Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2196
This file received at Hops.Stanford.EDU 1996/09/20 PDT
Homebrew Digest Friday, 20 September 1996 Number 2196
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Shawn Steele, Digest Janitor
Thanks to Rob Gardner for making the digest happen!
Contents:
BrewPubs near (in) Iselin, NJ??? (Bob Bessette/PicTel)
re: 3068 Question (Dane Mosher)
Infection (Bob Bessette/PicTel)
Belgian Water Profile??? ("Robert Waddell")
wyeast 3068/hose p drop ((BAYEROSPACE))
Re: Growing Hops (Edward J. Steinkamp)
Re: RIMS - Disadvantages.. [pt 1 of 2] (hollen@vigra.com)
Re: RIMS - Disadvantages... [pt 2 of 2] (hollen@vigra.com)
Geared MaltMILL (tm) (Ian Smith)
Leaking cornie fittings (Barrowman@aol.com)
Yeast culturing (Domenick Venezia)
Iodine sanitizers (Joseph Kral)
First Generation RIMS ("Kirk R Fleming")
Honey fermentability (Miguel de Salas)
Judging schedules (John Bell)
Sparging? Why bother? (Louis Bonham)
Cheers to the Little Apple Brewery! (Andy Walsh)
montgomery, alabama (bob rogers)
Letting it settle ("Dave Draper")
RE: RIMS Computer Control ("Scott W. Nowicki")
Re: Cidery Flavour Question/Eddy Currents ((Algis R Korzonas))
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: Bob Bessette/PicTel
Date: 19 Sep 96 16:55:52 EDT
Subject: BrewPubs near (in) Iselin, NJ???
Fellow HBDers,
I have the esteemed privilege to visit the metropolis known as Iselin, NJ for
a training class next week. Does anyone know if there are any
brewpub/restaurants in the general vicinity? Even is you know of any good
restaurants in the area that serve decent draught beer. I will have a car so I
don't mind some light travelling. If anyone has any information for me please
email me at bbessett@pictel.com. I would also like to know how far by car is
Iselin from Manhattan?
Cheers,
Bob Bessette
------------------------------
From: Dane Mosher <dmosher@xroadstx.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 16:07:42 -0700
Subject: re: 3068 Question
George De Piro asked about lowering the fermentation temperature
of Wyeast 3068 to get more clove and less banana esters in his
weizens.
I don't know the lower temp limit on that yeast, but I might
have a different solution to the problem. I have heard that
a protein rest at around 113_F is essential to get a good
clove flavor, and many homebrewers fail because they use the
standard 122_F rest.
I wish I had a written reference for this information, but I
heard it from the brewer at my local brewpub. I know that he
and I both brewed weizens using Wyeast 3333 (German Wheat), and
that his beer was nice and clovey, while mine (brewed before I
learned this tidbit) was very banana-ey. I kept my fermentation
temperature around 65_F too.
If anyone can elaborate on why this rule holds true, I'd like to
hear it.
Dane Mosher
Big Spring, Texas
------------------------------
From: Bob Bessette/PicTel
Date: 19 Sep 96 17:00:24 EDT
Subject: Infection
Fellow HBDers,
I posted an article in the past about a felling I had that I was getting an
infection in my beer due to dry hopping. Well, I just had another infection
without the dry hopping. All I can think of at this point is that I was using
some old tubing for siphoning and maybe I transferred the infection in this
manner. Has anyone else out there had a similiar problem? Please email me at
bbessett@pictel.com...
Cheers,
Bob Bessette
------------------------------
From: "Robert Waddell" <V024971@Tape.StorTek.Com>
Date: 19 Sep 96 15:56:00 MDT
Subject: Belgian Water Profile???
Hi,
I'm about to start a "Belgian Strong Ale", but I don't seem
to be able to find any water profiles that would apply.
Can anybody help me out? I would like this recipe to be
as authentic as possible.
A.J., Algis, Ken?
TIA
I *L*O*V*E* my [Pico] system. 'Cept for that
gonging noise it makes when my wife throws it
off the bed at night.
Women...
--Pat Babcock
*** It's never too late to have a happy childhood! ***
******************************************************************************
V024971@TAPE.STORTEK.COM / Opinions expressed are usually my own but
Robert J. Waddell / perhaps shared (though not by my employer).
Owner & Brewmaster Barchenspeider Brew-Haus
*******************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: M257876@sl1001.mdc.com (BAYEROSPACE)
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 16:58 -0600
Subject: wyeast 3068/hose p drop
collective homebrew conscience:
george asks:
> A quick question: has anybody out there tried to push the lowest
> temperature that Wyeast 3068 will perform at? I would like to have
> more clove and less banana in my Weizen, and since varying the degree
> of aeration didn't work, I'm thinking that lowering the temp might
> reduce the esters.
i brewed a weizen last fall that i fermented with #3068 at about 60 to 63
deg. F. what happened was the beer didn't get many phenolics/esters really.
a little banana and some bubblegum, and only very faint clove as well. not as
bold as i like. maybe you should try the brewtek yeast. it supposedly has
more clove than the wyeast. i think it's W51.
well, this foray into fluid dynamics is creating some controversy.
ted wrote:
> if the head loss is too
>great in the tubing, the beer gets to a certain point and just
>stops flowing because the liquid pressure (head) becomes equal
>to atmospheric pressure.
look at this equilibrium end point condition proposed above: 10 psi
of gage pressure behind a body of fluid, 0 psig in front of it, and the
fluid isn't moving? this was the point in my thought experiment
that made me conjecture the fluid will establish a steady state flow rate based
on the pressure differential and the hose restriction at that flow rate.
daryl k from the great white north also wrote:
> Since in this system you begin with a fixed pressure (what is in
>your keg) as you add more fittings and line you are increasing the pressure
>drop thus flow decreases until you have virtually no pressure and thus no
>flow.
okay, i'm doubting my answer. who's got 30 feet of hose?
one other thing to mention about long hose runs is that you can warm up the
beer as it flows through an uninsulated hose. this causes CO2 to break out
as it gets warmer. so if you run a long hose to try and balance your
system and get an acceptable flow rate, you can shoot yourself in the foot
if the beer warms up too much because you still get foam. i've noticed that
my first pint out of the keg foams less (since i just took it out of the
freezer), and later pints foam more when the keg (and hose) is left out on the
basement floor. i assume this is because the hose warms up to the
basement air temperature and subsequent draughts are affected. i also noticed
at an outdoor party with my keg that if a couple of people in a row used the
tap continuously, the hose would then (apparently) cool down a bit and the
beer was less foamy. at least that's what i think the reason was.
brew hard,
mark bayer
------------------------------
From: Edward J. Steinkamp <ejs0742@dop.fse.ca.boeing.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 15:52:39 PDT
Subject: Re: Growing Hops
I recently harvested the first year crop of Hallertauer and Saaz
hops from my western washington garden. I had originally planned
and built an 8 foot high trellis with horizontal lines similar to
a clothes line. At the last minute (the hops were six feet up
the line) I read some literature which suggested that for maximum
yield, hops should be grown on the highest possible vertical
pole. When the hop vine gets to the top of the pole and bends
over, the rest of the vine leafs out and start producing buds. I
tore down all the horizontal lines and increased the height of my
pole to 16 feet.
After drying the harvest totalled 4 oz Saaz and 3 oz Hallertauer.
Is this good for a first year harvest? After harvesting I found
additional literature out there on the net suggesting that the
clothesline method is better because you can reach the cones and
pick only the ripe ones. This allows you to get multiple harvests
and makes it so you don't have to cut the vine when you harvest.
Perhaps not cutting the vine would contribute to a healthier
harvest the next season.
In summary, which hop growing method is better, a single tall
pole, or a clothes line type trellis?
Thank you,
Ed Steinkamp
------------------------------
From: hollen@vigra.com
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 96 16:11:39 PDT
Subject: Re: RIMS - Disadvantages.. [pt 1 of 2]
>> Steve Alexander writes:
SA> Dion Hollenbeck writes ...
SA> Dion - the previous post was based on what I read and surmise. I
SA> don't have practical experience with a RIMS and welcome your
SA> comments.
Good, and I welcome yours. Most of us RIMSers are doing it much from
the practical standpoint and may not have access to "related"
information that is not accessed through any "homebrew" keyword.
Multi-disciplinary viewpoints are very valuable.
SA> The small high capacity heating elements used in typical RIMS
SA> ...
>> Totally agreed, but if you build a RIMS with a small high density
>> heating element, IMHO, you have completely botched it. In a well
>> designed RIMS system, you will use a very low density heating element
>> which precludes all these disadvantages.
SA> I'm not so sure. I doubt that the low density heating element's
SA> I've seen suggested would have anything like the amount of surface
SA> required. Have you actually tried to measure the heaters surface
SA> temp when in operation ? What kind of surface area is available
SA> in the low density heating elements you are referring to ?
I have not measured the surface temp in operation. The heater is 72"
when stretched out and 3/8" in diameter, which is a surface area of
84.823 square inches. 1250 watts divided by 84.823 is 14.73 watts per
square inch. The 1250 watts comes from the fact that the heater is a
5000 watt 240V model run on 110v which means that it puts out 1/4 the
wattage (without taking into account any of the cold vs. hot
resistance discussions which have previously taken place in the HBD).
It produces a boost in temperature of about 1.5 degrees F per minute
which is exactly what is recommended by Dave Miller for doing all
grain in a pot.
SA> Another point is that alpha-glucosidase places a significant role in
SA> starch granule degradation in low temp mashes (below starch
SA> gelatinization temps). It's more heat labile that other amylases and
SA> in a RIMS ...
If the RIMS is doing damage to it, how could I tell? What would be
measurable (with no lab, just home brewer's gear) that would indicate
that the alpha-glucosidase was being damaged. Any particular things
to look for in the finished beer.
SA> Shear forces and enzyme denaturing ...
>> While I cannot discount this, do you have any proof? I will accede
>> that it may be so in commercial enzymatic processes, but does it have
>> any *noticeable* effect in beer production and what would those
>> effects be? I certainly produce excellent beers on my RIMS system and
>> have been using a little too high a flow rate for a couple of years
>> now. Just recently throttled it back a tad due to discussions on
>> grain bed compaction.
SA> Throttling back with an outlet valve may increase shear forces!
Agreed, but *I* do not do that, I slow down my pump with a motor speed
controller. This may be a problem for some people and is a good
point, if it matters at all.
SA> The point about shear forces in pumps destroying enzymes is available
SA> from several books on industrial enzymology. One book that explicitly
SA> talks about this is ...
While I don't doubt that it may be happening, what you are talking
about is industrial enzymology. It may be very important to an
industrial concern that they are losing 5% of their product to shear
forces destroying the enzymes. But to a homebrewer all that matters
is that a *sufficient* amount make it into the relevant parts of the
process TO PRODUCE GOOD BEER.
SA> The point about whether it has a practical effect is quite
SA> relevent. Discussions of 'proof' are not. I think the burden of
SA> proof is on wort pumpers - to show that they don't adversely
SA> effect the wort.
I can agree to that. And I would postulate that the proof is in the
tasting. If I can produce beer that can win ribbons in competitions
(not because of being the only beer, mind you) and is praised by
judges known to be nationally recognized and experienced over dozens
of years, then I contend that any degradation that may occur is not
relevant to the home brewing application, even though it may be
*extremely* relevant in industrial enzymology.
I do not contend that we have nothing to learn, nor no way to better
the process, I just think you may be splitting hairs.
SA> Obviously very good homebrew can be made with a RIMS as I stated
SA> previously. Typical pale or pale ale malts have at least 2X or 3X the
SA> amount of enzymes required for a complete conversion in a 'reasonable'
SA> amount of time. The question is what happens in an enzyme poor mash,
SA> say one with a very high adjunct load when using a RIMS. Does anyone
SA> have any anecdotal evidence ?
How's this for a high adjunct load:
8 lbs. 2row
1.5 lbs. 40l crystal
1.5 lbs. Carapils
3/4 lb. chocolate
1/4 lb. black patent
If that is in the range you are talking about, I do a couple of these
a year, and the result is a wonderful beer that has no trouble
fermenting down to where it would be expected to with that load of
unfermentables in it.
[continued in another message]
- - --
Dion Hollenbeck (619)597-7080x164 Email: hollen@vigra.com
Sr. Software Engineer - Vigra Div. of Visicom Labs San Diego, California
- ------- End of forwarded message -------
------------------------------
From: hollen@vigra.com
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 96 16:12:42 PDT
Subject: Re: RIMS - Disadvantages... [pt 2 of 2]
SA> Very thick mashes are probably not possible with a RIMS apparatus,
>> Depends on what you term very thick mashes. My normal RIMS mash us at
>> 1.1 quarts per lb. of grain plus a fixed 2 quarts for system volume.
>> This is quite thick when compared to some figures I have seen quoted
>> for stovetop mashes. This leaves a couple of inches of liquid on top
>> of the grain bed and the flow rate is as high as 4 GPM.
SA> Lets say 7.5# of grist and you add 8.25+2 qt ==> or 1.366qt/lb or 43.7
SA> fl.oz/# . As a point of comparison Greg Noonan in his original
SA> Brewing Lager Beer book suggested a dough-in w/ (from memory) 24 to 28
SA> fl.oz per pound, and eventually after the protein rest ends up in the
SA> 35 to 45 floz/pound range. Obviously trying to dough-in or protein
SA> rest w/ around 1 qt/# would be very difficult with a RIMS. A lot of
SA> test mashes are performed around 39% thickness or 41floz/#, which is
SA> pretty close to your figure, but note that you ARE letting your
SA> hardware dictate your brewing method at this point.
Well, your calculations are sort of skewed. The 2 qts should not be
figured in because it is always in the hose and the heater chamber and
pump. It is not part of the liquid that makes up the mash thickness.
I can make a mash as thick as 1.1 qts per lb. or as thin as I have
mash tun for.
While I agree that I am letting my hardware dictate my process, you
still have not stated a reason why I would want to have a mash at
*any* particular thickness. The only reason I see so far is that if
you are adding water to boost the temp, you want to start out very
thick so you do not get too thin. If there is *any* other reason for
using a thick mash, please pass it on.
SA> It has been suggested on HBD that the extremely clear highly
SA> recirculated runnings from a RIMS setup may lack sufficient lipids
SA> for optimal yeast growth.
>> If this is true, then how do I get a Belgian strong ale with an OG of
>> 1.095 to ferment out to 1.016?
SA> I didn't propose this point, but I believe that the idea is that once
SA> the oxygen is used up (which happens quite quickly), yeast growth is
SA> dependent on the uptake of unsaturated fatty acids. I've an article
SA> from the 'Journal of the Inst of Brewing' (JIB vol 100, 1994, pp
SA> 321-329) that states this point (w/ references) unequivocally. And
SA> notes that this is the limiting factor in yeast growth because the
SA> unsaturated fatty acids used in yeast membrane structures cannot be
SA> synthesized in the absence of oxygen.
SA> *IF* RIMS wort is deficient in fatty acids, (and I don't know that it
SA> is) then the wort will still ferment, tho at a reduced rate. The
SA> negative effects might include problem w/ ferementation time -
SA> especially with the tendency of many HBers to seriously underpitch.
SA> Autolysis might be a greater problem also. It should also lead to
SA> lower ester production - the value of which is dependent on beer
SA> style.
Again, I agree. If the brewers technique is marginal with regarding
to pitching sufficient healthy yeast, then *if* a RIMS caused wort
deficient in fatty acids, then it may give problems that would not be
present in a manual all grain mash. All I can speak for is *my*
results which indicate that this is not the case. But I cannot say if
it is because of my yeast practices or that the RIMS does not produce
problems with fatty acids.
SA> Also a RIMS probably can't take mashes as thick a those that I
SA> usually use at dough-in and during the protein rest.
>> Yes, but why do you have your mashes that thick? Because you need to
>> add water later to boost temperatures? With a RIMS, there is no need
>> for water additions, so the initial thickness is the final thickness.
>> Is there a *reason* one would *need* a thick mash during a protein
>> rest, other than to avoid the final mash being too thin after repeated
>> water additions?
SA> No - I always use a programmed mash or a decoction mash and never add
SA> additional mash water for temperature control (I don't use infusion
SA> mashing). The reason for the thickness during the protein rest is the
SA> effectiveness of the rest is quite dependent on mash thickness. See
SA> M&B Sci. I use thickness as a mashing parameter, while I couldn't do
SA> this very well with a RIMS.
Ah finally, the key to why you have been talking about mash
thickness. However, many people have said that with highly modified
American 2 row, nobody needs a protein rest anyway. Don't get me
wrong, I do one. And if lack of chill haze and clarity are an
indication that my protein rest is working, then it is.
SA> Dough-in ...
SA> Does the RIMS add to control or repeatability at this stage ?
SA> It would be pretty hard to get grain balls with a 1.366qt/# mash
SA> wouldn't it ? I'll concede the control repeatability point to you -
SA> since I don't have RIMS experience, but given the mash thinness
SA> required, I don't see this as an advantage.
Again, you cannot count the extra 2 quarts. And you are basing your
calculations on a 7.4# grain bill. I have never ever had a grain bill
that low. My lowest grain bill is about 12# which makes the two
quarts even less meaningful if you are counting it (which you should
not). And yes, it is *very* hard with my setup to have any trouble
with non-wetted grain. I think this is a wonderful advantage.
>> Steve makes some very good points, and if the ones he has questioned
>> have corroborative evidence, then it behooves us to improve upon what
>> would be a deficiency.
SA> And thanks Dion for the review and user perspective. I refuse to let
SA> this thread devolved into the sort of literature search/rebuttal that
SA> turn off a lot of readers. The only real "Proof" acceptable will
SA> require testing RIMS derived wort with laboratory facilities I
SA> certainly don't have access to. I've suggested several areas for
SA> improvements and concerns (some of which may not be well founded)
SA> regarding RIMS. And again I think that a RIMS that handled the wort
SA> more gently - both mechanically and thermally would be an obvious
SA> direction for improvement.
I have to agree here and thank Steve for bringing up a *lot* of good
points and areas to investigate for improvement. I also do not have
access to a lab, and frankly without one, I think anyone would be hard
pressed to find any evidence of the problems Steve points out. Again,
there are lots of areas which are *prone* to fault if one designs and
implements a RIMS in a less than optimal manner and if they slip past
some threshold could cause faults to appear in the finished product.
In the case of my RIMS system combined with the other brewing
techniques I practice, I can find none of the faults to which Steve
refers.
I just hope Steve and I have not bored you all to tears with this
discussion.
dion
- ---
Dion Hollenbeck (619)597-7080x164 Email: hollen@vigra.com
Sr. Software Engineer - Vigra Div. of Visicom Labs San Diego, California
- ------- End of forwarded message -------
------------------------------
From: Ian Smith <rela!isrs@netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 17:31:01 -0600 (MDT)
Subject: Geared MaltMILL (tm)
Does anyone have a geared Maltmill (tm) ? I believe the gears are not the
same diameter/number of teeth. Can anyone tell me the number of teeth
and/or diameters ?
Cheers
Ian Smith
------------------------------
From: Barrowman@aol.com
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 20:35:47 -0400
Subject: Leaking cornie fittings
have a Cornie keg system that is fairly new. The gas dispensing fittings
have developed annoying leaks. I have a single regulator system with a
splitter that allows me to connect to 2 kegs at once. The distance between
the poppet poker thing and the pin connector slots seems to be too long. Has
something come loose? These things don't appear to be technical enough to
involve threads between the metal coupler and the plastic crappie thing.
(Disclaimer: It is not my kegs! They have been re-outfitted with gaskets,
lube, etc., don't leak with the gas off and never leaked before!)
When I got the system one of the gas fittings had a barely perceptible leak.
(I could hear it hissing). Now both leak noisily and spew my precious
homebrew all over. Yes, I get liquid leaking from my gas connection! I have
only dispensed ~5 kegs with this system. Is it junk and should be returned or
have I somehow done it serious wrong? (The liquid fitting behaves just fine
evne though it gets more abuse).
I do realize I can disassemble the fitting and change out a gasket but am
incredulous that the gasket could be worn out after so little use. Has anyone
experienced similar problems? Please help, I get a rash just thinking about
washing bottles again....
Thanks,
Laura
PS Don't worry about my estrogen content. I am an engineer and can operate
various machines that say 'Milwaukee' and 'Skil' as well the Osterizer type.
------------------------------
From: Domenick Venezia <venezia@zgi.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 18:11:02 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Yeast culturing
I recently ran into an interesting idea concerning the use of tapioca
rather than agar in producing solid growth media for slants and plates,
and I thought I would throw it out there for those of you making your own
yeast growth media. Tapioca is MUCH cheaper than agar, and available in
nearly every grocery store in the USA.
Originally I saw it mentioned in a News & Views article in a recent
SCIENCE. I then got the reference: Current Science, vol. 70, No. 7
(10 April 1996), pp 493-494. This reference describes some tests
done by the International Crops Research Institute, Patancheru, India
using tapioca gelled media to grow tobacco explants. They found no
significant difference between the agar and the tapioca grown samples.
The tapioca needs to be heated in some way that I have not determined.
Perhaps it is just the normal cooking that one uses to make tapioca
pudding? Quoting, "On a dry weight basis, tapioca pearls contain about
95% starch. On heating, the starch gets converted into a complex
polysaccharide, dextrin."
There is a reference for the heating that I have been unable to get.
Perhaps someone in HBD-land has access to it. Hendershott,C.H., in "A
Literature Review and Research Recommendations on Cassava (Manihot
esculenta Crantz), National Technical Information Service, US Department
of Commerce, Virginia, 1972 p 193
Agar is generally used in a 0.7% concentration (7 grams per liter of
medium). Tapioca needs to be used at about 10% concentration (100 grams
per liter of medium).
Domenick Venezia
Computer Resources
ZymoGenetics, Inc.
Seattle, WA
venezia@zgi.com
------------------------------
From: Joseph Kral <kral@hpljlk.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 18:23:06 PDT
Subject: Iodine sanitizers
> From: Rscholz@aol.com writes amoung other things,
>
> I use a similar commercial product I get from the resturant supply in NY,NY
> I was suprised how little the store reps knew about what they carry. I asked
> for a no-rinse sanitizer and they said " we don't carry anything like that"
> so I walk
> over to the shelf and read the label on their "Beer glass cleaner" and it's
> iodine based with instructions for dilutions to air-dry/ no-rinse large food
> handling equip. For beer glasses: one dips and rinses in clean water.
> that's all the store guys knew about it, but it's great for sanitizing and at
>
> $16.50 / gal per case of six gals. ( yes I know I've got enough for the next
> 5 yrs)
> it beats Iodofor at ~ $1/oz. So look for it as beer glass cleaner and the
> resturant
> suppliers might know what you want. Hope this helps.
FWIW, Rapids Restaurant Supply sells the B*T*F (or whatever the initials
are) brand Iodofor sanitizer for something like $7.25/qt.
- --
Joseph Kral
Hewlett-Packard Laboratories
kral@hpljlk.hpl.hp.com
------------------------------
From: "Kirk R Fleming" <flemingk@usa.net>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 19:23:24 -0600
Subject: First Generation RIMS
In #2193 Steve starts the RIMS thread with some disadvantages, and to
be fair, says he's addressing the practical disadvantages of current
implementations.
Two particular issues interest me. The first is the temperature gradient
issue in the
vicinity of the heating element--Dion and others made subsequent comments
in
#2194 and #2195 regarding the 'classic' derated, low-density element and I
think
those comments are valid. There's no evidence I'm aware of that high
gradients
exist, nor that extraoridarily high local temperatures exist.
But in any case, I feel like a lone voice here, electric heating is NOT a
requirement
for automatic feedback controlled RIMS. It may be convenient, it may be
obvious,
it may have all manner of nice features, but it isn't required nor does it
represent
all 'first generation" implementations.
The second is the pump shearing allegation. I know there is at least one
professional
brewer who insists centrifugal pumps "ruin" the wort, and there are others
who insist
on using diaphragm pumps to avoid this alleged problem. Although brutal
pumps are
indeed standard fare for all RIMS systems I've actually seen, it certainly
doesn't have
to be that way for first generation systems. Manual recirculation (gravity
and work)
can be used successfully--continuous recirc isn't a RIMS requirement,
either. I also
believe (but haven't shown) that peristaltic pumps can be built at home
that may look
very primitive but work well without pounding the wort.
Finally, is there a practical difference between a thick mash and a
suitably compacted
one? If I maintain a false bottom AND a false cover such a distance apart
as to render
the mash bounded in between them at a given consistency, does it matter
that there is
10 cm of mash liquor above the false cover and below the false bottom?
Think about that, brewgeeks!
------------------------------
From: Miguel de Salas <mm_de@postoffice.utas.edu.au>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 11:41:40 -1000
Subject: Honey fermentability
It is often said that honey will ferment completely when added to beer. I
think this is not so. As any meadmaker will tell you, a solution of honey
will not ferment 100%. My meads have rarely gone below 998. It is true,
though, that honey will contribute nice flavours and a somewhat drier
mouthfeel, but it will not ferment completely.
Anyone had different experiences?
- ---------------------------
Miguel de Salas, in Hobart, Tasmania, Australia.
------------------------------
From: John Bell <paradise@compcom.com.au>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 11:57:54 +1000
Subject: Judging schedules
Hi. Can anyone send me a schedule for judging beers (ie points for
appearance, head, aroma, flavour etc. and associated guidelines for
assessing these).
The reason is that I've been asked by a local fair to act as a judge in a
home brewing competition. I should point out that this is pretty small scale
and that expectations are not terribly high - there will only be a few
categories (lager style, ales, dark beers and stouts probably) and for all I
know we may only get extract or even kit brewed entrants so it may not be
appropriate to go into overkill with heaps of critical notes etc. (If any
brewers in Sth Gippsland get this posting my apologies in advance!)
Nevertheless, some master brewers may crawl out of the woodwork, so it's
wise to be prepared, as far as possible. Any criticism of the judging will
be taken in the nastiest way possible, ie those criticising will be invited
to judge next year! TIA
Sue Armstrong & John Bell
Paradise Enough Wines
KONGWAK, SOUTH GIPPSLAND
VICTORIA, AUSTRALIA
------------------------------
From: Louis Bonham <lkbonham@i-link.net>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 20:57:19 -0500
Subject: Sparging? Why bother?
In perusing the last few weeks of the HBD, it seems that a significant
fraction of the discussions revolve around sparging techniques. From
the perspective of a homebrewer with only one goal in his brewing --
quality -- I have a simple question:
WHY BOTHER!
If you're brewing commercially, the question is obvious: sparging is
essential to running an economically viable operation. For a
homebrewer, however, the cost savings of wringing a few more points per
pound from the grain is almost insignificant, especially if your goal is
to brew the highest quality beer, and is certainly not worth investing
lots of time and effort in devising improved methods.
"No sparge" (a/k/a "first runnings") brewing is not a new idea; indeed,
Dr. Fix discussed it in the HBD a couple of years ago, and I've seen it
mentioned here occasionally since then. Yet, despite the fact that
every expert I've ever discussed it with (including George Fix and Paul
Farnsworth) categorically state that "no sparge" brewing makes for a
maltier, higher quality wort, most homebrewers still insist on (and
obsess over) this aspect of the brewing process.
I submit that for small scale amateur brewers who are interested
primarily in quality, sparging is a complete waste of time. By simply
mashing one third more grain than normal, you can extract more than
enough points for your desired gravity, and without having to conduct a
lengthy sparge, monitor pH or SG during the runoff, or risk leaching
tannins or other undesirables from the grains. The added expense is
just not that great, especially if you're buying your grain by the
sack. [If you are bothered by the "waste" of the fermentables left in
the grain, then you can make "small beer" or yeast starter from the
remnants by steeping them in hot water while you boil the main mash.]
I realize that this position borders on heresy in some traditionalist
quarters. Then again, so did the concept of a round world at one time.
What sayeth the collective wisdom of the HBD on the subject?
Seek truth ----------------------> Louis Bonham
------------------------------
From: Andy Walsh <awalsh@crl.com.au>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 13:18:32 +1100
Subject: Cheers to the Little Apple Brewery!
Good luck to Rob Moline (aka Jethro Gump) in the upcoming GABF. Rob has
entered several beers and he deserves to do well. A few of us over here
have tried his beers, and we think they're great!
So good luck Rob, from your fans here in Sydney!
- --
Andrew Walsh
Little Apple Brewery Fan Club,
Sydney Division.
(and he uses dried yeast too!)
------------------------------
From: bob rogers <bob@carol.net>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 00:04:55 -0400
Subject: montgomery, alabama
having searched the web for cool places near montgomery, AL, i now ask the
collective. i will be going there sunday.
bob: brewing in the heart of the bible belt
bob rogers bob@carol.net
------------------------------
From: "Dave Draper" <ddraper@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 18:51:28 +10
Subject: Letting it settle
Dear Friends,
In #2195, Mark "Brew Hard" Bayer writes:
"here's an idea: use a 7 gallon carboy to put the chilled wort+trub
in. you can aerate/pitch your yeast at this point, depending on
temperature, then wait for the trub to settle."
This idea, of course, has been discussed by Dave Miller in his books.
One thing that always has puzzled me about this is the practice of
pitching the yeast immediately after the bitter wort is placed in the
setting vessel, then racking it all off into a new vessel a couple
hours later. I understand fully the rationale behind pitching the
yeast ASAP. But unless one has done a very good job with having a
large starter at the peak of pitchability (I do NOT mean to reopen
that old bashfest about when that is) and has aerated the bejeeezus
out of the wort, I think it is fair to say that many of us do not see
dramatic activity in the first 2-3 hours (and please, no posts saying
"I get ten feet of foam in the first 5 seconds" -- I know some of us
here have outstanding lag performance. I am talking about the rest of
us poor bastards.). In such a case most of the yeast are sitting
there in the junk at the bottom of the settling tank and are left
behind when the liquid is transferred to the primary.
My point is, and this is also my practice, if one has a well-sealed,
sanitized container, then one need not pitch right away. Let it
settle, then transfer to the primary, leaving most of the gunk
behind, and *then* pitch. I have been doing this for several dozen
batches now and have not had a single problem (and hey, you know
what? All my fermeters are plastic too). I know: "Works for me" is
not proof. I mean only to point to a possibility.
Mark also wrote:
"by the way, i measure my extraction by using both the pre-racking
volume and the post racking volume. the numbers i come up with are
usually about 28 or 29 for post racking volume, and 31-33 for
pre-racking volume. which volume do most of the rest of you use?"
I use both, to get two pieces of complementary information. I
measure my extraction after sparging, using the volume that I got
from that process, to get an idea how well I mashed and sparged. I
use the gravity as it goes into the primary to measure how much loss
I get from boiling, settling, transer, etc etc. The first number
lets me keep some kind of track on the variables to do with mashing
and sparging (grain lot, crush, pH, etc) and the second on the
overall efficiency of my system, given the performance that the
system gave during the mash and sparge.
Cheers, Dave in Sydney
"If you think about it, everything makes sense." --- Ginger Wotring
- ---
***************************************************************************
David S. Draper, Earth Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney NSW Australia
ddraper@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au
...I'm not from here, I just live here...
------------------------------
From: "Scott W. Nowicki" <nowicki@voicenet.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 06:34:03 -0400
Subject: RE: RIMS Computer Control
Yes, this is all possible (if you have the money!).
There is a company called OMEGA that sells all or most of those sorts of =
instruments. I don't have their phone no., but their web page is =
www.omega.com. They have a free set of catalogs worth getting.
Scott Nowicki
Holland, Pennsylvania
------------------------------
From: korzonas@lucent.com (Algis R Korzonas)
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 96 15:25:49 CDT
Subject: Re: Cidery Flavour Question/Eddy Currents
Brad writes:
>Here's a quick ingredient list. (Trying for a simple, light colored ale,
>nothing fancy)
>1. 6lbs Laaglander Extra light DME.
>2. 1/2 lb Victory Malt
>3. 1oz of Fuggles for the boil (60 mins) and 1oz of Fuggles for finishing.
>4. I used the British Ale WYeast # 1098
Could what you describe be "tartness?" The Wyeast #1098 has a "tart"
flavour, in my opinion. On another topic, the Victory malt (like the
Biscuit mentioned in my other post today) contains starch. It also
has virtually no enzymes. It will give you little more than a starch
haze. Finally, Laaglander Dried Malt Extract is very unfermentable.
Typical apparent attenuations can be between 55 and 60%. It has it's
place in low-gravity beers or sweet beers, but I wouldn't use it for
100% any normal-gravity beer: it would come out way too sweet.
***
Daryl writes:
>Assuming turbulent flow in the beer lines occurs I have to question Al's
>comment that shaking the keg creates eddies which harbour nucleation sites
>for CO2. Turbulent flow would create the same opportunity for nucleation.
The key to setting up a draft system (despite many people having questioned
this -- I suspect that those have never set one up properly) is to have
the beer line long enough so that the flow is slow enough so that the
CO2 does not come out of solution. Too long a line simply means that the
flow will be too slow. As someone else posted, the pressure drop from
the keg to the end of the faucet will always be equal to the pressure
that the keg sees from the CO2 regulator. As the beer line length
increases, the pressure drop per foot (which is a function of flow rate)
decreases. Simultaneously, the flow rate drops.
As for the eddy currents and nucleation, I simply relayed what was posted
by someone explaining the shaken-bottle gushing puzzle. If you don't
believe that this is a factor, take two 50F bottles of beer. Shake them.
Open one immediately and the other after another hour at 50F. If you can
explain the difference in the results without the "eddy current" solution,
then I'd be interested in reading it. Clearly whatever phenomenon caused
the foaming in the bottles also causes it in kegs -- THAT'S why I recommended
waiting the hour to serve after force-carbonation shaking.
Al.
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korzonas@lucent.com
------------------------------
End of Homebrew Digest #2196
****************************
