HOMEBREW Digest #1952 Sat 03 February 1996

[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]

		Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor

  internet virus - look out (Jerry Lee)
  DMS priming/ "Partial" decoction? ("David C. Rinker")
  Wort Aeration ("Jonathan Mohn")
  Re: Cornstarch & Boiling / Long Mash (Jim Dipalma)
  galvanized pipes ("Keith Royster")
  Carbonation and fill level ... more experiments. (Steve Alexander)
  Cleaning a carboy. (Russell Mast)
  Extract/Pressure Ferments (Jim Busch)
  Thermocouple contamination / Foxx Phone (Lynn Ashley)
  Re: Canned Homebrew? ("William Ryan")
  More on Grain Volume & Heat Capacity -- Correction (KennyEddy)
  Re: bumping up starters ("Randall S. Thiel")
  RE: flocculation ("David W. Parkin")
  Krauesening, O-ring lube (LaBorde, Ronald)
  Slow cool/late aeration/aeration vs. oxidation (Algis R Korzonas)
  Aeration (Bill Pemberton)
  kegs (Robert Rogers)
  fermentation under pressure (Andy Walsh)
  Brew Software - I Need Your Input! ("Clark D. Ritchie")
  Travel (djfitzg)

****************************************************************** * 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: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 09:50:14 -0800 From: jlee at esd.ray.com (Jerry Lee) Subject: internet virus - look out I apologize that this is not relevant to our threads but I thought it was important enough that I'll survive the retaliation... SUBJECT: VIRUSES--IMPORTANT PLEASE READ IMMEDIATELY >>> >>>> There is a computer virus that is being sent across the Internet. If you receive an e-mail message with the subject line "Good Times", DO NOT read the message, DELETE it immediately. Please read the messages below. Some miscreant is sending e-mail under the title "Good Times" nation wide, if you get anything like this, DON'T DOWN LOAD THE FILE! It has a virus that rewrites your hard drive, obliterating anything on it. Please be careful and forward this mail to anyone you care about. ******************************************************** WARNING!!!!!!! INTERNET VIRUS The FCC released a warning last Wednesday concerning a matter of major importance to any regular user of the Internet. Apparently a new computer virus has been engineered by a user of AMERICA ON LINE that is unparalleled in its destructive capability. Other more well-known viruses such as "Stoned", "Airwolf" and "Michaelangelo" pale in comparison to the prospects of this newest creation by a warped mentality. What makes this virus so terrifying, said the FCC, is the fact that no program needs to be exchanged for a new computer to be infected. It can be spread through the existing e-mail systems of the Internet. Once a Computer is infected, one of several things can happen. If the computer contains a hard drive, that will most likely be destroyed. If the program is not stopped, the computer's processor will be placed in an nth-complexity infinite binary loop -which can severely damage the processor if left running that way too long. Unfortunately, most novice computer users will not realize what is happening until it is far too late. Luckily, there is one sure means of detecting what is now known as the "Good Times" virus. It always travels to new computers the same way in a text email message with the subject line reading "Good Times". Avoiding infection is easy once the file has been received- not reading it! The act of loading the file into the mail server's ASCII buffer causes the "Good Times" mainline program to initialize and execute. The program is highly intelligent- it will send copies of itself to everyone whose e-mail address is contained in a receive-mail file or a sent-mail file, if it can find one. It will then proceed to trash the computer it is running on. The bottom line here is - if you receive a file with the subject line "Good Times", delete it immediately! Do not read it" Rest assured that whoever's name was on the "From" line was surely struck by the virus. Warn your friends and local system users of this newest threat to the Internet! It could save them a lot of time and money. ===================================================== ~~~~~ / \ //\\\\\ / Jerry D. Lee, Jr. | SEPG Methods & Tools Chairman / {| ~ ~ |} / Raytheon ESD | E-Mail : jlee at eng.esd.ray.com \ | ^ | / 6380 Hollister Ave | Tel : 805-967-5511 ext2306 \ \ = / \ Goleta, CA 93117 | Fax : 805-964-9185 _/ - --/\-/\-- \ \ \/^\/ \+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=| Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 13:01:21 -0500 (EST) From: "David C. Rinker" <dcrink at widomaker.com> Subject: DMS priming/ "Partial" decoction? Hi, I am the guy who primes with "DMS" and have finally mustered the courage to admit it publicly...actually, ALL of you have been very kind in not ribbing me too much for that slip and the number of "corny" jokes was kept to a minimum. I just wish I had known about EDME's Diastatic Malt Syrup sooner--I could have deftly covered my a** ;). I now have a question to pose regarding mashing in a Gott cooler. Those of use who use these coolers know how unwieldly the boiling water infusions can become in terms of volume and then, the resulting thinner mash only dictates that the next infusion be even more voluminous. Is there any reason why I could not do a "partial"decoction instead (I am talking English style ales here) and just not boil the decoction for no more than a few minutes?? This would forestall most of the reactions that give decoction-mashed beers their distinctive flavor profiles and, since British pale malts are highly-modified in the first place, any other benefits which a long decoction boil might provide would be minor(No?). Has anyone tried this, or can anyone offer a reason why I should not try it? Cheers, Dave Return to table of contents
Date: 1 Feb 1996 10:01:57 -0800 From: "Jonathan Mohn" <jonathan.mohn at AGSM.UCLA.EDU> Subject: Wort Aeration I have gotten conflicting advice concerning the aeration of my wort. I usually will remove most of the trub from my wort by chilling the wort down to 32 degrees, letting it settle overnight, and racking off the trub in the morning. I've recently read that worts with little trub require considerable aeration in order to saturate with the correct amounts of oxygen. In fact, I've read that it is not possible to appropriately oxygenate such wort through aeration, and that pure oxygen should be introduced. On the other side of the coin, there are some who believe that aeration / oxygenation is not required at all, especially if you pitch adequate levels of yeast. They argue that aeration results in longer lag times, as the yeast metabolize the sugars aerobically. What's a brewer to do? Should I continue to take great pains to aerate (and possibly contaminate) or should I toss in my yeast starter and not give it a second thought? Jonathan Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 96 13:30:06 EST From: dipalma at sky.com (Jim Dipalma) Subject: Re: Cornstarch & Boiling / Long Mash Hi All, In HBD# 1950, Gary S. Kuyat discusses his cornstarch brews: >This has to do more with my own experience than with a truly scientific >reasoning. I had noticed lower than expected yields (much lower) with unboiled >cornstarch. Without boiling, the cornstarch seemed to be "in suspension" >rather than actually "dissolved". Bingo, the starch is insoluble prior to boiling, and cannot be converted by amylase enzymes. At high temperatures, granules of insoluble starch burst, releasing solubilized starch. The references I've seen cite temperatures from 170F-190F for this to occur. Once the starch is soluble, the liquid should look clearer, and the starch can now be converted, producing higher yields. >>2) After 2 hours at 145 why go to 155? >The decoction taken to get to 155 is boiled. This frees starch from the >grains which even two hours at 145 seems not to get. See above. The large, white chunks of grist are mostly insoluble starch, the amylase enzymes cannot convert it, regardless of how long you hold the mash at 145F. Boiling the decoction releases soluble starch into the wort. BTW, at 145F, you will not get significant alpha amylase activity, and hence very slow conversion. You will get significant *beta* amylase activity at that temp, which will produce a more fermentable wort. Were it not for the 0.4 lbs of Special B in your recipe, you'd get very well attenuated beer. A suggestion that may save you some time: Instead of mashing-in at 145F and holding for 2 hours, you might consider mashing-in at ~125F, hold for 1/2 hour. You're using domestic malt and corn starch as >90% of your grain bill, a protein rest is probably advisable. After 1/2 hour, pull the thick decoction. Pull a little more grist than the 40% you've been doing, say 50%, and step to 155F. There is a fair amount of both beta and alpha amylase activity at 155F, the mash will convert quickly. You'll finish mashing at least an hour earlier. Given the amount of simple, fermentable sugars you're getting from mashing a high percentage of soluble corn starch, I don't think the extended rest at 145F is buying you that much. I'd expect very little difference in the flavor of the finished beer. >I believe that there are still enzymes available after 2 hours, and a You won't denature alpha amylase very quickly at 145F. >batch made without the decoction at 155 did seem "thinner". Sure, the decoction and rest at 155F increased melanoidin formation, and altered the wort sugar profile (more dextrins). >In case you care, the amounts of 6-row and cornstarch are to give me a mix of >approx 90degress Lintner (sp?). This figure should be okay for a mash. Any >issue here? Don't think so. Most of the pale malt I get has diastatic ratings of ~60 degrees, and this malt can certainly convert itself. >Finally, brews made with this much extract from corn SUGAR >instead of corn STARCH tast cidery; why doesn't this? Pass on this one. The only corn I put in my beers is flaked maize when brewing Fuller's ESB clones or pre-Prohibition pilsners. I'm almost exclusively a 100% malt kind of guy. Cheers, Jim dipalma at sky.com Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 13:34:25 -0500 From: "Keith Royster" <keith.royster at ponyexpress.com> Subject: galvanized pipes Thanks to all who responded to my question about using galvanized pipes in my RIMS system (J.Palmer, I tried to reply but it bounced back). In short, all who responded (presently 5) said "DON'T DO IT", but could not offer much more, other than the zinc will dissolve into the wort. Many suggested copper pipes, but I need at least 1" pipes to house the heating element and I haven't seen copper pipes larger than 1/2". Anyway,.... So I did a little research on my own and this is what I have found. Zinc is an essential element in our diet. Too little and you can suffer from loss of appetite, decrease sense of smell and taste, slow healing wounds, damaged immune system, poorly developed sex organs in young men, and child growth retardation in pregnant women (2). It's also an anti-oxidant (sacrificial anode for your insides?), helpful in treating acne, and hastens the healing of peptic ulcer disease and burns (1). On the other hand, at large doses it can be toxic (just like many other metals that we brew with). Short term effects of too much zinc include stomach cramps, nausea and vomiting, while long term exposure can cause anemia, pancrease damage, and lower levels of the "good" cholesterol (2). The recommended daily allowance (RDA) is 15mg/day for men, 12mg/day for women, 10mg/day for children, and 5mg/day for infants, while levels 10 to 15 times this amount (100 to 250 mg/day) should be avoided (2). It should also be noted that alcohol washes zinc and other vitamins from your body (1), so maybe a little extra in your beer ain't that bad! As to how it may effect beer, I imagine that if it's good for us in small doses, it's also good for the yeast. At large doses, it can impart a metallic taste (3), and the EPA recommends that drinking water have less than 5ppm simply because of this taste (2). While the zinc may dissolve in small amounts due to the low pH of the wort, it doesn't dissolve appreciable into tap water carried through galvanized pipes (3). So in summary, I think there has been much overreaction to the use of galvanized pipes in brewing. It ain't gonna kill ya, and it may even be beneficial, like throwing copper/pennies into the boil. (I would be interested to find out how much zinc dissolves into the wort...anyone up to the challenge?). References: (1) Recommendations: Vitamins, Minerals & Trace Elements; Steven B. Strum M.D.; http://oncolink.upenn.edu/med_onc/nutr94.html (2) Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry; ATSDR ToxFAQ; http://atsdr1.atsdr.cdc.gov:8080/toxfaqta.html (3) The Complete Handbook of Home Brewing; David Miller Keith Royster - Keith.Royster at ponyexpress.com at your.service - The Affordable Web Page Provider Mooresville, NC - Specializing in small and medium sized businesses. Check us out at - http://www.wp.com/ at your.service/ Voice & Fax - (704) 663-1098 Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 13:50:55 -0500 From: Steve Alexander <stevea at clv.mcd.mot.com> Subject: Carbonation and fill level ... more experiments. Al Korzona writes in HBD #1949: >Although I had convinced myself (through previous experiments) that the >final level of carbonation (I did not test carbonation rate) is not >strongly affected by the fill level, I decided to redo the experiment, >especially since it is so easy to do. I'll report back in four weeks. > >Meanwhile, I'd like to comment on Steavea's expriment. I no longer have >the original report handy, but I would like to point out that the amount >of "ffft" that you hear is far more affected by the amount of head space >than by carbonation level. Well I initally made an attempt to capture the escaping gas, by carefully removing the cap thru a thick walled plastic bag, but this proved too difficult in practice. Al correctly points out that the ffft noise is not comparable between differently filled bottles. My ffft noise record doesn't have much more resolution than none/some/normal/high pressure and admittedly even that evidence is marginal. My primary purpose in recording it was to attempt to record when 'normal' fill bottles showed evidence of 'some' to 'normal' pressure. I was also listening for the mythic 'high' headspace pressure condition implied by Dave Miller's book. I recorded this info because it was evident, subjectively measureably and related to the experiment at hand. It would be dishonest to use it as a sampling criterion and then not record it in the notes. [...]> Furthermore, I would respectfully like to >submit the *possibility* that maybe Stevea was slightly biased by the >amount of noise he heard when opening the bottles. Perhaps this was >not the case and I hope that Stevea understands that I'm not trying to >discredit his work, but rather point out a possible improvement in >future testing. Specifically, I suggest that the evaluation of the >carbonation level should be done blind -- that is, have someone else >open and pour the bottles into randomly numbered glasses. Then have >the judge describe the carbonation differences based upon sample number >and without knowing which was which. Very good idea Al, the blind tasting should provide more convincing data. If you wish, a blind 'listening' of the bottles is also easy enough to perform. Since these measurements are all very subjective it would be best to have an uninterested and competent party perform the tasting too - NOT the experimenter, but ideally a qualified judge or at least a knowledgeable and unrelated taster. BTW it's also easy to argue that I should have been biased by my own HBD posted expectation of the experiments results. I posted that I thought Miller was probably right, but my experimental result refutes this. Unfortunately no experiment is totally free of the forces of bias, certainly not my simple test. No offense taken Al. >This is what I intend to do in my experiment and urge anyone else who >wants to join in, to do likewise. Furthermore, I only filled two bottles >"high," two "normal," two, "low" and one "very low." Thus, I cannot >test whether the rate of carbonation is faster with a low fill or not. >This is why my report will be only after four weeks when all the bottles >have had sufficient time to carbonate. Just to make things crystal clear for the HBD - Al's proposed experiment is NOT testing the same premise as mine, and the results will NOT be comparable. My experiment intended to test HOW QUICKLY primed bottles came to 'normal' carbonation levels, with headspace as a variable. Al's experiment will test FINAL (4 weeks) carbonation levels, about which my experiment said nothing. I don't think that there is very much controvesy that primed bottles will carbonate in 4 weeks, and I have doubts that Al's tongue, as good as it may be, will reliably detect the modest expected difference in final carbonation. Perhaps I'll be surprised again tho'. As far as expected results for Al's experiment go - fermentation releases very nearly 50% of the fermented sugar mass as CO2. My priming rate was 22 grams of sugar per gallon and we should expect near 11 grams of CO2 per gallon to result if it is all fermented. The different bottle fills of my experiment result in about 12% less beer in the underfilled bottle, and so we would expect about 12% less CO2 in the FINAL case in the underfilled bottle (!) in spite of the experimental result that suggest it could carbonate more QUICKLY. The 12% difference (say a drop from 2.5 volumes of CO2 to 2.23 volumes) might be perceptable in an A vs B side-by-side test, but then again might not. Certainly identical beer temperature will be necessary for a reasonable comparison. It's also possible that an overfilled bottle might not complete bottle fermentation in four weeks, but from my experimental result this appears unlikely. Does that agree with your expected result Al ? My experiment says nothing about FINAL developed pressure, but I still have enough X-bottles around to perform something close to Al's experiment - my bottles are at about 5 weeks today. I'll post this later. - -- For anyone wishing to duplicate my original experiment may I suggest the following basic guidelines: Prime and thoroughly dissolve the priming sugar/extract/wort a volume of beer to be bottled. Bottle 6 bottles as full as practical. Bottle 6 bottles at a level approximately 1 fluid ounce below 'normal' fill levels. Bottle the remaining beer at 'normal' bottle fill levels. At 6, 9, 12, 15, 18 and 21 days of age fridg' one normal, one overfilled and one underfilled bottle for an hour or so and open and pour all three samples, then begin tasting. Record tasting notes in a notebook. Preferably a blind tasting, preferable tasted by a competent taster not involved in or knowledgeable of the experiment. Post results, including priming material and rate, bottle storage conditions, temp, SG, FG, type of beer, yeast and anything else that seems possibly relevent. If you have reason to believe that the bottle fermentation will take more or less time you might wish to choose different sample ages by testing a 'normal' fill bottle, and start performing regular tests as carbonation first appears in the normal case. If you don't want to invest 12 bottles in the experiment I'd suggest dropping tests at age 21, 18, and 6 days in that order. Another, possibly better, alternative is to test normal vs underfilled bottles only. To gather an additional data point to compare with Al's experiment, add one very underfilled bottle (Al please spec this) to be included in a 4 bottle test at day 28. - -- Steve Alexander Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 12:56:46 -0600 From: Russell Mast <rmast at fnbc.com> Subject: Cleaning a carboy. > From: Bill Rust <wrust at csc.com> > Subject: Blow Off III > > In HBD #1947 Jack writes... > > >Cleaning out a carboy that was used for primary fermentation has got > >to be number one on the list. Compare that to cleaning out a classic > >7 gallon fermenter. > > Couldn't agree more. I got yeast and trub dried on the inside of my glass > carboy, not pretty... Whoah now! I know I'm jumping in the middle of this, but is sounds like you are complaining about the ease of cleaning a glass carboy. (If you're not, I'll explain anyway, it should benefit someone.) You can clean pretty much ANYTHING out of a glass carboy by letting it sit overnight with a strong bleach solution. 1 cup should do it, but you can do more if you want. Zap! It's all clean. I don't know if you can do that with plastic. Yeah, you still have to rinse it and all, but it will be totally clean. -R Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 14:15:32 -0500 (EST) From: Jim Busch <busch at eosdev2.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Extract/Pressure Ferments Jack in West Point writes about his easymasher: <I just used this system for the first time last Sunday; got about 31 <points/lb extraction (a little better than my 10 gal system). No <problems with the sparge, in fact, it only took about 45 minutes to <collect 6 gals of wort and the runnings were still at an sg of 1.018. <Pretty good. You can hold about 10-11 lbs of grain while using about <1.33qts water/lbs grain but that tops off the system; so you can make up <to about an OG 1.060 brew easily. Final runnings of 1.018 for a 1.060 beer sounds to me like a lot of wasted extract. I typically get down to 1.010-1.008 final with a kettle wort of 1.060 (before boiling). Hummmmm. Michael reports: <A local brewpub has a newsletter which has a "brewing tips" column from the <brewpub's braumeister. A recent tip said that you should let your wort cool <slowly from boil to 130F - this will improve the clarity of the finished <beer. Any one else ever hear of this? Any comments? Hasnt this "braumeister" ever heard of a whirlpool??! Sounds like he is advising that proper hot break removal will lead to clearer beer, this is certainly well known. There are lots of methods to do this, the very old fashioned one is the use of a coolship where gradual cooling and settling of hot break took place over several hours time. Any decent brewpub has a whirlpool or a hop back type device to remove hot break without resorting to long wait periods. Also, 130F is dangerously close to wort spoilage temps. Id also hate to add several hours to my brew day! Ken asks: <There has been referance that fermenting under pressure is not a good <practice. I have recently tried this and found no noticable effects. <The idea came from a very good brewer who sugested a 40psi environemnt <in a corny keg for secondary. He uses this practice, I have and I haven't <notice any ill effects. Can anyone elaborate on the effects of such a <practice? Tracy, Al, George, anyone? Im no expert on this but Ill forward some references that I hope someone can check out. In Molls brewing text, 'Beers and Coolers' he states that pressure fermentation is well known and practiced 'widely throughout the world'. Moll notes that Wellhoener developed the techniques in 1954, and that it can be used for both ales and lagers. General pressure is 2 bars, which is about 28 psi. Here is the reference (there are two more too): Wellhoener, H.J. Ein kontinnierliches Gar-und Reifungsverfahren fur Bier. Brauwelt, 94, pages 624-626. I will ask, have you noticed any beneficial effects? I can see spunding to achieve pressure for carbonation but what else is to be gained (and you dont need 40 psi to do this)? Jim Busch Colesville, Md Return to table of contents
Date: 01 Feb 96 14:17:01 EST From: Lynn Ashley <73744.3234 at compuserve.com> Subject: Thermocouple contamination / Foxx Phone To: INTERNET:homebrew at hpfcmgw.fc.hp.com Thanks to you all for keeping the info in the HBD at such a high level. ________________ I hesitated asking this seemingly trivial question thinking the answer is definitely "no problem". But a twinge of doubt lingered, so here goes. I use a thermocouple meter to monitor wort/beer temperature. The sensing element is the tiny wire junction at the end of length of small teflon insulated wire. The probe has almost no 'thermal inertia' and responds quickly. Using a digital meter allows the relative sensing of very small temperature changes. I snake the tiny stiff thermocouple wire through the air lock and leave a probe in the liquid of each fermentor. I then plug a meter into a probe whenever I want to take a reading. I use type K thermocouples which are listed as being made of 'chromel' and 'alumel' wires. I assume these are chromium and aluminum alloys respectively. The sensing portion of the probe is created by striping about 1/16" of the teflon insulation from the wires and twisting the ends together. Should I be concerned about possible long term ill effects from the metals in the tiny probe? I assume the teflon is safe (isn't it?). ________________ I've seen several references to Foxx as a supplier of misc brewing related equipment. Do they deal with the general public, taking phone orders? Do they have a catalog? Would someone supply me with the phone number? ________________ Thanks Lynn. |-------------------------------------------------------------| | Lynn Ashley (lajiao ren) Arlington, Virginia, USA | | 73744.3234 at compuserve.com 38.904N 77.120W 105mAMSL | |-------------------------------------------------------------| Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 96 14:12:05 EST From: "William Ryan" <ryanw at ncr.disa.mil> Subject: Re: Canned Homebrew? Call me crazy (it wouldn't be the first time!) but if were thinking about putting beer in cans, is it also feasible (and maybe easier) to "can" beer in mason jars? Am I missing something having to do with pressures, etc.? Bill Ryan ryanw at ncr.disa.mil Reston, VA Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 15:49:46 -0500 From: KennyEddy at aol.com Subject: More on Grain Volume & Heat Capacity -- Correction In case my CANCEL didn't get out in time, please see the correction towards the end of this article: Spencer Thomas made a comment on my Volume/Heat Capacity figures: >In my experience, a pound of grain is much larger than 0.32 quart. A >pound of *water* is half a quart, and grain is lighter than water >(until you wet it, anyway). Maybe you mean that a pound of grain, >added to sufficient water, increases its volume by 0.32 quarts? > >Malted barley has a heat capacity about 0.3 - 0.4 that of water, >depending on its moisture content. (Source: a posting by Rob Thomas a >couple of years ago. I think he got it from Malting & Brewing Science.) > >=Spencer I'm simply quoting some previous postings, although in my experiences with 5-gallon cooler mashing, with a 10-lb grain bill and mash water, the volume was pretty much 4+ gallons (10 lb x 0.32 qt/lb grain volume + 10lb x 1.3 qt/lb mash water = 4.05 gal) after the strike. Seems there were a bunch of numbers quoted for the heat capacity along the way; your figures may be closer to the truth. Anyhow, your comment about "a pound of grain added to sufficient water increases is volume by 0.32 quarts" is probably applicable, since that is what we're doing. Dry grain probably would be "fluffy" enough to occupy more "apparent" volume, at least until water is added to take up the fluffying airspace. I do get quite an evolution of bubbles when the strike water is added. I would refer you all to excellent articles in CORRECTION: HBD 1793 (Dan Sherman <dsherman at sdcc3.ucsd.edu>) for the source of my numbers on grain volume; for heat capacity data I used info in HBD 1880 ("Wallinger, W. A." <WAWA at chevron.com>) although another post I just now found in HBD 1879 (fredriks at abel.math.umu.se (Fredrik Stahl)) corroborates your numbers. Thanks for the reality check! Ken Schwartz KennyEddy at aol.com Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 96 14:55:03 CST From: "Randall S. Thiel" <thiel at slh.wisc.edu> Subject: Re: bumping up starters On the HBD from 2/1/96: Steve Adams had mentioned that he didn't want to bother doing 10-fold step ups to create his yeast pitching slurry. This is fine as long as you're diligent about your asceptic technique. I would imagine that the time saved by NOT doing the 10X step-ups is rather minimal. The main reason FOR the 10X step-ups (eg., 50ml active starter into 500ml sterile starter) is to limit the amount of nutrients available to whatever microbes are present, besides the yeast. That is, it gives the yeast a good head start on being the dominant bug in the starter at each point in the step-up. Microbial competition is what it's all about. By inoculating a small amount of yeast into a large starter solution, the yeast really doesn't have much of a lead on competing bugs (be it wild yeast or bacteria). Another added benefit to stepping-up your starter is that you can aerate each new sterile starter by shaking it vigorously before you dump the active starter into it. The yeasties will luv ya for it. The UNstepped-up starter can't be aerated half-way through it's growth cycle, 'cuz the vigorous shaking will just release CO2 from the already active yeast. Comments? -- ^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^ Randy Thiel "I did not eat the cranberries from thiel at slh.wisc.edu a dented can I could not trust." ^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^ Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 15:41:48 -0600 From: "David W. Parkin" <dwparkin at mmm.com> Subject: RE: flocculation Scott, I read your post that said: >Now two days into the still very active primary fermentation, there are >multiple 0.5 cm globules of tan material churning around in the fermenting >beer with some resting on the bottom and some floating on top. Is this >some kind of bizzare flocculation that I haven't seen before or is it >contamination? I had a similar problem with an ESB several weeks ago. Buring the boil, I noticed a floc come out of suspension that was not hops. This happened at 170 degrees f. I was well into the process so I thought I should just continue. The floc stayed in suspension but settled out in the primary. I had calculated the OG to be 1.048 with 6# extract, 1/2# Crystal 10L and 5 gallons water but it measured in at 1.031 so I measured again - same thing. The SG after primary was down to 1.008. I had also thought that I might have added too much water and diluted the whole batch. Even using conservative water additions in my calculations, I still came out with an OG of 1.038. I would have had to use 7.5 gallons of water to get 1.031. So I asked my brew supplier what gives. The response that I got was that it was probably protien coming out of suspension from the grains and extract. He had though that this might work out in the ferment but it hasn't. Anyway, I don't have an answer for you but this is my story. In a few weeks, I will have an SELESB (Super Extra Light Extra Special Bitter). Might only be good for those hot summer days that we will never again see here in Minnesota (today's high temp...-13.5 degrees f.). DWP Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 96 15:41:16 -0600 From: rlabor at lsumc.edu (LaBorde, Ronald) Subject: Krauesening, O-ring lube >From: Bill Rust <wrust at csc.com> > >I am trying my hand at krauesening (?? dang, that's hard to spell...) I'm >using CP's method for computing the amount of gyle to prime with (1.2 quarts > at 1.048 starting gravity to be equivalent to 3/4 cup sugar). However, I >once heard that this is not 'true krauesening'. To do that you need >actively fermenting wort. Wouldn't that have a lower gravity, and thus >lower it's ability to prime? If so, 1) Does anyone have a method for >computing the amount to add, and 2) At what point in the process? Any help >on this would be appreciated. I have never done krauesening but I have wondered about the exact thing you mention. How can one know how much CO2 has been vented by the time of active fermentation. Just a guess but I would try this and see how it seems to work: If you were to prime with 1.2 quarts at 1.048 starting gravity, then make up a stronger initial gravity, say maybee 1.058 and let it ferment till you measure 1.048 and then use that as your priming. I would use a little more than 1.2 quarts so that I would not need to dump the hydrometer samples back in. Then add the 1.2 quarts when ready. Don't forget to take notes! >From: MJT15 at infoctr.chrysler.com >Subject: Mills, Flux, Temp Controllers, Keg Stuff > >Keg o-rings both top and in out fitting type need to be replaced when they >leak or before use in the case of the lid ring to keep from having a >pepsi-Pils. A neat little trick I use instead of vasaline is to wet the o-ring >on the in/out fitting with water before pushing on the ball or pin fitting. >This little bit of lube makes getting them on and off a breeze. I sprayed just a little bit of PAM (no stick pan spray - food grade) from the pantry onto my index finger and then rubbed the in and out connector o-rings. Haven't had any problems and it is amazing how easy the connectors slide on now. It may be possible to have head retention problems because of the oil (is PAM oil?) but I am trying to RDWHAHB and so far all is well. Ronald J. La Borde "If the only tool you have is a hammer, Metairie, LA you tend to view every problem as a nail." Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 96 14:18:26 CST From: korz at pubs.ih.att.com (Algis R Korzonas) Subject: Slow cool/late aeration/aeration vs. oxidation Michael writes: >A local brewpub has a newsletter which has a "brewing tips" column from the >brewpub's braumeister. A recent tip said that you should let your wort cool >slowly from boil to 130F - this will improve the clarity of the finished >beer. Any one else ever hear of this? Any comments? First a question: Does the beer at this brewpub all smell stongly of cooked corn? The reason I ask is because the procedure you describe is a recipe for very high levels of DMS in the wort. Much of it will be scrubbed out by the fermentation, but a slow cool will undoubtedly create so much that even a very vigorous fermentation will probably have significant DMS in the nose. Actually, the opposite of what the brewmaster claims is true. Cold break forms better the *faster* you chill. Most books (DeClerck and Malting & Brewing Science, to name two) agree that cold break removal is optional and should not affect clarity. *** Ken writes: >The next morning I got a fresh >O2 bottle and aerated, though the ferment was just beginning. I am >curious if this practice may cause oxidation or other ill effects. >The second aeration was within 12hrs of the first. I'm afraid I have no experience with fermenting under pressure nor have I read anything about it other than in HBD, so I'll pass on that question. Regarding this aeration after 12 hours, I would say that it depends a lot on the yeast. If you were using Wyeast #1968 London ESB or the Samuel Smith's yeast from The Yeast Culture Kit Company, I think that chances are you may have increased diacetyl production slightly. Other yeasts can respond in other ways -- some negatively. One poster (sorry) reported that Wyeast #1028 London Ale responds to aeration during fermentation by creating excess acetaldehyde, but I did a small experiment with this yeast and it didn't really show any increase in acetaldehyde. Therefore, I think that the original poster's acetaldehyde came from a source other than mid-ferment aeration. *** John writes: >On one hand it's been posted that one should minimize the oxidation of >the wort. On the other, one reads about these people busting up their >carboys trying to airate their wort. Personally, I thought oxidation >was only a problem during and after fermentation. Aeration benefits the yeast... this is well-documented. The difference between "good" aeration and oxidation is when you do it. True, aerating beer after fermentation will cause oxidation of alcohols and other beer compounds. Also, aerating wort while it is hot will cause oxidation of some malt compounds which will later give sherry-like aromas and flavours. Waiting for the wort to cool before adding air is the way to add oxygen for the yeast while minimizing oxidation. Whether aerating cooled wort removes hop aroma I'm not sure -- I imagine it does. Perhaps this is partly why dryhopping gives a much stronger aroma than finish hops. I don't yet know about how it affects 1st wort hopping (but I'm planning to try it next week). Al. Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL korz at pubs.att.com Copyright 1996 Al Korzonas Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 18:28:47 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Pemberton <wfp5p at tigger.itc.virginia.edu> Subject: Aeration I've got a question for the folks that use aquarium pumps for aeration. What the general feeling about the need for an inline sterile filter? It seems to me that they'd be a required part of the setup, but I may just be over paranoid... - -- Bill Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 20:10:00 -0500 From: bob at harvey.carol.net (Robert Rogers) Subject: kegs i seem to have fixed the pressure leak in my keg. among other things, i used pipe joint tape on all the things with threads. i also installed a pressure gauge. total cost for that at a hardware store was $8.14. now i know my beer is at 22psi. too cool. bob rogers bob at carol.net "Why, Fritz, alcohol is a gift from God..." --young Fritz Maytag's Mom Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 12:02:42 +1100 (EST) From: awalsh at crl.com.au (Andy Walsh) Subject: fermentation under pressure Ken writes: >There has been referance that fermenting under pressure is not a good >practice. I have recently tried this and found no noticable effects. >The idea came from a very good brewer who sugested a 40psi environemnt >in a corny keg for secondary. He uses this practice, I have and I haven't >notice any ill effects. Can anyone elaborate on the effects of such a >practice? Tracy, Al, George, anyone? Charlie wrote a week or 2 ago about a particular article written in JIB on this very topic, but had not read the article. I was at the library the other day, and managed to find it. Here is the abstract: Journal of the Institute of Brewing March-April 1984. Vol 90. pp 81-84. "The Response of Saccaromyces Cerevisiae to Fermentation Under Carbon Dioxide Pressure" G.J. Arcay Ledezma, J.C. Slaughter "When laboratory fermenters containing 4 litres of wort were maintained under a variety of conditions at an excess pressure of 2atm of carbon dioxide throughout fermentation by Saccaromyces Cerevisiae (NCYC 1108), the fermentation rate, yeast growth and final concentration of fusel oils all decreased and the final pH increased. This agrees with reported work on the effect of carbon dioxide pressure on fermentation by S. carlsbergensis. The effect of carbon dioxide pressure on the production and removal of vicinal diketones and their precursors by S. carlsbergensis is known to be variable but, except at very low temperatures, pressure has either no effect or increases the rate of removal of these compounds in the final stages of fermentation. In the present experiments with a strain of S. cerevisiae, however, carbon dioxide pressure always led to the fresh beer having a higher level of vicinal diketones and their precursors than the control fermentation, even at temperatures up to 20C." Commercial breweries commonly use high temperature lager fermentation to speed up the brewing process. They often apply CO2 pressure at the end of fermentation to get maximum benefit with minimum disadvantage. All reports agree that fusel oil levels can be reduced by applying CO2 pressure mid-ferment. There is conflicting information on whether diacetyl levels (the most prominent vicinal diketone flavourwise) stay the same or are reduced by this process. The effect of this process with ale yeast is to increase diacetyl levels. Fusel oils are not uniformally inhibited by CO2. Some yeast strains lose viability after several generations when fermented under CO2 pressure. Conlusions (my own, derived from this report) Primary fermentation under CO2 will slow the fermentation considerably and is probably not a good idea. It appears that with lager yeast, lagering under pressure will reduce fusel oils and may reduce diacetyl levels, so may be a worthwhile procedure. Secondary fermention under pressure for ales might increase diacetyl levels. There appears to be no real benefit for doing this with ales, but for lagers it may be beneficial. I would like to back this up with some personal experience. A (now deceased) member of my brewclub would regularly lager his beer in a postmix keg (corny keg) rather than at ambient pressure. He used to make excellent lagers. Dave Miller recommends lagering in bottles (under pressure). I have concerns about sulphur smells with this method. Some lager yeasts generate a lot of H2S, which would normally blow off during fermentation and lagering. A closed system would not allow this noxious gas to escape, possibly leading to sulphur odour in beer. (I should point out that this is a personal fear that I have never really verified). Andy. ************************************************************* Andy Walsh from Sydney email: awalsh at world.net (or awalsh at crl.com.au if you prefer) I still don't know what a Wohlgemuth unit is. ************************************************************* Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 1996 20:19:11 -0800 From: "Clark D. Ritchie" <ritchie at ups.edu> Subject: Brew Software - I Need Your Input! Fellow brewers, I am writing a piece of brewing software for my Computer Science class at The University of Puget Sound (Tacoma, WA) and I need your input! While I could easily tailor my program to suit my personal needs, I would like to eventually distribute it as freeware or shareware. Therefore, I would like to make it as functional and robust as possible. To that end, I am seeking input from anyone and everyone about the features that they would like to see in their dream piece of brewing software. If you have a minute, would you please send me an email with your thoughts, ideas and suggestions. I am looking for answers to questions like: What would you want it to do? What would you want it to look like? What do current shareware, freeware or commercial applications do well? What do current shareware, freeware or commercial applications do poorly? What figures would you want it to calculate? What screen resolution are you using? (640x480, 800x600, 1024x768, etc.) Anything else you want to share! I promise, I won=92t laugh =96 go crazy! Also, I need Beta testers. If you are using Windows 95 or Windows NT and could periodically test my application (only two or three times over the next three months), then please send me an email. I need three or four testers (first email, first serve). Your input is greatly appreciated=85 CDR Clark D. Ritchie ritchie at ups.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 96 02:05:08 EST From: djfitzg at VNET.IBM.COM Subject: Travel HBD, I will be traveling to the south of France in a couple of weeks, to a city called Montpellier. I know this area is famous for their wines, but being the fine beer fanatic that I am, is there anyone who is familier with the southern region of France, who could recommend a brewery, or clubs featuring a wide selection of European Beers? Thanks again for your suggestions. send private Email. djfitzg at vnet.ibm.com Dan Fitzgerald. Return to table of contents