HOMEBREW Digest #1300 Fri 17 December 1993

Digest #1299 Digest #1301

		Rob Gardner, Digest Coordinator

  RE:RIMS & HSA (b_regent)
  KETTLES (Jack Schmidling)
  update (James Clark)
  signing on to the list (Sean Barrett)
  Clip art for beer labels (GONTAREK)
  Champagne Bottles (FSAC-FCD) <dward at PICA.ARMY.MIL>
  Questions (Timothy Sixberry)
  Abita Turbo Dog (Chris Pencis)
  Stein Lids Revealed / New Book on Hops (Timothy J. Dalton)
  Bottle Inspection (Spencer.W.Thomas)
  Hydrometers / Haze problems (cole)
  accurate hydrometers (Dick Dunn)
  Hops question (Robert Jordan)
  Stainless Steel Welding ("Palmer.John")
  Bubbles/time and Threaded neck carboys (U-E68316-Scott Wisler)
  sign me up (Matthew Causey)
  Flat Dinosaurs, BJCP,etc. (Marc Hugentobler)
  bottle inspection (Russell Gelinas)
  wyeast 1098/Whitbread (Russell Gelinas)
  Making separate messages out of HBD (Tom Clifton)
  early racking question (Jonathan G Knight)
  All-grain equipment & Kegging (JEBURNS)
  TUN DESIGN (Jack Schmidling)

Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew at hpfcmi.fc.hp.com (Articles are published in the order they are received.) Send UNSUBSCRIBE and all other requests, ie, address change, etc., to homebrew-request@ hpfcmi.fc.hp.com, BUT PLEASE NOTE that if you subscribed via the BITNET listserver (BEER-L at UA1VM.UA.EDU), then you MUST unsubscribe the same way! If your account is being deleted, please be courteous and unsubscribe first. Archives are available via anonymous ftp from sierra.stanford.edu. (Those without ftp access may retrieve files via mail from listserv at sierra.stanford.edu. Send HELP as the body of a message to that address to receive listserver instructions.) Please don't send me requests for back issues - you will be silently ignored. For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to lutzen at novell.physics.umr.edu
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1993 19:21:01 -0800 From: b_regent at holonet.net Subject: RE:RIMS & HSA In a recent HBD, Bob Getty asks about RIMS and HSA. I've been using a RIMS for about 2 years now. While I can't definitely attribute it to some oxidation problems I had, I did take steps to reduce HSA. Originally, I used a setup similar to the one described, where wort is returned to a plastic tray will holes in the bottom. The amount of foaming that occured was quite impressive. Obviously, a lot of air was being introduced to the hot wort. About a year ago, I decided to build a return manifold, to alleviate any HSA problems that I might have had. The manifold sits below the level of liquid in the tun, so no air can be introduced. There is now absolutely no foaming that occurs. I have not brewed a beer with any detectable oxidation problems since installing the manifold. I dont know if I really had a problem to begin with, but I definitely don't now. I brew in a 54 quart igloo cooler. The manifold is made from 1/2"id. copper. _ _ | |-------------------------------| | | |-------------------------------| | Top view of copper manifold tubes. | | wort/sparge inlet | | | | | | | | | |------------|-|----------------| | | |-------------------------------| | | | | | | | | | | |-------------------------------| | |_|-------------------------------|_| After mashing is complete, the wort return line is run into the kettle, and the sparge liquor line is connected to the manifold inlet. - --bob b_regent at holonet.net - --- ~ KingQWK 1.05 ~ Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 93 23:39 CST From: arf at mcs.com (Jack Schmidling) Subject: KETTLES >From: trl at photos.wustl.edu (Tom Leith MIR/ERL 362-6965) >IMNSHO, the *minimum* useful size for brewing a five gallon batch is a 32 quart pot (8 gallons). You can get an enamel 8 gallon canning pot for about $35 (with lid). This is what I'm using. The geometry is poor for doing a 2 hour boil -- too much surface area for the volume. The other side of the equation is that you can achieve a great deal of evaporaton in a 2 hr boil, you just need to start with more sweet wort. The bottom line is you can increase the yield by extracting more sugar from the mash. You might also try using less heat if you have to keep the lid on. >I would like to get a ten gallon stainless stock pot, but they cost about $175 new..... Not sure how to kill this bit of bum information but they are available from several sources for around $100. Call 800 553 7906 for a catalog from one such place. js Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1993 21:51:37 -0500 From: jeclark at ucdavis.edu (James Clark) Subject: update just thought i'd let everyone know how our beer brewing is going and then ask a quick question or two. we made a second batch on saturday and it went a thousand times better than our first. before brewing this time i measured off the capacity of our carboy one gallon at a time and marked it with fingernail polish. (thanks to whoever suggested this idea) in doing this i found that in our last batch we had added about 3/4 of a gallon too much water. (go ahead and laugh...i did) the boil went almost perfectly and we cooled the wort to about 90F in less than 15 minutes in an ice water bath. the only problem we had was that we didn't have a scale to weigh out the hops, so we had to guess on the amounts. the o.g. was 58, but that included all the particles from the crystal malt that immediately settled to the bottom. the fermentation went very quickly. on sunday afternoon we were getting about 3 bubbles a second out of a 1/4" i.d. tube, but on monday the kruesen was almost gone and we were only getting about a bubble a minute out of the tube. so here are the questions: 1) why are wort chillers recomended? isn't an ice water bath almost as effective? 2) do ales normally have that short of an optimal fermentation time (the kreusen had settled after only about 36 hours)? 3) because of the high gravity boil the beer is not as bitter as i want it, so i was thinking about dry hopping in a secondary. is there a recomended time to do this or can i do it any time after the kreusen settles? also, can someone give me a range for the amount of hops to use in the secondary (i know i didn't say how bitter our beer is right now, but i just want to know if most people use 0.5 oz. or 8 oz when they dry hop)? sorry, my NCJoHB is at my friend's house and he is gone for a few days, so i couldn't just look up the answers to these. thanks y'all. - --james p.s. not that anynone cares, but i'm with lan and andrew on this AOL thing. F*% at sensorship! Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1993 21:26:32 -1000 (HST) From: Sean Barrett <barrett at uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu> Subject: signing on to the list barrett at uhunix.uhcc.hawaii.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1993 07:51:45 -0400 (EDT) From: GONTAREK at JHUVMS.HCF.JHU.EDU Subject: Clip art for beer labels Greetings brewfolk! I have a quick question that I was hoping someone could answer for me: Where (on the net) can I get clip art files that I could incorporate into a graphics program that i use to make my beer labels? I am using Canvas on the Mac for graphics, and would like to get my grubby hands on some cool artwork (pictures, etc) to spice up my labels. I am a biologist/homebrewer, not a computer wizard, so bear this in mind when you respond. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance. Rick Gontarek Gontarek at jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu Dept. of Biology The Johns Hopkins University Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 93 8:38:34 EST From: "Darren L. Ward" (FSAC-FCD) <dward at PICA.ARMY.MIL> Subject: Champagne Bottles I'm almost ready to bottle my Mead, anyone know which Champagne bottles can be capped with a beer cap? I think this is the best way to go with a batch that takes a year or so to condition. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 93 07:37:00 PST From: Timothy Sixberry <tsixber at msrapid.kla.com> Subject: Questions Hi fellow homebrewers/ drinkers, This is my first publication in the digest and I wish I were answering some questions, but instead I must ask a few this time. I have been brewing for about a year and a half and have done both all grain and extract brews. I have had good luck with both and not to many problems. It seems to me though, that every time I think I have it down, I read about some new method or device that is supposed to make the beer come out better. It seems to me that the basics of making good beer are very simple, things such as sterility, accurate temps, good ingredients, a set of routine steps, and patience. So my first question is. If the beer is comming out good, why complicate matters? An expample of what I mean is the use of of oxygen and a bubbler system to airate the wort prior to pitching. Is this really nessasary? I just shake the hell out of my primary a few times after pitching the yeast, and I don't seem to have any problems. Will my beer actually taste better if I go through this extra hassle? I can't immagine how a well mashed, properly fermented and lagered beer could be improved upon even more. If my beer gets any better than it already is I don't think I will be able to stop drinking it. Thats a scary thought. What if I made my beer so good that once I took a drink of it I just could'nt stop? Man, I think I'd better go get me a beer to settle my nerves. He who laughs last, drinks first. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 93 9:49:25 CST From: chips at coleslaw.me.utexas.edu (Chris Pencis) Subject: Abita Turbo Dog Hey folks - last night I had two Abita Turbo Dogs with a batch of K'Pauls Shrimp Creole and I was in heaven. I have the recipe for the shrimp, can anyone give me info/recipe on the Abita Turbo Dog? Extract recipe, brewery info, anything...........Bueller.......Bueller....... Chris |Chris Pencis chips at coleslaw.me.utexas.edu | |University of Texas at Austin Robotics Research Group | Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 93 10:48:33 -0500 From: Timothy J. Dalton <dalton at mtl.mit.edu> Subject: Stein Lids Revealed / New Book on Hops Re: stein lids revealed Mark Bunster <mbunster at hibbs.vcu.edu> wrote: > I remember seeing a guy in a bar pour 9/10 of his beer, then roll the bottle > sideways back and forth for 10 minutes to build a good head to pour on top. > Everybody has a system. Most likely hefeweissbier. Pour out all but an inch, then shake up the sediment to get it all out of the bottle and into the glass! A common technique in Bavaria. - ---------- Re: New Book on Hops gjfix at utamat.uta.edu (George J Fix) wrote: > The following reference has just come to my attention: > Chemestry and Analysis of Hop and Beer Bitter Acids > M. Verzele and D.DeKeukeleire, Eds. > Developments in Food Science > Vol. 27 Also in the same series, Volume 28 is: TITLE: Off-flavors in foods and beverages / edited by George Charalambous. IMPRINT: Amsterdam ; New York : Elsevier, 1992. PHYSICAL FEATURES: xiv, 749 p. : ill. ; 25 cm. SERIES: Developments in food science ; 28 I haven't had time to look through this one yet, but it might be interesting. Tim - ---- Timothy J. Dalton tjdalton at mit.edu MIT, Dept. of Chemical Engineering, Materials Etching Technology Lab --- Im Himmel ist kein Bier, darum trinken wir es hier. --- Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 93 10:51:03 EST From: Spencer.W.Thomas at med.umich.edu Subject: Bottle Inspection When I (rarely) write a comment in the "bottle inspection" part, I do it before opening the bottle. It thus serves as a reminder to me about the state of the bottle, so that IF I find flaws that might be related, I can refer back to it. (Short term memory is the first thing to go.... What was the question, again?) I've also commented things that are obviously unrelated to the beer quality, such as a totally grungy bottle. Someone who wants me to judge their beer should at least have enough pride in their product to present me with a clean bottle. But, as you note, it doesn't affect the score. =S Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1993 09:44:01 -0500 From: cole at nevism.nevis.columbia.edu Subject: Hydrometers / Haze problems > Somebody asked why Jim Busch needs three hydrometers: The reason is that the length of the tube in the hydrometer below the surface of the liquid varies > INVERSELY < proportional to the density of the liquid being measured. Since you get your reading from this length, the reading also varies inversely proportional to the density, i.e. L = c * 1/Rho = L0 + (# of marks) * (distance between marks) Writing this in terms of Specific Gravity: L = c * (1/rho_water) * (1/SG) This is a simplified version of the full expression but it makes the point. You can think of it this way: the more dense the liquid being measured, the higher the hydrometer rises and the smaller the length of tube below the surface. This expression can be linearized for small variations around a nominal density, that of water. Expressing this variation in terms of specific gravity: SG = 1 + delta_SG L = c * (1/rho_water) * (1 - delta_SG + delta_SG**2 + ...) This means that if a hydrometer has to cover a range of specific gravities from 1.000 to 1.100 using a linear scale, there will be a 10% error in the measurement from one end of the scale to the other (due to the delta_SG**2 term). Thus, high precision (scientific quality) hydrometers use much shorter scales to improve the accuracy of the measurement. There's also the issue of measurement precision. If you want precise measurements (better than 0.001 error) the hydrometer has to have a larger change in L for the same delta_SG than those we use. Thus to cover the same range, the hydrometer becomes longer. Conversely, if you want to keep the length within some reasonable range, you have to keep the range covered by the hydrometer shorter. If you look in a scientific equipment catalog there will be hydrometers which have smaller ranges than those used by homebrewers and they will come in a wide variety of NOMINAL specific gravities. *************************************************************************** I have a problem that I would like to consult HBD experts on. Since I have been brewing all-grain beers, I have had lots of trouble with haze. I have now done 8 all-grain batches. Two batches suffered from chill haze, two batches were satisfactory, and the rest suffered from haze problems that had nothing to do with chill-haze. These beers are cloudy even when warm. * At first I used a grain-bag in a bucket style lauter tun. After the first three batches I felt that I was not getting sufficiently clear run-off and switched to a copper manifold lauter-tun. After doing so, my run-off cleared much more quickly. * For the last three batches I have PH treated my sparge water to reduce tannin extraction and have noticed a significant drop in astringency of the runoff at the end of the sparge. * For the last few batches I have been careful to limit the amount of aeration of the runoff during the sparging process. I no longer try to heat the runnings while I sparge as this requires too much pouring of the hot liquor, I simply sparge directly through a hose into my boiling kettle until I have finished. * I have had problems using both German Pilsner Malt (with protein rest) and British ale malts so I doubt that I am having protein problems (except maybe for those suffering from chill haze). * I suspect starch haze problems. For the two worst batches, I added the crystal malts at the very end of the mash. On my last batch I was careful to do an iodine test before and after addding the crystal and found to my surprise that after adding the crystal, the test showed presence of ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ starch where the pre-test showed none. Has anyone else observed this ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ problem ??? * I am using a Corona mill and have been setting it to optimize (i.e. reduce) husk shredding at the expense of having larger malt fragments and more uncrushed kernels. I suspect I may be extracting starch during the sparge from some uncoverted chunks of malt. I certainly have to mash much longer than Miller would suggest (last batch - 3 hours for 10 # malt, 6# pale, 3# mild, 1# crystal). I would like to hear from other users of the Corona mill re: problems with starch haze / long mashes etc.. * I am aware of the potential haze problems from infection by wild yeast etc. One of my bad batches was fermented at 40 deg. and lagered at 32 for a month. I don't know if bacteria or wild yeast could survive these temperatures long enough to give me troubles. Also I have not been able to detect any significant off-flavors in the two batches which suffered the worst haze problems. That doesn't mean that they weren't contaminated - I just may not be able to tell. I would be willing to send a couple of bottles to someone who thinks he/she can detect off-flavors produced by wild yeast fermentation. Unfortunately, I have not been able to correlate the source of the haze with any of the above changes/variables. My best two batches can between two bad batches. I would welcome advice from experienced all-grain brewers. Cheers, Brian Cole Return to table of contents
Date: 16 Dec 93 09:29:59 MST (Thu) From: rcd at raven.eklektix.com (Dick Dunn) Subject: accurate hydrometers A while back I got a "bottling hydrometer" to use along with the regular one. It helps a lot. The full-scale range is 0.980-1.020. (This compares to about .990-1.170 for a standard brewing hydrometer.) Cost: about $15, from William's Brewing. This is a good middle step between the old stan- dard full-range hydrometer and expensive lab-grade equipment. I find it useful for two reasons. First, obviously the 4+ x expansion of the scale makes it much easier to read--the 0.001 units on the bottling hydrometer are more than twice the size of the 0.002 units on the regular hydrometer. Second, meads often finish up down around 0.990; it's nice to have some extra range on the hydrometer below that. (I suspect the bottom .010 on a regular hydrometer isn't all that accurate, since there's only a tiny section of the tube left above the liquid.) I don't find a real need for an expanded-range hydrometer at the higher gravities. Anything that's up there is generally fermenting quickly, hence changing gravity quickly, hence a precise reading doesn't tell you a lot. I use the regular hydrometer for the early stages, then switch to the bottling hydrometer when things stop changing much. Note that if you use an expanded-range hydrometer, you need to pay more attention to the standard cautions about not having glop on the hydrometer (especially on the part above the fluid line) and about measuring at cali- bration temperature or applying temperature corrections. Otherwise you're just buying precision, not accuracy. --- Dick Dunn rcd at eklektix.com -or- raven!rcd Boulder, Colorado USA ...Simpler is better. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1993 10:48:37 -0600 (CST) From: Robert Jordan <JORDAN at ANLBEM.BIM.ANL.GOV> Subject: Hops question This is a little late, but what the hey...... I've been reading the recent discussion about hops and utilization and also this information in the Hops FAQ and I admit to being a bit confused. I plan on brewing a beer more or less following Papazian's Righteous Real Ale. Now, I understand the concepts of IBUs, HBUs, %utilization, etc., but I'm not sure that I'm using the formula's correctly. So I plan on boiling 6 lbs. of malt extract in 1.5 gallons water for 45 min. per the recipe. According to Papzian then, I should get ~19% utilization. On to the formulae (also from Papazian)- IBU = HBU * %UTIL / 6.7 I want a target HBU of 8 so: IBU = 8 * 19 / 6.7 = 22.7 OK. Now it's this part that for some reason is bothering me (sorry, Charlie.) Weight(in oz) * AA * %Util IBU = -------------------------- Volume * 1.34 Now I plan on using Cascade (AA=5.5) for bittering so... Weight(in oz) * 5.5 * 19 22.7 = ------------------------ 5 gal * 1.34 So Weight(in oz) = 1.46 oz --call it 1.5 oz Have I got it right (assuming I've done the math correctly)? Sorry if this question has been answered in the recent discussion. I suspect that it has, but I didn't recognize the answer as such. Thanks in advance-- Rob RJordan at anl.gov P.S. Thank's to all who responded to my post a month or two ago about mail order suppliers. It turns out that the best AND cheapest shop around is 20 minutes from my apartment.... Return to table of contents
Date: 16 Dec 1993 08:50:25 U From: "Palmer.John" <palmer at ssdgwy.mdc.com> Subject: Stainless Steel Welding In HBD1299, Bill Kitch wondered: I was wondering if the aluminum and/or copper cladding on the bottom of the better SS pots made it difficult of impossible to weld a spigot in place? The answer is Yes, Definitely Impossible - If the weldment has to involve that cladding. If it will not touch the weldment, then it is not an issue. The stainless steel weld won't know the cladding is there. John Palmer MDA-SSD M&P PS. Still have the How To Brew Your First Beer instructions. Its Rev.B thanks to all the great comments I have received. Email me at palmer at ssdgwy.mdc.com but please be circumspect in the subject line. Example: Document Rev.B Our Mail Mgr is getting touchy about non work related use of company resources. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 93 12:09:28 EST From: U-E68316-Scott Wisler <wisler_scott at ae.ge.com> Subject: Bubbles/time and Threaded neck carboys Al and Jim discuss hydrometer measurements vs bubbles per unit time. The only time I have ever had false indications from the bubbles per unit time method is brewing ales at the low end of the temperature range. ie, fermenting in the basement during the winter. I previoulsy used the bubbles to know when to bottle, and one hydrometer measurement at the begining of the bottling process make sure I wasn't mistaken. I didn't monitor the SG because I felt the risk of infection/aeration was too high. Since I switched over to the BrewCap (tm) system, I can monitor SG carefully, with much less chance of infection/aeration. A while back I remember someone mention that their brew was bubbling `once per hour'. While I always waited for less activity than once per minute or two, I can't imagine being carefully transfixed on an airlock for more than an hour waiting for that second bubble (to get the time increment). **************** I have had difficulty siphoning out of my 6.6 gallon acid carboy because the orange cap (siphon starter) doesn't seal on the threaded neck. For those of you in a similiar situation, a solution is to use an O-ring to help seal the orange cap. A 2" OD, 3/16 thick O-ring should do the trick. It fits in the groove just below the top lip of the carboy. It doesn't work quite as well as having a standard neck carboy (the one the cap was designed for), but its inexpensive and passible. For those asking for carboys for Christmas, getting a standard neck will save a lot of grief, and they come in at least 5, 6, and 6.6 gal sizes. For clarity, the orange carboy cap has nothing to do with the BrewCap system and should not be used upside down as it will impart bad flavors to your brew. The BrewCap doesn't fit on threaded neck carboys. scott Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 93 12:35:38 EST From: Matthew Causey <matthewc at hpwasb.wal.hp.com> Subject: sign me up Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1993 10:58 -0600 (MDT) From: Marc Hugentobler <MARHUG at TELECOM.USU.EDU> Subject: Flat Dinosaurs, BJCP,etc. The creee-eepy man writes he would like images of a certain flattened dinosaur. HBD might not be the proper forum to search for such an obscure document even though most of its patrons could probably appreciate such an image. However, being the storehouse of obscure information that I am, I thought it appropriate to oblige. There are several Borderline-cultish forums who would like to see the big purple menace meet with an untimely demise. Bear in mind I don't know that any of them contain the image you seek, but that is the thrill of the adventure. They are as follows: Jet over to your Usenet gateway and peruse Alt.tv.barney Alt.tv.dinosaurs.die.die.die Alt.barney.dinosaur.die.die.die Alt.sex.bestiality.barney For what its worth anyway I personally have some questions of the forum many of who seem to be certified beer judges. Is there any more information about The BJCP exam available besides the outline available by anonymous ftp? More sample questions and sample answers would be very helpful. I desperately want of qualify but find myself confounded by the amount of information. Personal Insights would also prove valuable. Thanks in advance! Marc Dee Hugentobler Utah State University Marhug at telecom.usu.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1993 13:15:32 -0500 (EST) From: gelinas at ekman.unh.edu (Russell Gelinas) Subject: bottle inspection The "Bottle Inspection" comments in an AHA competition can also tell you how well your bottle did in transit. I had an entry panned, big time, with comments like "phenolic, astrigent" and the ultimate insult "keep on trying" :-). At the time it was the best beer I had ever brewed, and everyone who tasted it thought so too. It had no phenols. I thought it compared very favorably with the best of brewpub ales. So what happened? Well, one strong indication was the comment "low fill line" in the bottle inspection. I *knew* I had filled the bottles correctly. So *something* happened that "hurt" my beer. Maybe the cap was loose and it picked up some "flavor" from the surrounding plastic bag. Maybe the bottle somehow got switched with another. I'll never really know. But it this case, the "Bottle Inspection" comment was a valuable diagnostic for the *brewer*. FWIW, since I still had 2 bottles of it, I immediately tried one. It was fine. I sent the other off to a certified beer judge, who confirmed it was a good beer, without any of the phenolic/astrigent defects noted in the competition report. He did say it was "out of style" though :-) Russ Gelinas eos unh Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1993 13:28:15 -0500 (EST) From: gelinas at ekman.unh.edu (Russell Gelinas) Subject: wyeast 1098/Whitbread Was it ever settled if Wyeast 1098 has the 3 strains of Whitbread yeast or just 1 of the strains? As a data point, I've got a batch in secondary fermented with 1098 that went from 1.092 to 1.030 in 10 days. There was a slowdown at about 5 days, which picked up again within a day. It is now in the process of clearing. So it *acts* like 3 strains.... Russ Gelinas eos unh Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 93 13:50 EST From: Tom Clifton <0002419419 at mcimail.com> Subject: Making separate messages out of HBD 'HBD.BAS 12/16/96 - For Quick Basic - makes individual files of HBD messages '========================================================================= 'At the risk of aggrivating the Non-IBM PC readers of the Home Brew Digest - 'here is a basic program that I use to break the HBD into separate files 'and adds Digest # to Subject: line. You can run this from Quick Basic 'which comes with DOS, or compile it as a stand alone, then import them into 'your mail reader (I use LOTUS EXPRESS) CLS ON ERROR GOTO BadName 'If file name is invalid PATH$ = "C:\MAILSYS\FLD.FLD\" 'Output directory for files Seq = 0 'Sequence number for files HBDfile$ = PATH$ + "HBD" + RIGHT$(STR$(Seq), LEN(STR$(Seq)) - 1) + ".TXT" OPEN HBDfile$ FOR OUTPUT AS #2 LOCATE 10, 10: INPUT "Enter file Name :", File$ OPEN File$ FOR INPUT AS #1 DO WHILE NOT EOF(1) 'Read input file LINE INPUT #1, Read$ IF LEFT$(Read$, 30) = "------------------------------" THEN GOSUB NewFile IF LEFT$(Read$, 17) = "HOMEBREW Digest #" THEN Tag$ = " [HBD " + MID$(Read$, (INSTR(Read$, "#")), 5) + "]" END IF IF LEFT$(Read$, 8) = "Subject:" THEN Read$ = Read$ + Tag$ LOCATE 12, 10: PRINT STRING$(70, 32) LOCATE 12, 10: PRINT Read$; END IF PRINT #2, Read$ LOOP CLOSE END NewFile: LINE INPUT #1, Read$ LINE INPUT #1, Read$ Seq = Seq + 1 CLOSE #2 HBDfile$ = PATH$ + "HBD" + RIGHT$(STR$(Seq), LEN(STR$(Seq)) - 1) + ".TXT" LOCATE 11, 10: PRINT "HBD" + RIGHT$(STR$(Seq), LEN(STR$(Seq)) - 1) + ".TXT" OPEN HBDfile$ FOR OUTPUT AS #2 RETURN BadName: BEEP: LOCATE 10, 10 LOCATE 10, 27 PRINT SPACE$(32); LOCATE 10, 10 INPUT "Enter File Name :", File$ RESUME Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1993 11:55:00 -0500 (cdt) From: Jonathan G Knight <KNIGHTJ at AC.GRIN.EDU> Subject: early racking question Having read on HBD that early racking can minimize the reabsorption of diacetyl by the yeast (the point went unchallenged when it was made, I think - is that right?) I decided to try that technique last night with a (hopefully) Scottish Ale I have fermenting. When I made the transfer, the gravity was down from a starting 1060 to about 1040, so it has plenty left to ferment out. My question is, since the beer is less than half-done, gravity wise, isn't there going to be a lot of yeast still to reabsorb that beloved diacetyl when the secondary is done? Supplementary info about this brew for those inclined to consider my query, and some side questions. This was an extract/specialty grain recipe as follows: 1 lb. dark crystal malt 1/2 lb. chocolate malt Steep in grain bag while heating water & remove 2 tsp. gypsum 6 lb. William's English Light Syrup 2 lb. William's EL DME 4 oz. Maltodextrin pwdr. 2 oz. English Fuggles (4.7 A.A.) boil for 60 minutes 1/2 tbsp. Irish Moss last 15 minutes Wyeast "Irish" from starter Yes I know Wyeast has just come out with a "Scotch" Ale yeast but I haven't tried it. A second reason I decided to rack early on was that the bottom of the primary has the most disgusting looking trub in it I have ever seen. Really, it looked like a brown version of what gets stuck like stalagmites in my kids' noses. Big CLUMPS of yuck. Why could this be? Is it something to do with maltodextrin powder (I've never used it before)? Or is it more likely that it has something to do with the fact that I didn't get a very good cold break (I attempted to "whirlpool" but I think I did it too late, after some of the cooling already had taken place, so I probably just re-suspended the break material. Duh.)? Trying to save the yeast from the primary after racking this early was a real adventure too. I almost had to call the National Guard to keep it from taking over my house. "I'll just throw this stuff in a mason jar," I sez. Hah! After watching the foam escape the loosely-fitting (good thing!) lid and try to crawl out of the sink, I diverted some of it to a starter (give it something to eat and it will go to sleep) in a 1L flask. Should have used the gallon jug - this morning the stopper & airlock had blown off the top of the flask and it was foaming away merrily. Having read all kinds of things about "open fermentation," though, I confidently re-plugged it and cleaned the outside of the flask. The rest of it, in the mason jar, I gave a cold shower. A brief ice-water bath and then transferred to the fridge, to which I returned every few minutes to "burp" the jar until the belches were no longer quite so rowdy. This morning, thankfully, the jar was intact so we didn't have to have brown scum for breakfast. How early did I rack? On the fourth day of fermentation, to be precise, or to be even more precise, about three and a half days after fermentation began (I had a 12-hour lag because I had let the starter sit around too long). At this time, the fermentation in the 5-gallon glass primary had subsided so that the blowoff hose could be removed, the airlock was bubbling at about 1/ 5 sec., and the krausen had subsided noticeably although it was far from gone. Did I rack too early? Normally, when I rack to secondary - usually for dry hopping or for extended settling of a light colored beer so it doesn't sit on the trub - I wait about a week, at which time the fermentation is mostly over: bubbles at 2-4/min., krausen disappeared. Are there any proponents of "early" racking out there who would like to comment? Anybody think "early" racking is a waste of time? Come on now, let's take the gloves off and have a few rounds of good clean fun. Jonathan Knight Grinnell, Iowa Beer. It's just NOT for breakfast. Any more? Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 93 18:59:24 CDT From: JEBURNS at ucs.indiana.edu Subject: All-grain equipment & Kegging I have been reading HBD for about two months now and have finally decided to post a few questions. I moved from Washington State to Indiana (my wife is going to grad school here), homebrewing is fairly popular in WA. There are also quite a few micro-breweries, my favorite is Red Hook from Seattle. I just started brewing again after the move (had to leave my carboys at home), I have found the HBD to be very helpful, its nice having a net connection. Anyway I would like to start ewing all-grain beers, up until this point I have been using extracts and specialty grains. Question #1- It seems that there are a lot of people on the HBD who use the modified picnic cooler method. This method isn't really discussed by Miller. I would like comments on this system both positive and negative. Is it only used for single temp mashing? #2- What are the advantages/disadvantages to using 2-row vs. 6-row malts? Is American Klages 2-row modified enough to use a single temp mash? Red Hook uses that type + you can get it pretty cheap ($20 for #50 + shipping) #3- I don't want to start a "my system is superior to your system" war but, I would like to hear about different methods that people use. Basically I'm looking for a method that I can use in my kitchen ( no 3 billion btu cookers etc...) and is pretty simple. I understand the basic process that is involved but haven't decided on the equipment. Any suggestions or warnings about systems that I could build or buy would be appreciated. Commercial products too (Easymasher, RIMS etc..) #4- I have two Cornelius kegs that I would like to use. I can't afford a CO2 tank and reg. So I would like to use them for parties (drink it all before any oxidation). I can order the connectors and a dispenser but I would have to rig up some sort of a pump to displace the beer. Would this work? Any suggestions for pumps? I was thinking about a foot operated bike pump. They also make a small CO2 bike pump, how many cartridges would it take for 5-gallons of brew? Thats all. Next time I won't wait until there are so many. Dave Burns e-mail to jeburns at ucs.indiana.edu or 1207 Crescent Rd. Bloomington, IN 47404 Thanks Dave Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 93 18:11 CST From: arf at mcs.com (Jack Schmidling) Subject: TUN DESIGN <From: Jay Hersh <hersh at x.org> <from Jack S.... (I know I'm probably gonna regret this :-) Just remember, if you do, it's self-inflicted. As Harry once said, if you can't stand the heat..... > We exchanged mail on this subject but you failed to mention the hole size of > the lauter tun false bottom. It looks to me like another classic example of > how scaling down commercial equipment to hombrew sized batches just does not > work very well. 3/32" holes are probably too large for the geometry of a > homebrew tun. <Jack, what would the scale of the brewery have to do with the sizing of the holes in the lauter bottom?? This is a function of the size of the grain itself as the purpose is to server as a seive allowing wort ot pass through but grain to remain behind?? Can you explain the basis of your comment linking the size to the scale of the brewery?? I probably couldn't before receiving another letter from the originator of the thread. My only argument was that if 3/32" holes work in large tuns but not in a small one, it must have something to do with geometry. Turns out that grain for a 5 gallon batch "barely covers the bottom" so he is forced to make larger batches but apparently not large enough. So I was on the right track but probably for the wrong reason. The larger holes only work well with a large depth to diameter ratio but smaller holes would be more forgiving. I am not sure why one would want larger holes and thereby put such constraints on the aspect ratio but therein at least, seems to be the answer. For the record, the screen I use on the EM has 32 mesh screen and taking the wire diameter into consideration, the hole size is roughly ten times smaller than the "professional" size. > I hate to sound like a broken record, but all your problems will go away if <No, really you don't :-) Broken records tend to annoy people and my mission is to share what I have learned with others and learn what they have learned from them. js Return to table of contents
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1300, 12/17/93