---

	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:
  Wheelchair Brewing ("Michael E. Dingas")
  FW: The HomeBrewery , part II ("Michael E. Dingas")
  tea ball ("David Hill")
  Are enzymes consumed by their reaction? (SouthBayHB)
  extraction of unwanted elements (JohanNico)" <JohanNico.Aikema at asd.akzonobel.com>
  rephenol? (JohanNico)" <JohanNico.Aikema at asd.akzonobel.com>
  Re: Mini kegs (Jim Graham)
  help, failing ball-lock valves (MacRae Kevin J)
  Membranes, ("David R. Burley")
  irish moss ("Mort O'Sullivan")
  Roasting barley / Propane indoors (Nathan_L_Kanous_Ii)
  Minikegs ("Grant W. Knechtel")
  Calculating in metric (Matthew Arnold)
  5 liter kegs/ osmotic process (Headduck)
  Protein charge and pH / Beer Maturation (George_De_Piro)
  Lacto d. propagation and storage / DWC Pale Ale malt (Nathan_L_Kanous_Ii)
  Recipe Software (John Varady)
  The Metric System (EFOUCH)
  Recipe Efficiency / Palexperiment (Mark Riley)
  re: Metric IS standard ("Michel J. Brown")
  Beer Primary ("William Warren")




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 hbd.org

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: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 21:56:45 -0500
From: "Michael E. Dingas" <dingasm at worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Wheelchair Brewing

Someone asked about wheelchair brewing. Didn't keep that issue of digest 
and too lazy to
login and find it again! Sorry.

Ideas and thoughts on wheelchair brewing (some of which you may have 
already
considered):

1. Observe a complete brew session from absolute start to absolute   
finish so you'll know what needs adjusting to fit your situation. 
Perhaps   
your local brewshop has evening classes and is wheel-chair accessible. 
If   
not, find someone willing to show you the ropes. Observe everything from 
preparing
the ingredients to final cleanup.

2.  Brew in half-batches adjusting recipe accordingly. Your planned   
method, I believe. The Mr. Beer does just that - 2.5 gal batches.
This only brews a half-batch and can also be used to
condition the beer (avoids bottling!). It seems to have many advantages  
 
for a wheel-chair brewer. I've a friend who swears by his and also 
claims   
it makes a better carbonation in the finished beer.

3. Watching the boil. Whatever set up you have, you must be able to look 
  
into the pot to avoid a boil-over. Boil-over can happen quite quickly 
and   
cannot be subdued if you don't know it's about to happen! Use a 
Gas stove to allow quick removal of heat. Once the boil-over starts, you 

can only stop it by removing the heat quickly. Impossible to do with an 
electric stove unless you can physically lift the pot to a cool burner. 
Even 
then, somewhat dangerous. A camping stove or hotplate will allow 
eyelevel boiling. And are alternatives to the standard height gas or 
electric range. 

4. Brew without boiling. Some extracts say you don't need to boil. I   
think most brewers prefer to boil anyway. However, the choice can be   
yours. Once you get past the extract stage, you'll need to boil though.

5. Aeration of the wort (good before fermenation (use an aeration tube), 
  
bad after). The yeast needs a good supply of oxygen to do their job. 
Some   
choose to rock the carboy to agitate the wort or employ other methods 
not   
suitable for a wheelchair. All seem somewhat rigorous. A simple and   
effective solution is to attach a short length of copper or plastic tube 
  
in the end of the siphon hose that goes in the target container. The 
tube   
has 4 small holes drilled at 90 degrees to each other (i.e., 12, 3, 6, & 
  
9 o'clock position). As the wort passes the holes, it sucks in air and,  
 
viola, aerated wort!

6. Pump to xfer wort. One of your challenges will be tranfering the wort 
from   
container to container.  This will get especially difficult if your 
upper   
body strength/dexterity is weak. A small pump will allow you to xfer the 
  
wort with minimal effort (cool idea, too!). If you have a dedicated work 
  
area, you wouldn't need to  lift much other than a cool one in   
celebration!

If upper body mobility is  restricted, you'll need to be   
especially cautious when dealing with boiling wort. You may have to move 
  
quickly to avoid boil-over and upper body dexterity should be carefully  
 
considered in the setup.

7. Use wort chiller.  Boiling hot wort can be dangerous and your 
reflexes   
probably won't help much to avoid a spill while in a wheelchair. Avoid   

this by using a chiller. Your loved ones will also probably feel better  
 
about it, too.

8. Bench-type capper. If you intend to bottle, the wing-type capper is   

likely not your first choice. A bench capper is quicker and less likely  
 
to slip once mounted on a suitable non-skid base. Mines mounted on a   
small wooden base with a cork bottom.

9. Rope-handled 30+ gal container on casters to haul wort around 
(doubles   
as sanitizer for large items). This is likely to be a little problematic 
  
for you if you want it mobile. Otherwise, it's still a good item to have 
  
on hand.

10. Create a work space, if possible, like basement or garage to adjust  
 
the height of cooking, fermenting, bottling, etc. areas to suit your   
needs.

11. Glass vs Plastic. Using plastic buckets for fermenting requires   
considerable hand strength to seal and open them. Get a glass carboy   
instead even if your hand-strength is good. It will be less awkward to   

deal with.

12. Use a spring-loaded bottle filler. Best invention since sliced 
bread!   

13. Use dishwasher to sanitize bottles. The lower rack will pull out to 
you,   
simplifying the operation and is an effective method.  Avoid having to   

bend over a water-filled 30+ gal container to clean bottles.

Hope this helps some. I assumed you knew little about brewing and just 
threw
some ideas together. Let me know if I can help in any way.

mike d. (Middle GA, USA)

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 23:04:24 -0500
From: "Michael E. Dingas" <dingasm at worldnet.att.net>
Subject: FW: The HomeBrewery , part II



First, let me clarify one point. I used the phrase 'Shady 
Dealings'; however, I hope everyone who read the post understands
that, since I have not had any direct dealings with the 
Homebrewery, I was not implying disreputable service on their part!
I was merely trying to point out that I gave a company an 
opportunity to demonstrate customer support and got no answer.
That should set off alarms for anyone buying mail-order!

I have received several personal replies from THB customers. All
gave good marks for the shops they had personally dealt with. I
also heard directly from the owner, Sam Wammack. (How's that for 
responsive!) Actually, it was quite a lengthy explanation.

To make a long story short, both locations I choose to contact have 
gone out of business. Both, however, were (at the time) still
listed in printed matter and their Website. THB has gone from 13 to 
7 locations due to a leveling off in sales nationwide. Too many 
suppliers, too few brewers are affecting all vendors.

I sent email to the only email address available at the Webpage 
(that I could find, anyway): TezTaylor at aol.com. This was concerning 
the outdated info provided. For this, Mr. Wammack apologized. 
Here, I think is the only area I can gripe about regarding THB.
In this day of instant communications, there is no reason why 
online info cannot be current. Especially when it is know in 
advance that a location will be closing and not accepting further 
orders. 

The 800 numbers provided in the catalog and Website are good for 
processing orders when you don't feel secure about the net.
However, I hate getting hooked to automated services where I must 
listed to a plethora of options before discovering I really needed
to talk with a human. (Not having used their 800 #'s I can't say
what kind of system they use.)I prefer email, done at my 
convenience, not the company I'm trying to give money to. 
Especially if all I want are some answers. Email is simply more
convenient for me.

Anyhow, I'm satified with his response. Would I consider buying
from his store? Maybe. I'd prefer dealing with a close location
which is why I inquired at those two shops in the first place.
I've also received mail from other vendors interested in my 
business which I might consider. But, I figure that I owe THB at
least one order since I've cast such a bad light on his operation.

To those personal replies, you do credit to THB with your loyalty
and honesty. Customers willing to go to bat without gratuity says
a lot about the company.

In summary, my problems in contacting THB seems like a fluke. 
None of the half-dozen person replies report anything but good 
service and satisfaction. Think I'll place an order sometime soon...

mike d. (Central GA, USA)



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 15:32:48 +1100
From: "David Hill" <davidh at melbpc.org.au>
Subject: tea ball

I posted a while ago that I was using nylon ankle stockings to hold hops =
for dry hopping because I could not find a catering sized tea ball.

Stockings work but are messy to clean and I in fact usually decide that =
the value of the time to clean one is far in excess of a new stocking so =
I have been just throwing them out complete with the hop pellet dregs.

Today I discovered babies' feeding bottles,
they are:-
1.....food grade
2.....designed to withstand boiling
3.....flat sided to facilitate drilling with 2mm drill
4.....will slip down the narrow mouth of my secondary fermenters
5.....relatively easy to clean
6.....cheap
7......available.

Next dry hopping will use one of these in each feremnter.

David




=20
David Hill.   davidh at melbpc.org.au      :-)>




Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 00:52:49 EST
From: SouthBayHB at aol.com
Subject: Are enzymes consumed by their reaction?

I haven't been able to find the answer to this anywhere else yet, but I'm sure
this is an easy one for one of the chemists out there.

Are amylase enzymes "consumed" or changed by the reaction they facilitate? In
other words, will a given amount of amylase convert a given amount of starch,
or will they keep on going indefinitely until denatured in some way?

Thanks,
Larry McCloskey
southbayhb at aol.com



Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 08:09:18 +0100
From: "Aikema, J.N. (JohanNico)" <JohanNico.Aikema at asd.akzonobel.com>
Subject: extraction of unwanted elements


Subject: extraction of unwanted elements during mashing or sparging

Greetings to all,

My question is: would it be better to use more water during mashing
(1:4) and cut the volume of spargingwater or work with a thicker mash
(1:2) and use more spargingwater to prevent extracting unwanted elements
? The final  volume should be the same. 
I always lower the pH of my spargingwater to 5.5 with lactic or
phosphoric acid en stop sparging at 3 % sugar.

Greetings from Holland,
Hans Aikema



Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 07:50:07 +0100
From: "Aikema, J.N. (JohanNico)" <JohanNico.Aikema at asd.akzonobel.com>
Subject: rephenol?

Subject: rephenol?

Greetings to all,

Sorry no answer, but just a suggestion. Duane Hale writes:" After a
drinking a few swallows of those beers and releasing my usual very small
(not even audible) burps, I taste, what to me, tastes like burning
plastic smells".
I also have (mostly with commercial beers) this sensation.  Could this
be the release of SO2 (sulphur dioxide)?  I know  there can be a
considerable amount of sulphite in wine. I don't know the normal
concentration for beer. But could it be possible the reaction between
sulphite and hydrochloric acid in the stomach and the release of SO2 ?

Greetings from Holland, 
Hans Aikema




Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 05:19:56 -0600
From: Jim Graham <jim at n5ial.gnt.com>
Subject: Re: Mini kegs

In HBD #2640, From: JGORMAN at steelcase.com writes:

> I am thinking about getting to kegging using 5 liter kegs with the CO2
> taps.  A fellow brewster mentioned that they are somewhat unreliable.
> Is there anyone out there that has experience with these?

Yep.  Short version:  Don't waste your money.  Btw, if you want to buy
a whole bunch of mini-kegs, bungs, and two worthless taps, let me know.
I'll gladly take your money and apply it to my desperately-needed upgrade
to Cornelius kegs.....

Longer version follows....

I recently thought that mini-kegs would be a great way to keg my beer
without having to worry about the extra space (and money) required for
a full kegging setup with Cornelius kegs.  So I spent $45 on one tap,
$65 on a second (all-metal) tap, and God only knows how much money on
CO2 cartridges...I'd say at least $80 to $100 over the last year or so.

The mini-kegs worked great when I was tapping store-bought beer (that's
how I got my kegs, btw---and you can add in a good deal of money there,
too!).  Once I started refilling them, they still worked fine...for a
while.  I was getting about two kegs per 16 gram CO2 cartridge, and I
was happy.

After a while, however, I started noticing that the CO2 cartridges would
go flat after about two days...and less than one keg tapped.  Then two
days became one day.  Eventually, it became a few minutes.

At the same time, I started noticing that my beers were starting to come
out flat when the keg was first tapped.  I noticed, in some kegs, leakage
around the bung (no visible damage to the keg---it just leaked).

The collective wisdom at our homebrew club (The HomeBrewers Underground)
convinced me to move to Cornelius kegs.  Right now, I've got a complete
setup (with only one keg---we're still working on improving that).  It's
all loaned equipment, but I have most of the stuff on order.

Now, remember the ``cheap'' price for the mini-keg setup?  Here's what
I'm paying to get into using Cornelius kegs:

   Just ordered from Rapids Wholesale Equipment (don't have 1-800 number
   handy---had to give the catalog back to the local brewmaster, but I'll
   have a new one when my order gets here Thursday) ... I'm including
   per-item prices, but these are from memory, and may not be exactly
   right:

      1 double-gauge regulator .................... $ 41.50
      1 gauge cage (you *DEFINITELY* want this) ... $ 12.00
      1 replacement gauge[1] ...................... $  7.95
      1 pin-lock gas-side fitting ................. $  5.50
      1 pin-lock liquid-side fitting .............. $  5.50
      1 picnic faucet ............................. $  ? (less than 15)

   Total:  $83.15 after shipping (that number is right)

   Kegs:  probably about $5 to $10 from Coke delivery guys.  Worst
   case, $30 if I buy from the mail-order place I get some stuff from.

   CO2 bottle:  20 lb bottle (needs hydro test) is being donated....

   Beer fridge:  the local folks say to watch the newspaper, and that
   I can probably get one for about $15.

In other words, mini-kegs end up not being so cheap after all.....

As for space, I plan on taking a third of the space currently used for
kegs and bottles and put in a small beer fridge with taps in the door
(roughly $25).  I'm really tight on space, but if I reclaim that space,
it'll work.  The rest of the space currently used by mini-kegs and
bottles will be used for either storing Cornelius kegs (when I have
more) or empty space.  :-)

Either way, all of my past arguments for not being able to go with the
Cornelius kegs fell flat on their face with experience.  Now I'm doing
it the right way...as I should have before.

Oh, one other big difference....  With mini-kegs, you need to allow
1--2 weeks primary ferment (make *SURE* it's finished!!!), plus another
week for a secondary, and then about 3--4 weeks for carbonating and
aging.  With Cornelius kegs, that last 3--4 weeks is nuked if you force
carbonate.

Btw, if you really, really don't want to go with the full Cornelius keg
setup, I'd suggest the following ($3 carbonator fitting) over mini-kegs:

   1) buy the CO2 bottle and regulator
   2) buy a whole bunch of PET bottles of whatever's cheap (it's
      the bottles you're after)
   3) buy a few replacement valve stems at your local auto-parts store
   4) buy a replacement tire-pump hose (hook up to regulator)
   5) drill holes in a few of the PET bottle caps and insert valve stem
      (you just push them through)
   6) crash cool your carboy of beer
   7) put your finished, *VERY* cold beer in the PET bottles, squeezing
      out the air at the top)
   8) put about 20 to 30 PSI on the bottle for a few minutes, shaking
      the bottle like mad during that time
   9) let rest for an hour or so, and then drink good beer.  Depending
      on how fast you drink the beer, you may need to return to step 8
      to re-carbonate (though probably not for a few days after you open
      the beer, if ever---I've got a bottle of porter that I've pulled
      a glass from every now and then for the last week, and it's still
      in good shape).

Later,
   --jim

[1] The high-pressure gauge on the loaner was broken when the local
    brewmaster loaned it to me.  I figure, after all he's done to help
    me out, I can replace a broken gauge.....

- -- 
73 DE N5IAL (/4)               MiSTie #49997         < Running Linux 2.0.21 >
jim at n5ial.gnt.net || j.graham at ieee.org  ICBM / Hurricane: 30.39735N 86.60439W

          ===  Do not look into waveguide with remaining eye  ===



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 07:58:48 -0500
From: MacRae Kevin J <kmacrae at UF2269P01.PeachtreeCityGA.NCR.COM>
Subject: help, failing ball-lock valves

Brewers:

I'm new to the kegging thing and need some advice.  
I must be doing something wrong.  The ball-lock valves 
are falling apart.  

The balls from the ball-lock fittings keep popping out.  
I've been real careful to only put the in on the in and
the out to the out.  I think I've been pushing straight down.  

The first few times those little balls were rolling around,
I found them quickly and put it back together.  But now  
I've lost two of the balls and was thinking of using the kids
rollerskate or skateboard bearings.  If I decide to use 
buckshot, I guess I should avoid lead and use steel.  

Should these new valves be falling apart?
Is XX  the right size? 
What distance should the shot be fired from?  

Seriously, any helpful advice please reply to:
Kevin.MacRae at PeachtreeCityGA.NCR.COM

Kevin MacRae
Peachtree City, GA

Wake up, Have a homebrew, Don't worry!

Brewing at the speed of light! 
(dispensing at a trickle)



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 08:06:00 -0500
From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com>
Subject: Membranes,

Brewsters:

Dustin H. Norlund disagrees with the model of wort held back
by capillary action in between grain parts as what needs rinsing
by fresh sparge liquor during sparging.

I said in an earlier HBD in response to the suggestion of a
couple of HBDers that osmotic pressure was somehow
the driving force to sparging:

>Osmotic force requires a semi-permeable membrane across
which this pressure can >be developed.  To my knowledge the
significantly greater ( if any at all) part >of the wort is not held
back by a semi-permeable membrane.

Dustin says:

>What? The whole process involves a semi-permeable membrane.
This membrane
>is the edges of the cracked grain.  There is a high concentration
of sugars
>(the internal grain structure) etc on one side and a low
concentration (the
>wort) on the other side.  If this does not meet your guidelines
for osmosis
>and therefore have some osmotic force behind it please explain.

Hmmmm, "a membrane is the edges of the cracked grain".
Maybe in a different topology world but not here. Well. I do
agree that the grains often have a higher concentration of
sugar in them right after the mash ( Ken Schwartz experiments
demonstrate this), since that is the factory.  But that fact
doesn't prove anything about a semi-permeable membrane at
work. Remember those experiments in the eighth grade
science in which you observed osmotic pressure at work?
Which way did the fresh water flow?  It flowed *into* the higher
concentration area across a membrane.  If osmotic pressure
and semi-permeable membranes were at work here then
adding fresh water to the grain bed would make the grain
bed swell and no water would flow out. And no sparging
would take place. 


When I was tromping around a chemical plant in a hard hat
and boots, I had a wonderful boss and fellow PhD chemist
who referred to chemical engineers as "comical engineers"
in a kind hearted way.  I was remembering him when I make
that remark, but maybe he was right.  


Dustin said:

>BTW I am an engineer.  No more wise cracks... ehhehhheeh

Just kidding, Dustin. {8^)
- ----------------------------------------------------------------

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, 18 Feb 1998 13:05:47 -0000
From: "Mort O'Sullivan" <tarwater at brew-master.com>
Subject: irish moss

>Mort>At a higher pH many of the proteins in wort will have a net
charge
>that is more positive than at a lower pH
>Isn't it the other way around? If the wort pH is below the
isoelectric
>point of the protein the protein is positive. As the pH drops the
charge
>becomes more positive. Am I missing something? (scratching head)

Oops. You are absolutely right. I based that statement on some notes I
had written down, but if I had stopped to think about the
Henderson-Hasselbalch equation (or used some common sense), I would
have realized that was wrong. My sources still seem to indicate that
irish moss works better at a higher pH, but it must be for a different
reason than I first assumed (incorrectly). Thanks for pointing that
out.

>In any event whilst it is true that less irish moss is required at
>higher boil pH, the exact mechanism is very complex and still not
well
>understood. It is far more complicated than simple positive/negative
>flocculation and research is still ongoing on the exact mechanism.

I agree. I still think the primary mechanism is the attraction of
oppositely charged particles, but you are right in indicating that
this is an oversimplified explanation. There is surely much more going
on that is not well understood yet.


>Leather says copper finings have NO effect on hot wort clarity. The
main
>effect of copper finings is to aid in cold break formation. The only
>reason to add them to the boil is to dissolve the K carrageenan which
is
>insoluble below 60C and can be thermally denatured by boiling for a
long
>time. This is the reason most texts suggest a short boil time.
Leather
>suggests that 30 minutes will not adversely affect copper fining
>peformance, however. I have read similar things elsewhere about the
lack
>of an effect on hot break (except homebrew books - just ignore
those!).
>The correct amount of irish moss to add is highly dependent on many
>factors...
>...RV Leather "From field to firkin: an integrated approach to beer
>clarification and quality" JIB v104(1) 1998. pp 9-18.

Very interesting. The info on irish moss in most brewing texts is
pretty scant, so I will definitely add this article to my list of
things to read, and also question some of my sources who say it is
best to add Irish moss just as the wort comes to a boil. I'll report
back if they give any compelling reasons.

- ----------------
Cheers,
Mort O'Sullivan
ICBD (Edinburgh, Scotland)
tarwater at brew-master.com



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 10:27:06 -0400
From: Nathan_L_Kanous_Ii at ferris.edu
Subject: Roasting barley / Propane indoors


Has anybody tried roasting barley in a coffee roaster?  Are the husks too
flammable for such?  If so, what about roasting wheat in a coffee roaster?
I've got a coffee roaster about 1/2 mile from home.  I'll approach him to
ask.  Then, maybe I'll make a St. Patty's Stout!  What a grand idea.

Using propane indoors?  Outside of all of the postings regarding
flammability and such, if you dare, try it yourself.  I can speak from
experience, that I used to think that hops were much more psychoactive than
anybody ever gave them credit for.  I'd brew a batch in the basement and by
the time I was done, I felt a little loopy.  I considered the idea that it
was CO affecting my brain, but didn't care much.  My brain, I can do what I
want.  Then my son was born and I thought I ought to not expose him to
either "psychoactive" hops (wait till teen years for experimentation...ha
ha) or CO.  Brewing in the garage and not hovering over the brewpot, I
don't get "loopy".  As much as I'd like to think the hops may be
psychoactive, I suspect CO was the culprit.

Ventilation?  Yeah, I kept the basement windows (1 on each of two sides)
open.  Even in the winter.

My take on all of this?  If you like the feeling provided by oxygen
deprivation, choke yourself.  You probably won't be able to asphyxiate
yourself long enough to die.  You'll pass out and, hopefully, restore
oxygen flow.

Sorry about the long post.  Interested in the roasted barley thing.

Nathan
Formerly loopy in Frankenmuth




Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 08:45:18 -0800
From: "Grant W. Knechtel" <GWK at hartcrowser.com>
Subject:  Minikegs

Jason, You asked:
>I am thinking about getting to kegging using 5 liter kegs with the CO2 
>taps.  A fellow brewster mentioned that they are somewhat unreliable.  
>Is there anyone out there that has experience with these?

I was given a CO2 tapper which needed slight repair by a fellow homebrewer.
  (Thanks, Jethro!)  Bought the cans and CO2 cartridges, repaired the 
tapper and have put two batches through so far.  They are nice, the cost 
wasn't too high, but at a little over a buck a cartridge the CO2 cost is 
high.  The 16 gram cartridges are good for a little over a can apiece.  I 
have read various places including the Brewery BBS and HBD archives about 
people's troubles with these.  

The cans were not designed to be reusable or as high pressure vessels, you 
must keep priming levels low and don't try to force carbonate in them, or 
experience the dreaded bulged, spoiled can.  They are coated steel inside, 
 they have a limited life span, around 10 uses, and are susceptible to 
denting and cracking of the interior coating, spoiling your beer by 
contact with iron.  They *are* a handy size for taking to a party.

They have been a great way to experience cask-conditioned ale, and have 
hardened my resolve to go to cornie kegs.  The cost of a CO2 tapper, 
cartridges and 4 cans will run about $100.  A cornie setup with 2 used 
kegs and a 5 lb bottle, about $165-$200.  

Cornie kegs will last effectively forever, CO2 cost is minimal, the system 
is significantly more versatile.  Using an adapted Carbonator cap, you can 
even dispense (don't force carbonate) from Minikegs with your cornie CO2 
bottle.  YMMV, of course.
 -Grant
Neue Des Moines Hausbrauerei
Des Moines, Washington

Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 17:00:27 GMT
From: mra at skyfry.com (Matthew Arnold)
Subject: Calculating in metric

On Wed, 18 Feb 1998 00:51:34 -0500, you wrote:

>>Currently it only uses standard measurements (quarts, pounds, degrees
>>Fahrenheit). Once I figure a few things out, I will update it so you
>>can choose standard or metric figures.
>
>ARGH! Metric IS standard.
>It would be too much to ask Americans to come out of the 18th century
>before the 21st century arrives, wouldn't it :-)

Actually, I got the script modified to accept those weird metric figures before
my post hit the HBD. I wrote another script for conversion of commonly-used
measurements. Now if I can just figure out the conversion rates for stone,
cubit, and "buncha" (as in, "Gimme a buncha that extract"), I'll be all set ;)

I think we Americans are making great strides towards the acceptance of the
metric system. For example, in recent years we've seen a tremendous increase of
interest in the 9mm bullet!

BTW, I did my second all-grain batch last Sunday (using my calculators for
strike temp and raising the mash to the next rest temp). While it is more work,
I think it's a blast. I definitely recommend that you give it a try if you have
the time and wherewithal for the equipment.

See you latre, (note: metric spelling)
  Matt


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 12:28:38 EST
From: Headduck at aol.com
Subject: 5 liter kegs/ osmotic process

Jason Gorman writes:
>I am thinking about getting to kegging using 5 liter kegs with the CO2 taps.
>A fellow brewster mentioned that they are somewhat unreliable.  Is there
>anyone out there that has experience with these?

I have used 5 liter kegs for some time with very good results.  Don't forget
to lower the amount of priming sugar used, however.  Using the same amount as
used when  bottling may result in distorted and ruptured kegs.  I use 1/3 cup
of sugar instead of the 3/4 cup that I use when bottling.  There is also a
problem with the dip tube breaking below the threaded portion near the tap.  I
have broken two of these.  I now keep an extra on hand.  Other than these two
problems, I really like the system.  They are a good size for the fridge and
are easily transported to parties.

Dustin H. Norlund writes:

>What? The whole process involves a semi-permeable membrane.  This membrane
>is the edges of the cracked grain.  There is a high concentration of sugars
>(the internal grain structure) etc on one side and a low concentration (the
>wort) on the other side.  If this does not meet your guidelines for osmosis
>and therefore have some osmotic force behind it please explain.

Sorry Dustin, but your argument does not stand up.  Why would we need to crack
the grain if it was an osmotic force that forces the sugars out of the husk? 

Joe Yoder 


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 13:09:14 -0800
From: George_De_Piro at berlex.com
Subject: Protein charge and pH / Beer Maturation

     Hi all,
     
     Andy Walsh responds to Mort O's post about Irish moss.  Andy was 
     wondering if it was he or Mort that was confused about the charge of 
     proteins at certain pH's.
     
     Andy has it right:  at low pH, the proteins will be more protonated 
     than at high pH, therefore their net charge will be positive at lower 
     pH.  It's easy to visualize:  at low pH there is an excess of H+ 
     floating around, so the proteins aren't going to give up their H+ to 
     the solution.  At high pH, there is less H+, so a protein can pop one 
     (or more) off, leaving it with a negative charge.
     
     My question (because I don't have the means to look this up):  is the 
     small pH drop during the wort boil enough to make a difference to most 
     wort proteins?  The wort is pretty acidic at the beginning of the 
     boil.  Does anybody know (or care) what the isoelectric points are for 
     common wort proteins?
     -----------------------------
     Beer maturation and fermentation:
     
     Most homebrewers (including myself) follow the traditional lager 
     technique of cold fermentation/cold maturation, believing it will 
     produce superior beer.  On the other hand, many large breweries use 
     warmer fermentation and maturation in the interest of speeding up 
     production.  They claim that the beer is as good as ever.
     
     In some ways warmer maturation makes a lot of sense:  we are expecting 
     chemical and biological reactions to occur that "smooth and mellow" 
     the beer.  These things all occur more rapidly at higher temperature. 
     Cold maturation will give the beer colloidal stability (chill 
     proofing), but that doesn't require months (indeed, George Fix claims 
     that his beers are brilliantly clear after only 24-36 hours at near 0C 
     (_Vienna_).
     
     There are several different schemes for lager fermentation that can be 
     used.  Some of them are discussed below:
     
     1.  Cold fermentation/cold maturation:  pitching at ~6C with 
     fermentation at ~8-9C (47-48F), maturation at near freezing.  
     Advantages:  slower yeast growth resulting in fewer fermentation 
     by-products.  Improved foam stability is claimed.
     
     Disadvantages:  It takes a really long time!  Both fermentation and 
     maturation take a long while.  Precise temperature control is
     desirable so that the temperature can be reduced from 8-9C to near 0C
     very gradually.
     
     This is a time-proven method, though, and I have made wonderful beers 
     this way.  Maturation can be sped up by adding kraeusen beer to the 
     young, fermented beer.  The dose of active yeast will help clean up 
     some of the less desirable metabolites.
     
     Another variant of this program calls for keeping the beer at 8-9C
     for about two weeks.  After the first week or so, the beer is moved
     off the primary yeast and about 10% Kraeusen beer is added.  Once
     diacetyl is no longer detected (see yesterday's post) the beer is
     quickly chilled to near freezing and lagered for 1 week.
     
     As you can see, this speeds things up a bit without the disadvantages 
     of warmer fermentation (see below).
     
     2.  Warm fermentation/cold maturation:  pitching at ~8C (47F) and the
     temp of the ferment is then allowed to rise to 12-14C (54-57F).
     The beer is only cooled to near freezing once the diacetyl test is
     negative.  This has the advantage of taking only 17-20 days.  Final
     attenuation is quickly reached and diacetyl reduction is fast and
     reliable.
     
     Of course, at warmer temperatures there is more rapid yeast growth.
     This can lead to higher levels of fermentation by-products, such as
     esters and diacetyl.  Still, it is a popular commercial option.
     
     Anybody out there doing this?  How's the beer?  Really.
     
     3.  Warm fermentation under pressure/ cold maturation:
     In this scheme, fermentation takes place at relatively high
     temperatures (up to 20C (68F)).  Normally, the high rate of yeast
     growth at this temperature would produce a plethora of unwanted
     fermentation by-products.  This is controlled by applying pressure
     on the fermenting beer (1.7 atm max) after the initial growth phase
     (at ~50% attenuation).  The high pressure subdues yeast growth, but
     fermentation still occurs at a more rapid rate than at cold
     temperatures.
     
     After about 9 or 10 days the temperature is reduced quickly to near
     freezing (as long as the diacetyl is gone) where it is kept for a
     week.
     
     This method intrigues me for some strange reason.  I believe I may
     try it at home using Corny kegs and a pressure relief device set at
     15 psi.  If this works well, it could be a great boon for
     refrigerator-impared homebrewers!  I'll report back in a few months...
     
     If anybody out in HBD land has already done this, please report in!
     
     4.  Cold fermentation/warm maturation:  This process takes advantage
     of the fact that fewer by-products are produced at cooler
     temperatures, and that the by-products that are produced are more
     quickly removed at warmer temperatures.
     
     Pitching occurs at ~6C (43F), and fermentation is held at ~9C (48F)
     until ~50% attenuation.  At this point the temp is allowed to rise to
     ~12C (54F).  Once diacetyl has been removed the temp is reduced to
     near freezing and the beer lagered for a week.
     
     Well, there you have it.  All of this stuff was taken from my Siebel
     notes and Kunze (I'll be getting a lot of mileage out of this book).
     
     If anybody has practical experience or ideas/comments about this
     stuff, let's hear them.  I would like to know about the performance of
     different yeast strains in these different systems.  Just how quickly
     can a high-quality, clean lager be made?
     
     Have fun!
     
     George De Piro  (Nyack, NY)


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 13:26:44 -0400
From: Nathan_L_Kanous_Ii at ferris.edu
Subject: Lacto d. propagation and storage / DWC Pale Ale malt


Two topics (geez I'm using up bandwidth.

First, I'd like to make a Berliner Weisse.  Eric Warner recommends using a
Lacto d. culture in the fermentation.  Two things, where can I get one?
Second, are there any special considerations for building a starter of this
or culturing it?  He indicates 4 3/4 ounces of yeast slurry and 1 oz of
Lacto d. slurry.  Certainly, I'll have to "build" yeast starters for each.
Any special considerations?

Second topic.  Dave Brockington mentions in his Sister Star of the Sun
recipe that you can use Hugh Baird, M&F, or Crisp Maris Otter Pale ale
malts, but to avoid DWC Pale ale malt.  Any ideas why?  I couldn't reach
him via e-mail.

TIA
Nathan in Frankenmuth, MI




Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 09:57:13 -0800
From: John Varady <rust1d at usa.net>
Subject: Recipe Software

Sorry, I couldn't resist...

Kenny writes:
>Message to all recipe formulation software authors:  allow each malt to be
>entered with its own extract potential and efficiency, rather than using a
>global figure like SUDS does.

My software allows the user to enter extract potential for each malt used
in a recipe, but applies a single efficiency rating to all malts in the
recipe if their associated "Mash?" box is checked (an unchecked box assumes
100%). I don't know why you would need to enter an efficiency for each malt
as most people don't steep as well as mash.

John



John Varady                     http://www.netaxs.com/~vectorsys/varady
Boneyard Brewing                The HomeBrew Recipe Calculating Program
Glenside, PA                    rust1d at usa.net
   



Return to table of contents


Date: 18 Feb 1998 12:20:03 -0500
From: EFOUCH at steelcase.com
Subject: The Metric System


TO:Brad McMahon who said:

ARGH! Metric IS standard.
It would be too much to ask Americans to come out of the 18th century
before the 21st century arrives, wouldn't it :-)

 - --
Brad McMahon        Adelaide, South Australia
brad at sa.apana.org.au
PGP

May a Butt of Hogsheads land on you exerting several poundals of force.

PS- You're absolutely right.

Eric Fouch
Bent Dick YoctoBrewery
International Units Division
Kentwood, MI


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 12:51:21 -0800
From: Mark Riley <mriley at netcom.com>
Subject: Recipe Efficiency / Palexperiment

Ken Schwartz wrote (with some snippage):

>Even when simply steeping the grains, SUDS will figure the gravity
>contribution as if you are mashing, and uses the efficiency figure
>in this calcualtion.  Extraction from steeping will differ greatly
>from extraction when mashing in most cases.

>One thing you can do is to set the efficiency to say 50% to account
>for this.

What I did was to set the default efficiency to 80% when the user specifies
that he is mashing, and 40% when steeping.  I got the 40% figure from
doing some test steeps.  Of course, the user adjusts this value based on
previous experience with similar recipes.

Practically speaking, though, the efficiency figure for steeping isn't
nearly as critical as for mashing.  1.5 pounds of crystal in 5 gallons at
40% efficiency gives you about 4 points.  At 30%, it's 3 points.  Not
something I'd worry too much about.

>Message to all recipe formulation software authors:  allow each malt to be
>entered with its own extract potential and efficiency, rather than using a
>global figure like SUDS does.

I agree on being able to override the default extract potential (Recipator
already allows this), but unless you are going to steep AND mash
(seperately) for a given recipe, I really don't understand how a seperate
efficiency for each grain would be helpful.  Besides, in a mash, how would
you *easily* go about determining your efficiency for each and every type of
grain used in a single mash?

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

Regarding the Palexperiment:

I'm still trying to figure out what this experiment is trying to achieve
(aside from the fun of participating in it ;-).  By using the exact same
ingredient list and not accounting for different efficiency and hop
utilization rates, it's easy to see that those with mash efficiencies
near the 73% assumed by the original recipe, will have a good chance of
producing a Pale Ale close to the goal.  However, for those poor souls
who get greater efficiencies, it seems they will be entering underhopped
IPA's (i.e. they'll get lower utilization because of the higher
gravity boil AND even if the utilization were about the same, you'd
want to up the desired IBUs to balance the increase in gravity.)

I think this will make it harder to discern any effects of the individual's
brewing procedures since the OGs and IBUs of the beers will vary so much.
I don't think this was as much of an issue in the Oregon brewpub
experiment because I'm willing to bet that the mash efficiency of those
systems varies a lot less than in the case of us homebrewers (plus they
had control over hopping rates).

For Palexperiment II, I'd like to see the grain and hop bills scaled to
account for varying efficiencies/utilizations.  This way the beers will
be more alike and it'll be easier to detect differences of brewing
procedures, water, etc...

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

The Beer Recipator has just moved to the HBD server and I'd like
to publicly thank Karl Lutzen and the HBD crew for sponsoring it.
Since I last posted an announcment here, The Recipator has undergone
some major changes, so give it a whirl if it's been a while...

Cheers,

Mark Riley
The Beer Recipator - http://hbd.org/recipator



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1987 16:45:29 -0800
From: "Michel J. Brown" <homemade at spiritone.com>
Subject: re: Metric IS standard

>ARGH! Metric IS standard.

TAT WOULD DEPEND ON *where* you are from! The country you live in
determines the weights and measures standards that are acceptable via the
Bureau of Standards. As a tolerant person, I hope that you too see the
logic of my reply, and will not take umbrage with my statement.

>It would be too much to ask Americans to come out of the 18th century
>before the 21st century arrives, wouldn't it :-)

While I agree that the American English system leaves a lot to be desired,
even the UK didn't adopt a decimal currency until the late 1980's! The USA
has had decimal currency since 1789, and adopted the changeover to metric
(KMS system) in 1976, with a 30 year time for the change. Does Australia
use the cgs or the MKS system of weights and measures? TTYL, God Bless!


                Dr. Michel J. Brown, D.C. {Portland, OR}
		    2222 miles due west of Jeff Renner
                         homemade at spiritone.com
              http://www.spiritone.com/~homemade/index.html
              "Big Man don't drink no stinking light beer!"
                "Big Man drink beer what got BIG TASTE!"
                         Big Man Brewing (R) 1996



Return to table of contents


Date: 18 Feb 1998 17:22:45 -0800
From: "William Warren" <wwarren at geron.com>
Subject: Beer Primary 

                                                                   
2/18/98
                                                       Beer Primary 

I have a question about a primary fermentor. 

I have acquired a 5 gallon bucket that was used to keep pickles. I have 
washed it out a couple of times and the smell is still there(only 
slightly). My question is would you use this bucket as a fermentation 
device. And if so how would you clean it so the smell is not noticeable 
and I brew good beer. Any information would be helpful. 


Return to table of contents

---