Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2967
HOMEBREW Digest #2967 Tue 02 March 1999
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:
pH meters (ThomasM923)
re:MCAB Recipies (1st place altbier) (Charley Burns)
vacuum evapoation Q&A ("S. Wesley")
A proposal for measuring alcohol content in beer. ("S. Wesley")
Re: Cheap Ethanol test (Tim Anderson)
Ah, Belgium: still searching (Tim Anderson)
Teflon Washers (Bill Graham)
Denver Area Brewpubs (Cdma77)
Re: innoculation loop lifespan ("rrscott")
Alcohol Determination Summary (AJ)
Boston Homebrew Competition Results (Ken Jucks)
Re: Rice Hulls: when to add ? (Steve Jackson)
Reminder for the Fourth Annual South Shore Brewoff ("Reed,Randy")
RE: Enamel Pot repair? (Rod Schaffter)
Re: Enamel Pot repair? (Jeff Renner)
Re: 1st time mashing ("Jim Busch")
A Continuous Specific Gravity Monitor ("Peter J. Calinski")
New Judges ("Poirier, Bob")
Hop Shampoo (Mark_Ohrstrom/Humphrey_Products)
10% sucrose / loop lifetime (David Whitman)
Another MCAB Recipe (Jim Layton)
Re: 10% Sucrose (Michael A. Owings)
Mash paddle? ("Jeff Beinhaur")
Lauter Tuns ("Haszard, MAJ Mac")
Recipe amounts (Alan Monaghan)
Hemacytometer/Yeast microphotographs (Michael A. Owings)
College Brewing (PRS) - CPC" <PRS@NA2.US.ML.COM>
Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy!
This space free to a good competition...
Send articles for __publication_only__ to post@hbd.org
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!
Contact brewery@hbd.org for information regarding the "Cat's Meow"
Back issues are available via:
HTML from...
http://hbd.org
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
COPYRIGHT for the Digest as a collection is currently held by hbd.org
(Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen). Digests in their entirity CANNOT be
reprinted/reproduced without this entire header section unless
EXPRESS written permission has been obtained from hbd.org. Digests
CANNOT be reprinted or reproduced in any format for redistribution
unless said redistribution is at absolutely NO COST to the consumer.
COPYRIGHT for individual posts within each Digest is held by the
author. Articles cannot be extracted from the Digest and
reprinted/reproduced without the EXPRESS written permission of the
author. The author and HBD must be attributed as author and source in
any such reprint/reproduction. (Note: QUOTING of items originally
appearing in the Digest in a subsequent Digest is exempt from the
above. Home brew clubs NOT associated with organizations having a
commercial interest in beer or brewing may republish articles in their
newsletters and/or websites provided that the author and HBD are
attributed. ASKING first is still a great courtesy...)
JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 11:41:18 EST
From: ThomasM923@aol.com
Subject: pH meters
I bought a meter a couple of years ago, and I like it very much. It sure saves
a lot of time. I didn't spend a lot of money on it and it's been trouble-free
up to this point. It is called the pH Pen and it is manufactured by Hanna
Instruments. It is small, waterproof, and temperature compensated. It has an
easy to read LCD display, and can be easily calibrated at one or two points
(pH 7 or pH 4 and pH 7). It has a resolution of 0.1 pH and an accuracy of + or
- 0.1 pH. I paid $52 plus shipping for it. I bought it from PCI Scientific,
located in Fairfield, NJ. The phone # is: (800)432-4136 or (201)244-9002. The
catalog # for this meter is #124270. They also sell the pH buffer capsules for
making your own pH 7 and pH 4 calibration solutions, at 10 for $6.50 (you must
be able to accurately measure 100 ml of distilled water to use these capsules,
otherwise you can purchase premixed solution for a bit more money). There is
another meter available from PCI that is only $31, however it is less accurate
(better than 0.2 pH-cat. #124310). I have had no experience with this meter.
This supplier also sells 1 liter bottles of 10% phosphoric acid solution for
about $12.
Oh, I am not affiliated yetta,yetta,yetta...only a satisfied customer.
Thomas Murray
Maplewood, NJ
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 10:42:17 -0800 (PST)
From: cburns@jps.net (Charley Burns)
Subject: re:MCAB Recipies (1st place altbier)
MCAB Dusseldorf Altbier - First Place Recipe
Starting Gravity : 1.056
Ending Gravity : 1.017
Volume: 11 Gallons
Malt
0.25 lb. Black Patent=20
1.00 lb. Crystal 60L -Hugh Baird=20
15.00 lb. DWC Munich=20
5.00 lb. Halcyon Pale Ale=20
1.00 lb. Malted Wheat=20
Hops (all whole):
2.00 oz. Tettnanger 4.4% 60 min
2.00 oz. Hallatauer-Northern Brewer 9.4% 60 min
1.00 oz. Tettnanger 4.4% 30 min
Notes:
Single Infusion Mash Temperature: 156F
Wyeast 2565 (kolsch) 1 quart starter
3.5 months lager @ 33F
Charley
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 14:28:33 -0500
From: "S. Wesley" <WESLEY@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
Subject: vacuum evapoation Q&A
Some general comments about producing non alcoholic beer by
vacuum evaporation.
From: Simon A. Wesley
Q1) Can NA beer be produced by vacuum evaporation at home?
Based on the results of a series of tests I have done on evaporating
alcohol from solutions of ethanol and water and from beer I feel
fairly confident in saying that NA beer can be produced at home with a
moderate (about $200) investment in equipment. I have found that
evaporating 30% of the volume of a solution of ethanol and water
results in a solution with a density equal to that of water indicating
that all alcohol was evaporated. A 30% evaporation of a bottle of
Rolling Rock Pale ale at 32C resulted in an increase in beer density
consistant with removal of the published alcohol content of the beer.
See my post on "A proposed technique for determining alcohol content
in beer" for more details.
Q2) What impact does evaporation have on hop flavor and aroma?
As many people have predicted my results to date tend to indicate that
most if not all hop aroma will be lost. I did an 8.5 % evaporation of
a bottle of Stone Coast 420 IPA which has a very pronounced hop aroma.
After evaporating the hop aroma was gone and according to the density
of the beer the alcohol content was reduced by roughly 2%. In
addition the percieved bitterness of the beer was more pronounced
after evaporation. This may have been caused in part by the reduction
in alcohol content since alcohol does add to the perceived sweetness
of beer. It is possible that the reduction in hop aroma is not caused
so much by the evaporation process as by the degassing process. The
beers I was working with were fully carbonated to begin with and had
to undergo substantial degassing before they would start to boil.
This would be less of an issue if one was starting with uncarbonated
homebrew. In addition, it may be possible to improve the hop
character of the beer through addition of hop oil, or through dry
hopping.
Q3) Is the flavor of the beer damaged in other ways?
It is hard for me to answer this question without doing side by side
comparisons of finished beers served at appropriate temperature and
carbonated to the same level. Based on tastes of the samples of beer
after they were evaporated and reconstituted (absolutely dead flat and
at 20C) it appears that the process did not introduce any obvious
defects to the beer flavor. I did a 10% evaporation on five bottles
of Dundee's Honey Brown Ale and then chilled and force carbonated the
beer. The resulting beer was very similar in flavor to the original
beer and had no obvious defects. As I have mentioned earlier an anti
foaming agent made of precipitated silica was added to the beer to
reduce foaming during degassing. This resulted in a slight haze and a
complete destruction of the head. The good news is that this compound
is supposed to settle out over time and hopefully the clarity and head
will be restored.
Q4) Why bother doing this instead of just buying commercially
availible NA beers?
The simple answer is: choice. There are a very limited number of NA
beers availible with a very limited stylistic range. To my knowledge
there are no NA Stouts, for example. It seems that this method will be
particularly well suited to producing NA versions of beer styles such
as Mild and Brown ales which do not have agressive hop profiles to
start with.
Q5) What about evaporating by boiling without vacuum?
I have not tried this, but based on what I have read this does tend to
damage the flavor of the beer and can result in oxadization. I would
like to point out, in particular, that based on what I have observed
it is extremely unlikely that simply heating beer above the boiling
temperature for alcohol at atmospheric pressure will have any
substantial impact on the alcohol content. I expect that a
significant fraction of the volume (more than 20%) needs to be
evaporated in order to substantially reduce the alcohol content of the
beer. This can really only be accomplished by boiling.
Q6) Does increasing the volume improve the efficiency as your
Quasi-static model predicted?
I tried evaporating 10% of a 3 litre sample of 5% ABV and found
that the alcohol content was reduced by about 2.5% - the same
amount that was removed from the 400 ml samples I studied
initially. I did learn another useful thing from this test which is
that the solutions really don't start boiling until they reach 32C.
Any bubbling observed below this temperature was simply degassing.
Q7) What else needs to be done to demonstrate the validity of this
technique for home use?
The next step is to try to remove alcohol from
a 3 gallon sample of homebrew. This will enable me to ascertain
whether or not the technique is efficient and effective for larger
volumes and also to get a better idea of the impact of the technique
on flavor since I will be able to do a side by side comparison with an
untreated 3 gallon sample from the same batch. At this point I need
to get a recirculating pump for the aspirator. My first attempt at
doing this was a dismal failure. I tried using a 1/12 Hp transfer
pump ($60) which can supposedly pump water at the necessary rate to
run the aspirator. This didn't work because the pump was not able to
supply the necessary pressure (30-40 psig.) I have found two pumps
which look like they will do the job. One is a 1/2 Hp sprinkler pump
($134) and the other is a 1/2 Hp jet pump for a well ($160.) Both of
these are really overkill for this job, so I hope to find something a
little less expensive that will still do the trick. Even at these
prices this is still the cheapest way I can see to produce a vacuum
which will be adequate for the job. (BTW the aspirator costs about
$12)
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 14:28:33 -0500
From: "S. Wesley" <WESLEY@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
Subject: A proposal for measuring alcohol content in beer.
A Proposed Method for Determining the Alcohol Content in Beer.
From: Simon A. Wesley
Alcohol has a density which is roughly 80 percent of the density of
water and consequently when it is present in a solution with water and
other materials it tends to reduce the density of the overall
solution. As long as the concentration of alcohol is low the density
of the solution if fairly linear with alcohol concentration. If all
the alcohol could be removed from a sample of beer the density would
increase more or less depending on the amount of alcohol which was
present originally and the presence of other solutes in the beer.
Since the relationship between density and alcohol concentration is
linear, the change in density per part of alcohol can be determined by
observing the reduction in density which occurs when a given amount of
alcohol is added to the beer. This result can then be used to
determine how much alcohol was removed by determining the final
density of the beer after removing all the alcohol.
I conducted a test in which I vacuum evaporated 30% (i.e.
removed 30 %) of the volume of a 5% ABV solution of ethanol
and water at 32 C. A measurement of the density of the resulting
solution indicated that all the alcohol had been removed. This was
indicated by the fact that the density of the solution after
evaporation was the same as the density of the distilled water that
was used to make up the solution in the first place. This leads me to
believe that all the alcohol could be removed from beer by a similar
procedure.
The Technique.
Begin by degassing about 1.5 l of beer. Using a 200 ml volumetric
flask measure the density of the beer. (Mass the flask empty, mass it
full, subtract, divide by 200 ml) Empty the flask. Add 2 ml of a
98% solution of pure ethanol in water to the flask using a volumetric
pipette and then top up with beer. Measure the density. Repeat adding
4ml, 6ml, 8ml, and 10 ml. Set up a sheet of graph paper with a
horizontal axis (alcohol) along the bottom and a vertical axis
(density) across the center of the page. To the right of the vertical
axis plot the density of each alcohol addition. Draw a best fit line
through the data points and extend it across the space to the left of
the vertical axis.
Vacuum evaporate 30% of the volume of the beer sample and
replace the portion of evaporated water. Measure the density of
the reconstituted sample and read the alcohol removed from the
left half of the graph. This should be the alcohol content of the
beer.
Validation
I performed this measurement using Rolling Rock "Pale Ale"
(Chosen because it was cheap, the alcohol content is known, and I
didn't feel guilty about destroying a six pack) I determined the
alcohol content of the beer to be 4.8 +/- .2 % ABV. (In the range of
4.6-5.0% ABV) According to the table of alcohol content of beer
listed in the library portion of the brewery web site the alcohol
content of this beer is 4.64 %. The actual value is within the range
indicated by my measurement.
While the tolerance on the measurement is fairly large, I feel that
with practice and some modifications this could be lowered to +/- .1
or .05%. Clearly this is not a high precision technique, but it has
an advantage over other methods in that it can be done without
expensive equipment.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 19:30:21 -0800 (PST)
From: Tim Anderson <timator@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Cheap Ethanol test
ALAN KEITH MEEKER Said this here stuff:
>>>
There are a number of assay methods available for determining the
ethanol content of a solution.
[snip]
For the homebrewer on a budget there may be a cheap
alternative:
[snip]
Close a 100-mililiter flask with a two hole stopper. Put about 30 mls
of solution in the flask. Insert a thermometer in one of the holes to
suspend the bulb of the thermometer above the liquid. Boil the
solution and measure the temperature of the vapor to within 0.1 deg C.
Subtract the temperature of the vapor from the temperature at which
water boils. To find the percentage of alcohol (by volume) multiply
the temperature difference in deg C by 1.78 and subtract 3.2 from the
resulting product. For example, a temperature difference of 6 degrees
indicates an alcoholic concentration of 7.48% (1.78 X 6 - 3.2)."
[sorry about all the snips]
<<<
If somebody (Jack?) would package this up, make sure it's calibrated
to within a couple tenths of a percent ABV, and sell it for a fair
price, I'd buy it. (Along with that "post@hbd.org" etched beer
glass.) My hydrometer has about 8 years worth of dust on it, and I'd
hate to disturb it.
tim
==
Please ignore the advertisement below. Thank you.
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 19:48:56 -0800 (PST)
From: Tim Anderson <timator@yahoo.com>
Subject: Ah, Belgium: still searching
I posted awhile back about the wonderful aroma of Delirium Tremens.
Several people pointed out that it's the yeast.
To my nose, none of the Wyeast Belgians smell anything like it. But I
thought I'd try to be creative. I brewed a fairly high gravity batch
with nothing particularly aromatic, so as not to interfere with
whatever the yeast might throw at me. I used Wyeast Strong Abbey (or
something like that, 1388?).
While it was fermenting, I cultured a bottle of DT. Once it was
stepped up to about a liter, it was acting pretty happy and had a
pleasant, yeasty aroma, but didn't smell a bit like what I was looking
(sniffing) for. Sigh. I guess they bottle with something else. I
added it in the secondary anyway, and it doesn't seem to have hurt
anything.
I insist on being able to brew a beer that smells like DT! It is my
right! Uh, any suggestions? Anyone? Anyone?
tim
==
Please ignore the advertisement below. Thank you.
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 23:09:32 -0500 (EST)
From: Bill Graham <weg@micro-net.net>
Subject: Teflon Washers
Greetings Maltophiles-
I'm in a bind. I'm ready to put together my new mash tun and
boiler and have all the pieces and have test fitted it all together.
Except.... I need teflon washers.
McMaster Carr sells 'tubes' and sheets of teflon for 100's or even
1000's of dollars. Stainless in Seattle sells some, but they are not the
size I need. Does anyone have any washers, scrap sheets or tubes of
teflon? I'm not looking for a freebie, I'll pay what you think it's worth.
I need 6 or so, ID about .83" (27/32?), with a reasonable OD
(1.25"?).
If you don't have any, do you know where I can find some? (I've
looked in every big-box hw store in the Denver area and I've spent hours
searching the net). Is there a cheaper and/or easier-to-obtain food-safe
alternative?
If you can help me, I'll be so overcome that I'll want to kiss you
(but I promise I won't).
Desparate in Denver
Bill
"...the only way to deal with bureaucrats is with stealth and sudden
violence." - Butros Butros-Ghali
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 23:59:46 EST
From: Cdma77@aol.com
Subject: Denver Area Brewpubs
Hi All,
I am going to bee in the Denver area on a project for work for 2-3 months. I
was wondering what are the good brew pubs/bars that serve good beer.
Thanks,
Al Key Holic
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 22:12:13 -0800
From: "rrscott" <rrscott@jps.net>
Subject: Re: innoculation loop lifespan
Scott Murman brought up innoculation loops, My question is there any
reason why a paper clip (straightened out and the tip rounded into a loop)
is not acceptable?
Thanks. Bob Scott
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 13:07:04 +0000
From: AJ <ajdel@mindspring.com>
Subject: Alcohol Determination Summary
Cory asks how alcohol is measured. There's been quite a bit of
discussion of this subject recently so perhaps it's time for a summarry.
An asterisk (*) indicates that the method has been discussed here in the
last few days. First, the official methods:
*ASBC Beer -2A/B
Distillation and gravimetry: 100 mL of beer is diluted to 150 mL and
distilled. 100 mL of distillate is collected and its specific gravity
measured. Alcohol content is obtained from tables or the polynomial fits
to the table data I published a couple of days ago.
ASBC Beer - 2C
Refractometry: A refractometer calibration curve is obtained for beers
of the type being brewed using one of the other methods. Once the curve
is in hand, the refractometer can be used to measure the alcohol content
of the beer directly
*ASBC Beer - 2D
Gas Chromatography: Obviously out of the question for homebrewers.
ASBC Beer - 2E
Tecator SCBA Beer Analyzer: The ethanol is catalytically oxidized and
the products analyzed(?). Also out of the question for homebrewers
*ASBC Beer - 2F
Enzymatic: Alcohol is enzymatically oxidized to acetaldehyde and then to
acetate by NAD+. The NADH produced is measured by UV absorbtion.
Other Methods:
*Ebulliometry: The difference in boiling point between the beer and pure
water is measured and the alcohol content obtained from tables. The
result is corrected for the true extract of the beer.
Oxidation to acetate: A distillation apparatus is set up and the alcohol
vapor bubbled through a potassium dichromate solution (strong oxidizer)
which oxidizes it to acetate. The amount of dicromate remaining is
determined by adding iodide which it oxidizes to iodine. The iodine is
assayed by thiosulfate titration (DeClerk, Vol II p 444).
Haliometry: An archaic but fascinating scheme in which the amount of
salt that a beer will dissolve is measured. Just as alcohol depresses
boiling point it reduces solubility. An measured amount of salt is added
to beer in a "haliometer". The amount that does not dissolve is read
from calibrations on the device and the amount of alcohol determined
from the reading.
Spiking: This is a new one which Simon Wesley has come up with and I'm
not going to say any more about it as I know he'll be posting on it in a
couple of days.
- --
A. J. deLange
Numquam in dubio, saepe in errore.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 08:09:48 -0500 (EST)
From: Ken Jucks <jucks@firs3.harvard.edu>
Subject: Boston Homebrew Competition Results
The Boston Homebrew Competition was held on Saturday the 27th of
Febrewary at the North East Brewing Company in Boston MA. We had
310 entries this year, many of them being very excellent beers!
In fact, some of the judges were complaining that there were so many
good beers that they had to leave behind some high scoring beers from
going on to the second round of judging! I saw many beers scoring
in the mid 30s that did not place. The judges stopped their complaining
when we gave them all a bottle of Affligem among the judge favors!
The qualifiers for the MCAB 2000 competition at our competition came
from all over the country!
The results are posted on the Boston Wort Processors' web page
at http://www.wort.org. Please surf there to obtain the results.
The only results given here are the Best of Show placements.
For those who entered, score sheets will be in the mail this coming
weekend.
Best of Show
1) David Cato, Bavarian Weizen, Houston TX, Foam Rangers
2) Mark Hogenmiller, Smoked Brown, Patuxent River MD, Merrimack Valley Brewers
3) Dan Marshall, Kolsch, Burlington VT, Green Mountain Mashers
Any questions can be directed to me via e-mail!!
Ken Jucks
Coordinator for the Boston Homebrew Competition
Boston Wort Processors
jucks@cfa.harvard.edu
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 05:51:20 -0800 (PST)
From: Steve Jackson <stvjackson@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Rice Hulls: when to add ?
In HBD #2966 (March 1, 1999), Darrell Leavitt wrote:
>>>>
I recently purchased some rice hulls, and as I understand, they may
help to
prevent a stuck sparge when mashing maize or rice. Well, the fellow
who
sold them to me suggested that I just sprinkle them into the "zapap"
when I
start to recirculate....but I have noticed that Tess and Mark
Szamatulski
(Clone Brews) suggest that they go into the mash. Is this because
they are
thinking we all have combination mash and lauter tuns, or does it
really
matter when the hulls go in?
<<<<
To me, it makes sense that they go in with the mash instead of just
being sprinkled on top before recirculation. The hulls are intended to
provide a better filter bed, and they're hardly going to do any
filtering if they're sitting on top of the mash.
My normal routine with rice hulls is the use about half of them (I buy
them 1# at a time) to line the bottom of my mash/lauter tun (the same
procedure would apply to a dedicated lauter tun). The remainder is
distributed more or less evenly throghout the mash. This seems to
provide a very good filter bed -- even the mash with 50 percent
unmalted wheat and 5-10 percent oats lautered without any difficulty
other than some extra babysitting of flow rate.
-Steve in Indianapolis
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 08:57:07 -0500
From: "Reed,Randy" <rreed@foxboro.com>
Subject: Reminder for the Fourth Annual South Shore Brewoff
This is a reminder that the Fourth Annual South Shore Brewoff will be
held on March 13th in Cranston, R.I. This BJCP sanctioned event will
feature a new award. The Brewmaster Award will recognize the
accomplishment of the home brewer who demonstrates a high
level of proficiency in brewing various styles of beer, rather than
rewarding a brewer for entering and winning with only one style.
The award will be given to the entrant who earns the most points for
first, second and third place ribbons in multiple categories. Award for Best
of Show will not be counted as input for this determination.
The South Shore Brew Club is looking for homebrew entries and judges.
Details can be found on our web page. Go to the Calendar, then click on
South Shore Brewoff for more details, entry forms, and judging/stewarding
Information.
Our web address is http://members.aol.com/brewclub
<http://members.aol.com/brewclub>
Entries are due on March 6th. Drop off points include most Boston area and
Rhode Island homebrew shops.
The competition offers judges a good day of comfortable, well organized
Evaluation. Thank you gifts will be given to all who work the event. Again,
we will enjoy some great cuisine.
The goal of the competition is to provide home brewers clear,
well written feedback on their entries. We work hard to get judging forms
and ribbons back in the hands of brewers on a timely basis.
Cheers,
Randy
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 09:19:34 -0500
From: Rod Schaffter <schaffte@delanet.com>
Subject: RE: Enamel Pot repair?
Donald Lake (whose return E-mail address doesn't work!) asks:
>I have a 8.25 gal enamel pot that chipped. I read somewhere that it
>shouldn't be used anymore becasuse of something or other.
Wirebrush the chipped area well, and apply some food grade silicone
caulk (read the fine print to see if it's food grade-I got some at Home
Depot). It works great for chips on Weber grills too!
Cheers,
Rod Schaffter
Hockessin, DE
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 09:43:32 -0500
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner@umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Enamel Pot repair?
"Donald D. Lake" <dake@gdi.net> chipped his enamel on steel pot and asks:
>What will happen if I use it for this purpose with the exposed steel?
>Any ideas on patching it so I don't have it throw it out?
I used my unrepaired chipped pot for mashing and boiling (transferred the
mash to a zapap in between) for many years/beers including pale ones (can't
remember if any were CAPs, but some Continental Pilsners) with no problems.
Just so you don't think I have a numb tongue, some brews from this pot,
including pale ones, took prizes in competitions. No metal hazes, no
metallic flavors.
Eventually a chip at the handle rusted through and the handle weld
weakened. Wouldn't want to use this full of hot wort or water. It's now
retired.
Jeff
-=-=-=-=-
Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan c/o nerenner@umich.edu
"One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 09:53:47 +0000
From: "Jim Busch" <jim@victorybeer.com>
Subject: Re: 1st time mashing
Dave suggests:
<buy 8 pounds of pale *ale* malt, 1 pound of crystal malt have
<it milled. Wet it down in your mash tun with hot water ( 180F)
<stirring until you get it to 155F. Try to add about 1.5 quarts per
<pound. If you see that you are not going to make it, finish the last
<additions with boiling water and lots of stirring or heat
<separately. Mix in gypsum ( calcium sulfate) 1/2 tsp at a
This caught my eye as it sounds confusing and could easily overshoot
the desired strike temp. Here is my advice:
Add 1.3 Qt/pound of 165F to the mash tun. Add gypsum. Stir in malt.
Check temp, I would advise aiming for 149-152F. Id be surprised if a
drop of 25F is achieved with Daves program unless the malt is kept in
a very cold place. If temp is too high add some cold water to get it
close to 152 or so. Also, 1/9th crystal malt is pretty high
percentage, Id stay closer to 5% of grist so use about 1/2 Lb. YMMV.
Prost!
Jim Busch
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 09:41:48 -0500
From: "Peter J. Calinski" <PCalinski@iname.com>
Subject: A Continuous Specific Gravity Monitor
Last night I did it again. I dropped and broke my hydrometer. That must
be the third or fourth time.
In the Nov./Dec. issue of BrewingTechniques there was reference to the MBAA
Technical Quarterly article on "A Continuous Specific Gravity Monitor". I
have made two or three half hearted attempts to track down the article
without success.
Has anyone seen the MBAA article? Is there enough detail in it to warrant
more
effort on my part to get it? Many times articles like this are too cursory
to be of much help.
The BT reference talked about strain gauges I believe. I have just enough
experience with force balances to say Ugh.
Anybody have any other ideas about how to measure SG? Not necessarily
continuously.
1) Perhaps sonic. Different propagation times as a function of SG? It
would probably require a way to equalize temperature effects. Maybe
distilled H2O in a reference bulb.
2)Maybe some interferometer method to measure displacement.
3)How about a low tech plastic hydrometer that won't break when dropped?
Anyone ever see one? Maybe I'll take a shot at making one out of rigid
plastic tubing but I like the high tech approach just for the fun of it.
4) [Smiley mode on] What this world needs is a hydrometer that reads from
any direction. Every time I spin mine it stops with the wrong scale facing
me. Must be the same law at work that makes campfire smoke always go in my
direction. [Smiley mode to standby.]
Right now I am just thinking out loud. Anyone interested in pursuing this?
Private emails are fine.
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, 1 Mar 1999 09:09:26 -0600
From: "Poirier, Bob" <Bob_Poirier@adc.com>
Subject: New Judges
Greetings!
I spent this past Saturday volunteering as a steward at the Best of
Brooklyn II homebrew competition, which was held at the Brooklyn
Brewery. This was the first homebrew competition I'd ever attended.
My motivation for volunteering was to learn exactly what goes on at
a competition, and more importantly, what the judges do - one day
I plan on taking the BJCP exam.
Well, I learned A LOT!!
I was VERY fortunate to serve as steward for a panel that included
a master judge. Stewards were openly encouraged to taste the beers
right along with the judges, so I took full advantage of the situation.
I sat there with a blank judging form in front of me, and for every beer
I tasted I made mental notes of things I thought I was picking up.
When the judges finished their evaluations, they discussed the beer,
and I was included in the discussion. I was very encouraged to learn
that I was picking up a lot of the same characteristics in the beers
as the judges.
One of the most important things I learned was that I could have judged
at the competition! I'd been under the impression that only ranked
judges could participate, but, I could have joined in as a novice/apprentice,
without having taken the BJCP exam!! I now understand that this
is the case so that potential judges can have the opportunity to participate
in a competition, to get a feel for how things work, and to LEARN, which
is the most important benefit of all.
I encourage anyone who is interested, but has not yet attended a
homebrew competition to do it!! And if you're thinking of studying to
become a judge, then volunteer to judge as a novice/apprentice and
start learning!! I certainly plan to!
Have fun - be safe!
Brew On & Prosit!!
Bob P.
East Haven, CT
bob_poirier@adc.com
Home of the B.I.G. (Beer Is Good!) Homebrew Club
Life on Earth is expensive, but it
comes with a free trip 'round the sun!!
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 10:11:02 -0500
From: Mark_Ohrstrom/Humphrey_Products@humphreypc.com
Subject: Hop Shampoo
Mark Tumarkin replies to Alan Meeker's discovery of hop extract in his
squeeze's shampoo:
> Ummm, hops, apricots and almond - sounds like an interesting
> flavor combo, and yeah, body would be a good thing, but the
> oils in the condtioner would probably have a negative effect
> on head retention.
Use your own best judgment, but personally I'd be leery of using *ANY*
shampoo that would have a "negative effect on head retention". Body might
be *all* that you're left with. Ouch!
Mark (doing his best to get, and retain, head) in Kalamazoo
P.S. to Fouch: Jeez, at least the Skotrat is a _beer_ slut ...
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 10:20:30 -0500
From: David Whitman <dwhitman@rohmhaas.com>
Subject: 10% sucrose / loop lifetime
Joe Rolfe has been rejuvenating yeast samples stored for years (!) under
10% sucrose:
>>I have a couple of questions for you. Do you have any data on the
>>percent viability of the long term storage yeasts you were trying to
>>"reanimate"?
>No, unfortunate as it is, I have not done much with the tubes as to
>counting before and after. One of these days if I get some time I may
>check this out. I would venture to guess Mblue would not be the way I
>would attempt it. The stuff is just very unreliable with older cells.
>I would have to go with a slide type viability test to get better
>numbers. I wonder if Dave Whitman wants to add this media to his
>running test.;)
Already did, but I don't promise to monitor the samples for 8 YEARS just to
reproduce Joe's results. :-)
I've got a lager yeast under 10% sucrose, and so far have 2 week viability
data. Between putting my house up for sale and filling out tax forms I've
been too busy to write it up for the Large Yeast Storage Experiment website:
http://www.users.fast.net/~dwhitman/yeast/index.htm
Initial data on the sucrose samples and another round of DI water samples
will go up Real Soon Now. If someone wants to buy my house, it would speed
up results reporting dramatically. :-)
The yeast used in these latest series was grown out from cells that had
survived one round of DI water storage. DI water survival of a FRESH
strain of this yeast was rather low compared to an ale strain that had been
through multiple cycles of DI water storage. In addition to looking at the
sucrose media, I'm trying to test the hypothesis that selection improves
the ability of yeast to survive this kind of storage.
One observation: Despite low FAN levels, for a week after putting samples
into 10% sucrose the samples fermented at least a little - every time I
cracked open a vial there was CO2 release. None of my other media gave
this outgassing (of course none of the other media had fermentables...) I
don't know if the beasties were reproducing in there, but I waited a week
before doing the initial cell counts to try and get an accurate census.
Joe, do you see early outgassing like this? Should I have waited longer on
the cell counts?
***
Scott Murman asks about the life of innoculation loops. I've had my
tungsten one for about 4 years and it's showing signs of oxidation and
brittleness but is still useable. The alternative is platinum, which will
last essentially forever. VWR offers several different models in the
$63-127 range. Unless you anticipate going through 10-20 of the tungsten
ones, Pt just isn't worth it.
Temperature matters in the W oxidation kinetics. I use a relatively low
temperature alcohol flame in sterlizing my loop. If you're using a propane
torch or other hot flame it'll chew up your loop more quickly.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 09:23:05 -0600
From: Jim Layton <a0456830@rlemail.dseg.ti.com>
Subject: Another MCAB Recipe
This beer received a second place in the Munich Helles category at the
recent MCAB competition. The same beer also received Best of Show at the
'98 Crescent City competition and runner-up BOS at the '98 Sunshine
Challenge. I have one bottle left.
8.5 lb. pils malt, Weyermann
0.5 lb. vienna malt, Weyermann
0.5 lb. carafoam malt, Weyermann (similar to DWC carapils)
0.4 oz. Hallertauer Tradition, 6.3%, 60 minute boil
0.4 oz. " " " , 30 minute boil
0.3 oz. " " " , 15 minute boil
Wyeast #2124, yeast cake from 1/2 gallon starter
Mash in with 13 qt., target 104F
Immediately boost temp to 122F, hold 10 min.
Boost to 147F, hold 15 min.
Take 7 qt.. for decoction
Heat decoction to 160F, hold 12 min.
Heat to boil, boil 15 min.
Return decoction to rest mash, target 160F
Hold 160F for 15 min., check for conversion with iodine
Boost to 170, hold 10 min.
Lauter, collect 7 gallons, boil 90 minutes
OG 1.051, 5.25 gallons
FG 1.010
Side note:
This beer was primed with dextrose and bottle conditioned. It had been
in the bottle, on yeast, for 13 months when it was judged at MCAB. How
did this beer escape the ravages of HSA and autolysis? I must be living
right! Cold storage probably helped, too.
I want to offer my thanks to Louis K. Bonham, the Houston area clubs,
and all the others who helped with the MCAB. I attended and had a real
fine time. It was an honor to have an entry in a competition of this
caliber.
Jim Layton (Howe, TX)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 15:52:27 GMT
From: mikey@swampgas.com (Michael A. Owings)
Subject: Re: 10% Sucrose
Just an additional bit of info (I passed this along to Dave Whitman
as well).
I have a number of yeast stored under distilled water. Wyeast 2206 has
been the most problematic for me. I was able to reanimate a sample
about a year old on a plate, but it was incapable of fermenting wort
to any reasonable level of completion. Tried a couple of times with
the same results. So far, this is the only lager yeast I have tried to
reanimate.
Looking at the cells on my brand-spanking new hemocytometer showed all
cells taking up methylene blue stain. However, the sample was
extremely diluted and probably not a good representation of the vial
contents.
I have a couple of others I will try in a few days and post the
results.
***********************
Lord grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change.
The courage to change the things I can. *** And the wisdom to
hide the bodies of the people I had to kill because they pissed
me off ***
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 10:56:53 -0500
From: "Jeff Beinhaur" <beinhaur@email.msn.com>
Subject: Mash paddle?
My plastic paddle broke while try to mash in 24lbs. of grain in a ten gallon
Gott cooler. What are most people using to stir the grain with? I've seen
the ads for Phil's Mash Paddle but haven't seen it in any stores. I'd prefer
not to use plastic again. Any suggestions would be appreciated?
Jeff Beinhaur, Camp Hill, PA
Home of the Yellow Breeches Brewery
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 10:53:54 -0500
From: "Haszard, MAJ Mac" <haszarda@ftknoxdfd-emh13.army.mil>
Subject: Lauter Tuns
I have a couple of questions about home-built cooler type lauter tuns:
1. What's the most efficient or practical type container to use, a
rectangular cooler or a Gott style round cooler? What is the objective
depth of the grain bed I should be shooting for?
2. What is the most efficient type of false bottom to construct, a
perforated plastic or metal one, or will a manifold type work as well?
Any other advice, comments and suggestions in this regard are very welcome.
Respond to this forum or to my personal address, as you prefer. Thanks.
Mac (haszarda@ftknoxdfd-emh13.army.mil
<mailto:haszarda@ftknoxdfd-emh13.army.mil> )
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 13:40:10 -0500
From: Alan Monaghan <AlanM@gardnerweb.com>
Subject: Recipe amounts
We have been learning to brew with a nice 15.5 gal. brew system. 3 kegs,
sparging, etc.
My question is that we are multiplying by two (2) a 5 gallon recipe to get
the 10 gallon recipe we want to try. Now, my water usage formula says that
to get the 10 gallons out we need to use 18 gallons of water (this is an
example but serves the purpose). This includes the equipment loss, spent
grain loss, evaporation, trub loss and the like.
On our last brew, we were shooting for about a 1.058 starting sg. We got a
1.044 when it was all said and done. In thinking about this and reading
more, should we be upping an average 5 gallon recipe more that just by (2)?
I know we could just multiply it by (3) and get an a$$ kick wort but I think
that is defeating the purpose of it all.
How are the rest of you doing this and is there a rule of thumb. I had
thought that I might go another 20% to make up for it all but I want to
learn too and not just hit it with the ol' mallet.
Another question: When we are letting the grain soak in the hot liquid, does
you keep the pumps running full time, last 10 minutes, or what. We are
recirculating full time at this point, but after reading about how the
molecules are being broken up and what is going on in the reaction, I am not
so sure we should have the recirculating pump running full time.
Thanks for this service. I have learning a lot of good information here in
just the year or so I have been reading.
vitam cerevisiae venturi saeculi omnia
Alan G. Monaghan
Gardner Publications, Inc.
AlanM@Gardnerweb.com <mailto:AlanM@Gardnerweb.com>
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 18:43:53 GMT
From: mikey@swampgas.com (Michael A. Owings)
Subject: Hemacytometer/Yeast microphotographs
I have posted a couple of microphotos of yeast in a hemacytometer at
http://www.swampgas.com/brewing/hemo.html
for those of you into that kind of thing.
Ok, so I'm a geek...
***********************
Lord grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change.
The courage to change the things I can. *** And the wisdom to
hide the bodies of the people I had to kill because they pissed
me off ***
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 14:49:53 -0500
From: "Santerre, Peter (PRS) - CPC" <PRS@NA2.US.ML.COM>
Subject: College Brewing
Dan Listermann Generalizes here with -
"I operate a homebrew shop about two blocks from Cincinnati's Xavier
University. I thought that I would see a lot of student business, but I
get more profs, parents and maintenance men than students in here. I think
they lack the a delayed gratification factor needed to brew. "
and I reply - (Page Down, this somehow turned into a stupid Biography)
I just recently graduated from College and would like to, at least within
my group of friends at the university, counter that claim. I began
homebrewing
during my sophomore year due to my increased intake, and interest with good
beer. At first my quest was to become an expert like Mr. Jackson, but I
soon
noticed a local homebrew shop and decided to give it a try. I
extract-brewed for
about 6 months and decided that I needed more control+intamacy with the
process and have been all graining ever since (Man, that first all grain
batch
was thin and bitter!!!!!)
Since that point I have gotten 2 more friends to homebrew (regularly) and
many others
to be interested in watching us do it. I was even the subject of a paper
for a
scientific methods class (Low level stuff, nothing interesting.) I was
offered a job
at the homebrew shop that I spent all my student loans at (which I had to
decline,
but one of my other brewing buddies now works there (can you believe a
brewing fridge
in a college apartment?)). Anyway - enough personal info wasted on a good
brewing forum.... (You can probably tell I wasn't and English major, my
writing
always ends up looking more like LISP)
-ShockValue, AKA
Peter R. Santerre
Merrill Lynch / Howard Johnson & Co.
Intel SERMA Specialist
San Francisco Tech-Support
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #2967, 03/02/99
*************************************
-------
