Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #3096
HOMEBREW Digest #3096 Fri 30 July 1999
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
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
Contents:
long serving lines ("Stephen Alexander")
Equipment for all grain ("Russ Hobaugh")
O(n) to other issues... (MICHAEL WILLIAM MACEYKA)
Re: careful (email privacy) ("Charles T. Major")
Honey containing beers and bottle conditioning (Matthew Comstock)
Eric Fouch for President? ("Doug Moyer")
Primary vs. Secondary revisited (Matthew Comstock)
Splitting-up the brew session revisited (Matthew Comstock)
Call for innovations (Matthew Comstock)
B. Rezac - Personal Interaction (woodsj)
Honey ("Swintosky, Michael D.")
pH Tester ("Jack Schmidling")
Resistance Per Foot ("Christopher Farley")
re: how long the hoses are ("Bayer, Mark A")
a question for the Portlanders (Oregon version) (Marc Sedam)
CO2 chart origin / HBD vs AHA / searchable archives (Alan Edwards)
Resitance to fluid flow in a tube (Pat Babcock)
Re:Call for Innovations (Matthew Comstock)
IHA?, IHBA?, WHA?, HSA? (& other stuff) (joseph_labeck_jr)
San Diego Strong Ale Homebrew Competition ("Greg Lorton")
Stuck bottlewasher ("Philip J Wilcox")
Denaturing-- Temp vs. Thermal Mass (RCAYOT)
Re: Ring Burners Needed - not complete brewstands ("Kelly")
AHA ("Bill Giffin")
Mills and More Mills (Dan Listermann)
Sodapop bottling, (Dave Burley)
New yeast propagation methods? (CALAMIDA Alessandro)
Ask not what the AHA can do for you ("Don Van Valkenburg")
* Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy!
* Subscribe to the Distilled Beverage Digest
* Send "subscribe" in body of note to dbd-request@hbd.org
* Subscribe to the Home Vintners' Digest
* Send "subscribe" in body of note to hvd-request@hbd.org
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@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: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 11:39:14 -0400
From: "Stephen Alexander" <steve-alexander@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: long serving lines
More engineering that science, but why not page down anyway ?
Dave B says ...
>Personally, I cannot see how it would work,
>at least the way it has been explained in the past
>(assigning some pressure drop per foot of line)
>makes absolutely no sense to me.
You must assume some flow rate, then the linear pressure drop per unit
length pops out of the formulae (ignoring some tube end effects and small
variations in coefficients). I think we can reasonably suspect the tubes
sold by someone like Foxx Beverage are spec'ed for flow rates around several
fl.ounces per second.
>A long line
>should slow the flow of the beer due to viscosity
>along the walls and turning points and valves
>(Reynolds #, wall effect), but the beer still
>has to come out at atmospheric pressure and
>starts out at the head pressure of the keg.
You are ignoring a kinetic term for accelerating the liquid from rest in the
keg to tube velocity, but it's usually not important.
For 1/4" ID tubing with (wild guess) 2.5 fl.oz per second flow, I calculate
a Reynolds number of about 9500 (I'm using figures for water at 5C). Even
assuming beer is twice as viscous (unlikely) you'll never see laminar flow
in any reasonable diameter beverage tubing - always turbulent flow.
I get a pressure drop of [smooth tubing assumption, Prandtl equation,
Prandtl-Karan Law]
dP = L (in feet) * 0.56psi + 0.43 psi [ 1/4" ID tubing, 2.5 fl.oz/sec ]
(where the 0.43 psi is the kinetic term)
If you change the tubing diameter(D), but keep the same flow rate, there is
a small variation (~15% for doubling or halving the diameter) in a
coefficient used to calculate the first term, but by far the biggest impact
is the velocity squared (v^2) factor that applies to both terms.
Velocity at a given flow rate is proportional to (1/D)^2, and the pressure
differential (dP above) is proportional to v^2. This means that dP is
proportional to (1/D)^4.
Dropping the tubing ID diameter from 1/4" to 3/16" means the
dP = L (in feet) * 1.7psi + 1.35 psi [ 3/16" ID tubing, 2.5 fl.oz/sec ]
And for 1/8" ID tubing the figures become
dP = L (in feet) * 7.6.psi + 6.9 psi [ 1/8" ID tubing, 2.5 fl.oz/sec ]
In other words to drop 12psig of pressure you could use
20.66 feet of 1/4" ID tubing [ (12 - 0.43) / 0.56 ]
6.3 ft of 3/16" tubing [ (12-1.35) / 1.7 ]
8 inches of 1/8" tubing [ (12-6.9) / 7.6 ]
And keep the tap wide open to get 2.5 fl.oz/sec .
If you use larger diameter or longer tubes than these at 12psig, then you
will either get higher flow rates or need to use the tap valve to slow flow.
Either method introduces conditions of sudden change in pressure that will
create foaming.
Don't take the above terms as precise. The change in pressure is related to
the flow rate you choose squared, your tubing diameter may vary a bit yet
have a significant impact on pressure drop, and the viscosity of the beer
has an impact too. You may be using various head pressures as well.
Interesting that the relative tube smoothness has little impact during
turbulent flow (if I read the books correctly).
I have tried (long ago - before calculating) a longish 1/4" ID beverage
tube, but adding 10ft to your 1/4" tube will only knock the pressure down by
~5.6psi at a reasonable flow rate and had a similarly marginal effect on
foam.
If I were to try this again I would of course switch to 3/16" ID tubing.
Dave's smaller ID tubing suggestion is, as you can see from the
calculations, the only practical solution unless you enjoy living with a
tangle of tubes.
-S
.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 11:58:56 -0400
From: "Russ Hobaugh" <Russ_Hobaugh@erm.com>
Subject: Equipment for all grain
I am getting ready to take the plunge into all grain. I would like to know what
the best
equipment is to get started. I have just purchase a 14 gal. SS brewpot, and
will be
building an immersion WC. What is the consensus on a lautertun?? I have been
told
to go with a gott cooler with an "easymasher", my brewpot with an "em", a square
cooler
with slotted pipes, or the zapap system. What are the pros and cons of these
systems?
I am trying to do this inexpensively, but I don't want to do it "cheap", I am
looking for
some good advice from all you all grain brewers on the most inexpensive and
effective
way to get started.
Another question is, what is the best way to test your water for all grain?? My
water is very
hard, so we installed a water softener. Is this bad for mashing?
TIA
Russ Hobaugh
Goob' Dog Brewer, Birdsboro PA
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 12:14:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: MICHAEL WILLIAM MACEYKA <mmaceyka@welch.jhu.edu>
Subject: O(n) to other issues...
Howdy all,
...like who has a less appreciated sense of humor than Phil Yates.
The confusing topic of oxygen and yeast growth has come up once again. Here
is what I believe (credentials to follow).
Yeast can use oxygen for two purposes. The first is as a final
electron acceptor during repiration. The second is to introduce double bonds
in carbon chains, a process necessary for yeast growth in wort for the
production of sterols and unsaturated fatty acids.
Yeast "grow," i.e increase cell numbers, so long as they have
nutrients to do so. The limiting growth factor for yeast grown in all-malt
wort is oxygen for double bond production (followed closely by fixed nitrogen,
so take care in low FAN worts). Unless, of course, you pitch very high, but
then you don't need to worry about anything limiting yeast growth. Yeast grow
under both respiratory and fermentation conditions. More oxygen in your
starter makes more yeast and a worse tasting starter, so decant.
Yeast grown in wort will not respire so long as there is 0.5% glucose
present, which is going to be all the time except in the most overgrown of
continually oxygenated starters. Adding oxygen to your starter or your beer
will help increase cell numbers not because of increasing the available energy
but because of increasing (indirectly) the available nutrient pool.
I SUSPECT that most people measure lag times based on evolution of
CO2. I SUSPECT that respiration is slower in terms of moles CO2 produced than
fermentation (Pasteur effect?), which is why the Crabtree effect exists at
all. This is an irrelevant suspicion for people who make beer by normal means.
I have used Lallemand Nottingham quite extensively, and if I
pitch hydrated the yeast, by the time I look in on the beer the following
morning, CO2 is being evolved. As I recall, some one posted that it is not a
good idea to rehydrate the yeast with yeast nutrient as this unduly stresses
the yeast. It has made me wonder if longer lag times correlated with
increasing amounts of ions in the rehydration water. Baltimore water is
extremely soft.
Mike Maceyka, stb-PhD
Baltimore, MD
That's "soon-to-be-doctor" to you, pal.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 11:18:36 -0500 (Central Daylight Time)
From: "Charles T. Major" <ctmajor@samford.edu>
Subject: Re: careful (email privacy)
Alan McKay note in today's HBD:
"Not only that, but I'm pretty sure it's very illegal in
the USA, as Email is considered to be part of a private
conversation, and you can only publicize a private
conversation with permission of all participants."
<Disclaimer: I'm not an attorney, and this is not
legal advice.>
Email is not generally considered a private conversation,
or even private for that matter. The courts tend to look
to "reasonable expectations of privacy" and find that with
email, especially email through one's employer, that there
is no reasonable expectation of privacy. Thus, the prudent
policy would be to not include in any email message
(private or to a listserv) anything you wouldn't write on a
postcard or post on a public bulletin board.
Thus, reposting a private email probably isn't illegal
(it's not illegal to post a letter, and mail privacy is
much greater than email privacy). I agree with Alan,
though, that posting private email is poor manners.
Tidmarsh Major
Birmingham, Alabama
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 09:39:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: Matthew Comstock <mccomstock@yahoo.com>
Subject: Honey containing beers and bottle conditioning
Greetings.
I thought I'd pass along a recent observation about recent batches I've
made using honey to make up a large portion of the fermentables.
Without posting actual recipes I used, I made a 'honey stout' and a
'honey ginger ale' loosely following Papazian recipes. I bottled after
two week primaries (no secondary). The honey stout was very good, but
bottles opened several months after capping are gushing at warmer
temperatures. No off-flavors observed, just higher carbonation levels.
I suggest that the honey sugars were not fully fermented before I
bottled. Essentially the bottles were overprimed. The honey ginger
ale has been in bottles nearly a month now and is finally well
carbonated. For an all-malt extract batch it usually takes about two
weeks to reach a steady level of carbonation. Following the honey
stout example, I fully expect gushing bottles of the honey ginger ale
in the next month. I will keep this in mind the next 'honey ale' batch
I make and either reduce the added priming sugar, or transfer to a
secondary for a longer period of time before bottling.
Matt Comstock in Cincinnati
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 12:47:49 -0400
From: "Doug Moyer" <shyzaboy@yahoo.com>
Subject: Eric Fouch for President?
Phil (with limited support from Jill) Yates suggests: "Eric Fouch For
President"
Well, Phil, to steal from a post higher up in the same digest, just because
Eric has such strong moral character "doesn't necessarily translate into a
productive employee". We really need to learn more about the administrative
capabilities of each of the candidates. Can we get some feedback from Fred?
Brew on!
Doug Moyer
Star City Brewers Guild: http://hbd.org/starcity
p.s. Despite an impassioned entreaty from Brian after many beers at the GABF
"On the road" in Baltimore last year, I am still NOT a member of AHA.
Somehow, I don't see it happening any time soon...
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 09:51:06 -0700 (PDT)
From: Matthew Comstock <mccomstock@yahoo.com>
Subject: Primary vs. Secondary revisited
Greeting.
I recently posted results of an 'experiment' I did where I made two
batches of the same pale ale recipe. They differed in that I used only
a primary for one batch but included a secondary for the other. From
my results I decided I liked the primary-only batch better and shunned
the use of a secondary.
I like reusing yeast cakes.
I don't like bottling and brewing in the same night.
So I'm back thinking about transferring to a secondary in order to
reuse the yeast cake. And my experiment suggested that in my setup
beer transferred to a secondary doesn't fare as well as primary-only.
Can I have some suggestions on improving my experience with secondary
use. I read about people transferring early so the evolving CO2
flushes the headspeace of the secondary container. But I've heard that
can lead to higher final gravities - something about flocculation....
I don't have a CO2 tank, but I suppose one could be used to flush a
waiting secondary. I have a 6 gallon carboy for 5 gallon batches - I
guess I should get a smaller carboy to reduce headspace. Any other
ideas?
Matt Comstock in Cincinnati
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 10:03:10 -0700 (PDT)
From: Matthew Comstock <mccomstock@yahoo.com>
Subject: Splitting-up the brew session revisited
Greetings
I started all-grain brewing. It takes more time. I've tried a few
time-saving steps. On Friday night, I set everything up, preboil the
Cl2 out of my mash liquor (tap water), I mill the grains. On Saturday
I get up early, start heating the water and am mashing by 530A. Done
with everything - including clean-up - by 11A. OK, fine. I keep
thinking about a discussion here a while back where folks would mash
and sparge one night and brew the next morning. I remember thinking,
hey great idea. Time saver. Then I remembered that many authors tell us
to cool quickly or we'll have DMS (dimethyl sulfide) problems (is that
right?). So I blew it off. Now I'm wondering if that's not a problem
because after the 'irresponsible' slow-cool, we take the wort back to
boiling for 90 minutes or so when brewing the next morning. Could
someone reaffirm this for me or point me in the right direction in the
archives where this may have been resolved? I remember some folks
would take the wort and boil for a few minutes before going to bed....
Thanks for any insight.
Matt Comstock in Cincinnati.
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 10:16:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: Matthew Comstock <mccomstock@yahoo.com>
Subject: Call for innovations
Greetings
These things cycle, but the past couple months of the hbd have been
slow. Arguments, etc. I have learned a lot here. WAIT WAIT don't
page down yet. I suggest we compile a list of the many innovations
we've learned here or have made in our brewing set-ups. Not only would
this interest novice brewers like me, but I think it would stimulate
some more positive discussions in this forum. I offer for example,
someone, probably Ken Schwartz, could write a paragraph about batch
sparging, etc along with links to articles. These topics are archived
elsewhere of course, but a wake up call here would probably be a good
thing.
Here's an 'innovation' of my own. Nothing new, just my way of making
do. I didn't want to buy any new equipment (cooler, Easymasher, etc.)
so I came up with a custom made mash/lauter tun. I took my bottling
bucket and attached a CPVC (for heat) adaptor to the threads on the
inside of the spigot. I then ran a question-mark series of CPVC elbows
and tubes along the bottom of the bucket. The last long pipe had many
holes drilled in it. I mashed in the bucket using a grain bag and held
the T using towels and one of those highway emergency blankets wrapped
around and attached with a few belts. Worked good.
Laters,
Matt Comstock in Cincinnati
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 14:11:37 -0400
From: woodsj@us.ibm.com
Subject: B. Rezac - Personal Interaction
I'm a few days behind with reading HBD but I see the subject is still alive.
I also posted this same note to AHA Tech Talk last Thursday (7/22) but
somehow it hasn't shown up yet THERE, so I'll post it HERE......hmmmm !
I can't speak to Brian's organization and administrative skills but I found it
totally tasteless to publicly appraise him.......imagine working for that type
of
employer.
My only interaction with Brian was in late Jan. 99. I was visiting Boulder on
business (which I do frequently) and went to the AHA to pay my dues in
person. The receptionist called Brian down and he invited me upstairs to
the office area. Brian and I visited for an hour discussing homebrewing
experiences, beer styles, competitions, events, and other subjects. He
even gave me a few bottles of barleywine laying around. I was very
impressed that he would spend the time with an average schmoe brewer
that he didn't know from Adam. I felt very welcomed into the AHA den thanks
to Brian and I was very surprised. It was an impression that will stay with me
for a while. I also got a parking ticket from the Boulder police because I
stayed longer than anticipated.....not a problem because I thought it was
time well spent, but made it an expensive few bottles of barleywine.
Perhaps he should have been doing other AHA work, but I'll submit
that maybe that's what the AHA should be doing and should be all about.
He introduced me to many people, including Mr. Gatza, but I doubt he would
remember.
Everybody seems to be bashing the AHA in this forum. I haven't been a member
for that long so I don't know all the history. I only know that my most
memorable
experience with the AHA came from Brian and I thank him for that.
Jeff Woods
Camp Hill, PA
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 14:24:23 -0400
From: "Swintosky, Michael D." <Swintosk@timken.com>
Subject: Honey
Joy wrote in HBD #3093:
" ..., honey contains bot and spores!"
No references were cited for this statement, so I'll not bother doing
research for mine. : )
The story, as I heard it, was that there was a case of botulism poisoning
way back when. As you might expect, honey was in the diet of unfortunate
infant. However, it was never proven that the honey was the source of the
poisoning OR that an infant was any more likely to get botulism poisoning
from honey as compared to other foods not specifically prepared to destroy
the spores. It is my understanding that the industry, wishing to preserve
its pure and wholesome image, agreed to the position of warning against
feeding honey to infants less than about a year old out of concern for the
unknown alternative that a court might impose should a fight be
unsuccessful. Being an emotional issue, I think this was a wise course of
action (if the story is true). At any rate, I just wanted to pipe in that
this issue is not as clear-cut as many people may well believe. Botulism
spores are found everywhere, including in honey.
Mike Swintosky, Beekeeper (no PhD!)
Dellroy Ohio
4 hives
One 1st and two 2nd place ribbons for extracted honey
1999 Carroll County Fair, July 19-25
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 12:02:52 -0500
From: "Jack Schmidling" <arf@mc.net>
Subject: pH Tester
I am having trouble with my pHtestr2 and was told to revive the electrode in
a .1 molar hcl solution for about an hour.
I plead ignorance about big teeth. Can someone translate that into a
solution/dilution I can comprehend?
js
PHOTO OF THE WEEK http://user.mc.net/arf/weekly.htm
HOME http://user.mc.net/arf
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 14:21:26 -0500
From: "Christopher Farley" <chris@northernbrewer.com>
Subject: Resistance Per Foot
Dave Burley writes:
> He and I basically agree, I think. I just disagree
> on the bad information ( he attributes to Miller -
> I don't know) perpetuating ( or originating)
> the hard-to-kill idea that a certain length of hose
> has a certain pressure drop per foot as some sort
> of basic physical parameter is not a new idea,
> but I see it keeps cropping up in discussions
> here as though it were true. Balderdash!!
It's not just Dave Miller perpetuating this "bad" information. Here is a table
I culled from a catalog; it is information intended for draft service
technicians.
TABLE OF LINE RESISTANCE AND CAPACITIES
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- ---------
Resistance per foot
Line Sizes Vinyl Polyethlene Capacity
3/16" 2.2 lbs. --------- 1/6 oz.
1/4" 0.65 lbs. 0.50 lbs. 1/3 oz.
5/16" 0.40 lbs. --------- 1/2 oz.
3/8" 0.20 lbs. 0.07 lbs. 3/4 oz.
1/2" 0.025 lbs. --------- 1-1/3 oz.
All figures [sic].
So there you have it. I'm going to run out and replace my 6 foot run of 3/16"
tubing with 528 feet of 1/2 inch vinyl hose. That way I can store *all* my
beer in the tubing, rather than the corny keg!
Christopher Farley
Northern Brewer, Ltd.
Saint Paul, Minnesota
www.northernbrewer.com
(800) 681-2739
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 12:50:00 -0700
From: "Bayer, Mark A" <Mark.Bayer@JSF.Boeing.com>
Subject: re: how long the hoses are
collective homebrew conscience_
alan mckay wrote:
>In 3091 Dave Burley ponders about hose length.
<snip>
>this is an extremely well-documented area (Miller is the first
>place I'd encountered it).<snip>
>It seems fairly obvious that the inside of the hose is going to
>cause friction with the beer, and thus resistance. More resistance,
>more energy is lost (in the form of carbonation). Longer hose means
>more resistance, so less foam. Not only does length matter, but so
>does hose composition. Obviously different materials will cause
>different levels of friction, exactly like how rubbing silk on
>your hand feels different than rubbing wool on it.
the energy that is lost is realized as lower momentum of the fluid.
the importance of hose composition comes into play whenever you have vastly
different surface irregularities between hose types. for the flow rates we
are likely to be experiencing, transition to turbulence is a given, no
matter how smooth the inside of the hose is. only gross imperfections on the
inside of the hose would cause you to see significantly different
resistances as compared with a smooth inner surface. i don't think we
normally have that much variation in our choices for delivery hoses.
>The only thing I'm not clear on here is what counter-effect on foam is
>experienced because the narrower diameter will mean the beer
>should travel faster through the hose, at a higher pressure.At least
>according to my recollection of the grade 11 physics I took some
>15 years ago. (I'm recalling the picture of the pipe of diameter X,
>which then goes down to diameter X/2, then back up to X. The
>liquid in X/2 would - according to the authors of the textbook -
>move faster and be under higher pressure, then it would go back
>down again when the diameter went back up to X).<snip> I'd be
>interested to hear from a REAL physicist or better yet fluid-dynamicists
>(much unlike myself) as to whether or not this
>would apply to our hoses.
science alert: pgdwn right now if you're not as interested as alan.
i posted an equation yesterday that is applicable for laminar flow in a
pipe. while this is not what we normally have in our situation (it is
practically always turbulent flow), i believe looking at the laminar case
gives a good illustration of how the variables relate to each other. they
relate to each other in generally the same fashion in turbulent flow, it's
just that the presence of turbulence eradicates the ability to represent the
flow accurately using a closed form solution, which is what the laminar
equation is. but, we can definitely address the generality that is drawn
from alan's example. the generality is that a smaller diameter hose will
produce a higher flow rate for a given pressure differential.
here's the laminar equation again:
vm = (R^^2/8u)(-dp/dx)
vm = mean velocity
R = radius of pipe
u = absolute viscosity of fluid
dp/dx = typically given, the pressure differential divided by the length of
pipe
increasing the radius increases the mean velocity. so a larger delivery
hose will give a faster flow, for the same keg pressure and hose length.
alan's example from high school is fundamentally a different situation. you
cannot take a flow in which you have a changing diameter, look at the flow
characteristics in each regime, and then apply those results to pipe flow.
they're fundamentally different flows which are derived from different
assumptions and simplifications.
the pipe flow equation given above is a result of simplifying the
incompressible navier-stokes equations, which take into account viscosity.
alan's example is a demonstration of the continuity equation for inviscid,
incompressible flows. however, one statement is incorrect: the flow in the
narrower part of the channel will be at a lower pressure than in the larger
part of the channel. this comes from bernoulli's equation, which is a
consequence of the momentum equation for inviscid, incompressible flow. the
"venturi effect" is an example of bernoulli's equation put to practical use.
brew hard,
mark bayer
stl mo
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 16:21:05 -0400
From: Marc Sedam <marc_sedam@unc.edu>
Subject: a question for the Portlanders (Oregon version)
Hi all:
I'm making another pilgrimage to Oregon next week and have a
grand total of one, yes one, evening to spend in Portland. I'd
like opinions on the *best* place in Portland where you can spend
an evening eating a well-prepared dinner and drinking quality
beer. It can be a brewpub, taphouse, or restaurant with a good
selection. Your thoughts? I was considering the Horse Brass
Pub.
Marc Sedam
"Huisbrouwerij Zuytdam"
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 14:41:34 -0700 (PDT)
From: Alan Edwards <ale@cisco.com>
Subject: CO2 chart origin / HBD vs AHA / searchable archives
This just goes to show ya', that most of the great ideas start here,
at the grass roots!
Peter Santerre wondered where the CO2 formula came from. Demonick Venezia
first noticed it in the Summer 1994 issue of Zymurgy in an article by
Cliff Tanner. Actually, it originated in an HBD article (HBD #1179) and
was created by an HBD subscriber!
Which brings me to another point. I found out exactly which HBD it first
appeared in by SEARCHING the archives. Some very nice people put up many
many years worth of HBDs in a searchable, hypertext format!
I don't want to discourage "newbies" from asking questions, because we
need that in the mix. But, if you have a question, any question, chances
are that it has been discussed already (several times ;-).
The knowledge base is now larger, and we've pushed the envelope of
homebrewing information quite a bit in the last decade, so some things
can stand to be discussed again; but people should always research their
question first in the HBD archives and go from there. That way we'd be
*adding* to the knowledge base, not just rehashing.
Start here:
http://hbd.org/hbd/
and click on "Search Homebrew Digests".
And if you feel the urge to donate your Zymurgy subscription costs
(er, I mean your non-profit AHA donation) to the HBD fund instead, follow
the link back to the main page and check out the Donors and Accountability
links.
Later,
-Alan in Fremont
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 19:04:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: Pat Babcock <pbabcock@mail.oeonline.com>
Subject: Resitance to fluid flow in a tube
Greetings, Beerlings! Take me to your lager...
Chris slaps Dave with...
>
> Dave Burley writes:
> > He and I basically agree, I think. I just disagree
> > on the bad information ( he attributes to Miller -
> > I don't know) perpetuating ( or originating)
> > the hard-to-kill idea that a certain length of hose
> > has a certain pressure drop per foot as some sort
> > of basic physical parameter is not a new idea,
> > but I see it keeps cropping up in discussions
> > here as though it were true. Balderdash!!
>
>
> It's not just Dave Miller perpetuating this "bad" information. Here is a table
> I culled from a catalog; it is information intended for draft service
> technicians.
>
Whap! Oooo, I bet that stings! Have another: I've seen the same in so many
tubing specifications NOT specific to beverage delivery, it'd make your
head spin! Dave, the concept is hard to kill because it is, well, a fact.
Doh! Another upside the head!
-
See ya!
Pat Babcock in SE Michigan pbabcock@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..."
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 11:11:59 -0700 (PDT)
From: Matthew Comstock <mccomstock@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re:Call for Innovations
I have been away from the computer several weeks and haven't read the
hbd for awhile. Upon perusing a few of the latest editions, things
seem to have turned attitude-wise around since I stopped reading. I
was going to retract my previous post, but I still like the idea of
compiling a list of innovative ideas. Sorry to all that have posted
cool stuff since I stopped reading. No slight intended.
Matt Comstock in Cincinnati.
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 21:47:03 +0000
From: joseph_labeck_jr@email.com
Subject: IHA?, IHBA?, WHA?, HSA? (& other stuff)
Hi, folks;
If we are if fact going to do something new, we should start
doing a bit of research. I know we have a great deal of scientific
knowledge, how about legal?
It does seem to me that it would not be that difficult to set up a
volunteer-based organization. It also seems to me that there would
have to be some sort of paid help to like answer the phones, lick
stamps, drink the beer sent by homebrewers in lieu of dues.
A group of people should get together after the research is
done to start planning the steps to be taken. One of those steps
should be finding startup money. Some of it could come from
donations by interested parties. Perhaps the HBD Steering
Committee, with some other folk added, would be a good start
toward such a group.
This would be best done in person, although some of it *could*
be done in a chat room.
I'll do some digging on my own, and see what I can find.
============================================
I did a search the other day on "distance calculator" and found
several websites that will figure out from/to anywhere. So please
look at my signature and marvel at the results.
============================================
I've seen a few posts lately about what horrid people we are;
how insular and intolerant. There have been some tongue-in-cheek
posts (which I enjoyed), but I don't know if anyone actually
answered the charge.
I have been reading the HBD, and occasionally posting, for
about 4 or 5 years now, maybe more (maybe I'll try a search for my
name in the archive). This is like a family. We all care about the
group, we help each other when needed, and we don't always get
along as well as we'd like.
There is NO BETTER place to get homebrewing information.
period. Even the evil NOKOMAREE had a valid point, put very
badly. There is great humor here. My favorite has always been the
last time the "pressure drop in the beer line" came up, and some
one figured out that a long enough line would cause negative
pressure at the end, sucking up the entire town.
There is room for all of us. The kit brewer, looking for an easy
way to make decent beer; the extract brewer, interested in recipe
formulation and the endless variety of styles, but without the
means to do all-grain; The all-grain folk, looking for the ability to
control all aspects of the process, or just looking to gaze in
wonderment at the way such simple things can produce such a
wondrous beverage.
I have never failed to get good information, and I have always
given my own help when I felt it was warranted.
Sorry this got so long, but I felt this needed to be said, or at
least, I needed to say it.
Joe Labeck - die-hard extract brewer
Watertown, CT
548 mi. 91.3 deg. Rennerian
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 22:28:14 -0700
From: "Greg Lorton" <glorton@cts.com>
Subject: San Diego Strong Ale Homebrew Competition
QUAFF and the San Diego Brew Techs are co-hosting the 1st Annual Strong Ale
Homebrew Competition (SAHC) in San Diego, CA, this fall. The contest will
be held in conjunction with the 3rd Annual Strong Ale Festival which brings
together some of the best strong beers from microbreweries and brewpubs in
the western U.S. The competition will take place Saturday, November 27th at
Del Mar Stuft Pizza with the awards ceremony being held Saturday, December
4th at the Strong Ale Festival at Pizza Port Carlsbad. The entries are due
between November 4 - November 19, so now is the time to brew if you don't
have any strong ales already. There will be a website for this competition
which will be announced in the near future. There is a $5 fee per entry and
only two (2) bottles are required. Email Tyce Heldenbrand, organizer, if
you have any questions. Here are the categories:
Category 1 - American Strong Ales
1a. American-Style Barley Wine
1b. American Wheat Wine
1c. American Strong Ales (double brown, double IPA etc..)
Category 2 - Belgian Strong Ales
2a. Belgian Tripel
2b. Belgian Pale Strong Ale
2c. Belgian Dark Strong Ale
2d. Strong Belgian Specialties (Grand Cru, Strong Wit, Strong Saison
etc...)
Category 3 - English Strong Ales
3a. English-Style Barley Wine
3b. English Old/Strong Ale
3c. Strong Scotch Ale
Category 4 - Strong Stouts
4a. Imperial Stout
4b. Strong Coffee Stout
Category 5 - Bocks & Lagers
5a. Doppelbock
5b. Eisbock
5c. Weizenbock
5d. Other Strong Lagers (Strong Oktoberfest etc...)
Category 6 - Strong Experimentals
6a. Holiday/Christmas Beers
6b. Strong Fruit Beers
6c. Strong Herb & Spice Beers
6d. Strong Experimentals
Category 7 - Strong Meads & Ciders
7a. Strong Traditional Meads
7b. Strong Fruit & Spice Meads
7c. Strong Ciders
Tyce Heldenbrand, Organizer
Oceanside, CA
tyce.heldenbrand@wfinet.com
Greg Lorton, Assistant Organizer
Carlsbad, CA
glorton@cts.com
Peter Zien, Assistant Organizer/Judge Coordinator
San Diego, CA
pz.jdzinc@worldnet.att.net
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 09:07:54 -0400
From: "Philip J Wilcox" <pjwilcox@cmsenergy.com>
Subject: Stuck bottlewasher
Dear HBD,
Has anyone had their bottle washer get stuck before? I dont remember the brand
on mine but it was manufactured in Traverse City, Michigan. I had it attached to
the hose outside for while and then it sat on the porch (outdoors). I figured
its all brass, its not going to rust, why take it inside. I went to use it again
last night and attached it to the hose and nothing was getting through the
thing. The L that relases the water still moves freely, but no water was comming
through. Any ideas on how to "Unclog" one of these things????
Phil Wilcox
Poison Frog Home Brewer
Warden-Prison City Brewers
In Jackson, MI 32 Mi. West of Jeff Renner
AABG, AHA, BJCP, HBD, MCAB, ETC., ad nausium...
------------------------------
Date: 28 Jul 1999 08:13:02 -0400
From: RCAYOT@solutia.com
Subject: Denaturing-- Temp vs. Thermal Mass
Eric says:
"Temperature is a measure of energy. In this case the energy is
kinetic on a molecular level-- as particles swirl through space and
collide with your thermometer, they impart a modicum of energy to the
thermometer which in turn reacts to show the energy it is
accumulating-- it turns the temperature dial. The same amount of
collisions will happen whenever your thermometer reads 150 F. That
energy is the only useable energy available at the time."
A Simpler explaination is the first law of thermodynamics: Energy
flows from high temperature to low temperature (regardless of thermal
mass) Since the enzymes are in intimate contact with the solution,
and at the same temperature, no energy is "flowing" into or out of the
enzymes at a greater or lesser extent regardless of mash thickness.
I think the thermal lability of enzymes can and do depend on mash
thickness, but it is more to do with chemistry, chemical equilibrium
etc. Others have spoken to that!
Roger
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 08:43:32 -0500
From: "Kelly" <kgrigg@diamonddata.com>
Subject: Re: Ring Burners Needed - not complete brewstands
Hey, we use them all the time down here in New Orleans for boiling shrimp
and crawfish. Take a look at: http://www.cajuncooker.com/ We heard this
and possibly another place here that sells them, have 'rejects'...basically
the burners without the stands for sale CHEAP. We're looking into this to
try to get the burners for our all grain set up we're going to build.
There are some other places down here making and selling this stuff....I'll
keep looking to see what I find....
HTH,
Kelly
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 20:35:09 GMT
From: stencil@bcn.net (stencil)
Subject: Re: Ring Burners Needed - not complete brewstands
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 08:21:31 -0500
>From: "SCHNEIDER,BRETT" <SCHNEIDERB@morganco.com>
>
>I have been searching the internet and emailing suppliers and hb shops
>looking to buy only the cast ring burners and hoses w/regulators for adding
>to my new brewstand. But so far no luck finding them as loose parts. Any
>recommendations or sources people know of for these things?
>
> - brett
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 09:50:50 -0400
From: "Bill Giffin" <bgiffin@mint.net>
Subject: AHA
Good morning all,
With all the talk about the AHA the past few day you would think
that the organization is totally evil; firing what appears to be a
popular member of the AHA. I don't think that they are evil just
trying to survive.
Should there be a new homebrew organization? Should we boycott
the AHA?
With the way interest is dropping in the hobby I don't think that
enough interest could be generated to form a successful
organization to replace the AHA, nor would I want to.
Boycott the AHA, why? The AHA has been doing quite a good job
of destroying itself. Over the past couple of years the AHA has
managed to lose about 30% of its membership. Just wait a couple
more years and the organization will not be viable.
The problem is unless you are involved in homebrewing, which is a
small percentage of the population of this country then you don't
even know that you can brew your own beer let along know that the
AHA even exists.
For the AHA to survive they are going to have to do a far better job
of marketing homebrewing in general and the AHA particular. I
don't think that they have done these two things well for at least the
past three or four years. The time has come to market the hobby
and get more folks interested in brewing.
Bill
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 10:47:39 -0400
From: Dan Listermann <72723.1707@compuserve.com>
Subject: Mills and More Mills
One of my favorite topics!
Mark Youngquist (memerson@fone.net) of Rock Bottom and will Kolb (
wkolb@home.com) of Happy Dog Brewing Supplies ask about small adjustable
mills. We produce the Philmill and shortly we will be introducing the
Philmill II at the end of August. Both of these mills are finely
adjustable across the full face of the rolls with the simple twist of a
single knob without any set screws or detents. The mills can be adjusted
loaded or unloaded, running or not running. A sample of the grist can be
measured by as little as a fraction of an ounce. They can both be
motorized with a 1/2" electric mill or other methods. The Philmill II
has
a preloaded spring to allow the passage of roll damaging objects.
I prefer the grist of the single roll Philmill because the long slow
crushing the design affords and the grist is only exposed on one side to
sharp knurling. This makes for superior hush integrity. The two roll
mills such as the Philmill II, however, have much better throughput.
Motorizing negates much of the two roll mill adventages except for
milling
large quantites or where speed is important such as in a homebrew shop.
Both of these mills are easily modified for different hopper
configurations. We can supply a 20 lb hopper made from a 5 gal plastic
water bottle.
Dan Listermann dan@listermann.com 72723.1707@compuserve .com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 10:52:20 -0400
From: Dave Burley <Dave_Burley@compuserve.com>
Subject: Sodapop bottling,
Brewsters:
Braam Greyling asks for a friend why his soda pop
(cold drink) bottled beers have an offtaste and it is
variable from bottle to bottle.
It is posssible that the former contents are
contaminating the beer. I know that when I first
started to keg beer ( long before CP printed his
book and these kegs and supplies were readily
available), I was utterly shocked to find my first
kegged lager tasted like root beer ( a peculiar
American softdrink concoction not too popular
outside the US) or some disgusting combination.
After much cleaning, I finally realized it must be the
rubber o-rings into which this powerful flavor had
been adsorbed. I replaced these and it worked
great thereafter.
I do believe he will get a better product by allowing
the beer to run down a tube to the bottom of the bottle
to exclude as much air as possible. He should
allow the bottle to "fob", i.e. foam to flow out the top
a little and then cap it. Doing so reduces the air in
the bottle and will reduce staling. Better yet, I
use a counterpressure bottle filler and it works
great. I can sweep some of the air out with CO2
before I bottle and then the majority of the rest of
the air by fobbing.
Quite possibly his problem(s) are due to light and
he should keep his beer in the dark. I use heavy
paper bags which we still get at the supermarket to
"package" the bottles. Cardboard boxes and the
like will also work fine, The fact that he found that
his beer in a dark brown bottle to be OK adds to
this suspicion.
Keep on Brewin'
Dave Burley
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 16:55:05 +0200
From: CALAMIDA Alessandro <alessandro.calamida@fiat.com>
Subject: New yeast propagation methods?
Surfing the Net, I found this site:
http://www.yeastlink.com <http://www.yeastlink.com/>
There is a very interesting discussion on yeast propagation. They advocate
incremental feed and continuous aeration of the starter. According to what's
written there, if you manage to keep the yeast in the logarithmic growth
phase (not allowing it to switch to alcohol production) you can collect a
much bigger amount of yeast than traditional step-up methods. Unfortunately
there are not many details on the exact procedure. There are many references
to scientific literature, but I have no way to check them.
So, in homebrewing terms, the question could be :
Given a fixed amount of wort ( say 2 litres) , which propagation procedure
maximize final yeast cells count?
(Of course yeast quality and suitability should be preserved...)
- -------------------------------------------
Alessandro Calamida
Torino (Italy)
email alessandro.calamida@fiat.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 08:13:47 -0700
From: "Don Van Valkenburg" <ferment@flash.net>
Subject: Ask not what the AHA can do for you
Or to quote another philosopher
"Can't we all just get along"
The real problem with the AHA as well as most other homebrewing related
businesses is a dwindling customer base. They are just doing the
reorganizing shuffle and trying to adjust to the changing market.
What we all can do to help the whole industry is teach a buddy to brew.
Give a man a beer and he will drink today
Teach him to brew and he will always have beer
Don Van Valkenburg
Brew@steinfillers.com
www.steinfillers.com
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #3096, 07/30/99
*************************************
-------
