---

	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: Jacketed thermometers ("Dana H. Edgell")
  Re: Chill Haze (Jeff Renner)
  Five bottles of N.A. beer on the wall ("S. Wesley")
  Candi, Candi, Candi (Ted McIrvine)
  PH Meter ("Sandy Macmillan")
  efficiency/decoction/haze ("Stephen Alexander")
  Wither Tracey/Haze/Candi from cane ("Stephen Alexander")
  Phils false promise bottom (Rick Georgette)
  Another PC RIMS Idea (Ken Schwartz)
  Re: valves (fridge)
  Phil's Phalse Bottom - another opinion ("Donald D. Lake")
  Ball valves, EASYEAST, Iodine deposits, Draft Line cleaning (Joe Rolfe)
  RE: pH Meter (LaBorde, Ronald)
  Temps and Rests (wakarimasen)
  ideal grind for malt (kathy/jim)
  Open fermentations, publicizing a yeast ranch (MICHAEL WILLIAM MACEYKA)
  decoction anyone? ("Scott Moore")
  Oh, so many subjects (Jeremy Bergsman)
  Trip Info Request (Jim Layton)
  RE: Why RIMS with modified malts (John Wilkinson)


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: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 11:06:58 -0800 (PST)
From: "Dana H. Edgell" <edgell at cari.net>
Subject: RE: Jacketed thermometers

Bill Rehm asked about jacketed thermometers..

What you are describing is called a thermometer well. I made one for my
brew kettle for only about a buck and it works great. the design I used is
from The Thrifty Brewer column form an old issue of the Great Lakes Brewing
paper.

The basic steps  (using the dimensions for my thermometer) are

1) get a probe thermometer
2) measure thermometer probe diameter (1/8" for mine)
3) determine the smallest copper tubing that this will fit in (1/4" o.d.
for mine). You only need a few inches more than the probe length.
4) get a standard brass compression union for this tubing size. (remove
surface lead using John Palmer's method, see previous HBDs)
5) check that the probe will pass through the compression fitting. If not
drill out the inside to make it fit.
6) attach the tubing to one side of the compression fitting using one of
the union's compression sleeves&nuts. seal the other end of the tubing by
pound about an inch flat with a hammer (nature's perfect tool) and folding
the flat part over about a 1/4" twice. check for leaks. If leaks Pound some
more or squeeze with a vice. A tiny bit of silicone sealeant in the end
before pounding could improve the seal.
7) Drill the hole in the brewpot where you want the thermometer placed. The
hole should just allow the thread open end of the compression union
(without the compression nut of course) to pass through.
8) Stick open end of the compression fitting throught the hole from the
inside of the brewpot. Use the compression nut that came with the union and
washers to make a water tight seal. I used a stainless steel washer and a
teflon washer(I cut out of a teflon sheet I have). The washers will
probably make a better seal on the inside surface due to the pot curvature
so they should be food-grade.

Sorry, I don't think I can do a good ascii diagram but the final order of
parts is

1) copper tubing with sealed end (attached to union with 1st compression nut)
2) compression union
3) s.s. washer
4) soft washer (telfon in my case)
5) kettle wall
6) 2'nd compression nut

Notes: If the compression nut doesn't screw in enough to make a seal
against the kettle wall you can either add another s.s. washer or saw the
end of the 2nd compression nut off so it will screw on all the way.


If you use a larger probe diameter thermometer you will need larger tubing
& compression fittings which could be significantly more expensive than a
buck.

Dana

- ------------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Edgell                         edgell at cari.net
2939 Cowley Way #G         http://www.quantum-net.com/edge_ale
San Diego, CA 92117         (619) 276-7644




Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 20:36:18 -0500
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner at umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Chill Haze

"Crossno, Glyn" <Glyn.Crossno at cubic.com> writes

>While enjoying my latest CAP I was thinking, (always a mistake), "If I could
>get rid of the chill haze this would be perfect."  This one was corn meal,
>cereal mash, single infusion.  Great Head, last for quite a while.
>
>So do I need a SHORT protein rest. At 130? 135?  10 minutes?

It seems to me that if it is only a chill haze, time and gravity should
take care of most of it.  My CAPS are hazy only when you shine a flashlight
bean through them.  Otherwise, they appear perfectly clear, just short of
brilliant (which is how they taste, of course, like yours).  I mash in at
40C, then boost over 20-30 minutes to 140F, etc.  This means I pass through
all kinds of proteinase kind of temps for short times.

Another treatment, which George Fix spoke of at MCAB, is the "ice beer"
treatment (a Labatt's developed and patented process).  Rack your beer off
all the yeast you can (<10 E5 cells per ml), drop the temp to ~27F for 72
hrs (this from memory), which should freeze ~5% of the beer volume.  This
icy portion should contain the chill haze tannin/polyphenolic culprits
(which may be oxidized as well).  Rack the beer off this and it should be
more stable.  It  further increases a "rounded" flavor.

Anyone who took notes and remembers this better please correct my
recollection of this.  I think it will be in the Fixes' new book
(Principles of Brewing Science, Rev.) due in October.

Jeff

 -=-=-=-=-
Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan c/o nerenner at umich.edu
"One never knows, do one?"  Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943. 




Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 23:34:50 -0500
From: "S. Wesley" <WESLEY at MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
Subject: Five bottles of N.A. beer on the wall

I guess I'm not a very patient person.  I was driving past the local 
homebrew store and I decided that rather than wait to hear back from 
folks at HBD about commercial anti foam compounds I'd just go in and 
buy some.  I picked up a six of  Dundee's Honey Brown and went to 
work on it. 

Recently I have been fiddling around with an aspiratior, a .500 litre
filter flask and a hotplate with a magnetic stirrer.  I vacuum 
evaporated about 10% of the volume of five bottles of beer, one 
bottle at a time.  This takes about half an hour per bottle.  I began 
by adding two drops of Crosby and Baker anti-foam compound to the 
flask.  Next I slowly add the beer and start the stirrer.  Turn the 
heat on to low and hook up the aspirator.  You have to be a bit 
careful at this point and turn the water up slowly or antifoaming 
agent not withstanding you will have a flask full of foam.  The beer 
is basically degassing at this point.  Once degassing is done the 
beer should be coming up to temperature.  I have found that 28C or 
about 80F seems to work pretty well.  Holding and stirring at this 
temperature produces a gentle boil which will reduce the volume by 
10% in about 20min.  

You may be wondering why I decided to do this to five bottles.  The 
answer is that I do not have any reliable way to assess the alcohol 
content of beer.  I do know how my body feels after consuming one 
bottle of beer and also how it feels after five.  A built in 
alcho-meter if you will.  I added water to make up for the lost 
volume and stuffed it in the fridge.  When I arrived home I poured 
the result into a 3gal soda keg, force carbonated it and drank the 
whole five bottles over the course of an hour.  One hour later I 
still feel a little bloated and I feel another trip to the john 
coming on, but otherwise I am stone cold sober. 

At this point I would like to find somone who can do a bit more 
quantitative analysis of alcohol content for me.  Any takers?  

A few other comments 
1)  Aspirators use a lot of water.  Richard Lahusen proposed using 
a recirculating pump in conjucnction with an aspirator in HBD 1514-7. 
I have to give credit where it is due. The process outlined above was 
inspired in large part by reading his post.
2)  The anti foaming agent reacts with the beer to produce a slight 
haze.  There is a noticible difference between the clarity of one 
drop vs. two drops per bottle.  I suspect that only one drop would 
be needed if you were working with uncarbonated beer.  
3) If you use this method you will have to live without a head on 
your beer. You might be able to add some more chemicals to recreate 
the head, but I don't know if that would work.
4) If  you are satisfied with the level of alcohol reduction in this 
beer the I estimate that it would cost about $1.20 in electricity to 
remove the alcohol from a five gallon batch. If it is necessary to go 
to 30% volume reduction I guess that would triple.
5) I estimate that a system could be constructed to remove the 
alcohol from homebrew that would cost less than  $200 using this  
method.  This would include an aspirator, a recirculating pump 
capable of producing 2gpm at appropriate pressure, a used quarter or 
half barrel sanke or hoff-stevens keg, a tap, some vacuum hose, 
some regular hose, a bucket, some plumbing fittings, and a heater. 
6) The beer basically tasted fine.  If somone gave me a bottle of 
this to drink and told me it was honey brown I never would have known 
the difference.  I can't comment on the impact of this process on  
the hop profile since this is a very lighly hopped beer.  

						Enough said. 
						I gotta go pee. 
						Simon


						


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 01:21:33 -0800
From: Ted McIrvine <McIrvine at ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Candi, Candi, Candi

The two most notable differences (>IF< the literature I've read is
correct, which is always a dicey proposition with homebrewing) are that
Belgian Candi sugar is made from beets and that the crystalization
process concentrates it more than sugar made from sugar cane.  I think
that the dark Belgian candi sugar does make a notable difference in
brewing darker Belgian-style beers, which should ideally get >some< of
the color from sugar instead of malt.  I've had good success in
substituting corn sugar or honey in Belgian-style Trippels, but I
wouldn't dream of making a Dubbel or dark Belgian-style ale without dark
candi sugar.

Ted
McIrvine at Ix.Netcom.Com

> From: ThomasM923 at aol.com

> Why do Belgian brewers use an expensive (compared to plain old cane, that is)
> ingredient instead of just throwing in a few pounds of Domino? Is it in any
> way different from cane? Inverted, perhaps? What difference does inverted
> sugar make?
> TIA...
> 
> Thomas Murray
> Maplewood, NJ


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 11:23:26 +0300
From: "Sandy Macmillan" <scotsman at ncc.moc.kw>
Subject: PH Meter

Scott wrote Can anyone suggest a good pH meter that is not over say $150.oo

My 2 pennies worth
I bought a Hanna 8314 PH meter and digital thermometer for US$ 200.
Easy to calibrate and built in temperature correction.
Well pleased with the unit, I know it is over the budget but I also use the
thermometer for mash temps etc. and I justified the cost (to myself) as a
dual instrument. They have a home page www.hannainst.com
Usual disclaimers

Sandy Macmillan
Brewing in a dry place.



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 04:20:25 -0500
From: "Stephen Alexander" <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net>
Subject: efficiency/decoction/haze

- -- Extraction efficiency
Fix reports an astonishing 15% increased extraction when a 40C rest is first
performed (AoBT pp 24-33) and several folks noted this as a reason to
include a low temp in a decoction schedule.   A close reading shows this
isn't necessarily a valid conclusion.

The 15% was for a 40C/60C/70C infusion/step schedule vs a 66C single
infusion schedule using highly modified (Kolbach=44%) low protein ale malt
(British?). The multistep mash was 105' vs 60' and the 70C and 66C temp
makes a difference too.  In HB terms Fix gets  31 pt-g/lb from a euro pils
malt in a multistep infusion, 30 from US 2-row multistep infusion, but
<28pt-gal/lb from a highly modified ale malt using single infusion at
66C(!!), and 32.2pg/lb for the ale malt on a multistep.

My experience is that an low initial rest gives faster conversion and
marginally better extraction (<5%) and the looming probability of mediocre
head and body.  To be fair I didn't use infusions to boost quickly out of
the low range like Fix did, but used direct heat at <2C/min which takes
longer.  This can cause foam problems and always IMO detracted from
mouthfeel.  M&BS pp 287, table 9.9 compares 4 mashing schedules (from single
temp to several Fix-like variants) for an under- and well- modified malt and
the extraction differences are in the 0-3% range.  The conditions are of
course different from Fix's, yet nothing remotely like 15% appears.

- -- Low temp rests ... enzymes
I got many comments on this.  First according to Fix and Kunze some
beta-glucanase activity takes place at 35C/95F but Kunze suggests that
starting this low poses potential head/foam loss problems.  Either way there
is certainly some enzymatic activity - but is it important to modern malts
?.  The beta-glucanases would be helpful for undermodified malts and if you
can find one by all means do a beta-glucanase rest -  right after you tell
me where to obtain this rare malt.

- --Schedules/methods
Fix starts with a thick mash (1.1qt/lb at 40C) which may slow enzymatic
activity and boosts to 60C by diluting the mash (to 1.58qt/lb) with (32%
additional) hot water.  So Fix, by infusion can carefully control the time
spent and perform a very quick temp  boost.  The same cannot be said for
heated-step/decoction/RIMS mashing.  Kunze notes (pp210) that a thick
mash-in followed by hot water infusions limits proteolysis.  But warns
earlier that a 1C/min boost rate over the proteolysis range can cause
problems.

Incidentally Kunze's mash schedules all allow for 90-120 minutes in the
saccharification range (60C-75C) , while Fix suggests keeping
saccharification under 60 minutes except for malts with a fine/coarse
extraction difference above 2.0%.

- -- Thin line between lovable and haze
I suggested avoiding the 54C range and was asked about haze.  Fix claims
that virtually no proteolysis occurs at 59C or above, while  M&BS suggest
the limit is higher. Kunze spec's that 58C to 62C is a practical rest to
allow for limited proteolysis.  I currently  rest at 58C with a very slow
increase to ~62C, and a final bump to 70-72C.  The 58C-62C allows haze
reduction.  I don't experience haze problems with this method typically,
tho' clearing is sometimes slow.  I guess that makes me a Kunze-ite tho'
I've been doing this since the pre-Kunze era at the suggestion of Charlie
Scandrett.

The 45C-55C range is *very* dangerous territory - you're likely to lose your
head and body there (Kunze calls the results "insipid").  Certainly if you
rest there long enough to perform a decoction - or even if you just heat
through this range you're in trouble.  If you seriously want to start life
at a lower temp (35C-50C) consider infusion as a means to quick boost out of
the range as Fix does.

Kunze suggests carefully monitoring proteolysis via FAN measurements if you
need to mash so low. How ?

- -- Purple haze ?
Re enzymes denaturing, haze and the German brewing bulletin board question.
Enzymes are about equally likely to participate in haze whether denatured or
not.  That probability is low anyway since these very HMW proteins are left
behind in the break.  The real relationship, which Scott Murman pointed out
in private email and Kunze confirms, is that the temp boost to mashout
releases starch and at temps up to about 78C the alpha-amylase survives well
enough to convert the starch to less objectionable dextrins before the boil
[please note that momily no.235:"mashout wipes all enzymes" is hereby
officially rescinded].  If the mashout temp is higher - then the amylase
poops out and you get starch in the wort so haze and a positive iodine
tests!

For infusion mashing, mashout does add to extract by heat releasing starch
and improving runoff/lauter(again credit to ScottM).  The question is - is
it worth your time and the possibility of getting hit with phenolic
extraction and residual starch.  For decoction mashing - the extra starch
released and improvement in lauter should be quite minor, the time&labor
costs are quite large and you are adding HSA risk.  I'm just suggesting that
you can successfully brew without a conventional mashout at the cost of a
couple points of extraction. Pay the maltster the 50 cents and go home
early.

Steve






Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 05:32:03 -0500
From: "Stephen Alexander" <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Wither Tracey/Haze/Candi from cane

Scott Albene wonders what happened to Tracey Aquilla's wonderful posts.
After a biology degree Tracey went back to school for in law I believe. So
far only LK Bonham juggles the legal profession and homebrewing and I think
one of these guys is plenty ! (kiddin'  Louis ;^) .

Scott also comments about protein rests for his CAP to reduce haze.
Unmalted grains can add HMW & MMW proteins but little FAN.  So brewing with
unmalted grain is a classic case where a protein rest (and maybe a
beta-glucanase rest and a peptidase rest) make good sense.  Gelatinised corn
gives good extraction so a beta-glucanase rest is of doubtful value for
CAP - may improve lautering.

As for a protein rest vs haze in all-malt brewing - I am not opposed to a
protein rest per se - but it needs to be *carefully* controlled to avoid
loss of foam and body.  If you can't always get perfect
clarity+mouthfeel+head, then I'd prefer to err on the side of
mouthfeel+minor_haze vs minor_mouthfeel+clarity.

I will admit to ignorance regarding the materials used to make Candi sugar
traditionally.  As to why they don't use cane sugar - I understand that
sugar beet is a more common source of sucrose in Europe than is cane, and
that in quantity it has a bitter edge.  Inverted sucrose should give equal
amounts of glucose and fructose to caramelize - and I suspect you would see
minor differences in their caramelization products.  The Brits use 'chip
sugar' from alkaline caramelized cane sugar I believe.

Steve





Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 05:59:27 -0500 (EST)
From: rickge at webtv.net (Rick Georgette)
Subject: Phils false promise bottom

By itsself Phils false promise bottom is difficult to use.  Grain easily
slips past it and it floats in water making it difficult to mash in.  I
have used a simple solution to make this work in a round cooler.  Simply
slit a piece of tubing and slide it around the circumference of the
screen.  This not only holds it in place, but it prevents grain from
flowing aroung the screen causing a stuck sparge.

Rick Georgette



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 05:31:00 -0700
From: Ken Schwartz <kenbob at elp.rr.com>
Subject: Another PC RIMS Idea

I posted some info on an inexpensive A/D card & temperature sensor for a
PC-Controlled RIMS application in the last HBD.  Yesterday I was
browsing a recent Marlin P. Jones catalog and found they have a kit for
a parallel port A/D with some digital I/O.  The kit is $55 (but requires
an external 12VDC supply; an inexpensive adapter is probably all it
needs).  It states "'C', Visual Basic, Quick Basic routines provided
along with Windows 95 software.  Data can be viewed, stored, or exported
to Lotus or Excel."  This was in Catalog 99-01 and is item number
8418-KT.  Their phone is 800-432-9937 or you can check 'em on the web at
http://www.mpja.com .

- -- 
*****

Ken Schwartz
El Paso, TX
Brewing Web Page: http://home.elp.rr.com/brewbeer
E-mail: kenbob at elp.rr.com


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 07:48:51 -0500
From: fridge at kalamazoo.net
Subject: Re: valves

Greetings folks,

 In HBD#2960 Rod Prather asks for reasons not to use gate valves 
to control liquid flow and suggests that ball valves aren't well suited 
for this task.

 Contrary to common belief, ball valves can work pretty well for flow 
control. In fact, they are showing up more and more in 
industrial/commercial temperature control applications.

 Gate valves, however, are ill suited for flow control. They are 
typically used for isolating part of a piping system.  They use a 
wedge-shaped gate that retracts from the liquid path when fully open 
and seals tightly against the valve body when fully closed. The gate 
is only supported properly when fully closed or fully open. When 
partially open, the gate will flutter in the liquid flow. It is common for 
a gate to break off when a gate valve is left partially open for long 
periods. 

 A far better flow control valve is the globe valve. Externally these 
often look very similar to a gate valve. A globe valve is designed for 
partial opening and flow control. The flow is channelled between a 
ring-shaped valve seat and a valve washer attached to the stem. The 
space between the seat and washer are varied by turning the valve 
stem. Almost all domestic water faucets are/were globe valves until 
the advent of the single handle washerless faucets that are 
becoming popular.

 I believe ball valves to be the best overall choice for most home 
brewing uses. Ball valves are inexpensive, throttle liquid flow 
reasonably well, are easy to clean and sanitize, and unlike a globe 
valve, easy to clear obstructions (like hops) from.

Hope this helps!

Forrest Duddles - FridgeGuy in Kalamazoo
fridge at kalamazoo.net



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 08:34:36 -0500
From: "Donald D. Lake" <dake at gdi.net>
Subject: Phil's Phalse Bottom - another opinion

I purchased my all-grain system last year from a mail order outfit out
of North Carolina.  It consisted of two 10-gal Rubbermaid coolers,
Phil's Phalse Bottom and hoses.  Surprisingly, it also came with a round
fiber filter (about .75 in thick) to sit on top of the false bottom and
under the mash..

I had never heard or read of anyone using that set up so I called the
retailer and asked why it was included.  He explained, based on their
experience,  that it greatly improves the problems with stuck mashes and
reduces the time needed to recirculate the first runnings. After 8
batchs of using this set up, I have never had a stuck mash while using
the filter (including several batches of wheat beer).  The only time I
had a stuck mash was the one and only time I tried to mash without using
the filter(as a test).

Furthermore, I have never had a problem with the false bottom floating.
I believe that is probably due to the fact that I use a short, thick and
stiff vinyl hose to the spigot from the false bottom (I don't know the
brand or material, but it is blue, thick and rather rigid).

I have been very happy with my setup and have had excellent results with
Phil's Phalse Bottom.

Don Lake
Orlando, FL
 E-mail:  dlake at amuni.com   http://www.amuni.com
************************************************************************





Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 10:35:25 -0500
From: Joe Rolfe <rolfe at sky.sky.com>
Subject: Ball valves, EASYEAST, Iodine deposits, Draft Line cleaning

Rod Prather <rodpr at iquest.net> asked about ball valves...
Dont know about the non-linear aspects, I do know ball valves are
horrible on sanitation so I would avoid them like the plague outside
of the brewhouse.  One thing for sure they are cheap (even all
stainless) compared to the price of a butterfly/gate valve. I have not
seen to many gate valves but those that I have seen were plastic.  But
if you can find a compatible metal gate valve, I dont see why you
could not use it.  	 

Anyone in the area of Hampton, NH using EASYEAST? - just saw this at a
newly found homebrew shop in Haverhill (forgot all about this one...).
Come in (uggghh) plastic, date labeled container of about 10 oz.  Cost
about $3.50. I bought one today going to give it a try this Saturday.

***QDA***
Iodine deposits, I too saw iodine deposits in use.  One thing that
worked for me was to add a small qty of acid to the water before
adding the iodine. Hard water appeared to have some effect, I saw more
of these deposits when I used my raw - unsoftend water.  I never
rinsed the iodine from the fermenter - I just let it drain for atleast
5 minutes before filling, worked for me.  


Matthew Birchfield <peridot at usit.net> asked about cleaning a draft
tower...
Draftlines and tap heads can be cleaned with a strong alkaline
detergent available from Crosby and Baker and restaurant supply
houses. The stuff is specifically made for this purpose and is pretty
nasty. You should wear some eye and hand protection. Fill a keg with
the mixture and force it thru the lines with Co2/Air or a pump.  The
taphead itself comes apart and there is a small gasket inside that you
may want to replace. Again a bar supply house should have these, or
you might be able to find a resonable replacement at a hardware
store.  Replace all beer hoses would not hurt either, you'll probably
have to recalc the tap lines parameters to drop the pressures for your
set up anyway.  


Good Luck and Great Brewing
Joe Rolfe


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 09:41:12 -0600
From: rlabor at lsumc.edu (LaBorde, Ronald)
Subject: RE: pH Meter

>>>>
From: BrwrOfBeer at aol.com

I have been all grain brewing now for about 2yr.  I have never checked my pH
reading before.  All beers were good.  Now I want to start reading mash pH
readings
<<<<

I have become disenchanted with PH meters, and I am beginning to see them as
SINK HOLES for your money.

I am on my second one now, and it too has gone bad.  They seem to last about
six months.  If you get a cheap one, you have the privilege to buy another
one every six months.  If you buy an expensive one, you get to buy an
expensive element every six months.

I must be a penny pincher, but I just do not see the economy of this on a
continual basis.  What I recommend is to borrow one and use it a couple
times and note how much you need to alter your water, then just use that
same amount as your standard correction until you find a need to change.

In the perfect world, you would own several accurate meters, fresh
calibration chemicals, and your beer would be perfect.

Ron

Ronald La Borde - Metairie, Louisiana - rlabor at lsumc.edu



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 11:31:11 -0500
From: wakarimasen at mindspring.com
Subject: Temps and Rests

>>
>I got an OG 1.038 instead of the expected 1.059-1.063.  I got a really good
>crush from my Corona mill and thought I would be in pretty good shape.  I
>mashed in at 155F for 90 minutes occassionally stirring.  Luckily I had
about
>1# of DME and was able to get the OG to ~1.050... close enough for what I
had
>to work with.
>
>I have 2 questions: 1 - how can I improve my extraction rate
>       2 - Did he get his OG by doing a decoction (I didn't)


One suggestion I have is to double check your themometers.  If the
thermometer is reading low, you could be mashing at a higher temp than you
realized.  Also, in mashing I've found that the difference in temp can
easily be 10 dgrees at different spots around the tun if it is not well
mixed (thus I take temps at various places/depths).

=====================
>Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 21:36:52 -0700
>From: Sharon/Dan Ritter <ritter at bitterroot.net>
>Subject: diacetyl pils
>Active fermentation 8 hours after racking off trub
>Primary fermentation 12 days  at  48F
>Diacetyl rest for 2 days  at  60F
>Secondary fermentation 4 weeks  at  38F
>After 2 months in the keg - DIACETYL dominates aroma and flavor!!


Perhaps I'm wrong, but I always thought the Diacetyl rest comes after the
secondary fermentation, but possibly before long-term lagering.

Also, do you drop the beer from Primary at 48F to Secondary at 38F quickly?
And is this secondary fermentation really a secondary fermentation, or means
you've transfering into another container (a secondary container).
>*************************************

Dennis Waltman




Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 11:47:11 -0500
From: kathy/jim <kbooth at scnc.waverly.k12.mi.us>
Subject: ideal grind for malt

I've pondered the advantages of the non-parallel rollers of a mill and
the fact that it gives a sieve distribution closest the the ideal of the
6 roller mill, yet clearly the malt going thru the close end is milled
quite different then the malt going thru the wide setting end of the
mill. 

The roller milling process for wheat (I was a student of such years ago)
is first to open the berry into a flake of bran with starch adhering,
and then with additional passes thru other rollers, to strip the starch
from the bran and remove (sieve off) the bran, and then reduce the
starch particles to flour.

In both flour and malt milling, it is important to prevent small
particles of bran from the final product, but it is essential in flour
milling.  

It would seem there is little advantage to the fine crush of the close
setting of the non-parallel rollers. It contains fines of both bran
(undesirable)  and starch (desirable). The 6 roller application grinds
the starch fine which gives an efficiency in a commercial application in
extraction rate and mashing time, but neither of these are a priority to
the home brewer.  

An ideal distribution of product over a standard set of seives is an
important goal, only if the content of each sieve is the same as in the
standard used in a 6 roller mill.  If the 6-roller mill produces a
certain percent of fines of starch while the single pass produces the
same percent fines of bran and starch, the single pass mill has achieved
a false goal.  

This probably was hashed out years ago before I started the HBD, but
I've not seen this explanation presented. I apologize (well kinda) if
I've reopened old wounds. 

My own conclusion is that the fine/coarse of grind probably isn't that
important to the home brewer as compared to convenience and effort and
that one has a successful sparge.  I have advocated the tempering (an
essential of wheat flour milling) of malt with 2 Tbls water/ pound of
malt and letting it rest 30' before milling.  This eases the milling
effort required, reduces dust, and produces more fines and a larger bran
flake; all desirable.   cheers,  jim booth, lansing, mi



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 11:53:47 -0500 (EST)
From: MICHAEL WILLIAM MACEYKA <mmaceyka at welchlink.welch.jhu.edu>
Subject: Open fermentations, publicizing a yeast ranch

	Howdy.  Brewed a sticke this weekend (oh, and I never had a problem 
with chill haze until I started using Weisheimer malt, will report results
of n=1, 45 min rest at 55C).  As I was cooling to transfer to the primary,
my wife informed me that we were late for a Mardi Gras party.  My starter
was crawling out of its bottle, and I have always been intrigued by the
idea of open ferments, so I just pitched in the cooled kettle, breaks and
spent hops and all.  Racked it off of said sediment and 2 gal volume
krausen into a carboy with airlock after 24 h.  Airlock was blown off this
morning.
	My question(s): when do open fermenters typically rack to a closed
container?  Or do you just rack to the bottling bucket/keg?  And in what
and how many ways IMBR?
	Also, as I work in a lab that spends a good portion of its time
growing yeast, I have taken to ranching them myself.  When members of my
brewclub heard about this, they were very interested in getting some of
the strains.  Typically I, um that is I am considering giving out 50 ml
shots that I have grown shaking in "YPDS" (1% yeast extract, 2% peptone,
2% glucose, 2% sucrose).  The club has a web site and I would like to
make this a service available to members.  All of the strains in my bank
have come from commercial yeast suppliers except the Hennepin yeast.  I do
this out of the goodness of my heart; there is no fee charged.  There is
another who has helped me in these endeavors, but I do not wish get him
into any trouble just yet.  He's too busy hitting the snooze button.
	My second question(s): what are the legalities of advertising
these strains by the names and numbers the suppliers gave them?  What are
the legalities of advertising these strains by the names of the reputed
breweries the yeast were taken from in the first place?  Any yeast rancher
out there ever have problems with certain strains going petite or
sporulating/growing as haploids (or half of whatever their ploidy was to
begin with) during storage on agar?



Mike Maceyka
Baltimore, MD
Still too ashamed of his brewery name to mention it, but quite happy with
the name of his Duvel clone, The Felonius Monk...



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 09:41:48 PST
From: "Scott Moore" <brewathome at hotmail.com>
Subject: decoction anyone?

Steve Alexander writes:

>The value of unfermentable carbohydrates in beer, those formed after 
>the boost from 143F, are of very dubious value with respect to 
>body,mouthfeel and foam/head properties.  (see my previous post for 
>references).  Protein is a much bigger issue for all of these.

What is still confusing for me is that I always read that for good 
body/mouthfeel you need to rest the mash in the range of 155-158F and 
for thin/highly alcoholic beer you rested at 145-149F. Are dextrins not 
as important as previously thought? I've had many a batch that finished 
too high with good body/mouthfeel although they were way too sweet. I 
would love to get that body in a well attenuated beer...  

>==My streamlined method is as follows:
>R1- Mash-in for a strike at about 60C/140F, and allow enough time for 
>a nearly complete conversion and a few % extra malt.

>R2 - rest at the 160F temp until you get a negative iodine.  Only >then 
start the recirculation.  Note that a negative iodine only means >tha 
amylose segments greater then G9 are missing.  Additional >degradation 
is desirable and occurs during the lauter and beyond...

My next questions are:

1. Will this method work for trying to duplicate some of my favorite 
bocks and dopplebocks where a higher FG is desired?

2. With a highly fermentable wort, is the malty taste and body/mouthfeel 
more dependent on the yeast than ever?

3. Would I be restricted to using something like 2308 or 2206 or could I 
still use Nottingham dry like some others have done? I can only lager to 
about 50F currently.

I have been scouring the digest archives for weeks trying to find out 
more about decoction and of course opinions differ greatly.  Any way to 
increase that malty flavor beyond no-sparge and pressure cooking without 
adding 3 hours to my brew day is welcome advice.

Regards,

Scott Moore 

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


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 10:19:32 -0800
From: Jeremy Bergsman <jeremybb at leland.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Oh, so many subjects

Rod Prather <rodpr at iquest.net> writes:
> Subject: Flow Valves in Breweries
> 
> I have noticed during several ongoing discussions that Ball Valves have been
> referred to as being used for flow control.  Ball valves serve well as shut
> offs but they are terribly non linear and don't work well as flow control
> valves.  Is there any reason why gate valves couldn't be used for flow
> controls or am I missing something.    I seems that a gate valve would give
> much better flow control.

Rod is right about ball valves, however, gate valves are also designed for 
all-or-none action.  Unlike ball valves (called seacocks by sailors) gate
valves are potentially effective as graded-opening valves, but it is usually
recomended that they not be used this way.  I believe this is because they
are designed to work without washers to allow them to stay in one position for
years and then be used.  Water flow might eventually wear on the sealing
surfaces?  Anyway this is probably a non-issue for homebrewing use levels.
There are other types of valves designed for graded opening.

************************************************************************
Mitchell Surface <msurface at fortwayne.infi.net> writes:

> My other question is about stands. I've looked at some of the systems
> on the web and noticed that most of them are using metal frames. I
> don't weld and don't know anyone who does. I'd like to use a wooden
> stand, with perhaps a sheet metal top, but have the obvious concern
> about putting a 170,000 BTU gas burner on a piece of wood. Has anyone
> done this?

I have.  I built a wooden cart that holds everything at the right height,
has storage compartments, holds the plumbing and electronics, and has
wheels.  The burner (was 2, now only 1) is mounted to a metal stand made
of 12 3 or 4" pipe nipples, 1 pipe cross, 4 pipe Ts, and 4 pipe flanges
(I think that's what they're called.  They are a disc that has a pipe 
thread fitting on one side and holes for screws to mount to a surface.)
You can probably see how this goes together: put 4 nipples into the cross,
put the center of a T on each of these such that the ends of the T point
orthogonal to the plane formed by the cross, put 2 nipples into each of
these Ts, and screw a flange onto one set of these Ts.  

This requires no welding, but is rather expensive.  Hint: black pipe is
slightly cheaper than galvanized.

************************************************************************
Jethro chastises me:
> >From: Jeremy Bergsman <jeremybb at leland.Stanford.EDU>
> >Subject: Brown malt/historic porter
>         Newer HBD'rs may also find it useful to review Graham Wheeler's
> contributions to this subject.

Damn! For all the times I curse people who don't check the archives and
here I am caught.  Actually I did check the archives as I posted in my
first post, but missed the Wheeler stuff.  Actually not much useful to
me (but quite interesting nevertheless), except the following 2 tidbits:

>     The original Porters of the early 1700's were brown beers,
> brewed from brown malt; as were almost all beers of the day.
> Brown malt was just about the only malt that was made in those
> days and it is, by definition, a smoked malt; smoked over a
> hardwood fire of oak, beech, or hornbeam. Smoking was considered
                        ^^^^^
> to be an important part of malting and enhanced the flavour, for
> much the same reason that whisky malts are smoked over peat
> today.

So beech smoke from the Weyermann is OK.

> 1850 Whitbread's Porter grist had become
> 80 per cent pale malt, 15 per cent brown malt, and 5 per cent
> black malt.

While I'm after a 1700 porter, this is informative since I will be
forced to brew somewhat more in this vein, i.e. mostly pale malt,
some brown, and dark to compensate.

BTW I've brewed it (Saturday) according to the recipe I posted, 
figuring I'd modify it the second go round with the Beestons Brown
when I get it.  It doesn't taste very smokey, nor too phenolic/sour
from the brown malt, so I think at this point I underdid it with
those.  Time will tell....

BTW sir, I hope you don't mean to suggest that I'm newer HBD'r.  I take
umbrage at that remark and we may have meet on the field of honor--your
choice of weapons.

************************************************************************
From: Scott Abene <skotrat at yahoo.com> asks:
>Hey! What ever happened to Tracy Aquilla??? I miss that quality of
>comments. 

One of many to die in the dreaded war with the AHA if I'm not mistaken.
Pierre Jelanc (sp?) was another source of quality info to go around
that time.  Tracy is not really dead however, since I've seen some
posts of his to sci.bio.food-science.
- -- 
Jeremy Bergsman
jeremybb at stanford.edu
http://www.stanford.edu/~jeremybb


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 12:35:39 -0600
From: Jim Layton <a0456830 at rlemail.dseg.ti.com>
Subject: Trip Info Request

I'll be taking a quick trip to the Santa Anna/Huntington Beach area of
California soon. Will someone please direct me to an area store with a
good selection of Belgian ales? Private emails, please.

Jim Layton 
j-layton at ti.com


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 12:57:04 -0600
From: John.Wilkinson at aud.alcatel.com (John Wilkinson)
Subject: RE: Why RIMS with modified malts

Bruce Taber wrote in HBD #2959:

>If I believe in single temperature mashing, is there any reason to
>consider a RIMS?

I have had a RIMS system for almost a year and  almost exclusively do single
infusion mashes.  The system is easier to use than my old system of a
cylindrical cooler mash tun with rectangular cooler hot liquor tank on saw
horses since I don't have to haul everything out to set up and don't have to
either pour hot water into the HLT up on saw horses or pick up an HLT full
of hot water to put on saw horses.  Of course, these things could be
accomplished without going to a RIMS system.  A directly heated HLT anda  pump
to move water from the HLT to the mash tun and for recirculating saves time
and labor but could be accomplished with a burner under a metal HLT and a pump.
If the mash tun is uninsulated, as is my current Sanke keg derived tun, then
having an in line heater to maintain mash temp is good.  Maintaining mash
temperature with direct heat to the keg/mash tun could be done but stirring or
recirculation would be necessary to keep from scorching.  Also, the mash would
have to be watched to know when to add heat.  If all the components are put
together on a movable stand with a pump for recirculation and a in line heater
for maintaining mash temps, with a controller to regulate the heater, the
above mentioned problems are solved.  But then you have a RIMS system.

On the few times I have done step infusion mashes I have found them quite
simple, raising the mash temp by direct heat and in line heater and maintaining
mash temp by in line heater with controller.  With all mashes the process is a
lot less work than with my old cooler system, especially the recirculation.

Is it worth the extra expense?  That, I would say, is up to the individual.

John Wilkinson - Grapevine, Texas


Return to table of contents

---