HOMEBREW Digest #1326 Mon 17 January 1994

Digest #1325 Digest #1327

		Rob Gardner, Digest Coordinator

  Re: Dry hopping rate in cornelius kegs ("Stephen Hansen")
  pressurized plane compartments (Chris Weight)
  Plastic Carboys (John DeCarlo                             )
  Transporting Homebrew/Alcohol (John DeCarlo                             )
  Stuck high-gravity fermentations? ("McCaw, Mike")
  Ale Fermentation Times (LUKASIK_D)
  Beer of the month Clubs (Al Gaspar)
  Sanitizing Tool/Judges sending beer/Plastic carboys (korz)
  Sam Adams & the GABF (Mark Stickler Internet Mail Name)
  RE: 5 gallon PLASTIC carboys ("conley")
  Procedural differences ("DEV::SJK")
  Heat of Slaking (BMOORE)
  Where Should Judges Enter? (Martin Lodahl)
  Bottle Hopping (Alan Edwards)
  Re: Wyeast 3068 Weihensephen culture (Paul Crowell)
  What?  80 articles ahead of mine? (Alan Edwards)
  pot conversion... (Mark Stewart)
  Information (Scott)
  Immersion Refrigeration? (Louis K. Bonham)
  Random misinformation (Ken Miller)
  When to air and not to air. ("Steven E. Matkoski")
  Wyeast Problem (George H. Leonard)
  New homebrewer ("Daniel R. Sidebottom")
  Don't know who to send this question to (Bob Ambrose)
  Upper Canada (Alan_Marshall)

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, 13 Jan 94 09:49:51 -0800 From: "Stephen Hansen" <hansen at gloworm.Stanford.EDU> Subject: Re: Dry hopping rate in cornelius kegs In HBD 1322 JC Ferguson <ferguson at zendia.enet.dec.com> writes: > I recently cranked out yet another batch/variation of brown ale, accept > this time, i did not add any finishing hops. Right now, the brew is > in the fermenter (brewed it sunday night). I used 2oz of cascase for the > boil, 2 cans of M&F light, and assorted adjunct grains (choco malt, crystal, > roasted barley). > > I want to dry-hop when I keg, and I'm wondering the appropriate amount > of hops to use. This will be for 4-5 gals - not sure if I'm going to bottle > one gallon of it or not. I expect to condition it for 2-4 weeks, depending > how fast I consume the keg ahead of it (3 gals). I'm thinking of 1oz > of kent goldings (plug) in a muslin bag. Too much? Too little? I like a > good hop aroma, so I don't want to be timid with the dry-hop addition. > > Littleton MA USA > ferguson at zendia.dec.com I'm halfway through a keg of Rye IPA that I dry hopped with 1 oz of whole Cascades. The hop nose is very close to draft Anchor Liberty Ale so I consider it a success. I put the hops in a small mesh bag along with half a dozen marbles stolen from my kids. The marbles help keep the bag and hops from just floating on top of the beer. Some people might prefer a bit less hop aroma but I think that 1 oz is a reasonable place to start. Of course the type and freshness of the hops will affect the results. Stephen Hansen Homebrewer, Archivist, Hophead =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Stephen E. Hansen - hansen at sierra.Stanford.EDU | "The church is near, Electrical Engineering Computer Facility | but the road is icy. Applied Electronics Laboratory, Room 218 | The bar is far away, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-4055 | but I will walk carefully." Phone: +1-415-723-1058 Fax: +1-415-723-1294 | -- Russian Proverb =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 94 13:03:44 EST From: Steve_Boylan.NOTES.LOTUS at CRD.lotus.com Subject: In HOMEBREW Digest #1323, npyle at n33.stortek.com (Norm) comments: > Chris Sack writes about an "immersion-in-ice-water" chiller: > > >My boss and I (both of us are chemists) talked about this very type of > >cooler. Our reasons were the same as Bob's. Easy, good heat transfer etc > > > >We then did some quick, "back of the envelope" type calculations and > >discovered that one would need at least 80# of ice to cool a 5 gal. batch > >from boiling to 15 deg.C (60 deg.F). We did not take into account that > > Chris, I've done no calculations at all, but I don't think I use 80# of tap > water to cool my 5 gallons of wort. I know you've already made your chiller, > but you might check the decimal point on those numbers. 80 pounds of water is only 10 gallons ("A pint's a pound the world around!"). I suspect you might use a tad more than that to bring 5 gallons of boiling wort down the 15 deg. C! - - Steve Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 94 09:09:48 PST From: Chris Weight <chriswei at microsoft.com> Subject: pressurized plane compartments | >... Has anyone | > taken them in the unpressurized baggage compartment?... | The baggage compartment is pressurized. It's at the same pressure as the | cabin. (Remember that airlines transport animals in baggage!) Ooh, I can't resist a story...A friend of a friend who used to work for an air shipping company tells of a plane that arrived with a dead dog because it was placed in the wrong (unheated, unpressurized) baggage compartment. Well, they went searching for another dog that looked like it and found one, but when the owner arrived to claim the dog, they went hysterical because the dog was *supposed* to be dead; it was being shipped home for burial. So on commercial planes at least, the animal storage baggage compartments are separate from the regular baggage compartment. Apparently in modern passenger planes all the compartments are pressurized and heated to roughly the same degree as the cabin, but older planes may not be so kind. Seems a bit risky to me...and frozen beer in the undies...yech. Chris. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 94 13:05:53 EST From: John DeCarlo <jdecarlo at homebrew.mitre.org> Subject: Plastic Carboys Try and find out what type of plastic is being used for the carboys. Some are capable of leaching dyes or plasticizers into alcoholic liquids, while they are perfectly safe for water. Others are great for beer and water both. Look on the bottom for identification information. The manufacturer should be able to tell you. John DeCarlo, MITRE Corporation, McLean, VA--My views are my own Fidonet: 1:109/131 Internet: jdecarlo at mitre.org Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 94 13:12:50 EST From: John DeCarlo <jdecarlo at homebrew.mitre.org> Subject: Transporting Homebrew/Alcohol Capsule summary--I am not a lawyer. USPS--They are restricted from shipping commercial alcoholic beverages. They interpret this to mean *all* alcohol. A lawsuit might get them to give homebrew an exemption from this policy. UPS/RPS/Other shippers--They have to deal with the individual rules of each state. This means most will just tell you they don't ship alcohol. Some may tell you they can ship it to California but not Utah from Virginia (made up examples) if they put in extra work. Bottom Line--If you don't tell the shippers there is alcohol in there, and it is packaged safely, you should be all set. Most of the restrictions are because of local concerns with collecting taxes, which don't apply to homebrew anyway (IMHO). John DeCarlo, MITRE Corporation, McLean, VA--My views are my own Fidonet: 1:109/131 Internet: jdecarlo at mitre.org Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 94 10:31:00 PST From: "McCaw, Mike" <mccaw at wdni.com> Subject: Stuck high-gravity fermentations? HELP!! I do 10 gallon mashes in a converted straight side keg with a false bottom. PH checks out, I mash for 60 - 90 minutes at 150 - 153 deg F. and boil for 90 (high grav). My pale ales, alts, etc come out fine, but my attempts at high gravity styles all bomb. I have an Imperial Stout and a Barleywine which both started off fine, blew off the krausen, fermented handily for a week or so and then stopped dead at about 1.040. (They started at 1.12 and 1.13). Worts were chilled in a pseudo counterflow chiller, with an aspiration setup on the end of the line to the carboy for air introduction. It generates a lot of foam, so I thought it was sufficient. I pitched a quart of starter - a pint of Edme and a pint of Pasteur Champagne. The barleywine has now been in tertiary for three months, still bubbles about once a minute, and is still 1.040, and way too sweet.. Any suggestions?? I have considered racking, re-oxygenating and repitching, but don't want to go to that trouble unless I know what is causing my problems. Fermentation room stays about 65 deg (fluctuates down to 62, but the liquid crystal therm on the carboy never seems to drop below 65). Lower gravity (1.045 - 1.06 o.g.) side by side do just fine. Please pardon the rambling nature of this plea - I've been flagellating myself over this for quite a few weeks. Any and all responses eagerly anticipated. Thanks in advance, Mike McCaw Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 1994 13:35:23 -0500 (EST) From: LUKASIK_D at sunybroome.edu Subject: Ale Fermentation Times According to Papazian all Ales will be totally fermented in 7 to 14 days and there is no reason to store them (or even rack them to a secondary fermenter) beyond this time frame. The batches that I have been making seem to be done in about the 7 day time frame (some sooner) and are then racked into a secondary for another weeks time. The racking creates a very cear/clean finished beer/ale. My ending specific gravity has never dropped beyond another .002 (usually .001 or less) in the secondary regardless of the original gravity (i.e. works the same way for low and high original gravities). My question is why do I keep seeing descriptions of long secondary time periods (4 weeks or better) in the Ale discussions (yes, I realize lagers need these periods since they ferment diferently)? Am I missing out on something? Are you all waiting to empty bottles/kegs? Do you have so much done homebrew that you don't need to bottle right away (I can only dream of that day!!!)? Any comments???? Thanks. Doug SoDBuSTeR SuDS Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 1994 12:56:26 CST From: Al Gaspar <gaspar at STL-17SIMA.ARMY.MIL> Subject: Beer of the month Clubs I have heard of a number of beer-of-the-month clubs. One posting on shipping mentioned one called Beers Across America. I was thinking it might be worth joining one to get at a wider selection of beers for comparison. Does anyone have any addresses, prices, etc.? Thanks. Cheers-- Al - -- Al Gaspar <gaspar at stl-17sima.army.mil> USAMC SIMA, ATTN: AMXSI-TTC, 1222 Spruce St., St. Louis, MO 63103-2834 COMMERCIAL: (314) 331-4354 AUTOVON: 555-4354 relay1.uu.net!stl-17sima.army.mil!gaspar Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 94 12:57 CST From: korz at iepubj.att.com Subject: Sanitizing Tool/Judges sending beer/Plastic carboys Filip writes about using a fertilizer sprayer for sanitizing bottles. I use something called a Viniator, which has made sanitizing bottles a much easier job for me. Actually, I'm quite surprized that I've been reading about all the brewers who use the oven to sanitize but did not think of posting how I sanitize till now. The Viniator sits atop my 90-bottle, orange plastic bottle tree and is made of red, white and clear plastic. It works for all size bottles. I fill it with about a quart and a half of sanitizing solution (I've used bleach solution, Iodophor solution and most recently One-step solution). I take two cases of clean bottles (I rinse immediately after emptying the bottle) and set them next to the tree/rinser. Then I grab a bottle, slip it over the nozzle of the Viniator and pump down about 20 times. I put that bottle on the tree and repeat this till I've done all 48 bottles. The bottles sit, neck down, on the tree while I siphon my finished beer into the priming vessel. Then I grab a bottle, rinse with my Jet Bottle and Carboy Washer, fill and cap. Lather, rinse, repeat. Two cases of bottles in about two hours -- BY MYSELF! It goes even faster if I have help. I usually fill and have my helper rinse the bottles, trade for a full one and cap. ************* Steve writes: >BTW - why doesn't that AHA have the first round judges (for the national) >send their entries to a site different from the one they will judge at? Well, judges are not allowed to judge categories in which they have entered, so that eliminates the problem of someone judging their own beer, but if I had the option of sending my beer to the East or to Denver and then judging all the categories (including my favorites -- the ones in which I usually enter beers), I'd have to think about it. There are pros and cons. Pros: 1. You get to judge your favorite categories (mine are the Belgians and all the Pale Ales). Cons: 1. Cost -- I live near Chicago and hand-carry the beer to Goose Island. 2. Mishandling -- hand carrying is going to result in much better beer than that which has been shipped cross-country; on the other hand, if my beer can't survive a journey, then does it stand a chance in the 2nd round? Hmmm... ****** Andrew asks about plastic carboys. You can use them, but you are back to a plastic fermenter and all its associated problems (scratches harboring bacteria and oxygen-permiability). Those containers are Polycarbonate, I would guess, and are quite oxygen -permiable (which is good during respiration, but bad during fermentation and after fermentation). Al. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 94 14:23:42 EST From: Mark Stickler Internet Mail Name <mstickle at lvh.com> Subject: Sam Adams & the GABF I was driving down the street this afternoon and was passed by a beer delivery truck which had large Sam Admams Boston Lager bottles painted on the side. Not unusual, however, each bottle had a medal around its neck from the GABF. They looked like gold medals to me. Hmm, I didn't know Boston Lager took first in any catagory at the GABF! I guess its just creative advertising. Return to table of contents
Date: 13 Jan 1994 14:59:14 +0300 From: "conley" <conley at macgw1.crd.ge.com> Subject: RE: 5 gallon PLASTIC carboys Andrew Pastuszak asks: >We have these 5 gallon plastic carboys at work. >Would these be suitable for fermenting beer? Could I lager in one of these? >Is there a reason people always rack into glass? Plastic is not a good oxygen barrier. Even soda bottles that have barrier films are not as good as glass. Beer is much more sensitive to oxygen than soda. (you ever leave a beer for a day and smell it? how about a cup at a party?) Short term fermentation in a plastic bucket or carboy is OK because oxygen during yeast growth can be consumed. However the plastic carboys are harder to clean than the buckets. I would not lager in plastic or store beer in plastic bottles for long. Others on HBD have used plastic bottles with success. >Nabbing a couple of these would save me a LOT of money. Tisk Tisk... I purchased 5 gal glass carboys from a Corning Glass Factory for $7.99. A tip from past HBD. The stoppers that they take are smaller than those for the 6.5 gal. Regards, Douglas J Conley. conley at crd.ge.com GE Corporate Research & Development Return to table of contents
Date: 13 Jan 94 15:14:00 CST From: "DEV::SJK" <SJK%DEV.decnet at mdcgwy.mdc.com> Subject: Procedural differences Hullo, Just had to respond to Keith MacNeal: >I've been reading all this discussion of using an oven to sanitize bottles. I >say why bother. When it's time to bottle I fill up my bathtub with cold water >and add bleach and bottles (bottles have been delabled and rinsed earlier) and >let soak along with my bottling bucket, hydrometer, hoses, racking cane, etc. >Then I use a bottle washer and rinse the bottles out with hot tap water (just Oh man! Are you saving time there or WHAT!? :-) Sounds to me like your system is more complicated. Not only are you wasting gobs of water (a concern for us here in CA), but in the time it takes to scrub the tub (I'm assuming), fill it up, let everything soak, move 40-60 bottles plus the other equipment from the bathroom to the kitchen, rinse the bottles and let them dry (!?), said bottles could have been heated up and cooled down and everything else could have become nice and sanitary in your bottling bucket full of bleach-water. Not only does this take a lot of time, but a lot of it is time spent rinsing bottles or whatever that could be spent doing something else because the oven method does not require much attention. That's OK with me, *I* just don't see how Keith's method is so much better as to be worth a "why bother?". >a couple of squirts) and allow the bottles to dry on a bottle drying rack. Why bother? Wouldn't want to get a little water in your beer. ;-> >you'll see that counter-flow chillers are more efficient than immersion >chillers (I won't bother with the equations here). Whether or not you need Please bother. This doesn't make sense to me. 'Course, that shouldn't be too surprising... Oh, bother. Scott Kaczorowski sjk%c17fcs.decnet at mdcgwy.mdc.com Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 94 13:41 From: BMOORE.UNIX11 at mailsrv2.eldec.com (BMOORE) Subject: Heat of Slaking >From: "Dave Suurballe" <suurb at farallon.com> >The problem is that Barry's model is too simple. His formula >says that the amount of heat lost by the hot water is equal to >the amount of heat gained by the room-temperature grain. >Real life is a little more complicated than that. The mash tun loses >heat, too. The water and the mash tun are at strike temperature >together, and the grain is at room temperature. They are mixed, >and all reach the same temperature. The water cools down, >the mash tun cools down, and the grain heats up. >So my new formula derives from this: >(the weight of the water times its temperature change times >its specific heat) plus (the weight of the mash tun times >its temperature change times its specific heat) is equal to >(the weight of the grain times its temperature change times >its specific heat) . It is indeed true that my formula does not take into account the ther- mal mass of the mash tun. My tun is a 6 gallon plastic bucket inside of a 10 gallon diaper pail with polyester two-part foam in between. The false bottom is preforated stainless. The thermal mass is evidently quite low. Stainless steel mash tuns could cause a problem. As stated above, real life is more complicated. I suspect that Dave's entire mash tun is not gaining and loosing heat, just the inside. (unless there is NO insulation at all). But the formula should work as long as the thermal constant of the mash tun is calculated from actual trials at mashing temperature. Just to throw a wrench in the works, Nature provides another messy detail when mashing. This is the HEAT Of SLAKING. When dry malt is mixed with water, it actually GIVES OFF heat. Not a lot, but enough to cause errors in strike temperatures - especially with thick British-Style mashes. The mechanism is chemically similar to the reaction that causes plaster of paris to get warm when it is mixed with water. This phenom was identified by British Brewers late in the last century. They were having all sorts of headaches getting consistent mash temperatures. As it turns out (another complication), the amount of heat given off by malt is inversely proportional to it's moisture content. Moist (slack) malt above about 6% moisture has very little heat of slaking. In addition, moist malt contains more water, with a higher specific heat which affects the thermal constant of the malt. So, if we want to calculate mash temperatures out to 3 decimals, we need to know the malt moisture content, as well as the thermal mass of the tun etc. etc. A simple answer to all these complications would be to calculate your own thermal constant for malt based on your own measurements of your own system. As long as you keep using the same tun, your batch sizes don't vary widely and your malt is kept dry, you should not have a problem. One could possibly calculate thermal constants to use for "large" or "small" batches if desired. For those who love complexity, a nifty spreadsheet model taking into account all the variables would be fun. It could even be incorporated into some of those handy computer brewing programs! BTW, if anyone is interested, I can dig up a chart of malt moisture content versus heat of slaking. Barry T. Moore bmoore at eldec.com Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 1994 15:01:28 -0800 (PST) From: malodah at pbgueuze.scrm2700.PacBell.COM (Martin Lodahl) Subject: Where Should Judges Enter? In HOMEBREW Digest #1323, Steve Piatz asked: > BTW - why doesn't that AHA have the first round judges (for the national) > send their entries to a site different from the one they will judge at? Not really necessary, but there's one powerful argument in its favor. Today, the Site Judge Director, working from the list of judges and the list of entrants sorted by category obtained from the Site Registrar, assigns judges only to classes they have not entered. I am unaware of any problems that would suggest a need for a higher level of "security." The organizers, however (Site Director, Site Judge Director and Site Registrar), send theirs to a neighboring site for judging. The argument in favor of handling all judges' entries in that fashion is that it would free judges to judge their specialties, as the chances are pretty good that the styles they judge best are also the styles they brew best, so they're likely to have entries there. The argument against it is that there is considerable overlap between the set of all judges and the set of all competitive brewers, so a large fraction of the entries received by any one site would be from brewers in the territory of a neighboring site. As this is really not that big a deal, I suspect that the principal concerns may be over increasing the (shipping cost) burden on the entrant, and making last-minute additions to the judge pool virtually impossible. Further, as some contestant/judges might view shipping their beers to a more distant site as a handicap, it could reduce the judge pool. Just my opinions ... - Martin = Martin Lodahl Systems Analyst, Capacity Planning, Pacific*Bell = = malodah at pacbell.com Sacramento, CA USA 916.972.4821 = = If it's good for ancient Druids runnin' nekkid through the wuids, = = Drinkin' strange fermented fluids, it's good enough for me! (Unk.) = Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 94 15:34:04 PST From: rush at xanadu.llnl.gov (Alan Edwards) Subject: Bottle Hopping Sean Taylor asked: | I had a chance to talk to one of my old friends (and | a homebrewer) over the holidays and we were talking about | dry hopping. He mentioned that it might be interesting to | try bottle hopping--that is, adding hops (one or two leaves, | perhaps) directly to the bottle. | Has anybody heard of or tried this before? Outside of possible | contamination from the hops, would it add some negative aspect to the | beer that we aren't considering? I've bottle hopped on two different batches of IPA. In both cases, I've only done this to part of the batch, for comparison. I did this by adding one (or more) fresh willamette cones from my garden. It's my opinion that one or two leaves won't do anything noticable. In both cases, the bottle hopped beers were noticably more fragrant. Like fresh hops. It went very well with the IPA. There were no infections, but there is one problem you should be aware of. My beers were a little overcarbonated (not having anything to do with bottle hopping) for an IPA to begin with; and the hops in the bottle created a unique problem. The hops act as a nucleation site for the CO2 coming out of solution. This makes the bottle foam immediately after opening. You have to pour it fast, which can be a problem when the hop cone decides to wedge itself in the neck of the bottle. It's no big deal really, just pour it into a large glass and expect a lot of foam. Note that this is definitely NOT an infection. I can see the bubbles forming all around the hop cone; and there is NO noticable off flavors or bacteria ring after many months in the bottle. -Alan Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 94 16:30:09 MST From: fmicos!trojan!crowell at uunet.UU.NET (Paul Crowell) Subject: Re: Wyeast 3068 Weihensephen culture Recently I asked: > Anyone ever try brewing an ale using Wyeast 3068 Weihensephen lager >yeast? I'm a wheat beer fan and don't have lagering facilities, but >I'm tempted to give this a try. (This should fetch *real* >controversy and debate!) I finally did get the Wyeast folks on the phone today. What they said about this yeast was that it is different from 3056 Bavarian Wheat in that the 3056 is a mixture of S. cerevisae (ale yeast) and S. delbrueckii (wheat yeast) and 3068 contains just S. delbrueckii. This ought to be even more of an estery, "cloying sweetness" than the 3056. They said it is neither an ale yeast nor a lager yeast; it is a wheat yeast, in the strictest sense. Since I'm not set up to lager, I'm happiy confident about using it at ale temperatures. - -- - -- P a u l C r o w e l l Technical Lead, IC Development Group ________ Ford Microelectronics, Inc. / ___ ) 9965 Federal Drive / / ) / Colorado Springs, CO 80921-3698 / /\__/ / TEL: (719) 528-7609 / / / FAX: (719) 528-7635 / \____/ internet: uunet!fmicos!crowell \_________ *** Note the change of address. :-) *** - -- Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 94 16:03:13 PST From: rush at xanadu.llnl.gov (Alan Edwards) Subject: What? 80 articles ahead of mine? Does this look familiar to any of you: | (This message has been generated by a program, and is for your | information only. No further action is necessary.) | | Your article has been received for publication in the Homebrew | Digest. There are currently 80 article(s) ahead of yours in | the queue that will be published first. | | Thanks for your submission and your support of the Digest! 80 ARTICLE(S)! Come on now, this is rediculous! I proposed a solution to this problem several months ago and it seems like no one was listening. (Yes, I first made my suggestion to homebrew-request.) My suggestion is simple: SEND THE HBD OUT TWICE DAILY! I know it can be done because the Brewer's Forum does that very thing, with the same software the HBD is distributed with. I don't know about the rest of you, but I feel that it is important to have responses to questions as quickly as possible, in order to have any kind of flow to the threads of discussion. Otherwise, they are not threads at all, but more like...uh, LINT! (Yeah, broken threads...lint ...OK, I get it.) Anybody have a better solution to the way-too-long backlog of articles? Have a nice day, -Alan Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 1994 17:06:08 -0800 (PST) From: Mark Stewart <mstewart at scs.unr.edu> Subject: pot conversion... Anyone had any direct/indirect experience with regard to converting a 40 qt. Vollrath (10gl.) brewpot to a mash/lauter tun? I think I've found a source for the SS screen, but need to know more about fitting it for a spigot (i.e., where to drill the hole with regard to the bottom, etc.). Any and all direct e-mail on issues related to this topic will be much appreciated. ********************************************************************** ** Mark Stewart "Hurry 'long quickly and don't take ** ** Dept. of Psych. no shortcuts..." ** ** mstewart at unssun -Virginia Reed, Donner Party survivor ** ********************************************************************** Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 94 23:43:17 EST From: Scott <CMSPSY50 at UGA.CC.UGA.EDU> Subject: Information Hello, I would be interested in any information or corespondence opporitunities regarding homebrewing of beer. Thank you Scott Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 1994 21:38:43 From: lkbonham at beerlaw.win.net (Louis K. Bonham) Subject: Immersion Refrigeration? In making my semiannual run to my favorite surplus scientific equipment source, I discovered that he had a load of used laboratory immersion chillers (Lauda, Enkay, etc.) for $125 and up. (For those of you not familiar with these, they consist of a small (15"x15"x15" or so) compressor unit, connected by an insulated umbilical to a stainless coil about the size of your fist. They run on 120 or 220 VAC, depending on the model, and can generally chill an insulated sample to -77 F.) I currently ferment 10 gallon batches in a 14 gallon stainless fermenter. I would prefer to free up my current fermentation refrigerator for lagering or serving, and use an immersion cooler to control the temperature of the fermenter. The unit could, theoretically, also be useful on a brew day to cool an insulated glycol bath of say, 3 gallons, to sub-zero temperatures, which could then flash cool 85F wort (the temp I usually get at the end of my counterflow chiller) to 40-50F or below and thus force a really good cold break. According to my BTU calculations of my fermenter (based on approximately a 1 sq. m. surface area), the BTU capabilities of these units (>400 W at 20F) would be more than enough to maintain just about any lager or fermentation temperature. However, as the business end of the cooler can generate a *serious* cold spot, I have a few questions for those of you familiar with their use: 1. Will the cold spot generated by the cooling element deleteriously affect the yeast (lager or ale)? 2. Would gently agitating/stirring the fermenting wort (using, say, a very slowly rotating paddlewheel) to facilitate uniform cooling have any drawbacks? (Agitation would not begin until the ferment is well underway and thus the air in the fermenter is almost all CO2, and oxidation would not appear to be a problem.) 3. To anyone's knowledge, are immersion coolers used to control fermentation temperatures of laboratory samples? If not, why not? 4. For the temperature control circuitry, geneerally how many degrees F should I allow between the set point and "cutout" to avoid burning up the compressor? (The technical term for what I'm asking is something like hysteresus, but as you can see I cannot spell. No guffawing from you EE's out there!) Responses to any or all of the foregoing would be greatly appreciated. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 94 23:26:12 PST From: Ken Miller <KCMILLER%SJSUVM1.BITNET at cmsa.Berkeley.EDU> Subject: Random misinformation Norm writes: >Chris Sack writes about an "immersion-in-ice-water" chiller: > >>My boss and I (both of us are chemists) talked about this very type of >>cooler. Our reasons were the same as Bob's. Easy, good heat transfer etc >> >>We then did some quick, "back of the envelope" type calculations and >>discovered that one would need at least 80# of ice to cool a 5 gal. batch >>from boiling to 15 deg.C (60 deg.F). We did not take into account that > >Chris, I've done no calculations at all, but I don't think I use 80# of tap >water to cool my 5 gallons of wort. I know you've already made your chiller, >but you might check the decimal point on those numbers. Well, water is awfully heavy stuff, as anyone who ever tried to backpack a couple of sixers knows. One gallon of water weighs about 8 1/3 pounds/gallon. You say (in a later post) that you use 12 gallons of water. Ergo you use 100 pounds of water. Still pretty damn good--that Colorado water of yours must be hell cold. ** (This double asterisk is a great convention--simple, direct, effective-- thanks, Norm!) Norm also writes: >COYOTE writes about the Crown Brewery: > > Stout. Ok stout. Not very heavy. Almost porter-like. > >I may be putting words into his mouth, but it seems that he is saying that >porters are lighter than stouts. (pardon me if I'm misreading you). I don't >think this is true, from the samples of both that I've tried. Guiness draft is >quite light bodied compared to lots of porters I've had. I was reading in >Brewing Techniques about stouts (I missed the issue with the article about >porters), and I couldn't find anything that distinguishes the two (stouts and >porters). I once thought that it was unmalted roasted barley that made a stout >a stout. According to the article, only dry stouts have roasted barley, not >sweet stouts, oatmeal stouts, etc. Well? Is there *anything* that >distuinguishes a stout from a porter? Norm, you have opened a can of worms. There are *violent* disagreements as to what constitues a proper porter. The question of whether or not to accept roasted barley as an ingredient of porters is in itself sufficient to start a medium-sized flame war. The short and oversimplified answer to your question is *no*, there is no single component that distinguishes a stout from a porter. To quote from Terry Foster, in _Porter_: "It is not always a simple matter to precisely define a beer style, particularly a long-established one. There are always ambiguities.... there is considerable variety in the modern versions (of porter).... "Since almost all other versions are revivals, they represent each brewer's opinion of what a porter should be....Brewers, and particularly microbrewers, are individualistic people, so it is not surprising that their beers do not always fit into clearly-defined niches. For example, I would define some modern porters as really being stouts, although others would say that if the brewer calls it porter, that is exactly what it is!" Bear in mind that modern porter is a *revival* style. The original fell into disfavor at the end of the 19th century and by and large ceased to be readily available commercially until relatively recently. As with any reinvented style (in any craft or art) it is what its practitioners say it is. ** Douglas Conley writes: >Do any of you keggers (brewers that keg) use your kegging system for soda as >well? I would like to set up a keg tap and a soda tap combo and appreciate >any help/experience. > >Are the 3 pin lock kegs that Rich Ryan talks about good for this? I haven't yet, but I've considered it. (Call me palatally challenged, but I love root beer almost as much as my favorite foamy beverage.) Seems to me there shouldn't be any problem--to a keg, one carbonated beverage is the same as another--but I offer one caveat: you may have to dedicate one (or more) kegs to soda exclusively. As I learned to my sorrow (can you say, "Mr. Pibbs Dunkel?"), once a keg has held soda, it is inclined to contribute unwelcome flavors to beer. (Unless you have one hell of a standard keg cleaning procedure.) Three-pin locks are functionally no different than ball-locks, assuming you have the proper connectors. ** Bob Jones wants to know: > > Why do brewers enter out of state competitions, I'm speaking of non-national > competitions? I'm sincerly interested, the Bay Area Brewoff always gets > entries from far far away. Reasons that occur to me are... > <opinionated, mildly offensive speculations deleted> Probably for the same reasons they enter local competions, viz., 1) feedback from the judges (applies mostly to us rookies) and 2) recognition from fellow brewers (applies mostly to experienced brewers) As far as feedback goes, I say the more the better. Considering the amount I spend per batch of beer, it's worth a few bucks to ship the beer somewhere else if I eventually get some comments that help me improve my beer. As far as recognition goes, it's not important but it's nice. Those who can brew competetively superior beer are quite properly accorded respect, especially if they choose to compete in competitions which are universally (not just regionally) accorded respect. ** Andrew Pastuszak writes: >We have these 5 gallon plastic carboys at work. They look just like >the glass ones, except they're made of clear plastic. They have to be >food grade, because they hold water. Would these be suitable for >fermenting beer? Could I lager in one of these? Is there a reason >people always rack into glass? Nabbing a couple of these would save >me a LOT of money. Disclaimer: This is not something I know about. I'm just passing on stuff I've heard. BUT... 1) Drinking water is usually not acidic, but beer is. Components of the plastic carboy which do not leach into water might leach into beer, adversely affecting the flavor. 2) Glass carboys are not oxygen permeable, but plastic carboys may be. This is not an issue during primary fermention, when the fermenting beer is throwing off CO2, but it could be an issue during secondary fermentation, when CO2 evolution dies down. As far as saving money goes, this is a subject on which I fundamentally disagree with many homebrewers whom I greatly respect. I heartily dislike spending more money that is necessary to achieve gratifying results. However...when I multiply the fixed costs per batch times the number of batches I brew per year, I find that the cost of good (and sturdy) equipment is relatively minor. Why should I take the risk of having to drink awful beer for a couple of months just because I didn't want to spring a few bucks for some decent equipment? Having said that, I will admit that some of the best brewers I know are past masters of the art of making do. Knowledge, intuition, and talent are far more important than gadgets. Alas, I can't buy the first three.... Hoppy brewing to all, Ken Miller kcmiller at sjsuvm1.sjsu.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 1994 07:53:02 -0500 (EST) From: "Steven E. Matkoski" <sematkos at syr.edu> Subject: When to air and not to air. I have been seeing alot of talk about aerating the wort and the beer. I am still a little confused on this. When I brew I try not to aerate at anytime in my process. Is this wrong to do? If so, then when do I aerate and when don't I? Also, I have only been single fermenting (out of fermenting bucket and into bottling bucket), and I have been noticing a yeasty aftertaste on most of my Ales. If I change to using a secondary fermenter will this lighten the aftertaste? or does time? The aftertaste does mellow with time, but takes a very long time. Thanks for your help! -steve. "reach out your hand if your cup be empty, Steven E. Matkoski if your cup is full, may it be again." sematkos at mailbox.syr.edu GratefulDead. Return to table of contents
Date: 14 Jan 1994 13:37:42 GMT From: George_Leonard at brown.edu (George H. Leonard) Subject: Wyeast Problem I have been brewing for 2 years and have used Wyeast throughout without any problems. My last was (actually it still is) a lager. After it cooled I added Wyeast American Lager yeast but noticed that the container had not swelled as much as usual. I had broke the inter bag about 30 hours before. I decided to add it anyway and three day later the brew still showed no signs of life. In a panic (I know I should have relaxed, etc.) I added the dry yeast that had come with the malt extract. Within 24 hours it was bubbling away and now all seems fine. Question: Has anyone else had this problem? Is it possible that fermentation could take over 3 days to begin when using Wyeast? Do you really need to wait until the Wyeast package is about to explode before pitching? Is there any reason I shouldn't just use dry yeast, which _does_ seem easier? If so, what types of dry are of high quality? Any answers, posted here or to me at George_Leonard at brown.edu would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 1994 08:59:42 -0500 (EST) From: "Daniel R. Sidebottom" <SIDEBODR at SCOBVA.COBLESKILL.EDU> Subject: New homebrewer Hello All, I am a new homebrewer and have just finished brewing my first batch. I tried my first bottle and the results where positive. The amber lager I brewed had I little bite to it but all in all was good beer. I would like to know where and if I should buy some groulch (? spelling) bottles. And also where I can purchase supplies (are there cat. of supplies) for them? Also, I have a starter brew kit, where can I purchase kit supplies. Thank you Dan Sidebottom Warnerville New York Daniel R. Sidebottom Coordinator of Computer Services Phone: (518)234-5258 Decnet: scobva::sidebodr Bitnet: sidebodr at snycobva Internet: sidebodr at scobva.cobleskill.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 1994 09:48:54 -0500 From: ambroser at apollo.dml.georgetown.edu (Bob Ambrose) Subject: Don't know who to send this question to Yesterday, I sent a reply about sending "stuff" through the mail. The HBD sent back a message saying it was received and that "57 articles are ahead of you". Well, my question is: What happened to my reply and all of the other replies. I see only 28 replies in todays HBD. Is there a default limit and 28 is the cut-off point, throwing out the other 29 replies? What happend to my reply? Bob Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 1994 09:57 EDT From: Alan_Marshall <AK200032 at Sol.YorkU.CA> Subject: Upper Canada In HBD 1324, /R=HERLVX/R=AM/U=KLIGERMAN/FFN=KLIGERMAN/ at mr.rtpnc.epa.gov writes: > Conley asked if anyone has visited the Upper Canada brewery. I was > there sometime in the '80's and remember the beer was good, the tour fair, > and the guide less knowledgable than most novice homebrewers. The thing > I remember most about the brewery is a lot of broken glass on the bottling > line. I posted a review of Upper Canada's product line and their tour about 2 months ago in alt.beer. It is also in the latest CABA Newsletter. I tend to agree with this poster (Don't you hate these cryptic email names that make it impossible to refer to the poster by name? :-), the tour was fair. On the tour I took, the guide was the least knowledgeable of the four of us (two homebrewers and I). The samples, both before and after where given generously, but I suspect if someone was trying to get tanked up, they would cut them off. On the bottling line, It is true that UC's bottling line is old (they bought it used), but I think they have managed to would out the bugs, and the the breakage is minimal. It may also be due to their bottles - -- UC bottles are the favourite among homebrewers in Ontario, because they are so rugged. A typical UC bottle lasts 16-17 refilling cycles, compared to about 6 cycles for most other bottles. Return to table of contents
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1326, 01/17/94