Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2880
HOMEBREW Digest #2880 Fri 20 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:
Bottle Priming / Pb in Brass ("Mark Riley")
Oversparging? (Jim English)
Thomas Caffery? (Zurekbrau)
Liquid Nottingham? (Ken Schwartz)
re: pbbbbbbbbbbbbt (Mikey Beck)
Clear near beer (Nathan Kanous)
I am so dry... So dry I be ("Houseman, David L")
Danstar yeast & wort ?s ("Nathaniel P. Lansing")
Brass/Lead Fallout (William Graham)
re: Al pots, was: Xmas draws near . . . (John_E_Schnupp)
Nottingham uses (Matthew Arnold)
re: O2 Regulators (John_E_Schnupp)
Sight Glass (Steve Milito)
re: aluminum question (William Graham)
Aluminum pots (Xmas draws near) (Herbert Bresler)
thermometer calibration (Herbert Bresler)
Re: aluminum question (Jeff Renner)
Kettles (John Wilkinson)
Re: Alt decoction (Jeff Renner)
Darcy' Law Rules (Paul Niebergall)
Dry, dry, dry! (pbabcock)
Rye Brewing - Rye not? (Dan Listermann)
Humidity remover for freezers ... kitty litter!? (NEWTRADBC)
Nottingham in a Weizen? (Mark Tumarkin)
Gott Cooler 1st Time Preparation (Steve)
more on CO2 (RMerid7682)
Cider! Help! (Redholling)
SHMS questions (ThomasM923)
MCAB News (Louis Bonham)
Pellets ("Steinkamps")
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: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 23:03:15 -0800
From: "Mark Riley" <markril@jps.net>
Subject: Bottle Priming / Pb in Brass
Homebrew craniums,
Recently, I asked a few questions here and elsewhere about
CO2 in relation to bottle priming. I've just posted a web page
with a JavaScript calculator for bottle priming (the reason for
my questions). Here's the link:
http://hbd.org/~mriley/brew.cgi/widgets/bp0.html
You can download the page and use it without going
online, and... It works in metric, too!
On the same page, you'll find a list of beer styles with
carbonation level guidelines and a chart giving a
breakdown of the priming rates for various ingredients.
***
Jack S. writes:
>I, for one, tested and reported results from mashing, boiling and
>fermenting in kettles with EASYMASHERS installed that had never
>had any treatment whatsoever. The samples were sent to a lab
>along with control samples of the water that was used to brew
>the batch. Guess what?
And, of course, you tested using brand new EASYMASHERS as
well as used ones, right? Because, if the whole point was to
determine if lead gets leached into beer, you'd want to test virgin
brass - brass that hadn't already had all the surface lead leached
out of it...
Mark Riley
Sacramento, CA
The Beer Recipator - http://hbd.org/recipator
Mark's Brew Notes - http://hbd.org/~mriley *NEW*
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 07:40:49 -0500
From: Jim English <jimebob@mindspring.com>
Subject: Oversparging?
Greetings all.
Dittos on the kudos to Pat and Karl. Last week when the
server was down for a whole day!!!, was a bummer. I was
clicking here and there, willy nilly, drat! Like the
proverbial day without sunshine.
On to my question:
In my hubris I tried to emulate Mr. Maier and brew a
Shakespeare Stout knockoff lo these three weeks ago and had
an odd occurence I would like to bounce off y'all.
The recipe called for an OG of 1061. I figured my grain
bill using 70% efficiency, typical of my system, and
proceeded as per usual. Mashed 45 minutes @ 145F, them
raised it to 150-152F for 60 more minutes. I had plenty
of extra sparge water just in case I got lucky and my
efficiency turned out higher than usual and kept sparging
until my runnings dropped to SG 1010(temp. corrected,
natch).
I ended up with 9.5 gallons of runnings, which, when boiled
and knocked out yielded almost 8 gallons of 1044 wort.
In doing my numbers it appears I DID get 70% efficiency, 68%
actually (486potentialGU/330actualyieldGU), but in WAY too
much water.
I know I could have kept boiling longer to concentrate the
wort more and raise the SG, but my question (finally) is
"What the hell happened?" Why did it take 10 gallons of
water to extract the required amount of fermentables? Is
that the true test of efficiency of my system? Would my
mash temps being so low be enough to put me in that range
SG?
Thinkin' 'bout Al's Alt on Sunday
JRE
Duluth, Ga.
Not nearly as close to the center of the homebrewing
universe as the "other" Duluth.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 08:00:35 EST
From: Zurekbrau@aol.com
Subject: Thomas Caffery?
Hello
I would like to know if anybody has tasted a Thomas Caffery Irish Ale? A
friend tasted one when she was London and liked it. She could not describe it
to me. Maybe someone has an idea for a clone recipe.
Thank You
Rich Zurek
Carpentersville
North West of Chicago IL
Zurekbrau@aol.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 06:25:18 -0700
From: Ken Schwartz <kenbob@elp.rr.com>
Subject: Liquid Nottingham?
Herbert Bresler asks about availability of a liquid culture of
Nottingham yeast.
The whole point of the Danstar line is that it is DRY. Dry yeast offers
cost, storage, and pitching rate advantages (versus directly pitching a
single smack-pack let's say). If you want to use liquid cultures, it
pretty much defeats the purpose.
Mark Ohrstrom asks about other Danstar yeasts. They offer a couple
others, "Windsor" and "London", with different characters compared with
Nottingham. I've used both with good results. They offer more
fruitiness and less attenuation. See http://www.lallemand.com for lots
of good info.
- --
*****
Ken Schwartz
El Paso, TX
kenbob@elp.rr.com
http://home.elp.rr.com/brewbeer
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 05:50:55 -0800 (PST)
From: Mikey Beck <stilts121@yahoo.com>
Subject: re: pbbbbbbbbbbbbt
My neighbor Jay Speis wrote:
And you live outside of Bawlmer, hon? You have the fortune of being
associated with *2* cities that brew(ed) some of the worst beer on the
planet - I.C. Light and Natty Bo. Now I see why you brew your own.
====
Hey now! Don't you be knockin' I.C. Light! Well...wait. Yeah, IC
Light does suck. But just like the commercial says..."Hey, It's a
'Burgh thing".
Actually, didn't I hear that Pittsburgh Brewing does alot of the Natty
Bo brewing now?
cheers,
mikey.
BSSC/121
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 08:14:06 -0600
From: Nathan Kanous <nlkanous@pharmacy.wisc.edu>
Subject: Clear near beer
Richard,
I've toyed with the idea lately of a hydromel. Maybe 2 pounds of honey per
gallon of must with a sweet mead yeast. Use squeezed lemons to provide
some acidity and the lemon flavor. I've got a mead going right now that is
nothing but 10 pounds of honey topped off to 5 gallons with water and
Lalvin D47 yeast. It's not done fermenting, but is getting close. It's
pretty good, with a touch of sweetness left. I'm beginning to think that
some of these lower gravity meads (mine started at 1.074) have merit.
I think this may be the type of thing your wife might enjoy. I've got a
lemon / ginger / chamomile mead in the secondary right now that had 16
pounds of honey in 5 gallons. I may try a small batch with less honey and
a less attenuative yeast.
Anyhow, I wonder if this might work to fit your wifes desire. You could
easily make a small batch (1 gallon) to see how it works. That makes the
yeast a little expensive, but that beats ending up with 5 gallons of
something that wasn't what you expected.
nathan in Madison, WI
Nathan L. Kanous II, Pharm.D., BCPS
Clinical Assistant Professor
School of Pharmacy
University of Wisconsin - Madison
Office Phone (608) 263-1779
Pager (608) 265-7000 #2246 (digital)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 09:57:02 -0500
From: "Houseman, David L" <David.Houseman@unisys.com>
Subject: I am so dry... So dry I be
I wonder if the resurgence in favor of dry yeast is due to better
quality control by the producers in fast 6 or 7 years, or if we are
managing the use of the dry yeasts better? I to recently used
Nottingham for a Bitter and a Barleywine (the Bitter was used to produce
enough yeast for the Barleywine). But rather than pitch the dry yeast
directly I did make a 1 liter starter and that went into the Bitter
wort. In the last 6 years or so my processes have improved from my
early brewing experiences with dry yeast. So it's hard to factor out
the reasons for recent successes with dry yeast without a controlled
study. I seem to recall one in BT or Zymurgy some time ago. Perhaps
it's time for another as the interest in dry yeast may pick up due to
its convenience should these studies show that quality control and
contamination issues have improved.
Dave Houseman
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 10:02:40 -0500
From: "Nathaniel P. Lansing" <delbrew@compuserve.com>
Subject: Danstar yeast & wort ?s
Danstar has a few dry brewers yeasts available: Windsor-Sweeter, more
flocculant and fruity than Nottingham; London-midway between
Nottingham and Windsor for attenuation and fruitiness.
There may be one other, the tiny gray cells are failing me this AM.
On the question of how to pronounce "wort", my Ger/Eng dictionary
says "wurze (u-umlaut)-seasoning, (brewer's)flavoring, dressing;
wort." Wort in the Americanized pronounciation would most easily
said "wert"(Websters pronounciation), though probably more properly said
"voort" double o's like in boot. Though in all practical
applications I understand when people say "wart" "vert" "vart" "woort".
A wort by any other name would smell as sweet.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 09:41:38 -0700 (MST)
From: William Graham <weg@rmi.net>
Subject: Brass/Lead Fallout
All-
By asking the brass/lead question, I was by no means whatsoever
trying to impugn the brewing-related products that people here on the
digest sell! I am not trying to smear anybody!!! I apologize if people
think that is the case.
It just struck me as rather interesting that posters have always
seemed more worried about aluminum in their beer than lead. Up to to this
point, I have not heard a peep that "deleaded" (or not) brass is safe in
the long run. Frankly, I would have thought that since lead ingestion has
been proven to be a poison for humans, that someone would have tested
brass.
I feel I have asked a perfectly valid question. Others have
(rudely) thought not.
Bill
"...the only way to deal with bureaucrats is with stealth and sudden
violence." - Butros Butros-Ghali
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 08:39:25 -0800
From: John_E_Schnupp@amat.com
Subject: re: Al pots, was: Xmas draws near . . .
>How durable/cleanable are aluminum pots??
>I know it's a softer metal than SS, but will it pit with
>repeated boilings of a relatively low pH wort? Does it
>stain/retain gunk easily? The one I saw was sort of "brushed"
>looking. Who uses these things as boilers, MT's, HLT's??
I use a 60 qt for my boiler and a 32 qt for HLT. The 32 qt
used to be my boiler. They clean well using standard
scrub pads (I use Scotch brite but any non steel pads
should work). No noticeable staining. The bottom of the
pot can get a little discolored, but more from the burner
and stand than the heat (the wort is absorbed the heat).
Mine have minor pitting but it's more because of
galvanic effects of Al, Cu, brass and SS (these are
the metals that I use of various fittings). The worst
seems to be Cu to Al contact areas, like where I used to
tie a copper Chore Boy on the end of my drain tube. I
don't expect the pitting to get thru the pot anytime soon
and it will probably last my entire brew career. I don't
think you're as likely to see the problem in the HLT
as that usually contains water only.
I think Al is a great metal. It is easily workable,
cheaper than SS. Just be careful with caustic cleaners.
I've never had to use more than a scrub pad.
John Schnupp, N3CNL
Colchester, VT
95 XLH 1200
Jay Spies
Wishful Thinking Basement Brewery
Baltimore, MD
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 17:06:36 GMT
From: marnold@ez-net.com (Matthew Arnold)
Subject: Nottingham uses
Hans E. Hansen wrote:
>My local store is out of any Wyeast appropriate for
>an Altbier (German Ale 1007, Kolsch 2565, or
>European Ale 1338). Are there any dry yeasts that
>could work?
Earlier this year I brewed an alt with Nottingham, just to see what it would be
like. The results were mixed.
Positives: very low esters, even though we had an unusually hot day (90F in
mid-May) and it fermented at ~72F.
Negatives: quite neutral, quite dry--even though I mashed at 156F. Very
different results from using #1338 which adds a substantial malty flavor and
isn't so dry.
The verdict: a good beer, but not what I was looking for. I'll stick to #1338
for alts.
Herbert Bresler wrote:
>Andrew's suggestion for using Nottingham yeast in a Barleywine sounds
>great. After having just gotten around to reading the Barleywines article
>in the last BT, Nottingham sounds like it fits the bill very well - high
>attenuation, neutral character, clean, alcohol tolerant, good floculator...
My alt experiment was worthwhile in that I used the primary Nottingham yeast
cake for my barleywine. My lag time was less than 1/2 hour! I had to add a
blow-off tube even though it was a five gallon batch in a seven gallon bucket.
It went from 1.095 to 1.028 in a few days (1.025 after several weeks in a
secondary).
The barleywine has been quite well received. I'm going to enter it in my club's
competition next May (when it will be a year old). I'm going to have a hard
time keeping it around that long. It has tasted great since I racked it to the
secondary!
If you're bored, the recipe may be found at my homepage
http://www.ez-net.com/~marnold under the All-Grain recipes section (although it
is a "partial" mash).
>I visited
>at least 10 different brewpubs, and I think at least half of them were
>using Nottingham yeast almost exclusively. Many different styles, all good
>to excellent beers, with only Nottingham!
A local brewery here uses Nottingham for all the beers, even an award-winning
Bock. I tried using it for a German Pils and found out two things 1) Nottingham
does a pretty good imitation of a lager yeast, 2) Making a good German Pils is
an exercise in balance which I failed. Good beer, but not much of a German Pils
('course, that's MY fault, not the yeasts).
Later,
Matt
- -----
Webmaster, Green Bay Rackers Homebrewers' Club
http://www.rackers.org info@rackers.org
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 08:23:15 -0800
From: John_E_Schnupp@amat.com
Subject: re: O2 Regulators
Andrew exclaims,
>I *didn't* realize that a CO2 tank would cost
>$70-$90 - Holy smokes!
Don't let the cost of the tank fool you. Most places swap tanks/bottles,
so
the next time you take in the empty it will cost only $7-$10, depending
upon your area and supplier.
I actually had my CO2 set-up before I had kegs. Once you get everything
set, you wonder why you didn't do it sooner.
John Schnupp, N3CNL
Colchester, VT
95 XLH 1200
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 13:02:08 -0500
From: Steve Milito <milito@radonc.musc.edu>
Subject: Sight Glass
Does anyone have experience fabricating a sight glass that is made with
real sight glass. I need a 20" sight glass, and can find nothing
afforadable. I am very concerned about using plastic tubing, which is
not rated for this temperature range. The glass is inexpensive, but what
fittings does one use to make it work?
Thanks,
SM
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 12:01:24 -0700 (MST)
From: William Graham <weg@rmi.net>
Subject: re: aluminum question
Adam said:
Hey, hearing about people using aluminum brewpots has got me wondering =
about the price of these things as well as specific sources to obtain =
them. All I read about is expensive stainless steel pots or converting =
used kegs to use as pots. Aluminum may be a nice alternative. =20
Adam-
Here is a synopsis of my journey looking for good (read: heavy
duty) aluminum stock pots - I browsed the net and found 2 companies
selling large capacity heavy duty al pots: Vollrath and Lincoln/Wearever.
Also, after talking to Bill at MovingBrews(N.A.,Y.Y.Y), Polarware has just
entered the game. I have not seen the Polarware products. I compared the
Vollraths and the WearEvers - The Vollraths are 1 gauge vs. WearEver at 2
gauge (.281" vs. .250", respectively). Also, the Vollraths are nearly HALF
the price of the WearEvers. Let's see, thicker, much cheaper, I guess I'll
flip a coin...and the Vollraths win!
BTW - Heavy duty al pots are NOT cheaper than ss. The prices of
the WearEvers are absolutely breathtaking, and the Vollraths are not
cheap. Standard duty al is quite a bit cheaper, but not inexpensive. Try
auctions at restaurants going out of business. I've had no luck at flea
markets and garage sales, but you never know.
Probably the only way you can actually purchase the things new is
through a restaurant supply distributor (what I did).
Let me know if you want more specific information.
Bill
within smelling distance of Coors in Golden, CO
"...the only way to deal with bureaucrats is with stealth and sudden
violence." - Butros Butros-Ghali
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 14:27:41 -0500
From: Herbert Bresler <bresler.7@osu.edu>
Subject: Aluminum pots (Xmas draws near)
Jay Spies wants a Santa to bring him a new big brew pot. But he's
concerned about aluminum and wants to hear from someone who owns one.
Jay,
I've been using an aluminum pot for a HLT and boiling kettle for a few
years now. It's great. Conducts the heat well, is lightweight, and cleans
up with a soapy sponge. I have noticed a little bit of pitting if I get
lazy and leave the last of the wort (with hops and trub) overnight before
cleaning. So now I at least rinse the pot before I set it aside. I have
never noticed any detrimental effect on my beers (an neither have the
judges when I've entered brews). All in all, I'm a happy customer.
Aluminum is a lot less expensive than stainless, and the light weight is a
real back saver.
Even though I've considered it, I have not actually tried to modify my
aluminum pot in any way. If you want to modify your pot to accomodate a
spigot or other accessory, I have seen where others have done this. You
might start by reading the archived post by John Schnupp. He provided some
details in HBD#2750 (Subject: Re: Kettle outflow without welding). There
are probably other good posts on this subjet in the HBD archive as well.
AlK also has a detailed description of a weld-free bulkhead fitting on his
web site. There are others.
Good luck and good brewing, hon,
Herb
(formerly of Waverly in Balmer, Merlin)
now in Bexley (Columbus), Ohio
340 miles west of the Wishful Thinking Basement Brewery
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 15:47:06 -0500
From: Herbert Bresler <bresler.7@osu.edu>
Subject: thermometer calibration
Rick Pauly's recent post about calibrating thermometers reminded me that
I've been meaning to write about this issue for a while now, so I'm finally
getting around to it. The post is a bit lengthy, so for those who have no
interest in a primer on thermometers, now is the time to PgDn.
Rick wrote:
>I was worried about the accuracy of my thermometers and came up
>with what I think is a good solution. We have a people
>thermometer that I assume has got to be pretty accurate around
>98.6F So I got a sink full of water at about 98F and tested all
>my thermometers against it.
>Can I stop worrying now????
Rick, you are on the right track. Proper calibration of a thermometer
indeed should be based on a reliable source for calibration. This is why
most people suggest using and ice bath to calibrate at 0C/32F, or a boiling
water bath to calibrate at 100C/212F. We all know the melting point and
boiling point of water, so we use them as benchmarks to calibrate our
thermometers. So far so good, but by using this method we are calibrating
our thermometers at temperatures that are far away from where we need them
to be accurate. Thermometers are not perfect. How many of you have
adjusted the calibration of your bimetal brewing thermometers so that an
ice bath reads a perfect 0C/32F, only to find that it doesn't read exactly
100C/212F in boiling water (even accounting for differences in altitude)?
I would bet that this is a common event. Thermometers should be calibrated
against a reliable standard IN THE RANGE OF USE FOR THE PURPOSE INTENDED
(sorry to shout, I just needed to add emphasis). So to calibrate your
brewing thermometer you should calibrate against a standard that you know
is accurate at mashing/sparging temperatures, say in the range of 95F/35C
to 170F/77C. So Rick is right on track when he chose a "people
thermometer" to calibrate his brewing thermometer. Sure is a lot closer to
mash temps than ice!
There is a problem in using a "people thermometer," however. Most clinical
thermometers are made to record the highest temperature and stay there
(this is why you have to "shake them down" to get the mercury back into the
bulb). So if you try to calibrate with a "people thermometer" in 98F
water, and the water cools while it's sitting there, the water may actually
be cooler than 98F by the time you set the calibration on your brewing
thermometer (even though the "people thermometer" says it's still 98F). So
all your temps will actually be lower than what your newly calibrated
brewing thermometer says. Could be a problem for mashing.
The proper way to calibrate a thermometer is to start with a standard
reference. These are called "NIST traceable" thermometers. NIST is the
National Institute of Standards and Technology, formerly the National
Bureau of Standards. You can buy NIST traceable thermometers from
scientific supply catalogs for a few dollars more than a regular lab
thermometer (don't get "Primary Reference Standards" unless you want to
spend $200+ for a thermometer). You don't use the NIST traceable
thermometer in your mash, you only use it to calibrate your other
thermometers. To ensure accuracy, you should calibrate all your bimetal
thermometers periodically (every few months or after each time it's dropped
on the floor, whichever comes first). For a liquid thermometer, once you
have calibrated it, you're done calibrating it forever (unless it becomes
damaged). You simply note how far off it is from the NIST traceable and
use that to correct the reading. In this way, all your thermometers become
"NIST traceable;" you connect them to the NIST traceable standard yourself.
You should use a NIST traceable thermometer that just covers the
temperatures of interest. The narrower the range of the thermometer, the
more accurate your readings. This is the rule for liquid-filled
thermometers (and for thermometers in general). Usually thermometers are
accurate to within +/- one calibration mark. So, if the scale is marked
every tenth of a degree, the actual temperature is within a tenth of a
degree of the reading - if the calibration is marked every 2 degrees, than
your actual temp is within 2 degrees of the reading.
Be sure to get a partial immersion thermometer (not a total immersion).
Partial immersion thermometers are meant to give the proper reading when
they are immersed to a specific depth, usually 100mm (there's a line there
to tell you proper immersion depth). This is what you want to do when you
calibrate your brewing thermometers. If you use a total immersion
thermometer that is only partially immersed, you will get inaccurate
readings. (I know this should be obvious, but) be sure to allow the
temperature reading on any thermometer to stabilize.
Bimetal thermometers are notoriously inaccurate right out of the box. I
don't think I've ever had one that didn't need adjusting. I've also had
them go bad on me, that is, become un-calibratable (if that's a word).
Periodic checking is the best way to guarantee accuracy.
If you don't want to rely on your bimetal thermometer for accuracy, you can
use it to get close to your desired temperature and then check the temp
with a more accurate liquid-filled thermometer to know that you have hit
your target. Again, I don't recommend using your NIST traceable for this;
use one you calibrated.
A suggestion: Since you only need to take the NIST traceable out of its
secure home every few months, it seems to me to be a good thing for a
homebrew club to buy and loan to its members. Just a thought for those of
you in active clubs.
Sorry to be so long-winded about all this, but I hope this info is useful
for some of you. I've learned a lot from this forum, and I hope I can give
back a little.
Good luck and good (accurate) brewing,
Herb
Bexley (Columbus), Ohio
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 15:35:44 -0500
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner@umich.edu>
Subject: Re: aluminum question
> Adam Holmes <aaholmes@lamar.ColoState.EDU> asked:
>Hey, hearing about people using aluminum brewpots has got me wondering =
>about the price of these things as well as specific sources to obtain =
>them. All I read about is expensive stainless steel pots or converting =
>used kegs to use as pots. Aluminum may be a nice alternative. =20
I paid ~$78 each for three 10 gallon 5mm thick aluminum Korean stock pots
with lids from a restaurant supplier. I forget the brand, but they have a
"JR" in a crown stamped on the bottom and lid (or maybe they were custom
monogrammed). This was maybe three years ago. I suspect that any
restaurant supplier could get one, especially in a big city. It helps to
be in the food business to get a good price, but bargain.
Jeff
-=-=-=-=-
Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan c/o nerenner@umich.edu
"One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 98 15:20:49 CST
From: jwilkins@wss.dsccc.com (John Wilkinson)
Subject: Kettles
Jay Spies asked about using aluminum kettles and mentioned a 20 gallon aluminum
stock pot costing US$140. I didn't think a legal converted Sanke from SABCO or
others cost any more than that. Granted it is only 15.5 gallons but very
durable. Of course, as has been pointed out before, the heat transfer in
aluminum is much better than in SS. I would still look into the converted
kegs. I have SABCO units and like them. I don't use caustics so I guess
aluminum would do as well except for perhaps being more prone to denting.
The converted kegs I use have thermometers and drains fitted which would have
to be added to the aluminum pot (if you wanted them).
John Wilkinson - Grapevine, Texas - jwilkins@wss.dsccc.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 16:22:41 -0500
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner@umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Alt decoction
Troy Hager <thager@bsd.k12.ca.us
>I too have been rereading all the great posts about alt brewing and am
>getting ready to brew one soon. I have decided to do a single decoction and
>use 100% Weyermanns Dark Munich malt.
<snip>
That will be too dark by a good bit. Alts are dark copper to light brown
(excepting Sticke). Dornbusch's book (despite its shortcomings pointed out
here) gives only one all-Munich recipe - one that uses an unusually light
Munich at 6.5L. I'm not sure how dark Weyermann's dark Munich is, but I
think it's at least double that. Durst's is16L. I used 100% Durst dark
Munich for a Dunkel and it is a deep brown (and very good). Decoction will
make it even darker.
I'd suggest regular Munich (~8L) and some Vienna (~3.5L) or Pils (~1.4L),
but I hasten to admit that I've had only one authentic Alt (swingtop hand
carried from D'dorf). Save the dark Munich for Dunkels or Bocks.
Jeff
-=-=-=-=-
Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan c/o nerenner@umich.edu
"One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 15:28:19 -0600
From: Paul Niebergall <pnieb@burnsmcd.com>
Subject: Darcy' Law Rules
I am sorry if I was the one who started down the path of looking at
*micro-velocities* of wort traveling through a grain bed. However that
tangent path aside, Darcy*s law is the law that describes the flow of wort
through a grain bed. It*s as simple as that. The fact is that Darcy*s
law was developed specifically to describe flow through a porous media,
WITHOUT HAVING TO LOOK AT MICRO EFFECTS. The law is used to predict
volumetric flow rate (Q) based on three terms:
Q = KiA
Q = Volumetric flow rate
i = Hydraulic Gradient
A = Cross-sectional area of flow
K = Coefficient of hydraulic conductivity
Flow rate (Q), gradient (i), and area (A) can be measured directly. The
third term (K) can*t really be measured directly, but isn*t to hard to
come up with. Hydraulic gradient (i) in a lauter tun can be measured with
a tape measure. i = dh/dl with dh being the difference in head (the
vertical distance from the surface of the sparge water level to the lauter
outlet) and dl being the distance of flow (grain bed thickness). Usually
dh will be equal to or slightly greater that dl because the level of the
sparge water is usually at or slightly above the top of the grain bed in
most sparge set-ups. Anyway, both of these values can be easily measured
*in the field*.
The cross-sectional area of flow (A)is easy enough to determine with a
tape measure and a calculator.
The tough value to determine is K, the coefficient of hydraulic
conductivity of you grain bed and lauter set up. Some purists may
insist that in this case, K is not a true coefficient of hydraulic
conductivity because we are measuring the effects of false bottoms,
valves, etc. in additiona to that of the grain bed. So lets call it
*system permeability* for lack of a better term.
This is what makes Darcy*s law so appropriate to apply: if you know Q, i,
and A, you can determine K. All you have to do is measure Q with a
graduated measuring cup and a stop watch and then divide that number by i
and A. Remember to use consistent units.
So with a tape measure and a little math, it is easy to determine K for
your lauter set-up. Once you have a value of K determined for your
system, you can use it to predict the flow rate for various grain bed
depths and sparge water depths.
The only valid point Mr. Murman makes in his musings (provided below for
clarity), is that the valve does have some effect on the flow. However,
that doesn*t matter because we are determining our K values for the entire
sparge set-up (including grain, false bottom, outlet screens, valves,
etc.).
>Folks keep bringing up Darcy's Law and how it relates to lauter design.
>IMO, it's irrelevant to the problem.
Your opinion is wrong. Darcy*s law is completely relevant. And that is
not my opinion, it is a fact. You may not NEED to apply Darcy*s law
because you do not care about *predicting* the flow rate through your
system when you can control the flow rate with a valve. But none the
less, it is completely applicable to analyzing the flow rate through a
lauter system.
>What the micro-flow (and diffusion, etc.) between each grain particle
>looks like, while it may be interesting, is not significant for predicting
>how the macro-flow of sparge liquer through a lauter tun will look.
I completely agree with the above statement (except for the part about
this being interesting ;). By applying Darcy*s law you do not need to
know anything about what *micro-flow (and diffusion, etc.) between each
grain particle looks like*.
>We do know exactly the downward mean velocity through the lauter >tun,
because we control it with our outlet valve. There isn't a >*discharge
coefficient" involved in the macro-flow - I can raise the >mean velocity
through the grainbed simply by opening my valve.
As I have indicated above, Darcy*s law is a macro law by definition. You
do not need to measure (or know) anything about micro-velocities to apply
Darcy*s law to your sparge set up. You can derive micro-velocities from
the equation if you want to, but that isn*t really what it is intended
for.
>I think it's possible to achieve an exit velocity that's pretty darn
close to >the maximum predicted by ignoring the grain completely.
To determine the *maximum predicted exit velocity* you will need to apply
Darcy*s law and determine K for your system. In the end you may find out
that the restrictive effects of the valve are much greater than any head
losses resulting from the wort flowing though the grain bed, but Darcy's
law still applies.
Brew on,
Paul Niebergall
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 17:39:42 -0500 (EST)
From: pbabcock <pbabcock@mail.oeonline.com>
Subject: Dry, dry, dry!
Greetings, Beerlings! Take me to your lager...
Dave Houseman comments on the potential of better yeast management
resulting in the recent "favor" dry yeast seems to be falling into. Just
as a data point, I treated this yeast (in Edison - forgive the earlier
typo...) no different than I've ever done before. I used the SUpreme Lazy
Brewer Method: pitched from sachet to wort, directly with no ceremony,
pomp or circumstuff.
In at least my case, it's the yeast.
See ya!
Pat Babcock in SE Michigan pbabcock@oeonline.com
Home Brew Digest Janitor janitor@hbd.org
HBD Web Site http://hbd.org
The Home Brew Page http://oeonline.com/~pbabcock/brew.html
"Just a cyber-shadow of his former brewing self..."
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 16:45:08 -0500
From: Dan Listermann <72723.1707@compuserve.com>
Subject: Rye Brewing - Rye not?
I have brewed three 100% malted rye beers. I have found that the
addition
of 15% rice hulls allows the mash to proceed just as though it were
barley
malt. It worked for a 100% wheat malt brew too.
Dan Listermann
dan@listermann.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 17:29:07 EST
From: NEWTRADBC@aol.com
Subject: Humidity remover for freezers ... kitty litter!?
A few posters have commented on 'a brown dirt-like substance' in canvas bags.
While I'm not positive, this sounds remarkably like clay, as in kitty litter.
The cheap kind (the green stuff has alfalfa in it). It's so cheap it's
probably not worth baking in the oven to dry out. Even if its not as
effective since its in chunks instead of dust, it should be a decent
dessicant.
How about some of the chest freezer folks give it a test and let us know the
results. Whoever had the cat fall in their fermenting beer once, please keep
the lid on your freezer!!
Also, I believe the chemical in damp rid is calcium chloride (one type of ice
melt) or maybe potassium chloride (sometimes available for water softeners),
but I'm not sure I can remember (used to have a boat and stopped buying the
damp rid salt once I learned what it was and used the much cheaper
alternative). More scientific testing is encouraged!
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 17:43:01 -0500
From: Mark Tumarkin <mark_t@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Nottingham in a Weizen?
on the Nottingham thread, Herbert Bresler writes:
"I have never used this yeast, but have been interested in it ever since
I
took a brewpub tour in San Diego and nearby environs last March. I
visited
at least 10 different brewpubs, and I think at least half of them were
using Nottingham yeast almost exclusively. Many different styles, all
good
to excellent beers, with only Nottingham! One brewer even brewed his
Hefe-Weizen with it and it was fabulous. He managed to get the esters
just
right by controlling fermentation temps, mash schedule and grain
selection."
With regard to using Nottingham in the Hefe-Weizen - one of the
qualities that has been mentioned here lately is that Nottingham is a
very clean fermenting yeast. Someone likened it to a dry version of1056.
How does this fit with a weizen? Most of the flavors characteristic of a
hefe-weizen are directly attributable to the yeast (although you've
gotta have that wheat!). Herbert mentions controlling fermentation temps
- cooler temps are going to produce a cleaner fermentation, warmer temps
would be likely to produce more esters but I would expect a fruity
character - not the cloves, bananas and bubblegum we look for in a
hefe-weizen. It is hard enough to get a good balance of these flavors
using Wheinstephen yeast. Nottingham may be a great choice for many
diverse styles, but I have a little trouble imagining using it in a
weizen.
On another subject, I'd also like to chime in with thanks to Karl and
Pat for the great job they do. They deserve a raise ... we should at
least double what they get now. Seriously though, think about how you
felt a few weeks ago when you didn't receive your HBD fix, I know it
bummed my morning. Maybe we can all give back a little by contributing
some money this holiday season. Think of it as a gift subscription - to
yourself. The janitors haven't asked for funds but I don't know of any
computer that can't be upgraded, certainly not any computer geek who
wouldn't love more toys on his system. What do you say Karl? Pat? would
this be a good thing?
Mark Tumarkin
Gainesville, FL
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 18:39:28 -0500
From: Steve <steves@ro.com>
Subject: Gott Cooler 1st Time Preparation
In HBD #2878 Jeff Renner remarked about using a cooler for sparge water,
which reminded me of a question I haven't asked yet regarding using the
Gott or Igloo
coolers in mash/lauter/sparge applications: Does anyone prepare the inside
surface by washing, sanitizing, or throwing voodoo chemical treatments at
it? First time only? Each and every brew session?
Steve Stripling
Huntsville, AL
>
>I've recently begun to use a 10 gallon Igloo for the sparge water, so I
>really don't need the third kettle. Folks have posted here in the past
>that the Igloo is safe for hot liquids, and I've had no warping, but the
>smell of the hot container after I'm done leaves me with some health
>concerns. I do wonder what kind of plasticizers or other nasties are being
>leached into my sparge water. It has no taste, but that's not infallible.
>
>Jeff
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 19:46:35 EST
From: RMerid7682@aol.com
Subject: more on CO2
Andrew, before you buy a CO2 cylinder, talk to the people at the welding
supply shop again. Some shops don't fill on premises. Especially chain type
operations. They may have one shop that fills for all of their stores. This
means that you have to bring your tank in, drop it off, and wait for them to
get it back in. They may or may not have the five pound cylinders always on
hand that you can just swap your empty for a full one. But they usually have
the larger size on hand for the people that use them in MIG welding. Also, the
shop I use considers five pounders an oddball size and charge the same price
to fill a five pound or larger cylinder. The fives are a handy size to take to
a party. But, if you can save the difference in the price between a five pound
or larger size cylinder in a half dozen or so refills, it might make sense to
go with the larger size. Also, there may be advantages to leasing instead of
buying a cylinder. Inspection and hydrostat test at about $50 or so every 5
years. If you buy, you're responsible for the test. If you lease, they take
care of it. Another source to check is fire extinguisher places. A fire
extinguisher is basically a gas cylinder with a different type valve on it.
Some fire extinguisher companies will replace the valve and set you up with a
CO2 tank much more reasonably than a welding supply shop. Might be an odd size
like 7 pound or something and you would have to get it refilled where you got
it. Check the Mom and Pop type fire extinguisher companies and not the chain
type operations
Roger Meridith
Decatur IL
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 20:29:20 EST
From: Redholling@aol.com
Subject: Cider! Help!
Hi Boys and Girls,
Last weekend I put together what looked like a great cider recipe using 4
gallons of 100% Cider (it was pasteurized) and 4 lbs of C&H Pure Cane Dark
Brown Sugar. I boiled 1 and 1/2 gallons of water, dissolved the brown sugar
and cooled in ice bath. I tried starting my one pack of dry wine yeast with
one pint of boiled water (cooled to 105deg) and 2T corn sugar, according to
the recipe. When I pitched I let it sit for 15 mins, then shook the carboy
real good. After 4 days of no airlock action (and the gravity remaining at
1.052), I rehydrated another pack of wine yeast (this time following the
directions on the pack) and pitched it. Twice in the last day I've seen a
single bubble escape, but nothing spectacular. I believe I've done a good job
sanitizing my equipment. Will pasteurized cider not work (I've seen other
recipes use it, but say fermentation takes longer). Is the brown sugar
fermentable? Can I fix this batch. I DON'T WANT TO THROW IT OUT! Any help
(private e-mail ok) would be greatly appreciated.
Nootch!
Red
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 21:53:23 EST
From: ThomasM923@aol.com
Subject: SHMS questions
I would like to start planning a SHMS type brewing system and I am looking for
some info to help me to get started. First, I was wondering if anyone had ever
measured the temperature of the water after it exits the mash tun. Of course
this data would be useless without knowing the temp at the intake and the
length and diameter of the copper tubing, so I need that info also. If you can
provide the rate of flow, that would be useful also.
Second, I was wondering if it would be better to have a shorter length of 1/2"
tubing or a longer length of 3/8" tubing for the heat exchanger. There is a
greater surface area ounce per ounce if 3/8" tubing is used.
Thomas Murray
Maplewood, NJ
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 21:21:29 -0600
From: Louis Bonham <lkbonham@phoenix.net>
Subject: MCAB News
Preparations are under way for the first MCAB competition, which will be held
February 12-13 in Houston, Texas at the Saint Arnold Brewery. All eleven MCAB
Qualifying Events have now been held, and some of the best amateur brewers in
North America will be competing in this invitational event. Along with the
competition, in which the qualifying beers will be judged in small flights by
panels of some of the finest judges in the BJCP, the MCAB will feature
technical presentations by brewing luminaries George Fix, Paul Farnsworth, and
Dave Miller, as well as a sensory evaluation workshop hosted by George De Piro.
There will also be pub crawls, an awards party, and the chance to compare notes
with some of the best amateur brewers around. Details of the MCAB competition,
including hotel information, will be available shortly on the MCAB website,
http://hbd.org/mcab. The will be no charge to attend the MCAB, although certain
events like pub crawls may entail a small cover charge.
Further, the MCAB Steering Committee is pleased to announce some of the details
for the second MCAB. Host club for MCAB II will be the St. Louis Brews. The
first four Qualifying Events for MCAB II (scheduled to take place in
February-March 1999) are:
Kansas City Biermeisters Competition
Boston Homebrew Competition
Reggale and Dredhop (Boulder, Colorado)
World Cup of Beer (California)
The remaining Qualifying Events and the list of Qualifying Styles for MCAB II
will be announced shortly.
For further information about the MCAB, please contact Louis K. Bonham at
lkbonham@phoenix.net or by telephone (713.222.9944).
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 21:38:51 -0600
From: "Steinkamps" <EnW_Steinkamp@email.msn.com>
Subject: Pellets
Is there a way to brew with hop pellets without everything getting clogged?
Ed Steinkamp
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #2880, 11/20/98
*************************************
-------
