Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #3649
HOMEBREW Digest #3649 Sat 02 June 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:
Re: H:W Huh ? (David Harsh)
re:H:W Huh? ("Nathaniel P. Lansing")
Cold wort oxygenation methods ("Dan Diana")
("plotek")
Aussie Beer glasses ("Colin Marshall")
re: AHA elections ("Mark Tumarkin")
RE:kegging system options ("Walter H. Lewis III")
re: re: H:W Huh ? (wkunze)
RE: ice vs chiller ("Pete Calinski")
Fermentors (Crossno Clan)
Re: Big (CAP?) Spurments (Jeff Renner)
cold flocculation (Demonick)
Breweries and cold break ("Peed, John")
Seattle Beer Scene (Anthony Rivera)
re: H:W huh? (Frank Tutzauer)
Hard Cider Sites (David Johnson)
sterile water storage of yeast via White Labs ("Czerpak, Pete")
geometry (Scott Perfect)
More ice vs. chiller musings ("Bob Sutton")
*
* 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: Thu, 31 May 2001 23:17:15 -0400
From: David Harsh <dharsh@fuse.net>
Subject: Re: H:W Huh ?
steve-alexander@att.net wrote:
> I did say you can choose H:W and S:V independently and
> design a fermenter. Take away the 5gal Vol requirement
> (never part of the H:W argument) and it's easy.
In fact, the constant volume argument IS part of the argument. The
entire discussion started about the effect of fermenter shape for
homebrewing. Since most of us aren't going to change our volumes
drastically (I've never brewed more than 12 gallons in one batch nor
less than 5), we (or at least most of us) are talking about the effects
at a fixed batch size.
It is no great observation that HW and SV ratios can be individually
held constant while a variety of shapes of fermenters can be determined
at different volumes. However, that is not what anyone has suggested
and I suspect you know that. Why you suddenly think that batch size is
a new restriction is a mystery.
>, my use of dimensional analysis techniques to describe
>the fermenter geometry is not "handwaving...
> You may have facts, but until you present the
> assumption, analysis method and results - you've just
> posted the handwaving argument. For such detail email
> would be best tho' Dave.
Take any fluid mechanics text and study the parts on mixing and
dimensional analysis. Transport Phenomena by Bird et al. is a good
source if the math isn't beyond you, Bennet and Meyers, Momentum, Heat
and Mass Transfer is a little more basic. Other people on the digest
may be able to suggest good sources. I'm thinking your background in
fluid mechanics is pretty weak or you'd not be asking me to reinvent the
wheel to prove my point.
> >On the contrary, I have been paying attention. You
> >feel aspect ratio isn't the cause, something else is.
>
> No. You are stating this as if I agreed there was an
> effect related to H:W - I don't. I don't believe that
> high aspect ratio fermenters (separating out all the
> unrelated factors, vol, S:V, cross sectional area, etc)
> create any such effect.
HELLO! Read what I'm saying. You state that some other factor would
explain differences. I agree that aspect ratio does not magically cause
a change in fermenting, but changes in aspect ratio introduce other
changes that cause a change in fermentation. (and I won't restate my
hypothesis) Of course, if we can keep all macroscopic and microscopic
aspects of the fluid (velocity, shear, concentrations of solutes and
byproducts, temperature, pressure, phase of moon, the list gets really
long here...), no differences should be observed.
Again I'll ask you if you have any idea what could cause the observed
changes, or if you would rather just attack everyone else who voices an
opinion. I'll stress that I think that there are certainly other
possibilities and I think we need to get them out in the open - not to
attack but as a basis for coming up with a way to design the experiment.
> >[..] I disagree with [...] your
> >interpretation of the literature on shear
> >induced flocculation.
>
> Then please email me your reference literature citations
> of shear induced flocculation of yeast and we can
> compare our interpretations.
I've moved my office in the past year and haven't unpacked everything.
Getting through the rest, while important, isn't a priority, although
when I find them I'll let you know. I'm hoping it will be sooner rather
than later. My sheaf of references was about 25 or so articles out of
particle technology journals, so the focus was pure particle dynamics,
brewing was mentioned only in terms of describing the yeast. Now that I
think of it, these studies may not be applicable to the behavior in
fermenting wort, but we'll cross that when I find them.
Dave Harsh Bloatarian Brewing
League
Cincinnati, OH
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 00:19:58 -0400
From: "Nathaniel P. Lansing" <delbrew@compuserve.com>
Subject: re:H:W Huh?
SA:
>> Take away the 5gal Vol requirement
>>(never part of the H:W argument) and it's easy.
It very much was the start of the debate; George's published
findings that a batch split into 2 fermenters, each 3/4 full, one
with aspect of 2.5:1 and one with 1:1, have different fermentation
characteristics. I suggested that the surface area:volume difference
might cause added O2 uptake and improved yeast vitality in a 1:1HW
fermenter. So H:W / surface:volume certainly was part of the original
work cited.
>> was presented as brewing related, not just
>>HB, so i'd think anything from a post-slant starter to
>>megabrewers tanks would be subject to the law.
No body called it a law for one, one shouldn't change definitions
for the sake of argument. Also, the megabrewers' tank, by your
own admission, do comply with the effect. What we have yet to
see is some publication where you've read that small fermenters
don't comply with the effect.
It is a matter of scale, a yeast bobbing around
in a batch of wort is on the same scale as me diving around
in Lake Superior, it wouldn't matter if I was at 100 foot depths
or 600 foot depths, there would be negative effects. Deeper
wort(lake) more severe effects.
LaMarck wants me to point out yeast probably evolved as
thin-film creatures. The shallow depth of grapes and
other fruits fed their lust for oxygen and help release the CO2
that so impedes their growth. Anything deeper than a inch or so may
be too deep for natural yeast activity.
NPL
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 21:15:39 -0700
From: "Dan Diana" <dands@ftconnect.com>
Subject: Cold wort oxygenation methods
I have been using oxygen and a stainless diffusion stone to aerate my wort
after cooling. When I first got the apparatus, I was doing 2 15-second
bursts with the regulator full open. The typical lag time I observed before
high krausen was ~12 hours. My beers would usually complete the primary on
10-14 days. I think as a result I would get a low of higher alchols , off
flavors, and in two cases spoiled beers.
This last bew, I reduced the flow and aerated the wort through the stone
the entire time I was decanting the cold wort. This aerated the wort about
15 minutes and did not result in a lot of foam being generated. This time
the beer was at high krausen within 6 hours and completed the primary
fermentation in ~3.5 days. This beer is amazingly clean and I think the more
thorough aeration has helped.
Has anyone else had similar experiences or use the constant flow method
and seen such good results? I really like the results and will use the
constant flow method my next brew.
Dan Diana
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 17:24:44 +1000
From: "plotek" <plotek@optushome.com.au>
Subject:
I like the fact that Matthew Tolley has a great
enough love for beer to remember our glass sizes.
We sort of adopted a funny pint in the metrication
days as 600 mL sounded much easier than
580 odd mL. This meant one of two things
a real schooner became the benchmark
of a drinking man (or if you prefer, beerslob) or
the death of the girly sized glass.
We would infact call anything inferior to a schooner
as a throwdown. Middies and pots, sevens and ponies
are far too small and you end up getting plastered
really quick. The other bad thing is the wait between
drinking and lining up for a beer is reduced.
There should be a florida like law against drinking
out of thimbles like the middie and the seven.
>From what i have heard, most of queensland
has been civilised by NSW tourists and they
too drink schooners now.
Pints and schooners for ever
Muddie
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 18:03:46 +1000
From: "Colin Marshall" <byoah@argay.com.au>
Subject: Aussie Beer glasses
Frank Tutzauer says "I'm not sure I'd want to drink whatever comes out of a
Shetland pony". Aussie blokes down the pub drink it all the time. It's
called VB - although most of us brewers know it as "Shet" beer. Sometimes
it's "Ratshet" beer, and other times it could be "Shethouse" beer. And if
you get a belly-full of it and overstay your allotted time at the rubbity
dub, you go home and tell SWMBO a heap of "Bullshet". At which she will
chuck a "Shetty", abuse the "Shet" out of you and tell you to bugger off and
live with your "Shethead" mates.
That's why I drink at home.
Brother Shoppe.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 08:20:19 -0400
From: "Mark Tumarkin" <mark_t@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: re: AHA elections
Jeff,
Thanks for responding and the congrats.
you wrote:
"I have one comment concerning the number of votes based on total membership.
Mark states that only 180 out of 10,000 members voted. Low yes but I wonder
how many of those members are actually brewers. I ask this because I know of
a few people that joined only to be able to attend members only events at
GABF. I'm sure these guys could give a crap about voting they just want to
drink. So are there any stats that might take this into consideration?"
I don't know how many AHA members are non-brewers, having bought their
memberships to get the members discount or into an extra session. I can find
out if those kind of statistics are available (though I doubt it, how would
you know? - you can't assume all memberships bought at the GABF are by
non-brewers).
But even if you make some large WAG, say a third or even half the total
membership, that still leaves only 180 out of 5000. That is a pitifully low
percentage. One of my goals will be to increase member participation in the
process, and in the AHA overall. Several of the private responses I've
recieved have requested on-line voting. I totally agree that this is a good
idea. On-line voting was allowed at the last moment, but for next year I'd
like to see it included as an option early on, and publicized in the issue of
Zymurgy with the ballots and candidates statements. This should be an easy
change to make.
I'm more concerned with the larger issues of getting existing members more
involved in the AHA and in recruiting new members. With that in mind, I'd like
to say again that I'm really interested in hearing any thoughts, suggestions,
complaints, etc about the AHA and the directions and programs you'd like to
see.
thanks,
Mark Tumarkin
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 08:22:18 -0400
From: "Walter H. Lewis III" <wlewis@alliedlogistics.com>
Subject: RE:kegging system options
I've had my upright frig set up for about 4 years now. If I were to do
it all over again I would place the faucets in the SIE of the frig. This
avoids hoses tangling every time you open the door.
Now in my new house I have a REAL bar. Wouldn't it be wonderful to build
the bar AROUND a chest freezer and put a tower on top! now that would be
sweet!
Walt Lewis
Greater Huntington Homebrew Association
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 07:28:46 -0400
From: wkunze@vlb-berlin.org
Subject: re: re: H:W Huh ?
SA screeches:
> Most people hate me when I'm correct and only enjoy it when I'm wrong
Oh, poor, poor baby. Maybe if you weren't such an argumentative ... all of
the time (don't want to trigger those janitors into deleting my post by
using foul language, now do we?) If you really want to do something that
we'd all enjoy, disappear! Honestly! To think how anyone could enjoy you
at all is way beyond me.
And STOP quoting me.
Wolfgang Kunze
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 10:06:50 -0400
From: "Pete Calinski" <pjcalinski@adelphia.net>
Subject: RE: ice vs chiller
Seconding Ron La Borde and his sanitized zip lock bags, before I built my
immersion chiller, I used "Tupperware" style containers. They are about the
size of a shoe box and hold about 5 quarts with room for the water to
expand. Cost about $1.00 each.
I boiled the water and let it cool in the boil pot overnight. That way I
didn't warm up my freezer too much when I started to freeze them. Then I
sanitized the insides of the container, flushed, added the boiled water, and
froze.
When I needed them, I used an ice pick to chip them into pieces and add to
the wort. The chips cool things a lot faster because of the larger surface
area.
Simple, fast cooling and the infection risk is below the noise.
Hope this helps.
Pete Calinski
East Amherst NY
Near Buffalo NY
0^45'49.1" North, 5^7'9.5" East of Ground Zero.
********************************************************************
*My goal:
* Go through life and never drink the same beer twice.
* (As long as it doesn't mean I have to skip a beer.)
********************************************************************
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 09:24:26 -0500
From: Crossno Clan <crossno@tnns.net>
Subject: Fermentors
Steve A. writes: "I do expect different shaped, sized, 'materialed'
fermenters to give different results for various reasons."
Just to add a small amount of fuel to the debate. One thing to remember
is fermentor material. I have done a fair amount of split batches.
Split between glass and plastic. Plastic always has a lower FG then
glass, usually by 0.002.
I sent several bottles off to Dave Draper(?) many years ago. He taste
tested with a fellow judge and could not tell a difference. I
contribute the difference to oxygen up take but it could be pressure/CO2
toxicity.
On-On,
Glyn Crossno
Estill Springs, TN
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 10:26:38 -0400
From: Jeff Renner <JeffRenner@mediaone.net>
Subject: Re: Big (CAP?) Spurments
"Dr. Pivo" <dp@pivo.w.se> trolled (and hooked me):
>Why a CAP? Why indeed this American insistance on brtewing beers of
>which there is no longer any examples to compare it to?
>...
>It does seem a bit to me like having a competition about who can do the
>best vocal impersonation of George Washington.
I think it's more like trying to speak Indo-European. It's been
extinct for millennia, but linguists have a pretty good idea of what
it was by studying its extant descendants.
CAP has been extinct for, say, maybe 80 years, or maybe only 50, but
it was a gradual decline, and some of us oldsters can remember its
remnant echoes in beers from only 30-40 years ago (like the microwave
echo of the big bang). Besides, we have a good written record of
recipes, techniques and ingredients from 100 years ago. I'm
confident that the CAPs I brew compare favorably with beers of a
century ago. And it's a damn good style!
Jeff
- --
***Please note new address*** (old one will still work)
Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan USA, JeffRenner@mediaone.net
"One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 07:55:22 -0700
From: Demonick <demonick@zgi.com>
Subject: cold flocculation
From: "Paddock Wood Brewing Supplies" <orders@paddockwood.com>
>... But for clear beer, then enhancing sedimentation through
>finings or other methods is the goal.
>
>My question to the beer chemists out there is: Does cold enhance
>sedimentation of yeast and/or other suspended particulate?
Yes.
Most finings like, polyclar, isinglass, bentonite, diatomaceous earth, even
Irish Moss (I think), work through electrostatic forces not chemical
forces. Electrostatic forces put particles with positive and negative
charges in solution, and they are attracted to each other and clump
together. These clumps then fall to the bottom of the fermenter. Unlike
chemical reactions, electrostatic forces are NOT diminished by reduced
temperatures. Since the electrostatic forces bringing and keeping the
fining particles and the haze particles together are fighting the
thermodynamic brownian motion forces attempting to keep them apart, and
brownian motion is quite temperature dependent, reducing the temperature
reduces the forces that inhibit electrostatic clumping.
So, although reduced temperatures may not encourage flocculation, reduced
temperatures do enhance sedimentation, especially when using fining agents.
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: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 12:04:15 -0400
From: "Peed, John" <jpeed@elotouch.com>
Subject: Breweries and cold break
So how do the big guys (and the micro guys) handle cold break? Don't they
take the boiled wort through a glycol chiller and then into the fermenter?
Do they do anything to remove cold break before the wort gets to the
fermenter?
Like Dennis Collins, I am curious about the effect of cold break in the
fermenter. I've read both ways, that is to say, that it's good and that
it's bad. Opinions?
John Peed
Knoxville, TN
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 09:02:49 -0700
From: Anthony Rivera <anthonyr@qcpi.com>
Subject: Seattle Beer Scene
I will be in Seattle next weekend and was hoping to get a few suggestions
from the collective for the best brewpubs/beerbars/restaurants in town. I
checked out pubcrawler.com but it seems that most of the evaluations are a
little dated. Someone suggested contacting the local homebrew store when I
arrive and asking them. This seems like a great idea but I would still
like somewhat of a game plan before hand. Private emails are welcome.
Thanks,
Antone
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 12:44:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: Frank Tutzauer <comfrank@acsu.buffalo.edu>
Subject: re: H:W huh?
I had an informative and enlightening (but laborious!) post setting
you guys straight on this H:W business, but you played nicely and
straightened out the confusion yourselves, so I won't bother. I do
have one nit to pick, though.
Tom writes:
SURF=(pi/4)*D*D
VOL=(pi/4)*D*D*H
Therefore,
SURF:VOL = 1/H
H:D = H/D
And Steve writes:
V=volume, S=surface area, H, W the obvious ...
V = S * H so S/V = 1/H
Back to me:
No way would I use the term "surface" or "surface area" to describe
Tom's SURF or Steve's S. Instead, this is the "cross-sectional area,"
i.e., the area that results from cutting the cylinder parallel to it's
base. Let's call it C instead of S. Then, as correctly observed, C/V
= 1/H.
To me, the surface area would be the area that resulted if you cut the
cylinder down the side, pressed it flat, and measured the area of the
resulting rectangle, i.e., S = pi*H*W (I am not including the top or
bottom of the container).
It turns out that, so defined, S/V = 4/W, so whereas C:V is solely
determined by height, S:V is solely determined by width (diameter).
So, any two of the ratios S:V, C:V, and H:W can be chosen at will, but
once two are chosen the third is determined. Similarly, fixing volume
and any one of the ratios determines the other two.
--frank
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 15:00:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Johnson <dmjohnson@pol.net>
Subject: Hard Cider Sites
Andrew Lea's site.
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/andrew_lea/content2.htm
The Real Cider and Perry Page
http://web.bham.ac.uk/GraftonG/cider/homepage.htm
Both are informative sites and there are good links from there.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 15:28:20 -0400
From: "Czerpak, Pete" <Pete.Czerpak@siigroup.com>
Subject: sterile water storage of yeast via White Labs
I typically store post fermentation unwashed yeast slurries for repitching
in the fridge. For me, I tend to store for less than about 4-6 weeks with
no apparent ill effects. At 4 weeks and beyond, I use a starter solution to
reawaken the little yeasts though. When I repitch I tend to use about 12 to
16 oz of this slurry which includes some amount of trub and cold break as
well as the important yeast.
Just was reading the White Labs website and came across an article on
sterile water storage of yeast. Check it out on their site and here is a
small quote from the article:
"Here are some typical numbers from our tests: Percentage of viable yeast
cells after two weeks of storing yeast in sterile water at room temperature,
5 percent. The percentage of viable cells in sterile water at cold
temperatures (40 F), 25 percent. Typical White Labs yeast after the same
time period with normal storage techniques, over 90 percent. Typical yeast
viability at a commercial brewery, 25 percent."
I have never done viability or vitality testing on my slurries but let the
brews tell the stories for me. I've never used a "terribly old" slurry
either though. Like I said 4 to 6 weeks is my maximum. I usually judge on
smell as well - would a funky yeast smell develop at 6 weeks?
Just wanted to pass the info along on this first friday of june.
Pete Czerpak
albany, NY
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 16:18:32 -0700
From: Scott Perfect <perfect@marzen.llnl.gov>
Subject: geometry
David writes in response to Steve:
"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. "
and
"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. "
Actually, dimensional analysis has been a cornerstone of Steve's point
the entire time. You and Del have been talking about various systems
of _fixed volume_. Steve has consistently been saying that H and W do
not describe the fermenter - one must also prescribe volume or surface-
to-volume ratio, etc.
If you check Fix's web page,
http://hometown.aol.com/brwyfoam/Homebrewing-with-Fix.html
Follow the link "Bluebonnet 2001." He states, in part, that,
"DeClerck was apparently the first to seriously study
fermenter shapes. He did so in a series of carefully
controlled experiments done on the nanolevel (liter
fermenters), microlevel (50 liter fermenters) and on the
production level. (See reference series 1)."
Reference series 1 is
a. DeClerck, 1957 - A Textbook of Brewing, reissued by
Siebel Institute.
b. Knudsen, 1978 - MBAA Tech. Qr., Vol. 15, No. 3.
This was Steve's starting point.
The statement that H:W will affect fermentation implies that
geometrically
scaled systems will behave in the same manner. That is why Steve has
been
referring to his test tube ferments. The test tube has supposedly
terrible H:W
but Steve's experience has shown no fermentation problems. Even if the
hypothesis is restricted to "homebrew scale," that covers a range of
volumes, no?
This is also why he does not think Del's surface-to-volume hypothesis is
applicable - Five gallon fermenters with a specific H:W do not have the
same S:V as, say, fifteen gallon fermenters with the same H:W.
If you use dimensional analysis to look at a fermenter, you will have to
include
thermal properties, fluid properties, geometric quantities, diffusion
rates,
gravitational acceleration, etc. If you consider a model and a
geometrically
scaled prototype, it is apparent that you cannot hold constant all of
the
dimensionless parameters that describe the systems. Everyone has said
this
in one way or another. If nothing else, one should agree that 15
gallons
should be as valid as 1 - these are homebrew scales.
What Steve has been saying, in part, is simply:
We need to look beyond H:W as an explanation for poor ferments. The
yeast
cannot "feel" H:W because it only partly describes the system.
Honestly, much of the arguing has been semantics and personalities,
folks...
A key issue of interest is the experimental results that Fix reported
and the observation
that cornies have high aspect ratio compared to the CC. Steve feels
that one should
be able to ferment in a cornie to a lower fg in less time with lower
diacetyl than
Fix reported. Note that Fix found an average difference (of 5 brews) of
1.8P in fg between
CC and cornie. And double time to terminal. That's detectable, maybe
even for me. :-)
Not many can measure diacetyl but most can measure gravity reasonably
well.
Even if the gravity measurements are inaccurate, the relative measures
are
probably not too bad. Maybe a relatively simple straw-man experiment
with poor controls would be enlightening. Cornie versus anything else
you have around with low H:W - plastic 6.5 gal bucket for instance.
Plenty of people are equiped for that one. Heck, toss in a fast ferment
test
too.
Pivo has the right idea - any shlub can play with these things.
Scott Perfect
San Ramon, CA
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 23:13:58 -0400
From: "Bob Sutton" <Bob@homebrew.com>
Subject: More ice vs. chiller musings
Ron La Borde noted:
[EXCERPT]
you start with clean water (boiled, then cooled), then put it into a Ziplock
bag
(supposed to be sanitized, it's for food after all), then place this into
the freezer.
Now you have some clean, sanitized ice which you can use by opening the
Ziplock and placing the ice into the wort. You can first submerge the pack
into some sanitizer much as you would the yeast pack to sanitize the pack's
surface just before handling and opening it.
[ENDEXCERPT]
Why open the Ziplock bag at all... after you've sanitized the pack's
external surface with (no-rinse) iodophor, gently lower the entire sealed
bag into your wort...
1. no messy dilution calculations...
2. no messy "ker-plopp" when the ice chunk drops from the bag into the
wort...
3. reduced exposure of possible contaminants from inside the bag (some might
suggest, why boil the water at all... just fill it with hot water from the
tap and freeze...
If memory serves me right... some have suggested immersing sanitized 2-liter
PET bottles containing frozen water - of course you need to be sure that
nasty label glue has been removed... and those ubiquitous "blue ice"
containers could do the trick as well.
Bob
Fruit Fly Brewhaus
Yesterdays' Technology Today
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #3649, 06/02/01
*************************************
-------
