HOMEBREW Digest #1907 Tue 12 December 1995

Digest #1906 Digest #1908

		Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor

  malt (Michael McGuire)
  Avoiding Set Mashes ("Manning Martin MP")
  re: set mashes (ed.lingel)
  CF Wort Chiller plans (blacksab)
  Re: CO2 in solution (SLGibson71)
  Frozen Wort (Robert Brown)
  Re:PH and SG of sparge (Robert Bush)
  Re: Split decoction mash mess (Steve Alexander)
  Sparge, quality (quality) (Russell Mast)
  DMS/Durst (Jim Busch)
  Solution for same-subject post gluts? ("Dave Draper")
  Looking for Hop Jewelry (Larry McCloskey)
  Stout & then some! (cmcgee)
  Yeast FAQ-It's time for an update (Patrick Weix)
  Lambic Digest adress/Spec for types of beer (DejNik)
  Beer caps/steam hardware/antique mills (Merino Lithographics)
  Sparge water heater (C.D. Pritchard)
  Filtering... (pbabcock)
  Soda kegs... (pbabcock)

****************************************************************** * 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. # ################################################################# NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS hpfcmgw! Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew at hpfcmgw.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@ hpfcmgw.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 alpha.rollanet.org 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, 8 Dec 1995 12:08:41 -0600 From: mcguire at hvsun40.mdc.com (Michael McGuire) Subject: malt Hi all, I was wondering what the netwisdom's opinion on Pauls pale malt from Suffex(sp?) County England. Is this a British or Scottish malt/Maltster? Do people generally feel it is better, worse, or equivelent to Mutton & Fison, Otter Maris, or ??. Can someone name some Sottish Maltsters?? Pilsner malts: What is the concensius of D-C pilsen malt? How about the Ureks pilsner malt?? Is there any other brands that are available in the US?? I'd like to see more discussion in general on malts because it is the bases for all beers. Obviously, choosing the best malt for the style/type of bier is important as using the right hops, water treatment, and yeast! If this is all summerized somewere in print or webland please let me know! Thanks in Advance Michael Return to table of contents
Date: 8 Dec 1995 13:24:15 U From: "Manning Martin MP" <manning_martin_mp at mcst.ae.ge.com> Subject: Avoiding Set Mashes Al K. said: >A few days ago someone blamed a set mash on too much water in the >tun "compacting the grain bed." I don't believe this to be true either. >I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I believe that the most >common cause for a set mash is too fine a crush, where the husks are >overly pulverized. I agree, and would add that with grain mills such as the Corona and its ilk, it takes some experience to grind the grain fine enough to get a decent yield, yet not so fine as to cause run-off problems. Regarding the mash being too loose (too thin, or too much water) causing a problem, I think that in fact the opposite is often true. I know several people who used to have problems with stuck mashes. After observing their technique, I advised them to 1) increase their mash water to the usual 1.2 - 1.4 qt/lb, 2) be sure to underlet if the mash is transferred to a separate lauter tun, and 3) be sure to give the mash a good stir (and let it resettle) before starting to lauter (credit to Noonan, Brewing Lager Beer). The problems went away for good, even for grain bills with substantial wheat and wheat malt content. At the time, people were mostly just adding water to a cooler full of dry grain until it looked right, and what looked right to them was really a very stiff mash. An adequate volume of liquid gives the particles a chance to separate, and then to settle into an effective filter bed. MPM Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 95 10:44:07 PST From: ed.lingel at bangate1.TEK.COM Subject: re: set mashes Al Korzonas writes: >As an exercise, I pose this question: Have any of you had a set mash >(stuck runoff) while using a non-adjustable (one less variable) JSP >MaltMill(tm) on an all-barleymalt mash? My guess is no. I have (using a homemade Easymasher). The mash consisted of about 18 lbs of grain (pale malt, crystal, etc) in a 5 gallon kettle. The kettle was VERY full, and I probably didn't use as much foundation water as I should have. The last few batches I've made have been smaller beers and I've used more foundation water and haven't had a stuck mash since. Ed Lingel, Portland OR ed.lingel at tek.com Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 1995 14:19:14 -0600 From: blacksab at siu.edu Subject: CF Wort Chiller plans Ron Moucka asked about CF wort-chiller design. I just built one and I am extremely pleased with the results. Here's what I did: 1. ~45 feet 3/8-in copper tubing 2. ~45 feet 3/4-in I.D. commercial/contractor hose 3. modified/homemade Phil Phittings(tm) The first thing I would suggest is to either buy outright the Phil Phittings, or at least go to a shop and look real carefully at them to see how they work. They are very well made, and are a whole lot easier than re-inventing the wheel like I did. If you make your own, you might want to increase the size somewhat (to accomodate the larger hose size) and replace the compression fitting that holds the tubing with a sweat on (I'll explain this later). So, here's how I made mine: -----------------------------------\ (2) \------------\ (3) \----------------- (1) 3/4-in 1/2-in 3/8-in /----------------- /------------/ -------------| |---------/ | | | 3/4-in | | | (4) 1. This is where the hose is attached. You will need to extend this so there is room for a hose clamp and to make this section stronger, so sweat on a short piece of 3/4-in copper pipe. Over this I added a copper coupling with the stops filed out to thicken the metal and to make a tighter fit with the hose. IOW, the extension is double thick, the coupling slips over the copper pipe and butts up against the copper tee. 2. The tee reduces here. The tee I used was a 3/4-in x 1/2-in reducing tee. To this I added a short piece of 1/2-in copper pipe and a 1/2-in to 3/8-in reducer with the stops filed out so the chiller tubing will be able to pass completely thru. 3. Since the stops have been filed out, the 3/8-in chiller tubing passes all the way thru and is solderd in place. I did this to avoid a compression fitting here. I hate compression fittings, they invariably leak. Besides, if you do a good job, it looks REAL nice. You get extra points for neatness :-) 4. This is the other 3/4-in leg. To this I added a 3/4-in to 1/2-in reducer, a short piece of 1/2-in copper pipe and a brass male hose fitting. If you look hard for them, there is such an animal. It's simply a 1/2-in sweat-on with male hose threads. That's pretty much it, and of course, you'll have to make two of them. Now, once these are made, uncoil the hose in the back yard, cut the fittings off both ends and feed the copper thru. The straighter the hose, the easier this will be. Be sure to leave plenty of copper tubing sticking out both ends (more on this later). I them coiled this around a budwizer keg by rolling the keg over the hose. Try to keep it very neat, and have the hose lay on the keg in a single thickness like wire on a spool. Do not remove the keg. Now it gets kinda tricky. I made some wooden "clamps" out of 1 x 2 pine that look like this: |---------------------------------------------| |-----------|----------------------|----------| Note that this is | wood | Hose goes here | wood | sitting side-ways, |-----------|----------------------|----------| in use, it will form |---------------------------------------------| a vertical leg. Make 4 or 5 of these, but do it in such a way that the hose ALWAYS slopes downwards around the spiral. IOW, the short pieces of wood will be different sizes. Carefully remove the hose from the keg and place these clamps on the spiral one at a time to hold it together. I used sheet-rock screws into the small pieces of wood. You might want to pre-drill to avoid splitting the wood. Be prepared to do a lot of swearing getting the first two legs in place, and some extra hands would be a god-send. The chiller should now be fairly rigid, and stand on it's own legs. Across the tops of two opposite legs, dill a 1-in hole and insert a dowel for a handle, just like a tool-tote. Now you can solder on one of the copper fittings. The second one needs to be soldered on in such a way that the finished in-let and out-let will work with your set-up. On mine, I aligned the two male hose fittings perpendicular to the ground. You might want to configure yours differently. Now, remember the 3/8-in tubing that I said to keep long? I had you do this so you can customize to your particular set-up. You could cut them fairly short and attatch braided hose to them, which is what I did; or you could use flare fittings, which is what I'm going to change to. I attach the wort-out to a pump (this is to avoid HSA) and voila! One final note: There is no reason that the chiller NEEDS to be a spiral like this. One could, for example set it up as a very long pipe if your boiling kettle and fermenters were in different rooms. Just be sure it will drain. This might be particularly nice if you brew on an upper floor and ferment in the basement. Please feel free to e-mail me if any of this doesn't make sense, and I'll post corrections later. - --Harlan. ============================================================================ Harlan Bauer ...malt does more than Milton can <blacksab at siu.edu> To justify God's ways to man. --A.E. Houseman ============================================================================ Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 14:57:42 -0500 From: SLGibson71 at aol.com Subject: Re: CO2 in solution I am a new comer to HBD. This is my first post, but here's my $0.02. Algis Korzonas writes: >>As for Kelly's assertion that "The newly produced CO2 is >produced_in solution_..." I think that it is possible that it is >not. Note that when you bottle the beer, it already contains as >much CO2 as it can in solution at whatever temperature it was >fermenting. It will lose a bit of dissolved CO2 during >siphoning because of the partial vacuum just past the peak of the siphon setup. However, as the CO2 gets produced, the CO2 >would have to go somewhere and it can't so that pressure would >increase. It is this increase in pressure that causes more CO2 >to go into solution in the beer. Where the pressure builds is >an odd question because liquids are incompressible, for the most >part, right? Time to hand off to the physicists... Sorry, this statement simply cannot be completely correct. Let's see if I can explain why. The CO2 must be produced in solution. Where are the yeast? In solution. They are part of the solution. I think the real question here is will the liquid take up any more CO2? I do not think siphoning would cause the lose of dissolved CO2, but any agitation, such as liquid splashing into glass on transfer would cause lose of dissolved CO2. I think the partial vacuum would only cause the liquid to become these dense, but the change is so small it is negligible. The priming sugar will replenish the lost dissolved CO2 causing saturation, then the undissolved CO2 will rise to the headspace and eventually cause a growth in pressure, but this takes time. A good way at looking at fermentation, is to picture the entire process as the half-life of a nuclear molecule: very violent and active at first and slowly over time becomes dormant. The time just before priming can be considered the dormant stage of your nuclear molecule. When you add your priming sugar, the so called half-life process starts again, but at a fraction of the scale. The concentration of fermentable sugar is very,very low considering the amount of liquid and the amount of sugar added to it. Since there is very little sugar to eat, the yeast will not be extremely active, and as time goes by there will be even less sugar to eat so they must slow their metabolism down accordingly. The concentration of fermentable sugars is directly proportional to the metabolism and rates of division among the yeast present. High concentration=high activity, Low concentration=low activity. This is why the aging process takes time. It takes longer for low activity yeast to eat the very small amounts of sugar that are still left. As far as the CO2 in the headspace coming back into solution, there is some transfer of CO2 molecules back and forth between air and liquid but the overall concentration remains constant. Let's just say that for every CO2 molecule that goes back into solution, there must be another molecule leaving solution. The pressure caused by the CO2 in the air space will not change the concentration of the dissolved CO2, but it will change the density of the beer until the cap is removed. Finally, liquids are compressable. Just ask any scuba diver. A defined amount of liquid will change density but not concentration. Notice that I say a defined amount, because for example, a cubic foot of water at the bottom of a lake would be more dense and more concentrated than a cubic foot at the top because there is simply more water molecules packed into the cubic foot at depth. Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 15:11:01 -0500 (EST) From: Robert Brown <rbrown00 at uoguelph.ca> Subject: Frozen Wort HBDers, Can you freeze wort? Obviously you can but are their any bad side effects to doing this. Has anyone done this? Why would I want to freeze wort, either before or after boiling you ask? Here are some of my ideas: 1) Just thaw and reboil as a starter media for next batch. 2) Save to carbonate with later. 3) Mash and collect an extra gallon or so for a mash-extract batch later. Does anyone have any thoughts on the subject? I would rather freeze than refrigerate if possible as the kitchen fridge harbours a rather determined yeastie that will ferment that forgotten half glass of orange juice despite the frost that accumulates on the veggies. TIA, Rob Regarding that wild yeast in my fridge, anythoughts on harnessing it as a potential "Guelph lambic" yeast or should I just ignore or destroy it? I suppose I could go to the trouble of finding out what genus and species it is but that sounds like a lot of work and favours to call in. And yes I know fermenting with an unknown yeast isn't the safest idea but where do you think our brewing ancestors got their yeast from, Smack packs :). It would probably make a lousy beer (or whatever), has anyone tried this? Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 21:26:57 +0100 From: bush at shbf.se (Robert Bush) Subject: Re:PH and SG of sparge "Taber, Bruce" <BRUCE.TABER at NRC.CA> wrote in #1904: >Well I understand the concepts of stopping the sparge at SG 1.010, >(this keeps the sugar content of the wort high enough), and stopping >at a PH of 5.5 - 6.0 (this stops excess tannin extraction from the grains) >But how do you measure these? > >The runnings are at about 75 deg. C. There would have to be a >significant correction factor added to any SG reading taken with a >hydrometer. Is this the procedure followed? What is the correction >factor? Here are correction tables for hydrometers that a friend gave me. I don't know their scientific value but they work with my cheapo-so-so-calibrated-home-use hydrometer (the first one is for 20 degree C hydrometers): Temp (C) Correction 4-10 -2 11-17 -1 18-22 0 23-26 +1 27-29 +2 30-32 +3 33-35 +4 36-38 +5 39-41 +6 42-44 +7 45-47 +8 etc. This next one is for hydrometers calibrated at 15.6 C: Temp (C) Correction 4-12 -1 13-18 0 19-23 +1 24-27 +2 28-30 +3 31-33 +4 34-36 +5 37-39 +6 40-41 +7 etc. It would be a lot easier to have a formula for this. Anyone for maths out there? Another tip is to take a sample and cool it to the right temperature and then read it. Wassail! ==================================== = Robert Bush, Eskilstuna, SWEDEN = = E-mail: bush at shbf.se = ==================================== Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 15:31:59 -0500 From: Steve Alexander <stevea at clv.mcd.mot.com> Subject: Re: Split decoction mash mess In Homebrew Digest #1904 (December 08, 1995), Mark A. Melton writes: >that this destroys the enzymes. However, where does it say that the enzymes >are mostly in the liquor? If it does I have missed it (obviously). In the late 1800's when enzymes isolation was in it's infancy, a French scientist (sorry I don't recall the name) determined that 'maltase' (as the enzymes were then called) was isolated in the albumin (soluable protein) portion. This is standard info in the scientific literature, but I can't really say where this fact is brought out in homebrewing literature. I'd check out G. Fix 'Brewing Science' and Greg Noonan 'Brewing Lager Beers' - very probably in the first, likely in the second. Many homebrewing books don't discuss decoction at any length and so the topic simply never comes up. I think that even Miller's TCHBoHB is deficient here. >There is one point that might be of interest: using the first- runnings >sp. gr. with the original volume of mash liquor instead of the final >volume after sparging with the final sp. gr. to calculate E.R. As usually >calculated the E.R. includes both the effect of mash-conversion >efficiency and the effect of extraction efficiency. I think there might >be some merit in knowing what the conversion efficiency is independent of >the extraction, and the way I did it should give that, n'ext-ce pas? >Mark A. Melton Extraction rate is a measure of what was take out of the grain as soluable material - that is what was *extracted*. Extraction efficiency (as measured at breweries) is just the percentage of the grist mass that ends up in the wort (runs around 70%). Homebrew efficiencies are based on some estimated maximum extraction rates for various grain types so 37pt/#/gal of pale ale malt really represents something around 70% mass extraction. I personally prefer to measure SG just before pitching so that I don't measure the effects of the hot and cold break material. I'm interested in usable extraction, not the break material. The idea is that excess mass of the wort (from a Brix or Plato table, or just from SG points times volume) *IS* the extracted mass from the grist. Once the wort is seprated from the grist we can accurately measure the volume and SG, and thus calculate the extracted mass. Every measure of SG after the beginning of the mash, including your first running SG (FR_SG) measure, measures effects of mash conversion and extraction since the mash makes insoluable proteins and carbohydrates soluable, increasing the SG. Greg Noonan, in the book above, suggests drying the used grist in an oven and weighing it, which is also a valid technique. His notion is the mass_in - mass_out equals extracted mass. This is a very sound and direct measure, tho a PITA to implement. I don't see that measuring first runnings SG multiplied by infusion volume gives a number with any perceptable value. FR_SG allows the calculation of the extracted mass per unit volume of the 'free' liquid in the mash, but we have no means of measuring volume of 'free' liquid in the mash - it's certainly not the same as the infusion volume - some has evaporated, a lot had been absorbed in the grist. A final wort SG measurement measures the 'free' liquid extracted mass plus the soluable mass which is sparged/washed from the grist. With some correction factors and estimations for lost liquid volume you might be able to say something about how much of the soluable material(extract) is in solution in the mash-tun versus how much is freed by sparging, but I'm not sure what the value is. Stirring the mash vigorously would probably effect the figure. Steve Alexander Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 14:50:08 -0600 From: Russell Mast <rmast at fnbc.com> Subject: Sparge, quality (quality) > From: "Taber, Bruce" <BRUCE.TABER at NRC.CA> > Subject: PH and SG of sparge > Well I understand the concepts of stopping the sparge at SG 1.010, > (this keeps the sugar content of the wort high enough), and stopping > at a PH of 5.5 - 6.0 (this stops excess tannin extraction from the grains) > But how do you measure these? I measure them by tasting the spargate. The last several batches, that's literally all I've done. If it still tastes sweet, or has desirable specialty grain flavors, I'll keep sparging. If it tastes astringent and tanninny (of or pertaining to tannins), I stop sparging. Simple as that. btw, tannins will leave the back of your mouth dry, like tea does. You want that in tea, but not in beers. (Except for some Belgian styles.) I think I'm just going to write (EfsBs) from now on. It seems like there's an exception to most any brewing rule, and it's usually some Belgian style. Seriously, though, I think tasting the spargate is a better measure than any papers or hydrometers. You're making this stuff to drink, right? So drink it to make it. (It's also very yummy, just put a coffee cup under the spigot and sip between homebrews..) > From: Craig Amundsen <amundsen at biosci.cbs.umn.edu> > Subject: Quality > Budmilloormolatts I believe that's Budmolmilloorlatts, but I might be mistaken. > From: "BATLAN -D1FKV0W" <D1FKV0W at BATLAN.BELL-ATL.COM> > Subject: REPLY (SHORT, COGENT ;-)) TO "QUALITY (LONG, RAMB > Thus, when I underhopped my English Pale Ale, I got a brew that lots > of people liked, but it was a low-quality product, because it did not > conform to the specifications for an English Pale Ale. If my intent > had been to redefine English Pale Ale, and I had succeeded, then my > effort would have been a quality product. Very interesting. I like the idea. However, it relies on you intentions a bit more than I think it needs to. Someone in pricate e-mail (who may have since posted) mentioned that they think quality is defined by the "care and effort" put into production. Again, I think that may be necessary, but not sufficient for quality. I think that there is something about a finished product which can be called a level of quality that is independant from the production process and the intentions of the producer. I don't think that products have a single property called "quality" the same way an object can have a property of "mass", but I think that a better definition of quality should rely on properties of the products themselves, rather than the intention or actions of the producer. > > (Notice that one argument about brew categories says we should > > just drop them and judge the "excellence" of beers. ...) > > Excellence? Judged against what standard? This was a long running argument about a month ago. The idea was that you could greatly loosen, or completely drop, the standards by which you could judge beer, and just rate them on how "yummy" they are. That's how I do it for myself, but I don't think it's a good idea for competetions. If we don't hush up about this soon, that thread will reignite.... > "Oh!" Pete tastes some more. "It's pretty good black raspberry." Cool story. I think that's applicable to the idea of multiple standards for quality. (eg. Any beer at all is a piss-poor automobile, and vice versa.) Also, the fact remains, regardless of what a bad chocolate it was, it might have been a mediocre black rasberry or a fantastic one. If you screw up when making an IPA so seriously you end up with a brown ale, you might still have a great brown ale. Your procedures were clearly of low quality, but the final product might, by chance, end up of high quality. > From: Tim Fields <74247.551 at compuserve.com> > I searched the archives unsuccessfully for a source for zip lock oxygen > barrier bags. Does anyone know of a source? Surely your homebrew supply stores that use these must get them from somewhere. Maybe they'd know. > From: "William G. Rucker" <ruckewg at naesco.com> > Far be it from me to tell you (the collective you) what not to buy and > why, but most importantly, don't tell me what I should and should not > buy based on your opinions. Far be it from me to tell you what to post and what not to post and why, but most importantly, don't tell me what I should or should not tell other people to do based on your opinions. Seriously, if -you- think that -I- will benefit by changing my purchasing practices, I WANT you to tell me what I should and should not buy. I may not follow your advice, but if it can benefit me, I want to hear it. You not only have the right to tell me what you think is best for me, you have a duty to do so. You don't have the right to coerce me, however, but that is a different matter entirely. -R Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 16:38:03 -0500 (EST) From: Jim Busch <busch at eosdev2.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: DMS/Durst The other day.... the question was how to increase DMS. <Apparently this technique IS being used by one brewpub or micro. Another <suggestion was to use Durst malt (German??). While German Pils malt can lead to higher levels of DMS compared to pale ale malt the beers Ive had made from Durst malt have been excellent with no noticable DMS. Granted, this was at a brewpub that was using a very expensive Bavarian brewhouse, but none of the beers had strong DMS levels. The fact that a malt can lead to DMS doesnt mean it will. <WIW, I am now in the process of trying my first "open" fermentation. I <used Wyeast's Irish ale yeast for this 10 gal stout, and it fermented like <gangbusters, the way it always does. I just aerated in the boiling keg, <pitched the yeast and covered the top of the keg with a towel to keep the <beasties out. I hope you removed the hot break and cleaned and santized the brewpot before using it as a fermenter! Im all for open ferments but you have to remove hot break if you want to make clean and stable beers. <1) How does Belgian pale ale differ from American? I find lots of info on <British vs. American, but not Belgian. Can I use it as a base, or is the <enzyme count too low? Any info would be appreciated. Treat it as British pale ale malt. I dont know of any American pale ale malt, there is a lot of American 2 row malt..... use it as base malt it works fine. Good brewing, Jim Busch Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 9 Dec 1995 08:53:57 +10 From: "Dave Draper" <david.draper at mq.edu.au> Subject: Solution for same-subject post gluts? Dear Friends, in #1903, Eric Miller wrote: "Seems like there have been a lot of posts saying almost exactly the same thing lately (re: Stopper in Carboy, Koch/Maytag, Propane). Please think about whether you're contributing something new before posting." One thing that has occurred to me more than once lately is reawakened by this. If part of the automagical response we all get when posting were to include the subject lines to all the posts in the queue at the time the submission is added to the queue, the poster could judge immediately whether the post they just sent off is redundant, and could cancel it if so. For example, my immediately previous post on stove mashing was not so earth-shatteringly original, and had I known that so many other stove/oven-mash posts were in the queue I would have canceled it. So how about it--I reckon it would not take a huge amount of additional programming, and the potential benefit would be worth it. Rob, if you're listening, can this be done? Cheers, Dave in Sydney "We [HBDers] are like the Borg" ---Chris Geden - --- *************************************************************************** David S. Draper, Earth Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney NSW Australia Email: david.draper at mq.edu.au Home page: http://www.ocs.mq.edu.au/~ddraper ...I'm not from here, I just live here... Return to table of contents
Date: 08 Dec 95 18:06:16 EST From: Larry McCloskey <74557.1102 at compuserve.com> Subject: Looking for Hop Jewelry I've been looking for some hop-related jewelry (especially earrings) to give as a Christmas present, but haven't been able to locate anything yet. If anybody knows of a source for such a thing, I'd appreciate the info. Thanks, Larry McCloskey 74557.1102 at compuserve.com Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 23:51:26 -0500 From: cmcgee at hom.net (cmcgee) Subject: Stout & then some! OK, folks, I have brewed many a brew, but this is the heaviest of all of my attempts, and also the least beerlike. I'm not saying (NEVER!) that stout is not beer, but this stuff was pretty far beyond stout... This is a partial grain/kit brew. I am posting the recipe that I used: a minimally time-intensive 1-stage mash for the grains. This is NOT optimal, but it is fast! Read on if you want an 18% alcohol Get-A-Spoon type beer: Using a single stage mashing process: (more if you're a more manly brewer that I!): 1 lb lt (adds alcohol) 1 lb chocolate (has cool name) 1 lb black (is MMMMMMMM!) Next: Boil your grain extract, 5 lbs dried extract, 5 lbs honey, 2 lbs corn sugar, 1/2 oz Hallertau (low hops to comp. for high malt bitternes), & 12oz Hershey's Cocoa (powdered baker's chocolate; add more to taste) Add your favorite water hardener if necessary (I use CaCO2), boil 15+ mins. Add flavor hops & a Cooper's Miner's Stout kit Boil 10 mins. Remove from heat; steep aroma hops OG 1.104 !!! Pitch ale yeast Be sure to use a large-gague blowoff (NO AIRLOCKS!) & weight down the lid of your fermenter. this recipe has blown off my entire f. lid twice! When fermentation stops, pitch champagne yeast. Mine fermented about 7 days w/ ale yeast, then about 14 days w/champagne yeast Racked into secondary Fermented about 7 days more- aged in bulk 2-3 mos. YUM! (lite beer drinkers need not apply!) - --This is NOT a traditional beer style. It is far stouter than an Imperial stout, and is intended only for the stout fanatics and the adventerous. This is my own made-up-from-scratch recipe, and I call it my "Kitchen Sink Stout". If you try it and hate it, you've been warned. If you try it and like it, you're an official member of the Wild Dog StoutAholics Club- please Email me- If you can one-up my recipe with one that you have really made and enjoyed that is stouter than this, I want to make a batch!!! Cheers! -cmcgee at hom.net Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 23:24:17 -0800 (PST) From: weix at netcom.com (Patrick Weix) Subject: Yeast FAQ-It's time for an update Dear All, This is the yeast faq editor returning after a long absence from the lists. I finished my PhD, and I am done with the first half of the third year of medical school. I would like to update the yeast faq to reflect the new strains beign put out by Wyeast and any one else. Would anyone having info on strains not covered in the old version on the yeast faq please e-mail me? TIA. Secondly, the rest of with medical school and a residency coming up, I will not be able to keep up with all the many yeast strains that are likely to come out in the next few years. In light of that fact, I would like to propose that the yeast faq be split into two sections: a yeast-tech.faq, for yeast techniques, and a yeast-strain.faq, for info on various yeast strains. The yeast strain faq could either be edited either jointly with me or by someone else entirely,i.e. by someone with more time to test various strains and with more exposure to public opinion of the various strains. Another option would be to prepare updates of all the yeast strains to come out in the previos few months or so an upload those periodically. The techniques do not change that much, and I think they can stand pretty much as they are (if you beg to differ, please e-mail me). Please e-mail me and let me know what you think. I'm going to do something, so you might as well have a say. Patrick Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 9 Dec 1995 02:48:26 -0500 From: DejNik at aol.com Subject: Lambic Digest adress/Spec for types of beer Hi Someone asked for the adress of Lambic digest here it is: Lambic-request@ lance.colostate.edu Lambic at lance.colostate.edu Also, does anyone now where I can get specifications for different styles of beer, like O.G, F.G ranges, color, bitterness etc. Thank you all ! Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 9 Dec 1995 20:33:25 +1000 From: merino at cynergy.com.au (Merino Lithographics) Subject: Beer caps/steam hardware/antique mills Curt speaker posted, >Does anyone know of a company that will custom print beer caps for >homebrewers? I have a coworker who's brother brews and is interested in >getting some caps made special for his brews. A review of back issues of >ZYMURGY and BARLEYCORN failed to uncover anything like this. As a printer, I'd better support my industry. In your Yellow Pages under "promotional printers" there should be some adds for "pad" printers. These guys use small hand fed machines that use an itaglio process and a special fine rubber pad to transfer the ink to irregular surfaces. They have special etching inks that will adhere to any surface. They can even print full process colour designs. You can reduce the setup cost by offering to make the plaster of paris casts for putting the caps on top of. They need some sort of holder for what they print. These are the people who print pens, bottle openers and all those things you wondered how they got the image on. Chris Weirup posted. >I have been very interested in the recent thread about pressure cookers as >steam generators for mashing. I definitely would like to pursue this >option for my Gott setup. >My question is this: where can I go to get the proper hardware installed >on the pressure cooker? I don't have the tools to thread or install values >and whatever in the cooker, let alone the knowledge. You can buy SS tube at most plumbers supplies or SS merchants. You can spiral coil it by wrapping it around a cone (a woodturner will make this) and then flattening it. If you buy a cast aluminium cooker, you will also need some sort of through wall gasketed fittings. With the more expensive SS cookers, welding by someone with a TIG welder is a cheap option. TIG will ensure the welding process doesn't retemper any steel and weaken it. Outlets for steam should be through the body of the cooker, not the lid. However they should terminate close to the top of the inside of the cooker to be well clear of the water. I repeat, DON"T TOUCH THE PRESSURE RELIEF VALVE! For fitting any plumber should do, pipes are their trade. Don't be affraid of wandering in and asking advice before you buy the parts. I always do, people love to talk about their trade. (see above) Yours will be a small nusiance job but interesting to them if you do the running around to buy the parts they don't have like SS ball valves. Old technology. I recently wanted to upgrade my mill and thought of building a full micro scale model which I'll need later anyway. However a chance meeting with some antique machinery enthusiasts turned up gold. These people have an amazing assortment of old things that they restore, sell and swap. It is very easy to find a 100+ year old cast iron grain mill with beautifully scrolled handle wheel, all in working order. Mine cost A$120, peanuts for a useful thing of beauty. The owner was tickled pink that it was going back to work. It now sits in my garage next to my 110 year old letterpress that prints my labels. Charlie (Brisbane, Australia) Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 9 Dec 95 08:11 EST From: cdp at chattanooga.net (C.D. Pritchard) Subject: Sparge water heater I'm pondering fitting a 5 gallon polyethylene pail with a hot water heater element for use as a sparge water tank. 1500 W low heat density element fastened to a hole in side of pail with a 1.25" electrical locknut and some o-rings or gaskets. The pail is insulated but a 4" diameter hole will be made in the stuff where the element goes through. Even tho' I plan on using a diode to reduce the element power to 750 W, I'm concerned that the base of the element may melt/deform the plastic. If anyone's been down this sorta road ahead of me, I'd sure like to hear how it turned out. TIA! Hoppy Holidays! C.D. Pritchard cdp at chattanooga.net Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 1995 10:19:04 EST From: pbabcock at e-mail.com Subject: Filtering... Pat Babcock Internet: pbabcock at e-mail.com Bronco Plant Vehicle Team - Body Construction Assembly Engineer Subject: Filtering... /internet /to bu182 at freenet.toronto.on.ca /end Greetings, Beerlings! Take me to your lager! In HBD # 1905, Mitch Hogg asks about filtering homebrew... First, yes. A wine filter is acceptable for filtering beer. I use a 'Hexter', the very filter that Dan Listermann is purported to be investigating for marketing as a homebrew filter (True, Dan? If you need info from a user, feel free to e-mail). However, it is fairly pointless to filter a beer destined for bottle conditioning, unless you have extreme haze problems with the beer (not your problem as statedin your post). The very act of bottle conditioning contributes to the sediment you are trying to avoid. Though you may notice *less* in a beer that has been filtered prior to conditioning, it will still be there by the nature of the process. Also, the filter requires a means to force the beer through. With most filters, gravity is wholly inadequate. A means of pressurization is required. Most filter from kegged beer; keg to keg. If you do choose (and figure out how) to filter your beer destined for bottle conditioning, do so from the secondary to the bottling bucket. Whether or not you will be required to pitch fresh yeast is dependent on the size of your filter, but no matter the size, count on some reduction of yeast count as the haze and trub particles will buid up on the filter element and augment its ability to 'strain' yeast from the beer. I would recommend adding bottling yeast based on this - just to be 'on the safe side', but I again assert that filtering prior to bottling to reduce sediment is pretty much a waste of time and beer when bottle conditioning. Another desparation post. Replies, flames, and comments to pbabcock at oeonline.com, please! IYWIDRTYMJFDIY Best regards, Patrick G. Babcock Michigan Truck Plant PVT Office (313)46-70842 (V) -70843 (F) 38303 Michigan Wayne,MI 48184 Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 1995 12:07:03 EST From: pbabcock at e-mail.com Subject: Soda kegs... Pat Babcock Internet: pbabcock at e-mail.com Bronco Plant Vehicle Team - Body Construction Assembly Engineer Subject: Soda kegs... /internet /to mwilliams at ahsr.org /end Greetings, Beerlings! Take me to your lager! Also, in HBD #1905 Matt Williams asks for opinions regarding pin vs ball-lock soda kegs... It's not so much which one is better, it's more what are the differences. The pin-lock type - Coke - tend to be taller canisters. Also, the disconnects are much taller as well. They also appear to be more durable, but I can't substantiate that. The ball-lock - Pepsi - are shorter, but marginally wider. The disconnects do not stand as tall above the keg, either. Another point to consider is that the disconnect fittings on the pin-lock type require that you either buy or make a slotted socket in order to remove them for maintenance. The pin-lock type do not suffer from this impediment. These observations are based on a side-by-side comparison between my ball-lock kegs (13 units) and several brew-bud's pin-lock kegs. As with anything, YMMV... Ok, ok! I'll stop posting from here and wait til I get home. Once again, any comments, flames, replies to pbabcock at oeonline.com, please! IYWIDRTYMJFDIY Best regards, Patrick G. Babcock Michigan Truck Plant PVT Office (313)46-70842 (V) -70843 (F) 38303 Michigan Wayne,MI 48184 Return to table of contents
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1907, 12/12/95