HOMEBREW Digest #1946 Sat 27 January 1996

[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]

		Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor

  Question: Problem with beer attracting insects. ("David W. Boyd")
  Competition: World Cup '96 ("Bob Regent")
  Uncl: Honey wheat beer is too yeasty ("Calvin Perilloux")
  Oxygenator (Guy Mason)
  Stainless Paint mixers ("mike spinelli")
  aluminum brewing kegs (Julio Canseco)
  Summary: Cold Ale Fermentation (Russ Snyder)
  Follow up to Q's (Steven Lichtenberg)
  Blue Dog Ale recipe and Manzanillo (Rob Emenecker)
  Yeast Energizer? (Nutrient?) (Rob Emenecker)
  Blowing Off the Blow-off Method?? (Bill Rust)
  trub ("Tracy Aquilla")
  Re: Blow off fermentation (David Ard)
  white beer (Alan P. Van Dyke)
  re: Diacetyl (Eric W. Miller)
  Mashing Potatoes! (Jim Cave)
  Cancel (PEthen)
  PET bottles - O2 permeability (Bob Waterfall)
  Crashing Carboys / Doin' the carboy shuffle (Greg Hawley)
  AC Power Controller Circuits (KennyEddy)
  Hot break/Cold break (John Wilkinson)
  Very high OG (Maxwell_McDaniel_at_PRISM)
  The Valley Mill (919) 405-3632" <danz at edasich.rtp.semi.harris.com>
  Plastics & Heat -- More Data (KennyEddy)
  Bad Alcohol (Mike White)

****************************************************************** * 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: Wed, 24 Jan 1996 11:48:04 -0800 From: "David W. Boyd" <dwboyd at novia.net> Subject: Question: Problem with beer attracting insects. Greetings: First I would like to thank everyone out there who contributes to the news group and mailing list. This is the most open and informative group of people I have ever encountered. It refreshing to have a good signal to noise ratio on the net. Now for a question: I recently began having a problem with little flying knats (sic) being attracted to my beer while fermenting. Heaven forbid I leave an un-rinsed bottle on the counter. The exterminator said these can be a problem in our area, and the county extension agent said that as long as I am brewing I can expect them. If they just stayed in my fermenting area (shower stall in spare bath) it wouldn't be so bad but they have migrated to the kitchen and it is creating problems with the spousal unit. I am real careful about cleaning up after brewing and wiping up any spills or overflows. They appear to be attracted to the gas given off through my airlock. I hate to think what would happen if I used a blow-off tube and bucket. Does anyone out there in the collective have any suggestions? I tried hanging fly paper but they don't seem attracted to that. On another note, thanks for all the good information on starters thats been posted. I brewed a "Black Strap Ale" last weekend. Pitched a 2 Qt starter into 5 gal of 1.061 wort. Had massive fermentation and krausen going in just over an hour. - -- David W. Boyd Buy/Sell/Trade EMAIL: dwboyd at novia.net New/Used WEB: http://www.novia.net/~dwboyd Computer Equipment Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 1996 22:53:12 -0800 From: "Bob Regent" <regent at hooked.net> Subject: Competition: World Cup '96 World Cup of Beer '96 en-dem-ic\en-'dem-ik\adj 1: belonging or native to a particular people or country 2: restricted or peculiar to a locality or region Fellow Homebrewers, In the spirit of recognizing the development of endemic styles of beer, the Bay Area Mashers are proud to present the 2nd Annual World Cup of Beer Homebrew Competition. The structure of this competit ion has been designed to celebrate the complex interacti ons between the environment, available natural resources, and local culture that arise to form regionally distinct brewing styles. For instance, who can argue that Moravian malted barley, Saaz hops, local soft water, an enormous amount of human energy an d Bohemian spirit has not fostered something worth emulating: Pilsner. To wit, we have restricted this competition to a set of eight categories that represent singular relationships between geograph y and the development of distinctive beer styles. Those categories are: American Ale, Bock, Bohemian Pilsner, English Bitter, Vienna Lager, Dry Stout, Belgian Ales, and Scotch Strong Ale. The World Cup of Beers is sanctioned by the American Homebrewers Association, and is being sponsored by numerous West Coast beer related businesses. Last years inaugural World Cup was a smashing succ ess with over 150 entries and are expecting even a great er turnout this time around ! The deadline for receiving entries is March 9, 1996; final judging will be conducted March 24, at Ti Bacio Ristorante in Oakland. The entire restaurant will be dedicate d to providing an excellent environment for beer evaluat ion. All beers will be refrigerated upon receipt, served at proper temperature and judged by experienced judges. Ribbons and prizes will be awarded to 1st, 2nd and 3rd place finishers in each categor y. A special award will be given to the Best of Show. After final judging, we invite you to a party at the nearby Barclay's Pub and Restaurant to celebrate all efforts and award the winners. This will be an excellent opportunity to share homebrew and i nteract with the professional and amateur brewers who ar e reviving quality brewing in the Bay Area. Please visit our world wide web site at <http://www.hooked.net/users/regent/worldcup.htm> where you can download complete rules, style guidelines and entry forms. For those without web access, please email Bob Regent <regent at hooked.net> and specify whether you want an information package shipped via snailmail, text email, or email with a MS Word 6.0 attachmen t (specify encoding method if desired). Experienced judges who are interested in participating should contact David Klein <Klein at physics.Berkeley.edu> . We look forward to receiving your entry and hope you'll join us to celebrate the art and science of fine brewing in the home. Sincerely, Ray Francisco Competition Coordinator Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 06:31:30 EST From: "Calvin Perilloux" <dehtpkn9 at ibmmail.com> Subject: Uncl: Honey wheat beer is too yeasty >From HBD 1944 regarding brewing the honey wheat beer... > Well, I gave it a try and needless to say, I did not get what I > expected. It has a very pronounced Yeasty flavor, and is over > carbonated... Cooled and pitched at 78 F, with Wyeast Liquid > yeast, (Bavarian Wheat Yeast). You've just brewed a Bavarian Wheat Beer, albeit one with honey in it, thus running afoul of the Reinheitsgebot police, and with the high temp ferment *and* Bavarian Wheat Yeast, you have also run afoul of your wife's (and your) expectation of an American honey wheat. You mentioned Boulevard Wheat from KS, and I'm trying to remember what that was like, but it was four years and 3000 beers ago. Most American wheats are subdued compared to the Bavarian ones, so I'll assume you want the subdued American profile. The Bavarian yeast you used probably stays in suspension more than other yeast (I have no data sheets here in front of me to confirm) because Bavarian wheat beer is often served cloudy (Naturtru:b, auf Deutsch), and that suspended yeast will give you more yeasty flavor than you want. I suspect that you're also finding really high levels of phenols if your fermentation if up in the 70's where you pitched the yeast, especially since the Bavarian strain is designed for phenol (clove aroma) production. I propose for your next try (never, ever give up!) that you use a more conventional yeast but the same ingredients and see if that comes out the way you want it. Back in the States, I brewed wheat beers with both the Bavarian and other yeasts, and the other-yeast-brews were often preferred by my friends; the true Weissbier flavor is very distinctive, often too distinctive for a lot of people. Calvin Perilloux "Bayerisches Bier, dehtpkn9 at ibmmail.com Staerker als Heimweh" Erding, Germany Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 07:20:42 -0500 From: Guy Mason <guy at matrixNet.com> Subject: Oxygenator Greetings , Has anyone tried the Oxygenator from Liquid Bread? It looks like a great way to aerate but I'd like to hear from current users before parting with any cash. Thanks - -- o o \ / M A T R I X o--o / \ O Guy Mason voice: 203-944-2020x190 o \ / guy at matrixNet.com fax: 203-944-2022 O--O--O / \ MATRIX, 2 Trap Falls Road, Shelton, CT 06484 O O Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 07:29:10 -0400 (EDT) From: "mike spinelli" <paa3983 at dpsc.dla.mil> Subject: Stainless Paint mixers I just recieved a catalog from Industrial Safeety in Ohio (1-800-537-9721) on pg 157 they have 304 stainless steel (no paint finish) mixers in various sizes. Stock # 03443 has a 1/4" shaft for use w/ electric drill and a 30" length for $19.41. Standard disclaimer. Mike in Cherry Hill NJ Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 96 08:28:21 EST From: Julio Canseco <JCANSECO at UGA.CC.UGA.EDU> Subject: aluminum brewing kegs I am trying to get a beer keg and convert it to a mash/lauter/boil/etc. kettle. I haven't been successful finding a S.S. keg, however aluminum kegs are no problem to come by. Has anybody used them? Are the a suitable alternative to S.S.? Post or e-mail OK. TIA julio canseco jcanseco at uga.cc.uga.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 09:19:57 -0500 From: Russ Snyder <rsnyder at LANDO.HNS.COM> Subject: Summary: Cold Ale Fermentation Let me first thank everyone who responded to my request for help with my problem of a stuck ale fermentation due to low tempurature. It is good to know that there are so many helpful (and clever) folks out there. The suggestions fell into two catagories as follows: Catagory 1) How to maintain a higher tempurature (65-75 deg. F) Putting the fermenter in a warm water bath Wrapping fermenter in an electric blanket I have a very small cabinet down there (basement) that is about 3'x3'x5', just the right size to put a carboy in. I got a plastic milk crate and suspended a worklight inside it so it faced downward, and put a 40 watt bulb in it. I sat the crate on the floor and the carboy on top, turned the light on and shut the cabinet. Leaving the light on 24 hours the cabinet has stabilized at about 68-70 deg., jsut right for ales. (I especially liked this one --RS) Use a "Brew Belt" available at homebrew shops. (Mine had it, but I didn't buy one) Use a heating pad set under the fermenter set on low heat, put a towel between the heating pad and the fermenter if it gets too hot. Catagory 2) Alternate yeasts that work at lower temps. (I had used Edme dry ale yeast) Wyeast's German Ale yeast at 55 degrees Wyeast #1056 (Chico ale strain) works well at 55-70 deg.F The Wyeast Calif. lagar strain (?#) might be a good choice if you want to pitch a lagar yeast and maintain a lower temp.; it is somewhat fruity, which should complement your ale The California Common Lager strain will be good up to around 65 deg Yes, Wyeast Kolsch yeast (#?) is technically an ale yeast I believe, but I have a batch fermenting now at 56F. This is a highly attenuative strain, and is said to ferment cleanly with a slightly yeasty flavor. My first batch with it is in bottles but not ready to drink yet. Well, the solution I chose was to place a 30 gal. garbage bag over the fermenter (with a hole cut out for the air lock) and fit the bag over the heat register. When the heat came on it would blow warm air into the bag, thus heating the wort to a good temp. As I metioned in my post, we have a heat pump so the air coming out of the register is only about 70 deg. F, so it took a while to start bubbling, but it did. I had to move the fermenter into my bedroom to do this, much to my wife's delight...NOT. Nothing like being lulled to sleep by the bubbling sound of active fermentation and the aroma of hops. Finally, one responder mentioned that he had had problems with Edme dry yeast being dead and never activating. Mine kicked in once the temp was raised a bit, but I thought I'd pass that along. Anyone else have a similar experience? Sorry this was so long, but I though others may benefit from the info. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 09:19:55 -0500 (EST) From: Steven Lichtenberg <steve at inet.ttgva.com> Subject: Follow up to Q's Greetings all- a few weeks ago, I posted requesting info on _FAUCET_ locks (thanks Al for clarifying the terminology). This is a follow up to that request. Many people responded with the info I asked for (Rapids, Foxx etc). The prices quoted from these vendors ranged from $30-$45 depending on exactly what you were looking for. Some people suggested a slightly different approach; that being a cut off valve on the beer line just behind the nipple. These run around $20. there were some low tech solutions as well. One suggestion was to simply remove the beer out line from the keg and put refrigerator locks on the outside of the reefer. The solution I finally came up with is a modification on something suggested by John DeCarlo (thanks John, and no I didn't make it to the BURP meeting afterall. Too much shoveling that weekend ;-)). He suggested somehow using plexiglass to build a cage around the faucet heads. This got me thinking (I know, don't play with matches). I finally ended up with an interesting solution. I took a piece of 3" PVC pipe about 8" long and cut a notch in it to accomodate the shank of the faucet. This completely covers the faucet. I then drilled a hole through the pipe near the bottom. Through the hole goes a piece of 3/8" all thread with holes drilled at either end. I put small key locks through the holes in the all thread and was done. Total cost $0 as all the parts were leftovers from other projects. If you had to buy materials at the hardware store, I can't imagine it would cost more than $10 tops. Hope this can be of use to someone out there. It just reinforces my perception of this forum as one of the best resources available to a great hobby. **** ---- "There's always time for a Homebrew!" ---- **** O|~~| ------------ Steven Lichtenberg --------------- |~~|0 `--' ---------- steve at inet.ttgva.com ------------- `--' -------- Programmer/Analyst - TTG --------- ---------- Alexandria, VA ------------ ----------------------------------- ENJOY LIFE--THIS IS NOT A REHEARSAL Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 96 09:34:20 PST From: Rob Emenecker <remenecker at cadmus.com> Subject: Blue Dog Ale recipe and Manzanillo Just two quick questions... #1--Does anyone have a recipe for Blue Dog Ale? I am passing this request along for a fellow homebrewer that does not have net access. #2--My SO and I will be travelling to Manzanillo, Mexico in early March. Does anyone have any info about local breweries to tour, REAL Mexican beer to try while there, or other fun stuff (food, wine and beer related that is)? TIA - --Rob **************************************************************************** | (remenecker at cadmus.com) | (RobEmnckr at aol.com) | | Cadmus Journal Services, Inc. | Brewery Manager, Standing Rock Brewery | | Linthicum, Maryland 21090 | Proud Purveyors of "Hairy Dog Homebrew"! | | 410-691-6454 / 684-2793 (fax) | (410) 859-9169 (voice only) | **************************************************************************** Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 96 09:57:57 PST From: Rob Emenecker <remenecker at cadmus.com> Subject: Yeast Energizer? (Nutrient?) Last night I decided to make up a case of one quart starters. I used the recipe from Dave Miller's Handbook and stumbled over one part of the recipe. The recipe calls for a teaspoon of Yeast Energizer for a 3.5 gallon batch of starter solution. My local homebrew store carried Yeast Nutrient which I assumed to be the same thing. The Yeast Nutrient was labelled as food grade urea and ammonia phosphate (or maybe ammonium phosphate... I don't have the bottle in hand). Also, the yeast nutrient was labelled to use 1 teaspoon per gallon. Are they the same thing? As I was getting the wort to a boil I realized that neither the bottle of Yeast Nutrient nor Dave's book indicate WHEN to add the *stuff* (please excuse the 50 cent techno words). Given that Dave's recipe said 1 teaspoon for approx. 3 gallons and the jar said 1 teaspoon per gallon, I went with the average.... 1-1/2 teaspoon for 3 gallons. (Okay, so it is not exactly the average, by the time I get home from work my brain hurts and does not always function properly.) I figured that for the purpose of starters it wouldn't hurt throwing it into to boil, afterwhich I worried about the urea and/or ammonium phosphate breaking down in the boil. NEED MORE INPUT! (Number 5 from the movie Short Circuit) - --Rob **************************************************************************** | (remenecker at cadmus.com) | (RobEmnckr at aol.com) | | Cadmus Journal Services, Inc. | Brewery Manager, Standing Rock Brewery | | Linthicum, Maryland 21090 | Proud Purveyors of "Hairy Dog Homebrew"! | | 410-691-6454 / 684-2793 (fax) | (410) 859-9169 (voice only) | **************************************************************************** Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 10:14:22 -0500 From: Bill Rust <wrust at csc.com> Subject: Blowing Off the Blow-off Method?? OK, so what's the beef?? Mark Riley asks in HBD #1944 >*Why* is Blow Off Silly? >>*Blowoff is probably the silliest procedure >>*that has ever been developed for making beer. I am hard pressed to think >>*of even a single redeeming feature. The advantages of "open" fermentation >>*are as myriad as those for blowoff are lacking. > >>I have to agree with Jack here. I think that blow-off is a step back. >>About the only advantage is that it is good for those that can not check or >>manage their fermentations frequently. > >With all due respect, it seems silly to slam the blowoff technique without >providing any reasons why it is inferior. I'd be interested in hearing >just a few (out of the "myriad"). Then in HBD #1944 Jack added... >It is a giant leap backwards. > >Carboys make great secondary fermenters for beer or wine but they >are the wrong tool for primary and using them with blowoff technique >is like trying to make a silk purse out of a sows ear. [snip] >Aside from that, I have no strong feelings one way or the other. That's interesting that you have no strong feelings, but apparently you felt compelled to respond at least twice to the same issue. It would perhaps be more helpful to include a reason or two why, instead of the cute sound byte. By way of sparking some discussion, I've done the procedure twice and I can tell you the following... Pro: you don't have to skim because the trub gets blown out with the excess foam. Pro: It lets you have the benefit of skimming without opening your closed fermenter (for those of you worried about that sort of thing). Con: It's a major PITA to clean out your hose and carboy when your done. ------------------------------------------------------- Bill Rust, Master Brewer | Jack Pine Savage Brewery | Im Himmel es gibt kein bier, Shiloh, IL (NACE) | War es wir trinken hier! ------------------------------------------------------- Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 96 10:25:39 CST From: "Tracy Aquilla" <aquilla at salus.med.uvm.edu> Subject: trub In Digest #1944: jfrane at teleport.com (Jeff Frane) wrote: [snip] >A few years ago, there was a little fracas on r.c.b. about >whether "yeast trub" was appropriate; fortunately, the forces >of Light seem to have won that one and it would be good >if people were more precise. There is, after all, a real >vocabulary associated with brewing and it's not up to >homebrewers to corrupt it. Would it be OK to call it 'yeast sediment'? Isn't trub German for sediment? As usual, I'm in the dark. Tracy Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 09:34:27 -0600 (CST) From: David Ard <davidard at mmc.mtmercy.edu> Subject: Re: Blow off fermentation I recently re-read Noonan's recommendations on primary fermentation in the carboy with a blow off tube. I know that Papazian also recommends it. Over the years I have tried almost everything, and I return to using a 7.5 gal. plastic fermenter with lid and air lock for the primary, and then rack it to a 5 gal. carboy after the head falls for the last days of fermentation and settling of yeast. Over 23 years of brewing I have found this to be the easiest method and I have never had a problem that I could discern in the beers I have made. I believe that the homebrewer should use his or her ability to taste something as a criterion for judging the quality of the brewing techniques. We have different abilities in this area, but while I brew for quality and variety as well as cost, I am the primary drinker of my beers. Noonan recommend having sterile water or wort handy to top up the fermenter (he recommends a 5 gal. carboy, not the 6.5 gal.). I have always thought this would dilute the beer (using water) or add more fermentables (using sterile wort), which would have uncertain effects of continuing the fermentation. The biggest problem I encountered using this method was the loss of wort through the blow off tube. I understand that this method blows off material that could leave undesirable flavors, but again, I have not been able to taste them. The other problem I found with the blow off method was cleaning the tube and the carboy. The plastic primary fermenter cleans very easily, while the carboy and tube does not. It is very easy to splash the wort from the boiler into the plastic fermenter in order to provide sufficient oxygen for the yeast to grow, but because of the head that forms, this is not very practical in the carboy. My only caution in using the plastic primary with the airlock, is to avoid lifting it and sucking whatever is in the airlock into the wort. Though I have done this more than once, and I always use a light chlorine solution, again I have never tasted a problem. I do try to avoid this however. There is a CO2 cover over the wort as it ferments since CO2 is heavier than oxygen, so you can look, but always be minimal about this do avoid potential infections. What I am amazed about is how forgiving brewing is for people like me who just have a hard time being the kind of brewer Noonan writes about. If I had no experience and had not made hundreds of batches of beer over the years that were really good, and had read his book first, I would have been really afraid that I could not do it. Finally, I have also found that there are many ways to brew and many systems, processes, and methods with different equipment. Rather than develop negative attitudes towards other people's ways, it would be far better to learn, experiment, and find that which we can be most comfortable with, and always be willing to change. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 09:29:47 -0600 From: alan at mail.utexas.edu (Alan P. Van Dyke) Subject: white beer Howdy! In HBD 1943, Mike Taber queried about white beers. I can let you know that Celis uses a house yeast that he's very particular about keeping to himself (even though some have claimed to have pilfered some). However, I understand that WYeast Bavarian Wheat works satisfactorily. Also, Celis uses Willamette hops in Celis White. I don't know what other professional brewers use, but, IMHO, none of them really rate the same as Celis ;-). Also, Celis uses unmalted winter wheat (from Luckenbach!), which will definitely make the beer rather pale. If I remember correctly, it's 50-50 wheat/barley. When Celis was brewing Hoegaarden, he also had about 5% oats in the mash, but has given it up here in the States. Of course, you should make your beer the way -you- want to make it, & not the way someone else does, but I hope this helps in pointing you into the right direction. Alan Van Dyke Austin, TX alan at mail.utexas.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 11:02:01 -0500 From: ac051 at osfn.rhilinet.gov (Eric W. Miller) Subject: re: Diacetyl Al writes: |Andy writes: |>This thread has made me wonder that perhaps the open fermentation has a |>significant contribution to the high levels of diacetyl in the lager. |>But why not the bock? | |Could they be using different yeasts for the lager and the bock? Some |yeasts simply make a lot more diacetyl than others. I seem to remember reading that all yeast *produce* similar levels of diacetyl at the onset of fermentation. The difference is that as the ferment subsides, they *reduce* the diacetyl at different rates. So it's possible that they are using the same lager yeast for both the generic "lager" and the bock. If the bock is aged much longer than the lager, the yeast will have much more time to reduce the diacetyl level in the beer. Na zdrowie, Eric in Newport, RI Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 8:25:15 -0800 (PST) From: Jim Cave <CAVE at PSC.ORG> Subject: Mashing Potatoes! Has anyone out there tried mashing potatoes? Sorry! Has anyone tried adding mashed potatoes to their mash? There! Thats better! My father related to me that when he was over in England during the war, the country dabbled with making potato beer. I suspect that they were adding potatoes to the mash. Dad said it was very tasty stuff, but extremely potent. He said that they ended up banning it and that he witnessed the publicans taking several casks of the stuff and breaking them open onto the lawn. Turned the grass yellow apparently. It might seem like a tall storey but dad wasn't given to telling tales. I would imagine that adding potatoes to the mash would result in a fairly thin beer. A strong beer might taste fairly ordinary and weak. Jim Cave Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 11:45:27 -0500 From: PEthen at aol.com Subject: Cancel HEY! Didn't I cancel this?!!?? Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 12:23:04 -0500 (EST) From: waterr at rpi.edu (Bob Waterfall) Subject: PET bottles - O2 permeability Rolland Everitt says in hbd 1944: >I am going to risk electronic ostracism by reviving the thread on >PET (polyethylene) bottles. PET is polyethylene terephthalate, a different substance that is over 100 times less permeable to gases in general than polyethylene (PE). >The general wisdom seems to be that PET bottles may be OK for >short-term (a few weeks) storage of beer, but that they are >unsuitable for long-term storage because they are somewhat >permeable to oxygen. This explanation leads inevitably to the >question "if they can't keep O2 out, how do they keep CO2 in?" I >believe I recall an explanation that involved the comparitive >partial pressures of the gasses inside and outside the bottle. CO2 does escape. The question is whether the rate of CO2 escape or the rate of O2 infiltration affects the beer more. >This never quite made sense to me, but I accepted it. Recently, Since I got a C in my Mass Transfer course oh so many years ago, it apparently didn't make a lot of sense to me either. >however, I ran across some interesting data in _Food Science_, by >Norman Potter (AVI, 1978). Potter presents several tables on the >physical characteristics of packaging films. The data of interest >were attributed to _Modern Plastics Encyclopedia Issue_ (McGraw- >Hill, 1976). The permeability of low-density polyethylene to >various gasses was given as follows. > > gas transmission > cc/100 Sq. In./24 Hr/ > gas mil at 25 C. > > O2 500 > N2 180 > CO2 2700 > >My source did not discuss the test method. It would be nice to >know the thicknesses of test specimens, and the pressure (or >partial pressure) differentials across them. All the same, the >data suggest that polyethylene is much more permeable to CO2 than >to O2. Also, if my understanding of partial pressures is correct, >the partial pressure differential for CO2 (in a bottle of >carbonated beer) is greater than for O2 - so how come O2 can get >in, but CO2 can't get out? You're absolutely right about that. If the above data was derived from an experiment using the same partial pressure differences for all the gases, it shows that LDPE is about 5.4 times as permeable to CO2 as it is to O2. (Data quoted by SEAN O'KEEFE in hbd 1632 shows that the CO2/O2 permeability ratio for PET is 3). Using O'Keefe's permeability ratio of 3 and solubility data for O2 and CO2 in water (Perry & Chilton Chemical Engineer's Handbook 5th Ed. shows CO2 to be about 40 times as soluble as O2 in water), I figured out the following: By the time you lose 10% of your CO2 pressure (and its dissolved CO2), your dissolved O2 level will reach about 0.3 ppm. I assumed a PET bottle pressurized to 3 atm. and no dissolved O2 at bottling, Henry's Law applies, and probably some other things. I did not figure out how long it will take because of lots of assumptions I'd need to make about surface area of the bottle, amount of headspace, etc. For all I know it could take years for that much diffusion to take place. I figure the 10% CO2 loss might be starting to get noticeable as a loss of carbonation. Will 0.3 ppm of dissolved O2 ruin my beer? Bob Waterfall <waterr at rpi.edu>, Troy, NY, USA Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 12:04:23 -0600 (CST) From: Greg Hawley <gregh at plexus.com> Subject: Crashing Carboys / Doin' the carboy shuffle As "mike spinelli" <paa3983 at dpsc.dla.mil> said: > 1 Fill carboy w/ wort cover top w/ plastic wrap, cover w/ my hand > and shake the SHIT outta it for about 5 minutes. BE CAREFUL. I had finished washing my 5 gallon carboy after my last ferment. I put a plastic bag over the top of the carboy, wrapped a rubber bad around the sandwich bag covering the top, and carried it down to my basement for storage. I had my bottling bucket in the other hand. When I got to the basement, I was using the end of the bottling bucket to push some stuff out of the way (so I could put the bucket down). I was paying too much attention to the bucket and not enough attention to the carboy. A few seconds later I was left holding a sandwich bag. The carboy fell to the cement floor, made amazing crashing sound, and broke into thousands of glass shards. Despite not having shoes on, I was unscathed -- I WAS LUCKY. The good thing of the whole story is now I have a 6 gallon carboy with a carboy handle. I bought a new one. BE CAREFUL. You could send yourself to the hospital before you realized anything wrong had even happened! Greg.Hawley at plexus.com, (414) 751-3285 Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 14:10:31 -0500 From: KennyEddy at aol.com Subject: AC Power Controller Circuits Presented here, for demonstration and educational purposes only, are two approaches to AC power control for such applications as heating elements and motors. Reader assumes all risks and damages resulting from constructing and/or using circuits discussed here! Now that that's overwith... Hi/Lo Power Switch ================== If an AC load merely requires "HI/LO" power control (100% and 50%), a very simple approach is to use a diode (rectifier) to "block" half of the current going to the load. Halve the current and you halve the power. A suitable circuit is shown here using sad and weak ASCII "art" (best viewed with a fixed-pitch font such as Courier, and perhaps with glasses): ---SWITCH--- | | 0---------------*--DIODE---*--------------0 120/240 VAC LOAD 0-----------------------------------------0 The diode can be installed without regard to polarity; a heat sink is recommended as the rectifier will dissipate several watts with a 20A load (up to 4500W load at 240V). The switch is a simple wall switch. When closed, full power is applied to the load. When open, half-power is delivered. Basic Adjustable AC Power Controller ==================================== Following is a schematic for a "basic" adjustable AC power controller: ---------------------------**================*============ | || | || | (Left Terminal) || | || / || / ---- \ 500k Linear Pot ||(MT) \ Outlet / ----------- / ---- (to load) \ <-- (Center /\ \\// Triac \ || / | Terminal) //\\ \/ 600V / 100 || \ | ----------- 25A \ ohm || | |>| (G)/ ||(MT) | || ----*------| |---------/ || | || | |<| || --- 0.1uF || --- SBS or || --- 400V || --- Diac || | ======== | 0.1uF / 400V || | 120/240 VAC ---------------------------**================*================== \___22 AWG OK \__14 AWG or Heavier Required It's nothing fancy but it is effective. The capacity of the unit is dictated by the triac; it MUST be a 400V or higher (600V shown) voltage rated device to be used with 240VAC. The current-rating is dictated by your maximum load and can be determined by dividing the load power by the line voltage (add a couple amps to be safe). The triac will dissipate power (watts) equal to about 1.7 times the current (so at 20A this means 34 watts!!); the triac MUST be mounted to a suitable heat sink and/or even fan-cooled. Inadequate heat removal would result in destruction of the triac and possibly a fire! The resistor and capacitor circuit on the right is a "snubber" to control the triac when driving inductive loads and will therefore enable the circuit to be used as a motor (or pump) speed controller. Note that motor torque may suffer at slow speeds in some cases. Use of an "isolated" triac affords best safety. Non-isolated triacs have an electrically-live case which means an electrically-live heat sink would result when it's mounted. This is a shock hazard. Isolated triac cases are electrically dead and thus safer for mounting to an exposed panel or other heat sink. BTW the "gate" terminal (the one at an angle on the schematic) is on the right as one views the triac with the leads "down" and the metal tab to the rear. The other two terminals are "main terminals" and are interchangable. The other components can be installed without regard to polarity. As for the pot, when viewing from the shaft, wiring to the center and left terminals results in increasing power with clockwise rotation, as desired. The right terminal would be left unconnected. An insulative plastic knob would be a great safety feature. Note that the wiring from the wall to the outlet, from the outlet to the triac, and from the triac back to the wall MUST be heavy-gauge (14 AWG or heavier) to support high currents. These wires are drawn with "===" and "||" characters. The rest of the wiring which includes the snubber and the pot/cap/diac circuits are low-current and can be 22 AWG hookup wire. The controller is happy with 120 or 240 volts and either 50 or 60 cycle current. If a low-voltage SBS/Diac (<= 10V) is used, the circuit is essentially a "zero-turn-on" controller which will minimize or eliminate RFI interference (as is often manifested by "static" on the radio when cheap dimmers are used). Using a typical 30-40 volt Diac would work but with increased interference. This won't hurt anything; it's just annoying if it screws up the radio or TV. Inexperience experimenters would be well-advised to seek the help of a trained technician if they desired to build one of these circuits. Great care in assembly, test, and use is required. Testing the circuit using 120V and a light bulb for the load would allow observation of the power control effect by the relative brightness of the bulb, as well as avoiding operation of a potentially erroneous circuit at the higher voltage. If one were inclined to build such circuits they might find the parts are available from Digi-Key and other sources: (800)DIGIKEY http://www.digikey.com No minimum order but $5 handling charge is added to orders under $25 Simple Hi/Low Control: Diode MBR2045CT-ND $3.61 Heat Sink HS114-ND $0.34 Switch (wall switch) Basic Power Controller: Triac Q6025L6-ND $6.12 10V SBS HS-10-ND $0.68 500K Pot CT2210-ND $2.60 0.1uF Cap E4104-ND $0.51 (2 req'd) Heat Sink HS117-ND $6.66 (may require drilling) I have no affiliation with Digi-Key; I have ordered from them many times and have been pleased with their service. Prices are from catalog #961 Jan/Feb '96. If one lives in a large community, they could check the yellow pages for "Electronic Equip & Supls" to see if there's a local parts seller who caters to the repair industry. These places often deal in "replacement" lines such as "ECG", so one may be able to get these parts locally. Radio Shack *might* be able to special-order these parts too. The triac given above is a Teccor Q6025L6; a more univeral number for finding a "replacement" part is MAC223A8FP (MAC223A8 without the "FP" is the "non-isolated" version and should be avoided or at least used carefully!). The SBS can be a replacement for the Teccor HS-10 or for Motorola MBS4992 or MBS4993. The Motorola parts have three leads; the center lead can be left unconnected (and trimmed), or connected to the other two terminals through two 22K resistors. Ken Schwartz El Paso, TX KennyEddy at aol.com Yogi Berra - "Always go to other people's funerals, otherwise they won't come to yours." Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 14:02:03 -0600 From: John Wilkinson <jwilkins at imtn.tpd.dsccc.com> Subject: Hot break/Cold break I have read much about the need to get rid of the hot break material and perhaps the cold break but how do I know what is hot break, what is cold break, and what is other? How do I get rid of hot break or cold break? I currently cool my wort, scoop out hop matter if using plugs, let it settle to clear then siphon off the clear part trying to avoid as much of the cloudy sediment as possible. I have assumed that the hot and cold break would be in this cloudy sediment and therefore I would be avoiding most of both. Is this true? Also, I strain out as much of the hops and any other sediment as I can but have been asked if this affects hop flavor in the beer. I don't know that, either. Is it desirable to leave hop residue in the wort going to the fermenter? Thanks, John Wilkinson Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 96 14:37:33 cdt From: Maxwell_McDaniel_at_PRISM at mail.prisminfo.com Subject: Very high OG Hi all, it's my first post to this list so please go easy on me. Last nite I was rushing to finish a batch of IPA before the little woman got home because I had promised her dinner would be ready. But that's another story... Anyway, I'm brewing the Brew Free or Die IPA from the Cats Meow and my OG came out at 1.110. What the heck did I do? I can't figure it out... I assume it's supposed to be a 5 gallon batch... BTW, I checked it this morning and so far no activity. Is my yeast gonna convert all this stuff? TIA Maxwell "Insert great beer quote here with obscure musical reference tied in" Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 96 15:43:51 EST From: "George Danz (919) 405-3632" <danz at edasich.rtp.semi.harris.com> Subject: The Valley Mill I saw this mill advertized on p. 24 of Zymergy Winter, '95 issue. It looks big, it looks good, but looks aren't everything. Has anyone bought one of these and if so, what's the consensus? I already have a Glatt mill which works fine, even w/ a 3/8 drill driving it. My only complaint and it aint a big one is that it could be a bit faster as my friend and I do 2 10gal. batches on a single brewday. The Valley Mill looks like it might crank out the grain a bit faster and w/less fiddling with hopper filling. Best Regards, George E. Danz Snail Mail Address: gdanz at harris.com PO Box 13996 (919)405-3632 Work Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 (919)405-3651 FAX Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 16:01:37 -0500 From: KennyEddy at aol.com Subject: Plastics & Heat -- More Data A couple more data points realtive to the "plastic brewery" concept: According to the "Engineering Manual" and corroborated by "Mark's Standard Handbook for Mechanical Engineers" (both McGraw-Hill publications), the following heat-related properties apply to the plastics listed: Plastic Max Svc Heat Dist ======= ======= ========= HDPE 250 250 Polypropylene 275-300 130 PVC (rigid) 150-165 140-170 PVC (flexible) 150-220 140-170 Hi-Impact ABS 150 185-215 all figures are degrees F (boiling = 212F at sea level) "Max SVC" is the "maximum continuous service temperature" or the maximum recommended temperature that the plastic should be continuouosly exposed to. "Heat Dist" is the "heat distortion temperature" at which the plastic becomes soft enough to deform. I read this to mean that these plastics will increase in *flexibility* approaching the "Heat Dist" temperature but will retain their strength and integrity up to that point. This is consistent with E-mail I have received telling of "soft" buckets which otherwise performed well. My tentative conclusion after seeing these figures is that HDPE (high- density polyethylene) should be adequate for use as a boiler; obviously, thicker material will experience less "flexibility" than thinner material, but meltdowns and warpage should not be a problem with anything but the thinnest material. However, as a precaution, a hot boiler should never be lifted or moved until it has cooled at least to hot tap water temperature, and boiling should be done in an area where an accidental meltdown would be containable. This temperature data does not take into account any high heat conducted through the element base to the bucket, just the temperature of the water (212F or less). Again, anecdotal eveidence suggests this is not a problem either. Ken Schwartz El Paso, TX KennyEddy at aol.com Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 16:53:18 -0600 From: mike at datasync.com (Mike White) Subject: Bad Alcohol On 23 Jan 96 Aesoph, Michael wrote: >Dear Collective: > A freind of mine mentioned that the addition of certain substances >to any fermenting beverage could produce Methyl alcohol. If I recall >correctly, this is the poisonous variety. He specifically mentioned >potatoes, other vegetables and certain grains. Is this true, or is he >full of nonsense? Methyl alcohol (methanol) is made by charring wood in a closed, oxygen free container. So as long as you don't pressure cook your wort at over 450 degrees with sticks in it, you're safe. By the way, vodka was originally made from potatoes. I suppose it is POSSIBLE that some minute amount of methyl alcohol could be produced by fermentation as a by product...but I can't believe that there could possibly be enough produced to harm anyone. - ------------------------------------------------------------ Thought for the day: If you drink and drive, you might as well smoke also. - ------------------------------------------------------------ Mike White mike at datasync.com Return to table of contents