---

	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:
  Re: Burner salvaging ("Kent Fletcher")
  Cornie keg parts (John Scime)
  Counter Pressure Bottling and Filtering ("Dennis Collins")
  Portland Trip (Jeff)
  Re: Brian's judging story (Paul Kensler)
  Re: Star San (Bill Wible)
  Re:  Burner salvaging ("Steve Heffner")
  RE: judging (Brian Lundeen)


*
* Show your HBD pride! Wear an HBD Badge! 
* 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 cannot reach you. We will not correct your address
  for the automation - that's your job.

HAVING TROUBLE posting, subscribing or unsusubscribing? See the HBD FAQ at
http://hbd.org.

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 or read the HBD FAQ at http://hbd.org.

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



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


Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 01:28:49 -0700
From: "Kent Fletcher" <kfletcher at socal.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Burner salvaging

"Barrett, Bob (R.A.)" <rbarrett at ford.com> asked about

> With all this salvage talk the past few days I have been wondering if
> anyone has ever made a homebrew set up from a discarded water
> heater burner or burners?  How do the BTU's compare to the
> 175,000-200,000 BTU's of the Cajun Cooker?  What else do you
> need to do to be able to use it?  How does it attach to the framing
> of your brewing stand?  Do you have any pictures?  Is one particular
> brand better than another?

Bob,

Bill Owens, of Buffalo Bills, possibly the first brewpub in California,
wrote a little book titled "How to Build a Small Brewery: draft beer in ten
days."  In it's first incarnation, the Owens' brewery used water heater
burners.  So yes, it's been done.  In terms of output, they are pitiful when
compared to a propane cooker.  Burners from domestic water heaters are
generally in the 30 to 40 KBTU/Hr range.   While they are geneally not
difficult to mount in a brew stand, you will want to fabricate a wind
shield.  As the original heaters are not rated for outdoor installations,
the burner design can lead to even mild breezes causing flameouts.  I
believe Owens' book, with illustrations, is viewable on line, either on the
HBD or Brewery.org libraries.  Or you could check your local city  library,
mine has it. ;)
Hope that helps,

Kent Fletcher
brewing in So Cal




Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 04:40:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: John Scime <jascime at yahoo.com>
Subject: Cornie keg parts

Tony Barnsley <tony.barnsley at blackpool.gov.uk> asks
about suppliers for cornie keg replacement parts.  

The MEMBERS of BARLEYment (a pun on Members of
Parliament - for you folks unfamiliar with the British
and Canadian systems of government, MPs are similar to
your Congressional reps) the virtual home brewing club
located in Canada's captial city Ottawa, often make
bulk purchases through a Canadian supplier called
SIMGO <www.simgo.com> (No affiliation, etc., just a
happy customer).  I can attest to their prices being
quite reasonable (about $2 CDN for poppets).  They
have a vast supply of many beverage dispensing
products, and, since the prices are in Canadian
dollars, folks in the US and UK will be able to take
advantage of the advantageous exchange rate ($1 CDN =
~$0.62 USD at present).  

Tony, if you contact me off-list I can provide more
details. 

Cheers!
John Scime
Members of Barleyment (MOBsters)

p.s. MOB has been unofficialy refered to recently by
yours truly, as the HOZERS - Hull-Ottawa Zymergistic
Enterprises and Research Society.  However, club names
were recently put to the vote and HOZERS lost out to
the eloquent MOB, or MOBsters.  Oh, the trials of a
democratic society!





Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 09:49:13 -0400
From: "Dennis Collins" <dcollins at drain-all.com>
Subject: Counter Pressure Bottling and Filtering

A friend and I have noticed that our long term storage (2 weeks or more) of
counter pressure bottled beer bears no resemblance to the beer that comes
out of the keg.  The bottled beer loses hop and malt character and develops
a sweet edge that may resemble some kind of infection.  My logical
conclusion was that our equipment is not clean, except that we have taken
our CPBF's apart and scrupulously cleaned and sanitized before the bottling
operation.  Two different set up's cleaned and sanitized, two different
operators, two different operations on different days, and the same result.
Has anyone here experienced a problem with CP bottled beer?  Is there
something inherent in the process that would account for such a dramatic
impact on the flavor after 2 weeks in the bottle?  Or are we just not quite
anal enough about cleanliness?  It should be noted that the beer styles in
question are mostly lighter styles like APA and Ordinary Bitter where flaws
are easy to spot.  I can imagine that big and complex beers could hide the
flaws that I am referring to.

Secondly, filtering.  My friend has one of those plate filters from Williams
Brewing with the large diameter filter pads.  The beer prior to filtering
tastes quite good (again, lighter styles like APA and OB), but after
filtering, the then crystal clear beer tastes terrible.  He is filtering
beer from the secondary, then force carbonating.  Like I said, the filtering
works wonders on clarity, but it's like it filters all the taste out and the
beer almost tastes oxidized.  Is there some trick to filtering?  I've
observed the process and the technique seems valid, good sanitation
procedures, purging of all the air in the lines with pre-boiled water, kegs
purged with CO2, etc.  Is a dramatic flavor change just part of the
territory and you have to actually adjust your recipe?  I didn't think
filtering was supposed to affect the taste this significantly, just clear up
an already very good beer.  Any thoughts?

Dennis Collins
Knoxville, TN
http://sdcollins.home.mindspring.com






Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 07:06:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jeff <duckinchicago at yahoo.com>
Subject: Portland Trip

Heading out next week for a trip back to the best beer
town in the US and was wondering if there were any
off-the-beaten path places I shouldn't miss.  We're
staying at a McMenamins and I'm definitely going to
hit Bridgeport, Rogue and Full Sail (and probably
Lucky Labs, just for old times sake).  Anyone have any
other places they'd recommend??

Personal email is fine...

Jeff



Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 07:28:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: Paul Kensler <paul_kensler at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Brian's judging story

In response to the various responses to Brian's post
about the judging comments...  and in response to Bill
Wible's post about those guys that win first place
ribbons every time and how they never complain about
crappy score sheets...

I'm definitely not one of "those" guys, but I do
generally get more out of score sheets for my
occasional winning beers, than I do for the
"ribbon-challenged" beers (I won't call them losers;
they're all special in their own way!).

The reason is, if I have a beer that doesn't place
(may be good but not in style, or may have a flaw),
then the judges' comments are generally consistent
with my own evaluation, or with the evaluation I've
already received from sharing it with friends and
family.  I frequently see comments that echo my own
opinion, but I rarely see a comment that inspires me
to do something different next time.  Plus, I often
brew to taste, not to style, so judges' comments
(relating my beer to a style that I wasn't trying to
replicate) may not even be relevant.  I just enter
those beers in the nearest category to see how they
do, see if I can get a fancy ribbon or prize, and to
support the local competition.

On the other hand, winning beers generally have more
comments on them - the judges like them, they find
more to like about them, and so they write more.  In
so doing, I learn more about what another person is
tasting - somebody who is concentrating on judging,
and not somebody tasting the beer in a social
situation - and I get a chance to read what I did
_right_ as far as the style guidelines and overall
drinking pleasure go.  Yeah, I'm happy to have a .25
cent nylon ribbon for my ego wall, but WHY did they
decide my beer was worth it?


Cheers!
Paul Kensler
Gaithersburg, MD



Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 11:25:10 -0400
From: Bill Wible <bill at brewbyyou.net>
Subject: Re: Star San


Star San is an excellent product made by a company
called Five Star.  

Here is their website for more info:

http://www.fivestarchemicals.com/

Click on the 'Homebrewer' link.

Those who still use bleach should check it out.
Unlike bleach, Star San is tasteless, odorless,
adds nothing to the beer, and doesn't have to be
rinsed.  The bubbles are no problem.

In addition to Star San, they also make a product
called PBW, which is one of the absolute best
cleaners I've ever seen.

PBW and Star San have been around for about 4 or
5 years (at least) that I'm aware, because I've
been using both since 1998 or 1999.  I found these
to be about the best cleaner and sanitizer I've
ever used. 

Star San comes in an 8 oz or 32 oz bottle.  You
use 1 oz in 5 gallons.  It can be re-used a couple
times.  PBW comes in a single use 2 oz packet,
a 1lb jar, or a 4lb jar.  You use 2 oz in 5 gallons.
Soak overnight, and just about anything comes off.
It can also be re-used.

They're also sold together in a kit that contains
both.

And not to put in a shameless plug here, but I sell
them on my website.

Bill



Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 12:01:09 -0500
From: "Steve Heffner" <potatopotato at earthlink.net>
Subject: Re:  Burner salvaging

Typical btu ratings for water heaters are 30-32000 for 40 gal. units and
40000 btu for 50 gal. models.  Low cost units may have a small, simple
deflector that might not spread the flame out well, causing possible
scorching
problems.  I have a 40K btu burner from an A.O.Smith heater with a nice
5" dia. sheet metal 'ring' with corrugations simulating holes.  I don't have
it
hooked up yet, but expect a nice wide radial flame from it.  The pilot and
thermostat also come attached, but I don't know if I'll hook them up - they
would need the gas valve from the heater.  Maybe I'll use them and put a
needle or small ball valve before the orifice.  These burners are obviously
much smaller than a Cajun Cooker, but I will be using it indoors where the
heat won't get blown away.

HTH,

Steve Heffner
La Grange, IL



Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 12:09:06 -0500
From: Brian Lundeen <BLundeen at rrc.mb.ca>
Subject: RE: judging

Bill Wible responds:
> 
> Brian, there is so much going on here.  It sounds like
> these might not even have been judge's comments at all,
> but could have been something an editor made up.  Or it
> might have been a 'cut and paste' problem where they 
> inadvertently used the same comments twice.

To your first point, I would say, highly unlikely. They were identified in
the book as judges' comments, and to suggest otherwise is a slur on the
integrity of the AHA publishers. As to the second point, the comments
contained enough differences that it was clearly not a reuse of one comment.
 
(stuff snipped)

You raise valid points about people's ability to write and command of
English. I would never attack people who are clearly struggling with a
language other than their native tongue. However, the ability to verbalize
one's perceptions in an effective manner is a necessary component of being a
good judge. This is part of what I believe the BJCP tries to ensure in their
testing. This could easily have been someone who was not BJCP certified.
Obviously judging skills vary, and if we only wanted to use the best, we
probably wouldn't have enough judges to run a Biere de Garde competition in
Kalamazoo. ;-) Still, it was the just the way these came across to me as
"canned comments", I almost expected to see Yada, yada, yada appear in the
text at some point. ;-) I can accept that this might be more "my problem"
than a "real problem". It just makes me wonder how much thought and effort
goes into some judges' evaluations.  

> 
> And canned comments like the one you quoted are still far 
> better than some of the ones I've gotten.  I've had sections 
> on scoresheets that were returned to me that had 3 letters in 
> the whole section.  Something like 'DMS'.  That was the whole 
> comment section.

Very true. The comments were at least reasonably descriptive and useful. Now
if you had stopped at this point, I probably wouldn't have even bothered
responding. Any differences of opinion we have to here are relatively minor
or just being repetitive. Where I have a problem is your comments below.

> It seems the guys who get a 38 and a first place award every 
> time out usually don't care as much about what the judges
> actually wrote, now do they?   And you'll notice its the same
> guys every time.  You don't hear from them about quality of 
> comments.  Its usually guys who got low scores or who didn't 
> get a ribbon that are doing all the complaining 'about the judges'.

In the few competitions I've entered, my beer has done reasonably well. I
have had best of class and best of show, although hardly at any of the major
homebrew events. However, I don't have the tasting experience to identify
all the flaws in my beers, even if they are minor. If an experienced judge
can tell me, Brian, you have fusels in your beer, great, I know how to fix
that. But I can't fix a problem I don't know I have. That is why good
judging is so important to helping brewers improve their skills.

Indeed, there are entrants who could care less about the comments, and whose
primary goal is winning. Unfortunately, judges have absolutely no way of
knowing who those people are. My belief, and I'm sure I've annoyed more than
a few winemakers up here by harping on this ad nauseum, is that every entry
must be judged fully and completely, with the assumption that the entrant
wants to learn as much as possible about their entry from an experienced
taster. 

Time constraints are no excuse, organizers should plan better. Organizers
should not try to do too much. Better to have a well run competition of a
few classes, than a poorly run competition that takes entries across the
board. Variations in judging ability are also no excuse. There is a place
for inexperienced judges at competitions, but organizers should ensure that
each table includes at least one experienced and skilled judge. Anything
less is a disservice to the people who are spending their money on entry and
shipping fees. That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it.

Cheers
Brian Lundeen
Brewing (yes, I actually do that occasionally) at [314,829] aka Winnipeg


Return to table of contents

---