---

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

Contents:
  ATTENTION! ((Shawn Steele))
  Re: Spamming ((Shawn Steele))
  Re: Fruit beer too sweet (Don Trotter)
  Re: Yeast not getting older, getting better (Don Trotter)
  hangovers/Beer for Dummies (Peter Ensminger)
  Flavored fruit beers recipes, hop conservation and bittering herbs. (Jorge Blasig - IQ)
  Kettle Caramelization/RIMS Controllers (Steve Gray)
  SPAMM ((LaBorde, Ronald))
  Re: Calculating CO2 saturation levels (Alan Edwards)
  Domenick's Anti-SPAM suggestion: AYE ("Dave Draper")
  grain crush/saccharification rest (M257876 at sl1001.mdc.com (bayerospace at mac))
  20lb co2 Cylinder ((Kevin O'Connor))
  Advertising on HBD (Miguel de Salas)
  bad beer contest (Eugene Sonn)
  Thomas Hardy's Ale ("Kevin A. Kutskill")
  Re:Channeling (Kelly Jones)
  SPAMMERS (WattsBrew at aol.com)
  Bottling Mead ((DON CHASE))
  Hangovers/Bees ((A. J. deLange))
  Brew Pubs Ect. (Komusubi at aol.com)
  Insects in beer (John Wilkinson)
  Canadian Beer ((Ron Scammell))
  Re: Channelling vs. Sparge Flow Rate ((John A DeCarlo))
  Mini Kegs (Mark Pfortmiller)
  Lager and pils fermenting temps ("Braam Greyling")

For SUBMISSIONS to be published, send mail to:
  homebrew at aob.org
For (UN)SUBSCRIBE requests, send mail to:
  homebrew-digest-request@ aob.org
  and include ONLY subscribe or unsubscribe in the BODY of the message.

Please note that if 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
  http://www.aob.org/aob - The AHA's web site.
  http://alpha.rollanet.org - "The Brewery" and the Cat's Meow Archives.
  info at aob.org - automated e-mail homebrewing information.

ARCHIVES:
  At ftp.stanford.edu in /pub/clubs/homebrew/beer via anonymous ftp.  Also
  http://alpha.rollanet.org on the web and at majordomo at aob.org by e-mail.

COPYRIGHT:
  As with all forums such as this one, copyrights are retained by the
  original authors. In accordance with the wishes of the members of the
  Homebrew Digest, posts to the HBD may NOT be sold or used as part of a
  collection that is sold without the original authors' consent. Copies
  may ONLY be made available at no charge and should include the current
  posting and subscription addresses for the HBD.


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

From: shawn at aob.org (Shawn Steele)
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 14:30:05 -0600
Subject: ATTENTION!

It appears that subscribers to the Homebrew Digest are dropping like 
flies.  I'm not sure why this is, but it appears to be due to network 
problems, such as "User Unknown" and "Host Unknown" and "Could Not 
Connect" problems.  It SEEMS like people are computers are vanishing or 
changing addresses, but I have a hard time believing the numbers I'm 
seeing right now. 
 
If you do happen to be unsubscribed or suddenly stop receiving the 
digest without cause, please let me know so I can take corrective 
action if needed. 
 
- - shawn 
Postmaster at aob.org 
Digest Janitor 

Return to table of contents


From: shawn at aob.org (Shawn Steele)
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 14:36:54 -0600
Subject: Re: Spamming

#1: If people call for votes to my personal mailbox, I will not be able 
to respond.  First off, there are around 3600 members of the HBD. 
 
#2: Thanks for letting me know your concerns.  As you would expect, 
some people think that restricting the HBD is a good idea, others think 
its a lousy idea. 
 
#3: Spammers to the HBD due get a note from me and their system 
administrator is informed.  In most of those cases, they lose are 
warned and may lose their accounts. Spamming is not taken lightly 
ANYWHERE on the internet. 
 
#4: Some people use the HBD from different e-mail addresses, their 
addresses change, their mail server changes and other such stuff.  If 
only 1% of HBDers have such things happen to their e-mail addresses, 
they would be unable to use the HBD and I would get more than 1 
complaint a day about those problems.  Realistically addresses change 
more than that. 
 
#5: The HBD will not change right now, but that policy is always open 
for reconsideration if it gets too bad. 
 
- - shawn 
Postmaster at aob.org 
Digest Janitor 

Return to table of contents


From: Don Trotter <dtrotter at imtn.tpd.dsccc.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 15:28:12 -0500
Subject: Re: Fruit beer too sweet

 
Funny.  I just did a 85% wheat a few weeks ago with OG=1.064.  I added 
fruit juice after steeping berries at 170F for 30 min with Pectin, and 
added 2 quarts of sweet strained berry juice to two secondary 
fermentations.  One with 2 lbs cherries juice, the other with 2.4 lbs 
blueberries juice.  Both carboys were blowing off within 5 minutes, and 
I just kegged the results with FG=1.010 (cherry), FG=1.008 
(blueberry).  Oh yea, I used Wyeast 1056 too. 
 
Better luck next time Bill. 
 
don 

Return to table of contents


From: Don Trotter <dtrotter at imtn.tpd.dsccc.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 15:39:21 -0500
Subject: Re: Yeast not getting older, getting better

 
Yep, you're essentially correct Eugene.  This will work, but you have 
to keep in mind that yeast mutates.  I've repitched primary and 
secondary yeast with great success.  I have also fed starters for 
months, and pitched half of the slurry every time.  You can do this for 
some time, but it can turn on you. 
 
don 

Return to table of contents


From: Peter Ensminger <ensmingr at npac.syr.edu>
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 16:45:46 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: hangovers/Beer for Dummies

Chris Pertschi asks about the cause of hangovers. 
 
I'm not sure if it is generally true that Canadian beer is less likely to 
cause hangovers than American beer.  Nor am I sure WHY this should be the 
case.  His hunch that preservatives are responsible for hangovers seems 
like a good (in that it is testable) hypothesis.  But do American beers 
really have more or different preservatives than Canadian beers? 
 
On the other hand, my understanding is that accumulation of acetaldehyde 
causes many of the symptoms of hangover.  Basically, the two key 
biochemical reactions are: 
 
          1                   2 
ethanol -----> acetaldehyde -----> acetate 
 
 
Reaction 1 is promoted by the enzyme alcohol dehydrogenase and reaction 2 
is promoted by the enzyme aldehyde dehydogenase.  These reactions occur 
primarily in the liver, require NAD, and produce NADH.  Apparently, the 
supply of NAD often limits the overall reaction rate and its shortage can 
lead to accumulation of acetaldehyde.  Interestingly, some ethnic groups 
accumulate significantly more acetaldehyde after drinking than others. 
Acetaldehyde has also been implicated as the cause of Fetal Alcohol 
Syndrome. 
 
My hunch is that American and Canadian beers are about equally likely to 
cause hangovers.  Perhaps because Chris was on vacation and was in such a 
good mood that he simply didn't notice the effects of accumulated 
acetaldehyde.  Mood can definitely influence the perception of 
intoxication by alcohol and other drugs, so why not the perception of 
hangovers? 
 
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 
On another topic, I recently saw the book BEER FOR DUMMIES in my local 
bookstore.  I would be interested in hearing some opinions about this new 
book. It seemed to me to be pretty good, but I only had time for a 5 
minute perusal. 
 
Cheerio! 
 
Peter A. Ensminger                  tel: 315-478-6024 
256 Greenwood Place               email: ensmingr at npac.syr.edu 
Syracuse, NY 13210                  URL: www.npac.syr.edu/users/ensmingr/ 
U.S.A. 
 

Return to table of contents


From: Jorge Blasig - IQ <gisalb at elmer.fing.edu.uy>
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 17:52:22 -0300 (UY)
Subject: Flavored fruit beers recipes, hop conservation and bittering herbs.

 
Dear friends, 
 
I am preparing my first batch of homebrew. I need a fruit flavored beer 
recipe as a start. I would appreciate your sending me what you have. 
 
I have found some hops: brewers gold and cascade. It is not too much but 
enough for several batchs. I need some information on hop conservation. I 
would also appreciate your sending me any suggestion about other 
bittering herbs that I could use to prepare my first batch. 
 
I also have a malt extract for baking bread. It contains 45%-55% maltose, 
20% dextrins, 5-6% proteins and density 80-83 Brix. I could also find a 
pale ale malt. I would appreciate a recipe to use this kind of 
ingredients. 
 
Thanks, 
 
Jorge Blasig 
 

Return to table of contents


From: Steve Gray <sgray at sssc.slg.eds.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 13:57:38 -0700
Subject: Kettle Caramelization/RIMS Controllers

I am going to  attempt a Scotch ale this weekend and would like any = 
information on techniques used to 'caramelize' in the kettle.  I seem to = 
remember reading somewhere that sparging into a warm/hot brew kettle may = 
produce the desired affect.  This seems a little dangerous to me in that = 
it may cause scorching for a 1+ hour sparge.  Is caramelization just a = 
controlled scorch?=20 
_______________________________________________ 
I hope in the near future to evolve my current 10gal Gott mash/lauter = 
system into a pseudo RIMS system.  I've read the special issue Zymurgy = 
on gadgets, but I would rather not construct my own controller.  What = 
are good sources for controllers that can be used for these systems.  = 
They must exist. 
_______________________________________________ 
 
Had my first (and second, and third....) authentic draft (nitrogen = 
injected)  Guinness at Kell's Irish Pub in Portland this weekend.  = 
Thought I'd died and gone to heaven, as they say.  If I loved it before, = 
I don't know what I'd call it now. 
 
TIA 
 
Steve Gray 
Shingle Springs, CA 
sgray at calweb.com 
sgray at sssc.slg.eds.com 
 
 
 
 

Return to table of contents


From: rlabor at lsumc.edu (LaBorde, Ronald)
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 15:49:57 -0500
Subject: SPAMM

>From: Domenick Venezia <venezia at zgi.com> 
 
>The incidence of SPAMM on this digest, as it is across the whole of the 
>Internet, is increasing.  I remind you of the Viewmaster and VGA SPAMMs of 
>last week.  This problem is going to simply get worse and worse as the 
 
Whoa, let's not get trigger happy.  How many SPAMM's have we had lately. 
Relax, don't worry, have a homebrew. 
 
Ron 
 

Return to table of contents


From: Alan Edwards <ale at cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 14:29:21 -0700
Subject: Re: Calculating CO2 saturation levels

Alex Santic (alex at salley.com), in HBD #2179, wrote: 
 
| I've just spent a few hours searching through the HBD archives and I've 
| finally given up. 
| 
| Could have sworn I recently read about the formula for calculating the 
| volume saturation level of CO2 in wort according to temperature (and 
| pressure?). I'm refining an Excel brewing worksheet in which I've 
| included a priming calculator. Currently it does a lookup of dissolved 
| CO2 volume vs. temperature using the table published in David Draper's 
| noteworthy article, but it would be more elegant and interesting to 
| incorporate the formula to calculate this value. 
| 
| Can anybody provide guidance? 
 
Yes!  (Sorry, I read the HBD very infrequently.)  I posted a formula for 
CO2 vs. temp vs. pressure a few years ago.  (The table actually made it 
into an issue of Zymurgy not too long ago.)  Here it is again, paraphrased: 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Hello fellow brewmeisters, 
 
I've come up with a formula and a table for determining what pressure to 
apply to achieve a certain carbonation level.  I believe that this table 
is more useful compared to the other table that has appeared on the HBD 
and elsewhere.  It's smaller (fits easily in an 80 column window), but 
contains all the needed information in a more obvious arrangement.  (It 
makes more sense to me to ask "what pressure do I need" rather than "what 
do I get if I use this pressure").  Besides, it can do any temperature. 
 
You can print the table out and stick it in your brewing logbook or on 
the side of your kegs. 
 
 
FORMULA 
 
If you use a spreadsheet or a programmable calculator for your brewing 
endeavors, this is the formula that was used to create the table: 
 
Pressure = F(Temperature, Volume) 
 
P = -16.6999 - 0.0101059 T + 0.00116512 T^2 
    + 0.173354 T V + 4.24267 V - 0.0684226 V^2 
 
(T units are Farenheit) 
 
 
TABLE 
 
Look at the row that corresponds to your keg temperature, and read the 
number at the column corresponding to the desired carbonation level. 
That number is the pressure to apply to the beer, in PSI. 
 
 
             PRESSURE REQUIRED FOR DESIRED CARBONATION 
 
                      Volumes of CO2 desired 
Temp   2.0  2.1  2.2  2.3  2.4  2.5  2.6  2.7  2.8  2.9  3.0 
 
 32F   3.5  4.4  5.4  6.3  7.3  8.2  9.2 10.1 11.0 12.0 12.9 
 34F   4.3  5.3  6.3  7.3  8.2  9.2 10.2 11.2 12.1 13.1 14.1 
 36F   5.1  6.2  7.2  8.2  9.2 10.2 11.2 12.3 13.3 14.3 15.3 
 38F   6.0  7.0  8.1  9.1 10.2 11.2 12.3 13.3 14.4 15.4 16.5 
 40F   6.8  7.9  9.0 10.1 11.2 12.3 13.4 14.4 15.5 16.6 17.7 
 42F   7.7  8.8 10.0 11.1 12.2 13.3 14.4 15.5 16.7 17.8 18.9 
 44F   8.6  9.7 10.9 12.1 13.2 14.4 15.5 16.7 17.8 19.0 20.1 
 46F   9.5 10.7 11.8 13.0 14.2 15.4 16.6 17.8 19.0 20.2 21.3 
 48F  10.4 11.6 12.8 14.0 15.3 16.5 17.7 18.9 20.1 21.4 22.6 
 50F  11.3 12.5 13.8 15.0 16.3 17.6 18.8 20.1 21.3 22.6 23.8 
 52F  12.2 13.5 14.8 16.1 17.3 18.6 19.9 21.2 22.5 23.8 25.1 
 54F  13.1 14.4 15.7 17.1 18.4 19.7 21.1 22.4 23.7 25.0 26.3 
 56F  14.0 15.4 16.7 18.1 19.5 20.8 22.2 23.6 24.9 26.3 27.6 
 58F  15.0 16.4 17.8 19.2 20.6 21.9 23.3 24.7 26.1 27.5 28.9 
 60F  15.9 17.3 18.8 20.2 21.6 23.1 24.5 25.9 27.4 28.8 30.2 
 62F  16.9 18.3 19.8 21.3 22.7 24.2 25.7 27.1 28.6 30.0 31.5 
 64F  17.8 19.3 20.8 22.3 23.8 25.3 26.8 28.3 29.8 31.3 32.8 
 66F  18.8 20.3 21.9 23.4 25.0 26.5 28.0 29.6 31.1 32.6 34.1 
 68F  19.8 21.4 22.9 24.5 26.1 27.6 29.2 30.8 32.4 33.9 35.5 
 70F  20.8 22.4 24.0 25.6 27.2 28.8 30.4 32.0 33.6 35.2 36.8 
 72F  21.8 23.4 25.1 26.7 28.4 30.0 31.6 33.3 34.9 36.5 38.2 
 74F  22.8 24.5 26.2 27.8 29.5 31.2 32.9 34.5 36.2 37.9 39.5 
 76F  23.8 25.5 27.2 29.0 30.7 32.4 34.1 35.8 37.5 39.2 40.9 
 78F  24.9 26.6 28.4 30.1 31.8 33.6 35.3 37.1 38.8 40.5 42.3 
 80F  25.9 27.7 29.5 31.2 33.0 34.8 36.6 38.3 40.1 41.9 43.7 
 
 
             PRESSURE REQUIRED FOR DESIRED CARBONATION 
 
                      Volumes of CO2 desired 
Temp   2.0  2.1  2.2  2.3  2.4  2.5  2.6  2.7  2.8  2.9  3.0 
 
 01C   4.2  5.2  6.2  7.2  8.1  9.1 10.1 11.1 12.0 13.0 14.0 
 02C   5.0  6.0  7.0  8.0  9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0 
 03C   5.7  6.8  7.8  8.9  9.9 10.9 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.1 16.1 
 04C   6.5  7.6  8.6  9.7 10.8 11.9 12.9 14.0 15.1 16.1 17.2 
 05C   7.3  8.4  9.5 10.6 11.7 12.8 13.9 15.0 16.1 17.2 18.3 
 06C   8.1  9.2 10.3 11.5 12.6 13.7 14.9 16.0 17.1 18.2 19.4 
 07C   8.8 10.0 11.2 12.3 13.5 14.7 15.8 17.0 18.2 19.3 20.5 
 08C   9.6 10.8 12.0 13.2 14.4 15.6 16.8 18.0 19.2 20.4 21.6 
 09C  10.4 11.7 12.9 14.1 15.4 16.6 17.8 19.0 20.3 21.5 22.7 
 10C  11.3 12.5 13.8 15.0 16.3 17.6 18.8 20.1 21.3 22.6 23.8 
 11C  12.1 13.4 14.7 16.0 17.2 18.5 19.8 21.1 22.4 23.7 25.0 
 12C  12.9 14.2 15.6 16.9 18.2 19.5 20.8 22.1 23.5 24.8 26.1 
 13C  13.7 15.1 16.4 17.8 19.2 20.5 21.9 23.2 24.5 25.9 27.2 
 14C  14.6 16.0 17.4 18.7 20.1 21.5 22.9 24.3 25.6 27.0 28.4 
 15C  15.4 16.8 18.3 19.7 21.1 22.5 23.9 25.3 26.7 28.1 29.6 
 16C  16.3 17.7 19.2 20.6 22.1 23.5 25.0 26.4 27.8 29.3 30.7 
 17C  17.1 18.6 20.1 21.6 23.1 24.5 26.0 27.5 29.0 30.4 31.9 
 18C  18.0 19.5 21.0 22.6 24.1 25.6 27.1 28.6 30.1 31.6 33.1 
 19C  18.9 20.4 22.0 23.5 25.1 26.6 28.1 29.7 31.2 32.7 34.3 
 20C  19.8 21.4 22.9 24.5 26.1 27.6 29.2 30.8 32.4 33.9 35.5 
 21C  20.7 22.3 23.9 25.5 27.1 28.7 30.3 31.9 33.5 35.1 36.7 
 22C  21.6 23.2 24.9 26.5 28.1 29.8 31.4 33.0 34.6 36.3 37.9 
 23C  22.5 24.2 25.8 27.5 29.2 30.8 32.5 34.1 35.8 37.5 39.1 
 24C  23.4 25.1 26.8 28.5 30.2 31.9 33.6 35.3 37.0 38.7 40.3 
 25C  24.3 26.1 27.8 29.5 31.3 33.0 34.7 36.4 38.1 39.9 41.6 
 
 
REFERENCE 
 
Volumes of CO2: 
British style beers    = 2.00 - 2.40 
Most other beers       = 2.40 - 2.85 
High-carbonation beers = 2.85 - 2.95 
 
 
Have fun, 
- -Alan 
 
Alan Edwards (ale at cisco.com)    H3CO.____       O            CH3 
Systems Administrator /             /    \      ||           | 
Chile-Head / Home Brewer        HO-<      >-C-N-C-(CH2)4-C=C-C-CH3 
Cisco Systems Inc  408-526-5283     \____/ H2 H          H H H     Capsaicin 

Return to table of contents


From: "Dave Draper" <ddraper at laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 07:51:01 +10
Subject: Domenick's Anti-SPAM suggestion: AYE

Dear Friends, 
 
I think Domenick has summarized the problem accurately.  To limit 
posts to subscribers only does nothing to limit brewing input and can 
only help, both on the spam front and on the brainless-idiots-just- 
trying-to-stir-us-up front. 
 
I vote a resounding AYE on the suggestion. 
 
Cheers, Dave in Sydney 
"Just what we need-- another wanker with an attitude!" ---Rob Moline 
- --- 
*************************************************************************** 
David S. Draper, Earth Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney NSW Australia 
ddraper at laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au  http://audio.apana.org.au/ddraper/home.html 
                ...I'm not from here, I just live here... 

Return to table of contents


From: M257876 at sl1001.mdc.com (bayerospace at mac)
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 17:04 -0600
Subject: grain crush/saccharification rest

collective homebrew conscience: 
 
dave b. wrote: 
 
>AlK says he thinks malt should be crushed until it is ideally *all* flour 
Maybe
>he has a different definition of flour than most people. 
 
dave then went on to quote a piece of noonan's book, which mentions that 
flour is undesirable, because it balls easily.  i think when al wrote that the 
ideal (impossible) crush was big husks and finely ground starch, he was 
assuming there would be no problems in mixing the mash.  this makes sense, as 
the flour would be very quickly converted, and the husks would not be so 
finely ground as to cause lautering/sparging problems.  of course, this is 
nearly impossible to achieve, thus the compromised crush we all have to deal 
with. 
 
i routinely find starch grits in my lauter tun, after the sparge is over. 
this represents lost extract.  if these pieces of starch had been more finely 
ground, they would have been available to the enzymes to convert, and more 
extract would be the result.  now, i have a question: 
 
bruce taber wrote: 
 
 
>Mark Bayer states; 
 
>> 6)  extend the sacch. rest to 1.5 or 2 hours, regardless of the iodine 
test . 
 
>     Why?  Should the iodine test not be trusted?  Is there substantially 
more sugar available even after the iodine shows no color change?<snip> 
 
 
excellent question, and i don't know the answer for sure.  i recommended 
extending the saccharification rest because i had seen that recommendation 
in dave miller's books, particularly for high kilned (enzymatic) malts, and 
because my own experience has led me to believe that a longer sacch. rest 
improved extraction.   also,  a member of my homebrew club (stl brews) had 
performed an overnight infusion mash (to save time/experiment), and had 
gotten outstanding extraction compared with his normal brewing method.  all 
other variables were the same (lautering, etc.) as his usual method.  we all 
tasted the beer, and it was fine. 
 
now, here's my question:  is it possible that the reason a longer mash rest 
gives better extraction is because the longer rest helps to break down large 
starch grits (like i find in my lauter tun) better?  obviously, enzyme 
viability and denaturization is an issue here (not again!), but assuming 
there are enzymes left after an hour and a half, are they still trying to 
munch on those big starch granules and convert as much as they can when we 
intervene and mash out?  all the super finely ground starch (flour) gets 
converted very quickly, but these larger pieces are troublesome for enzymes, 
and they need more time to convert them because they don't have immediate 
access like they do with the finer ground starch.  correct? 
 
this is the physical reason for decoction mashing.  to break up those bigger 
pieces of starch by boiling them and physically breaking them down into 
much smaller pieces.  this makes easier work for the enzymes. 
 
now, why do i get a negative reaction for starch from the iodine test even 
though i'm finding starch in my lauter tun?  because as soon as a little 
piece of starch breaks off the big starch grit, it gets converted.  actually, 
the enzymes are gathered round the starch grit like sharks around a whale, 
tearing off pieces and converting them simultaneously.  so i have basically 
starch grits in a sugar solution, and there's no starch in the liquid i use 
for the iodine test. 
 
this is all conjecture, but i'm interested in feedback. 
 
brew hard, 
 
mark bayer 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Return to table of contents


From: koco at lsil.com (Kevin O'Connor)
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 15:02:55 -0700
Subject: 20lb co2 Cylinder

 
Greetings gang, 
 
Thanks to all that responded to my request for information regarding 
15.5 bl kegs.  I have elected to take it back for deposit. 
 
Another question. 
 
I have acquired a used 20lb co2 tank with dual gauges for the paltry 
fee of $30.  The gauges work fine, so I believe I'm already ahead of 
the game but what about the tank?  I believe it was originally used in 
welding and I was wondering if there is a problem using it for kegging 
beer.  I can't imagine any nasties living in CO2. 
 
What do you think? 
 
thanx, 
 
Kevin 

Return to table of contents


From: Miguel de Salas <mm_de at postoffice.utas.edu.au>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 08:39:29 -1000
Subject: Advertising on HBD

On isuue #2178 a person under the address renechar at tpts1.seed.net.tw posted 
an ad about VGA cards. I don't think this is the place for such advertising. 
I don't think it may even be the place for this, but I think if everyone 
flamed him he might not do it again. 
I for one don't agree with being sent commercials when I am expecting 
homebrew related issues. Is it just me? 
 
Cheers 
      Miguel 
 

Return to table of contents


From: Eugene Sonn <eugene at dreamscape.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 18:55:28 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: bad beer contest

Some folks I know are holding a bad beer contest and I'm looking for some 
help.  The gist of the contest is to find the worst possible brew which 
hasn't been intentionally sabotaged.  Skunking the beer is not ok 
according to the rules.  I'm looking for some inspired comments about the 
worst commercial brews available.  This means the usual BudSWillerCoors 
stuff just won't do it.  The other catch, the beer has to be available in 
upstate new york or the Philly area.  I live in the former and will be 
attending the competition in the latter. 
 
Thanks in advance.....my tastebuds are already mad a me 
 
Eugene 
eugene at nova.dreamscape.com 
 

Return to table of contents


From: "Kevin A. Kutskill" <75233.500 at CompuServe.COM>
Date: 09 Sep 96 18:53:06 EDT
Subject: Thomas Hardy's Ale

I usually only read about stuff like this, so please allow me the indulgence 
of bandwidth.... 
 
Last weekend, my wife and I were in a small town--she was shopping for 
antiques, and I was grumbling about being in a town with nothing to do 
except watch my wife shop (is it any wonder that statistically, men die 
younger than women?).  Anyhoo, wandering down an aisle, I glanced 
at a shelf and saw a bottle of Thomas Hardy's Ale, one of the small, 
6  ouncers, obviously old with a fading, brown label.  Looking closer, 
I saw that it was FULL!  Looking even closer, the date on it was July, 
1968.  If memory serves, this was the first year the brew was made. 
Price:  five bucks!  Acting nonchlalant at the register (trying to hide my 
excitement) I plopped my five bucks down.  At that point, the lady sez: 
"ya know, there is another one".  After picking my tongue and jaw off 
the floor, I bought both of them, five bucks each. 
 
Now for the big question: 
 
A)  are they worth anything, and if so, how much (ballpark)--in which 
      case I will sleep with them under my pillow for life, 
 
or 
 
B)  seeing as though all the sources I read suggest that the ale's flavor 
      peaks at 25 years max, should I chill and crack those puppies 
      open and taste a bit of history? 
 
again, sorry for the waste of bandwidth 
 
Kevin A. Kutskill ("Dr. Rottguts") 
Clinton Township, MI 
75233.500 at compuserve.com 
 
"A homebrew a day keeps the doctor happy" 
 

Return to table of contents


From: Kelly Jones <kejones at ptdcs2.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Sep 1996 16:22:42 -0700
Subject: Re:Channeling

Guy wrote: 
 
> Well, Chuck, if you'll notice, flow through that straw is potentially a 
> great deal faster than flow through the grain.  The channeling issue is 
> essentially  formation of a preferential flow path through the grain, as you 
> said. That flow path, or short cut, conducts fluid much faster than the rest 
> of the grain.  What is available to be extracted in that grain is extracted 
> rapidly.    Per unit time, a higher volume will pass through that short cut. 
>  This volume may have a lower gravity because it does not approach chemical 
> equilibrium with the surrounding grain as well as in the rest of the bed. It 
> may have a similar gravity intially because of leakage from the surrounding 
> bed, 
 
OK, so let's put a valve on the outlet of the tun.  We can control the flow to 
be whatever we want, even to the point of maiking the lauter last longer than 
it would have been in a non-channeling bed.  My contention is, the extraction 
will still be poor. Since a greater proportion of water is passing through the 
channels, a lesser proportion passes through the rest of the bed, thus 
resulting in worse extraction, despite the extended contact time. 
 
If channeling is not directly observable as a decrease in extraction, then it 
is hardly a problem.  In fact, the shortened lauter time would be a bonus. 
 
Kelly 
Hillsboro, OR 

Return to table of contents


From: WattsBrew at aol.com
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 19:34:13 -0400
Subject: SPAMMERS

Domenic says "Restrict posts to subscribers only." 
 
I absolutely agree.  The incidence of crap in our lives increases every day 
and I for one don't enjoy having to weed out all the junk to get to the good 
stuff.  The HBD should be for serious and light-hearted discussion of beer 
and brewing and not a forum for a personal agenda .And don't send me any crap 
about free speech and rights of individuals.  If someone doesn't have the 
common sense and control to restrict their activity to proper forums, then 
they must have it restricted for them. I don't see the problem with 
subscribing if you want to post.  It really is so simple, even I was able to 
do it. 
It has been very hard not to yell about this up to this point, so just let me 
get it out of my system now. AAAAAAAARRRRRRRRGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 
 
Thank you for your time, and now back to my beer. 
 
Brewing beer in Lancaster, NY - Bill Watt 
 
 

Return to table of contents


From: wchase at alpha.utampa.edu (DON CHASE)
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 18:47:19 -0400
Subject: Bottling Mead

I am getting ready to bottle a rather sweet blueberry mead (melomel for you 
technical beergeeks :-) ).  I was hoping to bottle 2gal without priming sugar. 
I tried this with a sample bottle and it came out almost like a sweet wine. 
I wanted to bottle another 2gal WITH sugar to carbonate.  Any suggestions 
how much sugar and nutrient I'll need?  My SG was about .998, but may have 
dropped slightly.  The other 1gal I wanted to add nutrient to and let it 
ferment out a bit more before I bottle it.  Here again, how much do I use? 
 
Please answer privately, and try to keep the technical jargon to a minimum. 
I must have been a chef in a past life, because I don't worry too much about 
exact measurements. (Except when a bottle may explode as a result.)  All this 
recent talk about sparging times and rates has my poor head swimming, or maybe 
that's the meade.  :-) 
 
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don Chase                      |  Hombrewing : the only sport open exclusively 
Objectivist...Businessman...   |               to anal-retentive alcoholics. 
Homebrewer.                    |  Relax...have a homebrew. 
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Return to table of contents


From: ajdel at interramp.com (A. J. deLange)
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 01:40:07 -0500
Subject: Hangovers/Bees

Chris Pertschi asks "What is it in U.S. mass produced 'brews' that often 
destroys the following morning...? 
 
I certainly have no scientific proof but my own empirical observations have 
led me to believe that it is what isn't in mass produced beer, namely 
yeast, that leads to the problems. I have found that homebrew and German 
beers definitely are less damaging than centrifuged and/or filtered mega 
brews. I had an evening with commercial Hefe Weizen (Paulaner) in Germany a 
couple of weeks ago that left me amazed at how well I felt the next AM 
considering the quantity consumed and the jet lag factor. I have also noted 
over there that an evening with the Pils leads to a much worse morining 
than an evening with Hefe Weizen and Eric Warner alludes to this in his 
monograph on wheat beer. Conversely, my own Pils, which is not filtered or 
centrifuged is more forgiving than German commercial Pils, even "vom Fass". 
I suppose I should contrast Hefe Weizen with Crystal - further rearch - all 
in the interests of science of course. 
 
One often sees the explanation that yeast contain vitamin B and that 
vitamin B helps the body to metabolize alcohol. This may indeed be the case 
but I have nothing at hand to support this notion except the observation 
that several of the B vitamins are intimately involved in the metabolism of 
sugars and that it is the upset of this metabolism by excess NADH that 
leads to many of the problems of hangover. 
 
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 
 
John Varady uses "bee" and "yellowjacket" without apparent distinction. 
Bees (Apis) are our friends as they are a direct source of fermentables 
(and an indirect source of many comestibles). Yellow jackets (Vespula), 
conversely, are pretty worthless.  Both are attracted to sugar. In fact the 
 at #%&* at  yellow jackets rob bee hives. 
 
A.J. deLange   Numquam in dubio, saepe in errore! 
ajdel at interramp.com 
 
 

Return to table of contents


From: Komusubi at aol.com
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 17:36:27 -0400
Subject: Brew Pubs Ect.

Hello All, 
I would like to know if anybody has any info on brew-pubs and micro-breweries 
in Kingston and Toronto Canada. I will be going to bith places for about a 
few. 
Thanks , Private E-mail Ok. 
SRJ 

Return to table of contents


From: John Wilkinson <jwilkins at imtn.tpd.dsccc.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 21:04:47 -0500
Subject: Insects in beer

Robert Ray spoke of a bee diving into his brew pot and John Varady of 
several going to their deaths in his hot mash. 
A while back I was aerating my cooled wort by pouring back and forth 
between buckets and had a problem with flies trying to land on the buckets. 
I thought I kept the flies shooed away but saw a small one in the wort in one 
of my buckets.  I didn't have a sanitized spoon handy so I grabbed a spoon 
from my brewing equipment box and scooped the fly out.  I figured whatever 
might be on that spoon couldn't be any worse than what was on the fly. 
Especially since I brew in my shop building which has numerous fresh cow 
patties outside.  I went ahead and pitched the yeast and hoped for the best. 
The beer turned out fine, although I didn't mention the incident to anyone 
who drank it. 
I have also picked the occasional wasp or beetle out of my mash.  I don't 
know how they got there but they never left any noticeable flavors behind. 
I don't remember any of my beers having a detectable sting. 
I guess the beer gods have been kind to me. 
 
John Wilkinson - Grapevine, Texas 

Return to table of contents


From: rscom at travel-net.com (Ron Scammell)
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 23:08:08 -0400
Subject: Canadian Beer

Re: Chris Pertschi's rave review of Canadian beers in Monday's digest. 
You're right Chris -- Canadian brew is hangover free -- a special formula 
handed down from the earliest settlers. 
 
Seriously, hope you had the chance to try a Hart beer, one of the best 
microbrewery beers north of the 49th parallel. At the moment it's available 
just in Ontario but there are plans I'm told to distribute in the U.S. 
 
You might be interested in reading some entertaining reviews of Canadian 
beers which can be found on the Hart Brewery web site at 
http://www.hartcanada.com. 
 
Cheers, 
Ron Scammell 
Ottawa, Canada 
 
 
 
 
 

Return to table of contents


From: jdecarlo at juno.com (John A DeCarlo)
Date: Mon, 09 Sep 1996 23:14:35 EDT
Subject: Re: Channelling vs. Sparge Flow Rate

Guy Gregory writes: 
>Flow (volume per unit time) will always reflect channelling. 
 
Let me see if I can summarize the agreement here. 
 
1) Sparge water will flow faster naturally if there is channelling than 
if there isn't. 
2) Sparge water going through a channel extracts less from the total 
grain bed. 
 
3) The effects of channelling can be ameliorated somewhat by slowing down 
the flow rate (would increase osmosis). 
 
I think Guy is forgetting that most people's homebrew setups can adjust 
the flow rate, such as by closing the spigot more, or changing the 
distance between the two end-points of a siphon. 
 
In this case, if you simply sparge longer by closing the outlet, it 
should help extraction, but it isn't clear that it would be enough or 
even significant. 
 
The previous example of a straw or tube holding the water going through 
the grain bed shows this issue.  Even if you take three days to let the 
water go through the tube, it won't extract any more than if you let it 
take three minutes. 
 
So, I think we all agree that the best approach to channelling is to 
eliminate the channels somehow.  And we all agree that taking longer to 
sparge will help.  It may help a lot with some geometries and flow rates 
(like if you sparge 6 gallons in 10 minutes, slowing down to an hour will 
clearly make a big difference), or it may help just a little (like going 
from one hour to 90 minutes and still having sweet malt at the edges of 
the lauter tun). 
 
If I missed some important points, please point them out. 
 
Thanks. 
 
John DeCarlo, jdecarlo at juno.com, Arlington, VA 

Return to table of contents


From: Mark Pfortmiller <MPFORTMILLER at PRINTPACK.COM>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 01:11:56 -0400
Subject: Mini Kegs

How would you recommend in the cleaning, sterilization of mini kegs? 
Also how would you dry them? 
 
 Thanx in advance 
 

Return to table of contents


From: "Braam Greyling" <acg at knersus.nanoteq.co.za>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 09:02:39 +200
Subject: Lager and pils fermenting temps

Hi, 
 
I was checking my fridge for a few days now. At a certain setting the 
temperature varies from 46.5 to 53.6 degrees fahrenheit. 
 
I was wondering if I could make a lager in this fridge without having 
to build a temperature controller. 
I am planning to use Wyeast Czech pils for the pils and a 
wyeast lager yeast for the lager. 
 
What do you think ? Will it be o.k. or is the temp variation too big? 
 
thanks a lot 
 
Braam Greyling           I.C. Design Engineer 
Nanoteq (Pty) Ltd 
tel. +27 (12) 665-1338  fax +27 (12) 665-1343 
- ---- 24 hours in a day, 24 beers in a case ---- 
- ----     coincidence ?????                 ---- 

Return to table of contents