Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #4481
HOMEBREW Digest #4481 Sat 21 February 2004
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Digest Janitor: janitor@hbd.org
***************************************************************
THIS YEAR'S HOME BREW DIGEST BROUGHT TO YOU BY:
Beer, Beer, and More Beer
Visit http://morebeer.com to show your appreciation!
Support those who support you! Visit our sponsor's site!
********** Also visit http://hbd.org/hbdsponsors.html *********
Contents:
Re: Uberflussigereinheitsabout ("-S")
Re: cidery beer - (acetaldehyde vs acetic acid) ("Fredrik")
re: Monitoring CO2 Production with a Mass Flow Meter/Aussie terms ("-S")
Gas Valve Help ("Raymond Lowe")
re:yeast re-pitching (Randy Ricchi)
Brewpots and immersion chillers ("Michael Maag")
re:clintest (HOMEBRE973)
Residual Alkalinity ("Todd Carlson")
starters (Jeff Renner)
racking with CFC ("Spencer W. Thomas")
Agar substitute ("May, Jeff")
Using hose in home brewing (Calvin Perilloux)
Fermenator and Other Stainless Conicals (Calvin Perilloux)
re: Cooling Coils & Pressure Calculations ("Michael Noah")
Re: Fermenator ("Martin Brungard")
kettles (Marc Sedam)
Covering Starter Containers ("Pat Humphrey")
New Product Announcement: HBRC (John Palmer)
Re: Counter Flow Chillers (Tim Howe)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* The HBD Logo Store is now open! *
* http://www.hbd.org/store.html *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* Suppport this service: http://hbd.org/donate.shtml *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* 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.
HAVING TROUBLE posting, subscribing or unsusubscribing? See the HBD FAQ at
http://hbd.org.
LOOKING TO BUY OR SELL USED EQUIPMENT? Please do not post about it here. Go
instead to http://homebrewfleamarket.com and post a free ad there.
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 or read the HBD FAQ at http://hbd.org.
JANITOR on duty: Pat Babcock and Spencer Thomas (janitor@hbd.org)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 01:09:02 -0500
From: "-S" <-s at adelphia.net>
Subject: Re: Uberflussigereinheitsabout
Hey Dave, all -
> Well, I cerainly found out a way to keep Steve Alexander off the streets.
{8^)
You and the ~80hrs/wk I've been working the past several ... ! Better
to burn out than ...
> My point was that Reinheitsgebot ( and other beer regulations) were
> established for FINANCIAL reasons not a high and mighty purpose.
I don't disagree. I'm just saying that the financial rational you suggest
for RHG needs more detail to make any sense.. You also argued
that RHG affected quality , but your examples were from non-RHG
regions, groups and eras and together didn't make a cohesive point.
> "As beer quality fell, so did consumption. This called for intervention,
if
> need be at the highest level, lest profits for the noble coffers should
> suffer."
The ORIGINAL RHG says beer is made of water, barley and hops
and sets out all sorts of PRICE CEILINGS for beer. If beer quality and
therefore sales volume and taxes had dropped, how could price ceilings
help ? It limits revenues and accelerates the decline of quality. This
doesn't make much financial sense unless the price ceilings disadvantaged
the untaxed Cloisters.
In any case it's a serious mistake to revere RHG as some legislative
hommage to great beer. RHG destroyed entire styles and restricted
creativity. I've seen no credible argument that RHG led to greater
beer quality in Bavaria than in the rest of Germany before the
unification, nor Belgium nor Czechoslovakia (Bohemia).
>... [history]...
> 69 years later Reinheitsgebot came along and eventually spread across
>Germany
No - it was FORCED on the rest of Germany 350+ years later. Long after
any justification for this silly intrusive law ceased to exist. It was
forced for
financial reasons again.
Of the RHG I'd suggest, "progress is precisely that which the rules and
regulations did not foresee"(Ludwig von Mises). Restricting beer
ingredients to barley, hops and water *might* have seemed prudent or at
least expedient in 1516, but no brewer on this forum would even consider
making beer without ever using yeast`, fining agent (only added to
the RHG later). No sensible modern brewer would suggest that avoiding
water acidification, brewing salts, yeast nutrients, unmalted grains,
caramel,
judicious amounts of sugar and a whole array of spices is indicitive of
lower
quality - just the opposite !
-S
I hate to clutter HBD with semi-clever sig-quotes, but the political season
demands ...
"Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying
to prove that the other party is unfit to rule--and both commonly succeed,
and are right"- H.L. Mencken
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 07:31:02 +0100
From: "Fredrik" <carlsbergerensis at hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: cidery beer - (acetaldehyde vs acetic acid)
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 15:26:00 -0500
> From: "Dave Burley" <Dave_Burley at charter.net>
> Subject: Cidery Beer, Clinit*st, phosphate pH stabilizer
>
> Brewsters:
>
> Fredrik, one way to test your theory is to add distilled white vinegar to
> non-cidery beers and see if the cidery impresssion develops.
That's a good idea Dave. I didn't actually try just that yet. But I diluted
acetic acid to tap water to the
theorized levels and it very much made sense. But adding it to real beer
would be a b better test.
But I've got another datapoint now, that makes me incorporate the
acetaldehyde into this reasoning to a larger extent.
I just finished another brew of mine. It started out as a perfectly normal
all-malt brew, however I made a stupid mistake in my receipe and mixed up
some fermentability numbers, so it stopped at 1.018 because I had added
lots of maltodextrins. My target was 1.012, so took a chance and added
sucrose + water + crystal malt, to get the FG down to 1.012. This was only
22% sucrose of the total extract, and according to the "theory" this should
not have caused any acetic acid and low pH so I felt confident though it
would alse be a test.
Well it didn't turn out sour, the pH was 4.2 at EOF, but there were elevated
levels residual of acetaldehyde in there!! This pissed me off as this
playing with sugar screwed yet another batch. At first I was confused
because 22% isn't tat much? This was not present when I added the sucrose
judging only from how I recall the smell. I will wait for the final
conclusion after some aging, but though I am aware of that acetaldehye is
normal in young beer, I would say from my limited experience that the
residual levels are TOO high even for green beer. I suspect that maybe this
is because of the sucrose I added late when the cells are leaky? Forcing the
metabolism when the cells are getting leaky seemed like a stupid idea?
So the update idea is that since acetaldehyde is supposed to be the
intermediate anyway, even if the end product is acetic acid, I suspect that
adding sucrose at late fermentation, when the cells are a bit fatigued they
may probably leak alot more acetaldehyde to the beer than they would have if
the sucrose was in from the beginning? OG was 1.047, FG 1.012, I pitched 22g
dry yeast in 6-7 gallons of beer.
So maybe the cidery notes tend to be more acetic acid, when the cells are
healthy and doesn't leak as much. And if the cells are leaky, there will be
more acetaldehyde possibly at the expense of acetic acid and pH? So
modelling the cidery notes may require understanding the balance between
these things?
Any further ideas on this? Does anyone find this idea of leaky cells likely
or non-likely? I'm thinking that if the same amount of sucrose had been
adding to the brew origninally the yeast would possibly have been able to
deal with it without causing the same levels of problems.
This would suggest that low pitching rates would add the cidery effect on
the acetaldhyde part? while high pitching rates probably steer towards lower
pH and acetic acid?
My next batch will have NO sucrose or glucose added. I was out of beer and
now I have 6 gallons of experiment bottled :-| This wasn't what I hoped for,
though the good part was it gave me another datapoint.
/Fredrik
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 02:29:21 -0500
From: "-S" <-s at adelphia.net>
Subject: re: Monitoring CO2 Production with a Mass Flow Meter/Aussie terms
Ken Anderson gathered and shared some terrific data with his CO2 mass
flow measurement. I'm really glad to see this as I've been considering
something similar.
I'd really like to know more about his MF measuring device. The ones
I've seen available had rather poor resolution and wouldn't give such nice
measurements for a 5gal batch. Ken - what is the make and model on that ?
I had considered going to MVD(Coriolis effect) flow meters but they are
pretty expensive.
The idea behind this effort is that, of the three main results of
fermentation that
concern us (sugar depletion, alcohol production, and CO2 production), why
not
look at CO2 production as a brewing aid?
Just so - it and it's linear correlates are THE most important fermentation
parameters. The trick is to measure the volume under that curve you've
plotted and calculate the total CO2 produced. Of course this involves
regular and automatic measurement of CO2 mass, not just volume.
>Also, a simple equation may be possible, relating CO2 production, specific
>gravity change, and wort volume.
Yeah - it's trivially easy. You just plug the CO2 into the Balling eqn and
you've got Alcohol mass and fermented sugar mass. Then you calculate
the SG backward from the sugar loss and the alc increase. The REAL
extract and attenuation is even easier. Of course JeffR is right we'll need
to estimate the CO2 in solution and in the headspace but you can get pretty
close.
The best part is that it tells you something quantitative about
fermentation performance .. throughout the fermentation and
w/o an intrusive measure.
>The most surprising thing about this graph is the
>pretty much linear increase from hour 16 to 42, and the lack of a plateau.
> I thought someone here might be able to relate the sections of this graph
> with the typical stages of yeast growth. In particular, what's with hours
16
> through 42?
Yeast growth starts out slow, increases at a near exponential rate for a
short
period, then, when the yeast cease to grow when they hit a growth limit.
The rate of fermentation (which is nearly proportional to CO2) , lags aside,
is roughly proportional to the amount of growth (growth requires lots of
energy from fermentation) plus a much smaller term proportional to yeast
mass (yeast maintenance energy reqs). Of course this cannot go on forever.
The lag then exponential growth phase explains the rapid rise thru hour 36
or maybe 42.
.
What happens next depends on why the yeast have ceased to grow.
If the yeast have run out of sugars, then the fermentation and CO2
production
will drop fairly rapidly too. Not instantly. The beer will contain about 2
volumes
of CO2 at peak fermentation, but that will drop slowly to a saturation level
of abt
1 volume. This produces a fade-out of CO2 rate rather than an abrupt stop.
If yeast run out of some other nutrient - then they will drop down - also
fairly
rapidly, from peak rate to a lower CO2 rate and hang around the low level
for
a long time. Of course if they are nutrient deficient that can also make
the rising
growth rate slower giving the whole curve a lower longer look.
Some yeast will just grow rapidly till the last possible moment and stop.
Other
yeasts will have their growth rate stall out more slowly. Somewhere in BY&F
has some graphs of this.
To me it looks like a very nice fermentation. I guesstimate the area under
your
curve at around 430L of CO2 and that sound about right for 5.5gal of 12-13P
beer with decent attenuation.
Great job Ken. Thanks. Where do I get a similar MFM with such fine
resolution ? BTW The French brewery Sebastian Artois uses a similar
measurement (20 minute intervals) to calculate the amount of CO2 produced,
and use this to determine when to start collecting CO2, when to start the
fermentation coolers and when to bottle and keg for consistent natural
carbonation.
======
Phil Y notes ...
>I can't see anything wrong with sticking the odd chook in the cask
>when making Cock Ale,
That sounds more than a bit perverse, but whatever twists your pickle
Phil ;^) Yes I was being a bit judgement - in jest. I don't generally
enjoy vegetables or poultry in beer and I can find a better place to
keep my chook.
-S
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 06:02:42 -0500
From: "Raymond Lowe" <wrlowe at adelphia.net>
Subject: Gas Valve Help
Greetings,
I have recently built a new steel frame 2 tier RIMS system that is very
similar to this one http://hbd.org/mtippin/2tier.html#Burners Its all ready
to go except for valves to control the burners. They are the jet type
burners. On the tier that the sparge water is on, the tall tier, I have made
a "control panel" area and I want to put the gas valve controls on this
panel. As I have with the pump switch and heating chamber switch. I have
been having trouble locating the type of valve that I am wanting. This being
a valve that will look some what like the control on a gas stove or grill. I
tried a set of valves off a gas grill and they have a orifice that is on the
outlet end of them, and the whole assembly goes into a tube that feeds the
burners on the grill. I have removed the orifices and this leaves a 3/16
inch female NPT. my thoughts were to get a coupling of some kind to step
this up to fit my gas supply hose and all would be fine. However I have been
unable to locate a 3/16 inch male coupling that I could screw into this and
step it up to say 1/4 inch so the hose would fit on this. I guess my
question is does any one know where I could find such a beast or a new type
of gas valve to get the results I am looking for. How do you control the gas
on your systems?
Thanks in advance!
Raymond Lowe
Catawba, VA
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 08:14:33 -0500
From: Randy Ricchi <rricchi at houghton.k12.mi.us>
Subject: re:yeast re-pitching
Bob Hall posts:
"Some time ago I was talking with a brewer from Barley's in Columbus, OH
about their procedures. He told me that their house yeast (which I think
originally was Wyeast 1968) had been repitched "hundreds of times ....
it
likes it here."
This got me to thinking (uh,oh!)..I really like the flavor profile of
Wyeast 1968, but wish it wasn't such a strong flocculator. It's a great
yeast for low grav beers, but finishes too high for my taste in beers of
1.050 gravity or so.
If a brewer were to continually re-pitch Y1968 from the secondary
fermentors rather than primary, it's conceivable that you could develop
a yeast with the same flavor profile, but less flocculant. Now, that
MIGHT mean it would be a little less malty, but maybe not. Such a
mutated yeast would be preferable (to me) for beers of a higher gravity
than ordinary bitters.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 08:50:49 -0500
From: "Michael Maag" <MichaelMaag at doli.state.va.us>
Subject: Brewpots and immersion chillers
William Erskine is going all grain. I have had excellent results with a
15 gal SS kettle. It is an old Polarware that did not have a spigot.
I had a hole drilled in the side and use stainless fittings, etc to
attach a 3/8 copper tube around the bottom, touching the inner wall.
The pipe has been slotted on the bottom with a hacksaw. (The design is
like Al K's on www.brewinfo.com (photos of my homebrewery) except I
went to the pipe instead of the easy masher system for the kettle ).
The pot is wider than it is tall, so using a plani-spiral chiller works
very well. It is an immersion chiller in a flat tight spiral (like an
electric range burner). It goes in the kettle about 1 inch under the
surface. Cold water goes in at the outside edge and out from the
middle. This sets up a convection current which circulates the wort and
piles the hops and break in the center. It chills 10 gal to 70F in 20
min (with winter water).
I have also used the kettle as a mash tun when brewing a high gravity
10 gal batch. I normally mash in a 10 gal SS pot which will hold up to
23 lbs of grist (set up with the easy masher "trident" configuration,
stolen from Al K.) The ability to apply direct heat to the mash gives
you more brewing options.
Check out Al's site.
Mike Maag, in the Shenandoah Valley
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 08:58:28 -0500
From: HOMEBRE973 at aol.com
Subject: re:clintest
I am not trying to start a pro or con thread on
CLintest--I just want to know if it is still
available and where, or if there is another
inexpensive alternative method for residual
reducing sugar? Thanks
Andy in Hillsborough
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 09:29:26 -0500
From: "Todd Carlson" <carlsont at gvsu.edu>
Subject: Residual Alkalinity
A couple of days ago I asked about how efficient boiling is at removing
bicarbonates in water with permanant hardness (more calicium than
bicarbonate). This is a common procedure used by many brewers and
mentioned in all of the brewing chemistry texts I have been reading to
research the topic. However, none mentioned AJ's claim (from his reply)
that boiling is only effective with high alkalinity water and wouldn't
get much below 100 ppm as CaCO3, so in my case (moderate 111 ppm
alkalinity), the drop would be minimal. I decided to check it out for
myself so I did this experiment:
I boiled 4 gal of cold tap water (Wyoming Michigan City water from Lake
Michgan) on my stove top for 15 min (plus 45 min to get up to boil). I
poured the hot water into a 5 gal plastic bucket and let set overnight
in cold garage. Pre and post boil samples were titrated for alkalinity
(to pH 4.3 endpoint with HCl) and total hardness (to eriochrome black T
endpoint with EDTA). Initial pH of pre boil sample was 7.43 vs 8.62 for
post. All numbers are in mg/L CaCO3 eq. Results are compared to the
2002 average results provided by the Grand Rapids city water supply
(also from Lake Michigan). I didn't have a lot of time so the
titrations were not repeated and reagents were made up not real
carefully. Nevertheless, the pre boil results match the city average
better than I expected and the drop an alkalinity matched the drop in
hardness, as predicted by the stoichiometry of the reaction. Thus I
conclude the results are reasonably accurate. I used the data to
calculate a delta pH by RA. For my sample I assumed the initial Ca/Mg
ratio was the same as the city specs (2/1). For the post boil sample, I
assumed all of the decrease in hardness was due to Ca loss. Here are
the results
alk hard delta pH
City 111 146 0.13
pre 116 160 0.13
post 85 132 0.09
So as AJ predicted, reduction in alk was minimal, but perhaps a little
more than I expected and the effect on RA was somewhat significant.
This has been an interesting question for which there seems little data.
Other varibales I might like to address are how might boil times affect
the results, and how much would spiking the water with calcium (slaked
lime, gypsum, or CaCl2) help. Also, if the reduction of alkalinity is
due to precipitation of CaCO3 specifically, then my Ca/Mg ratio dropped
from 2/1 to 1.5/1. I don't know if this is really true or if it is
something to be concerned about. Maybe I'll write a grant and pay a
student to do the work. Thanks to AJ for the tips and info.
Todd
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 10:05:31 -0500
From: Jeff Renner <jeffrenner at comcast.net>
Subject: starters
Steve Jones <stjones at eastman.com> writes from Johnson City, TN
that for yeast starters:
>I mix 1L water & 4 oz DME in a 2L widemouth flask
That sounds like too much DME (dry malt extract, for those who have
come in late).
Dan McConnell of the late Yeast Culture Kit Co. recommended 50 grams
(less than two ounces) per liter (plus a bit of yeast nutrient - 1/8
tsp per gallon). Wyeast recommends
http://www.wyeastlab.com/education/edmyp.htm a starter gravity of
1.020-1.030 by using 3-4 tablespoons DME per liter.
I think the idea is that your extra couple of ounces will take longer
to ferment out without adding much to yeast growth.
I got a used large pressure cooker last year and make up seven quart
canning jars of starter at a time. Nice to have this in stock. More
than half of the time, though, I repitch yeast.
Jeff
- --
Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan USA, JeffRenner at comcast.net
"One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 10:27:52 -0500
From: "Spencer W. Thomas" <spencer at umich.edu>
Subject: racking with CFC
Tim Howe asks
>And another thought that would apply to all CFCs: what do most folks
>use as a racking cane? I get the impression that many use copper pipe,
>
I use a piece of copper tubing to get up out of the pot, hooked to a
segment of silicone tubing (which is rated up to about 400F so handles
the boiling temperature wort just fine.)
=S
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 11:56:43 -0500
From: "May, Jeff" <Jeff.May at uscellular.com>
Subject: Agar substitute
I'm getting ready to start storing and propagating yeast.
Has anyone ever used fruit jell pectin (for making jelly)
instead of gelatin or agar? The ingredients are listed
as: Dextrose, Pectin, Citric Acid and Sucrose. Would these
ingredients help or hinder yeast growth and viability?
Jeff May
Mayzerbrau Nano Brews
Wilmington, NC
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 11:18:47 -0800 (PST)
From: Calvin Perilloux <calvinperilloux at yahoo.com>
Subject: Using hose in home brewing
For those considering using garden hose for any brewing,
there is recent, reliable info that many (or most) typical
garden hose brands contain lead as a "binder" in the PVC.
I'm not usually one to worry about minor dangers, but if
the lead is way above health standards from cold water
sitting in the hose, then hot wort would be a worry.
But besides that, don't you remember those hot summer days
when you grab a quick drink from the garden hose, and...
phew, yuck! Too quick! Nasty plastic taste! Lead or not,
you don't want that taste in your beer. Use food-grade hose
for anything touching hot liquor, beer, or wort.
Calvin Perilloux
Middletown, Maryland, USA
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 11:19:03 -0800 (PST)
From: Calvin Perilloux <calvinperilloux at yahoo.com>
Subject: Fermenator and Other Stainless Conicals
Andrew Nix wonders in the Friday HBD about the lid seal
on his Fermenator:
> I inspected around the edges of the lid seal with my nose
> and sure enough, there were some big drafts of CO2 coming
> out.
...
> Do you find that you really have to crank down on the
> lid seal to get a nice tight seal under the small
> increase in pressure generated during fermentation?
Not to worry. If your lid is like mine, it's basically
a flat, modestly flexible disc. That very geometry will
lend itself to what is, in practice, a one-way valve.
I'm not sure what back-pressure you'd get from a 1" head
pressure of alcohol in an airlock, but only modest inside
pressure can push/bend the lid ever so slightly to allow
gas escape. Yet consider the opposite. Any vacuum would
only serve to *tighten* the lid. And at zero pressure
differential, a properly seated lid with a soft seal
should stay that way.
So no worry - just relax. But if you DON'T relax and
clamp that lid down so much that it slightly deforms,
then just flip it over next time you use it.
And while on the topic: Have others noted the blackish
scum that forms along the fermenter sides at the top edge
of the yeast/oil remains that stick there? I've encountered
this in both the Fermenator and MoreBeer units. Machining
oils, steel filings? Yes, I did clean the heck out of them
with PBW before using them for the first time.
Whatever the black residue is, there seems to be no flavour
residual, and of that I can be pretty sure, having brewed
American Light Lager in these units. And as someone said:
"Why worry so much about that stuff stuck on the sides of
the fermenter? Obviously it ain't in yer beer." Um, yeah,
I guess so.
Calvin Perilloux
Middletown, Maryland, USA
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 09:22:43 -1000
From: "Michael Noah" <Michael.Noah at noaa.gov>
Subject: re: Cooling Coils & Pressure Calculations
That's what I thought, it just seemed strange to have to pump up the
pressure so high just for the cooling coils.
I have been bleeding off the pressure (down to about 20 psi) when an
extended period of time is expected between uses (during the day, since we
use the keg every night). I'll probably be buying a lot more CO2 as I
re-pressurize a half to near-empty keg every night after dinner.
I wonder, would using beer gas (75% N2/25% CO2) make any real difference at
that pressure? I've normally got the system set at 45 psi, and it seems to
work fine, so long as I don't forget to bleed it off when finished.
Thanks again!
Aloha!
Michael
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 10:56:57 -0900
From: "Martin Brungard" <mabrungard at hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Fermenator
It's good to hear of others who have taken the rather expensive step to a
stainless conical. I've completed 2 batches with my 12g Fermenator. I can
add some insight.
An important aspect in the fermenter preparation for first use was the
interior preparation. These vessels are "turned" metal, meaning that they
are slowly turned through a cold metal forming process to create the
cylindroconical shape. The forming process does leave concentric grooves in
the interior.
The instructions recommended using a green scrubbie to scour the interior.
We just had a discussion on HBD about the care of stainless a few months
ago, so I was not going to start with that sort of abuse with a scrubbie. I
started polishing my conical first with a thorough interior wet sanding
using 320 grit wet/dry sandpaper. That did not completely remove the
grooves from the forming process, but it significantly reduced them. I
probably should have spent more time on that aspect. Starting with 240 grit
wet/dry and switching to the 320 would probably be more effective too.
After the sandpapering, I then polished the interior using automotive
polishing compound. Its just a very fine grit that is rubbed on the metal
surface to produce a high sheen. I was able to achieve an almost
mirror-like finish, excepting for some of those machining marks still coming
through.
During the polishing, I noted that there was some sort of oily or greasy
substance on the metal surface. Probably some sort of metal working lube.
The polishing compound seemed to draw it into view. It took some extra
effort to work through the substance and rid the metal of the coat. The
coating was not uniform, only occuring in limited areas.
After all that preparation, I washed it with PBW. I didn't heat up the
water though. I should have! I'm not sure how effective my post-polishing
cleanup was because of the cold PBW wash. I did try sanitizing with
Star-San. I love the product, but not in this case. The whole fermenter
was full of foam and it wasn't going to drain out. I decided that Idophor
is a better product for sanitizing the fermenter just prior to filling with
wort. It drains with only a bit remaining.
I had no problem in achieving an effective seal with the lid. I did have to
apply a nice "dish" to the lid with the center foot to get a good seal.
Probably 1/4" to 1/2" deflection at the center. This should not be a
problem for the metal. Go ahead and extend the center foot as necessary.
I really like the corny lid port in the fermenter lid. It has proven
valuable for dry hopping. I do find that the O-ring likes to stick to the
fermenter lid instead of the corny lid. I've almost dropped the O-ring into
the fermenter. Watch out!
The weldless fittings are OK, but you can get a little weeping initially.
Be sure to fill the fermenter with water or sanitizer up to the batch's fill
level to check to leaks BEFORE adding your wort. I can see a disaster and
subsequent curse-fest if that occurs.
I did note a slight metallic tinge to my first batch, but that was not
apparent in the subsequent batch. Maybe the metal has to pickle a bit?
Overall, a nice addition to the brewery and I don't have to worry about
dropping a glass carboy.
Martin Brungard
Tallahassee, FL
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 15:43:23 -0500
From: Marc Sedam <marc_sedam at unc.edu>
Subject: kettles
I recommend buying the B3 kettle for many reasons.
I have one and have enjoyed using it for about 3 years. Recently I
installed a Bazooka screen in it which works fine. What it requires is
screwing the screen into the inside and screwing the ball valve (you
have to buy one...the faucet that comes with the kettle restricts flow
too much for my taste) in from the outside until they meet somewhere in
the middle of the weldless fitting. Works fine...use Teflon tape.
If I had to do it over again I'd ask to have the handles welded on.
This was not an option when I bought it, but I really do miss them when
I'm trying to move it or tip it to get the last bit of wort out.
Cheers!
Marc
- --
Marc Sedam
Associate Director
Office of Technology Development
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
308 Bynum Hall; CB# 4105
Chapel Hill, NC 27599-4105
919.966.3929 (phone)
919.962.0646 (fax)
OTD site : http://www.research.unc.edu/otd
Monthly Seminar Info: http://www.research.unc.edu/otd/seminar/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 15:04:40 -0600
From: "Pat Humphrey" <fermenter07 at hotmail.com>
Subject: Covering Starter Containers
Back in HBD #4477, Rob asked about covering starter containers.
Back in my micro days, we used to cover beakers and flasks with gauze
wrapped cotton or a special item called Milk Filters. These are circular
discs, about 5-6" in diameter with a thin layer of cotton
sandwiched on both sides with cheesecloth or gauze. They can be pressure
sterilized and secured with a big rubber band around the top of the beaker
or flask. They work very well at allowing gases to be exchanged yet keeping
the media sterile.
You can find these at livestock or farm supply stores. They can be had on
the internet as well. I did a search and found some made by KenAg which do
not have gauze but they should work fine. What is great about the gauze
covered discs is that if you spill any media on the rim or outside of the
container, the cotton will not stick too much or pull apart as it is
removed. A box of 100 might cost you five bucks.
I thought about posting my experience with making slants for yeast culturing
and may do that sometime in the future. I used to make about 1,000 a week
for lab work.
Cheers,
Pat in Lake Villa, IL
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 17:30:58 -0800
From: John Palmer <jjpalmer at altrionet.com>
Subject: New Product Announcement: HBRC
Hi Group,
Just wanted to let everyone know that my Home Brewing Recipe Calculator
is now available (since December really) at several brewshops around
the country, though distribution is still limited. You may have seen an
ad for it in this months BYO, but in case you haven't, it is a
paperboard slidechart calculator for calculating gravity changes, grain
and extract weights (PPG) and IBUs. I have just posted a
description/tutorial at my website if anyone is interested.
http://www.howtobrew.com (link) or specifically at
http://www.realbeer.com/jjpalmer/HBRC.html
Most of the time I would be using brewing software do figure these
things, but the HBRC is handy for those last minute changes at the
kettle when you don't have your computer handy.
Enough Said, Thanks,
John
John Palmer
john at howtobrew.com
www.realbeer.com/jjpalmer
www.howtobrew.com - the free online book of homebrewing
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 21:59:53 -0500
From: Tim Howe <howe at execulink.com>
Subject: Re: Counter Flow Chillers
>David says:
>I don't use a racking cane from my kettle; I have a valve on it with a
>hose barb adapter. But I have made and used a racking cane from the same
>3/8" copper tubing. Works fine. You can buy stainless steel racking
>canes at many homebrew supply. You can make a stainless steel one
>yourself by buying some stainless steel brake line tubing at an auto parts
>store.
I've never seen stainless racking canes locally, but the brake line tubing
is a very interesting idea. I hadn't thought of that, but that would be
perfect!
Thanks,
Tim Howe
London, Ont
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #4481, 02/21/04
*************************************
-------
