HOMEBREW Digest #3647 Thu 31 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 *********

  Aussie beer glasses (TOLLEY Matthew)
  Australian Beer Glasses or Goggles (Scott Morgan - Sun On-Line Telesales Representative)
  AHA Election ("Mark Tumarkin")
  mr. student t ("Czerpak, Pete")
  RE: New old brew pot ("Hornberger, Brent")
  Cold Break - Put a Sock in it ("Bruce Garner")
  Cold does not cause flocculation (Demonick)
  Yeast trick;  WL vs. Wyeast ("Scott")
  re: H:W Huh? ("Nathaniel P. Lansing")
  RE: mash runoff clarity (Brian Lundeen)
  William Sealey Gossett (AJ)
  Brewing/Beer Web site update ("Donnie Lee")
  CAP Experiment Musings (Travis Dahl KE4VYZ)
  Re: CAP Experiment (Scott Murman)
  empty holster and mega-swill (david.persenaire)
  H:W (David Harsh)
  CAP Experiment List (Pat Babcock)
  foil in brewing ("steve lane")
  Re: Mash runoff clarity (Martin_Brungard)
  intermediate mashing instructions? (Don Price)
  pvc or cpvc beer faucets (kingkelly)
  Re: Pressure Fermenting ("Mike Pensinger")
  Odd yeast starter question, CAP experiment (shick)
  great beers in Southern England (BreslerHS)
  sparge clarity ("elvira toews")
  ice vs chiller ("Tammy Duriavich")

* * 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: Wed, 30 May 2001 15:53:51 +1000 From: TOLLEY Matthew <matthew.tolley at atsic.gov.au> Subject: Aussie beer glasses From: erniebaker at webtv.net (Ernie) >Hi folks, am about to brew some Australian beer and could think of >nothing better than to drink them out of Australian beer glasses. Well, in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory, you get a schooner (425ml), a middy (285ml), a pony (170ml), a pint (570ml) or a half-pint. In Victoria, you get a pot (285ml), a glass (200ml), a lady's waist (140ml), a small beer (170ml) or a pint. In South Australia, you get a schooner, a kite (a pint) or a butcher (200ml). In Tasmania, you get a ten, or an eight (225ml), a seven (200ml), a six (170ml), a small beer or a pint. In the Northern Territory, you get a Darwin stubbie (2 litres), a schooner, a handle (285ml), or a seven. In Queensland, it's a pot, a glass, a beer (200ml) or a five (140ml). In Western Australia, you get a ten (425ml), a glass, a middy, a pony or a Shetland pony (115ml), a bobby (170ml) or a pint. Now, which did you want? :) Cheers ...Matt... Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 16:36:09 +1000 (EST) From: Scott Morgan - Sun On-Line Telesales Representative <Scott.Morgan at Sun.COM> Subject: Australian Beer Glasses or Goggles Ernie, Are you after beer glasses or goggles. If your after Beer Goggles then there is not better supplier than Graham Sander's SWMBO! For Mrs Graham, these are an absolute necessity to get thru any horrid passionate encounter with Graham. Graham in the nyuide is not easy on the eye we have heard, nor when he is charmingly dressed in Khaki Gear ala The Crocodile Hunter. If you did not know already the whole of Queensland wears ONLY Khaki shirts and shorts. It was made illegal some time ago to wear anything that was designed outside of the 1950-60's. Unfortunately designs after this time were not "manly" enough and did not allow the flow of body odour to those withing a 5 meter radius easily. If it is beer Glasses, well we were a colony and so there must be at least 1 HBD member from Oz that is willing to steal a couple for you. Perhaps this is why the majors do not print logo's on glasses, as they know they will be nicked within 5 minutes. All of Australia also knows tha a 425 ml Schooner Glass is far superior to the smaller and lesser Pot serverd in QLD and various Southern parts. But, pints are still offered in many places, whilst still not at the 650ml pint standard. Theres also a Schmiddy size, which was between a Schooner and a Middy (pot) and charged at the same price as a Schooner. This was a stupid attempt by an old Publican freind of mine...he went bankrupt eventually...serves him right. So if you have not learnt anything by this, just like football beer glasses are as equally polarised in Oz. Or, Beer glasses sometimes comeabout due to football... Ahhh the serenity... Scotty Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 06:24:13 -0400 From: "Mark Tumarkin" <mark_t at ix.netcom.com> Subject: AHA Election Hey y'all, I've been meaning to write this since the AHA Board of Advisors election results were posted last Friday, but with the long holiday weekend I'm just getting around to it now. First of all, I'd like to thank all of you who voted for me. I'm sure that it was your votes, along with those of the folks on the Florida Brewers List, that got me elected. I'll try to make you proud. And by electing me, you've helped avoid those nasty recount lawsuits - not from me of course, but you never know with those Florida folks. Speaking of which, the Florida bottle bill is still slowly wending its way through the system. It had passed overwhelmingly through both the Senate and the House (literally in the last minutes of the closing legislative session). It has been signed by the officers about a week ago and is now on the Governor's desk awaiting signature. We're almost there! In my earlier post I'd noted the low voter participation in the earlier AHA board elections. Well, the good news is that voter participation increased by 50%. That's the bad news too. Last year there were approx 120 votes, this year it increased to approx 180. While that's a pretty respectable percentage, it's still less than 200 votes out of over 10,000 members. That's pitiful; to me it's unacceptable - we really need to change the level of member involvement. If you voted, thanks. If you didn't, why not? I really want to know, so that I'll be able to help improve things. Please let me know why you didn't vote and/or any other thoughts about the AHA. My first board meeting will be at the LA conference at the end of June. I'd like to jump in and be productive on the Board right from the start. The biggest part of that will be by representing you, the homebrewing community that got me elected. So please, email (or call me) and let me know your feelings and concerns about the AHA. At the very least, let me know what you don't like - but I'd much prefer constructive criticisms and specific suggestions for improvements. So let me know your ideas, wants,dislikes, things you'd like to see changed, improved, implemented etc. and I'll do everything I can to make positive things happen - at the very least I'll make sure that your thoughts are heard. thanks again, Mark Tumarkin 352-338-4544 mark_t at ix.netcom.com Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 08:05:31 -0400 From: "Czerpak, Pete" <Pete.Czerpak at siigroup.com> Subject: mr. student t So I pulled out my ol' design of experiments textbook and found that "Student" was a chemist at the Dublin Guinness brewery in 1908 by the name of Gosset. And he did write with a pseudonym for whatever reason. Nice to see beer make an impact in statistics. Pete czerpak albany, NY Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 07:55:13 -0500 From: "Hornberger, Brent" <Brent.Hornberger at wcg.com> Subject: RE: New old brew pot RE: Subject: New old brew pot Ken, I use Barkeepers Friend to clean my kettles. It's found at most grocery stores across the US. It's also great to shine up those corney kegs. It shoudl be fouund near the rest of the cleaners like Ajax and Comet. Brent www.bcbrewery.com www.mullet-times.com Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 07:49:15 -0500 From: "Bruce Garner" <bpgarner at mailbag.com> Subject: Cold Break - Put a Sock in it Dennis Collins writes: > Well what about the cold break? If you use a counter flow > chiller, 100% of > the cold break goes into the fermenter. If you use a sanitized footie nylon stocking after the counterflow chiller, as I do, most of the cold break ends up captured. Earlier in the brew the nylon is also useful over the end of the hose into the boil kettle to catch the husks that inevitably escape the mash tun. You could also make a post chiller whirlpool from a plastic pail with a hole and hose off the bottom of one side. Introduce the chilled wort on the tangent so as to create a whirlpool effect. If you don't filter with a stocking, create a whirlpool or capture the cold break by immersion cooling in the kettle you can let the batch settle in the fermenter for four hours and rack off the sediment. I have heard that this is a good time to add oxygen. Can anyone verify that? As an extreme example, I "dropped" a batch of pale ale at 14 hours post chill, thoroughly oxygenating it by pouring it back and forth between two open containers and the resulting batch was excellent. I left a great deal of sediment behind when I did the first pour. Bruce Garner Madison, Wisconsin Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 06:33:15 -0700 From: Demonick <demonick at zgi.com> Subject: Cold does not cause flocculation From: "Stephen Alexander" <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net> >'Cold causes flocculation' is an HB momily !! Cold actually PREVENTS >flocculation in most yeast. One study which anyone can access is on the >ASBC website vol 58(3) pp108-116, by Jin et al., "Effect of Environmental >Condition on the Flocculation of S.cerevisiae" for example. Their ale >strain ... "showed stronger flocculation at higher temperatures (P?.001) in >the range 5C-25C." I've some JIB papers that show the same. Some yeast >show little temp effect, some floc poorly at low or high temps. But as a >rule, cold does NOT cause flocculation and often prevents it. Good one, Steve :-) I'll jump in here. I believe the above statement to be true. It must be remembered that "flocculation" is not simply "sedimentation". That is, "flocculation" is not simply "falling to the bottom of the fermenter". Flocculation is a process in which yeast cells stick together to form clumps. Since this is largely a chemically driven process I am not surprised that reduced temperatures do not favor the process. Even if flocculation is an electrostatic process, the electrostatic forces are created by chemistry. I have not read extensively on the process of flocculation, but as a first-order wild-assed-guess, I assume that it is triggered and driven by surface expression of proteins and/or carbohydrates. It is counter-intuitive that stirring up the forming yeast cake would actually enhance flocculation, but it has been my observation that stirring up the fermenter repeatedly, i.e., rousing the yeast, enhances flocculation. My WAG here is that some yeast cells induce other yeast cells to flocculate, and by stirring up the yeast cake, more non-flocculating yeast cells are being exposed to the flocculation signal, whatever it is. I would be interested in seeing some references on the subject. Domenick Venezia Venezia & Company, LLC Maker of PrimeTab (206) 782-1152 phone (206) 782-6766 fax orders demonick at zgi dot com http://www.primetab.com FREE PrimeTab SAMPLES! Enough for three 5 gallon batches. Fax, phone, or email: name, shipping address (no P.O.B.) and phone number. (I won't call. It's for UPS in case of delivery problems). Sorry, lower 48 only. Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 07:09:58 -0700 From: "Scott" <Windsurf at bossig.com> Subject: Yeast trick; WL vs. Wyeast I tried a new practice had heard of on this board. That is, after opening and using a yeast package, don't throw away the container just yet. By rinsing the yeast container you just opened (I used wort), and storing the rinse as a first generation yeast product for future use. You might be surprised how many yeast cells are still in the package or tube. Also tried both the White Labs American Hefe, and the Wyeast American Wheat (?) on the same 10 gal. batch. I used my standard Hefe recipe, 50/50 wheat to Barley, 10 gal. batch, divided in half. Ferment was controlled 64 deg. F. Both yeasts had similar taste and low Flocculation, making for the desired cloudy beer. Small banana and slightly less clove scent to both. F.G. 1.012 to each batch. Each Very drinkable. Still planning our December Pilzn trip. Prague or Pilzn? Both? Recommendations? Cheers, Chris Richland, Wa. Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 10:55:36 -0400 From: "Nathaniel P. Lansing" <delbrew at compuserve.com> Subject: re: H:W Huh? Steve said: >>Take a fixed fermenter shape like a cylinder,. choose any >>arbitrary H:W ratio and any arbitrary Surf:Vol ratio and you can create a >>cylinder which has both ratios. The two are unrelated. Show me the dimensions for a 5 gallon fermenter with a 0.8 H:W and a surface:volume of 1 cm-e2/16.66 cm-e3. Now lets see 5 gallons in a 2.5 H:W with the same 1 cm-e2/16.66 cm-e3. I must be overlooking something obvious. NPL Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 10:18:41 -0500 From: Brian Lundeen <blundeen at rrc.mb.ca> Subject: RE: mash runoff clarity Drew Avis savagely howls: > Brian Lundeen complains of "runoff envy", which might be > better described as > "haze halitosis" or even "pernicious protein precipitate > pouting". Don't get me started... > If the crush is just right, > the conversion > temps hit on the button, and the stars in alignment, I get > crystal clear > runnoff after recirculating maybe 10 litres. Clearly, your fermenter geometry is playing a large role here. But seriously, I've never seen a Gott cooler up close and personal, but I suspect your H:W ratio favours you in providing a deeper grain bed than I can get from my 40 quart pot. Perhaps that is improving the particle filtration. > > Is cloudy runoff a problem? I guess the real question is, > are your finished > beers as clear as you'd like? The final clarity is usually good, but appearance is not my primary concern. I am more worried that I'm putting something into my boil kettle that may be contributing to some harshness that I find in a lot of my beers. They just seem a little rough around the edges. Yes, I know that's vague and don't really expect any on-line diagnoses of my problems. I'm just trying to figure out if the mash runoff is an area where I need to be concentrating on making improvements, or if the clarity improvement past a certain point really doesn't make that big a difference. Brian Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 11:40:53 -0400 From: AJ <ajdel at mindspring.com> Subject: William Sealey Gossett Frank wrote: >If I recall correctly, the distribution was derived >by a fellow at Guinness, but because he couldn't publish under his own name >he used instead the name "Student." His name was William Sealey Gossett. You can learn a little about him (and see a picture) at: http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/history/Mathematicians/Gosset.html He and his buddies (Pearson, Neyman, Fisher) did the seminal work in statistics. The principles they developed are in daily use in many areas of science and engineering and not just in the obvious ways. Neyman-Pearson criterion, for example, is used in all modern digital receivers to determine which symbol was the one most likely sent given what was received. The method I use to characterize beer color is derived from Fisher's biggest contribution (principal components analysis) which was also used by Lewis uses to compare stouts in his book. A.J. Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 12:22:01 -0400 From: "Donnie Lee" <dlee at accurateonline.com> Subject: Brewing/Beer Web site update First, thanks to all who have came by checked the site out and registered. I have completed the guts (the programming and design). Now I'm working on adding content and tweaking out the programming. I'm extremely excited about this site. I think if offers something new for homebrewers and beer drinkers alike. Yes, I am aware of all the Real Beer sites out there that offer news, info and the like. The big difference between brewing-beer.org and the Real Beer sites is that my principal is community and user driven content. Users will essentially control the content, not unlike HBD. My model is slashdot.org, DMOZ and a few other community driven sites. I'm still looking for content contributions, editors and admins. If you are interested, just let me know. I really need some help with adding content : ). I think it would be great idea if you just post up what ever you wanted to add to the site with the "Submit Article" button. I think that once this site is out of prototype mode and on a proper server (2-3 weeks), I'll put my Internet marketing skills to work to help build the beer community. Have a look: http://beer.wha.la Be sure to check out the Beer Gallery and the Beer Recipes for Cotton Pony Stout. Thanks, Donnie Lee Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 12:22:41 -0400 From: Travis Dahl KE4VYZ <dahlt at umich.edu> Subject: CAP Experiment Musings So far I've really enjoyed the whole fermenter geometry/CAP Experiment discussion. I have a bunch of thoughts on this whole thing, so here goes: First off, Steve Alexander wrote: >H:W and Surf:Vol are NOT directly related ratios Del. They can be varied >INDEPENDENTLY. Take a fixed fermenter shape like a cylinder,. choose any >arbitrary H:W ratio and any arbitrary Surf:Vol ratio and you can create a >cylinder which has both ratios. The two are unrelated. [snip] >>A high aspect >>ratio fermenter will have less cross-sectional area for the circulation >>induced by fermentation. > >Sorry - no. Area is not determined by H:W. Does a 3:1 corny have the same >cross section as a 3:1 test tube ? Well, I just want to make sure everyone is on the same page and not using any crazy math. According to my old Calculus textbook and my interpretation of the other posts: The width of a cylindrical fermenter (i.e. Cornelius keg) is the diameter. The surface area (assuming the cylinder is oriented vertically along the long axis) is Pi*(diamter/2)*(diameter/2). The volume will be height*surface area. Quite obviously, then, height:width and surface:volume are related! (It is not, however, a linear relationship! More on that in a bit...) Similarly, cross-sectional area is _defined_ as height*width in this case. Obviously, a ratio will only give _relative_ measurements. Something we should all keep in mind... Now, my other thoughts on the great CAP Experiment: 1) RELAX! We're not trying to publish a scientific paper! Very few people will even change their fermenters because of the results here! I think people want to do this as an excuse to have fun and brew some CAP as much as to do an experiment! 2) Yes, a paired test with split batches is an excellent idea! (The null hypothesis probably should be something like "There is no significant difference between the two different fermentation containers (at the 95% confidence level.") 3) I think the comparison should be between a (5 gallon?) glass carboy and a similar size Cornelius keg and that participants need to provide volume, diameter and height dimensions with their entries. I think this is much more relevant to what most of us are interested in., especially since... 4) The fluid dynamics are going to be pretty different in a 5 gallon glass carboy filled to a 1:1 H:W ratio than in a 5 gallon Cornelius keg only filled to a 1:1 H:W ratio 5) As someone else mentioned, it's not always realistic to apply everything the commercial brewers do to a homebrew scale, both for practical reasons and the fact that not everything behaves linearly as you scale it down. 6) Maybe if we built a large wooden badger... Sorry, I've rattled on long enough. -Travis Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 10:12:38 -0700 (PDT) From: Scott Murman <smurman at best.com> Subject: Re: CAP Experiment might i humbly suggest that under the guise of this experiment it may be possible to help some of the less scientifically-inclined brewers learn/try some new techniques such as forced ferments, cl*nit*st, triangle tests, wort stability test, etc. i'm sure there are a number of people out there who might be interested in trying some of these ideas, but aren't motivated most of the time, and aren't sure what/when/how these are really done. if it were known that "everybody would be doing it", then maybe it would provide some motivation. all this talk of regression analysis, etc. is fine, but realistically we all know that being able to pick one plum of a data point from an experiment like this is darn near impossible. howeever if the experiment accomplished nothing else but got a number of homebrewers to try some new techniques that just might help them make better beer, or they had some fun trying them, then i'd certainly say it would be judged a success. when the blackouts hit, i can still brew! -SM- Redwood City, CA Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 12:22:35 -0500 From: david.persenaire at abnamro.com Subject: empty holster and mega-swill I done did it on Saturday. I'm still putting together the beer for the fishing trip and scheduled to make the first ten gallon batch on Saturday. Needed to get the fishermen together to go over provisions and supplies and what better thing than to have a cookout at the same time. Why not make the batch of beer on the same day as the cookout, good idea right? Not. Decided to smoke two turkey breasts on the charcoal smoker while brewing a pale ale. Had to get the house tidied up for the fishermen and families for the cookout. Well the day was a soaker from dawn to dusk and the cookout came indoors into the basement for the kids and the main floor for fishermen and their SWMBO's. Finished the pale ale without a hitch and the turkey breasts were almost done on schedule nothing a quick toss in the oven couldn't finish. Fired up the weber for some venison bratwursts and you get one tuckered out brewer. Needless to say brewing on the same day as having 25 or so guests over is not a good idea and a quick way to run out of beer bullets. The wife heads to the Netherlands with the kids this week so I can brew the next batch with an empty holster. Is it ok to toss the same recipe of fresh wort on the sediment of the primary of the old or should I use the sediment from the secondary? I'm sure I will have a little trub in the primary cause I don't get too anal about it. After going over provisions we realized that 20 gallons of homebrew for six fishermen for six days might not be enough. You know how fishin can work up a powerful thirst. Graham wrote about how the Aussies can produce some mega-swill and us Americans can certainly add to the list of swill produced here. Canada has no shortage of flavorless swill coming out of the likes of Labatts and Molson. What can a thirsty fishermen pick up in Red Lake, Ontario that will have some flavor and get them through the week? By the way, I enlisted the neighbors to start drinking their swill out of those plastic bottles with the screw on cap and bring the empties over to me. They've already contributed 16 empty bottles. Bloody amazing that people drink that stuff. Between the golf courses and the neighbors I think we'll have our homebrew packaged in light weight containers without ever having our lips touch the stuff that was inside them. Dave Persenaire Tinley Park, Illinois Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 14:04:20 -0400 From: David Harsh <dharsh at fuse.net> Subject: H:W Stephen Alexander <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net> writes: > Not at all. I strongly suspect DeCleck never wrote this vastly sweeping > conclusion that H:W *causes* poor fermentation performance.... Personally, I haven't found even the implication in deClerk to this effect. If anybody can give me the specific citation, I'd like to know. (I have the 1994 reprinting from Seibel) > Circulation, shear and cross-section in a 2.5:1 H:W test-tube vs > cornie are certainly different and also quite likely not higher (circ, > shear) than *every* 1:1 vessel. Of course, not *every* 1:1 vessel, but we are talking about objects of the same magnitude of volume. Your comparison of the cornie to the test tube, while a valid argument, is absurd on the face of it. I thought we were restricting our arguments to homebrewing. > >> Flocculation is a consequence of yeast metabolic processes.... I'm not going to waste space in the digest any more to argue this. Suffice to say I disagree with you on your interpretation of the literature on shear induced flocculation. > Sorry - no. Area is not determined by H:W. Does a 3:1 corny have the same > cross section as a 3:1 test tube ? The return of the absurd argument. But if the volume is the same, a 3:1 container has less cross section than a 2:1 container. For the record, my use of dimensional analysis techniques to describe the fermenter geometry is not "handwaving", it is an accepted and mathematically sound method for dealing with computationally difficult systems. > >Steve - if you want to convince me: Give a physical explanation of how > >the fermenter geometry will produce changes in the fermenting wort and > >how those changes will explain the observed effects of aspect ratio. > >What is your hypothesis? > > See - you haven't been reading. My contention is that there is no such > effect if you control for other variables. Adding my "guess" to yours > would be fruitless... On the contrary, I have been paying attention. You feel aspect ratio isn't the cause, something else is. If there is an effect what do you think causes it? You've been sitting there punching holes in everyone's suggestions WITHOUT ONCE GIVING YOUR OWN OPINION! Do you have one? You've thrown around phrases like "changes in metabolism" or "CO2 and oxygen", without explaining how these changes (higher? lower? more? less?) will produce differences in the ferment. I'd avoid trying to blame things like "metabolism" for changes in attenuation, as deClerk says "physiological condition of the yeast has also been invoked as an explanation, but this is a very vague term and may mean anything or nothing" (p.393). He goes on to state that "the problem of attenuation is bound up with the problem of yeast flocculation" (p. 393). Your attitude towards this discussion has become quite strident, but you haven't contributed an alternate theory. You stated above "no such effect if you control for other variables". What other variables? Is there any fruit on that tree of yours? I do believe that other theories could explain the observed changes, which is why I think the experiment should attempt to include as many of possible parameters as possible (each varied by itself, of course). It is also why I have repeatedly asked for other theories which would present other viewpoints. > >[...] , but it is interesting that > >the best way to floc and remove yeast cells is by cooling, [...] > 'Cold causes flocculation' is an HB momily !! Cold actually PREVENTS > flocculation in most yeast..... Does it "prevent" it or just slow it down? What is the explanation for that paste of yeast at the bottom of an empty cornelius keg that doesn't want to come off when cleaned if low temperatures PREVENT flocculation? Whatever the cause, experience tells me that if I want the yeast to drop out of a finished wort, I put it the refrigerator near 32 F and it goes crystal clear, quickly. If you want to continue this, I'd recommend moving it over to the cap_exp list where the interested can follow it. Dave Harsh Bloatarian Brewing League Cincinnati, OH Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 13:09:15 -0400 (EDT) From: Pat Babcock <pbabcock at hbd.org> Subject: CAP Experiment List Greetings, Beerlings! Take me to your lager... Anyone can subscribe to monitor the proceedings of the CAP Experiment in all their gorey detail by sending "subscribe" to cap_exp-request@hbd.org or cap_exp-digest at hbd.org. Also, note that there have been a lot of bounces due to improperly formatted email addresses - in many cases, the server has not been able to properly parse your personal name from your eamil address, ending up with only your personal name in the listing. If you attempted to subscribe to any list, but received no request for confirmation back, then your address is one of these, and you'll have to use a somewhat longer format to subscribe. Send subscribe <listname> [email address] to majordomo at hbd.org, substituting cap_exp or cap_exp-digest for <listname> and your email address for [email address]. For example, sending subscribe cap_exp pbabcock at hbd.org would result in my receiving a note from the server to the return address of the request, informing me that my subscription attempt will have to be authenticated before it will be implemented, and another sent to the address provided in the subscribe command asking for that authentication. (In cases where I can fathom the email address from the personal name, I have manually added users in.) Finally, only those who have explicitly expressed their desire to participate have been added to the posting list. If you had some other expectation, this would be why it was not met. Send me a note, or explicitly post your desire in the Digest Thanks. - -- - 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
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 14:44:05 -0500 From: "steve lane" <tbirdusa at hotmail.com> Subject: foil in brewing Brewed a Scottish at a friends house this weekend and found that I had forgotten my green scrubbie / scouring pad for post brewing cleaning. After the kettle (keg) and the mash tun (other keg) cooled, I began cleaning. Sprayed them out well with the garden hose and grabbed some aluminum foil to scrub with. Wasn't ten seconds and this black film / water mixture appeared. What is the reaction between the stainless keg and the foil? I've never seen this when I do an open ferment in another keg that I use as a primary but then I'm only "sealing" the top of the cutout with foil. I will throw a sheet of foil over it and set a lid from a bottling bucket on the foil. Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 17:13:38 -0400 From: Martin_Brungard at urscorp.com Subject: Re: Mash runoff clarity I'm not surprised at the disbelief in crystal clear wort runoff from the mash tun. I can assure you that it is possible, as almost everyone of my runoffs is that clear. I believe the main reason that I obtain highly clarified wort is because my system is a RIMS. There is at least one very relevant reason for the differing performance in wort clarity between RIMS and static mashing methods. Read on.... The liquid volume in a mash varies between about 2 to 4 gallons in a 5-gallon batch depending on SG and water/grist ratio. That liquid volume is contained within the spaces between the grain particles (otherwise known as the pore volume). Based on my RIMS performance, I know that it takes about 2 minutes for wort to make a complete circuit in my system. That means that I'm probably moving about 30 pore volumes of wort through my grainbed per hour (60min/2min). If the pore volume is 2 to 4 gallons, that means that I've pumped 60 to 120 gallons of wort through the grainbed. Compare that to the gallon or two that most static mashers run through their grainbed to get the runoff to clarify "sufficiently". The process of establishing a filter pack around an inlet screen of any kind is dependant on the volume and rate of liquid flowing to the inlet. This is true for water wells (one of my professional expertises), as well as mash tuns. For a mash tun, we are removing the finer particles from the grainbed surrounding the inlet screen and moving them to the top of the bed. This is where we hope that these finer particles will stay. If the grainbed is too shallow, the finer particles may be drawn directly through the bed without opportunity to be trapped in the upper bed. The process of establishing this segregated filter bed takes a significant volume of wort to move the fines from the bottom of the bed to the top. There you have it, the reason you may not be achieving clear wort is because there has not been enough wort circulation to set up the grainbed. For those of you that don't have the luxury of a RIMS, I am not suggesting that you recirculate a LOT of wort by hand, since I think it would be detrimental in terms of hot-side aeration. But you should consider that the very particles that create that cloudy wort are probably grain particles that could ultimately furnish tannins to your brew when this cloudy wort is boiled. If you are having problems with cloudy wort, next time circulate a few more gallons and you should see an improvement prior to runoff. Martin Brungard Tallahassee, FL Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 18:50:37 -0400 From: Don Price <dprice1 at tampabay.rr.com> Subject: intermediate mashing instructions? I am looking for some web pages with intermediate level information on the mashing process. I can't find my Joy of HB book and all my other literature is very basic (though useful). Please don't waste your time typing out something that I'm sure someone has posted on the web...just post the link. I'll even buy a real book if someone can suggest some good ones. Thanks, Don Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 21:00:27 -0400 From: kingkelly at juno.com Subject: pvc or cpvc beer faucets has anyone heard of or know about the possibility of using pvc or cpvc to make faucets. somewhere in my cloudy brain there is a remembrance of someone at mashout 2000 that they had used these materials with a ball valve and some sort of puncturing of the tip with small holes to make the flow smooth. i am thinking about making a massive 6 tap jockey box ( will be named big willie after willie shoemaker ) for our homebrew club ( star city brewers guild ) utilizing a 6 line cold plate that fell off the truck. any comments ( except about the truck ) will be appreciated. thanks kelly Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 21:03:21 -0400 From: "Mike Pensinger" <beermkr at bellatlantic.net> Subject: Re: Pressure Fermenting While I was in Split Croatia a few years back I got a tour of the local brewpub and discovered that he fermented under pressure. He stated that it sped the process up and allowed fermentation at higher temperatures without off flavors being produced. I cant remember how much pressure was on the vessel and it was in Bars which i didnt understand anyway. Mike Pensinger beermkr at bellatlantic.net http://members.bellatlantic.net/~beermkr Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 21:34:05 -0400 From: shick <shick at jcu.edu> Subject: Odd yeast starter question, CAP experiment Hi all, I have a quick question about an odd yeast starter for the collective. I'm planning an altbier, using Wyeast 1007 German Ale yeast. My local shop keeper didn't have any fresh smack packs in stock, but gave me two old packs, 8 and 10 months old. After a few days, both were fully puffed, and I cooked up 40 ounces of 1.040 wort to put them in. The wort from one pack looked normal (moderately clear,) but I noticed that the wort from the second pack was extremely dark and turbid when I poured it into the starter. After about 8 hours, I have about the usual amount of activity in a well-aerated started, but it looks pretty murky. Everything smells just fine, though. So my question is: is it worth risking 10 gallons of alt wort (and 5 hours of brewing time) with this odd starter? If it smelled even slightly off, I wouldn't risk it, of course. But, aside from the murkiness, everything seems fine. Has anyone had similar experiences with this particular Wyeast strain? Did it turn out okay? Thanks in advance for any help you can provide. I'm hoping to brew Friday, so private email might be best. By the way, the CAP experiment sounds like a wonderful idea, but I'm firmly on the side of the "split-batch" experimental design as a way to remove as much noise as possible. This still leaves the problem of worrying about each individual's yeast propagation habits, though, since any problems there would certainly negate any later claims about fermentation differences. I shudder to suggest this, but the obvious solution is that everyone should use the same DRY lager yeast. Jethro, any chance of preproduction versions of the Lallemand dry lager yeasts? If not, would Safelager be a reasonable compromise? Paul Shick Worrying about yeast in Cleveland Hts, Ohio Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 22:17:20 EDT From: BreslerHS at aol.com Subject: great beers in Southern England Dearest knowledgable beer lovers, I am going on a trip Southern England the last week of June. I will have some time to seek out truly great beers, but don't know how to find the best ones. I've looked in the HBD archives and searched many sites on the web, but so far I've found very little information. If any of you have recommendations for specific pubs or breweries, or for good web resources, I would appreciate them. I'll be in the area around Salisbury part of the week and Bath later on. I'll have a car so short trips would be feasible. Private e-mail is okay. Thanks in advance. Good luck and good brewing, Herb Bresler Bexley,Ohio One time regular contributor and recent lurker. Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 22:46:56 -0500 From: "elvira toews" <etoews1 at home.com> Subject: sparge clarity Hi Brian: My recirc never gets all that clear, but as soon as I add sparge water my runoff gets about as clear as Drew's pix. I figure as long as you don't get any ungelatinized starch in the wort you won't be getting odd hazes or infections. Plain old draff - husk bits, or chunks of spent endosperm - doesn't seem to have any untoward effects. BTW, my cranberry (fruit into secondary) is starting to carbonate nicely, contrary to my post of a few days ago. Nice (pink) head retention. Even if I don't notice much difference in flavour compared to adding fruit to the secondary, the colour is much more intense. TTFN Sean Richens srichens at sprint.ca Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 22:49:21 -0500 From: "Tammy Duriavich" <murph at xsite.net> Subject: ice vs chiller John, & all that have given input re: force cooling w/ice, now I understand that even tho the water is "clean" going into the freezer, it's not necessarily so coming out of the freezer & going into my brew. I've just been lucky thus far. Therefore, I guess I'll just have to get a chiller, won't I?? Thanks to all for the info & explanations. Now to return to lurk mode & learn more..... 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
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 05/31/01, by HBD2HTML v1.2 by KFL
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96
Convert This Page to Pilot DOC Format