Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2101
This file received at Hops.Stanford.EDU 1996/07/10 PDT
Homebrew Digest Wednesday, 10 July 1996 Number 2101
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Shawn Steele, Digest Janitor
Thanks to Rob Gardner for making the digest happen!
Contents:
Re: Too much HBD? (shawn@aob.org (Shawn Steele))
Re: Beer in Spaaace (shawn@aob.org (Shawn Steele))
Thermal Warpage of SS ("Palmer.John")
lager fermentation ("Bryan L. Gros")
Distilled Water pH (Meyer@msscc.med.utah.edu (Larry Meyer))
Re: distilled water (rsantore@mailbox.syr.edu (Robert C. Santore))
RIMS Pump (Marty Tippin)
X-Sender: grosbl@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu ("Bryan L. Gros")
[none] (Tim Graham)
pH of Distilled Water/Culturing Chimay/Post Length (dharsh@alpha.che.uc.edu (David C. Harsh))
Re: Too much HBD? ("Robert A. Uhl")
Re: Beer in Spaaace ("Robert A. Uhl")
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 17:27:22 GMT (mhiguchi@ix.netcom.com (Michael Higuchi))
cleaners and yeast starters (stevep@pcx.ncd.com (Steve Peters))
Miller's "Heart of the Hops" (BR Rolya)
length of the digest, multiple mailings ("Kevin Imel")
Canning wort for starters ("Paul Kensler (SMI)")
Advanced Homebrew Systems Inquiry (Stephen_Buonocore@usccmail.lehman.com (Stephen Buonocore))
I'm growing very tired of this topic (korz@pubs.ih.lucent.com)
HBD/Copper Brewpots/Roller Mill Rollers ("Dave Hinkle")
Metabisulfite is NOT a sanitizer (korz@pubs.ih.lucent.com)
For SUBMISSIONS to be published, send mail to:
homebrew@aob.org
For (UN)SUBSCRIBE requests, send mail to:
homebrew-digest-request@aob.org
and include only subscribe or unsubscribe in the body of the message.
Please note that if subscribed via BEER-L, you must unsubscribe by sending
a one line e-mail to listserv@ua1vm.ua.edu that says: UNSUB BEER-L
If your address is changing, please unsubscribe from the old address and
then subscribe from the new address.
If your account is being deleted, please be courteous and unsubscribe first.
For technical problems send e-mail to the Digest Janitor, shawn@aob.org.
OTHER HOMEBREW INFORMATION
http://www.aob.org/aob - The AHA's web site.
http://alpha.rollanet.org - "The Brewery" and the Cat's Meow Archives.
info@aob.org - automated e-mail homebrewing information.
ARCHIVES:
At ftp.stanford.edu in /pub/clubs/homebrew/beer via anonymous ftp. Also
http://alpha.rollanet.org on the web and at majordomo@aob.org by e-mail.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: shawn@aob.org (Shawn Steele)
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 09:57:49 -0600
Subject: Re: Too much HBD?
> > When HBD was limited to ~45K and six days a week, it was somewhat
> > self-editing...
> I agree, and I wish HBD would go back to being limited in overall
> traffic.
Thanks for the comments, it will affect how I attack the distribution
of the HBD problem. I do plan to work on the problem, but you have
introduced a new variable that will make it a tad more difficult, so it
may be a month before I can find the time for the improvements.
In the meantime, please THINK before posting, as the welcome message to
the HBD says. It's pretty easy for the readers to see when a big
disagreement of conflicting views exists and reach a logical
conclusion, so please don't continue such arguements. Also try flaming
people *privately* first.
Lets keep the signal to noise ratio up!
- - shawn
Digest Janitor
------------------------------
From: shawn@aob.org (Shawn Steele)
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 09:49:13 -0600
Subject: Re: Beer in Spaaace
I actually spoke with John Casper (Mission Commander of STS-77)
yesterday and he mentioned that with the Coke in Space experiment (not
on his flight) there was a problem with the CO2 gathering into large
bubbles and not remaining dissolved (and just floating around randomly
in the liquid). While large bubbles might help design for a space
airlock the random distribution of them would be a problem. The gas
permeable membrane won't work if the bubbles won't touch it.
The second problem is that he mentions that the crew isn't allowed to
bring alcohol :-(
P.S. I'll be the first to admit I don't know much about zero gee
fluids.
- - shawn
------------------------------
From: "Palmer.John" <palmer@ssdgwy.mdc.com>
Date: 10 Jul 1996 08:45:53 U
Subject: Thermal Warpage of SS
Robert asked about damage from quenching his SS brewpot in ice water
immediately after the boil.
Well, that's a good question. The stainless steel metal itself would not be
bothered by it. The potential problem is the residual structural stresses and
the differential cooling stresses. Those stresses could result in warpage and
over-stressing of the welds. In other words, due to the high degree of
deformation during forming of the kegs and the differences in cooling rate from
differences in mass of keg between the top, sides and bottom, the keg could
warp and/or crack. (hmm, guess I said that already)
Might not happen...
Keep your fingers crossed.
John J. Palmer - Metallurgist for MDA-ISS M&P
johnj@primenet.com Huntington Beach, California
Palmer House Brewery and Smithy - www.primenet.com/~johnj/
------------------------------
From: "Bryan L. Gros" <grosbl@ctrvax.Vanderbilt.Edu>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 10:59:24 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: lager fermentation
I've had lousy luck trying to make a lager. I figure most of my problems
boil down to a combination of not pitching enough yeast and not
having enough patience.
I recently figured I could solve the first problem by getting yeast
from a local brewpub which just made a fest beer. I made a fest
and pitched about 20 ounces of yeast slurry. The wort was
about 63F when I pitched and has been in the fridge for about
ten days at 53F. I just racked it to a secondary carboy and
measured the gravity. It was down from 1.062 to 1.032.
Does this gravity seem about right for ten days?
I thought that even for lagers, the majority of fermentation was
done in a week. Still seems to be working, so it isn't stuck.
Just slow. Five gallon batch, by the way. I don't remember
which Wyeast strain this is.
- Bryan
grosbl@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu
Nashville, TN
------------------------------
From: Meyer@msscc.med.utah.edu (Larry Meyer)
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 10:07:27 -0700
Subject: Distilled Water pH
Jeff Sturman asks: Two different brands
of pH papers and a digital pH meter all calculated the pH of the distilled
water at about 5.5! Isn't distilled water supposed to be pH 7.0?
Theoretically the pH of pure water should be 7.0. However in practice most
distilled or deionized water is a little lower, in the 5.5 to 6.5 range.
What is important is that it has almost no buffering capacity. Remember pH
is -log[H+]. The absolute difference between pH 6.0 and 7.0 is 1 mM to 0.1
mM (or 100 nM or 1.0 x 10^-7 molar) or a total of 90 nanomoles/liter. This
absolute differece is very small. There should be essentially no ions to
buffer this, so it will assume the pH of your mash. A seperate question is
what is the best water to mash, and I'll defer to A.J. The reason distilled
water is slightly acid is the presence of volitile acids, like CO2.
Larry Meyer
------------------------------
From: rsantore@mailbox.syr.edu (Robert C. Santore)
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 96 12:21:06 +0100
Subject: Re: distilled water
On 07/10/96 at 03:30 PM, Jim Hodge <jdhodge@worldnet.att.net> said: >Jeff
Sturman had wondered at the low pH of his distilled water. >Distilled
water will typically have a lower pH than 7.0 as exposure to >air will
result in the dissolution of CO2. The dissolved CO2 will form >carbonic
acid,
Right on!
>which should bring the pH of the water down to 6.3 and
>this is the 'normal' pH for any water that has been exposed to air for a
>long time.
>
>The 5.5 measured is suggests significantly more acidity than simple CO2
>dissolution (pH is a logarithmic scale) and I couldn't explain that
>off-hand.
Actually, the equilibrium pH between distilled water and average
concentrations of atmospheric CO2 is 5.6 Given the accuracy of an
amateur pH measurement I'd say this is a remarkable agreement.
Bob Santore
rsantore@syr.edu
------------------------------
From: Marty Tippin <martyt@sky.net>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 10:57:48 -0500
Subject: RIMS Pump
Several people have asked recently what kind of pump I'm using in my
pseudo-RIMS system so I'll post it here for the record...
It's a March MDX-MT3 magnetic drive - about 8 gpm max flow and around 16 ft
max head (lift). Sells for around $125. Rated for around 180F (maybe 200F
- - can't recall for sure); I pump boiling wort through it routinely for 15 to
30 minutes at a time with no problems. Not strictly food-grade or FDA
approved, but the materials are about as inert as you can get and the box
says it's useful for pumping fruit juices among other things. I'm not
worried about anything leeching out and killing me.
It's not self-priming so placement of the pump is important - you need to
have a gravity flow for priming it; from there it's smooth sailing. The
pump doesn't like air bubbles, though - it'll lose suction if much air gets
in the system. After a little playing around and figuring out how to do
things, it's really pretty easy to use.
Being a centrifugal flow pump, you shouldn't restrict flow on the *input*
side of the pump - you can use a ball valve on the output side to slow the
flow to a trickle with no problem - no pressure build-up or complaining from
the motor. I'm not sure what the problem would be restricting flow on the
input side, but the March engineer I talked to said not to do it.. He also
said not to try to control the flow rate with any kind of "dimmer" switch
that changes the motor speed; he said it would damage the motor eventually.
Overall I like the pump a lot and expect it to last quite a long time.
March has local distributors all over the place; check your local yellow
pages. You could also call them at 847-729-5300 and ask for a catalog or
talk to their engineers. I talked to them on more than one occasion and
found them to be quite knowledgable and helpful.
If anyone has further questions, let me know...
- -Marty
- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Marty Tippin | Tippin's Law #24: Never underestimate the
martyt@sky.net | power of human stupidity.
- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out my 2-Tier Converted Keg Brewing System Design Plans
and other homebrew gadgets at http://www.sky.net/~martyt
- --------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
From: "Bryan L. Gros" <grosbl@ctrvax.Vanderbilt.Edu>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 11:37:29 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: X-Sender: grosbl@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu
Andy Walsh <awalsh@crl.com.au> wrote
>
>I have been given some yeast which a fellow club-member
>cultured from Chimay dregs, as I want to make a Chimay
>clone this w/e. I am currently building up a starter,
>but am very concerned about it as it behaves like no
>other "normal" yeast I've seen.
>At first I thought it was not fermenting the starter, as
>there was *no* head and no visible signs of activity.
>Suspecting a leaky airlock, I transferred the contents
>to a screwtop bottle. Sure enough, after relieving
>the pressure after 30 secs or so, there was clearly
>a gas build up, so it was working.
>This morning, there were obviously bubbles in the
>starter, but absolutely no foam head. It also looks
>like pea soup, and the yeast build-up is a scungy
>brown, not a nice clean whitish colour (like normal
>yeast). It does smell OK, though.
Sounds like what I see when I add the contents of a Wyeast
pack to a bottle of wort. There is very little visible activity,
at least when compared to a carboy of wort. Keep stepping
it up and it should be fine.
On a related note, Michael Jackson says that Duvel is
carbonated in the bottle (New World Guide to Beer). He
implies it is with the fermentation yeast. Does anyone know
if this is true today? Anyone brewed with the bottle
yeast?
Thanks
- Bryan
grosbl@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu
------------------------------
From: Tim Graham <tgraha02@mail.coin.missouri.edu>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 11:56:01 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [none]
Did somebody offer a recipe for a Sammy Smiths similar brew using
extracts? I would appreciate the recipe... thank you in advance.
tim.
*********************************************************************
* *
* What would be the answer *
* to the answer man? *
* -Grateful Dead *
* *
* *
*********************************************************************
------------------------------
From: dharsh@alpha.che.uc.edu (David C. Harsh)
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 12:56:16 -0400
Subject: pH of Distilled Water/Culturing Chimay/Post Length
On distilled water pH:
Measuring the pH of distilled water will give you an inaccurate
reading because a pH meter is essentially an ion-sensitive electrode.
Distilled water doesn't have many (theoretically, zero) ions, so you aren't
going to get a meaningful readout. Distilled water kept under a vacuum
will read around 5 to 5.5 in my experience; put in a little NaCl and it
goes up to 7. This is a quirk of the machine, not a problem with your
water. Relax, etc.
On Culturing Chimay Yeast:
I admit, I've done it, ok? It's no problem and you get a yeast
that gives you the characteristics of a trappist ale (what a surprise).
I've done it a couple of times with only one minor problem. If the bottle
has been sitting in a cooler at a retail establishment for a while, the
yeast can get knocked out and will take a while to wake up and get
fermenting again. Also, it is alleged that higher alcohol content can
stress the yeast and possibly cause mutations, you should attempt culture
from the lower gravity styles.
At higher temperatures (~72 F), the Chimay is a vigorous, active
and fast yeast; around 65F I've observed slow, steady ferments over a 10
day period in primary. I don't recall the "scungy brown" color; of course,
I'm not too sure what color scungy is either...
On Post Length:
I'm not going to complain about the length or number of digests
(although I'd prefer one per day in the morning - but it's free) but can we
be a little more judicious in how much text we quote? For example, cut it
down to two or three lines and make sure you haven't changed the meaning in
the process. I think that would help the digest number/length issue. We
can always go back and read the old ones. <rant mode off>
My opinions, for what they are worth.
Dave
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
& Dave Harsh &
& DNRC Minister of Bloatarianism O- &
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
------------------------------
From: "Robert A. Uhl" <ruhl@odin.cair.du.edu>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 11:03:03 -0600 (MDT)
Subject: Re: Too much HBD?
On Wed, 10 Jul 1996, Homebrew Digest REQUEST Address Only wrote:
> In the meantime, please THINK before posting, as the welcome message to
> the HBD says. It's pretty easy for the readers to see when a big
> disagreement of conflicting views exists and reach a logical
> conclusion, so please don't continue such arguements. Also try flaming
> people *privately* first.
It's pretty hard for those of us who receive the undigested version to
do that; we don't have emal addrs for posters. Could his be changed?
I remain
Yours,
Robert Uhl
Chief Programmer,
CR Systems
------------------------------
From: "Robert A. Uhl" <ruhl@odin.cair.du.edu>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 11:01:32 -0600 (MDT)
Subject: Re: Beer in Spaaace
On Wed, 10 Jul 1996, Homebrew Digest REQUEST Address Only wrote:
> The second problem is that he mentions that the crew isn't allowed to
> bring alcohol :-(
Seems foolishly shortsighted to me. We need to know the effects of
alcohol in 0g. Is it absorbed in more time than normal? Or
(hopefully, but probably not so) does it take _less_ time than normal?
Are the actual effects stronger or weaker? While much of this could
be predicted, actual experimentation would be nice. I remain
Yours,
Robert Uhl
Chief Programmer,
CR Systems
------------------------------
From: mhiguchi@ix.netcom.com (Michael Higuchi)
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 17:27:22 GMT
Subject: Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 17:27:22 GMT
In HBD #2099 stafford@newport26.hac.com (Jack Stafford) wrote:
<snip>
>This was a single step mash (80 min) in a zap-pap plastic bucket system.
>10lb klagus malt, 1lb rice, 1lb corn, 1/2lb crystal 60L.
<snip>
>The result was an OG of 1.064 in comparison to the customary 1.045 or so.
>On the third day of fermentation I took a gravity reading and it was 1.014
wow.
>It's in the secondary fermenter and the yeast is starting to flocculate.
>I could not believe it - 1.064 that's my highest gravity from all-grain to
>date.
>A lower mash temperature and a proper consistancy in the mash seemed to give a
>higher OG and it fermented quicker than the dickens. I'm not sure if this one
>was a fluke or not, I'll have to try it again.
You didn't say how many gallons of wort you collected, but
assuming 5.5 gallons, Brewbe gives your extraction rate as 80% -
(28 pts/lb/gal) - pretty good!
I notice from your sig that you're from Costa Mesa - so am I. If
you get your grain from the same place I do, then one thing that
may account for the increase is that High Times Too has recently
changed their crush - going from a Corona to a MaltMill(TM)
sometime in the last month or so. When they did, my extraction
efficiency immediately went from the low to mid 60s to the mid
80s. Of course, if you get your grain somewhere else.... ; )
------------------------------
From: stevep@pcx.ncd.com (Steve Peters)
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 10:43:26 -0700
Subject: cleaners and yeast starters
I brewed this weekend and I thought I'd share two things with the community:
I bought two packs of wyeast liquid yeast the day before - one for each carboy
of beer I planned to have at the end of the day. As many of you know a single
pack of liquid yeast is a tiny amount of yeast to pitch, leading to long lag
times and potential infection. Bad bad bad. But I needed beer. The packs
swelled in about 1/2 a day (yes, it rains a lot in Portland, but the Wyeast is
very fresh!) the day before and I really wanted a started, so I went ahead and
made two starters the morning of the brew ~noon. When it finally came time to
pitch neither started was at full krausen - or any krausen. They had fermented
in my hot attic for nearly 8 hours and the one had just started to build a
layer of bubbles across the top of the wort, and the other had naught be a tiny
ring of nearly imperceptable bubbles around the edge of the glass.
Dissappointed, I pitched 'em anyway. I've pitched freshly-swollen liquid packs
into full carboys before and remember it taking a full day or two before seeing
any fermenting action in the carboy. I expected about the same this time.
However, the next morning each carboy had a healthy 2 inches of krausen! So,
even though the starters didn't have time to build to maximum potential they
clearly improved my startup fermentation time dramatically. The lesson? Make
a starter, even if you're only giving it a few hours lead time to pitching.
A while back I bought some BLC (beer line cleaner, for cleaning out beer tap
lines) at a local homebrew store. I put it on my shelf and forgot about it
because other people recommended TSP for cleaning. However, something about
using a material for cleaning walls in my brewing equipment brought out the BLC
again and so far it seems to work fantastic! A small amount leaves my kegs
sparkling like new without any scrubbing at all. I had a carboy dirty from two
batches - quite an accumulated layer of beer foam scum at the top. Normally I
would use bleach, soak, and scrub to get that stuff off. Instead I put about a
capfull of BLC in there to soak and the next day the cake of gunk had
completely dissolved! Yow!
The warning on the bottle says to rinse rinse rinse after use and I've been
doing that. It seems to me that something meant to clean brewing equipment
would be better to use than something like TSP, but I haven't read any messages
about BLC or heard any other brewers talking about it. Is BLC something bad,
or is it just undiscovered?
- -Steve
- --
- ----
Stephen Peters stevep@ncd.com
Webmaster, Network Computing Devices http://www.ncd.com/
------------------------------
From: BR Rolya <brrolya@cs.columbia.edu>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 13:42:47 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Miller's "Heart of the Hops"
Several weeks ago, I e-mailed Miller's
"brewmaster", David Ryder, asking him to
please explain exactly what revolutionary
new process enabled Miller to separate the
heart from the hops (whatever that is), or
to admit that it was just a marketing ploy aimed
at uneducated beer drinkers. As expected, his
response was -ahem- highly informative and
clarifying ;)
Here, for your entertainment, is his response.
(If you care to e-mail/lambast him yourself,
his address (taken from a print ad) is
miller@execpc.com).
- --------------------------------------
Dear B.R. Royla
Thanks for your recent inquiry on new Miller Beer!
Due to competitive reasons, we cannot provide brewing process specifics;
however, we can answer some of your questions regarding the "heart of the
hops."
As a homebrewer and hop gardener, I'm sure you're aware that hops are the
spice of beer that add their own special taste and aroma. Our proprietary
brewing expertise enables us to remove the bitter quality from hops while
maintaining their complex flavor attributes. After doing this, we have,
what we call, the "heart of the hop."
Miller Beer uses only the heart of the hop to produce a rich flavor that
diminshes the bitter and filling characterisitics typically associated with
full-flavored beers, and allows for a remarkably smooth, drinkable taste.
Miller Beer is brewed with four times as many hops as other premium,
mainstream beers and with the highest quality Galena hops from the Pacific
Northwest.
I hope that answers your questions. And, should you get the opportunity to
try Miller Beer, I'd be interested in knowing what you think!
Thanks again.
- -----------------------------------
Makes sense, right?
- -BR Rolya
brrolya@cs.columbia.edu
------------------------------
From: "Kevin Imel" <kimel@moscow.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 11:53:54 +8
Subject: length of the digest, multiple mailings
Just thought I would toss in vote/opinion on the multiple mailings
of the hbd issue.
Since the HBD now comes in two flavors (digested and
undigested/list-serve types) it would seem to me that going back to
the 50K per day, once a day, format would lead to a HUGE amount of
multiple replies on the same topic spread out over several days.
For instance: a subscriber getting the undigested version sends in
his/her reply. Then, two or three days later a subscriber gets the
digested version and sends in his/her reply to the same post. The
first reply (for the undigested post) gets seen in a day or two and
then the reply from the digested post is seen.
All I can say about that concept is YUCK!
Lets leave the multiple mailings! It might help if we went back to
mailing on the weekends, at least on saturday.
Cheers!
Kevin
___________________________
Kevin Imel
kimel@moscow.com
Palouse, Washinington USA
"The only way to truely fail is to fail to try"
For a copy of my pgp public key send message with subject "SEND PGP KEY"
------------------------------
From: "Paul Kensler (SMI)" <pkensler@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 13:56:34 +0000
Subject: Canning wort for starters
A question for the collective:
I have been hearing alot of conflicting information lately, about
making up a 1 or 2 gallon batch of wort and canning it, for storage
and eventual use as a starter wort for yeast. I have had success
doing this for several months, but I keep hearing warnings about
botulism...
Here's the facts: I am canning the wort in pint and quart jars, in a
boiling water bath. The jars are kept in a cool dark closet. I have
never had an infected or bad batch, and the yeast starters are always
healthy. I always use new lids and rings, and I have never observed
any bulging, strange growths, odors or flavors.
Here's what I've heard: Botulism is NOT killed by boiling
temperatures, and wort is not acidic enough to kill it via pH.
Botulism can only be killed by high-acid environments, or
temperatures upwards of 230 -240 F. Botulism likes anaerobic, moist,
slightly acidic environments (ie, my canned wort is perfect for it).
My question: IF I were to somehow can a batch of wort with botulism
inside, would there be any visible evidence? Would the lids bulge?
Would there be a film or deposit? Would the odor or flavor change?
Given that I still want to make a "bulk" of starter wort ahead of
time, what can I do to ensure that I don't use any that are possibly
infected?
While I keep hearing multiple success stories about canning wort, I
also hear alot of evidence why its dangerous not to. And this has
been such a time saver for me, I really want to get the details.
Thanks in advance!!
Paul
------------------------------
From: Stephen_Buonocore@usccmail.lehman.com (Stephen Buonocore)
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 15:07:40 -0400
Subject: Advanced Homebrew Systems Inquiry
Can anyone out there share any experiences (first or second hand,
positive or negative) with me on any of the "advanced brewing systems"
currently available, such as those produced by Sabco (BrewMagic), Pico
Brewing Systems, Precision Brewing Systems, Brewer's Warehouse, etc...
If you have any others that you'd like to recommend or trash, please
do so as well. Basically, I'm in the market for a big upgrade, "the
whole enchilada". I'd like to either purchase it as a single system,
or get a recommendation on buying specific components which work well
together.
Three vessel, two tier, RIMS, temperature controlled, natural gas
compatible... this is what I'm thinking. Convince me otherwise if you
dare.... :)
PLEASE forward comments to me *privately* (and to the list if you
want), since I often don't get this digest reliably.
Email replies to:
StephenB@lehman.com
Thanks for your time and effort.
Best regards,
Stephen Buonocore
------------------------------
From: korz@pubs.ih.lucent.com
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 96 14:25:00 CDT
Subject: I'm growing very tired of this topic
I really hate keeping this alive, but the tone has changed from my
disagreeing with Dave to various people making personal attacks at me.
I will try to be brief. Wish me luck.
Tracy writes:
>Please be specific here, Al. Exactly which information was incorrect?
I have been specific. Please refer to back issues of HBD. I have posted
every time I have found an error in one of Dave's posts. Look at the
back issues yourself... I'm not going to waste time and space repeating them.
Tracy continues:
>Hold on there, I'm not ready to move on just yet. I have mashed many beers
>at 157, 158, and even 159F using a single infusion. This is how I usually
>make scotch ales. I use multiple, carefully calibrated thermometers, have no
>infections, and do single infusions of hot water. Every time I've done it
>this way, the beer attenuated to at least 65% (AA),
This is at the low end of what is usually considered the normal range of
attenuation. Earlier today I read in DeClerck that what he calls the
normal range of apparent attenuation is (I beileve) 62-82%, but I cannot
find the page now. Incidentally, he said that in an effort to make low-
alcohol beer they mashed at 75C (167F) and got an apparent attenuation of
30-35%. Clearly, if a thermometer was showing 9 degreesF low, one could
conceivably get this kind of attenuation when trying to mash at 158F.
I don't contest your 65% AA with a 157-159F mash temp. That sounds about
right to me. The main point of this long and now stupid discussion was that
increasing the time at 157-159F would NOT have increased your AA (lowered
your FG) which is what Dave claimed initially:
>to try
>get to lower FG...<snip>
>in the case of all grain brews, they are holding
>at
>a high a temperature ( say 158-160) for too SHORT a time during the
>saccarification stage.
Tracy writes:
>The point is, wort fermentability is dependent
>not only on the mash program but the choice of malt as well.
I never said it wasn't. I was contesting one simple point and Dave went off
quoting MBS and including all kinds of other unrelated mashing information
(none of which I contested). He later added that most people are mashing
too short... as if that justifies his initial statement. It doesn't. If
your time at 158F is too short, then you have problems with unconverted
starch and not insufficient beta-amylase activity as Dave has been suggesting.
Now, you too are adding correct, but irrelevant, information.
Tracy writes:
>Well, I can't help it, I just have to respond to this. I think you missed
>the point. Here's my interpretation of what David meant: IF you usually do a
>step mash with a short beta rest and a longer alpha rest (eg. 15 min@149
>then 30 min@158) AND you're not satisfied with your FG (i.e. too high), you
>might TRY increasing the time of the mash, particularly by extending the
>length of the alpha rest (otherwise you might increase fermentability TOO
>much, if you increased the beta rest time). This should help decrease the FG
>some. I think the point was more that longer rests are likely to resolve
>this minor problem in many cases. I agree. Many texts recommend mash times
>that are too short, IMO.
Read what he posted originally again.
You can interpret it this way because you have been mashing for quite some
time. I have been reading HBD since 1987 and running a HB supply store since
1992 and have fielded literally hundreds of questions about mashing. I
have a very good feel for when a statement will mislead a beginner. My
reason for contesting Dave's initial statement is because (although it was
correct give a certain set of conditions) it was misleading (unintentionally,
I'm sure) and possibly confusing to a beginning or potential all-grain brewer.
Indeed, many texts do recommend mash times that are too short, but even in
subsequent posts, Dave has held firmly that fermentability can be increased
by increasing the time at 158F. My whole point was that given reasonable
mashing times (I posted "1 hour at 158F" vs "2 hours at 149F" several times)
increasing fermentability (lowering FG) requires lowering the mash temperature.
Jim Busch posted the exact same thing. Incidentally, I've gotten at least
a dozen private emails saying that I was right, that Dave's posts were
misleading and urging me to continue to fight to resolve this topic.
In another post Tracy writes:
>Most brewers I know
>agree that wort fermentability is a function of time and temperature, as
>well as the choice of malt. A one second mash at ANY temperature just don't
>work, Al! Time is a critical parameter.
The problem with too short a time at 158F is one of starch conversion and not
fermentability. Time is crtitical to making good beer, but if your mash
times are sufficient (Dave was the one that later introduced the 10- to 15-
minute mash time into this discussion in HBD #2080: "knowing that some people
use S times as short as ten or fifteen minutes") fermentability is determined
by the *temperature* at which this time is spent. As I said before, I posted
what I call reasonable mash times associated with these temperatures several
times.
>I felt like David got a bum rap here and he deserves better treatment
>(everyone does). I believe this misunderstanding resulted from people
>misquoting David. If you must correct someone else's post, one would be wise
>to make certain to quote the source accurately.
If you would care to point out (via private email) specific examples of
where I misquoted Dave, I would be glad to publicly apologize.
Al.
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korzonas@lucent.com
Copyright 1996 Al Korzonas
------------------------------
From: "Dave Hinkle" <Dave.Hinkle@aexp.com>
Date: 10 Jul 1996 12:14:09 -0700
Subject: HBD/Copper Brewpots/Roller Mill Rollers
I returned from 3 weeks in Ireland last Friday, and WOW, I must say all those
HBDs took quite some time to get through. I thought it was deja vu all over
again until I figured out it was the same stuff re-quoted ad nauseam from one
HBD to the next. All that stuff about what one guy says another guy said about
another guy's post in response to his post retorting another post... Thunderin'
Jaysus! How the hell is anyone supposed to follow it?!! Let me just say
people like Jeff (Hewit and Renner) et al. hit the nail on the head when they
said "keep it short". Now let me proceed to ignore my own complaining... ;-)
On to a REAL(?) topic now...
Copper brewpots?:
When I was in Ireland, a neighbor of my aunt-in-law had four old copper hot
water tanks sitting in his back yard. He was a plumber, and took them for
scrap when replacing them in re-model jobs w/ plastic tanks. I couldn't figure
out an economical way to get one back, so there they sit, waiting for someone
to cut one end off, roll a wire-bead on the edge, and rivet a couple of brass
handles on to build the ultimate 10-20 gallon brewpot (the seams were brazed,
not soldered). I thought about trying to check one on the plane as a piece of
luggage, but everyone convinced me I was a lunatic. An uncle in London is a
house painter and light contracter, and he told me people in the UK are
scrapping the copper in favor of plastic tanks. It was almost enough to make
me cry in my Guiness. To make things worse, I was in a pub and noticed they
had made a large coal bucket out of one such copper tank, rolled beads and
everything, sitting there mocking me as I quaffed by the fire. If there are
any UK subscribers reading this, maybe there's a possible business opportunity;
send me a private e-mail if interested.
Roller Mill Rollers:
(No, this is not the "skewed" thread reprise)
Now that vacation's over, I plan on making a roller mill this summer. Since
the rollers are the heart of it, I'd like to limit the discussion to just
that. I've been considering two options for the rollers. The first is to get
a couple of cast-iron caster wheels, which seem to be limited to a width of
2-3", but a variety of diameters from 4" to 12". These seems like it would
allow a mill that was like a short cross-section of a production-size mill. I
was thinking 8" diameter x 3" width, and I've found sources to get them new for
about $40 each. Maybe a venture to a scrap yard is in order for a deal on used
ones. I figure as long as they have a flat & smooth tread, they would be
suitable, and at 8" diameter there should be no problem with driving just one
of the rollers, right? Any major concerns with cast-iron itself,
toxicologically speaking? The second option I'm considering is to make cement
rollers. When looking around at what to use for a mold, a 2 liter soda bottle
looks about right, providing the rounded bottom is filled first with parafin or
something to create a flat surface. This would yield a roller of about 6"
diameter and up to 8" width (or is it length, now that it is no longer a
"wheel", but a roller?). My biggest concerns are how to get a molded-in shaft
(or sleeve) perfectly centered, and what is the best cement mix to use. I've
used a product to fix my pool skimmer called "Rapid-Set" that seems like it
would be OK, as it sets fast and has a high tensile strength. The box says it
is suitable for repair of structural parts, like bridges, etc., but boy does
this stuff get hot while it's curing. I'm afraid it might melt my plastic
molds. Also, do you think mesh reinforcement is needed? What about the roller
surface treatment? I was think a mild acid wash after curing would leave the
surface just rough enough to grip the husks. Probably need to coat the shaft
first with Vaseline to prevent corrosion by the HCL?
BTW, I considered 2 other roller options that I chose to drop. YMMV. One was
to use a couple of marble rolling pins, but NONE I looked at had the shaft
drilled exactly on-center, the tensile strenght of marble is questionable, and
the finish is too smooth. The other possibility was wood, but lack of a lathe
and durability was a problem for me. Somewhere along the way I decided that I
wanted rollers of at least 6" in diameter, which made the wood idea even more
difficult, because you'd need a rather large lathe.
If you have experience making your own mill, or just have some CONSTRUCTIVE
comments, e-mail them to me and I'll post a summary in a few days. E-mail and
posts questioning why I choose to build rather than buy will be silently
ignored, because that's not the point of the topic, OK?
Yes this is a long post, but I'm making up for the last 3 weeks ;-)
Slante',
Dave Hinkle
Phoenix, AZ
------------------------------
From: korz@pubs.ih.lucent.com
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 96 14:46:42 CDT
Subject: Metabisulfite is NOT a sanitizer
Sandra & Craig from Wine & Brew By You write:
>None of our customers has this problem anymore. Not for at least 20 years.
>Why?
>Because we don't use chlorine bleach anymore, nor any of the newfangled
>iodophors etc. Never have, never will!
>WHAT? ARE WE CRAZY? EVERYBODY USES THESE....EVERYBODY!
>Not us and not our customers (& we have a lot of 'em).
>OK! What do we do if we think we're such smartie-pants?
>We keep it fast, easy, fun, straightforward and simple.
>Scrub everything with lots of Arm & Hammer baking soda and warm water.....not
>soap of any kind. Then, after rinsing with lots of clear water.....Rinse with
>a stock solution of sodium metabisulfite. Let sit for 2-3 minutes. Rinse with
>lots more clear water.
>TA! DA! No problems. Period! Ever!....
Contrary to popular believe and many incorrect homebrewing books,
metabisulfites (sodium metabisulfite, potassium metabisulfite, Campden
tablets) are NOT sanitizers. They work by releasing hydrogen sulfide
gas when in an acid solution which INHIBITS the growth (but does not
kill) yeast and many bacteria. They work to sanitize wine must because
it is naturally acidic. In winemaking, the intent is to simply subdue
the nasties and pitch lots of cultured yeast. Putting metabisulfites
in water will not make a sanitizing solution. I simply do not believe
that if you and all your customers have been using this method to
"sanitize" bottles and equipment that you have not had infections.
You did... you just didn't notice them.
Al.
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korzonas@lucent.com
------------------------------
End of Homebrew Digest #2101
****************************
