Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2650
HOMEBREW Digest #2650 Mon 02 March 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:
RE: Salt additions / hazy beer (George_De_Piro)
Private reply by Wolfgang Kunze (fwd) re: FWH and chill haze (Tidmarsh Major)
More Water-Treatment Questions (KennyEddy)
Salts addition, ("David R. Burley")
BT Authors ("David R. Burley")
Re: Worried or Not? Mead question.... (Charles Burke)
Re: European swallows/US pints ("John C. Tull")
Beer history (David Kerr)
Spalt rhizomes (Matthew Arnold)
Steinbier (George_De_Piro)
Devine Brew ("Frederick J. Wills")
Attention Central PA residents! (Jonathan Ingram)
Large 29 mm caps (Edward J. Basgall)
Re: European swallows/US pints ("John C. Tull")
Irish Moss (Al Korzonas)
water chemistry, ppm (JKW)
chloramines and filters (James Tomlinson)
1 BBL RIMS Design (Kyle Druey)
Correction (AJ)
Colour units (Al Korzonas)
re:1 bbl RIMS (Brad Johnson)
Making Rootbeer (Bill_Rehm)
RE: Long Secondaries/Spent Grain Dog Bones (LaBorde, Ronald)
Metric system/pint/1984 ("Michael Maag")
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: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 08:24:09 -0800
From: George_De_Piro@berlex.com
Subject: RE: Salt additions / hazy beer
Hi all,
Kyle asks some good questions about salt additions. He wonders if
they are used primarily for flavor effects or pH control of the mash.
He also wonders when to add them, and how much.
Salt additions can be used for both pH control and flavor effects.
The problems with using them for pH control are:
1. You will also get the flavor effects, which may be undesirable.
2. It's not Reinheitsgebot (not a problem for some).
3. By adding salts, you will increase the concentrations of some ions
that you need, but you will also increase the concentration of ions
you may not want.
For example, if you add gypsum (calcium sulphate, CaSO4) to the mash
to increase Ca+2 (to lower mash pH), you will also be increasing the
SO4-2 ion. SO4 has a pretty large effect on the flavor of the beer
(increases and alters the perception of hop bitterness). If you are
brewing a Muenchner Helles this is not desirable!
If you are using salts to control mash pH, obviously they must be
added to the mash. It is easiest to add them to the water before
mash in (to ensure even distribution). Of course, some salts are not
very soluble in plain water (like calcium carbonate), but most people
don't have a need to add this. If you must add this, it will dissolve
in the mash (weakly acidic solution).
You *absolutely* must know your water's natural chemistry before you
start throwing all sorts of salts into your brewing water! I cannot
stress this enough! Recipes that blindly call for salt additions
should ignored!!!
Think about it this way: you decide to use calcium chloride (CaCl2)
to lower your mash pH. Your brewing water may already be near the
upper limit for desirable chloride content. By adding more, you just
pushed it way over the top. The same is true for all the ions you
might add.
If you are adding salts simply for their flavor contribution, you can
add them to the boil rather than the mash. You should have a decent
gram scale for weighing out salts. Volume measurements really don't
cut it. The amounts you add are dependent on your water's natural
chemistry.
----------------------------
There has been some talk about hazy beer. I used to think, "What the
heck, a little haze is natural." This is true for some styles. Haze
can signify other problems, though.
Haze can simply be "chill haze," a protein-phenol complex that becomes
insoluble at cold temperatures and thus clouds your cool brew. Haze
can also be caused by excessive starch. Starch in beer is bad. It
shows that there are fundamental problems with your techniques, and
leads to beer stability and flavor problems.
Haze can also be caused by yeast that have not flocculated. Most
brewing yeasts usually flocculate, so lack of flocculation can be the
sign of some problems. Wild yeasts tend to not flocculate. You don't
want them in your beer (for several reasons)! Suspended yeast can
make the beer taste yeasty, too. As Jim Busch pointed out, this is
not often desirable.
Haze can also be caused by an extreme bacterial infection. If your
beer is turbid from bacteria you will probably be put off by its
aroma before the appearance can ever bother you, though.
So, as you can see, haze is not always the innocuous creature that
many believe it to be. It is relatively easy to produce clear beer
without filtration in a homebrewery. If you don't like haze, there is
no reason to tolerate it!
Have fun!
George De Piro (Nyack, NY)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 09:59:12 -0500 (EST)
From: Tidmarsh Major <tmajor@parallel.park.uga.edu>
Subject: Private reply by Wolfgang Kunze (fwd) re: FWH and chill haze
Hubert Hanghofer passed the following reply from Wolfgang Kunze to me to
forward to the list. Between the two of us, I think we've made a
reasonable translation of the German reply (which I include for those who
can understand it better than I).
Tidmarsh Major
tmajor@parallel.park.uga.edu
- ---------- Forwarded message from Hubert Hanghofer, edited by me --------
To conclude, the context is clear to me
- in my humble English:
He's very pleased that we have such a great forum. Unfortunately his
English is not very good, so he prefers to mail in German.
( -Note that I've read that the book was translated by an English
Author )
Hop polyphenols have a significantly higher degree of condensation
[coagulation, perhaps?] and a higher reactivity than malt
polyphenols. The latter [malt polyphenols] count for 80% of the
polyphenols in wort. If hops are added at beginning, the hop polyphenols
react quickly, whereas a higher part of the slow reacting malt polyphenols
remain in the wort and in the final beer, where they -because of low
reactivity- cause haze in a later stage. That's the main reason for point
11.
CHEERS &
sehr zum Wohle!
Hubert
- ------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 98 15:46 +0100
To: hhanghof@netbeer.co.at
From: (Wolfgang Kunze)
Sehr geehrter Herr Hanghofer,
Ihr interessantes e-mail wurde mir von Herrn Hendel von unserer VLB
uebermittelt, erreichte mich aber wegen eines Urlaubs erst jetzt. Ich
freue mich, dass die die Haus- und Microbrewer so intensiv und
kompetent ueber eine elektronische mailingliste miteinander
kommunizieren und sich auch wirklich ernsthaft mit den vielen Fragen
und Problemen bei der Bierherstellung auseinanderzusetzen. Leider ist
mein Englisch etwas mangelhaft, so dass ich mich lieber in der
deutschen Sprache an Sie wende. Ich bitte Sie aber, den so
Interessierten Haus- und Mikrobrauern auf diesem Wege meine Freude
darueber zum Ausdruck zu bringen. Wenn ich nun die Diskussion richtig
verstehe, geht es um die Frage, wie der Punkt 11 auf S.396 deutsch =
242 englisch:
- Hopfengabe nicht zu frueh - Malzgerbstoffe sollen reagieren
zu bewerten sei.
Diese alte Erkenntnis beruht darauf, dass die Polyphenole des Hopfens
in einem wesentlich hheren Kondensationsgrad vorliegen und auch
wesentlich reaktionsfreudiger sind als die Polyphenole aus dem Malz,
die aber wiederum etwa 80% der gesamten Polyphenole in der Wrze
ausmachen. Wird der Hopfen am Anfang zugesetzt, reagieren seine
Gerbstoffe sehr rasch, whrend die langsam reagierenden aus dem Malz
zu einem hheren Anteil in der Wuerze und im Bier verbleiben und bei
ihrer Reaktionstrgheit erst viel spaeter zu einer Truebung im Bier
Anlass geben. Das ist die Hauptursache dieser Aussage, die natuerlich
bei Verwendung von PVPP oder anderen Adsorbentien nicht mehr so zum
Tragen kommt. Ich weiss allerdings nicht, ob die Microbrewer
Adsorbentien oder Faellungsmittel zur Stabilisierung verwenden. Ich
hoffe, dass Ihnen diese Aussage genuegt und bin gern bereit, bei
weiteren Fragen Rede und Antwort zu stehen (aber moeglichst in
deutsch).
Mit freundlichen Gruessen
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ing. Hubert Hanghofer
Maxstrasse 21 Privat +43-662-87 82 13
A-5020 Salzburg Bro +43-6245-890 442
- --
DIE HAUSBRAUEREI
vom Einstieg zur Braukunst
Infos unter
http://www.netbeer.co.at/beer/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 10:05:28 EST
From: KennyEddy@aol.com
Subject: More Water-Treatment Questions
Kyle Druey writes:
I have a few questins while we are on the topic of water chemistry and
salt addition.
1) When do you add salt additions: to the gross brewing water volume
(this is the final beer volume plus extra water to account for any
losses in the brewing process), to the mash tun, to the boil kettle?
I add everything to the "gross brewing water" volume, though I don't think my
brewing water is all *that* gross ;-). I buy my RO water in two 5-gallon
plastic carboys (with handles), measure in the salts, and pick the bastards up
and shake them (it's actually pretty easy with the handles). That said, there
are special cases where adding to the mash is appropriate; see below.
2) If you add salts to the gross brewing water volume some salts will
not readily dissolve until lactic acid is added. Is this normal, or am
I doing something wrong?
"Some slats" is probably chalk. This will only dissolve at a rate of about
1/4 gram per 5 gallons! This amount of chalk is not enough to significantly
affect the ion composition, so chalk additions to plain unacidified water is
useless. The other salts that I use -- epsom salts, baking soda, non-iodized
table salt, calcium chloride, and gypsum -- dissolve quite readily in water.
The addition of acid will improve the dissolution of chalk. AJ deLange has
proposed bubbling CO2 though the water to lower its pH (by creation of
carbonic acid, BTW this mimics natural processes) and facilitate chalk
dissolution.
3) Are the salts added primarily to pre-adjust the mash pH, or for
flavor effects in the finished beer? Seems as if the types/amounts of
salts needed would then be a function of what your objectives are. If
you just want to alter mash pH, then the famous brewing water profiles
commonly found in homebrewing texts may not be very useful.
This post was made before my response to Scott Murman in a recent HBD. Go
back a couple issues and look for it if you didn't catch it. Bottom line --
you're right, but as always, It Depends.
4) I have been calculating my salt additions based on the gross water
volume, and adding them there. Like I mentioned above, some salts do
not readily dissolve, but I add this water to the mash tun anyway. The
remainder of the water is used for sparging, which is acidified with
lactic acid, after which the mineral salts dissolve. What happens to the
undissolved salts that are added to dough in the grist? Do they
dissolve once the mash pH is adjusted, or do they somehow get 'trapped'
in the grain bed?
You can work with undissolved chalk if you can keep it suspended (by vigorous
stirring) during strike-in. This will ensure it's evenly distributed and it
will dissolve once it reacts with the malt. Adding to the mash after mash-in
will work too since the acidity of the mash will dissolve the chalk readily.
Note that chalk is calcium carbonate. The calcium wants to react with the
mash to lower pH (by creating acid); but the carbonate wants to add alkalinity
and raise pH. In this race, the carbonate wins after a certain amount of
chalk. So watch your mash pH if you add chalk.
5) Once you add the salts, and you then have to add more salts to
adjust the mash pH, what happens then? Do you run the risk of adding
too much of the wrong kinds of minerals?
Gypsum (calcium sulphate) is a common mash acidifier, and adding more gypsum
adds more sulphate which can be detrimental to some styles. For these kinds
of beers, adding acid may be a better choice to avoid sulphate.
6) Are calculating salt additions worth the time and effort? Or is it
just easier, and produces the same outcome, to ignore salt
additions/calculations and adjust the mash pH with lactic acid to lower
the pH, and use calcium carbonate to increase the pH?
Mash pH should always be the last word in your salt additions, but creating
"profiles" for specific flavor effects is also one of the goals. In my recent
post I suggested a few simple recipes that should cover most of your brewing
situations, if you don't want to do the work yourself (or if you just want a
"good-enough" water). I doubt that subtle "errors" versus published "classic"
water profiles will have any discernable effect on your beer.
I am sure most of us have read that the Bavarians originally could not
brew Pilsners because when they mashed with lightly kilned malts and
added their hard water (hard when compared to Pilzen) to the grist the
resulting mash pH was not enzyme friendly. Perhaps designing mineral
salt recipes based on the composition of the grist is more appropiate?
i.e. darker malts generally lower the mash pH, design water recipes the
account for this... Doesn't Daniels in his book DGB suggest that the
mash pH will be lowered by 0.2 for every 10% of dark malts that comprise
the grist?
I have seen a couple of sources on figuring mash pH vs composition but in my
ignorance I'm guessing it's much more complicated than simply plugging in a
grain bill and water chemistry and getting an accurate pH (but who knows).
I've read (Daniels? Pappazian?) that adding distilled water to pale malt will
establish a pH around 5.9 (or thereabouts), too high for proper efficient
enzyme action. Adding calcium facilitates creation of pH-reducing acid.
Adding acid lowers pH. Letting the grist "go lactic" biologically will lower
the pH. Adding dark malts will lower pH.
*****
Ken Schwartz
El Paso, TX
KennyEddy@aol.com
http://members.aol.com/kennyeddy
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 10:16:56 -0500
From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley@compuserve.com>
Subject: Salts addition,
Brewsters:
Kyle Druey asks about when and how much minerals to add
to produce beer.
The Ca ion content in pale ale malt mashes should be around
50 ppm in the mash to provide the correct pH and avoid interfering
with enzyme activity. In the case of Pilsners and RO water, I
don't add any minerals at any time and it all works fine. If you
choose to do the real Burton style waters add half of the salts
in the mash tun and the other half in the sparge and avoid adding
lactic acid if you are searching for real ale authenticity.
To get the calcium carbonate to dissolve you may have to treat
a sample of water and salts with CO2 using a carbonater and
a liter soda bottle.
Your idea of using the grist composition to determine the
mineralization of the brewing liquor is, of course, just the
opposite of the early brewers who varied the grist to match
the local water. This resulted in beers which were distinctive
by geography.
- -----------------------------------------------------------
Keep on brewin'
Dave Burley
Kinnelon, NJ 07405
103164.3202@compuserve.com
Dave_Burley@compuserve.com
Voice e-mail OK
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 10:42:51 -0500
From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley@compuserve.com>
Subject: BT Authors
Brewsters:
Wow!! was I impressed to read the list of authors in the
January/February Brewing Techniques; HBD swept the issue!
Louis Bonham with Andy Thomas, Dion Hollenbeck and
Spencer Thomas were the authors familiar to us all and
Al Korzonas' letter to Dave Miller had Miller explaining and
apologizing page after page. Well Done!!
For those who are BT impaired call 541-687-2993 or
e-address is circulation@brewtech.com
No affiliation, yadda.
Keep on brewin'
Dave Burley
Kinnelon, NJ 07405
103164.3202@compuserve.com
Dave_Burley@compuserve.com
Voice e-mail OK
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 09:03:00 -0700 (MST)
From: Charles Burke <charles@pluto.ame.arizona.edu>
Subject: Re: Worried or Not? Mead question....
Michael Tucker (mrtucker@fayettevillenc.com) wrote:
> OK- so far so good. the book suggests that you rack the mead
> off of the sediment once a month or so. OK- fine. I sanitized
> another carboy, racked the mead off of the sediment, topped it
> back off with a gallon or so of clean, sanitary spring water
> (also suggested by the book), repositioned my ferm lock, and
> nada. Nothing. no visible signs of life. No glubs from the
> ferm lock, nothing. the mead is clear, I can see through the
> stuff- a dark reddish golden color. I did taste it- I was
> disappointed in the flavor, but it didn't taste "sour" or "off"
> like it had been contaminated.... I figure it was still "raw"
> and needs time to mellow. I guess what has me worried is that
> moments before I racked it, it was bubbling away- one glub
> every 3 minutes of so. Moments after the transfer, nada. Its
> almost like i wiped out the wee beastie yeasties in toto. I
> can't believe that to be true- but that's what its like.
Greetings, Michael (et al...) -
Remember that you had a slow fermentation rate of "0.3 glub/min"
and that racking drives A LOT of CO2 out of solution. I suspect
that your fermentation IS active, but the CO2 is just going
directly into solution rather than escaping. It seems reasonable
to suppose that no gas will come out until the dissolved CO2
concentration reaches saturation. That could take a while given
the CO2 production rate you gave.
Your batch sounds just like the plain 3# mead that I started back
in Spring '93. I had the same experience when I racked the
stuff. It had a comparable fermentation rate as yours at the
time. The airlock did start bubbling again after "a few" days (I
can't remember exactly how long it took).
As for the rest - Yes, the must wouldn't taste terrific at this
point. Mine took 2 years after bottling to even start to mellow,
and about 15 months to ferment out completely (FG = 0.997 IIRC).
This was also with champagne yeast and a "cautious" dose of
nutrient. Take heart, though - the final product should be
fantastic. Mine has finally taken of the characteristic of a
good white wine. Mostly like a chardonnay, but with a completely
different aftertaste.
Unfortunately, much patience is required of the meadmaker...
- Charlie
- ---------------------------------------------
Charles R. Burke, Research Assistant
University of Arizona
Bldg. 119
Dept. of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering
1130 N Mountain Ave.
Tucson AZ 85721
charles@cfd.ame.arizona.edu
(520)621-4369 work, (520)621-8191 fax
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 08:31:18 -0800
From: "John C. Tull" <jctull@unr.edu>
Subject: Re: European swallows/US pints
>Here in the States we're getting ripped off and no one is saying a
word.
>When I ask for a pint, I want A PINT. What we usually get is a 12oz
pour
>in an American "pint" glass. A glass of beer is usually about 8oz.
>
>I really wish publicans would get their act together and serve a REAL
>pint when asked for.
I agree with you wholeheartedly. The problem arises from the lack of
pint serving glass availability from restaurant suppliers. They sell a
pint glass made by Libby's, I believe, that is actually a mixing glass
for bartending. The kind where you slip a metal glass on the open end
and shake, not stir.
So a publican pours into a pint glass, creates a head, and you usually
end up with about 14 oz of beer, depending on head size. I have the same
glasses at home that I use for pouring homebrews. My 12 oz. fits with
room to spare if my pours are patient. BTW, some brewpubs use true 0.5 L
steins.
Cheers,
John C. Tull
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 11:51:19 -0500
From: David Kerr <dkerr@semc.org>
Subject: Beer history
Radio Prague has a neat beer site that (all) y(ouse)'all might find
interesting:
http://www.radio.cz/beer/beer1.html
Dave Kerr - Needham, MA
"Brew early and often" - Mayor Daley
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 17:11:15 GMT
From: revmra@skyfry.com (Matthew Arnold)
Subject: Spalt rhizomes
Spring is nearly upon us in the U.S. Midwest (actually, thanks to El Nino, it's
felt like spring for quite some time). My wife and I want to try our hand at
growing our own hops. We plan on growing some Cascade, as it is supposedly easy
to grow and we like it!
Another one I would love to grow is Spalt. Does anyone know of anyone anyplace
who sells Spalt rhizomes? I realize I'm asking for almost the impossible, but
if anyone knows a homebrew shop that carries them or knows of a farm that grows
Spalt that would be willing to sell my some rhizomes, I would be in be
eternally in your debt.
Hoping to be Spalting,
Matt
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 12:19:04 -0800
From: George_De_Piro@berlex.com
Subject: Steinbier
Hi all,
A while back I asked some practical questions about the production of
Steinbier. I just thought I'd let you all know that I brewed it this
weekend. There were no injuries or loss of property. Very dull.
I brewed up 15 gallons of 1.062 Oktoberfest wort and took 4.5 gallons
of it for the Steinbier (it was later diluted down to 1.049). My
friend Bob and I built a fire with seasoned oak and a few pieces of
scrap maple I had laying around. When we ran out of wood we tore
apart a dead Japanese maple that was standing a few feet away and
burned it.
We used all sorts of rocks, mostly from the woods north of New York
City (they don't call the land "Rockland county" for nothing). I
didn't test any of the rocks before brew day. Every one of them fell
apart in the fire. Only one exploded with any kind of force, and it
wasn't that tremendous. It only sent a flake about 2 feet in the air.
The rocks never did glow red, although they were hot enough to ignite
wood on contact. What fun! Upon dropping them in the wort we were
somewhat surprised by the lack of violence. The stones hissed, some
bubbles rose, and that was it. We did achieve boiling from a
temperature of about 140F (60C), though. None of the rocks exploded
upon cooling in the wort.
The wort only boiled a few minutes after dropping the rocks in, so I
finished the boil on the stove. The wort really didn't taste all that
different from the Oktoberfest wort (it wasn't diluted to 1.049 until
the end of the boil), despite the ashes that were floating in it
(a few bits of burnt wood made it to the kettle...)
I saved some of the rocks in a corny keg that I sanitized with
iodophor
and boiling water (I boiled all the fittings, too). The rock-filled
keg was purged with CO2 and refrigerated. I must say that the rocks
didn't seem to have much character. I tasted one that wasn't for the
keg and found it to be, um, rock-like. Not too sweet.
Some of the rocks did have a lot of proteinaceous gunk on them. That
plus the fact that I am reluctant to put beer into a keg that was
sanitized weeks in advanced (for the "lagering on the rocks" phase)
makes me wonder if it is worth reintroducing the beer to the rocks.
Any opinions?
Overall, it was a fun day. The wort smells really nice in the
fermenter, and the lag time was really short. I'll probably rack it
off the yeast this weekend, and in another week put it "on the rocks,"
if I decide to do that. I'll report back on how it turns out.
Have fun!
George De Piro (Nyack, NY)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 12:57:29 -0500
From: "Frederick J. Wills" <Frederick_Wills@compuserve.com>
Subject: Devine Brew
mra@skyfry.com (Matthew Arnold) proposed the following recipe:
>Lion Fan in Packerland Extremely Bitter IPA
>11# English Pale Ale malt
>.5# 60L Crystal malt
>.5# Victory malt
>.5# Wheat malt
>2.5 oz Centennial pellets (75 mins)
> .5 oz Centennial (10 mins)
>1 oz Cascade (10 mins)
>1 oz Cascade (at knockout / dry hop)
>#1098 British Ale yeast
Assuming this recipe is intended for 5.5 gallons in the fermenter, I
would
be more concerned with overdoing the bitterness on this than the citrus
flavor. The flavor and aroma will fade with aging much faster than the
bitterness. I calculated over 100 IBUs. Even for an IPA that is off the
map. You can sometimes get away with it on a very malty Barley Wine, but
I'm afraid I wouldn't enjoy it on a beer w/ an OG of 1.060-1.070 (1.064 @
75% efficiency).
I too am of the hop appreciative kind, but what truly differenciates a
hoppy beer IMO is the flavor and aroma from late additions and dry
hopping.
You might want to cut back to ~50 IBUs and stay with the generous late
hop
additions maybe even going for some dry hops in secondary and see how
that
suits your taste buds.
Cheers,
Fred Wills
Londonderry, NH
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 13:49:49 -0500
From: Jonathan Ingram <jgi105@psu.edu>
Subject: Attention Central PA residents!
being that the time is getting closer, I thought I would go ahead and
announce the opening of a new brewery. One of my friends will be opening
the Mt.Nittany Brewery sometime this spring if you live in the central PA
area keep an eye out for it in your local bar(s), especially State College,
Phillipsburg, Bellefonte, etc. The first beer to be put out on the market
is -Jed's Red-. Please note that I don't work for the brewery, nor is this
an official announcement of any type. I just thought some of you might be
interested. -Jon
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 14:42:29 -0500
From: ejb11@psu.edu (Edward J. Basgall)
Subject: Large 29 mm caps
Hi homebrewers,
This has probably been addressed before, but does any one have a source for
the large Champagne bottle sized 29mm crown caps?
Private email reply is OK.
tia
cheers
ed basgall
SCUM
State College Underground Maltsters
State College, PA
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 08:31:18 -0800
From: "John C. Tull" <jctull@unr.edu>
Subject: Re: European swallows/US pints
>Here in the States we're getting ripped off and no one is saying a
word.
>When I ask for a pint, I want A PINT. What we usually get is a 12oz
pour
>in an American "pint" glass. A glass of beer is usually about 8oz.
>
>I really wish publicans would get their act together and serve a REAL
>pint when asked for.
pint serving glass availability from restaurant suppliers. They sell a
pint glass made by Libby's, I believe, that is actually a mixing glass
for bartending. The kind where you slip a metal glass on the open end
and shake, not stir.
So a publican pours into a pint glass, creates a head, and you usually
end up with about 14 oz of beer, depending on head size. I have the same
glasses at home that I use for pouring homebrews. My 12 oz. fits with
room to spare if my pours are patient. BTW, some brewpubs use true 0.5 L
steins.
Cheers,
John C. Tull
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 13:39:37 -0600 (CST)
From: Al Korzonas <korz@xnet.com>
Subject: Irish Moss
Andy writes:
>The correct amount of irish moss to add is highly dependent on many
>factors. Most homebrew texts recommend far less than is ideal (1/2
>teaspoon per batch instead of ~1 tablespoon), so in many cases it won't
>do much at all. Using even 30% less than the optimum can result in poor
>cold break flocculation.
I wish I had my copy of Dr. Fix's new book here... I'm pretty sure this
would be in there, but he was good enough to send me a copy of a paper
he had written a few years ago which described some experiments he ran
with Irish Moss. Several different varieties of IM were tried at several
different concentrations. Rehydration of the IM was done and it was
stressed that this was very important. There were tradeoffs between
head retention and clarity and a few other factors, but my reading of
the data indicated to me that 1/8 gram per liter of *refined flakes* was
the best choice. After determining this, I immediately called L.D.Carlson
(my primary wholesaler at the time, when I owned a HB shop) and asked
what kind of IM they were shipping me. It turns out it was "refined
Irish Moss flakes."
Note also that in one of the Beer and Brewing books (the transcripts of
the AHA National Conference) there is a talk by Terry Foster on finings.
He explained why "too much" of a fining is worse than "not enough." My
own experiments have shown this to be true.
I weighed out 2.4 grams of those L.D.Carlson refined flakes and found that
it was pretty close to a level TEAspoon.
Now, let's think about how extract is made for a second. It is concentrated
from a normal wort, right? I had a suspicion that the amount of IM you
need is dependent on the amount of protein in the wort and if some of
the protein was removed as break from the extract during production, extract
batches would require less IM, right? My experiments indeed confirmed
this suspicion.
To make a short story long, my tests indicated that, for a 1.050 OG
extract wort, 1/4 TEAspoon of rehydrated, refined Irish Moss flakes was
the proper amount. This happens to be exactly the amount that Charlie
Papazian recommends in his book, but I don't recall if he distinguishes
between extract and all-grain amounts. Note that this should scale
linearly... for a 1.100 extract wort, 1/2 teaspoon should be correct.
It could be that higher amounts of IM are needed when rehydration is
not done or in high-protein worts or on worts whose pH is radically
different than the norm... that might explain why some people find they
need a lot more than these recommended amounts
I had better shut up now... you've heard the story about free milk and
a cow right?
Al.
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korz@xnet.com
My new website (still under construction, but up-and-running):
http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 20:56:41 +0100
From: JKW <kev@post8.tele.dk>
Subject: water chemistry, ppm
In HBD#2644 Gregg Soh writes:
>
>Hi. I've been reading up on my water chemistry lately and from the
>references we have that reside in the Brewery pages, as well as from
>some homebrewing texts(TNCJOHB comes to mind), there is always a mention
>of "ppm". We all know that this means "parts per millon", but are these
>parts based on weight or by atoms?
<SNIP>
In my chemistry education (OK, chemical engineering, but
we're all friends here right? :^) I learned to worship these
sacred cows:
% (parts per hundred), ppt, ppm, ppb, etc. etc. are all
based on Mass, unless otherwise specified. If one wants to
talk moles (or molecules) then one says "mole percent" or
"mole fraction", or something similar.
Also, when expressing mg/L or mg/kg, the amount in the
denominator is always the total amount of SOLUTION, again
unless otherwise specified.
One should always be careful, as different fields may make up
their own definitions, but these have never steered me wrong.
Happy brewing...
- -------------------------------------------------------
Kevin S. Wenger (Piling it higher and Deeper)
Kalundborg, Denmark
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 15:23:37 -0500
From: James Tomlinson <red_beards@compuserve.com>
Subject: chloramines and filters
In HBD2647, Fred Wills asked about chloramines?
I found a web site: http://www.cleanh20.com/chlorami.html
It is the web page of Mount Pleasant Waterworks (Where ever that is).
Anway, one line in the page is as follows:
>>Do home water softeners remove chloramines?
>>
>>Only if the softeners have a Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) filter.
OK, first pass, but it sounds like Granular Activated Carbon filters
will remove chloramines, I'll post more stuff as I find it.
- --
James Tomlinson
Give a man a beer, and he wastes an hour.
But teach a man how to brew, and he wastes a lifetime!
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 05:28:04 -0800
From: Kyle Druey <druey@ibm.net>
Subject: 1 BBL RIMS Design
Brewsters: Brad asks about large batch RIMSing.
>My specific question is in response to Dion Hollenbeck's BT article on
>RIMS (I am cc'ing this to him). He refers to the practical limits of
>in-line heating elements as being 10 gal batch/20 lb grain bill. He
>recommends supplementing the in-line heater for larger grain bills by
>either doubling up with a second heater in series w/ the first, or
>adding direct heat by fire to the bottom of the MT.
The physical limit for RIMSing is controlled by the maximum flow rate
you can achieve without generating a stuck mash condition, and the
minimum flow rate without scorching the wort. If your flow rate is high
enough, using a 6000W high density element run on 240V will not scorch
your wort, and the higher voltage is necessary for a 1 bbl design. The
critical factors to consider are the false bottom open area, the crush,
and the grain bed thickness. If you can minimize the grain bed
thickness (large diameter mash tun), use a coarse crush (something like
0.065" nip, compared to the usual the 0.04"-0.05"), and maximize the
percent open area of the false bottom (70% seems to be the practical max
and still prevent husks from passing thru) then large batch RIMSing
*may* be possible. What I and many other RIMSers have found is that
there is a limit on the maximum flow rate one can achieve without
sticking the mash, which is a function of the pump characteristics and
the grain bed depth. I have found that a maximum grain bed depth of 4"
is advisable to prevent a stuck mash with my Teel #1P677A magnetically
coupled pump on full flow. If you are doing a 30 gal batch, a 1.060
gravity beer, and your extraction is 30 pts, then your grist will be
(30*60)/30 = 60 lbs grain. Using a rough guide that 1 lb of crushed malt
occupies about 1 qt, the grain volume is 60*0.25 = 15 gallons. 60# of
grain occupying 15 gallons in the mash tun at a grain bed thickness of
4" requires a mash tun diameter of (assuming a circular mash tun):
D = { [(15 gal)*(0.134 ft3/gal)] / [(pi/4)*(4"/12)] }^0.5 * 12 = 34"
Wow, just about the size of the SS housing for my pool's DE filter!
Your next problem will be to estimate the heat input needed to raise the
temperature of a 60# mash at a decent rate. I have read that commercial
temp boost rates are 1 deg C per min, or 1.8 F/min. Using this rate,
and a mash thickness of 1.25 qts/lb, you would need the following
wattage:
thermal mass of mash = (60*1.25*0.25) + (60*0.4) = 42.75 gal water
(the factor 0.4 is a way to convert the heat capacity of grain in pounds
to gallons of water)
Heat Input Required = 1.8 * 42.75 * 147 = 11,300 W (KennyEddy Equation)
11,300 Watts is incredible! I only use 1125W with my RIMS for my 3.875
gal batches. Assuming you can use two 6000W inline heaters run on 240V,
what flow rate do you need to prevent scorching? I have observed that
scorching of the wort occurs when the heater delta T is greater than 8 F
(I realize many of you RIMSer think this is high, but this is *my*
experience). This is using a low watt density heating element of about
16 W/sqin. If you have a 6000W element run on 240V, then the heat
density is about 72 W/sqin. I am going to make a WAG of an assumption
here, and assume the delta T of scorching in relation to the heater
element wattage is linear, and guestimate that the critical delta T to
prevent wort scorching with the 6000W element is about 8 * (16/72) = 1.8
deg F. You need the following flow rate across the 6000W element to
obtain a 1.8 deg F delta T:
Critical Flow Rate = (6000W/1000)/(0.062*4.18*1.8*1.8) = 7.2 gpm
You need a pump that can generate a flow rate of at least 7.2 gpm during
the temp boosts to use the 6000W elements on 240V, with the above 1 bbl
parameters. This seems pretty fast, you may even need to decrease the
grain bed depth to say 2". Also realize that you will have to double
that delta T since you will probably only have a temp reading on each
end of your heat chamber (a thermometer on each end between two 6000W
elements). Some folks have used steam to add heat to the system, I
think one HBDer reported a temp rise rate of 4 F/m with steam. This
might be a better option to investigate. Brad, if you build this
monster let us all know how it turns out! Realize I have not built this
thing, and I am assuming 100% efficiencies and I did not use any
temperature corrections.
You can't get away with nuttin on this forum, too many engineering
nerds, P.iled h.igh & D.eepers, and plant doctors. I am sure I have few
math errors in there, but I believe the thermal models are correct.
Feel free to chime in with corrections, but if you have a nit or two to
pick offer improvements also instead of just flames.
Re Spencer and the BT typo, I kinda figured that the commute between
Salt
Lake City and Ann Arbor would be sort of difficult! :>)
Kyle Druey
Bakersfield, CA
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 16:29:01 -0500
From: AJ <ajdel@mindspring.com>
Subject: Correction
RE my post on molal vs. molar in #2647:
Of course the molal scale is not measured in mg/kg. It is measured in
moles/kg. Similarly the molar scale measures in moles/liter, not mg/L.
Yes, one measures out the milligrams to add to a kilogram (ppm ) in
preparing a molal solution but then must divide by the molecular weight
to obtain the molality. In preparing a molar solution, one measures mg
to add to a liter and again must divide by the molecular weight. In the
former case the result is millimoles/kg - this is the molal value. In
the latter the result is millimoles/L - this is the molar value. The
whole point is that per weight vs. per volume isn't important in brewing
calculations because the solutions are dilute. Funny how this error
glares from the page today but was hidden when I wrote it.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 15:36:14 -0600 (CST)
From: Al Korzonas <korz@xnet.com>
Subject: Colour units
There has been some recent discussion of colour units and predicting
beer colour from the grain bill.
I take an extremely simple view of beer colour: if you use the right
grains/malts for the recipe, you will have the right colour.
Here are a few examples:
Munchener Dunkels are traditionally made from dark Munich malt and a
decoction mash. I make my from around 90 to 95% dark Munich and 5
to 10% Aromatic or Melanoidin malt (these are like "super Munich" malts).
I infusion mash, which is why I add these malts (to increase melanoidin
content). The resulting beer comes out smack dab in the middle of the
guidelines.
Bitter? 5 to 7% crystal malt (say, 30 to 60 L) and the rest is Pale
Ale malt. Result. A beer within the (very wide) colour range for
Bitters. Actually, Timothy Taylor Landlord (one of my favourites) is
on the pale side and is made from 100% Pale Ale malt. I tried emulating
this beer using DeWolf-Cosysns, Crisp Maris Otter and Munton's Pale Ale
malts. The Crisp and Munton's batches were quite good, but the DWC
made a too-pale beer which also was short on Bitter-like flavour.
Recall that DWC is Belgian and the other two are English.
To me the bottom line is: use the proper malts for the style and the
colour will take care of itself.
Ahh, but what about the extract Munchner Dunkel or Oktoberfest or
Doppelbock? I contend that you can sort of approximate the flavours
of these (and a few other) styles, but you won't be able to hit them
spot on because crystal and dark (chocolate, black, etc.) malts lend
the wrong flavours to these styles. I'm sure George Di Piro will back
me up on this... too many O'fests are made with too much crystal and the
resulting beer doesn't taste authentic.
Am I looking at colour too simplistically?
Al.
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korz@xnet.com
My new website (still under construction, but up-and-running):
http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 17:25:26 -0500
From: Brad Johnson <bjohnson@berkshire.net>
Subject: re:1 bbl RIMS
I should clarify that my aims are a bit more modest; 1/2 bbl. is what I
have in mind due to other limitations in system. My MT shape is
essentially a round-bottomed pot in cross-section. The diameter is 23
max; the diameter at the level I would probably place the false bottom
is 16". The available depth up to the top of the jacketed portion
(important for insulation / heat maintenance reasons) is 9". My maximum
anticipated grain bill is about 40 lbs. It has occurred to me that a low
pressure steam system using the steam jacket could be useful in temp
boosts - but that opens an entire new can of worms re: safety issues,
need for pressure testing of the jacket (why do you suppose I found it
in a scrapyard?) etc. I expect Kyle's reference to steam was injected
steam? Which is certainly a possiblity
Brad Johnson
Berkshire BroadArrow Brewery
Bjohnson@berkshire.net
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 16:29:41 -0600
From: Bill_Rehm@DeluxeData.com
Subject: Making Rootbeer
A friend asked me about making rootbeer from scratch, no flavor extracts,
and the only place I could think to ask was here. So, does anyone have or
know where I can find information on making home-made root beer.
thanks
Bill Rehm
Milwaukee, WI
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 19:57:01 -0600
From: rlabor@lsumc.edu (LaBorde, Ronald)
Subject: RE: Long Secondaries/Spent Grain Dog Bones
>Uh, not to rain on your (or your dog's) parade, but aren't
>*tomatoes harmful to dogs too? (Not that it ever stopped our
>GSD from eating them off the vine). I can't remember where I
>irst heard this, but it's stuck in back the neurons, somewhere.
>Anyone know for sure?
My wife loves dogs, and seems to love vet visits. Once when
Butterscotch wasn't eating well enough, the vet said give him tomato
juice - dogs love it. Sure enough, he loved it. He also said to
sprinkle some on his dog food to flavor it. In fact he said, most dog
food has tomato juice in it.
One caution however, salt to a dog is like garlic to a vampire - deadly,
so be sure it is unsalted tomato juice, and any other food you give
your dog must be unsalted.
Ron
Ronald La Borde - Metairie, Louisiana - rlabor@lsumc.edu
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 20:52:42 -0500
From: "Michael Maag" <maagm@rica.net>
Subject: Metric system/pint/1984
The recent discussions of the metric system and English weights & measures
reminded me of a passage from 1984 by George Orwell.
" 'E could 'a drawed me off a pint," grumbled the old man as he settled
behind his glass. "A 'alf liter ain't enough. It don't satisfy. And a 'ole
liter's too much. It starts my bladder running. Let alone the price."
Mike Maag, homebrewing in the middle of the Shenandoah Valley.
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #2650, 03/02/98
*************************************
-------
