Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #4533
HOMEBREW Digest #4533 Mon 03 May 2004
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Digest Janitor: janitor@hbd.org
***************************************************************
THIS YEAR'S HOME BREW DIGEST BROUGHT TO YOU BY:
Beer, Beer, and More Beer
Visit http://morebeer.com to show your appreciation!
Support those who support you! Visit our sponsor's site!
********** Also visit http://hbd.org/hbdsponsors.html *********
Contents:
link of the week - BudNet (Bob Devine)
Re: John Harvey & Apple Beer ("Ross")
re: 40C rest;_no_math error ("-S")
re: Mash Rest Temperatures ("-S")
Mash Tun heat capacity ("Dave Burley")
Re: Fw: Looking for Answers (Jeff Renner)
Astringency (Calvin Perilloux)
Time in a bottle ("Greg R")
Yet another chest freezer modification (felicitabrewery)
Specific Heat ("A.J deLange")
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* The HBD Logo Store is now open! *
* http://www.hbd.org/store.html *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* Suppport this service: http://hbd.org/donate.shtml *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* 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.
HAVING TROUBLE posting, subscribing or unsusubscribing? See the HBD FAQ at
http://hbd.org.
LOOKING TO BUY OR SELL USED EQUIPMENT? Please do not post about it here. Go
instead to http://homebrewfleamarket.com and post a free ad there.
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.
JANITOR on duty: Pat Babcock and Spencer Thomas (janitor@hbd.org)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 02 May 2004 21:32:25 -0600
From: Bob Devine <bob.devine at worldnet.att.net>
Subject: link of the week - BudNet
Here's a link that is not homebrew related but this mailing list
has many techie folks who might find this one interesting.
Budweiser tracks sales via its "BudNet" system. In the battle for beer
sales,
Bud keeps growing by using tech and a Wal-Mart style of merchandising.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/ptech/02/25/bus2.feat.beer.network/
Bob Devine
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 May 2004 21:29:04 -0700
From: "Ross" <BurningBrite at charter.net>
Subject: Re: John Harvey & Apple Beer
In HOMEBREW Digest #4532, John Harvey says: "I'm interested in brewing an
apple beer."
Sorry John, I don't have a recipe of my own, but try a Google search for
Unibroue's Ephemere. You will at least get some hints about how they make
their's. If you haven't tried it before, Ephemere is a gorgeous, wondrous
ale with apple cider notes overlaying a gentle, virtually unhopped malt
base. You have to try it to believe it, and now that the warm weather is
here you may be able to find some in your local beer shop. If I could
afford it more often, it would be one of my summer favorites. In my brief
search it appears Unibroue combines a mild ale with an apple must. Too late
tonight to dig for more details, but would love to hear what else you find
out. This would indeed be a wonderful beer to clone...
Ross Potter
Richland, WA
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 00:48:54 -0400
From: "-S" <-s at adelphia.net>
Subject: re: 40C rest;_no_math error
Nathan (Del) writes,
>In checking the text there is no error as previously described.
I agree with your subject line Del, there was "_no_math error". Instead
there are at least two very similar errors in the transcription of
experimental data from two different mashes in AoBT. We all make math
errors, but botching simple data transcription in the same way in two
separate cases is a different sort of problem.
>If read carefully it will be seen that there is ample heat in a 16l
>infusion to hit the next rest temperature with the amount of grist
>involved.
Simply stating that Fix's figures are correct is not a rebuttal at all Del,
it's just an unsupported opinion until you provide evidence to refute my
points. To quote an old Monty Python sketch, "an argument is a connected
series of statements intended to establish a definite proposition", it's not
merely contradiction.
I've read Fix carefully and posted my calculations demonstrating an error in
AoBT series 2 (infusion) mash figures. See Fix, AoBT pp 26, .. 29.. Fix
gives two sets of numbers for two different brews using the same infusion
schedule . One in metric for target 1hL of beer and the other in gallons
and lbs for 0.5 bbl of beer. Both mash-in to a temp of 40C, and step via a
boiling (100C) infusion to 60C:
For the 1hL batch:
Mm = grist mass = 20kg (AoBT pp 26)
mash-in water = unstated
boiling infusion volume = 16L. (AoBT pp27, Mw2 = 16kg)
For the 0.5bbl target we have:
grist weight = 50lb (AoBT pp 26)
mash-in water = unstated
boiling infusion volume = 5.2gal. (AoBT pp27)
Fix states that the boiling water infusions were used for the 40-60C step in
contrast to heating for the other steps. We know that T1 = 40C, T2=100C and
T3 = 60C. Rearranging [eqn 3] in my other post to solve for the mash-in
water mass rather than the temp we get the unitless eqn for the Mash-in
water:
Mw1 = ((T2-T3)/(T3-T1) * Mw2 - Sm * Mm
substituting the temps, and Sm = 0.4 (close enough) we have
Mw1 = 2 * Mw2 - 0.4 * Mm
In Fix's 1hL example this means Mw1 = 24L. That makes the mash-in thickness
1.2:1 or in HB terms 0.577 qt/lb of grist - radically thick mash-in. After
infusion the thickness would still be only 0.96 qt/lb, too thick.
In Fix's 0.5bbl example the mash-in water Mw1 must be 8 gallon for an HB
mash-in thickness of 0.64 qt/lb - again a radically thick mash-in. After
the 5.2gal infusion the thickness would be only 1.06 qt/lb.
Certainly an experienced HB author like Fix would have explained such a very
thick mash if they were used.
Fix states that the mash-wort (like first runnings) from the 'series 2'
mashes are 19.7P and 19.1P .. only marginally higher than the "series 1".
Fix clearly describes all the water additions for "series 1" and these total
to 1.58qt/lb. The total extraction from series 1 & 2 are similar. It's
unbelievable that a 1.06 qt/lb mash and a 1.58 qt/lb mash would give similar
total extraction and yet that the mash-wort has nearly the same Plato.
==
It's obvious that something is wrong with Fix's AoBT series 2 mash numbers.
It's also fairly clear what is wrong with these numbers. The two separate
examples are wrong in a consistent way which precludes a simple typo. From
the lack of commentary and the comparable ending wort gravity it's clear
that series 2 mashes actually finished with thickness around ~1.5qt/lb
(3:1), yet the infusion volumes stated is entirely insufficient for that.
Clearly the infusion volume is understated by very nearly 50% in each case
(around 24L instead of 16L, also 7.8gal instead of 5.2gal). Any other
explanation would require much more extensive mistakes to justify.
I can't imagine how such a systematic error by a similar factor could appear
in the transcription of experimental data (not calculation) from two
separate experiments ... and we will likely never know.
= = =
George Fix first posted on the 40-60-70 mash schedule back in 1995,
HBD#1506. Here is what he said
> Subject: Yield
> From: gjfix at utamat.uta.edu_ (George J Fix)
>
[...]
>
> Data
> brew size = 15.5 gals
> total water = 9.5 gals in mash + 9.5 gals for sparging
> grain bill : 24 lbs. D-C Pale Ale malt
> 2 lbs. D-C Caravienne
> 1 lb. D-C Aromatic
>
> Temperature Program
> 40C (104F) - 30 mins.- 24 lbs. base malt + 6.5 gals. water
>
> Transition 40 to 60C - add 3 gals. of boiling water - add
> adjunct malts at the end as a brake - less than 5 mins.
> is needed
There is a problem with this data too. If we calculate the mix temp of the
24lbs of pale malt + 6.5gal at a mash-in of 40C, and then add 3gal of
infusion at 100C the mix temp will be just under 57C ! If we add the extra
3lbs non-enzymatic as Fix states and consider the tun, then the temp will be
lower than 57C ! Mash-in thickness of 1.08qt/lb and final mash thickness of
1.58 (1.40 with non-enzymatic) qt/lb - the mash thicknesses are reasonable.
Just mixing the water (6.5gal at 40C + 3gal @ 100C; no tun, no grist) won't
even hit 60C after the infusion !
The infusion above would require abt 3.9 gal infusion to hit 60C, not the 3
gallons stated. That's not a small error.
-S
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 01:41:08 -0400
From: "-S" <-s at adelphia.net>
Subject: re: Mash Rest Temperatures
Martin Brungard asks re weizens ...
<<<
I'm trying to avoid ending with the mash too thin [...]. My
calculations indicate that I might be upwards of 1.5 qts/lb if I were to use
[...]
>>>
Don't fear the water.
1.5qt/lb is sort of 'normal' for traditional UK practice but continental
pale styles are thinner. Kunze suggests 4 to 5 L/kg (pp207) which is 2 to
2.5 qt/lb in HB terms for pale styles. [ 3-3.5L/kg for dark beer
(1.5-1.75qt/lb)].
On Weizen, Kunze suggests mash-in of 35-37C, and pulling 33-36% for a
decoction which is eventually boiled for 20-25 min. I think that lands you
just under 60C. Very high attenuation 'course.
-S
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 09:09:19 -0400
From: "Dave Burley" <Dave_Burley at charter.net>
Subject: Mash Tun heat capacity
Brewsters:
Much mathematical discussion has be done on calculating the heat capacity of a
mash tun. Since some are metal and some are insulating this can be
complicated. And typically inaccurate.
Although I rarely do a simple infusion mash, there is a method I use when
changing mash tuns that is practical. Not as much fun as using a calulator or
computer, but it does work. This simply involves <measuring> the heat
capacity.
Probably not a new idea ( I've been using it for a loong time) but I suggest
you try it if you are missing your rest points in an infusion mash.
The simplest method is to bring some known volume of water to temperature T,
close to the desired mash temperature ( say 150F), and pour it quickly into
the mash tun to the approximate volume of your mash. Stir and Measure the
temperature t . When the temperature is stable within a very few minutes
record that temperature. Then (T-t) times the volume of the water added times
the heat capacity of water in whatever units you desire is the heat given up
to the tun.
You can assume easily that the heat capacity of the tun is not going to change
over this narrow temperature range.
When you do your calculations for an infusion mash, convert the pounds of
grain to water equivalents by simply multiplying it by the heat capacity of
the grain. Thus, if the heat capacity of the grain [ HC ( grain)] were 0.5
then every pound of grain [P(grain)] would be equivalent to a half pound of
water.
Thus:
P( grain) X HC ( grain) X {T (grain) - T( mash)} + P(water) X HC (water) X
{T(water) - T ( mash) } - Mash Tun Heat absorbed =
T( mash) {P( grain) X HC( grain) + P ( Water)} X HC (water)
T ( water ) is the unknown in this equation.
You can also just preheat the mash tun with hot water and avoid all this.
Keep on Brewin'
Dave Burley
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 09:59:33 -0400
From: Jeff Renner <jeffrenner at comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Fw: Looking for Answers
"Jim Fisk" <jimbogrq at comcast.net> wrote:
>The instructions for my latest brew said to break the grain husks with a
>rolling pin but my wife suggested, "why not use the coffee grinder?" which
>I did. The results were a coarse powder. I tasted the brew just before
>botteling and found it quite bitter. I have been told that a few extra
>weeks, perhaps 6 or 8, in the bottle will soften that bitterness and give a
>pleasant result.
It's not a good idea to grind the husks. One reason for this is that
the husk contains harsh flavored, astringent components that are more
easily extracted if it is finely ground, especially if the water is
too hot (you didn't boil the grains, did you?). A second reason is
that the large pieces of husk act as a filter bed when you rinse the
grains.
For small amounts, it probably doesn't make a big difference. As a
matter of fact, when I add a couple of ounces of chocolate malt to my
standard drinking bitter, I always pulverize it in a coffee grinder
on its finest setting for maximum effect - color, flavor and pH
(acidity to balance my alkaline water).
Ordinarily, grain in a mash or mini-mash or steep is best crushed
rather than ground. This leaves the husks largely intact and reduces
the starchy endosperm (the inside) to small chunks with some flour.
Time will soften such off flavors, but it's better not to introduce
them at all.
It is also possible that the beer is quite bitter because you
overhopped it. This will also soften with time.
A rolling pin is a drag, but if you have limited equipment, if may be
the best choice. If there are other brewers in your area (you didn't
say where you are - and this is an example of why it's good to say),
you might be able to use someone's grain mill. Or, you can buy grain
precrushed or crush it at many homebrew stores. Only trouble is,
crushed grain doesn't keep as well as whole grain.
Hope your beer mellows out nicely.
Jeff
- --
Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan USA, JeffRenner at comcast.net
"One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 08:08:24 -0700 (PDT)
From: Calvin Perilloux <calvinperilloux at yahoo.com>
Subject: Astringency
Spencer writes in the previous HBD about Jim Fisk's beer
made with grain run through the coffee grinder:
> I'm wondering whether "bitter" is quite the right term to apply.
> I would expect astringency from the ground up husk material,
> but not necessarily bitterness. Do you get a drying or puckering
> sensation on the back of your tongue and in your mouth tissues?
> That's astringency.
I add "Yes and no" to the above. Yes, ground-up husks, as well
as numerous other things (and methods) can cause astringency,
and I'd *certainly* expect high astringency in a beer made from
pulverised malt.
But no, "back of the tongue" alone is not really what we're
looking for, though the "mouth tissues" kinda covers it. Kinda.
Pleasant hop bitterness usually involves the back of the tongue;
for most people, astringency involves much *more* of the mouth,
notably the front of the tongue and palate, as well as the back.
The whole mouth, in some cases. For a more formal definition,
this from http://hbd.org/ford/judging/flavor.pdf:
"Unlike bitterness, astringency is present as a stimulation of
nerve-endings throughout the mouth. It is not an aroma. The
taste has a puckering, dry sensation reminiscent of grape skins."
Indeed, in the BJCP training and tasting/problem-beer seminars
that I gave last year, we used grape tannins added to beer to
demonstrate astringency. (Additionally, we also had a less
"pure" astringency sample from a homebrew gone bad -- astringency
from wild yeast most likely, given the phenols in the nose.)
Your local wine/homebrew shop likely has tannins, and it might
be worth the couple of dollars for those homebrewers who are
interested in making their own samples to experience the palate
difference between astringency and bitterness. More info on
mixing up your own doctored beer for this can be found at:
http://www.bjcp.org/study.html#course
Calvin Perilloux
Middletown, Maryland, USA
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 03 May 2004 12:06:22 -0500
From: "Greg R" <gmrbrewer at hotmail.com>
Subject: Time in a bottle
Early last year I brewed a simple bitter in the 45 GU range using nothing
but domestic pale malt, a little sugar and a touch of black malt for color
with an infusion mash. I was shooting for something to appeal to less
discriminating beer drinkers, so it was relatively lightly hopped. I used
WLP002 English yeast to retain some British ale character.
It was unimpressive, rather bland, and I kicked myself for not hopping it to
a level I would prefer. Normally a moderate gravity recipe like this goes
pretty quickly for me, but this one was so boring that I never got around to
drinking all of it, and still have some bottles after more than a year.
This weekend I chilled one of the remaining bottles, wondering if it might
be past its prime. To my amazement, I was greeted with a tremendously malty
aroma that was never there before. The flavor was equally malty, very rich
and complex, reminding me distinctly of Fullers London Pride. I was
astounded that what had been such a boring beer of moderate strength could
transform into something so dramatically better.
I brewed an improved version of this same recipe earlier this year, using
Maris Otter and more hops, and while it is better than the original was at a
similar age, it does not yet come close to what the original has become
after over a year in the bottle. So how do breweries like Fullers attain
the malty refined flavors of beers like London Pride in a fraction of the
time it took my recipe? What happens over time to so dramatically improve a
bottle conditioned beer? Are all those good flavors masked by impurities or
other flavors that simply drop out over time? Or does the yeast simply
require that long to develop its true flavors on my small scale, but somehow
works faster at a brewery scale? What can I do as a homebrewer to
accelerate the process?
Here are things I have already tried that make an impact but simply do not
produce the desired results any faster: no-sparge mash, decoction mash,
thick mash, low-temp steps, diluted high gravity, reduced first runnings,
and additions of munich, melanoidin, aromatic and multiple dark crystal
malts. My guess is that the big boys don't bother with these either.
Cheers!
Greg
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 10:48:48 -0700
From: felicitabrewery at sbcglobal.net
Subject: Yet another chest freezer modification
Greetings!
My aplogies in advance for the length of this post.
After an extensive search of the archives, I have some questions about a
chest freezer modification that I am undertaking. Some of the examples of
freezers that I have looked at are:
http://www.oregonbrewcrew.com/freezer/freezer.html
http://www.schwedhelm.net/brew/freezerator.html
http://www.rayfes.com/me/kegerator/kegerator.php
Seeing each of these designs was helpful, but my freezer has a few quirks
that make it problematic. The freezer I am starting with is a Frigidaire
12.8 cf freezer, which I just purchased new at Sears. Here is the model:
http://www.sears.com/sr/javasr/product.do?BV_UseBVCookie=Yes&vertical=APPL&p
id=04613301000
The hinges on this freezer are extremely long, with mounting holes on
approx. 7" centers. My original idea was to use a 2x4 collar (as many have
done) and re-mount the hinges to the collar, but because the hinges are so
long I would be forced to use a 2x8 for the collar, which was going to make
it hard for me to get kegs and fermenters in and out of the freezer.
Then I saw a post by Forrest Duddles (whose fridgeguy at voyager.net email
address is no longer active) saying that he had fabricated brackets to
relocate the hinges. An excerpt from his post, which appeared in Digest
#3569 follows:
- ---begin---
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 08:10:14 -0500
From: fridgeguy at voyager.net <mailto:fridgeguy at voyager.net>
Subject: Chest freezer conversion
Greetings folks,
<snip>
I relocated the freezer lid hinges by fabbing aluminum brackets that
screwed into the original locations on the freezer cabinet and drilled
new hinge mounting holes in the brackets with the freezer lid in place
on top of the collar.
<snip>
- ---end---
Presumably these brackets have to be thick enough to accept the hinge
screws, so the lid on the freezer would end up sitting farther towards the
rear of the freezer (by an amount equal to the thickness of the bracket)
than it originally did, but I think the gasket on the lid is wide enough
that this would still work for me. My hinge screws have 1/2" of thread, so
I would probably use 1/2" material for the bracket and then use some washers
under the head of the hinge screw to limit their penetration. Has anyone
else tried this successfully - or Forrest - are you out there to comment on
how this worked for you?
Another problem I have is that the top edge of the freezer that mates with
the lid is not completely flat. It is flat for the outside ~3/4", and then
slopes down slightly, presumably so any condenstation will drain back into
the freezer. See my feeble attempt at ASCII art below - the slope is not as
dramatic as my illustration makes it appear. As a result, any collar that I
make will only be supported on the outside edge. I'm thinking I can use
some foam or gasketing to level this out some, but was curious if anyone
else had dealt with this problem.
- ------------------------------------
|
|
| lid
|
- ------------------------------------
- -------------
| |
| |
| collar |
| |
| |
| |
- ------------
- ----.
| . <---sloping edge
| .
| freeezer |
| wall | inside of freezer
| |
| |
Thanks in advance for any ideas.
Kit Cheves
Felicitabrewery at sbcglobal dot net
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 23:37:11 +0100
From: "A.J deLange" <ajdel at cox.net>
Subject: Specific Heat
RE: Cw = 1 BTU/(lb*F) = 1 cal (gm*C) ***by definition***
Very close but not quite true. The constant pressure specific heat is
the partial of enthalpy with respect to temperature per unit mass (at
constant pressure - the situation in which we assume we are working).
The constant pressure specific heat of water is a function (although a
weak one) of temperature and is expressed in the metric system in
joules/gram/degree C ranging from a maximum of 4.2177 j/g-C (1.00805
cal/g-C) at freezing and near boiling (4.216) to a minimum of 4.1782
j/g-C (0.998614 cal/g-C) at 34C. It has a value of 1 cal/g-C at 17 C
and 1 BTU/lb-F at 15 C (depending on which definition of BTU you use
one of which is defined to make it 1 at 15C).
Needless to say this is a nit for nearly all purposes but the next
release of ProMash, for example, will include its effects.
A.J.
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #4533, 05/03/04
*************************************
-------
