Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #3112
HOMEBREW Digest #3112 Tue 17 August 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:
re: Great immersion chiller improvement idea (John_E_Schnupp)
Re Great immersion chiller improvement idea (RobertJ)
Re: Re: The Zone Beer Diet (t carlson)
Remotely affecting blood glucose levels (Pat Babcock)
re:Making beer / wasting water*Alt hop profile*snake oil ("David Kerr")
Old yeast, one data point (Ed Iaciofano)
BEER DIET (ALAN KEITH MEEKER)
Gott crack? ("Kensler, Paul")
YEAST PITCHING RATES (ALAN KEITH MEEKER)
RE: Malty, oxidized / Faultline ("Kensler, Paul")
Zone again (Brian_Dixon)
YEAST AGING (ALAN KEITH MEEKER)
transition nit picking/jethro's neurons/bent dick ("Bayer, Mark A")
Hose Lenght AGAIN!!#@?? (RCAYOT)
Corney vs. Sankey sanitization (Jeff Renner)
Wet t-shirt calculations (Matthew Comstock)
Sierra Nevada Celebration Ale Clone Recipe Wanted ("Mark E. Hogenmiller")
Nottingham - Fast Start! (Tim Anderson)
Early hop harvest (Paul Kerchefske)
urgghhh! ("Eric Panther")
Diets, etc (Bob Sheck)
Re: Making beer / wasting water ("Robert G. Poirier, Jr.")
Chiller Stuff ("Scott Church")
* Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy!
* The HBD now hosts eight digests related to this and a few other hobbies.
* Send an email note to majordomo@hbd.org with the word "lists" on one
* line, and "help" on another (don't need the quotes) for a listing and
* instructions for use.
*
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: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 03:00:15 -0700
From: John_E_Schnupp@amat.com
Subject: re: Great immersion chiller improvement idea
Fred,
>So my idea for you creative builders out there
>is a water driven impeler to stir both the ice bath and the
>kettle. Just before the water gets to the first coil you have a
>'t' that shoots some water through a water powered stirring
>device and then comes back to the source and enters the main
Hmm, interesting. It'd probably have to be something magnetically
coupled. Kinda' like a pump the where the motor would be you'd
have some sort of stirrer. This might be something for me to
tinker with.
I currently use small fan blade attached to long shaft and driven
by a small DC motor. The motor is mounted on the kettle lid.
John Schnupp, N3CNL
Dirty Laundry Brewery
Colchester, VT
95 XLH 1200
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 08:20:59 -0400
From: RobertJ <pbsys@pbsbeer.com>
Subject: Re Great immersion chiller improvement idea
Frederick L. Pauly wrote
>So my idea for you creative builders out there
>is a water driven impeler to stir both the ice bath and the
>kettle. Just before the water gets to the first coil you have a
>'t' that shoots some water through a water powered stirring
>device and then comes back to the source and enters the main
>pipe. And do the same thing for a water powered stirring device
>in the kettle.
>Pretty chilling,
The problem I see is that in the second (kettle) chiller you're recomending
diverting water into your wort to spin the stirrer. This would dilute the
wort, not a good idea.
It may help with the efficiency of the pre chiller, but you are then
warming the ice bath with the addition of warmer tap water and you would
have to leave enough room in the container to accomodate the increased volume
Bob
Precision Brewing Systems URL http://www.pbsbeer.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 09:39:26 -0400
From: t carlson <carlsoto@river.it.gvsu.edu>
Subject: Re: Re: The Zone Beer Diet
Previously, on the HBD....
"Of course there's no maltose to speak of in beer once you ferment it.
The calories are mostly from alcohol and it takes a long liver
torturing route for it ever to show up as blood glucose..."
FWIW, alcohol can not support the net production of glucose in humans.
It is catabolized to CO2 or turned into fat, which is stored or
catabolized to CO2 later.
I can effect blood glucose levels indirectly, however.
todd
carlsont@gvsu.edu
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 09:50:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: Pat Babcock <pbabcock@mail.oeonline.com>
Subject: Remotely affecting blood glucose levels
Greetings, Beerlings! Take me to your lager...
todd confides in us:
> I can effect blood glucose levels indirectly, however.
Man! That's frightening! Is this through some form of telekinesis? Please
use your power for good rather than evil...
;-)
-
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: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 10:01:08 -0400
From: "David Kerr" <dkerr@semc.org>
Subject: re:Making beer / wasting water*Alt hop profile*snake oil
Kevin or Darla asks:
>The other portion of the brewing process that wastes excessive water
>is the wort cooling with an immersion chiller.
I connect the outflow to a rotating sprinkler and water the lawn. No
scorching, the water cools enough before hitting the ground.
Also, a bit of perspective is in order. Per person water consumption
in
the U.S. is approx. 50 gallons per day - about what I use to brew and
bottle a
10 gallon batch.
http://washingtoncrossing.nj.audubon.org/pages/cnsr9908.htm
******
Jeremy FWH's an Alt? Not true to style, but I have to confess to a
1/2 oz.
Spalter @30 myself. Let's keep this quiet and not incur the wrath of
AlK.
Here's AlK's 1996 recipe:
http://hbd.org/hbd/archive/1979.html#1979-15
I prefer Wyeast #1007 to #1338
******
Sears, Atkins - fat is good? At least Sears suggests some kind of
balance.
My wife went on the Atkins diet a year ago, first meal was steak and
eggs,
side of meatballs. Lost some, gained most back. Congrats and good
luck,
Brian.
Dave Kerr - Needham, MA Brian Daubach for Rookie of the Year?
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 07:36:48 -0700
From: Ed Iaciofano <Ed.Iaciofano@quantum.com>
Subject: Old yeast, one data point
Hi,
Made some beachplumb wine last week.
6 gal. beachplumb berries, 7 gal. water, 10 lbs.
sugar. It tastes better than it sounds, really.
Anyway, the only yeast I had was two packs
that had been in the fridge for a long time, the
homebrew shop was closed. One pkg. Lallemand
D-47, one pkg. Redstar Cote Des Blanc. The
Lallemand had an expiration date of 3/98 stamped
on it, the Redstar was at least that old. Re-hydrated
and pitched both at 11:00 Friday night. Saturday morning
at 6:00 showed vigorous activity and its been cruising
ever since. Both pkgs were stored in the fridge door,
smelled fine and performed normally.
A data point showing yeast can perform well after
proper long term storage.
Regards,
/Ed_I
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 10:56:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: ALAN KEITH MEEKER <ameeker@welch.jhu.edu>
Subject: BEER DIET
Hmmmmmm well, unless you are drinking wort not beer there's precious little
maltose to worry about - unless you are WAY underpitching ;)
Congrats on losing the weight. Don't necessarily want to rain on your parade
but these "fad" diets have been coming and going for years. To be sure, many
of them do produce results - you lose weight, but it probably has much more to
do with restrictions on total caloric intake than to whatever tenuous
underlying metabolic reasonings the author is throwing at you. Suzanne Sommers
was recently on Larry King promoting a similar sounding diet (focus on
insulin/blood sugar) and I was just about dying rolling on the floor with
laughter from some of the things she was saying - much more entertaining than
the 'ol thighmaster pitch. Many of the diet gurus are saying similarly silly
things but their delivery isn't quite as humorous.
The real trick comes in KEEPING THE WEIGHT OFF for a prolonged period of time.
This is where most diets (or dieters?) fail.
Keep in mind that those homebrews you're planning on sucking down probably
contain 100-200 kcal per bottle - about 10% of a sedentary adults daily
caloric requirement! These can certainly add up quickly, especially if you're
trying to "balance" them out by eating sausage with them!
It's mostly not a matter of WHAT you eat but the total CALORIC VALUE of the
food. The old saying about moderation is still a good one.
-Alan Meeker
Baltimore, MD
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 10:32:16 -0500
From: "Kensler, Paul" <paul.kensler@wilcom.com>
Subject: Gott crack?
Brad asked about cracks in a Gott cooler:
"Has anyone else who uses a Gott cooler as a mash tun gotten a crack? If so,
did anyone try to seal the crack? If you did seal it, what did you use?"
For what its worth, I have used my Gott for 3-4 years, and have not been
gentle with it (I have used boiling water for step mashing many times). So
far, other than a slight warp on the inside and a nice brown stain from all
the stout, brown and mild mashes, it has stood up well - no cracks, holes or
leaks.
Paul Kensler
Plano, TX
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 11:54:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: ALAN KEITH MEEKER <ameeker@welch.jhu.edu>
Subject: YEAST PITCHING RATES
There have been questions about optimal yeast pitching rates. These threads
really do cycle - Mort O' Sullivan and Jim Liddil discussed this topic at
length EXACTLY one year ago!
Here's some info I have FYI:
Most sources give optimal pitching rates which aim at achieving from 5 million
- 20 million viable yeast cells per ml of wort. Another commonly cited rule
of thumb is to pitch one million yeast per ml of wort per degree Plato (.004
SG units) giving rates within the 5-20 million range for "normal" gravity
worts.
[Note that these are pitch rates for ALE yeasts. The recommended rates for
LAGER yeast are anywhere from 2X to 5X higher.]
So, for ale yeast, the bottom line is that one needs to pitch about
200 billion yeast cells into a normal 5 gallon batch. How does one achieve
this practically? Well, it will depend to some degree on what type of yeast
you are planning on using for your pitch:
DRY YEAST - Supposedly, dry yeast contains in the range of 5-40 billion yeast
per gram weight (published values vary from source to source. These are counts
of VIABLE yeast so I imagine much of this variabiltiy stems from differences
in the care with which the yeast was handled and stored, etc...) At any rate,
it seems 10 billion cells per gram dried yeast is a reasonably conservative
estimate to work with. This leads us to the conclusion that you should be
using about 20 GRAMS OF DRIED YEAST PER 5 GALLON BATCH. This means using 2 -
10gram packages to reach the "commercial" pitch rate. You could use less if
you step up the dried yeast following reactivation but before pitching. Also,
according to Ray Daniels, good results can come from using up to 10-fold less
yeast - what he refers to as the "homebrew pitch rate" although he is quick to
point out that this should be viewed as a bare minimum pitch!
LIQUID YEAST "SMACK PACKS" - These contain about 40-50 ml volume and
supposedly generate some 2.5 billion yeast when properly swelled (ranges seem
to be from 1 billion to 5 billion cells so 2.5 billion seems reasonable.) So,
if you were to pitch this into your 5 gallon batch of beer you'd be
UNDERPITCHING BY 100-FOLD!! This means either you will need to buy 100 smack
packs (ouch!) or "step-up" the starter by innoculating the smack pack into a
larger volume of sterile wort in order to grow more yeast.
Now, to increase the yeast numbers by 100X sounds a bit daunting but don't
worry, this doesn't mean you need to add 100 volumes of wort! We'll let the
magic of "exponential growth" do the work for us. Since the yeast grow by
dividing the population essentially doubles with each yeast generation
(generation times can be as fast as two hours when the yeast are really happy
and cranking right along.) If we are starting with a swolen smack pack we have
about 2.5 billion cells. Now we let them grow in new wort, in one generation
we'll have 5 billion, then 10 billion, then 20 billion and so on... resulting
in our desired goal of 200 billion cells in only 6 to 7 yeast generations. The
only problem we run into is that there is a limit to how dense a satrter
culture can be grown because of problems due to overcrowding - they will eat
up all the nutrients (actually there will usualy be only one so-called
"limiting" nutrient which will run out first, typically nitrogen if the wort
is well aerated) and be swimming in a sea of waste products (aka- beer!).
The take home message is that it requires several LITERS (or about 1 gallon)
of stepped-up starter to reach the optimal pitch rate. Most people can
probably handle making a gallon starter but usually you want to let the yeast
settle first so you can pour off the used wort which (if you're allowing air
in like you should) would negatively affect the flavor of the finished beer.
Remember also that you don't have to step up to the whole gallon volume all at
one time, you could do it in stages such as 4 X 1/4 gallon steps as long as
you make sure you are getting most of the yeast through to the next step...
USED YEAST SLURRY - Published rates are about 3 oz by weight of thick slurry
per 5 gallon batch or about 4-8 oz liquid volume (approx. 60% solids) per 5
galon batch. Caveats here include:
-There can be a lot of variability in the amount of non-yeast solids
present in the slurry
-Variation in the number of viable cells (due to strain differences,
diffs in fermentation conditions, for example higher gravity or high
temps,etc.)
-Viability can decrease markedly with time post-fermentation
-These yeast have just finished ANAEROBIC fermentation and, depending
upon their state at original pitch and original pitch size, may be extremely
depleted of sterols and unsaturated fatty acids thus wort OXYGENATION will be
VERY IMPORTANT if this yeast is to be re-pitched, much more so than for say a
well oxygenated/aerated starter from a stepped-up smack pack.
There are MANY ills attributable to underpitching, I know my beers improved
DRAMATICALLY once I started pitching decent amounts of yeast. Good luck, hope
this helps!
-Alan Meeker
Baltimore MD (the state, not the title!)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 12:35:39 -0500
From: "Kensler, Paul" <paul.kensler@wilcom.com>
Subject: RE: Malty, oxidized / Faultline
Alan asks about malty / oxidized flavors, and experiences with Faultline
Brewery in San Jose.
Oxidized flavors are generally described as papery, or cardboardy. However,
I perceive oxidization more as a sweet, stale flavor - sort of like really
old stale honey. In my experience, at low levels this sweetness does affect
the perception of malt flavors to some degree - I think my tastebuds taste
the sweetness, and try to attribute the flavor to malt. I think of it sort
of how low levels of DMS or diacetyl are often desirable at low levels in
many beer styles, but at higher levels can be seriously objectionable.
Perhaps the alt was a bit old, or oxidized, and it influenced your
perception of malty flavors?
As far as Faultline goes, I have been to San Jose a couple of times and have
enjoyed their beers very much each time. Definitely higher quality than the
corporate brewpub chains put out.
Paul Kensler
Plano, TX
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 10:41:11 -0700
From: Brian_Dixon@ex.cv.hp.com
Subject: Zone again
As many have pointed out, I did make a mistake on the existence of maltose in
finished beer. Dr. Sears does make the remark that maltose has a much higher
glycemic index than sucrose, but he does not make the remark that beer contains
maltose. That mistake is mine. And someone, can't say who because I'm at work
and my personal email is inaccessible from here, not only very kindly corrected
me on the maltose issue, but also provided information that basically said
alcoholic beverages should be treated as 'fat' calories, not as carbohydrate
calories because they do NOT cause an insulin response. Other carbs in your
drinks do though. This is just for the alcohol portion of it (as I understand
it). Beer does contain other carbohydrates also and these are what you'd want
to balance your diet against. Dr. Sears says you should consume 7 grams of
assimilable protein for each 8 oz. (or 12 oz? my book is at home ...) of
'regular' beer (probably like a Budmilloor), or 7 grams of assimilable protein
for each 24 oz. of 'light' beer (probably Light Budmilloor).
And for the Zone critics out there, don't worry. I don't mind opposition to the
idea. I was the biggest skeptic until 3 things occurred: 1) Two friends lost
40+ lbs on the Zone diet and kept laughing as they told me how they got to eat
meat and fat while they were doing it, 2) A very close friend of mine in Seattle
(cholesterol was 1000+ due to genetics) was put on the Zone diet by his doctor
(the doctor _gave_ him the book and said "Do this! Now!") and dropped his
cholesterol to less than 400 in about 3 months, and 3) I bought and read the
book then tried it myself.
So now I am convinced of a couple of things. First, based on bodily 'symptoms',
the hormonal response to food that's proportioned as Dr. Sears recommends
appears to be accurate (and was verified by my doctor). Send me private email
and I'll explain. Second, all that Dr. Sears claims for the diet occurs as
advertised for _me_ (no afternoon drowsies, alert mind, lots of energy, workouts
show greater endurance ability, and of course loss of fat without loss of lean
body mass.) In fact, if I hit the 'zone' accurately, then I feel almost 'high'
all the time. THAT was unexpected! It reminds me of how you feel if you get
"runner's high" from strenuous exercise. Third, this is a way I can live for
basically forever. In other words, it shouldn't be called a diet, but instead
should be called 'healthy eating.' The total number of calories is fewer than I
consumed before, but not always. I don't believe I'm eating a reduced calorie
diet. I believe I was overeating before and the extra carbs caused me to chase
an artificially created hunger cycle. I don't watch calories at all. I just
watch the proportions of protein, carbohydrate, and fat. And I'm careful to
avoid the fat in red meats and egg yolks. I try to consume most of my
carbohydrate calories from low glycemic sources (vegetables, fruits ... not
pasta or bread.) And I try to get the fat calories from acceptable sources of
fat (canola oil, no-trans fatty acid margarines, fish and nuts). That's it. No
big deal. The book gets into it in more detail and has you calculate the
protein you need each day (to which you add carbs and fats in the right
proportion.)
For the one person who eats the 10% protein, 10% fat, 80% carbo diet without
having extra weight ... I'm jealous! You are obviously in the 25% of the
American society that has a lower insulin response to carbohydrates. A lot of
people are that way ... but I'm not one of them!
Well, I gotta get back to my beer and sausage ...
Brian
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 14:41:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: ALAN KEITH MEEKER <ameeker@welch.jhu.edu>
Subject: YEAST AGING
WARNING - SOME SCIENTIFIC CONTENT FOLLOWS!! USE CAUTION WHEN VIEWING.
The question as to how and why yeast cells age is a very complicated one - a
question that is very much open in fact. It turns out that we really don't
know what actually causes aging in ANY organism despite decades of research.
Part of the problem lies in the fact that there are many different
definitions of "aging." Another problem is that to assume that aging has a
specific cause is a gross oversimplification - the aging process is
multifactorial in nature with many contributing causes. However, the basic
theories of aging (there are well over 200!) are classically divided into two
camps. The genetic or program theories take the point of view that aging is
somehow built in or "pre-programmed" into the organism - that aging is a
manifestation of the expression and action of specific "aging genes." Then
there are the stochastic/damage theories that view aging as a result of
accumulated and unrepaired damage, a sort of "wear and tear" outlook.
As far as yeast go, our brewing friend Saccromyces cerevisiae has recently
gained some notoriety as a potential model organism for the study of aging.
Cerevisiae reproduces by a budding process in which "daughter" cells bud and
pinch off from the surface of the "mother cell." In the process, the mother
cell is left with a permanent "bud scar" and these bud scars accumulate as
reproduction continues. Therefore, one way to tell the "age" of a given yeast
cell is to count the bud scars on the cell surface. This gives you an age in
terms of the division history of the mother cell. An individual yeast cell
divides a certain number of times (usualy 30-40 times) then ceases to
proliferate further and will usually die and lyse. During the 1950's such
observations led to the hypothesis that it was the accumulated bud scars that
were the ultimate cause of yeast aging - that there is only a limited number
of sites available for budding and once these were used up the cell would die
or that the bud scars weakened the cell membrane or otherwise negatively
affected membrane function.
However, this "bud scar" theory of yeast aging has pretty much fallen out of
favor, at least during the last decade or so as there are plenty of good
arguments against it.
So what then does cause yeast aging? Well, nobody knows for sure. Leonard
Guarenete's group at MIT have been getting some interesting results recently.
Last year they showed a relationship between yeast aging and accumulation in
mother cells of what can be considered junk DNA circles in a specific part of
the yeast cell called the nucleolus. One thing that was very interesting in
this work was that they saw an effect on this process by manipulating the
yeast version of a gene which, when defective, causes a so-called premature
aging syndrome in humans. More recently, they saw an interesting effect when
they kept yeast in stationary phase (due to starvation) for various lengths of
time. They saw that the longer yeast mother cells were kept in stationary
phase, the shorter their ultimate lifespans were once re-fed. This shortened
lifespan was not however passed on to the daughter cels. Interestingly enough,
this process does not seem to involve the DNA circles that they had earlier
implicated in normal yeast aging (under optimal growth conditions).
\
So, in summary no-one knows why or how yeast age although it is clear that
individual yeast cells do eventually age and die. Just like we humans,
individuals die out while the population continues on...
Another question that was raised - how many older dead/dying cells are
present in a given yeast population? For a population growing normally with
adequate nutrients and oxygen there will be a distribution of cells with zero,
one, two, ... up to about 40 bud scars (using this as a biomarker of aging.)
Since, roughly speaking, the population will double with the passing of each
generation time, this means that at any given time 50% of the population are
newly budded daughter cells with zero bud scars, 25% have one bud scar, 12.5%
have two bud scars, etc..etc.. down to the oldest mother cells that are dying
off (say after about 40 divisions.) These dying mother cells will therefore
represent a VERY SMALL fraction of the total population - about 1 dying mother
cell per HALF A TRILLION live cells!
Looked at another way, if we started a culture from a single daughter cell
(zero bud scars) this cell will divide producing 2 cells, then these two cells
divide producing 4 cells, then 8, then 16, etc... the population continually
doubling in this fashion. We're saying that the mother cell is going to poop
out after 40 divisions. At this point we have ONE single dead cell (the
original cell we started the culture with) plus a total population of 550
BILLION live descendants. One more generation and the next eldest daughter
cell croaks but the population has doubled again also so we maintain the same
ratio of died of old age cells/live descendants in the population as a whole.
One problem with this gedanken experiment. If the above is true, then why
aren't our viability measurements on growing yeast cultures always
99.99999999999% ? It's because we're assuming in the example above that the
only cause of death is from old age and that every descendant is able to
divide 40 times. In real life these conditions are not true - there are
causes of death other than aging and cells do not always divide to their
maximum potential.
Hope this was useful...
-Alan Meeker
B'more, MD
WE NOW RETURN YOU TO YOUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED PROGRAM ALREADY IN PROGRESS...
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 11:47:03 -0700
From: "Bayer, Mark A" <Mark.Bayer@JSF.Boeing.com>
Subject: transition nit picking/jethro's neurons/bent dick
collective homebrew conscience_
science again. page down if not interested.
steve alexander wrote:
>Kirk writes ...
>>...but I certainly wouldn't expect turbulent flow using a peristaltic
pump,
>>You should. Turbulent flow in a tube is a Reynolds Number RN >2200
>>where RN = rho * vbar * Diam / nu
for this situation, steve is almost certainly correct. in the name of
science, however...
the notion that pipe flow *will* transition to turbulence at reynolds 2200
(my book says 2300) is practically correct; in its strictest interpretation,
however, it is not. several experimenters have demonstrated that the
upstream conditions define a varying critical reynolds number for transition
to turbulence.
fluid dynamicists have extended the transition point of pipe flows to as
high as reynolds 40,000. these cases are only possible with the purposeful
elimination of upstream flow disturbances to a degree that is, as stated,
not practical for the situation we are usually dealing with (the typical keg
setup).
in fact, an upper bound for the critical reynolds number has not been found
where extreme care is used in eliminating disturbances from the inlet.
interestingly (okay, okay...), it is not possible to sustain turbulent flow
at reynolds numbers below 2000, no matter how much upstream disturbance one
provides.
what amazes me is that the guy who made it to 40,000 reynolds laminar
published his results in the year 1910.
***********
i have noticed that jethro g's recent submissions do not include the
familiar signature line. is there no more to learn, jg?
***********
matt is testing fouch's discipline by posting of wet t-shirts and spooge in
his basement.
**********
does anyone know if pressure cooking is used by any of the commercial
brewers? can you get the ayinger altbairisch malt profile with any 2-row
malt and the correct procedure (decoction/pcooking), or is the german malt
irreplaceable? now that i'm back in stl (and medium hardness water), there
will be a dunkel in the works for next spring. i'm debating the ingredients
and processes.
btw, i read on the internet that ayinger does all their own malting. i
wonder if they leave it undermodified on purpose and then use decoctions
during mashing. (?)
brew hard,
mark bayer
stl mo
"the more i re-read this post, the more happy i am that reynold's number is
dimensionless"
------------------------------
Date: 16 Aug 1999 12:57:31 -0400
From: RCAYOT@solutia.com
Subject: Hose Lenght AGAIN!!#@??
Steve just won't let this one go,
"Roger misinterpreted my statement about 'unitless' as applying to the
resulting practical equation:
>>dP = L (in feet) * 0.56psi + 0.43 psi [1/4" ID ...]
how it is possible to make this association when three units are
mentioned in the very line (feet, psi, psi) is beyond me.."
Please , you can't say the formula is dimentionless, and then say you
have all the units there, and then say you need to convert to
something...
Look at the equaiton L(in feet) Times, product , multiply by 0.56PSI
units ft*PSI, then you add 0.43PSI! any clearer now, no probably not!
Your example:
"When I state "your height in meters is your height in inches divided
by 39.37", I do not need to write "39.37 inches/meter" since the
required unitshave been explicitly stated, and no confusion should be
possible."
Is correct, however in your supplied equation you actually supplied
SOME units (PSI) not PSI/FT. I would call that an error of ommission,
or and error by putting units in where you say they do not belong,
either way, as I have said, the 0.5psi per foot of 3/16" tubing, sat
least in my experience.
Roger
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 15:25:00 -0400
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner@umich.edu>
Subject: Corney vs. Sankey sanitization
Brewers
I began kegging in Sankeys in 1979, and Cornies perhaps ten years later. I
like Cornies because I can get more of them in a fridge, but since I have a
10 gal. RIMS and my brew length ends up just about exactly a 1/4 bbl.
Sankey, I keg in them more often. It is my impression based on much
experience that using my sanitization methods (described later), beer in
Sankeys lasts nearly forever, even at warmish (64F in summer) cellar temps,
but in Cornies, they last only months before biological off flavors develop
(typically cooked vegetable), esp[ecially in summer. I just checked two
brews from April, an English ESB and a mild, both same yeast (Ridley's from
YCKC), both same temperature storage (next to one another). The mild is in
perfect condition, better than when it was young. The ESB has off flavors.
My sanitization consists of removing all fittings, soaking the keg (and
Corny draw tubvbe) in bleach water, and boiling the valve/draw tube for
Sankeys, or boiling or sometimes even pressure cooking (autoclaving) the
fittings in the case of Cornies. Shouldn't nothin' escape this treatment,
seems to me. But my experience is consistent - Sankies always have
indefinite life, Cornies definite. Other members of AABG have had shorter
life in Cornies than they'd like (I don't think anyone else uses Sankeys).
I wonder if other brewers have experienced similar results.
Jeff
-=-=-=-=-
Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan USA, c/o nerenner@umich.edu
"One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 12:51:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: Matthew Comstock <mccomstock@yahoo.com>
Subject: Wet t-shirt calculations
OK science-fans. When cooling a carboy using the wet t-shirt
technique, how much water do we need to evaporate to cool the contents?
Consider 20 L of wort/beer, a desired del T of 6 degrees C, a heat
capacity of water of 4.184 J/g C, and a heat of vaporization of water
of 44.01 kJ/mol. I calculate 205 mL water has to evaporate to cool 20
L of wort/beer 6 C. That doesn't make sense to me. What's wrong?
Matt Comstock in Cincinnati
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 16:38:27 -0400
From: "Mark E. Hogenmiller" <hogie@compuserve.com>
Subject: Sierra Nevada Celebration Ale Clone Recipe Wanted
As I prepare for the upcoming brewing season, I would like to start off with
a Sierra Nevada Celebration Ale Clone, so it will be ready by Christmas.
Does anyone have a good all-grain recipe. Private E-mail is fine.
Mark Hogenmiller
Patuxent River, Maryland
Merrimack Valley Brewer in Exile
hogie@compuserve.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 13:55:06 -0700 (PDT)
From: Tim Anderson <timator@yahoo.com>
Subject: Nottingham - Fast Start!
I just can't resist resurrecting a tired old topic. I was one of those
who experienced a long lag with Danstar Nottingham a while back. I
thought maybe it was the very soft local (Portland, OR) water. Or
maybe the yeast just sucked. Guess not. I tried it again recently,
and it took off nicely. It was churning and foaming in about 3 hours.
I think perhaps I was too timid on the temperature of the rehydration
water the first time. This time it was 100F.
By the way, this was a fairly high gravity IPA that tasted so clean
(fermented at 70F all the way through) that I decided to reuse it for a
dry mead. We'll see how smart that turns out to be.
tim
"Nothing but the best for my dog." - Frank Zappa
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: 16 Aug 99 14:56:31 PDT
From: Paul Kerchefske <fritz6@netscape.net>
Subject: Early hop harvest
In a very unusual fashion my Tettnanger has just been harvested,
collected
about 8oz., the most I have ever gotten from them. I have had them for 7
years, last year they were so pathetic I didn't even bother to pick them.
I
still am not doing very well with the Mt.Hood or Liberty.If any one has
any
suggestions on how to improve them let me know. I also have
Cascade,Willamette, and Perle. I can get a pound or more from each of
those
but those other two might be on their last shot. I live between Green Bay
and
Milwaukee on the lake shore. Paul Kerchefske
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 12:59:15 +1000
From: "Eric Panther" <epanther@somelab.com>
Subject: urgghhh!
Urrrggghhh, I feel myself being sucked into the quicksand of reference
chucking... Oh well, gotta go down fighting!
>From Steve Alexander...
>Just for the science geeks ? What odd advice.
You're like looking to me for sensible advice? HA,HA,HA,HA!
>For what reason and at what temp does he consider it overheating ?
Anything above about 106C (223F) can result in excessive thermal loading and
production of furfural and various sulfur containing heterocyclic compounds.
Furfural (one of the caramel aromas) is widely recognised as a staling
precursor and the latter generally have cooked vegetable and rubbery odours.
>It's normal (to about 219F) in internal boiler systems and extreme
>(3+ bar) systems around 300F and even higher are described in
>Kunze and elsewhere. 250F is pretty tame by comparison.
"Normal" low pressure boiling systems do not generally exceed temperatures
beyond the magical Narziss 106C mark. Pressurised, high temperature boiling
systems are very sparse in commercial brewing - this is because they make
crap beer! The only reason they exist at all is so the boil can be over and
done with within 5 minutes and lots of money saved.
>Never. Yeast asexually reproduce in it, cats p*ss in it.
Exactly, ask any chemical engineer. Alcohol is just bug piss!
>From Phil Yates:
>In Kiwi land the men are men.....and the sheep are very nervous. Don't push
>your luck on this one.
Ever wondered why there are so many more happy sheep in Australia? Because
the Australians are more adept at the art of cunnilingus than their
trans-Tasman brethren!
Eric Panther.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 00:02:30 -0400
From: Bob Sheck <bsheck@skantech.net>
Subject: Diets, etc
Check out
http://www.nettinker.com/drmcdougall/debate.html
And make up your own minds.
I've been striving to eat his style since 1986 and
I can give you some good personal anecdotal evidence
of how this diet has cured my previous case of
hypoglycemia (despite my relapse into brinking mass
quantities of deer - Oh you know what I mean!).
Pay close attention to the part about Protein Damage
and the following section 'Calcium Imbalance In The Zone'
We all know what a calcium imbalance in the mash will do.
OK, Enough. Judge for yourselves.
Bob
Bob Sheck
bsheck, me-sheck, abednigo! Greenville, NC
email:bsheck@skantech.net or see us at:
http://www.skantech.net/bsheck/
(252)830-1833
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 23:58:54 -0700
From: "Robert G. Poirier, Jr." <bpoirierjr@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Making beer / wasting water
Greetings!!
In HBD #3111, Kevin Elsken describes how he conserves water by reusing
sanitizing solution. He then goes on to ask how a pump can be used to
circulate cold water through an immersion chiller.
First of all, let me start the same way Kevin did: I am not a radical
"tree hugging environmentalist", but, I do see the importance in conserving
H2O. I've been doing my best to save, reuse & recycle water wherever
possible in my homebrewing process. Kevin's idea of saving and reusing a
bleach sanitizing solution is a good one, and I will add it to my process
immediately.
One way to ensure that your sanitizing solution is up to snuff would be to
use chlorine or iodine test strips. St. Pat's (our favorite homebrew
supplier whom we love to hate, no affiliation by the way, yada, yada...)
carries these test strips. Also, if you use StarSan from Five Star (again,
no affiliation, yada, yada...), you can keep the stuff around and reuse it
so long as the pH is kept below a certain level (a pH of <=3.0, and you
"sweeten" the solution with phosphoric acid in order to maintain that pH,
per the Five Star web site).
As far as recycling wort chiller water, I've been using a small sump-pump
in a large (15 gallon?) plastic storage container. I start out with just
ice in the bucket, and the chiller hooked up to a faucet, then fill the
bucket with about ten gallons of the water that comes through the immersion
chiller. Once I get about 10 gallons of water in the bucket, I connect the
pump to the input of the chiller, add ice, then let 'er rip! It works out
pretty well. I save the ten gallons of water in the plastic container,
then
use it for my next brew session as the strike & sparge liquor!! How's
that?!
Here's something I've been wondering about: Say you're sanitizing your
plastic fermenter (seven gallon bucket - I don't use glass any more, I've
got a scary tale involving a slippery carboy full of water) but you don't
want to fill it with sanitizing solution. Could you use a spray bottle to
apply the sanitizer?? Iodophor or StarSan, for example, which are no-rinse
sanitizers. Would this work?
Whew, I need a cold one after all that!! Ain't brewin' GREAT?!
Bob P.
East Haven, CT
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 00:54:10 -0700
From: "Scott Church" <schurch@gte.net>
Subject: Chiller Stuff
Howdy fellow "Brewsters";
Although, like most questions, this has probably been beaten to
death!.....but........
....how about using a "immersion chiller" the opposite way:pumping/draining
the wort through the (cooled) coil? I know that sanitation would be a
factor, but that would be the case with a counter flow chiller also.
I use a CF Chiller at the present, but live in Florida and have extremely
warm water. It take a long time, with a lot of water to cool the wort.(and
it's not even that cool)
I've thought about pre and post chilling, but quite frankly I'm not that
fond of the whole CFC process. Lot of waste and somewhat of an inconvenience
for me in my SMALL apartment.(little bit of a mess now and then also)
It just seems (and I do not pretend to be a science expert) that there would
be a large supply of cold water in a bucket of ICE/WATER...? ....and if you
stirred it?
I haven't tried this (because I'm sure some of you brewsters already have)
for myself. Was hoping to get some advise.( no sense in wasting $)
Scott Church
Somewhere in Tampa, Fl.
"Armed & Hammered"
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #3112, 08/17/99
*************************************
-------
