Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2593
HOMEBREW Digest #2593 Fri 26 December 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:
High-Lyseine Corn Products (George_De_Piro_at_WAN700)
Roller Mill Gap Settings (MED)" <Frederick.Wills@amermsx.med.ge.com>
Copper-Wire Mill Feeler Gauge (KennyEddy)
Real Beer Stone,Gaps,Water treating,pale ale, Good tasting beers ("David R. Burley")
Valley Mill Gap Settings ("RANDY ERICKSON")
Re: Oxygenation (or not) (Scott Murman)
WHOOPS! --Improved hydrometer readings, Not! ("Rich, Charles")
Hop flavor and aroma (S&R Moed)
chill out man (DrewsBrew)
Why half filled bottles explode (?) ("joe schmoe")
sparge / sparging / technique / method (Luke.L.Morris)
Roller Spacing (Jack Schmidling)
Bravo, Jack S.! ("Rob Moline")
re: the law (yuk!) (Dick Dunn)
Quadruple (Heiner Lieth)
Re: efficiency treatise ("Steve Alexander")
open fermenter keg (Wheeler)
Chlorine/water vs Bleach ("David R. Burley")
Help me spend this money ("Schultz, Steven W.")
Raspberry mead (John Varady)
NA Brewing (KennyEddy)
Re: Sanitation article (Nicholas Dahl)
Counterflow Chiller Data point ("S. Wesley")
Ho!
Ho!
Ho!
Ho!
Ho!
Ho!
Merry Christmas!
- The HBD Janitors and Steering Committee
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...
ftp://hbd.org /pub/hbd/digests
ftp://ftp.stanford.edui /pub/clubs/homebrew/beer
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: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 10:05:52 -0800
From: George_De_Piro_at_WAN700@berlex.com
Subject: High-Lyseine Corn Products
Hi all,
While purchasing corn meal for my latest Classic American Pilsner at
the health food store the other day, I noticed a product called "High
Lyseine Corn Meal." It claimed to be made from a strain of corn
developed by researchers at Purdue (the University, I would think;
doubtfully the chickens). The bag claimed added nuritional benefit
(higher overall protein and different amino acid composition than
regular corn), and a "sweeter, nutty flavor." While sweetness
wouldn't necessarily find its way into the finished beer, "nutty"
might.
I didn't want a nutty flavor (or extra protein) in my Pils, so I
bought the regular organic stuff, but was wondering if anybody had
tried the high-lyseine stuff. A nutty flavor would be nice in some
other beer styles, so there could be a use for this product if it
lives up to its claims. It was made by Arrowhead Mills.
For what it's worth, if you are inclined to use corn in a beer, I'd
recommend using organic stuff, or at least reading the label
carefully. All of the stuff in my local supermarket contained
additives, like extra vitamins and some even had preservatives. I
don't want extra vitamins in my beer, and preservatives are a definite
no-no. Organic corn meal is still 40% cheaper than flaked maize at
the homebrew shop, and it's less processed (I like that). This way, I
get to do a cereal cooking step, which is almost like decocting. What
fun!
Why is flaked maize so damn expensive to homebrewers, anyway? It
costs more than imported Pilsner and Munich malt!
Have fun, Happy Holidays!
George De Piro (Nyack, NY, where it's not quite a white Christmas.
More of a gray and icy one. Lovely!)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 09:55:45 -0600
From: "Wills, Frederick J (MED)" <Frederick.Wills@amermsx.med.ge.com>
Subject: Roller Mill Gap Settings
WRT the discussion on mill roller spacing...
I too am an (happy) owner of a Valley Mill. Unlike some other
contributors that use the coarsest settings (so as to prevent damage to
the husks) I have been using the narrowest few settings depending on
the grain type being crushed with good results.
It is my understanding that the main disadvantage to damaging the husks
was the potential of a stuck mash due to inadequate filtration material
integrity in the grain bed. Since I have never had a stuck mash (stuck
lauter actually) doesn't the point become moot?
I intend to use generally coarser settings as I transition to my new
RIMS set-up as I am certain compaction of the grainbed will become a
larger concern "under power", but for the manually/gravity recirculating
masher, why is the gap such a big deal? I have even heard some advice
(from knowledgeable HBers) that you can keep decreasing the gap (and
thereby increasing the extraction rate due to exposure of more starch
particles) until you begin to have lautering problems.
What say ye all knowing collective? Is it real or is it momily?
Fearless Freddie
Brutally damaging barley husks in So. NH
PS - please don't ID me to the ASPCB
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 10:48:41 EST
From: KennyEddy <KennyEddy@aol.com>
Subject: Copper-Wire Mill Feeler Gauge
Kyle Druey wrote:
"I emailed Valley Brewing regarding this and they indicated that the gap
settings do vary from mill to mill, and that is why they don't provide
measurements. I resorted to using electrical wire to measure the gaps.
The Ingersoll-Rand "Cameron Hydraulic Book" provides the following
diameter size in inches for AWG copper wire:
AWG Size Diameter (inches)
- -------- -----------------
18 0.0403
16 0.0508
14 0.0641
12 0.0808
Maybe some electrical types can verify this data, Kenny Schwartz? You
could probably pick up 6" of all 4 sizes for a buck or two at your local
mega-chain home-improvement store."
This table is correct. An advantage is that the soft copper will not damage
the roller surface should a too-small "gauge" be inserted into the gap.
*****
Ken Schwartz
El Paso, TX
KennyEddy@aol.com
http://members.aol.com/kennyeddy
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 11:07:30 -0500
From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley@compuserve.com>
Subject: Real Beer Stone,Gaps,Water treating,pale ale, Good tasting beers
Brewsters:
Bill Goodman says:
>Anyone know how to get tri-sodium phosphate deposits off
my homebrew
>equipment? Bleach, vinegar, very hot water? How strong a
solution, and
>how long a soak? What happened was that I had filled the
kitchen sink
>with a solution of 3 tablespoon TSP anmd 3 gallons very hot water to
>soak a few items for several hours. When I came back to rinse, the
>water level had dropped, and the TSP dried on everything that became
>exposed to the air. =
Well, since TSP is pretty soluble in water, I can only guess
you have a deposit of calcium phosphate and related compounds
if your water is very hard. These are rocks and not too soluble
in anything safe to handle. Maybe scrubbing is the best way,
but just in case it is something else, like calcium carbonate, =
since "exposed to the air" seems to be an operative phrase, =
I'd try a little vinegar before I got out the scrubber.
- -------------------------------------------------
Kyle Drury cleverly suggests using wires of various gauges for
measuring mill gaps. I use a mechanic's feeler gauge used for
gap measuring, like spark plugs, etc., readily available at any
auto store. For knurled rollers, the feeler gauges may be better,
since the wide metal strips will ride on the top of the knurls and
are hardened metal so will not be distorted by the act of measuring.
Whether or not this represents the "real" gap as seen by the =
barley grain and whether or not it is the same ( I doubt it) as with
smooth faced rollers used commercially, I don't want to get into.
The most important thing is that you get consistent results with =
your mill settings and secondary to that is the ability to communicate
your settings.
I usually start with the mill closed, open the gap
until the milling is proceeding at a good pace and hold it there
for the first milling. This gap setting is usually 0.080 for two row mal=
t,
smaller for rye and 6-row and a little larger for wheat.
I use 0.055 to chip grains like rice and barley. =
I then mill this crushed malt a second time to simulate a four roll
mill by milling all the malt again at 0.060-0.065 in. gap
- -------------------------------------------------
Kirby comments on sodium hypochlorite in water treating and
confirms it is not normally used in place of chlorine gas, as my
experience *outside* the US confirms. Dave Sapsis comments that
sodium hydroxide is recently ( last 6 years) being used in the California=
Bay area despite its higher cost of use because chlorine gas
is a feared substance, especially among those soy-bean-eating,
lactose- and gluten-fearing, vegan, leftist Bezerkelyites.( of which,
my son is one) {8^). Public safety from a chlorine accident may be
the reason that in the NY metro area ( George's area) it is also used.
Likely these problems are not of concern in the plants I visited =
a few years ago. The economy of shipping 100% active
ingredients was most important and exclusive to other substances.
Nevertheless, and despite any of these above reasons, I was
unnecessarily snippy in my comments, without really meaning to be,
with George DePiro on this subject. He has a spec sheet from =
his water treating plant showing that sodium hypochlorite is used
there. I have apologized to him privately on this and wanted you =
all to know. You always hurt the ones you love...
- -------------------------------------------------- =
Mike Ute says:
>I'm inclined to try using a small amount of flaked oats in a batch
of pale
>ale, say 1/2 lb. oats, 9 lbs Maris Otter in a five gallon batch,
maybe with
>1/2 lb. crystal. The literature I've seen advises a beta glucans
rest with
>pale lager malt to avoid problems with wort viscosity and stuck
sparges, but
>I'd like to try it with a single infusion with Maris Otter straight
to 154
>degrees. =
Being a pale *ale* malt, Maris Otter will have limited , if any, =
beta glucanase activity, since it has been kilned higher than the =
lager malts which can use this technique. Since this malt is so
much more highly modified it likely doesn't have a problem with
glucans.
I advise using flaked ( in the British brewers' sense) grains from =
your HB store with pale ale malts to avoid starchiness and possibly
stuck sparges, since these are used with pale ale malts commercially.
- -----------------------------------------
John Sullivan closes with the comment that Americans don't
want a full flavored beer and that is the reason Bud is so successful.
I'd like to have a buck for every time someone says to me after
tasting my beers ( including my lagers):
"I don't like beer but this is GOOD!" =
I think A-B are missing the mark to go after the high volume,
indiscriminate drinker who couldn't care less how it tastes, just so
he can drink all evening long, sit on the bar stool and be with his
friends and pretend friends. I suspect more beer would be drunk,
( i.e a larger total market size) perhaps more on the order of
Germany, where beer is a way of life, if commercial, high volume =
beers had body and actually tasted good.
We can only hope good tasting beers will be the "new" =
market niche those young Bud MBAs search out.
- ------------------------------------------- =
Hoppy Brew Year and =
Keep on brewin'
Dave Burley
Kinnelon, NJ 07405
103164.3202@compuserve.com
Dave_Burley@compuserve.com =
Voice e-mail OK =
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 09:09:30 -0800
From: "RANDY ERICKSON" <RANDYE@mid.org>
Subject: Valley Mill Gap Settings
Subject: Valley Mill Gap Settings
Kyle Druey says:
I resorted to using electrical wire to measure the gaps. =20
The Ingersoll-Rand =22Cameron Hydraulic Book=22 provides the following=20
diameter size in inches for AWG copper wire:
AWG Size Diameter (inches)
- -------- -----------------
18 0.0403
16 0.0508
14 0.0641
12 0.0808
Maybe some electrical types can verify this data, Kenny Schwartz?=20
***************************************************************************=
Well, I=27m no KennyEddy, but I *am* an electrical type (used to hang out =
in cable factories once-upon-a-time), so here goes.
These numbers are spot-on for solid conductors, realizing that there are =
minute manufacturing tolerances allowed. Solid conductor is used in many =
types of building wire and in those little spools of project wire you get =
at Radio Shack.
Stranded wire (used in flexible applications like appliance cords) is a =
little larger. My reference (ASTM or AEIC most likely) shows for Class-B =
stranded:
AWG Dia (Inches)
18 0.0460
16 0.0580
14 0.0730
12 0.0920
I=27d stick to solid wire if available, because the stranded stuff would =
likely deform as you close adjust down your gap.
=20
Randy Erickson
Modesto, California
1987 miles WSW of Jeff Renner, 5182 miles SSW of the Old Tadcaster =
Brewery.
randye=40mid.org
Stanislaus Hoppy Cappers
c/o Barley & Wine, Ceres, CA
www.geocities.com/BourbonStreet/Delta/1970/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 10:45:14 -0800
From: Scott Murman <smurman@best.com>
Subject: Re: Oxygenation (or not)
> "While I'm posting to HBD, I may as well ask this question:
> Why is oxygenation not an issue w/ wine yeasts, at least not in the home
> wine making literature that I've read?
>
> Andrew W. Avis
Jack Schmidling responded with:
>
> I hate to seem so cynical but the homebrewing industry is orders
> of magnitudes larger than the home winemaking industry ever was.
>
> This presents two possible answers:
>
> There are greater opportunities in a larger market for people who
> say clever things about it. The more complicated it seems and
> the more dogmatic it gets, the easier it becomes to fill pages
> and pages with words of wisdom for hire or for free.
>
> The other possibility is that most homemade wine still tastes like
> homebrew did before we learned how to make it right.
>
> The reality is probably somewhere in between.
<snip>
Speaking for myself,
oxygenate -> lower FG
don't oxygenate -> higher FG
This is over a two year period, brewing many different styles. It
doesn't matter if I pitch on top of a yeast cake, or if I simply pitch
a 1 qt. starter, I see the same behavior. I'm sure I'm not the only
one who will echo these findings. This doesn't mean it's necessary
for everyone, but it also shouldn't be dismissed so casually.
BTW, I'm not getting paid one penny for filling up these electrons
with my dogma.
SM
(testing the new HBD server while sitting about 3-1/2 hours south
of the Mendocino Brewing Co.)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 10:58:31 -0800
From: "Rich, Charles" <CRich@saros.com>
Subject: WHOOPS! --Improved hydrometer readings, Not!
Regarding my recent suggestion to dilute gravity samples 1:1 for
improved precision -- Boy did I blow it, my apologies for anyone's
wasted time, Al Kazoras just pointed out that it doesn't double the
sensitivity... it halves the precision!
Here's why. Consider taking a diluted reading at 1010, the original
would be 1020, another sample's diluted reading of 1011 would correspond
to 1022. Fair enough, but in order to read a sample whose gravity was
actually 1021 you need to read in between 1010 and 1011. Definitely not
what I'd intended.
Hoping one day to be as smart as Jack,
Charles Rich (Seattle, USA)
"The reason I am so smart is because I have made so many mistakes."
- --Jack Schmidling HBD #2589
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 15:01:59 -0500 (EST)
From: S&R Moed <bina@idirect.com>
Subject: Hop flavor and aroma
A week or so ago, someone posted a question about boil times for hop flavor.
I haven't seen a response on the digest so I will ask my questions, I think
everyone knows how to get bitterness out of the hops, but I have trouble
getting hop flavor and aroma from my hops. Most books say for flavor boil
hops 5-20 minutes, which is it 5 or 20? For aroma boil 1-2 minutes or steep
at the end. O.K. my questions are;
How does one get the maxium flavor and aroma from the hops? (specificly)
What is the optimum boil time for aroma and flavor? (in minutes)
Any responses from the experts would be greatly appreciated! E-Mail or post.
Rob Moed
Oakville Ontario, Canada.
bina@idirect.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 18:40:31 EST
From: DrewsBrew <DrewsBrew@aol.com>
Subject: chill out man
All you people who keep arguing about whether a blow off tube is better or not
need to chill out. heres whats been said (abridged and paraphrased)
Blow off hoses are good because you can use them on smaller fermentors and
everyone knows smaller=cheaper
Blow off hoses are bad because they can cause infections from deposits inside
the blow off hose.
Some people think that using abrasive things on plastic fermentors will
scratch them. if this so doesn't it seem as if vinal hose wich is a lot softer
would be much more suseptable (who needs a spell check?)to scratches. and you
people talk about using bottle brushes on them?
Ok, now if everyone just sits back and thinks about this for a moment there
are several conclusions you can draw from this
1) to get rid of those deposits get a wad(look that one up in your table of
weights and measures) of wet papper towels about the size of your BO tube
stick the tube in your mouth (yes your mouth)and blow the paper towel through
the tube. be sure to disinfect the tube after this, you don't want any
*cooties* from your mouth in your BO tube
2) boil your blow off hose. yes it will turn white. but are you more
interested in making yummy beer or having a clear blow off hose?
3) soak it in bleach - duh
4) make smaller batches (not my choice)
5) go get a bigger fermentor and stick an airlock on it
one more thing. what does IMHO mean
Andrew Warnock - Master Brewer of the basement brewery - Point Loma Lite -
San Diego CA
Beer is Proof that god loves us and wants us to be happy - Ben Franklin
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 17:49:48 PST
From: "joe schmoe" <joeyschmoe@hotmail.com>
Subject: Why half filled bottles explode (?)
My normal e-mail address is ddbranson@gocougs.wsu.edu
The one I'm sending this from is one I use for mailing lists to prevent
overcrowding of my regular mailbox. You can respond to either.
On the subject of exploding bottles, Scott Murman <smurman@best.com>
wrote:
> I've since felt that
> for some reason a low fill level can rapidly bring the CO2 out of
> solution, but I don't know why. I don't have any theories I'm crazy
> about, so if anyone wants to speculate (publicly or privately) I'm
> willing to listen.
I remember reading that underfilled bottles are likeley to explode, and
I have an explanation. Unfortunately, I'm not sure if I got the
information from a reliable source, or if I made it up in my own little
brain.
By underfilling the bottle, more oxygen is left in it for the yeast to
metabolize the priming sugar or malt. If this is the case, it would mean
that in a normally filled bottle, the amount of air in the bottle is the
limiting factor of carbonization, not the amount of priming sugar. It
would also mean that unfermented priming sugar is left in the finished
beer.
This could also explain variance in carbonation from bottle to bottle
within a batch. Bottles with more open space at the top would be more
highly carbonated.
Maybe somebody could get out their organic chemistry book and do figure
out the balance of air to shugar used in the reaction. Of courseI don't
have the energy to look up an authoratative answer, but it's an
interesting question.
Take Care and Happy Holidays,
David Branson
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 97 10:16:57 +0800
From: Luke.L.Morris@woodside.com.au
Subject: sparge / sparging / technique / method
Brewers,
Some time back I posted a request for practical tips on sparging (ie.
how to actually manage the temperatures in your kitchen, etc.) Here is
a summary of the responses I got for archive, and feedback into the
collective. )The title on this message is to make the post more
"findable" in HBD archive searches.)
Firstly, thanks to Mike, Mike, Neil, Bob, Linus, Eric, Kent and Al for
their private and posted responses. The full postings of Al Korzonas
and Kent Townley are quite informative and may be found in HBD #2568.
My original post contained a number of questions - here they are again
with a summary of the answers....
i) Do I need to "mash out" to 77C (170F) before beginning sparge, or
can I rely on the sparge water heating the grain bed sufficiently ?
While "mash out" is considered non-essential, it has the advantage that
temperature control for the remainder of the sparge may be simpler (ie.
not trying to increase grain-bed temperature against heat losses to
surroundings). Al K also cited an experiment by Rob Reed in which
mashing out was shown to increase extraction efficiency.
ii) Does pouring boiling water on top of my grain bed adversely affect
the beer ?
General concensus was yes ! Many reported having tried this, with hazy
beers resulting (now that my 2 batches which were sparged this way are
about ready, I can see that they're not clear in the bottles...). This
is apparently a starch haze problem, explained more fully in Al K's
post (which I won't repeat here, refer to his original posting).
Higher temperatures can also release undesirable compounds into the
beer. It was generally that the grains should not be hit with anything
hotter than 77C (170F). Cooler is OK. Some reported little change in
efficiency with sparge temperatures anywhere from 150F to 170F. It
seems that sparge water and/or grain bed temperature is not that
critical, so long as it is not too hot. But higher temperatures do
give better efficiencies.
iii) How significant is my disturbance of the top of the grain bed ?
Not significant, so long as the runnings remain clear. Some brewers
who pour their sparge water onto the grain bed suggested putting a
pizza pan or something on top to minimise disturbance, though. It was
suggested that I would be better off mashing in a 5-gal Gott for beers
of 1060 gravity and less, to increase grain bed thickness.
iv) Can anyone suggest a better way of managing sparging ?
A number of respondents voted for batch sparges. (ie. drain first
runnings, refill lauter tun with 170F water, let stand 20 mins, drain
again) Apparently efficiencies are consistent, so a repeatable result
is obtained. Efficiency is, however, reduced by ~5%. Those who are
fly sparging each described their method, and each was different in
some way. Two general trends were as follows (note that these are not
inviolable, there was at least one exception to each of these trends):
- Preheat sufficient sparge water ready for use. Do not try to sparge
while heating more water for the next bit of sparge.
- Deliver sparge water directly to the top of the grain bed with
tubing, or by pouring on. Phil's sparging arm causes excessive heat
loss from the water as it sprinkles the water onto the grain bed. Sorry, Phil.
As mentioned earlier, Al Korzonas' and Kent Townley's reply postings
are in HBD #2568 if looking for more detailed analysis on some points.
Thanks again to all those who took the time to respond to my original
request for help.
Regards (and Merry Christmas),
Luke Morris
Brewing in Perth, Western Australia.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 19:26:47 -0800
From: Jack Schmidling <arf@mc.net>
Subject: Roller Spacing
From: Kyle Druey <kdldmd@lightspeed.net>
" I resorted to using electrical wire to measure the gaps.
The Ingersoll-Rand "Cameron Hydraulic Book" provides the following
diameter size in inches for AWG copper wire:
AWG Size Diameter (inches)
- -------- -----------------
18 0.0403
16 0.0508
14 0.0641
12 0.0808
"Maybe some electrical types can verify this data, Kenny Schwartz? You
could probably pick up 6" of all 4 sizes for a buck or two at your local
mega-chain home-improvement store.
I am curious to know what you will do with those numbers when you
get them.
Do you know of a recommended roller spacing for the common types
of malt we use? I don't. If I did (and believed it),
we wouldn't sell a fixed mill.
People use what works best for them and knowing the number is of
far less value than knowing the position on your adjustment knob.
If you really want to measure the spacing, any set of automotive
feeler gages will work but now you have the problem of analyzing
the meaning of what you learn. A knurled roller has peaks and
valleys that can equal the spacing you might be looking for. How
do you measure the space... between peaks, between valleys, one of
each? How does a round wire complicate the measurement?
We build these things by the thousands and have found the best QC
on a finished mill is how it feels when a piece of plastic of about
.050" is pushed through the rollers. If they both turn easily, it
is a keeper. If it slips through without turning the rollers, it
is considered a reject.. likewise if it won't go through.
God help us if we lose that piece of plastic.
So what is the actual spacing? Who knows. But it works and they
are all the same if fixed as is the home position of the adjustable
mill. Beyond that, when you find a position you like, mark it with
a marking pen.
js
- --
Visit our WEB pages:
Beer Stuff.........http://ays.net/jsp
Astronomy.......http://user.mc.net/arf
ASTROPHOTO OF THE WEEK..... New Every Monday
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 00:41:00 -0600
From: "Rob Moline" <brewer@ames.net>
Subject: Bravo, Jack S.!
Jethro Sez.....
Jack Schmidling in one of his recent posts issued a statement that is so
brilliant in it's simple clarity that , well, really, nothing more need be
said!
>The more complicated it seems and
>the more dogmatic it gets, the easier it becomes to fill pages
>and pages with words of wisdom for hire or for free.
BRAVO!!!
Jethro
------------------------------
Date: 24 Dec 97 00:30:53 MST (Wed)
From: rcd@talismanospam.com (Dick Dunn)
Subject: re: the law (yuk!)
"MMC Richard A. Kappler" <KAPPLERR@swos.navy.mil> wrote:
> Regarding the law and homebrew, what agency governs HB? I have 27CFR
> (BATF) and can't find anything about it...
(For the novices and non-US-brewfolk, "27CFR" is a chapter of the codified
form of US law..."CFR"==code of federal regulations, and 27 is one chapter.)
See 27CFR25.205-207. Context: 27CFR is the BATF section, as Richard
indicates. Within that, 25 governs beer. Within *that*, 205 explains how
an adult may produce beer without tax as long as it's for personal or
family use and not for sale. 206 explains that you can remove it from
premises (remember, folks, this is only federal law; your state may
complicate it beyond all usefulness) for "organized affairs, exhibitions or
competitions..." 207 extends slightly the situation for removal of beer
from the brewing premises.
>...Also, I know that, by law,
> were allowed to brew 200 Gal per year, but where does it say that?
27CFR25.205. The limit is 100 gallons per year if there is one adult in
the household; 200 gallons per year if there are two or more adults in the
household.
> Additionally, what is the consenus regarding
> giving homebrew as gifts? As I recall, the law says for 'personal
> consumption'...
See 27CFR25.206 and 207 regarding removal. Basically, there is not enough
information in these sections to tell what you can do.
>...And finally, what about mailing or UPSing homebrew,
> what is the official rule?...
The UPS rules are set by UPS, so they can bloody well do whatever they
want, regardless of whether it makes sense or has any connection to US law.
Reports in the HBD over time have indicated that UPS has some loose rules
but individual office management can pretty much do what it wants and if
you disagree with them it's too bad. Whether this is actually true, I do
not know, but it would certainly fit with UPS style interpretation of their
liability for shipments.
- ---
Dick Dunn rcd, domain talisman.com Boulder County, Colorado USA
...Are you making this up as you go along?
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 00:35:56 -0800 (PST)
From: Heiner Lieth <lieth@telis.org>
Subject: Quadruple
I was in Amsterdam a few weeks ago and had many nice beers. One of the most
memorable ones was something called Quadruple. It was a very dark beer,
sort of like a doppelbock with a slight belgian twang. Unfortunately I don't
recall who makes this (maybe La Trippe? I confess that the amount that I had
may have impaired my grey cells). Does anyone have an idea of how to brew this?
Heiner Lieth
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 08:07:48 -0500
From: "Steve Alexander" <steve-alexander@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: efficiency treatise
A few last words on the efficiency notes.
Spencer Thomas' always brief and insightful note indicates that efficiency
measures are of course used to predict OG. However OG is really a measure
of extract and what we are really saying is this:
Extract = function[malt bill, process efficiency]
and we simplify this as:
Extract = sum_of[malt extract potential/unit mass * mass] * process
_efficiency(%/100)
Note that we all know that our sanke's would do a poor job of extraction
from
one pound of malt, and that we undoubtedly get process differences when
batch
size is doubled from 5 to 10 gallons, but we ignore this in our model.
- --
Bryan Gros writes doubting the improved usefulness of the DBCG% and
moisture MC% instead of some numbers published in Zymurgy or elsewhere.
First, the BT market guide figures come from the maltsters data sheets, and
were not plucked from the air like the method D tables currently in use.
These
numbers from data sheets are taken under lab conditions that are
standardized
and reasonable repeatable. The fact that these figures are used by the
'big boys'
should immediately tell you something abuot their accuracy and utility in
evaluating
malts.
Bryon also questions the moisture uptake of malt as a source of error in
measuring out malts characteristics. Malt should not absorb appreciable
moisture under proper storage conditions. If you're malt is absorbing even
1%
additional moisture (0.5lb per 50lb sack) then you are likely to have worse
problems than efficience calculations to deal with.
> If moisture numbers are fairly constant, then simply
> tracking your extract (in pts/lb/gal) from batch to batch
> would suffice. If you normally get 28 pts/lb/gal and on a
> certain batch you get 26, you know something changed.
Yuo'll know something has changed, but you will never know what. The
pt-gal/lb
figure of extract measures BOTH the malt potential and the process
efficiency
together inseparably. Since HBers seldom make the same recipe from the same
malts repeatedly, a difference from 28 to 26 pt-gal/lb MAY be due to a
change
in the malts used OR a change in process. Imagine that a US maltster
starts
making malts with the same high extract potential of British PA
malts (could happen tho not likely), or that a british maltster started
making
malts with the same lower extract potential of traditional continental
lager malts
(this is approximately true). At this point the simplified tables are
useless.
> One advantage of Steve's Method B is that it would account
> for lower extraction due to the specialty malts used.
Or higher extraction to to a change in base make, or inclusion of wheat.
If you are only measuring your malts and extract to within 5%, then there
is no
reason not to use method D with the currently available tables. My
objection
to this method is that there is no standardized means of deriving the
potential extraction figures (like 1.038 for british PA malt) and that
these figures
do not correspond with many of the malts available today.
Steve Alexander
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 08:40:13 -0500
From: Wheeler <fwheeler@mciunix.mciu.k12.pa.us>
Subject: open fermenter keg
bill rehm asked about...
Another idea I've had was to convert a keg to use as a primary fermenter,
has anyone out there in the collective done this? How can it be done and
what are the results (good and bad). Any input will be greatly appreciated.
I've been using a converted keg for open fermenting for about 5 batches
now. They have all gone well, no infection even with my frequent checking
because I like to see how things are going. I think that the reason I
haven't had trouble with infections has been a combination of luck and
decent sized starters.
I cut a ten inch diameter hole in the bottom of the keg. A lid from a 20
qt. pot fits the opening perfectly. With the keg turned upside down the
keg's dip tube removed the converted keg fermenter has a bottom that is
slightly conical and has a drain hole in the center. I use a #10 stopper
with a short tube as a drain. When I'm ready to drop the brew into the
secondary I open the clamp on the tube and drain into a glass carboy.
Because the stopper is about a quarter of an inch above the bottom it is
easy to leave most of the spoogey stuff behind. The only time I have had
any spooge start down the tube is at the end of the draining and I just
close the clamp to stop it from getting into the secondary.
John Vardy has a slightly different approach. His converted keg has the top
cut out and he uses a plastic bag to cover the keg. He then puts a coin on
it and when the whole works rises he knows that the ferment is going well
and when it starts to go down he knows it is time to rack to secondary.
(John please correct any mistakes I made in discribing your technique.)
Bill, give it a try. The keg is easy to clean and easy to drain with the
upside down conversion. I do like to watch the action in a glass primary
but the advantages of an open ferment in a converted keg outweigh it for me.
Red Wheeler
in Blue Bell, PA
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 10:00:43 -0500
From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley@compuserve.com>
Subject: Chlorine/water vs Bleach
Brewsters:
Frederick Wills presented some fascinating information on the HOCl specie=
s
as being the sterilant species in a chlorine/water mixture and some other=
information on equivalent chlorine content in bleach. From this disparate=
information he concludes that increasing the temperature decreases the
ability of bleach to sterilize, since HOCl dissociates. I guess I'm missi=
ng
this linkage between chlorine/water which is an acidic solution and blea=
ch
(sodium hypochlorite/sodium hydroxide) which is an alkaline solution.
He says:
>The germicidal efficiency of chlorine is strongly dependent upon
>temperature and pH. This is because only one of the ionic species
>formed between chlorine and water - HOCl - is responsible for most of
>the germicidal activity, and its concentration is strongly dependent
>upon temperature and pH. As temperature and/or pH rises, more of the
>HOCl disassociates, and the germicidal efficiency of the solution
>decreases - even though there is just as much "chlorine - the atom"
>present as before.
I'm not trying to be recalcitrant, but I really don't understand how HOCl=
can exist in a solution of sodium hypochlorite which contains 0.5% sodium=
hydroxide, as in the bleach we buy, unless it is am extremely weak acid. =
I
wonder if this same mechanism of HOCl being the reactive species is
correct in basic solution? =
If this is the case, them I must ask how temperature dependent is the
dissociation? What is the effect of temperature on the *rate* of the
oxidation of an organic species by HOCl. This question is important sinc=
e
we are looking at the overall loss of microbiological species in the
presence of other organic load. This overall rate of loss is a combinati=
on
of the concentration of reactive species ( e.g. HOCl) and the rate at tha=
t
temperature. Do you have actual data which supports this contention that=
household bleach is a poorer ( by this I mean slower at a given
concentration) sterilant warmer than warmer? =
If anything, your comments about the germicidal efficiency being lower as=
the pH rises speaks for a higher concentration of bleach than for chlori=
ne
to get the same effect. If the HOCl species is not the active species in
bleach then we have to ask about the rate of reaction of this species as
the temperature goes up.
Keep on brewin'
Dave Burley
Kinnelon, NJ 07405
103164.3202@compuserve.com
Dave_Burley@compuserve.com =
Voice e-mail OK =
Keep on brewin'
Dave Burley
Kinnelon, NJ 07405
103164.3202@compuserve.com
Dave_Burley@compuserve.com =
Voice e-mail OK =
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 08:51:14 -0500
From: "Schultz, Steven W." <swschult@CBDCOM-EMH1.APGEA.ARMY.MIL>
Subject: Help me spend this money
It really doesn't get much better than this: my wife is getting me a
Valley Mill for Christmas, and now my parents gave each of us $250 for
Christmas. Needless to say, all of my $250 will be spent on homebrew
supplies; the desired "end state" will be to have the best all-grain
set-up that $250 can buy. To that end, I would reckon that these items
might be needed/within budget:
(1) Cajun cooker (or equivalent)
(2) Large pot for doing full boils
(3) Mashing container (tun?). I'm leaning toward
the 10 gallon round Gott with EZ Masher.
(4) Wort chiller (I have an immersion chiller but doubt
that can quickly chill 5-6 gallons of hot wort)
(5) ?
Any recommendations on how best to proceed would be appreciated.
Thanks, and Merry Christmas.
Steve Schultz
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 11:04:17 -0500 (EST)
From: John Varady <rust1d@usa.net>
Subject: Raspberry mead
Bob Fesmire inquires about a Raspberry Mead he had recently. I am going to
assume that he had some of the Raspberry Mead Ale at the General Lafayette
Brewpub in Lafayette Hill, PA. I can tell you that they make the mead with
25% malt to be able to manufacture the stuff at all. They use malt extract,
local honey, and Ultra hops to the tune of about 6 IBUs. Raspberry extract
is used to flavor the mead-ale post fermentation. Aged about 4 months.
They use just enough beer ingredients to be able to manufacture the stuff
with a brewing license. They have also done the same with a cider.
John Varady * New email address ***> rust1d@usa.net
Glenside, PA
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 11:19:52 EST
From: KennyEddy <KennyEddy@aol.com>
Subject: NA Brewing
Tom Clark writes:
"Can someone who is either a chemist or, has been there, done that help
me on this?...
I made a light amber beer. OG = 42: FG = 09.
Took about a quart of the finished beer and heated it to 170 degrees and
held it for 30 minutes.
The specific gravity went back up to about 24.
Now, I know that this process removed some if not most of the alcohol
but it would not put the CO2 back... So, what is reasonable to expect
in the way of a finished gravity?"
For those of you interested in NA brewing who did not see my post last May
(HBD #2413), I encourage you to do so. Bottom line is that it's practically
impossible to make NA beer at home. The big boys have several tricks they
play which are at best extremely difficult to apply at home.
Remember that when you do this boiling routine, you also lose water (by
evaporation), so a simple SG measurement like Tom suggests will be misleading.
What you want to do is to replace the volume lost with distilled water, and
then take an SG reading. The difference in SG will represent loss of alcohol,
but at a rate of about 0.0075 SG per percent of alcohol, a home hydrometer
isn't likely to give accurate results. See HBD #'s 2414 and 2415 for details
and discussion on this method.
My research indicates that cooking or boiling of beer will at best reduce the
alcohol to maybe 2% before reducing the volume to an unreasonablly low
percentage of the original. Cooked and oxidized flavors will likely result.
If 2% is the best you can do, then it makes more sense to brew a low-OG beer
to 2% ABV.
I did this on two occasions and was pleased with the results. If all-grain
mashing, use a single infusion at 160F (to minimize beta-amylase activity and
produce as much unfermentable sugar as possible), and use a low-attenuating
yeast such as Wyeast European or Irish Ale. If extract brewing, try
Laaglander extract. My low-alcohol porter went from 1.030 to 1.014 for an abv
of about 2% and it tasted pretty damn good (considering). I would also
recommend you vigorously boil or even pressure-cook a portion of the first
runnings (or concentrated extract wort) to furhter enhance flavor development.
And one more possible suggestion. While I've not actually done this, you can
try reducing the OG even further, to 1.020, to further reduce alcohol. Using
roasted and crystal malts and caramelizing the wort can bolster the flavor
without adding fermentables.
One other method which is used by large breweries and MIGHT be adaptable at
home (with the right equipment) is as follows. Brew a 1.020 OG lager style
beer. Pitch a sh*tload of yeast (as much as 100 million cells / millilter or
more) and ferment for 24 hours at no more than 40F. Filter out all the yeast,
force-carbonate, and serve. Apparently this "cold-contact" fermentation slows
or discourages alcohol production, producing "real beer flavor" while limiting
alcohol production.
As Dave Burley said, NEVER give anything prepared this way to an alcoholic,
since even the low alcohol level is simply to much and will be dangerous to
this person. But if you're interested in *reducing* your alcohol intake
without giving up taste, this can be an effective method. Those bad-day-at-
work weekday beers and other incidental quaffs can often be replaced with such
a brew. Hell, I keep 6-ounce cups near my taps to automatically limit my
"tastes" of beer to half the usual.
*****
Ken Schwartz
El Paso, TX
KennyEddy@aol.com
http://members.aol.com/kennyeddy
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 11:42:05 -0500
From: Nicholas Dahl <NickDahl@psu.edu>
Subject: Re: Sanitation article
George De Piro mentioned the Liddil and Palmer sanitation article in a
recent post. For those of you who don't have that Zymurgy issue, and who
are fretting over their sanitation (or lack of) procedures, here's an URL
that might help you out:
http://www.realbeer.com/jjpalmer/cleaning.html
This is a great article that gives you a chance to check out your preferred
sanitizer, and who knows, maybe you'll learn a thing or two!
Truth in brewing,
Nick (in State College, PA, BTW)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 11:38:31 -0800
From: "S. Wesley" <Wesley@maine.maine.edu>
Subject: Counterflow Chiller Data point
Hi Folks,
Over the summer I spent some time trying to research design
parameters for counterflow chillers on the web and I was not able to find
a lot of useful information. My primary concern was being able to chill
.5 - 1.0 BBL batches with a minimum of chilling water. I finally decided
on the following parameters:
Length: 50 feet.
Tubing Diameter: .50 inch od copper.
Casing: 50 feet .75 inch id garden hose.
Coil diameter: The coil was wrapped around a 5 gal soda keg in a
double thickness, producing a coil roughly 1 ft in diameter and 1ft in
height.
Performance Data.
Cooling Water Temp: 10 C
Initial Wort Temp: 95-100 C
Final Wort Temp:18 C
Final Water Temp:48C
Chill Time: 6 min
Volume of Wort Chilled: 17.5 gallons
Volume of Cooling Water 40 gallons.
I was fairly pleased with the performance of this chiller and I belive
that one of the reasons the ratio of cooling water to wort is so low
(2.3:1) is because of the turbulence caused by fairly rapid flow of both
cooling water and wort as has been suggested by others in the online
literature. Using 10 C cooling water is also helpful.
I was pleased to find that brewing a roughly .5 bbl batch of beer
produces exactly enough water to do one load of laundry. I now run the
first 20 gal to fill for washing and fill a 20 gal fermenter sitting on
top of my dryer with the second 20 gal for the rinse cycle. I hope this
will be of assistance to future designers of counterflow chillers.
Regards,
Simon A. Wesley
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #2593, 12/26/97
*************************************
-------
