---

	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:
  Secondary Impedance/SSR's/Yeast Paste ("A. J. deLange")
  A Sad Sour Surprise ("Hunts, Jeff")
  RE: competition cheating? / MovingBrews / pumps rated for boiling (LaBorde, Ronald)
  labels: more later (Jeff Poretsky)
  Oxygen Generation (Gardintl)
  Re: Pin Lock Woes ("Mark S. Johnston")
  Slow pour foam stand ("Jim Busch")
  Hop Rhizomes. ("Colin Marshall")
  Re-Pin Lock Kegs (Bob Wilcox)
  Re: Dangers of contamination: dry vs. liquid yeast; RIMS heaters ("Matthew J. Harper")
  re: stainless steel cleaner(s) (Jim English)
  Re: Eric Fouch, Sensitivity Trainee (Mark_Snyder)
  RE: Starting the starter (Marc.Arseneau)
  Bug-no-more! and pitching rates. ("David Johnson")
  AltBier Style Book - Question on Crystal/Caramel malt (Art Beall)
  Nothing important (Samuel Mize)
  Pierre Curie (Jeff Renner)
  fruit fly eradication ("Henckler, Andrew")
  Pectic Enzyme (Charley Burns)
  Sorry for not replying/Weizen Volcanoes (Mike Spinelli)
  Steam Injection and Liquid Decoction Heating (James Tomlinson)
  pin lock poppets (John Wilkinson)
  Poor performance of large yeast culture w/o aeration (George_De_Piro)
  Yeast pitching rates/ wort aeration (John Wilkinson)
  A Beer Related Post (EFOUCH)
  Re: Scott Braker-Abene's Flame ("Houseman, David L")
  Re[2]: Poor performance of large yeast culture w/o aeration (George_De_Piro)
  Microbiologists? ("Jeffrey M. Kenton")
  yeast pitch (John Wilkinson)


BURP's Spirit of Free Beer competition is June 6-7 and entry information
is available by contacting Jay Adams (adams at burp.org).


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, 20 May 1998 13:33:12 -0500
From: "A. J. deLange" <ajdel at mindspring.com>
Subject: Secondary Impedance/SSR's/Yeast Paste

I wrote: "The secondary is almost shorted in this application and thus
the primary will look like an extremely low impedance to the mains"

And Ron replied "No, the secondary will be an extremely low impedance,
the primary
impedance will be transformed to a higher impedance (hence the name,
transformer)."

The point is that though the primary impedance is the square of the
turns ratio times the secondary impedance if the secondary impedance is
much smaller than the designer intended, the primary impedance will be
much smaller than the designer intended by the same ratio (ratio of
kluge to design impedance - not the turns ratio here) and more current
(ratio of design to kluge impedance) than the designer intended will
flow. This may result in destruction of the primary winding. A 1 meter
long piece of half inch (ID) copper tube with 1 mm wall thickness would
have a resistance of about 0.0002 ohms. If  this is used as a single
turn and the primary has 100 turns then the primary will see 2 ohms and
draw 55 amps from a 110 volt line for a probable meltdown if the breaker
of fuse didn't do its thing first. Also,  the  copper tube would have to
dissipate 6 KW less core losses. With 314 turns on the primary the input
impedance would go up to 20 ohms for a modest current draw of 5.5 amps
and approximately 600 W delivered to the secondary. Much better of
course. How many turns on the primary of the transformer to be used?
This can, of course, be easily and accurately determined.

Ron continues "As always, one can never have too much CYA."  I' don't
call it CYA. I call it following proper design procedure. If you know
how to design a transformer properly, then by all means go ahead.  I
used to do it daily for a brief period in my career and I've blown
transformers when I thought I could cut corners and skip the
calculations. Transformers can be designed to withstand shorts and there
are standards which prescribe the ways in which this is done. These
standards were drafted to protect people from manufacturers with a  "Not
to worry, ground the secondary coil, worst case, a blown circuit
protector doing it's job." viewpoint. Knowing that every line I type
here is archived I would never post a statement like that unless I had
nothing for the lawyers to take. Now don't get me wrong. I have always
done, and will continue to do "innovative" things and have paid,
fortunately only in money (and no legal fees or medical fess so far). I
just don't advertise my stupidities here. Basically I think this concept
is a neat idea for someone who knows what he's doing (and I don't claim
that  that's me).

Ron also commented "A small transformer can be used as boost - buck in
the primary...This is an old trick". It certainly is. These went out
with the saturable core reactors I mentioned in the previous post. The
appropriate way to do this with today's technology is to use a SSR
(solid state relay) with the proportional output from your controller.
These things are actually pretty inexpensive ($27 for a 10 amp device
from Omega) and  switch when the line voltage is 0 (thus eliminating
transient problems and noise) and interface directly with off the shelf
temperature controllers. I'm assuming that any RIMSer worth his salt is
going to want a pretty good PID controller in the loop and many of these
have proportional control (not the same "proportional" as the
"proportional" in PID) outputs.

Simon had some additional comments on this subject. I think he
mistinterpreted Wim's original suggestion for it appears he has
interpreted the idea as involving winding the primary around the pipe.
This is not the case nor would such a design be likely to be very
effective. To see what was intended Picture a 'C' core (actually, 2 'C'
cores end to end) with the primary winding around one leg. The wort pipe
would then be formed into a loop around the other leg in the shape of a
capital omega, for example. The proximal parts of the omega's  legs
would be clamped or soldered together to make the short and the plumbing
to and from the RIMS system attached to the pipe ends. To induce current
all that is necessary is that the shorted coil enclose  the  magnetic
flux path circuit and it
does.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Ken Schwarz talks about controll of heating elements in the more
conventional setup. I mention again the Omega SSRs which go on and off
in response to a TTL logic level and are only $27 for 10 amps and $37
for 25 amp capacity. Only one's immagination limits the nature of the
control circuits for these that could be easily put together. The most
obvious would be someting that produced a pulse of from milliseconds to
5 seconds with a 5 second PRI thus acheiving near 0 to 100% proportional
control.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Dan McC asks " With better beer as a byproduct, why would anyone not
practice
this procedure?" My answer is that I do it wherever practical but it
often isn't practical. If I'm brewing the same batch twice in a row and
brew shortly after I unload the fermenter this is the scheme of choice
unless one looks at the slurry and finds living things one hoped he
wouldn't find. There's still a out here through yeast washing but that's
a PITA and tough on the yeast.

He also comments that there really is no other way to get high cell
counts. One can grow up lots of paste by establishing and maintaining
conditions under which yeast grow as opposed to ferment. I do this in a
2.5 gal carboy which is filled with about a gallon and a half of wort
(with nutrient). Yeast from a 1 L starter are pitched and the wort is
oxygenated until foam reaches near the top. The DO level is monitored
and when it approaches 0, they get another blast of O2. The process is
repeated until you get bored or have to go to bed or some similar event
occurs. If you do this over the course of a day or a longish evening
session with beer friends you can grow quite a bit of yeast. As soon as
you stop the O2 they will kick over into fermentation and, because the
count is pretty high in there, they will generally finish pretty quickly
and fall out. Now decant the broth, replace it with fresh wort plus
nutrient and repeat with the O2. The only trick is to time the start of
fermentation soon enough that the cells you've grown will have fallen
out when you need them. Otherwise, you'll have to pitch the broth with
the suspended cells and you don't want this broth in the beer. If you
don't have enough time to complete a second or third oxygenation cycle,
don't. After decanting feed a small amount of fresh wort to keep them
fairly happy up to the time you pitch. With some experience you'll get a
feel for the timing.



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 11:56:19 -0700
From: "Hunts, Jeff" <jhunts at CIWMB.ca.gov>
Subject: A Sad Sour Surprise

Brethren:

I prostrate myself before you seeking guidance on a sorry situation.  I
am but a humble, though mostly successful, extract and steeped grain
brewer.  In anticipation of the recent Big Brew, I upgraded my equipment
from a simple 5 gallon brewpot to a Sabco converted half barrel boiler
with a fixed siphon so that I could share the experience with my sister
who was coming out from San Francisco for the day.  I brewed a 5 gallon
practice batch on May 1st to get the feel of the new system -- a hoppy
Red Ale -- and all seemed to go well.  Cooled quickly with an enhanced
50ft immersion chiller connected to my old 25ft chiller set as a
pre-chiller in an ice bath.  I used stainless steel screen (ala
SureScreen or EZMasher, take you pick) on the built-in siphon to filter
out the whole hops and break material as I drained into a 6.5 gallon
carboy primary.  Pitched at 65F with a couple rehydrated packs of dry
Whitbread yeast, put the carboy in the basement, cleaned up and thought
about doing the 12 gallons of Big Brew the next day.

Big Brew day went great, I thought.  Per some HBDer's excellent idea, I
used a new 30 gallon galvanized trash can with the bottom cut out
inverted over the keg and burner for a windshield/heat conserver.  No
problem maintaining a rolling boil even at low throttle.  Chilling went
surprisingly fast with the pre-chiller, and though the 12 plus ounces of
hops in the pot held onto a lot of wort, we filled two 6.5gal carboys
with 5.5gal each. I sent my sister home to SF that night with a carboy
just beginning to foam.

Fast forward to last night:  I finally found some time to do some
racking, so I was going to keg the May Day Red with a 1/2oz of whole
Cascades (SS screen on liquid out tube, works great) and transfer to
secondary the Big Brew ("should I add Champagne yeast....?") for its
long rest.  I did the Red first, and when I tasted the final pint after
the keg was full I thought "SOUR! Oh No!! This doesn't happen to me!"
Well, you guessed it.  When I tasted the Big Brew upon transfer it too
had a distinct SOUR flavor.  Lactobacillus? Wild yeast?

In 50 or so batches over the last several years I have been lucky not to
experience the sinking feeling of infection.  I tend to be thorough
about sanitation, with only idophor or bleach sanitized equipment
touching cooled wort or green beer (save for the dry hops).  The
ferments on both were quick and vigorous.  I guess my question here is
what is the most common pathway for a souring infection?  Airborne? (I
haven't brewed outside before.)  Some tenacious nook in equipment?  For
all of you who work with drain ball-valves, do you assume the heat of
the boil will sanitize the inner workings, assuming you cleaned up well
from the previous batch.  Maybe it was in simply getting out of my tried
and true routine that I missed something.  

I need to read up on and buy some Belgium ales now, to see what I've
made.  Thanks for letting me cry in my beer.

Jeff Hunts
Puckering and wondering in Sacramento
jhunts at ciwmb.ca.gov




Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 14:24:18 -0500
From: rlabor at lsumc.edu (LaBorde, Ronald)
Subject: RE: competition cheating? / MovingBrews / pumps rated for boiling

>From: "Keith Royster" <keith at ays.net>

>So I decided to spruce it up a bit by adding a 12oz bottle of 
>grenadine and a few cups of some fruit flavored liqueurs, which 
>turned out nicely I think.  My question is, what if I decided to 
>enter this mead (or similarly doctored brew) in a competition?  Does 
>that fact that I added a *pre-fermented* beverage to my mead/brew 
>preclude it from being entered in a competition?  Or would it not be 
>considered cheating as long as I kept it below a certain level?

Good question.  Since I have no special bias for or against this, let me
take a personal opinion.

When you submit the entry and fill out completely the registration/entry
form, complete with recipe and techniques, the onus is on the acceptor
to accept or reject the entry.  Passing on to the judging table through
competence or incompetence, your entry is valid in my opinion.

I have made a nice orange wine, and considered entering it as a fruit
beer.  Upon reading the entry form, however, it clearly indicated that
barley need be one of the basic ingredients, so I did not submit.  I
wonder what would have happened had I sent it in.  What is to prevent
one from simply re-capping any commercial beer (hey now - I didn't say
you would win)?

Ron

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



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 16:26:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jeff Poretsky <jeffp at access.digex.net>
Subject: labels: more later

Thanks for all the advice.  Over the  next few days I'll try some of the 
suggestions.  I have enough commercial brew with both paper and foil to 
test the different methods without loosing any labels I might want to
keep.  When finished, I'll probably scan them and put them on my web page.

Also.  I've had Ursa Major Stout conditioning now for about 3 months.
(taken from cat's meow 3).  It is just starting to become drinkable.  Some
friends at a recent party all liked it.  Can't wait to see what it'll be like 
in early fall.

JeffP
jeffp at technologist.com (preferred, I forgot last time)

Grey Dayn Brewing


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 17:39:46 EDT
From: Gardintl <Gardintl at aol.com>
Subject: Oxygen Generation

	Has anybody out there had any experience in oxygenating their wort by
generating oxygen from hydrogen peroxide?  I searched the archives and found a
lot of articles dealing sanitation and a few dealing with oxygenation via
adding hydrogen peroxide directly to the wort (not what I had in mind).  I was
thinking of a separate flask with H2O2 (3%) and a single hole stopper fitted
with some tubing (with a micron filter) and an air stone. Add some sort of
compound to start the decomposition then let'er rip. That should generate pure
O2 providing you don't overpressure the flask or generate enough heat to boil
the water (doubtful with 3%).  Besides the overpressure and exothermic heat
problem I could foresee a problem with over oxygenation. Does anyone know at
what ppm level oxygen becomes antiseptic?  
	Well anyway thats the idea, if anyone has any information on this I'd like to
hear from them.

TIA
Tom Gardin


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 17:56:42 -0400
From: "Mark S. Johnston" <msjohnst at talon.net>
Subject: Re: Pin Lock Woes

>I have been unsuccessful in locating replacement poppets for these kegs. 

>One source told me that these were proprietary parts, and that there was
a
>legal problem here.

>Can anybody in HBD-land shed any light on this subject???  Should I dump
>these kegs and start over?

There are sources for these poppets. I believe that Fox carries them, as
well as a few others. Your homebrew supplier should be able to order some.
I've also seen available just the seat rings -- some of these poppet
designs apparently allow for replacable seats.

I've replaced a few poppets on my ball-lock kegs already. What a pleasure
to have leak-free kegs again.




Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 18:24:46 +0000
From: "Jim Busch" <jim at victorybeer.com>
Subject: Slow pour foam stand

GDP  notes on slow pours:

>   and a more stable head of partially solidified foam will result. 

And Ludwig asks about the Guinness effects with slow pours.  This is 
the same general result as a classic 12 minute German Pils slowpour.  
The main diff is that Guinness is of course driven with Nitrogen 
while the Pils is usually not.  This is still one of my favorite ways 
to tap a good pils.   (But order an Export first so you can drink one 
while waiting....)

Prost!

Jim Busch
Colesville, Md.


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 10:17:36 +1000
From: "Colin Marshall" <byoah at argay.com.au>
Subject: Hop Rhizomes.

Here in Australia, we are unable to obtain hop flowers other than locally
grown Pride of Ringwood and New Zealand Saaz, Hallertau Triploid and
Cluster. I would like to grow my own, as we have a great climate for hop
production ( cold winters, hot summers). Does anybody know where I can
obtain rhizomes from such hops as Saaz, Hallertau, Fuggles, Goldings,
Cascade and Hersbrucker? Are there any customs/quarantine problems?

Colin Marshall
Kambah Village,
Canberra
Australia.


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 20:10:09 -0700
From: Bob Wilcox <bobw at sirius.com>
Subject: Re-Pin Lock Kegs

Hi Randy

I have Pin Lock Kegs and got replacement parts, Poppets and o-rings from
Williams Brewing in San Leandro Calif. Check there Wep Page at
http://www.williamsbrewing.com  I dont have any intrest in Williams just
buy stuff some times.

Bob Wilcox
Long Barn Brewing
Long Barn & Alameda Ca.



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 07:13:45 -0400
From: "Matthew J. Harper" <matth at progress.com>
Subject: Re: Dangers of contamination: dry vs. liquid yeast; RIMS heaters

Matthew Arnold discusses the merits of liquid vs dry yeast and
their contamination levels.  He asks a question & states his concern:

>My question is: where is the greater danger? Using dry yeast which may be
>contaminated, but doesn't need a starter due to the large amount of viable
>yeast, or, using liquid yeast which will need to be stepped up a couple of
>times (with the chances of contamination that come in with every step)?

>My main concern would be with the first step-up from smack-pack to starter.
>Obviously, that's the smallest number of cells and thus the greatest chance
for
>an infection to overrun the starter. It would seem to be that the primary
>benefit of "pitchable" yeast (whether Wyeast XL or White Labs) would be
helping
>to eliminate the possibility of an infection taking hold in that first
starter.


Nice name Matthew! :-)

I personally believe you're making a bad assumtion above:  Dry yeast
packs do *not* contain enough cells to achieve a proper pitching rate
(nice way to tie to threads together, huh? :-)  This means you *should*
still make a starter *or* pitch several packs of dry yeast.

I went to liquid cultures (Wyeast, etc) for several reason:

1. Cleaner strains of yeast
2. More options for more styles
3. If I had to make a starter anyway, might as well use the best
   yeast for the starter foundation.

It took me a while to realize (and I don't believe I've read it anywhere,
so I may be wrong and may be chastized for the idea) but your concern is
just one of the reasons to have the initial starter be comprised of a
small volume of wort.  That way the little yeasties have a higher
concentration
by volume.  Once that starter is complete, step it up in volume for the
next one.

I'm do believe most homebrewers under-pitch, and that those who do not
today *used* to under-pitch before they got clued in to the benefits and
reasons for pitching a good does of yeast.  Yeah, I do usually step up
3, sometimes 4, times before brew day (4 would be when it gets postponed...)
but, like others, I've seen my fermentations take off, finish sooner and,
it seems, mature faster & with fewer off flavors.


You don't need a laboratory for this stuff.  A well cleaned and sanitized
area away from drafts, animals and small children will generally be
sufficient.  I'd be more concerned with underpitching than a spoiled starter
if good practices are followed.


RIMS Heaters:

Thanks *much* to everyone who posted or sent me private email regarding
others ideas for a RIMS heat chamber.  The induction method is quite
different, though a bit more than I'd like to take on at the moment,
especially since I don't recall *that* much from my circuits classes!

'Nother possibility:

If the wort is moving at a sufficient rate through the pipe, could not one
just place one or two bunson burners under the pipe to heat it?  Not
something
I'd want to fully automate of course, but if I'm hanging nearby anyway...

(Please don't reply with concern for the open flame... There's enough
flames under my brewpot to cause some real damage if something is going
to happen! )

Thanks much!

TTFN

 -Matth






Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 07:39:40 -0400
From: Jim English <jimebob at mindspring.com>
Subject: re: stainless steel cleaner(s)

In response to Marc and Stacey's posts, I think they are talking about
the same thing.  Barkeeper's Friend IS a scouring powder, similar to
Ajax/Comet except it contains no Chlorine or derivatives thereof, making
it safe for SS.
Another product, same form and container design as BKF, and the other
no-no's listed earlier, is Bon Ami.
I believe both of these powders have whatever abrasive the other
chlorinated products have in them, without the Cl.

Latron

JRE



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 06:44:11 -0500
From: Mark_Snyder at wastemanagement.com
Subject: Re: Eric Fouch, Sensitivity Trainee




Mark Snyder at WMI
05/21/98 06:44 AM
Eric:

Here, Here!!!

There should never have been a need to explain!

Mark Snyder
Marietta, Georgia - a long way from Jeff




Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 05:29:19 -0400
From: Marc.Arseneau at fluordaniel.com
Subject: RE: Starting the starter

     >From: Jay Spies <spiesjl at mda.state.md.us>
     
     >I am having a hell of a time trying to figure out the
     >correct ratio of DME to water.
     
     For yeast starters, my general rule of thumb is to use 1 TABLESPOON of 
     DME for every 100 ml water. (or 10 Tablespoons per liter)
     
     No, I don't know what hydrometer reading this makes.
     
     But I do know that it works for me.  Just make sure you aerate.  Also, 
     the DME tends to dissolve better if you boil the water (which you 
     should be doing anyway to sterilize it).  I typically boil for a few 
     minutes, curse when I miss the hot break and mess up the stove, and 
     then I sit the sauce pan in a sink full of cold water to chill it back 
     to room temperature.  Splash the cooled wort for a while to aerate it, 
     and your yeast starter is ready!


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 08:06:43 -0500
From: "David Johnson" <dmjalj at inwave.com>
Subject: Bug-no-more! and pitching rates.

Brewers,
	Thanks for all the suggestions about my bug problem. I arrived at a
solution that appears to have worked. I must admit I was reading my own
post for errors, when I noticed my last line about my computer screen. I
was inspired to go out and get the electric bug zapper that never worked
for the purpose I bought it for and set it up. Although it had been sitting
in my garage for 10 years, it started right up. I then went to work
expecting better solutions from my post. I just had to try something while
I was waiting! I was overjoyed to return home to the smell of burning bug
flesh, the sight of their cadaverous remains, and the wailing of their
children.
	I thought I would share the solution.
	On another note, with this talk of pitching rates, I thought I would offer
a data point. Last summer I prepared two batches of weizen in series with
Wyeast 3068. The first was made with a regular size starter the secon was
pitched with a quart of yeast harvested from the first. They were entered
in the same competition and were judged by the same judges who commented on
the excellent clove character of the first and docked the second for not
enough. Both were fermented the same with the same aeration and
temperatures. 
	Dave the Barbarian.


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 09:15:02 -0400
From: Art Beall <bealla at bellhow.com>
Subject: AltBier Style Book - Question on Crystal/Caramel malt

I've been reading the new Altbier book, which I
find a very good read. When reading the section on
ingredients, the author mentions crystal/caramel
malt together, not making a distinction. In the
recipe section however, one of them uses both
crystal 60L and caramel. Does someone know the
difference between crystal and caramel ?
Especially in this context. I've heard that Breiss
and Durst "crystal" type malts are not produced
the same, using different types of barley, giving
different qualities to the resulting beer. This
subject came up last Aug-Sept 97. General
consensus was that everybodys crystal is
different, and most crystal malts are completly
sachrified. Any more information available ?

Thanks

Art Beall



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 08:27:41 -0500 (CDT)
From: Samuel Mize <smize at prime.imagin.net>
Subject: Nothing important

It's a slow day...

> From: Joe Rolfe <onbc at shore.net>
> Subject: Re: pumps 
> 
> just one word of caution while using any pumps in a
> brewer (small or large).

My Drokk, I hope he meant brewery.

>Be very carefull of the discharge
> outlet and pressure.  I would suggest hard plumbing the 
> outlet of the pump over soft hose in ALL cases.  Hot wort/caustic
> and acid can cause quite a bit of discomfort (putting it mildly).

No doubt.

> if you do choose to soft plumb insure you have a quick exit
> from the area in the event of a hose bursting or a coupling
> coming loose.  

You must have seen some of the bar men's rooms I've seen...

Best,
Sam Mize

- -- 
Samuel Mize -- smize at imagin.net (home email) -- Team Ada

  "Hey Frank -- another bushel of green apples for the Clydesdales!"



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 09:55:30 -0400
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner at umich.edu>
Subject: Pierre Curie

rlabor at lsumc.edu (LaBorde, Ronald) wrote:

>The Curies played around with radiation, discovered x-rays, became great
>famous scientists, changed the world as we know it, but killed
>themselves eventually in the process

As I recall (from reading a young people's biography maybe forty years
ago), Pierre Curie's death in 1906 was caused by a much larger particle, a
runaway carriage (or was it one of those newfangled horseless carriages?)
on the streets of Paris, although he was weakened by radiation sickness
from playing around with radium.  (I wonder what the wave properties are of
a runaway carriage?)

X-rays were discovered earlier (1895) by Roentgen, not the Curies, who
discovered radium and polonium.

You can't get away with anything around here. ;-)

Jeff

 -=-=-=-=-
Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan c/o nerenner at umich.edu
"One never knows, do one?"  Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943. 




Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 10:30:43 -0400
From: "Henckler, Andrew" <ahenckler at findsvp.com>
Subject: fruit fly eradication

Hi All:

Just a quick tip to help you rid yourselves of fruit fly infestations.
Put out an open bottle of cider vinegar.  The fruit flies flock to it
(can't resist that aroma, I guess) and drown in the cider, rather like
slugs in pans of cheap beer.  Very quickly, you have no infestation!


Andrew P. Henckler
Senior Research Analyst
Industrial Products & Services Practice
Strategic Consulting & Research Group
FIND/SVP-THE BEST PEOPLE TO FIND THE ANSWERS

625 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY  10011

Tel:      (212) 807-2754
Fax:      (212) 807-2782
E-mail:  ahenckler at findsvp.com
Web:    http://www.findsvp.com


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 21 May 98 07:53 PDT
From: cburns at egusd.k12.ca.us (Charley Burns)
Subject: Pectic Enzyme

Several people responded with my request for assistance with getting rid of 
the strawberry haze, all with the suggestion of using pectic enzyme. I 
switched computers and lost a BUNCH of emails (sloppy work, no excuse) and I 
can't ask them HOW. What exactly do I do with the pectic enzyme when I get 
it? The beer is already carbonated in the keg. Do I boil the enzyme (doesn't 
sound good) or just dump it into the keg? Do I keep it cold and carbonated 
or do I decarbonate and warm it up, or just warm it up, or....

Charley (hazed and confused again) in N. Cal



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 21 May 98 10:58:31 est
From: paa3983 at dscp.dla.mil (Mike Spinelli)
Subject: Sorry for not replying/Weizen Volcanoes

HBDers,
thanks to all those replying to my Q's regarding the bench
capper and steam injection.  I wish I could reply individually
but all your replys are being sent to our new Exchange system
which my PC doesn't yet have.  I've gotta go to friend's PC to 
retrieve your replys.  Whatta PITA.
******************************************
Is it just me or have any of you noticed that the recently bought
German hefeweizens are WAY MORE carbonated than I've 
remembered last summer.  I've had both Erdinger hefeweizen 
and Kuchelbauer Dunkelweizen and even though I carefully
pour the beers into German weizen glasses, the head blows out 
over the top before I've even poured the yeast sediment in.  Maybe
it's just really fresh or something.

Mike Spinelli
Cherry Hill NJ




Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 11:09:52 -0400
From: James Tomlinson <73321.1130 at compuserve.com>
Subject: Steam Injection and Liquid Decoction Heating

In HBD2719, Mike Spinelli asked:

"I plan on using the steam to increase the temps. in 60 pound mashes."

I just calculated the amount of steam to be used with 10 lbs of mash
with 1.33 qts per pound for someone else. I found that you would end up
boiling and condensing 1 oz of water for every 2 degrees F of
temperature change. You would have to scale this by 6 and all bets off
for different mash thicknesses. His question had to do with thinning the
mash.

Andrew Avis asked about liquid decoction to raise mash temp.

I do this for mash out. I use a picnic cooler and use multiple infusions
to reach my desired temperature rests. Since I don't want to thin my
mash anymore, I pull about 50% of the liquid I have added to the mash,
after conversion is complete, bring it to a boil and then immediately
add it to the mash. I do add it a quart od 2 at a time, so I don't
overshoot. The issue with using it to raise temp to conversion is
denaturing the enzymes. Past conversion (Mashout) denaturing the enzymes
is not issue. Also, don't worry about carmalizing the liquid. Just stir
well and don't let it boil long.

What I'd suggest is this: Knowing that you can't get 6 gallons in with
21lbs, go for a slightly thicker mash for conversion, then do a liquid
lautered decoction mashout.
- -- 
James Tomlinson
remove the "no.spam" to reply

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, 21 May 98 10:21:53 CDT
From: jwilkins at wss.dsccc.com (John Wilkinson)
Subject: pin lock poppets

Randy A. Shreve asked about availability of pin lock poppets.
Williams Brewing (800) 759-6025 and South Bay Homebrew Supply (800) 608-BREW
show them in their catalogs.  My South Bay catalog is a couple of years old
but back then they had the best selection of keg parts I have found.

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


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 09:03:22 -0700
From: George_De_Piro at berlex.com
Subject: Poor performance of large yeast culture w/o aeration

     Hi all,
     
     John tells us a courageous story about how he pitched an apparently 
     huge amount of Wyeast 1968 into a batch of unaerated wort and got a 
     stuck fermentation.  He is wondering why this happened, because 
     current theory says that you need not aerate if you overpitch.
     
     John leaves out some very important information, but the result of his 
     fermentation provides some clues:  At what point during the initial 
     ferment did you harvest?  How was the yeast stored?  How long was it 
     stored?  You would be amazed at how quickly the yeast can start to die 
     after fermentation is over and after harvesting.
     
     If you have a microscope and some methylene blue you can easily do a 
     viability estimate on your pitching yeast.  You may find significant 
     cell death after just a week of storage under fermented beer in a 
     fridge.
     
     You actually may have been (and probably were) underpitching.  If you 
     do want to play with omitting wort aeration, the best thing to do is 
     to harvest yeast immediately after primary fermentation is complete 
     and repitch it as soon as possible.  In this way you are more assured 
     of a large, viable culture.  Every day you delay is killing off cells.
     It's all quite tragic.
     
     Have fun!
     
     George De Piro  (Nyack, NY)


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 21 May 98 11:55:38 CDT
From: jwilkins at wss.dsccc.com (John Wilkinson)
Subject: Yeast pitching rates/ wort aeration

George DePiro had some questions about my process in the story I told of
apparently overpitching to an non-aerated wort and experiencing a high FG
(1.020).  As usual, I left out some necessary details.  I didn't harvest this
yeast from a previous batch but grew it as a starter.  I stepped the starter
3-4 times in a gallon jug, oxygenating with O2 and a SS aeration stone at each
step.  On brew day I decanted the clear wort over the yeast cake, ran fresh,
cooled wort from the CF chiller to the jug (about 1/2 gallon), oxygenated with
O2, and set aside while I cleaned a fermenter.  Before I was ready to pitch
(less than an hour) the starter jug was blowing foam out.  The starter was very
active.  Under the circumstances, I didn't feel it necessary to aerate the wort.
The following batch I poured my fresh chilled wort onto the residue from the
first batch and oxygenated.  This batch achieved the 75% apparent attenuation
I usually get with Wyeast 1968 in a well aerated wort.

What I don't understand is that George has stated, I think, that the yeast will
divide three times and need the oxygen for healthy growth.  This sounds as if
the growth is inevitable.  However, Tracy Aquilla wrote, I think, in his BT
article that yeast growth in the wort was not desirable due to by products.
Is the growth inevitable or not?  If inevitable then it would appear we are
going to have the undesirable by products of growth whether we aerate or not.
Which is it?  Should we aerate the wort with a large pitching rate or not?

I appreciate George's point about yeast viability and perhaps my yeast cake was
not entirely of live yeast, even though the starter had not gone over three days
without feeding.  I have used the yeast cake in the fermenter after the beer had
been on it as much as three weeks at fermentation temps (63F) without problem
but I aerated or oxygenated and probably there was so much yeast it didn't have
to all be viable.

I never harvest yeast for pitching later, by the way.  I use the yeast from the
previous ferment directly or use a large starter.

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


Return to table of contents


Date: 21 May 1998 13:03:17 -0400
From: EFOUCH at steelcase.com
Subject: A Beer Related Post


HBD-
I checked out Robert Arguellos Beer Gadget page
(www.calweb.com/~robertac/bulkdesc.htm).

It looks like a very stout assembly (for your Stout assemblies?).

Here's what I did- I picked up a replacement plastic bottling bucket spigot
from the homebrew shop ($2.50- the shop clerk knew right where they were),
reamed the hole for the stock Gott spigot a little larger, and with a little
silicone sealant, tightened the whole mess in place.  I fashioned a CPVC
ladder style slotted manifold (four rungs) out of 1/2" CPVC, and brewed a 7
gallon batch with it last night (after my golf date- Emperor 1, Me 0).

The 1/2" CPVC fits in the exit (entrance?) hole on the spigot loosely, but is
sized to wedge in against the opposite wall of the Gott.  Stays put, 'till I
dump it out on the compost pile.

It worked quite well.  Instead of batch sparging, I was able to fit quite a
bit of water over top of the grain bed, and keep it topped up to the end of
sparge.

EricFouch
Bent Dick YoctoBrewery
Kentwood, MI


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 13:57:33 -0400
From: "Houseman, David L" <David.Houseman at unisys.com>
Subject: Re: Scott Braker-Abene's Flame 

In yesterday's HBD Scott Braker-Abene flamed on about the AHA and its
competitions, apparently without the vaguest idea of what he was talking
about.  To make statements like "Well this is because it is easier to
screw up your beer with someone else's
and get it into another category in the first round" indicates that he
is totally unaware of the procedures and processes used in the AHA first
round, or for that matter in any round, of the National Homebrew
Competition.

His flaming didn't really apply to the AHA to the good judges and
organizers who organize and judge the first round competitions around
the country.  Perhaps Scott was burned by not having his great beer
managed or judged properly, but then these things do happen.  

I've participated in a number of first round competitions as a judge.
Although I haven't been the organizer, I know a number of them and have
been around to see the work and efforts that went into such a large
competition.  It was a very thankless job but they all rose to the
occasion.  These are brewers and judges just like the rest of us.  They
aren't part of the AHA except as members perhaps.  They are volunteers
who love what they do.  It certainly isn't for the money!!!   

So in attempting to slam the AHA Scott was throwing the crap at the
volunteers and judges who in almost every case are BJCP.   It may have
made him feel vindicated to use name calling ("weazles [sic]") but it
certainly is misplaced anger.  From the large competitions that I have
organized, I know that the error rate for having beers end up in the
wrong category is MUCH greater by the entrant than the organizers.
What makes me particularly suspicious here is that he says that he has
entered three times and they have screwed up his entry in one way or the
other every time.  Hummmm...perhaps he can't read the directions...even
if he does claim to have Xerox copies of his entry forms?

To quote another slur at all those good judges, many of us readers of
HBD, "AHA nationals uses the term evaluate and judge very loosely."  I
know that the judges, BJCP, know quite well what the terms evaluate and
judge mean and it is not taken lightly by any of us that I'm aware.   If
he has an issue, as he obviously does, with the judges that happened to
have judged his beers, he should be taking that up with the BJCP who
certifies the judges.  There has been considerable bandwidth on JudgeNet
and occasionally on HBD about providing style certification.  If a
workable solution can be found then great, but the place to vent about
the judges isn't the AHA who has nothing to do with the training,
certification or selection of the judges in the NHC.  It's only in the
second round and the BOS that the AHA's staff even has control of the
judging assignments.  Vent at the organizers if that's the problem.
Vent at the better judges for not judging the NHC perhaps.  There are
other valid reasons to bitch to the AHA, for example the price of the
entries -- at least that's something they control.    

Finally, Amahl replied on this forum with the justification for one
bottle needed for the first round and the three bottles needed for the
second round.  Sound reasoning and not because anyone wants to manage
and handle 3 bottles for the fun of it.  If anyone wanted the bottles,
it'd be far cheaper to go and buy them. 

I for one read this forum for the information content, not the flaming,
no matter who it's targeted at.  

Dave Houseman



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 14:06:04 -0700
From: George_De_Piro at berlex.com
Subject: Re[2]: Poor performance of large yeast culture w/o aeration

     Hi all,
     
     John proves my first theory wrong by telling us that the yeast was 
     freshly cultured in a gallon jug.  He said he grew it up in 3 or 4 
     steps.  On brew day he poured the clear, fermented wort off the yeast 
     and fed and aerated it.  He then pitched without further aeration.
     
     Here is my next best guess:
     
     I grow yeast in a very similar manner.  In his original post John said 
     that the yeast slurry was 1 inch thick.  While it may look that thick 
     if you just look in from the side of the jug, it really isn't even 
     close to that.  The yeast tends to stick to the glass on the lower 
     part of the side of the jug, giving the illusion of a thicker yeast 
     cake.
     
     As Dan M. noted, a starter made up in this way will have the minimum 
     number of cells necessary for a good fermentation with aeration.  It 
     is nowhere near enough yeast to pitch without aeration.  That is why a 
     hemacytometer is so much more useful than trying to estimate yeast 
     cake thickness or consistency.
     
     You can minimize yeast growth in the fermenter by pitching a lot of 
     freshly harvested yeast and not aerating, but if you are going to try 
     this trick you have got to pitch a lot of yeast!  Because the yeast 
     will have great population density and a relatively low amount of 
     sterol (with no O2 to make more), their growth will be minimized yet 
     they will ferment out the wort.
     
     Other ways to minimize yeast growth include fermenting under CO2 
     pressure and keeping the temperature low.  There are so many ways to 
     play!
     
     One quick caveat to folks, because it's sort of related to this stuff:
     
     I recently had a Weizen fermentation stick on me.  The forced 
     fermentation showed that the FG should have been 1.012, but it was 
     stuck at 1.020.  The "sister batch," from the same cast-out wort but 
     fermented with a different yeast, was OK.  What happened?
     
     Well, I aerate by sticking the stainless stone into the wort and 
     letting O2 run in for 1.5 minutes/20 L (or so).  This particular day, 
     I did just that, but the O2 tank was nearly empty and the pressure was 
     dropping by the time I started on the second fermenter.  Although gas 
     flowed the entire time, I guess it wasn't quite enough.  Most 
     annoying.
     
     The lesson is that time isn't enough, you must be sure that the flow 
     of gas is strong, too.  A flow meter would be useful.  Anybody know 
     where you can get one cheap?
     
     Have fun!
     
     George De Piro  (Nyack, NY)


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 15:43:23 -0500
From: "Jeffrey M. Kenton" <jkenton at iastate.edu>
Subject: Microbiologists?

Howdy,
If there are any microbiologists out there, could you please suggest some
recipes for yeast growth media? I just took a job where I have access to
incubators at various temp regimes, lab equipment, and the mother of all
lab equipment, an autoclave. Looking forward to any responses by private
email.

Thanks,

Jeff

Jeffrey M. Kenton    jkenton at iastate.edu
Ames, Iowa           brewer at iastate.edu




Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 21 May 98 15:50:33 CDT
From: jwilkins at wss.dsccc.com (John Wilkinson)
Subject: yeast pitch

I think George DePiro is right about my probable erroneous estimate of yeast
quantity.  I didn't take into account that the yeast tends to stick to the sides
abnd appear to be thicker than it really is.  Also, I think there is a slight
dome to the bottom of my starter jug.  I had a lot of yeast but probably not
enough to skip aerating the wort.  I still don't fully understand the issue of
yeast growth and undesireable by products.  Is the yeast growth and subsequent
production of unwanted by products controlled by the oxygen level of the wort?
If a sufficient quantity of yeast is pitched without aeration of the wort will
the yeast not grow and produce those by products?  If the wort is overpitched
but aerated will the yeast grow even more and produce those by products?  I
would think that the oxygen was like nutrient and the yeast would not grow
without it unless there was a substitute.  Doeesn't the cold break provide a
substitute?  If so ( alot of assumptions are building here), wouldn't the wort
need to be unaerated and free of cold break to prevent yeast growth?  Would that
even prevent it?

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


Return to table of contents

---