---

	FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
		Digest Janitor: janitor@ brew.oeonline.com
		Many thanks to the Observer & Eccentric Newspapers of 
		Livonia, Michigan for sponsoring the Homebrew Digest.
				URL: http://www.oeonline.com


Contents:
  Schnapps/Torani syrups for Priming (TheTHP)
  Assistant Brewer Questions... (Christopher Tkach)
  Skunking, light and temperature... (Pat Babcock)
  Errors - offline please (Steve Alexander)
  Errors (korz)
  dark candi sugar/beer-clean (korz)
  filtering (korz)
  Oxygenation (John Wilkinson)
  RE: Water treatment question ("Rozanski, Phillip V.")
  skunking (korz)
  Experience Counts for Something! (George Dietrich)
  Stuck sparges (korz)
  beer yeast bread (faymi)
  De-skunking (korz)
  Re: Termometer in tank ("Sornborger, Nathan")
  re: What's the preferred breed of dog for homebrewing (Don Anderson)
  Instructions for Phil's Phittings (Dan Vath)
  Credentials and standards (Bruce Baker)
  Cold Break separation using CF wort chiller (Harlan Bauer)
  Re: Hops and other questions (Fredrik St{\aa}hl)
  dry hopping in the bottle ? ("Jeff Beaujon")
  Sparging Equipment (DD)
  Any hope for a local brewpub? (Eugene Sonn)
  Re: Take me off your list !!!!!!!!! (JMBuster)
  pH and Body/HSA/First time (A. J. deLange)
  Re:Stop!!!!! (JMBuster)
  force carbonating soda (Greg Moore - SMCC BOS Hardware Engineering)
  portable co2 solutions for Cornelius Kegs (Scott Reich)


NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS:  brew.oeonline.com 

Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew at brew.oeonline.com
  (Articles are published in the order they are received.)
Send UNSUBSCRIBE and all other requests, ie, address change, etc.,
  to homebrew-request@ brew.oeonline.com BUT PLEASE NOTE that if
  you subscribed via the BITNET listserver (BEER-L at UA1VM.UA.EDU),
  you must unsubscribe by sending a one line e-mail to listserv at ua1vm.ua.edu 
  that says: UNSUB BEER-L

Thanks to Pete Soper, Rob Gardner and all others for making the Homebrew
  Digest what it is. Visit the HBD Hall of Fame at:
			http://brew.oeonline.com/

If your account is being deleted, please be courteous and unsubscribe first.
Please don't send me requests for back issues - you will be silently ignored.
For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to lutzen at alpha.rollanet.org
ARCHIVES:
  An archive of previous issues of this digest, as well as other beer
  related information can be accessed via anonymous ftp at
  ftp.stanford.edu.  Use ftp to log in as anonymous and give your full
  e-mail address as the password, look under the directory
  /pub/clubs/homebrew/beer directory.  AFS users can find it under
  /afs/ir.stanford.edu/ftp/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer.  If you do not have
  ftp capability you may access the files via e-mail using the ftpmail
  service at gatekeeper.dec.com.  For information about this service,
  send an e-mail message to ftpmail at gatekeeper.dec.com with the word
  "help" (without the quotes) in the body of the message.


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


Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 13:09:17 -0500 (EST)
From: TheTHP at aol.com
Subject: Schnapps/Torani syrups for Priming

Dave Burly, Thanks for the reply. I have decided to use the Torani Kiwi syrup
(Pure Cane Sugar) . I pounded the books on Sunday and came up with the
following, Does it sound correct to Anyone? If Y'all could be so kind to let
me know I'd really appreciate it. 

Givens:
Degrees Plato, Brix, Balling all "Roughly" equal the percentage of sugar in a
given solution.
>From Papazians 2nd book I got the ratio of:
1 Tbls= .5 oz and 1 oz = 28.35 grams
130 ml Malt sugar = 70 ml Cane sugar (I'm planning to Keg.)
Therefor 5 Tbls malt should weight 70.625 g
I diluted the 50 ml syrup with 50 ml water and took the SG. =1.111 ! (Temp
Adjusted)  So im figuring on about 54 Degrees Plato for the syrup. So from
all of this I pull the following formula out my *^&*(%^%.

70.625g x (70ml/130ml) x (100g syrup/54g cane sugar)=70.423 g of syrup needed
to prime a 5 gal batch of beer that is to be Kegged.  So how did I do?

The Above mentioned beer was mashed and pitched last Sunday OG of 1.043 and
was racked on Saturday at a FG of 1.008! (First time I've got it below
1.010!) At that time I re hydrated some Inglass (Which I've never used
before-I usually remember to add the Irish moss while boiling :<{ ) in a cup
of water and added that to the still cloudy secondary. After further diluting
the original amount of syrup I quickly concluded that 70.4 g of syrup wasnt
going to give me much of a Kiwi flavor. So I glugged in 200 ml of syrup into
the secondary on Sunday hoping it would ferment the sugar and leave the
flavor. 
Question: what effect is the new sugar going to have on the 1 day old
Iningslass which had already started to amass white globby things floating in
the secondary. Is that normal behavior for iningslass?? The curious "green"
brewer at the Poison Frog Home Brewery would like to know...

Phil Wilcox



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 13:11:12 -0500 (EST)
From: Christopher Tkach <tkach at tiac.net>
Subject: Assistant Brewer Questions...

Hi all-

I was wondering if anybody could help me.

I've been recently thinking about a career change, and moving
over into the world of professional brewing, I assume that I
would need to start out as an assistant brewer (as everyone
has to put in their time), so if someone would be kind enough,
who is in the business, to answer a few questions, I would
really appreciate it.  The questions are below;



1) I'm sure that I'm not going to get rich brewing beer, but
what sort of salary/pay are we talking about here (for an 
assistant brewer).

2) What sort of professional training is necessary/recommended
to start a career as a brewer? Or is it just as easy to go in
on an apprenticeship type of role.

3) How easy is it to find a job in this field, and where would
on look? I know that microbreweries and brewpubs are popping up
left and right, but do they readily need brewers, or are the
brewers the ones starting the business.

Private email is fine...I'll summarize and post the results if
there is enough interest.

Thanks,
 - Chris


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 13:16:40 -0500 (EST)
From: Pat Babcock <pbabcock at mail.oeonline.com>
Subject: Skunking, light and temperature...

Greetings, Beerlings! Take me to your lager...

As much as I hate to get between Dave and Al, I have an anectdote to 
share regarding this subject. 

One day during the summer of '94, Rich Byrnes came over in order to brew 
a recipe - an Orval clone for which Al refused to share the recipe a 
couple of years back. Anyway, Rich brought a six of Spam Adams Scoth Ale 
which had but recently burst upon the scene! During the mash, we popped 
inside for some glasses and poured ourselves each a glass. First sip was 
pretty good! I set mine down on the porch rail in direct sunlight whilst 
drawing a sample from the mash to check its pH. About 20 seconds later, I 
went for another sip. Skunk city. And I have a witness. Rich was 
incredulous, so he had to smell it for itself. A few moments in the 
shade, and the skukiness seemed to reduce, but this was likely from the 
aroma being scrubbed out by the CO2 evolving whilst little more was 
produced rather than by some mechanism having to do with cooling it down.

Now, in defense of Al's assertion or suggestion that chilling the beer to 
50'F and aging it will reverse the skunkiness - I have heard similar, 
though without a temperature quotation. I believe it was in one of 
Miller's books, but cannot be sure...

See ya!

Pat Babcock                 | "Beer is my obsession, and I'm late for
President, Brew-Master      |  therapy..." -PGB
and Chief Taste-Tester      | "Let a good beer be the exclamation point
Drinkur Purdee pico Brewery |  at the end of your day as every sentence
pbabcock at oeonline.com       |  requires proper punctuation." -PGB
Webmaster of the Home Brew Page http://oeonline.com/~pbabcock/brew.html
                 Home of the Home Brew Flea Market


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 13:27:51 -0500
From: Steve Alexander <stevea at clv.mcd.mot.com>
Subject: Errors - offline please


Bill Giffin writes ...

>I just wonder for what purpose.  *LISTING* the errors in their books 
>page by page is that going to improve homebrewing?  I don't think so. 

I do.  I for one have spent many hours puzzling over and trying to get
verification on various points that are in doubt.  Having easy access
not only to outright errors, but to controvertable points and expanded
information on poorly stated points would save a lot of time and
trouble *AND* improve the state of HB knowledge.  Some of the books
contain unclear or incorrect information on water treatment,
temperature dependences of reactions, carbon bonding structure of some
of the molecular diagram.  If you plan on USING this information
instead of just absorbing it for background knowledge then it is
critically important for improving HB quality.

> I have a great deal of respect for Fix, Miller and Noonan, they all 
Me too. But their books, just like any others, may contain errors.

>Instead of nitpicking you should praise the effort of those who are 
>honestly trying to help improve homebrewing.

Why can't we praise these authors' efforts AND point out corrections
and doubts ?  This is the same treatment any HBD posting gets - isn't
it ?  Several HBD posters are HB article and book authors.  Why should
such books get any less scrutiny or critical review than an HBD
posting ?  There isn't much point in having a brain after all, if you
aren't going to question things.

- ---

>Or aren't you a big enough person to do that?
Ad hominem attack - bad form Bill.  

>P.S.  If you want to bash me please don't waste any more bandwidth 
>and do it in private.
 ... but ...
>>>Al K sent this to me in a private email:

Hmmm, suggesting an offline discussion while posting a private email
doesn't indicate much sincerity in the offer.  I hope you two can
settle this ... OFFLINE please!!!

Steve Alexander

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 12:36:36 -0600 (CST)
From: korz at xnet.com
Subject: Errors

Bill writes:
>>>Al K sent this to me in a private email:

"Private" means "private."  I'd like to point out that Bill clearly
posted this to try to discredit me.  Why?  Because after wasting
several hours of my time *privately* arguing with him about the bitterness
of MgSO4 and the effects of sulphate on perceived bitterness, he began
to get beligerent, so I told him that I had no more time to waste on
him and was going to delete his emails to me without reading them.

Clearly Bill was upset enough by this to have to resort to the
childish and rude practice of posting private email.  Bill is just
throwing a little tantrum and quoting me out-of-context because his
playmate took his toys and went home.  I stand by what I wrote in
the context of writing it.

>I just wonder for what purpose.  *LISTING* the errors in their books 
>page by page is that going to improve homebrewing?  I don't think so. 
> I have a great deal of respect for Fix, Miller and Noonan, they all 
>have improved the quality of homebrewing in the U.S. so that now this 
>country has the best homebrewers in the world.  
 
Fix, Noonan, and Miller are great brewers and George is a very
highly-respected brewing consultant.  His book does, however, have a
few errors in it.  Just because they are great brewers doesn't mean
that their books are going to be error-free nor does it mean that
someone who has done quite a bit of reading of professional brewing
texts and technical journals can't disagree with them.  The fact is,
that Noonan's and Miller's and Papazian's books are littered with
errors that *must* *not* be ignored.  Not until the accessability of
the World Wide Web has identifying these errors become practical.
My intent is to *correct* the errors *with* references.  This most
certainly *will* improve homebrewing, far more than your childish,
narrow-minded, public flaming does.

Al.

Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korz at xnet.com


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 11:29:55 -0600 (CST)
From: korz at xnet.com
Subject: dark candi sugar/beer-clean

Spencer writes:
>The obvious solution is to pour it out onto a greased marble slab.
>Greased aluminum foil will do in a pinch.  But don't set the foil
>directly on your "Formica(tm)" countertop, unless you want to scorch
>it.  Melted sugar is very hot.
> 
>You could try doing without the grease, but then separating it from
>the pouring surface becomes difficult.  

I would advise against that.  The grease/butter/PAM/whatever, will
kill your head retention.  I was also skeptical of wax paper too, so
I did an experiment this weekend:  I took a beer-clean glass and
rubbed wax paper on *one* side of the inside.  Then I went over to
the corny and poured myself a pint.  The head on the non-waxed side
was tight and stiff like whipped cream whereas on the waxed side
the bubbles were big and the head was collapsing. When I finished
filling the glass, the head on the glass was crecent-shaped, with
the open end pointing to the waxed area.

So, I started thinking of how to cool molten sugar in a way that
would not require qrease and came up with one suggestion: a beer-
clean disposable aluminum pie pan.  My favorite cleaner for getting
things beer-clean is washing soda (sodium carbonate) -- no soaking,
just a little washing soda, hot water, and a paper towel (all our
kitchen sponges invariably have diswashing soap (the sudsy stuff)
on them).  I don't think foil is a good idea because it will
probably rip when you try to remove the sugar from the foil and
then you have to fight to remove the little scraps of foil off
the rock candy.  Speaking of which, you can probably use string, no?

Al.

Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korz at xnet.com


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 12:07:32 -0600 (CST)
From: korz at xnet.com
Subject: filtering

Chas writes:
>Al again suggests that a 0.5 micron filter will strip the beer of flavor.  
>While I haven't yet done any extensive testing, I hope to have some anecdotal 
>evidence by June.  I can say now that the beers that I have filtered have not 
>suffered from any of the problems you descibe, even when compared to beers 
>that were unfilted and bottled from the same batch.  Again its too early to 
>tell, but my preliminary results are that filtering, even at the 0.5 micron 
>rating, does no apparent harm.

I did initially write 0.5 micron filtering would strib the beer of mouthfeel
(not flavour -- I never would write that), but I changed it to "tight
filtering" because I wasn't sure offhand if 0.5 microns was small enough.
Earlier in my post I did compare 5 micron to 0.5 micron filtering (saying
there's a big difference), so I can see where you might think that I was
equating 0.5 micron filtering to "tight" filtering.  I'm not sure if 0.5
micron is tight enough.

I would like to point out several other factors that are important:

1. pressure -- if you use a high pressure, you will force more particles
through the filter than if you used a lower pressure,

2. capacity -- if you are using a filter close to it's capacity, you
will filter out more than if you use only a fraction of the filter's
capacity -- the filtered-out material sticks to the filter material
and becomes part of the filtration... i.e. the second 7 bbl will not
only have to pass through the filter media, but also through the mass
of collected yeast and protein from the first 7 bbl.

3. efficiency -- various filters are rated to various efficiencies...
a low efficiency filter will let through a lot of stuff that is smaller
than the rated pore size.

Just a few things to ponder.  Note that while I have quite a bit of
experience in other areas of brewing, but I must admit that my knowledge
about filtering is 95% from books and discussions with industry experts.
I have remedying this deficiency on my list of things to do: I've
purchased several different filters and plan to do a lot of experimentation
in the near future.

Al.

Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korz at xnet.com


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 17 Feb 97 13:17:12 CST
From: jwilkins at imtn.tpd.dsccc.com (John Wilkinson)
Subject: Oxygenation

I bought an oxygenation kit by Gulfstream Brewing from a local homebrew
shop and tried it this weekend.  The directions called for a 15 second burst
of oxygen in 5 gallons of wort followed by another after 20 minutes.  The
flow rate was to be at just the point that bubbles emanated from the SS stone.
If air is 20 percent O2 why would not 75 seconds from an aquarium pump be
equivalent to this 15 seconds of O2?  I seem to recall that considerably
more time than that was needed with an aquarium pump.  The SS aeration
stone with the kit appears to be considerably finer than I have used with
an aquarium pump so that could make a difference.  Also, I have not tried
using the SS stone with my aquarium pump.  Perhaps it would not even have the
pressure necessary to bubble through the SS stone.  However, given the same
stone, wouldn't 75 seconds of air be equivalent to 15 seconds of O2?

By the way, I decanted the liquid from a 48 oz. starter, added about 2 qts.
of chilled new wort, and oxygenated.  After I collected the rest of the chilled
wort to a carboy through an aeration tube, I added the starter and oxygenated
the 5 gallons as per instructions (2 15 second shots separated by 20 minutes).
Twelve hours later I saw no activity and oxygenated again.  This oxygenation
may have been for less than 15 seconds as I could not see any bubbles due to
the dark stout wort and opened the valve a bit too much, blowing the stone off
into my wort.  Activity became apparent 4 or 5 hours later and there was a
thick head about 20 hours after pitching.  This was a little longer lag than
I expected.  Was I expecting too much?


John Wilkinson - Grapevine, Texas - jwilkins at imtn.dsccc.com

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 12:57 -0600
From: "Rozanski, Phillip V." <pvrozanski at mke1.ra.rockwell.com>
Subject: RE: Water treatment question

According to The Home Brewers Companion one gram of salt in one gallon of   
water:

MgSO4--26ppm Mg & 103ppm SO4 <--Epsom Salt

CaSO4--62ppm Ca & 148ppm SO4 <--Gypsum

CaCl2--72ppm Ca & 127ppm Cl <--Calcium Chloride

NaHCO3--??ppm Na & ??ppm HCO3 <--I'm not sure what this is.

NaCl--104ppm Na & 160ppm Cl <--Table Salt

CaCO3--106ppm Ca & 159ppmCO3 <--Chalk

Hope this helps out.

Phil  

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 13:28:23 -0600 (CST)
From: korz at xnet.com
Subject: skunking

Dave writes:
>I am skeptical, even
>though I have read it, that a few minutes exposure of beer to  bright sunlight
>can produce skunkiness. It is especially hard to believe since it is through
>soft glass which is not a good transmitter of ultraviolet in most cases. I'd
>like to see some actual photochemical data combined with threshold
>sensitivities. Wavelengths, quantum efficiencies, absorbances, concentrations,
>etc. Perhaps we could learn more if we had a convenient standard to compare
>against.

It need not be ultraviolet light to turn the isohumulone into prenyl
mercaptan.  I thought said you read the article in Zymurgy... I'm certain
that non-radiative energy transfer was at least mentioned in there, no?
Pierre Jelenc explained it to me years ago: light of green to blue passes
through the glass (note: *green* glass bottles) and its energy is transfered
to the isohumulone via the process of non-radiative energy transfer.  It
is believed that riboflavin is the primary sensitizer (the absorber of the
light) in beer.  I'm curious as to where you read that the hop variety
is a factor.  I have noticed no difference in my experience, so I'm
wondering where you got that info.  Since brown glass blocks light better
in the green-to-blue range than green or clear glass, it does a better
job of protecting the beer, but not a *perfect* job of protecting the
beer.

Al.

Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korz at xnet.com


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 13:34:43 -0600 (CST)
From: George Dietrich <gad at flash.net>
Subject: Experience Counts for Something!

In Digest #2350 David writes:
>Also, I was very surprized to see that AlK wrote:

>Buy them, take them home, chill
>both for only a few hours (a few days at 50F actually seems to reverse
>the reaction) and compare their aromas.

>Your paranthetical comment surprized me. I have never heard that prenyl
>mercaptan disappears at 50F.  Do you have documented information on this?

David, are you blind to the meaning of the word *seems*?  Al wasn't saying
that it is proven, it is written in stone, it happens all the time or it
even happens most of the time.  To me this reads as Al has experienced this
phenonmenon in the past and has seen it often enough to feel confident in
his statement.  An experience is worth relating without having to produce
documented information to make it worth considering.

If someone comes forward and says that a particular event occurs and will
always occur without exception then I would expect to see some documentation
in the form of an experiment, history or whatever.  But all we had here was
an observation.

It's an interesting observation and may not have any hard
documentation...and does not need it.

Al, correct me if I'm off base here.
George
gad at flash.net


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 13:46:23 -0600 (CST)
From: korz at xnet.com
Subject: Stuck sparges

Darrin writes:
>Two of my first three all grain batches resulted in stuck sparges (The
>first one did yield the best dry stout ever made on this planet though).
>I'm using the 5 gal. Gott and EasyMasher. Nothing unusual in the mash,
>8-10 lb grain in 1-1.5 qts./lb water. The only thing I can think of to
>explain this that maybe the Malt Mill I use at the brewshop is set to
>crush too fine and I'm getting clogged up with 'flour'. Could this
>happen?

Indeed, I believe that the most common cause of set mashes (stuck sparges)
is overcrushing the grain... not *flour*, but rather *pulverised husks*.
Flour will convert to sugars (unless it is balled...).
 
>What about grain bed compaction? I can't see into the bottom of my
>cooler, so I don't know if the grain is floating or not. With this
>thought in the back of my mind, I'm reading through the 1985 Zymurgy
>special grain issue. On pg. 45 Al Andrews is discussing mashing systems
>and illustrates a strange (to me) drain on his lauter tun. The drain
>tube exits the bottom of the tun and goes upward to a tee fitting. From
>there one tube goes to the boil pot and the other continues upward. He
>says "By having the exiting wort flow up and over the tee fitting, it
>effectively reduces the pressure to the difference between the top of
>the grain bed and the tee."
>
>What? Really? Anyone here effectively using this design? What about the
>tube that goes up, what happens to it? Is it left 'open' or sealed at
>it's end? If I utilize limited or no sparge, would I have to slowly
>lower the tee as I when along?

The way this works is that the tee allows the siphon to break if the
suction is too high.  This setup is used in some commercial breweries,
but I personally feel that with a good crush and patience, you should
not need a siphon-breaker to prevent grain bed compaction.  If the
siphon-breaker actually "kicks in" and breaks the flow, you suck a
bunch of air into your hot wort -- *not* a good idea.  I recommend
you try decreasing the fine-ness of the crush, slowing the runnings,
and see if that doesn't help.

Al.

Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korz at xnet.com


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 15:35:01 EST
From: faymi at earlham.edu
Subject: beer yeast bread

Ive only done it once, but my bread came out well. I did not make a 
"sponge" or feed the yeast with malt or sugar. I just scraped out my primary
(after collecting most of it for washing) and added flour and water kneaded 
and let it rise.  I had what seemed like a fairly large volume of yeast for
a loaf of bread.  It took a typical length of time to rise.  It acted
a lot like normal baking yeast.  The only major difference was that the
bread had a distinct-but not unpleasant-bitterness to it.  I assumed it
was from hops, but then also seemed to remember that excessive amounts of 
yeast could cause betterness.  Well anyway it was easy and effective so
I'll probably do it again soon.
Michael

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 14:50:36 -0600 (CST)
From: korz at xnet.com
Subject: De-skunking

Dave writes (quoting me):
>>Buy them, take them home, chill
>>both for only a few hours (a few days at 50F actually seems to reverse
>>the reaction) and compare their aromas.
> 
>Your paranthetical comment surprized me. I have never heard that prenyl
>mercaptan disappears at 50F.  Do you have documented information on this? Does
>this means we can warm our skunked beers to 50F for a few days and the skunking
>will go away?  Does beer at 50F and above get skunked?  If we buy Heineken or
>PU and hold it at 50F does it get better?

I read about it in HBD, perhaps 1987 or 1988, I think.  I tested it with
a sixpack of heavily skunked Newcastle Brown Ale (note, *clear* bottles).
I have posted this three or four times over the last 6 years on HBD, so
it has been at least *seen* by my peers if not *reviewed* by them.

All I did was take one bottle out of a sixpack immedately upon returning
from the store where this sixpack of NBA was sitting inches from a
fluorescent light.  It was *extremely* skunky.  I put the rest of this
sixpack in the beer fridge, which is at 50F (Hunter Airstat Thermostat).
A week later, I tried several more and there was virtually no skunky
aroma.

Try it yourself!

As for if the beer was actually refridgerated at 50F, would it prevent
skunking in the stores, the initial HBD post I read said that the beer
needed to be kept in the dark at 50F.  I don't know the chemistry of
prenyl mercaptan creation or breakdown, but would welcome an explanation
from our resident chemists.

Al.

Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korz at xnet.com


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 16:11:50 -0500
From: "Sornborger, Nathan" <nsornborger at email.mc.ti.com>
Subject: Re: Termometer in tank

Paul Van Slyke asked:

Paul>Having just attained my goal of a stainless primary fermentation
tank
Paul>complete with 1/2" bottom drain and ball valve (e-mail me if you
want a
Paul>description of where I came up with this), I would like now to
drill a hole
Paul>in the side for a thermometer.

Paul>What I need to know is what to use for a thermometer, what size
hole, Paul>and how to keep the soon-to-be beer from leaking out.

I would recommend a thermocouple and digital thermometer combination.
This works well for lots of things. You get one digital thermometer and
as many thermocouples as you may need. For the fermenter, you get a 1/4"
dia cylindrical thermocouple and a compression/npt fitting. Drill & tap
the fermenter to match the npt fitting, and using teflon tape thread it
in and tighten it up. Then run the thermocouple through the compression
fitting and tighten it up. This will be very watertight.
	The thermocouple will have a plug on the end so the rest of the device
isn't dedicated. To get the temp just plug in the digital thermometer
and get a reading. I have other probes I use for mashing and assorted
other non-brewing things. Should you need more specific directions (like
who makes this stuff, where to get it and how much it cost me) please
e-mail me because I don't want to post anything that looks like an ad.

Nate Sornborger

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 16:35:38 -0800
From: Don Anderson <donald.a at ix.netcom.com>
Subject: re: What's the preferred breed of dog for homebrewing

>Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 07:40:52 -0800
>From: Rex Clingan <kdash1 at idt.net>
>Subject: What's the preferred breed of dog for homebrewing

>a goldings retreiver


My favorite is the LaBEERdor Retriever.  Heres why...

 When my black Lab was about a year old we were out on our nightly walk
down the creek behind my house when she stopped running around in the
water as labs *love* to do and started to sniff inside a gopher hole on
the sandy bank of the creek. She began to dig a little and then sniff
some more which was followed by a more rapid digging and yet a third
sniff of the gopher hole. Now my dog was at a fever pitch of digging and
I heard a metallic "clink" about every second or third stroke of her
paws and I thought...metal gopher?!?. After 30 sec. of this digging
frenzy she stuck her head in the hole she had dug, grabbed on to
something and pulled it out. Low and behold the "metal gopher" was a
full, intact, Mickey's big mouth beer. Now I haven't had a Mickeys since
my swill drinking days of high school but my pooch and I sat of the bank
of the creek and split her first kill as a LaBEERdor Retiever...


A true story, I kid you not.. -Don

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 21:04:47 -0500
From: Dan Vath <drvath at up.net>
Subject: Instructions for Phil's Phittings

  I've lost my instructions for these fittings.

  If any kind soul out there could send me the text, or could help in any
other way, it would be greatly appreciated.

  Private e-mail, please.

Dan Vath
drvath at up.net

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 15:07:45 +1300
From: Bruce Baker <Bruce.E.Baker at tsy.treasury.govt.nz>
Subject: Credentials and standards

Here's a question I forgot to ask in my last post:

A lot of us can probably imagine ourselves as proprietors of micro-breweries or 
brew-pubs.  What kind of credentials are necessary (if any) to be a brew-master 
of such an establishment, and what kind of legal standards are there (if any) 
with regard to the beer served?  I'm thinking of US Federal and state law.  
Some states regulate maximum alcohol content in beers.  Are there other 
regulations?  

Cheers,
Bruce

So many beers, so little time.  



Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 01:51:00 -0600
From: blacksab at midwest.net (Harlan Bauer)
Subject: Cold Break separation using CF wort chiller

Nathan asks:

>Two things.  Does anyone out there that uses a counterflow chiller have a
>system for removing break material from the fermentor?  

Yes, but it may seem a bit unorthodox. 

1. Chill the cast out wort to ~45-50*F and transfer directly to a CO2-purged
carboy, careful not to admit any air.

2. Cover, and allow to sit overnight to settle trub and to reach pitching
temperature.

3. In morning, siphon wort off trub into primary fermenter, aerating well.

4. Pitch yeast prepared the previous night.

One advantage of doing it this way is it permits the addition of a huge
starter that is already acclimated to the particular wort you've just made.
Before you fill the CO2-purged carboy, reserve approxamately 0.5-0.75-gallon
of wort in a 1-gal jug. Into that, pour the contents of a 1-qt starter,
preferably in full kraeusen. By morning, the new starter will be crawling
out of the jug, and you will notice visible activity in the fermenter within
4-6 hours.

>Second, can anyone describe what sort of "off flavors" end up in the final
>product if the break is not adequately removed?

This I can't answer, but I'd like to ask the corollary: What are the
dangers, if any, to removing ALL the cold break? I don't have any hard data,
but with Wyeast 1968, I seem to be getting more active ferments WITH the
cold break.

TTYL,
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


Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 12:54:45 +0100
From: fredriks at abel.math.umu.se (Fredrik St{\aa}hl)
Subject: Re: Hops and other questions

Bruce Baker writes:

>I've got a few questions that I hope you can help me with:
>
>1.  Is there a definitive table of hop characteristics out there somewhere,
>describing  aroma, bitterness, alpha analysis?  My earlier question on
>whether hop varieties were radically different or subtly different
>received two
>replies, one for radical and one for subtle.

Go to the Brewery, <http://alpha.rollanet.org/>, and check out the Hops FAQ
at <http://alpha.rollanet.org/library/yeast-faq.html>. The FAQ has, among
other things, profiles on a lot of varieties, and some very useful
suggestions of substitutes. There's a lot of excellent info on this site. I
use it regularly.

If you have problem connecting via WWW, I can mail you a copy.

Well, regarding how hop varities differ, I guess the answer is: it depends.
There are some that are very different and some which are pretty close.

>2.  Do US brewers use a US gallon for a "5 gallon batch" or are they talking
>in Imperial gallons.  Similarly, are Dave Millers gallons US or Imperial.
>Something I learned only recently is that an Imperial pint is 20 ounces.

US. The only references I've seen that use Imperial gallons are the British
ones (of course), like Camra publications or recipes from UK-HBD.

>3.  I tasted my most recent batch of Pils against three Czech varieties.
>Mine was hoppier, had a finer head, and was quite pale.  The Czech beers were
>a nice dark gold, but were also a bit skunky -- even the ones in brown bottles.
>  They also seemed to have more body.  From what I've read about lack of body,
> it results from sparge water with too high Ph or temperature.  Since I've
>only
>recently learned about Ph, I can only presume that my Ph was too high.  But
>how can that reduce body?  If I've got extra tannins, shouldn't there be too
>much body?  How can addition lead to subtraction?

I don't know if pH can affect colour or body. My guess would be that it's
the mash program that differs. Pilsner Urquell for example uses a very
extensive decoction program (>6 hours ?) with a long acid rest etc. If you
don't use a decoction mash I think that would be a good idea (but not as
extensive as PU's) to get a more golden colour and a fuller mouthfeel.

Since you get a fine head I don't think you have to few proteins, which
also are important for mouthfeel. Maybe you could try mashing at a slightly
higher temperature to get more dextrins.

/Fredrik

- --------------------------------------------------------------
Fredrik St{\aa}hl          Tel: int + 46 90 166027
Math. Dept.                Fax: int + 46 90 165222
University of Ume{\aa}     E-mail: fredriks at abel.math.umu.se
S-90187 Ume{\aa}, SWEDEN   WWW: http://abel.math.umu.se/~fredriks

                   On tap: Uncle Spam Pale Ale
         *** Nemo saltat sobrius, nisi forte insanit ***
- --------------------------------------------------------------



Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 07:51:55 +0000
From: "Jeff Beaujon" <jmb at mailhost.bellhow.com>
Subject: dry hopping in the bottle ?

Has anyone ever tried dry hopping in the bottle ?  I just
bottled a batch of American Brown Ale and got to wondering 
what effect putting a couple hop pellets (they were some left-over
Northern brewer) into the bottle would have.  I tried this 
with three bottles but have to wait a few weeks until they're
ready.  If anyone has tried this can you answer the following:
Will it add to the hop aroma/flavor ?  Will the three bottles get a 
nasty infection ?  Will it have any effect other than to cause
me to have little green things floating in my glass ?

Thanks.
Jeff Beaujon.

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 06:53:28 -0600
From: DD <dunn at tilc.com>
Subject: Sparging Equipment

- --MimeMultipartBoundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

After a couple of years of extract and partial mash brewing I am taking
the plunge into all grain.  I have a 10 gallon stainless steel brew
kettle with false bottom & thermometer setup (Polar Ware) and was
wondering what would be the best way to move the sparge water over the
grain bed?  I've read a lot on the subject but most descriptions of the
process are dealing with other setups such as plastic buckets and
coolers.  Would one of those rotating arms be the way to go?  or
building a copper ring to be suspended above the grain bed? wd
- --MimeMultipartBoundary--

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 08:07:43 -0500 (EST)
From: Eugene Sonn <eugene at dreamscape.com>
Subject: Any hope for a local brewpub?

HBD Braintrust,
	A brewpub opened in my town last summer and they're finally
offering their own brews (they served commercial brews for its first 6
months).  I've found one of the three beers to be ok (a brown ale).  Their
porter is decent, but not great and the pale ale is bad.  Is there any
reason to believe this place will be able to improve its brews?  To those
of you who've watched brewpubs grow up, do they improve with age?  I'm an
extract and specialty grain brewer so I can't exactly give them any tips
on all-grain brewing.  I would like to support a brewpub (the only one in
a 45 minute drive from here) but don't know if I can expect any better
results.

Hoping for better beer,
Eugene
eugene at nova.dreamscape.com


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 08:13:33 -0500 (EST)
From: JMBuster at aol.com
Subject: Re: Take me off your list !!!!!!!!!

Please take me off your list.

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 13:37:43 -0500
From: ajdel at mindspring.com (A. J. deLange)
Subject: pH and Body/HSA/First time

Bruce Baker asked:
>From what I've read about lack of body,
>it results from sparge water with too high Ph or temperature.  Since I've only
>recently learned about Ph, I can only presume that my Ph was too high.  But
>how can that reduce body?  If I've got extra tannins, shouldn't there be too
>much body?  How can addition lead to subtraction?

You're confusing a couple of effects. High pH and hight sparge water
temperature contribute to the leaching of tannins and silicates from the
husks of the grain in the lauter tun. While this additional stuff in the
beer will increase the SG it will only do so by a tiny bit. More important
is that the tannins will make the beer astringent.

pH does have a potential effect on body. The enzymes which degrade proteins
and sugars each perform at rates which depend on temperature and pH.
Operate outside the temperature/pH range for a given enzyme and it will do
its job slowly if at all. Mouthfeel/body is due to the presence of proteins
and unfermentable sugars within certain ranges of molecular weight. Some
say that not much protein digestion takes place in the mash tun but no one
would disagree that conversion of starch to sugar does. Generally speaking,
low conversion temperatures (below 65C) result in the production of small
sugars which ferement completely. The beer is alcoholic but thin as none of
the longer sugars (dextrines) are there to lend body. Conversely at higher
conversion temperatures more dextrines are formed at the expense of
maltose, the beer is less alcoholic but thicker. If the pH is too high
conversion takes a long time and/or does not complete before the enzymes
are deactivated by temperature with the result that some starch does not
convert. Under these conditions the wort is of low gravity and, unless it
is concentrated by boiling, will produce a weak and watery beer.

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

Graham Stone asked about the flavor effects of HSA. The theory is that HSA
leads to oxidation of melanoidins and that the oxidized melanoidins are
themselves oxidizing agents capable of oxidizing alcohols into aldehydes.
Thus the associated flavors are the traditional aldehyde staling ones of
wet cardboard, sherry etc. Bear in mind that many of these redox reactions
are quite slow so that the ale you are going to have drunk up in a month is
much less likely to suffer from HSA than the Bock you plan to lager for
over a year.

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

John Hessling wonders where he goofed in his first brew: an all-grain
recipe! Well, John, I'd say yoy didn't fare too badly. If you decided to
start learning the piano with the Goldberg Variations you shouldn't be too
surprised if that knock on your door is a representative of the homeowners
association rather than a guy from a record company. The vegetable taste
could indeed be due to DMS formation in the long cooling process or it
could be due to contamination. The cloudiness could be due to poor starch
conversion from a poor crush or incomplete doughing in or insufficient
lautering prior to sparge. There are about a million little details here
that you are just going to have to pick up as you learn. Get a good book,
like Brewing Lager Beer. You'll see that you had better luck than Greg
Noonan when he started out as you did. Read HBD and most of all brew as
often as you can. The usual advice would be to start with extract brewing
so that you have wort handling, hopping, sanitation, chilling, aeration,
fermentation and bottling under your belt before adding the complications
of mashing. As you are learning resist the temptation to brew a stout this
session and a wheat beer the next. Get a workable ale recipe and stick with
it, varying one parameter at a time, until you get a reasonable beer and
repeatable results.
When you are not brewing read, visit breweries and ask questions, join a
brewing club.

As to the result of your first effort not being that hot: one of the
biggest lies homebrewers tell themselves (and each other) is that all
homebrew is better than commercial beer. It ain't so. It will take some
time and experience before you can surpass the commercial guys but your
patience and dilligence will be rewarded. Nevertheless you will still
occasionally brew a beer that even Walt won't drink (nobody here knows Walt
so I can say that).

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



Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 08:35:17 -0500 (EST)
From: JMBuster at aol.com
Subject: Re:Stop!!!!!

Stop!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 08:36:55 -0500
From: gmoore at wacko.East.Sun.COM (Greg Moore - SMCC BOS Hardware Engineering)
Subject: force carbonating soda


Just a quick question about making soda:

I'm force carbonating two batches of soda.  The first batch, a cream
soda, doesn't want to hold it's carbonation.  I then made
a batch of root beer, and it seemed to carbonate
with no problems.

Cream - 2 gallon batch, used 4 cups table sugar and 2 oz
maltodextrin, half bottle extract


root beer - 4 gallon batch, used 6 cups table sugar, 2 cups
corn sugar, 2 oz maltodextrin (all I had left)

Can the corn sugar affect carbonation?  Does the concentration
of maltodextrin affect CO2 suspension?

TIA

 -=G
gmoore at wacko.east.sun.com

             \\|// 
             (o o)
=========oOO==(_)==OOo===========   Please sir, may I have some more?
               





Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 07:59:22 -0700
From: Scott Reich <ScottR at idaw.com>
Subject: portable co2 solutions for Cornelius Kegs

I have been brewing for the past 3.5 years now.  The last 2.5 I have
spent kegging.  The bottling excitement wore off after a year.  However
the one thing that was nice about the bottling was the portability to
parties, friends homes etc..  I am currently looking at purchasing some
3 gallon Corny kegs for easier portability and was wondering what was
available in the line of compact C02 setups.  I don't want to haul
around tanks and gauges.  I have sworn I have seen small refillable CO2
tanks similar to those used with paintball guns attached to corny kegs
in some advertisement but cannot seem to find any information.  Would be
interested in any solutions you may have.

Thanks.

Scott Reich
sreich at nxtrend.com

Return to table of contents