---

	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:
  Regarding Plaster of Paris (Rod Prather)
  AOB Tax Designation Change (Paul Gatza)
  Re: Long draft hoses (BrewInfo)
  1st Allgrain ("C and K")
  oxygen dissolution (BrewInfo)
  Rolling Rock / New Mash tun / Bottles in the Oven (PRS) - CPC" <PRS at NA2.US.ML.COM>
  Smartcap sanitation (BrewInfo)
  Re. A taste of Gypsum (Bob Sheck)
  Ring Around the Porter (Patrick Spicer)
  re: Bottling with honey (Tom Lombardo)
  Growing Hops (Rhizomes sprouting?) (Bill Jankowski)
  Clear hefeweizen ("Fred L. Johnson")
  Re: Mash thickness with recirculation (RobertJ)
  Re: Plaster of Paris, again ("Timmons, Frank")
  Makin Mead ("Alan McKay")
  Phosphate (AJ)
  Re: Sure Screen (ROATTW)" <ROATTW at UCMAIL.UC.EDU>
  N2 and Co2 solubility (RCAYOT)
  Dr. Pivo and other Napitki ("Kris Hansen")
  Re: Frothy Heads/Dark Wheat (Jeff Renner)
  Bottliong kegged beer / dark wheats / Foamy beer ("George De Piro")
  o2 caps ("Menegoni, Lee")


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

2000 MCAB Qualifiers: Spirit of Free Beer! Competition 5/22/99
(http://burp.org/SoFB99); Oregon Homebrew Festival 5/22/99
(http://www.mtsw.com/hotv/fest.html); Buzz-Off! Competition 6/26/99
(http://www.voicenet.com/~rpmattie/buzzoff)

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: Mon, 03 May 1999 12:37:58 -0500
From: Rod Prather <rodpr at iquest.net>
Subject: Regarding Plaster of Paris

Wait a minute now.   I thought Plaster of Paris had an base additive, like
lye, to make it set faster.   Plaster of Paris sets very fast compared to
common plasters.


> Joy Hansen asked about using plaster of paris instead of food
> grade gypsum from the homebrew store. Plaster of paris is just calcium
> sulfate(half hydrate, for the chem. geeks),
>
- --
So you wanna make beer, Visit me at http://fast.to/beer




Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 03 May 1999 12:29:32 -0600
From: Paul Gatza <paulg at aob.org>
Subject: AOB Tax Designation Change

Hi there folks. Thanks to everyone who participated in the AHA Big Brew,
especially the Skotrat, for allowing us his chatroom facility.

The AOB, including the AHA, is changing tax designations from 501c3 to
501c6. The IRS has approved this change effective July 1, 1999. Here is
the relevant text from my "It's the Beer Talking" column from the
upcoming July/August Zymurgy. Please let me know if you have questions
or seek clarification. Thanks. 

Tax Status Change 

The Association of Brewers, including the American Homebrewers
Association, is changing tax status from 501c3 to 501c6. That
designation is a not-for-profit trade association. This change has been
recommended and approved by the Internal Revenue Service because of
trade-related activities in our sister AOB division, the Institute for
Brewing Studies. The effective date of the change is July 1, 1999.
Although the official IRS designation infers that we would be operating
as a trade association, the operations of the AHA will not change and
our mission remains educational. 

Although the IRS felt that the activities of the AHA fall within the IRS
definitions of a non-profit charitable 501c3 or a 501c6 not-for-profit
trade association. The new designation will allow us to create chapters
with homebrew clubs that would like to affiliate with the AHA. The new
IRS designation would allow us to investigate the possibility of
offering insurance for homebrew events for chapter clubs. 

Most homebrewers I have encountered tend to go against the flow of the
tendency of society toward homogenization. Most homebrewers do not
appreciate being told what to do or being limited on what to drink. That
is the reason many of us started brewing. With that in mind, we would
not require that clubs become chapters, we would offer it as a gateway
and opportunity to more benefits. 

     The only negative I see for this status change is that, although we
are educational, we will no longer be considered a charitable
organization. In the past, individual sponsors were able to deduct the
portion of their contribution beyond the membership dues. Our individual
sponsors will no longer be able to deduct that amount. Our sponsors can
continue to deduct sponsorships as a business expense but not as a
charitable contribution to the AHA. We have never been a grant-based
association, so no longer having the ability to receive grants will have
no effect on our functions or finances. 

     Another area of benefits for our association we could look into,
that is common among other associations, is travel discounts. Our new
status allows us to negotiate group rates with rental car companies,
airlines and hotel chains for example. As a large group, we have a lot
of buying power. This change will allow us to take advantage of that
opportunity. 

     Although we have done limited lobbying in the past, the new status
allows us to lobby without restriction. July 1 is not only the day of
our new tax status, it is also the effective date for legalized
homebrewing in Idaho. As of this writing, the states of Alabama, Iowa,
Kentucky, Mississippi, Ohio, Oklahoma and Utah still prohibit
homebrewing. We can take a more active role in these states as our
budget allows if our involvement is requested by AHA members who
volunteer to lead the effort to legalize homebrewing in these states.
This change gives us the ability to fight against a potential
neo-prohibitionist against the freedom to homebrew legally that most of
us enjoy. 

     Under our previous status, we could not make exclusive offers only
to members because we had to make the same products and services
available to the general public. This change will allow us to conduct
members only events or offer special, limited products only to members.
One example is that we could require AHA Conference attendees would be
members, allowing us to use the conference for greater member input into
the direction of the AHA. AHA staff and the AHA Board of Advisors could
review whether the NHC should be open to members only. There are a lot
of ideas out there, and we will now have more flexibility in our
decisionmaking. This change should also help drive membership making the
AHA a stronger and more beneficial organization for the brewers and beer
enthusiasts who have been taking advantage of our services. 

     The tax status change gives us the freedom to do more for the hobby
of homebrewing and homebrewers and will be a conduit to more members and
greater benefits for all of us in the AHA. 

- ---end of column---

Part of this process included an analyses of the effect of spinning off
the AHA as a 501c3, as the IRS recognizes the educational and
promotional functions and mission of the AHA. Spinning off would put us
in financial jeopardy of not being able to pay bills timely in the event
the cashflow situation ever not being able to be met. One example would
be the events of last summer, when the AHA Conference took a $30,000
loss; we were still able to publish Zymurgy by moving funds from other
parts of the AOB. Changing with the rest of the AOB protects us from the
potential worst-case financial scenario and guarantees the AHA's ability
to promote the hobby and serve homebrewers long into the future. 
- -- 
Paul Gatza
Director
American Homebrewers Association	(303) 447-0816 x 122
736 Pearl Street			(303) 447-2825 -- FAX
PO Box 1679				paulg at aob.org -- E-MAIL
Boulder, CO 80306-1679			info at aob.org -- AOB INFO
U.S.A.					http://www.beertown.org -- WEB


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 3 May 1999 16:01:56 -0500 (CDT)
From: BrewInfo <brewinfo at xnet.com>
Subject: Re: Long draft hoses

John writes:
>AlK wrote in HBD#3018 8-10 foot draft beer lines:
>
>>Another thing you may want to consider is that your
>>beer will be unrefrigerated in the lines.  This
>>can be solved by putting them in a jacket and then
>>running extra hoses through the jacket that carry
>>refrigerated coolant.  Many draught towers even
>>have fittings for running coolant.  Cooling the
>>beer in the lines means less waste because you
>>can drink the stuff in the lines.
>
>I figure that an 8 foot 3/16 inch line would hold about 1 1/2 ounces and even
>a 10 foot 1/4 inch line would only hold about 3 ounces so I would think a
>cooling jacket wouldn't be necessary.  If the refrigerator temp was 50F and
>the line temp was 80F the temp of a 12 ounce beer should only be about 57F.
>That would only be for the first beer if drawing frequently or the
>refrigerator could be kept slightly colder to compensate if not.  Of course
>the difference would be even less for a pint glass and cooler line temps.

Hmmm... could it be that commercial lines are refrigerated for another reason?
I suspect that maybe it could be that you don't want to run the cold,
carbonated beer through warm lines.  As the beer warmed in the lines, it
would be able to hold less and less CO2 (colder beer holds more CO2) and
you would get foaming in the lines until the lines cooled off.  I'm just
speculating here, but it could be a source of problems, no?

Al.

Al Korzonas, Lockport, IL
korz at brewinfo.com
http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/

P.S.  Since everyone is asking privately, yes, Karen did deliver the
triplets and everyone is doing fine.  Two girls, one boy... in delivery
order: Alexa Leana, Erik Alexander and Alana Gabrielle.  The answer to
the other most common question is: no, I will still write Volume II, but
it will be a couple of years... start looking around 2001 or so.

In lieu of email congratulations, the family asks that you contact
the Miller Brewing Company and notify them that "Lite" is *not* a
"true Pilsner beer."


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 3 May 1999 14:19:06 -0700
From: "C and K" <Cuckold at cornerpub.com>
Subject: 1st Allgrain

Fired up the two-tier (my fall and winter project) for the first time.  7
hours later, ended with 5 gallons of 1.053 hefeweissen, using 5 lb Belgium
2-row malt/5 lb wheat.  
Everything worked, with just minor difficulties encountered.

1.  Temperature guage on tun positioned too high:  While it should work
great for double batches, I ended up adding 1.2 qts./lb water to just
barely cover the temp rod.  This was while using a converted Sankey, with
copper return mannifold.  The other day, I was in the metal recycler, and
found a 15"x25" copper sheet, for $3.00.  Am thinking of rigging a false
bottom out of it, which will raise the mash height and filter somewhat.

2.  Return manifolds on tun and boiler worked just fine (once you got them
going). 
 I think air bubbles get in the way or something.  Usually turning the pump
ball valve on and off a couple times, or disconnecting the tun quick
connector briefly, did the trick.  No problems at all with the wheat. 
However, I did dough in the barley first, and added the crushed wheat on
top.

3.  HERM's type setup worked fine, but had a small air leak, will have to
tighten one coupling a bit more.  

4.  Need better technique with my sparging.  About halfway through (one hr.
sparge), tested S.G. at 1.01. Some stirring raised that to 1.026.  I also
need a sparge arm, or mannifold.  I can see where that would improve the
efficiency quite a bit.

I posted my two-tier site a few weeks ago.  Here it is again for anyone
interested.  It is built similiar to what other's have built, and shared
with the rest of us.

http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Salon/3768/Brewery.html
Scott
Richland, Wa.

Seldom correct...but never without doubt


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 3 May 1999 16:31:02 -0500 (CDT)
From: BrewInfo <brewinfo at xnet.com>
Subject: oxygen dissolution

AJ writes:
>I'm not quite clear on Al K's request for DO measurements. I think the
>intent is to see how much O2 enters a fermenting wort through the
>surface. If I put deaerated water in a container and expose it to the
>atmosphere after a very long time I will find the water saturated i.e.
>at a DO level commensurate with the barometric pressure on that day (the
>meter compensates for this) and temperature of the water (the meter also
>takes this into consideration). It will read 100%. With fermenting beer
>the situation is very different. The beer is not in equilibrium with
>atmospheric air because CO2 is evolving and blanketing the surface. The
>effectiveness of this blanket depends on how vigourous the fermentation
>is and on the nature of any draughts to which the fermenter is subject.
>If a top flocculating yeast is in use we'll also have the protection of
>the yeast cake. Any O2 which does enter the beer will be consumed by the
>yeast so that PaO2 in the beer will always be much lower than the air
>equilibrium value. We can probably consider the beer oxygen free - a DO
>meter would certainly read very low. The only experiment I can think of
>at this point would be to deaerate some water and place it in a
>container where it is exposed to some air circulation. The rate of flow
>of O2 from the air into the water as a function of Pa O2 difference can
>be determined from the DO time history and the value at 1 atmosphere
>difference calculated. This would approximate the flow into a beer with
>viable yeast were it not blanketed.  Would this be useful information? I
>may already have some data of this sort.

I believe that earlier in the post in which I requested this test I
mentioned that CO2 would soon be produced by the yeast and the evolving
CO2 would effectively make any further oxygenation via the surface of
the beer impossible.  I was suggesting that the test be done (periodically)
only for 12 hours or so... this would measure how much oxygen would
dissolve in still water over the course of the *lag time*.  After the
lag is over, naturally further oxygenation via the surface would be
immeasurable.  I suggest water rather than wort pitched with yeast for
two reasons:

1. I suspect that DO meters don't take kindly to such environments, and

2. the yeast will constantly be consuming the oxygen that does dissolve.

If the DO meter will work in wort, then I suggest unpitched 12P wort
that was deaerated. That's not the natural state of pitched wort, but if
you begin with wort that is 74% saturated, it is likely to stay there...
in the real world, the yeast would consume the oxygen and further oxygen
might dissolve via the surface, so starting with near zero% saturation
is like allowing the yeast to consume the oxygen from aeration or oxygenation
and then killing them.

Al.

Al Korzonas, Lockport, IL
korz at brewinfo.com
http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 3 May 1999 17:35:51 -0400 
From: "Santerre, Peter (PRS) - CPC" <PRS at NA2.US.ML.COM>
Subject: Rolling Rock / New Mash tun / Bottles in the Oven

Okay I got a few questions/comments:

1:  I was at a bar the other night and my Anchor Porter was served
to me is a green Rolling Rock Glass.  On this glass it said something
to the extent of "fermented in our glass lined stainless steel tanks."
What the hell is that all about?  IS this simply for ease of sanitation?
It seems that stainless would be just as easy to clean (but, I've never
had the chance - soooo.) 

2: I got a new 10 gallon gott cooler to mash in last weekend and bought
the whole Phil's setup (False bottom and sparge arm.)  Well about half
way through my sparge I noticed that my mash had compressed into what looked
like a "disk of grain" with space around the walls of the tun and my grain
bed.
I was moving up from a 5 gallon gott and never had this problem before.
I will try to draw it.
____________
|    ||    |
| ======== |    Sparge Arm
| . ' . '  |
|~~~~~~~~~~|    Water Level
|  ______  |
| /      \ |
|/ Grain  \|
|##########|    False Bottom
|_________=|==

IF you cant tell from the drawing (ha ha) I have cut a piece of tubing
and fit it around the diameter of the false bottom.

I went ahead with the sparge and I had an original gravity in the range
that I had expected, so no big loss.  Is it because I have smaller amount
of grain in a larger mashtun I wonder? 

Grain bill:

9.25 lbs. Hugh Baird
1.00 lb.  English Crystal (80l I think)
 .75  lbs. Chocolate Malt

Single Infusion mash at about 156' for 60 minutes.  Sparge about 30+
minutes.

3) Joy Hansen asks: "Ever wonder why microbiologists invented an autoclave?"

Hey I found I great deal on an (USED) autoclave about HALF the size
of my oven at http://www.sterilizers.com/refurbished.html for the
low low price of $23000.00.

(Heavy sarcasm intended) I'll stick to my oven thanks.

~ Pete Santerre AKA ShockValue


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 3 May 1999 17:27:50 -0500 (CDT)
From: BrewInfo <brewinfo at xnet.com>
Subject: Smartcap sanitation

Nathaniel writes:
>>Posting 5: Extracted from file:  1009
>>Date: Mon, 9 Nov 92 16:20 CST
>>From: korz at iepubj.att.com
>>Subject: Re: Smartcaps
>>
>>Someone (sorry) asked about SmartCap(tm) sterilizing.
>>
>>A few months ago, Craig Martens posted a "letter" written by Bruce 
Zenner
>>who headed the development of SmartCaps for Aquanautics.  He said that
>>indeed the oxygen scavenging is activated by exposure to high humidity
>>and that boiling would render the caps virtually equal to regular caps.
 
>>He suggested that a water/household bleach solution or sodium
metabisulphite
>>should be used to sanitize the caps.
 
>>Al.
> 
> 
>Is the "he" that suggested using sodium metabisulphite, Bruce Zenner, who
>headed the developement of the caps?

I don't recall whether it was Craig or Bruce that said to use metabisulphite,
but since 1992 (when I wrote the quoted post) I've learned that metabisulphite
in water is not a sanitiser... in an *acidic* solution it is merely an
*inhibitor* of wort spoilers, not a *killer*.

One other piece of information that I recall from my research into
SmartCaps.  I don't know how the clear ones (Crown?) work, but the
SmartCaps (aka PureSeal 'A') caps work is with sulphites in the plastic
seal.  I found this out by accident because someone told me that they
were working with some major brewers on testing the amount of sulphite
that passes into the beer... something about having to put "contains
sulphites" on the label of the bottle.

Now, does that help the chemists theorise on how the caps work and then
determine if bleach or iodophor would ruin the cap's oxygen absorbing
abilities?  I also seem to recall being told to not soak the caps a long
time but rather just a few minutes.  Perhaps it implies that some of
the absorbing abilities are being lost, but that it is a necessary evil?

What are the relative oxidising strengths of bleach solution at 200ppm free
chlorine, 12.5ppm of titratable iodine iodophor solution and the working
solution of a percarbonate-based sanitiser such as OneStep?  Maybe it's
a "lesser evil" issue?

Al.

Al Korzonas, Lockport, IL
korz at brewinfo.com
http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 03 May 1999 20:38:08 -0400
From: Bob Sheck <bsheck at skantech.net>
Subject: Re. A taste of Gypsum

I would like to get _ALL_ my calcium from Beer! <G>

Bob Sheck


>Jeffry D Luck <Jeffry.D.Luck at aexp.com> Wrote:

>While I have no help to offer, I would like to suggest some possible
>names for the final product:

>     Plaster of Pilsner / of Porter
>     Off the Wall Ale
>     Sheetrock Stout

Bob Sheck

bsheck, me-sheck, abednigo! Greenville, NC email:bsheck at skantech.net or see
us at:
http://www.skantech.net/bsheck/
- ---------------------------------------------------------------
//If you really support our troops, keep them out of KOSOVO!//
- ---------------------------------------------------------------




Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 03 May 1999 20:51:14 -0400
From: Patrick Spicer <pspicer at cinci.infi.net>
Subject: Ring Around the Porter

Hi All,

After bottling a recent batch of Papzian's Silver Dollar Porter I noticed a
small ring around the bottle neck at the top of the liquid level.  The beer
came out nicely as far as my buds can detect, but I thought that I
remembered reading this was a sign of infection.  I looked in Miller's book
and he lists two possible causes: infection and break formation.  While my
optimistic side is leaning toward break formation, I'm cynical enough to
decide to take a sample into work tomorrow for microscopic analysis and see
if anything waves back.  It would be too bad as I have been infection-free
in three years of brewing.

For what it's worth, I'm still drinking and enjoying them, but was curious
if anyone else has observed an apparently neutral ring-ing.

Regards,

PT Spicer


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 03 May 1999 06:14:00 -0500
From: toml at ednet.rvc.cc.il.us (Tom Lombardo)
Subject: re: Bottling with honey

>Paul Haaf <haafbrau1 at juno.com>
 writes:
>
>I thought this would have been answered, but I didn't see it.  I've
>bottled in the past using honey, and it worked out nicely.  Use 1/2 cup
>honey and 1/2 to 2/3 cup water.  I put the honey in a large measuring cup
>and heat in the microwave for a minute. (If it starts to bubble, stop
>it.) Then I add the boiling water and stir.  Then dump this in the
>bottling bucket and add the brew.  Just give a few extra days for the
>bottles to fully carbonate.

I've bottled with honey, and for a while it seemed OK, but there's a
problem:  not all honey has the same sugar content.  1/2 Cup  might work
five times in a row, but eventually you'll get a batch of honey with a
high sugar content.  Gusher city.  Use corn sugar.

Tom (in Rockford, IL)



Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 07:13:35 -0400
From: Bill Jankowski <wjankowski at snet.net>
Subject: Growing Hops (Rhizomes sprouting?)

Howdy All,
	How long should it take for Rhizomes to sprout? I threw 
mine in the CT earth about a week and a half ago (dirt well 
turned over, several tons of rocks pulled out, much manure 
added), and haven't seen hide or hair of them. The temp's 
been about 60 or so during the day, 35-45 at night, and 
I've kept them well soaked? Will they ever grow? Is this 
the end of civilization as we know it?
	Also, are there any plants that are compatible with hops? 
IE, if I keep the bed well fertilized and watered, could I 
throw a couple of cucumber plants, or some other low 
growing plant in with the hops?

Bill Jankowski
Colchester, CT 06415


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 04 May 1999 07:51:35 -0400
From: "Fred L. Johnson" <FLJohnson at worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Clear hefeweizen

Weizen lovers:

For the last two years (my brewing life), I have often discovered that what
I read doesn't seem to necessarily be true.  The following is an example of
one of those times.  I'm asking for the collective's gentle correction of 
my
misunderstanding of the literature or for the record to be set straight on
this topic of cloudy weizens.

I brew a hefeweizen that I would humbly (read proudly) put up against just
about any weizen's I've had commercially or otherwise.  However, it is
cloudy only for the first few weeks after I bottle and gets progressively
clearer during storage (under my house at only several degrees below 
outside
temp) This beer eventually clears just like all the other beers I've 
brewed.
It will only be turbid if I mix up the yeast in the bottle when I serve it
(which does no harm at all to the flavor. I think it enhances the flavor a
little).  I hasten to add that ALL my beers have considerable chill haze
which I have long learned to live with, but I was expecting this weizen to
ALWAYS be cloudy.

Brief recipe: 60% wheat, 40% Munich, Hallertaur, 112F-15 min, 150F-60 
min,
168F, 10 min.  Wyeast 3068 60-65F.  Head stabiltiy is like none other 
I've
brewed.

I've heard that the turbidity in a weizen is due to it's not being 
filtered.
I've hear that the turbiditiy in a weizen is due to the high protein 
content
of wheat (and the beer).  I'm beginning to believe that the turbidity is 
due
to the yeast, which may simply take a little longer to settle out.  Is it
another momily that wheat beers are naturally more turbid or not?
- --
Fred L. Johnson
Apex, North Carolina
USA

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 04 May 1999 07:59:52 -0400
From: RobertJ <pbsys at pbsbeer.com>
Subject: Re: Mash thickness with recirculation

Nathan Kanous <nlkanous at pharmacy.wisc.edu>

Hi!  For those of you that use pumps to recirculate the mash (RIMS, HERMS,
etc.) what sort of grist to water ratio do you use?  I realize that with a
false bottom, you have to have enough strike water to cover the false
bottom, but beyond that, what sort of ratio do you use to "allow" you to
recirculate with a pump?
____

With HERMS(tm) I have used anywhere from 1 qt/lb to 1.75 qts/lb. Most
frequently, my ratio is 1.33 qt/lb. These ratios also include foundation
water below the false bottom.

Within these ranges I have had no problems with stuck grain beds or pump
cavitation, during recirculation. Factors to consider to avoid problems
are: False bottom fit, guage, height and % opening. Need for siphon tube in
mash tun. Grain crush. Mash temperature and stage of mash. GPM and line
resistance. All should be in balance.
 


Bob
Precision Brewing Systems URL http://www.pbsbeer.com


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 05:11:00 -0700
From: "Timmons, Frank" <Frank.Timmons at AlliedSignal.com>
Subject: Re: Plaster of Paris, again

	Dan Listermann reports that plaster of Paris has iron filings in it, to
compensate for shrinkage. I was not aware of this, and I really doubt it
is true because if the corrosion of the iron filings is to compensate
for shrinkage, all of it would have to occur before the plaster sets,
otherwise the expansion of the iron oxide would tend to crack the
finished sculpture or whatever you were casting. Since the plaster sets
in a matter of minutes for the quick setting variety, I doubt the iron
would corrode that fast. Also, since the iron would be more dense that
the plaster, it would tend to settle to the bottom of the package,
requiring shaking before use and I don't remember ever seeing that
instruction on any labels.

	Anyway, I'm curious about this and will find out for sure soon.

Frank Timmons
Richmond, Va


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 04 May 1999 08:31:30 -0400
From: "Alan McKay" <amckay at nortelnetworks.com>
Subject: Makin Mead

Thomas Barnett asks about making mead.

You are in luck, Thomas, because making mead is incredibly
easy.  Much easier than beer, IMO.  I make a Cherry Mead
(technically speaking, when you use fruit it's called
Mel-O-Mel, not Mead) and I simply do this :

 - dump 5kg cherries and 3 kg honey into pot with 10 litres
  of bottled water
 - bring up to 170F and hold for 15 minutes to pasteurize
 - dump into your cleaned and sanitized fermenting bucket,
  cover, allow to cool
 - add yeast energizer and yeast nutrient
 - add yeast
 - ferment
 - age
 - bottle or keg

I like to use the unpasteurized honeys from the the little
guys.  It's nice to try different ones to see how it tastes.
The one you mention should be fine.

The best way to prepare fruit is to freeze it well, then
thaw it back out.  This bursts the cells and makes the sugars
more accessable.

There is a debate as to whether or not to use acid blend
(a la wine) in mead.  I've been using it up until now, but
I won't use it on my next couple of batches to compare
results.  This is based on input from the HBD and RCB,
where most folks seem to think you shouldn't add it.

cheers,
 -Alan

- --
Alan McKay
OS Support			amckay at nortelnetworks.com
Small Site Integration		613-765-6843 (ESN 395)
Nortel Networks
http://zftzb00d/alanmckay/


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 04 May 1999 12:46:16 +0000
From: AJ <ajdel at mindspring.com>
Subject: Phosphate

I can't agree wth Matt Brooks that hydroxyapatite does not precipitate
above pH 11. pH 11 is not a magic number.  Let me recommend Werner and
Stumm "Aquatic Chemistry..." Wiley, NY, 1981 pp 282 - 285. They present
curves for the solubility of various metalo phosphate complexes for
[Ca++] = 1 mmole per liter as a function of pH. At pH 5 the solubility
of hydroxyapatite is such that the solution contains 1 mole per liter of
phosphate (very soluble). This plunges linearly (on a log plot) to E-8
mole/L (very insoluble) at pH 8.5 and then rolls off  to E- 9.5 mole/L
as the pH rises to 12. It's still falling slowly at E-9.5 at pH 12.
There is nothing magic about pH 11 on this plot. Clearly, hydroxyapatite
is very insoluble at any pH above 7. At 1 mM Ca++ (hardness of 100 ppm
as CaCO3) and 1 mM phosphate we are way past saturation at pH 7 and, if
there is any seed apatite precipitation will and does occur as
demonstrated by the fallback in pH if these conditions are set up. I'll
allow that there might be cirucumstances under which the solution might
remain super saturated.

The reaction is equivalent based as are all reactions - there just
aren't any that aren't. One mole of hydroxyapatite contains 20 (+)
equivalents of calcium, 18 (-) of phosphate and 2 (-) of hydroxyl ions.
It takes these amounts of those ions to form 1 mole of hydroxyapatite
and no other will form this compound. If these ions are present in
solution quantities such that their ion product excedes the solubility
product for hydroxyapatite (which Werner and Stumm list as E-114 by the
way but that's because they consider hydroxyapatite to be
Ca10(PO4)6(OH)2 so this value is not inconsistent with the one Matt
posted,E-55.9, for Ca5(PO4)3(OH) ) the solution is super saturated with
respect to hydroxyapatite and it will precipitate if a seed crystal or
other mechanism is present to prevent the solution from staying super
saturated. Yes, hydroxyl ions are required and yes, they are more
prevalent at higher pH but PO4 ions are also more prevalent at higher
pH. This is why the solubility of carbonates and phosphates decrease
with pH and why we can get them out of solution by raising pH. I tried
to explain this in the previous post but I know this is a confusing
subject (believe me it had me confused for a long time). I think Matt is
saying that you can't just dump 20 milliequivalents of calcium sulfate
and 18 milliequivalents of monobasic potassium phosphate in some water
and expect 1 millimole of apatite to form. That's true. What you can do,
however, but this is a little tricky, is use the solubility product of
apatite to compute the amount that will precipitate and the pH at
equilibrium. You use numerical techniques to solve for the pH which
satifies both the solubility product limit and the charge neutrality
criterion. It becomes even trickier if you try to consider the other
forms of apatite so that in practice it's not worth doing (for phosphate
 - do it all the time for carbonate).

Matt points out that there are lots of forms of phophate. This is true
and there is some question as to which precipitate in brewing. Favor
seems to fall on hydroxyapatite and dibasic calcium phosphate (though
this latter is orders of magnitude more soluble that apatite at mash
pH). I think I mentioned in the last post that there is also a carbonato
apatite and fluoro apatite is also known.

Matt doesn't think phosphate precipitates in brewing to the point where
it plays a significant role and hopes that this thread doesn't devolve
into one which has little relevance to brewing. Phosphates do
precipitate in brewing and the fact that they do so is extremely
relevant for it is their precipitation which we use to control mash pH.
The whole concept of residual alkalinity is based on the extent to which
respectively calcium and magnesium precipitate phosphate thus releasing
hydrogen ions. Put gypsum into water which is free of phosphate and
there is no change in pH. Put it into mash and the pH drops. If this
isn't from phosphate precipitation a lot of brewers have been laboring
under a false impression for a long time.

Finally, Matt asked about the 1% number for phosphate. That number came
from M&BS. Looking back over my notes I see that I analyzed some DWC
pale ale malt and found the phosphate level at  about 10 grams/kg as
phosphate i.e. just about what M&BS suggest though I believe they state
it as the pentoxide. Most all of this is organically bound in phytin.
During analysis it is released by digestion and in the mash tun by
phytase as inorganic phosphate (ortho) in both cases. Needless to say
not 100.00000% is released or converted but I believe the majority of it
is.

I must fall silent on this and other subjects for a week or 2 as I'm off
to a place where there is no Internet but don't hesitate to respond as
I'll catch up when I get back.
- --
A. J. deLange
Numquam in dubio, saepe in errore.




Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 09:29:47 -0400 
From: "Roat, Todd (ROATTW)" <ROATTW at UCMAIL.UC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Sure Screen

I use a hops bag in the boiler. That ensures no hops clog the 
strainer.
But that also eliminates the natural trub filter. I dont worry about 
the
trub, it generally settles out in primary and secondary (I know some 
will
cringe over this ;^). Im not anal about clarity, although my brews 
turns
out 90% clear.

If you wanted to filter out further, I have heard of people draining
directly out of boiler and running beer through a fine gourmet strainer 
on
top of a funnel that then leads into the fermenters - which filters out 
some
trub stuffs.

Hope that helps in some way. Other advice (possibly contradictory) 
from
others sure to follow ;^)

Todd W. Roat
Clinical Trials Coordinator
EMCREG Coordinator
Department of Emergency Medicine
231 Bethesda Avenue
Cincinnati, Ohio 45267-0769
(P)513-558-5216
(F)513-558-5791
 <mailto:emcreg at uc.edu> emcreg at uc.edu
todd.roat at uc.edu <mailto:todd.roat at uc.edu> 




Return to table of contents


Date: 04 May 1999 08:30:32 -0400
From: RCAYOT at solutia.com
Subject: N2 and Co2 solubility

     David Lamotte notes:
     
     "Solubility is quoted in grams of gas per kg water as follows :-
     
     At 0 deg C N2 0.0294
       C02 3.35
       which is 114 times
     
     At 20 deg C N2 0.0190
       C02 1.69
       which is 89 times
     
     Now back to the ASCII art for someone to explain how this translates
     into pressures measured on our guages ..."
     
     Good digging BUT:  the units are in grams per kg, so we need to 
     correct for the difference in molecular weight, Co2 54g/mol, and N2 
     28g/mol, which is aboiut 2:1, so in MOLES, the solubility is at a 
     ration of about 45 to 57 to one.  I am going to assume that the data 
     is in relation to a unit of pressure of one atmosphere.  what this 
     means is that if we pressurize with 75/25 N2/Co2 pressure, a ratio of 
     3:1 then we must further reduce the ratio of soluble CO2 to N2 to 
     about 15-20 to one.
     
     Roger Ayotte 


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 04 May 1999 08:38:08 -0500
From: "Kris Hansen" <HanseKW at dhfs.state.wi.us>
Subject: Dr. Pivo and other Napitki

Larry in San Diego wrote:

>>If "Dr. Pivo" is not his nickname, then he is one lucky brew(st)er!  
Cool name.

As a linguist and Russian speaker I had to point out to some of the more 
serious brewers (Mr. Burley) that Pivo is the Russian word for "beer", so 
Dr. "Beer" seems to be having a bit of fun.  As regards his posts, I find 
them enlightening and enjoyable although I'm still leaving my sheet-rock 
where it is!  Cheers and happy brewing!

Long-time lurker, first-time poster,
Kris "Samogoner" 


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 09:19:24 -0400
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner at umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Frothy Heads/Dark Wheat

Joel Plutchak <plutchak at ncsa.uiuc.edu> tells us:

>   Several years back (maybe around 1991), before the advent
>of the widget, a friend hiked around England and Ireland,
>bringing me back a 6-pack of Guinness he bought at the
>brewery.  It came with a little black syringe-like thingy.
>One was instructed to inset the syringe in the beer in your
>glass, draw some up, then forcefully inject it back into the
>glass.  The result was a nice creamy Guinness-like head on
>the beer, without the benefit of nitrogen.  At the time, I
>tried it on other beer and got the same result.

It's my Pocket Beer Engine! (See archives and Zymurgy)  They stole it!
This really works well and is my SOP for British style bitter.  I keep
enough pressure (4-6 psi at 55F cellar temp) on my ales to dispense, but this
leaves them too carbonated.  One shot with the pocket beer engine, though,
and after the foiling swirling creamy bubbles subside, I'm left with
properly conditioned ale and 3/4" dense head.  Note, this also works on any
overcarbonated beer, and makes them taste far smoother and creamy.

When I first posted this some years ago (under the moniker "30 beer
engine" [did the cent symbol  come through on ASCII?], someone else came
up with the far better "pocket beer engine" name), someone else reported on
the dangers of this.  It seems that his beer was far more carbonated than
mine, and when he shot the beer back in the mug, it foamed all over.  In
his haste to salvage some of the foaming beer, he lunged forward and
chipped a tooth on the rim of the mug.

>- -------------------------------------------------------------

Joel also wrote:

>Meanwhile, "Dr. Pivo" asks:
>>Just where do you get "dark wheat"?
>
>Schreier Malting Company (Sheboygan WI USA) sells
>a roasted wheat from their partner DeWolf-Cosyns (somewhere in
>Belgium).  Seems to be more closely related to their Biscuit
>malt than to, e.g., roasted barley.

Durst makes a dark wheat that is more or less the wheat equivalent of
Munich malt, which sounds less roasted than Joel describes.  Just the thing
to use as a base malt for dunkelweizen.

Jeff

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



Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 04 May 99 08:55:34 PDT
From: "George De Piro" <gdepiro at fcc.net>
Subject: Bottliong kegged beer / dark wheats / Foamy beer

Hi all,

Nathan asks about how he should best bottle condition beer
that has been stored in a keg at 10 psi.  He has two options:

1.  Figure out how much CO2 is in the beer now and only add
enough priming sugar to boost the level to your final goal.
This can be calculated as follows:

((% CO2 desired - % CO2 present)/0.46)*100/(OG-FG) = %

where:

OG = the original gravity of priming solution in Plato
FG = the expected final gravity of the priming solution in Plato

% = the volume % of priming solution to add to the beer
(i.e., if % = 10% and you have a 10 gallon batch, you would
need 1 gallon of primings)

Option 2.  Simply attach a "gas out" fitting to the keg and put
a hose on it that is in an airlock (just like when using a keg
as a fermentor.  This will allow the beer to equilibrate to
atmospheric pressure and prevent unwanted oxidation
of the beer (and the hassels and risks of transfering the
liquid to another vessel.)

I would add fresh yeast to this batch to ensure quick
carbonation.
- --------------------------------------
Dark wheat malts are made by Weyermann of Germany,
and are available in the US from Crosby and Baker,
1-800-999-2440 (wholesale only).

There are several different types of dark wheat malt,
including "dark wheat" at 15-20 EBC, "caramel wheat"
at 100-140 EBC, and "chocolate wheat" at 1000-1200
EBC.

In my experience, the caramel wheat tastes a bit
toastier and rougher than your average caramel barley.
It can be used to add an interesting new dimension to your
beers, though.  Dark wheat is great in Dunkel Weizen
(duh).
- ------------------------------------------
Regarding the long-lasting foam of a nitro beer, I have made
the follwoing observation on numerous occasions:

Beer that is carbonated and served with only CO2 will give
the "Guinness effect" if poured roughly.  The recipe does
effect how long head lasts, but rough pouring (like through
a restricted faucet) will form a dense, creamy, head while
knocking much of the CO2 out of the beer.

If you happen by Albany, NY in the next few weeks I can
demonstrate this by giving you a beer from the serving tank
(we don't have the beer lines installed yet).  Swickel valves
are not great for serving a properly carbonated beer, but I
can emulate the "Guinness effect" pretty well.

As some have posted here, the solubility of N2 is extremely
limited in beer.  While there will be some N2 in the bubbles,
it will be mostly CO2 that is in them.  I don't think there would
be enough N2 in the bubbles to make the partial pressure
substantial enough to stabilize the bubbles.

Have fun!

George de Piro  (Nyack, NY)
Head Brewer,  Albany Pump Station

Malted Barley Appreciation Society
"Brooklyn's Best Homebrew Club"
http://hbd.org/mbas

Yes, I put a LOT of miles on my car...


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 10:05:54 -0400 
From: "Menegoni, Lee" <Lee.Menegoni at compaq.com>
Subject: o2 caps

Rob recently posted:

"I'm wondering if anyone has asked a micro or a major on how they clean
theirs. I have askedand this 1 (one) micro said that they didn't. They dump
them right out ofthe freshly opened box and cap them without cleaning any of
them."
This is what I have observed at the numerous micros I have toured. They dump
boxes of caps directly into a bin in the the bottling machine.   
Home brewers have the problem of not knowing how the caps have been handled
prior to purchase and the possibility that they were exposed to dust,
especially grain dust in an HB shop.




Attilio "Lee" Menegoni
Compaq Computer Corporation
550 King Street
Littleton MA 01460-1289

phone: 978-506-6034
email:  Lee.Menegoni at Compaq.com



Return to table of contents

---