HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: atkinson@vaxb.acs.unt.edu
Subject: Re: Activated Charcoal (was: Make you go blind.)
Organization: University of North Texas
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 01:15:39 GMT

>
> (much stuff deleted)

>On to distilling.  Can someone out there explain the adsorptive
>mechanism of activated charcoal to me?  I've never understood
>how it works.


Activated charcoal, or more commonly called "activated carbon" is
made by the destructive distillation of wood, coal, animal bones,
or other carbonaceous material.  It is "activated" by heating to
800-900 C (1475-1650 F) with steam or CO2, which results in a
highly porous internal structure.  Surface area _averages_ about
900 square meters per gram; some types have as high as 1400 square
meters per gram.  I find this simply amazing since you can easily
hold several grams of the stuff in the palm of your hand. 

As far as how it works, let me start by giving you a few terms.
Please forgive me; I am an academician - no this won't be on the
test :()

The activated carbon is the "adsorbent".
The compound being removed by the activated carbon is the
"adsorbate".
The liquid carrying the compound is the "solvent".

Activated carbon has both macropores and micropores which make up
the surface area.  The macropores have diameters greater than 1000
angstroms, micropores less than 1000 angstroms.  Adsorption occurs
through 3 steps:

1.  Diffusion of molecules through liquid phase to carbon particle,
2.  Diffusion of molecules through macropores to adsorption site, 
    and
3.  Physical adsorption of molecules to the surface.

The attractive forces of the absorbent are stronger than the
osmotic forces of the solvent, therefore, as much as the adsorbate
would like to join the solvent's team, it is kept in the
absorbent's prison.  (What did he say? Did you get that?)

It is purely a physical attraction that causes the adsorbate to
attach to the absorbent.

Now, can anyone out there tell me how scotch tape works ... I mean
at the molecular level.
This question has fascinated me for many years.
-- 

----------------------------------------------------------
Samuel F. Atkinson               atkinson@vaxb.acs.unt.edu
Center for Remote Sensing
University of North Texas        phone: 817-565-2694
Denton, Texas  76203             fax:   817-565-4297
----------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.crafts.brewing
From: spencer@med.umich.edu (Spencer W. Thomas)
Subject: Re: All Grain brew
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 93 14:13:16 EST
Organization: University of Michigan

> From: Larry.Lund@p12.f79.n105.z1.fidonet.org (Larry Lund)

> mashed in with 2 gal water and held at 126 degrees for 30min raised temp to
> 144 degrees held for 30 min then raised to 158 and kept it there for 1 1/2 hr.
> Then I sparged with 160 degree water 3 times then put back in the kettle and

What's that mean "3 times"?  If you had sparged with 3 x 2 gallons,
then you would have ended up with maybe 6 gallons in your boil.  From
your description below, this doesn't seem to be the case.  Are you
running the wort back through the grains 3 times?  That won't work
very well.

> brought to a boil for 1 hr. Then I added the hops and continued another hr.
> then I slowly poured the wert back thru the spent grains one last time and

Eh???  If the grains are spent, there is no point in pouring the wort
through them.  You'll only lose sugars from your wort.

> added abt 3 gals of water thru the grains to make a total of 5 gals. But when

You should have boiled your initial 6-7 gallons down to 5 gallons.
Sounds like you didn't sparge enough.

> I check the S.G. it was only 1.020 What happened? Where did I go wrong?? Sign
> me perplexed! 8-(


The process should be this:  mash with 24-32oz water/lb of grain (you
were in the ballpark on that one).  Sparge with enough water to bring
the runoff specific gravity down to about 1.010 (after correcting for
temperature, so your hydrometer will read about .995 if the runoff is
maybe 150F).  (By this I mean that the runoff coming out of the lauter
tun is 1.010, not the total wort, which will be a mixture of
high-gravity runnings from the beginning of the sparge and
lower-gravity runnings from later.)

When sparging, you should add water at the same rate it flows out,
keeping the water level about 1 inch above the grains.  The new water
extracts more sugars from the grains.  If you pour the sweet wort back
through the grains, it may pick up some more sugar, but it will also
leave some behind.  It will eventually reach an equilibrium point, and
won't pick up any more.

At this point, you will usually have 6-7 gallons in your
boiling pot.  Boil it down to 5 gallons (adding hops as desired),
chill, and rack to the fermenter.  Again, if you pour the wort through
the grains again at this point, you'll only leave sugars behind.  Not
to mention that the grains aren't sterile, while your just-boiled wort
is (mostly).
--
=Spencer W. Thomas 		|  Info Tech and Networking, B1911 CFOB, 0704
   "Genome Informatician"	|  Univ of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109
Spencer.W.Thomas@med.umich.edu	|  313-747-2778, FAX 313-764-4133
From: joseph@joebloe.maple-shade.nj.us (Joseph Nathan Hall)
Newsgroups: rec.crafts.brewing
Subject: Re: Racking to Secondary
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 18:36:05 EDT
Organization: 5 Sigma Software
Reply-To: joseph@joebloe.maple-shade.nj.us
X-Mailer: uAccess - Macintosh Release: 1.5v5


In article <726512417.AA00000@blkcat.UUCP> (rec.crafts.brewing), Polly.Goldman@p2.f615.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Polly Goldman) writes:
) Taste your trub when you finally do get your beer off it. [...]
) I thought it was one of the nastiest substances I have tasted.  Needless to say,
) I rack to a secondary fermenter.

I rack to a secondary, too.  But I will make the observation that
the trub is something that voluntarily LEFT the wort/beer.  It's not
readily inclined to jump back into it.  (So, okay, perhaps the ethanol
will dissolve a little of it ... still ....)

================O Fortuna, velut Luna, statu variabilis================
uunet!joebloe!joseph   (609) 273-8200 day   joseph%joebloe@uunet.uu.net
2102 Ryan's Run East        Rt 38 & 41             Maple Shade NJ 08052
Copyright 1992 by Joseph N. Hall.   Permission granted to copy and
redistribute freely over USENET and by email.  Commercial use prohibited.
From: mark@verdix.com (Mark Lundquist)
Newsgroups: rec.crafts.brewing
Subject: Re: 54 hour fermentation for extract beer?!
Date: 8 Jan 93 20:21:49 GMT
Article-I.D.: verdix.9504
Organization: Verdix Western Operations, Aloha  OR

In article <1ika44INNgve@shelley.u.washington.edu> bobhurt@cac.washington.edu (Bob Hurt ) writes:
>I haven't taken another reading because I can't believe that it's done fermenting.
>Any suggestions on what to do now?

Take an SG reading.  That's the only way to find out what's going on.
See and believe. :-)  It's not all that uncommon for beer to ferment
out in this amount of time.
From: brewer@meltdown.chi.il.us (Mike Wilson)
Newsgroups: rec.crafts.brewing
Subject: An another note...
Date: 4 Jan 93 11:13:47 CST
Organization: The Meltdown - A Team Star BBS

If anyone's interested, I recently made a decision as to what recipe I'll be
using on a more or less permenant basis.  It's a variation on Papazian's Wise
Ass Red Bitter.  I've made some changing based on my own taste and have renamed
it the Calumet River Toxic Bitter.  Anyhow, I recently did a cost check on it
to see exactly what it cost per six-pack.  It came down to about $2.00 per. 
This is an extract recipe and I have included more ingredients than the
original called for so if someone follows the recipe to the letter, or uses an
all grain variation of this, they may save even more.

This may be a waste of bandwidth, but I thought it might interest someone.

Mike Wilson
brewer@meltdown.chi.il.us
Newsgroups: rec.crafts.brewing
From: kelly@spyro.cray.com (Matt Kelly)
Subject: Mash chocolate/black malts?
Date: 7 Jan 93 13:08:06 CST


Fellow brewers,

What is the consensus (if there could be such a thing on the beer
net! :-) ) on mashing with dark malts?

Should chocolate and/or black patent malt be mashed with the
pale malt when making a porter/stout/etc., or should they be 
"steeped" with the raw wort as it's being brought up to a boil?

Any experiences either way?  I've been mashing all my grains
together regardless of color,race,creed, national origin, etc.,
and the beers come out good; would steeping be better?


Matt 

==============================================================================
kelly@els.cray.com                   |   Cray Research, Inc.
                                     |
Opinions expressed herein are just   |   "The world's fastest supercomputers".
that.                                |
==============================================================================
Newsgroups: rec.crafts.brewing
From: jeff_stevens@bixmac.jhuapl.edu (Jeffrey W. Stevens)
Subject: brew pubs in Tucson?
Reply-To: jeff_stevens@bixmac.jhuapl.edu (Jeffrey W. Stevens)
Organization: Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 93 22:33:45 GMT

A colleague is travelling to Tucson this week, and asked me if
I could help him find any brew pubs there. I would be glad to
post an article on the results of his trip.

Please e-mail me.



Newsgroups: rec.crafts.brewing
From: djewell@darwin.helios.nd.edu (david jewell)
Subject: Looking for RED STRIPE recipe
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 00:07:10 GMT

I am looking for a recipe to approximate Jamaican RED STRIPE Beer. There seem
to be two formulas, one that is brewed and distributed within the island and
one that is exported. The one the is for island distribution is MUCH better
but if I can only get the export version I'll take it.

Email replies are most appreciated but will check this groups asd often as I
can.

Thanks,

David
.

Newsgroups: rec.crafts.brewing
From: miked@wrs.com (Mike Deliman)
Subject: Re: Maple Beer
Organization: Wind River Systems, Inc.
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 16:42:17 GMT

In article <drw.726274406@wink> drw@blink.att.com (Doug Woolley(x2405)) writes:
>guido@island.COM (Guido Marx) writes:
>
>>I have a question about using maple syrup in beer.  Our local
>>Trader Joe's has maple syrup on sale for $6.00 per quart.  I 
>>am thinking about using this in my next batch.  With the cold
>>weather, it is going to have to be a lager.  Any suggestions
>>from people who have brewed beer with maple syrup ?
>
>I only tried about a cup and a half in  a stout a few
>months ago.  It was fermented at about 70 deg. (ie not
>lagered). There wasn't much maple flavor to it; that much
>in a lighter brew might show up tho.  Give it a try
>and let us know what happens.
>
>Doug Woolley

I just recently made a maple-almond-wheat beer; I added about 30oz maple
syrup at T-5 minutes, with the finishing hops and the almond extract.

There is a distinct maple flavor at the beginning, but I over-hopped this
batch and the hop finish masks out what almond flavor there is.

One of my friends noted "this beer almost tastes too sweet, but good though!"

	  -mike
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Mike Deliman, 800-USA-4WRS, FAX 510-814-2010, WRS 2400bd BBS: 510-814-2165
        email:  miked@wrs.com (inet)  or [sun,uunet]!wrs!miked (uunet)
   Snail Mail:  Wind River Systems, 1010 Atlantic Ave, Alameda CA 94501 USA
From: hamilton@miki.pictel.com (Charlie Hamilton)
Newsgroups: rec.crafts.brewing
Subject: Re: bottle fillers
Date: 6 Jan 93 19:21:50 GMT
Organization: PictureTel Corporation

In article <1993Jan5.225606.46140@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> laberge@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
>I am looking for a bottle filler, and would like some information on
>what's out there.  I've seen a few advertised, but I would prefer
>some objective opinions.
>Tim LaBerge
>Dept. of Mathematics
>Kansas University

I've tried three kinds.

1) Spring valve filler - This works by sticking a plastic gizmo with a spring
   valve on the end of a hard plastic tube. The beer flows when the valve is
   pressed against the bottom of the bottle. The drawback is that you need
   to hold onto the thing to keep the valve open. Also, there is a bit of
   splashing when the valve first opens, and there is no beer in the bottle.
   Another drawback is that you can't fill the bottle beyond a certain level,
   which may leave too much air in the headspace.

2) Pressure valve filler - This is similar to #1 above, except that the valve
   is closed by the pressure of the beer in the tube above. You open the valve
   by pressing the valve against the bottom of the bottle, but it requires
   much less pressure than the spring valve, and once it's started, you don't
   have to keep pressing. Otherwise it's the same as #1. The one I had used
   to piss beer all over the kitchen occasionally, and finally broke.

3) No valve filler - This is my new favorite. Same as 1 & 2, except there is
   no valve on the end, and you regulate the flow by crimping the flexible
   plastic tubing connected to the hard plastic tubing. This allows you to
   fill the bottle as full as you like.

I've also heard about something called Phil's Filler, which was reviewed in a
recent Zymurgy. They liked it, but then again, Phil advertises in their
magazine, so who knows. Supposedly, it minimizes splashing, and allows you to
fill the bottle as full as you like. It's also the most expensive of the lot.


Charlie
Newsgroups: rec.crafts.brewing
From: bickham@lynx.msc.cornell.edu.UUCP (Scott Bickham,C17 Clark Hall,56079,2737038)
Subject: Re: Wheat-beer yeast ( I goofed!)
Originator: bickham@msc2.msc.cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell-Materials-Science-Center
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 16:24:45 GMT

From article <1993Jan11.160332.9857@msc.cornell.edu>, by bickham@lynx.msc.cornell.edu.UUCP (Scott Bickham,C17 Clark Hall,56079,2737038):

I wrote:
> 
> The problem there is that most wheat beers are bottle-conditioned with
> a lager yeast, which doesn't include the Brettanomyces strain responsible
> for the characteristic banana esters and clove phenolics.  

There is not Brett. used in making weizens - the cloviness comes from
a species of saccharomyces - S. Delbruckii - which is used in addition to
S. Cerevesiae.  Sorry for the confusion.

Scott

Newsgroups: rec.crafts.brewing
From: peterm@dtc.hp.com (Sweet Pete)
Subject: homebrew clubs in the Bay Area
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 19:47:37 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Where No Man Has Gone Before

Can anyone give me information about homebrew clubs in the south bay?  I
live in Sunnyvale so something not too far away would be good, if possible.

	Peter
-- 
Peter C. Maxwell,                      ARPA:   peterm@dtc.hp.com
Hewlett-Packard Company,
5301 Stevens Creek Blvd, MS 53U/36,    UUCP:   ..!hplabs!aoraki!peterm
Santa Clara, CA 95052-8059             (408) 553 2512
From: mark@verdix.com (Mark Lundquist)
Newsgroups: rec.crafts.brewing
Subject: Re: Need Your Advice! Please!
Date: 11 Jan 93 17:25:18 GMT
Article-I.D.: verdix.9513
Organization: Verdix Western Operations, Aloha  OR

In article <1993Jan10.133723.1@camins.camosun.bc.ca> makortoff@camins.camosun.bc.ca writes:
>
>2.) How do I get a really good head on a beer without using a heading agent 
>and not poping the caps of the bottles?
>(the beer in Czechoslovakia had the creamiest foam I have ever seen!)

Here's my recommendation to you, you can (obviously) take it or leave
it: forget about the head as a quality metric for a little while, and
concentrate on the flavor and body of your beer.  After you've gotten
a feel for things and developed your techniques, then see what you can
do about the head.  Here are a few things things that might help:

* Long-chain proteins such as are contained in wheat malt result in a
  good head.

* Priming with malt rather than refined sugar is rumored to result in
  a better (longer lasting, finer bubbles) head.

* Malto-dextrin supposedly enhances body and head-retention.  I've
  never had occasion to try it.  Can anybody confirm/deny this?

* I believe water chemistry has some effects on the head of the
  finished beer, but I can't give you the details.

* Draft beer might have different head properties than the same beer
  in bottles -- maybe some keggers out there can report on their
  experiences...

>
>4.) Are the kits such as barons good or does everyone start their batch from
>scratch?  Is their somewhere to get the low down on the good and bad kits out
>there?

Kits are good for your first one or two batches because they minimize
the complexity.  When you first start it seems like you're dealing
with so many new details all at once, that it's easy to screw
something up or to worry about screwing something up, so kits
are good as an easy entry point.

However, you just can't brew as good of an extract-based beer with
pre-hopped extract as you can by using real hops and specialty grains.
You will see a quantum leap in the quality of your beer when you do
this, and you'll never go back to kits.
Newsgroups: rec.crafts.brewing
From: spencer@med.umich.edu (Spencer W. Thomas)
Subject: Re: KETTLE MASHING
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 93 12:14:19 EST
Organization: University of Michigan
	<C0Guw1.CH5@ddsw1.mcs.com> <walker.37@main.mndly.umn.edu>

In article <walker.37@main.mndly.umn.edu> walker@main.mndly.umn.edu (TIM WALKER) writes:
>>> All the parts are available at a good hardware store.  For 
>>> those not inclined to hunt down the parts, a complete kit is 
>>> available from the author.

> Regardless of the merits of your article, the paragraph pitching your kit 
> should not have appeared in your piece, because it was a not-so-subtle way 
> of soliciting people to buy your product. If I were an editor at 
> Zymurgy and had recieved your submission, I still might have run your 
> article, but only without the offending paragraph. 

Seems to me I've seen articles in Zymurgy (and other publications such
as Popular Electronics) with exactly this sort of thing.  I'm going to
stick my neck out, because I don't have the article in front of me,
but I think that the RIMS article in this years gadget issue had an
offer, by the author, to supply (at least) certain obscure parts.

I, for one (as a reader), usually consider such an offer a service to
the reader, as long as the author is not making an obscene profit.  He
has, after all, gone to the trouble to find and assemble the parts.
It would probably take me at least an hour of my time to put the kit
together, which is (in theory, at least) worth more than $100.  I'm
sure Jack's charging a lot less than that :-).  Even considering that
when I'm not working, I'm not working, and I probably wouldn't be
working for pay (more likely wasting my time reading netnews), and so
that figure is bogus, maybe I'd rather spend the hour playing with my
kids.  Of course, if the only point of the whole article were to sell
the kit, then I'd agree, "throw it out", but it wasn't.

Of course, I'm not an editor at Zymurgy, and they may have a different
viewpoint on it.

P.S. If the author were anybody but JS, would this issue have come up
at all?
--
=Spencer W. Thomas 		|  Info Tech and Networking, B1911 CFOB, 0704
   "Genome Informatician"	|  Univ of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109
Spencer.W.Thomas@med.umich.edu	|  313-747-2778, FAX 313-764-4133
Newsgroups: rec.crafts.brewing
From: kudzu@netcom.com (Michael Sierchio)
Subject: Re: HOMEBREW Digest #1050
Organization: True Love, and Home-Grown Tomatoes
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 18:44:07 GMT

>Jim Grady <jimg@hpwarga.wal.hp.com> in HBD #1050 says:
>
>...and my backyard neighbor (who sells filters & such to
>industry) active charcoal filters are _great_ breeding grounds for
>bacteria.  In addition to collecting all sorts of organics for them to
>munch on, the media itself promotes growth.

Well, all of the very good filters contain charcoal that is impregnated
with silver -- which can be washed away if some dolt runs hot water
through the filter.  Most have a pre-filter to remove particulates, etc.
Absent any evidence of infection from tap water from a high-quality
filter,  I don't think boiling is necessary -- airborne molds and bacilli
are far more likely to spoil the wort...
-- 
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  Michael Sierchio                          1563 Solano Avenue, Suite 123 |
|  kudzu@netcom.com                                Berkeley, CA 94707-2116 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: rec.crafts.brewing
From: bud@mailhub.scf.lmsc.lockheed.com (Bud Marlow)
Subject: Optimator
Organization: LMSC Santa Cruz
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 15:43:53 GMT

Does anyone have a homebrew recipe for Spaten Munich Optimator?
Thanks
Newsgroups: rec.crafts.brewing
From: gburton@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Garland O Burton)
Subject: Re: Source:  Where to get a large kettle?
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 20:37:34 GMT

all of the meijer stores just had the whopper size stainless 
kettles on a half price sale.  i don't know if the sale is still on,
but i got mine!  it does lobsters, too!

gob!

-- 
gburton@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: rec.crafts.brewing
From: mkenny@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (michael r..kenny)
Subject: Re: easy specific gravity?
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 23:40:33 GMT


In article <1993Jan11.223044.15250@twisto.eng.hou.compaq.com> costley@solo.eng.hou.compaq.com (Brett Costley) writes:
>Over Christmas break I visited the biology lab where my sister works.  She
.
.
>she lives 900 miles away.  I could see if she can find out how much they 
>cost and if she could get me one.  Has anyone ever seen anything like this
>before?
>

Cole-Parmer 1-800-323-4340 has a Digital Density/Specific Gravity Meter
that runs $2100.00.

One handed operation and tells the sample temperture too!

Newsgroups: rec.crafts.brewing
From: christ@sci.ccny.cuny.edu (Chris Thompson)
Subject:  AHA judging sheets 
Organization: City College of New York - Science Computing Facility
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 04:13:03 GMT

Can someone please send me a copy of the AHA judging sheets?	
ASCII or postscript would be preferred, but any format is OK.

Thanks muchly,

Chris Thompson

-- 
(Help!  I've fallen and I can't reach my beer!)