HOMEBREW Digest #1514 Wed 31 August 1994

Digest #1513 Digest #1515

		Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor

  Boiling off alcohol in beer (Clay Glenn)
  Re: Advertising on HBD (djt2)
  Belgian Beer Series/Hops Stuff (npyle)
  Sparge Rate (Jack Schmidling)
  References, Indices, New D-C Maltings (George J Fix)
  Dishwasher Bottle Washing (Jack Skeels)
  non-alcoholic brew (Richard Lahusen)
  Please Resend ("OAKQM3")
  Homebrew on the www (DAVIN SLADE)
  Brewing Schools, again... (Ash Baker)
  INBOX Message (See Below) (Mailer.MC1)
  hop rates? hop schedules? (sean v. taylor)
  Kegging question/ not in faq (Spencer.W.Thomas)
  Learning tastes in beer (Dr Beer) (Spencer.W.Thomas)
  My Slow London Ale Yeast Mixed with a Belgian Yeast (Chris Strickland)
  Chilling wort in hot weather ("geo")
  Use of gelatin for cleari (Jeff Guillet)
  Wyeast #1968 Questions (PAULDORE)
  Other uses for Hops..... (PAULDORE)
  Southern New England BPs/Micros request (uswlsrap)
  5 gallon Gott is too small (Ulick Stafford)
  Re: Kegging question/ not in faq ("Mark B. Alston")

****************************************************************** ** NOTE: There will be no digest administration from August 15 ** through August 26. PLEASE be patient when requesting changes ** or cancellations. ****************************************************************** Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew at hpfcmi.fc.hp.com (Articles are published in the order they are received.) Send UNSUBSCRIBE and all other requests, ie, address change, etc., to homebrew-request@ hpfcmi.fc.hp.com, BUT PLEASE NOTE that if you subscribed via the BITNET listserver (BEER-L at UA1VM.UA.EDU), then you MUST unsubscribe the same way! If your account is being deleted, please be courteous and unsubscribe first. FAQs, archives and other files are available via anonymous ftp from sierra.stanford.edu. (Those without ftp access may retrieve files via mail from listserv at sierra.stanford.edu. Send HELP as the body of a message to that address to receive listserver instructions.) Please don't send me requests for back issues - you will be silently ignored. For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to lutzen at novell.physics.umr.edu
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 26 Aug 1994 10:26:09 -0700 (PDT) From: clayglen at netcom.com (Clay Glenn) Subject: Boiling off alcohol in beer First off, I'd like to thank Jack Schmidling for the periodic posting of his file on how to brew a low alcohol beer. I've tried the procedure and I have some observations and hypotheses to throw out for discussion. The procedure involves fermenting the wort as usual, then before priming and bottling, reheating the solution to boil off most of the alcohol. Since this will kill off all the active yeasties, you have to pitch some fresh yeast along with the priming sugar solution after everything cools down to room temp. I decided to try out the procedure about two months ago. I made up a batch of amber ale, and at bottling time I bottled half the batch normally. The other half I drained back into the brew pot and started heating it up. As it heated, thick foam/head started forming on the surface. I assumed this was due to the alcohol boiling out of the solution. I continued to heat it up (uncovered) to about 185F, then kept it at that temp for about 20 minutes and turned off the heat. When it had cooled back down to about 160F, I covered the pot and let it cool overnight. The next morning I pitched about a half-teaspoon of the dry yeast that I had saved originally, into the half of the priming sugar solution that I had left. After it was well dissolved and stirred, I gently stirred it into the boiled beer solution and then bottled as usual. The results were that the "normal" beer cleared normally, carbonated normally, and tastes pretty "normal". The boiled beer did not clear (now two months in the bottle!), has almost no carbonation (nearly flat), but still tastes pretty good. Here is my first hypothesis on why the beer did not clear. My understanding is that live yeasts tend to "clump" together (flocculate) and then drop out of the beer, settling to the bottom of the bottle. My guess is that the boiling process killed off the yeast, which then didn't "clump" as usual. Thus they remain suspended in the beer, leaving it very cloudy. Perhaps adding more Irish Moss during this extra boil would have collected the dead yeasts together and aided in clearing. I'll try that next time. My second hypothesis is on why the beer came out nearly flat. When the beer is in the fermenter, a lot of CO2 is produced. At bottling time, the beer is saturated with CO2 and the small amount of extra CO2 that is generated during bottle conditioning provides the carbonation for the beer. My guess is that by boiling the beer, I drove off all of the CO2 that is normally the starting point for bottle conditioning, creating a "CO2 void". To fill this "void" and get carbonation, greater than normal priming sugar should have been used. How much more? 50% more? Double? More experimentation is needed here. Now I get to the troubling question: How much alcohol did I boil off? I haven't taken the beer samples to a chemist for analysis. I don't even know where to get this kind of analysis done. Now I am not a chemist (although I play one on the Net), but I do remember a little bit from my college chemistry and thermodynamics courses. As I recall, if you have two liquids in solution which have different boiling points, a mixture of the two liquids will have a boiling point somewhere between the two separate boiling temperatures. Here is an example. If pure water boils at 100C, and ethyl alcohol boils at 80C (just guessing here), then a 50/50 mix of water and alcohol might boil at around 90C (assuming for a moment that the gradient is approximately linear). If this is true, then we can calculate the boiling point for beer (which is approximately 95% water and 5% alcohol), to be about 99C. As the solution boils and the alcohol leaves, the boiling point will rise to 100C. Actual temperatures would probably be a bit higher since there is still some unfermented sugar and other "stuff" in the beer. We'll neglect the affect of these other constituents for now. This analysis would suggest that until I reach 99C, I don't really start to boil off the alcohol from my beer. And that the total boiling point shift that I am looking for is only about one degree Celsius! So now my questions are, did I boil off ANY significant alcohol? Since I only heated it to 185F (85C), did that really accomplish anything? What was the foam that was produced during the process? Was it just the CO2 being released from solution? My guess is that the only thing I accomplished was to create cloudy, flat beer without really reducing the alcohol measurably. I would like any comments, expecially from someone who knows a bit more about chemistry than I do. Is there some flaw to my logic which says that you don't really start boiling the alcohol until about 99C? Am I overlooking some crucial point? Or did I just waste my time by boiling off a bunch of CO2 leaving me with flat cloudy beer? While we're at it, if I put the beer in a sealed pot (like a pressure cooker) and hooked up a vacuum pump to draw off the pressure, can I get the boiling point low enough to boil off the alcohol without killing the yeast or "cooking" the beer?. If so, what pressure would I have to draw down to, to get it to boil at perhaps 90F to 100F? (Wow! Five "to's" in one sentence. Is that a record?) Anybody got any good ideas? - -- \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ O >>> Clay Glenn clayglen at netcom.com >>> /|\ /////////////////////////////////////////// /'\ Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 1994 13:34:48 -0400 From: djt2 at po.cwru.edu Subject: Re: Advertising on HBD Hey, "Lynne O'Connor" <stpats at bga.com> Let's keep the advertising off of HBD. *Very* bad behaviour, that. By the way, that is not just a suggestion, that is the stated role of the internet, even if you have a .com account. dennis Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 94 12:10:09 MDT From: npyle at hp7013.ecae.StorTek.COM Subject: Belgian Beer Series/Hops Stuff Scott writes: >Has anyone compiled all of the Belgian beer postings that have appeared >recently? My e-mail system makes it really difficult to cut and paste >things together, so I was wondering if someone could e-mail me a copy. If anybody has this, it would make a nice addition to the sierra archives; it was a really nice series. ** Regarding my post, Don O'Connor wrote: >There was a post by Norm Pyle regarding the information in the St. >Patrick's catalog concerning hops. To be honest I'm confused. The >catalog seems to say almost precisely what Norm says. St. Pat's catalog >states explicitly that "It is the packaging that keeps it fresh, not its >form." St. Pat's has been warning brewers for months about hop plugs >that are not good because they are not packaged properly. Here's a direct quote from the St. Pats catalog on my desk (dated March 25, 1994): "The only whole hops I stock now are hop plugs. Loose whole hops don't sell because homebrewers are now well aware of the superior quality of hop plug packaging. Hops are pressed into 1/2 ounce plugs and _foil wrapped in packs_ of 10." Saying that "loose whole hops don't sell" is wrong, plain and simple. Saying that "homebrewers are now well aware of the superior quality of hop plug packaging" is one of those "facts" that can't be proven. *This* homebrewer is well aware that oxygen barrier packaging is key, and that yes, foil wrapping is very good for this, but so is other packaging. Who's to say what other homebrewers are "well aware" of? Oxygen barrier packaging is used for loose whole hops these days, and used very well. The hop plug packaging is no better than a good O2-barrier plastic used for loose whole hops, IMHO. I just think that, for whatever reason, St. Pats likes to stock plugs, and their catalog is trying hard to imply that plugs are the best. I consider them a reasonable substitute when I can't find fresh whole hops, but only then. ** Todd Swanson writes: >I've read the Hop FAQ (good job and thanks to all who participated in that >venture) and I want some more info. I'm dissatisfied with my local >suppliers >hops (read not fresh, sometimes yellow, uncertain age) and want some >recommendations of mail order suppliers so I don't have to put up with bad >hops. There were a few mentioned in the FAQ but no addresses or phone #s. Beers to you, Todd, for reading the FAQ first! Here's a list of suppliers I have handy. There's other good ones I don't have handy, but this should help: The Hop Source 11886 Paradise Alley Road NE Silverton, OR 97381 HopTech P.O. Box 2172 Danville, CA 94526 Oops, I thought I had more than that. Hope this helps. >How can one tell if oxygen barrier packaging is being used? Is this sort of >packaging detectable by eye or does it require more subtile testing? Oxygen barrier bags use a thick plastic which is almost soapy feeling. I don't know what the plastic is made of, but here's what makes it obvious: aroma, or the lack thereof. If you cannot smell the hops, then you can be sure it is a barrier package. I bought some hops from The Hop Source a few months ago and when they arrived, the first thing I noticed was that you couldn't smell a thing. This is goodness. If you can smell the hops through the package (at all) then keep looking for someone who'll pack it better. >I live in Nebraska (read, hot summers). Will hops exposed to the high >temperatures of a summer shipment be seriously damaged? Or are shipping >temps. not a concern? All temps are a concern, but you can't do much about it during shipping. The reactions take place wrt temperature AND time, so if you pay more for faster shipping, you're better off. Then, just keep them cool at home and they should be fine. It beats the alternative of waiting for winter to brew! Cheers, Norm npyle at hp7013.ecae.stortek.com Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 94 13:17 CDT From: arf at genesis.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling) Subject: Sparge Rate >From: gjfix at utamat.uta.edu (George J Fix) >In any case a sparging period of 3*9.5 = 28.5 mins. to process 9.5 gals of sparge water is what I use as a target. How all this shakes out for`copper coils or for that fact the EM is anyones guess. Very likely different considerations are needed. I am not sure it would be useful to develop a formula as the EM is pretty well defined. The following numbers are from a batch I made a few months ago with`an EM in a 10 gal Polar kettle. 14 lbs D-K Munich Malt 5 gallons mash water First seven gallons.... 60 min Total ten gallons.... 72 min That's an average of 7.2 minutes per gallon. I netted 13 gal at 1.044 for an extract of 31 pts. Please note that this is a worst case because the flow rate was actually determined by my ability to heat sparge water in the EASYSPARGER. The spigot is throttled back to this rate. On a different batch I measured the actual wide open flow rate and it was 13 secs for 1 cup or 3.46 min per gal. This is amazingly close to George's numbers but both of these batches were made in Jan so I could not have cooked the numbers. I don't have the total time for this batch but it had a more traditional grain bill and an extract of 33 pts. I suppose one of these days, I will have to find some way to heat up ten gallons of sparge water just to see how fast one could sparge with an EM but the ES habit is a tough one to break even if it takes a little longer. js Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 94 13:56:41 -0500 From: gjfix at utamat.uta.edu (George J Fix) Subject: References, Indices, New D-C Maltings I been asked for specific references on Dr. Narziss' work on malt and mashing. IMHO the most informative are the following: 1. "Comments on some taste factors in Beer", Brauwelt, Vol.IV, 1992. 2. "Qualitative and Quantitative aspects of Mashing ", Brauwelt, Vol. III, 1993. The first discusses (among other things) the negative effects on a beer's malt flavor arising from excessive protein modification. The second discusses his ideas on how malt with a high degree of protein modification is best mashed. I have been asked about the comment in M+Br. Sci. (p.260) that malt whose Kolbach index is in the range 37-40% is overmodified. It is my belief that this is possibly a typo. The German malts I have been playing around with (Durst, Irek, and the new one from Stuttgart) range from 36-38%, and the original D-C Pils malt (according to the Siebel data) came in at 38%. For these a protein rest is highly advantageous. Narziss is taking about malts whose Kolbach indices are in the 40s. BTW this index is virtually the same as soluble protein as % of total protein (which is sometimes shortened to the "S to T ratio"). I have also been getting some e-mail from people expressing some disappointment with the malt flavors they are getting with lagers made using D-C Pils malt. Terms like "dull" and "neutral" have been used to describe the effect. I personally have been busy comparing the ones from Germany, and have not brewed with the D-C version for some time. I got a copy of Schreier's new malt analysis sheets to see what changes might have occurred over the original version with which I have the most practical experience. The assortment data looks terrific (those using floor maltings always always seem to get nice uniformly plump kernels!). The protein level is at 10%, which is in the dead middle of DeClerck's preferred range of 9-11%. The bad news is seen in the modification data. As far as starch modification is concerned, just about all brewers (lager or ale) prefer a high degree. One index that is used for this is the fine/coarse grind extract difference. The D-C Pils comes in at 2.2%, which is a tad high and indicates a slight undermodification of grain starch. The other D-C malts come in at 1.5 or lower which is ideal. The original version of the D-C Pils malt came in at 1.7, which also gets good marks. Perhaps this change may explain some of the yield problems with the new version which have been communicated to me. (In general, the lower the f/c grind difference, the higher the degree of starch modification and the easier it is to extract carbohydrates). The protein modification is exactly the reverse, and the S/T of the new D-C malt of 48.6 is the highest I have ever seen for commercial malt of any type. E.g., domestic malts and malts from Canada typically are in the range 40-43%. The D-C ale malt comes in at 43%, which is close to values I have seen for H-B and M+F's pale ale malts. Values I have seen for Maris Otter range from 42-43%. Even British maltsters would regard anything over 45% as undesirable overmodification. I promptly called Arthur Spurlock at Schreier, who BTW was very helpful and friendly (Schreier is indeed a great company!). His own measurements indicate that the Kolbach index is lower than the values quoted, but still in the mid 40s. The references cited above have hinted than many of the new spring 2 rowed varieties (e.g., Alexis) are displaying a tendency toward a high degree of protein modification even with continental Pils malting procedures. This means that the current situation with the D-C Pils malt may soon be typical of most lager malt from Europe. The practical significance of this for us is unknown to me, and I have no way of telling if this is the real problem behind the complaints. Current research points clearly to the desirability of having a high degree of starch modification without protein overmodification, and these new varieties seem to displaying the reverse. Narziss (reference 2) says in effect that not to worry for altered mashing schedules can overcome any difficulities. I for one need to get some of the new D-C pils and brew with it. BTW Alexis is a hybrid from Triumph (I believe it called Trumpf on the continent) and wild barley. Triumph made some great malt in its day, but now appears to be on the way out. It never displayed a tendency to protein overmodification, and many feel this property in the new varieties (all Triumph hybrids) may be coming from genetic material in the wild barley. George Fix Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 94 13:46 EST From: Jack Skeels <0004310587 at mcimail.com> Subject: Dishwasher Bottle Washing "BRCMRC.BRMAIN.MMENDENH" asked about using a dishwasher to sterilize bottles. Well Mr. BRCMRC, (if that's _really_ what your name is) here's my 2 Yens worth.... I've been using the dishwasher for the last ten or so batches, and it works great: 1) I use B-Brite and nothing else 2) I rinse and scrub all bottles with a bottle brush to remove any yeast crud 3) I use the power-blaster setting with heated drying 4) I let the bottles cool for a couple of hours before I try to use them. 5) I have removed all rinse aids, and don't use anything except plain Cascade for the dishes that precede my bottle batch. I had a batch with poor bubbles in the head that I attribute to rinse aid con- tamination 6) When I bottle I just pick the bottle out of the washer, fill and cap (Well, my wife does a lot of it, but you get the idea....) Hope this helps! BTW, say "hi" to the missus and little BRCMRC.BRMAIN.MMENDENH junior (or did you give him a different middle name?) ;-) Jack Skeels JSKEELS at MCIMAIL.COM Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 1994 14:14:50 -0700 From: rlahusen at pwavan.wr.usgs.gov (Richard Lahusen) Subject: non-alcoholic brew I have been interested in making a DRINKABLE na also. I think dry hopping and force-carbonation would REALLY help!!! Alas, I have lots of ideas but no time to implement them, improving my microprocessor controlled RIMS circuit is of higher importance!!! For those interested, here is a little info on boiling points vs pressure. Sorry about the units, this is how they are put out in my texts. Boiling points for water and ethanol at selected pressures: PRESSURE BOILING POINT, in degrees C mm, Hg Water Ethanol 10 11 -3 40 34 19 (room temp.) 100 51 35 (body temp.) 400 83 64 760(atmospheric)100 78 Conversion factors: psi= mm Hg x (.01934 ) inches water= mm Hg x (.535) degrees F= (degrees C x 1.8) + 32 I suggest shooting for a body temp. removal needing a vacuum of 100mm Hg absolute. That is about 26 inches Hg less than atmospheric. Vacuum pumps are typically rated in inches Hg reduction from atmos. Allowing an additional inch of vac for leaks, aging seals, etc I would target a minimum 27 inch Hg vacuum. Options and sources for vacuum pumps: Plastic aspirator 1) Nalgene vacuum pump $5.85 Fisher Scientific Cat. No. 09-960-2 Offices all over country - look in phone book or get their 800 # from 1 800 555-1212 Disadvantage: Uses about 2 gal/min water Advantage: No moving parts to corrode or wear out Max. vacuum 28.5" Hg below atmos. Metal aspirator 2) Nickel-plated brass aspirator $35.00 Fisher Sci. Cat. No. 09-956 Motor driven 3) Lots of choices $300 to $3000 More expensive units generate very high vacuums and high volumes for ethanol extraction at room temp. Advantage: Greater vac. possible, no water used Disadvantage: Cost, maintenance, noise Low cost - Low water-use alternative: 4)Get an aspirator and a water pump and a water tank RECYCLE the water again and again (Not an original idea, commercial units do this) Advantage: water pumps are much less $$$$ Disadvantage: uses more electricity than a vacuum pump. Hope this helps! Rick L. Return to table of contents
Date: 26 Aug 1994 02:19:04 U From: "OAKQM3" <OAKQM3 at oakqm3.sps.mot.com> Subject: Please Resend Mail*Link(r) SMTP Homebrew Digest #1511 (August 26, !!!! Original Message >= 24K; See following enclosure. Preview follows !!!! HOMEBREW Digest #1511 Fri 26 August 1994 FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor Contents: UK Homebrewers' Association (G.A.Cooper) Belgian Beer postings (BUKOFSKY) Propane cookers (smtplink!guym) thermostat (CLAY) 1994 THIRSTY Homebrew Competition (Wolfe) AHA and ignorance of homebrewing's legality (tfirey) Mills Zymurgy (Jack Schmidling) Mills Zymurgy (Jack Schmidling) thanks / Tumbleweed & Richbrau (Chris Lovelace) Celis White Clone and Cleaning Brushed Stainless Steel Oven tops (Dean J Miller) Victoria Beer Festival ("Phil Atkinson") Results, California State Fair (Martin Lodahl) George Fix yield posting (Chuck E. Mryglot) Maltings near Milwaukee ("CANNON_TOM") They're picking hops in the Pacific NW (Glenn Tinseth) Zymurgy's Fall Issue (Dennis Davison) exciting post #1 ("Lynne O'Connor") really exciting post #2 ("Lynne O'Connor") Re: Wyeast Ale Yeasts (Tel +44 784 443167) Re: Fuller's ESB Clone (Tel +44 784 443167) A Great Many Thanks (Thomas Junier) Portland Microbrews (DrewStorms) Semi-closed Systems (Chris Strickland) Available: Saaz hop rhizome (Mark Evans) Brits and Wyeast / Blow your Horn (npyle) Brewing in Louisiana (David P. Atkins) Need Hop Help! (Todd Swanson) finings and bitter taste (Barry Allen, Industrial Engineering) ****************************************************************** ** NOTE: There will be no digest administration from August 15 ** through August 26. PLEASE be patient when requesting changes ** or cancellations. ****************************************************************** **Please send UNSUBSCRIBE and all other requests to BEER-L at UA1VM.UA.EDU** Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew at hpfcmi.fc.hp.com (Articles are published in the order they are received.) If your account is being deleted, please be courteous and unsubscribe first. FAQs, archives and other files are available via anonymous ftp from sierra.stanford.edu. (Those without ftp access may retrieve files via mail from listserv at sierra.stanford.edu. Send HELP as the body of a message to that address to receive listserver instructions.) Please don't send me requests for back issues - you will be silently ignored. For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to lutzen at novell.physics.umr.edu - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 23 Aug 1994 15:06:55 +0100 (BST) From: G.A.Cooper at greenwich.ac.uk Subject: UK Homebrewers' Association Simon_W._Bedwell at metro.mactel.org (Simon W. Bedwell) writes: >This post is mainly directed at UK HBD'ers, but any ideas from the wider HBD >community would be very welcome. My reply is also mainly (but not exclusively) for the UK HBDers >I have been chatting to a fellow UK HBD'er, Brian Gowland, about the >possibility of producing a UK Homebrew Newsletter. The newsletter would I think that is an interesting idea. The problem you might have is publicity. But read on.. you might find one way of reaching some people... >such a newsletter would also stimulate interest in both local and national >brewing competitions, and provide the impetus necessary to start a UK >Hombrewers' Association. There are already several local/regional homebrew competitions in the UK and a national one. The national one (1992 in Weston-super-mare, 1993 Blackpool, 1994 Scarborough, 1995 North Wales are the recent ones) is organised by the National Association of Wine and Beer Makers (NAWB for short) which this year attracted around 3500 bottles of wine plus 1000 bottles of beer. As you see, the organisation is both wine and beer with a heavy bias in numbers on the wine side, but the beer entries are not trivial and the standard is very high. The bias towards wine is also reflected in the qualified judges in the UK. The National Guild of Wine and Beer Judges (NGWBJ) has around 300 members of which around 50 are beer judges (the others being wine judges) and membership is by examination. Most amateur wine and beer - ------------------ RFC822 Header Follows ------------------ Received: by oakqm3.sps.mot.com with SMTP;26 Aug 1994 02:18:49 U Received: by motsps.sps.mot.com (4.1/SMI-4.1/Email-2.1) id AA21300; Fri, 26 Aug 94 00:20:45 MST Received: from UA1VM.UA.EDU by spsgate.sps.mot.com (4.1/SMI-4.1/Email 2.1 10/25/93) id AA15250; Fri, 26 Aug 94 00:17:47 MST Message-Id: <9408260717.AA15250 at spsgate.sps.mot.com> Received: from UA1VM.UA.EDU by UA1VM.UA.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 0559; Fri, 26 Aug 94 02:18:06 CDT Received: from UA1VM.UA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV at UA1VM) by UA1VM.UA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 3830; Fri, 26 Aug 1994 02:18:02 -0500 Date: Fri, 26 Aug 1994 01:15:39 -0600 Reply-To: Posting Address Only - No Requests <homebrew at hpfcmi.fc.hp.com> Sender: Homebrew Digest Redistribution List <BEER-L at UA1VM.UA.EDU> From: beer-l-request@ UA1VM.UA.EDU Subject: Homebrew Digest #1511 (August 26, 1994) X-To: beer-l at hpfcmi.fc.hp.com To: Multiple recipients of list BEER-L <BEER-L at UA1VM.UA.EDU> Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 27 Aug 1994 11:08:03 GMT+1100 From: DAVIN SLADE <DBSLA1 at eng3.eng.monash.edu.au> Subject: Homebrew on the www Is there a homebrew server or directory anywhere on the World Wide Web. If anyone knows of one can they please mail me the http address. - ----------------------------------------------------- Davin Slade - Civil Engineering, Monash University Clayton, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia dbsla1 at eng3.eng.monash.edu.au baldrick at yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au I was cured all right! Alexander de Large - ----------------------------------------------------- Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 27 Aug 94 01:14:45 EDT From: Ash Baker <3AVHB at QUCDN.QUEENSU.CA> Subject: Brewing Schools, again... Many thanks to all those who have replied to my questions. However there has been a slightly unfortunate incident: everyone who replied to the ash at io.org address had their letters killed. :( I'm hoping the io.org tape backup has them somewhere, but... Could I please prevail on those who were kind enough to reply to me, to resend those letters, if they could? If not, I understand completely, but if it's not too much trouble... Thanks again, and profound apologies to all who have been inconvenienced. Ash Baker ash at io.org -- Whitby, Ontario 3avhb at qucdn.queensu.ca -- Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario Return to table of contents
Date: 27 Aug 94 02:32:55 U From: Mailer.MC1 at hesdmail.mmm.com Subject: INBOX Message (See Below) InBox Message Type: Error InBox Message Subject: Undeliverable message InBox Message Text Follows: Message not delivered to 'MC2' (Disk full) - ------------------------- Original Message Follows ------------------------- Message too large (greater than 30000 bytes). See enclosure! - ------------------------- RFC822 Header Follows ------------------------- Received: by hesdmail with SMTP/TCP;27 Aug 94 02:29:11 U Received: from pigseye.mmm.com by mmm ( 3M/SERC - 4.1/BDR-1.0) idAA27813; Sat, 27 Aug 94 02:40:03 CDT Errors-To: homebrew-request@ hpfcmi.fc.hp.com Received: by pigseye.mmm.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA13321; Sat, 27 Aug 94 02:32:30 CDT Errors-To: homebrew-request@ hpfcmi.fc.hp.com Errors-To: homebrew-request@ hpfcmi.fc.hp.com Received: from hpfcrdg.fc.hp.com by hpfcla.fc.hp.com with SMTP ( 3.20) id AA04600; Sat, 27 Aug 94 01:33:12 -0600 Received: by hpfcmi.fc.hp.com ( 3.22) id AA04406; Sat, 27 Aug 1994 01:00:49 -0600 Date: Sat, 27 Aug 1994 01:00:49 -0600 Message-Id: <9408270700.AA04406 at hpfcmi.fc.hp.com> To: homebrew at hpfcmi.fc.hp.com From: homebrew-request@ hpfcmi.fc.hp.com (Request Address Only - No Articles) Reply-To: homebrew at hpfcmi.fc.hp.com (Posting Address Only - No Requests) Errors-To: homebrew-request@ hpfcmi.fc.hp.com Precedence: bulk Subject: Homebrew Digest #1512 (August 27, 1994) Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 94 20:14:16 EDT From: sean v. taylor <sean at chemres.tn.cornell.edu> Subject: hop rates? hop schedules? When I brew (which is not often enough these days), I usually chuck in my bittering hops, then add my finishing hops at the end of the boil. Nice and simple. But lately, I've been perusing recipes that call for a certain number of IBUs at 15 min., a certain amount at 30 min., and so forth. Why do you do this? My guess is to control the amount of bitterness in the beer, and presumably, to drive off less volatiles during the boil. If that is the case, why not just add bittering hops later in the boil (which, I think would accomplish both points). What am I missing here by my "barbaric" hop schedule? Private e-mail is greatly appreciated, and thanks for the enlightenment. Sean V. Taylor sean at chemres.tn.cornell.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 94 10:01:52 EDT From: Spencer.W.Thomas at med.umich.edu Subject: Kegging question/ not in faq Victor Franklin writes: > question(s): Is there a difference in the end flavor of the beer if I > force carbonate vs. "natural" with dme or corn sugar? Stand back! Here come the opinions! On this note, I was reading an article in _The Malt Advocate_ (a neat, little, newsletter-format magazine about beer and whiskey) wherein the author (a BJCP certified judge & homebrewer) claimed that force carbonating produced the "nasty" bitterness that one finds, e.g., in American mega-swill. As opposed to hops, which give a "nice" bitterness. Eh? =S Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 94 10:07:13 EDT From: Spencer.W.Thomas at med.umich.edu Subject: Learning tastes in beer (Dr Beer) If you can, try to find a beer to doctor that doesn't come in twist-off bottles. I tried to doctor some Bud recently, and found myself unable to recap the bottle with my two-handled capper. Instead, I broke the lip off. Good thing it was only Bud. =Spencer in Ann Arbor, MI Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 94 08:32:48 -0400 From: stricklandc at cocoa12.ksc.nasa.gov (Chris Strickland) Subject: My Slow London Ale Yeast Mixed with a Belgian Yeast Several postings ago I mentioned I was worried about the slow start of my London Ale Yeast, so I pitched the slurry from two champagne bottles of beer I made with Belgian yeast. The beer made from this "mess-up", was excellent. It was a pale ale, with a nice malty taste, but with the slight fruity taste of the Belgian yeast. I've made two more batches with this yeast mix. For you chemist out there, do I have a hybrid yeast here, or what happens when you mix yeast. +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Chris Strickland | Allin1: stricklandc | | Systems Analyst/Statistician | Email : stricklandc at cocoa12.ksc.nasa.gov | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 1994 23:03:42 CST From: "geo" <WOLFF at albert.uta.edu> Subject: Chilling wort in hot weather Here in Texas the water comes out of the faucet (at least it does in my house) at 90-95F, not much use for chilling wort to pitching temperature without some assistance. I use open plastic containers for the primary, so I regard pitching asap as of primary importance. Recently I've been fooling around with trying to get a satisfactory arrangement for chilling the wort to ca. 65F, and thought others in a similar situation might be interested. Here's what worked (after a couple of other configurations were tried): First stage cooling: 15' 3/8" copper pipe coil in a water bath (any container will do) using tapwater maintained below 110F; Second stage cooling: 30' 3/8" copper pipe coil in an ice bath, with just enough water to ensure good thermal contact between the pipe and the bath. I use a cylindrical 3-gall water cooler for the ice bath. Inlet, outlet and hose connecting the two coils are the regular food- grade plastic sold in brewing shops. There's no reason to have a flexible connection between the two coils; it works better with the space I have, is all. Procedure: Hook up the system. Flush with sanitiser (I use a moderately strong bleach solution and let it sit for 5-10 min). Flush with rinse water for a few minutes. Any bucket with a spigot will do as a holding tank for sanitiser and rinse water. Pinch the outlet tube to keep air out of the system, hook up the inlet tube to wherever your hot wort is coming from, release the outlet, let the rinse water be replaced by wort (easy to see), and you're in business. Regulate the flow of tapwater through the first-stage cooling bath to maintain it below 110F and let it run onto the grass (water at this temperature will definitely not hurt plants - around here the damn rain isn't much cooler). If you're siphoning wort out of the boiler, the total drop height can be adjusted to give the required flow; in a dry run with boiling water I found that 3' (decreasing to 2' as the liquid levels in the boiler and fermenter change) works to give 5 gall at 70F for the price of about 10lbs of ice. Buying/making ice beforehand and storing it at around 20F definitely helps; new store-bought ice is rarely much below freezing. Yesterday, I tried it for the first time with real wort, and collected 3 galls at 62-64F (the small volume was intentional - with my system I can't handle much more than 13-14 lbs of grain, so if the beer is to be strong (this was an Imperial Stout), the volume must be low). Here's a neat trick: have the outlet tube secured onto the second coil with a clamp in such a way as to suck a tiny stream of bubbles into the tube, and you have auto-aeration. I found this out by accident on my dry run using loose-fitting low-grade soft tubing, the kind the hardware store sells, and a hose clamp. There are a number of ways of achieving this effect; the easiest for me was to use a short length of the soft tubing and a connector to food-grade just downflow. The food-grade tubing is made of sterner stuff (or maybe has a slightly smaller I.D.), and won't do it. Keep dust out of the entrained air by wrapping the pipe/tubing join with rolled cotton (cotton wool to any Brits reading this) secured with rubber bands. Total cost was about $20. Didn't keep the receipts, but 50' of copper cost about $16, and I'm pretty sure I didn't pay more than $5 for tubing. Hope that's useful to someone. Incidentally, I'd be interested in the response to the guy from New Orleans who asked about malt storage in hot/humid climates (sorry, I didn't make a copy of the posting). Although the humidity here is a little lower than in New Orleans, I've been wondering the same thing as I can't always brew when I feel like it, and often wind up storing malt for several months. The 2- row I used yesterday has been stored (uncrushed) in a 50lb sack for about 10 months, at about 80F and moderate humidity, and both mashing time and extract yield (single-stage infusion mash) were worse than the last time I used malt from the same sack (back in March). May your worts run true, John Wolff Dept of Geology University of Texas at Arlington wolff at uta.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 1994 19:44:00 GMT From: jeff.guillet at lcabin.com (Jeff Guillet) Subject: Use of gelatin for cleari As I was boiling the wort for my Steam beer two nights ago, I discovered I was out of irish moss (aka God). I used 2 tsp. Sparkalloid 15 minutes before the end of the boil. Would anyone recommend using gelatin for a clarifying agent in the secondary? I usually don't really care if there's some haze in my beer, but I think this style deserves to be crystal clear. How do you use the gelatin? TIA. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Jeff Guillet - <jeff.guillet at lcabin.com> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 1994 20:24:15 -0400 (EDT) From: PAULDORE at delphi.com Subject: Wyeast #1968 Questions I have read some old HBD issues and I'm looking to try this Wyeast #1968 yeast strain in making a true English Ale. I have a few questions: I have read that this yeast is a heavy flocculator and requires some addition aeration and agitation, but no one mentions how one should go about this?!! I use glass carboys, should I just swirl the carboy around for a few minutes? Is that enough to get things going again? And at what point should this be done, I mean when there are only how many bubbles a minute? Any and all help is wanted! ASAP! I'm itchen to make my next brew! Pauldore at delphi.com Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 1994 18:07:09 -0400 (EDT) From: PAULDORE at delphi.com Subject: Other uses for Hops..... Does anyone have or know of any other uses for HOPS? Besides using them for making beer and meads.. Can they be used in Tea, Baking...etc...etc? If you have an ideas or have any true and testing uses please tell me! Pauldore at delphi.com Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 94 14:32:03 EDT From: uswlsrap at ibmmail.com Subject: Southern New England BPs/Micros request - ----------------------- Mail item text follows --------------- To: I1010141--IBMMAIL From: Bob Paolino Research Analyst Subject: Southern New England BPs/Micros request Please send information (lists, reviews, personal experience, et cetera) on micros and brewpubs in Connecticut and Rhode Island. I'll be in Hartford, but may have a day to go elsewhere, perhaps as "far" as Providence. (Note: I know I said CT & RI, but if there's anything worthwhile in Springfield, that counts, too.) Email (rather than hbd post) is probably best: USWLSrap at ibmmail.com. Thanks! Bob Paolino Disoriented in Badgerspace Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 1994 14:16:29 -0500 (EST) From: ulick at ulix.rad.nd.edu (Ulick Stafford) Subject: 5 gallon Gott is too small Someone said he returned a 10 gallon Gott and got a 5. I use a 7 gallon Gott and at times it is too small. There is no way I could brew comfortably with a 5 gallon Gott. Admittedly my batch size has crept up to around 6 gallons, but still I feel the 5 gallons is too small. A rule of thumb is that your mash tun should be the same capacity as fermenters. If you are brewing little enough beer that a 5 gallon carboy is sufficient for fermentation, a 5 gallon cooler is fine. If you use larger fermenters consider a larger cooler. Heat capacity concerns are not significent. Preheat the cooler with boiling water and they become less. The only problem with a larger cooler, is that if used as a lauter tun it may have a less than optimum grain depth, but this is not too significent a problem. If you brew a stronger beer or have to thin out the mash more than planned doing an infusion mash, the extra space is essential. __________________________________________________________________________ 'Heineken!?! ... F#$% that s at &* ... | Ulick Stafford, Dept of Chem. Eng. Pabst Blue Ribbon!' | Notre Dame IN 46556 http://ulix.rad.nd.edu/Ulick.html | ulick at darwin.cc.nd.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 94 11:45:43 MDT From: "Mark B. Alston" <c-amb at math.utah.edu> Subject: Re: Kegging question/ not in faq Victor asked: question(s): Is there a difference in the end flavor of the beer if I force carbonate vs. "natural" with dme or corn sugar? With respect to flavor you might notice some differences when using dme simply due to the unfermentables which are present. However, corn sugar, being completly fermentable, should not alter the taste as compared to force carbonated. However, many people have noted differences in head retention and the quality of carbonation (the size of the bubbles) between the two methods. While this in not strictly a flavor it has a great infuence on the overall perception of quality. I have come to the conclusion that these differences in head retention and carbonation quality are due simply to the amount of time the beer is allowed to sit with carbonation before dispensing. If you give your beer at least one week to sit with pressure on the keg I think that you will find you get the same great head retention as with natural conditioning. I have read that shaking the keg to get the co2 to disolve into solution is bad and will flavor the beer. is this true? Again, I believe that the greatest problem in shaking the keg to force carbonate is that this method assumes that you want to drink you beer within minutes. This difference in conditioning time is what I believe to be the greatest cause of the perceived differences. However, I must note that at the AHA conference I tasted a porter that was force carbonated using a stainless carbonating stone (huge). It took about 30 seconds to carbonate the beer. The head retention seemed fine. I belive that this method worked because of the very fine CO2 bubbles which the stone produced. This allowed them to diffuse into the beer much more quickly than with the shaking or sitting method. In any event I have been more than happy with my result of force carbonating by simply letting the beer sit under pressure for at least a week. Mr. Impatient Don't be impatient. That is the most important part. (God would my girl friend laugh if she heard my tell someone else to be patient. This is not a virtue I have mastered :) Mark Alston (c-amb at math.utah.edu) Return to table of contents
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1514, 08/31/94