Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #5507
HOMEBREW Digest #5507 Wed 18 February 2009
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Digest Janitor: pbabcock at hbd.org
***************************************************************
TODAY'S HOME BREW DIGEST BROUGHT TO YOU BY:
Sponsor The Home Brew Digest!
Visit http://www.hbd.org/sponsorhbd.shtml to learn 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. SPONSORSHIPS of any
amount are considered paid advertisement, and may be deductible
under IRS rules as a business expense. Please consult with your
tax professional, then see http://hbd.org for available
sponsorship opportunities.
***************************************************************
Contents:
Re: Helium ("Craig S. Cottingham")
Re: Helium (beerdan)
RE: Helium (Josh Knarr)
Water Questions (Jim Stansell)
Heat calculations and thermal mass (caution: geek alert) ("Bill Pierce")
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* The HBD Logo Store is now open! *
* http://www.hbd.org/store.html *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy! *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
NOTE: With the economy as it is, the HBD is struggling to
meet its meager operating expenses of approximately $3400
per year. If less than half of those currently directly
subscribed to the HBD sent in a mere $5.00, the HBD would
be able to easily meet its annual expenses, with room to
spare for next year. Please consider it.
As always, donors and donations are publicly acknowledged
and accounted for on the HBD web page. THank you
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, 17 Feb 2009 23:21:26 -0600
From: "Craig S. Cottingham" <craig.cottingham at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Helium
On Feb 17, 2009, at 14:35, "Chad Stevens" <zuvaruvi at cox.net> wrote:
> Got my CO2 tank filled yesterday. On the way out of the shop I saw
> a helium
> tank. Brewers being mad scientists by default, I thought to myself,
> "wouldn't that be an interesting party trick, Helium 'carbonated'
> beer."
> Take a sip, then sing, "We represent, the lollipop guild...."
Interesting idea, but it wouldn't work. The solubility of helium in
water is one one-thousandth that of carbon dioxide at beer
temperatures. Nitrogen is ten times more soluble than helium, so
imagine a Guinness stout tap, but a lot less so.
- --
Craig S. Cottingham
BJCP Certified judge from Olathe, KS ([621, 251.1deg] Apparent
Rennerian)
craig.cottingham at gmail.com
+1 (913) 826-6896 or Skype me at CraigCottingham
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 08:22:54 -0500
From: beerdan at optonline.net
Subject: Re: Helium
You'll find there are several problems with this. First is the cost. Helium is
expensive compared to other gases as it is not abundant in our atmosphere.
Also, I don't have the numbers in front of me but helium does not easily
diffuse in liquids unless the pressure is very high or the temperature is very
cold, or both. Instead of about 10 psi for CO2, you may have to triple or
quadruple it for helium to achieve a similar level of 'carbonation' or
heliumnation' as the case may be. And then, when you released the
pressure when dispensing, it would immediately come out of solution,
leaving a flat beer behind.
I would be curious to see what a head of helium foam would look like.
Helium being the second smallest atom.. would the bubbles be microspoic
and produce a thick, small head or blow right through and leave nothing
behind?
Not a very techie answer but my experience comes from scuba diving and
the use of enriched air nitrox and trimix (oxygen, nitrogen, helium mix)
gases and the effects of them when under pressure in the blood stream.
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 14:35:49 -0800
> From: "Chad Stevens" <zuvaruvi at cox.net>
> Subject: Helium
>
> Got my CO2 tank filled yesterday. On the way out of the shop I saw a helium
> tank. Brewers being mad scientists by default, I thought to myself,
> "wouldn't that be an interesting party trick, Helium 'carbonated' beer."
> Take a sip, then sing, "We represent, the lollipop guild...."
>
> Anyone tried it?
>
> Chad Stevens
> QUAFF
> San Diego
> www.sdfair.com/beer
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 08:57:30 -0500
From: Josh Knarr <josh.knarr at gmail.com>
Subject: RE: Helium
The helium works by going into your lungs so your vocal chords vibrate
much more quickly.
It wouldn't be funny until someone burped, but then it wouldn't be
funny anyway because the beer would taste weird. Helium is colorless
and odorless, and probably tasteless as well. Unless you made a beer
which didn't want to be heavily carbonated, helium probably wouldn't
fly. (pun intended). I would think there's a serious risk of the beer
going flat.
- --
George Burns - "I would go out with women my age, but there are no
women my age."
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 15:16:00 -0500
From: Jim Stansell <jim.stansell at comcast.net>
Subject: Water Questions
In the book "Brew Classic European Beers" at home, Wheeler and Protz
comment that their typical water treatment is to add 12g of calcium
sulfate (CaSO4) to about 25 liters of boiling water water, and then
let the precipitate settle out before racking the water off and
leaving the scale behind. Exactly what is being left behind?
Temporary hardness? Permanent hardness?
Here's my water profile (Lansing, Michigan area) in ppm:
Calcium: (Ca) 20
Magnesium (Mg): 9.7
Sodium (Na): 44
Sulfate (SO4): 70
Chloride (Cl): 46
Bicarbonate (HCO3): 42.1
(1) What comments does anyone have about this water?
(2) What would boiling it with CaSO4 accomplish?
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 21:56:11 -0500
From: "Bill Pierce" <BillPierce at aol.com>
Subject: Heat calculations and thermal mass (caution: geek alert)
Sometimes I get so geeky I scare myself. That's the conclusion as I
continue to revise my brewing spreadsheet, a 10-year work in
progress. My graduate degree was in English, so it's sometimes a
stretch to come to terms with all the math involved.
Lately, I've been looking at the various formulas involving
temperature in mashing, and preparing an article about the subject.
Most of the formulas include a variable called "thermal mass," which
as it relates to brewing is the resistance to changes in
temperature, thereby requiring additional heat to effect a
temperature change. As most all-grain brewers know, the mash tun
temperature is one of the reasons, along with the temperature of the
grain, why the strike water must be quite a bit hotter than the
desired initial mash temperature.
Many homebrewers are acquainted with the thermal mass value from
ProMash. The Help file mentions that it can be set to a
predetermined value between 0 and 1.0, and suggests a value of 0 if
you preheat the mash tun. If not, it suggests initially setting the
value to 0.3 and later adjusting it according to the accuracy of the
results. I could not find any specific formula for calculating the
thermal mass in
this way. The problem is that ProMash is somewhat misleading in its
use of this term. "Thermal mass" implies a weight measured in pounds
or kilograms rather than a kind of "fudge factor" in the
calculations. Indeed if we examine what thermal mass really means,
we discover that the weight of the vessel is involved.
After a lot of working with the math, eventually I derived a more
accurate formula for the temperature of the strike water to achieve
a desired mash temperature:
Ts =
((Td*(ThM+(2.08635*Vw)+(0.4*Wg)))-(Tg*0.4*Wg))-(Tm*ThM))/(2.08635*Wv
)
Where:
Ts = Temperature of strike water to achieve a desired mash
temperature (degrees F)
Td = Desired mash temperature after addition of grain and strike
water (degrees F)
ThM = Thermal mass of mash tun (pounds)
Vw = Volume of strike water (quarts)
Wg = Weight of grain (pounds)
Tg = Temperature of grain (degrees F)
Tm = Temperature of mash tun (degrees F--unless it is preheated,
this is the ambient air temperature)
The 0.4 coefficients are the published heat capacity of malt (with a
moisture content of 4 percent); by convention the heat capacity of
water is 1.0. The 2.08635 coefficients are the weight in pounds of 1
quart of water. Metric brewers can substitute degrees C for degrees
F and kilograms for pounds without changing the formula. As for the
water volume, if you are using liters, omit the 2.08635 coefficient.
Conveniently, the metric system is based on 1 liter of water
weighing 1 kilogram.
The benefit of this formula over others is that it takes into
account both the thermal mass of the mash tun and the mash tun
temperature. A deficiency of some brewing software is that the
strike water temperature calculations can be in error if the mash
tun is very cold, for example, in the winter. Accounting for the
temperature of the mash tun resolves this issue.
The formula raises the question of what is the mash tun thermal mass
value. Apart from some suggestions in the ProMash Help file and
elsewhere, there is very little published about this subject.
However,
it is possible to determine the mash tun thermal mass value
empirically. By rearranging the terms, if the other values are
known, the equation above can be solved for the vessel's thermal
mass (I omitted the grain values because I wanted to experiment with
water only). It becomes:
ThM = ((Ts-Td)*2.08635*Vw)/(Td-Tm)
The result will be the vessel's thermal mass in pounds or kilograms.
Metric brewers can directly substitute the temperature values in
degrees C, the weight in kilograms and the volume in liters,
omitting the 2.08635 coefficient for the water volume conversion to
mass in pounds.
To use the formula, measure the temperature of the empty vessel
(Tm). Normally this is the same as the ambient air temperature.
Heat the volume of strike water (Vw) for a typical batch at a
typical strike
water temperature (Ts). Add the hot water to the vessel. Cover, wait
a few minutes and measure the water temperature (Td). Use the
formula to calculate the vessel's thermal mass (ThM). Once again,
metric brewers can use their units and omit the 2.08635 coefficient
that converts the water volume in quarts to mass in pounds.
Using this formula, I did an experiment with hot water and my own
converted keg mash tun. Using 16 quarts of water at 162 F and an
ambient air temperature of 70 F, it resulted in a final temperature
of 157 F and a thermal mass value of 1.918 lbs.
Beyond empirical measurement, the thermal mass can be calculated
based on the thermal properties of a vessel's material. While I
wouldn't care to hazard a guess about the composition of plastic
coolers (the outer shell and inner insulation), stainless steel has
measured heat properties. If you mash in a converted keg or pot made
of 304 stainless, there is published data for the specific heat,
that is, the
amount of energy in joules per gram (or kilojoules per kilogram)
necessary to raise the temperature 1 degree Kelvin (or Celsius).
This value is 0.50 kJ/kg. If we convert this value to that which is
relative to water (specific heat 4.19 kJ/kg), we can ignore the
measuring system (metric or American/British). Therefore the heat
capacity of 304 stainless relative to water is 0.5/4.19 = 0.119.
This is true for temperatures measured in both degrees Celsius and
Fahrenheit.
The thermal mass depends on the mass (weight) of the vessel as well
as the heat capacity. It is necessary to weigh the vessel in order
to calculate the thermal mass. Using the heat capacity of 304
stainless to calculate the thermal mass of my own converted keg mash
tun, and multiplying by the measured weight of 32.92 lbs., I arrived
at a value of 3.92 lbs:
0.119*32.92 = 3.92
Unfortunately this is in conflict with the value I arrived at (1.918
lbs.) based on my formula and experiment with hot water as described
above. I am wondering what is the cause of this discrepancy. In the
interest of brewing science, perhaps someone who is as geeky as I am
could shed some light on this. I will give credit for the assistance
when I publish my article.
Brew on!
Bill Pierce
Cellar Door Homebrewery
Burlington, Ontario
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #5507, 02/18/09
*************************************
-------
