---

	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:
  brewster vs. brewer (carlos benitez)
  RE: Non-Digest version ("Rob Moline")
  Hear Hear - Digest'ed (John Palmer)
  re: Correct Units for Potential Yield (John Palmer)
  Fermentation Stirring ("beer man")
  re care of counterflow chillers ("Stephen Weiss")
  Re: Correct Units for Potential Yield (Fred Johnson)
  Brew pot recs ("Shawn E Lupold, Ph.D")
  Units ("A.J deLange")
  mash efficiency & cleaning tubes ("Christopher T. Ivey")
  RE: Care and nurturing of counterflow chillers ("Roach, Brad")
  Re: non-Digest version (hollen)
  Correct Units for Potential Yield ("William Frazier")
  10 gallon cornies ("Micah Millspaw")
  Part 1 pitching yeast strain mixtures, crushing techniques ("Dave Burley")
  Part 2  foamy beer and wine, beer can turkey, cleaning a counterflow chiller, maltodextrin and Atkins diet ("Dave Burley")
  Sugar to Alcohol imponderable ("John Gubbins")
  bottle conditioning barley wine (Mark Beck)
  Sabco Fermenter ("Gary Smith")
  Dry Hop -- How Long? ("Ross")
  Re: Corny keg cleaning (David Towson)
  Re: Correct Units for Potential Yield (David Towson)


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*           The HBD Logo Store is now open!             *
*            http://www.hbd.org/store.html              *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*   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. Note that the Digest now
  automagically protects your address, so spam-proofing is a waste of
  your time, anyway :^)

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

JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Spencer Thomas (janitor@hbd.org)



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


Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 20:09:55 -0800 (PST)
From: carlos benitez <greenmonsterbrewing at yahoo.com>
Subject: brewster vs. brewer

Hi All,

   Dave Burley used the term brewster in his post - 
Just an interesting aside - swmbo is into geneology
told me that the last name Brewer meant a male head of
family that had that profession while "brewster" was
actually reserved for the woman (usually widowed) who
had the profession...     
   On another topic - can a stout be blonde? Or is it
the dark roasted malt that makes it a stout? My last
creation used oatmeal (roasted and unroasted) and
Irish ale yeast but intentionally had a light orange
color - so can I call it a stout? (I'm gonna do anyway
but your blessing is always nice!)

=====
BIBIDI !
        Brew It Bottle It Drink It 
       Carlos Benitez - Green Monster Brewing
        Bainbridge, PA,  U.S.A.



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 23:21:27 -0600
From: "Rob Moline" <jethrogump at mchsi.com>
Subject: RE: Non-Digest version

Grog, mate,
     As one who frequently sends out posts in full rant mode, I appreciate
the ability to have re-considered by morning and retract the post....which
is not possible on a non-digest version.
     I know if you think carefully, you will appreciate that benefit!
     Submitting to Brian's will....
     I remain....
Gump


From: Brian Lundeen <BLundeen at rrc.mb.ca>
Subject: RE: Non-Digest version

> Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 16:54:23 +1030
> From: "Greg 'groggy' Lehey" <grog at lemis.com>
> Subject: Non-digest version?
>
> This is
> the only list I know which is available in digest-only form;
> couldn't people have a choice of digest or individual
> messages, like with other lists?
>
As someone who subscribes to a brewing list that offers both, I must vote an
emphatic No to this proposal.

The big problem in the other list is the number of individual message people
who do not understand the importance of trimming the message to which they
are replying. Sometimes an entire message is regurgitated to which a line or
two is added. When you are receiving individual messages, these things
aren't as annoying as when you are trying to page down through them to find
the next message. Occasionally a call goes out to remind people to practice
better snippage, but the unwelcome behaviour soon returns.

At least here, everybody is in Digest mode, and I think that is one reason
why messages are generally well-snipped. I say, leave well enough alone.

Cheers
Brian, imposing my will on brewers everywhere, from Winnipeg

"The More I Know About Beer, The More I Realize I Need To Know More About
Beer!"
- ---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.541 / Virus Database: 335 - Release Date: 11/14/2003



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 21:33:15 -0800
From: John Palmer <jjpalmer at altrionet.com>
Subject: Hear Hear - Digest'ed

I want to add my two cents, not to jump on the bandwagon denouncing 
this newbie who wants his HBD 24/7, ;-)  (perfectly understandable)
but because it is indeed a bad idea from my overstuffed mailbox point 
of view. I must get between 200-300 emails a day, mostly spam of course 
(mostly filtered), but even the good stuff is still a barrage.
I LIKE getting a digest. I get the digest of the Oz version too. Two 
items that I KNOW are about brewing that I can review at leisure over a 
cup of coffee instead of scrolling thru 50 other messages that say 
"hello", re: SNPA, or re: Swinging Cats.

John Palmer
john at howtobrew.com
www.realbeer.com/jjpalmer
www.howtobrew.com - the free online book of homebrewing



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 22:22:23 -0800
From: John Palmer <jjpalmer at altrionet.com>
Subject: re: Correct Units for Potential Yield

Todd asks someone to explain the common gravity calculation unit 
Points/Pound/Gallon.

Here is how it works:
The more technically acceptable way of writing this unit is 
Gallon*Points/Pound which is the American version of the European 
brewing unit Liter*Degree/Kilogram.
The way that homebrewers in the US speak of it is Points/Pound/Gallon, 
where Gallons gets flipped up onto the numerator since it divides the 
denominator Pounds. (not sure if I am using proper math jargon here but 
it's close).

So that explains the writing of the unit. Here is where it comes from:
Sucrose is the baseline for comparing brewing gravity because it 
contributes 100% of its weight as soluble extract. Sucrose raise the 
gravity by 46 Points (1.046) when 1 pound is dissolved in 1 gallon of 
water (at standard temperature and pressure, yada, yada).

Malted barley is measured for its potential extract by the American 
Society of Brewing Chemists (ASBC) Methods of Analysis #4 - Extract. 
And to summarize it in two words they grind the malt up finely, weigh 
it, and put it thru a stepped mash. After they have mashed it for the 
standard time, it is tested for conversion and the mash is sparged 
(known volume) and filtered thru a paper filter. The resulting wort is 
measured for specific gravity and from that gravity and a separate test 
for %moisture of the malt, the Total Soluble Extract Fine Grind, Dry 
Basis (percent by weight) is calculated.

And it is that number (%Extract FGDB), my friends, that malt 
specification sheets list for the brewer. It typically is about 85% for 
a lager base malt. And when this number is applied to the reference 
standard for sucrose, 46 ppg, we get the maximum extract for the malt, 
typically 37 ppg.

Now then, when we brewers brew, we don't get 37 ppg from our mashes. 
Part of it is due to the percent moisture in the malt (typically 4%), 
and part is due to inefficiency in conversion and lautering.  
Homebrewers typically get 27-30 ppg for their mash and lautering 
process. And there are two ways of looking at this result: 1) you can 
say that you got 28/37 of the maximum % Extract FGDB for that malt 
(75.6% brewhouse efficiency) or 2) you can compare your yield to 
sucrose and say that you got 28/46 (60.8% Extract by weight). Most 
homebrewers talk about their yield in terms of #1, brewhouse 
efficiency. Professional brewers may talk about yield as #2.

Hope this helps,
John

John Palmer
john at howtobrew.com
www.realbeer.com/jjpalmer
www.howtobrew.com - the free online book of homebrewing



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 23:23:20 -0800
From: "beer man" <westcoastalt at hotmail.com>
Subject: Fermentation Stirring

A few of my ale ferments have stopped short.  Temp is 65 - 75F and quality 
ingredients are used.  All grain, single temp infusion mash with fully 
modified american or engligh two-row malt as the base for each.  Fermenting 
in 6 gallon carboys.  These fermentation disruptions have occured with White 
Labs WLP007(stopped at 1050 and 1030 from 1081) and WLP005(stopped at 1025 
from 1052) as well as Wyeast 1056 (stopped at 1017 from 1056).  The first 
two are highly flocculant while the third is not.

It has been suggested that I stir my fermenting beer by removing the airlock 
or blowoff and inserting a sanitized spoon handle or racking cane.  It 
bothers me to mess around inside the fermentor, but I tried this on the 
Wyeast 1056 Pale Ale and it worked (finished at 1010) as well as the WLP005 
Oatmeat Stout (finished at 1017)  Another suggestion involves stirring by 
rocking the carboy to swirl the beer without splashing.  I tried this on the 
WLP007 high gravity (1081) ferment and am waiting to take a reading.

Does anyone have any experience in this area that they would like to share?  
Do breweries have this problem?  How do they prevent or correct it?  Thank 
you in advance for your help.

Also, I like the digest format and love the content.  Let's keep it in the 
current format :-)

Oregon Alt



Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 07:02:41 -0500
From: "Stephen Weiss" <stephen_weiss at msn.com>
Subject: re care of counterflow chillers

I had a garden hose model 1st.  I would siphon in some
iodophor or starsan solution and let it sit for a few minutes.
While waiting for my whirlpool to settle I would siphon a
quart of boiling water through and then use it.  At the
then connected a hose between the wort in and out so
it stayed filled with water until next use.  My current
chiller is copper in copper.  At 1st I drained the water
and put it in a 250 oven for 20m.  Now I blow steam
through it with a steam machine.  I store it full of water.
A steam machine is great for sanitizing most anything.
Blow steam into the top of your "clean" oxygen
stone and look at all the pretty brown water that bubbles
out (oooh/ahhhh).



Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 07:19:02 -0500
From: Fred Johnson <FLJohnson at portbridge.com>
Subject: Re: Correct Units for Potential Yield

Thanks, Todd, for pointing out this long standing error in much of our 
literature. I had always scratched my head when I saw the units as 
often mistakenly used. I've seen these same incorrect units in LOTS of 
places, including brewing recipe calculators, spreadsheets, etc. I 
wasn't smart enough to figure out why I couldn't make sense of these 
incorrect units.

Thanks for setting the record straight.

Fred L Johnson
Apex, North Carolina, USA



Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 08:53:28 -0500
From: "Shawn E Lupold, Ph.D" <lupolds at jhmi.edu>
Subject: Brew pot recs

I'm looking to upgrade my brewing equipment with a new brew pot and
possibly a pump.  The cost of a 40 quart or larger pot with false bottom
and spigot is a little intimidating.  From what I've seen the prices
vary significantly.  Can anyone give me a few recommendations on
reliable or unreliable brands/styles?  Any discussion on pump quality
would also be appreciated.

Many Thanks,

Shawn Lupold
Alexandria, VA 



Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 14:00:30 +0000
From: "A.J deLange" <ajdel at cox.net>
Subject: Units

WRT Todd's question: points/pound/gal = points/(pound/gal) = 
(point*gal)/pound. An old trick I was taught in high school may be 
helpful. Units can be manipulated like algebraic quantities. Write 
(points/1)/(pounds/gal) = (points/1)*(gal/pound).  When this is 
multiplied by pounds/gal the result is points. In the  literature you 
will occasionally find potential extract in degree-L/kg  (or brewer's 
pounds per quarter)  but more frequently you will be given a  dry basis 
fraction which is the pounds of extract expected from a pound (adjusted 
for moisture content) of grain (or kg/kg). This number is then 
multiplied by the pounds of grain in the mash and again by the 
brewhouse efficiency and divided by the sum of the masses of water and 
grain to give the expected yield in degrees P. For example, 10 pounds 
of grain with 20 quarts of water, an expected extract of 80% and 90% 
brew house efficiency would give 100*(10*0.8*0.9)/(10 + 2.04*20) = 14.1 
P (assuming water weighs 2.04 pounds/qt) . Specific gravity  can then 
be easily calculated approximately from the Lincoln Equation: SG  = 1 + 
Plato/(258.6 - 0.8797P) = 1 + 14.1/(258.6 - 0.8796*14.1) = 1.0572
or you can just multiply the Plato degrees by .004 and add 1 to get 
1.056 which is accurate enough for homebrewing. For precise values the 
ASBC table  (derived from Plato's table) or polynomials extracted from 
it can be used.

"Points" are a convenience used by home brewers. They are approximately 
linearly related to the pounds extract per volume of wort. With modern 
programmable calculators, computers, spreadsheets, PDAs etc. there is 
really no reason to  use them other than that they are easier to 
understand and facilitate quick mental approximation.

A.J.



Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 09:23:47 -0500 (EST)
From: "Christopher T. Ivey" <cti3c at unix.mail.virginia.edu>
Subject: mash efficiency & cleaning tubes

Greetings,

Last year about this time, I converted from a "zap-pap" (bucket in a
bucket) lautering system to using a "sure-screen" attached to the end of a
vinyl tube.  My mash efficiency increased from about 65% to 80%, and
stayed there for about 6 or 7 batches.  The last few batches, however,
I've had a drop in efficiency to anywhere from 55% to 70%.  I don't really
care if my efficiency is low or high, but I do care that it be
predictable, at least within 5% or so.  I haven't really done much
different among batches that I can think of, so I'm wondering aloud to the
collective brewing wisdom...1) what are some of the main sources of
variation in mash efficiency??  2) how can these be controlled?  I know
that the coarseness of the crush tends to be one the more important
variables.  Are there differences between pale malt varieties that would
lead to swings in efficiency this wide?  What other factors should I be
thinking about?

Second, the post about counterflow chiller maintenance reminded me of a
related question that I've been pondering: How do you maintain your vinyl
tubing?  I usually soak in PBW for awhile, rinse well, and then hang to
dry (which can take up to a week or so for long pieces).  My wife is not a
big fan of having vinyl tubing strewn about the kitchen, so I was
wondering what alternative approaches to maintenance might be used.

Cheers,
Chris Ivey
Champaign, IL



Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 06:54:09 -0800
From: "Roach, Brad" <Brad.Roach at Emulex.Com>
Subject: RE: Care and nurturing of counterflow chillers


wally,

i have been using been using a counterflow wort chiller for years. it is
probably the single best thing that i did to improve my beer quality.
keeping it clean is fairly easy and straight forward. after each use, i
force water from a garden hose thru the copper tubing then i turn it to get
any of the water out that may be stuck in the coils. during the next brewing
session, i connect the wort chiller up to the brew pot. when the water is
above 190 degrees, i let the hot water flow thru the wort chiller for awhile
without the counterflow cold water turned on. this will kill any of the
bacteria that may have grown from the last usage. finally remember to
disconnect the wort chiller and turn it to get the water out in the coils. i
have not lost a batch yet out of 30+ brew sessions following this procedure.
now if i could just convince my brother-in-law to make the switch....

brad roach
newport beach, ca



Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 10:19:41 -0500 (EST)
From: hollen at woodsprite.com
Subject: Re: non-Digest version


Greg Lahey complains about not being able to reply to individual messages.

Greg -  From your signature, it appears that you are on a Unix system
(don't think any Windoze system will allow you to finger anyone).

So, that being true, why don't you use the power of the system you are on
to crack the digests into individual messages.  Either use Emacs and GNUS
and set up the incoming digest as a newsgroup or use Mutt.  Both of these
can turn a digest into individual Emails that can be easily responded to.

This digest is properly set up according to digestification rules so that
it can be easily undigestified.

I have been reading the digest this way for 12+ years.  Piece of cake when
you use the right tools.

dion

- --
Dion Hollenbeck  Email:  hollen at woodsprite.com
Home Page:       http://www.woodsprite.com
Brewing Page:    http://hbd.org/hollen



Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 09:26:10 -0600
From: "William Frazier" <billfrazier at worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Correct Units for Potential Yield

Todd Carlson wrote "While preparing to do my first all-grain batch, I was
getting confused
when calculating the predicted OG from the gain bill using potential yield
values....Please set
me straight."

Todd - I'm not surprised about confusion with predicting OG's when you're
dealing with "potential yields" and "expected efficiencies".  Why not just
measure the actual extract achieved from your brewing system.  Then, after
several batches, you will be able to plug in this number and hit the desired
OG for any beer recipe you desire.  The calculations required can be handled
in a simple one-page spread sheet.  I'll be glad to send mine to anyone who
would like a copy.  Here's what's involved;

Specific gravity is used to calculate the weight of 1 gallon of wort.
Specific gravity is converted to degrees Plato or Brix.
Plato is used to calculate the weight of extract in 1 gallon of wort.
This extract weight is multiplied by the total gallons of boiled wort.
The total extract weight is divided by the weight of grain used in the
batch.
The result is an actual Extract % for any batch of wort.

All you need to know is the weight of grain used, the final boiled volume of
wort and the weight of 1 gallon of water (8.32823 pounds at 60F).

Best regards,

Bill Frazier
Olathe, Kansas



Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 10:09:23 -0600
From: "Micah Millspaw" <MMillspa at Silgancontainers.com>
Subject: 10 gallon cornies

There was a post a little while back by someone looking 
for a 10 gallon corny.
My neighbor (former home brewer) has one that he wants
to get rid of. 
It has a female pipe fitting welded near the bottom,
and appears to be in good shape. 
If someone is interested contact me.

Micah Millspaw - brewer at large 


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 13:03:20 -0500
From: "Dave Burley" <Dave_Burley at charter.net>
Subject: Part 1 pitching yeast strain mixtures, crushing techniques

Brewsters,

Part 1

Tim Howe responded privately to my note about London Breweries ( and likely
others)  using mixed strains of yeast , at least in olden times, to manage
their fermentation and beer quality.

I said this in an excerpted portion of my memo to him:

"I also hope some lightbulbs will go on in home breweries around the world
that maybe a blend of yeasts will produce better results. It does require a
blend at pitching of primary stable strains of yeasts for each brew or the
results, like yours, will be unpredictable from batch to batch. This will
obviate yeast recycling.

This concept is most at home with yeast ranchers."

I have wondered privately how many HBDers use mixed strains in their brewing
and if there is a body of technology in this method we haven't explored here.

Let us hear about your experiments, including those in which you were
convinced the yeast you pitched wasn't going to work ( buck fever in many
cases) and pitched a second strain on top of it.

I'm sure we'd be interested in hearing about fermentation characteristics and
such but also about the impact on beer quality.
- -------------------------------
Jim Cave is producing unsatisfactory amounts of flour with his new roller
mill, in his opinion. Surprising, since his major crushing experience is with
a Corona mill.

Jim, why not use the method I developed some years ago of a double crush,
emulating the four roll mill used by the big boys. You commented that you did
try this, but were still unhappy with the amount of flour.  Realize that 10%
coarse flour is normal.  Try to do it as I do below and see if this helps. I
am using a Margo Mill but it is basically the same configuration of two
crosshatched machined face rollers, I believe.

I crush coarse ( about 0.080 in nip on the rollers) and a second crush at
about 0.065 in for the second crush.  Believe it or not it is much faster than
a single narrow gap crush.  This nip dimension will vary from malt to malt.

You don't even have to measure the nip, just put in the malt with the gap as
closed as possible and start milling. Slowly open the gap just until you get a
good feed.  This will produce a crack of the grain into about 6 small pieces
and leave the husk intact. In many cases it will appear you have done nothing
until you take a cracked grain and give it a quick crush in your fingers.  The
second crush in the smaller nip will separate the cracked grain from the husk
leaving it intact and give you a smaller malt particle perfect for efficient
mashing. Intact husks will make for a rapid and stickproof sparge.

The only danger here is that the sprage is so free flowing that you will be
tempted to rush this activity and reduce your efficiency and even produce
cloudy wort.  Don't do it.  Try to keep the wash portion of the sparge to at
least a half an hour to allow equilibrium with the wort inside the grain
particle to diffuse into the sparge water.

Although others will disagree, with normal grist mixtures, I often drain the
bed of the wort quickly and then sparge with fresh water slowly.  I have never
had a stuck sparge yet , even with rye.  The secret is in the crush.

I always get very high efficiencies this way, and with my multiple temperature
holds they are typically in the 90s.

Alternatively, if you are worried the bed will pack, drain the bed to the top
of the grain, add hot water and drain the bed quickly until you have removed
the amount of wort equivalent to the amount of water used in the mash minus
the amount absorbed and then go slow.

However, if you want a crystal clear wort as you say you do, just drain the
wort slowly from the beginning and recycle it back to the top of the grain bed
( I sometimes reheat it to keep the bed temperature up in cases like high  rye
worts) until it is clear ( about 2 quarts for 5 gallons of beer, depending on
your configuration ). You can afford the time as this bed drains efficiently.
Avoid mixing in large amounts of air into the hot wort as you do this.

 If you have wort cooling too much in your grain bed you may get cloudy wort
part way through your sparge ( as you say you do)  from a cold break.  Check
it out by rerwarming a sample to see if this is a problem.

Mash out at 167F to get a hotter mash/wort and finish off any starchy remains
and to start with more sugars and proteins in solution, perhaps. This will
also possibly improve your efficiency. Use a hotter sparge, insulate your
sparger and speed up the sparging are solutions. Cloudiness from this is not a
problem, however, as the wort will go cloudy as you cool it before
fermentation.


Keep on Brewin'

Dave Burley




Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 13:11:38 -0500
From: "Dave Burley" <Dave_Burley at charter.net>
Subject: Part 2  foamy beer and wine, beer can turkey, cleaning a counterflow chiller, maltodextrin and Atkins diet

Brewsters:

Didn't imagine I'd have so many comments, but here is the second part.
- ---------------------------
Another approach to reducing the foam and maintaining carbonation is to go to
a gate valve rather than a needle valve. Foam is generated by a sudden
pressure drop ( delta P) acoss an orifice.  The smaller the orifice, the
greater the foam. The greater the P above ambient behind the valve, the more
foam.
- --------------------
Jim Bermingham recognizes the danger of a zinc coated  ( and poisonous) turkey
from using a galvinaized trash can.  I doubt his suggestion is the best way to
solve this problem.  His suggestion is to burn out the inside but it is not
the best as there is just no way to tell how much volatile zinc remains.

I suggest if you want to do this, you construct a zinc free vessel from
uncoated sheet steel and some uncoated screws.
- --------------------
Wally asks for suggestions on using, sterilizing and cleaning his counterflow
chiller.

Here's how I do it.

Have the chilling water drained from the chiller but hooked up. Start the hot
wort down the central copper tube with a siphon. Don't turn on the chilling
water until hot ( I wait until it is steamy or ~160F)  wort comes out the
business end of the central copper tube into your fermenter. Now turn on the
water. This will sterilize ( or at least sanitize) the copper tube of the
chiller.  I let the wort fall through the air as it exits into the fermenter
to provide some aeration to the chilled wort.

Once all the wort has just entered the siphon tube at the end of the run, stop
the flow immediately, leaving wort in the siphon tube, clamp the tube and
replace the empty boiler with a kettle of boiling water. Siphon it through the
copper tube.  You don't have to restart the siphon if you stop the wort flow
soon enough  This now cooled, boiled water exiting the copper tube can be used
to make up the wort to the proper level or just discarded.  This will clean
out the chiller until next time.  Seal the ends of the tube with a plastic cap
or maybe plastic film and a rubber band.

 Drain the chiller water from the hose for storage and so you will have an
empty chiller next time you use it. I blow out most of the remaining water.

Be sure you hook up the syphon to the bottom of the chiller so the hottest
wort contacts the hottest cooling water and the wort exits at the same end as
the cold water comes into the outer jacket. This will give you the coldest
wort and why this is called a countercurrent chiller. Check the temperature of
the exiting water. Cooler is better.

An invaluable addition to your equipment will be a soapless copper Choreboy
scrubber pad ( supermarket or hardware)  at the entrance to your siphon tube.
Snip a small hole in the pad and insert your tube inside the pad. Fasten the
pad in place with a wire twist.

Place the pad and tube end along the side of the boiler on the inside. This
will prevent you getting hops ( if you use whole leaf hops) into the chiller
tube.  I whirlpool my hops, but often they are spread on the floor of the
boiler, yet do not seem to cause a problem.  It is amazing how quickly the
siphon runs and  efficiently they drain this way as you tilt the boiler
towards the end to capture the last portion of the wort.
- -------------------
Randy Ricchi asks about using maltodextrin in a beverage for his SWMBO about
to depart on the Atkins diet and hopes it may be sugar free or at least have a
reduced carb count..

Unfortunately, this is not the case unless you are a yeast.  Maltodextrin is
just a short chain "starch" in our effcient enzyme laden  digestive systems
and will be converted to glucose just like flour.  Pound for pound treat
maltodextrins as sugar and you won't be far off.

I have also heard an ugly rumor ( Power Protein diet) about sugar substitutes
causing some dieter's body to react as though it is consuming sugar.

Keep on Brewin'

Dave Burley




Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 11:52:50 -0700
From: "John Gubbins" <n0vse at idcomm.com>
Subject: Sugar to Alcohol imponderable

Here is a little puzzle that I can't seem to figure out.  Perhaps somebody
on the Digest knows the answer.  I'll start with 2 givens.  If you add sugar
to water, the volume of the water does not change.  You can see this easily
when you stir your sugar into your coffee.  The second given is that if you
add alcohol to water the volume does change.  An example:  a very good
cleaning solution can be made with a third alcohol, a third vinegar and a
third water.  If you put a cup of each into a container you get 3 cups of
cleaner.

Wort is essentially just sugar water.  The sugar is in solution thus the
specific gravity increases.  As fermentation proceeds the sugar is converted
to alcohol and CO2.  The alcohol stays and the CO2 goes away. The specific
gravity decreases since alcohol is lighter than the sugar and the mass of
CO2 goes away.  In a typical 5 gallon batch at 6% you get just under a third
of a gallon of alcohol.  Why doesn't the volume in the fermenter increase by
a third of a gallon?  It stays at 5 gallons!

John Gubbins
Littleton, Colo.



Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 13:01:23 -0800
From: Mark Beck <beckmk at whitman.edu>
Subject: bottle conditioning barley wine

Last year I made a barley wine, and it sat in fermenters (primary, 
secondary, tertiary) for something like 8-10 weeks between brewing and 
bottling.  I bottled about half of it in 6 oz bottles, and the other half 
in 12 oz bottles, and used 3/4 c priming sugar at bottling.  The beer has 
been in the bottle for about 8 months now.

The 6 oz bottles are perfectly carbonated, while the 12 oz bottles are 
definitely under carbonated.  Any ideas why?

I'm getting ready to bottle a new batch of barley wine.  How do I avoid 
this problem?  Should I add fresh yeast at bottling?  If I add fresh yeast, 
how much do I add?  I'm guessing I could rehydrate some Nottingham 
according to the package directions, then add a few drops of slurry to each 
bottle.  Any suggestions would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Mark
Walla Walla, WA



Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 16:47:48 -0600
From: "Gary Smith" <mandolinist at ameritech.net>
Subject: Sabco Fermenter

Hi,

Any thoughts on the Sabco Fermenter? 

http://www.kegs.com/fermenters.html

It looks like a nice piece of inexpensive work. 
I'm still getting a conical but this looks like a 
nice option for larger batches and I really 
need two larger fermenters. Because you can 
pressurize it, it can take the gravity feed from 
the CF chiller and then never have to be lifted 
high enough to gravity feed the beer to cornys or 
to bottle. The overall process seems to be the 
most ergonomic I've seen so far.  ( I do plan 
to pressurize the conical for this same reason.

If someone has one of these, I'd like to hear from you 
as to how you go about sanitizing it. Since 
the "sight glass" tubing will get some 
trub/yeast build-up, how do you clean that? 
Do you have to dis-assemble the internal 
siphon each time you clean & what do you do 
to sanitize the thermometer since you need to 
sanitize it but you can't immerse it in Star San, 
iodophor or boiling water. If it's cleaned in place 
I assume there's no contamination problem from 
the cavity where the socket screws in?

I did a search for the sabco fermenter here & 
on the net but the only things I found were 
testimonials from Sabco purchasers and there 
was someone here back in 2000 who 
wanted to know the same things I do. (No one 
answered him back then and so that was the only 
post on the sabco fermenter that showed up on hbd.)

Comments on that fermenter?

Also, I need a  1.5" Tri-clover adapter ending in a 1/2" 
hose barb. I haven't been able to find one.
Suggestions?

Thanks,
Gary

Gary Smith
CQ DX de KA1J
http://musician.dyndns.org/homebrew.html
http://musician.dyndns,org.rims.html

"Give a man a beer and he'll drink for five minutes.
Teach him where the beer is, he'll drink for a lifetime and get it his own 
damn self".




Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 16:35:49 -0800
From: "Ross" <BurningBrite at charter.net>
Subject: Dry Hop -- How Long?

Greetings All.

Dry hopping is a subject that is only sketchily addressed in the books and
other resources I have, so I was hoping to unleash the powers of the wise
and wonderful HBD on this topic.  To get the ball rolling, here are some of
the questions and observations I've come up with.

How long can dry hopping go on?  It would seem that a given amount of hops
can render only a certain amount of hop aroma, so there must be some rate of
contribution that would (presumably) slow down over time.  Any thoughts on
typical time periods at which most of the available benefit has been
achieved?  I'm not looking for anything precise, just rules-of-thumb that
other folks have picked up along the way.  For example, in my limited
experience, I can detect the effects of dry hopping by day 2 or 3, but after
a few weeks there doesn't seem to be much further increase in hop aroma.
Does that imply the hops are "exhausted" in their ability to add aroma, and
that exchanging them for fresh hops would further things along?  Or is there
some limit on how much (and/or how fast) the hop oils can actually dissolve
into the beer?

What are the general influences of SG, temperature, and other factors on the
rate and completeness of dry hopping?  Based on what I know about adding
hops to the wort boil, the higher the SG the harder it is to get the alpha
acids isomerized and into solution; but are these the same hop constituents
and disolution dynamics that we rely on for dry hopping?  I think I read
somewhere that the aroma of hops is not primarily associated with the
alphas, but with other humulones/humulenes.  If so, what cooking, storage,
and other actions promote or constrain our ability to get these other
compounds into solution?  For example, what are the effects of warmer
temperatures (e.g., during secondary) vs colder temperatures (e.g., during
cellaring)?  What effect does using a hop bag have versus just chucking in
the loose hop flowers? or pellets?

Are there time periods when, or conditions of use under which, dry hopping
begins to impart negative or undesirable qualities?  Besides the aroma
features we do want, are there other characteristics that should be watched
out for?  I have read that dry hopped, cask ales just keep getting better
and better (maybe not for years, but for a long time), and generally the
same is supposed to be true for barley wines.  What histories I've read
about IPAs and Imperial Stouts indicate these probably experienced many
months of dry hopping under extremely variable temperature ranges and much
sloshing about on boats and trains and wagons.  Given these examples, one
might conclude there is no outside time limit or physical conditions that
would require getting the hops out of the beer, but somehow that doesn't
seem right for all types of beers, or given current tastes and styles.

So given all this overcomplication, what thoughts has the collective?


Ross Potter
Richland, Washington
[A little up, and about 2,500 miles left, Rennerian]



Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 21:50:55 -0500
From: David Towson <dtowson at comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Corny keg cleaning

In HBD 4402, Jeremy Lenzendorf asks about cleaning corny kegs that have 
"chlorine and/or calcium residue" in them.  If chlorine is indeed involved, 
there may be more of a problem than just cleaning; there may be 
damage.  But if that is not the case - if we're just talking ordinary 
"crud" here - then a good scrubbing with a Scotchbrite pad and some oxalic 
acid based scouring powder may be all that's needed.  The nice thing about 
cornies is that you can get your hand in there and really scrub.  I use 
this cleaning method regularly on my stainless steel ware, and it does a 
great job.  After cleaning, I wipe the surface thoroughly with a damp paper 
towel to remove a dark residue that seems to always be there, and then I 
let the metal self-passivate in the air.  The oxalic acid based scouring 
powder is available under several brand names.  I use one with the strange 
name of "Zud".  It is available in both grocery stores and hardware stores 
in my area, as are the Scotchbrite pads.  Judging by occasional HBD posts, 
I believe a similar powder is also sold as "Barkeeper's Friend".

Dave in Bel Air, MD



Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 22:24:45 -0500
From: David Towson <dtowson at comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Correct Units for Potential Yield

In HBD 4403, Todd Carlson touches on a subject that really bugs me.  If one 
understands that potential yield is stated as the number of points expected 
from dissolving the extract from one pound of grain into one gallon of 
water, then it makes sense that if the amount of water is doubled, the 
points will be halved due to the dilution.  And if the mathematical 
relation is written correctly, then it can be easily rearranged to give 
point-gallons per pound.  But when one just says the words "points per 
pound per gallon", this gives the impression that we get so many points per 
pound for each gallon it's dissolved in, which is absurd.  If that were 
true, I could dissolve the extract from one pound of grain into the local 
reservoir, and end up with a specific gravity that would cave-in the 
earth.  No wonder people get confused.  Point-gallons per pound may sound 
funny to one unused to dealing with scientific units, but at least it 
always gives the correct result.

Dave in Bel Air, MD



Return to table of contents

---