Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #4429
HOMEBREW Digest #4429 Thu 18 December 2003
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: RIMS temperature control ("Martin Brungard")
Heavy duty brewpot on e-bay ("richard ramirez")
Donating to HBD (how to do) ("Gary Smith")
Fw: Rogue Chocolate Stout ("Lindsay Dive")
Re: Scorched a direct fired mash (Scott Alfter)
re: Beersicle ("-S")
er: Yeast Cannibalism? ("-S")
RIMS issues ("Charles Beavert")
Malt Vinegar ("-S")
RIMS temperature control / Flowrate measurement (Lou King)
Re: Scorched a direct fired mash (Ed Jones)
Scorched mash ("Dave Draper")
Re: Scorched a direct fired mash (Jeff Renner)
Re: Beersicle (Jeff Renner)
Re: creating clear canned wort (Ed Jones)
Re: creating clear canned wort (Jeff Renner)
Cavitation and HSA (Calvin Perilloux)
RIMS Heat Equation ("Martin Brungard")
Clear Canned Wort-- Why? (rickdude02)
Chilly HERMS ("Jay Spies")
PID Control (Wade Hutchison)
Pump usage (Wade Hutchison)
Re: Pump usage ("Gary Smith")
Power Control in PID ("Mike Sharp")
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* The HBD Logo Store is now open! *
* http://www.hbd.org/store.html *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* 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 cannot reach you. We will not correct your address
for the automation - that's your job. Note that the Digest now
automagically protects your address, so spam-proofing is a waste of
your time, anyway :^)
HAVING TROUBLE posting, subscribing or unsusubscribing? See the HBD FAQ at
http://hbd.org.
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 or read the HBD FAQ at http://hbd.org.
JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Spencer Thomas (janitor@hbd.org)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:02:18 -0900
From: "Martin Brungard" <mabrungard at hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: RIMS temperature control
Whew!, Todd is raising a ruckus. But he does raise some good questions too.
I did create and calibrate an orifice flowmeter for my system using water.
The only problem is that I haven't created a calibration set for various
wort gravities and temperatures. But, using the calibration for water, I
checked the results of my last mash. The flowrate was right at about 1/2
gpm for my system near the end of the mash. During the initial stages of
the mash, the flowrate was much lower (as usual), but I made a measurement
error and I therefore don't have a flowrate calculated for that condition.
Since my tun is equiped with a manometer, I was also able to measure the
headloss through the grainbed. With the flowrate, area of the mash tun, and
hydraulic gradient through the bed, I calculated that the permeability of
the grist was about 0.06 cm/sec. This was for a 5 gallon batch that was
mashed in a 6.5 gal plastic bucket (avg ID ~ 10.5 inches). This data is
generally what I expected. I didn't do anything like add rice hulls to
improve the permeability of this grist.
Dion indicated that he estimates (measured?) the flowrate in his system to
be about 5 gpm. I visited Dion's webpage and saw that he is using a Sankey
keg for mashing. I'm assuming he's doing 10 gallon batches. Assuming a 15
inch ID for the keg and a mash volume of between 6 and 8 gallons, I
estimated the grainbed depth to be about 8 to 12 inches deep. For a typical
hydraulic gradient of about 1.0, the grist permeability would have to be
about 0.3 cm/sec. That's about 4 times more permeable than I measured, but
that is not unusual. Variation in the crush, grain type, and intake screen
could easily explain this. A factor of 4 is almost nothing in the realm of
soil permeability, where permeabilty routinely differs by 8 or 9 orders of
magnitude.
I have to admit that the 5 gpm flowrate in Dion's system is not
unreasonable. But, I'm curious how accurate his estimate is and if any
special measures were taken to improve grist permeability.
I also did a calculation on the heat input needed under various flow
conditions. I would print the relatively simple equation here, but I left
it at the office. It incorporates the wort Brix reading, the wort flowrate,
and the desired temperature step to determine the required heat input.
Notice that the equation doesn't use the desired temperature increase rate,
it doesn't really matter. The temperature increase rate is a product of
everything else.
I did find that it doesn't take much of a flowrate to exceed the output of
most single element heaters using 110v (~1200 watts). This result was a
surprise to me, but looking back at my system's performance, I know that I
can't raise the wort temperature more than about 10 or 15 degrees above the
inlet wort temperature. So, until I've started heating all the wort and
grain in the tun, the temperature increase is limited. Dion's system uses
twin 110v heating elements. I can see that this is a good solution to the
limited heating capacity of 110v elements. It would be great to have a
system that could step up from say 122F and start pouring 154F wort onto the
mash, instead of my system's feable 130 or 140F wort. That heat flow model
that I mentioned the other day does confirm that the mash step would be much
faster when you bring the heater outlet temp all the way to the desired
final temp immediately.
But, I have to wonder out loud if the use of 220v heaters is really a bad
thing when your using a PID to modulate the power and you're measuring the
wort temp at the heater outlet. It seems this would be entirely acceptable
and it would provide a higher heat output under higher flowrates. I'm with
Todd and others on this issue, 220v power for heaters with PID control (and
the proper thermocouple location :-0 ) seems like it should be fine for
RIMS. I'm hoping that someone on the list will have experience they can
share on this issue.
Martin Brungard
Tallahassee, FL
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:13:54 -0800
From: "richard ramirez" <richard_ramirez1 at lycos.com>
Subject: Heavy duty brewpot on e-bay
I ran across this & thought
it might be interesting to
some of you.
Probably the biggest
brewpot I have ever seen.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?
ViewItem&item=2366487080&ssPageName=ADME:B:LC:US:1
remove the space in the url
Richard
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 23:15:05 -0600
From: "Gary Smith" <mandolinist at ameritech.net>
Subject: Donating to HBD (how to do)
Hi,
As I suggested in the last digest, it would be good to
send some financial support to the HBD server. I was
asked off list how to donate some Christmas cheer to
the HBD server fund and that was an email I was
particularly glad to get.
First the usual disclaimer stuff: No, I have no official
status with the hbd and I'm just a peon who is grateful
to get the digest.
To find out where to donate, go to http://hbd.org and
click on the finances page on the left of the screen.
You will find all the info there and why if you send via
check, greenback, whatever... directly the server gets
more than if you go the PayPal route.
Belly up to the HBD bar Ladies & Gentleman, let's
buy the house a round.
Cheers,
Gary
Gary Smith
CQ DX de KA1J
http://musician.dyndns.org
http://musician.dyndns.org/homebrew.html
If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not
bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and a man.
- Mark Twain -
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:04:57 +1100
From: "Lindsay Dive" <ldive at optushome.com.au>
Subject: Fw: Rogue Chocolate Stout
Mark is asking for a recipe for Rogue Chocolate Stout.
I have not tried the Rogue Chocolate Stout, however, I have tried the Young's
Luxury Double Chocolate Stout. This is a wonderful beer.
I have recently attempted to clone this beer and from all reports so far it
appears that I have mastered the amount of chocolate to be used and how to use
it.
I used 28 grams of Cocoa powder in a 25 litre batch. This amount of Cocoa
powder gave just about the right flavour profile of the Young's chocolate
stout. You could make it stronger if you wish, but I believe that the beer
must first taste like a stout, and secondly, just leave the slightest hint of
chocolate.
I boiled the cocoa powder in about two cups of water for about five minutes
and then let it settle for a while and then removed the cocoa butter that will
form on the top of the liquid. You can see the little globules of the cocoa
butter. I then added this liquid directly into the mash.
You will think that you have added too much cocoa when smelling the mash and
the boil, but the resultant beer is spot on.
Regards,
Lindsay Dive.
Mona Vale.
Sydney.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 22:54:07 -0800
From: Scott Alfter <scott at alfter.us>
Subject: Re: Scorched a direct fired mash
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 at 19:07:24 -0500, "Urban, Michael J, WCITS"
<mjurban at att.com> wrote:
> My brewing partner and I just finished our first all grain brew.
> Everything went well, except we managed to scorch the bottom
> of our mash tun adding direct heat for the temperature steps.
> The end effect on the flavor is yet to be determined, although the
> wort tasted pretty darn good. I've since done some searching in the
> archives, and the good news is that at least we're not alone, as
> this seems to be a fairly common problem with direct fired mash
> tuns.
How powerful a burner are you using? I use a stainless-steel turkey fryer
setup (the one Sam's Club sells) for mashing and boiling. On the couple of
all-grain brews I've done so far (both of which used step mashing),
scorching hasn't been a problem. In addition to the turkey fryer not being
one of the 170-kbtu monsters (it's probably somewhere closer to 55-70 kbtu),
I've also kept the burner relatively low when raising the mash temperature
from one step to the next. I also stir the mash to help distribute the heat
more evenly. The only time the burner gets kicked up to full throttle is to
heat the water to strike temperature, to bring the wort to a boil, and to
keep the wort boiling.
(The pot included with the kit is also fairly thin-walled...it's nowhere
near the thickness of a converted keg. I suspect that could make a
difference in heat distribution and retention.)
_/_ Scott Alfter ($firstname at $lastname.us)
/ v \ http://alfter.us/
(IIGS( Southern Nevada Ale Fermenters Union - http://snafu.alfter.us/
\_^_/ Beer and Loafing in Las Vegas - http://www.beerandloafing.org/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 02:33:56 -0500
From: "-S" <-s at adelphia.net>
Subject: re: Beersicle
Dave Larsen" asks of a beersicle in keg -
>Can I just thaw it out? Will it be okay?
I doubt freezing will harm the beer flavors.
Slow freezing will certainly cause a separation of beer
components, particularly water and CO2. You'll
probably need to stir/shake the beer after thawing and
then adjust the carbonation.
>[..] should I
>let it sit out at room temp or even bathe the keg in warm water?
I'd thaw at room temps and return it (shaken) to the fridge while still
cold. Plan on adjusting CO2 after this. Never warm beer if you can help
it.
-S
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 03:32:29 -0500
From: "-S" <-s at adelphia.net>
Subject: er: Yeast Cannibalism?
Greg Morris asks,
>now smells and tastes awful. It has a burnt rubber-ish
>smell to it, that hbd has always attributed to yeast autolysis.
I've posted extensively against this myth, but the collective memory is very
short and Spencer's search engine down.
Autolyzing yeast can sometimes (relatively rarely) give a rubbery aroma. It
smells nothing like BURNT rubber - that's a myth from some early HB books.
Try burning some real rubber (e.g. gum eraser) - it's sharp, acidic, sulfury
with a strong oily component.
The other myth Greg repeats is about yeast "cannibalism". Dead yeast cells
eventually release strong proteolytic enzymes from their vacuoles used
(while alive) to recycle their own proteins. Once the vacuoles are
breached the other membranes will fail and the total mix of cell
constituents will soon be released to the beer. Live cells may reuse some
of the released nutrients, but they obviously have no mechanism to break
down other yeast cells without also destroying themselves. How could yeast
transmit a cell membrane degrading chemical through their own cell membranes
? They can't.
Autolyzing yeast will:
1/ raise beer pH
2/ add a broad but mild unpleasant bitterness (yeast bite)
3/ detract from head/foam
That's all that occurs 90% of the time in my experience - just a moderate
loss in quality. HBers are so brainwashed into look for extreme and rare
autolysis flavors, that they misidentify or miss the common forms of
autolysis damage most of the time.
The flavors added by autolysis aside from the bitterness are variable but
include these:
4/ a toasty, almost nutty flavor, (good champagne has a lot of this)
5/ meat broth flavor
6/ noticeable sulfury aroma
7/ eventually a rancid oil aroma//flavor
Toasty and brothy are by far the most common flavors beyond 1-3. I believe
the brothy+rancid oil combination give a "dead mouse" impact, while
sulfur+rancid are probably components of the rubbery aroma.
> it is my guess that the smelliness of the cartridges caused the
> beer smelliness.
That's extremely likely, I think.
-S
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 03:25:29 -0600
From: "Charles Beavert" <cbeaver at netnitco.net>
Subject: RIMS issues
I have read the posts about RIMS issues with great interest. In my 15 gallon
3 tier system I get a flow rate of about 1 gallon per minute. I brew in my
garage in Indiana winters so maintaining temps is an issue.
The outlet of my mash tun is 3/8 inch and the rest of the recirculating
system is 5/8 inch. I am considering increasing the outlet diameter to 5/8
inch. Would that allow for an increase in flow?
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 06:44:26 -0500
From: "-S" <-s at adelphia.net>
Subject: Malt Vinegar
Chad Stevens asks,
>Anyone made Malt Vinegar? Pointers?
I've been promising BYO a short article on this topic, but I'm *way* behind
on this and some other projects (apologies Steve Jones too). An outline
follows ...
Acetic acid bacteria convert ethanol to acetic acid in equimolar amounts.
Acetic bacteria 'starters' are available as "mother of vinegar" from many
HB shops. Beer is a good medium nutritionally for the bacteria. Normal
strength vinegar is 5% acetic acid by weight and this requires the 'acetic
fermentation' of just under 5% ethanol ABV. A little over 5%ABV is
probably a safe choice given inefficiencies. A lower strength beer can
still be used for vinegar, but should be fortified with vodka to 5 or 5.5 %
ABV.
The "beer' used should be unhopped as hops bitterness is not pleasant in
vinegar. One nice technique is to no-sparge or use little sparging for a
conventional beer, then make an unhopped vinegar-beer from second runnings.
In any case don't add hops. Conduct the fermentation exactly as you would
for beer, but as the fermentation terminates, rack and proceed immediately
to the vinegar fermentation.
Acetic acid bacteria require oxygen to create acetic from ethanol and this
is a rate limiting factor. If left in a sealed fermenter the conversion
will stop very early. In a carboy with an opened bung the conversion will
take a couple months. If the acetic fermenter's beer is continuously
aerated the conversion will finish in a week or two. The fermentation also
proceeds fastest around body temps - 98F and 65F V.ferments are too slow
IMO.
It's just an opinion, but my attempts to speed up fermentation with heat or
aeration often result in rather harsher tasting vinegar, which often
improves with further aging. Sometimes very solventy ester aromas appear
late in the acetic fermentation. For my needs fermenting in a carboy at
70-75C is slow but completely adequate and produces a nice product.
In passively aerated systems the acetic bacteria form a surface mat or
pellicle over the surface of the beer. Sometimes these are thin and appear
like a white flaky dry surface. Other times the mats are very thick,
semi-translucent and rather rubbery in texture. The pellicles often sink
to the bottom, but this causes no serious problem - it will reform a new one
if the V.fermentation is unfinished. Thick rubbery mats are difficult to
remove through a carboy mouth - btw.
For V.fermentation I rack/aerate the beer and add the vinegar bacteria, then
cover the carboy mouth w/ paper coffee filters held with a rubber band,
place it somewhere with a stable not-too-low temp. You must leave a good
amount of headspace in the carboy for air access. 3 or 3.5 gallon vinegar
fermenting in a 5g carboy is about right. Less beer is fine. With some
experience you can gauge fermentation progress by smelling the carboy mouth.
The acetic aroma increases for weeks, then late in the process becomes more
mellow and less harsh-acidic. Pulling a little sample with a pipette is
even more informative. Jarring, harsh acidity on the tongue means the
process is unfinished. Sometimes harsh solventy nailpolish type esters are
formed very late. I suspect it's lack of amino acids. Leaving a *little*
yeast in the vinegar fermentation is probably a nutritional advantage to the
bacteria..
The acetic fermentation does a remarkable job of removing any protein haze.
The foam/head and protein-body are also *completely* removed. I assume
bacterial proteases are at work here. It also seems to reduce any tannic
tones !
When finished you can rack the vinegar off the trub and away from the
pellicle. In my experience you should plan a second racking. Even tho the
vinegar appears crystal clear on first racking a little sediment always
forms. Even more annoying is that transfer often initiates creation of a
new pellicle in the second vessel or the finished bottle. Some people use
sulfite(Campden tablets) to wipe the bacteria and prevent this. I've
pasteurized or simmered for 60 seconds and that works well too. A bit of
pellicle in some vinegar can be stored cool for many weeks to inoculate a
future batch.
One traditional vinegar making method, the Orleans method, uses a barrel or
tank with tubing to permits finished vinegar to be drawn from under the
pellicle, and new medium to be added under the pellicle too. This sort of
continuous production is nice for home use. I haven't quite used that
method, but it's convenient to drain the majority of finished vinegar for
clearing and bottling, then just add more 'beer' to the same fermenter.
I have experience w/ 3 different commercial mothers and have never noticed
any reliable differences. Simple wort (e.g. pils) makes good but
unexciting malt vinegar. Crystal malt sweetness does transfer to the
vinegar as does some of the maltiness from munich&vienna malts. I think
something like an (unhopped) APA amber wort or a light bodied Marzen wort
make the most interesting vinegars. I haven't liked the few I've made from
heavier bock worts as the dextrins are present but seem odd w/o the
proteins. Commercial salad vinegars usually have a considerable amount of
sugar added (~25gm/L, 2.5P) to balance the flavor. Malt vinegars require
less due to the malt flavor, even none when a good bit is crystal is
involved.
-S
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 08:34:29 -0500
From: Lou King <lking at pobox.com>
Subject: RIMS temperature control / Flowrate measurement
Todd Snyder raised a good point:
> What flowrate do other RIMSers use?
My answer is: I have absolutely no idea. I believe I have some
variability in my results because the flowrate is variable as I do it by
feel rather than measurement. I, too, am worried about a compacted
grainbed and suspect I have been "underflowing" my system. I am
definitely underattenuating and need to make some adjustments.
Can anyone answer the question: How does one measure flowrate in a RIMS
system? The best answer would be something cheap and easy to clean, so
it isn't a one time test but used for every batch.
Lou King
Ijamsville, MD
http://www.lousbrews.info (note the new URL)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 05:38:12 -0800 (PST)
From: Ed Jones <cuisinartoh at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Scorched a direct fired mash
Mike said:
"I've since done some searching in the archives, and the good news is
that at least we're not alone, as this seems to be a fairly common
problem with direct fired mash tuns. The bad news is that I didn't
find a silver bullet; there wasn't any secret which would allow us to
avoid the same situation in the future. The solution seems to be to
find a way to avoid direct heat in the mash steps."
That's just one solution. You didn't mention what kind of lautering
screen you are using but I'm assuming either a screen or small false
bottom. I direct fire my mash/lauter tun to perform step mashes and I
don't scorch my wort but there's a good reason for that. I use a full
size false bottom that sits right about the where the bottom weld holds
the lower dome on a sankey keg. Sabco (kegs.com) sells one such false
bottom. I then use a pump and a home-made manifold to circulate the
wort while I heat to distribute the heated wort through the grain bed.
I've never scorched the mash yet with this set up. The full-size false
bottom give me several quarts of liquid under the grain bed.
For you, I'd recommend you either do infusions like you mention, use a
small flame while you stir constantly, or figure out a different
lautering device.
Good luck,
Ed
=====
Ed Jones - Columbus, Ohio U.S.A - [163.8, 159.4] [B, D] Rennerian
"When I was sufficiently recovered to be permitted to take nourishment,
I felt the most extraordinary desire for a glass of Guinness...I am
confident that it contributed more than anything else to my recovery."
- written by a wounded officer after Battle of Waterloo, 1815
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 07:06:19 -0700
From: "Dave Draper" <david at draper.name>
Subject: Scorched mash
Hi Michael,
Your post in #4428 didn't mention whether you were stirring your
mash continuously during direct-fire heating. It's a must-- while you
have the flame on (I assume it was flame?) you need to be stirring
constantly to prevent scorching. This isn't quite as onerous as it
sounds... for most of the T steps we might employ, ten minutes or so
of direct heating is usually sufficient. Of course, having a good long-
handled stirrer is important too (I have a brewer's paddle made of oak
that I use in mine, works great).
You can dough in to your first temperature step with a not-THAT-stiff
mash, say around 1 qt/lb (2 L/kg), then direct fire to your next
step(s), and then infuse boiling water to get you to mashout. Most of
us who do infusions never worry about any instantaneous denaturing
upon the arrival of the boiling water-- it mixes well in moments. Using
a boiling infusion just to get to mashout, though, gives you a little
extra assurance-- by the time you are ready to mash out, you're not
concerned about denaturing enzymes any longer, since their work is
done.
Welcome to the wonderful world of all grain!
Cheers, Dave in ABQ
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
David S. Draper, Institute of Meteoritics, Univ New Mexico
David at Draper dot Name
Beer page: http://www.unm.edu/~draper/beer.html
Don't pick your nose. ---Domenick Venezia
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:14:28 -0500
From: Jeff Renner <jeffrenner at comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Scorched a direct fired mash
Michael Urban <mjurban at att.com> writes from Winter Springs, FL:
>My brewing partner and I just finished our first all grain brew.
>Everything went well, except we managed to scorch the bottom
>of our mash tun adding direct heat for the temperature steps.
><snip>The solution seems to be to find a way to avoid direct
>heat in the mash steps.
Michael, you didn't describe your mash tun design. I mash in a ten
gallon aluminum stock pot with a false bottom, and recirculate when I
heat for temperature adjustment. I've never had a scorching problem,
even when applying some pretty intense heat. Many of the local
brewers use SS half barrel mash tuns with false bottoms and don't
scorch. Some others use copper manifolds or EZ Mash type filters,
and I've not heard of scorching from them, either, though I haven't
observed their systems in operation, so I don't know if they stir the
grains while heating or not.
At any rate, I encourage you to consider a pump and a false bottom.
>Are we in danger of local enzyme denaturing by adding water at 210
>oF.? I know we'll have to be stirring pretty vigorously, but still
>the temp
>gradient is going to be pronounced until everything stabilizes.
It won't be a problem. Be sure to stir carefully so as not to incorporate air.
>Also, is there any advantage (or disadvantage) to adding the
>infusion through the outlet, thus introducing the water at the
>bottom of the mash rather than the top. Since heat rises, I
>thought it might be better to reach a stable temp that way,
>and also to avoid any cooling at the surface.
It would also avoid incorporating air as you poured.
Jeff
- --
Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan USA, JeffRenner at comcast.net
"One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:18:27 -0500
From: Jeff Renner <jeffrenner at comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Beersicle
"Dave Larsen" <hunahpumonkey at hotmail.com> writes from Tucson, AZ
that he froze his California Common and asks:
>Can I just thaw it out? Will it be okay?
>If the temp is now 35, I guess it will thaw eventually. However, should I
>let it sit out at room temp or even bathe the keg in warm water?
It'll be fine. You can call it ice beer. It might even be slightly
smoother, from what I recall of George Fix's talk at MCAB-1 in
Houston. Something about certain proteins complexing with tannins or
phenols (?) and precipitating out.
I'd just let it sit if you are in no hurry. Why waste the energy it
took to freeze it? As it thaws it will just keep the fridge from
working as hard.
Jeff
- --
Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan USA, JeffRenner at comcast.net
"One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 06:00:34 -0800 (PST)
From: Ed Jones <cuisinartoh at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: creating clear canned wort
Rob said:
"I have canned wort in a pressure canner in the past, for use with
starters. The base was light DME.
I stopped doing this because there was so much break material in the
canned wort. I tried pre-boiling and then canning, but it did not help
much.
Any suggestions?"
Rob, I don't worry about this break material. It won't hurt anything. I
just decant off the wort and leave most of the break behind. Never had
a problem that I was aware of.
Ed
=====
Ed Jones - Columbus, Ohio U.S.A - [163.8, 159.4] [B, D] Rennerian
"When I was sufficiently recovered to be permitted to take nourishment,
I felt the most extraordinary desire for a glass of Guinness...I am
confident that it contributed more than anything else to my recovery."
- written by a wounded officer after Battle of Waterloo, 1815
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:34:26 -0500
From: Jeff Renner <jeffrenner at comcast.net>
Subject: Re: creating clear canned wort
"Rob Dewhirst" <rob at hairydogbrewery.com> writes:
>I have canned wort in a pressure canner in the past, for use with starters.
>The base was light DME.
>
>I stopped doing this because there was so much break material in the canned
>wort. I tried pre-boiling and then canning, but it did not help much.
>
>Any suggestions?
Yes, don't worry about it. I figure the break material is probably a
good yeast nutrient. At any rate, I don't think it's going to affect
your final beer.
I always make sure to shake up the jar to get it all into the starter
flask, but you could probably decant it carefully if you didn't want
it.
Jeff
- --
Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan USA, JeffRenner at comcast.net
"One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 07:07:49 -0800 (PST)
From: Calvin Perilloux <calvinperilloux at yahoo.com>
Subject: Cavitation and HSA
In the previous HBD:
> With a magnetic pump you want to throttle the output. If you
> throttle the input you can cause cavitation (spinning in place)
> and this will cause bubbling which will severely affect the pumping.
> At high enough temps maybe even a problem with hot side aeration.
True, true, true... and the "maybe" is false. Assuming your pump
seals are tight (they oughta be!), then cavitation is basically
a very low pressure (i.e. vacuum) bubble set whose gas content
is nothing more than the gas that is already in the wort, the
main constituent would surely be water vapour.
If you are worried about lots of oxygen in those cavitation
bubbles, then that could only come from all the oxygen that
is presumably already in your wort -- hence you'd already be
looking at HSA, cavitation or not.
The main concern I have heard about cavitation is wear on the pump.
Calvin Perilloux
Middletown, Maryland, USA
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 06:11:18 -0900
From: "Martin Brungard" <mabrungard at hotmail.com>
Subject: RIMS Heat Equation
OK, since my message (listed above) didn't get posted yesterday, I'll go
ahead a post the equation that I mentioned in that post. This equation
quantifies the amount of power that has to be added to a wort flow stream in
order to reach a desired wort temperature. The equation includes wort flow,
wort concentration (Brix or Plato), and the desired temperature
differential.
Required Power (watts) = S.H. x flowrate x S.G. x desired temp change x
555.5
where: S.H. is the wort specific heat = 4.186 - 0.0293(Plato) units are
kj/kg*K
S.G. is the wort specific gravity = 0.9993 + 0.0042(Plato)
units are kg/L
Plato is expressed as degrees Plato
Flowrate is expressed as Liters per second
Desired temperature change is expressed in farenheit
Please note that watts are equivalent to joules per second
The S.H. and S.G. calculations for wort were taken from an ASHRAE reference
that may have a minor error in it, but it should be close enough. Also note
the desired temperature change is the total change, not the rate. For
instance, the desired temp change when ramping from 122F to 152F is 30F.
The temperature ramping rate (F/min) is subject to several other factors
within the mashing and recirculation system. The equation above just allows
you to assess if you have enough power to perform large temperature steps.
Including a PID (with thermocouple at the heater outlet) in the power system
assures that the wort will not be heated higher than the desired target
temperature.
Plug the equation into a spreadsheet and make it easy to evaluate the
variables for yourself. As pointed out in my previous post, this equation
makes it simple to verify that most 110v heaters do not have the power
output necessary to achieve larger temperature steps when the flowrate is
high. Multiple heaters or higher voltage may solve that deficiency. The
combination of high flowrate and adequate power are needed to achieve good
temperature ramping rates in a RIMS.
Martin Brungard
Tallahassee, FL
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 10:44:31 -0500 (GMT-05:00)
From: rickdude02 at earthlink.net
Subject: Clear Canned Wort-- Why?
Rob asks about canning wort without break material.
My question is why would you want to do this? I may be
wrong, but I understand that the break material actually
contains nutrients that help a healthy yeast culture to
grow.
Rick Theiner
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:53:40 -0500
From: "Jay Spies" <jayspies at citywidehomeloans.com>
Subject: Chilly HERMS
All -
I've been putting together a full brew system upgrade on paper and in my
head with an engineer friend of mine, and it borrows some of the best
elements of a HERMS system and a RIMS system without the seeming
disadvantages of either. Since we all seem to be "on topic", I figured I'd
throw it out there for the collective to ponder/improve upon/flame to
death... I haven't really seen a design exactly like it, but then again,
I'm not the most observant person in the world......
Here's what I had in mind: this is a 3 vessel, 15-20 gallon, single tier
system with 2 pumps. The heart of the system and the focal point of heat
exchange is a convoluted counterflow chiller (hence my Chilly HERMS
moniker). The wort is recirculated through pump #1 (wort pump) and then to
the inner coil of the CFC, and then back to the top of the mashtun. The HLT
water is recirculated through pump #2 (water pump) and then to the outer
coil of the CFC and then back to the top of the HLT. The HLT water is, as
with a HERMS system, the mash heat input source. The HLT is electrically
heated by the biggest heater you can get your mitts on (in my case a
5000-6000W unit running at 240V full tilt). The heater in the HLT is
controlled by a PID control, with the thermocouple placed in the wort line
just aft of the exit of the inner coil of the CFC (where the wort will be
hottest).
Here's the catch: Unlike a HERMS, the HLT will be kept at mash temps. The
PID reads the outgoing wort from the CFC, and because the wort recirc rate
is somewhat low (~ .75 gal/minute), the exiting wort temp should mirror the
incoming HLT water temp (the 2 coils of the CFC flow in opposite directions
and the HLT water is moving much faster). Before mash-in, set the PID to
acheive strike temps in the MT and the heater will respond by heating the
HLT water (and also the mash water) to the setpoint. The massive heater
means that the temp rise should be fairly quick (aided by the constant HLT
recirc and insulation on all lines and tuns). Once you mash in, reset the
PID for your desired mash temp and it will (should) keep mash temps stable
without exposing the wort to any water that's but a few degrees over mash
temps. Step mashing can be achieved by resetting the PID to the next step -
it heats the HLT (and the mash at the same time) to whatever you set. Since
the PID reads the thermocouple in the wort line you have a more accurate
idea what the mash temp will be. The only variable is being able to raise
the HLT temp fast enough so there's not massive lag going from step to
step - hence the Paul Bunyan heater. (I had initially thought of putting
the thermocouple in the HLT, but then I have no way of directly measuring MT
heat losses. It's hit or miss, but it should also work once you "learn"
your system with regard to MT heat loss ie - set the HLT to "2 degrees"
above the desired mash temp)...but I digress.
Several advantages are inherent in this design: first, the system lends
itself to being set on an industrial timer - you get the water for the HLT
and mash ready the night before, set the PID to strike temps, and set your
timer to wake up the system (PID, pumps, etc) early in the morning and get
to work heating the water to strike temp. You wake up about an hour after
your brew system and simply mash in. Second, the recirc can be as slow as
you please b/c you're not exposing the wort to super-high denaturing
temps...so if you happen to stick a mash, it's not the kiss of death, as one
poster put it. Third, the boil kettle can be hooked up to the wort pump and
after the boil, place ice water in the HLT and recirc the ice water through
the water pump and to the outer coil of the CFC to get your hot wort (going
though the inner coil) down to instant lager pitching temps. Talk about
cold break... You can also pump to a fermenter. You can also use a hop
screen in the boil kettle and whole hops and recirc the near boiling wort
through the CFC and back to the kettle (gently, gently...) to sanitize the
CFC and get the hops to filter out the hot break at the same time.
Electrics/mechanical are a challenge. The PID activates at LEAST a 30-40
amp SSR (50 amp preferable) which switches through a contactor to operate
the heater to change temps. Heavy gauge wire and GFI's at the breakers are
SOP for this type of power, for obvious reasons. The timer (an industrial
countdown-type) is inline between the contactor and its power source.
Almost all of this stuff (PID, contactors, SSR's with heatsinks, timers,
breaker GFI's, etc) can be scrounged on eBay for cheap.
So what do you think? Workable, or crap? YOU MAKE THE CALL....
Jay Spies
Head Mashtum Scraper
Asinine Aleworks
Baltimore, MD
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:18:28 -0500
From: Wade Hutchison <whutchis at bucknell.edu>
Subject: PID Control
You seem to be really opposed to PID control for some reason, and you
obviously know what you're talking about, but I have to disagree on some
points you raise:
>Mike Sharp writes:
>"The maximum ramping rate has nothing whatsoever to do with the type of
>control--it's the amount of power you apply to the heating chamber. "
>
>I agree completely. But if you have a low flowrate of wort and you set the
>heating chamber at the mash target temperature, it will take a long time to
>heat the _mash_ up to the target temperature.
Actually, the grain in the mash has a relatively small heat capacity
compared to the liquid portion of the mash. Heat the liquid to the right
temperature, and the mash bed will be there as well. That's certainly what
I see on my RIMS system. I run at about 3 gpm, and get 1 to 1.5 deg/min
temperature rise for a typical (10 lbs. grain, 12 qts of water) batch.
Of course, I generally only use the RIMS to hold my mash temperature
steady, and to raise the temp from saccharification to mash-out.
>My point is that if you could heat the recirculating wort _above_ the target
>temperature to some safe but elevated temperature, you could get the heat
>into the mash faster and in something more closely resembling a step instead
>of a ramp.
>
>For example, lets say you want the mash to be raised to 154F and that you
>don't want the heating chamber outlet to exceed 160F. A PC based controller
>could add the heat as fast as possible without exceeding the 160 limit.
>When the heater has been 'on' the total number of seconds needed to add the
>required heat, the software stops adding heat even though the target
>temperature may not have shown up at any of the sensors.
>
>A PID is not smart enough to dump the heat in all at once. It 'sneaks up'
>on the solution with time when the temp sensor is installed on the outlet of
>the heating chamber.
That all depends on the tuning of the controller - my experience is that a
well-tuned controller will do just what you suggest - Turn on full heat
when the temperature is far from the set point, and reduce heat only when
you're near your target temperature. With the temperature probe
mounted at the exit of the heating chamber, I don't think you can overshoot.
(I haven't done the math on it yet, though).
>Then Mike missed the point about the scenario involving the probe somewhere
>in the mash, which _will_ cause a time delay in the control system.
That's right - it's called "dead time", or the time delay between the
controller
taking an action, and the sensor (thermocouple in this case) seeing the
result of that action. Dead time in the system can lead to overshoot and
oscillation with a simple PID control. If you really want to control the temp.
in the mash tun directly, then you do need a better control algorithm
than PID.
>"If you're measuring the temperature at the exit of the
>heating chamber, the time delay is minor. "
>
>I agree completely, using a PID with the probe at the outlet at the heating
>chamber is a perfect application for a PID. Putting the probe in the mash
>or at the mash outlet is not.
>
>Putting the probe somewhere in the mash or at the mash outlet is a recipe
>for two problems. 1. Overheating the wort in the heating chamber because
>the controller is not 'seeing' what it's heating 2. Because of the time
>delay between applying the heat and seeing the temperature change:
>overshooting the temp in the mash and at the mash outlet.
Agreed. So why would you want to do that?
>Todd Snyder
>Buffalo, NY
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:23:41 -0500
From: Wade Hutchison <whutchis at bucknell.edu>
Subject: Pump usage
With all the RIMS questions flying around, something
came to mind that I'd been meaning to ask the
digest. To start,
>Gary Smith
>On 16 Dec 2003 at 1:35, post at hbd.org wrote:
><snip>
>I haven't actually timed it with a stopwatch but to fill my boil
>kettle from the mash tun when I don't sparge takes certainly
>takes no more than three minutes. All the sanke's are on the
>same single tier and the boil kettle is filling through the siphon
>at the bottom of the keg & going through the ball valve so it's
>pumping against the increasing weight of the boil kettle mash.
Gary mentions that all his vessels are on the same level -
how _do_ you sparge your grainbed? Any idea how
fast your pumping in sparge water and removing wort?
How do you balance the system so you grain doesn't
dry out or drown? Curious,
whutchis at bucknell.edu
Brewing at 41deg 00' N by 76deg 50' W
597.6 Klicks, 101.5 deg. Rennerian
Milton, PA 17847
"There is a very fine line between 'hobby' and 'mental illness.'" ~ Dave Barry
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:03:37 -0600
From: "Gary Smith" <mandolinist at ameritech.net>
Subject: Re: Pump usage
Hi Wade,
> >I haven't actually timed it with a stopwatch but to fill my boil
> >kettle from the mash tun when I don't sparge takes certainly
> >takes no
> >more than three minutes. All the sanke's are on the same
> >single tier
> >and the boil kettle is filling through the siphon at the bottom of
> >the keg & going through the ball valve so it's pumping
> >against the
> >increasing weight of the boil kettle mash.
>
> Gary mentions that all his vessels are on the same level -
> how _do_ you sparge your grainbed? Any idea how
> fast your pumping in sparge water and removing wort?
> How do you balance the system so you grain doesn't
> dry out or drown? Curious,
Take a look at my RIMS and you'll see everything on one
level, it's much more convenient that way. I believe I
explained what I do during sparge there on the page
(maybe not) but in short;
Pump 1 has quick disconnects on the I & O.
The output of Pump 2 is dedicated to the rims chamber.
The input has a quick disconnect.
As mash is nearing completion (circulating via pump 2) I
heat five gallons of water and use pump 1 to shuttle it to
the well insulated sparge vessel. when the mash is done
and Iodine remains red I shut off the valves, connect the
mash-tun output to the input of pump 1 and the pump
output to the boil kettle valve.
I then leave the sparge arm in place so as not to disturb
the grain bed (it's always in place & through it is how the
mash re-enters the tun) I take the input to pump 2 and
connect that to the sparge vessel.
I have a sight glass on both the boil kettle & the sparge
vessel. I leave the rims controller at 170F and slowly
transfer from the mash-tun to the boil kettle and equally
fast (or slow) bring in water from the sparge vessel.
Looking at the sight gauges tells me if I'm ahead or
behind in synchronized sparge/filling the boilkettle.
Leaving the controller on assures the water coming
in as sparge is exactly at 170.
Sometimes I do not sparge & simply transfer mash to
the boil kettle and start the boil. In that case I later add
a bit of sparge water after the transfer is done and
capture the somewhat thinned sweet wort for future
yeast food after harvesting. Depends on my mood &
the beer I'm making.
I am a very lazy man.
Gary
Gary Smith
CQ DX de KA1J
http://musician.dyndns.org
http://musician.dyndns.org/homebrew.html
"Man is a social creature who does not like his fellow beings"
- Mark Twain -
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 10:29:55 -0800
From: "Mike Sharp" <rdcpro at hotmail.com>
Subject: Power Control in PID
Dion Hollenbeck points out:
"Actually, the PID controller does the same thing, ON/OFF only. It does not
directly cut back on wattage."
Well, yes, the instantaneous power of a PID-controlled heater is either 100%
or 0%, but the effects are not immediate. The effective power is related to
the duty cycle. Thermostatic controls cycle on and off as temp oscillates
around the setpoint, PID controlled heaters cycle on and off with a set
period, usually between 0.5 and 2 seconds. So if the heater is on for a
second, and off for a second, the effective power is 50%.
Regards,
Mike Sharp
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #4429, 12/18/03
*************************************
-------
