HOMEBREW Digest #2967 Tue 02 March 1999

[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]

		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

  pH meters (ThomasM923)
  re:MCAB Recipies (1st place altbier) (Charley Burns)
  vacuum evapoation Q&A ("S. Wesley")
  A proposal for measuring alcohol content in beer. ("S. Wesley")
  Re: Cheap Ethanol test (Tim Anderson)
  Ah, Belgium: still searching (Tim Anderson)
  Teflon Washers (Bill Graham)
  Denver Area Brewpubs (Cdma77)
  Re:  innoculation loop lifespan ("rrscott")
  Alcohol Determination Summary (AJ)
  Boston Homebrew Competition Results (Ken Jucks)
  Re: Rice Hulls: when to add ? (Steve Jackson)
  Reminder for the Fourth Annual South Shore Brewoff ("Reed,Randy")
  RE: Enamel Pot repair? (Rod Schaffter)
  Re: Enamel Pot repair? (Jeff Renner)
  Re: 1st time mashing ("Jim Busch")
  A Continuous Specific Gravity Monitor ("Peter J. Calinski")
  New Judges ("Poirier, Bob")
  Hop Shampoo (Mark_Ohrstrom/Humphrey_Products)
  10% sucrose / loop lifetime (David Whitman)
  Another MCAB Recipe (Jim Layton)
  Re: 10% Sucrose (Michael A. Owings)
  Mash paddle? ("Jeff Beinhaur")
  Lauter Tuns ("Haszard, MAJ Mac")
  Recipe amounts (Alan Monaghan)
  Hemacytometer/Yeast microphotographs (Michael A. Owings)
  College Brewing (PRS) - CPC" <PRS at NA2.US.ML.COM>

Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy! This space free to a good competition... 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, 28 Feb 1999 11:41:18 EST From: ThomasM923 at aol.com Subject: pH meters I bought a meter a couple of years ago, and I like it very much. It sure saves a lot of time. I didn't spend a lot of money on it and it's been trouble-free up to this point. It is called the pH Pen and it is manufactured by Hanna Instruments. It is small, waterproof, and temperature compensated. It has an easy to read LCD display, and can be easily calibrated at one or two points (pH 7 or pH 4 and pH 7). It has a resolution of 0.1 pH and an accuracy of + or - 0.1 pH. I paid $52 plus shipping for it. I bought it from PCI Scientific, located in Fairfield, NJ. The phone # is: (800)432-4136 or (201)244-9002. The catalog # for this meter is #124270. They also sell the pH buffer capsules for making your own pH 7 and pH 4 calibration solutions, at 10 for $6.50 (you must be able to accurately measure 100 ml of distilled water to use these capsules, otherwise you can purchase premixed solution for a bit more money). There is another meter available from PCI that is only $31, however it is less accurate (better than 0.2 pH-cat. #124310). I have had no experience with this meter. This supplier also sells 1 liter bottles of 10% phosphoric acid solution for about $12. Oh, I am not affiliated yetta,yetta,yetta...only a satisfied customer. Thomas Murray Maplewood, NJ Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 10:42:17 -0800 (PST) From: cburns at jps.net (Charley Burns) Subject: re:MCAB Recipies (1st place altbier) MCAB Dusseldorf Altbier - First Place Recipe Starting Gravity : 1.056 Ending Gravity : 1.017 Volume: 11 Gallons Malt 0.25 lb. Black Patent=20 1.00 lb. Crystal 60L -Hugh Baird=20 15.00 lb. DWC Munich=20 5.00 lb. Halcyon Pale Ale=20 1.00 lb. Malted Wheat=20 Hops (all whole): 2.00 oz. Tettnanger 4.4% 60 min 2.00 oz. Hallatauer-Northern Brewer 9.4% 60 min 1.00 oz. Tettnanger 4.4% 30 min Notes: Single Infusion Mash Temperature: 156F Wyeast 2565 (kolsch) 1 quart starter 3.5 months lager at 33F Charley Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 14:28:33 -0500 From: "S. Wesley" <WESLEY at MAINE.MAINE.EDU> Subject: vacuum evapoation Q&A Some general comments about producing non alcoholic beer by vacuum evaporation. From: Simon A. Wesley Q1) Can NA beer be produced by vacuum evaporation at home? Based on the results of a series of tests I have done on evaporating alcohol from solutions of ethanol and water and from beer I feel fairly confident in saying that NA beer can be produced at home with a moderate (about $200) investment in equipment. I have found that evaporating 30% of the volume of a solution of ethanol and water results in a solution with a density equal to that of water indicating that all alcohol was evaporated. A 30% evaporation of a bottle of Rolling Rock Pale ale at 32C resulted in an increase in beer density consistant with removal of the published alcohol content of the beer. See my post on "A proposed technique for determining alcohol content in beer" for more details. Q2) What impact does evaporation have on hop flavor and aroma? As many people have predicted my results to date tend to indicate that most if not all hop aroma will be lost. I did an 8.5 % evaporation of a bottle of Stone Coast 420 IPA which has a very pronounced hop aroma. After evaporating the hop aroma was gone and according to the density of the beer the alcohol content was reduced by roughly 2%. In addition the percieved bitterness of the beer was more pronounced after evaporation. This may have been caused in part by the reduction in alcohol content since alcohol does add to the perceived sweetness of beer. It is possible that the reduction in hop aroma is not caused so much by the evaporation process as by the degassing process. The beers I was working with were fully carbonated to begin with and had to undergo substantial degassing before they would start to boil. This would be less of an issue if one was starting with uncarbonated homebrew. In addition, it may be possible to improve the hop character of the beer through addition of hop oil, or through dry hopping. Q3) Is the flavor of the beer damaged in other ways? It is hard for me to answer this question without doing side by side comparisons of finished beers served at appropriate temperature and carbonated to the same level. Based on tastes of the samples of beer after they were evaporated and reconstituted (absolutely dead flat and at 20C) it appears that the process did not introduce any obvious defects to the beer flavor. I did a 10% evaporation on five bottles of Dundee's Honey Brown Ale and then chilled and force carbonated the beer. The resulting beer was very similar in flavor to the original beer and had no obvious defects. As I have mentioned earlier an anti foaming agent made of precipitated silica was added to the beer to reduce foaming during degassing. This resulted in a slight haze and a complete destruction of the head. The good news is that this compound is supposed to settle out over time and hopefully the clarity and head will be restored. Q4) Why bother doing this instead of just buying commercially availible NA beers? The simple answer is: choice. There are a very limited number of NA beers availible with a very limited stylistic range. To my knowledge there are no NA Stouts, for example. It seems that this method will be particularly well suited to producing NA versions of beer styles such as Mild and Brown ales which do not have agressive hop profiles to start with. Q5) What about evaporating by boiling without vacuum? I have not tried this, but based on what I have read this does tend to damage the flavor of the beer and can result in oxadization. I would like to point out, in particular, that based on what I have observed it is extremely unlikely that simply heating beer above the boiling temperature for alcohol at atmospheric pressure will have any substantial impact on the alcohol content. I expect that a significant fraction of the volume (more than 20%) needs to be evaporated in order to substantially reduce the alcohol content of the beer. This can really only be accomplished by boiling. Q6) Does increasing the volume improve the efficiency as your Quasi-static model predicted? I tried evaporating 10% of a 3 litre sample of 5% ABV and found that the alcohol content was reduced by about 2.5% - the same amount that was removed from the 400 ml samples I studied initially. I did learn another useful thing from this test which is that the solutions really don't start boiling until they reach 32C. Any bubbling observed below this temperature was simply degassing. Q7) What else needs to be done to demonstrate the validity of this technique for home use? The next step is to try to remove alcohol from a 3 gallon sample of homebrew. This will enable me to ascertain whether or not the technique is efficient and effective for larger volumes and also to get a better idea of the impact of the technique on flavor since I will be able to do a side by side comparison with an untreated 3 gallon sample from the same batch. At this point I need to get a recirculating pump for the aspirator. My first attempt at doing this was a dismal failure. I tried using a 1/12 Hp transfer pump ($60) which can supposedly pump water at the necessary rate to run the aspirator. This didn't work because the pump was not able to supply the necessary pressure (30-40 psig.) I have found two pumps which look like they will do the job. One is a 1/2 Hp sprinkler pump ($134) and the other is a 1/2 Hp jet pump for a well ($160.) Both of these are really overkill for this job, so I hope to find something a little less expensive that will still do the trick. Even at these prices this is still the cheapest way I can see to produce a vacuum which will be adequate for the job. (BTW the aspirator costs about $12) Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 14:28:33 -0500 From: "S. Wesley" <WESLEY at MAINE.MAINE.EDU> Subject: A proposal for measuring alcohol content in beer. A Proposed Method for Determining the Alcohol Content in Beer. From: Simon A. Wesley Alcohol has a density which is roughly 80 percent of the density of water and consequently when it is present in a solution with water and other materials it tends to reduce the density of the overall solution. As long as the concentration of alcohol is low the density of the solution if fairly linear with alcohol concentration. If all the alcohol could be removed from a sample of beer the density would increase more or less depending on the amount of alcohol which was present originally and the presence of other solutes in the beer. Since the relationship between density and alcohol concentration is linear, the change in density per part of alcohol can be determined by observing the reduction in density which occurs when a given amount of alcohol is added to the beer. This result can then be used to determine how much alcohol was removed by determining the final density of the beer after removing all the alcohol. I conducted a test in which I vacuum evaporated 30% (i.e. removed 30 %) of the volume of a 5% ABV solution of ethanol and water at 32 C. A measurement of the density of the resulting solution indicated that all the alcohol had been removed. This was indicated by the fact that the density of the solution after evaporation was the same as the density of the distilled water that was used to make up the solution in the first place. This leads me to believe that all the alcohol could be removed from beer by a similar procedure. The Technique. Begin by degassing about 1.5 l of beer. Using a 200 ml volumetric flask measure the density of the beer. (Mass the flask empty, mass it full, subtract, divide by 200 ml) Empty the flask. Add 2 ml of a 98% solution of pure ethanol in water to the flask using a volumetric pipette and then top up with beer. Measure the density. Repeat adding 4ml, 6ml, 8ml, and 10 ml. Set up a sheet of graph paper with a horizontal axis (alcohol) along the bottom and a vertical axis (density) across the center of the page. To the right of the vertical axis plot the density of each alcohol addition. Draw a best fit line through the data points and extend it across the space to the left of the vertical axis. Vacuum evaporate 30% of the volume of the beer sample and replace the portion of evaporated water. Measure the density of the reconstituted sample and read the alcohol removed from the left half of the graph. This should be the alcohol content of the beer. Validation I performed this measurement using Rolling Rock "Pale Ale" (Chosen because it was cheap, the alcohol content is known, and I didn't feel guilty about destroying a six pack) I determined the alcohol content of the beer to be 4.8 +/- .2 % ABV. (In the range of 4.6-5.0% ABV) According to the table of alcohol content of beer listed in the library portion of the brewery web site the alcohol content of this beer is 4.64 %. The actual value is within the range indicated by my measurement. While the tolerance on the measurement is fairly large, I feel that with practice and some modifications this could be lowered to +/- .1 or .05%. Clearly this is not a high precision technique, but it has an advantage over other methods in that it can be done without expensive equipment. Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 19:30:21 -0800 (PST) From: Tim Anderson <timator at yahoo.com> Subject: Re: Cheap Ethanol test ALAN KEITH MEEKER Said this here stuff: >>> There are a number of assay methods available for determining the ethanol content of a solution. [snip] For the homebrewer on a budget there may be a cheap alternative: [snip] Close a 100-mililiter flask with a two hole stopper. Put about 30 mls of solution in the flask. Insert a thermometer in one of the holes to suspend the bulb of the thermometer above the liquid. Boil the solution and measure the temperature of the vapor to within 0.1 deg C. Subtract the temperature of the vapor from the temperature at which water boils. To find the percentage of alcohol (by volume) multiply the temperature difference in deg C by 1.78 and subtract 3.2 from the resulting product. For example, a temperature difference of 6 degrees indicates an alcoholic concentration of 7.48% (1.78 X 6 - 3.2)." [sorry about all the snips] <<< If somebody (Jack?) would package this up, make sure it's calibrated to within a couple tenths of a percent ABV, and sell it for a fair price, I'd buy it. (Along with that "post@hbd.org" etched beer glass.) My hydrometer has about 8 years worth of dust on it, and I'd hate to disturb it. tim == Please ignore the advertisement below. Thank you. _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free at yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 19:48:56 -0800 (PST) From: Tim Anderson <timator at yahoo.com> Subject: Ah, Belgium: still searching I posted awhile back about the wonderful aroma of Delirium Tremens. Several people pointed out that it's the yeast. To my nose, none of the Wyeast Belgians smell anything like it. But I thought I'd try to be creative. I brewed a fairly high gravity batch with nothing particularly aromatic, so as not to interfere with whatever the yeast might throw at me. I used Wyeast Strong Abbey (or something like that, 1388?). While it was fermenting, I cultured a bottle of DT. Once it was stepped up to about a liter, it was acting pretty happy and had a pleasant, yeasty aroma, but didn't smell a bit like what I was looking (sniffing) for. Sigh. I guess they bottle with something else. I added it in the secondary anyway, and it doesn't seem to have hurt anything. I insist on being able to brew a beer that smells like DT! It is my right! Uh, any suggestions? Anyone? Anyone? tim == Please ignore the advertisement below. Thank you. _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free at yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 23:09:32 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Graham <weg at micro-net.net> Subject: Teflon Washers Greetings Maltophiles- I'm in a bind. I'm ready to put together my new mash tun and boiler and have all the pieces and have test fitted it all together. Except.... I need teflon washers. McMaster Carr sells 'tubes' and sheets of teflon for 100's or even 1000's of dollars. Stainless in Seattle sells some, but they are not the size I need. Does anyone have any washers, scrap sheets or tubes of teflon? I'm not looking for a freebie, I'll pay what you think it's worth. I need 6 or so, ID about .83" (27/32?), with a reasonable OD (1.25"?). If you don't have any, do you know where I can find some? (I've looked in every big-box hw store in the Denver area and I've spent hours searching the net). Is there a cheaper and/or easier-to-obtain food-safe alternative? If you can help me, I'll be so overcome that I'll want to kiss you (but I promise I won't). Desparate in Denver Bill "...the only way to deal with bureaucrats is with stealth and sudden violence." - Butros Butros-Ghali Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 23:59:46 EST From: Cdma77 at aol.com Subject: Denver Area Brewpubs Hi All, I am going to bee in the Denver area on a project for work for 2-3 months. I was wondering what are the good brew pubs/bars that serve good beer. Thanks, Al Key Holic Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 22:12:13 -0800 From: "rrscott" <rrscott at jps.net> Subject: Re: innoculation loop lifespan Scott Murman brought up innoculation loops, My question is there any reason why a paper clip (straightened out and the tip rounded into a loop) is not acceptable? Thanks. Bob Scott Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 13:07:04 +0000 From: AJ <ajdel at mindspring.com> Subject: Alcohol Determination Summary Cory asks how alcohol is measured. There's been quite a bit of discussion of this subject recently so perhaps it's time for a summarry. An asterisk (*) indicates that the method has been discussed here in the last few days. First, the official methods: *ASBC Beer -2A/B Distillation and gravimetry: 100 mL of beer is diluted to 150 mL and distilled. 100 mL of distillate is collected and its specific gravity measured. Alcohol content is obtained from tables or the polynomial fits to the table data I published a couple of days ago. ASBC Beer - 2C Refractometry: A refractometer calibration curve is obtained for beers of the type being brewed using one of the other methods. Once the curve is in hand, the refractometer can be used to measure the alcohol content of the beer directly *ASBC Beer - 2D Gas Chromatography: Obviously out of the question for homebrewers. ASBC Beer - 2E Tecator SCBA Beer Analyzer: The ethanol is catalytically oxidized and the products analyzed(?). Also out of the question for homebrewers *ASBC Beer - 2F Enzymatic: Alcohol is enzymatically oxidized to acetaldehyde and then to acetate by NAD+. The NADH produced is measured by UV absorbtion. Other Methods: *Ebulliometry: The difference in boiling point between the beer and pure water is measured and the alcohol content obtained from tables. The result is corrected for the true extract of the beer. Oxidation to acetate: A distillation apparatus is set up and the alcohol vapor bubbled through a potassium dichromate solution (strong oxidizer) which oxidizes it to acetate. The amount of dicromate remaining is determined by adding iodide which it oxidizes to iodine. The iodine is assayed by thiosulfate titration (DeClerk, Vol II p 444). Haliometry: An archaic but fascinating scheme in which the amount of salt that a beer will dissolve is measured. Just as alcohol depresses boiling point it reduces solubility. An measured amount of salt is added to beer in a "haliometer". The amount that does not dissolve is read from calibrations on the device and the amount of alcohol determined from the reading. Spiking: This is a new one which Simon Wesley has come up with and I'm not going to say any more about it as I know he'll be posting on it in a couple of days. - -- A. J. deLange Numquam in dubio, saepe in errore. Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 08:09:48 -0500 (EST) From: Ken Jucks <jucks at firs3.harvard.edu> Subject: Boston Homebrew Competition Results The Boston Homebrew Competition was held on Saturday the 27th of Febrewary at the North East Brewing Company in Boston MA. We had 310 entries this year, many of them being very excellent beers! In fact, some of the judges were complaining that there were so many good beers that they had to leave behind some high scoring beers from going on to the second round of judging! I saw many beers scoring in the mid 30s that did not place. The judges stopped their complaining when we gave them all a bottle of Affligem among the judge favors! The qualifiers for the MCAB 2000 competition at our competition came from all over the country! The results are posted on the Boston Wort Processors' web page at http://www.wort.org. Please surf there to obtain the results. The only results given here are the Best of Show placements. For those who entered, score sheets will be in the mail this coming weekend. Best of Show 1) David Cato, Bavarian Weizen, Houston TX, Foam Rangers 2) Mark Hogenmiller, Smoked Brown, Patuxent River MD, Merrimack Valley Brewers 3) Dan Marshall, Kolsch, Burlington VT, Green Mountain Mashers Any questions can be directed to me via e-mail!! Ken Jucks Coordinator for the Boston Homebrew Competition Boston Wort Processors jucks at cfa.harvard.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 05:51:20 -0800 (PST) From: Steve Jackson <stvjackson at yahoo.com> Subject: Re: Rice Hulls: when to add ? In HBD #2966 (March 1, 1999), Darrell Leavitt wrote: >>>> I recently purchased some rice hulls, and as I understand, they may help to prevent a stuck sparge when mashing maize or rice. Well, the fellow who sold them to me suggested that I just sprinkle them into the "zapap" when I start to recirculate....but I have noticed that Tess and Mark Szamatulski (Clone Brews) suggest that they go into the mash. Is this because they are thinking we all have combination mash and lauter tuns, or does it really matter when the hulls go in? <<<< To me, it makes sense that they go in with the mash instead of just being sprinkled on top before recirculation. The hulls are intended to provide a better filter bed, and they're hardly going to do any filtering if they're sitting on top of the mash. My normal routine with rice hulls is the use about half of them (I buy them 1# at a time) to line the bottom of my mash/lauter tun (the same procedure would apply to a dedicated lauter tun). The remainder is distributed more or less evenly throghout the mash. This seems to provide a very good filter bed -- even the mash with 50 percent unmalted wheat and 5-10 percent oats lautered without any difficulty other than some extra babysitting of flow rate. -Steve in Indianapolis _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free at yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 08:57:07 -0500 From: "Reed,Randy" <rreed at foxboro.com> Subject: Reminder for the Fourth Annual South Shore Brewoff This is a reminder that the Fourth Annual South Shore Brewoff will be held on March 13th in Cranston, R.I. This BJCP sanctioned event will feature a new award. The Brewmaster Award will recognize the accomplishment of the home brewer who demonstrates a high level of proficiency in brewing various styles of beer, rather than rewarding a brewer for entering and winning with only one style. The award will be given to the entrant who earns the most points for first, second and third place ribbons in multiple categories. Award for Best of Show will not be counted as input for this determination. The South Shore Brew Club is looking for homebrew entries and judges. Details can be found on our web page. Go to the Calendar, then click on South Shore Brewoff for more details, entry forms, and judging/stewarding Information. Our web address is http://members.aol.com/brewclub <http://members.aol.com/brewclub> Entries are due on March 6th. Drop off points include most Boston area and Rhode Island homebrew shops. The competition offers judges a good day of comfortable, well organized Evaluation. Thank you gifts will be given to all who work the event. Again, we will enjoy some great cuisine. The goal of the competition is to provide home brewers clear, well written feedback on their entries. We work hard to get judging forms and ribbons back in the hands of brewers on a timely basis. Cheers, Randy Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 09:19:34 -0500 From: Rod Schaffter <schaffte at delanet.com> Subject: RE: Enamel Pot repair? Donald Lake (whose return E-mail address doesn't work!) asks: >I have a 8.25 gal enamel pot that chipped. I read somewhere that it >shouldn't be used anymore becasuse of something or other. Wirebrush the chipped area well, and apply some food grade silicone caulk (read the fine print to see if it's food grade-I got some at Home Depot). It works great for chips on Weber grills too! Cheers, Rod Schaffter Hockessin, DE Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 09:43:32 -0500 From: Jeff Renner <nerenner at umich.edu> Subject: Re: Enamel Pot repair? "Donald D. Lake" <dake at gdi.net> chipped his enamel on steel pot and asks: >What will happen if I use it for this purpose with the exposed steel? >Any ideas on patching it so I don't have it throw it out? I used my unrepaired chipped pot for mashing and boiling (transferred the mash to a zapap in between) for many years/beers including pale ones (can't remember if any were CAPs, but some Continental Pilsners) with no problems. Just so you don't think I have a numb tongue, some brews from this pot, including pale ones, took prizes in competitions. No metal hazes, no metallic flavors. Eventually a chip at the handle rusted through and the handle weld weakened. Wouldn't want to use this full of hot wort or water. It's now retired. 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: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 09:53:47 +0000 From: "Jim Busch" <jim at victorybeer.com> Subject: Re: 1st time mashing Dave suggests: <buy 8 pounds of pale *ale* malt, 1 pound of crystal malt have <it milled. Wet it down in your mash tun with hot water ( 180F) <stirring until you get it to 155F. Try to add about 1.5 quarts per <pound. If you see that you are not going to make it, finish the last <additions with boiling water and lots of stirring or heat <separately. Mix in gypsum ( calcium sulfate) 1/2 tsp at a This caught my eye as it sounds confusing and could easily overshoot the desired strike temp. Here is my advice: Add 1.3 Qt/pound of 165F to the mash tun. Add gypsum. Stir in malt. Check temp, I would advise aiming for 149-152F. Id be surprised if a drop of 25F is achieved with Daves program unless the malt is kept in a very cold place. If temp is too high add some cold water to get it close to 152 or so. Also, 1/9th crystal malt is pretty high percentage, Id stay closer to 5% of grist so use about 1/2 Lb. YMMV. Prost! Jim Busch Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 09:41:48 -0500 From: "Peter J. Calinski" <PCalinski at iname.com> Subject: A Continuous Specific Gravity Monitor Last night I did it again. I dropped and broke my hydrometer. That must be the third or fourth time. In the Nov./Dec. issue of BrewingTechniques there was reference to the MBAA Technical Quarterly article on "A Continuous Specific Gravity Monitor". I have made two or three half hearted attempts to track down the article without success. Has anyone seen the MBAA article? Is there enough detail in it to warrant more effort on my part to get it? Many times articles like this are too cursory to be of much help. The BT reference talked about strain gauges I believe. I have just enough experience with force balances to say Ugh. Anybody have any other ideas about how to measure SG? Not necessarily continuously. 1) Perhaps sonic. Different propagation times as a function of SG? It would probably require a way to equalize temperature effects. Maybe distilled H2O in a reference bulb. 2)Maybe some interferometer method to measure displacement. 3)How about a low tech plastic hydrometer that won't break when dropped? Anyone ever see one? Maybe I'll take a shot at making one out of rigid plastic tubing but I like the high tech approach just for the fun of it. 4) [Smiley mode on] What this world needs is a hydrometer that reads from any direction. Every time I spin mine it stops with the wrong scale facing me. Must be the same law at work that makes campfire smoke always go in my direction. [Smiley mode to standby.] Right now I am just thinking out loud. Anyone interested in pursuing this? Private emails are fine. 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, 1 Mar 1999 09:09:26 -0600 From: "Poirier, Bob" <Bob_Poirier at adc.com> Subject: New Judges Greetings! I spent this past Saturday volunteering as a steward at the Best of Brooklyn II homebrew competition, which was held at the Brooklyn Brewery. This was the first homebrew competition I'd ever attended. My motivation for volunteering was to learn exactly what goes on at a competition, and more importantly, what the judges do - one day I plan on taking the BJCP exam. Well, I learned A LOT!! I was VERY fortunate to serve as steward for a panel that included a master judge. Stewards were openly encouraged to taste the beers right along with the judges, so I took full advantage of the situation. I sat there with a blank judging form in front of me, and for every beer I tasted I made mental notes of things I thought I was picking up. When the judges finished their evaluations, they discussed the beer, and I was included in the discussion. I was very encouraged to learn that I was picking up a lot of the same characteristics in the beers as the judges. One of the most important things I learned was that I could have judged at the competition! I'd been under the impression that only ranked judges could participate, but, I could have joined in as a novice/apprentice, without having taken the BJCP exam!! I now understand that this is the case so that potential judges can have the opportunity to participate in a competition, to get a feel for how things work, and to LEARN, which is the most important benefit of all. I encourage anyone who is interested, but has not yet attended a homebrew competition to do it!! And if you're thinking of studying to become a judge, then volunteer to judge as a novice/apprentice and start learning!! I certainly plan to! Have fun - be safe! Brew On & Prosit!! Bob P. East Haven, CT bob_poirier at adc.com Home of the B.I.G. (Beer Is Good!) Homebrew Club Life on Earth is expensive, but it comes with a free trip 'round the sun!! Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 10:11:02 -0500 From: Mark_Ohrstrom/Humphrey_Products at humphreypc.com Subject: Hop Shampoo Mark Tumarkin replies to Alan Meeker's discovery of hop extract in his squeeze's shampoo: > Ummm, hops, apricots and almond - sounds like an interesting > flavor combo, and yeah, body would be a good thing, but the > oils in the condtioner would probably have a negative effect > on head retention. Use your own best judgment, but personally I'd be leery of using *ANY* shampoo that would have a "negative effect on head retention". Body might be *all* that you're left with. Ouch! Mark (doing his best to get, and retain, head) in Kalamazoo P.S. to Fouch: Jeez, at least the Skotrat is a _beer_ slut ... Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 10:20:30 -0500 From: David Whitman <dwhitman at rohmhaas.com> Subject: 10% sucrose / loop lifetime Joe Rolfe has been rejuvenating yeast samples stored for years (!) under 10% sucrose: >>I have a couple of questions for you. Do you have any data on the >>percent viability of the long term storage yeasts you were trying to >>"reanimate"? >No, unfortunate as it is, I have not done much with the tubes as to >counting before and after. One of these days if I get some time I may >check this out. I would venture to guess Mblue would not be the way I >would attempt it. The stuff is just very unreliable with older cells. >I would have to go with a slide type viability test to get better >numbers. I wonder if Dave Whitman wants to add this media to his >running test.;) Already did, but I don't promise to monitor the samples for 8 YEARS just to reproduce Joe's results. :-) I've got a lager yeast under 10% sucrose, and so far have 2 week viability data. Between putting my house up for sale and filling out tax forms I've been too busy to write it up for the Large Yeast Storage Experiment website: http://www.users.fast.net/~dwhitman/yeast/index.htm Initial data on the sucrose samples and another round of DI water samples will go up Real Soon Now. If someone wants to buy my house, it would speed up results reporting dramatically. :-) The yeast used in these latest series was grown out from cells that had survived one round of DI water storage. DI water survival of a FRESH strain of this yeast was rather low compared to an ale strain that had been through multiple cycles of DI water storage. In addition to looking at the sucrose media, I'm trying to test the hypothesis that selection improves the ability of yeast to survive this kind of storage. One observation: Despite low FAN levels, for a week after putting samples into 10% sucrose the samples fermented at least a little - every time I cracked open a vial there was CO2 release. None of my other media gave this outgassing (of course none of the other media had fermentables...) I don't know if the beasties were reproducing in there, but I waited a week before doing the initial cell counts to try and get an accurate census. Joe, do you see early outgassing like this? Should I have waited longer on the cell counts? *** Scott Murman asks about the life of innoculation loops. I've had my tungsten one for about 4 years and it's showing signs of oxidation and brittleness but is still useable. The alternative is platinum, which will last essentially forever. VWR offers several different models in the $63-127 range. Unless you anticipate going through 10-20 of the tungsten ones, Pt just isn't worth it. Temperature matters in the W oxidation kinetics. I use a relatively low temperature alcohol flame in sterlizing my loop. If you're using a propane torch or other hot flame it'll chew up your loop more quickly. Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 09:23:05 -0600 From: Jim Layton <a0456830 at rlemail.dseg.ti.com> Subject: Another MCAB Recipe This beer received a second place in the Munich Helles category at the recent MCAB competition. The same beer also received Best of Show at the '98 Crescent City competition and runner-up BOS at the '98 Sunshine Challenge. I have one bottle left. 8.5 lb. pils malt, Weyermann 0.5 lb. vienna malt, Weyermann 0.5 lb. carafoam malt, Weyermann (similar to DWC carapils) 0.4 oz. Hallertauer Tradition, 6.3%, 60 minute boil 0.4 oz. " " " , 30 minute boil 0.3 oz. " " " , 15 minute boil Wyeast #2124, yeast cake from 1/2 gallon starter Mash in with 13 qt., target 104F Immediately boost temp to 122F, hold 10 min. Boost to 147F, hold 15 min. Take 7 qt.. for decoction Heat decoction to 160F, hold 12 min. Heat to boil, boil 15 min. Return decoction to rest mash, target 160F Hold 160F for 15 min., check for conversion with iodine Boost to 170, hold 10 min. Lauter, collect 7 gallons, boil 90 minutes OG 1.051, 5.25 gallons FG 1.010 Side note: This beer was primed with dextrose and bottle conditioned. It had been in the bottle, on yeast, for 13 months when it was judged at MCAB. How did this beer escape the ravages of HSA and autolysis? I must be living right! Cold storage probably helped, too. I want to offer my thanks to Louis K. Bonham, the Houston area clubs, and all the others who helped with the MCAB. I attended and had a real fine time. It was an honor to have an entry in a competition of this caliber. Jim Layton (Howe, TX) Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 15:52:27 GMT From: mikey at swampgas.com (Michael A. Owings) Subject: Re: 10% Sucrose Just an additional bit of info (I passed this along to Dave Whitman as well). I have a number of yeast stored under distilled water. Wyeast 2206 has been the most problematic for me. I was able to reanimate a sample about a year old on a plate, but it was incapable of fermenting wort to any reasonable level of completion. Tried a couple of times with the same results. So far, this is the only lager yeast I have tried to reanimate. Looking at the cells on my brand-spanking new hemocytometer showed all cells taking up methylene blue stain. However, the sample was extremely diluted and probably not a good representation of the vial contents. I have a couple of others I will try in a few days and post the results. *********************** Lord grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change. The courage to change the things I can. *** And the wisdom to hide the bodies of the people I had to kill because they pissed me off *** Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 10:56:53 -0500 From: "Jeff Beinhaur" <beinhaur at email.msn.com> Subject: Mash paddle? My plastic paddle broke while try to mash in 24lbs. of grain in a ten gallon Gott cooler. What are most people using to stir the grain with? I've seen the ads for Phil's Mash Paddle but haven't seen it in any stores. I'd prefer not to use plastic again. Any suggestions would be appreciated? Jeff Beinhaur, Camp Hill, PA Home of the Yellow Breeches Brewery Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 10:53:54 -0500 From: "Haszard, MAJ Mac" <haszarda at ftknoxdfd-emh13.army.mil> Subject: Lauter Tuns I have a couple of questions about home-built cooler type lauter tuns: 1. What's the most efficient or practical type container to use, a rectangular cooler or a Gott style round cooler? What is the objective depth of the grain bed I should be shooting for? 2. What is the most efficient type of false bottom to construct, a perforated plastic or metal one, or will a manifold type work as well? Any other advice, comments and suggestions in this regard are very welcome. Respond to this forum or to my personal address, as you prefer. Thanks. Mac (haszarda at ftknoxdfd-emh13.army.mil <mailto:haszarda at ftknoxdfd-emh13.army.mil> ) Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 13:40:10 -0500 From: Alan Monaghan <AlanM at gardnerweb.com> Subject: Recipe amounts We have been learning to brew with a nice 15.5 gal. brew system. 3 kegs, sparging, etc. My question is that we are multiplying by two (2) a 5 gallon recipe to get the 10 gallon recipe we want to try. Now, my water usage formula says that to get the 10 gallons out we need to use 18 gallons of water (this is an example but serves the purpose). This includes the equipment loss, spent grain loss, evaporation, trub loss and the like. On our last brew, we were shooting for about a 1.058 starting sg. We got a 1.044 when it was all said and done. In thinking about this and reading more, should we be upping an average 5 gallon recipe more that just by (2)? I know we could just multiply it by (3) and get an a$$ kick wort but I think that is defeating the purpose of it all. How are the rest of you doing this and is there a rule of thumb. I had thought that I might go another 20% to make up for it all but I want to learn too and not just hit it with the ol' mallet. Another question: When we are letting the grain soak in the hot liquid, does you keep the pumps running full time, last 10 minutes, or what. We are recirculating full time at this point, but after reading about how the molecules are being broken up and what is going on in the reaction, I am not so sure we should have the recirculating pump running full time. Thanks for this service. I have learning a lot of good information here in just the year or so I have been reading. vitam cerevisiae venturi saeculi omnia Alan G. Monaghan Gardner Publications, Inc. AlanM at Gardnerweb.com <mailto:AlanM at Gardnerweb.com> Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 18:43:53 GMT From: mikey at swampgas.com (Michael A. Owings) Subject: Hemacytometer/Yeast microphotographs I have posted a couple of microphotos of yeast in a hemacytometer at http://www.swampgas.com/brewing/hemo.html for those of you into that kind of thing. Ok, so I'm a geek... *********************** Lord grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change. The courage to change the things I can. *** And the wisdom to hide the bodies of the people I had to kill because they pissed me off *** Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 14:49:53 -0500 From: "Santerre, Peter (PRS) - CPC" <PRS at NA2.US.ML.COM> Subject: College Brewing Dan Listermann Generalizes here with - "I operate a homebrew shop about two blocks from Cincinnati's Xavier University. I thought that I would see a lot of student business, but I get more profs, parents and maintenance men than students in here. I think they lack the a delayed gratification factor needed to brew. " and I reply - (Page Down, this somehow turned into a stupid Biography) I just recently graduated from College and would like to, at least within my group of friends at the university, counter that claim. I began homebrewing during my sophomore year due to my increased intake, and interest with good beer. At first my quest was to become an expert like Mr. Jackson, but I soon noticed a local homebrew shop and decided to give it a try. I extract-brewed for about 6 months and decided that I needed more control+intamacy with the process and have been all graining ever since (Man, that first all grain batch was thin and bitter!!!!!) Since that point I have gotten 2 more friends to homebrew (regularly) and many others to be interested in watching us do it. I was even the subject of a paper for a scientific methods class (Low level stuff, nothing interesting.) I was offered a job at the homebrew shop that I spent all my student loans at (which I had to decline, but one of my other brewing buddies now works there (can you believe a brewing fridge in a college apartment?)). Anyway - enough personal info wasted on a good brewing forum.... (You can probably tell I wasn't and English major, my writing always ends up looking more like LISP) -ShockValue, AKA Peter R. Santerre Merrill Lynch / Howard Johnson & Co. Intel SERMA Specialist San Francisco Tech-Support Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 03/02/99, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96