---

	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:
  War of the Worts Address Correction ("Al Folsom")
  Re: Jim's question about Jeff's comments on carbonation (Tidmarsh Major)
  Re: only bottling a few (patrick finerty)
  Re: regarding Jeff Renners comments on carbonation (Jeff Renner)
  Teet-wash flavor? ("Houseman, David L")
  beer transfer, burst sparging & caustic ("Sean Richens")
  Lager feedback ("Guy and Norine Gregory")
  re Grain Mill Motorization (Mark Tumarkin)
  Yeast Starters ("Lynn & Mike Key")
  Re: cows / Some Guy (Susan/Bill Freeman)
  Burst/batch sparging ("Stephen and Carolyn Ross")
  Corny Transfers ("Mark Vernon")
  De Piro, Renner etc... (AlannnnT)
  munich malt fermentability ("Dave Sapsis")
  calcium needed in the mash/gelatinization ("Stephen Alexander")
  Re: calcium needed in the mash/gelatinization (Marc Sedam)
  Keg Transfering (Dan Listermann)
  Parenthetically speaking... (Pat Babcock)
  brewing texts (Warandle1)
  Leap year ("John Lifer, jr")
  SS Fittings (Rod Prather)
  Zapap extraction (Steve Lacey)
  1st All grain (Bruce & Amber Carpenter)
  Re: nitro beers (SRychetsky)
  Lemon Brew ("don watts")
  Palmetto State Brewers ("don watts")
  Mills n Drills ("Jack Schmidling")
  PSB (Pat Babcock)
  The Saddest Gump Report - Siebel's Closure ("Rob Moline")
  Mag pump-to-brass fitting sealant (Chester Waters)


* 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: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 10:04:00 -0500
From: "Al Folsom" <folsom at ix.netcom.com>
Subject: War of the Worts Address Correction

Just a quick correction, I turned the address for the War 
of the Worts inside-out...  The correct address is:
     http://www.keystonehomebrew.com/wortwar.html
Still hope to see a lot of you there!

Al Folsom
- ---------------------------------------------------------
Alan L. Folsom, Jr.                  folsom at ix.netcom.com
Requisite witticism:
      "I am not a perfectionist. My parents were though."
        -PGP Public key available on servers-
- ---------------------------------------------------------


Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 08:59:12 -0600
From: Tidmarsh Major <ctmajor at samford.edu>
Subject: Re: Jim's question about Jeff's comments on carbonation

I've siphoned from keg to keg before using a T-junction on the CO2
cylinder hose to connect 2 gas-in connectors (it helps to have flare
fittings rather than hose barbs on the gas-in connectors to allow easy
changes to the configuration).  With one connector on each keg, the
pressures are equal, which eliminates foaming due to a pressure
differential. Wait until the siphon starts to connect the full keg so
that the pressure will start the siphon, then connect the gas to
equalize the pressures.  Alternately, I imagine that you could use a
simple hose with a gas connector on each end to allow the CO2 from the
recipient keg to flow back to the donor keg and maintain a closed
system without vacuum and foaming problems.

Tidmarsh Major
Birmingham, Alabama


Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 10:45:19 -0500 (EST)
From: patrick finerty <zinc at zifi.psf.sickkids.on.ca>
Subject: Re: only bottling a few

Dan Michael asks about bottling some beer before kegging most of it. i
recently did this and here's how...

i recently prepared 9 bottles of beer from a batch and kegged the
rest. after reading about the amount of sugar required for the level
of carbonation i desired, i determined that i should add 7 ml of 40%
glucose to each bottle. this technique worked great although the beer
was a little more fizzy than i would have liked. next time i'll
probabaly use 6 ml of the 40% glucose. 

one consideration is that i work in a lab (mostly at a computer these
days) and can prepare sterile 40% glucose. i think you can buy glucose
at health food stores. you definitely do not want to use sucrose
(table sugar) as this can lead to 'cidery' flavors...

 -patrick

- -- 
       "There is only one aim in life and that is to live it."
 Karl Shapiro,(1959) from an essay on Henry Miller's Tropic of Cancer
	      finger pfinerty at nyx10.nyx.net for PGP key
		 http://abragam.med.utoronto.ca/~zinc


Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 10:09:27 -0500
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner at umich.edu>
Subject: Re: regarding Jeff Renners comments on carbonation 

"jim williams" <jim&amy at macol.net> asks for more details on my beer
transfer between pressurized kegs:

>I've tried doing this a number of times myself. The only way to transfer,
>that I've found, is to open the valve on the receiving keg. This allows the
>beer to flow, otherwise a vacuum is created and the beer doesn't flow.
>Because of this, I then get beer foaming, and I have to stop, and do it
>again, over and over....
>
>what am I missing? Am I wrong in thinking that it can be done in a truly
>"closed" system?

Not sure what you mean by a vacuum - if you don't open the valve on the
receiving keg, you get more pressure in it - that's why the beer doesn't
flow.  But to get to your question - yes, you must open the pressure relief
valve on the receiving keg.  The trick is to just crack it a little, just
enough to allow the beer to flow, but keeping the pressure in keg nearly
equal to that in the emptying keg (which is connected to CO2).  If you do
this, you won't get much foaming at all.  Kinda like counter pressure
bottling.  Be sure to run the beer in the beer out fitting.

Hope this helps.

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: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 11:28:07 -0500
From: "Houseman, David L" <David.Houseman at unisys.com>
Subject: Teet-wash flavor?

"Former is true, but careful with the parenthetical. I believe the
"iodophor" used on the udders - sometimes called teet-wash - contains
lanolin and/or other emolients. Besides adversely affecting the heading
ability of your brew, these things taste yucky."

Pat, the teets or the wash?  And I don't even want to know how you found
out....

Dave Houseman


Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 10:42:54 -0600
From: "Sean Richens" <srichens at sprint.ca>
Subject: beer transfer, burst sparging & caustic

For Jim, I'm purely a theoretician here, but I figure you could add CO2 to
both the receiving and source kegs to about 5 psi above the equilibrium
pressure for the temperature you're at.  This ensures that gas wants to
dissolve, not break out.  You then connect "in" to "in" fittings, and "out"
to "out" fittings.  Lift the source keg to place it above the receiving
keg.

The clever part is to start the syphon (which is what it will be).  I would
try first disconnecting the "in " hose at one end and dump just enough gas
from the receiving keg to get the syphon primed, then reconnect the hose
and let it go.

A different Jim asks about burst sparging (I call it 'chromatography
sparging' but I've spent too much time sniffing solvents).  I mash
overnight, then mash-out, heat the first 5 L of sparge water while
recirculating, then add the portion over the back of a spoon using a Pyrex
jug and start running off.  I put the next 5 L on the stove to heat and
make my breakfast.  After the next 5 L I weigh out the hops, and so on.  It
also reminds me to take SG readings during the sparge so I can see if
there's any channelling or other unfortunate occurrences.  It seems to me
the extra buoyancy on the grains from being always under water reduces the
risk of a stuck mash.  I only ever get air sucked down past my grain bag
when the water level is low.

And regarding Graham's use of caustic, in the biotech industry 1 M caustic
(that's 4%) is used to sanitize things that won't tolerate anything
oxidizing.  No, it's far from perfect, there are lots of bugs that resist
it although alternating acid and caustic soaks will beat them up real good.
 However, I'm not surprised it works for brewing because we don't have to
kill all of the bacteria, just give the acid-tolerant ones a rough time so
the yeast can predominate.  It's more critical if you re-pitch a lot.

The mechanism is simply that it turns cell membranes into soap and
dissolves a fair range of proteins.  A bit of chlorine really enhances the
protein-dissolving, and at the pH involved it does very little harm to
stainless provided you rinse well and use an occasional acid rinse
(phosphoric acid is good - check out 5-Star's web page).  Heating it up to
50-60 C really makes a difference, but then it gets a bit harsh on the
brewer, especially if there's an accident.

I don't think 1 M caustic at room temperature is a lot more hazardous that
bleach, but when mixing it up I would definitely wear goggles.  Don't even
think of handling 50% concentrated sodium hydroxide at home.  It's one of
the handful of chemicals I'm truly afraid of.  An eye splash does
irreparable (sp?) harm within 15 seconds, and I don't have an eyewash
station in my house.  

Sean



Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 10:52:26 -0800
From: "Guy and Norine Gregory" <guyg at icehouse.net>
Subject: Lager feedback

Colleagues:

Wow, I got wonderful response (several posted here) on my request for
critique of my lager brewing technique.  Thanks to all who responded.

For the rest of you, my fellow lagerers....er, lagererers.... no, lager
enthusiasts...all had useful and thoughtful ideas to help out my efforts.
Two bits of advice were shared by all:

1. Pitch more yeast.  As an ale brewer, if I get response in a day or less
in my carboy, I'm feeling good.  Consensus is a bigger starter and thus
bigger population of young, presumably virile yeast,  is better for lagers.

2. Omit the irish moss and the yeast nutrient, and just go buy a oxygenation
kit.  I've used Irish moss for years in my ales, and yeast nutrient has
given me at least anecdotal evidence of quicker fermentation starts in my
ales, which are "better".  So I carried it over to my lagers. Irish moss is
unnecessary to settle stuff in a lager, obviously because a lager sits so
long. And everyone seems to agree that I should just bite the bullet and buy
an oxygenation setup,  even though I've been resisting it for a while, and
unable to find a cheap way of getting one.  This will omit adding "stuff" to
a beer which is subtle at best.  So, now that duck season is over, I guess
I'll save my lunch money for an oxynator instead of shotgun shells and decoy
weights.

I didn't mention that I tend to first-wort-hop my lagers, and boy does that
give me great hop flavor, though that evidence is anecdotal too.

Thanks for the input, folks....

Guy Gregory
Lightning Creek Home Brewery
Spokane, WA





Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 14:34:11 -0500
From: Mark Tumarkin <mark_t at ix.netcom.com>
Subject: re Grain Mill Motorization

Bill Freeman aka Elder Rat writes:
"Here come da flames, here come da flames!"  Contrary to all popular
belief and Jack, I use a 3/8 drive drill motor to power mil JSP.  It has

worked for the last 3 years without a hitch.

Why should that bring on da flames? I've been doing the same thing, if
only for two years, without a problem. It's a great mill, but I'm
certainly too lazy to crank it by hand.

Mark Tumarkin
Gainesville, FL




Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 15:06:42 -0800
From: "Lynn & Mike Key" <flakeys at mindspring.com>
Subject: Yeast Starters


> ----- Original Message ----- >   From: "George de Piro"
<gdepiro at mindspring.com>

> When you grow yeast, you should never increase the volume of wort the
> yeast
>  are in by more than a factor of ten.  In other words, if you start with a
> 50
>  mL Wyeast package, that should be pitched into no more than 500 mL of
> wort.
>  The 500 mL can be stepped up to 5 L, and from there you have enough yeast
> to
>  pitch 50 L of wort (about 12 gallons).
>

George,

 Why "should you never increase the volume of wort the yeast are in by more
 than a factor of ten?" I've seen this advice elsewhere and have never
 understood why you can't just pitch the Wyeast package into 1000 mL of
wort.
 Thanks.

Mike







Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 15:30:30 -0600
From: Susan/Bill Freeman <potsus at bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: cows / Some Guy

Pat, I think what you're thinkin' about is called "bag balm" or udder
ointment.  One manufacturer of same is Durvet in Blue Springs, MO.
These are the products that contain "soluble lanolin, aloe vera,
vitamins, chlorroxylenol germicide and sunscreen".  (oooooo that hurts -

sunburnt teets)  It is applied "AFTER each milking".  A cousin in the
cow business recommended the stuff for my wife and myself a number of
years ago (no, not what you think) 'cause we're potters and have dry
hands.  The iodine soultions (read iodophor) are used for tubing,
piping, tanks and general sanitizing.
Cheers, Bill Freeman aka Elder Rat



Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 17:27:19 -0600
From: "Stephen and Carolyn Ross" <rosses at sprint.ca>
Subject: Burst/batch sparging

Jim Welsh <jwelsh at execpc.com> asked about 'Burst sparging' on Jan 15:

Hi Jim,

I used something close to this method when I cooler-mashed but have always
referred to as 'batch' sparging.

My method:
Recirculate initial runoff until clear, then add about half of the sparge
water.
Run off completely.
Add remainder of sparge water, stir and repeat first step.

It's a compromise between 'no-sparge' and regular sparge. It's also a great
lazy way, and I don't have to worry much about channeling. My extraction
efficiency isn't as high as some (75%), but I never have to worry about
measuring OG of runnings. All my water volumes are calculated prior to
mashing. I can leave the run-off unattended. I get good consistency and
repeatability. I use a little more grain, but IMO the beer is a little
better. YMMV.

cheers,

Stephen Ross, In Saskatoon, SK, Great White North
______________________________________________
        "Vitae sine cerevesiae sugat."



Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 19:26:20 -0600
From: "Mark Vernon" <vernonm at goportable.com>
Subject: Corny Transfers

Okay, am i the only one who has thought of this? I first fill the
destination keg with sanitizer and after the appropriate amount of time push
it out with c02, I now have a sanitized keg with no air. When i transfer
from one keg to another I use connect C02 to the In side of the full keg and
go from the Out of the full to the OUT of the empty keg - elimiates foaming.
On the In side of the target keg i put a blowoff tube into a jar with
sanitizer - allows ac02 out and no air in. I thus get no exposer to air
during the transfer.
When going from a Carboy to corny i use a similar procedure ( I use the
Fermentap system - upside down carboy and adapter) I use 2 -4 lbs of C02
pressure to push from carboy to corny treated as described above. Once again
no contact with air during the transfer. I have done this dozens of times
with great success. If you have any questions let me know.

Mark Vernon.

Beer is proof that god loves mankind...
                    Benjamin Franklin




Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 00:43:44 EST
From: AlannnnT at aol.com
Subject: De Piro, Renner etc...

First, I'd like to point out that George De Piro is still actively posting 
and helping even after turning pro. I was afraid the list would lose a 
valuable asset when George left the real world for the fantasy of brewing for 
a living.  

George posted,> 
>  If you are brewing with extract, you cannot use pumpkin.  

Just to note that there are two diastatic malt extracts on the market that 
might "mash" pumpkin if left long enough. Sounds like an experiment to me. 
Maybe a can of diastatic, a pound of six row and a baked pumpkin? Strain the 
whole mess through a colander, etc.. When the pumpkins return in the fall, 
I'll give it a shot.

Bill Jankowski asks about C- Brite sanitizer. The C in C-Brite means 
chlorine. C-Brite smells strongly of chlorine, so use it accordingly. 

 Pat Babcock mentions the "parenthetical" nature of an assumption. Maybe I'm 
gullible (get it?), but I looked in the dictionary and I can't find that one. 
What does parenthetical mean?  

Last summer, much was made of the idea of making starters from Malta. 
Curious, I recently fermented a bottle of Malta, just to see what I would 
get. I pitched a scant few grains of Nottingham dry yeast into a vigorously 
aerated Malta wort. Fermentation was fairly normal, no surprises. Active 
fermentation was noticeable in about 6 hours. After one week the Malta beer 
tasted very sour and checked in at 1022. After one more week, (down to 1020)  
the sourness was gone. The Malta beer was slightly sweet and with coffee and 
chocolate flavors and VERY corny. I think the Malta Beer is a taste that one 
might acquire. I just wonder what type of starter this would make since the 
flavor profile is so unlike "beer" as we know it. But I think it shows 
promise as a starter for CAP because the corn is so evident. It's also quite 
possible that this stuff tasted better than a lot of homebrew made back in 
the Prohibition (shudder) days. 
 I just wonder if the customers for this stuff realize how easy it would be 
to make an alcoholic beverage right from the bottle? It probably would get 
banned in the US!    

I just fininshed using a 10 gallon ball lock corny keg as a primary for a 5 
gallon batch, then pushing it to a 5 gallon for conditioning. Next, I'll push 
it to another 5 gallon for serving. Some discussion was made of having an all 
closed system for transfer. I can't think of any way to transfer beer in to 
the secondary and not let air out. A bleeder, or overpressure regulator could 
be used, but that seems like unnecessary trouble.Just loosen the lid! 
Beasties aren't going to crawl in. 

One very large benefit of using the ten gallon as a primary; the bottom is 
very wide. The yeast cake settles nicely to the bottom, quite safely out of 
the way. When transferring to the secondary, I first drew off about a quart 
to check for sediment. Almost none! I'm going to trim about 3/8 inch off the 
bottom of the dip tube before the next batch, and that should start me off 
perfectly clear next time. 

That down side is that the keg is opaque. That takes some of the fun out of 
it. But having everything stainless and moving away from carboys is my 
ultimate goal. 
I'll still use carboys for wine though. I don't think I could give up being 
able to see my must. 

Best Brewing,
Alan Talman








Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 22:01:05 -0800
From: "Dave Sapsis" <dsapsis at earthlink.net>
Subject: munich malt fermentability

In the FWIW category:
I recently (2 months ago) made an oktoberfest with 100% Weyermann Light
Munich.
Yield was a respectable 63% (note this is yield, not some strange efficiency
measure based on variable carbohydrate levels in the malt).  Single decoct.
Sach temps were ~140F for 40 minutes
and 155F for 20 minutes. Fermented with a massive dose of Ayinger yeast.
Fermented at 48F.
Started at 13.5 P and is currently 3.7 P.  Very toasty.  Tastey too.

As for music while brewing-- Despite being quite fond  of classical music (I
miss my college days when I got season tickets to the SF Symphony) I have
found that my three favorite styles whilst manning the kettle (in no
particular order): swing, rockabilly, funk.  Ho!  Make mine the P.

cheers,
- --dave, sacramento.  The dangerous and practical brewer.  Shee.  I'm a
walkin' talkin' oxy-moron





Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 05:47:05 -0500
From: "Stephen Alexander" <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net>
Subject: calcium needed in the mash/gelatinization

Marc Sedam says ...

>[...] use of distilled water
>to mash will likely result in a dearth of calcium.  Ca is a
>required cofactor in enzymatic amylolysis (breakdown of
>starch).  You need at least 50ppm of Ca in the mash to give
>enzymes the minerals they need to break down the mash.

A point I tried to make several years back *but* the truth is not entirely
as stated.  Note that Pilsner Urquell has been successfully brewing for
about 15 decades with only 7ppm of calcium in their water !

One of several isozymes of alpha-amylase has an absolute requirement for
calcium.  There is sufficient (tho' perhaps not optimal) calcium in the malt
to cover this need.  Others isozymes show increased activity with calcium
concentration (true co-factors) but  it appears (see J.Biol.Chem
v264,pp19392-19398 for barley amylase stability/activity v.Ca) that only
0.1mMol (about 4ppm of calcium) is needed for near optimal *activity*.
Much less needed for 50% activity (about 0.05ppm Ca)

The above coupled the fact that typical malt has alpha-amylase to burn
(about 20X minimum req's for starch conversion at 65C for 1hr) means that
mashing in distilled water can be accomplished - tho' it may not be ideal.

- --

As long as I'm on Marc's case (a joke - I truly appreciate Marc's
contributions).
Marc previously mentioned beta-amylase as a factor in starch granule
degradation.  In a paper(see archiv.biochem&biophys, v284,pp298)  the
authors Z.Sun and Cynthia Henson analyze the activity of four enzymes in
various types of hydrolysis (starch, boiled starch and starch granule) and
concluded by path analysis that alpha-amylase and alpha-glucosidase are
primarily responsible for granule degradation with almost no contribution
from debranching enzyme and beta-amylase.  Tests were on barley.  Same
authors discuss the matter further in 'Plant Physiol'. v94,pp320-327.  Also
see 'Agric.Biol.Chem', v42(2) pp259-267 for a similar conclusion by other
researchers.


 -S




Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 12:32:01 -0500
From: Marc Sedam <marc_sedam at unc.edu>
Subject: Re: calcium needed in the mash/gelatinization

Steve:

You're right.  It was alpha amylase...my bad.  Some of the research was done in
an adjacent lab to mine back in my starch enzymologist days.  See US Patent No.
5,904,941 for some details.  You can see the text at http://www.uspto.gov and
search for the patent number.  Sorry for the misinformation folks.

Although I'm the last one to question hard data, I've found that if I don't
treat my tap water with some CaCl2 during the mash, that saccharification takes
much longer.  That being said, I'm not a real fan of a three hour mash.  I'm
certain that given ample mash time you could get near complete degradation of
the starch (dextrins notwithstanding) with low Ca levels.  IMHO, the decoction
method employed by PU (1) likely takes longer than my 45 minute, direct heat
mashes (duh!), and (2) probably liberates some additional Ca from the grains
during boiling the decoction.

Cheers!
Marc

Stephen Alexander wrote:

> Marc Sedam says ...
>
> >[...] use of distilled water
> >to mash will likely result in a dearth of calcium.  Ca is a
> >required cofactor in enzymatic amylolysis (breakdown of
> >starch).  You need at least 50ppm of Ca in the mash to give
> >enzymes the minerals they need to break down the mash.
>
> A point I tried to make several years back *but* the truth is not entirely
> as stated.  Note that Pilsner Urquell has been successfully brewing for
> about 15 decades with only 7ppm of calcium in their water !
>
> One of several isozymes of alpha-amylase has an absolute requirement for
> calcium.  There is sufficient (tho' perhaps not optimal) calcium in the malt
> to cover this need.  Others isozymes show increased activity with calcium
> concentration (true co-factors) but  it appears (see J.Biol.Chem
> v264,pp19392-19398 for barley amylase stability/activity v.Ca) that only
> 0.1mMol (about 4ppm of calcium) is needed for near optimal *activity*.
> Much less needed for 50% activity (about 0.05ppm Ca)
>
> The above coupled the fact that typical malt has alpha-amylase to burn
> (about 20X minimum req's for starch conversion at 65C for 1hr) means that
> mashing in distilled water can be accomplished - tho' it may not be ideal.
>
> --
>
> As long as I'm on Marc's case (a joke - I truly appreciate Marc's
> contributions).
> Marc previously mentioned beta-amylase as a factor in starch granule
> degradation.  In a paper(see archiv.biochem&biophys, v284,pp298)  the
> authors Z.Sun and Cynthia Henson analyze the activity of four enzymes in
> various types of hydrolysis (starch, boiled starch and starch granule) and
> concluded by path analysis that alpha-amylase and alpha-glucosidase are
> primarily responsible for granule degradation with almost no contribution
> from debranching enzyme and beta-amylase.  Tests were on barley.  Same
> authors discuss the matter further in 'Plant Physiol'. v94,pp320-327.  Also
> see 'Agric.Biol.Chem', v42(2) pp259-267 for a similar conclusion by other
> researchers.
>
> -S



Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 12:58:07 -0500
From: Dan Listermann <72723.1707 at compuserve.com>
Subject: Keg Transfering

Jim Williams (jim&amy at macol.net) asks about transfering beer from one keg
into another.  I do this quite a bit to remove seperate sediment in my
kegs.  I have found that if I don't do this, the sediment will get stirred
up every time the keg is moved especially when it is partially filled.  It
is a poor man's filtering method.

I made a set of "jumper cables" for this operation.  It is a pair of hoses
with disconnects on each end and a hose clamp on one of the pair.  In its
simplest form there are two "ins" on the hose with the hose clamp and two
"outs" on the other. 

Fill the recieving keg with water and blow it out with CO2.  It is then
pressurized to about the same pressure as the keg with the beer in it (
don't sweat  any differences).  The keg with the beer in it should be
elevated above the recieving keg - we are going to set up a syphon.  Attach
the two "ins" to their respective posts.  This will equlize the pressure in
the kegs.  Shut the clamp on the "ins" hose.  Attach the "outs" to their
respective posts and gently relieve a bit of pressure in the recieving keg.
 This will start the syphon.  Open the clamp and the gas in the recieving
keg will transfer to the beer keg while the beer syphons into the recieving
keg.  The transfer will take place very quietly with little or no foaming
and very minimal pressure loss.

Toward the end of the transfer gas will start to accumulate in the
recieving keg's dip tube and the syphon will stop.  To restart it, just
close the hose clamp and relieve a bit of pressure in the recieving keg. 
The gas will pass out of the tube and the syphon will resume.  I rarely
need to do this more than once.

A neat variation that I have been using is to carbonate and fine my keg as
usual but lay it on its side, "in" post down, with a block to prop up the
bottom of the keg an inch or two..  The keg will settle much faster this
way because the sediment will only have to drop the diameter of the keg
instead of its full height.  I use a "side drain" keg for this ( a "side
drain" keg's dip tube picks up from the side of the keg instead of the
middle ) but it should work fine with "center drain" kegs as well.  The keg
is allowed to settle on a counter or table where I can syphon it out
without the need to move it.

The jumper assembly is a little different.  There is an "in" and an "out"
at the end of each hose with a hose clamp on one hose.  The receiving keg
is treated the same as above.  The "in" disconnect on the hose with the
clamp is attached to the recieving kegs "in" post and its "out" connected
to the beer keg's "out" post which should be above the "in" post.  The
pressures equalize and the clamp shut.

The "in" and "out" disconnects of the other hose are connected to their
respective posts.  There is usually no need to start the syphon.  Just open
the hose clamp and the beer will transfer.  It may be necessary to go
through the syphon restarting procedure as above toward the end of the
operation.

These methods should give you sediment free kegged beer without filtering
with no loss of carbonation.

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





Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 13:30:40 -0500
From: Pat Babcock <pbabcock at hbd.org>
Subject: Parenthetically speaking...


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

Alan Talman states...

>  Pat Babcock mentions the "parenthetical" nature of an assumption. Maybe I'm 
> gullible (get it?), 

No.

> but I looked in the dictionary and I can't find that one. 
> What does parenthetical mean?  

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




Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 15:38:03 EST
From: Warandle1 at aol.com
Subject: brewing texts

Hi all,

I want a good chemistry text on the brewing process.  I am thinking of buying 
either "Analysis of Brewing Techniques" (Fix) or "Principles of Brewing 
Science: A Study of Serious Brewing Issues, 2nd Ed." (also Fix).  I can't 
page through them to decide, and will have to order via mail or internet 
without really knowing what to expect from either one.  I have a degree in 
chemistry and have been homebrewing for 2 years (12 batches made).  Does 
anyone have an opinion to share regarding one or both of these books?  For 
instance are these written for the homebrewer in mind or the professional 
brewer?  Does it matter?

Thanks--Will Randle


Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 17:51:30 -0600
From: "John Lifer, jr" <jliferjr at misnet.com>
Subject: Leap year

Definitionof Leap Year is:(in the
Gregorian calendar)
a year that contains 366 days, with
February 29 as an
additional day: occurring  in years
whose last two digits
are evenly divisible by  four,
except for centenary years
not divisible by 400.
Which means that the year 1800 could
not be a leap year, 1600
was last centenary year prior to
this year and 2400 will be the next.

John



Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 19:57:23 -0500
From: Rod Prather <rodpr at iquest.net>
Subject: SS Fittings

Hey guys!  I'm getting ready to build here real soon and I need some
info on what SS bulkhead fitting to use on a Sanke keg. I want to hard
plumb in copper.   Does anyone have any suggestions. What is the best
fitting type, where can you buy them?  I need attachments on the
inside and outside in some cases.  I have someone who can TIG weld
them for me.

What kind of seal is best?  Ferrule or those fancy tapered mated
fittings. 

One other question.  I have seen several of you talk about quick
disconnects.  Where can you buy these?  What kind of hose do you use
for the high temps and food grade characteristics? 

- -- 
Rod Prather
Indianapolis, Indiana


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 09:18:16 +1100
From: Steve Lacey <stevel at sf.nsw.gov.au>
Subject: Zapap extraction

MaltHound said:
"I think the "Zapaps are inefficient" momily can be traced to the trends
that 
many of us experienced as beginning brewers using Zapaps.  As we became more
experienced ..... Our efficiencies increased, but they may well have
increased had we stayed with the old equipment and simply improved our
techniques."

Just a datapoint of support for this opinion..I recently did a couple of
decocted wheat beers. I used a slightly finer crush than I had been using
and, to reduce chances of a stuck sparge switched from my "extravagant"
manifold device back to the zapap. Extraction was about 80-85% in both
beers. The decoction plus finer crush yielded the higher extraction and the
zapap had nothing to do with it. You do have to watch out for preferential
flow paths developing and cutting through half the width of the grain bed
with a knife helped. What I don't like about the large space below the false
bottom is the amount of recirculating you have to do to get clear runnings -
although I seem to almost never get totally clear runnings with the zapap so
maybe my holes are one drill bit size too big??
Steve Lacey



Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 19:56:52 -0600
From: Bruce & Amber Carpenter <alaconn at arkansas.net>
Subject: 1st All grain

Greetings,

I will be attempting my first all grain batch in a couple of weeks. To that
holes in the bottom of a 5 gal plastic bucket to create the well knowm
"Zapap" lauter tun. During one pause in the drilling to stretch and massage
my aching hand, I put the two buckets together. I noticed that the space
between the bottom of the top bucket and the bottom of the 2nd bucket is
about 3.75 inches (beneath the "false bottom"). It looks as if this space
would hold at least 2 gals of water. My questions:  When I calculate my
strike water, should I add additional water to make up for this area which
won't reach the grain? Should I mash in another vessel and then transfer to
the "holey" bucket for the sparge?

Thanks for the advise, in advance. Private email welcome.

Bruce Carpenter
Wondering where Winter is, but enjoying the weather, here in balmy South
Arkansas
alaconn at arkansas.net 



Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 22:28:25 EST
From: SRychetsky at aol.com
Subject: Re: nitro beers

greetings!
I've been a homebrewer for several years now.  I plan to use a nitrogen keg 
set up for my drafting pleasure.  Are there brewers out there who have done 
this?  I know only one brewer who nitro kegs.  Before I spend the money to 
add this to my existing kegging systems, are there any brewers out there who 
use for their drafting pleasure?   If so, what benefits/disappointments were 
experienced?  I would like to read some input on this.  Thanks.

Ryan J. Rychetsky
Bryan, TX


Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 22:27:58 -0500
From: "don watts" <donwatts at worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Lemon Brew

I have been brewing lemon beer for some time and use only the peel finely
chopped with a food processor and added to the secondary, I tried the juice
and found it to be very overpowering in the taste.

Don Watts
Creek Bank Brewing
Goose Creek SC



Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 22:30:29 -0500
From: "don watts" <donwatts at worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Palmetto State Brewers

The website  for the Palmetto State Brewers no longer exist, could someone
from that orginazation please post a link or the info for the upcoming
competition.
Thanks

Don Watts
Creek Bank Brewing
Goose Creek SC



Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 21:19:10 -0600
From: "Jack Schmidling" <arf at mc.net>
Subject: Mills n Drills

From: Susan/Bill Freeman <potsus at bellsouth.net>

"Contrary to all popular
belief and Jack, I use a 3/8 drive drill motor to power mil JSP.  It has
worked for the last 3 years without a hitch.

Actually, the reason we do not recommend using a drill on the MM is because it
defeats the self-destruct mechanism.   When a drill is chucked up to the mill,
the magnetic flux lines are parallel to the roller with the detonator in it and
not enough energy is transmitted to set it off.

One of the dumbest things I ever did was to design the mill with a 3/8" shaft
that would fit any electric drill on earth.  We lose a great deal of business
not only on the $472 motorized option but we can't even sell a drill adapter.

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: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 22:54:01 -0500
From: Pat Babcock <pbabcock at hbd.org>
Subject: PSB

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

"don watts" <donwatts at worldnet.att.net> asks...

> The website  for the Palmetto State Brewers no longer exist, could someone
> from that orginazation please post a link or the info for the upcoming
> competition.

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




Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 22:12:54 -0600
From: "Rob Moline" <brewer at isunet.net>
Subject: The Saddest Gump Report - Siebel's Closure

			The Saddest Gump Report
    The following has been circulating through the ether today....
********************************************
 Dear Friends of the Siebel Institute,

     I am very sorry to announce to you that all courses, programs and other
 educational activities conducted by the Siebel Institute of Technology have
 ceased effective January 14, 2000. The one exception is the Draft Skills
 Workshop scheduled for the week of February 14.

     The industry has undergone many changes over the last few years. The
sum
 for us has been a sharp decline in enrollments over the last two years. I
do
 not see this picture changing this year and I am unable to cope with
further
 losses. We have done all that we can to create a range of 28 courses and
 programs for the industry that are second to none. We have done all that we
 could do to let the industry know what was available and to encourage
people
 to attend to take advantage of these offerings. We have done everything
 possible to have the best in terms of classrooms, laboratories, pilot
 facilities, workshops, library and other facilities at our Chicago campus
to
 insure the best educational environment and experience so participants
could
 get the most out of every program. We have had the best in terms of people
 with both our resident and our extended faculty as well as our full time
 staff. The cost of this fixed overhead is high but until the last several
 years there have been enough students to cover these costs.

     We were the last of the founding brewing schools of the 1800's which
 previously included Schwarz, Wallerstein and Wahl Henius. The Siebel
 Institute was more than just a North American brewing school. We had an
 international presence that brought students from more than 60 countries
 around the world. But times change, as do the needs of the industry.
 International breweries have decreased their participation due to economic
 conditions in Asia and Latin America while the ongoing consolidation of the
 larger breweries has meant that they can't spare the people to attend
outside
 training courses. The mid-tier breweries in North America have now
 disappeared and it was the middle range breweries that depended most
heavily
 on our services. And of the many small breweries in North America there are
 too few that can both afford and appreciate the need for further training.

     For several years I have been telling all that would listen that there
 has been an overcapacity in terms of brewing education supply. I have tried
 for some time to partner with other institutions in order to combine our
 resources to provide high quality education with a lower total overhead.
The
 politics and realities in our industry have precluded such partnerships.
And
 since we were the last remaining major brewing school in the world that
does
 not receive either government or industry support the reality is that we
must
 be the ones to lower that overcapacity.

     There are other activities of the Siebel Institute that will continue.
 Dr. Gary Spedding, our Vice President of Laboratory Services, plans to take
 over the laboratory service and laboratory media portion of the business.
 Those of you who are customers of these products and services will hear
more
 in the coming months as to where the new home for this business will be. In
 the meantime we will continue to serve these needs from our campus on
 Peterson Avenue in Chicago. And the Siebel Institute will still make
 available the books and educational materials we have, while supplies last,
 of books such as Jean DeClerk's A Textbook of Brewing; Beer Deposits, A
 Laboratory Guide and Pictorial Atlas; Bottling and Canning of Beer; Siebel
 Institute Brew Computer; and others. The full list of these educational
 materials can be found in our catalog and at our web site:
 http://www.siebelinstitute.com.

     There is a possibility that a new Siebel Institute could resume
courses.
 The Faculty is currently looking at how they might reorganize the school,
 possibly as a not for profit company. If this comes about I will do all
that
 I can to help it get off to a good start. I will donate all the
intellectual
 property of the Institute as well as many assets. But they will need the
 support of the industry for this to take place for they do not have the
 resources available to provide the working capital that the reorganized
 Siebel Institute would need. Time will tell whether this is possible. If
 their plans are successful they would resume classes with the Short Course
in
 Brewing Technology on April 3. Sufficient numbers of applications to this
and
 other programs would spur on this possibility. If it does not come to pass,
 full deposits will be returned.

     Many of you who will read this have been our supporters, having
attended
 classes or using our services. I am truly sorry that we are letting you
down.
 The only problem is that there have not been enough of you and the fixed
 costs required to provide the quality on which we insist have been greater
 than the level of support we have received over the last several years. I
 personally hope to find some other way to stay active in the industry that
 has been my life since my first part time job in 1962 and that of my family
 since the 1860's. I look forward to seeing you all again.

 My best wishes for the future of our industry,

 Bill Siebel
 Chairman and CEO
 Siebel Institute of Technology
 4055 W. Peterson Avenue
 Chicago, IL 60646-6001
 Phone 773-279-0966 extension 110
 Fax 773-463-7688
 email: BillSiebel at aol.com

*****************************************************

     Jethro holds a pint glass high to the Sielbel Institute, and to Mr.
Siebel, and his staff.......and wishes the best for it's
re-organization........for those of us who have attended.... and for those
who have benefited by Siebel's presence in the HBD...... and indeed those of
us who have just had a better pint in a pub whose brewer learned his art in
Chicago.....There are more of us that owe Mr. Siebel a debt than he can
possibly realize....

God Bless You, Sir!
Jethro Gump
brewer at isunet.net

"The More I Know About Beer, The More I Realize I Need To Know More
About Beer!"



Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 07:03:00 -0600
From: Chester Waters <cwaters at home.com>
Subject: Mag pump-to-brass fitting sealant

Fellow Beerlings:
	I've found an answer to a problem that I've seen mentioned in
several RIMS/HERMS web sites but can't remember being mentioned in
HBD: How to get a PERMANENT water-tight seal between the mag impeller 
pump body and the threaded connectors. Most bigger March (tm) and
Teal (tm) pumps have male 1/2" NPT threaded connectors. I've tried 
teflon tape, flexible gasket compound, silicon rubber and 'Goop" (tm)
but after the first mash, the fittings loosen (I think the plastic of 
the pump body 'cold-flows' at the higher mash temps), and although an
outlet-side leak is only messy, an air leak on the inlet (suction) side
not only risks hot-side O2 but the pump can loose the prime at the worst
possible time - mid mash, as the grain bed compacts a bit under
full-flow temp ramps.
	The solution is a product I found at Parts America -formerly Western
Auto) (and maybe other auto parts stores): "Plastic Welding
System" by a company called VersaChem, part # 47809. Its a two component
mix - like an epoxy, especially formulated to join plastics, (including
reinforced plastic pump bodies) to metal. It rapidly cures to a hard
off-white inert gap-filling stuff that I can't peal off a test spot on
the pump. I note that its basic material is (poly)methylmethacrylate -
essentially the same stuff as bone cement in surgery, and plexyglas, 
so it should be chemically inert once cured.
	I realize this makes the connections to the pump permenent 
(so thread brass or SS plumbing disconnects on to the pump as I did);
permanent works for me. Hope this helps others with RIMS systems.

	Chester Waters - Omaha


Return to table of contents

---