HOMEBREW Digest #799 Fri 10 January 1992

Digest #798 Digest #800

		Rob Gardner, Digest Coordinator

  JSP Grainmill review - very long! (Russ Pencin)
  hop history ("KATMAN.WNETS385")
  Chicago brewpubs/micobreweries? (Daniel S Robins)
  Stainless Pots, Sale (repost) (solo)
  re: Samuel Smith's CORRECTION (darrylri)
  ss ferment (Russ Gelinas)
  Radioactive isotopes used in breweries (Peter Karp)
  re: boil-over preventer (Dan Kerl)
  cleaning copper (Russ Gelinas)
  Northwestern malt -- Weiss vs. Weizen? (dbreiden)
  Extract in box (Robin Garr)
  Homebrew Subscription (Hank Chambers)
  Iodine, grain bed depth (Carl West)
  Anchor's Grant (C.R. Saikley)
  Schlather Brewery? (Scott Bickham)
  Re: Metal brew / Boiling water (farleyja)
  Re: fermentation times vs vessel size (korz)
  Recirculating mash & blowoff (Bob Jones)
  Re: Oxidation (korz)
  pH Pen Review ("Rad Equipment")
  pH Pen Review                         Time:2:44 PM     Date:1/9/92
  mead.boil water ("KATMAN.WNETS385")
  Hot Wort Aeration (Jay Hersh)
  ADS (jack schmidling)
  STUFF (jack schmidling)

Send submissions to homebrew at hpfcmi.fc.hp.com Send requests to homebrew-request@ hpfcmi.fc.hp.com [Please do not send me requests for back issues!] Archives are available from netlib at mthvax.cs.miami.edu
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 8 January 1992 1:04:10 pm From: pencin at parcplace.com (Russ Pencin) Subject: JSP Grainmill review - very long! Disclaimer - I am not connected to JSProductions in any way. I am merely a customer. I have not received, nor do I expect to receive, any compensation for the following review of the JSP GRAINMILL. My intention is to take Jack's original description of the GRAINMILL and describe my experience with the unit. I am evidently the first real customer for this unit, which sorta surprises me. My overall impression of the GRAINMILL is that it is that it beats a Corona Grinder hands-down in every respect except esthetics, and with slight re-work will be totally indispensable to this 2 batch-a-month all-grain brewer. ........................... jsp> Anyone who uses whole grains quickly realizes that [...] unsuited for milling >malt [....] They pulverize or shred the husks, which severely limits the quality of the >filter bed when sparging [....]nothing else is available that fits the budget of >even the affluent home brewer. [...] It is a genuine roller mill. >It crushes malt, leaving ALL of the husk in tact and a minimum of flour. >Not one grain can get through it without being properly milled. It does >exactly what a malt mill is supposed to do. Jack's right-on here. The Corona works, but the husks are shredded. The GRAINMILL, on the other hand, really does "implode" the grain. When the rollers spacing is properly set, the husks are cleanly split into two pieces and the kernel is broken into several ( read, more than 6 ) little granules about the size of coarse table salt. The roller spacing can be set via an ecentric on the idler, however, it turned out that the optimum setting exactly coresponded to natural resting point of the ecentric, any closer spacing than this causes the motor to stall with every type of grain I tried. jsp> The mill consists of two, 12" long rollers, 1.5" in diameter. The rollers have >meshing teeth running their entire length. In cross section, they look like fine >toothed gears. However, the rollers are spaced about .025" apart so the teeth do >not actually mesh. Their purpose is to pull the grain through the rollers. The >spacing assures that the grain will only be crushed enough to expose the >contents without tearing the hulls or unduly compacting the malt. Exactly as advertised. My unit did have the addition of the eccentric for adjustment, but this proved to be all but useless due to the extremely low power of the motor. My first test was to crush 1 lb. of Edme Pale Ale Malt. This malt is rather 'soft', so I expected no problems. Well the problem was that I had "cranked" the eccentric, and the motor stalled. I released the eccentric, letting it find its natural resting point, and re-tightened it. I proceeded to crush the pound of grain in about 20 seconds. I examined the crush and found what seemed to be some un-crushed kernels. I picked a couple of these up and found that indeed they were crushed but the husk had not been separated. Bearly pressing on one of these kernels caused the husk to fall away, leaving about 6 granules of starch in my palm. So as a test, I counted 100 kernels of Edme ( anal, ain't I ) and ran them through the mill. I then counted the "un-broken" kernels, there were eight. Again, they were crushed just not husked. At this point I'm pretty happy with the product on 'soft' grains. I retested it on 80L English Crystal. This grain is slightly harder than Edme, maybe firmer is a better word. 100 kernels, zero (!) un-husked pieces - and the most beautiful crush I have ever seen - perfect husks and thousands of little "crystals" everywhere. Final test was 100 kernels of CaraPils malt. Now this stuff is unbelievably hard - more like rock than malt. The rollers stalled on the first kernel. I proceeded to hand crank the kernels through the mill (a very easy task with the 10 inch pulley) and inspected the crush - 28 un-husked and un-crushed kernels. I ran this crush through again - resulting in another 'perfect' crush - no stalling, perfect husks, and thousands of pretty little 'cara-pills crystals'. jsp>One of the rollers is driven by a 1/30 HP electric motor or a hand crank, >depending on the model. The motor drives the roller through a set of reduction >pullies at a speed of about 140 RPM. In the hand cranked model, the crank turns >the roller directly. The second roller is driven by the first, through a rubber >friction ring. The motor driven unit is designed to stall in the event of unwitting >attempts to mill fingers. It will smart but not much more. The assembly is >mounted on a plywood base, 16 inches square. It is intended to sit on a table, >with the business end hanging over the edge. This should say "one of the rollers is 'bearly' driven by an under-powered motor". If I had it to do over again, I'd buy the hand crank unit and spend the extra money on a 1/4 horse motor and pulleys. The asthetics of the unit leave alot to be desired. Externally, the whole thing looks like something out of junior-high woodshop. The hopper is made from press-board mounted on two triangles of 'fake-wood'. There is no exit chute for the grains, so they tend to 'implode' in a pretty wide area around the bottom of the unit. The hopper suffers from 'lack-of-slope' and capacity. I plan to replace it immediately with a "sheet metal / pop-rivet" hopper with high slope and 5 lb. capacity. Which leads me to suggest that you try to buy just the roller/casting assembly and save Jack the work. While the outside looks very amatuerish, the roller assembly is absolutely top-quality. The castings are cast aluminum with pressed bearings at roller contact points. The rollers are a sight to behold - exactly what Jack described - like little gears - but they don't mesh. I hope Jack will consider just selling the business part of the mill and let the buyer decide to do the finish work. jsp>Operation consists of slowly pouring the grain into a hopper and catching the >milled product in a pan or bucket underneath. It takes less than a minute to >mill a pound of grain with either the motor or hand crank. The motor driven >model could be made to work much faster but I was more concerned about >safety than speed. Slowly is the key phrase here! If the slope of the hopper were higher and the motor were stronger the unit would have no problem milling 5 lbs in 3 minutes max. I understand Jack's concern for safety - but it kinda feels like the helmet law, the seat belt law, the warning label on alcohol, etc.... Just sell me the parts with a disclaimer that this unit is sold as a paper-weight, the seller accepts no responsibility for any other application. jsp>The product that emerges looks like a picture out of a text book on brewing. >This is normally only obtainable through a series of rollers whose spacing gets >progressively closer. By using the toothed rollers, we are able to achieve the >same results in one step. Again, exactly as advertised. The Edme crush was an absolute dream crush - perfect in every way. With a larger hopper, an exit chute, and 1/4 hp motor this unit will challenge any roller mill I seen, and I've seen a dozen and used 3. jsp>the price is $200 plus shipping. The hand-cranked model is $100. >[...] he who hesitates, may be lost. I believe I got what I paid for. Obviously, alot of labor intensive construction went into my unit, but I would have liked to do the labor (of love) myself - of course, I will any way. My recommendation is order the motorized one if you are not mechanically inclined, oeder the hand crank one if you can get an in-expensive 1/4 hp motor, pulleys and belt cheaply, or, if you are a fanatic like me, try to talk Jack into just selling the business part of the unit and flesh it out yourself. But the bottom-line is order one if you and/or your friends currently grind more than 20 pounds of grain a month - you won't be sorry. Russ "Overpaid tool freak" Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 92 12:13 GMT From: "KATMAN.WNETS385" <6790753%356_WEST_58TH_5TH_FL%NEW_YORK_NY%WNET_6790753 at mcimail.com> Subject: hop history Date: 09-Jan-92 Time: 07:12 AM Msg: EXT02606 Hi folks, A friend wants to know some things about hops. This may have been asked recently, but my memory is bad (age and all :) 1) If you make beer without hops, what do you get? 2) When were hops first used, and what did they use before then? 3) Why did someone decide to use hops? I'd look in the Zymurgy hops issue, but I don't have it yet (but I have a birthday coming up in a few months... :) Lee Katman == Thirteen/WNET == New York, NY =Do not= use REPLY or ANSWERBACK, I can not receive mail in that fashion. Please send all mail to INTERNET katman.wnets385%wnet_6790753 at mcimail.com OR MCIMAIL EMS: wnet 6790753 MBX: katman.wnets385 Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 92 8:10:50 EST From: Daniel S Robins <dsrobins at magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> Subject: Chicago brewpubs/micobreweries? I am heading out to Chicago from Columbus, OH next weekend and would like some suggestions for brewpubs, in particular, to visit. Probably best to keep the suggestions within the city limits since my keen sense of direction may not be suited for the jungle out there. Thanks a bunch! Dan Robins Department of Chemistry The Ohio State University dsrobins at magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 92 08:38:37 EST From: solo at thor.mlb.semi.harris.com (solo) Subject: Stainless Pots, Sale (repost) This is a repost of something I posted earlier, reformatted to fit in 72 columns. s. ### I just received a sale flyer from Superior Products. They are a discount foodservice equipment supplier, and they have, among other things, Vollrath stainless steel 'stock pots' on sale (catalog says sale ends Feb 7, 1992). >From the catalog: Stainless Steel Stock Pots by Vollrath Made of 18.8 _stainless_ for greater resistance to pitting and corrosion, plus heat conductive base to save energy. Flat covers allow stacking to save space. *In Stock. $List $SPECIAL 7-L-100 7-1/2 qt. 4 lbs 77.00 43.00 7-L-103 11-1/2 qt. 6 lbs 83.00 46.00 7-L-105 16 qt. 6 lbs 108.00 59.00 7-L-107 20 qt. 8-1/2 lbs 121.00 65.00 7-L-129 24 qt. 9 lbs 130.00 70.00 7-L-130 38-1/2 qt. 13 lbs 172.00 90.00 7-L-492 60 qt. 15 lbs 255.00 130.00 Covers: 7-L-123 For 7-1/2 qt. 15.00 9.90 7-L-125 For 11-1/2 qt. 19.00 12.40 7-L-127 For 16,20,24 qt. 29.00 18.40 7-L-136 For 38-1/2 qt. 38.00 22.00 7-L-494 For 60 qt. 39.00 23.00 They also have other goodies like restaurant-quality beer glasses and mugs, and lots of draft beer equipment and plumbing. There is a 'stainless steel beer chiller' which is used to chill beer inline on its way to the draft arm which could be used as a wort chiller. They also have CO2 tanks and regulators, etc. Superior Products can be reached at (800)328-9800; their catalog is free. I am in no way affiliated with Superior Products, I am just a happy customer who thought he'd pass some info along. Bottoms up! s. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu Jan 9 05:46:55 1992 From: darrylri at microsoft.com Subject: re: Samuel Smith's CORRECTION I just want to point out that korz's observations on the Yorkshire slate squares are a bit misleading (but that's certainly not his fault). It's true that the vessel you see in Foster's book is about 4 feet high, and full of foam right to the lip. What you don't realize is that that vessel is entirely full of yeast. There is a second vessel lying directly underneath, with a hole in the center between them. The lower cube is filled with wort and as the fermentation progresses, the yeast flocculates out in the upper square--sort of a giant blow off system, but with a 3 foot tube instead of 1 1/8". I don't know what Sam Smith's used to do before pumps, but when I took the tour, there was a fellow walking around with a portable pump, and he would throw a pickup tube into the bottom fermenter and spray some of the yeast back into the beer. (Yes, "spray", and it clearly was taking up air on its way back in; I'd be proud to get that kind of aeration going into the primary. On the other hand, the amount wasn't very much compared to the volume of beer in the fermenter, so perhaps it doesn't matter.) BTW, if you get to England, it's definitely worth taking the tour, although my experience was that I couldn't understand a single word the guides said. The tours occur occassionally, so you need to call ahead. They are conducted in the evening and begin in The White Horse and Angel pub next door--ah if that were only my local. --Darryl Richman Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1992 9:36:20 -0500 (EST) From: R_GELINAS at UNHH.UNH.EDU (Russ Gelinas) Subject: ss ferment I just racked a light lager to secondary last night. I dry-hopped it with an oz. of Saaz. It's actually gonna be more of a steam beer (TM), since it's been fermenting at about 50 degF. Anyway, the important info is that the primary was done *in the brewpot*. I cooked it up, chilled it with an immersion chiller, pitched, covered, and moved it to the cool room. It was a Rapids 10 gal. pot. It worked great. The cover is loose enough to allow CO2 out. One odd thing is that the brewpot is now as clean as it has ever been. There were minor scorch marks on the bottom, from the 2 gas flames I use to cook with, but now the bottom is absolutely clean. Hmmmm. The pot itself cleaned *very* easily. Obviously, if you're concerned about racking off the cold break, this is not for you. But it's quick and easy. We'll see how the beer turns out. Recommended, so far. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 92 09:44:35 EST From: Peter Karp <karp at cs.columbia.edu> Subject: Radioactive isotopes used in breweries On the news last night there was a piece about low-level radioactive waste disposal. The usual sources of this waste were mentioned; medical and nuclear power plants. But also mentioned were breweries that apparently used radioactive isotopes for measuring the level of beer in bottles. Does anyone know how this method works? Are isotopes mixed into the beer and then detected when it reaches a specified height in bottle or is beer bombarded and detectors sense some change when the bottle is filled? Is there a different isotope for ale and lager? Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 92 9:24:19 CST From: kerl at cmack.b11.ingr.com (Dan Kerl) Subject: re: boil-over preventer I used to have one of these gadgets (it broke). I never observed that is was much good at preventing boilovers involving foaming liquids (cooking spaghetti, hardboiled eggs that crack, etc.). However, it seemed to be effective at preventing boilovers caused by superheated water (where the liquid temperature goes above boiling without generating steam). This happens to me when I try to boil water in a clean glass pot (one of those Whistler-brand things), which I used to make tea. The pot would just sit there on the burner and do nothing - until you bumped it or dropped a teabag into it, whereupon it would eject half of its contents on whatever happened to be close. It appeared that this glass disc would provide nucleation sites for steam bubbles to form, limiting the liquid temperaure in the pot to the boiling point. It doesn't quite make sense that a smooth glass disc would provide more nucleation sites than the smooth glass walls of the pot, but this is what I've observed. -Dan Kerl kerl at cmack.b11.ingr.com Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1992 10:44:08 -0500 (EST) From: R_GELINAS at UNHH.UNH.EDU (Russ Gelinas) Subject: cleaning copper I'm surprised that no one has mentioned this, since I got it from this list, and it works great - use a dilute vinegar solution to remove the grease from copper tubing. I boiled my immersion chiller in a vinegar solution, and it came out shiny. You could probably run the solution through the tubing if you were making a counter-flow chiller. It really works great. Use about so much vinegar in about that much water ;-) Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 92 10:51:14 -0500 From: dbreiden at mentor.cc.purdue.edu Subject: Northwestern malt -- Weiss vs. Weizen? I made a batch of something wheatish using one bag of Northwestern Wheat extract and one bag of N'Western Amber malt extract. I used the dregs from a friend's wheat beer to culture up some yeast--I think he used WYeast of some sort. It turned out pretty good, although not at all weisen like--at least it didn't have any clove taste or smell. It just tasted like a good beer. Kind of ale-like even. Would anyone care to explain briefly and clearly the difference between Weiss beer and Weizen? That's one distinction I've never figured out. Thanks. Danny Return to table of contents
Date: 09 Jan 92 11:20:52 EST From: Robin Garr <76702.764 at compuserve.com> Subject: Extract in box In HB798, Mike Gildner asks: > Has anyone every tried Northwestern Brand malt extract? The syrup is > packaged in plastic bags inside a cardboard box. Yes! It's a high-quality extract, and the bag-in-box is handy, easy to use and lightweight. Bill McKinless of The Home Brewery's new retail shop in Teaneck, N.J., recommended it to me for an Oktoberfest, and I was pleased. For what it's worth, The Home Brewery has shifted their contract for production of Yellow Dog Amber from Alexander's to Northwestern, and the old Dawg is coming out in bag-in-box now. Robin Garr | "I have enjoyed great health at a great age because Associate Sysop | every day since I can remember I have consumed a bottle CompuServe | of wine except when I have not felt well. Then I have Wine/Beer Forum | consumed two bottles." -- A Bishop of Seville 76702.764 at compuserve.com Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 92 10:59:43 CST From: hank at hank.b17a.ingr.com (Hank Chambers) Subject: Homebrew Subscription Hello, I recently started to homebrew and would like to be included on the homebrew subscription list. My address is: hank at hank.b17a.ingr.com Sincerely, Hank Chambers Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 92 11:17:35 EST From: eisen at kopf.HQ.Ileaf.COM (Carl West) Subject: Iodine, grain bed depth For those folks who have a difficult time discerning whether there has been a color change when you do an iodine-starch test there is help. There's such a thing as `decolorized' tincture of iodine. The only difference I find on the lable is that the red stuff has sodium iodide and the clear has potassium iodide and costs twice as much :-( You have to go to the druggist and ask for it. Having read about the A-B coffee can lautering system experiment (I can`t remember whether it was here, Miller, or Papazian, oh well) where they taped a bunch of coffee cans into a 4-5' column makes me wonder about doing somthing of the sort myself. Anyone have any insight on the benefits/drawbacks of a tall skinny lautering system? Carl When I stop learning, bury me. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 92 07:53:12 PST From: esri!robert at uunet.UU.NET (Robert West) TO: MIKE GILDNER RE: NORTHWESTERN BRAND MALT EXTRACT My brew partner and I have tried the dark and weizen (unhopped) malt extracts from Northwestern and were very pleased. The local brewery supply store also recommends it highly. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 92 09:28:48 PST From: grumpy!cr at uunet.UU.NET (C.R. Saikley) Subject: Anchor's Grant I posted this a couple of days back, but it never appeared. Sorry if it eventually shows up twice. >From Russ Wigglesworth : >This arrangement of spigots is called a "grant". Anchor uses one in their >system. I once inquired as to the reason for this step in the brewing and was >told by the brewer on duty (Mike Lee, if I remember correctly) that it was >"traditional, it came with the brewery" and he knew of no specific advantage to >it. Nor was he aware of any problem with oxidation. He also told me it could >be by-passed and was when they made Old Foghorn. I'll be over there later this >week and ask again. I had a similar exchange with Bruce Joseph, another brewer at Anchor. When I asked him about the purpose of their grant, he shrugged and said, "Hell if I know", or something to that effect. Then he grabbed a glass, filled it with some of the sweet wort that was passing thru the grant and gave it to me while mumbling something about those pesky homebrewers with their endless steam of questions. The only real use for a grant that I've ever heard of is that it makes it easy to asses the color and clarity of the runoff. CR Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 92 13:04:56 -0500 From: bickham at msc2.msc.cornell.edu (Scott Bickham) Subject: Schlather Brewery? Has anyone out there heard of The Schlather Brewery which existed in Cleveland in the early 1900's? It was owned by the grandfather of a friend of mine, and he believes it was bought by The Toledo Brewing Co. around 1917. He would be interested in obtaining the original recipe if possible or at least a discription of the beer. Please reply directly to me at: bickham at msc2.msc.cornell.edu (INTERNET) or bickhma at crnlmsc2.bitnet (BITNET) Thanks! Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 92 14:15:07 EST From: farleyja at sol.crd.ge.com Subject: Re: Metal brew / Boiling water Concerning my metal brew problem: Joe Palladino suggested that I might have used too little extract in my wort. Although this seems a very possible cause of the kind of taste I've gotten, the can was a double-sized one, which I forgot to mention in my original post. Al Korz answers: > What brand was it? Maybe other Digesters have had problems with this > extract? Good question. I left the label back in Massachusetts, and it was mistakenly thrown away. I can't remember the brand name, but I hope to venture to my local homebrew shop to try to find it, since I remember what the label looked like. Concerning the water boiling issue: Bill Thacker writes: > About 2 weeks later, we > noticed a slight plastic flavor and smell to our beer, which within a week > or two became so strong that the beer was undrinkable. I've had the same problem with the water in Schenectady, and have boiled tap water used for brewing ever since. I blamed the chlorine levels, which seem pretty high by my taste. Jim Farley farleyja at sol.crd.ge.com GE Corporate Research and Development Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 92 15:03 CST From: korz at ihlpl.att.com Subject: Re: fermentation times vs vessel size Sorry this is a bit dated, but I ran across it while editing some old digests: William writes: >cpstnd3.alliant.com (Chris Shenton) >> I've done a few wheat beers semi-recently and noticed something odd in >> the last 2-3 batches. I did 10 gallon batches, then split into two >> carboys, one a 5-gallon, the other a 7-gallon. The larger one -- which >> was not filled all the way to the top -- finished in a week or so as >> usual. The smaller, filled all the way up to the neck, is on it's >> third week. > >> Any ideas? Thanks. > >I have seen this effect before. I think it is not related to the size >of the vessel but to the amount of headspace in the vessel. I think >when you fill the vessel to the neck you remove the trapped air (oxygen) >used by the yeast during the first stage of fermentation. This limits >the total population to a value lower than optimum and the fermentation >takes longer. The reasoning seems sound, and it is true that oxygen-deficient wort will cause your yeast to have trouble reproducing, but 2 gallons of air sitting on top of your 5 gallons of wort are not going to enter the wort unless you shake. I think the rate that the air will dissolve into the wort, if it simply sits quietly, is very slow and aeration during the filling of the carboy would be several orders of magnitude more than aeration from the air sitting quietly. Comments? Al. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1992 13:03 PDT From: Bob Jones <BJONES at NOVA.llnl.gov> Subject: Recirculating mash & blowoff To : M. Sharp I tried your idea on a recirculating mash tun, al la R. Morris/Zymurgy. I screwed around with it for about a year, and had BAD luck. The problem most likely is with the mash tun geometry. Too tall a mash tun will cause too much grain compaction therefore slowing the flow thereby burning or overheating the liquid. You are trying to maximize two things in nature that naturally oppose. Also there is a problem with just how much heat or energy you can get from household voltage. You can get much more energy from a burner of any sort. The electronics is the easy part the fluid mechanics can kill you. Be forwarned! To : N. Pyle I also had a carboy spew about 80% of its contents on the ceiling years ago. Your idea of a loose fitting f-lock may not save you because the fermenting beer/foam will slowly seal/glue the stopper very well before the pressure builds up enough to blow. I'm sure the pressure we are talking about here is very low. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 92 15:48 CST From: korz at ihlpl.att.com Subject: Re: Oxidation Again, another interesting post I found while editing: JaH writes: >In way of a little additional comment on Thom M's question about possibly >oxidizing the results of a partial mash by straining, I wanted to point out >that many European Breweries, notably Pilsener Urquell among them, use a system >where the sweet wort that goes from the mash tun into the boiling tank >is drained from the mash tun via a number of spigots. The brewer controls the >flow rate out of the mash tun by the number of spigots opened. These spigots >run the sweet wort into a trough, where is collects and then flows into >the boiling tank. I have seen this in operation. Yes the sweet wort gets >aerated here , on it's way from the mash tun to the boiling tank. PU does a >triple decoction, so this happens 3 times, yet there wasn't a hint of oxidation >in the fresh Pilsener Urquell. > >I think perhaps too much worrying is being done here. The temperature of >post boil wort is typically 40F higher than the sparge temps Thom cited, >The rate of the oxidation reaction is temperature dependent, so I think at the >lower temperature of sparging it is sufficiently slower that the amount >of oxidation components produced are not critical before this liquid reaches >the boil, and of course as I had mentioned this volume is diluted into the I don't know a lot about melanoidins (maybe there's something about them in George Fix's "Priciples of Brewing Science" book -- I haven't checked yet -- I hope there is), but from what I've read recently, they are somehow associated with the level of caramelization of the sugars in the mash/wort. If this is true, maybe the fact that PU is generally pretty pale and doesn't have a lot of melanoidins is why the grant doesn't cause oxidation problems. Comments? Maybe the reason PU is not REALLY pale is due to the oxidation and maybe the "cardboard smell/flavor" is from hop oxidation (there aren't any hops in the mash). Comments? Wouldn't there be less oxidation in the case of PU's triple decoction than in aerating an entire batch of (our) beer at 200F because: 1. the temperature would be lower (120F to 168F), 2. only part of the mash is taken and not the whole thing, and 3. that part of the mash gets boiled only a few minutes later and the dissolved air gets boiled out (this goes back to someone's question of how long does it take for the oxidation to take place... at say, 150F?)? Comments? Al. Return to table of contents
Date: 9 Jan 92 14:46:54 U From: "Rad Equipment" <rad_equipment at rad-mac1.ucsf.EDU> Subject: pH Pen Review Subject: pH Pen Review Time:2:44 PM Date:1/9/92 Hardware Review Litmustik pH Pen Model PHH-1X $44.00 + $2.95 S&H Omega Engineering, Inc. PO Box 4047 Stamford, CT 06907 1-800-826-6342 I have been interested in purchasing a digital pH tester ever since I checked the pH of my first batch with test papers and found them nearly impossible to read with any accuracy. Until recently the cost of these devices has been in the neighborhood of $80. About a year ago I began noticing advertising for units in the $40 range so I waited to see what reviews surfaced prior to buying one. So far I have yet to find such a review, except in the sales material of several retailers. I had occasion to purchase a couple of dial thermometers from Omega in order to complete my 1/2 barrel system this Fall. I noticed that they sold a pH pen for $44 I suppose I was feeling extravagent when I placed the order for the thermometers and tacked on the pen as well as some buffer solution for calibrating the unit. I was a little dismayed when the pen arrived. Now bear in mind that I have no experience with such devices so what may be obvious and expected by frequent users was not so with me. The advertising copy had stated the pen had a range of 32 to 122 degrees F. It does, however it needs to be calibrated at the same temperature that the sample will be read at so, either I had to heat the buffer or cool the sample. Not a big deal, I chose to cool the mash sample to room temp. The sales literature also stated "single point calibration" with a range of 0-14 and an accuracy of +/- .2 pH. Foolishly I thought that meant that you calibrate it at 7 and it figures out the 0-14 range. Not so... The specifications which come with the pen are more specific adding "+/- 3 pH units from standardization point". This means you need to calibrate the pen with a standard buffer solution close to the range (within 3 points) which you intend to measure. Again, this is not a large problem, but I would have liked to know it ahead of time. Standard solutions are available at 4 and 7 pH. Not exactly ideal for brewers who are looking for 5.0 - 5.5 pH. I am investigating making my own standard solution by mixing portions of the standards. The other characteristic of this device which I was unaware of when I purchased it is the fact that you must keep the probe moist. This isn't a problem for me as I tend to brew at least once a month and usally more. The instructions suggest immersion in tap water once a week for improved performance. The cap has bit of felt in it to assist with the task, however this is one more bit of maintenence which makes the pen risky for casual brewers. So after all that, how does it work? Quite well. I was very happy to be able to read a pH of 5.7 after mash-in and 5.3 after an addition of gypsum. I suspect though that I don't really need this toy. If I could find a nice set of pH papers which would be readable once immersed in a stout or porter mash I would do as well. Yet I could make the argument that the pen will pay for itself by my not needing to replace my supply of papers as they run out. At current prices, that ought to be in about 200 batches... One last comment. Along with the pen came an advertisment for a "NEW!" model PHH-2X pen with "ATC" (Automatic Temp Correction?, Auto Touch Calibration?) and improved Accuracy & Range for $49.50 + S&H. Hmmm... Russ Wigglesworth CI$: 72300,61 |~~| UCSF Medical Center Internet: Rad Equipment at RadMac1.ucsf.edu |HB|\ Dept. of Radiology, Rm. C-324 Voice: 415-476-3668 / 474-8126 (H) |__|/ San Francisco, CA 94143-0628 Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 92 18:37 GMT From: "KATMAN.WNETS385" <6790753%356_WEST_58TH_5TH_FL%NEW_YORK_NY%WNET_6790753 at mcimail.com> Subject: mead.boil water Date: 09-Jan-92 Time: 12:25 PM Msg: EXT02617 Hi there, Mead takes longer to ferment than beer, but some activity should be noticeable. Your fermentation lock should be bubbling every minute or 5. Our local brewery (Elm City, New Haven CT) boils all their water, and told me to do the same. We have lots of bacteria and they just throw in more chlorine (we don't have so much chlorine that it's a major taste factor in plain water or tea). I think they said boil for about 20 minutes or so, but don't quote me on that. (Kinny, is this more readable? This is using hard returns instead of word wrap. I too have problems with some posts running off the edge, although I think it's people with word wrap who go beyond column 80 that bug my machine, such as it is.) Lee Katman == Thirteen/WNET == New York, NY =Do not= use REPLY or ANSWERBACK, I can not receive mail in that fashion. Please send all mail to INTERNET katman.wnets385%wnet_6790753 at mcimail.com OR MCIMAIL EMS: wnet 6790753 MBX: katman.wnets385 Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 92 21:04:24 EST From: Jay Hersh <hersh at expo.lcs.mit.edu> Subject: Hot Wort Aeration George F> JaH and JF: I promise there will be no more about this! No need to make such promises. It is interesting to note your experiences, I think many people will also find them interesting. My comments were based on an observation of what is done commercially, a little knowledge of the temperature relationship to the speed of the reaction (ie it occurs slower at sparging temps than boil temps), and only minor direct experience. I certainly couldn't argue that PU has any kind of stability. The bottles i carried home had shown noticeable flavor changes in only weeks despite being stored cold. I wouldn't dare to attribute this to their use of a splash grant, but perhaps the casuality you suggest merits concern. I think some research and/or discussion with some commercial brewers could shed some light here. If I had the time I'd hit the library, but I'm very busy these days. - Jay Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 91 22:04 CDT From: arf at gagme.chi.il.us (jack schmidling) Subject: ADS To: Homebrew Digest Fm: Jack Schmidling From: Greg Roody - dtn 237-7122 <roody at necsc.enet.dec.com> Subject: Shameless ad's - this is too much >Now before "ARF" gets bent all out of shape, this is not a flame. That seems to contradict your "Subject". It appears that you have already drawn your conclusion. >Can I call for a vote on how many people found the ad for Jacks video to be too commercial for the purposes of this file? >So, how many people would like to see (even "non-profit") ads limited to either 5 lines maximum or banned outright? I vote for 5 lines. >I really don't want to get into the debate over using the internet for commercial gain, I just want to address signal to noise issues. Is it safe to presume that when you get your number, you are then going to ask me how many inquiries I received? If I can prove that more people showed interest than you can show grouches, I win. Aside from that a few other points. First of all, more bandwidth has been wasted whining and rationalizing the ad than in the ad itself. Secondly, on usenet, I posted a brief product announcement, with no price and asked that interested persons email for more info. I assumed that HBD was moderated and if the ad was unacceptable, it would be rejected. If this is incorrect, I apologize. If someone does read the stuff before adding to the HBD, then finger him/her, not me. BTW, I had previously offered the HBD "editors" a preview copy of the video so they could pick it apart but never got a response. js p.s. Date: Mon, 07 Oct 91 20:59:06 -0400 From: gonzalez at BBN.COM Subject: Papazian Book-Signing in Boston Barleymalt & Vine, a local homebrew supplier, is hosting a visit by Charlie Papazian, who will be signing copies of the new edition of his _Complete_Joy_Of_Homebrewing_. He'll be at the Framingham store (280 Worcester Road == Route 9) from 10am to 2pm, and at the West Roxbury store (4 Corey Street, just off the VFW Parkway) from 2:30pm to 6pm. A dinner and beer-tasting is to follow at the Boston Fencing Club. tickets for the dinner are $30 (for $37 they throw in a copy of the book), and reservations may be made by calling the Framingham store at 508-820-3392. -Jim. Just how does this fit into your value system? Looks like a blatent commercial for a brew supplier and Papzian to me. js Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 91 22:05 CDT From: arf at gagme.chi.il.us (jack schmidling) Subject: STUFF To: Homebrew Digest Fm: Jack Schmidling Date: 07 Oct 91 19:01:48 EDT From: Jeff Frane <70670.2067 at compuserve.com> Subject: On #738 & 739 To Jack Schmidling: >I'm not concerned that you list me as a source, I'm concerned that you describe the transcription of my notes on a five-minute telephone conversation as "research." Why do you assume that was the extent of my research? You simply got me started on the right track. > I'm also somewhat nonplussed to hear that you've never tasted anyone else's homebrew. Howcum? It is not a very popular pastime in my "crowd". I'm a recluse. I doubt that I can name five people, that I know personally, who have EVER made beer. Actually, I can think of only three and two of them are dead. > The guy who suggested your beer would taste "cidery" because of oxidation has got it wrong. Oxidized beer generally tastes remarkably like cardboard You're sure to LOVE my video because after complaining about billowing foam at bottling time, I pointed the camera at him and told him to tell us all about oxidation. >The cidery quality comes from an excessive amount of non-malt sugar. I would certainly find that reasonable but he was ready to buy billions and billions of videos and I wasn't about to argue with him. I have never tasted either in my beer so I can offer no opinion. js Return to table of contents
End of HOMEBREW Digest #799, 01/10/92