HOMEBREW Digest #1842 Wed 27 September 1995

Digest #1841 Digest #1843

		Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor

  Force Carbonation (Gavin Halse)
  betadine ("Bummer, Paul")
  PID, CO2 (harry)
  Responses to Underpitching ("Herb B. Tuten")
  amylase / more RIMS questions ("Keith Royster")
  It's so easy to make your own chiller! (Kenneth K Goodrow)
  RIMS/misc (Jim Busch)
  Petitioning re: Illegal Brewing. (Kenneth K Goodrow)
  Re-pitching at bottling time (Kris Thomas Messenger)
  More pitching. (Russell Mast)
  Periodicals (Kris Thomas Messenger)
  Orders is Orders. (Russell Mast)
  Hot on RIMS (Bob Sutton)
  Hop family tree (dhvanvalkenburg)
  More on False Bottoms ("Fleming, Kirk R., Capt")
  RIMS ("Fleming, Kirk R., Capt")
  Clubs:  non-profit corp (hollen)
  Re: RIMS spray ball? (hollen)
  Brewing/Drinking Age (andrew costello)
  Re: Beer Engines (Bird)
  Mea culpa (Spencer W Thomas)
  Genuine English Brass Beer Engines (Bill Marks)
  Re: download (TomF775202)

****************************************************************** * POLICY NOTE: Due to the incredible volume of bouncing mail, * I am going to have to start removing addresses from the list * that cause ongoing problems. In particular, if your mailbox * is full or your account over quota, and this results in bounced * mail, your address will be removed from the list after a few days. * * If you use a 'vacation' program, please be sure that it only * sends a automated reply to homebrew-request *once*. If I get * more than one, then I'll delete your address from the list. ****************************************************************** ################################################################# # # YET ANOTHER NEW FEDERAL REGULATION: if you are UNSUBSCRIBING from the # digest, please make sure you send your request to the same service # provider that you sent your subscription request!!! I am now receiving # many unsubscribe requests that do not match any address on my mailing # list, and effective immediately I will be silently deleting such # requests. # ################################################################# NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS hpfcmgw! Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew at hpfcmgw.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@ hpfcmgw.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. Please don't send me requests for back issues - you will be silently ignored. For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to lutzen at alpha.rollanet.org ARCHIVES: An archive of previous issues of this digest, as well as other beer related information can be accessed via anonymous ftp at ftp.stanford.edu. Use ftp to log in as anonymous and give your full e-mail address as the password, look under the directory /pub/clubs/homebrew/beer directory. AFS users can find it under /afs/ir.stanford.edu/ftp/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer. If you do not have ftp capability you may access the files via e-mail using the ftpmail service at gatekeeper.dec.com. For information about this service, send an e-mail message to ftpmail at gatekeeper.dec.com with the word "help" (without the quotes) in the body of the message.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 26 Sep 95 17:49:11 +1000 From: CHARLIE SCANDRETT <merino at ozemail.com.au> Subject: BOINKNG BREWERS TO GO BALLISTIC ! Chas Peterson and Pat Babcock are the latest to post that their keg carbonation caused bulbous expansion of their kegs. They "boinked". This has worried me greatly so I trotted off to my local keg manufacturer and had a chat to the tester. His kegs are rated to 4 ATM pressure,(60psi) and routinely tested to 6ATM.(90psi) They are also occasionally hydrostatically destruction tested. This is what happens. 1/At 10-14 ATM (150 psi) they become bulbous, "boink". 2/At 17-20 ATM (265 psi) they burst around the neck. 3/Old battered ones burst around the bottom. An old dented keg was half filled with water and gas pressurized. At 14 ATM the bottom tore out, it flipped and detroyed the pallet it was standing on, then erratically kangaroo hopped oround the yard until all the water was ejected. Maximum altidude reached ~ 5 metres. Maximum distance travelled ~ 25 metres I think what is happening is that stuck fermentations are being revived by priming and pressures in excess of 150 psi are being achieved. Sooner or later someone is going to get seriously injured. These kegs were not designed for carbonation by fermentation. I STRONGLY ADVISE putting 3 ATM pressure relief valves on all natural carbonation kegs. Your local hot water system repair man should have a bag full of them. Have them welded/threaded securely into your system. All "boinked" kegs are also now much weaker than before. Please don't feel you might insult by asking others what their pressure relief system is. A little peer pressure might save one of your friends serious injury. I would want to be in any brewery when a keg went at 180psi ! Charlie. (Brisbane, Australia) "What is a beer bomb? Is it smart?" CS Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 10:00:41 +-200 From: Gavin Halse <halseg at iafrica.com> Subject: Force Carbonation Having just spent another of those very lazy public holidays finding every excuse why not to wash and sterilise all those bottles I decided to try an experiment! The temptation to taste a very promising lager which had been maturing in the secondary in the refridgerator for over a month now was just too much! To short circuit bottle maturation and natural carbonation I took a sample and force carbonated it using a domestic soft drink machine. I had been warned of the spectacular problems one could have with carbonating anything but cold water but decided to take the plunge. The result - a quite acceptable beer in an instant and only a small mess! Whilst the gas had to be introduced slowly to prevent foam rising and clogging the relief valve it was a manageable system. Which brings me to my question? Does anyone have some information on the flavour effects carbonating in this way might have on the beer? I would class the flavour slightly harsh. The beer had relatively poor head retention. The beer was not flat but lacked something, but I can't put my finger on it... Any pointers from the experienced would be appreciated! GAVIN HALSE halseg at iafrica.com Durban, South Africa Occupation: "A homebrew beta taster" Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 95 08:08:40 EST From: "Bummer, Paul" <bummerp at uklans.uky.edu> Subject: betadine Mr. Kirby asked about the use of betadine surgical scrub as a sanitizing agent. Well I have never tried that product in brewing, but I would like to point out that there is a significant amount of detergent surfactant in the scrub. Remember, the scrub is designed to remove dirt as well as kill microbes on the skin with prolonged (approx. 2 minutes) washing. I would be concerned that, in the absence of good rinsing, the surfactant might remain behind and destroy any head-retaining properties of the final product. Paul M. Bummer, Ph.D. College of Pharmacy University of Kentucky Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 08:14:46 -0400 From: hbush at phoenix.Princeton.EDU (harry) Subject: PID, CO2 Two ignorant questions (no it is not bliss!)- In HBD 1841, Charlie Scandrett talks about heating: > I have a machine driven stirrer, a PID controlled gas pressure valve and a >gas >heater under a inverted cone hot-gas/metal/fluid heat exchanger...... >Electronic temperature control, especially PID, is also great, a number of >sensors and an averaging function is tops. What is PID (other than something really bad that happens only to women), and is it something I should get? I just ordered and recieved a 10# CO2 bottle :-D !! Where do I get this filled? Should it be pumped down (evacuated) first? Is there a "beverage dispensing" grade of CO2 that is better than, say extinguisher grade? That was actually five questons disguised as two... harry (to hell with Net etiquette, this space for rent!) Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 10:07:23 EDT From: "Herb B. Tuten" <HERB at zeus.co.forsyth.nc.us> Subject: Responses to Underpitching Last week I posted: >>>I extract-brewed a batch of ale Saturday night and pitched a rehydrated >>>14 gram Edme yeast. I've never paid much attention to yeast but now I >>>know better, because Sunday evening there was no activity at all in the >>>primary, not even pressure in the air-lock! Not going down without a >>>fight, I rehydrated a 7 gram pack of M&F that I had in the frig and >>>carefully pitched it Sunday night. Monday morning. I had wonderful >>>activity, vigorous bubbling. Now, Tuesday morning it is slowing down >>>and I'm thinking "7 grams was too little, maybe I should toss in another 7g >>>to keep the fermentation going". The last thing I want is a high final >>>gravity and I wonder if I can keep that from happening. >>> >>>What do you think? Would you add more yeast or is late-pitching >>>harmful? And since there's already 14 grams of dead/inactive yeast in >>>there, how much yeast is too much?? Thanks to everyone who e-mailed me. I've learned alot about yeast. The major answers were: 1. Aeration was insufficient and yeast growth lagged for two days. 2. Rouse the the yeast from the bottom or swirl the container. 3, Adding more yeast late in the fermentation wouldn't hurt, but it probably wouldn't help either. 4. Try liquid yeast next time. 5. Relax, don't worry, have a home brew. I'm happy to report that the s.g. was 1.012 when I transferred to secondary this weekend. ( o.g.=1.036 ) Looks like number 5 was the best advice. :) Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 09:25:31 +0500 ET From: "Keith Royster" <N1EA471 at mro.ehnr.state.nc.us> Subject: amylase / more RIMS questions For the second time in as many batches I have had a stuck or very slow fermentation (Amer.Pale Ale #1056 & Holiday Cheer #1338). With both batches I "fixed" the problem by adding amylase enzymes to the beer. I understand the general principal behind amylase: it breaks down large, unfermantable chains into smaller ones that the yeasties can sink their teeth into. My question is, how long will this process continue? I added the amylase almost two weeks ago and it is still bubbling away. I have already passed my target FG and I don't want the beer to be too dry. Should I give it more time, or can I crank the temp down in the fridge to near freezing causing the yeasts and enzymes to settle out? This is what I did the first time because I kegged it, but some of this batch will be bottled and I don't want the enzymes to kick back in gear and explode my bottles. - -------------------------------------------------------------------- It seems that the ever popular RIMS thread has started up again, so I might as well jump in with a few of my own questions: First, what *exactly* is a RIMS? This may sound like a stupid question, but I see many comments on the HBD that seem to imply that, to have a RIMS setup you must at least have a heating element to heat the recirculating wort, and a nice computer chip circuit to control the element is, while not required, almost an essential part. For example, Charlie Scandrett comments: >Because RIMS usually has a small heat area, (the surface of the >element), the >setup is suseptible to scorching and variable heating efficiency I plan on building a system that simply heats the wort with my propane cooker under the kettle and recirculates it to the top with a pump. No heating element, no computer chips. But it does (R)ecirculate, and it is an (I)nfusion (M)ashing (S)ystem, but is it a RIMS? Also, what is the best way to control the speed of the recirculating pump? A motor speed controller (dimmer switch?)? or a ball-valve upstream of the pump outlet? I would like to use the same pump to transfer the wort from the mash tun to the brew kettle during the sparge, but I'm worried that trying to slow the pump down to a normal sparging speed might be too slow and damage/burn the pump. Any comments? Thanks for any/all responses! +----------------------------------------------------------------+ | Beer once tasted like something. It was made out of malt and | | hops and yeast and pure filtered water... Nowadays it is often | | made of such gook as rice and corn grits... nothing but dirty | | water. It's so light and clear it's nothing...ignoble swill. | | - Charles McCabe, 1960 | +----------------------------------------------------------------+ Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 09:54:06 -0500 (CDT) From: Kenneth K Goodrow <goodrow at orion.etsu.edu> Subject: It's so easy to make your own chiller! I thank all of you who sent directions to making a chiller. It was ridiculously easy and cost me $22 for parts and 10 minutes (or less) labor. If anyone is considering buying a wort chiller, don't. making your own is too cheap and easy! cheers Kenn Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 10:51:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Jim Busch <busch at eosdev2.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: RIMS/misc Charlie writes about RIMS getting hot.... <Gee fellas, they are both heat exchangers and if you ignore first principles <they'll both give you trouble. Just wanted to point out that I think that Dion and I are in complete agrement and both systems can make excellent beers. Sometimes (often?) these Internet comments seem like flame wars and most often they arent meant to be. Such is the context of the medium. <Jim extols the virtures of "good even heating", that is the first principal of <any exchanger setup. Dion, who RIMS stirs his mash with a pump assumes Jim <stirs his with a spoon? Actually, its a large wooden red oak paddle, one of my most prized brewing possesions. Custom cut by my brewing buddy. <I have a machine driven stirrer, a PID controlled gas pressure valve and a gas <heater under a inverted cone hot-gas/metal/fluid heat exchanger.(ribs under <it absorb the heat from the gas) I have a large area of exchange, which <allows a controlled but low temperature differential, and the blade type <stirring arms rotate quickly and close enough to the cone, preventing <scorching. I can stop the arms and inject steam into the thick part for <gelatinization of starch. Now, Im envious! BTW, I use a 24 jet propane burner to heat a 12 guage 316 SS bottom of the kettle/mash tun. The burners are of the slotted cap type and provide even gentle heating about 1/2-1 inch below the bottom of the tank. Kit mentions his Wit: <I just had a wit beer win 2nd runner up best of show. The judges <commented that the lactic sourness tasted like it was added <artificially. Well... it was. The pH of the finished beer was 4.8 and <it definitely lack tartness. I usually adjust down to 4.2 with C&B <acid blend. Is there another acid I could be using to avoid the <roughness? Malic, perhaps? What do other brewers do to lower the pH? <Pediococcus takes too long. This was judged 9 days after brewing. It takes quite some time for the lactic edge to subside when its added like this. There is definite differences between natural lacto and added and this is where it is evident. It will subside over time. Tim asks about Bell's HSA: <I asked (in horror!) about (you knew it was coming...) <HSA and the guide said that the spray ball is above the liquid surface of the <mash and they still don't have any trouble with oxidation. Some brewers are less concerned about HSA than others. It is a major factor in making clean, light-colored, stable lagers. It is less of a concern for heavily hopped short lived beers. Its not something you *want* to design in to the brewery but sometimes its a fact of life. You can modify these designs in some systems and it can improve the shelf life and malt character of the beers. For a recirc lauter tun, Id skip the spray ball and let it hit closer to the grain bed. Lauter grants are another source of HSA as are most wort inlets from the lauter tun to the kettle. Good brewing, Jim Busch busch at mews.gsfc.nasa.gov Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 10:01:01 -0500 (CDT) From: Kenneth K Goodrow <goodrow at orion.etsu.edu> Subject: Petitioning re: Illegal Brewing. If anyone is interested in forming a petition to change laws against homebrewing, count me in for signing it. I have seen this done where "signers" send their names and Email addresses to a site which compiles a list for a petition. Any takers? Of course, we would have to have someone to send this to (congressman, etc.), so it anyone has a cause underway and wants some support, maybe this would help. Cheers Kenn Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 07:55:14 -0700 From: Kris Thomas Messenger <kmesseng at slonet.org> Subject: Re-pitching at bottling time I have seen several mentions in the literature about re-pitching yeast when bottling after long secondary fermentations. The rationale seems to be that the yeast will have gone dormant, died off, or settled out. Thus to assure carbonation in the bottle, it is suggested to add more yeast. Not wanting to have cloudy beer, I am wondering how much yeast I should add at bottling time to accomplish this. I have had some beers go for around 3 months in the secondary and become quite brilliant. A flashlight can be seen shining through the carboy even with some fairly dark brews. Thus, it would appear as if all the yeast has settled out. If anyone has any first hand experience here, I would be interested in hearing it. Another area this applies to is meads which I sometimes leave for one or two years. Thanks! Tom Messenger Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 10:08:31 -0500 From: Russell Mast <rmast at fnbc.com> Subject: More pitching. I never get enough of this thread. > From: mcb at abrams.abrams.com (Mark C. Bellefeuille) > I usually don't repitch. My problem with repitching is mostly time based. > (ie: yeast washing involves canning water and then carefully washing dregs.) > However; for those who argue pitching on top of the dregs of your last > batch: I also object to reusing a carboy which has a 2" 'brown scum' "ring > around the collar". For me, that scum ring is usually above the 'beer line', being carried up there by the kreuzen. The only part of the next batch it usually contacts is the kreuzen. Obviously, YMMV on this. Also, if you do a blowoff on the first batch, the evil brown nasty yuck is the first stuff carried away. (Ever tasted that stuff? Yuck!) > Last night I think I came up with a method which will > allow me to repitch more often. That sounds similar to something Jake and I cam up with sort of serendipidously. (How _do_ you spell that word?) Anyway, we basically made a couple errors that lead to us not having any yeast to pitch into a particular batch. The plan had been to bottle that day and pitch onto the dregs. For the heck of it, we took a gravity reading on the batch to bottle, and it was way high. Basically, the yeast crapped out. Now, we had even less yeast, since it was highly desirable to repitch the crapped out batch. Fortunately, we had yet another batch sitting around, with a hefty yeast cake. (It was in primary.) We ended up siphoning some of the yeast cake directly from the bottom of one batch into both of the others. THe purists out there are cringing, I'm sure, and I can't blame them. We were probably way underpitching, we were taking yeast away from a batch even, we were rolling the infection dice (though we were especially careful this time) and, basically, we were kludging around with many carboys in the middle of the night due to poor planning. To make a long story short, all three batches turned out just fine. Maybe not as good as they could be, but pretty darned good. This might not be a good recommendation as your standard method of yeast harvesting, but it works in a pinch. Some modification of it might be worth pursuing on a regular basis. -R ps. A big howdy to Rob Trish! Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 07:57:08 -0700 From: Kris Thomas Messenger <kmesseng at slonet.org> Subject: Periodicals Presently, I subscribe to Zymurgy as published by AHA. I have seen a magazine called "Brewing Techniques" and wonder if anyone has some comments on how the two publications compare. Thanks. Tom Messenger - ------- subscribe sent to homebrew! Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 10:17:23 -0500 From: Russell Mast <rmast at fnbc.com> Subject: Orders is Orders. In #1839 : > From: rlarsen at squeaky.free.org (Rich Larsen) > Subject: Wyeast 1728 Attenuation / AB yeast > I got the impression that there were under some sort of gag order. Perhaps that was so they can better sympathize with their customers? -R Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 95 10:43 EST From: Bob Sutton <BSutton_+a_fdgv-03_+lBob_Sutton+r%Fluor_Daniel at mcimail.com> Subject: Hot on RIMS Text item: Text_1 Ok...just when I thought it was safe to go into the brewhaus... As an engineer, I find RIMS to be an elegant approach, conceptually. However, I would expect RIMS to overheat the mash passing through the exchanger/heating element, caramelizing sugars and degrading enzymes. On the other hand, a fired system still has heat localization concerns at the wall film. It would seem, to this innocent eye, that the damage at the wall film (assuming decent agitation) would be less than RIMS. What exit temperature do you RIMS advocates experience at each rest. Based on the pump rates and heat exchange capacity I have seen in recent posts, I'd predict that exit temperatures are well above enzyme tolerances. Appreciate the feedback as I'm in the process of collecting widgets to support a small scale RIMS. TIA. BrewOn Bob Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 95 08:49:33 PST From: dhvanvalkenburg at CCGATE.HAC.COM Subject: Hop family tree Back in March (HBD 1673) I submitted a Hop family tree. It was my first cursory look at the family tree of hops. What I submitted generated lots of interest and some controversy. Al Korzonas, for example wrote: >In some cases it does help to know the genetic >relationships of hops, but in most cases, it does not. >Cascades, for example, were an attempt, if memory >serves correctly, to be a fuggle replacement. As a matter of fact, Cascade was a result of a search for a hop that was resistant to downy mildew disease. True, Cascade is related to Fuggle, however the percentage is only 31% Fuggle. Over 50% of Cascade's pedigree is unknown due to open pollination. Some speculate that it might contain Cluster which is a safe assumption since Cluster was the major crop of the day. At any rate, I would have to say that true, Algis, it does not help when you do not know much about the pedigree, but when well documented (Cascade is not), knowing which variety it is closest to may be useful. Well, I continued my research into the topic and the results are out in the current Brewing Techniques magazine. The tree became too complex for ASCII art, thus I would like to refer any one interested in the subject to the article in BT. I am frankly a little embarrassed looking back on the original tree (in HBD), over simplified as it was, but the foundation was laid for the tree published in BT. I would also like to make a correction to my HBD post back in March. I said that all hops originated from two basic lines of hops: Fuggle and Hallertauer. Fuggle is actually a fairly recent selection (made by Richard Fuggle in 1875) compared to Hallertauer which is a much older land race variety. The origin of hops, according to Dr. Al Haunold, research geneticists, had three points of origin; Europe, China and N. America. Although another expert, Gerard Lemmens, of Morris Hanbury says that hops had a single point of origin; Central Europe, then migrated east and west from there. I think both would agree that the varieties used for brewing had a single point of origin in Central Europe. European hops were then taken across the English channel and introduced to English brewing in the early 1500's by Flemish weavers. Thus, Fuggle is actually a descendant of the old land race varieties; Hallertauer being one of these. Some readers (of HBD 1673) wanted the results when I finished. I apologize to those I did not respond back to, but I lost a lot of files when a file server I use crashed- guess I should have kept them on a disk. Don Van Valkenburg dhvanvalkenburg at ccgate.hac.com Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 95 10:31:00 MST From: "Fleming, Kirk R., Capt" <FLEMINGKR at afmcfafb.fafb.af.mil> Subject: More on False Bottoms Mark Kirby (#1841) suggested using a 9" diameter false bottom and how this small diameter helps him avoid scorching. Mark stirs the mash to control temperature, and I don't understand how the small bottom helps. But folks building *recirculating* systems should know I've found just the opposite is true there. My first design used 15 3/8" diameter disks placed above the tank drain, leaving about 3 gal underneath the disk. We never experienced any wort scorching with that design. The second design now uses a false bottom abt 14 1/2" diameter placed below the same drain. The resulting volume beneath the disk is about 3 quarts. After one batch where we didn't pay a lot of attention to recirc rate during temperature boosts, I did find some carmelization in the bottom of the tank. This is inconclusive of course, but there's another reason to keep the disk size larger, IMO. For recirculating systems, the smaller the false bottom the more likely you are to suffer from channeling in the bed, if you believe that has measureable effects. Also, if your design includes a manifold for returning wort to the top of the grain bed having less than perfect and uniform distribution, channeling would be compounded by also having a small exit area at the bottom of the bed. If you prefer to have less volume under the false bottom, you can easily achieve that without having to significantly reduce disk diameter, due to the keg bottom shape. In the zone where the keg transitions from the straight sides to the curved bottom (chine) only slight disk size reductions are needed to significantly increase mash tun capacity also. The approx 1" reduction between my design 1 and design 2 lowered the disk about 3". That's a lot of grain. KRF Colorado Springs Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 95 11:09:00 MST From: "Fleming, Kirk R., Capt" <FLEMINGKR at afmcfafb.fafb.af.mil> Subject: RIMS Charlie Scandrett says some things about Heat Exchanging Technology... > I suggest RIMS designers maximise their heating areas in order to > lower their temperature differentials, and increase their pump speeds > and keep them constant I think flow rate is hard way to go to get turbulence. Another solution may be to use as large a heat exchanger as is practical and drive the flow turbulent through vortex generation--force the flow to turn as often as possible or use fins. Keep the pump speed as low as possible to just maintain turbulence. [I don't know how you can monitor this without a pressure probe.] Due to a gut feeling only, I'd prefer to recirculate my wort only to the extent needed to maintain uniform temperature in the grain bed, and foremost only enough to ensure no scorching in the heat exchange area (be it a chamber or a direct-fired tun). Still, I don't see how machine stirring of the mash is any less likely to extract phenols (or anything else) than is constant recirculation. Also, I don't follow Charlie's "over sparging" concern...I don't see a connection between RIMS and how much you sparge. Another idea to address the conflicting requirements I've proposed of low recirculation and no scorching: use the controller to fire *both* the heating element and a pump speed controller. Each time the heater goes on the flow rate increases as well. When the heater is turned off the pump reverts to 'normal' speed. KRF Colorado Springs Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 11:45:16 -0700 From: hollen at vigra.com Subject: Clubs: non-profit corp Small survey for homebrew clubs. Please Email your answers back to me to save bandwidth. I will summarize back to the group shortly. 1) Have you obtained non-profit organization status? 2) How difficult/easy was it? 3) How did you do it? 4) Have you incorporated to protect individual officers from liability? 5) If so, how protected are they? 6) If not, how do you feel about your risk? 7) Does the IRS overlook a club because it is a club, or *must* you offically become a non-profit organization. 8) What is the extent of liablity of the officers/members for actions of the club? thanks, dion Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 11:54:12 -0700 From: hollen at vigra.com Subject: Re: RIMS spray ball? >>>>> "Tim" == Tim Laatsch <LAATSCH at kbs.msu.edu> writes: Tim> Harlan brought up a question about garden-variety sprinklers to Tim> reintroduce heated mash liquor to the mash/lauter-tun in a RIMS. Tim> I've been wondering about this also. On a recent tour of Bell's, Tim> I was told that their mash/lauter-tun has a spray ball valve in Tim> the top for even distribution of recirulated runnings. I asked Tim> (in horror!) about (you knew it was coming...) HSA and the guide Tim> said that the spray ball is above the liquid surface of the mash Tim> and they still don't have any trouble with oxidation. Tim> It seems as if I merely think about oxygen and I get oxidation, Tim> so why the discrepancy here? If the spray ball valve above the Tim> liquid surface is OK, could I find and use one for my 1/2 bbl Tim> RIMS (under construction)? I would also be interested in hearing Tim> about other methods of recirulation with minimal grainbed Tim> disturbance. Would a small spray valve like you find on a Tim> hand-pumped herbicide-type sprayer be too constrictive even on Tim> the "out" side of the pump? Questions, questions...... While a spray ball may be fine during sparging, I too would be concerned of HSA. I use a copper manifold which uses many T's to create 6 1/2" outlets split from a single 1/2" input. The outlets are all in the same plane and that plane is at a right angle to the input down tube which comes through the lid. The output plane sits on the grain bed and is under the level of the mash liquor. This is essentially impossible to do in ASCII art, so I won't. dion - -- Dion Hollenbeck (619)597-7080x119 Email: hollen at vigra.com Senior Software Engineer Vigra, Inc. San Diego, California Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 15:44:39 -0400 From: acostell at moose.uvm.edu (andrew costello) Subject: Brewing/Drinking Age Does anyone out there know if there is a legal age attached to hombrewing? Does it vary from state to state ? I am also interested to find out your thoughts on the 21 year old drinking age. There is a bill being introduced in the House of Representatives that would remove the requirement on states that they must have a 21 year old drinking age to get federal highway money. This requirement forced many states into adopting their legal age as 21, even though they may not have wanted to. This is sure to touch off a debate, and I'd like to know what the brewers think. Thanks. Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 95 16:16:03 EDT From: hadleyse at pweh.com Subject: BRAINS SPECIAL ALE When I was visiting Cardiff, Whales a few years ago I tried some Brains Special Ale. Its an excellent Special Bitter which I have been attempting to emulate. I know the O.G. is 1.041. Does anyone have any info on ingredients for brewing some Brains? Any information at all (i.e. types of grains or hops used) would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance. Scott Hadley in Connecticut, USA Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 95 15:06:58 MDT From: roberts at Rt66.com (Bird) Subject: Re: Beer Engines Don't tell us: the real reason the Beer Engine-powered cars were banned is that they were too hopped up... Baboom. - --Doug - -- "24 hours in a day...24 beers in a case...coincidence?" Doug Roberts roberts at rt66.com Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 16:46:40 -0400 From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer at engin.umich.edu> Subject: Mea culpa I have to apologize for sending out 85 lines (2600 characters) of standard recipe form in today's HBD. I won't do it again! =Spencer Thomas in Ann Arbor, MI (spencer at umich.edu) Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 15:37:21 -0600 From: Bill_Marks at ids.net (Bill Marks) Subject: Genuine English Brass Beer Engines My daughter's fiance hsa presented me with a genuine English pub beer engine. It has two strokes per pint. It has clamps to attach it to the bar in the same manner as you would clamp down a meat grinder. I have tried it out by clamping it onto my bar and taking a suction on a corny keg. Its beautiful! I t is soild brass except for a plastic tray that catches the drips and it has a ceramic handle with a hunting scene. My question is this: Is there any interest in buying these things? He can get 10 - 15 more of them but the weigh about 20 lbs and will cost $$$ to ship them over here. Are they commercially available so I can price them out and see whether it is economically feasible to ship them over for resale? TIA Bill Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 23:37:00 -0400 From: TomF775202 at aol.com Subject: Re: download Rob- Why do I no longer get the entire text of HBD now through AOL? How do I get it? and finally how do I send you a message w/o being rejected? Thanx, Tom Return to table of contents
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1842, 09/27/95