---

   FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
        Shawn Steele, Digest Janitor
        Thanks to Rob Gardner for making the digest happen!

Contents:
  Re: Trub (Aaron Sepanski)
  Digest Format (shawn at aob.org (Shawn Steele))
  Help! Did I ruin my malt?!? (Kyle)
  Re: Help! Did I ruin my malt?!?  ("Robert A. Uhl")
  Re: Thermal expansion (Aaron Sepanski)
  RE: Clorine Dioxide (Joe Rolfe <onbc at shore.net)
  Re: Longshot American Pale Ale, misfire ?  ("Robert A. Uhl")
  Bad DME? REPLY  (Steve P otter)
  Re: Clorine Dioxide (hollen at vigra.com)
  Australian Ale yeast ("CHUCK HUDSON, ER LAB 3-2865")
  Too high of alchol levels (jltaylor at ix.netcom.com (John Taylor))
  Re: Homebrew Digest #2067 (Wednesday, 12 June 1996) (Nate Apkon)
  Muddy beer (TPuskar at aol.com)
  superbrau yeast (badonsky at innet.com (Bob Badonsky))
  Traditional Measures ("Robert A. Uhl")
  esters (Andy Walsh)
  Quality on the HBD (denisb at CAM.ORG (Denis Barsalo))
  Close call. (thaller at bod.net (Tim Haller))
  Hydraulic conductivity of barley (GuyG4 at aol.com)
  Seattle Beer Happenings? (ak753 at detroit.freenet.org (Joseph A. Clayton))
  Fermentation Kinetics (Barrowman at aol.com)
  PAULANER CLONE (Schwab_Bryan at CCMAIL.ncsc.navy.mil)
  When is a beer a beer? ("John Penn")
  Hydrometer vessel? ("John Penn")
  antiseptic hop properties (JUKNALIS)
  Re: Water bath RIMS heater ("Kevin McEnhill")
  Greenville Micro ("Bridges, Scott")

NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESSES
  homebrew at aob.org                (SUBMISSIONS only)
  homebrew-digest-request@ aob.org (for REQUESTS only)

Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew at aob.org
  (Articles are published in the order they are received.)
Send UNSUBSCRIBE and all other requests, ie, address change, etc.,
  to homebrew-digest-request@ aob.org, BUT PLEASE NOTE that if
  you subscribed via BEER-L, you must unsubscribe by sending a
  one line e-mail to listserv at ua1vm.ua.edu that says: UNSUB BEER-L
This list service is now being provided by majordomo at aob.org, so some
  of the commands may have changed.  For technical problems send
  e-mail to the Digest Janitor, shawn at aob.org.
If your account is being deleted, please be courteous and unsubscribe first.

ARCHIVES & OTHER INFORMATION

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 or visit
http://alpha.rollanet.org on the Web.  Othere information is available by
e-mail from info at aob.org and on the AHA's web site at http://www.aob.org/aob.
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 at /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.  Some
  archives are available via majordomo at aob.org.


----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Aaron Sepanski <sepanska at it.uwp.edu>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 14:40:22 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Trub

I personally noticed a distinct difference when racking the trub in two 
brown ale one yes, and one no.  The batch that I didn't rack the trub in 
there were fusels present and the beer was extremely "bitter."  The batch 
that I racked the trub off of tastes just fine.  Well, actually very good.

Return to table of contents


From: shawn at aob.org (Shawn Steele)
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 13:49:38 -0600
Subject: Digest Format

The HBD seems to be growing.  (I guess all of you have a lot of good
homebrewing stuff to share <G>).  In order to try to solve problems
with mailers that don't accept messages over 50,000 bytes, I am now
limiting the HBD to 50,000 bytes.  As soon as the HBD reaches 50,000
bytes or more it will be sent.  This will result in more varied
delivery times, but since the daily average is quickly approaching 50K,
this seems necessary, at least for a while.

- - shawn
Digest Janitor

Return to table of contents


From: Kyle <ktp52952 at pegasus.cc.ucf.edu>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 96 19:51:07 GMT
Subject: Help! Did I ruin my malt?!?

a while ago I purchased Muntons "Gold" line of Continental Pilsner
extract.  Unfortunatly, I wasn't able to brew it as soon as I had hoped
to, and the two cans slipped into the back of my brew closet, minus the
cardboard box.  And there they slept.

Until a few days ago, when I noticed that both the cans looked a little
'puffy' and that one had even deformed it's outer shell abit.  I had
thought that canned malt extract was sterile, and that infection was not
possible INSIDE the can, given proper and sanitary canning procedures
(wich I would expect from Muntons).  Am I at fault from not using them
ASAP? 

The latest zymurgy says that they'll last 2-4 years, and optimally you
want to use them within 8 months, and i think I've had them around 8
months (no more than a year), and they have been stored in a room temp,
mostly darkened room.  I expect the normal darkening associate with age,
but not the cans expanding 'puffing out', or deforming.  Your sugestions,
comments, help?  Are they safe to use anyway?  

 -Kyle     			-"i've got to go"   
 -ktp52952 at Pegasus.cc.ucf.edu   -web stuff under construction.

Return to table of contents


From: "Robert A. Uhl" <ruhl at odin.cair.du.edu>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 14:17:19 -0600 (MDT)
Subject: Re: Help! Did I ruin my malt?!? 

On Wed, 12 Jun 1996, Homebrew Digest REQUEST Address Only wrote:
> The latest zymurgy says that they'll last 2-4 years, and optimally you
> want to use them within 8 months, and i think I've had them around 8
> months (no more than a year), and they have been stored in a room temp,
> mostly darkened room.  I expect the normal darkening associate with age,
> but not the cans expanding 'puffing out', or deforming.  Your sugestions,
> comments, help?  Are they safe to use anyway?

It sounds like botulin bacteria are in it to me. But I might be wrong.
Don't use the stuff; I don't believe that boiling will break down the
toxin.

Yours,
Robert Uhl
Chief Programmer,
CR Systems

Return to table of contents


From: Aaron Sepanski <sepanska at it.uwp.edu>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 14:47:20 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Thermal expansion

Am i really running the risk of thermal expansion?  Glass is a very poor 
conducter of heat, that's why stirring rods and such are made of glass in 
labs.  The glass ware for cooking is extremely thin in comparion to a 
carboy.  For my carboy to crack, there would have to be a very quick 
change in temp throughuot the glass.  Because it conducts heat /cold very 
slowly this seems unreasonable doesn't it?  When i possed my question I 
really wanted to no if any thing would happen to my beer not my equipment.

Replies?


Return to table of contents


From: Joe Rolfe <onbc at shore.net
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 16:13:49 -0400 (EDT) 
Subject: RE: Clorine Dioxide

 Pat wrote in a recent HBD
>First, is this chlorine compound safe for stainless steel? It was my
>understanding that *NO* chlorine compound was safe for stainless? What say
>you, Sir John of Palmer?

well i am no Sir John of Palmer but - this product is stabilized clorine
dioxide and from the TEXO article has no corrosion (or low) at the specified
ppm.  i do use a clorinated product a C-TSP from Diversey and only at lower
temps (say below 130F).

>Second, Dion indicates that his micro-brewing friend found an effect on the
>flavor of his beers in using iodophor. What concentration was he using? I was
>kind of sold on this stuff under the claim that it would have no effect on
>flavor or aroma of the beer (and, frankly, have noticed none during the
>course of my use of it - but it is still something I'm kinda fearful of).

Dion, I agree, have you ever stuck you head into a fermenter that has been hit
(recirced) with an iodine solution?  it is noxious at best and at times
has brought tear (litterally) to my eyes.  and then there is the question
of residual foam, granted it will be well diluted, but depending on the
tanks bottom slope it can hang in there for quite some time.  all this using
the lower foaming iodine based products.  it is a true mess when the
other types (hi-foamers) iodine products are used... concentrations for those
brewers that use the stuff every day (like me) i think we all do the
concentration test by eye ball and you know whne you have about 25ppm.
i know for you homebrewers using carboys it might be tough for you to
get your head inside, try a tube and take a good long wiff you might
notice it easier if the stuff is frothed up (small volume of iodine and shake
about).i will continue to use iodine based sanitizers and C-TSP together until
the jury is back from diliberations on the stabilized clorine dioxide.

i do have a friend using the stuff on his keg washer/s anitizer/filler
machine and so far so good.  he has yet to switch over to using it on his
fermenters.  if it aint broke why fix it.....joe


Return to table of contents


From: "Robert A. Uhl" <ruhl at odin.cair.du.edu>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 14:13:39 -0600 (MDT)
Subject: Re: Longshot American Pale Ale, misfire ? 

On Wed, 12 Jun 1996, Homebrew Digest REQUEST Address Only wrote:
> >Actually, a barrel _should_ be 32 gallons; the liquid measurement
> >system works by twos (2 mouthfuls=jigger, 2 jiggers=jack, 2
> >jacks=gill(jill), 2 jills=cup, 2 cups=pint, 2 pints=quart, 2
> >quarts=pottle, 2 pottles=gallon &c).  However, in America, for some
> >strange reason, a barrel is reputed to be 31 1/2 gals.  No-one knows
> >why this change occurred.  Very strange indeed.  I remain

>> Hmmm - well there certainly seems to be a disconnect between gallons
> and larger units as far as powers of two go, but US pints are 16
> US fl.oz., against a 20 british fluid ounces in a  british pint. 3
> taespoons per tablespoon loses its 2-ness as well.  I can't verify all
> of your units, but it appears that people have very small mouths in
> your part of the world. From a Unix utility source we have gill or
> noggin = 4 floz.  The 31.5 US gallons (or sometimes 31 gallon) seems
> to apply to brewing/fermenting. The 42 gallon barrel is a petroleum
> measure.  I suspect that ther are several other barrel definitions.

The mouthful is the mouthful of some pharaoh way back when.  Although
it's roughly equivalent to a small swig from a bottle.  I've never
heard of a gill (pronounced and sometimes spelt jill) called a noggin.
A fl. oz. is equal to a jigger.  A fluid dram is something like a 60th
thereof.  The factor of two system is the original.  I use it, because
few people mind another pottle's worth of beer...  The drop/tsp/tbsp
system is for cooking alone, but it ties in as well.  2 or 3 drops to
a tsp, I think.

> firkin                  0.25 barrel
> kilderkin               0.5 barrel

There are other na mes for these two, although I cannot find my
reference right now.  I want to say that a firking is a coomb, but I'm
not sure.

> barrel (US fermenter's) 31.5 gallon
> hogshead                2 barrel
> pipe                    4 barrel
> tun                     8 barrel

>> Interestingly a tun of water (2016 pints) should weigh a ton (2000lbs)
> at some reasonable temperature.

Perhaps a ton was at one time 2,016 lbs.  Or perhaps it's close
enough.  16 lbs. out of 2,000 is a miniscule amount.

> And clearly there is little reason to take offense when someone asks about
> your firkin homebrewery!

Heh.  The reason that I bring all of this up is that I homebrew as a
traditionalist (it's sort of an archaic thing to do, IMHO).  So using
traditional measures makes sense to me.  YMMV, of course.  It's one of
the reasons that making the process overly scientific annoys me.  I'm
about this far (|  |) from not taking SG readings--I don't care about%
- -OH, and I can tell by looking when my beer is done.  I remain

Yours,
Robert Uhl
Chief Programmer,
CR Systems


Return to table of contents


From: Steve P otter <spotter at Meriter.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 10:17:58 -0500
Subject: Bad DME? REPLY 

Bill Stoughton is concerned that "bad "DME could have spoiled three
batches of brew.  I agree with Richard Gardner that this is highly
unlikely.  My guess on what might be the problem is a little different.
Some years ago I confronted the same situation - two batches of beer
that had to be sewered.  I took the opportunity to examine all of my
sanitation practices and felt comfortable with all of them but one -
sanitizing my wire strainer by soaking.  Now, I just throw it in the brewpot
one half hour before the end of the boil and I have not had a problem
(with infections) in my last 800 gallons.

The other train of thought that Bill's problem brings up concerns his
yeast.  It is impossible to have completely sterile equipment - the best that
can be hoped for is sanitary equipment.  That means that there will be
some bacteria.  If you pitch an adequate quantity of healthy yeast and
maintain an environment optimized for its growth, the yeast will out
compete the bacteria, and its effect on your beer will be negligible.  So -
pitch a sufficient quantity of yeast into well aerated wort - sorry about
that Brendan :o) - that was quickly cooled to pitching temperature and
some of the sanitation concerns go away.


Return to table of contents


From: hollen at vigra.com
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 96 14:25:36 PDT
Subject: Re: Clorine Dioxide

>>>>> "Pat" == "Patrick G Babcock" <pbabcock at ford.com> writes:

>>>>> "Joe" == Joe Rolfe <onbc at shore.net> writes:

Joe> anyone in the homebrewing trade (or commercial) have any info on
Joe> stabilized clorine dioxide as a sanitizer.

Dion> Do you mean Oxine from Five Star?  I am just beginning to use it in my
Dion> home brewing.  Especially nice to use at 5ppm and fill things with for
Dion> storage purposes (like counterflow chillers).
Pat> <SNIP>
Dion> A friend of mine who owns a microbrewery is using Oxine and he really
Dion> likes the no-rinse 5ppm final rinse for his equipment.  He notes that
Dion> with iodophor, the no-rinse concentration affects the flavor of the
Dion> beer, but the oxine does not.

Pat> First, is this chlorine compound safe for stainless steel? It was
Pat> my understanding that *NO* chlorine compound was safe for
Pat> stainless? What say you, Sir John of Palmer?

Yes, because the active ingredient is not free chlorine, but free
oxygen.  This is the claim of the manufacturer.

Pat> Second, Dion indicates that his micro-brewing friend found an
Pat> effect on the flavor of his beers in using iodophor. What
Pat> concentration was he using? I was kind of sold on this stuff
Pat> under the claim that it would have no effect on flavor or aroma
Pat> of the beer (and, frankly, have noticed none during the course of
Pat> my use of it - but it is still something I'm kinda fearful of).
Pat> Anyone else find iodophor tainting their brew?

12.5 ppm.  However, there is no possibility for his tanks to air dry
which may be the difference.  You can't just turn a 300 gallon tank
upside down to drain out!!!  B-}

dion

- --
Dion Hollenbeck (619)597-7080x164                 Email: hollen at vigra.com
Sr. Software Engineer - Vigra Div. of Visicom Labs  San Diego, California

Return to table of contents


From: "CHUCK HUDSON, ER LAB 3-2865" <CHUDSON at mozart.unm.edu>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 16:33:44 -0600 (MDT)
Subject: Australian Ale yeast

Lou asked about dry Australian Ale yeast in #2068. Yeast Labs produces a fine
dry yeast in there usual 14 gram packages and I have used it a time
or two and I like it's performance however it is not quite as  attenutive(sp?)
as Yeast labs Whitbread, my other favorite dry yeast. (yes I still use dry
yeasts and the occasional liquid) The Australian yeast is a bit slower than
the others, but I tend to ferment slightly on the cool side ( at 60-63 deg F)
But it is a nice forgiving yeast but one word of warning DON'T WEAR PLAID
AROUND IT.

Keep the airlocks bubbling...........
Chuck

Grain..GRAIN.... Any fool can it grain! But the LORD has a more divine purpose
for grain so lets bow are heads and give thanks.......to BEER.
                                       Frair Tuck



Return to table of contents


From: jltaylor at ix.netcom.com (John Taylor)
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 23:23:01 GMT
Subject: Too high of alchol levels

Almost all of my homebrews have had high alchol levels [5-8%], which I
would have begged for in college, but now I do not want to have to
stop drink my beer after two pints (It tastes so damn good).

Is the the answer lowering the Initial SG

Return to table of contents


From: Nate Apkon <nmapkon at sprynet.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 19:44:45 -0700
Subject: Re: Homebrew Digest #2067 (Wednesday, 12 June 1996)

Michael:

Thanks for the input.

I will go the filter route.

Our local water is not that bad...some slight taste of chlorine.  At
least at this point.  But I have had some occasional problems with
chlorophenols,  even after I switched to an iodophore as sterilant.

After contacting my regional water resource board and receiving the
very
latest chemical analysis (2 days ago) I read in the news today that
they
modified the chems last week and the entire profile has changed.

Is the bureaucracy in the UK as bad as in the US?

Oh well!  We must persevere.  Or at least have an extra homebrew.

Regards,

Nate


Return to table of contents


From: TPuskar at aol.com
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 21:20:10 -0400
Subject: Muddy beer

Thanks to everyone who responded to my question about muddy beer.  I was
surprised that so many others have had similar problems.

The consensus of the respondants is that my cooling water was not cold enough
and I didn't really precipitate a firm cold break.  This was pretty much
confirmed when I put the kegged batch in a fridge at about 40F for a few
days.  It never really *cleared* but it wasn't that god awful muddy color any
more.  When it was served cold, it was hazy and dis clear up on warming so I
think some of the problem was just plain old chill haze as well.

A number of people suggested adding issinglas to the keg and letting the crud
settle out.  I took a slightly different approach--I drank it with my eyes
closed!  The beer is pretty well gone now so I'll be rbrewing again this
weekend and keeping the chiller water a lot colder.

Thanks again to all who emailed.
Tom Puskar

Return to table of contents


From: badonsky at innet.com (Bob Badonsky)
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 22:09:25 -0400
Subject: superbrau yeast

just read an old manual on homebrewing, it refers to superbrau yeast
as one that can handle high heat-which would be helpful for this
summer in the south. has anyone used it and where can it be bought?
   bob badonsky

Return to table of contents


From: "Robert A. Uhl" <ruhl at odin.cair.du.edu>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 20:12:58 -0600 (MDT)
Subject: Traditional Measures

For your measuring pleasure:

2 mouthfuls = 1 jigger
2 jiggers = 1 jack
2 jacks = 1 gill (pronounced & sometimes spelt jill)
2 gills = 1 cup
2 cups = 1 pint
2 pints = 1 quart
2 quarts = 1 pottle
2 pottles = 1 gallon
2 gallons = 1 peck
2 pecks = 1 pail
2 pails = 1 bushel
2 bushels = 1 strike
2 strikes = 1 coomb
2 coombs = 1 cask
2 casks = 1 barrel
2 barrels = 1 hogshead
2 hogsheads = 1 pipe
2 pipes = 1 tun

I would assume that coomb is pronounced with a long o.  My references
state that the size of a barrel varies from 31 to 42 gallons,
depending upon usage and law.  I like this system, because it is
nicely elegant IMHO.  1 tun = 1,024 gal.  Here are some traditional
ale measures:

1 nip = 1 gill
1 small = 1 cup
1 large = 1 pint
1 flagon = 1 quart
1 anker = 10 gallons (= approx. 10 lbs)
1 firkin = 9.8 gallons
1 butt = 1 pipe

For comparison, here is the commonly used system:

60 minims = 1 fluid dram
8 fl. drams = 1 fl. oz. (= 1 oz)
4 fl. oz. = 1 gill
&c.

A pint's a pound in America (and a gallon's 8 lbs), while in Britain a
gallon's 10 pounds.  I hope that someone has found this interesting; I
shan't be reposting it.  I remain

Yours,
Robert Uhl

Chief Programmer,
CR Systems


Return to table of contents


From: Andy Walsh <awalsh at crl.com.au>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 12:24:03 +1100
Subject: esters

Hello.
Firstly I want to correct a mistake of mine in my previous post.

I mistakenly attributed a quote of Tracy's to Greg Noonan,
about ester formation in an IPA that he made. ie. From
personal experience, Tracy has found that aeration continually
during the fermentation of an IPA produced high ester levels.
This was a somewhat surprising result as most texts would predict
the opposite, but was in fact, what Tracy was looking for, after
discussions with Greg Noonan.

Is this right now, Tracy?
One might also predict that such a beer would have high diacetyl
levels, and/or possess poor keeping qualities (oxidation). How did
the beer actually turn out?

I am interested in the personal experience of other readers on
perceived ester levels in beers they have made, with or without
aeration during fermentation.

Many of the Belgian yeasts are high banana ester producers, so would
appear ideal to experiment with. How are the banana ester levels
affected by aeration during fermentation?

- --
Andrew Walsh			CHAD Research Laboratories
Phone (61 2) 212 6333		5/57 Foveaux Street
Fax   (61 2) 212 1336		Surry Hills. NSW. 2010
email awalsh at crl.com.au		Australia.


Return to table of contents


From: denisb at CAM.ORG (Denis Barsalo)
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 23:32:12 -0500
Subject: Quality on the HBD

        Is it just me or have you noticed the improved quality of the posts
on the HBD since it got moved to the AOB? What's going on, are we all on
our best behaviour or something. I haven't seen any bad-mouthing, or silly
ridiculous posts in over a week and a half...just intelligent, insightfull
posts that have been a real pleasure to read. I've hardly had to page down!
        Keep it up people.

Denis



Return to table of contents


From: thaller at bod.net (Tim Haller)
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 22:06:23 +0100
Subject: Close call.

Hi all.

I'm new to home brewing (Batch #0002 is ready to bottle), and recently had a
rather disconcerting experience.  I gave a bottle (22oz.) of my first batch
(a nice brown ale) to a friend for tasting.  It sat in his closed van all
afternoon (wrapped in a towel under the seat) on an 85 deg. Denver day.
When he got home, he set it on the banister inside his front door and
started down the stairs.  You can probably guess the rest -- just as he
walked by, it EXPLODED, sending on of the larger shards of glass whizzing
over the top (thank god!) of his head.  To make a long story short, after a
shower and change of clothes (and shorts, I suspect), four hours of misc.
wall washing, and a $40 'emergency' carpet cleaning bill, the mess was
cleaned up.  Needless to say, he was not a happy camper...

Questions:

1) Was this just a case of the heat in the car causing increased CO2
pressure in the bottle?

2) Was the jolt from sitting it down (he says he didn't drop or shake it...)
enough to release enough CO2 to cause this?

3) Was the bottle flawed?  (I'm re-using  various 22 oz. micro. bottles -- I
don't know exactly what brand this one was from...)?

4) Something else entirely???

5) Am I going to have to put a steel case around the rest of the bottles
from this batch???

I am 99% sure that the fermentation was finished -- I had 2 solid days at
the final gravity of 1.014, and I didn't overprime (3/4 c. of corn sugar in
a 5 gal. batch).  In fact, I felt that it came out a bit undercarbonated --
very little 'hiss' on opening, and very little head.  I was actually
thinking about increasing the priming sugar slightly for the second batch,
but now I'm not so sure.  None of the other bottles that are 'aging' in my
basement (60 - 65 deg.) has 'popped'.
Until this happened, I was quite satisfied with my first attempt.  It's hard
not to do the 'w' word when something like this happens...

Any ideas anyone???

TIA,

Tim Haller [thaller at bod.net]
Catamount Brewing (aka Jill's kitchen)
Kittredge, CO


Return to table of contents


From: GuyG4 at aol.com
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 00:28:30 -0400
Subject: Hydraulic conductivity of barley

It occurred to me one day, as I was again fighting a stuck runoff from my
zapap lauter tun, that the hydraulic problem at hand was one of
over-drainage.  I was removing more sweet wort from the valve than the grain
could yield.  I came up against the problem fairly fast:  What is the ability
of grain to yield wort, or water?  That way, I could size my valve or
otherwise redesign my system so the valve could not remove wort from the
below the false bottom faster than the grain could provide the material.

Being a hydrogeologist, I recognized immediately that I had a porous media
saturated flow problem.  Back in 1858, Darcy had the same problem (though he
was not a brewer.) and found that the hydraulic conductivity of a porous
medium (Symbol K) is an intrinsic property of the medium.  He passed water
thorough a tube filled with sand, with a known height between inlet and
outlet levels.  He developed an empirical law to describe this, now known as
Darcy's Law.  One way it can be written is :

Q=KiA

Where Q is discharge of water (in this case in liters per second)
K=the hydraulic conductivity of the material at hand
i=the Hydraulic gradient, or the difference in head per unit length
A=the cross-sectional Area perpendicular to flow.

Determining K

There are many ways to determine K by measuring water elevations and
discharge in a variety of devices.  I constructed a permeameter and used
spent grain from several batches of beer to find the hydraulic conductivity
of the grain.  A permeameter is a device where a known volume of water is
passed through a pipe of known cross sectional area, and time is measured.
 The result is a discharge, in volume/time units. The permeameter I built is
a simple uniaxial constant head permeameter illustrated in a number of
hydraulic references. I  conducted an empty test to ensure that my apparatus
did not restrict flow significantly by itself.   For each recipe I conducted
three runs on each permeameter load, and three loads per batch.  All grain
was crushed at my local brewshop.

Results

For a recipe containing only barley (crushed at my local brewshop) as 8#
2-row barley and 1# english crystal, obtained an average value of 3.3 x E-1
cm/sec.  For a recipe containing about 2% rye, with the rest 6row barley
(somewhat smaller grain size you know) I obtained an average value of 1.2 x
E-1 cm/sec. For a recipe containing about 15%rye, with the remainder 2row, I
achieved 3.6xE-1cm/sec.

Result modifiers

Conditions aren't perfect.  Most sources of error tend to overestimate the
actual K of the barley. One, the barley was cool, about 100F, so I could
handle it. Higher temperatures probably swells the grain, lowering its
permeability.  K is also unique for fluids.  A given porous medium has
differing abilities to transmit different fluids, say oil and water.   Wort
would generate different hydraulic conductivity values than water in the same
porous medium, due to  specific gravity and viscosity  properties.  These
will change the actual value for fluid specific K.    My local brewshop
crushed my grain masterfully for me, but different grinds will have different
grain size distributions, and therefore different hydraulic conductivity. As
the experimental data suggest, different barleys have different Ks, and rye,
oats, and I presume other gooey grains tend to lower K over barley alone.
Also, Darcy's law is empirical, so it is expected to vary batch by batch with
compaction in the permeameter and other uncertainties.  I tried to compact
this realistically, but without fairly sophisticated measuring equipment,
it's hard to do it equally.

Consequently, an estimate smaller than those empirically derived should
 account for all the bad things that might happen from these modifiers,  and
we can design a lauter system that will always work and never get stuck.

I chose about an order of magnitude lower permeability to account for the
above uncertainties as a design feature.  Using a permeability of roughly 3 x
E-2 cm/sec, into a equation derived from Darcys law, you arrive at a design
discharge of about 0.6 liters per minute of flow.  If that is as fast as you
can drain wort, Id not worry about ever getting a zapap stuck.  And I
havent been stuck since.

If anyone has any information (published or otherwise) with which to evaluate
these experiments, I'd be interested in email or HBD-wide review.  The work
above is my own.
Thanks for the bandwidth.

GuyG4 at aol.com....Lightning Creek Picobrewery
Even a blind pig finds an acorn now and then.

Return to table of contents


From: ak753 at detroit.freenet.org (Joseph A. Clayton)
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 06:18:09 -0400
Subject: Seattle Beer Happenings?

G'day,

I'll be in Seattle June 22 through June 30 and was looking for
recommendations for must see beer happenings.  I'm planning on hitting
Hale's new place, Big Time, and Both Redhooks.  Any other must sees?  How
about any really cool ale houses.

TIA

Joe C.

- --
Joe Clayton
Farmington Hills, MI  USA
ak753 at detroit.freenet.org  (Preferred)
claytonj at cc.tacom.army.mil  (If you must)

Return to table of contents


From: Barrowman at aol.com
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 07:14:16 -0400
Subject: Fermentation Kinetics

Does anyone know where I can find experimental data on batch fermentation of
S. cerevisiae and maltose or glucose? I need rate constants (w/ respect to
temperature), growth rates, initial & final concentrations, and any
thermodynamic data I can get. I am trying to develop a mathematical model of
a typical homebrewer's fermentation and track the temperature profile.

I have done this before but for other types of fermentations. In this case, I
may be stuck contacting yeast manufacturers. If, and when, I manage to put
this this together I will be happy to share it. It will not be for the faint
of heart (or calculus).

Thanks,

Laura

Return to table of contents


From: Schwab_Bryan at CCMAIL.ncsc.navy.mil
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 96 06:50:01 CDT
Subject: PAULANER CLONE

     Am in serch of an excellant all grain recipe for a Paulaner Wheat
     clone.
     I personally have tried several times unsucessfully and either get my
     color to dark ( Latest attempt in the secondary) or it lacks the body
     a Paulaner has.
     My Brewshop instructed me to use Barley and Wheat. I didn't have but
     only three pounds of Barley, so a subsitution of 10 pounds of 2 Row
     Pale Malt was given as a good subsitution, but it came out really
     dark.( could the clor come from the combination of 3 pounds of German
     Malted Wheat and 3 pounds of Weizen Wheat used together?)
     Used a step infusion mash process.
     Looked in the CATS MEOW and tried a couple from there awhile back,but
     they lack the body and mouthfeel I am in search of.  Any help would be
     appreciated.
     E-mail is fine
     Schwab_Bryan at ccmail.Ncsc.Navy.mil

Return to table of contents


From: "John Penn" <john_penn at spacemail.jhuapl.edu>
Date: 13 Jun 1996 08:48:16 -0400
Subject: When is a beer a beer?

                       Subject:                               Time:2:32 PM
  OFFICE MEMO          When is a beer a beer?                 Date:6/12/96
I think its beer when it goes down your throat and tastes great.  How else
would you know?

Anyone have a recipe for McEwan's Scotch Ale or the little know Belikin
Stout?  Thanks.



Return to table of contents


From: "John Penn" <john_penn at spacemail.jhuapl.edu>
Date: 13 Jun 1996 09:09:21 -0400
Subject: Hydrometer vessel?

                       Subject:                               Time:8:59 AM
  OFFICE MEMO          Hydrometer vessel?                     Date:6/13/96
The shape of the bottle should not affect your reading but it must be tall
enough that your hydrometer does not hit the bottom of the vessel and give
you an inflated reading.  Looking at what's in your brew I would guess a
reading closer to 1.070 instead of the 1.080 you got.  Seven pounds of malt
in 5 gallons should be 1.063 plus some for the honey and specialty grains if
any.

John



Return to table of contents


From: JUKNALIS <juknalis at ARSERRC.Gov>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 09:13:36 -0500 (EST)
Subject: antiseptic hop properties

Hi, does anyone know what compounds in hops act as antiseptic
agents and how they work?  Personal replies are ok, I'll
post a summary.

    thanks

        Joe


Return to table of contents


From: "Kevin McEnhill" <kevinm at kci.wayne.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 09:20:54 -0500
Subject: Re: Water bath RIMS heater

In HBD #2067, korz at pubs.ih.att.com responded to my earlier post.

WARNING: Me be computer geek / engineer. Me no spell good. Writing
bad too. Me explain better.

- ----Begin quoted section----
Kevin writes:
>After reading Morris's articel on RIMS using a hotwater heating
>element, I thought about the carmalizing question alot. My solution
>(so far not tried on real wort), was to heat a water bath and run a
>copper tube with the wort inside through the boiling water.

and:
>Actually, now that I think about it, what I had was an immersion
>chiller running backwards. Instead of the coils sitting in a pan of
>ice water, they were in boiling water.

Not quite.  With an immersion chiller, you only need to clean the
outside of the copper.  With what you are talking about, you would
need to make sure that the inside of the copper was very clean (no
oils, minimal oxidation, no crud).  One reason I like my immersion
chiller is because I can clearly see how clean the surface is that
touches the wort.

and:
>First, the maximum temperature that touches the wort is 212F, sugar
>doesn't caramelize at that temp.

Although caramelization may be a secondary concern, your primary
concern should be protecting your enzymes.  At 212F, they will all be
dead in seconds.  While you will never have to run your entire volume
of liquid through the coil (otherwise your mash will be close to
212F), you will also not be able to do the continuous recirculation
which is part of the RIMS concept.  If you kept the water kettle
around 5F or so higher than your target mash temperature, then your
idea would work, but now you need to constantly monitor BOTH your mash
temp and your hot water temp. I agree that automating the temperature
control is part of the attractiveness of the RIMS concept.
- ----End quoted section----

One of the things I have learned the hard way on the mchine I am
responsable for at work is the everything fails (usually at the worst
possible time and in the worst way). In designing my RIMS brewery at
home, I have kept that in mind. Ideally, nothing will ever fail and I
will be able to log many thousands of gallons of excellent homebrew.
But, I don't believe that will happen. The way I look at it, the
water bath is the safest way of adding energy to the system no
possible catastrophic failure.

With a controlled electric heater, you have two possible failures.
One: Your pump could fail. It could be a blown motor, tripping over
the power cord or grain jamming the pump mechanism. Depending on your
choice of temperature control, this could really cause damage to your
wort. Two: Your temperature controller can fail. Disconnected
thermocouples, failed controller circuits, and stuck flow sensors
could all result in a loss of control of the heating element.
Depending on how the control system is built, the element will either
turn off (Nice and fail-safe but difficult to design) or go to 100%
(easy to design and build but not quite fail-safe). An electric
heater at full capacity will carmalize the surgars, destroy the
enzymes and add a charcoal flavor to your beer by going way beyond
the 212F a water bath would.

Now with a water bath, there are still the same two failure modes.
But, IMHO they fail much more gracefully, especially with my recent
aquisition of a dual head magnitic pump. My plan for the pump is to
use one side to pump the wort from under the false bottom through a
counter flow heat exchanger to heat it and  up to the top of the
grain bed. The other side will pump my hot water from the water bath
to supply the heat exchanger and back to the water bath. In this
configuration, if the pump fails for some reason (listed above),
not only does the flow of wort stop but the heating action is also
stopped. I will never have to jump up and turn things off to prevent
scourching. If my water heater fails and starts to boil, all that is
happening is the disctuction of the enzymes that go through the
heat exchanger. I admit that the loss of enzymes is not desirable,
but I can deal with that. Scorching the wort will affect the flavor
much more than slower enzyme activity will.

The system is not perfect (yet), but I think it is better than a
heating element in direct contact with the wort. And yes, not only do
you have to monitor the wort temperatures, you have to monitor the
water temperatures as well but I think the  advantages out-number the
the added disadvanage.

Me still no think me tell it well enough. me draw lame-o asci art.

       Liquid level                               Hot water
          |                                           |
          |  Grain level      Heat exchanger          |
          |     |                 |                   |
     __   |     |   __            |                   |
    |  | \|/    |  |  |          \|/           |     \|/     |
    |  |~~~~~~~~|~~|  |___________  ___________|~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
    |  |       \|/ |  |           ||           |             |
    |  |~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~|  |           ((           |             |
    |  |           |  |           ))          _|_____________|
    |  |           |  |           ((          |  ^^^^^^^^^^^
    |  |           |  |           ))          |      /|\
    |  |           |  |           ((          |       |
    |  |           |  |    _______||______    |       |
    |  |           |  |    |             |    |     Heater
    |  |           |  |   / \           / \   |
    |  | _ _ _ _ _ |  |  /___\         /___\  |
    |  |_______/|\_|  |____|             |____|
    |___________|_____|
         /|\    |
          |     |            Duel head pump
          |     |
          |  False bottom
          |
        Insulated mash tun


Well, that is what I am in the process of building except the heat
exchanger is in a counter flow config instead of what I drew but I
not redrawing that damn thing again. If you see something wrong with
what I am doing, please let me know.

< Insert witty phrase here >  kevinm at kci.wayne.edu <Kevin McEnhill>

Return to table of contents


From: "Bridges, Scott" <bridgess at mmsmtp.ColumbiaSC.ATTGIS.COM>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 96 09:50:00 PDT
Subject: Greenville Micro

"Decker, Robin E." <robind at rmtgvl.rmtinc.com> writes:
>The place you visited was NOT a microbrewery!  You were in one of the THREE

>BrewPUBS in Greenville.  And since there IS also a Microbrewery in
>Greenville, I think you owe Dave Bracken, head brewer of same, a public
>apology for casting aspersions upon his product and his practices.  BTW,
>Dave started out as a homebrewer (I suspect he even owns a copy of "TCJHB")

>and he is currently producing 2 excellent beers: Caesar's Head Amber, and
>Caesar's Head Pale Ale, both available at local restaurants (e.g. Macaroni
>Grill) on tap and at Biermeisters in bottles.

I agree with this comment.  I haven't had the opportunity to try any of the
beers from Greenville brewpubs, but I have sampled Caesars Head Pale Ale at
a local watering hole here in Columbia.  It is a very nice American pale
ale.  Our club is planning a "field trip" to visit the Greenville pubs and
also Highland in Ashville.  Maybe we can even squeeze in Caesars Head (is
that the name of the brewery, or just their brand name?).

Scott


Return to table of contents