Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #3204
HOMEBREW Digest #3204 Sat 25 December 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:
A Very Merry Christmas! (Pat Babcock)
Mixers ("Mr. Joy Hansen")
Re: Scotch Ale (KMacneal)
The extraction efficiency(EE) can'o worms ("Stephen Alexander")
S.G. Formulas (AJ)
Efficiency. (Dave Burley)
Yeast Culturing Glassware (Pat Babcock)
RIMS vs mixing ("Jack Schmidling")
re: RIMS woes (The Holders)
Happy Holidays (ThE GrEaT BrEwHoLiO)
("Bridges, Scott")
* Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy!
*
*** HAPPY HOLIDAYS TO YOU AND YOURS! ***
*
>> Note: The HBD server will be shut down 12/31
>> through 1/1/00. Yes, we're Y2K compliant -
>> that's not what we're concerned over...
>>
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 FROM THE E-MAIL
ACCOUNT YOU WISH TO HAVE SUBSCRIBED OR UNSUBSCRIBED!!!**
IF YOU HAVE SPAM-PROOFED your e-mail address, you cannot subscribe to
the digest as we canoot reach you. We will not correct your address
for the automation - that's your job.
The HBD is a copyrighted document. The compilation is copyright
HBD.ORG. Individual postings are copyright by their authors. ASK
before reproducing and you'll rarely have trouble. Digest content
cannot be reproduced by any means for sale or profit.
More information is available by sending the word "info" to
req@hbd.org.
JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 1999 16:01:05 -0500
From: Pat Babcock <pbabcock@hbd.org>
Subject: A Very Merry Christmas!
Greetings, Beerlings! Take me to your lager!
A fine and merry Christmas to all of you! I really appreciate those that
participate in the HBD to provide or ask for help to/from the other
subscribers here, or simply to provide new and interesting information.
Without your interaction, there'd be little point to this publication.
As we're out celebrating this holiday season, let's do so responsibly.
Please do not drink and drive. Get or be a designated driver - a toe-tag is
just as horrible of a gift to give as it must be to receive. As brewers,
lets set an example for those that don't understand that the point of
alcoholic beverages is to enjoy them and the company that enjoys them with
us - not to get "trashed".
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you all!
-
See ya!
Pat Babcock in SE Michigan pbabcock@hbd.com
Home Brew Digest Janitor janitor@hbd.org
HBD Web Site http://hbd.org
The Home Brew Page http://hbd.org/pbabcock/
"Just a cyber-shadow of his former brewing self..."
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 1999 02:28:16 -0500
From: "Mr. Joy Hansen" <joytbrew@patriot.net>
Subject: Mixers
Scholz, Richard posted recently: . . . .<>
I thought I would try cobbling together a mash mixer of my own. I'll start
with a gear motor, rated at 50 ft/lbs torque at 3rpm connected to a paddle
of some type. . . . .
Hi Richard and HBDers,
I'm somewhat amused at the resistance of participants of HBD to accept the
result of experience gained by "home brewers"? Speaking specifically of the
several posts I've made to the HBD concerning a mash/mix motor that has
sufficient torque and low speed to handle any mash duty. I like to tinker
with gadgets; however, I try not to reinvent the wheel with every project.
This geared motor only develops 13 foot pounds of torque if I've calculated
properly? H&R Co. sales 1-800-848-8001. The Reversible super hi torque
(2500 oz/in at 3.3 rpm) part number TM96MTR2940 @ $69.95 does the job. The
shaft diameter is 1/2 inch by 3/4 inch long with a keyway for locking an
adaptor. The unit is used, but in good condition. Where a problem
developed with the unit a brewing associate ordered, H&R replaced the
defective unit without hesitation!
Joy"T"Brew
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 1999 07:16:42 EST
From: KMacneal@aol.com
Subject: Re: Scotch Ale
In a message dated 12/24/1999 12:18:51 AM Eastern Standard Time, "Brian
Dixon" <briandixon@home.com> writes:
<< Willy Warmer Wee Heavy, 140-Shilling Scotch Ale
(Brian Dixon)
OG: 1.110
FG: 1.042 (approx. abv 9%)
>>
Congratulations, Brian. How was your carbonation level? I've brewed Scotch
ales at this OG a couple of times and haven't been able to get them to
carbonate.
Thanks,
Keith MacNeal
Worcester, MA
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 1999 07:21:25 -0500
From: "Stephen Alexander" <steve-alexander@ieee.org>
Subject: The extraction efficiency(EE) can'o worms
I posted in detail on extraction efficiency way back in HBD#2585 & #2594.
There are two interrelated questions here - ?HOW? do we measure extraction
efficiency(EE) and ?WHY? do we want to measure it.
To measure extract (or some proxy), one typically measures gravity, volume
and temperature and then perhaps using a Plato table performs a calculation
of extraction. Of course there are several problems. HBers may measure
gravity with a hydrometer that has only 0.001 resolution and isn't traceably
to a standard. - you have a ~2.5% error in the cards and maybe 5% or
greater. Volume - does anyone measure wort volume to 2% accuracy ?
Doubtful. At least the thermometer used needn't be very accurate to get a
decent measure. It's iconoclastic, but Plato is NOT the right table for
measuring wort solids vs gravity. The Plato table only is truly accurate for
cane sugar dissolved in pure water. Wort isn't cane sugar. There should be
(but isn't) a Plato-like table for wort. Add another couple percent error.
The calculation - we all know that measuring SG requires a temperature
correction, but how many of us bother to correct our wort volume measure for
temperature ? 10 gallons of wort in the boiler will shrink to 9.6 gallons
in the fermentor- another 2-4% percent error. Of course whether the
measurement is made in the kettle or the fermentor is also an issue since
extract is lost in the break and wort in the hops.
Surveying the above an HBers would be doing well to keep the error to 5% !
- --
Once an extraction estimate is obtained one can compare it with several
things in order to create an EE measure. They all boil down to (sic)
measuring the EE of the entire process, or alternatively of just some part
of the process. For example if we compare the extracted mass vs the mass of
the grist - then we must realize that the result will vary if *either* the
malt bill or the brewing process & hardware change. To attribute the impact
of changed to one we must hold the others constant. An example of a
measure of just part of the process would be a 'brewhouse efficiency'
calculation which compares the extract mass of the wort with the vector sum
of the malt-bill masses and their respective "analytic yields". For example
adding up the 37pt-gal/lb for pale malt and 32 pt-gal/lb for crystal etc ...
Comparing overall system EE has the advantage of being relatively simple,
but since we HBers don't brew from the same malt bill time after time its
value is limited. I believe the brewhouse efficiency, tho' more tedious to
calculate is generally more valuable. The drawback is that "analytic
extract" figures are not available for all malts, and certainly not
available for pumpkin or raspberries.
=====================
Some further comments on calculation ...
>I agree! I would like to suggest that you all throw away the
>pts/pound/gallon, and adopt the metric Degrees (Miag?) / Litre / Kilogram.
>That way I could use programs like Promash with a bit more confidence!
I called for the metric conversion long ago. Would be nice but isn't going
to happen. You must simply do the conversion. Pro publications measure
extract as degree-liter/kilogram, where degree is 0.001SG the same as
HBer's "point" of gravity. To convert from pt-gal/lb to deg-L/kg just
multiply by the conversion factors for the lb->kb and L->gal. that is
8.34540. Never heard of Miag except as the brand name of an old standard
lab grist mill. And deg/L/kg must be a typo - can be deg-L/kg or deg/kg/L.
==========
John T. and others write to say writes :
>Maltsters usually give an extract percentage based on some combination of
>coarse and fine grind lab yield . . . or give both FG and CG and [...]
Right - but their method is nothing like a real mashing&lauter. Distilled
water on 50gm of grist, no pH adjustment and the water in the test is 2 to 4
(ASBC/EBC) times greater than you'd find in an HB book. They compare the
results with the DRY weight of the grist - which removes 2 to 5% moisture
from the calculation. Still it is a 'standardized' method and the figures
for fine extract for a pale malt are similar to those seen in commercial
brewing ~80% of mass. Another gotcha is that using these lab extraction
methods in non-enzymatic malt (crystal for example) means that there are no
enzymes in the lab mash! Not a very realistic measure of what you will get
from the 1lb of crystal in your pale ale mash. Perhaps that's why lab
extract figures for non-enzymatic malts are rare.
============
AJ writes ...
>I haven't seen anyone use this system recently
>but always suspect it is being used when I see claims of 80% and higher.
I once got 80.2% from a decoction - but the method involves oversparging and
wasting a lot of time. 80% mass extraction on a HB scale isn't impossible,
just foolish.
============
Ignoring that Plato is really only valid for a cane sugar solution, and that
pounds are not mass (but proportional to mass in my neighborhood) ...
As AJ deLange noted (paraphrased)
EEm = Mass Extraction Efficiency
P = plato measure of wort = (percent of wort mass estimated to be solute).
V = volume measure of wort
Muw = mass of a unit volume of water
Mg = mass of grist
SG = specific gravity of wort.
EEm = P/100 * Mass_of_Wort / Mg
EEm = P/100 * SG * V * Muw / Mg
====
How does a pt-gal/lb or a deg-L/kg relate to the extract mass above ? If
you divide the pt-gal/lb figure by the number of gravity points derived from
cane sugar (46.15 pt-gal/lb or 385.15 deg-L/kg) you will have very nearly
the same efficiency number (which I will call EEg). There is a small but
real difference 'tween EEm and EEg. I'll spare you the gory analysis except
to say the EEg figure appears to stay within 0.5% relative error of EEm from
1.017SG to over 1.200 SG wort. In the normal brewing gravity range
(1.040-1.060) the error is much smaller.
To get 'points' or 'degrees' of gravity use ((SG-1)*1000)
This new extract efficiency measure is:
EEg = (gravity_points) * V / (Mg * (46.15pt-gal/lb))
EEg = ((SG-1.0)*1000) * V / (Mg * (46.15pt-gal/lb))
Consider the example AJ posted ...
>Your collected specific gravity of 1.042 corresponds to [...] . Seven
>gallons of [...] total of 11.5 pounds of grain
>that's 6.37/11.5 = 0.554 or 55.4%
EEg = ( 42pts * 7gal) / (11.5 lbs * 46.15 pt-gal/lb) = 0.5539 or 55.39%
efficiency.
There is one constant to remember (46.15) and you should know that one
anyway from the contribution of sugar to SG. Note the lack of third order
polynomials approximating the Plato table. If you are looking for a mass EE
calculation which keeps you well within the error bounds of HB measurements,
then points times gallons / grist mass * 46.15 is very hard to beat.
-S
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 1999 14:32:56 +0000
From: AJ <ajdel@mindspring.com>
Subject: S.G. Formulas
Kevin asks about the differences between two formulae for conversion of
s.g. to Plato. There are many reasons why there may be differences
depending on the original tabulated data that the fitting artist used
and the methods he used to do the fit. The Noonan formula
P = -616.868 + 1111.14*SG - 630.272*SG^2 + 135.997*SG^3
was clearly derived from the ASBC tables from which I get
P = -616.989 + 1111.488*SG - 630.606*SG^2 + 136.10305*SG^3.
when I do a straight mmse fit. The differences between the two sets of
coefficients result in an average difference of 0.00033P over the range
of sg 1.000 to 1.080. A straight third order fit to the ASBC tables
results in a peak residual of 0.0038P at sg =1.000. At SG's above about
1.004, the residual generally stays below 0.001P (the rms value is
0.0006) and is due as much to the quantization in the tables (how much
accuracy do we need?) as the nature of the data. Another analyst
looking at this same data might decide he wants to suppress the error
below 1P which he can do at the expense of slightly higher residual at
higher values of sg. He does this by "weighting" the low sg data more
heavily than the rest of the data before entering the fitting algorithm.
It is this kind of manipulation that leads to small differences in the
coefficients.
The other formula
P = -676.67 + 1286.4*SG - 800.47*SG^2 + 190.74*SG^3
is of unknown provenance. It disagrees with the ASBC data by as much as
0.08P at the 20P levels with the error decreasing linearly with SG down
to the few thousandths level at low (near 1) s.g. Thus this formula must
have come from some other data set or from an improper fit to the ASBC
set (things like the implementation of the fitting algorithm, the
precision of the arithmetic used and so on) can have a profound effect
on the coefficients especially if the Vandermond matrix is ill
conditioned (which it is here because all the specific gravities are
near 1 - its better to fit against sg "points").
- --
A. J. deLange
Numquam in dubio, saepe in errore.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 1999 10:45:04 -0500
From: Dave Burley <Dave_Burley@compuserve.com>
Subject: Efficiency.
Brewsters:
Stephen Ross takes the position that efficiency
is not his goal in homebrewing, but flavor is.
I basically agree with this mindset, but
efficiency is also a measure of consistency
in a way, which should be a goal of brewers.
If your efficiency is varying or low then also you
are likely not consistent. I think both flavor AND
efficiency are important.
- --------------------------------------
Merry Christmas!
Keep on Brewin'
Dave Burley
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 1999 15:50:43 -0500
From: Pat Babcock <pbabcock@hbd.org>
Subject: Yeast Culturing Glassware
Greetings, Beerlings! Take me to your lager...
Just had to share the great deal on Erlenmeyer flasks and beakers (as well
as other glassware) I found on the net: go to www.indigo.com. I bought a
case (6) of 2 liter Erlenmeyers and another case (4) of 2 liter beakers.
The case of Erlenmeyers was $40.50 or $6.75 ea; the beakers were $28.80 or
$7.20 ea. Shipping for the lot of them was $8.47.
How's this: Indigo's 2 l flasks are $13.50 for one or 40.50 for 6 compared
to St. Patrick's $24.75 for one! Compare Williams Brewing's $9.90 1 l
flask to Indigos $7.50 for one or 6 for 22.50.
As for the glassware itself, they are Bomex - a Pyrex lookalike - and the
Erlenmeyers have a nice, heavy square lip. Looks like they may be Chinese
or Taiwanese from the looks of them - similar quality as what I've bought
from American Science and Surplus ("Chinex"). Admissably, the flasks I've
purchased from Williams are superior quality - no waves or wrinkles in the
glass surface - but we do not require high quality galssware in our labs.
The "Chinex" I bought from American Science and Surplus four years ago (2 -
1.5 l, 4 500 ml Erlenmeyersl, two graduated cylinders and several test
tubes) is still serving me today - after having been boiled, autoclaved,
frozen, bounced, neglected and abused. All of them are still kicking
around.
Upon arrival - a mere two days after shipping - one Erlenmeyer was broken
in the case. An e-mail note to info@Indigo.com, and a replacement is on the
way - they seem to be very easy to work with, and, through my brief
exposure, they treat you the way a customer hopes to be treated - a
friendly thank you for the order with an indicatrion as to when it will
ship, and a quick, positive response to my complaint of broken glassware!
BTW: For the science teachers among you, this seems to be their business -
all kinds of science lab kind of stuff...
I've found *MY* culturing glassware source. Give them a try! (Wonder if
they have magnetic stirrers?)
Oh! And MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!
-
See ya!
Pat Babcock in SE Michigan pbabcock@hbd.com
Home Brew Digest Janitor janitor@hbd.org
HBD Web Site http://hbd.org
The Home Brew Page http://hbd.org/pbabcock/
"Just a cyber-shadow of his former brewing self..."
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 1999 09:45:44 -0600
From: "Jack Schmidling" <arf@mc.net>
Subject: RIMS vs mixing
From: Jonathan Peakall <jpeakall@mcn.org>
>Maybe we hear most about RIMS problems because this is a forum where people
seek advice. Those whose RIMS work well probably don't post. My RIMS works
great. I get good flow rate, no scorching, no stuck mashes.
I am sure Rube loved all his gizzmos too and most of the responses simply
corroborate my opinion that there are lots of Rubes around. Nothing wrong with
that nor was that the point of my posting.
It is sort of one of those "periodic postings" for the purpose of keeping things
in perspective for new comers to the forum. Maybe someday Kurt Swanson will add
it to the faqs and I will fade off into the sunset.
>While I have very much enjoyed the learning/building process of my RIMS,
and feel that I have a better understanding of brewing for it, it has done
much more for me than just being Rube Goldberg. I can really make the same
beer again and again, or fine tune a recipe, changing it only slightly......
Well, after 20 or more years of brewing, I have found that changing things
slighty never has a noticeable effect on the final product so that is not a
very strong selling point.
>Where I brew, ambient temps vary widely, and the temp/liter tables for
dough in never worked for me. I always wound up adding cold water to bring
the temp down, or decocting to bring it up, stirring madly all the while.
Seems to me you are comparing simple infusion mashing with RIMS and this is not
a valid comparison to kettle mashing with a mixer. I can make the same subtle
changes to temperature profile as a RIMS and frankly, I have more confidence in
the actual temperature of the total mash doing it my way. Sure, I don't have
controllers with tenth degree cuttoff but neither do I believe that entire mash
temp can be controlled to any such accuracy or even as well as with a mixer.
Furthermore, if you can tell the difference in a beer by changing a temp by a
degree or two than you will never be happy with anything but RIMS. It's a bit
like trying to convince folks they do not need to adjust a mill or use a wort
chiller.
>>Mashing in an inslulated cooler requires no stirring but you
>>are stuck with one mash temperature and complicated step mashing/resting
>>is >impossible.
>I do step mashes all the time, Jack......
I think something got taken out of context there. I was comparing infusion
mashing in a cooler with kettle mashing. Nothing to do with rims.
One other use for the mixer approach was demonstrated last night with the debut
of my MILKMIXER (R). This is a scaled down version of the MIXMASER (R) and
takes all the drudgery out of pasturinzing milk for cheese making. It takes
about 35 minutes to heat 4 gallons of milk to 148F on my stove and stirring
constantly is not an option and it is a real pain.
I am sure one could do it RIMS fashion and spend six months perfecting it but
this worked the first time and aside from the gear motor, cost nearly nothing.
js
PHOTO OF THE WEEK http://user.mc.net/arf/weekly.htm
HOME: Beer, Cheese, Astronomy, Videos http://user.mc.net/arf
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 1999 10:56:42 -0800
From: The Holders <zymie@sprynet.com>
Subject: re: RIMS woes
Jack Schmidling says:
"In a few hours and at a fraction of the cost, one can make a MIXMASHER
http://user.mc.net/arf/mix.htm which takes all the tedium out of kettle
mashing
and have a system that does everything a RIMS is supposed to do and
actually
work the very first time."
Gee, I guess you go run errands while doing a step mash just like I do.
Way to go Jack!
Wayne Holder AKA Zymie
Long Beach CA
http://zymico.web.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 1999 11:34:00 -0800 (PST)
From: ThE GrEaT BrEwHoLiO <skotrat@yahoo.com>
Subject: Happy Holidays
Happy Holidays to everyone here on the HBD list.
May your beer be perfect all year!
C'ya!
-Scott
=====
ThE-HoMe-BrEw-RaT
Scott Abene <skotrat@mediaone.net>
http://www.skotrat.com (the Homebrew "Beer Slut" page)
"The More I know about beer politics, The more I wish I made 120k"
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 1999 15:14:54 -0500
From: "Bridges, Scott" <ScottBridges@sc.slr.com>
Subject:
Jim says:
>> My doctor flat out stated it was impossible to drink
>> beer and lose weight. I didn't press him on whether
>> it was a metabolic problem where alcohol interferes
>> with the metabolization of fat and ketones as you
>> state, or would it be just a problem keeping
>> total calories down.
Then Pat says:
>Your doctor is apparently a yutz. I lost over 30 pounds last October
>through December. Kept it off, too. And could stand to lose another 20 or
>so. Anyway, you think I stopped drinking beer? Nope - not this kid.
>
>Now, I'm not sticking up for any "beer diet" or carbo-diet or whatever type
>of diet is lurking about these days, but I do know that I lost the weight
>whilst still enjoying my beers to my usualy level and degree. And there was
>nothing wrong with me to cause me to lose the weight in spite of the beer
>consumption. I simply thought I was too fat, so I cut back on the munchies
>and picked up on the exercise a tad. And I drank beer and lost weight.
I have to agree with Pat. From last Jan to late summer, I lost 20 lbs. I
wasn't terribly obese, but just felt that I was a little larger than I
wanted to be. I altered my diet a little and started working out a bunch.
I run, bike and/or lift about 5 days a week. Still drinking around the same
amount of beer. Personally, I think (QDA) that exercise is the key to
losing weight. In my case it seems to be much more important than whether I
diet (with or without alcohol).
Happy Holidays, and may Santa Claus fill your stockings with brewing toys!
Scott
Brewing in Columbia, SC
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #3204, 12/25/99
*************************************
-------
