Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2004
This file received at Hops.Stanford.EDU 1996/04/06 PST
HOMEBREW Digest #2004 Sat 06 April 1996
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor
Contents:
the carbonate saga continues (Gregory King)
Sparge water level control (Ian Smith)
Brewpubs (sorta) (Simonzip)
Air & CO2 Dispersion (G. M. Elliott)
Woodchuck cider clone (Milton)
Missmarked Wyeast Package ("Houseman, David L TR")
Re: Scale Watcher (Russell Mast)
Cabbage smell in sweet wort (Ian Smith)
Specialty Grains. (Bucket99)
Brewpubs and sealing wax! (Craig Stewart)
orange flavour (Rob Lauriston)
Thanks! (Joseph A. Clayton)
We are all criminals to UPS!!!! (cisco)
Re:Cheap-Ass Thermometer (John Mrazek)
Flavor contribution of crystal by lovibond? (Brian K. Pickerill)
Automagic scale machine (Dan Gerth)
Beach Towel Lambic ("Sutton, Bob")
Dry Hopping ("Toler, Duffy L.")
Reculturing Belgian Tripels (Post_Mark)
Re:Iron/Water Analysis (/O=PRDMSMAC/S=HUMPHREY/G=PATRICK/)
a yeasty problem... (AleBrwer)
Lime (A. J. deLange)
hot break and immersion chillers... (wuerstl)
******************************************************************
* 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: Thu, 04 Apr 1996 14:05:14 -0500 (EST)
From: Gregory King <GKING@ARSERRC.Gov>
Subject: the carbonate saga continues
In HBD #2000 Ken Schwartz (KennyEddy@aol.com) wrote:
[snip]
>The problem is compounded by the fact that published water profiles may give
>the carbonates under either "CO3" or "HCO3" labels. This may be based on an
>assumption that at the pH of the "natural" water, there is a predominance of
>one or the other. It may also be a default, blind "lumping" of all three
>carbon species into one figure for "simplicity". In any case, it's only part
>of the story.
>
>The "buffering" capacity ("alkalinity") of a given concentration of
>*carbonate* (say from chalk) versus *bicarbonate* (say from baking soda) is
>different, and it's the *buffering capacity* that we are really interested
>in, since this is what counteracts the mash's ability to acidify to "optimum"
>pH levels. If one profile gives "carbonate" and the next "bicarbonate", is
>the author blindly "lumping" all the species under one label or is s/he
>assuming a predominance of one over the other based on other water
>characteristics? Or perhaps s/he is giving the equivalent (bi)carbonate
>concentration which gives rise to the water's alkalinity? How should we deal
>with the "carbonate", "bicarbonate", and "alkalinity" figures in working with
>BreWater (or any other water adjustment plan)?
[snip]
As Ken says, it's really the alkalinity number that is of concern to us, since
alkalinity is directly proportional to the buffering capacity of the water.
Thus, if the analysis of your water (available from your local water utility)
reports a total alkalinity number, then you don't even have to worry about
the carbonate number.
On the other hand, if your water analysis does not include a total alkalinity
number, it's still possible to calculate the alkalinity without having to guess
whether the carbonate number refers to carbonate or to bicarbonate.
As an example I'll use the analysis Ray Louvier (rlouvier@ix.netcom.com) posted
recently for his water:
>Silica 12 Sulfate 14 Phosphate <.1
>Calcium 33 Chloride 28
>Magnesium 8.3 Carbonate 0
>Sodium 59 Bicarbonate 239
>Potassium 2.1 Nitrate <.05
The Total Alkalinity of Ray's water was reported as 196 ppm (as CaCO3). Suppose
that this number had not been reported. The alkalinity can be derived from the
other numbers by performing some mass-to-charge conversions, and then using the
fact that the charges of all of the ions in the water must sum to 0 (as A.J.
deLange pointed out in HBD #2002).
The conversion factors used in the following calculation were defined for each
ion as 100*q/MW, where q is the charge of the ion (e.g. +2 for Calcium, -2 for
Sulfate, -1 for Chloride, etc.) and MW is the ion's molecular weight (e.g.
40.08 for Calcium, 96.06 for Sulfate, 35.45 for Chloride, etc.). The multipli-
cation by 100 simply produces numbers that are nicer to work with. The calcu-
lation follows:
conversion charge
ppm factor equivalents
---- ------ -----------
Calcium 33 x 4.990 = 164.7
Magnesium 8.3 x 8.229 = 68.3
Sodium 59 x 4.350 = 256.7
Potassium 2.1 x 2.558 = 5.4
Sulfate 14 x -2.082 = -29.1
Chloride 28 x -2.821 = -79.0
Nitrate .05 x -1.613 = -0.1
Phosphate .1 x -3.159 = -0.3
-----
+386.6 Sum
Note that Carbonate and Bicarbonate have so far been omitted from the calcu-
lation. (The other omission is Silica, which I always thought was simply sand
or quartz. However, in Ray's water analysis Silica is listed with the
positively-charged ions, so it must refer to something other than sand. As you
will see, ignoring Silica in these calculations will result in little if any
loss in accuracy.)
The +386.6 charge equivalents must be balanced with either -386.6 charge equi-
valents of Carbonate or Bicarbonate. The nice thing here is that it doesn't
matter whether we choose to balance the charge with Carbonate or Bicarbonate,
because the same ppm alkalinity number will be obtained in either case! In
fact, the ppm alkalinity may be obtained directly from the unbalanced charge
equivalents in a single step. Dividing the unbalanced charge equivalents by
the conversion factor 1.998 yields:
386.6/1.998 = 193.5 ppm total alkalinity (as CaCO3)
The 2.5 ppm difference between the calculated alkalinity value (193.5) and the
number given in Ray's water analysis (196) could be due to round-off errors in
the ions' ppm numbers, or due to my neglect of Silica. In any event, the dif-
ference is pretty small.
If the Total Alkalinity is not reported in your water analysis, you can calcu-
late it by replacing all of the numbers in the "ppm" column above with the
numbers from your own water analysis (the mass-to-charge conversion factors
remain the same).
If it turns out that the alkalinity of your water is too low, you can adjust it
upward by adding baking soda (NaHCO3) and/or chalk (CaCO3):
1 gram NaHCO3 dissolved in 5 gallons (18.9 liters) of water will provide
an additional 31.5 ppm alkalinity (as CaCO3) and 14.5 ppm sodium.
1 gram CaCO3 dissolved in 5 gallons of water will provide an additional
52.8 ppm alkalinity (as CaCO3) and 21.2 ppm calcium. (Note: If you use
any acid other than CO2 to dissolve the chalk, the additional alkalinity
will not be 52.8 exactly, but will fall somewhere between 26.4 ppm and
52.8 ppm.)
If your alkalinity is too high, you may be able to reduce it by boiling the
water. Under the right conditions a CaCO3 precipitate will form. The boiled
water should then be separated from the precipitate. This process also reduces
the Calcium in your water. If you want to quantify the reduction in alkalinity
you'll need to perform three measurements:
V_i = initial volume of water (in liters)
V_f = final volume of water after boiling (in liters)
p = mass of completely dried precipitate (in milligrams)
If your initial alkalinity was A_i (in ppm CaCO3) then your final alkalinity
A_f will be:
A_f = ((A_i * V_i) - p) / V_f
And if your initial Calcium concentration was C_i (in ppm) then your final
calcium concentration C_f will be:
C_f = ((C_i * V_i) - (0.4 * p)) / V_f
>"We've been working on the basics, because, basically, we've been having
>trouble with the basics." -- Bob Ojeda, LA Dodgers pitcher
Yogi Berra couldn't have phrased this any better himself.
Greg King
gking@arserrc.gov
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 11:50:06 -0700 (MST)
From: Ian Smith <rela!isrs@netcom.com>
Subject: Sparge water level control
Does anyone have a clever way to automatically control the level of
sparge water above the mash/lauter tun grain bed ? It sure would be nice
to have some kind of toilet ballcock or swamp cooler float valve thingie
to control sparge water levels at a desired level (1" for instance). You
could set up your sparge water vessel on the stove/burner at 170 F with a
hose to the top of the lauter/mash tun. Open up the valve at the bottom
of the tun and adjust the exit wort flow rate to the desired rate for a
45 minute or 1 hour sparge etc. The float valve thingie on top of the
grain would do the rest ! Hands free sparging ! What a concept !
TIA
Ian Smith
isrs@rela.uucp.netcom.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 14:16:24 -0500
From: Simonzip@aol.com
Subject: Brewpubs (sorta)
Steve Gravel questioned in HBD#2002 why his local brewpubs beer might tasted
bad. This got me wondering how many other brewpubs across the country (or
outside) have opened up and are making and selling crummy beer?
We had a brewpub open in my neighborhood (first one in the area, mega
potential!) a few months ago, and they were only open for 3 days! I didn't go
down the Tuesday they opened because I figured I'd go on the weekend. Anyway,
everyone I know who did go said their beer was crummy (infected), they didn't
serve any other kind (bottled or draft), you could only get soda in a can,
the food was not to great etc. As it turns out the guy who bought and opened
the place knew nothing about brewing (thought it would be a cool hobby). He
supposedly laughed at the salary a good brewmaster wanted and was heard to
say "hell, I'll make it myself". Someone from our local brew club was inside
the place and said he saw a lot of plastic equipment, no evidence of a grain
silo and the owner muttered something about "what a pain in the ass it was
opening all those little cans".
I've been stewing about this for a few months because I was so disappointed,
there's a new owner now and they will reopen, but it's gonna be hard to get
people back in I think. Luckily there is another brewpub under construction
across the river and I have word these people know what their doing.
Anyhow, I'm concerned that if there are many others out there looking to make
a quick buck on this "new-brewpub-micro-homebrew-craze" that it's going to
tarnish a legitimately decent growing segment of our "entertainment-food
service" industry.
Anyone else know of similar situations out there and have the same concerns I
do?
Darrin
(Proprietor of Simpleton's Cosmic Brewery)
The Kegs are coming!!!!!
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 14:20:45 -0500
From: ge083@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (G. M. Elliott)
Subject: Air & CO2 Dispersion
Greetings all:
really appreciate all the discussion on FWH = I will stay tuned!
I have two questions for anyone who may be able to help--
I am going to start aerating my wort with an aquarium air pump
and a sintered SS air stone, but how long should I run the air
pump? I'm thinking 30-45 mins. Will that do it?
Also I would like to use the stone to quickly carbonate my kegs,
has anyone had any luck doing this and is it worth the trouble.
Do you just stick a piece of tubing to the gas in tube that is
in the corny keg and then connect the flex tubing to the stone
and let it sit near the bottom of the keg?
Any and all help is appreciated.
Regards,
Mark
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 13:11:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: Milton <PMCOOK@Gems.VCU.EDU>
Subject: Woodchuck cider clone
I'll toss this out to the collective:
Does anyone know of a recipe mimicking the wookchuck cider?
I am an extract brewer, so it might have to be kept simple.
Here is one that I have heard, but question:
2# extra light malt extract
3 gallon apple juice (unpasturized)
Don't know what kind of yeast. Might try an ale yeast to add
some of the flavor. Who knows?
Private e-mail is ok.
TIA
Milt
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 96 15:00:00 EST
From: "Houseman, David L TR" <DLH1@trpo3.tr.unisys.com>
Subject: Missmarked Wyeast Package
A dubbel currently fermenting using Wyeast Belgian Ale yeast, or so was
marked on the package
(just a black pen mark on the package) smells and tastes like a yummy
Dunkelweizen. Lots of the typical phenolics we'd expect from S. delbrucki.
This is the second time this has happend to me; the
first I earlier in my brewing career so I was ready to accept contamination
on my part. This I know not
to be the case this time (probably wasn't the first time either). Has
anyone else had a problem with
the smack-packs being incorrectly marked? Does Wyeast do this or ship in
bulk to the homebrew stores who mark them before putting them on the shelf?
Dave Houseman
(dlh1@trpo3.tredydev.unisys.com)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 17:04:30 -0600
From: Russell Mast <rmast@fnbc.com>
Subject: Re: Scale Watcher
Your article sent to homebrew is being rejected. The reason:
--Contains line(s) greater than 80 chars in length --
AAAARRRRGGGHHHH!!!! Ahem. Thank you. Sigh....
John Palmer, Metallurgist, writes :
> (2) A complete and utter scam.
>
> There is absolutely no scientific basis for a flucuating electromagnetic
field
> around a metal pipe to affect ions in solution in what can be defined as a
> Faraday Cage. Unless it makes the lights dim in the house, the water will
never
> know its there.
That's what a lot of physicists said for years. However, it has recently
been shown to work - for specific pipe diameters and frequencies. I read
a report on it in last week's Economist. I'll try to bring in a copy soon
so I can quote the researchers who discovered that, in fact, it does work.
> PS. Precipitated calcium salts is the whole problem of scale! If they want to
> sell their device, they should have said that it PREVENTS precipitation.
Not exactly. The idea is that scale precipitates and crystallizes or otherwise
'clumps up' and sticks to itself, rather than to the sides. Also, you put
the device right at your water mains, to cause the precipitation there so it
won't cling further downstream. The mechanisms of the effects, actually, are
not known. I recall something about magnetics and crystal structure, but
it's all merely conjecture at this point.
One thing for sure, is that these things need to be custom-tuned for specific
pipe diameters and flow rates, and might not necessarily work in all instances.
More importantly, the water passed through one of these will be almost
identical to regular water - it will, in fact, have a tiny fraction MORE
of those scale-producing ions. But, think about it a moment. How fast
does scale buildup occur? A few teaspoons of scale per million gallons,
over the course of a decade or three. That's not a heck of a lot.
This device is irrelevant to brewing. But, it's not a complete scam. (Though
they might be overstating it's utility in their ads.)
-R
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 16:19:31 -0700 (MST)
From: Ian Smith <rela!isrs@netcom.com>
Subject: Cabbage smell in sweet wort
I recently made an IPA with:
12 lbs Breiss
1 lbs Munich Malt
1/4lbs Crystal
I mashed at 152 F for 90 minutes.
Sparged for 45 minutes
FWH with 1 oz Goldings
60 minute boil with 1 oz Chinook
30 minute boil with 1 oz Chinook
0 minute with 1 oz Goldings
After cooling with a counterflow heat exchanger to 68 F into my carboy I
noticed a cabbage aroma coming out of the carboy. The wort tasted OK
- a bit hoppy as you can imagine but no cabbage taste. Does anyone know what
this is (Hot side aeration, DMS, bugs in my mash ?)
Cheers
Ian Smith
isrs@rela.uucp.netcom.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 21:21:10 -0500
From: Bucket99@aol.com
Subject: Specialty Grains.
Hello all,
Being an extract brewer I have a question for the collective wisdom of HDB to
ponder.
With the addition of specialty grains to an extract recipe I have seen
posted, and read
via Papazians book (The new Joy of Home Brewing) that you can:
A. Steep the grains until the water boils, then remove them.
B. Steep the grains for an extended period, 30 minutes?
My questions are:
1. Would tannins added from the specialty grains be altered by boiling?
Especially during the extended boil necessary for hop utilization?
IF you add the grains BEFORE the boil period?
2. Would it be better to cool the wort to (About 160 F) and do the steep
AFTER the boil?
(Anyone have any idea what this will do to the non-fermentable fractions
of the malt?)
DISCLAIMER: I realize that with the addition of anything AFTER the boil,
(Which the wort
is sterilized) you are taking a chance in contamination of the wort.
But, IF you hold the temp to 160 to 170? Then the wort should still remain
Pasteurized?
Please reply here, for the collective, Not in E-Mail.
Thanks in advance for the bandwidth.
Paul McFarland
BREWING IN THE HEART OF THE COUNTRY!!!
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 11:36:39 -0400 (AST)
From: Craig Stewart <foghorn1@darwin.nbnet.nb.ca>
Subject: Brewpubs and sealing wax!
Ladies and Gentlebrewers!
You can't seem to get rid of me, can you! <grin> Quick question on the
subject of brewpubs (beating a dead horse): ARE THERE ANY IN NEW
BRUNSWICK CANADA!? Enough of that.
Father dearest wants me to brew him up a batch of lager for him. His
favorite of all times is Moosehead (aka Moosepiss) Premium Dry. For
those who don't know the brand, it has no hop flavor/aroma that I can
tell, very lackluster body, and a REAL kick on the alcohol flavor.
Actual, the majority of flavor comes from alcohol. Personaly, I can't
stand this type of beer, so can anyone sugest something. I'm thinking of
using ~3 - 4 lbs of light malt extract, some rice, and a few hops to try
it. God knows that I won't be drinking any of the swill.
Unrelated topic:
HOT DAMN IT'S SPRING! The first butterfly of the season just flew past
my open window! Ah, the smell of thawing mud... Just makes me want to
brew! <grin> Actualy, it doesn't take much to make me want to brew!
Thanks. TTYL.
- --
**************************************************************************
Non-Disclaimer: Any resemblance between the above views and those of my
employer, my terminal, or the view out my window are purely coincidental.
Any resemblance between the above and my own views is non-deterministic.
The question of the existence of views in the absence of anyone to hold
them is left as an exercise for the reader. The question of the existence
of the reader is left as an exercise for the second god coefficient. (A
discussion of non-orthogonal, non-integral polytheism is beyond the scope
of this article.)
**************************************************************************
flames to /dev/null
Craig Stewart
foghorn1@mailserv.nbnet.nb.ca
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 96 03:38 PST
From: robtrish@mindlink.bc.ca (Rob Lauriston)
Subject: orange flavour
Talking about Bart's orange peel / corriander experiment, Al K. wrote about
orange flavour in wits:
... Incidentally, I think
>that it is the yeast that gives Celis White its orange-like flavour. I
>made a clone in which I did not add any orange peel at all and used the
>Wyeast Belgian Witbier (#3944) and got a strong orange aroma and flavour.
I haven't used #3944 yet and only tasted the Texas product once, so I don't
dispute this possibility. OTOH, I've made light coloured wheat beers with
corriander (split seeds) and _no_ orange peel with various Wyeasts (1028,
1056, 1098) and have gotten a strong orange aroma. With the strong aroma
there, I'm not positive about the taste per se, but my taste panels <g>
often commented, "No orange at all? Huh! Sure tastes like it!" Since I'm
not huge on style authenticity, I skip the cure-a-sow. If my pig were sick,
it would be another story...
- -- Rob Lauriston in the B.C. interior (does B.C. have an exterior?)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 10:14:01 -0500
From: ak753@detroit.freenet.org (Joseph A. Clayton)
Subject: Thanks!
G'Day Folks,
I just wanted to come out of lurk mode and say keep up the good work on
the water thread. Sooner or later I may even begin to understand all of
this stuff. As a new all-grainer I've been scratching my head about
water treatments for a couple of months. My brew season is about to
begin so the timing couldn't be better.
However, the best information to date has been not to put your hand near
the mouth of a carboy on April 1! That'll be the first thing to go
on my calendar next year ;-).
Cheers,
Joe Clayton
Farmington Hills, MI USA
ak753@detroit.freenet.org (preferred)
claytonj@cc.tacom.army.mil (if you must)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 08:23:31 -0600 (CST)
From: cisco@tabasco.ccit.arizona.edu
Subject: We are all criminals to UPS!!!!
I just got back from UPS shipping two entries to the AHA
nationals and was very surprised by a new policy at UPS.
ALL PACKAGES WILL BE OPENED AND INSPECTED.
Their excuse was that they were trying to keep down the
number of damaged packages and claims against them.
I asked if they were receiving a lot of claims and was told
no, but they wanted to keep them down (this is bullshit!).
My description of the contents was: Yeast Propagation
Samples.
I used a wine box with the dividers inside and stuffed
each divider cell with tons of newspaper and even had
an extra piece of cardboard on the top and bottom. I was
very lucky that all she felt was the newspaper and none
of my bottles. She then said it looked OK and she resealed
my box. She also told me not to bother bringing sealed
packages anymore - they would seal them after they
had inspected the contents. (Are we living in a police state
now and no one bothered to tell us?)
I noticed another customer that had a large package that
was nothing more than clothes and they actually rifled
through ALL their clothes looking for something!
I called the national UPS office (1-800-742-5877) and asked
them if this was a new policy nationally and they said it was.
They said that they are checking to see if the packing meets
their rules and that they are also looking for anything illegal.
I asked them when did they become an authorized police
force that treats everyone as a criminal. I got a very polite
bullshit answer. So I told them that that I would not do any
business with a company that treats their all customers as
criminals and I would be taking my business elsewhere.
Everyone should call UPS and file a formal complaint about
this 'police state' tactic. Don't bother complaining to the
customer service representative that answers the phone,
ask to speak to their supervisor to file a formal compliant.
The only way I see around this is:
1. Seal a box within a box with lots of popcorn styrofoam.
But theywill probably open the inner box also.
OR
2. Take your business to one of those Mailbox Etc places
and pay the extra money to have them ship it for you.
UPS told me that they can't force these type of businesses
to follow their new procedures so you're safe for now.
Be carefull out there - big brother UPS is watching!
John 'Cisco' Francisco
Senior Applications Systems Analyst
University of Arizona
Office: (520) 621-6727 Pager: (520) 218-0925
http://aruba.ccit.arizona.edu/~cisco/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 1996 07:54:14 -0800
From: John Mrazek <harvard@cycor.ca>
Subject: Re:Cheap-Ass Thermometer
It seems like a lot of work just to have a thermometer.But having a nice
chart so you can convert measured voltage into a temperature reading must be
cool.
On the other hand in Brewing Techniques (March - April 1994) Mr. Robert
McIlvaine has published a article on temperature measuring using sensors
made for such use. They are: 1. Very inexpensive
2. Laser trimmed for accuracy
3. Accuracy of .1 Degree Fahrenheit
4. Your choice of either Celsius or Fahrenheit sensor
5. It will direct read to your Voltmeter
6. To do that you only need a 9 Volt Battery and a
2K resistor.
These sensors are made by National Semiconductors. LM34 or LM35.
In the same article he describes a complete project how to build your own
Voltmeter and the sensors assembly.
In other subsequent articles he also gets to computer controlled brewing
etc. It was the best info i got to be able to make a fully computerized
mashing process.
Regards,
John Mrazek
E-mail- harvard@cycor.ca
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 1996 11:03:54 -0600
From: 00bkpickeril@bsuvc.bsu.edu (Brian K. Pickerill)
Subject: Flavor contribution of crystal by lovibond?
Dear Beer Gurus,
I've been using 10 lovibond crystal malt in most all my recent brews. I
persuaded our club president to order a 50lb bag of Shrier crystal last
fall when there was a very good sale price, so we had, er, quite a supply.
Anyhow, at the time we ordered, I thought (assumed!) that the flavor
contribution would be similar to darker crystals, and that just the color
(lovibond) would be lighter.
Since it's always a problem trying to get lighter colored brews, especially
when doing extract batches, I thought that 10L would be a good idea. Based
on experience and my personal taste preference (FWIW) I'd have to say that
I don't recommend it. Of course this would be the case since we ordered
50lbs. :)
My question for the "collective" is, how much _flavor_ difference should
there be between different lovibonds of crystal/carmel malts? I don't seem
to taste as much of what I thought was crystal flavor, even when using 2x
as much, and I can't recall ever having read about this.
Thanks,
- --Brian Pickerill, Newsletter Editor, Muncie Malt Mashers, Muncie, IN
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 1996 09:26:59 -0700
From: Dan Gerth <dgerth@lanl.gov>
Subject: Automagic scale machine
>Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 17:00:03 -0600
>From: Russell Mast <rmast@fnbc.com>
>Subject: Spotted some Owls.
>> From: asteinm@pipeline.com (Art Steinmetz)
>> Subject: "Scale Watcher" water treatment
>>
>> I got a brochure the other day for a gizmo called "Scale Watcher." You
>> wrap some kind of induction coil around a cold water pipe and "modern
>> integrated circuitry" sends out "modulated frequencies" to precipate
>> dissolved calcium ions into "insoluble calcium salts which move in a
>> suspended form in water." The idea is that the precipitated particles
>> won't cause scale in pipes and such.
>
>Holy cow, they're already marketing this thing? I read about this in the
>Economist a few weeks ago. It's pretty dubious technology, however, it has
>been shown to work under certain conditions. The study they cited indicated
>that you needed to know the pipe diameter and flow rate beforehand. Also,
>the mechanism by which it prevents scale buildup is not understood.
>
Boy, I thought this thing died about 20 years ago.....When I was fresh out
of school and working in the water treatment industry we used to keep a file
of all these gizmos. This one was advertised as "producing mollified
electrons which prevent the scale reaction from occuring". These things pop
up all the time, and they have NEVER been scientifically proven to work
(cited studies or not). Stick with real chemistry, it makes the best beer.
P.S. If anyone ever finds out what a "mollified electron" is, let me know -
I've been trying to find out for a while!
Brew on,
Dan
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Dan Gerth, Ph.D.
MS G740, CST-9
Trace Inorganic Analysis "Semper Ubi Sub Ubi!" - anon
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Los Alamos, NM 87545
phone: (505)-665-0403
FAX: (505)-665-4737
email: dgerth@lanl.gov
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 1996 22:48:00 -0800
From: "Sutton, Bob" <bob.sutton@fluordaniel.com>
Subject: Beach Towel Lambic
Someone Somewhere Stipulated:
> I keep my 6 gallon carboy in a plastic (metal would work) tub, with
>about 3 to 6 inches of water in the bottom. A good sized towel wrapped
>around the carboy and touching the water will act like a wick, sucking
>up the water, and cooling the wort by evaporation. That kept the wort
>temp down to about 68.
I tried this ploy last summer, after a day or two the towel reeked of
mildew. Having wild flora (or is it fauna) in close proximity to the brew
gave me pause. Perhaps I had the makings of a Lambic.
The next time I added a cup of bleach to the water to retard the onslaught
of scumdoochies. This seemed to work ok, EXCEPT now I was worried that the
bleach was just a little to close to the brew. However since it was just
hypochlorite (versus hyperchlorite) I felt the risk was minimal. One
caution for those of you contemplating this procedure at home... Use a
white towel (unless you're into tie-dye (WHOOPS there it is).
My approach has now advanced to where I soak the towel in cheap grain
alcohol. Whatever is left after the run is mixed with my spent grains and
recycled to the dog. This has paid handsome benefits as "ole Jasper" is an
enthusiastic brewing partner.
Again, be careful not to use a plaid towel.
Bob
Fruit Fly Brewhaus
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 96 14:12:00 PST
From: "Toler, Duffy L." <TOLERD@cdnet.cod.edu>
Subject: Dry Hopping
I am interested in dry-hopping a batch, perhaps an ESB, but I know nothing
of the procedure. My limited understanding is that the quality/quanitity
of the hop aroma in the finished brew will be improved/increased. I am
planning on using plugs in my glass secondary, but I guess my main concerns
are:
1. What amount of hops to add? (The amount of aroma hops in the
receipe???)
2. Does dry-hopping replace all the aroma hops I would normally use in the
kettle on brew day?
3. Do you need to "sanitize" the hops before you add them, and if so, how?
Thanks in advance for any insight into this technique.
Duffy Toler
Sugar Grove, IL
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 16:22:14 -0500
From: Post_Mark@hq.navsea.navy.mil
Subject: Reculturing Belgian Tripels
My wife and I recently got back from Belgium and brought back a bottle
of Westmalle Tripel, Westvleteren ABT 12 and Rochefort 10. I would
like to brew a tripel using yeast from one of these beers if possible.
Does anyone know if any or all of these beers use the same bottling
yeast as they use for fermentation? If so, has anybody had any luck
reculturing and using? And while I'm asking- same questions for
Saison Dupont.
Thanks a lot-
Mark
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 1996 14:31:24 -0500
From: /O=PRDMSMAC/S=HUMPHREY/G=PATRICK/@x400.pprd.abbott.com
Subject: Re:Iron/Water Analysis
I want to thank A.J. deLange and Kenny Eddy for their replies about iron in my
water. I have been out of town so I couldn't thank them sooner.
I was just wondering, are others concerned about iron levels in their
water? It seems to me that it could have just as much affect on the
quality of our beer as the suphate/carbonate levels being discussed in the
digest lately.
I checked with my local sanitary district and they want to charge me $10 for
each ion that I want determined! ...and they can't analyze for
Carbonate levels! What good will that do me?
Does anyone living in the northern suburbs of Chicago know where I can have a
water analysis done without costing me an arm and a leg? If someone would be
so generous, would they mind sending a sample in for me? I realize that would
be asking alot but I think about $60 for a water analysis is way out of line
and I could always pay off in homebrew.
Thanks,
Pat
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 21:57:01 -0500
From: AleBrwer@aol.com
Subject: a yeasty problem...
Hi all, I have been having problems with my finishing gravity being to high.
I suspect that I am using the wrong yeast or perhaps my brew is fermenting at
improper temps.
Mabye someone can help...
here goes...4 lbs. Alexander Light Extract
1.5 lbs. Eng Light Extract ( dry )
8 ozs. Crystal 40L
8 ozs. Munich
8 ozs. Blk Roasted Barley
4 ozs. Choc. Malt
Wyeast #1056
1 oz Perle at 60 min
1 oz Cascade at 30 min
1 oz Brewers Gold at 0 min
Est. starting gravity 1.045 actual 1.048
Est. finishing gravity 1.016 actual 1.028
It fermented at between 70-75 deg for 2+ weeks. Thanks for your time..
Alebrwer
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 23:39:40 -0500
From: ajdel@interramp.com (A. J. deLange)
Subject: Lime
Steve Alexander asked if I would elaborate on the calculations necessary to
compute lime additions for decarbonation of water. First off, lime comes in
two forms: quick, CaO, and slaked (hydrated) Ca(OH)2. The latter results
when the former is added to water:
CaO + H2O --> Ca(OH)2
Therefore, I will assume slaked lime in what follows. Carbonate waters
contain three species, carbonic (H2CO3), bicarbonate (HCO3-) and carbonate
(CO3--). Lime reacts with carbonic by
H2CO3 + Ca(OH)2 --> CaCO3 + 2H2O
Thus one mole of slaked lime is required for each mole of carbonic.
Bicarbonate reacts with slaked lime by
Ca++ + 2HCO3- + Ca(OH)2 --> 2CaCO3 + 2H2O
Thus one mole of lime removes 2 moles of bicarbonate and one mole of
calcium. Thus to calculate the amount of lime to be added, one needs to
know the moles of carbonic and of calcium (if all the hardness is
temporary) or the alkalinity if the water has some permanent hardness. In a
commercial brewery, this information is available as the water is analyzed
prior to treatment. The analysis is quite simple to do. For carbonic, a 100
mL sample is titrated with 0.1N NaOH until pH 8.4 is reached. The carbonic,
expressed in milliequivalents/L (mEq/L) is the number of millilitres of the
lye solution necessary to bring about this pH change. Alkalinity is
measured by titrating a 100 mL sample with 0.1N acid to pH 4.3. The
alkalinity, in mEq/L, is the number of mL of acid required. It is a little
trickier if the pH of the starting water is greater than about 8.3. For
calcium, 100 mL of the sample water is treated with a suitable indicator
and then titrated with a chelating agent (e.g. EGTA) of accurately known
concentration until the indicator shows that the all the calcium has been
sequestered. The mEq/L calcium is proportional to the amount of chlating
agent required to bring about this cahnge.
The amount of lime, in mEq/L of water to be treated is twice the mEq/L
carbonic (twice because the titration measures only the amount of base to
half convert carbonic i.e. to convert it to bicarbonate, not carbonate,
which requires as much base again) plus the mEq/L calcium. The required
weight of lime is then obtained by multiplying the mEq/L by equivalent
weight of lime, 28 if CaO is being used and 37 in the case of slaked lime.
The reason that this gets tricky is that not all the chalk formed in the
reactions given above actually precipitates because chalk is soluble in
water to some extent which depends on a lot of variables, for example the
concentrations of other ions. Furthermore, errors will be made in the
measurements of calcium and carbonic concentrations so that the calculated
lime additions will be off. Insufficient lime addition results in
precipitation of less bicarbonate than the optimum with the result that the
alkalinity of the treated water will be higher than desired. Conversely,
extra lime will result in un-consumed (OH)- ions in the water which will
also result in increased alkalinity. DeClerk recomends three test batches,
one with the calculated amount of lime and one each with, respectively, 10%
more and 10% less than the calculated amounts. After treatment, the
alkalinity is checked and the addition which gave the best alkalinity
reduction is then scaled up for treatment of the brewing water volume.
Thus to do this right the brewer must be able to measure carbonic, calcium
and alkalinity. While none of these is particularly hard to do and while
guys like me actually get a kick out of doing such things, most homebrewers
would find it too troublesome and use distilled or otherwise softened water.
A.J. deLange Numquam in dubio, saepe in errore!
ajdel@interramp.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 96 23:36:38 EST
From: wuerstl@lfs.loral.com
Subject: hot break and immersion chillers...
From: Matthew A. Wuerstl
Subject: hot break and immersion chillers...
Hello gang,
Some observations from last nights wort canning proceedings. If I
recall, a while back (maybe late last year?) there was some discussion
about using an immersion chiller in the brew kettle without racking
off the hot break (or maybe I remember this from some other source.)
Anyway, one question I saw and never read an answer to, was will the
coagulated proteins in the hot break go back into solution if you
chill the wort this way.
Here's what I observed last night. I boiled up a 2 gallon starter
batch of wort to can and use for yeast starters. I chilled in my
brew kettle and left behind a good amount of what appeared to be
hot break, spent hops and a little cold break as I would see with
any normal batch. Now here's the interesting part, when I canned the
cooled wort it was a little hazy. After boiling the canned wort for
30 minutes in a water bath, I removed the jars and noticed that the
wort was crystal clear, with big clumps of protein on the bottom of
each jar. The jars were left to cool and seal on the counter overnight.
When I checked them this morning, the wort had become cloudy again and
the protein sediment looked more loosely concentrated and was tending
to float apart. From this observation, I would say that when I chill
in the kettle on top of the hot break a portion of it is going to go
back into solution as the wort cools (even without stirring to speed
the cooling process). Therefore, I would say that it is probably a
good idea to rack the hot wort (gently of course) off of the hot break
before cooling with an immersion chiller. Does this sound reasonable?
Has anyone done more scientific experiments on something like this?
Any comments?
Hoppy Brewing,
Matt
###############################################################
## Matthew A. Wuerstl wuerstl@lfs.loral.com - 609-485-7713 ##
## LORAL Federal Systems - ATC Division - Dept TS1 ##
###############################################################
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #2004, 04/06/96
*************************************
-------
