Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2835
HOMEBREW Digest #2835 Mon 28 September 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:
building a stainless steel cylindroconical fermenter (MarkETerry)
Clinitest (kathy)
Festibiere de Chambly / Conical Fermenter (Cynthia Pekarik)
To crush or not to crush? (Cas Koralewski)
KISS HERMS (WayneM38)
Mash Out / Philosophical aside (Domenick Venezia)
Not again... ("Doug Otto")
McEwan's yeast and YeastLab IDs (Jeff Renner)
Oats are not rye (michael w bardallis)
Update: Masters Championship of Amateur Brewing (Louis Bonham)
potatoes and mash out ("silent bob")
Please AL, "spit the hook" ("Michael Kowalczyk")
GFCI receptacle for fridge (Seth Goodman)
DIabetic Meters for Wort Glucose measurement ("Steve Alexander")
re: Stability of yeast on slant ("Steve Alexander")
re Osmotic Shock/Microwave ("Steve Alexander")
Re: Stability of yeast on slant ("Mort O'Sullivan")
Malting, Rye Beer and Mashout (Dan Listermann)
Clinitest Test ("David R. Burley")
Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy!
Send your entries in for the Hoppiest Show On Earth yet?
Details: http://members.tripod.com/~BrewMiester_2/Home.html
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, 26 Sep 1998 09:30:17 EDT
From: MarkETerry@aol.com
Subject: building a stainless steel cylindroconical fermenter
Has anyone got any plans for building one of these monsters?
I'm trying to "persuade" my father-in-law to build one for me.
That is after he's built my malt mill and boiling kettle!!!
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 08:21:47 -0500
From: kathy <kbooth@scnc.waverly.k12.mi.us>
Subject: Clinitest
Clinitest def. a test for glucose on cigars developed by K. Starr
jim booth, lansing, mi
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 10:33:28 -0400
From: Cynthia Pekarik <74163.1163@compuserve.com>
Subject: Festibiere de Chambly / Conical Fermenter
Message text written by Posting Address Only - No Requests
><
Hello Brew Folks,
I had a funnnnnn time three weekends ago at Festibiere de
Chambly,
Quebec
which is 25 minutes south of Montreal.
This festival happens on the treed grounds surrounding a restored french
fort facing rapids
on the Richelieu river; small tents housed micros &
distributors.......you
could purchase a
glass in your fav shape/brew logo at the festiboutique for your beer
prominade.
Wandering groups of musicians in period dress played at path
intersessions
and a
small main stage beside the river. Food booths with goodies such as
unpasterized cheese
trays, BBQ sausages, smoked beef jerky & frites. Jugglers, face-painting,
falconry for
the little people. One moment found me sitting riverside with my feet
dangling in the water
sipping stout "..." TOO GOOD.
BEER......Quebec has some fine brews; IMO the most fertile beerdom in
Canada.
(sorry B.C.) Many belgian style ales made locally with a good springling
of
english
pales, ambers and stouts. Fruit beers too.
T. I. V. M. (tents i visited most) *=*
McAuslan - St. Ambriose pale ale & oatmeal stout. <<!!!!
Trappiste - Orval, Chimay, Rochefort, Westmalle, La Trappe, Westvleteren.
Brasserie du Nord - Rousse (amber ale), Noire (stout), Champs
(strawberry).
Unibroue - all unique....Maudite & Fin de monde <<!!!!
Brasserie Brasal - Hopps brau lager
Vermont Pub & Brewery - smoked porter, IPA
and more and more anD MORE!!
It is very refreshing to attend a beer fest where people of all ages;
many
with kids
gather for fun.
I know maybe 10 words of french but this wasn't a problem; most
tap-persons
knew
enough english & were very friendly or Big smile & point, Merci.
I know where I will be first weekend of sept 99!!
P.S. ATWATER MARKET in Montreal is a pleasant stroll; food galore &
cheese
shop with good selection of local beer.
Long live the Quebec culture ........... Canada would lose if we
separate!!
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
- ---------------------------------------------------------
For you people with stainless steel fetishes!
These guys had a booth at Chambly.
Stainless Steel Specialists of Boisbriand, Quebec; make brewery equipment
(7 barrel brewery in New Hamp) and now a homebrew system complete with 50
litre
conical fermenter.
The 3 vessel gravity fed system with strong built rack ( tree style) had
the following stuff.
HLT - thermometer well, sight tube, heated by 220 volt element.
MT - thermometer well, perforated SS screen, rotating sparge arm.
KETTLE - thermometer well, sight tube, screen, 220 volt element with SS
protective cover.
Pump
Conical Fermenter - 50 litres, big enough manway to get inside with ease,
thermometer
well, CO2 line in, 2 cone drains - one at cone bottom and one half way up
the cone,
with counter flow W.Chiller enclosed in a SS plate attached to inside
wall.
The electrics looked all heavy duty and neat.
I was told the whole package was $2000 can; the fermenter alone approx.
$500 to $600 can.
The company has just got into this home brew market and are willing to
build the system
to your desire.
I'd love the fermenter under my christmas tree!
I have no affiliation with this company aside that I'd kill for that
fermenter.
Larry Kress
RR # 22, Station Preston, Cambridge, Ontario, Canada
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 10:49:54 -0400
From: Cas Koralewski <caskor@primenet.com>
Subject: To crush or not to crush?
I am going to be making an Imperial Stout shortly. I have heard of, and
read about, a few different ideas concerning how to handle the roasted
grains.
One was to crush along with the other grains and mash as usual. Another was
to mash but not crush. Another was to crush and/ or not crush and add to
the mash towards the end of the mash cycle. Confused? You betcha!
Considering the cost/time involved with making an Imperial Stout, and the
fact that I desire to produce an excellent stout, which way should I go?
Thanks,
Cas
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 12:13:03 EDT
From: WayneM38@aol.com
Subject: KISS HERMS
<< I developed a HERMS system about a year ago and couldn't be happier.
As far as returning the heated wort to the MLT you want to be careful not
to introduce oxygen into the wort. I built a H return with 45 degrees.
elbows at the ends to gently return the wort to the MLT. This works quite
well as long as you are careful to purge all the air out of the return.
If you have sufficient surface area for the heat exchanger and a good flow
rate you can raise the temperature 1.5 - 2 degrees. per min. I generally
maintain the HLT containing the heatexchanger at 180 degrees. This has
worked quite well and achieves conversion in about 30 minutes but continue
to hold for a period of 1 hour.
I built in an electric bypass valve to continue to recirculate the wort
bypassing the heatexchanger to give me the temperature control I desired.
When the valve is energized the wort flows through the heatexchanger and
bypassed when the valve is de-energized. This facilitates the addition of
electronic controls to raise and maintain the temperature as needed to do a
step mash or to hold the temperature of a infusion mash. I decided to
divert the wort from the heat exchanger instead of cycling the pump to
raise and maintain the temperature allowing the pump to run consistently,
maintaining an even temperature throughout the grain bed. This will also
add a lot of life to the pump. >>
I too built a RIMS system using the HERMS system this spring. My system has a
similar return manifold design and have similar conversion and temp boosts
data. 83% effciency and rising with each batch.
I am very, very, very happy with the HERMS design. It exceeded my
expectations.
With my design, I wanted to keep the system as >simple< (read NO electronics)
as possible and still keep temps consistant with minimum intervention. After a
few re-designs my final >minimal< design used just two ball valves on the
outlet side of the pump. Flexible hoses with quick connects are used for
external plumbing. I mash in and start the recirculation with the main
recirculation loop. After the temps stabilize, the temp boosts are just a
matter of opening the heating loop ball valve until temps are back up. The
wort return manifold is shared by both the heating loop and recirculation
loop. I leave the recirculation loop open for the entire 60 min mash. The
pump is always on and when the target temp is reached the heating loop ball
valve is turned off. Boosts take about a min or less. Having the
recirculation loop and heating loop on at the same time gives quick and even
grain bed temp boosts. With a 5 gal batch and insulated mash tun, about 4 to
5 temp boosts are needed for a 60 min mash. When I do my mash out I close the
recirculation loop and open the heating loop and the mashout to 168 F takes
about 6 mins.
The expensive and complicated electronics of older RIMS systems discouraged me
from building a 2 tier system for quite some time. The HERMS design allowed
me to use one pump, one propane tank and regulator, and brew on a system that
is efficient, simple and enjoyable to brew on .
Oh yes and it makes pretty good beer IMHO.....
Wayne
Big Fun Brewing
Milwaukee
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 09:32:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: Domenick Venezia <demonick@zgi.com>
Subject: Mash Out / Philosophical aside
From: Darrell <LEAVITDG@SPLAVA.CC.PLATTSBURGH.EDU>
>I have read that mash out is important (~168 degrees) so as to kill the
>enzymes. But I am unable to find anywhere (I just ordered the George Fix
>book) WHY? What is the reason for this, or what is harmed by NOT doing
>a mash out? My problem (one of them ) is that I like to understand
>why....
The traditional answer to "mashout, why?" is to kill (denature) the
amylase starch converting enzymes to get repeatability and consistency.
If the enzymes are not stopped then they will continue their work through
out the sparge and the mash that you thought was 90 minutes was really
137 minutes - conditions that are hard to duplicate on your next batch.
The more important answer (in my opinion) is that mashout raises the
temperature or your mash bed, and this rise in mash bed temperature leads
to easier and more efficient sparges.
Also, if you have the room in your mash/lauter tun you can do mashout with
all of your sparge water, let it sit, recirculate, and sparge until dry.
Basicly, a single batch sparge. Not particularly efficient, but no
hassles with balancing sparge water input with wort output, and you can
make up for the lower efficiency with more grain.
As a philosophical aside ... (is it an "aside" if it's in the subject?)
The first few years that I was brewing I was very concerned (some may say
obsessed) with the efficiency of the process, sparge extraction rate,
overall extraction rate, and such. Eventually I came to realize that this
was brewing on the edge, brewing in the boundary conditions of the
process, and as such my beer was suffering. Being obsessed with
efficiency made me push my temperatures to the limit, made for long
sparges, large volumes, and interminable boils. This risks astringency,
carmelization (not good in a pale), and makes for a very long brew day.
Now I just increase my grain bill, sparge faster and cooler, collect less
wort, and don't worry if my sparge is only 65% efficient. This way I can
keep all the process parameters within their comfort zones, and accidental
variance of a single parameter won't greatly affect the outcome. In
contrast when brewing on the edge variance in a single parameter will have
much more affect on the final product.
Domenick Venezia demonick at zgi dot com
Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, '227, any and all
nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address is subject to a download
and archival fee of US$ 500. E-mailing denotes acceptance of these terms.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 10:01:43 -0700
From: "Doug Otto" <dotto@calweb.com>
Subject: Not again...
I'd like to know if anyone has ever tried using lye with Clinitest and if
so, can you use it to kill botulism spores?
Sorry, just couldn't help it.
- --
Doug Otto
dotto@calweb.com
Sacramento, CA
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 13:21:29 -0400
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner@umich.edu>
Subject: McEwan's yeast and YeastLab IDs
The recent discussion of McEwans leads me to suggest that, as with all
cloning attempts, the yeast selection is critical. Yeast Culture Kit Co.
(Dan McConnell prop., mailto:YCKCo@aol.com) sells the real McCoy, er, I
mean, the real McEwans. I used it two years ago for an 80/ Export (OG
1042) and repitched the top cropped yeast for a 70/ Scotch ale (OG 1078).
The export was too heavy with diacetyl for my taste, but it certainly was
not out of style. The strong ale had none, perhaps because of the long
secondary. I won't include the recipe, though, because the beer turned out
disappointingly uncomplex. I shoulda used a little roasted barley, for one
thing. I used only pale malt, a 5% Munich and 6% total caravienne and
caramunich.
YCKCo also sells almost any yeast on slant that you could want (standard
disclaimer). For the last two brewing seasons, my favorite ale yeast has
been the Strathcona strain, used by the now defunct Strathcona Brewery in
Edmondton, I think. Jim Liddil has suggested that it is originally NCYC
1332. It is a terrific top cropper, which I love for open (although
prudently loosely covered) ferments. I'd use it for the beer it produces
(good fruity British style), but the heavy top flocculation makes it a real
winner.
Someone recently wanted to know origins of commercially avilable yeasts.
Here is Dan McConnell's post from 1994 on YeastLab IDs (Dan produces liquid
YeastLab yeasts for GW Kent). There is the additional A10 (available to
micros and BPs only) which is NCYC 1187. This is a fine yeast whose
flocculation characteristics lend it well to cylindroconical fermenters.
The "W" stands for Weihenstephan, the Bavarian brewing school, which keeps
a yeast collection.
-=-=-=-=-
Date: 14 Dec 1994 21:59:06 -0500
From: "Daniel F McConnell" <Daniel.F.McConnell@med.umich.edu>
Subject: YeastLab ID's
Subject: YeastLab ID's
>The comments in the parenthesis are what I had heard to be the sources of
>some of the strains. If anyone else would like to add/correct my assumtions
>please do!
In response to Rich Larsen (rlarsen@squeaky.free.org) here are the
YeastLab strains. BTW these are positive ID's. No assumptions.
Honest.
A01 Australian Coopers
A02 American Chico
A03 London Whiteshield
A04 British Whitbread
A05 Irish Guinness
A06 Dusseldorf W164
A07 Canadian Molson
A08 Belgian Brigand
A09 English Ringwood
L31 Pilsner W34/70
L32 Bavarian W206
L33 Munich W308
L34 St Louis A/B
L35 California Anchor
W51 Bavarian Wheat W66
W52 Belgian Wheat Bruge
M61 Dry mead Pasteur champagne
M62 Sweet mead Steinberger
3200 Brettanomyces Cantillion
3220 Pediococcus Cantillion
-=-=-=-=-
Jeff
-=-=-=-=-
Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan c/o nerenner@umich.edu
"One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 14:43:10 -0400
From: dbgrowler@juno.com (michael w bardallis)
Subject: Oats are not rye
Michel Brown relates his experiences with oats, and seems to equate this
to brewing with rye. Al has reported on his results using rye, which in
my experience does produce the spicy flavor and heavy body he tells of.
Rye-P-A is a favorite at our house; I've used both flake and malted rye
in varying proportions, and the flavor and viscosity effect is quite
noticeable. My first rye ale, Leap Beer, had only 13% flaked rye and had
the spicy flavor I expected, with an incredibly heavy body which was
pretty startling in a very pale beer. This despite a mash schedule
including a 30 min rest at 122, and a max sacch. temp of 150! Oats are
said to contribute to mouthfeel and add some dryness, but I haven't
brewed with oats. I have, howerver, had many commercial and homebrewed
beers brewed with oats, and noticed _no_ similarity to a rye beer. Rye is
rye and oats is oats...
Mike Bardallis
Allen Park, MI (28 miles east of Jeff R.)
Incidentally, it was 'Leap Beer' because:
a) Wife Colleen asked, "are you sure you want to do this? What do you
know about rye?
b) I brewed it on Feb. 29!
___________________________________________________________________
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: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 16:14:02 -0500
From: Louis Bonham <lkbonham@phoenix.net>
Subject: Update: Masters Championship of Amateur Brewing
The latest from MCAB central . . . . .
(1) The last three Qualifying Events for the MCAB are coming up fast:
DIXIE CUP (Houston) . . . Oct. 23-24, entries due Oct. 10. Website:
www.foamrangers.com
NOVEMBEERFEST (Seattle) . . . Nov. 7-8, entries due Oct. 31. Website:
www.brewsbrothers.org
CANADIAN MASTERS (Toronto) . . . Nov. 7, entries due Nov. 7. No website;
e-mail contact is:
richard.oluszak@sympatico.ca
Time grows short . . . get those entries in soon!
(2) I am pleased to announce that the grand prize for the MCAB BOS will be
something truly special. Thanks to the fine folks at the Seibel Institute and
Crosby & Baker (and one more sponsor that I'm not at liberty to ID just yet),
the winner of the BOS round at the MCAB will receive a free Seibel Short Course
(value: $2,400+). How 'bout that?
We're currently working with other folks in the home and craft brew supply
business to arrange lotsa other prizes, but suffice it to say for now that in
addition to the usual medals / ribbons / doohickies, the winners in the various
categories should be receiving coupons for things like sacks of malt, hops,
yeast, IBU assays, brew kettles, brewery / lab chemicals and equipment, etc.
[Obviously, if anyone wants to donate prizes or sponsorship funds, lemme know
- -- this is a great opportunity to get your product into the hands of the very
best of the amateur brewing community. Similarly, if anyone wishes to exhibit
their products at the MCAB, please contact me.]
(3) For those of you who have qualified, the entry packages will be mailed
out soon (sorry for the delay, but I've been utterly swamped as of late), and
yes, the web page will be updated soon as well.
(4) We're also finalizing the logistics of the actual competition and
technical conference in Houston (February 12-13, 1999). In addition to the
actual competition, there will be a technical conference on Saturday morning
(presently scheduled to appear: George Fix, Paul Farnsforth, Dave Miller, and
we're working on others), a pub crawl on Saturday afternoon, and possibly a
sensory evaluation seminar on Saturday afternoon. At present, it appears that
there will be no or only nominal charges for the conference functions (things
like pub crawls and food will, of course, cost you something). Be there!
(5) So that we can make sure that we get a large enough space for everything
(and negotiate intelligently with the various hotels and potential sponsors,
etc.), if you are currently planning to attend the MCAB (or even if you think
you might), please drop me an e-mail. Further, we're planning a little ad
campaign for later this year which will list the names of some of the various
amateur brewing notables and luminaries who will be attending, so if you e-mail
me please let me know if it is OK to include your name in the ad.
(6) Judging of categories 1-9 will be on Friday evening, and categories 10-18
on Saturday midday. As a result, there will be only nine judging tables running
at any given time, and thus we will need only 27-36 judges per session. If you
are planning to attend and would like to judge, please drop me a note. For
obvious reasons, preference will be given to BJCP Master level judges -- if you
meet this criteria and would like to reserve a place on specific category
panels, please let me know -- we will try and guarantee you a seat on your
preferred panels if you will commit to attending. (Subject to maintaining some
degree of geographic diversity on the panels, such reservations will be handled
on a first come, first served, basis. Again, panel reservation requests are
available only to BJCP Master level judges, and obviously if you've qualified
for the MCAB you can't judge in your QS.)
(7) While we're still more than four months away from MCAB I, believe it or
not it's time to start planning for MCAB II. There have been discussions about
cutting the number of Qualifying Styles down from 18 to about 12, requiring QE's
to feature Qualifying Styles as individual categories, and increasing the number
of Qualifying Events to 16-20. What sayeth the collective? What categories?
Nominees for QE's? Nominees for the MCAB II host? Other suggestions for
changes?
As always, if anyone has any questions, comments, or suggestions, please let me
know.
Louis K. Bonham
Organizer, Masters Championship of Amateur Brewing
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 16:13:28 PDT
From: "silent bob" <holdenmcneil@hotmail.com>
Subject: potatoes and mash out
In the last digest Darrell asks about the importance of a mashout, and
the use of potatoes in a mash.
As for the mash out question, it achieves two things, by raising the
temperature, you reduce viscosity, and aid runoff. Secondly, you
denature the amylase enzymes in the malt, preventing further degredation
of the sugars in the mash. Eventually, if not denatured, beta amylase
will reduce all starch and sugars to beta limit dextrins and
fermentables, leaving you with a highly attenuable wort, and a thin
final beer.
As for potatoes, yes they have to be boiled to gelatinize the starch,
and I would be cautious of the percentage of the mash that they
comprise. Presumably, being almost pure carbohydrate, a large
proportion of potatoes would be similar in effect to large amounts of
rice or corn: Reduced body, higer alcohol, and little flavor
contribution. Also, as I was painfully reminded today while brewing my
annual pumpkin ale, pasty adjuncts wreak havoc on lautering.
And, by the way, due to their high fermentability to begin with, I would
employ a mash out with a potatoe containing mash :^)
Adam
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 22:01:54 -0700
From: "Michael Kowalczyk" <mikekowal@megsinet.net>
Subject: Please AL, "spit the hook"
Al K., please don't start testing with the "C" test - We'll be reading about
the debate over the results for years.
I've been brewing for 3 years now, and have never had to question if a beer
is done. I've never made bottle bombs (some have been aged for years), but I
have had one or two that I thought I should drink quicky because they got
carboated "real fast" (my sanititization is impecable, so its wasn't that).
Oh well, an excuce to drink them fast and watch my priming quantity for the
next beer.
There are many scientific tests I "should" do. But the fact is:
1. I don't have the time (i.e. the effort isn't worth the result).
2. They are unnecessary given normal rules of thumb.
3) I make better beer than any that I've tasted %100 of the time without them
- so Why?
Yes, I should do a Wort Stability test. Yes, I should do a yeast cell count.
Yes, I should test that the output from my lauter tun has the minimum amount
of draff .....
The fact is, this is a damn riutous hobby.. lets not mutter it with too much
science. I (we) don't have the spare time and money (we're making 5or 10
gallon batched for God's sake).
Dave, I'm sure your test works and works consistantly. Great. Use it and be
happy with your results. I (and I'll bet most of the HBD) find it to be
unnecessary.
- Mike, tired of paging down, in Wrigleyville.
p.s. I'd really like to hear someone reply to the guy who wants a Duvel
Clone. That and yeast maintenence is why I read the HBD.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 02:32:00 -0400
From: Seth Goodman <sethgoodman@110.net>
Subject: GFCI receptacle for fridge
I'd hoped to be a permanent lurker on this list, but I felt this was
important enough to warrant mention.
In HBD #2833, Bob Haines asked about using GFCI protection for a
basement fridge, and in HBD #2834 Forrest Duddles gave an excellent
response, with which I agree wholeheartedly.
I just wanted to add a bit of information.
The NEC (National Electrical Code), which is the basis for the
electrical code in most, if not all of the United States, *requires*
GFCI protection for all outlets in unfinished basements, *except* for
"a single receptacle supplied by a dedicated branch circuit that is
located and identified for specific use by a cord-and-plug-connected
appliance, such as a refrigerator or freezer" (1993 NEC, Sec
210-8(a)(4) and 210-8(a)(4) Exception #1). I assume the '96 code (the
latest) is the same.
It is my understanding that this exception exists because electrical
devices that draw a large in-rush of current on start-up (e.g.,
refrigerators) can trip a GFCI if it is too long a distance from the
GFCI device. Therefore, if Bob wires in a conventional outlet downstream
from an existing GFCI, he might have a problem.
I would suggest, for safety sake, that Bob install a GFCI outlet *at*
the refrigerator, and plug the fridge *directly* into the GFCI outlet.
This should keep the GFCI from popping when the compressor kicks on. The
alternative, a dedicated circuit from the breaker box, is a lot more
work - and although legal, still won't give you the protection you
really should want. (Just ask Forrest ;-))
Disclaimer:
I have no formal training or licensing in this, but the clown who
rewired my house about 15-20 years ago *forced me* to study up on wiring
technique and the NEC (and the Massachusetts modifications thereof). I
like to do things right, and legal, if I can.
Thanks for the non-beer related bandwidth - I'm going back to drinking a
homebrew now!
Seth Goodman
sethgoodman@110.net
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 00:25:29 -0400
From: "Steve Alexander" <steve-alexander@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: DIabetic Meters for Wort Glucose measurement
Old Man Scanlon wrote ...
>As a regular user of a One Touch II blood glucose meter, I *had* to try
>testing my ready-to-bottle beer (do diabetic homebrewers have their own
>newsgroup?). I can confirm that it doesn't work. Doesn't matter whether or
>not there's any glucose in the beer; it fails the meter's sanity checks for
>sample validity. And you're out one more precious drop of homebrew.
I've used this same model meter to take accurate wort and glucose solution
readings so yes it does work, but there are tricks involved in making the
measurement.
The complicating factors are that many meter also attempt to sense good blood
coverage of the sample strip by optical means. Actually the One Touch II is
known to be rather light sensitive and blood readings taken in diffuse or
stronger daylight are often rejected by the meter. This can be overcome for
the One Touch series of meters by performing the test under very dim light.
This doesn't affect the glucose reading, it only prevents the meter from
rejecting the sample as invalid.
The calibration liquid for the meter uses blue dye to mask this effect. A
small amount of blue food coloring in the wort sample should also solve this
problem. Why blue not red ?? This particular meter's strips reagent surface
turns a dark purple blue when in contact with blood. My wife's Glucometer
Elite uses red dye in the calibration fluid.
Another problem is that meters are designed to have optimal accuracy around
normal blood sugar levels of 100mg/dL (1 gram/Liter or 5.55 mMol) and fresh
wort is around 8X this level very roughly of glucose. Many meters will just
display an 'out of range' reading for values this high. Sample dilution is the
way to resolve this problem.
These diabetic meters are extremely attractive for wort measurements - they are
relatively cheap (in the US) and accurate and simple to use. Tho' the 3 digit
display overrepresents the accuracy available - still these meters are in my
experience accurate to within ~1 mMol (+-20mg/dL) and often much better, and
have much better repeatability (~0.3mMol, +- 5-7mg/dL). The big problem is
that they can't easily help in the determination of the end of fermentation
since glucose is the first wort sugar to be consumed by yeast. These meters
could probably be of use in determining the start of fermentation. Also the
removal of all glucose is nearly commensurate with the beginning of maltose
consumption. It's not clear why you would want to measure these parameters
unless you are serious about studying the lag phase or exponential(log) growth
phase timing.
I promised not to mention the 'C' word, but one way that a reducing matter test
could be of HB value in determining the EOF is as follows. Perform a forced
fermentation test on a wort sample and measure the reducing matter remaining.
This then forms a limit value for the remaining wort. The advantage over the
standard practice of measuring SG against a forced sample is that now the
forced fermentation sample can be just a few tens of milliliters instead of a
half liter or more. Yeast choice can impact the final reading slightly so this
test shares this flaw with other forced fermentation tests.
There - I didn't mention the 'C" word but I really danced around it, which is
the order of the day. Now if we only had an accurate Clintontest ;^)
Steve Alexander
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 02:09:23 -0400
From: "Steve Alexander" <steve-alexander@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: re: Stability of yeast on slant
Ed D'Anna writes ...
>So, what happens to yeast from a slant when it gets old? What limits
>its effective utility? Is it low viability?
The issue is viability. The chilled yeast continue to use carbohydrates
although at a very low rate. Two storage carbs trehalose, a disaccharide like
maltose and glycogen, a branched polysaccharide are built up in yeast during
later fermentation, that is after growth has nearly ceased but while
significant sugars remain to be fermented. When other carbs are removed or
unavailable the metabolism of the yeast shifts to using these internal storage
carbs and reducing energy needs. I've read that this metabolic shift itself
uses about 20% of the available trehalose after which glycogen becomes the main
energy source. The cell continues to need energy for tasks such as protein
repair, enzyme replacement, cell call and membrane repair. It of course ceases
to reproduce - tho' sporulation is possible. When it's out of carbs the cell
becomes unrevivable - dead. Obviously storing yeast with a good supply of
storage carbs is critical. Storage of yeast in glycerin and trehalose
solutions is widely reported to improve viability esp through freezing temps.
>If so, wouldn't extra "stepping-up" compensate?
Yes - assuming you can somehow maintain pure culture status - that's a big
assumption tho'. More on this below.
>Is it yeast mutation?
Yeast 'mutate' at a pretty hefty clip. Oxygen deficient mutants are reported
to represent 0.5% of new yeast cells !! I should point out that most of the
commonly reported mutations or petite mutants are really just expressions of
genetic machinery that the original yeast culture contained but did not use.
Not a real genetic structure variant. Most yeast reportedly carry the codes
necessary to become respiratory deficient, to decarboxylate phenolics into 4VG
like a weizen yeast and to become nonflocculant just to mention a few. If the
number cells that express these characteristics become significant then you
have a problem. Reducing the cell population to near zero and building it back
up without testing for fermentation characteristics increases the probability
of a mutation problem.
* Selection ---
Restarting low viability cultures is also a selection process. You are
selecting yeast that perhaps have a very great ability to build storage carb or
have low energy requirements or other such properties. It is not unlikely that
this selection will also have an impact on fermentation characteristics
(flavor, growth rate etc). This potential problem would be exaggerated as you
repeatedly repropagate these low viability cultures time and again. This is
not a good long term plan.
-
* Infection/Sanitation -
I'm not sure that it has been published yet, but it certainly has been publicly
mentioned that Louis Bonham performed a set of infection tests on a significant
sample of beers and a vast majority tested positive for infection. I sincerely
hope that Louis will write up this experiment in another of his great 'Brewing
Techniques' articles or elsewhere. Actually I have some reason to doubt that
Louis' test method was capable of detecting wild yeast infections - the
results may be worse than we know. So the next time someone tells you he has
never experienced an infection you can pretty safely bet the farm that not only
his last beer contains an infection but most of its predecessors too. The
question for HB is really not whether it's infected, but how extensive and
damaging the infections are !!
Why does working with a low viability culture improve the odds of infection ?
The fewer cells require more time to consume simple sugars and to lower pH and
develop the several other factors that inhibit infections during step-up.
Extra time means extra competition from infections, and if your sample was
*ever* exposed to room air it is quite likely infected to some extent.
The ultimate hubris is of course imagining that streaking out and reculturing
(growing a culture from a single yeast cell) can result in a pure culture
without resorting to glove boxes, HEPA filters and extreme (by HB standards)
sanitation measures.
- --
My personal approach for yeast storage is to use largish (~240ml) flat sided
bottles - similar to the Nunc tissue culture bottles advertised by Cole-Parmer
which permits a yeast surface growth of about 25 sq.cm. (4 sq.in). Even after
a year these take off at roughly the speed of a Wyeast pack. I revive the
culture by adding ~150ml(5 fl.oz) or freshly p-cooked and cooled wort to the
bottle and stoppering with fermentation lock. The bottle size does limit my
culture collection, but the maintenance effort is very low. I can't advise
this method for general use - this has limitations too - but it works well for
me - YMMV.
Steve Alexander
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 05:58:36 -0400
From: "Steve Alexander" <steve-alexander@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: re Osmotic Shock/Microwave
There has been some stuff written recently re osmotic shock that is I think a
bit confused as far as the explanation goes.
First off osmotic pressure is due to a the differential concentrations of
material across the cell membranes. It requires a semipermiable membrane, for
example one that will pass water freely but not salt ions (for example).
Assuming all the contributions are from maltose (not accurate but a decent
point of departure for calculations. Then a wort at the Plato levels indicated
create an osmotic pressure (in bars) and water activity indicated.
Plato Os-prs A(w)
5P 3.86 0.9972
10P 8.24 0.994
15P 13.3 0.990
20P 18.9 0.986
25P 25.9 0.981
30P 34.4 0.975
I'll spare you all the tedious calculations.
These sound like tremendous pressures, but single celled organisms take these
and more regularly. The difficulty isn't really with the pressure gradient
bursting the cell (except in the case or re-hydrating dry yeast which is
another matter) but of the cell having to perform a tremendous amount of work
to keep the good stuff in and the bad stuff out of its semipermiable membrane.
Increasing the salt (NaCl) concentration from 0.1 mol to 1.0 mol for example
causes a 10X increase in a yeast cells maintenance energy requirement ! Anyway
the term osmotic shock is I think not applicable.
Once the yeast begin to create permease its membrane becomes somewhat permeable
to maltose and so the pressure differential drops. I doubt that yeast in the
exponential growth phase (high krausen) can be shocked by the osmotic pressure
difference even when tossed into barleywine wort. Yeast can experience
excretion shock when introduced into a high monosaccharide wort but that's
another story altogether.
Several sources note that typical brewing yeast can be coaxed up to very high
alcohol levels (~12%!!) by using batch feeding to increase alcohol tolerance. I
suspect that *this* is the effect seen in the above schedule. Perhaps slowly
increasing the ethanol level in a standard SG wort would accomplish this end
without compromising growth so severely. Yes - maybe you should give your
yeast a shot of vodka before sending them off to ferment barleywine. The batch
feeding schedule works too - but the growth at high gravity is poor and batch
feeding is known to produce fusels.
Although I've advocated acclimating yeast to a wort by using comparable starter
conditions, I believe that attempts to build large and healthy brewing yeast
crops in the 1.070+SG wort indicated will result in disappointment as the
growth and vigor of the yeast will be substandard. You probably need to build
the yeast mass at a more conventional SG and then step up the SG/alcohol levels
to get the desired effect.
Mutation - I doubt that osmotic pressure causes mutation per se, tho' high
gravity worts (high amino's, low O2) may give respiratory deficient mutants a
comparative advantage. Batch feeding a starter to high SGs would make this
problem worse not better. The ?good? news is that the mutant yeast, like the
normal yeast won't be doing a lot of multiplying at high SG. The problem with
yeast remaining after a high gravity fermentation is that they are pooped out.
Perhaps they put so much energy into building alcohol tolerant membranes and
moving matter against the concentration gradient that they cannot build up
storage reserves - that's speculation btw. These yeast can undoubtedly be
recultured, but directly repitching after a high gravity ferment is a marginal
policy.
- --
On a lighter note - before the microwave heating thread is entirely forgotten.
Someone noted that putting ceramics with a metallic paint in the microwave
makes for a nice lightening display. I've recently seen that the display when
microwaving a CD is fantastic. I strongly suggest microwaving anything (and
everything) by Celine Dion.
Steve Alexander
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 12:46:50 +0100
From: "Mort O'Sullivan" <tarwater@brew-master.com>
Subject: Re: Stability of yeast on slant
Ed D'Anna asks about the stability of yeast on slants.
Yeast will be metabolically active on slants in your fridge, and as the
nutrients in the medium are exhausted, it is a good idea to transfer to
fresh medium. Every six months seems to be a good rule of thumb. I've seen
research that shows that as few as 10% of inoculated cells remain viable
after 6 months storage on agar slopes. I'm sure you're seeing this effect
with the longer lag times for older slants. Exactly how long you'd have to
wait before your yeast reach 0% viability I do not know, but it probably
depends on your storage conditions and the yeast strain.
For your purposes, the survival rate doesn't really matter, so long as
those that remain viable are typical of the original culture. NCYC
monitored yeast on agar slopes over 10 year period (they were transferred
to fresh medium approx. every 6 months) and found the following
morphological and physiological changes:
ability to form spores (loss) 46%
maltose fermentation (gain) 25%
maltose fermentation (loss) 0%
maltose assimilation (gain) 29%
galactose fermentation (gain) 12%
galactose fermentation (loss) 1%
galactose assimilation (gain) 12%
specific A.A. requirement (loss) 59%
changed flocculation characteristics 10%
NCYC cares about these kinds of statistics because the success of their
business depends on being able maintain stable cultures for their clients.
This is why they choose to preserve yeast in liquid nitrogen (all cellular
activity stops below -130C). You could probably tolerate a little genetic
mutation and so don't need to worry too much about these figures. As a home
brewer storing yeast for long periods, the only mutation I would keep an
eye out for is a change in flocculation characteristics. Since it's not
that hard to prepare fresh slants, I would also transfer my cultures about
every 6 months.
Hope this helps.
Mort O'Sullivan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 14:06:47 -0400
From: Dan Listermann <72723.1707@compuserve.com>
Subject: Malting, Rye Beer and Mashout
Ed Steinkamp discusses his attempt to malt quinoa. He did not mention
anything about sprouting the grains. If he did not sprout it, he did not
malt it. What he may have done was gelatinize the grains by steaming
them.
Michel Brown discusses rye beer. I have made 100% rye beers - a porter
using chocolate rye and a pale ale using only rye malt. The secret is
rice
hulls - about 15% of the weight of the grist should be well mixed in rice
hulls. As far as flavor goes, I didn't notice any astringent flavors.
The
only unusal thing about rye is its body. It is almost slimy. The flavor
is somewhat "earthy", but not so much as to be objectional.
Darrel ( no last name ) asks about mash outs. There are two purposes for
it. It denatures the enzymes so as to stableize the wort and it gives
better extraction. Frankly I no longer do it. The enzymes are slowing
at
this point anyway, I transfer the wort as it runs into my boiling pot so
it
is denatured there and I have never been able to measure a exctraction
difference with it or without it. I think that this is one of those
things
that may have a use in an industrial scale, but for homebrewers I think
that it is mostly just an academic excercise. Obviously I don't think
that it is worth worrying about.
Dan Listermann Check out our site listermann.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 14:59:56 -0400
From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley@compuserve.com>
Subject: Clinitest Test
Brewsters:
AlK said
>Dave said:
>>Clinitest is nearly perfect in that it
>measures all reducible sugars in beer. These are all fermentable.
AlK:
>Wrong. They are *NOT* all fermentable. Many (unfermentable) dextrins
>have reducing ends and thus would cause a positive response on
>Clinitest. This was my initial suspicion (why I initially felt the
>test may be suspect) and why I still contend that some beers will
>read greater than 1/4% "glucose" when they are indeed fully fermented.<
Al, I daresay there are few readers of HBD who are unfamiliar
with this unsupported opinion of yours. Fact is, you have your
suspicions but no facts and you refuse to gather them, despite
my pleadings for months. My facts stretch back over several
decades and are in many pages of my notebooks.
Another HBDer has written me to suggest a study be carried
out by HBDers in which good brewing practices with regard to
agitation, yeast starter size, temperature, oxygenation and the
like and a steady reading of % glucose by Clinitest over several
days to a week be used as the fermentation endpoint. I think
this is a great idea, but it should be independent of either of us,
except to comment on the conditions for the experiments
before they are carried out. How about that?
Keep on Brewin'
Dave Burley
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #2835, 09/28/98
*************************************
-------
