Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #4857
HOMEBREW Digest #4857 Thu 29 September 2005
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Digest Janitor: pbabcock at hbd.org
***************************************************************
THIS YEAR'S HOME BREW DIGEST BROUGHT TO YOU BY:
Northern Brewer, Ltd. Home Brew Supplies
Visit http://www.northernbrewer.com to show your appreciation!
Or call them at 1-800-681-2739
Support those who support you! Visit our sponsor's site!
********** Also visit http://hbd.org/hbdsponsors.html *********
Contents:
re:Mike's Efficiency Problems (John Palmer)
Re: Conical fementer (Lou King)
Measuring specific gravity - hydrometers ("A.J deLange")
Specialty grains in the boil??? (Bill Velek)
Hoppy Halloween Challenge ("Susan Ruud")
Upflow infusion Mashing ("Dave Burley")
Hydrometers and Batch Sparging ("Dave Burley")
Access to scientific brewing articles? ("Fredrik")
RE: Efficiency (Steve Jones)
Re: Upward infusion mashing technique ("Doug Hurst")
Iodine testing (Nathaniel Lansing)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* 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.
JANITORs on duty: Pat Babcock (pbabcock at hbd dot org), Jason Henning,
and Spencer Thomas
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 23:19:13 -0700
From: John Palmer <jjpalmer at altrionet.com>
Subject: re:Mike's Efficiency Problems
Okay, I think you are right, your crush is weak. I would make your
gap more like .035-.04 to get finer particles. You have a good mill,
so you dont have to worry about shredding the husks.
Also, try letting your mash sit for the full hour. Just for grins. I
bet these are the two halves of your problem. Either alone would not
be so bad, but combined (poor crush, short mash) is where you are
losing extract is my guess.
Everything else you describe sounds fine to me.
Consensus??
John Palmer
john at howtobrew.com
www.realbeer.com/jjpalmer
www.howtobrew.com - the free online book of homebrewing
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 08:18:49 -0400
From: Lou King <lking at pobox.com>
Subject: Re: Conical fementer
Eric Schoville asks:
<>3) Is it necessary to have 2 ports? In other words is the racking port
necessary, or can you just drain all of the yeast off the bottom valve and
then rack using the bottom valve?>>
to which Steve Dragon responded:
<I thought that I would get more use from the racking port, but no, I've
never used it. I use the bottom drain exclusively. I suppose that I would
use the racking port for samples, if I were inclined. The racking arm seems
too small for transfer.>
My $0.02 is that I always use the side port. I think pulling out of the
bottom port will end up pulling too much yeast, especially if you are like
me and don't bother to pull off the yeast periodically as Steve says he
does.
I do drop off the trub after the first week, usually. The bottom port
should be fitted with a full bore 1/2" valve to avoid clogging. Still with
flocculent yeast it may "stick" a bit, but seems to fall out after waiting a
bit. Steve's CO2 idea sounds good, and I might try that, but it may put the
trub into suspension which would mean I wouldn't get the desired effect
(dropping off the trub).
12.2 gallons is fine for 10 gallon batches. Note I use a blowoff tube
exclusively, because occasionally I do get some foaming out the tube.
Lou King
Ijamsville, MD
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 12:49:30 +0000
From: "A.J deLange" <ajdel at cox.net>
Subject: Measuring specific gravity - hydrometers
Hydrometers can be quite accurate provided the instrument is well made,
well cared for and used properly. Obviously the $2.50 plastic items
intended to be used by amateur wine makers won't give the greatest
accuracy but a narrow range hydrometer calibrated for the surface
tension of beer will if it is kept clean and dry and read properly.
Postings here abound on how to read a hydrometer properly and are found
throughout the brewing literature. That said if one wishes to read
specific gravity to accuracy of better than about 0.1 P (.0004 SG) other
types of instruments are required. The most accurate is the oscilating
tube densitometer. See
http://www.anton-paar.com/ap/apinternet/html/default/GRAR-5RGC3F.en.0.jsp.
Readings out to 5 decimal places and a bit more are possible. This
requires temperature control in the measurement cell to millidegrees
(yep, about .005C) and frequent calibration with dry air and very pure
water. These instruments are, of course, hideously expensive. More
within the range of the determined homebrewer is the pycnometer. In the
Reichauer form this is indeed a volumetric flask but with an extra long
neck. The procedure for use is quite involved. It is set out in detail
in Vol II of DeClerck.
More practical is the modern pycnometer
(http://www.kimble-kontes.com/html/pg-15123R.html - the picture is small
and is way over on the right of the page so you'll miss it if you don't
look carefully). This is a small bottle closed with a ground glass
stopper which mounts a thermometer. There is a capillary stem out the
side which can be capped. One cleans the device very thoroughly with a
strong oxidizer (chromic acid), dries it and tares it. It is then filled
with cool distilled water and the thermometer-plug inserted. This forces
water out the capillary. The thermometer is monitored until the
reference temperature is reached at which point the capillary tip is
blotted (as the contents warm they expand and liquid is forced out
through the capillary) and capped. The assembly is then washed with
water, alcohol and finally ether and when the ether is evaporated,
weighed. The tare is subtracted. This is the weight of the distilled
water. The water is then dumped and the bottle rinsed thoroughly with
the sample, then filled with the sample and subsequently treated in the
same way as the water. The tared weight of the sample divided by the
tared weight of the water is the specific gravity (in air - adjustments
can be made for in vacuuo value if desired).
Accuracy is better than a hydrometer but not justified for simple
extract calculations. The usual use of pycnometers is in the analysis of
finished beer in which case weighings are made for the beer, the
distillate from the beer and the residue from the distillation (thus
yielding alcoholic strength, true extract and back calculated original
extract) but 4 weighings are required which is rather time consuming.
Clearly some corners can be cut. For example if one is very careful not
to allow any sample to spill onto the outside of the bottle no washings
are necessary and there is no need to deal with nasty ether or alcohol
if one wipes the bottle carefully and times things so that it has dried
by evaporation by the time the reference temperature is reached.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 10:34:28 -0500
From: Bill Velek <billvelek at alltel.net>
Subject: Specialty grains in the boil???
Everytime I think I've got sort of a grasp on this stuff, something else
comes along to confuse me. I was under the impression that boiling husk
material will cause astringency due to the extraction of tannins. I was
therefore under the impression that specialty grains are either crushed
and mashed with the other grain, or are merely steeped (not boiled) and
are strained before the boil. Now I just came across this webpage re
Guinness -- http://tinyurl.com/9ghco -- and note that under the
paragraph describing "Boiling", it says: "Now in the kettle, hops and
roasted barley are added to the wort and the mixture is boiled." So, is
that just likely to be misinformation on the website, or something that
Guinness can get away with, or is it actually okay to boil part of your
grains?
Thanks.
Bill Velek
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 10:39:23 -0500
From: "Susan Ruud" <susan.ruud at ndsu.nodak.edu>
Subject: Hoppy Halloween Challenge
We are now accepting entries for the Hoppy Halloween Challenge until October
8th for all categories but the Halloween Theme Beer Category which must be
in by 6pm on October 28th and so it can be hand delivered to the judging
session that evening.
Please ship your entries to:
Dave Trautmann
% Hoppy Halloween Challenge
1914 10th St N
Fargo, ND 58102
To register your beer online, and or sign up for judging go to
http://www.prairiehomebrewers.org/hoppyhalloween.htm
Cheers,
Susan Ruud
Competition Coordinator
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 12:11:08 -0400
From: "Dave Burley" <Dave_Burley at charter.net>
Subject: Upflow infusion Mashing
Brewsters:
Bill Velek includes a URL which shows some equipment and refers to an upflow
infusion mashing technique. We can both infer the method of recirculating
from the bottom to keep the grain bed suspended to some degree and prevent
clogging during the mashing step of a RIMS. Feed to the pump would be via an
overflow I expect and I would think a small filter or even a "bottom" filter
at the top before the return might be needed as protection. Also, the height
to diameter would be important in controlling this I would think. Taller
being better.
I recall a New Orleans (Oh yeah, hope the people are OK)firm and its
"Upflow" filter technique used in water treating that was much more
efficient at providing filtration.
Also, I recall that many filters use a process in which part of the flow is
directed sideways across the filter to sweep the surface clean. This has to
be done in such as way as to not disturb the primary filter coat, but the
filter functions for much longer this way.
Good ideas to try with your RIMS. No reason which this couldn't be
temperature staged.
Keep on Brewin'
Dave Burley
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 12:36:06 -0400
From: "Dave Burley" <Dave_Burley at charter.net>
Subject: Hydrometers and Batch Sparging
Brewsters:
I missed the comment that Chad made that hydrometers are always inaccurate.
While I agree weighing a known volume of wort (especially with a
pyncnometer)at a known temperature is very accurate, a hydrometer can be
also, as long as it is not being used on a fermenting liquid. The bubbles of
CO2 from the fermentation collecting on the hydrometer make it impossible to
get an accurate reading, even with spinning the hydrometer.
- ---------------
Denny Conn says:
>I don't mean to rag on ya, Chad, but I see these 2 misconceptions (speed
and efficiency - DRB) >concerning batch sparging quite a bit and I like to
>try to correct them.
Batch Sparging is typically less efficient than continuous (or "fly")
sparging simply because it is typically faster and does not take advantage
of extracting the sugar from the wort trapped in the grain with an ever
purer extractant. Slow continuous sparging also provides time for the wort
to diffuse out of the grain (aided by the low concentration extractant),
whereas batch sparging does not. This is well supported by chemical
engineering data and theories.
With continuous sparging you should take about an hour and you will do as
well as you can with your configuration.
So, Denny, I have to say you should stop trying to convince people that
batch sparging is more efficient at recovering sugars from the sparge.
Keep on Brewin'
Dave Burley
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 18:30:35 +0200
From: "Fredrik" <carlsbergerensis at hotmail.com>
Subject: Access to scientific brewing articles?
Hello folks, this is a short one.
I noticed that Institute of Brewing & Distilling is now giving temporary
free access to full text articles in the Journal of the Institute of Brewing
from 2002 - today. Usually you have to subscribe to get access, and
I'm sure some on here may subscribe already but I suspect most
doesn't, due to the cost to be balanced against a homebrewers budget.
I don't know for how long, but as writing this it's still available.
http://www.scientificsocieties.org/jib/
Even though the selection is limited it certainly has quite a few articles
worthwhile reading, so don't miss out. Goto "past issues" and enjoy the
smorgasbord of articles.
/Fredrik
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 13:28:55 -0400
From: Steve Jones <stjones1 at chartertn.net>
Subject: RE: Efficiency
Hi all,
This subject has given us two contradictory statements
(paraphrasing):
'If you batch sparge, your efficiency will be better'
and
'If you batch sparge, your efficiency will be lower'.
Just trying to think thru this logically, here are what
I would consider to be facts about sparging, assuming proper
technique for both:
1. The SG of the runnings produced during a fly sparge
will be highest at the start and lowest at the end.
2. Typically a fly sparge is stopped when the SG of the
runnings approaches 1.010
3. Batch sparging usually involves 2 batch sparges
4. The SG of the runnings from any individual batch sparge
will be pretty uniform.
5. The SG of the 1st of 2 batch sparges will be higher than
that of the 2nd of 2 batch sparges.
6. the SG of the 2nd of 2 batch sparges will be considerably
higher than 1.010
To me, the obvious conclusion is that because the SG of the
last runnings from a batch sparge is higher than that of a
fly sparge, that batch sparging will leave more sugars behind,
therefore being less efficient.
Can anyone point out a flaw in my reasoning?
I have done both many times, and typically get about 85%
efficiency with fly sparging, and about 70% with batch
sparging. The SG of my second batch runnings is normally
around 1.025-1.030 on average gravity beers. So when
I'm finished batch sparging, there are certainly more
sugars left behind than when I fly sparge.
I may get flamed for this next statement, but here goes:
If you batch sparge and get better efficiency than you did
when fly sparging, then I would contend that your fly
sparging process was flawed.
Steve Jones, Johnson City, TN
State of Franklin Homebrewers (http://hbd.org/franklin)
[421.8 mi, 168.5 deg] AR
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 13:29:26 -0500
From: "Doug Hurst" <dougbeer2000 at hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Upward infusion mashing technique
The term "upward infusion mash" generally refers to raising the
temperature of the mash through the addition of near boiling water. This
allows
for mutiple temperature rests without the need for a directly heated mash
tun.
Bill Velek seems to be inferring (logically) that the term means
re-circulating the mash
from the bottom up,rather than the traditional top down. I think some have
tried this but I know nothing about the technique.
I'd be willing to bet that Great Bear Brewing is performing the former, more
common,
version of upward infusion mashing.
Doug Hurst
Chicago, IL
[197.5, 264.8] Apparent Rennerian
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 21:43:31 -0400
From: Nathaniel Lansing <delbrew at compuserve.com>
Subject: Iodine testing
I should been more wordy when I had asked,
"Are you testing the grains with iodine for complete conversion?"
I assumed you tested the wort, and that will show conversion in
approx 20 minutes. You need to test the grain also to see if total
conversion has taken place. Once you reach iodine negative in
the wort, place about 1/2 teaspoon of grist on a white saucer.
Dribble about 1/4 teaspoon of cold water on it and knead the grains
a bit with your fingers so to work the water through it somewhat.
Test that liquor with the iodine. Keep mashing till that shows negative.
You will see it takes significantly longer to really get _all_ the starch
converted.
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #4857, 09/29/05
*************************************
-------
