Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2143
This file received at Hops.Stanford.EDU 1996/08/12 PDT
Homebrew Digest Monday, 12 August 1996 Number 2143
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Shawn Steele, Digest Janitor
Thanks to Rob Gardner for making the digest happen!
Contents:
Pale Ale Recipe! (Carrick Legrismith)
Recipes/AHA-GABF (Jim Busch)
Zip City Lager (Paul A. Hausman)
New 3-Tier System ("Kenneth D. Joseph")
filters (Scott Dornseif)
Two-Step Fermentation / Recipes (Rob Reed)
Summary - 5 vs 10 Gallon Gott ("Herb B Tuten")
Heat Diffusers for Thin Bottom Pots (Dave Greenlee)
Ethanol as a sterilant (korz@pubs.ih.lucent.com)
SG of dextrose in water (Gregory King)
Use of secondary/brewing with chocolate/sharing recipes ((George De Piro))
Have a beer on me (Don Trotter)
Motorizing Maltmills (Todd Kirby)
Suggestions wanted for mash transfer ("Paul Kensler")
Re: How Much Fills a 10 Gal Gott (Don Trotter)
Racking/Filtering (mikehu@lmc.com)
Unconditional Election (Russell Mast)
Al's Posts vs the Truth (Part 1) (Michael Gerholdt)
Al's Posts vs the Truth (Part 2) (Michael Gerholdt)
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: Carrick Legrismith <hiscope@c4systm.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 10:39:02 -0700
Subject: Pale Ale Recipe!
Here is one of my favorite brews:
Carrick's American Pale Ale
Batch number: 5
Batch size: 12.0
Brewer: Poison Ivy Brewery
Style: American Pale Ale
Brewing: 1.050
Racking: 1.015
Bottling: 1.014
Alcohol: 3.8% (w/w)
Alcohol: 4.7% (v/v)
Ingredients:
2 Row Pale Ale 14.0 pounds
Crystal 20 2.0 pounds
Munich 1.0 pound
Wheat Malt 1.0 pound
Chinook 1.0 ounce 60 min 12.7 % AA leaf
Chinook 0.3 ounces 30 min 12.7 % AA leaf
Cascade 1.0 ounces 30 min 5.5 % AA leaf
Cascade 2.0 ounces 2 min 5.5 % AA leaf
Cascade oil 2.0 tsp at bottling
Irish Moss 2.0 tsp 20 min
Water Treatment:
15.0 Gallons, distilled, (it takes 20 gallons but my tank is only 15.5!!)
Salts used:
Chalk 3.6 grams
Gypsum 3.4 grams
CaCl 2.4 grams
Ions Boil Target Difference
Ca 54 75 -21
Na 0 2 -2
Mg 0 17 -17
Cl 27 5 22
CO3 38 15 23
SO4 33 10 23
Mash water amount: 18.0
Strike temperature: 70 Fahrenheit
Mash pH: 5.2
Sparge water amount: 27.0 quarts
Sparge water temperature: 168 Fahrenheit
Sparge water pH: 5.2
Extraction efficiency: 86 %
Sparge liquor collected: 14.0 gallons
Topping water amount: 0.0 quarts
Boil size: 14.0 Gallons
Mashing schedule
minutes Fahrenheit
15 70
25 154
100 154
120 168
130 168
Fermentation
Wyeast #1056 American Ale 0.3 package , starter: 1 ltr per 5 gal
Primary fermentation: Stainless Steel, open
Secondary Fermentation: 6 Gallon Carboy
Primed with: 40f/12 lbs CO2
Fermentation schedule
days Fahrenheit
8 68 primary
14 64 secondary
If you make it and like it, e-mail me. If it turns out a dumper-brew, it was
your fault!
That's the beauty of a recipe!
>Homebrewers unite with the NRA!! Switch to priming your brew with 3 cups corn
sugar!! Watch out ATF!
Carrick Legrismith
Poison Ivy Brewery, where our motto is:
Once you have it, you'll be itching for more
hiscope@c4systm.com
------------------------------
From: Jim Busch <busch@eosdev2.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 10:54:44 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Recipes/AHA-GABF
Regarding exchanging of recipes. In general I will give tips and
techniques of some beers and keep some of the more intricate and
personally communicated details secret. I wont jump up and divulge
some Belgian or Bavarian "secret" if it was told to me in the spirit
of a one to one friendship.
<YMMV, but I think that improving the general quality of homebrew
<is much more important that winning ribbons. Anyway, after you
<have more than a couple of dozen ribbons, it gets hard to find a
<place to hang them.
Very true but the last thing I want to see is Jim Koch marketing a
HopDevil knockoff because someone gave him a great recipe in the
Longshot program. Let the big boys develop their own beers! Its
not worth the temporary fame of being on the six pack, and it seems
that your real recipe wont be used anyway (if they dont feel like it).
<"In my basement, there are cob webs over the fermenter." --Jim Busch
But now its a unitank! (Cobwebs remain).
<A couple of questions come to mind -- 1) Is La Chouffe a wit-like beer
<without the lactic acid component?; or 2) Is Jim Busch's Esprit d' Boire
<recipe from Winter 95 Zymurgy a better starting point?
Somewhere between the two. Esprit de Boire was a little heavy on
caramel malts and sweet orange for the real thing. Chouffe is much
more than a wit like beer, its stronger and the yeast character is
pronounced. I suggest using my recipe as a guidline and if its
Chouffe you want go easy on sweet orange in favor of Curacao and
keep the caramel malts around 3-5% DeWolf caraPils.
<The
<people involved have financial interests (as in job security) in the
<continued success of the organization and as the organization grows it
<takes more money to run it. Do the math!
It been many many years since I let my AHA membership lapse and there
are many reasons for this. The current story of being dropped from
a simple calander of events listing in Zymurgy is a good case in
point. Money and math, eh? Look at the Ad versus substance ratio
in Zymurgy and make your own guess there.
<Didn't I hear once that the GABF
<was a money loser for AOB? I don't know if that's still the case, but the
<anuual financial statements for these non-profit organizations are public
<record. Anyway, I seriously doubt that the GABF is a financial windfall for
<AOB.
This is published info and I dont recall a loss, ever. AOB, correct
me if Im wrong here. Unlike other major beer events including the
Great British Beer Festival and the Oregon Brewers Festival, brewers
are not compensated for the costs incurred in brewing and sending beer
to the event. Its all a giveaway for the brewers. ( I know , you win
a ribbon and rush off to advertise the hell out of it, FWIW). Im sure
the costs are held down at the gate but with the main attraction being
donated it is hard to lose money here.
Jim Busch
------------------------------
From: Paul A. Hausman <paul@lion.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 1996 18:20:18 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Zip City Lager
Narvaez Ronald <RNarvaez@phs.org> wrote:
I was wondering if anybody has heard of this beer. The full name on the
label was " Zip City Lager, Zip City Lager Brewing company Vienna" I am
intrested in getting a bottle of the beer for two reasons. 1) I want to
try it, 2) I collect bottles and the beer is bottled in a cool bottle.
If anyone knows where I can get this beer please let me know.
Thanks
Ron Narvaez
Zip City Brewing Company is a brewpub located in downtown Manhattan
(New York City) somewhere around the Columbus Circle, NYU area.
"Vienna" is the name of one of their lager beers. The "cool
bottles" (I've got one in my collection) are available only for
take out, directly from the brew-pub. You hafta leave a hefty
deposit and are supposed to return it for refill or refund. But
my understanding from the folks at the bar are that they commonly
never see the bottles back.
The beer is reasonably good. Not a "must try", but worth stopping
by if you're in the area. If you do happen to get there, ask for
one of their brewery tours. They basically just go and get the
brewmaster or asst. brewmaster, take you through and answer your
questions. Since it's just your group and the brewmaster, it
isn't hampered by the commercialization of some "tours" and they
talk to you at whatever level of knowledge you come to them with.
***************************************************************************
* Paul A. Hausman Paul@Lion.com *
* Lion Technology Inc. Voice: (201) 383-0800 *
* P.O. Box 700, Lafayette, NJ 07848 Fax: (201) 383-2459 *
***************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: "Kenneth D. Joseph" <74651.305@CompuServe.COM>
Date: 12 Aug 96 11:12:20 EDT
Subject: New 3-Tier System
Good Day All,
I have just completed my new 3-tier system and am anxious to get brewing. I
have been exclusively all grain brewing for about 3.5 years now in an enamel
8.5
gal pot on the stove and a Phalse bottom in a plastic bucket.
I would love to glean any words of wisdom on the use of my new brewery since I
have never seen one in action and don't have the slightest idea what to expect
in this new world of propane burners, simultaneous action, and larger batches.
If this subject was covered extensively in past issues, please give me
references. Please reply by direct email since today is the due date for our
third child to be born, and I doubt that I'll be able to read the digest for a
while. If it would help any of you in helping me, I do have a CAD drawing of
the system that could be faxed for review/critique. Thanks in advance for the
help.
Ken Joseph
74651.305@compuserve.com
"Sleep?. . . We don' need no stinkin' sleep!"
------------------------------
From: Scott Dornseif <SDORNSE@wpo.it.luc.edu>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 10:18:15 -0500
Subject: filters
From: EDWARD SPADONI <SL9YN@cc.usu.edu>
Sun, 11 Aug 1996
Subject: racking, filtering\
ES> ... Also, any feedback on when to filter or ways to make your own filtering
setup
would be appreciated. <ES
Ed n ALL:
www.AmericanPlumbingSupply.com Chico CA. has a $15 whole house filter housing
and reasonable priced filters, ( ~$4-$5 / pr) which are replaceable at most
hardware /
WalMart stores. I use these to filter my brewing water and to filter my beer
from keg
to keg. Feel free to E-mail me with further specific Qs. Thanks to Scott Abene
for
filtering out the more expensive yet similar setups and showing me the way.
Scott Dornseif
------------------------------
From: Rob Reed <rhreed@icdc.delcoelect.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 10:36:39 -0400 (CDT)
Subject: Two-Step Fermentation / Recipes
"Gregg A. Howard" <102012.3350@CompuServe.COM> writes in #2140:
> is there any real benefit to be gained by racking to a secondary, other than
> avoiding autolysis?
Racking to secondary has numerous benefits with only a few drawbacks:
1) Secondary fermentation allows time for yeast to drop and allows
time for your beer to clear naturally (via tannin-protein complexing)
2) A two-step process frees up your primary fermentor and allows the
brewer to bottle or keg as time permits (weeks to months)
3) Two-step fermentation allows much of the dissolved CO2 to outgas
and yields more consistent carbonation for bottled beers
4) Clarity can be assessed easily and fining agents may be added
as desired. While Polyclar, Si Gel, and bentonite seem to work
quickly, gelatin takes longer in my brewery.
Drawbacks include more work to sanitize carboy, racking rig, etc., and
perhaps increased chance of oxidation and contamination.
- -----
Don Trotter <dtrotter@imtn.tpd.dsccc.com> writes:
> How many of us give up our recipes?
>
> Seeing all the recipe requests in HBD doesn't make me feel well. Can't
> any of the requesters develop their own recipes? It really isn't
> difficult. A little light reading and a little light math, or a recipe
> formulation program is all it takes.
Brewers brew for many different reasons and homebrewers' motivations,
experience, and aptitudes vary widely. Some brewers I know brew one
or two styles of beer. Many brew from grain, culture yeast, and seek
to understand every detail of brewing. I believe it takes many batches
and a lot of reading before one feels confident in recipe formulation.
I know judging beers and properly completing all the background study
for the BJCP exam help immensely.
Anyway, who says that Papazian, Miller, or other author has the best recipe
for an Altbier, Dopplebock, or Cream Ale?
I don't think giving up your recipe is going to hurt you in competition.
Could many people duplicate Bridgeport Blue Heron or Boulevard Porter if
their exact recipe was known? Your brewing procedures, ingredient
sources, fermentation conditions, etc. have much to do with the quality of
your beer.
Cheers,
Rob Reed
------------------------------
From: "Herb B Tuten" <herb@zeus.co.forsyth.nc.us>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 11:44:41 -0500
Subject: Summary - 5 vs 10 Gallon Gott
Thanks to everyone who answered my question about
which Gott to get. Here is a summary of the responses:
1. Get the 10 gallon - 10 (coincidence?)
2. Get the 5 gallon - 3
3. It depends on what
size batches you brew - 3
4. It doesn't matter,
just use anything - 1
- -----------------------------------------------
Total Responses - 17
Comments - "a 10 gal Gott allows room for growth"
"no problem with 5 or 10 gal batch in 10 gal"
"bought a 5 gal, later went back and got a 10"
"5 gal is ok unless you want to brew big beers"
"grain bed depth in 10 gal can be a concern"
"5 gal is perfect if you stick to 5 gal batches"
"5 gal is fine up to 14 lbs of grain"
Cheers,
Herb
herb@zeus.co.forsyth.nc.us
------------------------------
From: Dave Greenlee <daveg@mail.airmail.net>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 11:18:17 -0500
Subject: Heat Diffusers for Thin Bottom Pots
I'm just getting ready to put my first 5-gallon batch into the bottle and
early returns seem to promise good things (except for my intentional, and
now apparent, insistence on using far more Cascades hops than anyone in
his right mind would use). This was an extract-plus-specialty brew
semi-mashed and boiled in a 2-gal aluminum pot on a kitchen electric
burner with a bent coathanger between the pot and the element, per
Charile P. The coathanger trick worked, but made the boil far less
vigorous than I would have hoped, though still okay. However, the 2-gal
boil, rather than being a convenience as I thought it would be, was a
real p.i.t.a. and I went out and bought a 21 quart enamel menudo boiler
(new for $16). The bottom is thin and concave (though flat, once
indented) and the indentation is so deep that the kettle almost touches
the stovetop when the element is in contact with the bottom of the pot.
I'm considering having someone cut me a disk of aluminum or copper the
outside diameter of the pot to sit between the electric element and the
pot, but I'm concerned about the following:
+ how thick?
+ is it going to cost a zillion bucks?
+ a major concern is the air void that will be created by the disk and
the bottom of the pot; dead air is supposed to be an insulator, so will
the center of the pot get no heat at all while I just create a new hot
spot in a ring where the outside ring sits on the disk?
+ I've also heard that large volume kettles can cause electrical
elements to overheat and damage themselves, which is one the problems
that I'm trying to solve by using a disk to raise the pot to permit more
air circulation around the electrical element. In this connection and in
connection with the dead air as insulator question, should the
diffuser disk be perforated, and if so, how (holes in the center, radial
cuts coming out from the center to the edge, how much?)
+ In a 1995 HBD, Pierre Jelenc suggested using a sand bath as a
diffuser, which seems like a great idea since it would mold to the bottom
of the pot. Should/can the sand be damp at the beginning of the heating
process? How about the damage to the element issues? Can just about any
'ol container for the sand be used? How much will this slow down the
heating process if the sand layer is just kept to the bottom of the pot
and doesn't extend up the sides? How thick should the thinest sand be
between the bottom of the pot and the element? Could the sand just be
used to fill up the concavity while the outside edge rests on the
aluminum or copper disk described above (the disk could be then wired to
the pot handles to keep it and the sand in place); if so, could it just
be set on a thin - say 14 or 16 gauge - sheet of steel, rather than
something fancy like aluminum or copper, without much fear of scorching
on the outside ring before the sand heats up? Would it be cheaper /
easier / better just to have a copper or aluminum disk machined so that
the metal of the disk fills the concavity (I can't believe this wouldn't
cost more than just buying a decent SS pot)?
+ Incidentally, do range elements come in different heat ranges? Could
I buy a real hot one (or two!) and just mount it on some sort of
homebuilt or scavenged stand and wire it to a plug for the proper
voltage? I know that Ken Schwartz has done this with electric water
heater elements, which can be obtained in various temperatures and sizes,
but I'd prefer not to have my heating element inside my pot.
As you can see, I'm trying to cheap this out, which seems to be one of
the continuing traditions in homebrewing.
Hopeful for erudite assistance,
Nazdrowie,
Dave Greenlee
cc: Pierre Jelenc and Ken Schwartz
------------------------------
From: korz@pubs.ih.lucent.com
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 96 11:36:05 CDT
Subject: Ethanol as a sterilant
Ed writes:
>70% ethanol make a good sterilant for soaking most small instruments
>and rinsing out bottles. I also flame sterilize the mouths of the bottles
>before and after filling (habit). A quick pass over a propane torch flame
>achieves this.
If I'm going to be picky with Dave, I guess I should be picky with Ed too.
70% ethanol (and indeed 70% is better than 100%) is a good sanitizer but
not a sterilant. Flaming indeed does sterilize a clean, unscratched
surface (I'm not 100% sure about dirty or scratched surfaces).
In addition to the article in Zymurgy by Steve and Jim, there is a good
summary of sanitizing and sterilizing methods in an early issue of
Brewing Techniques. It was an article by MaryBeth Raines. I regret that
she omitted iodophor, peracetic acid and oxygen-based sanitizers, but she
did cover alcohol, bleach and both dry and wet heat.
Check out: http://brewingtechniques.com/brewingtechniques/index.html
I don't think the relevant issue is online yet, but it's an early issue
and will soon be online.
Al.
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korzonas@lucent.com
Copyright 1996 Al Korzonas
------------------------------
From: Gregory King <GKING@ARSERRC.Gov>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 12:50:51 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SG of dextrose in water
Don Pearson (dpearson@ghgcorp.com) brought up an apparent paradox concerning
the specific gravity of a solution containing 1 pound of dextrose dissolved
in 1 U.S. gallon of water:
>"A Treatise on Lager & Beers" notes that 1 pound mass of dextrose (corn sugar)
>equals 2 2/3 cups
>[alternatively 1 cup weighs 6oz], and that 1 pound dextrose dissolved in 1
>gallon water gives a specific gravity of 1.040.
>
>The way I see it, 1 lbm of dextrose is 453.6 grams. 1 gallon of water is 3785
>ml of water,
>weighing 3785 gm. So the total mass of the material is (453.6+3785)gm. The
>volume of the
>resulting solution is 3785 ml plus the volume added due to you putting the
>dextrose in.
>
>I've made a few measurements and found that 1/4 cup of dextrose increases the
>water volume by 20ml.
>So 2 2/3 cups of dextrose should increase the water volume by 213 ml, and the
>resulting total volume of solution is expected then to be about 3998 ml.
>
>The density is then the mass/vol = 1.060, not 1.040 !!!
>
>OK, what went wrong? The dextrose dissolving measurement of 20ml was carried
>out at 26C, close
>enough to the 60F that I don't need to correct for temperature.
This made me curious enough to do an experiment of my own. I measured out
1/4 cup of dextrose and then weighed it. It weighed somewhere between 36
and 37 grams. This works out to 3.06-3.15 cups dextrose per pound, which is
about 16% higher than the ratio 2.67 cups dextrose per pound that Don quoted
from "A Treatise on Lager & Beers".
Next I dissolved the dextrose in 500 ml of water (the water measurement was
pretty exact; I used a volumetric flask). The specific gravity of this sol-
ution was 1.026 (liberal margin of error: plus or minus 0.001).
This information can be used to calculate the additional volume V added to
the solution by the dissolved dextrose:
1.026 = (500 + 36.5)/(500 + V)
Solving for V yields: V = 22.9 ml. This number is 14% larger than Don's.
Now if 36.5 g of dextrose increases the volume of the solution by 22.9 ml,
then 1 pound (453.6 g) should increase the volume by 22.9*453.6/36.5 =
284.6 ml.
So, 1 pound of dextrose dissolved in 1 U.S. gallon of water should have the
specific gravity:
SG = (3786 + 453.6)/(3786 + 284.6) = 1.0415
When all sources of measurement error are accounted for, the range of
specific gravities 1.039-1.044 is obtained.
It looks to me that a SG of 1.040 for 1 pound dextrose dissolved in 1 U.S.
gallon of water is on the money. Don's number (1.060) was arrived at by
assuming a 2.67 cups dextrose per pound equivalence, and a slight inaccuracy
in measuring the additional volume added by the dissolved dextrose.
Greg King
gking@arserrc.gov
------------------------------
From: George_De_Piro@berlex.com (George De Piro)
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 12:52:44 -0700
Subject: Use of secondary/brewing with chocolate/sharing recipes
Gregg Howard asked about the necessity of using a secondary. There
have been other postings on this, so I will be brief. As others have
said, it is not always necessary, but is sometimes beneficial.
I find that certain styles (Weizens, in particular) don't really need
to be stored in a secondary, although I get them off the yeast cake as
soon as possible.
Yes, I've experienced autolysis (in mead that I've made) and it is NOT
pleasant! All of you who are not knowing, be happy!
When making beer that I intend to lager, I use a secondary, and
sometimes tertiary fermenter, because I have tasted autolysis, and am
quite fearful of it! It really helps the clarity of the product, too.
--------------------
Kevin asks about brewing with chocolate. I've used 2 lb. of Baker's
chocolate in a 6 gallon boil. There are many dangers (as I
unfortunately found out). First, the chocolate is VERY bitter. Go
VERY light on the hops, and use a high mash temp to leave sweetness to
balance the brew.
I used a low mash temp, and regretted it. The resulting beer took
months to mellow. I even added lactose to half the batch, but it just
made the beer sweet up front, with a chalky, bitter finish!
There will be quite a huge oil slick from the chocolate, and if you
whirlpool to remove hop debris and break material, it won't be very
effective. The garbage seemed to remain suspended in the oil slick
which stayed on the surface. I left quite a lot of wort in the kettle
because I didn't want all that junk in my fermenter.
On the other hand, the beer had very noticeable chocolate notes in
aroma and palate.
This weekend I'm going to try again, but this time with cocoa powder!
----------------------
A quick note about sharing recipes: when you win a gold medal at the
AHA nationals, they publish it for all to see! I'm happy and proud
that my Milo-Marzen #2 recipe is going to appear in Zymurgy!
We're brewing at home. I would be pretty surprised if someone
duplicated my beer, even with the VERY detailed instructions I've been
giving out. Am I scared that someone will make a better Oktoberfest
than me? NO! Somebody else with the same recipe might make a better
beer, or worse. That's homebrewing!
Have Fun!
George De Piro (Nyack, NY)
------------------------------
From: Don Trotter <dtrotter@imtn.tpd.dsccc.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 11:57:28 -0500
Subject: Have a beer on me
Here you go.
I'll let you guess the style and what commercial beer it is an attempt at.
7 lb US, 2-row (Klages)
7 lb US, 2-row pale (Harrington)
4 lb Victory or Dark Munich
1 lb Crystal 10L
1 lb Crystal 20L
1 lb Crystal 40L
1 lb Crystal 90L
1-2 oz Chocolate malt
0.5 oz Centennial 60 min
1.0 oz Centennial 40 min
1.0 oz Centennial 20 min
1.0 oz Centennial 5 min
Bitter to the tune of 40 IBU
Mash in with 0.7 qt/lb to reach 135F
After 15 min, add boiling water to reach 155F
After saccharification, raise temp to 170F, and hold for 20 min.
Collect 13 gallons of wort.
Total boil time 80 minutes.
Use any standard pale ale yeast with ~70% attenuation.
Enjoy,
don
------------------------------
From: Todd Kirby <mkirby@bgsm.edu>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 13:01:19 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Motorizing Maltmills
This has been absolutely beat to death in the past (I just searched HBD
archives for information) but I need some specific advice that hasn't
been covered to date concerning motorizing maltmills. The concensus seems
to be that you need at least 1/6 hp with a pulley configuration that yields
around 400rpm for the Maltmill. Given that, can anyone help with the
following:
1. Does anyone use a tension\idler pulley to control belt tension, such
that you start the motor and then engage the pulley to smoothly start the
grind rather than the abrupt, jerky start from just starting the motor.
Seems like it would be easier on the mill, and safer if you run into trouble.
2. Will a 1/6 hp motor start the grind with a full hopper? I have one
from an old air conditioning unit that could mount nicely on the
pressboard plate next to the mill.
3. Where can I find appropriate pulleys with a 3/8 bore for the Maltmill.
None of the hardware stores I have visited carry them. If they're
unavailable, are there any suggestions for an adapter that will convert
to 1/2 inch?
Thanks,
Todd Kirby
------------------------------
From: "Paul Kensler" <pkensler@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 12:08:37 +0000
Subject: Suggestions wanted for mash transfer
I am looking for a more efficient / easier way to transfer hot mash
to my lauter tun.
In my mash setup, I have a 10-gallon kettle that I mash and boil in.
I prefer to mash in the kettle, since I can control the temperature
steps more precisely, especially if there is a protein rest involved
(in other words, I raise the whole mash through the rests, instead of
doing a hot water infusion). After mash-out, I transfer the mash to
a 10-gallon cooler for lautering and sparging. I usually use a 1/2
gallon Pyrex measuring bowl to transfer.
Unfortunately, this takes a long time, and is relatively difficult.
I also seem to lose alot of heat this way. Has anyone found another
method to transfer large quantities of mash grist? I was thinking
about using PVC piping and 2"ID vinyl tubing to "siphon" the mash
into my lauter tun, but that's a fairly
expensive "experiment" to try, without knowing if it will really
work. Can PVC be used around hot mash without worrying about
leaching compounds into the mash? Is it heat resistant and food
grade?
Or, should I just deal with the difficulties of my setup? I would
prefer to stay with a temperature - controlled mash as opposed to doing a
water infusion...
Thanks
Paul
------------------------------
From: Don Trotter <dtrotter@imtn.tpd.dsccc.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 12:19:28 -0500
Subject: Re: How Much Fills a 10 Gal Gott
The formula I use was found in HBD. I forget whom to credit, but here
a big thanks -- THANKS.
Volume in Gallons = Pounds grain * (0.08 + (qts per lb water / 4))
I usually have no problem putting up to 25 lbs in the mash, but need to be
conservative on the amount of water I put in at strike. I usually hit with 0.7
- - 1.0 quarts per pound, depending on the type of mash I am doing. Single
infusions can take more, because there are less additions, etc.
I have also gotten 15 pounds into a 5 gallon Gott, so I imagine that 30
pounds in a 10 gallon will work, but this can get very messy! :^)
Enjoy,
don
------------------------------
From: mikehu@lmc.com
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 96 10:30:04 PDT
Subject: Racking/Filtering
Edward Spadoni writes:
>Anyway, I have a question about racking and filtering now. First of all
>is it possible to do a third racking to help clear my brew? I know most
>do a two stage (primary and secondary) and people have suggested 3
>rackings for some fruit beers. Does this aid in clarity or is it a
>waste of time in typical ales. Also, any feedback on when to filter or
>ways to make your own filtering setup would be appreciated.
Edward - I typically do a primary and secondary, and then put my secondary
(5 gal. carboy) into my beer fridge for a couple of days before kegging.
This essentially is 3 rackings. The extra benefit of putting my secondary
into cold storage a couple of days before kegging is threefold: The beer
clarifies very nicely, the yeast cake on the bottom of the carboy is very
dense and solidified, and the beer can be carbonated much easier because it
is cold when kegged. I have never even considered fining or filtering, due
to the excellent results I get 'cold filtering' like this. If you try this,
you will be amazed at how much easier it is to siphon out of the secondary
without picking up any of the yeast on the bottom. This will also work if
you are bottling. (you will get much clearer beer when siphoning into your
bottling bucket) I think that commercial breweries do this - I believe it
is called "cold-crashing" or allowing the beer to "Drop-Bright".
Mike H. in Portland, OR
mikehu@lmc.com
------------------------------
From: Russell Mast <rmast@fnbc.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 12:39:22 -0500
Subject: Unconditional Election
> From: Derek Lyons <elde@hurricane.net>
> Subject: Who Elected You?
> And just who elected *you* moderator of the digest?
All of us elected all of us to be the moderator. Now, speaking as the
official (tm) moderator-moderator, please take your moderation activities
to private e-mail. This isn't the digest-moderator-digest, it's the
homebrew digest.
> From: Don Trotter <dtrotter@imtn.tpd.dsccc.com>
> Subject: Re: Recipe requests
>
> Seeing all the recipe requests in HBD doesn't make me feel well. Can't
> any of the requesters develop their own recipes? It really isn't
> difficult.
With only a couple exceptions, every recipe I've used is a recipe I've
developed myself. HOWEVER, I want to see MORE recipes here, because I
like to learn by example. What sorts of things are people putting in
their porters today, and how does that affect the flavor? Much better
to have 18 of 20 experiments for each batch run by someone else, eh?
> I for one have given a few recipes away to strangers, but will give no more.
But, when you give it away, you still got it. I, for one, can't IMAGINE
not giving a recipe to anyone who asks. If anyone needs to relax, it's
you.
The very idea that you would willingly compromise the quality of my beer
(by hiding your secrets) so you could win another stupid ribbon is appalling.
We're not talking about military hardware here, people, it's homebrew.
And Don, if you change your mind and share a recipe with me, and I win a
prize with it, I'll give you a couple bottles (and a mention here) for your
help. For me, that would be reward enough. I wish it were for you, too.
No secrets,
- -R
------------------------------
From: Michael Gerholdt <gerholdt@ait.fredonia.edu>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 96 13:48:18 -0500
Subject: Al's Posts vs the Truth (Part 1)
- -- [ From: Michael Gerholdt * EMC.Ver #2.5.02 ] --
Al:
Ya know, what you contribute is often informative and helpful, and I've
always taken special note when I see your name in the From: field. However,
I have to say that your attitude is often both offensive and defensive in
rather negative senses of both terms.
I followed closely your argument with Dave Burley regarding conversion and
beta amylase. I was shocked when you demanded that he quit "posting
misinformation" simply because he held a different perspective than you. It
was a bit insulting to the general HBD readership as well, IMHO, when you
expressed fear that the statements of you "gurus" might mislead the newbies,
and that it would be better to have the conversation in private email and
then post a summary. While some welcomed such an idea because the discussion
- -cum-pissing contest was wearing thin, to me it simply demonstrated your
egotism. We brewers are, as far as I can see, a reasonable cross-section of
the general public, and most of us are able to think for ourselves.
The discussion was very informative all in all, though you defenders of
conventional wisdom lost your ability to discuss and fell to ranting when
Dave didn't crumble. You never did really prove your point, you know; simply
asserted it again and again. Alexander came a bit closer to persuading that
beta amylase didn't survive in sufficient quantity to do what Dave suggests
it does, but that's all - a bit closer.
And your presence continued to deteriorate. Though I still stop to read your
posts, "What a jerk!" always crosses my thoughts . . .
Now your defensiveness is demonstrated. You've had to backpedal
significantly in your claims and contentions regarding Porter and Wheeler.
You wrote in your initial response (HBD#2119 "Porter"):
>Perhaps the author should be sure before he puts pen to paper.
>Indeed the microbe is different. Lactic acid bacteria and
>acetic acid are very different not only in their products but
>also in that the former are facultative anaerobes and the latter
>are strict aerobes! For the record, I personally get
>no acetic (vinegary) character in either of the Rodenbach beers.
Please note what you wrote: "I personally get no acetic <vinegary> character
in either of the Rodenbach beers."
This was in response to this:
Wheeler:
>but nevertheless the sourness of Grand Cru is not unpleasant. It has
>flavors of both acetic and citric acidity, providing a sourness which is
>quite mellow. It is nothing like the back-shuddering sourness of badly kept
>beer in the pub that many people regard as vinegary. Perhaps the souring
>microbe are different,...
Wheeler is asserting that it is *not* a "vinegary" sourness. Is sourness a
taste or an aroma? Let's be clear here ... because in your non-apologetic
non-retraction, you write (HBD#2125 ".../blind spots/..."):
>Furthermore, neither you nor I nor anyone else can differentiate
>acetic acid from lactic acid by *taste*. I said that I did not
>sense any vinegary character (aroma, actually) in Rodenbach.
>Your taste buds will only tell you that "this liquid is sour" --
>it's your nose that will tell you that it is lactic, acetic or a
>combination of the two.
This is rather disingenuous. Taste relies on info from both tongue and nose;
this olfactory involvement does not render vinegary sourness a pure aroma.
Wheeler says Rodenbach includes "*flavors* of both acetic and citric acidity
." If flavors is the subject at hand, how can you with integrity declare
that you were discussing aroma? I didn't see you change the subject. (I read
the recent thread regarding taste buds and olfactory cooperation, so a re-
hash of that isn't what's required here.)
********************************************
PART TWO to follow
- --
Best Regards,
P Michael Gerholdt
------------------------------
From: Michael Gerholdt <gerholdt@ait.fredonia.edu>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 96 13:48:47 -0500
Subject: Al's Posts vs the Truth (Part 2)
- -- [ From: Michael Gerholdt * EMC.Ver #2.5.02 ] --
********************************************
PART TWO:
If you re-read Wheeler's article, you will also note - *and this makes your
entire discussion of the matter moot* - that Wheeler was not drawing a
distinction between acetic and lactic, but rather raising the possibility
that the microbe which created the acetic contributions to sourness in the
Rodenbach might be different than that which created the "vinegary" sourness
of badly kept pub beer.
Here is the paragraph in quesion from Wheeler:
>Neither beer seems to me to be as sour as they were just a few
>years ago, the brewery have probably toned them down to reach
>a wider market, but nevertheless the sourness of Grand Cru is not
>unpleasant. It has flavors of both acetic and citric acidity,
>providing a sourness which is quite mellow. It is nothing like the >back-
shuddering sourness of badly kept beer in the pub that many
>people regard as vinegary. Perhaps the souring microbe are different,
>or it may be that extended maturation also mellows the sourness that
>develops so that it becomes less harsh and less assertive.
>Most people do not find the taste of vinegar unpleasant, as observation
> of the habits of people in fish and chip shops will confirm, so
>it should be no surprise that an acetic beer can be quite pleasant.
Please note that once "vinegary" sourness is mentioned, the topic remains
strictly vinegar, and thus, as I said, your comment that:
>Perhaps the author should be sure before he puts pen to paper.
>Indeed the microbe is different. Lactic acid bacteria and
>acetic acid are very different not only in their products but
>also in that the former are facultative anaerobes and the latter
>are strict aerobes!
is simply not at any point relevant to Wheeler's discussion. He's wondering
if there is a "good" acetic microbe for Rodenbach vs. a "bad" acetic microbe
for "badly kept pub beer." He's not wondering if lactic producers and acetic
producers are the same microbe.
So, when you wrote,
>My other point was that indeed there are two different types of microbiota
>contributing the two different types of acids (lactic and acetic), a point
>that Wheeler was unsure about.
you were still wrong. Wheeler demonstrates no such unsureness; you simply
misread him.
*********************************************************
You also wrote:
>Among these many people is Terry Foster whose very well-researched book
>"Porter" contradicts this statement.
Later, you wrote: (HBD#2124 Wheeler's Porter Article):
>I was wrong about Foster contradicting Wheeler.
How about taking your own advice:
>Perhaps the author should be sure before he puts pen to paper.
You also accuse Wheeler as follows:
>Had Mr. Wheeler researched a little further, he would have found that
>mixing soured beer with fresh is nothing new or history-breaking to
>Guinness and that they have been making their flagship beer this way
>for quite some time.
when what Wheeler wrote is not what you say he wrote. Here's the quote you
think you are writing to:
>The newly introduced Guinness "Harwood's Porter" breaks history on
>two grounds. Not only is it the first cask conditioned beer ever to be made
>at the Park Royal Brewery, but it is the only example of the new generation
>of porters that is a proper porter; a blend of mild and stale like old time
>porters used to be.
You even quote the above before typing your criticism, and can't even see
that what you say isn't relevant to what Wheeler is saying.
Methinks you simply like to criticize and contest and contend, and that you
aren't as concerned about the truth as you are about going to battle.
I've also seen a number of other corrections you've posted after erroneous
claims. I have to wonder when you write something like this:
>Reading back at what I've written, it sounds a little harsh,
>but in my opinion, under-researching our posts to the digests
>is one thing, but being unsure of things in an article or a book
>is very bad form.
So ... on the one hand, you are concerned that "misinformation" in the HBD
might mislead the masses, and you demand that it stop at once! Then, on the
other hand, you think that posting under-researched (read "flawed and in
need of correction/retraction") messages to the HBD is "one thing" (read:
"maybe kind of ok and understandable???????") while it is "bad form" in an
article or a book.
And yet you are the guy who makes sure he includes:
>Copyright 1996 Al Korzonas
Why don't you slow down and quit knee-jerking and shooting from the hip. You
obviously aren't as sure of many of your facts as you seem to think you are;
and your speculations are framed with your great experience and carry great
weight.["Jim, I am a pretty good beer judge IMO (BJCP Master).] Speculate
elsewhere, and when you've determined what really IS the case, as far as you
are able, THEN post. You'd be doing us all a favor, because we would be able
then to put more trust in what you say.
And that's what we really want to be able to do!
- --
Best Regards,
P Michael Gerholdt
------------------------------
End of Homebrew Digest #2143
****************************
