---

	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: re: gyn thread... (Robert Marshall)
  Math Geeks, Yes Yes Yes Thanks Thanks Thanks. ("Pete Calinski")
  PBR Retro Chic ("Fred Scheer")
  First Wort Hopping (joel trojnar)
  re: starch haze/sealing conicals ("-S")
  re: fuel ethanol ... digression ("-S")
  Palm Pilot Brewing Issues (rickdude02)
  Kohlbach Equation ("A.J. deLange")
  Twist off bottles (Michael Hartsock)
  Kohlbach pH and starch haze (Marc Sedam)
  Re: bottle conditioning w/wort (Demonick)
  2003 South Shore Brewoff - Results (McNally Geoffrey A NPRI)
  Re: Predicting Mash pH ("John Palmer")
  yeast infection thread - last one from me (Alan Meeker)
  Kegging Eqiupment ("Hedglin, Nils A")
  RE: Website for Draft System Balancing? ("Leonard, Phil")
  Experiments with corn II...the saga continues (Inland-Gaylord)" <BSmith51 at ICCNET.COM>
  RE:  A Couple of Questions (Bill Tobler)
  CAP question (Steven S)
  busted wort chiller (Emily E Neufeld)


*
* Show your HBD pride! Wear an HBD Badge! 
* http://hbd.org/cgi-bin/shopping
*
* The HBD Logo Store is now open!
* http://www.cafeshops.com/hbdstore
*
* 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: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 21:55:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: Robert Marshall <robertjm at pacbell.net>
Subject: Re: re: gyn thread...

I SECOND THE MOTION!!!!
- --------------------

Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 09:37:20 -0400
From: J & B Gallihue <jgallihue at comcast.net>
Subject: gyn thread of discussion

Dear Fellow HBDers,

I invite those of you interested in any further
discussion of yeast
infections to continue them privately or take them to
sci.med.obgyn, (a
newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of the science
and practice of
obstetrics).  I learned a few things and appreciate
the free flow of
discussion.  Now I'm done and make a motion we move on
to other 
homebrew
topics.

Thanks

Joel Gallihue
Columbia, MD




Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 22:01:31 -0400
From: "Pete Calinski" <pjcalinski at adelphia.net>
Subject: Math Geeks, Yes Yes Yes Thanks Thanks Thanks.

Wow, many thinks to

Frank Tutzauer
A.J. deLange
Christopher T. Ivey

Just what I needed (I hope).  My daughter is finishing up her sophomore year
at college.  She started out in pre-med but I managed to talk her out of
that, and besides, she "missed the math".  (I guess got her back from the
dark side of the force).

She has been taking a lot of math but I have been harping on her to take a
stats course or two.  I forwarded your postings to her.  Hope that convinces
her.


Pete Calinski
East Amherst NY
Near Buffalo NY


***********************************************************
*My goal:
*      Go through life and never drink the same beer twice.
*     (As long as it doesn't mean I have to skip a beer.)
***********************************************************



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 06:57:59 -0500
From: "Fred Scheer" <FHopheads at msn.com>
Subject: PBR Retro Chic

HI All:
The problem with the line of Pabst beers
was Marketing; and to some extent purchasing.
The quality of the beers was Great, sales
was not up-to-date. Not enough sales
people on the street; not enough marketing money;
TOO MUCH Executives, not enough PBR people.
The layer of reporting was incredible; no direct
correction or action was allowed. 
EMPOWERMENT and TEAM work where strange worths for
the ownership and top executives.
I'm glad PBR makes his way back, especially before
the Month July, AMERICAN BEER MONTH, as PBR is a classic
American Beer.
Fred Scheer


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 04:53:01 -0700 (PDT)
From: joel trojnar <joeltrojnar at yahoo.com>
Subject: First Wort Hopping

Hopefully a simple question.  What does first wort
hopping do as far as flavor?  If the wort goes through
the boil, wouldn't all the acids isomerize and the
flavor oils boil off.  Perhaps there is some weird
kind of protein/hop reation that locks in flavor. 
Curious...

 -Joel



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 07:12:20 -0400
From: "-S" <-s at adelphia.net>
Subject: re: starch haze/sealing conicals

>Beyond aesthetics, why is a starch haze bad/undesirable?

It is mostly aesthetic - clarity at stake, but it also increases infection
potential.   Its an interesting experiment to mix up  a teaspoon of flour in
a cup of water, boil the mix and let it sit on a countertop for a few days.
It goes bad- often via molds or non-lethal Clostridia - quickly..
- --

Why seal conicals ?    Open fermentation is fine early on, but air permits
ethanol oxidizing organisms, like acetic acid infection to work.   Some of
the 'white floatie' surface mold infections certainly require a little O2 in
the headspace to multiply.    Even yeast will consume some ethanol if O2 is
present.  Open ferments have a decided impact on ester formation too, but
that's a different topic.   There is considerable  risk of aldehyde
formation if you allow O2 access late.

- --

During fermentation yeast ...
/remove simple sugars including most typical 1-4 linked wort carbs.
/lower pH,
/remove all available oxygen,
/creates significant ethanol

Each one of these acts to prevent or inhibit many competing organisms.
This is so effective that after fermentation acetobacteria and their
metabolic kin and a few flukey polysaccharide fermenters are about the only
beer infection agents worth worrying about (others are important
before/during fermentation).   If you decide to leave 1-4 linked carbos
around (as starch) or add a little O2 back into the beer then you are
opening the door for such infections.   Ethanol itself is a great energy
source for a lot of organisms, but utilizing the ethanol typically required
oxygen.

 -S





Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 07:07:29 -0400
From: "-S" <-s at adelphia.net>
Subject: re: fuel ethanol ... digression

Mike Sharp makes many good points ....

>I suppose that depends on the cost and source of the energy.
Not, as I was referring to the energy not dollar cost.

>It's hard to burn coal in your car.

Right.  I thought it was too obvious to state, but the uses and therefore
the economics of any particular energy type are dependent on the form.
There is value in the form itself, with clean burning liquids and gasses
typically being the most desirable and  fungible.   The problem is that the
several state of the art fuel ethanol facilities I found on the web use
80kBTU of natural gas or propane to produce 100kBTU of ethanol.  That's just
stupid.

> It's all about converting energy from one form to another.

Mostly it's about politics, Mike.  The energy conversion you are discussing
is so vastly inefficient that it just doesn't pass the common sense test.

>As a brewer, and on a small scale, I still say it's an interesting topic.

Absolutely - very interesting and intellectually stimulating.  But the
fermentation and distillation parts of the puzzle are well understood.   The
real challenge is in finding waste resources - like your waste sludge -
which can be used to make real energy, not just convert forms at an
irrational cost.  'Real' ethanol plants have to perform careful heat
recovery and resell co-product like CO2 and yeast.   They also have to add
in the expenses of handling vast quantities of high BOD waste - same as
breweries.  Your local Micro only ferments the equivalent of 1 bbl of fuel
ethanol per week.  Multiply that by at least 100,000 and then find a place
for all the waste 'grist' recovery !

>Well, your basic wastewater treatment plant generates a lot of nitrogen
rich
>fertilizer, ...

Good point and making ethanol fuel must rely on 'wasted' fermentables and
waste fertilizer if it's ever to have a place.   About 40% of the planets
bio-available nitrogen comes from fertilizer plants (and about 30 of that in
the human body !).    Most of this excess nitrogen ends up in open waterways
 not waste treatment plants. It's great to reuse a bit of it the waste, it's
far too little.

>It *has* been done successfully, and commercially, under the right
>circumstances. I saw an example in 1978. Yes, I'm sure that overall the
>energy balance was negative, but they got the bulk of the energy for
>free--sunlight to grow the cane.

I don't think so.  The estimates I recited do not include the sunlight and
still show at best a 24 % excess energy production.   A paper on a 1977
vintage plant places the energy costs at 122kBTU to produce a (84kBTU)
gallon of fuel ethanol and this didn't account for sunlight, or waste
recovery.  Prof.D.Pimentel at Cornell Ag College (he chaired a US DOE panel
on fuel ethanol) claims that current plants are not close to break-even when
proper environmental costs are included, also that the current Ag methods
aren't sustainable.

The fuel ethanol industry survives on 'political grease' and
know-nothing-nature-nuts who believe they are driving around on 'sunshine'
energy when in fact it's 80% fossil fuel and a big fat wad of cropland
degradation, BOD demand and nitrogen pollution.  Environmentally and
energetically you'd be better off burning corn in a power plant with
scrubber than trying to make ethanol of it.  That's a more interesting
amateur amenable problem.

Here's a 1997 Investor Business Daily article, on a very conservative
website eschewing ethanol and ADMs major role.
http://www.cato.org/dailys/10-02-97.html  ADM is a major political
contributor and has been subjected to fines and criminal penalties in the
recent past for manipulating markets.

 -S




Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 05:15:08 -0400 (GMT)
From: rickdude02 at earthlink.net
Subject: Palm Pilot Brewing Issues

I love my Palm, but I have a problem that I'm hoping that the vast
experience here can help me with.

My Palm is in a leather "wallet."  It looks like a little leather 
notebook and on one side is the Palm, and on the other is a 
notepad (for quickly jotting brewing stats when I don't want to 
take the time to make manual entries-- ya'll see how this is 
brewing related, right?).  There's a little sleeve in the center 
of the wallet that holds a small pen.  I have filled the slot with 
a Fisher Space Pen (one of those pens that writes upside down and 
underwater) because it is short and fits perfectly.

Here's the problem-- there's no elastic in the leather sleeve.  It 
is becoming "broken in" and no longer holds the pen firmly.  I 
can't quickly jot down my brewing notes when my pen keeps slipping 
out of the sleeve while I'm not looking (so far the pen has not 
time).  I've been thinking about using some adhesive to hold the 
metal pen-top in the sleeve, but I don't know what will bond 
leather to metal.

Any ideas would be greatly appreciated, because I have having to 
search earnestly for this pen while I should be writing down vital 
stats while brewing.

(Really-- this is a brewing question!)

Rick Theiner
LOGIC, Inc.


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 12:25:19 +0000
From: "A.J. deLange" <ajdel at cox.net>
Subject: Kohlbach Equation

Dave asked about the Kohlbach equation. First off it must be understood 
that this is an approximation based upon empirical observation. There 
must be several things that can lead to a result appreciably different 
from what the equation predics. One would be how much phosphate is 
available in the malt. This can be up to 1% of the weight but can 
doubtless be appreciably less depending on the variety and the 
particular crop (I'm guessing here). A second might be the condition of 
the phytase coming out of the kiln. If it has been somewhat or 
completely denatured less phosphate will be released in the mash. Others 
are probably the myriad mysterious forces that determine what actually 
precipitates (hydroxyapatite and fluoroapatite are just two of the 
possibilites) in the mash tun. Another is the distilled water pH of the 
base malt. I have found that the malts I have been using give a 
distilled water pH closer to 5.7 than 5.8.

The Kohlbach equation is only intended to give a rough idea in the 
presence of low kilned base malts. I even suspect that pale ale malt, 
which is noticeably darker than pilsner malt, may contain some acid (and 
have partially denatured phytase). It is thus best, IMO, used to give 
the brewer a tool for comparing water supplies and to give him a feel 
for how much higher kilned malt (or, on the other hand, chalk) he may 
need. Higher kilned malts contain a fair amoun of acid. Dave's calcium 
addition was essentially that required to 0 out the residual alkalinity 
and thus nullify the buffering action of the water. It shouldn't take 
much malt acid to swing the pH and that's what I suspect happened. It's 
an easy experiment to make some small ( a fraction of a pound of grist 
in a beaker) test mashes to see if they'll lend some insight. First do 
distilled water mashes with and without the Munich. Then repeat with the 
treated water.

Another interesting experiment is to dough in some of the Munich with 
distilled water and then add lye of calibrated strength until the pH 
reaches the desired strike pH. The amount of lye required 
(milliequivalents) divided by the weight of the malt used in the 
experiment (pounds)  is the amount of acid per pound the malt releases 
in bringing a mash to that pH.

A,J.



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 06:30:25 -0700 (PDT)
From: Michael Hartsock <xd_haze at yahoo.com>
Subject: Twist off bottles

I recently started using twist off bottles, I split a
batch with half being twist off, and half being bar
bottles.  I noticed no difference with 1 month bottle
conditioning.  I can't speak for longer storage, and I
wouldn't risk my bigger beers with twist offs, but for
regular use and consumption within a few months, I
would use twist offs with no reservation.

My experience has only been with an old iron and steel
bench capper, and the truth is, they are capped sooooo
tightly, that I can't usually twist them off at all. 
So the convenience gained is simply the availabiltiy
of the bottles.  you will not be able to drink
opener-free.  But also remember, many twist offs are
simply cheap thin bottlees this is a greater problem
than the lips the bottles sport.  

FYI Shiner beer from spoetzl???? (something like that)
has very heavy twist off bottles and a good hefeweizen
and bock for $5 a sixer.

mike

=====
"May those who love us, love us.
And those that don't love us,
May God turn their hearts.
And if he doesn't turn their hearts,
may he turn their ankles
So we'll know them
by their limping."



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 10:03:06 -0400
From: Marc Sedam <marc_sedam at unc.edu>
Subject: Kohlbach pH and starch haze

Dave H. asks about the pH assumption in the Kohlbach equation.  One 
thing you may want to consider is whether or not your water has been 
voided of dissolved gasses.  When you use dH2O in a lab setting it's 
always completely still.  Try taking that measurement again but with 
boiled and cooled water from your tap.  Also consider than 
chlorine/chloramine treatment could effect your water's pH in many ways.

As for starch haze, the primary reason to keep it out of your beer is 
not for aesthetics but for stability and shelf life.  Any undigested 
starch left in the finished beer can be digested by the inevitable 
bacterium in your beer.  While the yeast cannot ferment the starch, 
those little bugs sure can.  And they're in your beer.  Not many, I 
hope, but they're in there.  If you package your beer and store cold, 
i.e. close to freezing, this will likely not be a problem.  But starch 
haze + room temperature storage + time leads to unpleasant results and 
likely gushers.  Even though I thought I knew better, I have had gushers 
for this very reason.

Cheers!

- -- 

Marc Sedam
Chapel Hill, NC




Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 07:30:05 -0700
From: Demonick <demonick at zgi.com>
Subject: Re: bottle conditioning w/wort

From: "D. Clark" <clark at capital.net>
>I have been using primetabs with what I would call only limited success.  
>I have put four tabs per bottle and have seen only mild carbonation in
>three different beers.  I had much more CO2 production using corn sugar or
>DME when I was bottling.

Thank you for trying the product.  PrimeTabs are corn sugar.  There is no
reason not to use more tablets.  If 4 tablets do not give the desired
carbonation level use 5, or even 6 tablets.

Calculating the amount of corn sugar needed per bottle is easy.  For
example, 4.0 ounces (111.4 grams) of corn sugar in 50 12 ounce bottles is
2.27 grams/bottle.  Each PrimeTab is 500 milligrams (0.5 grams) of corn
sugar.  To attain a similar carbonation level with PrimeTabs use 5
tablets/bottle, yielding 2.5 grams corn sugar/bottle.

Domenick Venezia
Venezia & Company, LLC
Maker of PrimeTab
(206) 782-1152  phone
(206) 782-6766  fax
Seattle, WA
demonick at zgi dot com
http://www.primetab.com



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 11:18:31 -0400
From: McNally Geoffrey A NPRI <McNallyGA at Npt.NUWC.Navy.Mil>
Subject: 2003 South Shore Brewoff - Results

All,

  The results of the 2003 South Shore Brewoff are now posted on our
club webpage at:

http://members.aol.com/brewclub

  I'd like to publicly thank everyone involved in making this year's
Brewoff a success, including Rock Bottom Brewery (Braintree, MA), all
the judges and stewards, all of our sponsors, and all of the entrants.

  All score sheets and prizes will be mailed by the end of this week.

                                              Geoffrey McNally
                                              2003 SSBO Organizer


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 10:47:30 -0700
From: "John Palmer" <jjpalmer at altrionet.com>
Subject: Re: Predicting Mash pH

Dave provides the following info:
>My water has 50ppm Alkalinity, 25.8ppm Ca, 6.3ppm Mg and a pH of 7.8.  For
a
>Bavarian wheat that I brewed yesterday I added an extra 50ppm Ca in the
form
>of CaCl2, so the total Ca was about 76ppm.  The Kolbach equation predicts a
>pH of 5.8 for this mash, but I hit around 5.5.  The recipe is 61% wheat,
31%
>Pilsner, and 8% Munich.

There are several important points to consider when asking why a
mathematical model for brewing water chemistry and mash pH does not fit the
actual measurement. The basis here is Paulas Kohlbach's Residual Alkalinity
relationship first published circa 1944. In it, he stated that the
relationship between Calcium, Magnesium (the combined hardness), and
Alkalinity (as CaCO3) and malt phytin would combine to predict the mash pH
of a base malt mash. The parameter known as residual alkalinity occurs when
malt phytin chemically combines with Calcium and Magnesium to release
hydrogen ions which neutralizes the alkalinity (the carbonate/bicarbonate
ions).

The equation is: RA = Alkalinity - (Calcium/3.5) - (Magnesium/7) where these
quantities are expressed as milliequivalents per liter. AJ's equation is
correct. It looks different because it has been converted to ppms and has
the 5.8 baseline pH term added:
> pH = 5.8 + [0.00168 Alk(ppm as CaCO3) - 0.0012 Ca(mg/L) - 0.000982
Mg(mg/L)]

Here is where we start arm waving:
1. Kohlbach's relationship is a model. I have attempted to look up his
publications but the only one I was able to find did not discuss how he
derived the relationship. Suffice to say that there may be minor factors
that have a small effect that did not make it into the model.
2. The relationship assumes a base malt mash pH of 5.8 for distilled water
and 100% "base" malt. Whatever that was in 1944.  Malts and malting
techniques differ from region to region. Also, when I was researching this,
I had to make a decision on what the base malt mash pH was going to be,
whether to choose 5.7 or 5.8. I cannot remember why I had to choose, maybe
Kohlbach's number was 5.75?? maybe he didn't choose a value?? maybe I got it
from other brewing texts (Malting and Brewing Science?) I don't remember.
For some considered reason I chose 5.7 as my baseline instead of 5.8  I
think that it agreed with my experimental data better.
3. Your water analysis: was it an actual measurement on the day that you
brewed? or was it an annual average?   Water chemistry shifts throughout the
year depending on your source, so that could be another reason for a few
points difference in the predicted and actual mash pH.
4. Finally, your malt bill was predominately wheat malt, not barley malt as
the relation was based on. That is probably a big difference there. Also you
had 8% Munich malt which does have some natural acidity to it.

So, you predicted a mash pH of 5.8 for the mash using AJ's equation; I
predict a mash pH of 5.7 using my version. You measured 5.5
I can not see a compelling reason to say that the model doesn't work, given
all of the variables associated with your actual mash.
Hope this helps,
John

john at howtobrew.com
www.realbeer.com/jjpalmer
www.howtobrew.com



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 14:22:15 -0400
From: Alan Meeker <ameeker at mail.jhmi.edu>
Subject: yeast infection thread - last one from me

With apologies in advance to Nathan Hall, Joel Gallihue, & anyone else who's
sick of this thread, this will be my last post on the subject. I'll be glad
to discuss it further by direct e-mail with anyone interested.

I feel one more post is called for, given the potential relevance to the
homebrewing community, particularly beer-drinking spouses, SOs, and SWMBOs.

This whole thread got started when I responded to Alex Lawton's question
concerning the possibility that his wife's kidney infection was due to
drinking scrumpy 24 hours prior. In my response I mentioned the potential
for brewer's yeast to make it through the GI tract and cause vulvovaginitis,
something that has met with much skepticism.

First, some basic information. Vulvovaginitis caused by yeast is very
common. Estimates are that approximately 75% of all women will experience
this condition. The vast majority of these infections are caused by members
of the genus Candida, primarily C. albicans. As with bacterial urinary tract
infections (UTI), the accepted primary source of infection is from organisms
present in the lower GI tract. Precisely why women develop yeast infections
is poorly understood, though many of the factors thought relevant (pH
changes, risk factors such as diabetes, pregnancy, hormonal status, certain
medications, immune depression, etc.) have already been mentioned here.

Some points/misconceptions that bear addressing: A) that organisms present
in food cannot survive the trip through the digestive system to emerge "at
the other end." This can and does occur. This is thought to be the source of
our normal intestinal flora. B) that Saccharomyces cerevisiae (brewer's
yeast) cannot cause vaginal yeast infections. There is enough evidence in
the medical literature to indicate that this can happen, albeit rarely. C)
That only severely immuno-compromised women (AIDS patients, those taking
immunosuppressive drugs, etc.) can develop infections from brewer's yeast.
There are sufficient reports of women with yeast infections caused by S.c.
who do not appear to be immuno-compromised to argue against this idea.
Certainly there does not seem to be any requirement for /severe/ immune
dysfunction. On the other hand, the possibility of partial immune
depression, perhaps locally, is not ruled out. Indeed, the etiology of S.c.
infections almost invariably include prior recurrent yeast infections. Thus,
recent vaginal candidiasis is considered a risk factor for non-albicans
vaginitis. D) performing a literature search
via Google or through NCBI-PubMed is not exhaustive, as only articles dating
back to about the mid-1960s are covered. Older articles do mention an
increased prevalence of yeast infections among female bakery workers, though
I can find nothing in the recent literature concerning this. Why this is the
case? Perhaps sanitation has improved over the years such that this is no
longer much of a problem. I don't know about bakeries, but the breweries
I've visited (plus one I've helped out with QC testing) are extraordinarily
conscious of sanitation. The workers in these breweries could hardly be
characterized as being "bathed" in yeast.

The 3 most recent papers dealing with the prevalence of S.c. - caused
vaginitis agree closely in their estimates - about 0.5% of all vaginitis
cases. Thus, as has been pointed out, it is rare. However, since vaginitis
itself is so very common, this small percentage represents a significant
number of women (~ 6500 of the 13 million total cases annually in U.S.).

As mentioned earlier, documented S.c. infections typically follow recurrent
candidiasis. It appears that the initial infection either sets the stage for
S.c. (normally non-pathogenic) to get a foothold, or that treatment of the
initial infection(s) with certain drugs favors the emergence of S.c. which
is more resistant than Candida to several commonly used anti-mycotic agents.
The significance of this is that since S.c. infections are clinically
indistinguishable from those caused by Candida, and since cultures are
rarely taken for vaginitis, S.c. infections can be much harder to clear,
especially if Candida is the assumed cause and treatment is given using an
agent to which S.c. is resistant.

My wife went through this a while back, and we convincingly narrowed it down
to her drinking fresh, improperly decanted homebrew (thus my interest in the
topic). I wouldn't worry about it overly much. If your loved one develops an
infection, chances are it is common candidiasis and should clear up nicely
and rapidly with standard treatment. However, if you find yourself in a
situation where infections are recurrent or persistent, then it would be
prudent to consider S.c as a potential source and worth asking the
gynecologist to get a culture grown up to check. If confirmed, the treatment
course may need to be altered. For example, one study performing drug
sensitivity testing on S.c. isolates from infected women found a high degree
of resistance to the commonly prescribed drug fluconazole (Diflucan),
resistance that was reflected in poor clinical responses of these patients.

 -Alan Meeker

- -----------------------------------------
Alan Meeker, Ph.D.
Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions
Department of Urology
Marburg Building, Room 113
600 N. Wolfe Street
Baltimore, MD 21287-2101

ph (410) 614-4974 or (410) 614-5686
fax (410) 502-9817



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 13:15:00 -0700
From: "Hedglin, Nils A" <nils.a.hedglin at intel.com>
Subject: Kegging Eqiupment

Hi,
  I'm getting ready to buy a kegging system.  Was wondering if anyone  
has bought a system from RCB Equipment (http://www.rcbequip.com/)  
& what they thought of them.
Thanks,

Nils Hedglin
Sacramento, CA
[1978.7, 275.3] Apparent Rennerian

In Heaven there is no beer, that's why we drink it here,
And when we're gone from here, our friends will be drinking all the
beer.


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 15:14:58 -0500
From: "Leonard, Phil" <Phil.Leonard at dsionline.com>
Subject: RE: Website for Draft System Balancing?

Nate wanted a website for draft system info:

http://kegman.net/balance.html

Philip


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 16:23:24 -0500
From: "Smith, Brian (Inland-Gaylord)" <BSmith51 at ICCNET.COM>
Subject: Experiments with corn II...the saga continues

Dear Listers....

Armed with the instructions from Jeff R. I embarked on this CAP odessy once
again.  Because of it I now know several new "truths" about me:

1) I know why I am not an "all-grainer"  6 hours to brew is far too long for
this guy.  And this was a partial mash setup.

2)  Saflager yeast are pretty darn good.  I used saflager S-23 (?) dry
yeast.  I did give it a little head start by mixing it up in a pyrex
measuring cup with some sugar and warm water, let it work about 4 hours.
Lag time was about 2 hours max.  Transfered to the secondary last night,
after less than 36 hrs.  Good to have in case of emergency.

3) a pre-chiller used with my immersion chiller will give good results.

4) Winn dixie brand Corn Flakes serve pretty well as a adjunct. (18 oz
box...$1.99)

In case your wondering...

recipe..

1 18 oz box Corn Flakes (there not just for breakfast any more!)
1/2 lbs 2 row for cereal mash
1.5 lbs Munic malt
1 lbs 2 row for mash
5 lbs pale liquid malt extract
2 oz northern brewer for bittering
2.5 oz cascade for aroma (includes about .25 oz of my homegrown cascade)
Initial gravity...1.045

Looks and smells great.

OK,  flame away....

Brian Smith
Bogalusa, LA

Brian Smith
Inland Paperboard and Packaging
Bogalusa Mill



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 19:02:11 -0500
From: Bill Tobler <wctobler at sbcglobal.net>
Subject: RE:  A Couple of Questions

Val lipscomb from my home state asks some good HERMS questions;

- --Question 1-What is the best size and length of copper
tubing to use in a HERMS?

Not sure what is "BEST" but I and many others use 1/2 copper tubing.  A
practical length would be anywhere between 17 and 25 feet.  I'll send you
some pictures of mine.

- --Question 2-Can a HERMS be used,efficiently,for multiple step mashes by
using the temp control on the heat ex-changer and recirculating constantly?

This is a tougher question than the last.  If you are asking if you can
control the temperature of the mash by controlling the temperature of the
HLT only, I don't think it would work very good, though you could probably
do it.  The heart and blood of a HERMS is in controlling the temperature of
the HLT.  You run the mash liquor through the HERMS coil until the mash gets
to temperature, and then either by-pass the coil or shut down the pump.  You
also don't want the HLT temperature much above 10 or 15 degrees above the
mash setpoint, or you may overheat the wort.  You will always have a
temperature differential between the HLT and the mash tun.  But, the longer
you circulate through the HLT, the closer the mash temperature will get to
the HLT temperature.  My system has a 3-way valve on the inlet of the HERMS
coil which is controlled by a temperature controller with the thermocouple
in the mash.  When the mash gets to temperature, the 3-way swaps to a
by-pass.  I have the controller in on/off mode and it swaps to by-pass when
it reaches setpoint, and swaps back to the coil when the temperature drops
1.5% of setpoint.  My system recirculates constantly.

Instead of using a HERMS coil, you could get yourself a commercial
counterflow chiller, with the HLT water on the 3/4" side and the wort on the
1/2" side.  You would need two pumps and two temperature controllers.  When
the wort in the mash tun gets to temperature, the HLT water circulation pump
just shuts down and the mash keeps circulating.  This is probably the most
efficient HERMS system going.  I hear you can get within one or two degrees
of the HLT temperature this way.  I think I've said enough.  Let the
firecrackers roll!!

Bill Tobler
Lake Jackson, TX
(1129.7, 219.9) Apparent Rennerian




Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 21:38:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: Steven S <steven at 403forbidden.net>
Subject: CAP question


All the talk last year and this has me intrested in trying a CAP or CACA
following the Master From The North guidelines. Until I get my brewery
completed and turn the space under the stairs into a lagering/serving room
I will have to contend with ale like temps.

Has anyone tried making a CAP using lager yeasts at ale temps ala: Steam
Beer? If not any thoughts on how this might turnout?




Steven St.Laurent	403forbidden.net	[580.2,181.4] Rennerian


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 22:30:33 -0500
From: Emily E Neufeld <eneufeld at juno.com>
Subject: busted wort chiller

my 10 gallon copper wort chiller split (cracked open) after some water
froze inside. aside from scrapping it and buying a new one, is there any
sealant or solder that can be safely used without leaching into the beer
or dissolving at boiling temperatures? My other thought was to straighten
out the section and use some sort of compression fitting. I would rather
spend my brew dollars on ingredients rather than replace my wort chiller.
(The good news is that the 5 gallon ESB turned into a very good 8 gallons
of ordinary bitter.) Thanks. Private emails are fine.

Drew Buscareno


Return to table of contents

---