Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2632
HOMEBREW Digest #2632 Mon 09 February 1998
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:
Keg Lube (GordonRick)
Norvig yeast (smurman)
re: temp control + moldy taps & drip pan ("C.D. Pritchard")
re: The HBD Pale Ale Experiment ("Michel J. Brown")
butt-jelly revisited... ("Pat Babcock")
Growing Hops in the Heat (WayneM38)
That there queue.... ("Pat Babcock")
Viscosity and Sparging ("David R. Burley")
Submarine Brewing (stealth)
kick-starting yeast (Heiner Lieth)
Fermenting BIG ales (Jon Bovard)
Re: Iceland, anyone (hdavis)
Beer In The News ("Rob Moline")
Kitchen malting questions. (Clifton Moore)
mashout & extraction efficiency (Domenick Venezia)
Re: Computerized Fridge Controller (Dave Thayer)
Chloramine ("Martin Brown")
South Pole Brewing (John Mitchell)
NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS: hbd.org
Send articles for __publication_only__ to post@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 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@hbd.org
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.edu/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: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 00:45:48 EST
From: GordonRick@aol.com
Subject: Keg Lube
For what it's worth, I've heard that they sell an O-ring lubricant (food
grade) in scuba shops that works great. Agree that vaseline is a no-go.
NG vs. LP gas question - I snagged the burner off an old gas water heater with
the intention of someday using it as a second burner for my Brinkman LP cooker
set-up. Probably not a great idea given the difference in jet sizes etc. Am I
OK to (someday) hook into the NG line to my grill with this burner (assuming I
get the correct gas fittings etc)?
For the new, time challenged, or just plain lazy folk out there - as a
"grainer", I am ashamed to admit it, but I recently tried one of the Brew
House all grain pre-boiled beer in a box kits. (add water, yeast and wait). I
needed something quick while the Czech Pils lagers. If you have lots of $$$
and little time, it seems to be pretty good quality concentrated wort (not
extract) and extremely easy to make. A little light on the hops, but a nice
malty, clean taste. It does take all the fun out of brewing so I won't go
there again - it left me feeling like a beer slut or something. Ugh!
Prost!
Rick Gordon
Beer - It's not just for breakfast anymore!
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 22:59:22 -0800
From: smurman@best.com
Subject: Norvig yeast
I braved El Nino (did anyone see us on CNN?) and went to the local
beer supermarket (aka heaven) for a sampler run. I came across two
products from England; the Norvig Ale and the something-something
Porter (which I didn't buy). Both of them are supposedly fermented
with unique yeasts. The Norvig Ale yeast is supposedly obtained from
an old Norwegian farm wooden spoon handed down from generation to
generation. Being the yeast rancher that I am, I swirled one of the
bottles, and lo and behold sediment. White gold.
Anybody know if the primary strain is in the bottle? Anybody tried
to brew anything with it? I've heard talk of this strain, and
supposedly in the lab it was found to be robust, bordering on the
occult.
SM
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 07:37:06
From: "C.D. Pritchard" <cdp@chattanooga.net>
Subject: re: temp control + moldy taps & drip pan
Chris Smith posted re: the use of Dallas chips for temp. control. The
DS1820 is intriguing since it can function as a "set and forget" thermostat
if you use the 16 pin SMT (surface mount technology = tiny!) package. The
3 pin, transitor like package is much easier to use mechanically, but you
loose the the control output. A work-around is the DS2407 addressable
switch which can reside on the same 1-wire network used with the DS1820s or
the cheaper DS1620s. The software to run the network from a computer is
doable if one leans toward "geekness". If not, Dallas app. note 104
describes a demo board and windoze software for playing with these gizmos.
One reported (via the net- take with grain of salt) downside to the DS1820
is that in a high humidity enviroment, the temp. response drifts. Baking
them and then coating is said to eliminate the problem.
- - - - -
Jens B. Jorgensen wanted to use a PC for controlling the temp of his beer
fridge.
I don't like leaving a PC on all the time. Best bet IMHO is a Basic Stamp
II from Parallax ( http://www.parallaxinc.com/ - no connecting, ect.).
Briefly: $49 computer-on-a-chip. All of the programming software and docs.
are free via the net. Programs in Basic. 16 I/O lines- that can do serial
comm. with a PC (e.g. use the PC for operator interface and turn it off
when it's not needed), reads resistances directly (e.g. thermistors), can
control appliances over 120VAC power lines with Radio Shack X-10 control
modules, does touch tone dialing, as well as regular digital I/O. I use
one for controlling a RIMS + HLT (details via URL in sig. line) and a wort
boiler and another for controlling a heater and a cooling fan in a
fermenter chamber.
- - - - -
Alas, instead of attending Seibels like Rob and George, I frequent the
BSOHK (brewing school of hard knocks). Here's the latest lesson and some a
question:
The brew dispensed from kegs in the fridge developed a horrid taste and
smell. Turns out my recently started practice of hanging the cobra taps
upright in the fridge and not draining them well was a bad idea- each tap
had a chunk of mold growing in the discharge snout. It was amazing how
such a small amount of mold could throw such an taste and smell. It's too
bad hops aren't as effective... After cleaning the taps, the bad taste and
smell disappeared. I'm back to again to hanging the taps upside down over
a drip pan. Now the mold grows on the drip pan rather than the taps.
What the best method for preventing mold growth in taps and on drip pans?
I know beer line cleaners exist, but there's got to be a less PITA was.
Private posts are fine- I'll post a summary if there's sufficient info.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 00:56:56 -0800
From: "Michel J. Brown" <homemade@spiritone.com>
Subject: re: The HBD Pale Ale Experiment
>I would like to see a bunch of us brew a beer from the same recipe. We
could all agree to use >the same grains, hops and yeast and then submit
them to the same contest for evaluation.
Nice thought, but I have a small fly to dabble in your ointment John :-)
>We would all use our standard brewing techniques, water and equipment.
Well, then, please define what you mean by "standard brewing techniques,
water and equipment". From what I've read here in the HBD, EVERYBODY has
standards, and they're all *different*. Even water varies from locale to
locale. While I think the basic premise has merit, the footing is anything
BUT equal imho.
>We could then see how each of the systems we use fair. It would
>also be fun to flood a contest with almost identical brews. Maybe we could
>even get the contest picked to make a category just for the experiment.
Now there's an idea -- make a contest of all the same recipe, and all the
same style, but leave the creative expression to the brewer. this would
even things up a bit. Even for my *VERY* soft water area (I even have to
add calcium chloride to harden my water to make a PU clone :-/)
>The recipe given in BT was 74.5% pale ale, 15% crystal, 10% munich, and
.5%
>chocolate to an OG of 1056-1060 mashed @ 154F, with 40 ibus coming from 2
>additions of Columbus at 60 & 30 mins with 2 additions of Cascade at 15 &
0
>mins at a rate of 5 oz per barrel (.8 oz in 5 gallons).
While this sounds more like an American Amber Ale to me, the hopping rate
is way too high for the stated IBU's imho. If you mean 0.2 oz each, then
you're at around 28 IBU's; however, if you mean 0.8 oz each addition, then
you're around 85 IBU's. To get 40 IBU's from the hop bill you suggested,
and at equal weights, would require ~0.35 oz each addition (based upon 1997
crop AA% and Tinseth's formulation). Still, a worthy, and worthwhile
attempt imho.
>So anyone game?
I'll toss my hat in the ring *provided* we use realistic grain and hop
bills. The grain bill looks a little heavy for an American Pale Ale imho,
but pretty close to an American Amber Ale. But the hop bill is quite
another story -- it's just plain wrong, or at least poorly stated at best.
What with Columbus at 15.4% AA and Cascades at 7.5%AA, the hop bill looks
either too light or too heavy, depending on how you interpret the
"additions". What is needed is a standard recipe, including yeast, that we
can all agree on -- then, and only then will water, and mash methodology
become the transient variables. My procedures and processes are consistent
across recipes, and within the same recipe made serially, so this is really
the only test that makes sense of the contest.
>(We'll see how RIMS out preforms single infusion kettle mashing once and
for all!).
Theoretically, you shouldn't be able to taste the difference, all other
things being equal. As I stated above, the only two remaining uncontrolled
variables are water and procedural methods (given that we will all use the
same kind of grains from the same maltsters, and the same hops from the
same growers/vendors). Then you will have meaningful results, right?
>How long have we had a Sunday digest?
Hmm, since last Sunday ;-7
Dr. Michel J. Brown, D.C. {Portland, OR}
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, 7 Feb 1998 12:19:19 -0500
From: "Pat Babcock" <pbabcock@oeonline.com>
Subject: butt-jelly revisited...
Greetings, Beerlings! Take me to your lager...
In private conversation, Brian Wurst <brian@mail.netwave.net> said...
> P.S. - I've used Vaseline(tm) as a tank lid sealant for something on
> the order of 170 keggings and the gaskets are just fine...perhaps
> your swimming pool filter gasket material is a lower grade (or
> completely different) material than the food grade stuff in corny
> keg gaskets?
This is going to sound horribly untechnical, but it DOES seem to work
just fine on the black o-rings (such as the bung cover - heh! Butt
jelly! Bung! Snicker!). Those red, green and orangish-tan ones swell
up and get all gummy. Don't know if they are synthetic or what, but
that's been my experience. (And the pool cover ring is one o' them
orangish-tan ones...)
See ya!
-p
Somwhere right near Jeff Renner...
See ya!
Pat Babcock in SE Michigan pbabcock@oeonline.com
Home Brew Digest Janitor janitor@hbd.org
AOL FDN Beer & Brewing Maven BrewBeerd@aol.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 13:54:31 EST
From: WayneM38@aol.com
Subject: Growing Hops in the Heat
<< Bottom line - HOPS DON'T GROW WELL IN THE SOUTH. With a lot of work it can
be
done, but I doubt commercially. >>
<<I would really like to see some Yr2K Gregor Mendel come along and crossbreed
hops with the mighty kudzu vine! If you have never seen kudzu, Its like ivy
with a foot per day attitude - old barns turn into large green lumps in a
matter of weeks, and you can not kill it! Any hophead botonists out there up
to the challenge?>>
I am a brewer/botanist and agree with the bottom line stated above. I
supervise a Horticultural Conservatory @ 42' lattitude. Hops grow outside
very well here but similar plants cannot take the summer heat under glass when
we try them indoors during the summer months.
Any way I would not want to be the infamous botanist to unleash another
species of kudzu onto the world!!!
Wayne
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 14:10:06 -0500
From: "Pat Babcock" <pbabcock@oeonline.com>
Subject: That there queue....
Greetings, Beerlings! Take me to your lager...
As anyone who has recently posted or checked queue length can
attest, Spring has sprung - at least in terms of the ol' 'gest. The
once humongous queue is now quite puny.
In order to moderate the queue length to ensure we, your faithful
janitorial staff, get a whack at incoming articles in our
ever-continuing quest to ensure the spam-free environment you all have
come to know and love (my, but this is going to be a long sentence!),
we will begin "modulating" weekend deliveries.
"Huh? Whatchoosay?"
This means that we will turn on and off Saturday delivery in an
attempt to keep the queue at roughly one day (probably less). Won't
monkey around with Mon-Fri, and may even turn Sunday back on once in a
while, but if you don't receive a Digest on Saturday, DON'T PANIC!
It's just the janitors messing around on Olympus - er - the server.
Oh! And: Have a nice day...
See ya!
Pat Babcock in SE Michigan pbabcock@oeonline.com
Home Brew Digest Janitor janitor@hbd.org
AOL FDN Beer & Brewing Maven BrewBeerd@aol.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 15:47:57 -0500
From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley@compuserve.com>
Subject: Viscosity and Sparging
Brewsters:
First let me thank all those people who commented to
me,sympathized with me, and supported me on how to
handle this ridiculous problem spacing problem.
If Sam Mize is as good and observer as I think he is,
this will come out without unwanted line spacing.
Fingers and toes crossed I'll try again.
The line length problem is a hard/software problem with
which I'm also getting some expert help. Thanks.
- ----------------------------------------
I have received several e-letters with questions and
see that Dominick Venezia doesn't yet buy my
viscosity vs solubility argument for the reason a
mashout and a high sparge temperature give
better efficiency.
A couple of comments 1) Sugar is more soluble
( a thermodynamic function) at higher temperatures
but when it is completely dissolved it doesn't make
any difference 2) sugar does go into solution faster
( a kinetic function) but again if it is all dissolved that
doesn't make any difference either.
As I commented the other day sugar solubility at the
temperature we work at is much higher than that found
in wort. So solubility is not an issue here.
Ken Schwartz in his excellent work on batch sparging
coincidentally found out that the wort concentration in the
body of the grain is higher than in the bulk wort outside
the grain immediately after mashing. I believe this
observation demonstrates that the wort trapped in the
capillaries of the grain is slow to equilibrate with the
bulk wort and is consistent with the observation that
a slow sparge gives a higher total recovery of sugars
than a fast sparge.
So I conclude that the efficiency is a kinetic
phenomenon not a thermodynamic one like solubility.
Here's how I explained it to one of my private
correspondents:
He said:
> If the problem was an exponential increase in
viscosity such as you suggest,
> then the flow rate would be self-limiting i.e. it
would slow down to the
> point where you can't get a higher flow rate........
On my lauter-tun, I know I can drain as fast as my 1/2 inch
> ball valve allows, BUT I will get poor extraction if
I sparge too fast.
Don't confuse draining around the grains
( which you are talking about) and the flow
out of the capillaries in the grain
(which is what I'm talking about).
he continues:
>......... it should then be possible to dump the
"proper" amount of sparge water
> into the tun, wait for sugar dissolution and
then sparge. Why did brewers
> develop a continuous flow system instead???
Well think about it for a minute. If the solubility of the
sugar is not the limiting factor imagine the case where
you put in say a gallon or so of water into a just drained
bed of mashed grain in your lauter. Assume for this
example that the grain holds a gallon of water also
and that the SG of the wort in the grains is the same
as the bulk wort. Now allow it to stand there until it
comes to equilibrium - say an hour or so. drain off the
sparged wort. You will find that this recently drained
gallon will have exactly half the sugar concentration of
the original wort drained off. It's like you added a gallon
of water to a gallon of the original wort which was inside
the grains. Agree?
Now you can calculate how much that "proper" amount
of water to do it this way really is. Assume you are happy
with a 90% recovery. When you drain the lauter after the
mash you will have 50% of the sugar in this example.
After the second you will have 75%. After the third you
will have 87% and After the fourth you will have 93%.
Now remember that in a typical 5 gallon brew you will
have about 3 gallons of first wort so this means you
may have to have around 15 gallons of wort to boil down.
If you just dump it in all at once the amount is even greater.
I suggest you go back and read Ken Schwartz' work for
some real numbers on this rather than rely on this
hypothetical example. =
Now imagine a situation where you are constantly
supplying fresh water at the top of the column and
drawing off the bottom as is common in continuous
or "on-the-fly" sparging. The uppermost portion of
the column will be constantly leaching into pure water
and not coming to equilibrium. This is a faster method
since as you approach equilibrium in the first case the
equilibration between the grain capillaries and the bulk
wort goes slower and slower with less of a driving force.
In the second example the grain capillary is always
draining into a lower concentration.
Of course, in the real world the wort SG in the grains
is often higher than in the bulk wort since it hasn't
come to equilibrium when you start sparging and a
high viscosity (both the higher SG and other viscous
components) wort slows down this equilibration so
this makes a slow sparge even more necessary.
As you may recall it is often stated as fact that a high OG
brew is less efficient. This is one of the reasons
( the other relates to sugars interfering with the
enzymes). For these high OG brews the sparge
should be slower to improve the efficiency. =
=
Keep on brewin'
Dave Burley
Kinnelon, NJ 07405
103164.3202@compuserve.com
Dave_Burley@compuserve.com =
Voice e-mail OK =
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 13:55:29 MST
From: stealth <stealth@swlink.net>
Subject: Submarine Brewing
Rob Moline asked to hear more;
> The simple answer is yes you can brew on a submarine. :) >the
largest problem to overcome is that all the air is recirculated and
the >"Brewery Aroma" quickly premeates the entire boat. :(
> Now, here is a diversion I would love to hear more about!! This
post >from <stealth> would seem to imply that there have been some
attempts, >perhaps illicit, to brew @ some depth? Please tell us
more! Even just >as stories that "may have occurred."
The Lack of time has finally abated.. At least temporarily. :)
Anywho as for brewing on a submarine at some depth, I can only say a
depth of something in excess of 400 feet. I will state That I have no
first hand knowledge of this being done. That's my story and I'm
sticking to it.
I have heard of some attempts to brew underway and under water. As I
said previously the distinctive aroma is a dead give away.... Even
those who do not recognize it usually want to find the source of such
a smell in short order. Electric heaters and a creative hood/venting
system passing though some type of filter/precipitator and the
concurrent addition of other very aromatic chemicals in other parts of
the boat is said to have made it possible to do partial batch boiling.
Water on subs comes from onboard distilling units and as such it is
very pure and bland. I can see where the knowledge of the HBD and the
addition of water conditioning salts may have helped these fellows to
make better beer. Another problem is that the atmospheric pressure
can and often does under go rapid extremes. This makes the use of
typical airlocks very hazardous. After running at a slight vacuum for
awhile going up to the surface to get a gulp of fresh air will cause a
sudden increase in pressure and suck what ever is in the airlock into
the beer. Also starting up the diesel inboard creates a sudden large
vacuum which tends to blow out anything in the airlock. I have been
told that the best thing to do was just to loosely cover and hope for
the best. Another hazard run into was the infamous "angles and
dangles". This is when a sub radically changes course and depth.
Kind of like an airplane changing altitude and turning at the same
time. I was told that more then one batch had splashed out of its
vessel. An emergency blow cold wreck havoc on any beer waiting to be
consumed. Also most of the beers were said to be of a type which did
not require much aging. As typically they would be brewed fermented
and drank within 90 days. I was stationed on subs in the early 80's
when I heard these stories. I do not remember if it was even legal to
make homebrew at that time. but if it was the equipment and knowledge
would have been primative by todays standards. Anything done on a
ship at sea would have been even more so. Whether the stories of
brewing are sea tales or not I can neither confirm nor deny. :)
*********************************************************************
OS/2 Warped out of this world!
Unite for Java! - http://www.javalobby.org
*********************************************************************
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 13:48:13 -0800 (PST)
From: Heiner Lieth <lieth@telis.org>
Subject: kick-starting yeast
In HBD 2631 "John Lifer, jr" <jliferjr@misnet.com> wrote
>I got a pack of Wyeast 3056
>Bavarian yeast a while back, oops, Oct 97 date. Has been two days and
>no activity in pack
>at all. I know it should take 4 days or so,...
Others also posted regarding peculiar starter behavior. Here is a tip for
what it's worth.
I've come across a way to kick start liquid yeast. The cable converter box
on my TV is a constant, relatively warm temperature (80-90F), whether it is
"on" or not. When I start a Wyeast pack I pop the inside pouch as per
instructions, gently shake it up, and then lay it on the cable converter
box. I always get significantly faster pouch-inflation (even on
badly-outdated packs) since doing this (and no, it's not due to warmer air
needing more room - if you cool the pouch after this, it's still just as
inflated).
Once I step it up to a starter, I set that on top of the same converter box.
This gets the bottom of the bottle (i.e. where the ramaining dormant cells
reside) warm; the rest is at room temperature.
I have not tried this with true lager yeasts, mostly Ale yeast, Koelsch
yeast and Califonia Common.
This has also had an additional unanticipated effect. When the TV watchers
in my family see the stuff on the converter box they know that I'll be
brewing soon. The get used to the idea and complain a lot less about the
odor and mess.
Hey, two tips for the price of one.
Heiner Lieth
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 19:06:44 +1100
From: Jon Bovard <j.bovard@student.qut.edu.au>
Subject: Fermenting BIG ales
The Wyeast product specification sheet designates yeast strains for big
beers, eg Barley wines , strong ales etc. However they seem to be in
preferance for flavour profiles and not alcohol tolerances.
what experience has anyone with the alcohol and attenuation of the following.
I plan to ferment a 1.095 Barley wine with a high mash temp 70C (159f) profile.
Wyeast suggest Scottish ale 1728, but will it handle that level alcohol. (it
DOES have high floculation)
Any data on the following, with respect to alcohol tolerance (barley wine
suitability much appreciated)
*1028 London
*1056 American
*1728 Scottish
*1098 British
*1725 Thames Valley
Many thanks
JB
Brisbane, Australia
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 1998 11:31:53 -0600 (CST)
From: hdavis@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: Iceland, anyone
>
>From: Richard Gardner <rgardner@papillion.ne.us>
>Subject: Iceland, anyone? / AB ads for freshness
>
>area the size of Kentucky? I live in a town of 400K today, with 2 brewpub,
>but over 100 beers availble). I have found out that until 10 years ago beer
>was illegal (but hard booze OK, huh?).
I think that if you go back far enough in their history, they stopped
brewing due to the inability to grow enough crops for beer and eating too.
So, as I'm told, booze cam in ships. Distilled liquors take less room. So,
it makes a sort of sense.
My general questions are:
> - Is homebrewing legal - or would I have to bootleg?
My wife was there last summer. Her professor home brewed and indicated that
it was only recently OK to do so.
BTW, she also said that although it was against the law to be drunken in
public, the Icelandic police pretty much just helped the drunks home if they
needed it.
Henry
Henry Davis Consulting, Inc / new product consulting
PO Box 1270 / product readiness reviews
Soquel, Ca 95073 / IP reviews
ph: (408) 462-5199 / full service marketing
fax: (408) 462-5198
http:\\www.henry-davis.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 1998 11:46:34 -0600
From: "Rob Moline" <brewer@ames.net>
Subject: Beer In The News
Beer In The News......
A good past week or so for Brew in the News. John MacDonald of Boulevard
presented his side of the Missouri debate over labeling in a clear, concise
and calm interview on National Public Radio on 1.31.98, I think.
Hair of the Dog brewing of Portland, Oregon was featured in the
Marketplace section on 2.2.98, in a story on "Fred the Beer," a product
that was recognized by the Wall Street Journal article as going against the
popularly aired 'wisdom' that any beer over a couple of months old is
unfit. Fred Eckardt and the Oregon Brew Crew homebrew club were also
mentioned.
And in the February issue of Esquire, the one with O.J. on the cover
proclaiming his prediction to 'get it all back in spades,' (please, Lord!)
is a great tale of international diplomacy, travel, intrigue and lederhosen
as Cal Fussman constructs a showdown between Affligem Tripel, Budvar, and
Pilsner Urquell.
A great story, and one that will aid our quest of getting the word to the
masses, and in this case I'm sure, a great demographic group of beer
drinkers that there is more than one style in the world. A fun story, too!
Cheers!
Rob Moline
Brewer
Court Avenue Brewing Company
Des Moines, Iowa
brewer@ames.net
Ames, Iowa.
"The More I Know About Beer, The More I Realize I Need To Know More About
Beer!"
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 08 Feb 1998 10:18:24 -0900
From: Clifton Moore <cmoore@gi.alaska.edu>
Subject: Kitchen malting questions.
Kitchen malting questions.
What is considered an acceptable germination rate and how
synchronous must it be?
I am playing with a few varieties of barley.
Ideally, all the grains would start germinating simultaneously,
and reach full modification stage at the same time. That is
that the acrospire on all the grains would grow to between
60% & 90% the seed length at the same time.
This is just not the case here in the real world.
While I have at times gotten 75% germination, the stage is all
over the place having started over a range of maybe 24 hrs.
So some seeds are over modified by a great deal, while others
have yet to reach full modification.
What might I try to induce the seeds to germinate at the same
time and rate?
Also, after drying, is there a down side to putting off the
roasting phase?
I would think that I could store the grain in the dry yet pre-
roasted condition for some time.
Any feedback or references would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Clif
cmoore@gi.alaska.edu
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 1998 13:10:29 -0800 (PST)
From: Domenick Venezia <demonick@zgi.antispam.com>
Subject: mashout & extraction efficiency
In HBD #2630 I said:
> Solubility is the issue.
>
> More sugar dissolves in hotter water than cooler water. If you raise
> the temperature of the mash by 20F (150F to 170F) you increase the
> solubility of dextrose from ~3300g/liter to ~4000g/liter (21% increase)
> which easily explains the increased extraction efficiency.
After an extensive offline discussion on this subject with Scott
<smurman@best.com> I have come to a different conclusion. I have come to
agree with Samuel Mize <smize@prime.imagin.net> when he said, "I do know
that more sugar dissolves in hotter water, and FASTER." (my emphasis)
I think that the increase we see in employing a mashout is not due to
increased solubility, but an increased rate of transfer of sugar to the
sparge water. Why have I changed my mind? Because I didn't like the
previous one? Wrong color? No! Impure thoughts.
I began to consider gelatinization, conversion, and solubility. Sugar is
REALLY, REALLY, soluble in water, particular hot water. Gelatinization is
the process of solubilizing starch. Converting enzymes work only in
solution. If you start with solubilized starch, convert it in solution to
sugar, then the resulting sugar must already be in solution. If all the
sugar is always in solution then solubility can not be an issue.
If all the sugar is already in solution, then the increase in extraction
we see when employing a mashout must be the result of getting more of the
sugar from the tun to the sparge water. Given that we are constrained by
sparge volume, then the only way to increase extraction is to increase the
rate of transfer of sugar from the tun to kettle.
A number of factors have been postulated to be the cause of this effect,
viscosity, agitation, and increased temperature. I posted my opinion
about viscosity, but after more consideration, it is clear that all three
of these factors are related. Also, the tun is a complicated place. We
have millions of tiny sponges soaked with sugar solution, floating in a
sugar solution, and we are wondering how mashout affects this system.
Whether there is a higher concentration of sugar inside the kernel than
outside before the sparge is irrelevant, since once the sparge starts this
is certainly true. The sugar that is in solution outside the kernels is
readily sparged. The real issue is getting the sugar that is in solution
inside the kernels. What we must do is either draw the sugar out by
osmotic pressure, or move water through the kernels, thereby flushing the
sugar solution out.
If we are trying to draw out the sugar by osmotic pressure, then the more
and hotter water we get around the kernels the more efficient the
transfer. More water can be presented to the kernels by agitation, and
hotter water, by using hotter water.
If we are trying to move water through the kernels, lowering the viscosity
within the kernel will increase the rate of water movement through the
kernel. We can lower viscosity by raising the temperature. Also, water
is forced through the kernels by small, local pressure differentials on
the sides of the kernels. Agitation, will increase these differentials.
If, before mashout, the kernels do contain a higher concentration of sugar
than the external solution, then both or either raising the temperature
and/or stirring the mash will get more sugar out of the kernels into the
external solution. If, before mashout, there is no difference in sugar
concentration between the interior and exterior of the kernels, then no
amount of added heat or agitation will not change anything at this point.
Once the sparge has started, we create a concentration differential
between the interior and exterior of the kernels. Obviously, both
diffusion and flushing must be in affect during the sparge. Increasing
the heat content of the mash and increasing agitation will both increase
both methods of extraction. We can easily increase the temperature by
employing mashout and using hotter sparge water, but we can't continue to
stir the mash during the sparge. BUT, we can increase agitation during
the sparge without stirring!
What is agitation? It is moving the kernels in relation to the external
solution, or visa versa. It is irrelevant whether the motive force of
this movement is a spoon or gravity, therefore the sparge is agitation.
How can we increase the amount of solution presented to the kernels
without disturbing the grain bed and without causing channelling?
Recirulation.
I suggest that recirulation during the sparge will increase extraction
efficiency. Standard operating procedure calls for initial recirculation
to establish the grain bed but I suggest that periodic recirulation during
the sparge will increase your extraction efficiency.
I also suggest that using another pound or two of grain will make this
whole discussion moot.
Domenick Venezia demonick@zgi.antispam.com (remove .antispam)
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 1998 17:38:33 -0500
From: brewmaker1@juno.com (Jeffrey C Lawrence)
- ------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 18:32:28 -0700 (MST)
From: Dave Thayer <dthayer@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Computerized Fridge Controller
In HBD #2629, Mark Riley wrote:
> As to having a PC controlling the relay directly, all
> I can say is that PC's have a tendancy to crash,
> hang, or be otherwise ill disposed. Although the
> circuit would be more complicated, a better idea would
> be to have the PC set the desired temperature (with a
> DAC) and do the data logging. Leave the switching
> to a comparator. If the PC crashed, the comparator
> circuit will still be active and your freezer will stay
> at the last set temperature (i.e. your beer won't be
> ruined).
The Dallas Semiconductor (http://www.dalsemi.com) DS1620 temperature
sensor/controller IC has a digital interface you can connect to your
computer, is factory pre calibrated to 0.5 deg C, and can be hooked to
a relay output with programmable hysteresis. If your PC goes down it
will run in stand-alone mode. All this for about 6 bucks.
Disclaimer: I have not actually used one of these (it's on my to-do
list), but from the specs I've seen it looks perfect for this
application.
your pal dave
- --
Dave Thayer
Denver, Colorado USA
dthayer@netcom.com
Beware of having the hysteresis so close. Something like this controller
is designed for use in a chilled water and hot water/steam combination
that really can handle the abrupt short cycling that so close an offset
offers. This controller would work best with a 1 1/2 to 2 degree offset
to prevent short-cycling of the compressor and reducing the life of the
equipments.
Jeff
Brewmaker1@Juno.com
- ---------------------------------------
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 1998 17:41:34 -0800
From: "Martin Brown" <martinbrown@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Chloramine
My water company - East Bay Municipal Utilities District in the San
Francisco Bay area, has announced that they are switching from chlorine to
chloramine, warning customers who have koi ponds or tropical fish that the
latter does not evaporate from water as the former does.
Usually, I draw off about 10 gallons of water several days before mashing
and brewing. Letting the water sit in a couple of open, plastic water
bottles for a few days seems to allow the chlorine to dissipate.
Does anyone out there in HBD land know if chloramine will kill my yeast,
preventing fermentation?
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 08 Feb 1998 13:57:12 -0500
From: John Mitchell <jlmitch@charlotte.infi.net>
Subject: South Pole Brewing
John Watts wrote in HBD2597:
>Now that Jeff Renner has been established as the Northern Brewing
>Pole, we need a Southern Pole so we can get started on the
>HomeBrewers Globe.
I've got a friend in the Navy with the McMurdo unit who goes to Antarctica
every year. Some people started brewing there a couple years ago, though
the frequency has diminished as more good commercial beer has become
available to them there. I've even got a shirt depicting a label for
"Great Scott's Fat Seal Stout, Brewed in Antarctica, Tested by the Explorers."
John Mitchell
Gastonia, NC
Carolina Brewmasters
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #2632, 02/09/98
*************************************
-------
