts of hot water in
the carboy with about a half cup of ammonia, then shake
vigorously. Once usually does the trick, followed by several
rinses in plain water, and an iodophor rinse. The whole thing
takes about five minutes.
Rolland Everitt
af509@osfn.rhilinet.gov
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 19:26:27 -9I
From: "DP2 Yonkin" <blue-ridge.navy.mil@blue-ridge.navy.mil>
Subject: help
help
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 08:23:17 -0600 (CST)
From: d2dtinfo@inlink.com (CCGDTWO)
Subject: Warm Pilsen
Dear HBD Friends
I have a pilsen clone made up two weeks ago that fremented happily in my
garage fridge at 45-48F. I thought fermentation was complete when the
krausen started falling so I was gonna rack to carboy to lager. The SG had
fallen from 1042 to 1020 so I stirred to rouse the yeast (wyeast 2007) and
put back into fridge. The temp inside dropped to less that 40F cause the
garage was 2-3F so I moved the beer to basement 3 days ago at 54-58 mostly
58F. A new krausen formed indicating renewed fermentation. Now! Do I have a
steam instead of lager? I haven't had time to check gravity, but I'm going
to this weekend and maybe rack to secondary and put back into fridge.
Appreciate any help.
Mike ---d2dtinfo@inlink.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 08:23:15 -0600 (CST)
From: d2dtinfo@inlink.com (CCGDTWO)
Subject: Warming up Lager
Friends on HBD
I made up my clone of a pilsener 13 days ago. It's been in my garage fridge
at 45-48F for 10 days. The ferment seemed to have completed, so I was going
to rack to a carboy to lager. Well the SG had gone from 1042 to 1020 so I
stirred to rouse the yeast, and put it back for another few days. The temp
has since dropped to below 40F due to the temp in the garage in single
digits. I have moved the beer into my basement where it's 58-62F and a new
krausen has formed indicating renewed fermentation. Will the higher temp now
mean I have a steam beer? I used Wyeast 2007 Pilsen regrown from a bock I
made last year.
Thanks for your help
Mike - d2dtinfo@inlink.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 96 09:09 CST
From: chuckmw@mcs.com (Charles Wettergreen)
Subject: Early HSA, bugs
To: homebrew@hpfcmgw.fc.hp.com
In HBD 1951, Ken Willing (kwilling@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au) asked a number of
questions about HSA, and how early in the brewing cycle it can occur.
This got me wondering, would it be possible for HSA to occur *during
manufacturing* in dark crystal malts, or even in some of the darker malts
with diastatic power such as Munich or Biscuit, and then "passed on" to the
unsuspecting consumer?
I've made some high gravity ales, during the brewing and fermenting of which
I've gone to extremes to avoid any HSA-causing situation, that still wound
up with a touch of oxidation.
Several people mentioned problems with bugs. Last Summer was the year of the
fruit fly, and I found out how to beat'em!
Pour 1/4" cider vinegar (clear is ok but cider is best) in a shallow cup or
bowl (I use a custard cup). Add one or two drops of dish detergent. The pesky
buggers dive into the vinegar thinking it's rotting fruit, and get glommed
(hi-teck brewing word for drowned) by the detergent. In two days they're
all gone.
Cheers,
Chuck
chuckmw@mcs.com
Geneva, IL
* RM 1.3 00946 *
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 07:55:09 -0800 (PST)
From: "Edmund C. Hack" <echack@crl.com>
Subject: Re: oscura?
In Homebrew Digest #1951 (February 02, 1996), CSS2@OAS.PSU.EDU
(SPEAKER.CURTIS) wrote:
> While on one of my pilgramiges to Philly last weekend, I had a chance to stop
> at the Dock Street Brewery and sample a few of their finest. The alt was
> outstanding, the barleywine gigantic, but the beer that really caught my
> interest was the Oscura. The bartender explained that it was a "Mexican
> Vienna Lager" - dark in color, but smooth and very drinkable.
> Does anyone know anything more about this type of beer? Origins?
AFAIK, the style was transported from Vienna, Austria to Mexico by
immigrating brewmasters. It is a dark lager. Despite the omnipresent,
light yellow, skunked swill called Corona, Mexico has some good beers.
Many Mexicans I know are amazed that Corona has become so trendy in the
US - it is the cheapest beer in Mexico and considered one step above
burro urine.
>Recipes?
I think George Fix has a book on Vienna lagers in the series the AHA
published. Commercial examples available in the US are Dos Equis and Negra
Modelo. Negra Modelo is especially nice.
> What makes it unique? I had never even heard the word "oscura" before last
> Saturday...
Oscura is the Spanish female adjective for "dark".
Edmund Hack \ "But maybe he's only a little crazy -
echack@crl.com \ like painters - or composers - or some of those
Houston, TX \ men in Washington." - _Miracle on 34th St._, 1947
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 1996 08:36:21 -0800
From: jfrane@teleport.com (Jeff Frane)
Subject: Re: bugs and <oh no!> blowoffs
Jeff Smith
>
>Well Cam how about another bug question?
>
>Late July though late September little winged monsters invade my brewing
>area in the back hall. They have red eyes and feel the need to climb in my
>air locks and commit suicide.
Can anyone play? Aren't "red eyes" the giveaway? Drosophila (sp?), the
common fruit fly? These are the guys with the huge genes. <stab in
the dark>
Paul Fisher wrote:
>Lately, the general consensus has been that blowoff is a silly idea that
>provides no genuine advantages. The advantage is not in the blowoff, which
>is just a side effect, but rather in the closed container system.
>
I don't think there is *ever* a general consensus in the HBD; I think
there are those of us who prefer open fermenters, and Jack certainly
proclaimed that blowoffs were "silly", but consensus? Not on your life.
My open fermenter lives in the basement and the cats are not allowed
down there. I keep a lid on it loosely to keep out dust and mice. It
works better for me for reasons already explained, but dog hair is a
really good reason to avoid the system.
Maybe Jack doesn't have a dog?
Marty Tippin wrote:
>
>Now, as far as open fermentation goes, it sounds neat but I remain
>unconvinced that I should change my current closed carboy system... And as
>for blowoff, that became a thing of the past when I went from a 5 to a 6.5
>gallon carboy - with no perceptible difference in my beers. So, as someone
>recently pointed out, I've got something that's working for me and I'll
>stick with it until curiosity gets to me and I feel like trying something
>else...
>
Sooner or later, we need to revisit our procedures and figure out why we've
been doing it *this* way and not *that* way. It helps if you have
knowledgeable friends who nudge you. I started using Irish Moss in sufficient
quantity after one friend noted that my beers had a slight haze (not to me,
they didn't) and another couldn't believe I wasn't using something in the
kettle. I tried it, and realized that they were both right and that I
*did* have a slight haze (which became obvious only after I saw the difference).
Same with aeration, which lead to open fermenters for me.
Sometimes you will be surprised by the results.
>
- --Jeff Frane
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 10:48:06 -0600
From: Jason Hartzler <jehartzl@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu>
Subject: killians red/michael sheas
i was wondering if anyone out there has a clone recipe for killians red(for
a friend of mine) or michael sheas(for me). if you have not tasted michael
sheas, i suggest you try it. it is a very good beer. either all grain or
extract recipes are ok.
jeh
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 18:04:52 +0100
From: bush@shbf.se (Robert Bush)
Subject: Re: Hot break/Cold break
In HBD #1946 John Wilkinson said:
>> How do I get rid of hot break or cold break?
and Denis Barsalo replied (in #1948):
> Now I know there are as many ways to do this as there are ways to
>brew so I can only comment on the method I've been using.
> After I finish boiling my 6 or so gallons of wort, I whirlpool the
>hops and I siphon the wort through a round copper manifold and a CF
>chiller into a bucket. This leaves behind lots of hot break material, most
>of it clinging to the spent hops.
cut...
> With ales, I usually don't bother with the cold break removal. I
>pitch in the first bucket, then rack to a secondary 3 or 4 days after
>fermenting in the primary.
What do others do?
My method: I also whirlpool after the boil and then let the wort sit for
half an hour (although some say you're not supposed to) and then run off to
the fermenting bucket. My boiler is fitted with a false bottom so most of
the hops/sludge/trub/hot-break is left behind. I then put the copper-coil
cooler in the fermenting bucket and cool the wort as much as possible
(usually 15 deg C depending on time of year). The act of cooling the wort
creates plenty of cold-break but I don't bother to remove it as I think
it's acting as a nutrient for the yeast. It will fall to the bottom of the
fermenting-bin anyway towards the end of fermentation and I remove it then,
together with excessive yeast and stuff.
The important thing here is that you have to cool the wort properly in
order to get a cold-break (the cooler it gets the more cold-break). But as
I said, I don't think it's necessary to get rid of it all before
fermenting. (Hot-break is another matter; that I always try to filter out).
===============================================================
= WASSAIL! =
= Robert Bush E-mail: bush@shbf.se =
= Eskilstuna, SWEDEN =
===============================================================
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 96 12:24 CST
From: crosen@wwa.com (C. Rosen)
Subject: Cleaning carboys
Let's put this thing to rest once and for all (HA! I detect the sounds of
uncontrollable laughter):
EASY PART OF CLEANING CARBOYS: A soak with plain old room temperature tap
water for a day or so will loosen up the worst of the crap, and then a
little elbow grease(tm) with a carboy brush and a few drops of dishwashing
soap after all but ~1-gal of water has been poured out does very nicely.
THE HARD PART: Lifting a full carboy into the sink. I'm fairly young and do
construction, so this is not a big deal for me, but anyone with back
problems, etc., would find the lifting to be a legitamate concern, and
unless the cruddy part (technical brewing term) is wetted, it's very
difficult to get it to come clean.
Let's try to keep the hyperbole to a minimum and refrain from creating silly
schisms over utterly trivial brewing minutae. This thread reminds me of the
schism in Lilliputt between the Big Endsians and the Little Endsians, to
wit, whether it is better to crack one's egg with the big or little end
facing the cracker.
Enough said, back to the regularly schedualed programing.
Harlan
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 1996 11:27:09 -0500 (EST)
From: CLAY@prism.clemson.edu
Subject: Jeff's bugs
Cam Lay responded to David W. Boyd with the following.
I sure did! Oh boy! Another one!
Well Cam how about another bug question?
Late July though late September little winged monsters invade my brewing
area in the back hall. They have red eyes and feel the need to climb in my
air locks and commit suicide. And if I use vodka in my airlocks they
multiply. Lucky as it cools in the fall they disappear until the next
summer. If possible I'd like to find a way of controlling them naturally
without giving up brewing.
Its up to you Cam, name that bug.
Red eyes, fruit flies. They're attracted by the smell of fermentation,
i.e. alcohol, since they feed on rotting fruit, slime, garbage, etc..
They aren't reproducing in your beer (one hopes) but are probably
coming from somewhere else in or around the house.
` Control by sanitation is your best bet. Think about unwashed garbage
cans, wet mops in the garage, compost pile in the back yard, etc.
Screens have contributed mightily to the rise of western civilization,
though not as much as beer has. Try screening off the place where you
make your beer, for a more civilized experience. (There! That should
satisfy the a.i. context-guarding robot, who sits at the east gate
with a flaming ovipositor...)
Regards,
C
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 14:25:24 -0500
From: Steve Alexander <stevea@clv.mcd.mot.com>
Subject: More on carbonation ... experimenal result
Last night I took another sample at 37 days of my
under/normal/overfilled Marzen to check 'final' carbonation levels.
This was in response to Al Korzonas' post a few days back stating that
we was going to perform this experiment and test at 4 weeks of age in
order to test final carbonation levels. In a private email exchange
Al indicated that there were some references that indicate that
underfilled bottles will overcarbonate. We both doubted that this
was true, and Al had performed a previous experiment that didn't show
any indication of this.
So I chilled and poured all three samples, the underfilled bottle
clearly expelled more gas than either of the other two, but this is
expected due to the increased headspace. All three had identical
color and odor. The flavor were not perceptably different. The
sulphury odor that appeared at an earlier stage in these bottles was
not evident at all. I tasted carefully for evidence of oxidation,
which I suspected might appear in the undefilled bottle, but none was
evident. [as a side note this lager has too little residual dextrins,
and the bottle carbonation level is slightly too high for the style.]
Of the three bottles the underfilled bottle did seem to have a hint
more carbonation, and maybe a tad more effervescing gas bubbles than
the other two, but these differences were so small that I was about to
right it off as too subjective when I got called out of the room for
about 5 minutes.
The three beers were each in identical glasses, at nearly the same
level - each glass about 2/3rd full. When I returned, the overfill
glass had just a thin white ring of head foam, the normal fill level
glass had a ring of head foam from the edge of the glass in about 1/4 to
3/8th inch, and the underfilled bottle had a fine layer of foam
covering the entire glass !! I realize that there could be many
other factors involved besides carbonation level, but the prima facia
case is that the underfilled bottle appears to be very slightly more
carbonated !! This, I can't explain.
Perhaps Al K. will get a more substantial effect in his 'very
underfilled' bottle experiment.
Steve Alexander
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 1996 12:27:00 +10
From: "Dave Draper" <david.draper@mq.edu.au>
Subject: Starter stepping / Oscura
Dear Friends, a couple posters have been wondering about making and
stepping up starters. First off I would suggest the article at the
Brewery web site (there's a link to the Brewery on my beer page, for
instance), written by Kirk Fleming (I think it was Kirk! Sorry if I
am in error here!). Briefly, in my procedure I inoculate a 500ml
(about half a quart) starter with as much of the entire culture from
one of my slants as I can manage (see my slants article, also on my
beer page, for more details). At temperatures of about 18C (65F) and
above, this starter is cranking away within 48 hours. Once it has
gone just past peak activity I use the sediment of yeast to inoculate
a 1.5L (about a quart and a half) starter (roughly; the vessel is a
2L teflon flask in which I leave "enough" headspace). This one also
gets good and going within a couple days. I typically let this
ferment most of the way out, maybe 4 days total at the temps listed
above. I then pitch the yeast slurry (i.e. decant off most of the
liquid) into my 23L (6 US gal, about 5 imperial gal) batches. I
usually get a good, solid 200 ml of *slurry* from this and routinely
get fast starts (6-8 hrs to good activity) and healthy ferments
(aerate as well as possible of course). It takes me about a week to
ten days from taking the slant from the refrigerator to brewday, and
there is just the one step up from the 500ml flask to the teflon.
Just a datapoint.
Curt Speaker asked about the Mexican Vienna style, which a pub he
visited labeled "Oscura". Good info on this style can be found both
in the Fix's Vienna book and in MJ's Beer Companion. Briefly, some
of the first Europeans to brew beer in Mexico were either from
central Europe or were heavily influenced by those styles. Mexican
breweries have had a long tradition of making those kinds of beers. A
readily available and excellent example is Negra Modelo; also Dos
Equis (nowhere near as good as NM to my taste). A harder-to-find one
is Noche Buena, which if I recall correctly was a seasonal product
and may not even be brewed anymore (anyone else know for sure?). I'm
with Curt--this is a great style, one of my favorites. Check out
those books for plenty of info for trying to make one of your own.
Cheers, Dave in Sydney
"The one with the biggest starter wins." ---Dan McConnell
- ---
***************************************************************************
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: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 23:09:38 -0500
From: Raybans7@aol.com
Subject: Kansas City Brewpub
Anyone brewing outside this weekend? I didn't think so.
Just moved to KC and would like to know about the brewpubs,
their beers and atmosphere. Also, I'd like to know about brew
supply stores. TIA
Cheers,
Jim Carter
I like my stouts thick enough to spread on toast.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 96 00:00 PST
From: robtrish@mindlink.bc.ca (Rob Lauriston)
Subject: oxidation of wort
In HBD #1950, John Miller writes,
"On one hand it's been posted that one should minimize the oxidation of
the wort. On the other, one reads about these people busting up their
carboys trying to airate their wort. Personally, I thought oxidation
was only a problem during and after fermentation."
The oxygen which is put into the wort AFTER it is pitched with yeast should
be absorbed quite quickly by the yeast. In a talk by a Lallemand scientist
at a CABA conference in the late '80s, he said that in yeast propagating
vessels, all of the dissolved oxygen was gone within a matter of seconds
after the injection of oxygen ceased. Naturally this is different from a
beer fermentation, particularly in that there would be far more yeast
present. But the point remains that provided there is a reasonable pitching
rate, the yeast will get at the oxygen before it gets a chance to react with
the other wort constituents. I don't really want to start another
terminology discussion, but 'aeration' could be used to refer to putting
oxygen into solution, while 'oxidation' should be reserved for those
chemical reactions involving electron 'loss' -- often, but not always, due
to oxygen.
The aeration at the time of yeast pitching results in little oxidation
because the yeast uses the oxygen, while aeration at other times alters wort
rH and can eventually result in oxidation.
I have to again praise Nick Huige's article on Beer Oxidation in the
American Chemical Society's book, "Beer and Wine Production". It was the
first place where I came across the concept of rH, [sic]. rH is the
reductive potential -- of the wort or beer in this case -- measured on a
scale that goes from zero (strongly reducing) to 42 (strongly oxidizing).
This is not the same as the actual pH. In a system such as wort or beer
where there is a great deal of buffering taking place, it makes sense to try
to maintain a low rH so that the unpleasant effects of oxidation are delayed
or prevented. Efforts to do this can extend to milling the malt in an
oxygen-free environment! E.g. wet-milling with de-aerated water. Jeez,
imagine working in an oxygen evacuated environment! Just as bad, too many
breweries are brain-evacualted environments, but I digress ad infinitum.
It is natural to think that events near the end of the brewing process have
more influence on oxidation than things that happen in the mash or kettle,
since aeration during bottling, for example, is closest to the point at
which the oxidation is noticed. For this reason, I used to pooh-pooh the
idea of HSA (hot-side aeration) and think that it made only a minor
contribution to oxidation. HSA is important to the extent that it alters
the rH and takes the wort closer to eventual oxidation. If air pickup in
bottling is more important, it is only because it has a greater effect on
the rH, not because it is later in the process.
Hope this makes sense and is of interest.
- Rob
P.S. In the recent math postings on gravity of wort after adding dried
extract, it should be pointed out to the innocent spectators that dried
extract tends to absorb moisture and that would throw the mass measurements
to hell. I don't know if this was a factor, but I don't know of any dried
extract dealer who absolutely prevents exposure to moisture, making it
suitable for the experiment.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 03 Feb 1996 07:33:24 -0500 (EST)
From: JOHNMARONEY@delphi.com
Subject: Williams Mini-Keg
Does anyone have or have used the Williams Brewing Company Mini-Keg system?
If so, can you please tell me how good/bad it works.
johnmaroney@delphi.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 1996 07:02:55 -0600
From: jay@ro.com (Jay Reeves)
Subject: Re: Carboy Cleanup
In HBD1951, Bob McCowan <bob.mccowan@cfrp.varian.com> said:
>dump in some B-brite, fill with hot tap water and leave it overnight. In
>the morning rinse it with hot water once or twice, rinse with iodophor, put
BE CAREFULL THERE! Depending on how "hot" your hot water is and how cold
the carboy is, you can shatter your carboy doing that.
OK, add this to the list of "Stupid Brewer Stunts", but I cracked a carboy
that way.
Besides, doesn't the directions on the BBrite container say use cold or warm
water? I get it in 5# bags so it's been awhile since I've read one, so I
may be wrong on that. I know that iodophor says that.
-J
Huntsville, Alabama, USA
------------------------------
Date: 03 Feb 96 08:19:26 EST
From: "Richard J. Smith" <72154.516@compuserve.com>
Subject: Stopped runnings at 1.018
In HB1952 Jim observes:
<<I just used this system for the first time last Sunday; got about 31
<<points/lb extraction (a little better than my 10 gal system). No
<<problems with the sparge, in fact, it only took about 45 minutes to
<<collect 6 gals of wort and the runnings were still at an sg of 1.018.
<<Pretty good. You can hold about 10-11 lbs of grain while using about
<<1.33qts water/lbs grain but that tops off the system; so you can make up
<<to about an OG 1.060 brew easily.
<Final runnings of 1.018 for a 1.060 beer sounds to me like a lot of
<wasted extract. I typically get down to 1.010-1.008 final with a
<kettle wort of 1.060 (before boiling). Hummmmm.
Jim is correct. I wasn't making a case for stopping the runnings at 1.018; I,
too,
normally stop in the 1.008-1.010 range. In this instance I was testing a new
system and just plain ran out of room to hold any more extract. I spent a few
frantic
minutes searching the kitchen cupboards for a clean vessel to collect the
remaining
wort before I gave up. For future batches I will adjust the figures in my
spreadsheet
to compensate for the increase in efficiency and lighten the grain bill
accordingly.
Thanks for pointing this out. Hope it didn't cause too much confusion out
there.
Heading down to the basement now to rack to the secondary.
-Jack from West Point
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 1996 07:31:09 -0600 (CST)
From: favt3tl@rvcux1.RVC.CC.IL.US (Tom Lombardo)
Subject: Don't blow off the blow-off
I've been extract-brewing for about 5 years now, and I've always blown off
the blow-off tube. It seemed so unnecessary, until recently. Here's my
history:
Until last year I always used the "sprinkle-on" method of pitching yeast.
IOW, I sprinkled the yeast onto the wort in the fermenting bucket.
After reading the HBD threads about starters, I decided to take a step
in that direction. I started by re-hydrating the yeast in boiled/cooled
H2O and dumping that into the fermenting bucket. That produced shorter
lag times (about 2-4 hours until the first bubble in the airlock).
OK, so after a few batches, I decided to try a *real* starter. The yeast
FAQ gave some sketchy instructions about starters, so I relaxed, etc...
Here's my log entry for that batch:
4.5 G H20
3.75 LBS. Cooper's Dark Ale Kit (hopped)
4 LBS. Alexander's Pale Malt (unhopped)
2 handfuls home-grown hops - boiling (I don't know the variety)
2 packages (12g) ale yeast
Starter process:
I boiled some H2O in a pan (to sterilize the pan). Then I added some boiling
wort to the pan and let it cool to 80F. Added yeast and stirred (to aerate).
Let that sit for ~30 minutes. It looked like there was some activity, and
I could definitely smell the "working yeast smell" (like my office smells
when I have a batch fermenting).
After the boil, the wort cooled to 92F (I know, that's a little too high,
but I didn't want the starter to sit out for too long). Then I pitched the
starter, and added the airlock.
2 hours later, I saw good activity in the airlock. After 4 hours, the
airlock was bubbling 45 times per minute. After 6 hours, 100 times per
minute. This is much better than I had ever acheived. I'm sold! A starter
for every batch from now on!!
Here's where it got sticky (literally): After 7 hours, the airlock was
overflowing with krausen. I cleaned up, and left the fermenter open for
2 hours while I sanitized a blowoff tube. While the fermenter was open, I
had to skim 3 times to prevent overflow. I added the blow-off tube and left
it for 8 hours. The next morning, I replaced the blow-off with an airlock.
It bubbled away for about 40 hours (total, from pitching time), and then
stopped. I'll be bottling today.
After the clean-up, my wife asked if I was going to give up on starters.
I said, "No, I'm going to adopt the blow-off method."
I should add that I don't do a full-wort boil. I boiled about 1.5G and added
that to 3G of cold tap H2O in the fermenting bucket, and then stirred that
to aerate. (This is my standard method, and I've never had a problem.)
So finally, here's my question: Is it preferable to A) pitch at too high a
temperature or B) wait for it to cool more and risk a starter infection?
Thanks,
Tom in Rockford, IL.
*******************************************
Homebrewers get better head.
Tom Lombardo (favt3tl@rvcux1.RVC.CC.IL.US)
*******************************************
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 03 Feb 1996 08:28:24
From: braue@ratsnest.win.net (John W. Braue, III)
Subject: Good Times? -- Hah!
jlee@esd.ray.com (Jerry Lee) writes:
>Subject: internet virus - look out
>
>
>I apologize that this is not relevant to our threads but I thought it
>was important enough that I'll survive the retaliation...
>
> SUBJECT: VIRUSES--IMPORTANT PLEASE READ IMMEDIATELY >>>
> >>>> There is a computer virus that is being sent across the
> Internet. If you receive an e-mail message with the subject line
> "Good Times", DO NOT read the message, DELETE it immediately.
> Please read the messages below.
[much deleted]
Bat puckey, folks. There is no "Good Times" virus; this hoax has
been circulating on the nets (not just the Internet) for a couple
of years now. If there were a "Good Times" virus, it could not be
spread in the way described. Trust me on this one; I may not be
much of a brewer, but I'm a hell of a programmer.
Mr. Lee ought not to be condemned for concern for the well-being
of his fellow 'Net-users (or, at least, their computers), but this
has no factual content, and should have no more effect on the way
that we conduct our lives than the outbreaks of warnings against
"Blue Star" acid, the reports of gang members who carry out
initiations by driving around at night with their lights off, or
any of the other urban legends which, unfortunately, the Internet
makes much easier to spread.
Since this is hardly brewing-related, I'll ask anyone who wishes
to take this subject up with me to conduct it via private e-mail; I
can be reached at braue@ratsnest.win.net or
john.braue@berlinwall.org.
- --
John W. Braue, III braue@ratsnest.win.net
"The water of England is not drinkable"
- -- Elizabeth of York in a letter to the Infanta Catalina of Aragon
I've decided that I must be the Messiah; people expect me to work
miracles, and when I don't, I get crucified.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 1996 07:50:48 -0800
From: Tom Messenger <kmesseng@slonet.org>
Subject: RE: Good Times Virus Hoax
I just read the posting on the "Good Times"virus.
Please note the following:
1. NO such virus exists.
2. NO such virus COULD exist.
3. The FCC NEVER repeat NEVER sends out notices to ANYONE about virus
information.
For ANY virus to function, it must have code that gets executed. Mail does
not get executed. IF an attachment was sent, it would be automatically down
loaded to your system but it can do NOTHING until you activate it. If you
see an attachment download, it's up to you to check it out and delete it.
Finally, quoting from the post: " Unfortunately, most novice computer
users will not realize what is happening until it is far too late." Perhaps
you don't realize it but you put yourself in this class of users with the
next sentence: "the computer's processor will be placed in an nth-complexity
infinite binary loop -which can severely damage the processor if left
running that way too long." NO SUCH INSTRUCTION exists. This statement is
total garbage.
The "Good Times" virus hoax has been passed around the net since the '80s.
Please check stuff like this with someone who REALLY knows computers before
passing it on.
- ----------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Messenger, Los Osos, California, USA *** kmesseng@slonet.org
- ----------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 03 Feb 1996 09:05:06 -0700
From: Stan Fisher <stanf@goodnet.com>
Subject: Re: internet virus - look out - HOAX!!
That virus scare has been around quite a while.. it's a hoax.
It is impossible for a virus to travel in an e-mail message unless
there's an attached binary or uu-encoded binary that the recipient saves
and then runs. The "virus" in this hoax is this hoax. People propagating
this scare IS the virus if you will. There is no such thing as an "nth
complexity infinite binary loop". A program cannot damage a CPU chip.
This hoax takes advantage of those who do not fully understand the technical
aspects of computers and networking. It sounds feasible to most people and
thus it does its job, causes itself to be propagated like a virus.
Please make your self an "anti-virus" program and stop spreading this one.
Thanks,
Stan Fisher
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Stan Fisher | stanf@goodnet.com - http://www.goodnet.com/~stanf
(602)893-3620 (H)| I brew again therefore I drink.
(602)866-5399 x4686(W) | Friends don't let friends drink Light Beer.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 1996 11:42:54 -0500
From: KennyEddy@aol.com
Subject: Grain Heat Capacity & Volume Part 2
Strike Water (Initial & Subsequent) Temperature Calculations:
- -------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm doughing-in at a certain MWR (or MMWR) using grain at room temperature
(Tg), trying to hit my dough-in temperature of Td. I can figure how much
water I need from my Mash Ratio, but how hot Ts) should the strike water be?"
Ts = [Td + 0.192 * (Td - Tg) / (M)MWR] + FF
Ts = Strike Temp (F or C)
Td = Desired Mash Temp after Strike (F or C)
Tg = Temperature of grain (F or C) (room temp)
FF = "Fudge Factor" to account for thermal mass
of vessel (3 deg F or 1.7 deg C is typical)
(M)MWR in qt/lb or liters/kg
Example: Doughing-in 10 lb grain at 70F with MWR = 1.3 for a final
temperature of 142F, figuring 3 deg F for "fuge factor", I'll need
10 lb * 1.3 = 13 quarts (3.25 gal) of strike water at
[142 + 0.192 * (142-70) / 1.3] + 3 = 156 deg F (rounded off).
"If I add a certain amount (Vs) of water at temperature Tb to a mash of
water-equivalent Vm at temperature Tm, what is the resulting new temperature
Tn?"
Calculate the "water equivalent" volume of the resting mash (grain plus
water), to find Vm:
Vm = Wg (0.192 + MWR) quarts (for other units use other equations previously
given)
...keeping in mind that your MWR includes ALL water added so far (in the case
of multiple steps)...
Tn = (Vm * Tm + Vs * Ts) / (Vs + Vm)
Example: If I add 2 quarts of boiling (212F) water to a 142 deg F mash (10
lb, MWR = 1.3), the water equivalent of the mash is
Vm = 10 * (0.192 + 1.3) = 14.92 quarts so the resulting temperature
will be (14.92 * 142 + 2 * 212) / (14.92 + 2) = 150 deg F (rounded off).
Rearranging this equation answers the more practical question, "My mash is
resting at temperature Tm; I wish to raise it to Tn by adding water at
temperature Tb. How much water do I add?"
Vs = Vm (Tn - Tm) / (Tb - Tn)
Example: My mash (20kg, MMWR = 2) is at 60C. I need to boost it to 70C with
boiling (100C)water. My W.E. is 20 * (0.4 + 2) = 48 liters; so I need to
add 48 * (70 - 60) / (100 - 70) = 16 liters boiling water.
Power Required to Boost Temperature in a certain time:
- ------------------------------------------------------
"I'm using a heating element in a RIMS system to mash. I also am using an
element in my hot-liquor tank. If I know how many gallons I'm working with
in each case, and I have a certain temperature rise rate in mind, how can I
figure how much power I need?"
P (watts) = 147 * LF * gallons * deg F rise / minutes
= 69.9 * LF * liters * deg C rise / minutes
LF = loss factor, to account for heat loss. A well-insulated vessel might be
1.05 or less; uninsulated might be 1.10 to 1.15 or more depending on
geometry, material, covered or open, etc.
Example: I want to raise four gallons of water in my hot-liqour tank from
70F to 175F in fifteen minutes. The tank is uninsulated. So I need about
147 * 1.10 * 4 * (175 - 70) / 15 = 4528W.
Temperature Rise Rate with a Given Power Input:
- -----------------------------------------------
"I already have an element installed. How do I figure my temperature rise
rate, knowing the element power (P)?"
deg F per min = 0.0068 * P / (gallons * LF)
deg C per min = 0.0143 * P / (liters * LF)
Example: My RIMS has an element operating at 1125W in an insulated tun. I'm
mashing 10 lb grain at MWR = 1.3. This mash therefore has a
W.E. of 10 * (0.0478 + 1.3 / 4) = 3.73 gallons. So my temperature rise rate
will be about 0.0068 * 1125 / (3.73 * 1.05) = 1.95 deg F per minute.
Element Power at Voltage other than Rated:
- ------------------------------------------
"My element is rated 4500W at 240V but I'm using it on 120 volts. How much
power will it generate at 120V?"
Pn = (Vn/Vr)squared * Pr
Pn = New Power rating at new voltage Vn
Pr = Rated Power at rated voltage Vr
Example: My 4500W / 240V element will operate at (120/240)squared * 4500 =
1125W at 120V.
Wiring Current Capacity:
- ------------------------
"I have a 4500W element operating at 120V, which results in 1125W actual
power. How much current is being drawn through the house circuit?"
I = P/V
I = current in Amps
P = actual operating power
V = actual operating voltage
Example: My element operating at 1125W on 120V will draw 1125 / 120 = 9.4
amps.
Fun Factoid:
- ------------
Based on the fact that I can boil 3 gallons water on my stove in 45 minutes,
and brew at this heat level without scorching, I've figured an approximate
power density of 50 W/sq-in. I don't know how much higher you could go; I
suspect up to 100 W/sq-in might be OK.
Element Power Density:
- ----------------------
"My 4500W element in my RIMS operates on 120V for an opearting power of
1125W. It's 10" long and is double-folded (40" total element length). The
element wire is 5/16" wide. What is the power density of this element?"
PD = P / A
= P / (3.14 * L * DIA)
PD = Power Density in Watts per square inch or square cm
A = Area in square inches or square cm
L = Total element length in inches or cm
DIA = Element wire diameter in inches or cm
Example: For the given situation, PD = 1125 / (3.14 * 40 * 5/16) = 28.7
watts per square inch, well below the "scorch-free figure" of 50 W/sq-in.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 1996 11:43:22 -0500
From: KennyEddy@aol.com
Subject: Grain Heat Capacity & Volume Summary Part 1
This article is in two parts due to my long-windedness.
OK, so there's some confusion on grain volumes and heat capacities. I
compiled the following to put all of it in one location. Please post/E-mail
any *corrections* or other figures you might find important.
Here is a summary of Volume and Heat calculations you'll need for several
aspects of brewing with grain. Calculations include total volume of mash,
"ater-equivalent" heat capacity of grain, strike water calculations, electric
element calculations of power and temperature rise rate, and my "scorch-free"
power density figures.
These formulae are based on a grain heat capacity equal to 0.4 times that of
an equal *weight* of water, from a posting in HBD 1879, "re: temperature
calculations"), and on grain volume being 0.08 gal/lb (when soaked -- thank
you Spencer!), from postings in HBDs 1792 and 1793 ("Scientific Mashing
Breakthru!").
Both screwed-up English (American, more accurately) and Metric units are
given. Variables are defined as they are introduced and are not redefined
when used later. I've spared the mathematically-challenged the drudgery of
deriving the equations but if anyone is interested I'll be happy to answer
via private E-mail.
A typical question which is answered by the formulae is given in advance of
each, in case someone is thinking, "What the hell good is THIS?". An example
is given as well.
Hope you find this to be worthwhile reference information.
Grain Heat & Volume Calculations (English & Metric):
====================================================
Grain Volume:
- -------------
"I have a 5-gallon cooler that I would like to mash in. How much grain will
it hold?"
1 lb grain occupies about 0.08 gal or 0.32 quart when added to water (and
allowed to soak). 1 kg grain occupies about 0.67 liters when added to water
(and allowed to soak).
Total volume of mash = Wg (0.08 + MWR/4) gallons
= Mg (0.67 + MMWR) liters
Wg = weight of grain (lbs)
MWR = Mash Water Ratio, qt/lb
Mg = Mass of grain (kg)
MMWR = Metric Mash Water Ratio, liters/kg
Example: 10 lb grain with a MWR of 1.3 qt/lb occupies 10 * (0.08 + 1.3 / 4)
= 4.05 gallons.
Grain Heat Capacity Calculation:
- --------------------------------
"If I could find the amount of water which has the same heat capacity as a
certain amount of grain, it would make my strike water and other calculations
easier."
Although some may argue that it's an extra step or something along those
lines, I believe it's easier to visualize water calculations when you're
dealing with just water -- the resulting temperature is basically just the
constituent temperatures "averaged" over the total volume. Besides, for
multiple strikes, once you figure the "water-equivalent" of a certain amount
of grain that number stays fixed, so you only need to figure it once.
The "water equivalent" (W.E.) is the amount of water whose heat capacity is
equivalent to that of a given amount of grain (based on specific heat of
grain being 0.4) and is calculated like this:
W.E. = 0.0479 * Wg gallons
= 0.192 * Wg quarts
= 0.4 * Mg liters
Example: 20 kg of grain has the same heat capacity as 0.4 * 20 = 8 liters of
water.
The water-equivalent for a mash (grain plus water) is:
W.E. = Wg (0.0479 + MWR/4) gallons
= Wg (0.192 + MWR) quarts
= Mg (0.4 + MMWR) liters
Example: My 10 lb, 1.3 qt/lb mash has the same heat capacity as
10 * (0.0479 + 1.3 / 4) = 3.73 gallons of water.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 1996 10:51:58 -0600
From: JP <jparker@ro.com>
Subject: Valley Mill
I'm looking for a (first) mill, and have been very interested in the
Valley Mill. I've been following the thread on HD, and took it upon
myself to ask Randy Kay (valley@web.apc.org) of Valley Mill to clear up
the confusion concerning roller composition. Here's a portion of his
reply:
>In answer to your query, the rollers are made of steel tubing (the wall
>thickness is approx. 1/8"). After the rollers are knurled (patterned), they
>are nickel plated. This is not to be confused with chrome plating which is
>not nearly as hard.
>The reason our 'first' ad and the review in Zymurgy stated that they were
>stainless is because at the time they were.
>However, we found that using stainless was complete overkill. Even if you
>were to run crystalized malt through the mill for years you would never
>wear the new rollers out so why increase cost for nothing.
>The nickel plated steel is sufficiently hard because first off, the knurling
>process is done at high speed which gets the steel (which is high in nickel
>content) very hot, then of course the nickel plating ensures a clean,
>extremely hard coating. The plating also ensures the rollers will never
>rust or become pitted from oxidization.
Randy may post something more detailed to the Digest later, but I thought
this was informative enough to forward now.
I have no association or interest with Valley Mill except as a prospective
customer.
John Parker
jparker@ro.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 1996 15:30:56 -0500
From: RedHat744@aol.com
Subject: "Good Times" Virus...
RANT MODE ON:
Jerry Lee:
This is not as much of a flame as it *should* be - your heart was in the
right place; however:
This is a @%$&ing hoax. It pops up in the digest - and everywhere else, for
that matter - every once in a while, and some hapless fool (like you!)
decides to warn the world about this insidiously nasty thing called the "Good
Times Virus" perpetuating the hoax.
HBD Readership:
PLEASE!!!! If you get a virus warning at work or wherever, try to verify its
authenticity (or antiquity, in this case!) before passing it a long and
sucking a bunch of new fools into the hoax.
RANT MODE OFF
I now return you to your normally scheduled brew periodical. Please do not
reply. I, too, am a hoax and I really don't exist; except for on the 13th of
March...
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1953, 02/05/96
*************************************
-------
