HOMEBREW Digest #3096 Fri 30 July 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

  long serving lines ("Stephen Alexander")
  Equipment for all grain ("Russ Hobaugh")
  O(n) to other issues... (MICHAEL WILLIAM MACEYKA)
  Re: careful (email privacy) ("Charles T. Major")
  Honey containing beers and bottle conditioning (Matthew Comstock)
  Eric Fouch for President? ("Doug Moyer")
  Primary vs. Secondary revisited (Matthew Comstock)
  Splitting-up the brew session revisited (Matthew Comstock)
  Call for innovations (Matthew Comstock)
  B. Rezac - Personal Interaction (woodsj)
  Honey ("Swintosky, Michael D.")
  pH Tester ("Jack Schmidling")
  Resistance Per Foot ("Christopher Farley")
  re: how long the hoses are ("Bayer, Mark A")
  a question for the Portlanders (Oregon version) (Marc Sedam)
  CO2 chart origin / HBD vs AHA / searchable archives (Alan Edwards)
  Resitance to fluid flow in a tube (Pat Babcock)
  Re:Call for Innovations (Matthew Comstock)
  IHA?, IHBA?, WHA?, HSA? (& other stuff) (joseph_labeck_jr)
  San Diego Strong Ale Homebrew Competition ("Greg Lorton")
  Stuck bottlewasher ("Philip J Wilcox")
  Denaturing-- Temp vs. Thermal Mass (RCAYOT)
  Re:  Ring Burners Needed - not complete brewstands ("Kelly")
  AHA ("Bill Giffin")
  Mills and More Mills (Dan Listermann)
  Sodapop bottling, (Dave Burley)
  New yeast propagation methods? (CALAMIDA Alessandro)
  Ask not what the AHA can do for you ("Don Van Valkenburg")

* Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy! * Subscribe to the Distilled Beverage Digest * Send "subscribe" in body of note to dbd-request@hbd.org * Subscribe to the Home Vintners' Digest * Send "subscribe" in body of note to hvd-request@hbd.org 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: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 11:39:14 -0400 From: "Stephen Alexander" <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net> Subject: long serving lines More engineering that science, but why not page down anyway ? Dave B says ... >Personally, I cannot see how it would work, >at least the way it has been explained in the past >(assigning some pressure drop per foot of line) >makes absolutely no sense to me. You must assume some flow rate, then the linear pressure drop per unit length pops out of the formulae (ignoring some tube end effects and small variations in coefficients). I think we can reasonably suspect the tubes sold by someone like Foxx Beverage are spec'ed for flow rates around several fl.ounces per second. >A long line >should slow the flow of the beer due to viscosity >along the walls and turning points and valves >(Reynolds #, wall effect), but the beer still >has to come out at atmospheric pressure and >starts out at the head pressure of the keg. You are ignoring a kinetic term for accelerating the liquid from rest in the keg to tube velocity, but it's usually not important. For 1/4" ID tubing with (wild guess) 2.5 fl.oz per second flow, I calculate a Reynolds number of about 9500 (I'm using figures for water at 5C). Even assuming beer is twice as viscous (unlikely) you'll never see laminar flow in any reasonable diameter beverage tubing - always turbulent flow. I get a pressure drop of [smooth tubing assumption, Prandtl equation, Prandtl-Karan Law] dP = L (in feet) * 0.56psi + 0.43 psi [ 1/4" ID tubing, 2.5 fl.oz/sec ] (where the 0.43 psi is the kinetic term) If you change the tubing diameter(D), but keep the same flow rate, there is a small variation (~15% for doubling or halving the diameter) in a coefficient used to calculate the first term, but by far the biggest impact is the velocity squared (v^2) factor that applies to both terms. Velocity at a given flow rate is proportional to (1/D)^2, and the pressure differential (dP above) is proportional to v^2. This means that dP is proportional to (1/D)^4. Dropping the tubing ID diameter from 1/4" to 3/16" means the dP = L (in feet) * 1.7psi + 1.35 psi [ 3/16" ID tubing, 2.5 fl.oz/sec ] And for 1/8" ID tubing the figures become dP = L (in feet) * 7.6.psi + 6.9 psi [ 1/8" ID tubing, 2.5 fl.oz/sec ] In other words to drop 12psig of pressure you could use 20.66 feet of 1/4" ID tubing [ (12 - 0.43) / 0.56 ] 6.3 ft of 3/16" tubing [ (12-1.35) / 1.7 ] 8 inches of 1/8" tubing [ (12-6.9) / 7.6 ] And keep the tap wide open to get 2.5 fl.oz/sec . If you use larger diameter or longer tubes than these at 12psig, then you will either get higher flow rates or need to use the tap valve to slow flow. Either method introduces conditions of sudden change in pressure that will create foaming. Don't take the above terms as precise. The change in pressure is related to the flow rate you choose squared, your tubing diameter may vary a bit yet have a significant impact on pressure drop, and the viscosity of the beer has an impact too. You may be using various head pressures as well. Interesting that the relative tube smoothness has little impact during turbulent flow (if I read the books correctly). I have tried (long ago - before calculating) a longish 1/4" ID beverage tube, but adding 10ft to your 1/4" tube will only knock the pressure down by ~5.6psi at a reasonable flow rate and had a similarly marginal effect on foam. If I were to try this again I would of course switch to 3/16" ID tubing. Dave's smaller ID tubing suggestion is, as you can see from the calculations, the only practical solution unless you enjoy living with a tangle of tubes. -S . Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 11:58:56 -0400 From: "Russ Hobaugh" <Russ_Hobaugh at erm.com> Subject: Equipment for all grain I am getting ready to take the plunge into all grain. I would like to know what the best equipment is to get started. I have just purchase a 14 gal. SS brewpot, and will be building an immersion WC. What is the consensus on a lautertun?? I have been told to go with a gott cooler with an "easymasher", my brewpot with an "em", a square cooler with slotted pipes, or the zapap system. What are the pros and cons of these systems? I am trying to do this inexpensively, but I don't want to do it "cheap", I am looking for some good advice from all you all grain brewers on the most inexpensive and effective way to get started. Another question is, what is the best way to test your water for all grain?? My water is very hard, so we installed a water softener. Is this bad for mashing? TIA Russ Hobaugh Goob' Dog Brewer, Birdsboro PA Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 12:14:43 -0400 (EDT) From: MICHAEL WILLIAM MACEYKA <mmaceyka at welch.jhu.edu> Subject: O(n) to other issues... Howdy all, ...like who has a less appreciated sense of humor than Phil Yates. The confusing topic of oxygen and yeast growth has come up once again. Here is what I believe (credentials to follow). Yeast can use oxygen for two purposes. The first is as a final electron acceptor during repiration. The second is to introduce double bonds in carbon chains, a process necessary for yeast growth in wort for the production of sterols and unsaturated fatty acids. Yeast "grow," i.e increase cell numbers, so long as they have nutrients to do so. The limiting growth factor for yeast grown in all-malt wort is oxygen for double bond production (followed closely by fixed nitrogen, so take care in low FAN worts). Unless, of course, you pitch very high, but then you don't need to worry about anything limiting yeast growth. Yeast grow under both respiratory and fermentation conditions. More oxygen in your starter makes more yeast and a worse tasting starter, so decant. Yeast grown in wort will not respire so long as there is 0.5% glucose present, which is going to be all the time except in the most overgrown of continually oxygenated starters. Adding oxygen to your starter or your beer will help increase cell numbers not because of increasing the available energy but because of increasing (indirectly) the available nutrient pool. I SUSPECT that most people measure lag times based on evolution of CO2. I SUSPECT that respiration is slower in terms of moles CO2 produced than fermentation (Pasteur effect?), which is why the Crabtree effect exists at all. This is an irrelevant suspicion for people who make beer by normal means. I have used Lallemand Nottingham quite extensively, and if I pitch hydrated the yeast, by the time I look in on the beer the following morning, CO2 is being evolved. As I recall, some one posted that it is not a good idea to rehydrate the yeast with yeast nutrient as this unduly stresses the yeast. It has made me wonder if longer lag times correlated with increasing amounts of ions in the rehydration water. Baltimore water is extremely soft. Mike Maceyka, stb-PhD Baltimore, MD That's "soon-to-be-doctor" to you, pal. Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 11:18:36 -0500 (Central Daylight Time) From: "Charles T. Major" <ctmajor at samford.edu> Subject: Re: careful (email privacy) Alan McKay note in today's HBD: "Not only that, but I'm pretty sure it's very illegal in the USA, as Email is considered to be part of a private conversation, and you can only publicize a private conversation with permission of all participants." <Disclaimer: I'm not an attorney, and this is not legal advice.> Email is not generally considered a private conversation, or even private for that matter. The courts tend to look to "reasonable expectations of privacy" and find that with email, especially email through one's employer, that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. Thus, the prudent policy would be to not include in any email message (private or to a listserv) anything you wouldn't write on a postcard or post on a public bulletin board. Thus, reposting a private email probably isn't illegal (it's not illegal to post a letter, and mail privacy is much greater than email privacy). I agree with Alan, though, that posting private email is poor manners. Tidmarsh Major Birmingham, Alabama Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 09:39:26 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Comstock <mccomstock at yahoo.com> Subject: Honey containing beers and bottle conditioning Greetings. I thought I'd pass along a recent observation about recent batches I've made using honey to make up a large portion of the fermentables. Without posting actual recipes I used, I made a 'honey stout' and a 'honey ginger ale' loosely following Papazian recipes. I bottled after two week primaries (no secondary). The honey stout was very good, but bottles opened several months after capping are gushing at warmer temperatures. No off-flavors observed, just higher carbonation levels. I suggest that the honey sugars were not fully fermented before I bottled. Essentially the bottles were overprimed. The honey ginger ale has been in bottles nearly a month now and is finally well carbonated. For an all-malt extract batch it usually takes about two weeks to reach a steady level of carbonation. Following the honey stout example, I fully expect gushing bottles of the honey ginger ale in the next month. I will keep this in mind the next 'honey ale' batch I make and either reduce the added priming sugar, or transfer to a secondary for a longer period of time before bottling. Matt Comstock in Cincinnati _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free at yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 12:47:49 -0400 From: "Doug Moyer" <shyzaboy at yahoo.com> Subject: Eric Fouch for President? Phil (with limited support from Jill) Yates suggests: "Eric Fouch For President" Well, Phil, to steal from a post higher up in the same digest, just because Eric has such strong moral character "doesn't necessarily translate into a productive employee". We really need to learn more about the administrative capabilities of each of the candidates. Can we get some feedback from Fred? Brew on! Doug Moyer Star City Brewers Guild: http://hbd.org/starcity p.s. Despite an impassioned entreaty from Brian after many beers at the GABF "On the road" in Baltimore last year, I am still NOT a member of AHA. Somehow, I don't see it happening any time soon... Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 09:51:06 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Comstock <mccomstock at yahoo.com> Subject: Primary vs. Secondary revisited Greeting. I recently posted results of an 'experiment' I did where I made two batches of the same pale ale recipe. They differed in that I used only a primary for one batch but included a secondary for the other. From my results I decided I liked the primary-only batch better and shunned the use of a secondary. I like reusing yeast cakes. I don't like bottling and brewing in the same night. So I'm back thinking about transferring to a secondary in order to reuse the yeast cake. And my experiment suggested that in my setup beer transferred to a secondary doesn't fare as well as primary-only. Can I have some suggestions on improving my experience with secondary use. I read about people transferring early so the evolving CO2 flushes the headspeace of the secondary container. But I've heard that can lead to higher final gravities - something about flocculation.... I don't have a CO2 tank, but I suppose one could be used to flush a waiting secondary. I have a 6 gallon carboy for 5 gallon batches - I guess I should get a smaller carboy to reduce headspace. Any other ideas? Matt Comstock in Cincinnati _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free at yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 10:03:10 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Comstock <mccomstock at yahoo.com> Subject: Splitting-up the brew session revisited Greetings I started all-grain brewing. It takes more time. I've tried a few time-saving steps. On Friday night, I set everything up, preboil the Cl2 out of my mash liquor (tap water), I mill the grains. On Saturday I get up early, start heating the water and am mashing by 530A. Done with everything - including clean-up - by 11A. OK, fine. I keep thinking about a discussion here a while back where folks would mash and sparge one night and brew the next morning. I remember thinking, hey great idea. Time saver. Then I remembered that many authors tell us to cool quickly or we'll have DMS (dimethyl sulfide) problems (is that right?). So I blew it off. Now I'm wondering if that's not a problem because after the 'irresponsible' slow-cool, we take the wort back to boiling for 90 minutes or so when brewing the next morning. Could someone reaffirm this for me or point me in the right direction in the archives where this may have been resolved? I remember some folks would take the wort and boil for a few minutes before going to bed.... Thanks for any insight. Matt Comstock in Cincinnati. _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free at yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 10:16:52 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Comstock <mccomstock at yahoo.com> Subject: Call for innovations Greetings These things cycle, but the past couple months of the hbd have been slow. Arguments, etc. I have learned a lot here. WAIT WAIT don't page down yet. I suggest we compile a list of the many innovations we've learned here or have made in our brewing set-ups. Not only would this interest novice brewers like me, but I think it would stimulate some more positive discussions in this forum. I offer for example, someone, probably Ken Schwartz, could write a paragraph about batch sparging, etc along with links to articles. These topics are archived elsewhere of course, but a wake up call here would probably be a good thing. Here's an 'innovation' of my own. Nothing new, just my way of making do. I didn't want to buy any new equipment (cooler, Easymasher, etc.) so I came up with a custom made mash/lauter tun. I took my bottling bucket and attached a CPVC (for heat) adaptor to the threads on the inside of the spigot. I then ran a question-mark series of CPVC elbows and tubes along the bottom of the bucket. The last long pipe had many holes drilled in it. I mashed in the bucket using a grain bag and held the T using towels and one of those highway emergency blankets wrapped around and attached with a few belts. Worked good. Laters, Matt Comstock in Cincinnati _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free at yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 14:11:37 -0400 From: woodsj at us.ibm.com Subject: B. Rezac - Personal Interaction I'm a few days behind with reading HBD but I see the subject is still alive. I also posted this same note to AHA Tech Talk last Thursday (7/22) but somehow it hasn't shown up yet THERE, so I'll post it HERE......hmmmm ! I can't speak to Brian's organization and administrative skills but I found it totally tasteless to publicly appraise him.......imagine working for that type of employer. My only interaction with Brian was in late Jan. 99. I was visiting Boulder on business (which I do frequently) and went to the AHA to pay my dues in person. The receptionist called Brian down and he invited me upstairs to the office area. Brian and I visited for an hour discussing homebrewing experiences, beer styles, competitions, events, and other subjects. He even gave me a few bottles of barleywine laying around. I was very impressed that he would spend the time with an average schmoe brewer that he didn't know from Adam. I felt very welcomed into the AHA den thanks to Brian and I was very surprised. It was an impression that will stay with me for a while. I also got a parking ticket from the Boulder police because I stayed longer than anticipated.....not a problem because I thought it was time well spent, but made it an expensive few bottles of barleywine. Perhaps he should have been doing other AHA work, but I'll submit that maybe that's what the AHA should be doing and should be all about. He introduced me to many people, including Mr. Gatza, but I doubt he would remember. Everybody seems to be bashing the AHA in this forum. I haven't been a member for that long so I don't know all the history. I only know that my most memorable experience with the AHA came from Brian and I thank him for that. Jeff Woods Camp Hill, PA Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 14:24:23 -0400 From: "Swintosky, Michael D." <Swintosk at timken.com> Subject: Honey Joy wrote in HBD #3093: " ..., honey contains bot and spores!" No references were cited for this statement, so I'll not bother doing research for mine. : ) The story, as I heard it, was that there was a case of botulism poisoning way back when. As you might expect, honey was in the diet of unfortunate infant. However, it was never proven that the honey was the source of the poisoning OR that an infant was any more likely to get botulism poisoning from honey as compared to other foods not specifically prepared to destroy the spores. It is my understanding that the industry, wishing to preserve its pure and wholesome image, agreed to the position of warning against feeding honey to infants less than about a year old out of concern for the unknown alternative that a court might impose should a fight be unsuccessful. Being an emotional issue, I think this was a wise course of action (if the story is true). At any rate, I just wanted to pipe in that this issue is not as clear-cut as many people may well believe. Botulism spores are found everywhere, including in honey. Mike Swintosky, Beekeeper (no PhD!) Dellroy Ohio 4 hives One 1st and two 2nd place ribbons for extracted honey 1999 Carroll County Fair, July 19-25 Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 12:02:52 -0500 From: "Jack Schmidling" <arf at mc.net> Subject: pH Tester I am having trouble with my pHtestr2 and was told to revive the electrode in a .1 molar hcl solution for about an hour. I plead ignorance about big teeth. Can someone translate that into a solution/dilution I can comprehend? js PHOTO OF THE WEEK http://user.mc.net/arf/weekly.htm HOME http://user.mc.net/arf Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 14:21:26 -0500 From: "Christopher Farley" <chris at northernbrewer.com> Subject: Resistance Per Foot Dave Burley writes: > He and I basically agree, I think. I just disagree > on the bad information ( he attributes to Miller - > I don't know) perpetuating ( or originating) > the hard-to-kill idea that a certain length of hose > has a certain pressure drop per foot as some sort > of basic physical parameter is not a new idea, > but I see it keeps cropping up in discussions > here as though it were true. Balderdash!! It's not just Dave Miller perpetuating this "bad" information. Here is a table I culled from a catalog; it is information intended for draft service technicians. TABLE OF LINE RESISTANCE AND CAPACITIES - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - --------- Resistance per foot Line Sizes Vinyl Polyethlene Capacity 3/16" 2.2 lbs. --------- 1/6 oz. 1/4" 0.65 lbs. 0.50 lbs. 1/3 oz. 5/16" 0.40 lbs. --------- 1/2 oz. 3/8" 0.20 lbs. 0.07 lbs. 3/4 oz. 1/2" 0.025 lbs. --------- 1-1/3 oz. All figures [sic]. So there you have it. I'm going to run out and replace my 6 foot run of 3/16" tubing with 528 feet of 1/2 inch vinyl hose. That way I can store *all* my beer in the tubing, rather than the corny keg! Christopher Farley Northern Brewer, Ltd. Saint Paul, Minnesota www.northernbrewer.com (800) 681-2739 Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 12:50:00 -0700 From: "Bayer, Mark A" <Mark.Bayer at JSF.Boeing.com> Subject: re: how long the hoses are collective homebrew conscience_ alan mckay wrote: >In 3091 Dave Burley ponders about hose length. <snip> >this is an extremely well-documented area (Miller is the first >place I'd encountered it).<snip> >It seems fairly obvious that the inside of the hose is going to >cause friction with the beer, and thus resistance. More resistance, >more energy is lost (in the form of carbonation). Longer hose means >more resistance, so less foam. Not only does length matter, but so >does hose composition. Obviously different materials will cause >different levels of friction, exactly like how rubbing silk on >your hand feels different than rubbing wool on it. the energy that is lost is realized as lower momentum of the fluid. the importance of hose composition comes into play whenever you have vastly different surface irregularities between hose types. for the flow rates we are likely to be experiencing, transition to turbulence is a given, no matter how smooth the inside of the hose is. only gross imperfections on the inside of the hose would cause you to see significantly different resistances as compared with a smooth inner surface. i don't think we normally have that much variation in our choices for delivery hoses. >The only thing I'm not clear on here is what counter-effect on foam is >experienced because the narrower diameter will mean the beer >should travel faster through the hose, at a higher pressure.At least >according to my recollection of the grade 11 physics I took some >15 years ago. (I'm recalling the picture of the pipe of diameter X, >which then goes down to diameter X/2, then back up to X. The >liquid in X/2 would - according to the authors of the textbook - >move faster and be under higher pressure, then it would go back >down again when the diameter went back up to X).<snip> I'd be >interested to hear from a REAL physicist or better yet fluid-dynamicists >(much unlike myself) as to whether or not this >would apply to our hoses. science alert: pgdwn right now if you're not as interested as alan. i posted an equation yesterday that is applicable for laminar flow in a pipe. while this is not what we normally have in our situation (it is practically always turbulent flow), i believe looking at the laminar case gives a good illustration of how the variables relate to each other. they relate to each other in generally the same fashion in turbulent flow, it's just that the presence of turbulence eradicates the ability to represent the flow accurately using a closed form solution, which is what the laminar equation is. but, we can definitely address the generality that is drawn from alan's example. the generality is that a smaller diameter hose will produce a higher flow rate for a given pressure differential. here's the laminar equation again: vm = (R^^2/8u)(-dp/dx) vm = mean velocity R = radius of pipe u = absolute viscosity of fluid dp/dx = typically given, the pressure differential divided by the length of pipe increasing the radius increases the mean velocity. so a larger delivery hose will give a faster flow, for the same keg pressure and hose length. alan's example from high school is fundamentally a different situation. you cannot take a flow in which you have a changing diameter, look at the flow characteristics in each regime, and then apply those results to pipe flow. they're fundamentally different flows which are derived from different assumptions and simplifications. the pipe flow equation given above is a result of simplifying the incompressible navier-stokes equations, which take into account viscosity. alan's example is a demonstration of the continuity equation for inviscid, incompressible flows. however, one statement is incorrect: the flow in the narrower part of the channel will be at a lower pressure than in the larger part of the channel. this comes from bernoulli's equation, which is a consequence of the momentum equation for inviscid, incompressible flow. the "venturi effect" is an example of bernoulli's equation put to practical use. brew hard, mark bayer stl mo Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 16:21:05 -0400 From: Marc Sedam <marc_sedam at unc.edu> Subject: a question for the Portlanders (Oregon version) Hi all: I'm making another pilgrimage to Oregon next week and have a grand total of one, yes one, evening to spend in Portland. I'd like opinions on the *best* place in Portland where you can spend an evening eating a well-prepared dinner and drinking quality beer. It can be a brewpub, taphouse, or restaurant with a good selection. Your thoughts? I was considering the Horse Brass Pub. Marc Sedam "Huisbrouwerij Zuytdam" Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 14:41:34 -0700 (PDT) From: Alan Edwards <ale at cisco.com> Subject: CO2 chart origin / HBD vs AHA / searchable archives This just goes to show ya', that most of the great ideas start here, at the grass roots! Peter Santerre wondered where the CO2 formula came from. Demonick Venezia first noticed it in the Summer 1994 issue of Zymurgy in an article by Cliff Tanner. Actually, it originated in an HBD article (HBD #1179) and was created by an HBD subscriber! Which brings me to another point. I found out exactly which HBD it first appeared in by SEARCHING the archives. Some very nice people put up many many years worth of HBDs in a searchable, hypertext format! I don't want to discourage "newbies" from asking questions, because we need that in the mix. But, if you have a question, any question, chances are that it has been discussed already (several times ;-). The knowledge base is now larger, and we've pushed the envelope of homebrewing information quite a bit in the last decade, so some things can stand to be discussed again; but people should always research their question first in the HBD archives and go from there. That way we'd be *adding* to the knowledge base, not just rehashing. Start here: http://hbd.org/hbd/ and click on "Search Homebrew Digests". And if you feel the urge to donate your Zymurgy subscription costs (er, I mean your non-profit AHA donation) to the HBD fund instead, follow the link back to the main page and check out the Donors and Accountability links. Later, -Alan in Fremont Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 19:04:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Pat Babcock <pbabcock at mail.oeonline.com> Subject: Resitance to fluid flow in a tube Greetings, Beerlings! Take me to your lager... Chris slaps Dave with... > > Dave Burley writes: > > He and I basically agree, I think. I just disagree > > on the bad information ( he attributes to Miller - > > I don't know) perpetuating ( or originating) > > the hard-to-kill idea that a certain length of hose > > has a certain pressure drop per foot as some sort > > of basic physical parameter is not a new idea, > > but I see it keeps cropping up in discussions > > here as though it were true. Balderdash!! > > > It's not just Dave Miller perpetuating this "bad" information. Here is a table > I culled from a catalog; it is information intended for draft service > technicians. > Whap! Oooo, I bet that stings! Have another: I've seen the same in so many tubing specifications NOT specific to beverage delivery, it'd make your head spin! Dave, the concept is hard to kill because it is, well, a fact. Doh! Another upside the head! - See ya! Pat Babcock in SE Michigan pbabcock at oeonline.com Home Brew Digest Janitor janitor@hbd.org HBD Web Site http://hbd.org The Home Brew Page http://oeonline.com/~pbabcock/brew.html "Just a cyber-shadow of his former brewing self..." Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 11:11:59 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Comstock <mccomstock at yahoo.com> Subject: Re:Call for Innovations I have been away from the computer several weeks and haven't read the hbd for awhile. Upon perusing a few of the latest editions, things seem to have turned attitude-wise around since I stopped reading. I was going to retract my previous post, but I still like the idea of compiling a list of innovative ideas. Sorry to all that have posted cool stuff since I stopped reading. No slight intended. Matt Comstock in Cincinnati. _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free at yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 21:47:03 +0000 From: joseph_labeck_jr at email.com Subject: IHA?, IHBA?, WHA?, HSA? (& other stuff) Hi, folks; If we are if fact going to do something new, we should start doing a bit of research. I know we have a great deal of scientific knowledge, how about legal? It does seem to me that it would not be that difficult to set up a volunteer-based organization. It also seems to me that there would have to be some sort of paid help to like answer the phones, lick stamps, drink the beer sent by homebrewers in lieu of dues. A group of people should get together after the research is done to start planning the steps to be taken. One of those steps should be finding startup money. Some of it could come from donations by interested parties. Perhaps the HBD Steering Committee, with some other folk added, would be a good start toward such a group. This would be best done in person, although some of it *could* be done in a chat room. I'll do some digging on my own, and see what I can find. ============================================ I did a search the other day on "distance calculator" and found several websites that will figure out from/to anywhere. So please look at my signature and marvel at the results. ============================================ I've seen a few posts lately about what horrid people we are; how insular and intolerant. There have been some tongue-in-cheek posts (which I enjoyed), but I don't know if anyone actually answered the charge. I have been reading the HBD, and occasionally posting, for about 4 or 5 years now, maybe more (maybe I'll try a search for my name in the archive). This is like a family. We all care about the group, we help each other when needed, and we don't always get along as well as we'd like. There is NO BETTER place to get homebrewing information. period. Even the evil NOKOMAREE had a valid point, put very badly. There is great humor here. My favorite has always been the last time the "pressure drop in the beer line" came up, and some one figured out that a long enough line would cause negative pressure at the end, sucking up the entire town. There is room for all of us. The kit brewer, looking for an easy way to make decent beer; the extract brewer, interested in recipe formulation and the endless variety of styles, but without the means to do all-grain; The all-grain folk, looking for the ability to control all aspects of the process, or just looking to gaze in wonderment at the way such simple things can produce such a wondrous beverage. I have never failed to get good information, and I have always given my own help when I felt it was warranted. Sorry this got so long, but I felt this needed to be said, or at least, I needed to say it. Joe Labeck - die-hard extract brewer Watertown, CT 548 mi. 91.3 deg. Rennerian Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 22:28:14 -0700 From: "Greg Lorton" <glorton at cts.com> Subject: San Diego Strong Ale Homebrew Competition QUAFF and the San Diego Brew Techs are co-hosting the 1st Annual Strong Ale Homebrew Competition (SAHC) in San Diego, CA, this fall. The contest will be held in conjunction with the 3rd Annual Strong Ale Festival which brings together some of the best strong beers from microbreweries and brewpubs in the western U.S. The competition will take place Saturday, November 27th at Del Mar Stuft Pizza with the awards ceremony being held Saturday, December 4th at the Strong Ale Festival at Pizza Port Carlsbad. The entries are due between November 4 - November 19, so now is the time to brew if you don't have any strong ales already. There will be a website for this competition which will be announced in the near future. There is a $5 fee per entry and only two (2) bottles are required. Email Tyce Heldenbrand, organizer, if you have any questions. Here are the categories: Category 1 - American Strong Ales 1a. American-Style Barley Wine 1b. American Wheat Wine 1c. American Strong Ales (double brown, double IPA etc..) Category 2 - Belgian Strong Ales 2a. Belgian Tripel 2b. Belgian Pale Strong Ale 2c. Belgian Dark Strong Ale 2d. Strong Belgian Specialties (Grand Cru, Strong Wit, Strong Saison etc...) Category 3 - English Strong Ales 3a. English-Style Barley Wine 3b. English Old/Strong Ale 3c. Strong Scotch Ale Category 4 - Strong Stouts 4a. Imperial Stout 4b. Strong Coffee Stout Category 5 - Bocks & Lagers 5a. Doppelbock 5b. Eisbock 5c. Weizenbock 5d. Other Strong Lagers (Strong Oktoberfest etc...) Category 6 - Strong Experimentals 6a. Holiday/Christmas Beers 6b. Strong Fruit Beers 6c. Strong Herb & Spice Beers 6d. Strong Experimentals Category 7 - Strong Meads & Ciders 7a. Strong Traditional Meads 7b. Strong Fruit & Spice Meads 7c. Strong Ciders Tyce Heldenbrand, Organizer Oceanside, CA tyce.heldenbrand at wfinet.com Greg Lorton, Assistant Organizer Carlsbad, CA glorton at cts.com Peter Zien, Assistant Organizer/Judge Coordinator San Diego, CA pz.jdzinc at worldnet.att.net Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 09:07:54 -0400 From: "Philip J Wilcox" <pjwilcox at cmsenergy.com> Subject: Stuck bottlewasher Dear HBD, Has anyone had their bottle washer get stuck before? I dont remember the brand on mine but it was manufactured in Traverse City, Michigan. I had it attached to the hose outside for while and then it sat on the porch (outdoors). I figured its all brass, its not going to rust, why take it inside. I went to use it again last night and attached it to the hose and nothing was getting through the thing. The L that relases the water still moves freely, but no water was comming through. Any ideas on how to "Unclog" one of these things???? Phil Wilcox Poison Frog Home Brewer Warden-Prison City Brewers In Jackson, MI 32 Mi. West of Jeff Renner AABG, AHA, BJCP, HBD, MCAB, ETC., ad nausium... Return to table of contents
Date: 28 Jul 1999 08:13:02 -0400 From: RCAYOT at solutia.com Subject: Denaturing-- Temp vs. Thermal Mass Eric says: "Temperature is a measure of energy. In this case the energy is kinetic on a molecular level-- as particles swirl through space and collide with your thermometer, they impart a modicum of energy to the thermometer which in turn reacts to show the energy it is accumulating-- it turns the temperature dial. The same amount of collisions will happen whenever your thermometer reads 150 F. That energy is the only useable energy available at the time." A Simpler explaination is the first law of thermodynamics: Energy flows from high temperature to low temperature (regardless of thermal mass) Since the enzymes are in intimate contact with the solution, and at the same temperature, no energy is "flowing" into or out of the enzymes at a greater or lesser extent regardless of mash thickness. I think the thermal lability of enzymes can and do depend on mash thickness, but it is more to do with chemistry, chemical equilibrium etc. Others have spoken to that! Roger Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 08:43:32 -0500 From: "Kelly" <kgrigg at diamonddata.com> Subject: Re: Ring Burners Needed - not complete brewstands Hey, we use them all the time down here in New Orleans for boiling shrimp and crawfish. Take a look at: http://www.cajuncooker.com/ We heard this and possibly another place here that sells them, have 'rejects'...basically the burners without the stands for sale CHEAP. We're looking into this to try to get the burners for our all grain set up we're going to build. There are some other places down here making and selling this stuff....I'll keep looking to see what I find.... HTH, Kelly Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 20:35:09 GMT From: stencil at bcn.net (stencil) Subject: Re: Ring Burners Needed - not complete brewstands >------------------------------ > >Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 08:21:31 -0500 >From: "SCHNEIDER,BRETT" <SCHNEIDERB at morganco.com> > >I have been searching the internet and emailing suppliers and hb shops >looking to buy only the cast ring burners and hoses w/regulators for adding >to my new brewstand. But so far no luck finding them as loose parts. Any >recommendations or sources people know of for these things? > > - brett Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 09:50:50 -0400 From: "Bill Giffin" <bgiffin at mint.net> Subject: AHA Good morning all, With all the talk about the AHA the past few day you would think that the organization is totally evil; firing what appears to be a popular member of the AHA. I don't think that they are evil just trying to survive. Should there be a new homebrew organization? Should we boycott the AHA? With the way interest is dropping in the hobby I don't think that enough interest could be generated to form a successful organization to replace the AHA, nor would I want to. Boycott the AHA, why? The AHA has been doing quite a good job of destroying itself. Over the past couple of years the AHA has managed to lose about 30% of its membership. Just wait a couple more years and the organization will not be viable. The problem is unless you are involved in homebrewing, which is a small percentage of the population of this country then you don't even know that you can brew your own beer let along know that the AHA even exists. For the AHA to survive they are going to have to do a far better job of marketing homebrewing in general and the AHA particular. I don't think that they have done these two things well for at least the past three or four years. The time has come to market the hobby and get more folks interested in brewing. Bill Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 10:47:39 -0400 From: Dan Listermann <72723.1707 at compuserve.com> Subject: Mills and More Mills One of my favorite topics! Mark Youngquist (memerson at fone.net) of Rock Bottom and will Kolb ( wkolb at home.com) of Happy Dog Brewing Supplies ask about small adjustable mills. We produce the Philmill and shortly we will be introducing the Philmill II at the end of August. Both of these mills are finely adjustable across the full face of the rolls with the simple twist of a single knob without any set screws or detents. The mills can be adjusted loaded or unloaded, running or not running. A sample of the grist can be measured by as little as a fraction of an ounce. They can both be motorized with a 1/2" electric mill or other methods. The Philmill II has a preloaded spring to allow the passage of roll damaging objects. I prefer the grist of the single roll Philmill because the long slow crushing the design affords and the grist is only exposed on one side to sharp knurling. This makes for superior hush integrity. The two roll mills such as the Philmill II, however, have much better throughput. Motorizing negates much of the two roll mill adventages except for milling large quantites or where speed is important such as in a homebrew shop. Both of these mills are easily modified for different hopper configurations. We can supply a 20 lb hopper made from a 5 gal plastic water bottle. Dan Listermann dan at listermann.com 72723.1707 at compuserve .com Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 10:52:20 -0400 From: Dave Burley <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com> Subject: Sodapop bottling, Brewsters: Braam Greyling asks for a friend why his soda pop (cold drink) bottled beers have an offtaste and it is variable from bottle to bottle. It is posssible that the former contents are contaminating the beer. I know that when I first started to keg beer ( long before CP printed his book and these kegs and supplies were readily available), I was utterly shocked to find my first kegged lager tasted like root beer ( a peculiar American softdrink concoction not too popular outside the US) or some disgusting combination. After much cleaning, I finally realized it must be the rubber o-rings into which this powerful flavor had been adsorbed. I replaced these and it worked great thereafter. I do believe he will get a better product by allowing the beer to run down a tube to the bottom of the bottle to exclude as much air as possible. He should allow the bottle to "fob", i.e. foam to flow out the top a little and then cap it. Doing so reduces the air in the bottle and will reduce staling. Better yet, I use a counterpressure bottle filler and it works great. I can sweep some of the air out with CO2 before I bottle and then the majority of the rest of the air by fobbing. Quite possibly his problem(s) are due to light and he should keep his beer in the dark. I use heavy paper bags which we still get at the supermarket to "package" the bottles. Cardboard boxes and the like will also work fine, The fact that he found that his beer in a dark brown bottle to be OK adds to this suspicion. Keep on Brewin' Dave Burley Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 16:55:05 +0200 From: CALAMIDA Alessandro <alessandro.calamida at fiat.com> Subject: New yeast propagation methods? Surfing the Net, I found this site: http://www.yeastlink.com <http://www.yeastlink.com/> There is a very interesting discussion on yeast propagation. They advocate incremental feed and continuous aeration of the starter. According to what's written there, if you manage to keep the yeast in the logarithmic growth phase (not allowing it to switch to alcohol production) you can collect a much bigger amount of yeast than traditional step-up methods. Unfortunately there are not many details on the exact procedure. There are many references to scientific literature, but I have no way to check them. So, in homebrewing terms, the question could be : Given a fixed amount of wort ( say 2 litres) , which propagation procedure maximize final yeast cells count? (Of course yeast quality and suitability should be preserved...) - ------------------------------------------- Alessandro Calamida Torino (Italy) email alessandro.calamida at fiat.com Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 08:13:47 -0700 From: "Don Van Valkenburg" <ferment at flash.net> Subject: Ask not what the AHA can do for you Or to quote another philosopher "Can't we all just get along" The real problem with the AHA as well as most other homebrewing related businesses is a dwindling customer base. They are just doing the reorganizing shuffle and trying to adjust to the changing market. What we all can do to help the whole industry is teach a buddy to brew. Give a man a beer and he will drink today Teach him to brew and he will always have beer Don Van Valkenburg Brew at steinfillers.com www.steinfillers.com Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 07/30/99, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96