Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #3498
HOMEBREW Digest #3498 Fri 08 December 2000
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Digest Janitor: janitor@hbd.org
***************************************************************
THIS YEAR'S HOME BREW DIGEST BROUGHT TO YOU BY:
Northern Brewer, Ltd. Home Brew Supplies
http://www.northernbrewer.com 1-800-681-2739
Support those who support you! Visit our sponsor's site!
********** Also visit http://hbd.org/hbdsponsors.html *********
Contents:
RE: Celis and a question ("chuck duffney")
Lost smoke, My Lactic mash,tropical Wit (craftbrewer)
re: lauter design/FB question/zinc for Graham ("Stephen Alexander")
Smoked beer ("Dean Fikar")
False Bottoms & manifolds ("Pannicke, Glen A.")
Cost of malt... (Drew Avis)
Cost of malt... (Drew Avis)
RE: RIMS Heaters (Jonathan Peakall)
Re: False bottoms (Demonick)
clever move by Pierre (Marc Sedam)
Re: Iron Removal (Spencer W Thomas)
smoked beers ("Kurt Schweter")
Braid Manifold Information (Martin_Brungard)
PBW and copper (RiedelD)
dark grains in mash (Frank Tutzauer)
Pumps (Site Acquisition)
Repost of False Bottom Study (John Palmer)
Sabco False Bottom (Mjbrewit)
Addendum to Flow Study (John Palmer)
*
* Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy!
*
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.
JANITOR on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 00:12:07 -0800
From: "chuck duffney" <cduffney@mail.wesleyan.edu>
Subject: RE: Celis and a question
>From: Beaverplt <beaverplt@yahoo.com>
>My question is this. I've been reluctant to use
>anything but a bleach solution for sanitizing. Call me
>old fashioned, but I was leary of no rinse products.
>After my soapy beer disaster I've been rethinking my
>prejudices. My local brew supply has a white powder
>that is sold as a rinse free sanitizer. It doesn't go
>by any of the names I've read in HBD. In fact it
>doesn't have a name on it and the part timer working
>that day didn't know anything. The stuff looks like
>sugar. Can anyone venture a guess what it is? I know
>sanitizers have occupied a lot of space in previous
>HBDs and I feel bad about bringing it all up again, so
>feel free to pick on me for not paying closer
>attention.
>
>Thanks
>Beaver
beaver, haha. whoooo. anyway. i use the stuff you are talking about. it
just calls itself no-rinse sanitizer. some came with my starter kit last
year, so i figured i'd start with that. to be honest i'm on the other side
of the coin. i was scared to use bleach cause, well, i'm lazy and i was
afraid that i wouldn't rinse enough and end up drinking bleach. so this
past fall i bought a bunch more of that stuff. it's great. i used to
ferment in plastic buckets, got my first glass carboy beer fermenting now,
and it worked great for them. i'm sure it's just as good with glass. the
nice thing is it doesn't sting either. sometimes i find it necessary to
stick my hands where they'll come in contact with the wort. i just dunk my
hands in it before i do this. i did that last monday and i have a bunch of
cuts on my hands; felt nothing. so in short, great stuff. not too
expensive. btw, just to make sure, the stuff i'm thinking came in a plastic
bag (perhaps it also come in other containers), and if i recall correctly it
a brownish label with black and white letters, but i don't know which is the
background and which is the text.
chuck_d
you're not drunk if you can lie on the floor without holding on. -dean
martin
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 19:06:53 +1100
From: craftbrewer@telstra.easymail.com.au
Subject: Lost smoke, My Lactic mash,tropical Wit
G'day All
Well I'm into the christmas spirit well and truely. tapped my
annual Christmas Rauch and the baby is a beaut. Got 38 litres
of this baby to drink and dont think (no it wont actually) last til
christmas.
My Rauch is idea, beautiful nose of smoke but nicely (wait for
it people) BALANCED with the malt and hops. No wonder I love
it,
Still all this talk about lost smoke flavour. Now I have never had
it happen to me, even with six months of lagering. BUT I have
seen it with Kit beers in as little as 2 months, and also seen it
with the use of liquid smoke. Which raises the question why.
Chemistry wise I'm guessing that most of the volitiles are lost
already before you start, whats left is a small proportion of the
potential flavours you could capture
I think this statement bears merit
From: "Ray Daniels" <raydan@ameritech.net>
Subject: Smoke
Having talked to many smoked beer brewers in the last several
years, I have
never found one who had had one of these "lost smoke"
experiences.
According to them, the real determinant of smoke flavor in the
finished beer
is the smokiness of the malt itself. This may be discerned on a
gross scale
(e.g. Is it smoky?) by tasting the malt, but at a practical level
seems to
depend entirely on tasting the finished beer.<<<<<<
Now Dr Pivo will tell you about my home roasting experiences,
and that includes Smoking my own grain. I smoke my grain 3
weeks before I use it and let it air only that amount of time before
I use it. It may be my perceptions, but sh+t, it smells like
smoked grain, not the crap you buy thats six montrhs old.
This I see is the problem with loss of smoke flavour.
Again you can compensate
>>>>Clearly the smoke flavor delivered by malt declines with
age. When working
with a seasonally produced inventory of malt over as little as six
months,
some brewers increase the proportion of smoked malt used by
30 to 50 percent
in order to achieve consistent flavor results.<<<<<
But you are flogging a dying horse. This is just going trying to
make the best of a very bad situation.
Anyone who wishes good stable smoke flavour should seriously
look into your own smoking. Plus you can use different woods
for great flavours. Hey in the tropics, I use all sorts of
Rainforrest timbers, (settle greenies). Perhaps I should call it a
Rainforrest Rauch.
Shout
Graham Sanders
Oh kegged my Wit. Thats the one with wheat flour and lactic
mash. People what can one say and still be modest -
SHIT IM GOOD. And recommend this lactic mashing for a wit,
beats a splash of lactic acid hands down. much
more complexity.
Like me.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 04:09:39 -0500
From: "Stephen Alexander" <steve-alexander@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: re: lauter design/FB question/zinc for Graham
Martin Brungard says ... posting some very interesting notes on lauter
design writes ... ...
<<I submit that there is a minimum ratio of open area to tun bottom area
exists below which, a FB or manifold system will not operate
satisfactorily. I know from experience that the hose braid system works
acceptably even when the grist includes 45 percent wheat and oats with the
remainder Pils malt. No rice hulls. For my 10-inch bucket tun, the bottom
area is about 78-square inches. The ratio of open area to bottom area in
this case is actually greater than 1 if you buy the argument that the
entire surface area of the braid is open area. I am more inclined to say
that the ratio is actually around 1 (100 percent) in practice. That
explains the apparent success in using this material.
>>
What I must conclude is that the braid Martin has been able to obtain is
a *LOT* more open with larger inter-wire gaps than the stuff I tried a few
years back (also from Loews). My dense braid manifold attempt clogged
instantly.
As for the minimum ratio of open area to tun bottom - I believe it's
actually
quite small. I use a slotted copper manifold which is probably under 4sq.in
of open area in a sanke of approx 200sq.in bottom area. I suspect getting
an even distribution of 'holes' into the bottom is a lot more important than
the
area above some minuscule lower bound. Consider how much flow you would
get thru 4sq.in as a single aperture - far more than is desirable for a
decent sparge. I recirculate wort in batches larger than most RIMS systems
can handle (15gal for example) and under deep grain beds including a recent
one with a decent percentage of raw rye (worse than wheat) w/o
difficulties
save one. I must start the recirculation pumping slowly until the filterbed
is
formed. After that full throttle is fine. I've read similar comments from
RIMSers.
==
With all the talk of false bottoms(FBs) let me ask a question of the
advocates. How do you transfer wort to your lauter tun ?
Scooping a 22lbs of grist and 8gal of mash water by hand seems
like a hot, sticky nasty job to me. I was at a friends home the
weekend before last and he was making just under 40 gallons of
1.100Sg wort. I don't recall the grist bill, but obviously we're talking
well over 100lbs of malt. Scooping by hand is NOT a realistic option.
Has anyone explored waste pumps for the transfer ?
If you have a RIMS or a HERMS obviously the FB goes in before the
mash begins and the you don't have a transfer problem. The small
price is that you can't elegantly perform decoctions (which are IMO
nice but over-rated anyway).
===
Graham Sander writes ...
>So many people may not see any benefit with a zinc addition if
>there water is high in zinc to start with. In fact they may actually
>.see ill affects. Micronutrient additions will only benefit people who
>have relatively pure water (like me).
Zinc in your water source is irrelevant Graham, tho' manganese may
be an issue !
In most parts of the world potable water can't have much zinc in it, but
zinc extractable from malt (according to a post AJ deLange a few years
back - HBD archives) ran about 85ppm. Essentially all of sweet wort
zinc comes the malt (and may vary w/ malt supply of course). So why
do yeast need more zinc ? Because almost all of the zinc is left in the
break material ! AJ measure/estimated 98% was lost. I've seen texts
that comment on similar high percentages of zinc lost in the break.
AJ's wort (or was it beer) still came out at 0.3ppm which should be OK
*but* yeasts need for zinc increases as manganese levels increase.
There is some confusion in determining 'optimal' levels of zinc for
yeast, but 0.2ppm is often cited, and up to several ppm may be needed
if manganese is present. Zinc becomes potentially problematic at
5ppm and above.
>Whets a critical level in your
>water. I'm still researching and experimenting, but I wouldn't do it
>if your water is above 0.6mg/L zinc, unless you really know what
>you are doing.
I agree - but I doubt any wort made with potable water and with decent
break is above even 2ppm, so an extra 1/2ppm is unlikely to cause a
problem with toxicity.
Zinc, and manganese and copper (also calcium, magnesium ...) are
metal ions which are absolutely necessary in these minute quantities
for effective enzyme function in yeast (and humans). Zn, Mn and Cu
are all to a great extent removed in the break matter, but zinc most
of all , Mn and Cu in the 60%-70% removal range as I recall.
>But I must warn people.
>Any plant will naturally show benefits with addition of nutrients,
>then it will stabilize, meaning that additional nutrients will have no
>benefit what so ever. Then it will decline as the nutrient becomes
>toxic.
Thanks for the warning, but no one is suggesting otherwise.
All of these ions can be toxic to yeast at high concentration, but the
same is true of sugar ! The point is that wort often (not always)
does not contain sufficient zinc for optimal yeast performance and is
rarely very high in zinc. If you have sufficient zinc then extra won't
help, but ~0.5ppm addition will help in many cases and is unlikely to
be toxic to your yeast. Do heed Graham's point, that more isn't always
better, but I assume you've all stumbled across that life-lesson
in a drinking session sometime.
-S
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 06:52:15 -0800
From: "Dean Fikar" <dfikar@flash.net>
Subject: Smoked beer
I have a great interest in brewing smoked beers. I always smoke my own malt
and would agree with Ray Daniels' post that the degree of smokiness of the
finished beer is related to the smokiness of the malt. However, I have
found that the smokiness of the finished beer definitely decreases with age,
at least down to a certain point. This is particularly true with heavily
smoked beers, in my experience. In fact, the first smoked beer I ever
brewed, an oak smoked Wee Heavy, was actually quite disgustingly smoky for
about three months after fermentation. I nearly tossed the beer at that
point but fortunately held on and noticed definite improvement by about five
months. The beer was awesome after about seven or eight months. So, what
you see (or rather smell) initially is not necessarily what you get weeks or
months down the line.
For those of you, like me, who like a lot of smoke flavor and aroma in their
beer I have found that if the mash smells very smoky to the point that it is
almost sickening after being around it for a couple of hours then I will
usually like the finished product. I also have found that I prefer to soak
the grain briefly in chilled water before placing it on the smoker. In my
experience the grain will pick up a little more smoked flavor than if smoked
dry. I also think that wet smoked malt lends a little richer taste to the
beer and is not quite so phenolic. I like to use the malt within a few days
of smoking it which guarantees freshness. I have not used commercially
smoked malt, mainly since I don't know for sure how fresh it is. Besides,
smoking your own malt is great fun!
If you prefer big, in-your-face smokiness in your beer I would recommend
trying oak. It seems to give a little smokier flavor and aroma without
being too harsh compared to some of the other commonly used woods I have
tried.
I'm looking forward to getting a copy of Ray Daniels' smoked beer book and
reading more about this great style - while sipping on a nice smoky Scotch
ale, of course.
Dean Fikar
Fort Worth, Texas
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 09:39:31 -0500
From: "Pannicke, Glen A." <glen_pannicke@merck.com>
Subject: False Bottoms & manifolds
Regarding the recent threads on false bottoms :
Does anyone in this forum have a RIMS/HERMS system employing a false bottom
and an outlet placed directly on the bottom of the mash tun? Now this is
not a design for those firing the tun directly with gas, but it may be an
option for those employing an exchange coil and/or electric element for all
of their heat. My current design (on paper) has the mash tun outlet placed
directly on the bottom with a fine screen covering the inlet. Since there's
no fire on the mash tun, why would I need to mess with a pickup tube and
potential losses of wort?
Please, if anyone knows of a reason NOT to do this, let me know. I don't
want to ruin a keg and find out the hard way ;-) See tagline below.
Carpe cerevisiae!
Glen Pannicke
http://www.pannicke.net
"Designs and schemes which work out nicely on paper rarely do so in actual
practice."
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 14:13:57
From: Drew Avis <andrew_avis@hotmail.com>
Subject: Cost of malt...
Guys, for some reason I can no longer post to the HBD - I've tried several
times & keep getting this bounce. Any idea of what I'm doing wrong?
Drew
On Dec 6 Patrick from Toronto sez:
>i'm in Canadaland as well (Toronto) and get my CDN two row for $30 per
>25 kg. i don't have to have it delivered though...
In resonse to Wayne, who wrote:
> 1.. I can buy Cdn 2 row grain for about $37cdn per 25kg. or spend
> $69 cdn for Maris Otter. I plan to brew mostly pale ales and
> bitters. Is it worth it to pay the extra for Maris Otter or other
> premium grains?
Geez guys, where are you getting your malt? A bunch of brewers here in
Ottawa go in w/ a guy who drives to Montreal every 6 months or so who buys
a pallett of malt from Canada Malting (10 sack minimum, 20 sack mini-van
capacity max) for $18/25kg sack of 2-row, or $27/25kg sack of Hugh Baird
pale ale (which is very nice, I might add). I believe there's a Canada
Malting in Toronto - you should check it out.
Drew
Try StrangeBrew Software:
http://www.geocities.com/andrew_avis/sb/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 14:13:57
From: Drew Avis <andrew_avis@hotmail.com>
Subject: Cost of malt...
On Dec 6 Patrick from Toronto sez:
>i'm in Canadaland as well (Toronto) and get my CDN two row for $30 per
>25 kg. i don't have to have it delivered though...
In resonse to Wayne, who wrote:
> 1.. I can buy Cdn 2 row grain for about $37cdn per 25kg. or spend
> $69 cdn for Maris Otter. I plan to brew mostly pale ales and
> bitters. Is it worth it to pay the extra for Maris Otter or other
> premium grains?
Geez guys, where are you getting your malt? A bunch of brewers here in
Ottawa go in w/ a guy who drives to Montreal every 6 months or so who buys
a pallett of malt from Canada Malting (10 sack minimum, 20 sack mini-van
capacity max) for $18/25kg sack of 2-row, or $27/25kg sack of Hugh Baird
pale ale (which is very nice, I might add). I believe there's a Canada
Malting in Toronto - you should check it out.
Drew
Try StrangeBrew Software:
http://www.geocities.com/andrew_avis/sb/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 07:01:05 -0800
From: Jonathan Peakall <jpeakall@mcn.org>
Subject: RE: RIMS Heaters
Mike asks about RIMS heaters:
I use a 220v 1500 watt electric element that I run on 110v. This doesn't
get as hot as a 110v element, which is good. If one is going to use an
electric element, I think it is key to make sure you have good flow past
it. My RIMS system initially used a false bottom, which never had great
flow, and I could taste extra caramel and so on in the beers. Since
switching to a manifold, I have as much flow as the pump can take, and
back to normal levels of caramel.
As to using a rotating sparge arm, I tried this, but one has to
recirculate for a few minutes prior to using it, as just a grain or two
will plug it up. I wound up using a simple "tee" return on top of a 5
gallon bucket lid drilled with holes. I also mount the float switch for
the sparge system on the lid.
To be honest, I don't really RIMS much any more. My dough in water temp
brings me very close to the desired mash temp, so I only use the heater
if I came in a little low temp wise, otherwise I just recirculate for 10
min or so at the end of the mash for clarity. I get the same extraction
either way, and I lose less than a degree over an hour mash. And for
some reason, the non-rimsed beers seem to taste "cleaner". Dunno why,
but maybe being heated to above mash temp in the heating manifold does
it. Sometime I am going to try a heat exchanger system that never allows
recirc temp to exceed mash temp, and see if that is it.
And if you have any other questions, please feel free to write me and
ask. So many helped me put my RIMS system together, notably CD
Pritchard. Although I don't use the heater, the system is still an
AWESOME beer making machine. Brew day is sooo easy. Now if I could only
make an auto racking/kegging mahine....
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 08:27:46 -0800
From: Demonick <demonick@zgi.com>
Subject: Re: False bottoms
The recent discussion about false bottoms and wall effects may
benefit from the following description of my perforated pizza
pan FB for a Gott cooler. Note that the shape of the pizza pan
and the fact that the holes are in the bottom of the pan only keep
any holes at least an inch from the wall of the cooler. In the
cool ASCII drawing below, the \o (inside the thick-walled tubing) is
the rolled edge of the pizza pan.
The following Gott modification does not float, has only about 1
quart of dead space and routinely gets over 30 pts/lb/gal, but it
involves a bit of work.
Purchase a 12" stainless steel unperforated pizza pan. Tape 1/4"
graph paper on the pan and dent it every 1/2" with a drill set, then
drill 1/8" holes at each set. You can purchase perforated pizza pans
and avoid all the drilling.
At a boating supply store I bought a 5/8" a brass bulkhead fitting.
This fitting is threaded internally for 3/8". I also purchased a
hose barb with 3/8" threads, and 2 flare elbows. I flared a short
arc of copper tubing (6") and drilled a larger hole in the side of
the pizza plate that a flare elbow threads into. The other elbow
is on the inside side of the bulkhead fitting. The hose barb goes on
the outside side of the bulkhead fitting. There are many other ways to
envision the connection between FB and the outside world. Were I
to do it over again I believe that I would put the elbow in the center
of the pan and run copper tubing straight over the top to the bulk head
fitting. The tubing could be secured by tie-wraps through a few holes.
About 3.25 (cut to fit) feet of 3/4" to 1" thick-walled tubing (Tygon
in my case) was slit lengthwise and fit all around the edge of the
pizza pan. This forms a tight seal with the bottom and sides of the cooler.
The bulkhead fitting with external hose barb and internal flare elbow
fits into the spigot hole of the Gott. The perforated pizza pan with
circumferential tubing seal and flare elbow lays upside down on the
bottom of the cooler and the short arc of flared tubing connects the 2
flare elbows. Everything fits together finger tight.
: :
|<-- Inside wall of cooler |
| _____________________________________________ |
| / Perforated Pizza Pan \ |
| ___/ \___ |
|/ o/\ <-- 3/4" to 1" thich-walled tubing(slit) /\o \|
|\___/ \___/|
`------------ Bottom of cooler ---------------------------'
I'm planning on adding some pages on general homebrewing topics to
the webpage below. A strongly opinionated missive on yeast starters
will probably be first. Cheers!
Domenick Venezia
Venezia & Company, LLC
Maker of PrimeTab
(206) 782-1152 phone
(206) 782-6766 fax orders
demonick at zgi dot com
http://www.primetab.com
FREE PrimeTab SAMPLES! Enough for three 5 gallon batches. Fax, phone, or
email: name, shipping address (no P.O.B.) and phone number. (I won't
call. It's for UPS in case of delivery problems). Sorry, lower 48 only.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 12:22:09 -0500
From: Marc Sedam <marc_sedam@unc.edu>
Subject: clever move by Pierre
Who said microbrewers aren't good businessmen?
Pierre Celis starts a brewery in Texas. Gets big. So big
that he needs/wants a nationwide distribution network. He
sells a stake of his brewery to Miller, gets to keep running
it, and gets preferential treatment in product placement.
HE (yes, Pierre was the trigger) exercises the option for
Miller to buy out his brewery for a quite tidy sum. Gets
richer. Miller (what else did you expect) finally realizes
that a brewery which produces .03% of its annual production
(15000 bbls out of 41 million) is not cost effective, looks
to close down the brewery and sell off the rights to produce
the beer. Re-enter Pierre looking for financial backers
because he "can't do it himself". Who wouldn't want the
namesake involved again?\
Pierre. If you're out there reading this, you are my new
hero. I turn my Belgian prayer rug towards Austin.
-Marc
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 14:41:01 -0500
From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer@engin.umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Iron Removal
Another way to remove iron is to chlorinate the water. This causes the
iron to precipitate as "rust". You then filter it through sand to
remove the "rust," and through activated charcoal to remove the
chlorine. (Which makes me think that it's not actually the chlorine
that is doing it to the iron.) This is the setup that my folks have
for drinking water at their cottage. I am really not sure of the
chemistry, but it works.
=Spencer
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 14:44:17 -0500
From: "Kurt Schweter" <KSchweter@smgfoodlb.com>
Subject: smoked beers
has anybody tried smoking
oak or fruit woods
and then add them to primary
or secondary ?
seems like it would work
just a thought
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 14:36:35 -0500
From: Martin_Brungard@urscorp.com
Subject: Braid Manifold Information
Steve Alexander wrote:
"What I must conclude is that the braid Martin has been able to obtain is
a *LOT* more open with larger inter-wire gaps than the stuff I tried a few
years back (also from Loews). My dense braid manifold attempt clogged
instantly."
I have not had the problems Steve had with clogging of the braid. I would
think that the braid Steve used is the same as mine. The wire spacing is
tight, with only 1 or 2 mm holes at each of the junctures where the braids
cross.
I am curious how Steve was doughing in and stirring. I have had similar
problems as Steve if I doughed in or stirred while the pump was on. I think
there is a strong tendency for the grain fines to immediately get pulled
onto the braid before the rest of the husk can help set up a filter around
the braid. This is exactly the same in well screens that I deal with in my
engineering practice, the soil formation is always relied on to provide the
real filtering of fines from the formation. The purpose of the screen is to
hold the coarser particles in place and for them to eventually form the
filter layer. Because of the fineness of the braid, it is imperative that
excessive grain fines be kept off. Let the grain bed settle briefly before
restarting the pump.
Steve mentioned the success he had with rolled screen manifolds,
aka...easymasher type. The great thing about the copper or stainless screen
material is that the openings are more than large enough to easily pass all
the grain fines through the system until the husk filter is fully formed.
That luxury is not present for braid. The only consequence of running the
pump when stirring with these intakes is that the fines run through the
pump until the filter bed is reset.
Steve asked if the braid is structurally sound. I haven't had a problem
with the strength of the braid or any crushing. I am very aware of the
braid whenever I stir though. I am pretty sure you could mangle it with no
problem if you aren't careful.
Another post asked about the type of return he should use for a RIMS. He
ponders a sprinkler or a outlet manifold. If you believe the arguments on
hot-side aeration, I would never use the sprinkler-type distributor in a
RIMS. The aeration potential is one reason, but another is the increased
heat loss as the hot wort falls through the air. I have always used an
outlet manifold as shown on C.D. Pritchard's website.
http://hbd.org/cdp/rims_inf.htm That page contains a great deal of
useful information. In a quest to further reduce the aeration potential and
heat loss in my mash tun, I place a piece of plastic bubble wrap insulation
over the top of my outlet and mash. The insulation was cut to fit my tun
and just floats on the wort surface. I have no idea if it does any good,
but it is absolutely no problem to use, so I do!
Don't forget to send me your information on the type of lauter tun filter,
open area, and tun bottom area. Several people already have. Thanks.
Martin Brungard
Tallahassee, FL
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 15:03:24 -0500
From: RiedelD@pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca
Subject: PBW and copper
I recently soaked my boil kettle with about 3 gallons of PBW
solution in it. The solution was actually reused from a pass through
a corny/stainless tap setup. I used on the order of 1 TB of PBW
per gallon of (initially) hot tap water.
The solution turned a fairly vibrant sky blue. My kettle has a copper
manifold with a brass flare fitting in it. I'm assuming that the colour
is coming from the copper, but it sure looks like CuS04... this
concerns me. Is this possible? I don't really know where the sulphate
would come from... my water is low in pretty much everything.
So,
1. What is it?
2. Am I harming the equipment?
3. Should I do any special rinsing?
cheers,
Dave
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 15:36:01 -0500 (EST)
From: Frank Tutzauer <comfrank@acsu.buffalo.edu>
Subject: dark grains in mash
I would like to start a discussion about when to add dark grains in an
all-grain mash. (By "dark grains" I mean primarily black patent,
roasted barley, and chocolate malt--not dark crystals, Special B, or
anything like that.) I have been brewing since the early 90s, mostly
extract with specialty grains, but I have nearly 30 all-grain mashes
under my belt--a small handful five or six years ago, and the rest in
the last 18 months.
Looking over my logs, I discovered that I have made only two all-grain
beers that had any dark grains at all. The first was a dry stout that
had a pound of roasted barley and a quarter pound of black patent (all
batches were 5 US gallons). Both were added at mash out and the beer
was very harsh and astringent. Given that this was only my second
full mash ever, it makes more sense to attribute any flaws to recipe
formulation and general incompetence in conducting the mash rather
than to any specific detail like when I added the dark grains.
The second beer with dark grains was a porter using 3/4 lb of
chocolate malt. This beer was brewed more recently in my all-grain
life (in fact, I just drained the keg three or four days ago). The
chocolate was in the mash for the full 90 minutes, and the beer was
superior--a nice round, smooth character with no harshness at all.
Obviously, these two mashes don't give me whales of experience on the
subject. So I put it to the Digest: When do you add your dark grains
to an all-grain mash, and why? I'm interested in practice and
opinion.
--frank
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 14:39:56 -0800
From: Site Acquisition <SiteAcquisition@Home.com>
Subject: Pumps
Does anyone have a good source for food grade pumps. I have a three
tier all grain system, and while gravity is great, sometimes is needs
assistance.
Thanks!
Fermentos@Home.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 16:19:54 -0800
From: John Palmer <jjpalmer@gte.net>
Subject: Repost of False Bottom Study
Background (Manifold Experiments)
Many of you are familiar with my fluid flow investigations using common food
coloring and corncob burnishing media. A couple years ago, I posted
http://www.realbeer.com/jjpalmer/fluidflow.html which detailed my initial
investigations into lautering flow to a manifold. Appendix D of my book
htpp://www.howtobrew.com/appendices/appendixD.html summarizes those findings.
Earlier this year, I rigged up a glass bottomed aquarium with a manifold to
repeat the experiements. The difference was that this time I supported the
manifold about 2 inches off the bottom using stiff wires, and the manifold
only extended about 2/3 the length of the aquarium. The result was that the
grainbed was not rinsed anywhere below the horizontal manifold. The
euclidean fluid flow model had predicted that it would, whereas engineer's
intuition (or common sense, take your pick) said that it wouldn't. Common
sense won out. In the 1/3 of the tun beyond the manifold, the dye showed the
flow angling to the manifold, just like in the 2D euclidean model.
http://www.realbeer.com/jjpalmer/ff1.jpg Initial
http://www.realbeer.com/jjpalmer/ff2.jpg Flow after 5 minutes.
http://www.realbeer.com/jjpalmer/ff3.jpg After 15 minutes.
http://www.realbeer.com/jjpalmer/ff4.jpg View from behind the pickup,
showing lack-of-flow region.
I then angled the manifold at 10 degrees to horizontal, and repeated the
experiment. This time, the grainbed was rinsed behind/under the manifold due
the horizontal component of the vectored manifold.
http://www.realbeer.com/jjpalmer/ff5.jpg
The wort in fact flowed uphill thru the manifold. What this means is that
you can shape a manifold to fit a hemispherical bottom, and you can recover
wort from the lowest point.
The rules for using manifolds can be summarized by:
1. A deeper grainbed gives more uniform flow, all else being equal.
2. The manifold tubes should be spaced no more that 4 inches apart for most
uniform flow. 2 inches is about optimum.
3. Keep the outside tubes half of the spacing distance away from the wall to
discourage channeling (preferential flow) down the walls.
4. The more tubes covering the bottom of the tun, the better. The outlet
pickup does not need to be centered on the array. It can be off to one side
without affecting uniformity of flow.
False Bottom Experiments
After investigating the behavior of lautering flow to manifolds, I wanted to
do the same with false bottoms and watch to see how the dye moved into the
grainbed. Would it move evenly? Would it flow preferentially to the area
around the pickup? Would it channel down the sides? Would moving the pickup
off center have an affect?
First, let me thank Dan Listermann for graciously donating the false bottom,
specifically cut to fit my aquarium. That Phils Phalse Bottom material saved
me many hours of labor and tinkering to achieve an experimental setup that I
could have confidence in.
Experiment 1 - Pickup Centered
For the first experiment, the pickup was centered on the false bottom. The
pickup extended about a half inch below the false bottom, and the false
bottom was evenly supported off the bottom of the aquarium by 1 inch screws
(every 4 inches). The pickup tube and siphon was 3/8 inch ID and came up
over the side of the aquarium. The flow was controlled by a plastic
stopcock, which rested on the ground. There was about 2.2 feet of head
height.
As before, the corncob media grainbed was about 6 inches deep, and a 2 inch
water layer was maintained over it by a means of a sparging manifold. The
corncob media is uniform and about the same size as the coarser grist
particles from a 2 roller grain mill.
At time = 0, a whole bottle of food coloring is stirred into the water layer
above the grainbed, the sparge water is started and then the stopcock is
opened at what would be considered a fast flow rate for lautering. Previous
experiments have shown that a fast flow rate does not change the shape of
the gradient. If I was actually trying to extract something from the
corncobs, my extraction would suffer, but in this case I am just looking to
see how the water moves thru the grainbed.
http://www.realbeer.com/jjpalmer/ff6.jpg
Result:
With the pickup centered, after about 2 minutes of flow, it was obvious that
the dye was flowing into all areas of the grainbed evenly. The dye front
followed the contour of the grainbed to an even depth as viewed on all sides
of the aquarium.
http://www.realbeer.com/jjpalmer/ff7.jpg
As the flow progressed, I noticed that one corner of the aquarium was
flowing faster that the rest. This was a corner where I had not shimmed the
edges of the false bottom completely, leaving a tiny gap. The dye could be
seen to be angling down in that corner ahead of the dye front elsewhere in
the grainbed.
http://www.realbeer.com/jjpalmer/ff8.jpg
Observing thru the glass bottom, the dye did not emerge uniformly from all
areas but instead emerged somewhat along the edge of one quadrant.
http://www.realbeer.com/jjpalmer/ff9.jpg
Within a few minutes however, the dye had emerged from nearly all areas. In
a 9x20 inches area tank, with only 1 pickup in the center, that was
impressive!
I let the water run, to rinse the whole system of dye. At all times, the
concentration of dye below the false bottom seemed uniform.
Experiment 2 - Pickup Off-center
In the second experiment, the pickup was moved to where it was centered with
respect to the width, but was only 3 inches from the wall along the length.
The experiment was set up like the first and the flow was started.
Results:
Again the dye front was uniform as it descended into the grainbed. There
seemed to be no depth gradient along the length of the tank.
As flow progressed, faster flow was again observed in the corners, but the
volume of that flow was quite small compared with the rest of the false
bottom. (I had shimmed the false bottom pretty well.)
All in all, I could not discern a difference in uniformity of flow between
the two experiments.
Experiment 3 - Pickup Off-Center, Wide Open
I completely stirred and resettled the grainbed before starting the 3rd
experiment. As mentioned, the flow rate does not seem to change anything,
but I thought I would try it and see. Maybe I would compact an area of the
grainbed and be able to observe an effect. I ran the second experiment
again, but did it with the stopcock wide open.
http://www.realbeer.com/jjpalmer/ff10.jpg
http://www.realbeer.com/jjpalmer/ff11.jpg
This time I observed more compaction effects. There seemed to be areas of
less color as the dye moved thru the grainbed. Observing thru the bottom,
the dye emerged along the sides first, but quickly spread out to cover most
of the area.
http://www.realbeer.com/jjpalmer/ff12.jpg compaction
http://www.realbeer.com/jjpalmer/ff13.jpg bottom view (badly framed)
All in all, I could not determine any significant difference compared to the
other two trials, except that the observed compaction may imply poorer
extraction from that area versus the rest of the bed in real lauter.
Conclusions:
1. All other conditions being equal, false bottoms work better - they lauter
the grainbed more uniformly.
2. Based on my observations, it is very important to seal the edges of the
false bottom to prevent preferential flow down the sides. I think that if
you can design the false bottom so that the openings are, for example, a
half inch away from the wall, or make the false bottom domed but smaller
than actual width, you will avoid any channeling issues.
3. The pickup tube does not need to be centered. It can be off to one side
without significantly affecting the uniformity of flow.
4. Avoid lautering too fast, as you may compact portions of the bed and
cause lower extraction.
- --
John Palmer
Palmer House Brewery and Smithy
http://www.realbeer.com/jjpalmer
How To Brew - the online book
http://www.howtobrew.com
Let there be Peace on Earth.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 19:40:51 EST
From: Mjbrewit@aol.com
Subject: Sabco False Bottom
This is a reply to the person who experienced problems with his Sabco false
bottom collapsing at times. I have been trying to figure out how that could
happen. The only possibility I can come up with is you had it upside down.
I've had over 35 pounds of grain in mine and never had a problem. Or, is it
possible they improved the design and you bought an early version?
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 16:29:27 -0800
From: John Palmer <jjpalmer@gte.net>
Subject: Addendum to Flow Study
I have had a couple emails asking for this to be re-posted, so there you go.
For Mauricio, a manifold is an arrangement of slotted copper tubes. The
arrangement is typically rectangular.
Like this:
||===============||
|| ||
||===============||
|| ||== outlet (see Appendix D of my book
||===============|| for more info)
|| ||
||===============||
For the record, I still use a manifold myself for all my brewing. Why?
Because I can make it myself, it is strong and won't collapse under a heavy
grainbed or stirring. I can stir thru it to keep the grain on the bottom
from scorching during active heating of the mash. And with proper design
and spacing, a manifold will lauter just as uniformly as a false bottom.
(okay maybe only 98% as good, I am still testing...)
When I stated "All other conditions being equal, false bottoms work
better..." above, I glossed other a lot of conditions that may impact the
efficiency of a false bottom or manifold for a particular brewer's setup.
If all conditions are equal, a false bottom will lauter more uniformly, but
only by a small amount if the manifold is well designed.
Wasn't trying to start a jihad or anything... ;-)
John
- --
John Palmer
Palmer House Brewery and Smithy
http://www.realbeer.com/jjpalmer
How To Brew - the online book
http://www.howtobrew.com
Let there be Peace on Earth.
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #3498, 12/08/00
*************************************
-------
