(formerly Volume 02 : Number 027)



Procedures:

To send a message to the digest, send it to <homebrew at aob.org>
To subscribe to the digest, send a message to <majordomo at aob.org>
   with the text "subscribe homebrew-digest" in the body.
To unsubscribe from the digest, send a message to <majordomo at aob.org>
   with the text "unsubscribe homebrew-digest <your email address>"
   in the body.
If you are having difficulty unsubscribing, send a message to
   <majordomo at aob.org> with the text "who homebrew-digest" in the
   body.  This will return a list of all subscribers.  Search this
   list for your email address, and include it, exactly as it appears
   (including any other text) in your unsubscribe message.
If you are still having difficulty, send a message to <admin at softsolut.com>
   with a description of your message, and we shall attempt to resolve
   the problem.

Contents:
  decoctions
  Labels
  RE: LABELING
  RE: Sparge temp. - why not lower?
  [No Subject Provided By Sender]
  re: opening a homebrew shop
  USP
  Aggressive Corrections/pH Electrodes
  Carrying beer onto planes
  re: sucking thing
  removing the paint from ROGUE bottles? ( richard scholz)
  Welding Things
  Air filter (Ronald J. La Borde)
  Wyeast London ale yeasts
  Sanitizing mini-kegs (Alex Santic)
  Re: Frosty - no man
  Re: decoction
  Re: Water Chemistry vs. Love
  Re: Spiral Heat Exchangers   --    Jim Bentson
  re: Irish and EM
  re: 5 litre mini-kegs
  Re: Immersion chilling  and hop filtering
  Re: Labels
  Keg pickup tube length
  Re: Keg pickup tube length
  A Porter recipe I'm working on...
  Sunbeam Golden Hops?
  Do you really NEED to boil the wort?
  Agar Followup
  EM and Irish Moss
  Simplified version of decoction?


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

Date: Fri, 10 Jan 97 22:19:07 EST
From: "John W. Carpenter" <jwc at med.unc.edu>
Subject: decoctions

Steve Alexander wrote:

> The question comes up periodically about heating wort or decoctions in
> a microwave - several articles I've seen suggest that polymerization
> of phenols and denaturing of proteins are both likely in a microwave.
> This sounds bad. It would be interesting to see if this is true for
> worts.

What about pulling your decoction and heating it in an oven? It wouldn't
scorch that way? Just wondering...

> There's a lot more, but enough for today,
> Steve Alexander

Bring it on Steve, you've got a lot of good info. Thanks for sharing it.

John Carpenter, jwc at med.unc.edu
Chapel Hill, NC - USA

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 23:58:51 -0800 (PST)
From: Heiner Lieth <lieth at telis.org>
Subject: Labels

There have been a few post about what sort of sock to use to print up labels.

I just thought I'd point out why you are probably not getting a heck of a
lot of recommendations to try Avery labels. Recently I bought a whole box of
these and they are great until you try to get the label off the bottle.  The
glue they use is terriffic, which is the exact opposite of what you want
when you're ready to reuse the bottle. When you try to peel the label off,
the glue stays on the glass. 

I have the Avery 5163 2x4 labels. I have some 2" clear packaging tape which
can be placed right over the label and seal the ink.  Unfortunately I
thought of the tape idea after I bought the labels (obviously you don't need
glue on the paper if, by making the tape just a bit longer than the paper,
you can use the tape to get the paper to stick to the bottle).

I'm going to try some of the other ideas that have surface here.  Thanks, folks.

Heiner Lieth.

Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 11 Jan 97 09:55:45 PST
From: Ronnie Baert <Ronald.Baert at hookon.be>
Subject: RE: LABELING

1. Inkjet: Some inkjet refill cartridges have water-resistant inks.
However, you better use xerox copies. I use xerox on recycled paper:Some =
of those papers have a nice gray + green + white color-spread, it looks =
nicer. I do 6 labels per A4 page.
2. To fix your labels: put a smash of milk on the table, dip the label =
in it and fix it on the bottle, correct possition and level it with a wet=
 tissue.
Keep it simple, Succes with yr 1st batch. Ron frm "Brouwerij De Stoere =
Lobosser", Gent, Bestbeercountry Belgium.

Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 11 Jan 97 09:44:08 PST
From: Ronnie Baert <Ronald.Baert at hookon.be>
Subject: RE: Sparge temp. - why not lower?

Tom, if you sparge lower temperature, then sugars will crystalize and wil=
l stay (or stick, if this is the right englisch word..) in the draff.
Reason that you obtained good efficiency was the long mash time.
Beware of extremely long mash timrs: it can cause to a typical flavour =
like "boiled vegetables". Succes, Ron from brouwerij "De Stoere Lobosser"=
, Gent, Bestbeercountry Belgium.

Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 11 Jan 97 05:13 CST
From: postmaster at swpe06.sw.lucent.com
Subject: [No Subject Provided By Sender]

>From postmaster Sat Jan 11 05:13:31 1997
Subject: smtp mail failed
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 2454

Your mail to swen01.lucent.com is undeliverable.
- ---------- diagnosis ----------
<<< 554 Transaction failed -- I/O error
- ---------- unsent mail ----------
>From uucp Sat Jan 11 05:13 CST 1997 remote from swpe06
>From homebrew Fri Jan 10 17:57:00 0700 1997 remote from dionysus.aob.org
Received: from dionysus.aob.org by swpe06.sw.lucent.com; Sat, 11 Jan 1997 05:13 CST
Received: by ihgp0.ih.lucent.com (SMI-8.6/EMS-L sol2)
	id FAA14891; Sat, 11 Jan 1997 05:20:53 -0600
Received: from cbig1.firewall.lucent.com by ihgp0.ih.lucent.com (SMI-8.6/EMS-L sol2)
	id FAA14882; Sat, 11 Jan 1997 05:20:49 -0600
Received: by cbig1.firewall.lucent.com (SMI-8.6/EMS-L sol2)
	id GAA02738; Sat, 11 Jan 1997 06:09:52 -0500
Received: by cbgw1.lucent.com; Sat Jan 11 06:14 EST 1997
Received: (from dionysus at localhost) by dionysus.aob.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id RAA10906 for homebrew-digest-outgoing; Fri, 10 Jan 1997 17:57:00 -0700 (MST)
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 17:57:00 -0700 (MST)
Message-Id: <199701110057.RAA10906 at dionysus.aob.org>
X-Authentication-Warning: dionysus.aob.org: dionysus set sender to owner-homebrew-digest at dionysus.aob.org using -f
From: owner-homebrew-digest at dionysus.aob.org (Homebrew Digest)
To: homebrew-digest at dionysus.aob.org
Subject: Homebrew Digest V2 #26
Reply-To: homebrew at dionysus.aob.org
Sender: owner-homebrew-digest at dionysus.aob.org
Errors-To: owner-homebrew-digest at dionysus.aob.org
Precedence: bulk
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 40830


Homebrew Digest        Friday, January 10 1997        Volume 02 : Number 026



Procedures:

To send a message to the digest, send it to <homebrew at aob.org>
To subscribe to the digest, send a message to <majordomo at aob.org>
   with the text "subscribe homebrew-digest" in the body.
To unsubscribe from the digest, send a message to <majordomo at aob.org>
   with the text "unsubscribe homebrew-digest <your email address>"
   in the body.
If you are having difficulty unsubscribing, send a message to
   <majordomo at aob.org> with the text "who homebrew-digest" in the
   body.  This will return a list of all subscribers.  Search this
   list for your email address, and include it, exactly as it appears
   (including any other text) in your unsubscribe message.
If you are still having difficulty, send a message to <admin at softsolut.com>
   with a description of your message, and we shall attempt to resolve
   the problem.

1	Re:mead/beer on an aircraft
2	Pale Ale recipes
3	[No Subject Provided By Sender]

Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 07:37:19 -0800
From: Louis Gordon <lgordon at pclink.com>
Subject: re: opening a homebrew shop

Several people have asked about advice on opening a homebrew shop. I have 
certainly never done it, but if I were contemplating doing so, I would go 
to a large town far enough away that I would not be competition and I 
would talk to the owners of the homebrew shops there. I am sure many 
would be happy to help, and maybe allow you to work there for awhile and 
see how the shop works.

Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 09:25:12 -0500 (EST)
From: nkanous <nkanous at tir.com>
Subject: USP

U.S.P. stands for United States Pharmacopeia.  It indicates that the listed
chemical is manufactured to specific standards which make it appropriate for
the compounding of prescription medications.

Nathan

Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 16:17:58 -0500
From: "A. J. deLange" <ajdel at mindspring.com>
Subject: Aggressive Corrections/pH Electrodes

My recent posting on agressive water contained two glaring errors (2 points
to Dave Burley who spotted both and 1 point for Bob McCowan who got 1 -
thanks guys). I wrote "an aerator rather than a neutralizer to drop the pH"
where I meant "raise" the pH. I still have trouble with pH going in the
opposite direction from ion concentration. Now I'm not saying old Doc
Sorrenson did it backass, it's just a mental block of mine.

The other goof referred to KCl exchangers being preferrable to NaCl in
terms of the aggressive question. If some muse inspired me to write that
the other night she has deserted me now and I can't think what I had in
mind at the time. I can see no reason why replacing calcium with potassium
is any better than replacing it with sodium as far as agressivity is
concerned. If the calcium is removed, the water becomes more aggressive.

For those who may be bothered about pure water dissolving copper which has
a reduction potential greater than that of hydrogen, a very brief
explanation follows. The reduction potential for the half reaction Cu++ +
2e -> Cu(s) is

      E = Eo + .03ln(copper ion concentration) (at 25C)

The tabulated value is the value when the copper ion is at unit ionic
strength (concentration) which is E = Eo = + 0.34 volts (ln(1) = 0). Thus

      E = + 0.34 + .03 ln(copper ion concentration) (25C)

When copper is placed in pure water, the concentration of copper ion is
initially very small and E is therefore quite negative so that the reaction
procedes in the opposite direction to that written and oxidation takes
place. As oxidation procedes the copper ion concentration rises until
.03ln(copper ion concentration) = -0.34. At this point the reduced and
oxidized states are in redox equilibrium. The other details have to do with
the other half reaction. I'll be happy to supply the details to anyone who
wants them. I estimate that the equilibrium copper concentration in DI
water at 25C in equilibrium with the atmosphere would be about .15 ppm at
pH 7. Note that that is not very much.

* * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Someone requested information on the fabrication of pH electrodes. This
just isn't practical. There are so many electrodes available today over
such a wide range of prices and capabilities that I can't believe that
anyone could make one for less than one of better performance could be
purchased. The upcoming issue of BT will have an article which discusses
some aspects of electrode selection.

A. J. deLange
- - Numquam in dubio, saepe in errore.
Please Note New e-mail Address

Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 11:23:49 -0500
From: Phil Olson <bocefuss at concentric.net>
Subject: Carrying beer onto planes

I have also carried homebrew and commercial brews onto commercial airlines
with no problems at all.  Airport security gas no problem with it either
and actually, they will usually give you a smart-ass comment too :)   I
usually carry a case of bottles onto planes when I travel. I recommend you
rig up a harness that supports the bottom using clothesline rope and a
handle.  Avoid using the box handles, because they will fatige and
sometimes tear off with constant use (like toting it through airport
terminals on the way to your connection).

Phil Olson

"Assimilate this!" Worf

"An engineer who is surrounded by machines is never lonely..." Dilbert
Principle

Phil Olson
Delphi-Saginaw Steering Systems
Advanced Product Center
Saginaw, MI
517-757-3318
web site:  http://www.concentric.net/~Bocefuss/Index.html
Email:  bocefuss at concentric.net

Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 08:45:21 -0800
From: Sharon/Dan Ritter <ritter at web.camasnet.com>
Subject: re: sucking thing

>I saw a review in an issue of zymurgy a few years ago for a siphon starting
>device called "the sucking thing".  does anyone know if it's still being
>made/sold?

I own two of them and use them as siphon starters in my brewery.  I
purchased them over a year ago so I'm not sure if they are still available.
I got mine direct from Lowenbitter Brewing Supplies, 433 Sycamore Hill,
Danville, CA  94526.  I don't have a phone number or e-mail address.



Dan Ritter <ritter at camasnet.com>

Ritter's MAMMOTH Brewery
Grangeville, Idaho

Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 12:19:38 -0500 (EST)
From: Rscholz at aol.com
Subject: removing the paint from ROGUE bottles? ( richard scholz)

hi all,

I'm sure this has been answered before but here goes:
How can I remove the paint from ROGUE 22 oz bottles?
I can take off labels but hate having MY beer in bottle with 
pictures of  Maier etc.

later

richard scholz
bklyn ny

Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 12:28:05 -0800
From: "Kelly C. Heflin" <kheflin at monmouth.com>
Subject: Welding Things

I Wrote:

KCH> Take a wire brush or some steel wool and scrub the area
KCH> around the nipple. 

Dion Responded.
This is not a good recommendation to make.  Any metal finishing with
steel on a stainless piece will embed small particles of steel in the
stainless which *may* eventually rust.
***************************************-- 
My point was ... the guys pot is not going to fall apart
in this lifetime if was welded properly, steel or no steel.
Unless of course he leaves it outside in the rain and snow.

As I'm sure you are technically correct I'm just trying to put
the guy at ease, as I'm sure he spent good money on his stainless
pot and getting it welded.

Kelly


Kelly C. Heflin
Kheflin at monmouth.com

Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 11:48:12 -0600
From: "LaBorde, Ronald" <rlabor at lsumc.edu>
Subject: Air filter (Ronald J. La Borde)

From: Mark Preston <prestonm at labyrinth.net.au>

...I have done some reading on aeration of wort with a fish tank pump,
how does one go about keeping the air that is pumped into wort
contamination free??...

  From ideas read on the HBD I built a filter.  It took me a while to find
out what I could easily get in my local area, but once I found out what can
be had it was real easy.  

  From the drug store, I bought a cheap plastic hypodermic injector syringe.
It does not need the needle, just the plastic part will do.  Throw away the
plunger as it is not needed.

  The small end that the needle would normally connect to is now inserted
into the small tubing available from the fish store and the pump is
connected on the other end of this tubing.  Get a rubber stopper to fit into
the larger part of the syringe. (At this point I must tell you that it is
much easier to get a syringe that will fit the rubber stopper). The stopper
must have a drilled hole to accept your standard syphon tubing.

  Sanitize everyting, then stuff two sterile cotton balls into the half inch
diameter syringe, place the stopper into the syringe after inserting the
syphon tubing into the stopper first. I place my racking cane into the
fermenter without any airstone, and bubble away for 4 hours or untill I am
ready to go to sleep that nite.

  So basicaly all you need is :

      1 - syringe casing
      1 - drilled stopper
      2 - sterile cotton balls

  You already have:
      
      pump
      pump tubing
      syphon tubing
      racking cane
      wort
      hungry, greedy yeast

Happy Brewing

Ron

Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 12:04:36 -0600
From: Charles Epp <chuckepp at ukans.edu>
Subject: Wyeast London ale yeasts

Greetings!

	I'd be interested in a discussion of Wyeast's London ale yeasts 
(1968 and 1318 in particular).  

	First, 1968 is probably my favorite ale yeast -- very complex 
and malty, and wonderful for ESBs.  My only complaint (and it's a minor 
one) is that I typically have to increase my hopping levels to have the 
hop character come through past the malt and other flavors.  I'm curious 
if anybody knows the source of this yeast -- is it Fuller's?  

	I remember a short thread several months ago that the 1968 
strain may have changed in the last year; Wyeast Labs now calls it 
"Special London ale" or something like that, whereas before they called 
it "London ESB".  I haven't gotten a new packet since the change.  Has 
the 1968 strain been changed?  Also, is 1968 a mix of several strains?  
Also, in their most recent flier, Wyeast Labs recommends repeated 
aeration and rousing of the yeast to get it to finish properly.  I've 
used 1968 a lot in the past and never had any problem getting acceptable 
levels of attenuation (around 70%, which is in 1968's expected range) 
without doing any extra aeration or rousing after start of fermentation. 

	So, do any of y'all have observations on your experience with 
1968 recently, particularly about whether it's been changed and whether 
it now really needs additional aeration and rousing to get proper 
attenuation? 

	Second, anybody know anything about the new yeast, #1318, 
"London Ale III" or the "Thames Valley" yeast, #1275?  I recall raves 
about #1318 a while back in the HBD. Any of you really like these new 
yeasts, or really dislike them?  How do they compare to #1028 (dry, 
minerally), and 1968 (malty, complex)?  Also, what's the source -- is 
1318 from Young's?  And what's the source for 1275?

Chuck  --  chuckepp at ukans.edu

Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 13:52:25 -0500 (EST)
From: Alex Santic <alex at salley.com>
Subject: Sanitizing mini-kegs (Alex Santic)

Kevin Sinn <skinner at MNSi.Net> asks:
>I've just purhased a mini-keg system and I'm curious as to the best way to
>sanitize them.  I'm aware that chlorine bleach will pit the aluminum over
>time. What are some other alternatives?

The mini-kegs I use seem to be made of some type of thin stainless. These
are the ubiquitous German variety, but if yours are really aluminum then
you are using something different. 

The most obvious answer is probably iodophor. It's non-corrosive and
no-rinse (convenient because mini-kegs drain rather slowly so rinsing is a
pain). Personally, what I've identified as the biggest problem with
mini-keg maintenance is getting them to dry.  It can take ages with just
the little bung-hole for ventilation.  Therefore I wash them physically
clean with hot water, drain as thoroughly as possible, and place them in a
200+ F oven for a few hours. This would seem to eliminate the need for a
sanitizer, though you can use the BTF iodophor as well if it makes you
more comfortable. 

The heating technique may yet turn around to bite my butt. Most of these
mini-kegs are laminated with plastic on the inside. It's important not to
damage this coating or the containers will start to rust. But so far I've
not detected any ill effects from the heat...just don't overdo it.

While we're on this subject, let me mention another interesting kegging
solution. The 5+ gallon Edme plastic pressure barrels that are common in
the UK are also available in the States. I think they are distributed by
L.D. Carlson and I've found a few homebrew outfits that sell them. A very
interesting product, described at http://www.ip7.co.uk/edme/equip.htm. 

- --
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


Date: 11 Jan 97 14:15:09 EST
From: "David R. Burley" <103164.3202 at CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Re: Frosty - no man

Brewsters:

Frosty says:
 
> I have been looking everywhere for a large (~12inches diameter) strainer
> and an accompaning funnel for straining my wort before going into the
> primary.
> 
Frosty,

No, Man, don't strain your wort unless it is also frosty or nearly so or you
will ruin it through oxidation.  Also, this violent action will break up the
trub and it will be carried over into the primary.   Attach a copper or
stainless steel Choreboy scrubber to the bottom of your racking cane and siphon
your chilled brew into the primary.  The scrubber acts as a filter for the hops
and the hops filter out the trub. It is cheaper and neater than a strainer and
funnel.


Keep on brewin'


Dave Burley
Kinnelon, NJ 07405
103164.3202 at compuserve.com
Voice e-mail OK

Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 11 Jan 97 13:42:23 CST
From: Brian Bliss <brianb at microware.com>
Subject: Re: decoction

yes, you can use decoction with ales and with partial mashes
and get excellent results.  I routinely do this.  I would,
however, recommend not using one in a mash consisting of a
large percentage of colored malts, like what would happen
in a munich beer.  When I have tried this, I have gotten
tannins so hot they burn your mouth.  As an alternative,
but pale malt in the decoction, and save any colored malts
for the main mash.

bb

Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 13:20:30 +0000
From: wdcolins at ix4.ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: Water Chemistry vs. Love

Mike Urseth <beernote at realbeer.com> wrote:

> I haven't had a chance to get the water tested yet. What sort of 
> water condition would cause this? How would this effect brewing? 
> Would celibacy be better than trying to brew with this water?

The day before you brew, boil six gallons or so of the water and left 
it sit overnight (covered).  Next morning, the minerals should have 
settled out.  If that sounds like too much work (it can be), try 
brewing a batch with water straight from the tap (this is the 'relax, 
don't worry' principle).

 

Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 18:54:18 -0500
From: Jim Bentson <jbentson at htp.net>
Subject: Re: Spiral Heat Exchangers   --    Jim Bentson

 Recently there have been a number of posts about spiral heat exchangers and
who "invented" the idea. As often happens, this is a reinvention of a common
device used in a different field. The spiral heat exchanger is extensively
used in applications  in mechanical and chemical engineering. I haven't done
an extensive search but found a reference to a paper entitled "Spiral Heat
Exchanger Heat Transfer Characteristics" in the 1947 Chem. Eng. Prog. These
devices are probably older than anyone reading this. 

 From what I read in the literature, the suggested method of analyzing them
is to treat them as a helical coil of radius equal to the mean radius of the
spiral. This means (that at least in the forced convection case   i.e.
moving the coil as you cool) the two designs will probably not differ
significantly. In the free convection case( the unmoved coil) the major
difference that I see is that in the helical case,  thermal currents see a
blockage due to the next coil above it. The spiral design  would not have
this blockage and the interaction between adjacent thermal currents is
reenforcing rather than retarding. My guess (and it is only a guess) is that
the spiral is therefore probably more effective in promoting mixing due to
this. In addition, in the spiral,  the thermal currents are distributed over
a larger area

 The main difference between the helix and spiral is due to the fact  that
in a curved duct, the centrifugal forces acting on the internal cooling flow
affect the heat transfer. In the helix the radius of curvature is constant
and these forces are also. In the spiral, the centrifugal forces increase as
the radius decreases. 

 For the technically inclined they both are discussed in the "Handbook of
Single-Phase Convective Heat Transfer" by Kakac, Shah and Aung
- --
Registered ICC User
check out http://www.usefulware.com/~jfoltz

Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 22:42:40 +0700
From: "C.D. Pritchard" <cdp at mail.chattanooga.net>
Subject: re: Irish and EM

There's been much discussion of the use of Irish Moss causing Easy Mashers
(tm) to clog.  I've no experience with the EM, however, flow is a very
important variable in the susceptability of filter beds.  Perhaps some of
the difference in performance of the EM is due to differing flows? 

c.d. pritchard 
Email: cdp at chattanooga.net 
My Homebrewing Page: http://caladan.chattanooga.net/~cdp/index.html

Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 22:43:14 +0700
From: "C.D. Pritchard" <cdp at mail.chattanooga.net>
Subject: re: 5 litre mini-kegs

Ian Smith <rela!isrs at netcom.com> in #24 asked:
>Does anyone know what the 5 l mini-kegs are made of ? I have seen 
>aluminum and also advertisements for steel. 

I have one I got for playing around with before converting to corny kegs.
It's definitely made of aluminum.  It contains no mfg's name and appears to
have a lining like a beer can.

>Also I was told that you can only pressurize 
>the kegs to 7-10 psi for dispensing. Forced carbonation pressure of 30 
>psi can cause bulging. I called the manufacturer's distributer in the >
U.S. (they are made in Germany) and they are rated to 3 bar (45 psi).

45 psig (or even psiA!) is OUTRAGEOUS, at least for the mini-keg I have.  A
steel keg would have to be *really* heavy to withstand this pressure due to
the large, flat ends on the kegs.  Mine has ends about 6" in dia.- that
works out to a force of about 850 pounds on the keg ends at 45 psig.  No
wonder they bulge at 30 psi!  I'd be *extremely* careful with pressures
higher than 10 psig.  A compressed gas contains alot of energy.  Ever pumped
up a tire with a hand pump? It takes a good bit of energy. The energy that's
not lost to heat is stored in the compressed air.  If the keg ruptures it's
likely to do so rapidly hence, the effects might (depending on the amount of
gas space in the keg and the pressure) resemble those of a small grenade.
To pressure test them, first fill them completely with water.  Then, if
there's a leak, it's not likely to explode since water is incompressible
compared to air.

To force-carbonate and use mini-kegs, I'd force-carbonate in a corny keg
then fill the minikegs from the corny with a counter-pressure bottle filler.  

c.d. pritchard 
Email: cdp at chattanooga.net 
My Homebrewing Page: http://caladan.chattanooga.net/~cdp/index.html

Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 22:43:20 +0700
From: "C.D. Pritchard" <cdp at mail.chattanooga.net>
Subject: Re: Immersion chilling  and hop filtering

Jim Bentson <jbentson at htp.net> had a great post in #24 and included:

>The only down side of this method compared to Alex's
>suggestion is that the pot is uncovered, but I have 
>done this for 3 years and never spoiled a batch.

There's no reason that the pot can't be covered.  I'm using 1/4" thick piece
of plastic intended for window glazing as a cover for a mechanically
agitated immersion chiller I'm working on.  It does deform maybe 3/8"
vertically from the steam and heat during boiling (for sanitizing it and the
chiller coils).  This ruled it out as a support for the gear motor agitator
and chiller coil (wood "rails" are used for that purpose).  Otherwise, it
performs fine.  The necessary gap between the lid and the chiller
inlet/outlet lines is sealed with a bit of plastic food wrap.

For those using an immersion chiller or a racking cane which mandates
cracking the pot lid open, plastic wrap works well for sealing the crack.
Well, you can't seal it 100% since air's going to get sucked in as the wort
cools and as it's drained off, but, it at least keeps stuff from falling or
(in the case of bugs) flying in.  It clings nicely to a hot pot.  FWIW, the
Walmart (blah, blah...) brand has the most cling and is cheap too boot.

c.d. pritchard 
Email: cdp at chattanooga.net 
My Homebrewing Page: http://caladan.chattanooga.net/~cdp/index.html

Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 12:32:54 +0000
From: Monty Arch <monarch at sys305.chatlink.com>
Subject: Re: Labels

>I have the Avery 5163 2x4 labels. I have some 2" clear packaging tape which
>can be placed right over the label and seal the ink.  Unfortunately I
>thought of the tape idea after I bought the labels (obviously you don't need
>glue on the paper if, by making the tape just a bit longer than the paper,
>you can use the tape to get the paper to stick to the bottle).
>

But if one is going to relabel in the same spot, it's no big deal to 
have some old glue left.

Monty

Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 11:05:28 -0800
From: Lee Bollard <leeb at iea.com>
Subject: Keg pickup tube length

I've been kegging in soda kegs for 40 batches... I've always left the 
"pickup tube" full length. The tubes reach the very bottom of each keg.

Early on I learned that some folks cut off the last 1/2"(?) of the tube 
so as not to pick up stuff from the bottom while dispensing. I didn't do 
this as I figured this stuff would only end up in the first pint or two 
that was dispensed. True?

Hop residue is present when I clean the kegs...Could my beers be picking 
up unwanted tastes & bitterness from this gunk as I dispense pints? 

How much should I cut off the pickup tube to test this theory? Is using 
a Hack saw ok? Thanks!
- --
- --------  Lee Bollard   leeb at iea.com  --------

Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 14:18:08 -0500 (EST)
From: Larry M Matthews <lmatt at ipass.net>
Subject: Re: Keg pickup tube length

Lee,
   I've always cut by pickup tubes about 1/2 " just in case their is some
residue that settles once I move by beer to the keg. A hacksaw works fine
but if you can get a tubing cutter like is used for copper tubing, it gives
a smoother cut and has less chance of having a bur. If you cut with a
hacksaw, you may want to sand the end slightly to give a smoother finish
and less places for bacteria to hide.


At 11:05 AM 1/12/97 -0800, Lee Bollard wrote:
>I've been kegging in soda kegs for 40 batches... I've always left the 
>"pickup tube" full length. The tubes reach the very bottom of each keg.
>
>Early on I learned that some folks cut off the last 1/2"(?) of the tube 
>so as not to pick up stuff from the bottom while dispensing. I didn't do 
>this as I figured this stuff would only end up in the first pint or two 
>that was dispensed. True?
>
>Hop residue is present when I clean the kegs...Could my beers be picking 
>up unwanted tastes & bitterness from this gunk as I dispense pints? 
>
>How much should I cut off the pickup tube to test this theory? Is using 
>a Hack saw ok? Thanks!
>--
>--------  Lee Bollard   leeb at iea.com  --------
>
>
>

					Larry M Matthews
					Carboy/Trub Member
					Raleigh, NC 27606
					lmatt at ipass.net

Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 18:22:11 -0500
From: Jean-Sebastien Morisset <jsmoriss at qc.bell.ca>
Subject: A Porter recipe I'm working on...

Here's a porter recipe I'm fine-tuning; I'd certainly appreciate any
comments. I haven't decided on the yeast yet, so I've included the two I'm
considering.

Thanks,
js.

                           SUDS Recipe Report
01/12/1997 19:16:00     Runaway Porter v2 (Robust Porter)

   Category         :  Robust Porter            
   Method           :  Full Mash
   Starting Gravity :  1.066
   Ending Gravity   :  1.016
   Alcohol content  :  6.4%
   Recipe Makes     : 11.0 gallons
   Total Grain      : 12.15 kgs.
   Color (srm)      : 56.8
   Efficiency       :  75%
   Hop IBUs         : 61.3

Malts/Sugars:
  9.00	kg.	Harrington 2-row         
  1.40	kg.	Brown Malt (English)     
600.00	g.	Biscuit (Belgian)        
450.00	g.	Aromatic (Belgian)       
300.00	g.	Chocolate (English)      
400.00	g.	Crystal  40L             

Hops:
85.00	g.	Northern Brewer	 7.5%	60 min
70.00	g.	Fuggles        	 3.2%	60 min
80.00	g.	Fuggles        	 3.2%	15 min
30.00	g.	Fuggles        	 3.2%	 3 min

Boil temperature of water: 212F
Grain Starting Temperature: 68F
Desired Grain/Water Ratio: 1 quarts/pound
Strike Water:  6.68 gallons of water at 171F
First Mash Temperature: 153F

Notes:

Brown Malt astringency should balance the Belgian Aromatic/Biscuit
malt sweetness.

Additional Ingredients:

1.0 tsp Gypsum (Mash Water)
1.0 tsp Acid Blend (Sparge Water)
2.0 tsp Irish Moss flakes (Boil 15 min)
190 g. Corn Sugar (Priming)

Wyeast #1335 British Ale Yeast-II
     73-76% Apparent attenuation; High flocculation.
     Typical of british ale fermentation profile with good 
     flocculating and malty flavor characteristics, crisp finish, 
     clean, and fairly dry.

        -or-
     
Wyeast #1968 London ESB Ale Yeast (64-72F)
     67-71% Apparent attenuation; High flocculation.
     Top-fermenting strain with rich, malty character and balanced
     fruitiness. This strain is so flocculant that additional
     aeration is needed. An excellent strain for cask-conditioned
     ale.

- --
Jean-Sebastien Morisset, Sc. Unix Administrator <mailto:jsmoriss at qc.bell.ca>
Bell Canada, Routing and Trunking Assignments <http://www.bell.ca/>

Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 22:32:05 -0500
From: Glenn & Kristina Matthies <borst at localnet.com>
Subject: Sunbeam Golden Hops?

Greetings All!

I am considering growing some hops this year in my back yard.  My wife and I
were looking through one of her garden catalogs, Nichols Garden Nursery of
Albany, OR, when I noticed a hop I have never heard of.  The hop is Sunbeam
Golden Hop.  The following description in from the catalog:

"Released in 1995 by USDA and NW Ag Experimental Stations.  Brilliant yellow
foliage.  Aromatic cones are suitable for Northern European type pilsners.
Grow Sunbeam in filtered light or semi-shade.  Foliage may brown in bull
sun. Vigorous."

Has anyone heard of this hop, grown it, used it or know any more about it?
Post to digest or email.  I will post summary is interest is sufficient. 

TIA
Glenn
Glenn & Kristina Matthies
Lockport, NY

Glenn's Buffalo Beer Page
http://www.localnet.com/~borst/index.html

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 21:03:31 +1030
From: Marshall Muller <Marshall.Muller at dsto.defence.gov.au>
Subject: Do you really NEED to boil the wort?

G'day,

After several successful partial mashes (and noticiably improved beer)
I'm setting up a plastic electric all grain brewery to give it a go.
I already had a 2400W element and a 45 l (11 gal) container so I thought I'd
give it a go as a kettle.
The first test boil of 26 l (7 gal) basically produced a result I expected would
happened  - it couldnt maintain a rolling boil without a lid.  With the lid 
sealed it boiled violently, however without it the temp could only reach 98 C (208F)

Is it really necessary to have a rolling boil or will 98 C be OK if I stirred 
it frequently. I've heard you must boil with the lid off.  Is this correct or 
can I simply leave the lid on to maintain the boil?

Secondly, I haven't insulated the container yet.  Has anybody else has this problem
and solved it by isulation or should I just increase the element power?

TIA

Marshall
AUSTRALIA

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 08:19:08 -0600 (CST)
From: Frosty <frosty at cstar.ac.com>
Subject: Agar Followup

Fellow Brewers!

I just wanted to thank you for all the agar posts and emails.  I did find
some at my local health food store.  The stuff I found was sold by a
company called NOW.  It is in powder form and seems to be made from some
kind of seaweed.

It cost about $4.95 dollars.

The next step is finding test tubes with lids....

Frosty
frosty at tp.ac.com

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 08:27:24 -0600
From: Steve Potter <spotter at Meriter.com>
Subject: EM and Irish Moss

There have been a lot of comments about the use of the EasyMasher(tm)
and Irish Moss.  Some people claim Irish Moss plugs the EM and other
claim it doesn't.  In order to understand why this might be, I think we need
to know more about the particulars not only of the brewing process, but
more importantly, the specifics of the Irish Moss and how the individual
brewers treat it - is it powder or flake, is it added to the kettle in the last
15 min or is it there for 30, do the brewers presoak it, or add it dry.  It
seems to me that we may find the answer to why some feel IM and EMs
don't mix in the answers to these and similar questions.

***************************************************************************************
Brewing up a lot of trouble in Madison WI.

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 09:38:19 -0500 (EST)
From: "PAUL SHICK (216) 397-4352" <SHICK at JCVAXA.jcu.edu>
Subject: Simplified version of decoction?

Greetings All,

	Several people have written recently about concerns with excessively
long protein rests while decoction mashing.  I tried a simple variation on a
single decoction yesterday, while brewing a "Dutch Pilsener,"  that seems to
address the various problems.  I thought I'd run it by the group to see if
there are any obvious problems that I've missed.

	The idea is just to start with a very thick mash and use a combination
of infusions and decoction to get the malty flavor from a decoction, but to
avoid prolonged rests that might yield too much protein degradation or too dry
a finish in the beer.  I also hoped to follow George Fix's 50-60-70 mashing
regimen, but without spending all day on a double or triple decoction.  (I had
originally planned to use the 40-60-70 program, but the grist of this lager
includes enough adjuncts that I thought the 122F rest was needed.)  Dough in
with just 8 quarts of 132F water for 10 lbs of grain, to hit 122F.  Rest 15
minutes.  At 15 minutes, pull about 1/3 of the thickest part of the mash (with
a strainer) and remove to the decoction pot.  Add 2+ quarts of boiling water to
the decoction to hit the lower end of the saccharification range (anywhere in
the 140F+ area), then apply heat to reach 158F and rest 20 minutes. 
Meanwhile, about 30 minutes after doughing in, add 3+ qts of boiling water to 
the main mash to hit 140F, then rest until the decoction is ready (which should
be about 30 minutes.)  Boil the decoction vigorously for 20 minutes, then add 
it to the main mash to hit 158F.  Rest about 45 minutes (if you're too lazy 
to use iodine tests, like me) or less, then mash out to 168F with direct heat 
or infusion and sparge as usual.

	The whole process was not much more involved than a step infusion mash,
but should have the malty "decoction flavor" I was after.  It avoids the long
protein rest that you often get with decoctions (by infusing the main mash to 
140F after half an hour, rather than waiting for the decoction to finish 
boiling.)  It also avoids a long rest at 140F, that might yield a very dry 
finish from too much beta amylase action.  And, most importantly, it was 
about two hours shorter than the double decoction schedule for the same beer. 
The sparge, by the way, was a typical "decoction sparge": very easy, with 
very clear wort.  Apparently boiling even just a third of the mash seems to 
yield some of the benefits of full scale decoction.

	Please let me know if you see any obvious flaws in this idea, or have
any ideas for improvements.  I'm looking forward to sampling the beer, but
these lagers take so much patience!  


				Paul Shick

Return to table of contents


End of HOMEBREW Digest #2307