HOMEBREW Digest #3645 Tue 29 May 2001

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

		Digest Janitor: janitor@hbd.org


          Northern  Brewer, Ltd. Home Brew Supplies
        http://www.northernbrewer.com  1-800-681-2739

    Support those who support you! Visit our sponsor's site!
********** Also visit http://hbd.org/hbdsponsors.html *********

  Yeast Starter (Hop_Head)
  Re: Two Thingies (puff)
  Yet more on the CAP experiment (Petr Otahal)
  Pressure Fermenting ("Keith Menefy")
  re: H:W Cap 'experiment' ("Stephen Alexander")
  URL For Basco ("MrWES")
  Re: CAP experiment -- controlling variables / Competition (Jeff Renner)
  Iodine concentration ("Neil K")
  New Bern, NC. Beer places? ("H. Dowda")
  resources needed for Dream Brewery (RoyRudy)
  Re: CAP experiment -- controlling variables / Competition ("RJ")
  Mash runoff clarity (Brian Lundeen)
  CAP Experiment (AJ)
  force cooling of wort ("Tammy Duriavich")
  Rims pump question ("Doug Craftchick")
  Oops... (Pat Babcock)

* * 2001 AHA NHC - 2001: A Beer Odyssey, Los Angeles, CA * June 20th-23rd See http://www.beerodyssey.com for more * information. Wear an HBD ID Badge to wear to the gig! * http://hbd.org/cgi-bin/shopping * * Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy! * 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. JANITOR on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 01:11:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Hop_Head at webtv.net Subject: Yeast Starter I made a yeast starter with Wyeast Oktoberfest dated 3-9-01 (I forget the number right now) on Friday night. Well here it is Sunday night and only the slightest activity has started. Should I let this yeast work its way up? If I do, will it be OK to use? Or should I trash it and find something new? I was planning to brew 10 gallons of Bock on Friday and wanted a large starter. Hoppy Brewing Jim Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 28 May 101 01:07:50 -0400 (EDT) From: puff at guild.net Subject: Re: Two Thingies Cas Koralewski <caskor at buckeye-express.com> writes: > Thingie 1) Are there any recipes out there for a triple bock? > > Thingie 2) I've been brewing for seven years now and am ready to take the > major leap (as long as "mom" ok's it).I am interested in constructing my > own two or three tier brewing system. Are there any DYI plans floating out > there that I can "tap" into? I posted a bunch of similar questions a couple years ago. The resulting flood of useful information I put up at: http://www.darksleep.com/puff/writings/beer/scalingup_summary.html I never did get to the point of producing a boiled down, FAQ-style guide to the topic. One of these days... On the bright side, I am at least brewing once again (albeit not in my wreck of a home ; someday the renovatios will be done...) Steven J. Owens puff at guild.net Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 16:46:09 +1000 From: Petr Otahal <potahal at utas.edu.au> Subject: Yet more on the CAP experiment Hi everyone, Seeing as every man and his dog has decided to give their advice on the CAP experiment I thought Id give mine. The first and most important thing is the question. Is there a difference between beer fermented in a tall, narrow container and one fermented in a short, squat container? Notice the word DIFFERENCE folks, this is where the key lies. It is not necessary to duplicate every batch to be brewed, but it is necessary to start with enough PITCHED (and thoroughly mixed) wort BEFORE transferring to the two separate containers. In other words each brewer brews say 8 gal. of wort, aerates and pitches the yeast, thoroughly mixes and transfers 4 gal. of wort into each 5 gal. container, this ensures that both containers start under the same conditions. Both containers will need to be put into the same temperature controlled environment and fermented for the same length of time. This obviously requires that the brewer has a suitable 9 gallon container to hold the wort prior to splitting it. The starting wort may vary from brewer to brewer depending on the process, water, and even yeast type and pitching rate, BUT as long as we are only focused on the DIFFERENCE between the two beers brewed by each brewer, these process, water and yeast variations are not important. We are focused on whether the difference in FG between the tall narrow fermentation and the short squat fermentation is different from zero. Its when you start comparing beers between brewers that the variations become important, and obviously if the difference between the two beers brewed by each brewer is not the soul aim of the experiment then more attention needs to be paid to keeping the differences between brewers as small as possible (a hard thing to do IMO). Obviously it makes more sense to all brew the same beer so that SOME comparison can be made between brewers, but it might be interesting to choose a few different yeast strains just in case the one you choose is less affected by fermenter geometry than others. As long as the differences between brewers are well documented there are statistical techniques that can examine the differences in process and decide which are important in determining the FG or the difference in FG. There you go, more food for thought, I hope that makes sense to someone. Cheers Pete Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 19:08:49 +1200 From: "Keith Menefy" <kmenefy at ihug.co.nz> Subject: Pressure Fermenting I seem to remember reading somewhere that pressure fermenting helped improve lagers. (Can't find where I read it). Just changed my system to be able to do this. I am using a blow off tube into 18 inches of water. Thought that would increase the pressure quite a bit but on looking it up find that it is around half a pound/sq.in. Hardly seems worth the trouble. 1. Does anyone know if pressure fermenting really works? 2. What sort of pressure is required? 3. Is there a easier way to get an increase in pressure in the fermentor? Cheers Keith New Zealand Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 06:00:13 -0400 From: "Stephen Alexander" <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net> Subject: re: H:W Cap 'experiment' Been on the road (way too much) recently and I've come back to find Pat Babcock writes ... >Of course anyone whom Steve "nominated" is welcome to join the >experiment; however, there will be no voting one way or the other. We, >those participating and designing this experiment will gratefully I've asked Pat to add me to the list, but it is far from clear what "experiment" I'm signing up for, who's designing it, or much of anything else. AJ deLange and several others have asked what the hypothesis under test is and I can't honestly say I understand either, tho' I am apparently a proponent of one side or the other. Since you proposed the test Pat I think you must state what you want to test. >For those who do not wish to be involved, the cap_exp discussion list is >publicly archived every evening. Send "index" to cap_exp-request@hbd.org >to see what's there. Returns nada. ==== I do have some thoughts about what sort of hypothesis should be tested. The two recent points of contention are 1/ I dispute that H:W ratio (aspect ratio) of a fermenter is a critical factor of fermentation performance 2/ several months Mr.Fix posted that cornie kegs were particularly poor fermenters because of their aspect ratio and I noted that I had performed a few cornie ferments without the sort of poor performance Mr.Fix attributes to this type fermenter. Point 1/ (stated as a 2.5:1 H:W causes poor fermentations) is a very general statement that would require a vast number of well controlled ferments to support, (tho' only counter-examples to refute). It is extremely unlikely that a loosely organized and (of necessity) poorly controlled set of HB experiments can do anything to support the causal relationship. We simply aren't equipped to control all of the other likely factors. Point 2/ is much smaller issue, more amenable to a HB test IMO. If cornies are "bad" because of their H:W, then it would be relatively easy for HBers to split batches so as to create several cornies filled to various H:W ratios from a reputedly optimal 1:1 to 2.5:1. Using identical cornies filled to various levels removes a great number of confounding variables - tho' certainly not all. Some of the small cornies appear to be just short versions of the tall ones and may reduce the potential 'headspace' effects. Testing point 2/ would indicate whether <H:W -OR- other variables related to fill level> was the critical factor in a cornie ferment. Mr.Fix sited a number of fermentation performance problems with high H:W cornie keg fermenters. Very high diacetyl levels (350ppb), extremely long fermentation time (twice as a long as a control 22-24 days), and high FG (2P above a control). Given this, a reasonable hypothesis might be that cornie keg filled to a 2.5:1 aspect ratio will demonstrate measurably poorer fermentation than a cornie filled to a 1:1 aspect ratio, where performance is based on some measure of FG, fermentation time and/or final diacetyl level. Obviously the details of the exact ratios/fill levels and the method of fermentation measure must be hashed out. == The introduction of other fermenters (CCs, Carboys anything else) probably can't add much unless the supposedly critical variable of H:W is varied (anyone have two CCs for a control & test ?). No one as far as I know has disputed that CCs are fine fermenters so I don't understand the importance placed on these in this test. I am also concerned that this "experiment" has put the cart before the horse by deciding on 'method' before 'hypothesis' and 'experimental design'. I see absolutely no reason why all grain CAP is a requirement, yet is a style that will certainly limit the number of participants to those of us who can handle lagering. Why not expand this to additionally include an ale and/or extract recipe as well - or any split batch. There is nothing in the points of contention or hypothesis that requires either CAP or a lager yeast, and the added data across this variable may prove informative. I again appeal to Pat to put someone with the credentials and stature of an A.J.deLange (and I'm certainly willing to accept other names) in charge of the experimental design process. No proper experiment can come from a committee of individual who largely do not understand experimental design or physical sciences. That has already been demonstrated here. If the design is by consensus, and the method is chosen before the hypothesis, then we may as well take a vote as to the conclusion and avoid the effort. -Steve Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 07:01:04 -0500 From: "MrWES" <mrwes at worldnet.att.net> Subject: URL For Basco The correct URL is http://www.bascousa.com Bill Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 09:14:30 -0400 From: Jeff Renner <JeffRenner at mediaone.net> Subject: Re: CAP experiment -- controlling variables / Competition "Houseman, David L" <David.Houseman at unisys.com> clarified his idea: >BTW, when I suggested that Jeff and crew judge these beers, I wasn't >suggesting that they just be tasted, but rather that we hold a sanctioned >competition for the single style. <snip> If Jeff can hold such a sanctioned >competition, great. If not, I'll volunteer to organize one, perhaps early >Fall. This is a great idea, and I am polling AABG members to see if I can get some experienced help in doing this, probably in September. Thanks, Dave, for the suggestion. I'll keep the HBD up to date on this. Jeff - -- ***Please note new address*** (old one will still work) Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan USA, JeffRenner at mediaone.net "One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943 Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 09:49:55 -0400 From: "Neil K" <neilk27 at hotmail.com> Subject: Iodine concentration I thought this would be simple--go to the drugstore to buy some tincture of iodine to use for a starch conversion test (my first all-grain batch!) The drugstore, however, sells two strengths--a 2.5 % and 5% concentration. There's not a huge price difference but I didn't know which one to get. I hope this won't stir up a week's worth of debate here but is there a simple answer? Private e-mails are fine. Thanks as always! Neil K Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 07:17:24 -0700 (PDT) From: "H. Dowda" <hdowda at yahoo.com> Subject: New Bern, NC. Beer places? Find myself in New Bern (on N.C. coast) trapping some mosquitos. Is there a place to drink beer. Is there a brewpub worth a visit near by. Oh, yes, before there are 40gazillion e-mails impuning my intelligence to the third and fourth generation, I have been to Pubcrawler (which is usually without current reviews, it seems, pity we don't visit and insert reviews so the otherwise excellent site will be up to date). Private e-mail fine. TIA Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 07:44:18 -0700 From: RoyRudy <royrudy at nvbell.net> Subject: resources needed for Dream Brewery Planning on building an 1/2 bbl Brewery. Where can I get 15 or 20 gal pots? Vollrath? How about a pump? Any ideas? any plans? I was going to use sawed off 1/2 Sanke kegs but I don't really care for the look. Thanks in Advance. Roy Rudebusch Retired BrewPubber Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 11:13:14 -0400 From: "RJ" <wortsbrewing at cyberportal.net> Subject: Re: CAP experiment -- controlling variables / Competition Dave Houseman writes: (A) "to have each brewer brew a larger brewlength (say 10 gal) and split this into two fermenters.." I couldn't agree with you more... A split batch from each brewer would certainly curtail any unknown influences, with that specific brewer. (B)"I believe what we want is a regression analysis." IMHO, Regression analysis, should only be performed after a scatter diagragm has been plotted. The Scatter Diagram is one of the most powerful graphical tools, when exploring & defining the relationship between two variables. In a scatter diagram ALL of the information is shown. The scatter diagram can then be used to develop a correlation coefficient.... Looking at only a statistical regression may be misleading. Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 10:46:51 -0500 From: Brian Lundeen <blundeen at rrc.mb.ca> Subject: Mash runoff clarity There are some ugly rumours circulating in another forum that people are getting brilliantly clear runoffs from their mashes. Phrases like "crystal clear" and "clear as finished wine" are being bandied about with reckless abandon. Needless to say, this is extremely distressing. The best I can seem to accomplish is a slight haze in my Pyrex Recirculator, or measuring cup as they are often labelled in housewares. Of course, this is only really noticeable in those few very light beers that I have made from DWC Pils malt. Most of my beers are on the dark side so its hard to judge the clarity in those. But I now find myself suffering from "runoff envy" and I would like to know what I'm doing wrong. My standard procedure is a single infusion at 65-68C, mix well then let it sit for 60-75 minutes (I don't do an iodine test), apply heat and stir to 76C, let mash settle for 15 minutes, recirc about 3 liters (the last couple of pint fills generally show little change in clarity), then drain through my EasyMasher. TIA for any thoughts and suggestions. Brian Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 13:52:21 -0400 From: AJ <ajdel at mindspring.com> Subject: CAP Experiment I'm grateful to Steve both for clarifying for me what the CAP experiment is about and, of course, for his kind words which I would love to think are really deserved. As his post makes clear I share many of his concerns about this experiment. I agree that putting the method before the hypothesis is putting the horse before the cart but we are in a situation here where that may be necessary. As homebrewers we can't pick a hypothesis and then design a test because we have very limited test resources. Rather we are forced to ask ourselves what sort of test we can reasonably do and then decide whether the analysis of results of such a test would teach us anything. Steve's suggests a test which I think we could do: several brewers prepare a wort and split it between Corny's - one filled to a high H:W ratio and the other to a lower and allow fermentation to complete. He also suggests using tall and short cornies to remove the headspace variable and I like that idea. In either case the resulting beers are then subject to analysis and a conclusion drawn as to whether there are differences which are highly correleated with which fermenter was used. This design tests the hypothesis H1: CAP fermented in a short fermenter produces beer which is significantly different from that obtained from wort fermented in an otherwise identical tall one. The null hypothesis is that they don't differ significantly Wer'e still not there because we have not defined "different" and "significant". Just as candidate hypotheses are driven by what we can do in brewing, they are limited by the analyses we can reasonably perform. Steve mentioned some of the things that have been mentioned as being effected by H/W: slow fermentation, high apparent extract and high diacetyl (though I don't consider 0.35 mg./L very high- threshold for most tasters is around 0.25). These are parameters which can be measured and thus lead to objective numberical data. The organoleptic qualities of the beers must be judged subjectively and though we may fancy ourselves experieced beer judges we aren't really as few of us have participated in panels that use the kind of techniques (triangle testing) required to test H1 relative to the null hypothesis. Nevetheless it would be interesting to subject the beers to the kind of judging that we usually subject our beers to and look for a significant difference in the scores (using, of course, Student's t test which was designed for exactly this purpose - comparing beers). At the same time, triangle tests should be done. Louis has done some of this and I think there may be a couple of others as well and it's not difficult to do. Now back to the objective data. Every participant will, of course, measure the OG of the wort, should do a forcing test and should measure the gravity of the fermenting beer. At the completion of fermentation apparent and true extract should be determined. The problems I see here are two. If I sent stabilized sucrose solutions to 100 brewers from the HBD and asked them to measure and report the 20/20 SG I wonder what kind of variation I would see. Perhaps we should do exactly that as a pre experiment! In fact the more I think about that the better I like the idea. It would give us a measure of the "noise" level we'd expect in gravity measurements using the team of collaborators we have available. The second concern is who is going to do true extract? I don't think most homebrewers do that test because while it is simple enough, it does require some lab equipment that you aren't even allowed to own in some jurisdictions without the permission of the state (I'm talking about a flask here) and a guy who has never done the test is going to botch it the first few times out. The alternative is to try to get a small group of suitably equipped people to do the measurements. In this case, the problem is the volume of work involved and the time required to do it. The same comment applies to diacetyl measurement. This is a time consuming test (see http://members3.clubphoto.com/_cgi-bin/fetch.cgi/sanjose2/ D010321722401bf00/006//aj258779/Demo_Album/jpg/6/006.jpg for a picture of the setup). Louis can do it and I can do it and, again, there may be others, but it takes hours to process a single sample. If I were tasked with 20 samples to analyze I'd have to take a week off work and would probably leave the hobby at the conclusion of it. O.K - enough of my musings for now. Don't consider the above as a test plan - just further steps along the path Steve has started down in bounding this thing some what. Let me finish up here with the kind of statement that the kind of test and analysis I've been talking about would allow us to make assuming that H1 is accepted. "The use of the short style Cornelius keg as compared to the normal 5 gallon keg was shown to improve RDF by x% (n = , t = ), shorten fermentation time to within 1.5P of terminal by y days (n =- , t =), and decrease diacetyl by z% (n =, t = ). Beers fermented in the shorter keg scored w points (n=, t =) better using standard BJCP judging criteria" and etc. WRT triangle test data. If this seems to be the sort of thing being sought then I'd recommend pursuit of this approach. If not, then I repeat my request for definition of the hypothesis to be tested and the variables to be considered. A.J. Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 13:42:02 -0500 From: "Tammy Duriavich" <murph at xsite.net> Subject: force cooling of wort I'll say this & then return to lurk mode <g>. When I make my soap I force cool my lye solution by using ice instead of water. Ice (by weight, not volume) is the same measure as water. So, to force cool the wort, add 1/2 weight of ice cubes (read: weigh how much 2gals of water equals & use that weight in ice cubes) & 1/2 weight of water. The easiest way to do that, for the smaller brewer (read: me) is to throw the contents of my ice maker into the bottom of my primary & pour my hot wort into the primary. From the primary, strain the cooled wort into the carboy & top off with water to make 5gals (if your wort has cooled too much, use warmed/hot water to bring it back to temp). Then pitch your yeast & continue as usual. All of this transferrence is done, of course, after sanitizing my equipment first with a no-rinse sanitiser I get from my brewshop. HTH Now I will return to lurk mode & read, read, read.... Tammy Duriavich ~ Clean Hands, Warm Heart - Handmade Soaps & Bath Products ~ D & D's Gourmet Pet Snacks - NEW! Gourmet Snacks for Horses, too! www.CleanHands-WarmHeart.com email: murph at xsite.net Samples & Brochures available - Wholesale inquiries welcome Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 17:14:39 +1100 From: "Doug Craftchick" <Nicklebender at hotmail.com> Subject: Rims pump question I 'm looking at buying a Little Giant pump for my HERMS. The ones that look like the best choice are 3-MD-MT-HC and 2-MD-HC. Does any one have any experiance with these modle pumps for brewing? Any one know If I can get a 90VDC motor for one or both? Cheers Doug Craftchick Sudbury, Canada Good Homebrewing Interent Club http://forums.delphi.com/homebrew007/start Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 18:52:11 -0400 (EDT) From: Pat Babcock <pbabcock at hbd.org> Subject: Oops... Greetings, Beerlings! Take me to your lager... SA points out that I fubarred the address for the cap_exp archives. I posted that you should send "index" to cap_exp-request@hbd.org when the CORRECT address was cap_exp-digest at hbd.org (no conspiracy, just an error). In any case, I've patched the system such that either address will work just fine. If anyone else has any problems getting at the archives, please drop me a note. - -- - See ya! Pat Babcock in SE Michigan pbabcock at hbd.org Home Brew Digest Janitor janitor@hbd.org HBD Web Site http://hbd.org The Home Brew Page http://hbd.org/pbabcock "The monster's back, isn't it?" - Kim Babcock after I emerged from my yeast lab Saturday Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 05/29/01, by HBD2HTML v1.2 by KFL
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96
Convert This Page to Pilot DOC Format