---

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

Contents:
  Ferulic Acid/Belgian water ((A. J. deLange))
  Great Beer Myths, part 1 (Carl Hattenburg)
  RIMS design (Carrick Legrismith)
  re: sanitation/scrubbing pads ("Curt Speaker")
  Pumps and Shear (Joe Rolfe)
  Re: BrewPubs near (in) Iselin, NJ??? (RUSt1d?)
  RIMS mash thickness / geared MaltMill ("Keith Royster")
  Adjuncts and Enzymes / Sparging (Rob Reed)
  survey - how do YOU remove hops after the boil??? ((Steve kemp))
  Homebrew Seminar Day, Caked grains, Trub ("David R. Burley")
  hop planting ("Thomas K. Simacek")
  RIMS:  Flames versus Electrons / No-Sparge Sparging (KennyEddy at aol.com)
  Re:Table Sugar (Jeff Frane)
  Corn Meal as ajunct? / Malt Liquor (AJUNDE at ccmail.monsanto.com)
  Hop Trelis (Kathy Booth )
  Re: RIMS pros/cons (Kelly Jones)
  clove in wheat beer (Jeremy Bergsman)
  RE:Sparging, Why Bother? (John Poetzel)
  RE: Why sparge ((George De Piro))
  propane and extinguishers (Scott Dornseif)
  conversion guidelines (Mil)

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: ajdel at interramp.com (A. J. deLange)
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 11:42:45 -0500
Subject: Ferulic Acid/Belgian water

Dane Mosher asked about the necessity for a rest at 113F in order to get 
clove character in a Weissbier. The cloviness is attributed to 4-vinyl 
guaiacol whose precursor is ferulic acid. In malt ferulic acid is bound to 
pentosanes via ester bonds and these are broken most readily at 111F and pH 
5.7. Reference Warner's "German Wheat Beer" p 72 which in turn references 
"4-vinylguajakol bei der Weizenbioerherstellung," Brauwelt 130:27, July 
5,1990 p1115 
 
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 
 
Robert Waddell asks about water for Belgian strong ale. Sorry to say but a 
cursory search turned up very little on a suitable water for this style 
except for some anecdotal evidence in Rajotte's "Belgian Ale" that it 
should be "soft". Interestingly enough, DeClerk discusses the brewing 
waters of the rest of Europe without touching on those of his native land. 
 
A.J. deLange   Numquam in dubio, saepe in errore! 
ajdel at interramp.com 
 
 

Return to table of contents


From: Carl Hattenburg <CHattenburg at Perstorp-us.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 08:53:32 -0400
Subject: Great Beer Myths, part 1

I'm sure most of you have heard this before, but it is important to pass 
 
this type of experience onto the newbies: 
 
An Irishman walks into a bar in Dublin, orders three pints of Guinness & 
sits in the back of the room, drinking a sip out of each one in turn. 
When 
he finishes them, he comes back to the bar & orders three more. The 
bartender asks him, "You know, a pint goes flat after I draw it; 
wouldn't 
you rather I draw fresh pints for you one at a time?" The fellow 
replies: 
"Well, you see, I have two brothers. One is now in America & the other, 
in Australia. When we all left home, we promised we'd drink this way to 
remember the days when we drank together." The bartender admits that 
this is a nice custom & leaves it there. 
 
The fellow becomes a regular in the bar & always drinks the same way: 
he orders three pints & drinks them in turn.  One day, he comes in & 
orders two pints. All the regulars notice & fall silent, speculating 
about 
what might have happened to one of the absent brothers. When the 
fellow goes back to the bar for a second round, the bartender says, "I 
don't want to intrude on your grief, but I wanted to offer my 
condolences 
on your great loss." The fellow looks confused for a moment & then a 
light gleams in his eye & he says: "Oh, no, everyone's fine. You see, 
it's 
just that I've given up beer for Lent." 
 
 
 
 
p.s. I eat flames for breakfast! 
 
 
- - Carlos, 
(www) http://theweeds.smxcorp.com/carlos/carlos.html 
 
 
 
- - Carl H. 
(w) 301.680.7276;    (fx) 301.236.0134;    (h) 301.942.3756 
(e) CHattenburg at Perstorp-us.com        (e) CHatten at Erols.com 
Perstorp Analytical, Inc. 
Quality Control at the speed of light..... 

Return to table of contents


From: Carrick Legrismith <hiscope at c4systm.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 08:48:39 -0400
Subject: RIMS design

With my RIMS brewing system, 
http://www.dnh.mv.net/ipusers/peanut/carrick.htm 
a cross breed, with SABCO and PICO as it's parents, runs at a ratio of 
grain/water of
1:1.3--foundation water included. This summer I have brewed 4 ten gallon 
batches of a Scheinder Weiss clone, which run 65-70% malted wheat, 
without adding rice hulls or having stuck mashes. The extraction rates 
have been in the 87% range. 
The element has never scorched the wort, [knock on S.S.], and allows me 
to control the mash temperatures within .3*c with minimal maintenance. 
Repeatablilty? IMO better than my old Gott system was, altough I have 
changed some of the other equipment and proccesses too--MaltMill instead 
of Corona, built H2O vs well water so this might be subjective. 
For a system to work it must be designed correctly just like anything 
else. Case in point--bagels and toasters. The wrong heating element or 
the RIMS chamber valved at both sides would be not the fault of the 
concept but of the designer. Before building a system do your research. 
To run the setup without a GFI, [stands for Good F... Idea], is taking 
an unneccessary risk, one that costs only $6.00 to correct. 
 
Carrick Legrismith 
Poison Ivy Brewing 
Clinton, MI 

Return to table of contents


From: "Curt Speaker" <speaker at safety-1.univsfty.psu.edu>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 08:50:48 EST
Subject: re: sanitation/scrubbing pads

Regarding newbie sanitation - Someone recently posted that sanitation 
cannot be overemphasized...true, but also remember that when 
sanitizing with bleach, more is not better.  I have been using 1 oz. 
of bleach in 5 gallons of water for 2.5 years now and never had an 
infected batch (well, one...but is was my own stupidity for using an 
unsanitized container to add make-up water to chilled wort...DUH!)  A 
higher concentration of bleach will not work any faster or any 
better, and will actually (seems) to leave more bleach residue on 
whatever you are trying to sanitize.  I typically rinse 3 or 4 times 
with tap water (central PA tap water is pretty pure - hard as hell 
too!)...if I still smell bleach, I rinse some more.  Not really 
rocket science, but then nothing in brewing is... 
The green scrubbing pads from the grocery store work very well on 
stainless; a little tough on the finger tips, but no pain, no gain. 
The sponge with a scrubbing pad on it works well too, but beware the 
ones that are impregnated with soap unless you like beer with no head 
or feel like doing some extra rinsing. 
Brewing season is upon us folks - get to work!!! :-) 
Curt Speaker 
President , S.C.U.M. 
"Beer causes you to digress...and lead a happier life" - M. Jackson 

Return to table of contents


From: Joe Rolfe <onbc at shore.net>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 09:09:24 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Pumps and Shear

following the thread on pumps and shear effects. 
 
i agree on a few things related to this topic. 
 gravity is better, never breaks, has no seals to go bad and suck 
  o2 and microbes into the product. 
 if you can design a brewery to use gravity you'll save money 
  maybe not time, but lots of cash. 
 
on the pump shearing - if you can afford it - try a variable speed 
pump controller.  from some trade ref (dont have them handy here - but 
they are all from the easily gotten books and mags)  it is related 
to speed of the pump and somewhat the design of the impeller.  High speed 
pumps (those greater than 1700rpm) which do not have var. speed control 
tend to be less desirable in the brewhouse.  most commercial breweries 
i have seen and most manufacturers tend to go lower rpm on the pump 
that will cast the wort from the kettle. 
 
this also seems to be a good practive for use in the more large scale, 
for commercial systems that have the valentine type "grant" arrangement 
for runoff.  i have seen some commercial systems using a higher speed pump 
and has problems with this valentine arrangment such that as the wort is 
drawn off air is sucked down the vent stack of the "grant" causing the pump 
to cavitate (wont mention the vendors). talk about hot side aeration... 
i could never figure out why these vendors implemented this method of 
the grant. may be some one could help me with that if you know what i 
am talking about. 
 
anyway back to shear - in the beginning i was using a very high speed pump 
about 9000 rpm to cast wort from the kettle. occasionally i would be caught 
short and the seals would need to be replaced (did not have them) and i would 
use a very low speed pump (same volume per hour essentially) i detected no 
product differences when using either pump. but this was used on wort out 
and not wort into the kettle. 
 
some pumps are designed to handle products more carefully others are not 
i would select a PD pump for cellar transfers over a centrifugal anyday, 
add a speed controller - tis heaven.  cip give me the highest 
speed, 2 inch inlet 1 in outlet with a reasonable hp rating.  bottling 
(with commercial equipment) on the fence - have heard PD is ok 
but several breweries in the area are switching to air diaphragm...any comment 
on these - i'd be intrested. 
 
i gues the bottom line is - pump shear is probably a minor problem in a home 
based brewery, there are other areas like proper ph, water composition, yeast 
and malt selection and mashing that are of more importance. 
 
my 2 cents 
joe 

Return to table of contents


From: RUSt1d? <rust1d at li.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 09:38:18 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: BrewPubs near (in) Iselin, NJ???

> I have the esteemed privilege to visit the metropolis known as Iselin, NJ for
>a training class next week. 
 
Can't help you there. But it sounds like your taking an Oracle class, no? 
 
 
John Varady 
Boneyard Brewing Co. 
"Ale today, Gone tomorrow" 
 

Return to table of contents


From: "Keith Royster" <keith.royster at ponyexpress.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 09:48:14 -0500
Subject: RIMS mash thickness / geared MaltMill

In the recent thread about RIMS pros&cons, especially regarding mash 
thickness, the following comment was made: 
 
> The reason for the thickness during the protein rest is the 
> effectiveness of the rest is quite dependent on mash thickness. See 
> M&B Sci.  I use thickness as a mashing parameter, while I couldn't 
> do this very well with a RIMS. 
 
I, too, am under the impression that lower temp mashing (ie protein 
rest) is normally done thicker than the rest of the mashing.  I can't 
remember where I read it, but I think that the enzymes active at 
these lower temps works better when more highly concentrated. 
However, I do mash in a RIMS at these thicker mash settings without 
any problem. "How?" you ask.  Simple: I don't run the pump during my 
protein rests. Only after thinning the mash to "normal" levels in 
preparation for the saccharification rests do I begin recirculating. 
Another advantage of this is that I can use hot/boiling water to 
thin my mash which helps speed up this relatively large temp step 
compared to the other shorter temp steps one might use in a mash 
schedule. 
 
Kirk Flemming asks: 
 
> Finally, is there a practical difference between a thick mash and 
> a suitably compacted one?  If I maintain a false bottom AND a false 
> cover such a distance apart as to render the mash bounded in 
> between them at a given consistency, does it matter that there is 
> 10 cm of mash liquor above the false cover and below the false 
> bottom? 
 
My gut reaction is "Yes."  Think about taking this to an extreme, 
adding more and more water to your recirculating mash while using 
some sort of perforated container to artificially maintain a mash 
thickness.  The grains may be staying at a constant thickness, but 
the enzyme concentration is becoming thinner and the number of 
enzymes in contact with the grain is dropping.  This would adversely 
effect your mashing speed and efficiency, IMO. 
 
Consequently, I might tend to disagree with Dion (at the theoretical 
level) that the volume of wort in the plumbing of a RIMS should be 
ignored.  Perhaps in typical RIMS settings this volume can be 
ignored, but I wouldn't advise someone to try and mash in their 
garage and have the pump located in their basement connected by 50' 
of plumbing. ;) 
 
- -------------------------- 
 
Ian Smith asks: 
 
> Does anyone have a geared Maltmill (tm) ? 
 
Yes, my local brew shop got one.  He's very happy with it. 
 
> I believe the gears are not the same diameter/number of teeth. 
 
True!  This makes them rotate at slightly different speeds which 
causes a small but effective shearing force on the grain. Supposedly 
this provides for an even better cracked grain. 
 
> Can anyone tell me the number of teeth and/or diameters ? 
 
Not sure myself, but Jack Schmidling (manufacturer of the MM) can 
help you.  His email address is on his web page: 
 
 http://dezines.com/ at your.service/jsp/ 
 
 
Keith Royster <keith.royster at pex.net> 
Mooresville, NC, USA 
 
"In the beginning, there was nothing - but nothing is unstable. 
And nothing borrowed nothing from nothing, within the limits of 
uncertainty, and became something. The rest is just math..." 
- --Paraphrased from Prof. Kim Macalester College Physics Dept. 

Return to table of contents


From: Rob Reed <rhreed at icdc.delcoelect.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 09:00:45 -0400 (CDT)
Subject: Adjuncts and Enzymes / Sparging

Dion writes in response to SA: 
 
> SA> Obviously very good homebrew can be made with a RIMS as I stated 
> SA> previously.  Typical pale or pale ale malts have at least 2X or 3X the 
> SA> amount of enzymes required for a complete conversion in a 'reasonable' 
> SA> amount of time.  The question is what happens in an enzyme poor mash, 
> SA> say one with a very high adjunct load when using a RIMS.  Does anyone 
> SA> have any anecdotal evidence ? 
> 
> How's this for a high adjunct load: 
> 
>  8 lbs. 2row 
>  1.5 lbs. 40l crystal 
>  1.5 lbs. Carapils 
>  3/4 lb. chocolate 
>  1/4 lb. black patent 
 
Actually it looks like a pretty low adjunct load (~0%).  In the context of 
enzyme rich or enzyme poor mashes, isn't the relevant issue the amount of 
starchy material requiring conversion vs. the amount of enzyme-bearing 
malt in your mash?  The above recipe has 8# enzymatic malt and as I see it 
only 1.5# of malt requires enzyme action for full efficiency (carapils). 
The xtal, black, and chocolate are soluble in hot water, no? 
 
_____ 
 
 
Louis Bonham writes: 
 
> From 
> the perspective of a homebrewer with only one goal in his brewing -- 
> quality -- I have a simple question: 
> 
> WHY BOTHER! 
> 
> If you're brewing commercially, the question is obvious: sparging is 
> essential to running an economically viable operation.  For a 
> homebrewer, however, the cost savings of wringing a few more points per 
> pound from the grain is almost insignificant, especially if your goal is 
> to brew the highest quality beer, and is certainly not worth investing 
> lots of time and effort in devising improved methods. 
 <snip> 
>  By simply 
> mashing one third more grain than normal, you can extract more than 
> enough points for your desired gravity, and without having to conduct a 
> lengthy sparge, monitor pH or SG during the runoff, or risk leaching 
> tannins or other undesirables from the grains.  The added expense is 
> just not that great, especially if you're buying your grain by the 
> sack.  [If you are bothered by the "waste" of the fermentables left in 
> the grain, then you can make "small beer" or yeast starter from the 
> remnants by steeping them in hot water while you boil the main mash.] 
 
Certainly every homebrewers' foremost goal is not to optimize quality 
& minimize brewing time at the expense of material cost.  Some of us 
actually enjoy the time spent brewing 8{)  First I am skeptical that 
one could achieve sufficient fermentables by simply adding 33% more 
grain to his mash.  Are you saying that I can make a 15P wort from 13# 
of grain, in a no-sparge regime, if I can normally make a 15P beer 
from 9.5# in a sparged wort? 
 
I think your quality vs. cost argument could be generalized to using 
2 gallon yeast starters, using low-alpha noble hops for bittering all 
beers, oxygenating your wort, etc. 
 
And what about the maltiness of the small beer; isn't its maltiness 
going to suffer?  Most brewers struggle to obtain sufficient 
maltiness in low OE brews.  BTW, what do you call the process of 
adding water to the mash and and then collecting that sugar rich 
liquid when you are making said small beer 8{) 
 
Cheers, 
 
Rob Reed 

Return to table of contents


From: stevek at propwash.co.symbios.com (Steve kemp)
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 08:14:14 -0600
Subject: survey - how do YOU remove hops after the boil???

Greetings fellow brewers, 
   I'm looking for a better way to remove / filter 
the whole leaf hops from my 1/2 barrel keg boiler. 
I've tried several different methods. At first I 
just reached in with a hand strainer, this worked 
particularily bad because of the depth of the kettle. 
The next brew session I used hop bags, I personally 
did not like these and didn't seem to get the same hop 
utilization. As of late I've been using what I'll 
call SS teaballs. I have 3 of these that will hold 
about 2 oz of hops each which I drop in at various times 
during the boil. These work ok, but I would prefer 
to just add the hops directly to the kettle, then filter 
them after chilling. BTW I brew 12 gallon batches, use an 
immersion style chiller, where water is run through a 
copper coil and the coil is placed in the kettle, and then 
wort is drained directly into carboys through a spigot on 
the kettle. 
 
So to the question: 
 
How do YOU remove whole leaf hops from YOUR kettle? 
 
   Am especially interested in anything innovative 
   and would also like to hear from those of you that 
   use Easymashers, or copper sparge rings similiar 
   to whats commonly used in the bottom of a mashtun. 
   Post or private email is fine, I'll be happy to 
   sum and post results. 
 
TIA, 
Steve 
 
*******************************************************************************
* *                                                                            
* Steve Kemp |^^^^|_ *                                                         
* Horshoe Brewery | | | "Beer is my religion and I'm *                         
* Loveland, CO | | | late for worship!" *                                      
* |____|- *                                                                    
* *                                                                            
*******************************************************************************

Return to table of contents


From: "David R. Burley" <103164.3202 at CompuServe.COM>
Date: 20 Sep 96 11:09:54 EDT
Subject: Homebrew Seminar Day, Caked grains, Trub

Brewsters: 
 
Someone posted a special event Homebrew Seminar Day, but forgot to tell us 
where
it is!  Where is it? 
- -------------------------------------------------------- 
Mike in Cherry Hill, NJ asks how to get off caked on grains without torching 
the
empty keg. Try sodium carbonate ( Washing Soda) or Sodium Hydroxide ( lye) in a
fairly concentrated solution. Carefully! Safety Glasses are a must. Allow it   
to soak, warm it and it should lift off. 
- -------------------------------------------------------- 
Mark asks for a method to remove the trub from the primary before 
fermentation..
Some trub can actually be useful to yeast growth, so I wouldn't remove it all. 
What you are seeing is probably cold break and all the whirlpooling,etc. won't 
keep it out of your wort.  Don't worry about it. 
- --------------------------------------------------------- 
 
 
Keep on brewin' 
 
Dave Burley 
Kinnelon, NJ 07405 USA 
103164.3202 at COMPUSERVE.COM 
 

Return to table of contents


From: "Thomas K. Simacek" <c22tks at icdc.delcoelect.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 10:27:55 -0400 (CDT)
Subject: hop planting

 
> > From: Edward J. Steinkamp <ejs0742 at dop.fse.ca.boeing.com> 
> > Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 15:52:39 PDT 
> > Subject: Re: Growing Hops 
> > 
> > I recently harvested the first year crop of Hallertauer and Saaz 
> > hops from my western washington garden.  I had originally planned 
> > and built an 8 foot high trellis with horizontal lines similar to 
> > a clothes line.  At the last minute (the hops were six feet up 
> > the line) I read some literature which suggested that for maximum 
> > yield, hops should be grown on the highest possible vertical 
> > pole.  When the hop vine gets to the top of the pole and bends 
> > over, the rest of the vine leafs out and start producing buds.  I 
> > tore down all the horizontal lines and increased the height of my 
> > pole to 16 feet. 
> > 
> > After drying the harvest totalled 4 oz Saaz and 3 oz Hallertauer. 
> > Is this good for a first year harvest?  After harvesting I found 
> > additional literature out there on the net suggesting that the 
> > clothesline method is better because you can reach the cones and 
> > pick only the ripe ones. This allows you to get multiple harvests 
> > and makes it so you don't have to cut the vine when you  harvest. 
> > Perhaps not cutting the vine would contribute to a healthier 
> > harvest the next season. 
> > 
> > In summary, which hop growing method is better, a single tall 
> > pole, or a clothes line type trellis? 
> > 
> > Thank you, 
> > 
> > Ed Steinkamp 
> > 
> > ------------------------------ 
> 
 I have been flamed few times, so I have to say I do not know for sure 
what's the best any more, but these hops are originaly grown on vertical lines 
 hanging from high construction supported by utility poles - 
 even 16 feet is probably on the low side. All the plant above ground is cut 
 during harvest and the new green starts next year from the rhinozomes. 
 Ground is plowed and fertilized, in spring all but three branches are 
cut off (the young plants make excelent salad!) and the three remaining 
branches
 are hanged on the line. Make sure to watch for diseases and spray regularly. 
 Also make sure there and NO male plants around! 
 First year harvest is always small, most farmers do not even bother to 
 harvest it. Just wait for the next year, you are on the right track. 
 There are probably other ways, but this is the my family used to farm 
 hops on large scale. 
 The hops are basically an underground plant, I believe cutting the plant 
 is actually beneficial for the next year growth, sort of like pruning 
 trees. 
 
 Just my 2c worth. 
 
 Tom Simacek 
> 
> 
 

Return to table of contents


From: KennyEddy at aol.com
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 11:45:22 -0400
Subject: RIMS:  Flames versus Electrons / No-Sparge Sparging

I'd like to toss in my own perpsective on the RIMS "overheating controversy". 
 Louis Bonham claims the superiority of a "fired" system over the 
electrically heated "classic" RIMS.  Let's get something straight. 
 
Heat is heat, folks. 
 
The issue is not the heat *source* but the heat *density* being input to the 
mash.  In a fired system, the heat enters largely through the bottom of the 
mash kettle.  In an electric RIMS, it enters through the surface of the 
heating element. 
 
Let's consider two systems, flame-fired and electrical, with the same amount 
of grain and water. 
 
In either system, it is the rate at which heat passes through the surface 
that determines how fast the mash temperature rises.  This rate of heat 
transfer is called *power* and can be expressed in *watts*.  (Most people 
associate watts with electricity, but it's a generic unit measuring how much 
*energy* (in the form of heat, light, sound, etc) is transferred per time 
interval). 
 
If the temperature rise rate is the same in the two systems (say 1.5 degrees 
F per minute), then the rate at which heat is being added *must be the same*. 
 That is, both systems have the *same number of watts* being applied. 
 
The only difference, then, would be in the amount of *surface area* through 
which the heat energy is being passed.  This is the "power density" concept. 
 Applying a certain amount of power through one square inch of area will 
generate more local heating (and scorching and caramelization) than passing 
it through ten square inches.  In the latter case, the heat is "spread out". 
 But it's the *same amount of heat* and will generate the same rise in 
temperature. 
 
Dion Hollenbeck gives us a good datapoint: 
 
"The heater is 72" when stretched out and 3/8" in diameter, which is a 
surface area of 84.823 square inches." 
 
Do the math and you'll find this are to be equivalent to the bottom of a pot 
with a 10-1/2" diameter.  Smaller than a keg, granted, but probably right in 
line with larger SS kitchen-type kettles.  So the wort in contact with the 
heating surfaces are seeing roughly the same thermal conditions, including 
local overheating and temperature gradients.  The wort at the very bottom of 
the kettle is bearing the brunt of the heat transfer, just as the wort next 
to the heating element is.  To me, this pretty much means that *the wort 
can't tell the difference*!! 
 
The bottom line here is that there is no difference whether you heat your 
wort with the same number of watts from 85 square inches of kettle bottom or 
85 square inches of electric element. 
 
***** 
 
Louis Bonham talks about "No Sparge" sparging: 
 
"I submit that for small scale amateur brewers who are interested 
primarily in quality, sparging is a complete waste of time.  By simply 
mashing one third more grain than normal, you can extract more than 
enough points for your desired gravity, and without having to conduct a 
lengthy sparge, monitor pH or SG during the runoff, or risk leaching 
tannins or other undesirables from the grains." 
 
Before I had a "real" all-grain setup I used to mash enough grain to get 3+ 
gallons of high-graivty wort, which was compatible with my extract-brewing 
setup and technique (4-gal SS pot).  I assumed a 65% efficiency in a 5-gal 
recipe, which gave me about the right compensation factor.  I just drained 
off the wort, and added sparge water only if the final volume wasn't adequate 
(it was only under by a couple quarts if at all).  I probably could've added 
the water directly to the kettle for what that bought me.  The three or four 
beers I did this way came out nicely, and it let me do "all-grain" batches in 
the kitchen using only my extract equipment plus a beverage-cooler mash tun. 
 If you have room in your mash tun to add the extra grain, it's a worthwhile 
experiment. 
 
***** 
 
Ken Schwartz 
EL Paso, TX 
KennyEddy at aol.com 
http://members.aol.com/kennyeddy 

Return to table of contents


From: Jeff Frane <jfrane at teleport.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 08:50:37 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re:Table Sugar

Rich Hampo wrote: 
> 
 
>Howdy all, 
> 
>Al K. writes 
> 
>>>I've searched the archives and they do indicate that sucrose 
>>>(tablet sugar) is derived from sugar beets. 
> 
>>In europe.  In the US it's virtually (if not all) from cane sugar.  Both 
>>cane and beet sugar are almost 100% sucrose (table sugar). 
> 
>Actually, here in Michigan, a lot of sugar is indeed beet sugar. 
>The Pioneer brand of sugar is made from sugar beets grown in 
>mid-Michigan (somehow sugar cane just won't live through the 
>snowy winters ;=) 
> 
I can't quite sort out the attributions, and get find the original posting, 
but the notion that most or all American sugar comes from cane is 
WRONG.  A simple check on the supermarket shelf will tell you that 
a signiicant portion of the table sugar, particularly the less expensive 
packages, is beet sugar.  Cane sugar gets whooped up a lot, 
especially by disinterested (heh) parties like C&H ("Pure cane sugar 
from Hawaii!), but the truth is that once it's completely refined, 
sucrose is sucrose, regardless of the source.  Anything that would 
identify it as coming from beet or cane has been removed. 
 
Beets not only grow in Michigan, but they are a huge crop in California; 
I well remember watching truckload after truckload moving through 
the Central Valley.  Cane sugar is grown in Hawaii, obviously, and 
also in the south -- much to the detriment of the environment, but 
that's another issue. 
 
On another note, I apologize for repeating information about 
Just Hops; finally got around to reading the last few HBDs and 
found a number of posts on the subject.  <sigh> 
 
- --Jeff Frane 
 

Return to table of contents


From: AJUNDE at ccmail.monsanto.com
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 11:18:16 -0500
Subject: Corn Meal as ajunct? / Malt Liquor

     I've been itching to ask this question since my visit to Chippewa 
     Falls last year.  Linenkugles uses corn meal as an ajunct.  I assume 
     this it to raise the alcohol content and lighten the body, but, how 
     would you use it? 
 
     Can you add it directly to the mash, or should you boil it first? 
 
 
     Second Question - 
 
     What is the major difference between beer and Malt Liquor?  Is malt 
     liquor actually distilled? If so, why is it rated in percent and not 
     in proof (alcohol) and sold in the beer section? 
 
 
     BTW - John, I changed my signature line just for you!!  ;) 
 
|              Allen Underdown - ajunde at ccmail.monsanto.com                 | 
|       ITSS WAN Group - Monsanto World Headquarters - St. Louis, MO        | 
|             Homebrewing in the Shadow of the Mighty AB, the               | 
|           inventors of the Clidesdale Water Filtration System             | 
 

Return to table of contents


From: Kathy Booth <kbooth at waverly.k12.mi.us>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 12:13:37 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Hop Trelis

Congratulations to Mrs Gump....any brewer's/homebrewer's wife or 
significant other is someone special.  The flair for life evident in the 
gospel according to Jethro should make childhood of young Gump very 
special. 
 
My hop plants grow up nylon cords attached to the facia of my two storey 
house.  Works great. 
 
I greatly appreciate the contributions of the detail minded persons that 
sieze on points that may slide by the quick readings of persons like 
myself.  A few persons carry a great weight for the HBD. 
 
Those isolated individuals that try to funk up the HBDigest by playing the 
game of pushing hot buttens deserve the fate of an overstuffed mailbox 
(just another game...no?) 
Cheers  jim booth     address   kbooth at scnc.Waverly.k12.mi.us 
 

Return to table of contents


From: Kelly Jones <kejones at ptdcs2.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 09:20:46 -0700
Subject: Re: RIMS pros/cons

I am enjoying the analysis of RIMS brewing being done by Dion and Steve, 
but I would have to contest one of Dion's points: 
 
> Well, your calculations are sort of skewed.  The 2 qts should not be 
> figured in because it is always in the hose and the heater chamber and 
> pump.  It is not part of the liquid that makes up the mash thickness. 
 
I don't think mash thickness has as much to do with the appararent 
'thickness' of the mash as it does with wort dilution.  Thus, if you add an 
extra 2 qts of water to your mash, you have still diluted the wort enzymes, 
sugars, proteins, etc., even if you sequester this extra liquid in the 
plumbing and keep it out of the main portion of the mash.  Your mash may 
not look any less 'thick', but you still have a thinner mash because of the 
dilution.  That said, I doubt that 2 qts difference in a 12# grain bill 
makes that much difference overall, as Dion pointed out. 
- -- 
Kelly 
Hillsboro, OR 

Return to table of contents


From: Jeremy Bergsman <jeremybb at leland.stanford.edu>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 08:34:33 -0800
Subject: clove in wheat beer

Dane Mosher <dmosher at xroadstx.com> 
asks why a 112F protein rest is important for clove in 
his wheat beer.  A. J. deLange wrote last year: 
 
> 4-vinyl guaicol, conversely, comes from decarboxylation of ferulic acid 
> which is bound to the pentosans in malt. Given a yeast that are able to do 
> this (pull off the CO2), the most important factor in production of this 
> stuff is that the ferulic acid be unbound from the pentosans. Warner 
> indicates that this is facillitated by a rest at 44C at pH 5.7. 
 
4-vinyl guaicol (or is it guiacol?) is the clove-tasting molecule. 
44C=111F. 
 
********************************** 
 
John Bell <paradise at compcom.com.au wants a judge form.  There is 
a postscript version of a modified AHA sheet on the web: 
http://realbeer.com/spencer/judge/scoresheet.ps 
 
- -- 
Jeremy Bergsman 
mailto:jeremybb at leland.stanford.edu 
http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~jeremybb 

Return to table of contents


From: John Poetzel <jroman at eskimo.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 10:13:12 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: RE:Sparging, Why Bother?

I have to weigh my vote in on the side of buying a little more grain to 
reduce the sparging time and effort. I know I am opening myself up to 
scorn by admitting that I actually do all-grain partial boils. For this I 
have to use more grain than a usual recipe calls for to get a higher 
specific gravity. 
I think that the only argument for sparging every sugar molecule out of 
the malt is for thrift. I am not surprised to hear that here, having read 
someone's complaint about the cost of whole hops vs. pellets... 
Since my cost per batch has been reduced by a third since switching to 
all-grain I don't see any problem with buying another 3 lbs. of malt. 
(Which costs a whole $1.50) 
It's still cheaper and more fun than going to the store and paying 
$7/six-pack :) 
 
John 
 

Return to table of contents


From: George_De_Piro at berlex.com (George De Piro)
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 13:11:39 -0700
Subject: RE: Why sparge

     Hi! 
 
     Somebody asked why homebrewers should bother sparging.  First, if 
     you're trying to emulate a particular commercial style, it is best to 
     follow their procedures as closely as possible to end up with a 
     comparable result (note: sometimes this means NOT sparging). 
 
     Secondly, even as a homebrewer, to regularly not sparge would be 
     wasteful and get quite expensive.  Also, dumping all that sugar-laden 
     grain in my compost heap attracts lots of animal life, including my 
     dog, who likes to eat sweet grain but leaves well sparged grain alone 
     (this, by the way, is how I gauged my sparging efficiency)! :) 
 
     Thirdly, for me to make a highish gravity beer without sparging would 
     require more grain than my lauter tun can hold.  This may not be a 
     problem for everybody, but the first two points should be considered 
     by all. 
 
     Have fun! 
 
     George De Piro  (Nyack, NY) 

Return to table of contents


From: Scott Dornseif <SDORNSE at wpo.it.luc.edu>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 12:31:05 -0500
Subject: propane and extinguishers

Hello: 
I'm trying to brew my stout right now, but the old cracked hose to 
my propane stove just started to leak and caught fire.  It quickly 
burned through and started to whoosh around like a "Willy the 
Water Weasel" but with fire coming out instead of water.  I can't 
get to the gas to turn it off with this flying around so,  it has not 
started my curtains and a set of cabinets to flame.   My question 
is, what kind of a fire extinguisher should I but to put this out?  If I 
get a CO2 extinguisher could this double as a keg gas supply? 
Now a water extinguisher is cheaper AND cheaper and easier to 
refill, but you can't use them on an electric fire.  You would 
REALLY have to convince me to go HALON gas, too expensive. 
Anyway the fire is spreading so any ideas? 
 
TIA 
Scott Dornseif Copyright 1996 Al Korzonis 
(Sorry I spelled your name wrong last time Al) 
 

Return to table of contents


From: Mil <milp at cuug.ab.ca>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 11:50:46 -0600 (MDT)
Subject: conversion guidelines

I'm looking for some guidelines on the following: 
 
 converting all-grain recipes to all-extract recipes 
 converting all-grain recipes to mash-extract recipes 
 converting DME requirements to LME requirements. 
 
 
Thanks in advance. 
 
Pat Van Mil 
Calgary, Ab. 

Return to table of contents