---

   FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
        Shawn Steele, Digest Janitor
        Thanks to Rob Gardner for making the digest happen!

Contents:
  Flow Rate & viscosity ("Gregory, Guy J.")
  RE: Fine Cigars???? (Carl Hattenburg)
  RE: Cleaned bottles (Carl Hattenburg)
  Odd Flavor in Mild Brown (Jim Thomas)
  submission to hbd (Rscholz at aol.com)
  Welding Oxygen ("Don Van Valkenburg")
  Bad to mix idophor and bleach? (nelson at muck.isgs.uiuc.edu (Dan.Nelson))
  Beta Amylase at high temp (korz at pubs.ih.lucent.com)
  maltose syrup (korz at pubs.ih.lucent.com)
  Cherries in the Brew (Fred Hardy)
  Plastic "carboys". (duff at tam2000.tamu.edu (Duff Hickman))
  Help for an italian homebrewer (s.coluccini at caen.it (Stefano Coluccini))
  False bottoms and the 4th of July ("Donald A. Put")
  White film in bottled beer...yuck or yum?! ("Todd W. Roat")
  Montgomery County, MD Fair Homebrew Contest (Keith Reding)
  Confusion Abounds ("David R. Burley")
  Scrumpy,Gelatinization and Potato beer ("David R. Burley")
  Shawn please fix the system. ("CHUCK HUDSON, ER LAB 3-2865")
  Formula's..I Need Formula's!!! (Steven Gray)
  First all-grain (Mike Kidulich)
  Dried Hops/Viscosity (Charlie Scandrett)

For SUBMISSIONS to be published, send mail to:
  homebrew at aob.org
For (un)subscribe requests, send mail to:
  homebrew-digest-request@ aob.org

Send UNSUBSCRIBE requests to homebrew-digest-request@ aob.org, BUT PLEASE NOTE
  that if you subscribed via BEER-L, you must unsubscribe by sending a
  one line e-mail to listserv at ua1vm.ua.edu that says: UNSUB BEER-L
If your address is changing, please unsubscribe from the old address and
  then subscribe from the new address.
If your account is being deleted, please be courteous and unsubscribe first.
For technical problems send e-mail to the Digest Janitor, shawn at aob.org.

OTHER HOMEBREW INFORMATION
  On the web the AHA's web site is http://www.aob.org/aob and "The Brewery"
  including the "Cat's Meow" archives is at http://alpha.rollanet.org/.
  Information is also available at info at aob.org by e-mail.  For other "Cat's
  Meow" information send mail to lutzen at alpha.rollanet.org.

ARCHIVES:
  Archives are available via anonymous ftp at ftp.stanford.edu in the
  directory /pub/clubs/homebrew/beer, at http://alpha.rollanet.org on
  the web and at majordomo at aob.org by e-mail.  The ftp archives can also
  be accessed by using the ftpmail service at gatekeeper.dec.com.  Send
  e-mail to ftpmail at gatekeepter.dec.com for more information.


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

From: "Gregory, Guy J." <GGRE461 at eroerm1.ecy.wa.gov>
Date: Mon, 08 Jul 96 10:56:00 PDT
Subject: Flow Rate & viscosity

David Burley wrote,
>I don't have the data, and have never seen a comparison of the effect of
>viscosity on sparge times,
<SNIP>
  Any info on the impact of viscosity on
>flow rate through agrain column?  Using  viscosity data vs temperature for
>maltose solutions, what does this mean about the effect of sparge
temperature
>on the rate of sparging? linear or exponential dependency?

Charlie Scandrett replied:
>Viscosity is simply  resistance to flow, it is analogous to friction, it is
>not density. A typical barley wort figure is Visc= 1.52 mPas. According to
>M&BS, the velocity of liquid through the bed is linearly inversly
>proportional to the viscosity.

>                 Flow Rate  =  Constant x Pressure Differential x
Permeability

 """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
                                      Depth of Bed  x  Wort Viscosity

>The higher temperature of mashout will decrease Wort Viscosity, but also
>importantly denature lipoxygenase, reducing your HSA potential during
>lauter. The Institute of Brewing in London recomends 75C lauter for this
>reason.
>
>The Permeability is influenced by crush particle size distribution (flour,
>grits etc), mash method(decoction or infusion) and particle
>compression/distortion by the hydraulic forces of Flow Rate (remember
>endosperm particles are porrige-like at this stage). This sealing effect
>raises the Pressure Differential, so two variables in this equation are
>partly dependant on the answer! This is an unstable model which sometimes
>requires a deft touch on the grant valves!

Hydraulic conductivity (K) is a function of both the porous medium and the
fluid.  Darcy's Law (Q=KiA) relates flowrate (Q) to K, the hydraulic
gradient (or pressure differential from Charlies Post (i) to cross sectional
area of flow (A) in saturated systems.  The difference between hydraulic
conductivity (K) and permeability (k) becomes apparent  when we realize that
using water and molasses in the same experimental apparatus will  generate
significantly different discharge rate results.

According to Freeze and Cherry (1979, Groundwater, Prentice Hall, pg. 26) we
can rewrite Darcy's law (saving bandwidth) to K=Cd(sq) rho g/mu, where C is
a constant of proportionality including the influence of porous media
properties apart from mean grain diameter, including grain size
distribution, packing, and grain shape, d(sq) is the squared mean diameter
particle size, rho is the density of the fluid, g is gravity and mu is the
dynamic viscosity.  Permeability (k) is a function of the medium and is
equal to Cd(sq), so K=-k rho g/mu.

Dynamic viscosity of a fluid is the property that allows  fluids to resist
relative motion and shear deformation during flow.  The more viscous the
fluid, the greater the shear stress at any given velocity gradient.  There
is some Newton's Law of Viscosity that explains this.  The kinematic
viscosity relates fluid velocity by v=mu/rho, stating that velocity of a
fluid flow is equal to dynamic viscosity divided by fluid density.

k is the permeability of the medium, generally expressed in darcys, and is
useful in the oil business for describing fluid free conductance parameters
of geologic formations.  They often have several phases present, so it
becomes handy to describe geologic units on a consistent basis.  1 darcy is
the permeability that will lead to a specific discharge of 1 cm/sec for a
fluid with a viscosity of 1 centipoise under a hydraulic gradient that makes
the term (rho)(g)(dh/dl) equal to 1 atm/cm.

Viscosity and density are fluid properties in the above equation.  In
general, the specific discharge v (discharge Q per unit area) is
proportional to (rho)(g) and inversely proportional to mu.  Higher
viscosity, lower discharge.  Higher density, higher discharge.  How does
temperature affect this?

Well, temperature tends to lower fluid density, thus allowing a higher flow
velocity for a given viscosity.  How much?  It is a function of the fluid.
 I don't know for wort, but for water, it doesn't change things much more
than a couple of percent over common temperatures, say 20-70 degrees C.   My
guess is that in terms of flow rate alone, (disregarding the chemical
portion and actual reason for sparging) the effect is linear, and relatively
small, and probably unimportant given grain properties and other things
happening in your sparge.  I predict that higher viscosity worts will add
several seconds to your sparge time over low viscosity worts, leading to
more opportunity to have a homebrew.  Good things come to those who wait.

Charlie, and another reviewer whose name I forget but whose insight was
memorable, both point out the factors of compressibility of the porous
medium, and how it may effect permeability.  I found an analytical solution
to a boundary value flow problem accounting for compressibility of the
medium, but the math is way beyond me.  If someone wants to see it, it is
also in the previous reference, Freeze and Cherry, (1979) Appendix 3.   I've
clearly got to pick up a copy of Fix's M&BS, it appears he approached the
hydraulics in a different, but still clearly valid way.

Guy Gregory
please reply to GuyG4 at aol.com

Lightning Creek Brewing....Now lagering for the fall.

Return to table of contents


From: Carl Hattenburg <CHattenburg at Perstorp-us.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 1996 14:08:04 -0400
Subject: RE: Fine Cigars????

>From: Eric Marzewski <emarzews at nova.umuc.edu>
>Subject: Fine Cigars????
>How about any upcoming or annual cigar/brew pairings, dinners or
>tastings? Any homebrew clubs with some cigar smokers?

Eric - this months' Barley Corn (East Coast Beer Newspaper) Features
Cigar/Beer pairs!! It also has several articles on "Smoke Beer"
RauchBeir (sp?)...


- - Carl H. (w)301.680.7276, (x)301.236.0134, (h) 301.942.3756, (e)
CHattenburg at Perstorp-us.com

Return to table of contents


From: Carl Hattenburg <CHattenburg at Perstorp-us.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 1996 14:14:16 -0400
Subject: RE: Cleaned bottles

>From: ronmis at getnet.com (Ron)
>Subject: Bottles for Beer
>Is there some reason I need my retailers expensive bottles or can I just use
>the cleaned Sam Adams bottles?

You can def. use the Adams bottles, but you had better rinse more then
twice! Here is another disinfectant: put UNLABLED bottles in oven at
400F for 15 minutes....

- - Carl H. (w)301.680.7276, (x)301.236.0134, (h) 301.942.3756, (e)
CHattenburg at Perstorp-us.com

Return to table of contents


From: Jim Thomas <jim.thomas at telops.gte.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Jul 1996 13:31:43 -0500
Subject: Odd Flavor in Mild Brown

Can anyone out there in homebrew land help me isolate an odd flavor
I'm getting in my English Mild Brown?  First the details: it's a 3.5
gal batch, made with 4.5 lbs of British Pale, 8 oz of various
specialty malts and 8 ounces of dark brown sugar added to the
boiler, E. Kent Goldings for bitter, and Wyeast London Ale yeast.
The O.G. was 1.41 and the F.G. was 1.011.

Now the problem: this brew is currently in 2ndary, I sampled it
whilst racking and force carbonated about eight ounces.  It tastes
good initially, but it has a strange finish (wine tasting lingo).
Sort of watery, but I wouldn't call it thin.  Don't know if this is
how this mild brown is supposed to taste.  I'm wondering if the
brown sugar is the culprit.  Don't think it's the yeast, although
I've not used this strain before.


Anyone with experience along these lines, please reply.  Thanks for
the help.

Return to table of contents


From: Rscholz at aol.com
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 1996 14:50:23 -0400
Subject: submission to hbd

Brewsters,

Sandra & Craig Answer, andrew K's corn syrup thread:

> Sure, you can use Kayro syrup. Customers have asked me for many years
>if they could.......because they figured they could be cheap and avoid
buying
>corn sugar or dry malt extract. The main reason they have not used Kayro is
>that it has a vanilla flavor. Vanilla is fine in ice cream....but do you
want
>that flavor in your beer?
>Maybe........???? Hmmmm? Maybe not?????? Zup to you!

I just finished a batch of ale, 3lbs Munton&Fison Old Ale Kit with 12oz. of
light Kayro to make 20 pints. A very good brown ale ( thinned out the old ale
kit made for 14 pints ). I detected no vanilla notes, though I was more
worried what the salt would do. No problems, tasted great to the last pint.

keep on brewin'
richard scholz
brooklyn ny

Return to table of contents


From: "Don Van Valkenburg" <DONVANV at msn.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 96 19:11:08 UT
Subject: Welding Oxygen

 Doug Price writes:
>I have a Bernzomatic MAPP gas/Oxygen torch that uses cannisters of >oxygen
and was considering using this for this purpose.  Two questions:

>1.)  Is this a safe source of oxygen?  Is there anything in these cannisters
>that would be bad, like any sort of oil or other impurities?

According to an article in Brewing Techniques magazine by Don Put on
oxygenating your wort; he states (I am paraphrasing here) the only difference
between welding and medical oxygen is they register and track the medical
cylinders In case there is a problem so that it can be traced back to the
source.

>2.)  Has anyone else tried this and were the results acceptable?

yes, I have used the Bernzomatic cylinders (with success) and we sell them
along with a valve and air stone in our brewing supply store in Long Beach
Calif.
Don Van Valkenburg
Stein Fillers Brewing Supply
Long Beach, Calif


Return to table of contents


From: nelson at muck.isgs.uiuc.edu (Dan.Nelson)
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 1996 14:15:52 -0500
Subject: Bad to mix idophor and bleach?

Howdy Brewers:

I wonder if there are possible ill effects that could result from
mixing minute quantites of idophor and bleach solutions.

I use a bleach solution (1/2 to 2 oz. per 5 gallons) for most of my
sanitizing needs, but use an idophor solution (25 ppm) for kegging.
There have been occasions when I've found it convenient to transfer
a racking cane (or other piece of equipment) from one solution to
the other.  I lightly rinse the item between solutions.  My question
is this:  Is there a possibility that dangerous chemical compounds
could result from this activity?  I haven't made myself sick yet
(although my friends say I make them sick all the time ... but that
has nothing to do with homebrew).  I'm simply asking from a preventive
standpoint.  Any opinions?  I'll post a summary.

Thanks, Dan
Stranded in the cornfields of central Illinois

Return to table of contents


From: korz at pubs.ih.lucent.com
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 96 14:19:03 CDT
Subject: Beta Amylase at high temp

Dave writes:
>The nerve of that AlK telling me to admit that I'm wrong and in public!. Well
>I never......

You have posted posted many pieces of good information over the last few
months so I find it most unfortunate that you insist upon arguing this
very simple point.  I appologise for having to ask for you to admit that
you were wrong in public, but I felt it important to point out that you have
been posting misinformation numerous times on this topic.

>Al, I understand that you think that my comments suggesting that the  high
>temperature saccharification time be extended, to people that believe that
>short saccharification times are OK, somehow confuses the picture. Does George
>DePiro's comment, a couple of HBD's ago, that one would get a "barely
>fementable wort" by saccharifying at 158 F,  mean anything to you?

It means that (Gold Medal Winner) George has the concept right, but perhaps
exaggerated a bit regarding the unfermentability of the resultant wort.

>Is George's belief
>typical of modern day readers of HB books and this HBD?

Most books don't explain this well and many explain it incorrectly.
Furthermore, I would guess that most HBD readers that are experienced
all-grain brewers have figured this out (mash at 149F == more fermentable,
mash at 158F == less fermentable), but that most beginning or potential
all-grain brewers are probably wondering who to believe.  This is why I
feel it is so important to get this point clear and to get your buy-in
into this concept, so that we present a clear, unconfusing picture to
new and potential all-grainers.

>I gave an example of a
>recent brew of mine which clearly showed that George's comments were off base.
>My brew had a reasonable FG ( 1.015 - which is what I wanted) and good
>fermentability ( OG of 1.060 - 1.015) and a calculated efficiency of
>extraction of 89%.  Frankly, I am surprized at the continued reaction I get
>to what I thought was an innocent comment during a diatribe on a different
>subject.

Your 75% apparent attenuation could be explained in a variety of ways.  Your
thermometer may have been off.  I don't recall if this was a multi-temp
mash, but if it was, your distribution of mash liquor may have been such that
some pockets of cooler mash retained enough beta-amylase to give you that
kind of attenuation.  Maybe, just maybe, you got a S. diastaticus infection
in your wort and that may have munched on your unfermentables.  There are
a lot of other possibilities, but it's time to move on.

Before, I go on, I'd like to ask that we all try to not use all 80 columns
in our posts.  It makes it that much harder to quote and insert the ">" at
the beginning without wrapping.  I try to never use the 80th column in any
post for fear that the HBD engine will reject the post.

>Talk to Mama Nature, not to me. All the books that I read say that the
>OBSERVED
>beta Amylase reaction, based on observing the rate of saccharification in a
>wort, goes slower at the higher temperatures. (Remember the "bell shaped
>curve"
>with the upper wing going *down* with temperature).  I interpret that to mean
>that to get all of the fermentables we can from the starch that has been
>chopped
>up by the alpha-Amylase,  we have to hold longer at the higher
>saccharification
>temperatures than we do at the lower temperatures to get the same efficiency
>of
>extraction.  Where does my logic fail me?  Is the fact that I routinely get
>conversion efficiencies in the 90's and others, here in the HBD, report values
>in the 70's indicative of anything?

Conversion efficiencies are not the issue here.  Your logic does not fail you.
You fail to accept what Jim and I and others have been agreeing on (because
it is what all the books say) for quite some time, namely that beta amylase
gets denatured quickly at 158F (and less quickly at 157F, and even less
quickly at 156F) and results in a less fermentable (more dextrinous) wort.

>Frankly, I, like everyone else, am tired of this subject for the moment. In
>the
>absence of real data from brewers or *expert* texts, I suggest we drop it.  I
>would like to continue it if we have real data, though. Show us some of yours,
>Al.

I don't trust my equipment nor do I trust my measurement well enough to
do experiments and present it as real data.  When I do perform experiments,
they are essentially "from the brewer's perspective" and not really "good
science."  They are no less valid because what I ask myself is: "Is the
data good enough to show something that the typical homebrewer can use in
their brewing?"  As for real data from *expert* texts, how about this from
Malting and Brewing Science by Hough et al. (actually, taken from Fix,
which I happen to have brought to work today, but he took it from MBS):

Mash temp            60C (140F)  66C (151F)  68C (154F)
 ======================================================
Carbohydrates
as % of wort
solids
 ------------------------------------------------------
maltose              48.3        43.9        37.0
trisaccharides       14.3        13.6        12.7
sucrose               3.4         4.2         5.0
monosaccharides      10.1         9.5        10.2
dextrins             15.5        21.2        26.2
 ======================================================
% extract            76.2        75.3        74.6
 ======================================================
% fermentability     76.1        71.2        65.1
 ======================================================

Note that these are for well-modified malt, but since virtually all
malt these days is well-modified, I'd say it is pretty applicable to
the discussion.  Too bad there is no data for 70F (158F), but if
pressed, I may be able to find that too.  I *assure* you that at
158F, the dextrin % will be higher than at 154F and the % fermentable
will be even lower.

Let's see if we can't summarize our two positions here, just for
clarity and put this discussion to rest:

Dave says that to increase fermentability, you need to mash longer
at 158F.  I claim that he's wrong in this statement and that mashing
longer at 158F will not increase fermentability because after a very
short time at 158F the beta amylase in the wort will be denatured.
I further claim that the wort will be no more fermentable after 2 hours
at 158F than it will be after only 1 hour at 158F.

Al.

Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korzonas at lucent.com
Copyright 1996 Al Korzonas

Return to table of contents


From: korz at pubs.ih.lucent.com
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 96 14:40:13 CDT
Subject: maltose syrup

Gillian writes:
>Gregory King asked about maltose syrup.  You can't buy the stuff but
>you can make it.
>
>800g glucose powder
>200g dextrin powder (NOT dextrose!)
>
>Mix the powders well. Make an 80% solution in water eg, take 800g of
>the mixed powder and add to water. Heat gently to dissolve. Make up
>to 1 litre with water. Boil to sanitise and store in the fridge. This
>doesn't have the consistency of syrup - the viscosity is quite low,
>but it works well as a very close substitute for commerical maltose
>syrup.

I was skeptical when I first read this, so I looked into it a bit further.
If you don't use *too much* of it, what Gillian writes is correct except
that I believe you should use 750g of glucose (aka dextrose, aka corn sugar)
and 250g of dextrin powder (aka malto-dextrin).  Maltose syrup (short for
high-maltose maize (corn) syrup), so that syrup that one poster (sorry) said
he saw and brewed with, is "maltose syrup."

Andy writes:
>Greg King asked about maltose syrup, as recommended by Graham Wheeler.
>Liz Blades recommended LME or barley syrup as a substitute.

I agree with Liz since what we want is something that's about 75%
fermentable.

>I have Graham Wheeler's books (not at hand), but I seem to remember
>that he recommended glucose as a substitute if maltose is unavailable?

He may, but that would be wrong since glucose is 100% fermentable.
Furthermore, there is also something called high-glucose corn syrup
which is mostly glucose and mostly fermentable.  Read on, since I
cover the issue of high-glucose worts later in this post.

>This would make sense, since maltose is enzymatically broken
>down by the yeast to glucose, and is 100% fermentable.
>LME or barley syrup contains a multitude of sugars and dextrins,
>some of which are unfermentable. Of course you can use these,
>and make good beer, but I think that glucose would give results much
>closer to the intention (but certainly not identical).

In The Biotechnology of Malting and Brewing by J.S.Hough, he lists
"Maize (corn) syrup -- high-maltose" which has the following makeup:

Extract:                82
Glucose:                3%
Fructose:               0%
Sucrose:                0%
Maltose & maltotriose: 72%
Unfermentable sugars:  25%

The reason that I say above "if you don't use *too much* of it" is because
too much glucose can cause the yeast to "forget" how to make the enzymes
that allow it to ferment maltose and other bigger sugars resulting in
"hanging fermentations."  This is from Malting and Brewing Science and
The Practical Brewer.

Al.

Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korzonas at lucent.com
Copyright 1996 Al Korzonas

Return to table of contents


From: Fred Hardy <fcmbh at access.digex.net>
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 1996 16:14:36 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Cherries in the Brew

> From: rhampo at ford.com (Rich Hampo)
> Date: Mon, 8 Jul 1996 08:00:44 -0400
> Subject: Cherry Wheat beer
>
> Howdy,
>
> I've got a cherry wheat in secondary. I brewed a normal wheat beer
> and then racked to secondary onto 1.5 lb  of blanched, mashed cherries.
> Volcano-like fermentation ensued and is still going on (more than a
> week later). Problem is, half of the cherries are still floating.
> Will the cherries all sink later? Or do I need to rack the beer out
> from between the floaties and the sediment to a tertiary fermenter
> for a further clearing? I'm using Belgian wheat beer
> yeast (yeast labs, I forget the number).

It's probably more than 1/2 the cherries. Post fermentation they float to
the top (or at least most do). The rest are waiting on the bottom to clog
your racking cane.

I boil my clean stainless (aluminum will do) kitchen strainer, a copper
scouring pad and a length of copper wire for about 5-15 minutes (sometimes
I forget to time it). I leave the scouring pad and wire in the hot water
while I use the strainer to gennnnntly scoup out the cherries. Avoid any
splashing if possible.

When I have scouped out as much fruit as I can, I attach the scouring pad
to the bottom of my racking cane, using the piece of copper wire. I
proceed to siphon the wort from the fermenter. It flows clear and residue
free, but the scouring pad looks like # at $* when I'm done.

I rack this beer into a carboy and let it rest for a week or so before
bottling. I add 2 Tbls. polyclar, boiled in a cup of water, about 4
days before I plan to bottle. For a wheat beer, I'd skip the polyclar. The
beer should be ready to drink when carbonated.

Cheers, Fred

===========================================================================
We must invent the future, else it will  |          <Fred Hardy>
happen to us and we will not like it.    |
[Stafford Beer, "Platform for Change"]   |    email: fcmbh at access.digex.net




Return to table of contents


From: duff at tam2000.tamu.edu (Duff Hickman)
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 1996 15:19:28 +0200
Subject: Plastic "carboys".

        Has anyone tried using the plastic water bottle jugs (the ones used
in office dispensers) for fermentation?  They are the same shape and have a
5 gal. volume the same as normal glass carboys.  However, I have no idea if
they are very permeable to oxygen or give off a poor taste to the brew.  I
am a grad student with limited resources and using these discarded bottles
would save a lot of needed cash and let me brew several batches at once
without a large permanent investment.  If this is a dumb idea and/or has
been answered before in HBD I apologize, but let me know what you think
anyway.
Thanx,
- -Duff

Return to table of contents


From: s.coluccini at caen.it (Stefano Coluccini)
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 1996 20:46:37 +0100
Subject: Help for an italian homebrewer

Hello,

   for many things Italy is a fine country but for a beginner homebrewer is
an hell !!! :-( I've found ONLY one mail-order shop that sell ONLY Coopers
malt extract, so I know that I'm a noise for you, but if you know someone
in Italy that is interested in homebrewing for any reason, please tell me.
(private e-mail are also appreciated).

My english is very bad, I know that........:-)

Thank you.

Stefano.

P.S. If you want any info from me you are free to e-mail :)

Return to table of contents


From: "Donald A. Put" <daput at pe.net>
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 1996 18:19:07 +0000
Subject: False bottoms and the 4th of July

Sorry for the repost.  The mailer encoded the last version of
this and you all know what a pain it is to decode posts.  I tried to
cancel the previous incarnation, but I couldn't find the way to
do it since the aob took over.  Rob's software used to give a code
number to use.  Is there a way to cancel a post now?

Hello all,

>From: "Braam Greyling" <acg at knersus.nanoteq.co.za>

>the only problem that i can see w/ using pvc for a false bottom
>is that you'd have to either cut off the whole top of the keg
>and lose the handles or figure out some way to make your false
>bottom in two pieces and hinge it.

I have a false bottom in my mash tun that covers the whole bottom
of the SS keg.  It's about 14" in diameter.  The hole in the top
of the keg is 12" in diameter.  To get the false bottom in the keg
without cutting the top of the keg off, I just made two radial cuts
180 degrees apart around the circumference of the opening in the top
of the keg.  To put the false bottom in, turn it on end, slide it
through the slots, then turn it so it rests on the bottom of the keg.
I don't know if this will solve your problem, but it works well with
my setup.

>the other problem i couldn't resolve
>when i was thinking about using a false bottom was supporting
>it.

My tun drains from the bottom.  To support the middle of the false
bottom, I welded two small tabs up from the bottom over the drain,
then welded a 1/4" SS bolt (I cut the head off) to the "stand off"
tabs.  I use a piece of 3/8" copper tubing as a sleeve that slips
over the bolt and holds the false bottom at the height I wanted.
The deadspace under the false bottom is about 1/2" in the middle
to just about nothing under the edges.  To hold it down, I just use
a SS nut and washer.

>there's one other problem i see w/ any type of
>false bottom- especially in a keg b/c the amount of liquor that
>collects below the false bottom . . . when you add heat, you can't
>effectively stir what's below the false bottom. the liquor gets hot
>and i'd suspect that your enzymes might be likely to denature w/o
>real serious care.

Not to mention a severe carmelization problem which would turn the
wort under the false bottom to cement.  Some folks work around this

problem--I believe a previous poster mentioned this--by adding a pump
to recirculate the sweet wort from under the false bottom to the top
of the grain bed.

>From: ccoyote at sunrem.com (John (The Coyote) Wyllie)

>PS: Just went to watch the 4th's fireworks. What a blast. Hope it
>was good for you too.   I better brew a batch this weekend and name it
>appropriately eh?

Well, we had more than our fair share of fireworks this holiday up
here in Idyllwild, not to mention one hell of an air show (those fire
pilots have a LOT of nerve). I'll tell you, when the forest service tells you 
to
evacuate in an hour, you tend to look at all your "stuff" in a different
light.  Of course, I took all of my brewing records/recipes <grin>,
and all of the bottled home brew I had.

It was a strange feeling to drive off the hill knowing that there was
a good chance that most of what I owned would be gone by the next morning,
including the new house on which I had yet to make my first payment.  But the
wind changed, the humidity went up, and I'm happy to report that no
structures were lost, and I'm going to brew a commemorative ale next weekend.
The name?  Bee Canyon Bitter, of course.

don
Idyllwild Brewing Company
Idyllwild, CA







Return to table of contents


From: "Todd W. Roat" <troat at one.net>
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 1996 21:23:35 -0500
Subject: White film in bottled beer...yuck or yum?!

Bottled a batch of nut brown ale (OG 1.068, FG 1.027).  Yum.  Smelled
wonderful going in the bottles, an uncarbonated sample tasted good, and it
even looked good.  However, after 4 days in bottles, all the bottles have
a thin white film on the surface of the beer in the bottle's neck.  Doesnt
look like mold really.  Just a white top layer film in "all" bottles.
Slight continued ferment due to high FG (even though its white)?  Anyone
ever experience this? Infection? Did you survive? Did the beer survive?
Thanks..........

Todd W. Roat
Cincinnati Ohio
- - --
"Some folks trust in reason, others trust in might,
  some folks love the tree tops, just looking for
  their kites"

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

Return to table of contents


From: Keith Reding <kreding at biotech.aphis.usda.gov>
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 00:45:24 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Montgomery County, MD Fair Homebrew Contest

Montgomery County Agricultural Fair Homebrew Competition
Gaithersburg, MD
August 17, 1996

Announcing the Mountgomery County Agricultural Fair AMATEUR HOME-BREW
COMPETITION sponsored
by the Montgomery County Agricultural Fair. The competition is open to all
homebrews and is sanctioned by the American Homebrewers Association.

- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Web Site:  http://custom-web.com/gabs/competition


   * About the competition
   * Entry Form
   * Bottle Labels
   * Sign Up to Judge or Steward
   * AHA Sytle Chart
   * AHA Style Guidelines

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

Entry Information

The beers must not be brewed in any commercial establishment.

Entries MUST be bottled in 10-14 oz crown cap bottles without labels, raised
or embossed lettering. "Grolsch:"type bottles are not allowed. Caps must be
blacked out to conceal presious marking, such as batch number etc.

All entries must be accompanied with an official AHA entry form. Each bottle
must have a bottle IF form attached with a rubber band. Be sure to include
the class name and number on each bottle form.

Entrants must submit 3 bottles for each entry.

The registration fee is $5.00 per entry.
Please make checks payable to: MONTGOMERY COUNTY AGRICULTURAL FAIR.

When, Where and How to Enter

Entries must be received by August 15, 1996. NO late entries will be
accepted! PACK ENTRIES WELL!
Send entries to:

AMATEUR HOMEBREW COMPETITION
c/o Olde Towne Homebrew Supply
302B E. Diamond Ave.
Gaithersburg, MD 20877

Local brewer may drop off entries at Olde Towne Homebrew Supply.

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

Prizes

There will be ribbons and prized for BEST of SHOW, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place
for each category. Prized will include gift certificates from Olde Towne
Homebrew Supply and Olde Towne Tavern & Brewing Co. We are also trying to
get prizes from other sponsors.

- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Got a question, contact Bill Lawrence at (301) 963-9314
or Keith Reding at (301) 963-4748.

or by email at

gabs at custom-web.com


Return to table of contents


From: "David R. Burley" <103164.3202 at CompuServe.COM>
Date: 08 Jul 96 22:59:28 EDT
Subject: Confusion Abounds

Brewsters:

If you weren't confused before my note on saccharification time in Monday's 
HBD,
you must be now. I should have said in the summary " If you  are having trouble
with a high*FG* try extending your saccharification time, particularly at the
high temperature end."

If you didn't catch the error, shame on you, I was testing you. I can only 
blame
an impending tee time for my oversight in proofreading. Sorry

Keep on brewin'

Dave Burley


Return to table of contents


From: "David R. Burley" <103164.3202 at CompuServe.COM>
Date: 08 Jul 96 22:59:25 EDT
Subject: Scrumpy,Gelatinization and Potato beer

Brewsters:

Bob Waterfall was responding to an inquiry on the historic name for cider/ale
fermentations and thought that one possibility was "scrumpy" the other 
"braggot"
..
When I was living Wales in the late sixties/early 70s, Scrumpy was a tap
delivered, from a barrel,still ( i.e. flat), hard cider of lower quality, 
higher
alcohol ( reputedly) and cheaper than Woodpecker and Strongbow. Sometimes you
even had proof of its origin, since it still had flecks of apple and was a
little cloudy besides. I  always thought that braggot was a kind of ale,since I
believe I heard or read the phrase "braggot ale" but I never saw or tasted any.

It makes more sense that it was a mixture.

Shandy as you probably know is a mixture of beer ( usually bitter or lager in
them days)  and what was called lemonade, but we would call it 7up.  It is the
original beer cooler! (sorry about that). It was drunk by the ladies in half
pints as a more demure drink than full strength beer when they weren't drinking
Perry - a  sparkling pear wine or other "ladies" drink. Today Shandy is the
session drink for drivers of both sexes.

Times have changed, but not that much in Merry Olde. My daughter still shocks
the publicans in Manchester by ordering a pint of Guiness. One publican looked
over her demure, approx 100 pound frame and asked her "and what are you
having?".
- ----------------------------------------------------------
Rob Laurison provided some info on gelatinization temperature of starches.
Thanks Rob. I guess potato beer from uncooked potatoes really isn't out of the
question after all, based on the gelatinization temperature.  Does anyone make
an adjustable mill for this? Just kidding.
- ----------------------------------------------------------

Keep on Brewin'

Dave Burley


Return to table of contents


From: "CHUCK HUDSON, ER LAB 3-2865" <CHUDSON at mozart.unm.edu>
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 1996 22:38:49 -0600 (MDT)
Subject: Shawn please fix the system.

From:	SMTP%"homebrew at aob.org"  8-JUL-1996 09:04:19.92
To:	CHUDSON
CC:	
Subj:	You've been removed from the homebrew-digest

Message-Id: <9607081509.AA03575 at hpfcmgw.fc.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 96 15:01:19 GMT
From: Homebrew Digest REQUEST Address Only <homebrew-request@ aob.org>
Originally-From: majordomo at aob.org
Subject: You've been removed from the homebrew-digest
Apparently-To: homebrew at aob.org
Errors-To: bacchus at aob.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Homebrew Digest POSTING Address Only <homebrew at aob.org>
Sender: bacchus at aob.org

- - --


You have been removed from the homebrew-digest mailing list :-(

If you did not wish to be removed from this list, send mail to:
"homebrew-digest-request@ aob.org" and say:

    subscribe

If your removal was unintentional, it could be because mail to your
account, computer, or subnetwork was rejecting mail.


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

Return to table of contents


From: Steven Gray <sgray at calweb.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 1996 22:51:15 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Formula's..I Need Formula's!!!

There has been some talk lately about 'sacharification' temps and Dave
Burley   said he was getting ~89% efficiency with a recent batch. When Dave
gave an example of his efficiency calc, I became even more confused than 
normal.

I've just finished my second all-grain batch (an Irish Stout) and the OG
fell short of what I expected (1.034 instead of 1.044).  While I'm not too
upset with the OG, I'd like to figure my efficiencies and other interesting
numbers like that.

So... Can someone please point me to a good, hopefully online, source of
formula's and that type of info.  I've searched where I know of, but the
efficiency formula is eluding me. I saw the formula that Dave used in HBD
#2088 but I don't get it.

TIA
Steve Gray		BEER DOESN'T SUCK!!
Shingle Springs, Ca	
sgray at calweb.com
		


Return to table of contents


From: Mike Kidulich <mjkid at ix.netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Jul 1996 06:59:07 -0400
Subject: First all-grain

Greetings,

I will be doing my first all-grain this Friday, and am seeking advice/opinions 
regarding mash
temps and time. My recipe is:

Guinness Alike
8 lb. British Pale malt
1 lb. roasted barley
1 lb. flaked barley
bittering hops (haven't decided what to use yet)
Wyeast Irish (1084) from starter

I will be using a 10 gal. kettle with EZ-Masher. What temp do I mash at, and 
for how long? I have
(more or less) been following the current discussion on mash temp/time, but 
whats the bottom
line?

Also, I have a Belgian Wit beer going right now, using Wyeast 3944 (Belgian 
White beer). It has
had krauesen on it for 10 days. SG had gone from 1.050 to 1.030 as of Saturday 
(7 days). The
airlock is still bubbling slowly. Is it ok to rack to the secondary, or should 
I wait for the
krauesen to fall first?

TIA
- --
Mike Kidulich
mjkid at ix.netcom.com  mjk at rfc.comm.harris.com
DNRC Minister of Home Brewing, Relaxation, and Really Cool Toys
Holder of Previous Knowledge O-


Return to table of contents


From: Charlie Scandrett <merino at buggs.cynergy.com.au>
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 22:09:26 +1000 (EST)
Subject: Dried Hops/Viscosity

Jeff Frane posted,
>  There may be good,
>non-obvious reasons why hops are still dried instead of being frozen.

Drying herbaceous matter significantly changes its chemical composition. The
content of six-carbon aldehydes and alcohols increases greatly among other
changes. Some of these compounds are prized flavours.

 Basically the oxidising of every living thing which began at germination is
accelerated by air, harvesting, heat and death. (Yes, brewers included) The
volatiles (largely aromatic hydrocarbons) of living herbs and spices change
quickly when harvested, some disappearing altogether. The oxidised products
of these volatiles are more heat tolerant and thus sometimes survive
cooking. The low heat of drying accelerates oxidation without vapourization,
as does increased oxidation by the enzymes called lipoxygenases.

 This is why dried and short stored hops "improve" in flavour, their flavour
and aroma compounds are more oxidised and heat tolerant, i.e. there is more
of them in the beer. It is also why I think First Wort Hopping works. Some
aroma compounds become oxidised (notably producing geraniol and humolene
epoxide which survive boiling fairly well by comparison) before the
vapourisation temperature is reached, thus becoming more stable. The long
exposure to boiling completely removes others, especially the polysulphides,
unmasking more pleasant aromas. Oxidising reactions are not always staling
reactions.

It is interesting to note that while the *fresh* leaves of coriander have
the highest content of Decanal, a powerful, unstable orange aroma prized in
Wit beers, the *dried* coriander seed's volatiles contain 2/3 linanool, a
common indicator (oxygenated) aroma compound of hoppy late addition(-10
mins) lagers! The drying process has a dramatic effect on these
concentrations, one negative, one positive?

This hop stuff is a labyrinth! I did find out however that the highest
concentration (by a factor of x5!) of Geraniol, an important FW Hopping
aroma compound, is in the vatiety "Golden Brewer". I would be interested in
the results of FW Hopping with a >three month old sample of this hop. I
can't get it. Can you say "zephyrs of ecstasy" with a smile?
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Dave Burley posted about lautering,

>  Do you or anyone else have a viscosity/
>temp/concentration equation with parameters?

They are not simply linked. Heated starch for instance coagulates and
becomes more viscous. Honey is more viscous than mercury, although mercury
is clearly more dense. A better analogy is pehaps egg white. Beaten or
heated, diluted or concentrated, it changes viscosity because proteins are
denatured and the collapsed structures have free bonding sites to join
together in a colloidal set. So "concentration" and "temperature" are not
simply related to viscosity, the model is unstable. It is not much use
quantifying these relationships. Psychologists have been failing at
predicting unstable models (us!) for decades. Chaos Theorists have tried to
make this voodoo fashionable.

How much agitation will stiffen egg white? It actually depends on the
entrails of your chook, and any burning witch will tell you that they are
notoriously hard to calibrate!

We brewers have to live with a little uncertainty, aim for targets, read the
data and react.

Charlie (Brisbane, Australia)



Return to table of contents