---

	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:
  Fermentation woes (Michael Pratt)
  counterflow chiller design ("S. Wesley")
  yeast under pressure ("Stephen Alexander")
  unitap ("Thomas Kramer")
  candi sugar (Dan Kasen)
  Motors for Malt Mill (Joy Hansen)
  Help (Joy Hansen)
  Re: Dispensing from kegs without a CO2 bottle (Jim Larsen)
  making candi sugar (Dan Kasen)
  Rollmaster mill availability (John Mitchell)
  ice cube momily & creamer tap ("C.D. Pritchard")
  stirplate timer & O2 at kegging & brewery sink ("C.D. Pritchard")
  The Dave Draper Report ("Rob Moline")
  Temperature Controller (Joe KISH)
  an extract brew, but i dare ya to try it ("Gradh O'Dunadaig")
  Racking the lees. (Rod Prather)
  "pulling the decoction": question (LEAVITDG)
  yeast/alcohol tolerance ("Stephen Alexander")
  Ooops (AJ)
  Decarbonating (AJ)
  re: Stir plates that are too hot (Jim Larsen)
  Setup and solution to the CFC problem (part 2) ("S. Wesley")
  Setup and solution to the CFC problem (part 1) ("S. Wesley")
  New Millennium brews... ("Peter J. Calinski")
  Correction to posted MCAB results (Louis Bonham)
  Rochefort Yeast / Sensory evaluation (Nathan Kanous)
  canned priming solutions ("Raymond Lowe")
  Brew Kettles (Mark Garthwaite)
  Hot water freezes faster? ("Eric R. Theiner")
  Autolysis & Rousing ("ajphoto")


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

Enter The Mazer Cup! _THE_ mead competition.
Details available at http://hbd.org/mazercup
Send articles for __publication_only__ to post@hbd.org

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!

Contact brewery at hbd.org for information regarding the "Cat's Meow"

Back issues are available via:

  HTML from...
        http://hbd.org
  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

COPYRIGHT for the Digest as a collection is currently held by hbd.org 
  (Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen). Digests in their entirity CANNOT be 
  reprinted/reproduced without this entire header section unless 
  EXPRESS written permission has been obtained from hbd.org. Digests
  CANNOT be reprinted or reproduced in any format for redistribution
  unless said redistribution is at absolutely NO COST to the consumer.
COPYRIGHT for individual posts within each Digest is held by the
  author. Articles cannot be extracted from the Digest and
  reprinted/reproduced without the EXPRESS written permission of the 
  author. The author and HBD must be attributed as author and source in
  any such reprint/reproduction. (Note: QUOTING of items originally
  appearing in the Digest in a subsequent Digest is exempt from the
  above. Home brew clubs NOT associated with organizations having a
  commercial interest in beer or brewing may republish articles in their
  newsletters and/or websites provided that the author and HBD are
  attributed. ASKING first is still a great courtesy...)

JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)


----------------------------------------------------------------------


Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 22:07:23 -0500
From: Michael Pratt <Michael.Pratt at Ottawa.com>
Subject: Fermentation woes

I guess it's time to break down and ask a question.
I have been brewing all grain for almost two years. I have been buying my
grain and hops from the same source. I have been using water from the same
source and treating it with gypsum, burton salts and citric acid in the
same fashion for most of the time.
My problem is fermentation. I seem to live in a place where pH test papers,
iodine tests and certified thermometers are either unavailable or way
beyond the price I'm willing to pay. Therefore, I cannot accurately measure
the values that my finished mash or wort would exhibit.
This year my finishing gravities - for about 8 batches in a row have been
over 1.020! I think something is wrong. Previously my FG's were in the
range of 1.013-1.016. Sometimes I would get as low as 1.008-1.010 for a low
OG beer with a particularly strong liquid yeast.
My fermentation temperatures are 59-64F for ales; 54-59F for lagers. I have
used Coopers and Munton & Fison for dry yeast; Wyeast 1098? British, 1056
American and 2278 Czech. I have upped my sanitation practices with each
batch (although I have never been lax with sanitation in the past). I have
tried rehydrating the dry and pitching it straight into the wort. I have
tried stepping up the liquid yeast to 1 pint, 1 quart and 1/2 gallon. I
have even racked the cooled wort directly onto a yeast cake from a primary.
I chill the wort and have never pitched above 68F. I have tried racking off
the trub, and leaving it in. I have used yeast energizer. I have aerated by
shaking and by using a nozzle and not aerating. I have tried stirring the
yeast up after primary fermentation starts. I have purchased a carbon
filter for my water.
In all these 8 or so batches, I have not seen a vigorous primary
fermentation as I used to. It always used to overflow. Now it never does.
How can I realize my past experiences? How do I get my primary
fermentations to be mor vigorous?

HELP

Michael Pratt



Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 00:16:08 -0500
From: "S. Wesley" <WESLEY at MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
Subject: counterflow chiller design

About two years ago I designed and built a counterflow chiller (CFC)
for my home brewery.  I had a number of design constraints which I
wished to satisfy.  I wanted to be able to chill 20 gallons in 10 min
using the 12C water from my well which can be delivered to the brewery
at a maximum rate of 5 gal per min.  As part of the process of trying
to understand the design constraints of the CFC I developed a set of
equations describing the temperature of the wort (hereafter beer-b)
and water (w) as a function of position along the length of the
chiller(L).  I am presenting the results here in hopes that they may
be useful to anyone else interested in designing a chiller under
similar constraints.

These equations were derived using the equation for the rate of heat
transfer which can be found in any introductory university physics
text:   dQ/dt = kA(T1-T2)/d Clearly there is some difficulty in trying
to apply this equation to the transfer of heat out of a fluid flowing
though one pipe and into the fluid in another because of the poor
ability of water to conduct heat away from the metal between the
fluids.  Creating a turbulent flow will help to allieviate this
problem somewhat, but not completely.  It is my contention that as
long as the parameters involved in this discussion are not varied over
too wide a range it is possible to compenstate for this problem by
replacing the thermal conductivity "k" in the equation by an
"effective k" of lower value which can be determined empirically.

Here are the equations which describe temperature of beer and water as
a function of position (x) from the beer inlet of a chiller of length
(L).  Tb(x) = A + Be^(-(S-R)x)     Tw(x) = A + De^(-(S-R)x)     with
B/D = S/R Here    S = kp/(wc(phimb))     R = kp/(wc(phimw)) with
thermal conductivity (k), tube circumfrence (p), tube wall thickness
(w), specific heat (c), and rates of mass flow ((phimb)&(phimw). k =
385 W/(mK)  (expected value for copper) k = 4.5 W/(mK)  (effective
value in my chiller) c = 4190 J/(kgK) p = .040 m 	(for a .50" diameter
tube) or more generally: p = 3.14 x .0254(m/in) x (diameter in inches)
w = .0016 m	(for a 1/16 th inch wall thickness) or more generally w =
 .0254(m/in) x (wall thickness in inches) (phimw) = the mass rate of
flow in kg/s. in other words the number of kg of water (or beer)
entering or exiting the tube per second.  This  can be easily
calculated from the number of gallons per min as follows: phimw = (#
of gal/min) x (3.79 litres/gal) x (1 min/60s) (1kg/litre)

How can these equations be used to help design a chiller?  Suppose you
have beer which starts at 100C (Tbi) which you want to cool to 20C
(Tbo) using well water which is 12C (Twi). You want to pump beer at
2.0 GPM and water at 5.0 GPM using .500 " diameter copper tubing.  How
long should the chiller be? 1) Determine the output water temp (Two). 
Two = Twi + (R/S)( Tbi-Tbo)  (44C for me.) 2) Solve for L.  L =
ln((Tbi-Two)-(Tbo-Twi))/(S-R)    (S-R) =.13      (R/S) = .40 to get a
chiller length of 15m or about 50 feet, which, coincidentally, is the
length of my chiller. Just for reference A = 6.67C, B = 93.3C, and D =
37.3C for my chiller operated under these conditions.  These will vary
quite a bit from chiller to chiller depending on the design and
operating conditons.


Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 07:30:20 -0500
From: "Stephen Alexander" <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net>
Subject: yeast under pressure

Simon Wesley writes ...
>[...] KARL thinks I'm an ASS
Welcome to the club - it's not very exclusive tho'.

>Does anyone have information from a reliable resource which discusses
>the impact of pressure on fermentation?  Specifically, Is there a
>point at which the fermentation activity of yeast will be
>significantly impacted due to increased pressure, and if so when?

'The Yeasts' Rose&Harrison, Academic Press London, discusses yeast under
pressure as relates to wine fermentation with Saccharomyces Cerevisiae var
Ovoidum.  At 3-4 atmospheres (45-60psi) yeast cease to grow, but continue to
ferment.  At ~8 atm (120psi) yeast cease to ferment.  The higher pressures
are used in the wine industry to stop fermentation.
- --
Andy Walsh kindly sent me three papers back in 1997 related to beer and
pressure:

1/ JIB 90, 1984, pp 81-84, "The Response of S.C to Fermentation under Carbon
Dioxide Pressure"
2/ JIB 98, pp 509-513, 1992, "The Formation of Esters and Higher Alcohols
During Brewery Fermentation: The Effect of CO2 Pressure".
3/ MBAATQ, 32(3), pp 159-163, "Regulation Mechanism of Ester Formation by
Dissolved CO2 during Beer Fermentation".

And several others that discuss CO2 levels vs esters w/o added head
pressure.


Paper 1/ from Heriot-Watt tests ale yeast under pressure ...

At  >2atm(30+psi) the rate of fermentation, growth and fusel production
declines and pH remains higher.  The effect on VDKs is variable, but except
at very low temps, pressure causes the rate of VDK removal to be the same or
higher than w/o pressure for LAGER yeasts.  For the ALE yeast under test
(NCYC1108) the pressure increased the final level of VDKs.

Low pressure (up to 0.2atm/3psi) enhances growth rate.
0.3-0.5 atm(4.5-7.5psi) causes some growth inhibition.
2.5-3.0 atm(37-45psi) prevents cell growth entirely.

At 20C/2atm(28psi) the fermentation speed for the ale yeast was about 1/2
normal, the final fusel levels were only 30-75% of normal (varying from
fusel to fusel), the final pH was about 0.4 higher, and the final yeast cell
count was about 25% lower.
- --
The second paper,from Delft U Biochem Engineering, test a lager yeast at 0,
1.0 and 2.0 atm overpressure.  They show that the impact of overpressure on
fusels is relatively small (5-10% at 1atm, 20-40% at 2atm) compared with the
decline in yeast biomass(30% at 1atm, 70% at 2atm).  Ester level decrease is the
same as biomass decrease at 2atm (70%), and the ester decline is even
greater than the biomass decline at 1atm.(50% vs 30%).

If you want to minimize esters with a modest decline in yeast growth for
lager yeast, 1atm is about right.
- --
The third paper, from Suntory Japan, indicates that under pressure yeast
have unusually low levels of acetyl-CoA.  At 1.5 atm the level stayed around
30-40ugm/g, while in the control (no pressure yeast) the level peaked around
90ugm/gm.  They showed that a precursor enzyme, pyruvate decarboxylase, has
it's activity suppressed as the dissolved  CO2 level rises.

AcetylCoA is critical to several aspects of growth and fermentation  - so
growth inhibition and slow fermentation under CO2 pressure is suddenly less
mysterious.  Also ester formation involves the interaction of acetylCoA, and
alcohol and an enzyme.  If the free pools of acetylCoA are low - the ester
production rate should decline.  Another mystery elucidated.
- --
See Andy Walsh's excellent note on ester formation at:
http://hbd.org/brewery/library/EstFormAW0696.html
for more details ...

For my money an overpressure of ~1atm would make some sense for fermenting
lagers at higher temps.  It's value is otherwise seems limited.

Steve





Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 08:41:08 -0500
From: "Thomas Kramer" <tkramer at monad.net>
Subject: unitap

I went down to my local gas supply store to get a refill on my c02 tank.
The guy told me about a new product that they (Merriam-graves a NewEgland
Chain) sell for pushing beer out called Unitap.  It seems that Unitap in a
mix of C02 and nitrogen, they say it's better then C02, it pushes beer
faster longer distances with less foam.  I wonder if anyone has tried this
product, or is it something that bars would use and not homebrews?

tom Keene, NH



Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 07:53:20 -0600
From: Dan Kasen <dkasen at flash.net>
Subject: candi sugar

B.R. Rolya asked about making dark candi sugar.

I have made dark candi sugar several times and I start out with brown
sugar to make it.

Dan



Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 08:45:43 -0500
From: joytbrew at halifax.com (Joy Hansen)
Subject: Motors for Malt Mill

OK Badger,

Here's the best advice I give out when Murphy isn't around to screw things
up.

Other home brewer friends have worried about how to motorize a malt mill to
survive milling 30 pounds of malt without taking an entire day in advance of
brewing.  Several friends bought high torque, geared motors specific for the
purpose.  Most failed to have the flexibility and reliability needed for
infrequent brewing sessions.  Sooooo, .  .  .

I use a  10 year old Schmidling adjustable Malt Mill.  Unlike most home
brewers, I set the center of the roller gap to 60 thousands.  Since this
mill was designed (IMHO)   for hand cranking, the motor to use must have the
same characteristics as the human hand.  I choose about 100 RPM as a
starting point.  My human hand required frequent rests for 20 to 30 pounds
of malt.  By chance, while I was at a Sears & Roebuck service center, I
noted a refurbished 1/2 inch vari- speed/torque electric drill.  The unit
cost about $40 at the time.  I hook it up to the drive shaft of the malt
mill in the usual fashion, lock the speed trigger in the full on position,
and slow the speed with the vari-torque knob.  When the malt starts through
the mill, I adjust the vari-torque knob to near 100 RPM.   SMALL OR LARGE
ELECTRIC DRILLS WHICH CANNOT BE OPERATED AT 100 RPM (imho) ARE NOT SUITABLE
TO DRIVE A MALT MILL.   The Sears & Roebuck electric drill mentioned  is in
use by at least two home brewers using the Schmidling Malt Mill.  It's
operated perfectly over several years and dozens of milling sessions without
over heating, gear failure, or shorting out.

Different malts being of differing hardness and kernel size require the
adjustability of the roller speed and gap.  IMHO the roller speed is the
most important and easy to adjust if the roller spacing is in the ball park.
My setup for the Schmidling mill is 60 thousands in the center.  The ends
are possibly 40 and 80 thousands; however, I haven't taken the time to
check.  Too high a speed and most two roller mills become grinders!  I don't
know if there is such a condition where the speed could be too slow?

My purpose in milling is to leave as much husk intact as possible and at
least crack the malt kernel without producing mostly fines ( I still get a
lot of fines).   So, I adjust the speed as different malts, wheat, caramel,
chocolate, pale, etc. are milled.   I do all this to maximize the flow
through my RIMS mash.  With Breiss Pale two row, I typically get 28 points.
With DC Pale two row, I typically get 33 points.

Again, this setup seems to work OK for me.  IMHO it will work for you.

                               Joy"T"Brew with BURP (Brewers United for Real
Potables)





Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 08:59:59 -0500
From: joytbrew at halifax.com (Joy Hansen)
Subject: Help

I'm using several controllers prepared by using the schematics in the Rodney
Morris article published in Zymurgy Special Issue 1992, pages 49, etc.  I
thought I had corrections to the publication; however, I can't find them.
If you recall what the changes are, I'd sure appreciate the information.

Thanks,

                                               Joy"T"Brew



Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 08:30:41 -0600 (CST)
From: Jim Larsen <jal at oasis.novia.net>
Subject: Re: Dispensing from kegs without a CO2 bottle


Several people, most recently Phil Wilcox, have posted about this topic.
I recall many years ago post in a three-digit HBD from a brewer who had
moved to France and was unable to get a hold of CO2 kegging equipment. He
conceived of a way to harvest the CO2 from fermentation in a corny and
control the pressure using water pressure from the kitchen tap. Does
anyone recall this scheme?

Jim Larsen
Ceverseria Alfresco
Omaha, NE



Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 08:47:33 -0600
From: Dan Kasen <dkasen at flash.net>
Subject: making candi sugar

To make candi sugar see   You can Rock Candy

Dan



Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 13:52:43 -0500
From: John Mitchell <jlmitch at charlotte.infi.net>
Subject: Rollmaster mill availability

Back around the middle of 1998, I saw a mill advertised in Zymurgy which
appeared to be a good mill.  It was called the Rollmaster Roller Mill and
the web address given was www.highlander-brew.com.  I left the country for
a while and when I came back I found the site is no longer around.  Does
anyone know if they are still in business?  Has anyone tried one of these
mills?  If so, was it worth the money?

John Mitchell
Gastonia, North Carolina



Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 15:36:29
From: "C.D. Pritchard" <cdp at chattanooga.net>
Subject: ice cube momily & creamer tap

Hot water won't freeze faster than colder water.  I think this old saw
probably evolved when someone heard that the heat of fusion (the quantity
of heat which must be removed to convert 32 degF water from liquid to
solid) is 144 Btu/lb. while 142 Btu/lb. (a bit less) is required to drop
water from boiling to 32 degF and brain-farted the old saw.  

 - - -
re: the creamer type taps:  I don't have bar type taps or the creamer tap-
I use cobra taps instead.  After about filling a glass, if it needs more
foam,  I tease the tap open just a bit to dispense a head of foam.  


c.d. pritchard cdp at chattanooga.net 
web site:      http://chattanooga.net/~cdp/  



Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 15:26:36
From: "C.D. Pritchard" <cdp at chattanooga.net>
Subject: stirplate timer & O2 at kegging & brewery sink

Philip J Wilcox <pjwilcox at cmsenergy.com> asked:

>Electronic timers:
>My stirplate... puts out too much heat to use
>on an overnight basis. I was thinking of getting a timer to turn on and off
>the electricity thus keeping it from getting to hot... Security light 
>timers... only have one or two settings.

Use a control intended for controlling an electric range surface element
and splice it in series with the 120 VAC to the heater.  They control the
heat by cycling the heater on and off with a varible duty cycle.  The one I
use in with my electric boiler has about a 30 second or so total cycle time
with the duty cycle variable from 10% to 100% (~3 to 30 seconds on time
each 30 seconds).  New ones go for $10-$20 at appliance parts stores (mine
is a 120 VAC model F16-713 from Johnstone Supply, $16.65).  For less cost,
salvage one from a discarded stove.

A cheaper and perhaps better option is to try a regular light dimmer.

Do NOT splice in either type so it turns the stirrer on/off along with the
heater- the relatively short cycle time or chopped voltage may cause the
stirrer motor to overheat and maybe even burn out.

 - - - 
Rob.Green1 at firstunion.com asked:
 
>Does agitating cornelius kegs during forced carbonation may cause
>oxidation? I was following a thread in the archive that hinted at that, but
>never saw this issue put to rest.

Was this gem posted with the orginal "hot water freezes faster" thread?
:-)  If you purge the keg of air, there's no O2 to oxidize the brew.  I to
purge after sanitizing by filling the keg (with disconnects and a hose
attached to each disconnect fittings) with Iodophor, letting it sit then
applying CO2 via the gas disconnect to force the Iodophor out the liquid
line 'til the keg's "empty".  Since I have both dip tubes in my kegs
whacked off, I shut off the CO2, connect the CO2 on the liquid fitting,
invert the keg, and tilt so the gas disconnect is the lowest part of the
keg (hint: drill a hole in the rubber keg base opposite the gas disconnect
fitting so you can easily hang 'em this way) and apply CO2 to help force
the Iodophor out of the gas disconnect.  Seal off both hoses, leave
up-side-down for 5 minutes or so then open both to allow the residual
Iodophor to drain out.  Leave ya with everything sanitized and very, very
little O2 in the keg.

 - - -
Since there's been a bit of bragging on one's significant others... mine
let me take over a spare bathroom for cleaning and storing brewing stuff.
Which brings up a brain-fart for anyone planning a home brewery: use a
fiberglass bathtube/enclosure as a sink but mount it on a raised base so
it's at a height that'll save your back.  A storage cabinet as the raised
base would be great.  Scratched/dented ones go for as little as $50 in
these parts- hardly more than what a cheap plastic laundry sink will cost
ya.  I've hooks attached to the walls of the our enclosure for hang wet
stuff to drain like kegs and hoses as well as a bottle draining rack.  The
enclosure contains all the drips and 3/4 of the spray one gets when a hose
or tubing under water pressure gets away from ya :-).   

c.d. pritchard cdp at chattanooga.net 
web site:      http://chattanooga.net/~cdp/  



Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 22:55:34 -0600
From: "Rob Moline" <brewer at isunet.net>
Subject: The Dave Draper Report

			The Dave Draper Report

Dear Friends,

Greetings after a long hiatus.  I've moved yet again, so that Dave in
Bristol,then in Sydney,then in Dallas, is now Dave in Houston.  Got pretty
much the dream job working with NASA, so now I'm going to be hobnobbing with
the Foam Rangers, Mashtronauts, and KGB folks.  I'm writing from Rob
Moline's hotel room near the end of the first MCAB, a couple of hours after
the awards ceremony.  It's been a very good event, and Louis Bonham and all
his crew deserve a lot of thanks for the excellent job done in organizing
and putting on this great show.  I had the chance to finally meet Jethro and
Spencer Thomas and Jeff Renner (who *can* be bought for $3.50-- I have the
receipt) and George dePiro and Phil Wilcox and a whole bunch of others.
Lots of great beer and good company, and the awards ceremony inside the St.
Arnold's brewery where three of their beers plus a host of other local
micros were on tap.  All I can say is that anyone who is within range should
make an effort to attend next year's MCAB in St. Louis... I know I'll be
there.

Glad to see you all again.. here's Jethro.

	Well, it's late  at  night and the fun has to end! Man, what a great
collection of talent that was assembled for this event!    Clayton Cone,
Chris White, Dave Miller, Paul Farnsworth, George Fix, Ralph Olsen, Chris
Mueller, Spencer Thomas, Harlan Bauer, (who has to supercede me by a
geometric level of intensity!), George dePiro.............it's been a
situation where there simply are not enough hours in the day to hear that
they all can say.....or that the attendees can absorb!

	Anyhoo, we'll say g'day, and hooray....and be off like a piece of cheese!

Cheers!
Jethro Gump and Dave in Houston  (Who has the DREAM JOB!!)

Rob Moline
brewer at isunet.net

"0.00 Miles From, And Two Floors Above (!!!) The Center Of the Brewing
Universe, Jeff Renner!!"



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 01:51:02 -0800
From: Joe KISH <jjkish at worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Temperature Controller

To: Joy Hansen,
   The RCA Data Sheet for the CA3059 (in the Rodney Morris temperature
controller) says that the resistor on pin 5 of the CA3059 should be
10K 2watt, and NOT 8.2K, as in the drawing. 

 Does anyone else know about more corrections?  We would like to hear
from you!   Has anyone made a printed circuit board drawing?   Is it
available to the collective?
      Joe Kish


Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 22:14:30 PST
From: "Gradh O'Dunadaig" <odunadaig at hotmail.com>
Subject: an extract brew, but i dare ya to try it

The Wrath of Gradh

for 5 gallons:

6# light syrup extract
2# light DME
8oz crystal 10
8oz munich
2oz columbus leaf (60 min)
1oz eroica leaf (60 min)
1oz cascade leaf (30 min)
0.5oz cascade (10 min)
1.5oz cascade (dry)

OG. 1.060
FG. 1.011

THIS IS BEER!!!

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com


Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 03:38:05 -0500
From: Rod Prather <rodpr at iquest.net>
Subject: Racking the lees.

Dave,  Wouldn't  this process encourage autolysis.  I thought autolysis was
a situation where the yeast consumed the hulls of spent yeast.    An
undesirable flavor in wine as well as beer.   It would be desirable to
transfer a some of  the yeast cake but I question the wisdom of suspending
all of the lees in the beer, er, barley wine.  As a matter of fact, I was
always told to rack off of the lees to prevent autolysis.

> For those of you who have been making high "FG" barleywines
> try "dropping" the  barleywines two or three times during the early
> part of the fermentation by racking the wines into other carboys.
> Do not rack off the yeast, but transfer all of the contents from one
> carboy to another.
>
>  If you have a large enough carboy, use a stirrer made of a dowel
> with a new moon shaped blade which can rotate so that it can
> be inserted into the carboy and removed. Coat it with
> polyurethane and allow it to dry a week before using.Spin the
> stirrer to stir up the yeast by rolling the dowel back and forth
> using the palms of the hands.
>



Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 08:37:25 -0500 (EST)
From: LEAVITDG at SPLAVA.CC.PLATTSBURGH.EDU
Subject: "pulling the decoction": question

I read with interest to post about raising the mash to 149, then 
pulling the decoction, etc...and have a question:
I tried this by taking about 1/2 gallon out of a 4 gal batch, and boiled
the whole thing (grain and liquid).  Is this ok, ? Or , is it better
to try to get just the liquid?
 ..Darrell
<Plattsburgh, NY>...far from Jeff R, but glad we have email so as to keep
up on his, and the rest of your posts to this digest.


Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 16:02:19 -0500
From: "Stephen Alexander" <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net>
Subject: yeast/alcohol tolerance

Rob - some comments on your 3 part post.
1/ Wow ! Thanks.
2/ Could you give a full citations ?  Was this from the MBAATQ, issue, vol
?
3/ My synopsis/comments follow - could you fill in some of the details as
you
  understand them ... especially figure 5 since this might be of
   considerable practical value to HB high gravity brewers.
4/ Reference 22 is ???
5/ Did the paper give results for Sterol/UFA/FAN additions alone and in
various combinations.  If so which appear to be most effective ?  I get the
impression that added sterol isn't the issue, but FAN (what levels?) and
certain unsaturated FA's are.
===

Brewing yeast can fully ferment high gravity wort with proper nutrition and
reach 16.2% alc  at 14C/57F, high yeast viability, normal brewing periods.
Wort must contain nitrogen supplements (yeast extract, FAN) and either
sterol(ergosterol) + UFA(oleic fraction of TWEEN80) supplements.
Fermentation then proceeds rapidly DUE TO INCREASED YEAST GROWTH, [not
increased alcohol tolerance].

O2 deficiencies can be overcome by either the addition of 24 ppm ergosterol
with 0.24% (vol/vol) Tween 80 as a source of oleic acid OR by periods of
oxygenation during the fermentation.

[Both of these methods have potentially serious negative flavor/head
consequences for beer.  Chronic human sterol intake around 1mg/day (~1.5
fl.oz at 24ppm) can result in hypercalcemia with CNS consequences - so don't
try this at home !]

High gravity worts had insufficient FAN.  Levels of yeast extract (nitrogen)
required can be drastically reduced by the use of an all malt base.(Fig 5).
[Rob - can you tell us what is in fig 5 ?  This should indicate how much
yeast extract is needed when brewing barleywines - no ?]

Tolerance to the effects of ethanol on generation time, viability, and
solute uptake are enhanced when C18:2 UFA [linoleic acid], rather than C18:1
[oleic acid] was added.

[C18:1(oleic acid), C18:2(linoleic) have 18 carbons, one and two degrees of
unsaturation resp'y.  The unsaturated bond synthesis requires oxygen.  The
statement above says than linoleic protects yeast from the negatives of
ethanol.  Is linoleic+FAN the key to high gravity ferments ?]

The early rise and then continued decline in fermentative power values has
been attributed to an increase in the cellular levels of hexokinase activity
by the buildup of intracellular ethanol levels with time(27).

[hexokinase is an enzyme that starts off the fermentation process by
converting various hexose sugars into their hexose-6-phosphate form.
ATP(energy) and Magnesium ions are required.  The phosphated sugars have an
inhibitory effect on the enzyme(regulation).  What is the impact of ethanol
on this step ?]

Yeast glycogen and sterols were found to differ considerably between
anaerobic and semi-anaerobic conditions and on the nutritional supplement
used.

Glycogen - < 10%  semi-anaerobic, unsupplemented or supplemented
                 ~30%   anaerobic fermentations [no supplement ??]
                  10.5%  anaerobic, fully supplemented (fastest ferment)
Sterol -       0.85-1.09% semi-anaerobic [w/o-with supplement?]
                  0.27-0.56% anaerobic     [w/o-with supplement?]

Sterols were not the limit of growth. [!!]  [Or else sterol >0.2% is
required for high gravity/high ethanol growth.  Glycogen is an energy
storage carbohydrate, so high levels result from non-carbohydrate growth
limits (the energy would be used to grow if possible).]
==

The addition of sterol *appears* to be unnecessary. Among the UFAs linoleic
is most effective than oleic.  Will oleic+FAN do the trick ?

I still have doubts that UFA additions or mid-fermentation oxygenation will
make a tasty beer, but this should add some weight to the idea of repitching
healthy well aerated starters with FAN additions.

Steve






Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 12:58:58 +0000
From: AJ <ajdel at mindspring.com>
Subject: Ooops

Yesterday I posted to the effect that clear water (ferrous) iron would
oxidize copper. It is, of course, ferric (Fe+++) that oxidizes copper
being reduced to Fe++ (clear water iron) in the process. Sorry about the
goof.



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 13:21:30 +0000
From: AJ <ajdel at mindspring.com>
Subject: Decarbonating

Amen to Adam's comments about boiling as a means of decarbonation. The
majority of homebrewers (those in the coastal regions) in the US will be
unable to use it because their water isn't alkaline/hard enough. With
less hard water when the precipitate forms, if it forms, it is so finely
divided that it stays in suspension for ever i.e. it's very difficult to
separate  the water from the precipitate. And, as Adam pointed out, you
don't get all the alkalinity anyway. It is, however, extremely simple to
measure alkalinity and hardness and thus residual alkalinity. Looking at
Adam's post I'm not sure he means the same thing by "residual" as I do.
I'm speaking of Kohlbach's Residual Alkalinity which is calculated by
adding half the magnesium hardness to the calcium hardness, dividing the
sum by 3.5 an subtracting from the alkalinity.

The biggest disadvantage to boiling is that it requires heat. A
commercial operation seldom use it for that reason. Addition of lime has
the same effect, uses no energy (except that required to stir the mix),
is safer, as effective and adds some calcium in cases where starting pH
is low (i.e. residual alkalinity is reduced through bicarb decrease
_and_ calcium increase). Boiling may be prefferable where
chlorine/chloramine need to be eliminated as well as bicarbonate.



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 07:28:31 -0600 (CST)
From: Jim Larsen <jal at oasis.novia.net>
Subject: re: Stir plates that are too hot


You might try lifting the flask off the plate with a piece of bent coat
hanger or the like. If this does not reduce the temp adequately, run a
small fan, like the sort used to cool your PC, over the plate and under
the flask. 

Jim Larsen
Ceveseria Alfresco
Omaha, NE





Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 09:15:15 -0500
From: "S. Wesley" <WESLEY at MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
Subject: Setup and solution to the CFC problem (part 2)

Consider a slice of width (dx) located at some position x along the 
chiller. The rate of heat transfer (Q is heat) is given by the 
equation dQ/dt = [Tw(x) -Tb(x)]kp(dx)/W.
The change in beer temperature (dTb) is related to dQ by the equation 
dQ= dmC(dTb) and dt = dx/Vb. Here m is mass, C is specific heat and  
Vb is velocity.  Putting all of this together gives:
[(dm)(Vb)C(dTb)]/(dx) =  [Tw(x) -Tb(x)]p(dx)/W,  or 
 (dTb)/(dx) =  [Tw(x) -Tb(x)]kp(dx)/[W(dm)(Vb)C] 
the differential element of mass can be replaced by
dm = (rho)[(Ab)(dx)].  Here (rho) is density and [(Ab)(dx)] is the 
volume of the differential element of mass.  (I am making the 
approximation that the densities of beer and water and the specific 
heats of beer and water are the same).  Substituting and canceling 
gives  (dTb)/(dx) =  [Tw(x) -Tb(x)]kp/[W(rho)(Ab)(Vb)C]
The combination of (rho)(Ab)(Vb) is simply the mass flux or mass rate 
of flow of beer through the system.  This combination can easily be 
calculated from the flow rate in Gal/min using the equation in my 
earlier post. So with (phimb) = (rho)(Ab)(Vb) The equation becomes: 
(dTb)/(dx) =  [Tw(x) -Tb(x)]kp/[W(phimb)C]  By similar arguments 
(dTw)/(dx) =  [Tw(x) -Tb(x)]kp/[W(phimw)C] the eqation for water 
can be derived.  Let us simplify these equations further by making 
the substitutions:  S = kp/[W(phimb)C] and  R = kp/[W(phimw)C
(dTb)/(dx) = S [Tw(x) -Tb(x)] and (dTw)/(dx) = R [Tw(x) -Tb(x)]
Fortunately, this system of coupled differential equations can be 
solved by inspection.  

The equations show that Tb(x) and Tw(x) have the same derivative 
(except for a multiplicative constant) indicating that they are probably 
the same function except for additive and multiplicative constants.  
The function is therefore essentially proportional to its own 
derivative indicating an exponential (decay in this case) function of 
some sort.  Tb(x) = A + Be^(-Gx) and Tw(x) = C + De^(-Gx). Further 
reflection tells us that A = C since additive constants will be lost 
when differentiating the left side of the equation and they can only 
be lost on the right if they cancel out in the subtraction.
Tb(x) = A + Be^(-Gx) and Tw(x) = A + De^(-Gx)
The value of the decay constant G can be found by differentiating the 
two functions and substituting them into the differential equations.
 -GBe^(-Gx) = S(D- B)e^(-Gx) and  -GDe^(-Gx) = R(D- B)e^(-Gx)
canceling the exponential gives -GB = S(D-B)  and -GD = R(D-B)
dividing the two equations gives  B/D = S/R and substituting gives 
G = S-R.  

The question most people want to answer when designing a CFC is "How 
long should I make it?"  This can be answered using the equations I 
gave at the end of my previous post. I suggest using my empirical 
value of k = 4.5 W/mK as a starting point.  If you expect to run your 
system a lot slower  you should probably reduce this value.   I seem 
to remember that there is enough data in Pat  Babcock's comparison of 
CF and immersion chillers at the brewerey website to get another 
value of k for a slower flow system.


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 09:15:14 -0500
From: "S. Wesley" <WESLEY at MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
Subject: Setup and solution to the CFC problem (part 1)

The subject of the mathematical solution to the CFC problem shows up
peoriodically on HBD and is just as regularly dismissed as  complex
and therefore too difficult to solve.  In reality the method of
setting up and solving the problem is accessible to anyone who has a
basic understanding of calculus. Furthermore the solutions, once
derived, can be used by anyone who knows how to use the exponential
and natural log keys on a scientific calculator as I demonstrated in a
post which is still in the queue at the time of writing.  In HBD
#2954-7 Mike Swintosky suggests that the problem can be approached
more simply by simplifying the copper layer between the two
counterflowing fluids and he is right on target. One of the major
problems with the solution to this problem is that it requires the use
of a heat transfer coefficient which must be determined empirically. 
One of the advantages of this is that is absorbs any errors introduced
by approximations leaving an equation which has the right functional
form.  What this enables you to do is understand how changes in things
such as chiller length, (wall thickness??), tube circumfrence and flow
rate will affect chiller performance in a reliable mathematical way as
long as k does not vary too much as the other quantities (most notably
flow rate) are varied. Now for the solution.

Imagine two rectangular pipes of length L separated by a common 
boundary which is a sheet of copper.  The sheet of copper has a 
length L and a width p equal to the circumfrence (perimeter?) of the
inner copper tube. The thickness of the sheet (W) is equal to the
width of the tube wall.  One pipe of area Ab carries wort (hereafter
beer-b) in one direction and the other of area Aw carries water in the
other direciton. Let length along the tube be described by x and the
temperature of beer and water at a particular point be described by
Tb(x) and Tw(x) respectively. Beer will flow in from x=0 and water
from x=L, so Tb(0) = Tbi (Temperature of beer in) and Tw(L) = Twi
(Temperature of water in) Similarly Tb(L) = Tbo and Tw(0) = Two.


Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 22:37:35 -0500
From: "Peter J. Calinski" <PCalinski at iname.com>
Subject: New Millennium brews...




>Hey, just a thought, if you are making a 'New Millennium' barley
wine....it
>will have plenty of time to age.  You will drink it in 2001.....

>Year 2000 isn't the change of the millennium, 2001 is.  We started at year
1,
>not year 0....

>Just a thought....

Another thought.  Shouldn't the O.G. be 2.000 ?


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: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 08:17:21 -0600
From: Louis Bonham <lkbonham at hypercon.com>
Subject: Correction to posted MCAB results

Hi folks:

The results I posted yesterday had an embarrassing typo -- the winner in
American Brown was in fact Chris Lavoie, and not Robert Acosta and & Pete
Rodriguez.  In typing up the results Sunday after getting about 8 hours sleep
over the previous 3 days, I just didn't proof it carefully.  (Cut and paste
error in creating the winner list from the list of entrants.)  I've already sent
an e-mail to Robert Acosta and & Pete Rodriguez apologizing for the snafu.

Rest assured that the proper winner was announced at the MCAB on Saturday, and
that I had 2 other people cross check my handwritten list of winners against the
beer ID sheets before we announced the winners.

Louis K. Bonham



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 08:42:17 -0600
From: Nathan Kanous <nlkanous at pharmacy.wisc.edu>
Subject: Rochefort Yeast / Sensory evaluation

Hi Everybody!  I've got a starter of Rochefort yeast going.  One thing I've
noticed is how dry this yeast finishes.  I made one previous batch using
this (Wyeast 1762) and noticed how much more bitter this beer tasted than
the IBU's would have indicated for a brew of such OG and FG.

So, how does the dry finish of this yeast impact on sensory perceptions?
What I'm really asking, is what charactersitics of beers meld well with
this dry finish?  It appears that the bitterness of a given brew may be
accentuated by the dry finish.  What about hop flavors?  Would a yeast with
a dry finish go well in a beer with a relatively high level of finishing
hops?  Is this yeast better suited to a really malty HUGE beer? 

Kind of a strange question, but I've never been accused of being much else.
 Any thoughts would be appreciated!  TIA....oh yeah, anybody brewed with
this yeast got any experiences to pass along?  Thanks.
nathan in Madison, wi




Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 10:04:32 -0500
From: "Raymond Lowe" <WRLowe at worldnet.att.net>
Subject: canned priming solutions

Brewers,
    I have a question. I made priming solutions that I canned in the
pressure canner. I did this in pint jars. I measured 4.5oz corn sugar to
each jar and filled with water. Canned in the pressure canner for 15min at
15lbs. pressure. Has anybody else tried this? I have used this in my last 2
beers, and they seem a little sweet after conditioning.
    Could this have caramelized in the pressure canner?They seem to have a
slight tint to them. When mixed, before canning they were clear. I was
canning wort for yeast starters when I got this idea.Thanks for the help
Raymond Lowe
Catawba, Virginia



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 09:36:09 -0600 (CST)
From: Mark Garthwaite <mgarth at primate.wisc.edu>
Subject: Brew Kettles


Rodney asks of a source for a brew kettle for full-wort boils...

	I've had good luck at restaurant auctions (restaurants that are
going out of business).  They are few and far between but great sources.

 -Mark

Mark Garthwaite
Madison, WI





Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 10:56:16 -0500
From: "Eric R. Theiner" <logic at skantech.com>
Subject: Hot water freezes faster?

We're getting far afield from beer, but I have a chip on my shoulder
regarding people who refuse to examine the facts in preference of their
own (possibly incorrect) beliefs.  Call it a side effect of conducting
pure research for too long.

This reference and abstract came from a web site that I suspect the
naysayers ignored.  If anyone wants to challenge the subject statement,
please argue with the research rather than resorting to vulgarities.

Am. J. Phys., Vol. 63, No. 10, October 1995 Pages 882-885
Supercooling and the Mpemba effect: When hot water freezes quicker than
cold
David Auerbach Max-Planck-Institut fur Stromungsforschung, Bunsenstrasse
10, D-37073 Gottingen, Germany
(Received 2 November 1994; accepted for publication 28 March 1995)

     Temperature measurements taken near vessel walls show that
initially hot water may
     well begin to freeze quicker than cold. This is not, as previously
surmised, due to the
     cooling history of the water (e.g., air expulsion during heating).
Rather, supercooling
     virtually always takes place. On those occasions where the cold
water supercools
     sufficiently more than the hot the Mpemba scenario is the
following: The hot water
     supercools, but only slightly, before spontaneously freezing.
Superficially it looks
     completely frozen. The cold water (in larger volume than that of
the hot sample)
     supercools to a lower local temperature than the hot before it
spontaneously freezes.
     This scenario can occur more often for ambient cooling temperatures
between -6
     (degree)C and -12 (degree)C. (Copyright) 1995 American Association
of Physics
     Teachers.

Rick Theiner
LOGIC, Inc.



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 10:54:19 -0500
From: "ajphoto" <ajphoto at columbus.rr.com>
Subject: Autolysis & Rousing

What effect would rousing of the primary have on the
flavor contribution of autolysis byproducts?  I sometimes
notice lighter versions of the flavors mentioned though I
never exceed two weeks in the primary even for Lagers
and high gravity ales.  I often agitate the primary to lower
F.G.  Is this increasing the flavor transfer?  I wait to be
sure that there  is CO2 in the headspace before I rouse.

A.J. Zanyk





Return to table of contents

---