HOMEBREW Digest #3230 Mon 24 January 2000

[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]

		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

  Decoction efficiency (RCAYOT)
  First Wort Hopping (FWH) (Marc Sedam)
  Bottling question ("Trevor Good")
  Missing, (Dave Burley)
  CO2 Bottles in Fridge (Calvin Perilloux)
  Yikes!  Son of Exploding Stout! ("Penn, John")
  The Jethro Gump Report ("Rob Moline")
  Back Issues (Nathan Kanous)
  OG Sample Chiller (Biergiek)
  yeast starter aerator ("Dana H. Edgell")
  Homebrewing (TKBFRED)
  Hot Break Clogging ("Kruska, Russ")
  RE: Zapap Bum Rap? ("Brian D.")
  "Being Frank" by Phil or Jill ("Phil & Jill Yates")
  Tropical Guiness ("A. J. deLange")
  Beer Color (SRM to RGB?) ("A. J. deLange")
  what a world what a world .../racking+kegging techniques ("Stephen Alexander")
  extraction rates (Biergiek)
  pH Temperature Reading (Biergiek)
  Cave Creek (Paul Edwards)
  Re: pumps (RobertJ)
  Pepper Beer. (TKBFRED)
  equipment (DeVeaux Gauger)
  Hot transfer and heat transfer ("Sean Richens")
  Thermowells (Some Guy)

* Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy! * Entry deadline for the Mayfare Homebrew Competition is 3/15/00 * See http://www.maltosefalcons.com/ for more information 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: 21 Jan 2000 10:21:47 -0500 From: RCAYOT at solutia.com Subject: Decoction efficiency It is a rare occasion that I would ever take exception to anything George DePiro would have to say, however regarding: "As a homebrewer I did experiments on a few occasions to determine if decoction mashing would increase efficiency. I measured the SG of the mash liquid with a hydrometer, decocted a third of the mash, cooled it down to the mash temperature, added it back, made up the volume difference and measured the SG again. My homebrew hydrometer could never register a difference. The reason that decocting didn't make a big difference is likely to be the fact that most modern malts are well modified (almost all, in fact; the Budvar stuff being the only undermodified malt that I know of). This means that the protein matrix that entraps the starch granules is already broken down for the brewer. A single temperature infusion mash will achieve almost as much saccharification as a multi-temp infusion or decoction." I nearly ALWAYS get higher extration from my decoction mashes. the reason however, is difficult to prove. I would say that George's experiment does not necessarily demonstrate anything, unless he also allowed the mash to rest at saccarification(sp?). temperatures. george does not say that he did this, and I would wonder if he did or not. Another potential problem is the denaturization of the enzymes, while he decocted it could well be that there was not enough activity left to complete the conversion. Having said that, I have also begun to wonder if the higher conversions I experience in my decoction mashes are due to the greater amount of mixing that I do when I decoct my mashes. The decoction is mixed in the decoction pot, stirred constantly when heating and while boiling, the decoction and the rest mash are mixed thoroughly when combined etc. I usually do not stir up my infusion mashes very much, strike, stir til uniform temperature, and rest! Could it be that mixing would release more starch into solution for conversion? The question becomes the difference between starch that is readily gelatinized in well modified malt, but needs to be physically worked to incorporate into the mash solution, versus unmodified starch granules that need to be boiled, and burst in order to be gelatinized. Clearly there are lab tests that are designed to show these differences off, I just don't know how well those can be applied to homebrewing. More discussion PLEASE! Roger Ayotte Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 15:16:37 -0500 From: Marc Sedam <marc_sedam at unc.edu> Subject: First Wort Hopping (FWH) I know many on the list are fans of FWH. Lately there has been some discussion of whether you leave the FWH hops in or remove them prior to the boil. Has anyone considered adding the FWH hops to the mashtun? When I made a Berliner weiss this summer the recipe called for addition of hops in the mash to aid lautering with such a high percentage of wheat. Now I imagine if you wanted to FWH in the mash that you'd have to do it with whole hops (or at least plugs) to avoid a stuck mash. Dunno. It just struck me that this might be a great way to get the FWH characteristics without more bitterness. Any thoughts? -Marc Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 14:30:19 -0600 From: "Trevor Good" <t.good at printwest.com> Subject: Bottling question I have recently finished my first lager. Is has been in the fridge for 10 weeks at 34F. I am wondering if the yeast will come back to carbonate the beer. How do I go about doing this? Thanks Trevor Good Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 15:58:41 -0500 From: Dave Burley <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com> Subject: Missing, Brewsters: Steve Owens (sorry, I try to not screw up at least your name!) asks if there is anything he is missing in his description of brewing. There are volumes missing and that's why they write those great big books. However, you have most of the ideas, except you seem to believe that enzymes only operate around 140F and 150F. Not so, don't forget the glucanases and various protein rests in the 100-135F range that may be useful in providing mouth feel. ( see my previous post). I expect a loud cry from others "But you don't need all those low temperature rests on highly modified malts." I suggest you try short rests ( 15-30 min) at 122F and 135F and see if you can tell the dfiference. "But you'll kill the head" the voices continue. I suggest you try it and find out for yourself. And mash at 158F, heat to 176F for mashout. Try it. Minor problems with your description is that malt is not boiled ( except in decoctions) and alkalinity refers to bicarbonate in water treating not pH. Keep on Brewin' Dave Burley Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 16:11:12 -0500 From: Calvin Perilloux <peril at compuserve.com> Subject: CO2 Bottles in Fridge Regarding the question about CO2 bottles in the fridge: No problem putting CO2 bottles in your fridge, as far as my experience goes. The pressure inside the bottle will be less than you'd expect at room temps, of course, but it is still far above the regulated pressure which you use for dispensing. As for the safety issue, I'd even guess you have less chance of tipping the thing over when it's safely in a closed fridge instead of outside it with gas lines to trip on. I used CO2 bottles inside my fridge in the States, when I had a big fridge for serving and didn't feel like gambling with drilling holes in the side. In other places I've lived, I've used the bottles outside the fridge, but when "outside the fridge" is a garage at +6C, it's not much different than putting the whole setup in the fridge anyway. Calvin Perilloux Staines, Middlesex, England (where garages are pretty much unaffordable, but perfect refrigeration is free and unlimited this time of year) Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 16:25:08 -0500 From: "Penn, John" <John.Penn at jhuapl.edu> Subject: Yikes! Son of Exploding Stout! This past summer I brewed an explosive (and messy) batch of imperial stout with my wife's cousin from Colorado. I named it Cousin John's (Exploding) Imperial Stout. It was amusing to my wife's cousin but not to my wife. The cleanup was quite a job. I posted that recipe on the HBD sometime this past June and was dissappointed by the results. I managed to drink all but 6 bottles which I'm saving. The beer wasn't too bad when I mixed a bottle with about 1/3 bottle of a "belgian beer" that was supposed to be a pseudo-altbier. But the basic stout tasted "off" somehow. There were four things I wanted to change or improve. 1) Avoid the mess. I did not want the batch to explode all over my basement! I made a 1.5 gallon starter (OG 1.020) of Nottingham yeast and timed it perfectly. With the warm summer temperatures and thermal runaway (i.e. the heat generated by the yeast produced even faster fermentation which led to more heat, etc.), the yeast took up the 1+ gallons of headspace in my 6.5 gallon carboy and some hop pellets must have plugged up the airlock leading to the huge mess and loss of a gallon of stout. 2) Avoid contamination. Possibly the explosion during the first 24 hours led to some kind of contamination while the beer was only about 2% abv (alcohol). Later the batch achieved 9% abv . It never seemed to get worse with age like a typical contamination but then 9% abv is not going to support too much in the way of contaminants. 3) Avoid oxidizing the beer. Even though I was aerating my large starter when I pitched the wort, I felt that since it was very low in alcohol (1.020) I would not really be aerating that much percentage wise when you looked at alcohol content and not just volumetric content. Oxidation is certainly a possibility for the "off" results. 4) Avoid a large percentage of dark malts. I had about 1/2# roasted barley and 1/2# of chocolate malt in the original recipe and wanted to cut that down to no more than 1/2# of dark malts. I think I will make this a standard in all my recipes, batches I have made with a pound or more of dark malts are just too much for my tastes (most of the time). Cousin John's Exploding Imperial Stout II (4.25 gallons as made, approximately 2.5-3 gallons in the boil) OG 1.090 estimated IBUs 55-57 estimated (Rager) FG 1.018-20 estimated ~6+oz of Roasted Barley (steeped ~150-160F) 9.5 # M&F light malt extract 1.5 # clover honey (at end of boil) ~1.6oz Cluster hops (7.1%) 45 min boil ~0.8oz Northern Brewer hops (6.5%) 45 min boil (~16.5 HBUs total bittering hops) ~0.75 oz Cascade hops (aroma, 0-1 min) 2 pkts Nottingham dry yeast (rehydrated for 15 mins) Brewed Tuesday night (1/18) and the batch went very well... tasted great at the end. Yeah, I should have pitched 3 pkts of dry yeast probably but I think 2 will be OK since its only 4.25 gallons. I had calculated 55 IBUs if I added 19 HBUs of bittering hops with malt and honey at beginning of boil or 17.5 HBus of bittering hops with the honey added at the end of the boil assuming a 50:50 concentrated boil. Since I was boiling a little more volume than originally planned, I lowered the hops to 16.5 HBUs instead of 17.5 HBUs but later calculated about 57 IBUs (pretty close). Fermentation started slowly and steadily the next day plugging along at 64F with some room left in the 5+ gallon carboy. Steady the next day too with no problem. This morning (Friday) I noticed my margin at the top of the carboy had gone away even though it was still fermenting at a relatively cool 64F (unlike the 75F+ the past summer). No hop pellets were evident near the airlock but some foam was bubbling through the airlock. To prevent another devastating explosion, I used a blowoff tube which really shouldn't change my bitterness because of the headspace in the carboy and the fact that hops will not be "blown off" as in a typical use of the blowoff method where you fill the carboy nearly full. I never liked suffering the signficant loss of beer with "blow off", and as Al K pointed out you are only changing the bitterness by 17% or so using blowoff. So 1) I appear to be avoiding the dreaded explosive fermentation and possible contamination from fragments dislodged from the ceiling. 2) I used dry yeast to avoid any possibility of over aerating my "starter" which was quite large last time. 3) I used a lot less dark malts, a mere 6+ oz of roasted barley (~7.3 oz scaled to a 5 gallon batch). I'll let you know how it turns out but I think this time it will be a keeper. John Penn Eldersburg, MD Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 15:33:24 -0600 From: "Rob Moline" <brewer at isunet.net> Subject: The Jethro Gump Report Wall Street Journal But on a bright note, it is great to see a local brewery get some national attention...The only thing that would make it better was if they interviewed Paul Kreutzfeldt, the brewer! "The Homestretch....In other campaign developments...... LESS FILLING: He may not drink anymore, but Mr. Bush is the favorite candidate of patrons of the Rock Bottom Brewery in West Des Moines. Those who order a pint of the pub's Caucus Ale earn a bottle cap to put in a jar labeled with their favorite candidate's name. Mr. Gore is a distant second in the decidedly unofficial contest, and Messrs. McCain and Bradley are tied just ahead of a jar labeled "Don't Care," bar manager Steve Forster said." Wall Street Journal, 1.21.00, page A20.. Lallemand Scholarship.... I know that some of you reading this Digest may be concerned with the status of the Lallemand Scholarship following the painful announcement of Siebel's closure, as I know I have personnally signed up a few of you as members of the AHA, in order that you might be able to take advantage of it. For those of you as yet unaware of the Scholarship, this offer was put together as a membership booster for the AHA, in my dual capacities as an AHA Board of Advisor's member, and a Internet Yeast Consultant for Lallemand. The Scholarship, open to all members of the AHA, would be awarded by Lallemand to a member drawn at random from a collection of entries at the next National Homebrew Convention in Detroit in June. It would mimic the Siebel Scholarship, in that it would provide full tuition to a Short Course, as well as a thousand dollars to aid in travel and housing costs. With Mr. Siebel's recent announcement, questions regarding the effort have been popping up, but there is really no plan to discard the proposal. Firstly, I am praying to the Gods of Brewing that the effort to restructure Siebel into a Not For Profit will bear fruit, which means that the original plan will be honored. Should that prove not to be the case, however, Lallemand intends to supply the winner with a yet to be determined option, which may or may not include the University of California's Davis school, the American Brewer's Guild programmes, of perhaps even a brewing adventure to the United Kingdom or Europe. More details on the Scholarship can be accessed through the AOB/AHA's webpage. Currently, less than 200 AHA members have entered the drawing, so for a 33$ AHA membership, one has some pretty decent odds at acquiring $ 3500 worth of brewing knowledge! Cheers! Rob Moline Lallemand AHA/BoA brewer at isunet.net P.S. A new brewster was delivered to Brewery Gump on 1.18.00...Katherine Elizabeth.....I think she'll make a great addition to the brewery team! "The More I Know About Beer, The More I Realize I Need To Know More About Beer!" Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 15:39:17 -0600 From: Nathan Kanous <nlkanous at pharmacy.wisc.edu> Subject: Back Issues Any recent knowledge of back issues of Brewing Techniques? I ordered a back issue a hell of a long time ago and still haven't heard anything. Phone numbers don't work. Maybe someone that is responsible reads this...maybe not. (yes, I know BT is out of publication...that's what prompted me to order...before they ran out). nathan in madison, wi Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 18:47:33 EST From: Biergiek at aol.com Subject: OG Sample Chiller I was inspired by Jeremy's gadget that chills wort samples for OG testing, so I decided to build one myself. I am calling this the EZTESTER (tm): http://members.aol.com/biergiek/ogchill.jpg What I think I'll do is set up a website and start selling it for $1.99, and charge $25 for handling so I can make my margin on the world's greatest OG chiller. Shipping is extra, of course. This baby is going to send the refractometer to the museum. Kyle Bakersfield, CA Chairman - Committee to Elect Alan Meeker as HBD Resident Chemist Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 15:59:15 -0700 From: "Dana H. Edgell" <EdgeAle at cs.com> Subject: yeast starter aerator HBD, I would like to use an aquarium pump to continuously aerate a yeast starter and would appreciate some advice from others who have done so. 1) Is foaming a problem? If so have you found any simple solutions such as: use a larger jug; put the aerator on an intermittant timer; use a large hole diffuser(or none);,etc. 2) If anti-foaming agents are necessary, what effect will they have on the beer's heading ability? 3) Has anyone advice on using the bubbles to maximize the turbulence in the jug to keep the yeast in suspension? Has anyone tried an upside down starter jug (ala fermentap) so that the bubbles are launched from the bottom of the "cone" geometry to keep things stirred up? 4) I plan on using a sterile filter on the air (William's brewing has a relatively cheap one). Does anyone have any advice on a good cheap prefilter to catch the larger gunk and increase the life of the sterile filter? 5) Any thoughts on using a coffee-mug warmer to keep the yeast temperature up. Chris White of White Labs told at the last QUAFF meeting that all yeast like 90F (although some lager yeast can get cranky at temps just over that i.e.92F). Thanks, Dana - -------------------------------------------------------------- Dana Edgell mailto:EdgeAle at cs.com Edge Ale Brewery http://ourworld.cs.com/EdgeAle San Diego Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 21:02:05 EST From: TKBFRED at aol.com Subject: Homebrewing Thought some might find this interesting...I have dealt with the same equivalence in intelligence matter explaining homebrewing to people....like the guy who "brewed" the can of malt, but never opened the can and called to ask what he needed to do to get the beer out of the unopened malt can now that it had boiled for 20 minutes...yes my Friends, they ARE everywhere. Fred M. Scheer Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 22:07:30 -0800 From: "Kruska, Russ" <R.KRUSKA at CGIAR.ORG> Subject: Hot Break Clogging Since there's been some recent threads about hot break, I thought I'd post a quick question about it. I recently have been brewing 5 gallon all-grain batches and boiling in my 12 gallon brewpot. The extra space in the kettle has for the first time allowed me to crank up my cajun cooker full blast. Fantastic hot break!! The problem is that the extra break now clogs up my Surescreen and wort chilling through my cf chiller takes ages!! I always use an ounce or 2 of whole hops to help the Surescreen from clogging (along with hop pellets). The last batch I got impatient and hooked up the chiller to a copper cane with chore boy attached at inlet and even this clogged up. Any suggestions out there? Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 23:16:38 -0800 From: "Brian D." <briandixon at home.com> Subject: RE: Zapap Bum Rap? >From: "Paul Campbell" <p.r.campbell at tesco.net> >Subject: RE: Zapap Bum Rap? > >Not diminishing Al in any way but, when the ""experiment" was carrried out; >what was Al's own preferred method? I've found improvements over time when >I've worked with different setups, albeit basic differences (so I thought). > >Al? Anyone? I just took another look at the article and see that Al didn't voice any recommendation for any one system. He states that you can get 30+ pts/lb/gal from any of them and that the difference in yield among them was most likely due to measurement error. He did say that it was difficult (slow) sparging from the grain-bag lautering system. He also recommended a number of things to improve your mash/lauter efficiency, the most important of which was a good crush. Almost in the same breath he adds that he recommends an insulated lauter tun (didn't say of which design.) >My personal experience with regard to variation would agree with Fred's >conclusion. Perhaps a danger in brewing is to set oneself back (in terms of >supposed efficiency) by tampering too much in the name of 'progress'? Especially after re-reading the article and re-thinking about it all, I think I agree too. I also agree with Al's conclusion about measurement error ... 3 or 4 pts is nothing ... Until I very carefully calibrated my water measurement tools, weight scales, pots and dipsticks, my measurements and calculations were WAY off and there was no easy way to tell (except for puzzlingly high efficiencies, unusually large 'drops' in gravity after racking into the fermenter etc.) Everything adds up and agrees with all my predictions and calculations now! ALSO: Thanks for the info on the Listerman -vs- Phil's naming on the Phalse Bottom. I've got the whole relationship and history straight now! Brian Dixon Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 22:04:27 +1100 From: "Phil & Jill Yates" <yates at acenet.com.au> Subject: "Being Frank" by Phil or Jill Karl makes the following comment >p.s. Yes, Phil gave me permission to use this photo But Karl To be frank, this really is a flattering photo. But I am not being frank tonight. Not even going to put on my latest dress and be Jill. Ever since I cottoned on to the fact that Doc Pivo was writing half the Dave Burley posts during the heady days of personal fights on the HBD, I realised there was little future in being someone else. Just as well for us all that Doc Pivo had his medication readjusted and these days from his hospital bed he gives us little trouble. I must admit though that I am a bit sheepish about having my photo presented to all on the HBD (lucky though that I had taken off my leather apron and rubber boots - Kyle would have flipped his lid, and likely ended up in the bed next to Doc Pivo!). But being sheepish about things is not going to help me much either. This is only going to further convince Jeff Renner that I really do "get amongst the sheep" over here. As for your suggestion that I make the world's best beer, well there simply can be no argument on that. Burradoo is just awakening to the smell of hops and malt wafting through the country air, and the first samplings have been conducted with great success. As far as I am concerned, every homebrewer makes the world's best beer. Cheers Phil Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 12:29:25 +0000 From: "A. J. deLange" <ajdel at mindspring.com> Subject: Tropical Guiness WRT tropical Guiness: I have just tasted this for the first time and find it amazing stuff. The sample I tasted was produced by Mauritius Brewing Company which is located, as you might have guessed, on the island of Mauritius (Ile Maurice) in the Indian Ocean off the east coast of Madagascar. They brew this under license from Guiness. I was prepared for a surprise and I certainly got one. The beer is really a stout: 7.5ABV with a strongly malty nose through which the burnt smell of the black malts is still plainly discernible. The taste is quite different from the traditional Guiness (which isn't very stout at all) - there is none of the tangy sourness and the beer definitely tastes malty but you can also taste the cane sugar/molasses components clearly. Sugar is an obvious adjunct in all Mauritius Brewing products as you might expect on an island where sugar cane is a major cash crop. This beer tastes strongly alcoholic, more so than you might expect for a 7.5% beer - it just comes right on through. Despite obviously high OE the beer is fairly thin in mouthful and quite dry in which regard it does resemble the Guiness we are used to to some extent. Has a faint hint of licorish. The other beers from this brewery: Phoenix - a 5% ABV tropical Pils: reminiscent of CUB's Crown Lager i.e. very smooth and one can readily taste the sugar. No hops nose, just a hint of malt. Hopping barely above threshold (17 - 18 BU?). Slightly acidic as most tropical beers seem to be. Must have something to do with sucrose. Refreshing warm weather beer. Blue Marlin - a 6% ABV version of Phoenix. My guess is a little more malt and a little more sugar. It's slightly darker. Super 8 - the macho man's drink and one of the most interesting beers I've ever downed. As the name suggests its 8% and its obviously largely done with sugar. This stuff smells more like some of my meads than beer i.e. there is no malt or hops at all in the nose. It is lighter in color than Blue marlin and not sweet but the mouth feel is substantial. The taste is similarly un-beer-like though it is quite strongly flavored with flavors I can't describe. A final note on Mauritius Brewing: I didn't get into the plant but drove by it every day. Fermentation is done in jacketed cylindroconicals located outside in the sunshine! Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 12:33:19 +0000 From: "A. J. deLange" <ajdel at mindspring.com> Subject: Beer Color (SRM to RGB?) Greg asks "Does anyone know of a way to correlate SRM ratings with these six parameters?" Yes, I do but it isn't something the average home brewer can play with because a spectrophotometer is required. It takes 3 parameters to specify a color (R,G, B or H,S,L - not both) and I have measured R,G,B for several beers. I passed this data to a correspondent with a similar question to Greg's and he put together a set of color patches from the data I sent by coding them into a spreadsheet as Greg suggests doing. The results don't look much like beer and I'll get into why later. Greg: send me e-mail in Feb. when I'll be back in the States and I'll send you a copy of these color patches - its on a machine there. To get three numbers requires that the entire absorption spectrum of beer be measured whereas SRM is determined by only one measurement at a particular wavelength. A brief history of determination of beer color: It had always been determined by visual comparison of beer samples to colored standards. Iodine solutions of calibrated strengths were used as were stained glass samples (the Lovibond series), other solutions, etc. Visual comparison is fraught with problems such as variations in operators' visual abilities (color blindness being an extreme example), the quality of the light used to make the comparison (see, for example, DeClerk on this subject) and the variation inherent in subjective judgments of any kind (think about beer judging). After W.W.II affordable (to a large brewery's laboratory - not to home brewers) spectrophotometers began to become available and an ASBC committee began to look at instrumental methods. In 1950 they adopted the definition: "Beer color intensity on a sample free of turbidity and having the spectral characteristics of an average beer is 10 times absorbance of the beer measured in a 1/2-in. cell with monochromatic light of wavelength 430 nm." and this definition is in use to this day. The average spectral characteristics were based on 34 American and Canadian beers the darkest of which measured 5.97 on the newly proposed SRM scale! Determination that the beer has "average" spectral characteristics is done by measuring the absorption at 700 nm (at the red end of the spectrum - 430 is at the blue end). If the 700 nm absorption is more than 0.039 times the 430 nm absorption the beer is not average and technically the SRM definition does not apply. Note: most of my beers are not average (in the color sense I mean but, naturally, I hope at least some of them are above average in the broader sense as well). Based on the foregoing you can get into all kinds of discussions as to whether SRM has any validity as a color specification parameter for beers above 6 SRM (note: the EBC has a very similar scheme) which don't pass the "averageness" test. Nevertheless SRM is used widely. There is some justification for this in that SRM correlates quite well (but not perfectly) with Luminance, one of the parameters which your computer lets you specify. Luminance conveys how light or dark something seems. A black and white TV extracts the luminance of a scene and transmits only that. Luminance depends on the entire visible spectrum of the beer and SRM on only one wavelength so where the absorption spectrum of the beer deviates from "average" SRM falls down. For example: Wild Goose Golden Ale has (had) a luminance in a 5 cm path (we'll get back to that in a minute) of 29.3 and Red Hook IPA 36.2 i.e. Red Hook appears brighter. Yet Red Hook is 9.46 SRM while Wild Goose's SRM value is 9.08 from which you'd expect Red Hook to look darker. Note that both these beers pass the "average" test nevertheless their spectral shapes differ enough to bring about this phenomenon. I'm on a personal crusade to replace SRM with luminance which position has garnered me objections, nay, violent objections from some previous contributors to this forum. Nonetheless the idea is so obviously a good one that the professionals are looking into it at least in Europe. One measures the absorption spectrum using the same instrument and cuvets as are used for SRM and does some simple (spreadsheet level) math on it to come up with three numbers Y, x and y. Y is the luminance. x and y are "chroma" values from which R,G and B or Saturation and Hue i.e. color as opposed to brightness can be determined. Note that your computer ultimately works in RGB as your screen has red, green and blue dots on it. The point is that inter conversion between RGB, HLS,CMYK,XYZ,Yxy etc. is a trivial mathematical transformation for the machine. One of the nicest things about these "tristimulus" systems is that there is already a standard, ASTM Std E 308 - 96, which prescribes how to do the calculations from the spectrophotometer data One of the most interesting things about beer colors is that they are very restricted following a surprisingly narrow gausian shaped path from the white point to tangency with the line of pure spectral colors in chroma (x,y) space. Ultimately, beer is red - pure red. Shine a light through a Guiness and what do you see? The darker a beer is, the redder it is and the longer the path through which you observe it, the darker and redder it will be. This is a function of the shape of the absorption spectrum of beer: it is transparent to red light, absorbs green more strongly and blue most strongly. Thus the color of beer depends on the width of the glass you pour it into. Look at a Pils in a Pilsner glass. It not only looks darker at the top but redder. Shine a light through a carboy full of your palest beer. It will look redish.This relates to the original question. Before we can specify hue and saturation (i.e. color) values for a beer, we must define the path through which it is being observed. The Davison Color Guide with which you may be familiar assumes 5 cm based on the fact that that's the diameter of the cups we use in competitions. Finally, our impression of the color of an object depends on things besides Y,x and y such as the size of the field being viewed (ASTM E308 deals with 2 degree and 5 degree visual fields), highlights, surface texture and the colors and textures that surround it. Thus a color splotch as seen on your CRT and especially as printed on a piece of paper will not look much like a photograph of glass of beer even though technically it has the same color as described by the CIE system (which is the system upon which color TV, computer monitors etc. work). Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 07:40:36 -0500 From: "Stephen Alexander" <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net> Subject: what a world what a world .../racking+kegging techniques (hope this is more brew-relevant than handling fees) Re brewing chem texts - a few days ago I posted the somewhat cryptic note: >I discussed this issue in some depth a couple years back >as I'm sure Alan Meeker remembers ;^). [Older but no >wiser Alan ?] What did it mean ? Alan Meeker posted a reply with regard to brew chem books in which he opined that one book contained some errors and was inferior to another book by the same author - tho' it too contained material that Alan found inappropriate or not understandable. I have become aware that Alan has received a stern rebuke from the author which contained apparent mischaraterizations of the post and of others by Alan. This is almost an exact reiteration of what happened to both Alan and I when last this book was discussed on HBD (and clearly to others in the past). Personally I refuse to believe that the author in question could be so petty or vain as to regard all negative opinion as insults and assaults as it would appear. I also don't think that anyone so involved in brewing science could be so biased as to create the gross mischaracterization that were presented. I can only assume that some reader of HBD is forwarding a slanted transcript of what is posted to the author in question and inciting this sort of response which serves only to annoy and confuse all parties involved. One of the most annoying nasty and despicable (and thankfully rare) aspects of posting to this forum is to be purposely misquoted. So to the author's source - would you please forward a complete and accurate copy of the posts involved to him so such misunderstanding cannot begin. To the author - I think you very much misunderstand the point of an open forum discussion to respond privately but not publicly. Open discussion of issues in contention can lead to an explication of the points involved and certainly a better understanding by all - very useful even when there is no consensus. Responding privately rather than to the forum when the topic is relevant.to brewing is a disservice and degrades the value of this forum for all. I'm sure we'd all like to understand why and in what respects you think your work has been unfairly reviewed. Why not post ? That it takes too much time or that HBD is too contentious can hardly be argued after the emails I've received from you.. - -- kegging: Blowing fluid out of a sanke w/CO2 before refilling it is a good idea for minimizing O2 contact (which has been presented here before I'm sure) *but* it is not possible to remove every bit of fluid. Several ounces remain, so using sanitizer as the fluid is a bad choice. No-rinse sanitizers are meant to be given opportunity to dry and can carry some rather bad flavors if not exposed to air (see the archives for further detail). It's oxidation flavors vs sanitizer flavors - not a good choice. -S Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 08:50:34 EST From: Biergiek at aol.com Subject: extraction rates >Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 23:21:22 EST >From: WayneM38 at aol.com >Subject: AKA Burst Sparging >I can bump up my system efficiency, as measured by Promash >up to 92% I am just curious what you mean by 92% efficiency. Do you mean 92% of the theoretical extraction? If the theoretical (lab conditions) extraction is 37 points/pound/gallon, are you then getting 92% of this? Or do you mean you are getting 92% of an expected extraction rate, something like 92% of 30 pts/lb/gal? Many folks are claiming 90%+ extraction rates and I always wonder what they mean when they mention this. Kyle Bakersfield, CA Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 09:31:13 EST From: Biergiek at aol.com Subject: pH Temperature Reading HBD - I am confused as to which temperature is used when pH requirements are listed for brewing. For example, many claim that the optimal mash pH for amylase activity is 5.5. Is this pH 5.5 when measured at some standard temperature like 60F or 68F? Or is this the pH at the actual mashing temperatures? If it is the latter, then you would need to adjust the mash pH to read 5.7 - 5.8 at 60F-68F, since the pH decreases 0.2 - 0.3 with temperature. So which is it? Do I adjust my pH at some standard temperature, or do I have to adjust the reading at the standard temperature to reflect the pH decrease during mashing/boiling? Maybe the infamous HBD lurker GEORGE FIX could step in here and set us all straight on this issue... (all caps so that the GF-HBD gestapo will be able to detect any intended/unintended dissing for their report to George). Kyle Bakersfield, CA Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 09:37:39 -0500 From: Paul Edwards <pedwards at iquest.net> Subject: Cave Creek Rod wrote (in part): "Don't believe it is brewed anymore. If it is, it isn't widely marketed. It was Cave Creek Chili Beer. Jim Cave was the brewer. It was brewed in Arizona somewhere. It didn't have a Jalapeno but it did have a chili pepper. The specific type I don't remember." <snip> While Cave Creek Chili beer may have been originally brewed in small quantities in Arizona, for much of it's life it was brewed under contract in Evansville, Indiana. Empty bottles in cases were shipped to northern Indiana where the Seranno peppers were grown and harvested. Then the farm workers stuffed peppers into the bottles, which were then shipped back to Evansville for filling and pasteurization. My source for the above is the father of a friend of mine who was a plant engineer at the brewery, which has now closed. Haven't seen Cave Creek around here for several years. but it used to be widely available, even in grocery stores. I never much cared for it, tho. My vote for a great chili beer (although only available at the source) is Sigda's Green Chili Beer at Coopersmith's in Ft. Collins, CO - --Paul Edwards just a tad south of Jeff Renner, in Boad Ripple, Indiana Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 09:43:41 -0500 From: RobertJ <pbsys at pbsbeer.com> Subject: Re: pumps Ray Kruse <rkruse at krusecontrols.com> wrote I'm searching for a 120 V self-priming pump capable of handling boiling wort temperatures. It will probably pump finished beer as well. Anyone have one that they're particularly please with? If so, where did it come from? _____ Most homebrewers use magnetic drive pumps. They are; priced reasonably, can stand 250F and are sealed and won't introduce grease or oil into your wort. However, I am not aware of any that are self priming. If you monunt it below your vessel that would not be an issue. Connections are either pipe thread or hose connections and are not sanitary. for this reason I would not use to pump finished beer, unless you disconnect and sanitize. For sanitary use a tubing pump will work well but is more expensive and has less capacity. Bob Precision Brewing Systems URL http://pbsbeer.com Manufacturer of 3 Vessel Brew Systems, HERMS(tm), SS Brew Kettles, SS hopback and the MAXIchiller Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 11:16:42 EST From: TKBFRED at aol.com Subject: Pepper Beer. In response to Brett's posting about the Chili Beer (brrrrr), I know that the old Evansville Brewing Company in IN(was run into ground by two very intelligent people), which closed the doors two years ago, was brewing and packaging a LARGE amount of this beer. As much as I know, the original Brewer who brewed that Beer, was Erich Schalk. Nobody knows what happened to him (maybe the Chili got to him) where he is etc. I know that the Chili beers are a great success in Japan. Brett wrote: >>according to Ed). Virtually all of the production is contract brewed in IN and WS Did you know who he ment with Brewing his Beer in IN? Thanks, and happy Brewing Fred M. Scheer <A HREF="http://hometown.aol.com/tkbfred/myhomepage.html">http://hometown.aol.com /tkbfred/myhomepage.html</A> Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 12:47:27 -0500 From: DeVeaux Gauger <dvx at mich.com> Subject: equipment Hello! I am in the process of expanding/upgrading by brewing equipment. I have brewed from extracts for 4 years in my kitchen and I'm ready to convert a section of my basement for brewing only and make the jump to all-grain. My first objective is to set up everything and be able to brew extract in the basement. I am looking for advice on equipment and hoping someone might be selling some used equipment. At this time, I just want to set up a ventilation hood, sink, burner and a 10-15 gallon brew pot with the ability to add-on for all grain in the near future. Is there any place that I can find postings for used brew equipment and used restaurant equipment for the sink and ventilator? The final question is about water. I would like to install some kind of filtration system to pull out the chlorine. A reverse osmosis system pulls everything out, including minerals. Is it better to start with water from a r/o system and add minerals or just get something to extract the chlorine and other chemicals? I'd appreciate any advice on this anyone has time to give. THANKS! Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 11:41:38 -0600 From: "Sean Richens" <srichens at sprint.ca> Subject: Hot transfer and heat transfer Ray Kruse is looking for a self-priming pump for hot wort. To avoid expensive disappointment, the system needs some thought. Self-priming pumps (or pumps not requiring priming, which is a bit different) are usually used when you mount the pump above the source. You can't do that with a boiling or near-boiling liquid because the reduced pressure just causes the liquid to boil and fill the suction line with vapour. You can even see this when sampling boiling wort with a turkey baster. It's not a matter of the pump - it just doesn't work. If I have assumed too much about your system, Ray, sorry. I'm probably being over-semantic, but "self-priming" centrifugal pumps actually need to be primed once. They just have a reservoir to hold some priming liquid. For brewing you would want to clean it out each time, so you would leave some iodophor in the pump at the end of a session, and rinse it out with water before starting the next one. I think what Ray wants is something like a rotary-vane pump which is tight enough to suck liquid up the inlet. Diaphragm pumps are also pretty decent, especially the ones that run on compressed air. We use Sandpipers where I work (no affiliation etc.) and they're almost bullet-proof, but cost many $$$$$$. As for Brian's question about thermowells, they're a pretty good idea. In industrial practice they're thoroughly engineered for good heat transfer, either by being spring-loaded, pressing the element against the end of the well, or by use of a heat transfer putty between the element and the wall. Makeshift measures like filling the space with oil give an accurate reading but with a greater lag as you now have to heat up the liquid as well. If you can get a well designed to go with your thermometer you could get it welded in. Sean Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 14:26:53 -0500 (EST) From: Some Guy <pbabcock at hbd.org> Subject: Thermowells Greetings, Beerlings! Take me to your lager... Brian asks of thermometer wells. When designing the Cajun Rims System, I bought some thin brass tubing into which my bimetal thermometer's probe JUST fit. A good interference fit is what you're after to ensure good mechanical connection between the well and the thermometer. For the RIMS, I drilled a hole in a 1/2" copper pipe cap, punched it to "cave in" the surface a bit, providing a conical surface immediately around the hole. I then flared the end of the tube and put it through the cap and soldered the flare to the cap's surface. Then I rolled the end of the tube, crimped the hell out of it and soldered it shut (MAPP gas torch is better than propane when soldering brass. Hotter.) The cap assembly was then soldered onto a piece of 1/2" pipe and the resulting assembly was soldered into a tee on the RIMS chamber outflow. If using compression fittings, you could probably use a similar approach (ie, flare and crimp a tube, put it through the fitting, then tighten the compression nut over it.) Be advised, too, that not all thermometer probes are created equal - I have some that will not fit into the well... Hope that helps ya! - 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
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 01/24/00, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96