HOMEBREW Digest #1309 Tue 28 December 1993

Digest #1308 Digest #1310

		Rob Gardner, Digest Coordinator

  Newman's Albany Amber (8-293-5810 or (914))" <huckfinn at vnet.IBM.COM>
  Re: Koch/etc (Jim Busch)
  Question about bottles (perkins)
  Cherry handling (Chuck Wettergreen)
  Counterflow chiller model (Bill Szymczak)
  Finings for Shipping ("Bill Kitch")
  Dishwasher Bottles (y2046)
  Water question ("Steven W. Smith")
  Potential Extract <> Fermentable Products (dmorey)
  hop storage (Spencer.W.Thomas)

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: Mon, 27 Dec 93 08:05:32 EST From: "Paul Austin (8-293-5810 or (914))" <huckfinn at vnet.IBM.COM> Subject: Newman's Albany Amber Amber fans who took interest in Roy Harvey's note on New Amsterdam Amber beer may also want to look out for Newman's Albany Amber. I am not really sure if either is microbrewed, however - I think New Amsterdam comes from Utica, NY, where FX Matt's is. Both are fine beers, regardless. Paul Austin Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1993 09:52:49 -0500 (EST) From: Jim Busch <busch at daacdev1.stx.com> Subject: Re: Koch/etc > From: Mark Stickler Internet Mail Name <mstickle at lvh.com> > Subject: Evaluating Beer w/ Jim Koch > > I recently received a new book from the AHA entitled Evaluating Beer. What > I read so far seems pretty informative but I noticed one the final chapters > was written by Jim Koch (the book is a collection of previously published > articles by various authors). His was a fairly short article which basically > says that hops and malt are THE most important factors in beer taste. The > word yeast is not mentioned even once in the entire article. He does mention > water but says that is not important because it can be treated to suit > whatever the brewers needs are. As an example he points out the Bud tastes > the same whether iuts made in Tampa, Newark or St.Louis. I suppose this > means AB could produce Pilsner Urquell or Bass Ale if they had the right > hops and Malt. Other than this chapter the book appears to be worth the > price. As a matter of "fact", he could! I would even venture that the malt can be substituted, with modest success. The points Jim make are quite valid wrt his lagers. He uses (I assume) Weihenstephan 34/70, a very clean reliable performer. Not sure if AB yeast would be as good, but Jim's decoction sytem from Pub Brewing is certainly capable of making a killer Pils. As Jeff Frane pointed out, many AB brewers are quite good, and would like to make more flavorful beers. Where do you think all those Weihenstephan Diplom Braumeisters work?? AB also employs a tasting panel that continually evaluates each of the AB breweries products, and reports the perceived differences between them, what a skill! If the big boys ever wake up, it could be tough for some of the Koch's out there. - --------- RE: hop storage I was reading the comments on oxygen barrier packaging for hops. I realize that there is some loss when using non barrier bags, but if they are frozen, how much does it matter over a year, and dont some quality noble hops *improve* with a degree of oxidation? I completley agree that it is better to buy in barrier bags, but it certainly ups the cost considerably, and if you buy direct at harvest time, and repackage them/freeze them, how bad are the losses? I think the biggest problem is with retailers who dont repack, dont chill, and dont store in a dark place. Best, Jim Busch Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 93 10:24:34 EST From: perkins at zippy.ho.att.com Subject: Question about bottles My question is about what bottles to use. The only definitive statement I've seen is to use "returnable" bottles. Since virtually all bottles in New York State (where I live) are returnable by law, I need a little help making the distinction. I gather that * Grolsch swing-tops are good * refillable bar/restaurant bottles are good * champagne bottles are good What about lighter (weight) bottles? I've been saving Brooklyn Lager bottles (similar to Sam Adams bottles) for a while. Will they be OK or should I hit the local establishments for something else? How many times can I expect to reuse these bottles (or any of those noted above)? Thanks for the help. Mark - -- Mark E. Perkins Internet: perkins at zippy.ho.att.com AT&T Bell Laboratories, Rm 3F-502 uucp: ...!att!zippy!perkins 101 Crawfords Corner Road Telephone: +1 908 949 5441 P.O. Box 3030 FAX: +1 908 949 1652 Holmdel, NJ 0733-3030 Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 93 09:09:00 -0600 From: chuck.wettergreen at aquila.com (Chuck Wettergreen) Subject: Cherry handling SS> Steven W. Smith <SMITH_S at gc.maricopa.edu> wrote: SS> "Whenever I can find cherrys again, I plan to try adding them to my > standard bock. It seems reasonable (to me) to wash the whole fruit > in a mild bleach solution, rinse, dry, smash (how?), force into a > carboy (how?), then siphon from the primary onto them. I'm thinking > about 10 pounds of cherries to a 5 gallon batch. Maybe > freezing/thawing before smashing? Do the pits matter? Any comments > appreciated, I'm flying blind." And Richard Childers replied: RC> The idea of rinsing fruit in a bleach solution, no matter how weak, > sounds unwise. I've heard other solutions suggested, um, copper > permanganate, maybe ? ( Don't take this, alone, as sufficient I think I'd use some Campden tablets, one or two per gallon of water that the fruit is washed in. Soak one or two hours then rinse. The H2S produced by the tablets should take care of anything lurking on the fruit. RC> more easily. And, of course, dropping tenderized fruit into a > boiling liquid solution is regarded as suitable for any serious > sanitation, or at least, a solution over 170 Fahrenheit. I don't think I'd do that. I have done in the past, and most of the cherry aroma and taste seemed to disappear into that hot wort, never to be seen again. If you have a food processor, the steel blade, lightly pulsed, will macerate the fruit better than you could do with a meat tenderizing hammer (without the splash too). Chuck * RM 1.2 00946 * The heat of the moment can burn you for a lifetime. Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 93 11:47:31 EST From: bszymcz%ulysses at relay.nswc.navy.mil (Bill Szymczak) Subject: Counterflow chiller model A few weeks ago, Tim McNerney asked if Stoelting was making a magic chiller which claimed it could chill 5 gallons of wort from 210F to 56F using only 5 gallons of tap water. At that time I'm sure I bored most of you with my model of an immersion chiller which predicted a minimum of 11.87 gallons of 40F tap water was required to chill 5 gallons of boiling wort to 56F (while 48.75 gallons would be required if the wort was mixed with the water). Therefore, the conclusion was that either Stoelting was exaggerating or counterflow chillers are much more efficient than immersion chillers. Based on my following model of counterflow chillers, I think the latter is true (for a properly designed counterflow chiller). This model assumes only one spatial dimension x, 0<=x<=L, measuring distance along the length of the tubing. In other words the cross-sectional temperature is assumed to be constant (no thermal boundary layers). The copper fins covering the wort line of the Stoetling should help in making this assumption reasonable. It also is probably reasonable if the flows are turbulent. Diffusion in the direction of the tubing is ignored. Let T(x,t) = the water temperature at point x and time t. Tw(x,t) = the wort temperature at point x and time t. Ti = T(0,t) the inlet water temperature (tap). Tb = Tw(L,t) the temperature of the hot wort in the kettle. k = heat conduction coeficient (radial) A = average cross-sectional area of water. Aw = average cross-sectional area of wort. V = velocity of water. Vw = speed of wort (Vw and V are both taken to be positive although the flow is in opposit directions. R = A*V = flow rate of water Rw = Aw*Vw = flow rate of wort. a = Rw/R = flow rate ratio. The equations for the temperatures are: dT dT (1) A --- = k (Tw - T) - R --- dt dx dTw dTw (2) Aw --- = k (T - Tw) + Rw --- dt dx With boundary conditions Tw(L,t) = Tb T(0,t) = Ti, where d/dx and d/dt are partial derivatives. We are interested in the steady-state solution (d/dt terms=0), in particular we need Tw(0), the temperature of the wort as it exits the chiller. If R=Rw the solution is R k (3) Tw(0) = Tb * ------- + Ti * --------- R+kL R+kL and if R not= Rw, Rw=aR, a>0, a not = 1 , then Tb*(1-a)*exp((a-1)kL/aR) + Ti*(1-exp((a-1)kL/aR) (4) Tw(0) = ------------------------------------------------ 1 - a * exp((a-1)kL/aR) It is easiest to consider the case when R=Rw, equation (3). This equation says that the wort temperature can be cooled to nearly that of the inlet temp Ti, if either the rate is sufficiently low (R is small), or, for a fixed value of k, the length L is large. Equation (4) also reflects the obvious fact that if the water flow is large with respect to the wort flow (a is small but positive) then Tw(0) will also be close to the inlet temp for fixed values of k, and L. It is also interesting to note that if the boundary conditions are changed so that the flow of the wort and water are in the same direction (Tw(0,t)=Tb, T(0,t)=Ti and now a < 0) then the solution is Ti - a*Tb Ti + Tb Tw(L) = --------- + -------- exp ((k*(1-a)/a)*L) . 1 - a 1 - a If for example, a = -1 (same flow rate of wort and water in the same direction) then Tw(L) -> 0.5*(Ti + Tb) as L gets large. For this "un-counterflow" chiller the same amount of water would be required as if you mixed the water and wort. This is what you would expect and serves as a "sanity" check for the model. It may be better to send any technical comments on the model or errors anyone finds to me directly and I'll repost a summary. Bill Szymczak bszymcz at ulysses.nswc.navy.mil Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1993 11:57:33 -0600 (CST) From: "Bill Kitch" <kitchwa at bongo.cc.utexas.edu> Subject: Finings for Shipping I recently received some homebrew via UPS. As I'm waiting for the beers to clarify again I was wondering about the use of finings. I don't normally use any finings but recall reading that one of the atributes of isinglass is that helps cask conditioned ale to resediment quickly after delivery to the pub. That makes me reconsider its use, especially for beer that will be shipped. Who out there is using finings? Do you find it really helps in resedimenting beer that has been disturbed? Does polyclar have the same effect of must one use isinglass? Sante' WAK Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1993 12:38:57 -0500 From: y2046 at hrpi16.DNET.hcc.com Subject: Dishwasher Bottles Hello, I have been wondering if it would be acceptable to use my dishwasher to setrilize my bottles. I have been bringing them into work, and using the autoclave in the laboratory to do this. I know the dishwasher is not nearly as good as the autoclave, but I need to know if it is good enough. If anyone has any positive or negitive experiences about using a dishwasher to sterilize their bottles please reply to: Y2046 at hrpi16.dnet.hcc.com Thanks, Bruce Return to table of contents
Date: 27 Dec 1993 10:54:12 -0700 (MST) From: "Steven W. Smith" <SMITH_S at gc.maricopa.edu> Subject: Water question Since the tap water here in the Phoenix area is so "interesting" - PH about 8.0, very hard, Ca, Fe, Mg, Benzene, TCE (thanks, guys) I've traditionally brewed using Crystal bottled water. I'm planning to get off my butt soon and contact them for an exact analysis, since they take great pride in their water's consistant flavor. They supposedly use reverse osmosis, then introduce flavoring minerals. Anyone recommend a good practical reference for the water chemistry desirable for different beers - for a non-chemist, that is. The only books I've got are Papazian's 2 releases (little and big). I also wonder if digital PH meters are out there somewhere? The black beers I brewed suffered from the recently discussed sourness (due to low PH?). The dark ambers I've been brewing seem to do very well with stock Crystal water, but I'd like to try brewing a black lager before summer hits again. TIA _,_/| \o.O; Steven W. Smith, Programmer/Analyst =(___)= Glendale Community College, Glendale Az. USA U SMITH_S at GC.BITNET smith_s at gc.maricopa.edu "They can't fix your brakes. You ask them 'where's my motor?', 'Well, it was eaten by snakes'... _Flakes_, Frank Zappa Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 93 12:46:53 -0600 From: dmorey at iastate.edu Subject: Potential Extract <> Fermentable Products Hello once again, Thank you for the responses to my questions about the extract potential of dark grains. Since my posting there are been a few questions about my sources, so here they are: BREWING QUALITY BEERS, Byron burch, Joby Books, 1991 THE NEW COMPLETE JOY OF HOME BREWING, Charlie Papazian, Avon Books, 1991 BETTER BEER & HOW TO BREW IT, M. R. Reese, Garden Way Publishing, 1978 THE COMPLETE HANDBOOK OF HOME BREWING, David Miller, Garden Way Publishing book, 1988 (I have heard this is now out of print, is this true)? THE BIG BOOK OF BREWING, David Line, Amateur Winemaker Publications, 1985 * I also did repeated SG measurements for the various sugars. For my final point, I want to clear up what I ment about potential extract. Yes, it is true that the black malts produce no fermentable products during the mash, but, they DO contain soluable matter. This soluable matter does change the specific gravity. Just as adding large amounts of salt to water (and salt being non fermentable) the specific gravity of the solution will rise. As homebrewers, we are interested in SG readings because they are an indication of our sugar content, but not an absolute measurement. Also it provides feedback on how efficient our process is and how close we have come to duplicating a recipe. Well, that is enough of my spouting off. Thank you for your time and happy fermentations, Dan A. Morey P.S. Tis the season to have a homebrew, but then again when isn't? __________________________________________________________________________ Dan A. Morey If pleasure and the pursuit of happiness dmorey at iastate.edu (hoppiness) is the most vile crime in this PC world, let it be known, "I shall be the greatest villain that ever lived!" Hope this doesn't offend anyone!??????? - -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 93 15:11:21 EST From: Spencer.W.Thomas at med.umich.edu Subject: hop storage Ed's note about keeping hops reminds me of a trick I recently figured out for easily "vacuum sealing" stuff in ziplocs (at least). I take a straw and stick it into the bag, then zip the bag as far shut as I can, and hold it tightly around the straw. Then I suck on the straw until no more air comes and quickly draw out the straw, sealing the bag behind it. Not as good as a commercial vacuum pack, but better than doing nothing. And easy & cheap. =S Return to table of contents
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1309, 12/28/93