---

	FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
		Digest Janitor: janitor@hbd.org


***************************************************************
       THIS YEAR'S HOME BREW DIGEST BROUGHT TO YOU BY: 

          Northern  Brewer, Ltd. Home Brew Supplies
        http://www.northernbrewer.com  1-800-681-2739

    Support those who support you! Visit our sponsor's site!
********** Also visit http://hbd.org/hbdsponsors.html *********


Contents:
  Yeast Starter (Hop_Head)
  Re: Two Thingies (puff)
  Yet more on the CAP experiment (Petr Otahal)
  Pressure Fermenting ("Keith Menefy")
  re: H:W Cap 'experiment' ("Stephen Alexander")
  URL For Basco ("MrWES")
  Re: CAP experiment -- controlling variables / Competition (Jeff Renner)
  Iodine concentration ("Neil K")
  New Bern, NC. Beer places? ("H. Dowda")
  resources needed for Dream Brewery (RoyRudy)
  Re: CAP experiment -- controlling variables / Competition ("RJ")
  Mash runoff clarity (Brian Lundeen)
  CAP Experiment (AJ)
  force cooling of wort ("Tammy Duriavich")
  Rims pump question ("Doug Craftchick")
  Oops... (Pat Babcock)


* 
* 2001 AHA NHC - 2001: A Beer Odyssey, Los Angeles, CA
* June 20th-23rd See http://www.beerodyssey.com for more 
* information. Wear an HBD ID Badge to wear to the gig!
* http://hbd.org/cgi-bin/shopping
* 
* 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.

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



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


Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 01:11:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: Hop_Head at webtv.net
Subject: Yeast Starter

I made a yeast starter with Wyeast Oktoberfest dated 3-9-01 (I forget
the number right now) on Friday night. Well here it is Sunday night and
only the slightest activity has started. Should I let this yeast work
its way up? If I do, will it be OK to use? Or should I trash it and find
something new? I was planning to brew 10 gallons of Bock on Friday and
wanted a large starter. 
Hoppy Brewing
Jim



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 28 May 101 01:07:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: puff at guild.net
Subject: Re: Two Thingies


Cas Koralewski <caskor at buckeye-express.com> writes:
> Thingie 1) Are there any recipes out there for a triple bock?
> 
> Thingie 2) I've been brewing for seven years now and am ready to take the 
> major leap (as long as "mom" ok's it).I am interested in constructing my 
> own two or three tier brewing system. Are there any DYI plans floating out 
> there that I can "tap" into?

     I posted a bunch of similar questions a couple years ago.  The resulting
flood of useful information I put up at:

     http://www.darksleep.com/puff/writings/beer/scalingup_summary.html

     I never did get to the point of producing a boiled down,
FAQ-style guide to the topic.  One of these days...  On the bright
side, I am at least brewing once again (albeit not in my wreck of a
home ; someday the renovatios will be done...)

Steven J. Owens
puff at guild.net



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 16:46:09 +1000
From: Petr Otahal <potahal at utas.edu.au>
Subject: Yet more on the CAP experiment

Hi everyone,

Seeing as every man and his dog has decided to give their advice on the CAP
experiment I thought Id give mine.

The first and most important thing is the question.
Is there a difference between beer fermented in a tall, narrow container
and one fermented in a short, squat container?

Notice the word DIFFERENCE folks, this is where the key lies.
It is not necessary to duplicate every batch to be brewed, but it is
necessary to start with enough PITCHED (and thoroughly mixed) wort BEFORE
transferring to the two separate containers.  

In other words each brewer brews say 8 gal. of wort, aerates and pitches
the yeast, thoroughly mixes and transfers 4 gal. of wort into each 5 gal.
container, this ensures that both containers start under the same
conditions.  Both containers will need to be put into the same temperature
controlled environment and fermented for the same length of time.  This
obviously requires that the brewer has a suitable 9 gallon container to
hold the wort prior to splitting it.

The starting wort may vary from brewer to brewer depending on the process,
water, and even yeast type and pitching rate, BUT as long as we are only
focused on the DIFFERENCE between the two beers brewed by each brewer,
these process, water and yeast variations are not important.  We are
focused on whether the difference in FG between the tall narrow
fermentation and the short squat fermentation is different from zero.

Its when you start comparing beers between brewers that the variations
become important, and obviously if the difference between the two beers
brewed by each brewer is not the soul aim of the experiment then more
attention needs to be paid to keeping the differences between brewers as
small as possible (a hard thing to do IMO).

Obviously it makes more sense to all brew the same beer so that SOME
comparison can be made between brewers, but it might be interesting to
choose a few different yeast strains just in case the one you choose is
less affected by fermenter geometry than others.  As long as the
differences between brewers are well documented there are statistical
techniques that can examine the differences in process and decide which are
important in determining the FG or the difference in FG.

There you go, more food for thought, I hope that makes sense to someone.

Cheers
Pete





Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 19:08:49 +1200
From: "Keith Menefy" <kmenefy at ihug.co.nz>
Subject: Pressure Fermenting 

I seem to remember reading somewhere that pressure fermenting helped improve
lagers. (Can't find where I read it). Just changed my system to be able to
do this. I am using a blow off tube into 18 inches of water. Thought that
would increase the pressure quite a bit but on looking it up find that it is
around half a pound/sq.in. Hardly seems worth the trouble.

1. Does anyone know if pressure fermenting really works?
2. What sort of pressure is required?
3. Is there a easier way to get an increase in pressure in the fermentor?

Cheers
Keith
New Zealand





Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 06:00:13 -0400
From: "Stephen Alexander" <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net>
Subject: re: H:W Cap 'experiment'

Been on the road (way too much) recently and I've come back to find Pat
Babcock writes ...

>Of course anyone whom Steve "nominated" is welcome to join the
>experiment; however, there will be no voting one way or the other. We,
>those participating and designing this experiment will gratefully

I've asked Pat to add me to the list, but it is far from clear what
"experiment" I'm signing up for, who's designing it, or much of anything
else.  AJ deLange and several others have asked what the hypothesis under
test is and I can't honestly say I understand either, tho' I am apparently a
proponent of one side or the other.  Since you proposed the test Pat I think
you must state what you want to  test.

>For those who do not wish to be involved, the cap_exp discussion list is
>publicly archived every evening. Send "index" to cap_exp-request@hbd.org
>to see what's there.

Returns nada.

====

I do have some thoughts about what sort of hypothesis should be tested.

The two recent points of contention are 1/ I dispute that H:W ratio (aspect
ratio) of a fermenter is a critical factor of fermentation performance   2/
several months Mr.Fix posted that cornie kegs were particularly poor
fermenters because of their aspect ratio and I noted that I had performed a
few cornie ferments without the sort of poor  performance Mr.Fix attributes
to this type fermenter.

Point 1/ (stated as a 2.5:1 H:W causes poor fermentations) is a very general
statement that would require a vast number of well controlled ferments to
support, (tho' only counter-examples to refute).  It is extremely unlikely
that a loosely organized and (of necessity) poorly controlled set of HB
experiments can do anything to support the causal relationship.  We simply
aren't equipped to control all of the other likely factors.

Point 2/ is much smaller issue, more amenable to a HB test IMO.  If cornies
are "bad" because of their H:W, then it would be relatively easy for HBers
to split batches so as to create several cornies filled to various H:W
ratios from a reputedly optimal 1:1  to 2.5:1.    Using identical cornies
filled to various levels removes a great number of confounding variables -
tho' certainly not all.  Some of the small cornies appear to be just short
versions of the tall ones and may reduce the potential 'headspace' effects.
Testing point 2/ would indicate whether <H:W -OR- other variables related to
fill level> was the critical factor in a cornie ferment.

Mr.Fix sited a number of fermentation performance problems with high H:W
cornie keg fermenters.  Very high diacetyl levels (350ppb), extremely long
fermentation time (twice as a long as a control 22-24 days), and high FG (2P
above a control).    Given this, a reasonable hypothesis might be that
cornie keg filled to a 2.5:1 aspect ratio will demonstrate measurably poorer
fermentation than a cornie filled to a 1:1 aspect ratio, where performance
is based on some measure of FG, fermentation time and/or final diacetyl
level.  Obviously the details of the exact ratios/fill levels and the method
of fermentation measure must be hashed out.

==

The introduction of other fermenters (CCs, Carboys anything else) probably
can't add much unless the supposedly critical variable of H:W is varied
(anyone have two CCs for a control & test ?).  No one as far as I know has
disputed that CCs are fine fermenters so I don't understand the importance
placed on these in this test.

I am also concerned that this "experiment" has put the cart before the horse
by deciding on 'method' before 'hypothesis' and 'experimental design'.   I
see absolutely no reason why all grain CAP is a requirement, yet is a style
that will certainly limit the number of participants to those of us who can
handle lagering.  Why not expand this to additionally include an ale and/or
extract recipe as well - or any split batch.  There is nothing in the points
of contention or hypothesis that requires either CAP or a lager yeast, and
the added data across this variable may prove informative.

I again appeal to Pat to put someone with the credentials and stature of an
A.J.deLange (and I'm certainly willing to accept other names) in charge of
the experimental design process.  No proper experiment can come from a
committee of individual who largely do not understand experimental design or
physical sciences.  That has already been demonstrated here.  If the design
is by consensus, and the method is chosen before the hypothesis,  then we
may as well take a vote as to the conclusion and avoid the effort.

 -Steve




Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 07:01:04 -0500
From: "MrWES" <mrwes at worldnet.att.net>
Subject: URL For Basco

The correct URL is http://www.bascousa.com


Bill




Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 09:14:30 -0400
From: Jeff Renner <JeffRenner at mediaone.net>
Subject: Re: CAP experiment -- controlling variables / Competition

"Houseman, David L" <David.Houseman at unisys.com> clarified his idea:

>BTW, when I suggested that Jeff and crew judge these beers, I wasn't
>suggesting that they just be tasted, but rather that we hold a sanctioned
>competition for the single style. <snip> If Jeff can hold such a sanctioned
>competition, great.  If not, I'll volunteer to organize one, perhaps early
>Fall.

This is a great idea, and I am polling AABG members to see if I can 
get some experienced help in doing this, probably in September. 
Thanks, Dave, for the suggestion.  I'll keep the HBD up to date on 
this.

Jeff
- -- 
***Please note new address*** (old one will still work)
Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan USA, JeffRenner at mediaone.net
"One never knows, do one?"  Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 09:49:55 -0400
From: "Neil K" <neilk27 at hotmail.com>
Subject: Iodine concentration

I thought this would be simple--go to the drugstore to buy some tincture of 
iodine to use for a starch conversion test (my first all-grain batch!) The 
drugstore, however, sells two strengths--a 2.5 % and 5% concentration. 
There's not a huge price difference but I didn't know which one to get. I 
hope this won't stir up a week's worth of debate here but is there a simple 
answer? Private e-mails are fine.


Thanks as always!

Neil K


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 07:17:24 -0700 (PDT)
From: "H. Dowda" <hdowda at yahoo.com>
Subject: New Bern, NC. Beer places?

Find myself in New Bern (on N.C. coast) trapping some
mosquitos. Is there a place to drink beer.  Is there a
brewpub worth a visit near by.  Oh, yes, before there
are 40gazillion e-mails impuning my intelligence to
the third and fourth generation, I have been to
Pubcrawler (which is usually without current reviews,
it seems, pity we don't visit and insert reviews so
the otherwise excellent site will be up to date).

Private e-mail fine.  TIA





Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 07:44:18 -0700
From: RoyRudy <royrudy at nvbell.net>
Subject: resources needed for Dream Brewery

Planning on building an 1/2 bbl Brewery. Where can I get 15 or 20 gal pots?
Vollrath? How about a pump? Any ideas? any plans? I was going to use sawed
off 1/2 Sanke kegs but I don't really care for the look. Thanks in Advance.

Roy Rudebusch
Retired BrewPubber



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 11:13:14 -0400
From: "RJ" <wortsbrewing at cyberportal.net>
Subject: Re: CAP experiment -- controlling variables / Competition

Dave Houseman writes:

(A) "to have each brewer brew a larger brewlength (say 10 gal) and split
this into two fermenters.."

I couldn't agree with you more... A split batch from each brewer would
certainly curtail any unknown influences, with that specific brewer.

(B)"I believe what we want is a regression analysis."

IMHO, Regression analysis, should only be performed after a scatter diagragm
has been plotted.

The Scatter Diagram is one of the most powerful graphical tools, when
exploring & defining the relationship between two variables.  In a scatter
diagram ALL of the information is shown.  The scatter diagram can then be
used to develop a correlation coefficient.... Looking at only a statistical
regression may be misleading.





Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 10:46:51 -0500
From: Brian Lundeen <blundeen at rrc.mb.ca>
Subject: Mash runoff clarity

There are some ugly rumours circulating in another forum that people are
getting brilliantly clear runoffs from their mashes. Phrases like "crystal
clear" and "clear as finished wine" are being bandied about with reckless
abandon. Needless to say, this is extremely distressing. The best I can seem
to accomplish is a slight haze in my Pyrex Recirculator, or measuring cup as
they are often labelled in housewares. Of course, this is only really
noticeable in those few very light beers that I have made from DWC Pils
malt. Most of my beers are on the dark side so its hard to judge the clarity
in those. But I now find myself suffering from "runoff envy" and I would
like to know what I'm doing wrong.

My standard procedure is a single infusion at 65-68C, mix well then let it
sit for 60-75 minutes (I don't do an iodine test), apply heat and stir to
76C, let mash settle for 15 minutes, recirc about 3 liters (the last couple
of pint fills generally show little change in clarity), then drain through
my EasyMasher.

TIA for any thoughts and suggestions.

Brian


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 13:52:21 -0400
From: AJ <ajdel at mindspring.com>
Subject: CAP Experiment


I'm grateful to Steve both for clarifying for me what the CAP experiment

is about and, of course, for his kind words which I would love to think
are really deserved. As his post makes clear I share many of his
concerns about this experiment. I agree that putting the method before
the hypothesis is putting the horse before the cart but we are in a
situation here where that may be necessary. As homebrewers we can't pick

a hypothesis and then design a test because we have very limited test
resources. Rather we are forced to ask ourselves what sort of test we
can reasonably do and then decide whether the analysis of results of
such a test would teach us anything.

Steve's suggests a test which I think we could do: several brewers
prepare a wort and split it between Corny's - one filled to a high H:W
ratio and the other to a lower  and allow fermentation to complete. He
also suggests using tall and short cornies to remove the headspace
variable and I like that idea. In either case the resulting beers are
then subject to analysis and a conclusion drawn as to whether there are
differences which are highly correleated with which fermenter was used.
This design tests the hypothesis H1: CAP fermented in a short fermenter
produces beer which is significantly different from that obtained from
wort fermented in an otherwise identical tall one. The null hypothesis
is that they don't differ significantly

Wer'e still not there because we have not defined "different" and
"significant".  Just as candidate hypotheses are driven by what we can
do in brewing, they are limited by the analyses we can reasonably
perform. Steve mentioned some of the things that have been mentioned as
being effected by H/W: slow fermentation, high apparent extract  and
high diacetyl (though I don't consider 0.35 mg./L very high- threshold
for most tasters is around 0.25). These are parameters which can be
measured and thus lead to objective numberical data. The organoleptic
qualities of the beers must be judged subjectively and though we may
fancy ourselves experieced beer judges we aren't really as few of us
have participated in panels that use the kind of techniques (triangle
testing) required to test H1 relative to the null  hypothesis.
Nevetheless  it would be interesting to subject the beers to the kind of

judging that we usually subject our beers to and look for a significant
difference in the scores (using, of course, Student's t test which was
designed for exactly this purpose - comparing beers). At the same time,
triangle tests should be done. Louis  has done some of this and I think
there may be a couple of others as well and it's not difficult to do.

Now back to the objective data. Every participant will, of course,
measure the OG of the wort, should do a forcing test and should measure
the gravity of the fermenting beer. At the completion of fermentation
apparent and true extract should be determined. The problems I see here
are two. If I sent stabilized sucrose solutions to 100 brewers from the
HBD and asked them to measure and report the 20/20 SG I wonder what kind

of variation I would see. Perhaps we should do exactly that as a pre
experiment! In fact the more I think about that the better I like the
idea. It would give us a measure of the "noise" level we'd expect in
gravity measurements using the team of collaborators we have available.

The second concern is who is going to do true extract? I don't think
most homebrewers do that test because while it is simple enough, it does

require some lab equipment that you aren't even allowed to own in some
jurisdictions without the permission of the state (I'm talking about a
flask here) and a guy who has never done the test is going to botch it
the first few times out. The alternative is to try to get a small group
of suitably equipped people to do the measurements. In this case, the
problem is the volume of work involved and the time required to do it.
The same comment applies to diacetyl measurement. This is a time
consuming test (see
http://members3.clubphoto.com/_cgi-bin/fetch.cgi/sanjose2/
D010321722401bf00/006//aj258779/Demo_Album/jpg/6/006.jpg
for a picture of the setup). Louis can do it and I can do it and, again,

there may be others, but it takes hours to process a single sample. If I

were tasked with 20 samples to analyze I'd have to take a week off work
and would probably leave the hobby at the conclusion of it.

O.K - enough of my musings for now. Don't consider the above as a test
plan - just further steps along the path  Steve has started down in
bounding this thing some what. Let me finish up here with the kind of
statement that the kind of test and analysis I've been talking about
would allow us to make assuming that H1 is accepted. "The use of the
short style Cornelius keg as compared to the normal 5 gallon keg was
shown to improve RDF by x% (n = , t = ), shorten fermentation time to
within 1.5P of terminal by y days (n =- , t =), and decrease diacetyl by

z% (n =, t = ). Beers fermented in the shorter keg scored w points (n=,
t =) better using standard BJCP judging criteria" and etc. WRT triangle
test data. If this seems to be the sort of thing being sought then I'd
recommend pursuit of this approach. If not, then I repeat my request for

definition of the hypothesis to be tested and the variables to be
considered.

A.J.





Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 13:42:02 -0500
From: "Tammy Duriavich" <murph at xsite.net>
Subject: force cooling of wort

I'll say this & then return to lurk mode <g>.

When I make my soap I force cool my lye solution by using ice instead of
water.  Ice (by weight, not volume) is the same measure as water.  So, to
force cool the wort, add 1/2 weight of ice cubes (read:  weigh how much
2gals of water equals & use that weight in ice cubes) & 1/2 weight of water.
The easiest way to do that, for the smaller brewer (read: me) is to throw
the contents of my ice maker into the bottom of my primary & pour my hot
wort into the primary.  From the primary, strain the cooled wort into the
carboy & top off with water to make 5gals (if your wort has cooled too much,
use warmed/hot water to bring it back to temp).  Then pitch your yeast &
continue as usual.  All of this transferrence is done, of course, after
sanitizing my equipment first with a no-rinse sanitiser I get from my
brewshop.  HTH

  Now I will return to lurk mode & read, read, read....

Tammy Duriavich
~ Clean Hands, Warm Heart - Handmade Soaps & Bath Products
~ D & D's Gourmet Pet Snacks - NEW! Gourmet Snacks for Horses, too!
www.CleanHands-WarmHeart.com
email:  murph at xsite.net
Samples & Brochures available - Wholesale inquiries welcome




Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 17:14:39 +1100
From: "Doug Craftchick" <Nicklebender at hotmail.com>
Subject: Rims pump question

I 'm looking at buying a Little Giant pump for my HERMS. The ones that look
like the best choice are 3-MD-MT-HC and 2-MD-HC. Does any one have any
experiance with these modle pumps for brewing? Any one know If I can get a
90VDC motor for one or both?


Cheers
Doug  Craftchick
Sudbury, Canada

Good Homebrewing Interent Club
http://forums.delphi.com/homebrew007/start




Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 18:52:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: Pat Babcock <pbabcock at hbd.org>
Subject: Oops...

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

SA points out that I fubarred the address for the cap_exp archives. I
posted that you should send "index" to cap_exp-request@hbd.org when the
CORRECT address was cap_exp-digest at hbd.org (no conspiracy, just an
error). In any case, I've patched the system such that either address will
work just fine. If anyone else has any problems getting at the archives,
please drop me a note. 

- -- 
 -
See ya!

Pat Babcock in SE Michigan         pbabcock at hbd.org
Home Brew Digest Janitor           janitor@hbd.org
HBD Web Site                       http://hbd.org
The Home Brew Page                 http://hbd.org/pbabcock

"The monster's back, isn't it?" - Kim Babcock after I emerged
                                  from my yeast lab Saturday




Return to table of contents

---

HTML-ized on 05/29/01, by HBD2HTML v1.2 by KFL webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96