Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #3020
HOMEBREW Digest #3020 Mon 03 May 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:
re: draught question (Jeff)
Lawnmower beer ("Daske, Felix")
Nitrogen and CO2 ("silent bob")
Nitrogen in Stout ("Brian LeCuyer")
N2/CO2 confusion (pbabcock)
Re. A taste of Gypsum (Jeffry D Luck)
Frothy subject (Dave Burley)
Mash Thickness, Peer review (Dave Burley)
Re: Plaster of Paris ("Timmons, Frank")
Water Softener Alternatives? ("J. Doug Brown")
Long draft hoses (John Wilkinson)
what a drag/alt saccharomyces ("Bayer, Mark A")
So. Calif. Homebrew Fest. ("Don Van Valkenburg")
Red stuff/Diacetyl (AJ)
beer (Jeremy Bergsman)
Cleansers and sanitizers ("Anthony & Julie Brown")
Bottle cap cleaning (JPSimo1106)
Brew Bottle Baking ("Brian Wurst")
240V Control (AJ)
Nitrogen solubility ("Dr. Pivo")
My first competition ("G. Bowden Wise")
diacetyl name and formula (Laurel Maney)
re: how many capfuls. (David Houseman)
Bottling with honey (Paul Haaf)
Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy!
2000 MCAB Qualifiers: Spirit of Free Beer! Competition 5/22/99
(http://burp.org/SoFB99); Oregon Homebrew Festival 5/22/99
(http://www.mtsw.com/hotv/fest.html); Buzz-Off! Competition 6/26/99
(http://www.voicenet.com/~rpmattie/buzzoff)
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: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 11:00:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: mcnallyg@gam83.npt.nuwc.navy.mil (Jeff)
Subject: re: draught question
Hi All,
In HBD #3018, Al K. wrote:
>I chose to not
>put my faucets on the outside of my cooler. Despite
>the fact that my hoses and faucets are refrigerated,
>I still get mould growth inside the faucet!
I have a dedicated brew fridge in my dungeon (ie basement) with
cobra type faucets that stay inside the fridge.
I too used to have problems with mold growing inside the faucets.
I recently figured out a way to prevent it though.
Simply rinse the faucet well with dilute idophor after each use
and leave it to drip dry. Since I've been doing this I have'nt had
any problems with mold growth.
Hoppy brewing,
Jeff
==========================================================================
Geoffrey A. McNally Phone: (401) 832-1390
Mechanical Engineer Fax: (401) 832-7250
Naval Undersea Warfare Center email:
Systems Development Branch mcnallyg@gam83.npt.nuwc.navy.mil
Code 8321; Bldg. 1246/2 WWW:
Newport, RI 02841-1708 http://www.nuwc.navy.mil/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 08:02:47 -0700
From: "Daske, Felix" <DaskeF@bcrail.com>
Subject: Lawnmower beer
The depth and diversity of this list never ceases to amaze me.
I felt compelled to respond on the issue of "lawnmower beer" because (I had
some time on my hands)... no, seriously, I have been looking for a good,
light, all-grain brew. The notion of a crisp light drink, which wouldn't
cloud your senses, intrigues me.
I think it was Harry Ewasiuk <shogun@ccinet.ab.ca> who, in HBD #3013,
originally asked for a "Definition of a good lawnmower beer". To which we
were welcomed with a variety of interesting responses:
In HBD #3015, Jeff Renner <nerenner@umich.edu> replied with... "It means a
light, usually pale, thirst quenching beer that hits the spot on a hot
summer afternoon (I suppose summer is about a week long up where you are)
when you've been mowing the lawn. Something that also wouldn't endanger
your safety operating machinery. [snip] ... "
Jeff continued on to describe his idea of a good candidate... "My personal
choice would be a light Classic American Pilsner (CAP). [snip] ..." Hmmm..
I WILL have to try this.
Then, in HBD #3016, we were greeted with a [very logical and entertaining]
reply from Mike <MVachow@newman.k12.la.us> of New Orleans, LA ... " ...
Let's work backwards and infer such a definition. Imagine a July Louisiana
day, 90F at 9am, 80% humidity. The lawn's a mess, consequent spousal
disapproval. As you yank futilely on the starter cord of the recalcitrant
mower, you envision a beer awaiting you at the end, or perhaps a beer or two
midway. [snip] ... The parameters of this beer begin to emerge: a
thirst-quenching session beer light in gravity, low to medium hop
bitterness, an easy-to-brew beer."
Then... ZING!... Joel Plutchak <plutchak@ncsa.uiuc.edu> gets all sensible,
on our fun discussion,... "When doing yard work on a hot summer day, it's
fairly easy to get a little hot and thirsty. Alcohol is not a good thing to
use to rehydrate your body. For that, water (or even better, fresh
lemonade) does a great job. Quenches the thirst and dehydrates the body.
[snip] ... nothing hits the spot better than a homebrewed barleywine, sipped
while relaxing and viewing the fruits of your suburban labor."
A very good point is made.
For my part, I think a light German ale, made with German or belgian Pils
malt and German yeast, might fit the bill. Hmmm... better go 'n check my
pantry... IPA's bottled, Czech Pils is finished fermenting, getting ready to
brew another.
- -------------------------------------------
Kind regards, Felix
Fallen Rock Home Brewery
"beer from the earth"
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 08:13:54 PDT
From: "silent bob" <holdenmcneil@hotmail.com>
Subject: Nitrogen and CO2
Hello all (especially Al K.)
I am glad to see that we are all thinking. I got a couple of e-mails
agreeing with my statements about guiness heads, and one scathing opposing
opinion. Al K. asks some very thoughful questions about my statements, and
here are the answers:
Wall tension in a sphere is calculated by the formula T=P/R. T is wall
tension, P is pressure, and R is radius. So, as R decreases, T increses.
Also, the pressures are not equal. The pressure inside the bubble is
slighly higher than outside in order to oppose the force of the wall
tension, and per above, the smaller the bubble, the higher the wall tension,
the higher the pressure inside the bubble.
CO2 is about 10 times as soluble as nitrogen. Which means that using a 3:1
mix of nitrogen to CO2, you get about 3 volumes of nitrogen for every 10 of
CO2, or about 1/3 as much nitrogen as CO2. This is enough to have
significant impact on the partial pressure of CO2.
Also, be careful with the concept of partial pressure. Even assuming that
the pressures on both sides of the wall of a bubble are equal and 15 psi
(one atmosphere) if the gas on one side is 100% CO2, and the other is 0%
CO2, there is 15 psi CO2 pressure inside and 0 psi outside, a very high
driving pressure to push CO2 out!!
I will post the exact solubilty coefficients when I get out my old chem
books. And in the meant time, I am going to collect a sample of
nitrogen/CO2 beer head in a closed container and add NaOH. The difference
between the starting head volume and the head volume after exposure to NaOH
will equal the amount of N2 in the head, as the CO2 will be consumed by the
NaOH. I will post the results, and am confidident that they will support my
assertions.
Happy Brewing!!
_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 10:44:00 -0600
From: "Brian LeCuyer" <NOSPAM@megavision.com>
Subject: Nitrogen in Stout
Hello to All!
The recent discussion on Stout taps, nitrogen in solution, etc., has
revived a question which has previously bounced around my head. So
allow me to expose my ignorance.
My much eroded knowledge of gases, partial pressures, and the like,
seems to tell me that a 70/30 mixture of CO2/N2 would necessarily
result in a 70/30 concentration diffused into the beer, no?
Does this conflict with the fact that mixed gas is used for
dispensing through long lines to prevent over carbonation? I don't
know. Is our perception of "carbonation" dependent only on the level
of CO2 and not upon any N2 which may be present?
Brian LeCuyer
Columbus, NE
You can twist perceptions ... reality won't budge - Rush
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 12:02:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: pbabcock <pbabcock@mail.oeonline.com>
Subject: N2/CO2 confusion
Greetings, Beerlings! Take me to your lager...
Brian LeCuyer writes...
> My much eroded knowledge of gases, partial pressures, and the like,
> seems to tell me that a 70/30 mixture of CO2/N2 would necessarily
> result in a 70/30 concentration diffused into the beer, no?
No. You're forgetting the digfferences in solubility. Yes, you get more N2
in solution than you would if the N2 wasn't in the mix; but no, it would
not follow the gas mix ratio because the difference in solubility between
the two is like 300:1 or something like that (mine's eroded, too) - a
couple of orders of magnitude difference (plus change).
This is why we can use a CO2/N2 mix to push long lines: effectively (or
better: relatively speaking) the N2 has no noticable affect on the
bubbliness of the beer. (We purists reserve the word "carbonation" to
relate only to the dissolution of CO2 in liquid. I guess "nitrogenation"
would be the N2 analogy.)
Frankly, I'm firm in my belief that all nitrogen in stout does is gives us
the means to agitate the beer to the point it outgasses CO2. The result is
smoother due to the loss of the prickly carbon dioxide bubbles and
acidity. In the widget, this is accomplished by by the jet of beer - beer
which got into the widget through the expansion of gasses in the container
forcing it in - agitating the remainder of the beer. In a sparkler, the
source of agitation is similar: forcing the beer through a shower head
causing multiple jets of beer. But, as stated, that's my *belief*. If
someone can come up with incontrovertible proof that my belief is wrong,
I'll change it (but no one has in many, many moons of this subject coming
up...)
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: 30 Apr 1999 09:25:54 -0700
From: Jeffry D Luck <Jeffry.D.Luck@aexp.com>
Subject: Re. A taste of Gypsum
Joy Hansen wrote
>A recent brew session found me without adequate gypsum and the brew
>store was 200 miles away. I improvised and purchased quick setting
>"plaster of paris" at about a buck a pound in the hobby section of the
>local Wal Mart. Any thoughts on the purity and/or trace elements I've
>added to my brew?
While I have no help to offer, I would like to suggest some possible
names for the final product:
Plaster of Pilsner / of Porter
Off the Wall Ale
Sheetrock Stout
Of course, the obvious observation is that is you drink too much
you'll get plastered. Does the quick-set stuff reduce fermentation
time?
Jeff Luck
Salt Lake City, UT - USA
"The more I learn about beer, the thirstier I get."
(Gotta stop reading HBD in the mornings....)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 12:32:01 -0400
From: Dave Burley <Dave_Burley@compuserve.com>
Subject: Frothy subject
Brewsters:
AlK bravely takes up ASCII drawing to explain his
idea of how a keg is pressurized and beer is
dispensed. It makes one wonder about that adage
of a picture being worth a thousand words. Does
that apply to ASCII and to us? {8^)
No argument here that the nitrogen from the
pressurization of the keg can never affect the head
on the beer at the proper pressure. I never meant
to imply that. In fact, it isn't even necessary to use
nitrogen to pressurize the keg unless it is a long
way away, except the beer may become
overcarbonated in contact with pure CO2 at
a high pressure.
Lets' discuss this backwards. In the past few years
beer cans, predominantly British, have come out
with nitrogen containing inserts which are used to foam
the beer to a GuinNess-like head. Ask yourself why
they chose to do this rather than using CO2 inserts
or just upping the CO2 pressure in the can. The answer?
Nitrogen( or some non-soluble gas) is necessary
to get the characteristic foam on a Guiness. I agree
that it is the protein and other surfactants which are
necessary to get a foam, but the stability of the foam
is due to the gas content of the bubble.
Secondly, as I understand it ( no idea where I heard
this) Real Ales are delivered at low CO2, yet
if dispensed with a sparkler plate ( correct term?) have
a nice head as you describe, yet the beer is flat.
Why? The head is a foam containing air and not much
CO2. I have the impression that a sparkler plate infuses
air into the foam as well as stirring up and breaking out
as bubbles any small amount of CO2 in the beer.
Third, as I understand it, Guiness taps have the
equivalent of a sparkler plate, but the plate is fed
with nitrogen not air as in the above.
I don't have my book on Classic Series Stouts
here to provide you a quote, but as I recall, the
description there was not unlike what I gave for
the insert.
The function of the tap is to mix in ( called
break-out) non-CO2 gas into the gas bubble,
so that the nitrogen or air enters the bubble and
its low solubility allows two things - a smaller
bubble to be stable and a longer lived bubble.
The primary reason is that the nitrogen
( and oxygen) is less soluble in the bubble
wall and does not diffuse through it, as does CO2.
Perhaps someone who actually has a Guiness
dispense will confirm or not that nitrogen is mixed
into the beer at the dispense. Likewise, that air is
mixed in at the dispense of beer engines using
sparkler plates. Failing that, check out the
description in Classic Series "Stout".
DeClerk (p.536 v1) says: "Blom has shown that
the gas used for forming the head considerably
influences the dimunition in volume of the bubbles.
A gas such as carbon dioxide which is moderately
soluble in water, diffuses much more rapidly
through the films surrounding the bubbles than
does air. Thus, a head formed by air is much
more stable than one formed with carbon dioxide"
Keep on Brewin'
Dave Burley
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 12:34:03 -0400
From: Dave Burley <Dave_Burley@compuserve.com>
Subject: Mash Thickness, Peer review
Brewsters:
I just got back and hope these comments are not too
far out of date.
PS - I have been down since the first day I got back
because ( after exhaustive reloading, etc, etc) my
telephone became noisy from recent work by BelTel.
Still not 100%, but this is a different line.
-----------------------------------
Joel Plutchak asks for more elaboration on mash thickness
in response to SteveA's comment that too thick a mash
( his example 1.5 qts/lb) was perhaps so thick that it would
affect the amylolysis.
What does happen sometimes is the thick mash impacts
the rate of saccharification since sugars impede the
amylases in performing their duties.
Interestingly enough ( as often happens in brewing) this is
not a linear function, as the thicker the mash, the more
stable the beta amylase. So that, apart from what we
might forsee as a greater fermentability at higher ratios.
this is reversed for some cases due to the longer life
of the beta amylase in the more concentrated mashes
allowing it to split more of the higher carbohydrates.
(p. 220 M&BS 1ed, 1971)
What I do is start with a thick mash to increase
the concentration of the proteases and stage
the temperatures of the mash by adding
quantities of boiling water. This has the effect
of getting desirable proteolysis and a more
efficient amylolysis at the higher temperature
and more dilute mash at the saccharification
temperature. Best of both worlds.
By the way, if you are interested in British beers,
be sure to remember that quarts in British texts are
40 ounces, whereas US is 32 ounces.
- ------------------------------------
As far as Joel's comments to Dr. Pivo's opinions
versus peer reviewed literature, I obviously agree
that facts are better than opinions and personal
innuendo, where the facts are available in easily
found texts. Obscure and difficult to recover
information without quotation leaves one in the
position of trusting the reader that he interpreted the
literature correctly.M&BS, DeClerk and similar texts
are readily available for review by the readers of HBD.
When someone starts a tirade with his credentials
in the format like "I have forgotten more technology
in brewing than I know", I watch out.
I could, like may others here, just as well say a
similar thing, as I have been brewing for
30+ years and read every technical brewing book
( dating back centuries as well as the most modern)
as well as hobby texts I could get my hands on. I,
perhaps, have a better understanding than many of
this literature, since I have a Ph. D. in Chemistry and
have been a practicing process chemist in
chemical plants. Pumps, filters, processes and
the like were my bread and butter. I also fancy
myself ( as do others) as a very good and
creative cook. Why is this important? I try to brew
the best beer I can based on a combination of
good science and good taste. I am not afraid to
experiment, but do it, hopefully, intelligently. I
consider my background and education a
blessing and not a badge.
If I have to call Dr. Pivo "Dr." ( whether he is or not
so educated), then lots of other folks here,
including me, should be so honored. Frankly,
this is not a forum for that kind of name calling.
Like all others, I prefer to be called by my given
name or nickname - please stick to "Dave"
Despite Dr. Pivo's rhetoric, the fact is,
using referenced literature is the means by which
we overcome the problems of memory to which
Dr. Pivo alludes. Opinions and tastes and
memories are emotional things which are affected
by the surroundings, your age and experience at
the times these things are encountered as well as
the circumstances in which they are recalled.
Remember how P.O.ed you were when your child
did something, but today it makes you laugh?
That is typical of emotional experiences, they
mellow with time and become more enjoyable as
they work their way into the fabric of our psyches.
Beer drinking for me often is an emotional
experience as it appears to have been to Dr. Pivo.
Data properly gathered will hopefully withstand the
test of time or at least can be challenged by other
data - not opinion.
On more than one occasion, and by others often
represented here, I have been criticised
for using literature references. My only hope is
that my attempt to use facts will encourage others
to use facts also. If the peer-reviewed literature is
wrong, then it must be possible to prove it with
more than an opinion.
Also interesting is that I, of all people, have been
accused of being a stick in the mud, when not a
week before Dr. Pivo's tirade, I put forth the case
that the BJCP judgings were fine for an instructive
proof of technique, had little to do with anything
more than emulating modern beers ( do we want to?)
and for sure did not promote creativity or good taste.
I also proposed that such judgings should include a
best beer category without any attempt to classify it.
For me, and I suspect, Dr. Pivo, picking apart the
various aromas from a great beer is a little like
wondering why the second vioinist has his elbow
so low in the middle of a great symphony.
Keep on Brewin'
Dave Burley
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 09:55:00 -0700
From: "Timmons, Frank" <Frank.Timmons@AlliedSignal.com>
Subject: Re: Plaster of Paris
Joy Hansen asked about using plaster of paris instead of food grade
gypsum from the homebrew store. Plaster of paris is just calcium sulfate
(half hydrate, for the chem. geeks), with usually a little calcium
carbonate as an impurity. It is essentially the same as homebrew store
bought gypsum. Naturally occuring gypsum is calcium sulfate dihydrate.
The hydrate part just refers to the bound water molecules in the
chemical.
Your post reminded me of one of the more thrifty (cheap?) guys in my
homebrew club who proudly announced in a meeting not too long ago about
how he saved a ton of money by buying his gypsum in bulk as plaster of
paris in the hardware store instead of paying the "highway robbery"
price for gypsum at the homebrew store . He was not swayed from his
opinion even after several people pointed out that he saves the
equivalent of 10 cents per batch by doing this.
Frank Timmons
James River Homebrewers
Richmond, Va.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 17:03:56 +0000
From: "J. Doug Brown" <jbrown@labyrinth.net>
Subject: Water Softener Alternatives?
Hi All,
I remember watching a "This Old House" episode where they installed a
different type of water softener. It operated on a venturi principle.
Whenever water was drawn through the system the venturi effect would
introduce lots of fine air bubbles into a large storage tank containing
the water for household use. The air drawn into the system was supposed
to oxidize many of the extras in water and allow them to settle out, or
be removed though the air release system. This system would not work
well for a rust problem, other than the settling tank, however it is
supposed to work well for high sulfer, carbonate and other stuff. I
believe the system was cleaned by drawing off water from the bottom of
the settling tank periodically. This show was on probably 4 to 6 years
ago. I have often thought about adding a prefilter, and then one of
these softeners to my local water supply (city water) to remove any bad
stuff still in the water ie chlorine/chloramine, metal ions, and
carbonates. After this type of softening and setteling out, a reverse
osmosis system might be better used ie, longer membrane life. Any
thoughts on this?
Thanks
Doug Brown
- --
--------------------------------------------------------
/ J. Doug Brown Sr. Software Engineer \
< jbrown@labyrinth.net jbrown@ewa.com >
\ http://www.labs.net/jbrown http://www.ewa.com /
--------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 12:35:20 -0500
From: John.Wilkinson@aud.alcatel.com (John Wilkinson)
Subject: Long draft hoses
AlK wrote in HBD#3018 8-10 foot draft beer lines:
>Another thing you may want to consider is that your
>beer will be unrefrigerated in the lines. This
>can be solved by putting them in a jacket and then
>running extra hoses through the jacket that carry
>refrigerated coolant. Many draught towers even
>have fittings for running coolant. Cooling the
>beer in the lines means less waste because you
>can drink the stuff in the lines.
I figure that an 8 foot 3/16 inch line would hold about 1 1/2 ounces and even a
10 foot 1/4 inch line would only hold about 3 ounces so I would think a cooling
jacket wouldn't be necessary. If the refrigerator temp was 50F and the line
temp was 80F the temp of a 12 ounce beer should only be about 57F. That would
only be for the first beer if drawing frequently or the refrigerator could be
kept slightly colder to compensate if not. Of course the difference would be
even less for a pint glass and cooler line temps.
John Wilkinson - Grapevine, Texas
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 10:42:59 -0700
From: "Bayer, Mark A" <Mark.Bayer@JSF.Boeing.com>
Subject: what a drag/alt saccharomyces
collective homebrew conscience_
> john s wrote:
>
> >Are there any mathematics type people that can help me out?
> >I'd like to be able to experimentally determine the coefficient
> >of drag for my motorcycle.
>
> wow. this is a tall order, my friend. if you don't have access to a low
> speed wind tunnel and a nice scale model of yourself (clothed) on your
> bike, you're probably not going to be able to do it experimentally.
>
> probably the closest you could come mathematically would be to make
> several big simplifying assumptions (mostly about the 3d geometry of you
> sitting on your bike), then run a numerical scheme like a 3d vortex panel
> method or a 3d incompressible euler routine to determine the pressure
> distribution on your bike and body. this would be quite involved and
> require the aid of an aerospace engineer who has done this sort of thing
> before, probably.
>
> all this assumes you ride your motorcycle at less than about 300 mph.
>
> the alternative is to see if you can find some similar data that's been
> published by one of the motorcycle companies. (do they even do this for
> production bikes??)
>
> **************************************
> for a beer-related item, i have a vial of yeastlab w51 that expired
> (according to the label) in december 98. it's been refrigerated since way
> before that date. i plan on stepping it up in two stages over about 4 to
> 5 days before fermenting with it. has anybody had much experience with
> reviving strains that are months and months beyond their "expiration"
> date? (w51 is a weizen strain) any advice welcome on this one.
>
> brew hard,
>
> mark bayer
> stl mo
>
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 10:52:54 -0700
From: "Don Van Valkenburg" <don@steinfillers.com>
Subject: So. Calif. Homebrew Fest.
Reminder-
The Southern California Homebrew Fest is happening next weekend May 8 in
Temecula. A great homebrew happening not to be missed if you live in the
south west.
Don Van Valkenburg
brew@steinfillers.com
www.steinfillers.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 16:28:58 -0500
From: AJ <ajdel@mindspring.com>
Subject: Red stuff/Diacetyl
Joy Hansen questions my surmise that the red precipitate he sees is
calcium phosphate.
Actually it probably isn't. When calcium precipitates solids in the
presence of phosphates several substances can be involved (see my post
of a few days back). Usually cited is hydroxy apatite but fluoro apatite
is formed when floride is present and, extrapolating a bit, I'm guessing
that an iodo apatite may be what is seen here. I'v never looked at the
crud so is it really red or does it just look red when suspended in the
liquid? Native iodine coated on apatite is another possibility. I'm just
speculating here. My observations are that the precipitate requires
calcium to form and may require carbonate as well. Raw observation:
precipitate forms in water with temporary hardness (calcium bicarbonate)
but not in soft, carbonaceous water.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
"Aleman" asks about diacetyl. This is, I believe, its most common name.
Other names are Biacetyl, 2,3-Butandione, Dimethyl Diketone and
Dimethylglyoxal. Its CAS number is 431-03-8 and Spectrum's product
number is D2668. It is
listed in the Cole Parmer catlogue (don't know if the last three bits of
information will be useful to "Aleman" who writes from the U.K.). It is
an oily, yellow green liquid with a density of 0.98 and a boiling point
of 88C i.e. about the same as ethanol's. Its formula is CH3COCOCH3
probably best written
\
= O
|
O=
\
(Bet that won't line up on your screens.)
It is an extremely powerful flavoring and aroma agent. If a bottle at
room
temperature is opened even briefly people will stick their heads in from
the hall and ask "You eating popcorn in here?"
Flavor threshold is generally thought to be from 0.1 - 0.15 mg/L.
Pilsner Urquell is reported to contain it at twice these levels. At the
low levels, like that reported for PU, it enhances caramel,
roundess, smoothness, nuttiness. Moving up towards half a mg/L you get
the
frequently cited buttery effects. Going higher than this there is then a
shift away from buttery to a sweetish, sort of almondy impression with
some bitterness and a kind of gagging feeling in the back of the throat.
I don't think I've ever experienced that in a beer. I do remember being
very disappointed in some draught Budvar at a place that I used to go to
in Hungary. It had a definitely unpleasant nose which I attributed to
infection but I'm beginning to wonder now if maybe it was diacetyl at
the high levels Dr. Pivo wrote of previously.
Put a glass of beer with diacetyl above a mg/L the in a room and the
whole room smells like the lobby of a movie theatre. You can drink it
but the result is pretty unpleasant.
Neat diacetyl has all the aroma components I've mentioned before but
also a solvent-like quality, probably related to the volatility.
If you want to get an idea of what pure dilute diacetyl smells like
sniff some dimethylglyoxime. I know this isn't found in everyone's
medicine chest but it is much more likely to be found in a nominally
equipped lab, to which I know many of you have access, than diacetyl
itself.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 01 May 1999 00:58:26 -0700
From: Jeremy Bergsman <jeremybb@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: beer
> From: jslusher <jslusher@flash.net>
> Subject: BJCP status
>
> Does anyone know of its status...I keep getting a "no DNS entry" when I try
> to access "http://www.bjcp.org"...has it changed addresses?...Cheers!
Changing ISPs. It should be up now.
*********************************************************
> From: "Rob" <brewmasters@texasbrew.com>
> Subject: O2 caps.
> They dump them right out of
> the freshly opened box and cap them without cleaning any of them. That was
> almost 2 years ago and I haven't cleaned any of my caps since. I haven't
> had any problems since.
> I am sure now the purists will really object to
> this but ask yourselves have you tried it?
I did this for years with no noted bottle-to-bottle variability (which is
what I would expect as the indicator for a dirty cap problem, although
sufficiently dirty caps would ruin a whole batch). In my quest for the best
beer possible (and I'm nowhere close yet) I have decided that just because I
can't prove these things are causing trouble doesn't mean I should keep doing
them if it seems like a change could help.
*********************************************************
> From: Joy Hansen <happyhansen@scronline.com>
> Subject: Brew Bottle Baking
> Ever wonder why microbiologists invented an autoclave?
>
> Ever wonder what the difference is between "dry heat" and "wet heat"
> sterilization?
Liquids boil at a certain temperature and don't get any hotter. Water
boils at a temperature too low to sterilize. Dry goods may be sterilized
by high heat at 1 atm since they will heat past the boiling point of water.
Liquid media will not. If you are suggesting something wrong with bottle
baking I don't understand the argument.
> Ever wonder why many home brewers use a pressure cooker for
> sterilization?
For sterilizing liquids and objects resistant to 250F but not a lot higher.
My oven can hold ~90 bottles--can your pressure cooker?
*********************************************************
> From: sedam@bellsouth.net
> Subject: diacetyl
> (1) metering this out in your beer would be tough, and (2)
> IF you wanted to do this, you'd need a serious hood (class 2?).
Amen on both counts. On the other hand, someone with a fume hood could
do for you what I do: make a 1:100 dilution in EtOH. This solves both
problems--the resultant solution only stinks a lot and you could probably
measure out a small enough amount. Hint: have a sealable container in the
hood ready to receive the pipette tip--the residual diacetyl on the tip
is enough to stink up the room.
> By the way, diacetyl is as simple a name as it gets. Aldrich or Sigma
> sells it.
AKA 2,3 butanedione, but it is listed in the catalogs under diacetyl too.
- --
Jeremy Bergsman
jeremybb@leland.stanford.edu
http://www.stanford.edu/~jeremybb
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 1 May 1999 04:15:25 CSTCDT
From: "Anthony & Julie Brown" <brown32@web1.ecol.net>
Subject: Cleansers and sanitizers
With all the recent talk of sanitizers and clensing agents I
have a few of my own...
First, can anyone recommend a good cleansing agent for stainless
steel kegs that is not quite as harmful to skin and body tissue.
I have been using some stuff I think is called Bar Keeper's
Helper but cautious as to how good a cleanser this is, and I read
somewhere that if used on stainless steel you should let your
stainless keg sit about a week to regain some of its anti-oxidizing
properties.
Second, I now use BTF Iodophor to sanitize but was wondering if
anyone had any knowledge or experience with the use of either
Betadine or provodone iodine solution like used in hospitals for
surgical scrubbing and wound disinfectant. I work at a hospital
and am privy to obtaining this solution for a pretty good price
for rather large bottles. Wondering if there are any risks to
ingestion of this solution or effectiveness as a sanitizer.
I'm not sure this stuff is too "rinsable" and pretty certain
it's not a food grade sanitizer. Ingredients include
(according to the bottle) Citric acid, Dibasic sodium phosphate,
Glycerin and other ingredients. Any thoughts or advice???
Tony B.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 1 May 1999 07:51:24 EDT
From: JPSimo1106@aol.com
Subject: Bottle cap cleaning
In reply to Rob's post regarding bottle cap cleaning:
At the micro where I work in Massachusetts, we use the caps right out of the
box. We dump them directly into the bottling machine, without ever touching
them with our hands. This micro is known for quality, and we haven't had any
infection problems.
I've never thought about this in a home brew application, but it does seem
silly that I've been boiling the caps, and then putting the caps on with my
hands. My homebrew shop sells them in small quantity, prepackaged bags. I
think from now on, no boiling, and handle the crown from the top. Thanks,
Rob, for cutting a step out of my process!
John Simonetta
Randolph, MA
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 1 May 1999 06:55:21 -0500
From: "Brian Wurst" <brian@mail.netwave.net>
Subject: Brew Bottle Baking
Joy Hansen (formerly of the BEER conference on the pre-WWW RIME network) asks:
- -------
Ever wonder why microbiologists invented an autoclave?
- -------
Because they spent so much time sterilizing with dry heat. The steam, at
elevated pressure and temperature, greatly reduced the sterilization time from
the 8 hours at 350F that dry heat sterilization took. Both methods work, one
takes way longer.
Brian Wurst Lombard, IL
brian@mail.netwave.net
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 01 May 1999 12:28:01 +0000
From: AJ <ajdel@mindspring.com>
Subject: 240V Control
Kyle asks about a particular SSR for controlling a 240V water heating
element. The part number cited is for a relay, i.e. a switch that is
either open or closed depending on whether the control voltage is
present or not. For "infinite" control he will have to design a device
which, in response to a request for a particular amount of power,
generates a logic control signal with duty cycle (ratio of on time in a
cycle to total time in the cycle) equal to the percent power he wants.
Many commercially available controllers provide this signal because
proportional control is commonly used (note that this is not the
"proportional" in PID - Proportional/Integral/Differential) for heaters.
Buying a controller is probably out of the question anyway.
On the same page of the Digikey catalog are some solid state devices
which have the control logic built in. In response to a 2 - 10 V DC
input, the device fires its SCR's through a conduction angle such that
the amount of power delivered to the load is linear with the control
voltage. The device's load and line connections go in series with one
side of the 240V line. All that is needed for control is a 10 volt DC
supply and a pot (ends of pot across 10 volt supply, low end of supply
to low end of control input and wiper of pot to high control input).
That's all there is to it except for arranging isolation between the
control circuit and the load circuit. If the device itself provides this
isolation (and it should) you are set. If not (and the application notes
for the device will give the details on this and other parameters such
as whether the device needs to be heatsinked for the intended load,
whether the PIV rating is sufficient for the application ...) , things
get a little trickier. In either case I hope I will be forgiven for
suggesting that the very nature of the question suggests that Kyle
doesn't have the experience to be fiddling with 240 circuitry. This
isn't a difficult thing to do but there are some issues with which your
local friendly EE type might well be consulted.
- --
A. J. deLange
Numquam in dubio, saepe in errore.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 01 May 1999 18:09:42 +0200
From: "Dr. Pivo" <irv@wireworks.se>
Subject: Nitrogen solubility
There has been quite a few lines written and some pretty fancy ASCII
drawings submitted od late, and a lot is based around the thinking that
"the nitrogen gas in Guiness and other "beer gas" driven beers, is only
providing "pushing pressure", and not getting dissolved in the beer".
I think this is confusing "not very soluble" with "not soluble at all".
I thought I might submit a description of how I "know" that the Nitrogen
is getting dissolved at pressure, and coming out again when tapping the
beer, and also show you a way that you can prove it to yourself.
Once upon a time (just after the "30 years war" I believe), I
constructed a method of measuring flow (I would say I "invented it", but
it turns out if you look hard enough, somebody has always come up with
the idea earlier).
This brought me in contact with the world of "fracture hydrology", where
they are interested in accurate flow measurement. What hydrologists do,
is send down some "packers" (looks like two giant "condoms-on-a-stick")
in a borehole, inflate them, and then inject water in the place between
them, and by looking at the flow rate and pressure differential, one can
calculate the "permeability" of the rock mass at the point between the
packers.
For reasons that I won't go into, the common gas for "packer inflation"
is Nitrogen, and I chose this to run my flow monitor as well.
Basically, The Nitrogen gas was driving the water injection, the gauge
on the regulator told the pressure differential, and my flow thingy told
you the flow rate.
I was doing some measurements in a borehole that was about 400 meters
deep, and using a transluscent nylon line for both inflation, and
injection. This means I had a cable roll with 400 meters of these nylon
lines that followed the tools down the hole in the ground.
One morning I was just about to start doing an injection test, when I
looked at the cable roll and saw: "Lawdy, Lawdy! My injection line is
full of air!" Hydrologists do not want gases being shot into their
fracture systems, as it will change the permeability, and geochemists
CERTAINLY don't want air (the oxygen part) being shot into ground waters
that they want to look at later.
Without pausing to think about how I could have gotten air into my
lines, I deflated the packers and flushed the whole system with water to
clean it of any gases.
A little (or maybe a lot) later, I decided to use my sparse thinking
abilities and figure out what was going on. After a bit it dawned on
me, I was DISSOLVING nitrogen in the water when pushing it with over
pressure, and when I let the pressure off, it was coming back out of
solution.
Once I figured that out, I was able to create a minor miracle..... lines
full of water, let off the pressure... lines full of gas.
Then the real tricky part.... crank up the pressure again, gas
dissapears, and lines full of water again!
These were pretty marginal pressure differentials, and not outside of
the realm of beer pressure.
So you see, thinking that the Nitrogen somehow avoids getting into
solution is just plain "wrong"... gases don't work like that.
That it jumps right out again when you release the pressure is a
demonstration of its poor solubility.
If'n ya' don't believe me (and there's really no reason you should, if
the answer's not intuitively obvious), you might do a little "test"
instead of just speculating about it.
Get a tank of N2, blast up some flat beer from a secondary, then tap a
clear line full..... then you can pull the safety release valve and make
some "magic bubbles" in the tap line of your own.
It really is an amazing thing to watch, and I bet would take you less
time than an ASCII drawing to do.
Dr. Pivo
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 01 May 1999 13:57:42 -0400
From: "G. Bowden Wise" <wiseb@acm.org>
Subject: My first competition
I entered one of my brews to the Best of Brooklyn competition
this past spring. Most of the reviewers gave my beer (an Oktoberfest)
a low rating due to off-flavors:
* sour/acidic: tastes like sour apple, pine sol(!)
* oxidized/stale
* cooked vegetable/cabbage like
* acetaldehyde
* phenolic
I was surprised since most of my friends thought the beer
tasted good.
Where did I go wrong here? I would like to avoid this problem
in the future.
I am very sanitary, I can't imagine any problems due to unwatned
bacteria. I usually do a secondary fermentation in a carboy after
the primary, so there is less sludge. Some of the reviewers
indicated that there was sludge in the bottles which may have
been a problem.
Did I over-ferment? Ferment at too high a temp?
- --
- --------------------------------------------------------------------
G. Bowden Wise
Computer Science Dept, Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst, Troy, NY 12180
E-mailto:wiseb@acm.org WWW: http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~wiseb/
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 01 May 1999 12:57:35 -0500
From: Laurel Maney <maney@execpc.com>
Subject: diacetyl name and formula
In case this information is still needed, the IUPAC name of diacetyl is
2,3-butanedione CH3-CO-CO-CH3 , which together with its bigger brother
2,3-pentanedione CH3-CO-CO-CH2-CH3, form the vicinal diketones (VDK).
Just as a matter of interest, the two compounds occur in ROUGHLY equal
amounts as produced naturally during a fermentation. Bacteria and
respiratory deficient mutant yeast however, produce just the diacetyl
component. Big brewers with the equipment to do the analysis use this
difference as a diagnostic tool, to figure out whether they have a
process problem or an infection, when an increase in VDK aroma is noted.
Laurel Maney
Instructor, Brewing Program
Milwaukee Area Technical College
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 1 May 1999 21:27:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Houseman <dhousema@cccbi.org>
Subject: re: how many capfuls.
Depends on the strength/concentration of the iodophor you have. There are
varying concentrations by various vendors. Frankly I just eyeball a golden
yellow (on the darker side) and it all seems to work fine.
Dave Houseman
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 1 May 1999 21:54:21 -0400
From: Paul Haaf <haafbrau1@juno.com>
Subject: Bottling with honey
I thought this would have been answered, but I didn't see it. I've
bottled in the past using honey, and it worked out nicely. Use 1/2 cup
honey and 1/2 to 2/3 cup water. I put the honey in a large measuring cup
and heat in the microwave for a minute. (If it starts to bubble, stop
it.) Then I add the boiling water and stir. Then dump this in the
bottling bucket and add the brew. Just give a few extra days for the
bottles to fully carbonate.
Cheers,
Paul
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #3020, 05/03/99
*************************************
-------
