Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2302
HOMEBREW Digest #2302 Tue 07 January 1997
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Digest Janitor: janitor@brew.oeonline.com
Many thanks to the Observer & Eccentric Newspapers of
Livonia, Michigan for sponsoring the Homebrew Digest.
URL: http://www.oeonline.com
Contents:
Perforated Sheet Goods Open Area Calculation
Brewing salts
Getting clear wort/pH probe storage/water testing
Re: Priming and Bottling
RE: Steve's mash schedule/Weyermann wheat malts (G.De Piro)
Westchester (NY) Brewing Company (George De Piro)
Wit/Yeast Culture (Kent Fritz)
Yeast for Belgian Dubbel
Twistoff bottles
SG and particles in suspension
Fruit in beer
Metallurgy question (George De Piro)
Hopped wort and the EM/decanting/CaraPils in lemonbrew (korz)
Re: Wort straining
Immersion chillers (Dave Hinkle)
Decoction Procedures
RE: Water Chemistry vs. Love
overcarbonation?
RE Dark LME (Tim Fields)
Filtering through hops
Re: Bottling Time?
High-Temp Hose
bottle soaking
Hong Kong and Taiwan
Sarnac chocolate amber
What address do i post to???
Finishing Gravity too low for Barleywine
Weyermann malz
NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS: brew.oeonline.com
Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew@brew.oeonline.com
(Articles are published in the order they are received.)
Send UNSUBSCRIBE and all other requests, ie, address change, etc.,
to homebrew-request@brew.oeonline.com BUT PLEASE NOTE that if
you subscribed via the BITNET listserver (BEER-L@UA1VM.UA.EDU),
you must unsubscribe by sending a one line e-mail to listserv@ua1vm.ua.edu
that says: UNSUB BEER-L
Thanks to Pete Soper, Rob Gardner and all others for making the Homebrew
Digest what it is. Visit the HBD Hall of Fame at:
http://oeonline.com/~pbabcock/hbd/hallofame.html
If your account is being deleted, please be courteous and unsubscribe first.
Please don't send me requests for back issues - you will be silently ignored.
For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to lutzen@alpha.rollanet.org
ARCHIVES:
An archive of previous issues of this digest, as well as other beer
related information can be accessed via anonymous ftp at
ftp.stanford.edu. Use ftp to log in as anonymous and give your full
e-mail address as the password, look under the directory
/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer directory. AFS users can find it under
/afs/ir.stanford.edu/ftp/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer. If you do not have
ftp capability you may access the files via e-mail using the ftpmail
service at gatekeeper.dec.com. For information about this service,
send an e-mail message to ftpmail@gatekeeper.dec.com with the word
"help" (without the quotes) in the body of the message.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 06 Jan 1997 08:06:58 -0800
From: Dion Hollenbeck <hollen@axel.vigra.com>
Subject: Perforated Sheet Goods Open Area Calculation
The following message is a courtesy copy of an article
that has been posted as well.
I wrote a program to calculate open area of perforated sheet goods
given hole diameter and center to center distance, but when I checked
it against some tables I had in a catalog it did not come out right.
Finally figured out that I had written a program which worked for
"straight" holes, not staggered. In a staggered hole pattern, while
the distance for center to center between holes is constant, the
distance between rows is not the same as the center to center distance
and I was calculating based on too few holes in one direction.
So, does anyone know of some sort of "formula" to apply to a center to
center measurement to get the row distance in staggered perforated
sheet goods? I tried measuring on two very different sizes I have on
hand and it certainly is not a straight percentage of the center to
center distance.
If someone helps me out with something which works, I will be happy to
post the program source for all to use, but as it is now, it will only
work on "straight" pattern perforated sheet goods.
thanks,
dion
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 11:33:51 -0500
From: Brewkits@aol.com
Subject: Brewing salts
I am interested in getting information from anyone who has used an additive
sold under the name "brewing salts". It's label says it contains "yeast
nutrients and heading compound". I'm always interested in trying something
new, but I would like to know more about it before I try it. What are the
specific ingredients? Has it helped your fermentation? Does it affect the
final flavor? Does it contain any minerals like gypsum or chalk? (I don't
want to add something that I already have in abundance in my local water.)
Also, I'm assuming that "brewing salts" are not the same thing as "Burton
water salts" which contains gypsum and papain.
Any information would be greatly appreciated!
Thanks - Ken Cannon.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 1997 11:36:11 -0500
From: dharsh@alpha.che.uc.edu (David C. Harsh)
Subject: Getting clear wort/pH probe storage/water testing
On getting clear wort-
Is there any non-anecdotal information that says that leaving trub
in the wort affects flavor adversely? My beers always settle and are clear
after fermentation so I curious if we need to care.
On pH probe storage, John Bowen writes:
>Electrode storage: We ... had the best luck ... in the pH 4.0 buffer.
>Some recommend using 4 M or saturated KCl, ...How about a compromise?
>Use 4.0 buffer and a spoonful of KCl (maybe Morton's salt substitute?).
I don't know what commercial "storage solution" is, but Fisher Scientific
recommended pH 4 buffer saturated with KCl if you run out. I've had good
luck both with and without the KCl in the pH 4 buffer.
On water chemistry, Chris McCauley writes:
>I was wondering where should I look to find a place to test my water chemistry?
>I'm in the Dallas, Texas area....
If you are on a municipal system, call your water company. Here in
Cincinnati, they are very willing to mail or fax their most recent analysis
to you complete with yearly highs and lows and much more information that
you may or may not need.
Hoping yours is a good new year,
Dave
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
& Dave Harsh &
& Bloatarian Brewing League - Cincinnati, OH &
& "non illegitimi carborundum" &
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
O-
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 1997 10:55:25 -0500
From: "G. Garnett" <ggarnett@qrc.com>
Subject: Re: Priming and Bottling
You asked:
>I am getting ready to bottle my first batch and I've read a couple of
>different sources that said 1 tsp sugar per is bottle is not recommended
>and that I should 3/4 cup of sugar in some water, how much?, and pour
>this into my bottling bucket and then siphon the beer into the bottling
>bucket. Does it make any difference which method I use or is there a
>better method out there.
Right.
Priming the bottles individually is a time-consuming and error-prone
chore. The amount of priming sugar you get into each bottle tends
to vary, resulting in variations in the amount of carbonation in your beer.
And worst of all, if you just put sugar into the bottles, the sugar isn't
sterlized or sanitized, and so could introduce an infection into an
otherwise perfect batch.
It's easier, and produces more consistent results, to mix your priming sugar
into your beer, in the bottling bucket. If you're using corn sugar (aka
brewer's sugar), the recommended amount is about 3/4 of a cup per 5 gallons
of beer. You may want to use more or less sugar (between 1/2 cup and 1 cup),
depending on the style you're brewing - less sugar means less carbonation, of
course.
The general procedure is to put some water in a pot (I use a 1-quart saucepan
and fill it half full). The exact amount isn't important, as long as there's
enough water to dissolve the sugar, and not so much that you'll noticably
dilute your beer (more than a couple of quarts is too much). Dump the sugar
in, and stir it to dissolve the sugar. Don't worry if it doesn't all dissolve
right away - more will dissolve as the water heats. If you get close to a
boil and it's not all dissolved yet, then add a bit more water.
Boil the sugar water to sterilize it. This will help prevent infections in
your beer. After boiling, pour the water (carefully) into your bottling
bucket. Then rack (siphon) your beer into the bucket on top of the water.
The swirling action of the siphon in the bottling bucket will mix the beer
and the priming sugar without your having to stir (and possibly splash) the
beer.
Then just go ahead and bottle! Each bottle gets exactly it's share of the
sugar, without the mess and bother of priming each bottle, and the sugar is
sterilized, so your beer is safe.
Guy Garnett (301)-657-3077x125 ggarnett@qrc.com
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Dreams do not vanish, so long as people do not abandon them." -- P.F. Harlock
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 12:59:45 -0800
From: George De Piro <George_De_Piro@berlex.com>
Subject: RE: Steve's mash schedule/Weyermann wheat malts (G.De Piro)
Happy new year to you all!
Steve describes his single decoction mash schedule, and in it he
doesn't add the crystal malt until after the decoction. My guess is
that he wants to keep the sugars in it unfermentable and thus only
mash the crystal malt at ~158F.
I have read about this practice on the HBD and have always wondered,
"Why do people do this?" All the pro brewers I know mash all the
grain at the same time. The sugars in crystal malt have been
caramelized, which (I think) makes them safe from degradation by beta
amylase. I could be wrong about this, are there any other opinions
out there?
If I'm correct, however, than there is no reason I can think of to add
the crystal malt at the end of the mash rather than the beginning.
-------------------------
Keith asks about using Weyermann's wacky wheat malts in a Dunkel
Weizen. I just bottled such a thing. I used 10 lbs of dark wheat
malt, 2 pounds of cara-wheat malt, and a few ounces of roasted wheat
malt for color (along with Munich malt, light wheat, and pils malt).
The mash was a single decoction.
While the beer is a bit young, the aroma is very toasty and malty,
with the usual Bavarian yeast accents, too. Very nice. The flavor is
not as malty as the aroma portends, but hopefully this will change
when the beer ages a bit (just bottled it last week).
Have fun!
George De Piro (Nyack, NY)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 13:05:31 -0800
From: George De Piro <George_De_Piro@berlex.com>
Subject: Westchester (NY) Brewing Company (George De Piro)
Howdy!
I was just curious to hear from people that have been to the
Westchester Brewing Company in Whiteplains, NY. What do you think of
it?
While I'm on the topic, what do people think of the other NY metro
area brew pubs?
I'm just curious. Private E-mail is probably more appropriate than
posts because of the limited geographic area of this inquiry.
Have fun!
George De Piro (Nyack, NY)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 10:08:25 -0800
From: "Fritz, Kent" <Kent.Fritz@aspect.com>
Subject: Wit/Yeast Culture (Kent Fritz)
I picked up a 6-pack of Thomas Kemper Belgian White Beer over the
holidays. They've redesigned the packaging, and the beer seems much
more potent than when I tried it over the summer. Does anyone know if
they have changed the formulation, or is it just my imagination? Also,
is this a good example of the Wit style? If not, what is?
I intend to brew something similar this spring, so I streaked a petri
dish from the bottle dregs. There seems to be a tiny bit of growth, but
it is NOTHING compared to the hefe-weizen culture I streaked at the same
time. Could this possibly be a lager bottling strain? (It is from
Thomas Kemper LAGERS!)
Back to work...
Kent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 1997 13:15:17 -0500
From: Clifford Rones <ronescli@law.dol.lps.state.nj.us>
Subject: Yeast for Belgian Dubbel
Many thanks to those who have responded to my request for
information. I have learned a great deal, and in particular, the following:
1. Wyeast 1214 is has its loyal adherents who consider it to be one of
the best yeasts for the Abbey style. It is reputedly Chimay. If the
fermenting wort can be kept cool enough it is the yeast of choice.
2. 1214, 1762, 1388 and 3787 all produce fine Belgian Abbey style ales.
Dr. Michel Brown has pointed out to that esters are more predominant in
the lower numbers and reduce in the higher numbers.
3. Dr. Brown also mentioned that 1388 and 3787 are well suited to
making Trippels and Strong Ale.
4. 1388 makes great beer but some people have experienced long
periods in waiting for it to settle out. This also seems to require low
temperatures. I have brewed with this yeast myself and can confirm
that it does make an excellent strong ale. It is reputedly Duvel.
5. 1762 is reputedly Rochefort. Inasmuch as Rochefort is the strongest
Trappist ale on the market and Wyeast posts a temperature range as
high as 75 degrees for this yeast, this is the yeast I intend on using.
While I love Chimay, I am concerned that even in a cool room, a carboy
with two trash bags and a flannel shirt over it (OK I am paranoid about
my beer becoming light struck) may become too hot with the result that I
wind up in the "banana zone". This yeast is also reported to ferment and
clear very fast.
Thanks again
Cliff Rones.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 1997 13:23:58 -0500
From: "Robert C. Sprecher, M.D." <rcs8@en.com>
Subject: Twistoff bottles
As is happening in millions of households across the country, I just
bottled the first batch of beer made from a homebrew kit received for
Christmas. I had been saving the bottles for months in anticipation.
I got half way through capping them when I realized that about 20% of
the bottles were twistoff! (The wife drinks @$#%$&%@ Coors NA)
The crown caps that I bought actually had twistoff written on the side.
They seemed to fit OK and were tight. Does this matter? Everything I've
read mentions using non-twistoff bottles. Obviously Coors gets their
beer to carbonate OK in twistoffs.
TIA.
Rob
- --
Robert C. Sprecher, M.D.
Assistant Professor
Pediatric Otolaryngology and Pediatrics
Rainbow Babies and Childrens Hospital
Cleveland, OH
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 97 12:45:10 CST
From: John Wilkinson <jwilkins@imtn.tpd.dsccc.com>
Subject: SG and particles in suspension
If particles in suspension increase the SG as measured with a hydrometer
wouldn't the SG measured by two hydrometers in the same batch be higher than
that measured by just one?
I haven't tried any experiments measuring SG but it would seem that suspended
particles would displace the liquid but not change its SG, as would the second
hydrometer.
John Wilkinson - Grapevine, Texas - jwilkins@imtn.dsccc.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 1997 13:48:31 -0500
From: Mark Montminy <markm@dma.isg.mot.com>
Subject: Fruit in beer
A friend posed the following questions. Not knowing the answers, I decided to
forward it to the digest for him. If you could cc: Feanar@aol.com in your
reply it would be appreciated, if not, I'll see that he gets the followups.
I) If you make a beer with 2-3.3lb cans of syrup and 3 lbs of dme and want to
put raspberries in in place of one can of syrup-------How many pounds of
raspberries should you use for the same final alchohol content?Assume the
desired alchohol is about 8%.
2) If you used 1.5 oz of bittering hops at an alpha of 5.5 for the all malt
above , how much hops would you use with your recommended amount of fruit
instead of malt from question 1?
I intend to make this change for an upcoming batch. Last time , I added 7lbs
of raspberries to the recipe with the 2 cans and 3lb DME . The stuff was
rocket fuel! It all went in about 3 weeks though so its taste was agreeable.
I want the same taste but no more than 8%.
- --
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Motorola ISG Cable Data Products Group Email: markm@dma.isg.mot.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nasrudin was carrying home a piece of liver and the recipe for liver
pie. Suddenly a bird of prey swooped down and snatched the piece of
meat from his hand. As the bird flew off, Nasrudin called after it,
"Foolish bird! You have the liver, but what can you do with it without
the recipe?"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 13:57:01 -0800
From: George De Piro <George_De_Piro@berlex.com>
Subject: Metallurgy question (George De Piro)
Hi all,
Yet another metallurgy question; perhaps we should change this to an
engineering forum...
I had some free welding done to put nipples on my stainless steel
kettles (get your mind out of the gutter). The guy must have
overheated the metal on one of them because the area around the weld
rusted after just a few hours in contact with water!
Is there a way to make it stainless again, or am I now the proud owner
of a 15.5 gallon sort-of-stainless conversation piece?
Have Fun!
George De Piro (Nyack, NY)
"If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys." -some wise person
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 13:30:24 -0600
From: Algis R Korzonas <korzonas@lucent.com>
Subject: Hopped wort and the EM/decanting/CaraPils in lemonbrew (korz)
Paul writes (quoting me):
>> I've since put ball valves on both my kettles and put something very
>> much like an EasyMasher(tm) screen inside. This setup clogs with
>> pellets almost immediately, so I have switched to whole hops and now
>> I lose a bit more wort because I immersion chill and don't want
>> to...
>
>I finally had the bright idea to use this method on my last batch with
>my EM setup, also using an immersion chiller and whole hops. Two
>questions about this:
>
>(1) Do you whirlpool the wort? The only benefit I could see to doing
> this would be to increase the depth of the "trub-bed" over the EM
> screen.
Actually, I'd like to, but I don't because the wort chiller makes it rather
cluttered in the kettle. I have two screens in each kettle and they are
positioned along the sides (not in the middle like the traditional
EasyMasher(tm)). After draining, the hops are just about at an even depth
across the whole bottom of the kettle.
>(2) This probably sounds crazy, but do you recirculate at all? It
> seems that you would be increasing your chances of infection for
> little gain, but I just had to finish the mashing analogy.
It's not that crazy, but I don't do it for exactly the same reason you
mentioned. I'm going to put photos of my system on my website, but
it could be a few weeks. I'll start putting my website URL in my .sig
when it's ready for human consumption (still under construction for now).
***
Brander writes:
>what is the best way to "decant" the beer out of the bottle, pouring
>seems like it would lose too much of the yeast. siphoning seems like
>you would drink most of it trying to get suction started?
Don't even get me started on the "sucking to start a siphon" issue...
No... just pour gently. If you leave the last 1/2 oz of beer in there,
you will have 90% of the yeast. Just make sure the beer isn't shaken
up -- i.e. make sure it is well-settled before attempting this. You
also want to shake that last 1/2 oz of beer well to dislodge as much of
the yeast cake as you can.
***
Also in another post:
>Below is the Pale Ale recipe i am refining. i was wondering if can get
>some comments from you more experienced brewers. Also the half poud of
>Cara-Pils, do i need to have some Pale Malt (grain) mashed with it to
>extract all of the good stuff? i heard a rumor about it.
If it is indeed Briess Dextrine malt, then yes, you do need to mash
it with some Pale Ale malt... not only to get all the goodness out of
it, but also so you don't get a starch haze. I've also found that
other *very* pale crystal malts really should be mashed too.
Generally, I've found that most crystal malts labeled "CaraPils" fall
into two categories: 1) the ones that are about 8 to 10L and 2) the
ones that are about 2 to 5L. The darker ones seem to work fine without
mashing. The paler ones make for cloudy steep water which clears a
little after the boil, but not enough (I feel).
You may want to use one of the darker CaraPils (like DeWolf-Cosyns) which
don't need to be mashed.
Finally, you may want to reconsider that lemon peel because it contains
oils and will kill your head retention. I suspect that if you are
dryhopping with Cascades, a slight lemony aroma will be overwhelmed by
the grapefruity aroma of the Cascades. I once tasted a beer made with
lemongrass... it did indeed smell lemony and was quite nice. Perhaps
you may want to consider that in place of the lemon peel?
Al.
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korz@xnet.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 06 Jan 97 14:39:29 EST
From: "David R. Burley" <103164.3202@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Re: Wort straining
Brewsters:
Mark Bayer asks:
1)> so my question is basically this: why can't i get wort as clear as the wort
> i racked straight out of the kettle by using the oversize fermentor and
letting
> the wort sit for 6 to 10 hours?
There are two breaks - the hot and cold break. Presumably letting the wort sit
around for hours allowed both breaks to settle out giving you an ultimately
clearer wort in the fermenter.
>
2) and, this leads me to the next question:
> Are any of you getting sparkling clear worts by using some sort of straining
device
> on the end of the racking cane, or on your tap?
I get clear worts over the trub and hops in the brew kettle while it is still
hot, but it goes cloudy when I cool it in my counter-current cooler because of
the cold break forming as it goes down the pipe. Eventually it settles and is
clear over the cold break ( which I leave in as a lipid source for the yeast) if
the yeast hasn't started quickly. Presumably if you cool in the boiler with an
immersion chiller and wait long enough, you could get both hot and cold break
down before racking to the fermenter through some kind of strainer to hold back
the hops and filter the trub through the hop bed formed on the strainer.
3)
> and the last question is this: if you use a strainer, like an EM that feeds
> a tap, what's the difference between that and what i do when i pour the wort
> through the strainer.
>
Pouring wort ( only cold wort, I hope!) through a strainer gives good aeration
but is much too ambitious and you will never get the filtering action of a good
hop bed. Even the big boys lay down the hop bed quietly in the hop back before
starting a relatively gentle removal of the wort through the bed. Using a
whirlpool method to move most of the hops and trub to the middle of the kettle
followed by a siphoning through a choreboy metal scrubber on the end of a
racking cane works wonderfully. Try it you'll like it! I suppose you could
attach a Choreboy to the tap to get the same effect.
I prefer the choreboy type strainer versus a simple screen because the screen
tends to plug up. The scrubber being larger diameter has more surface area than
a small screen and therefore a greater throughput of wort through the cane,
given each were surrounded by hops. Using whole leaf hops and a choreboy on the
end of the racking cane in which the end of the cane is in the middle of the
scrubber and not near the edge, gives a virtually dry muck of hops and trub in
the bottom of the kettle, a high recovery of wort and no crud is carried over.
Make sure you are using a copper finings like Irish Moss to help collect the
breaks into large flocs which settle rapidly and can be removed by hop
filtration.
Keep on brewin'
Dave Burley
Kinnelon, NJ 07405
103164.3202@compuserve.com
Voice e-mail OK
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 06 Jan 1997 14:59:49 -0700
From: Dave Hinkle <Dave.Hinkle@aexp.com>
Subject: Immersion chillers (Dave Hinkle)
Alex Santic wrote:
>>How to use an immersion chiller
effectively without disturbing the hop bed is a matter well worth
considering. Not to start another big debate, but those who tell you to
run the cold water to the bottom of the chiller based on couterflow
principles are way off the mark. To the extent that it makes a difference
at all, this oft-repeated advice is wrong. Moreover, it doesn't address
the really important issue of how to get the wort in the kettle to
circulate enough, because it tends not to do so adequately no matter which
way you run the water. Hence you get cold wort at the bottom and warm
(even hot) wort at the top.
<<
He also wrote some good ideas on how to modify and use a cylindrical immersion
chiller. But I think chiller design can make a big difference here.
I wish I could remember who, but someone in HBD in the past two years wrote
about using a "planispiral" wort chiller (it might have been in an e-mail to
me, but it was an HBD response). I could not find this word defined anywhere,
so someone out there deserves the credit for the term I guess. I interpreted
this to mean a flat, or planar immersion chiller, so I made one with about 40'
of 3/8" copper tubing. The flat spiral shape was tough to form (I worked from
the inside outwards), until I got a decent tubing bender for the first few
tight winds. I kept winding it until it was the same diameter as my brewpot,
then used 14gauge copper wire to radially criss-cross tie the coils tightly
together in four such "spokes". The inlet water enters at the center and the
exit line was tied about 120 degrees from the inlet tube. A wire hook is used
to form the third suspending point to hold the chiller in a plane right at the
5.5 gallon height of my brewpot. I wanted the coils to be just barely
submerged. When suspended in the pot, the entire wort surface is covered with
copper tubing except for the 1.5" hole made by the center circle (result of the
smallest radius the tubing bender could do!). After tying the coils, the
chiller became somewhat dish-shaped at the center, but I figured this gives me
a litttle leeway in my fluid level at the end of the boil. In any event, I
call this my "hurricane immersion chiller", because of its shape, and because
when I use it, the convection currents are visably active through the "eye" of
the chiller when in use. Another nice feature is I just leave it in the pot
when I knock out through the kettle's spigot ( w/ copper chore boy filter
inside of the pot). Like Alex suggests, I get better results when I do NOT
stir after chilling. I think this is because the heavier hop cones sink first,
with the break settling on top. The cones & hop pieces form a natural filter
bed this way. Anyway, this works for me and stirring was a waste of my time.
I just wanted to share this idea, because I, like so many others, made their
first immersion chiller by winding copper tubing around a paint can. This
cylinder design works, but you have to agitate or stir. It's so much easier to
sit back and let the "hurricane" do all the work. I just suspend the thing
during the last 10-15 minutes of boil (Irish moss time), then when I kill the
burner, I dump in some finish hop pellets through the chiller's eye, put on the
lid, wait a few minutes, then turn on the cold water to the chiller. It drops
the temp a lot during the first 10 minutes, but I let it run a half an hour to
get it close to the tap water temp. In the winter here in Phoenix, the tap
water is around 60-65F. During the summer, I run ice water through the chiller
after running 85F tap water for 10 minutes. Gets down to pitching temp rather
quick, even in 100 degree weather.
To the original person who gave me this idea, Thanks!! And to those people
making immersion chillers, think two-dimensional.
Dave Hinkle
Phoenix, AZ
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 97 17:33 EST
From: Todd Wilson <0005714841@mcimail.com>
Subject: Decoction Procedures
Steve Garrett's question on a single decoction mash got me to
wondering...What exactly do they mean when they say "pull off
20% of the thickest part of the mash" and boil for however long.
I have read CP, Miller, and the Brewing Wheat Beer book and I
am still unsure. I am assuming that they mean to scoop out 20%
of the mash, boil and add it back but where I get confused is
are you pulling out just liquid or liquid and grains? I might
be nuts but if you pull off liquid and grains what are the tannin
risks?
I am very interested because I would like to brew "maltier"
German beers than the ones I am now with infusion mashing, but
I have always been skittish to try decoction mashing. I am also
interested in the value of double decoction over single decoction.
Thanks for the help
Todd Wilson (5714841@mcimail.com)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 18:56:31 -0500
From: Rory Stenerson <71762.1664@compuserve.com>
Subject: RE: Water Chemistry vs. Love
Mike Urseth asks:
"I haven't had a chance to get the water tested yet. What sort of water
condition would cause this? How would this effect brewing? Would celibacy
be better than trying to brew with this water?"
If your water is questionable, i.e. deep well water, you can save yourself
a lot of grief (and blue balls for that matter) by just buying six gallons
or so of distilled water whenever you need to brew. That way you can make
anything from a crisp Pils to a hearty Stout by just adding a pinch of
Gysum as the recipe calls for. I'm assuming you're not living in "God's
Country" as the folks at G. Heilman used to claim.
It'll be a reltively cheap investment considering the payback especially
considering your choices indicated. Hmmm what was that old saying
something about "I'd drink her bathwater to ......"
Good luck, have fun, and happy brewing,
Rory Stenerson,
S.C.U.M.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 21:15:48 -0700
From: Val Martinez <valhhm@trib.com>
Subject: overcarbonation?
i recently brewed a scotch ale (5 gal batch, mash-extract, 7# light liquid
malt extract, 4# 2-row, 1# 40L crystal, 1/2# toasted malt). o.g. = 1.078.
16 days in primary fermenter. s.g. = 1.028. 5 days in secondary. s.g. =
1.026 (but bubbling through airlock every 35-40 seconds). primed with 3/4
cup corn sugar and bottled. tasted 15 days later. while conditioning in
bottles, some of the bottles had a thick foam on the top like kraeusen.
when i opened a bottle the foam come rushing to the top and out. if i pour
it fairly quickly the foaming is limited somewhat. there seems to be no
signs of infection (no rings around the necks) and it tastes great. did i
merely bottle too soon and get overcarbonated? or could something else be
wrong? if just over carbonated, can i do anything about it now? thank you
in advance. email responses ok.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 97 07:47:22 -0500
From: Tim Fields <fieldst@erols.com>
Subject: RE Dark LME (Tim Fields)
>Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 13:09:12 -0500 (EST)
In V2#21, Alex Santic <alex@salley.com> writes:
>I don't know about specific time frames, but the commercial process of
>concentrating the extract also darkens it. Additionally, George Fix
>suggests that browning reactions continue in the can over time. For these
>reasons, it can be difficult to make a very pale beer with extract,
>especially with a concentrated boil and/or long boil times.
>From what I've read, LME is more susceptible to darkening over time than
DME. I once purchased a small can of Alexanders EXTRA LIGHT DME and
found it to be VERY dark. Further examination revealed a date stamp on
the can (but under the label so I couldn't see it at the store) that was
well over a year old. Since then, I've used DME exclusively. If you are
shooting for a light colored beer, I'd stick with the extra light DME.
Reeb!
Tim Fields .. Fairfax, VA
fieldst@erols.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 07 Jan 1997 07:23:41 -0600
From: Marty Tippin <mtippin@swbell.net>
Subject: Filtering through hops
In #21, Alex Santic <alex@salley.com> writes:
>One rather simple method of getting very clean wort into your fermenter is
>to use a brewpot which is fitted with some sort of screening device at the
>bottom. The wort is cooled in the brewpot with an immersion chiller to
>obtain the cold break, and then filtered through the hop bed at the bottom
>of the kettle.
>
>An EasyMasher or something similar fitted to an SS kettle works very well
>for this. I suspect it's better than a false bottom because there is only
>one outflow point and the wort flows through the hop bed in all directions
>to the center. Another nice thing is that you can retrofit just about any
>kettle with this little device by simply drilling a hole.
Just an FYI to anyone thinking of using an EasyMasher for filtering the
wort after the boil: It doesn't work worth a damn if you use Irish Moss in
the boil. The protiens coagulate all over the easy masher screen, plugging
it up and leaving you unable to drain your kettle. I don't think Jack uses
Irish Moss (and I think he'll even argue that it's unnecessary) so this has
never been an issue to him. And I suspect that it works fine for this
purpose if you don't use the moss.
Aside from that little 'problem', the EasyMasher is indeed a great gadget.
Wish I'd invented it... ;-)
- -Marty
mtippin@swbell.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 97 08:31:47 -0500
From: David Winfield <ddw@ptdprolog.net>
Subject: Re: Bottling Time?
>BTW the instructions indicate fermentation should last "3 to 7 days" and
>bottle when FG is 1.005 - 1.010. Ingredients included 3.3 lb. LME, 2 lb.
>DME, 12 oz crushed crystal grain plus bittering and finishing hops.
I will introduce myself as I have also been lurching. I am on my second
batch and I have all kinds of questions about sanitizing but, for a later
post...
Dave,
My understanding is that the end SG is not the issue but rather that the
SG is the same for 2-3 days in a row. (record on then record another in
3 days, if they're the same then you should be ready to bottle!) And
don't forget to use the priming sugar ( see a current post)
Good luck
Dave Winfield
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 07 Jan 1997 07:38:27 -0600
From: Marty Tippin <mtippin@swbell.net>
Subject: High-Temp Hose
William G. Rucker asks about tubing that can handle high temps:
> First question for 1997, What kind and where can I get tubing that I
> can use in the brewery for transferring hot wort? I would like to be
> able to use this stuff to transfer to the chiller from the boiler so
> it should be able to handle boiling wort. How much should I expect to
> pay? I have found some tubing but I am not in line to pay $2+ a foot
> for this stuff if something else will work.
You're not going to find much for $2/ft or less that will work for handling
boiling liquids. Braided vinyl tubing is about the only thing in that
price range, and it'll delaminate at boiling temps (I think it's rated for
150 to 180F or so).
I went through this search almost exactly a year ago whilst designing my
converted keg system. I settled on some 1/2" ID Norton PharMed tubing, at
about $4/ft in 25 ft. lengths (the only way it's packaged). This is an
opaque, flexible tubing with 1/8" walls, rated for something like 250F.
Doesn't get soft and limp at high temperatures, fairly good at not picking
up smells from the wort, and quite durable. I've been quite happy with my
decision.
Since I didn't need a whole roll, I found 2 other guys on the 'net to split
it with. You might have similar luck. I'd also advise you to check
several places before you purchase this stuff - depending on where you go,
you'll find very wide differences in price (the roll I bought was $110; I
found prices as high as $150 at some mail-order scientific supply houses).
- -Marty
- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Marty Tippin | Tippin's Law #18: A watched pot never
mtippin@swbell.net | boils, but an unwatched pot always boils
martyt@geoaccess.com | over.
- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Marty's Homebrew Gadgets: http://alpha.rollanet.org/users/mtippin
- --------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 06:49:51 -0700
From: Val Martinez <valhhm@trib.com>
Subject: bottle soaking
is there any concern or disadvantage to soaking bottle lables off in a
solution of water and washing soda (sodium carbonate)? it seems to do the
trick in about 4 hours. i also figure the washing soda is helping to clean
them. sometimes there is a white film left on the bottles. is this cause
for concern? thanks in advance. email ok.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 10:09:50 -0500
From: JDPils@aol.com
Subject: Hong Kong and Taiwan
I will be travelling to Hong Kong and Kaohsiung Taiwan in February. Can
anyone recommend some good pubs with great beer? Private E - Mail is fine.
When
I get back I will post my adventures.
Cheers!
Jim Dunlap
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 07 Jan 1997 10:49:10 -0800
From: brewmaster@cyberportal.net
Subject: Sarnac chocolate amber
I am looking for a recipe for Sarnac Chocolate Amber, any suggestions
appreciated, Jon E-Mail brewmaster@cyberportal.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 09:39:27 -0700 (MST)
From: Adrian Goins <monachus@softsolut.com>
Subject: What address do i post to???
Please listen:
A number of people have been sending their posts to <dionysus@aob.org> and
expecting them to end up in the digest. They don't. They end up in my
mailbox where they are usually deleted.
If you want to post to the digest or the list, send your message to
<homebrew@aob.org>.
Thank you.
Adrian Goins
System Administrator - Internaut
100% Software Solutions, Inc.
http://www.softsolut.com 303-689-0100 voice
http://uls.softsolut.com 303-891-4507 pager
**Please use the PGP key available from "finger admin@softsolut.com"**
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 07 Jan 97 08:53:00 PST
From: Martin Wilde <Martin_Wilde@ccm.jf.intel.com>
Subject: Finishing Gravity too low for Barleywine
Help!
My barleywine finished at 1018 degress with an original gravity of
1102!. No the beer is not infected, mashed at 150F (which may be part
of the problem), pitched a large amount of the Wyeast Scottish yeast
and aerated very well. This is a killer yeast when used in large
amounts! The problem is the final gravity is a bit too low for a
barleywine (IMHO). I would of prefered a TG of 1025. Any
recommendations on how to get some more dextrins into the beer? I am
considering krausening the beer for a nice carbonation...
thanks!
Martin Wilde
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 13:36:06 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Busch <busch@eosdev2.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Weyermann malz
Keith asks:
<Does anyone have any suggestions or comments on using dark and chocolate
<Weyerman wheat malts? I am planning a dunkles weizen and would welcome
<suggestions on using these malts in this beer style. Thanks.
I have one good suggestion, allow for a *very* long brewday when
using Weyermann malz! I would also be prepared to rake/knife the
grain bed in the lauter tun. Also look to use a false bottom with
the maximum open area, Id be interested to hear of any experiences
of folks mashing Weyermann malz using a single infusion, a Easymasher
tube screen filter, or in a system that does not utilize rakes.
Prost!
Jim Busch
Coming February 15: St. Victorious Doppelbock in bottles/draft!!
See Victory Brewing at:
http://www.victorybeer.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #2302, 01/07/97
*************************************
-------
