Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2517
HOMEBREW Digest #2517 Mon 29 September 1997
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Digest Janitor: janitor@hbd.org
Many thanks to the Observer & Eccentric Newspapers of
Livonia, Michigan for sponsoring the Homebrew Digest.
URL: http://www.oeonline.com
Contents:
Re: Science in Brewing (Aaron A Sepanski)
Re: Conversions (brian_dixon)
The Jethro Gump Rport ("Rob Moline")
Rogue "Pacman" yeast (neumbg73)
Middle-weight Dextrins? (Charles Burns)
steinbier ("Bryan L. Gros")
Two gauge CO2 regulator (Mike Maag)
HBD @ the GABF - Update ("Brian M. Rezac")
Congratulations are in order ("Brian M. Rezac")
RE: Color as calculated vs. real in glass ("Michel J. Brown")
hop help needed (instrumentation_hrc_at_hrc-mail)
LABCO Legal Banter - Homebrew Digest #2512 (Bill Velek)
Keg Hand Pump (KennyEddy)
Web page active for TRUB OPEN IX competition (Gary Clayton)
piro's rocks and sparge idea (AlannnnT)
Subject: 45 deg C rest and gummy adjuncts (Steve Alexander)
Re: Ferulic acid (Steve Alexander)
RO/ As CaCO3/Hot Water (A. J. deLange)
Float Valve for Sparging (Kyle Druey)
yeast from a bottle of beer (scotty)
Re: potential modification test (Mark E. Lubben)
NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS: hbd.org
Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew@hbd.org
(Articles are published in the order they are received.)
If your e-mail account is being deleted, please unsubscribe first!!
To SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE send an e-mail message with the word
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to homebrew-request@hbd.org.
**SUBSCRIBE AND UNSUBSCRIBE REQUESTS MUST BE SENT FROM THE E-MAIL
**ACCOUNT YOU WISH TO HAVE SUBSCRIBED OR UNSUBSCRIBED!!!
IF YOU HAVE SPAM-PROOFED your e-mail address, the autoresponder and
the SUBSCRIBE/UNSUBSCRIBE commands will fail!
For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to brewery@realbeer.com
Homebrew Digest Information on the Web: http://hbd.org
Requests for back issues will be ignored. Back issues are available via:
Anonymous ftp from...
hbd.org /pub/hbd
ftp.stanford.edu /pub/clubs/homebrew/beer
E-mail...
ftpmail@gatekeeper.dec.com (send a one-line e-mail message with
the word help for instructions.)
AFS users can find it under...
/afs/ir.stanford.edu/ftp/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer
JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 12:35:32 -0500 (CDT)
From: Aaron A Sepanski <sepan001@uwp.edu>
Subject: Re: Science in Brewing
Before I start I first want to say that I am a biologist, well soon to be
(Graduate in a couple of months). So needless to say I have a lot of
experience with bio-chem, general chem, and other brewing related
sciences.
Now. I hope I don't hurt any feelings, but I want to say something that
needs to be said. I mean not to offend, but to stick up for the little
guy out there.
I rarely read this journal anymore. I have seen so many people just screw
up science and scientific method. Those people that are interested in
spitting out terms because they have a vague idea about what they mean
make homebrewing unenjoyable for others.
I guess my main point here is how much science is necessary? I work in a
brewery myself. One of my colleagues is an AHA judge and has over 40
years of brewing experience. His beer has won trophies throughout the
country. I feel fortunate to have worked with him. Why I mention him is
because he doesn't know a thing about the science of brewing.
Before I turn this into a bashing, I want to say that I am with you. I
think that brewing is a science. But my point is we shouldn't be cramming
it down people throats and making them feel like peons because they have
no formal scientific training.
You can make excellent Ales and Lagers without having any idea about the
beta amylases, pH, wort viscosity, ppm, plating, etc...(obviously more).
You don't even need to know how to take temperature to run a full scale
mash. "In the old days" the brewmaster would stick his hand in the mash,
if it was warm, it was good.
Truely science has done a lot for brewing, I not down playing the
importance of it at all. What I a saying is that people don't need a
degree in biology or chemistry to do it at home and enjoy themselves.
Those that have the gift of a scientific mind shouldn't ruin a great thing
for others that have gifts in other areas.
To close I want to say that we are all beer lovers, we are all
brewmasters. And in the words of the infamous Rodney King, "Why can't we
all just get along?" My greatest accomplishment in my brewing career, I
feel, is not a particular batch I did, but that I got six other people to
start.
Aaron Sepanski
Brewmaster
P.S. I invite your personal slander via email.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 97 10:39:21 -0700
From: brian_dixon@om.cv.hp.com
Subject: Re: Conversions
>I'm new to this forum. Just read HBD #2512. This has probably been
>covered before and maybe I'll just be directed to the proper archived
>HBD but I'd like to know the simplest procedure to convert an
>extract/partial mash recipe to an all grain recipe. In effect:
>3.3 lbs Muton & Fison Extra Light Syrup (unhopped/can)
>4.0 lbs Alexander's Pale Malt Extract Syrup (unhopped/bulk)
>0.5 lbs 7L Munich Malt (grains)
>I think I'd probably try to utilize the same hop schedule
>(boiling/finish) for a start. Thanks, :-) JR
Liquid malt extract provides about 36 pts/lb/gal. The maximum
theoretical yield for 2-row is around 37 pts/lb/gal, but you won't get
that. For this discussion, assume 80% yield, or an actual yield of 29.6
pts/lb/gal. Your goal for the simple recipe above is to use enough
2-row to provide the same number of total SG points as you are getting
from your liquid (pale) extracts.
Here goes:
>From your LME: total of 7.3 pounds at 36 pts/lb/gal gives a total
contribution of 262.8 points.
You then _need_ 262.8 points from 2-row to replace the liquid malt
extract. At 29.6 pts/lb/gal actual extract, you need (262.8 / 29.6) or
8.88 lbs of 2-row, assuming your 80% extraction efficiency.
For the Munich malt, the maximum theoretical yield is also around 37
pts/lb/gal, so with your 80% extraction rate, you'd expect around 29.6
pts/lb/gal for it also. Hard thing here is the fact that your original
recipe was probably steeping the grains. You'd have to know how many
pts/lb/gal you get when steeping the Munich malt in order to really
match the contribution from it. As a good start, put the same amount of
Munich as the extract version used into the all-grain version and mash
it with the 2-row. Recipe conversions only get you 'close' anyway.
Finally, without saying what the recipe is for, I can't make a
recommendation, but take a gander at where the traditional brewing
location is for the recipe, e.g. Dublin for a dry Irish stout, then try
to purchase 2-row malt from that area. That'll get you closer to what
the recipe ought to be. OR, split your grist bill between British 2-row
for the M&F and 2-row from wherever Alexander's comes from if you can
(Australia? Can't remember ...), or just use all British. That'll get
you closer to what you were making with the extracts.
Since you're using Alexanders for over half the recipe, and it's known
for lower attenuations, also consider mashing at a slightly higher
sacc-temp, say 154 F or so. That'll help emulate the extract recipe a
bit more.
Brian
.......................................................................
Item Subject: WINMAIL.DAT
Couldn't convert Microsoft Mail Message Data item to text at a gateway.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 97 13:22:29 PDT
From: "Rob Moline" <brewer@ames.net>
Subject: The Jethro Gump Rport
The Jethro Gump Report
Regarding Mr. Loub's screed, I've pondered and written
all sorts of proposed responses, detailing the facts (including
check numbers and batch-by-batch details,) that establish
the, shall we say, mistaken nature of much of what he says.
However, it's time for me and the HBD to move on to
better things. I'll close my comments on this topic with some
more of Mr. Loub's own words, this time from a letter he
wrote to a brew school (I was applying for a scholarship):
"December 31, 1996.
To Whom It May Concern:
<SNIP>
Despite Rob's lack of formal training in brewing on a commercial
scale,
he
soon proved he was more than able by formulating and producing a stable of
six handcrafted ales which we felt were equal to, or better than, any
comparable products in our region. Of course, Robert's ability to brew an
excellent beer was only part of the package he brought with him. He has
also demonstrated considerable skill in the management and maintenance of
the brewery systems. This is all quite remarkable considering we run a 7
bbl hodge-podge system with many quirks and nuances.
What is even more remarkable though, have been the awards Robert has
received for his beers and ales on a national and international level. His
Gold Medal placing at The Great American Beer Festival for Barleywine Style
Ales was truly spectacular considering the resources of our competition.
Mr. Moline not only has a demonstrated track record of achievements, but
also, in my opinion, has great potential in the brewing industry.
Obviously, these accomplishments have not come by accident; Robert
is a
dedicated craftsman constantly analyzing, researching and developing his
products and skill. Over the past two years, he has become a virtual
walking encyclopedia of beer knowledge, news and trivia.
<SNIP>
Sincerely,
Russ Loub
General Manager"
I will say thanks to Tomme, an honourable gentleman.
The End.
J.G.
Rob Moline
Brewer At Large
brewer@ames.net
"The More I Know About Beer, The More I Realize I Need To Know More About
Beer!"
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 14:47:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: neumbg73@snyoneva.cc.oneonta.edu
Subject: Rogue "Pacman" yeast
Hello
I recently recultured some of the yeast from the bottom of a bottle of
rogue's mocha porter. It is currently (and happily) fermenting my
chocolate porter right now (!). The yeast is just described as "Pacman"
yeast.
Has anybody ever recultured and used this yeast before? What can I
expect? BTW I'm fermenting at about 68degf. So far it smells like a clean
ferment.
Tnx -bernie -Middleburgh,NY
kb2ebe
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 97 12:25 PDT
From: cburns@egusd.k12.ca.us (Charles Burns)
Subject: Middle-weight Dextrins?
Brian Dixon, in hbd 2515, talks about short vs long saccarification rests
<snip>... you want because the middle-weight dextrins and simple starches
mentioned above are soluble ... <snip>
This is beginning to sound like the thread regarding longer mash times at
higher temps we had going about a year ago. But this thing called
"middle-weight" dextrins is new. Never heard of this before. Are there high,
middle, low-weight dextrin molecules as well as proteins? If so, what
happens to each of these at what temperatures over what time frames?
Charley
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 13:50:11 -0700
From: "Bryan L. Gros" <gros@bigfoot.com>
Subject: steinbier
"C&S Peterson" <CNS_PETERSON@classic.msn.com> wrote:
>Thanks to George, I too am curious to try a hot rock brew. In reading
some of
>the suggestions for technique and material, I was wondering if there could
be
>some sort of substitute product for the rock. Would some sort off stainless
>steel objects (nuts/bolts) or ceramic pieces (smash an old coffee cup?) be
>used instead? Will such objects be able to take the 500 degee heat?
Clearly
>the object of hot-rocking your wort is to create some carmelized sugars on
the
>surface of the object. Perhaps these substitutes may offer some safer, more
>predictable results that rock (although there is some appeal to using rock,
>simply for historical significance). Also, I wonder that if these ...
interesting idea. steinbiers should have two characteristics (from what
I've read). One is the caramel sweetness. The other is a smokey phenolic
character, presumably from the smoke of the fire. Don't know if a "modern"
object like a stainless "rock" would carry the smokiness as would a
piece of granite. Give it a shot.
- Bryan
gros@bigfoot.com
Oakland, CA
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 05:39:38 -0400
From: Mike Maag <maagm@rica.net>
Subject: Two gauge CO2 regulator
Shortly after buying a 2 gauge regulator for my 5 pound CO2 cylinder, I
read,"the extra gauge is useless, it reads full until the gas is all gone."
That does not seem to be true. My experience is, for a 5 lb tank, the high
pressure side reads 800 psig until the liquid phase of the CO2 is gone,
then the pressure goes to 400 psig. After that, I was able to force
carbonate two 5 gal corneys and get 3/4 done dispensing them. Then,
gradually, the pressure shown on the high pressure side dropped to 200,
next day dispensing to 150, etc. When it reached 100 I took it to refill.
Before I entered the shop I opened the valve to see what was left. It
hissed for about 10 seconds. Seems to me, the high side regulator
functions as intended. Just thought I would pass this along to any kegging
newbies.
Cheers, Mike 8*)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 17:20:31 -0600
From: "Brian M. Rezac" <brian@aob.org>
Subject: HBD @ the GABF - Update
Fellow HBDers,
Here's an update on the HBD Gathering(s) during the GABF:
Location: Falling Rock Tap House
1919 Blake Street
Denver, CO 80202
Date(s): Thursday, Friday & Saturday, Oct 2-4, 1997
Time(s): 10:30 pm each night
Jim Parker, Amahl Turczyn and I would also like to offer the first round of
beer to everyone attending courtesy of the AHA, Falling Rock and Tabernash
Brewing Company. Please stop any one of us at the GABF. We will have
"First Round Coupons" with us and will be happy to give you one. (These
coupons will also have directions to Falling Rock and will be good any of
the nights.)
Thanks,
- Brian
Brian Rezac
Administrator
American Homebrewers Association (303) 447-0816 x 121 (voice)
736 Pearl Street (303) 447-2825 (fax)
PO Box 1679 brian@aob.org (e-mail)
Boulder, CO 80306-1679 info@aob.org (aob info)
U.S.A. http://beertown.org (web)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 17:26:45 -0600
From: "Brian M. Rezac" <brian@aob.org>
Subject: Congratulations are in order
Fellow Brewers,
On behalf of Brian Rezac and Amahl Turczyn of the AHA and the rest of us
here at the AOB, I'd like to congratulate our boss, Charlie Papazian, on
his marriage this morning to Sandra Torres, from Natal, Brazil. Charlie
surprised all of here this morning with the announcement.
I'm sure there will be plenty of toasting of this event at the upcoming
GABF.
We all wish Charlie and Sandra all the best.
Cheers,
Jim
- --
Jim Parker
Director
American Homebrewers Association (303) 447-0816 x 122
736 Pearl Street (303) 447-2825 -- FAX
PO Box 1679 jim@aob.org -- E-MAIL
Boulder, CO 80306-1679 infor@aob.org -- AOB INFO
U.S.A. http://www.beertown.org -- WEB
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 1989 03:10:17 -0700
From: "Michel J. Brown" <hommade@spiritone.com>
Subject: RE: Color as calculated vs. real in glass
>You have touched on one of my pet Homebrewing peeves. I am referring to
>the general confusion that exists between the lovibond and SRM color
>scales. Much has been said and experiments have been done, and yet this
>confusion still exists and is propagated. Nothing against you, it's
>just the way things are...
While I can understand your feelings, and what you say makes sense, I
*never* said that I was confusing Lovibond color rating with Standard
Reference Method color. I would hazard a guess that you inferred this
association from my posting somehow. I actually measured a sample of the
grain slurry in my Spec100 spectrophotometer, and calibrated at 430nm, and
directly measured my transmission, and absorption, then used my CRC
reference book tables to correlate the approximate color.
>You said that you calculated an SRM of 16.9. This was probably a simple
>calculation based on the grain color multiplied by grain quantity and
>divided by the batch size.
No, what I did was actually measure the color A/T % and simply looked up
the corresponding values on a nomogram chart. Most food techs do this
routinely.
>There are some minor corrections that would need to be applied for
absolute >accuracy (such as the color extraction efficiency, wort darkening
via maillard >reaction, etc.) but this should suffice as a reasonable
approximation of the end >color.
Well, I took samples from raw grain slurries, actual pre and post boil
alloquats, then ran spectrophotometric measurements of the %
transmission/absorption of a standard calibrated 430nm quartz buret filled
with DI water.
>The problem lies in the "target" specifications as they are often cited in
SRM when
>they really mean lovibond.
Hmmm, now I'm *really* confused! I was under the misapprehension that
Lovibond colors referred to GRAIN color, while SRM referred to BEER color.
Perhaps I need to buy that Oxford English Dictionary CD set after all!
>As you may be aware, the lovibond and SRM scales diverge at a log rate
>on any colors above 10 SRM.
Actually, Lovibond is a linear scalar method, while SRM is a log-linear
system AFAIK.
>Your estimated color of 16.9 SRM would equate to 13.5 degrees L. This
would be >very close to your resulting color no doubt. So you see, an ale
at 16.9 SRM should >indeed be the color of a "light English ale" 10-12
*degrees lovibond*.
Interesting hypothesis you have developed. Perhaps I missed something along
the line and need to design a double blind Solomon Test Cross experiment to
eliminate my apparent experimenter bias. We can only perceive that which
our Central Nervous System allows us to filter to our subjective minds ;^)
>I have made up a chart for my own personal use based on the article in
>an ancient HBD by Dr. George Fix which charts out the non-linearity of
>the Lovibond scale based on the dilution of Michelob Dark beer, and
>applied this to the linear scale of SRM as would be measured by a
>scientifically accurate spectrophotometer. Unfortunately I have no way
>of making that readily available to you here. It is currently posted in
>the forum library of the Compuserve Beer forum, if you have access to
that.
Not a problem there Fred, as I not only have Dr. Fix's data, I also have my
own, based on the lot of grain that I was uing at the time. Now if only I
could find a way to get my accountant to let me buy an ion-electrophoresis
gel setup for my clinical lab!
>Regards,
>Fred Wills
Dr. Michel J. Brown, D.C.
homemade@spiritone.com
http://www.spiritone.com/~homemade/index.html
"Big Man don't drink no stinking light beer!"
"Big Man drink beer what got BIG TASTE!"
Big Man Brewing (R) 1996
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 97 08:40:55 -0500
From: instrumentation_hrc_at_hrc-mail@ccmail.howmet.com
Subject: hop help needed
The most recent brew was an all grain porter from cp. excellent beer.
Unfortunately, while relaxing a lot I failed to add about 2/3 of the
required hops. I now have ten gallons of bland beer. Can I salvadge it
at all by boiling the missing hops for an hour in a small amount of
water, say a quart or so and adding this to the beer?
On a related subject:
When stepping the batch from 5 gallons to 10, which is my typical brew
size, how much more hops should I use. Have read that hops utilization
rates change as the batch size increases but I haven't found hard data
as to what extent.
tnx & 73's
rick
aa8jz
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 12:09:39 -0500
From: Bill Velek <velek@cyberback.com>
Subject: LABCO Legal Banter - Homebrew Digest #2512
I want to respond to a posting by Jay Spies, who wrote ...
> HOMEBREW Digest #2512 Tue 23 September 1997
>
> Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 10:16:06 +0000
> From: "Jay Spies" <spiesjl@mda.state.md.us>
> Subject: LABCO Legal Banter
>
> All -
>
> There has been much discussion recently centered around the
> "ownership" of Rob's BW recipie, and its subsequent posting on the
> internet. Since several legal threads have surfaced, I thought that
> I would chime in with my .02, being a lawyer. The question of who
> owns the intellectual property rights to the BW recipie depends
> greatly *when* that recipie was made. If it was made on Little Apple
> time, using Little Apple facilities and workspace, etc., then Mr.
> Loeb(?) does in fact own the recipie. (Bear in mind that I still
> strongly feel that he is a prick of herculean proportions, and has
> absolutely no business conducting brewing of any sort). If however,
> the recipie was formulated on Rob's own time (at home, or otherwise)
> then HE owns it. The fact that Little Apple brewed the recipie in
> its brewery using Rob's recipie does not convert its ownership. All
> things being equal, I'm betting that being the gentleman that he is,
> Rob will be content to let this issue go to its final resting place.
> Sorry for the bandwidth, but I just wanted to weigh in. BTW, boycott
> away on Little Apple. I hope they go under. Also, thanks for the
> many responses I received to my post about 10-gallon Gott coolers. I
> just ordered 2 from Wal-Mart online (www.wal-mart.com) if anyone is
> interested.
>
> Brew away . . .
> Jay Spies
I am also an attorney, and I want to qualify Jay's posting; what he
says is probably true *PROVIDED* that there is no state laws or a
contract which might provide otherwise.
Before becoming an attorney, I worked in a design engineering
department and one of the terms of my employment contract, which I
was required to sign, was that during my employment all designs,
inventions, patents, etc., belonged exclusively to my employer
- -- REGARDLESS OF WHEN I DEVELOPED THEM, and whether
on my own time or on theirs'. While it might be possible to get around
a contractual provision like that if, for instance, I worked for an
electronics firm and developed a new chemical formula on my own
time, there is no question in my mind that it would certainly have
been enforceable if it pertained to the same subject matter. In
other words, with such a provision, if I work for a brewer and
develope a new brew in my home on my own time and with my own
equipment, it would still belong to my employer. Don't know
anything about the facts or parties in this dispute, and I'm not
commenting on what is fair or unfair, right or wrong; just stating
the law.
Bill Velek, Attorney
P.S. This is the third time for me to try to send this message; if it
fails, I'll give up. It's not that important anyway.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 15:00:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: KennyEddy@aol.com
Subject: Keg Hand Pump
If you've always wanted to bring a corny keg of your best homebrew to a
party, but didn't want to mess with hauling the CO2 tank, you might consider
a hand pump. Since the hand pump moves beer with air, the beer will
eventually stale, but it's fine for those times when the keg will be fully
consumed within a couple of days.
This hand pump is based on a sports-type hand pump, like the kind for filling
basketballs. Because these pumps typically use rubber seals and grease, the
air they produce has a pronounced rubbery smell. We'll build a simple but
effective activated charcoal filter to attach to the pump to remove these
odors.
*First, you'll need a keg quick-disconnect for the gas-in port of your keg.
Be sure to get the right kind for your keg, pin-lock or ball-lock.
*Purchase a pump at a sporting goods store. Get the cheapest one you can find
- -- I've seen them as low as $4. You want to be sure to get one that comes
with a length of hose, rather than the kind with the needle attached directly
to the body.
*Go to the hardware store and get a plastic 1/4" barb by male garden hose
thread adapter, and a 1/4" barb by female garden hose thread adapter. You'll
also need a hose washer.
*Stop by the pet store and get some activated charcoal granules.
*Finally, get a cotton ball from the medicine cabinet.
Put the hose washer into the female hose adapter, flush against the hose-barb
end. Pull a small pinch of cotton from the cotton ball and place it inside
the washer. The cotton will act as a filter to prevent charcoal from getting
into the beer. Don't use too much at all; just enough to hold back the
granules. You definitely don't want so much that you impede airflow.
Place another pinch of cotton in the male hose adapter. Now, fill the male
adapter with charcoal granules, slightly overfilled. Be sure no granules are
overlapping the edge of the threaded part, where they would interfere with
the fit against the washer in the female adapter. Now, holding the male
adapter with the open end up, thread the female adapter onto the male adapter
threads. You can mount the male adapter in a vice (it has a hex flange) to
make it easy to get a tight fit. A layer of Teflon pipe thread tape around
the male adapter's threads is helpful but not necessary. Tighten well.
Cut the fitting off the pump hose, and press either barb of the filter
assembly into the tubing. Now connect the other barb to the keg quick
disconnect barb using a short length of 1/4" ID tubing. Secure with hose
clamps.
Change the charcoal every few uses by disassembling, emptying, refillinmg,
and reassembling.
That's it! Now you have a hand pump for your kegs, complete with activated
charcoal filter to trap any particles as well as to reduce any rubbery or
plastic smell from the pump.
*****
Ken Schwartz
El Paso, TX
KennyEddy@aol.com
http://members.aol.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 18:10:53 -0400
From: Gary Clayton <garyclayton@mindspring.com>
Subject: Web page active for TRUB OPEN IX competition
The web page is now active for the TRUB OPEN IX homebrew competition to be
held 11/1/97. http://trub9.home.mindspring.com
Entrys and judges needed!!
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 22:53:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: AlannnnT@aol.com
Subject: piro's rocks and sparge idea
First, regarding Mr. Piro's healthy need for rocks in his beer. Perhaps you
could check with a butcher shop. Butchers use stainless mesh gloves [like
shark divers].
If you fill a glove or two with granite or whatever and hang the gloves from
a steel pole by a stainless wire you would have a fishing pole looking setup.
Then hang the bait [rocks] over the propane cooker until glowing. Then dip
the rocks into the tank. You could stay FAR away from danger this way. A
pivot point in the middle would help to keep things steady. Like a kids'
see-saw.
A -------------------------------------------
/\ !B
l l !
l l !
lC l | OO |
--------
A= pole B=wire C= pivot [fulcrum]
OO = heat source and then kettle
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Next idea, has anyone tried this? I am thinking of using a batch sparge
technique with the following twist. I think it will [might] improve batch
sparge efficiency enough to use it instead of traditional sparging.
After conversion lay a screen similar to a perforated false bottom on TOP of
the mash. Pin down or weigh down the screen to prevent floating.
Cover the screen with a pie tin for the next step. Pour in most of the sparge
water [as much as will fit in the tun]. Pull out the screen cover. Hopefully
the cover over the screen will keep the sparge water from mixing with the
mash while pouring.
Drain the tun as normal. When sparge water is half way drained add the
balance of the sparge water.
The idea here is that maybe the false bottom [now on top] will prevent
churning of the grain bed. Maybe thermal currents would be inhibited by the
false bottom? So maybe the batch sparge would act like a trickle sparge?
As you all know better than I, the hope is to have wort flow only downward.
The only real serious drawback I can see is compaction of the grain bed, so
I'm planning a new 1/2 copper manfold slotted and drilled.
So what do you gents and ladies think? Am I planning a disaster?
I brew while keeping one eye on my energetic four year old son, so anything
that saves me from sitting over my brew setup every minute helps prevent
domestic discourse.
Thanks for your input.
Alan Talman, head brewer
Figet Hut Brewing Co.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 20:43:05 +0000
From: Steve Alexander <steve-alexander@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Subject: 45 deg C rest and gummy adjuncts
John Rezabek <rezabeks@alpha.wcoil.com>
>Steve Alexander writes:
>
>> The mash-in at 40C of the Fix regime is awfully close to the ferulic
>> acid generating optima temp.
>
>What to do . . . I'm all ready to try a 115 F rest for a recipe that
>includes a fair amount of flaked rye (between 10 & 15 percent of the
>total grist). This proportion of rye has "caused" stuck sparges for me 2
>out of 5 times. Supposedly 115 F (46 C) is a really good temperature for
>beta-glucanase and her relations, which might reduce the gums and make
>for smoother sparging.
>
>Although I occasionally ferment these rye worts with a traditional
>hefe-weizen yeast (e.g. Yeast Lab W51) I like to use a more normal ale
>yeast occasionally, like Wyeast 1007 or 1056. But I sure don't want
>those scary off-flavor precursors either . . . any thoughts?
If the 122f/135f rest discussion, and Jim Busch's artticles on BT have
taught us anything, it is that at any temperature there is more than one
major enzyme acting, and that our ability to modulate and control the
activities of these many enzymes by the single parameter of temperature
is quite limited.
In an ideal world it would be nice to be able to independently choose to
mash for better runoff from the sticky rye and low ferulic acid content
but in the real world of brewing you must compromise. Ferulic acid
itself is not a flavor problem even at fairly high levels, but when it
is transformed by *some* brewers yeast varieties and many beer
infectious organisms into 4VG it can become a problem.
My advice would be to put your fears aside and mash as necessary for a
good sparge. The production of 4VG can be controlled by careful choice
of yeast and by redoubling mesures to avoid infections. Unfortunately I
have no information which would be generally helpful in determining
which paricular yeast varieties are 4VG non-producers vs low-level
producers :( . In the worst case of yeast selection, you will be no
worse off than if you had chosen a weizen yeast, and you will have
learned something about the yeast variety. See response to G.Fix to
follow.
I personally suspect that Wy1028 is a weak 4VG producer, but cannot
state this unequivocally.
Steve Alexander
p.s. I've an article in development for BT on the topic of phenols which
will discuss this in more detail.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 02:30:52 +0000
From: Steve Alexander <steve-alexander@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Ferulic acid
George Fix writes ...
>I slightly disagree with Steve Alexander on the ferulic acid
>issue. The yeast strains I prefer won't touch ferulic acid
>with "ten foot pole". Moreover, I conjecture that (Weizens
>aside) that phenolic tones found in beer has much more to
>do with the presence of nonculture yeast than the mash
>schedule used.
The widely referenced articles on this topic are, "Control of Ferulic
Acid and 4-Vinyl Guaiacol in Brewing", JIB v102, pp327-332, written by
seven scientists at Guinness Research Centre in Dublin, and M.Smyth of
the school of chemical science and Dublin City University, and a
preceding article "Phenolic Acids in Beer and Worts", JIB v90, pp181-187
by McMurrough, Roche and Cleary also of Guinness Research.
In these papers it is demonstrated that a mashing regime can cause a
tremendous increase in the level of free ferulic acids in sweet wort.
The high levels of ferulic acid in this wort produce enough 4VG (0.3ppm)
by thermal degradation during the boil to reach the flavor threshold
!!! No naughty yeasts or infections are required!
The researchers then measured the ability of 59 different saccharomyces,
including wild yeasts, to produce 4VG from ferulic acid. To summarise,
4 of 19 (non-wheat) ale yeasts were moderate level 4VG producers, quite
comparable in level to the 6 wheat beer yeasts tested ! The ability of
these moderate level 4VG producing yeasts to create 4VG above the flavor
threshold is dependent on the ferulic acid levels in the wort. If the
Guinness sample is representative then we might expect that about 20% of
non-wheat ale yeasts can produce enough 4VG (given the ferulic acid
necessary) so as to cause off flavors.
George may well have enough experience with his ale yeast selections to
know how they will react in a high ferulic acid environment, or perhaps
he has access to better yeast characterizations. George's broad
experience in HB and professional brewing gives him some authority in
this matter (another reason why I look forward to reading his brand new
book). Unfortunately when *I* survey the dozens and dozens of ale
yeasts available in the HB marketplace, many new, I have no useful guide
in this matter.
George points out that non-culture yeast infections are a likely cause
of these off flavors. About half of the wild S.Cerevisiae yeast strains
tested were moderate 4VG producers, so limiting the amount of ferulic
acid present may also limit their ability to damage beer flavor.
In my own experience I have tasted very slight tho' undeniable 4VG
flavors in some 40C-60C-70C mashed ales fermented with wy1028. Did the
4VG come from the boil, or is wy1028 a producer, or an infection, or
even a yeast mutation ? Regardless of the cause, I could probably have
reduced the final 4VG level below the flavor threshold by avoiding
40-45C in the mash schedule.
I'm not suggesting we become phenol-phobic. If a 40-45C rest is called
for - do it. But be aware of the possible consequences when you are not
fully familiar with your ale yeasts' 4VG characteristics. Also, low
level infections, usually undetected, are probably more common in HBing
and Microbrewing than any of us know or care to admit. So why
unnecessarily create 'off-flavor fuel' for these infections ?
wishing I had a beautifully 'off-flavored' Schneider Weisse ;^) ,
Steve Alexander
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 13:57:15 -0500
From: ajdel@mindspring.com (A. J. deLange)
Subject: RO/ As CaCO3/Hot Water
Scott Bridges solicited experience with reverse osmosis units. I originally
put this together a few days ago only to see it bounce because of a non
ACII character and said "Bother!" until I saw some of the other replies and
noted th=E5t one of Scott's thoughts was to have whole-house RO. This is
impractical both because of cost and because RO water is EXTREMELY
agressive. It cannot be run through metal pipes as they won't last long.
Also a unit with the capacity to meet daily household demand would be cost
much more to buy, install and maintain than the average homeowner would
wish. That said, here's the original post:
Here's a sketchy description of how RO units work. The osmotic pressure of
a solution depends on the number of moles of solute dissolved in it and the
temperature (van't Hoff's law). A 10 millimole/liter solution of sodium
chloride (650 mg/L)at room temperature would have an osmotic pressure of
about 0.47 atmosphere Picture a device with two chambers separated by a
membrane which is permeable to solvent (water) molecules but not the ions
of salts dissolved in water (cellulose acetate was the favorite for a long
time but there are newer materials available not). Pure (or nearly pure)
water is in one chamber and water with salts dissolved in it is in the
other. The osmotic pressure is the extra pressure which must be applied to
the salt side to keep pure water from flowing across the membrane in an
attempt to dilute the salt and thus lower the osmotic pressure to the point
where the system is in equilibrium and flow stops.
Osmotic flow attempts to equalize osmotic pressure on the two sides of the
membrane. In the usual case, for example a yeast cell in honey (a sugar
solution) of less than 18% water content, water will flows through a
membrane to the concentrated soultion side This is why honey won't ferment.
On the other hand, if we increase the pressure on the solutiond side water
will flow away from that side to the purer side in an attempt to increase
the osmotic pressure on the solution side to the point where it equals the
applied pressure and equilibrium is restored. This flow out of the solution
is called "reverse osmosis".
RO units work (and this is pretty sketchy) by pressurizing the incoming
water and presenting it to one side of a membrane. As we saw in the
example, about a half atmosphere is sufficient for water with up to around
500 ppm TDS. Purified water is collected from the non-pressurized side of
the membrane and the high pressure stream flows to the sewer. The units
typically produce 2 gallons of waste water for every gallon of purified
water they put out. This is a great improvement over earlier units where
the ratio was more like 5:1 but may still be a consideration where water
conservation is an issue. The waste water could always be recovered and
used for something else like watering the garden.
Throughput on small units is typically 5 gallons per day. Some units can
double that by addition of an external booster pump. Even so if you meed 20
- 30 gallons of water you will have to collect it for several days. This is
not a problem if you have a suitable container.
The units require some maintenance. In addition to the membrane there are
wound particulate, activated charcoal and polish filters. All of these need
to be replaced periodically. Proper maintenance on the other filters will
allow a multi-year life on the membrane which needs to be kept free of
particulate matter and should not be exposed to chlorine which will shorten
its useful life.
There are lots of ways to use RO water in brewing. Add salts to build
whatever profile you want, use it to dilute your regular water, use it by
itself (Pils but you would probably want to add a small quantity of salts
even for Pils).
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Brian Dixon asked about alkalinity formulas:
The definition of "as CaCO3" is just that: a definition. In alkalinty
calculations we are interested in the number of milliequivalents of acid
(malt acid for brewers) required to neutralize the alkali in the water.
Most authors express this equivalence in terms of the equivalent weight of
calcium carbonate (50 mg/mEq). In the pH 8 example where the concentration
of hydronium is [H+] =3D 10^-8 moles per liter or 10^-5 millimoles per liter
which is equal to 10^-5 mEq/L because the hydronium ion carries a single
charge.We multiply by 50 and come up with 50E-5 or 5E-4 or 0.0005 mg/L as
CaCO3. For the hydroxide at molar concentration 10^(pH-14) =3D 10^-6 M/L, we
have 10^-3 mEq/L and thus 5E-2 or 0.05 mg/L as CaCO3.
In the cited example
<<OH->> =3D 10^-6 * 10^3 =3D 0.001 mg/L as CaCO3 for OH-
<<H+ >> =3D 10^-8 * 10^3 =3D 0.00001 mg/L as CaCO3 for H+
he has calculated the mEq/L and left off the "as CaCO3" factor. Multiplying
by 50 gives the correct results.
More troublesome to me is
<<species>> =3D [species] M/L * 100.0892 g/M (CaCO3) * 1000 mg/L
Multiplying by 100 instead of 50 we would have 0.001 for [H+] and 0.1 for
[OH-]. which is what Brian got. Fix's book is the only place I've
personally seen the definition expressed in terms of the molecular weight
but I'm sure he didn't make this up and I did buy one alkalinity test kit
which gave double the expected result in mg/L as CaCO3 and so it is clear
that the manufacturer of this kit used the molecular weight as opposed to
the equivalent weight definition. How many times have I wished that people
would simply express alkalinity and acidity in milliequivalents! The "as
CaCO3" business only adds confusion not only in the sense that there are
multiple definitions but in other ways as well.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
There seems be a thread on whether water out of a hot water heater has
greater or lesser TDS than the water going in. Dave Burley suggested
conductivity tests and they will of course, give an indication as to
whether carbonates are being dropped. But, as he pointed out, conductivity
meters tend to be dear. A much less expensive approach is to purchase a
hardness test kit fromt the nearest aquarium supply store. With such a kit
you can detect a change in the calcium/magnesium content (expressed in mg/L
as CaCO3!) of the water as it goes through the heater. You hope, of
course, that the difference will be small because the CaCO3 and MgCO3 which
don't come out of the heater build up in it.
A. J. deLange
- Numquam in dubio, saepe in errore.
- --> --> --> To reply remove "nosp" from address. <-- <--
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 09:10:54 -0700
From: Kyle Druey <kdldmd@lightspeed.net>
Subject: Float Valve for Sparging
HBD collective,
I have received several emails asking for more info on the float valve
that I use to control the water level when fly sparging. A picture of
the float valve is located on Grianger's online catalog at the following
address:
http://www.grainger.com/cgi-bin/item_detail?5379070Y2x768
This is grainger part number 2X768. The float valve is used to control
the water level on evaporative coolers, which are also known as "swamp"
coolers.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 11:21:58 +0000
From: scotty@enaila.nidlink.com
Subject: yeast from a bottle of beer
I am getting ready to brew my first barley wine. I had a bottle of
Old Crustacian made by the Rogue brewery in Newport, OR this weekend.
I loved it. My aim is not to duplicate the beer but to use it as a
basis for formulating my own recipe. I'd like to culture the yeast
from a bottle of Old Crustacian. Since this beer is aged in the
bottle for 1+years, is the yeast still viable? Does anyone know for
sure if the yeast would be the primary strain? Lastly, can someone
give me any tips/tricks on how to culture said yeast successfully? I
use liquid yeast already and am familiar with making starters. My
plan was to make a starter using the yeast from the bottle. Maybe I
would step it up a couple of times, too. It this the propper
approach? Any help is appreciated. Private email is OK.
Scott Rohlf
scotty@nidlink.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 14:38:10 -0400
From: mel@genrad.com (Mark E. Lubben)
Subject: Re: potential modification test
David R. Burley suggest a potential malt modification test in HBD#2516
using a refractometer:
>>(Dr. George Fix on gelatanization in 40/60/70 mash in HBD#2514)
>> 1. Liquefaction/beta-glucan rest at 38-42C - 30 mins. -
>> during this period there was a sharp increase in mash
>> SG as measured by a refractometer.
> The bigger the change ( when held long enough
> to indicate no more can be formed) in the
> refractive index upon holding at 40C, the
> more glucans that are being broken down
> during the brewing cycle.
...
What are you assuming is causing the change in refractive index?
I know that glucan remnants, various soluble peptides, enzymes,
and starch all cause SG increases like sugars. But how do they refract?
The refractometer is calibrated to read equivalent SG for a
measured rotation of polarized light for a particlar sugar
(the main one in grape juice but maltose is close).
Anyone know the polarization factors (&sign) for typical compounds in
the other 4 constituants??? It would be nice to know what the
major things your test is measuring... Measuring mostly dissolved starch
or glucan remnants is fine, but measuring mostly the FAN level
just duplicates other tests.
I don't mean to knock it Dave, just curious.
Mark Lubben
It is really strange to talk to my daughter (P.T.) about glycolysis.
She started pointing out the simplified steps in my brewing T-shirt.
I pointed out the limited area (even on XL) and washer proof print size.
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #2517, 09/29/97
*************************************
-------
