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


Contents:
  15 Gallon Set-up!!! (Lee Allison)
  INSTALLING VALVES (Tom Wenck)
  OG Calculations ("Fleming, Kirk R., Capt")
  Kitchenaid Grain Mill (Kurt Graffunder)
  OG Calculations/Hydrometer Question (Harold LaRoux)
  re:Primary Explosions (DocsBrew)
  Yields, OG calcs ("Manning Martin MP")
  RE: OG Calculations (Kevin Cavanaugh)
  False Alarm- E-mail Virus (harry)
  Hydrometer troubles/ computer rims (Eamonn McKernan)
  Trip to Belgium: of European interest only (Carl Etnier)
  grain mill? (Ronald R Gonzales)
  My RIMS setup works!  HOORAH! (Teddy Winstead)
  CO2/O2 Purging,Sterilizing Pop Kegs, Autoclaving, Steam Sanitizing (Robert Brown)
  Surface Tension/Bottles ("pratte")
  OG and Extraction -- SUDS results (David Draper)
  Tyrant Ale - Pete's clone (almost)/Bottle Caps/Mittelfrueh Hops (Jeff Hewit)
  OG for dark grains (Kirk R Fleming)
  Re: Warning! E-mail virus? ("Stephen E. Hansen")
  Good times (Eric W. Miller)
  Immersion vs Counterflow in hop bitterness (Robert Chizmadia)
  Repairing enamel pots (Will Self)
  Conditioning Oak Casks (summary) - E-mail Virus (Troy Downing)



******************************************************************
* 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.
******************************************************************
 
#################################################################
#
# YET ANOTHER NEW FEDERAL REGULATION: if you are UNSUBSCRIBING from the
# digest, please make sure you send your request to the same service
# provider that you sent your subscription request!!! I am now receiving
# many unsubscribe requests that do not match any address on my mailing
# list, and effective immediately I will be silently deleting such
# requests.
#
#################################################################
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: Fri, 28 Apr 1995 09:12:10 -0700
From: grandcru at ix.netcom.com (Lee Allison)
Subject: 15 Gallon Set-up!!!

OK, Folks.  I am now getting active around here!  Lurker no more! 'I am 
not an animal!' And all that other nonsense.

Anyway, I would like to thank all of your for your continuing 
assistance here, the posts in this Digest are invaluable, and I feel 
that they are of better quality (the old demon S-to-N Ratio!) than the 
homebrew newsgroup.  Just my dos centavos.

Just yesterday my dad and I got a 20gal (yes, that's twenty!) stock pot 
and a 135,000 btu Bayou Burner (I guess they are competitors of Cajun 
Cookers) stove.  We took our new toys, um... tools that is, home and 
did a test run.  After filling the pot all the way to the handles, 
maybe 18 gallons, we fired up the burner and had a VERY heavy boil in 
40 minutes.  Not too bad.  BTW the cooker AND the stove were $200 
total.  If you want to know where to get yours, e-mail me.

So here's my first question: I am trying to do a pre-brew in my head to 
make sure I know what our procedure is going to be and I want to ask 
any experienced large-scalers out there if there are any difficulties 
involved w/ a large batch that may not be obvious.  I know that I'll 
need to have two chillers going at once, finding space for the 
fermenters will be tough, we are going to need ZILLIONS of bottles, and 
I'll need to pitch about 1 gallon of slurry! ;^) Anything else?

Second query:  We are doubling the ingredients for a 5gal recipie.  
Another freind MAY throw in the ingredients for 5 more gallons so that 
he can help and get his own 2 cases out of this.  I was playing around 
w/ the SUDS recipie formulator and drawing up mash schedules for both a 
10 and 15gal batch.  I noticed that adding the malts for 5 more gallons 
(from 10 to 15) I was able to keep the same OG.  This increased the 
malts by 50%, and the batch size by 50%.  But I had to almost double my 
hop bill to keep the same IBU!  I don't feel that just increasing water 
vol by 50% should require me to double my hops (through some weird Law 
of Diminishing Exponential Returns thing), otherwise I should have to 
double the malts too.  Any help?


      "At what point does a computer stop losing value because it's
       obsolete, and start gaining value because it's an antique?
                            'Cuz, I think I'm there!"

                Lee Allison a.k.a GrandCru at ipx.netcom.com
                               San Antonio, Texas


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 28 Apr 1995 12:23:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: Tom Wenck <twenck at clark.net>
Subject: INSTALLING VALVES

Could someone direct me to information for installing a valve in a 
stainless steel pot.  This is too expensive to ruin.

Also, I have found new SS pots 60qt $139 and 80qt $159.  Aren't these 
really good prices?  Why would anyone buy a converted half keg for $125?

Tom

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 28 Apr 95 10:31:00 MST
From: "Fleming, Kirk R., Capt" <FLEMINGKR at afmcfafb.fafb.af.mil>
Subject: OG Calculations


RE: #1717 where John P asks about suspect numbers for specialty grains.

>I would not expect this kind of unmalted "charcoal" to contribute any 
fermentables >that would raise the OG...

At issue is the discrepancy between those tables showing roast barley to 
contribute 1 pt*gal/lb vs. the malt spec sheets showing the % extraction of 
roast barley (wt/wt) to be 65%.  I'm sorry I can't explain the apparent 
disconnect.  But...John's comment above may be part of the issue.  The only 
thing any grain (malted or otherwise) needs to provide to change OG is 
solubles, NOT fermentables.

Now, when you measure a wort and get, say, 22 deg Plato, the Balling scale 
itself may be based on (mass dissolved sugar)/(mass solution), but the 
hydrometer doesn't know what the density of the solution is due to.  IOW, 
22P does NOT mean you have 22 lbs of fermentable sugar for every 100 lbs of 
wort. [Please no flames on mass vs weight here--we're on Earth and I'm 
talking ratios.]  Still, if you proceeded to *compute* the %E number John 
referred to, you still have to use your 22P to do it--it's the only 
measurement you have (beside sg).

So, you'd compute the extraction weight based on 22P and the total wort 
weight, then divide this extract weight by your grain bill weight to get, 
say, .65 (for 65%).  What does it mean?  To me, it means that from 10 lbs of 
roast barley I extracted 6.5 lbs of *something soluble*.  That's all.

Based on two recent mashes of just chocolate, roast barley, and black patent 
malts, and based only on apparent viscosity and stickiness (tactile and 
visual observations ONLY), I would not be surprised to see a %E of 65.  I AM 
surprised to see the value of 1 listed as the yield of any grain.  Again, OG 
has nothing to do with the fermentability of the extracted solute.

So, as usual, I've not answered any questions, especially not the reason for 
the apparent discrepancy between 65% extraction and 1 pt*gal/lb yield.  My 
OPINION is the 1 pt*gal/lb number is wrong or is not what we think it is. 
 Although my current equipment allows me to only measure mass to about +/- 
10 g, I'll do an experiment this weekend to get the best numbers I can for a 
sample of the darkest grains, and will post Sunday night.  Even if a reader 
can actually *answer* John's question (rather than just obfuscating it like 
I did), my curiousity is now peaked and can only be satisfied by...brewing. 
 As always, comments and critiques welcome, but please, no wagering.

Kirk R Fleming / Colorado Springs / flemingk at usa.net


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 28 Apr 95 11:18:21 PDT
From: graff008 at maroon.tc.umn.edu (Kurt Graffunder)
Subject: Kitchenaid Grain Mill

Subject: Re: Kitchenaid Grain Mill
homebrew at hpfcmi.fc.hp.com (
 dsanderson at msgate.cv.com asks:

>Can anyone provide a review of the Kitchenaid Grinding Mill for homebrew
>purposes?  It's a plate variety that is highly adjustable and appears to
>be of very high quality.

>A dealer here in Massachusetts has them for $118.

I have owned a Kitchenaid grain mill for more than 15 years.  The mill I
have is model GM-A.  I don't know if this is the current model.   In a 3 
year period I made over 30 five gallon batches of beer with this mill,  
but quit using it for beer making 2 years ago.   

This mill is somewhat similar to the Corona in design,  but is powered by 
the Kitchenaid mixer.  It has very sharp burrs which tend to cut the grain 
rather than crushing it.  The Burr is adjustable and can be set to create 
a usable grain particle size.  The hulls are damaged by the sharp burrs,  
but a course grind can be used to preserve enough large pieces of husk to 
create a useable filter bed.  I usually had slow sparges when I used this 
mill.

The box my mill came in claims that the mill can grind 1/4 lb. of grain 
(wheat) per minute.  I found that my mill ground malted barley at about 
10 min. per lb.   It took more than an hour to grind the grain for a 
typical 5 gallon batch of all grain beer.  My Kitchenaid grain mill is 
also painfully noisy and the small hopper(~ 1/2 lb.) keeps one close to 
the mill during grinding.

Overall,  the Kitchenaid grain mill I own is great for bread making but 
is not recommended for all grain beer making.

Kurt Graffunder
graff008 at maroon.tc.umn.edu

 





Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 28 Apr 1995 11:44:01 -0500
From: breworks at appsmiths.com (Harold LaRoux)
Subject: OG Calculations/Hydrometer Question

In HBD #1717 John Palmer <palmer at ssdgwy.mdc.com> wrote regarding malt spec
sheets extract % and homebrewers observed extract %:

<numbers deleted>
>My Doubts about these numbers surfaced yesterday when I was looking at Malt
>Spec. sheets with Mike Froehlich over at his homebrew shop.  Those spec. sheets
>quoted the % Percent extract for various malts as ranging from 60-75% by
>weight. Roast Barley being 65%. This was confusing as I would not expect this
>kind of unmalted "charcoal" to contribute any fermentables that would raise the
>OG.
>
>I went home and pulled another copy of BT which had another recipe formulation
>article by Martin Manning, and in it he quoted a formula that converted these
>percent extractions to specific gravity:
>
>SG = %E x lbs x 46.31 / volume; which means for 1 lb/gal you multiply the %E by
>46.31. I am not sure of the source of that constant. 
>
>What this tells me is that 1 lb of Roasted Barley in 1 gallon of water would
>raise the OG by ~28 pts!  I don't think so!!  Am I missing something here?
>

Specific Gravity is simply a measure of the density (wt/vol) of a substance
(in this case wort) in relation to pure H2O, which was arbitrarily assigned
an SG of 1.000. The density of a liquid can change due to many factors, of
which "dissolved fermentables" are just one. Anything with a density greater
than water, which can be disolved into water, will raise the SG (including
unmalted "charcoal"). The numbers given on malt spec. sheets for extract %
are arrived at under laboratory analysis on fresh malt and as such YMMV due
to your equipment, technique, and condition of your malt. Regretfully, it is
(almost?) always lower for homebrewers due to poor mashing technique and too
coarse grinding.

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

Also P. Brooks <pbrooks at rig.rain.com> asks about Hydrometers:

<snip>
> just before the hydrometer stops spinning, it
>sort of sallies over to the edge of the tube, and neck of the hydrometer
>seems to almost magically attach itself to the side of the tube, with a
>little wort between the tube wall and the neck of the hydrometer rising in
>a small 'mound' above the surface of the rest of the wort (No, I'm not
>going to attempt ascii graphics of the whole thing here ;-)).  In the
>process of 'becoming affixed', the hydrometer rises a few points - leading
>me to try again.
>
>Here's the question - why does my hydrometer love the wall of it's tube
>home? Surface tension? Inter-molecular translocation? Karma? And possibily
>more relavent - how can I make it stop.

Surface tension is indead your culprit. Easiest solution - use something
with a larger diameter for your test jar (I know that this will waste more
beer - but you will worry less)

Harold LaRoux
Houston Texas


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 28 Apr 1995 13:07:48 -0400
From: DocsBrew at aol.com
Subject: re:Primary Explosions

>Is my batch ruined or just stick it out and wait??
WAIT!  WAIT!! My housekeeper called my office one day in a panic - "The beer
exploded!" she said in her oh-so-cute broken english.  When I got home, there
was trub on the ceiling and beer foaming over the top of my (plastic)
fermenter.  I didn't know what to do, so I covered it up, and scrubbed the
ceiling.  Three months later we enjoyed a beautiful Christmas beer.  The
problem?? I've not yet been able to duplicate the recipe!  I guess I can't
figure out how to make the thing blow up at the proper time!  Don't get me
wrong - I've made some killer Christmas beers, but none that stand up to the
one that exploded.
Nevah, nevah, nevah give up!!
Doc.

Return to table of contents


Date: 28 Apr 1995 14:00:34 U
From: "Manning Martin MP" <manning_martin_mp at mcst.ae.ge.com>
Subject: Yields, OG calcs

From: "Palmer.John" <palmer at ssdgwy.mdc.com>

>...I was looking at Malt Spec. sheets with Mike Froehlich over at his
>homebrew shop.  Those spec. sheets quoted the % Percent extract for >various
malts as ranging from 60-75% by weight. Roast Barley being >65%. This was
confusing as I would not expect this kind of unmalted >"charcoal" to
contribute any fermentables that would raise the OG.

These numbers seem typical of what is  called the "coarse grind as-is
extract" figure (as-is means including moisture content).  If you check the
table in Noonan's "Brewing Lager Beer," similar values will be shown.  The
extracts for caramel malts you quoted from the King article look way too low
to me, relative to the figure for pale (30). The 30 pts/lb/gal there implies
a %-yield of 65%, compared to a typical coarse grind as-is figure of 75%. 
That means an efficiency of around 87% has already been applied.

If you have a data sheet for the malts you are using, by all means use those
figures.  The tables published in the brewing books are only typical numbers,
and the authors always fail to mention the basis on which they are quoted.  I
am able to hit target gravities with high accuracy by taking the coarse grind
as-is figure from the malt spec sheets to be the theoretical maximum yield in
my brew house, and reducing it by an 80-85% efficiency factor.  Also,
remember "extract" is not necessarily fermentables, rather it is anything
that raises the SG, and it is all assumed to be sucrose.  Those dark malts
are usually only 10% of the grain bill, so a little inaccuracy there is
reduced by a factor of 10, and may not be noticed without very careful weight
and volume measurements.  

>I went home and pulled another copy of BT which had another recipe
>formulation article by Martin Manning, and in it he quoted a formula >that
converted these percent extractions to specific gravity:

>SG = %E x lbs x 46.31 / volume; 

>which means for 1 lb/gal you multiply the %E by 46.31. I am not sure of >the
source of that constant. 

This equation is derived in a previous BT article I wrote, "Understanding
Specific Gravity and Extract" (see the reference in the subject article). 
46.31 (points/lb/gal) is the SG increase (yield) for 100% sucrose.  

>What this tells me is that 1 lb of Roasted Barley in 1 gallon of water
>would raise the OG by ~28 pts!  

Exactly so.

>I have had good success using the numbers quoted above and it occurs >to me
that they may in fact be adjustments made by figuring a 90% >mash/lauter
efficiency...  ...I would like to understand the >discrepancies and any fudge
factors before I write about this again.

The fudge factor is the mash lauter efficiency, and 90% is probably a bit
high for us amateurs.  You are likely overestimating your efficiency, and
underestimating the maximum yield from your grains.  A mega-brewmaster told
me last week that he can get into the low-mid 90's at his plant.  I was
careful to ask him the basis of that figure, and he affirmed that it was
based on coarse grind as-is data.

Martin Manning

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 28 Apr 95 14:51:21 EDT
From: cavanaug at gdc.com (Kevin Cavanaugh)
Subject: RE: OG Calculations

John Palmer writes:

>Those spec. sheets quoted the % Percent extract for various malts as 
>ranging from 60-75% by weight. Roast Barley being 65%. This was 
>confusing as I would not expect this kind of unmalted "charcoal" to 
>contribute any fermentables that would raise the OG.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I didn't  think that only fermentables raise 
the O.G.  Even if that which is extracted from a particular grain was 
completely unfermentable, wouldn't it raise the O.G. ?   Its just the 
density of the extract compared to water that changes the specific 
gravity, whether or not its fermentable.  True, it would have a limiting 
effect on the final gravity,  but the original gravity would go up.  I can't 
remember which book I got my numbers from (Miller ?) but they are 
much higher than John's.  I use 24 for crystal and roasted barley.  I wish 
suppliers would print the values for grain like the hop suppliers do.   
This info would be quite helpful in designing recipes.

Kevin 

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 28 Apr 1995 14:56:41 -0400
From: hbush at pppl.gov (harry)
Subject: False Alarm- E-mail Virus

        Evidently, the previous message I posted regarding the "Good Times"
virus is based upon a hoax. This virus (according to the CIAC) does not
exist. Sorry for the waste of bandwidth ( and a loss of precious AI Robot
points- nyuk nyuk).

>WHO IS CIAC?
>>
>>CIAC is the U.S. Department of Energy's Computer Incident Advisory
>>Capability.  Established in 1989, shortly after the Internet Worm, CIAC
>>provides various computer security services free of charge to employees
>>and contractors of the DOE, such as: Incident Handling consulting, Computer
>>Security Information, On-site Workshops, White-hat Audits.
>>
>>CIAC is located at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and is a part of
>>its Computer Security Technology Center.  CIAC is also a founding member of
>>FIRST, the Forum of Incident Response and Security Teams, a global
>>organization established to foster cooperation and coordination among
>>computer security teams worldwide.
>>
>>CONTACTING CIAC
>>
>>If you require additional assistance or wish to report a vulnerability, call
>>CIAC at 510-422-8193, fax messages to 510-423-8002 or send E-mail to
>>ciac at llnl.gov.




Harry

 ..............................................

"If it bleeds, we can kill it!"- Arnold S.
 ..............................................



Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 28 Apr 1995 15:41:24 -0400
From: eamonn at chinook.physics.utoronto.ca (Eamonn McKernan)
Subject: Hydrometer troubles/ computer rims

P brooks says his hydrometer sticks to the side of the flask. I get the
same thing happening when I rest the flask on the washing machine at home. 
Why? Because it's not a flat surface. Rest the falsk on something level, 
and your problem will go away.
*******
I know a number of you are waiting for my computer rims report. well I
had to hand in an incomplete assignment to my prof because the job was
too big to finish in time. I'm rather mad at myself, but it is a big
project. Anyways, I'll post when it's done, but that might still be
a couple of weeks away. Sorry. 
	eamonn McKernan
	eamonn at rainbow.physics.utoronto.ca
p.s. Kirk, I figured out the robot joke, so don't feel that everyone's
against you on this one. In fact I thought it quite funny indeed. 

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 28 Apr 1995 22:21:54 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Carl Etnier <Carl.Etnier at abc.se>
Subject: Trip to Belgium: of European interest only

A mini-bus full of enthusiastic beer fans will leave Stockholm on May
24, bound for beer destinations in Belgium, Germany, and Holland. We
will be back June 2. If there is anyone from Scandinavia who wants to
join us, or anyone else who wants to meet up with us there, drop me a
line.

Hints on what to see and avoid from experienced low country beer
hands are also greatly appreciated.

Carl Etnier
A transplanted Yank in Trosa, Sweden

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 28 Apr 95 13:26:02 PST
From: Ronald R Gonzales <Ronald_R_Gonzales at ccm.rr.intel.com>
Subject: grain mill?

     
     I recently bought a corona "corn mill" at the local flea market, and I 
     am wondering if I will be able to use this for barley malt? or did I 
     waste 35 bucks?
     
     TIA
     
     Ron G.

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 28 Apr 1995 15:43:01 -0500 (CDT)
From: winstead%brauerei at cs.tulane.edu (Teddy Winstead)
Subject: My RIMS setup works!  HOORAH!

Well, I've finally completed my RIMS setup.  I made a batch of oatmeal
stout, partly because that's what I wanted to make, and partly because
I wanted to see how my setup could handle sticky, unmalted adjuncts
like oatmeal.  It worked great, but I had some points to make, and
some questions to ask here in the open --

My system is pretty typical.  I used an Omron PID controller for the
temperature control, a Little Giant pump for recirculation, a copper
manifold for the heating element (which is a 4500 watt jobbie run at
120 VAC), Teflon hose to connect everything together (this stuff
wasn't that expensive, and it's *well* worth it -- I paid $15 for 5
feet), and a stainless steel half-barrel converted keg with a
stainless steel mesh false bottom.  I planned on using just a ball
valve on the pump outlet to control flow rate, but this proved to be
pretty unnecessary, as the ID of the hose that I have is 3/8", and flow
is just about perfect (but I've never seen another RIMS system, so
this is totally subjective).

My complaints are -- 

The temperature boosts went too slow.  Approximately 1 F per minute.
This stinks, and I'm thinking about switching to a bigger (5500 watt,
still running it at 120 VAC) heating element to help this out.  The
wort exiting the heating chamber is only a couple degrees higher than
that in the mash tun already, so that I don't think that scorching
would be a problem.  *I DID use too much water (inadvertently)* for my
first batch -- about 1.8 qts/lb.  Do you folks think that cutting back
on the water will speed up the temperature boost?  What do you think
about using a bigger element?

I thought that I could just pump water into the mash tun through the
RIMS heating chamber, but I think that this disturbed the grain bed
WAY too much, so next time I'll do it another way.  Anyone else try
pumping the sparge water in?

What kind of mash programs are you RIMS users using?  I tried a
40-60-70 C (104-140-158 F) program, but the slow temperature changes made
this take *FOREVER*.  Next time, I'm thinking of doing just a 55-70 C
(131-158 F) schedule next time to simplify things.

Can anyone recommend some good liquid quick-disconnects that I could
use in this system?  Ideally they would have 1/2" NPT thread on one
end, and 3/8" hose barb on the other, but I'd like to hear about
anything that people are using.

My favorite things about the system are --

Mashing is just a push-button process now.  I was having some troubles
with the PID controller overshooting, but I've straightened that out
now by manually doing boosts, and letting the PID controller handle
the stabilizing and holding of the temperature, which is more what it
is designed to do.  Manually doing boosts doesn't really bug me too
much, since it's basically just a matter of keeping half an eye on the
temperature gauge.  I really wish that the PID controller I bought
could do everything, but I ended up getting a cheaper model...

The color and clarity of the finished wort were unlike anything that
I've ever seen.  Incredible!

Well, I'm planning on doing *LOTS* of brewing over the next few weeks
before summer sets in here.  My brew day will be *ALOT* shorter now
(I'd say when I work everything out, it'll only take about 4.5 hours).
So I'm planning 10 gallons of Munich Helles, 5 gallons of Dunkle
Weizen, 5 gallons of pLambic, and 5 gallons of Dubbel.

Please send me suggestions or comments.  If you'd like to ask
questions, then fire away.


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 28 Apr 1995 17:25:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: Robert Brown <rbrown00 at uoguelph.ca>
Subject: CO2/O2 Purging,Sterilizing Pop Kegs, Autoclaving, Steam Sanitizing

My first HBD post...
For these Procedures you need a steam generator/modified pressure cooker

Warning: Steam is very HOT! (enough said)
	 Any pressure cooker modification must NOT bypass safety features.

Purging O2 and sterilizing your pop kegs
 -Connect steam generator (via valve + pressure hose) to open keg outlet
 -Open steam valve and pop keg outlet
 -Wait until live steam exits keg (i.e. keg no longer condenses steam,100C)
 -Allow live steam to blow out remaining O2,steam/water costs a lot less than 
CO2 so just give 'er :) 
 -Close keg inlet valve and let it fill with pure steam at 15 psi, 121C 
and hold there for 15 min. (No Name autoclave)(Don't over heat cooker)
 -Turn off steam valve + heat source
 -Release excess steam from keg
 -Add a few psi of CO2 to keg and let cool to room temp. (I would read HBD)
 -expel cold water from bottom of keg through outlet
=STERILIZED pop keg full of CO2 and a few drops of distilled H2O (No?)

 Questions Comments Rude remarks, then I'll continue

Autoclaving (121C, 15psi, 15 min.)
 -Method #1: Brand Name Monogrammed Autoclave ($$$$$- need I say more)
 -Method #2: Pressure cooker, water, stove, a few minutes of your time
 -Method #3: See above but put stuff in the hole of the pop keg (P,T,t)

 Have a homebrew to limber up your fingers for typing replies about 
 safety considerations

Steam Sanitizing (100C, no pressure, more time(20-30min))
 Some of your equipement just won't fit in a pop keg will it
 -Apply live steam (not condensing) in or through your kegs, carboys, C-F 
wort chillers, siphon hoses for a while
 -Remember to clean and sanitize everything beforehand as usual
 -Cool glass carboys slowly and gently (re:hot wort glass and temp. diff.)
 -A bung and homemade sterile cotton filter (in empty bubbler?) will clean 
 air drawn in by the vacuum of the condensing steam. 
 -Bung and Co2 line same idea but no oxygen for racking into secondary
  -Invert carboy and crack open bung to get rid of condensed water

condensing/contracting steam; Will Self please take note and apply to your 
brew pot problem as necessary; my e-mail to you bounced(drop me a line)

Caution: Live steam melts/deforms some plastic and rubber washers 
,gaskets, seals, racking canes, bubblers, etc.

Distilling H2O
 -Steam sanitize C-F wort chiller as above and turn on the cold tap and 
see what comes out


I have used some but not all  of these methods so please evaluate, 
asses, confirm and deny these procedures for yourself.

Modify and use this type of equipement with an understanding of your and 
its limitations and the potential danger and need for safety.  

		A brew to you  		Rob

For me these are original applications, so please let me know what your  
impressions are.  And Yes I know that to sterilize all your equipement 
would be time consuming and not really necessary.  But cleaner equipement 
means peace of mind to worry worts.  Yes Will Self I'm talking about you 
and your pot contracting thingy.:) 


Return to table of contents


Date:          Fri, 28 Apr 1995 17:37:41 EST
From: "pratte" <PRATTE at GG.csc.peachnet.edu>
Subject:       Surface Tension/Bottles

P Brooks asks why is his hydrometer sticking to the side of the tube:

At the risk of being taken to task again for answering a science 
question: Yes, you're right, surface tension is holding your 
hydrometer to the side of the tube.  How to get rid of this?  Don't 
let the hydrometer get near the wall of the tube.  This is done by 
holding the tube plumb.  If you do, then the hydrometer should stick 
up through the center of the tube.  What I'm not sure of, though, is 
why you are spinning the hydrometer.  To insure that the hydrometer 
will settle to an accurate reading, simply push down very gently 
while the tube is plumb and wait for it to come to rest.  By spinning 
the hydrometer, you are creating a dynamic situation in the beer that 
is not good for making your reading (Bernoulli effect, Ekman layers, 
etc. and, yes, I know that they would be small effects, but you 
should always take your measurements under the same condition.).

In response to David Foulk (hi down in Statesboro):
I see nothing wrong with the kind of bottles you use or how you store 
them.  As I stated a couple of months ago, I put a good deal of my 
beer in clear Barq's root beer longneck bottles.  They are made of 
the sturdiest, thickest glass I can find.  I've never had a problem 
with them breaking during bottling or due to overcarbonation.  All I 
do is store them in the basement in boxes until I put them in the 
fridge.  So far, no skunk.  I think as long as you take the right 
precautions, the color of the bottle doesn't matter one bit.

John

________________________________________________________________
Dr. John M. Pratte                 pratte at gg.csc.peachnet.edu
Clayton State College              Office (404)961-3674
Morrow, GA  30260                  Fax (404)961-3700
________________________________________________________________


Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 29 Apr 1995 08:50:10 +1000 (EST)
From: David Draper <ddraper at laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au>
Subject: OG and Extraction -- SUDS results

Dear Friends, in HBD 1717, John Palmer discussed the differing data he's 
seen about the amount of fermentable material added to the wort by 
various grains, and asked about how this is handled in some of the 
non-Mac brew ware programs.  I use SUDS for this, so here's my comments 
on how well the data contained there appear to match what I actually 
get. 

Here are some of the values that are included in the "Malt Maintenance" 
section in the program, in terms of the pts/lb/gal one would get from
mashing 1 lb of the grain in question in 1 US gallon of water under
conditions of 100% extraction efficiency: pale ale 2-row, 36; Pils and
lager 2-row, 35; Wheat malt, 39; Light Crystal (10 to 20 L), 31; Medium
Crystal (40 to 60 L), 30; Dark crystal (80 to 120 L), chocolate malt,
flaked barley, and roast barley 29. These are very different from the
numbers that John quoted as used in his spreadsheet, but the 29 for roast
barley, for example, is close to the 28 he arrived at from the other
sources he quoted. 

Here's a comparison of the calcs from a recent batch of pale ale.  Grain
bill was 3 kg of Australian Schooner malt, 100 gr each of 80 L crystal,
20-ish L amber malt, flaked barley, and wheat malt, and 25 gr of 
chocolate malt.  I used the numbers above for these grains, i.e. 36 ppg 
max extract for the base malt, 29 ppg for all the other grains except the 
wheat malt which was 39.  Total grain in the mash was thus 3.425 kg, and 
using my values the contributions possible from each type were 31.5 ppg 
from the base malt, 2.8 from the crystal, amber, etc., and 1.1 from the 
wheat malt, for a max possible of 35.4 ppg from this bill at the 
SUDS-ordained 100% efficiency.  If we use the values that John has in his 
post, the corresponding contributions are 26.3 from the base malt, 0.95 
from the crystals etc., and 0.75 from the wheat malt, for a max possible 
of 28 ppg.  

You probably can see this coming.  After sparging, I had 22 L (5.8 US gal)
of 1045 wort--that works out to 34.6 ppg (I used a 40-60-70 Fix mash
schedule for 30, 50, and 10 min respectively followed by a 77 deg. 
mashout, sparged in about 50 min using slotted-copper manifold in a
poorly-insulated bucket lauter tun), only a little above the mid-33's I've
been getting since my routine settled in with this hardware and the Fix
routine.  This is about 95-96% efficiency of the SUDS max.  Obviously, if
John's values are correct, there is no way on this green Earth to get that
much fermentable sugar out of the grain bill I used.  I estimate that my
extraction result is uncertain only be a few percent--the only thing that
could be off is my volume measurement, and there's no way it's off by more
than a litre, and if so I still get 33 ppg (i.e. I chilled my sample of
wort to room T before measuring the gravity, so that the temperature
correction would be as small as possible). 

I can only conclude that John's numbers are amiss somehow, because I
routinely hit my target gravities after sparging using the data in the
SUDS program.  That is, I plug in about a 90% efficiency in the SUDS
program and always come very close to target after sparging.  FWIW, some
time ago I augmented the SUDS data with those in Chris Campanelli's
program (his set includes a wider range of malts) and did not find much
difference in that dataset. 

Cripes, I always set out for a brief post, and they always end up so 
long!  Sorry for the long-windedness.  Hope this helps.

Cheers, Dave in Sydney (we'll skip the sig today)


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 28 Apr 1995 22:25:47 -0400
From: jhewit at freenet.vcu.edu (Jeff Hewit)
Subject: Tyrant Ale - Pete's clone (almost)/Bottle Caps/Mittelfrueh Hops



I've been trying to brew something close to Pete's Wicked Ale,
IMO one of the better widely available micros.  I found a
number of recipes here and on RCB, all different.  I merged
what seemed to be the better suggestions from these recipes,
plus what I read on the label (without looking, can anyone tell
me what two ingredients are indicated on the neck label?) and
came up with Tyrant Ale (Tyrants are wicked, aren't they?).

6.6 lb amber LME (I used Northwestern)
1.0 lb amber DME
1.0 lb amber crystal malt
0.5 lb chocolate malt
1.25 oz Brewers Gold Hops - boiling (60+ min)
1.00 oz Willamette Hops - aroma (end of boil)
0.50 oz Willamette Hops - dry
1 tsp gypsum
1 tsp Irish Moss
Liquid Ale Yeast (I used William's English Brewery Ale)
0.75 cup corn sugar for priming

Add gypsum to 2 gal water, and steep grains  at 150 deg F for 30
min) 
Add boiling and aroma hops at appropriate times; add Irish Moss
whenever you think it's the right time (I've noticed widely
varing opinions on this, and I think they're all right)
After about a week, transfer to secondary fermenter and add dry
hops - prime and bottle after another 2 or 3 weeks

This brew is a bit darker than the real thing, but tastes very
similar.  I am very pleased with it, and will probably brew it
again someday.

**************************************************************
I also have brewed a batch with Mittelfrueh Hops from the fine
folks at Boston Beer, but it's still in the primary.  In a
couple of months, I'll let you all know how it turns out.   

**************************************************************
Regarding the santiation of the oxegyn absorboing caps, I just
soak them in 100 proof vodka for a few minutes before I
bottle.  They don't need to be rinsed like they do if you use
bleach.  I've done this with about a dozen batches, and it
seems to work fine.

- --
Jeff Hewit
******************************************************************************
Eat a live toad first thing in the morning and nothing worse
will happen to you the rest of the day.

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 28 Apr 1995 23:46:46 -0600
From: flemingk at earth.usa.net (Kirk R Fleming)
Subject: OG for dark grains

RE: #1717 (J Palmer quest for truth in dark grain yield figures)

Here's what I got from Briess black roasted barley--this stuff is 
daaarrrrk:  I bought 12 oz of this grain, crushed it and then mashed three
separate batches of 4 oz ea.  I used 8 fl oz of water for the 'mash', and
reserved 24 fl oz for the sparge.

This combination means there is a total of 32 fl oz of wort when the process
is complete: some of which is trapped in the grain, as usual.  The way I
sparged for these runs was to simply dump the mash into a stainless strainer
sitting in a pot, then wash the grain with the 24 fl oz of 170F water.
Then, the grains sat in this mess for about 5 minutes with modest agitation.

The reason for doing this was just to ensure the gravity of all 
liquid--that trapped in the grain as well as the free wort--was 
the same.  I dorked up one run and had to throw out the data due 
to failure to conserve mass.  The other two runs were very close 
to one another: 20 pts*gal/lb with a extraction %E of about 40%.

Here are the numbers:

       Grain weight:   4 oz
  Total wort volume:   32 fl oz
        wort weight:   32 * (133/128) = 33.25 oz
         sp gravity:   20
            Balling:   ~5.5 deg P
   Extraction yield:   5.5/100 * 33.25 = 1.83 oz (solute weight)
     Extraction pct:   1.83 oz of solute/4 oz of grain = .457
                       .457 * 100 = 46%

and, approximately, for everyone else on the planet:

         Grain mass:   110 g
  Total wort volume:   .9 L
         sp gravity:   20
          Wort mass:   .9 L * 1.020 * 1000 g/L = 918 g
            Balling:   ~5.5P
   Extraction yield:   5.5/100 * 918 = 50.0 g
     Extraction pct:   50.0/110 = .459
                       .459 * 100 = 46%

So, this isn't anywhere near the 65% John read from the maltster's 
tables for roasted barley, but the key point is that even with a 
significantly lower %E (46 vs. 65), I still indicate this grain 
will yield 20 pts*gal/lb which is a great deal bigger than the "1" 
John cited in some table.

Now, John asked about experience with software.  I use Suds 
(whatever the latest version is) with partial mash 2.5 gal batches,
2-3 lbs extract syrup, 1.5-2 lbs pale ale malt and 1/2 lb or so of
crystal and dark grain, Suds agrees with my measured results *to within
one point*.  It's been dead on lately.  Why?  I added an entry for
Alexanders Pale extract for which I tweaked the yield until the predicted
agreed with actual (38 pts*gal/lb).  Now, every batch mirculously comes
out dead on, even when I get most of the gravity from grain.  This IS NOT 
cheating--this is building a high fidelity model :-).  

BTW, Suds indicates the yield for roast barley to be 29, which DOES agree
well with the %E = 65% from the maltster's tables.

Conclusion: the maltster's tables are correct, as is the conversion 
formula John cited from BT; and, roast barley will influence your OG
by anywhere from my pathetic 20 pts to the limit 28 John computed when
using a dark roasted barley (gal/lb, of course).  Another conclusion is:
I have no clue where the numbers come from that show the darkest grains
yielding 1, 3, and 5 pts*gal/lb.

I'd guess the reason you didn't find any outstanding errors in predicted vs
actual gravities is that you use so little of these grains that any number
for the yield would be pretty much masked--just speculating.


Kirk R Fleming
Colorado Springs
flemingk at usa.net


Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 29 Apr 1995 08:20:17 -0700
From: "Stephen E. Hansen" <hansen at hops.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: Warning! E-mail virus?

In HBD #1718 harry (hbush at pppl.gov) writes:
>         I just received this message from our network folks. I'm not sure
> of its validity, but am passing it along in an effort to ensure the
> continued health of the HBD:

NO! NO! NO!   DO NOT PASS UNSUBSTANTIATED RUMORS TO MAILING LISTS
CONTAINING THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE!!

Was I shouting?  Sorry.

(Patiently now)  There is no such virus.  It is a hoax.  The only thing
virus like this whole thing the hundreds of copies of the warning
message that is being passed around by well meaning but naively trusting
people.

Yes, I know. This will be one of a dozen or so similar replies but I
couldn't let it go by.  We now return you to your regularly scheduled
program.

Stephen Hansen

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 Stephen E. Hansen - hansen at Netserver.Stanford.EDU | The church is near,
 Computer Security Officer, Room 319, Sweet Hall   | but the road is icy.
 Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-3090      | The bar is far away,
 Phone: +1-415-723-1058   Fax: +1-415-725-1548     | but I will walk carefully.
 WWW & PGP: http://www.stanford.edu/~hansen        |     -- Russian Proverb
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=


Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 29 Apr 1995 08:52:20 -0400
From: ac051 at osfn.rhilinet.gov (Eric W. Miller)
Subject: Good times



Didn't we go through this virus scare thing last year?  Let's not
waste a lot of time on it this time around.

Eric

Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 29 Apr 1995 12:10:19 -0500
From: chiz at cadence.com (Robert Chizmadia)
Subject:  Immersion vs Counterflow in hop bitterness


John DeCarlo mentions about the bittering effect of late hops depending on 
chilling time.   This leads for something that I've seen discussed by various 
homebrewer's, which is the difference between counterflow and immersion 
chilling on late hop additions.  With immersion you are lowering the temp of
all the wort, where with counterflow, you effectively chill small amounts
while the rest of the wort is still at near boiling temps.  Anybody ever notice
a difference in bitterness after switching from immersion to counterflow, or
counterflow to immersion ?

Bob Chizmadia


Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 29 Apr 95 10:17:34 -0600
From: wself at viking.emcmt.edu (Will Self)
Subject: Repairing enamel pots

There has been some discussion of repairing porcelain-enamel pots.  Some
say that the chips don't make a difference, but perhaps others might
want to repair them just to avoid having to avoid worrying :-)  This has
interested me for some time, though now for me it's a bit irrelevant,
since I am the proud owner of 2 new ss pots.  But I wanted to test my
idea anyway.

I went to the kitsch ceramics store and bought some lead-free, low-fire
glaze.  I put this on a chipped spot and let it dry.  Then I heated it
with an oxy-acetylene torch until it appeared that the glaze was
melted.

Well, I guess it worked, but it has the appearance of The Repair Job From
Hell, black and gnarled.  Quite ugly.  I suppose I could experiment
with the oxygen/reduction setting on the torch, but I've pretty well
come to the conclusion that there is a better alternative, which I learned
about at the ceramics shop.

They sell an acrylic "glaze" which you paint on your object and let it
dry and then *bake* it in the oven at 350 degrees F (177 C).  The saleslady
showed me a sample.  It looked and felt really hard and durable.  Since
it went through 350 degrees, I reason that it ought to hold up to boiling 
temperatures.

I haven't done this experiment, but I am quite optimistic that this will
work.  I would urge someone else to try this and post the results.  I
suppose if your oven isn't big enough for the kettle you could try heating
the kettle with a propane torch.  Probably you'd want to apply the flame on
the opposite side.  If anyone tries this, then again it would be good to hear
how it went.

Will Self
Montana

Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 29 Apr 95 12:27:36 EDT
From: downing at GRAPHICS.CS.NYU.EDU (Troy Downing)
Subject: Conditioning Oak Casks (summary) - E-mail Virus

Didn't get many responses about conditioning oak casks, but here is
a summary of what I received (Thanks to all who replied).

I have a charred, white american oak cask. (Same thing you would
age bourbon in, but not used. (yet)).

Most agreed that the cask should be rinsed with water a few times before
used to avoid an overpowering taste/smell of wood. Soaking the barrel
also allowed the wood to expand and fill in the crack to avoid leaking.
Also, soaking the cask saturated the wood so that less of my beer would
be lost to absorbtion.

One person suggested rinsing with a bleach solution which I will 
probably not try since I fear that my cask would forever smell of
chlorine. One person also suggested that many of the nasties that would
normally infect beer find living in oak inhospitable.

A third person wrote "Don't try it you will ruin your beer". I found
this to be a little narrow of a viewpoint and plan on trying anyway.

I plan on rinsing the cask out with hot water before racking in a
Belgian Abbey-style Ale. I will probably condition it in the cask for
about 6 months and let you all know how it turns out.

Until then.... Thanks to all who responded.

- -------"Good times" e-mail virus---

This so called "e-mail virus" is bullshit. It's simply a chain letter
that seems to be getting out of hand. Plese waste no more bandwidth 
discussing it.

 -Troy

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
     Troy Downing, Research Scientist        (Voice) (212) 998-3208   
     New York University                     (FAX)   (212) 995-4122     
     Media Research Lab                                               
     715-719 Broadway, Rm 1214                      downing at nyu.edu
     New York, NY 10003-1866        http://found.cs.nyu.edu/downing

Return to table of contents

End of HOMEBREW Digest #1719, 05/01/95