Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #3230
HOMEBREW Digest #3230 Mon 24 January 2000
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:
Decoction efficiency (RCAYOT)
First Wort Hopping (FWH) (Marc Sedam)
Bottling question ("Trevor Good")
Missing, (Dave Burley)
CO2 Bottles in Fridge (Calvin Perilloux)
Yikes! Son of Exploding Stout! ("Penn, John")
The Jethro Gump Report ("Rob Moline")
Back Issues (Nathan Kanous)
OG Sample Chiller (Biergiek)
yeast starter aerator ("Dana H. Edgell")
Homebrewing (TKBFRED)
Hot Break Clogging ("Kruska, Russ")
RE: Zapap Bum Rap? ("Brian D.")
"Being Frank" by Phil or Jill ("Phil & Jill Yates")
Tropical Guiness ("A. J. deLange")
Beer Color (SRM to RGB?) ("A. J. deLange")
what a world what a world .../racking+kegging techniques ("Stephen Alexander")
extraction rates (Biergiek)
pH Temperature Reading (Biergiek)
Cave Creek (Paul Edwards)
Re: pumps (RobertJ)
Pepper Beer. (TKBFRED)
equipment (DeVeaux Gauger)
Hot transfer and heat transfer ("Sean Richens")
Thermowells (Some Guy)
* Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy!
* Entry deadline for the Mayfare Homebrew Competition is 3/15/00
* See http://www.maltosefalcons.com/ for more information
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 FROM THE E-MAIL
ACCOUNT YOU WISH TO HAVE SUBSCRIBED OR UNSUBSCRIBED!!!**
IF YOU HAVE SPAM-PROOFED your e-mail address, you cannot subscribe to
the digest as we canoot reach you. We will not correct your address
for the automation - that's your job.
The HBD is a copyrighted document. The compilation is copyright
HBD.ORG. Individual postings are copyright by their authors. ASK
before reproducing and you'll rarely have trouble. Digest content
cannot be reproduced by any means for sale or profit.
More information is available by sending the word "info" to
req@hbd.org.
JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 21 Jan 2000 10:21:47 -0500
From: RCAYOT@solutia.com
Subject: Decoction efficiency
It is a rare occasion that I would ever take exception to anything
George DePiro would have to say, however regarding:
"As a homebrewer I did experiments on a few occasions to determine if
decoction mashing would increase efficiency. I measured the SG of the
mash liquid with a hydrometer, decocted a third of the mash, cooled it
down to the mash temperature, added it back, made up the volume
difference and measured the SG again. My homebrew hydrometer could
never register a difference.
The reason that decocting didn't make a big difference is likely to be
the fact that most modern malts are well modified (almost all, in
fact; the Budvar stuff being the only undermodified malt that I know
of). This means that the protein matrix that entraps the starch
granules is already broken down for the brewer. A single temperature
infusion mash will achieve almost as much saccharification as a
multi-temp infusion or decoction."
I nearly ALWAYS get higher extration from my decoction mashes. the
reason however, is difficult to prove. I would say that George's
experiment does not necessarily demonstrate anything, unless he also
allowed the mash to rest at saccarification(sp?). temperatures.
george does not say that he did this, and I would wonder if he did or
not. Another potential problem is the denaturization of the enzymes,
while he decocted it could well be that there was not enough activity
left to complete the conversion.
Having said that, I have also begun to wonder if the higher
conversions I experience in my decoction mashes are due to the greater
amount of mixing that I do when I decoct my mashes. The decoction is
mixed in the decoction pot, stirred constantly when heating and while
boiling, the decoction and the rest mash are mixed thoroughly when
combined etc. I usually do not stir up my infusion mashes very much,
strike, stir til uniform temperature, and rest! Could it be that
mixing would release more starch into solution for conversion? The
question becomes the difference between starch that is readily
gelatinized in well modified malt, but needs to be physically worked
to incorporate into the mash solution, versus unmodified starch
granules that need to be boiled, and burst in order to be gelatinized.
Clearly there are lab tests that are designed to show these
differences off, I just don't know how well those can be applied to
homebrewing. More discussion PLEASE!
Roger Ayotte
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 15:16:37 -0500
From: Marc Sedam <marc_sedam@unc.edu>
Subject: First Wort Hopping (FWH)
I know many on the list are fans of FWH. Lately there has
been some discussion of whether you leave the FWH hops in or
remove them prior to the boil. Has anyone considered adding
the FWH hops to the mashtun?
When I made a Berliner weiss this summer the recipe called
for addition of hops in the mash to aid lautering with such
a high percentage of wheat. Now I imagine if you wanted to
FWH in the mash that you'd have to do it with whole hops (or
at least plugs) to avoid a stuck mash.
Dunno. It just struck me that this might be a great way to
get the FWH characteristics without more bitterness. Any
thoughts?
-Marc
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 14:30:19 -0600
From: "Trevor Good" <t.good@printwest.com>
Subject: Bottling question
I have recently finished my first lager. Is has been in the fridge for 10
weeks at 34F. I am wondering if the yeast will come back to carbonate the
beer. How do I go about doing this?
Thanks
Trevor Good
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 15:58:41 -0500
From: Dave Burley <Dave_Burley@compuserve.com>
Subject: Missing,
Brewsters:
Steve Owens (sorry, I try to not screw up
at least your name!) asks if there is
anything he is missing in his description
of brewing.
There are volumes missing and that's
why they write those great big books.
However, you have most of the ideas,
except you seem to believe that enzymes
only operate around 140F and 150F.
Not so, don't forget the glucanases and
various protein rests in the 100-135F range
that may be useful in providing mouth feel.
( see my previous post).
I expect a loud cry from others "But you
don't need all those low temperature rests
on highly modified malts." I suggest you
try short rests ( 15-30 min) at 122F and 135F
and see if you can tell the dfiference.
"But you'll kill the head" the voices
continue.
I suggest you try it and find out for yourself.
And mash at 158F, heat to 176F for mashout.
Try it.
Minor problems with your description is that
malt is not boiled ( except in decoctions)
and alkalinity refers to bicarbonate in
water treating not pH.
Keep on Brewin'
Dave Burley
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 16:11:12 -0500
From: Calvin Perilloux <peril@compuserve.com>
Subject: CO2 Bottles in Fridge
Regarding the question about CO2 bottles in the fridge:
No problem putting CO2 bottles in your fridge, as far as my
experience goes. The pressure inside the bottle will be less
than you'd expect at room temps, of course, but it is still far
above the regulated pressure which you use for dispensing.
As for the safety issue, I'd even guess you have less chance
of tipping the thing over when it's safely in a closed fridge
instead of outside it with gas lines to trip on.
I used CO2 bottles inside my fridge in the States, when
I had a big fridge for serving and didn't feel like gambling
with drilling holes in the side. In other places I've lived,
I've used the bottles outside the fridge, but when "outside
the fridge" is a garage at +6C, it's not much different than
putting the whole setup in the fridge anyway.
Calvin Perilloux
Staines, Middlesex, England
(where garages are pretty much unaffordable, but perfect
refrigeration is free and unlimited this time of year)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 16:25:08 -0500
From: "Penn, John" <John.Penn@jhuapl.edu>
Subject: Yikes! Son of Exploding Stout!
This past summer I brewed an explosive (and messy) batch of imperial
stout with my wife's cousin from Colorado. I named it Cousin John's
(Exploding) Imperial Stout. It was amusing to my wife's cousin but not to
my wife. The cleanup was quite a job. I posted that recipe on the HBD
sometime this past June and was dissappointed by the results. I managed to
drink all but 6 bottles which I'm saving. The beer wasn't too bad when I
mixed a bottle with about 1/3 bottle of a "belgian beer" that was supposed
to be a pseudo-altbier. But the basic stout tasted "off" somehow. There
were four things I wanted to change or improve.
1) Avoid the mess. I did not want the batch to explode all over my
basement! I made a 1.5 gallon starter (OG 1.020) of Nottingham yeast and
timed it perfectly. With the warm summer temperatures and thermal runaway
(i.e. the heat generated by the yeast produced even faster fermentation
which led to more heat, etc.), the yeast took up the 1+ gallons of headspace
in my 6.5 gallon carboy and some hop pellets must have plugged up the
airlock leading to the huge mess and loss of a gallon of stout.
2) Avoid contamination. Possibly the explosion during the first 24 hours
led to some kind of contamination while the beer was only about 2% abv
(alcohol). Later the batch achieved 9% abv . It never seemed to get worse
with age like a typical contamination but then 9% abv is not going to
support too much in the way of contaminants.
3) Avoid oxidizing the beer. Even though I was aerating my large starter
when I pitched the wort, I felt that since it was very low in alcohol
(1.020) I would not really be aerating that much percentage wise when you
looked at alcohol content and not just volumetric content. Oxidation is
certainly a possibility for the "off" results.
4) Avoid a large percentage of dark malts. I had about 1/2# roasted barley
and 1/2# of chocolate malt in the original recipe and wanted to cut that
down to no more than 1/2# of dark malts. I think I will make this a
standard in all my recipes, batches I have made with a pound or more of dark
malts are just too much for my tastes (most of the time).
Cousin John's Exploding Imperial Stout II
(4.25 gallons as made, approximately 2.5-3 gallons in the boil)
OG 1.090 estimated IBUs 55-57 estimated (Rager) FG 1.018-20 estimated
~6+oz of Roasted Barley (steeped ~150-160F)
9.5 # M&F light malt extract
1.5 # clover honey (at end of boil)
~1.6oz Cluster hops (7.1%) 45 min boil
~0.8oz Northern Brewer hops (6.5%) 45 min boil (~16.5 HBUs total bittering
hops)
~0.75 oz Cascade hops (aroma, 0-1 min)
2 pkts Nottingham dry yeast (rehydrated for 15 mins)
Brewed Tuesday night (1/18) and the batch went very well... tasted
great at the end. Yeah, I should have pitched 3 pkts of dry yeast probably
but I think 2 will be OK since its only 4.25 gallons. I had calculated 55
IBUs if I added 19 HBUs of bittering hops with malt and honey at beginning
of boil or 17.5 HBus of bittering hops with the honey added at the end of
the boil assuming a 50:50 concentrated boil. Since I was boiling a little
more volume than originally planned, I lowered the hops to 16.5 HBUs instead
of 17.5 HBUs but later calculated about 57 IBUs (pretty close).
Fermentation started slowly and steadily the next day plugging along at 64F
with some room left in the 5+ gallon carboy. Steady the next day too with
no problem. This morning (Friday) I noticed my margin at the top of the
carboy had gone away even though it was still fermenting at a relatively
cool 64F (unlike the 75F+ the past summer). No hop pellets were evident
near the airlock but some foam was bubbling through the airlock. To prevent
another devastating explosion, I used a blowoff tube which really shouldn't
change my bitterness because of the headspace in the carboy and the fact
that hops will not be "blown off" as in a typical use of the blowoff method
where you fill the carboy nearly full. I never liked suffering the
signficant loss of beer with "blow off", and as Al K pointed out you are
only changing the bitterness by 17% or so using blowoff.
So 1) I appear to be avoiding the dreaded explosive fermentation and
possible contamination from fragments dislodged from the ceiling.
2) I used dry yeast to avoid any possibility of over aerating my
"starter" which was quite large last time.
3) I used a lot less dark malts, a mere 6+ oz of roasted barley
(~7.3 oz scaled to a 5 gallon batch).
I'll let you know how it turns out but I think this time it will be
a keeper.
John Penn
Eldersburg, MD
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 15:33:24 -0600
From: "Rob Moline" <brewer@isunet.net>
Subject: The Jethro Gump Report
Wall Street Journal
But on a bright note, it is great to see a local brewery get some
national attention...The only thing that would make it better was if they
interviewed Paul Kreutzfeldt, the brewer!
"The Homestretch....In other campaign developments......
LESS FILLING: He may not drink anymore, but Mr. Bush is the favorite
candidate of patrons of the Rock Bottom Brewery in West Des Moines. Those
who order a pint of the pub's Caucus Ale earn a bottle cap to put in a jar
labeled with their favorite candidate's name. Mr. Gore is a distant second
in the decidedly unofficial contest, and Messrs. McCain and Bradley are tied
just ahead of a jar labeled "Don't Care," bar manager Steve Forster said."
Wall Street Journal, 1.21.00, page A20..
Lallemand Scholarship....
I know that some of you reading this Digest may be concerned with the
status of the Lallemand Scholarship following the painful announcement of
Siebel's closure, as I know I have personnally signed up a few of you as
members of the AHA, in order that you might be able to take advantage of it.
For those of you as yet unaware of the Scholarship, this offer was put
together as a membership booster for the AHA, in my dual capacities as an
AHA Board of Advisor's member, and a Internet Yeast Consultant for
Lallemand.
The Scholarship, open to all members of the AHA, would be awarded by
Lallemand to a member drawn at random from a collection of entries at the
next National Homebrew Convention in Detroit in June. It would mimic the
Siebel Scholarship, in that it would provide full tuition to a Short Course,
as well as a thousand dollars to aid in travel and housing costs.
With Mr. Siebel's recent announcement, questions regarding the effort
have been popping up, but there is really no plan to discard the proposal.
Firstly, I am praying to the Gods of Brewing that the effort to restructure
Siebel into a Not For Profit will bear fruit, which means that the original
plan will be honored. Should that prove not to be the case, however,
Lallemand intends to supply the winner with a yet to be determined option,
which may or may not include the University of California's Davis school,
the American Brewer's Guild programmes, of perhaps even a brewing adventure
to the United Kingdom or Europe.
More details on the Scholarship can be accessed through the AOB/AHA's
webpage. Currently, less than 200 AHA members have entered the drawing, so
for a 33$ AHA membership, one has some pretty decent odds at acquiring $
3500 worth of brewing knowledge!
Cheers!
Rob Moline
Lallemand
AHA/BoA
brewer@isunet.net
P.S. A new brewster was delivered to Brewery Gump on 1.18.00...Katherine
Elizabeth.....I think she'll make a great addition to the brewery team!
"The More I Know About Beer, The More I Realize I Need To Know More
About Beer!"
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 15:39:17 -0600
From: Nathan Kanous <nlkanous@pharmacy.wisc.edu>
Subject: Back Issues
Any recent knowledge of back issues of Brewing Techniques? I ordered a
back issue a hell of a long time ago and still haven't heard
anything. Phone numbers don't work. Maybe someone that is responsible
reads this...maybe not. (yes, I know BT is out of publication...that's what
prompted me to order...before they ran out).
nathan in madison, wi
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 18:47:33 EST
From: Biergiek@aol.com
Subject: OG Sample Chiller
I was inspired by Jeremy's gadget that chills wort samples for OG
testing, so I decided to build one myself. I am calling this the
EZTESTER (tm):
http://members.aol.com/biergiek/ogchill.jpg
What I think I'll do is set up a website and start selling it for $1.99,
and charge $25 for handling so I can make my margin on the world's
greatest OG chiller. Shipping is extra, of course. This baby is going
to send the refractometer to the museum.
Kyle
Bakersfield, CA
Chairman - Committee to Elect Alan Meeker as HBD Resident Chemist
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 15:59:15 -0700
From: "Dana H. Edgell" <EdgeAle@cs.com>
Subject: yeast starter aerator
HBD,
I would like to use an aquarium pump to continuously aerate a yeast starter
and would appreciate some advice from others who have done so.
1) Is foaming a problem? If so have you found any simple solutions such as:
use a larger jug; put the aerator on an intermittant timer; use a large
hole diffuser(or none);,etc.
2) If anti-foaming agents are necessary, what effect will they have on the
beer's heading ability?
3) Has anyone advice on using the bubbles to maximize the turbulence in the
jug to keep the yeast in suspension? Has anyone tried an upside down
starter jug (ala fermentap) so that the bubbles are launched from the
bottom of the "cone" geometry to keep things stirred up?
4) I plan on using a sterile filter on the air (William's brewing has a
relatively cheap one). Does anyone have any advice on a good cheap
prefilter to catch the larger gunk and increase the life of the sterile
filter?
5) Any thoughts on using a coffee-mug warmer to keep the yeast temperature
up. Chris White of White Labs told at the last QUAFF meeting that all yeast
like 90F (although some lager yeast can get cranky at temps just over that
i.e.92F).
Thanks,
Dana
- --------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Edgell mailto:EdgeAle@cs.com
Edge Ale Brewery http://ourworld.cs.com/EdgeAle
San Diego
Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 21:02:05 EST
From: TKBFRED@aol.com
Subject: Homebrewing
Thought some might find this interesting...I have dealt with the same
equivalence in intelligence matter explaining homebrewing to people....like
the guy who "brewed" the can of malt, but never opened the can and called to
ask what he needed to do to get the beer out of the unopened malt can now
that it had boiled for 20 minutes...yes my Friends, they ARE everywhere.
Fred M. Scheer
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 22:07:30 -0800
From: "Kruska, Russ" <R.KRUSKA@CGIAR.ORG>
Subject: Hot Break Clogging
Since there's been some recent threads about
hot break, I thought I'd post a quick question
about it. I recently have been brewing 5
gallon all-grain batches and boiling in my
12 gallon brewpot. The extra space in the
kettle has for the first time allowed me
to crank up my cajun cooker full blast. Fantastic
hot break!! The problem is that the extra
break now clogs up my Surescreen and wort
chilling through my cf chiller takes ages!!
I always use an ounce or 2 of whole hops to
help the Surescreen from clogging (along with
hop pellets). The last batch I got impatient
and hooked up the chiller to a copper cane with
chore boy attached at inlet and even this
clogged up. Any suggestions out there?
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 23:16:38 -0800
From: "Brian D." <briandixon@home.com>
Subject: RE: Zapap Bum Rap?
>From: "Paul Campbell" <p.r.campbell@tesco.net>
>Subject: RE: Zapap Bum Rap?
>
>Not diminishing Al in any way but, when the ""experiment" was carrried out;
>what was Al's own preferred method? I've found improvements over time when
>I've worked with different setups, albeit basic differences (so I thought).
>
>Al? Anyone?
I just took another look at the article and see that Al didn't voice any
recommendation for any one system. He states that you can get 30+
pts/lb/gal from any of them and that the difference in yield among them was
most likely due to measurement error. He did say that it was difficult
(slow) sparging from the grain-bag lautering system. He also recommended a
number of things to improve your mash/lauter efficiency, the most important
of which was a good crush. Almost in the same breath he adds that he
recommends an insulated lauter tun (didn't say of which design.)
>My personal experience with regard to variation would agree with Fred's
>conclusion. Perhaps a danger in brewing is to set oneself back (in terms
of
>supposed efficiency) by tampering too much in the name of 'progress'?
Especially after re-reading the article and re-thinking about it all, I
think I agree too. I also agree with Al's conclusion about measurement
error ... 3 or 4 pts is nothing ... Until I very carefully calibrated my
water measurement tools, weight scales, pots and dipsticks, my measurements
and calculations were WAY off and there was no easy way to tell (except for
puzzlingly high efficiencies, unusually large 'drops' in gravity after
racking into the fermenter etc.) Everything adds up and agrees with all my
predictions and calculations now!
ALSO: Thanks for the info on the Listerman -vs- Phil's naming on the Phalse
Bottom. I've got the whole relationship and history straight now!
Brian Dixon
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 22:04:27 +1100
From: "Phil & Jill Yates" <yates@acenet.com.au>
Subject: "Being Frank" by Phil or Jill
Karl makes the following comment
>p.s. Yes, Phil gave me permission to use this photo
But Karl
To be frank, this really is a flattering photo. But I am not being frank
tonight. Not even going to put on my latest dress and be Jill.
Ever since I cottoned on to the fact that Doc Pivo was writing half the Dave
Burley posts during the heady days of personal fights on the HBD, I realised
there was little future in being someone else. Just as well for us all that
Doc Pivo had his medication readjusted and these days from his hospital bed
he gives us little trouble.
I must admit though that I am a bit sheepish about having my photo presented
to all on the HBD (lucky though that I had taken off my leather apron and
rubber boots - Kyle would have flipped his lid, and likely ended up in the
bed next to Doc Pivo!).
But being sheepish about things is not going to help me much either. This is
only going to further convince Jeff Renner that I really do "get amongst the
sheep" over here.
As for your suggestion that I make the world's best beer, well there simply
can be no argument on that. Burradoo is just awakening to the smell of hops
and malt wafting through the country air, and the first samplings have been
conducted with great success.
As far as I am concerned, every homebrewer makes the world's best beer.
Cheers
Phil
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 12:29:25 +0000
From: "A. J. deLange" <ajdel@mindspring.com>
Subject: Tropical Guiness
WRT tropical Guiness: I have just tasted this for the first time and
find it amazing stuff. The sample I tasted was produced by Mauritius
Brewing Company which is located, as you might have guessed, on the
island of Mauritius (Ile Maurice) in the Indian Ocean off the east coast
of Madagascar. They brew this under license from Guiness. I was prepared
for a surprise and I certainly got one. The beer is really a stout:
7.5ABV with a strongly malty nose through which the burnt smell of the
black malts is still plainly discernible. The taste is quite different
from the traditional Guiness (which isn't very stout at all) - there is
none of the tangy sourness and the beer definitely tastes malty but you
can also taste the cane sugar/molasses components clearly. Sugar is an
obvious adjunct in all Mauritius Brewing products as you might expect on
an island where sugar cane is a major cash crop. This beer tastes
strongly alcoholic, more so than you might expect for a 7.5% beer - it
just comes right on through. Despite obviously high OE the beer is
fairly thin in mouthful and quite dry in which regard it does resemble
the Guiness we are used to to some extent. Has a faint hint of licorish.
The other beers from this brewery:
Phoenix - a 5% ABV tropical Pils: reminiscent of CUB's Crown Lager i.e.
very smooth and one can readily taste the sugar. No hops nose, just a
hint of malt. Hopping barely above threshold (17 - 18 BU?). Slightly
acidic as most tropical beers seem to be. Must have something to do with
sucrose. Refreshing warm weather beer.
Blue Marlin - a 6% ABV version of Phoenix. My guess is a little more
malt and a little more sugar. It's slightly darker.
Super 8 - the macho man's drink and one of the most interesting beers
I've ever downed. As the name suggests its 8% and its obviously largely
done with sugar. This stuff smells more like some of my meads than beer
i.e. there is no malt or hops at all in the nose. It is lighter in color
than Blue marlin and not sweet but the mouth feel is substantial. The
taste is similarly un-beer-like though it is quite strongly flavored
with flavors I can't describe.
A final note on Mauritius Brewing: I didn't get into the plant but drove
by it every day. Fermentation is done in jacketed cylindroconicals
located outside in the sunshine!
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 12:33:19 +0000
From: "A. J. deLange" <ajdel@mindspring.com>
Subject: Beer Color (SRM to RGB?)
Greg asks "Does anyone know of a way to correlate SRM ratings with these
six parameters?" Yes, I do but it isn't something the average home
brewer can play with because a spectrophotometer is required. It takes 3
parameters to specify a color (R,G, B or H,S,L - not both) and I have
measured R,G,B for several beers. I passed this data to a correspondent
with a similar question to Greg's and he put together a set of color
patches from the data I sent by coding them into a spreadsheet as Greg
suggests doing. The results don't look much like beer and I'll get into
why later. Greg: send me e-mail in Feb. when I'll be back in the States
and I'll send you a copy of these color patches - its on a machine
there.
To get three numbers requires that the entire absorption spectrum of
beer be measured whereas SRM is determined by only one measurement at a
particular wavelength. A brief history of determination of beer color:
It had always been determined by visual comparison of beer samples to
colored standards. Iodine solutions of calibrated strengths were used as
were stained glass samples (the Lovibond series), other solutions, etc.
Visual comparison is fraught with problems such as variations in
operators' visual abilities (color blindness being an extreme example),
the quality of the light used to make the comparison (see, for example,
DeClerk on this subject) and the variation inherent in subjective
judgments of any kind (think about beer judging). After W.W.II
affordable (to a large brewery's laboratory - not to home brewers)
spectrophotometers began to become available and an ASBC committee began
to look at instrumental methods. In 1950 they adopted the definition:
"Beer color intensity on a sample free of turbidity and having the
spectral characteristics of an average beer is 10 times absorbance of
the beer measured in a 1/2-in. cell with monochromatic light of
wavelength 430 nm."
and this definition is in use to this day. The average spectral
characteristics were based on 34 American and Canadian beers the darkest
of which measured 5.97 on the newly proposed SRM scale! Determination
that the beer has "average" spectral characteristics is done by
measuring the absorption at 700 nm (at the red end of the spectrum - 430
is at the blue end). If the 700 nm absorption is more than 0.039 times
the 430 nm absorption the beer is not average and technically the SRM
definition does not apply. Note: most of my beers are not average (in
the color sense I mean but, naturally, I hope at least some of them are
above average in the broader sense as well). Based on the foregoing you
can get into all kinds of discussions as to whether SRM has any validity
as a color specification parameter for beers above 6 SRM (note: the EBC
has a very similar scheme) which don't pass the "averageness" test.
Nevertheless SRM is used widely. There is some justification for this in
that SRM correlates quite well (but not perfectly) with Luminance, one
of the parameters which your computer lets you specify. Luminance
conveys how light or dark something seems. A black and white TV extracts
the luminance of a scene and transmits only that. Luminance depends on
the entire visible spectrum of the beer and SRM on only one wavelength
so where the absorption spectrum of the beer deviates from "average" SRM
falls down. For example: Wild Goose Golden Ale has (had) a luminance in
a 5 cm path (we'll get back to that in a minute) of 29.3 and Red Hook
IPA 36.2 i.e. Red Hook appears brighter. Yet Red Hook is 9.46 SRM while
Wild Goose's SRM value is 9.08 from which you'd expect Red Hook to look
darker. Note that both these beers pass the "average" test nevertheless
their spectral shapes differ enough to bring about this phenomenon.
I'm on a personal crusade to replace SRM with luminance which position
has garnered me objections, nay, violent objections from some previous
contributors to this forum. Nonetheless the idea is so obviously a good
one that the professionals are looking into it at least in Europe. One
measures the absorption spectrum using the same instrument and cuvets as
are used for SRM and does some simple (spreadsheet level) math on it to
come up with three numbers Y, x and y. Y is the luminance. x and y are
"chroma" values from which R,G and B or Saturation and Hue i.e. color as
opposed to brightness can be determined. Note that your computer
ultimately works in RGB as your screen has red, green and blue dots on
it. The point is that inter conversion between RGB, HLS,CMYK,XYZ,Yxy
etc. is a trivial mathematical transformation for the machine.
One of the nicest things about these "tristimulus" systems is that
there is already a standard, ASTM Std E 308 - 96, which prescribes how
to do the calculations from the spectrophotometer data
One of the most interesting things about beer colors is that they are
very restricted following a surprisingly narrow gausian shaped path from
the white point to tangency with the line of pure spectral colors in
chroma (x,y) space. Ultimately, beer is red - pure red. Shine a light
through a Guiness and what do you see? The darker a beer is, the redder
it is and the longer the path through which you observe it, the darker
and redder it will be. This is a function of the shape of the absorption
spectrum of beer: it is transparent to red light, absorbs green more
strongly and blue most strongly. Thus the color of beer depends on the
width of the glass you pour it into. Look at a Pils in a Pilsner glass.
It not only looks darker at the top but redder. Shine a light through a
carboy full of your palest beer. It will look redish.This relates to the
original question. Before we can specify hue and saturation (i.e. color)
values for a beer, we must define the path through which it is being
observed. The Davison Color Guide with which you may be familiar assumes
5 cm based on the fact that that's the diameter of the cups we use in
competitions.
Finally, our impression of the color of an object depends on things
besides Y,x and y such as the size of the field being viewed (ASTM E308
deals with 2 degree and 5 degree visual fields), highlights, surface
texture and the colors and textures that surround it. Thus a color
splotch as seen on your CRT and especially as printed on a piece of
paper will not look much like a photograph of glass of beer even though
technically it has the same color as described by the CIE system (which
is the system upon which color TV, computer monitors etc. work).
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 07:40:36 -0500
From: "Stephen Alexander" <steve-alexander@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: what a world what a world .../racking+kegging techniques
(hope this is more brew-relevant than handling fees)
Re brewing chem texts - a few days ago I posted the somewhat cryptic note:
>I discussed this issue in some depth a couple years back
>as I'm sure Alan Meeker remembers ;^). [Older but no
>wiser Alan ?]
What did it mean ?
Alan Meeker posted a reply with regard to brew chem books in which he opined
that one book contained some errors and was inferior to another book by the
same author - tho' it too contained material that Alan found inappropriate
or not understandable. I have become aware that Alan has received a stern
rebuke from the author which contained apparent mischaraterizations of the
post and of others by Alan. This is almost an exact reiteration of what
happened to both Alan and I when last this book was discussed on HBD (and
clearly to others in the past).
Personally I refuse to believe that the author in question could be so petty
or vain as to regard all negative opinion as insults and assaults as it
would appear. I also don't think that anyone so involved in brewing science
could be so biased as to create the gross mischaracterization that were
presented. I can only assume that some reader of HBD is forwarding a
slanted transcript of what is posted to the author in question and inciting
this sort of response which serves only to annoy and confuse all parties
involved.
One of the most annoying nasty and despicable (and thankfully rare) aspects
of posting to this forum is to be purposely misquoted. So to the author's
source - would you please forward a complete and accurate copy of the posts
involved to him so such misunderstanding cannot begin.
To the author - I think you very much misunderstand the point of an open
forum discussion to respond privately but not publicly. Open discussion of
issues in contention can lead to an explication of the points involved and
certainly a better understanding by all - very useful even when there is no
consensus. Responding privately rather than to the forum when the topic is
relevant.to brewing is a disservice and degrades the value of this forum for
all. I'm sure we'd all like to understand why and in what respects you
think your work has been unfairly reviewed. Why not post ? That it takes
too much time or that HBD is too contentious can hardly be argued after the
emails I've received from you..
- --
kegging:
Blowing fluid out of a sanke w/CO2 before refilling it is a good idea for
minimizing O2 contact (which has been presented here before I'm sure) *but*
it is not possible to remove every bit of fluid. Several ounces remain, so
using sanitizer as the fluid is a bad choice. No-rinse sanitizers are meant
to be given opportunity to dry and can carry some rather bad flavors if not
exposed to air (see the archives for further detail). It's oxidation
flavors vs sanitizer flavors - not a good choice.
-S
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 08:50:34 EST
From: Biergiek@aol.com
Subject: extraction rates
>Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 23:21:22 EST
>From: WayneM38@aol.com
>Subject: AKA Burst Sparging
>I can bump up my system efficiency, as measured by Promash
>up to 92%
I am just curious what you mean by 92% efficiency. Do you mean 92% of
the theoretical extraction? If the theoretical (lab conditions) extraction
is 37 points/pound/gallon, are you then getting 92% of this? Or do you
mean you are getting 92% of an expected extraction rate, something
like 92% of 30 pts/lb/gal?
Many folks are claiming 90%+ extraction rates and I always wonder
what they mean when they mention this.
Kyle
Bakersfield, CA
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 09:31:13 EST
From: Biergiek@aol.com
Subject: pH Temperature Reading
HBD - I am confused as to which temperature is used when
pH requirements are listed for brewing. For example, many
claim that the optimal mash pH for amylase activity is 5.5.
Is this pH 5.5 when measured at some standard temperature
like 60F or 68F? Or is this the pH at the actual mashing
temperatures? If it is the latter, then you would need to adjust
the mash pH to read 5.7 - 5.8 at 60F-68F, since the pH decreases
0.2 - 0.3 with temperature.
So which is it? Do I adjust my pH at some standard temperature, or
do I have to adjust the reading at the standard temperature to
reflect the pH decrease during mashing/boiling?
Maybe the infamous HBD lurker GEORGE FIX could step in here and
set us all straight on this issue... (all caps so that the GF-HBD gestapo
will be able to detect any intended/unintended dissing for their report
to George).
Kyle
Bakersfield, CA
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 09:37:39 -0500
From: Paul Edwards <pedwards@iquest.net>
Subject: Cave Creek
Rod wrote (in part):
"Don't believe it is brewed anymore. If it is, it isn't widely
marketed. It was Cave Creek Chili Beer. Jim Cave was the brewer. It
was brewed in Arizona somewhere. It didn't have a Jalapeno but it did
have a chili pepper. The specific type I don't remember."
<snip>
While Cave Creek Chili beer may have been originally brewed in small
quantities in Arizona, for much of it's life it was brewed under
contract in Evansville, Indiana. Empty bottles in cases were shipped to
northern Indiana where the Seranno peppers were grown and harvested.
Then the farm workers stuffed peppers into the bottles, which were then
shipped back to Evansville for filling and pasteurization.
My source for the above is the father of a friend of mine who was a
plant engineer at the brewery, which has now closed. Haven't seen Cave
Creek around here for several years. but it used to be widely available,
even in grocery stores.
I never much cared for it, tho. My vote for a great chili beer
(although only available at the source) is Sigda's Green Chili Beer at
Coopersmith's in Ft. Collins, CO
- --Paul Edwards
just a tad south of Jeff Renner, in Boad Ripple, Indiana
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 09:43:41 -0500
From: RobertJ <pbsys@pbsbeer.com>
Subject: Re: pumps
Ray Kruse <rkruse@krusecontrols.com> wrote
I'm searching for a 120 V self-priming pump capable of handling boiling
wort temperatures. It will probably pump finished beer as well.
Anyone have one that they're particularly please with? If so, where did
it come from?
_____
Most homebrewers use magnetic drive pumps. They are; priced reasonably, can
stand 250F and are sealed and won't introduce grease or oil into your wort.
However, I am not aware of any that are self priming. If you monunt it
below your vessel that would not be an issue.
Connections are either pipe thread or hose connections and are not
sanitary. for this reason I would not use to pump finished beer, unless you
disconnect and sanitize.
For sanitary use a tubing pump will work well but is more expensive and has
less capacity.
Bob
Precision Brewing Systems URL http://pbsbeer.com Manufacturer of 3 Vessel
Brew Systems, HERMS(tm), SS Brew Kettles, SS hopback and the MAXIchiller
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 11:16:42 EST
From: TKBFRED@aol.com
Subject: Pepper Beer.
In response to Brett's posting about the Chili Beer (brrrrr), I know that the
old Evansville Brewing Company in IN(was run into ground by two very
intelligent people),
which closed the doors two years ago, was brewing and packaging a LARGE
amount of this beer. As much as I know, the original Brewer who brewed that
Beer, was Erich Schalk.
Nobody knows what happened to him (maybe the Chili got to him) where he is
etc.
I know that the Chili beers are a great success in Japan.
Brett wrote:
>>according to Ed). Virtually all of the production is contract brewed in IN
and WS
Did you know who he ment with Brewing his Beer in IN?
Thanks, and happy Brewing
Fred M. Scheer <A
HREF="http://hometown.aol.com">http://hometown.aol.com/tkbfred/myhomepage.html">http://hometown.aol.com
/tkbfred/myhomepage.html</A>
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 12:47:27 -0500
From: DeVeaux Gauger <dvx@mich.com>
Subject: equipment
Hello!
I am in the process of expanding/upgrading by brewing equipment. I have
brewed from extracts for 4 years in my kitchen and I'm ready to convert
a section of my basement for brewing only and make the jump to
all-grain.
My first objective is to set up everything and be able to brew extract
in the basement. I am looking for advice on equipment and hoping
someone might be selling some used equipment.
At this time, I just want to set up a ventilation hood, sink, burner and
a 10-15 gallon brew pot with the ability to add-on for all grain in the
near future. Is there any place that I can find postings for used brew
equipment and used restaurant equipment for the sink and ventilator?
The final question is about water. I would like to install some kind of
filtration system to pull out the chlorine. A reverse osmosis system
pulls everything out, including minerals. Is it better to start with
water from a r/o system and add minerals or just get something to
extract the chlorine and other chemicals?
I'd appreciate any advice on this anyone has time to give.
THANKS!
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 11:41:38 -0600
From: "Sean Richens" <srichens@sprint.ca>
Subject: Hot transfer and heat transfer
Ray Kruse is looking for a self-priming pump for hot wort. To avoid
expensive disappointment, the system needs some thought.
Self-priming pumps (or pumps not requiring priming, which is a bit
different) are usually used when you mount the pump above the source. You
can't do that with a boiling or near-boiling liquid because the reduced
pressure just causes the liquid to boil and fill the suction line with
vapour. You can even see this when sampling boiling wort with a turkey
baster. It's not a matter of the pump - it just doesn't work. If I have
assumed too much about your system, Ray, sorry.
I'm probably being over-semantic, but "self-priming" centrifugal pumps
actually need to be primed once. They just have a reservoir to hold some
priming liquid. For brewing you would want to clean it out each time, so
you would leave some iodophor in the pump at the end of a session, and
rinse it out with water before starting the next one. I think what Ray
wants is something like a rotary-vane pump which is tight enough to suck
liquid up the inlet. Diaphragm pumps are also pretty decent, especially
the ones that run on compressed air. We use Sandpipers where I work (no
affiliation etc.) and they're almost bullet-proof, but cost many $$$$$$.
As for Brian's question about thermowells, they're a pretty good idea. In
industrial practice they're thoroughly engineered for good heat transfer,
either by being spring-loaded, pressing the element against the end of the
well, or by use of a heat transfer putty between the element and the wall.
Makeshift measures like filling the space with oil give an accurate reading
but with a greater lag as you now have to heat up the liquid as well. If
you can get a well designed to go with your thermometer you could get it
welded in.
Sean
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 14:26:53 -0500 (EST)
From: Some Guy <pbabcock@hbd.org>
Subject: Thermowells
Greetings, Beerlings! Take me to your lager...
Brian asks of thermometer wells.
When designing the Cajun Rims System, I bought some thin brass tubing into
which my bimetal thermometer's probe JUST fit. A good interference fit is
what you're after to ensure good mechanical connection between the well
and the thermometer. For the RIMS, I drilled a hole in a 1/2" copper pipe
cap, punched it to "cave in" the surface a bit, providing a conical
surface immediately around the hole. I then flared the end of the tube and
put it through the cap and soldered the flare to the cap's surface. Then I
rolled the end of the tube, crimped the hell out of it and soldered it
shut (MAPP gas torch is better than propane when soldering brass. Hotter.)
The cap assembly was then soldered onto a piece of 1/2" pipe and the
resulting assembly was soldered into a tee on the RIMS chamber outflow.
If using compression fittings, you could probably use a similar approach
(ie, flare and crimp a tube, put it through the fitting, then tighten the
compression nut over it.)
Be advised, too, that not all thermometer probes are created equal - I
have some that will not fit into the well...
Hope that helps ya!
-
See ya!
Pat Babcock in SE Michigan pbabcock@hbd.com
Home Brew Digest Janitor janitor@hbd.org
HBD Web Site http://hbd.org
The Home Brew Page http://hbd.org/pbabcock
"Just a cyber-shadow of his former brewing self..."
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #3230, 01/24/00
*************************************
-------
