Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #3647
HOMEBREW Digest #3647 Thu 31 May 2001
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:
Aussie beer glasses (TOLLEY Matthew)
Australian Beer Glasses or Goggles (Scott Morgan - Sun On-Line Telesales Representative)
AHA Election ("Mark Tumarkin")
mr. student t ("Czerpak, Pete")
RE: New old brew pot ("Hornberger, Brent")
Cold Break - Put a Sock in it ("Bruce Garner")
Cold does not cause flocculation (Demonick)
Yeast trick; WL vs. Wyeast ("Scott")
re: H:W Huh? ("Nathaniel P. Lansing")
RE: mash runoff clarity (Brian Lundeen)
William Sealey Gossett (AJ)
Brewing/Beer Web site update ("Donnie Lee")
CAP Experiment Musings (Travis Dahl KE4VYZ)
Re: CAP Experiment (Scott Murman)
empty holster and mega-swill (david.persenaire)
H:W (David Harsh)
CAP Experiment List (Pat Babcock)
foil in brewing ("steve lane")
Re: Mash runoff clarity (Martin_Brungard)
intermediate mashing instructions? (Don Price)
pvc or cpvc beer faucets (kingkelly)
Re: Pressure Fermenting ("Mike Pensinger")
Odd yeast starter question, CAP experiment (shick)
great beers in Southern England (BreslerHS)
sparge clarity ("elvira toews")
ice vs chiller ("Tammy Duriavich")
*
* 2001 AHA NHC - 2001: A Beer Odyssey, Los Angeles, CA
* June 20th-23rd See http://www.beerodyssey.com for more
* information. Wear an HBD ID Badge to wear to the gig!
* http://hbd.org/cgi-bin/shopping
*
* 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: Wed, 30 May 2001 15:53:51 +1000
From: TOLLEY Matthew <matthew.tolley@atsic.gov.au>
Subject: Aussie beer glasses
From: erniebaker@webtv.net (Ernie)
>Hi folks, am about to brew some Australian beer and could think of
>nothing better than to drink them out of Australian beer glasses.
Well, in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory, you get a
schooner (425ml), a middy (285ml), a pony (170ml), a pint (570ml) or a
half-pint. In Victoria, you get a pot (285ml), a glass (200ml), a lady's
waist (140ml), a small beer (170ml) or a pint. In South Australia, you get
a schooner, a kite (a pint) or a butcher (200ml). In Tasmania, you get a
ten, or an eight (225ml), a seven (200ml), a six (170ml), a small beer or a
pint. In the Northern Territory, you get a Darwin stubbie (2 litres), a
schooner, a handle (285ml), or a seven. In Queensland, it's a pot, a glass,
a beer (200ml) or a five (140ml). In Western Australia, you get a ten
(425ml), a glass, a middy, a pony or a Shetland pony (115ml), a bobby
(170ml) or a pint.
Now, which did you want? :)
Cheers
...Matt...
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 16:36:09 +1000 (EST)
From: Scott Morgan - Sun On-Line Telesales Representative <Scott.Morgan@Sun.COM>
Subject: Australian Beer Glasses or Goggles
Ernie,
Are you after beer glasses or goggles.
If your after Beer Goggles then there is not better supplier than Graham
Sander's SWMBO! For Mrs Graham, these are an absolute necessity to get thru
any horrid passionate encounter with Graham. Graham in the nyuide is not
easy on the eye we have heard, nor when he is charmingly dressed in Khaki
Gear ala The Crocodile Hunter.
If you did not know already the whole of Queensland wears ONLY Khaki shirts
and shorts. It was made illegal some time ago to wear anything that was
designed outside of the 1950-60's. Unfortunately designs after this time
were not "manly" enough and did not allow the flow of body odour to those
withing a 5 meter radius easily.
If it is beer Glasses, well we were a colony and so there must be at least
1 HBD member from Oz that is willing to steal a couple for you. Perhaps
this is why the majors do not print logo's on glasses, as they know they
will be nicked within 5 minutes.
All of Australia also knows tha a 425 ml Schooner Glass is far superior
to the smaller and lesser Pot serverd in QLD and various Southern parts.
But, pints are still offered in many places, whilst still not at the 650ml
pint standard. Theres also a Schmiddy size, which was between a Schooner
and a Middy (pot) and charged at the same price as a Schooner. This was a
stupid attempt by an old Publican freind of mine...he went bankrupt
eventually...serves him right.
So if you have not learnt anything by this, just like football beer
glasses are as equally polarised in Oz. Or, Beer glasses sometimes
comeabout due to football...
Ahhh the serenity...
Scotty
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 06:24:13 -0400
From: "Mark Tumarkin" <mark_t@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: AHA Election
Hey y'all,
I've been meaning to write this since the AHA Board of Advisors election
results were posted last Friday, but with the long holiday weekend I'm just
getting around to it now. First of all, I'd like to thank all of you who voted
for me. I'm sure that it was your votes, along with those of the folks on the
Florida Brewers List, that got me elected. I'll try to make you proud.
And by electing me, you've helped avoid those nasty recount lawsuits - not
from me of course, but you never know with those Florida folks. Speaking of
which, the Florida bottle bill is still slowly wending its way through the
system. It had passed overwhelmingly through both the Senate and the House
(literally in the last minutes of the closing legislative session). It has
been signed by the officers about a week ago and is now on the Governor's desk
awaiting signature. We're almost there!
In my earlier post I'd noted the low voter participation in the earlier AHA
board elections. Well, the good news is that voter participation increased by
50%. That's the bad news too. Last year there were approx 120 votes, this year
it increased to approx 180. While that's a pretty respectable percentage, it's
still less than 200 votes out of over 10,000 members. That's pitiful; to me
it's unacceptable - we really need to change the level of member involvement.
If you voted, thanks. If you didn't, why not?
I really want to know, so that I'll be able to help improve things. Please let
me know why you didn't vote and/or any other thoughts about the AHA. My first
board meeting will be at the LA conference at the end of June. I'd like to
jump in and be productive on the Board right from the start. The biggest part
of that will be by representing you, the homebrewing community that got me
elected. So please, email (or call me) and let me know your feelings and
concerns about the AHA. At the very least, let me know what you don't like -
but I'd much prefer constructive criticisms and specific suggestions for
improvements. So let me know your ideas, wants,dislikes, things you'd like to
see changed, improved, implemented etc. and I'll do everything I can to make
positive things happen - at the very least I'll make sure that your thoughts
are heard.
thanks again,
Mark Tumarkin
352-338-4544
mark_t@ix.netcom.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 08:05:31 -0400
From: "Czerpak, Pete" <Pete.Czerpak@siigroup.com>
Subject: mr. student t
So I pulled out my ol' design of experiments textbook and found that
"Student" was a chemist at the Dublin Guinness brewery in 1908 by the name
of Gosset. And he did write with a pseudonym for whatever reason.
Nice to see beer make an impact in statistics.
Pete czerpak
albany, NY
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 07:55:13 -0500
From: "Hornberger, Brent" <Brent.Hornberger@wcg.com>
Subject: RE: New old brew pot
RE: Subject: New old brew pot
Ken, I use Barkeepers Friend to clean my kettles. It's found at most grocery
stores across the US. It's also great to shine up those corney kegs. It
shoudl be fouund near the rest of the cleaners like Ajax and Comet.
Brent
www.bcbrewery.com
www.mullet-times.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 07:49:15 -0500
From: "Bruce Garner" <bpgarner@mailbag.com>
Subject: Cold Break - Put a Sock in it
Dennis Collins writes:
> Well what about the cold break? If you use a counter flow
> chiller, 100% of
> the cold break goes into the fermenter.
If you use a sanitized footie nylon stocking after the counterflow chiller,
as I do, most of the cold break ends up captured. Earlier in the brew the
nylon is also useful over the end of the hose into the boil kettle to catch
the husks that inevitably escape the mash tun.
You could also make a post chiller whirlpool from a plastic pail with a hole
and hose off the bottom of one side. Introduce the chilled wort on the
tangent so as to create a whirlpool effect.
If you don't filter with a stocking, create a whirlpool or capture the cold
break by immersion cooling in the kettle you can let the batch settle in the
fermenter for four hours and rack off the sediment. I have heard that this
is a good time to add oxygen. Can anyone verify that? As an extreme example,
I "dropped" a batch of pale ale at 14 hours post chill, thoroughly
oxygenating it by pouring it back and forth between two open containers and
the resulting batch was excellent. I left a great deal of sediment behind
when I did the first pour.
Bruce Garner
Madison, Wisconsin
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 06:33:15 -0700
From: Demonick <demonick@zgi.com>
Subject: Cold does not cause flocculation
From: "Stephen Alexander" <steve-alexander@worldnet.att.net>
>'Cold causes flocculation' is an HB momily !! Cold actually PREVENTS
>flocculation in most yeast. One study which anyone can access is on the
>ASBC website vol 58(3) pp108-116, by Jin et al., "Effect of Environmental
>Condition on the Flocculation of S.cerevisiae" for example. Their ale
>strain ... "showed stronger flocculation at higher temperatures (P?.001) in
>the range 5C-25C." I've some JIB papers that show the same. Some yeast
>show little temp effect, some floc poorly at low or high temps. But as a
>rule, cold does NOT cause flocculation and often prevents it.
Good one, Steve :-)
I'll jump in here. I believe the above statement to be true. It must be
remembered that "flocculation" is not simply "sedimentation". That is,
"flocculation" is not simply "falling to the bottom of the fermenter".
Flocculation is a process in which yeast cells stick together to form
clumps. Since this is largely a chemically driven process I am not
surprised that reduced temperatures do not favor the process. Even if
flocculation is an electrostatic process, the electrostatic forces are
created by chemistry. I have not read extensively on the process of
flocculation, but as a first-order wild-assed-guess, I assume that it is
triggered and driven by surface expression of proteins and/or
carbohydrates.
It is counter-intuitive that stirring up the forming yeast cake would
actually enhance flocculation, but it has been my observation that stirring
up the fermenter repeatedly, i.e., rousing the yeast, enhances
flocculation. My WAG here is that some yeast cells induce other yeast
cells to flocculate, and by stirring up the yeast cake, more
non-flocculating yeast cells are being exposed to the flocculation signal,
whatever it is.
I would be interested in seeing some references on the subject.
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: Wed, 30 May 2001 07:09:58 -0700
From: "Scott" <Windsurf@bossig.com>
Subject: Yeast trick; WL vs. Wyeast
I tried a new practice had heard of on this board. That is, after opening
and using a yeast package, don't throw away the container just yet. By
rinsing the yeast container you just opened (I used wort), and storing the
rinse as a first generation yeast product for future use. You might be
surprised how many yeast cells are still in the package or tube.
Also tried both the White Labs American Hefe, and the Wyeast American Wheat
(?) on the same 10 gal. batch. I used my standard Hefe recipe, 50/50 wheat
to Barley, 10 gal. batch, divided in half. Ferment was controlled 64 deg.
F. Both yeasts had similar taste and low Flocculation, making for the
desired cloudy beer. Small banana and slightly less clove scent to both.
F.G. 1.012 to each batch. Each Very drinkable.
Still planning our December Pilzn trip. Prague or Pilzn? Both?
Recommendations?
Cheers,
Chris
Richland, Wa.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 10:55:36 -0400
From: "Nathaniel P. Lansing" <delbrew@compuserve.com>
Subject: re: H:W Huh?
Steve said:
>>Take a fixed fermenter shape like a cylinder,. choose any
>>arbitrary H:W ratio and any arbitrary Surf:Vol ratio and you can create a
>>cylinder which has both ratios. The two are unrelated.
Show me the dimensions for a 5 gallon fermenter with a 0.8 H:W
and a surface:volume of 1 cm-e2/16.66 cm-e3.
Now lets see 5 gallons in a 2.5 H:W with the same 1 cm-e2/16.66 cm-e3.
I must be overlooking something obvious.
NPL
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 10:18:41 -0500
From: Brian Lundeen <blundeen@rrc.mb.ca>
Subject: RE: mash runoff clarity
Drew Avis savagely howls:
> Brian Lundeen complains of "runoff envy", which might be
> better described as
> "haze halitosis" or even "pernicious protein precipitate
> pouting".
Don't get me started...
> If the crush is just right,
> the conversion
> temps hit on the button, and the stars in alignment, I get
> crystal clear
> runnoff after recirculating maybe 10 litres.
Clearly, your fermenter geometry is playing a large role here. But
seriously, I've never seen a Gott cooler up close and personal, but I
suspect your H:W ratio favours you in providing a deeper grain bed than I
can get from my 40 quart pot. Perhaps that is improving the particle
filtration.
>
> Is cloudy runoff a problem? I guess the real question is,
> are your finished
> beers as clear as you'd like?
The final clarity is usually good, but appearance is not my primary concern.
I am more worried that I'm putting something into my boil kettle that may be
contributing to some harshness that I find in a lot of my beers. They just
seem a little rough around the edges. Yes, I know that's vague and don't
really expect any on-line diagnoses of my problems. I'm just trying to
figure out if the mash runoff is an area where I need to be concentrating on
making improvements, or if the clarity improvement past a certain point
really doesn't make that big a difference.
Brian
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 11:40:53 -0400
From: AJ <ajdel@mindspring.com>
Subject: William Sealey Gossett
Frank wrote:
>If I recall correctly, the distribution was derived
>by a fellow at Guinness, but because he couldn't publish under his own
name
>he used instead the name "Student."
His name was William Sealey Gossett. You can learn a little about him
(and see a picture) at:
http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/history/Mathematicians/Gosset.html
He and his buddies (Pearson, Neyman, Fisher) did the seminal work in
statistics. The principles they developed are in daily use in many areas
of science and engineering and not just in the obvious ways.
Neyman-Pearson criterion, for example, is used in all modern digital
receivers to determine which symbol was the one most likely sent given
what was received. The method I use to characterize beer color is
derived from Fisher's biggest contribution (principal components
analysis) which was also used by Lewis uses to compare stouts in his
book.
A.J.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 12:22:01 -0400
From: "Donnie Lee" <dlee@accurateonline.com>
Subject: Brewing/Beer Web site update
First, thanks to all who have came by checked the site out and registered.
I have completed the guts (the programming and design). Now I'm working on
adding content and tweaking out the programming. I'm extremely excited about
this site. I think if offers something new for homebrewers and beer drinkers
alike. Yes, I am aware of all the Real Beer sites out there that offer news,
info and the like. The big difference between brewing-beer.org and the Real
Beer sites is that my principal is community and user driven content. Users
will essentially control the content, not unlike HBD. My model is
slashdot.org, DMOZ and a few other community driven sites.
I'm still looking for content contributions, editors and admins. If you are
interested, just let me know. I really need some help with adding content
: ). I think it would be great idea if you just post up what ever you wanted
to add to the site with the "Submit Article" button.
I think that once this site is out of prototype mode and on a proper server
(2-3 weeks), I'll put my Internet marketing skills to work to help build the
beer community.
Have a look:
http://beer.wha.la
Be sure to check out the Beer Gallery and the Beer Recipes for Cotton Pony
Stout.
Thanks,
Donnie Lee
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 12:22:41 -0400
From: Travis Dahl KE4VYZ <dahlt@umich.edu>
Subject: CAP Experiment Musings
So far I've really enjoyed the whole fermenter geometry/CAP Experiment
discussion. I have a bunch of thoughts on this whole thing, so here goes:
First off, Steve Alexander wrote:
>H:W and Surf:Vol are NOT directly related ratios Del. They can be varied
>INDEPENDENTLY. Take a fixed fermenter shape like a cylinder,. choose any
>arbitrary H:W ratio and any arbitrary Surf:Vol ratio and you can create a
>cylinder which has both ratios. The two are unrelated.
[snip]
>>A high aspect
>>ratio fermenter will have less cross-sectional area for the circulation
>>induced by fermentation.
>
>Sorry - no. Area is not determined by H:W. Does a 3:1 corny have the same
>cross section as a 3:1 test tube ?
Well, I just want to make sure everyone is on the same page and not using
any crazy math. According to my old Calculus textbook and my
interpretation of the other posts:
The width of a cylindrical fermenter (i.e. Cornelius keg) is the diameter.
The surface area (assuming the cylinder is oriented vertically along the
long axis) is Pi*(diamter/2)*(diameter/2).
The volume will be height*surface area.
Quite obviously, then, height:width and surface:volume are related! (It is
not, however, a linear relationship! More on that in a bit...)
Similarly, cross-sectional area is _defined_ as height*width in this case.
Obviously, a ratio will only give _relative_ measurements. Something we
should all keep in mind...
Now, my other thoughts on the great CAP Experiment:
1) RELAX! We're not trying to publish a scientific paper! Very few people
will even change their fermenters because of the results here! I think
people want to do this as an excuse to have fun and brew some CAP as much
as to do an experiment!
2) Yes, a paired test with split batches is an excellent idea! (The null
hypothesis probably should be something like "There is no significant
difference between the two different fermentation containers (at the 95%
confidence level.")
3) I think the comparison should be between a (5 gallon?) glass carboy and
a similar size Cornelius keg and that participants need to provide volume,
diameter and height dimensions with their entries. I think this is much
more relevant to what most of us are interested in., especially since...
4) The fluid dynamics are going to be pretty different in a 5 gallon glass
carboy filled to a 1:1 H:W ratio than in a 5 gallon Cornelius keg only
filled to a 1:1 H:W ratio
5) As someone else mentioned, it's not always realistic to apply everything
the commercial brewers do to a homebrew scale, both for practical reasons
and the fact that not everything behaves linearly as you scale it down.
6) Maybe if we built a large wooden badger...
Sorry, I've rattled on long enough.
-Travis
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 10:12:38 -0700 (PDT)
From: Scott Murman <smurman@best.com>
Subject: Re: CAP Experiment
might i humbly suggest that under the guise of this experiment it may
be possible to help some of the less scientifically-inclined brewers
learn/try some new techniques such as forced ferments, cl*nit*st,
triangle tests, wort stability test, etc. i'm sure there are a number
of people out there who might be interested in trying some of these
ideas, but aren't motivated most of the time, and aren't sure
what/when/how these are really done. if it were known that "everybody
would be doing it", then maybe it would provide some motivation.
all this talk of regression analysis, etc. is fine, but realistically
we all know that being able to pick one plum of a data point from an
experiment like this is darn near impossible. howeever if the
experiment accomplished nothing else but got a number of homebrewers
to try some new techniques that just might help them make better beer,
or they had some fun trying them, then i'd certainly say it would be
judged a success.
when the blackouts hit, i can still brew!
-SM-
Redwood City, CA
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 12:22:35 -0500
From: david.persenaire@abnamro.com
Subject: empty holster and mega-swill
I done did it on Saturday. I'm still putting together the beer for the
fishing trip and scheduled to make the first ten gallon batch on Saturday.
Needed to get the fishermen together to go over provisions and supplies and
what better thing than to have a cookout at the same time. Why not make
the batch of beer on the same day as the cookout, good idea right? Not.
Decided to smoke two turkey breasts on the charcoal smoker while brewing a
pale ale. Had to get the house tidied up for the fishermen and families
for the cookout. Well the day was a soaker from dawn to dusk and the
cookout came indoors into the basement for the kids and the main floor for
fishermen and their SWMBO's. Finished the pale ale without a hitch and the
turkey breasts were almost done on schedule nothing a quick toss in the
oven couldn't finish. Fired up the weber for some venison bratwursts and
you get one tuckered out brewer. Needless to say brewing on the same day
as having 25 or so guests over is not a good idea and a quick way to run
out of beer bullets. The wife heads to the Netherlands with the kids this
week so I can brew the next batch with an empty holster. Is it ok to toss
the same recipe of fresh wort on the sediment of the primary of the old or
should I use the sediment from the secondary? I'm sure I will have a
little trub in the primary cause I don't get too anal about it.
After going over provisions we realized that 20 gallons of homebrew for six
fishermen for six days might not be enough. You know how fishin can work
up a powerful thirst. Graham wrote about how the Aussies can produce some
mega-swill and us Americans can certainly add to the list of swill produced
here. Canada has no shortage of flavorless swill coming out of the likes
of Labatts and Molson. What can a thirsty fishermen pick up in Red Lake,
Ontario that will have some flavor and get them through the week? By the
way, I enlisted the neighbors to start drinking their swill out of those
plastic bottles with the screw on cap and bring the empties over to me.
They've already contributed 16 empty bottles. Bloody amazing that people
drink that stuff. Between the golf courses and the neighbors I think we'll
have our homebrew packaged in light weight containers without ever having
our lips touch the stuff that was inside them.
Dave Persenaire
Tinley Park, Illinois
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 14:04:20 -0400
From: David Harsh <dharsh@fuse.net>
Subject: H:W
Stephen Alexander <steve-alexander@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> Not at all. I strongly suspect DeCleck never wrote this vastly sweeping
> conclusion that H:W *causes* poor fermentation performance....
Personally, I haven't found even the implication in deClerk to this
effect. If anybody can give me the specific citation, I'd like to know.
(I have the 1994 reprinting from Seibel)
> Circulation, shear and cross-section in a 2.5:1 H:W test-tube vs
> cornie are certainly different and also quite likely not higher (circ,
> shear) than *every* 1:1 vessel.
Of course, not *every* 1:1 vessel, but we are talking about objects of
the same magnitude of volume. Your comparison of the cornie to the test
tube, while a valid argument, is absurd on the face of it. I thought we
were restricting our arguments to homebrewing.
> >> Flocculation is a consequence of yeast metabolic processes....
I'm not going to waste space in the digest any more to argue this.
Suffice to say I disagree with you on your interpretation of the
literature on shear induced flocculation.
> Sorry - no. Area is not determined by H:W. Does a 3:1 corny have the same
> cross section as a 3:1 test tube ?
The return of the absurd argument. But if the volume is the same, a 3:1
container has less cross section than a 2:1 container.
For the record, my use of dimensional analysis techniques to describe
the fermenter geometry is not "handwaving", it is an accepted and
mathematically sound method for dealing with computationally difficult
systems.
> >Steve - if you want to convince me: Give a physical explanation of how
> >the fermenter geometry will produce changes in the fermenting wort and
> >how those changes will explain the observed effects of aspect ratio.
> >What is your hypothesis?
>
> See - you haven't been reading. My contention is that there is no such
> effect if you control for other variables. Adding my "guess" to yours
> would be fruitless...
On the contrary, I have been paying attention. You feel aspect ratio
isn't the cause, something else is. If there is an effect what do you
think causes it? You've been sitting there punching holes in everyone's
suggestions WITHOUT ONCE GIVING YOUR OWN OPINION! Do you have one?
You've thrown around phrases like "changes in metabolism" or "CO2 and
oxygen", without explaining how these changes (higher? lower? more?
less?) will produce differences in the ferment. I'd avoid trying to
blame things like "metabolism" for changes in attenuation, as deClerk
says "physiological condition of the yeast has also been invoked as an
explanation, but this is a very vague term and may mean anything or
nothing" (p.393). He goes on to state that "the problem of attenuation
is bound up with the problem of yeast flocculation" (p. 393).
Your attitude towards this discussion has become quite strident, but you
haven't contributed an alternate theory. You stated above "no such
effect if you control for other variables". What other variables? Is
there any fruit on that tree of yours?
I do believe that other theories could explain the observed changes,
which is why I think the experiment should attempt to include as many of
possible parameters as possible (each varied by itself, of course). It
is also why I have repeatedly asked for other theories which would
present other viewpoints.
> >[...] , but it is interesting that
> >the best way to floc and remove yeast cells is by cooling, [...]
> 'Cold causes flocculation' is an HB momily !! Cold actually PREVENTS
> flocculation in most yeast.....
Does it "prevent" it or just slow it down? What is the explanation for
that paste of yeast at the bottom of an empty cornelius keg that doesn't
want to come off when cleaned if low temperatures PREVENT flocculation?
Whatever the cause, experience tells me that if I want the yeast to drop
out of a finished wort, I put it the refrigerator near 32 F and it goes
crystal clear, quickly.
If you want to continue this, I'd recommend moving it over to the
cap_exp list where the interested can follow it.
Dave Harsh Bloatarian Brewing League
Cincinnati, OH
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 13:09:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: Pat Babcock <pbabcock@hbd.org>
Subject: CAP Experiment List
Greetings, Beerlings! Take me to your lager...
Anyone can subscribe to monitor the proceedings of the CAP Experiment in
all their gorey detail by sending "subscribe" to cap_exp-request@hbd.org
or cap_exp-digest@hbd.org.
Also, note that there have been a lot of bounces due to improperly
formatted email addresses - in many cases, the server has not been able to
properly parse your personal name from your eamil address, ending up with
only your personal name in the listing. If you attempted to subscribe to
any list, but received no request for confirmation back, then your address
is one of these, and you'll have to use a somewhat longer format to
subscribe. Send
subscribe <listname> [email address]
to majordomo@hbd.org, substituting cap_exp or cap_exp-digest for
<listname> and your email address for [email address]. For example,
sending
subscribe cap_exp pbabcock@hbd.org
would result in my receiving a note from the server to the return address
of the request, informing me that my subscription attempt will have to be
authenticated before it will be implemented, and another sent to the
address provided in the subscribe command asking for that authentication.
(In cases where I can fathom the email address from the personal name, I
have manually added users in.)
Finally, only those who have explicitly expressed their desire to
participate have been added to the posting list. If you had some other
expectation, this would be why it was not met. Send me a note, or
explicitly post your desire in the Digest
Thanks.
- --
-
See ya!
Pat Babcock in SE Michigan pbabcock@hbd.org
Home Brew Digest Janitor janitor@hbd.org
HBD Web Site http://hbd.org
The Home Brew Page http://hbd.org/pbabcock
"The monster's back, isn't it?" - Kim Babcock after I emerged
from my yeast lab Saturday
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 14:44:05 -0500
From: "steve lane" <tbirdusa@hotmail.com>
Subject: foil in brewing
Brewed a Scottish at a friends house this weekend and found that I had
forgotten my green scrubbie / scouring pad for post brewing cleaning. After
the kettle (keg) and the mash tun (other keg) cooled, I began cleaning.
Sprayed them out well with the garden hose and grabbed some aluminum foil to
scrub with.
Wasn't ten seconds and this black film / water mixture appeared. What is
the reaction between the stainless keg and the foil? I've never seen this
when I do an open ferment in another keg that I use as a primary but then
I'm only "sealing" the top of the cutout with foil. I will throw a sheet of
foil over it and set a lid from a bottling bucket on the foil.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 17:13:38 -0400
From: Martin_Brungard@urscorp.com
Subject: Re: Mash runoff clarity
I'm not surprised at the disbelief in crystal clear wort runoff from the
mash tun. I can assure you that it is possible, as almost everyone of my
runoffs is that clear. I believe the main reason that I obtain highly
clarified wort is because my system is a RIMS. There is at least one very
relevant reason for the differing performance in wort clarity between RIMS
and static mashing methods. Read on....
The liquid volume in a mash varies between about 2 to 4 gallons in a
5-gallon batch depending on SG and water/grist ratio. That liquid volume
is contained within the spaces between the grain particles (otherwise known
as the pore volume). Based on my RIMS performance, I know that it takes
about 2 minutes for wort to make a complete circuit in my system. That
means that I'm probably moving about 30 pore volumes of wort through my
grainbed per hour (60min/2min). If the pore volume is 2 to 4 gallons, that
means that I've pumped 60 to 120 gallons of wort through the grainbed.
Compare that to the gallon or two that most static mashers run through
their grainbed to get the runoff to clarify "sufficiently".
The process of establishing a filter pack around an inlet screen of any
kind is dependant on the volume and rate of liquid flowing to the inlet.
This is true for water wells (one of my professional expertises), as well
as mash tuns. For a mash tun, we are removing the finer particles from the
grainbed surrounding the inlet screen and moving them to the top of the
bed. This is where we hope that these finer particles will stay. If the
grainbed is too shallow, the finer particles may be drawn directly through
the bed without opportunity to be trapped in the upper bed. The process of
establishing this segregated filter bed takes a significant volume of wort
to move the fines from the bottom of the bed to the top.
There you have it, the reason you may not be achieving clear wort is
because there has not been enough wort circulation to set up the grainbed.
For those of you that don't have the luxury of a RIMS, I am not suggesting
that you recirculate a LOT of wort by hand, since I think it would be
detrimental in terms of hot-side aeration. But you should consider that
the very particles that create that cloudy wort are probably grain
particles that could ultimately furnish tannins to your brew when this
cloudy wort is boiled. If you are having problems with cloudy wort, next
time circulate a few more gallons and you should see an improvement prior
to runoff.
Martin Brungard
Tallahassee, FL
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 18:50:37 -0400
From: Don Price <dprice1@tampabay.rr.com>
Subject: intermediate mashing instructions?
I am looking for some web pages with intermediate level information on
the mashing process. I can't find my Joy of HB book and all my other
literature is very basic (though useful). Please don't waste your time
typing out something that I'm sure someone has posted on the web...just
post the link. I'll even buy a real book if someone can suggest some
good ones.
Thanks,
Don
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 21:00:27 -0400
From: kingkelly@juno.com
Subject: pvc or cpvc beer faucets
has anyone heard of or know about the possibility of using pvc or cpvc
to make faucets. somewhere in my cloudy brain there is a remembrance of
someone at mashout 2000 that they had used these materials with a ball
valve and some sort of puncturing of the tip with small holes to make
the flow smooth. i am thinking about making a massive 6 tap jockey box (
will be named big willie after willie shoemaker ) for our homebrew club (
star city brewers guild ) utilizing a 6 line cold plate that fell off the
truck. any comments ( except about the truck ) will be appreciated.
thanks kelly
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 21:03:21 -0400
From: "Mike Pensinger" <beermkr@bellatlantic.net>
Subject: Re: Pressure Fermenting
While I was in Split Croatia a few years back I got a tour of the local
brewpub and discovered that he fermented under pressure. He stated that it
sped the process up and allowed fermentation at higher temperatures without
off flavors being produced. I cant remember how much pressure was on the
vessel and it was in Bars which i didnt understand anyway.
Mike Pensinger
beermkr@bellatlantic.net
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~beermkr
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 21:34:05 -0400
From: shick <shick@jcu.edu>
Subject: Odd yeast starter question, CAP experiment
Hi all,
I have a quick question about an odd yeast starter
for the collective. I'm planning an altbier, using Wyeast
1007 German Ale yeast. My local shop keeper didn't have any
fresh smack packs in stock, but gave me two old packs, 8 and
10 months old. After a few days, both were fully puffed, and
I cooked up 40 ounces of 1.040 wort to put them in. The wort
from one pack looked normal (moderately clear,) but I noticed
that the wort from the second pack was extremely dark and
turbid when I poured it into the starter. After about 8 hours,
I have about the usual amount of activity in a well-aerated
started, but it looks pretty murky. Everything smells just
fine, though.
So my question is: is it worth risking 10 gallons of alt
wort (and 5 hours of brewing time) with this odd starter? If
it smelled even slightly off, I wouldn't risk it, of course.
But, aside from the murkiness, everything seems fine. Has
anyone had similar experiences with this particular Wyeast
strain? Did it turn out okay? Thanks in advance for any help
you can provide. I'm hoping to brew Friday, so private email
might be best.
By the way, the CAP experiment sounds like a wonderful idea,
but I'm firmly on the side of the "split-batch" experimental
design as a way to remove as much noise as possible. This still
leaves the problem of worrying about each individual's yeast
propagation habits, though, since any problems there would
certainly negate any later claims about fermentation differences.
I shudder to suggest this, but the obvious solution is that
everyone should use the same DRY lager yeast. Jethro, any chance
of preproduction versions of the Lallemand dry lager yeasts? If
not, would Safelager be a reasonable compromise?
Paul Shick
Worrying about yeast in Cleveland Hts, Ohio
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 22:17:20 EDT
From: BreslerHS@aol.com
Subject: great beers in Southern England
Dearest knowledgable beer lovers,
I am going on a trip Southern England the last week of June. I will have
some time to seek out truly great beers, but don't know how to find the best
ones. I've looked in the HBD archives and searched many sites on the web,
but so far I've found very little information. If any of you have
recommendations for specific pubs or breweries, or for good web resources, I
would appreciate them. I'll be in the area around Salisbury part of the week
and Bath later on. I'll have a car so short trips would be feasible.
Private e-mail is okay. Thanks in advance.
Good luck and good brewing,
Herb Bresler
Bexley,Ohio
One time regular contributor and recent lurker.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 22:46:56 -0500
From: "elvira toews" <etoews1@home.com>
Subject: sparge clarity
Hi Brian:
My recirc never gets all that clear, but as soon as I add sparge water my
runoff gets about as clear as Drew's pix. I figure as long as you don't get
any ungelatinized starch in the wort you won't be getting odd hazes or
infections.
Plain old draff - husk bits, or chunks of spent endosperm - doesn't seem to
have any untoward effects.
BTW, my cranberry (fruit into secondary) is starting to carbonate nicely,
contrary to my post of a few days ago. Nice (pink) head retention. Even if
I don't notice much difference in flavour compared to adding fruit to the
secondary, the colour is much more intense.
TTFN
Sean Richens
srichens@sprint.ca
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 22:49:21 -0500
From: "Tammy Duriavich" <murph@xsite.net>
Subject: ice vs chiller
John, & all that have given input re: force cooling w/ice, now I understand
that even tho the water is "clean" going into the freezer, it's not
necessarily so coming out of the freezer & going into my brew. I've just
been lucky thus far. Therefore, I guess I'll just have to get a chiller,
won't I?? Thanks to all for the info & explanations. Now to return to lurk
mode & learn more.....
Tammy Duriavich
~ Clean Hands, Warm Heart - Handmade Soaps & Bath Products
~ D & D's Gourmet Pet Snacks - NEW! Gourmet Snacks for Horses, too!
www.CleanHands-WarmHeart.com
email: murph@xsite.net
Samples & Brochures available - Wholesale inquiries welcome
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #3647, 05/31/01
*************************************
-------
