---

	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:
  RIMS Mash Flow Rate (JOSEPH KISH)
  The Effectiveness of Stainless Steel Immersion Chillers ("Steve Stripling")
  Headin' towards RRims... (macher)
  Tannins (Dan Listermann)
  haze and sanitizers (Marc Sedam)
  White Labs Pitchable Yeast (D.A.)" <drussel3 at ford.com>
  cleaning ("Larry Maxwell")
  temp distribution in mash tun (Susan/Bill Freeman)
  Fouch is improved (Jeff Renner)
  SG to Plato conversion (Demonick)
  RIMs Solutions ("Mr. Joy Hansen")
  'Standard' Method For Calculating Efficiency (Tony Barnsley)
  RE: Boiling yeast starter (LaBorde, Ronald)
  mash tannins ("Stephen Alexander")
  Relay on RIMS (Brad Miller)
  Happy Holidays, Propane, and Extract Efficiency (woodsj)
  new hops ("Marc Gaspard")
  Carbonation and head in British style ale (Calvin Perilloux)
  Efficiency (AJ)
  RIMS woes ("Jack Schmidling")
  Re: stuck? (BsmntBrewr)
  Re.:  dispensing "real ale" ("Sean Richens")


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

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 FROM THE E-MAIL
  ACCOUNT YOU WISH TO HAVE SUBSCRIBED OR UNSUBSCRIBED!!!**
IF YOU HAVE SPAM-PROOFED your e-mail address, you cannot subscribe to
  the digest as we canoot reach you. We will not correct your address
  for the automation - that's your job.

The HBD is a copyrighted document. The compilation is copyright 
  HBD.ORG. Individual postings are copyright by their authors. ASK 
  before reproducing and you'll rarely have trouble. Digest content 
  cannot be reproduced by any means for sale or profit.

More information is available by sending the word "info" to 
req at hbd.org.

JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)



----------------------------------------------------------------------


Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 22:32:59 -0800
From: JOSEPH KISH <jjkish at worldnet.att.net>
Subject: RIMS Mash Flow Rate

 RIMS people sometimes worry about too high a temperature
at the output of the heater. If the flow rate slows
down too much, OFF goes the heater power!
    I went to an animal feed store and found that they
carry Rice Hulls!  The only size was a bale, but I got
it anyway. Much less expensive than the homebrew shop!
   The next recipe included a half pound of rice hulls
(A gallon ice-cream container--Full) mixed throughout
the grist.
 I have never seen such a beautiful flow rate! I was even
able to increase the flow rate at least 10% or more! This
 eliminated any concern about too high a temperature at
the output of the in-line heater.
 Rice hulls are here to stay!    You should try some!
     Joe Kish


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 01:15:49 -0600
From: "Steve Stripling" <steves1 at hiwaay.net>
Subject: The Effectiveness of Stainless Steel Immersion Chillers

Why does the question of SS chillers come up in the first place? For me, I
guess 'cause my copper immersion chiller gets really clean after doing its
job in hot wort. So then, what s the performance difference between Cu and
SS?

In HBD #3191,  12/10/99, S. A. Wesley commented on experimental evidence:

    in HBD #3189-17 Marc Sedam asks about the effect of the lower heat
    transfer of SS compared to copper on the efficiency of a chiller.
    Based on some exeriments I did a while back on copper chillers I found
    that the effective heat transfer coefficient is significantly higher
    than the published value for copper.  This is to be expected because
    of poor heat transmisssion through the layers of liquid close to the
    pipe surface. In short this effect contributes substantially more to
    the resistance to the heat flow than the resistance of the metal.  My
    guess is that there is no need to worry about the lower heat
- ----------

Here's a bit more detail from a brewing bud of mine, who works non-beer
thermal analysis on a professional basis:

It probably doesn't matter which material you use because the heat
transfer is limited by the poor natural convection between the tube and the
wort. If you were actively stirring the wort somehow, then the tube might
make a difference.  Certainly the thermal conductivity of the copper is far
better than the stainless steel (225 vs 12 btu/ft-hr-degF).

Think of the heat transfer between the wort and the water as a series of
three conductors, one between the wort and the tube, one across the wall of
the tube, and one between the inside tube wall and the flowing water.
Skipping the details of the calculations, these values look something like
this (all values are btu/hr/degF per linear foot of tube):

natural convection from tube to still wort - 0.04
conduction through the tube wall - 21 to 42 for Stainless, 395 to 529 for
Copper (range of thicknesses)
forced convection from tube to flowing water - 141

And since these are all in series, the smallest one is the controlling
resistance.

This also suggests that if you want to really cool it fast, you need to
somehow stir the wort while the coil is in there to really speed it up.  But
you knew that already.

As Geek Engineers, I think it is our duty to Take Data to verify the results
of these calculations.  Tell me ahead of time the next time you brew and I
will get a data logger to monitor the process (beer, water in/out, tube
wall, etc.).  We can build a transient thermal model to match the data, then
vary all the parameters and build great big useless curves of tube thickness
and material versus water temp, flow rate, wort stirring, etc. etc.  It
won't improve the taste of the beer, but might give us more excuse to drink
it.
- ----------------------
What the previous paragraph means to me is that I'm gonna buy Lynne's SS
immersion chiller, and we're gonna take some data. Pictures at 11:00. Anyone
have thoughts regarding measurement points?

Another thing I get from the analysis is that a CF chiller has gotta be more
efficient ('cause there's flow on both surfaces of the tubing). But how fast
does the wort need to cool? (If cost is no object, I'll wager we can cool 5
gallons of boiling wort to pitching temp. in 60 seconds or less.) Have any
experiments been performed regarding wort cooling rate vs taste?

And finally, I would feel much better if I could inspect and clean the
interior surfaces of a CF chiller, even though I know that there is much
"good tasting beer" evidence to show me that I'm worrying without cause.

Steve Stripling
Huntsville, AL


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 08:45:23 -0500 (EST)
From: macher at telerama.com
Subject: Headin' towards RRims...

HI All,

[ I tried posting this a couple days ago, but looks like 
it did not take so here we go again...] 

The only disappointment I have with the steam-injected 
manually-controlled rims that I built last January is with 
my inability to maintain a high enough recirculation 
rate. I have the heat energy available to raise the mash 
temperature pretty fast, but cannot do so due to limited 
flow in the loop when grains are in the mash tun.  

With only water in the system, I can get about 4 degrees 
F. per minute rise with 8 gallons of water in the system.  
But with the grains in there, I get much less flow, and 
since I hold the return temperature of the heated wort 
near target temperature, it takes a relatively long time to 
get a full "slug" of the wort through my steam injector 
and the mash heated to target.

Last weekend I decided to try an idea that someone 
mentioned recently on the HBD.  Rather than return the 
wort to the mash tun gently through my normal 
manifold, why not take it to the bottom of the tun, and 
let it exit forcefully, constantly mixing the grains?

My system uses rigid copper tubing and so I brought a 
half-inch tube to the bottom of the mash tun and with 
fittings turned it upwards and to the left a bit, so the 
flow exiting would push the liquid upwards as well as 
cause it to circulate clockwise.  With only water, this 
worked well.  With the tun [15 gallon sankey keg] filled 
half way, the water I recirculated pushed through the 
surface and the mass of water circulated clockwise. 
Home Free! The original poster described a system 
where the exit flow was directed across the false 
bottom, but I was afraid doing this would short circuit 
the mash and that most of the returned heated liquid 
would be drawn back into the pump, rather than heating 
the mash.

The beer was a wheat beer. Fifty-fifty mix of malted 
and pils malt.  If it works with a wheat mash, it should 
work with anything, I figured.  Well...it did not work 
very well.  Frankly, it was a major disappointment. The 
problem was that, with the grains in there, the exiting 
flow from the return tube was not enough to keep the 
grains in suspension.  The grains ended up compacting 
and as the flow decreased they compacted more and 
more until things were worse than when I gently 
returned the wort to the top of the tun. If I mixed things 
well, flow rate increased and it was possible to raise 
temperature pretty fast. But I had to continually mix for 
this to happen. 

I also ended up with a stuck sparge. Really stuck. I only 
recovered by mixing in my entire 8 gallons of sparge 
water, mixing well, recirculating a little, and then 
pumping slowly to the kettle. Batch sparge, I suppose.

At this point I see no alternative for me other than 
going to a reverse rims setup. Part of my problem is the 
area of the bottom of my keg, I am pretty sure. But that 
is something I want to live with and at this point in time 
I do not want to go with a rectangular cooler. Looks to 
me like the reduced grain bed depth and increased false 
bottom/manifold area possible in the cooler may be the 
key to high recirculation rates for those who use coolers 
in their rims.

My false bottom is copper, with 0.125-inch holes three-
sixteenths on center, by the way, and I did not find 
much in the way of grains under it when cleaning the 
spent grains out. So the restriction was in the grain bed, 
or at the interface between the grain bed and the false 
bottom, and not in the loop starting with the space 
under the false bottom.

Boy am I glad this was a wheat beer! I mean, as 
compared to something that should be crystal clear in 
the glass...

What's the next step if Reversible Rims doesn't get me 
the recirculation rate that I want? 

Hey, I got it!  Mash Mixing...the latest and greatest 
upper-body workout ever found! Hey Honey, check this out.
Everybody's doin' it. Just take this paddle...and...
VERY good...like another sip of my beer? :-)

Still having fun experimenting in Pittsburgh, but 
starting to tire a bit...

Keep having fun!  

HAPPY HOLIDAYS !!!!

Bill Macher   macher at telerama.lm.com   Pittsburgh, Pa   USA





Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 08:52:01 -0500
From: Dan Listermann <72723.1707 at compuserve.com>
Subject: Tannins

Micah Millspaw <MMillspa at SILGANMFG.COM>Mentions tannin extraction during
mashing. I have only found that my mashes extract tannins when I add dark
roasted grains to the mash at striking.  I could not make all grain dark
beers without a tannic astringency until I found out about this problem. 
Now I hold the dark grains back until sparging and gently stir them in at
that point.  There is no need to "convert" dark grains and they seem to
give up their flavor and color easily during the sparge.

Dan Listermann   dan at listermann.com   72723.1707 at compuserve.com


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 09:34:13 -0500
From: Marc Sedam <marc_sedam at unc.edu>
Subject: haze and sanitizers

Someone posted a comment a few weeks back that got me
thinking (always a problem).  I used to be able to make
crystal clear beers with little effort.  The appearance of
my IPA was a source of personal pride.  Lately I've noticed
more haze in the final product.  It goes away with time and
cold temps (30F for three months) but was previously
unexplained.  Then my thoughts wandered to my sanitizer.

18 months back I changed from iodophor to Star-San and
haven't looked back until now.  I've never lost a batch due
to the sanitizer, although I lost a couple because I was a
moron.  But I'm starting to wonder whether or not the
sanitizer has some effect on the wort or beer.  I use
Star-San in/on everything that touches my wort.

Has anyone noticed a similar change.  Has FiveStar tested
out this product as it relates to beer stability or haze
formulation?  I may use iodophor again with my next few
batches to see what happens and will post any observations.

Cheers!
Marc

- --
Marc Sedam
Technology Development Associate
Office of Technology Development
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
308 Bynum Hall; CB# 4105
Chapel Hill, NC  27599-4105

919.966.3929  (phone)
919.962.0646  (fax)
http://www.research.unc.edu/otd




Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 09:45:05 -0500
From: "Russell, David (D.A.)" <drussel3 at ford.com>
Subject: White Labs Pitchable Yeast

I used White Labs yeast for the first time for my last batch, and love the
idea I don't need to do multiple step ups days before brew day.  LOVE IT.

In case my local Home Brew shop is out of a specific strain, does any one
carry White Labs by catalog, or on-line ordering?

David Russell
Ford Motor Co.
drussel3 at ford.com



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 10:10:25 -0500
From: "Larry Maxwell" <larrymax at bellsouth.net>
Subject: cleaning

Steven Owens said:

> A friend suggested building my larger brewing setup inside,
> effectively, a big shower stall, so I could hose it down.  Does
> anybody have any tips on making the cleaning easier?

Ease of cleaning was one of my highest priorities in designing my
system.  The whole setup is on a frame with casters, so I can move
it to a place where it can be hosed down.  But the real back-saver
and burn-avoider is that the mash tun and kettle pivot so that I can
dump out their contents and hose them out.  No lifting required.  I
don't have any photos, but the concept is also used in Beer Beer &
More Beer's "Tippy Dump" system:
http://www.morebeer.com/b32000t.html.

Larry Maxwell
Atlanta, GA




Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 09:27:22 -0600
From: Susan/Bill Freeman <potsus at bellsouth.net>
Subject: temp distribution in mash tun

I found the savonius rotor type mixer found in the drywall section of my
local mega home store was ideal for initial mixing of grain and strike
water.  Mine is about 4 inches in diameter and is chrome plated.  This
type of mixer pulls very little air into the mix. (bubbles are something
drywall finishers abhore)  It can also be used from time to time
throughout the mashing process to equalize the temp.
I have now built a mashtun mixer for the system that rotates at around
2-3 RPM.  There is no bandwidth for pics here, but if you will e-mail me
I will happily pass the information along as to its construction.  "the
perfesser" is becoming more and more automated for the mundane chores.
Cheers,
Bill Freeman aka Elder Rat
KP Brewery
Birmingham, AL




Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 10:15:21 -0500
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner at umich.edu>
Subject: Fouch is improved

Eric.Fouch at steelcase.com wrote:

>I took some 220 across the chest
>while fooling around with the heater.  I got better.

Better than ever before?  This could explain a lot.  Do you recommend this
therapy?

Reminds me of the headline:  "Reagan Better After Being Shot"

Jeff

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




Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 07:43:29 -0800
From: Demonick <demonick at zgi.com>
Subject: SG to Plato conversion

Reference: Manning, M.P., Understanding Specific Gravity and Extract,
Brewing Techniques, 1,3:30-35 (1993)

P = -676.67 + 1286.4SG - 800.47SG**2 + 190.74SG**3

Cheers!

Domenick Venezia



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 10:41:45 -0500
From: "Mr. Joy Hansen" <joytbrew at patriot.net>
Subject: RIMs Solutions

Hi Eric and other home brewers,

Hope you don't mind thinking about my opinions regarding the efficiency of
false bottoms.  I think ventured an opinion that each system makes it's own
demands on the open area required to keep full flow through the heat
exchanger.  Which begs other questions, "What is full flow?" and "What is
required?"

My experience with scorched elements taught me that there had to be the
highest flow possible without consideration of shearing.  So much so, that I
seldom use the heat exchanger to maintain glucan and protein rests.  I use
infusion for the strike and the ramp to 124 or 133 degrees, depending on the
nature of the malt.  So, you have to answer a couple of questions so
builders basing their decisions on your opinions can make a reasonable
decision.  The objective for many home brewers is to reproduce favorite
commercial styles.  I brew Strong Belgian Ales, Imperial Stouts, Scotch
Ales, Pale Ales, weissen, and IPA.  The malt charge varies between 15 and 30
pounds of malt.  For wizenbock, I use rice hulls to assure the permeability
of the mash.

What is the typical malt weight used for your brews, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30
pounds?
And, what will be the typical starting depth of the mash?  What is the open
area per pound of malt?

My discussion centers around the original Rodney Morris heat exchanger
design.  You'll note that Rodney recommended a different pump for 5 gallon
and 10 gallon batches.  70% open area for a false bottom might mean a picnic
cooler measuring 10X22 inches and 154 square inches of open area.  A Gott
cooler or converted Sanke of 15 inches diameter would be 123 square inches
if 70 open area were achieved.  The PBS false bottom, as a guestimate, has
less than 75 square inches of open area!  Thus, the need for stirring for
high flow through the mash and the heat exchanger.

Full flow means to me that my Cole Parmer MDX_3 magnetic drive pump can pump
about 4.5 gallons per minute with a 3 foot head.   Even at nearly 6 feet,
the pumping rate is 2 gallons per minute.  Without mechanized stirring and
combining screen and slotted false bottoms in a converted Sanke wouldn't
allow 2 gallon per minute flow rates through the heat exchanger.  The
additional junk cluttering the bottom of the mash tun just made it more
difficult to stir and get minimal temperature distribution through out the
mash.

Rodney insisted in his Zymurgy presentation that the grain bed depth could
not exceed 9 inches in one reference and 12 inches in another statement in
the same article.  If a brewer thinks about this for a minute he'll realize
that the 9 inches starting bed depth will be only 5 inches or less at
mashout.  The rate of flow gets better as the mash proceeds.  The more I
read the Morris discussion of the RIMS he proposed, the more I'm impressed
with his solution to potential problems.  You'll note that even with the
large percent of false bottom open area he recommends stirring to maintain a
high flow rate while pumping!

I placed my pump inlet and outlet well below the heat exchanger and mash tun
to be sure that the system would be self priming in almost all situations.
Replacement of the original large open area false bottom box with a plate
false bottom or substitution of a converted Sanke creates the need to
reconsider most aspects of flow through the system.

The magic number is one degree per minute temperature raise through out the
mash, not just the exit temperature of the heat exchanger.  Brewers should
check the temperature variation within the mash with a probe.  I've
experienced 10 to 20 degrees variation through out the mash unless I stirred
like mad!

So, the system I'm using will handle up to 30 pounds of malt, maintain high
enough flow rate through the heat exchanger to almost eliminate scorching
(nothing's perfect), reliably reproduce a variety of style mash schedules,
accommodates decoctin mash, facilitates underletting, minimizes stuck mash
conditions.  Admittedly, the run off proves difficult due to the high malt
to open area.  It's gravity and very slow to get crystal wort.  My thoughts
are that there isn't much starch in a less than crystal wort due to the
efficiency of the mash.  I mash until the turbid liquid takes about 30
seconds to develop purple colored particles with iodine.  Then, my brews
aren't always chill haze free.

The temperature is rapidly chilling  below freezing and might keep both the
lady bugs and the fruit flies subdued so I can do some brewing.   The
mash/boil is done outside under a canopy and there's nothing to prevent
unwelcome vermin from participating in the brewing session.

So, have a Malty Xmas and a Hoppy New Year . . .

                                      Joy"T"Brew



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 16:28:46 -0000
From: Tony Barnsley <tony.barnsley at blackpool.gov.uk>
Subject: 'Standard' Method For Calculating Efficiency

JET Wrote

<<AJ included his system of calculating brewing efficiency 
in today's post.  It seems to me we should have some sort of 
"standard method" that we all use but this is not always easily 
discernible from a brewer's post.>>

I agree! I would like to suggest that you all throw away the
pts/pound/gallon, and adopt the metric Degrees (Miag?) / Litre / Kilogram.
That way I could use programs like Promash with a bit more confidence!

Big :->


- --

The Scurrilous Aleman (Blackpool, Lancs, UK)
Reply To Aleman At brewmaster Dot demon Dot co Dot uk


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 10:31:06 -0600
From: rlabor at lsumc.edu (LaBorde, Ronald)
Subject: RE: Boiling yeast starter

From: "John Slavik" <brewer1 at airmail.net>

>Thank you for all the replies I received concerning boiling my yeast
>starter, in a "Pyrex" Erlenmeyer flask, on my electric range.

Good John, but if you would be kind enough to now share that information
with us all by posting a summation, we would all know what you do.

Private is good, but you see the problem.

Ron

Ronald La Borde - Metairie, Louisiana - rlabor at lsumc.edu



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 12:06:23 -0500
From: "Stephen Alexander" <steve-alexander at ieee.org>
Subject: mash tannins

Micah Millspaw says ...

>I think that this topic falls into the category of 'mommily'. [...]
>It is very difficult to extract tannins from the grain hulls in a mash.
>In fact I'm not sure that I've ever see it done. The ph of the mash is
>the limiter.

Gotta disagree Micah ...

Beer doesn't contain true tannins at all, but does contain tannoids
(oxidized phenolics capable of binding to protein) and tanninogens
(unoxidized phenolics capable of oxidizing to tannoids.

Anyone who has ever sparged down below SG=1.010 and tasted the result knows
that the stuff tastes like sweet watery tea.  The tea-like flavors are the
tannoids - not a momily.  The shocker is that about 70% of the total wort
tannoids appear in the first runnings.  They are less apparent because of
the other flavors present in first runnings.  Tannoids levels fall (not
rise) in later runnings - tho' they don't fall off as fast as sugar levels.

pH is a factor in tannoid solubility - and so extraction, but temperature
and the amount of water used are also important factors, as are some
enzymatic oxidation and phenolic release reactions in the mash.  pH
adjustment will NOT prevent tannoid extraction, that is a momily.  Lower pH
reduces tannoid extraction a bit at best (but too low and you again extract
more phenolics).  Clearly you cannot pH adjust the first runnings which
already contain the majority of the tannoids.

In a sense tannoids in the unboiled wort are not a real issue anyway since
they are virtually all (>97% in one study) eliminated during the boil when
they drop out as break.  The issue is the creation of new tannoids from
tanninogens + oxidation state carriers after the boil. [hsa, oxygen, the
sky is falling].

>It is however quite possible to extract tannins from hops
>(much more soluble than husk tannins) in the boil and possibly if they
>were put in the mash as well.

Not so.  The malt and hops for a 'typical' brew contain very roughly the
same total amount of phenolic material, but the final beer gets about 80% of
it's polyphenolics from malt, and only about 20% from hops !!  The hop
phenolics that are extracted are very much less likely to carry though to
the final beer than those from malt.

In a paper ['Hop and Malt Phenolics in Lager Brewing', JIB v85,pp23-25] some
guys from Molson research (Van Gheluwe & Weaver, not the MacKenzie bros),
study  phenolics in beer.  They begin by stating, "The relative contribution
of hops to beer phenolic pool is minor in comparison with the malt
contribution [...]". Also "The contribution of malt to haze formation was
recognized as more important than that of hops.  It was also found that any
decrease in the concentration of hop polyphenols in wort increased the
protein sensitivity of beer".

In this paper, they do panel tastings of beers that have had their phenolics
adjusted in various ways.  In one the unboiled wort had all of it's tannoids
and the major tanninogens removed (anthocyanogen catechins) and replaced
with the same total amount of antho..&catec.. but only from hops.  IOW the
total tanninogen level is the same in this wort - but all of it is from
hops - none from malt.  The resulting beer got an overall slightly lower
flavor rating (maybe not significant), but got very much higher ratings for
body, bitterness, and hop intensity !  [ Is this related in some way to FWH
?  Hard to see it.]

Interesting too that hops and malt can vary wildly in their phenolic
content.  Who would guess that saaz, in one test, had fully twice the
phenolics of hallertau !

I wouldn't sweat the idea of extracting too much malt phenolic by steam
injection.  The extra localized heat isn't ideal, but it's no worse than a
half dozen other factors. Decoction gets the grains hotter yet - no ?

 -S















Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 09:41:15 -0800
From: Brad Miller <millerb at targen.com>
Subject: Relay on RIMS

	To all you RIMSer's out there, do you have your relays wired for
always on or always off?  Also, does anyone out there use an Omron PID?  I
was looking for info on the Auto Tune function and all the things I find
are really poorly worded.  Thanks in advance.  By the way, for all those
who wanted to know, I live in Seattle, the land of Redhook, Pryamid, Hales
and for the ladies, St. Micheale winery.

Brad

 -Yeast, the "Un-Coli"




Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 12:53:36 -0500
From: woodsj at us.ibm.com
Subject: Happy Holidays, Propane, and Extract Efficiency



Happy holidays to all HBD'ers out there.  I enjoy lurking and posting
occasionally.
The knowledge base here is quite impressive and I have learned from the
collective.
OK, last night I moved my propane tank from the basement out to the garage.
Even
a very small risk is not worth it, I've seen these things blown up on
purpose in the
past.

John T. writes :

AJ included his system of calculating brewing efficiency in today's post.
It
seems to me we should have some sort of "standard method" that we all use
but
this is not always easily discernible from a brewer's post.

Maltsters usually give an extract percentage based on some combination of
coarse and fine grind lab yield . . . or give both FG and CG and let you
figure it out.  Most [?] of us use gravity in our calculations.  I have a
table to convert Plato to gravity but would like to have a formula.  Do you
have one handy or a reference?

IMHO we should give our efficiencies in terms of potential yield rather
than
gross grist weight.

I agree that there should be a standard.  A few issues ago Zymurgy (yes,
I'm a member)
published a good article about efficiency and a formula.  I've been using
this formula
and my brews are in the 50%'s for efficiency.  Zymurgy also gave some good
tips how
to increase yield that have given me some good results.  I also read that
the big guys get
around 75% at the most.  I read some people getting in the 80's and 90's
and I'm skeptical.
If you're getting that high a rate then I'm impressed.  Are they using a
different formula ?
The formula is not at my fingertips but it's a function of end of boil
Plato gravity, net kettle
volume and total grain weight with a multiplier conversion from metric to
US.

This is not intended to insult anyone so no flames during this time of
holidays, good will
towards men, and such.  It seems like we're not comparing apples to
apples......trying to
get as much efficiency as possible which should be a common goal of us all.



Jeff Woods
Camp Hill, PA




Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 12:48:03 -0600
From: "Marc Gaspard" <mgaspard1 at kc.rr.com>
Subject: new hops

To the collective:

     I recently obtained some new hop varieties I'm unfamiliar with, and
thought
someone might have some information on them.  I've already tried the
Hopunion
and Hoptech websites with no luck.
    The varieties are: Horizon, 11.0%AAU and Amarillo, 8.3%AAU.  Does anyone
know what they're derived from, and uses?  Considering their AAU's, they
seem
most useful for bittering, but I'd like to know more about them for possible
other
uses.  Private email is welcome  at  mgaspard1 at kc.rr.com  Thanks.

                            Marc Gaspard



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 14:08:49 -0500
From: Calvin Perilloux <peril at compuserve.com>
Subject: Carbonation and head in British style ale

Bill Frazier and Bruce Carpenter discuss forced carbonation and head:

>...the English beer that I see Morse drinking on PBS Mystery
> always seems to have little or no head. 

English Pale Ale (e.g. Bitter) would have a fairly low level of carbonation
in comparison to the usual pilsner/lager style.  As for the head, that will
depend on where in England it is served.  Very little head is the rule in
many London pubs.

> Also, just the other day I was reading the British version of the HBD
> and a couple of fellows were complaining about a pub that served beer
> with about 1-inch of head.  They felt they were being cheated.

In the south of England (e.g. London) the beer is normally quite flat
in appearance with minimal head, if any.  Drinkers can become annoyed
if they see too much head, knowing that they've paid for (a small amount
of) air instead of beer.  In the north of England, however, a healthy head
is expected, and one of my mates from up there always whinges about
the flat beer in London.  

Personally, I like a head on some beers, and the northern (English) ones
are said to be designed to handle that with the sparkler on the hand pump,
but do like such a beer served in a lined glass, with the pint level marked
about half an inch down.  Pubs naturally prefer the unlined glasses which
are a pint at the brim (gee, wonder why?), and some drinkers encourage
them by wanting a top-up to the brim, even on a lined glass.  (Try that 
trick in Germany, I say!)

Another item affecting the head on a beer:  The now-common use of
the sparkler when serving beer in London.  Southern (English) beers
are (perhaps) not designed to take the turbulence and loss of carbonation
induced by the sparkler, leading to an even flatter beer in the end than
you might expect in London, once the initial suds fall back.  Pubs seem
to be installing sparklers in droves, but there are still, thankfully,
quite
a few where the beer just splashes into the glass, without the dreaded
sprrooooosshhhh of the sparkler.  It's a nice, "flat" beer in appearance,
but the conditioning is there, just waiting for you to taste, unlike the
"sparklerised" beer that looks lively and frothy but had all the life
squeezed out of it at the tap head.

Calvin Perilloux
Staines, Middlesex


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 14:35:38 -0500
From: AJ <ajdel at mindspring.com>
Subject: Efficiency

"JET" asks for a conversion formula from SG to Plato. In No. 3145 I
published coefficients for second and third order fits to the tables in
the ASBC MOAs. These thus represent the industry standard in the US to
within the limits of the goodness of the fits (data on fit residuals is
included in the post). What No. 3145 does not tell you is how to get the
pounds of sugar per gallon of wort necessary to compute efficiency. This
is done by:

Pounds extract per gallon wort = (pounds extract/pound wort)*(pounds
wort per gal/pounds water per gal)*(pounds water per gal) = (degrees
Plato/100)*(specific gravity of wort)*(8.33)

The value of 8.33 is the weight of a gallon of water at 20C and the use
of this value implies that the specific gravity  is 20/20 (i.e. ratio of
the mass of a volume of wort at 20C to the mass of the same volume of
water at 20C) and that the volume of the wort (which is multiplied by
the pounds extract per gallon to give total extract) was also measured
at 20C. A little error in temperature won't make much difference but if,
for example, the wort volume is measured in the kettle at near boiling
temperature the volume will be about 4% larger than it is at room (20C)
temperature.

On the question of whether one should reference 100% efficiency to the
weight of the grain or the weight of the grain normalized by some factor
(expected efficiency) I suppose it's a question of personal preference.
If I reference to the weight of the grain I don't have to remember or
note what the expected percentage yield for that batch of that type of
malt  was. Indeed, we often don't have that number (though we can now
get it for Schreier products at least). The weight basis is the same for
every batch of every malt, is consistent and easy to remember. I don't
have to remember whether the expected number came from the lot CG, lot
FG or some brewing book's tables.



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 14:46:13 -0600
From: "Jack Schmidling" <arf at mc.net>
Subject: RIMS woes

I find all these problems with rims systems most amusing, particularly in light
of the fact that they are all self-inflicted wounds.

Everytime I suggest that RIMS is a Rube Goldberg business of complicating
something that is inherently simple, I get silenced by the fundamental fact that
some people do it cause it's fun to be a Rube Goldberg.

The only reason I keep flogging away is that it has become so commonplace that
many beginners are driven to believe that it is actually a better, if not the
ultimate way to make beer and that no serious brewer would stop till he achieved
sucess with such a kludge.

In a few hours and at a fraction of the cost, one can make a MIXMASHER
http://user.mc.net/arf/mix.htm which takes all the tedium out of kettle mashing
and have a system that does everything a RIMS is supposed to do and actually
work the very first time.

This time I will not bother asking what the advantages are but let it go at
suggesting there is a far simpler road to hands off brewing.

js

PHOTO OF THE WEEK  http://user.mc.net/arf/weekly.htm
HOME: Beer, Cheese, Astronomy, Videos  http://user.mc.net/arf



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 22:42:11 EST
From: BsmntBrewr at aol.com
Subject: Re: stuck?

Brewers,

Thanks to those that responded privately to my post.  Most thought that a FG 
of 1020 wasn't all that high for a porter.  My reasoning for thinking it a 
stuck is that I thought that it tasted too sweet for what I was shooting for. 
This was my first shot at a dark brew and I was shooting for 1010 based on 
the specs from the brewer of Black Raven.  

A few brewers requested:
<< Give us more information on your grain bill, fermentation temperatures,
 aeration, mash temperature etc.  anything to determine if it was a stuck
 fermenation or not. >>

Checked my notes, so here goes:
7 lbs American 2 row
1 lbs Crystal 80*
1 lbs Wheat
 .75 lbs Choc
 .5 lbs Black Patent
OG 1044
Target FG 1010
Single infusion  at 153* 45 minutes, iodine test did not turn blue/black
Sparged for about an hour
Pitched on Windsor yeast cake, plenty of yeast

Bob Bratcher
Roanoke, VA
Star City Brewers Guild
http://hbd.org/starcity


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 21:54:36 -0600
From: "Sean Richens" <srichens at sprint.ca>
Subject: Re.:  dispensing "real ale"

Bret has a good point about dispensing "pReal Ale" from a flexible
container.  It might not be just like from a cask in a country pub in
England - unless you visited that pub 100 years ago.

I find the PE containers have just a bit too much "plastic" aroma to them -
even when using them for water.  Maybe you could use one for camping for a
few years until that flavour's gone.

More seriously, the bags that "bag-in-box" wines (or wine kits) come it are
available from homebrew stores, along with the taps.  A typical "4 L" bag
will hold almost 8 L.  I prime with 2 tablespoons sugar, then set my
bag-in-box so that I can put a fermentation lock in it.  Once it gets to
equilibrium I put the tap in, set the box upright, and toss a heavy object
on top of the bag to keep it under a bit of pressure.  Works nicely, and
almost cheap enough to toss the bag out after every batch.

Sean



Return to table of contents

---