---

	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:
  Subscription probe completed (Homebrew Digest)
  Most Common Calculations (David Sweeney)
  attenuation ("St. Patrick's")
  Brewing Techniques ("St. Patrick's")
  Cleaning CPWC's (Nancy George)
  yeast (Spencer W Thomas)
  Re: Judging Inconsistencies (Spencer W Thomas)
  pseudonyms ("Arnold Chickenshorts")
  Re: Judging Inconsistencies (Pat Babcock)
  are hops our obsession? (AlannnnT)
  HBD and publicity ("Josh Hawkins")
  Experience with White Labs Hefe Weizen IV (WLP380)? (Dave Humes)
  Mint Choc.Stout, George Fix, and Windriver referral (James Jerome)
  Re: How rude! (Steve Lacey)
  re: Pivo inferno on NAT gas... ("John Stegenga")
  re: mash mixer/evaporative cooling (Lou.Heavner)
  Cereal Mash and HSA ("Alan McKay")
  economies of scale (MVachow)
  Re:Primary vs. Secondary Experiment (Matthew Comstock)
  ethyl hexanoate ("Arnold Chickenshorts")
  Beer in South Africa (John Roe)
  cleaning cf chiller, copper tubing info ("St. Patrick's")
  Peppery flavor in beer (MICHAEL WILLIAM MACEYKA)
  My no-sparge experience/data series (Dean Fikar)
  AHA Club-Only Mead judging postponement (Ken Schramm)
  Cleaning CF heat exchanges, revisited... (Harlan Bauer)
  re: Scottish Ales (Scott Murman)
  homemade eisbock (Bryan Gros)
  Re: High gravity follies (Matthew Comstock)


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

* The HBD now hosts eight digests related to this and a few other hobbies.
* The latest are the Gadgeteers Digest (gadget at hbd.org) and the Home
* Brew Shop Owners' Discussion Forum (brewshop at hbd.org).
* Send an email note to majordomo at hbd.org with the word "lists" on one 
* line, and "help" on another (don't need the quotes) for a listing and
* instructions for use.


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, 27 Aug 1999 09:51:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: Homebrew Digest <hbd at brew.oeonline.com>
Subject: Subscription probe completed

Greetings, Beerlings! Take me to your lager....

The recent subscription "probe" is complete, and the subscription list is
now over 300 users leaner. Unfortunately, though, some of the errors
returned that removed addresses from the list were ambiguous - they
indicated permanent errors, but some looked like a services attempt to
divert spam. If you find yourself reading the Digest on the web because
you're suddenly not getting it in your mailbox anymore, simply
resubscribe.

And, please: if you are leaving a mail account, please, please, please
unsubscribe from the HBD (and any other internet mail list you are
subscribed to) first. This is a time-consuming process. If I automate the
process, many would simply be dropped rather than have their addresses
corrected. And the "personal touch" allows those whoare having trouble
unsubscribing a little help, too.

Cheers!

The Home Brew Digest Janitorial Staff



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 15:44:49 -0500
From: David Sweeney <David at stulife2.tamu.edu>
Subject: Most Common Calculations

Howdy All!

I'm thinking about writing a brewing calculator program for the 3COM Palm.
I've been using my PC for brew calculations, and it's not as convenient as a
Palm application would be.

So...I'm trying to come up with a set of the most common brewing
calculations that we use.  There are many excellent calculators (many on The
Brewery) that I can use for a standard. What I would like from the
collective is your top 12 most useful brewing calculations and how you
calculate them.

For your hard work, I promise post my Palm brewers calculator application to
The Brewery for all to use.

Cheers,

David Sweeney
Texas A&M University
David at stulife2.tamu.edu <mailto:David at stulife2.tamu.edu> 
- --I'm learning big things
- --David's 3 year old daughter



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 17:23:15 -0500
From: "St. Patrick's" <stpats at bga.com>
Subject: attenuation

Attenuation
The brewers who suggested attenuation is largely controlled by mash
schedule would seem to be on the mark.  When Michael Jackson and I were
visiting breweries in the Czech Republic earlier this month this issue came
up in particular at Hostan Znojmo Brewery.  The brewery produces beer for
export to Austria which is more fully attenuated than the beer for Czech
consumption.

Assorted photos of the Czech Republic trip on our web site.

Lynne O'Connor
St. Patrick's of Texas
Brewers Supply
http://www.stpats.com
stpats at bga.com
 512-989-9727
 512-989-8982 facsimile


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 17:23:42 -0500
From: "St. Patrick's" <stpats at bga.com>
Subject: Brewing Techniques

Brewing Techniques
It is my understanding that BT is indeed out of business.  IMHO, Brewing
Techniques was the leader of the homebrewer magazines over the past several
years in advancing the hobby and they will be dearly missed.

Lynne O'Connor

St. Patrick's of Texas
Brewers Supply
http://www.stpats.com
stpats at bga.com
 512-989-9727
 512-989-8982 facsimile


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 17:44:49 -0400
From: Nancy George <homsweet at voicenet.com>
Subject: Cleaning CPWC's

Regarding the cleaning of CPWC's, National Chemical Co. makes a product
called BLC (Beer line cleaner)it's actually designed to clean-in-place draft
systems but I find it very useful around the homebrewery. Add 2oz to 5
gallons of boiling water flush the entire amount through the chiller IN BOTH
DIRECTIONS. Run it through, turn the chiller over and then run it through
the other way. Follow with a 10 minute water flush. It's amazing the gunk
that this strips out of the inside of that puppy!
Nancy & George
HomeSweet Homebrew                 
2008 Sansom St. Phila PA 19103 USA       
215-569-9469 215-569-4633 (fax)    
homsweet at voicenet.com
www.beerphiladelphia/homesweet         


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 19:39:41 -0400
From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer at engin.umich.edu>
Subject: yeast


How many buds would a yeast cell bud if a yeast cell could bud buds? 

Try that one three times fast. 

:=)


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 19:53:31 -0400
From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer at engin.umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Judging Inconsistencies 

Unfortunately, the bjcp certification process is really only a start.

It does not, for example, require that the judge quantify the amount
of hop aroma in a test beer, or be able to recognize and distinguish
Tettnang from Cascade hops, for example.  Some hop aromas come through
smelling like other things to a less-experienced judge (for example,
there is frequently a "fruity" aroma in German pilsners which is
often from the hops.)  Or maybe one of the judges is a smoker, which
can really throw off aroma perception.  I don't know.  Sounds to me
like 2 out of 3 of the judges agreed that there was low hop aroma, but
the third judge (the one who wanted more) wasn't reading the style
guideline very carefully.

Koelsch is a tough style to judge because most of us have never had a
real one.  So we have to go by the words in the description, and not
by some taste-memory.  It's a lot easier to do an Irish-style dry
stout because we've all (presumably) had draft Guinness in the past
and have some sort of reference to go on.

Personally, I don't think that "medium but a little much for style"
and "ok for style but a little thin" are "180 degrees" apart.
Probably the two judges have a slightly different opinion of what the
proper body for a Koelsch should be, and slightly different
calibration points on "thin" vs "medium".  So one finds the body a bit
large, and thus more than he thinks a Koelsch should have, while the
other finds it a bit small, but close to what a Koelsch should have.

One thing that I've found in judging is that we are most likely to
disagree on the beers "in the middle".  The really bad ones are pretty
easy to pick out, and the *really good* ones are also easy to pick
out.  But the ones in the middle, from say 25-38 are where we're most
likely to disagree on the particulars.  I recently judged a bunch of
Koelsches for a local homebrew competition.  I don't know if one was
yours (although I doubt it because there were only two of us on the
panel).  We had a bunch of Ok to good beers, and then one outstanding
beer.  There was absolutely no question about the one.  On the others,
we had sometimes to discuss things to come to a consensus.

=Spencer Thomas in Ann Arbor, MI        (spencer at umich.edu)


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 18:21:21 PDT
From: "Arnold Chickenshorts" <achickenshorts at hotmail.com>
Subject: pseudonyms

It has come to my attention that certain posters to this digest have been 
using pseudonyms. I abhor this practice and insist it stop immediately.

Arnold Chickenshorts


_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 22:16:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: Pat Babcock <pbabcock at mail.oeonline.com>
Subject: Re: Judging Inconsistencies

Greetings, Beerlngs! Take me to your lager...

Though some would argue that I don't take _anything_ seriously, there are
a few things. Judging beers is one. Something I hold close when
participating in a competition is that home brewers are not there for the
judges. Quite the contrary: judges are there for the homebrewers. Spencer
hits some of the points rihgt on the money in his post:

> Unfortunately, the bjcp certification process is really only a start.
> 
> It does not, for example, require that the judge quantify the amount
> of hop aroma in a test beer, or be able to recognize and distinguish
> Tettnang from Cascade hops, for example.  
> smelling like other things to a less-experienced judge (for example,
> there is frequently a "fruity" aroma in German pilsners which is
<snip> 
> Or maybe one of the judges is a smoker, which
> can really throw off aroma perception.  I don't know.  Sounds to me
> like 2 out of 3 of the judges agreed that there was low hop aroma, but
> the third judge (the one who wanted more) wasn't reading the style
> guideline very carefully.

This is right on the money. Those who have found my name on their score
sheets will note that I rarely, if ever, try to identify a hop. I will
comment on the aroma and flavor and it's applicability to the style, but
I'm not not good enough yet to tell you beyond a shadow of a doubt that
what hop you used. Sitting across from some top-notch judges over the
last few years have taught me this. Yup, I agree with Spencer's analysis. 

> Koelsch is a tough style to judge because most of us have never had a
> real one.  So we have to go by the words in the description, and not
> by some taste-memory.  It's a lot easier to do an Irish-style dry
> stout because we've all (presumably) had draft Guinness in the past
> and have some sort of reference to go on.

Another on the mark. I have had a "real" koelsch. Thanks to a friend of
mine who brought me some back from Cologne - fresh! - I have had several.
The style definitions I have read do not fully match the meory of these
beers. There is a lot in the description that is spot on, but there are
things I see as missing. That the style guides, or my faulty memory? (I
vote on the latter, but it's probably the former. How's that for
fence-sitting?  ;-)

> One thing that I've found in judging is that we are most likely to
> disagree on the beers "in the middle".  The really bad ones are pretty
> easy to pick out, and the *really good* ones are also easy to pick out. 
> But the ones in the middle, from say 25-38 are where we're most likely
> to disagree on the particulars.  I recently judged a bunch of Koelsches

OH YOU HAVE NAILED IT. Though there is occasionally some discussion
amongst the good and the bad. Particularly the good when there are a bunch
of them, but this is usually just to separate the best of the flight from
the rest of the flight. Minor point.

> for a local homebrew competition.  I don't know if one was yours
> (although I doubt it because there were only two of us on the panel). 
> We had a bunch of Ok to good beers, and then one outstanding beer. 
> There was absolutely no question about the one.  On the others, we had
> sometimes to discuss things to come to a consensus. 

Heh! I can attest to that. I was the other judge...

Beer judging is a learning experience to me. With each session, I learn to
identify more of the flavor components I find in beers, and, therefor I
can do a better job of telling you about your beer. By doing a better job
of telling you about your beer, maybe I'll tell you something that
improves them and you take a ribbon in the next round (for all of you
taking ribbons now, judging your beers is usually a privelege and a major
part of the learning experience.)

I think, for the vast majority of us out there judging beers, it is just
that: an opportunity to learn more about beer and the hope that, through
that learning, we might help a fellow homebrewer out of a rut. Most are
not the ego-driven megalomaniacs I am - er - that some picture us to be...

 -
See ya!

Pat Babcock in SE Michigan         pbabcock at oeonline.com
Home Brew Digest Janitor           janitor@hbd.org
HBD Web Site                       http://hbd.org   
The Home Brew Page                 http://oeonline.com/~pbabcock/brew.html
   "Just a cyber-shadow of his former brewing self..."



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 22:12:36 EDT
From: AlannnnT at aol.com
Subject: are hops our obsession? 

Rod Prather wrote:

>A few friends and I were talking about hops and it's relationship to
>cannabis.  With the recent news that the actual addictive site of THC is in
>the short term memory, we were wondering if there might be an addictive
>compound in hops.  Has anyone read anything about this.

Yes, the addictive compound attached to hops, is BEER, preferably homebrew of 
course.

Alan Talman


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 02:02:34 GMT
From: "Josh Hawkins" <hutster31 at hotmail.com>
Subject: HBD and publicity

Hey guys,

Looks like the Brewing Techniques Magazine is on it's way out. Very sadly, 
our favorite mag is at the printer, but is not gonna get printed.

Swirling rumors involve bad news and personal problems for the publisher as 
being at the heart of it all. Maybe someone out there wants to buy a 
magazine?

I wonder what that means for the publicity campaign.

Robert Z



_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 27 Aug 99 00:40:43 -0400
From: Dave Humes <humesdg1 at earthlink.net>
Subject: Experience with White Labs Hefe Weizen IV (WLP380)?

Greetings,

Has anyone had the opportunity to try White Labs Hefeweizen IV (WLP380)
yeast yet?  I just did a split batch between it and the more common WLP300
and got some surprising results.  WLP380 has a specified apparent
attenuation of 73-80%, whereas WLP300 has a slightly lower range of
72-76%.  The 10 gal, 60% wheat malt / 40% Pils malt split batch started
with an OG of 1.054.  I do not directly pitch the White Labs yeast despite
the claims of it being pitchable yeast.  Each tube was initially pitched
into 2000mL of 1.040 sterile wort, allowed ferment out, decanted the spent
beer, repitched again into another 2000mL of 1.040 sterile wort, allowed
to ferment out, and on brew day decanted and fed 500mL 1.040 sterile wort
5 hours before pitching.  The starters were each oxygenated with O2 prior
to pitching.  The wort was also oxygenated.  

Both 6.5 gal fermenters were kept in the same temperature controlled
freezer at 65F.  Actual fermentation temperature runs a few degrees
higher.  Both fermenters were actively fermenting 4 hours after pitching
and high kraeusen was reached in about 15 hours.  Both fermentations were
very vigourous requiring blowoff tubes in the beginning.  Both fermenters
did blow off some yeast, but the most was lost from the WLP300 batch. 
Eleven days after pitching, the WLP300 batch was  down to 1.013 and it had
mostly dropped.  The WLP380 batch only made it down to 1.019 in the same
amount of time and it had completely quit.  The   other night I racked the
WLP300 batch off to a secondary carboy and  racked the WLP380 batch on top
of the yeast cake from the WLP300.  Next  morning I was greeted with a new
head of kraeusen and a bubbling airlock.

Despite the poor attenuation performance of the WLP380, I really like its
taste.  Here's the White Labs description:

WLP380- Hefeweizen IV Ale Yeast: 

Large clove and phenolic aroma and flavor, with minimal
banana. Refreshing citrus and apricot notes. Crisp, drinkable hefeweizen.
Less flocculant than WLP300, and sulfur
production is higher. 

Attenuation: 73-80% 

Flocculation: Low. 

Optimum Fermentation Temperature: 66-70F.


- --Dave

- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
Dave Humes <humesdg1 at earthlink.net>                  Dave Humes
- -----------------------------------------------------------



Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 01:15:33 +0000
From: James Jerome <jkjerome at bellsouth.net>
Subject: Mint Choc.Stout, George Fix, and Windriver referral

Hi Ya'll

I just purchased ingredients today ingredients for my forthcoming mint
chocolate stout at my local homebrew shop.  As usual, I bought more
stuff than I needed.  So now I am ready to make stout, IPA, and a batch
of barley wine, can't wait.  I also was ale to purchase the last two
bottles of Thomas Paine Ale extant, luckily refrigerated until my
purchas.  Pretty good stuff.   

My thanks to Lois Bonham's post concerning George Fix's comments on
icebrew.  I have the paatent on order and, yep, it is a Labatt's patent.
They earned it so give 'em credit.  Based on the sincere admonitions of
of Alan Meeker and others, I have ordered all (yep, all) books wth
George's name as author.  I am tired of not having read what everyone
else has read.  I am apparently on the list of pre-paid customers
waiting on the second edition.  I have had to switch to Amazon. com b/c
my local bookseller apparently pulls major vacuum (He sucks).   George,
I still say Go Tigerss! if you are out there.

Rob Wallace's positive comments abut "Windriver" are indicative of my
need to give them some business.  Once my wife gives methe budget go
ahead, I plan to order.  By the way, Northern Brewer and Cellar
Homebrewing are my recommendations for mail-order.  They are good,
accurate, and efficient (I still have much business for them).  A
positive customer report sort of pushes me to support  them.

To Brew or Not to Brew is not the question, the question is how much and
is it ready yet?

Hoppily,

Jett Jerome
Ooltewah, TN


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 16:17:35 +1000
From: Steve Lacey <stevel at sf.nsw.gov.au>
Subject: Re: How rude!

Pat prudishly wrote:
>AJ expresses some gas in his dissertation, and then doesn't even have the
>common courtesy to excuse himself:

>> I was best at the conclusion of a master judging course run by my club
>> (BURP) where we had practice judging sessions every week for a couple of
>> months. 

>You see it? Right there! How rude! AJ: this is _not_ a common barroom!
>Please excuse yourself after belching! I'd rather prefer you waited until
>after you had finished speaking before doing so. What's next?
>Flatulence in the forum? Harumph!

I for one have no problems with AJ's personal habits. At my weekly BRRT
sessions (that's Brewing Related Relaxation Therapy) we are taught that
bodily functions are not something to be embarrassed about. BRRT sessions
are founded on the cost-effective PARP (Parsimonious Alcohol Relaxation
Program). There are four over-riding principles to PARP. These are that
alcohol is for Pleasure, Healing, Health and Truth (PHHT). Sometimes BRRT
sessions become quite raucous as we BRRT, PARP and PHHT our way to nirvana.
AJ would be quite at home in one of our sessions (BURP, 'scuse me!). Pat, on
the other hand, with his prudish ways, is in desperate need of some BRRT and
PARP therapy as a matter of some urgency.

I mercifully choose to end this post now.

Steve Lacey in Siddley


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 07:20:28 -0400
From: "John Stegenga" <bigjohns at mindspring.com>
Subject: re: Pivo inferno on NAT gas...

In the 8/27 HBD ThomasM923 wrote:

>Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 23:26:51 EDT
>From: ThomasM923 at aol.com
>Subject: Burn Baby, Burn...Pivo Inferno...
>
>Oh, did I mention that I want to connect the burner to my house gas supply
>(natural gas)? How does one go about this? Black iron pipe all the way up
to
>the burner? What kind of valve? And...

Hey, I can contribute here!  Cool!

Home Depot carries, in their gas grill section, a Natural Gas quick connect
conversion kit for about $40.  It consists of a QuickConnect valve and a
12ft hose.  If you have a stub (you should have a T with a capped short
lenght of iron pipe after the shutoff that goes to your furnace) you attach
a 1/2 to 3/8 brass flare coupling here - dope the pipe threads with that
plumbers dope stuff - and then attach the quick connect to this.  Make sure
you turn off the gas somewhere BEFORE the stub prior to trying this.  Test
the whole deal for leaks.  Then hook up the hose to the burner input (where
you'd attach the propane regulator hose) and then to the quick connect.
Turn on the appliance and fire it up!  You cannot use 'jet' or 'high
pressure' propane devices on a NAT line.  Usually this means burners rated
around 35Kbtu or less are available to you.  Contact the manufacturer if you
have doubt.

DISCLAIMER/NOTE:  I'm not a plumber or a gas engineer.  Use of these
instructions is at your own risk.  If you don't want to risk blowing up your
house, get a plumber to help you.

NOTE 2:  You're going to reduce your output by 20/25% here because a low
pressure propane device gets fuel at a slightly higher pressure than the
1/2psi on your NAT feed, and because of other things I can't remember.  I do
know that some devices you can drill the orafice (where the gas shoots into
the burner) out a little to increase the btu's.  Again - see the disclaimer
and contact the manufacturer for details!

John



Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 08:05:57 -0500
From: Lou.Heavner at frco.com
Subject: re: mash mixer/evaporative cooling

     From: "Dana H. Edgell" <edgell at far-tech.com>

     #1

     I have an ice-cream motor and a fan blade that I am attempting to use
     as a mash-mixer. The problem is that the motor goes clockwise and the
     fan blade is counter-clockwise which results in the mash being pulled
     up from the bottom by the mixer. {Snip}

         LWH>>>>Anyway you could mount the shaft to the other (outboard)
                side of the fan blade unit?  weld? clamp?  That seems way
                too  obvious, so it probably isn't possible, but it seemed
                worth asking.

     #2
     All the disccusion about evaporative cooling has me thinking about
     some brass & stainless steel nozzels I have for a mister. They have a
     0.012"/0.3mm orifice and a flow rate of 0.540 gal/hr  at  45psi water
     pressure.

         LWH>>>>Check out http://www.texasgardener.com/ and look for an
                article in the July/Aug 99 issue where they do that in a
                garden.  I have used a spray bottle and squirted the sides
                of the kettle  for faster cooling when I'm there.  Usually
                chilling is unattended while I do ther things like feed the
                kids.  ;)

     {Snip}

     I have noticed that my carboy t-shirts aren't the most effective at
     sucking up water and dry out near the top. A mister could keep the
     t-shirt wet. The mist could also keep my entire garage cooler and
     help that way.   {Snip}


         LWH>>>>I too find that unattended t-shirts will dry out at top.
                ****QDA**** I suspect that a polyester t-shirt or synthetic
                material in general will wick better.  This is based on the
                common wisdom/momily of skiing that orlon socks are better
                than cotton because they will wick more moisture away from
                your feet keeping them dryer.  **** END QDA****  Do you
                ferment outdoors in the garage?  Wow! my garage is
                currently running about 110 DegF with the door open, don't
                think any evaporative cooling is going to help me there!  I
                ferment ales in a plastic pail using the t-shirt.  It has a
                flat top, so what I do instead of spraying, is put some ice
                cubes on top and let them melt and drip down the sides.
                Keeps from having to replace as much water in the pot.  I
                do get a lot of evaporation, but I've never measured it.  I
                add about 6-10 ice cubes before and after work and still
                add water once or twice a week to the cooling water
                resevoir.  The neat thing about this is the cooling water
                temp remains more constant than when adding ice to it
                directly and you still get to take advantage of the heat of
                melting, albeit indirectly, as well as the heat of
                vaporization.  Phase changes always result in more heat
                transfer than small temperature differences.

     Cheers!

     Lou Heavner - Austin, TX  home of the Lagniappe Brewery... something
     extra in every sip!


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 09:31:51 -0400
From: "Alan McKay" <amckay at nortelnetworks.com>
Subject: Cereal Mash and HSA


I find the best way to avoid HSA is simply to ignore all the dire warnings
and the doom-and-gloomers.  I regularly dump half my 12 gallon mash
from my kettle to the lauter-tun, and have never once had a problem.

To quote Dr Pivo, "let's put HSA to BED" ;-)

Or you can just take a 4 quart (4 litre) Pyrex measuring cup and scoop
out the Cereal Mash a bit at a time, and add to your main mash like that.

cheers,
 -Alan
> about personal survival rather than hot-side aeration problems. How do you
add 
> the cereal mash in without a) serious burns, b) serious HSA, and c)
serious arm 
> strain ? Any serious (or non-serious) suggestions welcomed. 

- --
Alan McKay
OS Support			amckay at nortelnetworks.com
Small Site Integration	613-765-6843 (ESN 395)
Nortel Networks		All opinions expressed are my own



Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 08:37:03 -0500
From: MVachow at newman.k12.la.us
Subject: economies of scale

Marc Sedam points out the hypocrisy in supply shop owners' complaints about
their wholesalers using the same business tactics they themselves employ on
the retail end.  I would add to his remarks my own guess at the sub-text of
Wyeast's tactics, namely, that Wyeast sees the writing on the carboy, as it
were:  the homebrewing fad has peaked out and is currently headed down the
steep part of the curve.  Soon enough there simply won't be enough business
for a Wyeast and a White Labs and certainly not for the few other smaller
yeast operations.  So, they're trying to lock down their retail business,
probably doing the same with their commercial customers in hopes that
they'll be the last yeast operation standing 10 years from now.  For most
homebrewers who have developed the hobby as a lifelong pursuit, the larger
implications mean  fewer (if any) supply shops in your area and less variety
at the few shops still around (picture your supply shop as the retail
equivalent of Brew Your Own magazine, soon to be the last homebrew mag
standing [?]).  Massive retail/mail-order operations like St. Pat's will
profit for a short period of time with increased orders from homebrewers
disgusted by the fact that their local supply shops no longer carry Belgian
crystal malts.  But even these kinds of operations will feel the pinch
eventually and will duke it out to be one of a small number of mail-order
businesses left.  Thus speaks the cynic.

Mike 
New Orleans, LA


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 06:54:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: Matthew Comstock <mccomstock at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re:Primary vs. Secondary Experiment

Thanks for responding to this discussion,Al.  

Triplets and Tripels?  Congrats on both counts.  You wrote:

"The beer that was made with a secondary had a slightly less
intense aroma and flavour.  Both clearly had some higher
alcohols and spicy character, but they were noticeably stronger
in the beer made only with a primary."

I apologize for my inexperience with Belgian beers, but is this a good
result or a bad one.  Is the primary-only better because it is spicier
and has some higher alcohols present?

Interestingly, after convincing myself that I don't always need to
follow the same old rote advice '...if you really want to make good
beer, transfer to a secondary....'  I made a Tripel of my own and
transferred to a secondary soon after the primary finished bubbling. 
With your post, I kinda wish I hadn't.  Why did I?  I don't know. I was
worried about the higher alcohol level in the beer maybe leading to
autolysis.  I've never used the Wyeast 1214 before.  It seems like when
I've read about autolysis its always been with a goofy yeast source; a
novel strain or something recultured from a commercial bottle, etc.  So
I transferred to a secondary against my better judgement as I had both
a higher EtOH level and a novel yeast strain.  We'll see how it turns
out.

Thanks again for your comments.

Matt Comstock in Cincinnati.


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com



Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 07:09:47 PDT
From: "Arnold Chickenshorts" <achickenshorts at hotmail.com>
Subject: ethyl hexanoate

>Also note that ethyl hexanoate in beer in usually caused by insufficient 
>aeration.

Wrong AJ.

Late hops is the primary etiology. Methyl hexanoate in hops is 
trans-esterified by yeast to the ethyl ester.

Arnold.


_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 11:53:20 -0400
From: John Roe <Sensei_John_Roe at compuserve.com>
Subject: Beer in South Africa

Are there many/any exceptional beers that
are unique to South Africa?  Any also available
in the USA?  In LoCal?

John Roe
Laguna Hills, Ca
www.martialartsacademy.org


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 11:11:42 -0500
From: "St. Patrick's" <stpats at bga.com>
Subject: cleaning cf chiller, copper tubing info

Cleaning CFWC
St. Pat's sells tubing brushes that are 66" long.  Many CFWC have less than
10' of inner tubing so cleaning from both ends does the job.  However,
since the tubing is coiled, it's difficult to push 3/8" brush all the way
into 1/2" copper tubing (3/8" ID) or 1/4" brush into 3/8" tubing (1/4" ID).
 If you have a CFWC with 1/2" copper (3/8" ID) then I recommend a 1/4"
brush.  Or if you have CFWC with 3/8" copper or the 3/8" Stainless steel
inner coil such as we make, then I recommend the 3/16" brush.

A note of clarification:
Refrigeration tubing is denoted by it's OD.  Pipe by its ID.  Refrig is
soft copper but plumbing tubing can also be soft,  hence the confusion.

"Cleaned and Capped" are the key words in selecting tubing for wort chillers.
Both the stainless steel (3/8") as well as the copper (1/2")  used for our new
CFWC is "cleaned and capped".  We also use cleaned and capped copper for the
outer coils but that would not really be necessary unless you plan on
consuming the cooling water.

Lynne O'Connor

St. Patrick's of Texas
Brewers Supply
http://www.stpats.com
stpats at bga.com
 512-989-9727
 512-989-8982 facsimile


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 12:38:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: MICHAEL WILLIAM MACEYKA <mmaceyka at welch.jhu.edu>
Subject: Peppery flavor in beer

Howdy,

	Thomas Murray asks about black pepper flavor in beer.  I have not
noticed this flavor in the beers he mentioned, but I have noticed what I
perceive as a peppery flavor in beers that had small amounts of coarsely
ground coriander and in older beers that had lots of coriander but the orangey
flavor had diminished.  I also detect what I call black pepper in more intense
red wines like zinfindel and shiraz, which I always attributed to the
tannins from these grapes.  To duplicate it in beers, I would suggest going
with a bit of the real thing, adding at bottling to taste.

Mike Maceyka
Four Square Brewing
Baltimore, MD




Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 11:56:16 -0500
From: Dean Fikar <dfikar at flash.net>
Subject: My no-sparge experience/data series

In an earlier post, I alluded to my no-sparge experience and recieved a
number of emails requesting me to post my data.  Here goes...

The stength (SG) of the runoff, of course, varies inversely with amount
of water used per pound of grain.  OTOH, the volume of the runoff is
greater with higher water/grist ratios.  For the last 14-15 months most
of my mashes have been of the no-sparge variety.  The following is my
data, split into decoction and non-decoction series.  I did the split
since my extraction rates are significantly higher with the decoction
mashes.  This seems to be a common scenario for most brewers.  As you
can see, the correlation coefficients are pretty good for both series
(about 0.92).  The decoction series, however, has too few data points to
be completely trusted, IMHO.  I feel pretty good about the non-decoction
series at this point.  Obviously, the different types of systems we brew
with may have something to do with the repeatability of the results and
standard disclaimers certainly apply here.  I would be careful about
extrapolating values outside the posted ranges (i.e. about 1.9 - 2.0
qts/lb for decoctions and 1.5 - 2.1 qts/lb for non-decoctions). 

FWIW, all of these batches were mashed using an ultra low-tech 10 gal.
cooler with a slotted copper manifold.  Most of the non-decocted batches
were single infusion and the others were single decoctions.  I often add
a mashout step unless I just don't feel like messing with it that
particular day.  

Decoction:  

SG(Y)     qts/lb(X)
- --        ------
60        1.90
62        1.85
56        2.15
57        2.01

Y = 92.751 * X^-0.6726
R2 = 0.9175

Non-Decoction:

SG(Y)     qts/lb(X)
- --        ------
62        1.80
67        1.68
78        1.55
72        1.70
82        1.58
60        1.92
59        1.88
66        1.80
63        1.74
56        2.00
50        2.10
56        1.89

Y = 153.28 * X^ -1.5005
R2 = 0.9154  

The other part of the equation, of course, is figuring the volume of the
runoff.  With my system I find that the water absorbed by the grain is
about 0.122 gal./lb. grain.

I guess an example from a recently brewed batch might be in order:

Mesquite smoked wheat beer (non-decoction, actual values)

grist:    16.0 lbs
water:     8.4 gal (incl mashout)
qts/lb:    2.1
runoff:    6.4 gal  at  1.050

The formula for predicting the runoff SG would look like this:

Y (predicted SG) = 153.28 * (2.1 ^ -1.5005)
                 = 1.0503 (pretty close to actual SG!)

Predicting runoff volume:

Water absorbed by grain = 16 * 0.122
                        = 1.952 gal.

Predicted runoff:

8.4 - 1.952 = 6.448 gal. (pretty close again!) 

I hope this helps give some idea of what kind of real-world results you
might expect for those of you considering no-sparge brewing.  As always,
YMMV.  FWIW, my efficiencies were in the high 50's for the non-decocted
batches and around 60 for decoctions.


I'd be interested in seeing anyone else's no-sparge experience posted to
compare and contrast with mine.


Dean Fikar - Ft. Worth, TX


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 13:40:14 -0400
From: Ken Schramm <Ken.Schramm at oakland.k12.mi.us>
Subject: AHA Club-Only Mead judging postponement

It is with regret that I am postponing this evening's scheduled judging of
the AHA COC "It's a mead mead mead mead world!" judging. We were not able
to gain commitments from a large enough pool of qualified judges, and
rather that compromise the results, I have elected to postpone the judging
until early September, when a session with Detroit/Ann Arbor's best judges
can be assembled.  This will also serve to provide rest time for at least
two meads which were shipped on time but did not make it to my home until
yesterday.  I will contact Paul Gatza, and post the results as quickly as
possible to the fora he deems appropriate.

If you have any questions, please contact me at this address.  My home
phone is 248 816-1592, if you have questions about your entry.

Again, my apologies,
Ken Schramm
Ann Arbor Brewers Guild.
Troy, Michigan




Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 13:31:45 -0500
From: Harlan Bauer <blacksab at midwest.net>
Subject: Cleaning CF heat exchanges, revisited...

In response to my last post, Paul Niebergall wrote:

>I have not noticed any beer stone or crud build up (at least as far as I 
>can see down the copper tube - which is about 3 inches with a good 
>flashlight) in my counter flow chiller (CFC).  I suppose that at some 
>point you could get enough build up that it starts to interfere with the 
>sanitization.  If you notice that you are starting to get beer stone build 
>up, or a reduction in flow rate due to unseen build up, it probably is a 
>good idea to start running a cleaner such as Birko or 5-Star thought the 
>inner line of your CFC.  And of course, it probably doesnt hurt to do this 
>just because  it makes you feel better.  (50 feet of copper tubing is a 
>lot unknown surface area, that cant be inspected).  However, I dont think 
>that CFCs are necessarily any more prone to causing infections than any 
>other piece of beer making equipment. The one saving grace is that they 
>are made of smooth copper.  There are no real crevices or scratches for 
>bugs to adhere.  You may not be able to see the insides, but the copper 
>gets real hot (now there is a technical term for you) during the boiling 
>water rinse.

1. 3-inches out of 50-feet? Hmmm. Does not seem to me to be a
representative sample, nor a statistically significant one either.

2. If you were to develop a buildup that was beginning to interfere with
flow, that would constitute a HUGE amount of buildup. Even with massive
turbulent flow (not really possible in a non-plate HE), even
professional cleaners like Birko and 5-Star would never be able to
remove such soils without hand scrubbing--they are designed as a
preventative maintenence.

3. Accumulating soils such as beer-stone (calcium oxalate) WILL
eventually adhere to any smooth surface. Once this initially occurs,
increased accumulation is not linear, it becomes exponential. It is in
this accumulation that bacteria hide, and, what is worse, is partially
insulated from the heat. 

4. Hot water is a good sanitizer, but only when used on a clean surface.
In addition, unless you have a temperature probe on the outfeed of the
HE, there is no way of knowing what the actual temperature of the
outflow is--IOW, there is a temperature drop between inlet and outlet.
Heat sanitation is a function of temperature and contact time, in the
same way that chemical sanitation is a function of concentration and
contact time. I agree that in most instances, a quicky hot water rinse
is marginally effective against wort-spoiling bacteria (enterics) which
are heat sensitive, but this is less true of beer-spoiling organisms,
especially pediococcus, which are considerably more heat tolerant and
VERY difficult to destroy.

5. Wort chillers are a common source of infection because cooled,
un-pitched wort (a rich, nutrient media) is passing through them on the
way to the fermenter. One can SEE whether the carboy is clean, not so
with a HE.  

>So long as boiling (not just "hot") water is cleaning effectively and you 
>are not getting a crud build up, then it is also sanitizing effectively.  
>There are quite a few people out there cleaning their CFCs with boiling 
>water.  If counter flow chillers were so notorious for producing 
>infections, I doubt that many people would be doing it.

>It may be "out of sight; out of mind", but it can also be though of as "If 
>I am not a having a problem; I am not going to worry about it"

As I implied in #4 above, boiling water in a kettle does not equate to
boiling water at the outfeed of a HE; therefore, all that is being run
through the HE, especially the last portion of a 20-50 foot HE is hot
water. Without a temperature probe, you have no way of knowing the
actual temperature--this would be the same as not knowing the
concentration of a chemical sanitizer and so, not knowing the proper
contact time required for it to be effective.

As for your final two points, these are not arguments; scientific fact
is not based on democratic principles. I've tasted A LOT of infected
beer, both at the homebrew level and at the professional level, and HE's
are a common source. It is not a coincidence that brewers like George
Fix consistently win competitions with styles that are very difficult to
brew--it is an almost obsessive attention to detail. Brewers of that
caliber ANTICIPATE potential problems and correct them before they
become a problem, the same way that one changes the oil in one's car
BEFORE a problem occurs.

I'm not trying to tell you or any one else how to brew, I was simply
answering the question of how best to clean and sanitize a CF
wort-chiller and to emphasize that cleaning and sanitizing are two
distinct and seperate procedures. The procedures I've outlined are
industry standards, and for good reason.  

Harlan.


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 11:57:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: Scott Murman <smurman at best.com>
Subject: re: Scottish Ales


> It is indeed true that there are very few "traditional" maltings left,
> although intuition would suggest that very early (and now very much
> historical) brews in Scotland were made using traditionally malted barley
>  - which undoubtedly would have used peat as a heat source.....
>
> Paul Campbell 

It's my impression that only the distilleries in the north(?) used
peat, while in the south they used coals or wood or somesuch.  This is
what leads to the peat-smoked scotch being more prevalent in the
north.  Is this somehwat accurate?

 -SM-



Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 12:01:30 -0700 (PDT)
From: Bryan Gros <blgros at yahoo.com>
Subject: homemade eisbock

Steven Smith writes:
> [put beer in 2l bottles, put in freezer, decant and enjoy]
>
>Enjoy, it's a dandy, albeit extravagant, beverage.  If someone's figured out a 
>reasonable way to make _kegs_ of eisbock, please share.

Well, Steve, Eisbocks are easy to make in the keg. 
Suppose, hypothetically, of course, one had a chest freezer as
a beer fridge, with external controller. Supppose, one was cleaning
it out and then replaced the kegs of pale ale, schwarzbier, and
bock. Suppose, however, that one forgot to put the controller
sensor back in the frige.

If this scenario were to happen, the kegs would freeze. The next day you
would have to take them out to thaw while you cleaned up the slush
from the broken bottles. As they thawed, you could rack to a new keg.

[Not that I have done this, but it was interesting that the eis-schwarzbier
tasted better than the eis-bock and eis-PA.]

===
 - Bryan

  Bryan Gros    gros at bigfoot.com
  Oakland CA
  "To live your life it seems,
   is a waste without a dream..."
                          - BoDeans
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com



Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 12:06:31 -0700 (PDT)
From: Matthew Comstock <mccomstock at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: High gravity follies

What a story Paul.

Now I'll never put a valve on my kettle.  It rips my back up, but the
'pick-up-the-kettle-and-dump technique is all I can stand.  So what's
the bid deal with a little crud.  It's clean ain't it. Boiled the tar
out of it for 90 minutes.  Explain to me about all those trub problems
we're trying to avoid with filters and chore-boys and siphoning out of
the kettle and whirlpooling (in a 4 gallon kettle for crying out loud!
You look at the kettle the wrong way and the lumps of crud shift around
to your racking cane while siphoning).

Matt in Cincinnati
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com



Return to table of contents

---