Homebrew Digest Wednesday, 13 November 1996 Number 2274
![[Prev HBD]](/img/previous.gif)
![[Index]](/img/index_button.gif)
![[Next HBD]](/img/next.gif)
![[Back]](/img/up_level_button.gif)
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Mike Donald, Digest Janitor-in-training
Thanks to Rob Gardner for making the digest happen!
Contents:
O2 relevance (Brendan Oldham)
Pumps & Trub removal ((Harlan Bauer))
Re: Oxygen diffusion in still worts ("David R. Burley")
All-grain #2 bottled (Barry Vanhoff)
Draught hose length, Nitrogen and stout ("Pat Babcock")
Yet Another Acronym (Terry Selba)
Bottle fillers (Alex Santic)
Flavors of distilled water (Alex Santic)
enzyme inhibition/mashout purpose/Chimay yeast (korz at xnet.com)
Yeast culturing ("Jeffrey M. Kenton")
Calling all Gadgeteers!! (eric fouch)
oxygenation/aeration ((BAYEROSPACE))
RE: Motorized Stirrer (Gary Eckhardt)
Guinness and mixed-gas dispense (korz at xnet.com)
Mea culpa ("Jeffrey M. Kenton")
Longshot Hazelnut (TheTHP at aol.com)
All-Grain Virgin - NOT (lheavner at tcmail.frco.com)
2 Yeast Types (Steve)
Guinness and mixed-gas dispense/Fill level experiments (korz at xnet.com)
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,
homebrew-digest-owner 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: Brendan Oldham <brendan at star.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 12:27:41 -0500
Subject: O2 relevance
There have been some interesting postings re: O2 and methods of increasing
levels. Has anyone determined the effect on the final product (i.e.
differences in F.G. or flavor?).
Return to table of contents
From: blacksab at midwest.net (Harlan Bauer)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 11:31:45 -0600
Subject: Pumps & Trub removal
Herb Tuten asks:
>Has anyone tried to use a drill-powered pump to transfer
>liquid from one container to another? I was in a hardware store
>yesterday and saw one for a few dollars. Probably not good
>for a thermodoohicky-controlled RIMS; but to move hot water
>from a kettle up to a sparge water cooler it would be cheap, quick,
>and easy. What do you think?
Well, it's not food-grade, for one. I'm sure the seal would leave a taste
and probably leach its lubricant into the hot liquor. I'd suggest spending
the money and getting something like a March model MDXT-3. They're around
$100, and well worth it IMHO. Any brand of magnetic-drive seal-less pump
will do, but check to make sure it will handle the temps. Remember: If you
pay peanuts you get monkeys... ;-)
And for Greg in San Diego:
>I'm considering buying a pump to re-circulate mash runnings up to
>170 deg, and to re-circ ice water during cooling. Any suggestions?
see above... :-D
Tom Vitti asks:
>I am an extract brewer and my question is, should you or shouldn't you rack
>the wort off the hop pellet and/or spice-herb residue from the boil before
>primary ferm.?
>or should you just dump the whole lot into the primary and then when ferm.
>is over rack off into secondary leaving all the hop pellet and etc. behind.
Ideally, yes, you should syphon the wort off the trub; but don't be TOO
concerned about it. My belief is that you should leave some crap behind
every time the wort/beer is transfered, so by the time it gets into the
bottle there's as little crap as possible. Allowing the wort to settle in
the boiling kettle is a good start. Someone else can comment about
whirlpooling. Personally, I use an EasyMasher at the bottom of my boiling
kettle and use whole hops. I allow the whole thing to settle for about
15-min befor running thru a CF-chiller. No trub and no syphon. RDWHAHB
Harlan
*********************************************************************
* *
* Harlan Bauer ...malt does more than Milton can *
* Carbondale, IL To justify God's ways to man. *
* <blacksab at midwest.net> --A.E. Houseman *
* *
*********************************************************************
Return to table of contents
From: "David R. Burley" <103164.3202 at CompuServe.COM>
Date: 13 Nov 96 12:32:49 EST
Subject: Re: Oxygen diffusion in still worts
Brewsters:
I'll say it in public, as I did in private. Thanks AJ for the very interesting
experiments on oxygenation techniques.
I agree with AJ that this discussion is of general interest to the readership
here, so I pose my questions and comments below.
AJ says:
> Dave also asked how long it would take for undisturbed boiled wort in an
> open vessel to come to 02 equilibrium with the air. To reach equilibrium
> would take forever but I expect (based on Sunday's experiments) that it
> would take a long time to reach say 90% of saturation, depending on
> container geometry.
DRB - Interesting, from your results (and I know they're only one experiment as
you said) I think you could conclude that there is a fairly healthy rate of
equilibration ( no word mincing , please), however, I understand what you mean
and agree with the direction of your comments in that it is not minutes.
I guess we are talking about defining "long time".
I know that if I pressurize a keg with CO2, it can come to equilibrium or
nearly
so, overnight. Why wouldn't we expect the same sort of time frame for a
similar volume of wort to do likewise with oxygen in the air? If anything, I
would expect it to occur even faster since we have approximately 3 or 4 times
the surface area of interface with a plastic fermenter as with a keg. The 20%pp
in air would reduce its rate from a head of pure oxygen, I believe by a factor
of five, so, based on the CO2 experience, I conclude that in a day we should
nearly see equilibrium, i.e. nearly 100% saturation of oxygen ( i.e. on the
order of 8 -10ppm) in equilibrium with air.
AJ says:
>The rate of transfer of O2 into or out of wort depends
>on the O2 partial pressure difference across the wort-air interface and the
>area of this interface.
I agree, in a freshly boiled and cooled wort devoid of oxygen, the pp
differential should cause the rate of absorption at the surface to be at its
maximum. Rate of oxygen absorption into the bulk now becomes a transport
phenomenon in which the oxygen at the surface has to difuse into the body of
the
wort in a perfectly still wort. Any convection currents or agitation would of
course improve this transfer rate.
> This is true for inflow as well as outgo so the
>experimental numbers for the stockpot are somewhat applicable. It took
>about three hours for the DO level to drop from 66% above saturation to 58%
>above saturation in the experiment. Water in the same pot should thus move
>from 66% below saturation to 58% below saturation in about the same time.
I agree that transport phenomena should be the same, but you are looking at 66%
saturation with oxygen trying to come to equilibrium with 20% oxygen in the
air.
Not really the same ballpark as 0% saturation in equilibrium with 20% oxygen.
However, if we look at how much oxygen was transported to the surface in three
hours it is 8% of saturation in three hours. Crudely, this suggests that at
least 64% saturation of oxygen should be obtained just from sitting around for
24 hours. Underpitched worts sometimes sit this long. I suspect the real
answer could be higher.
If you have the opportunity, why not try the experiment?
Keep on brewin'
Dave Burley
Kinnelon, NJ 07405
103164.3202 at compuserve.com
Return to table of contents
From: Barry Vanhoff <bvanhof at eecs.wsu.edu>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 09:47:48 -0800 (PST)
Subject: All-grain #2 bottled
Brewers,
Last night I bottled my all-grain batch #2. It was in primary for
about 3-4 days and secondary for about 10 days (I was too busy to
bottle). I used the exact same ingredients as I did in my first
batch, but mashed at a much lower temp (some of you may remember
me as the hot-masher).
All joking aside, I ended up with FG=1.011 from OG=1.05x. Last time
FG=1.024 (I think ... it was SWEET) so I am hoping that this brew
will have more alcohol and a drier taste to it. In a week or two
I'll let you know. It does have the same 'flavor' as my first batch,
however.
For my next batch, I am searching for a basic recipe that will get me
a beer similar to Hale's Pale Ale (one of my favorites). Does anyone
know what style of beer this is? I might use one of the recipes in
the back of Miller's book (he calls them starting points, each trying
to get a certain style of beer), but I need to know what style of
beer Hale's Ale is.
As usual, any comments and/or pointers would be great,
Thanks,
Barry Vanhoff
Return to table of contents
From: "Pat Babcock" <pbabcock at oeonline.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 12:49:24 +0500
Subject: Draught hose length, Nitrogen and stout
In HBD 2271, Dave Burley states: "...hose length is irrelevant..."
and "Even in a cooled hose, beer in the line will get foamy and
deliver a spurt of foam at first."
Hmmm. You might want to tell this to my draught system. It's not
doing it right, I guess.
Heating of the line is but ONE cause of foamy beer. The others
include the beer hitting the glass at supersonic speeds because of
too much pressure or too short a line length. Or by the CO2 coming
out of solution to drive the beer in systems have the pressure to
low, or too long of line length.
Your "spurt of foam" in a static, refrigerated, balanced line is
indicative of a pressure leak in the system or of the system being
imbalanced to the the low pressure/long line side. It is just a
showcase demonstration of the CO2 coming out of solution.
"Standard" lengths and pressures work fairly well for many people
since very few of us have special circumstance. Once you step into
the realm of specialized systems, you'll understand this all too
clearly.
*****************************
Also in 2271, Adam Back desires to drive his stout with a mix of CO2
and Nitrogen...
Why do you thinkyou need this? There is a lot of confusion out there
regarding Nitrogen and why it is used.
First, Nitrogen will not dissolve in your beer; therefor, in and of
itself, a mix has no effect on the carbonation or heading of your
beer. If put the same pressure in beverage gas as you would CO2, it
can have a negative effect in undercarbonation.
Guinness (and others) use mixed gasses to push the beer when a
higher-than-desirable-for-carbonation pressure is required to drive
the beer. In Guinness' case, it would be the faucet and velocity they
require to kick up that incredible head. In my case it is the 35psig
I require to drive my cold plate-based draught system. I carbonate
with about 25psig at cellar temperature. 35 psig would clearly
overcarbonate my beers.
And that brings us to your final question - what mix to use. This is
dependent on the temperature the kegs will be stored at, your
carbonation pressure at that temperature, and the driving pressure
you require.
I carbonate at ~60'f and 25 psig CO2. I store my kegs for the draught
system at the same temperature, but need 35 psig to drive it. THe
additional pressure is Nitrogen to prevent overcabonation. This
yields a mix of 25/35=71% CO2, 29% N2 (I actually use 70% CO2, 30% N2
as it is "close enough" and easier to mix).
See ya!
Pat Babcock in Canton, Michigan (Western Suburb of Detroit)
pbabcock at oeonline.com URL: http://oeonline.com/~pbabcock/
Beer is my obsession and I'm late for therapy!
Return to table of contents
From: Terry Selba <taselba at dgs.dgsys.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 13:02:45 -0500
Subject: Yet Another Acronym
Greg Carter asked as a PS in another thread, "What's IMBR?"
It is, of course, the classic question: "Is My Beer Ruined?"
:-)
T.
Return to table of contents
From: Alex Santic <alex at salley.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 13:03:35 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Bottle fillers
Ted Hull wrote:
> I just bottled a batch of beer using a Phil's Philler
> and felt like it injected a lot of air into the beer as I filled
> the bottles. Anyone else get this impression? I'd been using one
> of those plastic fillers w/ a spring loaded valve at the end,
> but it kept falling off and causing me extreme stress as beer
> suddenly flowed everywhere. I've already bought a new one,
> though. The Philler would explain why I got some oxidation
> comments on the last beer I entered in a competition.
Maybe this is a good time for a review, a.k.a. "Why I gave away my Phil's
Philler to dad for his wine-making and went back to a plastic filler."
1- The valve in the brass jobbie does generate bubbles at the beginning
and end of the fill. It is hard to tell whether this is CO2 foaming due to
shear forces in the valve and warming beer, or whether it's air. It sure
seems like air.
Notwithstanding the uncertainty of point 1, the following convinced me:
2- While ostensibly the brass filler lets you control the headspace in the
bottle (because the valve is at the top and you are only immersing a thin,
hollow brass cylinder), it is almost impossible to get a consistent
headspace. Especially since you always get one last little burst of beer
as you disengage the filler. You have to be an artist.
3- The plastic fillers create a consistent headspace, even if it is a
little larger than I'd like. You fill to the mouth of the bottle, take out
the filler, and the headspace is exactly equal to the displacement of the
filler. I let the bottles sit for 1/2 hour, covered loosely, before
tightening down the caps. This allows time for the air in the headspace to
be at least partially flushed with evolving CO2. All in all, it's a neater
job which helps the flavor development and carbonation of each bottle be
pretty much identical.
4- One final observation... I found a plastic filler which uses a pressure
valve instead of being spring-loaded. It's noticeably more sensitive (thus
a little tricker to use) than the spring-loaded filler, but it makes a
slighly smaller headspace and has a very simple (easily-cleaned) mechanism
which avoids making all the beer flow through a little metal spring.
- --
Alex Santic - alex at salley.com
Silicon Alley Connections, LLC
527 Third Avenue #419 - NYC 10016 - 212-213-2666 - Fax 212-447-9107
http://www.salley.com
Return to table of contents
From: Alex Santic <alex at salley.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 13:08:00 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Flavors of distilled water
Why do I see frequent references specifically to R/O water? Is it somehow
more desirable than steam-distilled water? The latter seems to be the
most common type of purified H2O.
- --
Alex Santic - alex at salley.com
Silicon Alley Connections, LLC
527 Third Avenue #419 - NYC 10016 - 212-213-2666 - Fax 212-447-9107
http://www.salley.com
Return to table of contents
From: korz at xnet.com
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 12:08:39 -0600 (CST)
Subject: enzyme inhibition/mashout purpose/Chimay yeast
Okay, it has been two weeks and nobody has answered these questions or
commented on these posts, so I'm going to give them a shot:
Dave writes:
>Adding hot water during the mash speeds up the
>saccharification by reducing the product concentration which can block enzyme
>action.
Dave... you must have forgotten the other factor involved. This is taken
from our off-line conversation on beta amylase:
Dave> the forward reaction of saccharification appears to be
Dave> self-inhibiting in that as the sugar concentration increases, the
Dave> overall rate of saccharification decreases. A dilute mash thus has a
Dave> faster rate of saccharification, particularly towards the end of this
Dave> step.
Steve Alexander> The rate of catalytic reaction is also decreased by this
Steve> dilution using the Michaelis-Menten model (pretty much the classic).
Steve> It is dependent on the concentration of the enzyme and substrate.
Steve> Without knowing the comparable information about the rates and type of
Steve> inhibition it is non-sense to say that dilution will cause a faster
Steve> rate of reaction. Imagine how long it would take your bucket of mash
Steve> to complete if you tossed it in lake Michigan (assuming temps and ions
Steve> were OK). The inhibition goes away but ...
***
Dave writes:
>>5) is a mash-out necessary too? (i think my friend anton just
>>asked this same question ... but somehow i missed the answer).
>
>Yes, to keep the composition of the wort constant during the sparge.
I've wondered about this, in passing, for quite a long time. I think
that someone realized that mash-out temps would denature the enzymes
and assumed that this was an important purpose of the mashout. I think
it's not.
While mashing-out does make it easier to extract the sugars from the
grain bed, I don't think that denaturing enzymes is really important
at all. Here's why (let me know if you think I'm on the right track):
Either you want to make 1) a relatively fermentable wort, 2) a
relatively dextrinous wort or 3) something in between.
1) You mash somewhere between 148F and 152F or so and you let this
go a long time. You're trying to make a fermentable wort, so why
would you want to kill *any* enzymes? Why should you care if your
mashout denatured enzymes. If your conversion is not compleat, then
at best you'll be leaving starch behind, *not* stabilizing the
fermentability of your wort.
2) You mash somewhere between 156F and 160F or so and you let this
go for an hour. After that hour, for all practical purposes your
beta amylase is gone. Whether you mash-out or not will not change
the fermentability of the wort. It was the mash temperature that
denatured the enzymes that affected the fermentability and not the
mashout temperature.
3) You can either mash somewhere between 153F and 155F or you can
mash for some amount of time at the low end (say, 150F) and then finish
up with an hour at the high end (say, 158F). In either case, the
fermentability will be determined by the length of time the beta
amylase was around, but at the end of the mash (and this is the
important part) the beta amylase had better be pretty much denatured.
Therefore, in all three cases, mashout would only be killing alpha
amylase which does not change fermentability. Another way to think
about it is: if it mattered to you that the enzymes (which could only
be alpha amylase) were still working after the mash was compleat, then
there is *starch* remaining and you mashed-out too early!
Right?
***
Dave writes about yeast that he cultured from a Chimay bottle that was
sluggish at cooler temps, but restarted at 77F:
>Does Chimay use two kinds of yeast, one
>for fermentation and one for bottling? Is their primary yeast made up of more
>than one yeast with vastly different habits?
I never made it down to Chimay, but rumour has it that Chimay is bottled
with the same yeast as they use for fermentation. Your restarting sure
sounds like the yeast wanted it to be warmer. Was your carboy sitting on
cement? Cement floors can be a whole lot cooler than the ambient air temp
and direct contact a much better conduction than via air. Could that have
been the problem?
Al.
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korzonas at lucent.com
korz.pubs.ih.lucent.com
korz at xnet.com
Return to table of contents
From: "Jeffrey M. Kenton" <jkenton at iastate.edu>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 12:17:33 -0600
Subject: Yeast culturing
In addition to the question I asked earlier about where to get glycerine, I
also want to ask another question. It seems that the resources I have
checked use glycerine and glycerol interchangeably. Can someone set me
straight? Which do I use, and if you know the answer to this question,
where do I get it?
By the way, I want to freeze yeast, for use much later in the future.
Thanks
Jeff
Private email is good, if others wish to know the results, I'll post them
Jeffrey M. Kenton finger for PGP public key
ElEd/SecEd 301 Teaching Assistant
N013 Lagomarcino Hall "Information comes, knowledge lingers"
jkenton at iastate.edu - Alfred Lord Tennyson
Return to table of contents
From: eric fouch <S=eric_fouch%S=fouch%G=eric%DDA=ID=STC021+pefouch%Steelcase-Inc at mcimail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 96 13:11 EST
Subject: Calling all Gadgeteers!!
Date: Wednesday, 13 November 1996 1:06pm ET
To: STC012.HONLY at STC010.SNADS
From: Eric.Fouch at STC001
Subject: Calling all Gadgeteers!!
In-Reply-To: Sources of Glycerol
I have been thinking about kegging vs bottling.I currently bottle, and
perhaps this is a rationalization, but it seems differance in trouble
and time between bottling and kegging is 6 of one and a half dozen the other.
Not trying to start a new thread (please), just pointing out they're both a
labor of love.
My question to the gadgeteers is as follows. I have seen a lot of discussion
on the uses of sankey kegs (are these "pony kegs, or 1/4 barrels?) for
sparge vessels and boilers. Can they be modified for kegging homebrew?
Someone should be able to figure out how to attach a CO2 line istead of the
hand pump. Is cleaning the issue? Are they just too cumbersome compared to
cornys? They do stack nicely.
By the way I tried the first bottle of my Punkinhead Ale (brewed in the
pumpkin). It was the last
bottle I bottled, and was a partial, so I cracked it at a week. It was about
what I expected, predominantly ginger and cinnamon, but had a good head, and I
swear I could taste some malt. It smelled like a slice 'o Pumpkin Pie. After
some mellowing, I think it should be yummy.
Full report will be filed 1st of DEC.
Oh- Jeff Kenton wonders where to find Glycerol. Most pharmacies sell
Glycerin, and Glycerol and Glycerin are one in the same; propane-1,2,3-triol.
I have had good luck storing yeast in the freezer mixed half and half with
glycerin. Charlie says in NCJOHB to mix it to 10% glycerol, but if it freezes
solid, the yeast dies. 50% produces a slurry at freezer temperatures, and the
yeast seems to recover well upon warming and starter building.
E-Man
Head of Head Retention
Bent Dick Yactobrewery
Kentwood, MI
"Suddenly ahead of me, across the mountainside, a gleaming alloy aircar shoots
towards me two lanes wide" -N. Peart
Return to table of contents
From: M257876 at sl1001.mdc.com (BAYEROSPACE)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 12:19 -0600
Subject: oxygenation/aeration
collective homebrew conscience:
brian p wrote:
>mark bayer said:
>>so, really, the advantage of oxygen is that you don't have to roll the
>>oversize carboy around for 10 minutes. you're still looking at 8 or 9 ppm
>>if you give your wort a 1 minute blast and then don't do anything else.
>Yeah, but also I don't think that anything could live in nearly pure O2, so
>that it's a lot cleaner than aeration, especially in the warmer
>months/climes.
absolutely true. but i would say based on my own experience that the amount
of bacteria etc. in the headspace of a 7 gallon fermenter with 5 gallons of
beer in it is negligible, under normal homebrewing conditions (i.e., you don't
brew outside near a sewage treatment plant or other source of heavily bacteria
laden air). all homebrew is infected, it's just a question of degree.
now, the real issue is that a j delange showed via his own experiment
(absolutely hard core, aj) that the assumption that o2 levels will drop to
9 ppm in a few minutes due to outgassing is false.
what total amount of oxygen is really required for an optimum fermentation?
dave burley wrote a while back that an o2 saturated wort will be depleted
by the yeast in a matter of seconds (at some nominal (hopefully normally
encountered) yeast concentration). ajd said he has seen 150% saturation
levels depleted in a half an hour. this is presumably at some lower
yeast cell count?
from aj's experiment, it is evident that yeast can survive relatively high
levels of oxygen (35 ppm) for an extended amount of time. the question is:
what does this do to the beer? yeast will refuse to ferment until all the
oxygen is taken up, correct?
can you improve your beer by using oxygen to keep your wort at some higher
than equilibrium dissolved oxygen level for a few hours? it seems that
you might be able to supercharge their reproduction in the initial stages,
causing them to reach their target cell count for fermentation of the
volume of wort you have, then cut off the o2 so that they proceed directly
into fermentation. this would help minimize lag time, correct? what would
it do to the beer flavor? if you supplied the o2 too long, you would actually
extend the lag time, correct?
it seems like there ought to be some sort of ideal relationship between amount
of yeast pitched (initial cell count), total amount of oxygen provided, and
the time in which this oxygen is taken up by the yeast to produce the most
desirable fermentation characteristics. it may be that a slow supply of
oxygen over a couple of hours is preferable to a huge dose right at the
beginning. it may be that 10 ppm right at the beginning is optimum.
certainly this is yeast strain dependent, but there's probably enough
similarity in yeast behavior that an ideal oxygenation schedule could be
determined.
lots of questions here, i know, but the answers to these are good to know for
those of us using aeration/oxygenation methods or considering doing so.
brew hard,
mark bayer
Return to table of contents
From: Gary Eckhardt <gary_eckhardt at realworld.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 12:17:27 -0600
Subject: RE: Motorized Stirrer
> Bryan Gros writes:
>Does any of you gadget people use a motorized stirrer of either your mash
>or your wort during chilling? I'd like to mount something on a lid to stir the
>wort, but don't know where to get either the stirrer, the motor, or how to
>connect them. Suggestions?
Bryan:
I have no idea if this would work, but when you mentioned a motor on top of
a lid, I immediately thought of the motor for an Ice Cream Maker. I don't
know how fast most of them turn, but it might be something to look into.
Most ice cream makers even have a stirrer arm that attaches to the motor,
and they can usually be bought fairly cheap, or at a garage sale.
- ---------------------------+----------------------------------------------
Gary Eckhardt | "in this day & age...music performed by
Database Consultants, Inc. | humans...hum!?" --wilde silas tomkyn
dcigary at txdirect.net | R,DW,HAHB!
gary_eckhardt at realworld.com| R^3 = "Real World. Real Smart. Real Quick."
(210)344-6566 | http://www.realworld.com/
Return to table of contents
From: korz at xnet.com
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 12:39:50 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Guinness and mixed-gas dispense
Ken writes:
>Is Guinness Draft-style stout carbonated and
>pushed to the tap with nitrogen or just
>nitrogenated?? Same question goes for
>Boddingtons?? Can I get a small nitrogen
>tank and 'nitrogenate' my homebrew instead
>of carbonating it?? Will it absorb the
>nitrogen? Are there any pressure/temp
>tables associated with beer and nitrogen??
>Is the carbonation a significant flavor
>contributor? Would nitrogenating a wheat
>beer destroy the style??
Guinness is carbonated lightly in the keg and then dispensed
with a blend of CO2 and nitrogen (N2). The reason for the
N2 is simply so you can have a high pressure dispense without
overcarbonation. It is meant to imitate handpumped beer
pushed through a sparkler.
The key to the system is that N2 is virtually insoluble in beer.
In a typical Guinness mixed-gas system, you use 70% N2 and 30% CO2
(you can get other mixes). You run this system at say, 40 psi.
If you used 100% CO2, you would get all foam, but since the N2 is
not soluble, only the CO2 dissolves in the beer. 40 psi of 30%
CO2 looks to the beer as if it was 12 psi of 100% CO2. The beer
comes out of the faucet with great velocity (as we wanted) through
a perforated disk, but it is not as carbonated as if we had used
100% CO2 to push the beer.
Mixed-gas systems are used often on regular beers when the faucets
are really far from the kegs. You need 30 psi of gas to get decent
flow at the faucet, but of course that will overcarbonate the beer
if you used all CO2.
All the "Pub Draught"/beers in widget tins are all carbonated
lightly and then put into cans that are pressureized highly
with nitrogen (in the form of liquid nitrogen, I've read).
When you open the can a high pressure spray of beer/nitrogen
is forced into the main body of the tin through a pinhole. This
stirs up the beer like a sparkler or the perforated disk on
the Guinness faucet.
Al.
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korzonas at lucent.com
korz.pubs.ih.lucent.com
korz at xnet.com
Return to table of contents
From: "Jeffrey M. Kenton" <jkenton at iastate.edu>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 12:59:02 -0600
Subject: Mea culpa
Mea Mea Culpa!!
I intended to "piggyback" the glycerine/glycerol question in HBD 2273, but
it didn't work right.
So , if you are reading 2274 and find another question about freezing
yeast, please understand and ignore it.
Jeff
Return to table of contents
From: TheTHP at aol.com
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 14:03:07 -0500
Subject: Longshot Hazelnut
Not so recently, Greg Moore and others including the Boston Wort Processors
(HB Club) were reported to have tried to recreate this astounding ale. I'd be
interested In hearing the results. Like for instance, How much hazelnut
flavoring did you use? Was it too much/little? Did you tinker with the mash
schedule?
Phil Wilcox
Poison Frog Home Brewery
Currently Offering: KneeDeep Nut Brown Ale, Pumilo Pumpkin Ale, and
Ocktoberfest ON TAP!!!!!
Return to table of contents
From: lheavner at tcmail.frco.com
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 12:59:16 -0600
Subject: All-Grain Virgin - NOT
Well I finally took the plunge into All-grain. It went well, but not
completely as I expected. It was a rauschbier from a recipe put
together by St Pat's of TX. The recipe calls for 5# pils, 5# vienna,
and 1.5# rauschmalt all from Weyerman. However, when I went to crush
the grain, it weighed at tad over 13#. Since it was a gift, who am I
to complain.
Bob McCowan asked about Weyerman rauschmalt and with my experience,it
was definitely smoky at these quantities, but not sickeningly so. St
Pat's also swears by Weyerman malts, but this is my 1st experience so
I will defer comment till I can taste the results.
I tried to duplicate Munich water with my high sodium water and did
pretty well. Big kudos to Ken Schwartz and his Brewater calculator!
I did a double decoction mash following along with Noonan's new lager
book which was also a great source of info. Unfortunately, I kept
having trouble hitting my temps. I was always on the low side, so
there were actually a couple more small pseudo-decoctions thrown in
for good measure. I hope the final product isn't too thin from too
much rest at too low of temps.
I used pH test papers which told me the mash was acidic. How do the
rest of ya'll tell if pH is 5.4 or 5.6? I could only really tell that
it was between 4.0 and 6.0 and probably closer 6.0. The color legend
was only given in increments of 2 pH units.
I got ready to test for conversion and retrieved the iodine I had
asked my wife to buy a couple weeks ago. Lo and behold, it was
de-colorized. So it was off to the store for the real thing. Of
course when I returned, conversion was complete.
Lautering was a breeze. It was really incredibly clear. I had to
adjust the flow as low as I could get it, but once I did, it cleared
right up. A beautiful thing! Tasted incredibly sweet to me.
Boiled for an hour and 15 minutes on the stove and hopped with 1 oz
Northern Brewer for an hour, 1/4 oz Hallertauer for 15 min and 1/4 oz
Hallertauer for 1 minute. Next time I do a decoction mash, I will
definitely get the old cajun cooker down from the attic. (Don't
worry, the propane is NOT stored with the burner.) Cooled with my
immersion chiller (20' copper coil in an ice water bath, 30' in the
kettle water at full blast) and got a nice break. Transferred to
plastic bucket and poured into another plastic fermenter in such a way
as to try to aerate. I had to add about a gallon of make-up water to
get 5.5 gallons. OG was 1.045. Pitched Wyeast Bavarian in a 1QT
starter made with Munich LME at high Krausen.
At this point, I had intended to transfer the wort to my beer fridge.
Unfortunately, there was already a batch in there that I was supposed
to have bottled earlier in the day. The wife surprised me with orders
to attend a birthday party for a couple of rug rats that we know and
we didn't get home till 6pm. Therefore, I didn't have time to bottle
and brew. So I let the newly pitched wort sit out overnite. On
Monday, I bottled the lagered O'fest and transferred the rauschbier
into the fridge. I'll let it go at 51 DegF until next Sunday and then
transfer to 2ndary. After lagering and bottling, it ought to be ready
for the Superbowl!
So what did I learn? Next to experience, planning is key! And next
to Noonan's book, the HBD is undoubtedly the best source of
information and encouragement around. Thanks everybody!!
Lou Heavner
<lheavner at frmail.frco.com>
"So if I dry hop an Oktoberfest bier, does that make it an Octberfest
beer?"
Return to table of contents
From: Steve <JOHNSONS at UANSV5.VANDERBILT.EDU>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 13:09:51 -0600 (CST)
Subject: 2 Yeast Types
Earlier in October I had posted a question regarding the attenuation
characteristics of Wyeast 1968 London Special ale yeast. I was concerned that
by using it
in an American IPA with an OG of 1.065 that it might have trouble getting it
down to a nice final gravity near 1.010. Didn't get too many responses to my
querry about what effect adding a second yeast type like Wyeast 1056 after
racking to a secondary fermenter would have. Well, my experiment, though not
truly scientific, has worked out fine. The primary fermentation with a qt
starter of the 1968 worked down to about 1.020; added a healthy and vigorous
pint starter of 1056 after racking into a secondary fermenter and got renewed
fermentation action for another week. Don't know if the original 1968 would
have continued to attenuate any more just from the additional oxygenation/
agitation from the racking process...I'll do that as another experiment with
a similar recipe next year. Anyway, to make a long post shorter (or longer at
this point, depending on your perspective regarding signal/noise ratios!), I
bottled last night and am very pleased with the final product. We'll see what
the club thinks at our upcoming Xmas party in December.
One last thing: Let's all raise a toast to the Digest for finally having a
whole digest without ANY of those pesky [NONE]'s running rampant!
Steve Johnson
Music City Brewers
Nashville, TN
Return to table of contents
From: korz at xnet.com
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 13:22:23 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Guinness and mixed-gas dispense/Fill level experiments
Ken writes:
>Is Guinness Draft-style stout carbonated and
>pushed to the tap with nitrogen or just
>nitrogenated?? Same question goes for
>Boddingtons?? Can I get a small nitrogen
>tank and 'nitrogenate' my homebrew instead
>of carbonating it?? Will it absorb the
>nitrogen? Are there any pressure/temp
>tables associated with beer and nitrogen??
>Is the carbonation a significant flavor
>contributor? Would nitrogenating a wheat
>beer destroy the style??
Guinness is carbonated lightly in the keg and then dispensed
with a blend of CO2 and nitrogen (N2). The reason for the
N2 is simply so you can have a high pressure dispense without
overcarbonation. It is meant to imitate handpumped beer
pushed through a sparkler.
The key to the system is that N2 is virtually insoluble in beer.
In a typical Guinness mixed-gas system, you use 70% N2 and 30% CO2
(you can get other mixes). You run this system at say, 40 psi.
If you used 100% CO2, you would get all foam, but since the N2 is
not soluble, only the CO2 dissolves in the beer. 40 psi of 30%
CO2 looks to the beer as if it was 12 psi of 100% CO2. The beer
comes out of the faucet with great velocity (as we wanted) through
a perforated disk, but it is not as carbonated as if we had used
100% CO2 to push the beer.
Mixed-gas systems are used often on regular beers when the faucets
are really far from the kegs. You need 30 psi of gas to get decent
flow at the faucet, but of course that will overcarbonate the beer
if you used all CO2.
All the "Pub Draught"/beers in widget tins are all carbonated
lightly and then put into cans that are pressureized highly
with nitrogen (in the form of liquid nitrogen, I've read).
When you open the can a high pressure spray of beer/nitrogen
is forced into the main body of the tin through a pinhole. This
stirs up the beer like a sparkler or the perforated disk on
the Guinness faucet.
***
An update on the Fill Level Experiment:
To refresh your memories, I did an experiment back in January of `96 to
determine if fill level really did affect carbonation level. What I
did was to brew an allgrain American Pale Ale (1.051 OG, 40 IBUs), prime
the 5 gallon batch with 2/3 cup of corn sugar and bottle it in Anchor
bottles on 26 Jan 1996. Several bottles were filled "high," several
"low," one "very low" and the rest "normal."
On 18 March 1996, I had my wife randomly assign numbers to glasses and
four bottles of various fill heights and pour the same amount of beer
into each glass. This was done in such a way that I could not even
hear the amount of "fffft" there was from each bottle (and the amounts
were obviously going to be different). My blind tasting of the four
beers, simply on the basis of carbonation showed:
HIGH (1.6 cm headspace): noticeably lower carbonation
NORMAL (4.8 cm headspace): normal carbonation
LOW (6.6 cm headspace): normal carbonation
V. LOW (8.7 cm headspace): possibly slightly lower carbonation
I believe that the slightly lower level of carbonation was probably starting
to be due to the fact that there simply wasn't that much beer in the bottle
and nearly half the priming sugar was being asked to not only carbonate the
beer but also fill nearly 6 ounces of headspace with CO2.
Yesterday (12 November 1996), I again had my wife prepare three samples
for tasting (HIGH, NORMAL, and LOW). My blind tasting of the three
beers, simply on the basis of carbonation showed:
HIGH (1.6 cm headspace): possibly very slightly lower carbonation
NORMAL (4.8 cm headspace): normal carbonation
LOW (6.6 cm headspace): normal carbonation
The bottom line in my opinion (although this was a single experiment),
is that a high fill clearly slows the carbonation rate and may also very
slightly reduce the final carbonation level in bottle-conditioned beers.
Lower than normal fill level DOES NOT cause overcarbonation as suggested
by Charlie Papazian in his NCJOHB and can actually result in lower
carbonation. IF, however, you overprime AND overfill, then yes, it may
appear that underfilling causes overcarbonation, but actually, it is
merely that overfilling is throttling the overcarbonation caused by
overpriming.
Al.
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korzonas at lucent.com
korz at pubs.ih.lucent.com
korz at xnet.com
Return to table of contents