Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #3496
HOMEBREW Digest #3496 Wed 06 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:
Wort viscosity / John's fluid flow experiment ("Brian D. Kern")
Humour , Flow 'periment., Hidden valley, Oz Barley, Advice,Zinc (craftbrewer)
RE: Fact vs Superstition (Tony Barnsley)
re: Einstein's Garage ("Stephen Alexander")
Re: Sabco False Bottoms (Todd Goodman)
smoked beers ("Micah Millspaw")
too much irish moss ("S. SNYDER")
RE: Large Corporation Rant ("Houseman, David L")
Lauter Tun Design (part 1) (Martin_Brungard)
Lauter Tun Design (part 2) (Martin_Brungard)
Silicon and lauter tuns (JGORMAN)
Re: Phalse Bottoms (Doug Hurst)
Cloudy StarSan ("Paddock Wood Brewing Supplies")
to decant or not to decant... ("Spies, Jay")
Celis copy receipe... (Rick Nelson)
making the plunge to all-grain ("Wayne Love")
Re: SS False Bottoms (Phil Sides)
Celis and a question (Beaverplt)
False bottoms ("Strom C. Thacker")
One more thing on recycling yeast ("Peed, John")
False Bottom Support (Epic8383)
Miller Brewery (Ronald Babcock)
*
* 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: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 22:04:52 -0800 (PST)
From: "Brian D. Kern" <bdk@srl.caltech.edu>
Subject: Wort viscosity / John's fluid flow experiment
I have been interested to see that a few other folks have shown an
interest in viscosity, in addition to the fluid flow experiments that
John Palmer put together. I have a few things to say about both.
As for viscosity, we should be aware that there are two different kinds
of viscosity -- kinematic viscosity and absolute (also called shear)
viscosity. Kinematic viscosity (usually denoted by nu) is absolute
viscosity (usually eta) divided by the density. Depending on the
problem you're interested in, one is more applicable than the other.
If you're looking at how a liquid pours out of a glass, you use kinematic
viscosity, because all of the forces depend on the mass (i.e. through
vravity), but if you're stirring a pot, you use absolute viscosity,
because you're asking how the fluid responds to an external force.
As an interesting note, the kinematic viscosity of air is 10
times the kinematic viscosity of water -- that's a handy fact to remember.
For water, the density only changes by a couple percent between boiling
and freezing, so kinematic and absolute viscosity have nearly the same
behavior. On the other hand, the absolute viscosity of water changes
by a factor of 6 between freezing and boiling. Here is a super-simple
chart:
0 C 5 C 10 C 25 C 50 C 75 C 100 C
eta 1.787 1.519 1.307 0.890 0.547 0.378 0.282
rho 0.9998 1.0000 0.9997 0.9970 0.9880 0.9749 0.9584
eta here is the absolute viscosity in centipoise, rho is the density
in g/cm^3. Notice the density does increase between 0 and 5 C, just like
Dr. P mentioned, then decreases out to boiling, but very slowly -- not
like the absolute viscosity, which differs by a factor of 6 from
freezing to boiling.
In the 3 minutes I spent looking for this data (CRC Handbook), I
couldn't find the data for wort viscosity vs. T. I did find the
relative viscosity of different mixtures at 20 C, so all I can do is
speculate that the viscosity vs. T is that of water, simply multiplied
by some factor. Here are some examples of the relative viscosities:
1.025 1.050 1.075 1.100
sucrose 1.07 1.19 1.45 2.31
maltose 1.21 1.50 1.90 2.45
dextrose 1.19 1.43 1.79 2.26
urine 1.06 1.15 1.28 1.45
The columns are specific gravity, the entries are the absolute
viscosity of the mixture / abs. vis. of water, all at 20 C. I figured
the urine would be of interest both to mega-brewers and to homebrewers
who don't clean their cat-bladder fermenters well. Notice that
viscosity is not linearly related to the S.G. -- I don't claim to
understand it, and it makes me a bit nervous to assume that its
temperature dependence will be just like water, but my 3 minutes of
look-up time is up (and my 30 minutes of typing -- can we find a more
inefficient medium?). I find it interesting that the sucrose viscosity
is so different from the maltose / dextrose viscosities -- the
viscosity of a constant-temperature mash will change with time.
As for John's fluid-flow experiments, let me join the public
congratulations on performing a well-executed "lab" experiment. It turns
out that the flow behavior can be understood mathematically with a bare
minimum of assumptions. I am still discussing with John the agreement
between the analytical interpretation and the experimental
interpretation, so I'll defer those results until we've finished
hashing it out between ourselves. But let me temper John's results
with this caution: the results of the dye movements do not directly
correlate to extraction efficiencies, because the dye takes longer to
reach the bottom of the tun. The dye reaches the manifold quickly,
because the fluid flow is fastest along the "direct" path, and takes
its time reaching the bottom of the tun, where it finally rinses the
grains down there. But the grains at the bottom of the tun have been
rinsed the whole time -- since there was water (without dye) mixed
with the bottom grains when the flow began, it started rinsing those
grains immediately -- it didn't wait for the dye to reach the grains
before starting to extract goodies. The dye experiment clearly shows
where the flow is the fastest -- straight toward the manifold -- but
it doesn't mean there was no extraction going on until the dye reached
the grains. So all I'm saying is that the map of extraction efficiency
vs. position is more subtle than the dye experiment makes it out to be.
I'll iterate with John to make a more understandable explanation before
saying any more about it.
Wouldn't it be great if everybody tested their crazy ideas like John did
before they posted them?
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 19:31:20 +1100
From: craftbrewer@telstra.easymail.com.au
Subject: Humour , Flow 'periment., Hidden valley, Oz Barley, Advice,Zinc
G'day All
Well it great to see that every-one has realised that fun and
beer are not related. As appointed humour monitor for the digest
I am happy to report (but definitely not in hysterics - that would be
too much for a koala to bear), that the Humour Index is now at a
stable 1.5. but you may need a reference here to relate this
number to. Well, Texans rate about 0.3, American sit-coms rate
about 1.2, a politican looking sincere 3.5, The American Election
about a 5.0, and me in the sack about a 7.5.
Yeh SWMBO always has a great laugh when I attempt to relieve
my excessive testosterone levels. Claims its much like my bladder,
small in size, and its an embarrisment how often I need to go but
nothing comes out.
Now onto brewing matters. I read with interest John Palmer little
experiment. Now for a home experiment this was quite well done,
but there is an abvious flaw in his experiment that one might
consider investigating further. John relys on his observations
against the glass wall, this being of course obvious as he hasn't
yet developed the sensor perceptions we Northerners have for
see into the fourth dimension, which also inplies that we can also
see into solid objects.
Now his assumptions assume (nice play on words) that the flow
will be same on the edge of the tank as per the the middle, and
so it might be. But could the glass also be helping to channel
water as well. Could we actually having a domed effect moving
thru the grain bed. What is needed is for this experiment to be
done again, with different coloured dyes placed throughout the
grain bed, and seeing what results come thru. (or has this been
done previously one could assume)
It would be nice to remove all doubt.
Now
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner@umich.edu>
Subject: Off-topic: Degree Confluence Project
I'm sure that our members all over the world could enjoy trekking
to these spots. It would be great to have a picture of a
homebrewer enjoying a homebrew at some remote location, such
as the intersection of 19 deg S 146 deg E: Near Hidden Valley,
QLD, Australia,
only 40 miles or so from Graham. Maybe he could take a photo
of one of the dangerous species of wildlife as he drinks his
beer.<<<<<
Ok Jeff, I just might do this. recon the rest of the world needs to
see a bit of Gods own country. I am impressed you actually knew
the actual name of the place. But getting a GPS to do this, well,
I think I'll just wing it and get fairly close. After all, what happens
if I actually find the intersection is right on a Salties nest. No
Bloody way I'm going to stand there having a beer.
From: Philip Ritson <philip.ritson@adelaide.edu.au>
Subject: Australian Barley
South Australian Farmers are beginning to replace the familiar
Schooner and Franklin varieties with 2 new varieties. Sloop is
replacing Schooner and Gairdner is replacing Franklin.
Does anyone know anything about these varieties? Are they just
two more high yield low taste rubbish varieties <<<<<<
Philip dont panick. you will always see new varieties on the
market as plant breeder refine their skills. True different plant
varieties will impart different flavours, but the biggest impact by
far will be what the malting houses do with the grain. the up shot
out of all this is basically no matter what grain they receive, they
will malt it to the specs of the breweries in question. End result,
You will notice no difference between the different varieties.
From: David Lamotte <lamotted@ozemail.com.au>
Subject: Pleasures of a new Tun
I am a bit ashamed to confess that I have been giving advice, to
all who asked, on the best way to convert kegs and so on; while
all the time I have been stuck with a 'bucket-in-bucket' device. <<<
Now come on David, why should you feel ashamed. There's
quite a few out there giving advise willy-nilly, because they heard
it from a friend of a friend of a........., - or read it somewhere so it
must be right. And worse will then defend their position. Your just
one of many.
From: "Stephen Alexander" <steve-alexander@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: correction to Corn flavor/Tangled web .../repitching/
pitch/zinc
John Palmer asks about zinc additions. I've been doing this for a
long time by adding about 0.5ppm of zinc from unflavored bogus
cold remedy drugs. It really can have a nice impact on
fermentation. <<<<
Sources of zinc and other micronutrients can be varied. You
could even use those plant nutrient mixes. But I must warn people.
Any plant will naturally show benefits with addition of nutrients,
then it will stabilise, meaning that additional nutrients will have no
benefit what so ever. Then it will decline as the nutrient becomes
toxic.
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). Whats 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.
Shout
Graham Sanders
Oh
Good to see The Good Dr P. is putting up proper posts now.
Must have received the book. since no one else will say it
Good work - mate.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 09:31:54 -0000
From: Tony Barnsley <tony.barnsley@blackpool.gov.uk>
Subject: RE: Fact vs Superstition
Joseph Kish Writes
> Elephants aerate on thier hot side!
Nonsense! Even my 5 year old daughter knows that Elephants Aerate at the
back side!! :>
(Just DON'T ASK how we found that one out, you really do not want to go
there!!)
- --
Wassail!
The Scurrilous Aleman (ICQ 46254361)
Schwarzbad Lager Brauerei, Blackpool, Lancs, UK
UK HOMEBREW - A Forum on Home Brewing in the UK
Managed by home brewers for home brewers
To subscribe send a blank email to uk-homebrew-subscribe@smartgroups.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 05:32:37 -0500
From: "Stephen Alexander" <steve-alexander@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: re: Einstein's Garage
Jeff Greenly says ...
>I was out hunting around for gadgetry and found a really cool website. It
> www.einsteinsgarage.com
Jeff, dang it - you've gone and ruined my private little auction site (few
participants or competition). Well I guess that cat is out of the bag and
missing it's tail.
I think it's a clearing house for Fischer Sci distributors mostly. Their
'auction' system is a bit odd, but the activity there has been (was?)
so low that simply meeting the (hidden) reserve price is usually sufficient
to buy an item.
I picked up a fabulous new(unused) Denver portable pH meter (0.1mv, temp,
250 pt recording, programmable repetitive recording w/ time stamp, serial
interface) with temp/pH probe for $240 a few months ago. List was $800
I believe. Got a nice pocket Orion ORP meter there for $20+S&H earlier too.
Good email responsiveness from the maintainers, but there is/was some
weirdness about auction expiration/deadlines, I think they erroneously
permit(ed) webpage caching too. No timezone correction either I think.
Maybe they've solved these issues by now. Shipping/handling prices a bit
high though not outrageous IMO.
I recommend it.
-S
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 07:50:41 -0500
From: Todd Goodman <tgoodman@goodmanhome.net>
Subject: Re: Sabco False Bottoms
* In HOMEBREW Digest #3495, Rob Dewhirst <robd@biocomplexity.nhm.ukans.edu>
wrote:
> >From: Mjbrewit@aol.com
> >
> >http://www.kegs.com/falsebottom.html
> >
> >I have no affiliation, just a satisfied customer. I can not imagine anything
> >that could be done to improve on it. And the price is competitive at $59.
>
> I can think of one very important thing the Sabco false bottoms can improve
> on.
>
> Center support.
>
> I have two of these, and they both collapsed (the hinges "sprung") under
> only about 10 lbs of grain in my RIMS.
>
> They work extremely well if you cut a small piece of 2" brew-safe pipe and
> place it on-end the center under the false bottom as a support. Cut holes
> in it if you need flow-through. It's a shame they don't sell these
> supports with the screens.
I had heard this before and was concerned about it.
Just to give an alternative viewpoint, I have two of these, one of which
I have been using for more than five years brewing ten gallon batches
(> 20 lbs of grain). I recently brewed a RIS with 38lbs on one and
didn't experience any problems.
I'm not RIMSing. Do you use a grant to draw the wort into the pump for
the recirc? Is it possible the grain bed is being compacted by the
pump?
No afilliation with Sabco, yadda yadda yadda, I just like their stuff.
Todd Goodman
Brewing in Westford, MA
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 07:13:23 -0600
From: "Micah Millspaw" <MMillspa@silganmfg.com>
Subject: smoked beers
>Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 21:47:48 -0500
>From: djazzie@juno.com
>Subject: smoked beer...Finally
>well, I finally tasted one of those smoked beers I brewed up a while
>back. Thanks to all those who helped me formulate the recipe. The
>results: Damn good! possibly the best tasting beer I've ever made. Now
>here's the conundrum: At bottling, I tasted it and it tasted almost
>exactly like Adelscott (the particular brand Iwas trying to emulate).
>Now, a little more than 2 weeks in the bottle, and it tastes more like a
>wit! (think blue moon's belgian) which is even stranger, since the
>ingredients for a wit are pretty different. What could have happened?
I brew a lot of smoked beers and have observed that they do not age
in the way I would expect. The beer will often become appear to
become very 'dry' and loses its mouthfeel. Ordinarily I would expect
both a ph and FG drop to explain this. I am not finding either to be
an explaination. It is a bothersome situation when beers that start
out excellant, but in a month or so completely change (not for the
good), but are not spoiled.
I have been able to correlate (imperical) the smoke 'stability' with
the smoke source and amount of smoked malt used. Small amounts
of commercial peated malt appear to last the longest. Large amounts
of hickory smoked wheat malt the shortest.
Any one else have observations on this.
Micah Millspaw - brewer at large
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 08:34:31 -0500
From: "S. SNYDER" <SSNYDER@LBGHQ.com>
Subject: too much irish moss
Greetings,
OK, o how bad did I screw up? I was making a clone of Alaskan Amber
(partial grain/extract) when I added 1 OUNCE of Irish Moss 30 min from the
fishy before I tossed in the flavor hops 15 min from the end. Is this brew
salvageable? I guess I'll know if its drinkable by around Saturday when I
rack it, but I'd like to know what to expect. A good rule to follow I guess
is to measure everything out from its original packaging and not assume
you'll remember to measure it out in the heat of battle.
TIA,
Scott Snyder
ssnyder@lbghq.com
Rotten Rotti Brewing Company
"Beer is only yeast's way of making more yeast."
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 08:34:33 -0500
From: "Houseman, David L" <David.Houseman@unisys.com>
Subject: RE: Large Corporation Rant
Doug Hurst goes into rant mode about large corporations. While I share the
frustration over Celis' closing, blaming Miller, and other large
corporations for similar actions is misplaced. Does Doug, or anyone else
with similar feelings own any stock? Any mutual funds? Participate in a
401K? An IRA? A pension plan? All of these invest in equities and all of
these equities are under pressure from their share holders, us, to out
perform the market as a whole and each other. "We have met the enemy and
they is us..."
Dave Houseman
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 08:50:39 -0500
From: Martin_Brungard@urscorp.com
Subject: Lauter Tun Design (part 1)
John Palmer has performed a number of interesting experiments on false
bottoms (FBs) and manifolds for lauter tuns. Its good work. I've promised
John an analytical model of some of his proposed configurations...now if I
could just get my hydraulic modeling expert to finish! John, I expect those
models to confirm your testing observations.
In the mean time, I've looked into some of the physical features of several
false bottom and manifold systems. This is my report on those findings. In
my profession as a geotechnical engineer, I constantly deal with flow
through soil. As a matter of fact, I'm also a dam engineer (or maybe a damn
engineer too ;-) )and that requires an excellent understanding of flow
through porous media...ie. flow through grain too.
First, I'll describe the physical features of some common lauter tun
systems. These examples are not meant to be definitive, but to provide a
comparison of these systems.
False bottoms come in a variety of dimensions, hole sizes, and hole
spacing. For instance, Phils Phalse bottoms come in 9- and 12-inch
diameters for common drink cooler use. I don't know the actual hole sizes
and spacings for these units, but I'll use some common perforated stainless
steel plate numbers in conjunction with these diameters just to provide a
degree of comparison.
The 9-inch diameter version provides a total surface area of 63.6 square
inches. Hole diameters for most of the false bottoms I've seen are
generally in the 1/8-inch to 3/16-inch range and the percentage open area
ranges from about 40 to 60 percent of the gross area. For the 9 inch
version, that provides an open area of about 25- to 38-square inches. Not
too bad.
A 12-inch version provides a total surface area of about 113 square inches.
Using the same 40 to 60 percent open area ratio, that provides about 45- to
68-square inches of open area.
Another form of intake manifold for lauter tuns is slotted piping. In the
lauter tun configuration I'm researching for John, it uses (3) 14-inch
long, 1/2-inch diameter pipes. The pipes are slotted on the bottom half of
the piping. This is in a 10-inch by 16-inch rectangular cooler. The total
surface area of the 3 pipes is 66 square inches. Assuming the pipes were
slotted using a hacksaw or something similar, that will probably provide 2
or 3 millimeter slot widths. Assuming that the slots were spaced at 3 or
more times the slot width, that means that less than 1/3 of the total pipe
surface area is slotted on the bottom. Since the bottom only is slotted,
only about 1/6 the total surface area is open. That means about 11 square
inches open area. By the way, it is well known in geotechnical practice
that slots are much less prone to clogging compared to holes with a similar
diameter.
Another popular form of intake is the easymasher type screen. I don't have
one in front of me, but I estimate they range from 6 to 10 inches in length
and are about 1/2-inch diameter. That provides a total surface area of
about 10- to 17-square inches and the whole thing could effectively be
considered open area too.
Another intake is a length of stainless steel hose braiding. This is the
stuff that C.D. Pritchard likes. One that I have found easily available is
a 5-foot long dishwasher water supply hose commonly available at Lowes or
Home Depot. Cutting off the fittings and extracting the plastic tubing
inside, provides a roughly 60-inch long by 1/2-inch diameter conduit. This
stuff is interesting in that it acts like a chinese finger trap...the
diameter grows if you push the hose braid shorter in length and the
diameter reduces when you stretch the hose braid. Through measuring, I
found that you actually get more surface area if you stretch the hose braid
out as much a possible. It was about a 10 percent increase in area. The
diameter reduced to 9 millimeters, but the length stretched to 88 inches.
That provides a total surface area of about 98 square inches. These hose
braids are composed of hundreds of tiny interwoven stainless steel wires.
You could say that almost the entire surface area is open since wort could
see
p through any of the spaces between the wire mesh, but I could say that its
about 2/3 or 3/4 open. That provides at least 67-square inches of open
area. Another consideration is that the hose braid permeability is easily
10 to 100 times more permeable than a typical grain bed. For this reason,
you could consider the entire hose braid surface area as open area, similar
to the easymasher.
I believe John Palmer estimates something on the order of 0.0001 cm/second
for a typical mash permeability. If you have a sticky mash, its probably
much less than that. I have found that I can easily arrange this 88-inch
hose braid in the bottom of a common 7-gallon bottling bucket to form a
lautering manifold. I've stitched the braid together with thin copper wire
where the adjacent loops touch each other. This forms a relatively coherent
assembly that will stay put and lay down on the bottom of the tun. It
covers most of the tun bottom. One problem with this type of manifold is
that care must be exercised whenever mixing the mash, so that the paddle
doesn't touch or damage the hose braid. It can be collapsed if care isn't
used, but it can be bent back into shape for the next mash. Stretching the
hose braid, as recommended above, also helps make it less susceptible to
crushing damage.
I feel that any of these lauter tun assemblies can be successful for normal
mashing operations. As John Palmer pointed out, a false bottom is probably
the ideal configuration. Fortunately, with enough manifold coverage on a
tun bottom, a manifold system too can operate effectively.
Martin Brungard
Tallahassee, FL
"Meandering to a different drummer"
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 08:52:38 -0500
From: Martin_Brungard@urscorp.com
Subject: Lauter Tun Design (part 2)
This is part 2 of my post:
The real test of a lauter tun comes when it is used for a RIMS. The flow
through the system is many times higher than normal flows for wort run off.
This makes intake capacity more important. As can be seen in the open area
calculations above, some FB and manifold configurations can provide less
inlet area than others.
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.
I have heard of many cases where Phils Phalse bottoms may not work well
under RIMS use (I am not suggesting that they are not suitable for regular
lauter tun duty). As I mentioned above, open area of perforated metal
plates is on the order of 40 to 60 percent. That is the same ratio that I
use above. I suggest that the Phils Phalse bottom product may actually have
a lower open area percentage since it is plastic and may need more solid
material to provide acceptable strength.
I've heard of folks having success with FB RIMS setups, so I suggest that
an open area ratio of about 60 percent may be the bottom limit for RIMS
use. I suggest that this minimum open area ratio should also be applied to
any RIMS lauter tun manifolds to provide acceptable performance. I would
appreciate hearing from brewers with this type of equipment to confirm or
modify this suggestion. I also know that many designs use a scraper paddle
to assist their RIMS keep flowing. That would be good to know also.
A recent post mentioned a lauter tun that was set up with manifolds located
next to the walls of the tun. As John Palmer pointed out in his
experiments, this can be a poor location due to the preferential flow at
the interface between the tun wall and the grain mass. This phenomena is
well known in geotechnical permeability testing. Hard walled permeameters
(similar to our lauter tuns)can skew the permeability results of a soil
test by about 10 times greater than the actual soil permeability. I called
one of my university professors this morning to confirm this result. I
think that 10 times increase is probably more applicable to clayey soils.
The more permeable grain beds that we deal with will probably only yield a
2 or 3 times higher flow at the tun side walls. But the point is...you will
incur increased short circuiting of the flow if your manifolds are too
close to the walls. The same thing can be said for FBs, the FB perforations
don't really need to go all the way to the side walls. In fact, you could
get a slight decrease in short circuiting if the FB stops short of the
walls. I will have a hydraulic model created to assess the degree of short
circuiting due to wall effects. This may help assess how far from the wall
we need to be with our manifolds or false bottom perforations.
One of the other aspects of lauter tun design that has been pondered
recently is the height of a FB above the tun bottom. Unless there is some
other brewing reason, I believe the FB should be as close as possible to
the bottom to reduce dead space losses. One physical reason some FBs are
well above the tun bottom is that the tun has a side outlet pipe.
Obviously, the FB needs to be above that outlet pipe and fittings. But
where this physical limitation doesn't exist, there is a way to evaluate
what the minimum space between the FB and tun bottom needs to be.
Assuming the limiting feature of the lauter tun outlet is the pipe
diameter, we can space the FB so that the maximum velocity under the FB is
less than the velocity in the pipe. As an example, I'll assume the pipe
diameter is 1/2-inch. I think that most systems would probably have piping
this size or smaller. In this analysis, I set the annular area immediately
below the pipe inlet and the tun bottom equal to the pipe cross-section
area. The perimeter for the 1/2-inch pipe is 1.57 inches, the pipe
cross-section area is 0.2 square inches. Dividing the area by the perimeter
provides a minimum spacing of 0.13 inches. Pretty small! I would probably
double that spacing to account for hydraulic losses at the inlet to the
pipe. But, as you can see, the spacing is small. If the outlet pipe or
tubing is smaller, then the spacing can be correspondingly smaller. Another
factor to consider here is that the pipe size and FB spacing probably will
not be the limiting factor in the flow in a lauter system. Either the grain
bed, FB, or manifold system will be the hydraulic flow limitation. In most
cases, we purposely throttle the flow to improve extraction. Both of these
factors suggest that FB spacing can be minimal with little effect on the
tun operation. A very narrow FB spacing is probably OK for most situations,
you should minimize the spacing if physically possible.
Wow, this was a lot larger than I expected it to be. I hope you get
something valuable out of this work.
Martin Brungard
Tallahassee, FL
"Meandering to a different drummer"
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 09:14:00 -0500
From: JGORMAN@steelcase.com
Subject: Silicon and lauter tuns
There is a food grade silicon. I can't remember the name. It's been a long
time since I have used it. All I remember is that it comes in a blue tube.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 08:45:08 -0600
From: Doug Hurst <DougH@theshowdept.com>
Subject: Re: Phalse Bottoms
I've seen a number of posts about floatation problems with plastic Phil type
phalse bottoms. I thought I would share my solution (well someone else
thought of it and sold it to me). My mash/lauter tun is a plastic bucket
which I purchased pre-fabricated from Williams (Williams Mashing System) and
solves the problem by running a small 1/8" (?) bolt throught the bottom of
the tun up through one of the holes in the phalse bottom. A small plastic
wing nut then holds the phalse bottom down. I have never had any leakage
through the bolt hole as it is a very tight fit. Overall this works
extremely well. The bucket also works for mashing as it comes with an
insulated jacket that fits over the entire bucket. I have detected a 1
degree F or less drop in temperature at the end of a 75 minute mash.
Doug Hurst
Chicago IL
BTW Standard disclaimers of affiliation w/ Williams apply.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 09:24:11 -0600
From: "Paddock Wood Brewing Supplies" <orders@paddockwood.com>
Subject: Cloudy StarSan
Frank Tutzauer writes of his cloudy Star San:
> My questions are, first what made it go
> cloudy so quickly (it was a clean but unsanitized pot), and second,
> how much additional concentrate can I add before I jeopardize its
> no-rinse properties? Ok, one more question: Does it still sanitize if
> cloudy, say with a longer contact time or something?
And Brian Lundeen notes that he has "never had a batch of Star San stay
clear."
StarSan should be mixed with distilled or de-ionized or reverse osmosis
water. I have batches that are 3 months old absolutely clear.
It will work mixed with most tap water, but it will soon react and the pH
will rise above 3. When the pH rises above 3 the solution becomes cloudy.
When this happens it can be refreshed with an addition of StarSan. I do not
believe in using it as a no-rinse sanitizer after it is more than double
strength.
It is not effective as a sanitizer when it is cloudy.
cheers,
Stephen Ross -- "Vitae sine cerevisiae sugant."
______________________________________________
Paddock Wood Brewing Supplies, Saskatoon, SK
orders@paddockwood.com www.paddockwood.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 10:58:07 -0500
From: "Spies, Jay" <Spies@dhcd.state.md.us>
Subject: to decant or not to decant...
All -
I'm sure this has been addressed before in previous posts about starters,
but real quick again...
If you continuously stir, repeatedly shake, or otherwise aerate your
starters after initial fermentation commences (a good idea to re-saturate O2
and maximize yeast mass), you don't ideally want to pitch that starter fluid
into your beer wort. Not to mention the fact that it probably won't follow
your original recipe, it will be mega-stale. If you do multiple step ups,
like I do when I'm starting from a WL tube, you'll have on the order of 1/2
gallon of liquid in your starter. Plan ahead and leave yourself at least 2
days to chill the finished starter and flocc out the yeast. Then decant
that vile stale crap. I was stuck with not being able to decant for a
Belgian Witbier, and had to pitch 1/2 gallon of highly oxidized starter wort
and yeast. You could tell, believe me. I usually start my starters at
least 5 to 6 days ahead of my brewday.
HTH,
Jay Spies
Wishful Thinking Basement Brewery
Baltimore, MD
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 11:24:57 -0600
From: Rick Nelson <Rick.Nelson@iVita.com>
Subject: Celis copy receipe...
Since this favorite of mine is going away, I'd like to know if anyone can
give me a link to a copy receipe...
Thanks,
Rick
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 15:55:53 -0400
From: "Wayne Love" <lovews@auracom.com>
Subject: making the plunge to all-grain
Well after about a year and a half of extract brewing I've finally decided
to go all grain. I figured it was a good time to get my xmas list in to
SWMBO. I do have some preliminary questions that I was hoping someone could
help me out with.
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?
2.. What do most home brewers recommend for good cheap scales? Both for
measuring grains and hops etc. I've noticed some relatively cheap digital
scales (Royal ex2) on ebay for approx.$20 to $25. Has anyone used these?
Thanks for your help
wayne
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 12:13:50 -0800 (PST)
From: Phil Sides <hopsock.geo@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: SS False Bottoms
Richard Foote <rfoote@mindspring.com> wrote:
>3. Works well. Due to the large volume under false
>bottom, recirculation never seems to clear the run
>off. It improves but not to the degree of
>clarity of the other two. Also, sometimes back
>pressure via a well-placed blow of air expelled from
>the lungs through the attached PVC tubing is
>needed to initiate flow. This design is prone to
>channeling along the keg wall. Periodic stirring of
>the top 4" or so of the grain bed is needed to
counter >this tendency. Stuck mashes occur on
occasion,
Wouldn't this be a major source of HSA if you believe
in such things. My recommendation is to underlet with
hot water when this occurs. If you don't have a pump,
I *suppose* a shot of CO2 would work as well.
Comments?
Phil Sides
Concord, NH
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
http://shopping.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 13:02:48 -0800 (PST)
From: Beaverplt <beaverplt@yahoo.com>
Subject: Celis and a question
I thought the best news I've heard was that Miller was
closing the Celis operation. I know that sounds wierd,
but you know that they will sell the operation or at
least the name and recipe. More than likely an
enterprising person that has guts, brains, and a
little drive will put Celis back on the map (Maybe
someone reading this).
My guess is someone at Miller lost their job over this
mess. Miller doesn't stay in business by buying
businesses and running them into the ground. One other
possibility is Miller bought Celis to get their
facility and knew ahead of time they'd drop the label.
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
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
http://shopping.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 16:24:39 -0500
From: "Strom C. Thacker" <sthacker@bu.edu>
Subject: False bottoms
Adding to the recent replies to the false bottom query, I've been
very happy with the ABT (yadda, yadda) false bottom I've been using
in my converted sanke keg mash tun. At $32 including the pickup
tube, it was very economical, too. Extremely strong, and nice clear
runoff.
Here's a question for the collective: does anyone out there use the
ABT false bottom with a RIMS system? It comes with a 3/8" ID pickup
tube. I've used it successfully with a pump, but I don't use a
heating chamber or automated temperature control so I'm not a RIMSer
(yet). Just judging by sight, it seems to recirculate at a fairly
fast rate, but I'm curious if anyone has actually tried it with a
full RIMS system.
Strom
Newton, MA
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 17:19:18 -0500
From: "Peed, John" <jpeed@elotouch.com>
Subject: One more thing on recycling yeast
Thanks to all for the input on repitching yeast. As with most subjects,
there were many conflicting opinions, but all were informative. One more
question. Many have expressed the opinion that it's best to repitch with
yeast from the secondary, but I use isenglass to fine the secondary (it
works very well for me). So the question is: Does the use of isinglass make
the yeast unsuitable for repitching?
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 18:45:47 EST
From: Epic8383@aol.com
Subject: False Bottom Support
I use a full diameter hinged false bottom in a Sanke keg m/l tun. When I
first got it, the failure of the hinge under the weight of the mash seemed
obvious, so before it's first use I gave it a little support. I took three
stainless steel pan head machine screws and mounted them upside down as
supports for the false bottom. A s/s nut on both sides of the false bottom
holds the screw and before tightening, I was able to customize the length for
good support. They're positioned about halfway between the center and the
wall of the keg in a triangle configuration. Never had a problem for about
1/2 dozen 10 gallon brews.
Since moving however, I have a haze in my first few batches that won't
filter out with a 3u plate filter. I believe it may be due to elevated iron
levels in my water. I'm now looking for ways to filter out the iron.
Gus Rappold
Massapequa, NY
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 20:57:58 -0700
From: Ronald Babcock <sportsdraft@home.com>
Subject: Miller Brewery
Well after reading the Miller bashing about buying and destroying Celis
Brewery. I have to chime in and defend Miller Brewing Company. I am not
afraid to proclaim my love of Miller Beer. In fact I buy MGD for very
special occasions. Here in Colorado one would think of maybe the "C"
brewery in Golden but in times of festivals Miller rises to the top. It is
hands down the beer of choice for my own SLUG FEST. This is the best use
for and best attractant for slugs. How could one argue with thousands of
slugs? For those of you that are gastropod challenged slugs are little
critters like a shell-less snail that destroy both flower and vegetable
gardens, not unlike mega brewery destroying micro breweries. The beer is
poured into jar lids and placed around your flowers and in the garden to
attract slugs, the slugs then fall into or crawl into the lids filled with
Miller and drowned. I find a lot have tried to escape this horrific death
when I dump them in the morning but unfortunately they have failed. I mean
what other beer would be more fitting for slug bait. So I wish for all of
you to raise a glass of your finest in celebrating the perfect marriage of
beer and bait.
I know this really has something to do with nothing but I couldn't resist.
Cheers
Ronald Babcock - beerman@thedraft.org - Denver, CO
Home of the Backyard Brewery at thedraft.org
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #3496, 12/06/00
*************************************
-------
