---

	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:
  Hot Plate Details / Aluminum (Kyle Druey)
  metric can't be standard (AlannnnT)
  Mash water calculations (Lars Bjornstad)
  metric system (jim english)
  Dick Dunne & MLD (John A. Carlson, Jr.)
  My metric comments! (Brad McMahon)
  MIni Kegs ("Mike Piersimoni")
  Cold ferment/warm maturation ("Dave Draper")
  Enzyme kinetics ("David R. Burley")
  Beer Primary "William Warren"  2/19/98 (Vachom)
  Mini-kegs (Ahenckler)
  Homebrewing & Individuals with physical limitations (Steve)
  Pickled Primary ("Bruce Jackson")
  strange ferment questions (Andrew Patti)
  RE: floating sediment (John Wilkinson)
  Are enzymes consumed? (Domenick Venezia)
  re: membranes (Lou Heavner)
  Erratic Wyeast yeast performance (George_De_Piro)
  Modified RIMS heater / Expanding foam around LT (Kenneth Sullivan)
  First Timer Question ("Milo")
  Problem adding Polyclar (Pvrozanski)
  Lacto d.  / lager ferm temps (James R. Layton 972.952.3718 JLAY)
  SRM colors in your computer? ("Carl Shipman")
  Re: Metric IS standard ("Michel J. Brown")
  Homebrew and Flatulance (Wayne_Kozun)
  Re: Experiment ("Michel J. Brown")




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: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 11:23:36 -0800
From: Kyle Druey <druey at ibm.net>
Subject: Hot Plate Details / Aluminum

Fellow Brew Dudes: 

Several HBDers sent private email to me for more info on the Hot Plate
R)(tm) :). Here is what I did.  I purchased 2 table top electric ranges
from Walmart.  Each unit has 2 burners on it with controls, one burner
is 1000W and the other is 650W, both run on 120V.  The units cost $28 a
piece and after adding in Pete Wilson's share it came to just over $60
for both.  This seemed like a good deal to me.  What you get for $60 is
4 120V burners (which are hard to find, I could not find them anywhere),
4 power controls that give you infinite settings for each burner (1000W
dimmers are $20 each at Home Depot), and 4 SS drip pans (the pans are
flat, again hard to find, which makes it easy to mount on the hot plate
base). Of course, if you have access to a supplier the parts are much
cheaper.  I was able to salvage a few parts from my homebrew gadget
junk-pile, which saved me a few dollars.
 
240V Option - Before I go on, I should mention the 240 V option, which
was my first choice. After consulting with the El Paso Kid (KennyEddy),
I was convinced that using 120V was the best choice for me.  For
starters, you would be nuts to use 240V for brewing without a GFI, which
will run you about $60-$100 depending on what amperage you need.  It
would have to be installed in the breaker box of your house.  I would
have needed an electrician to do this costing me probably another $40.
The 240V burners cost about $25 each, and the controls are another $25.
So you can see that the cost adds up quickly if you go with 240V, not to
mention the safety concerns I have working with 240V. But the power
output is obviously much better with 240V, and you could probably get
away with using only 2 burners.  If you have the skills and resources
using 240V is the way to go.  Maybe you could get a hold of an old stove
and strip the parts off of it.
 
Fabrication - You need to strip the Walmart stoves of the elements, drip
pans, and controls. Pretty easy to do, the hardest part was drilling out
a few rivets to disassemble the drip pans from the stove top frame.  I
mounted each element on a 4" steel 2 gang box, no cover plate is needed
because the 6" diameter drip pan covers the gang box.  The 4 burners
were then mounted on a 12" X 18" X 1" piece of pine, and the boxes
secured with wood screws.  You must square the edges of the drip pans to
obtain the smallest burner footprint possible. I did this using a hammer
to flatten 2 sides of the circular drip pan, with the sides at right
angles to each other.  The squared edges from the 4 drip pans then butt
up together. Two burners are wired for each circuit. To use the hot
plate you need two 20 amp outlets that are wired to different breakers,
make sure you check this out! Fortunately, most kitchen outlets are 20
amps, so this shouldn't be a problem, but it limits you to kitchen
brewing.
This is OK with me because then I can stay in the kitchen and watch my
football games while I brew, and I am not exiled to the garage when it
is 110 F in the summer. Each circuit has an on/off switch for one
burner, and the variable power control for the other, plus a GFCI. I was
a little concerned that the stove would not be able to support 6 gallons
of water, about 50 lbs. It turned out not to be a problem since the load
is distributed and each burner only supports about 13 lbs. The total
cost for the hot plate is about $80, which is comparable or possibly
cheaper than the propane option, not to mention you never have to fill a
propane tank.
 
Performance - When I brought out the hot plate for the initial boil my
wife took one look at it and started laughing.  The only thing she
actually said was "where's the fire extinguisher". I have to admit,
starting this puppy up just about scared the pee pee out of me.  The
four elements combined provide a theoretical total power of 3300W. From
calcs this should heat 6 gallons of water from 150 F sparge temps to
boiling in about 15-20 minutes. In reality, this was not the case. It
took 45 minutes to boil 6 gallons from 135 F.  I estimated the power
applied to the wort to be 1600 W, about half of theoretical. This is why
I start the burners during the sparge as the wort collects in the
boiler. By the end of the sparge I am almost boiling. I called the stove
manufacturer and had them send me two more 1000 W burners to replace the
650 W burners. Each element costs an additional $3. This will now give
me 4000 W of power, and hopefully more than 2000 W of applied power.
 
HELP! - I need some help from the HBD community.  The 50% heat losses
from the theoretical is disappointing.  How can I control heat losses
from the three primary heat transfer modes:
 
Conduction - I think there are probably significant conductive losses
from the burners to the gang boxes.  The gang boxes are too hot to touch
during the full boil.  Is there a way to reduce this by sitting the drip
pans on some insulation? What type of insulation can be used? Common
household fiberglass insulation, or is there something better?
 
Convection - I don't think this is much of a problem.  Perhaps I will
install some type of metal skirt around the sides of the burner
footprint
to minimize losses here.
 
Radiation - The drip pans provide decent control to limit radiation
losses. Maybe lining them with foil will help, and the metal skirt
should
also help.

Any suggestions would be appreciated, private email or post.
************************************************************

I never got to elaborate on my aluminum versus stainless tirade. 

Aluminim is better!  I never got to throw in my $0.02 cents on brewing
with aluminum pots. As it turns out, aluminum conducts heat something
like 5 times better than stainless steel, and is about 1/2 the cost.  It
has not been proven that Al causes alzheimers (sp?) disease, and if the
pot is allowed to oxidize it will not leach Al taste to your finished
beer. SS beats Al only that it is more scratch ristant, retains heat
better, and one can make more money by selling SS pots.  My 10 gallon
aluminum Vollrath was $63 with the lid, plus another $5 for a ball valve
and internal drain piping which I installed.  I saw the same stainless
steel setup for $160.


Kyle Druey
Palexperimenting in Bakersfield, CA


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 23:16:49 EST
From: AlannnnT at aol.com
Subject: metric can't be standard

Brad in Australia writes
 ........
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, I have traveled a bit and I find the two standard things in the world
are Levis and Marlboros. Levis are measured in inches. Marlboros come twenty
per pack. Neither is metric. And inches is an American only thing. Therefore,
the two world standards are not metric and one is our way, so we Must be
right! It's the rest of the world that has it wrong!  :)

Alan Talman
USA


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 09:34:48 +0100
From: Lars Bjornstad <siv95043 at vm.bi.no>
Subject: Mash water calculations

As an a propos to the Java script calculator posted the other day,

When using the calculations in brewing software and found around on the web,
I find that they work perfectly (on our system) for the first infusion. 
E.g. 1.6 liters/kg water/grain ratio, 5 kg malt at 20C needs a mash water
temp of about 60C to reach the protein rest at around 50C. The same with a
single infusion rest.

For the second infusion, adding boiling water, all the calculations suggest
around 5 liters boiling water to reach conversion rest at 66-67 C. (in the
above example).

We have found that we need almost 8 liters to reach 66C. Does anyone have
similar experiences? Isn't it a bit strange that the calculations are
correct for adding water to dry grains, but way off when adding to the mash?
I'm aware of the YMMV clause that comes with these formulas, but still? The
formula is basically the same.

We use a cooler w/copper manifold mash/lauter tun. 

Hope someone can help,


Lars Bjornstad
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Golden Droplet (brewing): http://www.ifi.uio.no/~ketilf/draapen.cgi
Gartnerlosjen: http://www.uio.no/~ahaavard/lars/gartner.htm 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 07:39:58 -0500
From: jim english <jim.english at mindspring.com>
Subject: metric system

While I agree with Brad's point in general his use of the
18th century as a reference
point, with derogarory implications, disregards the fact
that the origins of the metric
system (i.e. Napoleon Bonaparte....) date from the very end
of the 18th century themselves.

Latron
JRE in Hotlanta



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 05:44:06 -0700 (MST)
From: jac at iex.net (John A. Carlson, Jr.)
Subject: Dick Dunne & MLD

Has anyone else had problems posting to the Mead Digest recently?
- --John Carlson




Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 00:12:39 +1000
From: Brad McMahon <brad at sa.apana.org.au>
Subject: My metric comments!

It's good to see we still all have a sense of humo(u)r!

>May a Butt of Hogsheads land on you exerting several
> poundals of force.
>PS- You're absolutely right.
>Eric Fouch

Actually,Eric, I wouldn't mind as long as the brew was good!

>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!

Ahh, there are still all those .45 fanatics!
And then you cut down the 10mm, and called it .40 cal!
Ah well...

>See you latre, (note: metric spelling)

I burst out laughing when I read that! I love it!


Keep on adding your 6.6lbs of extract, and never add 3kg of it,
cos you would have a metric beer, that wouldn't fit in the glass
properly.

Just a thought, if you were doing a German beer recipe, would you
have to use metric units, so that you wouldn't
breach the Reinheitsgebot?


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



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 08:44:32 -0800
From: "Mike Piersimoni" <msp at dplus.net>
Subject: MIni Kegs

I recently purchased a mini keg system.
On the batches I placed in the mini kegs I have waited the precribed =
time (and weeks longer) but have not had the same carbonation that I get =
from bottles.
The shop I purchased the system from told me that the carbonation would =
be at least as much as the bottles.
I have not found that to be.
The precribed amount is 1/3 cup corn sugar in a 5 gal batch.
I have even tried putting more (about an once )still no luck.
Does anyone have any experience with these kegs.
Your help would be appreciated.

Mike






Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 08:40:44 -6
From: "Dave Draper" <ddraper at utdallas.edu>
Subject: Cold ferment/warm maturation

Dear Friends,

In #2641 George de Piro wrote about four approaches to brewing lager 
in his usual clear and informative way, and asked for input from 
people who have used any of the variants to the traditional cold 
ferment, cold maturation.

Wholly by accident, I recently made a lager using his variant #4, 
cold fermentation and warm maturation, and the beer has come out 
quite well.  Here's what happened.

Some of you may recall my difficulties with my brewing fridge
sporadically tripping its GFI plug.  I brewed up a batch of what I
had intended to be be a Czech style Pils, with lager malt, a bit of
light caramel, Czech Saaz hops, and Wyeast Bohemian using RO water +
salts to mimic a good soft water.  Most of the primary fermentation
took place at the desired temp, about 8 or 9 C (46-48F), and then
the GFI problem reared its ugly head once more, and the fridge was
without power for more than ten days.  During that time, temp inside
the fridge rose slowly to about 14 C (57F) while I wrung my hands
and prayed to the twin gods of beer and electricity.  At length, the
problem corrected itself (I have a very good idea what is going on,
at last) and I could turn the fridge on again, and so lowered the T
down to near freezing over a couple of days, and left it there for
another ten or so, and then bottled.

The beer has turned out very well indeed, albeit with a hint of
fruitiness no doubt caused by the beer's time at higher temps at the
end of primary fermentation, but otherwise is clean and stable.  It
is, in fact, one of my best efforts in terms of overall
drinkability. It will be judged in the upcoming Bluebonnet, so I
will be able to provide some objective feedback in due course. 

Cheers, Dave in Dallas
- ---
*****************************************************************************
   Dave Draper, Dept Geosciences, U. Texas at Dallas, Richardson TX 75083
   ddraper at utdallas.edu (commercial email unwelcome) WWW: hbd.org/~ddraper
                 Beer page: http://hbd.org/~ddraper/beer.html
It helps to have someone else evaluate your beer. ---Bruce deBolt



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 09:46:09 -0500
From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com>
Subject: Enzyme kinetics

Brewsters:

Larry Mc Closkey asks if enzymes are immortal or consumed
by their reaction.

Enzymes are essentially a biological catalyst in that they are
available after each molecular reaction to do it again.  However,
they do depend on geometry and hydration to be effective and
selective.  Such a complex structure of atoms eventually comes
apart.  Its temperature dependence is perhaps the most well
known response in which the denaturization ( a combination of
loss of solvation and structural integrity) proceeds exponentially
faster at higher temperatures.  This curve is so steep that early
workers even chose a "denaturization" temperature which is a
useful guideline above which activity of the enzyme is curtailed
quickly. Other things like Calcium ion content, mash thickness,
and sugars produced can affect the speed of reaction and even
the lifetime of the enzyme.

There are competing factors here.  As the temperature goes up,
the speed with which the second order reaction  - substrate plus
enzyme increases.  Also the speed with which the enzyme
disappears (basically a first order reaction) is also increasing.
The difference in the temperature sensitivities of the various
enzymes is the primary manner in which the wort composition
is controlled by the brewer.  So is the enzyme immortal? No.
Is it essentially immortal for the lifetime of the mash or at least
its role in the mash?  That is the job of the brewer to see that it
sticks around long enough to do its job and goes away when
he wants it to.
- ---------------------------------------------
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: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 09:00:11 -0600
From: Vachom <MVachow at newman.k12.la.us>
Subject: Beer Primary "William Warren"  2/19/98

William:	

Don't use it, lessn' of course you want pickle tastin' beer.  Get a new
clean one and even then you should probably retire plastic fermenters
every 5-10 batches--use 'em to soak bottle labels off, store grains,
gear, etc.  Some people (strong correlation to those who have access to
free buckets--i.e. know the guy at the pickle factory who will GIVE him
buckets BEFORE the pickles go in) use a new bucket with every batch. 
The other option is to use carboys exclusively.  If you brew in 5 gallon
batches, buy a six gallon carboy to use as a primary fermenter (I'm
assuming you have a 5 gallon carboy for a secondary fermenter).  The
extra gallon volume will provide enough room for high krausen with most
beers without causing blow-off problems.  You'll come out ahead
financially in the long run by ponying up for the carboy now.  If you
keep it clean and treat it kindly, you won't ever have to buy another.


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 10:00:54 -0500 (EST)
From: Ahenckler at aol.com
Subject: Mini-kegs

To those interested in/frustated with mini-kegs:

Not having the space for an extra fridge solely devoted to beer (wow...
wouldn't that be great!), I needed an alternative to corny kegs.  About 4 and
a half years ago, I ended up with a couple of Party Pigs.  At the time, they
were roughly price competitive with mini-kegs (they probably still are) and
they offered (and still offer) lots of advantages:

*  You don't need to mess around with CO2 pressures, worrying about empty
cylinders, etc.  Dispense pressure is provided by a plastic bag that expands
due to a controlled vinegar/baking soda type reaction that is sealed away
from the beer.

*  You can prime at the same rate as you use for bottling.  I usually put
half a 5 gal. batch in a Party Pig and half in bottles so I have some on tap
(Scotchtoberfest!) and some to give away, enter in contests, etc.

*  These things are really durable.  In the years I have had them, the only
things I have had to replace have been a few machine screws that I stripped.
 They were about ten cents at the hadware store.

*  They still fit in my fridge and are pretty handy for parties.

*  When (if) I retire them, they are recyclable.

The major downsides to these things are the plastic pouches which have to be
replaced every time you refill a Party Pig (about $3.50 to $4) and the fact
that other homebrewers kid you about not having a *real* kegging system.

i have been so happy with these things that when I eventually upgrade to a
corny system (sediment free beer and instant carbonation are nice) I will
continue to keep them around.

Insert standard disclaimer here.

 - Andrew


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 09:05:55 -0600 (CST)
From: Steve <JOHNSONS at uansv5.Vanderbilt.Edu>
Subject: Homebrewing & Individuals with physical limitations

In addition to the excellent post on Wheelchair brewing in recent HBD, there
was also a feature on 2 homebrewers who refuse to let physical limitations
prohibit their brewing in Zymurgy 1996 special issue Vol. 19 #4 titled
"Why We Brew".  Nice feature, with some pictures; detail about the ins and 
outs may not be there, but might give someone a contact for some additional
information from experience.

Steve Johnson, President
Music City Brewers
Nashville, TN
about 1 mile from Dave Miller's office


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 09:33:26 -0600
From: "Bruce Jackson" <bruce at candid.com>
Subject: Pickled Primary

William Warren writes:
I have acquired a 5 gallon bucket that was used to keep pickles. I have=20
washed it out a couple of times and the smell is still there(only=20
slightly). My question is would you use this bucket as a fermentation=20
device. And if so how would you clean it so the smell is not noticeable=20
and I brew good beer. Any information would be helpful.=20

- -----

I acquired exactly the same thing, and found it too "pickley" to trust =
for anything but soaking bottles in bleach solution to sanitize and/or =
soak off lables.  After several months of on and off soakings in a cold =
bleach solution, there's no longer any trace of pickle, and I've started =
using it for a bottling bucket with no more off-flavors than I get with =
the rest of my equipment :).  I would use it for a primary in a =
heartbeat if it were bigger.

Bruce Jackson
Edmond, OK




Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 08:22:44 -0800
From: Andrew Patti <patti at hpl.hp.com>
Subject: strange ferment questions

I've had 4 pretty strange ferments lately attempting to use
WYEAST 1056 in a SNPA type recipe. I'm looking for help determining
what's going on. Here's a description of the last one.

The recipe looks like:

  o  9 lbs American Klages 2-Row Pale Malt
  o  0.5 lb Carapils Malt
  o  0.5 lb Crystal Malt
  o  1.25 oz Perle Hops (6.5 alpha)
  o  1 oz Cascade Hops (6.3 alpha)
  o  WYEAST 1056 American Ale

I use an infusion mash at around 151 F for an hour and 20 min,
and after sparging/boiling/cooling get a SG reading of 1.052. 
My mash and sparge water is RO treated with 1 tsp gypsum per 5 
gallons. I use those pH strips so I'm wildly guesing at what the pH 
really is, but it looked about right.

I use an immersion chiller to go down to room temp. When I rack
to the glass fermenter I try and splash around the wort
exiting the hose (there are no special holes drilled for aeration
or anything like that though). I then pitch a 1 qt starter 
created 48 hours in advance (one day too long probably). The
fermenter is placed in a room that averages about 63-65 F.

Now the fun begins... There was a lag time of 28-36 hours before 
the lock began bubbling away. 48 hours after pitching the bubbler
was going at 1 chig every 2 seconds or so. During the next few
days it slowed to about 1 chig per 3-4 seconds then locked at that rate
for 5 days. The ferment looked a little funny in that for
the first 2-3 days of fermenting there was a beautiful white foam
1-2 inches thick on the surface. After that, the surface of the foam
became covered in shiny tan colored matter (same color as settled yeast
it turns out). Also, there was a noticable flow upward from the 
break/settled yeast during the ferment. Everything smelled fine for
the first 5 days or so, then started to smell a little off (classifying
smells is tough, but I was thinking rotten egg smell), so on the
8'th day I racked to a secondary. The SG was at 1.024 and there were
no off flavors other than some yeast bite and a noticeable sweetness.

Now after 2 1/2 days in the secondary there is a 1/4 inch layer of white 
foam, it's bubbling at 1 chig per 5 seconds or so, and there are no
off smells.

Sorry for the amount of BW I chewed up, but I'm REALLY curious to hear 
what everyone thinks - especially about the:

1) off smell, then no off smell after racking
2) upward flow in the ferment (was some down too of course)
3) tan colored "shone" on the surface after a few days, then
   insignificant coloring on the foam after a few days in the 
   secondary.
4) long lag after pitching (plenty of break transferred, but I've
   got a good idea what's coming here :)
5) long ferment (63-65F doesn't seem THAT cold)

One last note is that in a previous attempt a similar thing happened
and when I caught the off smell I figured the batch was infected and
stuck. I let it sit in the primary for a month and didn't pay much
attention just to see what would eventually happen. Well, it fermented
down to 1.007, cleared very nicely and had a faintly detectable 
medicanal smell/taste. 

Any thoughts?

Andy


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 19 Feb 98 10:41:52 CST
From: jwilkins at wss.dsccc.com (John Wilkinson)
Subject: RE: floating sediment

Bob McDonald asked how to get rid of floating sediment in a keg.

What I have done is to slowly release the pressure, remove the lid, withdraw
the out dip tube until the end is almost to the top of the keg, place an SS
scrubber on the end with a hop bag over it, push the dip tube back home, and
transfer to another keg.  I transfer through a hose with liquid out fittings
on each end.  It would be best to fill the receiving keg with boiled water and
force it out with CO2 to purge the keg before filling.  This a tip from Dave
Burley that I use now.
In my experience, the hop bag and scrubber filter out most of the crud.  At
least it has worked with hops.  The scrubber actually just keeps the hop bag
from becoming a dip tube size filter but it might work on its own.
The only tricky part is getting the scrubber and bag to stay on until the dip
tube is home.  I haven't had too much problem with that, though.

Oh yeah, boil your hands first so you don't contaminate the beer.

John Wilkinson - Grapevine, Texas - jwilkins at wss.dsccc.com


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 08:43:29 -0800 (PST)
From: Domenick Venezia <demonick at zgi.com>
Subject: Are enzymes consumed?


SouthBayHB at aol.com asked:
>
> Are amylase enzymes "consumed" or changed by the reaction they
> facilitate?

The simple answer is no, enzymes are catalysts and are not consumed by the
reactions they facilitate.  Theoretically a single molecule of
alpha-amylase and a single molecule of beta-amylase could convert your
entire mash.  Do not try this at home - it could take a LONG time. 

Unfortunately, the real world intervenes in these theoretical situations,
and the real answer is, no, but ...

Although these enzymes are not consumed during the reactions they catalyze
they can and are destroyed by other factors in the mash.  Amylase enzymes
are proteins.  Proteins are long polymers of amino acids, like beads on a
chain.  Some proteins consist of a single chain, others consist of
multiple chains.  These chains are precisely folded into a specific 3D
shape that lend the protein its function.  Anything that can disrupt
protein chains can affect amylase enzymes, heat, pH, salt concentration,
and proteases are among the things that can destroy an enzyme.  Enzymes
are destroyed in two ways, fold disruption and chemical degradation.  The
3D fold can be disrupted by heat, pH, and salt concentration.  Chemical
degradation can occur by other enzymes (proteases) literally chewing up
the amylase chains, or through acidic chemical digestion like that which
occurs in your stomach. 

The mash is a nasty place.  It's hot.  It's slightly acidic.  It contains
protease enzymes.  If starch gelatinized at room temperature the amylase
enzymes would last a long, long time, but would do their work much, much
slower.  We must use high tempertures in the mash to make the starch
quickly available for conversion, but at the same time the hot acidic
solution is slowly digesting the amylase.  The mash is an attempt to
balance these effects and get all the starch converted before the total
distruction of the amylase.  The mash also contains protease enzymes, and
the protein rest is an opportunity for these enzymes to chew up the
protein present in the grain.  My guess is that some of the amylase is
destroyed during a protein rest, but not enough to adversely affect
conversion. 

Why is all this stuff in the grain in the first place?  A kernel of grain
is literally a plant egg.  It contains an embryo and food reserves for
germination.  Starch is a very efficient means for storing sugar.  There
are also protein and other nutrient stores.  The seed also contains all
the enzymes it needs to convert the starch to sugar (amylases) and convert
the protein to amino acids (proteases).  During germination all the starch
is converted to sugar and consumed. 

If I were designing a seed I'd put the enzymes close to where they are
needed.  Amylase is needed in the starch granules so that is where I'd put
them.  Some of the longevity of amylase in the mash may be due to
sequestering.  If the amylases are separated from the proteases, then
during the protein rest, which occurs below gelatinization temperature,
the amylases may be protected from the proteolytic activity of the
proteases.  Perhaps someone else can speak to the issue of enzyme locality
within the seed.  Perhaps I'll look it up.

Cheers!

Domenick Venezia   demonick at zgi.antispam.com (remove .antispam)



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 09:47:10 -0600
From: lheavner at tcmail.frco.com (Lou Heavner)
Subject: re: membranes

     From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com>
     
     
     >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.
     
     
     Oh Dave, just stab me in the heart!  If you had seen some of the 
     scale-up work done by chemists that I have seen, you might think 
     chemists were comics... in a kind hearted way, of course!  ;)
     
     I suspect that the whole sparging process is more like baffled 
     convective flow than any other model proposed.  I had once thought 
     that there might be some degree of pore diffusion, but based on 
     Jethro's review of the movie "MASH", it sounds like the goods inside 
     the husks are pitted rather than characterized with gazillions of 
     micropores.  The husks surely act like baffles more than mebranes and 
     to the extent that they inhibit rinsing, create "bulk" concentration 
     gradients driving bulk diffusion.  It becomes more like solving a 
     boundary layer problem where much if not most of the liquor is in a 
     boundary layer.  That is why slower sparges up to a limit will improve 
     sugar recovery.  It also explains why channeling is bad.
     
     Lou Heavner - Austin, TX
     BSChE (some would say with emphasis on the BS) and proud of it!


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 12:59:33 -0800
From: George_De_Piro at berlex.com
Subject: Erratic Wyeast yeast performance

     Hi all,
     
     In the past I have written about getting some very sulphury
     fermentations using Wyeast 1338.  This is a strain I use a lot,
     and usually don't get a lot of sulphur from it.
     
     A call to Wyeast was useless in helping to determine the cause of
     this, but I may have serendipitously found an answer:
     
     A homebrew shop near me (which shall remain nameless) has decided to
     cut overhead by turning up the thermostat on their ridiculously
     large cold room.  They now store yeast and hops at 55-60F (~14C).
     
     I bought a package of Wyeast 1338 from them last week.  It was dated
     Nov. 7.  Unhappy with both the storage temp and the age of the
     package, I went to a different store.  Much to my chagrin, all they
     had was 1338 from Nov. 7, but it was stored in a proper refrigerator.
     
     What the heck, I though, I'll grow both separately and see what
     happens...
     
     The one that was stored cold is fermenting the starter in a very
     normal and pleasant manner.  The one that was kept warmer is cranking
     out the sulphur.  Both rotten eggs ("sufidic") and struck match
     ("sulfitic") aromas!
     
     EUREKA thought I!
     
     Being a very small experiment doesn't make this definitive, but it is
     pretty compelling.  The only variable in this experiment other than
     the yeast storage was the shape of the starter flask:  the sulphury
     yeast is in a 1 qt. jar (high height:width ratio) while the "normal"
     yeast is in a gallon jug.  Both had the same amount and batch of wort
     added to them, though.  They were both provided with oxygen.
     
     Any micro-types have any ideas about this?  It seems reasonable that
     high-temp storage would damage the yeast in some way.  Is increased
     sulfur production a known indicator of yeast damage?
     
     Have fun!
     
     George De Piro  (Nyack, NY)


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 11:02:30 -0700 (MST)
From: Kenneth Sullivan <kenneth.sullivan at Central.Sun.COM>
Subject: Modified RIMS heater / Expanding foam around LT

S.H.I.T.  So Happy It's Thursday
I found some water heater elements at Home Depot for $10.50 each so 
I bought a long one at 4500W/240VAC and a short one at 1500W/240VAC.
I have a 24" x 2" copper pipe and am thinking about putting 'Tees'
on both ends and inserting both heater elements on opposite ends.
That way I can turn on one, the other or both.  Questions: Should I
run these at 120VAC to cut the wattage in half?  What other problems can
you experienced RIMSers forsee?

Second item: I have a converted keg for sparge water and plan to insulate
the bejesus out of it. My carpenter friend suggested that I build a box
around it and fill the box with the expanding foam-in-a-can and carve it
into a nice package.  I plan to use the RIMs heater or a different keg to
bring the sparge water to temp and then pump it into the Sparge keg.
Again,  I would like to learn from others mishaps than rediscover the 
obvious ;-)

thnx, KJ
Ken Sullivan, Kernel Support Engineer
Sun MicroSystems Customer Call Center
Broomfield, Colorado 80020
(303) 464-4633
kjsulli at central.sun.com



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 13:15:22 -0500
From: "Milo" <pigsnzen at ntr.net>
Subject: First Timer Question

I'm brewing my first beer (a Edme extract Red Ale w/honey added, top 
fermenting yeast).

I've been lazy & let it sit in the secondary for ~6 weeks.

Now small white dots are floating on the surface...
Has my beer gone bad? (The dots have not gotten bigger over the 
last week or so...)

Thanx!     
Milo

P.S.   Does anyone know if brewing beer in a "DRY" county is illegal, even
          	if the state does not make HB illegal?  - not that I am doing
such a 
	thing... ;}


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 12:44:38 -0600
From: Pvrozanski at ra.rockwell.com
Subject: Problem adding Polyclar


I dry hopped a batch of American Pale Ale in the secondary using whole
Cascade hops. As you can probably guess, they're floating on top of the
beer. My problem is that I usually add Polyclar and with the hops floating
the way they are I have no idea as to how to get the Polyclar in the
carboy.

One idea I had for solving my problem was to perform a tertiary rack where
I could add the Polyclar prior to kegging.

Another idea was to add a piece of tubing to my funnel that would project
through the hop bed and into the beer. I could then add a Polyclar/water
mixture to the beer.

Which idea sounds better or does someone out there have a better idea?

Thanks in advance.




Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 13:22:10 -0600
From: layton at sc45.dseg.ti.com (James R. Layton 972.952.3718 JLAY)
Subject: Lacto d.  / lager ferm temps

George De Piro asked:

 > 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.
     <snip>
 > Anybody out there doing this?  How's the beer? 

I used a similar schedule for a munich helles recently. Pitched at 50F,
fermented to endpoint at 56F, racked to secondary and dosed with polyclar,
primed and bottled. Conditioned at 63F for three weeks, then moved beer
into a fridge at about 35F. It is still there, "lagering". OG 1.051,
FG 1.010 (I would have preferred a bit higher FG). Yeast was Wyeast 2124,
the Bohemian lager strain.

Timing: brewed 11-28-97
        racked 12-24-97
        bottled 1-5-98

The beer is deadly clean. Maybe too clean. Not much flavor of any kind.
Easy to drink, but not much to get excited about. BTW, its an all-grain,
single decoction recipe.

I made a similar munich helles last year, and the year before that as 
well. These beers had a sulphery flavor that I thought to be a bit high,
and so did a few judges (still got 2nd place in Ger. Light Lager at last
year's Sunshine Challenge). This year's brew has almost none of that
flavor. Now all that was changed was the mash method (was step infusion),
hop bill (tweaked it down this time, and used a different variety), and
the primary fermentation temp, so this can't be a strict A to B comparison.
Still, I _think_ the higher fermentation temperature led to a reduced
level of the sulphery flavor. I think I liked last year's beer better.
Maybe next year I'll ferment at 54F.

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

Nathan Kanous asked about Lacto. delbrukii (sp?).

I made a good wit beer last year using lacto. d. culture from Yeast 
Culture Kit Company. I cultured it using info from a Brewing Techniques
article by Dr. Brian Nummer in Vol. 4, No.3. Dan McConnell of YCKC
also answered a few of my questions. I split a 5 gal. batch at bottling
time, souring half of it with lactic acid and adding the lacto culture
to the other half. Both turned out very well. Anyway, between the BT
article and Mr. McConnell, I was quite successful in my first effort
with bacterial culture. Sorry, I can't recall all the details right now
but it did require a special media and elevated temperature to speed the
bacteria culture along.

Jim Layton (Howe, TX)


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 13:59:40 -0700
From: "Carl Shipman" <cshipman at dakotacom.net>
Subject: SRM colors in your computer?

Hello Brewers,
     It may be practical to create on a spreadsheet a range of colors that
approximate the SRM scale, although I haven't done it. What I have done is
paint one cell in each of my (Excel) brewing record sheets with a color
that resembles the beer I brewed. An achievement that ascends to the level
of "Gee Whiz" or maybe even "Golly". Some of us like to play with our toys.
One photo is worth a thousand words, etc.
     Judging beer color without scientific instruments is done, as I
understand it, using a visual comparator adjacent to the sample, both
transilluminated by a standard light source such as photographic daylight.
     I simulate that by painting one large spreadsheet cell with color and
the adjacent cell white. Put the sample in front of the white cell. Use
standard monitor brightness and contrast settings, such as midway.
     If anyone wants to try this, the following may save a few minutes of
poking around. On an Excel spreadsheet, select a cell and size it as
desired. Click Tools, Options, Color, and you see the color palette for
that workbook. Click a color panel on the palette, such as R1 C1. Click
Modify, Custom, and you see a color map along with a swatch of the selected
color and six numbers that specify that color. The What's This gizmo
defines them.
     There are a couple of pointers on the color map that you can drag with
the mouse or you can change the six numbers directly. The color swatch will
split to show the result.
     For beer colors, use mostly red and green. In an additive color
system, yellow is red + green. Brown is dark yellow. Reddish brown uses
more red. R + G + B makes white, so blue combines with some of the R and G
to make white, which dilutes the color. Beer colors use larger values of R
and G, smaller values of B. The customized palette color changes in rather
large steps because on my computer there are only 56 colors available
whereas we can see thousands.
     When you like the custom color, click OKs back to the spreadsheet.
Then click Format, Cells, Patterns, and you will see the palette with the
modified color. Click the modified color and return to the spreadsheet. The
selected cell should be that color. If you are using that color anywhere
else in the workbook, it will change to the customized value.
     If anyone makes a color scale and likes it, the next question may be
transporting it between computers. Major variables will be monitor
brightness and contrast settings. I think this can be controlled with the
exposure meter of an SLR camera and will be glad to respond to e-mail on
that topic.
Golly,
Carl




Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1987 14:11:41 -0800
From: "Michel J. Brown" <homemade at spiritone.com>
Subject: Re: Metric IS standard

> 
> Um, early 1970's (decimal currency) actually, from memory, around 1971.
> Australia converted in 1966.
> 
My mistake, I was there when it happened, and I just learned how many
shillings were in a pound so I could buy a pint of cask conditioned bitter.
Guess it affected my memory more than I thought!
> 
> Ooh, didn't know about the 30 year window.. any idea whether
> they are sticking to it? Do you know if kids are learning
> both systems in schools?
> 
Well, so far they UG BoS has kept with the program. Both my children are
learning both the American English system, and the SI system. When my son
asked me how much an inch was I told him "three barley corns", to his
consternation.
> 
>  Does Australia
> > use the cgs or the MKS system of weights and measures? TTYL, God Bless!
> 
> 
> We are purely SI metric.
> 
Yes, I know, but which *scale*? There is Centimeter-Gram-Seconds, and then
there is the Meter-Kilogram-Seconds scale. Both are different, and both are
SI. So which does Australia use?
>
> Cheers!
> --
> Brad McMahon        Adelaide, South Australia         
> brad at sa.apana.org.au   
> PGP
> 
                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: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 17:41:57 -0500
From: Wayne_Kozun at otpp.com
Subject: Homebrew and Flatulance


Has anybody else noticed the correlation between drinking homebrew and
flatulance, or is this something that only affects me.  I notice that after
drinking two or three homebrews some very noxious gasses start vacating my
body causing my wife to threaten to not allow me to drink my own homebrew.
Do other people have this problem?




Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1987 14:42:39 -0800
From: "Michel J. Brown" <homemade at spiritone.com>
Subject: Re: Experiment

> 
> Michel--
> I suggest that it would be even more interesting if we all used the
> same water... i.e. distilled + brewing salts.  Two variables (the
> equipment and technique) are plenty.
> 
Well, fwiw, my water here in Portland is about as clean as distilled water
- -- even Pilsner Urquell water is 10X harder than my water is! I have to add
CaCl2 to my mash water when making a Bohemian Pils to harden it to PU
standards 8-O Problem is that there are micronutrients, like selenium,
copper, zinc, manganese, magnesium, and phosphorus which aid in yeast
nutrition that would be missing in distilled water plus brewing salts imho.
I agree with you about the variables, but what else can be done? TTYL, God
Bless, and ILBCNU!
>
> Al.
>
                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

---