HOMEBREW Digest #4481 Sat 21 February 2004

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

		Digest Janitor: janitor@hbd.org


                  Beer, Beer, and More Beer
      Visit http://morebeer.com to show your appreciation!

    Support those who support you! Visit our sponsor's site!
********** Also visit http://hbd.org/hbdsponsors.html *********

  Re: Uberflussigereinheitsabout ("-S")
  Re: cidery beer - (acetaldehyde vs acetic acid) ("Fredrik")
  re: Monitoring CO2 Production with a Mass Flow Meter/Aussie terms ("-S")
  Gas Valve Help ("Raymond  Lowe")
  re:yeast re-pitching (Randy Ricchi)
  Brewpots and immersion chillers ("Michael Maag")
  re:clintest (HOMEBRE973)
  Residual Alkalinity ("Todd Carlson")
  starters (Jeff Renner)
  racking with CFC ("Spencer W. Thomas")
  Agar substitute ("May, Jeff")
  Using hose in home brewing (Calvin Perilloux)
  Fermenator and Other Stainless Conicals (Calvin Perilloux)
  re: Cooling Coils & Pressure Calculations ("Michael Noah")
  Re: Fermenator ("Martin Brungard")
  kettles (Marc Sedam)
  Covering Starter Containers ("Pat Humphrey")
  New Product Announcement: HBRC (John Palmer)
  Re:  Counter Flow Chillers (Tim Howe)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * The HBD Logo Store is now open! * * http://www.hbd.org/store.html * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Suppport this service: http://hbd.org/donate.shtml * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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. LOOKING TO BUY OR SELL USED EQUIPMENT? Please do not post about it here. Go instead to http://homebrewfleamarket.com and post a free ad there. 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. JANITOR on duty: Pat Babcock and Spencer Thomas (janitor@hbd.org)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 01:09:02 -0500 From: "-S" <-s at adelphia.net> Subject: Re: Uberflussigereinheitsabout Hey Dave, all - > Well, I cerainly found out a way to keep Steve Alexander off the streets. {8^) You and the ~80hrs/wk I've been working the past several ... ! Better to burn out than ... > My point was that Reinheitsgebot ( and other beer regulations) were > established for FINANCIAL reasons not a high and mighty purpose. I don't disagree. I'm just saying that the financial rational you suggest for RHG needs more detail to make any sense.. You also argued that RHG affected quality , but your examples were from non-RHG regions, groups and eras and together didn't make a cohesive point. > "As beer quality fell, so did consumption. This called for intervention, if > need be at the highest level, lest profits for the noble coffers should > suffer." The ORIGINAL RHG says beer is made of water, barley and hops and sets out all sorts of PRICE CEILINGS for beer. If beer quality and therefore sales volume and taxes had dropped, how could price ceilings help ? It limits revenues and accelerates the decline of quality. This doesn't make much financial sense unless the price ceilings disadvantaged the untaxed Cloisters. In any case it's a serious mistake to revere RHG as some legislative hommage to great beer. RHG destroyed entire styles and restricted creativity. I've seen no credible argument that RHG led to greater beer quality in Bavaria than in the rest of Germany before the unification, nor Belgium nor Czechoslovakia (Bohemia). >... [history]... > 69 years later Reinheitsgebot came along and eventually spread across >Germany No - it was FORCED on the rest of Germany 350+ years later. Long after any justification for this silly intrusive law ceased to exist. It was forced for financial reasons again. Of the RHG I'd suggest, "progress is precisely that which the rules and regulations did not foresee"(Ludwig von Mises). Restricting beer ingredients to barley, hops and water *might* have seemed prudent or at least expedient in 1516, but no brewer on this forum would even consider making beer without ever using yeast`, fining agent (only added to the RHG later). No sensible modern brewer would suggest that avoiding water acidification, brewing salts, yeast nutrients, unmalted grains, caramel, judicious amounts of sugar and a whole array of spices is indicitive of lower quality - just the opposite ! -S I hate to clutter HBD with semi-clever sig-quotes, but the political season demands ... "Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule--and both commonly succeed, and are right"- H.L. Mencken Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 07:31:02 +0100 From: "Fredrik" <carlsbergerensis at hotmail.com> Subject: Re: cidery beer - (acetaldehyde vs acetic acid) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 15:26:00 -0500 > From: "Dave Burley" <Dave_Burley at charter.net> > Subject: Cidery Beer, Clinit*st, phosphate pH stabilizer > > Brewsters: > > Fredrik, one way to test your theory is to add distilled white vinegar to > non-cidery beers and see if the cidery impresssion develops. That's a good idea Dave. I didn't actually try just that yet. But I diluted acetic acid to tap water to the theorized levels and it very much made sense. But adding it to real beer would be a b better test. But I've got another datapoint now, that makes me incorporate the acetaldehyde into this reasoning to a larger extent. I just finished another brew of mine. It started out as a perfectly normal all-malt brew, however I made a stupid mistake in my receipe and mixed up some fermentability numbers, so it stopped at 1.018 because I had added lots of maltodextrins. My target was 1.012, so took a chance and added sucrose + water + crystal malt, to get the FG down to 1.012. This was only 22% sucrose of the total extract, and according to the "theory" this should not have caused any acetic acid and low pH so I felt confident though it would alse be a test. Well it didn't turn out sour, the pH was 4.2 at EOF, but there were elevated levels residual of acetaldehyde in there!! This pissed me off as this playing with sugar screwed yet another batch. At first I was confused because 22% isn't tat much? This was not present when I added the sucrose judging only from how I recall the smell. I will wait for the final conclusion after some aging, but though I am aware of that acetaldehye is normal in young beer, I would say from my limited experience that the residual levels are TOO high even for green beer. I suspect that maybe this is because of the sucrose I added late when the cells are leaky? Forcing the metabolism when the cells are getting leaky seemed like a stupid idea? So the update idea is that since acetaldehyde is supposed to be the intermediate anyway, even if the end product is acetic acid, I suspect that adding sucrose at late fermentation, when the cells are a bit fatigued they may probably leak alot more acetaldehyde to the beer than they would have if the sucrose was in from the beginning? OG was 1.047, FG 1.012, I pitched 22g dry yeast in 6-7 gallons of beer. So maybe the cidery notes tend to be more acetic acid, when the cells are healthy and doesn't leak as much. And if the cells are leaky, there will be more acetaldehyde possibly at the expense of acetic acid and pH? So modelling the cidery notes may require understanding the balance between these things? Any further ideas on this? Does anyone find this idea of leaky cells likely or non-likely? I'm thinking that if the same amount of sucrose had been adding to the brew origninally the yeast would possibly have been able to deal with it without causing the same levels of problems. This would suggest that low pitching rates would add the cidery effect on the acetaldhyde part? while high pitching rates probably steer towards lower pH and acetic acid? My next batch will have NO sucrose or glucose added. I was out of beer and now I have 6 gallons of experiment bottled :-| This wasn't what I hoped for, though the good part was it gave me another datapoint. /Fredrik Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 02:29:21 -0500 From: "-S" <-s at adelphia.net> Subject: re: Monitoring CO2 Production with a Mass Flow Meter/Aussie terms Ken Anderson gathered and shared some terrific data with his CO2 mass flow measurement. I'm really glad to see this as I've been considering something similar. I'd really like to know more about his MF measuring device. The ones I've seen available had rather poor resolution and wouldn't give such nice measurements for a 5gal batch. Ken - what is the make and model on that ? I had considered going to MVD(Coriolis effect) flow meters but they are pretty expensive. The idea behind this effort is that, of the three main results of fermentation that concern us (sugar depletion, alcohol production, and CO2 production), why not look at CO2 production as a brewing aid? Just so - it and it's linear correlates are THE most important fermentation parameters. The trick is to measure the volume under that curve you've plotted and calculate the total CO2 produced. Of course this involves regular and automatic measurement of CO2 mass, not just volume. >Also, a simple equation may be possible, relating CO2 production, specific >gravity change, and wort volume. Yeah - it's trivially easy. You just plug the CO2 into the Balling eqn and you've got Alcohol mass and fermented sugar mass. Then you calculate the SG backward from the sugar loss and the alc increase. The REAL extract and attenuation is even easier. Of course JeffR is right we'll need to estimate the CO2 in solution and in the headspace but you can get pretty close. The best part is that it tells you something quantitative about fermentation performance .. throughout the fermentation and w/o an intrusive measure. >The most surprising thing about this graph is the >pretty much linear increase from hour 16 to 42, and the lack of a plateau. > I thought someone here might be able to relate the sections of this graph > with the typical stages of yeast growth. In particular, what's with hours 16 > through 42? Yeast growth starts out slow, increases at a near exponential rate for a short period, then, when the yeast cease to grow when they hit a growth limit. The rate of fermentation (which is nearly proportional to CO2) , lags aside, is roughly proportional to the amount of growth (growth requires lots of energy from fermentation) plus a much smaller term proportional to yeast mass (yeast maintenance energy reqs). Of course this cannot go on forever. The lag then exponential growth phase explains the rapid rise thru hour 36 or maybe 42. . What happens next depends on why the yeast have ceased to grow. If the yeast have run out of sugars, then the fermentation and CO2 production will drop fairly rapidly too. Not instantly. The beer will contain about 2 volumes of CO2 at peak fermentation, but that will drop slowly to a saturation level of abt 1 volume. This produces a fade-out of CO2 rate rather than an abrupt stop. If yeast run out of some other nutrient - then they will drop down - also fairly rapidly, from peak rate to a lower CO2 rate and hang around the low level for a long time. Of course if they are nutrient deficient that can also make the rising growth rate slower giving the whole curve a lower longer look. Some yeast will just grow rapidly till the last possible moment and stop. Other yeasts will have their growth rate stall out more slowly. Somewhere in BY&F has some graphs of this. To me it looks like a very nice fermentation. I guesstimate the area under your curve at around 430L of CO2 and that sound about right for 5.5gal of 12-13P beer with decent attenuation. Great job Ken. Thanks. Where do I get a similar MFM with such fine resolution ? BTW The French brewery Sebastian Artois uses a similar measurement (20 minute intervals) to calculate the amount of CO2 produced, and use this to determine when to start collecting CO2, when to start the fermentation coolers and when to bottle and keg for consistent natural carbonation. ====== Phil Y notes ... >I can't see anything wrong with sticking the odd chook in the cask >when making Cock Ale, That sounds more than a bit perverse, but whatever twists your pickle Phil ;^) Yes I was being a bit judgement - in jest. I don't generally enjoy vegetables or poultry in beer and I can find a better place to keep my chook. -S Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 06:02:42 -0500 From: "Raymond Lowe" <wrlowe at adelphia.net> Subject: Gas Valve Help Greetings, I have recently built a new steel frame 2 tier RIMS system that is very similar to this one http://hbd.org/mtippin/2tier.html#Burners Its all ready to go except for valves to control the burners. They are the jet type burners. On the tier that the sparge water is on, the tall tier, I have made a "control panel" area and I want to put the gas valve controls on this panel. As I have with the pump switch and heating chamber switch. I have been having trouble locating the type of valve that I am wanting. This being a valve that will look some what like the control on a gas stove or grill. I tried a set of valves off a gas grill and they have a orifice that is on the outlet end of them, and the whole assembly goes into a tube that feeds the burners on the grill. I have removed the orifices and this leaves a 3/16 inch female NPT. my thoughts were to get a coupling of some kind to step this up to fit my gas supply hose and all would be fine. However I have been unable to locate a 3/16 inch male coupling that I could screw into this and step it up to say 1/4 inch so the hose would fit on this. I guess my question is does any one know where I could find such a beast or a new type of gas valve to get the results I am looking for. How do you control the gas on your systems? Thanks in advance! Raymond Lowe Catawba, VA Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 08:14:33 -0500 From: Randy Ricchi <rricchi at houghton.k12.mi.us> Subject: re:yeast re-pitching Bob Hall posts: "Some time ago I was talking with a brewer from Barley's in Columbus, OH about their procedures. He told me that their house yeast (which I think originally was Wyeast 1968) had been repitched "hundreds of times .... it likes it here." This got me to thinking (uh,oh!)..I really like the flavor profile of Wyeast 1968, but wish it wasn't such a strong flocculator. It's a great yeast for low grav beers, but finishes too high for my taste in beers of 1.050 gravity or so. If a brewer were to continually re-pitch Y1968 from the secondary fermentors rather than primary, it's conceivable that you could develop a yeast with the same flavor profile, but less flocculant. Now, that MIGHT mean it would be a little less malty, but maybe not. Such a mutated yeast would be preferable (to me) for beers of a higher gravity than ordinary bitters. Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 08:50:49 -0500 From: "Michael Maag" <MichaelMaag at doli.state.va.us> Subject: Brewpots and immersion chillers William Erskine is going all grain. I have had excellent results with a 15 gal SS kettle. It is an old Polarware that did not have a spigot. I had a hole drilled in the side and use stainless fittings, etc to attach a 3/8 copper tube around the bottom, touching the inner wall. The pipe has been slotted on the bottom with a hacksaw. (The design is like Al K's on www.brewinfo.com (photos of my homebrewery) except I went to the pipe instead of the easy masher system for the kettle ). The pot is wider than it is tall, so using a plani-spiral chiller works very well. It is an immersion chiller in a flat tight spiral (like an electric range burner). It goes in the kettle about 1 inch under the surface. Cold water goes in at the outside edge and out from the middle. This sets up a convection current which circulates the wort and piles the hops and break in the center. It chills 10 gal to 70F in 20 min (with winter water). I have also used the kettle as a mash tun when brewing a high gravity 10 gal batch. I normally mash in a 10 gal SS pot which will hold up to 23 lbs of grist (set up with the easy masher "trident" configuration, stolen from Al K.) The ability to apply direct heat to the mash gives you more brewing options. Check out Al's site. Mike Maag, in the Shenandoah Valley Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 08:58:28 -0500 From: HOMEBRE973 at aol.com Subject: re:clintest I am not trying to start a pro or con thread on CLintest--I just want to know if it is still available and where, or if there is another inexpensive alternative method for residual reducing sugar? Thanks Andy in Hillsborough Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 09:29:26 -0500 From: "Todd Carlson" <carlsont at gvsu.edu> Subject: Residual Alkalinity A couple of days ago I asked about how efficient boiling is at removing bicarbonates in water with permanant hardness (more calicium than bicarbonate). This is a common procedure used by many brewers and mentioned in all of the brewing chemistry texts I have been reading to research the topic. However, none mentioned AJ's claim (from his reply) that boiling is only effective with high alkalinity water and wouldn't get much below 100 ppm as CaCO3, so in my case (moderate 111 ppm alkalinity), the drop would be minimal. I decided to check it out for myself so I did this experiment: I boiled 4 gal of cold tap water (Wyoming Michigan City water from Lake Michgan) on my stove top for 15 min (plus 45 min to get up to boil). I poured the hot water into a 5 gal plastic bucket and let set overnight in cold garage. Pre and post boil samples were titrated for alkalinity (to pH 4.3 endpoint with HCl) and total hardness (to eriochrome black T endpoint with EDTA). Initial pH of pre boil sample was 7.43 vs 8.62 for post. All numbers are in mg/L CaCO3 eq. Results are compared to the 2002 average results provided by the Grand Rapids city water supply (also from Lake Michigan). I didn't have a lot of time so the titrations were not repeated and reagents were made up not real carefully. Nevertheless, the pre boil results match the city average better than I expected and the drop an alkalinity matched the drop in hardness, as predicted by the stoichiometry of the reaction. Thus I conclude the results are reasonably accurate. I used the data to calculate a delta pH by RA. For my sample I assumed the initial Ca/Mg ratio was the same as the city specs (2/1). For the post boil sample, I assumed all of the decrease in hardness was due to Ca loss. Here are the results alk hard delta pH City 111 146 0.13 pre 116 160 0.13 post 85 132 0.09 So as AJ predicted, reduction in alk was minimal, but perhaps a little more than I expected and the effect on RA was somewhat significant. This has been an interesting question for which there seems little data. Other varibales I might like to address are how might boil times affect the results, and how much would spiking the water with calcium (slaked lime, gypsum, or CaCl2) help. Also, if the reduction of alkalinity is due to precipitation of CaCO3 specifically, then my Ca/Mg ratio dropped from 2/1 to 1.5/1. I don't know if this is really true or if it is something to be concerned about. Maybe I'll write a grant and pay a student to do the work. Thanks to AJ for the tips and info. Todd Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 10:05:31 -0500 From: Jeff Renner <jeffrenner at comcast.net> Subject: starters Steve Jones <stjones at eastman.com> writes from Johnson City, TN that for yeast starters: >I mix 1L water & 4 oz DME in a 2L widemouth flask That sounds like too much DME (dry malt extract, for those who have come in late). Dan McConnell of the late Yeast Culture Kit Co. recommended 50 grams (less than two ounces) per liter (plus a bit of yeast nutrient - 1/8 tsp per gallon). Wyeast recommends http://www.wyeastlab.com/education/edmyp.htm a starter gravity of 1.020-1.030 by using 3-4 tablespoons DME per liter. I think the idea is that your extra couple of ounces will take longer to ferment out without adding much to yeast growth. I got a used large pressure cooker last year and make up seven quart canning jars of starter at a time. Nice to have this in stock. More than half of the time, though, I repitch yeast. Jeff - -- Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan USA, JeffRenner at comcast.net "One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943 Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 10:27:52 -0500 From: "Spencer W. Thomas" <spencer at umich.edu> Subject: racking with CFC Tim Howe asks >And another thought that would apply to all CFCs: what do most folks >use as a racking cane? I get the impression that many use copper pipe, > I use a piece of copper tubing to get up out of the pot, hooked to a segment of silicone tubing (which is rated up to about 400F so handles the boiling temperature wort just fine.) =S Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 11:56:43 -0500 From: "May, Jeff" <Jeff.May at uscellular.com> Subject: Agar substitute I'm getting ready to start storing and propagating yeast. Has anyone ever used fruit jell pectin (for making jelly) instead of gelatin or agar? The ingredients are listed as: Dextrose, Pectin, Citric Acid and Sucrose. Would these ingredients help or hinder yeast growth and viability? Jeff May Mayzerbrau Nano Brews Wilmington, NC Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 11:18:47 -0800 (PST) From: Calvin Perilloux <calvinperilloux at yahoo.com> Subject: Using hose in home brewing For those considering using garden hose for any brewing, there is recent, reliable info that many (or most) typical garden hose brands contain lead as a "binder" in the PVC. I'm not usually one to worry about minor dangers, but if the lead is way above health standards from cold water sitting in the hose, then hot wort would be a worry. But besides that, don't you remember those hot summer days when you grab a quick drink from the garden hose, and... phew, yuck! Too quick! Nasty plastic taste! Lead or not, you don't want that taste in your beer. Use food-grade hose for anything touching hot liquor, beer, or wort. Calvin Perilloux Middletown, Maryland, USA Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 11:19:03 -0800 (PST) From: Calvin Perilloux <calvinperilloux at yahoo.com> Subject: Fermenator and Other Stainless Conicals Andrew Nix wonders in the Friday HBD about the lid seal on his Fermenator: > I inspected around the edges of the lid seal with my nose > and sure enough, there were some big drafts of CO2 coming > out. ... > Do you find that you really have to crank down on the > lid seal to get a nice tight seal under the small > increase in pressure generated during fermentation? Not to worry. If your lid is like mine, it's basically a flat, modestly flexible disc. That very geometry will lend itself to what is, in practice, a one-way valve. I'm not sure what back-pressure you'd get from a 1" head pressure of alcohol in an airlock, but only modest inside pressure can push/bend the lid ever so slightly to allow gas escape. Yet consider the opposite. Any vacuum would only serve to *tighten* the lid. And at zero pressure differential, a properly seated lid with a soft seal should stay that way. So no worry - just relax. But if you DON'T relax and clamp that lid down so much that it slightly deforms, then just flip it over next time you use it. And while on the topic: Have others noted the blackish scum that forms along the fermenter sides at the top edge of the yeast/oil remains that stick there? I've encountered this in both the Fermenator and MoreBeer units. Machining oils, steel filings? Yes, I did clean the heck out of them with PBW before using them for the first time. Whatever the black residue is, there seems to be no flavour residual, and of that I can be pretty sure, having brewed American Light Lager in these units. And as someone said: "Why worry so much about that stuff stuck on the sides of the fermenter? Obviously it ain't in yer beer." Um, yeah, I guess so. Calvin Perilloux Middletown, Maryland, USA Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 09:22:43 -1000 From: "Michael Noah" <Michael.Noah at noaa.gov> Subject: re: Cooling Coils & Pressure Calculations That's what I thought, it just seemed strange to have to pump up the pressure so high just for the cooling coils. I have been bleeding off the pressure (down to about 20 psi) when an extended period of time is expected between uses (during the day, since we use the keg every night). I'll probably be buying a lot more CO2 as I re-pressurize a half to near-empty keg every night after dinner. I wonder, would using beer gas (75% N2/25% CO2) make any real difference at that pressure? I've normally got the system set at 45 psi, and it seems to work fine, so long as I don't forget to bleed it off when finished. Thanks again! Aloha! Michael Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 10:56:57 -0900 From: "Martin Brungard" <mabrungard at hotmail.com> Subject: Re: Fermenator It's good to hear of others who have taken the rather expensive step to a stainless conical. I've completed 2 batches with my 12g Fermenator. I can add some insight. An important aspect in the fermenter preparation for first use was the interior preparation. These vessels are "turned" metal, meaning that they are slowly turned through a cold metal forming process to create the cylindroconical shape. The forming process does leave concentric grooves in the interior. The instructions recommended using a green scrubbie to scour the interior. We just had a discussion on HBD about the care of stainless a few months ago, so I was not going to start with that sort of abuse with a scrubbie. I started polishing my conical first with a thorough interior wet sanding using 320 grit wet/dry sandpaper. That did not completely remove the grooves from the forming process, but it significantly reduced them. I probably should have spent more time on that aspect. Starting with 240 grit wet/dry and switching to the 320 would probably be more effective too. After the sandpapering, I then polished the interior using automotive polishing compound. Its just a very fine grit that is rubbed on the metal surface to produce a high sheen. I was able to achieve an almost mirror-like finish, excepting for some of those machining marks still coming through. During the polishing, I noted that there was some sort of oily or greasy substance on the metal surface. Probably some sort of metal working lube. The polishing compound seemed to draw it into view. It took some extra effort to work through the substance and rid the metal of the coat. The coating was not uniform, only occuring in limited areas. After all that preparation, I washed it with PBW. I didn't heat up the water though. I should have! I'm not sure how effective my post-polishing cleanup was because of the cold PBW wash. I did try sanitizing with Star-San. I love the product, but not in this case. The whole fermenter was full of foam and it wasn't going to drain out. I decided that Idophor is a better product for sanitizing the fermenter just prior to filling with wort. It drains with only a bit remaining. I had no problem in achieving an effective seal with the lid. I did have to apply a nice "dish" to the lid with the center foot to get a good seal. Probably 1/4" to 1/2" deflection at the center. This should not be a problem for the metal. Go ahead and extend the center foot as necessary. I really like the corny lid port in the fermenter lid. It has proven valuable for dry hopping. I do find that the O-ring likes to stick to the fermenter lid instead of the corny lid. I've almost dropped the O-ring into the fermenter. Watch out! The weldless fittings are OK, but you can get a little weeping initially. Be sure to fill the fermenter with water or sanitizer up to the batch's fill level to check to leaks BEFORE adding your wort. I can see a disaster and subsequent curse-fest if that occurs. I did note a slight metallic tinge to my first batch, but that was not apparent in the subsequent batch. Maybe the metal has to pickle a bit? Overall, a nice addition to the brewery and I don't have to worry about dropping a glass carboy. Martin Brungard Tallahassee, FL Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 15:43:23 -0500 From: Marc Sedam <marc_sedam at unc.edu> Subject: kettles I recommend buying the B3 kettle for many reasons. I have one and have enjoyed using it for about 3 years. Recently I installed a Bazooka screen in it which works fine. What it requires is screwing the screen into the inside and screwing the ball valve (you have to buy one...the faucet that comes with the kettle restricts flow too much for my taste) in from the outside until they meet somewhere in the middle of the weldless fitting. Works fine...use Teflon tape. If I had to do it over again I'd ask to have the handles welded on. This was not an option when I bought it, but I really do miss them when I'm trying to move it or tip it to get the last bit of wort out. Cheers! Marc - -- Marc Sedam Associate Director Office of Technology Development The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 308 Bynum Hall; CB# 4105 Chapel Hill, NC 27599-4105 919.966.3929 (phone) 919.962.0646 (fax) OTD site : http://www.research.unc.edu/otd Monthly Seminar Info: http://www.research.unc.edu/otd/seminar/ Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 15:04:40 -0600 From: "Pat Humphrey" <fermenter07 at hotmail.com> Subject: Covering Starter Containers Back in HBD #4477, Rob asked about covering starter containers. Back in my micro days, we used to cover beakers and flasks with gauze wrapped cotton or a special item called Milk Filters. These are circular discs, about 5-6" in diameter with a thin layer of cotton sandwiched on both sides with cheesecloth or gauze. They can be pressure sterilized and secured with a big rubber band around the top of the beaker or flask. They work very well at allowing gases to be exchanged yet keeping the media sterile. You can find these at livestock or farm supply stores. They can be had on the internet as well. I did a search and found some made by KenAg which do not have gauze but they should work fine. What is great about the gauze covered discs is that if you spill any media on the rim or outside of the container, the cotton will not stick too much or pull apart as it is removed. A box of 100 might cost you five bucks. I thought about posting my experience with making slants for yeast culturing and may do that sometime in the future. I used to make about 1,000 a week for lab work. Cheers, Pat in Lake Villa, IL Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 17:30:58 -0800 From: John Palmer <jjpalmer at altrionet.com> Subject: New Product Announcement: HBRC Hi Group, Just wanted to let everyone know that my Home Brewing Recipe Calculator is now available (since December really) at several brewshops around the country, though distribution is still limited. You may have seen an ad for it in this months BYO, but in case you haven't, it is a paperboard slidechart calculator for calculating gravity changes, grain and extract weights (PPG) and IBUs. I have just posted a description/tutorial at my website if anyone is interested. http://www.howtobrew.com (link) or specifically at http://www.realbeer.com/jjpalmer/HBRC.html Most of the time I would be using brewing software do figure these things, but the HBRC is handy for those last minute changes at the kettle when you don't have your computer handy. Enough Said, Thanks, 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: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 21:59:53 -0500 From: Tim Howe <howe at execulink.com> Subject: Re: Counter Flow Chillers >David says: >I don't use a racking cane from my kettle; I have a valve on it with a >hose barb adapter. But I have made and used a racking cane from the same >3/8" copper tubing. Works fine. You can buy stainless steel racking >canes at many homebrew supply. You can make a stainless steel one >yourself by buying some stainless steel brake line tubing at an auto parts >store. I've never seen stainless racking canes locally, but the brake line tubing is a very interesting idea. I hadn't thought of that, but that would be perfect! Thanks, Tim Howe London, Ont Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 02/21/04, by HBD2HTML v1.2 by KFL
webmaster@hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96