HOMEBREW Digest #2524 Tue 07 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

  Pumpkin beer ("Grant W. Knechtel")
  Science and Art ("Michel J. Brown")
  Re: Science and Brewing (Charles Hudak)
  Pressure cooking wort problems (kathy)
  re: Bottle Conditioning with honey ("Michael E. Dingas")
  Re: Refrigerators for temperature control (LaBorde, Ronald)
  Refrigerator or freezer? (Forrest Duddles)
  New Subcriber (Landman106)
  The Jethro GABF Report ("Rob Moline")
  Flavor extracts (DGofus)
  Pitted Carboys ("Mark S. Johnston")
  _publication_only_ RIMS Heater Chamber,Help ! (Jeff Grey)
  re: Cyser question (Dick Dunn)
  Looking for Info (Burt Knight)
  SRM vs. Lovibond (MED)" <Frederick.Wills at amermsx.med.ge.com>
  Sanitizing oak chips (Randy Ricchi)
  Dry hopping with EKG (Randy Ricchi)
  co2 chillers ??? (bers)
  Even more all grain ramblings (Matthew Arnold)
  Back From GABF (Mark Tumarkin)
  Talking Shop ("Frank Klaassen")
  Grain Explosion ("robert kiniston")
  Water analysis ("Braam Greyling")
  precision hydrometer calibration (Dave Whitman)
  Effects of Boiling First Runnings (John Varady)
  Prolonged fermentation ("Yusko, Jon")
  Restarted fermentation ("F.W. Sweigart")
  Batch sparge (nlerner)
  Stamp Glue, Malt modification ("David R. Burley")

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, 03 Oct 1997 21:46:01 -0700 From: "Grant W. Knechtel" <GWK at hartcrowser.com> Subject: Pumpkin beer Just a quick data point re the pumpkin thread: made a pumpkin beer last year which also had almost no pumpkin flavor - if you knew it was there, you'd swear you *could* taste it, but that's just the power of suggestion. This was with pumpkin in the mash ala Papazian's "Cucurbito Pepo", a seriously stuck mash, too. I've resolved never to try it again (just wait till I have to throw out the Jack O'Lanterns, my cheap side will kick in...) -Grant Neue Des Moines Hausbrauerei Des Moines, Washington Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 04 Oct 1997 01:44:54 -0800 From: "Michel J. Brown" <homemade at spiritone.com> Subject: Science and Art As a physician, I can relate to the posts about science vs. art. I feel that we practice the art (brewing) by having knowledge of science (zymurgy) to assist us in the pursuit of making better beer. I have made 100's beers (art) in the past 25 years, changing only one ingredient at a time (science) in the course of perfecting a recipe (more art). My experiments produced many unexpected discoveries (serendipity) which led me to greater understanding (science) and appreciation (art) of good beer. How else can we get what we want from life without ever challenging ourselves to greater levels of accomplishment? Like the Belgians, I look towards innovation based upon tradition (aka pragma not dogma). Btw, I solved the riddle of the California Common bitterness levels -- I attended a seminar on "sensorineural pathways of the crainial nerves", and was delighted to find out that the speaker (a neurologist) was also a home brewer! He told me that he discovered bitterness levels are more pronounced when carbonation levels exceed 2.25 atmoshperes (at 45'F), and are retarded below this figure. This makes sense from a S-N pov, but lacking experimental evidence of CO2 acidification at various pressures and temperatures, I'm unable to elucidate further. TTYAL, ILBCNU! Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 04 Oct 1997 05:44:55 -0700 From: Charles Hudak <cwhudak at gemini.adnc.com> Subject: Re: Science and Brewing Just thought that I'd throw in my $0.02. As my boss says, "It ain't rocket science." Although I do enjoy the discussions on technical topics (something sorely lacking in Zymurgy but finding an audience in Brewing Techniques) I have to agree that some of you homebrewers take things far too seriously. My employer won't buy me a microscope, a hematocytometer, a pH meter or many of the other things which I would love to have to make my brewing more "scientific". I still make great beer and have many people tell me so. I don't worry about HSA, 122F rests or blah, blah, blah, but I still am able to make great beer. I see a lot of homebrewers spending too much time worrying about if their thermometer is accurate to 0.01F when it really isn't that critical to how good their beer turns out. Hey, my mash loses 2F during it's rest. I'm not going to run any tests to find out if the wort is any different if I mash at 154 or 154.5F. Realistically, I can't control my mash to that degree of specificity. I don't have any noticeable effects from a slight change in temperature either way, though I do know that there is an obvious effect between mashing at 149 and 156. Bottom line... many homebrewers (RIMS folks?) have much more control and pay much more attention to very subtle differences in their mash and sparge routines than most "seat of the pants" microbrewers can afford to concern themselves with or, honestly, have the ability to control. Hey, I'd love to have a brand new refractometer, but my boss still won't let me use any imported malts ("American maltsters are the best in the world, you know."), different yeast strains or unusual ingredients (maple syrup, coffee, spices, to name a few). I work within the limits imposed upon me and am jealous as hell of some of these "pro-brewers" who get to use the best equipment that can be bought, but what option do I have? (Ok, I could quit and pursue a career as a computer geek--honestly, there's more money in it) I make great, consistent products without concerning myself with all of the different temperature rests, blah blah blah and blah blah blah. Honestly, the only time that I can apply most of the scientific aspects of brewing is during my homebrewing sessions where I have complete control over all of the ingredients, procedures and equipment-- and you all thought that you wanted to be professional brewers! My point is that unless you are doing research, alot of the technical details are just something to confuse you and make your brewing less enjoyable. Heck, do you think that the brewers in Burton on Trent worry about their water? Hell NO! They worry about making beer. It so happens that the type(s) of beer that they make are suited by the type of water that they have. I can't make drastic changes to my water so I brew beers that are suitable for the type of water that I have. RO systems are expensive, especially when you're talking about treating hundreds of gallons for each brew. I make subtle changes, where possible, but I don't expect, nor do I try, as a professional brewer, to make pilsner water (soffffftt) out of my fairly hard city splash. Am I done yet? Charles Hudak Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 04 Oct 1997 08:12:45 -0500 From: kathy <kbooth at scnc.waverly.k12.mi.us> Subject: Pressure cooking wort problems Tried to make a Pilsner Urquel clone with a single decoction and pressure cooking the first 15 qts or so of first wort spargings. The temp and pressure data for the pressure cooking is non-existant but it was about 30' or so under pressure. Got a huge hot break that I strained off as the flakes were troublesome to the eye. The problem is the OG was 1.044 and the FG 1.021 with much more residual sweetness to taste then I want in a Bohemian. The saccrification mash rest was at 155F. I expected 1.016 or so but not 1.021. At the same session, I brewed two 5 g batches of American Lager (with corn adjunct) at the same time with similar oxygenation, yeast, fermentation temps and etc., and both fermented to FG of 1.011. I used a huge additions of reconstituted dry yeast (generously provided by one of HBD's commercial brewers) so yeast population numbers weren't a problem to my thinking. My questions are, (1) did pressure cooking the 15 qts of first runnings take off too much FAN or other material to have a good fermentation? (2) Have others who pressure cooked their first runnings experienced higher than expected FG? (3) Should the pressure cooking of first runnings be limited in volume or time? TIA and thanks to Jethro for the interesting report from the GABF! jim booth, lansing, mi Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 13:40:05 -0400 From: "Michael E. Dingas" <dingasm at worldnet.att.net> Subject: re: Bottle Conditioning with honey My Brewmaster salesman told me to use about 2/3 cup of honey for a 5 gal = batch. I've also been told by others that they no longer use cornstarch = but substitute the honey, instead. How will that affect different = recipes? Don't know. Perhaps some else can answer that. Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 14:42:49 -0500 From: rlabor at lsumc.edu (LaBorde, Ronald) Subject: Re: Refrigerators for temperature control >From: Donovan <dlambright at socketis.net> >I'm thinking very seriously of buying a small fridge to hold a carboy during >fermentation. I know you can buy a thermostat with a probe to make the >fridge maintain a temperature beyond it's normal range (55-70 degrees). >Does it matter whether I get a fridge or freezer? Well Donovan, with the refrigerator, it would sometimes be difficult to get the temperature down low enough to lager. Some will just not go low enough. With a freezer, on the other hand, you can certainly get the temperature low enough, the problem now becomes how to get the temperature high enough. The manufacturers of freezers assume that you will be using it as a freezer - fair enough, so they didn't design the thermostat to operate at much above freezing. So if you want the best control, then a freezer with an external temperature controller will allow you to obtain just about any temperature you desire. Since the installed thermostat will always be calling for freezing temperatures, it will not cycle off and you will not need to change it or jump it out. Just plug the whole freezer into the external thermostat. If you have the room, be sure to get a large freezer, if one keg is good more are better! Happy Brewing Ron Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 04 Oct 1997 20:43:51 -0400 From: Forrest Duddles <duddles at Imbecile.kzoo.edu> Subject: Refrigerator or freezer? Hello all, Donovan Lambright raises a very good question... Which to use for maintaining fermentation temperatures of 55-70 degF, a refrigerator or a freezer? The short answer is neither, but that doesn't help very much so here is a little longer answer. Refrigeration systems are usually designed to operate within a narrow temperature range. There are three common system types which cover most applications - High temperature which normally uses a 35 degF evaporator and is most commonly used for air conditioning, Medium temperature which normally uses a 0 to 15 degF evaporator and is used for domestic refrigerators and commercial coolers, and low temperature which commonly uses a -20 degF or colder evaporator and is used for freezers. Each of these system types are designed to achieve the desired temperature and provide the proper operating environment for the system components. Here is where things get sticky. Refrigeration systems are just a means to pump heat from one space to another. The goal is to remove enough heat from the space (in this case, the cabinet) to lower the temperature the desired amount and reject that heat to the ambient air. Each component of the system is chosen for its ability to operate properly in the desired temperature range. If the system is operated outside of that range, the components may be damaged. For example, the compressor is cooled by saturated refrigerant vapor returning from the evaporator. If the evaporator operates at too high a temperature for an extended period, the vapor will not be able to provide proper compressor cooling and the compressor will overheat, thus shortening its life. Another example relates to system pressures. When running under normal conditions a typical refrigerator's compressor may have a discharge pressure of 125 psig and a suction pressure of 9 psig. When the compressor stops, sufficient time must be allowed for system pressures to equalize before the compressor is restarted. If the controller cut-out/cut-in differential is too small, the compressor may stall when the controller tries to start it. The stalled compressor will cycle its thermal overload until either the system pressures equalize or the motor fails. Modify the refrigerator to run at a different temperature and you become the engineer. It is up to you to determine what will work and you must accept the risk of damage. A high temperature refrigeration system is able to achieve the 55 - 70 degF fermentation temperatures desired and would be the appropriate choice for this application. The most common form of small high-temp system is a window air conditioner. Unfortunately, even the smallest is too big unless you want to build a cold room. Both medium and low temp systems will be too cold when run within reasonable compressor cooling conditions. A chest freezer might run up to 50 degF or so under favorable conditions. A refrigerator might run up to 60 degF or so. A possible alternative is a small dorm refrigerator used with an insulated box for the carboy and an air duct to and from the fridge. Temperature control could be via a thermostatically controlled fan. See Ken Schwartz's fermentation chiller design for details. Many refrigerators were/are overbuilt and will take a lot of abuse. Many won't. I use a chest freezer for my kegs and run it at 42 degF but I have my temperature controller set for a 5 degree differential and keep the freezer in a cool basement. I'll probably get away with it for quite a while. I might not if it were an upright in a hot garage. It could be interesting to hear from others out there. Do you use a modified freezer or refrigerator for brewing? What temperature do you have it set for? What are the ambient conditions? How old is it? How long have you used it at this temperature? What problems if any have you had? Please reply to fridge at Imbecile.kzoo.edu. I'll collect the data and post the results. Hope this helps! Forrest Duddles - FridgeGuy in Kalamazoo Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 20:59:06 -0400 (EDT) From: Landman106 at aol.com Subject: New Subcriber Hello all, I am new to this hobby and need a little help. I am attempting to make my first yeast starter and things are not going well. I started with 3 ounces of light DME in one quart of water (boiled and cooled). I added a packet of dry Coopers yeast and sealed with an air lock. It has been 48 hours without any action and I am getting tired of waiting. The lady at the beer store says sometimes it takes three days. Thoughts? Vern Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 05 Oct 97 01:34:42 PDT From: "Rob Moline" <brewer at ames.net> Subject: The Jethro GABF Report The Jethro GABF Report I am very disappointed in myself, but have to say that I have simply been having too much fun to give you another update on the GABF....except to state that it has been the best one yet for me, and that says a lot considering I never thought it could be better than last year......... I do have a lot to say about the affair, have learned things that are not obvious, which I will report to you, but have a long drive to deal with tomorrow, and the next day... Look for the final report in the next few days, after I get home...... 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: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 06:50:55 -0400 (EDT) From: DGofus at aol.com Subject: Flavor extracts I have a few stout recipes that call for 1. Fresh mint leaves. 2. 4-6 vanilla beans cut lengthwise. I am having a heck of a time finding the vanilla beans. Would it be possible to just use vanilla extract? How much , when to add, etc. The same goes for the Fresh mint. These are to be added to the secondary fermenter. Could I use a mint extract? Also, if I got a hold of vanilla beans( mail order? ) would the oils present kill any head retention? Private e-mail okay. Thanks! Bob Fesmire Madman Brewery Pottstown, PA Dgofus at aol.com Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 08:56:54 -0400 From: "Mark S. Johnston" <msjohnst at talon.net> Subject: Pitted Carboys Greetings, Collective! I have a bit of a mystery on my hands. I had a few carboys that were pretty caked up with yeast scale and dried wort/beer/hop leaves. I've found that ammonia works very well at loosening up this kind of gunk. So I filled the carboys with ammonia and water solution and let them soak. Unfortunately, I let them soak for several weeks. When I went to empty them, they were coated on the inside with what appears to be a particulate sediment. I've tried rinsing, chlorine solution, One-Step, more rinsing, and brushing with each of the above solutions. Some of it appears to have come off, but most of it won't budge. I had this problem once with a chlorine solution, and I have since avoided long clorox soaks for this reason. To the best of my knowledge, the chlorine sediment washed out fairly easily. Does anyone know if this is sediment or is the glass pitted? I did not think that ammonia would pit the glass, since glass carboys and jugs are used for concentrated ammonia storage. Has anyone else experienced this? Has anyone a solution? Private/public responses acceptable. Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 05 Oct 1997 13:40:21 -0700 From: Jeff Grey <grey at ameritech.net> Subject: _publication_only_ RIMS Heater Chamber,Help ! Dear Brewers, I am trying to build a RIMS heater chamber and every plan that I have doesn't work. The problem I have it that the Chromalox element that I purchased will not fit onto my NPT copper fittings. I was told by a local plumbing supply house that the threads are for the most NPT,but off at a angle. Does anybody have a plans for a RIMS heater chamber with specific brands of elements that have worked. Any help will be appreciated. Jeff Grey grey at ameritech.net Return to table of contents
Date: 5 Oct 97 14:17:30 MDT (Sun) From: rcd at raven.talisman.com (Dick Dunn) Subject: re: Cyser question jwilkins at imtn.tpd.dsccc.com (John Wilkinson) wrote: > I realize this belongs more properly in the Mead Lovers Digest but I > keep being rejected there. I handle the Mead-Lovers Digest (and the Cider Digest). If there's a problem, I'll be happy to do what I can to fix it, but "rejected" doesn't tell me (or anybody else who might try to help) enough to do anything for you. > I made a cyser with about 12 pounds of honey and a gallon of apple juice. > Activity seems to have stopped and I racked it the second time this weekend. > The SG is 1.010. Should it go lower or is it probably finished? Most likely it has more to go. Both meads and ciders will tend to ferment out dry if given the chance-- that is, if the yeast can handle the alcohol. I'd expect that what you've got would finish down around 0.995 if it ferments completely. Realize that mead tends to take longer than beer. Also, keep in mind that fermentation generally slows down for a bit after racking a mead. This leaves a couple of questions, then: What yeast did you use? (This will let us figure out whether it's going to ferment dry.) How long has it been since pitching the yeast? (This will let us figure out how far along the fermentation is likely to be.) - --- Dick Dunn rcd, domain talisman.com Boulder County, Colorado USA Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 05 Oct 1997 18:44:12 From: Burt Knight <bknight at netheaven.com> Subject: Looking for Info Looking for info on MicroBreweries and Brewpubs in New England and New York for an interactive www site about them. Burt Knight http://www.explorene.com http://www.exploreny.com http://www.cyberniche.com Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 21:04:47 -0500 From: "Wills, Frederick J (MED)" <Frederick.Wills at amermsx.med.ge.com> Subject: SRM vs. Lovibond <<From: "Michel J. Brown" <homemade at spiritone.com> Subject: Lovibond vs. SRM Thanks to Fred I have resolved my dilemma! Apparently Fred was correct about spurious light striking my quartz test tube...when I pushed the tube inside the cell hole in the spectrophotometer, light was leaking around *sides* of the test tube via internal reflection (relatively high index of refraction for quartz.>> Glad to hear that I (indirectly at best<g>) was able to aid you in solving your dilemna. But, realizing that your "old reliable" is now operating up to "specs", just what are the specs for that spectrophotometer? I believe (based mostly on hearsay) that most of the instruments used in the brewing industry have a "stray light" spec of ~1% and a theoretical maximum range of 2.0 Au (ie 20 SRM). But what is the expected absolute accuracy of readings taken at the instrument's maximum? Since this is a constant error value, as the sample attenuates light more, the relative amount of error increases. There are more expensive instruments with correspondingly lower stray light specs, higher accuracy and higher maximum Au ranges, but for the average brewer (looking primarily for quality control), absolute accuracy is not as important as reproducibility. This may be approaching "analysis to paralysis", but my main theories are: 1) Dilution of beer is the same as dilution of anything else. The resulting color will be reduced in a predictably logarithmic fashion. This could be demonstrated with a suitably accurate instrument. This also means that adding pigments to beer (or any other liquid) would be equally predictable. 2) The color of beer as measured using the lovibond scale (as it pertains to beer color at least if not grains) appears to not demonstrate the same dilution linearity (per Breiss, Fix, et al). This must mean that the scale is inherently non-linear and as such, prediction cannot be done mathematically. You would need a look-up table of some sort to correct for the error between the calculated SRM and the commonly used lovibond scale. The real problem IMO is that conventional homebrew wisdom says that lovibond is "close enough" to SRM. While this is probably true at the lower end of the scales, when the beer sample is darker than about 1.0 Au (ie 10 Lov. or SRM units) the scales would appear to diverge. The interesting thing is that the divergence appears to occur at nearly the same rate that the error of commonly used spectrophotometers increases. Coincidence? Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 05 Oct 1997 22:24:01 -0400 From: Randy Ricchi <rricchi at ccisd.k12.mi.us> Subject: Sanitizing oak chips I've searched the HBD archives for ways of sanitizing oak chips and found the following: pressure cooking at 15 psi for 10 minutes; boiling for 20 minutes, but use the water also or you won't get much of the oakiness; and steaming in a vegetable steamer. What I'm wondering is how effective is wrapping the chips (1 oz. plain oak chips for homebrewing, I assume American oak) in aluminum foil and baking for an hour or so at 350 degrees F. while the Mrs. cooks something for dinner? And if that is considered effective, how long should I leave this 1 oz. in the secondary of an American IPA? I want to notice the oak, but I don't want to make a grimace ale out of this beer. TIA. Randy Ricchi "Should anyone thirst, let them come unto me and drink" Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 05 Oct 1997 22:32:29 -0400 From: Randy Ricchi <rricchi at ccisd.k12.mi.us> Subject: Dry hopping with EKG In Saturday's HBD Guy Gregory noted that local contest judges thought his IPA could use more hops and suggested he try dry hopping. Guy did dry-hop with two ounces of EKG, but thought the beer did not have the kind of hop nose he was looking for. It is possible that the judges are used to evaluating American IPA's, and are not familiar with EKG. The typical hops used in American IPA's are Cascade, Centennial, Columbus, and Chinook. These hops all have a very aggressive character in aroma, flavor and bitterness. EKG is no where near as aggressive. If you made two batches of pale ale which were identical in all respects except hop type, keeping IBU's the same, and ounces used for dry hopping the same, and one batch had EKG and one batch had one of the 4 "Big C's" listed above, I guarantee you would think the American-hopped beer was hoppier. However,if Guy's batch was a five or six gallon batch with 2 oz. of EKG dry hopped for two weeks it should have plenty of aromatics and flavor. If not, perhaps the hops were not in very good condition. Another possibility is that he used a plastic container for secondary. I believe a plastic vessel robs some of the dry hopping character from a beer. I always use glass carboys, but a friend of mine uses plastic throughout primary and secondary, and he never gets the intensity of aroma from his dry hops as I do, even when we use the same hops and the same amounts. By the way, it was a nice surprise to find an HBD waiting for me to read on a Saturday! Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 97 22:43:50 PDT From: bers at epix.net Subject: co2 chillers ??? Greetings HBD gadget men I worked on a valve crew at a nuke plant for awhile and some times there was a valve to remove and no way to stop the flow. There was a company that would come install a freeze plug in the pipe some times up to a 24 " pipe. They would just wrap a jacket around the pipe and fill it co2 and the line would freeze solid. I'm sure there is more to it than that I never checked up on it. Could this method be applied in a smaller scale to cool hot wort. I would think this would the cool wort as fast as a 3/8" line would allow flow you would have to worry about frozen wort the first few times. The cost of the co2 may make this a bad idea anyway. Just an idea for those gadgetly inclined. Can anyone tell the address for the HBD thread archives. E-mail is fine. I'll post the result of the co2 chiller. Thanks Tony - ------------------------------------- Name: Tony Maurer E-mail: bers at epix.net Date: 10/5/97 Time: 10:43:50 PM Brewing in Benton - ------------------------------------- Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 03:36:38 GMT From: mra at skyfry.com (Matthew Arnold) Subject: Even more all grain ramblings First of all thanks to all for their explanations of the differences between fly and batch sparging. I know understand. I thought of another question. I'm going to be getting a seven gallon Gott cooler as a mash/lauter tun. I would like people's opinions on which would be better: a Phil's phalse bottom or an EZ-Masher setup and why? Thanks again, Matt, soon to be all-grain newbie Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 05 Oct 1997 23:48:55 -0400 From: Mark Tumarkin <tumarkin at mindspring.com> Subject: Back From GABF Hi All, The short version: The GABF was Great!! Had a hell of a good time!! The slightly longer version: The GABF was Great! Had a hell of a good time! We had 5 members from MASH (Miami Society of Homebrewers)make the trip out, but with accompanying wives, brothers, uncle & aunt, one set of parents - there were over a dozen of us wearing our club t-shirts. We were having so much fun I think people thought there were many more of us there. One member of the Santa Brewbarians looked at a group of four of us and asked how many of us there were, Mark Kelly said "just 2, you're so drunk your seeing double." The beer tasting experience was a real treat. I have never had the opportunity to try so many great beers. It put the saying So Many Beers, So Little Time into a whole new perspective. It also put the saying Life Is Too Short To Drink Bad Beer into a new perspective as well. You are given a one ounce pour of each beer. With some beers that was hardly enough, with others it was more than enough. The first session was the AHA Members Only session on Thursday. This year they announced the winners early on Thursday. This gave us the chance to try the medal winners of our favorite styles while our taste buds were still working. I must admit I got hammered (one ounce at a time still catches up to you by the end of the night). During the following sessions I tried to sip less of each beer so I was more able to make comparisons among the award winners (and also many of the great beers that did not win awards). It was fantastic to have the opportunity to try so many great brews that are not available to me regularly. It was great to meet some of the members of our HBD collective. We had fun at the GABF and also after the show at the Falling Rock. Thanks a lot to Chris Black (the King and owner of the pub) who was an extremely gracious host. And also to Brian Rezac for organizing it. I first met Brian outside the hall before the first session. He came up to the group of us when he saw our MASH tshirts. It was sort of like looking in the mirror - except that he's got more grey hair and I'm better looking. Brian is a great guy, he has a non-stop sense of humor and made us all feel really welcome. But when he started singing in the Falling Rock - everyone there started yelling "Stop Rezac". After meeting both him and Jim Parker, I think I can tell you all that both of them are good people (homebrewers both) to have at the AHA. If you're not happy with the AHA or some of it's directions, at least you have some people there that will listen to your views and discuss them openly. I thoroughly enjoyed talking with Rob Moline (he wanted to be sure that I told you that he really does'nt have horns or a tail - despite the perceptions held by some people). In his persona of Jethro Gump, he discovered a cousin named J.Gump at the festival. It was nice to meet Ken Schwartz as well. I've always enjoyed reading his posts, and after meeting him I look forward to reading them even more. He's involved with the High Desert Brew Pub - while they didn't win any medals they had some really tasty beers. My wife and I are in the process of moving to Gainesville. The GABF was a welcome interlude in the midst of the insanity of packing. Next Saturday is moving day. What fun! Next time I post, I may have changed the homebrewery name, but for the moment, I remain Mark Tumarkin The Brewery in the Jungle Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 04:35:55 -0400 From: "Frank Klaassen" <klaassen at chass.utoronto.ca> Subject: Talking Shop There has been a lot of about the list serving not only the "obsessed" but helping out the extract brewer about the make the jump to all grain. I think the list is great and it is certainly encouraging me as I do just that. For the record, I read every word. One request though, where possible please don't use those great bloody abbreviations unless the meaning is obvious, can be easitly inferred by the less experienced brewer, or is put in brackets beside the first occurance. As a medievalist I would not expect you to know what this means: "I checked the MSS list against the eds. in CC and MGH. The BL (s. xv in.), and BN (s. xiv ex., which does not incl. ff 22r-35v of the BL ver.!) versions DO appear there but Vat.Lat.(x. xv), Pal. Lat.(s. xvii), and CLM (s. xiii med.) versions do not (also not listed in T&K)." Cheers. Frank Klaassen klaassen at chass.utoronto.ca Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 03:48:06 PDT From: "robert kiniston" <picketwire at hotmail.com> Subject: Grain Explosion Dave, I saw your message in the HBD the other day and I think that you are concerned about something that is probably like the snowball in you know where. Grain doesn't"t explode, grain dust or flour does and that only in the right conditions. first it must be very fine and in the air meaning that it has to fill the total volume of the oven. Kind of like the vapor from gasoline in a closed garage. Next you need to have a high temperature of about 250 + this you could get in a oven . Then you need a spark for ignition. The person was talking about a lb of crushed malt which was probably crushed in a malt mill or at the most a Crona (sp) which would amount to less than a ounce a half with a poor grind. Again unless it is in a vapor like form,(cloud Of Dust)I doubt if you would get a explosion. Both my wife and mother bake and use considerable more that what would be in a lb of malt on top of a pan of biscuits and do not have a problem. Yes there grain explosion in grain storage and mills but they are a result of a lot of dust/flour in the air. Even these are a rare event in this day and age, considering the amount of grain and processed flour, shipped in this country. Purgatory River Brewery (Picketwire) ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 14:07:20 +200 From: "Braam Greyling" <braam.greyling at azona.com> Subject: Water analysis To the water analysis gurus.... I have received a fax with the water analysis from our City counsel. I went through it to set up all the ions in the Brewer`s workshop program. This software ask for CO3 but I cant find it on the fax. Is it under a different name ? Can I work it out somehow ? The local city counsel is clueless and cant help me. Thanks in advance. I hope someone can help me. Braam Greyling I.C. Design Engineer Azona(Pty)Ltd tel +27 12 6641910 fax +27 12 6641393 You can taste a good beer with one sip, but it is better to make thoroughly sure. Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 08:21:25 -0500 From: Dave Whitman <dwhitman at rohmhaas.com> Subject: precision hydrometer calibration At the risk of increasing the science geek coefficient for today's HBD, I'd like to solicit opinions on qualifying and calibrating hydrometers. I just replaced my standard home brewing hydrometer with a relatively high precision one from Cole Parmer. The new hydrometer is longer and covers a shorter range (1.000-1.070), allowing very fine 0.0005 SG graduations. (c.f. 0.002 graduations on my old one). The hydrometer cost $23. Ordering information available upon request; I have no connection with Cole Parmer. I had to rig up a longer hydrometer flask than the ones normally available at home brew shops using a length of rigid plastic tube, although Cole Parmer had a suitable cylinder for about $10. The unit didn't come with a temperature correction table or information about how it was calibrated. Over the weekend, I checked the new hydrometer against r/o water and some carefully prepared sucrose solutions at various temperatures. 1.040 and 1.061 SG sucrose solutions were dead on at 60F, but the r/o water sample read about 1.0025. I was a little dismayed at how far off this zero point was for a precision instrument, although having accurate readings at more typical beer SG values is more important to me. Discarding the r/o data and pooling the different temperature measurements on the two solutions, I was able to get a very smooth looking temperature correction graph. I got high quality linear and quadratic fits that give predictions equal within 0.0005 SG units over the range 55-125F, with the linear equation tending to give slightly lower values. Is there any theoretical reason to prefer the quadratic or linear equations for fitting the temperature correction? The r/o temperature data has a similar slope, but is offset by about 2.5 SG units from the solution data; quality of fit goes way down if I include it. Has anyone else done careful work checking their hydrometer? Any comments on whether my zero point value is unusually far off (should I exchange the unit???). Alternatively, how I could take the deviation at low SG into account? - --- Dave Whitman dwhitman at rohmhaas.com "Opinions expressed are those of the author, and not Rohm and Haas Company" Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 08:27:30 -0400 From: John Varady <rust1d at usa.net> Subject: Effects of Boiling First Runnings I like to batch sparge and collect the first runnings into the kettle. I begin to apply heat as the bottom of the kettle is covered and add my first hops. After the mash tun is completely empty, I refill with sparge water (from beneath the false bottom), stir, and recirculate for 30 mins. During this time my first runnings come to a boil. I boil them very vigorously since there is little fear of boil over with the kettle half full. I then drain the tun to the kettle again slow enough to not stop the boil over the course of about 20 mins and add bittering hops. What effect will boiling the first runnings contribute? Anything along the pressure cooker advantages? - --- In regards to the HBD readers being more technical, sure, i'd say we are more technical in general. One thing we all have in common is that we are all somewhat computer literate. I remember a survey done on r.c.b. last year that revealed that 25% of brewers were programmers, till someone pointed out that maybe it was more like 25% of the brewers that used the internet and read r.c.b. were programmers. When I started to read the HBD I skipped many articles on all grain and mashing techniques. But I remembered seeing them and when I had advanced to the point where I was ready for these I used the search engine at http://hubris.engin.umich.edu:8080/cgi-bin/dothread to look up my questions and was very pleased with what was returned. Years of brewing knowledge poured forth because it was there. If nobody had every posted it I would have gotten no answers. John Varady * New email address ***> rust1d at usa.net Glenside, PA Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 09:18:14 -0400 From: "Yusko, Jon" <jony at rsa.cirrus.com> Subject: Prolonged fermentation I am sure that this has been addressed before, but I didn't pay much attention since it has never happened to me before. I brewed a brown ale, OG about 1.057 and all processes went as normal. We cooled the wort, and pitched our yeast slurry and it began fermenting within 24 hours. The only problem is that the fermentation has gone on longer than a week.. and still bubbling in the lock at a rate of one bubble every 30s, with no signs of slowing down. Is this signalling some type of infection and will this make the beer sour, or causing gushing on bottling? Any thoughts? TIA. -Jon. - ------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Yusko - Software Design Engineer Cirrus Logic, Inc. 110 Horizon Drive Raleigh, NC 27615 (919) 846-3574 x1313 jony at rsa.cirrus.com Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 09:26:10 -0400 From: "F.W. Sweigart" <sweigart at intercall.com> Subject: Restarted fermentation Brewsters; I'm brewing the first batch of winter warmer. The OG was 1.076, and it fermented in glass for 6 days down to 1.030. When the strangest thing happened. Slowly the lock started to bubble again. Is this the sign of contamination?. Hoping for the best Frank Sweigart sweigart at intercall.com Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 09:32:49 -0400 From: nlerner at mcp.edu (nlerner) Subject: Batch sparge I wanted to report on yesterday's brew session and my use of the "batch sparge method." The brew is another in my endless attempts to clone Anchor's Liberty Ale--8 lbs pale malt, 1 lb. Munich, .5 lb carapils, .5 lb 40L crystal. In a single-infusion mash in my orange Gott w/ a slotted copper manifold, I combined 10 qts 167F water w/ the 10 lbs of grain for a conversion rest at 152F. After 2 hours (and a trip to take my wife to the airport), I added 6 qts. boiling water to bring the mash up to 168F for 15 min. I still had some space left in the cooler, so I added one more quart of 170F water before recirculating to set the grain bed. At that point, I drained the bed. I'm afraid I can't tell you the flow rate, but it was about twice as fast as my usual sparge, but slow enough for me to time filling my 2 qt. Pyrex while rushing around the kitchen doing other things. Once I had drained 3 gallons (absorption by the grain was about .5 qt/lb) and started that amount to boil, I added 9 more quarts of 170F water, stirred well, recirculated and drained again at the same rate. Final volume was my target of 5.25 gallons (I shoot for an after-boil volume of 4 gallons due to the size of my brewpot). Original gravity was 1.061, giving me about 24.4 pts/gallon. Normally, with my slow (at least one hour) sparge, I get around 30 pts, so I lost about 20% efficiency. That comes out to 2 lbs of grain or about $2.50 in additional costs; not a big deal. And my one-hour sparge was cut in half. So a 50% sparge time savings for a 20% larger grain bill seems like a pretty good deal to me, especially when time seems to be the limiting factor for my brewing these days. Neal Lerner Boston, MA Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 09:28:54 -0400 From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com> Subject: Stamp Glue, Malt modification Brewsters: Aaron has his own view of what we should be interested in and writes: >Ok, OK. Enough is enough. I stated one little opinion and now I am >getting crucified. Don't confuse being disgreed with in a gentlemanly manner ( as displayed here) and being crucified. >Does a stamp collecter talk about the scientific >process and chemical composition of the glue on the back? As a matter of fact, this is an important way of verifying the authenticity of a stamp. > It's a hobby for Christ's sake. = Thank goodness - I'd hate to have to *work* this hard! >Have fun. Drink people's beer, >share yours. I do. I make far more than I drink, because sharing and talking about beer is a very interesting aspect of the hobby, but this is a home*brewers* digest not a home *drinkers* digest. > But my God, let's come back down to earth. You guys that >are interested in that stamp glue really aren't liking it at all. = Unless you can wear another man's shoes how do you know?? If all that was here on the HBD was recipes and talking about stuck mashes - or even how to open = a can of extract, most of us wouldn't be here. It is the variety and range of interest and the individuals that makes this so much fun. As you grow in the hobby these many facets may become of more interest - maybe not. That is not important as long as everyone gets the opportunity to speak respectfully about and share his interest with others of a similar interest. The important thing to remember is that we share = a basic common interest and to not be *personally* critical of someone else's interest. Restricting the input to a few people's interest and educational background -this a would heading for the PC but devastating idea of "don't leave anyone behind - so don't get into the 'hard subjects' " approach rather than "let all who wish to have the opportunity to learn and catch up" philosophy . This former approach is a problem in our educational system, = but I don't see why we have to practice it here. - ---------------------------------- AlK's much appreciated response to help clarify how we know that malts, including all Pilsner and Lager are well modified doesn't really clarify the issue. His number one reason was that George Fix says so. As much as I am aware of George Fix's reputation, I do believe he needs to back up his oft spoken and quoted opinion that all Pilsner and Lager malts are well- modified. I don't disagree with him, just need to know how he knows. According to a private correspondence from outside the US, Weyerman comments that their PIlsner malt is well-modified and can be used in producing British Ales. But does this mean all maltsters in Europe and North America have followed suit? Whether or not this means a single temperature infusion with Weyerman's is OK or not, I don't know. = I have tried for a number of years to understand how anyone = can tell from maltsters' specification sheets how well the malts are modified. We know that the ratio of total protein to soluble = protein is not a good measure because the protein reacts with = itself coming to an equilibrium during malting, in contrast to the = hardness factors related of the malted grain. Are there modern analyses not discounted 50 years ago by DeCLerk that would lead George and apparently others to this conclusion? If so, what and where are they? 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
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 10/07/97, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96