---

	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:
  Protein rest 122 or 132 - Kitchen experiments ("Rich, Charles")
  Propane burner in basement (Chris Dodge)
  Burley-gram ("Rich, Charles")
  brewing with a pico system ("Mark S. Johnston")
  The Jethro Gump Report ("Rob Moline")
  aluminium kettle ("Jonas Wetterlundh")
  RE: Fruit beer sweetness (Dave Whitman)
  Petes W & Stohs (Randy Lee)
  Problems with Stuck RIMS (Lau William WT)
  Oktoberfest/Marzen Brews (DGofus)
  Ford beer (Jason Henning)
  Mixing Yeasts for a brew or wine ("Jacques Gauthier")
  Pete's Wicked Extract / Plastic Brewery Photo Tour (KennyEddy)
  SABCOs false bottom (Mike Spinelli)
  Copy of: 122F hold X2,Efficiency, BP vs Altitude,leaky seal,Mich honey, false bo ("David R. Burley")
  Part 2 Honey lager, SABCO false,lid(less) ("David R. Burley")
  Part 3 122F HOLD ("David R. Burley")
  Widgets (korz)
  Indorr brewing (Chris Dodge)
  Christmas beer (Jeffrey C Lawrence)
  Whirlpool dynamics ("Frank E. Kalcic")


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: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 13:30:22 -0700
From: "Rich, Charles" <CRich at saros.com>
Subject: Protein rest 122 or 132 - Kitchen experiments

It occurred to me that since we're talking about soluble proteins which
after hot-break and cold-break, largely survive through to the finished
beer; the effects of different rests might be demonstrated without
having to wait through a fermentation cycle.

I mashed 1:1 (qt/lb) some Weyermouth German Pils in a quart jar with
mash pH adjusted to 4.8 to favor protein enzymes.  After a rest (60
mins) at 100F to allow everything to go into solution.  I decanted the
liquid, then sparged with distilled H20 and readjusted pH back to 4.8.
After divvying it into 3 samples, I held one for 20-minutes at 122F, one
for 20-mins at 132F, and reserved one for the control.  At the end of
the rests I flash heated each sample, including the control, to arrest
enzyme activity; and then p-cooked briefly to force hot-break, and then
flash-cooled the strained, clear, hot wort to produce cold break.  Next,
into three test tubes they went, for a couple of hours of cold break
flocc'ing in the refigerator.  I then drew 4cc's of clear liquid from
each into three 25-ml test tubes and shook them like hell for ten
seconds.  At the end of shaking all were fully invested in foam and I
measured the foam stands after 30-seconds (for clear separation).  I had
compromised the control case in this test by disturbing its cold break
so its sample contained a lot of lipids, and not surprisingly it
performed the worst in this trial.  After 30secs/10 mins/30mins/90mins
the height of head above liquid level were:
        132 rest (20 mins) - 48mm/36mm/33mm/28mm
        122 rest (20 mins) - 35mm/24mm/18mm/13mm

I repeated the above using Briess 6-row Pale and after
1min/10mins/70mins got:
        132 rest (20 mins) - 58mm/56mm/22mm
        122 rest (20 mins) - 39mm/36mm/8mm
        control   (0 mins)   - 56mm/55mm/13mm (bigger bubbles than 132)

The behavior of the control surprised me since I would have expected it
to do better than the 122 rest but not as well as the 132 rest.  If as
Al K. says 142F is where LMWP get chopped into MMWP's (easily tested)
that may explain it. Before going much further than this, and much can't
be inferred from a single set of datapoints, I'd like to solicit
criticism or suggestions to improve the test.   So far it has behaved
like theory and if valid could be an easy way to peg optimum rests for
favorite grains.

In HBD #2497, Dave Burley asks:
>  What puzzles me is why George Fix suggests the (IMHO) useless
>  hold at 40C.  If there is a pH problem we can adjust the pH with
>  lactic acid instead. ...
>  So why the 40C hold?? Is this only for Pils malts?  What am I
missing?

I never see any pH change during this so-called "acid rest", I believe
that takes hours.  But I believe this rest is an important preparatory
step, especially when using protein rests, since it lets the "goods"
(enzymes, protein, etc) dissolve into solution before going to the rests
where they then can go straight to work.  Otherwise some would be going
into solution while others are working and an uneven profile results.
Dr. Pivo (aka Jeff Irvine) says that Czech brewers, who also use the
98-100F rest,  consider the protein rest as, "somewhat holy, and hinging
on minutes (is it 22 or 24?)"  I've gone through one battery of the
tests described above using three different malts (including British
Pale) at 20 and 40 minutes rests and one trend (which may be false -
need more data) suggests that overlong rests at 132 can reduce the MMWP
pool to too-small proteins as peptidase does, hence the protein rest for
MMWP may want all the goods available first, and crisp timing, for
optimum repeatable results.

Cheers
Charles Rich (Seattle, USA)

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 02 Sep 1997 08:30:41 -0400
From: Chris Dodge <cdodge at ptc.com>
Subject: Propane burner in basement

I know the general concensus is not to use a propane  burner
in your basement, but I have some questions you may be able to
answer.

Would it be acceptable to use a propane burner in the basemen t
if I have two large windows open in addition a large window fan
removing any fumes and steam which may be created.

I believe the general problem with propane is preventing a
build up of propane gas on the bottom of the floor.  If I have
a fan constantly circulating the air and removing it out doors
is using the burner in my basement acceptable.

Any comment or suggestions please email me at cdodge at ptc.com

Thanks
Chris Dodge

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 19:29:37 -0700
From: "Rich, Charles" <CRich at saros.com>
Subject: Burley-gram

In HBD 2494 Dave Burley states:

> I know that there have been some comments here to the effect that
malting has changed drastically
> recently, I doubt it sincerely and would like to see some real
evidence to that effect.

See 'Brewing Techniques', Nov/Dec 1996, Paul Schwartz and Richard
Horsley, "A Comparison of North American Two-Row and Six-Row Malting
Barley" for a discussion of trends in malting for the last couple of
decades.  M&BS, which you quote, was copyrighted 1981-2,  and the
malting landscape has changed since then.  The most commonly used barley
cultivars (now) were only just released about the time of its printing
and later.  And trends for big extraction, only just starting then, are
in full swing now.

Dave Burley said:
>>> The biggest danger of a long hold at 122F may be the off flavors
produced by excessive yeast growth or
>>> contamination from bacteria growth may result from the high amino
acid concentration.
I said Pooh!  to which Dave Burley quoted from Malting and Brewing
Science 1st ed. p216,  about what he said above.  So, I'll be darned!
George Fix, in PoBS (1989) also says, "Selected small and medium-sized
proteins also affect beer flavors in other ways, but these effects are
poorly understood."  Thanks for letting me know, but still this seems
about as much and mysterious a threat to brewing as plaid [not tartan].

[later, DB posts excerpts from two tables and in a confusing way,
doesn't make a point.]
Dave, I must be in "dense" mode but I don't get what you're trying to
say, is it still relevant?  I suspect it's just your writing that's at
fault but you said, for instance, that one figure (high and mid MWP) is
an imperfect indication of MMWP (no kidding!) but then cite it for
proving an MMWP amount.  The 120F/150F PSN comparison is really the one
I'd care to hear amplified.

[DB: "In case you weren't clearly reading it the first time or two I
wrote it.  A *short* hold ( 15-20 minutes) at 122F is my recommendation,
followed by a 2 degree rise/min to 135F and a hold at 135F for 15
minutes ( longer if you wish) followed by going to saccharification
temperature."]

Actually you wrote in HBD 2483, the original post: "I suggest that if a
thicker head is desired that a single infusion mash at 155F is probably
inadequate. Stop for 15 -30 minutes at 122F then heat up to 155F and
finish the mashing for 30 minutes."  And then in HBD 2487: "My
suggestion of a short hold at 122F (definitely necessary for flaked
barley) ... this chopped up matrix along with all the other high
molecular weight proteins will be used later (at 135F or thereabouts)
to produce the mid-molecular weight heading proteins as (in my
suggestion) as the mash is heated up from 122F to 155F and passing
through the high 120s and mid-130s."  This doesn't say to dwell at 135F
but rather to pass through it.

[DB has known Terry Foster for decades and Terry reccommends 122F for
ales]
Please ask him how he currently weighs in on the topic and why.   A
glucan rest maybe, for adjuncts, but 122F for "highly modified British
malts" as you state would surprise me.

[DB says his 10% wheat beer using short holds at 122F and 135 has a good
head]
No doubt 10% wheat has a good head, and would probably have better head
if you could skip the 122F rest.  I'd also that swear this is the first
time you've endorsed a hold at 135 instead of breezing through it.  

[DB says, "Please direct your comments to the facts and avoid any
personal stuff."]
As much as you, Davey.  Normally, I'd "suffer fools gladly, and leave a
fool to his folly," (not that you are a fool) and overlook your advice
that I take issue with, which given the bandwidth of your posts can be
frequent and presumably attributable to careless writing, but I believe
that you (as I) are more interested in the truth than being right or
wrong.  So, let's get to it, but if this has to get rancorous, please
lets take it offline.

Cheers,
Charles Rich  (Seattle, USA)


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 22:39:23 -0400
From: "Mark S. Johnston" <msjohnst at talon.net>
Subject: brewing with a pico system

Being frustrated for the umpteenth time, I'll put this to the collective.

I'm using a pico-System, three-kettle, half barrel brewery, complete with
pumps. In general I'm very satisfied with the setup mechanics. (No
connection, yadda, yadda, yadda.) 
	The problem I have involves the hot and cold breaks. The pS false bottom
is made of slotted copper plate which rests on a SS frame, leaving about 2
 - 3" between the bottom of the grain bed/hop bed and the bottom of the
kettle. 
	I attach the pump to the boil kettle and run boiling wort through it for
a bit to sanitze the internals. I cool with an immersion chiller. 
	I have tried recirculating the wort during cooling, but found that the
force of the fluid out of the pump kicks up the hop bed, exposing bare
spots for gunk to fall through. This last batch I did not recirc the wort,
and still wound up with giant clumps in the fermenter. In addition, I used
pelletized hops. When the kettle level got to the end, the pump shot a
green stream into the carboy. So now I have lumps and hop mush collecting
on the bottom. 
	I'll rack off all of this in a day or so, but I gotta know: What gives?
Should I let the wort stand for a while before chilling? How can I
recirculate the wort while cooling without kicking up the hop layer?
Anyone else go through this? I do add Irish Moss. Is there something
equally effective for cold break?

	Private Email is fine. Thanks in advance.

Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 03 Sep 97 03:47:44 PDT
From: "Rob Moline" <brewer at ames.net>
Subject: The Jethro Gump Report

		The Jethro Gump Report

Jethro's World-
	Thanks for the numerous messages of support (and job offers, ...it's
surprising who reads these forums!)  in what has been a trying
time...suffice to say that the modem hasn't been so hot since that bloody
Nokomaree affair, and at the time of that debacle, I felt guilty (and
stupid, though not unrepentant) for for my efforts...this time is a
different matter, however....
	You have asked...here it is...I can't respond to so many...

Final Point of Contention...(To Date)
	The medals....
	I felt that as I had paid for entry fees for the majority, shipping fees
for the majority, and framing fees for ALL of them, (not to mention the
other 6.5 K $US for other stuff) that I owned them, and that if the
management had any intention of rights to them, they should have honored
their VERBAL committment to pay for same ...18 to 30 months is long enough
to endure no realization of comittment to pay for them....or come to grips
with the GM's stated, "I don't know what more I can do, but offer you
shares." (No, None.)
	But I have made this a moot point with my cash to pay for copies of the
Gold from GABF,  and exercised a very generous offer from the WB Champs to
supply copies to the LABCO at no charge...(I have still yet to find out
where the WB Cup medals are made)...Let the GM pay for his own damn
frames...
	But these are to be sent to the owner, an honorable fellow, to circumvent
any BS from the GM. 
	And we won't even get into false filing of police reports....
Twice.....Nor defamation....
	Nor...*.* (on the advice of counsel)
The rest of the stuff is mine, I own it, and have receipts for it.

	The sad points are ...
	1) The bar manager fired my assistant, Chad Jager, employed less than 2
months, for the sin of assisting me on his own time, with the removal of my
property. He is a hard working and intelligent lad of 18 who has a bright
future in front of him and is no doubt better off, IMHO, but it's just a
little tawdry, cheap, and a nasty shot at Chad......
	2) ("A Moment of Silence, Please) They threw away the remaining 6 kegs of
Big 12 Barleywine, including the one that was ready for GABF (it was a
beauty, mate!)  If this doesn't emphasize the reason I waited for the right
offer (and there were quite a few following 96 GABF) to come for myself or
the wife to move on, I don't know what does...
	To quote Ian Dury, "What a Waste."
	3) I miss my customers....

Lessons...
	Lessons to those of you who are SERIOUSLY considering the jump to
commercial from HB'ing...
	1) Get it in Writing!!! (And e-mail me for the finer points, when you are
ready to make the step up.)
	2) Never take so much as a screwdriver to work, unless you have some
ownership in the company, AND a written document covering your ownership of
said screwdriver, with insurance details noted.

	And the most important point to remember is this...

	3) There is a balance to be achieved between FINALLY getting a shot at
commercial brewing, after coming from a homebrew back-ground...........and
working for a fella that KNOWS you will move heaven and earth to GET (and
CONTINUE) a shot at brewing commercially, after coming from a homebrew
background....
	Some folks (managers) know that 'cos (in my case, and I know many others)
you have been willing, in the past to work for nothing, 'cos this is what
you WANT to do, they see that the opportunity exists to keep on dealing you
bad cards, and you might take them, just to stay in the game....

	The balance is the thing...I've been lucky, kept my mouth shut, when it
counted, and eaten enough fecal material to sustain to the point where I
don't need a certain management approach anymore...but again...I've been
lucky...(and sought legal advice when necessary)....

Lessons To Owners...
	1) Get it in writing....
	2) Never let your GM tell your head brewer that he is "No more or less
important than a dish-washer", and "just as easily replaced."  He will
believe it. And leave.

Plan...
	Of course, work towards a brewpub locally......While I have great respect
for micro's, the good one's anyway, I still feel that BP's are right for
me.........
	If not, a HB shop...
	If not, sling suture in an operating room, and run a course through the
informal networks of the university here to train newbies in brewing. 
	I will also be at GABF...though not entered.....I hope to see you
there.....

Most Importantly...
		Grateful to the collective of the HBD, truly my only 'formal' source of
training as a brewer...
	I am reminded of my first days as a skydiver, even as observer, when, at
Wilton, N.S.W., I saw that if these blokes could do it, I could too.....
	You blokes should feel the same way..............
	Just remember to GET IT IN WRITING............

Jethro  Gump

Rob Moline
Brewer At Large
brewer at ames.net

"Why Would They Buy Your Beer At Even $ 50 a Keg, When They Can get Old
Milwaukee Lite At  $ 42?"

Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 03 Sep 1997 03:14:24 PDT
From: "Jonas Wetterlundh" <jowe at hotmail.com>
Subject: aluminium kettle

Whats the word on boiling your wort in aluminium kettles really??


Jonas Wetterlundh

"He is not drunk who from the floor 
 can rise again and drink some more.
 But he is drunk who prostrate lies
 and cannot drink and cannot rise."



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

Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 03 Sep 1997 07:44:44 -0500
From: Dave Whitman <dwhitman at rohmhaas.com>
Subject: RE: Fruit beer sweetness

In HBD#2498, Christopher Tkach asks:

>So does anyone have any experience w/ adding Malto-Dextrin to their
>beer at bottling to boost the flavor/perception of fruit? 

I once bought some malto-dextrine powder hoping to raise the sweetness of a
beer without making bottle grenades.  I tasted the powder that I bought,
and it was essentially flavorless.  I can't say this would be true of all
brands, but I suspect that adding M-D will increase your body without
affecting taste one way or the other. 

Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 03 Sep 1997 07:47:51 -0500
From: Randy Lee <rjlee at imation.com>
Subject: Petes W & Stohs

I spent some time talking to various people at Strohs in Minneapolis
over the last year getting to know brewing and brewery techniques of the
Big Boys. Yes, they use one yeast strain for all the products that they
put through there (wuite a lot of them including Pete's). They get the
effects they are looking for by playing with the fermentation
tempuratures. If I was going to guess what sort of yeast they were
using, it might well be something like a Callifornia Common. On the
other hand, that strain doesn't give you a wide range of effects over a
short tempurature span, although it is pretty nuetral.

BTW. Every time I go out to Strohs, I am continually impressed with how
the plant is run. It is just like a HUGE (they put out like 2E6 bbls a
year, there) mom and pop shop. The people are all friendly in the
extreme, even to each other! Oddly I never see more than a handful of
people running a plant that sits on 20 acres.

Randy Lee

Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 09:38:58 -0400
From: Lau William WT <william.lau at phwilm.zeneca.com>
Subject: Problems with Stuck RIMS

Regarding recent items about problems with stuck RIMS mashes, here are
some of the things my brewing buddies and I included in our home-built
system (30 gals) and we have mashed 40-50 lbs. of grains with no
problems (but with single temp. mash only).  

1.  We included a Grant in our system (the BAB, Bent Arm Brewery).  This
is an open tank between the bottom of the tun and the pump.  The sweet
liquor flows by gravity out of the tun to the Grant and is then pumped
out of the Grant to the top of the tun for recirculation.  This prevents
the pump creating a vacuum below the false bottom.  And we still valve
down the flow out of the tun to prevent the screen from blinding even
with gravity flow.

2.  We incorporated piping and valves to allow us to pump sparge/strike
water through the bottom of the tun (below the false bottom) to float
the bed any time the run off sticks.  The false bottom must be secured
to do this.  We will float the bed before we initially start the mash
recirculating to clear the screen.

3.   We never recirculate when wetting the grains with the strike water
(dough in).

4.   Our system doesn't have the capacity to increase temp. efficiently
enough to do step mashes and we would use additional boiling water
additions if we wanted to increase the temp. not the in-line heater.

Bill Lau - Former President of Gloucester County Homebrewers, NJ

Bill

Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 10:21:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: DGofus at aol.com
Subject: Oktoberfest/Marzen Brews

I am an extract brewer that would like to try to brew an Oktoberfest/Marzen.
I have checked out Papazian's book and found some basic recipes. could
anybody give me any help or guidance? Also, how can I get into partial
mashing. Some recipes that I have aquirred have ingredients that must be
"mashed". These include pale malt lager malt,etc. What is a partial mash, and
how as an extract brewer can I go aboout this?  Can I substitute a good ale
yeast for lagers,- I do not have the capacity to get refridgerator. I am not
going for rigid beer guidlines, just a little depth to my brewing. Thanks in
Advance. Private E-mail okay


Sorry no witty saying ;^)

Bob Fesmire 
Pottstown, PA
Dgofus at aol.com

Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 03 Sep 1997 15:16:38 GMT
From: huskers at olywa.net (Jason Henning)
Subject: Ford beer

Hello-

I'm sure everyone has heard the joke-
Q: What does Ford stand for?
A: Found on road dead

Anyway, My friend down in Portland was showing his visiting mother the =
hop fields in the
Willamette valley. As you may know, the hop harvest is in full swing. =
While driving
around, Lyndon picked up several vines of hops laying on the road. He =
gathered up enough
to fill a 5 gallon bucket.=20

Once he got home, he cut the cones off and dried them for a day before =
bring them up. I've
got them laying out on a couple cookie sheets now. Probably 4 to 6 =
ounces.

I'm planning on a pale ale recipe and throwing in an ounce for bittering =
and then an ounce
every 5 minutes at the end of the boil for flavor and aroma and an ounce =
for dry hopping.
Anyone know which varieties are being picked (and dropped on the road =
now). I hope they
aren't ornamental hops.=20

Could someone, maybe in North Dakota, go down by the elevator and scoop =
up some barley
around a sharp corner? I'd really appreciate it.

Q: What does Ford stand for?
A: Found on road drying.

Cheers,
Jason Henning <huskers olywa net>
Bid Red Alchemy and Brewing
Olympia, Washington - "It's the water"


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 14:05:20 -0400
From: "Jacques Gauthier" <jgauthier at proxima.ca>
Subject: Mixing Yeasts for a brew or wine

Hello,

I recently bought a packaged powdered yeast  that
was a mix of two yeasts.  Is there any thoughts as to wether
or not it is a good idea to mix different kinds of yeasts ?

Is a beer/wine batch more resistant to infection if
there are two or more different kinds of  beer/wine 
yeasts competing for the sugar ?

Regards,

Jacques G.


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 15:02:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: KennyEddy at aol.com
Subject: Pete's Wicked Extract / Plastic Brewery Photo Tour

Phil Wilcox asks for an extract version of his Pete's clone:

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

I would go with:

6 oz Chocolate
1 pound Crystal 90
1 pound two row
2 x 3.3 lb cans pale unhopped extract syrup (or 5.5 lb dry)

Steep grain in grain bag in 1 brewing gallon water at 145 to 155F for 60
minutes.  Better, place the grain bag into 170F water; the temperature should
settle near 155.  You can take the covered pot off the stove and wrap it in a
blanket to help hold the temperature, or hit it with a blast of flame every
ten minutes or so.

Meanwhile heat the rest of your brewing water to 175F.  After 60 minutes,
lift grain bag and drain thoroughly back into the wort.  Now bob the drained
bag in the clear water a few times to rinse.  Drain again and discard grains,
combine the two lquids, bring to boil.  Turn off heat, add extract, resume
brewing per Phil's recipe.

*****

I took some photos during my last brewing session using the 5-Gallon Plastic
Electric Brewery, and posted them on my web page.  Direct URL:

http://members.aol.com/kennyeddy/plasticbrew/pix.html

*****

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


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 03 Sep 97 17:17:47 est
From: paa3983 at dpsc.dla.mil (Mike Spinelli)
Subject: SABCOs false bottom

HBDers,

Paul Shick in digest 2497 complains about his collapsed SABCO 
false bottom (FB).   He's not the first one to have this happen.   My local
HB store owner had to reinforce a SABCO FB that also
collapsed due to wieght of the grain.  It's his opinion that the problem
is in the design of the FB.    His remedy was to add reinforcement "legs" that
support the underside of the FB.  I think he welded them on, but you could take
the EZ approach by drilling a few holes on the two halves and use SS machine
screws with SS nuts above and below the FB to adjust
the height.  

Going "first class" is a relative thing but would not put the SABCO sytem in
that category IMO.  

A much better false bottom and one that I use is a simple 9" circle
of flat brewers perf. plate.  It sits right on the bottom and held in place by
a SS "J" tube w/ SS collar that fits in a hole in the middle of the plate.   Jus
t last week I crammed 45 lbs. of grain on top of the plate w/o any problems.

Mike Spinelli    Cherry Hill NJ


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 18:24:48 -0400
From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com>
Subject: Copy of: 122F hold X2,Efficiency, BP vs Altitude,leaky seal,Mich honey, false bo


- ---------- Forwarded Message ----------

From:   David R. Burley, 103164,3202
TO:     HBD Submissions, INTERNET:homebrew at brew.oeonline.com
DATE:   9/2/97 6:24 PM

RE:     Copy of: 122F hold X2,Efficiency, Part 1

Brewsters,

Charles Peterson clarifies his conditions of "headlessness" and, I am
puzzled as he is, given the fact that only 1/3 of his mash was held at
122F.  I cannot attribute the problem to a 30 minute hold either, based o=
n
my many years of experience. The point you make that an excessive hold
(e.g. overnight) in the 122F region is undesirable ( e.g. your 100% wheat=
)
is completely in line with my comments and with M&BS quotes.

Your suggestion that extraction of lipids ( why??) or other problem rathe=
r
than 122F hold is more likely.  Is it possible that you are not carbonati=
ng
completely?  Try bottling with an active starter or with cornies and see =
if
you get the same results. I also noted that you commented on higher than
normal alcohol beers as being low in head retention.  Alcohol content doe=
s
affect the head retention negatively.
- ---------------------------------------------
Laura in NC asks for comments on how to improve her efficiency.  Foremost=

is poor grinding of the malt ( go back and review my suggestions for
milling the malt twice), second is the incorrect sparging at low
temperatures and too quickly.  Take about an hour to sparge.  Thirdly
review your method of calculation, make sure you correct your hydrometer =
to
standard temperature.  Calibrate your mashing thermometer.

To really check to see if you are fully converted, try this modified iodi=
ne
test. Boil a teaspoon or so of mash - including the grains - in the
microwave for a minute or so to free up any starch.  Squeeze the grains
between two spoons and test the liquid with iodine. Reddish is OK and is
negative for starch, blue-black or darker is positive for starch and you
need longer mashing, perhaps.  .
- ---------------------------------------------
Does anyone have a formula or guidelines for boiling point temperature of=

water versus altitude??  All my sources give me is boiling point versus
barometric pressure.  Thanks.
- ----------------------------------------------
Jim Daley's lagering freezer is getting wet and musty.  =


Jim, the only source for the water is from the surrounding air.  Obviousl=
y
you have a leak - perhaps around the temperature sensor leading in or a b=
ad
rubber seal.  It must be sealed AIR-TIGHT or you  will have this problem.=
 =

I suggest you fix this, wipe out the freezer with bleach solution ( all
safety items in place) and start again.


Keep on brewin'


Dave Burley
Kinnelon, NJ 07405
103164.3202 at compuserve.com
Dave_Burley at compuserve.com  =

Voice e-mail OK =


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 18:24:42 -0400
From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com>
Subject: Part 2 Honey lager, SABCO false,lid(less)

Brewsters:

- ------------------------------------------------
Yesterday a golfing buddy and I drank a pitcher of  Michelob Honey Lager
after golf. He ( who always apologizes to me for his love of "real' beer =
 -
I.e. Bud) ventured into a netherland of a new ( but family related) beer.=

He actually suggested that we try this beer.   I agree with his comment
that "this is the sweetest beer I have ever tasted."   After a few beers =
it
became nearly undrinkable. Is this a negative marketing campaign forerunn=
er
or something??  Are they putting in something like an artificial sweetene=
r?

- -------------------------------------------------
Paul Schick describes his trials with a SABCO false bottom collapsing.  H=
e
commented that he used a thin mash.  One of the primary *necessary*
conditions of a RIMS setup is that the mash must not set up.  Having a
thick mash will promote the floating of the grains during the
saccharification step because the SG will be high. Using a very thin mash=

will allow the grains to settle and compact perhaps leading to a slow or
stuck mash.  Newbies often have stuck mashes because of poor conversion
giving a low SG and clogging during lautering.
 =

 However, I cannot help but think that your problem was caused not by a s=
et
mash but by blockage of the ("sturdy" - as he described it) false bottom =
by
too high a recirculation flow rate followed by pulling a vacuum (what is
the allowable head on these pumps?) with the consequent application of
something like 15psi plus grain weight to the screen. IMHO this plugging
and pumping lead to the screen collapse if I imagine your system correctl=
y.
 Try reducing the flow rate on the recirculation pumps without starving
them. =

- --------------------------------------------------
David Whitwell's confusion resulting from reading more than one hobby
homebrew book on whether to boil with the lid off or on or half off is
understandable.

Steam distillation is steam distillation  and things which can't make it =
to
a vapor pressure of 1 atm at 100C will still come off with the steam in
which their vapor pressure plus the steam pressure make one atmosphere, a=
s
our German chemical forefathers discovered.  Charlie Scandrett did a nice=

calculation once in which he estimated the speed of, I believe, 4 mph for=

the flow of water vapor from the kettle surface (which he called a steam
wind).  He did this in response to my (and perhaps others) comment that I=

thought that boiling in an open kettle was a perfect way to get HSA.  I
still think that as I see this darkening effect in the lidded kettle on
boiling   beer or spaghetti sauce in open versus lidded kettles.  I
interpret this to be HSA.

The problem with having a fully closed kettle is, of course, the constant=

potential of foaming. =


Having the kettle partially ( say 2/3 covered) covered will answer the
problem since it will speed up the  "steam wind's" velocity ( at a consta=
nt
heat input) preventing the back diffusion of air (my objection to a lidle=
ss
pot)  to the rolling wort and allow the steam distillation of DMS and oth=
er
organics that give beer a green taste to dissipate.  Hops oils will alway=
s
escape during the boil whatever you do - even at a commercial brewery, so=

add the final 20% or so after the boil has stopped and just before you ha=
ve
placed the lid on the kettle to settle out the hops and hot break.
- ----------------------------------------------------

Keep on brewin'


Dave Burley
Kinnelon, NJ 07405
103164.3202 at compuserve.com
Dave_Burley at compuserve.com  =

Voice e-mail OK =


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 18:24:45 -0400
From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com>
Subject: Part 3 122F HOLD

Brewsters:

Steve Alexander ( glad you're back on the HBD) says in response to the
"other" Charley ( I.e. Burns) question on a comment in BJCP:

Charley B's quote and question for BJCP:

>"American and Continental malts are generally less modified.  Continenta=
l =

>malt is modified only to 50-75%, which retains more of the endosperm for=
 =

>fermentability and creates greater nitrogen complexity, but at the price=

of =

>reduced enzyme activity.  American six-row is also modified to between =

>50-75%, but the higher protein and nitrogen content of six-row gives
greater =

>enzyme strength.

>  Both Continental and American malts require a protein rest =

>(122 degrees approx.) to degrade the albuminous proteins into fractions
that =

>can be both used to promote yeast growth and give good head retention."

Steve's response:

>The figures you are quoting are apparently the mealy% numbers - that is
>the percentage of endosperms that are not 'half-glassy' or 'glassy'
>(hard). Pretty subjective. Not the best measure of modification IMO, but=

>relevent.  This is essentially a measure of the number of ungerminated
>and undergerminated grains rather than a direct measure of the degree
>protein degradation.  The hard glassy or steely nature of some endosperm=

>does correspond with high nitrogen levels in the original barley, and
>lower germination rates.

I wish I thoroughly understood Steve's response because as I read this, i=
t
is pretty clear that BJCP is recommending a 122F hold for yeast nutrition=

and head formation - in contrast to Charley Rich's, Steve's and other's
comments..

Somehow having 50-75% ungerminated barley doesn't seem like the kinds of
numbers I recall seeing in malts.  Are you saying that half to 3/4 of the=

barley malts in the above definition of Continental malts are
ungerminated??  I think that is very unlikely and doubt your interpretati=
on
of the BJCP comment and your interpretation of malt spec sheets. Steely
grains refer to the number of grains which were not mature enough to spro=
ut
in the maltings. The availability of barley grown in warm climates (like
the contintent and the US)  to all maltsters  has reduced this number
considerably.

I assume that this BJCP statement of %age corresponds to the distance tha=
t
the acrospire (barley sprout) has grown along the  seed during germinatio=
n
as an indicator of the degree of modification.  50% being half the length=

of the grain.  75% being 3/4 of the length of the grain. For British and
other highly modified malts, 2/3 to 100% of the grain length is normal. =

The longer the acrospire, the more the protein matrix is broken down and
the mealier the malted, dried grain is - as evidenced by the bite test -
and the higher the modification.

In the case of Continental malts 50% represents a malt that must have a
122F hold (typical of Pilsner malts), the 75% less so. American malts of
the same degree of modification start out with more nitrogen because it i=
s
six-row barley vs two-row barley. With the same degree of modification as=

the Contintental malts, they need a longer hold in the protease hold
regions or need to be used with "low nitrogen" adjuncts.

I am puzzled by the comments on "enzyme strength" in the BJCP piece, and
can only assume that we are missing part of the narrative.  As it relates=

to fermentability, I assume they mean beta amylase content. Needs
clarification.
- -------------------------------------------------------

Keep on brewin'


Dave Burley
Kinnelon, NJ 07405
103164.3202 at compuserve.com
Dave_Burley at compuserve.com  =

Voice e-mail OK =


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 17:35:07 -0500 (CDT)
From: korz at xnet.com
Subject: Widgets

I'm still not caught up in reading HBD, but this is a topic I wanted
to comment on immediately:

Sheena writes:
>First, not only do draft widgets make beer bland and gassy, but they can
>only be used if the beer is almost ice-cold. Otherwise you repaint your
>kitchen - brown. As a CAMRA member and Irish Guinness fan, I urge you
>not to buy these awful things.

I too am a CAMRA member and when in the UK, I refuse to buy those
"widget" or "draughtflow" cans of beer.  They are filtered, do indeed
require you to chill the beer more than it should be chilled (no fear
of ceiling painting... more like fob (foam) oozing over your hand), and
the resulting beer bears only the faintest resemblance to cask-conditioned
Real Ale.  I disagree that the widgets make the beer gassy... CO2 makes
the beer gassy and these cans are charged with nitrogen which is virtually
insoluble in beer.

On the other hand, if you don't brew your own cask-conditioned Real Ale
and don't own a handpump or have a way to dispense via gravity, and if
you don't have a brewpub (or pub in the Pacific Northwest (where the micros
are making cask-conditioned Real Ale)) in the area that keeps their
cask-conditioned beers well enough to be included in CAMRA's Good Beer Guide
(which is 95% of the population of US and Canada), then your only hope
of tasting anything remotely as delicious as true cask-conditioned Real
Ale is to buy these widget cans.

1. I urge you to *try* these awful things and then go out and buy yourself
a beer engine so you don't *have* to buy these awful things.

2. Talk your local brewpub into making cask-conditioned beer (there is a
new issue of the CAMRA Cellarmanship guide, which will help them).

3. Talk your local pub into talking your local micro into making
cask-conditioned beer.

4. Come to Chicago on Nov. 7, 8 & 9, 1997 for the Real Ale Festival
so you can skip that awful step 1 and fall in love with the true
cask-conditioned Real Ale.  (Also, it might help if you conviced your
local pub's owner to come to the RAF).

      See http://www.mcs.com/~rdan/RAF.html for more info.

Disclaimer: no, I'm not affiliated with the RAF other than being
a satisfied customer and having posted some notes on the Web about it.

Al.

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


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 03 Sep 1997 14:14:39 -0400
From: Chris Dodge <cdodge at ptc.com>
Subject: Indorr brewing

I know the general concensus is not to use a propane  burner
in your basement, but I have some questions you may be able to
answer.

Would it be acceptable to use a propane burner in the basemen t
if I have two large windows open in addition a large window fan
removing any fumes and steam which may be created.

I believe the general problem with propane is preventing a
build up of propane gas on the bottom of the floor.  If I have
a fan constantly circulating the air and removing it out doors
is using the burner in my basement acceptable.

Any comment or suggestions please email me at cdodge at ptc.com

Thanks
Chris Dodge

Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 19:49:51 -0400
From: brewmaker1 at juno.com (Jeffrey C Lawrence)
Subject: Christmas beer

Fellow Brewers,

As my second year of brewing begins soon, I look forward to some of the
specialty beers that I can brew from extracts.  This time I am looking
for a extract based Christmas beer.  Lager or ale really makes no
difference, for I now(as opposed to last year)have a lager refrigerator
and glass for primary and secondary fermenters.

I wish to get this batch started soon as I plan on aging it until about
15 December in the keg.  My Octoberfest has been keg conditioning since
late April.  I can hardly wait until October to tap that keg!

Please reply to Brewmaker1 at 	Juno.com  as well as posting here in
the HBD.

Thanks, 

Jeff
"Wish I had a snappy tag line to go here" 

Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 21:22:50 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Frank E. Kalcic" <fkalcic at flash.net>
Subject: Whirlpool dynamics



Fellow Brewers,

I am considering setting up a whirlpool via tangentially recirculated wort
in my boiler to ensure all of the hot break is eliminated prior to
fermenting.  Before doing so, I had a few questions regarding whirlpool
dynamics.

First, is there a minimum rpm for the effective removal of the break material.
Second, my boiler has a conical shaped bottom- would this shape work against
the effects of the whirlpool?  Is a flat bottom necessary?
Third, would there be any advantage to whirlpooling after flowing through
the chiller to remove a good portion of the cold break too?
Lastly, a fluid dynamics question- is pressure or volume more effective at
propelling the liquid within a tank?  i.e. for a particular size pump, would
decreasing the nozzle size (increasing the fluid speed) result in a faster
rotating liquid mass, or would it be better to run at max volume,
sacraficing the jet speed?

Thanks for any input.


Frank E. Kalcic

<`)))>><            <`)))>><

            <`)))>><              <`)))>><          <`)))>><

                      <`)))>><            <`)))>><              <`)))>><


Return to table of contents

---