Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #5182
HOMEBREW Digest #5182 Thu 03 May 2007
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Digest Janitor: pbabcock at hbd.org
***************************************************************
THIS YEAR'S HOME BREW DIGEST BROUGHT TO YOU BY:
Your Business Name Here
Visit http://hbd.org "Sponsor the HBD" to find out how!
Support those who support you! Visit our sponsor's site!
********** Also visit http://hbd.org/hbdsponsors.html *********
Contents:
malt (leavitdg)
Re: keg priming vs. oxidation (Jeff Renner)
Beer-Lambert (mabrooks)
Re: Immersion chiller vs. kettle temperature probe ("Craig S. Cottingham")
Peristaltic pump ("Doug Moyer")
Quebec Beer (Rick) Theiner" <rickdude@tds.net>
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* 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: Thu, 03 May 2007 05:43:41 -0400
From: leavitdg at plattsburgh.edu
Subject: malt
Malt is a barley
that disdains fame.
(Darrell Gibran)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 09:12:05 -0400
From: Jeff Renner <jsrenner at umich.edu>
Subject: Re: keg priming vs. oxidation
Brian Miller <bj_mill at pacbell.net> wrote:
> the bottle conditioned beer was
> pretty easily detected from the kegged one, and the bottled version
> was much 'better'. I've about run out of ideas besides keg priming to
> avoid this problem in the future. Is this common knowledge or am I
> missing something?
Nice to have a datum point, if only a single one, for this. I have
long believed that bottles filled from kegs suffered, but hadn't
thought about this possibility. Food for thought.
And I have a few thoughts. A few years ago here we discussed the
purity of commercial CO2. It seems that there is a small amount of
O2 in it - well under a percent as I recall. This discussion was
prompted by a campaign of A/H to provide extra pure CO2 for its draft
accounts. This is from hazy memory - perhaps others can recall more
details. Perhaps I should check with my CO2 supplier to see how much
O2 there is in it.
How long was your beer in the keg, how much had you dispensed before
testing (thereby potentially introducing more O2), and did you force
carbonate it (I assume so)?
My preferred method of kegging and carbonating beers (ales and
lagers) is to wait until they are almost done fermenting, and then to
rack them from the primary to the keg and let them finish up there.
I don't bother to completely purge the keg when doing this the way I
do when transferring finished beer, but I do avoid splashing by
running the beer in the "beer-out" fitting so it is delivered to the
bottom of the keg via the dispensing tube.
When I do it right, I get proper carbonation (though I sometimes
adjust carbonation by venting or adding CO2), and the yeast should
handle any introduced O2. This is called bunging, or spunding,
traditional in England for real ale (often some priming sugar is
added) and with some German beers, especially Kellerbier. See http://
www.trailmonkey.com/lounging/yeasty.htm#Spunding
I only rack them to another keg to transport them or to rack them to
a smaller keg (Sankey to Corney) to save space. But, I certainly do
dispense with ordinary CO2.
As has often been noted, yeast is our friend.
Jeff
- ---
Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan USA, jsrenner at umich.edu
"One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 07:49:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: mabrooks <mabrooks12 at yahoo.com>
Subject: Beer-Lambert
Recent postings on the subject topic have stated that
Beer does in fact follow Beers law....hmmmm, perhaps
it does, however, I would like to throw out the
following to ponder:
Diluting a liquid by 10, 20 or 50% and meauring it on
a spectrophotometer, by no means proves it follows
Beer-Lambert(doesnt disprove it either). Simple
Dilution-Law could account for the reduction one is
seeing when performing this type of "highly scientific
experiment" If you dont have a known initial
concentration to verify that the concentration
actually was reduced by 10, 20 or 50% of its original
concentration of then how do you prove Beer-Lambert?
Beer-Lambert Law definately uses "concentration"
and if you did not measure it before you started your
dilutions then what you did was "assumed a starting
"level" of something, no "knowns" whatsoever. If "c"
is unknown at the begining and unknown at the end of
the experiment then how do you prove Beer-Lambert? "c"
MUST be measured and expressed in a unit per volume or
weight, typically for water it is mg/L. Just because
the Absorbance dropped with dilution does not prove
the concentration did as well? You HAVE TO
MEASURE the "c" at the begining and end of the
experiment. If you do not, and you only measure the
absorbance? then you are "hypothesizing" that the
concentration was actually changing! This wont fly in
the world of Acedemia!
While perhaps some constituant of Malt/Beer may in
fact weakly follow Beer-Lambert, it cannot be
associated with the "aparent color" of the beer as
seen with the naked eye. This is not possible as
there are no absorbance peaks in any of the
spectrum from 400-700nm.....None ! No peaks means no
dominant color absorbance...that is just plain simple
spectrophotometry. If you dont know what
"constituant" in the sample you are measuring the
absorbance of, and you believe is following beers law,
what is the point of the research? You can take
just about any liquid and run it on a spec, dilute it
and run it again and say it follows Beer-Lambert law?
What is the point...It is not associated with the
aparent color of the beer! Thats the point I am trying
to make!
Pick up a copy of standard methods for the examination
of water & wastewater(this is the definitive book for
approved laboratory analysis on water samples)and look
up how they determine color of a liquid...you will
find that it is very similar to what the Brewing
industry is finally moving toward. The issue is
not one of Beer-Lambert, rather the realistic
acknowledgement that the Beer-Lambert law doesnt apply
to measuring Color of a liquid.....it does not
say liquids dont follow the Beer-Lambert law, it is
just that it is not readily apparent nor easy to
determine what constituant in a liquid is causing
it to follow the Beer-Lambert Law, Hence it does not
apply to color measurement. In the same book you will
see countless applications of approved methodologies
for analysis of water samples by applying the
Beer-Lambert Law, none have to do with aparent color
of the sample, rather they deal with determining
actual concentrations of a particular consituant of
interest. The results are always displayed
in mass per volume or mass per unit weight. This is
the guiding principal for the use of Beer-Lambert law
for analysis of liquids, the concentration of a
particular constiuant is the goal. You have to know
what you are looking for, and know what wavelength it
adsorbs the most light.
Again, If you dilute something by 10, 20, or 50% and
get linear readings on a spec, it doesnt necessarily
mean it follows Beer-Lambert Law as far as
aparent color is concerned? If you dont know the
initial concentration of the absorptive constituant to
begin with then you certainly dont know it after you
dilute it, so how can you necessarily prove
that a solution follows Beer-Lambert Law. You can
safely assume that the dilutions caused a proportional
drop in the absorbance of a liquid...that is
not Beer-Lambert Law though? That is the Dilution
Law....
Matt B.
Northern VA
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 09:33:04 -0500
From: "Craig S. Cottingham" <craig.cottingham at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Immersion chiller vs. kettle temperature probe
On May 1, 2007, at 23:54, nathanw at MIT.EDU (Nathan J. Williams) wrote:
> Other thoughts? I'm leaning towards 3, bending the chiller - it's
> standard home-improvement-store refrigeration copper tubing, fairly
> narrow, and I bent it into this coil so I'm pretty sure it can deform
> a bit more.
You have a fifth option that I can think of. There's no harm in
leaving the immersion chiller in your kettle for the entire boil, so
you could assemble the chiller and thermometer before adding wort,
and disassemble it for cleaning after the boil.
Okay, I say "no harm", but it occurs to me that there is at least one
potential hazard. An immersion chiller is a heat exchanger, and it
works both ways. By the time you turn on the cooling water, that
copper coil will be at 100 degC (adjusted for atmospheric pressure),
so the first water that enters it will boil more or less instantly.
As long as the outflow end of the chiller has a hose attached to it,
it shouldn't be a problem, but it's something that you should be
aware of.
- --
Craig S. Cottingham
BJCP Certified judge from Olathe, KS ([621, 251.1deg] Apparent
Rennerian)
craig.cottingham at gmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 14:09:56 -0400
From: "Doug Moyer" <shyzaboy at yahoo.com>
Subject: Peristaltic pump
I purchased a peristaltic pump off of eBay.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=280101950611
I have no documentation to go with it, and I've never used a peristaltic
pump before.
For those of you that use these things, please answer a question or two...
I would like to use this to transfer beer between fermenters (or from
fermenter to keg) so I don't have to lift the carboys (if I can avoid it)
due to back problems. Does it require priming or is it self-priming?
What type of hose should I use?
Any suggestions for care and feeding of this beast?
Brew on!
Doug Moyer
Troutville, VA
Star City Brewers Guild: http://www.starcitybrewers.org
Beer, brewing, travel & kids: http://shyzaboy.blogsome.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 15:10:54 -0500
From: "Eric (Rick) Theiner" <rickdude at tds.net>
Subject: Quebec Beer
Hail Collective,
I'm going to be in Quebec (city), Quebec in a couple of weeks. Where's a
good place for a few beers? I'll be staying close to the conference center in
the Leow's Hotel, if that helps.
Thanks!
Rick Theiner
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #5182, 05/03/07
*************************************
-------
