---

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


Contents:
  Re: Peristaltic Pump for RIMS & stuck RIMS ("C.D. Pritchard")
  Logsheets on BREWERY ("Ian Wilson")
  Mini Fridge ("Ian Wilson")
  Our Special Ale (Mark Tumarkin)
  RIMS Problem - Help! (Darrell)
  for that hard, cold thirst, the beer is VIC! (Andy Walsh)
  Pride of Ringwood anyone (Jon Bovard)
  Belgian Petrus Recipe ("Mike Boenisch")
  Possible uses for Wyeast #1084 (Michael Dransfield)
  RE: Fruit beer sweetness (Christopher Tkach)
  Ferulic acid rest / 122 rest and adjuncts data point (George De Piro)
  Re: Mash Efficiency (Spencer W Thomas)
  Re: Where to get Unibroue (Spencer W Thomas)
  Bride Ale (Spencer W Thomas)
  unsubscribe (Abel Rodarte)
  re:body and mid-low 150F for mashing (Charley Burns)
  Re: peristaltic pumps ("Bret Morrow")
  No-Sparge Gravity Prediction Comment Reply / Gott Mash Tun (KennyEddy)
  Wood Alcohol, Beer Linquistics, still need a reply... (Mark Witherspoon)
  Anchor "Our Special Ale" recipe ("Brian M. Rezac")
  Problems w/ SABCO false bottoms, Easy masher, and 122 (Art Beall)
  (Finally!) Pete's Wicked Ale (?) Recipe (TheTHP)


NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS:  hbd.org 

Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew at hbd.org
  (Articles are published in the order they are received.) 

If your e-mail account is being deleted, please unsubscribe first!!

To SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE send an e-mail message with the word
  "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to homebrew-request@hbd.org. 
**SUBSCRIBE AND UNSUBSCRIBE REQUESTS MUST BE SENT FROM THE E-MAIL
**ACCOUNT YOU WISH TO HAVE SUBSCRIBED OR UNSUBSCRIBED!!! 
IF YOU HAVE SPAM-PROOFED your e-mail address, the autoresponder and
  the SUBSCRIBE/UNSUBSCRIBE commands will fail!

For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to brewery at realbeer.com

Homebrew Digest Information on the Web: http://hbd.org

Requests for back issues will be ignored. Back issues are available via:

  Anonymous ftp from...
	hbd.org	/pub/hbd	
	ftp.stanford.edu	/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer
  E-mail...
        ftpmail at gatekeeper.dec.com (send a one-line e-mail message with 
                                   the word help for instructions.)
  AFS users can find it under...
        /afs/ir.stanford.edu/ftp/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer

JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)


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


Date: Mon, 01 Sep 1997 13:46:00 +0700
From: "C.D. Pritchard" <cdp at mail.chattanooga.net>
Subject: Re: Peristaltic Pump for RIMS & stuck RIMS

Someone posted a question about using a peristaltic pump in a RIMS.
In theory, peristaltic pumps sound like a good idea, but the 1 liter/min.
max. flow quoted won't be enough if used with a typical Morris style
electric heating element in pipe type heater.  To get a decent temp. boost
rate between rests, you'll likely have to operate the heater full-tilt.
Combined with the low flow, I'd be will to bet the wort will scorch on the
heating element.  Might also noticably denaturing the enzymes.   

Alternative heating methods like Rick Calley's heat exchanger in the HLT or
maybe steam injection into the mash tun might be workable with the low flow.

- -----------------------------------------
Hans Geittmann reported a horribly stuck RIMS mash.  I've only had one mash
stuck so tight that simply stopping the pump and restarting it at a slow
speed didn't work and it was unstuck by stirring the grain bed.  Hans' stuck
so bad this didn't even work.  I agree with Keith- recirculating while
mashing-in is likely the basic cause of the problem, but for a bit different
reason:  say you've got the flow really cranking (since there's only water
in the tun) and proceed to add the grain.  I don't know about others, but I
sometimes stay too focused on the task at hand and might not notice that the
recirc flow's greatly decreased as the grain plugs the openings in the false
bottom.  Sounds doable at least for me <g>.  Maybe a good reason for me
(like Keith) not to recirculate while mashing-in.

One thing that I've found to be invaluable in helping to avoid stuck mashes
in a RIMS is a sight gauge attached to the tun just above the false bottom.
This allows one to see how much the pump is "sucking" on the grain bed.  

c.d. pritchard   cdp at mail.chattanooga.net 
http://caladan.chattanooga.net/~cdp/index.html


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 11:10:11 -0700
From: "Ian Wilson" <ianw at sosinet.net>
Subject: Logsheets on BREWERY

Has anyone successfully opened the brewer's log sheets on the Brewery Site?
I haven't been able to find any way of getting the things opened. The
following is a list of the two sheets in question:

A brewer's log worksheet, by Chris Shenton 
Improved brewer's log worksheet, by Dave Shave

If anyone has any suggestions or can send me a text, of Word format
version, I'd really appreciate it. Private email encouraged.

Ian Wilson
ianw at sosinet.net

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 12:10:31 -0700
From: "Ian Wilson" <ianw at sosinet.net>
Subject: Mini Fridge

I have a mini fridge available to a good home. It's only big enough for a
single carboy. It was my first fridge and it served me for a few batches
until I got a full sized fridge.

If anyone reading this is in the south end of the San Joaquin Valley would
like to arrange to pick it up, it is free for the asking.

Please send private email to 

Ian Wilson
ianw at sosinet.net

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 01 Sep 1997 15:21:57 -0400
From: Mark Tumarkin <tumarkin at mindspring.com>
Subject: Our Special Ale

Wade Hutchison writes:

>On a related note, does anyone have a recipe, or even a good guess
>at the spices used, for the Anchor "Our Special Ale" that they
>do each year for Christmas.  I'm ready this week or next to
>put up the christmas beer for this year, and I'd love to
>try something approaching the Anchor beer.

Sorry Wade, I don't have a recipe for you. Even quessing the spices is
further complicated by first having to know which year of the Special Ale
you liked, or want to clone. Anchor changes the recipe every year. In fact,
one of my all time favorites (Liberty Ale) started out as an Our Special
Ale. It's not too hard to guess the secret ingedient there - lot's and
lot's and lot's of Cascades!

If you want to know what spices to use - in general - check out the recipes
in any good cook book for Christmas cookies. Those spices are the same ones
people use in Christmas beers - though not the only ones. Let your taste
buds (and your creativity) be your guide. Did you have a chance to taste
Rogue's Santa's Private Reserve last year? That actually may not be the
correct name, but it's  close. At any rate, it was terrific, and had a hint
of spruce. 

Living in tropical S. Fla has effects my choices. This year I am going to
use tangerine zest and a little ginger. The only advice I would give you,
other than to be creative, is to use the spices sparingly. Too many
Christmas beers are overspiced. Good luck and have a hoppy holidays.

Actually, I have a related question. I'm going to do a barleywine and am
thinking about using some fresh vanilla beans. I'd appreciate some advice
from anyone who's used them. How much? Just put in the secondary? Make an
extract by soaking in vodka - or use a commercial extract (probably not)? 

Mark Tumarkin
The Brewery in the Jungle

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 01 Sep 1997 13:31:41 -0600
From: Darrell <darrell at montrose.net>
Subject: RIMS Problem - Help!

Well, I finally got my Counter Flow RIMS together.  It worked *perfect*
during the "dry" run (no grain).  But, when I added grain, things went
bad in a hurry.  Any suggestions from the RIMS'ers out there would be
much appreciated.

I am using a 10 gal Rubbermaid Cooler as my mash tun. It has a false
bottom made out of 1/8" stainless mesh. There is no vent tube.  There is
a counter flow heat exchanger between the sparge tank and the mash tun
to supply heat.  I am using a Grainger 1P677 magnetically coupled pump.

My grain bill consisted of 18 lbs. 2-row, 1 lb. Crystal, and 1/4 lb.
Chocolate malts for a 10 gallon batch.  I struck with 6.5 gallons of 130
F water (122 F protien rest), waited a few minutes, and then began
recirc'ing slowly.  It immediately stuck.  I stirred and tried again...
and again... and again.  I was not able to recirc over 1/2 gal. per
minute, or I would compact the grain bed.

It took *hours* to get up to 154 F.  I thought that then (after
saccharification), maybe I could increase my recirc rate, but no such
luck.  Anything over about 1/2 gal. per minute caused the grain bed to
compact.  I tried over and over again until 3:00 am, and finally dumped
the whole mess.

Am I doing something wrong?

Is a 10 gallon batch too much for the diameter of my mash tun (12.5") ?

Should I try a "2-tiered" grain bed, by adding another false bottom, and
splitting the grain between the two levels?

Do I need a vent tube from the bottom through the grain bed?

Is RIMS a myth?!!

Please help!
- --
Darrell Garton
Montrose, CO



Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 02 Sep 1997 11:24:51 -0700
From: Andy Walsh <awalsh at crl.com.au>
Subject: for that hard, cold thirst, the beer is VIC!

Brian Travis asks about Victoria Bitter.
First, a little history.
Fosters Brewing make 3 standard lagers; Fosters Lager, Victoria Bitter
and Crown Lager (4 if you include Melbourne Bitter). For many years,
Fosters was the most popular of the 3, VB was barely advertised, and
Crown the expensive "premium" brand. To confuse matters, Australian
"Bitter" is not particularly bitter, and is not an ale either. It is
just a low-hopped lager, and the term "Bitter" was seized by marketers
to differentiate their product from all the other similar products (you
can only have so many bottle/can colours. Fosters is blue, VB green,
Melbourne Bitter red and Crown comes in a fancy gold-labelled bottle).

Then something happened. VB for some unknown reason steadily grew in
sales (despite an incredibly low advertising budget - the ads on TV now
are at least 20 years old and use the voice of an actor dead for some 15
years or so!) until now it commands some 40% of the entire Australian
beer market. Who says increasing advertising pays dividends?

Since I've surprised a few of the North American HBDers recently by
stating US Tettnang = Fuggle (thanks for some great detective work,
Jim!), I'll go out on a limb and surprise the Aussies by stating that
for all intents and purposes the 3 beers mentioned are the same too.
Fosters brew one stream from which all 3 derive, without boiling hops
(or minimal, solely to aid break formation), and use high gravity
techniques. Hops are added to the bright beer (post filtration) in the
form of a product called HPL6, an isomerised hop extract formed
originally from hops extracted with liquid CO2. No hop aroma exists in
any of them, and IBUs vary marginally from the 22 mark. All have the
same alcohol concentration of 4.9% (by volume). The aroma is best
described as "sewer" (ethyl mercaptan?), from the combination of high
temperature lager fermentation and yeast strain used.

Recipe for any of them:
 -OG = 1.042 (or 1.060 if you want to high gravity brew for authenticity)
 -FG = 1.006
 -soft water
 -30% sucrose
 -2 row well-modified lager malt
 -encourage fermentability via 63-65C rests with pH ~ 5.2  at  mash temp.
(no protein rest!)
 -Step infusion mash.
 -Fermentation - pitch at 14C, allow to rise up to 18C
 -Choice of yeast critical. Fosters use their own strain. Some yeasts
won't ferment well with this much sucrose and will either stick and/or
produce truckloads of acetaldehyde. Try Wyeast Danish lager.
Addition of a yeast nutrient (nitrogen) is wise with so much sucrose
 -22 IBU with pride of ringwood hops (any high alpha will do)
 -no hop flavour or aroma
 -No diacetyl.
 -Serve so cold you can't taste how vile it really is, and don't forget
to hold your nose...

One world...one hop...one yeast...one malt...one beer...

Andy (Cantillon-is-just-Coopers-made-in-a-dirty-fermenter) Walsh.

PS. Beer trivia - the Fosters brothers were American, and returned to
New York after just 1 year. (gee, thanks for the legacy!)
PPS. I would really try and discourage homebrewers from attempting to
make this kind of beer.

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 02 Sep 1997 11:18:45 +1000
From: Jon Bovard <j.bovard at student.qut.edu.au>
Subject: Pride of Ringwood anyone

It seem that many of you non-Australians are keen to get your hands on some
Pride of Ringwood hops.
Id be be prepared to mail fresh pellets in exchamge for other foreign hops
in return.
Delivery prices are around $13kg (2.2 pounds) sea mail. And $14 kilo cost price.

Any takers
Jon in Brisbane.

Id could also do 1 pound lots


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 07:00:09 -0400
From: "Mike Boenisch" <mikebone at mail.bcpl.lib.md.us>
Subject: Belgian Petrus Recipe

Brewers,

I've fallen in love with the Belgian Petrus Tripple. I'd like to try to
make something close. Does anyone know of a recipe that uses extract? And,
does anyone know of a mailorder source for Belgian Candy Sugar?

Mike Boenisch
Scientist, Fly Fisherman, Reformed Delinquent
Baltimore, MD, USA
mikebone at mail.bcpl.lib.md.us
http://www.bcpl.lib.md.us/~mikebone/bone.html

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 08:18:18 -0400
From: Michael_Dransfield at usccmail.lehman.com (Michael Dransfield)
Subject: Possible uses for Wyeast #1084 

Hi All, 

I'm about to brew a stout from a "kit" from Brewcrafters (no 
affiliation, yada, yada, yada...) called Darth Vader's Nightcap Imperial 
Stout ("Luke, Go fetch me a stout, come over to the daaaahk side"). The 
yeast included with this is Wyeast #1084, Irish ale. This is only my 
third batch, and my first attempt using liquid yeast. I hope to save 
some of the slurry from the primary (per instructions in the Yeast FAQ) 
for another batch of something shortly after I get through this one. So, 
I'm looking for a recipe. 

Can anyone steer me towards a non-stout, extract-plus-specialty-grains 
recipe that will work nicely with 1084? I've searched Gambrinus' Mug and 
Cats Meow, but my search argument (irish AND ale AND yeast) turned up 
about every ale recipe that called for Irish moss. Somehow, it wouldn't 
take a search for 1084, either; it must not like numerics. Private 
e-mail is fine. 

TIA, 
Mike Dransfield
Wall Twp, NJ
michael_dransfield at usccmail.lehman.com

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 09:05:52 -0400
From: Christopher Tkach <tkach at ctron.com>
Subject: RE: Fruit beer sweetness

Hi everyone-

I would just like to clarify a few things....When I said add dextrose,
I meant malto-dextrin, it was a little late the night that I wrote that post,
so forgive me for confusing my sugars...

So does anyone have any experience w/ adding Malto-Dextrin to their
beer at bottling to boost the flavor/perception of fruit?  I just want to make
sure that the ATF isn't going to come after me for making bombs in my
house!  Which my roommate has actually done w/ a bottle of mead (but
that's a whole other story!  Glass pieces as fine as sand...everywhere...
blew the fridge door wide open)

Also, I've received a few responses about using Lactose instead.  I'm not
familier w/ lactose.  Can anyone provide me w/ the points/gal/lb, and what
would be the recommended amount to add.

Thanks everyone for your input...I'll post the results.

 - Chris
Newmarket, NH


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 09:08:11 -0700
From: George_De_Piro at berlex.com (George De Piro)
Subject: Ferulic acid rest / 122 rest and adjuncts data point

     Hi all,
     
     I just wanted to point out a minor mistake in Scott's post about 
     ferulic acid rests.  He correctly mentions that it is good to rest a 
     Weizen mash at 111F (43.8C) to maximize ferulic acid concentrations.  
     Ferulic acid is the precursor to the clove-like 4-vinyl guaiacol.
     
     Scott errs in saying that this is also responsible for increasing 
     banana ester (iso-amyl acetate).  It is not.  Yeast strain and 
     fermentation conditions are the main causes of high iso-amyl acetate 
     levels.  Higher temperatures tend to increase iso-amyl acetate levels. 
      In my experience, Wyeast 3068 will produce plenty of banana and clove 
     character without much intervention in the mash tun or the fermenter.
     -----------------------------------
     While I'm here I'll throw in my .02 about resting at 122F (50C).  I 
     have made headless wheat beers by resting at 122F.  I have also made a 
     few beers with nice foaming ability using 122F rests.  I don't know 
     how.
     
     I now avoid resting at 122F, even when using substantial amounts of 
     adjuncts.  I made a Classic American Pilsner with 18% flaked maize 
     that had fantastic heading properties using a rest at 135F (57.2C).  
     The yeast did fine, so I don't think that they were starved of amino 
     acids, despite the high level of maize.
     
     Just my experience...
     
     By the way, Jeff Renner is absolutely justified in encouraging brewers 
     to make Classic American Pilsner.  A truly wonderful style!  Just be 
     careful when hopping it; the high level of corn seems to enhance the 
     hop bitterness (perhaps because there is not as much malt flavor to 
     balance it).  My first attempt took a few months to mellow out into a 
     well-balanced brew.
     
     Have fun!
     
     George De Piro  (Nyack, NY)
     

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 02 Sep 1997 11:15:25 -0400
From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer at engin.umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Mash Efficiency 

>>>>> "LBarrowman" == LBarrowman  <LBarrowman at aol.com> writes:

    LBarrowman> I thought I was getting around 70% until I consulted
    LBarrowman> an article in March/April BT. According to that source
    LBarrowman> I am closer to 60%. Also, the author claims
    LBarrowman> homebrewers should expect no more than 65-68%. Other
    LBarrowman> homebrewers seem to get anywhere from 50% to an
    LBarrowman> unbelievable 90+.

One thing to watch out for is how the "efficiency" is measured.  Pro
brewers tend to measure "efficiency" in terms of percentage of the
grain mass, so that 79-80% is the theoretical maximum, when ALL the
sugars in the malt are converted and extracted.  Homebrewers tend to
measure it in terms of percentage of the theoretical maximum
extraction.  

To put this in concrete terms, suppose you get 30 "points" in 1 gallon
from 1 pound of malt.  In "pro" terms, this would be 100*30/45 = 66%.
In "homebrew" terms, this would be 100*30/36 = 83%.

This difference is one reason I prefer to quote "pt-gal/lb" figures.
Besides, it's really easy to translate from pt-gal/lb to expected
final gravity.  In my experience, a "good" to "very good" extract rate
is 30 pt-gal/lb.  I got better than that once when I used a RIMS-type
system and professionally crushed malt.  Now that I'm crushing my own
malt with a Corona mill, I more typically get about 25 pt-gal/lb.  I
know this, and so I adjust my grain bill accordingly.

=Spencer

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 02 Sep 1997 11:36:43 -0400
From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer at engin.umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Where to get Unibroue 

I answered Eric personally, but this may be of interest to other folks
in Michigan.  The Unibroue products *are* distributed in Michigan.
They are certainly available in the Detroit metro area.  If your beer
shop doesn't carry them, ask.  There may be a distributer in your area
carrying them.  If not, then you've got a harder row to hoe, because
you (or the shop owner) have to convince a distributer to carry the
product.  Or, you can drive down to Ann Arbor and buy some at the
Merchant of Vino or Big Ten (and, I'm sure, many other stores, but
these are two that I shop at frequently.)

=Spencer Thomas in Ann Arbor, MI        (spencer at umich.edu)

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 02 Sep 1997 11:49:25 -0400
From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer at engin.umich.edu>
Subject: Bride Ale

The Oxford English Dictionary, to which I always turn first when
researching the question of word origins, says, in part:

bridal sb. (a.) Forms: 1 bri'd-ealo, -ealu, 2-6 bry'dale,
bridale, 3, 7- bridal. Also (3 bridel), 3-4 (s.w;) brudale u:, 3-7
bridall, 4 bruydale (bruytale, bridhale), 4-5 (Kent) bredale, 5
bredeale, 6 brydall, brideall, brydeale, brideale, (7 bride
hall). [OE. bryd-ealo (infl. -ealoth), lit. `wedding ale', `wedding
banquet or conviviality': see bride sb. 5 (in comb.), and ale. The
analytical form, with stress (primary or secondary) on -ale, never
died out, was very common c 1600, and is still used as a historical or
antiquarian term: see bride-ale. On the other hand the individualized
'bri.dal, with the stress and sense of ale quite suppressed, occurs
before 1300, and remains as the living word. ]

1. A wedding feast or festival; a wedding.

[Many supporting quotations suppressed in the interest of brevity.  Go
look it up.  :-]

2. a. Since 1600, mostly used attributively, by association with
adjectives (of Lat. origin) in -al, as nuptial, natal, mortal, etc.

=Spencer Thomas in Ann Arbor, MI        (spencer at umich.edu)

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 02 Sep 1997 08:50:20 -0700
From: Abel Rodarte <rodarte_a at isd.scccd.cc.ca.us>
Subject: unsubscribe

Please unsubscribe me, thank you very much.


Abel Rodarte

         _/    _/_/_/   _/_/_/_/ _/                  
       _/_/   _/    _/ _/       _/      Abel Rodarte 
     _/  _/  _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/   _/       (209) 244-5952 work
   _/_/_/_/ _/    _/ _/       _/        rodarte_a at scccd.cc.ca.us
 _/      _/_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/  /_/_/_/   (209) 645-1144 home   
                     
               _/_/_/   _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/      _/    _/_/_/  _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ 
              _/    _/ _/    _/ _/    _/   _/_/   _/    _/    _/   _/        
             _/_/_/_/ _/    _/ _/    _/  _/  _/  _/_/_/_/    _/   _/_/_/     
            _/  _/    /    _/ _/    _/ _/_/_/_/ _/  _/      _/   _/          
           _/    _/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/  _/      _/_/     _/   _/   _/_/_/_/     
                                                 
                At large in the San Joaquin Valley



Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 02 Sep 1997 10:07:51 -0700
From: Charley Burns <cburns at egusd.k12.ca.us>
Subject: re:body and mid-low 150F for mashing

Al K -> Welcome home and (belated) congratulations on your winning brew.

You quoted me in hbd 2497:
<snip>
>So, we use carapils for richness but keep the mash temp in the mid-low 150's 
>to maintain a higher level of body. This is why temperature control is so 
>critical in mashing. Being off by 2 or 3 degrees F can drastically alter the 
>final product.

Its funny to go back and read stuff that "I" wrote. Actually I was
comparing what someone suggested as high 140's to the mid-low 150's. We
will get more body at 153F than at 148F, that's for sure, but I can see
where my statement above looks completely wrong.

But I will continue to assert that minor differences in mash temp can
make a big difference in finished product. Its tough to maintain all
variables except one (temp) and duplicate batches but for the most part
I believe that a beer mashed at 153F will have much lighter body and
less head retention than a beer mashed at 155-156F, given the same
recipe. Enough difference to make it a "good" beer or an "excellent"
beer.

Made my first barleywine on Sunday. Never handled 21 lbs of grain before
 - whew, lots of work for a guy that usually only does 11-12 lbs. Ended
up with OG 1.119 in 3 gallons of wort.

Charley

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 02 Sep 1997 10:30:19 PDT
From: "Bret Morrow" <johnson_et_ale at hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: peristaltic pumps

Hey there,

Recently, we posted a note regarding a peristaltic pump with a max pump 
rate of about 1 L (1 qt) per min.  Several responses were concerned with 
the flow rate since most non-peristaltic pumps used for flow rates of 
4-5 gall. per min.  I believe that these centrifugal (don't know if this 
is the exact word) pumps are dependent on the input and output (head 
height) pressures and the actual flow rate during recirculation is a lot 
less.  If not, WOW 5 GALL/MIN!!!  The peristaltic pump uses a positive 
displacement of the wort in the hose so that it is independent of output 
pressure, under normal conditions.  Both centrifugal and peristaltic 
pumps are somewhat dependent upon input pressures but the rate of flow 
of the wort through the grain bed should easily be supply 1 L/min.  So, 
my question is what is the actual flow rate during the mash using the 
standard RIMS pump?  

Also, regarding cleaning--the hose which the wort 'sees' can be easily 
cleaned and inexpensively replaced.  The standard pump head is not so 
easily cleaned or cheaply replaced.  Additionally, I believe some gadget 
guru could build one inexpensively and power it by a variable speed 
drill.  I've got some ideas but nothing practical yet.

Bret Morrow/John Elsworth   Johnson's Brewing

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 13:51:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: KennyEddy at aol.com
Subject: No-Sparge Gravity Prediction Comment Reply / Gott Mash Tun

Bryan Cronk had the following comment to my post in HBD24932 about predicting
no-sparge gravity.  My post basically said to take the predicted total
"points" of sugar content and divide by the total mash water volume to get
the runoff gravity.  Bryan replied:

  "This would be true if you assume that you will capture all of the sugar
  that's in the mash in the first runnings.  However, this isn't the case
  at all.  If it were, there would be no need to sparge - just take the
  first runnings, add water, and boil."

I think you missed my point, and if that's true then perhaps others did too.
 I'll try to explain better.

Suppose we add 3.3 gallons of mash water to 10 lb of grain, for a
single-infusion mash.  I predict that I'll obtain about 275 points total
available sugar, given an average of 37 potential points per pound per gallon
and 75% efficiency.

***This sugar is distributed evenly thoughout the wort, whether it's absorbed
in the grain or freely running around the mash.***

There may be some flaw to that assumption, granted, in that the sugar
concentration may not be totally homogeneous throughout the liquid.  However,
my guess is that it is, at least "close enough", and assuming so is probably
a very accurate approximation, if not 100% true.  For RIMS brewers, and for
those who stir the mash once or twice, it's even more likely that the wort
will be evenly concentrated.

In that case, then, I have 275 points dissolved in 3.3 gallons of water, for
a gravity of 83 ppg or 1.083 specific gravity.  This is true for both the
"free" liquid portion as well as the "trapped" or "absorbed" portion.

I also predict that there will be about 0.13 gal/lb of liquid absorbed by the
grain; about 1.3 gallons total in this case.  This number WAS obtained by
(my) empirical measurements, and was confirmed by Bruce DeBolt's experiments
at about the same time.  It also agrees  well with the published figure
(Papazian, I think) of 0.10 gal/lb.  Thats a remarkably-well-drained
"drip-dry" mash in my opinion.

So the runoff would be the original 3.3 gallons MINUS the 1.3 trapped
gallons, or a total of two gallons.  But these two gallons are STILL at 1.083
SG, as is the absorbed fraction.  That was my point.  Sure, there's *sugar*
left behind, but we're dealing with *concentration* (specific gravity), not
*total sugar*.  You can also look at it as obtaining 2 / 3.3 or 60% of the
available sugar, leaving the rest behind.

Notice that this trapped wort -- WASTED wort -- represents 40% of the total
produced in this case.  This is why we sparge, as Bryan points out.  But the
*gravity* insode the tun is the same as that *outside* the tun (temperature
effects notwithstanding).

Much better overall extraction can be obtained via "batch-sparging".  In this
scenario, a single all-at-once two-gallon shot of clear sparge water dumped
en masse into the drained mash, stirred and breifly rested (to allow even
redistribution of sugars into the clear water), and recirc'd and drained as
before would pick up much of the trapped sugars and would produce another two
gallons of runoff, this time at about 1.033 SG, for a total sparge of 4
gallons at about 1.060 (1.048 in five gallons).

*****

Steve Rosenzweig gives a detailed explanation of his Gott conversion.  Good
job, Steve!  I think you'll find it to be a huge improvement over your
previous system.  I've a couple of comments to these points you made:

  "The 1/2 inch copper tube did fit through the hole of the rubber bung, 
   but it is an awfully tight fit!  (I've got the blisters on my hands to 
   prove it - the key was in using a long piece of copper to leverage it 
   in and then cut it off to size)  I am somewhat concerned about the 
   stress that this will cause on the plastic surrounding the hole, 
   especially at mash temps, so we'll just have to wait and see how this 
   will work.  Worse comes to worse, I may have to use a close fitting 
   with some rubber washers and nuts and rig up another way to connect to 
   my spigot and manifold."

I found it easier to first shove a short length of 1/2" ID by 5/8" OD vinly
tubing into the hole, then insert a barbed brass fitting (1/2" barb by 1/2"
NPT thread) into the tubing.  Inside, the 3/4" of tubing that sticks out
slips nicely inside a 1/2" copper fitting which is in turn slipped onto the
manifold pipe.

  "I put a valve on the outside, 1/2 inch compression fit to 3/8 inch 
   compression, with a 90 degree bend so with a short piece of 3/8 copper 
   tube pointing down, I can just attach my drain hose and adjust the 
   flow with the valve.  My theory is that the valve is the same type you 
   might use for a hot water supply, so it should be fine at mash temps, 
   but again, experience will tell."

I use a plastic CPVC angle stop valve attached to the threaded fitting, and
it works just fine at mash temps (in fact, it works with boiling water too).
 Flow rate is slower than a ball valve might be but for a mash tun, that's
what you want.  You won't have any trouble.

  "I will take one of two approaches here, either drill a series of small 
   (1/16 - 1/32 ?) holes in the pipes of the manifold for the bottom, or 
   I will make a series of cuts with the thinnest hacksaw blade I can 
   find about 1/2 inch apart at an angle to the pipe about 1/8 - 1/4 way 
   through the pipe, again along what will be the bottom."

If you go with holes, use 3/32".  Seems to be the most popular size and it
works well for me.  Mine are spaced every quarter-inch.  I used a drill
press, drilling all the way through the pipe (two holes for the price of
one), so this was pretty quick and easy.  Without a drill press, hacksaw
slots might be easier.

  "Question:  Any pros or cons regarding which approach to take here?  
   Does anyone strongly advocate either way, and why?"

I think you'll find that manifolds vs false bottoms is simply a matter of
choice and convenience.  Other factors such as crush quality will have much
more effect on your efficiency.

One suggestion if using a manifold:  lay a cut-to-size sheet of
8-holes-per-inch nylon needlepoint mesh (about 50 cents at craft stores) over
the manifold.  It will float in plain water so be sure to add your grain
first or add grain and water simultaneously to pin it down.  The mesh
prevents my paddle/spoon from grabbing the manifold and ripping it from the
bung assembly when stirring.  Another sheet of mesh can be floated on top of
the mash to act as a simple but effective recirc / sparge distributor,
breaking up the incoming flow to prevent splashing and disturbing the grain
bed.

See a drawing of all this at
http://members.aol.com/kennyeddy/files/mashtun.gif

*****

Ken Schwartz
El Paso, TX
KennyEddy at aol.com
http://members.aol.com/kennyeddy


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 13:57:02 -0400
From: bveq97 at nestle.he.boeing.com (Mark Witherspoon)
Subject: Wood Alcohol, Beer Linquistics, still need a reply...

- ------Wood Alcohols....  Methanol..................

I have just read another post about the myth
of making Methanol from HB..  Having lived
with a Chemist for the past 11 years as my
spouse 8^), there is a rather large misconception
of methanol production among the public.  

1. It takes special bacteria/yeast to do it.
2. It takes fermenting on the husk/cellulose.
3. It stinks like a sewer when you open up the tank
when it is done.
4. It is a anerobic process otherwise.
5. The old "Kentucky Moonshine" were old world
brewers who "fermented" with what ever was
cheap.  Corn and corn grits have a lot of
cellulose (fiber) in it.  As the process was
passed on father to son, the filtering step was
skipped due to mis-information.
6. Methanol's distillation temp is lower than
ethanol's.  Not by much, but it does have a 
particular temp.

If someone is having methanol poisoning from
a batch of vodka, someone is spiking the
batch with very cheap methanol or iso-propynal
intentionally.  Under normal brewing that we
do, you would have to be VERY lax on the whole
procedures to produce this stuff.

==========================================

Beer linquistics...

Again from my wife (whos' minor was in ENGLISH
and History)..  Bridal or Brides' Ale was a
strong ale produced for the wedding and along
with the ale a strong spiced sweet Mead.  The 
mead was to be drunk by the newly wed for a 
month to ensure fertility (i.e. honeymoon).

============================================

I am still waiting on a reply about my question
about a brew in my carboy:  Full to the top
rim, but has a mold on it.  The yeast has
settled to the bottom.  When I pulled the
carboy cap off, the aroma was still wonderful.
Is this worth saving??

=========================

Mark Witherspoon

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 12:25:50 -0600
From: "Brian M. Rezac" <brian at aob.org>
Subject: Anchor "Our Special Ale" recipe

> On a related note, does anyone have a recipe, or even a good guess
> at the spices used, for the Anchor "Our Special Ale" that they
> do each year for Christmas.  I'm ready this week or next to
> put up the christmas beer for this year, and I'd love to
> try something approaching the Anchor beer.
>
>	whutchis at bucknell.edu
>	Wade Hutchison, College Engineer
>	Bucknell University, College of Engineering
>	http://www.eg.bucknell.edu/~whutchis


Wade,

I believe that Anchor changes their recipe for their "Our Special Ale"
every year.  However, my wife treated me to a six-pack of their last batch
and I was amazed hou much it tasted like one of my spice beers.  Mine has a
little more spice flavor coming through, but it's pretty close!

(Note:  The spices in this recipe are based on an Indian spiced tea called
Chai (pronounced "chi").  This recipe scored a 42 and went on to the second
round of Boston Beer's 1997 LongShot Contest held last year.  It is
included in the recently released, A Year of Beer - compiled by Amahl
Turczyn - Brewers Publications.)

India Chai Beer

Ingredients for 5 Gallons

Base Malt:
8 pounds Munton and Fison light malt extract

Specialty Malt:
1 pound English 55 L crystal malt
8 ounces Belgian Munich malt
4 ounces Belgian Carapils malt
4 ounces Briess Chocolate malt
4 ounces Briess roasted barley

Hops:
2 ounces Cascade, 4.9% alpha acid (70 minutes)
3/4 ounce Saaz, 3.0% alpha acid (15 minutes)
1/2 ounce Saaz, 3.0% alpha acid (2 minutes, finish)

Spices:
120 Cardamom pods, cracked
11 teaspoons Cinnamon chips
11 teaspoons whole Coriander
5 1/2 teaspoons whole Cloves
5 1/2 teaspoons whole black Peppercorns
11 inches fresh, peeled, sliced Ginger root

Finings/Water Salts:
1 teaspoon Irish moss (15 minutes)
1 teaspoon Burton salts (15 minutes)
 
Yeast:
Wyeast No. 1007 German Ale Yeast

Brewer's Specifics:
Do a partial mash with all the specialty grains - 153 degrees F. for 45
minutes.

Make a separate tea with all the spices and 1 1/2 quarts of water.  Boil
spice tea for 20 minutes, then let sit covered for 20 minutes.  Add to wort
at 20 minutes to end of boil.

Optional:  Send me a bottle or two at address below.

Good Luck & Good Beer!

 -  Brian

Brian Rezac
Administrator
American Homebrewers Association  (303) 447-0816  x 121   (voice)
736 Pearl Street                              (303) 447-2825   (fax)
PO Box 1679                                 brian at aob.org   (e-mail)
Boulder, CO  80306-1679                info at aob.org     (aob info)
U.S.A.                                        http://beertown.org  (web)





Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 14:57:39 +0100
From: art.beall at pmcsystems.com (Art Beall)
Subject: Problems w/ SABCO false bottoms, Easy masher, and 122

Hello HBD:

Paul Shick wrote regarding several problems with the use of the SABCO =
false bottom. I have one of these and have been using it with success =
for almost one year and about 20 some batches of beer. About 6 batches =
ago I increased my volume from 10 to 15 gallons ( I use two 1/2 barrel =
kegs for boiling). It was at that time my false bottom bent enough to =
start sending grain through my pump.
The screen is now only used in a dedicated lauter tun, and the mash is =
performed in another keg with no screen. Circulation is only done to =
clear the runoff now. A one piece screen would probably do the job =
better. I have since improved my SABCO screen with some SS bolts to give =
it extra support towards the middle. Make sure the hinges are facing =
down on the SABCO screen.

By the way, the EasyMasher is not made to handle a lot of recirculation. =
The SS mesh is too fine and will eventually clog with gums and grain. It =
is fine for the small amount for recirc b4 sparging. I used to use two =
of them in a tee formation in a 1/2 barrel keg. Even with two of them, =
they would stick half the time during a long recirculation period.

I have made several beers using a 122 deg F rest. Untill this latest =
discussion I did not realize that this would make the beer thin taking =
away from it's head. Going back to my records and comments on my beers, =
they all had poor head stability, but were clearer than others w/o the =
122 rest.=20

I am from the Akron Ohio area also and would like to re-iterate Paul's  =
recommendation of the Grape and Grainary.

Art Beall
art.beall at pmcsystems.com

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 14:56:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: TheTHP at aol.com
Subject: (Finally!) Pete's Wicked Ale (?) Recipe

To: the Pete's Wicked Aleger Fan Club

Why Aleger? Because PWA is really PWL, and has been for some time. Some time
during its Brewing at the Minnesota Brewing Co. The yeast strain was switched
from ale to lager. Currently Stroh's is using its house lager strain to brew
our tasty Wicked ale. But which one is that? Since there are two! Yes TWO
different beers under the same name. If in doubt shop around, what to look
for is the different caps. IMO the REAL PWA is the 1992 93? GABF Gold Medal
Winner caped beer. If the Cap has the standard Pete's Brewing Co. Cap then it
is the 2ndary beer. If you've ever read through a series of different reviews
of this beer you might have suspected something like this was going on. One
would say a rich roasted aroma and a nice Chocolaty brew, while the other
would say a delightfully dry hopped distinctly bitter but balanced with the
chocolaty caramel flavor. Two distinctly different beers. Why? I don't know. 

My guess is that the bland one is for the "unrefined/undeveloped" beer
market. Where as the real PWA is for the "Beer Literate" community. This
trend is very visible in the brewpub industry. Where the first brewpub in
town starts out making seemingly "Bland" beers to wean the public off
Budmilloors and then keeps modifying the recipe over time as the community
learns more about beer (or the brewer gets bored ;<).

 Either way my goal was and is to brew the "Smack you in the face with hops
till your lips pucker" PWA that I had on draft at Gordy Howe's while watching
the Stanley Cup. The bottled version I had this weekend wasnt quite as dry
and lacked the blatent dry hop aroma. It was probubly just old.

At this point I need to thank the following people for sending me recipes or
posting their versions where I could find them. Jim Ellingson, Rick Gontarek,
Tom Leith, George Hummel, Bret Bartlett, and Richard Stern. Thanks also to
the guys at Stroh's who confirmed they were using their standard lager yeast
for PWA.  Ray Daniels, in his new book Designing Great Beers also adds the
following discussion points. 

Pg 221 ~PWA uses Pale Crystal and Chocolate to 1.052 and 40 SRM. It is hopped
to 29 IBU with Brewers Gold and Cascade. On Pg 219 there is discussion of
variences from 1.040-1.055 and IBU's of 22-60. On Pg. 228 he suggests .75-1
oz for flavor, .5 oz for aroma and .5-.75 for dry hopping.

Here is my version, ill be brewing this in the near future, though this
weekend I might be making wheat instead. 

Poison Frog's Wicked Aleger
Brewer: Phil Wilcox
Style: American Brown Ale?

	Date	                  Gravity
Brewing:	09/06/97	1.052
Ingredients: 
2 Row	8.0 pounds	1.041 S.G.	3.2 SRM	60 min mash	
Chocolate	6.0 ounces	1.000 S.G.	30.0 SRM	60 min mash	
Crystal 90	1.0 pounds	1.005 S.G.	18.0 SRM	60 min mash
Mash water amount: 11.7 Strike temperature:  70 Fahrenheit

Mashing schedule
minutes Fahrenheit
15	70
25	155
100	155
110	168
120	168

Sparge water amount: 14.1 quarts
Sparge water temperature: 175 Fahrenheit
Extraction efficiency: 72 %

Sparge liquor collected: 6.5 gallons
Boil size: 6.5 Gallons (47IBU)
Brewer's Gold	.75 ounces	60 min	8 % AA	27.6 ibu	pellet
Brewer's Gold	.75 ounces	30 min	8 % AA	15.3 ibu	pellet	
Brewer's Gold	0.5 ounces	10 min	8 % AA	4.0 ibu	pellet	
Brewer's Gold	0.5 ounces	Dry Hopped	8 % AA	0.0 ibu	pellet	
Irish Moss	0.3 package		$0.25

Fermentation
Wyeast #2035 American Lager	1.0 package , starter: 375 ml start stepped up to
750 ml 16 hrs before pitch	 $4.00

Fermentation schedule
days	Fahrenheit
14	56
14	48
21	48 under pressure in the Corney

Now the never ending questions:

1. Does anybody know what lager yeast Stroh's uses. If you assume that its an
old family strain, you could also assume that since its been around so long
it must be out on the market somewhere...

2. What if I blended yeast. Chico to start, maybe 48 hrs  at  62F then Stroh's
to finish at 48F? Do you pitch both to start or do you hold the Lager strain
till later? Would you bother Racking at 2 days?

3. Would California common be a choice I should consider?

4. I never got good at creating extract versions of grain recipes. I got
several requests for an extract version Anyone care to lend a hand?

TIA, Phil Wilcox 
Poison Frog Home Brewery

Return to table of contents

---