---

	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:
  Random yeast musings (Matthew Arnold)
  Wyeast (John_E_Schnupp)
  Setting the gap on a Corona mill ("Bill G. Riel")
  Re: Home malting (Spencer W Thomas)
  Stuck tripel update (Dean Fikar)
  Re: another newbie question (Robert Arguello)
  yeast ("Penn, John")
  oxidation datapoint (Scott Murman)
  iSN'T IT PRONOUNCED "VORT"? ("Spinelli, Mike")
  carbonating stone, and transferring carbonated beer ("silent bob")
  Re: Rotten Egg Porter (Alan Edwards)
  Details on dessicant (Paul Shick)
  Question on yeast: Nottingham dry (Paul Shick)
  Wyeast "small" packs live on! (Tim Anderson)
  eric my parrot is not dead (Jim Liddil)
  clear beer ("Keith Menefy")
  Fermentor dimensions?? ("Gregg Soh")
  Re: Roggenbier ("Chuck Mryglot")
  Flip top vs. cap top ("Victor Farren")
  Re: Cooking Questions (Mike Isaacs)
  mea culpa: wyeast not phasing out small packs (Charles Epp)
  Experiences with Clearfine (tm)? (Michael A. Owings)
  MPT v. NPT (John_E_Schnupp)
  Fermentability of crystal/dextrin malts ("George De Piro")
  Re: mounting a thermometer in a SS pot? ("Bonnell, Doug")
  Just Hops Info (Jim Layton)
  RE: Site glass (Robert Arguello)
  Fermentation aroma (dbgrowler)
  sparking mead not sparkling (Shane & Laura)
  More Stokes (Paul Niebergall)
  Super Trub (Shane & Laura)
  re. Wyeast 2308 tips (Dean Fikar)
  What's That Smell? (Richard Johnson)
  Champ yeast, help, the deal ("Jan Brown southern U.S.A.")
  re: lauter flow rate (MaltHound)
  re. beer transfer under pressure (Dean Fikar)


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: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 17:02:04 GMT
From: marnold at ez-net.com (Matthew Arnold)
Subject: Random yeast musings

Charles Epp wrote:

>Here's the problem: the local homebrew shop guy tells me that Wyeast told him
>they're planning to phase out the smaller packs in favor of the larger ones.
>To my mind, that's bad news, because I'll have to pay several dollars more
>for my yeast and I STILL have to build starters.  I'd much prefer using the
>older, small packs, which I've used for years (with starters) without
>problems.  In short, with the new packs you and I pay more but get no real
>benefits.

I don't know if this information (on the phase-out) is correct, but it would
make sense. For my money, I think that the "pitchable" yeasts (White Labs,
Wyeast XL) are useful in that they help you overcome the most dangerous stage
of starters: the initial starter, when you're pitching an itty-bitty (technical
term) bit of yeast into some wort and hoping your cleanliness is up to scratch
so it can out-compete anything else that might be in there. More yeast =
greater chance of first-starter success.
- -----
I picked up the Zymurgy special yeast issue the other day and had two questions
as I read through it.

1) In the article "Yeast is Yeast . . . Or Is It?" author Dan Rabin and a group
of tasters tested 12 different yeasts--a noble endeavor. The article is
interesting, but I couldn't help wondering if the taste-tests were done blind.
It sure doesn't sound like it.

The reason I wondered is because the three dry yeasts they used (Edme,
Munton's, and Danstar's Nottingham) were all slammed quite severely. A
concluding comment from the article: "We also found, to no one's surprise, that
the liquid yeasts produced better beer than dry yeasts." (p. 82) If the testing
were not blind, it sounds like there was a major prejudice on the panel against
dry yeast, that would call their conclusions and comments on said yeasts into
question. Anyone involved in this test on the HBD?

2) Also, what must one do in order to win Ninkasi or Homebrewer of the Year?
Not that I have aspirations for that or anything . . .

Thanks,
  Matt
- -----
Webmaster, Green Bay Rackers Homebrewers' Club
http://www.rackers.org        info at rackers.org


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 08:58:21 -0800
From: John_E_Schnupp at amat.com
Subject: Wyeast

>problems.  In short, with the new packs you and I pay more but get no
>real benefits.  Can we convince Wyeast to continue producing the smaller
>packs?  Or is my information wrong regarding Wyeast's plans to phase out
>the smaller packs?  --Chuck in Lawrence, KS

If this is true, maybe we should start a snail mail/e-mail campaign
and try and get them to continue the small packets.  It's amazing
the pen can be a powerful resource/weapon.

John Schnupp, N3CNL
Colchester, VT
95 XLH 1200




Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 09:26:13 -0800
From: "Bill G. Riel" <briel at ibm.net>
Subject: Setting the gap on a Corona mill

Hello,

First time poster (and relatively new brewer here). I've acquired a
Corona mill, and I was wondering if any owners of this mill could tell
me how to set the gap correctly for the best crush? I searched the hbd
archives and found one suggestion to use a dime between the plates,
then turn an extra 1/4 to 1/2 times, but that seems like it would be a
pretty narrow gap. Any ideas (or is trial and error my best bet?)

Thanks,

Bill



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 13:03:39 -0500
From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer at engin.umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Home malting 

You can express extract efficiency in percent, as follows.  The number
you get represents the percentage of the mass of the grain that is
extracted as sugars into the wort.  For reference, the "theoretical"
extract efficiency of commercially malted grain is about 80%.

The extract efficiency for sucrose (the standard for the Plato scale)
is 100% and corresponds to about 10P (1.040) if you dissolve 100g of
sucrose in 900g of water (i.e., so that the total mass is 1000g).

Compute your extract efficiency by dividing the total mass of your
wort (kg = volume in liters * specific gravity) by the mass of grain you
used, then multiply by 10.  Continuing the sugar example, 

	10 * (1kg "wort") / (0.1kg "grain") = 100%

Thus, if you used 5kg grain to make 20 liters of wort at 1.040, your
extract efficiency is

	10 * (1.04 * 20) / 5 = 41%

=Spencer Thomas in Ann Arbor, MI        (spencer at umich.edu)


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 14:11:30 -0600
From: Dean Fikar <dfikar at flash.net>
Subject: Stuck tripel update

Several months back I had considerable problems with a high gravity
Belgian tripel fermentation.  The original gravity was 1.078 and the
fermentation stuck at about 1.024.  I had pitched a three quart starter
cultured from the dregs of a bottle of Chimay. I think that part of my
problem was fermenting at too cold of a temperature (60 degrees).  I
tried raising the fermentation temperature up to 70 degrees to no
avail.  After posting to the HBD, I received many good suggestions
regarding what to do next.  I ended up pitching a one pt. volume of
actively fermenting beer at high krausen from a Scottish ale fermenting
with Wyeast 1728.  I figured that the high alcohol tolerance of this
yeast would be useful in this setting.  It did take the SG down to about
1.020.  I still thought that the beer tasted a little sweet.  I was
pretty discouraged at this point and seriously considered dumping the
batch.  As a last resort, I  pitched packets of champagne yeast and
Nottingham dry yeast, both properly hydrated.  The beer fermented down
to 1.016 and tasted very good with little residual sweetness.  Most of
these rescue measures were performed with the beer sitting down in my
basement at about 78 to 80 degrees (yes, it was that hot in my basement
during this rather warm Texas summer).

I am quite pleased with the result.  The only ill effect of all this
manipulation, as far as I can tell, is that the beer has a slightly
estery nose which is probably not appropriate for a tripel.  It tastes
great though and my wife loves it, which is the true test.  If I were to
try this exercise again, heaven forbid, I probably would go straight to
the combination of champagne and Nottingham dry yeast and skip the
Wyeast 1728 step.

Thanks again to all those who offered very helpful suggestions.  I hope
that this messy story with a happy ending will help someone in the
future who may have similar problems with a stuck high gravity
fermentation.

Dean Fikar - dfikar at flash.net - Fort Worth, TX





Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 13:26:27 -0800 (PST)
From: Robert Arguello <robertac at calweb.com>
Subject: Re: another newbie question