Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #1977
This file received at Hops.Stanford.EDU 1996/03/06 PST
HOMEBREW Digest #1977 Wed 06 March 1996
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor
Contents:
Advice on thick & maybe stuck darkie? (James M. Glenn)
Cats Meow Sources (Derek Lyons)
chili, copyright (Carl Howes)
Boston Beer Bottles (GSHUTELOCK)
I'm Back in the E-Mail Loop -- and SUDS for Mac Redux! (TAyres)
changing channelling (Rob Lauriston)
unsuscribe (Michael Orlyk)
Yes, you can re-use primary trub (Tam Thompson)
It's Alive (Goofy Gravities Cont.) (CASteveB)
Mac Programs Part II ("Kieran O'Connor")
Infrared Beer? (Tjpenn)
Sign root@valhalla.org off (Mike Hatz)
Channelling. (Jim Cave)
mill speed (John Regier)
AFCHBC Competition Results (hollen)
cmsg cancel <4hbg7r$amu@atheria.europa.com> (JJ)
pumps (Terence Tegner)
first hopping? (Rolland Everitt)
Homebrew in Japan (igelman)
wooden paddles ("mike spinelli")
Posting Recipes ("Dave Ebert")
Dry hopping (Matt_K)
Sierra Nevada PA clone (charlesd)
Phosphoic & Lactic Acids (Jay Reeves)
re: Better Extract Brewing Techniques (Eric W. Miller)
Diacetyl and Clorox (Pierre Jelenc)
re: categories (Eric W. Miller)
How to fix Diacetyl (Mark Thompson)
Re: Channelling (Jeff Frane)
Cassia/Quassia (Eric W. Miller)
MacTarnahan's Ale Info (Glenn Raudins)
Gott infusion mashing ("Dave Hinkle")
N2 cooling (David Raitt)
Re: changing channelling (Algis R Korzonas)
******************************************************************
* 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-Warning: Date header was inserted by grove.iup.edu
From: jmglenn@grove.iup.edu (James M. Glenn)
Subject: Advice on thick & maybe stuck darkie?
On a modified Porter recipe I got from who knows where, the fermentation
activity quit after about a day and a half. My OG was around 1.072. I
pulled a sample to see what might be going on - SG of 1.032, and a taste
reminiscent of molasses.
The recipe I used called for 2 lbs Crystal, 1/2 lb of both chocolate and
black patent, plus 1 lb dry light extract and 6.6 lbs liquid light. The
only thing I did different this time was I rinsed (150 deg) and
squeeeeeeezed (again and again) the 6 boilbags of grains until they were
absolutely clear.
Thinking maybe the wort hadn't gotten enough oxygen, I pulled another
sample and boiled it, added cold and vigorously aerated it, and added yeast
in a 2-qt jar with lid and airlock to get myself a yeast culture that could
get it going again. The yeast sank to the bottom of the jar and went right
to sleep, nary a bubble.
Now I'm thinking that maybe it really IS all done, and the high SG is due
not to stuck fermentation but to a high percentage of unfermentables due to
all my squeezins. Any suggestions? And would you think it's worth
bottling/conditioning if my latest assumptions are likely?
James Glenn
jmglenn@grove.iup.edu
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 2 Mar 1996 20:10:46 -0800
From: Derek Lyons <elde@hurricane.net>
Subject: Cats Meow Sources
From: ac051@osfn.rhilinet.gov (Eric W. Miller)
>>raudins@lightscape.com (Glenn Raudins) writes:
>>
>>I think we are missing
>>the middle ground. Recipes are becoming rarer, and as most of us know
>>this is how many have improved their beers by looking at others recipes.
>
>Personally, I'd prefer to see *no* recipes posted to the digest. There are
>plenty of recipe books out there, there's the Cat's Meow, and other online
>recipes. But that won't happen, so I'll contine to scroll past them.
>
Where do you think the recipes for the Cat's Meow *came* from? Here on the HBD.
This is not a static hobby. Denying recipes to people will only serve to
stifle development of homebrewers.
<Kudo's for simply scrolling past them, too many people simply complain.>
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 2 Mar 1996 23:17:05 -0500 (EST)
From: Carl Howes <carlndeb@mv.mv.com>
Subject: chili, copyright
In #1972 Scott Rudolph asked about microwaving chili peppers (I'm not
reproducing the post here because I find that seriously annoying). My
experience with spicy foods is that microwave heating intensifies the
spiciness, sometimes a LOT. Not necessarily a bad thing, but definitely
one to be aware of. I'll let a biochemist take a shot at why this
happens.
After almost two years away, I've noticed a couple of seemingly derisive
references to copyright. I also recall a fleeting reference to this
issue a few Brewing Techniques back. Could someone supply references
to when this was a thread?
Carl
carlndeb@mv.mv.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 2 Mar 1996 23:26:39 -0500
From: GSHUTELOCK@aol.com
Subject: Boston Beer Bottles
I know were not supposed to use "non-returnable" bottles for our homebrews
but I have a question about reusing Boston Beer/Sam Adams bottles. I used to
buy my 12 oz bottles from my local brew store (about $ 9.95 and tax for a
case of new empties). Then I discovered Yuengling Porter in returnables at
my local beer distributer (about $ 16.50 a case filled with a wonderful
commercial brew) so I'd drink the porter and keep the bottles for my
homebrew. Well, the other day I purchased a couple six packs of "Sam Adams"
Scotch Ale and Double Bock beer. I was looking at the empty bottle and
didn't find the usual "NO RETURN/REFILL" statement. Also the bottles looked
suspiciously like my new 12 oz bottles. I weighed the brand new bottles
(about 8 oz of glass) and then my Yuengling porter empties (about 10 oz of
glass), and finally the "Sam Adams" bottles - 8 oz of glass!
My question is does anyone know any reason I couldn't or shouldn't reuse
these "Sam Adams" bottles. Granted they are not the extra tough reusable
bottles the commercial breweries use, but they've got as much glass (and I
figure strength) as the empty bottles I'd been paying good money for.
Stacked up with the new bottles I can't even tell the two apart (shape or
weight). By the way, good old inexpensive "Arm & Hammer" washing soda (aka
extremely overpriced "B-Brite") even soaked off the resistent "Sam Adams"
foil labels in under 30 minutes.
George Shutelock
Mechanicsburg, Pa
email: gshutelock@aol.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 1996 02:06:50 -0500
From: TAyres@aol.com
Subject: I'm Back in the E-Mail Loop -- and SUDS for Mac Redux!
Hello, All!
The bad news is that anyone who has tried to reach me by E-Mail since
February 24 has gotten mail kicked back to them because of, shall we say, a
"dispute" over billing with America On Line. The good news is that I'm now
back "in the loop" at TAyres@aol.com. So fear not, you have not lost contact
with me!!! I'm now back on line. Please resend anything you may have tried
to send me since 2/24.
The second bad news is that this loss of AOL for more than a week posed a
particular problem with regard to two questions I had raised on homebrew
group mail and newsgroup lists such as WortNet, Homebrew Digest, and Lambic
Digest. Pardon my resubmitting these queries, but I never got answers the
first time because of the AOL snafu, so I'd like to try again. Here are the
two queries, one to all parties with knowledge and the second to "lambic
geeks" like me:
1) Does anyone know of any SUDS 4.0-like shareware for the MAC platform? If
so, what is it like and where can I find it. I'm very intrigued by SUDS,
which I can use on a 486 at work, but I run MAC most of the time at the
homebrew shop I coown and at home -- would love to find something as good as
SUDS for Mac. Suggestions? And where do I find it?
2) Second questions is regarding my a framboise lambic I currently have in
production. Sour-mashed, pitched Wyeast (pseudo) Brett and Boon/Cantillon
slurries, plus Wyeast 1056. Lacks pedio character. What is the feasibility
of pitching pedio at BOTTLING time. I'm considering doing this with pedio
from GW Kent. Any thought, lambic freaks? Please post to Lambic Digest or
respond via private E-Mail -- now working again!!! -- at TAyres@aol.com
Sorry for all the waste bandwith repeating this silliness -- AOL f**cked me
over, what can I say?
Cheers,
Tom Ayres
TAyres@aol.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 96 00:28 PST
From: robtrish@mindlink.bc.ca (Rob Lauriston)
Subject: changing channelling
Al K. quotes me on stirring the grain bed during lautering, "The stirring
also counter-acts channelling." He writes,
>I contend that stirring the grain bed increases channelling.
>This is how I justify this. Consider water running slowly through the
>grain bed. Now here comes this rake or spoon that cuts a gorge into
>the grain bed. The gorge disappears as quickly as it appeared because
>there is a layer of water on top of the grain bed. What flowed into
>the gorge? Grain? Water?
I think that you could either increase or decrease channelling according to
exactly what you did. When I've been impatient with gummy slow wheat
lauters, I've cut the bed with a knife praying that more liquid would go
through, *any* liquid --- extract, schmextract.
OTOH, with a 6 to 8 inch grain bed, I often stir up the top couple of inches
of grain when there's only about a half inch of water on top. I stir the
*complete* area of the top of the mash with the result is that the top looks
like a rather thick porridge, like the original mash. Besides eliminating
channels, the point of doing this was to mix the pasty teig in with other
mash particles. This is quite different from my knife cutting or the
cutting that the rakes of a commercial tun would do. There is no gorge into
which the stirred part flows, I don't think. If there are any channels
remaining, BOTH water and grain flow in. Hopefully the water keeps going
through the surrounding bed like a normal sparge, the grain is left behind
and voila, the channel is filled in.
>I theorize that cutting through
>the grain bed actually creates a "path of least resistance" which subsequent
>sparge water runs through. Anybody willing to agree with me on this?
I agree with this. I tread with trepidation into the touchy territory of
terminology, but do we want to distinguish 'stirring' from 'cutting'?
- -- Rob
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 1996 09:17:00 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Orlyk <orlykma@together.net>
Subject: unsuscribe
unsuscribe
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 1996 11:41:42 -0600
From: Tamth@mail.utexas.edu (Tam Thompson)
Subject: Yes, you can re-use primary trub
In response to Darcy Munger's inquiry on 3/2/96:
Yes, you can re-use that primary trub. I used to do it all the time.
You can usually re-use that slurry about three times before it starts
to mutate too far into the unusable range. This will save you much
money on Wyeast. The caveats: as Darcy mentioned, of course you
must put it in a sterilized bottle (be sure to do this using a
sterilized funnel or hose) with an airlock on it, and store it in the
fridge. I like to use Duvel ale 12-oz bottles, since they are very short
and squatty. I can put a stopper and airlock on top of them and they
still aren't very tall. Also, be sure to label them with the date, the
batch they came from, what Wyeast it originally was, and how many times
you've used it before. When I do weirdo brews, like organic ginger-pepper
honey lager, I don't save the slurry, since it's been flavored. I save
it only from generic-type brews, like porter and Vienna lager.
I have question, as well: I have always saved this slurry out of the
primary. On my recent porter and Belgian white (two separate ales), I
didn't remember to save any until bottling. You CAN do this with the
slurry from the secondary, can't you (assuming that you haven't waited
eons to bottle, or frozen your yeast, or anything)?
Hope this helps, and thanks in advance for answers,
Tam Thompson
Tamth@mail.utexas.edu
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 1996 13:53:38 -0500
From: CASteveB@aol.com
Subject: It's Alive (Goofy Gravities Cont.)
On 2/29 I wrote about my fermentation slowing way down with the SG at 1.060.
I took the measurements while racking to the secondary. Now, 3 days later,
the beer is *alive* again! There is a nice 1 to 1-1/2 in layer of kraeusen
and it is bubbling away. (a bubble every 2 sec.) I was careful not to areate
the beer while racking, so I don't think a great increase in available O2 is
the cause. Could it be a little disturbing of the trub and redistribution of
the yeast that would revive them? just a shot in the dark on my "Great
Adventure in Beerland!"
Enjoying the Trip,
Steve
|--------------------------------------------|
| owner/operator of "Beer or Bust Brewery" |
| otherwise known as "Tiffany's Kitchen" |
|--------------------------------------------|
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 1996 15:01:11 -0500 (EST)
From: "Kieran O'Connor" <koconnor@syr.edu>
Subject: Mac Programs Part II
Here's another Mac program available from Info-Mac, the Mac shareware
archive:
The Info-Mac Archive is available at 50 public and private sites around
the world. For the site list, request it by mail (address below), or try:
<ftp://mirrors.aol.com/pub/info-mac/help/mirror-list.txt>
Also accessible by ftp. Help files and indexes are also in info-mac/help/.
Attached please find the FREEWARE BrewMeister v1.0 by Frank and Becky
Grimaldi. There is a serious lack of shareware/freeware homebrew software
for the Macintosh. This software is a beer "recipe database and recipe
analysis tool" according to the readme. I just got this from a friend who
got it on Compuserve. (Thanks, Lance!) I've scanned it with Disinfectant
3.5, but haven't used it yet.
It is geared more to the "all-grain" (scratch if you will) homebrewer,
rather than the extract brewer. Calculates original and final gravities,
potential alchohol, IBUs, and Color. Looks pretty decent if you are into
homebrew and use a Mac, especially since there isn't much other shareware
available.
I am not the author.
- --Brian Pickerill, Muncie, IN <00bkpickeril@mail.bsu.edu>
[Archived as /info-mac/art/brew-meister-10.hqx; 174K]
Kieran
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Kieran O'Connor
koconnor@syr.edu
Syracuse, N.Y. USA
In vino veritas; in cervesio felicitas.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 1996 16:06:43 -0500
From: Tjpenn@aol.com
Subject: Infrared Beer?
I just started a new job where we make infrared (IR) detectors and lasers in
the 1-2 micron wavelength range. They are used widely in laboratories and
industrial processes for gas detection and other measurement applications.
My question-are there any beer or brewing-related applications for this
technology?
Tom Penn
Bordentown, NJ
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 1996 14:02:22 -0800
From: Mike Hatz <mhatz@thenet.com>
Subject: Sign root@valhalla.org off
I have sent mail to the homebrew-request list and have not heard anything
back.
Please sign off:
*@thenet.com
*@valhalla.org
I manage e-mail for both of these domains and NOONE gets the homebrew list.
Thanks for some human intervention! :)
Mike
root@thenet.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 1996 16:01:22 -0800 (PST)
From: Jim Cave <CAVE@PSC.ORG>
Subject: Channelling.
No. Im not a hydrological engineer, just a stream biologist.
Obviously, erosion develops with water velocity and with time--streams
widen with time because of erosion. The stream analogy with a grain-bed
would indicate that channelling would also develop with time. Anything
that forces the process to start over again (e.g. stirring) would minimize
the development of channels. Mind you, recirculation may be necessary
to reset the grain bed and minimize rubidity of the wort.
Raking the grain-bed results in reducing the compaction of the bed
and (according to Richman and Warner) is used in lautering of decoction
mashes. I've been told by a commercial brew that rather than suffer through
a stuck mash (which often results in channeling--least flow of resistance
and all that) complete stiring and reseting of the grainbed is preferable.
If the mash has shown signs of sticking, it is best to do this
right away than deal with the concrete afterwards.
I've seen signs of channelling in the two times I've had a stuck
mash. There was a mottling of the grainbed and parts were sweet and others
were not. I suspect that I made the usual mistakes--recirculated too
quickly, and too much; too fine a grind; too much grain. Stirring at least
lets one give it another go and slow down the speed of recirculation. It
seems that a speed that you can get away with using 24 lbs of malt is higher
than with 35 pounds.
Jim Cave
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 1996 19:36:03 -0600 (CST)
From: John Regier <regier@falcon.cc.ukans.edu>
Subject: mill speed
I am building a mill with 6in steel rollers on 1in shafts the motor i
have is a 1hp motor that rotates at roughly 250rpm. my question is what
is optimum speed for the rollers i can gear the motor speed up by
changing the sprocket but dont know what speed i should be aiming for.
pleese reply by email as i dont have a computer at home and check my mail
infrequently.
Thanks for any responces
john
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 96 17:41:25 PST
From: hollen@vigra.com
Subject: AFCHBC Competition Results
Third Annual
America's Finest City Homebrew Competition
Results
QUAFF Homebrew Club of San Diego. California is pleased to announce the
results of our third annual competition. We would like to thank all
brewers, judges, and stewards who participated and helped to make this
a successful event. Once again, the proportion of excellent beers we
received was very high. Individual score sheets and ribbons will be
mailed out to the brewers within a week. The trophy for Best of Show,
an engraved beer glass with the QUAFF logo, the competition
information, the brewer's name and beer will take a while longer since
it is being custom made.
Due to some categories having insufficient entries, those categories
were combined with other categories for purposes of scoring. Ribbons
were awarded for the combined categories together. To prevent beers
which are not "Ribbon Quality" from placing for an award solely because
they happened to be the only beer entered in a category, minimum
scoring requirements were placed. To be awarded a First Place Ribbon,
a minimum of 35 points must be scored, for Second Place, 30 points, and
for Third Place, 25 points.
Barley Wine (01)
English and Scottish Strong Ale (10)
10 Entries total
Barlery Wine 01 First
Greg & Liz Lorton (Quaff)
Barlery Wine 01 Second
Rich Link (Quaff)
English and Scottish Strong Ale 10 Third
Ray Greflein & James Selgrath (No Club Affiliation)
- ------------------------------------------------------------------
Belgian and French Ale (02)
Belgian-Style Lambic (03)
7 Entries Total
Belgian and French Ale 02 First, Best of Show Honorable Mention
Rich Link (Quaff)
Belgian and French Ale 02 Second
Harold Gottschalk (Quaff)
Belgian-Style-Lambic 03 Third
Fred Waltman & Steve LaBrie (Pacific Gravity)
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mild and Brown Ale (04)
7 Entries Total
Mild and Brown Ale 04 First, Best of Show Honorable Mention
Fred Waltman & Steve LaBrie (Pacific Gravity)
Mild and Brown Ale 04 Second
Greg & Liz Lorton (Quaff)
Mild and Brown Ale 04 Third
Brian Jones (Barley Literates)
- ---------------------------------------------------------------
English-style Pale Ale (05)
English Bitter (07)
Scottish Ale (08)
12 Entries Total
English-Style Pale Ale 05 First
Rich Link (Quaff)
English-Style Pale Ale 05 Second
Tod Fitzsimmons (Quaff)
Scottish Ale 08 Third
Carol Satterblom (Pacific Gravity)
- -----------------------------------------------------------
American-style Ale (06)
13 Entries total
American Style Ale 06 First
Rich Link (Quaff)
American Style Ale 06 Second
Tod Fitzsimmons (Quaff)
American Style Ale 06 Third
James Mackey (Barley Literates)
- ----------------------------------------------------------------
Porter (09)
15 Entries Total
Porter 09 First, Best of Show
Tod Fitzsimmons (Quaff)
Porter 09 Second
Uwe Boer (Foam on the Brain)
Porter 09 Third
Tiffany Nyrkkanen (Pacific Gravity)
- ---------------------------------------------------------
Stout (11)
9 Entries total
Stout 11 First, Best of Show First Runnerup
Fred Waltman & Steve LaBrie (Pacific Gravity)
Stout 11 Second
Uwe Boer (Foam on the Brain)
Stout 11 Third
Rich Link (Quaff)
- ----------------------------------------------------
Bock (12)
7 Entries total
Bock 12 First, Best of Show Honorable Mention
Frank Leers & Bobby Sparks (Quaff)
Bock 12 Second
Brian Jones (Barley Literates)
Bock 12 Third
Dan Sherman (Quaff)
- -------------------------------------------------------------------
German Dark Lager (13)
German Light Lager (14)
Classic Pilsner (15)
American Lager (16)
Vienna/Marzen/Oktoberfest (17)
9 Entries Total
No First Place Awarded
German Dark Lager 13 Second
Erol Kilki (Quaff)
American Lager 16 Third
Patrick Mckee (Temecula Valley Homebrewer's Assoc.)
- -------------------------------------------------------------
German-style Wheat Beer (19)
9 Entries total
German-style Wheat Beer 19 First
Jeff Lannon (No Club Affiliation)
German-style Wheat Beer 19 Second
Dirk Niemeyer, Brad Ebright & Mike McAllister (No Club Affiliation)
German-style Wheat Beer 19 Third
Greg & Liz Lorton (Quaff)
- -------------------------------------------------------
Smoked Beer (20)
Specialty Beer (23)
Fruit and Vegetable Mead (26)
7 Entries Total
Smoked Beer 20 First
Fred Waltman & Steve LaBrie (Pacific Gravity)
Specialty Beer 23 Second
Fred Waltman & Steve LaBrie (Pacific Gravity)
Specialty Beer 23 Third
Antoinette Hodges & Cher Cunningham (No Club Affiliation)
- --------------------------------------------------------------
Fruit and Vegetable Beer (21)
Herb and Spice Beer (22)
10 entries total
Herb and Spice Beer 22 First, Best of Show Second Runnerup
Tod Fitzsimmons (Quaff)
Herb and Spice Beer 22 Second
Jim Weiner (No Club Affiliation)
Fruit and Vegetable Beer 21 Third
Fred Waltman & Steve LaBrie (Pacific Gravity)
- -------------------------------------------------------------------
German-style Ale (18)
California Common Beer (24)
7 Entries total
California Common Beer 24 First, Best of Show Honorable Mention
Steve Rittenhouse (Pacific Gravity)
California Common Beer 24 Second
Patrick, Mckee (Temecula Valley Homebrewer's Assoc.)
California Common Beer 24 Third
Tod Fitzsimmons (Quaff)
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 1996 23:43:17 GMT
From: jj@europa.com (JJ)
Subject: cmsg cancel <4hbg7r$amu@atheria.europa.com>
Spam cancelled by The SPAMinator.
Original Subject:
$$$$$MAKE EXTA CASH FAST!!!!! READ ME
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 13:40:19 +-200
From: Terence Tegner <brewtec@global.co.za>
Subject: pumps
- ----------
From: Terence Tegner[SMTP:brewtec@global.co.za]
Sent: 10 February 1996 10:56
To: 'homebrew@hpfcmgw.fc.hp.com'
Subject: pumps
Hi from Terence in South Africa,
has anybody ever thought of using the pumps found in auto-washing =
machines in the home brewery? They are supposed to work with hot =
liquids.(I would not use them for pumping hot wort, however) They seem =
ideal for moving cooled wort and beer around. I've used them for pumping =
sparge water with great success. I'm sure the pumps used over there are =
much the same as those used here and a used pump from the repair shop =
comes out pretty cheap.
REGARDS
Terence Tegner
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 07:35:43 -0500
From: af509@osfn.rhilinet.gov (Rolland Everitt)
Subject: first hopping?
I recall that a while back there was some discussion of adding
aroma hops to beer in the form of a hop infusion. I think this
practice was called first hopping (or something similar).
Can anyone enlighten me on this practice, or point me to an FAQ
file?
Rolland Everitt
af509@osfn.rhilinet.gov
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 96 07:56:56 EST
From: igelman@smtplink.mssm.edu
Subject: Homebrew in Japan
Fellow Homebrewers:
I just had a visit from a Japanese friend would took a keen liking to
my homebrew. I'd like to set him up with a homebrewing system in his
hometown of Nagoya. Does anyone out there have information about
sources for homebrew material in Japan, and even better, in Nagoya?
You can e-mail me directly. Many thanks.
Irwin Gelman
igelman@smtplink.mssm.edu
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 08:12:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: "mike spinelli" <paa3983@dpsc.dla.mil>
Subject: wooden paddles
Thanks to all those who gave me sources and even offered mailing me a
paddle. I ended up callin a local bar/restaurant supply store and picked up
a 4 foot paddle for $8 bucks.
Mike in Cherry Hill NJ
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 07:25:02 MST-0700
From: "Dave Ebert" <Dave.Ebert@UCHSC.edu>
Subject: Posting Recipes
In HBD #1974 Raudins@lightscape.com (Glenn Raudins) writes:
>Personally, I'd prefer to see *no* recipes posted to the digest.
>There are plenty of recipe books out there, there's the Cat's
>Meow, and other online recipes. But that won't happen, so I'll
>contine to scroll past them.
Glenn:
If recipes were not posted to the HBD where would the Cat's Meow get
it's recipes?
Not a flame, just a comment.
Dave
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 10:08:14 est
From: Matt_K@ceo.sts-systems.ca
Subject: Dry hopping
Greetings everyone
I just dry hopped for the frist time and would like to poll popular
opinion.
I used 2 Saaz plugs in the secondary and was wondering what the
preferred length of time is to leave the hops. I've read 1 - 2 weeks.
Is there anything to consider when leaving the hops for two weeks
insdead of one, other than a stronger hop aroma?
Many thank's
Matt
in Montreal
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 10:31:01 -0500 (EST)
From: charlesd <charlesd@nando.net>
Subject: Sierra Nevada PA clone
Being a new brewer, I was very interested in the SNPA clone recipe that
was posted today. I have been looking for a good approximation of SNPA to
brew this weekend, but have not yet moved to all-grain brewing (this will
be my second batch). Do you (or any member of the collective, for that
matter) have any suggestions/references for methods to covert your
all-grain recipe to extract/specialty grains?
TIA,
-charles douthart-
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 09:52:11 -0600
From: jay@ro.com (Jay Reeves)
Subject: Phosphoic & Lactic Acids
Can the HBD resident chemist (or any one else) tell me why
you should use lactic acid to drop the mash pH as opposed
to using phosphoric acid? I know about using salts for
mash adjustments. I currently use phosphoric acid to
acidify the sparge water, but why only lactic in the mash?
-Jay Reeves
Huntsville, Alabama, USA
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 11:07:47 -0500
From: ac051@osfn.rhilinet.gov (Eric W. Miller)
Subject: re: Better Extract Brewing Techniques
In HBD #1975, Greg Heiler asks about racking off cold break:
>recommendation was that I get a 2en primary fermentation vessel and
>rack to it 8-12 hours after pitching the yeast, before real active
>fermentation.
>During the first 8-12hrs a significant amount of trub settles out. The
>thought was that getting the wort of the trub, as soon as possible,
>would reduce/eliminate off flavors. Is this added process refinement
>being used by anyone and is it effective? Is it worth doing?
I used to follow that same process, based on Dave Miller's book. I
stopped doing it when I gave some thought to the contents of the
"trub" I was leaving behind in the settling tank. One of the big
components is yeast! I spend days building a decent size starter
to pitch into my beer, then rack the just-beginning-to-ferment
wort off the top of it a few hours later. Sure, there's lots of
yeast in suspension, but not as much as I'd like to have.
One of the results of the process back then was that my beers were
much more prone to diacetyl (the noun that means the same as
2,3-butanedione ;-). Large quantities of yeast lead to more
rapid fermentations and are necessary for reducing diacetyl at
the end of primary fermentation.
Eric in Newport, RI
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 96 11:21:11 EST
From: Pierre Jelenc <pcj1@columbia.edu>
Subject: Diacetyl and Clorox
In HOMEBREW Digest #1975 the truth emerged sequentially:
braue@ratsnest.win.net (John W. Braue, III):
> "Diacetyl" is. of course, an adjective, strictly speaking; it
> means "characterized by the presence of two acetyl (CH[3]CH[2}-)
> groups".
but
ajdel@interramp.com (A. J. deLange):
> is "diacetyl" is really a noun. Yes it
> is. "Acetyl" is a noun meaning the radical CH3CO-. Put two of these
> together and you get CH3COCOCH3 i.e. diacetyl.
(However it is CH3CO not CH3CO-; acetyl is a radical, not an anion)
then
"Keith Royster" <keith.royster@ponyexpress.com>:
>Of course diacetyl is a noun...it is the name of a chemical compound.
> [ ... ] I also began to notice that
> there were no chemicals at all that ended in "yl". For example,
^^^^^^^^^
In a way, yes; but not really. (see below.)
> there is no Benzyl, but there is a Benzyl Chloride. There is no
> Isopropyl, but there is isopropyl alcohol (or more correctly,
> isopropanol). So it does seem that something should follow
> Diacetyl... but what?
And there we have it, almost. It's not "diacetyl followed by what?", but
very simply "acetyl acetyl"! Hence colloquially "diacetyl" although it is
strictly speaking wrong: it should be (and is) "biacetyl". In such a
context, "di" means "two of A attached to the same B", while "bi" means
"two A attached to each other".
Others of the same type: biphenyl, bibenzyl, and bivinyl.
------
And now for something completely different, KennyEddy@aol.com asks:
> Anybody know much about Clorox's "new and improved" biodegradable bleach?
> It's supposedly a "blend" of sodium hypochlorite AND sodium hydroxide;
That's what the "old" bleach always was.
> supposedly it turns to saltwater (NaCL I presume) after a while.
That's what it always did.
There must be more to the story.
Pierre
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 11:25:02 -0500
From: ac051@osfn.rhilinet.gov (Eric W. Miller)
Subject: re: categories
In HBD 1975, Andy Kligerman looks for advice on how to enter a porter and a
stout to which he added small amounts of peated malt.
>Some references say that porter can
>have a slightly smoked character, but would most judges know this or will I
>do better entering these in a specialty or smoked beer category? Thanks for
I would recommend entering it as a specialty beer, giving it a title that
implies that you're trying to brew a historic porter, from back in the days
when porters tasted a bit smokey.
A porter judge would notice the smokey/phenolic character in sharp
contrast with the other un-peated porters in the flight. Would tell you to
lose the smoked grains or enter the beer as a smoked beer if they knew it
was from smoked grain, or would tell you that your beer is probably infected
if they picked up just the phenolic character of the smoke.
The smoked beer judge would say that your *lightly* smoked beer doesn't
have nearly enough smoke in it. It won't stand up well after a few great
big smokey Rauchbiers.
Good luck
Eric in Newport, RI
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 96 8:42:07 PST
From: Mark Thompson <markt@hpdocp3.cup.hp.com>
Subject: How to fix Diacetyl
I have a german style pilsner that was fermented with WY2124 at 48df
that i transfered off the yeast after about 3 weeks that has
diacetyl levels that are too high for my taste. My question is
should i just wait it out and lager because it's too late (sg 50 tg 12)
to do a di rest, or could i pitch some fresh yeast and warm it up?
Am I likely to reduce the diacetyl that is prob. at twice the taste
threashold in a 2 month lagering?
Thanks for the info.
Mark
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 1996 08:45:35 -0800
From: jfrane@teleport.com (Jeff Frane)
Subject: Re: Channelling
I couldn't figure the subject head out at first; thought I'd
wandered into a New Age newsgroup for a minute there.
Al Korzonas wrote: (and no, this is not Dump on Al Week)
>Here comes this thread again... I would like some soil scientists or
>civil engineers (heck... I'll ask my Dad tonight) if stirring reduces
>or increases channelling. I have not had any classes on this topic
>per se, but I have had enough physics, brewed enough and observed enough
>grain beds to have a pretty solid opinion on this subject. I contend
>that stirring the grain bed increases channelling.
>
>This is how I justify this. Consider water running slowly through the
>grain bed. Now here comes this rake or spoon that cuts a gorge into
>the grain bed. The gorge disappears as quickly as it appeared because
>there is a layer of water on top of the grain bed. What flowed into
>the gorge? Grain? Water?
>
If you look at a good brewing text, you should find some information
explaining why people use rakes in mashing systems, and although your
theory may be intuitive, it's not how it works, either in the flower pot
or the mash tun.
I suppose if you only drew a rake through the mash once, that you would
simply create a new channel, but in a proper system, the rakes move slowly
through the grain bed -- and usually deepen over the course of the mash/
lauter/ process. This makes is impossible for the water to find fractures
in the bed and form channels, as the fractures are continually broken up.
>Channelling, for those who don't know, but still haven't paged down,
>is sort of like a 3-dimensional river that runs through something (soil,
>a gravel filter, a grain bed, whatever).
Channelling is when you pay somebody a lot of money to talk with Zongo,
who was a Sumerian priest/king and has been keeping tabs on all your
past lives.
>
- --Jeff Frane
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 11:37:15 -0500
From: ac051@osfn.rhilinet.gov (Eric W. Miller)
Subject: Cassia/Quassia
A few digests ago, I posted about Mike Urseth's quassia note:
> I think the spelling you're looking for is "cassia," a plant whose bark is
> more commonly known as "cinnamon." Are you sure this brewer isn't pulling
> your leg?
Rick Larson (rick@adc.com) was nice enough to let me know that I was of
the mark on that statement (in private email).
Looking it up in Webster's, I find:
"A drug from the heartwood of various tropical trees of the ailanthus
family used esp. as a *BITTER* tonic and remedy for roundworms..."
[emphasis mine].
If only I had looked it up before posting....
Apologies, and thanks to Rick.
Eric in Newport, RI
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 08:48:53 -0800 (PST)
From: raudins@lightscape.com (Glenn Raudins)
Subject: MacTarnahan's Ale Info
Here is the info I have been able to collect on Portland Brewing's
MacTarnahan's Ale (without actually venturing up there.)
MacTarnahan's Ale
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Grist:
Pale Malt (Gambrinus)
Crystal Malt (20 and 60L?)
Cascade Hops:
One addition at the start of boil
One addition with 5 minutes left.
IBU: 40
Yeast:
Of British Origin, strain unknown.
O.G: 1.053
Fermentation:
~72 Degrees.
>From the IBU measurement (thank you Portland Brewing), we can compute the
hop additions based on each person's favorite utilization numbers and
formula.
Obviously, a guess will have to be made on the grist ratios and probably
use Wyeast's Scotch Ale strain for a lack of any other info/source.
Sources: Martin Wilde (thanks), and Portland Brewing's Web Page.
When I get back from Egypt, I will try to finish off this work with a few
test brews.
Glenn Raudins
raudins@lightscape.com
------------------------------
Date: 04 Mar 1996 10:09:20 -0700
From: "Dave Hinkle" <Dave.Hinkle@aexp.com>
Subject: Gott infusion mashing
Dan wrote:
I've been mashing in my converted 10 gallon Gott cooler for about 10,
five gallon batches. I have had excellent results with one step infusion
mashes. I get about 82% extraction and beautifully clear runoff.
However, each time I've tried a multiple step infusion mash (with a
protein rest, conversion, and mash-out) I end up with a stuck sparge.
<snip>
- -----------------
I have experienced this doing step mashes in my Gott too. It took
a couple of batches, but I finally realized what was causing it. The
thin final mash allows finer particles to form a thick teig (as recently
discussed in HBD). I don't think it has anything to do with the "weight
of the water" on top of the grain, but rather it is the way the grain bed
forms in such a dilute mash: heavy particles at bottom, teig-forming
"grain dust" settling last on the top. Kind of like river sediment where
the big rocks settle first, and so forth, until the only thing still suspended
in the water is the silt particulate, which settles last. If you use adjuncts
such as corn or oats, the teig is very pronounced and you get either
channeling down the sides of the cooler, or a stuck runoff, both not a
good situation.
My ways around this, as you appear to have already discovered, are
to scratch the surface of the grain bed often during the sparge (or
even skim off some of the teig as it forms), or open the runoff flow
rapidly at first to set the grain bed before it has time to do the gradient
settling (or both). The problem with an intial wide-open lauter spigot is
you get a LOT of cloudy liquid you need to recirculate, but you have to
recirculate it slowly, and only after the grain bed has formed a fairly
firm consistency. It feels like a bucket brigade! It's enough to drive
you to build a RIMS setup! But seriously, what I now do is dough-in
thick at .5 qt per pound for the protein rest, add boiling water to bring
to conversion temp, and skip the mash-out and use hotter (175F-ish)
sparge water. The grain bed temp stays under 170F because the temp
differential of the 175-180F sparge water and the 152F mash is small.
I am not trying to re-hash the discussion about whether mash-out is
required or not. I'm just saying that's what _I_ do to keep the mash in
my Gott from getting too thin to point it becomes a PITA to sparge.
You could, of course, use decoction or steam injection to raise mash-
step temps, but that's a whole different story.
Or, just do single-step infusion ;-).
Please, any brewing science students, feel free to enlighten us on the
dynamics of mash consistency and lautering. Or why the protein rest
actually works better in a thick mash, while conversion works better in
a thin mash (which is a good thing for us Gott mashers!).
Dave H
Phoenix, AZ
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 1996 12:09:19 -0500
From: David Raitt <draitt@scri.fsu.edu>
Subject: N2 cooling
I was talking to a friend about equipment I need to buy soon the other
night, and specifically mentioned getting a wort chiller. He suggested
instead using liquid nitrogen, which he has ready access to through work.
Off hand I can't think of a reason why (with appropriate safety precautions)
this wouldn't work. As has been discussed here, wrt carbonation, N2 doesn't
react with beer. I can't imagine that there is an infection risk from it
since it is pretty cold (~77 K). And the cold break would probably be
awesome with cooling occuring in a very few minutes (< 1?).
Can anyone think of any problems beyond the safety issues (i.e. the N2
flashing into gas and throwing hot wort all over the kitchen)?
TIA
David
PS We will probably try it next weekend and see how it works. If it is
succesful I will report back.
- --
|David Raitt Postdoc RA | SCRI | Head Brewer |
|draitt@scri.fsu.edu | Florida State University | Chief Taster |
|http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~draitt/| Tallahassee, FL 32306 | Late Shipment |
|Office: (904) 644-2434 | Fax: (904) 644-0098 | Picobrewery |
************************** How 'bout them Wildcats? *************************
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 96 11:20:33 CST
From: korz@pubs.ih.att.com (Algis R Korzonas)
Subject: Re: changing channelling
I've always wanted to be quoted by an Australian, and I think that
this may be my chance...
Rob writes:
>OTOH, with a 6 to 8 inch grain bed, I often stir up the top couple of inches
>of grain when there's only about a half inch of water on top. I stir the
>*complete* area of the top of the mash with the result is that the top looks
>like a rather thick porridge, like the original mash. Besides eliminating
>channels, the point of doing this was to mix the pasty teig in with other
>mash particles. This is quite different from my knife cutting or the
>cutting that the rakes of a commercial tun would do. There is no gorge into
>which the stirred part flows, I don't think. If there are any channels
>remaining, BOTH water and grain flow in. Hopefully the water keeps going
>through the surrounding bed like a normal sparge, the grain is left behind
>and voila, the channel is filled in.
I never stir my mash, but sometimes I have to increase my sparge water
flow rate, mid-sparge. Once or twice, I've fumbled on this operation and
have subsequently disturbed the grain bed a little (8" grain beds or so).
A quick look at my runnings showed that they had gotten a little cloudy
suddenly, but then cleared back up quickly.
I think that if you were to:
1. stop taking runnings,
2. stir the grain bed,
3. restart taking runnings into another vessel,
4. recirculate till the runnings are back to "pretty clear,"
5. restart putting the runnings into the kettle,
you may be getting a *little* more extract than if you just let the
thing run without disturbing it. Remember that 3-hour lauter that
I mentioned in passing? During it, I was very tempted to stir the
grain bed (who wouldn't?), but I knew the problem was due to the 43%
rye malt and my botched beta-glucan rest (overshot!) and not because
I had a defective grain bed. In the end I got 32 points/pound/gallon
and my final runnings were (after temperature adjustment) 1.013!!!
I could have gotten 34 points/pound/gallon if I had the patience to
wait another hour. In three hours I got only 6 USgallons of runnings
in stead of my usual 7.5 or 8.
>>I theorize that cutting through
>>the grain bed actually creates a "path of least resistance" which subsequent
>>sparge water runs through. Anybody willing to agree with me on this?
>
>I agree with this. I tread with trepidation into the touchy territory of
>terminology, but do we want to distinguish 'stirring' from 'cutting'?
Isn't a spoon just a dull, bent knife?
Al.
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korz@pubs.att.com
Copyright 1996 Al Korzonas (quoting by Australians excepted).
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1977, 03/06/96
*************************************
-------
