HOMEBREW Digest #2625 Sun 01 February 1998
![[Prev HBD]](/img/previous.gif)
![[Index]](/img/index_button.gif)
![[Next HBD]](/img/next.gif)
![[Back]](/img/Back.gif)
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: double pressure decoctions ("Rich, Charles")
DME for starters (Troy Hager)
H2O / Scotch Ale questions ("Michael Gerholdt")
nip bottles ("Bryan L. Gros")
invert tube ("Bill Birch")
Enamel Pot is Better Than RIMS (Kyle Druey)
Mashout? (Kyle Druey)
unclear beer (Jeandwe)
Celis Beer (Joseph Kallo)
The Licorice Whip/Volume Est. (EFOUCH)
Re: What happend to the Wahl-Henius Handy Book (Spencer W Thomas)
National Beers; Al's book (Samuel Mize)
Gott Cooler setup (Guy Mason)
Bottle conditioning and flavor (Tim Burkhart)
Sacred Cow (Bill Giffin)
3D in Equations,cool room ("David R. Burley")
Clarification of beer part 1 ("David R. Burley")
Filtration / Source of Licorice flavor / AC for cold room (George_De_Piro)
Clarification of Beer Part 2 ("David R. Burley")
Walk-in (Jeffrey C Lawrence)
Re: Briess ESB Malt (Jeff Renner)
Propane to natural gas conversion (Jeremy Bergsman)
NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS: hbd.org
Send articles for __publication_only__ to post@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 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...
ftp://hbd.org/pub/hbd/digests
ftp://ftp.stanford.edu/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer
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: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 10:18:29 -0800
From: "Rich, Charles" <CRich at filenet.com>
Subject: re: double pressure decoctions
In HBD #2622, Phil Wilcox mentioned that his Blond Bock turned out like
a Dunkle Wiezen after a double pressurized decoction.
I have used my pressure canner now for about a dozen beers and love it,
I won't go back. There is a big range of effects and techniques
available with it and I still feel I'm only scratching the surface.
When I cook decoct fractions with it though, I usually only go to about
5-lbs pressure for 10-15 minutes so as not to overly color the grain.
It's such a big improvement over by-hand cooking; no stirring, no
scorching, no air, little fuel use, and it cooks evenly throughout. I
cook decoct fractions basically to liquify the starch in the fraction
and not to develop flavor, since that can be better gotten (IMHO) by
p-cooking the first runnings. My czech pilsners come out with a
slightly tawnier color than if I omit the cooking, but well within style
guidelines, about the same as when I used to hand cook them..
Your decoct fraction can be extremely stiff when cooking with pressure
since you don't need to stir it, what extra liquid I add, I do for its
enzyme content for a 20 minute rest at 158F before p-cooking. If you
don't mind the color change, I know that such fractions cooked for
30-40 minutes at 15-lbs are incredibly good tasting, but again, I feel
flavor effects are easier and more efficiently gotten by p-cooking the
first runnings.
I really like it for cooking cereal adjucts too, again at 5-lbs for
10-15 mins after a 10 minute/158F rest with some malted barley so the
cooked cereal isn't stiff, but runny. I always use a lidded second
vessel inside the p-canner to hold the grains, to avoid scorching and to
keep any spluttering stuff from clogging the ports inside.
Use caution when cooking with pressure, follow the directions that come
with your cooker. Once you're comfortable with it -- it's a breeze.
I'd suggest to anyone who'd like to try p-cooking wort, to capture a
pint of wort (before hopping) and put it in a pressure canner, or
cooker, for 30-40 mins at 15 lbs and then taste it -- Now, don't you
LOVE the idea of putting that flavor into your beer?
Happy Brewing,
Charles Rich (Seattle, USA)
Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 11:26:02 -0700
From: Troy Hager <thager at bsd.k12.ca.us>
Subject: DME for starters
Brewers,
I know that most of you (from what I have read and heard) use DME for your
starters because of the ease of measurement, etc., but am wondering if
anyone out there has a source for some at a reasonable price. My HB shop
sells it for $3.50/ lb. and sells the liquid extract for half that price.
Does everyone cough up that amount for the DME or am I missing something
here...
Personal email is great!
Thanks!
Troy A. Hager
2385 Trousdale Drive.
Burlingame, CA 94010
259-3850
Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 14:53:16 -0500
From: "Michael Gerholdt" <gerholdt at ait.fredonia.edu>
Subject: H2O / Scotch Ale questions
Hello, brewers,
I'm preparing to brew a Scotch Ale, tending toward the Wee Heavy substyle.
My water is very hard (99ppm Calcium) and makes a good IPA. However, I
understand that a Scotch Ale should be made with soft water.
If I were to start with distilled water, what should I add to make this
water suitable for a Scotch Ale? Or would water from a neighbor who softens
water be ok?
With all the discussion about aeration/oxygenation and pitching levels, I
seem to remember from a preliminary version of Tracy's article on this that
a Scotch Ale is one example where aeration would not be indicated, and the
very large starter necessary. Would the yeast cake from a 2.5 gallon batch
in a 3 gallon carboy be large enough? Or should I simply make another 5
gallon batch of beer to create a yeast cake large enough?
I'm in the process now of stepping up the Wyeast 1728. Never having used
this yeast before, any comments from someone familiar with it will be
appreciated, either in hbd or private email.
Finally, I'm having some difficulty arriving at a grain bill I find
convincing. I've checked Cat's Meow, and though I'm sure what's there has
made some good beers, I want very much to be as "in style" and authentic as
I can. Any comments on the following recipe would again be appreciated.
HBRCP 2.0 Recipe:
Name: O.G.: 1.078
Style: Scottish Export I.B.U.: 32.1
Volume: 5.0 Gallons A.B.V.: 98.4%
Grains/Fermentables Lbs Hops AAU Oz
Min
Pale, American 2 Row 8.00 East Kent Goldings 4.3 2.50
60
Barley, Roasted 2.00
Biscuit, Belgian 3.00
Smoked, German 1.00
Cara-pils, American 1.00
Yeast: Scottish Ale Wyeast 1728
Thanks,
Michael Gerholdt
Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 14:41:56 -0800
From: "Bryan L. Gros" <gros at bigfoot.com>
Subject: nip bottles
Tom Puskar asked about finding 7 oz. bottles. Dave Sapsis said
that they're available here in the Bay Area in green for about
$10/case.
If you want nice brown bottles, you can always go buy a case of
Anchor Old Foghorn. The downside is that the case will run
you significantly more than $10, and you get those annoying
labels stuck on the bottles. The upside is that you'll have the
tedious task of emtying all those bottles.
- Bryan
Bryan Gros gros at bigfoot.com
Oakland, CA
Visit the new Draught Board homebrew website:
http://www.dnai.com/~thor/dboard/index.htm
Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 17:55:16 -0700
From: "Bill Birch" <bbirch at inquo.net>
Subject: invert tube
Does anyone have experience using the siphonless valve for fermenters =
that are sold by Williams Brewing Co.? It is a spigot that is installed =
in a plastic fermenter (it is installed at a 2" center above the bottom =
of the bucket) that has a tube on the inside that points down to prevent =
the valve from getting plugged. If it works it would make transfering =
to a secondary or bottling bucket much easier...no siphoning! They want =
$20 for a bucket which is very pricey, but you can get just the back nut =
with the invert valve for $3.35.
bbirch at inquo.net
Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 09:33:26 -0800
From: Kyle Druey <druey at ibm.net>
Subject: Enamel Pot is Better Than RIMS
> From: Bill Giffin <billg at ctel.net>
> Subject: RIMS
here's the other side of the story....
>Why in the world would anyone want a RIMS brewing system?
For starters, you might want to build and use a RIMS for precise
temperature control in step mashing, the elimination of stirring, and
the production of crystal clear wort that is ready for sparging (you
don't have to recirculate until the wort clears before sparging). And
if you enjoy building things then this is another added benefit.
>When an enamelware pot will do everything that a RIMS will do only
>better.
When you say 'enamelware pot' I am going to take this to mean kettle
mashing. I suppose better is subjective. Does it make better tasting
beer? Again subjective. I am not convinced kettle mashing can provide
the same benefits of RIMS (no stirring, temp control, sparge ready
wort?).
>How do you do decoction mashs with a RIMS?
The same way you do it when you kettle mash. You use an extra pot that
I call a decoct pot, scoop grains from the main mash into the decoct
pot.... y'all know the rest.
>How do you do a mixed mash with a RIMS?
The same way you do with kettle mashing. Someone recently posted that
they added a mechanical stirrer to their cooler that used steam for temp
boosts, very clever. But with RIMS why would you want to add a stirrer
when recirculating performs the same function as an automated stirrer.
>If you are doing an infusion mash why do you need to recirculate? Brits
>don't!
I guess by infusion and Brits Bill is referring to *single infusion*, as
opposed to step infusion (step mashing). This is probably the most
significant point that Bill mentions. Why bother with RIMS if what you
want to do is single infusion? Kettle mashing or cooler mashing would
be much easier and cheaper. But single infusion will limit you to having
to use highy/well modified malts only. May not be a problem if you are
making British ales, but could very well be a problem if making German
lagers, Belgian ales, or wheat beer, where one would typically use
moderately modified european malts.
>I can brew a lot of beer for the cost of the pump alone, and better beer
Again, better is subjective. You can brew exceptional beer with kettle
mashing and RIMS. Yes, RIMS can be expensive ($100-$300), but so can
kettle mashing if you choose to go with a Polar Ware 10 gal SS pot,
aluminum clad bottom, with a thermometer port and valve port $200. On
top of that you still need a lauter tun with a false bottom, or add on
some type of tubular false bottom to your kettle.
>Those of you who are planing to go all grain use the KISS system and
>stay away from RIMS, too much cost and the potential for problems
>without enough gain to warrant building a RIMS.
More subjectivity, once you build your RIMS it is simpler and easier
than kettle mashing, IMO. If designed and built properly problems are
eliminated/minimized. It doesn't get any simpler when all you have to
do is just dough in and then start the pump. The potential gain is
significant if you desire to use a multiple temperature mashing
schedule. If you don't like building gadgets than don't build a RIMS,
but don't let it scare you either. I can barely use cables to jump a
dead battery on my car and I was able to build a RIMS.
Bill mentions some good points: the RIMS cost, potential for problems,
and kettle mashing being more suitable for single infusion. I just felt
he was just not even giving RIMS a chance, and possibly scaring away
some folx who might be considering RIMS. Good to know what you are
getting into and the limitations.
Kyle
Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 09:37:18 -0800
From: Kyle Druey <druey at ibm.net>
Subject: Mashout?
>From: smurman at best.com
>Subject: step mashing/no whirlpool/mashout
>My understanding is that a mashout to 165F is primarily to denature
>the beta-amylase enzyme so that it won't continue chewing up your
>beers body while you perform an hour long sparge. How does it effect
>efficiency? If anything it should reduce the efficiency.
I haven't read this but it makes sense to me (regarding beta amylase).
My understanding is that the mashout will cause the remaining bit of
starch to gelatinize for the last surviving alpha amylase enzymes to
convert, which increases extraction. There are some experiments to this
effect in the library of the Brewery, but only 1 pt/lb/gal increase in
extraction was achieved using a 15' mashout rest at 168F.
MY REAL QUESTION: is the mashout necessary? (to me a mashout means the
last temperature rest for 5'-15' at temps from 165F-170F before
sparging) I have noticed lately that several brewing 'experts' no longer
believe a mashout is necessary. One HBDer commented last fall that
Michael Lewis believes it is not necessary. In Fix's new book he does
not include a mashout for any of his recommended mashing programs, and
he doesn't even make mention of a mashout. What's up with this?
The only reason I do a mashout now is to reduce the viscosity of the
wort before sparging. As soon as I hit 168 I start sparging, no rest
time. I used to mashout for 15' at 168 F. I have not noticed a
decrease in extraction now that I don't rest at 168 F. Am I causing
some starch to gelatinize at 168, and by not holding at this temp, will
it go unconverted into the finished beer and cause starch haze? Or will
the starch be converted during the sparge?
Kyle Druey, still looking for protein rest answers...
Bakersfield, CA
Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 20:41:31 EST
From: Jeandwe at aol.com
Subject: unclear beer
I have just started mashing two batches ago . Everything is working out ok
except my finished beer is not clear . What would cause this ? I am thinking
i might be sparging to fast . Never had any trouble with extract . Any advice
would be a big help.
Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 98 07:03:40 -0600
From: Joseph Kallo <jkallo at snaefell.tamu.edu>
Subject: Celis Beer
Hello all.
Tom Williams is not alone is his noticing changes in Celis
beer. Last week I picked up a six-pack of my favorite of their beers
(and one of my favorite beers bar-none): Grand Cru. I was first
alerted to something odd going on when I noticed that the bottles
were over-carbonated. The beer was not contaminated, but the ordinary
sourness normal of this beer was present in epic quantities. The
first one was drinkable, but by the middle of the second I would have
described the sourness as 'cloying.' I thought maybe I had a bad
bunch, but a second six-pack from a different store yielded the same
results--over-carbonation and intense/excessive sourness.
Night before last I picked up some Celis White and was quite
surprised upon pouring one (well-chilled) to find a nearly clear
amber-colored ale. The nearly opaque cloudy-ness that I expected was
not there. I can't comment on taste differences as I don't drink the
White very often, but the change in opacity was startling enough for
me.
Perhaps a change in grain bills?
Joe Kallo
Dpt. of Philosophy
Texas A&M University
Return to table of contents
Date: 30 Jan 1998 09:01:53 -0500
From: EFOUCH at steelcase.com
Subject: The Licorice Whip/Volume Est.
HBD-
Some more info for the thread I started regarding the licorice note I found in
an "Old Ale".
What I had in mind was to try a dopplebock or ocktoberfest ale, which I later
found out is basically and old ale. This was also kind of a cupboard cleaner,
as I threw in some odds and ends:
5# Munich, 5# Pale ale, 1# raw wheat (Bulgar- where can I find Red Texas?),
1# tapioca starch, 0.75# wheat malt, 0.25# chocolate malt, 1# honey.
Cereal mash: wheat, wheat malt, tapioca, 2# pale ale: 50C - 60C - Boil
Mash 2: 5# munich, 3# pale at 65C for 30 min, combined mashes at 68C for 30
min.
Collected 7 gallons, boiled it down to 6 gallons with two hops additions:
0.5oz Hallertua for 60 min, 0.5oz Saaz at 30 min. Added the honey at the end
of the boil. Fermented with Widmer Bros. Hefewiezen yeast (a German Alt
strain). Fermentation temp was 62 for one week, racked to secondary. I let
it warm up to 68 for three more weeks in the secondary.
OG 1.065
RG 1.045 (racking gravity)
SG 1.015
Bottled 12-30. Tasted 1-07 - ANISE! Tasted 1-19 - Anise fading 1-29 - Anise
pretty much gone. Rather sweet, although it seems to be drying up in the
bottle. Should age nicely.
I doubt the anise came from higher alcohols or other yeast by products. I
have used this yeast before and not found this note, and I fermented cooler
this time than previous attempts. This was the third generation of this yeast
after harvesting from a bottle of Wid. Perhaps it's giving out? If it was
from the yeast, it seems to be "metabolizing" out of the bottle.
Here's a tip some one might find valuable: I boil in two pots on the stove: a
three gallon and a five gallon. I had problems guestimating when I had 5
gallons total volume (hence this 6 gallon batch). Fortuitously, both pots are
ten inches high, so I marked one inch increments on my stirring paddle. Now I
can measure the wort and gauge my boiling time accordingly: 6 inches in the
five gallon pot equals 3 gallons (6/10ths of five gallons equals 3 gallons).
7.5 inches in the three gallons pot equals 2.25 gallons (7.5/10ths of three
gallons equals 2.25 gallons). So at 5.25 gallons I'm done, sacrificing some
to the hops and break.
Eric Fouch
Bent Dick YoctoBrewrey
Kentwood, MI
efouch at steelcase.com
In the words of Rush Limbaugh - "I'm not going to sit here and stand for those
kind of insults!"
Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 09:18:52 -0500
From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer at engin.umich.edu>
Subject: Re: What happend to the Wahl-Henius Handy Book
I've got about 500 of the 1200 pages online at
http://hubris.engin.umich.edu:8080/Wahl
You need a big screen to read them easily, because they're page images,
2 pages per image, about 1000x700 pixels each.
=Spencer
Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 08:30:10 -0600 (CST)
From: Samuel Mize <smize at prime.imagin.net>
Subject: National Beers; Al's book
Greetings to all, and especially to:
> HOMEBREW Digest #2623 Fri 30 January 1998
> From: Brad McMahon <brad at sa.apana.org.au>
> Subject: Coopers Sparkling Ale
...
[in Australia]
> There are no real national beers like you have Coors and Budweiser.
Them's fightin' words, son. I don't CARE if they're true! ;-)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> From: John Penn <john_penn at spacemail.jhuapl.edu>
> Subject: HSA, book, my mistake
> Book: A short plug for Al K's book which I got as a Christmas book. I'm
> only halfway through it but I find it very useful.
If you're only half-way through, you haven't even GOTTEN to the good stuff
yet :-) Since Al's been pretty modest about promoting it on HBD, let me
give a brief review.
Note to Al: I checked through four months of HBD to see if it had already
been reviewed. Next time, put a more distinctive search word in the title
than "Homebrewing," OK? :-)
Homebrewing volume I -- available via http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/
Introduces brewing, provides about all you'll need to know except mashing.
Not just for extract brewers, unless all-grain brewers have quit boiling,
fermenting, bottling, and using specialty grains, hops and yeast.
This is a big thick book, and I'm just listing the highlights,
this is not the complete contents. Volume II promises to cover mashing,
yeast ranching, and other more-advanced topics. In volume I:
- The first two chapters introduce brewing using partial-boil and a kit.
- Following chapters cover full boil, recipe use and development, and
techniques for extract brewers.
- Later chapters and appendices cover characteristics of malt, hops,
specialty grains and yeast (tables of characteristics for common breeds
of hop and brands of malt and yeast, including liquid and dry yeasts).
- Recipes, including a table of basic extract recipes for common styles.
- Troubleshooting and FAQ sections.
Fairly comprehensive for extract brewing, fairly clear, contains a lot of
research results. Heavily documented with footnotes and pointers for
further reading.
Potential for improvement: The book's pedagogical arrangement could be a
little stronger. I've found the index adequate but a little weak for
reference. The table of contents only provides chapter headings, so I've
wound up paging through the book a lot to find a specific section. Al has
a tendency (like many of us (including me)) to, somewhat, use less than
unconvoluted sentences on occasion. However, his difficult sentences are
fairly rare, and they're clear once you work through them.
If you give it to a beginner, note that the introductory partial-boil
batch directions ASSUME you are using a plastic fermenter. If the
beginner is using a glass carboy, caution him/her about thermal shock.
Overall, an excellent reference for brewers at a broad range of expertise.
I've been extract brewing (and reading like crazy) for a couple of years.
I still wound up with a page of references to new ideas and useful info,
and that's not counting the recipe and materials tables.
My only "must-read" is the Bible but I'd certainly recommend this to
anyone on HBD, or as a first book on brewing.
Best,
Sam Mize
- --
Samuel Mize -- smize at imagin.net -- Team Ada
Fight Spam - see http://www.cauce.org/
Personal net account - die gedanken sind frei
Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 09:40:34 -0500
From: Guy Mason <guy at matrix-one.com>
Subject: Gott Cooler setup
Greeting Fellow Beerlings,
A while back someone posted their web site with a picture and design of
their Gott cooler setup. The design used PVC pipe (13" diameter?) as a
base. Having suffered through a Microsoft Trademarked 'Blue Screen of
Death' and losing everything on my hard drive (NT is stable, NT is great),
I was hoping someone out their in beer land could point to the right web
site. Finally 'got the Gott' and I'm investigating various setups to see
which would suit my needs best.
Thanks
Guy Mason
Brewing in the 'Tax you to death state' Connecticut.
Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 09:27:28 +0000
From: Tim Burkhart <tburkhart at dridesign.com>
Subject: Bottle conditioning and flavor
I've only been lurking the HBD for a week now and have been quite amazed at
how thourough and professional this list is. I guess in most cases, good
people drink good beer.
Now that I've sucked up a bit, I have a question that has to be asked due to
a lack of experience.
Q: How much does priming sugar, then aging, affect the final flavor?
The batch is a simple extract pale ale, 6.6 lb. light extract w/ 1 lb.
crystal malt, boiling and finishing hops, starting OG of 1050. After taking
my final OG of 1014, I tasted the beer before adding the priming sugar. It
was clean, slightly watery, just enough malt, good hop character up front
and after.
I then made my syrup w/ 5 oz priming sugar, siphoned out of the secondary
and bottled. After seven days I couldn't wait any longer. The bottle had
cleared and there was sediment present. I poured into my favorite pint glass
and took it in. Beautiful creamy head, just enough carbonation, deep copper
color. It had a sweet but not cloying smell and taste up front, that was
quickly replaced by a full bodied but well balanced malt and hop taste in
the middle and a nice aftertaste that also had a slight sweetness to it.
Is the sweetness due to it's young age, its extract heritage, too much
priming sugar, or did I just end up with a maltier pale ale than I had
expected? Even though the beer had cleared and sedimented, is there still
action going on that I can't visibly see?
Tim Burkhart
Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 10:37:23 -0500
From: Bill Giffin <billg at ctel.net>
Subject: Sacred Cow
Top of the morning to ye all,
When I asked the question about RIMS I thought I would get a response but I
didn't know that I had gone after a sacred cow. I got a rather offensive
post from a brewer in California, who though perhaps I was crushingly
stupid.
I would have rather had him defend his system, provided that he is using a
RIMS, then tell me how stupid I am.
Brewers have been using a mash tun, lauter tun system for a long time and
the RIMS system for a very short time. I personally would prefer to err on
the side of the long used system, which is also simpler and less costly
then go with the rather new RIMS system.
So again I'll ask the question why use a RIMS? Maybe because you have
invested too much money into a RIMS system and can't bear to junk it and
use a better and simpler system.
What can be simpler then to crush pale malt and a bit of crystal malt into
a mash tun, infuse it with enough hot water to bring the mash to 150Fn or
so, and hold it there with any number of methods then lauter it out. Less
work, less chance for problems and less money invested in the system.
By the by to the person who wrote the rather obnoxious personal post to me
I don't drive a Yugo nor a VW beetle. I drive a brand new Chevy pickup
just like all good red necks!
Bill
Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 11:42:53 -0500
From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com>
Subject: 3D in Equations,cool room
Brewsters:
For those that have an interest in IBU vs altitude ( in case you
are trying to brew *good* hoppy beer at 15,000 feet) and want
to make sense of my recent equations which the e-mail fairy =
corrrupted, just ignore the "3D" in all the equations. Whenever
I use an equal sign "3D" gets inserted. Old habits die hard,
but I'll keep trying to remember to write out "equals" and to =
shorten my line length.
The equation for IBU versus altitude is =
BP(A) equals 212 - 0.0018 A
Where BP is the boiling point of water at A.
A is altitude above sea level in feet
and =
R(t2) equals R(t1) X 2 ^ (( t2-t1)/18)
where R is the rate at the various boiling points as measured
or calulated. t1 and t2 are the boiling points at the different
altitudes.
The inverse of R(ti) is related to the length of time needed to boil
Hope this clarifies it.
- ----------------------------------------
John Varady is thinking about making a coolroom in his =
basement.
1) Yes, I can verify that an air conditioner will dehumidify as I
did this some years ago in mine using a window similarly placed
Much better than trying to use
those "dehumidifiers" which cost as much to run, but heat the =
room to the point of being uncomfortable and you may have to
dump water out of them all the time. Most air conditioners don't =
get down into the 50s as I recall, unless you can somehow trick =
the thermostat.
2) If you plan on using the guts to a freezer to get down to a =
lower temperature, remember you have to export the heat from =
the freezer operations or else you will have a net heater =
in the room. =
- -------------------------------------------
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: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 13:13:06 -0500
From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com>
Subject: Clarification of beer part 1
Brewsters:
Bob Hendricksen used an activated carbon, 0.5 micron water
filter from Home Despot and wonders why he lost all taste,
aroma, etc. Look at it this way you almost have a ZIma! =
He says:
" ...I think what I have here is the mother of all water filters - and a
helluva overkill for filtering beer...what I would like to know is what
filter SHOULD I have used?...are there any other brewers out there
that filter their brew?....c'mon - inquiring minds want to know!... "
Things other than the actual particle strainer function of a filter
have given filtration a bad name. =
Asbestos - that component of beer filters in days gone
by was extremely reactive towards protein and other things in
solution and removed these through a chemical adsorption.
Even as little as 1% asbestos in pulp medium will do the job
in some cases. Diatomaceous earth is less reactive, but does
have some reactivity and can affect the beer negatively. It's just
not as powerful on a per pound basis and is therefore more
controllable. Activated carbon is basically an incredibly large
surface area per pound and will adsorb practically anything to
a degree - from organics to inorganic ions like lead, etc. The =
point is you don't want any of these things in any filter you use
with beer as they will strip it of desirable as well as undesirable
components.
BTW considerations for wine filtration are different in which you
*want* to remove protein, as well as other clouding =
components.
What you do want for beer is something that will remove the
suspended and colloidal particles which scatter light and cause =
cloudiness but not those things which are responsible for good =
taste and mouth feel. Luckily today with membrane technology =
and other developments in plastics over the past half century
these devices are available to the home brewer.
First some background, colloidal particles which scatter light
are on the order of a wavelength of light or larger. This is on =
the order of 4000 to 7000 Angstroms or 4 to 7 X 10^-5 cm in
length or 4 to 7 microns. Typical solute particles ( that is, stuff
*dissolved* in solution) are on the order of 5 Angstroms =
(10^-8 cm) or 1000 times smaller and these do not scatter =
light. Two kinds of colloids exist: "lyocratic" governed by =
solvation and "electrocratic" governed by electrical charges. =
In reality all colloids have both characters to some extent. =
When beer is chilled the solubility of the protein-tannin complex
is affected and this formerly soluble complex comes out of
solution in particles larger than 4 microns and scatters light,
causing cloudiness. Yeast is on the order of 5 -10 microns =
extending down to about 2 microns for the daughter cells.
In most cases, extended chilling ( say a month) will bring
these things out of suspension and the beer is not cloudy =
but not sparkling because some truly colloidal particles still
remain. Other methods for clarifying beer use soluble or
insoluble substances to destabilize the electrocratic part =
of the suspension and bring about an improvement in the =
clarity of the beer by a process called flocculation.
The problem in the first case is that the wait may extend =
beyond the best taste for the beer - especially if it is an ale - =
and for sure waiting will try the patience of the brewer. =
How many times have I read and experienced that the beer =
in Cornies is just getting clear when the last bit is consumed? =
In the second case using flocculants and clarifying aids is
faster, but carries with it the risk of removing other substances
or overdosing which affect the character of the beer. Isinglass
and gelatin being proteinaceous substances react with tannin
and bring out particles while reducing the bitterness of the
beer to some extent. Too much of these and they will stay in
solution perhaps causing cloudiness and a bland beer. =
Although modern substances like polyvinylpyrrolidinone (PVP),
nylon 66 and other products are very useful,) these sometimes =
run the risk of overdosing and bringing about a poor result.
BTW G. Fix is incorrect in his most recent book. PVP is not
derived chemically from nylon 66.
Since each beer is different, a test of the minimum amount =
to add becomes a task needed with each beer. Not a =
problem for a professional brewer, but a big time and product =
investment for a homebrewer.
What is the best way? See Part 2.
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: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 13:13:14 -0800
From: George_De_Piro at berlex.com
Subject: Filtration / Source of Licorice flavor / AC for cold room
Hi all,
Bob writes a rather amusing tale (for us, anyway) about filtering his
beer through a 0.5 micron carbon block filter. It is appropriate that
Bob should post this now because of the recent Zima question.
That's a big part of how they make it! I'm surprised your beer had
any color left to it!
A 0.5 micron filter is very fine; that can be used to filter out many
microbes from beer destined to skip pasteurization. Beer is not
usually carbon filtered, unless you are making Zima, because it will
strip out almost all of the organic molecules (i.e., flavor, color,
and body).
A 5 micron filter will remove yeast and make your beer pretty clear.
A smaller filter (1-2 microns) is useful for removing chill haze.
Homebrewers really don't need to go any finer than this.
-----------------------------
Dave Burley questions Jethro's statement that the perception of
licorice in beer can be caused by an ester.
Ethyl hexanoate, an ester, is perceived as licorice by some people.
Some people perceive it as apples, I happen to perceive it as
licorice. At 0.5 ppm it is quite strong (to me).
The Siebel taste panel training is something every beer judge should
go through! The next time someone tells me a beer smells like apples,
but all I'm smelling is spicy licorice, I'll know that we are actually
perceiving the same thing!
-----------------------------
John Varady asks about using an air conditioner to cool a cold room.
I built an insulated box of approximately 30 cubic feet that is kept
ion the low 30's (near 0C) using an air conditioner as the cooling
unit. It works great!
I just had to bend the temperature probe bulb back behind the heat
exchange fins at the bottom of the air conditioner's face. This way,
a separate thermostat can be used to keep the temp near freezing. If
you rely on the air conditioner's thermostat, you won't get the temp
below 50F (10C).
I don't know how well this will work for a larger space, but the unit
has no trouble keeping my modest box cold.
Have fun!
George De Piro (Nyack, NY)
Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 13:34:16 -0500
From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com>
Subject: Clarification of Beer Part 2
Brewsters:
Part 2
Filtration which operates only on the mechanism of straining
out the particles larger than will scatter light is the answer.
Enter the membrane or cartridge filters whose pore size
can actually be controlled during manufacture. The filter =
membrane itself is non-reactive, being made of =
polypropylene or polyester.
Based on the above discussion one would think that a filter =
of say 2 microns pore size would do good job at removing =
the light scattering particles from beer, like yeast and chill =
haze to clear the beer. Probably true with the understanding =
that leakage of larger particles does occur, so a filter is =
rated often on what it holds back about 90% or 99% of the =
time at a given pressure differential.
Why not just go to 2 microns for a one-time filtration? You could,
but two things interfere with this approach: 1) the smaller the =
pore size of the filter the larger the pressure drop across the =
clean filter 2) Plugging of filter with lots of very large particles =
(which can be permanent at high enough pressures) , The =
result is slow filtrations if you go for the gold with a 0.5 micron =
filter as the first pass. You will wait a loooong time and filter =
at very high pressure. So it is best to do a rough filter for =
everything 5 micron and above first, then do a polish filter =
to whatever degree you wish.
Based on my experience and comments of others:
1) Never use a filter which has anything in it except a =
plastic medium like a cartridge or a fiber wound filter. =
That means no diatomaceous earth, no asbestos, no =
activated carbon.
2) Always rough filter a beer first using ~5 micron cartridge =
or fiber wound filter. This will keep from blinding the polish =
filter with big gunk and keep you from exceeding the =
maximum pressure you can apply to get a decent flow rate =
( say 0.5 - 1 gal /minute).
3) Polish the beer with filters in the range of 0.5 micron if you =
feel compelled to have a really sparkly beer. Chances are it =
will not harm the beer unduly. The FIlter Store tells me that =
perhaps in the 0.2 micron range you will begin to see a =
difference, but larger filters do not seem to cause a lot of =
harm. Frankly, I wouldn't go below 1 micron, just to have a =
chance to filter in a reasonable time and not get excessive =
plugging. Remember there is no need to go much below 4u.
4) Always fill the receiving keg with sanitary water and flush =
it with CO2 by pushing the water out to remove all the oxygen. =
To prevent foaming, feed out of the "out" side poppet valve, =
through the filter and into the "out" side poppet valve of the =
receiving keg. Do a counter-pressure filtration in which the =
receiving keg has the same pressure as the source at the =
beginning. Open the release valve on the receiving keg from =
time to time. Weighing the delivery keg on a bathroom scale =
will reassure you the beer is being delivered through the filter.
5) Always backflush the filter with lots of water after each =
5 gallon filtration. This is easy to do if you fill a cornie with =
sanitary hot water ( say the next cornie you intend to fill) and =
put a Carbonater (R) from Liquid Bread on the other fitting =
to open it up and rinse 5 gallons of hot water through this =
using CO2 pressure.
6) To clean after you're all finished, I rinse the cartridge well =
in hot running water, put it back in the cartridge holder and =
then backflush with a dilute bleach solution and then rinse =
with hot water. This simultaneously prepares the keg for use. =
Store the filter in a plastic bag in the refrigerator and be sure =
to soak in bleach the next time you use use it. .followed by =
a good rinse with 5 gallons of hot water. Near the end of =
the rinse, I always taste the rinse water to be sure there =
is no off-taste. Take the filter housing apart each time and =
rinse well as I have found that the threads around the
"in" and "out" fittings have some yeast and beer residue there.
One of the things that must obviously be done is to be more =
worried about the organoleptic properties of the beer than the =
clarity of a reasonably clear beer. Taste the effect of your =
filtration by holding back a sample and compare the taste =
and mouth feel with the filtered beer. =
This was a major flaw in a recent study published in Zymurgy
(?) in which commercial homebrewer filtration media were =
compared on a cost basis for the ability to produce clear beer. =
The selection of an inline filter (possibly containing some =
diatomaceous earth ) as the most cost - effective way of getting =
the beer clear begs the question unanswered by the article:
"it's clearer, but how does it taste and smell?"
Keep on brewin'
Dave Burley
Kinnelon, NJ 07405
103164.3202 at compuserve.com
Dave_Burley at compuserve.com =3D
Voice e-mail OK =3D
Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 20:25:02 -0500
From: brewmaker1 at juno.com (Jeffrey C Lawrence)
Subject: Walk-in
John,
I think you have an excellent start for your walk-in beer cooler. I do
have some suggestions that may help.
1) Try 1" styro. The insulating value of 1/2" is R 1.8 compared to R
3.6 for 1". The cost isn't much more.
2) Use FRP panels, available at you local building superstore(i. e. Home
Depot. Lowe'sor Builders Square).
Waterproof and damn near indestructible.
3) Forget the guts of a old freezer. It won't work like you think.
Freon laws notwithstanding, there's not much there to really use
that is really worth anything.
4) An window unit will only cool to 20 degrees below ambient under the
best of conditions. If you can, build a 'cascade' system that
would allow the walk-in A/C to be cooled by a unit that is actually in an
outside window.
As you may be able to tell, I'm a HVAC/R man by trade. Does it show?
Good luck! Let me know how it turns out.
Jeff
Brewmaker1 at Juno.com
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 16:48:18 -0500
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner at umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Briess ESB Malt
Alan Baublis <baublis at foodsci.umass.edu> wrote
>My local retailer for brewing supplies just received Briess ESB malt.
>He has no information on this malt, i.e. malt analysis sheets, and I
>was wondering if anyone else has heard or used this malt. Any
>information would be greatly appreciated.
=46rom Briess' web site at http://www.briess.com/
Ashburne=AE is an ESB, or Mild Ale style of malt created with cask
conditioning in mind. Bonlander=AE is a low protein Munich style malt
arriving just in time for the Oktoberfest season!
ASHBURNE TM MALT
Product Information Sheet
TYPICAL ANALYTICAL
SPECIFICATIONS:
Growth 95+
Glassy/Half Glassy/Mealy 1%/2%/97%
Plump 85% minimum
Thin 2% maximum
Moisture 4.0%
Extract, f.g., d.b. 80.5% minimum
Extract, coarse/fine diff. 1.8% maximum
Color* 5.5=B0 L
Diastatic Power (Lintner) 60
Alpha Amylase, D. U. 35
Total Protein, d.b. 10.5 - 11.5%
S/T Protein 43%
ADVANTAGES: Two-Row Ashburne Malt provides a significant color increase
into the rich golden hues. It has a smooth sweet flavor, but also adds a
full malty flavor to beers without adding non-fermentables or affecting the
foam stability and body. The enzymes in Ashburne Malt make it a successful
base malt in that it will support the use of non-enzymatic specialties
and/or adjuncts in conservative proportions.
APPLICATIONS: Ashburne is primarily suited to beers requiring a dark
Vienna-style malt for color adjustment and increased malt flavor. Primary
applications that include ALT and KOLSCH, use 10 - 20%. For OKTOBERFEST and
VIENNA/MARZEN and AMBER beers, use 10 - 25% Ashburne Malt to obtain a malty
flavor. It is used in many English, Irish, and Scottish style ales to
provide complexity and character. Full modification and low protein allows
for single temperature mash programs. Ideal for unfiltered or cask
conditioned ales.
-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-
Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan c/o nerenner at umich.edu
"One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943.=20
Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 01:08:33 -0800
From: Jeremy Bergsman <jeremybb at stanford.edu>
Subject: Propane to natural gas conversion
I asked a few digests back about whether to believe the numbers I
had read in the digest about jet orifice size for these two gasses.
Here are the responses I've received, with their predicted answers:
*************************
If it was me, I'd buy a second jet and drill it until I got what looked
to be an oversized hole. Then drill the first one just one size
smaller.
[I like this suggestion the best, even though it costs money--JB]
*************************
I would go by the ratio of sizes not the absolute - remember that the
jet and burner go together and different burners will use different jet
sizes. Only open up the jet to the same ratio. i.e.:
.0625 what you started with (.04?)
- ---------- = -----------------------------------------
.11 what you should end up with
[Should this be the ratio of their areas? In either case it's
.062", assuming .035 starting diameter--JB]
*************************
To run a
Methane (NG) burner with a #60 (.040) jet on Propane (LP) it would
require a #72 (.025) jet. The approximate ratio is the Natural Gas jet
is 1.6 times bigger than the Propane (LP jet*1.6 = NG jet or
LP jet/1.6 = NG jet)
[This works out to .056"--JB]
*************************
[From the guy's gas company, edited-JB]
Our NG is regulated to 7" of water (~.25 PSI?). To get 100kbtu, use a #22
bit. But anything over 40 kbtu should have a separate regulator. Use a
3.5" regulator and a #15 bit to drill the orifice block.
[According to the Grainger catalog, #22=.157", #15=.180" But I thought
NG was .5 PSI, so maybe this guy's is low and so I should be using a
smaller hole?--JB]
Anyway, if you end up overdrilling the orifice, couldn't
you just limit the gas via a valve between the house and the burner?
*************************
So, I've already gone to .078 and the flame keeps getting bigger. The
suggestions I've received are .056, .062, .11 (archives), and .157.
Sounds like the first approach wins, unless I hear something definitive
soon.
Thanks to:
Richard Seyler, RooJahMon, Owen A. King, and Ray Kruse
- --
Jeremy Bergsman
jeremybb at leland.stanford.edu
http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~jeremybb
Return to table of contents
HTML-ized on 02/01/98, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96