HOMEBREW Digest #1117 Mon 12 April 1993

Digest #1116 Digest #1118

		Rob Gardner, Digest Coordinator

  Bottle Sources (Chris Cook)
  Chiller Study? (Paul dArmond)
  Hawaii Brew Pubs (HDIP9235)" <HDIP9235 at BCIT.BC.CA>
  Help! Need Hop plant info (Kevin Casey)
  Verify address (Michael W Worobiec)
  Skimming, Hops, Color (Jack Schmidling)
  Hop Alpha Acid rating (Lee=A.=Menegoni)
  Sorry for the noise... (Jim=Curl)
  "Party Pig" (CCAC-LAD) <dskeldon at PICA.ARMY.MIL>
  Wrestling aligators (korz)
  Re: vortex drain strength, and coriolis acceleration (Richard Stueven)
  Georgia Legalizes Homebrew (Brett Baumberger)
  RIMS AND Immersion Heater Length? (CompuCom) <v-ccsl at microsoft.com>
  vortex drain strength, and coriolis acceleration (Troy Howard)
  Brew Shops in the Olympia WA region (Gordon Baldwin)
  Dry Hop Sediment (Peter Maxwell)
  Lab Equip. Resources (Eric Wade)
  Blowoff (fusels, etc.) (Joseph Nathan Hall)
  malt extract for priming;  exploding bottles (CROWELL)
  Hops afterthoughts (/O=vmspfhou/S=dblewis/DD.SITE=JSCPROFS/)
  Re: `Breathing' of wine ("Michael E. O'Connor")
  Re: vortex drain strength, and coriolis acceleration, wort chillers. (David Hinz)
  re: Thanks for the decoction info. (Darryl Richman)

Send articles for __publication_only__ 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, BUT PLEASE NOTE that if you subscribed via the BITNET listserver (BEER-L at UA1VM.UA.EDU), then you MUST unsubscribe the same way! If your account is being deleted, please be courteous and unsubscribe first. 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 don't send me requests for back issues - you will be silently ignored. For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to lutzen at novell.physics.umr.edu
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1993 15:50:12 GMT From: "UARS::COOK" at CDHF1.GSFC.NASA.GOV (Chris Cook) Subject: Bottle Sources Dan deRegnier asked for sources for bottles, which has been a common request. The usual source is from beer distributors. I've gotten cases of returnable beer bottles (longnecks) for little more than the cost of the deposit (and an occasional promise to bring them a sample of the resulting beer). That kept me in beer bottles for several years, but I was still having problems finding wine or champagne bottles. For the last few years, though, I've done my bottle shopping at the local recycling center. I don't know if you have any in your area, but there's a recycling center near me (near the University of Maryland, for anyone local) that accepts aluminum, paper, some plastics, tin cans, and (the most important for me) glass, separated into clear, green and brown 55 gallon drums. While everyone else was depositing their stuff, I'd be withdrawing. You want to talk about some strange looks. I'm one of the few people who leave with more stuff than I brought. I have to weed through a lot of junk, but there are some fascinating bottles there. It's the best recycling I can think of. Chris Cook cook at cdhf1.gsfc.nasa.gov Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1993 08:49:58 -0700 (PDT) From: Paul dArmond <paulf at henson.cc.wwu.edu> Subject: Chiller Study? In HBD #1115, Tom Leith has a *great idea* for collecting data for an empirical chiller design study. Does anyone have the time and stats pack to do the regression analysis? I know the theory, but don't have much practical experience or time, since my job is being shut down in June due to budget cuts.... [Our motto: "Leading the Way in Deficit Reduction."] Anyway, Thanks to Mike Hall, {hi Mike} the necessary parameters are: tubing length, ID & OD, flow rate (may I suggest seconds needed to fill a 5 gal. carboy), water in/out temps (actually in temp would be sufficient, but will increase the number of data points needed), final temp of wort and time to reach that temp, wort stirred or not (Y/N). Additional temp readings at various times of water out and wort will speed the process and reduce the number of data sets needed. All the other things are more or less equal for all of us: wort SG doesn't alter specific heats much, water pressure is difficult to measure and flow rate is really what counts. Copper tubing is pretty standard in terms of wall thickness and conductivity. A yes/no datapoint should be sufficient on stirring, since it will be hard to standardize measuring stir rates. I heartily reccomend stirring anyway, since wort is a very poor conductor of heat and the delta_t around the chiller doesn't generate very strong convection. There's a Nobel prize (or at least a lot of HBD fame and gratitude) here for someone who wants to do the work. It will probably take a month or more to get an adequate number of data sets.... Free Beer in Portland this Summer, Paul. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 93 09:36:52 PDT From: "Peter Hadikin (HDIP9235)" <HDIP9235 at BCIT.BC.CA> Subject: Hawaii Brew Pubs FROM: Peter Hadikin (HDIP9235) (604) 432-8452 I will be heading off on holidays to the islands of Hawaii and Maui at the end of April/ beginning of May. Just wondering if there is such a thing as brew pubs on either or both of these islands. Any responses may be directed back to me and would be greatly appreciated. Take it easy, Peter. BC Institute of Technology Computer Resources 3700 Willingdon Avenue Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 93 12:31:57 EDT From: casey at bbt.com (Kevin Casey) Subject: Help! Need Hop plant info My brother (the one with the green thumb) recently volunteered to grow hops for me. I need to order some plants (or do you order rizomes sp?). Can someone guide towards a mail order house for hop plants? Also, could you recommend varieties that could grow well in Raleigh, NC (hot humid summers). Please respond via private email. Thanks in advance! - -------------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Casey | "What you doin' daddy?, BroadBand Technologies, Inc. | cookin' beer" Research Triangle Park, NC | Internet: casey at bbt.com | My 2 year old son - -------------------------------------------------------------------- Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 93 14:11:11 EDT From: Michael W Worobiec <mworobie at magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> Subject: Verify address address verified Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 93 13:21 CDT From: arf at genesis.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling) Subject: Skimming, Hops, Color >From: korz at iepubj.att.com Subject: Re: why blowoff? dryhopping >Gerald asks, why use the blowoff method? >It's merits have been argued in the HBD, but I believe it makes the beer taste better, so I continue to use it. Papazian says that the kraeusen contains fusel oils (I've seen fusel alcohols elsewhere) which some say contribute to hangovers. The most graphic proof I have for using the blowoff method is to challenge anyone to drink a glass of blowoff. YUK! Just sniffing it is enough to guarantee my continued support of this procedure. >The arguments against using the blowoff method (just to be fair) are that you lose beer and that you lose some of the bittering you just but in with the hops. The above arguments seem to be based on only two possibilites: 1. Blow-off 2. Do Nothing Based on this, it would seem that blow-off is the preferred method. The third possibility is to ferment in an "open" container and skim the bitter crud floating among the foam. I put "open" in quotes because by this, hombrewers mean a large container with an opening large enough to get in to skim and a lid to keep out contaminants while fermenting. This usually is the "standard 7 gal plastic fermenter universally available in retail shops. In my case, I use my 10 gal ss mash kettle for a fermenter. So, once we agree (ha ha) on the need to get rid of the crud, the discussion becomes... skimming vs. blowoff. As Al mentioned, little or no beer is lost by skimming. I wait till the foam is just about gone and only skim the brown crud that floats because that is what is bitter. The foam is just wort puffed up with CO2 and it turns back into wort when the fermentation subsides. On the negative side is the risk of contamination every time the fermenter is opened to skim but reasonable precautions can reduce this to the noise level. I don't think anyone will argue about the ease of cleaning an open fermenter vs. a carboy and associated tubing. ............ >If you use pellets, you can put a copper scrubbing pad over the end of the siphon hose followed by a mesh bag (this idea was originally introduced by Al Taylor (I think it was Taylor...) and then independently by Kinney Baughman). First of all, whatever happened to Kinney? I still see his ads but he has not posted here for months. I am sure it is just a coincidence but it seems that he vanished about the time Jay Hirsh started his censored, politically cleansed, alternative forum. Well, anyway the pot scrubber is a nifty idea but in a recent experiment with dry hopping, I found a new use for the easy masher. It just so happens (ha ha) that the ID of the strainer tube is 3/8" and fits snugly over the end of the "standard" siphon tube. You can slide it up or down to expose as much or as little of the strainer as you like and keep it whatever distance off the bottom you wish. BTW, the experiment was intersting in that I prefer the normally hopped beer to the dry hopped but the gang at CBS has exactly the opposite view. Guess I will abandon all plans to become the World's Greatest Beer Judge. Not liking hops could be considered a restrictive bias. ............ Someone recently posted an article on diluting Michelob Dark with various amounts of water to make color calibrators. I know have the beer and can't find the article. js know = now jjs ZZ Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 93 13:46:02 EDT From: Lee=A.=Menegoni at nectech.com Subject: Hop Alpha Acid rating A fellow brewer and I were talking about ingredients recently and made the following observation: The European hops we have been getting pellets and plugs have been steadily declining in Alpha Acid rating each year. My current Saaz pellets are 2.1% What is the cause of this. Is it due to economics, fixed supply of hops going into an expanding market and homebrewers getting what mega brewers do not purchase. Or is it that that the hops actually are becoming less acidic. Or are have the measurement methods changed. Is it cyclic or seasonal. Reviewing the original Papazian CJHB and its list of hops and alpha acid ratings what I am getting now are almost 50% less than listed then. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 93 07:47:09 EDT From: Jim=Curl%Eng.West%PTLSANJOSE at ptltd.com Subject: Sorry for the noise... Just a test. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 93 14:52:30 EDT From: "David C. Skeldon" (CCAC-LAD) <dskeldon at PICA.ARMY.MIL> Subject: "Party Pig" Frank Jones had an excellent post back in the middle of January on the "Party Pig" made by Quoin. Since then I haven't heard anything about it, and I was wondering if anyone has more input/experiences. I bottle all of my beer right now, but I could see the advantage to a couple of kegs for summer parties. Thanks >Dave Skeldon: Owner, Operator, and Brewmeister of Wooddale Brewing Co. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 93 14:00 CDT From: korz at iepubj.att.com Subject: Wrestling aligators Jack writes, quoting Jeff: >>It also looks as though I'll need to put rubber feet on my bucket, so >it doesn't slide and hop around while I'm cranking the mill. > >Doing it on the bucket looks a lot easier than it is and depending on the >floor surface, it can be like wrestling with an aligator. I think most >people eventually conclude that it works best clamped to a table with the I disgree. I suggest a square of rubber-backed carpeting under the bucket! Shame on you Jack-- my solution is *simpler* than yours... *************** Subject: Resurgent fermentation Caleb writes: >I am a relatively novice homebrewer (about a year) and I have just recently >noticed some trouble with an extract/speciatly grain beer. I used crystal >malt (1/2 lb) biscuit malt (1/2 lb) and Alexander's pale ale (6? lbs.). The DeWolf-Cosyns Biscuit (if that's what you used), although it is a roasted malt (like very pale chocolate malt) still has LOTS of starch in it and should be mashed. Given the pale-ness of your beer (judging from your ingredients), I suspect that you'll have a starch haze. >problem: the beer sat fermented in the primary until the fermentation was >nearly done (i.e. more than 90 seconds between bubbles). I racked(?) to the >secondary and everything looked fine for about a day. Yesterday I noticed >that the secondary was bubbling about once every 45 seconds. There is also >a light foam forming on top of the beer -- basically a thin airy head. The >gas escaping from the lock doesn't smell like the usual gas so I am suspicious. >Does it sound like I have a contaminant yeast. If so is there anything I >can do? I suspect that you have roused the yeast which may have indeed caused a little bit more fermentation or perhaps simply provided nucleation sites for dissolved CO2 to form bubbles and come out of solution. A day is much too short a time for a wild yeast or bacteria to begin releasing any gas. ************** Subject: Are bottles, just bottles? PLUS: Question for Charlie Papazian Dan writes: >Next, what is the best source for bottles? Are bottles bottles, or >are some better than others? Should I stay away from bottles all >together? The best bottles, in my opinion, are, what we call here, "bar bottles." They are the thick, brown longnecks that require a deposit and are often so scratched up you can't see through them. You can really mishandle these bottles and still not break them. On the down-side, they do tend to have chipped-up lips (which can result in a bad seal) and are pretty ugly. I've heard that they are as scarce as hen's teeth in the West. Around here, several small, old Wisconsin breweries, such as Huber, use them as well as AB, Miller and Heileman's. Go find a bar that uses them or a big liquor store that stocks beer in them -- you can buy them for the deposit and you get a nice waxed cardboard case free! The reason I say these bottles are the best is because they are competition-ready... you can use them for competitions. Besides having no raised lettering, I would be willing to bet that of all the broken bottles that arrive at competitions, less than 1% are "bar bottles" just because they are so durable. My two other favorite bottles are much harder to get: Orval and the *old* Whitbread (and Mackeson's) bottles. Alas, they have raised lettering so are not usable for AHA-sanctioned competitions. They are really thick, brown glass and usually are not re-used by the breweries so they are in much better shape than "bar bottles." The general rule is the thicker the glass and the darker brown they are, the better the bottle. Also, if you have your choice, you might as well get bottles that are usable for competitions. I need to make sure that I have enough competition bottles of each batch. It would be a shame to have best beer ever just at its peak, right in time for the Nationals and then find out you've only got Bass, Youngs, Fullers and Orval bottles left. Oh yeah... generally, only (approximately) 12 ounce bottles are acceptable for competitions, so don't bottle the whole batch in Weiss, Xingu and other jumbo bottles if you plan to enter some competitions. Actually, if you only want comments on your beer, any bottle will do -- it will be judged, but will probably be disqualified if it doesn't meet the bottle requirements. Now, I have a question for Charlie: "What about the bottles that have raised glass codes or "NO DEPOSIT" on the bottom edge of the bottle, like McEwan's Scotch Ale or Samuel(tm) Adams(tm) Boston(tm) Lager(tm)?" Last year, at the 1st round judging, we were told to accept such bottles and disqualify only bottles with raised brand names such as "Bass," "FULLERS" and "ORVAL." I complied, but feared that the 2nd-round Nationals may be more demanding on bottle requirements. What's the official word? ************ Subject: Re: Rehydrating dry yeast? Rich writes: >As a relatively new brewer, this is the first I've heard of >rehydrating dry yeast before pitching. For the few batches that I've >made, I pitched the dry yeast directly into the primary, with no >noticable bad effects (i.e., it fermented just fine, and the beer >tasted the way it was supposed to taste). You could have excellent sanitation and study yeast or just good luck. >Is there any advantage to rehydrating the dry yeast? Is there any >disadvantage to tossing the dry stuff directly into the primary? From Paul Farnsworth's article in the Yeast Special Issue of Zymurgy: "The latest data from Intek, an Australian dried-yeast producer who is just entering the U.S. market, are as follows: Rehydrate the dried yeast in one-half cup of water. Clean water between 95 degrees F and 104 degrees F (35 and 40 degrees C) should be used. City water supplies containing high concentrations of chlorine will inactivate dried yeast during rehydration. Chorine can be removed [and any live bacteria killed - Al] by boiling. Cold water will significantly decrease the viability of dried yeast during rehydration. It is advisable to not rehydrate yeast in wort because compounds extracted from hops are antiseptic and can decrease yeast viability while the yeast is being rehydrated." Also, the Lallemand Newsletter has very similar recommendations (alas, I don't have it here to quote), but mention that the osomtic pressure difference rehydrating in wort can cause the yeast to produce off-flavors when it later switches to fermentation. I have a personal experience with a two three-quarter-gallon test batches using Lallemand Nottingham yeast. The 1048 wort was cooled to 80F, aerated and the yeast was pitched. In batch 1, the dry yeast was simply sprinkled on top of the wort. In batch 2, the dry yeast was rehydrated in 104F water for 15 minutes and then pitched. Both batches were kept in a 65F room. Batch 2 was actively fermenting in about 8 hours, whereas Batch 1 took over 72 hours to begin fermentation. Fermentation in Batch 2 appeared normal and healthy and was complete in about 5 days, whereas the fermentation of Batch 1 was sluggish and took much longer. Time and other projects prevented me from completing this experiment, i.e. taking FG readings and tasting (in fact Batch 1 is still sitting there in my fermentation room between pseudo-Kriek#2 and pseudo-Gueuze#1), but the importance of rehydration was clearly shown. Al. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1993 12:00:35 -0700 From: Richard Stueven <gak at wrs.com> Subject: Re: vortex drain strength, and coriolis acceleration Got this from the sci.physics FAQ... Summary: the Coriolis force is real, but irrelevant at the bathtub (or carboy) scale. have fun gak Richard Stueven, Castro Valley CA Item 12. Which Way Will my Bathtub Drain? updated 11-May-1192 by SIC - -------------------------------- original by Matthew R. Feinstein Question: Does my bathtub drain differently depending on whether I live in the northern or southern hemisphere? Answer: No. There is a real effect, but it is far too small to be relevant when you pull the plug in your bathtub. Because the earth rotates, a fluid that flows along the earth's surface feels a "Coriolis" acceleration perpendicular to its velocity. In the northern hemisphere high pressure storm systems spin clockwise. In the southern hemisphere, they spin counterclockwise because the direction of the Coriolis acceleration is reversed. This effect leads to the speculation that the bathtub vortex that you see when you pull the plug from the drain spins one way in the north and the other way in the south. But this acceleration is VERY weak for bathtub-scale fluid motions. The order of magnitude of the Coriolis acceleration can be estimated from size of the "Rossby number". Coriolis accelerations are significant when the Rossby number is SMALL. So, suppose we want a Rossby number of 0.1 and a bathtub-vortex length scale of 0.1 meter. Since the earth's rotation rate is about 10^(-4)/second, the fluid velocity should be less than or equal to 2*10^(-6) meters/second. This is a very small velocity. How small is it? Well, we can take the analysis a step further and calculate another, more famous dimensionless parameter, the Reynolds number. The Reynolds number is = L*U*density/viscosity Assuming that physicists bathe in hot water the viscosity will be about 0.005 poise and the density will be about 1.0, so the Reynolds Number is about 4*10^(-2). Now, life at low Reynolds numbers is different from life at high Reynolds numbers. In particular, at low Reynolds numbers, fluid physics is dominated by friction and diffusion, rather than by inertia: the time it would take for a particle of fluid to move a significant distance due to an acceleration is greater than the time it takes for the particle to break up due to diffusion. Therefore the effect of the Coriolis acceleration on your bathtub vortex is SMALL. To detect its effect on your bathtub, you would have to get out and wait until the motion in the water is far less than one rotation per day. This would require removing thermal currents, vibration, and any other sources of noise. Under such conditions, never occurring in the typical home, you WOULD see an effect. To see what trouble it takes to actually see the effect, see the reference below. Experiments have been done in both the northern and southern hemispheres to verify that under carefully controlled conditions, bathtubs drain in opposite directions due to the Coriolis acceleration from the Earth's rotation. The same effect has been accused of responsibility for the direction water circulates when you flush a toilet. This is surely nonsense. In this case, the water rotates in the direction which the pipe points which carries the water from the tank to the bowl. Reference: Trefethen, L.M. et al, Nature 207 1084-5 (1965). Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 93 15:10:50 EDT From: Brett Baumberger <bsb at hpuerca.atl.hp.com> Subject: Georgia Legalizes Homebrew Hi Brewers, Georgia Governor Zell Miller signed a bill yesterday making it legal for Georgia residents to brew 50 gallons of beer/year to be consumed at home. The newspaper did not carry an article on it that I could find. A local TV station gave a 45 second story about it (using last year's footage). So the hoppers here in the Peachtree state will no longer live in fear of the local Gestapo. YC06000 <YC06%FERRIS.bitnet at CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU> writes in hbd1115: >One more...I will be in Atlanta, GA in May. Are there any >brewpubs or microbreweries to worth going to? Sorry. GA is a firm enforcer of the 3 tier distribution law. No one may be involved (commercially) in more than one of the following: manufacturing, distributing or retailing of beer i.e. no brewpubs. :( Brett Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 93 20:58:05 PDT From: Scott Lord (CompuCom) <v-ccsl at microsoft.com> Subject: RIMS AND Immersion Heater Length? I just picked up a two stainless steel vessel double wall insulate with copper coil that runs between the two walls. It was made for A&W rootbeer . Freon was pumped in the coil to keep it cold. It came with four pumps two for pumping the rootbeer and two as a Freon compressor . It holds 48 gals. and has a lid and a bottom drain with a stainless steel screen that rises 1 inch off the bottom and a stainless steel valve. I am going to use one for a fermentor and the other as a hot water vessel used for sparging and rims. Now I want to set up a rims system and to heat the mash I will pump wort out of the bottom of the mash tun through some copper coils that is placed in side the hot water vessel to boost the mash temp. Now I will use a pump to transfer hot water from my boiler kettle to the hot water vessel. The pump has a max flow rate of 5 gals. a minute but I have built a pump speed control. I will keep the temp. of the hot water vessel at 80 degree C. . My mash tun is a converted 15 gal. keg that has 6 inches of that spray in foam around it and my wort boiler is a 15 gal. converted keg also with a hop back. 1.) So what size and what length should I use to get a 1 degree C. rise in temp. ? 2.) What should I use to seal the lid of the fermentor down to keep the air out ? v-ccsl at microsoft Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 93 12:49:11 PDT From: troy at scubed.scubed.com (Troy Howard) Subject: vortex drain strength, and coriolis acceleration envkas at sn370.utica.ge.com (Karl A. Sweitzer) writes: >I have found that the best vortex drains are formed when you swirl the bottle >or carboy in a counterclockwise direction (when viewed from above, in the >northern hemisphere of our spaceship earth). The reason is the coriolis >acceleration vector caused by the counterclockwise rotation of the earth. >When you rotate the bottle in the same direction as the earth rotation >the coriolis acceleration vectors constructively add, forming a greater >force on the liquid molecules. The coriolis acceleration vector tends >to force the liquid to the outside of the rotation circle leaving room >in the middle of the bottle for air to enter and replace the exiting liquid. > [snip] > >Karl Sweitzer Yes and No. Yes: the coriolis force does exist and is in the direction you indicate. No: the size of this force is negligible compared to the other forces acting during the process, e.g. the forces you exert by swirling the carboy, and the viscous and frictional forces of the water and carboy. I have not done a calculation, but I would bet the coriolis force is even smaller than the surface tension of the water. My $0.02: whether you get a better vortex CW or CCW will most strongly depend on whether you are right handed or left handed. Also (I hate to quibble, but...) it is the CENTRIFUGAL acceleration (not coriolis) that forces the liquid to the outside when it is rotating. No flame intended. Just wanted to put my degree to *some* use :-) Troy Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 93 14:04:05 PDT From: Gordon Baldwin <gbaldwin at unix11.eldec.com> Subject: Brew Shops in the Olympia WA region Sorry to take up bandwidth for a local question, but does anyone know of any brew shops in the Olympia Washington area? I will be leaving Seattle and I would like to have something local. - -- Gordon Baldwin ELDEC Corp gbaldwin at eldec.com Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1993 15:06:08 -0800 (PDT) From: Peter Maxwell <peterm at aoraki.dtc.hp.com> Subject: Dry Hop Sediment Peter Bartscherer writes: > However, I found that GENTLY swirling, NOT SPLASHING, the beer in the > fermenter a day or two before bottling caused the hop head to break up > and settle out. With all the frothing that the hop pellets cause in the secondary I would think that all the air would have been purged out and the beer was sitting under a layer of CO2. This being the case, what's wrong with causing some splashing as long as the airlock is left on? Peter Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1993 17:14:30 -0700 (PDT) From: Eric Wade <ericwade at CLASS.ORG> Subject: Lab Equip. Resources Does anyone know of reasonably priced mail order resources for lab equipment and supplies? Specifically looking for the full range of slant tubes, petri dishes, erlenmeyer flasks, stoppers, agar, and the like for yeast culturing. I know that a couple of brew supply stores have put together "kits" but the reviews suggest that additional material would probably be required and I'd like to compare buying my supplies directly from a lab supplier vs. the kit price as well as having access to other material. If you don't know of any mail order suppliers, I live in Oakland and work in SF, so Bay Area stores would be appreciated as well. Reply by me-mail please unless you think the community would like to know about the mail order places. And, since I seem to be in the information gathering mood, what about Bay Area liquor (or other) stores that have a good range of Belgian beer products that you would trust to be well handled. I recently bought a bottle of Chimay that was a couple of years old (didn't know it until I pulled the cork). BTW, Norm Pyle posts of a homemade roller mill: >...sort of a scaled down version of >the one presented by RW and (??) in the latest Zymurgy gadgets special issue. (??) is Wayne Greenway and its a beautiful mill, my extract rating soared after switching from buying precrushed to using this mill. I'll miss having it in the neighborhood when he moves. Eric Wade <ericwade at class.org> Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 93 12:53:16 EST From: joseph at joebloe.maple-shade.nj.us (Joseph Nathan Hall) Subject: Blowoff (fusels, etc.) Korz says, > Gerald asks, why use the blowoff method? > > It's merits have been argued in the HBD, but I believe it makes the > beer taste better, so I continue to use it. Papazian says that > the kraeusen contains fusel oils (I've seen fusel alcohols elsewhere) > which some say contribute to hangovers. "Fusel oil" is the oily byproduct of ethanol distillation consisting of mainly long-chain alcohols: propanols, butanols, etc. The terms "fusels," "fusel oils" and "fusel alcohols" are synonomous so far as I know. I don't know whether the term applies to aromatic as well as aliphatic alcohols; since I don't hear phenols grouped in with fusels, I assume that it doesn't. Fusel alcohols are an important flavor component. The shorter ones have medicinal/disinfectant flavors (e.g. isopropyl). The longer ones are pungent and have a kind of fruity-citrusy-medicinal character that is unmistakable. I've had quite a few homebrewed pale ales where the octanol (orange-sweet-medicinal) was quite prominent. In fact, the last Liberty Ale I drank smelled and tasted strongly of octanol or something similar. I was a bit surprised by it and intend to try another bottle from a separate source, since I consider it a defect. The last bottle of Liberty Ale I had was a few years and quite a bit of palate training back, so I don't remember what it used to be like. A professional brewer who was drinking with me (at the Brickskellar) at the time said that it seemed "old." I'm not so sure; I've never seen beer change in flavor this way in a bottle. (Anyone care to comment on the Liberty Ale profile?) Some people claim fusels contribute a "clinging bitterness" to beer. Bitter though they may be, they are so pungent that the flavor of the beer will be negatively affected long before the finish, at least in my opinion. As far as hangovers go, long chain alcohols may well be a factor. They become increasingly toxic and intoxicating as the chain of carbons grows, to a point, anyway. Many many other fermentation byproducts are also mildly toxic. I would bet that the aldehydes, ketones and esters contribute unpleasant metabolic byproducts. Finally, fusel alcohols are quite soluble in alcohol, and can not be removed by blowoff. The unpleasant substances in blowoff residue are tannins, unisomerized hop resins, etc. They are largely insoluble, even in a weak alcohol solution, and are not going to be a primary source of bitterness or astringency in your beer once it has cleared. =============== O Fortuna, velut Luna, statu variabilis =============== uunet!joebloe!joseph (609) 273-8200 day joseph%joebloe at uunet.uu.net 2102 Ryan's Run East Rt 38 & 41 Maple Shade NJ 08052 Copyright 1993 by Joseph N. Hall. Permission granted to copy and redistribute freely over USENET and by email. Commercial use prohibited. Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1993 08:23 EST From: CROWELL%NSLVAX at Venus.YCC.Yale.Edu Subject: malt extract for priming; exploding bottles I'm a beginning extract brewer, and would appreciate any comments on a couple of questions about bottle conditioning... (1) On my first (and so far, only) batch of beer (a brown ale), I used 1.25 cups of malt extract for priming instead of 0.75 cups of corn sugar. Papazian mentions parenthetically that this can be done, and I thought, why add sugar to my beer? I was happy with the results... does anyone know why corn sugar seems to be the standard method? (2) I had a bottle explode while I was out of the house (4 weeks after bottling). What would be a common reason for this? I wonder if I left too little air-space, or whether it might have to do with using malt extract for priming. - Ben Crowell, New Haven, CT Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 93 07:31 PDT From: /O=vmspfhou/S=dblewis/DD.SITE=JSCPROFS/ at NASAmail.nasa.gov Subject: Hops afterthoughts ***************************** PROFS Note ***************************** From: DBLEWIS --VMSPFHOU Date and time 04/09/93 09:32:21 To: POSTMAN --NASAMAIL FROM: Dennis B. Lewis <InterNet:dblewis at jscprofs.nasa.gov> SUBJECT: Hops afterthoughts Mark Elliot writes: >Should have guessed why everyone said "not bad, but not bitter enough". Now >that I've screwed up another batch (now 3 days in the primary), is there away >to salvage what I'm sure will be another "bland", hop-lacking brew? Theflavor >of the past few batches has been ok; rich, sort of sweet, but kindawatery and >again, missing a lot of what the hops were there for to begin with. If I read your note correctly, you've been using hopped extract kits and boiling away. A long boil will indeed destroy any hop aroma that was in the beer. You can still use hopped extract kits, but make sure you add some flavor hops in the last 20 min of the boil and/or aroma hops in the last 5 min. Keep in mind that there are styles that do not typically have appreciable hop aroma or flavor--like stouts and most german lagers. If you want to add bitterness, see if you can find pre-isomerized hop extract. This is essentially what you get when you boil hops for bitterness. Keeping in mind that your beer probably already has some bitterness, follow the directions for adding LESS than the full amount. This stuff is concentrated and a little goes a long way. Remember, you can always add more. It will also add some hop flavor. You could add it to the secondary or to a malt extract primer at bottling time. If you want some hop flavor or aroma, there are two things you can do. (1) Dry hop with pellets if you have no head space in your secondary or use leaf if you have room. (2) Add hops when you bottle using the "coffee-pot method."This was discussed on HBD a couple months ago. Dennis B. Lewis (713) 483-9145 ** NASA/JSC/DH65 Payload Ops Homebrew, The Final Frontier. Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1993 11:00:03 -0400 (EDT) From: "Michael E. O'Connor" <mo0q+ at andrew.cmu.edu> Subject: Re: `Breathing' of wine Excerpts from internet.homebrew-beer: 6-Apr-93 `Breathing' of wine by KURZ at GANESA.PFC.MIT.EDU >> and the need for quiet racking and transfer. However, wine drinkers also >> know that good red wine needs to "breathe", which of course is, a snob word > >> for oxidize. > >I beg to differ. From my experience in wine making and my limited >qualities as a wine connoisseur I believe that what is commonly referred >to as "breathing" has nothing to do with oxidation. Usually when you >pour a red wine from the bottle (i.e. decant it) you don't drink it >immediately. Instead, you let it `breath' in a caraffe for some time >(half an hour to one hour or so). The rationale is to let it develop >its bouquet. Some volatile substances in the wine evaporate and >saturate the air immediately above the wine (that's also, by the way, >one of the reasons why you should serve red wine in big, wide glasses; >so as to retain the `aromatic air', i,e, the bouquet). There is no >oxidation involved (to my knowledge). That would take much longer. >From what I understand, `Breathing' of wine *is* to let it oxidize. In wines, tannins are very important to the the aging of wine, but do produce a somewhat undesirable taste. I am pretty sure that the `Breathing' period is so the oxygen can react with the tanins and sort of `surround' them to mellow their taste. I do agree however that oxidation of whine before it gets to the bottle and ages is a bad thing... I hope I'm not way off on this... -stew I DRINK beer *and* I collect cute bottles! ;-) Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 93 10:09:37 CDT From: hinz at memphis.med.ge.com (David Hinz) Subject: Re: vortex drain strength, and coriolis acceleration, wort chillers. Karl writes: - --- I have found that the best vortex drains are formed when you swirl the bottle or carboy in a counterclockwise direction (when viewed from above, in the northern hemisphere of our spaceship earth). The reason is the coriolis acceleration vector caused by the counterclockwise rotation of the earth. When you rotate the bottle in the same direction as the earth rotation the coriolis acceleration vectors constructively add, forming a greater force on the liquid molecules. - --- A couple of terms spring to mind here...."unmeasurable", "negligable", and "insignificant" spring to mind. The amount of force you are imparting into the molecules is, I would guess, on the order of thousands or millions of times stronger than that of the coriolis effect. Yes it exists, yes it is measurable, but your swirling a carboy full of water gives you a heck of a lot more force than the earth's rotation, neutrino bombardment, specific gravity of your tap water, or the color of the paint in your kitchen. - ----------- About wort chiller length (oh no, not more!)..... I've got a 50 foot, 3'8" chiller I made, by wrapping it around a 5-gallon bucket, then laced up the sides in 3 places with copper wiring wire. It chills the wort to pitching temperature in a rather rapid time (guessing 15 minutes, I can look at my records to tell you for sure). The water comes out boiling (steam, actually) for a few seconds, then comes out progressively cooler. Stirring with a sanitized spoon speeds up the heat transfer, and the lacing keeps the coils far apart enough so that the wort can circulate pretty freely. I, personally, can't see any benefit to a shorter length, at all. You want to give the water as much opportunity to absorb the heat of the wort. I would think the following are involved: >Coil surface area (not mass, as someone else mentioned???) >flow rate of water passing through coil >temperature differential between wort & water. So, let's try this: We bring our cold water into the hot wort. Should we bring it in the top, or bottom? The wort is probably warmer at the top, so we should put the cold water in at the top so the temperature differential is highest, or maybe not. Any ideas? Now, how about flow rate? Slower flow would give the water more time to absorb the heat, but I think the extra length does the same. I dunno, I'm asking. I suppose you could adjust the flow from the faucet for maximum outlet temp in your chilling water, which would indicate maximum heat transfer. It will change as the temperature delta changes, however, I THINK. What about tubing diameter? Surface area goes up, flow rate goes up, but restriction, and therefore time in the chiller, goes down. Where is the optimal point, extrapolated across all temperature differentials? There are probably a thousand more variables. I like the idea that someone proposed here, to do an impirical study of what we are using, and decide which coil construction works best. I propose we look at the following variables: 1> water going in at top or bottom of chiller coil 1A> Coil rotation direction (for the hell of it, can't think of an effect but who knows...maybe a coriolis thing after all!) 2> diameter of tubing & length of tubing 3> flow rate used (how long to fill a quart bottle from the outlet of the chiller coil?) 4> temperature of your tap water (just for reference, not really something you can change all that easily) 5> amount of time to chill the wort to, say, 75 degrees F. Can't think of anything else to measure offhand, any ideas? Someone else mentioned they'd tabulate results, I'd be willing to do so also or help. Of course, it would mean that we'd all have to brew a batch of homebrew to tabulate the results....sorry for the inconvenience ;-))) Dave Hinz hinz at picard.med.ge.com Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 93 08:32:46 PDT From: Darryl Richman <darrylri at microsoft.com> Subject: re: Thanks for the decoction info. Dennis B. Lewis <InterNet:dblewis at jscprofs.nasa.gov> writes: > wrote that some of the big breweries like Pilsener Urquell still use decoction > mashing. How on earth do they remove the grains from the mash tun? They must > have to boil hundreds of pounds of grain. Anybody taken a tour? Umm, yeah, I have taken a tour. Most of the info was published in a Zymurgy article about 3 years ago. (Sorry I can't tell you the issue right off hand, my collection is at home.) But to answer your question, a tour of nearly any of the German breweries would do, since they almost all practice decoction mashing. The usual arrangement is a 4 vessel brewhouse: a mash tun (maischebottich), mash cooker (maischepfanne), lauter tun (lauterbottich), and a kettle (wuerzepfanne). The process involves doughing in in the mash tun, and then pumping from a bottom outlet to the mash cooker the decoct. That's how a "thick mash" is obtained for boiling. This decoct is eventually returned to the "rest mash" to raise the whole to the next temperature plateau. When the decoction mash is finish, this outlet is used again to pump the entire mash to the lauter tun. During lautering, the bed will compact, and lautering is stopped while an arrangement of "mash knives" is run around the tun to loosen the bed. When lautering is complete, the knives can be turned sideways to form a moving wall, and this pushes the spent grist into an outlet that leads to a holding tank or a farmers truck. A final wash is required, of course, to get the last recalcitrant husks to leave. The reason for a 4 vessel system, rather than a two vessel system (kettle and lauter tun) is that the commercial breweries can get a significant overlap of successive batches on the equipment. This is important if your mash and boil process takes 11 hours to complete and you want to make more than a million barrels of beer each year, as it does at Pilsner Urquell. --Darryl Richman Return to table of contents
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1117, 04/12/93