Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #3675
HOMEBREW Digest #3675 Tue 03 July 2001
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Digest Janitor: janitor@hbd.org
***************************************************************
THIS YEAR'S HOME BREW DIGEST BROUGHT TO YOU BY:
Northern Brewer, Ltd. Home Brew Supplies
http://www.northernbrewer.com 1-800-681-2739
Support those who support you! Visit our sponsor's site!
********** Also visit http://hbd.org/hbdsponsors.html *********
Contents:
re: conversion ("Stephen Alexander")
..wort priming ("Stephen Alexander")
Cold Break for Yeast Starters? (Ant Hayes)
sugar to alcohol caloric efficiency. ("Dr. Pivo")
Wanna get rid of Japanese Beatles? (Jay\) Reeves" <jay666@bellsouth.net>
calories ("Pannicke, Glen A.")
dextrins (Marc Sedam)
Breiss Bavarian Wheat extract (Tim Burkhart)
Re: Wyeast XL packs (alastair)
First kit (Kim Thomson)
beer calories, fermentation heat, dextrin fermentability ("Alan Meeker")
Food Network and Homebrewing ("Paul Gatza")
sanitary fittings followup (Rob Dewhirst)
Ya know? Ya gotta love 'em... (Pat Babcock)
Re: Temperature unevenness in mash ("Pete Calinski")
*
* Show your HBD pride! Wear an HBD Badge!
* http://hbd.org/cgi-bin/shopping
*
* 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 cannot 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: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 01:10:25 -0400
From: "Stephen Alexander" <steve-alexander@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: re: conversion
Wayne C. Aldrich gave an excellent list of effects due to pH, but I feel
there's some context missing.
>The pH value of the mash is essential
>for enzyme reactions to occur. Lowering the pH value of the mash to
>5.5 ~ 5.6 results in:
>1. Higher attenuation limit
As the pH changes the conformation of the enzyme which in turn impacts the
activity coefficient of the enzyme. Some enzymes have a minimum pH above
which activity is essentially constant, others a max pH below which the
activity is maximal, and yet others have an optimal pH value at which the
activity is maximal.. I should point out immediately that this "optimal" pH
point shifts as other factors that impact activity change. Beta- and Alpha-
amylase activity are both have optimal pH values, , but beta-amylase has the
greater change in activity wrt pH . Still Beta-amylase has a very wide
optima. This optima is broadened further when ions are available in mash
(from salts for example). Even in poor circumstances the BA activity vs pH
curves I've seen show a 50% activity level (a common characterization) at
least +- 1.0 (and as much as +- 2.0) off the optima.
To put that in perspective you're probably in much better shape wrt to
enzyme complement at pH 5 .0 or pH 6.0 than you are when brewing a 50% wheat
beer (with only half the enzymes). Does suboptimal pH decrease attenuation
? Yes certainly under identical conditions except for pH, but it's nothing
that can't be compensated for by changing mash regime. I'm not recommending
other pH values but recognize that mashing is a (thankfully) very forgiving
process.
>2. More extensive protein breakdowns resulting in the production of more
>high and low molecular weight protein degradation products.
Almost anything said about proteases/peptidases can be contradicted. there
are dozens of distinct proteases at work in the mash and there are many
"trends" in their activity wrt temp and pH that probably are not of great
concern most of the time. Most modern malts don't need and will likely
suffer from a protein rest - the amino levels are plenty high enough, and
the protease party may damage head & body. You might be concerned about
optimizing use of these enzymes when large amounts of raw grain or highly
undermodified malts are used. Otherwise fuggedaboudit. A tiny haze
reduction rest is the only issue.
>3. Reduction of the mash viscosity
Very important on a commercial scale, but with a decent sparger largely a
non-issue on the HB scale. You may find sparge viscosity problems arise
with raw grains high in beta-glucans like rye - and then this can be an
issue. You may find this significant when making a beer with a LOT of raw
wheat or rye etc, but for most HB grists it's a very minor issue.
>4. More rapid lautering
Goes back to viscosity I think. Just how many minutes do you need to shave
off your HB lauter time ?
>5. Reduction of increased color changes during the wort boil.
>These advantages occur in the mash only. The activity of phosphates is
>increased [...]
This one is important IMO. The color change corresponds to phenolic changes
and oxidation and ... it makes for a rather dull looking beer too.
>The advantages of BOTH mash and wort acidification are:
>1. A shorter (optimized) mash process.
>2. More rapid lautering due to lower mash viscosity.
>3. A better brewhouse beer yield.
>4. A mild increase in mash zinc yield.
>5. A faster (cleaner) fermentation/maturation.
>6. Better foam stability.
>7. A softer beer mouthfeel.
Right, but in order of HB scale importance I personally think it's something
like 5., 6., 7., and then in a last place rush - (1,2,3,4). You can get a
lot of the advantages of 5. by acidifying the wort before pitching - it
makes certain nutrients and minerals more available to the yeasts and
reduces fermentation time - probably a good practice to reduce wort pH (even
to ~4.7) in problem ferment beers like barleywine. Narziss has written
about this in reference to high gravity brewing.
>But if you are trying to produce consistently good quality beer pH is
>important.
Absolutely - for consistency alone you should control the pH, but narrow
range papers are probably sufficient. One thing left off the list is break
formation - it is thought that two distinct protein groups combine to form
break - one w/ an isoelectric point above the pH, and one below. My
experience is that If you shift pH even a few tenths you will likely see the
impact in the break !
-S
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 01:14:07 -0400
From: "Stephen Alexander" <steve-alexander@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: ..wort priming
Pivo writes ...
>Subject: "sucrose" taste
>
>Steve Alexander writes:
>> Ages ago, before Dr.Pivo developed his talent for rudeness (snip)
>>
>Actually the "talent" has existed for quite some time; I believe. It is
>what is called a "hidden" talent. [...]
Didn't mean anything by it Doc, except that we used to be able to converse
with some sort of civility - days long past for you.
I was discussing cidery flavors. The later talk of metallic ones (don't
recall artificial) I recall too. Very unlikely to proteins as stated, (tho
never authoritatively) but you should consider residual flavor based on
sugar source (beet, cane etc).
- --
I was hoping someone else would point this out but when Pivo posted ....
>Subject: wort priming
[...]
>Take your starting gravity and subtract your finishing gravity (this is
>what is called the "gravity drop"), and divide this number by four.
>
>That should tell you how much fermentable stuff you've got in your wort.
>
>For example, the hydrometer in your kitchen started at 1050 and finished
>at 1010. That's a drop of 40, divided by 4 that would be ten.
>
>That m,eans the "wort cicle" you put in the freezer is equivalent to
>being 10 percent by weight of glucose... or each liter is 100 grams of
>usable stuff [...]
Apparently Pivo calculated the APPARENT attenuation drop when he
really needed to calculate the REAL attenuation to determine the
fermentables.
As a rule of thumb multiply the apparent by 0.81. This example wort has
about 81 grams of fermentables per liter, not 100.
-S
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 09:39:28 +0200
From: Ant Hayes <Ant.Hayes@FifthQuadrant.co.za>
Subject: Cold Break for Yeast Starters?
As I was pouring the cold break from my newest lager down the drain, I
wondered if this could be used for building up yeast.
I gather that yeast can use cold break to build new cells, but that this
adds undesirable flavours to a lager. However I don't really care what
flavours are created in my starters as I only pitch the yeast slurry.
Does yeast grown in a break rich environment develop differently to
yeast grown in normal wort? Will it battle to ferment normal wort
afterwards?
Ant Hayes
Gauteng; South Africa
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 10:47:26 +0200
From: "Dr. Pivo" <dp@pivo.w.se>
Subject: sugar to alcohol caloric efficiency.
It was wondered why two different beers that start at the same OG might
have different caloric values, to which Jeff Renner correctly replied:
> What you are forgetting is that fermentation is not 100% efficient,
> so the calories in the wort don't all end up in the beer.
>
... to which I might present some "easy" numbers to illustrate this. I
recently posted the energy value in "calories" of "basic"food stuff
(including sugar and alcohol). Nobody has corrected me yet, so perhaps
I pulled the correct numbers and units out of that cluttered dustbin of
useless information that represents the inside of my head.
What I AM pretty certain of is that I remember the "proportions"
correctly.
So take this: a certain weight of glucose gives you 18 "somethings" of
energy, and the same weight of alcohol gives you 27.
In other words you get 50% more energy from the alcohol pile.
The thing is that an alcohol molecule only weighs about "prezactly" one
fourth of what a glucose one does.
When the yeast break down the glucose, they present us with two alcohols
(thank you very much).
So we get two of something that each weigh a quarter as much.... or 1/2
as much "weight".
So we end up with half as much stuff, that can give 50% more "power" per
ammount of weight.....
.... sort of like turning regular petrol into rocket fule.... only you
only get a little bit of it.
So... half as much more energy on something that's only half as
big.....I'd call that about 75 percent of what you started out with....
or a 75 percent "efficiency" in the glucose to alcohol conversion... as
far as we are concerned using them as "food"..... Of course the yeast
have an entirely different opinion in the matter.
75 percent ain't bad at all... but is about what we'd expect from a
machine that has been around so long, without getting trashed in favour
of an other.
> I'm undecided about whether or not CO2 represents energy (calorie)
> loss or not.
>
Many ways to look at that... maybe easiest is to say that in a "real"
sense, those ARE little electrons spinning around on the CO2 that DO
have the potential to bind up atoms another way, so they do represent
"energy", and a loss to the system.
In terms of "food" for us? Even though we don't seem to be big users of
"light" as an energy source ( and not at all do as plants and go
"backwards fermentation" and make glucose from CO2), we (and the yeast)
do in fact "bind" up CO2 to stuff.... and it is in fact willing (for
example) to bind to the amino end of any amino acid, and do such strange
things as cause a pKa shift, which effects a bunch of other stuff, which
in turn.........
....... but now we are REALLY getting librarian, and pursuing those
lines of thinking will not head a BIT in the direction of either making
better beer, or getting others to.
Don't know if this made things any clearer, and if I've botched my "in
the neighborhood" numbers, please let me know.
Dr. Pivo
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 07:44:37 -0500
From: "James \(Jay\) Reeves" <jay666@bellsouth.net>
Subject: Wanna get rid of Japanese Beatles?
I've seen people posting that they've used this & that chemical to get rid
of Japanese Beatles but with varying degrees of damage to the plant itself.
Try Liquid Seiven (sp?).
I've used it for 6 yrs now every year when the beetles hit (which is this
time of the year) and it drops 'em like flies within minutes with absolutely
no damage to the plant. Not to mention it also gets rid of spider mites.
It only leaves a white residue on the plant, which gets washed away with the
next rain. Get a hose-end sprayer to apply the liquid with - it's got the
power to reach the top of the plant and blow it under all of the leaves, but
it's gentle enough so not to damage anything. Then keep an eye on 'em. I
never had them return after the first application, but I'd hit 'em again
with another dose about 2 weeks later just for grins. Just make sure you
don't spray them a couple of weeks before you harvest and also make sure
you've had a few rains since you sprayed before you harvest. If not, wash
'em gently a few times, wait a few days for 'em to dry out good, then
harvest.
Oh...and cover your pint before you spray.
-Jay Reeves
Huntsville, AL
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 09:50:12 -0400
From: "Pannicke, Glen A." <glen_pannicke@merck.com>
Subject: calories
The Twisted Dr. Pivo wrote:
>If somebody really DOES have this information, I'd really like to hear
>it..... otherwise I'd say that anytime somebody is telling you the
>caloric value of a beer, they are (inadvertently or not) pulling your
>leg..... 'cause I really don't think breweries are stuffing people into
>calorimeters and feeding them different "test beers".
No, but they are watching your every move. I'll warrant most big breweries
spend a large portion of their money on market research - how to best sell
you their swill-water. At least that's what I think the US mega-brewies do.
For some intersting reading, pick up a recent issue of Consumer Reports.
They did a beer evaluation and I found it to contain some surprising
results. Most notably, Strohs was rated highest in the All-Purpose beer
category. All-Purpose. I find that funny. Aside from drinking it, what
other purposes does beer serve?!? Their ratings included evaluation of many
factors such as taste and price so I guess the final results represent how
to get the most "bang for your buck". I won't knock Strohs. I think they
make a fine product. But the report does hint at the strange psychology
behind beer-drinker culture, marketing and consumer perception.
What I found to be stranger still was the unveiling of many commercial brews
that hide behind brewery names which are not overtly traceable to their
mega-brewery parent companie's name. Many beers are labeled with a brewery
name which is different from their parent company or are produced under the
supervision of another company. I'm sure it's all about the contracts, but
I think there's a good deal of marketing strategy going on here. The
article is worth a read for the curious.
I'm just glad this doesn't really effect homebrewing. But I was considering
negotiating a contract with Mr. Renner for some of his CAP and relabeling it
with my name ;-)
Carpe cerevisiae!
Glen A. Pannicke
glen@pannicke.net http://www.pannicke.net
75CE 0DED 59E1 55AB 830F 214D 17D7 192D 8384 00DD
"I have made this letter longer than usual,
because I lack the time to make it short." - Blaise Pascal
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 10:01:49 -0400
From: Marc Sedam <marc_sedam@unc.edu>
Subject: dextrins
The good doctor asks about dextrins and their caloric
value. Sometimes its a good thing when work and hobby
intermingle.
Dextrins can be broken down via enzymes (alpha-, beta-,
gluco-amylases), *hydrolysis*, or fermentation. In beer we
get to take advantage of all three types. Your gut is a low
pH environment, so the combination of body heat and low pH
will inevitably break down some of the dextrins
(probabilistically speaking) into simple sugars which can be
absorbed through the intestinal wall. Some of the remaining
dextrins are taken care of in the intestines themselves by
your resident microflora, i.e. gut bugs. They can take care
of the dextrins and produce methane along with a bit of
sulfur. Again, the byproducts of the breakdown can be more
simple sugars which absorb in the intestinal wall.
All of this is the same concept as "complex carbohydrates."
What's unfermentable by yeast can be considered analagous to
a complex carbohydrate and is taken care of in the body by
normal processes.
So...no one is selling anyone a bill of goods vis a vis the
Calories in beer. It's just that the degree of breakdown in
the various parts of the gut is too unpredictable to serve a
useful purpose.
Hope this helps.
Cheers!
- --
Marc Sedam
Chapel Hill, NC
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 09:05:46 -0500
From: Tim Burkhart <tburkhart@dridesign.com>
Subject: Breiss Bavarian Wheat extract
I just bottled a 5 gal extract batch of wheat made from 2 packages of Breiss
Bavarian Wheat extract and 4 oz. of caravienne steeped. Hopped with Cascade
and fermented with White Labs American Hefe yeast.
Aroma of the non-carbonated brew had a slight bubble gum nose and tasting
came up slightly ciderey up front with a strong "caramel" aftertaste. I
attribute the aroma (which I find pleasant) to the yeast, fermentation temp,
and hops. The initial slight cidery flavor could be partially due to lack of
aging, warm temperature of the sample, no carbonation, or possibly a defect.
But the "caramel" flavor I have tasted in a friend's Breiss extract wheats
(same extract, same yeast). I had attributed the flavor to his use of a
partial boil and/or scorching. My batch was a full boil and no scorching was
apparent... but the caramel flavor is there. The color of the resulting brew
is also deep orange to yellow/brown... more of a dunkle in color... and in
flavor. I find the resulting flavor and color disappointing. The same color
appears in my friend's brews as well.
Anyone else use this extract and experienced the same "caramel" flavors and
dark color? Other thoughts?
Tim Burkhart
Kansas City
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 07:49:28 -0700 (PDT)
From: alastair <alastair@odin.he.net>
Subject: Re: Wyeast XL packs
Jason Foster asked if "[Wyeast XL packs are] pitchable directly from the
pack"
I have used the XL packs a few times and once pitched the pack directly
into an Ordinary Bitter with an OG around 1036 (it was smacked and puffed).
The fermentation went normally and the results were pretty good. I did get
the impression that a starter would have improved things a little, but
it's fairly subjective.
Normally I do a three stage starter for a normal Wyeast pack:
Stage 1: Smack pack for 1-3 days.
Stage 2: 10 oz of wort @ 1035 for 1 day.
Stage 3: add 22 oz of wort @ pitching gavity for 3-4 days.
This yeilds a 32 oz (1 lt) starter which I pour off the fermented liquid
and pitch the slurry.
For an XL pack, I would skip stage 2 and add the contents of the pack to
32 oz of wort for 3 days.
The XL packs simplify things a little and reduces the chance of infection
by skipping a starter step. For these reasons, if I can get them, I use
them. If you are brewing something below 1045, you can pitch the XL pack
directly, but for best results (or >1045) step it up!
Alastair
PS. If I'm doing something >1070, I add a 4th stage. I do stage 3 @ about
1054. After pouring off the fermented liquid, I add 32 oz of wort @ pitch-
ing gavity. I would give it 24-36 hours to get going, then pitch the whole
thing.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 10:26:39 -0500
From: Kim Thomson <alabrew@mindspring.com>
Subject: First kit
Tray wants to know "Which kit should I get to do my first brew?"
What kind of beer do you like?
We start most brewers with a canned extract, traditionally Coopers in
these parts, and malt extract or rice syrup solids for simplicity. For
those not afraid of trying new things, we recommend one of our
"homemade" ALABREW kits. Good Luck with your new hobby.
- --
Kim and Sun Ae Thomson
ALABREW Homebrewing Supplies
8916 A Parkway East
Birmingham, AL 35206
(205) 833-1716
http://www.mindspring.com/~alabrew
mailto:alabrew@mindspring.com
Beer and Wine Making Ingredients and Supplies
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 11:59:10 -0400
From: "Alan Meeker" <ameeker@mail.jhmi.edu>
Subject: beer calories, fermentation heat, dextrin fermentability
Jeff replied to Randy Ricchi's question ("I remember seeing a calorie chart
in Zymurgy quite awhile back. One thing I noticed was that two beers with
the same starting gravity but different ending gravities would end up with
different calorie contents...")
(Jeff)
"What you are forgetting is that fermentation is not 100% efficient,
so the calories in the wort don't all end up in the beer. Probably
most of the energy (calorie) difference is given off as heat."
Absolutely correct Jeff, I remember doing a back of the envelope calculation
which showed that a 5 gallon batch of wort with 10% fermentable sugars
could, in theory, produce a temperature increase of about 15 degrees C,
close to the value of 10 degrees C I've often seen printed ( I think someone
recently asked about this?). Different yeast strains will be more
metabolically efficient than others and there will also be some differences
due to the physical parameters of the fermentation, the pitch size, and the
chemical composition of the wort, all of which could contribute to eventual
differences in total caloric values for beers starting out with the same OG
(i.e. -different amounts of the initial caloric energy was converted to heat
and lost to the environment).
Jeff also brought up the important point that there can be differences in
the amount of original dissolved solids in the wort that get converted into
yeast biomass. He also raises a question concerning the CO2 given off
(Jeff)
"I'm undecided about whether or not CO2 represents energy (calorie)
loss or not. Intuitively it seems it would. There are no usable
calories in CO2, but that isn't the same as calories in an energy
balance..."
CO2 does, in a certain sense, represent energy loss. That is, it's
production is proportional to the breakdown of glucose [1 glucose
(C6H12O6) ---> 2 ethanol (C2H5OH) + 2 CO2] where some of the energy in the
original molecule has been lost due to heat, some was captured in the "high
energy" phosphate bond of ATPs, and much remains unused in the ethanol
molecules waiting to be liberated by the beer drinker's digestive tract.
It's not perfectly proportional however, as some of the glucose breakdown
products will be used as building blocks, becoming incorporated in the yeast
cells, and some will be converted into other chemical species which end up
in the finished beer - things like glycerol, organic acids and the like.
Also notable is the fact that the conversion of the original sugars into
other compounds such as ethanol, etc. will cause changes in the specific
gravity of the solution independent of the decrease due to losses of sugar.
As a fantasy example of the effect of this - if one could convert all the
original sugar into an equivalent mass of ethanol (without mass and energy
losses due to CO2 and heat) you'd end up with a new SG but maintain the same
total calorie content.
- ---------------------
Doc Pivo had some interesting comments on the potential dextrin
utilizability by *us* instead of the usual yeast-oriented view.
Interesting question this. I remember looking into it at one point and
vaguely recall coming to the conclusion that humans didn't metabolize much
of the unfermentable dextrins but that our gut bacteria can. I'll have to
see if I made any notes on this as I don't remember this too clearly. Your
fasting blood glucose results do make it sound like you might have been
utilizing dextrins but caution is warranted in this interpretation as it
sounds like this was quite a complex mixture indeed! Other things besides
dextrin metabolism could have caused the rise in blood glucose, for
instance, are you sure all the alcohol was gone - this will cause a
transient rise in blood glucose in a normal individual.
Ultimately it will depend on whether or not our digestive system synthesizes
the enzymes required to break down dextrins, I don't think we do, but will
look further into it.
Also, here are the correct values for caloric content of the three macro
nutrients:
Protein.............. 4.06 kcal/gram
Carbohydrate.... 3.82 kcal/gram
Fat ................... 8.84 kcal/gram
These are the Atwater corrected values which are a bit lower than the total
energy content as would be seen for complete combustion in a calorimeter.
The lower values are due to differences in absorption and metabolism between
the three.
Alcohol's value is close to that of fat (about 7 kcal/gram) and, since
there is typically as much ethanol as carbohydrate in the usual beer (on a
per weight basis) this means that the majority of the calories from beer are
derived from ethanol.
Hope this was helpful
-Alan Meeker
Baltimore, MD
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 10:39:47 -0600
From: "Paul Gatza" <Paulg@aob.org>
Subject: Food Network and Homebrewing
Great news everybody! During American beer Month festivities this weekend I
had a chat with John from Troegs Brewing Company in Pennsylvania. He
reports that he saw a promo with our own Julia Herz on the Food Network for
"How to Homebrew" in a "coming this fall" spot.
Actually I believe the spot will be part of the Unwrapped series that airs
on the Food Network. The topic was presented as "Beer Unwrapped." One taping
was at Julia's house last winter and features Julia and her husband Greg.
Another taping occurred during GABF 2000. My impression is that the show
will run in the fall and then be rerun throughout the future. This could be
a big boost in the arm for homebrewing and AHA membership. I will keep
everyone posted when I found out more about schedules and content.
Paul Gatza
Director-American Homebrewers Association
Director-Institute for Brewing Studies
Association of Brewers
736 Pearl St. (303) 447-0816 ext. 122
Boulder, CO 80302 (303) 447-2825 fax
mailto:paulg@aob.org
Join the AHA and IBS at www.beertown.org
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 15:37:41 -0500
From: Rob Dewhirst <robd@biocomplexity.nhm.ukans.edu>
Subject: sanitary fittings followup
Steve mentioned McMaster-Carr P/N's 45195k44 & 45195k61
I get a wingnut clamp for one part and a not-found for the other. They
might not carry them anymore, since I find their sanitary fittings without a
problem but not the 1/2" ones.
Bob mentioned Ladish and Tri-clover directly, but their local
distributor is not interested in dealing with the quantities I am looking
for. Bob also mentions mcmaster, but as I stated I can only find 1"
fittings there (catalog page 126), and not 1/2". Sanitech definitely looks
promising, but my experience with dealing with manufacturers is they just
don't want to waste their time on small fish like me.
Sean Richens mentioned Swagelok. I've tried to purchase swagelok fittings
before, and the dealer is out of my town. I figured it would be easier to
locate a mail-order dealer. Still, that's nice to know.
I got a nice private email with a page from the Cole-Palmer catalog showing
exactly what I wanted, but sadly only down to 3/4"
I should mention I am only interested in a 2-3 of these.
I appreciate all the help.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 16:47:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: Pat Babcock <pbabcock@hbd.org>
Subject: Ya know? Ya gotta love 'em...
Greetings, Beerlings! Take me to your lager...
As I sit here pondering the contents of my beer fridge, I'm
struck that I can only see a few domestic brands (all I will
drink in July - July is American Beer Month!) of decent beer
that have foresaken (forsook?) the crowd pleasing twist off top
to keep us home brewers able to get our bottles for the price of
some pretty damend good beer (plus deposit, in some cases)!
Let's count 'em off, and cheer them on! Buying their beer is
another means of supporting those who support you, too (though
sorta indirectly...)!
At this moment, in my beer fridge, I have...
Kalamazoo Brewing Company (Yay!)
Michigan Brewing Company (Yay!)
Sam Adams' (Yay!)
Anchor (though the bottles are mutants - Yay!)
Great Lakes Brewing Company (Yay!)
Motor City Brewing Works (Yay!)
What do YOU have? Cheer 'em on!
- --
-
See ya!
Pat Babcock in SE Michigan pbabcock@hbd.org
Home Brew Digest Janitor janitor@hbd.org
HBD Web Site http://hbd.org
The Home Brew Page http://hbd.org/pbabcock
"The monster's back, isn't it?" - Kim Babcock after I emerged
from my yeast lab Saturday
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 17:26:40 -0400
From: "Pete Calinski" <pjcalinski@adelphia.net>
Subject: Re: Temperature unevenness in mash
= Stuart = asked:
I find that there is about a 8-10 deg F temperature gradient in the mash
that I cannot get rid of by running the recirc pump. The top is always hot,
the bottom always cool. Manual mixing helps for a while, but the gradient
always returns. The manifold makes mixing problematic. Any suggestions?
I say,
I have found that variation to be typical. I would advise that you just
live with it. Develop your mash schedules to get the results you like while
taking the temperature readings at the same location in the mash tun each
time. It all averages out.
Pete Calinski
East Amherst NY
Near Buffalo NY
********************************************************************
*My goal:
* Go through life and never drink the same beer twice.
* (As long as it doesn't mean I have to skip a beer.)
********************************************************************
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #3675, 07/03/01
*************************************
-------
