---

	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:
  RIMS scorching problem (Forrest Duddles)
  boil over preventers (Domenick Venezia)
  Seattle (Jerry Cunningham)
  Weisse Hops, maltstroem ("David R. Burley")
  hydrometer correction program (Zurekbrau)
  RE: brewing tubing and in line oxygenation (LaBorde, Ronald)
  Re: RIMS Achilles heel (LaBorde, Ronald)
  Draught Notice March 98 and BABO 98 results ("Thor")
  Final gravity (Danny Breidenbach)
  Distilled water yeast storage (Forrest Duddles)
  Glatt Gears (Greg Jessen)
  reply to: Beginner's Questions from HBD #2651 (Herbert Bresler)
  Before I do something stupid..... ("John Watts")
  RE: Bottles not Carbonating ("Riedel, Dave")
  Re: Gears for Glatt (Dion Hollenbeck)
  pChem (Al Korzonas)
  diacetyl/water:grain/trub/beginner questions (Al Korzonas)
  Re: Color (John Landreman)
  help ID'ing Dutch beer (LBarrowman)
  High Temp Tubing (Jason Henning)
  pH paper (Jeremy Bergsman)
  pH measurements / Expanding foam ("Ingermann, Chris")
  crisper/cleaner filtered taste? (Ian Smith)
  Scott Sutherland--propane indoors (Vachom)
  RE:  Power ("Brian M. LeCuyer, P.E.")
  In-line aerators ("James Hodge")


Be sure to enter the 7th NYC Spring Regional Competition
3/22/98. Surf to www.wp.com/hosi/companno.html for more
information...

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


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)

Return to table of contents



Date: Wed, 04 Mar 1998 10:43:26 -0500
From: Forrest Duddles <fridge at Imbecile.kzoo.edu>
Subject: RIMS scorching problem

Greetings folks,

 In response to the scorching problem Robert Zukosky reports having with
his RIMS  - I built and use a half-barrel RIMS similar to Keith Royster's <
http://www.ays.net/RIMS/ >. My system uses the same 2E767 heating element
Dion mentioned in his reply. 

 I have brewed 8 batches in this system and have not had *any* trouble with
scorching. I currently use an unsophisticated mechanical temperature
controller on the heating element and a ball valve on the pump discharge to
throttle the flow. I am careful not to run the heater until I have good
flow established (an electrical interlock that prevents heater operation
until the pump is running is a good idea).

 Robert's 1 gpm sounds kind of low to me. I normally run my system at 2-3
gpm. There is another factor to consider, however, beyond the flow rate. I
designed my heating chamber to minimize the chance of trapping an air
bubble and to maximize velocity across the element. My chamber mounts
vertically, with the liquid entering from the bottom. I used copper pipe
for the chamber, which the element will *just* slip into. Lastly, the
liquid outlet is as close to the top as possible to prevent a dead-flow
pocket. If the heating chamber is too large in diameter, or a dead-flow
pocket occurs, scorching could easily occur, even though a low watt-density
heating element is used, and a good flow rate is established. 







 


Hope this helps!
- ---------------------------------------------------------------
Forrest Duddles - FridgeGuy in Kalamazoo
fridge at Imbecile.kzoo.edu


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 07:48:32 -0800 (PST)
From: Domenick Venezia <demonick at zgi.com>
Subject: boil over preventers


From: Kirk Lund <klund at technologist.com>

>>There is a small, specially-shaped pyrex plate which keeps the wort from
>>boiling over.  At first I had my doubts, but it actually works!
> ...
>The reason it works has something to do with its very unique shape.  If
>any one out there figures out the physics behind it, I'd love to hear
>about it.

These are just fancy boiling stones.  You may remember using small rocks,
generally quartz, in your chemistry classes to prevent boil over in test
tubes and small beakers.  Boil over is caused by local super heating of
the solution.  That is, the temperature of the solution rises above the
boiling point without bubbling, then without warning it flash bubbles and
gushes.  During boiling, bubbles carry off excess heat and maintain the
boiling temperature.  However, bubbles require a nucleation site, some
small pertubation in the heat gradient to serve as a focal point for the
liquid to turn to vapor.  The rough surface of the boiling stone, or the
scraping of the glass boiling disk on the bottom of the pot supply these
nucleation sites.  Did you ever notice that boil over tends to occur early
in the boil, before it really gets rolling?  Once the bubbling starts the
bubbles tend to serve as nucleation sites for other bubbles.

These "boil-over preventers" do not have any magic shape, though they may
have dimples to supply many points of contact with the pot bottom.

Five or six used bottle caps tossed into the kettle will work as well.

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



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 04 Mar 1998 11:02:48 -0500
From: Jerry Cunningham <gcunning at census.gov>
Subject: Seattle

I need brewpub suggestions for Seattle! I'm staying at the Best Western
International, Pioneer Square, 77 Yesler Way. (I already checked
PubCrawler).

Thank you very very much!

 - Jerry (gcunning at census.gov)





Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 11:18:51 -0500
From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com>
Subject: Weisse Hops, maltstroem

Brewsters:

Spencer Thomas alerted me to the fact that I shouldn't have
corrected for efficiency in the Weisse hop level as Eric Warner
had already done that.  The correct level should be 0.25 oz
hops of 5% AA.
- ----------------------------
SteveA says:
>This may start an HBD firestorm, but IMO 6-row belongs
in the gut of a quadruped
>or brewed with equal parts of rice and sold to the ignorant
masses.  Use of
>6-row appears to be a price compromise.

Actually, I have made lots of good beer of all types with 6-row when
European 2-row wasn't available and I have yet to understand
where this prejudice comes from.  I know it is an oft repeated
mantra here, just don't know the source of it.  I suspect the
6-row/2-row controversy comes from the higher protein level
( actually due to the lower carbohydrate level of 33% of the
kernels) in 6-row that has not been screened to separate out
the smaller kernels in the 6-row. It is the practice in 6-row
malting to screen the barley and to feed the lower % carbohydrate
grain to animals and keep the plumper fatter grains for malting.
This has the effect of lowering the nitrogen percentage by selecting
those kernels from the plumper rows which contain higher
carbohydrate. This also lowers the husk ratio. I know the
nitrogen level is a problem with the British malts in which no
protein rest is used, but is not a problem with German or
American brewers. I suspect the Brits are the source of this
malignment dating back to when they just began using
inorganic fertilizers got cloudy beer as a result and
couldn't use the less expensive US and Canadian malts for
the same reason.

I suspect a marketing ploy here to keep the barley in
British Beers British. The fact that there is a website on
British Barley clearly establishes the marketing going on here.
- ---------------------------------------------  

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, 4 Mar 1998 11:34:09 EST
From: Zurekbrau <Zurekbrau at aol.com>
Subject: hydrometer correction program

I posted a little hydrometer correction program to the Texas Instruments TI-85
program archive.  The program is written for the TI-85 graphing calculator.
The URL is...
http://www.ticalc.org/pub/85/science/hydrcor.zip
It is for correcting to 60 degrees Fahrenheit hydrometers. 

Is there a good source for brewing formulas?

Rich Zurek
Zurekbrau at aol.com
Carpentersville IL USA
Northwest of Chicago


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 10:51:55 -0600 
From: rlabor at lsumc.edu (LaBorde, Ronald)
Subject: RE: brewing tubing and in line oxygenation

>Date: Sat, 28 Feb 98 12:32:53 -0800
>From: Frank Kalcic <fkalcic at flash.net>

>Would I be better off with a  simple 
>small diameter tube that can be easily cleaned/sanitized, and  
>just bubble the O2 very slowly?  Has anyone seen data on O2 
>uptake when no diffuser is used?

I am using my plastic racking cane with end cap attached,  Just sanitize
it and the 3/8 tubing, connect to an air filter and small aquarium pump.
I tried the stone and did not like the possibility of it harboring
bacteria.  I boiled it and the darn thing crumbled away in my precious
fermenter.  The few times I used it, so much foam was created that I had
to start and stop it continuously.  With the new method, I get a nice 1
or 2 inch foam head and I let it go for 4 hours continuously.  I have no
way to measure O2 uptake, but all seems well.

Ron

Ronald La Borde - Metairie, Louisiana - rlabor at lsumc.edu



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 11:09:50 -0600 
From: rlabor at lsumc.edu (LaBorde, Ronald)
Subject: Re: RIMS Achilles heel

>Date: Sun, 1 Mar 98 13:08:37 PST
>From: hollen at vigra.com

>RZ> I am leaning towards a heated water heat exchanger for reasons of
>RZ> the above.

>I would be the last one to dissuade you from this, but would caution
>that I feel it is totally unnecessary to solve the charring problem.
>And you will be creating a much more challenging set of problems due
>to greatly increased thermal lag.  Temperature control will be a bitch
>unless you have some way of very quickly changing the temperature or
>flow rate of the heated water reservoir.  Much more complicated
>process control.

I must chime in here, Dion.  I have just such an exchanger system and I
must say to my pleasure it is easy to control the temperature, and
manually at that.  What I observe is a sort of smooth temperature step,
with easy control.  It may be peculiar to my rig, but I do not think so.

I just installed dial thermometers into the HLT and MT (ha, a new
abbreviation), and that sure made it easier.  Got tired of poached
fingers with the hand thermometer.  My exchanger is 25 foot of 5/8 OD
copper tubing just thrown into the HLT and connected to the pump and
outlet with Tygon tubing.  I can not scorch the wort because the largest
temperature difference is only 5 to 10 degrees above desired step
temperature.  As I approach the target, I reduce heat to the HLT, and
watch as the temperatures equalize.

What I also like is the fact that with almost no flow,  scorching  still
cannot occur.  What the difference is between the two methods is this:

	A) High spot temperature with large flow and small surface
contact.

	B) Low spot temperature with slow flow and large surface
contact.

Ron

Ronald La Borde - Metairie, Louisiana - rlabor at lsumc.edu



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 10:00:51 +0000
From: "Thor" <thor at valhallabrewing.com>
Subject: Draught Notice March 98 and BABO 98 results

The latest edition of the Draught Notice is available. The 
Draught Notice is the monthly newsletter of the Draught Board, 
and AHA recognized homebrew club in San Leandro, CA. This is our 
third all web edition of our newsletter for homebrewing ethusiasts. 

The newsletter is available at:
http://www.valhallabrewing.com/dboard/dbnewsl/t9803a.htm

Here are some of the highlights this month:

   Portland Brew Crawl
           This is the largest of the articles. I felt it my duty to
           travel and do some investigative drinking, I mean
           reporting, of some of my favorite places in Portland. I
           only had two days mind you so its not in anyway complete.
           Be aware that the opinions are my own and if you dont agree
           that's fine by me. 

   Tornado's Barley Wine Fest
           This is a great annual event worth marking on your
           calendar. Bryan Gros writes a review of the event and
           talks about some of the better beers there. The winning
           barleywine I coincidentally reviewed up in Portland in the
           above listed article. 

   Celebrator's 10th Anniv Party
           This article is currently being written. The party was a
           lot of fun and I picked up some great photos. The slide
           show is all that's there until the article gets posted.

   Homebrewing Volume 1
           A quick review of Al Korzonas new publication taken
           from the HBD with permission of Sam Mize. The Table of
           contents and highlights come from Al's web page. It looks
           like a fine book to add to your homebrewing shelf.

   Brew Quiz
           The ever popular brew quiz is back. This time the subject
           is people in brewing. The quiz is not as difficult as Jan
           98's so put on your thinking caps and match your wits
           against your brewing peers. I'm still looking for ideas for
           next months so if you have any ideas...

In addition, the results of our annual National Bay Area Brew Off are 
available online at:
http://www.valhallabrewing.com/dboard/baboresults98.htm

Thanks for the bandwidth. As always, the views expressed are not 
necessarily those of the members of the club. We recieve no 
commercial gain from the reviews, we just putting the information out 
there for your enjoyment. 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
Thor's Stainless brewery  at  http://www.valhallabrewing.com/
AHA club The Draught Board Homebrew Club  at 
   http://www.valhallabrewing.com/dboard/index.htm 
ICQ pager: http://wwp.mirabilis.com/7124517                 


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 04 Mar 1998 13:20:44 -0500
From: Danny Breidenbach <DBreidenbach at nctm.org>
Subject: Final gravity

I tend to not use my hydrometer much, but I decided to take
measurements on my latest brew.  At bottling time, however, I didn't set
aside enough beer to check the gravity.  There's no reason I can't use
the bottled beer for this is there?  I realize I'll want it to go flat before
measuring -- but given that, won't I have a more accurate measurement
than before bottle conditioning?

Thanks,
- --Danny


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 04 Mar 1998 13:27:57 -0500
From: Forrest Duddles <fridge at Imbecile.kzoo.edu>
Subject: Distilled water yeast storage

Grettings folks,

 Several days ago, distilled water yeast storage was discussed per an
article last year in BT magazine. I mentioned that I had tried the
technique last October and would report results of an upcoming attempt to
resurrect my dormant yeast.

 I streaked a plate from my first vial last friday afternoon. I had nice
fluffy colonies on the plate by the following monday morning. I made a 5ml
starter that afternoon and stepped it up to 50ml the following day. I
should be ready to step to 500ml this afternoon. The starter looks and
smells great!

It looks like I have a winner. I'm anxious to see how well other strains
take to this method of storage and intend to add to my library each time I
try a different strain.

Hope this helps!
- ---------------------------------------------------------------
Forrest Duddles - FridgeGuy in Kalamazoo
fridge at Imbecile.kzoo.edu


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 11:35:52 -0600
From: greg at mcn.net (Greg Jessen)
Subject: Glatt Gears

Here is the name etc. of a Machinist that I was told makes aluminum
replacement gears.

Nick Aletras <naletras at epix.net>
D J Mfg
PO Box 676
Tunkhannock PA 18657
717-836-2229  Fax  717-836-5089

I have never talked to the guy and it's old info but it's a starting point.
Good luck and please post your results.

             Greg Jessen   Billings Montana   greg at mcn.net





Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 14:21:52 -0500
From: Herbert Bresler <bresler.7 at osu.edu>
Subject: reply to: Beginner's Questions from HBD #2651

Reply  to:
From: OICPO MORRIS <jamorris at washington.navy.mil>
Subject: Beginner's Questions
Homebrew Digest #2651 (March 03, 1998)

Ron,

You asked a lot of questions in your recent posting to Home Brew Digest.
The best way to get most of the answers is to read some books on
homebrewing.  I know you're probably on a ship somewhere in the middle of
nowhere, and can't exactly go out and buy a book on homebrewing, but you
really ought to get one.  Most of your questions will be answered.  Maybe
you can get one by mail order and have it sent to your APO address.
Anyway, in the meantime, maybe we at HBD could help you out.

A good place to go to get info on brewing is the world wide web.  I don't
know if you have access or not, but here are few URLs to visit for info:
http://www.magma.ca/~bodnsatz/brew/tips/
http://brewery.org/Library.html
and this site has links to lots of good info:
http://www.breworld.com/homebrew/doculink.html
You can also just go to one of the search services and search for
"Homebrewing" and get started.  You may have to sort through some
advertising mixed with the instructions, but there's plenty of good (and
some bad) information out there.  Once you get started you can navigate
around the web reading homebrew stuff endlessly.  Happy hunting.

As for the immediate problems: 1) too little alcohol in your beer, and 2)
why use hops (if you can buy hopped malt extract) and why add grains to
extract:
1)  Alcohol.  If you increase the original gravity, you'll get stronger
beer.  You can increase O.G. by starting with more fermentable sugars in
your wort.  An O.G. = 1.030 (typical with one 4 lb. can per 5 gallons, as
in many beginner's kits) will yield about 3.2% alcohol by volume, about
2.5% alcohol by weight.  Double the amount of extract, and you double the
alcohol (roughly).  Use two 4 lb. cans of extract and get an O.G. about
1.060.  Adding dry with liquid is just another way of adding more
fermentables.
2)  Hops.  Yes, you can used hopped extracts, but you can't control the
hops in your beer that way.  Hopped extracts only provide hop bitterness,
and do not allow you to add hop flavor or aroma in your brew.  Using
unhopped malt extracts and boiling your own hops can improve your beers
tremendously.  It will allow you to select hops you like and control the
hop bitterness, flavor and aroma of your beers.  To get an idea of what you
might accomplish by adding your own hops, try the following:  Make a beer
you like with hopped extract, and then make it again (with the same hopped
extract) but with an addition or two of fresh hops (an ounce or so of whole
or plug for 5 gal) near the end of the boil.  Then compare the two.  Then
make it again with unhopped extract and boil all your own hops.  Before you
know it, you'll be wanting to add all your own hops.
The short answer regarding addition of grains to extract is almost the same
as for hops -- control over your finshed product.  You choose the flavors
you add to control the brew you end up with.  Addition of specialty grains
can make a big difference to improve extract brews.

Read, practice and experiment.  If you're like the rest of us, in no time
at all you'll be wasting your life homebrewing.....and loving every minute
of it.

Best of luck to you,
Herb
bresler.7 at osu.edu
Columbus, Ohio




Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 07:23:18 -0600
From: "John Watts" <watts at top.net>
Subject: Before I do something stupid.....

I was struck by a thought the other day and wanted to see who (if anyone) may 
have already tried this and what happened.

For a mash tun, I use a converted bottling bucket w/homemade easymasher.  I was 
thinking that, after the dough in, put the entire tun in my 33 qt brewpot, fill 
it with water, and put it on the propane burner.  Then, as long as I've got the 
tun sitting on something other than the bottom of the pot, I would be able to 
adjust the mash temp as needed.

Thoughts????

Rgds
John Watts
Utell International
Commercial Database Department
Omaha Nebraska


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 11:37:05 -0800 
From: "Riedel, Dave" <RiedelD at dfo-mpo.gc.ca>
Subject: RE: Bottles not Carbonating

Steve LaMotte suffers from uncarbonated amber ale...

>I've done one batch with the new one, and the bottles are not 
>carbonating.  It's been three weeks now, and all I get is an initial 
>slight fizz when I pop one.  Pour it and it is FLAT!  It is a great 
>tasting amber ale and I do NOT want to pour it away.  Yes, I did put 
>the usual malt in for priming.  I had two others and me, very much 

This topic is certainly a common one in the HBD.  As usual, I suspect
the solution is WAIT ANOTHER TWO WEEKS.  You haven't given
much background information regarding recipe, amount of priming
used or amount of time and temperature of bottle ferment, but I think
three weeks may be a little soon to be checking.  Personal experience
has shown me that full carbonation usually takes me longer than 3 weeks,
particularly with the old stubby bottles which have less headspace due
to their geometry.  I like to wait 4 weeks after the ferment period (usually
1 week at room temp).

Remember, this is only one batch.  It's hard to conclude that the capper
didn't work based on one datapoint.  You even said that your cap
tightening didn't seem to do anything and if there is a 'slight fizz' the
cap is holding something in.  Sometimes carbonation is slow.  I'd
wait a while before putting yourself through all the work of adding more
primer and re-capping.

Capping the next batch half with each capper is a sound idea.  Make
sure that the bottle-type/head-space is consistent to allow proper
comparison.

cheers,
Dave Riedel
Victoria, BC, Canada


Return to table of contents


Date: 04 Mar 1998 11:51:19 -0800
From: Dion Hollenbeck <hollen at vigra.com>
Subject: Re: Gears for Glatt

>> Jack Schmidling writes:

JS> The good news is that someone lurking on the net has made and
JS> offered a set of replacement gears.  I have no idea what he
JS> charges or who he is but if you keep asking, he is bound to turn
JS> up again.

I can't disagree with Jack about being left in the lurch by Greg
Glatt, but DO NOT BUY REPLACEMENT GEARS FOR THE GLATT IF THEY ARE
ALUMINUM!!!!!  I cannot stress this enough.  First, the aluminum gears
will not allow adjustment, they have very many small, shallow teeth.
The original gears are sunflower shaped and have few very deep teeth.
They are designed to mesh at very different depths.  Second, the use
of the aluminum gears on my motorized Glatt Mill caused it to be close
to destroyed.  I will not type in the whole story, but it did happen
to me.  I am not knocking the manufacturer of the aluminum gears, they
were beautifully made, but they are unsuitable for use with the mill.

Lastly, OEM replacement gears are available for the Glatt.  Greg has
made sure these are available for people even though he has gone out
of business.  They can be obtained from:

Glatt Gears

Jim's Homebrew Supply
N 2619 Division
Spokane, WA  99207
(509)328-4850
(800)326-7769


dion

- -- 
Dion Hollenbeck (619)597-7080x164                 Email: hollen at vigra.com
                                             http://www.vigra.com/~hollen
Sr. Software Engineer - Vigra Div. of Visicom Labs  San Diego, California


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 14:24:05 -0600 (CST)
From: Al Korzonas <korz at xnet.com>
Subject: pChem

Dave writes:
>Well, I have a Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry, if that's any help.

It does help explain why so many people argue with you ;^)!

When I was going to the University of Illinois, a bunch of us
were hanging out (and playing way too much pinochle and euchre) in
the cafeteria.  One woman in our group was studying for a masters in
pChem.  Rumour around campus was that pChem at UofI was the most
difficult course of study.  Anyway, this woman had a very different way
of thinking than the rest of us.  One day we were discussing the
important subject of the flexibility of phonograph records and
she said "the vinyl records these days are so flexible, you couldn't
hold one edge and support a 2 kilogram mass on the opposite edge."

Now, how many of you (in the US) would have said "kilogram" and how
many of you in (the English speaking world!) would have (correctly)
said "mass?!"

Dave and I get along much better ever since I've realized we think
differently ;^).

Now, let's get back to brewing, eh?

Al.


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 16:43:06 -0600 (CST)
From: Al Korzonas <korz at xnet.com>
Subject: diacetyl/water:grain/trub/beginner questions

I want to apologise for the age of many of these questions, but I got about
30 HBD's behind and wanted to get caught up before answering them.

In a great post on the difference between oxidation and oxygenation, Sam
writes:
* After the yeast have been working, the wort contains alcohols.  These
  oxidize rapidly, creating diacetyl.  (Also, perhaps the yeast don't use
  oxygen as fast once they have a full colony going.)  So, once the wort
  is fermenting, we USUALLY avoid aeration.  Some brewers, like Samuel
  Smith's, do aerate fermenting wort, and the buttery flavor is part of
  their beer's flavor profile.
 
Actually, oxidation of alcohols results in aldehydes.  It is the oxidation
of alpha-acetolactate (according to George De Piro) that results in diacetyl
production.  You'll note that in all my posts about Samuel Smith's and
diacetyl, I have always written that oxygen during fermentation was *part*
of the reason Sam Smith's is high in diacetyl.  The other "part" of the
formula is that their yeast is extremely flocculent and drops out of the
beer before it fully reabsorbs all that diactyl that the aeration produced.
So, there are two parts to the diacetyl getting into the finished beer.

***
Robert writes:
>Question 1: What would be a good water to grain ratio?

1 quart per pound (sorry non-US readers) is getting close to the "stiff"
end of the range and I wouldn't go much above 2 quarts per pound.
I typically shoot for 1.3 quarts per pound on single-step infusion
mashes and I dough-in with about 0.8 or 1 quart per pound.

>Question 2: Why not go with 8.5 gal ( 2 gal for grain retention) for a
>recirculating no sparge mash?

1) pH and 2) enzyme dilution.  While it's okay for the pH to rise a bit
during the sparge, too high a pH during the mash will shorten the life
of the enzymes and reduce the rate at which they work.  Also, when there
is too much mash water, the enzymes are too dilute and, as a result, they
also work less efficiently.

***
Olin writes:
>The question about yeast breaking down in the fermenter got me thinking
>about an old question I have about trub decomposition.  I have searched
>high and low for good data on trub break down and I can't find it.
>Exactly what is taking place and over what time period.  I think this is
>so key in regards to whether or not a secondary fermenter is necessary
>when fermenting an ale.  Some sources will say the secondary method is
>better because trub breaks down but there is never any specifics.  I
>want to find out if there is any decomposition over a two week
>period(past the flavor threshold.)  It is my feeling and experience that
>there is none over this relatively short time period.  This is purely
>based on taste tests.

First, let's agree on terminology.  If you mean just break, that's one
issue, whereas if you mean both break and yeast, then that's another.
Let's assume you mean both break (hot and cold) and yeast.  I don't
think that the break "breaks-down" appreciably on its own, but yeast
will comsume some of the compounds in the break and this has shown to
result in increased levels of higher alcohols in the beer.  Yeast
have been known to autolyse after some time, but I feel that healthy
yeast that got enough oxygen early on are rather unlikely to autolyse
(although excess zinc will increase the likelyhood and some strains
are more prone to it than others).  High temperatures also increase
the chances, but I feel the temperatures given in most brewing literature
(something like "above 70F") are too pessimistic.  I have some specific
examples as to cases that *weren't* a problem:

1. 1.100 OG Barleywine, kept 9 months in the primary between 62 and 70 F
fermented with Wyeast #1056 and aerated well before pitching.

2. 1.124 OG Barleywine, same time and conditions, fermented with Wyeast #1028.

Note that these are very flavorful beers and small off-flavours and increased
higher alcohol levels would not be noticeable.

***
Richard writes:
> One of the reasons I got out of
>homebrewing back in the mid eighties, and one of the reasons I hate
>most micro brews, is that sort of sickly sweet ummmmm, well just icky
>aftertaste. I had somehow come to the opinion that this was from
>using corn sugar to prime, <snip>
>so when I got back into brewing a few months ago, I
>demanded malt for priming instead of corn sugar.  No problems, no
>icky aftertaste, <snip>
>A few batches ago, my supplier slipped
>in corn sugar vice my usual malt, and I figured what the hey, I'll
>try it.  That batch is a little sweeter than I expected, not
>so bad, but... opinions?

Corn sugar is 100% ferementable, where as extract *will* leave some
residual sweetness.  There must have been other factors involved
(yeast health, fermentation temp, OG, aeration) that resulted in
a difference in sweetness, not the priming sugar/malt.  One thing
that I feel is overlooked, is that (to my taste) adding too much
Golding flavor hops (more than 1 ounce per 5 gallons) will result in
a beer with a "sugary" lingering sweetness.  Could that be it?

> 2. <snip>
>supplier (yes, I'm still at that stage) almost all say steep grains
>for 30 minutes at 155 F.  I am beginning to understand the
>relationship between temp and starch conversion and enzyme
>production, BUT.  With my setup it is very nearly impossible to
>maintain exactly 155 F.  If I look away for even a moment, it jumps
>as high as 175 F.  From lurking on the list for quite some time, I
>get the impression this might actually be a good thing.  How better
>to control temps, and what temps to use?

For steeping malts that don't contain starch, anything between 150 and
170F is fine.  If you are indeed mashing, you don't want to exceed 165F
or so because this will denature the enzymes and leave you with starchy
beer that never clears and doesn't taste very good.
 
> 3.  I use two burners on my gas stove to heat/boil my wort.  I get
>some 'burning'  (carmelization?) on the bottom of the pot, very
>little, but its there.  Is this a bad thing?

If you (and competition judges, if you care) don't notice, then don't
worry about it.

> 4.  After steeping the grains for 30 min, Most of the recipes I like
>say add extracts etc and boil for 1 hr.  Does time used to increase
>temp from 155 to boiling count? Are we talking a full rolling boil,
>gentle boil, what?

Start timing when it just begins to boil (I presume you are removing the
grains before boosting, right?).  No, the time from 155F to boil doesn't
count.  I also recommend that you boil 10 minutes before adding the hops.

>6.<snip>
>Can anyone provide me with some references re
>growing barley, different varieties, and the mashing process?  I
>understand the basics, but want much more info.

A rather primitive, but practical, description of the *malting*
process (I'm sure that's what you meant) is described in a book
whose name escapes me at the moment, written by Clive La Pense.
It has a white cover and a rather long title.  It used to be sold
by the AHA and still may be.  He has two more recent books out
which I don't believe cover malting.  Jack Schmidling shows you
how to malt in his video, but there are a number of procedures in
the general brewing portion of the video with which I disagree.

Al.

Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korz at xnet.com
http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 16:02:34 -0700
From: jlandrem at atmel.com (John Landreman)
Subject: Re: Color

Michael Satterwhite <satterwh at weblore.com> asked

> There have recently been some very good postings on the digest concerning
> color - especially the comparisons between MCU and SRM. All of this has
> focused on grain, however.
> 
> What methods do you suggest for calculating color contribution from
> extracts? What are the pitfalls to this.

Ray Danials, in his three part series in Brewing Techniques (Vol.3, No 4-6),
stated the following. Hopefully it will help.

John


The following shows the results of a study I conducted on a variety of
commercially available malt extracts. The determinations are based on a
single sample of each product and are not intended to reflect the colors
normally observed with these products; rather, they are intended to show
the variability of color in extracts of similar designations ( light, for
example). All materials were obtained from a high-volume retail source,
and all extracts were tested using the same parameters for initial 
gravity, water treatment, boil length, yeast pitched and other parameters.



Color        SRM   Extract Type

Pale golden  3-4   Mash of two-row  European malt
Pale golden  3-4   Munton & Fison spray-dry malt extract (light)
Golden       5-6   Alexander=92s pale extract syrup
Light amber  6-7   Munton & Fison light syrup (unhopped)
Light amber  6-7   Laaglander dried malt extract
Amber        8-9   John Bull unhopped light syrup
Amber        8-9   Coopers unhopped light syrup
Amber        8-9   Northwestern Gold malt extract syrup
Amber        8-9   Northwestern Dry Gold malt extract




Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 21:43:41 EST
From: LBarrowman <LBarrowman at aol.com>
Subject: help ID'ing Dutch beer

My husband brought me a Dutch beer from the Netherlands that has me stumped.
It doesn't have a label but is wrapped in tissue paper printed as follows:

Met de beste wesen van Brouwerij't IJ  Amsterdam
extra speciaal ijndejaarsbier
voorzichtig doch vastberaden uitschenken
inh.33 cl. cat.s alc.9 vol.%
bier van hoge gisting
ad usum internum
minstens houdbaar tot enid '98
met nagisting op fles

If anyone has a clue as to what I can expect from this beer I would appreciate
whatever you can share. Also, I am planning to share it (and some other
'identifiable' yummie beers) with some friends this Saturday. I hope it is
ready....

Thank you,

Laura
Charlotte  NC


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 05 Mar 1998 07:56:43 GMT
From: huskers at olywa.net (Jason Henning)
Subject: High Temp Tubing

These folks have a nice catalog for the brewer. Lots of lab equipment,
scales, microscopes, just about everything for culturing. They've got a
$25 minimum order. Your wish list will 100 times that!

Cynmar Corp
800-223-3517
cynmar at cynmar.com

3/8" id  9/16" od  
$6/10'  $28/50

* Clear, food grade tubing 
* Tensile strength 2,000 psi 
* Non-toxic, chemically inert 
* Elongation 400% 
* Temperature resistance: -40 to 212F 
* Smooth, flexible, good aging characteristics 
* Conforms to FDA, UDSA and 3-A Milk Standards

Cheers,
Jason Henning
Lacey, Washington


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 05 Mar 1998 01:53:00 -0800
From: Jeremy Bergsman <jeremybb at stanford.edu>
Subject: pH paper

I repeatedly see the suggestion here to buy the type of pH paper
that has several spots of different pH paper on a plastic strip.
There is nothing inherently better about this type--the pH
sensing mechanism is the same as "normal" pH paper and as a rule
you are usually buying pH papers in a range you don't need to get
one in the right range, and in an expensive package to boot.

We have this type of pH paper in my lab and they suck!  I forget
the brand, but they DO NOT agree with our pH meter.  Several years
back I ordered one of every brand of pH paper in one of our
supply catalogs (Fisher or VWR I believe) that covered the brewing
range.  I found pHydrion brand to be the best in terms of accuracy.
Other benefits of this brand are that it is available in a very
wide assortment of ranges and that it is very cheap.  I use two
for brewing: one reads from 3.0 - 5.5 (I have very acidic water),
and the other reads from 4.8 - 6.7.  Both of these are readable
to +/- .1 IMO if your solution is not too colored.  They are also
accurate within the measurement error when reading a solution of
pH 5.30 100mM succinate buffer.  I have also ordered the paper that
ranges from 4.5 - 7.5 which would seem quite useful, but the
color produced by pH 5.3 is a tannish orange that shows a lot
of interference with beer color (the others are greenish
in the critical range).  I just replaced my supply and I got
5 rolls (one roll lasts me about 5 years) for ~$5.

I don't know the logistics of trying to buy from these types of
catalogs for private individuals, but your homebrew store can
get them for sure.  Reading the label, they are made by Micro
Essential Laboratory, Brooklyn NY 11210, so maybe you could
go direct.

The standard disclaimer applies, I'm just a very satisfied
customer.
- -- 
Jeremy Bergsman
jeremybb at leland.stanford.edu
http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~jeremybb


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 09:42:58 -0500
From: "Ingermann, Chris" <CINGERMANN at winone.CIC.Lucent.com>
Subject: pH measurements / Expanding foam

Hello Everybody,

Dave Burley writes:

> Mark D. Lowe is using those brown pH papers...
> These papers are the most worthless thing I have ever seen distributed by
> the HB system and everyone should take them back to their local HB store and
> demand their money back.
> Mark,  locate another source for some pH papers which have two or three
> colored bands on them that read in the correct range or buy a simple pH
> meter.  

I have used the brown pH papers and they SUCK!  I have been looking into
getting a better way to measure the pH and can't decide what to get. I
have seen the 3 color band papers somewhere for $15 per 100 and have
looked at several pH meters. For example St. Pats in Texas has  $42,
$65, and a $175 pH meters. What I am wondering is how good are the least
expensive meters? Are the simple meters good enough for taking a few
measurements per brew session? Are they accurate and will they last or
is it better to pay for the more expensive ones? Or is it better to just
get the 2 or 3 colored papers?  Suggestions. What is everyone using?


I also have a question about the expanding foam. I brew using 2 - 10
gallon Rubbermaid (Gott) coolers and was wondering about insulating the
lids. I'm sure I have read somewhere about someone using the expanding
foam to insulate the lids but with the talk the past couple of days I'm
not so sure about it anymore. Has anyone used it for this purpose and
does it work ok or does anyone have a better alternative?

Any help is greatly appreciated!!

Chris Ingermann
Yorktown, IN
Damn brewings fun!!!


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 08:12:54 -0700 (MST)
From: Ian Smith <rela!isrs at netcom.com>
Subject: crisper/cleaner filtered taste?

I have been brewing all grain IPA's now for a few years, tyying to imitate
some commercial styles such as Avery and Oasis (here in Boulder, CO). I
talked to the owner of Avery Brewing Company and he told me that his beers
tasted "cleaner" and "crisper" after filtering. Is there any truth to this? I
have been trying to get that "commercial beer taste" now for sometime - could
filtering be the key and if so what size filter should I use (2 micron?)?
Also does anyone have a reccomendation on where I can find such a beast? It
would be nice if it was easy to sanitize and/or clean - the poly wound
filters seem like the perfect place for bacteria to live. 

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




Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 10:17:07 -0600
From: Vachom <MVachow at newman.k12.la.us>
Subject: Scott Sutherland--propane indoors

	Perhaps no recent HBD string longer than the scintillating catalogue of
homebrewing related materials injurious to man's best friend or the
various diagnoses for reforming pickle buckets is the question of
propane use indoors.  If you review the last three weeks or so of HBD's
you'll find comments on the subject by heating contractors, daredevils
and the ubiquitous "my cousin had a friend who knew a guy. . ."   You're
welcome to do your own research on the subject, but in my mind, the
upshot of the matter is that using an unvented propane burner indoors is
dangerous.  Or, as I believe the heating contractor said it, (and I'm
paraphrasing here) I don't think I'll jeopardize the safety of my wife,
my kids, myself to brew a batch of beer more comfortably.  You will also
find some comments from indoor propane users who go about it wisely by
installing ventillation hoods and CO monitors.    


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 11:25:14 -0600
From: "Brian M. LeCuyer, P.E." <bmlecuy at megavision.com>
Subject: RE:  Power

Ron LaBorde wrote:
>Good point technically.  However, we are talking about resistive 
>power with heater elements.  Reactive power is another story not 
>really pertinent to our present moment. 

I would suspect that the wire-wound heating elements we are talking 
about have a significant inductive reactance.  However, the point is 
moot to the original post since the *impedence* (resistive and 
reactive) is not a variable since the frequency of the applied 
voltage does not change.  Therefore, the simplified ohms law approach 
to gauging the relative change in power can be used.

> It would seem like adding
> unnecessary confusion to an already not so intuitive subject.

This is an implicit HBD directive (e.g. water chemistry and sparge 
mechanics threads).  : )  We EE's must at least attempt to 
demonstrate our level of geekness is equal to our chem. compatriots.


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 11:25:07 -0600
From: "James Hodge" <jdhodge at worldnet.att.net>
Subject: In-line aerators

Frank Kalcic asked about in-line aerators:

"The next item on my list is an inline oxygenator.  (Between the 
wort pump and fermentor)  I see two paths that I can take.  The 
first is to incorporate a SS diffusing stone to assist in the O2 uptake.  
The second route would be to bubble the O2 through a small 
tube (no diffuser)"

I have exactly this set-up at the backend of my counterflow wort-chiller. 
It's basically a tee with a fitting on the branch connector to introduce
the air or O2.  I started using a straight tube to introduce sterilized
air, but eventually went to a diffusing stone which seems to give me better
aeration due to the finer bubbles produced.  My procedure for cleaning this
system is as follows:  After I have run all of my wort through the chiller,
I pump clean, close-to-boiling water through the chiller and the aerator
tee until the liquid coming out the backend of the chiller reads around 180
F.  I use 'close to boiling' water as boiling water causes cavitation in my
pump.  When everything has cooled down, I remove the aeration stone, rinse
it once more, and set it aside to dry.  In addition, just prior to using
the system again, I'll go through the same procedure of pumping hot water
through the chiller/aerator to knock down any bugs that might have found a
home there since I last used it.

This may seem a little involved but, once you are set up to do it, the
whole process is reasonably quick and simple and, given all of the nooks
and crannies in the diffusing stone, is far more effective than depending
upon a sanitizing solution.

Jim Hodge


Return to table of contents

---