Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #4532
HOMEBREW Digest #4532 Sun 02 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:
Apple beer (John Harvey)
Beer Engines ("Dan Listermann")
Fw: Looking for Answers ("Jim Fisk")
Re: Beer engines (Bill Wible)
Re: looking for answers ("Spencer W. Thomas")
Aitkens and Beer ("Graham L Sanders")
Party! (RoadGlyn)
Tap labels ("Val J. Lipscomb")
Re: Barley in beer ("-S")
How to (not to) calculate the mix temperature ("-S")
How to (not to) calculate the mix temperature(2) ("-S")
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* 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: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 00:36:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: John Harvey <theharv0157 at yahoo.com>
Subject: Apple beer
I'm interested in brewing an apple beer. Something
somewhere between a farmhouse cider and a beer. In
searching the archives I have found little information
or recommendations on how to do so.
As far as flavor profile, I'm looking for a nice
summer beer; something with a malt character and body,
but with a definite apple flavor and aroma. Not just
a hint, but something that is clearly an "apple beer."
I'm not opposed to high alcohol, but it isn't
necessary. (No lawn to mow!)
Specifically I'm interested in: 1) What type of apple?
Cider? Whole fruit? Concentrate? 2) Hopping. How
bitter, what kind, and how much (if any) flavor/aroma
hopping. 3) What type of yeast to use. Estery or
clean, high or low attenuation? 4) Crystal malt, I
assume some sweetening is beneficial, and I'd like
some malt flavor and head retention. 5) Mash
schedule? I'm doing all-grain and was thinking
45:45:10 pils:wheat:crystal, mashed at ~155 for
body/sweetness.
Any opinions or suggestions are greatly appreciated.
TIA,
John Harvey
Miami, Fl
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 08:41:23 -0400
From: "Dan Listermann" <dan at listermann.com>
Subject: Beer Engines
Jim Cave asks about making a beer engine. I have built two prototypes for
product development. They weren't as easy as I had initially imagined. At
the moment we have material at the machinist's shop for our first production
run. I need to work on a table top mounted version to get things under way
and then proceed to bar and fridge door mountings.
Dan Listermann
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 09:53:13 -0400
From: "Jim Fisk" <jimbogrq at comcast.net>
Subject: Fw: Looking for Answers
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. Has anyone had this experience before? Appreciate any
comments. Jim Fisk
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 10:46:40 -0400
From: Bill Wible <bwible at pond.com>
Subject: Re: Beer engines
Here's a nice site for beer engines and other
English Pub Paraphenalia. They are located in
Lancaster, PA (which should be less in shipping
than from the UK) They have several versions
of handpumps, half and quarter pint pull,
bar table games, real English 'nonick' pint
glasses, casks, cask equipment, on and on.
I love this stuff.
http://www.ukbrewing.com
No affiliation, yada, yada
Bill
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 11:09:26 -0400
From: "Spencer W. Thomas" <spencer at umich.edu>
Subject: Re: looking for answers
Jim Fisk asks why his brew made with grains that he ground in the coffee
grinder is "bitter."
My guess is that your problem stems from the pulverized husks that you
got from your coffee grinder. The husks are full of compounds such as
tannins and poly-phenols that you don't want in your beer. The good
news is that these will eventually combine ("complex") with other
compounds in your beer and will settle out, reducing the negative flavor
effects. But in the future, don't *do* that! For brewing purposes, we
want to crush the grain, not grind it.
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.
=Spencer
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 1 May 2004 11:18:51 +1000
From: "Graham L Sanders" <craftbrewer at bigpond.com>
Subject: Aitkens and Beer
G'Day All
Its been one of those interesting lifes experiences recovering from my
little accident. Having a rib cage that has more breaks than an American
Football game, (no sorry about that, nothing I know of has that many
breaks), you get good at modifying certain bodily functions. While its a
blessing that I dont have to have s*x with SWMBO, something no man (or
creature) should have to experience, one certainly fears it when a sneeze
comes on.
Over the last month, I have been good at avoiding these, and lately even if
one makes its presence, you stifle it to a ladies muffle, and not a full
blown male cyclone that pins peoples ears back. Now I decided to really let
one go, despite the fear of pain, as a result of seeing my ribcage on a CT
scan, where my ribs zigs-zags worse than George Bush explanations. My
bush doctoring recons that the increase pressure of a sneeze will help set
things, by pushing things in shape. So a sniff of pepper, and on it came.
Well can I recommend you dont do this. After letting go a few choice words,
you find - IT HURTS LIKE BLOODY HELL!!!!!!!!.
More interesting, I heard and
felt more clicks in my chest than a pacemaker. But I didn't drop dead in the
next five minutes, so I hope it did me good. Anyway, I have been giving the
odd sneeze it freedom to express itself. Its interesting feeling your
insides
every time you do it.
Now I have to weigh in with all this crap on low carb beers and the article
on BYO. Now I see the point of both Steve A and Chris Colby, but I find I
have to fall, in general, well into Steve's camp. The article totally lost
credibility with me as soon as it tried to tie in the Aitkins diet and Low
Carb beer. >>>>>>>>A serious analysis of the actual sorts of carbs present
in beer would indeed be of interest to "hard core" Atkins types.<<<<<<
Any-one who perpetuated this bloody myth that the Aitkens diet is all about
the sort of carbohydrates should be thrown into a local billabong. Anyone
who tries to justify Aitkens to beer, should be thrown into SWMBO's bed.
Aitkens diet is nothing more simple than any other diet. Its a simple rule,
calories in verses calories out. More in, you gain weight, - less in, you
lose weight. Simply put to those who dont know, Aitkens diet works on the
principle of cutting out carbo-hydrates and you can eat as much protein and
fat as you like.
This sounds magical, as you dont count your intake and people rattle off all
these carbohydrate theories to justify this. The truth is - "it works
because protein suppresses appetite." A diet extremely high in proteins will
actually make you eat less. Eat less, even fat, and you lose weight. Its
that simple. Ever seen a fat lion on the plains....Wish people would not
extrapolate these things to beer. Although you wonder those mad old English
brewers chucking dead chooks into the barrels may be onto something.
On FWHing, I hate to agree with Dave >>>>>>I have been unimpressed with the
effect in my experiments<<<<<< I have to agree. I find the results very
inconsistent. Randy asked >>>>>>>Has anyone else noticed that some hop
strains flavours survive the boil when FWH'ing and other strains do
not?<<<<<< I have gone right off FWHing due to its inconsistency. I find its
not so much different strains, but different ages of the hops, as well as
how well they have been stored - ie the deterioration of the hops. I believe
this inconsistence is all to do with the natural oxidisation of the hop
oils. FWHing seems to let people down when the oils have progressed past a
"mystical "point where the by products dont show themselves in the finished
beer.
Fresh hops (say up to 3 months old) seem to impart a good FWH flavour, but
after that the results get very variable. We as craftbrewers, have a real
problem with our supply of hops. Most of us just get our hops from the local
store, and most stores dont tell us the date of harvest of the hops. Now do
we know really how well they are treated. Because of that, I believe its
this lack of reference data that makes FWHing mystical. My bet is better
experiments correlated to age/condition of hops will shown it only works
with fresh hops. Thats certainly my experience.
Now off to sniff some white powder.
Shout
Graham Sanders
oh
Had to laugh at this comment on the digest. >>>>>>Wasn't there some data on
North America women drinking wine more than beer?<<<<< Just can't see the
fairer sex up this way turning up at the Bar-bie with a Chateau-de-Chunder
in her hand. Unless she also has the bladder it came with in her handbag as
well. Our girls are far more practical, just dont try to sneak a glass.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 01 May 2004 13:47:01 -0400
From: RoadGlyn at netscape.net
Subject: Party!
Yes, I'm way behind on HBDs, sorry.
I always take beer to a party! Is it always well received? Yes,
maybe not always by the women. Maybe not by the host even. But
there is always someone else there that enjoys it. I will add
it is almost always well received by the host. At least you are
bringing something! And if you made it!!! (all I take is homebrew,
or craft brewed, now that Graham is back!)
What type? What ever I have. Generally stouts or Belgians!
Glyn in Sothern Middle TN
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 01 May 2004 15:26:28 -0500
From: "Val J. Lipscomb" <vlipscomb at satx.rr.com>
Subject: Tap labels
Greetings Keggers,
I've been puzzling over how to label the taps on my converted
fridge-kegerator. I ran across
the answer purely by accident and thought I'd pass it on.
I bought some printable business card size fridge magnets from
<www.magnetvalley.com>
and printed my own. I was very pleased at the price and the shipping
time;cost was $14.04
for 5 sheets of 10 cards and ordered on Wednesday,arrived on Saturday. They
worked great
in my inkjet printer and I'm ready to put them on the fridge above the taps.
Usual disclaimers apply,no financial or personal interest in the
company,just a satisfied
old brewer.
Val Lipscomb-brewing in strangely chilly San Antonio
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 May 2004 07:36:38 -0400
From: "-S" <-s at adelphia.net>
Subject: Re: Barley in beer
Jeff writes ...
>Steve Alexander <-s at adelphia.net> wrote:
>
>>My experience when malting 6-row feed barley, [...]
>> somewhat offensive
>>phenolic flavors when used in large quantity.
>
>This was not my experience at all.
My point wasn't that all 6-row feed barley tastes badly phenolic in beer,
merely that some commonly available 6-row barley does. Mine came from in
50lb sacks as horse feed. Two samples, different sources. It's a great
experience to home malt and make beer from the result, but mine had a
background flavor, that was negative. Glad I made it, but not about to make
this a regular feature until I can get a controlled source of barley. My
attempts to grow 2-row here have failed - I get nice growth and seed
formation (on the 2nd try) but it's too wet in Fall here (field mice had a
nice Autumn tho').
I should point out that phenolic matter in malt is much more accessible
(leachable) than the raw grain so it might be possible to use this same feed
barley raw and in quantity with better results.
-S
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 May 2004 11:33:12 -0400
From: "-S" <-s at adelphia.net>
Subject: How to (not to) calculate the mix temperature
Dan Morey writes ...
> Units please! Mixing SI and English units in calculations [..]
Dan was quite confused as he misunderstood that the eqn I posted was
unitless (not dimensionless). Calculation of the mix temp for infusion only
requires a dimensional analysis and the unitless Specific Heat of the
materials.
I understand why you are confused - many websites define "specific heat" and
"[specific] heat capacity" the same and they are in error. Here is a
similar proper definition:
http://reference.allrefer.com/encyclopedia/S/specheat.html
M&BS purposely gives specific heat of malt as unitless and they obviously
meant this as the ratio of heat acpacity to that of water. When we say malt
has a specific heat of 0.39 it means that it takes 39% as much energy to
raise the temp of malt as it does water (15C is the reference). [[ on
review it may not be so much of an error as the existence of conflicting
definitions]].
> I believe that is 0.39 Btu/(lb*F) or 1.63 kJ/(kg*C) for "grain".
It's numerically the same (0.39), if you choose the 'right' system of units.
The heat capacity of water (Cw) is,
Cw = 1 BTU/(lb*F) = 1 cal (gm*C) ***by definition***
[eqn 1] Sm = Cm / Cw = 0.39 (no units !)
so obviously
Cm = 0.39 BTU/(lb*F) = 0.39 cal/(gm*C)
The ONLY thing above that has physical significance is that malt has 39% the
heat capacity of water ! The rest are merely unit definitions and we can
make up new ones at whim.
Let me explain:
If we have an object 'o' with the following properties:
heat capacity = Co
mass = Mo
and we raise it's temperature by some incremental temperature, let's call it
'dT' then the energy 'E' require to increase the temp is
[eqn 2] E = Co * Mo * dT
This model is often a very good approximation for items that aren't
undergoing a phase change . So here is the fundamental infusion mash puzzle:
Q: We have a mass of water (Mw1) mixed with a mass of malt (Mm) at a mash-in
temp T1. To this we add an infusion mass of water (Mw2) at temp T2. What
is the mash temp (T3) after mixing the
infusion in ?
A:
The mash-in water and malt change temperature by an amount (T3-T1) and the
infusion water changes in temperature by an amount (T3-T2) [note T3-T2 is
typically negative for infusion].
Using eqn 2:
The initial water will change in energy by
Ew1 = Cw * Mw1 * (T3-T1)
The initial malt will change by
Em = Cm * Mm * (T3-T1)
The infusion water changes by
Ew2 = Cw * Mw2 * (T3-T2)
By conservation of energy:
Ew1 + Em + Ew2 = 0
Substitution gives
0 = Cw * Mw1 * (T3-T1) + Cm * Mm * (T3-T1) + Cw * Mw2 * (T3-T2)
divide by the heat capacity of water (Cw) and apply the definition of
specific heat:
0 = Mw1 * (T3-T1) + Sm * Mm * (T3-T1) + Mw2 * (T3-T2)
solving for T3 gives
[eqn 3]
T3 = ( T1 *(Mw1 + Sm * Mm) + T2 *Mw2 ) /
(Mw1 + Mw2 + Sm *Mm)
since Sm is for malt ~= 0.39
[eqn 3']
T3 = ( T1 *(Mw1 + 0.39*Mm) + T2*Mw2 ) / (Mw1 + Mw2 + 0.39*Mm)
That's the answer, and we *NEVER* resorted to any system of units to derive
this, so the eqn 3 works for all systems of units !
Example1: (US units)
10lbs of malt + 20 lbs of water at a mash-in of 104F. We add a boiling
infusion of 20 lbs of water at 212F. What is the mix temp T3 from [eqn 3] ?
T3 = (104F *(20lb + 0.39*10lb) + 212F*20lb ) /
(20lb + 20lb + 0.39*10lb)
T3 = 153.2 F
- --
Example 2: (same as above but in SI units)
T1 = 40C (104F), T2 = 100C (212F)
Mw1 = Mw2 = 9.091kg (10lbs), Mm = 4.545 kg (10lb)
T3 = ( 40C * (9.091kg + 0.39*4.545kg) + 100C*9.091kg ) /
(9.0912kg + 9.091kg + 0.39*4.545kg)
T3 = 67.33C
- --
Note that 67.33C is identical with 153.2F ! The eqn works for any
consistent units. You can even select units from different systems
consistently throughout and it still works.
Example 3: (same example, mixed units)
T1 = 40C, T2 = 100C
Mw1 = Mw2 = 20lb, Mm = 10lb
T3 = (40C *(20lb + 0.39*10lb) + 100C*20lb ) /
(20lb + 20lb + 0.39*10lb)
T3 = 67.33C !!!
==
Systems of units are the hobgoblins of little minds when it comes to
physical processes. The Sapir-Worf hypothesis states that language shapes
thought and by analogy systems of units are *only* a language for
communicating physical values, not intrinsic physical reality. [Even math
is just a language - a disturbing thought].
[note - comment not directed at Dan, we all see the trees, but no forest at
times.]
-S
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 May 2004 12:11:35 -0400
From: "-S" <-s at adelphia.net>
Subject: How to (not to) calculate the mix temperature(2)
Dan continues,
> I have a
> 12 gallon stainless steel mash tun that weighs approximately 10 lbs.
> specific heat of SS is approximately 0.11 Btu/(lb*F)
Yes, we should account for our mash-tun too and Dan's figure for heat
capacity of stainless is close enough. Dan is stating above that his tun
has the total heat capacity of a 1.1lb of water - a little over a pint.
Can't ignore it but not a big factor either.
> Since the outside
> surface must be "near" room temperature and the inside surface is at mash
> temperature,
OUCH !!! My baloney detector just went off. The outside of a stainless mash
tun is NOT at room temp or even close. Have you never touched the exterior
of your tun ? It's very near mash temp in minutes.
Stainless is a not-great thermal conductor, but SS316 still has a thermal
conductivity of 16.3W/(meter*C) which isn't low. Your tun w/ 12gal capacity
must have a surface area around 0.8 sq.meter (sankes are abt 0.9sq.m) . At
10lbs (density=8gm/cc) this means the average thickness of Dan's tun is
0.07cm = 0.7mm = 0.0007meter
So what happens if we have a sheet of 0.7mm stainless and one side is 65C
*(mash temp) and the other side is held at 20C(room temp) ? There is
conductive heat transfer at the rate of 16.3W/(m*C) * (65C-20C) / 0.0007m =
~1 million watts per square meter ! Over the 0.8 sq.meter surface that's
800kWatt of heat loss from the mash ! The ~12gal mash would start losing
temperature to the room at about 4C/second rate if Dan's assertion was true
... it's not - it's baloney. !
More realistically if the tun above lost 0.2C per *minute* with a 65C mash
vs 20C air temp (still high I think), then the tun exterior would measure
some 64.96C, just 0.04C less than the interior at steady state. The reality
is that the tun reaches very close to mash-temp and the low conductivity,
low heat capacity room air is where most of the temp the gradient appears.
> we can estimate the average temperature of the mash tun is the
> average of the mash and room temperatures.[...]
> 0.11 Btu/(lb*F) * 10 lbs * 1/2 = 0.55 Btu/F
That factor of "1/2" should be a factor of 0.9991... and then we should add
a small term for the room air. For a very good estimate just include 100%
of the tun capacity. The 10lbs of 316 stainless has a heat capacity like
1.2 lbs of water (specific heat is 0.12).
==
Dan then calculates the rate of temp drop in his mash system ...
> Te is the ending mash/step temperature
[...]
> To predict the ending temperature:
> Te = (Ti-Tr)exp(-UA*t/C) + Tr
So "ending temperature" is now time dependent ? I think
T(t) = Tr + (Ti-Tr) exp(-Ua * t/ C)
is better terminology.
This is the standard rate eqn for conductive heat loss. All it says is
that the mash temp approaches the room temp from it's initial temp at an
exponential decay type rate. The temp loss rate (half life if you will) the
energy per unit temp change (Dan's 'C') and the conductivity to the ambient
environment (Dan's 'UA' term).
It ignores convective and radiative losses (which aren't completely
negligible) but still it's good enough. To rebut Dan's out of sequence
defense, of this point ... the convection loss and radiative loss do not
follow an e^(-xt) time dependence relationship so the above eqn does not
model these. Good enough for practical use so long as you ignore Dan's
assumption that the tun exterior is at room temp which would make UA huge.
I'm not exactly sure what the practical brewing value of estimating the
temp loss rate is, but then again I have a heated tun and don't care very
much. Thermo controlled systems don't care either. If I was planning on
straight infusion (no heating) as my primary method then I would mash in a
well insulated tun or a gott cooler or whatever - and then again I wouldn't
care about the rate of loss much. Commercial mashes have such great heat
capacity compared to their small surface that the heat loss is trivial.
Perhaps for overnight mashers ? I don't see the need, but the method of
calculation is good for practical use..
-S
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #4532, 05/02/04
*************************************
-------
