Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2866
HOMEBREW Digest #2866 Tue 03 November 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: A Study of Fluid Flow Through A Grainbed ("Peter J. Calinski")
stale malt (kathy)
nummy Belgian beers / candi sugar ("Spies, James")
Time to brew soon.... (Joe Rolfe)
Pump Questions (Ken Pegram)
Campfire porter revisited . . . ("Spies, James")
Homebrewers as a constituency? (beerisgoodfood)
False bottoms and manifolds / priorities of lautering ("George De Piro")
Protein Rest Data Point? ("Tomusiak, Mark")
FW: Re: Belgian Ale Styles ("Tomusiak, Mark")
Home Brew Recipe Calculating Program - New Release (John Varady)
more: Foam from Kegs (Badger Roullett)
Batch Sparge Spreadsheet (Badger Roullett)
Belgian Ales styles (Chris)
Re: Lauter Tun Fluid Mechanics (Scott Murman)
problem micros (Boeing)" <BayerMA@navair.navy.mil>
Mediveal Mashing Question (Badger Roullett)
Kit beers (Bill Wible)
yeast update (Jeremy Bergsman)
Mafe (Jeremy Bergsman)
apology accepted/phosphate and bacteria ("Dave Whitman")
crushing malted grain without using oxen (Ian Lyons)
Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy!
Send your entries in for Hoppiest Event 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: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 21:02:07 -0500
From: "Peter J. Calinski" <PCalinski@iname.com>
Subject: re: A Study of Fluid Flow Through A Grainbed
Wow, outstanding work. By coincidence, in the same issue of HBD, I had
asked a question about using a spiral coil as a manifold. I guess this
study falls in the category of "Be careful, you may get what you ask for."
I believe my answer is in there somewhere and I will find it.
Again, great work!!.
Pete Calinski
East Amherst NY
Near Buffalo NY
0 Degrees 30.21 Min North, 4 Degrees 05.11 Min. East of Jeff Renner
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 09:19:13 -0500
From: kathy <kbooth@scnc.waverly.k12.mi.us>
Subject: stale malt
The temptation to buy large quantites of malt has been with me. It
flatters my ego to think of myself as a mega-home brewer carting around
bags of malt. However, I'm finishing up my 2 cases of DMS overloaded
Koelsch from the spring made with some old malt and I'm wondering just
what the taste impact is of old stale malt? How do we know when we
stayed to long at the dance?
Are specialty malts prone to staling also? Which ones are the most
vulnerable?
And finally, can you taste/smell malt and tell if it is stale?
As usual, TIA to thems that knows and tells.
cheers, jim booth, lansing, mi
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 09:56:21 -0500
From: "Spies, James" <Spies@dhcd.state.md.us>
Subject: nummy Belgian beers / candi sugar
Ahh -
Finally, a thread that touches a subject near and dear to my heart -
those zymurcological works of art that emerge from the land where it
never stops raining . . .
I've made several iterations of belgian dubbels and tripels (spelled
right? ;-) , and the use of candi sugar is one of the wierdest
variables I've yet seen. In a tripel, table sugar usually works just
fine, and I've used up to 2 pounds of it in a 5 gallon batch. However,
for dubbels and darker strongs, table sugar shouldn't be more than
perhaps a pound. Use real amber candi (invert?) sugar for the remaining
addition. Too much table sugar, I've found, thins out the body a bit
too much. I've also tried "home carmelizing" regular table sugar to
make amber candi sugar, but the first attempt burnt the sugar to a crisp
and took a saucepan with it. If you do this yourself, heat the sugar
*slowly*, as it turns from clear to brown in about a nanosecond.
I've got several recipies archived if anyone is interested (none that
have ever been entered in anything other than a hedonistic brew club
competition) that I think are pretty good, but the archives of Cat's
Meow and Gambrinus' Mug are a great place to start.
This is one of the few classes of beer where it's hard to go wrong. Get
a fairly accurate grain bill going, and everything else can be tweaked
to your liking. Yeast is especially important, and a ripping starter is
really recommended. I'm lucky in that I have a Belgian brewpub close by
that freely donates gallons of slurry, but if you don't, Wyeast 1214 is
a good start.
The only real downside is that it's difficult (and usually expensive) to
make a good Belgian from extract. You normally can't get the depth of
flavor from the commercial extract that a Belgian needs. If you extract
brew, I'd recommend at least a partial mash with some of the specialty
grains.
Alright, enough already, I could go on and on . . .
Malty brewing !!
Jay Spies
Wishful Thinking Basement Brewery
Baltimore, MD
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 10:45:30 -0500
From: Joe Rolfe <rolfe@sky.sky.com>
Subject: Time to brew soon....
Almost ready to fire up the brew house again...Probably going to
backoff of the RIMS for a spell. Just something about pumping
the mash all around (grain and all) - dont seem right. In a brief
discussion with a few people - this is not a good solution. The pump
can hack it, but the impact on the mash is not positive with this
particular twin blade impeller. Not sure if any pump would
do well to the mash. An alternate way will be to run off into the
grant - this may contain the elements or not - time will tell.
Anyway the HLT, mash/lauter, brewkettle and monster PHE is installed, plumbed
and nearly ready to be fired up. The rest of the cellar is a disaster area. The
first beer my now out of work brewmaster friend
and I (any Eastern Mass/So NH homebrewers??) will do is a kick arse
double bock like wort. Money is no object on the grain bill. Any
one using a malt (pils and munich) that they swear by?? Jim Busch
what are you guys using at Victory....?? Where did you get it??
(BTW Jim still no sign of Victory up here, come quick the micros
are dropping like flies lots of tap lines available..sorry for the
crass commercialism...)
We are going to be doing about 2bbl so this is far more than
we need. The amount of wort available to anyone who wants in will be
in the 10-20 gal range. Depending on the size (I would suggest
anyone interested in grabbing some wort use 5 gal kegs for a
fermenter. Anyone partaking can have influence on the process.
Date and time of brewing is flexible but must be on the weekend.
We are tentatively looking to fire up by the end of November.
The only "outlays" are to do some of the work and pay for
a proportionate amount of the raw materials.
Yeast - bring your own starter.
Any NorthShore/Wort Processor/BFD members seeing this bring it up
at your meetings.
Good Luck and Great Brewing
Joe Rolfe
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 11:10:27 -0500
From: kenp@vtsv88.bookstore.vt.edu (Ken Pegram)
Subject: Pump Questions
%UNIPLEX
%TO post@hbd.org
%FROM kenp
%SYSTEM polytec
%SUBJECT Pump Questions
%VERIFY y
%REGISTERED y
%DATE 02/11/98 11:10
%REFERENCE 20379
Calling Brew-Techies! I'm hoping to get some advice on adding a pump to my
brewing set-up and need the wisdom of those more technically enabled than
myself. My basic question is, can I use reducing coupling to change the inlet
on my pump from 1/2" down to 3/8" or 5/16" in order to accomodate the fittings
on my mashtun, boil vessel, and sparge vessel. Will I burn up the pump by
doing this? The almost non-existent instructions that came with the pump
advise against it but it sure would make my life easier to change the pump
rather than all of my vessels. My current set-up uses an EZ masher in a
converted keg so if anyone has experience pumping using such a set-up and
wants to share some advice, I'd greatly appreciate it. Finally, where can i
get some design ideas for a manifold to recirculate the wort? Thanks in
advance for any help.
Ken Pegram kenp@bookstore.vt.edu
Blackburg Va.
%UEND
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 12:54:02 -0500
From: "Spies, James" <Spies@dhcd.state.md.us>
Subject: Campfire porter revisited . . .
All -
First, thanks to all who responded regarding the campfire porter. The
deluge of replies was truly amazing . . .
The general consensus was "blend it!" Good enough. I plan to make a
pale, higher gravity, lightly hopped 4 gallon batch to add to the 10W-40
that I now have sitting in the fermenter. I'll rack half of the
existing batch (including as much of the yeast as I can suck up) into a
second corny, and split the new batch between them.
AlK advised to wait until after fermentation and see how much aroma was
scrubbed out. First tasting was this wekend, and I was astounded at how
much had actually dissipated. It still was not as sweet as I had
wanted, so I'm hoping that the second mash (if done in the *high* 150's)
would help with that. If not, I may use some lactose (I know I'll have
to watch sanitation if I do). Thoughts ??
Others advised just to age it for a few months. While this may work, I
ain't that patient . . .
Lastly, Curt Tuhy chimed in thusly
>>>The porter that Mr Spies made sounds like it would be possibly very
tasty, the one thing that i have learned is that all home brew is
drinkable and a brew that is not up to expectation is knowledge towards
brewing. So drink it you might like it.<<<
- Never tossed a brew, never will . . .
;-)
Jay Spies
Wishful Thinking Basement Brewery
Baltimore, MD
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 13:02:54 -0500 (EST)
From: beerisgoodfood@iname.com
Subject: Homebrewers as a constituency?
>From hbd@brew.oeonline.com Mon Nov 2 07:31:15 1998
Received: from web01.iname.net (web01.iname.net [165.251.4.11])
by brew.oeonline.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP
id HAA06625; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 07:31:13 -0500From: beerisgoodfood@iname.com
Received: (from root@localhost) by web01.iname.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) idHAA26315;
Mon, 2 Nov 1998 07:31:04 -0500 (EST)MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <9811020731046P.17355@web01.iname.net>;;
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 07:31:04 -0500 (EST)Content-Type: Text/Plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bitTo: homebrew@hbd.org
Subject: Homebrewers as a constituency?
Here's a new twist on identifying a demographic
niche for political campaign purposes.
Our homebrew club received the following letter
from the Ed Garvey for Governor campaign.
Dear Homebrewer,
Ed Garvey and Barbara Lawton have chosen not to accept corporate campaign
donations to support their run for Governor and Lt. Governor of Wisconsin.
In fact, because they are so committed to campaign finance reform, they will
accept only $100 per person for each of their campaigns. That puts them way
behind Tommy Thompson in financing, but it means that when they get elected
they won't have to repay and debts to large corporations like Exxon, RJ
Reynolds, and others who would like to put Wisconsin to work for _their
interests._
If Tommy Thompson gets re-elected, _again_, Miller Brewing will probably be
happy to supply malt beverages for his inaugural party. But if Ed Garveyand
Barbara Lawton get elected, they would like to continue their populist theme
and invite _you_ to brew the beer (and ale and lager and pilsner and stout
and porter, and so forth) for _their_ inaugural celebration.
Every homebrewer in the great state of Wisconsin is invited to donate a case
or two (or whatever amount you would like to contribute) to theGarvey-Lawton
inauguration party on January 4, 1999.
You can use your own labels, or you can use some of ours (sample shown at
right). In either case you can name the beer and add your own name as well.
If you want to use our labels, I can send you a master copy or a floppydisk.
For more information, contact:
Casey Garhart
1005 Sherman Avenue
Madison, WI 53703
608-238-8134 ext 219 (day)
608-257-0658 (evening)
garhart@orielinc.com
We look forward to your support in November and hope that you will contribute
to Ed and Barbara's inaugural celebration.
Sincerely,
Casey Garhart
- ----------------------------------------------------------------
Get your free email from AltaVista at http://altavista.iname.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 13:09 -0800
From: "George De Piro" <George_De_Piro@berlex.com>
Subject: False bottoms and manifolds / priorities of lautering
Hi all,
John has done some very cool experiments to illustrate flow
characteristics through a grain bed. It seems that the basic
conclusion is something that the big brewers have also learned: the
more evenly distributed the open area under the grain bed, the more
efficient the sparge because of more even fluid flow through the
grains.
John wonders about the flow characteristics of water (or wort) through
a grain bed that is over a false bottom with only one outlet pipe. My
original Sankey lauter tun had the outlet on the side. This did not
work well (and I didn't need a transparent tun to know this). The
grain bed would end up sloped in the direction of the outlet
(especially if the initial runoff was allowed to flow too quickly). I
then added a copper pipe to extend the outlet to the middle of the tun
and that problem was solved (as far as I could see).
In a Sankey-tun there is a large amount of space between the false and
real bottom (~2 gallons worth). This allows for a lot of mixing
beneath the false bottom, so as long as the outlet flow is slow enough
I would not expect to see tremendous channeling towards the outlet
(although the bed could form channels for other reasons).
Large lauter tuns should always have multiple outlets under the false
bottom. The rule of thumb is one outlet for every square meter. The
outlets are conical to help minimize the suction force felt by the
grain bed above each outlet:
- - - - - - - - - - - - false bottom
------- --------- actual bottom
\ /
\ / outlet
| |
The space between the false and actual bottom is usually 10-20 mm.
The space cannot be smaller than that because of the size of the CIP
fittings beneath the screen. Larger space requires excessive
foundation water, which increases the time needed to vorlauf (time is
a luxury that you don't have when brewing 10-12 batches per day).
Older tuns have valves on each outlet so that the quality of the
runoff can be monitored. If one outlet is yielding less dense wort
than the others the brewer knows that there is channeling above that
outlet and can take action to correct it (run the rakes, slow the flow
from that outlet, etc.).
Channeling can cost a large brewery hundreds of thousands of dollars
per year, so it is something that they are sensitive to. Quite a few
lauter tun alternatives have been tried throughout the years,
including a system of manifolds not too unlike our home versions.
Most of these new ideas failed to match lauter tuns in terms of either
efficiency or wort clarity (or both). The Meura 2001 mash filter is
the best lauter tun alternative at present (and quite out of the reach
of most home and craft brewers).
While this is all quite interesting, what does it mean to the small
brewer? Efficiency is certainly important, but it is even more
important that your system yield clear wort. Why is this? The
following is largely plagiarized from an article by H. Nielson in the
MBAA Technical Quarterly, Vol. 10, #1:
1. Cloudy wort has higher lipid content. Lipids have been implicated
in the development of stale flavors and hurt head retention.
2. Cloudy wort will have more anthocyanogens from the malt. This can
lead to haze and flavor stability problems (like grainy flavors). The
author points to data showing that first runnings or wort taken from
above the grain bed contains less anthocyanogens than wort that has
traveled through the grain bed. The time of contact between the wort
and the grainbed also effect the anthocyanogen content (which could be
a good reason NOT to mash overnight).
3. Cloudy wort can carry particles that contain unconverted starch
which will be liberated during the boil. Starch will cause permanent
haze in beer, and can effect the flavor stability, too.
4. Cloudy lauter runoff will effect the ability of hot break to
settle rapidly after the boil. This paper has some very interesting
data that shows cloudy pre-boil wort will yield a post-boil wort that
does not settle its hot break in a reasonable amount of time. Too
much hot break in the fermenter can cause fermentation problems and
yield problematic beer.
While I did get off the point of John's post, I thought that it is
important for people to know that CLEAR wort is very important. No
matter what kind of lauter tun you decide to use, remember that
clarity is the key.
On a practical note: I use a Sankey-tun with a stainless false bottom
and do not really like it. There is about 2 gallons of room beneath
the false bottom, which means that I have to run off at least two
gallons of wort before I can hope to see clear runoff. In reality I
end up having to vorlauf (recirculate) an much greater volume of wort
to achieve acceptable clarity. It ends up costing me quite a bit of
time! Maybe I'll change my tun some day soon, or put something under
the false bottom to take up some of that space...
Have fun!
George
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 10:46:59 -0800
From: "Tomusiak, Mark" <tomusiak@amgen.com>
Subject: Protein Rest Data Point?
> Greetings all...having followed recent threads on protein rests with
> interest, I thought I would post a recent experience that may be relevant.
> I brew most of my beers with Weyermann pilsner malt as a base, and always
> include a 15 - 20 minute rest at 135 F. My beers have good head retention
> and foam stability, an early indication of which seems to be the foam
> generated during aeration of the cooled wort prior to pitching; I always
> have to keep swirling the carboy to knock the foam down during aeration
> with an aquarium stone.This weekend I decided to switch gears and brew a
> bitter with Hugh Baird pale malt (some crystal as well), and per the
> prevailing wisdom I omitted the protein rest and went straight to 154 F
> for conversion. Everything proceeded smoothly, but when I was aerating
> the wort prior to pitching I noticed that there was not much foam and what
> was there seemed pretty weak. Sure enough, a couple of days into
> fermentation with White Labs English ale (used a starter, got short lag
> time, etc.), the krausen on the wort is very weak despite strong bubble
> trap and convection activity. I know there are more variables involved
> than just the mash schedule, but the rest of my brewing process was the
> same as usual and I can't help but wonder about the lack of a protein
> rest. Thoughts or comments? Brew on, Mark Tomusiak, Boulder, Colorado
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 10:49:31 -0800
From: "Tomusiak, Mark" <tomusiak@amgen.com>
Subject: FW: Re: Belgian Ale Styles
> Greetings...I thought I would address at least part of Rob's questions
> about Belgian beers. First of all, prepare to be slightly frustrated in
> attempting to tightly define many of the Belgian beer styles. Apart from
> certain styles like wit, many of the Belgian styles are very broad and you
> will encounter a wide range of very different beers loosely grouped under
> the same style. For example, Belgian strong ales and "specials" can range
> from extremely pale, dry hoppy brews to dark, sweet, malty brews; probably
> the only the thing you can say they have in common is that they have a
> relatively high alcoholic strength and interesting aroma and flavor
> contributions from the yeast (I like to think that most of these beers
> employ candi sugar in some amount to keep the body relatively light, but
> this is probably not be the case for all beers in this category).
>
> Belgian "ales" or "pale ales" are Belgium's equivalent of a British bitter
> or a German altbier; they are medium-gravity, every-day drinking beers
> that have a very fine balance of malt, hop and yeast flavors. These are
> amongst my favorites (DeKoninck, Special Palm, Ginder Ale, etc.), but
> unfortunately I have not been able to find very much info on how to
> formulate recipes for these styles. Michael Jackson's "The Great Beers of
> Belgium" has some interesting tidbits of information, and is recommended
> reading. In my attempt to brew these beers, I generally employ a mixture
> of pilsner and vienna or munich malts, add some amount of biscuit and
> perhaps a small amount of caravienne, and hop moderately with noble
> varieties. Yeast choice, however, is anybody's guess; I have been
> experimenting with Brewtek's Saison yeast with some success, but keep in
> mind that in this style the yeast contribution should be somewhat subdued.
> Spices can be employed; again, the style definition is loose, use your
> imagination!
>
> Hope this was somewhat useful and not impossibly vague - Brew On,
>
> Mark Tomusiak
> Boulder, Colorado
>
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 13:55:37 -0500 (EST)
From: John Varady <rust1d@usa.net>
Subject: Home Brew Recipe Calculating Program - New Release
This is just a quick post to let interested parties know that I have
released an upgrade to my shareware brewing package.
The Home Brew Recipe Calculating Program Version 2.1 is now available for
download at:
http://www.netaxs.com/people/vectorsys/varady/index.html
Version 2.1 has many improvements over the earlier versions and some new
features including:
AHA-style Contest Entry Forms and labels.
New Units - Barrels and Hectoliters.
The Recipe entry form is still on a single screen allowing you to view the
entire ingredient list and log at a glance.
Thanks for stopping by and checking out the software, and especially thanks
to those who have already registered in the past.
John
***********************************************
* Vector Systems Corp. ** Fax: (215) 639-7018 *
* 560 State Road ** Tel: (215) 639-6540 *
* Bensalem, PA 19020 ** vectorsy@netaxs.com *
***********************************************
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 11:13:32 -0800
From: Badger Roullett <branderr@microsoft.com>
Subject: more: Foam from Kegs
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 11:12:34 -0900
Subject: Re: Too much foam from corny keg
Clifton Moore has been asking about lotsa foam from his keg. I also get
this problem, but i probably have a different setup/problem.
I use Phil Phaucet Adaptor (no association, just happy happy customer) to
connect straight from the keg 'out' fitting to the chrome bar tap. the
effect is a bar tap sticking straight out of my keg. (also, 2 kegs fit
nicely in a rectangular milk crate with the co2 cylinder snugging it all up,
so its easy to transport my 2 tap bar in a box to parties..) I dispense at
5-10 psi, with the open all the way method.
Since i have no beer Frig, i cannot chill the beer to carbonate, so i put
about 20 psi on the kegs for 4 days or so, at around 65-70 degrees (room
temp)
Questions:
1. how can i reduce foaming from my Phil tap?
2. Once i start serving the beer, and its been sitting for a while, should i
bring it back up to carbonation pressure (20 psi) every couple of days? it
seems to go flat after a while.
3. Anyone else used this tap configuration? ever had problems with
infections, washers, etc.?
Thanks in Advance...
***************************************************
Brander Roullett aka Badger
Homepage: http://www.nwlink.com/~badger
In the SCA: Lord Frederic Badger of Amberhaven
"It had to be a linguistics professor who said that it's man's ability to
use language that makes him the dominant species on the planet. That may
be. But I think there's one other thing that separates us from animals. We
aren't afraid of vacuum cleaners." --Jeff Stilson
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 11:22:10 -0800
From: Badger Roullett <branderr@microsoft.com>
Subject: Batch Sparge Spreadsheet
Hello Collective Members....
I am searching for the spreadsheet that was posted in 2467 (full address is
http://hbd.org/hbd/archive/2467.html#2467-21 ) which helps design a batch
sparge session.. I am interested batch as opposed to fly sparge because it
is a closer approximation of medieval techniques, and is less complicated to
get rolling with all grain (1 normal/1 medieval batchs so far). I would
appreciate help in finding this, or a similar spread sheet to aid in my
brewing. It was origanally posted by KennyEddy@aol.com but his site is no
longer there..
Thanks in Advance!!
***************************************************
Brander Roullett aka Badger
Homepage: http://www.nwlink.com/~badger
In the SCA: Lord Frederic Badger of Amberhaven
"It had to be a linguistics professor who said that it's man's ability to
use language that makes him the dominant species on the planet. That may
be. But I think there's one other thing that separates us from animals. We
aren't afraid of vacuum cleaners." --Jeff Stilson
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 13:00:52 -0800
From: chrisfs@pacbell.net (Chris)
Subject: Belgian Ales styles
As far as I know, candy sugar is rock candy sugar. I have seen it in a brew
shop before.
But then there is that issue of the candy sugar. What is with
this? Can I use table sugar? And then the use of un-malted
barley; how important is this?
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 12:13:47 -0800 (PST)
From: Scott Murman <smurman@best.com>
Subject: Re: Lauter Tun Fluid Mechanics
Lauter Dynamics 101. Good stuff. One experiment is worth a thousand
theories.
Jim Bentson writes:
> From a fluid mechanics standpoint, his second model is close to what
> is known as a "Two Dimensional Sink" flow that is based on inviscid
> potential flow.
I think a more accurate model of the flow is Stokes' flow, or what is
sometimes called creeping flow. This is the flow for an extremely low
Reynolds number. In some ways it does resemble an inviscid flow, but
your modeling is different. Dropping a ball bearing into a jar of
molasses is an example of Stokes flow (think of dropping a bunch of
husk particles through wort, not vice versa).
Also, in any model of this process the driving force is gravity, and
only gravity. Unless you typically mix your grain bed, there isn't an
energy potential except for gravity, hence there is only one possible
direction for the potential gradient - down.
-SM-
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 12:12:37 -0500
From: "Bayer, Mark A (Boeing)" <BayerMA@navair.navy.mil>
Subject: problem micros
collective homebrew conscience:
this weekend a friend of mine brought over two bottles of microbrew for me
to taste.
one was hopjack (widmer), and the other was otter creek pale ale. i asked
my friend if either was bottle-conditioned, and he said no.
after he left, i pulled out the hopjack, and noticed what looked like
sediment in the bottom of the bottle. i got out my flashlight, and sure
enough, a significant amount (1 tsp or so) of what looked like trub was
present in the bottle.
i pulled out the otter creek, and it had the same problem. i know what
yeast looks like (as we all do), and it was definitely not yeast. it looked
exactly like trub.
neither beer had obvious infection symptoms, but then again, with the amount
of hop aroma and flavor in these beers, who knows?
i've had this problem with my own beers only when i rush and bottle them
early with no clarification agents added.
any speculation on what might be causing these problems with the microbrews?
brew hard,
mark bayer
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 12:29:02 -0800
From: Badger Roullett <branderr@microsoft.com>
Subject: Mediveal Mashing Question
Greeting Collective Mashheads...
I have another wacky question for you..
It is regarding the medieval method i posted a while ago..
Medieval Method (1615) - Mash the grain with ALL the water, drain off the
wort, pour more water in, mash for a full hour more, and then drain for a
small beer.
Here is my question for the scientifically minding grain afficianodo's out
there...
Is there any point to letting the second mash in #2 sit for teh full hour?
isn't the grain already converted? and your really just rinsing it agian to
extract any remaining sugars? or is there more mashing going on?
Couldn I just pour in the water, stir it up, and draining (like a batch
sparge) and get the same amount of extraction?
also, when you mash the volume of grain with all the water, do you lose
extraction points? In my 1503 English Beer,
http://www.nwlink.com/~badger/1503.html for full paper, I used 11.5 lbs of
grain, and added about 6 gallons of mash water to it, and rested for 60 min.
thats about 1/2 gallon of water to a pound of grain.
Badger
*********************************************
Brander Roullett aka Badger
(2300 miles West of Jeff, Seattle, WA)
Brewing Page: http://www.nwlink.com/~badger/badgbeer.html
Badgers Brewing Bookstore: http://www.nwlink.com/~badger/brewbook.html
In the SCA:
Lord Frederic Badger of Amberhaven, Innkeeper of the Cat and Cup Inn
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 18:51:00 -0400
From: bwible@wanda.vf.pond.com (Bill Wible)
Subject: Kit beers
Question for the collective...
I got a Brewmaster Stout kit cheap (given to me actually), and would like
to use it in a Classic Dry Stout recipe.
In recipe formulation, I guess you score kits like this as LME, at 1.038
for measuring gravity. However, these kits are pre-hopped, and little
information is available on the label or otherwise to tell you how much
hops have been added.
To make things worse, any information I can find on these on these kits
doesn;t give a standard IBU or HBU measurement.
How does one figure out hop usage when using one of these kits? Assuming
you can obtain a bittering measurement in a useable format, do you count
that just as bittering and still add your own flavor/aroma hops? Do you
reduce hop usage all around?
Has anyone used a Brewmaster Stout kit? Any advice? I would appreciate
reply to the letter and to my own e-mail as well, in case I miss it.
Thanks.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 18:33:15 -0800
From: Jeremy Bergsman <jeremybb@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: yeast update
I have made 3 beers with the Widmer Hefeweizen yeast now, all from a single
colony. All three have the same set of problems: somewhat low attenuation,
very poor floculation, and a citrus taste that is not from the hops, since
one beer used only saaz and hallertauer, and the other two used british ale
hops and all three have the same taste.
This may well be a result of a bad pick, but thought you all might like the
data point.
- --
Jeremy Bergsman
jeremybb@leland.stanford.edu
http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~jeremybb
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 18:42:23 -0800
From: Jeremy Bergsman <jeremybb@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Mafe
In an attempt to usurp Scott's title as HBD chef, I am posting a good
beer-using recipe. This is a great thing to make if you have some megabrew
your brother-in-law left around. It is called mafe or groundnut stew.
This is one of the most popular dishes of west Africa. Groundnuts are
peanuts, which are a staple there.
1 large onion, diced
oil
1.5 lbs chicken
6 c low IBU beer
.5 c peanut butter, chunky is good
.5 c tomato paste
2 carrots, cut in 1/4" disks
1 large turnip, diced
fresh red chilis to taste, or cayenne
1 c okra, cut in 1/2" disks
Saute the onion in oil then add chicken and beer. Cook until chicken is
done through. If chicken with bones was used, remove pieces, strip meat
from bones, cut up and return to pot. Remove a cup of liquid and disolve
peanut butter in it. Add remaining ingredients and simmer 30'. Serve over
rice. I think it's best with a lot of chili.
- --
Jeremy Bergsman
jeremybb@leland.stanford.edu
http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~jeremybb
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 21:39:39 -0500
From: "Dave Whitman" <dwhitman@fast.net>
Subject: apology accepted/phosphate and bacteria
After I took umbrage, Jim Liddil was polite enough to offer a public
apology, which I accept. No hard feelings here.
Jim brought up an interesting question which several others picked up on -
whether phosphate buffer would be more susceptible to bacteria contamination
than straight water.
While phosphate is a vital nutrient for many organisms, it's not obvious to
me why it would make water more hospitable to bacteria. It's not food - you
can't extract energy from oxidizing phosphate. In fact, my expectation is
that the buffer would be more robust with respect to fending off bacteria,
due to the lower pH (about 4). That said, I can't specifically exclude the
possibility of problems, and am interested in testing the hypothesis.
Off-line, Louis Bonham suggested storing a large number of samples under
water and buffer, then growing out samples on LDMA media to check for
bacterial contamination. I can buy LDMA plates at $0.80 each, and would be
willing to buy 20 plates to test the hypothesis. However, even I worry
about whether 10 plates for each of 2 treatments would be big enough to pick
up an effect here, since the result would depend on random (and presumably
rare) contamination of the vials. I've handled about 80 vials reculturing
my library over the last 4 years, and in that time, only one vial has shown
gross contamination upon growing it out on wort agar. I'm worried that the
contamination rate of the samples might be low enough to make it difficult
to pick up effects before my discretionary funds get used up. Anyone have
any other (cheap!) suggestions on how to test this hypothesis?
Louis also suggested evaluating stored yeast on RDMA agar as a more
stringent probe of how well it is standing up, checking for respiratory
deficient colonies. This makes good sense to me, and I'll definitely try
that. These plates are $0.80 too; I'm thinking 18 of those, 3 plates for
buffer and 3 for pure water, testing 3 different yeast strains. (This gives
me replicates in a given strain/treatment, while blocking against yeast
strain idiosyncracy. I can pick up treatment effects with ANOVA across all
strains. Does that make sense?)
Any other constructive suggestions on further experimentation?
- --
Dave Whitman
dwhitman@fast.net
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 15:34:17 +1030 (CDT)
From: Ian Lyons <ilyons@science.adelaide.edu.au>
Subject: crushing malted grain without using oxen
Well I don't want to buy a grain mill, and the idea of rolling pinning 5
kg of grain isn't a good one. Any ideas or tested solutions as to
methods for reducing malted grain to mashable sized pieces, without
spending $100 on a grain mill?
If not I will invoke plan B which involves running over it in my car
repeatedly.
There's the option of having oxen drag a wheel around in a circle; I saw
that on a geography documentary. Unfortunately oxen are not common in my
neighbourhood.
Ian
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #2866, 11/03/98
*************************************
-------
