Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2178
This file received at Hops.Stanford.EDU 1996/09/07 PDT
Homebrew Digest Saturday, 7 September 1996 Number 2178
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Shawn Steele, Digest Janitor
Thanks to Rob Gardner for making the digest happen!
Contents:
More about lambics ((George De Piro))
Apology ((Bill Giffin))
Sieves to assess malt fractions ((Bill Giffin))
HBD advice, CO2 bottles weight (Al Stevens)
Re: Screw-off tops ("Pierre A. Dumont")
RE: Homebrew at Wedding ("Bridges, Scott")
Blow-off vs. BIGGER carboy... (Brian S Kuhl)
Found Source of 30+ gallon Gott-like coolers ((Mike Spinelli))
Propane (RANDY ERICKSON)
Re: channeling (Kelly Jones)
Re: Duffy's extraction (Kent Townley)
Duffy's extract efficiency/ barleywine carbonation (Jerry Cunningham)
Thunder Mountain Brew-Off (Kirk Johnson)
Crushing News (Hugh Graham)
Steel Wool, Stainless Steel (Michael Gerholdt)
Easy Hydrometer Sampling / Viewmaster / Extraction Efficiency T*st (KennyEddy@aol.com)
misunderstanding ((Jeff Sturman))
CO2 solubility as f(FG) ("Dave Draper")
carbonation thread--great article in BT ((Brian Pickerill))
Careful With That Gypsum Eugene (Obscure Reference) (KennyEddy@aol.com)
acronyms (randigai@flash.net)
CO2 Fill Levels ((John W. Braue, III))
[none] ((PC_USER))
Mashless Mess ((John (The Coyote) Wyllie))
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.
COPYRIGHT:
As with all forums such as this one, copyrights are retained by the
original authors. In accordance with the wishes of the members of the
Homebrew Digest, posts to the HBD may NOT be sold or used as part of a
collection that is sold without the original authors' consent. Copies
may ONLY be made available at no charge and should include the current
posting and subscription addresses for the HBD.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: George_De_Piro@berlex.com (George De Piro)
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 13:30:47 -0700
Subject: More about lambics
Hello again, again,
Another question occurred to me as I reread that "Scientific American"
lambic article. It says that the beers are filtered and pasteurized.
Is this true of all lambics? It surprised me because the beer is so
caefully fermented and bottle conditioned, I just figured that they'd
let it "live."
Have Fun!
George De Piro (Nyack, NY)
------------------------------
From: bill-giffin@juno.com (Bill Giffin)
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 11:53:55 cst
Subject: Apology
I apologize to Al K. I should not have called him the beer God or have
been sarcastic to him..
The dairy industry uses a lot of tubing and it is cleaned with soft
brushes. The tubing that we use in homebrewing is about the same and 6
feet of tubing the length of a racking tube can be cleaned in about a
minute. If the stuff hardens in the tubing then it does take a bit
longer. First soak the tubing in a cleaning solution then brush it.
>>
Why make him buy a $19.00 carboy or $10.00 pail when he could buy a
$4.00 hose?
>>
Maybe to make better beer. I think that it is obvious that the tubing
and pails I am referring to would be acceptable for the brewing and
fermenting of beer.
>>
Why 5/16" and not 3/8" or 1/2"? Because 5/16" is the proper size for the
standard racking canes and bottling wands. A larger size increases the
likely hood that a bubble would form where the racking cane meets the
tubing.
<<
Who say you have to use what is considered standard. My racking cane is
made from 3/8" copper tubing and works great. A racking cane could also
be made of 1/2" copper tubing or stainless tubing. Why be stuck with
standard.
Bill
------------------------------
From: bill-giffin@juno.com (Bill Giffin)
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 11:57:34 cst
Subject: Sieves to assess malt fractions
Good morning all,
Dave Burley gave the listing of sieves that are used to assess the
fraction of the malt after they have been crushed. In the second edition
you will find that list on page 310 of volume 1
You can get these screens from Cole-Parmer or Fisher. The cost per sieve
is about $40 depending on what you get.
The third screen that Dave mentioned is #18 US standard which has a mesh
width of 1 mm. A common window screen is almost the same size. Refer
back to Dave's post and you will see that everything should go through
this size mesh except the husks.
Have some fun try passing your crushed malt through a window screen from
the mill your are now using or with pre-crushed malt you have purchased.
I think you will find that the majority of the crushed malt will not pass
through the screen.
On knifing the grain bed in the lauter tun. First you do not cut all the
way to the false bottom. Second by forcing the mash against the sides of
the tun you can reduce the channeling that has already occurred I have
found the technic of knifing the grain bed to be very helpful while
lautering out wheat beers.
Sparge time: With a crush that is way too coarse there is no way that a
proper filter bed can set up, sort of like pouring water through marbles
rather then sand. With a proper crush the shortest time a sparge should
take is 45 min but more like 75-120 min. Sorry for the confusion factor.
Bill
PS. I have written 100 times that I will be kind to Al K and be
pleasant. Had trouble finding a black board to do it though.
------------------------------
From: Al Stevens <72704.743@CompuServe.COM>
Date: 06 Sep 96 13:42:57 EDT
Subject: HBD advice, CO2 bottles weight
bill-giffin@juno.com (Bill Giffin) stated:
> Folks remember when you ask for advice on this digest you had better be
> prepared for the advice you get being wrong at least half the time. Some
> of the information is exceptional the rest is crap.
I would venture to say that the quality of info would fit the statistical bell
curve. Some is excellent, some crap, but the majority varies from the obvious,
through mediocure, to usefull.
Bill goes on to say ,
> Mostly hogwash! You will also have a poorer beer. Go to the problem,
> the crush. At least 50% of your crushed grain should pass through a
> normal window screen.
Proves my point.
***************
about the empty weight of CO2 bottles.
John Wilkinson <jwilkins@imtn.tpd.dsccc.com> said:
I would recommend weighing before filling and writing that weight on the tank
with a permanent marker.
This is known as the "Tare" weight, and is already stamped on your tank
Al Stevens
Bennies Corners Ont.
------------------------------
From: "Pierre A. Dumont" <pierre_dumont@unb.ca>
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 14:58:50 -0300
Subject: Re: Screw-off tops
Many of the beer companies have been packaging in screw-off cap bottles.
So seeing the trend towards the screw-off top bottles, I am wondering
why hasn't anyone put out a screw-off bottle capper for use by
hombrewers. It can't be that hard to make the capper.
I would try to come up with something if I knew how the breweries got
those caps on in the first place. Do they screw them on or clamp them on
like standard caps? May-be I should just ask JAKE.
Later,
Kevin Buttrum
Doodle boy Brewing
kbuttrum@juno.com
Kevin:
Up here in Maritimes the bottled beer comes with screw off caps
I use screw top bottles with any kind of caps with a regular capper
and I have no problems whatsoever. You can buy caps that are
a bit thinner so they form a better seal if you find the regular caps
hard to screw off but I just use my shirt or a towel.
_________________________
Pierre A. Dumont
221-602 Graham Ave.
Fredericton, NB E3B 4C3
phone/fax: (506)455-4988
pierre_dumont@unb.ca
_________________________
------------------------------
From: "Bridges, Scott" <bridgess@mmsmtp.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM>
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 96 11:50:00 PDT
Subject: RE: Homebrew at Wedding
>From: rownby@televar.com (Ray Ownby)
>Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 09:41:40 -0700
>Subject: Help with WA State Laws
>
>Anyone have any specifics on the Homebrew laws in Washington state? Went
to
>get a liquor permit for my wedding reception and was told that it was
>illegal to serve homebrew at such a function. I have 25 gallons already
>made up; am I going to have to sneak it in so we can have our special
>wedding brews? I can't believe the laws are that restrictive. Apparently
>we have been breaking them for some time now and just didn't know it.
>Anybody have any facts on this for me? TIA,
>
>- -Ray-
Alcohol laws restrictive??? Are you kidding? The combined set of federal
and state laws in this country is probably the most ridiculous (I think that
you could include restrictive here as well) set of legislation ever
concocted. I don't know about Washington state laws, but my reading of the
federal law that permits homebrewing says that it is pretty much illegal to
remove it from your house for any reason other than competitions and
lab-type analysis. I'm not at all surprised that it's illegal in WA to have
it served in a public location side-by-side with a taxed beverage. I think
that this scenario is exactly what the law was trying to avoid. Do you know
what you're proposing? My God, man, you'd be depriving the gov't of tax
money. Shame on you.
FWIW, my unscientific gut feel is that most homebrewers routinely, ah,
"bend" the law WRT removing it from your house. Sneak it in? That's up to
you....
Scott
------------------------------
From: Brian S Kuhl <Brian_S_Kuhl@ccm.fm.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 96 11:32:00 PDT
Subject: Blow-off vs. BIGGER carboy...
>>Bill again:
>>Why bother to use a blowoff tube in the first place. Use a bigger
>>carboy or a crock or a bigger pail.
>Alk responds:
>Why? Because he already owns a carboy which blows off. He can brew 4
>gallons in stead of 5, but this is 20% less beer for the same amount of
>work. Why make him buy a $19.00 carboy or $10.00 pail when he could buy
>a $4.00 hose?
I agree with bill. I say, why buy a four dollar hose and have to keep
cleaning and replacing it, when you can buy a BIGGER carboy (ie: 6.5
gal). Bill's key word is BIGGER. I have never needed a blow off tube
with this setup, even with ~5.75 gallon batches. The foam rises to a
thickness of ~5 inches. No problem.
Remember, four hoses and you could have had a carboy and less work.
Have a cold one,
CU
Brian
------------------------------
From: paa3983@dpsc.dla.mil (Mike Spinelli)
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 96 14:34:34 edt
Subject: Found Source of 30+ gallon Gott-like coolers
HBDers,
A few weeks I told y'all about these monster Gott-like coolers I saw in front
of
my local Home Depot filled with soda bottles on ice. Nobody new anything about
'em so i went to the Cooler and got the maker's name and number.
No affiliation and all that crap: I called the Company (Iowa Rotocast Plastics
in Decorah, IA) at 800-553-0050 and spoke with Dave Lewey in the sales Dept. I
told him my idea for using this thing and he said as long as the temps don't
exceed 180 there should be no problemo with mashing. These things are more
routinely used to stick a 1/2 barrel keg in with a hole in the lid that the tap
goes thru. They go by the names of Super Cooler and Party Coolers.
The cool thing he said was that they will custom modify the coolers on an
individual basis like drilling out a hole where the false bottom can drain out.
Some of the models also have a 5 qt. resorvoir at the bottom with a ledge above
it around the circumferance. this could hold your false bottom perf. plate
perfectly.
Prices are in the $80 - $100 range.
Mike Spinelli in Cherry Hill, NJ
------------------------------
From: RANDY ERICKSON <RANDYE@mid.org>
Date:
Subject: Propane
I'd like to thank everyone who offered advice on how to avoid that 'run to
the gas station in the middle of the boil' phenominon.
Suggestions included buying a second tank, borowwing one, stealing
one, and various varioations on determining gas content based on net
and tare weights. Condensation over the liquid portion of the propane
was also discussed (the principle behind those stick-on tape gausges).
Thanks again all
Randy in Modesto
------------------------------
From: Kelly Jones <kejones@ptdcs2.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 1996 12:05:37 -0700
Subject: Re: channeling
Guy Gregory wrote:
> I think channelling is first a flow issue, which affects
> extraction. If you try time per unit volume, you directly measure the
> channelling effect. The gravity issue is a reflection of this, as "faster
> flow extracts less stuff".
I'll have to disagree with this. The classic problem with channeling is that
a significant portion of the fluid takes a 'short cut' through the bed,
rather than being evenly distributed. In doing so, it quickly extracts all
of the solubles from that tiny region, and thus extracts nothing form the
majority of the bed. Picture a straw in your grain bed, running from the top
surface to the outlet. Whether the flow is fast or slow is unimportant, the
point is that this flow is not doing any extracting.
- --
Kelly
************************************************************************
Kelly Jones Intel Portland Technology Development
Phone: (503) 613-8093 FAX: (503) 613-8261
email: kejones@ptdcs2.intel.com MS: RA1-303
************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: Kent Townley <ktownlex@mipos2.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 12:15:09 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Duffy's extraction
Bruce Taber wrote:
> Anyway, I have two questions. Regarding improving extraction rates=
>Mark Bayer states;
>> 6) extend the sacch. rest to 1.5 or 2 hours, regardless of the iodine=
>> test .
> Why? Should the iodine test not be trusted? Is there substantiall=
y
>more sugar available even after the iodine shows no color change? Do I
>really have to sit and watch sitcoms for an extra hour during brewing?
The issue is not whether the iodine test can be trusted, all of the starc=
h
is converted to sugar long before the 1.5hr mark. I believe Mark's propos=
al
is trying to solve the extraction of sugars from the grain problem. This =
could
help some, but I would suggest a 15 minute mashout at 170F and a longer s=
parge
time instead. Someone suggested to me once (an experienced all grain brew=
er)
to dilute the grist with a gallon or so of hot water just before recirc/s=
parge.
I haven't tried this yet because I haven't had an efficiency problem. My =
last
batch got an unexpected 34pts/#/gal (which turned my English Ale into a
wee-heavy!). Also, I heard a good suggestion from someone on the net a fe=
w
weeks ago about measuring SG before boiling to get a better idea of the
efficiency your mash/sparge system rather than the whole system as measur=
ed
before pitching yeast.
Kent Townley
Campbell, CA
ktownlex@mipos2.intel.com
------------------------------
From: Jerry Cunningham <gcunning@census.gov>
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 1996 15:42:32 -0400
Subject: Duffy's extract efficiency/ barleywine carbonation
Hey,
Just though I'd throw this out there cuz I hardly ever hear anyone mention it.
Sometimes efficiency "problems" are a result of the limitations of your
brewing _system_, rather than your methods. For instance, I used to use a 33
quart enamal pot as my boiling vessel. I like to make medium to big beers
(usually 1055-1065 OG). With these larger beers, I simply can't collect all
the wort I would like to in a 33 qt. pot, resulting in 25-27 pts. If I brew
a smaller beer, or add adjuncts to the boil, I get 30+ pts. using the same
methods. Even brewing smaller beers and using more sparge water, I don't
think I've ever gotten the runnings much below 1010. Just a thought...
*******
I popped open my first bottle of barleywine the other day (OG ~1105, FG
~1020, 4 gallons primed with 2/3 cup corn sugar, added 2-3 tablespoons fresh
1056 slurry at bottling) after a month in the bottle (early, I know). I was
expecting the carbonation to be on the light side, but jeez! This was
completely flat! Can any of you experienced barleywine brewers clue me in as
to how long I'll be waiting?
Thanks!
- - Jerry Cunningham
Annapolis, MD
------------------------------
From: Kirk Johnson <johnson@primenet.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 1996 13:43:10 +0900
Subject: Thunder Mountain Brew-Off
Hi All,
With only 2 weeks left before our Thunder Mountain Brew-Off (TMBO), I would
like to make a final call for contest entries. This years' Thunder Mountain
Brew-Off (TMBO) being held in Sierra Vista, Arizona on 22 September 1996.
The TMBO is an AHA sanctioned competition sponsored by the Southern Arizona
Natural Draughters (SAND). The best of show winner will be awarded a $100
gift certificate from The Home Brewery and TMBO trophy; 1st, 2nd, and 3rd
place winners in each category will be awarded ribbons. Entry information
can be obtained from the competition chairman, Paul Lachmanek at E-mail:
paulgl@primenet.com, phone: (520) 378-4290 or myself, Kirk Johnson at
E-mail: johnson@primenet.com. All requests should include a return address
so that we can mail you an entry packet. Competition entries will be
submitted in accordance with AHA guidelines and are due by 18 September.
The delivery address for entries is Thunder Mountain Brew-Off, c/o The Home
Brewery, 4641 S. Hwy. 92, Sierra Vista, Arizona, 85635. Cheers, Kirk Johnson
------------------------------
From: Hugh Graham <hugh@lamar.ColoState.EDU>
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 14:46:07 -0600 (MDT)
Subject: Crushing News
David R. Burley quotes:
> Gregg Noonan in his "New Brewing Lager Beer" p 122-123
> "The best grist is obtained from six-row malt mills, which crush the
> malt by running it between three successive pairs of rolls ten to twelve
> inches in diameter [snip]
IMVHO, Mr Noonan's book has a few too many of these typographical or proof
reading errors for such an excellent text. Surely the mill referred
to is a six ROLL mill. As I recall the text refers to a six roll mill
whereas the accompanying diagram is captioned as a six row mill,
which clearly posseses six rollers...
Confusing, isn't it? Could one use a six row mill for two row barley?
The only time I brewed a beer which suffered from the dreaded starch haze,
we had used an extremely fine grind and primitive doughing-in techniques.
It tasted good though. The starch haze hid any chill haze..
Hugh in Ft. Collins CO.
------------------------------
From: Michael Gerholdt <gerholdt@ait.fredonia.edu>
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 96 17:17:04 -0500
Subject: Steel Wool, Stainless Steel
- -- [ From: Michael Gerholdt * EMC.Ver #2.5.02 ] --
David wrote:
>Is it OK to clean my converted brewing kegs with a steel wool pad?
Steel wool is not the thing to use on stainless steel. Instead, use a green
Scotch pad. Also, avoid Comet or Ajax or other ordinary kitchen abrasives.
Get Cameo or something similar. You'll be satisfied with the results.
As Al noted, steel wool can remove the oxide layer. He mentions that this is
a problem on the inside of a keg because without the oxide layer, off
flavors may be contributed until the layer reforms.
However, another potential problem with steel wool is that small bits of the
steel wool will become lodged in the stainless steel. These can and will be
sources of rust. Once SS begins to rust it can continue further into the
metal. The cure for rust on SS is to use Cameo (or similar product) and a
green Scotch pad. The oxide layer will reform after you get the rust off. If
you notice rust, don't let it remain.
- --
------------------------------
From: KennyEddy@aol.com
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 17:27:59 -0400
Subject: Easy Hydrometer Sampling / Viewmaster / Extraction Efficiency T*st
Someone posted a great gadget idea a while back that is relevent to the
recent hydromerter-sample thread. I use this thing all the time now and it's
GREAT.
Take a small jar, large enough to hold a hydrometer sample's worth, and then
some. Drill two holes in the lid. These holes are sized for the tubing you
will use -- you'll want a good seal so undersize the holes a tad. Cut two
lengths of tubing. One is short (maybe 12") and the other is long enough to
reach from wherever you are to the inside of your fermenter. Cram the long
tube through one hole in the lid, almost all the way to the bottom of the
jar. The short one goes in just enough to hold it.
To take the sample, you only have to put the very end of the long tube
slightly under the liquid level in the fermenter. Now suck on the short tube
like a straw. The beer will flow into the jar. Stop short of full since
you'll want to drain the tubing's contents into the jar rather than back into
the fermenter. Holding the jar below the level of the fermenter helps with
this.
Since tubing has a tendency to curl, I use the straight piece of my racking
cane. This way you only really have to sanitize that, rather than the whole
setup. If you dunk the end only ~1/4" below the surface, and minimize any
"backflow" back into the fermenter, your risk of infection is extremely low.
*****
I can see it now -- the Viewmaster Brewing Series!! Thrill to the exciting
3-D scenes of a cascading Guiniess draught! View in amazement from
underneath a Malt Mill (tm) as the crushed grain showers down!
*****
Quoted for emhpasis:
> Sample and taste the spent grains in the lauter tun. If you find that
> it is tasteless in the middle, but sweet all around the edges, it means
> that you aren't effectively sparging the edges. If it tastes the same
> everywhere, it leads you to investigate the crush/whatever.
Thanks, John, for what appears to be a truly simple but revealing test!
Betcha the corner between the side and the bottom is a common region of
inefficient rinsing. If you did this test in "layers" after sparging, you
could almost make a 3D "map" of your sparge flow to further identify
inefficient regions in your lauter tun (perhaps this would make another topic
for the Viewmaster Brewing Series!! ;-{)} ).
Ken Schwartz
El Paso, TX
KennyEddy@aol.com
http://users.aol.com/kennyeddy
------------------------------
From: brewshop@coffey.com (Jeff Sturman)
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 15:54:18 -0600
Subject: misunderstanding
People have actually e-mailed me (and posted to the digest!) in defense of
the dolt who sold me 7# of Victory malt as my base malt in my failed
all-grain brew. The guy who took my order obviously wasn't the owner, or
even part owner, because he did not know that Victory malt lacked enzymes!
He knew exactly what I had planned for those grains, hops and yeast. We
talked about it at great length during the phone call. He even suggested
the yeast I used, Wyeat Irish Ale. When I called to complain about the
yeast not working (I still didn't know about my enzyme deficiency) I talked
to an owner (who knew Victory malt has no enzymes) who apologized for the
blunder and offered me $5 off my next order, which never occurred.
I'm not bashing an honest home brew shop here, even though they deserve it.
I'm just relaying a story about a newbie-mashing mistake. Lighten up
people!
jeff
casper
copywright 1968 Jim Morrison
------------------------------
From: "Dave Draper" <ddraper@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au>
Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1996 08:01:42 +10
Subject: CO2 solubility as f(FG)
Dear Friends,
Jeff Smith asked:
"On this carbonation thread is it possible that beers with higher final
gravities (1.016 to 1.022) can hold less dissolved CO2 than lower FG
(1.004 to 1.008)? "
I don't have hard data to back this up, only intuition, so take this
with some grains of salt.
The data that are available for CO2 solubility in beer (see my web
page's Priming file or the July/August '96 Brewing Techniques for
details) make no reference to the beer's specific gravity.
Presumably these values are in the range 1.006 to 1.012, that is,
whatever gravity reduction ensues when a normal-FG beer is primed and
conditioned (where such applies); or whatever terminal gravity is
reached before force-carbonation.
In many chemical systems solubility is (all else being equal) a
strong function of the composition of the material into which
dissolution is taking place (most of my experience is with fluid and
gas solubilities in magmatic minerals and liquids, which is somewhat
far removed from the realm of beer!). The question is whether the
difference in composition between a weak solution of alchohol,
residual sugars & proteins etc in water (i.e., beer with a FG of
say, 1.012) and a slightly weaker solution (i.e. beer having the same
OG but FG of, say, 1.020) is enough to cause such a difference. One
measure of this compositional difference, for an OG 1050 beer, is
that the difference in FG values is roughly equivalent to a 1%
difference in alcohol by volume.
My intuition is that this difference is not enough to make a
significant difference in the solubility of CO2 in beer. If any of
you *real* chemists (I just play one in a Geology department) out
there know otherwise, let's hear it.
Cheers, Dave in Sydney
"Life's a bitch, but at least there's homebrew." ---Norm Pyle
- ---
***************************************************************************
David S. Draper, Earth Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney NSW Australia
ddraper@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au http://audio.apana.org.au/ddraper/home.html
...I'm not from here, I just live here...
------------------------------
From: 00bkpickeril@bsuvc.bsu.edu (Brian Pickerill)
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 1996 17:14:16 -0500 (EST)
Subject: carbonation thread--great article in BT
>On this carbonation thread is it possible that beers with higher final
>gravities (1.016 to 1.022) can hold less dissolved CO2 than lower FG (1.004
>to 1.008)?
I don't think so. I think I read recently that carbonation is independent
of SG. The main reason I am posting is to say that there is a great
article on carbonation in the latest Brewing Techniques. It seems to me
that we often bring up brewing texts (all the way from CP to M&BS stuff)
but we rarely mention articles in brewing magazines. I think Dave Draper
is one of the authors (damn, I don't have it here at WORK!) and it's in Don
Put's column.
One of the cool things about getting this (my first copy) of BT is that I
get to see what so many of the HBD gurus actually look like. :)
- --Brian Pickerill, Muncie Malt Mashers, Muncie, IN
------------------------------
From: KennyEddy@aol.com
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 20:16:40 -0400
Subject: Careful With That Gypsum Eugene (Obscure Reference)
Bruce Taber muses:
<<
My next step to improve my extraction will be to add some
gypsum to my water to lower the ph. I don't have a fancy ph meter and the
papers don't seem to work in my dark ales so I'm just going to wing it. My
water is very soft so I'll try 8g per 5 US gal.
>>
8g gypsum in 5 US gal will give you 98 ppm Ca and *236 ppm* SO4!! That's in
addition to whatever is already there (which in your case sounds like not
much). Not to ignite the sulphate thread again (please God) but this is
bound to cause trouble unless you're after a dry, minerally, hop-accentuated
brew like a Burton ale.
This is strictly empirical but I have found that adequate pH management in
pale grists can be achieved with about 20 - 30 ppm of calcium. If you want
to just toss a certain amount of gypsum into your "very soft" water, I'd
limit it to 2 grams initially, add more a little at a time only if needed. 2
grams will still contribute ~25 ppm Ca, which should be adequate for your
mash, and 59 ppm SO4, which is still high for many styles, but should be
tolerable in a wide range of brews.
Consider using calcium chloride instead. 2g will give you 25 ppm Ca and 45
ppm Cl, which is arguably more desirable than 59 ppm SO4. It's available
from HopTech (800-HOPTECH) and probably several other stores.
For dark ales, chances are that you can get away with less than that or even
none, since the roasted grains contribute acidity. Ancient London brewers
made great dark ales despite highly alkaline water for this reason. Not so
much success with light lagers.
As has been posted here before, the 3-color strips made by Baxter seem to
work very well. Each of the bands has sensitivity over a different range so
you get good resolution over a wide pH range. They're pricy though, at $15
per 100 from Williams. See if you can buddy up with someone in the pathology
lab at a hospital -- they use'em a lot there supposedly. Perhaps you can
"recycle" some "expired" strips.
Ken Schwartz
El Paso, TX
KennyEddy@aol.com
http://members.aol.com/kennyeddy
------------------------------
From: randigai@flash.net
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 1996 19:42:35 -0700
Subject: acronyms
Thanks so much to all who have taken the time to define the alphabet soup
frequently used by y'all. As a new brewer and 'net user all of those
letters were quite confusing.
Anybody got any helpful info regarding how I can increase the body in my
brews? I've added carapils and when appropriate vienna malts, I've even
tried sparging(I'm making all grain brews) at a high temp about 180 or
greater when possible. All suggestions appreciated!
Randi
------------------------------
From: braue@ratsnest.win.net (John W. Braue, III)
Date: Sat, 07 Sep 1996 00:04:44
Subject: CO2 Fill Levels
John Wilkinson <jwilkins@imtn.tpd.dsccc.com> writes:
>AlK spoke of weighing propane and CO2 bottles to determine when they are near
>empty. I don't recall weighing my propane bottles but I have weighed my 20#
>CO2 bottles before and after filling and never have had 20# of CO2. They are
>always a little short.
I won't speak to propane, but, back when I was younger and
healthier and a paintballer, it was generally recommended that the
CO2 bottles on our guns only be filled to 70% of rated capacity to
allow for expansion (it should be noted in this context that the
typical homebrewer, unlike the typical paintballer, does not carry
his CO2 bottle around in the blazing sun for 6 hours at a time).
I don't know if this was a paintball momily or not, since I happily
avoided burst disk ruptures. However, it may be worthwhile
asking your gas supplier if he learned to fill bottles from the
same people that I did.
- --
John W. Braue, III braue@ratsnest.win.net
jbraue9522@aol.com
I've decided that I must be the Messiah; people expect me to work
miracles, and when I don't, I get crucified.
------------------------------
From: renechar@tpts1.seed.net.tw (PC_USER)
Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1996 15:24:03 +0800
Subject: [none]
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
| .................. | | .................. |
| : : | | : : |
| : 17" + 17" : | __ __ __ __ __ | : = 23 " : |
| : --------- : | | ............ | | : ------ : |
| : : | | :..........: | | : : |
| :................: | | :........: | | :................: |
|__ __ __ __ __ __ __| | o o o O | |__ __ __ __ __ __ __|
XXXXXXXXXXXX | | XXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX | | XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
| %%%%%%%%%%%% |
| %%%%%%%%%%%% |
| %%%%%%%%%%%% |
| %%%%%%%%%%%% |
| %%%%%%%%%%%% |
| %%%%%%%%%%%% |
| %%%%%%%%%%%% |
|__ __ __ __ __|
DUAL-PORT VGA CARD -- 23" Screen Area System
=============================================
As today you can find a modem with almost any computer, the vision of the
virtual, paperless office is coming nearer and nearer.
This immediately raises the most important question in every office: How big
is my desk?
The relevant meassure is no longer the number of square feet of the
deskplate, but the square inches of the monitorscreen on which we are
working today.
Normally these are 95 square-inches for a 14" monitor. But does this really
fit your position and your needs?
The more the number of your tasks grows, the more you wish your Desk,
i.e. your monitor would grow with it. So you first buy a 17" monitor
(138 square-inch). But your workload keeps growing and you wish your
workspace could double, so you decide to buy a 23" monitor (254 square-inch).
So you visit your nearest computer store - but no 23" monitors there. The
salesman recommends the nearest TV-shop. There are many 23" monitors, but
none with a VGA interface.
Now you go home open your e-mail box and find this advertisement :
The Dual Port VGA-Card
======================
which in combination with two 17" monitors provides you 260 square-inch
screen area and your dreams have come true.
Every computer can be converted: Simply replace the old VGA card with the new
dual-port VGA card and install the windows driver.
Technical Data:
* Up to 16 cards per PC
* Virtual screen drivers for Windows 3.1
* Supports "Green PC" compliant sleep mechanism for power saving
* Uses CL-542x True Color SVGA controller
* Video overlay and color key supported
* System requirements: 2 MB of free hard disk space, 2 MB RAM
* Optional: Up to 4 MB RAM per card, Supports 16 million colors at 640 * 480
Price: US$ 370.-
------------------------------
From: ccoyote@sunrem.com (John (The Coyote) Wyllie)
Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1996 04:43:27 -0600
Subject: Mashless Mess
>From: brewshop@coffey.com (Jeff Sturman)
>Subject: mashing mistakes
>Jeff said that:
>mark bayer said:
>
><<
>make sure the pale malt you're using for the base of the recipe is enzymatic,
>and not carapils or some other specialty type that has little or no enzymes.
>this seems kind of obvious to a lot of us, but i remember trying to mash
>crystal malt in my "extract to partial mash" transition period.
>>>
> Then Jeff told us about mashing with Wheat as the only "enzyme base"
I got that beat! Back in my VERY EARLY days of brewing, I went to our
local "coffee shop- that happens to also sell brew supplies but knows
nothing about brewing" store and asked the attractive, yet clueless
attendant for some 'malted barley- for mashing'. She looked cute again and
directed me to a bag of fine powder. I indicated again that I was going to
try 'mashing' and was this the right stuff. I understood that it needed to
be ground, and 'suppose that this is preground, eh? Got a cute wiggle and
an affirmative. Mighty fine grind!
So I took my goodies and proceeded home. I added the 'powder' to
my warmed water, with some crystal malt that I tried to crush with a
rolling pin- (last time I EVER tried to crush grain that way!). As I mixed
the gooey powder mess into the liquid I was perturbed to realize it was all
dissolving and disappearing into the fluid! I held it at temp. for the
appropriate time, tried a starch test, couldn't get any kind of useful
result, waited an hour, then 1/2 more, then sed- the hell with it, and
poured the whole mess through my strainer bag, in a spigot/bucket- aka
lauter tun. Thought it was odd that there was nothing to collect in the
bag but my crystal. Scratched my head, thinking - 'what is the point
here?' Did the 'sparge' thing with some heated water. Thought again-
'what is the big deal about mashing?' Went on the boil, hop, and ferment.
Well, it made beer. the beer was ok. But I still needed to learn
how to mash. It was later upon discussing my befuddled experience with a
more experienced brewer when I came to the realization that what I had
purchased was none other than.......drumroll please....spray malt, or dried
malt extract. (I understand the meaning of the term "spray" as it did just
that as I poured it into my 'mash' pot.) That is also when I came to the
realization that- although the gals at the store were cute, and nice to
look at, they were not a good resource for brewing questions, though they
did make good coffee! I turned those questions to my brewing friend, and
came to better understand what Charlie meant by malted BARLEY.
Years later, and many brews under my belt (yeah sure it shows! I
watch my waistline, gets easier to see all the time!) I look back and
wonder- how could I have ever been so naive! Well, it happens. I used to
boil specialty grains too. And yes- I suck siphon hoses (still). I've
splashed hot wort, I've splashed fermented beer, I've spilled wort all over
my floor and mopped it up with a towel, boiled and brew it! Yes it made
beer! Ever blown fruit chunks?
So don't (worry about) being stupid- just DO IT!
just be ready to look back in 5 years and laugh your ass off about it!
- ---------------------------------------------------------------
/// John- The Cosmic Coyote -Wyllie\\\ ccoyote@sunrem.com
'As long as he's got 8 fingers and toes, he's ok by me!' H.J.S.
- ---------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
End of Homebrew Digest #2178
****************************
