HOMEBREW Digest #944 Mon 10 August 1992

Digest #943 Digest #945

		Rob Gardner, Digest Coordinator

  Re: Counter Flow Chillers <rocket science> (Paul dArmond)
  Milwaukee homebrew supply shops ("Deborah Poirier")
  all malt vs extracts (Mark R. Garti)
  Pale Malt Color (Martin Wilde)
  British v Other pale malted grains (Brett Shorten)
  History of Sparging and Mashout (Paul dArmond)
  Mashers & Coolers from Micah Millspaw (BOB JONES)
  SmartCaps Info (camartens)
  re Wort cooling (added salt) (Chip Hitchcock)
  RE: Infections with Tap Water Rinse (BELLAGIO_DAVID)
  The Alien Retorts (Kinney Baughman)
  Yeast reproduction and cold break formation figures (Kinney Baughman)
  Ken Johnson, the lamest (Kevin L. McBride)
  All-grain Smoked Porter recipe (Kevin L. McBride)
  Cider Yeast, Coldbreak (Jack Schmidling)
  Runoff temp, mashout (James Dipalma)
  7 gallon carboys (Guy D. McConnell)
  Soft water (how to get it?) (Phillip Seitz)

Send articles for __publication__ 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 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 do not send me requests for back issues!** *********(They will be silenty discarded!)********* **For Cat's Meow information, send mail to lutzen at novell.physics.umr.edu**
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1992 09:57:27 -0700 (PDT) From: Paul dArmond <paulf at henson.cc.wwu.edu> Subject: Re: Counter Flow Chillers <rocket science> In HBD #941, on 3 Aug 92, Joe Rolfe asked about cutting down on water usage and getting a lower output temperature from his counterflow chiller. Here is the Rocket Science part. My source is 'Cryogenic Engineering' by Russel B. Scott, D. Van Nostrand Co. Inc. 1959. Heat exchangers are important to cyogenics because they form a very important part of the refrigerators used to liquify gases. It really is "rocket science", since you need lots of LOX and other gasses to "make der rockets go up." Other engineering books on steam power, oil refining and thermo-hydrodynamics will provide similar information. I'm not going to go into the mathematics, but try to explain everything as empirically as possible. Heat transfer equations are very heavy on differential equations. This stuff is not only hard to type without a mathematical typesetting system, but it isn't very accessible to most people. Joe's questions get right to the nub of the tradeoffs involved in heat exchangers. In the best of all worlds, you would use as little water as possible, get the biggest temperature drop, and do it as quickly as possible. Unfortunately, all three of these factors work against at least one of the others. All of these factors are expressed in the heat-transfer coefficient. This coefficient is expressed as: watts / [(cm**2)(deg K) in CGS Watts per square centimeter-degree Kelvin That's how much heat flows into the wall of the heat exchanger tube from the liquid in contact with the tube wall. The formulas assume that the tube is straight, cylinderical, and smooth, and that the flow of the liquid inside of it is turbulent (i.e. the tube is small enough that the flow doesn't channel in the center.) The factors that determine the heat transfer coefficient are: The specific heat of the fluid - This is a measure of heat (as opposed to temperature) and empirically is measured by how much ice is melted by a given mass at a given temperature. Beer wort has a higher specific heat than water. The concept of specific heat supposedly came from Count Rumford burning his mouth on some apple sauce. The apple sauce was at the same temperature as his tea which didn't burn. He had just got his first thermometer and was measuring everything in sight. The mass velocity of the liquid: g / sec cm**2 How much mass is passing through a given cross section each second. For a given tubing size, this is strictly determined by the available pressure and flow. For your water supply this is effectively limited by the maximum pressure available. The thermal conductivity of the liquid. Suprisingly, this is quite low for most liquids. Water is nearly an insulator, if all convection is supressed. I assume that wort has a low conductivity as well. Things like mercury and sodium metal have high conductivity. The diameter of the tube. For tubes that don't have a circular cross section, this is replaced by the "hydraulic radius" which is defined as the cross-sectional area divided by the wetted perimeter. In designing a heat exchanger, there are only a few of these things that we can influence. We can alter the mass velocity by turning up or down the flow on the faucet or altering the siphoning height. We can pick the diameter of the tube that we use. Remember that we are looking at maximizing the heat-transfer coefficient at one point of the tube in one direction (wort to tube or tube to water). We are only dealing with a slice, so that if the tranfer coefficient is maximized, then we will get the most heat transfer out of a given length of tubing. The transfer coefficient will also set an upper limit on the in/out temperature differential for a particular length. If the tube was infinitely long then the water out temp and the wort in temp would be equal, and the wort out temp would be the same as the water in. The drawback with an infinitely long tube is that you would collapse both your lungs before you could get the siphon started. Also for an immersion type cooler, it would not be possible to fit an infinite amount of tubing in your brew pot, no matter how tightly you coiled it. At any rate, you want the coefficient as high as you can get it. It is maximized when the tube is small (or the hydralic radius is small) and the mass velocity is big. This has several implications: 1) better heat transfer means using more water (faster flow). 2) Smaller tubes are better than bigger ones. This makes sense, since there is more surface area for the same amount of copper. It is limited by the ratio of cross sectional area to wall thickness. The very small tubes have a problem with this, in that their inside area is small compared to the relative thickness of the wall. Heat transfer is inversely proportional to wall thickness, so there is a limit to how small is small enough. Well, we don't want to use more water, so that's out. Joe is already using 1/2" tubing in his cooler, so it would be rude to tell him to get smaller tubing. Wasteful too. What we can do is decrease the hydralic radius of his tube. A circular cross-section has the lowest possible ratio of area to perimeter. This is why bubbles are round. So how about making the copper tubing not round. There are some very high efficiency florescent light tubes that have a rippled surface to increase the surface to volume ratio. The tubes look pinched, the pinches alternating 90 degrees from each other. Maybe this could be done with a pair of vice-grip plyers so the tube doesn't get pinched too much. This high ratio of surface are to volume is why the breweries use flat plate coolers, the transfer coefficient is quite high if you get away from using tubes. Multiple small tubes in parallel are also used for high efficiency heat exchangers. If you are building a cooler, here are some things to consider: * for the same price, more feet of small tube are better than fewer feet of big tube. * The coefficients in a counterflow exchanger need to match. The water side will have to have a larger flow to match the lower specific heat of water compared to wort. * If you have a choice, thinner copper tube is better since heat flow is equal to conductivity / thickness. * When using an immersion chiller, stir the wort. This will raise the mass velocity on the wort side and improve the heat transfer. Remember: water and wort are poor conductors, heat transfer takes place by convection. To get into the true "rocket science" of counterflow wort chiller design, the specific heat, conductivity and viscosity of hot beer wort need to be known. Can anybody help? Return to table of contents
Date: THU, 06 Aug 92 14:46:56 EDT From: "Deborah Poirier" <POIRIER at INRS-ENER.UQuebec.CA> Subject: Milwaukee homebrew supply shops Howdy folks I have a buddy who'll be in Milwaukee at the end of the month. He'd like to know if there are any good homebrew supply shops. I'd appreciate any references, since I can get him to pick me up some cara-pils while there. (Rare as hen's teeth here in Montreal). Thank you in advance, kind souls who send me info! Deb Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 92 16:16:50 EDT From: garti at mrg.xyplex.com (Mark R. Garti) Subject: all malt vs extracts how do brews made from extracts stack up against all malt brews? has recent extract technology made the difference negligable. there is the obvious freedom to experiment with flavour, colour and sugar content - is that the point? can a great brew be made with extracts? or is all malt brewing where it's at? Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 92 19:26:55 GMT From: Martin Wilde <martin at gamma.intel.com> Subject: Pale Malt Color From: Brett Shorten <s05bas at cc.uow.edu.au> Subject: British v Other pale malted grains In Digest #942 Brett Shorten ask if British grains are darker than American: Yes they are, the color Lovibond/pound for British Pale is about 3.0. For American Klages/Huntington (good old BudMillOors mix) it is 2.2. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1992 13:19:52 -0700 (PDT) From: Paul dArmond <paulf at henson.cc.wwu.edu> Subject: History of Sparging and Mashout Sparging is a fairly recent technique. In Andrew Ure's 'Dictionary of the Practical and Useful Arts', 184?, sparging is described as a process only used in Scotland for producing high gravity ales. Traditional English ale brewing used multiple mashes to get all the extract. Usually there were three mashes: Strong Beer, Middle or Ordinary, and Small Beer. The respective gravities were 1.060+, 1.030+ and 1.020-. Small beer was sometimes called Table beer. It is also the source of the saying, "That's small beer [compared to...]" Each of the three mashes was brewed and fermented separately. Porter was the first English Ale that combined the mashes. [See Terry Foster's 'Porter'] Ure's article on beer is very complete. The process of sparging is well described. Ure even compared the yields of sparging vs triple mashing, noting that sparging gave a better yield. He encouraged the adoption of sparging as an improvement to the brewing process, and lamented that more brewers didn't avail themselves of this technique. The reason for sprinkling the sparge water over the top of the grain bed is that the mash tun was not kept full of liquid during the sparge. About half the wort was run out before the sparging was started. The sprinkling was necessary to prevent channeling in the grain bed. No mention of why this was done. The modern method of keeping the liquid level above the grain only requires that the added water not disturb the grain bed. Why let the liquid level drop? My guess is that brewers were just continuing to hold on to the old practices learned from the triple mash method. If more than half of the liquid was drained the "goods" might get too compact and stick. The liquid was needed to float the grains so they didn't get too tight. My next reference to sparging comes from the 1895 Encyclopedia Brittanica (article on Brewing.) Now everybody is sparging and the description is the same as Ure's. Ure is even cited as the source for improved yield for sparging. No mention is made of the triple mashing method. So in 50 years, sparging went from a curious custom of the savage Picts (just kidding) to the standard brewing practice in England. Neither of these two sources say anything at all about lager brewing. All references are only to England. The inference is that lager brewing was a rarity in England at the turn of the century. So sparging is a recent practice, less than 150 years in widespread usage. Here's a puzzle: Neither of these two sources say anything about mashing out. The descriptions are quite detailed as to temperatures and so forth, so it's not an oversight. Who can find an early reference to mashing out? What is the origin of this curious custom? Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1992 14:42 PDT From: BOB JONES <BJONES at NOVAX.llnl.gov> Subject: Mashers & Coolers from Micah Millspaw Wort chillers and igloo coolers. Unless I misunderstood, several HBers are useing the round vertical type ice chests as lauter vessels,that is something to sparge in. Since these industious brewers have gone to the trouble of putting a false bottom in the cooler why not use it as you mash tun as well, these things are certainly well insulated. Also I have seen 10 gallon metal coolers of this type at hardware stores for around $50 they are galvanized on the outsie and have a food grade coating on the inside. A fellow in my homebrew club made a mash\lauter tun from one of these coolers and is very happy with it. On to wort chillers, I am planning to build a newer, and I hope better immersion chiller. The basis of my idea is that with a 1\2 inch copper line with tap water running thru it picks up from the wort about as much heat as is possible in the first nine feet. And so I intend to build a chiller that uses 4 circuts each 12 ft long in parallel made of 1\2 inch copper. I will have to use a manifold on both the inlet and outlet and will probably add some temperature sensors and water pressure guages, in hope that these may give some way to optimize the delta T by varing the flow rate. Anybody try anything similar? If so please post the pluses and minuses. Thanks Micah Millspaw 8/6/92 Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 92 15:18:41 PDT From: camartens at ucdavis.edu Subject: SmartCaps Info TO: BEER NET MEMBERS FROM: BRUCE ZENNER, VICE PRESIDENT, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AQUANAUTICS CORPORATION CONCERNING: USE OF SMARTCAPS* Some friends and fellow brewers who are on BeerNet told me that there had been some discussion of SmartCaps and how to use them effectively. Aquanautics developed these crowns in collaboration with a closure manufacturer, ZapatA Industries. I headed the development project. These crowns have a liner material containing an oxygen scavenging formulation, and can remove headspace oxygen and control oxygen permeation through the gasket material for up to six months. The chemistry is a catalyzed oxygen reduction system, and is generally regarded as safe (GRAS) by U.S. FDA criteria. SmartCaps* are activated by exposure to high humidity, thus they are stable under normal storage conditions, and activated by the moisture content in beer. However, they should NOT be boiled to sterilize, since this will activate the oxygen reduction system prior to use, and decrease the effectiveness of the SmartCaps following bottling. If you sterilize your SmartCap crowns, do so by hypochlorite (bleach) or metabisulfite treatment instead of boiling; you'll increase the effectiveness of the SmartCaps. If you have any questions, or comments, I can be reached by calling Aquanautics at (510) 521-4331, or by writing to me: Bruce Zenner Aquanautics Corporation 980 Atlantic Ave., Suite 101 Alameda, CA 94501 Our technical services representative, Charles Benedict, can also answer questions if I am not available. Good luck and remember, there are no bad beers....some are just better than others! Hi everyone. My name is Craig Martens. I am relatively new to brewing and beernet. In response to Michael Lewandowski's inquiry about SmartCaps on July 14, I asked Bruce if he would write a little blurb about their use being that he is their inventor and also a homebrewer. I would just like to add that I receive nothing for doing this etc. You can also reach Bruce through me if you have any questions at camartens at ucdavis.edu. Brew long and prosper. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 92 17:22:08 EDT From: cjh at diaspar.HQ.Ileaf.COM (Chip Hitchcock) Subject: re Wort cooling (added salt) Adding salt to the ice blocks used in chilling isn't going to help much (if at all). What the salt does in icecream making is allow the water to stay liquid (thus contacting more of the surface of the inner canister and cooling it more effectively than straight ice) at temperatures below its normal freezing point; you can produce horrid icecream by putting too much salt in the freezer, which gets the mix too cold too quickly and produces ice crystals instead of smooth-frozen cream. Somebody who has a better grasp of munging specific heats might be able to say whether having the ice become water at a lower temperature represents an improvement in cooling; in a previous round I was told that the specific heat of ice is much lower than that of water. But this isn't likely to be a large effect, since the freezing point won't be depressed very much---I think the limit for salty water is ~5 centigrade degrees based on the freezing-point depression of water and the maximum solubility of salt in water. Return to table of contents
Date: 6 Aug 92 14:16:00 -0700 From: BELLAGIO_DAVID at Tandem.COM Subject: RE: Infections with Tap Water Rinse In reply to Phil Miller's query about infections from tap water, I will have to start by saying that I am also a NOVICE with only 2.5 batches under my belt. I have an R/O system for my water supply that I use for my brew water. It makes a world of difference. I still boil all of my water, but I still rinse with tap water. What I do is turn up my hot water heater the night before to its hottest position. Then I rinse with this HOT water. I measured the temp and it was between 160 and 170 degrees. You actually develop a tolerance to hot water after numerous sprays on your body and hands. I figure that anything in there was killed by the overnight increase in temp. > Tap water (at least most taps) contain VERY few bacteria or fungi. You > could hardly even find one at high magnification. I think the idea of adding chlorine to the water is in order to kill bacteria. I don't know if all bacteria is killed however. > The things that I kept the _same_ were 1) I rinsed all my equipment with tap > water after sanitizing and 2) I added 2 gallons of grocery store > fill-it-yourself distilled water to my 3 gallons of wort after the boil. > I figured that it's one or both of these things that's causing the infection. I think the tap water rinse is probably OK, but would suggest at least doing a hot water rinse. I think your problem is adding the unboiled grocery store water. Even though it is distilled, the container you used may not have been sanitized and/or the water coming out is not actually what you think. You should simply boil it separately and let it cool covered, then add it in. This is only my novice opinion. Now a question for the more experienced. It seems that I have ran into my first screw up as a brewer. I recently made a Christmas Ale which ended up with a OG of 1.063. I racked the coolled wort into my primary 6.5 gallon plastic fermenter and topped up with sanitized cool water to what I thought was the 5 gallon mark, but then I worried I put too much in. I pitched the yeast and figured Not to Worry. Well that was 8/2 and now on 8/6 the kraeusen has gone into the airlock and clogged it. I assume this led to the lid popping off the fermenter. I ferment under my house as it stays at 70 degrees during the summer and also has lots of bacteria present. My question is what to do now? I think I have a few options: 1) Get pissed off more than I am now and chuck the whole thing and brew a new batch and don't worry. 2) Rack some beer out and put the lid on and clean the airlock and then worry about whether it is infected or not. I used Wyeast 1007 and noticed that the description that someone posted before stated that it has high flocculation compared to medium for all the other Wyeast ale yeasts. Does this mean it will produce more kraeusen? The problem also is I probably will take action before I get to hear any of your responses, but will welcome them to help determine what to do if this happens again. Super Dave Bellagio_David at Tandem.Com Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1992 20:23 EDT From: Kinney Baughman <BAUGHMANKR at CONRAD.APPSTATE.EDU> Subject: The Alien Retorts Re: Donald O'Connor's diatribe of yesterday Gee, Don, my post evidently got under your skin. Sorry, Pal. I ruined several batches of beer because I didn't change the o-rings and was simply trying to keep a fellow brewer from making the same mistake. It appeared to me that you were talking from a theoretical point of view. I enjoy theoretical discussions as much as anyone but experience is the final arbiter. I was just passing along my experience. So. While we're on the subject. Just what have you been doing? Have you been kegging your beers using old o-rings? Have they been turning out OK? For the record, the stouts I made suffered no discernible Coke flavors. It wasn't until I made a lager that I realized something was amiss. As for the pot scrubber idea, I got it from my late brewing partner, Mike Morrissey, the guy responsible for both bringing the Bruheat into the U.S. and for helping me refine the bottomless fermenter which eventually turned into the BrewCap. He said he didn't know where he saw the idea first but he thought it was a good one. It could have been Al Andrews. If you say it was, I have no reason to dispute it. It is a good idea and kudos to Al. All I know is I've been using the scrubber for years. The flourish I added was to wrap it in a fine mesh hop bag which, for me, greatly increased the filtering action. In the spirit of the digest, I passed it along. I sure wasn't trying to slap myself on the back. That always throws my elbow out of joint and I hate it when that happens! Frankly, I'm irked by your claim that I'm not interested in any "facts that contradict my truth". While you might truthfully say that of yourself, I called on the chemists to settle the dispute on the blue stuff on copper. I AM interested in knowing what the stuff is. I HAVE seen it in my wort chillers and I DON't want to contaminate anyone's beer. Jeez! Aw. What the Hell. I can't resist... >By the way Kinney, the next meeting in Austin for the support group >for humans who have been abducted by aliens is September 13. (I'm >not making this up.) Bring your o-rings. That's OK, Don. You take my ticket. Texas is a long drive from here. Just another cheap, boneheaded, heretical post from the Southland. +------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Kinney Baughman Appalachian State University | | baughmankr at appstate.bitnet Boone, NC 28608 | | baughmankr at conrad.appstate.edu (704)963-6949 | | | | Bush/Quayle '92 "Just Say Noe" | +------------------------------------------------------------------+ Sigh. It's times like these that make me wish for the good ol' days in the HBD when the members of this forum were only interested in open minded, friendly discussions of the issues; when we were all genuinely concerned about helping each other in their quest for the world's perfect beer. Remember when people used to commend us for being the best-behaved bunch on the net? Remember when? Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1992 20:24 EDT From: Kinney Baughman <BAUGHMANKR at CONRAD.APPSTATE.EDU> Subject: Yeast reproduction and cold break formation figures Now let's see if I can get in a post without being flamed... HBD regular and Fidonet Zymurgy leader, John de Carlo asks: >Can anyone point me to a reference that describes the typical >yeast reproduction activity for homebrewers? This may not be exactly what you want, John, but I finally found this table when cleaning off my miserable excuse for a desk this past week- end. Dave Logsdon gave it to me about 6 years ago as he was getting Wyeast off the ground. Yeast Reproduction Time TEMPERATURE ALE LAGER 104 degrees F. 4.0 hr. no growth 95 " 2.0 4.8 hr. 91 1.4 1.8 82 1.6 2.0 68 3.2 3.7 50 11.0 9.0 45 42.0 24.0 As I understand this table, it effectively gives us a report on lag time. The smaller the hour figure, the shorter the lag time. Clearly both lager and ale yeast reproduce at faster rates at temperatures of between 82 and 91 degrees. The reproduction rate is still vigorous but starts falling off at temperatures between 68 and 82 degrees. These are not recommended fermenting temperatures. I assume they speak to the respiration phase when the yeast is/are reproducing and have yet to start fermenting the wort. At least that's my recollection of the conversation I had with Dave. (Yo, Jeff. If you're listening, correct me if I'm wrong.) It's as a result of this table that I've advocated pitching yeast at around 70 degrees then moving the fermenter to the basement/ refrigerator. The yeast reproduces at a comfortable temperature and should be hitting a reasonable population figure by the time the wort cools to the ambient temperature of the fermentation room/chamber and starts fermenting. Of course if you're pitching with an up and running yeast starter with a sufficient yeast count, the pitching temperature of the wort is not as critical. Alan Edwards notes: >Al Korzonas writes (in HBD #941): >| In his talk on wort chillers at the Conference, Jeff Frane said the most >| enlightening (to me) fact of the whole conference: that cold break begins >| at 65F. Wow! >Has anyone heard this statement made anywhere else? Anyone's experience >bear this one out? I have a VERY hard time believing that you need to >cool below 65F before you start getting cold break. >Before I started using an immersion chiller, I had maybe half an inch of >break material in my primary fermenter. Now that I chill the wort down >to about 70F, I get at least three inches of cold break (after it settles >for a few hours). I decided to check my copy of _Malting and Brewing Science_ on this one since I have the highest degree of respect for the opinions of both Jeff and Al. There I found the following chart that may shed light on this discussion. 300| * | 250| | | 200| * | | 150| * | | * 100| | * | 50| * | * | 0|_____|_____|______|______|______|______|______|______|______| 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 ^ Temperature (degrees C.) | | 50 68 86 104 122 140 158 176 194 | Temperature (degrees F.) | Cold break (I added in the Fahrenheit temperatures -krb) (mg/ml) If I may interpolate, trub formation is relatively light, albeit measurable, at temperatures above 100 degrees F. At temperatures below 100 degrees the curve begins to steepen significantly. I also think one could read the chart as saying that trub formation is minimal until it reaches 64 degrees *Centigrade* rather than Fahrenheit, at which point it begins increasing until it reaches 40 degrees C. where it begins increasing at a moderately faster rate. Yet again, if you look at the curve at around 64 degree F., it really starts taking off. So perhaps that's what Jeff was trying to say. I didn't hear Jeff's talk so I'm not sure what he said or what his sources are. Still, if this chart is to be believed trub formation begins, although slightly, once the wort begins cooling, though significant trub formation doesn't occur until wort temperatures drop to around 100 degrees F., with exceptionally fast cold break formation kicking in at 64 degrees F. The text goes on to say, "During the cooling of wort, cold trub progressively precipitates. It is impossible to remove all the potential precipitate because the trub continues to form during fermentation and subsequent beer cooling. However, many breweries, especially those concerned with lager fermentation, remove much of the cold trub... A recent survey has shown that in Swiss breweries, the cold break content of beers varied over a wide range...The effects on fermentation, maturation and beer clarification were not significant. Druing the course of successive fermentations, the preference of tasting panels shifted from beers where cold trub had not been removed to beers where partial removal had been practiced. The overall impression from other studies is that the presence of cold trub may stimulate the rate of fermentation, possibly by providing nuclei for carbon dioxide release; on the other hand, with more delicate beers there seems to be more possiblity of having unacceptable sulphury aroma and taste. ..... The production of cold trub has received little biochemical study. Many years ago,it was claimed that to get maximum trub production it was necessary to cool slowly over the range 120-80 degrees F., at least 30 seconds being required, and mechanical agitation being desirable. Later results described worts where the best cold trub formation occurred when cooling from 140-70 degrees F. took place in 3 seconds or less." (pp. 523-524) So there you have it according to Hough, Briggs, Stevens and Young. Some cold trub is formed as soon as the beer begins cooling, with significant trub production beginning around 64 degrees F. Not only temperature but also the speed at which the wort cools appears to be a factor according to some. Its removal seems to be more important when brewing delicately flavored beers than with heavily flavored ones. At least that's the way I read it. Trubles on my mind, Kinney Baughman baughmankr at conrad.appstate.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 92 21:13:50 EDT From: klm at mscg.com (Kevin L. McBride) Subject: Ken Johnson, the lamest Warning: This article contains a mild flame. I tried to resolve this matter by e-mail, but Ken seems to be either incapable or unwilling to engage in a conversation where he might have to admit that he may have stepped a little bit out of bounds. I've kept it reasonably mild, but if you want to know what I really think about this subject, ask me by e-mail. I apologize in advance for the waste of bandwidth, but I needed to say this. I'm pissed and I think that at least some of you are too. To make up for this, I will post a recipe next. On Thursday, July 30th, I sent the following letter to Ken Johnson in response to his unnecessarily harsh statement: > You write: > > > If your beer quality goes down when switching to full mash beers, then you > > are lame. > > and you make yourself look like a jerk for posting such crap. One > Jack Schmidling is enough, we don't need you posting flame bait too. > > Please consider posting an apology for this rash, completely > unnecessary statement. > > The purpose of the Homebrew Digest is to share knowledge and > experience. My first couple of mash experiences were miserable. > People on the HBD helped me fix my problems and now my beers are fine. > We don't want novices being scared off by self-proclaimed wizards who > say that you are lame if you can't figure it out by yourself. > > You probably just encouraged several beginning all-grain brewers to > switch back to extract brewing with your stupid comment. I finally received a reply from Ken today, August 6th. His reply consisted of a single word: "bullshit" Ken, I attempted to be reasonable about this. I contacted you by e-mail and told you, without resorting to outright flaming, that I thought you were out of line and that the Homebrew Digest deserved an apology for your rash statement. I now see that attempting to reason with you is like having an argument with a tree stump. You have shown yourself to be an asshole and I sincerely hope that you lose whatever credibility you may have had in this forum. F.O.A.D. - -- Kevin Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 92 22:02:22 EDT From: klm at mscg.com (Kevin L. McBride) Subject: All-grain Smoked Porter recipe The smoked porter served at Greg Noonan's Vermont Pub & Brewery inspired me to brew this. I love Greg's version and tried to come up with something similar. The smoke flavor is a little bit more assertive than in Greg's brew, but is not so overpowering as to be unpleasant. The sweetness of the crystal and cara-pils balance the bite of the dark malt so that the beer is pleasantly bittersweet, as a porter should be, and the smoke flavor just floats over your tongue. The finishing hops are barely noticeable. The smoke masks most of the hop flavor. The beer is 3 weeks old now. In a few more weeks it should be really wonderful. The name was supplied by Dan Hall. Don't ask. We were indulging in a few bottles of really good Belgian beer at the time and I think we were slightly buzzed. "Clubhouse Poked Smorter" ========================= The Grist: 8 lbs. M&F 2-row lager malt 2 lbs. hickory smoked M&F 2-row pale malt * 1 lb. Munich malt 1 lb. Crystal malt 1/2 lb. Choc. Malt 1/2 lb. Black malt 1/2 lb. Cara-pils * (I had 2 lbs. of pale just lying around, so I used that as the smoked grain for no particular reason other than to get rid of it.) The smoked grain was done on a charcoal fired smoker with wet hickory chips. Total smoking time was close to 45 minutes. I would have cut the smoking time down, but I wet the grain first and it took that long for it to dry on the smoker. The Mash: Struck mash at ~120F for protein rest. Pulled a single decoction, brought to a boil, held for about 10 minutes, and re-infused to raise temp. to about 155F which was held in a 5 gallon Igloo cooler until conversion was complete. Sparged with 4.5 gallons of 170F water. Yieled ~7 gallons of wort. The Boil: Total boil time about 70 minutes. 1 oz. (~30 IBU) Northern Brewer plug hops (boiling 60+ minutes) 1 oz. Cascade leaf hops (finishing ~5 minutes) Chilled with Dan Hall's Immersion Chiller from Hell. Original Gravity: 1.052 (Actual yield to the fermenter was about 5.5 gallons and this was after a good boilover where I lost at least a quart) Pitched a 16oz. starter of Wyeast 1028 London Ale made from a culture that lives in my fridge and has served me faithfully for a number of brews. After 5 days in primary, I racked to a keg and refrigerated. I am slowly artificially carbonating it and letting it settle and mature. It won't be formally served until the September BFD meeting, but it is already shaping up to be a fine brew. (I sneak a taste now and then.) This beer should go great with sausage and other hearty foods. Final Gravity: 1.016 - -- Kevin Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 92 21:19 CDT From: arf at ddsw1.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling) Subject: Cider Yeast, Coldbreak To: Homebrew Digest Fm: Jack Schmidling Date: Wed, 5 Aug 92 10:14:26 CDT From: bliss at csrd.uiuc.edu (Brian Bliss) Subject: yeasts/grain bag source >I have an apple tree outside my apartment and I was wondering how to make a hard cider. A friend has one of those juicer machines and I was thinking that would be a good way to get the juice from the apples but where do you go from there. > >If anyone has some recipes or suggestions please help and THANKS. <don't use red star champagne yeast (ale yeast will make a sweeter product). That advice depends on a few variables not the least of which is the sugar content of the juice. Most juice needs to have sugar added just to get enough alcohol to preserve it and the high tolerance of champagne yeast would not even enter the equation of most straight juice. It would run out of sugar before even ale yeast got tired. Secondly, one can always add sugar to adjust the sweetness after fermenting. Thirdly, one usually will add lots of sugar to make a higher alcohol apple wine and ale yeast would produce an undrinkably sweet wine. >From: BOB JONES <BJONES at NOVAX.llnl.gov> >Subject: Wort cooling >I use a immersion chiller placed in my kettle to cool the wort. During the summer months the tap water is warmer and I will use another immersion chiller to pre-cool the water by placing this cooler in a 5 gal bucket of cracked ice... I have wondered if it would help to add salt to the water before it freezes. This works to lower the temperature when freezing ice cream, so why not in cooling wort? It will just make your freezer work harder freezing it. You should put the salt in the chiller with the ice to lower the temp of the water but the ice will melt faster so you will need more. You just can't get nothing fer nothing no mo. >From: rush at xanadu.llnl.gov (Alan Edwards) >Subject: Cold Break Temperature >Al Korzonas writes (in HBD #941): | In his talk on wort chillers at the Conference, Jeff Frane said the most | enlightening (to me) fact of the whole conference: that cold break begins | at 65F. Wow! <Has anyone heard this statement made anywhere else? Anyone's experience bear this one out? I have a VERY hard time believing that you need to cool below 65F before you start getting cold break. I have neither heard it before nor does it match experience nor do I believe a word of it. I think it can safely be identified as a MOMILY until further evidence is offered. js  Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 92 08:53:00 EDT From: dipalma at banshee.sw.stratus.com (James Dipalma) Subject: Runoff temp, mashout Hi All, In HBD#941, I wrote: I use both the hydrometer and the taste test to determine when to quit sparging, and have found that the taste of tannin first becomes noticeable around 1.020. At about 1.015 - 1.010, there is no longer any detectable sweetness, this is when I stop. Surprisingly, these three events (no sweetness in runoff, 1.010 on the hydrometer, and full pre-boil volume achieved) all seem to occur at just about the same time. >In HBD#942, Gerald Winters wrote: >I have read this from several different sources, that of >terminating sparging at ~1.015, and was wondering if people were >allowing the sparge runnings to cool to room temp or >were adjusting to compensate for the heat of the sparge as the >flow exits the sparger when checking for ~1.015. The temp of the >sparge is quite hot compared to room temp and it seem some >correction would have to be made if the reading was taken from >the hot liquor. Whenever specific gravity is measured with a hydrometer, the reading must be corrected if the temperature of the solution is other than 60F. I sparge with water at 170F, the temperature of the runoff is ~140F-150. (I really have to do something to insulate my lauter tun a little better). According to the references I have, this temperature requires a correction of, if memeory serves, 15-16 points. So, when I say I stop sparging at ~1.010 - 1.015, the hydrometer is actually reading 0.995 - 1.000. > In HBD#942, Larry Barello wrote: <portions of thread regarding reasons for mashout deleted> >This is the conventional wisdom. There is no way a 10 min mash >out at 170f is gonna stop conversion. I can name at least two >local breweries that MASH at 160-162f! (Thomas Kemper and Hales) >and I suspect a lot more around the PNW do as well. Another >8-10f isn't going to magically kill the enzymes. A couple of months ago, I had an experience that would seem to substantiate that statement. I arrived at my brew partner's house a little late, as he had just started heating the mash up to the sugar rest range. We started socializing, neither of us was paying any attention to the mash. About 20 minutes later, we finally got around to checking the temperature, and it was at 175F. I'm not sure how much time it spent at that temp, probably 10-15 minutes. We quickly added some cold water to get the mash temp down below 160F, we were both concerned that what we had made was a very expensive batch of porridge. However, an iodine test done about one hour later showed conversion was complete. The beer came out fine. I had one other batch since then where the mash temp got to 165F briefly, and that mash converted just fine as well. The moral here is that the amalyse enzyme seems to be a little tougher than we give it credit for. I still mashout every batch, but I do it to get the grain to the same temperature as the sparge water, and thus prevent too much heat loss in my not-very-well insulated (for now) lauter tun. Cheers, Jim Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 92 8:58:12 CDT From: guy at mspe5.b11.ingr.com (Guy D. McConnell) Subject: 7 gallon carboys I found a great deal on 7 gallon carboys. St. Patrick's of Texas has them for $10.00 in the styrofoam jackets with screw-on caps. Their phone number is: (512)832-9045. Get 'em while they're hot! - -- Guy McConnell guy at mspe5.b11.ingr.com Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 92 13:37 GMT From: Phillip Seitz <0004531571 at mcimail.com> Subject: Soft water (how to get it?) Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury: Next weekend I plan to try the extract triple recipe in Pierre Rajotte's _Belgian Ale_. In his listing Rajotte specifies that this should be brewed with soft water. Several weeks ago I did what everybody always says to do, and contacted my local water board (in this case the Washington Aquaduct, serving Washington D.C. and Arlington, VA) for information on my water. I got back three massive charts listing everything anybody could conceivably want to know. Amidst this small print was the hardness table, stating that on average our hardness was 110 (was this for calcium carbonate?). According to Charlie, soft water is rated at 0-50. I've read that water softeners don't actually remove the minerals but convert them, and I don't have a water softener anyway. Would it make sense to use enough distilled water to cut the value down to size (say, 3 gallons to two of tap water)? Or am I missing something? I'm also perfectly willing to use 100% tap water if the alternatives are too complex. Anyway, I am specifically appealing for help from any of our HBD chemists or experienced brewers. Having seen some of the more technical posts recently, I will ask that any explanations be kept to words of one syllable or less for us members of the chemistry-impaired. Thanks! Return to table of contents
End of HOMEBREW Digest #944, 08/10/92