Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2865
HOMEBREW Digest #2865 Mon 02 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:
Source for SS Scrubbies (AKGOURMET)
re: Fixing chipped enamel / drain valves (John_E_Schnupp)
Strange break formation (Dan Cole)
Sloshing wort (Domenick Venezia)
Long-term storage of yeast ("George De Piro")
Re: bottling beer in wine bottles/methode champenoise (Jonathan Nail)
re: Belgian Ale Styles (Clifton Moore)
Re: Too much foam from corny keg (Clifton Moore)
IBUs (Laurel Maney)
Re: Fluid Flow Study Comments (John Palmer)
10 GALLON BATCH (David Monday)
Aging cold? (The Greenman)
Grainger and Corks (AlannnnT)
Pre-prohibition brews (Robert Paolino)
Re: Henry Weinheardt's Amber / pH Test strips ("Brian Dixon")
Partial filling of corny keg (Henry Paine)
Lauter Tun Fluid Mechanics (Jim Bentson)
Re: Stainless Scrubbers (Jim Bentson)
Refractometer use (Jim Wallace)
40Gallon steam boiler and new system (Jim Wallace)
Recipe Conversions (Alisa Johnson)
Philly Competition (birman)
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: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 00:47:12 EST
From: AKGOURMET@aol.com
Subject: Source for SS Scrubbies
Fred Nolke, Anchorage wrote:
>>Has anyone seen stainless steel scrubbies recently? Lots of copper
>>in stores and as someone recently posted, lots of lint filters. I'm
>>sure my local HB shop would order a bunch if he knew where to find them.
Check your local kitchen store. Scanpan cookware includes a large stainless
steel scrubbie with each of their pots and pans, so any store that stocks that
line should have replacements. Also, RSVP (a kitchenware wholesaler in
Seattle) distributes SS scrubbies in 2-packs. These are the ones I prefer to
use as a filter on the end of my racking cane. They are smaller and have a
finer mesh than the Scanpan scrubbies.
Bill Wright
Juneau, AK
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 07:33:46 -0800
From: John_E_Schnupp@amat.com
Subject: re: Fixing chipped enamel / drain valves
>Here's what I ended up doing.
snip
>"fender washers". I cut two 1-1/2 inch pieces of 3/4-inch copper pipe
>longitudinally, flattened them out, and cut them in two. This gave me
>four 1-1/2 inch by 1-1/4 inch copper plates. I drilled 1/2-inch holes in
>the plates and reamed them out so they would slip over the compression
It might have been easier to use end caps. They are usually a little
thicker copper that the pipe. A 3/4" or 1" end cap should work. I'd
probably use the 1" as it is larger. After the hole is drilled simply
cut the flat end off with a Dremel tool or hack saw, the Dremel is my
tool of choice, I think it is the best thing since beer :-)
Not trying to criticize or say you did it wrong, just throwing out another
idea. When it come to making special fittings, adapters and various
other hardware there are many ways to skin the cat.
>Again, thanks to everybody for the information. I'd welcome any
>observations on the safety of using epoxy, enamel paint, etc. on the
>inside of boiling pots.
I don't know about epoxy but I just got some *super* solder that I
mail ordered. It's supposed to solder almost all metals and says
it's lead and cadmium free. I haven't tried it yet but if it works
a advertised, it should be great for soldering my brass ball valve
onto my aluminium brewpot (it's already threaded but I'd like a more
secure connection)
John Schnupp, N3CNL
Colchester, VT
95 XLH 1200
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 10:55:31 -0500
From: Dan Cole <dcole@roanoke.infi.net>
Subject: Strange break formation
Brewsters,
This weekend I was brewing my second batch of my "I will never brew this
again" Pumpkin Ale, and experienced a strange hot-break.
Halfway through my batch sparge, the flow slowed and then stopped
completely. OK, stuck sparge, that's expected with 2 cans of pumpkin in a
2.5 gallon batch of beer. So I dug up the mash bed (can you say paste?),
let resettle, recirculated and started my sparge again. Meanwhile, to
prevent overdue evaporation, I slowed my boil on the first half of the
sparged wort to just a simmer for about 20 minutes.
By the time I stared sparging the second half, my simmering wort now had a
layer of almost-waxy scum (probably had a heck of a lot of junk from the
pumpkin) on its barely moving surface. Using a shallow bowl, I skimmed off
the scum and added the second sparge.
Now I didn't start my boil timer until all second wort was in the boil
kettle, so it had another 60 minutes at a good rolling boil, but I didn't
have anything approximating that first floating scum.
Has anyone seen anything like this before?
Also, with an n=1, let me do some unfounded speculation... could the
additional movement due to a rolling boil actually work against you when
you have a very dirty wort (roughly handled adjuncts) by keeping the
junk/break stirred up and not allowing the material to float to the top
where it can coagulate more and then be skimmed off?
Drawing unfounded conclusions with insufficient information,
Dan Cole
Roanoke, VA
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 08:06:49 -0800 (PST)
From: Domenick Venezia <demonick@zgi.com>
Subject: Sloshing wort
In HBD #2862, Chris P. Frey said,
" ... Assuming the headspace is indeed filled with CO2, is there any
reason to concern oneself with violently shaking and rocking the carboy,
thus rousing the little yeasties awake? What say yea?"
This technique is called "rousing the yeast" and I've done it almost
since I started brewing and I've seen no signs of any problem. While
I don't "violently shake" the carboy, I do vigorously swirl the contents.
Usually I do this morning and evening for a few days toward the end of the
fermentation and then let the carboy (primary or secondary) settle out for
a day or two before bottling/kegging. And yes, the airlock can REALLY get
chugging along!
Rousing the yeast can help push the fermentation a few more points, by
getting the drowsy yeast cells up off the bottom where nutrients are
depleted and back into the wort where nutrients may remain. Rousing
smooths out any local areas of depleted nutrient(s) and gives all the
still waking yeasties a shot at those last few molecules of goodies.
Tweaking the yeast is a good idea, but another important and useful effect
of rousing is to reduce the amount of CO2 in solution. This will yield
more consistent carbonation when bottling. At room temperature the
solubility of CO2 is about 1 volume. At 68F (20C) it is actually 0.88
volumes, but that's for water at standard temperature and pressure - 1
volume is a good rule-of-thumb. After fermentation the beer is
supersaturated with CO2 and any disturbance will cause foaming. This is
simply precipitation of a solute much like a supersaturated sugar solution
will grow crystals. Bubbles are "crystals" of CO2. You can swirl the
carboy until it stops foaming but as long as the fermenter is airlocked
you can not swirl out CO2 below the saturation point. CO2 will
precipitate out of solution until the concentration is lowered to the
saturation point which is about 1 volume. At the saturation point the only
way to get more CO2 out of solution is to raise the temperature or lower
the pressure.
So if you swirl an airlocked fermenter until it stops foaming (or foams
minimally) you can assume that you have 1 volume of CO2 in solution and
calculate your priming rate from there. Using this technique can make
your batch to batch priming results more consistent because the amount of
CO2 that you start with will be more consistent. It will also reduce
foaming during bottling.
Cheers!
Domenick Venezia
Computer Resources
ZymoGenetics, Inc.
Seattle, WA
demonick at zgi dot com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 98 11:22:29 PST
From: "George De Piro" <gdepiro@fcc.net>
Subject: Long-term storage of yeast
Hi all,
While Jim L.'s commentary about yeast storage was a tad abrasive,
he did raise an interesting point: is using phophate buffer as the
storage media an invitation for contamination?
I have been storing yeast on slants (I have one strain in distilled
water and will move my whole collection to either distilled water or
phophate buffer after this contamination issue is resolved). A slant is
about as nutrient-rich a media as a bug can find, yet I have not had
any problems with bacterial contamination of my slants (as evidenced
by streaking the yeast from my slants onto differential media).
Perhaps there is something I am missing, and phophate buffer would
be more bactria-friendly than my slants? Comments from microbiologists
are welcome
Have fun!
George de Piro
("What's the difference between biologists and and microbiologists?"
"I don't know; I think they are smaller.") with apologies to Spinal
Tap...
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 09:23:39 -0800
From: Jonathan Nail <jnail@dvdexpress.com>
Subject: Re: bottling beer in wine bottles/methode champenoise
"Tomusiak, Mark" wrote:
Subject: Re: bottling beer in wine bottles
>>You definitely need to wire the corks down, as the
>>pressure generated during conditioning will force
>>the corks out and leave a mess wherever you stored
>>them.
The other beauty about using champagne bottles is the fact that you can
affix a bottle cap to the top of the bottle. Thus having to do away with
"wiring down" the cork, at first. This will prevent leaking, keep the
escaping gas in and makes for a cleaner storage period. Then when your
bottles are close to serving, you can then choose to use Matthew's idea of
using the top of a mushroom cork as a spacer and add the wire cage. Remove
the bottle cap carefully. Put the spacer (mushroomed cap on top) and put a
new wire cage (can be purchased at most homebrew/winemaking shops). Use the
end of a sturdy chopstick or thin painter's brush to "twist" the new wire
cage close. This will save your fingers and any other hardware you choose to
use. Practice a bit on an empty bottle with a cork and spacer/wire cage. I
believe 3 and 1/2 turns will fit the cage nicely to your bottle and prevent
flyaways (which is really dangerous).
Again, the advantage of using champagne bottles (which come in various
sizes) is that you can use a regular wine cork (as well as synthetic corks)
and cap them to keep leakage and flyaways down.
And on the subject of champagne bottles. Has anyone tried a real methode
champenoise (sp?) with something like beer or mead? Results? Messes? Make
your wife run screaming from the house???
Cheers,
Jonathan
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 10:55:54 -0900
From: Clifton Moore <cmoore@gi.alaska.edu>
Subject: re: Belgian Ale Styles
Rob,
I too am experiencing the same response after a spring '98
visit to Holland and a short time in Belgium. "I must try to
make some of this", was my most recurrent thought. I have
yet to take it on, but have collected several yeasts in preparation.
I am counting on the yeast to be a primary contributor to
the product. I would characterize the results I am looking
for as: relatively smooth mouth feel in a big (OH %) brew,
with effervescence; almost a Champagne like bubble profile.
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?
Lets hope we can get some threads going on this.
I can contribute that I have had good results from harvesting
bottle yeast off of Corsendonk, Chamay, and Westmalle.
Clifton Moore
cmoore@gi.alaska.edu
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 11:12:34 -0900
From: Clifton Moore <cmoore@gi.alaska.edu>
Subject: Re: Too much foam from corny keg
The one instruction I offer to users of my kegs is,
"mash the handle full on".
Any attempt to limit foam by slowly squeezing a glass
out of the spigot only results in a glass full of foam.
Clifton Moore
cmoore@gi.alaska.edu
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 14:22:01 -0800
From: Laurel Maney <maney@execpc.com>
Subject: IBUs
Louis Bonham wrote:
The *only* way to know your IBU's is to physically measure them in the
finished beer. Once you have this data for several beers, you will
probably have
a decent idea of what *your* utilization rates are for *your* system and
procedures, and thereafter you could tweak Tinseth/Garetz/Rager's
formula to give more accurate guesses. But the bottom line is that the
only way to
know your IBU's is to measure them.
This is by far the best summary I've seen about calculating BUs or
predicting the results of a given addition of hops. You have to get the
analysis in order to know your own system's utilization; from there you
can dial in what you want by making 'best approximation' adjustments.
Here's a really simple equation:
A mg iso/L x B Liters x 100 mg alpha/C mg iso x 100 mg hops/D mg
alpha = mg hops
A = BU defined as mg isoalpha acids per liter in finished product
B = liters of cooled wort (knockout volume x .96 for shrinkage on
cooling)
C = your overall utilization
D = alpha acid content of the hops
that really works. The beauty of it is that you measure BUs in the
finished beer, so the utilization factor automatically takes in post
kettle effects. Get the analysis, and solve for C under a couple of
different conditions. Then you can extrapolate, using the same equation
to figure out the quantity of hops for a desired BU. Do a separate
calculation for each hop, if the alphas are different. Adjust the
utilization rate for different timing of additions.
(By the way, I gotta love the metric system when it comes to BUs.)
So where do you get a cheap and convenient analysis? In Wisconsin,
Milwaukee Area Technical College - Brewing Program expects to offer this
service in Spring of 1999. Stay posted.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 14:01:01 -0800
From: John Palmer <jjpalmer@gte.net>
Subject: Re: Fluid Flow Study Comments
Thank you for all the kind words, I have received many comments and I am
glad this will be of some use.
Several people have written wondering what I think about false bottoms
and the behavior of the wort to the single outlet tube. I pretty much
said it all in the original post. It's a good question, I am not sure.
How does the model apply to round coolers and sankey kegs? Good
question. If you have a square or rectangular manifold in it, then the
model probably applies to a large degree with differences due to the
changing distance to the wall. With a round manifold (like I have: 8"
dia of 5/8 tube) there probably is more of an r^3 relationship of the
proximity a volume of wort sees to the drain. There are obviously
positions in the grain bed that are equidistant from the entire circle
and thus have a lot of potential. And it is probably more complicated
than that. I suppose I will try to model it one of these days...
The other question in Saturdays HBD about extraction efficiency between
1, 2, or 3 pipes is also a good one. Obviously, people have been
getting good results from the Easymasher for several years now. It is a
single tube manifold. Likewise, there are many people who have
complained about low efficiency with it, and multi-tube manifold
systems. There are those who swear by a change to a false bottom system,
and those who curse the day they switched.
What I am trying to say is that there must be a certain amount of
technique involved to making any system work well. I think that more
pipes allow better coverage of the grainbed so you don't have to employ
as much skill (or luck) to get a good extraction.
To better answer this question, we really need to do some side by side
experiments with the same mash and control as many variables as
possible. Heat, outflow rate, geometry, inlet area, constant head, etc.
Not easy and it's one reason why I used corncobs.
Perhaps some very resourceful club might like to do such an experiment.
John Palmer
Palmer House Brewery and Smithy page
http://www.realbeer.com/jjpalmer/
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 15:19:11 -0800
From: David Monday <dmonday@thegrid.net>
Subject: 10 GALLON BATCH
Dear fellow homebrewers,
I am unsure which is the best technique for obtaining the needed boil
volume for a 10 gal batch (I am very new to all grain brewing)-
1. 1) Do I increase the volume of sparge water used, or simply add
water to the boil kettle to obtain my boil volume? Does it really
matter which method is used if the OG obtained is the same? My
gut feeling is to sparge with 5 gal, then dilute the wort in the
boil kettle to reach boil volume and OG.
2. 2) This question is for another matter that I have read
conflicting info on: Are the malted grains available today
considered "modified" to the extent that a one step infusion mash
is all that is necessary? I have read that a protein rest
performed on todays malted grains could diminish the "head" on your
resulting brews, and that the procedure is no longer "necessary".
Yet, in the Williams Brewing Catalog, only a couple of malts are
listed as "fully modified", which leaves me to question this
article (I may have read it at BT on-line).
Thank you in advance for any suggestions and help on these questions
(e-mail response is fine).
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 04:53:07 -0700
From: The Greenman <greenman@sdc.org>
Subject: Aging cold?
Greetings fellow brewers,
This is half a question. A while ago I brewed an extract European Ale.
After weeks of waiting, (around 5 or so) I finally tasted it. It was
probably the closest thing I've ever had to repulsive in homebrew.
I aged it another 2 or so weeks, and again, awful. another month, and
still awful. The esters were terrible, the diacetyl flavor
overpowering, and another taste that was somewhat akin to chewing on
pine. (Please don't ask how I know what chewing on pine tastes like)
I know exactly what went wrong. I had a week where I wasn't able to pay
attention to the temp, and it was too high (during fermentation). I was
in the hospital, and the temp was in the 76 range.
Well, I forced myself to drink the stuff, and it even became mildly
drinkable if it was chilled to near freezing. Well, I forgot about a
few beers I had put in the fridge for, and after a few weeks of sitting
there, I tried one. It was gorgeous. I wish I had kept the whole
batch.
I couldn't figure it out. But I had been reading on how alt-beir is
aged cold, so I found a bottle of the stuff that I had left in warm
storage, and chilled it for a few hours.
The warm stuff tasted awful.
The cold stuff tasted wonderful.
Has anyone else had the same results? or similar?
Am I just nuts? Are there certain beers that aging cold is better for?
Or should I start keeping all my beers in the fridge for an extended
period of time? comments?
Greenman
.-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-.
T. Daniel "Greenman" Griffin
"Knowledge is the herald of Sorrow"
"When it is dark enough, you can see the stars"
Student/Spod/ANGSTer/Brother/SysAdmin
'-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-'
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 08:36:14 EST
From: AlannnnT@aol.com
Subject: Grainger and Corks
There is some discussion of buying controls and pumps from Grainger, the mega-
distributor. If you do not have a Federal ID or sales tax number, you may not
be able to buy from Grainger. You can buy from Grainger at regular Grainger
catalogue prices through their secondary supply method.
Grainger gives True Value and Servistar hardware stores a discount from their
catalogue price. You can ask your local hardware store to get your Grainger
items for you. The hardware store can then buy the item from Grainger and sell
it to you at the catalogue price and make a (very) small markup. Hardware
stores are under no obligation to deal with Grainger, and the profit margin is
small, but maybe for an occasional homebrew, you'll make a friend and a good
helper out of your local hardware store owner.
Some hardware store owners may not even be aware of this discount program. The
program is only a couple years old, and many stores would not otherwise need
to use Grainger as a source. These discounts were 'negotiated' by the national
management of True Value and Servistar and Coast to Coast (called Tru Serve
Corporation) and are available to all store owners in the organization. You
may be the first person to tell the store owner he can buy from Grainger at
discount, so you might get a funny look at first.
About corks. I find that the corks that are called 'pore filled' leak less and
cost about the same as the regular corks. I have used them for wine with good
results. They don't require as long a soak either. An hour or less should do
it.
In case you have not guessed, I am a True Value member. I am not trying to
promote True Value or any affiliate store. I am only disseminating information
you may find useful.
Alan Talman
Homebrewer, beer geek, and True Value member store owner
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 10:34:37 -0600 (CST)
From: Robert Paolino <rpaolino@execpc.com>
Subject: Pre-prohibition brews
I'm going to trying posting this one more time....
> Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 09:09:33 -0500
> From: Jeff Renner <nerenner@umich.edu>
> To: rpaolino@earth.execpc.com
> Subject: Re: Homebrew Digest #2862 (October 29, 1998)
>
> Bob
>
> I don't know if you keep up on HBD. I could answer the question in
> paragraph 2 of the post below but I thought you'd do it better regarding
> [snip]
> >Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 12:13:13 -0400
> >From: Gordon Strong <strongg@earthlink.net>
> >Subject: Classic American Pilsner
>
> [snip]
>
> >Are there any credible commercial versions of this style (particularly
> >in the midwest)? One of the perks of judging (and brewing for that
> >matter) is getting to sample these little-known styles. But I'm looking
> >for examples that might be more accessible to non-brewers/judges.
> >Anyone?
> >
> >Gordon Strong
> >Beavercreek, OH
>
The Wisconsin Brewers Guild did a project with "pre-prohibition" beers as
a Wisconsin Sesquicentennial promotion. (It was similar to the Oregon
pale ale thing at the craft brewers' conference.) Participating members
of the WBG brewed a beer according to a somewhat flexible recipe guideline
and were supplied with the grain (6 row and white corn) and hops by the
sponsors. Kirby Nelson, brewmaster at Capital Brewery of Middleton
(Madison), Wisconsin developed the recipe based on early 20th century
brewing logs from a large Milwaukee brewery, modified (pun not intended)
to reflect today's ingredients. Ingredients, target OG and IBU ranges
were specified; ale or lager yeast was at the discretion of the brewer.
The brewers who participated served the beers at their pubs/draught
accounts and all had them at the Great Taste of the Midwest<sm> (in
August) for patrons to sample. Those who still had some left served it
at the Wisconsin Brewers Guild fest (in September). To my knowledge, no
one bottled it... sorry.
Before all the details came together, I included a preliminary discussion
of the project in an article in Great Lakes Brewing News (if you don't
already receive it or otherwise missed the article, contact Bill Metzger
at glbrewing@aol.com, to ask about purchasing back issues), and I'm going
to be writing a post-project story on it for publication elsewhere if
there's an interested publisher ;-)
As Gordon said, done right these can be damn fine beers and I had a few
personal favourites of the bunch. You won't find any available now, but
some of the brewers may repeat them as a seasonal brew for sometime in the
future. Capital's Kirby Nelson liked the beer (and the reception by the
pub-patronising public) so much he is looking at the idea of going through
the whole label approval thing to make it again as a bottled product.
I had a couple of pints with Jeff "Now go have a prepro" Renner when he
was on his way through Wisconsin, and Jeff absolutely loved the Capital
product that was on tap at the bar where we met to have those pints. I
don't know whether he got to sample any of the others during his Badger
State travels. I'd mention some of my other favourites, but the only one
that I _know_ is likely to be available again is the Capital. I'll leave
it at saying that there were some other very good ones, both lagers and
"lager-like" ales, some similar to each other and others quite distinct
from the others.
Now go have a beer,
Bob Paolino rpaolino@earth.execpc.com
Madison
I can taste my beer. Can you? Bland Beer is the Worst Sort of Tyranny!
Don't drink bland industrial swill; it only encourages them to make more.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 10:43:35 -0800
From: "Brian Dixon" <mutex@proaxis.com>
Subject: Re: Henry Weinheardt's Amber / pH Test strips
>BTW: There is a new brewer amongst us. Her name is Nicole Diane
>Christian. She was born Sept. 17--healthy and happy. This is one brewer
>who is counting his blessings: thanks god for a healthy child, barley,
yeast,
>hops, and water ;-O!
>
>Keith
>Chattsworth CA
>kchris1@lausd.k12.ca.us
... Might as well start brewing only at night. You're going to be up anyway
...
Signed,
Father of Two (and going on a decade of interrupted sleep ...)
(Brian)
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 01 Nov 1998 13:06:39 -0600
From: Henry Paine <hpaine@iglobal.net>
Subject: Partial filling of corny keg
I'm finally making the switch to kegging. Is it possible to fill a 5 gal.
keg only half full and bottle the rest of your batch? Thanks for any info.
Hank
Henry C. "Hank" Paine, Jr.
hpaine@iglobal.net
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 01 Nov 1998 15:14:32 -0500
From: Jim Bentson <jbentson@longisland.com>
Subject: Lauter Tun Fluid Mechanics
Hi All:
I had not read the digest for about a week and in catching up, I started to
write a comment on the many posts regarding the fluid mechanics of
lauter-tuns when I saw John Palmers great post. I was in the process of
posting my own opinion that the best way to analyze this problem was
precisely what John did, i.e. build a transparent lauter tun and use dye to
track the streak lines.
I would like to congratulate John on a terrific job. The experimental
photos that he got clearly show the true flow in the tun under actual
lautering conditions.
Regarding the modelling, as John found out and stated in his post, his
first model based on Darcy's law was not really applicable to the situation
being studied. 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 am in the process of sending John a rather lengthy E-mail
discussing this and will delay commenting on this modeling until later.
I would like to point out a number of things that have immediate practical
implications:
1) John's manifold layout is not ideal. As he found out, you do not want
the "drain" point very far from the wall. The reason is quite simple, if
the straight line path from the top of the grain bed to the drain is
considerably shorter than the flow path down the outer edge and along the
bottom (i.e. as it is with a shallow bed or large area tun) then ,
assuming the resistance in the grain bed is proportional to flow length,
the outer edges of the tun represent a much longer path from surface to
drain and consequently will flow slower on average than the center due to
increased resistance. This will appear to give "preference" to the portion
of grain above the drain which can clearly be seen in John's time lapse
photos. From a fluid mechanics point of view, John's tun would have worked
better if he ran his straight manifold pipes parallel to the long dimension
(the length) rather than the short dimension ( the width) as he would have
reduced the distance from the drain to the wall in both cases. Most of the
designs I have seen published use this arrangement rather than John's.
2) John's photos show that even with the "better" geometry of two
manifolds, it takes about ten minutes for the flow to establish itself at
the edges , i.e. when the dye actually reaches the bottom near the edges,
indicating vertical flow that has finally reached the bottem.This has
important implications about the rate of lautering and clearly shows why we
all should avoid rapid draining of the lauter tun. If you use Narziss'
optimal value of 0.18 gals/min/sq ft of tun area ( which is for commercial
cylindrical tuns) then for a 12" diameter tun ( typical of a 5 gal batch )
you would collect 6.36 gals in 45 minutes. This is within our normal
guideline of 45 - 60 minutes for lautering used by homebrewers. For larger
batchs your tun will be proportionately wider and the collection time will
still be about the same.
3) John's experiments are most applicable to rectangular coolers. The flow
in a cylindrical cooler or tun would be an axisymmetric flow rather than
two-dimensional as in this John's case. While these two types of flow often
look similar in cross-section, they can be quite different in terms of the
magnitude of spatial changes ( gradients). If a reasonable math model
evolves from all this, this geometry effect will be trivial to account for.
4) Regarding John's comments on false bottoms, the flow under a false
bottom is flow through a multiple orifice plate into a plenum much like the
injector plates of a rocket engine. Since the volume under the false bottom
is a "fluid only" region, and due to the low vertical velocity of the flow
in the grain bed, the flow under the plate acts like a Sink flow and can be
modelled as such. As the height of the false bottom above the tun bottom
is reduced, the flow gets more three dimensional and harder to analyze.
[BTW . The volume INSIDE the "Easymasher screen is also a plenum in that it
is a region of pure fluid with lower flow resistance than the grain bed.
This makes the collection 'region more distributed in space than the slots
of a copper manifold and will also lead to slightly more uniform collection
flow fields]
5) John's results shows that the larger the number of drains and the more
that the drain collection points are evenly distributed over the tun floor
the more the flow will be uniform through the grain bed. This support's
what I would have suspected based on many years of working in fluid
mechanics. To this end , when I built my tun, I use an "H" arrangement in
my 13" diameter cylindrical tun, with an "Easymasher" knockoff at the 4
tips of the "H" and a center tap on the bar of the "H" to feed the
collected flow to the outside world. This "knockoff" design is much
larger than Jack Schmidling's design. I use stainless screen with 1/16"
wire spacing. I rolled these into 3/4" diameter by 4" long cylinders and
seal the open "far" end of each of them with a 1/2" long , 3/4' dia.
stainless bolt and a hose clamp. Works great. I got the idea of multiple
"Easymashers" from the fact that the lauter tun in the micro-brewery I
worked in used 4 drain points under the false bottom rather than one. This
got me thinking about the need to get a uniform collection pattern rather
than using a single centrally located collection point and hence my "H -
Masher" was born. This distribution of collection points is also what a
false bottom does.
Again, I would like to give John a standing ovation for the tremendous job
he has done. This work will be quoted frequently and John should be
properly recognized as the author in any such quotes
Jim Bentson
Centerport NY
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 01 Nov 1998 12:35:24 -0500
From: Jim Bentson <jbentson@longisland.com>
Subject: Re: Stainless Scrubbers
Recently Fred and Sue Nolke asked<fnolke@alaska.net>
>Subject: Scrubbies and Malt Freshness
>
>1. Has anyone seen stainless steel scrubbies recently? Lots of copper
>in stores and as someone recently posted, lots of lint filters. I'm
>sure my local HB shop would order a bunch if he knew where to find them.
Fred and Others:
Here on Long Island almost every supermarket carries both Copper and
Stainless pot scrubbers under the "Chore Boy" label. They are in the
section with steel-wool pads. They cost about $1.40 for two scrubbers. Try
asking your supermarket to special order them for you. The company that
makes the Chore Boy brand can be reached via snail-mail at Reckett and
Coleman Inc Wayne NJ 07474-0945.
As a last ditch effort, if anyone out there really needs them and can't get
them I would be willing to send them for the cost plus postage but please
try your supermarket manager or writing to the company first.
Jim Bentson
Centerport NY
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 01 Nov 1998 17:22:18 -0500
From: Jim Wallace <jwallace@crocker.com>
Subject: Refractometer use
I have been spoiled... during my last brewing session I was lucky enough to
have the use of a refractometer for gauging my OG..
I am now looking for any input from those who have had experience with some
of the less expensive instruments ($95-$125)
___________________________________________
JIM WALLACE ... jwallace@crocker.com
http://www.crocker.com/~jwallace
___________________________________________
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 01 Nov 1998 17:33:29 -0500
From: Jim Wallace <jwallace@crocker.com>
Subject: 40Gallon steam boiler and new system
during a recent auction trek I came up with a great deal on a boiler
..a 40 gallon steam kettle all set up with an electric steam generation
system ($75)
... problem is it calls for 3 phase service which is just not included in
my basement
any ideas on working with this boiler ???
my thoughts so far are:
... ignoring the electric and putting a burner under it, it already has
the sight glass pressure guage and blow off valve
... finding an alternate source for steam?? (I have a steam heating system
already in my basement)
I already have a 30 gallon fermenter (height to width 2:1) with both bottom
and side drains but still looking for mash tun for the system.. thinking
about using my HLT for mash temp boost
any suggestion welcome here
___________________________________________
JIM WALLACE ... jwallace@crocker.com
http://www.crocker.com/~jwallace
___________________________________________
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 16:34:37 -0500
From: aj@zebra.net (Alisa Johnson)
Subject: Recipe Conversions
I appreciate HBD for the excellent forum it has provided for the
advancement of homebrewing.
I was wondering if anyone would be so kind to provide me with some advice?
How much grain would I need to make a stout from an extract stout recipe.
E.G.:
4 #, Mountmellick Irish Stout Extract
3 #, Munton Fison Amber DME
Does Papazian say 1.3# of grain for every pound of dried malt and 1.1#
of grain for every pound of extract syrup?
Any help would be much appreciated.
Sincerely,
Kurt Roithmayr
kurtr@zebra.net
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 01 Nov 1998 21:11:13 -0500
From: birman@netaxs.com
Subject: Philly Competition
The main competition for the Philly Hombrewers has been moved up to the
spring so in place this fall (Novbember 15, 1998) we are having a more
free form competition. The criteria for this competition will be- Is it
clean?, Is it good?, Is it well balanced?--Beer style be damned!entries
will be judged in the following categories:Ale, Lager, Other, Cider &
Mead, and subsets: Light , Amber, Dark, Strong. Classic styles are
still welcome, within the criteria. So the gloves are off, restrictions
are off- and may the best beer win!
details can be found at:
http://www.netaxs.com/~shady/hops/archives/events/199811.html
For further information please call Home Sweet Homebrew at 215-569-9469,
or e-mail Nancy at homesweet@voicenet.com. Judges may register with Joe
Uknalis by email at birman@netaxs.com.
HOPS BOPS will also be holding a benefit raffle in memory of Mark
Johnston, a local National BJCP judge. Mark was tragically killed in an
automobile accident last summer. We will be donating the proceeds from
the raffle tickets to his wife and family in his memory. For all those
who had the opportunity to know Mark or to judge with him, his loss
leaves a void amongst our community of homebrewers. His wry wit, good
humor and exurburance for the hobby always made him a welcome addition
to any competition. Raffle tickets may also be purchased by mail or
phone for those wishing to help get his family through this horrible
loss.
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #2865, 11/02/98
*************************************
-------
