HOMEBREW Digest #1765 Mon 26 June 1995

Digest #1764 Digest #1766

		Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor

  Re: #1(2) Homebrew Digest #1763 (June 23, 1995) (Martin417)
  Primary Irish Fruits. (Russell Mast)
  Plugs, Drugs, and Jackbooted Thugs. (Russell Mast)
  Mathematical modeling for water modification (Harralson, Kirk)
  malt analysis, brewing books (Rob Lauriston)
  A dose of salts? (David Draper)
  Puffed Up Mini-Kegs, and Siphoning Questions (Chris Strickland)
  Plumbing problems/Bowtie Effect (DCB2)
  Burton 2 - Part 1 (A. J. deLange)
  Burton 2 - Part 2 (A. J. deLange)
  Sparge Arms for 15 gal. sys. (Eric Marzewski)
  SIGNOFFhomebrew (Joe695)
  Used Kegs in D.C. metro (james moorhead)
  Burton - 3 (A. J. deLange)
  Fix's "no-sparge" for intense maltiness: Does it work? (Ken Willing)
  EASY CORN beer ("Jack Schmidling")
  Prices of malt extract (RevEd - Ed Blonski)
  O2 dissolution (Dion Hollenbeck)

****************************************************************** * 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, 23 Jun 1995 15:09:37 -0400 From: Martin417 at aol.com Subject: Re: #1(2) Homebrew Digest #1763 (June 23, 1995) >So I guess my first question is, why did >it work? I understand basically that amylase is an enzyme for >breaking down larger sugars into smaller ones. Does this imply that >my DME was under modified by the manufacturer? Also, over a week >later (maybe 2 weeks), small bubbles continued to rise as if the >fermentation now would not stop. I tasted the beer and did not >notice any infection, but it did taste sweeter than I felt it should >(gravity now ~ 1.009). I finally just turned the temp down in the >fridge to around 35F and the bubbling stopped. I'm not worried about > >exploding bottles later because I plan on kegging, but what might be >happening here? I have used Amylase (actualy alpha amylase enzyme) in the brewing of "light" style beers in the past, in my case, I added the enzyme after the boil, just prior to pitching. In all cases, I noticed the same thing you describe. After initial vigorous fermentation subsides (I usually rack to a clean carboy at this point), it seems to go into "infinite fermentation", tiny bubbles rise, but no real change in SG occurs. My theory is that the Amylase continues to break down unfermentable sugars into fermentable variaties, which immediatly become available to the yeast, which promply ferment said sugars into alcohol and co2, thus producing tiny bubbles. The first time this happened, I worried as the weeks dragged on, until I finally gave up and bottled the stuff. I put the potetial grenades in a bulletproof box, and hid the whole batch in the bassement. after sufficient time for carbonation, I tried it. To my suprise, it proved to be quite good, niether bacterially infected or overcarbonated. During the several weeks it took to consume that batch, no bottles exploded, and the level of carbonation stabilized. After that experiance I generally just let the tiny bubbles rise for about a month, then bottle. I have also observed this behavior when brewing kit beers without boiling. An alternative to adding amylase after the boil is to add after adding extracts (if extract brewing) or during the mash for all-grains. This way, the boil will destroy the enzyme, thus preventing "infinite fermentation". Be sure to allow sufficient time (?) for conversion before boiling. Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 14:38:58 -0500 From: Russell Mast <rmast at fnbc.com> Subject: Primary Irish Fruits. > From: Dominic_Cardea at nps.gov (Dominic Cardea) > Subject: adjunct-o-rama > B) once again how do I figure how much fruit to add? Get a recipe for any beer using fruit off the net. One you think you can trust. Maybe a couple different recipes. Take a bit of that fruit. Taste it. Taste the cactus fruit. How much "stronger" or "weaker" is the flavor of the cactus fruit? Twice as strong? Use half as much. If the fruit in the given recipe is twice as strong as the cactus fruit, use twice as much of the cactus fruit as the given recipe calls for. Brew the recipe, taste it, post about it. When you brew again, adjust according to whether you thought it was too strong or too weak. > From: Beersgood at aol.com > Subject: Pitching from primary > > Dear Gentlebrewers, > > I've seen this mentioned in passing but have not heard a good description, > yet. How does one pitch from the sediment left in the bottom of the primary > fermenter? The only thing I've ever done to harvest from the primary is brew a new batch while I'm bottling, and pour the frech (cooled!) wort right on top of the fresh dregs. I've done this several times with good results. I don't recommend doing it more than once with any given yeast culture, both for sanitation problems and trub. > From: Andrew McGowan <AMCGOWAN at WPO.HCC.COM> > Subject: WYEAST 1084 - PERFORMANCE QUESTIONS > > Is 1084 Irish Stout a slow yeast? Was for me. Tastes great, though. Yours' performance was bad enough that I would keep a close eye on all products purchased from the same source, but I have had slow response from that yeast. -R Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 14:54:54 -0500 From: Russell Mast <rmast at fnbc.com> Subject: Plugs, Drugs, and Jackbooted Thugs. > From: r-brodeur at ds.mc.ti.com (Russ Brodeur) > Subject: Hop Plugs > I am curious as to why there isn't more of an availability of hop plugs. I have only ever seen one brand of hop plugs, and I assume they're the only ones who make them. I may be wrong, but that would explain their limited variety. > I contacted one of the hop houses on the west coast, and inquired about > availability of plugs, since I personally prefer them. I was told they were > of inferior quality to both whole and pellet hops. > Is this true?? It's not only not true, it almost sounds like a lie. I consider hop plugs in many ways to be the best of both worlds. If there is only one company making them, then it could be your hop house makes no money on them, and has a vested interest in considering them inferior. Maybe there are problems I don't know about, but I've used them in about a dozen batches with not a single problem. > From: Jim Busch > Brian says: > > <Alcohol is a drug. > > I wonder what the Bavarians or French would say about this? Or maybe > most Europeans?? I wonder if the Summarians felt this way too. Hummmmm. Caffeine is a drug, too. I've had a lot today. This discussion is wandering weirdly. Alcohol is definately a drug, my favorite drug, in fact. Beer and wine, however, are art forms, as is a good cappucino, regardless of what's in it. I think recent political shenanigans in the US (and elsewhere, I suppose) have attached a negative connotation to the word "drug". > <Also, it appears sometimes that the beer/liquor > <industry is under LESS regulation than the food industry. > > You've *obviously* not tried to open a microbrewery!!! Hear, hear. My understanding was that any brewery had to submit both to FDA inspections _and_ BATF inspections. (And OSHA, etc. etc.) -R Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 95 16:15:08 EST From: kwh at roadnet.ups.com (Harralson, Kirk) Subject: Mathematical modeling for water modification I am just now catching up on past HBDs after being out for a few weeks. A. J. DeLange has written some EXCELLENT articles on water modification. I would like to comment on the solution procedure outlined in HBD 1761: >These results are pleasing but as we have said, this is not the only >synthesis of about this quality. The quality here is based on the >rms % error which is about 10%. There are an infinite number of >other solutions about this good. The algorithm finally settles >out rambling among these solutions. It is probably (and >that word has special meaning here) not possible to find better >solutions using rms % error as a measure of goodness. In the field of Operations Research, this is known as Goal Programming, which can be modeled and solved fairly easily. Instead of your algorithm "rambling", you could feed it into a nonlinear solver, which are nowadays common in upper-end spreadsheets like Excel, and get an optimal answer. I believe there is at least one public domain solver with C code, if you are thinking about writing something more complicated. One of the advantages of this method is that anyone could put in the starting concentrations of their local water and the model could adjust accordingly. I don't know if it would be advantageous to weight some of your targets as being more important than others, but this could also be an easy modification. Good luck -- I'm looking forward to seeing your results! Kirk Harralson Bel Air, Maryland Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 95 14:15:53 -0700 From: robtrish at noif.ncp.bc.ca (Rob Lauriston) Subject: malt analysis, brewing books Nir Navot asked about malt analysis in # 1763. I have a premonition that this will be one of several answers. I'm not an authority, but since I did lab analysis of malt at one time, here's my contribution. BTW Nir, since you mentioned scaling up your brewery, you might want some reference books yourself. I'd recommend _Brewing_ by Michael J. Lewis and Tom W. Young, Chapman and Hall, 1995 and _Principles of Brewing Science_ by George Fix, Brewers Publications, 1989. Both of these explain malt quite thoroughly. (No affiliation, etc.) Moisture is normally 4-5%, British tending to be closer to 4%, closer to 5% in NA. The importance is that malt with moisture above 5% doesn't store well, and that you want to buy malt, not water. There was just a post about using 10% more of an old malt for the same extract. That would be because the malt had absorbed moisture; therefore the weight of material had to be increased to give the same amount of malt. Lewis and Young (Y&L) say that due to the energy cost of drying malt, some breweries are accepting malts at 6% moisture, but this would be predicated on using the malt shortly after delivery. Extract dry weight %: 80.7 This is right in the normal ball park. You might get values from about 78 to 83; a brewery near here specifies a minimum of 80. BTW, these numbers are based upon a laboratory mash using precise amounts of grain and *distilled* water, following a strict sequence of mash temperatures, so that different labs will produce comparable figures. It's not a procedure that produces the best wort for making beer and you never aim for the absolute maximum extract in actual brewing because there's stuff you *want* to leave behind. The 'dry weight' part just means that a correction has been made for the moisture content of the malt; you use 50 g of grist which contains more or less malt depending upon the moisture. Coarse/Fine difference % 0.10 ??? Is this a typo? Perhaps 2.10? The changes which take place during malting are collectively called modification and include the breakdown of a protein matrix which contains many of the materials we're after such as starch. This test is done by comparing the extract of a mash conducted on a finely ground malt (5% remaining above a #30 screen, if I recall) with the extract from a coarse grind (75% above). If the malt has has been well modified, the matrix is broken down enough that you get pretty much the same extract regardless of how the malt is ground. OTOH, with less modified malt, the mechanical breakdown of the malt has more impact on increasing extract. Values range from around 1.5 - 1.7 for a well modified malt, up to 2.5 for a less modified malt. All the other tests are done on the fine grind sample, so your fine extract is 80.1 If the difference is really 2.1, then the coarse grind gave an extract of 78.0 That difference corresponds roughly to a difference of 0.2'Plato in the respective worts, say 8.85'P and 8.65'P. Since a tenth in the F/C results from a difference in gravity of 0.01'Plato or 0.00004 in specific gravity, you can see that the difference in extract is quite small. The morale is that the exact composition of your grind affects extract primarily in how effectively you can lauter it. That's another thread. You should see the hydrometer you use. The stem is about an eight of an inch in diameter and quite delicate. Each hydrometer only covers a range of one degree Plato on a six inch scale! Colour is equivalent to 1.35'Lovibond, quite light, what you'd expect. I'm pretty sure '25 mm cell' just has to do with the reported the particular method used to determine colour, i.e., the colour was measured 'looking through' 25 mm of wort. I stand to be corrected. I don't recall ever coming across N.D.M.A. If there's only one part per billion, then I'd guess it's something you don't want, like nitrosamines. (Att'n, this is not a thread!) Calling all comics, what does this stand for? More fun than collapsing foam! We'll get to Kolbach... In the lab mash, you do an iodine test periodically after you hit 65'C. I did my first test at 5 minutes and usually got no reaction, i.e. no colour change, no starch. If this is what the ten minutes means here, it means that it was not until 10 minutes that the reaction was negative. I'm not positive, because the convention I'm accustomed to states that you specify a period (e.g. between five and ten minutes, or < five minutes). The diastatic power is in degrees Windisch-Kolbach and is equivalent to 78'ASBC. This seems a bit low. I don't know what the BAL and BASKB stand for. Comics ahoy. Total soluble nitrogen is the amount in the wrot obtained from a lab mash. d.w. means, again, that a correction has been done to compensate for different moisture levels in different samples, reported as if the moisture was zero. By convention, the protein content is assumed to be 6.25 times the nitrogen content. It's normally the nitrogen (rather than the protein) that's measured, using by the Kjehdahl method (ask privately if you really want to know about the method). So 0.72 soluble N means 4.5% soluble protein. Dividing that by the total protein gives you the S/T, soluble/total or Kolbach index: 43.7 These numbers seem fine. They become more important if you use adjuncts or if you're aiming for a long shelf life. Are you? I think the last line is supposed to read, friability, which is the ease with which the malt is ground. It's the scientific version of the hands on test where undermodified malts are steely and hard. I've never used it. What's missing? I like to see the pH of the wort from the lab mash, but maybe that a cray idiot's idiosyncracy. You might want to ask for assortment. You and the maltster want most of the grains to be the same size so that they will all be at the same stage of modification, etc. during malting. However, that's the maltster's problem, really. If there are some that go faster, some slower because of their size, then that should reflect in the analysis. If the average turns out fine, what does it matter? The malt will continue to break down in handling, so the numbers you are given won't necessarily be identical to the condition of the malt you receive. Your real question was, is this lager malt. First of all, there are no standards in naming malts. The malt company is trying first to differentiate among its own products and secondly to indicate to the brewer what it's for. Therefore it's called 'lager' to distinguish it from a malt for single step infusion in the British market. I hope others answer the rest of this question, I've said too much already. Rob Lauriston, The Low Overhead Brewery <robtrish at noif.ncp.bc.ca> "Moderation in all things, especially moderation" Vernon, British Columbia Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 1995 08:41:53 +1000 (EST) From: David Draper <ddraper at laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au> Subject: A dose of salts? Dear Friends, the other day Steve Zabarnick related how his beers made with reverse-osmosis water were quite good, suggesting that perhaps it may not really be necessary to add salts to such water, in an attempt to mimic the water compositions of brewing cities, to make good examples of various styles. This is a good question, and a timely one given the recent bravura performance of AJ deLange on the subject of treating RO or distilled water. I don't have a lot of data on this (which has never stopped me before!), but this is what I got: Sydney water is extremely soft, being very poor in total dissolved solids and with a nearly neutral pH. I did not treat my water at all for quite some time, but since I have started doing so, I can detect a subtle but definite improvement in the quality of the flavor. In particular, the recipes I am thinking of are for a pale ale (bordering on IPA), a K"olsch, a porter, and an Alt. When made before I started treating the water to mimic Burton, K"oln, London, and D"usseldorf respectively, these beers were good, but those made with treatment (virtually identical to the earlier versions) were, well, better. The palate fullness and mouthfeel were the most noticeable features--by comparison, the earlier versions were thinner (and not by virtue of gravity differences--there weren't any). I hate to say it like this, but it seems that for these examples at least, the mouthfeel index was brought more toward optimum for the style by water treatment. I realize the large number of variables involved, this was not a rigorous test, etc etc. All I know is that I'm impressed with the improvement. My gut feeling is that using RO/distilled/naturally very soft water with no treatment for lots of styles is easier to "get away with" than using hard water would--i.e. it's easier to make a good hard-water beer with soft water than the reverse. Cheers, Dave in Sydney - -- "Don't pick your nose." ---Domenick Venezia ****************************************************************************** David S. Draper, School of Earth Sciences, Macquarie University, NSW 2109 Sydney, Australia. email: david.draper at mq.edu.au fax: +61-2-850-8428 ....I'm not from here, I just live here.... Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 19:08:46 -0400 From: cstrick at iu.net (Chris Strickland) Subject: Puffed Up Mini-Kegs, and Siphoning Questions Since it's summer, I've had several mini-kegs puff up. Just curious, since it's a pain to attach the tap, can I bang em back with a hammer? Or will this make them too weak and cause them to explode. Any other ideas? Next question, has any designed a good siphon tube for siphoning the wort (full of hops leaves) into the carboy? I know the answer is yes, would some generous soul mind emailing me a copy. - -------------- Chris Strickland cstrick at iu.net Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 95 12:42:30 PDT From: DCB2%OPS%DCPP at bangate.pge.com Subject: Plumbing problems/Bowtie Effect In HBD#1762 Eamonn McKernan lamented about his plumbing problems thusly: >(BTW anyone have any tips on leaking compression fittings? 1/2" flared copper >pipe->compression tee leaking at two of the three connections. No I didn't >over torque it and warp the brass ferrule that goes in between) It's possible I'm misunderstanding you but it sounds like you have a mixed bag of stuff. Compression fittings are not the same as flared fittings and are not compatible with one another (unless you have a tee with both types). Flare fittings have a cap which holds the flared portion of the copper tubing against a beveled edge on your tee (or other fitting as shown below left.) _ _ ____( I__/ /VVV_____ ____( I__/\_ \VVV____ ____I I__ _____ ____I I__II_ ____ (_I \ \VVV (_I \/ /VVV cap^ ^flare ^flared fitting cap^ ^ring ^compression fitting w/male threads w/male threads Flare fitting Compression fitting Compression fittings (above right) have a little compression ring that slides onto the copper tubing then gets "smashed" and deforms to fit and seal against the inside of the fittings. The compression ring is *not* reusable and must be replaced if you take the fittings apart once they're tightened together. I suggest that you check your compression ring (if that's the kind of fittings you have) and replace it if necessary. Also make sure you are not trying to use one system with the other (even the caps are different). There are also more than one kind of compression fittings with some being designed for higher pressures (up to 5000 psi?). The Swedge-loc <tm> (high pressure) are not compatible with the others either but I don't think you have them unless you got your stuff from an industrial supplier. Good luck, I hope this helps. Robert Bloodworth says of his Bow-Tie effect: >I also had the bow-tie effect visit on Friday June 16. <snip> >The sample in my 30 liter cylindrical plastic fermenter showed the normal >creamy head topped with a spherical dark brown film. >The second fermenter is a 20 liter spherical glass carboy (with a convex >bottom). I saw the cream colored bowtie after having read the first post and >rotated the carboy 90? to observe the effect. The bow-tie slowly dissappeared >during the next 12h and I got a even creamy-brown head. >Guess that blows the flat bottomed fermenter theory. It pretty well kills my theory too. I was thinking it was due to the magnetic effect of the ions created in the fermentation process (Aurora Borealis effect) and the fact that the SS fermenter Kirk used "magnified" the effects of the Earth's magnetic field (note that even though SS is not magnetic it still has some degree of reluctance which helps to concentrate the flux lines). The fact that this same phenomenon was experienced in a glass fermenter sort of blows that theory and I will have to re-think it (unless of course you have a metal countertop). I was about to ask Kirk if he noticed if the Bowties were lined up with *true* North/South or *magnetic* North/South but it seems a moot point now. If someone would like to continue this experiment he/she could place a strong magnet (like a cow magnet near or under the fermenter at a 45 degree angle to Earth's magnetic field and see if the axis of the bowties are skewed by the magnet. I would be interested in the results. ;^) . David Boe David Boe | A Wink's as good as a nod to a blind Pacific Gas and Electric Co. | man, eh? I'd rather have a bottle in DCB2 at pge.com | front of me than a frontal lobotomy! Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 19:35:45 -0500 From: ajdel at interramp.com (A. J. deLange) Subject: Burton 2 - Part 1 Burton 2 This is the second in a series of posts on the formulation of waters similar to those of famous brewing cities of the world. They are based on ion concentration profiles given by Dave Draper in his post in #1704 (10 April 95). See my post "Water Series" (#1763) for explanatory material (correction: in the Line 3 explanation read 1.8 ml of 1 N sulfuric acid, not 18 ml). Quick reminders: all ion concentrations and salt quantities are in ppm which is the same as mg/l. The water to which the salts are added is assumed to be ION FREE (i.e. it is DISTILLED WATER or REVERSE OSMOSIS WATER). The Burton 2 specification is taken from p58 of "Pale Ale" by Terry Foster. This reference lists carbonate at 200 ppm although Dave's post had 197. We will use 200. Burton 2 differs from Burton 1 mostly in that its carbonate level is about 2/3 of that of Burton 1. This makes a lot of difference. Our baseline, simple, pH 7 (remember that we know that Burton pH is in the range 7.0 - 7.2) implememtation appears to be a good one: Formulation I n: 800000 Temp: 0.001000 Energy (rms %): 6.000987 Burton 2 ION DESIRED REALIZED ERR, % SALTS AMOUNT Ca 270.000 247.791 -8.23 NaCl 70.399 Mg 60.000 58.442 -2.60 Na2CO3.10H2O 0.000 Na 30.000 27.690 -7.70 CaCL2 0.000 K 0.000 0.000 0.00 CaSO4.2H2O 482.576 CO3 200.000 202.881 1.44 CaCO3 338.270 SO4 640.000 693.866 8.42 MgCL2 0.000 CL 40.000 42.697 6.74 MgCO3 0.000 H 4.032 4.032 0.00 KCl 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 Na2SO4 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 MgSO4.7H2O 592.345 0.000 0.000 0.00 H2SO4 197.728 0.000 0.000 0.00 HCl 0.000 Carbonic: 0.6536 Bicarbonate: 2.7247 Carbonate: 0.001304 mM Total Required Hydronium: 4.0320 Sulfuric Hydronium: 4.0320 Hydrochloric Hydronium: 0.0000 mEq H2SO4 perturbed. HCl adjusted to maintain pH 7.00 Solubility Products - CaCO3: 8.70E-09 MgCO3: 2.60E-05 Ion Products - CaCO3: 8.06E-09 MgCO3: 2.61E-09 Alkalinity: 2.69 mEq; 134.62 ppm as CaCO3. Temporary hardness: 6.76 mEq; 337.97 ppm as CaCO3 Permanent hardness: 10.41 mEq; 520.58 ppm as CaCO3 Note that only the four common salts: table salt, gypsum, chalk and epsom salts (plus sulfuric acid) are used. If we try to improve on Formulation I by going to the full complement of salts we acheive only a 1% reduction in rms % error. Most of this is due to increased accuracy in the sodium ion concentration. If , however, we use full salts and external acid at pH 7 we get: Formulation II n: 779023 Temp: 0.000998 Energy (rms %): 0.028193 Burton 2 ION DESIRED REALIZED ERR, % SALTS AMOUNT Ca 270.000 270.017 0.01 NaCl 17.962 Mg 60.000 60.012 0.02 Na2CO3.10H2O 11.725 Na 30.000 29.987 -0.04 CaCL2 21.065 K 0.000 0.000 0.00 CaSO4.2H2O 687.307 CO3 200.000 200.086 0.04 CaCO3 255.767 SO4 640.000 640.200 0.03 MgCL2 12.824 CL 40.000 40.008 0.02 MgCO3 62.131 H 3.976 1.408 -64.60 KCl 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 Na2SO4 64.999 0.000 0.000 0.00 MgSO4.7H2O 393.462 0.000 0.000 0.00 H2SO4 60.580 0.000 0.000 0.00 HCl 6.286 Carbonic: 0.6446 Bicarbonate: 2.6872 Carbonate: 0.001286 mM Total Required Hydronium: 3.9764 Sulfuric Hydronium: 1.2353 Hydrochloric Hydronium: 0.1724 mEq 2.5688 mEq additional hydronium required to maintain pH 7.00 Solubility Products - CaCO3: 8.70E-09 MgCO3: 2.60E-05 Ion Products - CaCO3: 8.66E-09 MgCO3: 2.57E-09 Alkalinity: 2.66 mEq; 132.76 ppm as CaCO3. Temporary hardness: 6.67 mEq; 333.31 ppm as CaCO3 Permanent hardness: 11.74 mEq; 587.15 ppm as CaCO3 A.J. deLange Numquam in dubio, saepe in errore! ajdel at interramp.com Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 19:35:49 -0500 From: ajdel at interramp.com (A. J. deLange) Subject: Burton 2 - Part 2 Our goal is satisfied by the first two formulations. Nevertheless we we offer a simple formulation at pH 6.38 for brewers who wish a more acid starting water in order to obtain lower mash pH. It's accuracy is comparable to but actually a little worse than that of Formulation I. Formulation III n: 780000 Temp: 0.000939 Energy (rms %): 7.629980 Accepted: 257 Rejected: 9743 n_sol: 0 n_0: 0 Burton 2 ION DESIRED REALIZED ERR, % SALTS AMOUNT Ca 270.000 237.538 -12.02 NaCl 70.381 Mg 60.000 57.329 -4.45 Na2CO3.10H2O 0.000 Na 30.000 27.683 -7.72 CaCL2 0.000 K 0.000 0.000 0.00 CaSO4.2H2O 438.809 CO3 200.000 202.784 1.39 CaCO3 338.108 SO4 640.000 714.759 11.68 MgCL2 0.000 CL 40.000 42.686 6.71 MgCO3 0.000 H 5.067 5.067 0.00 KCl 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 Na2SO4 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 MgSO4.7H2O 581.067 0.000 0.000 0.00 H2SO4 248.474 0.000 0.000 0.00 HCl 0.000 Carbonic: 1.6889 Bicarbonate: 1.6889 Carbonate: 0.000194 mM Total Required Hydronium: 5.0668 Sulfuric Hydronium: 5.0668 Hydrochloric Hydronium: 0.0000 mEq H2SO4 perturbed. HCl adjusted to maintain pH 6.38 Solubility Products - CaCO3: 8.70E-09 MgCO3: 2.60E-05 Ion Products - CaCO3: 1.15E-09 MgCO3: 3.88E-10 Alkalinity: 1.65 mEq; 82.72 ppm as CaCO3. Temporary hardness: 6.76 mEq; 337.80 ppm as CaCO3 Permanent hardness: 9.81 mEq; 490.58 ppm as CaCO3 And finally, for brewer's who want the lower pH and greater accuracy: Formulation IV n: 790000 Temp: 0.000948 Energy (rms %): 0.035555 Burton 2 ION DESIRED REALIZED ERR, % SALTS AMOUNT Ca 270.000 270.040 0.01 NaCl 24.714 Mg 60.000 60.023 0.04 Na2CO3.10H2O 86.024 Na 30.000 29.980 -0.07 CaCL2 6.471 K 0.000 0.000 0.00 CaSO4.2H2O 665.839 CO3 200.000 200.001 0.00 CaCO3 281.465 SO4 640.000 640.275 0.04 MgCL2 25.018 CL 40.000 39.988 -0.03 MgCO3 18.464 H 4.997 1.404 -71.90 KCl 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 Na2SO4 19.888 0.000 0.000 0.00 MgSO4.7H2O 489.651 0.000 0.000 0.00 H2SO4 65.758 0.000 0.000 0.00 HCl 2.304 Carbonic: 1.6657 Bicarbonate: 1.6657 Carbonate: 0.000191 mM Total Required Hydronium: 4.9972 Sulfuric Hydronium: 1.3409 Hydrochloric Hydronium: 0.0632 mEq 3.5931 mEq additional hydronium required to maintain pH 6.38 Solubility Products - CaCO3: 8.70E-09 MgCO3: 2.60E-05 Ion Products - CaCO3: 1.29E-09 MgCO3: 3.83E-10 Alkalinity: 1.63 mEq; 81.58 ppm as CaCO3. Temporary hardness: 6.66 mEq; 333.17 ppm as CaCO3 Permanent hardness: 11.75 mEq; 587.39 ppm as CaCO3 Given the probable accuracy of our information on requirements for Burton water we think that Formulation I is more than sufficently accurate for the brewing of Burton ales and we recommend it use. The response has been favorable so we will be going ahead with this project. Look for Burton 3 soon. A.J. deLange Numquam in dubio, saepe in errore! ajdel at interramp.com Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 1995 00:19:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Eric Marzewski <ca385a19 at nova.umuc.edu> Subject: Sparge Arms for 15 gal. sys. Looking for a sparge arm for a 15 gal. system, any besides Phils (any comments on Phils)? Thanx for the help. Cheers, Eric Marzewski ca385a19 at nova.umuc.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 1995 09:00:45 -0400 From: Joe695 at aol.com Subject: SIGNOFFhomebrew SIGNOFFhomebrew Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 1995 10:55:58 -0400 From: jimmoor at dgs.dgsys.com (james moorhead) Subject: Used Kegs in D.C. metro I have been extract homebrewing for about a year. I'm interested in moving to a kegging system and read recent article in Zymurgy on subject. Tried calling local pepsi /coke bottlers and couldnt seem to connect w/ correct dept. to find availability of used kegs. Any metro D.C. folks with advice? TIA Jim Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 1995 08:15:55 -0500 From: ajdel at interramp.com (A. J. deLange) Subject: Burton - 3 Burton 3 This is the third in a series of posts on the formulation of waters similar to those of famous brewing cities of the world. They are based on ion concentration profiles given by Dave Draper in his post in #1704 (10 April 95). See my post "Water Series" (#1763) for explanatory material (correction: in the Line 3 explanation read 1.8 ml of 1 N sulfuric acid, not 18 ml). Quick reminders: all ion concentrations and salt quantities are in ppm which is the same as mg/l. The water to which the salts are added is assumed to be ION FREE (i.e. it is DISTILLED WATER or REVERSE OSMOSIS WATER). The Burton 3 specification is attributed to Papazian and is found on p83 of "The Home Brewer's Companion." It is intersting to note that a warning that actual levels may vary by 25% or more from the published values accompanies the table of ion profiles in this book. If Burton 1 was difficult, Burton 3 is more so. Higher levels of both calcium and carbonate make it clear that this profile is beyond saturation at pH 7 and cannot, therfore, exist at pH that high. An attempt to syn- thesize it at this pH, using the full salts complement and external acid, results in 18% shortfall in calcium and 25% in carbonate. Moving to pH 6.38 we wind up shy of sodium and high in chloride if NaCl is the only sodium source so we use the full set of salts but no external acid to get the formulation: Formulation I n: 690000 Temp: 0.000923 Energy (rms %): 4.392035 Burton 3 ION DESIRED REALIZED ERR, % SALTS AMOUNT Ca 295.000 272.075 -7.77 NaCl 8.714 Mg 45.000 44.341 -1.46 Na2CO3.10H2O 86.427 Na 55.000 54.204 -1.45 CaCL2 12.501 K 0.000 0.000 0.00 CaSO4.2H2O 433.083 CO3 300.000 304.144 1.38 CaCO3 416.412 SO4 725.000 784.959 8.27 MgCL2 9.783 CL 25.000 25.077 0.31 MgCO3 50.947 H 7.599 7.599 0.00 KCl 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 Na2SO4 113.972 0.000 0.000 0.00 MgSO4.7H2O 275.188 0.000 0.000 0.00 H2SO4 366.416 0.000 0.000 0.00 HCl 4.653 Carbonic: 2.5331 Bicarbonate: 2.5331 Carbonate: 0.000291 mM Total Required Hydronium: 7.5994 Sulfuric Hydronium: 7.4718 Hydrochloric Hydronium: 0.1276 mEq H2SO4 perturbed. HCl adjusted to maintain pH 6.38 Solubility Products - CaCO3: 8.70E-09 MgCO3: 2.60E-05 Ion Products - CaCO3: 1.97E-09 MgCO3: 2.91E-10 Alkalinity: 2.48 mEq; 124.06 ppm as CaCO3. Temporary hardness: 10.13 mEq; 506.65 ppm as CaCO3 Permanent hardness: 7.09 mEq; 354.50 ppm as CaCO3 This is a fairly good result. Use of external acid with a full salt complement gives: Formulation II n: 640000 Temp: 0.001544 Energy (rms %): 0.020352 Burton 3 ION DESIRED REALIZED ERR, % SALTS AMOUNT Ca 295.000 295.072 0.02 NaCl 12.125 Mg 45.000 45.011 0.02 Na2CO3.10H2O 89.057 Na 55.000 55.004 0.01 CaCL2 5.558 K 0.000 0.000 0.00 CaSO4.2H2O 470.689 CO3 300.000 300.092 0.03 CaCO3 458.242 SO4 725.000 725.157 0.02 MgCL2 11.538 CL 25.000 24.996 -0.02 MgCO3 9.236 H 7.498 4.980 -33.59 KCl 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 Na2SO4 110.994 0.000 0.000 0.00 MgSO4.7H2O 399.352 0.000 0.000 0.00 H2SO4 236.601 0.000 0.000 0.00 HCl 5.660 Carbonic: 2.4994 Bicarbonate: 2.4994 Carbonate: 0.000287 mM Total Required Hydronium: 7.4981 Sulfuric Hydronium: 4.8246 Hydrochloric Hydronium: 0.1552 mEq 2.5183 mEq additional hydronium required to maintain pH 6.38 Solubility Products - CaCO3: 8.70E-09 MgCO3: 2.60E-05 Ion Products - CaCO3: 2.11E-09 MgCO3: 2.87E-10 Alkalinity: 2.45 mEq; 122.41 ppm as CaCO3. Temporary hardness: 10.00 mEq; 499.90 ppm as CaCO3 Permanent hardness: 8.43 mEq; 421.38 ppm as CaCO3 This is, as is usual when we go all out, a very good approximation. We do not receommend using either of these formulations given that Formulation I for the Burton 2 profile is a good approximation at the correct pH with a simpler set of salts. Next: Dortmund 1. A.J. deLange Numquam in dubio, saepe in errore! ajdel at interramp.com Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 1995 06:45:16 +1000 (EST) From: Ken Willing <kwilling at laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au> Subject: Fix's "no-sparge" for intense maltiness: Does it work? I've been trialling Dr. G. Fix's recommended (in a 1992 HBD posting) method of achieving extra "yummy maltiness": Use a high grain bill (multiply normal bill * 1.33) and proportionately more mash water, and don't sparge at all. Just re-circulate till moderately clear, then allow to drain through to completion. My results on three batches so far: Technically, the method seems to work well. The 1.33 coefficient, and calculating carefully the amount of hot water to add during mash-out, will yield a nice bucket of tasty, high-gravity wort, and it happens all by itself. This is then brought up to the desired volume, and down to the desired gravity, by the addition of boiling water during the boil. I find that with the 1.33 multiplier and no sparge, I can get pretty much the OG I was targetting. Problem is: The final beers, in all three instances, have been remarkable for their *lack* of yummy maltiness. They are definitely far less malty -- both in the grainy-earthy sense and in the "interesting-yummy-caramel" sense - -- than all other recent beers made from normally-produced worts. The experiment is, however, confounded by the fact that with these trial no-sparge batches I've had to use a new yeast that I'm unfamiliar with. To match Winter temperatures here in sub-tropical Sydney, I've chosen a cold-tolerant ale yeast, Wy.#1728 (Scottish Ale). Available information on this yeast would not lead one to expect it to destroy maltiness (quite the contrary, in fact), but that is the apparent result. I'm suspending judgment of course until it's warm enough here to try my favorite yeast for maltiness, #1338; and try also the best preserver of caramelliness, #1056. But in the meantime: Has anyone else experimented with this no-sparge method? And: Since no theory was provided by Dr. Fix.. - -- Is there any reason why this method *should* in principle yield a more intense malty flavor in the end product? Thanks Ken Willing <kwilling at laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au> Sydney, Australia Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 1995 17:44:49 -0500 (CDT) From: "Jack Schmidling" <arf at mcs.com> Subject: EASY CORN beer Living in corn country where a bushel costs not much more than a pound of good malt has driven me to develop an easy and reliable method of making beer with it. I have taken all the suggestions and recommendations I could find and after experimenting on about 5 batches, the following process is what I have come up with. My numbers are based on a 10 gal batch but it can be scaled up or down to suit. 1. Bring 5 gals of water to a boil in mash tun, turn off the heat and then add 5 lbs of crushed corn. If you have an adjustable MM, set it as wide as possible for the first pass and then run it through again at the nominal spacing. A Corona works just as well on corn but after all, that is what is was designed for. 2. Dough this in carefully to eliminate starch balls and let it rest (with an occassional stir) until the temperature drops down to 170F. During this period, the corn starch is being gelatainized and by heating the water by itself and letting the mash rest, all scorching problems are totally eliminated. It adds about an hour to the brewing schedule but requires little or no attention. 3. When the temp is 170F, dough in 9 lbs of your favorite pils type malt (I use D-K) and the temp should end up around 155F. Maintain this temp for 60 minutes and check for conversion. Mashout or proceed from here as in any other beer. This will produce 10 gallons at about 1.046 for a yield of 33 pts which is exactly what I get with all malt beer. It has a corn taste if you look for it and I like it a lot. js Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 1995 18:46:38 -0500 From: reved at ix.netcom.com (RevEd - Ed Blonski) Subject: Prices of malt extract Greetings homebrewers! I'm back on! Contain your excitement.:) Ok, I made it to White Cloud, Michigan and I just returned from one of the four homebrew supply stores. I haven't made it yet to the microbrewery. Someone once told me where it was, but I forgot who and where, if its you, please contact me again! I was wondering what the general opinion is on how much I should be paying for a simple light malt extract (dry - 3lbs)? I paid $8.99 at this one store and I was wondering if this is good or bad. The specifics: LD Carlson Company Laaglander dried malt extract (product of Holland) Light net weight 3 lbs. I got 12 lbs worth for a barley wine I'm starting. Is this enough? Or should I get more malt? TIA *-----------------------------------------------------------------------* *Rev. Ed Blonski (reved at ix.netcom.com) "But I'm young enough to remember* *Christ Lutheran Church the future and the way things * *White Cloud, MI ought to be!" NP * *Rush fan (the band and the man!) * *-----------------------------------------------------------------------* Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 95 18:57:22 PDT From: hollen at megatek.com (Dion Hollenbeck) Subject: O2 dissolution >>>>> "Wallie" == uscgc2r3 <uscgc2r3 at ibmmail.com> writes: Wallie> I've read a lot about the value of adding oxygen to the wort Wallie> before pitching. I'd like to throw out an idea about the most Wallie> efficient way to do this if you're already kegging and force Wallie> carbonating. How about pressurizing the keg with oxygen Wallie> through the same line that you run CO2 through? I don't know Wallie> how much dissolves in what period of time at what Wallie> temperatures, but surely you'd get more dissolved than Wallie> bubbling ambient atmosphere (only 16% O2, and mostly nitrogen) Wallie> through the wort. Well, you will get even better dissolution if you bubble it through the liquid out tube because the bubbles come into contact with most of the wort as they travel up to the surface. I am currently trying to use a "carbonator" stone for this purpose since it puts out smaller bubbles and therefore has more surface area per volume of O2. Going to have to modify a corny keg lid so that I can easily remove the stone with a minimum chance for infection. dion - -- Dion Hollenbeck (619)675-4000x2814 Email: hollen at megatek.com Staff Software Engineer Megatek Corporation, San Diego, California Return to table of contents
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1765, 06/26/95