Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2524
HOMEBREW Digest #2524 Tue 07 October 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:
Pumpkin beer ("Grant W. Knechtel")
Science and Art ("Michel J. Brown")
Re: Science and Brewing (Charles Hudak)
Pressure cooking wort problems (kathy)
re: Bottle Conditioning with honey ("Michael E. Dingas")
Re: Refrigerators for temperature control (LaBorde, Ronald)
Refrigerator or freezer? (Forrest Duddles)
New Subcriber (Landman106)
The Jethro GABF Report ("Rob Moline")
Flavor extracts (DGofus)
Pitted Carboys ("Mark S. Johnston")
_publication_only_ RIMS Heater Chamber,Help ! (Jeff Grey)
re: Cyser question (Dick Dunn)
Looking for Info (Burt Knight)
SRM vs. Lovibond (MED)" <Frederick.Wills@amermsx.med.ge.com>
Sanitizing oak chips (Randy Ricchi)
Dry hopping with EKG (Randy Ricchi)
co2 chillers ??? (bers)
Even more all grain ramblings (Matthew Arnold)
Back From GABF (Mark Tumarkin)
Talking Shop ("Frank Klaassen")
Grain Explosion ("robert kiniston")
Water analysis ("Braam Greyling")
precision hydrometer calibration (Dave Whitman)
Effects of Boiling First Runnings (John Varady)
Prolonged fermentation ("Yusko, Jon")
Restarted fermentation ("F.W. Sweigart")
Batch sparge (nlerner)
Stamp Glue, Malt modification ("David R. Burley")
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, 03 Oct 1997 21:46:01 -0700
From: "Grant W. Knechtel" <GWK@hartcrowser.com>
Subject: Pumpkin beer
Just a quick data point re the pumpkin thread: made a pumpkin beer last year
which also had almost no pumpkin flavor - if you knew it was there, you'd swear
you *could* taste it, but that's just the power of suggestion. This was with
pumpkin in the mash ala Papazian's "Cucurbito Pepo", a seriously stuck mash,
too. I've resolved never to try it again (just wait till I have to throw out
the Jack O'Lanterns, my cheap side will kick in...)
-Grant
Neue Des Moines Hausbrauerei
Des Moines, Washington
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 04 Oct 1997 01:44:54 -0800
From: "Michel J. Brown" <homemade@spiritone.com>
Subject: Science and Art
As a physician, I can relate to the posts about science vs. art. I feel that
we practice the art (brewing) by having knowledge of science (zymurgy) to
assist us in the pursuit of making better beer. I have made 100's beers (art)
in the past 25 years, changing only one ingredient at a time (science) in the
course of perfecting a recipe (more art). My experiments produced many
unexpected discoveries (serendipity) which led me to greater understanding
(science) and appreciation (art) of good beer. How else can we get what we
want from life without ever challenging ourselves to greater levels of
accomplishment? Like the Belgians, I look towards innovation based upon
tradition (aka pragma not dogma). Btw, I solved the riddle of the California
Common bitterness levels -- I attended a seminar on "sensorineural pathways of
the crainial nerves", and was delighted to find out that the speaker (a
neurologist) was also a home brewer! He told me that he discovered bitterness
levels are more pronounced when carbonation levels exceed 2.25 atmoshperes (at
45'F), and are retarded below this figure. This makes sense from a S-N pov,
but lacking experimental evidence of CO2 acidification at various pressures
and temperatures, I'm unable to elucidate further. TTYAL, ILBCNU!
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 04 Oct 1997 05:44:55 -0700
From: Charles Hudak <cwhudak@gemini.adnc.com>
Subject: Re: Science and Brewing
Just thought that I'd throw in my $0.02.
As my boss says, "It ain't rocket science." Although I do enjoy the
discussions on technical topics (something sorely lacking in Zymurgy but
finding an audience in Brewing Techniques) I have to agree that some of you
homebrewers take things far too seriously.
My employer won't buy me a microscope, a hematocytometer, a pH meter or
many of the other things which I would love to have to make my brewing more
"scientific". I still make great beer and have many people tell me so. I
don't worry about HSA, 122F rests or blah, blah, blah, but I still am able
to make great beer. I see a lot of homebrewers spending too much time
worrying about if their thermometer is accurate to 0.01F when it really
isn't that critical to how good their beer turns out.
Hey, my mash loses 2F during it's rest. I'm not going to run any tests to
find out if the wort is any different if I mash at 154 or 154.5F.
Realistically, I can't control my mash to that degree of specificity. I
don't have any noticeable effects from a slight change in temperature
either way, though I do know that there is an obvious effect between
mashing at 149 and 156.
Bottom line... many homebrewers (RIMS folks?) have much more control and
pay much more attention to very subtle differences in their mash and sparge
routines than most "seat of the pants" microbrewers can afford to concern
themselves with or, honestly, have the ability to control.
Hey, I'd love to have a brand new refractometer, but my boss still won't
let me use any imported malts ("American maltsters are the best in the
world, you know."), different yeast strains or unusual ingredients (maple
syrup, coffee, spices, to name a few). I work within the limits imposed
upon me and am jealous as hell of some of these "pro-brewers" who get to
use the best equipment that can be bought, but what option do I have? (Ok,
I could quit and pursue a career as a computer geek--honestly, there's more
money in it)
I make great, consistent products without concerning myself with all of the
different temperature rests, blah blah blah and blah blah blah.
Honestly, the only time that I can apply most of the scientific aspects of
brewing is during my homebrewing sessions where I have complete control
over all of the ingredients, procedures and equipment-- and you all thought
that you wanted to be professional brewers!
My point is that unless you are doing research, alot of the technical
details are just something to confuse you and make your brewing less
enjoyable. Heck, do you think that the brewers in Burton on Trent worry
about their water? Hell NO! They worry about making beer. It so happens
that the type(s) of beer that they make are suited by the type of water
that they have. I can't make drastic changes to my water so I brew beers
that are suitable for the type of water that I have. RO systems are
expensive, especially when you're talking about treating hundreds of
gallons for each brew. I make subtle changes, where possible, but I don't
expect, nor do I try, as a professional brewer, to make pilsner water
(soffffftt) out of my fairly hard city splash.
Am I done yet?
Charles Hudak
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 04 Oct 1997 08:12:45 -0500
From: kathy <kbooth@scnc.waverly.k12.mi.us>
Subject: Pressure cooking wort problems
Tried to make a Pilsner Urquel clone with a single decoction and
pressure cooking the first 15 qts or so of first wort spargings. The
temp and pressure data for the pressure cooking is non-existant but it
was about 30' or so under pressure. Got a huge hot break that I
strained off as the flakes were troublesome to the eye.
The problem is the OG was 1.044 and the FG 1.021 with much more residual
sweetness to taste then I want in a Bohemian. The saccrification mash
rest was at 155F. I expected 1.016 or so but not 1.021.
At the same session, I brewed two 5 g batches of American Lager (with
corn adjunct) at the same time with similar oxygenation, yeast,
fermentation temps and etc., and both fermented to FG of 1.011. I used
a huge additions of reconstituted dry yeast (generously provided by one
of HBD's commercial brewers) so yeast population numbers weren't a
problem to my thinking.
My questions are, (1) did pressure cooking the 15 qts of first runnings
take off too much FAN or other material to have a good fermentation?
(2) Have others who pressure cooked their first runnings experienced
higher than expected FG? (3) Should the pressure cooking of first
runnings be limited in volume or time?
TIA and thanks to Jethro for the interesting report from the GABF!
jim booth, lansing, mi
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 13:40:05 -0400
From: "Michael E. Dingas" <dingasm@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: re: Bottle Conditioning with honey
My Brewmaster salesman told me to use about 2/3 cup of honey for a 5 gal =
batch. I've also been told by others that they no longer use cornstarch =
but substitute the honey, instead. How will that affect different =
recipes? Don't know. Perhaps some else can answer that.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 14:42:49 -0500
From: rlabor@lsumc.edu (LaBorde, Ronald)
Subject: Re: Refrigerators for temperature control
>From: Donovan <dlambright@socketis.net>
>I'm thinking very seriously of buying a small fridge to hold a carboy
during
>fermentation. I know you can buy a thermostat with a probe to make the
>fridge maintain a temperature beyond it's normal range (55-70 degrees).
>Does it matter whether I get a fridge or freezer?
Well Donovan, with the refrigerator, it would sometimes be difficult to
get the temperature down low enough to lager. Some will just not go low
enough. With a freezer, on the other hand, you can certainly get the
temperature low enough, the problem now becomes how to get the
temperature high enough. The manufacturers of freezers assume that you
will be using it as a freezer - fair enough, so they didn't design the
thermostat to operate at much above freezing.
So if you want the best control, then a freezer with an external
temperature controller will allow you to obtain just about any
temperature you desire. Since the installed thermostat will always be
calling for freezing temperatures, it will not cycle off and you will
not need to change it or jump it out. Just plug the whole freezer into
the external thermostat.
If you have the room, be sure to get a large freezer, if one keg is good
more are better!
Happy Brewing
Ron
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 04 Oct 1997 20:43:51 -0400
From: Forrest Duddles <duddles@Imbecile.kzoo.edu>
Subject: Refrigerator or freezer?
Hello all,
Donovan Lambright raises a very good question... Which to use for
maintaining fermentation temperatures of 55-70 degF, a refrigerator or a
freezer?
The short answer is neither, but that doesn't help very much so here is a
little longer answer.
Refrigeration systems are usually designed to operate within a narrow
temperature range. There are three common system types which cover most
applications - High temperature which normally uses a 35 degF evaporator
and is most commonly used for air conditioning, Medium temperature which
normally uses a 0 to 15 degF evaporator and is used for domestic
refrigerators and commercial coolers, and low temperature which commonly
uses a -20 degF or colder evaporator and is used for freezers.
Each of these system types are designed to achieve the desired temperature
and provide the proper operating environment for the system components.
Here is where things get sticky. Refrigeration systems are just a means to
pump heat from one space to another. The goal is to remove enough heat from
the space (in this case, the cabinet) to lower the temperature the desired
amount and reject that heat to the ambient air. Each component of the
system is chosen for its ability to operate properly in the desired
temperature range. If the system is operated outside of that range, the
components may be damaged.
For example, the compressor is cooled by saturated refrigerant vapor
returning from the evaporator. If the evaporator operates at too high a
temperature for an extended period, the vapor will not be able to provide
proper compressor cooling and the compressor will overheat, thus shortening
its life.
Another example relates to system pressures. When running under normal
conditions a typical refrigerator's compressor may have a discharge
pressure of 125 psig and a suction pressure of 9 psig. When the compressor
stops, sufficient time must be allowed for system pressures to equalize
before the compressor is restarted. If the controller cut-out/cut-in
differential is too small, the compressor may stall when the controller
tries to start it. The stalled compressor will cycle its thermal overload
until either the system pressures equalize or the motor fails.
Modify the refrigerator to run at a different temperature and you become
the engineer. It is up to you to determine what will work and you must
accept the risk of damage.
A high temperature refrigeration system is able to achieve the 55 - 70
degF fermentation temperatures desired and would be the appropriate choice
for this application. The most common form of small high-temp system is a
window air conditioner. Unfortunately, even the smallest is too big unless
you want to build a cold room.
Both medium and low temp systems will be too cold when run within
reasonable compressor cooling conditions. A chest freezer might run up to
50 degF or so under favorable conditions. A refrigerator might run up to 60
degF or so.
A possible alternative is a small dorm refrigerator used with an insulated
box for the carboy and an air duct to and from the fridge. Temperature
control could be via a thermostatically controlled fan. See Ken Schwartz's
fermentation chiller design for details.
Many refrigerators were/are overbuilt and will take a lot of abuse. Many
won't. I use a chest freezer for my kegs and run it at 42 degF but I have
my temperature controller set for a 5 degree differential and keep the
freezer in a cool basement. I'll probably get away with it for quite a
while. I might not if it were an upright in a hot garage.
It could be interesting to hear from others out there. Do you use a
modified freezer or refrigerator for brewing? What temperature do you have
it set for? What are the ambient conditions? How old is it? How long have
you used it at this temperature? What problems if any have you had?
Please reply to fridge@Imbecile.kzoo.edu. I'll collect the data and post
the results.
Hope this helps!
Forrest Duddles - FridgeGuy in Kalamazoo
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 20:59:06 -0400 (EDT)
From: Landman106@aol.com
Subject: New Subcriber
Hello all, I am new to this hobby and need a little help. I am attempting to
make my first yeast starter and things are not going well. I started with 3
ounces of light DME in one quart of water (boiled and cooled). I added a
packet of dry Coopers yeast and sealed with an air lock. It has been 48
hours without any action and I am getting tired of waiting. The lady at the
beer store says sometimes it takes three days.
Thoughts?
Vern
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 05 Oct 97 01:34:42 PDT
From: "Rob Moline" <brewer@ames.net>
Subject: The Jethro GABF Report
The Jethro GABF Report
I am very disappointed in myself, but have to say that I have simply been
having too much fun to give you another update on the GABF....except to
state that it has been the best one yet for me, and that says a lot
considering I never thought it could be better than last year.........
I do have a lot to say about the affair, have learned things that are not
obvious, which I will report to you, but have a long drive to deal with
tomorrow, and the next day...
Look for the final report in the next few days, after I get home......
Jethro
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: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 06:50:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: DGofus@aol.com
Subject: Flavor extracts
I have a few stout recipes that call for 1. Fresh mint leaves. 2. 4-6 vanilla
beans cut lengthwise. I am having a heck of a time finding the vanilla beans.
Would it be possible to just use vanilla extract? How much , when to add,
etc. The same goes for the Fresh mint. These are to be added to the secondary
fermenter. Could I use a mint extract? Also, if I got a hold of vanilla
beans( mail order? ) would the oils present kill any head retention? Private
e-mail okay. Thanks!
Bob Fesmire
Madman Brewery
Pottstown, PA
Dgofus@aol.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 08:56:54 -0400
From: "Mark S. Johnston" <msjohnst@talon.net>
Subject: Pitted Carboys
Greetings, Collective!
I have a bit of a mystery on my hands.
I had a few carboys that were pretty caked up with yeast scale and dried
wort/beer/hop leaves. I've found that ammonia works very well at loosening
up this kind of gunk. So I filled the carboys with ammonia and water
solution and let them soak. Unfortunately, I let them soak for several
weeks. When I went to empty them, they were coated on the inside with what
appears to be a particulate sediment. I've tried rinsing, chlorine
solution, One-Step, more rinsing, and brushing with each of the above
solutions. Some of it appears to have come off, but most of it won't
budge.
I had this problem once with a chlorine solution, and I have since
avoided long clorox soaks for this reason. To the best of my knowledge,
the chlorine sediment washed out fairly easily.
Does anyone know if this is sediment or is the glass pitted? I did not
think that ammonia would pit the glass, since glass carboys and jugs are
used for concentrated ammonia storage. Has anyone else experienced this?
Has anyone a solution?
Private/public responses acceptable.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 05 Oct 1997 13:40:21 -0700
From: Jeff Grey <grey@ameritech.net>
Subject: _publication_only_ RIMS Heater Chamber,Help !
Dear Brewers,
I am trying to build a RIMS heater chamber and every plan that I have
doesn't work. The problem I have it that the Chromalox element that I
purchased will not fit onto my NPT copper fittings. I was told by a
local plumbing supply house that the threads are for the most NPT,but
off at a angle. Does anybody have a plans for a RIMS heater chamber
with specific brands of elements that have worked. Any help will be
appreciated.
Jeff Grey
grey@ameritech.net
------------------------------
Date: 5 Oct 97 14:17:30 MDT (Sun)
From: rcd@raven.talisman.com (Dick Dunn)
Subject: re: Cyser question
jwilkins@imtn.tpd.dsccc.com (John Wilkinson) wrote:
> I realize this belongs more properly in the Mead Lovers Digest but I
> keep being rejected there.
I handle the Mead-Lovers Digest (and the Cider Digest). If there's a
problem, I'll be happy to do what I can to fix it, but "rejected" doesn't
tell me (or anybody else who might try to help) enough to do anything for
you.
> I made a cyser with about 12 pounds of honey and a gallon of apple juice.
> Activity seems to have stopped and I racked it the second time this weekend.
> The SG is 1.010. Should it go lower or is it probably finished?
Most likely it has more to go.
Both meads and ciders will tend to ferment out dry if given the chance--
that is, if the yeast can handle the alcohol. I'd expect that what you've
got would finish down around 0.995 if it ferments completely.
Realize that mead tends to take longer than beer. Also, keep in mind that
fermentation generally slows down for a bit after racking a mead.
This leaves a couple of questions, then: What yeast did you use? (This
will let us figure out whether it's going to ferment dry.) How long has it
been since pitching the yeast? (This will let us figure out how far along
the fermentation is likely to be.)
- ---
Dick Dunn rcd, domain talisman.com Boulder County, Colorado USA
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 05 Oct 1997 18:44:12
From: Burt Knight <bknight@netheaven.com>
Subject: Looking for Info
Looking for info on MicroBreweries and Brewpubs in New England
and New York for an interactive www site about them.
Burt Knight
http://www.explorene.com
http://www.exploreny.com
http://www.cyberniche.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 21:04:47 -0500
From: "Wills, Frederick J (MED)" <Frederick.Wills@amermsx.med.ge.com>
Subject: SRM vs. Lovibond
<<From: "Michel J. Brown" <homemade@spiritone.com>
Subject: Lovibond vs. SRM
Thanks to Fred I have resolved my dilemma! Apparently Fred was correct
about
spurious light striking my quartz test tube...when I pushed the tube
inside
the cell hole in the spectrophotometer, light was leaking around *sides*
of
the test tube via internal reflection (relatively high index of
refraction for
quartz.>>
Glad to hear that I (indirectly at best<g>) was able to aid you in
solving your dilemna. But, realizing that your "old reliable" is now
operating up to "specs", just what are the specs for that
spectrophotometer?
I believe (based mostly on hearsay) that most of the instruments used in
the brewing industry have a "stray light" spec of ~1% and a theoretical
maximum range of 2.0 Au (ie 20 SRM). But what is the expected absolute
accuracy of readings taken at the instrument's maximum?
Since this is a constant error value, as the sample attenuates light
more, the relative amount of error increases.
There are more expensive instruments with correspondingly lower stray
light specs, higher accuracy and higher maximum Au ranges, but for the
average brewer (looking primarily for quality control), absolute
accuracy is not as important as reproducibility.
This may be approaching "analysis to paralysis", but my main theories
are:
1) Dilution of beer is the same as dilution of anything else. The
resulting color will be reduced in a predictably logarithmic fashion.
This could be demonstrated with a suitably accurate instrument. This
also means that adding pigments to beer (or any other liquid) would be
equally predictable.
2) The color of beer as measured using the lovibond scale (as it
pertains to beer color at least if not grains) appears to not
demonstrate the same dilution linearity (per Breiss, Fix, et al). This
must mean that the scale is inherently non-linear and as such,
prediction cannot be done mathematically. You would need a look-up
table of some sort to correct for the error between the calculated SRM
and the commonly used lovibond scale.
The real problem IMO is that conventional homebrew wisdom says that
lovibond is "close enough" to SRM. While this is probably true at the
lower end of the scales, when the beer sample is darker than about 1.0
Au (ie 10 Lov. or SRM units) the scales would appear to diverge. The
interesting thing is that the divergence appears to occur at nearly the
same rate that the error of commonly used spectrophotometers increases.
Coincidence?
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 05 Oct 1997 22:24:01 -0400
From: Randy Ricchi <rricchi@ccisd.k12.mi.us>
Subject: Sanitizing oak chips
I've searched the HBD archives for ways of sanitizing oak chips and found
the following: pressure cooking at 15 psi for 10 minutes; boiling for 20
minutes, but use the water also or you won't get much of the oakiness; and
steaming in a vegetable steamer.
What I'm wondering is how effective is wrapping the chips (1 oz. plain oak
chips for homebrewing, I assume American oak) in aluminum foil and baking
for an hour or so at 350 degrees F. while the Mrs. cooks something for
dinner? And if that is considered effective, how long should I leave this
1 oz. in the secondary of an American IPA? I want to notice the oak, but I
don't want to make a grimace ale out of this beer.
TIA.
Randy Ricchi
"Should anyone thirst, let them come unto me and drink"
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 05 Oct 1997 22:32:29 -0400
From: Randy Ricchi <rricchi@ccisd.k12.mi.us>
Subject: Dry hopping with EKG
In Saturday's HBD Guy Gregory noted that local contest judges thought his
IPA could use more hops and suggested he try dry hopping. Guy did dry-hop
with two ounces of EKG, but thought the beer did not have the kind of hop
nose he was looking for.
It is possible that the judges are used to evaluating American IPA's, and
are not familiar with EKG. The typical hops used in American IPA's are
Cascade, Centennial, Columbus, and Chinook. These hops all have a very
aggressive character in aroma, flavor and bitterness. EKG is no where near
as aggressive.
If you made two batches of pale ale which were identical in all respects
except hop type, keeping IBU's the same, and ounces used for dry hopping
the same, and one batch had EKG and one batch had one of the 4 "Big C's"
listed above, I guarantee you would think the American-hopped beer was
hoppier.
However,if Guy's batch was a five or six gallon batch with 2 oz. of EKG dry
hopped for two weeks it should have plenty of aromatics and flavor. If not,
perhaps the hops were not in very good condition.
Another possibility is that he used a plastic container for secondary. I
believe a plastic vessel robs some of the dry hopping character from a
beer. I always use glass carboys, but a friend of mine uses plastic
throughout primary and secondary, and he never gets the intensity of aroma
from his dry hops as I do, even when we use the same hops and the same
amounts.
By the way, it was a nice surprise to find an HBD waiting for me to read on
a Saturday!
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 97 22:43:50 PDT
From: bers@epix.net
Subject: co2 chillers ???
Greetings HBD gadget men
I worked on a valve crew at a nuke plant for awhile and some times
there was a valve to remove and no way to stop the flow. There was a company
that would come install a freeze plug in the pipe some times up to a 24 "
pipe. They would just wrap a jacket around the pipe and fill it co2 and the
line would freeze solid. I'm sure there is more to it than that I never
checked up on it. Could this method be applied in a smaller scale to cool
hot wort. I would think this would the cool wort as fast as a 3/8" line
would allow flow you would have to worry about frozen wort the first few
times. The cost of the co2 may make this a bad idea anyway. Just an idea for
those gadgetly inclined.
Can anyone tell the address for the HBD thread archives.
E-mail is fine. I'll post the result of the co2 chiller.
Thanks Tony
- -------------------------------------
Name: Tony Maurer
E-mail: bers@epix.net
Date: 10/5/97
Time: 10:43:50 PM
Brewing in Benton
- -------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 03:36:38 GMT
From: mra@skyfry.com (Matthew Arnold)
Subject: Even more all grain ramblings
First of all thanks to all for their explanations of the differences between
fly and batch sparging. I know understand.
I thought of another question. I'm going to be getting a seven gallon Gott
cooler as a mash/lauter tun. I would like people's opinions on which would be
better: a Phil's phalse bottom or an EZ-Masher setup and why?
Thanks again,
Matt, soon to be all-grain newbie
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 05 Oct 1997 23:48:55 -0400
From: Mark Tumarkin <tumarkin@mindspring.com>
Subject: Back From GABF
Hi All,
The short version: The GABF was Great!! Had a hell of a good time!!
The slightly longer version: The GABF was Great! Had a hell of a good time!
We had 5 members from MASH (Miami Society of Homebrewers)make the trip out,
but with accompanying wives, brothers, uncle & aunt, one set of parents -
there were over a dozen of us wearing our club t-shirts. We were having so
much fun I think people thought there were many more of us there. One
member of the Santa Brewbarians looked at a group of four of us and asked
how many of us there were, Mark Kelly said "just 2, you're so drunk your
seeing double."
The beer tasting experience was a real treat. I have never had the
opportunity to try so many great beers. It put the saying So Many Beers, So
Little Time into a whole new perspective. It also put the saying Life Is
Too Short To Drink Bad Beer into a new perspective as well. You are given a
one ounce pour of each beer. With some beers that was hardly enough, with
others it was more than enough.
The first session was the AHA Members Only session on Thursday. This year
they announced the winners early on Thursday. This gave us the chance to
try the medal winners of our favorite styles while our taste buds were
still working. I must admit I got hammered (one ounce at a time still
catches up to you by the end of the night). During the following sessions I
tried to sip less of each beer so I was more able to make comparisons among
the award winners (and also many of the great beers that did not win
awards). It was fantastic to have the opportunity to try so many great
brews that are not available to me regularly.
It was great to meet some of the members of our HBD collective. We had fun
at the GABF and also after the show at the Falling Rock. Thanks a lot to
Chris Black (the King and owner of the pub) who was an extremely gracious
host. And also to Brian Rezac for organizing it. I first met Brian outside
the hall before the first session. He came up to the group of us when he
saw our MASH tshirts. It was sort of like looking in the mirror - except
that he's got more grey hair and I'm better looking. Brian is a great guy,
he has a non-stop sense of humor and made us all feel really welcome. But
when he started singing in the Falling Rock - everyone there started
yelling "Stop Rezac". After meeting both him and Jim Parker, I think I can
tell you all that both of them are good people (homebrewers both) to have
at the AHA. If you're not happy with the AHA or some of it's directions, at
least you have some people there that will listen to your views and discuss
them openly. I thoroughly enjoyed talking with Rob Moline (he wanted to be
sure that I told you that he really does'nt have horns or a tail - despite
the perceptions held by some people). In his persona of Jethro Gump, he
discovered a cousin named J.Gump at the festival. It was nice to meet Ken
Schwartz as well. I've always enjoyed reading his posts, and after meeting
him I look forward to reading them even more. He's involved with the High
Desert Brew Pub - while they didn't win any medals they had some really
tasty beers.
My wife and I are in the process of moving to Gainesville. The GABF was a
welcome interlude in the midst of the insanity of packing. Next Saturday is
moving day. What fun! Next time I post, I may have changed the homebrewery
name, but for the moment, I remain
Mark Tumarkin
The Brewery in the Jungle
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 04:35:55 -0400
From: "Frank Klaassen" <klaassen@chass.utoronto.ca>
Subject: Talking Shop
There has been a lot of about the list serving not only the "obsessed" but
helping out the extract brewer about the make the jump to all grain. I
think the list is great and it is certainly encouraging me as I do just
that. For the record, I read every word.
One request though, where possible please don't use those great bloody
abbreviations unless the meaning is obvious, can be easitly inferred by the
less experienced brewer, or is put in brackets beside the first occurance.
As a medievalist I would not expect you to know what this means: "I checked
the MSS list against the eds. in CC and MGH. The BL (s. xv in.), and BN (s.
xiv ex., which does not incl. ff 22r-35v of the BL ver.!) versions DO
appear there but Vat.Lat.(x. xv), Pal. Lat.(s. xvii), and CLM (s. xiii
med.) versions do not (also not listed in T&K)."
Cheers.
Frank Klaassen
klaassen@chass.utoronto.ca
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 03:48:06 PDT
From: "robert kiniston" <picketwire@hotmail.com>
Subject: Grain Explosion
Dave, I saw your message in the HBD the other day and I think that you
are concerned about something that is probably like the snowball in you
know where. Grain doesn't"t explode, grain dust or flour does and that
only in the right conditions. first it must be very fine and in the air
meaning that it has to fill the total volume of the oven. Kind of like
the vapor from gasoline in a closed garage. Next you need to have a high
temperature of about 250 + this you could get in a oven . Then you need
a spark for ignition.
The person was talking about a lb of crushed malt which was probably
crushed in a malt mill or at the most a Crona (sp) which would amount to
less than a ounce a half with a poor grind. Again unless it is in a
vapor like form,(cloud Of Dust)I doubt if you would get a explosion.
Both my wife and mother bake and use considerable more that what would
be in a lb of malt on top of a pan of biscuits and do not have a
problem. Yes there grain explosion in grain storage and mills but they
are a result of a lot of dust/flour in the air. Even these are a rare
event in this day and age, considering the amount of grain and processed
flour, shipped in this country.
Purgatory River Brewery (Picketwire)
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 14:07:20 +200
From: "Braam Greyling" <braam.greyling@azona.com>
Subject: Water analysis
To the water analysis gurus....
I have received a fax with the water analysis from our City counsel.
I went through it to set up all the ions in the Brewer`s workshop
program.
This software ask for CO3 but I cant find it on the fax.
Is it under a different name ? Can I work it out somehow ?
The local city counsel is clueless and cant help me.
Thanks in advance. I hope someone can help me.
Braam Greyling I.C. Design Engineer
Azona(Pty)Ltd
tel +27 12 6641910 fax +27 12 6641393
You can taste a good beer with one sip,
but it is better to make thoroughly sure.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 08:21:25 -0500
From: Dave Whitman <dwhitman@rohmhaas.com>
Subject: precision hydrometer calibration
At the risk of increasing the science geek coefficient for today's HBD, I'd
like to solicit opinions on qualifying and calibrating hydrometers.
I just replaced my standard home brewing hydrometer with a relatively high
precision one from Cole Parmer. The new hydrometer is longer and covers a
shorter range (1.000-1.070), allowing very fine 0.0005 SG graduations.
(c.f. 0.002 graduations on my old one).
The hydrometer cost $23. Ordering information available upon request; I
have no connection with Cole Parmer. I had to rig up a longer hydrometer
flask than the ones normally available at home brew shops using a length of
rigid plastic tube, although Cole Parmer had a suitable cylinder for about
$10. The unit didn't come with a temperature correction table or
information about how it was calibrated.
Over the weekend, I checked the new hydrometer against r/o water and some
carefully prepared sucrose solutions at various temperatures. 1.040 and
1.061 SG sucrose solutions were dead on at 60F, but the r/o water sample
read about 1.0025. I was a little dismayed at how far off this zero point
was for a precision instrument, although having accurate readings at more
typical beer SG values is more important to me.
Discarding the r/o data and pooling the different temperature measurements
on the two solutions, I was able to get a very smooth looking temperature
correction graph. I got high quality linear and quadratic fits that give
predictions equal within 0.0005 SG units over the range 55-125F, with the
linear equation tending to give slightly lower values. Is there any
theoretical reason to prefer the quadratic or linear equations for fitting
the temperature correction?
The r/o temperature data has a similar slope, but is offset by about 2.5 SG
units from the solution data; quality of fit goes way down if I include it.
Has anyone else done careful work checking their hydrometer? Any comments
on whether my zero point value is unusually far off (should I exchange the
unit???). Alternatively, how I could take the deviation at low SG into account?
- ---
Dave Whitman dwhitman@rohmhaas.com
"Opinions expressed are those of the author, and not Rohm and Haas Company"
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 08:27:30 -0400
From: John Varady <rust1d@usa.net>
Subject: Effects of Boiling First Runnings
I like to batch sparge and collect the first runnings into the kettle. I
begin to apply heat as the bottom of the kettle is covered and add my first
hops. After the mash tun is completely empty, I refill with sparge water
(from beneath the false bottom), stir, and recirculate for 30 mins. During
this time my first runnings come to a boil. I boil them very vigorously
since there is little fear of boil over with the kettle half full. I then
drain the tun to the kettle again slow enough to not stop the boil over the
course of about 20 mins and add bittering hops. What effect will boiling the
first runnings contribute? Anything along the pressure cooker advantages?
- ---
In regards to the HBD readers being more technical, sure, i'd say we are
more technical in general. One thing we all have in common is that we are
all somewhat computer literate. I remember a survey done on r.c.b. last year
that revealed that 25% of brewers were programmers, till someone pointed out
that maybe it was more like 25% of the brewers that used the internet and
read r.c.b. were programmers.
When I started to read the HBD I skipped many articles on all grain and
mashing techniques. But I remembered seeing them and when I had advanced to
the point where I was ready for these I used the search engine at
http://hubris.engin.umich.edu:8080/cgi-bin/dothread
to look up my questions and was very pleased with what was returned. Years
of brewing knowledge poured forth because it was there. If nobody had every
posted it I would have gotten no answers.
John Varady * New email address ***> rust1d@usa.net
Glenside, PA
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 09:18:14 -0400
From: "Yusko, Jon" <jony@rsa.cirrus.com>
Subject: Prolonged fermentation
I am sure that this has been addressed before, but I didn't pay much
attention since it has never happened to me before. I brewed a brown
ale, OG about 1.057 and all processes went as normal. We cooled the
wort, and pitched our yeast slurry and it began fermenting within 24
hours. The only problem is that the fermentation has gone on longer than
a week.. and still bubbling in the lock at a rate of one bubble every
30s, with no signs of slowing down. Is this signalling some type of
infection and will this make the beer sour, or causing gushing on
bottling? Any thoughts? TIA.
-Jon.
- -------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Yusko - Software Design Engineer
Cirrus Logic, Inc.
110 Horizon Drive
Raleigh, NC 27615
(919) 846-3574 x1313
jony@rsa.cirrus.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 09:26:10 -0400
From: "F.W. Sweigart" <sweigart@intercall.com>
Subject: Restarted fermentation
Brewsters;
I'm brewing the first batch of winter warmer. The OG was 1.076, and it
fermented in glass for 6 days down to 1.030. When the strangest thing
happened. Slowly the lock started to bubble again. Is this the sign of
contamination?.
Hoping for the best
Frank Sweigart
sweigart@intercall.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 09:32:49 -0400
From: nlerner@mcp.edu (nlerner)
Subject: Batch sparge
I wanted to report on yesterday's brew session and my use of the "batch
sparge method." The brew is another in my endless attempts to clone
Anchor's Liberty Ale--8 lbs pale malt, 1 lb. Munich, .5 lb carapils, .5
lb 40L crystal.
In a single-infusion mash in my orange Gott w/ a slotted copper
manifold, I combined 10 qts 167F water w/ the 10 lbs of grain for a
conversion rest at 152F. After 2 hours (and a trip to take my wife to
the airport), I added 6 qts. boiling water to bring the mash up to 168F
for 15 min. I still had some space left in the cooler, so I added one
more quart of 170F water before recirculating to set the grain bed. At
that point, I drained the bed. I'm afraid I can't tell you the flow
rate, but it was about twice as fast as my usual sparge, but slow enough
for me to time filling my 2 qt. Pyrex while rushing around the kitchen
doing other things.
Once I had drained 3 gallons (absorption by the grain was about .5
qt/lb) and started that amount to boil, I added 9 more quarts of 170F
water, stirred well, recirculated and drained again at the same rate.
Final volume was my target of 5.25 gallons (I shoot for an after-boil
volume of 4 gallons due to the size of my brewpot). Original gravity
was 1.061, giving me about 24.4 pts/gallon. Normally, with my slow (at
least one hour) sparge, I get around 30 pts, so I lost about 20%
efficiency. That comes out to 2 lbs of grain or about $2.50 in
additional costs; not a big deal. And my one-hour sparge was cut in
half. So a 50% sparge time savings for a 20% larger grain bill seems
like a pretty good deal to me, especially when time seems to be the
limiting factor for my brewing these days.
Neal Lerner
Boston, MA
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 09:28:54 -0400
From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley@compuserve.com>
Subject: Stamp Glue, Malt modification
Brewsters:
Aaron has his own view of what we should be interested in and writes:
>Ok, OK. Enough is enough. I stated one little opinion and now I am
>getting crucified.
Don't confuse being disgreed with in a gentlemanly manner
( as displayed here) and being crucified.
>Does a stamp collecter talk about the scientific
>process and chemical composition of the glue on the back?
As a matter of fact, this is an important way of
verifying the authenticity of a stamp.
> It's a hobby for Christ's sake. =
Thank goodness - I'd hate to have to *work* this hard!
>Have fun. Drink people's beer,
>share yours.
I do. I make far more than I drink, because sharing
and talking about beer is a very interesting aspect
of the hobby, but this is a home*brewers* digest
not a home *drinkers* digest.
> But my God, let's come back down to earth. You guys that
>are interested in that stamp glue really aren't liking it at all. =
Unless you can wear another man's shoes
how do you know??
If all that was here on the HBD was recipes and
talking about stuck mashes - or even how to open =
a can of extract, most of us wouldn't be here. It is
the variety and range of interest and the individuals
that makes this so much fun. As you grow in the
hobby these many facets may become of more
interest - maybe not. That is not important as long
as everyone gets the opportunity to speak respectfully
about and share his interest with others of a similar interest.
The important thing to remember is that we share =
a basic common interest and to not be *personally*
critical of someone else's interest.
Restricting the
input to a few people's interest and educational background
-this a would heading for the PC but devastating idea of
"don't leave anyone behind - so don't get into
the 'hard subjects' " approach
rather than "let all who wish to have the opportunity to
learn and catch up" philosophy . This former approach
is a problem in our educational system, =
but I don't see why we have to practice it here.
- ----------------------------------
AlK's much appreciated response to help clarify
how we know that malts, including all Pilsner and Lager
are well modified doesn't really clarify the issue.
His number one reason was that George Fix says so.
As much as I am aware of George Fix's reputation,
I do believe he needs to back up his oft spoken and quoted
opinion that all Pilsner and Lager malts are well- modified.
I don't disagree with him, just need to know how he knows.
According to a private correspondence from outside the US,
Weyerman comments that their PIlsner malt is well-modified and
can be used in producing British Ales. But does this mean all
maltsters in Europe and North America have followed suit?
Whether or not this means a single temperature infusion
with Weyerman's is OK or not, I don't know.
=
I have tried for a number of years to understand how anyone =
can tell from maltsters' specification sheets how well the malts
are modified. We know that the ratio of total protein to soluble =
protein is not a good measure because the protein reacts with =
itself coming to an equilibrium during malting, in contrast to the =
hardness factors related of the malted grain.
Are there modern analyses not discounted 50 years ago by DeCLerk
that would lead George and apparently others to this conclusion?
If so, what and where are they?
Keep on brewin'
Dave Burley
Kinnelon, NJ 07405
103164.3202@compuserve.com
Dave_Burley@compuserve.com =
Voice e-mail OK =
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #2524, 10/07/97
*************************************
-------
