Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #3403
HOMEBREW Digest #3403 Mon 14 August 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:
Re:New career potential! ("Dr. Pivo")
The Religious Right (Bill Wible)
Selling Beer ("Mark P.")
re:Cardmom (Jim Adwell)
R U G B Y ("Dave Edwards")
Need advice on cleaning a scorched brewpot ("William Dubas")
Olympic Questions ("Dave Edwards")
Who really wants prohibition? / Ahem, Mr. Lundeen (David Harsh)
Dr. Pivo's Accent! ("Warren White")
Passe things.. ("Warren White")
pediococcus ("Paddock Wood Brewing Supplies")
re: references and raisins ("Brian Lundeen")
Decoction and other fun topics . . . . ("Louis K. Bonham")
SWMBO (Jonathan Westphal)
competition announcement ("Gordon Strong")
Re: etching glass ("Bill Clark")
Re: Malt bills and tasting techniques (Lance Levsen)
Unruly Subjects!! ("Phil & Jill Yates")
RE: Nonsense and Scientific Thirsting (LaBorde, Ronald)
Prohibition,etching,spewin' and stuff (Aaron Perry)
Fruit in beer (Hop_Head)
FREE powerful beer chat for your site! ("BeerChat")
re: Ayinger yeast, Belgian ales ("Richard Pass")
Question to aussies/The Monster!/Rumpole/beer (Steve Lacey)
*
* Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy!
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.
JANITOR on duty: Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org) [Pat's on vacation.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 13:26:19 +0200
From: "Dr. Pivo" <dp@pivo.w.se>
Subject: Re:New career potential!
Pat first quoted, then wroted (I may spell wrong, but at least it rhymes):
> > Besides that, if prohibition were re-enacted, bootlegging, rum running
> > and speakeasies would return to fashion
>
> Cool! A new career as a bootlegger!
If I clip off my tail and tape it to my forehead it would look kind of
like a "spit curl".
You supply the hooch, and with my voice we'd have the hottest speakeasie
in town.
Dr. Pivo (coo--coo--chee-doo!)
PS A public thanks to Steve Lacey's response re: gypsum.... just what
the doctor(s) ordered... will sponge for details off line.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 08:21:54 -0400
From: Bill Wible <bwible@pond.com>
Subject: The Religious Right
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 14:03:59 GMT
From: "Richard Scotty" <rscotty2@hotmail.com>
Subject: Bill's Paranoia
Bill Wible writes:
*********************
I'm glad you mentioned this, John, because alot of people don't
realize how close Prohibition really still is. I have personally been
bothered for some time by the overwhelming display of outright
religiousness from the people in politics. It seems everyone making
our laws today is a member of some religious group, and all are
making moves on our freedoms, from the continual and still ongoing
onslaught against tobacco, to backing down the legal DUI blood alcohol
to .08 througout the US, using highway tax dollars, etc. (Check the
current stories on RealBeer.com) I don't care to have my laws made
based on somebody else's religious beliefs.***
*********************
>OK, I wasn't going to jump into this mess, but Bill rasies some issues that
>demand response. First of all, I seriously doubt that neo-prohibitionists
>will be successful. There are still far too many people that have living
>memories of the previous failed attempt. The bottom line is that you can't
>legislate morality no matter how hard you try.
Yet isn't that exactly what they've done to tobacco? First they taxed the hell
out of it, making it more expensive so people would be less willing to buy it.
Of course, the justification is that we have to "protect the children" - common
religious argument. Then they sue the entire industry, (how the hell
can they do that?
Yet they did!), and "settle" on a package that not only blocks
tobacco from advertising,
but actually forces them to pay for anti-tobacco advertising. The
tobacco companies
are not allowed to endorse or advertise with sports teams, cannot use
any kind of
cartoon in their advertising,cannot advertise on mass transit, and
have multiple other
ridiculous parts of this "settlement". How long do you think tobacco
can survive under
these conditions? And what if they turn around and do the same thing
to the alcohol
industry tomorrow? You gonna tell me they "can't?"
>Besides that, if prohibition were re-enacted, bootlegging, rum running and
>speakeasies would return to fashion and the government derives no tax
>revenues from these enterprises. The government *likes* tax revenue ;-{>
You and I now that, but the overly religious don't. We have two talk
show radio
hosts here in Philadelphia who openly advocate prohibition. Neither one even
knew that it was not one, but 2 amendments to the Constitution.
Nether one knew
that there was more drinking and alcoholism in society during
prohibition that at any
other time in our history. All they know is that they think drinking
is wrong and and
it has to stop. And they have the power to influence others. Is that
scary, or what?
>Bill, as a Christian, I take offense at being lumped into some fuzzy
>category that lives in your mind. While there are certainly some religious
>denominations that prohibit alcohol, there are many more that do not. We
>are not all members of the "religious right", whatever that means and I
>don't think that you can blame general religiosity for every legislative
>move you disagree with. It has been my experience that categorical
>generalizations are a mistake (generally speaking) and that one should avoid
>them whenever possible. It took many years to gain this bit of wisdom.
I'm glad you're not on the far religious right. But trust me, its
out there - just waiting.
>It may surprise you that I'm not the only Christian brewer on this digest -
>there are *many* others.
>Back into lurk mode,
Richard Scotty
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 08:35:38 -0400
From: "Mark P." <dolt@bellatlantic.net>
Subject: Selling Beer
Well...selling your beer is strictly forbidden. But...you can GIVE it
away....and accept donations.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 08:52:20 -0400
From: Jim Adwell <jimala@apical.com>
Subject: re:Cardmom
Warren L. White askes about cardamom:
"How much is a safe limit per 5 gallons and is this stuff pleasant or not
advisable??"
"Any suggestions would be good as I'm in two minds about this stuff (smells
a little too pungent for my liking!)"
I believe the religious-right-Neo-Prohibitionists have determined that the
safe limit for cardamom is 6.02 x 10^-23 nano-neeners per yobbo, since it
is much too pleasant for humans to use. Parenthetically, ( if I may ),
they have also set the content of chicken in chicken soup at the amount
obtained by having a young hen in rubber boots run through the pot at the
speed of light, which has been set legally at 148 gazillion miles per hour
( or is it cubits per eon? ). And you seem to be in violation of Section
2649.36437 which disallows the occupation of more than one mind at a time
except for authorized political purposes.
Seriously though, the contents of one pod is a good place to start. I have
used as much as 5 pods in 5 gallons ( way too much; don't go there ) and as
little as one seed ( for skunk-proofing purposes). One pod with 1-2 tsp of
coriander and 2 oz of sliced ginger root in the boil for 5-10 minutes is
very nice. The coriander flavor seems to fade in a few weeks, but the
cardamom flavor lasts for months.
I personally like the combination of flavors when I use cardamom, coriander
and ginger root in a wheat or rye beer fermented with a slightly phenolicy
wheat yeast such as Wyeast 3333.
Someone else will have to comment on the appropriateness of cardamom in a
Belgian Strong Ale ( I don't know ).
Cheers, Jim
Jim's Brewery Pages:
http://home.ptd.net/~jimala/brewery/
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 22:45:50 +0930
From: "Dave Edwards" <eddiedb@senet.com.au>
Subject: R U G B Y
A good bloke called keith who lives accross the Tasman wrote a VERY short
piece that went something like this:
| >The 16th. player helped a wee bit to.
Just a bit of friendly ribbin' between two nations over a sacred trophy.
But then Kim Hansen decided to write this:
| But, when I start seeing subject lines that start off with "rubgy" and
| mention someones opinions about a sporting event that should be
| showing up on a sporting forum, let's get realistic here! That is a
| blatant waste of bandwidth. Want to provide that kind of opinion
| to the poster? Respond directly to him, don't share it with the rest
| of us!
Kim, why don't you go sit in the bloody corner and have a cry. TAKING UP
BANDWIDTH! Taking up 37 characters is not bandwidth enough to speak of. If
you want to have your little winge about bandwidth, throw a tear at those
blokes that whack in a whole Promash printout, or some major scientific
report in full length. I'm not having a go at these blokes, far from it,
post what you like I say, but there is often a lot of stuff in there that is
fairly irrelevant to most people here. If I find stuff that I'm not all that
interested in, I just scroll down, IT'S NOT THAT BLOODY HARD!!!!
Cheers,
Dave.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 13:05:14 GMT
From: "William Dubas" <bill_dubas@hotmail.com>
Subject: Need advice on cleaning a scorched brewpot
I have a 10 gal SS pot (304 SS) fitted with a false bottom and drain that
that I use as a combination mash/lauter tun and boiling kettle. I have the
false bottom installed in all cases. This setup has served me well over the
last 3-4 years with no problems. . . . until now.
During cleanup after my last brewing session, I noticed that I had severly
scorched the bottom of the pot. A thick layer of black gunk, roughly the
size of my hand, had bonded to the inside of the pot. The beer was ruined
(have you ever tasted a German Hefeweizen flavored with scraping from your
BBQ grill?). The false bottom has a tendency to float up during vigorous
boiling and I guess that some trub/hops got under it. They were then
trapped there when I set my immersion chiller in during the last 15 minutes
of the boil.
I first tried to remove the crusted-on gunk with a plastic scrubbie and hot
soapy water. That had no effect. I then allowed it to soak overnight with
a solution of baking soda and vinegar, followed by the plastic scrubbie. I
tried this 3 times, with only marginal results. I then decided to break out
the heavy artillery. I soaked it overnight in a PBW solution (1st night:
2oz/5gal, 2nd night: 2oz/2gal)) followed by a stainless steel pad and a lot
of elbow grease. That removed a little more but some still remains. My
questions are:
Does anyone have any advice on how to remove this gunk?
Even if I do remove it, has this scorching and scrubbing ruined my pot,
making it more likely to scorch again in the future?
Will this gunk continue to add that lovely BBQ-grill-scraping flavor to my
beers if I decide to keep using the pot? I'm considering buying a new SS
pot to use as a boiling kettle and keeping the scorched pot for a dedicated
mash/lauter tun in a RIMS/HERMS setup.
How can I avoid this happening in the future? I imagine removing the false
bottom during boiling is the first suggestion.
Thanks,
Bill
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 22:55:52 +0930
From: "Dave Edwards" <eddiedb@senet.com.au>
Subject: Olympic Questions
| A question to the Aussie's. I was sent a list of
| questions that people have sent to various agencies in
| your country about the olympics. It's long but quite
| funny. I didn't want to post it unless you folks want
| to see it. It has nothing to do with beer so I wasn't
| sure about posting it.
I say- post it mate. As most people have probably realised, I am not one
that has a sook about non beer posts, and LOVE the odd bit of humour that
rams it's way in.
Cheers,
Dave.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 09:58:15 -0400
From: David Harsh <dharsh@fuse.net>
Subject: Who really wants prohibition? / Ahem, Mr. Lundeen
"Cloutier, Steve" <Steve_Cloutier@ATK.COM> writes:
> Bill, you really should pay more attention to who's actually stomping on
> your rights.... It's the left wing, big government, nanny-state types...
In a word: wrong. The people responsible are ALL OVER the political spectrum.
First, the left wing: Full of people who want to keep people from
hurting themselves. I've never heard a left winger advocate prohibition
(MADD, for example, seems to have primarily white, upper class, suburban
mothers as its membership - hardly left wing here in Cincinnati!), but
the standard refrain is "a product that is harmful when used as
intended" - tobacco and guns are cited as examples here.
Now the right wing: their refrain is "this is immoral and/or wrong
because God says so". Cited evils include alcohol, homosexuality,
evolution, abortion, etc. Apparently they forgot that freedom of
religion also means freedom FROM religion if one so chooses.
Note that in neither case are these opinions held by all members of a
party.
The problem is that with bipartisan support, it is a feel-good issue
that no one is willing to stand up as speak against. (You can here the
attack ad now: "he voted against tougher DUI laws causing more deaths
of innocent children on the highways...")
- ---------------
Brian Lundeen-
1. Your jokes are about as funny as mine were.
2. It seems you decided to apologize after all. So my point was
correct.
3. If it makes you feel good to call me names, go right ahead, its
probably therapeutic.
Dave Harsh Cincinnati, Oh
Bloatarian Brewing League
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 00:35:45 EST
From: "Warren White" <warrenlw63@hotmail.com>
Subject: Dr. Pivo's Accent!
I know this sounds cruel but...
Picture Dr. Pivo's voice sounding like none other than...
Eric Cartman from South Park (chuckle!)
Warren L. White (Melbourne, Australia)
Where's my Cheesy Poofs!
Pleese respect my authoroitiii!
sunnofabidtch!
Arrgh! screw yooose guys.. I'm gooin hoome!
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 00:54:20 EST
From: "Warren White" <warrenlw63@hotmail.com>
Subject: Passe things..
1 a.m. in Australia (too much of my own beverages) and...
The drunk thread thing is how should I say but a bit (PASSE!) i.e. old hat.
I think people only scribe about it because they must feel pangs of guilt
and...
Do you Americans put Special B (sounds like a vitamin supplement doesn't it)
on your breakfast cereal and your commom colds.
Warren L . White SPECIAL B FREE!
Melbourne, UNSPECIAL M. Australia.
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 10:28:05 -0600
From: "Paddock Wood Brewing Supplies" <orders@paddockwood.com>
Subject: pediococcus
>> The pediococcus you DON'T want in your brew system. I think Wyeast's may
be
>> a different strain, but some Pedio can survive autoclaving!
> Do you have a reference for that? To the best of my knowledge,
>there are no bacteria or bacterial forms (spores, etc.) that can survive a
>properly functioning autoclave (20-30 minutes at 121 degrees C and 15
>atmospheres of pressure).
You are correct. What should have been said was that pediococcus has been
known to withstand 15 minutes of autoclaving. The reference for that was
Fix's Principles of Brewing Science, 1st ed, pg 198.
Steve Cavan -- in vino veritas, at in cerevisiae voluptas
______________________________________________
Paddock Wood Brewing Supplies, Saskatoon, SK
orders@paddockwood.com www.paddockwood.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 12:12:48 -0500
From: "Brian Lundeen" <blundeen@rrc.mb.ca>
Subject: re: references and raisins
Joe sets a dangerous precedent here with his references:
> 1. R. Daniels, "Designing Great Beers" 93-97
> 2. T.L. Peppard, S.A. Ramus, C.A. Witt and K.J. Siebert,
> "Correlation of.... etc etc
How are the rest of us supposed to perpetuate our cherished beliefs if we
have to quote a source? Anyone know of any badly written brewing texts that
I can use to back up my arguments?
Silliness aside, Grant Stott is looking for plums and raisins:
> Another unrelated question - How do you reproduce the hints
> of plum & raison
> in Chimay Blue. My attempt at an all-grain trappist ale
> although coming 2nd
> in the local club comp. simply doesnt come close.
> I was unable to use Belgian malts or Belgian candy sugar, but
> I did use
> Wyeast Trappist ale yeast.
>
The only malt that I've read(1) as contributing raisin notes is
DeWolf-Cosyns Special B. I expect the plum esters are a function of the
yeast. It sounds like you used 3787, whereas 1214 is generally considered
the Chimay strain. Now, when I did mine a while back from a kit with steeped
specialty grains, all I got from 1214 was a whole lot of bubble-gum. My temp
was around 68, which I'm told is too high(2). Maybe a lower temp will give
the plums, maybe not(3). Dunno. Gotta 'spurment, as the good Doc says. I
also used Special B, but in conjunction with a whole whack of other grains.
I can't pick out raisin or anything else (other than that annoying gum,
which mercifully is retreating now that it's well past its first birthday).
I was going for complex and got murky(4). This attempt more than any other
is what got me thinking along the simpler is better lines. My next attempt
will be strictly DWC Pilsner and Special B malts. Well, maybe a little
chocolate, perhaps some ... No, stop it, Stop it!(5)
(1) Umm, one of my books.
(2) Some guys in rec.crafts.brewing
(3) Uninformed speculation.
(4) Personal appraisal.
(5) That annoying voice in my head that sometimes tells me to do stupid
things like crap all over good people like Pat. (It's Saturday, I'm a whole
lot mellower on Saturdays).
Cheers,
Brian
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 13:20:01 -0500
From: "Louis K. Bonham" <lkbonham@hypercon.com>
Subject: Decoction and other fun topics . . . .
Hi folks:
Are the perceived qualitative benefits of decoction mashing real, or just a
momily? From my research in the area, the consensus from the pros seems to
be that with modern malts, modern equipment, and modern procedures, there
are little or no demonstrable flavor benefits for decoction mashing for
large scale brewing. Dr. Lewis is hardly alone in his opinion; Seibel
graduates report that the instructors there share this belief. Indeed,
contrary to Joel Plutchak's averment, there *has* been carefully conducted,
peer-reviewed research showing no significant flavor differences between
decocted and step infused mashes . . . see, e.g. Sommers, "Trials of the
Optimisation of Mashing Procedures" 1 Brauwelt International 23 (1986). If
anything, it is the claims of decoction advocates (e.g., Greg Noonan) as to
the inherent flavor superiority of decoction mashing that lack empirical
support.
This is all well and good if you're brewing >30hl batches on an industrial
system, but what about small scale brewing? While my experimentation was
necessarily limited in scope (see Bonham & Thomas, "RIMS v. Decoction: the
Great Texas Mash-Off, 6 Brewing Techniques 44 (1998)), my experience is that
from a final taste standpoint, there is nothing that amateur brewers can get
from decoction mashing that you can't also get from step infusion mashing
and recipe formulation (e.g., increase the amount of Munich malt a bit if
you want more melanoidins).
OTOH, is it beyond question that you can make spectacular beers using small
scale decoction techniques, and many folks just prefer to do things the
traditional way. If you like to decoct and are pleased with the results, by
all means keep doing it. But IMHO, the claim that decoction mashing is
qualitatively superior or critical for certain styles of beer is indeed a
momily. [Flame suit on -- fire away.]
- ----------------------
Re: noble hops -- Dr. Fix reports that noble hops typically (1) have very
high ratio of sesquiterpines (principally humulene, farnesene, and
caryophyllene) to monoterpines (principally myrcene), (2) have lower alpha /
beta acid ratios (usually 1), (3) have lower cohumulone levels (as a
percentage of alpha acids), (4) have lower lower myrcene levels (as a
percentage of total essential oils), (5) have higher farnesene levels and
farnesene / humulene ratios, and (6) have higher humulene / caryophyllene
rations. See Fix POBS (2d ed) p. 58-63.
- --------------------
Selling homebrew -- two words: forget it. The particular laws vary from
state to state, but under federal law any production of beer that is not
under the homebrew exception (100 gallons individual / 200 gallons household
annual limit for beer produced "for personal use") requires a BATF permit.
Period. Violate this and the law treats you the same as a moonshiner.
- --------------------
Prohibition -- while I concur that formal prohibition is highly unlikely to
return, I agree with Pat (and Fred Eckhardt, and many others) that we ignore
the neoprohibitionists at our peril. The same folks that brought you
megabucks lawsuits on asbestos, breast implants, tobacco, and most recently
handguns are already setting their sights on the alcohol industry,
especially beer producers who aggressively market their product (e.g., "they
promote a positive image of their product, while failing to disclose the
risks of drinking" -- same argument as in the tobacco cases). And a
standard page from the megabucks plaintiffs' attorney playbook is to
bankroll various "public awareness" campaigns to change public perceptions
and opinions.
IMHO, if we want to be able to continue to openly enjoy our hobby, at the
very least we don't wanna give the other side any easy targets. And the
homebrewer = drunk image falls into this category.
All the best -- Louis K. Bonham
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 16:02:09 -0300
From: Jonathan Westphal <WestphaJ@bits.saintjohn.nbcc.nb.ca>
Subject: SWMBO
In case anyone is interested: Jeff Renner correctly pointed out Rumpole's
ironic references to his nagging wife as "She Who Must Be Obeyed" in the
"Rumpole of the Baily" Books and TV series. However Rumpole himself was
alluding to the pulp novel "She" by H. Rider Haggard, in which an expedition
of explorers comes across an immortal (and brutal) Egyptian Princess ruling
a lost tribe in darkest Africa - her terrified subjects referred to her as
"She Who Must Be Obeyed".
On another note, I read with interest the "homebrewers are perceived as
drunks" thread. Nobody mentioned this, but It seems to me that the main
reason for this preconception is that the vast majority of the homebrew
being brewed today is BLOODY AWFUL! Most people having tasted rotten
tasting straight from the kit homebrew at one time or another, their
assumption is naturally that all homebrew tastes like this, and that
homebrewers are in the hobby chiefly to drink lots of inferior tasting but
cheap beer. I know that up here in Canada, where alcohol taxes are
outrageously high, this is certainly the case - most homebrewers get into
the hobby to save money, are happy with kits and corn sugar and will never
change. Only a tiny minority gets bitten by the bug and ends up going all
grain. I think the main issue is ego; many all grainers, who put all that
time and effort into their brewing, are insulted to be lumped into the same
category as those who simply toss together a kit and neither know nor care
much about the actual brewing process. But who cares? People are ignorant
and have to be educated. When I explain what I do, most people are amazed
that anyone goes to the trouble of brewing "from scratch", and want to try
some (especially when they hear about the 4 kegs in my basement).
Interestingly enough, the most popular beer I have made, among beer geeks
and philistines alike, is a 60/ Scottish Ale which weighs in at around 3.5%.
I am lucky if a keg lasts me a week! Even the Budmilloors crowd who don't
like "that dark stuff" like it. The best way to clear up preconceptions
about homebrew is to give lots of it away. Spread the religion, people!
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 16:34:14 -0400
From: "Gordon Strong" <strongg@earthlink.net>
Subject: competition announcement
The Dayton Regional Amateur Fermentation Technologists (DRAFT) homebrew club
of Dayton, Ohio is now accepting entries for the BJCP-sanctioned Fifth
Annual Dayton Beerfest homebrew competition. Brewer-friendly entry
requirements (2 bottles any style, draft beer OK, no recipe needed, can
enter multiple beers per sub-style, online entry). $5 first entry, $3
subsequent. Using 1999 BJCP style guidelines. First place winners receive
a handsome wooden plaque. Entries due by September 2, 2000. Competition
will be held on September 9, 2000. See
http://hbd.org/draft/daybeerfest.html for full details. Entrants and judges
needed!
Gordon Strong, Competition Organizer
strongg@earthlink.net
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 17:36:35 -0500
From: "Bill Clark" <wrclark@smokinbrews.com>
Subject: Re: etching glass
> If one were to try and make such a glass, how would one go
> about selectively and intentionally etching a small circle
> in the bottom of the glass?
FWIW: I remember back in high school chem doing an etched glass project.
What we did was coat our glasses (everyone brought in a yet-to-be beer mug
; ) ) with wax, and then carve out what ever we wanted to be etched. Then
the glass was put into an acid bath. I can't remeber what acid or for how
long, but afterward, the wax was melted off and you had a nice etched piece
of glassware. I imagine the time and strength of the acid would dictate how
deep the etching was.
Bill Clark
Lake Superior Smokin Brews
http://www.smokinbrews.com/
Duluth, MN
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 20:33:02 -0600
From: Lance Levsen <l.levsen@printwest.com>
Subject: Re: Malt bills and tasting techniques
> Stephen Ross talks about techniques for detecting particular
> characteristics:
>
> > We've found that by putting massive amounts of the desired
> > flavour in a
> > plain beer background (we use Coors Light) it makes it easier
> > to detect
> > smaller amounts in real beers.
> >
> This is fine for an initial familiarization with the flavour or aroma, but I
> think proper training in this area has to go a step further. I believe you
> must practice with samples that exhibit the quality at low levels, and in
> samples which exhibit multiple characteristics. First of all, the
> "in-your-face" examples don't address the issue of individual threshold
> sensitivity. Being able to taste Molly McButter does not mean you will be
> able to pick diacetyl out of a pilsner. By getting a group of people
Gotta jump in here. :-) I've an association with Stephen in that I am in that
club.
The last meeting dealt specificallly with diacetyl (I missed it, but was
brought up to speed by Stephen) and it illuminated my thought's about my beer
as well as commercial examples. Last night in particular. ( a Rider game . . .
don't you know)
A winger and myself experimented with a micro brand (Okanogan Spring
Traditional Pil) we both found high diacetyl in the brew. I _would not_ have
been able to identify that w/out the in your face method utilized by our club.
Having drank the beer before I thought it was simply an aspect of the hops.
_Now_ I know that it is diacetyl.
Yes it's important to be able to distinguish correctly, but in order to do
that, you need to know what the flavour is . . . thus the "in your face"
flavours.
Cheers,
- --
Lance Levsen, Programmer
Product Innovation
PWGroup - S'toon.
477-3166
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 13:21:52 +1000
From: "Phil & Jill Yates" <yates@acenet.com.au>
Subject: Unruly Subjects!!
So I take the little lady out for a few days stay at the Burradoo Hilton
(just to get a little culture) and when I get back I find you guys have all
but torn the HBD to pieces.
Shredded it enough to really piss off one of the janitors who has now downed
tools and gone walk about!
This is disgraceful behaviour by all of you. Just who is responsible for
this?
When I find you it is going to be the "cat of nine tails" and then some for
you buddy!!
Now I gotta go and find Pat and offer him a raise, just to get him back.
Won't be hard to offer him a raise, considering his current salary (you
might like to think about that guys) but I'm not sure he's going to want the
job back anyway.
Someone is going to get a whipping for this!!!
The Baron
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 22:40:02 -0500
From: rlabor@lsuhsc.edu (LaBorde, Ronald)
Subject: RE: Nonsense and Scientific Thirsting
Thanks to Jeff Renner and Glen Pannicke for taking a guess at the outcome.
Actually, they did not guess, for both have a good knowledge of the gas
laws.
Jeff says:
"A mole of CO2 weighs 44 grams and occupies 22.4 liters at standard
temperature and pressure. So if you are carbonating your 2 liters of water
with 2 volumes at STP, the CO2 would weigh about 8 grams."
- -----------------
Glen says:
"Your pint glass is 0.47 Liters, but you're shoving 2.5 times that volume
(1.175 L) into it, so you will need to know how many grams of CO2 is in
1.175 L of gas at 45 F and 28 psi."
"4.28g of CO2 in your pint glass."
- -----------------
Well, let's see what happened.
Using the periodic table and finding the atomic weight of CO2 to be 44.0098
grams per mole, or 44.0098 grams per 22.414 liters, I divide to get 1.963496
grams per liter at STP. My 2 liters if at STP should be 3.936992 grams.
* First I took the 2 liter x-coke bottle with carbonator cap and just
standard atmosphere inside and tared it out on the scale to 0 grams (I need
to think this out some more). Maybe I need to account for the contents'
weight also.
* Next I purged and filled it with CO2 @ 28PSIG @ 75F. It weighed in at
7.2 grams. This was encouraging because it told me the scale really could
weigh the CO2. I was somewhat bemused to find I could weigh something that I
could not see, but, physics is physics after all.
* In doing gas law calculations, it is neccessary to use absolute
temperature which would be the Kelvin scale. So, 25C is 298 Kelvin. My test
temperature was 75F, converted would be 296.8 Kelvin. I need to factor this
in because the CO2 at 28PSIG and 75F would be colder than at 77F therefore
requiring less gas to maintain 28PSIG.
I take my actual weighed figure of 7.2 grams and correcting for temperature,
multiply by 296.8/298 and get 7.17 grams. This is what it would have weighed
if the temperature was at 77F. Really this is a silly calculation because
the accuracy of my CO2 gauge is probably less than this slight difference.
Now I need to correct for pressure because 28PSIG is certainly not STP. Glen
suggests that we need to add atmosphere pressure 14.7 to the 28PSIG to get
42.7PSIA. Using these figures we get 42.7/14.7 * 3.6212901 = 10.518985 hmm,
not close to 7.17.
If I leave out atmospheric 14.7 and use 28/14.7 * 3.621901 = 6.8976954
closer to 7.17. This seems to be within the tolerance of my pressure guage,
or about +-5%.
PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS:
Yes, it turns out that one can easily measure the amount of CO2 by weight
using a simple scale. I have not resolved the discreprency with Glen's
suggestion about using PSIA and not PSIG. Also, I had some questions about
tareing out the air filled bottle.
I need to start over.
* This time I purged the empty bottle with CO2 multiple times until I
felt like I had just about nothing but CO2 inside. Then I released pressure
until it was the same as atmospheric and no hissing sounds emated from the
carbonator cap. So now I zero out the scale - tare to 0. And jot down that I
must have 3.936992 / (296.8/273 ) = 3.62129 grams at 296.8 Kelvin in my 2
liter volume because that's what science tells me.
* Now I fill the bottle with double atmosphere pressure, to 29.4 PSIG,
or as close as I can read the pressure gauge. I weight this and get 7.55
grams. To this I add 3.62129 grams to get a total of 11.17129 calculated
grams. This is very close to the figure of 11.426024 grams that I calculated
earlier.
CONCLUSIONS:
This took longer than I thought it would, and was not as easy either, but
the results are better than I had hoped for.
I think Glen nailed it.
I like my Ohaus scale, no, now I love it!
I figure I must have 3 volumes of CO2 @ 29.4 PSIG weighing 11.2 grams.
There's more to it than this though. I need to continue with the water
experiments, to have CO2 in the bottle is one thing, but to get it absorbed
into the liquid is something else. I will need to experiment and report back
later.
Ron La Borde
Ronald La Borde - Metairie, Louisiana - rlabor@lsuhsc.edu
http://hbd.org/rlaborde
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 00:11:39 -0400
From: Aaron Perry <vspbcb@earthlink.net>
Subject: Prohibition,etching,spewin' and stuff
Greetings,
Richard the Christian brewer writes:
>Besides that, if prohibition were re-enacted, bootlegging, rum running
>and speakeasies would return to fashion and the government derives no
>tax revenues from these enterprises. The government *likes* tax revenue
> ;-{>
Shoot!!! Just think of how rich and popular we'd all be!!! Nobody'd be
callin'us drunks anymore!! they'd call us whatever we wanted 'em to!
My wife's grandfather often recalls working in an Italian grocery in Boston
during prohibition. He sold a lot of Extract, hops and yeast in those days.
Interestingly he remembers the hops as being light brown. EEEEW!
Tidmarsh Major writes about:
> Etching beer glasses
I wonder if the old dremel grinding stone will work? I've noticed this
etching/nucleation point thing on some old pint glasses that used to get
stacked inside of each other. It forms streaming bubble rings around the
middle of the glass. mIf we were to rough up the bottom with a stone??
maybe?
Maybe a throat full of glass powder?
Steve Lacey writes:
>
<snip>
>But better than just being a coarse word for vomit, it also means
>to be annoyed, angry, outraged, pissed -off. eg. "I was spewin'
>when I discovered that the abuse Pat received over what he didn't say
>caused him to throw in the towel and cough, not that I blame him"
>[Here cough is another possibly uniquely Australian abbreviation
> meaning to go, leave, exit, vamoose,scram as in .... 'k off.]
Where I come from (Boston area, US) Spewin' is something reserved for SWMBO.
Often resulting in the birth of children!
and Bill Babbles:
>It seems everyone making
>our laws today is a member of some religious group, and all are
>making moves on our freedoms, from the continual and still ongoing
>onslaught against tobacco, to backing down the legal DUI blood alcohol
>to .08 througout the US, using highway tax dollars, etc. (Check the
>current stories on RealBeer.com) I don't care to have my laws made
>based on somebody else's religious beliefs.
*Dude, are you DRUNK?
The people you are so pissed at are sitting on the complete opposite
side of the fence. ARRGH! I won't bother to go on...Richard Scotty
and Steve Cloutier already made most of the points that sum up the
issue.
Just remember......It's more dangerous to make blanket statements
blamingreligion for the country's problems than it is to make blanket
statements..about drunken hombrewers...and look where that got us!
AP
Christian Rasta Craftbrewer
* in certain areas a "DUDE" refers to a horse
PS And yes, they're talking about homebrew on the political and
religious digests.
If my translation is right... it might be time for a bex and a good
lie down ?:-)
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 07:38:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: Hop_Head@webtv.net
Subject: Fruit in beer
How do I figure out how much fermentable sugar fruit will add to my
beer? I used 11 pounds of bing cherries in a 5 gallon batch.
Thanks, Jim
Buffalo N.Y.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 13:27:00 +0100
From: "BeerChat" <beerchat@beer-beer.co.uk>
Subject: FREE powerful beer chat for your site!
Add a FREE powerful chat service to your website and join the largest global
beer chat service available!
Register your site today - just follow this link:
http://www.beerchat.net
We look forward to helping you drive traffic back to your site, time and time
again!
BeerChat.Net
BeerChat.Net - FREE powerful chat for your site!
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 13:15:49 +1000
From: "Richard Pass" <richard.pass@anu.edu.au>
Subject: re: Ayinger yeast, Belgian ales
<<
From: "Grant Stott" <gstott@primus.com.au>
Subject: Ayinger yeast, Belgian ales
A question for those with experience with Ayinger yeast. Did
you find it
produced large amounts of hydrogen sulphide? Admittedly I
mistreated the
sample Phil was kind enough to send rather badly, and the
starter I made was
at room temperature (it is winter over here), but in my
limited experience
of brewing lagers the amount of sulphur produced was
excessive. The rotten
egg smell has continued thru the 2 weeks of fermentation (
6-10degC ) though
at a diminishing level.>>
It is quite normal Grant. I brewed a dunkelsbock with this
yeast and the H2S was quite strong during the primary at
10C. There isn't a trace of it in the finished beer which
is very clean and surprisingly light tasting for a 1070 OG
bock. I think this yeast is a ripper and I'm looking
forward to see what it will do in a bavarian lager.
Incidentally, the H2S effect seems to be more prominent at
lower fermentation temperatures. I haven't gone into the
chemistry as to why and don't really care. Many yeasts,
both lager and ale, are real stinkers but usually this
doesn't seem to affect the finished beer.
Cheers,
Richard Pass
Canberra
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 13:26:37 +1000
From: Steve Lacey <stevel@sf.nsw.gov.au>
Subject: Question to aussies/The Monster!/Rumpole/beer
Beaverplt (c'mon, you must have real name!) asked if we (Aussies) would
like him to post the list of dumnass questions asked about prospective
(Olympics) visitors to Australia. Well, no, not really. I for one have
already seen it. You are right, it is a both long and a long way removed
from being 'on-topic', other than that there has been a recent increase our
visibility in the HBD. It is funny, though also sad if the questions were
truly asked. People who want it should email you privately.
---------
I was relieved to see that I had misinterpreted Pat's "I might as well quit"
and "'bye". I thought he had really spat out the big one, and it worried me
on many counts. I won't detail them, but suffice to say it's good to know
that though the monster has gone for now, it will be back again. Enjoy your
break, Pat! [NB to head off any misinterpretations, the monster I am talking
about is in Pat's sig line]
- ------------
Jeff enlightened us about Rumpole and his SWMBO line. It is also noteworthy
that Leo McKern, who plays Rumpole on the telly, is of Aussie origin. I also
like " 'er indoors". From another British series called Minder, about
another irrascible rogue cockney swindler and petty criminal named Arfer
Daley.
Now, I just hope 'er indoors doesn't ge' 'old of this 'ere email.
- -----------
To get some beer-related material in... I just brewed on the weekend and I
looked upon my brew, and It Was Good! Just picking up on the "many
ingredients versus few ingredient re: complexity" thread. This brew is to be
the first in a sequence of simple pilsener-like recipes whereby I vary only
the type of pale base malt I use. Everything else as identical as I can get.
I have been a bit concerned about the performance I get from a low-cost
source of local malt. But because my brews seem to follow a sequence like:
IPA, alt, porter, bock, hefeweizen, koelsch, vienna, (you get the picture)
it is a bit hard to make an objective analysis of different malts from one
brew to the next. Hence this little project. It is all designed to decide
whether I should start spending a bit more on my base malt (g'day Regan!).
For the record, the brew just finished involved Alexis Pilsener malt and
converted beautifully with good yield. Appearance and taste of the wort - v.
smooth!
Cheers
Steve Lacey
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #3403, 08/14/00
*************************************
-------
