HOMEBREW Digest #3022 Wed 05 May 1999

[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

  Regarding Plaster of Paris (Rod Prather)
  AOB Tax Designation Change (Paul Gatza)
  Re: Long draft hoses (BrewInfo)
  1st Allgrain ("C and K")
  oxygen dissolution (BrewInfo)
  Rolling Rock / New Mash tun / Bottles in the Oven (PRS) - CPC" <PRS at NA2.US.ML.COM>
  Smartcap sanitation (BrewInfo)
  Re. A taste of Gypsum (Bob Sheck)
  Ring Around the Porter (Patrick Spicer)
  re: Bottling with honey (Tom Lombardo)
  Growing Hops (Rhizomes sprouting?) (Bill Jankowski)
  Clear hefeweizen ("Fred L. Johnson")
  Re: Mash thickness with recirculation (RobertJ)
  Re: Plaster of Paris, again ("Timmons, Frank")
  Makin Mead ("Alan McKay")
  Phosphate (AJ)
  Re: Sure Screen (ROATTW)" <ROATTW at UCMAIL.UC.EDU>
  N2 and Co2 solubility (RCAYOT)
  Dr. Pivo and other Napitki ("Kris Hansen")
  Re: Frothy Heads/Dark Wheat (Jeff Renner)
  Bottliong kegged beer / dark wheats / Foamy beer ("George De Piro")
  o2 caps ("Menegoni, Lee")

Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy! 2000 MCAB Qualifiers: Spirit of Free Beer! Competition 5/22/99 (http://burp.org/SoFB99); Oregon Homebrew Festival 5/22/99 (http://www.mtsw.com/hotv/fest.html); Buzz-Off! Competition 6/26/99 (http://www.voicenet.com/~rpmattie/buzzoff) Send articles for __publication_only__ to post@hbd.org 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 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! Contact brewery at hbd.org for information regarding the "Cat's Meow" Back issues are available via: HTML from... http://hbd.org Anonymous ftp from... ftp://hbd.org/pub/hbd/digests ftp://ftp.stanford.edu/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer AFS users can find it under... /afs/ir.stanford.edu/ftp/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer COPYRIGHT for the Digest as a collection is currently held by hbd.org (Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen). Digests in their entirity CANNOT be reprinted/reproduced without this entire header section unless EXPRESS written permission has been obtained from hbd.org. Digests CANNOT be reprinted or reproduced in any format for redistribution unless said redistribution is at absolutely NO COST to the consumer. COPYRIGHT for individual posts within each Digest is held by the author. Articles cannot be extracted from the Digest and reprinted/reproduced without the EXPRESS written permission of the author. The author and HBD must be attributed as author and source in any such reprint/reproduction. (Note: QUOTING of items originally appearing in the Digest in a subsequent Digest is exempt from the above. Home brew clubs NOT associated with organizations having a commercial interest in beer or brewing may republish articles in their newsletters and/or websites provided that the author and HBD are attributed. ASKING first is still a great courtesy...) JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 03 May 1999 12:37:58 -0500 From: Rod Prather <rodpr at iquest.net> Subject: Regarding Plaster of Paris Wait a minute now. I thought Plaster of Paris had an base additive, like lye, to make it set faster. Plaster of Paris sets very fast compared to common plasters. > Joy Hansen asked about using plaster of paris instead of food > grade gypsum from the homebrew store. Plaster of paris is just calcium > sulfate(half hydrate, for the chem. geeks), > - -- So you wanna make beer, Visit me at http://fast.to/beer Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 03 May 1999 12:29:32 -0600 From: Paul Gatza <paulg at aob.org> Subject: AOB Tax Designation Change Hi there folks. Thanks to everyone who participated in the AHA Big Brew, especially the Skotrat, for allowing us his chatroom facility. The AOB, including the AHA, is changing tax designations from 501c3 to 501c6. The IRS has approved this change effective July 1, 1999. Here is the relevant text from my "It's the Beer Talking" column from the upcoming July/August Zymurgy. Please let me know if you have questions or seek clarification. Thanks. Tax Status Change The Association of Brewers, including the American Homebrewers Association, is changing tax status from 501c3 to 501c6. That designation is a not-for-profit trade association. This change has been recommended and approved by the Internal Revenue Service because of trade-related activities in our sister AOB division, the Institute for Brewing Studies. The effective date of the change is July 1, 1999. Although the official IRS designation infers that we would be operating as a trade association, the operations of the AHA will not change and our mission remains educational. Although the IRS felt that the activities of the AHA fall within the IRS definitions of a non-profit charitable 501c3 or a 501c6 not-for-profit trade association. The new designation will allow us to create chapters with homebrew clubs that would like to affiliate with the AHA. The new IRS designation would allow us to investigate the possibility of offering insurance for homebrew events for chapter clubs. Most homebrewers I have encountered tend to go against the flow of the tendency of society toward homogenization. Most homebrewers do not appreciate being told what to do or being limited on what to drink. That is the reason many of us started brewing. With that in mind, we would not require that clubs become chapters, we would offer it as a gateway and opportunity to more benefits. The only negative I see for this status change is that, although we are educational, we will no longer be considered a charitable organization. In the past, individual sponsors were able to deduct the portion of their contribution beyond the membership dues. Our individual sponsors will no longer be able to deduct that amount. Our sponsors can continue to deduct sponsorships as a business expense but not as a charitable contribution to the AHA. We have never been a grant-based association, so no longer having the ability to receive grants will have no effect on our functions or finances. Another area of benefits for our association we could look into, that is common among other associations, is travel discounts. Our new status allows us to negotiate group rates with rental car companies, airlines and hotel chains for example. As a large group, we have a lot of buying power. This change will allow us to take advantage of that opportunity. Although we have done limited lobbying in the past, the new status allows us to lobby without restriction. July 1 is not only the day of our new tax status, it is also the effective date for legalized homebrewing in Idaho. As of this writing, the states of Alabama, Iowa, Kentucky, Mississippi, Ohio, Oklahoma and Utah still prohibit homebrewing. We can take a more active role in these states as our budget allows if our involvement is requested by AHA members who volunteer to lead the effort to legalize homebrewing in these states. This change gives us the ability to fight against a potential neo-prohibitionist against the freedom to homebrew legally that most of us enjoy. Under our previous status, we could not make exclusive offers only to members because we had to make the same products and services available to the general public. This change will allow us to conduct members only events or offer special, limited products only to members. One example is that we could require AHA Conference attendees would be members, allowing us to use the conference for greater member input into the direction of the AHA. AHA staff and the AHA Board of Advisors could review whether the NHC should be open to members only. There are a lot of ideas out there, and we will now have more flexibility in our decisionmaking. This change should also help drive membership making the AHA a stronger and more beneficial organization for the brewers and beer enthusiasts who have been taking advantage of our services. The tax status change gives us the freedom to do more for the hobby of homebrewing and homebrewers and will be a conduit to more members and greater benefits for all of us in the AHA. - ---end of column--- Part of this process included an analyses of the effect of spinning off the AHA as a 501c3, as the IRS recognizes the educational and promotional functions and mission of the AHA. Spinning off would put us in financial jeopardy of not being able to pay bills timely in the event the cashflow situation ever not being able to be met. One example would be the events of last summer, when the AHA Conference took a $30,000 loss; we were still able to publish Zymurgy by moving funds from other parts of the AOB. Changing with the rest of the AOB protects us from the potential worst-case financial scenario and guarantees the AHA's ability to promote the hobby and serve homebrewers long into the future. - -- Paul Gatza Director American Homebrewers Association (303) 447-0816 x 122 736 Pearl Street (303) 447-2825 -- FAX PO Box 1679 paulg at aob.org -- E-MAIL Boulder, CO 80306-1679 info at aob.org -- AOB INFO U.S.A. http://www.beertown.org -- WEB Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 3 May 1999 16:01:56 -0500 (CDT) From: BrewInfo <brewinfo at xnet.com> Subject: Re: Long draft hoses John writes: >AlK wrote in HBD#3018 8-10 foot draft beer lines: > >>Another thing you may want to consider is that your >>beer will be unrefrigerated in the lines. This >>can be solved by putting them in a jacket and then >>running extra hoses through the jacket that carry >>refrigerated coolant. Many draught towers even >>have fittings for running coolant. Cooling the >>beer in the lines means less waste because you >>can drink the stuff in the lines. > >I figure that an 8 foot 3/16 inch line would hold about 1 1/2 ounces and even >a 10 foot 1/4 inch line would only hold about 3 ounces so I would think a >cooling jacket wouldn't be necessary. If the refrigerator temp was 50F and >the line temp was 80F the temp of a 12 ounce beer should only be about 57F. >That would only be for the first beer if drawing frequently or the >refrigerator could be kept slightly colder to compensate if not. Of course >the difference would be even less for a pint glass and cooler line temps. Hmmm... could it be that commercial lines are refrigerated for another reason? I suspect that maybe it could be that you don't want to run the cold, carbonated beer through warm lines. As the beer warmed in the lines, it would be able to hold less and less CO2 (colder beer holds more CO2) and you would get foaming in the lines until the lines cooled off. I'm just speculating here, but it could be a source of problems, no? Al. Al Korzonas, Lockport, IL korz at brewinfo.com http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/ P.S. Since everyone is asking privately, yes, Karen did deliver the triplets and everyone is doing fine. Two girls, one boy... in delivery order: Alexa Leana, Erik Alexander and Alana Gabrielle. The answer to the other most common question is: no, I will still write Volume II, but it will be a couple of years... start looking around 2001 or so. In lieu of email congratulations, the family asks that you contact the Miller Brewing Company and notify them that "Lite" is *not* a "true Pilsner beer." Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 3 May 1999 14:19:06 -0700 From: "C and K" <Cuckold at cornerpub.com> Subject: 1st Allgrain Fired up the two-tier (my fall and winter project) for the first time. 7 hours later, ended with 5 gallons of 1.053 hefeweissen, using 5 lb Belgium 2-row malt/5 lb wheat. Everything worked, with just minor difficulties encountered. 1. Temperature guage on tun positioned too high: While it should work great for double batches, I ended up adding 1.2 qts./lb water to just barely cover the temp rod. This was while using a converted Sankey, with copper return mannifold. The other day, I was in the metal recycler, and found a 15"x25" copper sheet, for $3.00. Am thinking of rigging a false bottom out of it, which will raise the mash height and filter somewhat. 2. Return manifolds on tun and boiler worked just fine (once you got them going). I think air bubbles get in the way or something. Usually turning the pump ball valve on and off a couple times, or disconnecting the tun quick connector briefly, did the trick. No problems at all with the wheat. However, I did dough in the barley first, and added the crushed wheat on top. 3. HERM's type setup worked fine, but had a small air leak, will have to tighten one coupling a bit more. 4. Need better technique with my sparging. About halfway through (one hr. sparge), tested S.G. at 1.01. Some stirring raised that to 1.026. I also need a sparge arm, or mannifold. I can see where that would improve the efficiency quite a bit. I posted my two-tier site a few weeks ago. Here it is again for anyone interested. It is built similiar to what other's have built, and shared with the rest of us. http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Salon/3768/Brewery.html Scott Richland, Wa. Seldom correct...but never without doubt Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 3 May 1999 16:31:02 -0500 (CDT) From: BrewInfo <brewinfo at xnet.com> Subject: oxygen dissolution AJ writes: >I'm not quite clear on Al K's request for DO measurements. I think the >intent is to see how much O2 enters a fermenting wort through the >surface. If I put deaerated water in a container and expose it to the >atmosphere after a very long time I will find the water saturated i.e. >at a DO level commensurate with the barometric pressure on that day (the >meter compensates for this) and temperature of the water (the meter also >takes this into consideration). It will read 100%. With fermenting beer >the situation is very different. The beer is not in equilibrium with >atmospheric air because CO2 is evolving and blanketing the surface. The >effectiveness of this blanket depends on how vigourous the fermentation >is and on the nature of any draughts to which the fermenter is subject. >If a top flocculating yeast is in use we'll also have the protection of >the yeast cake. Any O2 which does enter the beer will be consumed by the >yeast so that PaO2 in the beer will always be much lower than the air >equilibrium value. We can probably consider the beer oxygen free - a DO >meter would certainly read very low. The only experiment I can think of >at this point would be to deaerate some water and place it in a >container where it is exposed to some air circulation. The rate of flow >of O2 from the air into the water as a function of Pa O2 difference can >be determined from the DO time history and the value at 1 atmosphere >difference calculated. This would approximate the flow into a beer with >viable yeast were it not blanketed. Would this be useful information? I >may already have some data of this sort. I believe that earlier in the post in which I requested this test I mentioned that CO2 would soon be produced by the yeast and the evolving CO2 would effectively make any further oxygenation via the surface of the beer impossible. I was suggesting that the test be done (periodically) only for 12 hours or so... this would measure how much oxygen would dissolve in still water over the course of the *lag time*. After the lag is over, naturally further oxygenation via the surface would be immeasurable. I suggest water rather than wort pitched with yeast for two reasons: 1. I suspect that DO meters don't take kindly to such environments, and 2. the yeast will constantly be consuming the oxygen that does dissolve. If the DO meter will work in wort, then I suggest unpitched 12P wort that was deaerated. That's not the natural state of pitched wort, but if you begin with wort that is 74% saturated, it is likely to stay there... in the real world, the yeast would consume the oxygen and further oxygen might dissolve via the surface, so starting with near zero% saturation is like allowing the yeast to consume the oxygen from aeration or oxygenation and then killing them. Al. Al Korzonas, Lockport, IL korz at brewinfo.com http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/ Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 3 May 1999 17:35:51 -0400 From: "Santerre, Peter (PRS) - CPC" <PRS at NA2.US.ML.COM> Subject: Rolling Rock / New Mash tun / Bottles in the Oven Okay I got a few questions/comments: 1: I was at a bar the other night and my Anchor Porter was served to me is a green Rolling Rock Glass. On this glass it said something to the extent of "fermented in our glass lined stainless steel tanks." What the hell is that all about? IS this simply for ease of sanitation? It seems that stainless would be just as easy to clean (but, I've never had the chance - soooo.) 2: I got a new 10 gallon gott cooler to mash in last weekend and bought the whole Phil's setup (False bottom and sparge arm.) Well about half way through my sparge I noticed that my mash had compressed into what looked like a "disk of grain" with space around the walls of the tun and my grain bed. I was moving up from a 5 gallon gott and never had this problem before. I will try to draw it. ____________ | || | | ======== | Sparge Arm | . ' . ' | |~~~~~~~~~~| Water Level | ______ | | / \ | |/ Grain \| |##########| False Bottom |_________=|== IF you cant tell from the drawing (ha ha) I have cut a piece of tubing and fit it around the diameter of the false bottom. I went ahead with the sparge and I had an original gravity in the range that I had expected, so no big loss. Is it because I have smaller amount of grain in a larger mashtun I wonder? Grain bill: 9.25 lbs. Hugh Baird 1.00 lb. English Crystal (80l I think) .75 lbs. Chocolate Malt Single Infusion mash at about 156' for 60 minutes. Sparge about 30+ minutes. 3) Joy Hansen asks: "Ever wonder why microbiologists invented an autoclave?" Hey I found I great deal on an (USED) autoclave about HALF the size of my oven at http://www.sterilizers.com/refurbished.html for the low low price of $23000.00. (Heavy sarcasm intended) I'll stick to my oven thanks. ~ Pete Santerre AKA ShockValue Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 3 May 1999 17:27:50 -0500 (CDT) From: BrewInfo <brewinfo at xnet.com> Subject: Smartcap sanitation Nathaniel writes: >>Posting 5: Extracted from file: 1009 >>Date: Mon, 9 Nov 92 16:20 CST >>From: korz at iepubj.att.com >>Subject: Re: Smartcaps >> >>Someone (sorry) asked about SmartCap(tm) sterilizing. >> >>A few months ago, Craig Martens posted a "letter" written by Bruce Zenner >>who headed the development of SmartCaps for Aquanautics. He said that >>indeed the oxygen scavenging is activated by exposure to high humidity >>and that boiling would render the caps virtually equal to regular caps. >>He suggested that a water/household bleach solution or sodium metabisulphite >>should be used to sanitize the caps. >>Al. > > >Is the "he" that suggested using sodium metabisulphite, Bruce Zenner, who >headed the developement of the caps? I don't recall whether it was Craig or Bruce that said to use metabisulphite, but since 1992 (when I wrote the quoted post) I've learned that metabisulphite in water is not a sanitiser... in an *acidic* solution it is merely an *inhibitor* of wort spoilers, not a *killer*. One other piece of information that I recall from my research into SmartCaps. I don't know how the clear ones (Crown?) work, but the SmartCaps (aka PureSeal 'A') caps work is with sulphites in the plastic seal. I found this out by accident because someone told me that they were working with some major brewers on testing the amount of sulphite that passes into the beer... something about having to put "contains sulphites" on the label of the bottle. Now, does that help the chemists theorise on how the caps work and then determine if bleach or iodophor would ruin the cap's oxygen absorbing abilities? I also seem to recall being told to not soak the caps a long time but rather just a few minutes. Perhaps it implies that some of the absorbing abilities are being lost, but that it is a necessary evil? What are the relative oxidising strengths of bleach solution at 200ppm free chlorine, 12.5ppm of titratable iodine iodophor solution and the working solution of a percarbonate-based sanitiser such as OneStep? Maybe it's a "lesser evil" issue? Al. Al Korzonas, Lockport, IL korz at brewinfo.com http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/ Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 03 May 1999 20:38:08 -0400 From: Bob Sheck <bsheck at skantech.net> Subject: Re. A taste of Gypsum I would like to get _ALL_ my calcium from Beer! <G> Bob Sheck >Jeffry D Luck <Jeffry.D.Luck at aexp.com> Wrote: >While I have no help to offer, I would like to suggest some possible >names for the final product: > Plaster of Pilsner / of Porter > Off the Wall Ale > Sheetrock Stout Bob Sheck bsheck, me-sheck, abednigo! Greenville, NC email:bsheck at skantech.net or see us at: http://www.skantech.net/bsheck/ - --------------------------------------------------------------- //If you really support our troops, keep them out of KOSOVO!// - --------------------------------------------------------------- Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 03 May 1999 20:51:14 -0400 From: Patrick Spicer <pspicer at cinci.infi.net> Subject: Ring Around the Porter Hi All, After bottling a recent batch of Papzian's Silver Dollar Porter I noticed a small ring around the bottle neck at the top of the liquid level. The beer came out nicely as far as my buds can detect, but I thought that I remembered reading this was a sign of infection. I looked in Miller's book and he lists two possible causes: infection and break formation. While my optimistic side is leaning toward break formation, I'm cynical enough to decide to take a sample into work tomorrow for microscopic analysis and see if anything waves back. It would be too bad as I have been infection-free in three years of brewing. For what it's worth, I'm still drinking and enjoying them, but was curious if anyone else has observed an apparently neutral ring-ing. Regards, PT Spicer Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 03 May 1999 06:14:00 -0500 From: toml at ednet.rvc.cc.il.us (Tom Lombardo) Subject: re: Bottling with honey >Paul Haaf <haafbrau1 at juno.com> writes: > >I thought this would have been answered, but I didn't see it. I've >bottled in the past using honey, and it worked out nicely. Use 1/2 cup >honey and 1/2 to 2/3 cup water. I put the honey in a large measuring cup >and heat in the microwave for a minute. (If it starts to bubble, stop >it.) Then I add the boiling water and stir. Then dump this in the >bottling bucket and add the brew. Just give a few extra days for the >bottles to fully carbonate. I've bottled with honey, and for a while it seemed OK, but there's a problem: not all honey has the same sugar content. 1/2 Cup might work five times in a row, but eventually you'll get a batch of honey with a high sugar content. Gusher city. Use corn sugar. Tom (in Rockford, IL) Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 07:13:35 -0400 From: Bill Jankowski <wjankowski at snet.net> Subject: Growing Hops (Rhizomes sprouting?) Howdy All, How long should it take for Rhizomes to sprout? I threw mine in the CT earth about a week and a half ago (dirt well turned over, several tons of rocks pulled out, much manure added), and haven't seen hide or hair of them. The temp's been about 60 or so during the day, 35-45 at night, and I've kept them well soaked? Will they ever grow? Is this the end of civilization as we know it? Also, are there any plants that are compatible with hops? IE, if I keep the bed well fertilized and watered, could I throw a couple of cucumber plants, or some other low growing plant in with the hops? Bill Jankowski Colchester, CT 06415 Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 04 May 1999 07:51:35 -0400 From: "Fred L. Johnson" <FLJohnson at worldnet.att.net> Subject: Clear hefeweizen Weizen lovers: For the last two years (my brewing life), I have often discovered that what I read doesn't seem to necessarily be true. The following is an example of one of those times. I'm asking for the collective's gentle correction of my misunderstanding of the literature or for the record to be set straight on this topic of cloudy weizens. I brew a hefeweizen that I would humbly (read proudly) put up against just about any weizen's I've had commercially or otherwise. However, it is cloudy only for the first few weeks after I bottle and gets progressively clearer during storage (under my house at only several degrees below outside temp) This beer eventually clears just like all the other beers I've brewed. It will only be turbid if I mix up the yeast in the bottle when I serve it (which does no harm at all to the flavor. I think it enhances the flavor a little). I hasten to add that ALL my beers have considerable chill haze which I have long learned to live with, but I was expecting this weizen to ALWAYS be cloudy. Brief recipe: 60% wheat, 40% Munich, Hallertaur, 112F-15 min, 150F-60 min, 168F, 10 min. Wyeast 3068 60-65F. Head stabiltiy is like none other I've brewed. I've heard that the turbidity in a weizen is due to it's not being filtered. I've hear that the turbiditiy in a weizen is due to the high protein content of wheat (and the beer). I'm beginning to believe that the turbidity is due to the yeast, which may simply take a little longer to settle out. Is it another momily that wheat beers are naturally more turbid or not? - -- Fred L. Johnson Apex, North Carolina USA Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 04 May 1999 07:59:52 -0400 From: RobertJ <pbsys at pbsbeer.com> Subject: Re: Mash thickness with recirculation Nathan Kanous <nlkanous at pharmacy.wisc.edu> Hi! For those of you that use pumps to recirculate the mash (RIMS, HERMS, etc.) what sort of grist to water ratio do you use? I realize that with a false bottom, you have to have enough strike water to cover the false bottom, but beyond that, what sort of ratio do you use to "allow" you to recirculate with a pump? ____ With HERMS(tm) I have used anywhere from 1 qt/lb to 1.75 qts/lb. Most frequently, my ratio is 1.33 qt/lb. These ratios also include foundation water below the false bottom. Within these ranges I have had no problems with stuck grain beds or pump cavitation, during recirculation. Factors to consider to avoid problems are: False bottom fit, guage, height and % opening. Need for siphon tube in mash tun. Grain crush. Mash temperature and stage of mash. GPM and line resistance. All should be in balance. Bob Precision Brewing Systems URL http://www.pbsbeer.com Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 05:11:00 -0700 From: "Timmons, Frank" <Frank.Timmons at AlliedSignal.com> Subject: Re: Plaster of Paris, again Dan Listermann reports that plaster of Paris has iron filings in it, to compensate for shrinkage. I was not aware of this, and I really doubt it is true because if the corrosion of the iron filings is to compensate for shrinkage, all of it would have to occur before the plaster sets, otherwise the expansion of the iron oxide would tend to crack the finished sculpture or whatever you were casting. Since the plaster sets in a matter of minutes for the quick setting variety, I doubt the iron would corrode that fast. Also, since the iron would be more dense that the plaster, it would tend to settle to the bottom of the package, requiring shaking before use and I don't remember ever seeing that instruction on any labels. Anyway, I'm curious about this and will find out for sure soon. Frank Timmons Richmond, Va Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 04 May 1999 08:31:30 -0400 From: "Alan McKay" <amckay at nortelnetworks.com> Subject: Makin Mead Thomas Barnett asks about making mead. You are in luck, Thomas, because making mead is incredibly easy. Much easier than beer, IMO. I make a Cherry Mead (technically speaking, when you use fruit it's called Mel-O-Mel, not Mead) and I simply do this : - dump 5kg cherries and 3 kg honey into pot with 10 litres of bottled water - bring up to 170F and hold for 15 minutes to pasteurize - dump into your cleaned and sanitized fermenting bucket, cover, allow to cool - add yeast energizer and yeast nutrient - add yeast - ferment - age - bottle or keg I like to use the unpasteurized honeys from the the little guys. It's nice to try different ones to see how it tastes. The one you mention should be fine. The best way to prepare fruit is to freeze it well, then thaw it back out. This bursts the cells and makes the sugars more accessable. There is a debate as to whether or not to use acid blend (a la wine) in mead. I've been using it up until now, but I won't use it on my next couple of batches to compare results. This is based on input from the HBD and RCB, where most folks seem to think you shouldn't add it. cheers, -Alan - -- Alan McKay OS Support amckay at nortelnetworks.com Small Site Integration 613-765-6843 (ESN 395) Nortel Networks http://zftzb00d/alanmckay/ Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 04 May 1999 12:46:16 +0000 From: AJ <ajdel at mindspring.com> Subject: Phosphate I can't agree wth Matt Brooks that hydroxyapatite does not precipitate above pH 11. pH 11 is not a magic number. Let me recommend Werner and Stumm "Aquatic Chemistry..." Wiley, NY, 1981 pp 282 - 285. They present curves for the solubility of various metalo phosphate complexes for [Ca++] = 1 mmole per liter as a function of pH. At pH 5 the solubility of hydroxyapatite is such that the solution contains 1 mole per liter of phosphate (very soluble). This plunges linearly (on a log plot) to E-8 mole/L (very insoluble) at pH 8.5 and then rolls off to E- 9.5 mole/L as the pH rises to 12. It's still falling slowly at E-9.5 at pH 12. There is nothing magic about pH 11 on this plot. Clearly, hydroxyapatite is very insoluble at any pH above 7. At 1 mM Ca++ (hardness of 100 ppm as CaCO3) and 1 mM phosphate we are way past saturation at pH 7 and, if there is any seed apatite precipitation will and does occur as demonstrated by the fallback in pH if these conditions are set up. I'll allow that there might be cirucumstances under which the solution might remain super saturated. The reaction is equivalent based as are all reactions - there just aren't any that aren't. One mole of hydroxyapatite contains 20 (+) equivalents of calcium, 18 (-) of phosphate and 2 (-) of hydroxyl ions. It takes these amounts of those ions to form 1 mole of hydroxyapatite and no other will form this compound. If these ions are present in solution quantities such that their ion product excedes the solubility product for hydroxyapatite (which Werner and Stumm list as E-114 by the way but that's because they consider hydroxyapatite to be Ca10(PO4)6(OH)2 so this value is not inconsistent with the one Matt posted,E-55.9, for Ca5(PO4)3(OH) ) the solution is super saturated with respect to hydroxyapatite and it will precipitate if a seed crystal or other mechanism is present to prevent the solution from staying super saturated. Yes, hydroxyl ions are required and yes, they are more prevalent at higher pH but PO4 ions are also more prevalent at higher pH. This is why the solubility of carbonates and phosphates decrease with pH and why we can get them out of solution by raising pH. I tried to explain this in the previous post but I know this is a confusing subject (believe me it had me confused for a long time). I think Matt is saying that you can't just dump 20 milliequivalents of calcium sulfate and 18 milliequivalents of monobasic potassium phosphate in some water and expect 1 millimole of apatite to form. That's true. What you can do, however, but this is a little tricky, is use the solubility product of apatite to compute the amount that will precipitate and the pH at equilibrium. You use numerical techniques to solve for the pH which satifies both the solubility product limit and the charge neutrality criterion. It becomes even trickier if you try to consider the other forms of apatite so that in practice it's not worth doing (for phosphate - do it all the time for carbonate). Matt points out that there are lots of forms of phophate. This is true and there is some question as to which precipitate in brewing. Favor seems to fall on hydroxyapatite and dibasic calcium phosphate (though this latter is orders of magnitude more soluble that apatite at mash pH). I think I mentioned in the last post that there is also a carbonato apatite and fluoro apatite is also known. Matt doesn't think phosphate precipitates in brewing to the point where it plays a significant role and hopes that this thread doesn't devolve into one which has little relevance to brewing. Phosphates do precipitate in brewing and the fact that they do so is extremely relevant for it is their precipitation which we use to control mash pH. The whole concept of residual alkalinity is based on the extent to which respectively calcium and magnesium precipitate phosphate thus releasing hydrogen ions. Put gypsum into water which is free of phosphate and there is no change in pH. Put it into mash and the pH drops. If this isn't from phosphate precipitation a lot of brewers have been laboring under a false impression for a long time. Finally, Matt asked about the 1% number for phosphate. That number came from M&BS. Looking back over my notes I see that I analyzed some DWC pale ale malt and found the phosphate level at about 10 grams/kg as phosphate i.e. just about what M&BS suggest though I believe they state it as the pentoxide. Most all of this is organically bound in phytin. During analysis it is released by digestion and in the mash tun by phytase as inorganic phosphate (ortho) in both cases. Needless to say not 100.00000% is released or converted but I believe the majority of it is. I must fall silent on this and other subjects for a week or 2 as I'm off to a place where there is no Internet but don't hesitate to respond as I'll catch up when I get back. - -- A. J. deLange Numquam in dubio, saepe in errore. Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 09:29:47 -0400 From: "Roat, Todd (ROATTW)" <ROATTW at UCMAIL.UC.EDU> Subject: Re: Sure Screen I use a hops bag in the boiler. That ensures no hops clog the strainer. But that also eliminates the natural trub filter. I dont worry about the trub, it generally settles out in primary and secondary (I know some will cringe over this ;^). Im not anal about clarity, although my brews turns out 90% clear. If you wanted to filter out further, I have heard of people draining directly out of boiler and running beer through a fine gourmet strainer on top of a funnel that then leads into the fermenters - which filters out some trub stuffs. Hope that helps in some way. Other advice (possibly contradictory) from others sure to follow ;^) Todd W. Roat Clinical Trials Coordinator EMCREG Coordinator Department of Emergency Medicine 231 Bethesda Avenue Cincinnati, Ohio 45267-0769 (P)513-558-5216 (F)513-558-5791 <mailto:emcreg at uc.edu> emcreg at uc.edu todd.roat at uc.edu <mailto:todd.roat at uc.edu> Return to table of contents
Date: 04 May 1999 08:30:32 -0400 From: RCAYOT at solutia.com Subject: N2 and Co2 solubility David Lamotte notes: "Solubility is quoted in grams of gas per kg water as follows :- At 0 deg C N2 0.0294 C02 3.35 which is 114 times At 20 deg C N2 0.0190 C02 1.69 which is 89 times Now back to the ASCII art for someone to explain how this translates into pressures measured on our guages ..." Good digging BUT: the units are in grams per kg, so we need to correct for the difference in molecular weight, Co2 54g/mol, and N2 28g/mol, which is aboiut 2:1, so in MOLES, the solubility is at a ration of about 45 to 57 to one. I am going to assume that the data is in relation to a unit of pressure of one atmosphere. what this means is that if we pressurize with 75/25 N2/Co2 pressure, a ratio of 3:1 then we must further reduce the ratio of soluble CO2 to N2 to about 15-20 to one. Roger Ayotte Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 04 May 1999 08:38:08 -0500 From: "Kris Hansen" <HanseKW at dhfs.state.wi.us> Subject: Dr. Pivo and other Napitki Larry in San Diego wrote: >>If "Dr. Pivo" is not his nickname, then he is one lucky brew(st)er! Cool name. As a linguist and Russian speaker I had to point out to some of the more serious brewers (Mr. Burley) that Pivo is the Russian word for "beer", so Dr. "Beer" seems to be having a bit of fun. As regards his posts, I find them enlightening and enjoyable although I'm still leaving my sheet-rock where it is! Cheers and happy brewing! Long-time lurker, first-time poster, Kris "Samogoner" Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 09:19:24 -0400 From: Jeff Renner <nerenner at umich.edu> Subject: Re: Frothy Heads/Dark Wheat Joel Plutchak <plutchak at ncsa.uiuc.edu> tells us: > Several years back (maybe around 1991), before the advent >of the widget, a friend hiked around England and Ireland, >bringing me back a 6-pack of Guinness he bought at the >brewery. It came with a little black syringe-like thingy. >One was instructed to inset the syringe in the beer in your >glass, draw some up, then forcefully inject it back into the >glass. The result was a nice creamy Guinness-like head on >the beer, without the benefit of nitrogen. At the time, I >tried it on other beer and got the same result. It's my Pocket Beer Engine! (See archives and Zymurgy) They stole it! This really works well and is my SOP for British style bitter. I keep enough pressure (4-6 psi at 55F cellar temp) on my ales to dispense, but this leaves them too carbonated. One shot with the pocket beer engine, though, and after the foiling swirling creamy bubbles subside, I'm left with properly conditioned ale and 3/4" dense head. Note, this also works on any overcarbonated beer, and makes them taste far smoother and creamy. When I first posted this some years ago (under the moniker "30 beer engine" [did the cent symbol come through on ASCII?], someone else came up with the far better "pocket beer engine" name), someone else reported on the dangers of this. It seems that his beer was far more carbonated than mine, and when he shot the beer back in the mug, it foamed all over. In his haste to salvage some of the foaming beer, he lunged forward and chipped a tooth on the rim of the mug. >- ------------------------------------------------------------- Joel also wrote: >Meanwhile, "Dr. Pivo" asks: >>Just where do you get "dark wheat"? > >Schreier Malting Company (Sheboygan WI USA) sells >a roasted wheat from their partner DeWolf-Cosyns (somewhere in >Belgium). Seems to be more closely related to their Biscuit >malt than to, e.g., roasted barley. Durst makes a dark wheat that is more or less the wheat equivalent of Munich malt, which sounds less roasted than Joel describes. Just the thing to use as a base malt for dunkelweizen. Jeff -=-=-=-=- Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan USA, c/o nerenner at umich.edu "One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943. Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 04 May 99 08:55:34 PDT From: "George De Piro" <gdepiro at fcc.net> Subject: Bottliong kegged beer / dark wheats / Foamy beer Hi all, Nathan asks about how he should best bottle condition beer that has been stored in a keg at 10 psi. He has two options: 1. Figure out how much CO2 is in the beer now and only add enough priming sugar to boost the level to your final goal. This can be calculated as follows: ((% CO2 desired - % CO2 present)/0.46)*100/(OG-FG) = % where: OG = the original gravity of priming solution in Plato FG = the expected final gravity of the priming solution in Plato % = the volume % of priming solution to add to the beer (i.e., if % = 10% and you have a 10 gallon batch, you would need 1 gallon of primings) Option 2. Simply attach a "gas out" fitting to the keg and put a hose on it that is in an airlock (just like when using a keg as a fermentor. This will allow the beer to equilibrate to atmospheric pressure and prevent unwanted oxidation of the beer (and the hassels and risks of transfering the liquid to another vessel.) I would add fresh yeast to this batch to ensure quick carbonation. - -------------------------------------- Dark wheat malts are made by Weyermann of Germany, and are available in the US from Crosby and Baker, 1-800-999-2440 (wholesale only). There are several different types of dark wheat malt, including "dark wheat" at 15-20 EBC, "caramel wheat" at 100-140 EBC, and "chocolate wheat" at 1000-1200 EBC. In my experience, the caramel wheat tastes a bit toastier and rougher than your average caramel barley. It can be used to add an interesting new dimension to your beers, though. Dark wheat is great in Dunkel Weizen (duh). - ------------------------------------------ Regarding the long-lasting foam of a nitro beer, I have made the follwoing observation on numerous occasions: Beer that is carbonated and served with only CO2 will give the "Guinness effect" if poured roughly. The recipe does effect how long head lasts, but rough pouring (like through a restricted faucet) will form a dense, creamy, head while knocking much of the CO2 out of the beer. If you happen by Albany, NY in the next few weeks I can demonstrate this by giving you a beer from the serving tank (we don't have the beer lines installed yet). Swickel valves are not great for serving a properly carbonated beer, but I can emulate the "Guinness effect" pretty well. As some have posted here, the solubility of N2 is extremely limited in beer. While there will be some N2 in the bubbles, it will be mostly CO2 that is in them. I don't think there would be enough N2 in the bubbles to make the partial pressure substantial enough to stabilize the bubbles. Have fun! George de Piro (Nyack, NY) Head Brewer, Albany Pump Station Malted Barley Appreciation Society "Brooklyn's Best Homebrew Club" http://hbd.org/mbas Yes, I put a LOT of miles on my car... Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 10:05:54 -0400 From: "Menegoni, Lee" <Lee.Menegoni at compaq.com> Subject: o2 caps Rob recently posted: "I'm wondering if anyone has asked a micro or a major on how they clean theirs. I have askedand this 1 (one) micro said that they didn't. They dump them right out ofthe freshly opened box and cap them without cleaning any of them." This is what I have observed at the numerous micros I have toured. They dump boxes of caps directly into a bin in the the bottling machine. Home brewers have the problem of not knowing how the caps have been handled prior to purchase and the possibility that they were exposed to dust, especially grain dust in an HB shop. Attilio "Lee" Menegoni Compaq Computer Corporation 550 King Street Littleton MA 01460-1289 phone: 978-506-6034 email: Lee.Menegoni at Compaq.com Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 05/05/99, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96