---

	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:
  Irish Dry Stout pt. 2 (Fredrik Staahl)
  RIMS questions (John_E_Schnupp)
  Airlocks (Mike Spinelli)
  Steinbier Rock Temp. (David S Draper)
  4 hour mash - off tastes? (Ian Smith)
  Rusty Nail Porter ("Goodale, Daniel CPT-- 4ID HHC DISCOM CDR")
  re BT hydrometer calibration method ("Graham Wheeler")
  Dry hopping ("Todd McAllister")
  BAAD BT article on Calibration, Stuck secondary,Dry hops, ("David R. Burley")
  re:Spices added at bottling time (neumbg73)
  non-electromechanical/Fermentation chiller (mcveyp)
  Tequeza/ Agave brew (Don H Van Valkenburg)
  RE: new contest categories (Don H Van Valkenburg)
  rockbottom bashing (Charles Burns)
  Re. Welding Question (John Palmer)
  Yeast Strain Questions ("Travis, Brian")
  Extract: Good, yes. As Good . . . ("Michael Gerholdt")
  Re:  New Contest Categories ("Brian M. Rezac")
  picnic cooler mash/lauter tun, pumpkin (Vincent Voelz)
  Hydrometer calibration (Al Korzonas)
  Artful Pitching Rates (Paul Niebergall)
  The Perfect Airlock (George De Piro)
  Re: Gas -- Natural vs. Propane ("Paul A. Hausman")
  Re: Optimizing Airlocks (Lou Heavner)


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, 28 Oct 1997 11:10:12 +0100
From: Fredrik.Stahl at math.umu.se (Fredrik Staahl)
Subject: Irish Dry Stout pt. 2

                        -----------------------
                            IRISH DRY STOUT
                        -----------------------


GUINNESS (Draught)
==================

"Massive hop presence with pronounced roast barley notes. Ripe bittersweet
balance with tart fruit and great length of hops, fruit, coffee, and
chocolate notes. A world classic, jet black beer with enormous complexity
and character." [1]
Smooth and full, aftertaste with a hoppy acidity. [2]


Ref.            [1]              [2]
=========================================
OG [Plato]      40/[9.75]        39
Alcohol (%vol)  4.3/4.2          4.2
IBU             48               45
Colour (EBC)    125              130

WATER: The St.  James's Gate brewery uses Dublin water, but the Park Royal
brewery outside London uses water from the Thames Valley Water Authority,
and claim that they use no water treatment. [1]

GRAINS: Pale malt, roasted barley (9%) and flaked barley. [1]
Pale malt, roasted barley (10%) and flaked barley (25%). [2]


MASH: Old procedure: Mash in with 2.1 l/kg at 64.5 C (148 F), rest 70 min.
New procedure: Mash in at 62 C (144 F) with added beta-glucanase, raised
slowly to 64.5C (148 F) for conversion. [1]

HOPS: The old procedure was to add the hops when the kettle was 2/3 full. [1]
Several varities are used among whose Goldings may be the most dominant.
[2]

FERMENTATION: The wort was cooled to 17-18 C, then rises to 23-27 C. This
took about 36-48 hours. It was then centrifuged, cooled to 8-9 C, fined
with isinglass and lagered at 7 C for at least 5 days. Then gyle is added
and the beer heated to 20 C and conditioned for 72 hours. [1] (Lewis also
mentions the Guinness Flavor Essence (GFE), but he doesn't say which of
the many versions of Guinness this is added to.)
The fermentation temperature is 25C. [2]


MURPHY'S
========

"Distinctively toasty tasting, malty, and very dry." [1]
Not as offensive as Guinness but drier than Beamish with a hint of
well-toasted bread. A firm but light and smooth body. [2]
"A distinctively toasty-tasting, malty, interpretation of the style." [3]

Ref.            [1]        [2]
=========================================
OG [Plato]      [9.09]      37.8
Alcohol (%vol)  3.88        4.2
IBU             33          35-36
Colour (EBC)    117

Grains: Pale malt, a small portion of chocolate malt and roasted barley. [2]

Hops: Only Target. [2]


BEAMISH
=======

"Creamy, chocolatey, least dry of the Irish stouts." [1]
A distinctive chocolatey tone, a silkey body and and a very tasty hop
character. [2]
"Creamy, chocolatey and delicious - least dry of the style." [3]
"Roast barley, chocolate and hops in the mouth, bitter finish with some
fruit and hop notes and slight astringency. [4]

Ref.              [1]                     [2]         [4]
================================================================
OG [Plato]        39/38/[9.53]            39          39
Alcohol (%vol)    4.2/4.1-4.2/4.11        4.2         4.1
IBU               38-40/37                38-42       40
Colour (EBC)[L]   124/120-140[46-53]

WATER: Demineralized, carbon filtered, salt treatment. [1]

GRAINS: Ale malt and roasted barley mashed at 62 C (143 F), mash thickness
3.5 l/kg. [1]
Chocolate malt dominates instead of roasted barley. Once raw wheat was used
to give a firm head, but this has been replaced by wheat malt to increase
attenuation. [2]

HOPS: Bittering: Target, Challenger, Perle, Aroma: Challenger, Goldings,
all pellets. [1]
The hopping schedule includes Challenger, Goldings and German Hersbruck. [2]

BOIL: Boiled for 90 min., Irish Moss added. [1]

FERMENTATION: Fermented at 22 C (73 F) for 75 hours. Finings added. [1]



REFERENCES

[1] M. J. Lewis, "Stout", Classic Beer Style Series 10, Brewers
Publications, Boulder, Colorado, 1995
[2] M. Jackson, "Michael Jackson's Beer Companion", Reed Consumer Books
Ltd., London, 1993 (I only have the Swedish edition, so some of the
comments above are my own sad re-translation of the Swedish text.)
[3] M. Jackson, "Michael Jackson's Pocket Beer Book", 1995 ed., Reed
Consumer Books Ltd., London, 1994
[4] G. Wheeler and R. Protz, "Brew Your Own Real Ale at Home", CAMRA, 34
Alma Road, St Albans, Herts AL1 3BW, UK


- --------------------------------------------------------------
Fredrik Staahl           Tel: int + 46 90 786 6027
Math. Dept.              Fax: int + 46 90 786 5222
University of Umeaa      E-mail: Fredrik.Stahl at math.umu.se
S-90187 Umeaa, SWEDEN    WWW: http://www.math.umu.se/~fredriks

                 On tap: Black Hole Stout
       *** Nemo saltat sobrius, nisi forte insanit ***
- --------------------------------------------------------------



Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 05:21:02 -0800
From: John_E_Schnupp at amat.com
Subject: RIMS questions

Beerlings,

I'm getting my RIMS together and have a few questions before
I make a mistake that will cost me $$$.

1. Can you get HSA by the splashing of the sparge water?  I
want to heat my sparge water in my brewpot and pump it to the
HLT.  I would be using a non magnetically coupled pump (read
not my RIMS pump).
2. Will my RIMS pump overheat or suffer other damage if the
output flow is restricted too much?  I'd like to use the pump
during sparging but am concerned that the low flows required
for sparging may overheat the pump.  I don't want to have to
buy a new pump after a couple of batches.

TIA,

John Schnupp, N3CNL
Colchester, VT
95 XLH 1200



Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 28 Oct 97 09:07:14 est
From: paa3983 at dpsc.dla.mil (Mike Spinelli)
Subject: Airlocks

HBDers,

An airlock thread seems to be developing, so I thought I'd
resubmit my rather unorthodox approach to airlocks for
comments/criticisms.

Scaling up from 10 to 25+ gallon batches has forced me to 
reexamine my brewing procedures to help lighten the workload.
Having to prepare 4 or 5 conventional 3 piece airlocks at the
end of 9 hour brewday seemed a real PITA.

What I now do is simply place a double folded piece of 
aluminum foil right over the carboy mouth.  Form it snugly
over the edges and forget about.  Obviously, the C02 can 
escape since I've yet to have a problem with the foil blowing
off.  

Not being a science man, I'd like comments on my procedure
in terms of comparing to the conventional airlock.  If the job of
an airlock is to keep out nasties, it seems to me that the foil can
do this nicely.  Having used the foil on the last 20 or so carboys
w/o a problem tells me that the foil does the job.

Mike Spinelli
Mikey's Monster Brew
Cherry Hill Nj


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 09:19:25 -0600 (CST)
From: David S Draper <ddraper at utdallas.edu>
Subject: Steinbier Rock Temp.

Dear Friends, 

Michel Brown wrote, referring to the temperature of the rocks used in
making steinbier:

|>Nine, mein freund! Actually it is made by heating Graywacke rocks to 1200'C
|>then dumping them into the boiling tun... [snip]

This temperature cannot be correct.  Graywackes will be more than 50%
*molten* at 1200 C and atmospheric pressure. Either it is actually 1200 F
(about 650C, much more reasonable)  or the number 1200 is a transcription
error.  Even granite or a high-grade metamorphic rock will be at least 30%
melt, and probably a lot more, at 1200C, depending on the minerals present
in the rock; 1200 C is where much more "primitive"  compositions, such as
basaltic lavas (e.g. the stuff that's been coming out of Kilauea in Hawaii
for the past several years), *begin* to crystallize at atmospheric
pressure. Melting rocks is what I do for a living, so I am for once
speaking with some authority. Please folks, don't try to heat your rocks
to 1200 C unless you want to make magma!

Cheers, Dave in Dallas

- -- 
David S. Draper		ddraper at utdallas.edu	Fax: 214-883-2829
Dept. Geosciences	WWW: hbd.org/~ddraper	Electron Probe Lab:
Univ. Texas at Dallas				972-883-2407
 ...That's right, you're not from Texas... but Texas wants you anyway...

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 08:15:03 -0700 (MST)
From: Ian Smith <rela!isrs at netcom.com>
Subject: 4 hour mash - off tastes?

I usually end up doing a 4 hour 153 F mash out of convenience/schedule 
etc. Does anyone know if this can cause any off flavors or tastes in the 
resulting beer (usually English ales)? I have heard that overnight mashes 
might give you a sour mash but this shouldn't be the case in 4 hours. Do 
the enzymes keep on "muching" at the sugars even when all the starch has 
been converted at the 60-90 minute mark? Is this a bad thing?

Cheers
Ian Smith
isrs at rela.uucp.netcom.com



Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 09:31:00 -0600
From: "Goodale, Daniel CPT-- 4ID HHC DISCOM CDR"
Subject: Rusty Nail Porter

Dear HBD Hive,

Recently produced a partial mash porter (I'm really an all grain kind of
guy, but I wanted to use up the extract).  I've made some pretty bad
beers in my time, but this is the worst.  The first sip tasted like I
just sucked on a rusty nail.  I've never encountered such a metallic off
taste and am at loss to explain it.  My best guesses are:

1.  Old extract
2.  Too high SG without conditioning starter (some bad math on my part)
3.  Lousy central TX tapwater
4.  chips in enamel pot
5.  just wait a few months and it will go away (AKA wishful thinking)

any help is much appreciated, private e-mail fine.


Turbo Dog 6

ANNUM TURBUS CANIS

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 16:19:09 -0000
From: "Graham Wheeler" <Graham.Wheeler at btinternet.com>
Subject: re BT hydrometer calibration method

Harlan Bauer in HBD 2542 had trouble calibrating his hydrometer to a
procedure given in the September issue of Brewing Techniques. My guess is
that 1.035 is dead on.

The procedure given in Brewing Techniques is not accurate.The author seems
to have forgotten to take account of the specific volume of the salt (if
that's the proper term). Salt has volume, even when dissolved. By
dissolving 50 grams of salt and making that up to one litre, you do not end
up with one litre of water plus 50 grams of salt. The weight of water in
that solution less than 1 kilogram (1 litre) by whatever is the weight of
water the salt has displaced. Simlarly, if you take one litre of water and
add 50 grams of salt to that, the volume will increase, so, although it
will weigh 1,050 grams in total, it will not weigh 1,050 grams per litre.
The true sg could be calculated if we had an accurate figure for the
specific volume(?) of salt, but I don't have access to that sort of
information.

You could perform the calibration just by using the indicated weight on the
scales, which might be what the author of the article intended, but there
are not many scales that will weigh 50 grams of salt to sufficient
accuracy, and also weigh 1 kilo of water plus the weight of the flask plus
the salt to a similar accuracy.

The way I would tackle it would be to get a precision measuring cylinder,
put 1 litre of distilled water in it, then add 50 grams of salt to THAT.
Make sure the the salt is dissolved fully, then measure the new volume. The
sg can then be calculated by dividing the total weight (1,050 grams) by the
new volume. Any convenient volume and weight of salt can be used.

Also, I would prefer to use sugar solutions rather than salt solutions.
Hydrometers are, theoretically at least, affected by surface tension. I
suspect that the surface tension of a sugar solution is closer than salt to
what we would expect in beer (although that may not necessarily be true).
Dave Whitman has shown by experimentation (private correspondence) that the
effect of surface tension on sg is negligible as far as beer is concerned,
particularly at lowish gravities that we commonly employ, but it may be a
wise precaution to get S.T. as close to beer as possible.

Graham Wheeler
High Wycombe
England

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 09:41:20 -0700
From: "Todd McAllister" <TODDMC at corel.com>
Subject: Dry hopping

>>>>>>>Chris Tirpak Wrote:<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>I just did my first batch of beer involving dry hopping and now need to =
bottle or keg
>it and am not sure about what to do.
>
>I added the hops when I racked to a secondary.  So now that I am about to =
bottle
>or keg I need to know the best way to get rid of all the hops.  I am =
thinking about a
>metal wire strainer or a cheesecloth.  Anyone want to tell me what has =
worked for
>them?
>
>I looked through the FAQ=27s at realbeer.com and went back through the =
archives at
>HBD but everthing I found just talks about adding the hops.=20
>Thanks,
>Chris Tirpak
>chris=40tirpak.com

Chris,
I just did my first Dry-Hop about a two months ago and (an amber ale with =
cascade hops for bittering, finishing and dry) it was the absolute best =
beer I=27ve ever brewed.  I had the same question as you and I asked my =
friendly local homebrew shop about using a nylon mesh strainer that I use =
when transfering the wort to the primary.  He didn=27t seem to think it =
was a good idea due to loss of yeast that may be needed for carbonation.

What I did do was after the secondary fermant died down, I lowered the =
temprature of the secondary in a water bath with a t-shirt draped over it =
and let it lager for a good ten days so all the big stuff would drop out =
of suspension, then was careful to rack off the top and leave a good inch =
at the bottom.  This atually turned into a very clear and wonderfully =
hoppy brew.

I just did an IPA using fuggle hops for the dry, but the overall hoppiness =
is not a prevelant as it was with the amber using the cascade.  (In fact, =
I liked it so much, I=27m doing another amber this weekend=21)

 -Todd McAllister-
toddmc=40corel.com
=22Drink ale, live lager=22

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 11:49:45 -0500
From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com>
Subject:  BAAD BT article on Calibration, Stuck secondary,Dry hops,

Brewsters:

Harlan Bauer says:

>After reading "How to Get the Most out of Your Measuring Instruments" in=

the
>most recent issue of Brewing Techniques, I decided to check the accuracy=

of
>my "trusty" hydrometer. It was a real eye-opener! First, I checked it in=

>distilled water, something I had done before: 1.000, just like it should=

be.
>Then, following the instructions in the article, I measured 50-g NaCl in=
to
>my 1000-mL volumetric flask (Class A). The gravity should have read 1.05=
0,
>but instead read at 1.035. Not even close.

I too read that article last night and =

was appalled at what a poor job
the authors did in a magazine I
normally respect very highly.
Shame on them!

It is obvious that the authors never
tried the calibration with the sodium chloride,
never showed how to calibrate for
pressure differences, etc., etc.

In my handy dandy Chemical Rubber Handbook
56th ed., p D-253, the density of the solution
of sodium chloride at 20 degrees C for
50.6 grams per liter is 1.033.
Corrected to 60 deg F
this would be almost exactly 1.035.  =

Your hydrometer sounds perfect
 - the article is screwed up!

Some more numbers:

 g/l NaCl       density at 20C
    10.1        1.007
    20.2        1.014
    30.6        1.021
    40.0        1.028
    50.6        1.033
    60.3        1.042
    71.2        1.049
    80.0        1.055
    91.2        1.062
  100.2 1.068                           =


These number are based on anhydrous solute,
so if you want to be extra R/A you should =

dry the salt at 110C for a while,
although sodium chloride does not
pick up a lot of moisture from the air.

While we're at it, here's sucrose probably
a better candidate for this use due to its
similarity, better solubility and high purity:

g/l     density at 20C
10      1.0039
20.1    1.0078
30.3    1.0117
40.6    1.0156
50.9    1.0178
61.3    1.0236
71.8    1.0277
82.4    1.0317
93.1    1.0358
103.8   1.0400
204.3   1.0785
263.8   1.1009

and Maltose

g/l     density  at 20C
10.0    1.0041
20.1    1.0063
30.3    1.0121
40.6    1.0162
50.9    1.0202
61.3    1.0243
71.9    1.0283
82.4    1.0323
93.1    1.0363
103.8   1.0403
136.6   1.0505
158.5   1.0603
181.4   1.0691
216.0   1.0801
288.1   1.1100

A refractomer is pretty useless for
this kind of use, but it can be useful as
a quick test for standardized cases.  =

Personally, I wouldn't bother with it.

I certainly wouldn't use a hydrometer
for determining endpoint of a fermentation
( see Clinitest), although it can be useful
for determining the estimated alcohol content
( +/- 0.5%) along with the OG. =


The normal hydrometers are OK for this use,
since the estimated error in the calculation is
so high, take less sample and are much cheaper.
- -------------------------------- =

M. Duppong  says:

>I'm brewing up a Brewer's Resource Brewtek American Brown Ale, using the=

>Wyeast that came with the kit- an American 1056 (I think).

>Primary fermentation was for 6 days at 68F.  Racked to secondary, stored=

in
>a dark 64-66F closet.  So far, I have yet to see one "blurp" from the
>airlock (from my casual observations in the last week).  Me thinks the
>secondary is stuck.

Probably not stuck, just finished. =

 Racking it probably removed most of the
 yeast and kicked off a lot of the CO2.  =

If you moved it to a colder spot that can
 sometimes shut down an ale fermentation like 1056.

If you want to know if it is finished =

or not get the Clinitest KIT with tablets
 *not* test sticks ( may need to special
 order at your pharmacy). and =

check it for residual sugar.
  If is is less than 1/2% sugar,
 put it somewhere cool and allow it
 to clear for a few more days and
 then prime and bottle as usual. =

 You may wish to add a fermenting
 Kraeusen starter made from the
 secondary yeast to be assured
 it will properly carbonate.
  If it's not finished, then make up a starter
 from the secondary yeast, =

move it to a warmer place and finish it out.

If you want more info, see past issues of HBD
 on Clinitest Kit use in determining fermentation end point.
- -----------------------------------
 Chris Tirpak says: =


>I just did my first batch of beer involving dry hopping and now need to
>bottle or keg it and am not sure about what to do.

>I added the hops when I racked to a secondary.  So now that I am about
>to bottle or keg I need to know the best way to get rid of all the
>hops.

If you used whole leaf hops, then use =

a Choreboy scrubber attached to the
 bottom of the racking cane.
  If you have rabbit pelleted hops,
 than the problem is a little more difficult.
 Try fastening a piece of boiled nylon
 screening or a ball of cheese cloth
 to the bottom of the cane. =

 Above all do not "filter" these off by
 allowing the beer to pass through the air.
 Having a few bits of hops isn't all that bad
 and I have had some small bits in the
 early days of  "real Ales" drinking in Britain.
 Next time use whole hops, if you didn't.
 Think about using the hops in a cheesecloth bag.
- -------------------------------------
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: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 11:58:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: neumbg73 at snyoneva.cc.oneonta.edu
Subject: re:Spices added at bottling time

In regard to Dennis Putman's Q:

Just thought I'd relate my only experience with this:

I just bottled a porter a few weeks ago, and to the last 1 or 2 gallons I
added a strong tea of spices. I Just boiled the water for about ten
minutes, threw in the spices ( I used ginger root and licorice root), and
boiled for maybe another minute or two. Then dumped the tea into the
bottling bucket. The spiced porter came out great with no sign of
infection. 

bernie-kb2ebe
The Secret Caverns Pico Brewery
 



Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 10:01:14 -0700
From: mcveyp at kingman.com
Subject: non-electromechanical/Fermentation chiller

I tried ducting the cooling tube thru a "dorm" fridge. There wasn't enough
coldness to cool. If I run tap water thru my chiller, I cool the wort to
pitch temp in 30-45 minutes. So, I got a 5 gl bucket with lid. Attached an
inny & outy PVC hose bib thread to the top & bottom. I fill it with ice and
shunt the tap water thru the pre-chiller and in to the wort chiller. The
cooling time went down to 20 minutes. Even simpler is to wait the 30
minutes. I can drink another beer within that time.


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 09:13:14 -0800
From: steinfiller at juno.com (Don H Van Valkenburg)
Subject: Tequeza/ Agave brew

Anheuser-Busch is test marketing an agave-beer with additional flavor of
tequila/lime added in post fermentation.   They can't use the trade name
tequila, because that is protected by NAFTA -- only tequela made in
Mexico can be so named.  So they came up with a variation on the
spelling;  Correct me if I am wrong, but I think they spell it Tequeza.  
 Has anyone tried this stuff?   What do you think? 

I have done a couple test batches with a 40/60 ratio of agave to malt. 
Came out prety good, but I still have some tweaking of the recipe to do. 
I had been thinking about doing a contract brew with agave, but the
person who was going to finance the venture got cold feet.  I think the
basic concept has great marketing potential --kind of would fit into the
Mexican restaurant/Corona crowd.  
 Comments welcome

Don Van Valkenburg
steinfiller at juno.com

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 09:44:16 -0800
From: steinfiller at juno.com (Don H Van Valkenburg)
Subject: RE: new contest categories

Alan Talman writes:
>I am now planning the Second Annual Homebrew Contest to be held next
March.
> I would like to offer alternative categories for the really good beer
that
>doesn't really fit well into the AHA style guidelines.
GREAT IDEA!!

>Current alternative category ideas include;

>1.Beers brewed with at least 25 ingredients.
>2. Don't know what it's called, but it tastes good.
	Try to at least group them by SG and IBUs -- wouldn't want to
judge a 1.080 low 	hopped against a 1.045 pale, high IBU 
>3. At least 50 HBU's [or 60] 
	Don't try to judge anything for two days after judging this
category
>4. No hops at all. [How many spruce beers can YOU judge?]
	You might call this GRUIT -- the old English name given to ales
before they started 	using hops.   BTW,  there were many spices
besides spruce that were used.  
>5. My first beer.  
	I like this one -- would be less intimidating to first time
brewers.  

One possibility is categorizing according to their starting gravity
within two major sub-groups;  ales and lagers?    And---beers were given
points for creativity.   Just one idea. 
 
The Nineteenth Annual California State Homebrew Competition organized by
the San Andreas Malts had a good solution for this: They had all the
major categories and in addition to a  few subcategories they had "other"
;  i.e. if you had a wheat that didn't fit into any subcategory, it would
be wheat/other,  or pale ale/other, or porter/other.

Don Van Valkenburg
steinfiller at juno.com





Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 28 Oct 97 10:10 PST
From: cburns at egusd.k12.ca.us (Charles Burns)
Subject: rockbottom bashing

I was going to stay out of this until I saw:

<snip>
>> Rock Bottom has never claimed to make "English ales" or "German lagers" 
>> but "American ales and lagers"...

>So don't give them traditional English or German names.

I was in Seattle the last 3 days, at the Hilton, 1 block from Rock Bottom. I 
remember 2 of the names:

Brown Bear Brown
Flying Salmon Stout

Not very English I'd say. And by the way, they were both Excellent brews, 
along with the grilled smoked salmon filet. Hmmm. My mouth just started 
watering again...

Charley (back from Seattle) in N.Cal


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 10:09:49 -0800
From: John Palmer <jjpalmer at gte.net>
Subject: Re. Welding Question

Joe asked what he should do with some apparent slag on the backside of
his TIG welds on fittings in his stainless steel kettle.

My first thought is that TIG welds should not have slag.  Usually only
stick-arc welds (SMAW) or flux cored MIG welds have slag.  So, a) it was
not TIG or b) it is not slag per se.  Nevertheless you have something
gray and nonmetallic on the backside of your welds.

If (a) then it IS slag and you need to grind it off.  I suggest using a
Dremel tool.
If (b) then it could be heavily oxidized filler metal caused by not
having a shielding gas on the inside. Here again, it would be good to
grind it off and expose fresh metal that can be cleaned and
repassivated.

After grinding it out, take some stainless steel cookware cleaner (ex.
Revereware cleanser) and scour the area to remove any free iron from
grinding plus any local discoloration due to oxidation from the weld.
Rinse it with fresh water and dry it.  Then let it sit indoors for a
week to let the chromium oxides reform (repassivate).  Then it should be
fine.

John Palmer
metallurgist, AWS CWI
jjpalmer at realbeer.com
www.realbeer.com/jjpalmer/




Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 13:22:00 -0500
From: "Travis, Brian" <btravis at mail.egleston.org>
Subject: Yeast Strain Questions

Does anybody have any knowledge of what yeast strain Anchor Brewing uses
in Liberty Ale or the yeast strain Yakima Brewing uses in Grant's IPA?
And are these strains available to the homebrewing community through
either commercial sources or private yeast ranch collection?
Thanks for any info any of you can provide!

Brian Travis
tarvus at mindspring.com

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 13:23:39 -0500
From: "Michael Gerholdt" <gerholdt at ait.fredonia.edu>
Subject: Extract: Good, yes. As Good . . .

Matthew Arnold is a bit upset. He asks:

>How is brewing with extracts not "doing it yourself?"

This must be somewhat emotive and rhetorical, because the answer is clear.
If you are using a syrup as your chief ingredient in making beer, you are
not doing the following: Picking the grain(s); milling the grains;
converting the soluble starches to sugars; extracting the sugars.

The steps above are significant and do entail some attention and achieved
skill.

Matthew continues:

>I choose what extracts and in what amount, I choose the
>type of yeast (and I have used both liquid and dry), amount of specialty
>grains, amount and timing of hop additions. My beer is very much done
myself.

Quite a bit much, yes. But not nearly as much as going from all grain.

>>Extract is a lazy way to make a batch of beer.  If you really enjoy the
>>hobby then go for it make the best beer you can the same way the "Big
Guys"
>>do.

>I'm sorry, but this is utter bunk. It is a cheap shot to call extract
brewers
>lazy.

To be picky, the above quote does not call extract brewers lazy. It says
"Extract is a lazy way to make a batch of beer." For many who regularly
make all-grain beer, to consider making an extract beer with its savings in
time and effort would seem like something of a luxury - a self-indulgence.
I'd be being lazy if I decided at this point to make an extract beer. Whip
it up and be done in 3-4 hours! That's making beer? <g>

And what does make it laziness, _for me_, is this: Though I've made and
tasted many fine extract beers, I just don't agree with those who
maintain that extract beers are as good as all grain beers. Sorry. It may
not be the "politically correct" thing to say at this juncture, but it's my
belief.

Certainly I've tasted *some* extract beers that were better than *some* all
gain beers. But we're talking a bell curve here. Fresh grain beers are, in
my experience, better than commercially extracted and condensed and
rehydrated syrup beers. On the whole. Other things being equal.

>Sorry about the tirade but this really annoys me. And, yes, I am going to
try
>my hand at all-grain brewing as my previous posts have shown. Not because
I
>feel I _must_, but because it is something I've always _wanted_ to try. I
can
>very easily see myself brewing with extracts again, especially the recipes
I've
>particularly enjoyed.

Write back in a couple years and tell us how many of those wonderful
rehydrated beer recipes you went back to after coming up with all grain
versions of the recipes and enjoying the difference. I liked my beers made
from commercially extracted and condensed syrups, too, and felt similarly
about them. But I haven't felt that buying syrup and replicating them would
be a good use of either my brewing time nor my drinking pleasure since
moving to all grain.

As in anything, YMMV.

Enjoy the brew!

Michael Gerholdt

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 11:34:40 -0700
From: "Brian M. Rezac" <brian at aob.org>
Subject: Re:  New Contest Categories

Alan Talman wrote:
> I am now planning the Second Annual Homebrew Contest to be held next
March.
> Our first contest was very successful but ordinary. For the next contest
I
> would like to offer alternative categories for the really good beer that
> doesn't really fit well into the AHA style guidelines. I expect 125
entries.
> 
> Please don't spam me for encouraging 'punk' brewing. I love a hoppy IPA
just
> like the next HBDer, I just think brewers make some funky stuff worth
> judging. And the beginners are discouraged from entering by the
guideline's
> fine print.
> 
> Current alternative category ideas include;
> 
> 1.Beers brewed with at least 25 ingredients.
> 2. Don't know what it's called, but it tastes good.
> 3. At least 50 HBU's [or 60] 
> 4. No hops at all. [How many spruce beers can YOU judge?]
> 5. My first beer.
> 
> Well, as you can see I need help with interesting categories. I would
like to
> encourage newbies to enter and I think the AHA styles are too rigid for
some
> casual brewers. My experience last year was that many newbies had good
beer
> that they entered in the wrong category because they didn't have the
> understanding of the guidelines they needed. Any help? private email ok.

Alan,

It sounds like you're describing a category that is already popular with
many competitions.  It's known by several names around here; The Just Beer,
Strange Brew, Big Beer or Weird Beer Category.  I've seen it described
several ways.  Sometimes the category is described by the minimum HBU's or
Starting Gravity.  Sometimes it's described by, "A beer that doesn't fit
into any style guideline".

Personally, I love these type of categories for competitions, but I think
they work best as an additional category rather than the category for the
entire competition.  Even though it may seem like there are many beers
entered in the "wrong" category, many times most beers are entered
correctly.  If a brewer does brew a beer that nails a particular category,
he or she will usually want it judged against like beers. 

I, also, think these categories encourage newbies and casual brewers to
enter competitions.  And I'm all for that!  However, you also want to
encourage experienced brewers to enter.

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, 28 Oct 1997 12:40:45 -0600
From: Vincent Voelz <voelzv at winternet.com>
Subject: picnic cooler mash/lauter tun, pumpkin

I'm looking for a 10-gallon picnic cooler to serve as a dual mash tun and
lauter tun with a false bottom.  Preferrably I want a big tall cylindrical
cooler, like the "McDonalds" coolers, because it already has a spigot and
because my current lautering device uses Phil's Phalse Bottom, which
hopefully can be easily transplanted.

I have had bad luck finding anything except the rectangular coolers.
Anyone know where to find these?  Costs?  Satisfaction?

Please email me directly, as I don't subscribe to HBD (but I read it on the
web)

Another topic:  I'm about to make a pumkpin ale in a few days, anyone know
pros/cons of small pumpkins vs. large pumpkins?  The farmers' market worker
said the small ones were "good for baking" -- hence good for beer, too?

Vincent Voelz
voelzv at winternet.com
http://www.winternet.com/~voelzv

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 12:42:50 -0600 (CST)
From: Al Korzonas <korz at xnet.com>
Subject: Hydrometer calibration

Harlan asks about his hydrometer being off considerably.

I skimmed that article, noticed that salt was mentioned and put it
in the back of my head as "something to check on some day."

I don't know how much salt you need to make a 1.050 SG solution
(maybe 50gm in 1000ml is right, but just the use of salt raised
a red flag in my head).  What I *can* tell you that both the Plato
and Balling scales are based on *sugar* (sucrose (table sugar),
to be exact) and here's how you check the accuracy of your hydrometer
using regular table sugar:

Get a very accurate scale.  Weigh out 12 grams of table sugar.
Add 60F water (or whatever temperature your hydrometer is calibrated
at... it will say on it... some newer ones are calibrated at 68F
or 20C) to that sugar until the solution weighs 100 grams (i.e.
add 88 grams of water).  Mix well.  This, by definition, is a
12 Plato solution (very close to 1.048 OG).  Had you used 10
grams of sucrose and 90 grams of water it would have been 10 Plato...
15 grams == 15 Plato... etc.

Al.

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

My new website (still under construction, but up-and-running):
     http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 13:34:47 -0600
From: Paul Niebergall <pnieb at burnsmcd.com>
Subject:  Artful Pitching Rates

Brewers:

Ah, the art versus science debate lives on.  It was written in HBD
2542:		

>>Accepted pitching rates are from 0.75 to 2 x 10^6 cells per ml per Deg 
>>Plato of the wort (low end for ales, high end for lagers).  So for  5 
>>gallons (19 liters) of a 1.052 OG wort (about 13 deg Plato), I come
>>up  with 19000 ml times 13 times 0.75 x10^6 or 185 billion cells on the
>>low end and about 500 billion cells on the high end.  That's
>>anywhere from 6  to 10 times the amount of yeast you're getting in
>>the tube.  High gravity  beers need even more.

Accepted by whom?  Are these the optimum pitching rates that are
accepted by Mega Swilleries?  If 0.75 to 2 x 10^6 cells is truely the low
end, what if I only had 0.74 x 10^6, should I then not pitch my starter?  A
range is a range, the limits are arbitrary.   Aside from optimal
performance of my yeast culture (whatever that is), do these optimum
pitching levels really apply to my home brewery? 

>>Now as to whether the amount of yeast in  the tube is sufficient for
>>pitching into five gallons of >>beer, I guess it  depends on what you
>>call "sufficient". Certainly White Labs is selling you  more yeast than
>>Wyeast, but neither is sufficient in my mind for pitching  directly. But a
>>12 hour lag time is just not aceeptable in my brewery.   Better than
>>the 24-36 hours from a swelled pack of Wyeast, but not  acceptable.

Come on now 12 hours isn?t that bad is it?  That means that if I pitch my
starter by midnight on a late brewing evening, I can expect my wort to be
actively brewing by lunch time the next day.  Sounds pretty acceptable
to me.

>>Bottom line, make a large enough starter to get the quantity of yeast
>>you  need, oxygenate it well, and oxygenate your wort well, too. You'll
>>be  glad you did. 


I agree in making a large starter, oxygenating it well, and oxygenating
wort too.  But, actually the bottom line is whatever you find it takes to
make good on a consistent basis in your home brewery.  If someone
consistently pitches a White Labs ?pitchable? starter (or a swollen smack
pack -  sans starter for that matter) and consistently comes up with good
results (no matter what the lag time), then this is acceptable and the
amount of starter used was indeed ?pitchable?.  You could pitch a gallon
of yeast starter, oxygenate with pure O2,  have a 1 hour lag time, and
still end up with crud.

>>If you can't or won't make a starter, just rehydrate a couple or three 
>>packs of Nottingham dry yeast. Just as all-grain beers aren't
>>necessarily  better than extract beers, liquid yeast, improperly handled
>>or used, is  not necessarily better than dry.

Conversely, just as extract beers aren?t necessarily any worse than all
grain beers,  pitching a less than optimum cell count in your starter isn?t
necessarily any worse than pitching the optimum amount - If it works for
you.

Brew On, 

Paul Niebergall


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 16:38:45 -0800
From: George_De_Piro at berlex.com (George De Piro)
Subject: The Perfect Airlock

     Hi all,
     
     The simplest, most effective airlock I can imagine for homebrewing 
     fermenters would be of a design similar to the pressure relief valves 
     on cheap(er) pressure cookers.
     
     A small weight perched on a vent.  When the pressure is high enough to 
     lift the weight, it is vented.  Otherwise the weight remains on the 
     vent, sealing it from outsiders (O2 and bugs alike).  The mass of the 
     weight determines the maximum pressure.  Heck, it could even be set so 
     that your beer would carbonate.
     
     I should patent this thing and market it, shouldn't I?  Nah, I doubt 
     that it would differ enough from the version on pressure cookers to be 
     patentable...
     
     Have fun!
     
     George De Piro  (Nyack, NY)

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 16:00:36 -0500
From: "Paul A. Hausman" <lion!paul at saturn.planet.net>
Subject: Re: Gas -- Natural vs. Propane

In HBD #2542, Steve Scott Wrote:
:
:On Sat, 25 Oct 1997 00:13:18 -0400, you wrote:
:>First off, I know what comes out of my LP tank, but what do you call
:>"natural gas"? (and don't say "a fart" -- I mean the stuff you cook
:>with!)
:Actually they're both the same thing - methane.

No they are not!  "LP" is an abreviation for "liquified *propane*"
gas. Propane is C3H8.

Natural gas is exactly that, it is hydrocarbon gas from underground.  
It's chemical makeup varies somewhat, but it is primarily methane
(CH4), some ethane (C2H6), and very small percentage of propane 
and higher molecular weight gasses.

:>I know this next question has been answered before, but I always get
:>confused.  I've got my cajun cooker -- or some compatible propane
:>cooking device.  If I want to have a natural gas line dropped down into
:>my basement to use this puppy, what conversions are in order?  

Converting a gas burner from one fuel to another requires re-porting.
This is because different gasses burn best at different fuel/air mixtures.

In basic principle, a gas burner consists of five parts.

1. Gas Source
2. Pressure regulator
3. Gas port
4. Air Intake
5. Burner

(bad ascii graphics alert!)
                                  5
              _T_        ______ooooo
=============(___)=======} ooo      |
 1                       -----------
               2         3  4

The ratio between the size of the gas port and the air 
intake/burner construction is what determines the air/fuel mixture.
For a given burner setup, the bigger the gas port (represented as "}" 
in my lousy diagram, the richer the fuel/air mixture. I believe that 
methane (natural gas) requires a larger port than propane. Your local 
heating supply place (or someone else on this list) may be able to 
tell you how much larger. For some commercial burners (e.g., stoves
and hot water heaters) you can buy propane or natural gas ports. 
For Cajun Kookers and other cheap burners, I have heard of people
re-porting them with a power drill and properly sized drill bit.

:>Also -- does the
:>cost of converting a (paid for) LP cooker end up being more than buying
:>a natural gas cooker?  Where does one find natural gas cookers of this
:>type.
:
:The major problem with converting a cooker such as this or finding a
:methane cooker is that they're both designed to be used outdoors.
:Neither has any means of shutting down the gas flow if the main burner
:goes out.  This is especially scary when considering the amount of gas
:this could dump into your house in just a few minutes.  1 cubic foot of
:methane has slightly more than 1000 btu.  So your 100,000 btuh burner
:would dump 100 cubic feet per minute.  Find a burner that will shut down
:the gas valve if the flame goes out if you're planning on brewing
:indoors.

At the risk of revisiting the "propane indoors" tirades,
This is true. The fire/explosion hazard of natural gas is less than 
that of propane, because propane is heavier than air (wants to head 
for your basement) while methane is lighter than air (wants to head 
for your attic and out). However, either one can pose a significant 
hazard if you do not know what you are doing or if you do not pay 
attention. Also, gas burners designed for outdoor use may generate 
substantial amounts of CO2 and or carbon monoxide, neither of which 
you want building up in your house.

If you do go ahead and install such a device indoors, either study up 
on it *a lot* or get help from someone who you are confident knows 
what he/she is doing. Make sure you consider potential leaks and 
provide adequate ventilation for combustion gasses.  My suggestion is, 
if this sounds like too much work, stick with slower cooking or work 
outside.

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 16:08:32 -0600
From: lheavner at tcmail.frco.com (Lou Heavner)
Subject: Re: Optimizing Airlocks

     Steve Alexander asks about reducing O2 diffusion through an airlock 
     when beer is kept for long periods under an airlock after visible 
     fermentation is complete.  Maybe Dave Whitman's suggestion of a 
     barrier bladder is the best alternative.  I'm not sure how permeable 
     ballons (rubber or mylar) are to O2.  But since there will be little 
     or no CO2 production, a small balloon would work.  Leakage around the 
     fittings should be no more than would occur with a conventional 
     airlock.  Any CO2 that is actually produced will simply expand the 
     balloon.  The balloon could even be purged with a shot of CO2 
     immediately prior to placement.  Replace your airlock with a stopper 
     fitted with a piece of tubing.  Before inserting the tubing, poke a 
     balloon through it so that the lip of the ballon can be folded up 
     around the outside of the tubing.  I'm not promising you won't tear a 
     ballon or two trying to put it together with a tight seal.  Let's see 
     how good my ascii art is...
     
                       BBB
                      B   B
                     B     B
                      B   B
                     TB   BT
                    BTB   BTB
                SSSSBTB   BTBSSSS
                CSSSBTB   BTBSSSC
                C SSBTB   BTBSS C
                C   BBB   BBB   C
                C               C
                ~               ~
     
     B= baloon; T= tubing; S= stopper; C= neck of carboy
     
     Regards,
     
     Lou
     <lheavneratfrmaildotfrcodotcom>

Return to table of contents

---