HOMEBREW Digest #2650 Mon 02 March 1998

[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]

		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

  RE:  Salt additions / hazy beer (George_De_Piro)
  Private reply by Wolfgang Kunze (fwd) re: FWH and chill haze (Tidmarsh Major)
  More Water-Treatment Questions (KennyEddy)
  Salts addition, ("David R. Burley")
  BT Authors ("David R. Burley")
  Re: Worried or Not?  Mead question.... (Charles Burke)
  Re: European swallows/US pints ("John C. Tull")
  Beer history (David Kerr)
  Spalt rhizomes (Matthew Arnold)
  Steinbier (George_De_Piro)
  Devine Brew ("Frederick J. Wills")
  Attention Central PA residents! (Jonathan Ingram)
  Large 29 mm caps (Edward J. Basgall)
  Re: European swallows/US pints ("John C. Tull")
  Irish Moss (Al Korzonas)
  water chemistry, ppm (JKW)
  chloramines and filters (James Tomlinson)
  1 BBL RIMS Design (Kyle Druey)
  Correction (AJ)
  Colour units (Al Korzonas)
  re:1 bbl RIMS (Brad Johnson)
  Making Rootbeer (Bill_Rehm)
  RE: Long Secondaries/Spent Grain Dog Bones (LaBorde, Ronald)
  Metric system/pint/1984 ("Michael Maag")

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: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 08:24:09 -0800 From: George_De_Piro at berlex.com Subject: RE: Salt additions / hazy beer Hi all, Kyle asks some good questions about salt additions. He wonders if they are used primarily for flavor effects or pH control of the mash. He also wonders when to add them, and how much. Salt additions can be used for both pH control and flavor effects. The problems with using them for pH control are: 1. You will also get the flavor effects, which may be undesirable. 2. It's not Reinheitsgebot (not a problem for some). 3. By adding salts, you will increase the concentrations of some ions that you need, but you will also increase the concentration of ions you may not want. For example, if you add gypsum (calcium sulphate, CaSO4) to the mash to increase Ca+2 (to lower mash pH), you will also be increasing the SO4-2 ion. SO4 has a pretty large effect on the flavor of the beer (increases and alters the perception of hop bitterness). If you are brewing a Muenchner Helles this is not desirable! If you are using salts to control mash pH, obviously they must be added to the mash. It is easiest to add them to the water before mash in (to ensure even distribution). Of course, some salts are not very soluble in plain water (like calcium carbonate), but most people don't have a need to add this. If you must add this, it will dissolve in the mash (weakly acidic solution). You *absolutely* must know your water's natural chemistry before you start throwing all sorts of salts into your brewing water! I cannot stress this enough! Recipes that blindly call for salt additions should ignored!!! Think about it this way: you decide to use calcium chloride (CaCl2) to lower your mash pH. Your brewing water may already be near the upper limit for desirable chloride content. By adding more, you just pushed it way over the top. The same is true for all the ions you might add. If you are adding salts simply for their flavor contribution, you can add them to the boil rather than the mash. You should have a decent gram scale for weighing out salts. Volume measurements really don't cut it. The amounts you add are dependent on your water's natural chemistry. ---------------------------- There has been some talk about hazy beer. I used to think, "What the heck, a little haze is natural." This is true for some styles. Haze can signify other problems, though. Haze can simply be "chill haze," a protein-phenol complex that becomes insoluble at cold temperatures and thus clouds your cool brew. Haze can also be caused by excessive starch. Starch in beer is bad. It shows that there are fundamental problems with your techniques, and leads to beer stability and flavor problems. Haze can also be caused by yeast that have not flocculated. Most brewing yeasts usually flocculate, so lack of flocculation can be the sign of some problems. Wild yeasts tend to not flocculate. You don't want them in your beer (for several reasons)! Suspended yeast can make the beer taste yeasty, too. As Jim Busch pointed out, this is not often desirable. Haze can also be caused by an extreme bacterial infection. If your beer is turbid from bacteria you will probably be put off by its aroma before the appearance can ever bother you, though. So, as you can see, haze is not always the innocuous creature that many believe it to be. It is relatively easy to produce clear beer without filtration in a homebrewery. If you don't like haze, there is no reason to tolerate it! Have fun! George De Piro (Nyack, NY) Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 09:59:12 -0500 (EST) From: Tidmarsh Major <tmajor at parallel.park.uga.edu> Subject: Private reply by Wolfgang Kunze (fwd) re: FWH and chill haze Hubert Hanghofer passed the following reply from Wolfgang Kunze to me to forward to the list. Between the two of us, I think we've made a reasonable translation of the German reply (which I include for those who can understand it better than I). Tidmarsh Major tmajor at parallel.park.uga.edu - ---------- Forwarded message from Hubert Hanghofer, edited by me -------- To conclude, the context is clear to me - in my humble English: He's very pleased that we have such a great forum. Unfortunately his English is not very good, so he prefers to mail in German. ( -Note that I've read that the book was translated by an English Author ) Hop polyphenols have a significantly higher degree of condensation [coagulation, perhaps?] and a higher reactivity than malt polyphenols. The latter [malt polyphenols] count for 80% of the polyphenols in wort. If hops are added at beginning, the hop polyphenols react quickly, whereas a higher part of the slow reacting malt polyphenols remain in the wort and in the final beer, where they -because of low reactivity- cause haze in a later stage. That's the main reason for point 11. CHEERS & sehr zum Wohle! Hubert - ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Date: Wed, 25 Feb 98 15:46 +0100 To: hhanghof at netbeer.co.at From: (Wolfgang Kunze) Sehr geehrter Herr Hanghofer, Ihr interessantes e-mail wurde mir von Herrn Hendel von unserer VLB uebermittelt, erreichte mich aber wegen eines Urlaubs erst jetzt. Ich freue mich, dass die die Haus- und Microbrewer so intensiv und kompetent ueber eine elektronische mailingliste miteinander kommunizieren und sich auch wirklich ernsthaft mit den vielen Fragen und Problemen bei der Bierherstellung auseinanderzusetzen. Leider ist mein Englisch etwas mangelhaft, so dass ich mich lieber in der deutschen Sprache an Sie wende. Ich bitte Sie aber, den so Interessierten Haus- und Mikrobrauern auf diesem Wege meine Freude darueber zum Ausdruck zu bringen. Wenn ich nun die Diskussion richtig verstehe, geht es um die Frage, wie der Punkt 11 auf S.396 deutsch = 242 englisch: - Hopfengabe nicht zu frueh - Malzgerbstoffe sollen reagieren zu bewerten sei. Diese alte Erkenntnis beruht darauf, dass die Polyphenole des Hopfens in einem wesentlich hheren Kondensationsgrad vorliegen und auch wesentlich reaktionsfreudiger sind als die Polyphenole aus dem Malz, die aber wiederum etwa 80% der gesamten Polyphenole in der Wrze ausmachen. Wird der Hopfen am Anfang zugesetzt, reagieren seine Gerbstoffe sehr rasch, whrend die langsam reagierenden aus dem Malz zu einem hheren Anteil in der Wuerze und im Bier verbleiben und bei ihrer Reaktionstrgheit erst viel spaeter zu einer Truebung im Bier Anlass geben. Das ist die Hauptursache dieser Aussage, die natuerlich bei Verwendung von PVPP oder anderen Adsorbentien nicht mehr so zum Tragen kommt. Ich weiss allerdings nicht, ob die Microbrewer Adsorbentien oder Faellungsmittel zur Stabilisierung verwenden. Ich hoffe, dass Ihnen diese Aussage genuegt und bin gern bereit, bei weiteren Fragen Rede und Antwort zu stehen (aber moeglichst in deutsch). Mit freundlichen Gruessen ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ing. Hubert Hanghofer Maxstrasse 21 Privat +43-662-87 82 13 A-5020 Salzburg Bro +43-6245-890 442 - -- DIE HAUSBRAUEREI vom Einstieg zur Braukunst Infos unter http://www.netbeer.co.at/beer/ Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 10:05:28 EST From: KennyEddy at aol.com Subject: More Water-Treatment Questions Kyle Druey writes: I have a few questins while we are on the topic of water chemistry and salt addition. 1) When do you add salt additions: to the gross brewing water volume (this is the final beer volume plus extra water to account for any losses in the brewing process), to the mash tun, to the boil kettle? I add everything to the "gross brewing water" volume, though I don't think my brewing water is all *that* gross ;-). I buy my RO water in two 5-gallon plastic carboys (with handles), measure in the salts, and pick the bastards up and shake them (it's actually pretty easy with the handles). That said, there are special cases where adding to the mash is appropriate; see below. 2) If you add salts to the gross brewing water volume some salts will not readily dissolve until lactic acid is added. Is this normal, or am I doing something wrong? "Some slats" is probably chalk. This will only dissolve at a rate of about 1/4 gram per 5 gallons! This amount of chalk is not enough to significantly affect the ion composition, so chalk additions to plain unacidified water is useless. The other salts that I use -- epsom salts, baking soda, non-iodized table salt, calcium chloride, and gypsum -- dissolve quite readily in water. The addition of acid will improve the dissolution of chalk. AJ deLange has proposed bubbling CO2 though the water to lower its pH (by creation of carbonic acid, BTW this mimics natural processes) and facilitate chalk dissolution. 3) Are the salts added primarily to pre-adjust the mash pH, or for flavor effects in the finished beer? Seems as if the types/amounts of salts needed would then be a function of what your objectives are. If you just want to alter mash pH, then the famous brewing water profiles commonly found in homebrewing texts may not be very useful. This post was made before my response to Scott Murman in a recent HBD. Go back a couple issues and look for it if you didn't catch it. Bottom line -- you're right, but as always, It Depends. 4) I have been calculating my salt additions based on the gross water volume, and adding them there. Like I mentioned above, some salts do not readily dissolve, but I add this water to the mash tun anyway. The remainder of the water is used for sparging, which is acidified with lactic acid, after which the mineral salts dissolve. What happens to the undissolved salts that are added to dough in the grist? Do they dissolve once the mash pH is adjusted, or do they somehow get 'trapped' in the grain bed? You can work with undissolved chalk if you can keep it suspended (by vigorous stirring) during strike-in. This will ensure it's evenly distributed and it will dissolve once it reacts with the malt. Adding to the mash after mash-in will work too since the acidity of the mash will dissolve the chalk readily. Note that chalk is calcium carbonate. The calcium wants to react with the mash to lower pH (by creating acid); but the carbonate wants to add alkalinity and raise pH. In this race, the carbonate wins after a certain amount of chalk. So watch your mash pH if you add chalk. 5) Once you add the salts, and you then have to add more salts to adjust the mash pH, what happens then? Do you run the risk of adding too much of the wrong kinds of minerals? Gypsum (calcium sulphate) is a common mash acidifier, and adding more gypsum adds more sulphate which can be detrimental to some styles. For these kinds of beers, adding acid may be a better choice to avoid sulphate. 6) Are calculating salt additions worth the time and effort? Or is it just easier, and produces the same outcome, to ignore salt additions/calculations and adjust the mash pH with lactic acid to lower the pH, and use calcium carbonate to increase the pH? Mash pH should always be the last word in your salt additions, but creating "profiles" for specific flavor effects is also one of the goals. In my recent post I suggested a few simple recipes that should cover most of your brewing situations, if you don't want to do the work yourself (or if you just want a "good-enough" water). I doubt that subtle "errors" versus published "classic" water profiles will have any discernable effect on your beer. I am sure most of us have read that the Bavarians originally could not brew Pilsners because when they mashed with lightly kilned malts and added their hard water (hard when compared to Pilzen) to the grist the resulting mash pH was not enzyme friendly. Perhaps designing mineral salt recipes based on the composition of the grist is more appropiate? i.e. darker malts generally lower the mash pH, design water recipes the account for this... Doesn't Daniels in his book DGB suggest that the mash pH will be lowered by 0.2 for every 10% of dark malts that comprise the grist? I have seen a couple of sources on figuring mash pH vs composition but in my ignorance I'm guessing it's much more complicated than simply plugging in a grain bill and water chemistry and getting an accurate pH (but who knows). I've read (Daniels? Pappazian?) that adding distilled water to pale malt will establish a pH around 5.9 (or thereabouts), too high for proper efficient enzyme action. Adding calcium facilitates creation of pH-reducing acid. Adding acid lowers pH. Letting the grist "go lactic" biologically will lower the pH. Adding dark malts will lower pH. ***** Ken Schwartz El Paso, TX KennyEddy at aol.com http://members.aol.com/kennyeddy Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 10:16:56 -0500 From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com> Subject: Salts addition, Brewsters: Kyle Druey asks about when and how much minerals to add to produce beer. The Ca ion content in pale ale malt mashes should be around 50 ppm in the mash to provide the correct pH and avoid interfering with enzyme activity. In the case of Pilsners and RO water, I don't add any minerals at any time and it all works fine. If you choose to do the real Burton style waters add half of the salts in the mash tun and the other half in the sparge and avoid adding lactic acid if you are searching for real ale authenticity. To get the calcium carbonate to dissolve you may have to treat a sample of water and salts with CO2 using a carbonater and a liter soda bottle. Your idea of using the grist composition to determine the mineralization of the brewing liquor is, of course, just the opposite of the early brewers who varied the grist to match the local water. This resulted in beers which were distinctive by geography. - ----------------------------------------------------------- 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, 26 Feb 1998 10:42:51 -0500 From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com> Subject: BT Authors Brewsters: Wow!! was I impressed to read the list of authors in the January/February Brewing Techniques; HBD swept the issue! Louis Bonham with Andy Thomas, Dion Hollenbeck and Spencer Thomas were the authors familiar to us all and Al Korzonas' letter to Dave Miller had Miller explaining and apologizing page after page. Well Done!! For those who are BT impaired call 541-687-2993 or e-address is circulation at brewtech.com No affiliation, yadda. 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, 26 Feb 1998 09:03:00 -0700 (MST) From: Charles Burke <charles at pluto.ame.arizona.edu> Subject: Re: Worried or Not? Mead question.... Michael Tucker (mrtucker at fayettevillenc.com) wrote: > OK- so far so good. the book suggests that you rack the mead > off of the sediment once a month or so. OK- fine. I sanitized > another carboy, racked the mead off of the sediment, topped it > back off with a gallon or so of clean, sanitary spring water > (also suggested by the book), repositioned my ferm lock, and > nada. Nothing. no visible signs of life. No glubs from the > ferm lock, nothing. the mead is clear, I can see through the > stuff- a dark reddish golden color. I did taste it- I was > disappointed in the flavor, but it didn't taste "sour" or "off" > like it had been contaminated.... I figure it was still "raw" > and needs time to mellow. I guess what has me worried is that > moments before I racked it, it was bubbling away- one glub > every 3 minutes of so. Moments after the transfer, nada. Its > almost like i wiped out the wee beastie yeasties in toto. I > can't believe that to be true- but that's what its like. Greetings, Michael (et al...) - Remember that you had a slow fermentation rate of "0.3 glub/min" and that racking drives A LOT of CO2 out of solution. I suspect that your fermentation IS active, but the CO2 is just going directly into solution rather than escaping. It seems reasonable to suppose that no gas will come out until the dissolved CO2 concentration reaches saturation. That could take a while given the CO2 production rate you gave. Your batch sounds just like the plain 3# mead that I started back in Spring '93. I had the same experience when I racked the stuff. It had a comparable fermentation rate as yours at the time. The airlock did start bubbling again after "a few" days (I can't remember exactly how long it took). As for the rest - Yes, the must wouldn't taste terrific at this point. Mine took 2 years after bottling to even start to mellow, and about 15 months to ferment out completely (FG = 0.997 IIRC). This was also with champagne yeast and a "cautious" dose of nutrient. Take heart, though - the final product should be fantastic. Mine has finally taken of the characteristic of a good white wine. Mostly like a chardonnay, but with a completely different aftertaste. Unfortunately, much patience is required of the meadmaker... - Charlie - --------------------------------------------- Charles R. Burke, Research Assistant University of Arizona Bldg. 119 Dept. of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering 1130 N Mountain Ave. Tucson AZ 85721 charles at cfd.ame.arizona.edu (520)621-4369 work, (520)621-8191 fax Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 08:31:18 -0800 From: "John C. Tull" <jctull at unr.edu> Subject: Re: European swallows/US pints >Here in the States we're getting ripped off and no one is saying a word. >When I ask for a pint, I want A PINT. What we usually get is a 12oz pour >in an American "pint" glass. A glass of beer is usually about 8oz. > >I really wish publicans would get their act together and serve a REAL >pint when asked for. I agree with you wholeheartedly. The problem arises from the lack of pint serving glass availability from restaurant suppliers. They sell a pint glass made by Libby's, I believe, that is actually a mixing glass for bartending. The kind where you slip a metal glass on the open end and shake, not stir. So a publican pours into a pint glass, creates a head, and you usually end up with about 14 oz of beer, depending on head size. I have the same glasses at home that I use for pouring homebrews. My 12 oz. fits with room to spare if my pours are patient. BTW, some brewpubs use true 0.5 L steins. Cheers, John C. Tull Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 11:51:19 -0500 From: David Kerr <dkerr at semc.org> Subject: Beer history Radio Prague has a neat beer site that (all) y(ouse)'all might find interesting: http://www.radio.cz/beer/beer1.html Dave Kerr - Needham, MA "Brew early and often" - Mayor Daley Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 17:11:15 GMT From: revmra at skyfry.com (Matthew Arnold) Subject: Spalt rhizomes Spring is nearly upon us in the U.S. Midwest (actually, thanks to El Nino, it's felt like spring for quite some time). My wife and I want to try our hand at growing our own hops. We plan on growing some Cascade, as it is supposedly easy to grow and we like it! Another one I would love to grow is Spalt. Does anyone know of anyone anyplace who sells Spalt rhizomes? I realize I'm asking for almost the impossible, but if anyone knows a homebrew shop that carries them or knows of a farm that grows Spalt that would be willing to sell my some rhizomes, I would be in be eternally in your debt. Hoping to be Spalting, Matt Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 12:19:04 -0800 From: George_De_Piro at berlex.com Subject: Steinbier Hi all, A while back I asked some practical questions about the production of Steinbier. I just thought I'd let you all know that I brewed it this weekend. There were no injuries or loss of property. Very dull. I brewed up 15 gallons of 1.062 Oktoberfest wort and took 4.5 gallons of it for the Steinbier (it was later diluted down to 1.049). My friend Bob and I built a fire with seasoned oak and a few pieces of scrap maple I had laying around. When we ran out of wood we tore apart a dead Japanese maple that was standing a few feet away and burned it. We used all sorts of rocks, mostly from the woods north of New York City (they don't call the land "Rockland county" for nothing). I didn't test any of the rocks before brew day. Every one of them fell apart in the fire. Only one exploded with any kind of force, and it wasn't that tremendous. It only sent a flake about 2 feet in the air. The rocks never did glow red, although they were hot enough to ignite wood on contact. What fun! Upon dropping them in the wort we were somewhat surprised by the lack of violence. The stones hissed, some bubbles rose, and that was it. We did achieve boiling from a temperature of about 140F (60C), though. None of the rocks exploded upon cooling in the wort. The wort only boiled a few minutes after dropping the rocks in, so I finished the boil on the stove. The wort really didn't taste all that different from the Oktoberfest wort (it wasn't diluted to 1.049 until the end of the boil), despite the ashes that were floating in it (a few bits of burnt wood made it to the kettle...) I saved some of the rocks in a corny keg that I sanitized with iodophor and boiling water (I boiled all the fittings, too). The rock-filled keg was purged with CO2 and refrigerated. I must say that the rocks didn't seem to have much character. I tasted one that wasn't for the keg and found it to be, um, rock-like. Not too sweet. Some of the rocks did have a lot of proteinaceous gunk on them. That plus the fact that I am reluctant to put beer into a keg that was sanitized weeks in advanced (for the "lagering on the rocks" phase) makes me wonder if it is worth reintroducing the beer to the rocks. Any opinions? Overall, it was a fun day. The wort smells really nice in the fermenter, and the lag time was really short. I'll probably rack it off the yeast this weekend, and in another week put it "on the rocks," if I decide to do that. I'll report back on how it turns out. Have fun! George De Piro (Nyack, NY) Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 12:57:29 -0500 From: "Frederick J. Wills" <Frederick_Wills at compuserve.com> Subject: Devine Brew mra at skyfry.com (Matthew Arnold) proposed the following recipe: >Lion Fan in Packerland Extremely Bitter IPA >11# English Pale Ale malt >.5# 60L Crystal malt >.5# Victory malt >.5# Wheat malt >2.5 oz Centennial pellets (75 mins) > .5 oz Centennial (10 mins) >1 oz Cascade (10 mins) >1 oz Cascade (at knockout / dry hop) >#1098 British Ale yeast Assuming this recipe is intended for 5.5 gallons in the fermenter, I would be more concerned with overdoing the bitterness on this than the citrus flavor. The flavor and aroma will fade with aging much faster than the bitterness. I calculated over 100 IBUs. Even for an IPA that is off the map. You can sometimes get away with it on a very malty Barley Wine, but I'm afraid I wouldn't enjoy it on a beer w/ an OG of 1.060-1.070 (1.064 at 75% efficiency). I too am of the hop appreciative kind, but what truly differenciates a hoppy beer IMO is the flavor and aroma from late additions and dry hopping. You might want to cut back to ~50 IBUs and stay with the generous late hop additions maybe even going for some dry hops in secondary and see how that suits your taste buds. Cheers, Fred Wills Londonderry, NH Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 13:49:49 -0500 From: Jonathan Ingram <jgi105 at psu.edu> Subject: Attention Central PA residents! being that the time is getting closer, I thought I would go ahead and announce the opening of a new brewery. One of my friends will be opening the Mt.Nittany Brewery sometime this spring if you live in the central PA area keep an eye out for it in your local bar(s), especially State College, Phillipsburg, Bellefonte, etc. The first beer to be put out on the market is -Jed's Red-. Please note that I don't work for the brewery, nor is this an official announcement of any type. I just thought some of you might be interested. -Jon Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 14:42:29 -0500 From: ejb11 at psu.edu (Edward J. Basgall) Subject: Large 29 mm caps Hi homebrewers, This has probably been addressed before, but does any one have a source for the large Champagne bottle sized 29mm crown caps? Private email reply is OK. tia cheers ed basgall SCUM State College Underground Maltsters State College, PA Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 08:31:18 -0800 From: "John C. Tull" <jctull at unr.edu> Subject: Re: European swallows/US pints >Here in the States we're getting ripped off and no one is saying a word. >When I ask for a pint, I want A PINT. What we usually get is a 12oz pour >in an American "pint" glass. A glass of beer is usually about 8oz. > >I really wish publicans would get their act together and serve a REAL >pint when asked for. pint serving glass availability from restaurant suppliers. They sell a pint glass made by Libby's, I believe, that is actually a mixing glass for bartending. The kind where you slip a metal glass on the open end and shake, not stir. So a publican pours into a pint glass, creates a head, and you usually end up with about 14 oz of beer, depending on head size. I have the same glasses at home that I use for pouring homebrews. My 12 oz. fits with room to spare if my pours are patient. BTW, some brewpubs use true 0.5 L steins. Cheers, John C. Tull Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 13:39:37 -0600 (CST) From: Al Korzonas <korz at xnet.com> Subject: Irish Moss Andy writes: >The correct amount of irish moss to add is highly dependent on many >factors. Most homebrew texts recommend far less than is ideal (1/2 >teaspoon per batch instead of ~1 tablespoon), so in many cases it won't >do much at all. Using even 30% less than the optimum can result in poor >cold break flocculation. I wish I had my copy of Dr. Fix's new book here... I'm pretty sure this would be in there, but he was good enough to send me a copy of a paper he had written a few years ago which described some experiments he ran with Irish Moss. Several different varieties of IM were tried at several different concentrations. Rehydration of the IM was done and it was stressed that this was very important. There were tradeoffs between head retention and clarity and a few other factors, but my reading of the data indicated to me that 1/8 gram per liter of *refined flakes* was the best choice. After determining this, I immediately called L.D.Carlson (my primary wholesaler at the time, when I owned a HB shop) and asked what kind of IM they were shipping me. It turns out it was "refined Irish Moss flakes." Note also that in one of the Beer and Brewing books (the transcripts of the AHA National Conference) there is a talk by Terry Foster on finings. He explained why "too much" of a fining is worse than "not enough." My own experiments have shown this to be true. I weighed out 2.4 grams of those L.D.Carlson refined flakes and found that it was pretty close to a level TEAspoon. Now, let's think about how extract is made for a second. It is concentrated from a normal wort, right? I had a suspicion that the amount of IM you need is dependent on the amount of protein in the wort and if some of the protein was removed as break from the extract during production, extract batches would require less IM, right? My experiments indeed confirmed this suspicion. To make a short story long, my tests indicated that, for a 1.050 OG extract wort, 1/4 TEAspoon of rehydrated, refined Irish Moss flakes was the proper amount. This happens to be exactly the amount that Charlie Papazian recommends in his book, but I don't recall if he distinguishes between extract and all-grain amounts. Note that this should scale linearly... for a 1.100 extract wort, 1/2 teaspoon should be correct. It could be that higher amounts of IM are needed when rehydration is not done or in high-protein worts or on worts whose pH is radically different than the norm... that might explain why some people find they need a lot more than these recommended amounts I had better shut up now... you've heard the story about free milk and a cow right? Al. Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL korz at xnet.com My new website (still under construction, but up-and-running): http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/ Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 20:56:41 +0100 From: JKW <kev at post8.tele.dk> Subject: water chemistry, ppm In HBD#2644 Gregg Soh writes: > >Hi. I've been reading up on my water chemistry lately and from the >references we have that reside in the Brewery pages, as well as from >some homebrewing texts(TNCJOHB comes to mind), there is always a mention >of "ppm". We all know that this means "parts per millon", but are these >parts based on weight or by atoms? <SNIP> In my chemistry education (OK, chemical engineering, but we're all friends here right? :^) I learned to worship these sacred cows: % (parts per hundred), ppt, ppm, ppb, etc. etc. are all based on Mass, unless otherwise specified. If one wants to talk moles (or molecules) then one says "mole percent" or "mole fraction", or something similar. Also, when expressing mg/L or mg/kg, the amount in the denominator is always the total amount of SOLUTION, again unless otherwise specified. One should always be careful, as different fields may make up their own definitions, but these have never steered me wrong. Happy brewing... - ------------------------------------------------------- Kevin S. Wenger (Piling it higher and Deeper) Kalundborg, Denmark Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 15:23:37 -0500 From: James Tomlinson <red_beards at compuserve.com> Subject: chloramines and filters In HBD2647, Fred Wills asked about chloramines? I found a web site: http://www.cleanh20.com/chlorami.html It is the web page of Mount Pleasant Waterworks (Where ever that is). Anway, one line in the page is as follows: >>Do home water softeners remove chloramines? >> >>Only if the softeners have a Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) filter. OK, first pass, but it sounds like Granular Activated Carbon filters will remove chloramines, I'll post more stuff as I find it. - -- James Tomlinson Give a man a beer, and he wastes an hour. But teach a man how to brew, and he wastes a lifetime! Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 05:28:04 -0800 From: Kyle Druey <druey at ibm.net> Subject: 1 BBL RIMS Design Brewsters: Brad asks about large batch RIMSing. >My specific question is in response to Dion Hollenbeck's BT article on >RIMS (I am cc'ing this to him). He refers to the practical limits of >in-line heating elements as being 10 gal batch/20 lb grain bill. He >recommends supplementing the in-line heater for larger grain bills by >either doubling up with a second heater in series w/ the first, or >adding direct heat by fire to the bottom of the MT. The physical limit for RIMSing is controlled by the maximum flow rate you can achieve without generating a stuck mash condition, and the minimum flow rate without scorching the wort. If your flow rate is high enough, using a 6000W high density element run on 240V will not scorch your wort, and the higher voltage is necessary for a 1 bbl design. The critical factors to consider are the false bottom open area, the crush, and the grain bed thickness. If you can minimize the grain bed thickness (large diameter mash tun), use a coarse crush (something like 0.065" nip, compared to the usual the 0.04"-0.05"), and maximize the percent open area of the false bottom (70% seems to be the practical max and still prevent husks from passing thru) then large batch RIMSing *may* be possible. What I and many other RIMSers have found is that there is a limit on the maximum flow rate one can achieve without sticking the mash, which is a function of the pump characteristics and the grain bed depth. I have found that a maximum grain bed depth of 4" is advisable to prevent a stuck mash with my Teel #1P677A magnetically coupled pump on full flow. If you are doing a 30 gal batch, a 1.060 gravity beer, and your extraction is 30 pts, then your grist will be (30*60)/30 = 60 lbs grain. Using a rough guide that 1 lb of crushed malt occupies about 1 qt, the grain volume is 60*0.25 = 15 gallons. 60# of grain occupying 15 gallons in the mash tun at a grain bed thickness of 4" requires a mash tun diameter of (assuming a circular mash tun): D = { [(15 gal)*(0.134 ft3/gal)] / [(pi/4)*(4"/12)] }^0.5 * 12 = 34" Wow, just about the size of the SS housing for my pool's DE filter! Your next problem will be to estimate the heat input needed to raise the temperature of a 60# mash at a decent rate. I have read that commercial temp boost rates are 1 deg C per min, or 1.8 F/min. Using this rate, and a mash thickness of 1.25 qts/lb, you would need the following wattage: thermal mass of mash = (60*1.25*0.25) + (60*0.4) = 42.75 gal water (the factor 0.4 is a way to convert the heat capacity of grain in pounds to gallons of water) Heat Input Required = 1.8 * 42.75 * 147 = 11,300 W (KennyEddy Equation) 11,300 Watts is incredible! I only use 1125W with my RIMS for my 3.875 gal batches. Assuming you can use two 6000W inline heaters run on 240V, what flow rate do you need to prevent scorching? I have observed that scorching of the wort occurs when the heater delta T is greater than 8 F (I realize many of you RIMSer think this is high, but this is *my* experience). This is using a low watt density heating element of about 16 W/sqin. If you have a 6000W element run on 240V, then the heat density is about 72 W/sqin. I am going to make a WAG of an assumption here, and assume the delta T of scorching in relation to the heater element wattage is linear, and guestimate that the critical delta T to prevent wort scorching with the 6000W element is about 8 * (16/72) = 1.8 deg F. You need the following flow rate across the 6000W element to obtain a 1.8 deg F delta T: Critical Flow Rate = (6000W/1000)/(0.062*4.18*1.8*1.8) = 7.2 gpm You need a pump that can generate a flow rate of at least 7.2 gpm during the temp boosts to use the 6000W elements on 240V, with the above 1 bbl parameters. This seems pretty fast, you may even need to decrease the grain bed depth to say 2". Also realize that you will have to double that delta T since you will probably only have a temp reading on each end of your heat chamber (a thermometer on each end between two 6000W elements). Some folks have used steam to add heat to the system, I think one HBDer reported a temp rise rate of 4 F/m with steam. This might be a better option to investigate. Brad, if you build this monster let us all know how it turns out! Realize I have not built this thing, and I am assuming 100% efficiencies and I did not use any temperature corrections. You can't get away with nuttin on this forum, too many engineering nerds, P.iled h.igh & D.eepers, and plant doctors. I am sure I have few math errors in there, but I believe the thermal models are correct. Feel free to chime in with corrections, but if you have a nit or two to pick offer improvements also instead of just flames. Re Spencer and the BT typo, I kinda figured that the commute between Salt Lake City and Ann Arbor would be sort of difficult! :>) Kyle Druey Bakersfield, CA Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 16:29:01 -0500 From: AJ <ajdel at mindspring.com> Subject: Correction RE my post on molal vs. molar in #2647: Of course the molal scale is not measured in mg/kg. It is measured in moles/kg. Similarly the molar scale measures in moles/liter, not mg/L. Yes, one measures out the milligrams to add to a kilogram (ppm ) in preparing a molal solution but then must divide by the molecular weight to obtain the molality. In preparing a molar solution, one measures mg to add to a liter and again must divide by the molecular weight. In the former case the result is millimoles/kg - this is the molal value. In the latter the result is millimoles/L - this is the molar value. The whole point is that per weight vs. per volume isn't important in brewing calculations because the solutions are dilute. Funny how this error glares from the page today but was hidden when I wrote it. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 15:36:14 -0600 (CST) From: Al Korzonas <korz at xnet.com> Subject: Colour units There has been some recent discussion of colour units and predicting beer colour from the grain bill. I take an extremely simple view of beer colour: if you use the right grains/malts for the recipe, you will have the right colour. Here are a few examples: Munchener Dunkels are traditionally made from dark Munich malt and a decoction mash. I make my from around 90 to 95% dark Munich and 5 to 10% Aromatic or Melanoidin malt (these are like "super Munich" malts). I infusion mash, which is why I add these malts (to increase melanoidin content). The resulting beer comes out smack dab in the middle of the guidelines. Bitter? 5 to 7% crystal malt (say, 30 to 60 L) and the rest is Pale Ale malt. Result. A beer within the (very wide) colour range for Bitters. Actually, Timothy Taylor Landlord (one of my favourites) is on the pale side and is made from 100% Pale Ale malt. I tried emulating this beer using DeWolf-Cosysns, Crisp Maris Otter and Munton's Pale Ale malts. The Crisp and Munton's batches were quite good, but the DWC made a too-pale beer which also was short on Bitter-like flavour. Recall that DWC is Belgian and the other two are English. To me the bottom line is: use the proper malts for the style and the colour will take care of itself. Ahh, but what about the extract Munchner Dunkel or Oktoberfest or Doppelbock? I contend that you can sort of approximate the flavours of these (and a few other) styles, but you won't be able to hit them spot on because crystal and dark (chocolate, black, etc.) malts lend the wrong flavours to these styles. I'm sure George Di Piro will back me up on this... too many O'fests are made with too much crystal and the resulting beer doesn't taste authentic. Am I looking at colour too simplistically? Al. Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL korz at xnet.com My new website (still under construction, but up-and-running): http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/ Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 17:25:26 -0500 From: Brad Johnson <bjohnson at berkshire.net> Subject: re:1 bbl RIMS I should clarify that my aims are a bit more modest; 1/2 bbl. is what I have in mind due to other limitations in system. My MT shape is essentially a round-bottomed pot in cross-section. The diameter is 23 max; the diameter at the level I would probably place the false bottom is 16". The available depth up to the top of the jacketed portion (important for insulation / heat maintenance reasons) is 9". My maximum anticipated grain bill is about 40 lbs. It has occurred to me that a low pressure steam system using the steam jacket could be useful in temp boosts - but that opens an entire new can of worms re: safety issues, need for pressure testing of the jacket (why do you suppose I found it in a scrapyard?) etc. I expect Kyle's reference to steam was injected steam? Which is certainly a possiblity Brad Johnson Berkshire BroadArrow Brewery Bjohnson at berkshire.net Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 16:29:41 -0600 From: Bill_Rehm at DeluxeData.com Subject: Making Rootbeer A friend asked me about making rootbeer from scratch, no flavor extracts, and the only place I could think to ask was here. So, does anyone have or know where I can find information on making home-made root beer. thanks Bill Rehm Milwaukee, WI Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 19:57:01 -0600 From: rlabor at lsumc.edu (LaBorde, Ronald) Subject: RE: Long Secondaries/Spent Grain Dog Bones >Uh, not to rain on your (or your dog's) parade, but aren't >*tomatoes harmful to dogs too? (Not that it ever stopped our >GSD from eating them off the vine). I can't remember where I >irst heard this, but it's stuck in back the neurons, somewhere. >Anyone know for sure? My wife loves dogs, and seems to love vet visits. Once when Butterscotch wasn't eating well enough, the vet said give him tomato juice - dogs love it. Sure enough, he loved it. He also said to sprinkle some on his dog food to flavor it. In fact he said, most dog food has tomato juice in it. One caution however, salt to a dog is like garlic to a vampire - deadly, so be sure it is unsalted tomato juice, and any other food you give your dog must be unsalted. Ron Ronald La Borde - Metairie, Louisiana - rlabor at lsumc.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 20:52:42 -0500 From: "Michael Maag" <maagm at rica.net> Subject: Metric system/pint/1984 The recent discussions of the metric system and English weights & measures reminded me of a passage from 1984 by George Orwell. " 'E could 'a drawed me off a pint," grumbled the old man as he settled behind his glass. "A 'alf liter ain't enough. It don't satisfy. And a 'ole liter's too much. It starts my bladder running. Let alone the price." Mike Maag, homebrewing in the middle of the Shenandoah Valley. Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 03/02/98, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96