Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #5318
HOMEBREW Digest #5318 Sun 06 April 2008
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 *********
DONATE to the Home Brew Digest. Home Brew Digest, Inc. is a
501(c)3 not-for-profit organization under IRS rules (see the
FAQ at http://hbd.org for details of this status). Donations
can be made by check to Home Brew Digest mailed to:
HBD Server Fund
PO Box 871309
Canton Township, MI 48187-6309
or by paypal to address serverfund@hbd.org. DONATIONS of $250
or more will be provided with receipts. SPOSORSHIPS of any
amount are considered paid advertisement, and may be deductible
under IRS rules as a bsuiness expense. Please consult with your
tax professional, then see http://hbd.org for available
sponsorship opportunities.
***************************************************************
Contents:
Heat of combustion of Propane ("A.J deLange")
Re: Brewing Logic and Experimentation ("J. Ben Schafer")
Experiments/experience Alexandre's suggestion ("steve.alexander")
Herbal Express ("Eloy Butler")
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* 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: Sat, 05 Apr 2008 07:56:59 -0400
From: "A.J deLange" <ajdel at cox.net>
Subject: Heat of combustion of Propane
I completely forgot about the heat of combustion question
"Do you know, off hand, what the equation would be for the BTU's/lb of
propane...."
The available heat when propane is fully combusted is about 45.8 M joule
(mega joule)
per kg. If you manage to condense the water vapor produced you can
recover about
6% more.
A.J.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2008 09:36:14 -0600 (CST)
From: "J. Ben Schafer" <schafer at cs.uni.edu>
Subject: Re: Brewing Logic and Experimentation
> For the widely popular and simple styles such as pale ale we ought to come
> up
> with a significant number of recipes that differ by one ingredient (yeast,
> base
> malt, water, etc). Using this data we should be able to reach some
> meaningful
> conclusions.
>
Let me play devil's advocate for a bit - how do you adjust for the
non-ingredient variables? The final outcome of a recipe is more than just
the ingredients involved. Temperatures at various stages of the game
including into the fermentation time, water profiles, efficiency rates,
times spent at different stages of the process, pitching rates, heck even
thoroughness of sanitation will all have an effect on the final flavor of
the beer.
While I have done it myself, I would be hesitant to compare two beers
differing by one ingredient and make too strong a claim that the
ingredient swap caused the difference(s).
I don't remember whether it was on this list or one of the others I read,
but someone recently said "Give 5 brewers the same ingredients to brew a
beer and you are likely to get 5 different beers."
Now let me step away from the devil's advocate role. I still think we
need more science, testing and "controls" to help us solidify our
knowledge and this discussion is GREAT. I too hear brewers throw around
"facts" that I think are sometimes "old brewer's tales" passed from
generation to generation with no real merit. We need ways to really test
these things. I just wanted to point out we need to be very careful
because of the high degree of variables that go into each brew session and
final beer.
______________________________
J. Ben Schafer
Associate Professor
Department of Computer Science
University of Northern Iowa
Cedar Falls, IA, 50614
_________________________________________________
"Always behave like a duck --
keep calm and unruffled on the surface
but paddle like the devil underneath."
-J. Braude
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2008 03:48:14 -0400
From: "steve.alexander" <-s at roadrunner.com>
Subject: Experiments/experience Alexandre's suggestion
Janitorial Cajole:
Despite being probed regularly by Pat Babcock (!!), it seems that some
cosmic filter removes the most interesting HBDs from my inbox. Such was
the fate of #5315 with A.Enkerli's proposal. [[As an aside I have all
ISP filters off, so it was never received on this end. I also receive
HBD under two aliases and both regularly miss the same issue. I could
and probably blame Time-Warner]].
==
I suspect Alexandre is aware that there exist some brewing books along
the lines of (what I imagine) is in Mr.This' cooking book. Tho 'not
specifically aimed at verifying or debunking brewing lore, I find
Charles Bamforth's books refreshing and informative with a strong
experimental basis behind his statements. George Fix's last book, "An
Analysis of Brewing Techniques" is IMO a sweet little compendium of the
brewing experience of a well respected and knwledgeable brewer.
In the next paragraph Alexandre suggests "the reverse approach might
work well [...] By aggregating large numbers of data points, we might
get a more precise picture of different dimensions of brewing". This
is an idea that had first occurred to me 3+ decades ago while reading a
nice little book called "Decision Analysis ..." by H.Raiffa. Not a
brilliant book, but a nice introduction to a topic. The Author
introduced a method of making decisions for an 'optimal' outcome in the
face of uncertain knowledge by estimating (quite crudely and
subjectively) probabilities. The book then veers off in the direction
of exploring some of the human-psychological issues, an area that
interests me less [[we monkey-boys are stupid & have blindspots in our
reasoning - I see that every day, ho-hum]]. Anyway the problem in
making decisions by this method is that we have poor estimates for
probabilities. To bring this back to earth, say we want to make a
malt-y tasting ale and we are considering the best yeast among WY1338 &
WY1028; we usually rely on personal experience which can be quite
limited. It would be terrific to poll a much larger "experience base"
for the answer.
The problem is not specific to brewing. but is a extremely common
problem in all walks of life. We must make decisions but we have
insufficient information/experience, so we seek advise. The
traditional approach of leaving things to the "expert" has some severe
limitations. See about.com for examples of the old paradigm - the
expert informing the masses from a pulpit/ex cathedra. Generally solid
information on many topics, but paper thin detail, usually no reference
to any background detail, and occasionally it's blatantly erroneous. I
don't care for this sort of advise since it is directly aligned with an
appeal to an unnamed authority; a clear logical fallacy.
Another common approach to decision making when faced with limited
information is to poll a forum like HBD. We regularly see posts asking
which brewing materials to choose, or which methods to employ to get a
particular result. This actually works pretty well, but there are
problems. Someone with good experience may not have time or the
inclination to answer. Still if a dubious answer is posted it is likely
to be discussed or rebutted. Better than nothing but it would be nice
to get such an answer with google-like speed and some sort of
reliability of result.
Most HBers have a distorted view of how the "brewing lit", Journals
such as JIB, MBAA-TQ, and ASBC, actually work. 98+% of the papers are
"experiment" papers and usually have an extremely small topic domain;
the comparative analysis of certain phenolics in two minor variants of a
barley strain, for example. A tiny fraction are "overview papers" which
attempt to draw conclusions by a survey of many experiment papers. In
experiment papers we expect a great care in the methods, procedures and
description, and a truthful accounting of the outcomes. Each paper is
presumably one good data point and not more. The experimental
"conclusions" are always the most interesting part, but also the most
subjective. So the journal method has very high standards for entry,
but the method is basically a bunch of tiny high quality data "points of
experience" papers appear and then tentative overview/conclusions
appears and are debated & revised as needed. It is extremely rare to
see any experiment paper renounced, since it is just the report of a
carefully observation, but the conclusions may be rejected based on a
later/better analysis & information. This seems like a far better model
for deriving information from experience.
So what if instead of a few high quality data point (journal papers),
and instead of the slowness an vaguaries of a forum response, we invite
everyone to *record* their personal experience in a sort of database and
make the information accessible in flexible ways ? The data quality
obviously drops compared to a journal, but we have so much more of it so
that perhaps we can still draw good conclusions despite the "noise".
Someone with a strong statistics background could have a field day with
this.
My thoughts on the topic are both more grandiose and less restrictive
and Alexandre's. Since the Internet was new, and again when the "wiki"
was invented I've thought that recording and organizing personal
experience rather than just "informal and more formal experiments"
related to brewing could be made practical. How to organize experience
is a fundamental issue that has no simple answer and broaches the of
knowledge engineering, AI and the semantic web (not here tho'). Still
imagine a google-like tool that could inform you in a highly extracted
way of the experience of countless others when comparing brewing
yeasts, espresso grinders of restaurant choice or which tires to choose.
- ---
Stepping back from the blue sky ... I applaud "dean at brewsession.com"
for offering to take a small practical first step onto new turf.
Patton's quip, "A good plan violently executed now is better than a
perfect plan executed next week" applies. I will suggest that you not
become too restrictive wrt to the quality & type of data & sources
included. So long as these are recorded (not personal data for sources
of course) these can be accounted for in the analysis.
-S
------------------------------
Date: , 6 Apr 2008 22:39:25 +0100
From: "Eloy Butler" <decreasingpb6 at melscasa.com>
Subject: Herbal Express
This proves that size really does matter.
http://tunierane.com
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #5318, 04/06/08
*************************************
-------
