---

	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:
  Young's Double Chocolate Stout ("Erik M. Vanthilt")
  RE: Hose length  vs foam ("Sven Pfitt")
  missing lines ("Byron's Yahoo Account")
  Re- Hose length and foam ("DRTEELE")
  Steam Powered RIMS (Bill & Kazuko Macher)
  RE: Hose length and foam (Andrew Nix)
  Re: Rodenbach (Jeff Renner)
  TRUBXIV Competition Nov. 2, 2002 ("Brad Nicholson")
  What about heat transfer oil? (Wendy & Reuben Filsell)
  Off list ("Dave Burley")
  foamy kegs, Snipped ("Dave Burley")
  Cider ("Dave Burley")
  re: First Wort Hopping QueryHops ("Steve Alexander")
  mash/lauter tun (Brian Butenschoen)
  Hoses, Foam and a Confused Dave Burley ("Jim")
  Re: Sunlight, Hops, and Outdoor Brewing ("Steve Alexander")
  Hamms Beer Clone (RLoeken)
  mesh lint traps / hose foaming (Kevin Crouch)
  Basic Stamp used for RIMS? (Scott)


*
* 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: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 22:45:07 -0600
From: "Erik M. Vanthilt" <vanthilt at attbi.com>
Subject: Young's Double Chocolate Stout

I just had Young's Double Chocolate Stout on tap at Toronado's in San
Francisco not too long ago, and had a good reminder as to why I like this
beer so much. I've checked the archives and the web, but don't see much
reference to it. Anyone have a recipe or information on this beer? I'm
looking for full mash, if available. I know I've found a good stout when my
girlfriend will actually drink one...

Thanks,

Erik

vanthilt at attbi.com
Denver, CO



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 09:30:32 -0400
From: "Sven Pfitt" <the_gimp98 at hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: Hose length  vs foam

Dave Burley Ponders Hose length  vs foam

Brewsters:

Over the many years I have read lots of stuff about the correct hose length 
to prevent foaming of beer.  Frankly, I am unconvinced. Primary to this 
issue is the fact that the pressure drop from corny keg to tap is always the 
same and independent of the hose length, as the tap or business (something 
missing here maybe ..) end of the hose causes a sudden pressure change when 
open.

snip, relocated from end

Under flow conditions there will be a pressure drop per unit length along 
the hose essentially proportional to the hose length, but the outlet ( where 
foam formation occurs unless the inside of the hose is not smooth)  will 
still be at atmospheric.
I suspect the formation of foam has more to do with the flow mechanics at 
the valve than anything else, as a partially closed valve will often 
generate more foam than a valve wide open.  Turbulence at the valve 
undoubtedly plays a big part in the foaming.  so do whatever you can to 
reduce the turbulence ( bigger valve, lower keg pressure, select a gate 
valve).
 ......
snip
 ......
Yes, but the pressure drop will not be the same depending on hose diameter 
and length. Hose has resistance that drops the pressure along the hose 
length. Smaller diameter, more resistance, more pressure drop per unit 
length. Longer hose, more drop. There will still be a sudden pressure drop 
at the tap, but it will be less in the case of a hose with a small diameter, 
or long hose, or a combination of the two .

For an arbitrary example: presume that 1/4in hose drops 0.6lb / ft and you 
use 6ft of hose, you will drop 3.6psi off your beer from the time it enters 
the hose , until it exits at the tap. If your keg is at 10psi, you still 
have 6.4psi as the beer comes out of the tap. Lots of flow and lots of 
foam!. If you use the same beer with 10psi but substitute 9ft of 3/16 in 
hose and it drops 1lb / ft you are dropping 9psi, and only have a 1psi 
differential at the tap. Slow flow, not as much foam.

I have three cobra taps made up with different lengths of 3/16in tubing 
(4ft, 6ft, 9ft), and have on occasion tried all three for three glasses of 
beer and the difference is striking to say the least. Try it your
self, how much does it cost to make up three cobra taps? You need
three any way don't you dave? (Actually I don't, but it is nice to have
three in case I loose one, two on the other hand are necessary.)
 .....
snip
 .....
Under non-flow conditions the pressure at the tap end of the hose is the 
same as the keg.
 .....
Yes, And this is why the initial burst of flow from a hose is ALWAYS foam.
 ....
snip

A longer hose will just heat up the beer and increase the tendency to foam 
IMHO.
 ....
9ft of 3/16in tubing will have a volume of 2.982 sqin or 1.65oz (kind of 
surprising, eh?), 4ft of 1/4in tubing will have a volume of  2.356sqin or 
1.30 oz. That is only a difference of 0.626sqin or 0.35 oz more for the 9ft 
of 3/16in tubing!

Stop reading stuf and do the test and lets change this from an opinion to a 
fact! Make the three cobra Taps Dave!


This is my sixth attempt at posting this message!!!!Rrrrrrrr!

rev  Steven, -75 XLCH- Ironhead Nano-Brewery  http://thegimp.8k.com
Johnson City, TN [422.1, 168.9] apparent  Rennerian







Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 06:46:18 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Byron's Yahoo Account" <btowles at yahoo.com>
Subject: missing lines

Hey gang, this probably only applies to those of us who are new to the digest,
but the issue of missing lines from posts has come up before. I've noticed a
trend, and it seems any line that begins with the word "end" will be
eliminated from the posted article. I know that's hard to keep in mind when
waxing eloquently about our favorite hobby. Anyway, if you happen to be
reading your article prior to sending and you see "END" starting one of your
lines, you may want to try to re-word what you have to say.

Just posting some thoughts and observations. 

Byron Towles
New Orleans, LA
Crescent City Homebrewers
http://hbd.org/crescent

Life is too short to drink cheap beer

=====
- ---------------------------------------------
The two most common elements in the
universe are hydrogen and stupidity.
- ---------------------------------------------



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 10:24:52 -0400
From: "DRTEELE" <drteele at bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re- Hose length and foam

Dave Burley wrote:

>Primary to this issue is the fact that the pressure drop from corny keg to
tap
>is always the same and independent of the hose length, as the tap or
business
>Under non-flow conditions the pressure at the tap end of the hose is the
same
>as the keg.

You are correct, but only under non-flow conditions. It is different for
laminar flow. As an example. All taps will give an initial rush of beer when
first pulled. This is because the beer pressure directly behind the tap is
the same as  the keg. But, since liquid doesn't compress significantly under
pressure, this pressure is relieved quickly. (did the server snip the end of
your sentence?)

>Under flow conditions there will be a pressure drop per unit length along
the
>hose essentially proportional to the hose length, but the outlet ( where
foam
>formation occurs unless the inside of the hose is not smooth)  will still
be
>at atmospheric.

Also correct, but not completely accurate. You are implying that the
pressure drop per unit length of hose is proportional to the pressure
differential between the keg and atmospheric (barometric) pressure. This is
incorrect. Under laminar flow conditions, the geometric dimensions of the
hose (and its surface) produce friction against the flow of beer. This
produces back pressure acting against the head pressure of the beer in the
keg. The production of the back pressure is independent of the atmospheric
pressure at the tap. The key to avoiding foaming is to size the hose
dimensions to produce enough back pressure to equal the difference between
the keg's 'head' pressure and atmospheric. That way the beer at the tap
flows out with essentially no head pressure (nice and smooth).

>I suspect the formation of foam has more to do with the flow mechanics at
the
>valve than anything else, as a partially closed valve will often generate
more
>foam than a valve wide open.  Turbulence at the valve undoubtedly plays a
big
>part in the foaming.  so do whatever you can to reduce the turbulence (
bigger
>valve, lower keg pressure, select a gate valve).

Your suspicion is correct. Turbulence essentially knocks the dissolved CO2
out of solution, hence you get foaming. And the most significant source or
location for foaming to occur is at the tap, so doing all you can to reduce
turbulence at this location is what you should strive for. Now I am not a
mechanical engineer (I'm electrical) and never took fluid dynamics, but I
believe the effects of apertures (like taps) on laminar flow (beer) is a
pretty big chunk of that college course's curriculum. Now, if your hose is
sized correctly and the pressure of the beer just inside the tap is equal to
the atmospheric pressure outside, you get a nice smooth flow. If however,
the beer is still under some head pressure from the keg. As it approaches
the tap (and atmospheric pressure), the flow will accelerate, the pressure
drops over a very short travel distance and voila, you have turbulence
(a.k.a.-foaming), like rapids in a river. If you partially close the tap,
you are shrinking the aperture, increasing the acceleration of the flowing
beer and producing more turbulence. Now you could reduce the keg pressure to
compensate for your hose, but that would throw off the carbonation of your
beer. Doesn't is make sense to adjust the hose instead?


Dan

In sunny South Florida where it never gets cold (damnit)



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 10:14:19 -0400
From: Bill & Kazuko Macher <macher2 at attbi.com>
Subject: Steam Powered RIMS

Hi all,

Seems like some posts have had some lines dropped recently...l hope this
entire one makes it!

How's that for CYA? Leading to the future use of " Yea, that was what I
said, but the server somehow truncated my post..." Ha, ha...

Interesting concept, heating the mash tun of a rims, rather than the
recirculating liquid. Sounds like it will not be easy to automate
though...but neither is my system, which uses steam injection rather than
an electric heating element.

By the way, is the jacked rated for 15 psi of steam pressure. I assume so,
but if not all bets are off.

You may need some kind of mechanical mixer in the mash tun to make sure the
temperatures are kept more or less even within the mash, and that the
grains at the wall surface are not over heated.

Frankly, if I had a jacked vessel like that I would probably just make a
mix-masher setup as described in the archives...Jack S. are you still out
there? With a steam-jacketed tun you would not need much of a mixing action
though. So what you ended up with could be much simpler that what is needed
for mix-mashing with a bottom-fired tun.

When making a steam-powered brewing setup one needs to consider where the
steam will be coming from. Just as in economics, there is no free lunch...
When using steam, all you are doing really is adding the ability to locate
your heat source remotely. The amount of energy needed to heat (or boil)
the mash in the tun (or the wort in the kettle) is no different from normal
mashing/boiling requirements.

I think the rule of thumb is that it takes as much water (converted to
steam) to boil the wort as is lost to evaporation from the wort as it
boils. If you like strong, long boils you will need a steam source that can
supply LOTS of steam. A five-gallon pressure cooker will likely NOT fill
the bill.

So my advice, as someone who actually has built and is using a
steam-injected reversible flow RIMS, would be to heat the mash tun with
steam in the jacket, as you intend to, but try the mix-masher [hope I am
close on the term, been a while since that thread ran here] design first. I
don't see much to be gained with the complexity of the rims if you are not
automating your system or even heating the liquid external to the mash tun.

Now if you feel that you will not need to worry about mixing the mash to
keep temperatures pretty even, then the RIMS will eliminate the need for
you to constantly hand mix the mash. This is a GREAT thing. I love using my
hands to hold something other than a paddle when mashing! HOWEVER, it is
sometimes difficult to get a high recirculation rate without compacting the
grain bed, especially at the start of the mash.

For me, when I reflect upon my system, the pump replaces the mixing paddle
and the steam allows step mashing or the ability to hold temperature more
constant. Sure, I can also pump the wort, at the end, into my kettle, and
raise the mash to mash-out temps before hand...but...

I think you could get all these benefits without a RIMS mash tun, since you
have the steam jacket. The more I think about it as I type this, the more I
tend to feel that mash-mixing in a jacketed mash tun is the way I would go.
You could then mash at whatever grist/water ratio you wanted. With a rims,
you need to have enough water mixed in to make circulation at a reasonable
rate possible.

OK, I'm convinced. Your jacked vessel provides you with the basis for
building a superior mashing setup. What I would do is put a motorize paddle
inside, use a five-gallon pressure cooker as the steam source [like I do],
and be happy being able to do all the temperature control [manually] that a
RIMSER can, PLUS be able to mash a thicker mash than a RIMS could ever
dream of. And have no worries about compacted grain beds during mashing.
You could still use a pump to transfer to the kettle at the end if you
wanted to.

As for using steam to boil, well unless you have a pretty large steam
generator, I would forget boiling with steam and just get an old keg, or
other container for that purpose, and bottom fire it.

And since you no longer need that second jacketed vessel, I would contact
me immediately and make arrangements to have it shipped at my expense to my
address for my pleasure!

Hope these thoughts are of some use to you.

Bill

Bill Macher in Pgh, PA




Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 10:19:27 -0400
From: Andrew Nix <anix at vt.edu>
Subject: RE: Hose length and foam

Dave Burley writes about foaming:

Primary to this issue is the fact that the pressure drop from corny keg to tap
is always the same and independent of the hose length, as the tap or business
Under non-flow conditions the pressure at the tap end of the hose is the same
as the keg.
A longer hose will just heat up the beer and increase the tendency to foam
IMHO.
Under flow conditions there will be a pressure drop per unit length along the
hose essentially proportional to the hose length, but the outlet ( where foam
formation occurs unless the inside of the hose is not smooth)  will still be
at atmospheric.
I suspect the formation of foam has more to do with the flow mechanics at the
valve than anything else, as a partially closed valve will often generate more
foam than a valve wide open.  Turbulence at the valve undoubtedly plays a big
part in the foaming.  so do whatever you can to reduce the turbulence ( bigger
valve, lower keg pressure, select a gate valve).

In answer to Dave's statements:

The whole point of having pressure drop in the hose is to try and drop the 
pressure of the liquid to near atmospheric pressure inside the tube such 
that when the beer comes out of the tap is does not "flash" and lose 
CO2.  True the beer coming out will be at atmospheric pressure.  The 
statement that the "pressure inside the hose is always atmospheric" is not 
necessarily true.  If the hose were long enough, the pressure drop would be 
so high that the beer would not flow.  The optimal situation is to have the 
keg pressure set such that with the length of hose attached, the liquid 
pressure drops close to atmospheric pressure by the time it reaches the 
tap.  True, the change in pressure the liquid experiences will always be 
the keg pressure minus atmospheric, but if the hose has sufficient length 
such that the pressure drop would occur by flow friction the change in 
pressure per unit length of tubing will be lower, avoiding foaming.

I do agree with Dave's comments about turbulence.  Don't even get me 
started there though, as turbulence is my life right now (Ph.D work).  Pipe 
flow turbulence is a function of the Reynold's number, which is determined 
by the tube diameter, flowrate, fluid density and fluid viscosity.  The 
variables we have most control over are the flow rate and tube 
diameter.  In other words, we can change the tube diameter and length and 
keg pressure to control turbulence.  With small tubes and low keg pressures 
(low flow rates), the flow in the tube is laminar, so turbulence is not an 
issue.

Drewmeister
Andrew Nix
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Virginia Tech
anix at vt.edu
http://www.vt.edu:10021/A/anix



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 10:28:25 -0400
From: Jeff Renner <JeffRenner at comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Rodenbach

Michael from Columbus <jodysdad at starchefs.com> writes:

>After much tireless research into the brewing of Rodenbach, I have become
>discouraged.  It appears that reproducing a similar product at home would
>be an enormous undertaking.  The blend of yeasts, aging for years in
>barrels, blending.  I might as well attempt to produce a bottle of '61
>Petrus.  As I am a huge fan of Rodenbach's beers, this distresses me to no
>of techniques, yeasts, etc. has anybody tried and how well did you fare?
>Thanks a bunch.

Well, Michael, normally us guys up here in Ann Arbor don't talk to 
you guys down there in Columbus, especially in the fall (Directions 
from Ann Arbor to Columbus:  South 'til you smell it, east 'til you 
step in it), but seeing as how you're a homebrewer, I'll make an 
exception.

I wrote an article in the January/February "Zymurgy" entitled "Solera 
Ale" outlining how to keep a continually replenished corney keg of 
aged, sour ale.  If you brew an appropriate wort (not too hard to do) 
and use an appropriate single strain yeast (again, not too hard to 
find out which strain would be right), this technique should get you 
the fruity, winey, sour complexity with the right souring culture. 
Actually, since so much of this style depends on biological factors, 
I think an extract brew would work just fine.

Getting the exact blend of critters that Rodenbach has might be 
possible by culturing a bottle and adding it to a finished ale.  The 
culture I have in my "solera" is available from Yeast Culture Kit Co. 
It is simply what arose spontaneously in a keg of old ale, and it is 
a very tame lacto type bug, very likely a mix, but I don't know.  My 
solera ale is wonderfully winey, fruity, sour and complex, and 
changes from month to month.

Past copies of Zymurgy are available at many homebrew shops or from 
the AHA at http://beertown.org/cgi-bin/mvend/catalog.  That 
particular issue is not listed, so you'll have to phone or email for 
availability.  I am sure they have it, it probably just hasn't been 
added to the catalog.

The Sept/Oct. 2002 issue (which I can't seem to lay my hands on just 
now) has an article on aging sour beers in wood.  That may be an 
additional resource.

While you may not be able to exactly duplicate Rodenbach, I'm sure 
you can get a lot closer than you could to '61 Petrus, and will have 
something very enjoyable.

Jeff
- -- 
Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan USA, JeffRenner at comcast.net
"One never knows, do one?"  Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 11:40:56 -0500
From: "Brad Nicholson" <nicho036 at mc.duke.edu>
Subject: TRUBXIV Competition Nov. 2, 2002 

TRUB XIV - 14th ANNUAL TRUB OPEN HOMEBREW COMPETITION
Saturday November 2, 2002 Raleigh NC

On November 2, 2002, the TRiangle Unabashed homeBrewers will host the
fourteenth annual TRUB Open Homebrew Competition at BB&Y Restaurant in
Raleigh, NC. The competition is registered with the BJCP. Homebrew
enthusiasts of all experience levels are encouraged to enter and to
participate in the competition. TRUB XIV is a qualifying event for the North
Carolina Brewer Of the Year awards.

For Registration forms and information point your browser to:
http://www.hbd.org/trub/

Posted by Brad Nicholson
- --
Beer and loafing in North Carolina.
[brad.nicholson at duke.edu]


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 23:41:47 +0800
From: Wendy & Reuben Filsell <filsell at myplace.net.au>
Subject:  What about heat transfer oil?



> From: homebrew-request@hbd.org (Request Address Only - No Articles)
> Reply-To: homebrew at hbd.org (Posting Address Only - No Requests)
> Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 00:20:06 -0400
> To: homebrew at hbd.org
> Subject: Homebrew Digest #4062 (October 09, 2002)
> 
> One thing we are considering is running a steam line into the jacket of
> the boil vat; it has three openings that could be used for steam input,
> vent, and condensate drain. I'm not a steam engineer, but I did take a
> couple of physics classes in school and on the surface this looks pretty
> do-able. After searching the archives here and the web in general
> however, I have yet to really find anyone who is doing something similar
> to this scheme. Does anyone on the list have any
> experience/suggestions/links that they'd be willing to share?
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> Eric Stiers
> Madison, WI

Eric I am in a similar quandary here in Australia, however I am also looking
at steam injection. I have read the hypertheticals but have yet to find
anyone using it!
A possible alternative for your jacket maybe inserting an electric element
and filling the void with heat transfer oil.
Stay in touch.
Reuben 
W.A.



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 13:20:17 -0400
From: "Dave Burley" <Dave_Burley at charter.net>
Subject: Off list

Brewsters;

I'll be off list for a couple of weeks so if I don't respond here or to your
private e-pistles, Ahll be back!

Keep on Brewin'

Dave Burley




Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 13:46:56 -0400
From: "Dave Burley" <Dave_Burley at charter.net>
Subject: foamy kegs, Snipped

Brewsters:

Todd Snyder sent me a site (search Kegman) which has as part of it "keg
balancing" with some hard numbers for line size and diameter and how to
calculate the appropriate length and pressurize your keg.  Check it out.

These numbers in example 2 check with mine determined by me many years ago -
pre Internet - as 4'X3/16" and 12 psig as the keg pressure.  Much betta than
the 38' or so I have heard commented here. And one source of my scepticism.

Also, do not pressurize your keg at 35 psi ( as one private correspondent did)
and then expect all to be OK even if you drop the keg pressure at serving. As
you know from watching the bubbles come out of the glass of beer, CO2 is slow
to equilibrate.

Always pressurize at serving pressure or close to it. I usually pressurize at
12 - 15 psi in the fridge overnight. Shaking the cold keg under pressure will
help the gas dissolve as you can hear from the regulator, but you still should
wait a while before serving it.

Point of all this is - change the easy things first before you start playing
with hose length as a means of solving foaming problems.

- ------------------
Dunno why but I have been snipped in several places recently.

Overnight mashes - hold at a higher temperature to avoid high attenuation.
Try 158F

Keep on Brewin'

Dave Burley




Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 13:55:00 -0400
From: "Dave Burley" <Dave_Burley at charter.net>
Subject: Cider

Brewsters:

Ray Daniels asks for expereinced cider tasters.  I suggest you ask Dick Dunn
at cider-request@ talisman.com .

Keep on Brewin'

Dave Burley




Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 14:35:00 -0400
From: "Steve Alexander" <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net>
Subject: re: First Wort Hopping QueryHops

David Towson writes,

>I have not 
>found any references to the relationship between the physical form of the 
>hops used (whole, pellet, plug) and the effect on the result.  Can anyone 
>provide either pointers to references or details of personal experiences 
>concerning that?

I owe a FWH followup, since I've read Marc Sedam's Zymurgy article
and note that he feels that soft(not softened) water is required for
mash hopping.     Several of my FWH use medium hard water -
perhaps explains why I'm not seeing a strong FWH aroma as others
claim.

As to the form of hops - I (almost) always use  whole cones.  It's
widely believed that pellets and particularly the finely cut small pellets
give greater humulone bitterness extraction.   One could argue that
essential oil extraction is greater for the same reasons - or
alternatively that the pressure, heat and exposure of the pelletizing
process increases damage to the essential oils.  Long ago readers
used to opine on HBD that whole hops gave better aroma character.
This same sentiment appears in the brewing industry but w/o much
scientific support.

Part of the lore of FWH is that the essential oils appear in the beer
because they are oxidized early on,  survive the boil because of
their oxidized state, and are reduced to their aromatic form by
fermentation.   My attempts to pre-oxidize the oils don't show
any marked effect.   

Another interesting note - I recently became aware that aroma and
particularly noble hops have been traditionally been thought to lend
more and more stable aroma character to beer after they've been
cold stored for 1 to 2 years !  This is apparently called "ballot
storage".  According to Meilgaard (2001) "many brewers now
practice a process whereby noble hops are ballot stored for one
year and then pelleted". 

 -S







Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 11:42:59 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Butenschoen <Brian_Butenschoen at mail.listtool.com>
Subject: mash/lauter tun

This is in regards to the pilot system
for the Oregon Brew Crew here
in Portland OR. 
I snapped off the end drain spout 
fitting of the 60q picnic cooler 
mash/lauter tun.  As I look at
the three picnic coolers I have in my 
basement all 3 are 
broke/broken/need fixin.  
I am thinking of changing to
a  conical/circular shape,
for a number of reasons, less space, 
less surface area, provide a deeper 
grain bed for better lautering/wort 
clarification, a false bottom for 
hopefully better and easier extraction. 
I have two uncut kegs,  a 10 or 15G 
Polarware brew pot and or the option 
of getting a 10G Gott Picnic cooler.  
Ideally, I think due to 
transportability issues it would  
be best to go all stainless with 
welded/non welded stainless steel 
fittings.  Does anyone have any 
idea how many lbs of grain I can put
into the 10G Gott picnic cooler? 
I have not gotten good extraction 
or wort clarification out of current 
lauter set-up.  It has 4 copper tubes
for a manifold in the bottom of the 
cooler.  Is there a general consensus 
on Polarware vs converted keg for 
mash tun?
Thanks!
this is my first post.
Brian Butenschoen
Vice-President of the Oregon Brew Crew
Portland Oregon 


_____________________________________________________________
Get free listTool.com email ---> http://www.listtool.com



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 14:27:38 -0500 (Central Daylight Time)
From: "Jim" <bermingham at antennaproducts.com>
Subject: Hoses, Foam and a Confused Dave Burley

The reason for balancing a draft beer system is to enable you to pour a
perfect glass of beer, have consistent quality from glass to glass and
reduce waste caused by foam.  A beer draft system is balanced when beer
flows at a rate of 120 oz. per minute.
Formula: Applied pressure equals Resistance +/-.3.
Applied pressure equals resistance based on temperature and internal keg
pressure.
The internal keg pressure is predetermined at the time the keg is filled. 
It will vary with temperature.  Pressure increases as temperature increases
and decreases as temperature decreases.
Resistance:
Static: "lift" Beer lifted vertically must work against gravity which tends
to add resistance to the system.  To determine the amount of static
resistance in the system caused gravity, multiply the total feet the beer is
vertically lifted by a factor of .43 lbs.  For example lets say we have 6 ft
of vertical lift. 6' x .43 equals 2.58 lbs.  This adds 2.58 lbs of
resistance to the system.
Drop:  Likewise when beer drops vertically, gravity in this case subtracts
from the total system resistance.  The amount of drop that must compensated
for is again determined by multiplying the vertical drop in feet by a factor
of .43 lbs.
Friction:  Frictional resistance results from the flow of beer through the
beer line.  The smaller the internal diameter of the beer line, the greater
the friction resistance to the flow of beer.  The resistance factor for each
foot of beer line for several common beer line sizes is:
Internal diameter 3/8 resistance factor .07
Internal diameter 1/4 resistance factor .45
Internal diameter 3/16 resistance factor 1.8
Tavern Heads:  Each tapping device adds it's own resistance to the flow of
beer and must be taken into account when balancing any draft system.  Most
of the popular tapping heads will add a factor of .5 to the total system
resistance.  It is almost impossible to balance your system with one of the
plastic picnic faucet heads.  They are ok to take on a picnic, but should
not be used on your home draft system.
Altitude:  As the altitude increases, air pressure decreases creating less
pressure on the system.  This will cause beer to flow faster than the ideal
120 oz. per minute.  To compensate for the increase in altitude it is
necessary to add additional frictional resistance to the system.  This is
done by adding an additional.5 lbs of of frictional resistance for every
1000 ft. of elevation above sea level.  Example 4000 ft above sea level
equals 2.0 lbs.  Increase in altitude will also cause errors in the low
pressure gauge readings.  The low pressure gauge will indicate pressures
that are higher than the actual applied pressure.  These errors increase by 
5 for every 1000 ft above sea level.
Factors that influence resistance: Tavern Head, Lift, Drop, Altitude, length
of run and hose size.
To Achieve proper system balance, it is recommended to use the following
internal applied pressures for most kegs.
Keg temp degrees F 46, Keg pressure PSI 15, Applied pressure PSI 17
Keg temp 44, Keg pressure 14, Applied Pressure 16
Keg temp 42, Keg pressure 13, Applied pressure 15
Keg temp 40, keg pressure 12, Applied pressure 14
Keg temp 38, Keg pressure 11, Applied pressure 13
Procedure for system balancing: Temp 38F, Elevation 0  Formula: Applied
pressure equals Resistance +/- .3
Step 1 Determine the applied pressure based on beer type and temp.
Step 2 -5 Tavern Head Resistance
Step 3 -.42 per foot of lift
Step 4 +.43 for every foot of drop
Step 5 +.5 for every 1000 ft above sea level.
Step 6 +/-.3 build in the range.
Step 7 Determine the line siz/sizes
Step 8 The applied pressure must be adjusted for every 1000 ft. above sea
level.
Example: Applied pressure 13PSI, tavern head -.5, sub total 12.5. 5 ft of
lift -.43x5 equal -2.15, sub total 10.35.  3 ft. drop +.43x3 equals +1.29,
sub total11.64.  Range of +.3 and -.3 gives you a top range of 11.94 and a
bottom range of 11.34
Line size used for the example 18ft. of 1/4 inch and 2 ft of 3/16 hose.  The
1/4 hose has a resistance of 8.1 for 18 ft and the 2ft of 3/16 has a
resistance of 3.6.  8.1+3.6 equals 11.70 which falls in the acceptable range

I hope this helps in balancing your home draft system.
Jim Bermingham
Millsap, TX


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 15:42:48 -0400
From: "Steve Alexander" <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Sunlight, Hops, and Outdoor Brewing

Michael Grice asks ...

>>Skunking (from what I've been told) will reverse
>>itself eventually if left in the dark for a couple of weeks [..]

>I am also tempted to demonstrate for my own satisfaction whether or not
>what you say about the reversal of skunking is indeed true...

I've done this.  The reversal is very real - but only partial.  Once skunked
your beer is damaged.

>On another note, does anyone know what sort of effect aging hops has on
>the propensity to skunk?

Probably none.   I think it was Marc Sedam whose colleagues published
a fairly complete description of the process.  Humulones & sulfur
compounds photochemically react with niacin involved along the
way forming mercaptans.  Old hops contribute somewhat less humulones
with age as they degrade  to hulupones - but it's not a big factor.

> I'm thinking of the lambics, which use aged hops.

Maybe you're thinking of lambics that spent long weeks in
hot shipping containers and uncooled warehouses only to
find their way to a fluorescent lighted store shelf for many
weeks.  Mercaptans can be formed by heat alone w/o the
photochemical reaction .. very common in import beers.

 -S




Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 15:45:33 EDT
From: RLoeken at aol.com
Subject: Hamms Beer Clone

    Does any one out there hav e a clone recipe for Hamms Beer?  Or at least 
the type of hops that is used.

Rob


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 14:36:58 -0700 (PDT)
From: Kevin Crouch <kcrouching at yahoo.com>
Subject: mesh lint traps / hose foaming

The mesh lint trap / mash filter idea is very clutch. 
I too use a similar approach as a backup to my false
bottom which I made out of a sheet of pre-drilled
nylon.  But I use a simple tool indispensable to
home-brewers...a mesh scrubbie that appears to be made
out of something like mylar. You might find these
under the name Chore Boy (no affiliation), however
that particular one is made of copper I think. I wedge
this between the false bottom and the floor of my tun
right under the outlet (the uplet as it is)and it
catches all the small stuff really well.  With this
setup I generally get runoff that is as clear as the
finished beer shortly (~ 1 gallon)  after beginning
runoff.

As far as why beer starts foamin up in the hose,   
The beer running through the hose is subjected to a
loss in pressure which should realease dissolved CO2,
and cause some foaming, no?

Kevin Crouch
Vancouver, Wa



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 21:11:50 -0700
From: Scott <sejose at pacbell.net>
Subject: Basic Stamp used for RIMS?

Hello!

I am now interested in circulating my mash, and am researching RIMS.
Someone at work suggested I use a Basic Stamp as my controller, rather than
a PID.  Anyone doing this?  Otherwise, where can I go online to look at PIDs
and try to get a handle on what they are all about?  As you can tell, I am
new to the RIMS idea, but am eager to get my efficiency up.  Source for
heating elements, relays, PIDs?

Any help greatly appreciated!

Thanks

Scott Jose




Return to table of contents

---