HOMEBREW Digest #2492 Tue 26 August 1997

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

		Digest Janitor: janitor@hbd.org
		Many thanks to the Observer & Eccentric Newspapers of 
		Livonia, Michigan for sponsoring the Homebrew Digest.
				URL: http://www.oeonline.com

  Carbonic/Bicarbonate/Carbonate - Part 2 of 4 (A. J. deLange)
  Yeastlab Bavarian Hyrdogen sulphite odor (JONATHAN BOVARD)
  Sparge water considerations for GOTT coolers (JONATHAN BOVARD)
  Need some help to resolve a Homer..... (m.r.p.)
  Re: entry fee for commercially run HB contests ("Mark S. Johnston")
  Amaranth, Buckwheat, and Oat Malt (David Johnson)
  Re: chili from Chile ("Ted Major")
  CHILE BEER (crablesc)
  Wyeast Bavarian Lager problems ("C&S Peterson")
  122 Thread/Decoction results/Filtering at room temperature ("C&S Peterson")
  No-Sparge Gravity Prediction (KennyEddy)
  Beer and oxalates (Edward J. Basgall)
  Keg holes / first runnings (Dave Williams)
  Chili from Chile (Kit Anderson)
  7-gallon mash tun (Chris Cooper)
  re: CP Bottle Filler Alternative (LaBorde, Ronald)
  Looking for a cask (Jay Reeves)
  Carbonic/Bicarbonate/Carbonate - Part 3 of 4 (A. J. deLange)
  Carbonic/Bicarbonate/Carbonate - Part 4 of 4 (A. J. deLange)
  All grain rests (Matthew Arnold)
  CP filling ("Bryan L. Gros")

NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS: hbd.org Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew at hbd.org (Articles are published in the order they are received.) 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 homebrew-request@hbd.org. **SUBSCRIBE AND UNSUBSCRIBE REQUESTS MUST BE SENT FROM THE E-MAIL **ACCOUNT YOU WISH TO HAVE SUBSCRIBED OR UNSUBSCRIBED!!! IF YOU HAVE SPAM-PROOFED your e-mail address, the autoresponder and the SUBSCRIBE/UNSUBSCRIBE commands will fail! For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to brewery at realbeer.com Homebrew Digest Information on the Web: http://hbd.org Requests for back issues will be ignored. Back issues are available via: Anonymous ftp from... hbd.org /pub/hbd ftp.stanford.edu /pub/clubs/homebrew/beer E-mail... ftpmail at gatekeeper.dec.com (send a one-line e-mail message with the word help for instructions.) AFS users can find it under... /afs/ir.stanford.edu/ftp/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 16:53:20 -0500 From: ajdel at mindspring.com (A. J. deLange) Subject: Carbonic/Bicarbonate/Carbonate - Part 2 of 4 Part II The key to solving problems like these are the ratios r1i = [HCO3-]/[H2CO3] = 10^(pHi - pK1) and r2i = [HCO3-]/[CO3--] = 10^(pHi - pK2) A little 'p' before a symbol means "take the negative log to the base 10 of". Thus pK1 is minus the log of K1. K1 is the first dissociation constant of carbonic acid (actually it combines the constants which describe the equilibrium between CO2 and H2CO3 and H3CO3 and HCO3-) and K2 is the second. At 25 C pK1 = 6.38 and pK2 = 10.33. The i represents a particular situation i.e. pHi means the pH under the circumstances we have labeled situation i. Now define di as di = 1 + r1i + r1i*r2i If Ct millimoles (mM) of chalk are dissolved in a liter of water with equilibrium pH given by pHi the fraction which will have converted to carbonic is 1/di, the fraction which will have converted to bicarbonate will be r1i/di and the fraction which remaions carbonate is r1i*r2i/di. Thus xt = Ct/di yt = Ct*r1i/di and zt = Ct*r1i*r2i/di represent the mM/L of, respectively, carbonic, bicarbonate and carbonate WHICH CAME FROM THE DISSOLVED CHALK AND NO OTHER SOURCE. Each mole which converts to carbonic requires 2 H+ ions and each which converts to bicarbonate requires 1. Thus the total requirement for H+ in this case is [H+]req = 2*xt + yt = Ct*(2 + r1i)/di in units of mM/L or, as the charge on a hydrogen ion is 1, the value in milliequivalents (mEq/L) is the same. An example might help. If you dissolve 100 mg/L chalk using enough acid to get the pH to 8.00 (at 25C) you would have Ct = (100 mg)/(100 mg/mMole) = 1 mM/L (the molecular weight of chalk is 100). At this pH r1i = 41.6869383, r2 = 0.00467735, d= 42.8819228 and the fractions are 2.331985% of the total for carbonic (molecular weight 44), 97.213314% for bicarbonate (molecular weight: 61) i.e. 0.98 mMole/L or 59.8 mg/L, and 0.454701% for carbonate (molecular weight: 60). Thus the mole fractions and actual weights are as given in the following table which includes the H+ requirement: Req'd Species Mole Fraction mM/L Molecular Wt mg/L H+(mEq/L) Carbonic .0233 .0233 44 1.03 .047 Bicarbonate .9721 .9721 61 59.30 0.972 Carbonate .0045 .0045 60 0.27 0 Thus we require 1.02 mEq/L of acid to do the job. If we used, as we suggested earlier, sulfuric acid we would add not only 1.02 mEq/L of H+ but also 1.02 mEq/L of sulfate by adding 1.02 mL of 1 N acid to each L of the water being treated. As the equivalent weight of sulfate is about 48 we would have 48.9 mg/L sulfate. The total water compisition would then be 40 mg/L Ca++, 1.02 mg/L CaCO3, 59.30 mg/L HCO3-, 0.27 mg/K CO3-- and 48.9 mg/L sulfate. Now if the H+ comes from carbonic we need to analyze the bottom portion of the system diagram. Assume that Cc mM/L carbonic gas dissolves (the subscript c is a reminder that these moles come from carboniC as opposed to the Ct moles which come from carbonaTe). At pHi the amounts of each of the three species from DISSOLVED CARBONIC GAS ONLY are xc = Cc/di yc = Cc*r1i/di and zc = Cc*r1i*r2i/di i.e. they are in exactly the same relative proportions as the species from the chalk. In going from carbonic to carbonate 2 H+ ions are released for each carbonate formed from the gas and 1 H+ is released for each bicarbonate formed from it. Thus the total H+ released is [H+]rel = yc + 2zc = Cc*(r1i +2r1i*r2i)/di At equilibrium it is clear that the ions released must equal the ions consumed so that Ct*(2 + r1i)/di = Cc*(r1i +2r1i*r2i)/di which is easily solved for Cc as Cc = Ct*(2 + r1i)/(r1i + 2r1i*r2i) Once we have Cc then xc, yc and zc are obtained from the 3 formulas just above. Returning to the example problem we find that Cc = 1.038 mM/L of carbonic gas would be required to dissolve the 100 mg/L chalk and get the pH to 8.00. most of this carbonic would convert but 0.0242 wouldn't so the total carbonic would be the sum of this plus the .023 from the 100 mg/L of chalk for a total of .0475 mM/L or 2.09 mg/L. Most of the carbonic, 1.009 mM/L winds up as bicarbonate for a total of 1.981 mM/L bicarbonate or 120.87 mg/L and 0.004721 mM/L makes it all the way to carbonate which, when added to the residual carbonate from the chalk makes a total of 0.009268 mM/L or 0.556 mg/L. - -- Continued -- Numquam in dubio, saepe in errore. Remove NOSPAM to reply. Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 11:14:47 +1000 (EST) From: JONATHAN BOVARD <j.bovard at student.qut.edu.au> Subject: Yeastlab Bavarian Hyrdogen sulphite odor Has anyone used the Bavarian Yeastlab before, my brew reeks quite badly of rotten eggs (although other Lager yeasts I have used do promote the same odor). Cheers Jon bovard Brisbane, Australia " Beer...more than just a breakfast drink!" Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 11:20:46 +1000 (EST) From: JONATHAN BOVARD <j.bovard at student.qut.edu.au> Subject: Sparge water considerations for GOTT coolers Since I mash in a GOTT cooler I never believed it critical to mash out, in the hope that sparge water will bring the temp of grain bed up for me. It seems apparent from HBD postings that it is the temperature of the grain bed, not the sparge water that is important. Does anyone have any ideas how much sparging with a 150f mash bed affects yield?? What then should the temperature of my sparge water be to raise ht egrain bed from 65C(150f) to 77C(170f). Im currently using a Phils sparge arm attatched to a Plastic fermenter with an electric element in it. sO temperature raising isnt a problem. Any advice from those with GOTTS on any mashing aspect appreciated!!!! Cheers Jon Bovard Brisbane, Australia Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 21:13:33 -0500 (CDT) From: m.r.p. at ix.netcom.com Subject: Need some help to resolve a Homer..... Last night I was moving my latest Weize from the primary to the secondary. I had just bought some new airlocks and stoppers. Well, as you can imagine when I put the airlock on, the stopper went too far in (Like all the way). I could have left it, but being perfect <G> caused me to pull back to at least seal it. Well, now I had a airlock in one hand and a stopper in the neck. So while I tried to put the airlock back in the stopper it fell into the carboy and sank (With Mr. Murphy laughing his head off). No major problem, I just stuck a blow-off hose on and the other end into the bucket of bleach/water. Now the questions I have are: Has anyone else done this before? (I'm sure I did not buy the only stopper not of the correct size in the world). If so, did the rubber stopper change the beer in any matter (I myself don't like Weize much, but the misses does, and I don't think she will like it much if it tastes like a condom <G>. And finally, when I bottle, how can I get the bloody thing out of the carboy? Thanks in advance for the help. Mike They kneel down, praise God, shout allelujah, lift up their eyes when they pray. When children kill children don't it make them wonder? Don't it make them question their faith? Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 20:12:47 -0400 From: "Mark S. Johnston" <msjohnst at talon.net> Subject: Re: entry fee for commercially run HB contests Dave Brigham writes: > I'm used to club run contests, and paying less than $10 per > entry. You'd think these folks would be able to cut an even > better entry fee since they can provide the venue (very large > stores). > Does anyone else have experience with contests run by > retailers/beer associated businesses? If so, does the > advertising for this contest sound all that unusual? A bar in my area (Reading, PA) sponsored a competition to find a recipe for their "house" beer. First prize was $1000, Second was $300, and third was $200. There was no entry fee. However, the "rules" were a bit flaky. The only guideline was that this was to be a beer that would appeal to 60% of the beer drinking public. (AB is the largest brewery in the US, and all of their brands combine account for only 48% of the beer sold in the US. If I could meet these style guidelines, you better add a few more zeros to that prize amount.) The beer was to be judged by a tasting panel consisting of everyone from "beer experts" to the average beer drinker. They got about 2 dozen entries. They postponed the judging for about 2 weeks, then apparently awarded the prizes. No word on the beer being found on tap, though. Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 08:17:19 -0400 From: Lau William WT <william.lau at phwilm.zeneca.com> Subject: STRIKE WATER TEMP. I've been mashing for a while now and one of the little nuisances I run into is the temperature of the strike water needing to be adjusted for the temperature of the grain (i.e. grains are colder in the winter than in the summer as stored in my basement). Does anyone have a calculation for the temp. of strike water to achieve a particular mash temp. that accounts for the grain temp.? No e-mail please. Thanks, Bill - Glassboro, NJ Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 06:33:48 -0700 From: David Johnson <dmjalj at inwave.com> Subject: Amaranth, Buckwheat, and Oat Malt Brewers, I was reading through Brewing Techniques recent "Market Guide" and looking at the suppliers list of products and noticed several items that I thought were interesting. I wondered if anyone here had experience with thes products, how they were used, how it showed up in their beer, and where I might get some. Grain Millers Mentions several unusual grains such as pre-gelatinized amaranth and buckwheat. How do these work in beer and in what amounts? The also mention malted oats. Would this have enough enzymes for mashing? Maybe one could make an "oat-crystal" using Ken's method. Gilbertson and Page mention "brown toast" and "toffee toast". Has anyone any experience with these grains? I was wondering if there is anywhere I can get these products. I am also interested in getting grain from Malteries Franco-Belges. Some of Michael Jackson's writings suggests that at least some of Chimay's grain comes from them. Dave Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 09:30:07 -0400 From: "Ted Major"<tmajor at exrhub.exr.com> Subject: Re: chili from Chile Loren Crow writes the Chile is a country and that chili is a spice. English, however, is much less standard than most of us like to think (and than our English teachers tried to teach us that it is), and so chile, chili, and chilli are all acceptable spellings for "the pungent fruit of any of several cultivated varieties of capsicum." The spelling "chile" is popular in the southwestern US as it is the Spanish spelling, which is derived from the original Nahuatl (an Uto-Aztecan language whose name in Spanish means "that which pleases the ear". (We linguists don't always have much to contribute here professionally, so forgive me for straying somewhat from the normal brewing topics. In penance I'll do a no-sparge IPA this weekend and see how Ken Schwartz's spreadsheet predicts OG for my setup.) Ted Major tmajor at english.uga.edu Athens, Georgia Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 10:13:20 -0400 (EDT) From: crablesc at email.uc.edu Subject: CHILE BEER In HBD #2490 Loren Crow writes: "Chile is a country. A chili is a spice. I suppose one could brew in Chile, for Chile, or near Chile (or, for that matter, *with* Chileans), but it would be completely impossible to get Chile into a carboy!" I agree Loren. However, there is a way to add the "essence of Chile" to your beer. You take a 20 year old Chevy Monte Carlo and pipe the exhaust directly into your carboy. MMMMMMMMMMM! Scott Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 97 14:22:23 UT From: "C&S Peterson" <CNS_PETERSON at classic.msn.com> Subject: Wyeast Bavarian Lager problems HBDers - I read some of the recent problems that folks were having with the Wyeast Bavarian strain. This is one of my favorites and I brew with it often. I too had trouble getting this yeast to finish. I ended up warming the beer up to not-so-healthy lager temps to get the beer to finish. This added some unwanted fermentation flavors to the beer, which cleaned up nicely when the beer was lagered at 30-35F for a few weeks. But I was unable to attain this kind of lagering temperature in my garage this winter so this years beers did not clean up so well. So next season I plan to keep it cold. I don't know if I simply am not pitching enough yeast or if CO2 toxicitiy is to blame (warming would drive out some of the dissolved CO2, no?), but I am inclinded to think that maybe this strain is sensitive to CO2 levels. Yeast gurus have any thoughts here? The other procedure that has helped sustain the ferment is canning a quart or so of the last bit of kettle runnoffs, refrigerating, and then decanting off the sediment when you rack to the secondary. This is essentially like kicking in a traditional charge of wort/yeast just prior to secondary fermentation, as described in Noonan's Brewing Lager Beer, but has the advantage of using the trub laden last kettle runnings which I used to discard. Chas Peterson Laytonsville, Md Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 97 14:13:12 UT From: "C&S Peterson" <CNS_PETERSON at classic.msn.com> Subject: 122 Thread/Decoction results/Filtering at room temperature HBDers - I noticed that the old "should I rest at 122 or not" thread is back. This was a popular discussion last fall/winter, and I incorporated some of the thoughts exchanged here into my brewing schedule over the winter and now have had time to evaluate the results. Here my first hand experience, FWIW: I have found that for the malts I get today, even when combined with flaked grains, the 122 rest is very detrimental to heading properties and body. I used the 122 rest in an Octoberfest, Doppel, and 100% wheat beer. The only beer where the heading was marginally OK, was the Doppel, and that's because (IMHO) of the high dextrine content and the fact that I did not take the main mash through the 122 rest (it started as an infusion at 135F; the first decoction started at 122). Interestingly, the 100% wheat beer, which you would expect to have great heading properties, did not. I suspect that it was the 122 rest of both the rest an decoction mash that did it. I plan to replicate this recipe in the fall, and will see if skipping the 122 rest makes any difference. During the thread last fall, I outlined a decoction procedure that involved splitting the mash before mash in, resting the decoction mash overnight (6 to 8 hours) at 125-95 for an extended protien rest and acid rest. The advantage here was to lower the Ph and save a bit of time for the mash procedure. Several HBDers criticized this procedure, and I promised to read-out the results. I perfomed this on an Oktoberfest and Doppel. While I felt the procedure helped a bit in the mash process, and that some of the lactic acid note developed in the mash carried quite nicely through (particularly in the Oktoberfest -- the slightest hint of tang in the background countered the munich sweetness nicely; in the doppel, the munich sweeness overwhemed almost any other flavor...). I found these flavors favorable, and while the beers scored in the mid-20s in the 97 NHC (a dissappointing result IMHO) the only fault attributed to the mashing procedure was that the beers were a bit thin. I would not do a decoction this way again simply for the purpose of avoiding anything like a 122 rest. My plan going forward is to have a very brief rest at 135-140 and go straight to the main saccrification temp. Despite the theory, I just know that when this plan was used later in my brewing season I got much better body and heading results. And I did not have any haze or run-off problems. As far as the HBDer looking to filter at 1 micron at room temperature, I would strongly urge you to chill the beer first, if possible. I filtered several beers just slightly chilled at 0.5 microns last year and ended up with one of the hazest beers in memory. Chas Peterson Laytonsville, Md Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 11:28:01 -0400 (EDT) From: KennyEddy at aol.com Subject: No-Sparge Gravity Prediction Charles Burns asks: "Here's a grain bill for a barley wine I'm thinking about for this coming weekend: 1.00 lb. Cara-Pils Dextrine 2.00 lb. Cara-Vienne 1.00 lb. Light Dry Malt Extract 2.00 lb. Munich Light 0.50 lb. Oats 8.00 lb. Pale Ale 0.25 lb. Roast Barley 0.75 lb. Wheat My plan is to take only the first runnings and make only 2.5 to 3 gallons of finished beer. Question is, how do I predict the gravity of first runnings?" Predicitng OG for no-sparge and batch-sparge recipes is not much different than for "normal" recipes, you just need to think about how much sugar you're getting into how much volume of water. First, collect potential extract (100%-efficient) figures for each grain. Multiply each by the weight of that grain. Your extraction efficiency then tells you what portion of this potential you're actually getting into solution. If you work with "total points" instead of specific gravity, it's easy. Think of total points as directly related to *amount* of sugar, rather than concentration as SG represents. For your grain bill, using figures from the 1995 Zymurgy Special Issue ("Great Grain Issue"), we have potential extracts of: 1.00 lb. Cara-Pils Dextrine at 33 pt = 33 2.00 lb. Cara-Vienne at 34 pt = 68 (Belgian) 1.00 lb. Light Dry Malt Extract at 42 pt = 42 2.00 lb. Munich Light at 33 pt = 66 (American) 0.50 lb. Oats at 33 pt = 17 8.00 lb. Pale Ale at 38 pt = 304 (British) 0.25 lb. Roast Barley at 29 pt = 7 (British) 0.75 lb. Wheat at 38 pt = 29 (American) Add this up and you get 566 potential points (not counting the extract -- that gets added to the boiler after mashing & draining). Now, multiply by 75% to account for your efficiency and you have 425 points. The idea now is to divide the *total points* by the *total volume* to get specific gravity. Your total points (i.e., total sugar) stays fixed; the more volume you have (via sparging or straight dilution, for example), the lower your SG, but it's the same *amount* of sugar. Say you mash in with 1.25 qt/lb, you should have a volume (including that which will eventually be absorbed by the grain) of 1.25*19 lb or 5.94 gallons mash water. So your expected gravity is (566 * 75%) / 5.94 = 71 pt --> 1.071 SG The additional 1 lb extract adds 42 / 5.94 = 7 points for a grand total of 1.078 SG. As for the absorbed wort, your estimate of 1 pint (1/8 gallon) per pound is pretty close, so you should yield about 5.94 gal - (19lb*1/8 gal/lb) = 3.6 gallons at 1.078. Your gravity should be somewhat higher than this for a barleywine, perhaps 1.100 or more. Say you need another roughly 30 points (therefore 40 points potential); add another six pounds of pale ale malt, or 5-1/2 lb extract. Work through the calculations again to verify. ***** Ken Schwartz El Paso, TX KennyEddy at aol.com http://members.aol.com/kennyeddy Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 12:01:03 -0500 From: ejb11 at psu.edu (Edward J. Basgall) Subject: Beer and oxalates Hello collective, I was so intrigued by the recent oxalates, uric acid, kidney stones, gout threads in the HBD #2485 (John Penn), and HBD #2488 (Steve Alexander) that I forwarded the snips to a researcher in the field and colleague of mine at Bowman-Gray School of Medicine. Our corresponce follows.... cheers Ed Basgall SCUM trustee State College Underground Maltsters >Hi Ross (kidney stone sage), >I ran across this on the Home Brew Digest regarding a discussion of the >NIH recommendation to >avoid beer if you are prone to kidney stones. So >now what? Low purine beer? >ed >************************************** >Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 13:57:42 +0000 >From: Steve Alexander <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net> >Subject: Kidney Stones, Gout and Stout - pt1 > >Bob Sutton asks about kidney stones and beer... >.....monster snip.... >Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 13:40:42 -0400 (EDT) >To: edb at chem.psu.edu >From: Ross Holmes <rholmes at bgsm.edu> >Subject: Beer >Dearest Ed: > That question certainly falls in my small sphere of knowledge. >Beer, it is true, may be harmful to stone formers or those pre-disposed to >form stones because of its oxalate content. This oxalate content is likely >to outweigh its risk due to its purine content. Seeds in general are a rich >source of oxalate which is important for their germination. Barley is no >exception, although it has less oxalate than wheat. Stout is around 10 >mg/100 ml, so there are 30 odd mg in a bottle. Domestic beers may be about >half. I am in the middle of finalizing a good method for oxalate >determination. With this method we answer more extensively the oxalate >content of beer and other essential foods. > Not all calcium oxalate stone formers need avoid oxalate and beer >would not be a problem as they absorb very little oxalate from the diet. >The others who could potentially have a problem because they absorb more >oxalate from their diet, should be wary. Not a great deal is known about >how well oxalate in beer can be absorbed. The content of calcium, magnesium >and other ions could affect how available it is for absorption. Transit >time through the small intestine is another factor to consider and perhaps >beer is less harmful when consumed on an empty stomach rather than with >food, as it may pass thru quicker. There are lots of unknowns and you, or >perhaps the potential stone formers of the world, should be grateful that >Uncle Sam is giving me funds to answer these very important questions. > That's it in a barley kernel. Regards, Ross At 02:21 PM 8/21/97 -0500, ed wrote: >Ross, >Thanks for the informative update. It reinforces my desire to brew and >drink more cider. >Perhaps the molecular biologists can design oxalte reduced barley and >wheat. Do you mind if I post your oxalate reply to the concerned >Homebrewers? >ed > >That's OK. If anyone has questions give them my E-mail address. Maybe I can >charge a bottle of home brew for any advice. ross >Ross Holmes <rholmes at bgsm.edu> Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 12:20:00 -0400 From: rdavis at gator.net (Dave Williams) Subject: Keg holes / first runnings Greetings beerlings... Andrew Stavrolakis <andrew_stavrolakis at harvard.edu> in HBD 2490 asked: "What would be the best way to drill a 1.25" hole in the side of a stainless steel 1/4 keg? This in order to convert keg to an electric boiler w/ submerged heating elements a la Ken Schwartz's "plastic electric brewery" (sans plastic)." Ken reccomends using a hole saw and this will work on your keg provided that you get the bi-metal type. The hole saw and arbor are usually sold separately (you need both) and can be found at most hadware stores or home improvement warehouses. Sainless is pretty hard so be sure that you get the bi-metal type rather than one made for cutting wood. you will noticeably dull even a bi-metal hole saw cutting a single hole in your keg. Ken uses the "screw in" type element and (if I'm interpreting his description correctly) pinches the bucket wall between the gasketed element and a female threaded adapter to provide a leak proof seal. I would be concerned that due to the curvature and relative inflexibility of the keg wall, this might not work as well with a keg. I'm just speculating though because I haven't tried it. Anyone else? In my 1/2bbl keg HLT I used a "bolt on" type heating element which has a square flange with 5/16" (I think) holes at each corner. With the flange type, you just drill the center hole, insert the element, mark, drill and tap the four bolt holes, and bolt it on with SS bolts wrapped in teflon tape. Also, with the flange type element, you can drill a similar pattern of holes (but larger diameters) in the back of an electrical junction box ( I used a 4"x4"x1.5" box), mount it over the outside of the element with the same bolts passing through the J-box and the element into the keg, and use it to enclose the wiring, ground the element, and mount a switch. I have used this arrangement on my HLT and my plastic barrel mash tun with no leaks and good results. Since I'm not an electrician, and don't play one on TV, be sure to check your local codes before playing with electricity. At a bare minimum make sure that you have an equipment ground and use ground fault protected outlets when brewing. ****************************** Also in HBD2490, cburns at egusd.k12.ca.us (Charles Burns) intends to brew a barleywine using only first runnings: <snip> "My plan is to take only the first runnings and make only 2.5 to 3 gallons of finished beer." <snip> " I'll end up with about 3 gallons of first runnings by just draining the mash tun. Any idea what the SG will be? I'll add 2 gallons of water which'll boil off in 90 minutes to leave me with about 3gallons." <snip> My question, Charles: If you're going to boil off the 2 gallons of water anyway, why not use it to get a little better extraction rate by running it through the grain bed before it goes into the brewpot? Is there a flavor advantage (ie. George Fix's yummy malt flavor) which justifies the extraction loss? If so, why not run some sparge water through the grains and collect the wort to (pressure) can for yeast starters? You may notice that I'm a little obsessive about extraction efficiency. To me, malt sugars are sacred things that should not be fed to the hogs along with the spent grains :-). Good luck with your S.G. estimate. Sorry I can't help there. Dave Williams Whiskey's too rough Champagne cost too much And vodka puts my mouth in gear This little refrain should help me explain As a matter of fact , I like beer -Tom T. Hall- Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 10:07:23 -0700 From: Kit Anderson <kitridge at bigfoot.com> Subject: Chili from Chile > Sorry to be a total droid, but this has been grating on me for several > weeks. Chile is a country. A chili is a spice. I suppose one could brew in > Chile, for Chile, or near Chile (or, for that matter, *with* Chileans), but > it would be completely impossible to get Chile into a carboy! > > Cheers! > Loren The only thing worse than a total droid is a total droid who is wrong. Chile is; 1)A country 2)the fruit of the chile plant, e.g. jalapeno, etc. Chili is; 1) a stew made with meat and chiles Of course, you can also have chili powder (ground chiles and other spices) and chile powder(ground chiles). Don't believe me? Go the the Chile Heads' Page http://neptune.netimages.com/~chile/ - -- Kit Anderson ICQ# 2242257 Bath, Maine Greetings From Northeast Texas <kitridge at bigfoot.com> http://web0.tiac.net/users/garhow/kit/ Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 12:26:48 -0400 From: Chris Cooper <ccooper at a2607cc.msr.hp.com> Subject: 7-gallon mash tun Hi all! In #2490 Ken Schwartz mentioned a 7-gallon gott style cooler he saw at his local Home Depot store, I just bought one last week ($20) at my local store in Novi Michigan, it is made by Gott/Coleman, is Highway Dept. orange and has the Home Depot name and logo on it. I had the store associate call the manufacture (there was an 800 number on the data sheet) and they verified that it was suitable for hot liquids, they said that it would handle 180^F coffee (must be brewed by McDonalds!). To my delight when I got home and started setting it up as a mash tun I found that the valve simply screwed out and left a silicon gasket on the inside, I found a brass bulkhead fitting at my local hardware store that fit the hole perfectly, I added a plastic/teflon ball valve on a short 3/8" copper extension on the out side and a 5" long tubular SS-screen on a 3/8" copper tube on the inside (my local homebrew store sells the screens for $10.00) and drilled a small hole in the center of the lid through which I inserted a dial thermometer with a long probe, the 7-gallon cooler is fairly short and wide and the thermometer ends up with the probe almost smack dab in the middle of the mash when the lid is in place (my local homebrew shop sells the long probe thermometer for around $10). I used this setup for the first time last wednesday and it worked like a charm, my grain bill was #11 and there was enough room to do a 3 step infusion and a mashout, the cooler would porbably hold 15-18 pounds of grain. The tubular screen and 3/8" pipe and ball valve worked great and the wort ran clear after only 1/2 gallon of recirculation. This setup replaced a plastic bucket with perferated plastic disc in the bottom and is an improvement ! The cooler held my final mash temperature (158^F) for 60 minutes on my kitchen counter with virually no loss of heat, in the past I keep my mash in a pot in my oven to maintain the temperature, while effective it meant scooping the mash from the pot to the plastic bucket, this is a much improved system! This all-grain stuff just keeps getting better and better, I think half the fun is in developing your own equipment and methods, the other half in the end results! Next I tackle the keg based cooker, I've got the kegs (legally aquired), the burners, everything is cut and drilled and all that is left is a day with the welder! The garden has hops cones! Life is good! Chris Cooper , Commerce Michigan --> Pine Haven Brewery <-- Chris_Cooper at hp.com --> aka. Deb's Kitchen <-- Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 11:39:49 -0500 From: rlabor at lsumc.edu (LaBorde, Ronald) Subject: re: CP Bottle Filler Alternative From: Mark T A Nesdoly <mtn290 at mail.usask.ca> ...To the CP bottle filler owners: How much more do you have to carbonate a beer when filling it? i.e. the beer will lose some carbonation in the time it takes to extract the CP bottle filler and cap the bottle. How much higher do you have to carbonate the beer to hit your target carbonation level? For instance, if I was bottling an IPA, and was shooting for 1.6 volumes of CO2 in the bottle, would I have to carbonate to, say, 1.8 volumes, then remove the cap with the valve stem, and quickly cap the bottle?... Mark, you sound like you are on the right track, getting the full kegging setup and all. When you walk into the land of CP bottle filling, it seems like a land of OZ, full of wonderment and opinion. I am sure you will get many answers and a lot of advice all different. So here is mine: When I started, I also made up some tire valve caps (The manager at Western Auto gave me three valve stems when I said the magic word HOMEBREW, but alas Western Auto has left the New Orleans area). Funny thing, I never really used them much because I subsequently found a much better method. >From talking with others, I found out that you can get the beer cold in the keg (35F or so), and carbonate with C02. I will use about 20psig. Then when the carbonation has been absorbed into the beer, just use the poor man's CP filler - a one foot long piece of tubing shoved into the beer tap. Work's great for me and I get all the carbonation I could ever want. I cap immediately after filling - the few seconds it takes while the beer foams over the top purges any air out. The secret is to reduce the pressure in the keg to about 4 or 5 psig when you start to fill. This reduces foaming to a very minute amount. It is my opinion and just that, that the fancy valve operated CP fillers is just something to sell and people will buy anything, but you just do not need it. Ron Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 10:16:09 From: Jay Reeves <jay at or.com> Subject: Looking for a cask Does anyone happen to know where I could obtain either a new or used British pin (4.5 US gal)? UK Supplies in PA only carries Firkins and says the pins are no longer made and used ones are rare. -Jay Reeves Huntsville, Alabama NOTE: Any replies need to manually change the "or" in the "reply to" field to "ro" - sorry, but blame the spamers for that! Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 14:29:29 -0500 From: ajdel at mindspring.com (A. J. deLange) Subject: Carbonic/Bicarbonate/Carbonate - Part 3 of 4 Part III When Dana wrote: >Every molecule of CaCO3 produces one CO3 >carbonate ion which then is converted into 2 bicarbonate ions. he was very close to being right when the pH is reasonable and established by dissolved CO2 alone. The following table shows the number of molecules of bicarbonate resulting from each molecule of dissolved CaCO3 when the acid is carbonic: pH Molecules Bicarbonate from Each Calcium Carbonate 6 1.9998 7 1.9981 8 1.9814 9 1.8289 10 1.0333 Now to address Dana's specific concerns: >Now water analysis usually gives the carbonates in ppm as CaCO3 which >needs to be multiplied by 0.6 to calculate the ppm CO3. The "ppm as CaCO3" number is simply the number of milliquivalents(of whatever) per liter multiplied by 50. Thus we divide ppm as CaCO3 by 50 to get mEq/L which is what we really need and what I wish they would use because I think it would eliminate a lot of confusion. The problem is that while carbonate and bicarbonate have approximately equal molecular weights (60 and 61, repectively) their equivalent weights differ by a factor of two as bicarbonate carries a single negative charge while carbonate carries a double negative charge. Thus 1 mEq/L bicarbonate (50 ppm as CaCO3) is 61 mg/L but 1 mEq/L carbonate is 30 mg/L. To get around this problem water analysis reports usually give the carbonate content in terms of the alkalinity (which is usually specified in ppm as CaCO3 but may be in mEq/L). The amounts of the carbonic, bicarbonate and carbonic species can then be obtained unambiguously. To do this: 1. Compute r1i = 10^(pHi - pK1) and r2i = 10^(pH - pK2) where pHi is the pH of the sample, pK1 = 6.38 and pK2 = 10.33 (at 25 C). 2. Compute r1a = 10^(pHa - pK1) and r2a = 10^(pH - pK2) where pHa = 4.3 is the pH which defines the end point of the alkalinity titration (alkalinity in ppm as CaCO3 is 50 times the number of mEq of acid required to lower the pH of 1 liter of the test sample to pHa). 3. Compute di = (1 + r1i + r1i*r2i) and da = (1 + r1a + r1a*r2a) 4. Compute C = ( alk - 10^(pH - 11) )/( (1/da) - (1/di) + (r1i*r2i/di) - (r1a*r2a/da) ) where alk is the alkalinity in mEq/L i.e. the alkalinity, in ppm as CaCO3, divided by 50. C is sum of the sample's concentrations of the three species in mM/L. Now [H2CO3] = C/di. [HCO3-] = C*r1i/di. [CO3--] = C*r1i*r2i/di are the mM/L per liter of the individual species. Multiply by the molecular weights (respectively, 44,66 and 60) for the mg/l or multiply carbonic and carbonate by 100 and bicarbonate by 50 for mg/L as CaCO3. Dana's particular questions: >My 1st question is: When calculating the HCO3 ppm from a water analysis >or from chalk addition do I need to roughly double the CO3-- ppm? >(actually multiply by 122/60) >i.e. 1 gm of chalk in 1 litre of water gives >1000 ppm(mg/l) chalk = 600 ppm CO3 = 1220 ppm HCO3 (=20 mval HCO3) When given an alkalinity number and a pH in an analysis use the algorithm given above. It will usually (7 < pH < 9.7 )turn out that the bicarbonate number is close to the alkalinity number if they are both expressed in mg/L as CaCO3 or as mEq/L. To approximate bicarbonate mg/L divide the alakalinity in ppm as CaCO3 by 50 and multiply by 61. When chalk in dissolved in a synthesis we have shown that the amount of bicarbonate depends on where the acid comes from. The following table gives the amounts of bicarbonate in solution at various values of pH from 100 mg/L dissolved CaCO3. The "From Chalk" column indicates how much comes from the CaCO3 itself. It is the amount that would be found if no CO2 were used (i.e. the acid is hydrochloric, sulfuric, lactic...). The "From CO2" column indicates how much extra bicarbonate is added if only sparged CO2 is used to dissolve the chalk and reach the pH. The total is the sum of the two and represents the amount of bicarb to be found if the only acid source is CO2 Bicarbonate from 100 mg/L Dissolved CaCO3 From From pH Chalk CO2 Total 6 17.94 mg/L 104.05 mg/L 121.99 mg/L 7 49.18 72.17 121.89 8 59.30 61.57 120.87 9 58.14 53.42 115.56 10 41.55 21.47 63.03 - -- Continued -- Numquam in dubio, saepe in errore. Remove NOSPAM to reply. Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 14:29:43 -0500 From: ajdel at mindspring.com (A. J. deLange) Subject: Carbonic/Bicarbonate/Carbonate - Part 4 of 4 Part IV Dana'a second particular question: >My 2nd question is: What ion are people talking about when they report ppm >in the literature? >Half of the literature I have talks about CO3-- ppm and half HCO3- ppm >For example an article by Greg Noonan (Beer & Brewing Vol 11) says that >London water has 125 ppm HCO3- while a brewing techniques (Vol 1 #3) >article says it is 125 ppm CO3-. These obviously are taking the number >from the same source but which ion is really correct? >My personal guess right now is that the water analysis numbers are for >carbonate and not bicarbonate (even though bicarbonate is the ion actually >present in the water) This would be because they are traditionally measured >by the dry weight precipitated out of water by evaporation or >chemical treatment. This solid residue would be CaCO3. Descriptions of brewing water for famous brewing centers in textbooks and magazine articles tend to give the carbonate values as mg/L bicarbonate or mg/L carbonate without any distinction whatsoever and I have never seen a pH value given. This is woefully inadequate for anyone trying to do water synthesis. Now things in nature (precipitation of chalk one hand and escape of CO2 to the air on the other) consipire to force the pH of water with any appreciable carbonate content to stay near 8.4. i.e. the dissolved salts form a buffer system. Given this most of the ions will be bicarbonate (at least 80% between pH 7 qnd 9.7. I have always supposed, therfore, that the numbers in these tables are bicarbonate in mg/L. To interpret them as carbonate values would require huge attendant amounts of bicarbonate and/or unreasonably high pH. If one interprets the numbers as bicarbonate most of the ion profiles one sees in books and magazines are impossible in the sense that if one totes up all the charges on the ions in 1 L of the water and calculates the pH required for electrical neutrality the answer is usually a pH of 11 or greater. There are certainly exceptions to this (profiles that balance at reasonable pH) but in the majority of cases the reported values are inconsistent. The inconsistency is always on the side of insufficient cations. One can, therefore, "fix" the profiles by adding more cation and bicarbonate is a cation. It would seem, thus, that bicarbonate is often grossly understated. The bottom line is that the ion profiles seen in books and magazines should be "taken with a grain of salt". I don't think there is any consistency between authors in what is reported in the carbonate or bicarbonate column and I don't think most authors understand the distinction. Who knows the provenance of these profiles? They have certainly been around for a long time in some cases. The situation would be much simplified if pH and alkalinity were given rather than a bicarbonate or carbonate number with no pH information. Numquam in dubio, saepe in errore. Remove NOSPAM to reply. Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 19:41:48 GMT From: mra at skyfry.com (Matthew Arnold) Subject: All grain rests Dearest collective, As my IPA sits merrily in the secondary absorbing the wonderful goodness of an ounce and a half of Willamette hops, my thoughts naturally turned to Fall and the colder weather that accompanies it. That means it's time to get ready to brew my Altbier again! I do a small partial mash, using two pounds of DeWolf-Cosyns Munich malt. I used the mash schedule suggested in NCJoHB, resting for a half hour at both 113-122F and 150-155F and then mashing out at 170F. Am I wasting my time with the first rest? Is Belgian or German Munich malt modified enough to do a one-step infusion in the 150-155F ballpark? Would I be better off with a rest at 140F and then one at 150-155F? Inquiring minds want to know! Matt P.S. This information will also come in handy because I have been considering doing small all-grain and mead "test batches" to see how I like it. Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 13:04:25 -0700 From: "Bryan L. Gros" <gros at bigfoot.com> Subject: CP filling Mark <mtn290 at mail.usask.ca>writes: >To the CP bottle filler owners: How much more do you have to carbonate a >beer when filling it? i.e. the beer will lose some carbonation in the time >it takes to extract the CP bottle filler and cap the bottle. How much >higher do you have to carbonate the beer to hit your target carbonation >level? For instance, if I was bottling an IPA, and was shooting for 1.6 >volumes of CO2 in the bottle, would I have to carbonate to, say, 1.8 >volumes, then remove the cap with the valve stem, and quickly cap the bottle? > In theory, you shouldn't have to increase the carbonation at all when you fill the bottles. The whole idea of CP filling is to keep all that carbonation in the bottle. I'll admit that in practice, things never work as well as in theory, but if done right, I think the carbonation loss when filling is barely noticeable. The best way is to chill the beer to very cold, chill the bottles, and you get no foaming in the bottle and well carbonated beer. Subjectively, the same in the bottle as the keg. I don't measure volumes, I just go by what tastes right, so maybe others will give you more quantitative answers. - Bryan gros at bigfoot.com Oakland, CA Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 08/26/97, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96