HOMEBREW Digest #3020 Mon 03 May 1999

[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

  re: draught question (Jeff)
  Lawnmower beer ("Daske, Felix")
  Nitrogen and CO2 ("silent bob")
  Nitrogen in Stout ("Brian LeCuyer")
  N2/CO2 confusion (pbabcock)
  Re. A taste of Gypsum (Jeffry D Luck)
  Frothy subject (Dave Burley)
  Mash Thickness, Peer review (Dave Burley)
  Re: Plaster of Paris ("Timmons, Frank")
  Water Softener Alternatives? ("J. Doug Brown")
  Long draft hoses (John Wilkinson)
  what a drag/alt saccharomyces ("Bayer, Mark A")
  So. Calif. Homebrew Fest. ("Don Van Valkenburg")
  Red stuff/Diacetyl (AJ)
  beer (Jeremy Bergsman)
  Cleansers and sanitizers ("Anthony & Julie Brown")
  Bottle cap cleaning (JPSimo1106)
  Brew Bottle Baking ("Brian Wurst")
  240V Control (AJ)
  Nitrogen solubility ("Dr. Pivo")
  My first competition ("G. Bowden Wise")
  diacetyl name and formula (Laurel Maney)
  re: how many capfuls. (David Houseman)
  Bottling with honey (Paul Haaf)

Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy! 2000 MCAB Qualifiers: Spirit of Free Beer! Competition 5/22/99 (http://burp.org/SoFB99); Oregon Homebrew Festival 5/22/99 (http://www.mtsw.com/hotv/fest.html); Buzz-Off! Competition 6/26/99 (http://www.voicenet.com/~rpmattie/buzzoff) 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. **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! Contact brewery at hbd.org for information regarding the "Cat's Meow" Back issues are available via: HTML from... http://hbd.org Anonymous ftp from... ftp://hbd.org/pub/hbd/digests ftp://ftp.stanford.edu/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer AFS users can find it under... /afs/ir.stanford.edu/ftp/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer COPYRIGHT for the Digest as a collection is currently held by hbd.org (Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen). Digests in their entirity CANNOT be reprinted/reproduced without this entire header section unless EXPRESS written permission has been obtained from hbd.org. Digests CANNOT be reprinted or reproduced in any format for redistribution unless said redistribution is at absolutely NO COST to the consumer. COPYRIGHT for individual posts within each Digest is held by the author. Articles cannot be extracted from the Digest and reprinted/reproduced without the EXPRESS written permission of the author. The author and HBD must be attributed as author and source in any such reprint/reproduction. (Note: QUOTING of items originally appearing in the Digest in a subsequent Digest is exempt from the above. Home brew clubs NOT associated with organizations having a commercial interest in beer or brewing may republish articles in their newsletters and/or websites provided that the author and HBD are attributed. ASKING first is still a great courtesy...) JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 11:00:16 -0400 (EDT) From: mcnallyg at gam83.npt.nuwc.navy.mil (Jeff) Subject: re: draught question Hi All, In HBD #3018, Al K. wrote: >I chose to not >put my faucets on the outside of my cooler. Despite >the fact that my hoses and faucets are refrigerated, >I still get mould growth inside the faucet! I have a dedicated brew fridge in my dungeon (ie basement) with cobra type faucets that stay inside the fridge. I too used to have problems with mold growing inside the faucets. I recently figured out a way to prevent it though. Simply rinse the faucet well with dilute idophor after each use and leave it to drip dry. Since I've been doing this I have'nt had any problems with mold growth. Hoppy brewing, Jeff ========================================================================== Geoffrey A. McNally Phone: (401) 832-1390 Mechanical Engineer Fax: (401) 832-7250 Naval Undersea Warfare Center email: Systems Development Branch mcnallyg at gam83.npt.nuwc.navy.mil Code 8321; Bldg. 1246/2 WWW: Newport, RI 02841-1708 http://www.nuwc.navy.mil/ Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 08:02:47 -0700 From: "Daske, Felix" <DaskeF at bcrail.com> Subject: Lawnmower beer The depth and diversity of this list never ceases to amaze me. I felt compelled to respond on the issue of "lawnmower beer" because (I had some time on my hands)... no, seriously, I have been looking for a good, light, all-grain brew. The notion of a crisp light drink, which wouldn't cloud your senses, intrigues me. I think it was Harry Ewasiuk <shogun at ccinet.ab.ca> who, in HBD #3013, originally asked for a "Definition of a good lawnmower beer". To which we were welcomed with a variety of interesting responses: In HBD #3015, Jeff Renner <nerenner at umich.edu> replied with... "It means a light, usually pale, thirst quenching beer that hits the spot on a hot summer afternoon (I suppose summer is about a week long up where you are) when you've been mowing the lawn. Something that also wouldn't endanger your safety operating machinery. [snip] ... " Jeff continued on to describe his idea of a good candidate... "My personal choice would be a light Classic American Pilsner (CAP). [snip] ..." Hmmm.. I WILL have to try this. Then, in HBD #3016, we were greeted with a [very logical and entertaining] reply from Mike <MVachow at newman.k12.la.us> of New Orleans, LA ... " ... Let's work backwards and infer such a definition. Imagine a July Louisiana day, 90F at 9am, 80% humidity. The lawn's a mess, consequent spousal disapproval. As you yank futilely on the starter cord of the recalcitrant mower, you envision a beer awaiting you at the end, or perhaps a beer or two midway. [snip] ... The parameters of this beer begin to emerge: a thirst-quenching session beer light in gravity, low to medium hop bitterness, an easy-to-brew beer." Then... ZING!... Joel Plutchak <plutchak at ncsa.uiuc.edu> gets all sensible, on our fun discussion,... "When doing yard work on a hot summer day, it's fairly easy to get a little hot and thirsty. Alcohol is not a good thing to use to rehydrate your body. For that, water (or even better, fresh lemonade) does a great job. Quenches the thirst and dehydrates the body. [snip] ... nothing hits the spot better than a homebrewed barleywine, sipped while relaxing and viewing the fruits of your suburban labor." A very good point is made. For my part, I think a light German ale, made with German or belgian Pils malt and German yeast, might fit the bill. Hmmm... better go 'n check my pantry... IPA's bottled, Czech Pils is finished fermenting, getting ready to brew another. - ------------------------------------------- Kind regards, Felix Fallen Rock Home Brewery "beer from the earth" Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 08:13:54 PDT From: "silent bob" <holdenmcneil at hotmail.com> Subject: Nitrogen and CO2 Hello all (especially Al K.) I am glad to see that we are all thinking. I got a couple of e-mails agreeing with my statements about guiness heads, and one scathing opposing opinion. Al K. asks some very thoughful questions about my statements, and here are the answers: Wall tension in a sphere is calculated by the formula T=P/R. T is wall tension, P is pressure, and R is radius. So, as R decreases, T increses. Also, the pressures are not equal. The pressure inside the bubble is slighly higher than outside in order to oppose the force of the wall tension, and per above, the smaller the bubble, the higher the wall tension, the higher the pressure inside the bubble. CO2 is about 10 times as soluble as nitrogen. Which means that using a 3:1 mix of nitrogen to CO2, you get about 3 volumes of nitrogen for every 10 of CO2, or about 1/3 as much nitrogen as CO2. This is enough to have significant impact on the partial pressure of CO2. Also, be careful with the concept of partial pressure. Even assuming that the pressures on both sides of the wall of a bubble are equal and 15 psi (one atmosphere) if the gas on one side is 100% CO2, and the other is 0% CO2, there is 15 psi CO2 pressure inside and 0 psi outside, a very high driving pressure to push CO2 out!! I will post the exact solubilty coefficients when I get out my old chem books. And in the meant time, I am going to collect a sample of nitrogen/CO2 beer head in a closed container and add NaOH. The difference between the starting head volume and the head volume after exposure to NaOH will equal the amount of N2 in the head, as the CO2 will be consumed by the NaOH. I will post the results, and am confidident that they will support my assertions. Happy Brewing!! _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 10:44:00 -0600 From: "Brian LeCuyer" <NOSPAM at megavision.com> Subject: Nitrogen in Stout Hello to All! The recent discussion on Stout taps, nitrogen in solution, etc., has revived a question which has previously bounced around my head. So allow me to expose my ignorance. My much eroded knowledge of gases, partial pressures, and the like, seems to tell me that a 70/30 mixture of CO2/N2 would necessarily result in a 70/30 concentration diffused into the beer, no? Does this conflict with the fact that mixed gas is used for dispensing through long lines to prevent over carbonation? I don't know. Is our perception of "carbonation" dependent only on the level of CO2 and not upon any N2 which may be present? Brian LeCuyer Columbus, NE You can twist perceptions ... reality won't budge - Rush Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 12:02:21 -0400 (EDT) From: pbabcock <pbabcock at mail.oeonline.com> Subject: N2/CO2 confusion Greetings, Beerlings! Take me to your lager... Brian LeCuyer writes... > My much eroded knowledge of gases, partial pressures, and the like, > seems to tell me that a 70/30 mixture of CO2/N2 would necessarily > result in a 70/30 concentration diffused into the beer, no? No. You're forgetting the digfferences in solubility. Yes, you get more N2 in solution than you would if the N2 wasn't in the mix; but no, it would not follow the gas mix ratio because the difference in solubility between the two is like 300:1 or something like that (mine's eroded, too) - a couple of orders of magnitude difference (plus change). This is why we can use a CO2/N2 mix to push long lines: effectively (or better: relatively speaking) the N2 has no noticable affect on the bubbliness of the beer. (We purists reserve the word "carbonation" to relate only to the dissolution of CO2 in liquid. I guess "nitrogenation" would be the N2 analogy.) Frankly, I'm firm in my belief that all nitrogen in stout does is gives us the means to agitate the beer to the point it outgasses CO2. The result is smoother due to the loss of the prickly carbon dioxide bubbles and acidity. In the widget, this is accomplished by by the jet of beer - beer which got into the widget through the expansion of gasses in the container forcing it in - agitating the remainder of the beer. In a sparkler, the source of agitation is similar: forcing the beer through a shower head causing multiple jets of beer. But, as stated, that's my *belief*. If someone can come up with incontrovertible proof that my belief is wrong, I'll change it (but no one has in many, many moons of this subject coming up...) See ya! Pat Babcock in SE Michigan pbabcock at oeonline.com Home Brew Digest Janitor janitor@hbd.org HBD Web Site http://hbd.org The Home Brew Page http://oeonline.com/~pbabcock/brew.html "Just a cyber-shadow of his former brewing self..." Return to table of contents
Date: 30 Apr 1999 09:25:54 -0700 From: Jeffry D Luck <Jeffry.D.Luck at aexp.com> Subject: Re. A taste of Gypsum Joy Hansen wrote >A recent brew session found me without adequate gypsum and the brew >store was 200 miles away. I improvised and purchased quick setting >"plaster of paris" at about a buck a pound in the hobby section of the >local Wal Mart. Any thoughts on the purity and/or trace elements I've >added to my brew? While I have no help to offer, I would like to suggest some possible names for the final product: Plaster of Pilsner / of Porter Off the Wall Ale Sheetrock Stout Of course, the obvious observation is that is you drink too much you'll get plastered. Does the quick-set stuff reduce fermentation time? Jeff Luck Salt Lake City, UT - USA "The more I learn about beer, the thirstier I get." (Gotta stop reading HBD in the mornings....) Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 12:32:01 -0400 From: Dave Burley <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com> Subject: Frothy subject Brewsters: AlK bravely takes up ASCII drawing to explain his idea of how a keg is pressurized and beer is dispensed. It makes one wonder about that adage of a picture being worth a thousand words. Does that apply to ASCII and to us? {8^) No argument here that the nitrogen from the pressurization of the keg can never affect the head on the beer at the proper pressure. I never meant to imply that. In fact, it isn't even necessary to use nitrogen to pressurize the keg unless it is a long way away, except the beer may become overcarbonated in contact with pure CO2 at a high pressure. Lets' discuss this backwards. In the past few years beer cans, predominantly British, have come out with nitrogen containing inserts which are used to foam the beer to a GuinNess-like head. Ask yourself why they chose to do this rather than using CO2 inserts or just upping the CO2 pressure in the can. The answer? Nitrogen( or some non-soluble gas) is necessary to get the characteristic foam on a Guiness. I agree that it is the protein and other surfactants which are necessary to get a foam, but the stability of the foam is due to the gas content of the bubble. Secondly, as I understand it ( no idea where I heard this) Real Ales are delivered at low CO2, yet if dispensed with a sparkler plate ( correct term?) have a nice head as you describe, yet the beer is flat. Why? The head is a foam containing air and not much CO2. I have the impression that a sparkler plate infuses air into the foam as well as stirring up and breaking out as bubbles any small amount of CO2 in the beer. Third, as I understand it, Guiness taps have the equivalent of a sparkler plate, but the plate is fed with nitrogen not air as in the above. I don't have my book on Classic Series Stouts here to provide you a quote, but as I recall, the description there was not unlike what I gave for the insert. The function of the tap is to mix in ( called break-out) non-CO2 gas into the gas bubble, so that the nitrogen or air enters the bubble and its low solubility allows two things - a smaller bubble to be stable and a longer lived bubble. The primary reason is that the nitrogen ( and oxygen) is less soluble in the bubble wall and does not diffuse through it, as does CO2. Perhaps someone who actually has a Guiness dispense will confirm or not that nitrogen is mixed into the beer at the dispense. Likewise, that air is mixed in at the dispense of beer engines using sparkler plates. Failing that, check out the description in Classic Series "Stout". DeClerk (p.536 v1) says: "Blom has shown that the gas used for forming the head considerably influences the dimunition in volume of the bubbles. A gas such as carbon dioxide which is moderately soluble in water, diffuses much more rapidly through the films surrounding the bubbles than does air. Thus, a head formed by air is much more stable than one formed with carbon dioxide" Keep on Brewin' Dave Burley Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 12:34:03 -0400 From: Dave Burley <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com> Subject: Mash Thickness, Peer review Brewsters: I just got back and hope these comments are not too far out of date. PS - I have been down since the first day I got back because ( after exhaustive reloading, etc, etc) my telephone became noisy from recent work by BelTel. Still not 100%, but this is a different line. ----------------------------------- Joel Plutchak asks for more elaboration on mash thickness in response to SteveA's comment that too thick a mash ( his example 1.5 qts/lb) was perhaps so thick that it would affect the amylolysis. What does happen sometimes is the thick mash impacts the rate of saccharification since sugars impede the amylases in performing their duties. Interestingly enough ( as often happens in brewing) this is not a linear function, as the thicker the mash, the more stable the beta amylase. So that, apart from what we might forsee as a greater fermentability at higher ratios. this is reversed for some cases due to the longer life of the beta amylase in the more concentrated mashes allowing it to split more of the higher carbohydrates. (p. 220 M&BS 1ed, 1971) What I do is start with a thick mash to increase the concentration of the proteases and stage the temperatures of the mash by adding quantities of boiling water. This has the effect of getting desirable proteolysis and a more efficient amylolysis at the higher temperature and more dilute mash at the saccharification temperature. Best of both worlds. By the way, if you are interested in British beers, be sure to remember that quarts in British texts are 40 ounces, whereas US is 32 ounces. - ------------------------------------ As far as Joel's comments to Dr. Pivo's opinions versus peer reviewed literature, I obviously agree that facts are better than opinions and personal innuendo, where the facts are available in easily found texts. Obscure and difficult to recover information without quotation leaves one in the position of trusting the reader that he interpreted the literature correctly.M&BS, DeClerk and similar texts are readily available for review by the readers of HBD. When someone starts a tirade with his credentials in the format like "I have forgotten more technology in brewing than I know", I watch out. I could, like may others here, just as well say a similar thing, as I have been brewing for 30+ years and read every technical brewing book ( dating back centuries as well as the most modern) as well as hobby texts I could get my hands on. I, perhaps, have a better understanding than many of this literature, since I have a Ph. D. in Chemistry and have been a practicing process chemist in chemical plants. Pumps, filters, processes and the like were my bread and butter. I also fancy myself ( as do others) as a very good and creative cook. Why is this important? I try to brew the best beer I can based on a combination of good science and good taste. I am not afraid to experiment, but do it, hopefully, intelligently. I consider my background and education a blessing and not a badge. If I have to call Dr. Pivo "Dr." ( whether he is or not so educated), then lots of other folks here, including me, should be so honored. Frankly, this is not a forum for that kind of name calling. Like all others, I prefer to be called by my given name or nickname - please stick to "Dave" Despite Dr. Pivo's rhetoric, the fact is, using referenced literature is the means by which we overcome the problems of memory to which Dr. Pivo alludes. Opinions and tastes and memories are emotional things which are affected by the surroundings, your age and experience at the times these things are encountered as well as the circumstances in which they are recalled. Remember how P.O.ed you were when your child did something, but today it makes you laugh? That is typical of emotional experiences, they mellow with time and become more enjoyable as they work their way into the fabric of our psyches. Beer drinking for me often is an emotional experience as it appears to have been to Dr. Pivo. Data properly gathered will hopefully withstand the test of time or at least can be challenged by other data - not opinion. On more than one occasion, and by others often represented here, I have been criticised for using literature references. My only hope is that my attempt to use facts will encourage others to use facts also. If the peer-reviewed literature is wrong, then it must be possible to prove it with more than an opinion. Also interesting is that I, of all people, have been accused of being a stick in the mud, when not a week before Dr. Pivo's tirade, I put forth the case that the BJCP judgings were fine for an instructive proof of technique, had little to do with anything more than emulating modern beers ( do we want to?) and for sure did not promote creativity or good taste. I also proposed that such judgings should include a best beer category without any attempt to classify it. For me, and I suspect, Dr. Pivo, picking apart the various aromas from a great beer is a little like wondering why the second vioinist has his elbow so low in the middle of a great symphony. Keep on Brewin' Dave Burley Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 09:55:00 -0700 From: "Timmons, Frank" <Frank.Timmons at AlliedSignal.com> Subject: Re: Plaster of Paris Joy Hansen asked about using plaster of paris instead of food grade gypsum from the homebrew store. Plaster of paris is just calcium sulfate (half hydrate, for the chem. geeks), with usually a little calcium carbonate as an impurity. It is essentially the same as homebrew store bought gypsum. Naturally occuring gypsum is calcium sulfate dihydrate. The hydrate part just refers to the bound water molecules in the chemical. Your post reminded me of one of the more thrifty (cheap?) guys in my homebrew club who proudly announced in a meeting not too long ago about how he saved a ton of money by buying his gypsum in bulk as plaster of paris in the hardware store instead of paying the "highway robbery" price for gypsum at the homebrew store . He was not swayed from his opinion even after several people pointed out that he saves the equivalent of 10 cents per batch by doing this. Frank Timmons James River Homebrewers Richmond, Va. Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 17:03:56 +0000 From: "J. Doug Brown" <jbrown at labyrinth.net> Subject: Water Softener Alternatives? Hi All, I remember watching a "This Old House" episode where they installed a different type of water softener. It operated on a venturi principle. Whenever water was drawn through the system the venturi effect would introduce lots of fine air bubbles into a large storage tank containing the water for household use. The air drawn into the system was supposed to oxidize many of the extras in water and allow them to settle out, or be removed though the air release system. This system would not work well for a rust problem, other than the settling tank, however it is supposed to work well for high sulfer, carbonate and other stuff. I believe the system was cleaned by drawing off water from the bottom of the settling tank periodically. This show was on probably 4 to 6 years ago. I have often thought about adding a prefilter, and then one of these softeners to my local water supply (city water) to remove any bad stuff still in the water ie chlorine/chloramine, metal ions, and carbonates. After this type of softening and setteling out, a reverse osmosis system might be better used ie, longer membrane life. Any thoughts on this? Thanks Doug Brown - -- -------------------------------------------------------- / J. Doug Brown Sr. Software Engineer \ < jbrown at labyrinth.net jbrown at ewa.com > \ http://www.labs.net/jbrown http://www.ewa.com / -------------------------------------------------------- Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 12:35:20 -0500 From: John.Wilkinson at aud.alcatel.com (John Wilkinson) Subject: Long draft hoses AlK wrote in HBD#3018 8-10 foot draft beer lines: >Another thing you may want to consider is that your >beer will be unrefrigerated in the lines. This >can be solved by putting them in a jacket and then >running extra hoses through the jacket that carry >refrigerated coolant. Many draught towers even >have fittings for running coolant. Cooling the >beer in the lines means less waste because you >can drink the stuff in the lines. I figure that an 8 foot 3/16 inch line would hold about 1 1/2 ounces and even a 10 foot 1/4 inch line would only hold about 3 ounces so I would think a cooling jacket wouldn't be necessary. If the refrigerator temp was 50F and the line temp was 80F the temp of a 12 ounce beer should only be about 57F. That would only be for the first beer if drawing frequently or the refrigerator could be kept slightly colder to compensate if not. Of course the difference would be even less for a pint glass and cooler line temps. John Wilkinson - Grapevine, Texas Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 10:42:59 -0700 From: "Bayer, Mark A" <Mark.Bayer at JSF.Boeing.com> Subject: what a drag/alt saccharomyces collective homebrew conscience_ > john s wrote: > > >Are there any mathematics type people that can help me out? > >I'd like to be able to experimentally determine the coefficient > >of drag for my motorcycle. > > wow. this is a tall order, my friend. if you don't have access to a low > speed wind tunnel and a nice scale model of yourself (clothed) on your > bike, you're probably not going to be able to do it experimentally. > > probably the closest you could come mathematically would be to make > several big simplifying assumptions (mostly about the 3d geometry of you > sitting on your bike), then run a numerical scheme like a 3d vortex panel > method or a 3d incompressible euler routine to determine the pressure > distribution on your bike and body. this would be quite involved and > require the aid of an aerospace engineer who has done this sort of thing > before, probably. > > all this assumes you ride your motorcycle at less than about 300 mph. > > the alternative is to see if you can find some similar data that's been > published by one of the motorcycle companies. (do they even do this for > production bikes??) > > ************************************** > for a beer-related item, i have a vial of yeastlab w51 that expired > (according to the label) in december 98. it's been refrigerated since way > before that date. i plan on stepping it up in two stages over about 4 to > 5 days before fermenting with it. has anybody had much experience with > reviving strains that are months and months beyond their "expiration" > date? (w51 is a weizen strain) any advice welcome on this one. > > brew hard, > > mark bayer > stl mo > Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 10:52:54 -0700 From: "Don Van Valkenburg" <don at steinfillers.com> Subject: So. Calif. Homebrew Fest. Reminder- The Southern California Homebrew Fest is happening next weekend May 8 in Temecula. A great homebrew happening not to be missed if you live in the south west. Don Van Valkenburg brew at steinfillers.com www.steinfillers.com Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 16:28:58 -0500 From: AJ <ajdel at mindspring.com> Subject: Red stuff/Diacetyl Joy Hansen questions my surmise that the red precipitate he sees is calcium phosphate. Actually it probably isn't. When calcium precipitates solids in the presence of phosphates several substances can be involved (see my post of a few days back). Usually cited is hydroxy apatite but fluoro apatite is formed when floride is present and, extrapolating a bit, I'm guessing that an iodo apatite may be what is seen here. I'v never looked at the crud so is it really red or does it just look red when suspended in the liquid? Native iodine coated on apatite is another possibility. I'm just speculating here. My observations are that the precipitate requires calcium to form and may require carbonate as well. Raw observation: precipitate forms in water with temporary hardness (calcium bicarbonate) but not in soft, carbonaceous water. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * "Aleman" asks about diacetyl. This is, I believe, its most common name. Other names are Biacetyl, 2,3-Butandione, Dimethyl Diketone and Dimethylglyoxal. Its CAS number is 431-03-8 and Spectrum's product number is D2668. It is listed in the Cole Parmer catlogue (don't know if the last three bits of information will be useful to "Aleman" who writes from the U.K.). It is an oily, yellow green liquid with a density of 0.98 and a boiling point of 88C i.e. about the same as ethanol's. Its formula is CH3COCOCH3 probably best written \ = O | O= \ (Bet that won't line up on your screens.) It is an extremely powerful flavoring and aroma agent. If a bottle at room temperature is opened even briefly people will stick their heads in from the hall and ask "You eating popcorn in here?" Flavor threshold is generally thought to be from 0.1 - 0.15 mg/L. Pilsner Urquell is reported to contain it at twice these levels. At the low levels, like that reported for PU, it enhances caramel, roundess, smoothness, nuttiness. Moving up towards half a mg/L you get the frequently cited buttery effects. Going higher than this there is then a shift away from buttery to a sweetish, sort of almondy impression with some bitterness and a kind of gagging feeling in the back of the throat. I don't think I've ever experienced that in a beer. I do remember being very disappointed in some draught Budvar at a place that I used to go to in Hungary. It had a definitely unpleasant nose which I attributed to infection but I'm beginning to wonder now if maybe it was diacetyl at the high levels Dr. Pivo wrote of previously. Put a glass of beer with diacetyl above a mg/L the in a room and the whole room smells like the lobby of a movie theatre. You can drink it but the result is pretty unpleasant. Neat diacetyl has all the aroma components I've mentioned before but also a solvent-like quality, probably related to the volatility. If you want to get an idea of what pure dilute diacetyl smells like sniff some dimethylglyoxime. I know this isn't found in everyone's medicine chest but it is much more likely to be found in a nominally equipped lab, to which I know many of you have access, than diacetyl itself. Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 01 May 1999 00:58:26 -0700 From: Jeremy Bergsman <jeremybb at leland.Stanford.EDU> Subject: beer > From: jslusher <jslusher at flash.net> > Subject: BJCP status > > Does anyone know of its status...I keep getting a "no DNS entry" when I try > to access "http://www.bjcp.org"...has it changed addresses?...Cheers! Changing ISPs. It should be up now. ********************************************************* > From: "Rob" <brewmasters at texasbrew.com> > Subject: O2 caps. > They dump them right out of > the freshly opened box and cap them without cleaning any of them. That was > almost 2 years ago and I haven't cleaned any of my caps since. I haven't > had any problems since. > I am sure now the purists will really object to > this but ask yourselves have you tried it? I did this for years with no noted bottle-to-bottle variability (which is what I would expect as the indicator for a dirty cap problem, although sufficiently dirty caps would ruin a whole batch). In my quest for the best beer possible (and I'm nowhere close yet) I have decided that just because I can't prove these things are causing trouble doesn't mean I should keep doing them if it seems like a change could help. ********************************************************* > From: Joy Hansen <happyhansen at scronline.com> > Subject: Brew Bottle Baking > Ever wonder why microbiologists invented an autoclave? > > Ever wonder what the difference is between "dry heat" and "wet heat" > sterilization? Liquids boil at a certain temperature and don't get any hotter. Water boils at a temperature too low to sterilize. Dry goods may be sterilized by high heat at 1 atm since they will heat past the boiling point of water. Liquid media will not. If you are suggesting something wrong with bottle baking I don't understand the argument. > Ever wonder why many home brewers use a pressure cooker for > sterilization? For sterilizing liquids and objects resistant to 250F but not a lot higher. My oven can hold ~90 bottles--can your pressure cooker? ********************************************************* > From: sedam at bellsouth.net > Subject: diacetyl > (1) metering this out in your beer would be tough, and (2) > IF you wanted to do this, you'd need a serious hood (class 2?). Amen on both counts. On the other hand, someone with a fume hood could do for you what I do: make a 1:100 dilution in EtOH. This solves both problems--the resultant solution only stinks a lot and you could probably measure out a small enough amount. Hint: have a sealable container in the hood ready to receive the pipette tip--the residual diacetyl on the tip is enough to stink up the room. > By the way, diacetyl is as simple a name as it gets. Aldrich or Sigma > sells it. AKA 2,3 butanedione, but it is listed in the catalogs under diacetyl too. - -- Jeremy Bergsman jeremybb at leland.stanford.edu http://www.stanford.edu/~jeremybb Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 1 May 1999 04:15:25 CSTCDT From: "Anthony & Julie Brown" <brown32 at web1.ecol.net> Subject: Cleansers and sanitizers With all the recent talk of sanitizers and clensing agents I have a few of my own... First, can anyone recommend a good cleansing agent for stainless steel kegs that is not quite as harmful to skin and body tissue. I have been using some stuff I think is called Bar Keeper's Helper but cautious as to how good a cleanser this is, and I read somewhere that if used on stainless steel you should let your stainless keg sit about a week to regain some of its anti-oxidizing properties. Second, I now use BTF Iodophor to sanitize but was wondering if anyone had any knowledge or experience with the use of either Betadine or provodone iodine solution like used in hospitals for surgical scrubbing and wound disinfectant. I work at a hospital and am privy to obtaining this solution for a pretty good price for rather large bottles. Wondering if there are any risks to ingestion of this solution or effectiveness as a sanitizer. I'm not sure this stuff is too "rinsable" and pretty certain it's not a food grade sanitizer. Ingredients include (according to the bottle) Citric acid, Dibasic sodium phosphate, Glycerin and other ingredients. Any thoughts or advice??? Tony B. Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 1 May 1999 07:51:24 EDT From: JPSimo1106 at aol.com Subject: Bottle cap cleaning In reply to Rob's post regarding bottle cap cleaning: At the micro where I work in Massachusetts, we use the caps right out of the box. We dump them directly into the bottling machine, without ever touching them with our hands. This micro is known for quality, and we haven't had any infection problems. I've never thought about this in a home brew application, but it does seem silly that I've been boiling the caps, and then putting the caps on with my hands. My homebrew shop sells them in small quantity, prepackaged bags. I think from now on, no boiling, and handle the crown from the top. Thanks, Rob, for cutting a step out of my process! John Simonetta Randolph, MA Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 1 May 1999 06:55:21 -0500 From: "Brian Wurst" <brian at mail.netwave.net> Subject: Brew Bottle Baking Joy Hansen (formerly of the BEER conference on the pre-WWW RIME network) asks: - ------- Ever wonder why microbiologists invented an autoclave? - ------- Because they spent so much time sterilizing with dry heat. The steam, at elevated pressure and temperature, greatly reduced the sterilization time from the 8 hours at 350F that dry heat sterilization took. Both methods work, one takes way longer. Brian Wurst Lombard, IL brian at mail.netwave.net Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 01 May 1999 12:28:01 +0000 From: AJ <ajdel at mindspring.com> Subject: 240V Control Kyle asks about a particular SSR for controlling a 240V water heating element. The part number cited is for a relay, i.e. a switch that is either open or closed depending on whether the control voltage is present or not. For "infinite" control he will have to design a device which, in response to a request for a particular amount of power, generates a logic control signal with duty cycle (ratio of on time in a cycle to total time in the cycle) equal to the percent power he wants. Many commercially available controllers provide this signal because proportional control is commonly used (note that this is not the "proportional" in PID - Proportional/Integral/Differential) for heaters. Buying a controller is probably out of the question anyway. On the same page of the Digikey catalog are some solid state devices which have the control logic built in. In response to a 2 - 10 V DC input, the device fires its SCR's through a conduction angle such that the amount of power delivered to the load is linear with the control voltage. The device's load and line connections go in series with one side of the 240V line. All that is needed for control is a 10 volt DC supply and a pot (ends of pot across 10 volt supply, low end of supply to low end of control input and wiper of pot to high control input). That's all there is to it except for arranging isolation between the control circuit and the load circuit. If the device itself provides this isolation (and it should) you are set. If not (and the application notes for the device will give the details on this and other parameters such as whether the device needs to be heatsinked for the intended load, whether the PIV rating is sufficient for the application ...) , things get a little trickier. In either case I hope I will be forgiven for suggesting that the very nature of the question suggests that Kyle doesn't have the experience to be fiddling with 240 circuitry. This isn't a difficult thing to do but there are some issues with which your local friendly EE type might well be consulted. - -- A. J. deLange Numquam in dubio, saepe in errore. Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 01 May 1999 18:09:42 +0200 From: "Dr. Pivo" <irv at wireworks.se> Subject: Nitrogen solubility There has been quite a few lines written and some pretty fancy ASCII drawings submitted od late, and a lot is based around the thinking that "the nitrogen gas in Guiness and other "beer gas" driven beers, is only providing "pushing pressure", and not getting dissolved in the beer". I think this is confusing "not very soluble" with "not soluble at all". I thought I might submit a description of how I "know" that the Nitrogen is getting dissolved at pressure, and coming out again when tapping the beer, and also show you a way that you can prove it to yourself. Once upon a time (just after the "30 years war" I believe), I constructed a method of measuring flow (I would say I "invented it", but it turns out if you look hard enough, somebody has always come up with the idea earlier). This brought me in contact with the world of "fracture hydrology", where they are interested in accurate flow measurement. What hydrologists do, is send down some "packers" (looks like two giant "condoms-on-a-stick") in a borehole, inflate them, and then inject water in the place between them, and by looking at the flow rate and pressure differential, one can calculate the "permeability" of the rock mass at the point between the packers. For reasons that I won't go into, the common gas for "packer inflation" is Nitrogen, and I chose this to run my flow monitor as well. Basically, The Nitrogen gas was driving the water injection, the gauge on the regulator told the pressure differential, and my flow thingy told you the flow rate. I was doing some measurements in a borehole that was about 400 meters deep, and using a transluscent nylon line for both inflation, and injection. This means I had a cable roll with 400 meters of these nylon lines that followed the tools down the hole in the ground. One morning I was just about to start doing an injection test, when I looked at the cable roll and saw: "Lawdy, Lawdy! My injection line is full of air!" Hydrologists do not want gases being shot into their fracture systems, as it will change the permeability, and geochemists CERTAINLY don't want air (the oxygen part) being shot into ground waters that they want to look at later. Without pausing to think about how I could have gotten air into my lines, I deflated the packers and flushed the whole system with water to clean it of any gases. A little (or maybe a lot) later, I decided to use my sparse thinking abilities and figure out what was going on. After a bit it dawned on me, I was DISSOLVING nitrogen in the water when pushing it with over pressure, and when I let the pressure off, it was coming back out of solution. Once I figured that out, I was able to create a minor miracle..... lines full of water, let off the pressure... lines full of gas. Then the real tricky part.... crank up the pressure again, gas dissapears, and lines full of water again! These were pretty marginal pressure differentials, and not outside of the realm of beer pressure. So you see, thinking that the Nitrogen somehow avoids getting into solution is just plain "wrong"... gases don't work like that. That it jumps right out again when you release the pressure is a demonstration of its poor solubility. If'n ya' don't believe me (and there's really no reason you should, if the answer's not intuitively obvious), you might do a little "test" instead of just speculating about it. Get a tank of N2, blast up some flat beer from a secondary, then tap a clear line full..... then you can pull the safety release valve and make some "magic bubbles" in the tap line of your own. It really is an amazing thing to watch, and I bet would take you less time than an ASCII drawing to do. Dr. Pivo Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 01 May 1999 13:57:42 -0400 From: "G. Bowden Wise" <wiseb at acm.org> Subject: My first competition I entered one of my brews to the Best of Brooklyn competition this past spring. Most of the reviewers gave my beer (an Oktoberfest) a low rating due to off-flavors: * sour/acidic: tastes like sour apple, pine sol(!) * oxidized/stale * cooked vegetable/cabbage like * acetaldehyde * phenolic I was surprised since most of my friends thought the beer tasted good. Where did I go wrong here? I would like to avoid this problem in the future. I am very sanitary, I can't imagine any problems due to unwatned bacteria. I usually do a secondary fermentation in a carboy after the primary, so there is less sludge. Some of the reviewers indicated that there was sludge in the bottles which may have been a problem. Did I over-ferment? Ferment at too high a temp? - -- - -------------------------------------------------------------------- G. Bowden Wise Computer Science Dept, Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst, Troy, NY 12180 E-mailto:wiseb at acm.org WWW: http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~wiseb/ Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 01 May 1999 12:57:35 -0500 From: Laurel Maney <maney at execpc.com> Subject: diacetyl name and formula In case this information is still needed, the IUPAC name of diacetyl is 2,3-butanedione CH3-CO-CO-CH3 , which together with its bigger brother 2,3-pentanedione CH3-CO-CO-CH2-CH3, form the vicinal diketones (VDK). Just as a matter of interest, the two compounds occur in ROUGHLY equal amounts as produced naturally during a fermentation. Bacteria and respiratory deficient mutant yeast however, produce just the diacetyl component. Big brewers with the equipment to do the analysis use this difference as a diagnostic tool, to figure out whether they have a process problem or an infection, when an increase in VDK aroma is noted. Laurel Maney Instructor, Brewing Program Milwaukee Area Technical College Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 1 May 1999 21:27:25 -0400 (EDT) From: David Houseman <dhousema at cccbi.org> Subject: re: how many capfuls. Depends on the strength/concentration of the iodophor you have. There are varying concentrations by various vendors. Frankly I just eyeball a golden yellow (on the darker side) and it all seems to work fine. Dave Houseman Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 1 May 1999 21:54:21 -0400 From: Paul Haaf <haafbrau1 at juno.com> Subject: Bottling with honey I thought this would have been answered, but I didn't see it. I've bottled in the past using honey, and it worked out nicely. Use 1/2 cup honey and 1/2 to 2/3 cup water. I put the honey in a large measuring cup and heat in the microwave for a minute. (If it starts to bubble, stop it.) Then I add the boiling water and stir. Then dump this in the bottling bucket and add the brew. Just give a few extra days for the bottles to fully carbonate. Cheers, Paul ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 05/03/99, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96