---

	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:
  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

---