HOMEBREW Digest #2850 Thu 15 October 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:Re:source for CO2 cylinders (Gary H Nazelrod)
  CO2/DC Water/240V GFI ("A. J. deLange")
  CO2 Volumes / pH Origin (Mark Riley)
  What beverage goes with Spam? (John Adsit)
  Anti-foam stuff and adding body to a fruit beer ("Eric R. Tepe")
  Ur-bock (John Adsit)
  Lead Poisoning ("Eric Schoville")
  Weizen (Randy Ricchi)
  Mild Ale (The Greenman)
  Cloudy Weding Beer ("David Root")
  CO2, stoppers and other stuff.... ("Jim Kingsberg")
  Pewter, Spray on Sanitizer, and Fruit Flies ("Matthew J. Harper")
  Stainless Steel Choreboy ("Peter J. Calinski")
  Big carboys (Dan Listermann)
  Continuous Brewing ("Jeffrey M. Kenton")
  Starters, Botulism, and the "C" word ("Rancourt, Mark D")
  Liquor to Grist Ratio ("Brad McMahon")
  Water:Grain Ratios (Ken Schwartz)
  No Subject (Lou.Heavner)
  Brewchicks/Pumpkins/Flys/Censors (Eric.Fouch)
  Spam? (Spencer W Thomas)
  RE: Bottle Fermentation and RIMS questions (Joe Rolfe)
  re: valve stems (Jeff)
  reply to: Spray on Sanitizer HBD#2849 (Herbert Bresler)
  Large Carboys ("McConnell, Guy")
  Spray on Sanitizer ("Alleman, Mike")
  Fly in the ointment (ALAN KEITH MEEKER)
  Ca3(PO4)2 ("A. J. deLange")

Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy! Send your entries in for 3rd Annual Music City Brew-Off yet? Details: http://www.theporch.com/~homebrew NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS: hbd.org Send articles for __publication_only__ to post@hbd.org (Articles are published in the order they are received.) If your e-mail account is being deleted, please unsubscribe first!! To SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE send an e-mail message with the word "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to request@hbd.org. **SUBSCRIBE AND UNSUBSCRIBE REQUESTS MUST BE SENT FROM THE E-MAIL **ACCOUNT YOU WISH TO HAVE SUBSCRIBED OR UNSUBSCRIBED!!! IF YOU HAVE SPAM-PROOFED your e-mail address, the autoresponder and the SUBSCRIBE/UNSUBSCRIBE commands will fail! For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to brewery at hbd.org Homebrew Digest Information on the Web: http://hbd.org Requests for back issues will be ignored. Back issues are available via: Anonymous ftp from... ftp://hbd.org/pub/hbd/digests ftp://ftp.stanford.edu/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer AFS users can find it under... /afs/ir.stanford.edu/ftp/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 14:08:18 -0400 From: Gary_H_Nazelrod at tst.tracor.com (Gary H Nazelrod) Subject: Re:Re:source for CO2 cylinders In HBD 2848 Gary_H_Nazelrod at tst.tracor.com (Gary H Nazelrod) (that's me) said: < snip some stuff for brevity> >When My tank is empty, I give them $18 >and my tank and they give me a full tank. I never have to worry about >getting my tank recertified. In private email Charley Burns and Spencer Thomas pointed out that I have been wasting my money. They suggested I look in the yellow pages under Fire Extinguisher. I did and then called the closest one, they refill for $12.50. If I call around to some of the others, I may find a cheaper price. The exchange is still a good idea when the date stamped on the tank is about to expire. Gary Nazelrod Silver Spring MD Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 14:03:25 -0500 From: "A. J. deLange" <ajdel at mindspring.com> Subject: CO2/DC Water/240V GFI Gary Nazelrod wrote concerning our local gas people in th DC area: >When My tank is empty, I give them $18 >and my tank and they give me a full tank. I never have to worry about >getting my tank recertified. There is a slight catch here with Roberts (and I assume other suppliers which is the reason I'm posting this here instead of e-mail). If the hydro check date is more than 5 years ago they charge you $15 before giving you a new bottle. The message is plain: go get a refill for any bottle which is approaching the 5 year limit even if it has some CO2 still left in it. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * James Thompson asked about DC water. It is unremarkable except for the dismal condition of the distribution system. You've seen the surface of the streets. It's as bad below. Cryptosporidium scares errupt fairly often but none this year. The water comes from the Potomac and thus has a mineral content typical of east coast surface water, i.e. rather soft (about 100 ppm) and not too alkaline (50 - 100 ppm). Chloride tends to be low (10 mg/L or less) and sulfate should run around 30. I don't know if they chloraminate on that side of the river (they do on this) but I would assume they do. Once the chlorine/chloramine has been dealt with, the water is suitable for brewing the majority of beers without further treatment. The main exception is Bohemian style Pilsners highly hopped with noble varieties. The sulfate level is high enough to render these expensive hops harsh. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * The secondary of the transformer on the pole (or in the vault) outside your house is wired thus: /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ | | | | | | A GND B A and B are each at nominally 120 Vrms with respect to ground (GND) but they are 180 degrees out of phase with each other (this is calles a "biphase" system). Thus the voltage from A-B is nominally 240 Vrms. GFI circuits can be connected A-GND or B-GND and two wires run from the center tap connection at the service panel to the outlet. The appliance connects the load between the black and white wires and the green to the shell of the appliance. If the insulation of the appliance is intact, all load current should "return" through the white wire (the black is "hot"). If the insulation is compromized (read wet in the usual applications of the GFI outlet - kitchen, the loo, poolside...) some return current flows through the green wire, the GFI senses this and opens the circuit. The GND wire in a biphase (240 volt) hookup could well serve as a ground fault indicator because when everything is normal no current will flow through it unless the appliance manufacturer has tapped A to GND or B to GND for control circuits, pilot lamps or anything else which causes an inbalance. I can't find 220V GFI outlets in the Grainger catalog but they may exist and be available from electrical supply outfits. To rig a biphase circuit with GFI would require taking several turns of the ground wire around a core and then placing a second winding on the same core. The voltage across this second winding will be proportional to the imbalance current and can be measured by various means. Note that GFI is only effective if the ground fault is to the ground wire, GND in my biphase sketch, the green wire in a 120V circuit, which is tied to the frame of the appliance being protected. If the fault current flows through another path to ground (a trail of liquid to a drainpipe, for example), it won't be detected. It's hard to immagine this happening in properly designed gear. Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 12:22:39 -0700 From: Mark Riley <mriley at netcom.com> Subject: CO2 Volumes / pH Origin Homebrew craniums, When we talk volumes of CO2 in solution, what is the reference temperature used by the brewing industry? For example, if we say 1 liter of beer is carbonated to 2.5 volumes, the CO2 in solution would occupy 2.5 liters at what particular temperature (I assume one atmosphere pressure is the standard)? I've always thought it was STP (or 0 degrees C and 1 atmosphere pressure) but have seen some references to 20C and in Noonan's book there seems to be some mention of 10C. Any clues? BTW, if any of you recall my earlier posting about glucose and sucrose bottle priming rates, I've found out that the reason for the discrepancy in priming rates is because different reference temperatures were used when computing volumes of CO2. Dave Draper's rates are based on 20C, while Michael Hall's are based on 0C - hence, the reason for my question above. - ------- Here's an interesting tidbit: I was reading about pH in a chemistry book and came across a historical note that the symbol "pH" was introduced by a Danish biochemist, named S. P. L. Sorensen, while he was working on problems connected with (none other than) the brewing of our favorite beverage: BEER. Cheers, Mark Riley http://hbd.org/recipator Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 16:00:45 -0600 From: John Adsit <jadsit at jeffco.k12.co.us> Subject: What beverage goes with Spam? Snip Subject: What beverage goes with Spam? Has anyone else recently been getting hit with more spam than usual? I'm not on the web, and most of my mail is from HBD, MLD, and CLD, plus a few family and friends. Most of this unpalatable meat is from YAHOO origins. Any suggestions? Paul Haaf haafbrau1atjunodotcom I've gotten the same stuff. (That may explain where the spammer got the list.) If yours is like mine, then Yahoo is NOT the source; the address is a sham. (Notice that you do not send to that email address to get the product!) The true address, at least for mine, is server.com. To find the true address in Netscape, go to the View menu, select headers, and select view all. You will then see the true originating server. By the way, it is a not usually a good idea to follow spam instructions to have your name removed from the list. That is just one more insidious spam lie. That device is simply used to confirm your address for further spamming. If you do go to Yahoo and enter spam as a key word, you will find a list of sites that will tell you how to fight back. I did that successfully with some spammers in the past, but I haven't done with these people yet. - -- John Adsit Instructional Services Jefferson County Schools Golden, Colorado jadsit at jeffco.k12.co.us Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 18:05:11 -0400 From: "Eric R. Tepe" <erictepe at fuse.net> Subject: Anti-foam stuff and adding body to a fruit beer Hi All, I have some questions of which to ponder. 1. I just bought some Anti-Foam stuff from Crosby and Baker and boy does it work (I am fermenting a gallon starter in a 4L jug) with no foam! Does any one have any experience with this particular product? I bought it last week and by homebrew supply shop owner (thanks Dan)was just trying it out for the first time . I was wondering if it had any detrimental effects on the finished product-it is not supposed to effect head retention but it would be nice to ferment 6 gallons in a 6.5 gallon carboy. 2. I brewed a cherry ale using the Oregon fruit products cherry puree and it turned out very good (could have used another pound of puree) , but the main knock on it in competitions (scores 30,34) is that it lacks body or is thin. I brewed 2 beers from the same wort (single infusion at 155F) splitting off the cherry ale after a 45 minute boil and making a pale ale out of the rest of the wort. The pale has scored well in 2 competitions (38, 32)and got great reviews for body. My thinking is the puree, which is mainly thick cherry juice, thinned the body. Here is what I propose to try since I add the puree to the secondary: I want to make the same beer and leave out the crystal malt and ferment. When I transfer to the secondary, I want to add the puree, and a mini-mash of the crystal and cara-pils and maybe some malto-dextrin to keep the body from becoming thin. Would this work? Thanks in advance to all who respond Private E-mail ok. Eric R. Tepe 250 miles due south of Jeff Renner in Cincinnati. Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 16:06:21 -0600 From: John Adsit <jadsit at jeffco.k12.co.us> Subject: Ur-bock I was in Einbeck, Germany, for a while this summer, where I had an Einbecker Ur-bock, and I thought it was very good. (I have to admit, though, that it was under circumstances that may have clouded my judgment.) It was different from most bocks I have had. Does anyone know how I can make one? - -- John Adsit Instructional Services Jefferson County Schools Golden, Colorado jadsit at jeffco.k12.co.us Return to table of contents
Date: 13 Oct 98 14:23:22 -0700 From: "Eric Schoville" <ESCHOVIL at us.oracle.com> Subject: Lead Poisoning Dave B wrote: >Paul Haaf says "doesn't pewter contain lead?" > >Old pewter ( like in Paul Revere's day) was an alloy containing >lead, but as far as I know, all modern U.S. pewter does not have >lead in it. Damn. I guess the founding fathers all had lead poisoning too... BTW, one comment on the Roman lead poisoning thread. I recently asked my Roman history professor from college about it, and he said it is "Bullshit." He did admit that there was lead poisoning going on, but because the life expectancy was in the early 30's that it didn't play a factor in the downfall of the Roman empire, nor was it very significant historically. I have written back for some sources. Eric Schoville in Flower Mound, TX, where brewing season has finally begun! Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 20:08:59 -0400 From: Randy Ricchi <rricchi at ccisd.k12.mi.us> Subject: Weizen I made a note to comment on this but forgot until now- In the Sept. 30 HBD Alan Meeker writes: >"I made a basic 5 gal. Bavarian Wheat from Northwest Wheat/Barley extract, 1# flaked wheat, and an ounce of noble hop. The beer came out great -lots of nice, balanced clove and bannana character. This beer is now almost a year old and seems to have lost none of these flavors. Nor does there appear to be any yeasty off-flavors. I was quite pleased with the way this beer turned out and figured that making a good Weiss beer was easy. Then I started seeing all the posts to the contrary. Hmmmmmmmmm."< Trust your own experience, Alan. >"So, how to explain the descrepencies? Well, I did do a couple of unusual things. Being a beginner (and I believe this was only my 5th or 6th batch) I hadn't realized that pitching volume was all that important so, at about 200ml starter for the 20 L batch I was certainly way underpitched. Did this lead to stressed yeast which then go on to produce more esters and vinyl guiacol?"< It very well could have done just that. Since a weizen's character is mainly derived from yeast, doing things like underpitching and minimal aeration, which can lead to higher esters and phenolics, is not a bad idea with weizens. It's what I have been doing deliberately for years. I wouldn't severely underpitch, but I do minimize aeration. A lot of yeasts, when underpitched, will not attenuate as much as they should, but every weizen yeast I have used (5 different strains) seems to keep chugging along until it attenuates the hell out of the beer, compared to most other ale and lager yeasts. >"I also used silica gel to clear it in the secondary several days prior to bottling. Could this have lowered the yeast count enough so as to prevent autolysis, if it did occur in the bottle, from being noticeable?"< I don't know for sure, but I have considered doing the same for a long time, but was always to lazy to screw around with a secondary. I've been thinking I should try really chilling the weizen, then fining with gelatin to drop the bulk of the yeast, then adding lager yeast at bottling(I have no desire to get into filtering). I'm fairly sure I'll go ahead with the experiment when I brew my next weizen, sometime this fall. I'll report back with the results. Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 00:38:34 -0600 From: The Greenman <greenman at sdc.org> Subject: Mild Ale Hi folks. I've been on here awhile, and there has been a lot of great help that I have received from here. To all those that gave me pointers a few weeks ago on my Nut Brown Ale, I thank you. I tasted the first bottle (although I know its highly immature) and it has turned out to be one of my finest. I can't wait till its 1.5+ months, it may be my best yet. Now I'd like to formulate a good mild recipe. My homebrew budget is sacred yet small, so I can't afford to expirement too much. Usually what I do is search every recipe archive and book and ask for people's good recipes, then I formulate from everything, or go with whatever recipe sounds best. So, here is what I'm looking for. I'm an extract brewer who can brew up to 6.5 gallons comfortably. 5 is my favorite number. I'm looking for a good "session beer" because beer is good and I like 3 or so pints when I drink. However it doesn't mix well with studying to get into med-school and 3-4 glasses of 4.5-6.0 percent beer. I'm looking to get an amber hue with something that is neither to hoppy, nor too malty (gofig) I'm looking for an original specific gravity 1.032-1.036 Thanks for all the help. - -- .-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-. T. Daniel "Greenman" Griffin "Knowledge is the herald of Sorrow" "When it is dark enough, you can see the stars" Student/Spod/ANGSTer/Brother/SysAdmin '-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-' Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 07:19:53 -0400 From: "David Root" <droot at concentric.net> Subject: Cloudy Weding Beer Thank you all that responded to the cloudy beer question. I did nothing. It cleared a little on its own. I racked it into another keg. The party went well. They drank 19 gals of beer (~50 people) including 4 gals of Nestles Tool House Porter. I bought one case of Silver Bullets, and one case of Coors Xtra Gold for the wimps. After the party, i found 2 empty cans and the rest was still in the cooler. Many compliments were given on the quality of the beer. Yes I was in brewers heaven. Yes most of my brewing knowledge came from the Digest. This Sunday I am going to brew the all munich batch for the club experiment. 15 gals, one rest at 154 or there about. I'll have to get out the 5 Iron to stir. When I see the digest is less than 45K or so I am more inclined to post. David Root Lockport NY droot at concentric.net Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 07:45:42 -0500 From: "Jim Kingsberg"<jdkingsb at hewitt.com> Subject: CO2, stoppers and other stuff.... I havent considered using a fire extinguisher company as a refill for my 15# CO2 tank. I bought my tank from a supply house in Indiana via mail order. I hope its still in test. After I got my CO2 tank, I took it to a local gas supply place on the sout' side of Chicago, name of Miller Carbonics. I got a the 15 # tank filled for $11. The nice thing I saw was 5# pound tanks for sale for $20 (no regulator). I shoulda picked one up. This place supplies the CO2 for soda and beer dispensers. I thought there was some thread on HBD three years ago about indutrial grade gases and homebrewing use. The other recommendation I can submit is to check out the American Science Centers. There's two in the Chicagoland area. They have every conceivable stopper and lab glassware to go with them. I would be willing to bet several other cities have places like this where discontinued items, like spools of milelong of mylar tape, magnets, etc, and lab type equipment. They sell microscopes, sterile conical tubes, rubber gloves and all sorts of other stuff applicable to our hobby. hope this helps. keep on brewin.... Jim Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 08:49:59 -0400 From: "Matthew J. Harper" <matth at progress.com> Subject: Pewter, Spray on Sanitizer, and Fruit Flies Happy Octoberfest all! Pewter: I too have a couple of pewter drinking vessels, having verified the lack of lead presence upon receipt. I don't use them too often though because when I do there is a significant amount of head created on pouring the brew. I'm talking about half the beer turning into foam here, not just a lot of head. Same pour into a glass produces far less. To prevent the foaming I have tried: chilling the mug, slightly warming it, rinsing it with cold water right before (leaving wet) and a couple of other stunts. all to no avail, regardless of the beer being poured, commercial or homebrew. I can't be the only one this happens to (I hope I hope I hope...) Any ideas??? Any ideas at all??? I've *love* to use them on a regular basis... Sray On Sanitizer: I've been using, and have great luck with, the Alcohol Wipes (like Wet Ones (tm) only with alchohol). We had some in the house the first time I went to transfer some Wyeast package contents to a starter vessel. Worked like a charm, and they don't leave little turds around like cotton balls or other medium is prone to do. They can be seen as a little expensive if one wants to be anal about it, but hey, I'm worth it! :-) A box of 'em (et 'em at the pharmacy) lasts me about a year. Convenient as heck. Fruit Flies: Applause to Paul Niebergall for his incredible foray into the world of logic in todays digest regarding the impact of a fruit fly on a starter! Gave me a chuckle, a great visual image to start the day, and damn well makes a lot of sense! Thanks Paul! -Matth Matthew J. Harper Principal Software Engineer Progress Software Corp. Nashua, New Hampshire matth at progress.com Sometimes you're the windshield - Sometimes you're the bug Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 22:21:48 -0400 From: "Peter J. Calinski" <PCalinski at iname.com> Subject: Stainless Steel Choreboy I was walking through Sears Hardware the other day. In the section where they have the laundry supplies. I saw what they call "lint traps". They look just like Choreboys but appear to be stainless steel. Two for $1.99. Pete Calinski East Amherst NY Near Buffalo NY 0 Degrees 30.21 Min North, 4 Degrees 05.11 Min. East of Jeff Renner Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 09:46:58 -0400 From: Dan Listermann <72723.1707 at compuserve.com> Subject: Big carboys Adam No Last Name asks about a source for large glass containers. He should ask his local homebrew shop to order a 54 liter (14.25 gal.) Italian Demijohn. They even come in a handy plastic basket to contain the shards of broken glass when you drop it. He will have to pay about $40 for it. Dan Listermann dan at listermann.com Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 08:58:36 -0500 From: "Jeffrey M. Kenton" <jkenton at iastate.edu> Subject: Continuous Brewing Greetings all. I have read Bert Grant's new book, and have become quite entranced by the concept of continuous brewing. Though I have read his descriptions, I wonder if anyone out there has any written materials about how to accomplish this sort of this at home. (On the gallon scale, otherwise, I'd be swimming in beer, with no place to put it, but in my gullet) So how about it? Do you have any information about this? Private responses preferred at either address below. Jeff Jeffrey M. Kenton jkenton at iastate.edu Ames, Iowa brewer at iastate.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 07:24:19 -0700 From: "Rancourt, Mark D" <Mark.Rancourt at PSS.Boeing.com> Subject: Starters, Botulism, and the "C" word I have 50 mL of Fruit Fly puree I would like to add to my next starter. Before doing so I'd like to make sure no botulism is present. Is there some way to do this with the Clinitest? Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 00:02:57 +0930 From: "Brad McMahon" <brad at sa.apana.org.au> Subject: Liquor to Grist Ratio >Was reading up on stout in the Lewis book and he suggests using "a >liquor-to-grist ratio of 2.5:1 to 3:1 ... for infusion mashing." > Can anyone clarify this for me? 2.5 kg to 1 l is about right. >I usually mash at about 1-1.5 qts. per lb. of grain. I think that's about the same. I think a quart is close to a litre and a pound is close to half a kilo, if I remember my history classes, so that's OK. >He doesn't >state any units. I have noticed that most homebrew books and >publications use qts:lbs. Probably because they are American books. Everyone else uses kg:l Hey, when the Clinitest outrage dies down, maybe I can restart my metric tirade again! Maybe I just have! Brad "I-may-be-metric-but-I-still-drink-pints" McMahon. Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 08:39:08 -0600 From: Ken Schwartz <kenbob at elp.rr.com> Subject: Water:Grain Ratios >Was reading up on stout in the Lewis book and he suggests using "a >liquor-to-grist ratio of 2.5:1 to 3:1 ... for infusion mashing." > >Can anyone clarify this for me? These are weight ratios which provide the advantage of not being units-dependent. Water weighs about 8.3 lb/gallon or 2.1 lb/quart. Therefore a weight ratio of 2.5:1 would be equivalent to (2.5 / 2.1) or 1.2 quarts per pound while 3:1 is 1.4 qt/lb. Metric measurements are more friendly in this case (and many others...) since weight (or more accurately, mass) is measured in kilograms and volume in liters, with one liter of water weighing one kilogram. Therefore 2.5:1 would be 2.5 liters per 1 kg of grain. - -- ***** Ken Schwartz El Paso, TX kenbob at elp.rr.com http://home.elp.rr.com/brewbeer Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 09:25:26 -0500 From: Lou.Heavner at frco.com Subject: No Subject From: Troy Hager <thager at bsd.k12.ca.us> {snip} >Was reading up on stout in the Lewis book and he suggests using "a >liquor-to-grist ratio of 2.5:1 to 3:1 ... for infusion mashing." > >Can anyone clarify this for me? > >I usually mash at about 1-1.5 qts. per lb. of grain. He doesn't state >any >units. I have noticed that most homebrew books and publications use >qts:lbs. {snip} Troy, Simply remember: "a pint is a pound the world around" In other words, water is approximately 8 lbs/gal (actually 8.3) or 2 lbs/Qt. So your mash is usually at a liquor-to-grist ratio of 2:1 to 3:1. If you mashed with 1.25 qts per lb of grain, you would have a 2.5:1 ratio. BTW, I think the saying above is based on 16 oz per pint or pound. Of course the density of water varies inversely with temperature, but US gallons are about 8 lbs of water while imperial gallons are actually more like 10 lbs of water. Just don't ask me about cubic meters and kilograms! ;) Regards, Lou Heavner - Austin, TX - another anachronistic, metrically challenged brewer Return to table of contents
Date: 14 Oct 1998 10:41:53 -0400 From: Eric.Fouch at steelcase.com Subject: Brewchicks/Pumpkins/Flys/Censors HBD- The 1998 "Queen of Beer" is Susan Ruud of Harwood, North Dakota. Her "Gravitator II" took the Best of Show honors. Congratulations, Susan! *Susan is cool. > Topics: > Will more pumpkin give more "pumpkin flavor?" Uhh, yes. Unless you use a cucumber, and then you'll get more cucumber flavor. *Are you the guy from those ABC Warehouse commercials? Gordy? > Am I the only one who makes beer INSIDE pumpkins? Someone here used the pumpkin to lauter in. Stuck a slotted copper manifold in the bottom of a XXX-large one, and mashed inside. Was that you? *I did this two years ago. Last year I mashed in a regular mashtun with 30oz pumpkin pie filling. I did not get much pumpkin flavor, so this year I went back to the Jack-O-Lantern Mash Tun (TM) > Eric (Tryin' to sneak one by SM) Fouch Fat chance. -SM- *Sounds like a challenge. From: "John A. MacLaughlin" <jam at clark.net> Subject: Re: Fruit Flies In the Mead Lovers' Digest this past summer there has been a thread on fruit flies which I found particularly helpful because it contains descriptions of inexpensive and effective ways to get rid of them. The Digest archives and FAQ are available for anonymous ftp at ftp.stanford.edu in pub/clubs/homebrew/mead. *A fellow brewer has followed that thread, and tried most of the techniques to no avail. His approved method? Stir up the fruit flies every five minutes or so, and employ digito-mechanical removal (swat 'em). My approved method? Have about 7-10 fermenters, starters, etc. going at it with the little tops off the airlocks. Every day or so, just dump the Kamakazied fruit flies 'till they're gone. Could we please cut down on the number of posts regarding CO2 suppliers and how to handle 240VAC? I mean, really, I don't use CO2 or high voltage, and have no interest in reading about them. On the other hand, I have personally drilled out a lot of rubber stoppers, and am very interested in this thread, so keep it going (sorry Paul). Don't make me call me my Censor! Eric Fouch Chief Intention Sensor Repairman Bent Dick YoctoBrewery Kentwood, MI P.S.- Since Pat and Karl apparently need more stuff to do, maybe we could all send them a list of topics we are interested in, and they could filter out the stuff each person does not want to see in the HBD before they send it to that person? That way, you couldn't call it censorship, since we each already agreed that we don't want to see that stuff anyway. Right? Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 10:46:21 -0400 From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer at engin.umich.edu> Subject: Spam? If the HBD is still being gatewayed to rec.crafts.brewing, this is probably where the spammers are picking up email addresses. Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 10:53:08 -0400 (EDT) From: Joe Rolfe <onbc at shore.net> Subject: RE: Bottle Fermentation and RIMS questions I must be getting old....I thought I sent this... Keith asked about multi yeast in bottle conditioning. Yep there are a lot of pros and cons. One con is for different beers you make the primings may have to change. Before I quite brewing commercially, I was in the middle of just such a test. I had been using a descendant of WY 1098 for primary and bottling. I had obtained a bottom yeast for bottling (not of the shelf wyeast) that had some history to it. My mentor would not tell me whos it was other than it was now "my" yeast. The range of beers we tested this with where all over the place, budlike, black, high gravity just about everything. The more complex the grain bill the more trouble "it seemed" to get CO2 correct by priming as compared to bottling with the 1098. The top yeast was warm conditioned at 75F and was usually carb'd in 3-4 days. The bottom yeast was done in 45F. The bottom yeast would take weeks to carb. Then when the bottom beer was left warm it overcarb'd just a bit but enough to be a pain to pour. The head was much tighter and foam stand increased also. The flavor of the bottom yeast we used was a fairly clean, nondescript flavor profile slite sulfur but no other large flavor issues. Picking the yeast and measuring the primings could pose a challenge but I would go for it. Check on small quantities (if you can) first, by fast ferments, clinitest (sorry...;) or whatever. When you bottle try to clear as much of the primary yeast out (filter, fine, settle). I would try it it sure makes a difference. On RIMS...... I got the urge, after reading about all this RIMS stuff (on HBD and web sites), to get one going. Started to calculate the BTU crap for the step raisings. Then went to the cellar to "test" it on a small scale. One problem, not sure how the RIMS masses prevent this: 1) How do you keep grain particles from clogging the pump inlet? 2) Does the false bottom you use keep all the grain from the pump? 3) For the 1/2bbl size what is the flow rate per volume you use to recirc? Just wondering... The design I am going to work from is the simpler of the ones I have seen. No PLC just a ramp/soak temp controller. I got these tanks sitting in my garage, that need to be put to use. Damn shame to see it all sitting there with no beer in them. The mash tank I will use for this will be about 360L(3bbl). Planning on having the mash kettle with agitator, then transfer to a lauter tub. I might have to fit a grant on the pump inlet with a nylon filter bag to catch the particles. This depends again on how big of a pump I need to use. The outlet/inlet to the tank ind pump is 1.5Inch, so flow should not be a problem. Still need to work out the flow/temp rise mess. Hopefully brew by the end of November. What may end up killing this project is the flow rates I may need to obtain to get the 1-2 deg F rises. Looks like about 3-4 5500W elements to boost most typical mash schedules. I know from past HBD that Conrad Keys was going to attempt a BIG RIMS, but never found any results documented. There is probably a good reason, anyone know what the issue was?? Thanx for the impetus folks... Good luck and great brewing Joe Rolfe Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 11:00:02 -0400 (EDT) From: mcnallyg at gam83.npt.nuwc.navy.mil (Jeff) Subject: re: valve stems Hi All, John Schnupp and Al K. have been discussing valve stems used in making homemade Carbonator style caps: >Shouldn't be a problem if you purchase the metal (chrome plated brass) >ones. I wouldn't be surprised if you could find stainless somewhere. >There are small gaskets for these metal valve stems and you could always >cut your own gaskets out of some food grade material. I've made a bunch of these caps using the chrome plated brass stems. Throw away the rubber seals that come with the stems and replace them food grade o-rings. The stems have small grooves machined into them that are perfect for o-rings. Bring your stem to any plumbing supply store and find the size o-ring that fits it. I use 2 o-rings per cap, one on each side of the plastic. If you are making caps that fit 2 liter bottles, make sure you drill the hole almost perfectly in the center of the cap. If not centered, the stem will not allow the cap to be screwed on all the way. The larger caps found on 1 and 3 liter bottles are less of a problem in this regard. Hoppy brewing, Jeff ========================================================================== Geoffrey A. McNally Phone: (401) 832-1390 Mechanical Engineer Fax: (401) 832-7250 Launcher Technology and email: Analysis Branch mcnallyg at gam83.npt.nuwc.navy.mil Naval Undersea Warfare Center WWW: Code 8322; Bldg. 1246/2 http://www.nuwc.navy.mil/ Newport, RI 02841-1708 Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 10:56:52 -0400 From: Herbert Bresler <bresler.7 at osu.edu> Subject: reply to: Spray on Sanitizer HBD#2849 In HBD#2849, Badger Roullett asked about "Spray on Sanitizer." Badger, Yes, many people do use a sray-on sanitizer. It is a very handy way to keep down contaminations in your brewery. I suggest 70% alcohol. It has several advantages: 1) It is a different sanitizer than the other santizers used in other aspects of brewing in most breweries. This helps prevent development of sanitizer-resistant strains of bacteria. Most bugs cannot develop resistance to alcohol anyway. (In general, it is a good idea to rotate different types of sanitizing agents in your brewery to prevent the development of sanitizer-resistant strains of bugs.) 2) It evaporates completely. This is very handy when spaying vulnerable parts of equipment (sample ports, etc.). Other disinfectants (like iodophor and quaternary ammonium compounds, bleach and some acid-based sanitizers) will accumulate as the water in which they were dissolved evaporates, leaving a mess (and perhaps chemical tastes) behind. (Particularly unattractive on your kegs.) This also means that alcohol won't clog your sprayer if it sits around for a while between uses. 3) It is stable in solution at room temperature for a long time. This means you can fill your sprayer today and know that you still have 70% alcohol a month or two from now when you go to use it again. Diluted (10%) bleach, for example, maintains its potency for about one day. I use spray-on only for things that are not routinely sanitized otherwise in my brewery. I spray things like ball-locks, keg fittings, taps, and the necks of carboys. I do not use alcohol (spray or otherwise) to disinfect/sanitize carboys, kegs, airlocks, racking canes, etc. Those things I soak using other disinfectants. I hope this helps. Good luck and good (sanitary) brewing, Herb ______________________________ On Mon, 12 Oct 1998 Badger wrote: >I was wondering if you could help me with a thought. What do people use a >spray on, and use right away sanitizer? and what ratios? I know some >people use this for quick sanitizing of funnels, taps onsite, etc. I have >heard of bleach solutions, idofor solutions, etc. what ratios though? to >be used in spray bottle. Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 09:23:09 -0600 From: "McConnell, Guy" <GuyM at Exabyte.COM> Subject: Large Carboys Silent Bob writes: > I saw the post mentioning BIG carboys (in my mind anythig greater than 7 > gallons). If someone has a source of these I would be interested. Any > thing to minimize the number of dishes to do! Alternative Beverage in Charlotte, NC has them (or did have). They used to keep at least one of these glass demi-johns in their retail store there. They hold 12 gallons I believe (maybe 15?). Sorry, don't have their catalog here at work with me but I will look up their number and the demi-john information tonight. Guy McConnell /// Loveland, CO /// guym at exabyte.com "And the beer I had for breakfast wasn't bad, so I had one for dessert..." Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 08:44:12 -0700 From: "Alleman, Mike" <mike.alleman at caere.com> Subject: Spray on Sanitizer In hbd #2849, Badger asks: >I was wondering if you could help me with a thought. What do people use a >spray on, and use right away sanitizer? I use Vodka! --- buy the cheapest you can find... :-) mike Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 11:51:59 -0400 (EDT) From: ALAN KEITH MEEKER <ameeker at welchlink.welch.jhu.edu> Subject: Fly in the ointment Paul Niebergall recently posted... Allen has discovered a contradiction in thinking among HBD readers. Allow me to elaborate further. Let's think about this fruit fly thing from another angle. What if you took a fruit fly and dipped it in isopropanol to sterilize it (o.k., it is dead now, but forget about that for a moment). After sterilizing the fruit fly, rinse it in distilled water and then dip it into a tiny amount of frothy yeast starter that has been previously prepared. Now take the yeast coated fruit fly and place it in a carboy along with five gallons of your favorite boiled and cooled wort. How many people out there in HBD land would exclaim that I was crazy and that there is no way you can get any fermentation at all from less than a pin-head sized drop of yeast? However, what you have just done is inoculate your wort with probably a million times more yeast cells than the number of bacteria cells present on an average fruit fly. Why is it that we think that it takes nothing less than a couple of billion yeast cells to make a good batch of beer, and yet a few bacteria will absolutely ruin a batch of beer? Keep this sanity check in mind next time you are contemplating a couple of hundred dollars for a laminar flow hood, or a couple thousand dollars for an autoclave. ________________________________________________________________ I'm afraid there's a "contradiction in thinking" here as well, at least as far as the bacteria angle goes. While it is true that there should be a vast excess of yeast cells compared to bacteria (depending in part on how early the fruit fly gained access to the starter) this DOES NOT mean that the bacteria won't eventually become a problem. The reason is because of differences in bacterial vs yeast biology. Simply put, yeast division potential is limited by the amount of available oxygen. Once this is depleted the yeast population will "hit a wall" and cease to divide further. This has been pointed out neumerous times in this forum and is one of the principle driving forces for the use of large yeast masses when pitching. Unfortunately for us, bacteria as a rule have no comparable oxygen limitations on their growth potential. As long as they have a nutrient source, anaerobic bacteria (able to grow in the complete absence of oxygen) could keep right on dividing long after the yeast have ceased doing so thus they could potentially overwhelm the beer or at least grow to a density sufficient to impart off-flavors. How's this for an extreme - say ther's only ONE bacterial cell on that fruit fly and it takes 30 min for the bacteria to divide. In 30 minutes you have 2 cells which then divide and 30 minutes later you have 4 cells, then 8,16,32,etc... If this started in your primary fermenter then by next morning you already have 1 billion bacteria! (The wonders of exponential/logarithmic growth). At this rate by the end of the day you'd have over a trillion cells per mililiter though they'd probably exhaust the food supply long before they ever got this dense. Now, we aren't working under sterile conditions by any means in our homebrew setups so of course there are bacteria getting into our beer all the time, and many more than one cell. So why don't all our batches turn to bacterial soup? Luckily for us yeast growth does indeed discourage the growth of bacteria that would be detrimental to our beer. A number of characteristics of yeast growth conspire to help us out. First, yeast do rapidly consume the available oxygen thus keeping those bacteria that do require oxygen to live (aerobes) in check - a big plus! Second, actively metabolizing yeast quickly lower the pH of the wort which tends to inhibit the growth of many types of bacteria. Third, brewer's yeast produce chemicals- notably ethanol - that are toxic to many bacterial species. Lastly, if you pitch enough yeast they can eat up all the nutritional "goodies" in the wort before the bacteria can get a foothold. Personally, I believe this latter consideration is probably much less important than the first three for the reasons discussed in the preceeding paragraph. My fermentations certainly take a good 2-4 days to go mostly to completion - more than enough time for any bacterial contaminant to have taken over the beer. Remember- Time flies like an arrow but fruit flies like a bannana Cheers! -Alan Meeker Baltimore, MD Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 11:02:39 -0500 From: "A. J. deLange" <ajdel at mindspring.com> Subject: Ca3(PO4)2 Al seeks some wisdom (well, comments perhaps) on calcium phosphate precipitation when phosphoric acid is used to acidify mash or sparge. Calcium phosphate is indeed very insoluble. The pKs is approximately 32.7. At the levels to which we would acidify (somewhere near pH 5) the vast majority of phosphate is the monobasic ion, H2PO4-, meaning that only a very, very small fraction of the added acid is is rendered into tribasic phosphate (PO4---) but with the solubility being so small it is neverthesless the tribasic ion which controls things. Calculations are messy and the assumptions required great if we try to explain mash acidification. If we stick to just acidifying water things are a lot simpler. The following should give some feel for what actually happens rather than a precise description. Assume that we have water with alkalinity of 100 mg/L as CaCO3 which we wish to acidify for sparge. Note that I'm not giving starting pH (it really doesn't matter) or desired pH. We'll just assume that acid is required to completely neutralize the alkalinity which is, by definition, the acid required to bring the pH to 4.3. A little less would be required to get to pH 5 or 5.5 or thereabouts. 100 mg/L alkalinity means 2 mEq/L and that would require about 2 mMol/L of acid because between pH 3 and 6 the fate of at least 90% of added phosphoric acid is that it releases 1 mEq of hydrogen ions per mole of acid and become monobasic phosphate. Assuming 2 mMol/L phosphoric acid has been added the level of calcium which is sufficient to saturate the solution ranges from about 80 mg/L (pH 5), to about 20 mg/L (pH 5.5) down to a couple of mg/L (pH6). Note that the saturation level of calcium goes as the -2/3 power of the amount of added phosphoric acid. Thus if the alkalinity were half the above value requiring half the phosphoric acid to neutralize it the saturation levels of calcium would increase by about 60%. Thus it's pretty plain that addition of phosphoric acid is a pretty good method for clearing calcium from water at higher pH's. The converse is also true (calcium is good at clering phosphate) and this is why your tap water is unlikely to contain any but the smallest amounts of phosphate if it is at all hard. Calcium lactate is, by contrast, orders of magnitude more soluble that calcium phosphate. Before condemning phosphoric acid too harshly though we ought to remember that it is precipitation of calcium phosphate which causes mash pH to drop when pale malt is mashed. In this case the role of phosphoric acid is taken by phytin, an organic phosphate found in grains, but the result is the same. Calcium is scavenged and precipitated. It's my personal opinion that a mash that needs to be acidified is a poorly designed one. Either the water being used is too alkaline (more properly, has too high a residual alkalinity) or an insufficient percentage of high kilned malt. Thus my choice for acidifying mash is more crystal or cara... or whatever but I recognize that others do it differently. With sparge water I just stop collecting when the runoff pH starts to get highish. Experience has shown me that if I stop collecting at about 3P I'm OK in that regard. Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 10/15/98, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96