---

	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:
  Replacement for AHA or an alternative ("Peter J. Calinski")
  bt and japanese beetles (JPullum127)
  No-Sparge, One-penny Beer &c. (Brad McMahon)
  Brian and NHC 2000 ("Tom  and Deb Plunkard")
  Bugs on your Hops ("Arthur McGregor")
  Assumptions ("Houseman, David L")
  Rubbermaid Coolers ("Mark Vernon")
  re: pressure drop in hoses, or, who is eddy viscosity, anyway? (Jeff)
  Charlie Bamforth goes HSA crazy! ("Eric Panther")
  new role for mash enzyme ("Eric Panther")
  The Doctor is IN. (Rod Prather)
  Dr. Pivo ("Eric Panther")
  Orange in Belgian Ale (Robert Johnson)
  Indoor burners (Harlan Bauer)
  Advice needed re: yeast <= (darrell.leavitt)
  Permanent Disfigurement?? ("glyn crossno")
  Q: adding kettle sugars at END of the boil? (darrell.leavitt)
  Nottingham and long lags ("Nathaniel P. Lansing")
  re: false bottoms for mash tuns (John_E_Schnupp)
  re: Brian Brew Ha Ha (Joel Plutchak)
  Small grist mills ("Steve Ashton")
  Re: Orange Peel (Spencer W Thomas)
  The CABA Brew Your Own Seminar (Jeff Pursley)
  re: false bottoms for mash tuns ("Kensler, Paul")
  Re: pressure drop in hoses, or, who is eddy viscosity, anyway? ("Bayer, Mark A")
  Nitpicking about respitration (ALAN KEITH MEEKER)
  Pressure Canning Wort Starters (Matt Birchfield)


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

* Subscribe to the Distilled Beverage Digest
* Send "subscribe" in body of note to dbd-request@hbd.org
* Subscribe to the Home Vintners' Digest
* Send "subscribe" in body of note to hvd-request@hbd.org

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: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 09:18:06 -0400
From: "Peter J. Calinski" <PCalinski at iname.com>
Subject: Replacement for AHA or an alternative

I have watched the traffic criticizing the AHA and its practices.  I'll
come clean and say that I am not a member/subscriber.  It seems every time
I get ready to sign up, a controversy like this comes up and makes me
rethink my decision.

Rick Theiner asks some interesting questions (reproduced below).

They finally prompted me to toss in my $0.02.

In my experience, quite often when a problem arise, the first instinct is
to toss out the problem and start anew.  My experience has also shown me
that such an action is seldom as easy as it seems.  It is usually better to
fix the problem than start over.  Starting over usually uncovers more
unanticipated problems than the original situation.

Again, speaking as an outsider to the organization, why can't the problems
be fixed?  Does the current leadership feel that the problems are not a
priority?  If a large proportion of the community feels they are a
priority, can't the leadership be "turned on" to the problems.  If not, can
the leadership be changed?

I know of one example of a national organization that didn't meet the
perceived needs of the members and as a result the leadership was
overthrown.  The organization was the National Rifle Association.  If I
recall right, about 20 years ago the leaders were losing focus (as
perceived by the members).  One example sited was the plan to move the NRA
headquarters from Washington DC. to Colorado.  Since a large portion of the
NRA activities include lobbying Washington politicians, such a move was
largely considered a lack of focus or worse.  As I recall, most of the
leadership was replaced.

Please don't let opinions about the NRA's motives cloud the issue.  The
similarities to the AHA are there.  One important factor associated with
the NRA is the heavy involvement by the industry (I don't know this for a
fact, I have heard it
stated and have not heard it refuted).  Perhaps the AHA could benefit from
more involvement my the home-brew shops and suppliers.  

Well, that's my $0.02.  Consider fixing rather than starting over.



Rick's questions from HBD#3094 for reference are below.

Allow me to play Devil's Advocate and ask some simple questions:

 -What would such an organization do?
 -Why would anyone want to be part of said organization?
 -What would the benefits be?
 -What would differentiate this organization from the AHA?
 -How would such an organization be governed?
 -How would this organization be established?
 -How would this organization recruit new members?

This is just the tip of the iceberg, but a good place to start.  Does
anyone have the answers?

Rick Theiner




Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 12:33:17 EDT
From: JPullum127 at aol.com
Subject: bt and japanese beetles

now that we have thouroughly  covered japanese beetles, what do i do about 
the nutsedge that is taking over my front lawn?


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 02:23:52 +0930
From: Brad McMahon <brad at sa.apana.org.au>
Subject: No-Sparge, One-penny Beer &c.

IN HBD # 3094 Bob Uhl wrote:

>I have seen in several sources that in the old days a brewer 
>would make three batches from one grain bill. 
> The first would be a no-sparge batch, very thick and strong, called
>three-penny beer.  The grain would be remashed, then a second batch
>would be sparged out, called two-penny beer. 
> The grain would be mashed a third time and one-penny beer would
> result.

I haven't heard those terms before but they sound about right
for the time of Dickens.
The technique is not quite right. No-one sparged, you just re-infused
and drained.

"Sparging was not introduced until the early part of the 
nineteenth century. They mashed much larger quantities of malt
per batch, twice or three times as much, and they mashed the same
batch up to three times; or at least, they thought they were mashing
three times.
	The first mashing made the strong old nectars of perhaps
O.G. 1100, the second mashing made common ale of perhaps 1075,
and the third made table beer (T beer) or small beer of about 1050.
Sometimes the first and second mashes were combined to brew a strong
ale of about O.G. 1090. However, the second and third mashes were
not real mashes at all, merely rinses."
Wheeler,G.,"Home Brewing:The CAMRA Guide",CAMRA Books,St. Albans, 1993,
p81.

>If oversparging can result in too many tannins, this could only
>exacerbate the problem, unless there is some other component 
>wh. I am overlooking.
>Granted, the remashing would not be at boiling temps, but still...

Well, if the last run off is at 1050 then there wouldn't be a problem!
Quick little spot quiz.

Q.How did house brewers know what temp. to mash at before the 
invention of thermometers?

A. If the water was just too hot to stick your hand in, you've
reached strike temperature!

Some times you just have to look at brewing without the
science hat on....

I digress..

The three beers from one mash system carried
over to the continent where the monks would brew three
beers from the same batch. The first run was served to special guests.
The second run sold to the layman. The third drunk by the monks as an
everyday drink. Triples, Doubles, and Singles!

The Scots, being the, umm, thrifty sorts, used to make more:
Out of one peck {quarter of a bushel} you would get:
Twenty Pints o Strong Ale
Twenty Pints o Sma' [small]
Twenty Pints o Hinky Pinky
Twenty Pints o Plooman's Drinkie
Twenty Pints o Splitter Splatter
and Twenty Pints was waur nor watter. [no better than water]

Going by that description, small beer would be strong ale by our modern
standards!
Plowman's Drink, and Splitter Splatter live on thanks to the
power of American macrobreweries!

I, myself have never tried this method, but I too, would be
interested in hearing of results.

Brad McMahon
1000 miles from nowhere{and Dwight Yoakam},
but very near Adelaide, Sth. Australia.


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 14:06:19 -0400
From: "Tom and Deb Plunkard" <tommagic at ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Brian and NHC 2000

Hello,
I'm a long time reader, first time poster. I'd like to say it's nice to see
everyone cooling down about Brian. I've talked to Brian and met him
personally and I have to agree he is a nice guy. At the same time Paul is a
nice guy. I've never met him but I have talked with him several times. I
would bet letting Brian go was the hardest decision Paul has made in his
career. I'm assuming Paul and Brian were Friends and had a lot in common,
same work, same hobby. A friend wouldn't can a friend without a very good
reason. I'm assuming Brian was doing or not doing something and Paul had
asked him to change. I would bet he allowed Brian to get away with it far
longer then he should have because of there friendship. I would bet, on the
day Brian was let go, Paul felt cornered and finally did what he should have
done long ago, knowing that it would or could destroy their friendship.
What I'm trying to say is, a great guy may not be a great employee. Until
Brian says different, we can only hope that his removal was a proper
decision.
The point of all this is, us brewers up here in "Renner Land" don't want
you to boycott us at the NHC 2000. Many people have worked too hard already
to get it here in Michigan. Now that its coming, many more of us are
joining in to make it the best conference yet. I know many of you are upset
and some of you are down right mad over this thing but please don't take it
out on us Detroiters/Michiganders. In fact the conference would be a great
place to voice your opinions, concerns and complaints. We are very
concerned and would hope you would reconsider coming. If you said that you
were going to boycott the event and have since changed your mind it would be
great if you would post it. Just talking about a boycott can take the wind
out of our sails. Please support the NHC 2000. Thank you.
Regards,
Tom



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 14:43:56 -0400
From: "Arthur McGregor" <MCGREGAP at acq.osd.mil>
Subject: Bugs on your Hops



Hi Everyone!

I'm still catching up on the HBD after being out for awhile, but this topic has
stayed active for the past week or so.  Below is what I posted in July of 1997
on Hops, bugs and insecticides.

Hops Insects:  I grew hops for three years and decided it was too much trouble
for the amount of hops harvested when compared to the cost of buying a pound of
hops in bulk.  But while I did grow them, I had a lot of problems with bugs, and
I thought I should pass on some info on bug control.  I live in Northern
Virginia, near DC, and we have lots of Japanese Beetles, and they _LOVE_ hops.
The last year that I tried to farm hops I sprayed the hops with "Liquid Sevin,"
and it helped to keep the beetles off, but caused an even bigger problem -- the
hops were then attacked by lots of small SPIDER MITES.  After searching the web
I found the following at the Department of Entomology, Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University under the "Spider Mites Factsheet PUBLICATION
444-221 x 1991:
> Most insecticides are not effective on mites and some, especially carbaryl
> (Sevin), result in increased mite damage by killing their natural enemies.
  ^^^^^^^
> Use a miticide as suggested in Virginia Pest Management Guides, available
> through your local Extension Agent. Always read the label before applying
> any pesticide.

Additional WEB searchers on hops found this at the University of Florida (IFAS)
Cooperative Extension Service:

>   Oct 1993     INSECT CONTROL IN MINOR VEGETABLE CROPS          MINO-023
>            Dr. Freddie A. Johnson, Extension Entomologist
>                                    Hops
>  Cythion  (malathion)
> *Diazinon  (diazinon)
>  Dipel  (B.t.)
>  Javelin (B.t.)
>  Kelthane  (dicofol)
>  Omite (propargite)
> *Telone II  (1,3-dichloropropene)
> *Telone C-17  (1,3-dichloropropene + chloropicrin)
>  Vapam  (metam-sodium)
>  ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>  An asterisk (*) denotes a restricted use material (requires State of
>  Florida permit to purchase and use insecticide).
>
>  Trade names are followed by the generic or common chemical name indicated
>  by parentheses (  ).  There may be one to numerous trade names for each
>  generic name.  Some generic names may also be used as trade name, i.e.,
>  Ethion (ethion).

So it appears that Malathion, which is readily available at home centers, is
approved for use on hops, at least in the State of Florida, so hopefully would
be ok in Virginia, and elsewhere.

Hope this is of some help to the HBD.  I eventually just mowed the hops over
with the lawn mower, but 3 of the original 9 plants are still hanging in there
and have been coming back every year since 1994.

Hoppy Brewing :^)
Art McGregor(mcgregap at acq.osd.mil)
Lorton, Virginia (near Washington, DC)




Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 15:06:36 -0400
From: "Houseman, David L" <David.Houseman at unisys.com>
Subject: Assumptions


Bob Uhl said:

"Mr. Gatza said that it was a personnel matter, not a personal matter....
I really don't know enough firsthand to make an informed decision."

Excellent point that others would do well to heed.

Tim Green writes:

"AHA is going to stand in the position that they are the main
organization that has accepted sponsorship of an event like the NHC Boston
then they are the ones who should take the heat when something goes wrong"

Agree 100%.  That was my point.  And Paul has taken corrective action.

Tim goes on:

"As was pointed out in at leas one other post, probationary periods are
normally 30-90 days, not 6-12 months. It seems that if there were
organizational problems, then the manager in charge, (Paul), should have
taken an earily proactive action, not let the problem drag on and on. (which
is poor management practice by the way)"

I don't recall Paul ever stating any duration of a probationary period; I
believe all that's been quoted is whisper down the valley and supposition.
I don't believe industry has any standards for probationary periods.  Some
new hires into probationary positions may spend a year before they are no
longer considered probates (nah, that's not a word meaning one who is on
probationary status, is it).  When the term probationary is used in the
sense of a notice to perform to corrective action or termination or other
action is possible, then it can range from 30 days to again much longer.
Depends on the job requirements and what needs to be corrected.  

Dave Houseman




Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 15:41:17 -0500
From: "Mark Vernon" <vernonm at goportable.com>
Subject: Rubbermaid Coolers

Does anyone know of a supplier for Rubbermaid 10gal coolers. Their web site
lists them but they are not available for online order. I have not been able
to find them here locally (wal-mart, target, k-mart...). If anyone can help
thanks.

Mark Vernon, MCSE,MCP+I, MCT
Integrated Software Solutions
VernonM at goportable.com
http://www.goportable.com



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 17:37:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: mcnallyg at gam83.npt.nuwc.navy.mil (Jeff)
Subject: re: pressure drop in hoses, or, who is eddy viscosity, anyway?

Hi All,

WARNING:  Technical brewing related info follows!  Page down now if not
          interested in technical discussions!

  Mark Bayer, responding to Dave Burley, recently wrote about the effects
of serving line lengths and diameters.

>what is mechanically important is how fast the beer is flowing from the end
>of the hose

  As far as agitation is concerned, yes, the velocity of the beer flowing
into the glass is important.

  Also important is the rate of change of pressure (dp/dt) that the beer
experiences.

  I don't have a lot of experience related to dissolved gasses and bubble
formation, so I'm not sure of the relative importance of these two items.
Maybe someone with this type of experience could jump into the discussion.

  What I do have quite a bit of experience in is the relationship between
pressure, hydraulic resistance, and flow rate of fluids.

>not the static pressure of the exit flow, which dave accurately
>points out will always be the same value regardless of hose length.

  As Dave Burley alluded to, the pressure drop from keg to glass will
*always* be the difference between the pressure in the keg and atmospheric
pressure.  How the beer gets from the keg to the glass has no effect on
the magnitude of this overall pressure drop.

  However, the flow rate of the beer and the pressure gradients that it
experiences along it's trip *are* a function of how the beer gets from the
keg into the glass.

>the mean velocity of a developed laminar flow in a straight pipe ...
>can be given by:
>
>um = (R^^2/8u)(-dp/dx)
>
>where R is the radius of the pipe, u is absolute viscosity, and dp/dx is the
>static pressure drop per length of pipe from the keg to the atmosphere (the
>gage reading on the regulator divided by the length of pipe).

  I'm not sure where Mark got this equation, but it's not really applicable
to characterizing the flow found in a kegging system.  The problem with it is
that dp/dx is not constant in this application (it is in a long pipeline,
but not in a kegging system), and the flow is probably (QDA!) not laminar.

  For predicting flow rate (and mean velocity) in a fluid system such as a
kegging system, you would want to use Darcy's head loss formula (head is
another term for pressure, but it is in units of distance like "feet of
water" or "inches of mercury").  Darcy's formula in its simplest form is:

head loss = f * (L / D) * ( V**2 / (2*g))

where:  f is the friction factor (from a Moody chart for pipe flow)
        L is length
        D is diameter
        V is velocity
        g is the gravitational constant

  Since the cross sectional flow area usually varies along the flow path the
velocity term (V) is not constant and Darcy's formula is usually re-written
in terms of the flow rate (which is constant throughout the system):

flow rate = q = V * a_flow

  therefore:

V = q / a_flow

  and:

head loss = f * (L / D) * (1/a_flow**2) * ( q**2 / (2*g))

  the head loss coefficient is defined as:

head loss coefficient = K' = f * (L / D) * (1/a_flow**2)

  therefore:

head loss = K' * ( q**2 / (2*g))

  These K' terms are tabulated in many, many text books for components such as
pipes, elbows, T's, valves, orifices, diffusers, etc. etc..  By summing up all
of the K' terms for individual components of a system, the total system loss
coefficient can be found.

  Once you know the total system loss coefficient, you can easily calculate the
pressure drop needed to achieve a desired flow rate, or the flow rate that
would result from a given pressure drop.

  Experimentally you can easily determine the total system loss coefficient by
measuring the flow rate and and pressure differential.

  Also, by knowing how the losses are distributed throughout the system you
can determine the pressure at any given point in the flow path (by combining
Darcy's formula with the Bernoulli equation).

  So, now you're probably asking yourself how all of this stuff relates to
the beer lines in your kegging system!

  Well, the head loss coefficient equation says that the loss coefficient is
proportional to length and inversely proportional diameter (given everything
else is constant). 

  You can also see that it is possible to evenly distribute the losses along
the flow path and produce a gradual pressure drop, or you can have most of the
loss right at the tap and produce a sudden pressure drop right before the beer
hits your glass.

  You can also see that the head loss is a function of flow rate squared, so
the idea of a *fixed* pressure drop per foot of beer line is not true.

  Darcy's formula and the Bernoulli equation would be quite useful for
designing a RIMS system, if you were so inclined.

  And, believe it or not, you can actually apply Darcy's formula to the flow
within a grainbed in your mashtun too (but you have to apply it to a bunch of
small uniform volumes and solve them all simultaneously).

  Better brewing via technology!

                                                           Jeff


==========================================================================

Geoffrey A. McNally                  Phone:  (401) 832-1390
Mechanical Engineer                  Fax:    (401) 832-7250
Naval Undersea Warfare Center        email:
Systems Development Branch              mcnallyg at gam83.npt.nuwc.navy.mil
Code 8321; Bldg. 1246/2              WWW:
Newport, RI  02841-1708                 http://www.nuwc.navy.mil/


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 11:41:12 +1000
From: "Eric Panther" <epanther at somelab.com>
Subject: Charlie Bamforth goes HSA crazy!

Since Charlie Bamforth moved to UC Davis, he has gone beserk about hot side
aeration (HSA). He has extensive articles in both the latest Brauwelt and
Journal of the Institute of Brewing on the topic.

He suggests the risks are higher for "small scale" (ie. homebrew) than for
large commercial operations, due to the far higher surface/mash (or wort)
ratio in the former, so the opportunity for oxygen ingress into the wort is
considerably greater.

He also says that HSA does not just cause decreased shelflife, but can have
a negative effect on the flavour profile of fresh beer.

So it is something all serious homebrewers should be concerned about (that's
you isn't it?).

The amount of oxygen consumed during brewing is startling: between 50 and
200ppm. One would expect that small scale brewing would be at the upper end
of this range. When one considers that the maximum amount of oxygen
dissolved in a mash at 60C is about 4ppm, a considerable amount of gas
exchange must be taking place during brewing at the air - mash/wort
interface.

The reactions are both enzymic (lipoxygenase activity on unsaturated fatty
acids and oxygen) and non-enzymic (autoxidation of unsaturated fatty acids,
by activated forms of oxygen). Both are rapid (within a few minutes) and
generally limited by the amount of oxygen present.

Ways to minimize HSA include:
 - mash in at the highest temperature possible (ie. no protein rest!), to
reduce oxygen solubility in wort and accelerate denaturing of lipoxygenase
 - use deaerated or preboiled water for all operations (store with lid on to
prevent O2 pickup)
 - prefill mash/lauter/boiler with N2 or CO2 to minimize oxygen pickup during
mash-in and transfers
 - avoid copper or iron brewing vessels or elements (to minimize the
formation of activated forms of oxygen)
 - use an inert gas blanket on top of mash and wort
 - ensure the clearest possible lauter runoff, to minimize wort unsaturated
fatty acid composition

I would say that unless a homebrewer followed these procedures, one could no
t really claim to have climbed the Everest of the art.

Any Sir Edmunds out there, or just a bunch of weekend bushwalkers?

Eric Panther.




Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 12:18:06 +1000
From: "Eric Panther" <epanther at somelab.com>
Subject: new role for mash enzyme

Another interesting article in the latest JIB is on a new role in mashing
for limit dextrinase. As we all know, alpha and beta amylase are the main
enzymes of interest to us, which act to degrade unbranched amylose to
glucose, maltose and maltotriose. The hydrolysis of amylopectin yields a
mixture of branched amylopectin and fermentable sugars. A debranching enzyme
is required to convert the branched dextrins to fermentable sugars.

One such debranching enzyme is limit dextrinase. In the past, it has not
been considered relevant to brewing due to the low amounts found in malt and
an assumed heat lability. However, the recent study by Stenholm and Home
(JIB, v105/4, 1999) questions earlier assumptions on the role of limit
dextrinase in brewing.

A quick summary:
 -    At 62.5C and below, limit dextrinase is heat stable in wort.
 -    At 65C, limit dextrinase loses 40% of activity after 1 hour.
 -    In acetate buffer, limit dextrinase begins to lose activity at 50C. ie.
the mash acts to protect limit dextrinase.
 -    Mash conversion temperatures of 60-65C and pH of 5.3 - 5.5 (measured at
mash temp) are optimum conditions for limit dextrinase and produce the most
fermentable wort.

These last conditions are traditionally used in brewing to produce a more
fermentable wort, but the mechanism is thought to have been due to an
optimization of conditions for beta amylase. The latest study shows no
correlation between beta amylase activity and fermentability (correlation
coefficient = 0.37), but a high correlation coefficient between free limit
dextrinase activity and fermentability (correlation coefficient = 0.84).

So if you want the most fermentable wort, mash at 60-65C and pH of 5.3 -
5.5, as usual, but the reasons for this are probably not what you have been
led to believe.

Eric Panther.



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 21:25:44 -0500
From: Rod Prather <rodpr at iquest.net>
Subject: The Doctor is IN.

Alan Meeker so worthily noted:

> Also, I don't believe that Sanders ever gave out
> military advice or Severinson medical advice!
>
It should be noted that one can obtain a doctorate in the discipline of
music, which I believe is Severinson's credentials.    Colonel Sanders
title was awarded via an organization known as the Kentucky Colonels, (not
the basketball team) a post civil war benevolent organization centered,  I
believe,  around Louisville.

Still, the casual use of the title Doc, Doctor, Dr. is common in our society
for people recognized to be outstanding in their field.  (Dr. Soybean
Farmer?  :-)  Dr. Piva is about as tongue in cheek as one can get.
(peeva, beeva, pivo, bivo is beer in slavic languages whether Czech, Russian
or Hungarian).   It amounted to no more than the title Dr. of
Homebrewology.    Call the AMA and see if they care (not the Academy of
Model Aeronautics).    This is a knowledgeable and intellectual discussion,
get over it.  Drink a home-brew, talk about brewing and I'll send you a
great
picture of a fruit fly, if you ask real nice.   I have a bunch of 'em.

I am sure that Doc Pivo would be pleased that his name produced such a
totally distracted departure from our focused discussion.
- --
So you wanna make beer, Visit me at http://fast.to/beer



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 14:44:30 +1000
From: "Eric Panther" <epanther at somelab.com>
Subject: Dr. Pivo

For those who care, Jeff Irvine (Dr. Pivo), really is a doctor (of
medicine). Note he has never mentioned this on HBD, preferring to stick to
the whimsical pseudonym.

I notice certain other regular posters often pompously announce "I'm a Ph.D.
in Chemistry, but I never mention it on this forum". Yeah, right....

Eric Panther.



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 22:44:00 -0700
From: robert at bobbrews.com (Robert Johnson)
Subject: Orange in Belgian Ale

I brew Belgian Style Ales all the time and have used many kinds of
peels.. Nothing really I have found replaces the real thing (Curacao
bitter orange peel) even though the beers do come out very
good.(different tastes in each beer)

In fact I just brewed last week a christmas ale using the peel from 6
navel oranges... I have also made orange ale using the complete orange
in the batch.

Robert (bobbrews) Johnson

P.S. I have also a Belgian Triple sage beer in secondary right now,
can't wait to taste it.



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 02:00:06 -0500
From: Harlan Bauer <blacksab at midwest.net>
Subject: Indoor burners

Donovan asked about indoor burners.

Yes you can use a burner in the basement, and yes, you can use a propane
burner in the basement; BUT, if it's propane, it must be the low
pressure type; or else natural gas. Remember, restaurant kitchens are
indoors.

First question: Is your house equipped with gas? Propane or Natural gas?
The type of gas will determine the size of the oriface in the burner. If
propane, the house is already set up with a low pressure system and your
Cajun Cooker will not work properly--pawn it off on someone else. If
your house is NOT equipped with gas, contact your local LP dealer and
get a medium sized tank set up for low pressure (the kind you'd have if
your house was a trailer) and install it outside. REPEAT, install it
outside! Then pipe the gas indoors. If you don't know how to do it, find
someone who does, or give me a call and I'll walk you thru it.

IMHO, the best types of burners are commercial Wok rings and commercial
stove burners--the wok ring is great for developing a lot of heat, but
the stove element has finer simmering control. I'd suggest a wok ring
for your HL tank and boiling kettle and a stove element for your mash
tun. Low pressure burners are considerably more efficient than the HP
ones and create a whole lot less CO.

Next, since you only have one window (same as I had when I brewed at
home), build an exhaust hood directly over your burner and vent it out
the window. A CO alarm is an excellent idea.

The only real disadvantage of brewing indoors is the lack of a trough
drain. You can slop SOME water onto the floor, but you can't just dump a
lot of stuff onto the floor and then hose it down. This is the biggest
advantage of using the garage--it's the best of both worlds. 

Hope this helps,
Harlan


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 06:46:00 -0500 (EST)
From: darrell.leavitt at plattsburgh.edu
Subject: Advice needed re: yeast <=

Date sent:  29-JUL-1999 06:39:42 

Here's the thing:  I know that I should step-up smack packs,...but I really
need to brew this afternoon.  I have a Wyeast#1742 bursting at the seams, 
and I plan on making a Brown Ale (10 lb Halcyon, 1 lb Crystal, 1/4 lb
Chocolate, perhaps some brown sugar, and I may substitute some Special B 
for some of the Crystal), and I was thinking:  What would the result be if 
I were to supplement the smack pack with one rehydrated Munton's Gold, or a 
Coopers dry yeast?  Would it make more sense to just run the risk of under-
pitching....or should I use dry yeast with the Swedish #1742 WYeast?

Thankyou in advance for any advice you can render.
 ...Darrell
<terminally intermediate all-grain brewer>
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ _/
_/Darrell Leavitt                              _/
_/INternet: leavitdg at splava.cc.plattsburgh.edu _/
_/AMpr.net: n2ixl at amgate.net.plattsburgh.edu   _/
_/AX25 : n2ixl  at  kd2aj.#nny.ny.usa            _/
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 06:41:36 -0500
From: "glyn crossno" <crossno at tnns.net>
Subject: Permanent Disfigurement??

Phil Yates
The Loving Caring One. wrote:
"You cannot possibly know that I always, ALWAYS replace
removed limbs!!"

Does this include tails?  No lets not restart the 'are tails limbs?'
debate.

Glyn Crossno
Estill Springs,  TN
- --
Have you hugged your bines today?




Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 08:30:14 -0500 (EST)
From: darrell.leavitt at plattsburgh.edu
Subject: Q: adding kettle sugars at END of the boil?

Date sent:  29-JUL-1999 08:26:22 

I am attempting a brown ale, and read (Daniels and Parker ,BROWN ALE) that 
'some English brewers' add sugars at the end of the boil . .....If one 
wanted to add molasses of brown sugar at  the end (to retain more of
the flavor, apparently ?) should one just drop in a couple cups or so and 
stir?  How about impurities?  Is the few minutes at boil temps ok?

 ...Darrell

_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ _/
_/Darrell Leavitt                              _/
_/INternet: leavitdg at splava.cc.plattsburgh.edu _/
_/AMpr.net: n2ixl at amgate.net.plattsburgh.edu   _/
_/AX25 : n2ixl  at  kd2aj.#nny.ny.usa            _/
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 08:40:13 -0400
From: "Nathaniel P. Lansing" <delbrew at compuserve.com>
Subject: Nottingham and long lags

Only now rebuilding my library after a roof collapse and
subsequent loss of about 1/3 of my reference material;
I can explain the long lag times some experience with
Nottingham yeast. After reviewing Danstar's own technical
sheets I see that their recommended pitching rates are
deficient. Assuming a 10 degree Plato wort,
the pitching of one 5 gram packet of yeast in
5 gallons is about 1/2 what it should be to give a pitching
rate of 1 million cells/degree Plato/mililiter wort.
At that rate it would take 8 generations to reach
fermentation cell counts. This would require, after adaptation
delays, 16 hours at least, lots of oxygen and added nutrients
to provide a healthy fermentation population.

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 06:02:08 -0700
From: John_E_Schnupp at amat.com
Subject: re: false bottoms for mash tuns

>I'm building a new 10 gal mash tun based on a Gott water cooler.  Does
>anyone have any tricks for sealing the false bottom to the sides and
>still being able to remove it?  Thanks.

Joe,

Cut the false bottom a little loose.  Take enough tubing to wrap around
the edge of the false bottom.  Slit it on one side and wrap it around
the false bottom.  You'll have a great seal.  I used some scrap teflon
tubing I got at work.  My false bottom slides in and out fairly easily
and seals well.

John Schnupp, N3CNL
Dirty Laundry Brewery
Colchester, VT
95 XLH 1200




Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 08:15:27 -0500 (CDT)
From: Joel Plutchak <plutchak at ncsa.uiuc.edu>
Subject: re: Brian Brew Ha Ha

In HBD #3095, Dan Cole wrote:
>Finally (for me on this topic), the AHA has been "couped" by BT in the
>promotion of homebrewing. Where was the AHA when BT was working on the
>Hombrew Publicity Campaign (creating affordable, high quality commercials
>for use by local homebrew shops)? Where is the AHA now on the HPC?

   Last weekend I was just wondering where *BT* was on the HPC
issue.  I like to think I keep abreast of goings-on in the beer
world, but I haven't heard anything since the idea was originally
floated.
- --
Rev. Joel Plutchak, B.S.
It's too foggy this morning to know where I am



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 09:22:41 -0400
From: "Steve Ashton" <sashton at metlife.com>
Subject: Small grist mills



Mark writes.....

Fellow Brewers,

I seek opinions, of which I'm sure there is no shortage here, as to which
small grain mill gives the best grist, and is adjustable for a variety of
grain types.  I have a reputable commercial mill, but because I am
dealing with such a great variety of grains in relatively small amounts,
I find that constantly adjusting my mill becomes impractical.  I need
approx. 20 pounds of grain to get the settings where I want them, and
since I'm pilot brewing with a grist charge of about 20#,  I end up
throwing too much malt away.  I'm looking for suggestions as to the best
brands, suppliers, etc.  Thanks in advance for your help.
- --------
Mark, I use the Schmidling adjustable malt mill (there is a non adjustable
version). It's very easy to motorize and adjusting the rollers is even easier.
The hopper holds about 3 lbs. so you should waste a lot less malt getting the
adjustments right. The only issue I have had with it is it tends to tear the
husks a little. This has not been detrimental on a half barrel scale (no
astringency or problems sparging). Jack Schmidling may be able to comment on
that and what the range of the mill is.

Steven Ashton
A little west of NYC






Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 09:54:50 -0400
From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer at engin.umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Orange Peel 

Fred,

"Brewers Garden" aka F. H. Steinbart sells dried Curacao orange peel.
American grown oranges do not impart the same flavor, although I have
used them in a wit beer with good success (add some lemon and lime
peels to bend the profile a little closer to Curacao.)  When I used
dried peels, I used the whole thing, not ground.  When I used fresh
peels, I used just the zest.

=S


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 09:00:16 -0500
From: Jeff Pursley <JPursley at Tulsa.E2M.net>
Subject: The CABA Brew Your Own Seminar

In the July 29 HBD, Rob Jones writes about the upcoming Canadian Amateur
Brewers Association (CABA) Brew Your Own Beer Seminar. This sounds like an
excellent idea. It is a perfect example of the type of service the AHA could
provide to member clubs. They could provide materials and help us to
coordinate local events like this one. They could serve as a clearing house
for information, passing along the good and bad experiences of other clubs
and homebrewers. Good luck Rob, let us know how it works out.

Jeff Pursley
Fellowship of Oklahoma Ale Makers
Tulsa, Oklahoma


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 09:28:58 -0500
From: "Kensler, Paul" <paul.kensler at wilcom.com>
Subject: re: false bottoms for mash tuns

Joe,
I use a 10 gallon Gott with a Phil's Phalse bottom - this might not be an
answer to your question, but I have never found a need to seal it to the
bottom.  My procedure goes like this:
Install Phalse bottom and close ball valve on cooler
Put about .5-1 gallon foundation water in cooler (just enough to cover the
top of the Phalse bottom)
"Poke" the Phalse bottom with my mash paddle to knock out any air bubbles
trapped under it.  This takes care of the floating some folks seem to have a
problem with.  If it still seems to ride up a little bit, I just set my mash
paddle on top of the Phalse bottom until I get some mash on top of it.
Depending on what sort of mash I'm doing, I either dough in at this point
(when I am doing a single infusion mash), alternating between adding grist
and water, or I transfer the completed mash from my mash tun (when I am
doing direct-fire step mashes) to the cooler for lautering.  Once I get a
couple pounds of wet grain on top of the Phalse bottom, it stays put and I
don't get any loose grains sneaking around the edges.

A couple of tips - make sure you attach the runoff tubing to the Phalse
bottom real well - I have accidentally knocked the tubing off the barbed tip
when I got a little overzealous with my stirring.  Also, if you still need
to "seal" the false bottom to your cooler, try a search of the HBD archives
 - several folks have posted about their success using a length of flexible
tubing filled with BB's and sealed at each end with silicone.


Hope this helps -

Paul Kensler
Plano, TX




Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 07:34:43 -0700
From: "Bayer, Mark A" <Mark.Bayer at JSF.Boeing.com>
Subject: Re: pressure drop in hoses, or, who is eddy viscosity, anyway?

collective homebrew conscience_

science alert (you know what to do).

jeff mcnally wrote a few things that i'd like to respond to:

(laminar pipe flow equation here)

>I'm not sure where Mark got this equation, but it's not really applicable
>to characterizing the flow found in a kegging system.  The problem with it
is
>that dp/dx is not constant in this application (it is in a long pipeline,
>but not in a kegging system), and the flow is probably (QDA!) not laminar.

the equation i posted comes from _boundary layer theory_, dr. hermann
schlichting, 1987 reissue from mcgraw-hill, page 86.

the reason i pulled this out was because alan m and dave b were discussing
the effect of hose length and diameter on pressure drop.  i was only
intending to help explain why longer hoses and hoses of smaller diameter
impose more restriction on the flow.  i was not trying to model the entire
flow path from keg to glass.  i also tried to make it clear that the flows
we experience are universally turbulent (except for those of you who are
very patient), and the turbulent form of the theoretical equation involves
reynold's number, and is therefore not as easy to understand how hose length
and diameter affect the flow (it's easier to just plug some numbers in and
see the result).  the laminar equation does display clearly the relationship
between resistance, momentum, and the physical characteristics of the pipe,
which is also generally valid for turbulent flow.

both the turbulent (not posted) and the laminar equation have been
rigorously proven to be quite accurate for pipe flow, by many fluid
dynamicists (hey, *real* science).
 
>For predicting flow rate (and mean velocity) in a fluid system such as a
>kegging system, you would want to use Darcy's head loss formula (head is
>another term for pressure, but it is in units of distance like "feet of
>water" or "inches of mercury").  Darcy's formula in its simplest form is:

>head loss = f * (L / D) * ( V**2 / (2*g))

>where:  f is the friction factor (from a Moody chart for pipe flow)
>        L is length
>       D is diameter
>        V is velocity
>        g is the gravitational constant

first, let me say that everything jeff wrote is accurate.  we are just
coming at this problem from two different angles.

back in the mid-to-late 1800's, during the industrial revolution, hydraulics
engineers found that the inviscid theoretical models for fluid flow
(developed by euler, et.al.) were not accurately predicting the actual
engineering applications they were interested in.  pipe flow was one of the
most important ones.  so they set about running experiments to *empirically*
figure out how to predict pressure drops, momentum changes, et cetera, for
all the situations they cared about.  they compiled massive quantities of
data and then empirically figured out the equations.  this is where d'arcy's
equation comes from.

everybody knew that the theoretical equations didn't model viscosity, but
not many realized how important it was.

then, in the early 1900's, a german scientist named ludwig prandtl figured
out how to incorporate viscosity into the theoretical models and solve them
for particular flows.  he came up with boundary layer theory, and, voila!,
suddenly the predictions of fluid flow with friction (like pipe flow) became
very accurate and they were rigorously demonstrated in laboratories.  this
is where the laminar equation for pipe flow that i posted comes from.

both equations are accurate.  jeff's is an older equation based on empirical
data.  mine is a little newer and comes from first principles (navier stokes
equations and boundary layer theory).

this is probably going to get a few flames, but i felt like an explanation
was in order.  sorry to those of you who feel it is a waste (hope you paged
down).

brew hard,

mark bayer
stl mo


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 10:54:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: ALAN KEITH MEEKER <ameeker at welch.jhu.edu>
Subject: Nitpicking about respitration

>strains< of S. cerevesiae do not "respire" in the presence of glucose
>above a rather modest level but given oxygen (and suitable nutrients)
>they will consume it to produce biomass, in particular, cell membrane
>material. Respiration, OTOH, produces only water, CO2 and ATP (energy).

 ... And metabolic intermediates which are the carbon skeleton building blocks 
for anabolic reactions, therefore BIOMASS (Not every carbon from every
glucose molecule makes it to CO2). I respire all the time but, as my wife is
quick to point out, I'm increasing my biomass!

 -Alan Meeker



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 11:11:45 -0400
From: Matt Birchfield <peridot at usit.net>
Subject: Pressure Canning Wort Starters

Hi All,

Can anybody out there provide specifics about canning wort in Mason
jars to store and use as starters?  I think what I'm looking for are
facts like:

1- What should the S.G. of the canned wort be, or does it matter in
relation to my second question?

2- What temperature, pressure and time should be used for safe
canning, and how full should the jars be?

3- How long will the canned wort last?

4- Are there any special steps (boiling again, etc.) that should be
taken to use the canned wort, or just flame the jar, pour it into the
starter fermentation jug and pitch yeast?

5- When canning wort do you need to pressure can, or can you "steam
can"?  How 'bout immersion in boiling water?

6- What are the chances, circumstances, risks, etc., or doing it
wrong?

I hate the hassle of making starters (or forgetting to), as I'm sure
most people do, and would really like some good advice on the matter.
I know this issue has been raised in previous digests, but I haven't
been able to find specifics on the process.

Thanks in advance!

Matt
New River Valley, VA



Return to table of contents

---