---

	FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
		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


Contents:
  re: peat smoked porter (John_E_Schnupp)
  Re: Nitro Question (Brian Rezac)
  Hefeweizen:  need for secondary? ("George de Piro")
  Wort Dilution ("A. J. deLange")
  re: spam (from P. Babcock) ("Nigel Porter")
  misc. ("Sieben, Richard")
  Rodenbach's response to rumors of its demise (Tidmarsh Major)
  Rollmaster Grain Mill (JDPils)
  Pivo pitch ("Alan Meeker")
  Scientific Glossary ("Pannicke, Glen A.")
  Re: Spam... (Chad Bohl)
  Re: Rodenbach's Demise (phil sides jr)
  Re: Spam... ("Dave Hinrichs")
  Cherry Stout Reply ("Julia Herz")
  Mr Neibergall's well placed words/spam (Susan/Bill Freeman)
  Big "G" Faucet and Nitro Dispense (Richard Foote)
  pitching rates, etc. (Scott Murman)
  Truer words never spoken (Some Guy)
  PH and spam post ----Close enough??? ("Peter J. Calinski")
  New Brewer Help ("Nic Templeton")
  web publishing (Chester Waters)
  "Illegitimis non carborundum" (Vance J Stringham)
  Spam me (David Lamotte)
  rumblings and ramblings ("Dave Sapsis")


* Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy!

* AOL members: Visit the AOL Homebrewing boards before they're gone!
* Go to aol://5863:126/mBLA:185893

* Entry deadline for the Mayfare Homebrew Competition is 3/15/00 
* See http://www.maltosefalcons.com/ for more information

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 FROM THE E-MAIL
  ACCOUNT YOU WISH TO HAVE SUBSCRIBED OR UNSUBSCRIBED!!!**
IF YOU HAVE SPAM-PROOFED your e-mail address, you cannot subscribe to
  the digest as we canoot reach you. We will not correct your address
  for the automation - that's your job.

The HBD is a copyrighted document. The compilation is copyright 
  HBD.ORG. Individual postings are copyright by their authors. ASK 
  before reproducing and you'll rarely have trouble. Digest content 
  cannot be reproduced by any means for sale or profit.

More information is available by sending the word "info" to 
req at hbd.org.

JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)



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


Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 23:01:12 -0800
From: John_E_Schnupp at amat.com
Subject: re: peat smoked porter

Pete,

>I need a bit of recipe help.  I purchased 1 lb of peaked smoked grain from
>Brewers Resource a while back.  Just tried the smoked porter at the VT Pub
>and Brewery in burlington.  It was quite good with a subtle smoked flavor
>that I thought was interested and my SO hated.  I would like to get a flavor
>similar. a smell of smoke and taste but not overwelming.

What brought you to my neck of the woods?

>Looking through past digests I have seen mention of about a 1/2 lb in a 5
>gallon batch.  Will this be too overwelming?  Any experiences are gladly
>accepted.

I brewed a smoked sweet stout that took 3rd place in the Green Mountain
Mashers competition last year.  I used 1/4 lb of peated malt and there
was a good smoky flavor.  This fall a brewed a smoked porter and used
1/2 lb because I wanted some intense smoke flavor but barely got any.

My notes indicate that I crushed the stout grain the day before brewing
(I don't have a mill so I use the one at the store) and I crushed the
grain for the porter about 6 days before brewing.  In fact, I recall that
by the time I brewed my porter it was hard to even smell the smokiness
of the grains (as compared to a fresh crush).  IMO, for fresh crushed
peated grains, a little goes a long way.  I will use small amount of
fresh crushed peated grains from now on.  Also, IMO, it's better
to underestimate and use more grain the next batch than to use too
much the first time and have something you don't enjoy drinking.

John Schnupp, N3CNL
Dirty Laundry Brewery (temporarily closed)
Georgia, VT
95 XLH 1200




Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 01:36:54 -0700
From: Brian Rezac <rawhide at oneimage.com>
Subject: Re: Nitro Question

Jay Spies wrote:

>I recently had the good fortune to stumble across over a dozen faucet handle
>and shank assemblies, as well as several manifolds and drip pans in a mouldy
>warehouse behind a friend's restaurant.  Buried among the detritus was a
>genuine Guiness faucet.  After a thorough disassembly and cleaning of all
>the equipment (5-Star kicks major butt), I am now in the position of adding
>a Nitro faucet to my existing 3-keg beer freezer.  I have following a few
>questions about nitrogen carbonation and dispense...
>
>First, I assume that I'll need an additional tank with the preferred 70% CO2
>/ 30% N2 mixture, and a nitrogen regulator. <snip>  
>If I set the CO2/N2 regulator to about 30 psi (which I have read
>is optimal), can I carbonate with the mixed gas at 30 psi, or do I have to
>carbonate with my usual 12 psi of 100% CO2 and then switch to the mixed gas
>to dispense only?  I would think that to get the miniscule amount of N2 that
>*is* soluble to go into solution, it would be best to carbonate with the
>mixed gas, but I don't know.  Thoughts?
<snip>
>Anyone who uses a Guiness tap and nitro dispense have any thoughts? Have I
>missed anything crucial?  Inquiring minds want to know...

Jay,

First of all, I'm jealous of your great score.  While I was at the AHA,
I had a similar question from a homebrewer in Alabama.  I didn't know
all the answers, so I took his number and actually called Guinness. 
They were very cooperative and had me in touch with one of their draft
specialist within 5 minutes.  I still don't have all the answers, but
here are some points that may help.

1) The kegs are only carbonated.  Use just CO2 and carbonate as you
normally would for a stout.  The mixture of gas is for
dispensing/pushing.
2) I believe that the mix is 75% Nitrogen and 25% CO2.  From everything
I've read and heard, the mixture of gas needs to be done while their
filling the tank.  (You can't just fill the tank 3/4 with Nitrogen and
then top it off with CO2.)  No worries, however.  Most of the gas
companies are already dealing with the mix and will have it.  (There are
one or two Guinness accounts in Baltimore.)
3) As for the serving pressure, I've heard of a fairly wide range to
have it "perfect".  Since there are many factors - temperature,
restriction, length of beer line, final gravity - you're probably just
going to have to play with it.

Hopefully, someone else can help with some of you other questions.  I'm
glad that you like Five Star products.

Slainte!

Brian Rezac
Five Star Products & Services
brezac at fivestarchemicals.com


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 03:40:11 -0500
From: "George de Piro" <gdepiro at mindspring.com>
Subject: Hefeweizen:  need for secondary?

Howdy all,

Russ asks if he needs to transfer his Weizen to a secondary fermentor.

The simple answer is "no."

I have made Weizen at home both using a secondary and not, and have found
the secondarydid not really improve the beer.  In fact, the more you
transfer a beer, the higher the odds of you messing it up in some way
(infection, oxygen pick-up, etc.), so minimize the number of transfers.

I have found that many beers could be made without a secondary, but it
really depends on the style of beer and yeast that you use.

Have fun!

George de Piro

C.H. Evans Brewing Company
at the Albany Pump Station
(518)447-9000
http://evansale.com (under perpetual construction)

Malted Barley Appreciation Society
Homebrew Club
http://hbd.org/mbas



Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 13:23:55 +0000
From: "A. J. deLange" <ajdel at mindspring.com>
Subject: Wort Dilution

The following may be a bit much but it will at the least keep the
following couple of column inches from being used for ad hominem
attacks.

When I saw Stephen Ross's post on "Total Gravity Units" I said to myself
"This is a rough approximation suitable for use with $2.00 hydrometers
but not for the true  geek." and started playing around with some
numbers. I thought the results somewhat interesting. The "Total Gravity
Unit" method is quite accurate and this derives from two things. First,
though degrees Plato are a somewhat non linear function of specific
gravity, when degrees Plato are multiplied by specific gravity to
compute grams of extract per liter, which increases slightly with points
( S.G. = 1 + points/1000), this boost flattens out the negative
curvature of the Plato curve so that the amount of extract in a given
volume of wort can be pretty well approximated (1% error or less from
1.005 to 1.090) as linear i.e. by simply multiplying the points by a
constant  (0.2585875 for grams/L). By comparison, a linear approximation
to degrees Plato (the number of grams of extract in 100 grams of wort)
will be in error by up to 7.9% over this same range.

Second, the dilution factor is computed from

(gm/L before dilution)(Liters before) = (gm/L after)(Liters after) =
total gm extract

thus dilution factor is the ratio of two approximately linear functions:

(L after)/(L before) = (gm/L before)/(gm/L after) = dilution factor

If the errors in (gm/L before) and (gm/L after) are small (1% errors
are  small) and are of the same sign, and they are, then these errors
partially  cancel when the ratio is taken. Denoting (gm/L before +
err_b) as the value of the linear approximation to the grams per liter
before dilution and (gm/L after + err_a) as the value of the linear
approximation to the grams per liter after dilution

(gm/L before + err_b)/(gm/L after + err_a)  is approximately equal to

(gm/L before)/(gm/L after) + err_b/(gm/L before)  - err_a/(gm/L after)

Note: 100*err_b/(gm/L before) is the percentage error before and
similarly for after dilution.

DISCUSSION:

Degrees Plato can be calculated from specific gravity points by

P = -0.0035 +0.2585875*p - 2.2229E-4*p^2 + 1.36E-7*p^3

where p are the points (example: wort with s.g. 1.040 has 40 points).
These coefficients were obtained by a least squares fit to the ASBC MOA
tables. They give a result very close to the official ASBC value

P = -616.868 + 1111.14*SG -630.272*(SG)^2 + 135.997*(SG)^3

including the result that a wort of SG 1.0 is -.003 Plato.  This small
error is accepted for the sake of better approximation over the more
usually encountered range of gravities. The grams of extract per liter
of wort are found by multiplying P by SG, the specific gravity i.e. (1 +
p/1000). Carrying out the multiplication (ignoring the -0.0035 term)
gives another polynomial:

gm/L = 0.2585875*p + 3.62934E-5*p^2 - 8.6E-8*p^3 + 1.4E-10*p^4

Note that linear coefficient is the same for the Plato and gm/L
polynomials but that the quadratic (p^2)  coefficint is an order of
magnitude smaller in the latter polynomial and the cubic (p^3)  is
smaller too but not by so much. These coefficients determine the amount
of curvature and thus the gm/L curve is more linear.

This should be enough to allow the few interested to explore further.
Independent of dilution calculation the gm/L approximation may be of
interest for those wishing to calculate the amount of extract acheived
(the total is the gm/L multiplied by the number of liters of wort) for
efficiency calculation. As noted above gm/L = 0.2585875*p is accurate to
a percent or better up for p ranging form 5  to 90.
gm/L = 0.2585875*p + 3.62934E-5*p^2 is good to within a quarter of a
percent over this same range.

HOW ACCURATE IS THE POINTS RATIO METHOD?

Stephen's example: 5 gallons of wort at 1.050 to 1.045. The dilution
ratio from the points is 50/45 = 1.11111111 and five times this is
5.5555555 gal. The "correct" solution demands we calculate the grams/L
at 1.050 which is 13.007 and the gm/L at 1.045 which is 11.699 and take
the ratio. This gives 1.111804 which brings up another interesting
point: you can work in gm/L but the volume ratio is valid for any volume
unit you desire. Thus 5*1.111804 gives 5.5590 gallons as the desired
diluted volume.

Let's try a more dramatic example: 1.090 wort to be diluted to 1.045.
The points ratio gives the dilution factor as 2.00000. Five gallons
would be diluted to 10. The gm/L for 1.090 wort is 23.510 and so the
dilution ratio calculated more precicely is 2.000957. Five gallons
should be diluted to 10.047. The points ratio is defintely "close enough
for govenment work" in both cases.



Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 13:44:19 -0000
From: "Nigel Porter" <nigel at sparger.freeserve.co.uk>
Subject: re: spam (from P. Babcock)

>Once again, a bit of spam pops by. Connectivity went awry last 
>night. Mea culpa. And, once again, someone needed to comment on 
>it. Don't know why I let it irritate me, but it does. For anyone else 
>who feels it necessary  complain, just remember how much Karl 
>and I get paid to do this. Then lay down until the feeling passes...

Well said Pat. I'm sure pressing the Page Down key a couple of 
extra times can't be that distracting that it requires a quick bitch.

I wholeheartedly expect this post to be page downed as well...

Nigel
(Guildford, Surrey)


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 08:19:06 -0600
From: "Sieben, Richard" <SIER1 at Aerial1.com>
Subject: misc.

Please leave doc Pivo alone,  I find him a fun part of the HBD.  I don't
agree with him all the time, but I enjoy his comments just the same.
Lighten up a little, this is for fun remember.

Jeff, about that Spam, I think that since it is such a RARE occurence on the
HBD that folks point it out because it is a backward way of asking, "is
everything ok or is something broken?"   Anyone have a recipe for SPAM beer?
hehehehe

I am responding from memory so I don't remember who asked about using peat
smoked malt in a porter, but I did make a couple of scottish ales lately and
found that 1/4 lb gave me just the right amount of smoke flavor.  2oz was
barely perceptible and I would be careful about using more because I don't
like a real smoky beer.

Then there is the post by 'Dick' who has been brewing the same 6 beers for
30 years and not really cleaning up his bottles and equipment to no ill
effect?  hmmm I wonder if you just drink them fast enough that the infection
never takes over.  But, if you improve your process, I am sure you would
notice an improvement.  Nope you don't have to if you don't want to, but you
might try it just as an experiment.  For myself, I need to be concerned
about cleanliness and sanitation because I brew far faster than I can drink,
therefore my beer has to be able to maintain a long shelf life.

enough from me then.

Rich Sieben
Island Lake, IL


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 08:46:46 -0600
From: Tidmarsh Major <ctmajor at samford.edu>
Subject: Rodenbach's response to rumors of its demise

Rodenbach & Palm breweries have responded to rumors that Rodenbach
faces extinction  A copy of the letter is posted on Rodenbach's web
page:
http://www.rodenbach.be/enews2.htm
The long and the short of it is that Palm has invested a large sum of
money in Rodenbach and is committed to preserving traditional Belgian
beer styles.  Alexander Rodenbach is not a traditional style and will
be discontinued, but Rodenbach and Rodenbach Grand Cru will be
continued.

Regards,
Tidmarsh Major
Birmingham, Alabama


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 09:47:34 EST
From: JDPils at aol.com
Subject: Rollmaster Grain Mill

Back in December I received some feedback on purchasing a grain mill from 
various HBD subscribers and wanted to advise you all on my selection and 
results.  I received positive feedback on several manufacturer's.  It seems 
most homebrewer's have been satisfied with their mills.  These included the 
Valley Mill, JSP Malt Mill, Phil Mill, and the Rollmaster.  ( I also have a 
Corona Mill at home).  Thanks to all who contributed.

I wound up purchasing the Rollmaster Mill, by Environmental Marketing Group, 
inc. (303-795-8646) thru Beer, Beer, and More Beer (1-800-600-0033) 
http://www.morebeer.com/cat.html, for $195 including shipping.  I purchased a 
tupperware box with front drawer, a few nuts and bolts and a feeler guage 
totalling $20.  I mounted the mill on 1/2" plywood and cut a hole in the top 
of the tupperware box and mounted the mill on it.  For now I don't mind hand 
cranking.  It usually takes 20 - 30 minutes to weigh and crush, which saves 
about 1 hour going to a local brew shop.  I usually have all ingredients on 
hand unless using a new yeast.

While the Rollmaster cost a little more than the others it has some features 
I preferred such as"  2" rollers, coarse knurl, maple frame, 8 - 10lbs. 
hopper, and  continously adjustable from both sides.  

I have crushed two batches worth (50lbs.) and have acheived the similar 
efficiencies as the local brew shop who had a JSP Mill.  Thus so far I have 
been very happy (by the way, I have no affiliations with any of the suppliers 
mentioned above).

Cheers,

Jim Dunlap


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 09:47:27 -0500
From: "Alan Meeker" <ameeker at welchlink.welch.jhu.edu>
Subject: Pivo pitch

Dr. Pivo, the Prince of Underpitching, gave this advice in his last post:
- ---------------------------------------
" Thou shall choose the yeast called Edme.  Thou shallt pitch at the rate
of one half gram per litre. "
- ---------------------------------------
Interestingly, this rate of about 10 grams dried yeast per 5 gallon batch is
in fact pretty close to the "commercial" pitching rate! So this is what he
means by "underpitching?"  No wonder he doesn't see any problems!.....

Alan Meeker
Baltimore, MD





Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 10:00:01 -0500
From: "Pannicke, Glen A." <glen_pannicke at merck.com>
Subject: Scientific Glossary

In light of recent discussions here on the HBD, I thought it might helpful
to post my special Scientific Glossary in order to prevent future
misinterpretations of the reports on our collective studies and scientific
discussions:

"IT HAS LONG BEEN KNOWN"... 
I didn't look up the original reference.

"A DEFINITE TREND IS EVIDENT"... 
These data are practically meaningless.

"WHILE IT HAS NOT BEEN POSSIBLE TO PROVIDE DEFINITE ANSWERS TO THE
QUESTIONS"... 
An unsuccessful experiment, but I still hope to get it published.

"THREE OF THE SAMPLES WERE CHOSEN FOR DETAILED STUDY"...
The other results didn't make any sense.

"TYPICAL RESULTS ARE SHOWN"... 
This is the prettiest graph.

"THESE RESULTS WILL BE IN A SUBSEQUENT REPORT"...
I might get around to this sometime, if pushed/funded.

"IN MY EXPERIENCE"... 
Once

"IN CASE AFTER CASE"... 
Twice

"IN A SERIES OF CASES"... 
Thrice

"IT IS BELIEVED THAT"... 
I think.

"IT IS GENERALLY BELIEVED THAT"... 
A couple of others think so, too.

"CORRECT WITHIN AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE"... 
Wrong.

"ACCORDING TO STATISTICAL ANALYSIS"... 
Rumour has it.

"A STATISTICALLY-ORIENTED PROJECTION OF THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THESE
FINDINGS"... 
A wild guess.

"A CAREFUL ANALYSIS OF OBTAINABLE DATA"... 
Three pages of notes were obliterated when I knocked over a glass of beer.

"IT IS CLEAR THAT MUCH ADDITIONAL WORK WILL BE REQUIRED BEFORE A COMPLETE
UNDERSTANDING OF THIS PHENOMENON OCCURS"... 
I don't understand it.

"AFTER ADDITIONAL STUDY BY MY COLLEAGUES"... 
They don't understand it either.

"THANKS ARE DUE TO JOE BLOTZ FOR ASSISTANCE WITH THE EXPERIMENT AND TO CINDY
ADAMS FOR VALUABLE DISCUSSIONS"... 
Mr. Blotz did the work and Ms. Adams explained to me what it meant.

"A HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT AREA FOR EXPLORATORY STUDY"... A totally useless topic
selected by my committee.

"IT IS HOPED THAT THIS STUDY WILL STIMULATE FURTHER INVESTIGATION IN THIS
FIELD"... 
I quit.

NO APPARENT SIDE EFFECTS WERE NOTED...
If you ignore the class action lawyers


Just Brew It!

Glen Pannicke
http://alehouse.homepage.com



Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 09:07:49 -0600
From: Chad Bohl <Chad_Bohl at digi.com>
Subject: Re: Spam...

When I sit down with a brew and start sifting through 
email, I find that I get about 15 spams a day. When I 
see one on the hbd I simply page down. I really am 
surprised that more don't get through. 

Hat's off to Pat B. and the HBD crew!

Chad


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 10:12:12 -0500
From: phil sides jr <psides at carl.net>
Subject: Re: Rodenbach's Demise

I sent an email to Brewery Palm a couple of weeks ago expressing my
displeasure with the decision to discontinue Alexander and Grand Cru.
This was the rather excellent response I received:

> Dear consumer,
>
> Please take the time to read through the attached e-mail. It gives you
an
> answer to the unfortunate controversy going on regarding Rodenbach
> Alexander and Rodenbach Grand Cru.
>
> Best Regards,
>
>
> Geert De Craen
>
>  <<alexandeng.doc>>
>
> Brewery Palm

Dear consumers,

We wish  to react to  the rumours and  mis-information regarding
Rodenbach which are circulating on the Internet.

When the Palm Brewery took a majority stake in the Rodenbach Brewery in
Summer 1998, it declared that it would take  full responsibility for
this exceptionnal brewery. Rodenbach is the only brewery in the world
making a brown-sour beer through the "mixed fermentation" process, the
so called "Flemish Red Ale". Essential in this process is the 18 to 24
months maturation period into 300 hugh oak barrels of 100 to 600 HL
each. During this maturation, the organic acids are tranformed into
esters, this gives the Rodenbach beer the aroma and taste profile of
wine. Palm has always been dedicated to preserving the unique, authentic
Belgian beer culture.  We are keeping our word!

At the time of the takeover of the Rodenbach Brewery, it was on the
point of collapse.   In one year, Palm  succeeded in reversing  the
desastrous decline of Rodenbach Classical which is now growing again.
Palm Brewery has invested 70 million Belgian francs (+/- 1,8 million
US$) in media, POS-material, and in above - and below the line -
actions.

Moreover the Palm Brewery is also investing 170 million Belgian francs
(+/- 4,2 million US$)  in the Rodenbach Brewery estate.  The objective
is to transform the Brewery into a pole of attraction  in the region and
to draw many visitors to the brewery.

The Rodenbach Grand Cru beer  is the "mother" of Rodenbach  beers and is
consisted of 100% aged beer. Tbe good news is that of course Rodenbach
Grand Cru is not being withdrawn. Palm Brewery has just invested in the
re-design of the label. Rodenbach Classical is a blend: one part aged in
oak barrels from 18 to 24 months (20%), and the other aged five to six
weeks (80%).

On the other hand, production of Rodenbach Alexander stops in 2000.
Alexander Rodenbach was first brewed in 1986, the 200th anniversary of
the birth of Alexander Rodenbach, co-founder of the Rodenbach brewing
tradition. Rodenbach Alexander is therefore a beer brewed for a specific
occasion, and also for the 150th anniversary  of the Brewery. Rodenbach
Alexander is a "KRIEK"-beer based on extracts. A real "KRIEK" is
traditionnaly made from 100% "LAMBIEK", Rodenbach Alexander is not. That
is why Alexander is not credible for real  connoisseurs of beer.  The
Palm Brewery is working to preserve  authentic Belgian beer culture:
Rodenbach Grand Cru is part of it , Rodenbach Alexander is not.  On the
contrary, "KRIEK BOON" , a real KRIEK beer promoted by the brewery Palm,
is made from 100% "LAMBIEK". Please verify on the bottle of every KRIEK
you drink if the beer is made from 100% LAMBIEK. If it is, you have the
real thing, one of Belgium's  real regional beer styles.  Besides this,
the volumes of Alexander Rodenbach hardly  represent  half a day's
annual production.  In order to be able to invest more in the real
traditional thing, the Rodenbach Classical and Rodenbach Grand Cru, we
must stop producing Alexander.  We want to maintain the credibility of
Rodenbach as a regional Belgian beer style.  Rodenbach Alexander is
detrimental to the authenticity which is precisely what we want to
promote.

We hope we have managed to convince  real beer connoisseurs to help us
in supporting  "the real thing", namely Rodenbach Klassiek & Grand Cru,
and not the "would-be" beers such as Alexander and many other beers on
the market.

We take this opportunity to invite you to visit  the  Palm Brewery and
Rodenbach Web site.  There you can learn more about Belgium's real
regional beer styles.(www.palm.be) (www.rodenbach.be).


Sincerely Yours,


Brewery Palm

Phil Sides, Jr.
Concord, NH
- --
Macht nicht o'zapft ist, Prost!




Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 09:27:11 -0600
From: "Dave Hinrichs" <dhinrichs at quannon.com>
Subject: Re: Spam...

>Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 21:48:22 -0500
>From: Pat Babcock <pbabcock at hbd.org>
>Subject: Spam...

>Greetings, Beerlings! Take me to your lager...

>Once again, a bit of spam pops by. Connectivity went awry last night. Mea 
>culpa.

No need to apologize...


>And, once again, someone needed to comment on it. Don't know why I 
>let it irritate me, but it does. For anyone else who feels it necessary 
>complain, just remember how much Karl and I get paid to do this. Then lay 
>down until the feeling passes...


If you must complain, write it on a check to support this great resource.

HBD Server Fund
PO Box 871309
Canton Township, MI 48187-6309


 
Dave Hinrichs 


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 08:33:17 -0700
From: "Julia Herz" <julia at aob.org>
Subject: Cherry Stout Reply

Bill,

Hello.  I've now brewed a cherry stout 2 times and it seems to my personal
preference that an imperial style, with its heavy sweetness and large mouth
feel, is complimented quite well by the almost sour flavor of certain
cherries.  I add them in secondary and then make sure to go to primary as it
does take some time for it to finish out.

Best regards,
Julia Herz

Reply to the below:

Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 20:24:21 -0600
From: "Bill Bunning" <bunz at pcola.gulf.net>
Subject: Cherry Stout

I'm getting ready to brew a cherry stout and was wondering what style of
stout would suit this beer the best.  I'm an all-grain brewer.  All
suggestions welcome.

Bill Bunning




Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 09:50:43 -0600
From: Susan/Bill Freeman <potsus at bellsouth.net>
Subject: Mr Neibergall's well placed words/spam

Thank you sincerely for your well placed and cogent post.  For those who
don't remember their high school chemistry: "salt", "aspirin', "beer".
Hey, I went to school too, all-be-it a long time ago, but I never
thought I would ever use that "stuff" again.  Perhaps the group in
question should also go back and take another look at psycology 101.

As for Pat and Karl... I prescribe judicious amounts of all of the three
items listed above and fervently hope that you both would reconsider
allowing us to place your names in nomination for at least some official
office.  We need you guys and would not have near as nice a place to air
our various opinions without you.  We all should be, and most of us are,
forever in your debt.  Thank you.

I even remember enough Latin to translate the two phrases in the posts.
The rest of you are on your own...

Bill Freeman aka Edler Rat
KP Brewery - Home of "the perfesser"
Birmingham, AL



Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 11:05:25 -0500
From: Richard Foote <rfoote at mindspring.com>
Subject: Big "G" Faucet and Nitro Dispense

Jay Spies writes asking about recommendations for hooking up beer gas
(N2/CO2) and a Guinness faucet.

Do not run out and buy a nitrogen regulator if you already have a spare CO2
regulator. You can buy a $10 adapter (sold by the gas supplier) that will
adapt your CO2 regulator to fit the N2 tank used for beer gas.  I've done
this, and I've hooked up a friend with this set up.  It works.  I also
traded in a spare 
20 lb. CO2 tank to get the N2 tank used for beer gas.  The beer gas cost
$18 + $10 = $28 total cost.

The first time I attempted a big "G" clone using my big "G" faucet I
precarbonated it as usual.  This resulted in too much carbonation and did
not result in the anticipated smooooothness.  Next time around I think I'd
force precarbonate about 1/2 of normal, say to 6 psi over a few days or
alternatively, I may try 100% beer gas.  One thing I feel strong about is
not to carbonate fully beforehand.  I do not think it necessary to force
your beer out at 30 psi to generate turbulance, however, YMMV.  I'd run
mine at the normal (for me) 12 psi.  When you watch someone pour a pint of
big "G" it does not come spurting out at high velocity.  It takes time and
(to me) appears to be closer to a dribble.  

Rick Foote
Whistle Pig Brewing Co.
Murrayville, GA



Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 09:11:13 -0800 (PST)
From: Scott Murman <smurman at best.com>
Subject: pitching rates, etc.


whenever these lines get drawn in the sand regarding pitching rates,
oxygenation, HSA, whatever, many people seem to lose sight of the
distribution on this forum.  there are many beginning brewers who come
to the HBD for advice, and simply need help with the basics.
instructing them to pitch a healthy amount of yeast and maintain a
stable cool temperature is good advice in these circumstances.  once
brewers have advanced to the point of making good quality beer, then
they can start playing around (if the desire) with some of the more
esoteric concepts, such as slow ferments, pressure ferments, pressure
cookers, etc.  then they can look forward to many hours spewing venom
at people who do things differently than themselves.  it would be nice
if the more advanced brewers would consider a dialogue of sharing
different techniques and reasonings, rather than simply critiques of
others, IMO.  there's more than one way to swing a cat.

there are none so deaf, as those who refuse to listen.

 -SM-





Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 14:14:15 -0500 (EST)
From: Some Guy <pbabcock at hbd.org>
Subject: Truer words never spoken

On Fri, 25 Feb 2000, Pat Babcock wrote:

Greetings, Beerlings! Take me to your lager...

 Scott Murman <smurman at best.com> said:

> there are none so deaf, as those who refuse to listen.

Amen!

 -
See ya!

Pat Babcock in SE Michigan         pbabcock at hbd.com
Home Brew Digest Janitor           janitor@hbd.org
HBD Web Site                       http://hbd.org
The Home Brew Page                 http://hbd.org/pbabcock
   "Just a cyber-shadow of his former brewing self..."



Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 16:21:18 -0500
From: "Peter J. Calinski" <PCalinski at iname.com>
Subject: PH and spam post ----Close enough???

Hey, Jeff (Lutes) 

>3.86394 S, 12.46223 W Rennerian
 
>P.S. Kudos to the person who can figure out where I'm at from the
Rennerian
>coords :P


I would guess you are close to Emporia Kansas; how did I do?

Pete Calinski
East Amherst NY
Near Buffalo NY
0 Degrees 44.00 Min North, 4 Degrees 56.36 Min. East of Jeff Renner


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 13:30:08 -0800
From: "Nic Templeton" <ntempleton at iname.com>
Subject: New Brewer Help

To everyone that answered my request for information, thank you very much.
I recieved so many responses that I don't know if I will be able to answer
all of them.  I did notice that the general opinion was that the book,
"Designing Good/Great Beers" was the one to get.  I'll be getting it this
weekend.  Again thanks.

Nic Templeton



Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 01:23:23 -0600
From: Chester Waters <cwaters at home.com>
Subject: web publishing

Thanks to the many responses I received about Netscape being unable to
see attached .jpg's in my HERMS web site:
http://www.members.home.net/cwaters/Chet's_HERMS.html
Everyone pointed out that files cannot have spaces, or Navigator can't
see them. Went back and made all file names with no spaces, and for the
most part it solved the problems - a few .jpgs still don't show, but the
site's useable in either Explorer and Navigator now. Again many thanks.
C.H. Waters - Omaha (can't figure out Rennerian, except alot south and
west)


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 19:01:48 -0500
From: Vance J Stringham <vancenjeannie at juno.com>
Subject: "Illegitimis non carborundum"

Nic,

	The subject of this message is about the number 1 piece of advise one
can take when reading HBD.  I fully agree with you - some of this stuff
is way above my head.  I have only a few batches under my belt and I am
still very content when I crack open a bottle and it tastes like  beer,
complex or not.

	Paul wrote -  "You're in over your head alright.  Over your head in the
B.S. that is the 			HBD. Put on yer tall boots (better yet, waders) and
jump right in. " 

 Isn't this the same for just about anything you come across?

	Paul also wrote - "You are not meant to understand it.  Because the sole
purpose 
		most of what is said here is meant to impress the writer with 
		his ability to regurgitate meaningless reference and re-iterate 
		what they learned in college chemistry 101.  I've had Chem 101, 
		201, and 301 and still do not see a lot of use for most of the 
		chemistry related information that is posted here. "

 Yes, just like any other group, you will have those whom are gifted
enough to have a certain established knowledge but not the wisdom enough
to decern how to properly present it.  There is a ton of knowledge
presented in HBD - straining it threw can be a strain.

	Finally, Paul wrote - "That said, I heartily recommend the HBD as a
source of good 			basic brewing information.  Just take it all with a
grain of sodium chloride, ..."

 Best statement of them all.  Just remember - if all else fails - refer
back to the title of this message.  Either that or take up basket
weaving...

Vance J. Stringham
Old Channel Swill Homebrewers


Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 11:12:58 +1100
From: David Lamotte <lamotted at ozemail.com.au>
Subject: Spam me

Hey Guys, listen to Pat, he is the one real God not Pivo.

I actually welcome the little bit of spam slipping through - It means that
our esteemed Janitors are off doing something else with their lives. Rather
than just looking after us ungratefull mob.

David


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 16:45:05 -0800
From: "Dave Sapsis" <dsapsis at earthlink.net>
Subject: rumblings and ramblings

Being an inquisitive guy, I frequently wander out in the neighborhood
looking skyward to see what up there in and amongst the air and trees.
Occasionally I step in dogshit, but I keep wandering and wondering
nonetheless.  It's worth it me.

Debates rage on as to who knows what, who can tell you how to fix this or
that, or how you too have been led into the muck like a shmuck.  We would
all be well served to think critically about any and all things -- whether
that is how to make better beer or how best to clean one's shoes.  Use or
loose what you find in this forum, but for chrissakes, at least question
why.

I for one have always found Steve Alexander's posts to be amongst the most
well thought out AND implementation neutral posts seen this way since Andy
Walsh. Some seem taken that he is simply a number spitter and doesn't
actually have the objective function (good beer) working in his
epistomology.  Seems to me what he does is offer a current understanding of
topics as they relate to threads that arise here.  I never once heard him
say unqualified to "use high pitching rates".  Why others are challenged by
his research synposes baffles me. If you don't get the take home message
fine.  Ask.  If the problem is with the person, not the ideas, go for a walk
and mull it over.  I also dont think I ever heard him reject triangle tests
as a valid protocol for assessing outcomes.  Steve, whacha think of triangle
tests?

Which brings me to today's quiz:

>From the following experiment:

Q: How long does it take direct sunlight to lightstrike a beer?

*Blindfolded triangle test with two independent testers
*Treatments invloved direct sunlight (july, midday, 38 degrees Lat.,
cloudless sky)
*variable of interest: exposure time
*Homebrewed Pilsner of moderate-high BU (~40)
*experiment adminstrator--  all samples poured into standardized vessels and
either put into sunlight for prescribed duration or left at rest in shade.
Six samples for each duration, half with sun exposure, half without.

* Three samples of each duration set were smelled by each tester. Gloves
were used to nullify any possible tactile interference wrt condensation on
glass.

* Taster asked to idenify skunkiness in samples.

A: a) 60 seconds        b)3 minutes             c)10 minutes    d)none
detected
Answer at 11.

peace.
- --dave, sacramento, where the rivers are rising and the Kings play no D






Return to table of contents

---