HOMEBREW Digest #1648 Fri 03 February 1995

Digest #1647 Digest #1649

		Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor

  Summary of helpful hints ("Andy....pbx 5152")
  Infrared NOT!!! ("Harralson, Kirk")
  Re: Motorizing Grain Mills (Dion Hollenbeck)
  hokey blue glow.... (Dan Kerl)
  Cleanliness (ESMPD)" <gcunning at Census.GOV>
  RE:Jockey box/dishwasher/PLASTIC SMELL/TX brew/leaky chiller/UVL (usfmchql)
  dishwasher / "stuck" fermentation (Bob Paolino               Research Analyst)
  Orange and purple colors (Pierre Jelenc)
  Good chiller connections. (Mark Kempisty - 957-8365)
  Raspberry imperial stout (JUKNALIS)
  Re: Cask conditioning (Tel +44 784 443167)
  Hops Questions (npyle) <npyle at hp7013.ecae.StorTek.COM>
  Malt extracts ("Brian Shewchuk")
  Control Theory (npyle) <npyle at hp7013.ecae.StorTek.COM>
  suscribe homebrew digest (Ray LeBlanc)
  DC BREWING COMPANY ("CHICAGO 708-606-4019.................SKY #5707909, ...CDPD FIELD EXTRAORDINAIRE")
  RE:Halogens vs Stainless Steel... (Patrick G. Babcock)
  orange peel , Kirk has seen the light (Jay Weissler)
  IBU's revisited (Ed Hitchcock)
  Re: Infrared light (UV light) (00bkpickeril)
  sparging the grain bag/honeymoon?/carbonation/Laaglander DME (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583)
  Jim Koch: whada nice guy (Paul Baker)
  ffts (ANDY WALSH)
  Good Canadian Stuff, Eh? (Lori Lathrop)

****************************************************************** * NEW POLICY NOTE: Due to the incredible volume of bouncing mail, * I am going to have to start removing addresses from the list * that cause ongoing problems. In particular, if your mailbox * is full or your account over quota, and this results in bounced * mail, your address will be removed from the list after a few days. * * If you use a 'vacation' program, please be sure that it only * sends a automated reply to homebrew-request *once*. If I get * more than one, then I'll delete your address from the list. ****************************************************************** 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. 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 ARCHIVES: An archive of previous issues of this digest, as well as other beer related information can be accessed via anonymous ftp at ftp.stanford.edu. Use ftp to log in as anonymous and give your full e-mail address as the password, look under the directory /pub/clubs/homebrew/beer directory. AFS users can find it under /afs/ir.stanford.edu/ftp/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer. If you do not have ftp capability you may access the files via e-mail using the ftpmail service at gatekeeper.dec.com. For information about this service, send an e-mail message to ftpmail at gatekeeper.dec.com with the word "help" (without the quotes) in the body of the message.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 01 Feb 1995 09:50:39 EST From: "Andy....pbx 5152" <copea at kenyon.edu> Subject: Summary of helpful hints Hello, First of all, thank you to all that wrote to help me with a fermentation that seemed to be stalled. I promised to write a summary so that other novice homebrewers might benefit and here it is. To recap: I had my second batch that did not seem to be showing any activity in the airlock and wondered what was wrong. Most of the responses told me that these things could have happened. - I pitched the yeast when the wort was a bit too cool. This won't kill the yeast but will slow down the initial process. Look for an ale yeast like EDME to be pitched at 70-75 degrees F. Moving the fermentor to a warmer area should help if the initial temp was too low. - I did not re-hydrate the yeast. This is perhaps the most significant of the responses I received. The simplest way seemed to be to heat 3-4 oz. of water to 100 deg and then add the yeast and allow it to hydrate for about 15-20 minutes. Then add it to the wort. This should get the yeast going in advance and will also reveal if the yeast has gone bad, as no activity will occur. People also mentioned making yeast starters using the actual wort, but that's a bit more complicated and I'm not sure I could do it justice here. - Aerating the cooled wort was also a suggestion. Siphoning to another container should add some oxygen to the wort before the yeast is added. I was told not to do this while the wort is warm as this may cause the "wet cardboard" taste to make an appearance. - It was also likely that my plastic fermentor might not be airtight and the lack of bubbling in the lock doesn't mean that nothing is happening. This is of course one of the drawbacks of plastic bins, you can't see what's going on in there very easily. However, taking a final hydrometer reading and checking to see if it's roughly 25% lower than the initial reading (oops, 25% of the initial reading I mean..) then the brew may in fact be done. That was the bulk of the advice I received. I took a final hydrometer reading last night and sure enough, it was done. I tasted a bit, and it was terrific. So I primed and bottled and all looks to be in order. The edme yeast may have worked while I wasn't looking and the gas might have escaped in other ways besides the airlock. So to all novice brewers, I hope this might help. If you want more details, send me a private e-mail, cause I learned quite a bit. Sincere thanks go out to Steve Shultz, Lee Bussy, Dave Harsh, Clark Isachsen, John Stolar, John Decarlo, Sean MacLennan, Tom Parent, The Sheckinator, Mike Koscal, Guy Garnett, Eamon McKernan, PWM2, Bob Ledden, Terry McGravey, and any others who I might have forgotten. I read every post, so if I didn't mention your name, I still read your advice. Thanks again and sorry for the long post. Andrew Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 95 09:57:04 EST From: "Harralson, Kirk" <kwh at roadnet.ups.com> Subject: Infrared NOT!!! Let me be the first to flame myself -- I meant to say ULTRAVIOLET, not infrared light was being used to sanitize water at the fill-your-own dispenser. I apologize for being careless. Next time, I guess I won't be so quick to delete that cancel string message the listserver sends me. A few people have responded privately that UV light is an excellent way to sanitize water, and is used widely in some industries. Kirk Harralson Bel Air, Maryland Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 95 07:28:41 PST From: hollen at megatek.com (Dion Hollenbeck) Subject: Re: Motorizing Grain Mills >>>>> "Manning" == Manning Martin MP <manning_martin_mp at mcst.ae.ge.com> writes: Manning> My Glatt mill is now powered by a 30 in-lb gear motor that Manning> turns at 156 RPM. Power transfer from the gear motor PTO to Manning> the mill is through a split coupling. A direct drive Manning> arrangement such as this is very compact, and avoids the Manning> hazard of a belt and pulleys. Very clever, but extremely dangerous to your mill. The first time you encounter a small rock that jams your rollers, you're gonna strip those gears right off the shaft. In a conversation with Greg Glatt he *strongly* recommends some sort of clutch, definitely *not* direct drive. When you use pulleys and a V belt and use the weight of the motor as the only thing giving enough friction on the V belt to keep it moving, then as soon as the driven pulley stops, the driving pulley immediately starts to hop and spin on the V belt. If you have a problem with belt and pulley safety, either just don't stick your fingers in there or spend $10 for a sheet of aluminum and make a cover for the drive mechanism. dion - -- Dion Hollenbeck (619)675-4000x2814 Email: hollen at megatek.com Staff Software Engineer Megatek Corporation, San Diego, California Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 95 9:26:15 CST From: dlkerl at cmack.b11.ingr.com (Dan Kerl) Subject: hokey blue glow.... > > Date: Tue, 31 Jan 95 11:04:21 EST > From: "Harralson, Kirk" <kwh at roadnet.ups.com> > Subject: Leaky chiller, infrared light Kirk said <material deleted...> > > A local grocery store has one of those fill-your-own-bottle super pure > water dispenser. I noticed a purplish glow near the dispenser that > turned out to be coming from an infrared light that is turned on and > surrounds the water when pouring. I asked about this, and was told it > was for sanitary purposes. I don't have a clue what the connection > could be. It looked really hoky, but it isn't exactly my field of > expertise... Has anyone else seen one of these, or could shed some > light as to what it is for? This is probably a mercury-vapor lamp, which emits lots of short-wave ultraviolet light (not infrared). The UV rays kills a percentage of any bacteria remaining in the water. Also called 'germicidal lamps' these things also produce ozone (O3, a funky, sweet, slightly nauseating-smelling gas) from diatomic oxygen (O2) in the surrounding air. They were installed in clothes dryers a number of years ago. It's interesting to note that it's UV rays that are responsible for modifying hop oils to cause 'skunkiness' in beer, so these lamps are probably not a hot idea for sterilizing wort. Dan Kerl dlkerl at ingr.com Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 1995 10:46:47 -0500 (EST) From: "Jerry Cunningham (ESMPD)" <gcunning at Census.GOV> Subject: Cleanliness Hi all, Last night I read an article in the Feb. 95 Reader's Digest that might be of interest to homebrewers. It's called "My Day with Doctor Clean" or something like that, and it's about this Phd who goes around collecting nasties (my term) from kithchen counter tops, toilets, etc. and analyzing/classifying them using a microscope or whatever. There is some interesting stuff. He says that bacteria can live for up to 5 _weeks_ on a counter top in very humid environments. For all of you "bathtub wort-chiller users", he explains the "aerosol effect" - when you flush a toilet, thousands of tiny water droplets are shot into the air. He says if you keep your toothbrush within 6 feet of the toilet, you're "basically brushing with toilet water". (BTW, he says even if you flush with the lid closed, these nasties get shot out the next time you open it!). Take this for what it's worth, I'm not a scientist... Jerry Cunningham Annapolis, MD Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 1995 10:53:54 EST From: usfmchql at ibmmail.com Subject: RE:Jockey box/dishwasher/PLASTIC SMELL/TX brew/leaky chiller/UVL -=> KBONNEMA asks about using Cu tubing for a jockey box... I used Cu in mine with no (known) adverse effects. However, most 'professional' units use SS for the coils... -=> Jonas Hartzler asks about cleaning bottles in a dishwasher... Detergent-using dishwashers are great for this purpose; liquid-using dishwashers tend to leave a dish-soap film behind (I don't know if the same may be said for Jet-Dry compounds???). The high heat of the drying cycle also serves to sanitize the bottles... -=> Terry McGravey asks if the plastic smell/flavor of his CO2 hose will be imparted to his beer... Not in my experience. I used similar smelly tubing for both gas and beverage, and never noticed it. If it _worries_ you, try an overnight TSP soak (use the 'degreasing' concentration as noted on the package). Rinse _thoroughly_ afterward! Others have reported good results with overnight sodium bicarbonate (baking soda) soaks... -=> Davis G. Hunt asks about brewing lagers in Texas without buying a spare fridge... Don't know who to credit for the original post (here, AOL, or *P*), but it suggested the following: Get a plastic garbage can just larger and taller than your fermenter and airlock. Make a styrofoam and fiberglass (insulation) disk for the bottom, and wrap the sides in fiberglass. Use a *TON* of duct tape so no fiberglass is exposed. Wrap the lid in a similar fashion (now you have a _HUGE_ cooler). Put your fermenter in, and fill with H2O (don't let the fermenter float, though!). Now you can regulate the temperature through the addition of ice or warm water! (Again: don't allow the fermenter to float! Remove H2O as necessary...) Haven't tried it, but it seems reasonable to me... -=> Kirk Harralson wants to fix his leaky chiller. He also asks about 'The Purple Glow' at the water dispenser... Get a flaring tool and put a flair in the end of the copper tubing. Force the hose over it, and clamp. You should find your leak gone... The 'Purple Glow' you saw was ultraviolet light. You also see it over instruments in your doctor's, dentist's, and barber's office/shop. I'm not an expert, but I believe that it keeps bacteria away by killing it, pissing it off, or something like that. I also believe it is a post-sanitation measure; not a substitute. The barber probably doesn't (he has the 'purple fluid'), but the doctor and dentist process their instruments through an autoclave prior to placing them under the light. Can't say what effect this would have at the water dispenser, though. In retailing, it's probably more gimmick than useful... (Just my opinion) ;-) -=> Quote for the day: "If we weren't meant to drink it, beer wouldn't be so damned good..." - Insightful Lush Overheard at the Box Bar, Plymouth, Michigan (Wasn't me! Honest...) Pat Babcock President, Chief Taste-Tester, and Consumer Numero Uno Drinkur Purdee pico Brewery Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 1995 10:53:59 EST From: Bob Paolino Research Analyst <uswlsrap at ibmmail.com> Subject: dishwasher / "stuck" fermentation Jonas Hartzler asks about sanitising bottles in the dishwasher: A popular topic, indeed. First keep your stock of bottles CLEAN. I give 'em a rinse as soon as feasible after emptying, and then I load them in the dishwasher with the dishes. That takes care of CLEAN. To SANITISE, run a bottles only load, no detergent, bleach if you want it (but probably redundant) and run on the heat-dry cycle. The "detergent" that someone was recommending was probably one of those solutions that bars use for beer-clean glasses. I haven't used it for bottles,but it might not be a bad idea. I don't know how well it will work in the dishwasher--they use automatic brushes in bars to clean glasses. It's readily available in restaurant supply stores, and even some homebrew stores. I don't think it's necessary, but it might work well (?) Philip Hofstrand asks about his stuck fermentation: Sounds like a combination of different things. First, I think the homebrew store guy is right on target. Five days in primary for a higher gravity beer is not enough time with the yeast. You said "visible fermentation" had "slowed" after 4 days. By "visible," do you mean activity in the airlock or did you observe the beer itself? I tend to doubt that after only four days and at a lower temperature that the beer itself would have the appearance of little fermentation. If you were referring to the airlock, bubbles aren't exactly the world's most reliable measure, particularly if you're fermenting in plastic with a not-completely-tight-fitting lid. 1.072 isn't all that high, but it's still "above average" and you need to give it more time on the yeast. (AT LEAST 7-10 days in primary, particularly at the lower temperature, is more like it.) If something closer to 1.100 finished around 1.030 I wouldn't worry much, but 1.072 to 1.030 isn't enough alcohol to leave your yeast drunk and staggering :-) Others ought to comment on it, because I don't have the luxury of experience with fermenting in the 50s(F), but PERHAPS a gradual increase in temperature for the secondary fermentation (back to the recommended 62F, anyway) might help. The other thing to consider is a fresh dose of healthy yeast. I had that question almost a month ago, but that was for a 1.109 wort. My question had been about how to introduce that yeast and how much, given that you certainly don't want to aerate fermenting beer, so you need to have a reasonably big starter. I got a variety of different answers here and by private email. (I also have a question in to Dave Miller's column in BT that might show up in print sometime.) I put in about 750-1000 ml (I'd have to check my notes) of starter after racking to secondary at 1.060 (after almost 2 weeks in primary) That's not an exceptionally large starter, but it seems to have been enough--active fermentation did start up again, but I haven't checked gravity yet, and it's too early to say whether the beer is excellent, or merely good:-) I don't know that I would endorse the recommendation to go with a higher temperature with the higher gravity brews. What was suggested to you isn't so high a temperature and probably wouldn't be okay, but generally speaking you want to watch out for higher alcohols and other products of warm ferments. If the yeast you're using is designed to work a little cooler, give it the time to work; don't ferment too warm if you can avoid it (some of us can't for lack of easy temperature control,and we use yeasts better suited for those conditions). Yes, the Laaglander is notorious for the reasons you mention. I don't use it anymore, because some of those "unfermentables," I speculate, eventually do partially ferment and have left some of my beers overcarbonated over time. (BTW, for the time I've used it, I did because it was the only "extra light" DME I could find. More recently, I found a new(?) M&F extra-light--can anyone comment on that product?) Yes, a longer time in primary would have been the way to go, but what to do about what you have now? I'd go with some more yeast if the SG hasn't fallen significantly in secondary. Laaglander or not, it's not ready to bottle at 1.030. See what other advice you get, but that's my thirty-two cents' worth. Now go have a beer, Bob Paolino / Disoriented in Badgerspace /uswlsrap at ibmmail.com Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 95 11:08:07 EST From: Pierre Jelenc <pcj1 at columbia.edu> Subject: Orange and purple colors In HBD #1646 hollen at megatek.com (Dion Hollenbeck) says: > In talking with a representative of EcoLab who makes sanitizers, he > mentioned that neither iodophor nor quatenary sanitizers can be > evaluated for their effectiveness based on the color of the solution. Quaternary ammonium salts are essentially colorless, so of course color means nothing in their case; and I have never read anyone claim the contrary, either. However, in the case of iodophors the iodine _is_ colored, and _is_ the active ingredient, so that as long as the solution still has the original hue, it is fully active. Your salesman is either full of hot air or is trying to increase consumption. "Harralson, Kirk" <kwh at roadnet.ups.com> asks: > A local grocery store has one of those fill-your-own-bottle super pure > water dispenser.I noticed a purplish glow near the dispenser that turned > out to be coming from an infrared light that is turned on and surrounds > the water when pouring.I asked about this, and was told it was for > sanitary purposes. That is not IR but UV; it is a germicidal lamp. Very bad for the eyes! Pierre Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 1995 11:12:39 -0500 (EST) From: Mark Kempisty - 957-8365 <MKEMPISTY at gic.gi.com> Subject: Good chiller connections. In HBD #1646 Kirk Harralson complains of a leaky immersion wort chiller where it connects to the faucet. I made one last year out of 0.5 inch O.D. copper tubing, 0.5 inch I.D. vinyl tubing, hose clamps to fit and a 0.5 inch garden hose coupler repair kit. The vinyl tubing slips snugly over the copper. I added hose clamps to make sure it did not leak and would not slip off. The last thing my wife needs to see me do is hose down the kitchen. It was bad enough when I bumped the trig- ger on the bottle washer and washed the kitchen ceiling. As for connecting the tubing to the female garden hose connecter it is a little more work. This coupler is made to go VERY tightly into 0.5 inch garden hose. You then are supposed to bend down ten or so steel tabs to hold the hose in place. To get the vinyl tube to go on the hose coupler, I placed it in boiling water for 30 seconds. This softened the vinyl enough that I could slide it over the end of the coupler. When everything cooled, it looked like it would never come off. However, I added a hose clamp for good measure. The original tabs just stick out. They get in the way a little when screwing it to the faucet. However, I can live with that. To hook it to the faucet I use the same addapter that I use for the bottle washer. It works perfectly even at full open. No leaks. Isn't it great to bring boiling wort down to 110 F in 5 to 10 minutes? Mark - mkempisty at gic.gi.com Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 1995 11:09:23 -0400 (EDT) From: JUKNALIS at arserrc.gov Subject: Raspberry imperial stout Hey Folks- Has anyone made the "Breakfast of Champions Imperial Stout Framboise" found on p. 73 of the 1990 Zymurgy Hops issue? In particular I am curious about the timing of addition of raspberry/syrup & the use of 11oz of hops in a 5 gallon batch. Yow! TIA Joe Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 1995 12:55:51 +0000 From: Brian Gowland <B.Gowland at rhbnc.ac.uk> (Tel +44 784 443167) Subject: Re: Cask conditioning In HBD 1642, <ferguson at zendia.enet.dec.com> wrote: > > > >Kirk asks: > > > ><What is the distinction (for American amateurs) between > >cask conditioning and priming in the keg? The terms seem > >to be synonymous as I've seen them used. > > [Main answer deleted] > > cask-ale _might_ be a bit cloudy, however, this being undesirable, > lots of english brewers producing cask ales _do_ filter and/or use > isinglass. > I'd be interested to know which English breweries (assuming you mean commercial breweries) filter their Real Ales (cask-conditioned ales). If they did, it would have to be a very coarse filtering as, by definition, cask-conditioned ales undergo a secondary fermantation in the cask (as you yourself mentioned). Reducing or removing yeast content would impede or stop any conditioning activity. Isinglass or a similar fining agent is, to my knowledge, used by most if not all UK breweries in their cask-conditioned Real Ales. This removes the need to filter and the fining agent does not impede the conditioning process. Isinglass in particular is a very useful fining agent as it has the ability to re-fine the beer if the cask is disturbed (during delivery to a pub for instance). In saying that, however, there are two occasions when a UK brewery would filter their beers. The first is if the beer is destined for keg storage and dispensing. After primary fermentation and perhaps a short conditioning period in storage tanks in the brewery, the beer would be filtered and put into keg for CO2 dispensing. Many breweries keg their beers as well as supplying them in casks as there are varying preferences to the two methods in different parts of the country. The second occasion would be when a special purchase is made from the brewery, often by a private individual for a social occasion such as a wedding or birthday party etc. In this case, it may not be possible to allow the beer to settle for a sufficiently long period of time and so the brewery will provide conditioned Real Ale that has been filtered and is ready to drink. This is known as "Bright" beer. It is possible that some UK breweries may supply Bright ales to pubs for dispensing by hand-pump but these cannot be considered to be cask-conditioned ales. As for the issue about cask-conditioned ales possibly being cloudy and the need for Isinglass, my homebrewing experiences show that this is rarely the case if the brewer is sufficiently patient. Commercial breweries need to brew, ferment, cask and deliver ales in maybe as little as two weeks. Once delivered, the pubs need to serve the beer as quickly as possible and hence the need for Isinglass etc. In the homebrew environment, after the primary fermentation, my "Real Ales" go into plastic pressure barrels for a maturation and conditioning period of a minimum of three weeks before drinking - I do not prime and I do not fine. At three weeks, I have never had an ale that was cloudy as a result of yeast/sediment (I suffer from the occasional protein haze on certain ales but thats another issue). Anyway, this isn't meant as a criticism - just some views from an Englishman who rarely drinks anything other than cask-conditioned ales. :) Cheers, Brian Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 95 9:38:10 MST From: Norman Pyle (npyle) <npyle at hp7013.ecae.StorTek.COM> Subject: Hops Questions Regarding the hops utilization question from Al Folsom, yes it has been beat to death, but the bottom line is this: there is no concensus. The Rager numbers may not be perfect but they give a decent foundation with which to build on. I use them and make some minor adjustments to them, which seems to work very well for me. From what I've heard, the people using the Garetz numbers have been brewing overly hopped beers. His analysis makes logical sense but the actual values have little practical application. ** Phil Miller asks about rinsing his hops: >...................I feel that, by rinsing the hops, I rinsed off >more hop oils than I desire (recall the hop amounts were not high for my >standards (never more than 1 oz boiling hops, usually cascade, kent goldings, >brewer's gold, or fuggles). Also, letting the hops sit in the cooling >water could also draw extra hop oils from the hops, IMO. >I realize I changed a lot of variables in my brewing process, but the end >result has been an excellent wheat beer, pale ale, and brown ale. I feel >that the biggest differences have been not boiling th specialty grains and >not rinsing the hops, the latter being the cause, IMO, of my original problem. >I welcome comments, and if my opinions about rinsing the hops are not >correct, please correct me. Post or email is fine. Phil, it is not the hop oils that would give you excess bitterness, but the alpha acids from the hops. Also, some hops give a more harsh bitterness than others, Brewer's Gold for example. You might check the type of hops in each batch to see if this undesirable feature isn't a function of hop type as well as quantity. Letting them steep in hot wort while it is cooling will give better utilization of late additions, adding to the final bitterness, but rinsing them probably has little effect. Norm (the Hops FAQ guy) Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 95 11:46 EST From: "Brian Shewchuk" <BMS8 at PSUVM.PSU.EDU> Subject: Malt extracts I have a question regarding malt extracts: Extracts are described by their color (light, amber, dark etc.). Are these different types achieved by adding different amounts of different specialty grains to a pale malt base in t he mash, or by using only one malt, roasted to varying degrees ( I realize that enzyme activity would have to be maintained somehow)? Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 95 9:50:46 MST From: Norman Pyle (npyle) <npyle at hp7013.ecae.StorTek.COM> Subject: Control Theory Teddy Winstead goes into some detail about control systems, including "Bang-bang", PD/PID, and AI (artificial intelligence). What you neglected to mention Teddy is another method called AI (Actual Intelligence). A little trial and error gets you to the final result much quicker than you might think from reading textbooks. Overshoot isn't even the biggest problem with "bang-bang". Frying the enzymes in the small sample being heated is the biggest problem area with this type of system. So, using Actual Intelligence, one would adjust flow rates and heating power to avoid overheating the recirculating liquid, and this inherently avoids overshoot. Think about it. I would recommend manual control of these parameters (possibly just one of them) for a few reasons: it is simple, less-expensive, and keeps you involved in the brewing process (which I consider a good thing). A side benefit is of course, you don't have to do all that studying about control theory! Cheers, Norm Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 95 13:27:48 AST From: rleblanc at hfx.shl.com (Ray LeBlanc) Subject: suscribe homebrew digest Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 1995 13:24:56 EST From: Patrick G. Babcock <usfmchql at ibmmail.com> Subject: RE:Halogens vs Stainless Steel... *** Resending note of 02/01/95 12:50 * Man's mind, stretched by a new idea, never goes back to its * * original dimension. - Oliver Wendell Holmes * Subject: RE:Halogens vs Stainless Steel... -=> Gunther points out that all halogens attack stainless, so sodium- or potassium-metabisulfate should be used... Your point is valid regarding halogens; however, per my sources (and, again, I'm not an expert), chlorine is particularly reactive with stainless steel. I don't know exactly where Iodine falls on 'the scale', but it is my understanding that it is substantially less reactive than chlorine; and somewhat more reactive than bromine. It is my opinion that sanitizing solutions of iodine may damage stainless steel over the life of the product (ie. keg). Sanitizing solutions of chlorine have been demonstrated to damage (ie. perforate) SS in as little as 24 hours. The difference between using solutions of bleach and iodophur is sort of like the difference between standing in front of a pedestrian and a train. Either way, you're going to get hit; but one of them is more likely to kill you. <G> Just my opinion. Another point to consider: Metabisulfites/ates do not sanitize. They only inhibit growth. (Gunther: Sorry to blind-side you like this, but I lost your note. Therefor, I couldn't return the courtesy of an advance copy. Again, I apologize!) Yes. Me again... P.G. Babcock President, etc. Drinkur Purdee pico Brewery Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 95 12:46:40 -0600 From: jay_weissler at il.us.swissbank.com (Jay Weissler) Subject: orange peel , Kirk has seen the light Can anyone give me a pointer to a mail order source for either (or both) bitter and sweet orange peel? Also, Kirk Harralson has seen the light in a bottled water machine. (isn't Rising Sun near Bel Air? Don't they grow a lot of mushrooms up there? sorry, for the foolishness) Anyway, UV sterilizers (no, not sanitizers) are used by a lot of people with aquariums to zap all the unwanted life growing in the tank. I don't use one. I thought the zap to my wallet was too big and I'm not sure that I don't want all the life in my tank, but they seem to work. jayw Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 1995 17:23:39 -0400 (AST) From: Ed Hitchcock <ehitchcock at sparc.uccb.ns.ca> Subject: IBU's revisited I've been pretty darn busy of late, so I'm a little behind in my response to the IBU thread, but here's my delayed contribution, FWIW. We are all aware that the utilization rate of alpha acids will vary from brewery to brewery, especially on the home brewery scale. Given that, I still find it useful to calculate IBU's using a mathematical formula, because I'm one of those types of people. In the discussions on utilization in the past few days' HBD's I didn't notice any reference to the type of hops, by which I mean whole, compressed whole (type 100 plugs) or pelletized (Type 90), and in my experience this is much more significant than many other factors. So on to the numbers. I use a modified version of the equation in the Hops FAQ as follows: For whole hops: %utilization = 18.11 + 13.86 X htan((time-31.32)/18.23) - (5 - y) For plugs: %utilization = 18.11 + 13.86 X htan((time-31.32)/18.23) - (3 - y) For pellets: %utilization = 18.11 + 13.86 X htan((time+15-31.32)/18.23) + 2 ^^^^^ Where htan (pronounced "than") is the hyptan function, and can be calculated as follows: htan(x) = (e^x - e^(-x)) / (e^x + e^(-x)), and the variable "y" is a correction for batch size, such that y = batch volume(in Litres) / 20, (if y > 5 then y = 5). To justify it so far, it has been noticed that homebrewers tend not to get the utilization rate that large breweries get, hence the correction factor for batches less than 1 hL. The corrections at the end are for differences in maximal utilization for each type of hop. Pellets will give you the most aa/gram, whole uncompressed hops give the least. Plugs are a happy medium. Note that if you take your fresh whole hops and turn them into dust in your coffee maker, your results may look more like those for pellets. The "time + 15" I borrowed from a friend (thanks Miles) who noted that late additions of pellets still gave considerable bitterness. I attribute that to the fact that the lupulin glands are already well ruptured, so initial rate of dissolution is increased. The same friend who gave me the + 15 tip also had a number of his beers tested, and I tweeked the equations above to try to match his recipes with the measured bu's in the end product. In all cases the results were within 10%, within 5% in about half, and bang on for two or three. But of course, your mileage as well as mine may vary. By this point I'm sure at least half a dozen have already started composing flames or questions, so I'll continue. Once you have taken the utilization numbers and plugged them into your favourite function for determining total IBU's (taking wort gravity into account and all that, and using the appropriate constants for SI, US or Imperial units...) you will get an expected value for IBU's. However, there is a tendency for utilization to go down with increased dosage. This is messy to work out, since you would have to recalculate all your utilizations all over again. So, as they used to say in the candy-bar commercial, here comes the fudge: once you have calculated your IBU's, do the following: IBU = IBU - .0012 * IBU^2 (where = is the assignment operator, not an equality sign, of course). With this, there should be little difference in any normal IBU range, but once you get up over 50 IBU, you will start to notice a drop in achieved vs expected. Of course, this is a fudge, and will get out of hand if you get to 150 IBU's or above, but I mean let's be reasonable here... Hope this helps. ed ---------------- ehitchcock at sparc.uccb.ns.ca the Pick & Fossil Picobrewery brewers of Ed's Paleo Pale Ale and Right Coast IPA Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 1995 16:53:54 -0500 (EST) From: 00bkpickeril at bsuvc.bsu.edu Subject: Re: Infrared light (UV light) Kirk Harralson<kwh at roadnet.ups.com> said: > The connection on the "water in" side of my immersion chiller is > A local grocery store has one of those fill-your-own-bottle super pure > water dispenser. I noticed a purplish glow near the dispenser that > turned out to be coming from an infrared light that is turned on and > surrounds the water when pouring. I asked about this, and was told it > was for sanitary purposes. I don't have a clue what the connection > could be. It looked really hoky, but it isn't exactly my field of > expertise... Has anyone else seen one of these, or could shed some > light as to what it is for? We have one of those machines here, for reverse osmosis (RO) water. I'd guess that's what you have, too. The purplish glow is likely from a ultra-violet light. I think UV is pretty good at killing some nasties, so it's a good thing. I really like using RO water for brewing. I just brew extracts and some partial mashes, and pour (dare I say sparge?) the wort ala CP into 3 gallons of chilled RO water. Be sure to sanitize the jugs before filling them, of course. At $.25/gallon, it's cheap and has definitely improved my brews. I'd prob'ly try to use it for all-grain, too, but I don't know if it would require any ph adjustments. Probably would not have enough (any) minerals necessary for all-grain brewing, but could perhaps be used to reduce minerals to desired levels if tap water was too hard. (Besides, I haven't _done_ all grain yet. :-) - --Brian Pickerill <00bkpickeril at leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu> Return to table of contents
Date: 1 Feb 95 14:59:00 -0600 From: korz at iepubj.att.com (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583) Subject: sparging the grain bag/honeymoon?/carbonation/Laaglander DME Keith writes: >Something else you might try is rinsing (sparging) your grain bag and >putting the rinsate in the wort kettle. If you are simply throwing >away the grain bag without rinsing it first, you are throwing away a >lot of fermentables. Perhaps, but it's better to throw away a .001 than to brew an astringent beer. You have to watch the pH of the water with which you rinse your grains whether they are an all-grain mash or just a pound of crystal malt in your extract batch. I made this mistake myself -- when I switched to 5 gallon extract batch boils, I steeped my crystal malts in the whole 5-6 gallons. This resulted in a pH (with my water) of about 7.2. When I realized what I was doing, I started steeping the crystal in only 1 gallon of water (which resulted in a pH of only 5.3, with my water). Gone was the astringency that I had in all my pale beers. ************ My cousin is about to get married and he's a fan of good beer. I spent my honeymoon drinking nothing by Red Stripe and the occasional Guinness when I ventured out of the compound (Sandals). Do any of you have some suggestions for honeymoon places that my cousin-in-law-to-be would enjoy, but that also have some good beer? They are getting married in October, so it would have to be in a warmer climate (i.e. they are sunbathers as opposed to snow skiiers). Private email please: korz at iepubj.att.com. Thanks. ************* Kevin writes: >I brewed my first batch of beer recently and it's only _very_ slightly >carbonated after a week in the bottles. Is it possible that it will develop >more carbonation with more time? If not are there any possibilities to >remedy the problem? > >The beer is a standard ale recipe which was supposed to produce 5 gallons. >When I racked it to my secondary I screwed up a bit on the siphoning and >lost a few quarts. When I bottled it I slightly lowered the amount of >priming sugar (from 3/4 cup to 5/8 cup) to compensate for the decrease in >volume. Did I lower the priming level too much? One week is not that long, especially if the bottles are in a cool place. 3/4 cup is the standard amount for an "American-style" carbonation. If you want a Belgian-style carbonation, you would use slightly more (like 7/8 cup). For an English-style carbonation, 1/2 cup or even 1/3 cup is used. Note that these quanitities are all in terms of corn sugar priming. So, I recommend you wait another week or raise the temperature to about 70F and wait another week. 5/8 cup is not an unreasonable amount of priming sugar even for all 5 gallons. ************* Philip writes: >My OG was 1.072, and at bottling time my brew >had only reached 1.032 (5.2% ABV, 54% apparent attenuation). Here are >the relevant details: > 7 lb Laaglander DME <other ingredients deleted> Your problem is the brand of extract. Laaglander is notorious for leaving a high finishing gravity. >I discussed >this with the supply shop where I bought my ingredients, and was told >that most labs test their yeast strains at around 1.048, and that >higher gravity worts require higher temperatures (65-70F). Does anyone >else's experience confirm this? Absolutely not. Higher gravity wort require more temperature *control* (if you can arrange it, via refrigeration) because higher gravity worts will result in more heat produced during fermentation (fermentation is exothermic). There are plenty of high gravity lagers out there (like Salvator) which are fermented in the mid-to-upper-40's F. >They also felt that I didn't allow >enough contact time with the yeast in the primary: 7-10 days was >recommended, so that may be a contributing factor. When the fermentation noticably dies down, you should still give the beer some time to ferment-out... i.e. you should not bottle the day after the sudden slowdown in CO2 production, but 7-10 days with a good starter and a fast yeast like 1007 should be plenty, even at 62F. No, the real reason for the high FG is the Laaglander. Laaglander is a fine extract, but you must keep in mind that it will leave a high FG and work that into your recipe (e.g. use it for sweet stouts, etc.). Al. Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 95 17:02:00 PST From: Paul Baker <bakerp at amhsgwy.jpl.nasa.gov> Subject: Jim Koch: whada nice guy NOTE: <tm> are implied wherever appropriate in the following... That Jim Koch is such a nice guy. I hardly ever buy any of his beer and normally others drink what I do buy, but he still sends me presents. The latest is a nifty desktop calendar with a different quote or saying for each day. My favorite so far is January 5Th: Social reformer Lady Astor ended a lengthy temperance speech: "I would rather commit adultery than drink a glass of beer." A voice from the crowd bellowed back: "Who wouldn't?" Mr. Koch also sent me a nice Boston Beer Company t-shirt last year. I also get quarterly mailings from him that are a combination personal letter/historical perspective/egotistical advertising. How nice! Except, I am starting to feel a bit guilty in this almost one-way relationship. I am thinking about sending Jim a couple bottles of homebrew and calling it even. [On a more serious note] For my next brew I have decided to make a style that I have not made before. After browsing the AHA Style Guidelines that Mark Simpson sent me last week (thanks Mark) I decided on a Belgian Dubbel. The only problem is after checking all my brewing books and searching though back issues of Zymurgy I can't find a recipe. There is probably one or more in the Belgian Ale Classic Style book, but I don't own that one. If some kind sole would please send me a recipe it would be greatly appreciated. All grain preferred, but I am not extract conversion impaired. TIA Paul Telos Corp./Jet Propulsion Laboratory Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 95 12:30:07 +1100 From: ANDY WALSH <awalsh at ozemail.com.au> Subject: ffts Spencer wrote about Pierre Rajotte recommending forced fermentations for Belgian ales at the Spirit of Belgium. He recommends this in "Belgian Ale" too. I often make Belgian ales but have never tried this, as it is difficult to maintain a mini-fermenter (bottle) at 25C. I always use fresh priming yeast, but only bottle after (say) 1-2 weeks primary (20C) followed by 2-4 weeks secondary(15C), until the beer looks completely still and clear. My reasoning is that even though the yeast might be pooping out, if you leave it this long you can be pretty sure all the fermentables will be gone, and the final gravity will be the same as that from your fft anyway. I have always wondered why the fft approach is the recommended one, as a long secondary maturation certainly does nothing to harm the beer. Am I wrong about this, or is the fft thing just of benefit in being able to bottle the beer (and hence drink!) at the earliest opportunity? Andy. Return to table of contents
Date: 01 Feb 95 20:31:24 EST From: Lori Lathrop <76620.456 at compuserve.com> Subject: Good Canadian Stuff, Eh? Hi. Rusty Iron Dave here on my wife's ID. While traveling in Canada a couple months ago, I ran across a place in Calgary called PRAIRIE BREWERS and purchased an extract kit for "traditional ale" which turned out great. Just perfect for after work and with dinner. I lost the paperwork which accompanied it and would like to order some if someone would be kind enough to refer me to a distributor. I have also read a few comments here regarding grain mills - is a plan available for one I could build from old boiler tubes from work? Thanks in advance. Iron Dave Return to table of contents
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1648, 02/03/95