Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #3114
HOMEBREW Digest #3114 Thu 19 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:
Vortex shedding, Helmholtz coils & Precipitators (Kirk.Fleming)
Re: Malty, oxidized / Faultline ("Arnold J. Neitzke")
Water bath in place of the wet T-shirt to keep carboys cool... (darrell.leavitt)
pumps and shear (Marc Sedam)
Steve's Hypo (Tidmarsh Major)
Re: Early hop harvest ("Sieben, Richard")
over pressure boiling? ("Nathaniel P. Lansing")
RE:CFC in FLA (Dave Hinrichs)
Cat in the Beer ("Alan McKay")
re: Fermometer accuracy ("Kensler, Paul")
Formula for Calculating Expected FG from OG ("Michael O. Hanson")
Bottling pLambic (Nathan Kanous)
Re: Water use in brewing (Jeff Renner)
science of brewing (ALAN KEITH MEEKER)
ugggghhhhh ("Stephen Alexander")
re: yeast question ("Kensler, Paul")
Sourmash -NOT!/Jolly Roger/Reynolds # ("Stephen Alexander")
Re: Praticality (Scott Murman)
Re: Dark mild licorice flavor (Jeff Renner)
Turbulence ("Paul Niebergall")
Barley Wine Aging (Eddie Kent)
The Brew Warrior (MVachow)
die by the sword/ayinger mash ("Bayer, Mark A")
St. Catherines and Buffalo area beer places ("Bruce Garner")
Reynolds Number ("Paul Niebergall")
RE: Dark mild licorice flavor (LaBorde, Ronald)
RE: Praticality (LaBorde, Ronald)
Plastic ball blanket ("BeerLvr")
* 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: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 00:58:01 -0500
From: Kirk.Fleming@born.com
Subject: Vortex shedding, Helmholtz coils & Precipitators
Not being convinced that the expression provided adequately models reality
in determining transition flow rates in my brewing system, I've abandoned
efforts to investigate turbulent vs laminar flow entirely--at least until I
can instrument my system for dynamic pressure.
In the mean time, however, I'm thinking the whole issue can be resolved for
RIMS systems by ensuring protein molecules (but not enzymes) are largely
contained in the main vessel through the use of some sort of electrostatic
filter. For example, might it be possible to put, say, a high DC potential
across the mash tun to ground, I don't know, maybe 150KV or so, and thereby
lock the little proteins in a sort of stasis? Can we get any sort of
leverage that way? How can we get the little proteins to look like
electrolytes, so to speak?
Lately I've also become concerned about the local magnetic field and the
effects it might be having on product. I know normally this wouldn't be a
concern, but I have a stack of worn out golf shoes accumulating in the
corner of my garage, each of which is equipped with those magnetic strip
soles. I know there shouldn't be anything magnetic in my beer, but now I
wonder. I remember when I was doing reseach on mechanical pendulum clocks,
there was concern around the turn of the century that the Earth's magnetic
field could be dorking up the running of our most accurate clocks. It was
suggested that construction and operation a so-called Helmholz coil in the
area surrounding the clock could be used to neutralize the local magnetic
field, and improve timekeeping. I'm beginning to think I could do the same,
to ensure those shoes aren't in some way messing up my beer. Any ideas
here?
Finally, someone mentioned that the transition from laminar to turbulent
flow was influenced by viscosity, and now I'm wondering if specific gravity
would have a similar effect. If so, then imagine the possibility of using
one of those in-line vortex shedding gadgets used for measuring flow rates
in pipes: if you could guarantee that actual flow rate was constant, then
it might be possible to use changes in the pulse rate from the flow meter to
determine specific gravity. Finally, if the AC to the Helmholtz coil were
synchronized with the signal from the flow meter, then you might really have
something...
Kirk Fleming
FRSL, FRSE
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 06:33:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Arnold J. Neitzke" <neitzkea@frc.com>
Subject: Re: Malty, oxidized / Faultline
On Tue, 17 Aug 1999, Spencer W Thomas wrote:
> Another way to learn to recognized oxidized beer flavors is to take up
> judging. Depending on the category, it seems like half or more of the
> beers in any competition have some amount of oxidized/old flavors in
> them. Get paired up with an experienced beer judge and ask him to
> point out the oxidized tasting beers. You'll learn the range of
> flavors and aromas quickly. :-)
>
> =Spencer Thomas in Ann Arbor, MI (spencer@umich.edu)
Spencer is right on about the judging thing, do if you get a chance.
The first judging I did was for a mead comp last year and one of the first
meads had this nutty flavor (that I kind of liked), the experienced judge
told me that it was oxidized. That mead got dinged because it was not
appropriate for the style.
By the way, that nutty flavor I detected is the same flavor in Solara
Cream Sherry (Paw Paw, Mi). I was told that they deliberatly oxidize
Sherry wines!
Live and learn!
_________________________________________________________
Arnold J. Neitzke Internet Mail: neitzkea@frc.com
Brighton, Mi CEO of the NightSky brewing Company
- ---------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 08:12:26 -0500 (EST)
From: darrell.leavitt@plattsburgh.edu
Subject: Water bath in place of the wet T-shirt to keep carboys cool...
I have tried the wet t-shirt, but think that a water bath is better. I first
started using a trash can so that I could lager a year or so ago. Using an
indoor/outdoor thermometer as well as some foam/cloth for insulation on the
outside has worked well for me...one can add ice as needed, now and then
drawing off excess water.....The one problem is that temperature swings can
exceed the recommended 2-4 degrees per day (that I think is the consensus)..
Never the less, I have produced some really good bocks, and pilsners,and
"American" Lagers with this method.
Lately I thought: why not use the water bath for ales as well. ... seeing that
the ambient temp was well into the 90's recently, here in N NY state,
for several weeks, I was very worried about off-flavors due to temps that were
hard to keep down...even with the t-shirt...
So, I purchased a few of the smaller rectangular recycle bins (with tops) and
filled with water. After the ale is fermenting well I place the carboy into
the water, making sure that the water temp is REAL close...but lower than that
of the carboy...then, watching that the bubbler doesn't stop...over several
days I slowly drop the temp (usually with small additions of ice) to that
called for by the yeast variety...
I cut a hole in the top of the cover so that the carboy protrudes out of the
lid..but the lid is one..There may be a better way to do this..but I have seen
that the large mass of water...once stabilized at the target temp,...is MUCH
more resistent to the normal temp swings in the house in the summer (no air
conditioning)...and that keeping near the mid-point of the designated temp
range makes for a very steady and LONG fermentation...
I know that much of this is obvious to many of you, but for those who have
had problems with maintaining the correct temperatures I suggest using
a water (and ice) bath in place of the wet t-shirt. Let's allow the
wet t-shirt to maintain it primary function.....and we all know what
that is!
..Darrell
<Terminally INtermediate Home-Brewer>
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 08:52:52 -0400
From: Marc Sedam <marc_sedam@unc.edu>
Subject: pumps and shear
There is one easily achieved condition that can occur while using
a pump that will result in protein shear--a not totally filled
pump head. If the pump head is lacking significant fluid you
will (of course) hear cavitation, which is hell on proteins.
They *will* denature and could have deleterious effects on
efficiency, head retention, etc. depending on when in the brew
day you butch it. However, even a mostly-filled pump head can
have air trapped in it with necessarily causing audible
cavitation.
Don't know how dramatic the effect is, but it can definitely do
some damage. When, in a past life, I had to pump protein
solutions between tanks we worried incessantly about whether the
pump head was completely filled and purged of all air. When we
screwed it up and left air inside, the protein came out the other
side of the pump mostly denatured.
Cheers!
Marc Sedam
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 07:54:38 -0500
From: Tidmarsh Major <tidmarsh@mindspring.com>
Subject: Steve's Hypo
Steve A presents an interesting hypo, asking whether we would combine
various chemical compounds if such a mixture would quickly and easily
produce an approximation of beer indetectible from the original
product, but I think his underlying question misses the mark.
The relevant question isn't how _much_ science (I'd say technology in
it's broad definition of applied science) is too much, but rather what
_kind_ of technology is helpful. The question is one of quality
rather than quantity. To focus on how much technology can be used to
create the final product is a to consider quantity and product, but
the relevant question should consider the quality of the process.
I daresay that most of us do not brew for the result alone. We enjoy
the process of turning a bucket of grain, a few handsful of hops, a
pot of water, and a jug (or package) of yeast into beer. Along the
way, we use whatever tools improve that process. To combine a few
chemicals from various bottles doesn't improve the process, it
eliminates it. I wouldn't "brew" that way, not because it's "too much
science" but because it is the "wrong kind of technology" for my
tastes.
Asking the question in the form of "how much science" forces one to
make arbitrary and indefensible "bright line" tests that fail under
close scrutiny and forces a false dilemma of all science or no
science. We all use technology, so therefore all science must be the
right answer, but most of us know intuitively that mixing chemical
ingredients is not the same hobby that we currently enjoy. Some might
like that hobby more, but it is a different kind of activity.
With the question of what kind of technology improves the process, we
arrive at a highly subjective question whose answer changes from
person to person and time to time, much like asking "What's the best
kind of beer?" I know my brewing methods vary wildly, depending on
mood and available time: sometimes I keep copious notes, cook cereal
mashes, perform protein rests, and boil decoctions; other times I boil
some syrup with some hops and water.
Tidmarsh Major
BIrmingham, Alabama
De gustibus non est disputandem
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 07:58:58 -0500
From: "Sieben, Richard" <SIER1@Aerial1.com>
Subject: Re: Early hop harvest
Paul Kerchefske mentions early hop harvests,
Paul, I and some others here on the HBD have noticed the same this
year. I live close to the Illinois/Wisconsin border and your results
reflect mine, so I think it's the weather we have had. Yes, my Tettnagers
were early like yours, as well as my Kent Goldings, Fuggles and Bullions.
Also, as you have noted, my Mt. Hoods don't look like they are doing so
well, I see burs just coming out now on them. This is my first year for
Cascades and they are loaded with cones. My Willamettes don't look like
they will produce as much as last year at this point, but there is still a
month of summer left, so we will see.
Rich Sieben
Island Lake 11 plant hop ranch
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 09:49:51 -0400
From: "Nathaniel P. Lansing" <delbrew@compuserve.com>
Subject: over pressure boiling?
The talk of pressure cooking wort and over-pressure boiling made me
wonder...
If a large beer factory has a 30 foot deep kettle, then wouldn't the beer
at the bottom
be at 2 atmospheres? Maybe the wort at the bottom isn't actually boiling
but the
convecting heat would boil the top layer of wort as it reaches closer to
1
atmosphere.
Is this over-pressure/over-temperature boil why they get such high hop
utilizations?
In a really tall kettle they could be boiling at 3 atmospheres without a
pressure
system.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 09:03:29 -0500
From: Dave Hinrichs <dhinrichs@quannon.com>
Subject: RE:CFC in FLA
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 21:45:31 -0400
From: Debi Lake <debiL@sunnyorlando.com>
Subject: CFC in FLA
>During the summer, I have been running the wort from the CF chiller
>through a 6ft copper coil buried in a cooler of ice and then into the
>carboy. It's a pain because it's one more thing to sanitize and clean.
>Also, with the extra apparatus, it's harder to start the siphon since I
>can't increase the height of my kettle. To solve this problem, I may
>have to break down a purchase a pump (damn, now that's two more things I
>have to clean).
Why not run the cooling water though the coil in the tub of ice water
first. The cooling water will be colder for faster cooling and a possible
low final temp. Cleaning would be easier/not required as well.
Don Lake
Windermere, FL
dlake@amuni.com
***************************************************************
* Dave Hinrichs E-Mail: dhinrichs@quannon.com *
* Quannon CAD Systems, Inc. Voice: (612) 935-3367 *
* 6101 Baker Road, Suite 204 FAX: (612) 935-0409 *
* Minnetonka, MN 55345 *
* http://www.quannon.com/ *
***************************************************************
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 09:00:37 -0500
From: "Alan McKay" <amckay@nortelnetworks.com>
Subject: Cat in the Beer
My cats are always around on brew day, and have learned
the hard way not to get too close to the propane burner.
They don't seem to mind the kegs, though, as this
picture proves :
http://www.hbd.org/~mckay/photos/cat_in_keg.jpg
cheers,
-Alan
- --
Alan McKay
OS Support amckay@nortelnetworks.com
Small Site Integration 613-765-6843 (ESN 395)
Nortel Networks All opinions expressed are my own
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 09:38:11 -0500
From: "Kensler, Paul" <paul.kensler@wilcom.com>
Subject: re: Fermometer accuracy
Chris Farley (hopefully not living in a van down by the river ;-) ) asks
about Fermometer accuracy:
"I have often wondered about the accuracy of stick-on thermometers like the
"Fermometer" <snip>. There is obviously a temperature gradient throughout
the carboy, and the stick-on thermometer is measuring the temperature of the
outside glass. Is this temperature gradient significant? I have wondered if
this inaccuracy is related to the frequent claims I read that "wet t-shirt"
cooling can reduce the temperature of 5 gallons of fermenting beer by 6-8
degrees F!"
Chris, I use the evaporative cooling method in glass carboys covered in
tshirts in a water bath. I also use the "Fermometer" brand stick-on
thermometer, and routinely notice that I am getting 5-10 degrees F cooling,
depending on the humidity. I think the Fermometer is pretty accurate,
here's why:
1. The temperature on the Fermometer remains constant, even after I
remove the wet tshirt. If the Fermometer was only measuring the temperature
of the wet (cool) tshirt, I would expect it to rise after the tshirt was
removed and it adjusted to read the temperature of the carboy.
2. I don't think there is much of a gradient in a fermenting carboy, at
least during fermentation due to the strong convection in the fermenting
mass. Of course, my experience is 99% with ales, so I don't know if lager
fermentations are different. Since they are in a refrigerator, if the
fermentation has less convection there may be a significant temperature
gradient between the cold glass and the center of the fermenting liquid.
Any lager brewers able to comment on temperature gradients?
3. I did a small experiment, where I compared the Fermometer to a
long-stemmed dial thermometer and my lab-quality mercury thermometer. I did
this two ways: I filled the carboy with water (no efforts to cool), and
filled with water with the wet tshirt evaporative cooling setup. The
Fermometer was within 1 degree of the other two thermometers (of course,
taking into consideration how those liquid crystal thermometers are only
calibrated at two degree intervals).
4. The tshirt wicks water up and gives it a large surface area to
evaporate. Evaporation cools the water bath. The water bath (sort of a
heat sink) cools the ferment. In my setup, the water bath / heat sink is a
significant mass (usually 3-4 gallons), and I believe it is the mass of the
cool water that actually keeps the fermenter cool, not the wet tshirt. The
tshirt is just used to maximize the evaporation. FWIW, I usually lose about
.75 - 1 gallon of water a day to evaporation (just guessing, I haven't
measured it). When I have to add more water, I always use cool water (65-70
degrees), or am careful to add ice to chill the water bath down. In Texas
in the summer, adding 85 degree "cold" tap water to your heat sink can make
a difference...
What I take from it is this: With my setup, and when fermenting ales at
room temperature, evaporative cooling does work and the Fermometer is a
fairly accurate (within a degree or two) device. Everyone else's mileage
may vary. No affiliations to the Fermometer or any carboy or tshirt
manufacturer.
Paul Kensler
Plano, TX
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 09:48:57 -0500
From: "Michael O. Hanson" <mhanson@winternet.com>
Subject: Formula for Calculating Expected FG from OG
Does anyone know of a formula for estimating final gravity from original
gravity? I know there some complicating factors with any such formula.
However, such a formula would be useful if it exists for formulating recipes.
Thanks,
Mike hanson
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 09:58:56 -0500
From: Nathan Kanous <nlkanous@pharmacy.wisc.edu>
Subject: Bottling pLambic
Any tips on bottling pLambic? I don't have a ton of champagne bottles,
only standard 12 oz beer bottles. I've heard some folks mention problems
with pellicle development in bottles. Any ways to avoid that? For those
that actually make pLambic at home, do you always blend? I've got my first
batch in the basement....tasting quite interesting, if not really sour!
I'd love to have the opportunity to brew one of these on a regular basis to
provide for blending, but sometimes you can only wait so long.
Any info would be helpful.
nathan in madison, wi
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 11:02:10 -0400
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner@umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Water use in brewing
"Christopher Farley" <chris@northernbrewer.com> asks
>Have you considered the amount of water removed from your body when you
>*consume* the 10 gallon batch of beer? Beer production is water-intensive, but
>so is beer consumption.
An amusing anecdote as told to me by a favorite old Chem. E. prof of mine,
Brymer Williams (I spent, or misspent 1-1/2 years of my youth in that
major), who sat on the board of directors of a small local brewery here in
Ann Arbor in the 1940s. As in most towns, sewage fees are based on water
usage, but this brewery tried to get out of part of this by claiming that a
portion of their water usage went into their beer, and shouldn't be subject
to the sewage fee. The city countered that it certainly did, eventually.
A compromise was agreed upon - they would be exempt from fees for the beer
that was sold outside of the city limits!
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: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 11:28:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: ALAN KEITH MEEKER <ameeker@welch.jhu.edu>
Subject: science of brewing
- ------------------------------
Dan Cole wrote (in part):
>To claim that brewers who brew according to rules of thumb, measure
>temperature by their finger, who "eyeball" mash thickness, etc, aren't using
>science is incorrect; they are applying the scientific method just as much
>as the brewer who uses thermometers, pH meters, etc, but merely with
>different tools of measurement (eyes, fingers, etc.)
Exactly! Well put...
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 11:31:04 -0400
From: "Stephen Alexander" <steve-alexander@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: ugggghhhhh
Eric Panther" says ...
>>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.
I think you overgeneralize her. Furfural (or at least 2-furfural) is a
caramel flavor and very flavor active, but these exhibit a great flavor
range. Furfural is also described as almond flavor. furfurals, furans,
pyrone, iophenes pyrazines, pyroles, and sulfur containing heterocyclics
like thiazoles thiophenes etc are all maillard products found in malt.
Some have caramel flavors, but others have nutty, bready and malt flavors.
You find all of these in munich and melanoidin malts for example. All
carbonyls (which includes most of the above and their pre-cursors) are
implicated in oxidation damage. Fix has referred to the double edge sword
effect of dark malts on oxidation in one of his books. The solution is not
to eliminate the flavor compounds, but to reduce the oxidation damage as you
previously noted.
Maillard product flavor descriptions include all of the following and a lot
more:
Maillard
almond: 5-methyl-2-furanaldehyde
almond: acetophenone
biscuit: (Z)-4-heptenal
burnt: 2,3-dime-6-ethylpyrazine
burnt: guaiacol
burnt: furfuryl alcohol
caramel: maltol
caramel: furaneol
caramel: g-butyrolactone
caramel: et 4-hydroxybutanoate
coffee: 2-furfurylthiol
hawthorne: phenylacetaldehyde
malty: 3-methyl butanal
marshmallow: ethyl 3-hydroxybutanoate
nut: 4-heptanolide
nutty: 2,6-dimethyl pyrazine
popcorn: 2-acetyl pyridine
roasted: trimethyl pyrazine
roasted: acetylpyrazine
roasted cocoa: 2-methyl butanal
roasty: 2-Propionylpyrrole
roasty: 2-acetylthiazole
roasty: 2-acetyltetrahydropyridine
roasty: 2-acetyl-2-thiazoline
rubbery: benzothiazole
rum: ethyl formate
whiskey: 3-methyl-1-butanol
whiskey: butyl decanoate
Grain flavors include
almond: benzaldehyde
almond: furfural
bitter almond: p-methyl acetophenone
nutty: (E,E)-2,4-heptadienal
nutty: 2-acetyl-1-pyrroline
popcorn: 2-methyl pyrazine
Don't take the above too seriously - the 3rd level chemical analogs of the
second level may not always may not correspond with the first level term.
The exact mix of flavors in a particular cooked (maillard product) food is
dependent on a lot of factors, but particularly the mix of amino acids
present, and the sugars present. See my 1997 post for more detail.
>the latter generally have cooked vegetable and rubbery odours.
I don't disagree with much that you post Eric, but I disagree with this.
The heterocyclic sulfur compounds among the maillard products are
responsible for more meaty, brothy flavors and some nutty & bready ones too.
Roast meats are an extreme example of sulfur heterocyclic maillard products
Cooked yeast hydrosylate another. OTOH simple aliphatic sulfur compound
like hydrogen-disulfide and dimethyl-tetrasulphide are more responsible for
vegetal flavors. Rubbery aromas from thiazole exist, but this same class of
compounds is responsible for roast flavors as in coffee too. Pyrazines are
more responsible for roast malt flavors and other roast food flavors as
well.. DMS and methionine derived aliphatic sulfur compounds are probably
the flavor issue.
I've never experienced brothy, meaty or rubber flavors from pCooking. If I
did I would also give it up too. Maybe you should remove the mutton from
the pCooker before adding the wort Eric ;^) Incidentally, di-carbonyl
terminated lipids , if I recall correctly, are reportedly responsible for
the peculiar flavor of mutton. So adding mutton to your wort is another
oxidation issue.
- --
Eric was kind enough to send abstracts from some German journals - which I
much enjoyed reading. Perhaps the difference we see in results has to do
with the specifics of the method. I start the pCook unlidded till at or
near boiling and after a 20' pCook add the result to the main boil (for
another 60' approx). Some of the papers are concerned with issues such as
DMS formation and evaporation in low evaporation high temp boils performed
entirely at pressure.
-S
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 10:14:20 -0500
From: "Kensler, Paul" <paul.kensler@wilcom.com>
Subject: re: yeast question
Brian,
This might not directly answer your question, but it might give you another
option to consider: using yeast on slant. I started yeast ranching a
couple years ago, and love it - you buy a slant of yeast for $3-$4, and it
will last you for several batches. It adds an extra step to start up your
yeast cultures, but you will already have to make yeast starters using the
Wyeast smack packs.
Using slants is MUCH cheaper than smack packs, they keep better, and they
take up less space. I really recommend Yeast Culture Kit Company (Ann
Arbor, MI - no affiliation). I usually buy 10 slants or so every 12-18
months. This gives me more yeast strains than I could possibly use in one
year (considering that I use certain strains more than others), so I always
have a suitable strain on hand, and it still costs less than what I would
have spent on smack packs. In my experience, every YCKCo yeast I have used
has fermented like mad - short lag times, complete fermentations, etc.
YCKCo: http://oeonline.com/~pbabcock/yckco/yckcotbl.html
YCKCo sells a starter kit - a few slants and an inoculation loop, with basic
beginners instructions. Plus, they sell sterile small volume starters -
test tubes with 30-50ml sterile wort in them. They're extra money, but they
save a lot of time and effort, plus you know they're sterile. I would also
recommend getting an alcohol lamp - they are a lot easier to use than a
butane lighter...
Hope this helps,
Paul Kensler
Plano, TX
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 11:34:20 -0400
From: "Stephen Alexander" <steve-alexander@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Sourmash -NOT!/Jolly Roger/Reynolds #
Paul says ...
>> note the difference
>>between a (bacterial) acid rest and a sourmash.
>
>I've always made a concentrated sour mash.
Sourmashing is a method used in whiskey production that adds roughly 25% of
fully fermented beer (setback) to fresh wort. This immediately drops the pH
and gives an advantage to yeast over certain other bacteria. I don't think
anyone sourmashes beer.
===
Roger says ... > Steve just won't let this one go,
'Takes two to tango, Roger.
> >>dP = L (in feet) * 0.56psi + 0.43 psi [1/4" ID ...]
>
> Please , you can't say the formula is dimentionless,
I DIDN'T SAY THAT. I NEVER SAID THAT. You are arguing with yourself,
Roger, since YOU made up this statement about being dimensionless, not me.
I have never said any eqn in this thread was DIMENSIONLESS. Your inability
to see the difference between units and dimensions, and between the unitless
ORIGINAL eqn and the PRACTICAL eqn above *with units* lies at the heart of
YOUR misunderstanding.
The basic force eqn "F=M*A" is UNITLESS, but must always have DIMENSIONS of
"mass * length / time^2"". The UNITs for measuring and expressing these
DIMENSIONs can be anything at all. You can measure the DIMENSION of length
in UNITs of inches or meters or lightyears, but "F=M*A" still applies. Once
you substitute UNITs into such an eqn the result is still an eqn but it is
relevant only in those units.
F = M * A :is unitless
F (in Newtons) = 0.069 * M (in slugs) * A (in meters/second^2) :is not
unitless.
similarly ...
dP = C' * (rho * vbar mu .... : is unitlesss
dP(in psi) = L (in feet) * 0.56psi + 0.43 psi [1/4" ID ...] : is not
unitless
Each pair has identical DIMENSIONs. The units REQUIRED must be stated in
eqns with units. I have consistently stated this.
> and then say you
> have all the units there, and then say you need to convert to
> something...
No - I didn't say that either. The units in the term "L(in feet)" IS
stated, I never suggested anything needed conversion. You are the one who
suggested substituting L in lightyears into "L(in feet)". If you don't
understand why this can't work, think apples and oranges, but in the realm
of UNITs not DIMENSIONs.
There is no reason to continue this thread until you read what I have posted
and respond to *it* rather than making things up and attributing them to me.
Use quotes, or state what *YOU THINK* you understand. Made-up nonsense
statements like:
> Please , you can't say the formula is dimentionless,
have no place. Stop pirating my words.
> either way, as I have said, the 0.5psi per foot of 3/16" tubing, sat
> least in my experience.
That is about one third the pressure drop I see from experience, from eqns
and also from practical data published on beverage tubing for 3/16" tubing
at ~1gal/min flow.
===
Mark Bayer of the broken shift key writes ...
>what amazes me is that the guy who made it to 40,000 reynolds laminar
>published his results in the year 1910.
A lot of experimental and basic physics appeared in that decade, and a
couple of years on either side, followed by some big advances in
biochemistry. Don't be too amazed, it was probably a lot more interesting
time in that respect than our current decade.
Mark supplies a good bit of the background on the meaning of *critical*
Reynold's numbers that I had been trying to avoid delving into here. I
agree with his conclusions. Thanks (I think !).
>"the more i re-read this post, the more happy i am that reynold's number is
>dimensionless"
Dimensionless - yes, now I don't feel so alone. Mark, could you explain
concept to Roger. He's too busy arguing to bother to read what I write.
-S
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 11:15:44 -0700 (PDT)
From: Scott Murman <smurman@best.com>
Subject: Re: Praticality
> Once again Mr. Alexander ties to baffle us with B.S. (if you cant dazzle
> em with brilliance.......)
>
> R = 0.00223 ft^3/s * 0.021ft / 1E-05 ft^2/s
>
> R = 4.64
>
> Paul Niebergall
In Paul's excitement to attack and belittle someone he apparantly
forgot how to do basic math. Steve was correct.
-SM-
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 14:42:44 -0400
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner@umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Dark mild licorice flavor
BioCoat@aol.com asks
>Does anyone know how to create the licorice like flavor in dark mild?
There is available from brewing supplies brewers licorice sticks, which is
an extract of licorice root. You can also use licorice roots. Papazian
suggests 2-5 inches/ 5 gallons shaved and chopped and boiled at least 15
minutes. It was also used in historic US porters.
It seems to me I've seen reference to a few British brewers who use it, but
I'm sure it's not common, and it seems to me it was in a stronger dark ale
such as porter or old ale. I haven't tasted it in the few milds I've had.
I suspect it's likely the malts, or malt and brewing sugars and caramel,
and perhaps yeast. Frankly, I've never liked licorice. I did use it once
in a porter back in the 70s. Lots of recipes we had back in the bad old
days called for it in dark ales. I don't recall that it had a strong
licorice flavor - more of a cloying oily effect as I recall.
The Real Ale Almanac would probably help you find which breweries use it.
I have a copy and could look up specific brews if you want, but I'm not up
to going thru all 314 pages and thousands of breweries to check. ;-). I
just scanned about half of it and didn't find anything.
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: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 14:17:31 -0500
From: "Paul Niebergall" <pnieb@burnsmcd.com>
Subject: Turbulence
Once again Steve Alexander tries to cover up his own errors by lashing out
in an attempt to find fault with others calculations. This guy just wont
give up, will he? To clarify the issue, lets go back to the original post
about turbulent flow in a peristaltic pump:
-S Wrote:
>Turbulent flow in a tube is a Reynolds Number RN >2200 where
>RN = rho * vbar * Diam / nu For 20P maltose solution at 20C, 1/4"ID,
>1gal/min the RN is about 5500. The RN will be even higher at higher
temps
>(lower viscosity). The RN will be proportional to the flow rate. For a
>given flow rate, increasing the tubing diameter causes a proportional
>decrease in RN.
The actual values and units that were used for "rho and nu" are left out.
This is bad science and can lead to the miscalculations such as the one
appearing above. We can assume that Steve is confusing the concept of
absolute viscosity (mu) and kinematic viscosity (nu). By using the term
nu (kinematic velocity) in the denominator in the above equation, the rho
term should be dropped from the numerator. The relationship is rho/mu =
nu. Anyway confusing the two terms leads to a miscalculation of RN that
is way too low.
According to the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (57th Edition, page
F-51), the absolute viscosity of water (mu) at 20 degrees C is 1.002
centipoise (cp). A conversion on page F-50 indicates that this is
equivalent to 2.093E-05 lb*s per ft^2. I have chosen water for my
example. The viscosity of wort is only slightly higher (thus my Reynolds
Number will be slightly lower) so this does not change the results of the
calculation all that much.
The specific gravity of wort at 20P is about 1.080, thus the unit weight
of wort at 20P is 1.080*62.43 pcf or about 67.42 pcf. To get the mass
density (rho) of the wort you must divide the unit weight by the
acceleration due to gravity:
rho = 67.42 lbs/ft^3 / 32.2 ft/s^2 = 2.094 lbs s^2 / ft^4 (or slugs
per ft^3 for the unitly challenged or dense. Get it- slugs, mass, DENSE,
Ha).
Anyway, correcting Steve's equation for the viscosity discrepancy:
RN = rho * vbar * Diam / mu
(note the correct term of mu rather than nu)
rho = 2.094 lbs s^2 / ft^4
vbar = 6.54 ft/s (velocity of 1 gpm flowing through a 0.25 inch diameter
tube)
Diam = 0.25 inches or 0.02083 ft
mu = 2.093E-05 lb*s per ft^2
Therefore:
RN = (2.094 lbs s^2/ft^4 * 6.54 ft/s * 0.02083 ft) / 2.093E-05 lb*s per
ft^2
RN = 13,629
Well beyond the 5500 value that Mr. Alexander claims above.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 14:45:09 -0500
From: Eddie Kent <ebk1@earthlink.net>
Subject: Barley Wine Aging
I'm making my first batch of barley wine this weekend and was wondering
how most people store it for aging. I was going to let it go 2 weeks in
the primary and a week or 2 in the secondary and then keg it with 5 or 6
lbs of CO2 pressure for about 6 months at 40 degrees F (finished beer
fridge). I prefer kegging to bottling- any recomendations as to the
right CO2 storage pressure.
Any recomendations for impovements on my recipe-barley wine virgin
here(5 gal batch):
22 lbs 2 row malt
2 lbs. 60degree Crystal malt
2 oz. EKG hops during boil
1 oz Cascade at end of boil
2 vials of California Ale Yeast stepped up to .5 gallon starter
- --
Eddie Kent
ebk1@earthlink.net
Who needs ketosis when it's 100 F outside on a brew day (Houston, TX)!
- --
Eddie Kent
Mark VII Special Services Group
340 N. Sam Houston Pkwy. E., Suite 280
Houston, TX 77060
800-422-9942 fax 281-260-9980
ebk1@earthlink.net
"When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem begins to look
like a nail."
-Maslow
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 15:58:15 -0500
From: MVachow@newman.k12.la.us
Subject: The Brew Warrior
Perhaps we won't have to worry about confronting the philosophical
dilemma Steve Alexander poses in his vision of future-brew. Consider this
more apocalyptic, "Road Warrior"-like vision of the future:
The local brew supply store is a distant memory muttered by half-mad
old-timers as they stand on street corners warming themselves beside trash
barrel fires. "Stainless in Seattle!" one old timer howls at passersby.
Ditto for the Web; not enough money in the homebrew supply business to
attract even the scam artists selling five-year old extract and browning hop
pellets out of their garages.
Cast back to their homebrewing roots, a small band of "brew
warriors" cling to their avocation. They scavenge Pabst extract (back in
production after county after county in the Plains and Bible Belt kicked
Darwin out of the schools and alcoholic beverages off the store shelves) and
supplement with table sugar and corn meal. They grow their own hops and
culture yeast with lab gear pilfered from the workplace; many ferment
spontaneously. They pester local farmers for a few bushels of raw barley
and malt it themselves. No sense in trying to get in good with the local
micro's brewmaster. First of all his label is owned by Phillip Morris and
his contract strictly forbids that kind of subsidiary trade, a moot point
anyway as the micro uses the latest in synthahol brewing
technology--wouldn't find a speck of malted grain in the place.
Using a primitive list serve communication device, this hearty band
of cranks manage to brew beer the "real" way using Rube Goldberg
contraptions cobbled together from salvage yard jetsam. Rumor has it that
they come together occasionally in gatherings that resemble the ancient
phenomenon of the "rave" to share barleywine, Grand Cru, kriek, weizenbock
and other arcane beer styles that exist otherwise only in history books.
Mike
New Orleans, LA
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 14:07:00 -0700
From: "Bayer, Mark A" <Mark.Bayer@JSF.Boeing.com>
Subject: die by the sword/ayinger mash
collective homebrew conscience_
paul n wrote:
>R = V * d/v
<snip>
>Where:
>R = Reynolds number
>V = Velocity of the fluid
>d = diameter of the tube or pipe
>v = kinematic viscosity of the fluid
>If:
>V = 1 gpm (or 0.00223 ft^3 per second)
>d = 0.25 inch (or 0.021 ft)
>v = 1E-05 ft^2 per second
>R = 0.00223 ft^3/s * 0.021ft / 1E-05 ft^2/s
>R = 4.64
reynolds 4.64 is the regime of "creeping flow". imagine pouring
refrigerated molasses. it is not like beer at 1 gpm from a .25 inch
diameter hose.
the problem can be detected by examining the units above, and specifically
the velocity, which is written in units of volumetric flow rate. one gallon
per minute comes out to 6.562 feet per second {mean axial velocity} for a
.25 inch diameter hose. so the calculation should be:
reynolds = [6.562 ft/s] x [.25/12 ft] / [1.e-5 ft^2/s]
reynolds = 13 671.
this is well into the turbulent regime for steady pipe flow.
**********************
still looking for details on ayinger's malting procedure. i re-read brewing
techniques vol 4 number 1 last night and also got a private email confirming
they perform at least a double decoction on the dunkel.
don't they realize decocting is a waste of time? ; )
brew hard,
mark bayer
stl mo
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 16:35:46 -0500
From: "Bruce Garner" <bpgarner@mailbag.com>
Subject: St. Catherines and Buffalo area beer places
I need recommendations for good food and beer near lodgings.
St Catherines area Saturday night 28Aug.
Will be flying to Buffalo Saturday the 28th and traveling to watch my
daughter row Sun AM at St. Catherine's ON so am looking for a motel or B&B
within walking distance of a good beer bar/brew pub Sat night. I expect that
the crush of the world's championships will force me well out of town to the
west. Augusta's Winking Judge in Hamilton looks like a possibility. Any
other ideas?
Buffalo near the airport Sunday night 29Aug
Got to catch a 7:05 plane Monday morning. Need a beer bar/ brew pub and
motel or B&B Sunday evening within walking distance of each other. I've
noticed Buffalo Tap Room and Grill in Amherst and Buffalo Brewpub in
Williamsville.
Private email is reasonable here bpgarner@mailbag.com
TIA
Bruce
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 17:32:55 -0500
From: "Paul Niebergall" <pnieb@burnsmcd.com>
Subject: Reynolds Number
Steve Alexander shows his true side and just cant seem to admit that he is
wrong (and can get downright nasty in the process). But lets stick to the
facts. In my last post I demonstrated how to correctly calculate Reynolds
Number (RN) based on absolute viscosity (mu) and mass density (rho). In
that post I calculated a RN of = 13,629. This number is far from the
incorrect value of 5500 that Steve calculates in his original post (quoted
below for clarity).
-S Wrote:
>RN = rho * vbar * Diam / nu For 20P maltose solution at 20C, 1/4"ID,
>1gal/min the RN is about 5500.
This time I will obtain an value for RN using the kinematic viscosity.
And as you will see, it supports (or at least close enough for engineering
purposes) the value of 13,629 from my previous post.
The following equation can be found in most any hydraulics text book:
RN = vbar * Diam / nu where:
vbar = velocity of the fluid in the tube = 6.54 ft/s
Diam = the diameter of the tube = 0.25 inches or 0.02083 ft
nu = kinematic viscosity of the fluid in the tube = 1.002E-05 ft^2
per second
The value for nu came straight from the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and
Physics (57th Edition, page F-51).
RN = 6.54 ft/s * 0.02083 ft / 1.002E-05 ft^2 per second
RN = 13,596
So I have shown using two different, and acceptable, methods that the
value of RN is about 13,500. All parameter values, references, and units
have been clearly defined. The RN values that I calculated vary by about
2 percent (that does not surprise me, rounding errors and all), but they
are nowhere near a value of 5500. Whats the problem Steve? Dont you
accept science? Why do you continue with the false belief that the RN of
5500 that you calculated is correct? Maybe thats why we (you) should be
discussing the art of brewing and leave the science alone.
Here is another clue in case you still dont get it. The RN values of
13,500 and 5500 differ by a factor of 2.455. This factor is awfully close
to the mass density of water (2.094 lbs s^2 / ft^4). As I indicated in my
previous post, rho/mu = nu. Is it starting to sink in yet?
Dr. Beer
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 17:45:08 -0500
From: rlabor@lsumc.edu (LaBorde, Ronald)
Subject: RE: Dark mild licorice flavor
From: BioCoat@aol.com
>Does anyone know how to create the licorice like flavor in dark mild?
Well, ugh, yeah, pour in a few ounces of Anise Liquor
Do NOT, repeat - Do NOT pour in the entire 750ml bottle as I did. Unless
you are trying to make my outstanding "Smith Brothers" in a keg!
Ron
Ronald La Borde - Metairie, Louisiana - rlabor@lsumc.edu
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 17:51:20 -0500
From: rlabor@lsumc.edu (LaBorde, Ronald)
Subject: RE: Praticality
....(if you flip forward in your text book a couple of pages, I am sure you
will find it)....
You will find it right next to Young's Modulus, no darn, that's for
reflecting glass.
Look next to "Brewster's Angle", no, shucks, that's for springs.
Ron
Ronald La Borde - Metairie, Louisiana - rlabor@lsumc.edu
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 19:42:28 -0400
From: "BeerLvr" <Beerlvr@hrfn.net>
Subject: Plastic ball blanket
Homebrew collective lend me your beers....
I was thumbing through the plastics catalog from my local plastics supplier
and found something interesting. They have a HDPE ball blanket product.
The balls are in the 3/4 to 1.5 inch range and the idea is that you float
them on the top of your hot tank and they keep the heat in. Has anyone ever
seen these things and if so what would the feasibility be for say the HLT
and the mash tun in my 3 tier systems?
Mike Pensinger
beerlvr@hrfn.net
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #3114, 08/19/99
*************************************
-------
