FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
		Rob Gardner, Digest Coordinator


Contents:
  Lauter tuns revisited (korz)
  SNPA Comments (SynCAccT)
  Wine digest? (hjl)
  powdered brew (Russ Gelinas)
  CP fillers, cooling fermentors ("Bob Jones")
  presidential beer jeopardy (Brian Bliss)
  Election?? (SLNDW)
  Kegging and carbonation ("Robert Haddad" )
  question on speciality grains ... ("C. Lyons")
  Wine ("Mark Rich-mpr8a at acadvm1.uottawa.ca")
  A few questions (Carlo Fusco)
  Re:Kegging questions ("Bob Jones")
  Sam Smith Pale Ale Recipe Needed. (kevinm at visual.com) <kevinm at visual.com>
  Spices in an Oatmeal Stout (Paul AndersEn                       )
  Conversion Efficiency (Jack Schmidling)
  CAMRA Good Beer Guide Questions (GC Woods)
  Judging/Wyeast#3056 (korz)
  Weizen Yeast, Wheat Beers (stevie)
  Flow theory and Keg lines (Randall Holt)
  Lincoln, Nebraska/ UN's Center for Biotechnology (George J Fix)
  Barley free beer from Micah Millspaw ("Bob Jones")
  HBD art. on petri dishes ("George Kavanagh")
  Crusty labels (Jim Kirk II)


Send articles for __publication__ to homebrew at hpfcmi.fc.hp.com
  (Articles are published in the order they are received.)
Send UNSUBSCRIBE and all other requests, ie, address change, etc.,
  to homebrew-request@ hpfcmi.fc.hp.com
Archives are available via anonymous ftp from sierra.stanford.edu.
    (Those without ftp access may retrieve files via mail from
    listserv at sierra.stanford.edu. Send HELP as the body of a
    message to that address to receive listserver instructions.)
**Please do not send me requests for back issues!**
*********(They will be silenty discarded!)*********
**For Cat's Meow information, send mail to lutzen at novell.physics.umr.edu**


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

Date: Thu, 29 Oct 92 12:12 CST
From: iepubj!korz at ihlpa.att.com
Subject: Lauter tuns revisited

Richard Childers (quoting me) says:
>> I thought that I had covered this before, but since there still seems to
>> be some confusion as to the theory behind the statements, I have, through
>> the magic of ascii graphics, illustrated the theoretical basis for my
>> contention that runoff from a single point is less efficient (in terms of
>> extract) than runoff from multiple points.
>
>	[ excellent ASCII graphics omitted for brevity ]
>
>It seems to me that, while in the abstract, you are probably right about
>certain designs resulting in less-than-perfectly-even flow of liquid, it
>can be evened out by an occasional stir or shake of the pot or bag.
>
>Fluid dynamics is a funny topic ... what with eddies and shifting grains,
>I'm not sure the flow pattern is as deterministic - or the islands of
>lesser flow, as static - as your diagrams suggest.

I had assumed no stirring during the lautering -- see below.

Also, Jack Schmidling writes:
 
> >From: iepubj!korz at ihlpa.att.com
> 
> >I thought that I had covered this before, but since there still seems to
> be some confusion as to the theory behind the statements, I have, through
> the magic of ascii graphics, illustrated the theoretical basis for my
> contention that runoff from a single point is less efficient (in terms of
> extract) than runoff from multiple points.
> 
> Unless I missed something, the only confusion seems to result from a lack of
> understanding of what I wrote in my response which was, the only response I 
> saw.  Perhaps, I didn't make myself clear so I will try again.
> 
> Al's nifty drawings and descriptions correctly describe what goes on in a 
> STATIC system.  Channels, tunnels, dead spots and dry spots will indeed 
> develop in ANY lautering system.  As Al noted, the more outlet points in the 
> system, the less significant these problem areas become.
> 
> However, as I pointed out, the process I am promoting is NOT a static system 
> and all the arguments brought up by Al are not relevant.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but digest #997 is the first I've heard that you
stir the grain bed *DURING* the sparge.  I recall from one of your first
posts, that you have a bowl sitting (partially submerged) in the top of
the grain bed into which you pour the sparge water.  This seemed to imply
to me that you were not stirring.  I also believe that you had mentioned
that you used a knife or skewer of some kind to poke holes in the grain bed
to restart the runoff if the sparge got stuck (I'm not 100% sure, perhaps
this was someone else).  The reason this restarts the sparge is because
poking things into the grain bed *creates* channels -- *direct* routes to
the outlet.

> The unique screen pickup in this system does not demand a well settled grain 
> bed to provide a clear run-off.  Therefore the entire mash can be thoroughly 
> stirred and mixed at regular intervals during the sparging process.  This 
> breakes up any channels that may have developed and redistributes the mash 
> within the water column.  I suspect that this would actually provide a much 
> MORE effective extraction regime then depending on the number and location of 
> outlet points.

I had a personal email conversation with Chip Hitchcock in which I wrote
the following regarding this same issue:

korz>Stirring the grainbed while the runnoff is being taken will only
korz>accentuate the channelling -- the sparge water will fill the "gorge"
korz>created by the spoon or paddle, quickly making it's way down to the
korz>outlet at the bottom.  Stirring, then taking runoff, then stirring,
korz>then taking runoff would minimize the problem of stagnant sparge water,
korz>but is certainly not EASY and will give you the cloudyest runoff you've
korz>ever seen.  I plan a direct comparison of several systems, all with
korz>the same mash *cycle* (unless I can find a way to make a mash big enough
korz>-- I can't with my equipment, maybe I can borrow a 30 gallon pot, a
korz>Cajun Cooker and a canoe oar from somewhere).

chip>   I can see that stirring would make a channel, but I would \think/ that
chip>the channel would be moving such that sparge water would still get to most
chip>of the grain.

korz>If the runoff valve was off, the stirring would just, as you say, be moving
korz>the sparge water around, getting the most out of the grain.  If the valve
korz>was open, however, just the sticking of the spoon into the grain would
korz>cause a channel to form and the sparge water would all run down along
korz>it.  Picture a lauter tun full of set jello.  A knife is stuck into it
korz>and moved around in a circle.  The slit left in the jello is the channel.
korz>If you were pouring water on top of the jello, you can see how it would
korz>prefer to go down the slit as opposed to forcing its way through the
korz>jello itself.  Granted, this is an exaggeration and the grain is more
korz>permiable than set jello, but I just wanted you to picture the channel
korz>(the channel sticks around for a while -- once the water finds a way
korz>through the grain, it wants to take that same path).

> What seems to make this point so hard to grasp is the fact that the other 
> systems all have large spaces under the grain bed that must be cleared of 
> turbid wort before sparging can actually begin.  Wort is recirculated, there 
> are painfully complicated systems for flushing these areas out and endless 
> discussions about how much wort must be recirculated to get it to work.

No complicated systems are needed.  Draw off a quart or two and dump it in
the top.  The reason for the turbid wort is usually a too-fine a crush.
A rollermill (such as the modified Mercado Mill or yes, the infamous MALTMILL)
is virtually essential to getting a good crush with a minimum of flour.

> The EM system runs clear after only a few ounces are drawn off initially and 
> continues to run clear even after thorough stirring of the mash.

It seems that if this needs to be done multiple times, and the first few
ounces are turbid each time (which I'm quite sure will happen), the amount
of turbid runoff can add up, no?
 
> I have only heard from a handful of people who have tried my process but so 
> far, they seem to be delighted with the results.  I offered Al an opportunity 
> to tour the World's Greatest Brewery but unfortunately, he declined.
> 
> I will publicly extend my offer to Al or anyone else who wants to bring 
> his/her favorite lautering device over here and do a side by side mash, under 
> controlled conditions, to put to rest the notion that simple things just 
> can't work.

Starting with a properly-crushed malt, it seems to me that a "start it and
just add sparge water system" is simpler than one which requires stirring.
Agree with you that a simple lautering system with a minimum of expensive
equipment is the best solution, so what's simpler than a couple of buckets
with some holes in one -- you can even get the food-grade buckets free
from bakeries.

Nevertheless, perhaps the only way to resolve this is experimentally.
We should, for the good of homebrewing, compare these systems and report
back.  We'll have to meet on neutral ground of course ;^).
> 
> js

Al.

Return to table of contents


Date: 29 Oct 92 19:13:32 GMT
From: SynCAccT at slims.attmail.com
Subject: SNPA Comments

In my haste to post a summary of the responses I received for my
requests for information on the SNPA yeast, etc., I neglected to
include the authors names that should have accompanied the
comments. My apologies to the authors, and I therefore post:

Phillip Seitz (0004531571 at mcimail.com) went to a Sierra Nevada
tasting meeting and posted the OG, FG, grains and hops.

Tony Babinec (tony at spss.com) described the differences between the
bottle and draught versions, provided a sample recipe, and provided
the comments section.

Rick Larson (rick at melkor.uucp) was kind enough to compile and foward
the above information. He also fowarded the recipe posted, which
looks to be the best of the lot.

I also received tidbits of information reflected in the posting from
other sources, too numerous to mention.

One last thing, apparently many folkes disagree with my neo-Gaelic
spelling of recipe at the top of the recipe :).  I'll put aside my
Goidelic origins and promise to use the US version from now on......

Thanks again.....
+----------------------------------+
| EMAIL==> gande at slims.attmail.com |
| Glenn Anderson                   |
| Sr.Telecommunications Analyst    |
| Sun Life of Canada               |
+----------------------------------+











Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 29 Oct 92 14:17 EST
From: hjl at gummo.att.com
Subject: Wine digest?

Anyone know of a digest for winemakers similar to The Homebrew Digest?

Please E-mail any responses.

Thanks.

Hank Luer

Return to table of contents


Date:    Thu, 29 Oct 1992 15:15:24 -0500 (EST)
From: R_GELINAS at UNHH.UNH.EDU (Russ Gelinas)
Subject: powdered brew

  It's not homebrew, but maybe JS can freeze-dry some of his low alcohol
brew and have another product to push :-)  From Canoe magazine:

   South Hills Dry Beer Flavored Dry Beverage, consisting of "malt and
dried-beer extracts".  It makes a modest head, and "packs enough
carbohydrates" to justify drinking it (sounds tasteless).  A 1/2 oz.
packet makes an 8 to 10 oz. serving.  Add vodka/grain alcohol to taste.
$.99 each.  South Hills Dry Beverages, 765 Mimosa Ave. Eugene, OR, 97405,
503-343-3558.

   I've go no interest in South Hills, and only a curious interest in
their dry beer.

Russ

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 29 Oct 92 13:00:23 PST
From: "Bob Jones" <bjones at novax.llnl.gov>
Subject: CP fillers, cooling fermentors


In HBD#998, Jay Marshall asks:

>A question to those of you who keg...

>If you want to put some of your wonderful kegged brew into a bottle for
>consumption elsewhere, what methods do you use?  I am just starting to
>keg and would still like to be able to take some along occasionally.

I strongly recommend using a counter-pressure bottle filler. When
a C-P filler is properly used carbonation of the beer is maintained
and oxygen is vertually eliminated from the bottle. They are simple to
use and maintain and are the method by which almost all commercial
carbonated beverages are packaged.

Micah



>brewed a starter of great proportion (6 gallons).  let it ferment till the 
>head fell.  brewed a 1.049 batch of 40 Gallons, cooled and pitched the entire
>6 gallon stater.  it was slow to bubble and never got going (like others
>have done).  even the starter was slow (head took long time (many days) to 
>fall).  the gravity after a week has only gotten down to 1.030 or so.  it 
>still bubble occasionally.  temp of the beer has been in the lower 60's F 
>thru-out the week.

>side note here: i usually do a "fast ferment", and i did on this one also.

>the fast ferment is down to 1.010, this after a week - which is good, maybe
>a little lower than i would like it but it did ferment out.  so i know the
>problem is not the yeast/wort.  my guess is the yeast like it warm.

>to give it the possible warmth it may need i have turned on the heater in the
>room where the ferment is taking place.  overnite it did not seem to make
>much differnece.  Rousing does not appear to make much of difference either. 

>joe

I have had some experience with big batches and one of the problems that
has to be overcome is temperature control of the fermenter or its 
surroundings. It can be difficult sometimes to keep the temperature low
enough but when things get to cold it can be even more of a pain. Your
40 gallons of liquid is a great big thermal flywheel and it will take
quite a while for it to warm up, so just be patcient. Low 60 won't
hurt the yeast but it may take a while in recovering. Don't try to
heat things up rapidly it will cause problems.
 If you or anyone else out in hb land is planning on brewing
big batches you need to come up with some sort of temperature control.
I built a fermentation room ( heavily insulated closet type room in
the shed that I brew in) and use an A\C with a Hunter air stat to control
it, it works great and didn't cost to much.
 Also, I don't know what shape your fermenter is but that can
effect fermentation efficientcy as well. There is a lot of info on
fermenter design in the commercial brewing texts, check the local library
and with the MBAA for reprints. 

micah 
10/28/92

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 29 Oct 92 15:06:21 CST
From: bliss at csrd.uiuc.edu (Brian Bliss)
Subject: presidential beer jeopardy

One of my more important responsibilities here is the keeper of
the happy hour list.  This involves addition/deletions of name,
and, of course, the weekly mailing on friday.  Well, I came up
with a good one this week (actually, I wrote last wee), and it
was suggested that I post it to a more public forum for your
entertainment:  

Emcee:	 Ladies and Gentlem, will you welcome the host of our show,
	 Mr. Art Fleming!
	 <cheers>
Art:	 Thank you, Thank you.  Today on the show we have three
	 very famous people.  May I introduce to you, on the left,
	 Gov. Bill Clinton!  In the center, we have independent
	 presidential candidate Ross Perot!  And on the Right,
	 we have President George Bush!
	  [They had to put Perot Between Bush and Clinton to keep them
	  from fighting:-)  Also, did you notice in the second debate
	  how they had Bush on the left and Clinton on the right? - ed.]
Art:	 Gentlemen, the categories for today are...
	 "Beers"! ...
	 "Bars"! ...
Clinton: No "Women" Category?
Art:	 Just a second, we aren't finished yet, the third category is...
	 "Women"!
	 Mr. Perot, you won the coin toss. [A 3-headed coin?]
	 Please choose a category.
Perot:	 I'll take "Bars" for $100
Art:	 And the answer is: "A Pint of Foster's costs $2.90 at this..."
Perot:	 BUZZ! What is the Central Tap?
Art:	 That the correct question! $100 to you, Mr Perot...
Perot:	 Aw, chicken feed.  You know, I've been doing some research,
	 and the Central Tap only Pays $122 per keg for Fosters.
	 Now that works out to just $1 a pint.  That's a 190% profit!
	 Even if you figure in labor and overhead -
Art:	 Please pick a category, Mr. Perot.
Perot:	 I'll take "Beers" for $100.
Art:	 "This Bostonian lager beer was the winner of the Great American
	 Beer Festival 3 years in a row"...
Perot:	 BUZZ!  Hmmm. Let me take an opinion poll of the audience.
	 Who thinks -
Art:	 3 seconds, Mr. Perot.
Perot:	 uh, Budweiser?
Art:	 I'm sorry, that will cost you $100.  Would any of the remaining
	 contestants like to try?
Bush:	 BUZZ! What is Samuel Adam's Lager?  Such a patriot, Sam Adams,
	 I really identify with him...
Art:	 That's the correct question...
	  [For those of you who don't know, the Great American Beer
	  Festival (GABF) used to be held in a big hall, with each
	  brewery having a table, serving samples to the public.
	  Each guest was allowed 1 vote as to what he/she thought
	  was the best beer when they were finished.  The tables
	  were orignally arranged in alphabetical order, so "Adams"
	  was the first beer most people tried.  There were so many
	  breweries present that most guests could only sample a few,
	  but nearly everyone tried "Sam Adams".  Anyway, it is only
	  fitting that Bush respond correctly since he has so much
	  experience rigging elections. - ed.]
Art:	 and that's $100 for you, Mr. President.  that puts you out
	 in front early on.  Your turn to pick a category...
Bush:	 I'll take "Bars" for $200
Art:	 "Bars" for $200, and the answer is:  Happy hour will be
	 held at this bar on Friday the 30th, at 6:00.
Perot:	 The Central Tap?
Art:	 Your reponse must be in the form of a question, like it
	 usually is, Mr. Perot.
Perot:	 What is the Central Tap?
Art:	 That's correct.  That puts you back in the race.
Perot:	 Let me say that if you show up at happy hour, that I will
	 be showing you exactly what happend to your beer dollar -
Art:	 Please choose a category, Mr. Perot.
Perot:	 "Beers" again, for $200
Art: 	 This traditional English ale is kegged before fermentation
	 is complete, and can be characterized by weak carbonation -
Clinton: BUZZ!  What are bitters?  I tried some when I was a student
	 at Oxford.
Art:	 That's correct!
Bush:	 Such Sleeeeeaaze.  I tell you, I really can't understand
	 drinking THEIR beer in a foreign country, especially when 
	 Anheusier-BUSCH is losing millions of dollars in lost
	 revenue...
Clinton: I only tasted it - I didn't swallow!
Art:	 Your choice, Gov. Clinton.
Clinton: I'll take "Women", for $100
Bush:	 Don't you usually spend more than that?
Clinton: (pointing at Bush with the 2nd knuckle of his index finger)
	 Mud Slinger! Mud Slinger!
Bush:	 I most emphatically deny that charge.  I have never taken
	 part in Mud Wrestling, and just the thought of having to
	 resort to these tactics, um, I mean...
Art:	 Gentlemen, Gentlemen...
Clinton: If you'll pardon the interruption, Mr. Fleming.
Art:	 The category is "Women", for $100.  This 1980 Playboy
	 Centerfold -
Clinton: Who was Dorothy Stratten?
Art:	 And that's correct, Gov. Clinton.  That gives you $100,
	 bringing your total to $300, giving you a $100 lead over
	 Mr. Perot, and a $200 lead over President Bush -
Emcee:	 BUZZ
Art:	 And we're out of time, so join us tonight, at the Central Tap,
	 6:00, where -
Perot:	 And I'll be buying everyone.
	 uh, Beer!  I'll be buying everyone beer.
Bush:	 Darn it!  Barabara probably won't let me out of the house.
	 I guess I'll just have one of the Secret Service men [SS men]
	 keep her "tied up", eh, eh, eh.

P.S. Y'all are invited to show up, if you happen to live in the
Champaign-Urbana, IL, area, or are just passing by.

bb

Return to table of contents


Date: 29 Oct 1992 14:57:57 -0600 (MDT)
From: SLNDW at CC.USU.EDU
Subject: Election??

PEART.WNETS385 writes:

Thursday, Nov. 3 is a holiday but the library is open.






Well, I thought the election was TUESDAY, not thursday.  Wow, I
guess they are changing the rules on us.

 -toot

Return to table of contents


Date:     29 Oct 92 18:23:43 EDT
From: "Robert Haddad" <RHADDAD at bss1.umd.edu>
Subject:  Kegging and carbonation

Granted that draft beer should not be as carbonated as the bottled
kind.

Nevertheless, I have not yet been truly happy with the level of
carbonation in my kegged brew. I have lately tried to chill it a
little more, but while that improved things somewhat, the brew is
still somewhat still...

I have kegged stout, and various other ales. I prime the beer with
1/2 cup of corn sugar per 5 gal cornelius keg (with about 4.5 gal of
brew in it). The pressure in there by party time is about 25lbs.

I recently read on the HBD that hose diameters may have something to
do with carbonation, could someone expand on this?
Thanks,

Robert Haddad

Rhaddad at bss1.umd.edu



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 29 Oct 92 17:31 EST
From: "C. Lyons" <LYONS at adc1.adc.ray.com>
Subject: question on speciality grains ...

I would like to make an extract batch this weekend following 
Charlie Papazian's "Holiday Cheer" recipe (TNCJOHB).  The recipe
calls for 1/2 lb of crystal malt.  I have Belgian aromatic,
carapils, caravien, and caramuni malts.  Are these crystal malts
and are they a good substitute for crystal?

                              ... Thanks in advance!
                                  Christopher Lyons
                                  LYONS at ADC1.ADC.RAY.COM

Return to table of contents


Date:         Fri, 30 Oct 92 09:32:34 EST
From: "Mark Rich-mpr8a at acadvm1.uottawa.ca" <MPR8A at acadvm1.uottawa.ca>
Subject:      Wine


Hello all,

Does anybody know about a forum for the brewing of wine??? Please forward
me the info.

                Thanx in advance.

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1992 10:04 EST
From: Carlo Fusco <G1400023 at NICKEL.LAURENTIAN.CA>
Subject: A few questions

Hello,

I want to take the plunge into all grain brewing but I have a naive question 
about the cooler mash tun. If I make this thing (using the ascii graphics 
from a few weeks ago, can any one tell me which issue it was?) will I still 
need a lauder tun?

One more question about the cooler. How big does it have to be? I'm talking 
about the rectangular kind with the copper tubing in the bottom.

Someone posted a request for a Smithwicks Ale recipe. I am also interested in 
this recipe. Can someone send me information about how to brew this.

Thanks
Carlo Fusco
g1400023 at nickel.laurentian.ca

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 30 Oct 92 07:37:52 PST
From: "Bob Jones" <bjones at novax.llnl.gov>
Subject: Re:Kegging questions

In HBD 1002 Frank Tutzauer asks some kegging questions....

1. What the heck is a "cobra" tap?

Yes it is that black/cheap thing that goes on the end of a line for picnic
use. These things are silly, go out and buy a real tap and mount it though 
your frig wall. Leave the picnic tap in the closet, and use it for picnics.

2. What is line "width"?

Dave is talking about ID here.

3. What's the deal on the material composition of the line?

Line resistance or pressure drop per foot of line is dependent on the 
material. PVC line is what I use and 3/16 ID line has a drop of about 3 psi 
per foot. Therefore 4 feet has a 12 psi drop.

4. Is lift canceled out by drop?

Yes, all you have to worry about is the height of the tap. I don't think it 
is that critical in a home system. It sure is in a pub where the beer may 
be pushed up from the basement.

I wrote a short article in HBD about a month or so ago that explains 
some of the details that Dave covered in his talk. These techniques have 
vastly improved my draft system.

Bob Jones

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 30 Oct 92 10:06:32 -0500
From: Kevin McCluskey (kevinm at visual.com) <kevinm at visual.com>
Subject: Sam Smith Pale Ale Recipe Needed.


I've had a request for a SSPA knockoff... Anyone have an extract
recipie that comes close ? I just got The Cats Meow, so if there
is one inparticular in there thats close, please, let me know.



Thanks.
K.

Return to table of contents


Date:    Fri, 30 Oct 92 10:08 PST
From: Paul AndersEn <ECZ5PGA at MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU>
Subject: Spices in an Oatmeal Stout

Hi Homebrewers,  I have an outstanding Oatmeal Stout (I have brewed it before)
in the Primary right now and was interested in possibly adding some spices
to the secondary, seeing as though it will be ready around Thanksgiving.
My question is this.....What spice, if any should I add? How much should I add?
 And am I already too late to add it?  And,  should I not take the chance
since I know the brew unspiced is yummi to begin with?
    I was thinking of cinnamon or cloves.  Any suggestions would be welcome.

                THanks,  Paul Andersen

P.S.  For those of you who brew Oatmeal Stout, or like to drink Anderson
Valley Oatmeal STout, or Samual Smiths, here is an interesting tasting tip...
While drinking your favorite Oatmeal Stout, chew on a Tootsie Roll.
It sounds strange, but if you like Tootsie Rolls, I think you will be surprised
 with the combination.

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 30 Oct 92 10:00 CST
From: arf at ddsw1.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling)
Subject: Conversion Efficiency

 
 To: Homebrew Digest
 Fm: Jack Schmidling
 
 Much is made of conversion/extract efficiency.  If the brewer's numbers agree 
 with currently accepted numbers, one can brag about it, if not, one is forced 
 to make all sorts of excuses to avoid redicule or worse yet, lie about it and 
 cause no end of frustration for beginners.
 
 The most important thing to keep in mind is that the variables involved are 
 many and not only difficult to control but even more difficult to measure 
 accurately.
 
 The bottom line is that it is only an INDICATION of one's process quality and 
 far more a test of one's measurement skills and equipment.
 
 As one simple example, this weekend I compared the graduations on a number of 
 beakers and flasks in my lab and measuring cups in my kitchen.  The results 
 were amazing.
 
 I noted some of the beakers were labled "approx" over the graduated scale."
 I had always assumed this applied to the capacity and not the overall 
 calibration of the graduations.  WRONG!  I compared these with some others 
 marked +/- 5% and the difference was a staggering 15%.
 
 I performed the same tests on some kitchen measuring cups.  The Pyrex brand 
 was dead on and the "Ovenproof" was off by about 12%.
 
 This may seem like trivia but in order to arrive at a meaningful result, 
 every measurement error must be included in the result.  Most people do not 
 brew in beakers and flasks but some of us do use them for test and 
 measurement purposes and it is useful to be reminded that what seems obvious 
 is not always so.
 
 I note with interest that Al K has defined percent efficiency as the extent 
 to which actual extract agrees with the maximum possible as put forth by one 
 author with a particular type of malt.
 
 I find this a bit like defining the time it takes Santa to make his rounds 
 based on the diameter of the author's chimney.
 
 I suggest that we should stick to the points/per pound/per gallon to avoid 
 one more variable that just makes the results that much less useful.  
 
 It is also useful to point out that the terms extract and conversion are a 
 bit misleading and should be defined more clearly.
 
 I define conversion as the amount of sugar that ends up in the wort after 
 mashing is complete.  If one drains the mash tun at this point, the 
 pts/lb/gallon can be easily calculated and this provides an indication of the 
 mashing process, the malt, the water and other variables I probably am not 
 aware of.  This would provide the conversion efficiency or ratio.  
 
 If one goes on to sparge out the mash and makes the measurements again, one 
 now gets the extract efficiency or the ability to get the converted sugar out 
 of the mash.  This now depends on the lautering system and process and has 
 nothing to do with conversion or malt type.
 
 Most brewers only make the latter measurements and the results consequently 
 reflect the entire process and the materials used.
 
 The point of all this is that it is unwarranted to criticise a brewer's 
 equipment or his process or his materials for extract/conversion problems 
 based on end results.  There simply is not enough data to make that 
 judgement.
 
 >From: "Bob Jones" <bjones at novax.llnl.gov>
 >On the subject of sparge systems, I would point out that if possible you
 should try to minimize the hydrostatic pressure across the grain bed to
 minimize grain bed compaction. This can easily be done if you place your
 outflow slightly below the grain bed liquid level. Crude ascii graphic to
 follow......
 
 I won't argue with the physics of the approach but there is a fundamental end 
 problem.  You can not empty the tun below the outflow level unless you use a 
 hose to gain the necessary head, at which point, you will be back where you 
 would have been with the outflow on the bottom.
 
 js
 
 
 

Return to table of contents


Date: 30 Oct 92 13:20:04 EST (Fri)
From: GC Woods <gcw at garage.att.com>
Subject: CAMRA Good Beer Guide Questions

After reading the 1993 CAMRA Good Beer Guide I purchased to prepare
for a trip to London Thanksgiving week and have a couple of questions:

1) The CAMRA guide defines a "public bar" as "drink is cheaper" - my
question is what is the price difference between a public and non-public
pub and for the pubs not listed in CAMRA, how would one know if the pub
was a "public bar"?

2) "Free Bars" are mentioned in the description of bars - what is a free
bar and do most pubs charge cover?

Do any HBD's know of pubs not listed in the CAMRA guide one should not
miss and of course which pubs serve the consistently best real ale?

					Geoff Woods
					gcw at garage.att.com

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 30 Oct 92 13:01 CST
From: iepubj!korz at ihlpa.att.com
Subject: Judging/Wyeast#3056

Rob Malouf brings up what I think is an important point:
>You shouldn't assume that the brewers made no attempt to use the right yeast.
>I have entered several weizens in competetions, all made with Wyeast's
>Bavarian Wheat strain, and all with minimal (though noticable) clove
>character.  In every case, at least one judge responded "No cloves=not a
>weizen.  Use the right yeast next time" and didn't look any further into the
                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>beer's other faults and virtues.  Since I did use the "right" yeast, this
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>advice is less than helpful.  Perhaps judges should not assume the worst of
>homebrewers.  In this case, I know what a weizen is supposed to taste like,
>I just don't have the skill to achieve it.

If you think that a judge did a poor job judging your beer in 
competition, I feel that you should photocopy the judging form
and send it to the competition organizer with a note, explaining
your dissatisfaction.  NOTE that I DON'T mean that you should
complain that you thought you should have scored higher.  What
I do mean is cases like the one Rob mentioned above -- just a
number on a line and a comment like "no clove nose."   Also, if
the judges are abusive, for example, "this beer is awful -- it
tastes like urine."  Judges who write comments like this should
either clean up their act or get out of judging.  Its up to us
to give feedback to organizers so they can reprimand out-of-line
judges and keep them away from competitions if they don't shape
up.

For the record, I once used Wyeast Bavarian Wheat #3056, fermented
at 68F, and got no clove nose.  I have also tasted several Weizens
at CBS meetings made with this same yeast that did have a great clove
nose.  Since this particular yeast is a mixture of two strains, perhaps
freshness may be more important as one yeast will dominate if the
other is sluggish.  The package of #3056 I used was about three months
old.  Temperature is definately a factor with #3056 also.

Al.

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 30 Oct 92 13:12:14 CST
From: stevie at spss.com
Subject: Weizen Yeast, Wheat Beers

In HBD #1002, Rob Malouf (malouf at Csli.Stanford.EDU) replied to Roger Deschner's
observations on weizen character:

>You shouldn't assume that the brewers made no attempt to use the right yeast.
>I have entered several weizens in competetions, all made with Wyeast's
>Bavarian Wheat strain, and all with minimal (though noticable) clove
>character.  In every case, at least one judge responded "No cloves=not a
>weizen.  Use the right yeast next time" and didn't look any further into the
>beer's other faults and virtues.  Since I did use the "right" yeast, this
>advice is less than helpful.  Perhaps judges should not assume the worst of
>homebrewers.  In this case, I know what a weizen is supposed to taste like,
>I just don't have the skill to achieve it.

Rob's comments on the Wyeast Bavarian Wheat (3056) are consistent with my own
experience and that of many other brewers, namely, it does not instantly impart
the signature clove character, at least not at first.  Generally, I have found
that the cloviness emerges after a couple of months of aging.  Of course, even
a not-clovey-enough-weizen can taste pretty damn good, so this may try your
patience!  Rob, if you've still got a few weizens hanging around, crack 'em
open and compare your tasting notes with the earlier samples.  I'd be interested
to see if you notice this as well.  If you've decided to give up on the 3056,
you might try the Wyeast European (1338 -- aka Alt).  I know many brewers who
swear by this is their weizens.  My guess is you have all the skill you need to
make an excellent weizen.  Sometimes all you need is time or a slight change in
recipe or process.  How did I find out?  I submitted weizens to competitions and
got the same comments.  I'm not getting them as often now.

Also agreed, judges shouldn't assume the worst of homebrewers, but frankly, 
since most of us ARE homebrewers, most of us don't.  We try to give helpful 
advice, but we often fall short.  Few judges, if any, would even attempt to
reverse engineer a beer.  In defense of Roger, there are times when the
advice you give is generally good, but doesn't apply to a specific case.  
I judged a lot of beers in Minneapolis, including some of the weizens, and 
I'd say there were a lot of entries from new brewers.  Naturally, this meant 
that there were plenty of extract beers brewed with dry yeasts.  New brewers 
also have a tough time with styles, and submit brews in the categories that they
think best approximate what they've made.  In general, the weizens were clear, 
refreshing, and under-carbonated.  The winner, a dunkel weizen, was quite good. 
Most of the others would have done better as American Wheats.  Unfortunately, 
the beers with the best clove character in the competition came from the Porter 
category!  Nyaaah!

A final point on Wheat beers in competitions.  In many events, beers submitted
as American Wheats get lumped together with the German Weizens, and the judging
sheets that get sent back to their brewers are full of comments on the lack of
clove character.  It's nice to see that more events have decided to separate
the two, even moving the American Wheat to a subset of American Light Lagers 
(as in AHA Nationals).  When you intentionally brew a beer NOT to have that 
clove character, you shouldn't be criticized for doing so.

 +------------------+---------------------------+---------------------------+
 |  Steve Hamburg   | Internet: stevie at spss.com | "Life is short, and so    |
 |  SPSS Inc.       | Phone:    312/329-3445    | are some brewers."        |
 |  Chicago, IL     | Fax:      312/329-3657    |                           |
 +------------------+---------------------------+---------------------------+


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 30 Oct 92 16:10:14 -0500
From: rxh6 at po.CWRU.Edu (Randall Holt)
Subject: Flow theory and Keg lines



Many thanks to all the HBDer's who responded to my questions on all-wheat 
extract and mashing and colored malts.
 
In HBD1002, Frank Tutzauer asks,
 
>1.  What the heck is a "cobra" tap?  He talks about two kinds of taps:  "bar"
>taps and "cobra" taps.  One of them requires a 2 psi adjustment, but I have no
>idea what this cobra gizmo is.  My tap looks like the kind that you get on the
>hand pump of a beer ball.  I suppose that if your imagination is whimsical
>enough, and if you've had enough homebrew, you could say that the tap looked
>like a spitting cobra, but geez I dunno.
 
I'm not sure, but I think the cobra tap has a pressure reducer built into the
handle. I have a simple bar-style (ball/lock) tap which has similar foaming 
problems, and a pressure reducing tap which does slightly resemble a cobra. 
The pressure reducer allows the line to stay at a high pressure, while 
reducing the final pressure at the tap to prevent high velocity exit foaming.
I got my tap from my local Cornelius distributor, I'm not sure what the 
catalog # is, e-mail me if you need it.
 
>2.  What is line "width"?  
>... But by "width" does he mean inside diameter?  
 
He must. No other term is relevant, unless he's making inferences about the
compliance (elasticity) of the hose, which for stiff flex-hose has negligible 
effect when compared to the I.D. for static (non-pulsatile) flow problems.
 
>If so, why didn't he use this term instead of the ambigous "width"? 
 
Maybe he's trying to de-jargonize for the engineering impaired.
 
>3.  What's the deal on the material composition of the line?  Dave has a table
>showing the resistance for different lengths and widths of line.  No sweat. 
>But the resistance for a fixed length/width varies according to whether the
>line is vinyl or polyethylene (more resistance in vinyl).  Why?  
 
Boundary layer slip. When a steady flow is set up along a surface, it is 
assumed that there is zero flow at the fluid/solid interface.
 
============================================================  tube wall
*  (no flow /or low flow at tube wall )		    ^
- --------> *                                         |
- -------------------> *                              |   
- ----------------------> *                           |  
- ------------------------> *                         |   'Width' or
- -------------------------> *  (max flow in center ) |    I.D.
- ------------------------> *                         |
- ----------------------> *                           |
- -------------------> *                              |  
- --------> *                                         |
*                                                   -
=========================================================  tube wall
 
In reality, there is a tendency for some small amount of slip. 
Different materials have different "coefficients of sliding friction", based
on physical (roughness/smoothness) characteristics (most chemical 
characteristics for are lumped in the vicosity of the fluid). 
 
Of course, this is the simplest version. CO2 bubbles will alter the turbulance,
and velocity profiles, as will the head pressure etc, and it is in non-Newtonian
flow that slip seems to play a large role.
 
>I can't think of any good reason why the composition of the line would make
> a difference. Maybe one is more gas permeable than the other, but if that's
> so then wouldn't the outside diameter also make a difference? 
 
The time scale for this problem makes wall permeability a negligible effect. 
Material friction coefficient (roughness and smoothness) is more important.
 
> For example, I've got two different 3/16" i.d. vinyl lines.  One is fat, 
> nearly 1/2" o.d., and the other is skinny, maybe 1/4" o.d.  Will the 
> resistance in these lines be different for an equivalent length?  
 
1/16" vinyl is pretty stiff, and will only be a consideration for the flow
if the pressure is somehow oscillating very rapdily.
 
>Relatedly, does anyone know the resistance for
>copper (1/4" i.d., 3/8" o.d.) for times when I want to use my jockeybox?
 
Not off hand, but all of these calculations are only of use for well
defined systems of pure liquids. Elbow joints and tube length between 
joints tend to complicate things, not to mention dissolved and undissolved CO2
and sugar/carbohydrate content. There are ways of calculating this stuff,
but the most practical solution is to make a gross calculation based only
on line length, I.D. and head pressure (including heighth differential) and
then take a few measurements at different pressures.
 
>4.  Is lift canceled out by drop?  In addition to line length and width, you
>also have to consider whether or not you are pushing the beer uphill--what
>Dave calls "lift" (it takes 1 psi to push the beer up two feet).  From my
>college physics I remember that the work done in a closed path is zero
>(because the work going up is canceled out by the "negative work" going down). 
>Does beer work the same way?  For example, if my line goes up two feet, down
>three, and then back up one, is the net contribution to resistance zero?  Or
>is the resistance gained by going up different than the resistance lost by
>going down?  If the answer is a net of zero, then all I have to worry about is
>the height of the tap; if nonzero, then I have to worry about all the bobs and
>dives that the line takes.
 
You got it. You only need to look at net differences in height.
 
The only reason you wouldn't, would be if 
a) you have pinhole leaks or leaky joints in the system line, or,
b) you are using a material that has anisotropic slip coefficients
 

- --
Randall W. Holt - rxh6 at cwru.po.edu | 'Bibo ergo sum' - I drink, therefore I am

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 30 Oct 92 15:21:37 CST
From: gjfix at utamat.uta.edu (George J Fix)
Subject: Lincoln, Nebraska/ UN's Center for Biotechnology

Lincoln has a new brewpub called Crane River Brewpub and Cafe, which
is owned by Kristina Tiebel and Linda Vesco. Many on this network will
know both as top flight homebrewers. So what we have is yet another
example of successful homebrewers turning pro. At the AHA conference in
June it was suggested that if this trend continues, then by the time the
21st century arrives there will be precious few homebrewers left!

The Center for Biotechnology at the Univ. of Nebraska-Lincoln will have a
seminar devoted to brewing on November 11, 1992. I have been asked to give
this presentation. I know there are a few people on this network who live
nearby. If you have the time, I hope you will stop by and say hello. The
seminar is free and open to the public. The post seminar discussions are
likely to be good, especially if they are at Crane River with Linda's and
Kristina's beer.

George Fix
 


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 30 Oct 92 15:25:27 PST
From: "Bob Jones" <bjones at novax.llnl.gov>
Subject: Barley free beer from Micah Millspaw


>Does anyone have a recipe for a BARLEY-FREE beer (not mead or cider)?
 
>I have a roommate who is violently allergic to barley (very sad), and thought
>I would try to brew up something sans barley. I have looked at a few wheat
b>eers, but they all contain some percentage of the forbidden grain. I have not
>yet found a recipe that is 100% wheat.
 
>As yet, I have not plumbed the mysteries of mashing, but as no commerical
>wheat-only extract kits seem available, this would be as good an excuse as
>any to get started.
 
>Can anyone help me to introduce my roommate to the joys of quaffing ale?
 
Yes, I beleive that I can help. It is generally thought that malted wheat 
must be mashed with  malted barley in order to get starch conversion, this
is not so. Malted wheat has plenty of enzymes on its own. The problem
is that wheat malt has no husk to form a filter bed thus making lautering
(the removal and collection of the sugars from the mash) almost impossible.
A solution is to mix whole leaf hops through the wheat malt in the mash to
act as the filter in place of the grain husks. It may take a little more 
effort to do but will get what you want. This has been used by commercial 
breweries that make high percentage wheat beers (70% or more). 
                                  have fun
                                    micah     10/29/92


Facinating story about the yeast on yesterdays digest. Am I crazy now?
De Clerck once wrote; that a single yeast cell, given the optimum
 growing conditions could cover surface of the earth to a depth of 
ten feet in two weeks.
Now wouldn't that be great.

Relax, don't worry and have a Keystone. 
It will encourage you to start homebrewing.

micah    10/30/92

Return to table of contents


Date:         31 Oct 92 14:23:15 EST
From: "George Kavanagh" <GEORGE.KAVANAGH at OFFICE.WANG.COM>
Subject:      HBD art. on petri dishes

Can anyone tell me what HBD (several months ago) had the somewhat extensive
and informative discussion of preparation & care of petri dishes for culturing
yeast?

Thanks in advance!  -gk

Return to table of contents


Date: 01 Nov 92 18:16:05 EST
From: Jim Kirk II <70403.3157 at compuserve.com>
Subject: Crusty labels

Help. Whenever I soak Miller product bottles in chlorine bleach, I get this
crusty substance floating around in the water. It settles on the bottles,
inside and out and turns into a crystal like substance. It will not come
off. Is there some sort of reaction between the glue (or the labels
themselves) and chlorine? <JK>
 



Return to table of contents



End of HOMEBREW Digest #1003, 11/02/92