Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #3034
HOMEBREW Digest #3034 Wed 19 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: Hardware question (John_E_Schnupp)
Stirring ("Nathaniel P. Lansing")
all grain brewing (ROATTW)" <ROATTW@UCMAIL.UC.EDU>
Screen in boiling kettle (Manbeck, Brad J.)" <BJM@roisysinc.com>
counter pressure bottle fillers (Tom.E.George)
an alternative to magnetic stirrers ("Marc Sedam")
Slick mouthfeel ("David Kerr")
Re: Primetab (Steve Jackson)
Re: Anybody have a recipe that clones Corona? (Jeff Renner)
Idiotic State/Provincial Liquor Laws ("Alan McKay")
Schaarbeek cherries (dolmans)
water, water, everywhere. stirring = aeration? (fwd) (ALAN KEITH MEEKER)
BJCP Exam ("Houseman, David L")
Oxygen in stirred worts (MICHAEL WILLIAM MACEYKA)
Jethro Gump == Pat Babcock??? (HAHAHA) ("Jeffrey M. Kenton")
Re: SS/Cu/Al Dielectric Corrosion ("Timmons, Frank")
Multi-tier questions ("J. Doug Brown")
Extract Barleywine ("Evans, Timothy")
pw false bottom/cilantro/chiller agitation ("Bayer, Mark A")
Water (AJ)
Rye beer (Greg Remec)
Re: Galvanic Corrosion between Al, Cu, SS ("John Palmer")
babcock impersonations (JPullum127)
The Jethro Gump "Reports" ("Rob Moline")
Recirculation tribulations (ThomasM923)
RE: Bottled beer tastes different than beer from the keg (Dave Humes)
Mephitis sweet mephitis (ThomasM923)
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: Mon, 17 May 1999 23:01:18 -0700
From: John_E_Schnupp@amat.com
Subject: re: Hardware question
>Does anybody have any suggestion on the best way to hook up the
>burners. The jets are 3/8" flare.
<snip>
>I reluctant to use compression fittings, because I am
>concerned about propane leaks. What is the best material for the tubing?
>What types of fittings should I use? Any suggestions would be appreciated.
Flare fittings, copper tubing. Compression fittings are NOT for gasses.
Use a t-fittings to branch off the main line to each burner. You should
need one less t-fitting than burners. If you are using high pressure
burners, you may have a problem with the pressure if you have all the
burners going at once. The burner should have a valve on it so you
really don't need any additional valves.
John Schnupp, N3CNL
Dirty Laundry Brewery
Colchester, VT
95 XLH 1200
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 08:58:58 -0400
From: "Nathaniel P. Lansing" <delbrew@compuserve.com>
Subject: Stirring
Scott Murman says..." Just how much
O2 diffusion occurs when stirring? My intuition tells me it's
negligible compared with forcing O2 into solution. Stirring rouses
the yeast and forces excess CO2 out of solution, both of which cause
foaming, but I think you still need to perform oxygenation with some
other means."
I'll address the three assumptions in order:
A)enough
B)Mis-intuition, see A,
C)yes, yes, and no
The major points of a stirplate:
A)It doesn't need refilled or certified periodicly.
B)If you leave it running for 48 hours the room
won't ignite the next time you turn on a light.
C)No chance of over oxygenation and killing the yeast.
D)The _constant_ stirring keeps exposing the entire solution
to atmosphere allowing maximum absorbtion of O2.
If you aerated to 8 ppm with an injection system the O2 levels
begin immediately to fall, lost to metabolism and outgassing
by CO2; it is not long before it is nil. The stirrer maintains
the O2 levels_continuously_though at a lower level, but the yeast
just need to have some available, not the 8 ppm needed in a "one-shot"
aeration system.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 09:04:34 -0400
From: "Roat, Todd (ROATTW)" <ROATTW@UCMAIL.UC.EDU>
Subject: all grain brewing
I believe the general rule of thumb is approx. 1 quart of 172 degree
water
per pound of grain, all totaled, will bring the mash down to 152
degrees or
so. Its not much different than the stovetop method. In general we
are
looking to hold the mash between 148-152 degrees for about an hour or
until
starch conversion is complete (as indicated by iodine test or,as I used
to
do it, never check but feel confident - if its been held at 152 for an
hour
it was always converted, so I quit checking).
For an excellent article on getting started in all grain see an article
by
Dan Listermann called "Wanna Mash" at http://listermann.com/mash.html.
<http://listermann.com/mash.html>
What makes this article nice for a beginner is its emphasis on
simplicity
that in turn eliminates the intimidation factor. I am/was the type
to keep
brewing as simple as possible and the "chemistry of it all" bores me
(sorry
chem guys ;^). start with this simple approach mentality and,if you
are of
the mindset that enjoys all the complexities of brewing delve into all
that
later.
Hope that helps.
Todd
Todd W. Roat
Clinical Trials Coordinator
EMCREG Coordinator
Department of Emergency Medicine
231 Bethesda Avenue
Cincinnati, Ohio 45267-0769
(P)513-558-5216
(F)513-558-5791
<mailto:emcreg@uc.edu> emcreg@uc.edu
todd.roat@uc.edu <mailto:todd.roat@uc.edu>
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 8:27 -0600
From: "BJM (Manbeck, Brad J.)" <BJM@roisysinc.com>
Subject: Screen in boiling kettle
I have a ten gallon Polarware kettle that I use as my boiling vessel. I
really enjoy the easy of use of opening the ball valve at the bottom and
draining the cooled wort into my carboy. My only complaint is the amount
of trub and hop particles that make it out of the kettle.
I would like to rig some sort of screen / filter on the inside of the
kettle so the trub and hop particles get filtered out before being
drained into the carboy.
Currently, I use the whirlpool technique on the cooled wort, and I use a
screen inside a funnel on top of the carboy. I've heard of people using
chore boys (stainless or copper pot scrubbies), an Easy Masher screen,
and the Sure Screen for their screen / filter.
What I am looking for is specific ways in which a screen / filter was
attached to the inside of the kettle.
Thanks in advance for any information!
Private emails are OK
Brad Manbeck
bjm@roisysinc.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 08:28:51 -0500
From: Tom.E.George@email.heartland-health.com
Subject: counter pressure bottle fillers
On Mon, 17 May 1999 Bill Frazier wrote:
> I would appreciate input on the various types/brands of
>counterpressure filling equipment and any tips on filling by this method.
Bill
Check out Benjamin Machine Products at web site
http://members.aol.com/bmpbfd3/index.html . I am very impresed with the CPBF
I have. Works great and is extremely well made. (no affiliation and all that
stuff)
See ya at the AHA Convention in Kansas City!!!
Tom George
St. Joseph, Mo
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 09:36:40 -0400
From: "Marc Sedam" <marc_sedam@unc.edu>
Subject: an alternative to magnetic stirrers
Although the recent thread on magnetic stirrers had me longing for the days
when I worked in a lab and could borrow equipment at will, there is a
cheaper and more available method of yeast rousing for the non-tinkerers.
I use a 2L Erlenmeyer flask for all starters. Instead of keeping the yeast
roused with a stirrer, I use an aquarium pump, HEPA filter, and cap the
flask with a foam stopper. All are available from Williams Brewing (std.
disclaimer). The key is the foam stopper. The aquarium tubing can be
inserted in the neck of the flask and "sealed" up with the stopper. Because
the stopper is soft, it molds around the thin diameter tubing very well
(pushing it against the side of the neck) and provides a good method for
diffusion of air without worrying about dust or associated bugs from getting
in the starter. Total cost of equipment= <$25. If you want to be real
fancy you could add an aerating stone to the end of the line for better
diffusion of the air, but I haven't found it necessary. Besides, it can
double the cost of the set-up and I am, above all else, "frugal".
Anyhoo, the action of the pump keeps the yeast roused and provides a
constant O2 source for growth. Conceivably this could be done in any sized
container as long as the diameter of the neck was reasonably similar to that
of an Erlenmeyer flask. I'll be testing this theory out tonight on a
3-gallon carboy.
Marc Sedam
Huisbrouwerij Zuytdam
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 09:32:48 -0400
From: "David Kerr" <dkerr@semc.org>
Subject: Slick mouthfeel
Jeremy reports a "slick" mouthfeel in a doctored high diacetyl beer,
AJ reports that slickness has been attributed to high diacetyl levels.
Thank you both for the responses.
Slick is a more accurate descriptor than the term "oily" that I
employed. One other datapoint - upon reviewing my log book I found a
similar notation after tasting one of my rare lager attempts - pilsner
brewed @52-55F using 2 sachets Superior (dry) lager yeast in a 5
gallon batch.
Dave Kerr - Needham, MA - hoping that the new Fenway will serve REAL
beer
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 06:50:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: Steve Jackson <stvjackson@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Primetab
In HBD #3032 (May 17, 1999), Bobpreed@aol.com wrote:
>>>>
I've been thinking about using the Primetab corn sugar tablets for
bottle
conditioning, has anyone had any experience with Primetab, either good
or bad?
<<<<
I used them once about a year ago after I was given a sample. The
directions provided with them are very accurate, and the number of
tablets I used provided me with exactly the amount of carbonation I was
looking for. Since the PITA part of bottling for me is sanitizing all
the bottles, it didn't save a whole lot of time or effort (although I
was spared an extra step of racking into my bottling vessel -- Alan
McKay's concerns about excess sediment were unfounded in my case, but
others may vary of course).
There were a couple minor gripes (one of which the instructions warn
about). Because of the surface area of the tablets providing nucleation
sites for CO2 evolvement, there was some foaming during bottling.
Nothing excessive, but enough to leave a little ring of foam at the top
of the fill line. Because of this, I needed to be a little more
dilligent about cleaning bottles after use. The other gripe isn't
addressed: The instructions say the tabs are sanitary as packaged. But
what about the leftover ones I had? Will they remain reasonably
sanitary, or am I screwed. I haven't tried to test which possibility is
the more likely.
The low-down on these buggers: Convenient, well-made, easy-to-use, but
I don't know if it's enough of a time or effort saver to warrant the
extra expense (two packs would cost me about as much as 3 pounds of
dextrose). I would bet the best use would be for people who keg who
want to bottle a small portion of the batch.
-Steve in Indianapolis
_____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Free instant messaging and more at http://messenger.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 09:35:59 -0400
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner@umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Anybody have a recipe that clones Corona?
"J. Doug Brown" <jbrown@labyrinth.net> writes:
>I bottle with Corona bottles and now that I am brewing would like to
>try and make a Corona like beer.
It's been some years ince I've had a Corona, and I don't remember it being
anything special, But I think that if you'd make a Pilsner-type with
6-row, lots of corn (30%) and perhaps some sugar (10%) and hop it to ~20
IBU, you'd be in the ballpark. Leaving the bottles in the sun for a little
while will give it that familiar skunk smell, or mayber you'd like to
improve on the real thing and not do this.
Jeff
-=-=-=-=-
Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan USA, c/o nerenner@umich.edu
"One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 08:25:37 -0400
From: "Alan McKay" <amckay@nortelnetworks.com>
Subject: Idiotic State/Provincial Liquor Laws
Until about 5 years ago when the liquor laws were completely
reformed, there were a lot of really stupid ones back in Nova
Scotia. For example, establishments could either be a "Bar" or
a "Tavern". The former was allowed to sell bottled beer and
hard liquor, but nothing on tap. The latter was allowed to sell
bottled beer and draught, but no hard liquor. (Not sure where
wine fit in, as I never drank it).
The list went on and on, but finally someone woke up and reformed
the laws. Still no booze in corner stores like Quebec, though ;-)
cheers,
-Alan
- --
Alan McKay
OS Support amckay@nortelnetworks.com
Small Site Integration 613-765-6843 (ESN 395)
Nortel Networks
Internal : http://zftzb00d/alanmckay/
External : http://www.magma.ca/~bodnsatz/brew/tips/
All opinions expressed are my own.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 08:32:47 +0000
From: dolmans@mail.tss.net
Subject: Schaarbeek cherries
Hi!
Would the person interested in getting and propogating Schaarbeek
cherries please get a hold of me. I was intrigued by your post so I
put my Father (a retired farmer who lives in the Netherlands) and my
Uncle (a landscape architect in Holland) on the case, both beer
lovers which helps. I have some leads that may be interesting to
you. TIA.
Gerard Dolmans
Dolmans@mail.tss.net
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 11:51:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: ALAN KEITH MEEKER <ameeker@welch.jhu.edu>
Subject: water, water, everywhere. stirring = aeration? (fwd)
WATER PRECIPITATES
>>Jeff wrote:
>>Can anyone tell me what I've been so conciensously
>>avoiding in my brew? Am I doing right to avoid the sludge
>>or am I missing some critical element? My beer tastes
>>great, so I'm not too concerned about this, just curious.
>>Jeff Luck
>>Salt Lake City, UT - USA
Jeff, I believe what you are seeing are precipitated carbonates, especially
given that you mentioned that your water is somewhat hard (read high in Mg
and/or Ca). The problem, as I mentioned in a recent post, is that simply
boiling your brewing water may actually be raising the pH and hurting you
when it comes time to sparge (assuming you are doing an all grain batch). This
may be less of a problem if you have let the water sit all night assuming
it can re-equilibrate with the CO2 in the air but this may not be happening
due to the water temp, low surface to volume ratio, and you're probably
leaving the lid on the pot to keep down evaporation. At any rate, if you are
sparging it is probably a good idea to check the pH of your sparge water and
make adjustments as necessary...
- ------------------------------
STIRRING AND AERATION
Scott Murman wrote:
>>Several recent posts have commented about stir plates. Just how much
>>O2 diffusion occurs when stirring? My intuition tells me it's
>>negligible compared with forcing O2 into solution. Stirring rouses
>>the yeast and forces excess CO2 out of solution, both of which cause
>>foaming, but I think you still need to perform oxygenation with some
>>other means.
You are almost certainly right that stirring will not get as much O2 into
solution as would applying gas (either air or O2) directly but my intuition
tells me that the contribution from stirring need not be "negligible." You are
also right in pointing out the added effects of keeping the yeast in
suspension and CO2 elimination - both of which will encourage faster yeast
growth independent of the oxygen content.
>>The idea is to have 100% saturation when the yeast want to bud. We
>>start with 0% since our wort has been pre-boiled by some means. I
>>don't think stirring can quickly raise from 0% to 100%, and I doubt it
>>could make an appreciable dent even over time.
Hmmmmmm depends. First, on when the yeast are synthesizing their sterols and
UFAs. The individual cells are most likely performing this throughout
their growth - before, during, and after they actually "bud." Indeed, each
cell will go through the cell cycle more than once (depending on innoculum
size and culture volume) during the approach to stationary phase. Second, how
is the sterter media treated? as you say, dissolved O2 will be zero for all
practical purposes immediately after boiling - but if one then cools and stirs
vigorously for a good period of time in a large enough container with good
access to air prior to innoculation it seems to me you'd have a fair amount of
oxygen in solution at that point. I wish I had a dissolved O2 sensor then I
could check this out for myself - anyone have one along with some time to
kill??
One thing I do wonder about is how much oxygen the yeast uptake after they
have "spent" the media and are in stationary phase? I wonder if they can build
up their sterols/UFAs at this point if kept strirring? Here, there would be
little positive pressure in the vessel due to CO2 generation and I assume you
could get good aeration. Would the energy required come at the expense of
glycogen reserves?
Lastly, a while back I read several scientific papers (AHHHH science rears
it's ugly head again!) on yeast sterol/fatty acid metabolism and there were
clear cases of increased levels of these compounds in actively growing
cultures that were merely "open" to air (cotton plug in flask neck) so it does
seem that significant amounts of oxygen can dissolve in the growth media even
when the culture is "purging" the airspace by CO2 evolution...
-Alan Meeker
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 11:54:34 -0400
From: "Houseman, David L" <David.Houseman@unisys.com>
Subject: BJCP Exam
The BJCP exam will be held at 7:00pm on Friday, June 25th, at Beer Unlimited
in Malvern, PA as a kickoff to the BUZZ OFF Homebrew Competition. For
those interested in taking the test the first time or retaking the exam for
a higher score, please contact Chuck Hanning at 610.889.0396 or by email at
hanning@voicenet.com. Additionally there will be a single prep session on
Wednesday, June 2nd, at Beer Unlimited at 7:00pm.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 12:01:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: MICHAEL WILLIAM MACEYKA <mmaceyka@welch.jhu.edu>
Subject: Oxygen in stirred worts
Howdy all,
I am a budding molecular biologist who spent some time working in a
lab that studies yeast mitochondria. Yeast grown in media that contain
fermentable sugars, such as wort, would invariably have shrunken mitochondria
because they did not respire. In order to get big bulging mitochondria we
could purify, we would grow the yeast in medium that had carbon sources which
required respiration for growth, i.e. glycerol, ethanol, lactate, etc.
Anyway, we grew yeast in these media in a shaking water bath in erlenmeyer
flasks with aluminum foil covers. The only way they could grow was if there
was significant oxygen around for them to respire. Now, I am the first to
admit that we did not measure the oxygen tensions over time in these media,
but I am satisfied with the assumption that when continually shaking or
stirring the wort, significant amounts of oxygen do get into the medium.
Further, I have noticed that when I shake my starters I get more yeast than if
I just let them grow on the bench top, particularily if I start them from a
few colonies. Which reminds me that I can get a single colony from a fresh
plate to 250 mL saturated culture in a day and a half with shaking, so they
are probably making sterols and unsaturated fatty acids using oxygen that
dissolves in the medium as it is shaking.
Key word is "probably." Just my observations. Hope it helps.
Mike Maceyka
Brewing in Baltimore, MD
Birth place of Felonius Monk
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 11:47:26 -0500
From: "Jeffrey M. Kenton" <jkenton@iastate.edu>
Subject: Jethro Gump == Pat Babcock??? (HAHAHA)
I just wanted to chime in about two items.
As far as the readability of Jethro's posts go: If you can't read 'em, try
harder or give up. I find them to be filled to the brim with valuable
information. Often Jethro's posts are the only place I can learn about the
topics he discusses. I have found his posts to pass on information about
our fellow brewers, as well as people important to the brewing community.
That alongside the generally excellent quality information he has about
yeasts, BWs, and so forth. On the other hand, if you aren't interested in
the information he has to offer, give up. There's no shame in it.
I have also seen Mr. Gump type, so I am thankful for ANY output.(just
kidding, Rob)
Pat Babcock exists. Otherwise who wrote that cool quote on the backs of
those MCAB shirts? If a cyber entity can prove that IT is indeed Pat
Babcock, I'll give it some extra RAM (computers don't care about money).
Entries to jkenton@iastate.edu
The more I know about computers, the more I wish they produced beer...
Jeff Kenton
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 09:56:00 -0700
From: "Timmons, Frank" <Frank.Timmons@AlliedSignal.com>
Subject: Re: SS/Cu/Al Dielectric Corrosion
Alan Mc Kay asked in the HBD yesterday about using a stainless steel
and/or copper fitting on an aluminum pot, and the possibility of
dielectric corrosion. The corrosion engineers call it galvanic
corrosion, and it is the result of dissimilar metals being immersed in
an electrolyte. This forms a very small electric potential across the
metals, essentially a battery, which can corrode the metal. All metals
are arranged on a galvanic series from least noble (more likely to
corrode) to most noble, and the farther apart on the series, the worse
the corrosion will be. Of the three metals mentioned, stainless steel is
the most noble, then copper (I assume you will have a copper alloy, like
brass, not pure copper, although there isn't much difference between
them electochemically speaking), then aluminum. However, the relative
surface areas of the three metals will help you somewhat. If the more
active metal part (the aluminum pot in this case) is much larger than
the more noble metal part (stainless steel), the predominant
polarization of the smaller part tends to inhibit the corrosion.
You can do two things: 1) isolate the parts from each other the best you
can. I used PTFE (Teflon) washers to make up a bulkhead fitting for a
converted sanke keg, you could do the same thing. If the metals don't
touch each other, or at least if you minimize the touching areas,
galvanic corrosion is not going to be as much of a concern. Or 2) don't
worry about it, because galvanic corrosion is a pretty slow process, and
you will keep the pot dry for 99% of its life and the corrosion will not
take place without the electrolyte present. I would do both. Good Luck
and Happy Brewing.
Frank Timmons
Richmond, Va.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 17:40:17 +0000
From: "J. Doug Brown" <jbrown@labyrinth.net>
Subject: Multi-tier questions
Hello,
I am in the process of designing a two tier all grain brewing system
and was wondering what methods do you use to clean the system after
brewing. Do you all grain brewers using multi tier systems disassemble
you systems to clean them, fill them with water and run it through all
your vessles and lines, etc. I have a design that I like, however the
sanitization and cleaning worries me a little. Is sanitization really a
problem in your systems because you are working with very hot water at
some point in all the vessles in your system except the fermenter. I
have a drawing of the system at
http://www.labs.net/jbrown/Doug/Brew/two_tier.htm If anyone with RIMS
experience and all grain brewing would like to comment on the design and
provide suggestions, or identify problems I would like that very much.
I really appreciate all the help and information that I have received
on this digest and from all members the provided information directly.
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: Tue, 18 May 1999 10:48:00 -0700
From: "Evans, Timothy" <TbEvans@OMM.com>
Subject: Extract Barleywine
I've recently discovered the pleasures of Barleywine and would like to brew
a
batch before it gets too hot. Does any one have a proven recipe for an
extract
Barleywine? Thanks in advance for any recipes or other suggestions in this
regard. Private email is fine.
Tim Evans
Los Angeles, California
tbevans@omm.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 11:30:54 -0700
From: "Bayer, Mark A" <Mark.Bayer@JSF.Boeing.com>
Subject: pw false bottom/cilantro/chiller agitation
collective homebrew conscience_
Tom B wrote:
<snip>My current brewing system employs a 15 gallon polarware pot with a
<snip>10 gallon Gott cooler.<snip>i've been considering a SS false bottom
>that fits directly in the pot. <snip>Any problems with stuck sparges?
>Can step mashes still be done by adding heat, (via a propane source),
>directly to the kettle, or is this false bottom intended for infusion
>mashing?
i imagine there might be a few problems to think about. first, with regard
to applying heat to the pot with a false bottom in place: since the bottom
is stainless, has no aluminum or copper "sandwich", and recirculation is not
mentioned, there is definitely a scorching potential. you can't get to the
bottom of the pot with a false bottom installed, so there's a risk you won't
be able to easily stir up the bottom liquid fraction to distribute heat
throughout the mash evenly.
secondly, you should consider grain depth in the polarware pot. i've got
one, and it's a fairly big diameter. the depth of the grain bed is going to
be shallower by quite a bit versus a smaller diameter cooler. how much
shallower? hmmmm. if, for example, you have a grain bed depth of 6 inches
in the gott (diameter ~13 in.), putting the same volume into a 15 gallon
polarware kettle (diameter ~18 in.) would reduce your grain bed depth down
to about 3.1 inches. this can introduce difficulty with achieving good
clarity in the vorlauf process. if you move up to 10 gallon batches, you're
probably ok.
al k wrote:
>the cilantro can be used for making salsa, which goes well
>with beer, and
understatement of the month. homegrown tomatoes and cilantro in a homemade
salsa is an unbelievably good combination. throw in a little habanero
pepper (careful!), and it's a religious experience.
ron l wrote:
>I have noticed that if I rock the coil, the heat exchange goes much faster,
>same effect as when one rocks the immersion chiller.
this brings up something i've been thinking about. the weak sanitation link
in my process is the chilling process, which, as ron states, goes much
faster if i agitate the immersion coil while chilling. this means my kettle
is uncovered during the 20 - 30 minutes it takes me to get the wort down to
lager or ale pitching temps. in the summer, i have concerns about airborne
contaminants getting into the brew. has anybody figured out a way to combat
this? my best idea so far is to leave the chiller stationary, cover the
whole thing with saran wrap, and agitate the kettle. this is a big pain in
the rear, though.
i was thinking how much easier this would be if i had a little mechanized
"lifter" that i could prop under one edge of the kettle. the lifter would
be able to push the kettle up about an inch and then let it back down, and
continue cycling this way to keep the wort moving in contact with the
chiller. jack s, is there a market???????
brew hard,
mark bayer
stlmo
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 13:38:21 -0500
From: AJ <ajdel@mindspring.com>
Subject: Water
Alan Meeker and Jeff Luck posted on very similar issues. Let's look at
Alan's comments first:
When he boiled his nominal (east coast surface) water the pH increased
by 1 unit which he ascribes to loss of CO2. This is indeed the cause.
Most waters of this type as delivered by the water works are about
saturated with or slightly super saturated with CO2. The solubility of
CO2 decreases dramatically with increased temperature so that heating
causes loss of the gas upsetting the equilibrium between carbonic acid,
bicarbonate ions and carbonate ions. The pH shifts upwards in order to
establish a new equilibrium with a lower carbonic fraction (and
increased bicarbonate and carbonate). Upon cooling, the water is
undersaturated with CO2 and some dissolves from the air. If the water
was originally just saturated it will eventually return to its initial
pH.
When Alan added gypsum to the water there was no pH change. Gypsum is
the salt of calcium hydroxide, a strong base, and sulfuric acid, a
strong acid so the salt is approximately neutral. Upon heating, CO2 is
driven off causing the pH shift towards the high end and concomitant
conversion of bicarbonate to carbonate. Now, however, calcium ion is
present which coalesces to form calcium carbonate which precipitates.
This results in the release of H+ ions which is why the pH shift is not
as dramatic in this case. Chalk is white. The fact that this ppt. is
brown suggests that the water contains some iron and/or manganese. Upon
standing and cooling, CO2 from the air again dissolves lowering the pH.
Wait long enough and the precipitate will redissolve. This can be
accelerated for demonstration purposes by bubbling CO2 through the
sample.
Alan comments on the mysteries surrounding the phosphate reaction. In
simplified form it is:
H+
H+ Ca++
^
^ \
phytase /
/ \->
phytin -----------> H2PO4- ----> HPO4-- ----> PO4---
- ------>Ca3(PO4)2
i.e. the enzyme phytase frees inorganic phosphate from organic phytin.
(Thanks to Al K for suggesting this way of diagramming). Some of this
sheds protons to become phosphate (PO4---). In the presence of calcium a
precipitate is formed and this results in conversion of more H2PO4- and
HPO4-- to phosphate throwing off protons along the way. These protons
overcome the alkalinity (buffering capacity) of the water and are
responsible for the reduction in pH. It's not really a buffering action.
The more calcium the more phosphate will.
Alan comments that he was sparging with alkaline water based on the pH
of 8.5 -9. Note that alkalinity and pH are not the same thing. In fact
the alkalinity of Alan's tap watrer is probably about 80 ppm as CaCO3
which is not very alkaline at all. Adding gypsum to this water will not
reduce the alkalinity nor increase it. It is probably not necessary to
acidify this water for sparge. As it isn't very alkaline the acid
released by the phytin reaction will probably keep the pH below 6 to the
point where the runoff is down to 2 - 4 P. Try it. In the same regard it
is probably not necessary to acidify this water for mash. There's a good
chance of hitting pH 5.5 - 5.6 without it. If not, add a little crystal
malt to the grist. Note: I don't personally like adding acid for mash
pH control. Water hardness and higher kilned malts will generally do the
job. This is just my personal preference in this matter. I'm not saying
that there is anything wrong with pH adjustment by the use of acid -
mineral or organic.
Comment on "THE SKINNY": You can effectively lower mash pH by boiling
and calcium addition if you do it right. In Alan's case, if he had
decanted the water off the precipitate quickly and mashed with that
water he would find the mash pH lower than with the untreated tap water,
even if the decanted water had been allowed to stand. This is because
the precipitate (calcium carbonate) is formed from bicarbonate ion in
the water and since this is the source of alkalinity when this is
removed the alkalinity goes down. Hardness is removed at the same time
so it is beneficial to supplement with calcium (chloride or sulfate
depending on the taste effects you want).
Now on to Jeff Luck's question about what's the white stuff that forms
when he boils his water. In terms of the previous discussion, it should
be clear that the white stuff is calcium carbonate with perhaps some
magnesium carbonate. Jeff tells us that his water is quite hard. We
already know this when he tells us that the precipitate forms without
addition of any additional calcium (as opposed to Alan's softer water
which requires calcium supplementation for precipitate formation).
- --------->Ca3(PO4)2
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 13:33:18 -0600
From: Greg Remec <gremec@gsbalum.uchicago.edu>
Subject: Rye beer
Hello all,
I've seen rye beers (roggenbier) discussed here occasionally, and I'm
curious as to whether I'd like the taste enough to try brewing one. Can
anyone suggest favorite commercial varieties to try? Redhook makes an ale
called Ryehook; are rye brews primarily ales or lagers? What are some of
the characteristics that distinguish a rye beer?
The archives don't offer a clear consensus (surprise!) as to whether rye
malt or rye flakes are preferable. Some brewers claim flakes promote stuck
sparges, while others blame malt. Most do agree, however, that over 20%
rye can clog up the sparge. What's the difference (if any) in the final
product using malt vs. flakes? Not many places carry rye malt, but most
have the flakes - maybe that's an indication.
Assuming I'll decide to brew a rye beer, does anyone have a favorite
recipe? Are there yeast strains that are particularly well suited for the
style? Any other pointers?
Brew more,
Greg
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 15:20:40 -0700
From: "John Palmer" <jjpalmer@gte.net>
Subject: Re: Galvanic Corrosion between Al, Cu, SS
Alan asks whether attaching a copper (brass??) ball valve with stainless
steel washers to an aluminum pot would be a dielectric (sic) corrosion
problem.
Survey says: Maybe.
The long answer is yes, there will galvanic corrosion, but the question is
- how much?
Is this going to be your brewpot, hot water tank, or what?
Aluminum will corrode when coupled to stainless steel or copper/brass.
Stainless steel is the most inert here. If your usage is intermittant, then
your corrosion should be minimal. The fact that you have a large aluminum
surface and a relatively small cathode (steel, copper) decreases your
corrosion rate. Also, if you electrically insulate the ball valve and
tubing from the aluminum via teflon or rubber or something then your
corrosion will be insignificant.
My recommendation is to go ahead and just watch the area near the contact
of the metals for pitting.
Btw, you can't weld other metals to aluminum and soldering to aluminum
(especially this much aluminum) is difficult for both heat required and
fluxing. Best bet is to make a bulkhead fitting out of brass.
John Palmer
Palmer House Brewery and Smithy
www.realbeer.com/jjpalmer
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 20:09:39 EDT
From: JPullum127@aol.com
Subject: babcock impersonations
scott abene writes:
just a side note...
I was contacted today by the law office of Rookum, Steelem and
Robbum. They said that they were hired by someone Named Apache Unix
from the HBD.ORG group.
They offered me a large cash amount to play the role of a Mister Pat
Babcock at the 2000 AHA Home Brewers' Conference.
as counsel for the firm of dewey,cheatem and howe, we must insist that you
immediatly cease and desist from impersonating mr babcock.we feel so strongly
this sort of outrageous behavior must stop that we intend to represent mr
babcock if it costs him every cent he has. by the way our client, fred
garvin would like us to remind you that there is still a large unpaid bill
for professional services rendered while you were impersonating "charlie's
harem" at the last function.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 22:42:49 -0500
From: "Rob Moline" <brewer@isunet.net>
Subject: The Jethro Gump "Reports"
The Jethro Gump "Reports"
>From: Joe Rolfe <onbc@shore.net>
>Subject: Is it just me....or
>
>is Jethros "reports" always unreadibly formatted....?
Sorry for the inconvenience....not only to you, Sir...but to others in a
similar position....Apparently, it is a problem, endemic.....bubonic? (Can I
see a reference for that?)
My only excuse is firmly placed elsewhere....I guess I could say that I
just use the settings that arrived in my software......
But I will be more honest,...and say that out of the goodness of my heart,
I had employed a couple of out of work brewers to handle my
correspondence....
One was just so filled with angst toward anyone that didn't agree with his
viewpoint...and the other got arrested for cruelty to animals for
centrifuging a Shetland Sheepdog, and using the tail for a pipebrush to
clean the last possession he deemed worthy, an 1.5 inch tri-clamp.....
Then they got into a fight, arguing over who was going to take Fouch's mate
Fred to the Prom!
Well, I had enough!!
So, I hired 2 professionals!!
And I must say I got them quite cheap, I think.....It seems that BOTH James
Carville and Mary Matalin were in a wee slump...seeing that the next major
US election is not yet in the primary stages....and from the fees I get from
answering yeast questions from amateur brewers, I was able to get them BOTH
for 6.7 million USD (per month) combined!!! (WHAT A DEAL!!)
Ah, yes, I thought, I am now set! No wuckin' furries, eh?
Not to be.........While they don't seem to argue as much as brewers that
just can't believe that there is any other way possible, but their own......
they still can't seem to get my "Reports" formatted correctly!
Well, I had warned them!! And by God, should this "Reports" fail to meet
specifications, well, they are done...HISTORY!!!
They can go work for Hillary, or Joh Bjelke-Peterson as far as I am
concerned!!
Gee, I don't know, Joe, I guess if that happens you are just back to me,
and my crappy formatting.....maybe one day I can get it right.......
(This section edited by Jethro.)
Like using no tabs, eh? And gee, Joe, I just thought you hated me 'cos I
work for a DRY yeast Company, and, believe in my product. Now, I realize
it's just my format! Thanks, mate! And may God Bless!
Cheers!
Rob Moline
brewer@isunet.net
Lallemand
jethro@isunet.net
"The More I Know About Beer, The More I Realize I Need To Know More About
Beer!"
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 00:15:57 EDT
From: ThomasM923@aol.com
Subject: Recirculation tribulations
I've been meaning to ask this question for a while---
I would like to use a centrifugal pump for recirculating wort through the
grain bed prior to sparging. I'm tired of hovering over the lauter tun to
perform this mundane brewing task and would like to automate this step. I
would like to have the output of the lauter tun go into a grant with a liquid
level switch in it to regulate the operation of the pump. At the end of the
recirculation loop I would have some kind of manifold to gently return the
wort under the surface of the standing liquid. Between the pump output and
the manifold would be a valve to control the flow rate. OK, so far so good;
the thing that I can't seem to figure out is how to keep the wort from
flowing backwards through the pump once it has turned off, which it would do
once the liquid level in the grant reached a certain level. The only thing I
can think of to avoid this is a check valve. Is this the way to go? It seems
that check valves require a bit of pressure to open (5 lbs per sq. in. or so)
and may do away with the gentle approach altogether. I am interested in
hearing about how others approach this type of recirculation setup.
Thomas Murray
Maplewood, NJ
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 May 99 23:45:06 -0400
From: Dave Humes <humesdg1@earthlink.net>
Subject: RE: Bottled beer tastes different than beer from the keg
>The beer from the keg is always better than the bottled version of the
>same recipe, even from the same batch. Must be something about the
>secondary fermentation products that build up during conditioning. So,
>since I like to have some bottled beer on hand I'm going to start
>filling by the counterpressure method. Hopefully, the bottled beer will
>taste as good as the keg version. I would appreciate input on the
>various types/brands of counterpressure filling equipment and any tips
>on filling by this method. TIA.
I assume you are force carbonating your kegs. Otherwise, there should not
be much difference since the keg is just a big bottle that would also trap
secondary fermentation products.
I have made a similar observation to yours, but in my case the difference
was noted between kegged beer and CP filled bottles of the same beer. I
thought it was great out of the keg and ordinary out of the bottle. I
think there's a lot going on when dispensing out of a keg that is not
simply duplicated when dispensing from a bottle. I recently CP filled a
strong bitter, something like a Fuller's. To be true to style, it was
minimally carbonated in the keg. But, because the beer is under
continuous pressure when dispensing from the keg, it is simple to put a
nice head on the glass that laces all the way down. The CP filled bottles
seemed to have the right carbonation level, but were lacking aroma and
flavor and poured with very little foam. I believe that the bursting
bubbles in the head are responsible for delivering a large portion of the
aroma and flavor of the beer. Remember, you can only taste sweet, sour,
bitter, and salty, so most of what you taste depends on your nose. So, I
would advise you to adjust your carbonation level in the keg before CP
filling to be appropriate for the style. Terry Foster recommends in
Classic Style Series Pale Ale volume to carbonate draught pale ales to
0.75 to 1.0 volumes and bottled beers to 1.5 to 2.0 volumes. This process
is likely to be style dependent and require lots of tuning.
Concerning equipment and procedure, I use the Hoptech filler that has a
single 3-way valve. It's pretty simple and I highly recommend it. I
would not touch one that has 3 valves. I know people that are happy with
the Counter Phil CP filler, but as I understand it, it relies on siphon to
draw beer from the keg and therefore requires the bottle to be below the
keg. I prefer to have my keg on the floor and the bottles on the
countertop. Any who has one care to comment? It is imperative that you
have your beer and bottles very cold before filling, as close to freezing
as possible, as this helps keep the CO2 in solution. Early attempts at CP
filling can be quite messy and frustrating. Persist. The process is also
much more efficient if you have a helper cap while you fill.
- --Dave
- --
- -----------------------------------------------------------
Dave Humes <humesdg1@earthlink.net> Dave Humes
- -----------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 00:45:38 EDT
From: ThomasM923@aol.com
Subject: Mephitis sweet mephitis
Phil Yates wrote concerning skunks:
The closest we ever got to one was watching Pepe La Pooh (does anyone
remember the proper spelling?)
Yes: Pepe Le Pew (one of the better Looney Tune offerings...Le Pew!)
Also: Oh yes, and Don McLean once sang about one he saw in the middle of the
road...
Not Don "American Pie" McLean, but Loudon Wainwright III.
Oh, uh...gonna open up a beer. Right now. (required beer related reference)
Thomas Murray
Maplewood, NJ
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #3034, 05/19/99
*************************************
-------
