---

	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:
  Sanitizers, corny "O" rings, MHCs (Joy Hansen)
  Coriander Vs. Coriander seed ("Steven W. Smith")
  spelling etc. ("Bayer, Mark A")
  homebrew cooking - Irish stout beef (Scott Murman)
  Where to inject steam in a RIMS...Part I ("William W. Macher")
  Where to inject steam in a RIMS...Part II ("William W. Macher")
  Split-batch boiling (PRS) - CPC" <PRS at NA2.US.ML.COM>
  Beer Heaven in Atlanta ("Scott Moore")
  crystal (Vachom)
  first wort hopping (jim williams)
  Storing Dilute Iodophor ("Fred L. Johnson")
  reply to HBD#3006, Hallertau Hops, (BreslerHS)
  Rice CAP?? ("J.Kish")
  Priming Cider (Bill Jankowski)
  Sanitizing Oxy-caps ("Nathaniel P. Lansing")
  O-ring deodorizing ("Nathaniel P. Lansing")
  Re: Priming cider ("Charles T. Major")
  Subject: RE: Sweet! (WayneM38)


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

Enter the Spirit of Free Beer! Competition 5/22/99. Details at
http://burp.org/SoFB99. 2000 MCAB Qualifier!
Enter the Buzz-Off! Competition 6/26/99.  Details on the HBD Competition
Calendar for June 1999 (http://hbd.org). 2000 MCAB qualifier!

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, 16 Apr 1999 10:17:57 +0000
From: Joy Hansen <happyhansen at scronline.com>
Subject: Sanitizers, corny "O" rings, MHCs

Paul Haaf, in past #3006, indicates that he's using a 12.5 ppm idophor
solution for sanitizing?

G.Fix published some statistics on the effectiveness of various popular
sanitizers used for both home and commercial breweries.  IMHO, 12.5 ppm
would take about an hour of contact time to effect marginal sanitation
for beer spoilage organisms.  I don't have the knowledge or the
equipment to test the sanitizers.  Possibly most home brewers don't?  I
suggest that home brewers accept the test results and recommendations of
recognized individuals such as G. Fix.

The contact time for beer organisms using idophor is at least 5 minutes
at 25 ppm.  The concentration for Star San is about 100 ppm with the
same contact time.  It's important to recognize that the declarations
for sanitizing on most packages are for E. Coli and NOT FOR THE COMMON
BEER SPOILAGE ORGANISMS.  

New to home brewing and achients should read G. Fix's book.  It's tough
to teach me new tricks, but Star San has so much going for it that I
couldn't resist.  Unlike most other sanitizers that leave chemical tests
in the brew is used as "NO RINSE", Star San is neutral to the flavor of
beer.  If you don't believe this, a private communication from a
knowledgible source recommended doctoring a brew with a trace amount of
idophor and another with Star San.  You'll become a believer!

On the "TsP" thread, I posted the HBD request for information some time
ago and finally got one response to the original question.  Is the
carbonate "TsP" identical to PBW.  The answer came back that PBW is a
percarbonate/metasilicate.  The "TsP" is sodium
carbonate/susquecarbonate (NOT BAKING SODA, please).  I must stick with
Five Star's PBW - the greatest!

Anthony and Julie Brown asked about replacing "O" rings when the service
of corny kegs are changed to beer.  IMHO, the siphon and inlet "o" rings
are so small that appropriate cleaning/sanitizing takes care of the
problem.  However, the closure "O" ring cannot be cleaned!!!  There will
always be some flavor imparted to the brew.  I recommend replacing the
hard "O" ring with a William's soft (larger diameter) "O" ring.  This
product seals at low temperature (30 degrees) and adapts for imperfect
fit on used kegs.

As for the special socket for the valves, provided the fitting is a hex
shape and pin lock, just buy a deep socket and heat the rim enough to
destroy the temper.  Then cut the slot in the appropriate places.  With
a little vision, the same wrench will fit the two and three pin
configuration.  Ball lock fittings having a hex shape just need a deep
reach socket.  Buy the sockets at any hardware or automotive store.  Or,
ask you local brewshop to sell them to you.  I've seen some corny keg
valves that require special shaped tools much like locking wheel lug
nuts.  I guess these types have to be removed and tossed; however,
replacement of any part will cost at least half the cost of the used
corny keg!  Foxx and other companies will be glad to sell you any parts
needed for the several types of kegs.

And RIMS controllers, my favorite necessary electronics to hate?  Well,
not quite, R. Morris did an outstanding service to home brewers when he
spent what must have been thousands of hours developing a workable
system.  The mash container I use is a modified keg rather than the
picnic cooler mash tun.  I have never approached the through flow of R.
Morris' original design.  With the addition of mechanized stirring and a
false bottom scraper blade, I can achieve great through flow.  When the
stirring stops - very, very, very slow!  The rate of flow is critical
because a reduction of flow (like with a motor control or valve) with
full heat in the heat exchanger will scorch the heating element.  You
know, the scorched area insulates the element from the cooling liquor
and the carbon gets thicker and thicker and the brew just keeps getting
more nasty - talk about a raunchy brew.

The R. Morris design published in Zymurgy works just fine!  It's easy to
get a PC board and some parts from Radio Shack and others from DigiKey. 
Then wire wrap.  R. Morris explains the fabrication is sufficient detail
so that anyone with a little soldering experience can do the job.  The
most expensive parts are the heat sink and the 10 turn pot and the
associated dial.  The dial isn't necessary!  The heat sink is critical. 
I think this design is an adequate starting point for anyone applying
the RMRC (Rodney Morris RIMMS Controller).  I've built five of these
units.  Two are dual circuits in the same case, and one is an individual
case.  I use two because I have two 5000W 220v heaters operated at 110
volts and each draws a max of 10 amps.  

I had problems with one of my controllers and posted a request to the
HBD for help with isolating the problem.  It seemed that the least
problematic solution was to remove the expensive parts (the heat sink
and the the pots) and trash the board and start over.  That is, unless a
straight forward replacement of the thermister, zero volt crossing
switch, or the 555 timer didn't resolve the problem.

So, why not just use an on/off switch?  Well, the objective is to reach
the enzymatic (saccharification) temperature with out serious over
shoot.  If you just consider the temperature of the mash, the
temperature in the heat exchanger could reach near boiling with a simple
on/off switch.  Recirculaton could denature most of the enzymes in a
very short time.  You could achieve mash out and think you were in a
saccharification rest!  Talk about chewy cloying sweetness! The R.
Morris controller is an on/off switch that is regulated by a thermister
in the heat exchanger.  The timer pulses full current to the heating
element only when the temperature is quite different from the set
temperture.  As the temperature within the heat exchanger approaches the
set temperature, the controller reduces the current to the heater to
limit over shooting the set point.  This controller must have some
attention and a read out in the mash; however, it is an comparitively
inexpensive and tested solution.  

An additional bit of wisdom learned from years of home built RMRC
failures, stick with the original picnic cooler designed mash tun.  That
is, unless you choose a vessel which provides about 250 square inches of
open space in the false bottom.  Otherwise, you'll never regret not
changing to a converted sanke keg.

Sure wish I were back in Scottsburg, VA and had access to my homebrews
and brewing more big beers!  Strong Scotch Ales, Strong Belgian Ales,
and Barley Wines in lieu of Sierra Nevada's GREAT Pale Ale.  Uhmmm, time
for a brew,

                        Joy"T"Brew




Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 11:31:22 -0700 (MST)
From: "Steven W. Smith" <SYSSWS at gc.maricopa.edu>
Subject: Coriander Vs. Coriander seed

  Nosy sod that I am, I wanted to point out for those brewers who might be 
"herbally challenged" (non-cooks) that there's a difference between 
"Coriander" (aka cilantro) and "Coriander Seed".

  My experience is that the whole seed, crushed, is a dandy addition to many 
beers (Tooncinator M.C., for ex.) - never had a problem finding the whole 
seeds in the spice racks locally.  

  Coriander/Cilantro, OTOH, the green, leafy stuff that looks kinda like 
Italian parsley (or li'l dry green flakes in a jar) is nicely suited to salsa, 
frijoles, carne asada, etc.  Tasty, but I haven't tried brewing with it.

  Thus spake the venerable Al:
>Nathan writes:
>>Couldn't get any whole coriander at the brewshop or "natural" foods store.
>>Found some ground coriander.  Very aromatic.  Not quite as fresh as
>>crushing my own.  Has anyone used commercially ground coriander in a wit
 ...
>I don't know how fresh the ground coriander was, but I've found that old
>ground coriander smells "meaty" where as freshly-ground smells citrusy.
>...

>Oh, and if you want to grow it yourself, don't buy seeds... just buy some
>whole coriander at the store and plant that.  It's the same stuff and a
  Hmm, hadn't thought of that one, thx!

  Resuming stealth scan.  Eieio, y'all.

Steven W. Smith, Systems Programmer, caring nurturer, not a licensed therapist
Glendale Community College. Glendale Az.
syssws at gc.maricopa.edu
Will answer rhetorical questions for food.


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 11:43:51 -0700
From: "Bayer, Mark A" <Mark.Bayer at JSF.Boeing.com>
Subject: spelling etc.

collective homebrew conscience_

dan listermann wrote:

>Reading the digest this morning I noticed that I misspelled Harrington in
>my post yesterday.  I never could spell.


that's phunny.  phrom what i've phound, dan's spelling has always been
phantastic.


al k took exception to my implying that moving to a non-blow-off
fermentation procedure caused increases in my beers' hop flavor and head
retention.  i concede that it is only a *correlation* between my change in
method and the perceived differences in the beers.  there are definitely
other variables that could have played roles to produce the differences, but
since the only major procedural method i changed was the removal of the
blowoff method, i attributed the changes in the finished beers to it.
nearly all of the beers were low gravity bitters and standard gravity (1.046
 - 1.048) lagers.

there is a billboard on interstate 70 in st. charles county, missouri, that
shows a bird dog in the middle of a tall grassy field "pointing" to a cooler
emblazoned with the budweiser logo.  the caption to the ad is "because it's
budweiser".  i have this creative urge to edit the billboard and repaint the
dog in another position next to the cooler, but being back in the stl area,
i'd probably get a visit from a couple of hired goons.....

brew hard,

mark bayer
saint louis missouri (back at last)


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 12:25:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: Scott Murman <smurman at best.com>
Subject: homebrew cooking - Irish stout beef


This is your basic cheap, hearty plain meal.  Similar to a stew.  Will
feed 4 people for about $5.  My sweetie is native Irish, and she said
that this is an authentic dish, in that it is eaten in some Irish
homes.

1-1/2 to 2 lb. cheap cut of beef.  I used tri-tip, which might not
mean much to those outside of Central California, but it's a cheap cut
that really responds to slow cooking.  Maybe someone can fill in some
details here.  Don't use a nice cut, as it's simply a waste for this
recipe. 

1 med white onion, diced
?? carrots, diced
2-3 potatoes, peeled and sliced thick
12 oz. dry Irish stout (you know the one)
large, covered baking dish

sear the meat on all sides (except the inside) for 3-4 min. with a
light dose of salt and pepper.  remove the meat and place it in the
baking dish.  brown the onions for a few minutes, then place over the
meat.  de-glaze the pan with some of the stout, and pour over the meat
and onions.  add the sliced carrots and potatoes, and pour the rest of
the stout over everything.  cover and bake at 275F for 2-1/2 to 3
hours. 

there is a noticeable lack of seasonings, which is intentional.  both
because the Irish aren't known for using much, and also to highlight
the stout flavor.

enjoy,

 -SM-


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 13:30:13
From: "William W. Macher" <macher at telerama.lm.com>
Subject: Where to inject steam in a RIMS...Part I


Hi All,

[I broke this into two posts as I am pretty sure
it would have bounced as one...]

Dave Burley [Dave_Burley at compuserve.com], in 
response to my question about what the ideal RIMS 
wort return temperature might be, offers some advice 
and observes:

>I guess I really don't understand how 
>you are heating your wort. Are you 
>passing steam into a vessel containing 
>a vessel of recirculating wort?  I 
>thought the point of using steam was 
>reduce the chance for enzyme 
>denaturization and to pass it directly 
>into the mash. RIMS could still be 
>used to even out the temperature hot spots. 

rlabor at lsumc.edu (LaBorde, Ronald) reports in the 
same digest that he uses 175 F in what 
I assume is a HEXRIMS type setup
[No term HERMS<tm> in my part of town! :-)] and 
offers:

>In an earlier post I asked you:

They say memory is the second thing to go.  OR is it 
the first? Hmm, can't remember. Did you really 
ask me? If so, sorry for missing it as I try never 
to ignore anyone!

>I wonder if you would consider 
>injecting the steam directly into the 
>mash and totally eliminate the need 
>for a chamber.  With the chamber, the 
>steam could overheat the enzymes 
>because of hot spots.  With the steam 
>injected into the mash, only the very 
>small area near the 'feathers' would 
>possibly get overheated to destroy the 
>enzymes.  You are really trying to 
>heat the mash, so why not do it more 
>directly?  

[snip]  

>By heating in 
>the center, this would greatly aid 
>even heating and you would not need as 
>rapid flow through the RIMS.

>And now I am asking again, why not just inject 
>directly into the mash?

I have been giving a lot of thought to these kinds of 
things over the past weeks, after my first struggle to 
get a brew through my system.  That experience  
emphasized to me how my assumptions, and things I 
THINK I learned from my reading on the subject, 
may actually not be the best fit for the reality I find 
myself in.

I don't think that direct injection of steam into the
mash tun in a rims-like system is a good option. I will
lay my thoughts on the table in the following paragraphs
and we will see what other opinions/experiences emerge.

It is also clear that to get the best advice, one's 
advisors [fellow HBDers] should be aware of the 
details of the issues surrounding the advisee [me]. 

Dave asks what my system actually is.  

My setup is essentially a standard RIMS layout, but 
has a steam injector in place of the normal electrical 
heating element.  The injection chamber is small, 
half-inch copper tubing a couple inches long, with a 
90-degree turn right after the injector, hopefully to 
induce turbulence for good mixing of the heated 
wort.  The injector itself is 0.25-inch copper tubing 
with five or six slots cut into in crosswise,  along the 
last inch (or so) of its length.  The end of the 0.25-
inch tubing is soldered closed with no-lead solder, 
and has a small hole drilled into it. The 0.25-inch 
injector tubing enters the larger tubing through a 
compression fitting.

Hot wort is returned to the mash tun via a standard H-
shaped manifold, with four outlets facing upwards, 
which is positioned in the wort above the grain bed 
and below the surface of the liquid.

Wort is drawn out of the bottom of the mash tun, 
using a manifold that is under a false bottom. The 
false bottom has 3/16 holes in it drilled on 5/16 
centers.

I have a thermometer on each side of the steam 
injection point, so I can read incoming and outgoing 
temperature.  Steam is controlled by adjusting the 
flame under a pressure cooker, and/or by dumping 
excess steam into my HLT.

This is a manually controlled system.  I call it a 
SIRIMS. There is no <tm> :-) :-) <-- note there are 2...

Part II of this post (the meat, I hope) follows somewhere...

Bill

Bill Macher  Pittsburgh, PA   USA






Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 13:45:21
From: "William W. Macher" <macher at telerama.lm.com>
Subject: Where to inject steam in a RIMS...Part II


Hi, back again :-)

Ron says why not just inject the steam into the mash 
directly and totally eliminate the need for an injection 
chamber?

>With the chamber, the steam could overheat 
>the enzymes because of hot spots.  With the steam 
>injected into the mash, only the very small area near 
>the 'feathers' would  possibly get overheated to 
>destroy the enzymes.

Dave also comments:

>I thought the point of using steam was to reduce the 
>chance for enzyme  denaturization and to pass it 
>directly into the mash.

For me, steam offers the opportunity to eliminate the 
chance of scorching the wort, as steam is self-limiting 
at about 227 F. (in my case) with 5 PSI back 
pressure.  Also, steam very quickly transfers its heat 
to the wort when it condenses, since it is water and 
wort is mostly water too.  Since the materials are the 
same there is almost immediate transfer. Charlie 
Scandrett[hope I spelled that right] has written much 
about this in past HBD articles.

Limiting enzyme denaturazation is also a potential 
benefit of steam, I think.  At least as compared to the 
electric heating element alternative with its much 
higher surface temperature.  In my mind (and I 
caution you to remember whose mind this is!) the 
question is how can one obtain the fastest transition 
from the temperature of the heat source to, or below, 
target temperature of the mash/liquid enzyme pool? 

We need to keep in mind that the transition from 
steam to hot water, when steam is injected into liquid 
that is ten's of degrees below the boiling point, is 
VERY FAST.  If you do a test, you will find that 
there are no feathers of steam until the water you are 
injecting the steam into approaches boiling 
temperatures.  At lower temperatures, say when the 
water is at or below 170 or 180 F, the steam 
condenses so fast that you get small "sonic booms," not 
gentle purring sounds.

At the point of condensation, the water resulting from 
the condensation of steam will be at 212 degrees F., 
or slightly more or less,  depending on elevation of 
your brewery and any pressure above atmospheric 
that may exist at the condensation point.

In my mind the objective should be to mix this hot 
water (and hot wort that resulted from the phase 
change of steam to liquid) with the cooler wort as fast 
as possible, simultaneously raising the cooler wort 
temperature and lowering the temperature of the 
condensed steam (and phase-change heated wort). 

We also need to keep in mind that most of the energy 
being transferred has been imparted into the wort 
from the transition of the steam from the gas phase to 
the liquid phase.  Just the opposite of the reason why 
it take a lot longer to boil a pot empty than it does to 
get it boiling in the first place.

I have realized that wherever the energy is injected 
the effect will be the same: There will be a 
temperature gradient, hottest at the point of injection 
and lowering as one moves away from the injection 
point.  With moving liquid in a RIMS setup, this 
results in the generality that the temperature felt 
across the filter bed in the mash tun will be about the 
same as the temperature felt across the chamber in 
which the heat is imparted into the circulating wort.

This may be a side issue.  The question is where to 
inject the heat: In the mash tun or in the recirculation 
line?

The RIMS pump will circulate the wort at a flow rate 
that is dependent on the constraints of each individual 
setup.  But a maximum flow rate will exist.

Since the pump is in a loop, the flow rate will be the 
same throughout the loop.  But the velocity will 
differ according to the diameter of the "pipe" at 
different points within the loop.  The largest diameter 
"pipe" in my case is the converted keg.  The smallest 
is within the half-inch copper tubing that the system 
is piped up with [ignoring ball valves or the steam 
injection chamber, which is smaller due to having the 
o.25-inch tubing inside it].

By injecting steam in the recirculation loop, where 
fluid travels at the highest velocity and just before a 
90-degree turn, which offers high turbulence for good 
mixing, I believe I get the fastest lowering of 
maximum temperature within the wort.

Contrast this with what would likely happen if steam 
was injected *without some kind of mechanical 
mixing* within the filter bed.  Flow rate will be 
inversely proportional to cross sectional area, since 
the pump is pumping at a constant rate. This rate is 
set by the total resistance to flow of the system [for a 
given point in time].  So the top-to-bottom flow in the 
mash tun will be *much* slower than the flow in the 
much smaller recirculation line.  

How much slower?  Well if you have a 16 inch inside 
diameter mash tun,  and pipe with half-inch I.D. 
copper tubing, how does 1,000 times slower sound?  
When something is moving 1,000 times slower it will 
take A WHOLE LOT LONGER to mix the cool stuff 
with the hot stuff.  

My fear is that direction injection of steam into the 
mash tun [without mechanical mixing] will cause a 
pocket of grain/liquid to form that is heated to boiling 
temperatures and held at these temperatures for an 
extended period.  The possible (likely??) negative 
effects of this worries me and is the reason why I 
have personally avoided direction injection of steam 
into the mash tun as the primary source of heat for 
temperature control. Unless mechanical stirring is 
done at the same time.  Also, mechanical stirring does 
not aid in the setting up of one's filter bed, and 
probably negatively impacts ones ability to pump 
liquid at satisfactory flow rates.

Dave Burley also brings up decotions, something I 
have been wondering about recently and wanting to 
ask the collective.

I have been considering possibly enhancing my 
system by providing a "steam wand" that I could 
insert into the mash bed without stirring, and 
hopefully with minimal disturbance to the filter bed 
aspect.  The idea would be to inject steam at one 
point, or maybe several points, with the hope of 
simulating the results of decoctions, without having 
to actually do them in a separate pot on a separate 
burner.  All the while, the RIMS pump would be 
doing its thing.

The more I think about it, the quicker I conclude that 
this is not likely a good thing to do. The reasons that 
direct injection into the mash tun (without 
mechanical agitation) is likely not a good thing seem 
to hold true for pseudo decoctions as well.

On a side note,  
PETER.ZINGELMAN at wemail.wisenergy.com reminded 
me through private correspondence that I had it 
backwards in a previous post.  Industrial filter beds 
normally have the small filter media on the bottom 
and largest on the top.  And also that this makes no 
real difference in our one-shot mash tun filter 
beds...so my analogy still works.

Guess that proves it, memory is the first thing to 
go...Hmmm,  or is it the second thing?  What is that 
other thing anyway?  Better ask my wife when I get 
home...:-)

Bill

Bill Macher    Pittsburgh, PA   USA




Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 16:32:28 -0400
From: "Santerre, Peter (PRS) - CPC" <PRS at NA2.US.ML.COM>
Subject: Split-batch boiling


"Patrick Michael Flahie" <flahiepa at pilot.msu.edu> writes:

"My plan is to take the first 3 gallons of runoff
into one pot and bring it to a boil while I run the
remaining 3 gallons into another pot.  I can boil both
simultaneously and stagger their finish times to accommodate
cooling.  I am unclear on how to handle hop additions.  I was
planning on just putting half of each hop addition in each
pot (adjusting for time), but I don't know if the differences
in gravities will make a significant difference. "

Me:

I have done this successfully a couple of times a while back.
But, instead of starting the boil with the first 3 gallons 
I waited until I collected all 6 (ran off into a 6.5 gallon carboy(
possibly dangerous, but I was lucky)).  Gently mixed the wort
and then split it into 2-3 gallon batches and split the hops in half.

Now I just have a cheapo(tm) wide enamel brewpot that will hold
6 gallons (almost) comfortably.

I recently moved into a small apartment which has one of those
"reduced sized" stoves.  This actually helps me because my wide enamel 
brew pot actually staggers 2 burners and boils "okay".

I didn't dive into the technical aspects of this process - but it seemed
to work fine for me.

Peter Santerre
San Francisco Tech Support
 
Got Beer?


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 16:48:35 -0400
From: "Scott Moore" <smoore at koyousa.com>
Subject: Beer Heaven in Atlanta

While on a recent business trip to Atlanta I came across what I believe are
the two best beers that I have ever tasted.  I know everyone's idea of the
perfect beer is different, I'm just glad that I was finally able to find
examples of what I've had in my head for years.

The first was at the Atlanta Beer Garten in Buckhead.  It was called an Alt
but I don't think it was very true to style (at least what I've read so
far).  It was dark brown, not highly attenuated and had tons of hop flavor.
The bitterness was very smooth so I suspect First Wort Hopping may have been
used.  If anyone has ANY info on this beer, especially the hops or grain
used, PLEASE contact me (private e-mail is fine). I am now on a personal
quest to duplicate this beer.

The other beer was a Pilsner Urquell on tap at the Atlanta Fish Market.  I
know that time and temperature are no friend to any beer, especially
something this delicate in green bottles, but I had no idea what I had been
missing.  It was as if I was drinking a completely different beer.  I now
know why this is regarded as a world class beer. (It's not that I didn't
believe M. Jackson, I just couldn't see what all the fuss was about).

It looks like I'm going to need a lot more computer training in Atlanta than
I originally thought. ;->

Regards,

Scott Moore
The still unnamed brewery
Medina, Ohio



Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 15:59:36 -0500
From: Vachom <MVachow at newman.k12.la.us>
Subject: crystal

Two posts about two completely separate topics appeared in yesterday's HBD.
In a post about big, cloying crystal bills, Tim Holland writes, "the longer
I brew, the pickier I get."  In a post about recent disagreements between
two frequent posters (or should I say, post-sters), Phil Yates contends,
"Homebrewing is supposed to be fun."  Mr. Holland's statement is the de
facto motto of this digest.  Homebrewing, HBD-style, is fun like a Woody
Allen film, suffused with neurosis, second-guessing, hyperbole,
experimentation and tempered by epiphanies.  The HBD is all about "taking
things too seriously" in an effort to make great beer, a goal that is always
just beyond one's grasp.  Mr. Yates further contends that "it is not too
difficult to produce a beer that leaves the average commercial version for
dead."  I contend that, because of the paradox Mr. Holland mentions and
because of the fact that there are some excellent commercial beers out
there, it's a bitch to brew something as good as SNPA or Obsidian Stout or
even something better than the last batch of your own bitter that you
thought was pretty good.  A homebrewer's first attempts are like ugly
babies; people find something nice to say about them or they just outright
lie.  Somewhere along the line, though, homebrewers begin to notice that the
houseplants are smelling malty.  And that's where the kind of fun that flies
on this digest begins, when you find yourself not scrolling past posts on
mash pH or getting emotional about open fermentation.  

Mike 
New Orleans, LA


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 14:11:26 -0800
From: jim williams <jim&amy at macol.net>
Subject: first wort hopping

hello,
I'm trying to understand the proper way of doing this. I've heard a
couple of different ways to do this. I have no idea who or what ois
correct.

I've heard to figure 1/3 of the total hop bill as fwh. I've also heard
that the bittering addition is used as fwh. In which case, what would
you use for utilization?

I'm not an idiot, but I think I need an idiot proof explanantion of what
to do here. The process sounds really good, and I want to do it right.
What happens if I add all of the bittering hops to the runoff? (alright,
I admit, that's what I did this morning)

Thanks, jim



Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 07:12:29 -0400
From: "Fred L. Johnson" <FLJohnson at worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Storing Dilute Iodophor

Regarding storage of diluted Iodophor, someone wrote:
>how long will iodophor diluted to 12.5ppm and stored in an airtight bucket
>stay potent?

To which Robert Arguello responded:
> Assuming your water contains even trace amounts of chlorine....probably not
> much more than a day or two.
>
> According to the manufacturers of BTF Iodophor,  light and chlorine will
> degrade the sanitizer quickly. I have stored a 12.5 ppm solution of iodophor
> and city water in a sealed corny keg and found that the amber color, (which
> according to the manufacturer, indicates viability), will fade within 48
> hours. It would probably last longer if using distilled or chorine-free water.

To which I respond:
But the same solution kept in a sealed, glass carboy appears to last
indefinitely.  It's not the chlorine in the water that consumes the
Iodophor, it's the container.  And I'm not so sure that even if the Iodophor
in the plastic bucket "disappears" that it is really gone.  It has reacted
with the bucket, i.e., the bucket can become stained (but sanitized).

I am curious if items initially treated with Iodophor in a sealed plastic
bucket will remain sanitized for weeks after the amber color disappears.  My
guess is that there is a lot of iodine lingering around in the plastic of
the bucket itself and in the other items in the bucket which may be able to
to kill organisms for weeks--a testable hypothesis.
- --
Fred L. Johnson
Apex, North Carolina
USA


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 22:04:05 EDT
From: BreslerHS at aol.com
Subject: reply to HBD#3006, Hallertau Hops,

Jeffrey A. F. Hittinger wrote asking about Hallertau Hops:

Jef asks:
1) Does Hallertau Hallertau actually exist, or is this just really sloppy
   nomenclature?  If the latter, when one refers to Hallertau or
   Hallertau Hallertau, which strain do they actually mean?  I would tend
   to think that it is the latter, and what is meant by the vague
   appelation is a nobel Hallertau hop like Mittelfrueh or it's closest
   descendent, since strains like Tradition are meant to provide 
   Mittelfrueh-like characteristics from a heartier plant. 
me:
According to Garetz (Using Hops, published by Hop Tech, 1994) European Hops 
were named according to the region from which they originated.  If a hop 
variety was originally from Hersbruck, it would be called Hersbrucker.  [The 
'er' ending is (as Garetz puts it) like calling someone from New York a New 
Yorker.]  It should still be called Hersbrucker even if it isn't grown in 
Hersbruck; it's the variety name.  If the Hersbrucker hops were grown in 
Hallertau, then they would be called Hallertau Hersbrucker.  If they were 
grown in Hersbruck, they'd be called Hersbruck Hersbrucker.  
It gets even more confusing because there is also a variety of hops commonly 
(but not properly) called Hallertau.  These hops are more properly called 
Hallertauer ('er' i.e, originally from Hallertau).  If they are grown in 
Hallertau, they should be called Hallertau Hallertauer.  
Now the really tricky part.  What is commonly called Hallertau Mittelfruh is 
really Hallertauer Mittelfruh, or even more properly Hallertau Hallertauer 
Mittelfruh.  That is, Hallertau (grown there) Hallertauer (the variety 
originally from there) Mittelfruh (middle-early, referring to the part of the 
growing season when it is harvested).  Most people shorten this to 
Hallertauer Mittelfruh or (improperly) Hallertau Mittelfruh.  
We tend to shorten the traditional names of European hops for convenience, 
but this causes confusion.  So, you're confused, no suprise.  
So, to answer your original question, yes, it is sloppy nomenclature.  There 
is a Hallertau Hallertauer, but technically, it should not be called 
Hallertau Hallertau.  

Jeff again:
The Hallertau region in Bavaria grows a variety of hop strains.
Specifically, I have read about (and/or used) Hallertau Hersbrucker,
Hallertau Mittelfrueh, Hallertau Tradition, and Hallertau Northern Brewer.
Now, often one sees references to just "Hallertau" hops, which I find very
misleading as each of the above varieties has quite distinct 
characteristics.  
me:
Right you are!  And now you know why.  The first word in the variety name 
tells where it was grown; the second is the variety.  So, it's no suprise 
that Hallertau Tradition is very different from Hallertau Northern Brewer.  
They are two different varieties that both happen to be grown in Hallertau 
region.  
If you grew two different hops in your back yard, they'd be different, too, 
even though they were grown in the "Jeffrey region."  You'd have Jeffrey 
Hallertauer, Jeffrey Tradition, etc.  If you harvested your Hallertauer in 
the mid-early part of the growing season, you'd have Jeffrey Hallertauer 
Mittelfruh.  [Sorry, I got carried away.]

Jeff again:
2) Is there a definitive book on hops out there which someone can
   recommend?  I find that most of the books on homebrewing overly
   simplify the discussion on hops.
me again:
I really like the Garetz book (no affiliation, yadda), but, definitive, I 
don't know.  I have nothing to compare it to since it's the only hops book in 
my library.  It covers hop history, its use in beer, some plant biology, hop 
processing, hop strorage, buying and evaluating hops, use for bittering, use 
for flavoring and aroma, how to grow them, and a detailed variety-by-variety 
section that I find very helpful.  It's easy to read and I think it cost me 
less than $20.  

Good luck and good brewing,
Herb
Bexley, Ohio

P.S. I have changed e-mail addresses.  If you have my old one, please update. 
 Thanks-HB



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 19:28:04 -0700
From: "J.Kish" <jjkish at worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Rice CAP??

To: Chuck Mayglot,
    You would consider brewing a Rice CAP? Using Rice, you
will be brewing an AP; nothing but an American Pilsener---
In fact, a Bud!!  Who, in thier right mind would brew a Bud?
Yucch!!  In that case, use about 50% rice and keep the hops
so low you can't taste it.

  There's nothing in the world like CAP, Classic American
Pilsner, a la Renner. I'm now trying Polenta, a form of
corn grits. Unbelieveable flavor.
   Joe Kish


Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 17 Apr 1999 07:25:58 -0400
From: Bill Jankowski <wjankowski at snet.net>
Subject: Priming Cider

As a data point, I brewed two X 3 Gallon batches of cider 
last year using Pasteur Champagne Yeast. The first batch I 
primed using a half gallon of fresh cider, the second with 
a whole gallon. The first batch had carbonation similar to 
an ale, the second batch was similar to good champagne 
(Carbonation wise.) The cider was from a local orchard, and 
had been pasteurized but not filtered.

This was quite possibly my easiest brewing experience ever.

Bill Jankowski
Colchester, CT
Texan in Exile


Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 17 Apr 1999 08:31:26 -0400
From: "Nathaniel P. Lansing" <delbrew at compuserve.com>
Subject: Sanitizing Oxy-caps

I spoke to a technician at one of the companies that manufacture
oxygen scavenging crown caps. His comments were that the only
good way to do it was with gamma radiation. Since the  DOE permit
process for maintaining a gamma source is cost prohitive, the only 
aqueous
solution to use for sanitizing caps would be a sodium or potassium
metabisulphite solution at 10%. The sulphite solution is a strong 
reducing
agent and will not affect the oxygen scavenging ability of the caps.

Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 17 Apr 1999 08:31:33 -0400
From: "Nathaniel P. Lansing" <delbrew at compuserve.com>
Subject: O-ring deodorizing

I have found that you don't need to replace the o-rings and poppets to
remove
the odor/flavor from the rubber in your cornie kegs. Simply place the
offending
parts in a saucepan with about an inch of water and two tablespoons of
baking-soda,
simmer the parts in this solution for about 10 to 15 minutes. After that
the
rubber will be free of any flavors or odors. Remember how baking soda
removes
smells from a refrigerator or coffee Thermos? This works! I sell the 
parts
and
could bring in more money by telling everyone that rubber parts must be
replaced
but it is just not true. 


Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 17 Apr 1999 07:45:50 -0500 (Central Daylight Time)
From: "Charles T. Major" <ctmajor at samford.edu>
Subject: Re: Priming cider

Gail Elber provides some information on sugar content of 
apples to answer Marc's question about priming with cider.

Why not just measure the SG of the juice?  Papazian's book 
contains a formula for priming with wort based on SG, which 
seems like it would at least come close with apple juice, 
which I believe is more fermentable than wort.

Tidmarsh Major
Birmingham, Alabama




Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 17 Apr 1999 09:14:21 EDT
From: WayneM38 at aol.com
Subject: Subject: RE: Sweet!


From: Tim Holland <tholland at alaskalife.net> writes:
Subject: RE: Sweet!

<<snip>>

<<Can anybody else answer the question about so many published recipes using 
a LOT of crystal?

Another Tim >>

When I converted my old 'standby' extract recipes to all grain, my first few 
batches did have more 'crystal' character than I liked.  I began cutting back 
from that point to about 1/2 to 3/4 the amounts that I used in the past. Much 
happier with the current results.

The 1 + lbs of crystal in 'extract' batches helps hide that 'extract tang' 
IMHO.
Certainly not needed in those amounts when brewing all grain batches using 
quality malts like DWC, etc... Good control of all grain mash temps reduces 
the need to use excessive amount of crystal.

Wayne
Big Fun Brewing
Milwaukee


Return to table of contents

---