Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #4906
HOMEBREW Digest #4906 Wed 07 December 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: Chloramine removal by activated carbon filtration ("Mike Sharp")
re: Hydrometer readings ("steve.alexander")
British Bitter taste, chloramine removal (Nathaniel Lansing)
RE: More Hydrometers (Steven Parfitt)
So you want to monitor your gravity through the fermentation? ("Steve Laycock")
RE: Pilsner mash schedule/decoction experiment ("Mark Prior")
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* 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: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 23:10:22 -0800
From: "Mike Sharp" <rdcpro at hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: Chloramine removal by activated carbon filtration
By the way, when I said
"I'd steer clear of AC-only filtration, because of the bacterial seeding
problems associated with it."
I probably should have added, "unless you're certain you will always
thoroughly boil your water, and won't be tempted to add makeup water to
cooled wort *without* sanitizing the water."
Regards,
Mike Sharp
Kent, WA
[1891.3, 294deg] AR
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 04:51:50 -0500
From: "steve.alexander" <-s at adelphia.net>
Subject: re: Hydrometer readings
Bill Velek states,
>[on intermediate SG readings] ... what exactly could you DO about any
>of it anyway? it's either fermenting or not [...]
You could know more for the next time. If we really believed Bill's
argument that we'd eschew blood pressure and heart rate readings,
since the only matter of concern is whether the patient is dead or
alive. I happen to subscribe to the somewhat mystical notion that
knowledge itself is a good, and more is universally better than less.
I'm sure there truly is "useless" knowledge, knowledge which can have
no practical importance, but it's extremely hard to find an example.
IF we had more observational data, we'd have more things to correlate
effects against and there would then be more opportunity to discover
relationships.
>2. I have to question Steve about the yeast affecting gravity; note
>[...] the yeast are not 'dissolved' in the beer (although I don't know
>if that is actually necessary), but rather would be analogous to fish in
>a pond. If the fish are swimming up against the bottom and sides of a
>boat, then the boat will be more buoyant, but if they are minding their
>own business, I don't see how their presence in the water could add
>anything to the buoyancy of the boat any more than the even denser
>stones and gravel sitting on the bottom.
Fred Johnson offers this explanation ...
>I believe Bill Velek is essentially correct in that the yeast in
>suspension contribute little to the hydrometer reading. I believe
>bouyancy is related to the molar concentration of the solutes.
Sorry - that's not right at all. The yeast in suspension count and
the buoyant force is dependent on the "bulk density" of the quasi-fluid,
not the molar concentration.
The buoyancy force was described without analysis by Archimedes, and
although it's a brilliant insight, and a wonderfully concise statement
it deserves a better examination.
Of course the energy of the buoyancy hydrometer(or boat) system is at a
minimum in the equilibrium state. It takes energy to pull the
floating hydrometer up or to push it down. The energy per unit
distance represents the displacement force involved. We all realize
that the force it takes to displace a floating hydrometer up or down
is just a tiny fraction of the force needed to move the non-floating
hydrometer up or down in air. Why is that ?
If we pull the hydrometer upward the hydrometer movement against
gravity requires exactly the same energy in any case (E = g * M * d).
The difference in the floating case is that there is a NEARLY equally
offsetting energy re-couped by the falling wort level. Similarly if
we push the hydrometer downward the energy normal obtained is nearly
offset by the force and energy of the rising liquid.
Now if we have yeast in suspension and if placing a hydrometer in the
media cause the level of these yeast to rise, against gravity, then
they are part of the buoyant force which is offsetting the
gravitational force downward on the hydrometer. Generally, anything
in suspension impacts buoyancy.
Placing a boat on a pond does cause a minuscule but determinable rise
in the level of the pond, and if fish are displaced upward by launching
a boat, then they are part of the bouyancy.
Actually fish have a bulk density that matches water unless they are
rising or dropping - so there is negligible impact. Yeast and other
tiny particles may be held in suspension by a variety of forces even
if they are heavier than the solution. It would require a rather
detailed analysis of the various forces to determine the actual
contribution to SG.
Now here is a wild fact. M&BS v2, pp544 states that the density of
yeast cells in fermenter has been determined at about 1.073.
At high ferment wort/beer is measurable in the grams per liter
so yes they could have a little impact.
The stones at the lake bottom or sediment in a hydrometer tube are not
displaced and are not part of the buoyant force calculation.
-S
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 08:43:57 -0500
From: Nathaniel Lansing <delbrew at compuserve.com>
Subject: British Bitter taste, chloramine removal
Dave Riedel asked about getting that Brit flavor in his
bitters. Victoria has very soft water, 2 grains/USgallon,
you need to add Burton salts. Your water is so soft you
will need about 4 teaspoons for 5 gallons (20 ml for 19 liters).
It will get that tangy finish.
///////
The general recommendation for chloramine removal with
GAC is reduce the flow rate for chlorine by 3. If the flow for your
filter is 1 gallon per minute, the chloramine removal rate would
be 1 gallon/3 minutes. The use of a monolithic block AC cartridge
helps improve the removal rate compared to a granular cartridge.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 06:34:36 -0800 (PST)
From: Steven Parfitt <thegimp98 at yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: More Hydrometers
All of the technical discussions have been rather
interesting, however I feel they miss the point for
most of us.
I don't need a reading to 1.XXXnnn points.
I want to know if I have a problem. Ballpark numbers
do well to tell this.
I take a reading out of the chiller and before
pitching with a hydrometer and take a brix measurement
with my cheap ATC unit. If they agree, I have a good
reading and a ballpark idea of my OG. I don't care if
I'm off by 0.002 SG.
When I rack the beer to secondary I take a sample and
take both readings again. Yea, they are off a bit, but
I only want to know if the beer is progressing well.
Did it drop from 1.06x to the 1.02x range in the
first week? If it looks like 1.03X or greater I may
have a problem.
When I think the beer is finished (airlock activity
nill, yeast dropped and wort clear) I take a reading
and again look for the TG. Does it look like it is in
the range that I expect (+/-.001)?
0.0002 tolerance is not needed. 0.001 is do-able and
acceptable.
It's just a tool, like a lot of other instruments.
Measuring cup, erlinmeyer flask, pipet, gallon stock
pot.....
Steven, -75 XLCH- Ironhead Nano-Brewery http://thegimp.8k.com
Johnson City, TN [422.7, 169.2] Rennerian
"There is no such thing as gravity, the earth sucks." Wings Whiplash - 1968
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 14:36:12 -0800
From: "Steve Laycock" <slaycock at discoverynet.com>
Subject: So you want to monitor your gravity through the fermentation?
Having not read every hydrometer post (some got kindof sticky and long
winded),
I'm hoping that this hasn't been mentioned already... but here goes!
I too am of the analus retentus type and like to know the progress
of my fermentation's & have been "monitoring" my fermentation's
this year with a simple process.
I fill a sanitized hydrometer tube with wort after wort aeration and yeast
pitching.
This hydrometer tube then becomes a "dedicated" testing vessel for that
batch.
Fit the top of the tube with a standard air lock & set the wort sample next
to your fermentor (so the sample tube is subjected to the same temp as your
ferment)
Now you have a parallel sample as to what is in the fermentor vessel.
You can now take a gravity reading on that batch as often as you like,
WITHOUT the risk of contaminating your 5 or 10 gallons of precious cargo.
You will need to remove the krausen to get accurate readings during active
fermentation, but that only takes a few moments using a sanitized 1/4 tsp.
measuring
spoon (or anything small enough to skim the krausen off the top)
I always sanitize my hydrometer before inserting in the hydrometer tube,
this keeps infections risks down for the sample.
For the first couple batches I left the hydrometer in the wort during the
process, but
found that the krausen likes to dry on the hydrometer shaft thus effecting
the reading.
I'd end up cleaning it off for readings & decided it'd be easier to leave it
out during
active fermentation to eliminate this problem. After ferment settles down
and the
krausen has essentially disappeared you can leave the hydrometer in the
solution
for "constant" monitoring if you like. You'll just need a hydrometer tube
tall enough
to accommodate the hydrometer with an airlock fitted on top of it.
What I have found is that the sample ferments at a very close rate as the
bulk batch.
Initially I sampled the 6 gallon batch at various intervals as well as the
sample batch
and compared the reading.
In my "testing" I found that the overall fermentation rate and final
gravity are sufficiently
close to each other to use as a reasonable gauge for where your SG is at.
>From what
I remember, I'd say the difference didn't vary much over a single gravity
point.
I've intended on gathering "accurate" data on this process and submitting
it as an article
to this forum, but as with many thing in life.... just hasn't happened yet.
I've shared this process with some of my "ZZ Hops" brewing brothers and
several
have showed interest in trying this monitoring method.
"It works for me"
Steve Laycock
"Highwater Brew Haus"
Pleasant Hill Missouri
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 19:17:16 -0500
From: "Mark Prior" <priorm at hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: Pilsner mash schedule/decoction experiment
Aaron asks for opinions regarding producing a malty pilsner production. My
suggestion would be to decoct the beer if you are interested in a more
complex and malty beer and are not concerned with color pickup. Also, pay
attention to your yeast selection as well.
Back to the decoction question. After performing isolated decoctions on and
off for the last 10+ years and not really being able to discern if it was
worth the extra effort, I decided to do a semi-side by side experiment this
year. I brewed the same Octoberfest recipes twice over a period of serveral
weeks using all of the same equipment and ingredients. One beer was
produced with a 150 to 165 RIMS mashing cycle while the other was produced
using an abbreviated decoction with rests at 131, 147 and 155. The batches
were allowed to age for over three months then assessed side by side by a
variety of drinkers and brewers. The flavors and aromas of the two beers
were very similar when they were very cold but differed as they warmed. The
decoction batch flavors remained complex and well blended as it warmed while
the flavors from the other batch became flat, drier, less complex and more
fragmented. This was my opinion and the opinion of numerous other drinkers
as well. The decoction batch was preferred by most (for what it worth).
My method of decoction does not take me substantially longer to brew than a
standard infusion or RIMS mash (it does however require more effort!). My
notes say, I hit my first rest ( at 131) at 7:00pm and finished a 90 minutes
boil at 12:20am. Less than 5 1/2 hours from first strike to boil off.
I use a water infusion to raise the mash to 131. Immediatly after mashing
in, I pull about 1/3 of the mash and heat it to boiling, stopping for 5-10
minutes around 158. After a 30 minute rest at 147, I pull about 25% of the
mash for the second decoction. After returning the second decoction to the
main mash, I rest briefly at 155 (15-30 minutes). I then sparge slowly
(about 60 minutes) without mashing off.
This procedure is abbreviated compared to a some of the classic decoction
mashing profiles, but it does produce a perceivable flavor difference in my
opinion.
Good luck!
Mark Prior
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #4906, 12/07/05
*************************************
-------
