HOMEBREW Digest #4232 Tue 29 April 2003

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

		Digest Janitor: janitor@hbd.org


          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 *********

  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
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 04/29/03, by HBD2HTML v1.2 by KFL
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96