---

	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: Pump Questions (John_E_Schnupp)
  De Koninck (Brad Railsback)
  Using differential agars in an economical way ("George De Piro")
  Fluid Flow Study ("Kelly C. Heflin")
  pH Meter/Paper Compared and pH ??'s ("Marc Battreall")
  Batch-Sparge Spreadsheet & Whither KennyEddy? (Ken Schwartz)
  Chimay yeast? ("Penn, John")
  old malts/Doppels/Colloidal Haze ("Jim Busch")
  No-Sparge Newbie and Fermentap Thanks (CHUCK MORFORD)
  Cider + lactose question (John Biggins)
  Otter Creek Pale cloudiness (ALAN KEITH MEEKER)
  reply to: more: Foam from Kegs, HBD#2866 (Herbert Bresler)
  Woodruff, Gelatine, (Eric.Fouch)
  re: Protein Rest Data Point (Charley Burns)
  fluid dynamics (Boeing)" <BayerMA at navair.navy.mil>
  Re: Yeast Update (Brett Gober)
  yeast storage test (Jeremy Bergsman)
  Pediococcus Damnosus - hiding in hops? (Charley Burns)
  manifold vs. false bottom (Peter.Perez)
  Largering ("William Warren")
  problem micros (dbgrowler)
  HBD LAL Meeting ("Philip J Wilcox")
  yet another recipe w/beer (Jonathan Edwards)
  Belgian Tripel/Pale ("Steve")
  Malt Crushing ("J.Kish")


Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy!

Send your entries in for Hoppiest Event On Earth yet?
Details:  http://members.tripod.com/~BrewMiester_2/Home.html

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: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 22:25:20 -0800
From: John_E_Schnupp at amat.com
Subject: re: Pump Questions

Ken asks:
>My basic question is, can I use reducing coupling to change the inlet
>on my pump from 1/2" down to 3/8" or 5/16" in order to accomodate the
fittings
>on my mashtun, boil vessel, and sparge vessel. Will I burn up the pump by
>doing this? The almost non-existent instructions that came with the pump

Here's how I understand it.  If I'm wrong, I'll surely be corrected.
The flow to a pump should not be controlled by restricting the inlet flow,
rather the outlet flow should be controlled.  If the inlet flow is
restricted,
it is possible to cause the pump to cavitate.  This is basically a reduced
pressure on the inlet side of the pump that can cause disolved gases to
come
out of solution and create bubbles in the liquid.  This causes wear on the
impeller of the pump and litterally eat the impeller away to nothing.

Controlling the flow at the outlet will always make sure the inpet pressure
is greater than the outlet pressure and the pump will not cavitate,
however,
the pump motor could overheat (depending upon the type of pump).  If the
motor
is direct coupled to the impeller the pump could stall and overheat.  Most
pumps used in brewing are magnetically coupled and if the impeller becomes
locked up, the motor will continue to turn at almost it's normal speed
(like
seperating 2 small magnets by a piece of paper, you can still move the one
around even if the other gets stuck).

For your question.  I'm not a fluid engineer but I don't see any problem
in using reducer on the inlet *provided* that the outlet side of the pump
has a smaller reducer that the inlet.  If you have 3/8" on the inlet,
then the outlet should be less.

John Schnupp, N3CNL
Colchester, VT
95 XLH 1200




Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 03:42:09 -0800 (PST)
From: Brad Railsback <rails2bier at yahoo.com>
Subject: De Koninck


Here is a recipe I found in a Dutch homebrew book.  They don't have
any books nearly as advanced as availible in America.  I think this
must be for 10 liters. It didn't give any temps or hop addition times.
It also didn't say anything about alpha acid %.  I forget what 
translates to gerstevlokkon and my good English-Nederlands dictonary
is in the mail somewhere between the US and Holland(I hope). I know
some Nederlands speakers read HBD so maybe they can translate for the
rest of us. I've never tried this recipe so I don't know how it will
turn out.
1900 grams pilsner malt
 400 carmel malt
 125 grams gerstevlokkan
  35 grams goldings hops
  10 grams record hops
  10 grams black malt
Good Luck!!  If you want to see the difference between the different
beer styles of Belgiium go to the 24 Hours of Taste in Antwerp this
weekend. The AHA would go nuts trying to come up with style guidelines
for most styles with exception of dubbels, tripels and wit biers. Even
some wit biers I had in my two years in the Netherlnds were very
different.  They are the art side of brewing. Some of the small new
breweries have some interesting biers that would be hard to duplicate
with out the yeast. Good Brewing, Brad Railsback



_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free  at yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com



Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 03 Nov 1998  8:42 -0800
From: "George De Piro" <George_De_Piro at berlex.com>
Subject: Using differential agars in an economical way

     Hi all,
     
     Dave considers the possibility of testing yeast cultures for mutation 
     and contamination by plating his cultures on differential media.  I 
     have recently been doing this, and have learned some money saving tips 
     (thanks to Katie Kunz at the BSI; (719)460-0418; she sells yeast, 
     media of all sorts, etc.  The usual disclaimers apply).
     
     If you plate something on LDMA and nothing grows, you can use the 
     plate again!  That could save you some cash.  Another trick you can do 
     is to plate different samples on the same plate (for both LDMA and 
     RDMA).  Of course you need to carefully mark the plate so that you 
     know which side has what sample, and you should mark the base, not the 
     lid (the lid can be turned independent of the base and then you'll 
     never know what is what).  If there is a contaminating mold it could 
     infect the entire plate, so even though only one culture is 
     contaminated it could look like everything on the plate is bad.  Cross 
     that bridge if you come to it, though.
     
     Another option is pouring your own plates.  It is much cheaper than 
     $.8/plate, but if you value your time it may not be a less expensive 
     option.  You do need time for brewing, after all.
     
     As far as getting more data points, I can provide a few.  Perhaps 
     others out in HBD land would like to participate?  Is it even 
     necessary to put yeast into the phosphate buffer (pb) to determine if 
     it gets contaminated?  Would it be enough to make up 40 vials of 
     sterile pb, open and close each (to simulate inoculating it), incubate 
     at 30C for a while and plate it on LDMA?  Perhaps a protocol is in 
     order?
     
     As far as the risk of contamination:  in my lab phosphate buffer at pH 
     2.5 will grow mold quite effectively.  Low pH is not adequate 
     protection from microbes.
     
     Have fun!
     
     George de Piro  (Nyack, NY)


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 09:17:51 -0500
From: "Kelly C. Heflin" <kheflin at lucent.com>
Subject: Fluid Flow Study

I've been looking for this study on Fluid Flow through a Grainbed.
I've been to John's webpage(It's a great webpage, but I cant find
Anything about this study.
Anyway I'm curious how this will relate to my system where I do a type of
batchsparge. Recirculating at high speed with a pump, and then diverting
that line into the boil pot. It doesn't seem the fluid would have time to
start channeling.
But then again my efficiency does suck. And I assume that's what the study
is all about.

I'd like to see these pictures ..Where are they..
Thanks
kelly
Kelly C. Heflin
kheflin at lucent.com
(732) 957-3055
Room 2B-409
200 Laurel Ave.
Middletown, New Jersey
07748




Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 09:28:18 -0500
From: "Marc Battreall" <batman at terranova.net>
Subject: pH Meter/Paper Compared and pH ??'s

Hello All,

With all the threads going on about pH papers and meters I thought I might
throw in my $.02 worth. I became concerned a few years back about doing the
best I could to adjust both my mash and sparge water pH so I decided to
start using pH papers for the obvious reason of cost. After alot of research
I ended up buying the more expensive brand. They are made by Baxter
Diagnostics Inc. (NA) and I got a box of 100 from one of the HB mail order
supply places for about $12 I think. They have a pH range of 4.5-10.0 with a
0.5 sensitivity. I was using lactic acid, and sometimes citric acid to
adjust my mash liquor to around 6.0 and the sparge to around 5.3-5.5 and
this seemed to work just fine. No elaborate instructions on the package,
just leave strip in solution until no color change is detected. Easy enough.
I noted that took about 20-30 seconds when I allowed the sample to cool to
100F or below. I can honestly say that I did not really notice any
significant difference in any of the brews that followed, but I felt good
about the procedure knowing that it HAD TO BE improving my technical
prowess. NOT GOOD ENOUGH! Enter the new pH meter......
I bought a Hanna pHep 3 from Brewer's Resource (NA)and was real excited
about it. Used it with basically the same target pH's as before and noted
that the amounts of acids used to acquire the same results was almost
exactly the same. Just for grins one brew session, I broke out the old pH
papers and did a comparison test throughout the entire session and the
papers and the meter both showed the same results (give or take .5 of course
because of the papers increments). I think the main advantage of the meter
is that it is almost instantaneous and it has automatic temperature control
(ATC). I am not sure that the ATC is reliable enough for me, so I still
flash cool the samples in the freezer to below 100F. Call me a doubting
Thomas!
What's my point? Well, if you absolutely have to have a fancy pH meter and
you can spare $50-$80 go for it. And if you do want one, I can vouch for the
accuracy of the Hanna pHep3. Make sure you get some buffer solution (both
7.0 and 4.0) and calibrate it regularly. I set mine just about every brew
session and certainly every time I work with starter wort for yeast
propagation's. If you are happy with your pH papers, they work fine too. I
will suggest that you spend the extra $$ for the name brand ones though.

Now a few questions.

After all these acid treatments during mashing and sparging I seem to keep
my pH around the accepted guidelines. I.E. Mash liquor starts at 6.0, drops
to about 5.3 or so during mashing, sparge liquor at about 5.5, wort comes
out of the boil and goes into the fermenter at 5.2-5.3, and so on. Knowing
as this, when I check the pH at racking to the secondary time it is usually
about 4.5-4.6 for most brews. Is this normal? I have also noted a few of my
lagers to finish out at below that at 4.2-4.3 and wondered if that was too
low? What is as acceptable range? Should there be a difference between ales
and lagers or a difference between any other particular styles? What are
some of the advantages/disadvantages of a high or low pH of the finished
product? I have read up on the subject of pH control in the Brewhouse but
most all of the info is aimed towards mashing and sparging. Little can be
found about the boil and fermentation procedures. Any good books or
reference material on this around?

Thanks in advance for the help.

Have A Hoppy Day!

Marc

=======================
Captain Marc Battreall
Backcountry Brewhouse
Islamorada, Florida
batman at terranova.net
captainbrew at hotmail.com



Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 03 Nov 1998 07:44:26 -0700
From: Ken Schwartz <kenbob at elp.rr.com>
Subject: Batch-Sparge Spreadsheet & Whither KennyEddy?

Lord Badger laments the demise of KennyEddy and his Batch-Sparge
Spreadsheet.

Au, contrair, mein froinds, rumors of his demise are premature.  I
changed my on-line identity a few months ago and simply moved my brewing
web page to greener (and faster) pastures.

You can find all the excitement at http://home.elp.rr.com/brewbeer. 
Doesn't have quite the same ring as "KennyEddy", but at least I finally
got my "KenBob" email name.

On the topic of Batch-Sparging, and no-sparging for that matter, I've
nearly completed writing up a mathematical analysis of the processes
that in fact was started when I first put the batch-sparge spreadsheet
together.  The purpose is to make the formulation process more
predictable and repeatable than just tossing in the oft-quoted "1/3
extra grain" and hoping for the right amount and gravity of runoff.  The
document will be posted very soon on my webpage, and I'll make an
announcement here when it's ready for public consumption.  I'll probably
post a summary of the equations here as well (the web page will be
mostly boring math).

Brander goes on to ask about the second "mash" in batch-sparging:

"Is there any point to letting the second mash in #2 sit for teh full
hour?
isn't the grain already converted?  and your really just rinsing it
agian to
extract any remaining sugars?  or is there more mashing going on?
Couldn I just pour in the water, stir it up, and draining (like a batch
sparge) and get the same amount of extraction?"

Yes, the mash should be fully converted, but as you speculate you need
to give the second "mash" (the "sparge" if you will) time to extract the
sugary wort out of the grain particles' interiors.  My experience with
batch sparging inicates that for a 10-minute rest (with a stir or two
during), the second runoff is usually of somewhat higher gravity than
predicted, indicating that there's a lot of wort inside a drained grain
that needs ample soak time to extract.  Ten minutes might be too short,
but an hour is probably overdoing it.

And yes, Badger, a thin mash can reduce extraction efficiency.  Seems I
read that this is at least partly due to dilution of the enzymes (harder
for them to find sugars).

- -- 

*****
Ken Schwartz
El Paso, TX
kenbob at elp.rr.com
http://home.elp.rr.com/brewbeer


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 10:14:03 -0500 
From: "Penn, John" <PennJE1 at SPACEMSG.JHUAPL.edu>
Subject: Chimay yeast?

	I got a bottle of Chimay with the red label and put it in the
refrigerator for a day.  I then poured the bottom of the bottle/yeast
sediment into a 12 oz starter of wort.  After two days, nothing so far.
Did I damage the yeast by putting the bottle in the refrigerator for a
day?  Can I culture Chimay yeast this way or is there a better way?  How
long before fermentation should start?  Is Chimay yeast the original
yeast or is there a second yeast added at bottling time?  Sorry for all
the questions but I'm hoping to be enlightened by the very knowledgeable
yeast culturers of the HBD.  
 	 I also got a bottle of Duvel.  Same questions about the yeast
and culturing.  Thanks,
  John Penn


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 10:18:53 +0000
From: "Jim Busch" <jim at victorybeer.com>
Subject: old malts/Doppels/Colloidal Haze

> Are specialty malts prone to staling also? Which ones are the most
> vulnerable?  

Caramel, roasted and high kilned malts are more susceptible to 
degradation but all malt does degrade in storage as it is a good 
water scavenger.   The first indiction of old malt is a lack of 
fresh, crisp refreshing snappy malt character in light beers.  
Basically an overall dullness of palate.

> From: Joe Rolfe <rolfe at sky.sky.com>
>
> backoff of the RIMS for a spell.  Just something about pumping
> the mash all around (grain and all) - dont seem right. 

Agreed, the less pump action on malts and wort the better.
> 
> one using a malt (pils and munich) that they swear by?? Jim Busch
> what are you guys using at Victory....?? Where did you get it??

Mostly Weyermann malz imported directly from Mich Weyermann in 
Bamberg.  Also distributed in the US by Crosby & Baker I think.  
Durst works well too as would Weissenheimer (sp?).  Any three would 
be a good choice in my book.  Keep the Munich malt ratio high, do a 
decoction with as little O2 uptake as possible and incorporate a good 
rest in the beta amylase range to avoid overly high final gravity.  
BTW, Jackson has a nice photo of St Victorious Doppelbock ("one of 
the best bocks made in America") and Prima Pils ("intensely hoppy") in 
his latest book "Ultimate Beer".

> (BTW Jim still no sign of Victory up here, come quick the micros
> are dropping like flies lots of tap lines available..sorry for the
> crass commercialism...)

Yeah I hear you.  In Pa they are dropping off like flies too.  
Pretzel City, Camelot, Gravity, York all gone.  Numerous others on 
the ropes holding on by life support only.  In Md, Globe Brewing 
ceased brewing but is hanging on with a pub. In Va we lost 
Blue N Gold recently.  FredBrew and Independence are threatened with 
delisting on the NASDAQ due to penny stock status of the shares while 
both continue to buy brands from other brewers to prop up production 
levels ( and in the formers case continue to issue more shares).  Im 
sure happy to be privately owned and run by brewers and not 
accountants/market makers.  The beer should matter first and 
foremost as you build strong brands then expand but not the other way 
around.  Very bad time to be starting out in this marketplace.

Mark Bayer asks about "problem micros" as related to haze/sediment in 
filtered beers.  This is what is called colloidal haze, formed from 
colloidal instability.  It is a result of the total brewhouse 
procedures in terms of protein breakdown and trub removal.  As beers 
age they tend to throw more haze over time.  You probably had beers 
that had been packaged over 2-3 months prior.

Prost!

Jim Busch


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 03 Nov 1998 09:39:44 -0500
From: CHUCK MORFORD <MORFORD.CHUCK at epamail.epa.gov>
Subject: No-Sparge Newbie and Fermentap Thanks

First I'd like to thank everyone who responded to my earlier Fermentap
questions....The general consensus was that they were somewhat of
a hassle and didn't perform quite as well as expected, but with a little
ingenuity could be useful.

Second. I've been a grain/extract brewer for some time (about 9 years)
and I've been considering moving to all-grain. In that vein, I've been
researching my options and in the process came across a quote by I
believe, George Fix, stating the the easiest way to improve your 
all-grain brewing was to NOT sparge. I've also discovered that the
No-Sparge method achieves the target gravities by increasing the
grain bill by about 30%.

So my question is: Have any of you tried this and what do you think?

Thanks in advance....

Chuck Morford


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 11:50:33 +0100
From: John Biggins <jbbiggin at mail.med.cornell.edu>
Subject: Cider + lactose question

I just started a dry cider w/ champagne yeast & I was wondering (apart from
using a less attenuant ale yeast) has anyone tried sweetening up a cider w/
lactose?

Just curious.

 -JB


- -------------
John B. Biggins                      Cornell University Medical College
1233 York Ave; Apt 19D        Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
New York, NY   10021            Graduate School of Medical Sciences
(212)717-0158                     Student -- Program in Pharmacology

"I have come here to chew bubble gum and kick ass...
	and I'm all out of bubble gum!"
		-Rowdy Roddy Piper
		  John Carpenter's "They Live"




Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 11:13:40 -0500 (EST)
From: ALAN KEITH MEEKER <ameeker at welchlink.welch.jhu.edu>
Subject: Otter Creek Pale cloudiness


Mark Bayer writes asking about cloudiness in Otter Creek Pale...

____________________________________________________________________________
i pulled out the otter creek, and it had the same problem.  i know what
yeast looks like (as we all do), and it was definitely not yeast.  it looked
exactly like trub...


 ....any speculation on what might be causing these problems with the
microbrews?
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, I'll do better than speculate! I too noticed this in a six of the
Otter Creek Pale I had a few weeks ago. I checked into it for two reasons;
one, I was just curious and two, I liked the taste and hoped to pull out
some interesting yeast for use in brewing. Well, under the scope there
were indeed plenty of yeast there but in addition there were just as many
if not more BACERIA! Yikes. Interestingly the high bacterial burden hadn't
hurt the flavor at all and I didn't get ill from drinking it. I guess I
should have characterized the bacteria further but was too lazy. I did
however purify the yeast and man does it behave strangely! On YPD (Yeast
Extract, Peptone, Dextrose agar) plates it forms amazingly tight colonies.
Trying to scrape one with a loop is like pushing hardened drops of wax
around the surface of the plate. In solution the yeast flocculates like
crazy forming a compact waxy sediment on the bottom that fragments into
flakes when roused (did you see this type of behavior in your bottle
Mark?). My conclusion is that this is a bottling yeast used by Otter Creek
though I have yet to confirm this. Am considering trying to bottle with
this yeast in my next pale...

 -Alan Meeker
Baltimore, MD






Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 11:10:50 -0500
From: Herbert Bresler <bresler.7 at osu.edu>
Subject: reply to: more: Foam from Kegs, HBD#2866

Badger Roullett had some "more: Foam from Kegs" in HBD#2866.

Badger,

There was an interesting write up on the subject of dispensing from kegs in
BT by Bob Jones.  I consider it required reading for anyone who wants to
keg their homebrew.  You can read it at
http://brewingtechniques.com/library/backissues/issue1.1/techcomm.html

Your main problem is the lack of any resistance (and therefore pressure
drop) between the beer in the keg and the point of delivery, in your case
Phil's Phaucet.  If you want to continue to use Phil's Phaucet I think the
only way around the foaming problem is to dispense at very low pressure.
You'll have to experiment, but I'm guessing you will need to use only 1-2
psi or so.

Store your beer at the appropriate pressure for the desired volumes of CO2
at the temperature you are storing the keg.  In your case, 20 psi at around
65-70 degrees will give about 2 volumes of CO2; quite appropriate for most
ales.  Then, just prior to serving, release the pressure in the keg to just
about zero.  The CO2 will begin leaving the beer and provide the pressure
you need to dispense.  It may take a few minutes to settle down, and you
may have to bleed-off the excess CO2 pressure again depending on how
quickly you are dispensing.  After a while, you will have to add CO2
pressure (1-2 psi) just to maintain flow.  After you are done dispensing
for the day, re-pressurize the keg to storage pressure.

You might also find the "Force Carbonation Tables" handy.  They are located at
http://hbd.org/brewery/library/CO2charts.html

Good luck and good (keg) brewing,
Herb




Return to table of contents


Date: 3 Nov 1998 11:15:50 -0500
From: Eric.Fouch at steelcase.com
Subject: Woodruff, Gelatine,


HBD-
I recently had a very nice white wine from St. Julians (here in Michigan) that
was spiced with woodruff (sp?).
Slightly sweet, still and spicy...which got me to thinking.....has anybody
heard of using woodruff in beer or mead?
I was thinking it might go nice in a Wit, and since I saw a pack of it at the
local brewshop the other other day, it won't be long before I use some.  Does
anybody have any info on amounts and treatment?  I'm thinking the last 15 min
of boil, or maybe dry spiced.
As far as yeast slant media, what is the current thought on gelatine?  Can it
withstand being pressure cooked?  I was thinking of adding the suggested
amount (from the package) to enough wort to make 10-20 slants in test tubes
(cappable) and pressure cook them and see how they turn out.  Will this make
an acceptable slant media?

Eric Fouch
Bent Dick YoctoBrewery
Kentwood MI


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 3 Nov 98 08:54 PST
From: caburns at egusd.k12.ca.us (Charley Burns)
Subject: re: Protein Rest Data Point

"Tomusiak, Mark" <tomusiak at amgen.com> writes in hbd 2866 about skipping a 
protein rest with HB Pale Malt and appearance of low MMW protein results.

2 variables, malt and mash schedule make an un-predictable result. I suggest 
you try again and use the 135F rest this time to see if its any different. 
At least then you have changed only 1 variable. My prediction is that it 
will produce insipid beer (so make a small batch).

I have used lots of HB pale *ale* malt and find that it makes excellent pale 
ales, porters, stout, IPA's. I never use a protein rest, the malt just 
doesn't have enough protein left due to its high level of modification. I 
also use high mash temps, always >153F with this malt. Anything lower 
results in low body and poor head __every time__.

BTW - my latest altbier also had a weak appearing krausen in primary but 
comes out of the keg now with a dense rocky long lasting head.

Charley (with dense head, backfrom steelhead fishing weekend) in N. Cal



Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 11:47:39 -0500 
From: "Bayer, Mark A (Boeing)" <BayerMA at navair.navy.mil>
Subject: fluid dynamics

collective homebrew conscience:

scott and jim wrote:

>> From a fluid mechanics standpoint, his second model is close to what
>> is known as a "Two Dimensional Sink" flow that is based on inviscid
>> potential flow.

>I think a more accurate model of the flow is Stokes' flow, or what is
>sometimes called creeping flow. This is the flow for an extremely low
>Reynolds number.

i believe trying to model a heterogeneous mash made up of a viscous fluid of
varying density, and husk particles,  using incompressible, inviscid flow
theory meant for a homogeneous fluid ...... is probably ok.
as scott said, the most valuable part of j palmer's post was the
experimental results.  this is an investigation that is far more easily
tackled with empirical experimental methods than with mathematical theories.
i think john did a great job with the experiment.  
but, hey, if we can somehow introduce a discrete vorticity point (and,
hence, circulation) into the flow, we can have flying lauter tuns, right
guys? : )

brew hard,
mark bayer  



Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 03 Nov 1998 11:00:26 -0600
From: Brett Gober <bgober at mail.socket.net>
Subject: Re: Yeast Update

Jeremy, 
Widmer adds a different yeast when they bottle their Hefe. As you have
found out, it is used because it is not flocculant and is not a good
fermenter. I would suggest BrewTek CL-980 to brew a Widmer style Hefe.

Brett Gober
Hannibal Mo


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 03 Nov 1998 09:51:07 -0800
From: Jeremy Bergsman <jeremybb at leland.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: yeast storage test

"Dave Whitman" <dwhitman at fast.net> wants to test phosphate buffer for
increased risk of contamination.

I agree that waiting for random contamination is a bad idea--it assumes you
have poor sterile technique and would require a large number of samples. 
Why not skip the yeast and innoculate bacteria into water or phosphate?  IMO
one should be yeast ranching in such a mode that such questions are moot
but....

The RDMA test is a good one.

One concern about the whole experiment I have is that I'm really only
interested in the long-term viability, so I'd ask you to report back next
millenium.
- -- 
Jeremy Bergsman
jeremybb at stanford.edu
http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~jeremybb


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 3 Nov 98 10:27 PST
From: caburns at egusd.k12.ca.us (Charley Burns)
Subject: Pediococcus Damnosus - hiding in hops?

Another batch gone bad. Excellent pale ale for 3 weeks, then the diacetyl 
shows up and gets worse every day. I've now had this happen in 5 separate 
batches and went back to compare notes. Seems I dryhopped every batch with 
the same East Kent Golding whole hops, except one of them which might have 
re-used some yeast from one of the infected batches.

I can't find any other common threads. Can Pediococcus hide inside whole 
hops and then infect very slowly from the secondary? I always dryhop in 
secondary.

Charley (of butterscotch beer fame) in N. Cal



Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 14:10:59 -0500
From: Peter.Perez at smed.com
Subject: manifold vs. false bottom



The first lautering device i ever used was a phalse bottom in my 10 gal
gott.  I hate this false bottom, it floats, I get stuck sparges, etc.  I
have never tried using a manifold, and I am now thinking about building
one.  I would like to know, from someone who has used both a phalse bottom
and a manifold, which worked better.  Compared extraction rates, vorlaufing
success (wort clarity), flow rates, etc. would really be great.

Thanks,
Pete




Return to table of contents


Date: 3 Nov 1998 11:38:02 -0800
From: "William Warren" <wwarren at geron.com>
Subject: Largering

                                                                   
11/3/98
                                                       Largering

I have a question about brewing a larger.

I heard that you can larger beers without the use of a fridge. Is that 
true and how is it done. I would like brew a Pilsner and I will have the 
opportunity to use my refrigerator. Any suggestions would be helpful.


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 14:09:04 -0500
From: dbgrowler at juno.com
Subject: problem micros

Mark sez:

>after he left, i pulled out the hopjack, and noticed what looked like
>sediment in the bottom of the bottle.  i got out my flashlight, and sure
>enough, a significant amount (1 tsp or so) of what looked like trub was
>present in the bottle. 

Three  possibilities-

1) The beer is not filtered very tightly and you are seeing yeast. (very
unlikely in the amount you mention)

2) It _is_ infected by something relatively flavor neutral. (pretty
unlikely in two different beers concurrently)

3) The beer is too damn old to sell. (very likely)

Some malt compounds break down and form a fluffy preciptate in very old
and/or very mishandled beer. This is definitely something to check when
you're shopping. How far are you from the breweries in question? Do they
sell a lot of their beer in your neck of the woods? Sometimes you don't
know if you're holding a bottle-conditioned ale, but this stuff is more
trub-y than yeast-y; of course sediment in commercial lagers is nearly
nonexistent, although in Detroit one of our local micros sells most of
their lagers in the unfiltered state. 

Mike Bardallis

Allen Park, MI (useful info for questions such as the above)

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 15:33:00 -0500
From: "Philip J Wilcox" <pjwilcox at cmsenergy.com>
Subject: HBD LAL Meeting




From: Philip J Wilcox at CMS on 11/03/98 03:33 PM

Whats that? The HBD Lansing (mich) Area Lurkers are invited to join Jim
Booth and I at Harpers Brewpub Tuesday Nov 3. (hopefully thats today). Jim
Owens formerly of the Baja Brewing Co in San Diego as well as other places
in Colorado is the new (relativly) Brewer there. The fabulous blackberry
wheat beer he had online earlier this summer is back, this time without the
Orange peel. I'll be showing up about 6:30 and will be having dinner and
discussions of All Things Beer!

Join Us !!!!  Prosit!!!!!!

Phil Wilcox
President-Prison City Brewers Jackson, Mi




Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 18:01:57 -0500
From: Jonathan Edwards <jdedward at us.ibm.com>
Subject: yet another recipe w/beer

hey now,

i experimented some this past weekend with an old standby recipe and my wife
the chef actually gave me two thumbs up. that's a compliment coming from a chef.

i used a stout but i'm sure any dark beer will work well.

here's the recipe:

2lbs Pork Loin
garlic
rosemary
ginger
soy sauce

it's really simple...the pork loins we usually get are held together with
string...i stuff garlic, rosemary, and ginger inside the loin and also coat the
outside. place pork loin in a dish and pour soy sauce until it coats the bottom
of the loin. add 1/2 bottle of oatmeal stout, porter, etc turning loin so it
gets covered on both sides. marinate for 4-5 hours.

cook on grill for ~2 hours or until done, braising with soy sauce/beer mixture.
this is really simple but it's so good!

jonathan


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 19:53:48 -0500
From: "Steve" <stjones1 at worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Belgian Tripel/Pale

Greetings all!

Has anyone tried 'parti-gyle' brewing, Belgian style?

I'd like to brew a tripel (2 gal) of about 1.085-090, and a
pale (5 gal) of about 1.045-050.

I thought I'd try collecting 2.5 gallons of first runnings
in one vessel, then collecting 6.5 gallons of second
runnings in a separate vessel. If the first wort is too high
gravity, I could remove a little, blend it into the second,
then remove that same amount from the second and blend it
back into the first until I get the gravity I want. Then
I'll commence with the boil.

I thought I'd calculate the grain bill as though I was
shooting for a 7 gallon batch of 1.060 pale, something like
this:

12 lbs DWC pale 2 row
  2 lbs DWC caravienne
  1 lbs flaked wheat

In the tripel about 30 ibu;
   3/4 oz Hallertauer for 60 min
   1/2 oz Tettnang for 20 min

In the pale about 25 ibu;
    1 oz Hallertauer for 60 min
    3/4 oz Tettnang for 20 min.

Does this sound like a reasonable way to go about it? Or,
should I shoot for a lower gravity on the tripel and use
some candi sugar?

All comments are welcome. I'd like to try this within the
next month or so.

Steve
State of Franklin Homebrewers
Johnson City, Tennessee
http://home.att.net/~stjones1




Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 03 Nov 1998 18:44:27 -0800
From: "J.Kish" <jjkish at worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Malt Crushing

To: Ian Lyons,
Subject: crushing malted grain without using oxen
___________________________________________
  Why not have your home brew supplier crush the malt
for you when you buy it?   That way, you can get by
without a malt mill.  That's what I do, and it works.
    Joe Kish






Return to table of contents

---