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


Contents:
  siphoning (Rolland Everitt)
  Heat Evolved by Yeast Growth/Fermentation (John W. Braue, III)
  Green Mt. Competition Address Correction (TAyres)
  Green Mountain Competition Redux (TAyres)
  Siphon Help (KennyEddy)
  Spitting Brew Sessions Up (Chris Strickland)
  Gears, DMS (Jack Schmidling)
  Hoppingator (Ron Porreca)
  5L minikegs (Kyle R Roberson)
  Formaldehyde/Corrections/Yeast Heat (A. J. deLange)
  Tap Locks (Jeff Hewit)



******************************************************************
* 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: Sat, 23 Dec 1995 07:33:50 -0500
From: af509 at osfn.rhilinet.gov (Rolland Everitt)
Subject: siphoning



Michael Millstone wrote about a siphoning problem.  I have had
similar problems, especially when using my handy-dandy spring-
loaded bottling gadget (I don't know what the proper name is).
The problem seems to be that when siphoning beer that is
saturated with CO2, enough gas comes out of solution in the hose
to form a large bubble.  I watch the accumulated gas pocket get
larger and larger.  The larger it becomes, the less effective
the siphon is.  The beer runs more slowly, which in turn provides
a longer time period during which the traveling beer can give up
its CO2 inside the hose, etc.  The result is that the siphon
stops.  This never happens when siphoning cooled wort to the
primary, only when there is dissolved CO2.  Although the problem
is aggravated by the use of the bottling thingie (which slows the
flow), it sometimes occurs even without it.  I'm not certain,
but it seems that the problem is worse with older hose.  I 
assume that this is because the hose is not as clean, and
provides more nucleation sites for bubbles to form, but this
is just a guess.  One obvious workaround is to increase the
vertical drop of the siphon, but as I have 8-foot ceilings in
my house, there is a limit  :->

I'm sure that others have seen this problem - any advice?

Rolland Everitt
af509 at osfn.rhilinet.gov

Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 23 Dec 1995 08:08:40
From: braue at ratsnest.win.net (John W. Braue, III)
Subject: Heat Evolved by Yeast Growth/Fermentation

ajdel at interramp.com (A. J. deLange) writes:

>John Brau commented that heat isn't evolved until the fermentation has
>become vigorous. An experiment I did this weekend indicates the contrary.

Damn it, A. J., criticize my lab technique and my conclusions all
you want, but spell my bloody name correctly! :) 

>I was trying to see how fast yeast grow if kept oxygenated for
>extended periods. I innoculated a litre of air saturated 6.6 P wort
>in a 2L Erlenmyer with about 4E6 cells/ml (Wyeast Czech Pils) and
>put it on a stirrer. [Data points omitted to conserve that
precious bandwidth]
>Conclusion: a fair amount of heat is produced by yeast during their growth
>phase.

I wouldn't doubt it; the growth metabolism *must* generate heat,
and that heat *must* go somewhere; First and Second Thermo, yes? 
However, there are some significant differences between the
experiment that you describe and the "standard" brewing process. 
Or at least *my* standard process; I suppose that other people may
brew in a fashion closer to the way that you set up your
experiment.  For the sake of clarity, I should have noted that I
typically pitch 11 - 14 grams of yeast into 19L of
moderately-well oxygenated wort at ambient temperature (which
typically ranges from 65F in the winter to 75F in the summer),
and that the wort remains quiescent (except for the activity
created by the yeast) until fermentation is complete.  The
difference in conditions will certainly produce a difference in
results. 

- --
John W. Braue, III                      braue at ratsnest.win.net

I prefer both my beer and my coffee to be dark and bitter; that way,
they fit in so well with the rest of my life.

I've decided that I must be the Messiah; people expect me to work 
miracles, and when I don't, I get crucified.

Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 23 Dec 1995 11:01:23 -0500
From: TAyres at aol.com
Subject: Green Mt. Competition Address Correction

Hi, All!

I'm posting this to a wide range of places to ask the help of homebrew shop
owners, clubs, individuals, etc., in getting the word out on a mistake in the
New England Homebrewer of the Year Competition poster that was sent out to
the New England regional homebrewing community a few weeks ago.

The correct contact SnailMail address for the Green Mountain Homebrew
Competition, slated for Saturday, May 11, 1995, in Burlington, Vermont, is:

Tom Ayres
c/o Green Mountain Mashers
P.O. Box 9492
S. Burlington, VT 05407-9492

The post office box AND Zip Code were misprinted on the poster.  If you have
any of these posters in your possession -- or know locations where they are
posted -- I'd greatly appreciate it if you would correct them accordingly.
 Thanks!!!

Cheers,

Tom Ayres 

Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 23 Dec 1995 11:22:18 -0500
From: TAyres at aol.com
Subject: Green Mountain Competition Redux



Hi, All (Again)!

That Green Mountain competition is May 11, 1996, frog odd's sake,  NOT 1995.
 We are having editing problems, aren't we?

Cheers,

Tom Ayres 

Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 23 Dec 1995 12:06:40 -0500
From: KennyEddy at aol.com
Subject: Siphon Help

Michael Millstone writes:

> Problem: Never had a problem with starting the siphon--up the cane, through
the 
> curve, through the attached piece of hose, then whammo!  The liquid seems
to 
> stop flowing at this point and tons of bubbles appear.  Soon thereafter
(3-4 
> seconds) the siphon stops. Must have tried 50 times.  Ended up filling 41 
> bottles (plus most of the crevices in my kitchen floor) by picking up my 5 


The sudden increase in the tubing diameter as you go from the smaller racking
cane to the larger hose results in a huge "bubble" which invariably breaks
the siphon at that point.  This is further aggravated by the fact that the
hose turns downward at this point, so any air tends to "rise" as the liquid
"falls", increasing the bubble effect.

To avoid this, what I do is to hold the hose level to slightly upturned as it
leaves the cane.  Start the suction until there is a good two feet or more of
liquid beyond the cane/hose connection, then drop the hose end into your
receiving vessel.  Now, you'll still have a small to medium bubble at the
connection, so simply squeeze the hose at this point (but don't "pich off"),
and it will move on.  You can continue to squeeze or "flick" the hose to
dislodge any stubborn bubbles.

Another solution is to use a thin-walled racking cane (copper or stainless
perhaps) so that the transition in inner diameter is minimized.

Ken Schwartz
KennyEddy at aol.com


Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 23 Dec 1995 12:35:00 -0500
From: Chris Strickland <cstrick at iu.net>
Subject: Spitting Brew Sessions Up

Because of my work schedule over the last six months I've only been able to
make one batch of beer.  I just don't have the 7-8 hours it takes on a
weekend.  If I could split my mashing and brew times up to two 4 hour
sessions that I could do over two different weekends it would make life a
little happier.

Has anyone split the brewing session up, and if so, I'd like some suggestions.
- --------------
Chris Strickland
cstrick at iu.net
http://www.teg.saic.com/mote/people.html


Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 23 Dec 95 12:16 CST
From: arf at mcs.com (Jack Schmidling)
Subject: Gears, DMS


>From: Larry Johnson <Maltster at ix.netcom.com>

>For a given load, there shouldn't be any difference in the torque
 produced at the mill, whether it is delivered by pulleys and belts
 or by gears.  If the ratio between the input (the motor) and the
 output (the mill) of the power transmission is the same in a pulley
 system as in a gear motor system, then there are no differences
in torque.

Agreed.  However, the problem lies in getting that torque to the
mill.  If the motor (gear output shaft) is turning at the same speed
as the intended mill speed, it must be coupled  with a one
to one  ratio and getting enough friction with belt and pulleys becomes
a problem.  In order to get enough friction,  folks resort to 
over-tensioning the belt, which bends the shaft which eventually snaps
off.  Alternately, they use chains and sprockets or hard couplings.  
These have no slippage so things break when a jam occurs.

>From: hollen at vigra.com

>To expand on this, my approach is to put the motor lower than the mill
and on a hinged platform (harder with a MM, but possible) and let the
weight of the motor be the only "clutch".  As soon as the mill gets
jammed, the small pulley on the motor just slips on the V-belt.

That is the classic way of doing things but I am having a hard time 
visualizing why the motor has to be below the mill.  The problem is just
getting the motor into a position so that "down" represents pressure on
the belt.

In retrospect though, it really is not idiot proof as a  heavy motor hinged
so the center of gravity puts all the weight on the belt could produce 
enough tension to distort the shaft.

Just for the record, we are not talking about bending the shaft in the usual
sense.  Just applying enough stress with no noticeable bend will do the 
same job as a hack saw.  The stress travels around the shaft as it turns
and eventually, just falls off.


>From: Bill Rust <wrust at csc.com>
>Subject: Re: Heater/Fridge Temp Controller Plans

>regardless of the ambient temp.  Right now it is keeping my beer from
>freezing in my garage refrigerator. (I'm in Michigan, the fridg is unplugged
>while a light bulb provides the heat)
 
Not sure why you want to unplug the fridge as you lose control of the temp
and rely on luck.  I have my brewery set up in a small barn that is only
heated on brew day so I have the same problem.

I have found that a 15W bulb will produce just enough heat to force the
fridge to go on often enough to maintain control except on the coldest days.
So far, I have not seen the fridge go below about 38 with the outside temp
near zero.  The insulation on these new freezers is really amazing.

>I agree that a light bulb would work well as a heat source, but I would
think that the light it produces would be considerably more detriment than
the benefit of the heat.  Would painting the lightbulb some color (black???)
still allow heat to be produced?  

You are presuming that we all ferment in glass?

My primary is in my 10 gal ss mash tun and secondary is in 10 kegs.  No
light problem.

>From: Jim Cave <CAVE at PSC.ORG>
>Subject: Adding yeast the next day
 
>Subject: Adding yeast the next day

  >      I don't have a problem with delaying pitching up to 8 hours, providing
the beer is cooled immediately.  The problem I have is the slow cooling.  1st,
you increase the opportunity for contamination, no matter how careful you are
with your sanitation.  Remember, sanitation is NOT sterilization, and wort at
100 F is mighty tasty stuff and bacteria replicate at incredible rates at that
temp.  Air attemperation is just too slow a cooling process.  2nd, DMS 
production will be excessive, particularly with the standard North American
malts which are of the low-kiln temperature variety (i.e. lager malts).

These factoids have been out there for years and seem to be chipped
into homebrew legend but experience (mine) does not seem to support
either claim.

Some of the best beers I have made were cooled simply by putting the
lid on the kettle and letting it sit over night to cool.  

The notion of sanitation vs sterilization is cute but can you name even one
common contamnination of beer that can survive 90 minutes of boiling?.
There are only a handful of organisms in the whole world that are not killed
by boiling (the source of botulism being one) but they are not likely to
find their way into your beer and probably couldn't survive there if they
did.

For all practicle purposes, if you put a lid on the kettle after the boil, it is
sterile and will stay that way for a long time.

DMS is another boogyman that the experts love to write about but for us
mere mortals who enjoy our beer and the compliments we get from
other mortals who enjoy our beer, I say BAH!

If a wort chiller is intimidating, try making beer without one and let your
own taster be the judge. 

>  Geeze Gary!  You've got serious equipement there, surely building a 
$30 chiller won't tax your pocket book or your technical prowess!!!!

That seems simple and in his case maybe so but think of all the novices
out there who will go on adding cold water to their boiled extract brews
because they ARE intimidated by wort chillers and lots of other
seemingly complicated stuff needed to make "good" beer.

I have seen this hobby go from an extreme paucity of reliable information
to an overabundance of highly technical, complicated, super precise 
information that simply overwhelms the beginner.  In the bad old days
it was easy to make lousy beer and now it is difficult to make perfect
beer.  Lost in the middle is that it is now also easy to make really
good beer.

js
 
p.s. I am sure you are all delighted to see that I have solved my posting
problems and seem to be resuming my role as momily buster.....



jjs

Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 23 Dec 95 17:18 EST
From: Ron Porreca <porrecar at pennet.com>
Subject: Hoppingator

Hello beer lovers       
the reason for this post is to find anyone with knowledge of a brew that was
named hoppingator, it became popular in the late 60's or early 70's. I
believe it was a limited release by the Pittsburgh Brewing Co. I would like
to try and duplicate this malt high alcohol receipe. Any help will be
apppreciated, thanks in advance .       
                                           porrecar at pennet.com
                                           porrecara at washjeff.edu
   ,**\                                    
  <_o***\
____\****_\___
\   (***(____/         The Three Most FEARED Words in Hockey:
 \   \***\__/       
  \   \***\/                      MARIO IS BACK!
   \   \**/                     #66 Le Magnifique
    \   \/                         
     \  /
      \/


Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 23 Dec 1995 15:15:14 -0800 (PST)
From: Kyle R Roberson <roberson at beta.tricity.wsu.edu>
Subject: 5L minikegs

Has anyone seen micros or pubs using the 5L minikegs to sell
their brew in? Anyone have any information on where to get them
wholesale? 

Regards,
Kyle


Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 23 Dec 1995 19:27:56 -0500
From: ajdel at interramp.com (A. J. deLange)
Subject: Formaldehyde/Corrections/Yeast Heat

RE Formaldehyde in beer: Unfortunately formaldehyde has been, and may still
be being used in brewing. Added to the mash it enhances the clarity of the
final product by complexing and settling out protein and phenols.
Supposedly less than 0.2 mg/l survives into the finished beer. I am not
accusing any particular brewery of doing this nor do I disallow the
possibility that this practice may even have been outlawed in the
"civilized" world as formaldehyde is definitely toxic (and doesn't smell
very good either in my opinion).

**************************************************************

Greg King commented on my conversion of Robert Bush's gravity correction formula
to centigrade:
>>Robert Bush asked about conversion of the SG correction formula to Centigrade:
>>
>  0.00045*( 23.9 - C) + Hydrometer reading
>>
>Actually, this should be:
>
> 0.00045 * (T - T_ref) + Hydrometer reading
>
>where T is the measured temperature and T_ref is the temperature the
>hydrometer was calibrated at (both in Celsius).

Quite right. Ooops!. The reference temperature would be 15.56C for the 60F
in the example given by Bush. While on the subject, I didn't think much
about the formula at the time; just converted it to centigrade. But now
that I'm looking at it the coefficient of 2.5E-4 SG per Fahrenheit degree
(4.5E-4 per centigrade degree) seems a bit high.

The table below gives some comparative numbers from other sources. The
value 2.5E-4 is to be compared to the 1st Coefficient in the table.

Wort     Source          Ref Temp (F)  1st Coeff  2nd Coeff   Range (F)

Water    CRC Handbook      60.0          .87E-4    1.58E-6    43 - 104
Water    DeClerk           63.5          .85E-4    2.15E-6    55 -  73
10 P     DeClerk           63.5         1.13E-4    2.62E-6    55 -  73
20 P     DeClerk           63.5         1.46E-4    2.66E-6    55 -  73
Unspec.  Noonan            60.0          .83E-4    1.45E-6    40 -  130
Unspec   Papazian*         60.0          .83E-4    1.45E-6    50 -  120

* The coefficients for the Papazian data are just copies of the Noonan
coefficients. Papazian's numbers fall right on the fit to Noonan's (in fact
the fit is better with Papazian's). The fact that these numbers match the
CRC and DeClerk water numbers makes us suspect that the Noonan and Papazian
corrections are for water ("Unspec." indicates that the gravity of the wort
was unspecified). Brewers may wish to use a larger number, more in line
with the DeClerk numbers, when dealing with worts of higher gravity but
probably not as high as 2.5E-4. Note that the DeClerk numbers are
restricted to a rather small range of temperatures. This supports the idea
that it is always better to cool the sample to within 5 degrees or so of
the hydrometer reference temperature than to try to correct for a reading
taken at a temperature 30F or more away from it.


The second coefficients are used to refine the values obtained by using
only the 1st. Thus the approximate correction (to be added to the
hydrometer reading) is:

(1st coeff)(Wort temp - Reference Temp)

This correction value can be improved by adding a second term so that the
correction becomes:

(1st coeff)(Wort temp - Reference Temp)+(2nd coeff)(Wort temp - Reference
Temp)^2

Note that the second term adds about a point (.001) when the temperature of
the wort is about 25F above the reference temperature i.e. about 85F. Below
this, there is little point in bothering with the second term. When taking
measurements below the reference temperature the correction is always less
than one point according to the Papazian, Noonan and CRC water models. On
the other hand, DeClerk shows corrections of minus 1 point for 20 P wort
and .75 point for 10 P wort at 55F.

*********************************************************************

On the subject of corrections: in my last post on diacetyl I wrote
"oxidize" when I should have said "reduced". I also ought to make it clear
that I don't disagree with the people who have said that diacetyl is
reduced at lower temperatures. In fact it is my standard practice to hold
my lagers at about 38F for a week or so before transferring to the lagering
corny's and I lager for the first 4 weeks at 36-38. I only do a "diacetyl
rest", i.e. raise the temp for a couple of days, with yeasts which have a
bad reputation (308) or are unknown (just to be on the safe side).

**********************************************************************

Jeff McNally asked me (in private e-mail) whether the temperature rise I
observed growing yeast in a flask (#1915) might have been from the
agitation of the wort by  the stirrer which I thought was a pretty good
question although I was sure that the answer was "No". Well, it is "no" but
part of the heat rise did come from a related source: the stirrer motor.
The motor is totally enclosed within the unit and, like most motors it gets
warm. As the unit is a combination hot plate/stirrer it is designed to
conduct heat from its interior to the surface on which the flask sits. In
checking on Jeff's hypothesis I found the surface of the stirrer to
equilibrate at 4.2C above the ambient air and a liter of water in a 2 litre
flask on the surface to come to equilibrium at 3.7C above the ambient. In
the experiment with the yeast the  wort temperature was observed at 6.1 -
6.7 C above the ambient (having started out 3 C below it). Thus, while two
thirds of the rise was due to the stirrer motor, the yeast still produced a
fair amount of heat.

A.J. deLange   Numquam in dubio, saepe in errore!
ajdel at interramp.com



Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 23 Dec 1995 20:36:11 -0500
From: jhewit at freenet.vcu.edu (Jeff Hewit)
Subject: Tap Locks



Steven Lichtenberg is looking for a way to lock his beer tap to
keep his two-year old from flooding his place with beer.

Rapids Wholesale Equipment in Cedar Rapids, IA, 1-800-472-7431
has a Beer Faucet Lock in their Brewer's Warehouse Club catalog for 
$29.50.  From the picture, it looks like it will fit on most,
if not all, beer faucets.  Hope this helps.

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

Return to table of contents

End of HOMEBREW Digest #1918, 12/25/95