HOMEBREW Digest #2523 Mon 06 October 1997

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

		Digest Janitor: janitor@hbd.org
		Many thanks to the Observer & Eccentric Newspapers of 
		Livonia, Michigan for sponsoring the Homebrew Digest.
				URL: http://www.oeonline.com

  Choreboy lesson, Roasting Barley ("David R. Burley")
  Water to make Vienna (John Palmer)
  Barley Wine yeast experience (Dave Riedel)
  RE: Vienna water (dajohnson)
  re:barleywine yeast (Charles Burns)
  homebrew book (michael rose)
  The Jethro GABF Report ("Rob Moline")
  Brewpubs in minneapolis (todd.s.taylor)
  malt modification (korz)
  re-directed submission, Style Variations (i.brew2)
  Wyeast strains (smurman)
  bulk priming/data point on insulation. (Harlan Bauer)
  All Grain Questions ("John Penn")
  Tradition in Brewing ("Kostelac, John")
  Science "Talk" in Brewing ("Jim Pierce")
  brewing to style ("Bryan L. Gros")
  Vienna Water Pt-I (A. J. deLange)
  Vienna Water Part II (A. J. deLange)
  Vienna Water Part III (A. J. deLange)
  Vienna Water - Part IV (A. J. deLange)
  alan Moen's column (AlannnnT)
  Re: Toasting Grains ("Fred L. Johnson")

NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS: hbd.org Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew at hbd.org (Articles are published in the order they are received.) If your e-mail account is being deleted, please unsubscribe first!! To SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE send an e-mail message with the word "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to homebrew-request@hbd.org. **SUBSCRIBE AND UNSUBSCRIBE REQUESTS MUST BE SENT FROM THE E-MAIL **ACCOUNT YOU WISH TO HAVE SUBSCRIBED OR UNSUBSCRIBED!!! IF YOU HAVE SPAM-PROOFED your e-mail address, the autoresponder and the SUBSCRIBE/UNSUBSCRIBE commands will fail! For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to brewery at realbeer.com Homebrew Digest Information on the Web: http://hbd.org Requests for back issues will be ignored. Back issues are available via: Anonymous ftp from... hbd.org /pub/hbd ftp.stanford.edu /pub/clubs/homebrew/beer E-mail... ftpmail at gatekeeper.dec.com (send a one-line e-mail message with the word help for instructions.) AFS users can find it under... /afs/ir.stanford.edu/ftp/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 11:22:07 -0400 From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com> Subject: Choreboy lesson, Roasting Barley Brewsters: John Schnupp has experienced problems with plugging the last three batche= s using the copper tube with holes in it to drain his vessel. And is strongly tempted to go back to is choreboy setup which had worked fine. I= zapped his address too soon so here is my reply to him. John send me an e-mail so we can sked - KC2LZ. As you may know I am an advocate of the Choreboy for draining the boiler = in the presence of hops after having spent a lot of unproductive engineering= time on other methods. My theory is that the Choreboy offers such a large surface area that the flow velocity at any one point on the imaginary sphere of the choreboy filter is low enough that hop pieces cannot impede the flow of liquid. There are so many pathways it doesn't make any difference. Having severa= l layers in the Choreboy to get through (imagine concentric spheres) and ev= en though they are large holes this multiple layer prevents the hops bits fr= om reaching the outlet tube. With the holes or even slots (better than holes) the flow velocity at the= surface of the hole is high enough to allow the hop leaf ( or grain particle in the case of RIMS) to be sucked into the hole and plug it. = Another disadvantage of the small hole is that the trub can be sucked in due to the high velocity. It never ceases to amaze me that the Choreboy method produces clear wort free of hot break and I can get virtually dry hops remains with perhaps 5= 0 mls of free liquid wort in the bottom of the kettle by tipping it up. It works! Another factor in this may be the fact that I use a counter curren= t cooler and the 50 feet of 3/8 tubing provides sufficient resistance that = it takes perhaps 10 -15 minutes to empty the kettle. The combo of the Choreb= oy and the slow flow are a perfect set-up for this use. You hit the RIMS question right on the head. A stuck flow kills the RIMS= and the lesson I take from the Choreboy is to have plenty of surface area= and a slow enough flow at the surface that you don't plug the screens. Yo= u might consider two screens one on top of the other, with perhaps some kin= d of very loose filter cloth between, or just line the top of the false bottom with another loose medium of some sort (maybe a single layer or ma= ny layers of cheese cloth ( like the hop bed). Just a thought as I don't ha= ve a RIMS although the temptation is strong - just a matter of what part of = my brewing/winemaking/ham/golf stuff do I get rid of? Or maybe my Explorer? - ----------------------------- Kevin Kane asks about roasting Barley for Stout production. I roast barl= ey and other grains and malts. Last year at Christmas my Toasted Oatmeal Imperial Stout was greeted with loud acclaim. I used the oatmeal as the only roast ingredient in the beer and it was terrific. Here's how I do it. Roasted Barley for Stout Process I Put 2# 4 oz of animal food quality ( feed store) grains - NOT seed Barley= - on a large cookie sheet with sides about 3/4 inch high. Dry the grains for 11/2 hours at 375F, raise the temperature to 450F and roast for 20 minutes until only about 10% of the grains are light brown a= nd 10% are black and the rest are a nice chocolatey brown. Process II A shortened version 45 minutes at 375F and 20 minutes at 450F. Both methods seem to work fine. Other methods, that are more work but give a more uniform quality, amount= to keeping the temperature at 425F the whole time and stirring the barley= every 15 minutes for 1 hour and 15 minutes. This produces a much more uniform product and avoids hot spots in which part of the barley blackens= and the rest stays brown. This is especially necessary with the oatmeal which only takes 45 minutes to achieve the desired blackedness. = Be prepared to do this when no else is in the house and you can open a window and keep an eye on it since it will start to produce clouds of bla= ck smoke if left too long. This time is dependent on the dryness of the barl= ey - which is why I dry it first, unless I have had the barley in the house for some time. The smoke point means it is finished - or you are! - ---------------------------------- Keep on brewin' Dave Burley Kinnelon, NJ 07405 103164.3202 at compuserve.com Dave_Burley at compuserve.com = Voice e-mail OK = Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 1997 09:19:07 -0700 From: John Palmer <jjpalmer at gte.net> Subject: Water to make Vienna Dave said he was having trouble achieving the water profile for Vienna to produce a Vienna style lager. >From Dave's page: Vienna: 200 Ca, 118 HCO3, 60 Mg, 125 SO4, 8 Na, 12 Cl (all in ppm) This profile matches that listed in Noonan, New Lager Brewing, and has the carbonates listed as HCO3 (soluble bicarbonate), not as CaCO3.... It makes a difference of course if this is actually a mistake and the number is supposed to be calcium carbonate, but I am going to assume that bicarbonate is correct. Now then, I was writing to say that my local water (LA foothills) is: 70 Ca, 230 HCO3, 16 Mg, 42 SO4, 23 Na, 26 Cl which is not anywhere near Vienna water, but I have brewed several outstanding Viennas from it, one of which placed first in two seperate competitions. What I did was use George's Graf-style Vienna recipe from his Vienna book. That recipe includes a quarter pound of Black Patent to balance the greater alkalinity of our water here. I think that if you look to the balance of the malts versus water profile then you can approximate the style very closely without agonizing over achieving the right mineral concentrations. One thing I probably could have done was to add some gypsum to "dry" the hop character a bit, and probably could have backed off on the BP then too. My advice is, get as close as you can with your RO water and salts, then work your malts to achieve the Vienna style. Have fun, John jjpalmer at realbeer.com Palmer House Brewery and Smithy http//:www.realbeer.com/jjpalmer/ (yes, I know the pictures aren't working, I will fix it as soon as I get my new Mac.) Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 1997 09:48:24 -0700 (PDT) From: Dave Riedel <RIEDEL at ios.bc.ca> Subject: Barley Wine yeast experience Scott Rohlf asks about yeasts and barleywine.... I have a batch of barleywine that I'm about to bottle. Admittedly, it would be better to report after bottle conditioning, but Scott needs answers now. For my BW, I pitched a 1056 slurry from a batch of 1.060 IPA. I used the IPA for two reasons 1) ample quantity of cells and 2) slightly higher gravity to 'prepare' the yeast for the onslaught of 1.099. After pitching, I aerated as thoroughly as possible. I don't have oxygen, but this batch was only 3 gallons in a 5 gallon carboy, so I was able to pick it up and shake the hell out of it. I shook it perodically over a period of about 2-3 hours; I had no trouble getting the wort to turn nearly entirely into foam. After I saw signs of flocculation, I started to swirl the carboy once a day to re-suspend the yeast. I got the idea from the old British brewers who would 'walk' the barleywine barrel around the brewery to do the same thing. I checked the gravity when I transferred the beer to a smaller, 3 gallon, secondary. To my surprise it was in the low to mid 20's! It seems with a healthy, big, well-aerated pitch, you can ferment a barleywine fully with 1056. I had already planned to introduce some fresh yeast to the secondary, so I did, but I'm not sure it was necessary. I will also add some fresh slurry before bottling, but that's an upcoming project. cheers, Dave Riedel Victoria, BC, Canada Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 97 12:59:37 -0500 From: dajohnson at mail.biosis.org Subject: RE: Vienna water Hey all -- In response to a question about Vienna water -- this is what i have found (granted, i don't know much about water chemistry, but i DO have 2 things to share): 1) In his _Designing Great Beers_, Ray Daniels' says that Vienna water profiles vary according to different sources. It's too much to list the various sources he quotes in his chapter on Vienna-Marzen-Oktoberfests -- but he does give 3 different water profiles [if you're really interested in the sources, e-mail me and i'll send them to you]. Anyway, here are the figures he lists: Mineral Source1 Source2 Source3 Ca 48ppm 225ppm 200ppm Mg 20ppm 90ppm 60ppm Na 10ppm 14ppm 8ppm CO3 76ppm 270ppm 120ppm SO4 52ppm 172ppm 125ppm Cl 13 34ppm 12ppm Apparently the differing figures vary according to 2 or 3 water sources too. One is listed as well water, while the other 2 are listed as hard water sources. 2) I recently sent a question about Burtonizing my water for making an English-style pale ale to the AHA's TechTalk forum. A guy named Dana Edgell (sp?) responded saying that he has a water treatment worksheet available on his homepage (http://quantum-net.com/edge_ale/). Not knowing much about water chemistry, i can't say how accurate his calculations/suggestions are, but it still seems pretty helpful. there you go. dan johnson Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 97 10:33 PDT From: cburns at egusd.k12.ca.us (Charles Burns) Subject: re:barleywine yeast Scott Rohlf (in hbd#2521) asks for comments regarding yeast for a barleywine. I just finished my _first_ barleywine. I used a 3 quart starter at high krausen (got lucky on the timing) of Wyeast 1056 for a 3 gallon batch of beer. OG: 1.119, FG:1.025. Its delicious. Required no rousing, no additional yeast in secondary. It does not have the fruity esters I was after (just a slight floral aroma from the hops). Fermented at 70-75F for 1 week in primary, now 3 weeks in secondary under an ounce of EK Goldings. My next barleywine I will use either 1728 (scottish) or 1968 (london special). I advise against the 1056 simply because the beer you end up with (while nice) does not really conform to the barleywine style in terms of the esters produced. However, if you want a cleaner dryer barleywine, then use the 1056. For flavor examples, I believe you could try a bottle of Youngs Old Nick to get an example of what 1728 or 1968 would produce and then compare that to Bigfoot to get an idea of what 1056 would produce. These are just my guesses but I've had a few barleywines lately (beer judge training is tough work). Charley (lamenting the lack of esters) in N.Cal Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 1997 11:02:29 -0700 From: michael rose <mrose at ucr.campus.mci.net> Subject: homebrew book I'm a part-timer here so I'll state up front that I don't know all the proper protocall of the HBD. Recently, and by accident, I found out that a major contributor to the HBD had published a book about homebrewing. Yet there has been no mention of it in this forum. (that I have seen) I'm sure this is due to the professionalism of the author and him not wanting to profit from this forum.----- On the opposite hand, if my doctor invents some new drug that would make me more healthy, I'd sure want him to profit from me. And my brewing is much more important than my health! Is it proper to ask for recommemdations or discuss the book? mike rose Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 97 12:47:06 PDT From: "Rob Moline" <brewer at ames.net> Subject: The Jethro GABF Report The Jethro GABF Report Well, the votes are in, and the medals have been awarded. I am very pleased to see that some local breweries, to my old stomping grounds anyway, have been recognized. 75th Street took a Gold for Brown Porter, and the Pony Express Brewery took a Silver for American Amber. Well deserved. The only category not awarded all 3 medals was Scottish Ales, only Silver and Bronze medals there, which brought boos and such, as is always the crowd response when a category is awarded in such a manner. OTOH, the biggest laugh came when "Naughty Monkey Brown Ale" was awarded the Silver for American Browns! I was asked by Jim Parker to lead a guided beer tour for members of the AHA, but as I only had 20 minutes notice, I was unable to prepare adequately. So, I led the group to beers and brewers that I know and respect. All worked out well though, for 6 of the 8 or 9 breweries I selected won medals this year. You may also be pleased to know that Kinney Baughman's Cottonwood Brewery won a Bronze for American Browns. It was a great time for the first day, and very relaxed as it was the members only session and the crowds were manageable. The circus starts tonight. Also great was the 'Cigar Smoker' Party at RockBottom, for industry folk only. But, Brian Rezac and myself were able to personally appeal to Mark Silva, and were graciously granted extra tickets for a few homebrewers, like Mark Tumarkin and friends. The gathering for AHA members at Falling Rock was sparsely attended last night, though I expect more folks to attend on Friday and Saturday nights. At this time I wish to give a huge THANK YOU to Mr. Loub and Mr. Kimbrough, my former General Manager, and the new Head brewer at my former brewery. As a result of their public statements and actions, I have been awarded a full scholarship to the Short Course at Siebel, by Bill Siebel! I feel like I have just been awarded another Gold Medal, and I didn't even bring any beer! Yahoo!!!!!!! Mr. Siebel had previously offered me a 50 percent discount, after I failed to win this years scholarship, but I was unable to take advantage of that offer. But, you may be surprised to know, and I'm sure you will appreciate the fact that an industry leader, like Bill Siebel, does keep his finger on the pulse of the brewing world and was well aware of my trials and tribulations. He said that his offer was a result of his distaste for actions that have occurred, and my continued support of the brewing business through my writings on the HBD and IBS Forum. He said he knew it would be good not only for me, but for new assistants I would train in the future. So, Thanks Guys! Damn, maybe if they had been just a little more vitriolic, I might have been offered the Diploma Course!!! ;-) Anyway, this is it for today, I'm off to have lunch with Louis Bonham, and then attend the Business of Brewing Session. Cheers! Jethro Rob Moline Brewer At Large brewer at ames.net "The More I Know About Beer, The More I Realize I Need To Know More About Beer!" Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 1997 13:56:30 -0400 (EDT) From: todd.s.taylor at lmco.com Subject: Brewpubs in minneapolis Next weekend I'm going to minneapolis MN for the weekend and can anyone tell where the brew pubs are in town. I will be staying at the downtown athletic club. Within walking distance or in the area? thanks Todd. You can e-mail me directly at this address or at home at tstaylor at accinet.net Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 12:57:35 -0500 (CDT) From: korz at xnet.com Subject: malt modification Dave says he wants proof that modern malts are more modified than the malts of old. Well, frankly, I have data sheets from many modern malts (left over from when I used to own a store) and I could drag them out and give you numeric proof, but I do not have the time at this minute. I only have a few minutes and I'll tell you why I say with great confidence that modern Pilsner and Lager malts are more modified than they were 50 or 100 years ago: 1. George Fix says they are... and 2. In a talk about Belgian brewing techniques and ingredients given by Eric Toft (formerly a brewmaster in Belgium, now a brewmaster somewhere near the German-Austrian border), he said that all the brewmasters in Germany are complaining that the malt is overmodified. He said that they all are having to reduce their triple-decoction mashes to double-decoction or even single-decoction mashes because the beer was coming out too thin in body. I agree 100% with Charley's post from a few days ago. I'll tell you what I do: I try brewing with a new malt using a single-step infusion. If the resulting beer has a lot of hot and cold break, I add a 135-140F protein rest the next time I use it. My understanding is (and perhaps George and those like Darryl that have visited Pilsner Urquell's brewery can verify) that truly undermodified malt will give you a fraction of the expected yield (like 15 or 20 pts/lb/gal in stead of your usual 25 or 30). DON'T QUOTE ME ON THIS WITHOUT VALIDATION! THIS IS A VERY FAINT MEMORY AND THE DATA COULD VERY WELL HAVE BEEN CORRUPTED DURING STORAGE! Al. Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL korz at xnet.com My new website (still under construction, but up-and-running): http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/ Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 14:04:48 -0400 From: i.brew2 at juno.com Subject: re-directed submission, Style Variations (I sent this to Homebrew-request... in error, you returned it. I wasn't sure so I am re-sending to the correct address now) > On Oct. 3 Doug Moyer writes "is it a sin to brew beers that don't fit a > style" > I suppose some of us fashion ourselves to be scientists while others > fashion ourselves to be artists. The answer probably isn't the same for > both types. If you set out to produce something specific and failed to > hit the style, but still produced a quality beer, you may still be > sattisfied with the effort if you were the artist type, but displeased > with yourself if you were the scientific sort. If you were trying to win > a competition and missed the mark you might consider yourself a failure, > but if you were just trying to produce something to dazzle your guests > and friends, who would have to tell them what it was "supposed" to have > been? The last British style ale I tried to brew (from extract) found > the local supply shop out of any kind of British yeast and I used Yeast > Labs "Duseldorf Ale". Came out great! Hell, I wasn't going to postpone > my next batch because the yeast wasn't the right style!! Time is too > short in supply for that! I think that the BEST situation is when we > brew to please ourselves rather than our peers or our guests. It really > doesn't hurt my feelings if a Coors drinker thinks my Bitters are too > heavy, I keep canned beer in the fridge for those guests, it's cheaper! > > On another note, I have been fortunate to be brewing some exceptionaly > clear batches of late, but the head falls off after pouring. These are > all malt extract with specialty grains or partial mash batches. I read > about using torrified wheat to increase head retention, and I've seen > that item with the specialty grains at the local outlet. If anyone could > provide specifics on using that or any other method to increase head > density/retention I would appreciate it. I am using RO water to brew and > I bottle condition. > > Dave Blaine > I.Brew2 at Juno.Com > > Private E Mail fine. Thanks! > - --------- End forwarded message ---------- Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 1997 11:51:55 -0700 From: smurman at best.com Subject: Wyeast strains I started the possibility of botulism in starters thread (hey, everyone needs a claim to fame), and recently mentioned ferulic acid (which I'm sure Steve is busy researching right now), so I'm becoming hesitant to make my pseudo-scientific postings. Hopefully with everyone off at the GABF, I can sneak a post through w/o creating a stir. Nah, what fun would that be? ;) I recently tried making an Eam-stay Eer-bay (there actually is a beer with this name in the Midwest somewhere. Let's see Anchor sue over pig latin:) I decided to try Wyeast 2206 since I didn't want to add to my yeast bank a strain I'll rarely use (the Anchor strain). Well, for me it didn't work too well. I tried fermenting at 60F, and after 3 weeks it had only about 50% attenuation. I racked and dropped the temp. to 50F and the yeast seems to be picking up. YMMV. Thanks to Jeff McNally for getting an answer regarding Wyeast 1272 and the PacMan strain. For those of you who aren't aware, I have a listing of the common yeast strains and their origins at http://www.best.com/~smurman/zymurgy/yeast.html. I get some email on these, and right now Wyeast 1272 is the strain of speculation. Personally, I've always wondered if it could be the Sam Adams strain. Other major commercial yeast providers have a strain called "East Coast" or "Brew Patriot" which is the Sam Adams ale strain. These guys all try to copy each other, so I have to wonder if 1272 isn't Sam Adams. I've never used it myself, can anyone comment on this unscientific speculation? SM (I am a scientist dammit) Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 1997 13:07:00 -0500 From: blacksab at midwest.net (Harlan Bauer) Subject: bulk priming/data point on insulation. Kevin J. O'Donnell <kjo at penn.com> asks: >1. Can you prepare a bulk priming solution - say 1 gallon - that can be >used at bottlng rather than boil 3/4 cups of sugar in water at each >bottling session? I understand that the proportions would have to be >accurate for 1 gallon and that 1 pint or so would be used for each 5 >gallon batch that is being bottled. It could be kept in a sanitized >gallon jug. Sure! What I do is make up a stock solution (actually I make up one concentration for kegs and one for bottles) and "can" it in 1-pint mason jars. Whenever I need to prime some beer, I take a "sterile" jar off the shelf, wipe the lid area, and pour it in. Extra bonus: no cooling. FWIW, here's a data point on the benifits of insulation. I "raced" an uninsulated sanke keg (my boiling kettle) against an insulated one (my mash tun). Here are the results: PROCEDURE: 1. Add 10-gal water to each vessel (10-gal at 90*F) 2. Heat water to boiling with propane burners 3. Turn off heat, and measure temperature of water every 30-min for 2-hours DATA: - ---------------------------------------------------- Time MASH TUN BOILING KETTLE (insulated) (uninsulated) - ---------------------------------------------------- 0-min ~212*F ~212*F 30 210 206 60 205 197 90 203 188 120 200 181 - ---------------------------------------------------- note: Mash tun is made from a sanke keg insulated with 1.5-in rigid fiberglass insulation, and then covered in sheet aluminium. The only uninsulated part is the bottom chine-area where it is heated. TTYL, Harlan Harlan Bauer ...malt does more than Milton can Carbondale, IL To justify God's ways to man. <blacksab at midwest.net> --A.E. Houseman Return to table of contents
Date: 3 Oct 1997 15:22:49 -0400 From: "John Penn" <john_penn at spacemail.jhuapl.edu> Subject: All Grain Questions Subject: Time:2:56 PM OFFICE MEMO All Grain Questions Date:10/3/97 I would like to attempt my first all grain--unless you count my last experiment where I tried 4# of grain in a single step infusion to make 1 gallon of scotch ale. I only ended up with about 6.5 bottles worth at 1.072 OG instead of an expected 1.088. It tasted good at bottling though and should have some kick since the FG was about 1.010! I think I lost two bottles worth to trub, and 1 bottles worth to excessive blowoff in a 1 gallon jug. Anyway, I'd like to try this 2 step batch sparge to simplify the equipment needed and the time required. The plan is to do a single step infusion in a cooler with about 2.5 gallons of water total and 8# of grain. Then I plan to quickly pour off/siphon/whatever that water and add an additional 2.5 gallons of water to do a "mashout" at about 170F for 10-15 minutes. Then drain that water. I am using 60-65% as an estimate for efficiency based on some of Kenny Eddy's comments in the HBD. I expect to leave about 0.5 qts of water/# in the grain--maybe that's a little high--so my 5 gallons would drop to 4 at the start of boil and maybe 3.5 gallons at the end of boil yielding about a "1.055 ish" beer. Does this sound like a reasonable "batch sparge" plan? Can I pour off the initial mash water and then do a mashout with the additional sparge water? Does heating the wort from the one step mash constitute a mashout to stabilize the enzymes in the initial pouroff? I'm not too worried about the low efficiency that I expect but my questions concern the mashout step and the 2 step batch sparge. Thanks for the help. John Penn Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 16:08:18 -0500 From: "Kostelac, John" <John.Kostelac at COMPAQ.com> Subject: Tradition in Brewing Cheers to Doug Moyer on his response to Alan Moen's Column in the 9/97 Brewing Techniques. I agree wholeheartedly with Doug that style guidelines are important in labeling and competition. These help to level the playing field. I further believe that for anyone to contend that stepping out of those bounds makes innovation meaningless doesn't quite get what innovation means. I prefer not to go where everyone has gone before. I try nearly every possible thing that comes to mind, and I drink it! So far, so good. One day, one or the other of else will create a new style and a new tradition for the next generation of homebrewers to step all over. I say good luck and best wishes. Thanks also to all who participate in HBD. I have learned much both scientific and mythological about brewing. I appreciate ALL of the information and ALL of the folks willing to take the time to share it. John The possibilities are endless! JKostalot at aol.com Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 14:55:54 -0700 From: "Jim Pierce" <jimpierce at ibm.net> Subject: Science "Talk" in Brewing I have been a "lurker" on the HBD until today. What has really prompted my participation has been the ongoing (outright droning) debate with regards to postings having a scientific/technical content. It really seems to me that some of the HBD participants are bemoaning the fact that they cannot participate in the "science talk", since they lack the requisite knowledge to even understand brewing science. What I have to say to those of you who are calling for the HBD to tone down the "science talk" is to start reading more and buy a good college dictionary! We should not even consider asking the brewing scientists to "dumb down" their talk just so that it is understandable to the ordinary brewer. I, for one, am a novice and I really appreciate reading the comments of brewing scientists when they are at their "most technical" with language. Some of the criticisms of "science talk" have just been outright stupid. If you are simply not interested in brewing science, or lack the will power to learn something new, then just skip those messages containing "science talk." It is that simple folks! There, now that I have put my "two cents" in I will not waste anymore bandwidth. I suggest others do the same by "trashing" this thread. Lets move onto talk about beer making and related issues, can we. Cheers! Jim Pierce "I'm just a beer geek -- I don't need a reason to drink!" Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 1997 15:25:22 -0700 From: "Bryan L. Gros" <gros at bigfoot.com> Subject: brewing to style Doug Moyer wrote: > The sub heading of Alan Moen's column in the 9/97 Brewing Techniques >states, "Style guidelines define the playing field of creativity. >Brewers, like all artists, must recognize that innovation is meaningless >outside the bounds of tradition." He starts off bitching about a >particular beer that is far outside of the labelled style, and then >begins a rant along the lines of the above quote. <snip> >...What do the rest of you think? Is it a cardinal sin to brew beers that >don't fit into a particular style? (I'm already consigned to hell for >other reasons, why not a new one?) As I read the column, I initially >thought I was missing his point, but he kept hammering at it... Haven't read Alan's article yet, but I would encourage everyone, homebrewers and professional brewers, to experiment. In brewpubs I frequent, I generally order the special beer, not the regular ones. I just hope that experimental beers are labeled as such, and that when beers are labeled as a particular style, they resemble that style. - Bryan gros at bigfoot.com Oakland, CA Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 23:59:19 -0500 From: ajdel at mindspring.com (A. J. deLange) Subject: Vienna Water Pt-I Dave Draper asks about Vienna water. I have three profiles for that city, one of which is the one Dave quoted and another of which is very close to it. They are Ca Carb Cl Mg Na SO4 pH Net Chg, mEq/L V1 200 118 12 60 8 124 8.4 +10.37 V2 163 243 39 68 8 216 8.4 + 4.45 V3 200 120 12 60 8 125 8.4 +10.33 I am convinced that the "Carb" numbers represent the mg/L of carbonate (a small proportion of the total) plus bicarbonate (the majority of the total). pH infomation is not given and so must be supplied. I choose the pH which causes the water sample to be electrically neutral (as it must in fact be) but I don't ever allow a pH above 8.4 because that's about the limits for potable water as given by the USEPA, UN, EEC, etc and I know that Vienna water (praised for its qualities as a drinking water) isn't at pH 11 which would be required to balance it accoding to the V1 and V3 profiles. Given that I limit the pH to 8.4 a whopping 10 mEq/L of anion are required to balance two of the profiles and 4.5 to balance the third. Out of 43 profiles I've studied, V1 and V3 are the worst in this regard! So what's wrong here? If we look at V2 we see that it calls for less calcium and lots more (nearly double) bicarbonate and sulfate. This brings the balance closer to 0 as we would expect but not all the way. Clearly we are interpreting something wrong or the data are bad. (interpreting the carb number "as CaCO3" would help somewhat in the case of Vienna but would throw other profiles which do balance off and the way data are published they just don't look like "as CaCO3" numbers to me). A disturbing possibility is that sometimes the numbers mean as bicarbonate and sometimes they mean as CaCO3. They are fairly frequently labeled "mg/L carbonate" and they are clearly not carbonate unless carbonate is interpreted to mean the collective bicarbonate and carbonate species. As I said above this is how I interpret it. Note that any the analysis of any particular water sample should balance (in fact analysts use that as a quality control check) but that a water report you obtain from your water supplier may not simply because the reported sodium level is based on the average of measurements made at times different from the times at which the measurements on which the sulfate level were made and so on. I suspect that this may be a factor as could be errors in reporting, transcription, and as indicated above interpretation. Irrespective of the source of the inconsistencies it is probably pretty clear that any approximation one tries to make to a poorly ballanced water spec will be a poor approximation as anything you actually synthesize must balance. Given this it is probably also clear that the better the balance, the better the approximation. In three subsequent posts I'll give three formulations for each of the three profiles above. V2 can be most successfully simulated with all ions within 23% fo the spec values. Profiles V1 and V3 have errors of over 100% in sulfate and nearly 50% in other ions. The printouts should be self explanatory except for one point: the formulations assume that the calcium carbonate is dissolved by sparging with carbon dioxide and then aerating to reach the target pH (8.4). Anyone desiring further explanation can e-mail me directly. We don't want to waste too much space on this science stuff or there won't be any room for the guys who don't like it to tell us why they don't like it. A. J. deLange - Numquam in dubio, saepe in errore. - --> --> --> To reply remove "nosp" from address. <-- <-- Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 23:59:23 -0500 From: ajdel at mindspring.com (A. J. deLange) Subject: Vienna Water Part II I hope the table columns don't get destroyed by automatic linewrapping! Target City: Vienna1 Base Water: Deionized Balancing pH 11.8636 is greater than 8.40 and is thus set to 8.40 Net charge (imbalance) at this pH: 10.3682 mEq/L SALTS ADDED FOR THIS SYNTHESIS: Sodium Chloride : 0.02 mg/L Calcium Sulfate Dihydrate : 185.27 mg/L Calcium Chloride Dihydrate : 26.14 mg/L Magnesium Sulfate Heptahydrate : 394.80 mg/L Calcium Carbonate : 127.47 mg/L Magnesium Carbonate : 0.00 mg/L Sodium Bicarbonate : 27.91 mg/L Carbonic Acid : 2.48 mEq/L COMPARISON OF TARGET AND SYNTHESIS: TARGET SYNTHESIS pRatio Pct Err Vienna1 pH : 8.40 8.40 f1 : 0.0076 0.0077 f2 : 0.9749 0.9755 f3 : 0.0175 0.0169 Ionic Strength : 18.8557 15.4195 pfm : 0.0614 0.0562 Carbonates* : 1.9344 2.8482 mM/L +0.1680 +47.24% Calcium* : 200.00 101.30 mg/L -0.2954 -49.35% Carbonic : 0.91 1.35 mg/L +0.1734 +49.09% Bicarbonate : 115.10 169.56 mg/L +0.1682 +47.31% Carbonate : 2.03 2.89 mg/K +0.1527 +42.12% Alkalinity (as CaCO3): 99.73 145.28 mg/L Chloride* : 12.00 12.62 mg/L +0.0218 +5.14% Magnesium* : 60.00 38.93 mg/L -0.1878 -35.11% Sodium* : 8.00 7.65 mg/L -0.0197 -4.43% Sulfate* : 125.00 257.24 mg/L +0.3134 +105.79% Nitrate : 0.00 0.00 mg/L RMS Log Error (Items with *): 0.20408 Corresponding % 59.9841 pHs : 7.18 7.29 Saturated WRT CaCO3? : Yes Yes Langelier Index : 1.22 1.11 SI < 0 ~ Corrosion; SI > 0 ~ Occlusion Ryznar Index : 5.97 6.17 RI < 6 ~ Occlusion; RI > 7 ~ Corrosion pHe : 8.56 8.73 Saturated WRT CO2? : Yes Yes CO2 Equilibrium Index: 0.16 0.33 EI < 0 ~ Gains CO2; EI > 0 ~ Loses CO2 Residual Alkalinity : -78.12 50.18 mg/L as CaCO3 A. J. deLange - Numquam in dubio, saepe in errore. - --> --> --> To reply remove "nosp" from address. <-- <-- Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 23:59:27 -0500 From: ajdel at mindspring.com (A. J. deLange) Subject: Vienna Water Part III Target City: Vienna2 Base Water: Deionized Balancing pH 10.9435 is greater than 8.40 and is thus set to 8.40 Net charge (imbalance) at this pH: 4.4527 mEq/L SALTS ADDED FOR THIS SYNTHESIS: Sodium Chloride : 0.35 mg/L Calcium Sulfate Dihydrate : 69.15 mg/L Calcium Chloride Dihydrate : 83.89 mg/L Magnesium Sulfate Heptahydrate : 580.01 mg/L Calcium Carbonate : 223.93 mg/L Magnesium Carbonate : 0.00 mg/L Sodium Bicarbonate : 28.33 mg/L Carbonic Acid : 4.37 mEq/L COMPARISON OF TARGET AND SYNTHESIS: TARGET SYNTHESIS pRatio Pct Err Vienna2 pH : 8.40 8.40 f1 : 0.0075 0.0075 f2 : 0.9746 0.9748 f3 : 0.0178 0.0177 Ionic Strength : 20.9941 19.8221 pfm : 0.0643 0.0627 Carbonates* : 3.9836 4.7597 mM/L +0.0773 +19.48% Calcium* : 163.00 128.64 mg/L -0.1028 -21.08% Carbonic : 1.86 2.23 mg/L +0.0790 +19.94% Bicarbonate : 236.95 283.17 mg/L +0.0774 +19.50% Carbonate : 4.27 5.05 mg/K +0.0726 +18.20% Alkalinity (as CaCO3): 202.25 241.01 mg/L Chloride* : 39.00 40.67 mg/L +0.0182 +4.29% Magnesium* : 68.00 57.20 mg/L -0.0751 -15.89% Sodium* : 8.00 7.89 mg/L -0.0060 -1.36% Sulfate* : 216.00 264.63 mg/L +0.0882 +22.52% Nitrate : 0.00 0.00 mg/L RMS Log Error (Items with *): 0.07111 Corresponding % 17.7902 pHs : 6.97 6.99 Saturated WRT CaCO3? : Yes Yes Langelier Index : 1.43 1.41 SI < 0 ~ Corrosion; SI > 0 ~ Occlusion Ryznar Index : 5.55 5.58 RI < 6 ~ Occlusion; RI > 7 ~ Corrosion pHe : 8.87 8.95 Saturated WRT CO2? : Yes Yes CO2 Equilibrium Index: 0.47 0.55 EI < 0 ~ Gains CO2; EI > 0 ~ Loses CO2 Residual Alkalinity : 46.08 115.69 mg/L as CaCO3 A. J. deLange - Numquam in dubio, saepe in errore. - --> --> --> To reply remove "nosp" from address. <-- <-- Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 23:59:31 -0500 From: ajdel at mindspring.com (A. J. deLange) Subject: Vienna Water - Part IV Target City: Vienna3 Base Water: Deionized Balancing pH 11.8602 is greater than 8.40 and is thus set to 8.40 Net charge (imbalance) at this pH: 10.3351 mEq/L SALTS ADDED FOR THIS SYNTHESIS: Sodium Chloride : 1.41 mg/L Calcium Sulfate Dihydrate : 179.12 mg/L Calcium Chloride Dihydrate : 24.35 mg/L Magnesium Sulfate Heptahydrate : 395.20 mg/L Calcium Carbonate : 132.40 mg/L Magnesium Carbonate : 0.00 mg/L Sodium Bicarbonate : 25.94 mg/L Carbonic Acid : 2.58 mEq/L COMPARISON OF TARGET AND SYNTHESIS: TARGET SYNTHESIS pRatio Pct Err Vienna3 pH : 8.40 8.40 f1 : 0.0076 0.0077 f2 : 0.9749 0.9755 f3 : 0.0175 0.0169 Ionic Strength : 18.8725 15.3956 pfm : 0.0614 0.0561 Carbonates* : 1.9672 2.9225 mM/L +0.1719 +48.56% Calcium* : 200.00 101.36 mg/L -0.2952 -49.32% Carbonic : 0.92 1.39 mg/L +0.1774 +50.45% Bicarbonate : 117.05 173.98 mg/L +0.1721 +48.64% Carbonate : 2.07 2.96 mg/K +0.1564 +43.34% Alkalinity (as CaCO3): 101.37 149.00 mg/L Chloride* : 12.00 12.60 mg/L +0.0212 +5.00% Magnesium* : 60.00 38.97 mg/L -0.1874 -35.05% Sodium* : 8.00 7.65 mg/L -0.0193 -4.34% Sulfate* : 125.00 253.97 mg/L +0.3079 +103.17% Nitrate : 0.00 0.00 mg/L RMS Log Error (Items with *): 0.20306 Corresponding % 59.6097 pHs : 7.18 7.27 Saturated WRT CaCO3? : Yes Yes Langelier Index : 1.22 1.13 SI < 0 ~ Corrosion; SI > 0 ~ Occlusion Ryznar Index : 5.95 6.15 RI < 6 ~ Occlusion; RI > 7 ~ Corrosion pHe : 8.56 8.74 Saturated WRT CO2? : Yes Yes CO2 Equilibrium Index: 0.16 0.34 EI < 0 ~ Gains CO2; EI > 0 ~ Loses CO2 Residual Alkalinity : -76.48 53.83 mg/L as CaCO3 A. J. deLange - Numquam in dubio, saepe in errore. - --> --> --> To reply remove "nosp" from address. <-- <-- Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 20:41:43 -0400 (EDT) From: AlannnnT at aol.com Subject: alan Moen's column Doug Moyer writes about Alan Moen's article in BT choosing to stifle creativity. I agree with Doug, that Alan's idea that artists should have limits placed on creativity is ridiculous. And worse yet Alan says that artists should know what those limits are. He was talking about himself and others who write and produce art, not just the Homebrew community. It sounds like repressed parochial school stuff. Where I went to college [art school in NYC} Alan would considered the Devil himself. As it relates to brewing, where would pumpkin ale and spiced holiday beers fit into Alan's world? However, I do agree with Alan on one point: If you are brewing and naming beers to fit a style, then fit it should. I don't want my pub bought IPA to be 'light' or "mild" or "sweet" or some other off style bastardization. If you give it a label make it fit. But if you want to brew some "just good beer" what buisness is it of mine if you make you pale ale with lager malt? Just as long as you share some with me. Personaly, let me thank Doug for giving me the excuse to post about Alan Moen's article. I was incensed when I read it, but I thought I would be the only one to take offense and I was going to let it slide. Alan Talman Homebrewer, with no limits. Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 1997 21:30:05 -0400 From: "Fred L. Johnson" <FLJohnson at worldnet.att.net> Subject: Re: Toasting Grains Ron Ritchie asked: How long and at what temperature should he toast his already crushed = malted barley: "Intuition tells me I should still be able to toast the gro= und = grain, albeit for a briefer period or, perhaps, at a lower temperature. Th= us the = obviousquestion: how long at what temp? Any ideas?" - ------------ I, too, made the same "mistake" and proceeded to toast 1.25 lbs of of = crushed 2 row American pale malt at 375=B0 for 15 minutes in a very shallow= , = very large pan in my preheated oven. The 5 gallons of ESB I made with it w= as = delicious! I made the same recipe later without precrushing the and grain= s = and toasted at the same temperature and for the same time. I enjoyed the = mistake more. But that's only two batches. I intend to pursue the issue = experimentally using different times and temperatures, just to get a better= = understanding of what these differences make in the final product. Isn't this how someone came up with black and chocolate malts? - -- = Fred L. Johnson Apex, North Carolina Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 10/06/97, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96