HOMEBREW Digest #3114 Thu 19 August 1999

[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]

		Digest Janitor: janitor@hbd.org
		Many thanks to the Observer & Eccentric Newspapers of 
		Livonia, Michigan for sponsoring the Homebrew Digest.
				URL: http://www.oeonline.com

  Vortex shedding, Helmholtz coils & Precipitators (Kirk.Fleming)
  Re: Malty, oxidized / Faultline ("Arnold J. Neitzke")
  Water bath in place of the wet T-shirt to keep carboys cool... (darrell.leavitt)
  pumps and shear (Marc Sedam)
  Steve's Hypo (Tidmarsh Major)
  Re: Early hop harvest ("Sieben, Richard")
  over pressure boiling? ("Nathaniel P. Lansing")
  RE:CFC in FLA (Dave Hinrichs)
  Cat in the Beer ("Alan McKay")
  re: Fermometer accuracy ("Kensler, Paul")
  Formula for Calculating Expected FG from OG ("Michael O. Hanson")
  Bottling pLambic (Nathan Kanous)
  Re: Water use in brewing (Jeff Renner)
  science of brewing (ALAN KEITH MEEKER)
  ugggghhhhh ("Stephen Alexander")
  re:  yeast question ("Kensler, Paul")
  Sourmash -NOT!/Jolly Roger/Reynolds # ("Stephen Alexander")
  Re: Praticality (Scott Murman)
  Re: Dark mild licorice flavor (Jeff Renner)
  Turbulence ("Paul Niebergall")
  Barley Wine Aging (Eddie Kent)
  The Brew Warrior (MVachow)
  die by the sword/ayinger mash ("Bayer, Mark A")
  St. Catherines and Buffalo area beer places ("Bruce Garner")
  Reynolds Number ("Paul Niebergall")
  RE: Dark mild licorice flavor (LaBorde, Ronald)
  RE: Praticality (LaBorde, Ronald)
  Plastic ball blanket ("BeerLvr")

* Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy! * The HBD now hosts eight digests related to this and a few other hobbies. * Send an email note to majordomo at hbd.org with the word "lists" on one * line, and "help" on another (don't need the quotes) for a listing and * instructions for use. * 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. **SUBSCRIBE AND UNSUBSCRIBE REQUESTS MUST BE SENT FROM THE E-MAIL ACCOUNT YOU WISH TO HAVE SUBSCRIBED OR UNSUBSCRIBED!!!** IF YOU HAVE SPAM-PROOFED your e-mail address, the autoresponder and the SUBSCRIBE/UNSUBSCRIBE commands will fail! Contact brewery at hbd.org for information regarding the "Cat's Meow" Back issues are available via: HTML from... http://hbd.org Anonymous ftp from... ftp://hbd.org/pub/hbd/digests ftp://ftp.stanford.edu/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer AFS users can find it under... /afs/ir.stanford.edu/ftp/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer COPYRIGHT for the Digest as a collection is currently held by hbd.org (Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen). Digests in their entirity CANNOT be reprinted/reproduced without this entire header section unless EXPRESS written permission has been obtained from hbd.org. Digests CANNOT be reprinted or reproduced in any format for redistribution unless said redistribution is at absolutely NO COST to the consumer. COPYRIGHT for individual posts within each Digest is held by the author. Articles cannot be extracted from the Digest and reprinted/reproduced without the EXPRESS written permission of the author. The author and HBD must be attributed as author and source in any such reprint/reproduction. (Note: QUOTING of items originally appearing in the Digest in a subsequent Digest is exempt from the above. Home brew clubs NOT associated with organizations having a commercial interest in beer or brewing may republish articles in their newsletters and/or websites provided that the author and HBD are attributed. ASKING first is still a great courtesy...) JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 00:58:01 -0500 From: Kirk.Fleming at born.com Subject: Vortex shedding, Helmholtz coils & Precipitators Not being convinced that the expression provided adequately models reality in determining transition flow rates in my brewing system, I've abandoned efforts to investigate turbulent vs laminar flow entirely--at least until I can instrument my system for dynamic pressure. In the mean time, however, I'm thinking the whole issue can be resolved for RIMS systems by ensuring protein molecules (but not enzymes) are largely contained in the main vessel through the use of some sort of electrostatic filter. For example, might it be possible to put, say, a high DC potential across the mash tun to ground, I don't know, maybe 150KV or so, and thereby lock the little proteins in a sort of stasis? Can we get any sort of leverage that way? How can we get the little proteins to look like electrolytes, so to speak? Lately I've also become concerned about the local magnetic field and the effects it might be having on product. I know normally this wouldn't be a concern, but I have a stack of worn out golf shoes accumulating in the corner of my garage, each of which is equipped with those magnetic strip soles. I know there shouldn't be anything magnetic in my beer, but now I wonder. I remember when I was doing reseach on mechanical pendulum clocks, there was concern around the turn of the century that the Earth's magnetic field could be dorking up the running of our most accurate clocks. It was suggested that construction and operation a so-called Helmholz coil in the area surrounding the clock could be used to neutralize the local magnetic field, and improve timekeeping. I'm beginning to think I could do the same, to ensure those shoes aren't in some way messing up my beer. Any ideas here? Finally, someone mentioned that the transition from laminar to turbulent flow was influenced by viscosity, and now I'm wondering if specific gravity would have a similar effect. If so, then imagine the possibility of using one of those in-line vortex shedding gadgets used for measuring flow rates in pipes: if you could guarantee that actual flow rate was constant, then it might be possible to use changes in the pulse rate from the flow meter to determine specific gravity. Finally, if the AC to the Helmholtz coil were synchronized with the signal from the flow meter, then you might really have something... Kirk Fleming FRSL, FRSE Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 06:33:11 -0400 (EDT) From: "Arnold J. Neitzke" <neitzkea at frc.com> Subject: Re: Malty, oxidized / Faultline On Tue, 17 Aug 1999, Spencer W Thomas wrote: > Another way to learn to recognized oxidized beer flavors is to take up > judging. Depending on the category, it seems like half or more of the > beers in any competition have some amount of oxidized/old flavors in > them. Get paired up with an experienced beer judge and ask him to > point out the oxidized tasting beers. You'll learn the range of > flavors and aromas quickly. :-) > > =Spencer Thomas in Ann Arbor, MI (spencer at umich.edu) Spencer is right on about the judging thing, do if you get a chance. The first judging I did was for a mead comp last year and one of the first meads had this nutty flavor (that I kind of liked), the experienced judge told me that it was oxidized. That mead got dinged because it was not appropriate for the style. By the way, that nutty flavor I detected is the same flavor in Solara Cream Sherry (Paw Paw, Mi). I was told that they deliberatly oxidize Sherry wines! Live and learn! _________________________________________________________ Arnold J. Neitzke Internet Mail: neitzkea at frc.com Brighton, Mi CEO of the NightSky brewing Company - --------------------------------------------------------- Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 08:12:26 -0500 (EST) From: darrell.leavitt at plattsburgh.edu Subject: Water bath in place of the wet T-shirt to keep carboys cool... I have tried the wet t-shirt, but think that a water bath is better. I first started using a trash can so that I could lager a year or so ago. Using an indoor/outdoor thermometer as well as some foam/cloth for insulation on the outside has worked well for me...one can add ice as needed, now and then drawing off excess water.....The one problem is that temperature swings can exceed the recommended 2-4 degrees per day (that I think is the consensus).. Never the less, I have produced some really good bocks, and pilsners,and "American" Lagers with this method. Lately I thought: why not use the water bath for ales as well. ... seeing that the ambient temp was well into the 90's recently, here in N NY state, for several weeks, I was very worried about off-flavors due to temps that were hard to keep down...even with the t-shirt... So, I purchased a few of the smaller rectangular recycle bins (with tops) and filled with water. After the ale is fermenting well I place the carboy into the water, making sure that the water temp is REAL close...but lower than that of the carboy...then, watching that the bubbler doesn't stop...over several days I slowly drop the temp (usually with small additions of ice) to that called for by the yeast variety... I cut a hole in the top of the cover so that the carboy protrudes out of the lid..but the lid is one..There may be a better way to do this..but I have seen that the large mass of water...once stabilized at the target temp,...is MUCH more resistent to the normal temp swings in the house in the summer (no air conditioning)...and that keeping near the mid-point of the designated temp range makes for a very steady and LONG fermentation... I know that much of this is obvious to many of you, but for those who have had problems with maintaining the correct temperatures I suggest using a water (and ice) bath in place of the wet t-shirt. Let's allow the wet t-shirt to maintain it primary function.....and we all know what that is! ..Darrell <Terminally INtermediate Home-Brewer> Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 08:52:52 -0400 From: Marc Sedam <marc_sedam at unc.edu> Subject: pumps and shear There is one easily achieved condition that can occur while using a pump that will result in protein shear--a not totally filled pump head. If the pump head is lacking significant fluid you will (of course) hear cavitation, which is hell on proteins. They *will* denature and could have deleterious effects on efficiency, head retention, etc. depending on when in the brew day you butch it. However, even a mostly-filled pump head can have air trapped in it with necessarily causing audible cavitation. Don't know how dramatic the effect is, but it can definitely do some damage. When, in a past life, I had to pump protein solutions between tanks we worried incessantly about whether the pump head was completely filled and purged of all air. When we screwed it up and left air inside, the protein came out the other side of the pump mostly denatured. Cheers! Marc Sedam Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 07:54:38 -0500 From: Tidmarsh Major <tidmarsh at mindspring.com> Subject: Steve's Hypo Steve A presents an interesting hypo, asking whether we would combine various chemical compounds if such a mixture would quickly and easily produce an approximation of beer indetectible from the original product, but I think his underlying question misses the mark. The relevant question isn't how _much_ science (I'd say technology in it's broad definition of applied science) is too much, but rather what _kind_ of technology is helpful. The question is one of quality rather than quantity. To focus on how much technology can be used to create the final product is a to consider quantity and product, but the relevant question should consider the quality of the process. I daresay that most of us do not brew for the result alone. We enjoy the process of turning a bucket of grain, a few handsful of hops, a pot of water, and a jug (or package) of yeast into beer. Along the way, we use whatever tools improve that process. To combine a few chemicals from various bottles doesn't improve the process, it eliminates it. I wouldn't "brew" that way, not because it's "too much science" but because it is the "wrong kind of technology" for my tastes. Asking the question in the form of "how much science" forces one to make arbitrary and indefensible "bright line" tests that fail under close scrutiny and forces a false dilemma of all science or no science. We all use technology, so therefore all science must be the right answer, but most of us know intuitively that mixing chemical ingredients is not the same hobby that we currently enjoy. Some might like that hobby more, but it is a different kind of activity. With the question of what kind of technology improves the process, we arrive at a highly subjective question whose answer changes from person to person and time to time, much like asking "What's the best kind of beer?" I know my brewing methods vary wildly, depending on mood and available time: sometimes I keep copious notes, cook cereal mashes, perform protein rests, and boil decoctions; other times I boil some syrup with some hops and water. Tidmarsh Major BIrmingham, Alabama De gustibus non est disputandem Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 07:58:58 -0500 From: "Sieben, Richard" <SIER1 at Aerial1.com> Subject: Re: Early hop harvest Paul Kerchefske mentions early hop harvests, Paul, I and some others here on the HBD have noticed the same this year. I live close to the Illinois/Wisconsin border and your results reflect mine, so I think it's the weather we have had. Yes, my Tettnagers were early like yours, as well as my Kent Goldings, Fuggles and Bullions. Also, as you have noted, my Mt. Hoods don't look like they are doing so well, I see burs just coming out now on them. This is my first year for Cascades and they are loaded with cones. My Willamettes don't look like they will produce as much as last year at this point, but there is still a month of summer left, so we will see. Rich Sieben Island Lake 11 plant hop ranch Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 09:49:51 -0400 From: "Nathaniel P. Lansing" <delbrew at compuserve.com> Subject: over pressure boiling? The talk of pressure cooking wort and over-pressure boiling made me wonder... If a large beer factory has a 30 foot deep kettle, then wouldn't the beer at the bottom be at 2 atmospheres? Maybe the wort at the bottom isn't actually boiling but the convecting heat would boil the top layer of wort as it reaches closer to 1 atmosphere. Is this over-pressure/over-temperature boil why they get such high hop utilizations? In a really tall kettle they could be boiling at 3 atmospheres without a pressure system. Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 09:03:29 -0500 From: Dave Hinrichs <dhinrichs at quannon.com> Subject: RE:CFC in FLA Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 21:45:31 -0400 From: Debi Lake <debiL at sunnyorlando.com> Subject: CFC in FLA >During the summer, I have been running the wort from the CF chiller >through a 6ft copper coil buried in a cooler of ice and then into the >carboy. It's a pain because it's one more thing to sanitize and clean. >Also, with the extra apparatus, it's harder to start the siphon since I >can't increase the height of my kettle. To solve this problem, I may >have to break down a purchase a pump (damn, now that's two more things I >have to clean). Why not run the cooling water though the coil in the tub of ice water first. The cooling water will be colder for faster cooling and a possible low final temp. Cleaning would be easier/not required as well. Don Lake Windermere, FL dlake at amuni.com *************************************************************** * Dave Hinrichs E-Mail: dhinrichs at quannon.com * * Quannon CAD Systems, Inc. Voice: (612) 935-3367 * * 6101 Baker Road, Suite 204 FAX: (612) 935-0409 * * Minnetonka, MN 55345 * * http://www.quannon.com/ * *************************************************************** Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 09:00:37 -0500 From: "Alan McKay" <amckay at nortelnetworks.com> Subject: Cat in the Beer My cats are always around on brew day, and have learned the hard way not to get too close to the propane burner. They don't seem to mind the kegs, though, as this picture proves : http://www.hbd.org/~mckay/photos/cat_in_keg.jpg cheers, -Alan - -- Alan McKay OS Support amckay at nortelnetworks.com Small Site Integration 613-765-6843 (ESN 395) Nortel Networks All opinions expressed are my own Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 09:38:11 -0500 From: "Kensler, Paul" <paul.kensler at wilcom.com> Subject: re: Fermometer accuracy Chris Farley (hopefully not living in a van down by the river ;-) ) asks about Fermometer accuracy: "I have often wondered about the accuracy of stick-on thermometers like the "Fermometer" <snip>. There is obviously a temperature gradient throughout the carboy, and the stick-on thermometer is measuring the temperature of the outside glass. Is this temperature gradient significant? I have wondered if this inaccuracy is related to the frequent claims I read that "wet t-shirt" cooling can reduce the temperature of 5 gallons of fermenting beer by 6-8 degrees F!" Chris, I use the evaporative cooling method in glass carboys covered in tshirts in a water bath. I also use the "Fermometer" brand stick-on thermometer, and routinely notice that I am getting 5-10 degrees F cooling, depending on the humidity. I think the Fermometer is pretty accurate, here's why: 1. The temperature on the Fermometer remains constant, even after I remove the wet tshirt. If the Fermometer was only measuring the temperature of the wet (cool) tshirt, I would expect it to rise after the tshirt was removed and it adjusted to read the temperature of the carboy. 2. I don't think there is much of a gradient in a fermenting carboy, at least during fermentation due to the strong convection in the fermenting mass. Of course, my experience is 99% with ales, so I don't know if lager fermentations are different. Since they are in a refrigerator, if the fermentation has less convection there may be a significant temperature gradient between the cold glass and the center of the fermenting liquid. Any lager brewers able to comment on temperature gradients? 3. I did a small experiment, where I compared the Fermometer to a long-stemmed dial thermometer and my lab-quality mercury thermometer. I did this two ways: I filled the carboy with water (no efforts to cool), and filled with water with the wet tshirt evaporative cooling setup. The Fermometer was within 1 degree of the other two thermometers (of course, taking into consideration how those liquid crystal thermometers are only calibrated at two degree intervals). 4. The tshirt wicks water up and gives it a large surface area to evaporate. Evaporation cools the water bath. The water bath (sort of a heat sink) cools the ferment. In my setup, the water bath / heat sink is a significant mass (usually 3-4 gallons), and I believe it is the mass of the cool water that actually keeps the fermenter cool, not the wet tshirt. The tshirt is just used to maximize the evaporation. FWIW, I usually lose about .75 - 1 gallon of water a day to evaporation (just guessing, I haven't measured it). When I have to add more water, I always use cool water (65-70 degrees), or am careful to add ice to chill the water bath down. In Texas in the summer, adding 85 degree "cold" tap water to your heat sink can make a difference... What I take from it is this: With my setup, and when fermenting ales at room temperature, evaporative cooling does work and the Fermometer is a fairly accurate (within a degree or two) device. Everyone else's mileage may vary. No affiliations to the Fermometer or any carboy or tshirt manufacturer. Paul Kensler Plano, TX Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 09:48:57 -0500 From: "Michael O. Hanson" <mhanson at winternet.com> Subject: Formula for Calculating Expected FG from OG Does anyone know of a formula for estimating final gravity from original gravity? I know there some complicating factors with any such formula. However, such a formula would be useful if it exists for formulating recipes. Thanks, Mike hanson Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 09:58:56 -0500 From: Nathan Kanous <nlkanous at pharmacy.wisc.edu> Subject: Bottling pLambic Any tips on bottling pLambic? I don't have a ton of champagne bottles, only standard 12 oz beer bottles. I've heard some folks mention problems with pellicle development in bottles. Any ways to avoid that? For those that actually make pLambic at home, do you always blend? I've got my first batch in the basement....tasting quite interesting, if not really sour! I'd love to have the opportunity to brew one of these on a regular basis to provide for blending, but sometimes you can only wait so long. Any info would be helpful. nathan in madison, wi Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 11:02:10 -0400 From: Jeff Renner <nerenner at umich.edu> Subject: Re: Water use in brewing "Christopher Farley" <chris at northernbrewer.com> asks >Have you considered the amount of water removed from your body when you >*consume* the 10 gallon batch of beer? Beer production is water-intensive, but >so is beer consumption. An amusing anecdote as told to me by a favorite old Chem. E. prof of mine, Brymer Williams (I spent, or misspent 1-1/2 years of my youth in that major), who sat on the board of directors of a small local brewery here in Ann Arbor in the 1940s. As in most towns, sewage fees are based on water usage, but this brewery tried to get out of part of this by claiming that a portion of their water usage went into their beer, and shouldn't be subject to the sewage fee. The city countered that it certainly did, eventually. A compromise was agreed upon - they would be exempt from fees for the beer that was sold outside of the city limits! Jeff -=-=-=-=- Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan USA, c/o nerenner at umich.edu "One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943. Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 11:28:23 -0400 (EDT) From: ALAN KEITH MEEKER <ameeker at welch.jhu.edu> Subject: science of brewing - ------------------------------ Dan Cole wrote (in part): >To claim that brewers who brew according to rules of thumb, measure >temperature by their finger, who "eyeball" mash thickness, etc, aren't using >science is incorrect; they are applying the scientific method just as much >as the brewer who uses thermometers, pH meters, etc, but merely with >different tools of measurement (eyes, fingers, etc.) Exactly! Well put... Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 11:31:04 -0400 From: "Stephen Alexander" <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net> Subject: ugggghhhhh Eric Panther" says ... >>For what reason and at what temp does he consider it overheating ? > >Anything above about 106C (223F) can result in excessive thermal loading and >production of furfural and various sulfur containing heterocyclic compounds. >Furfural (one of the caramel aromas) is widely recognised as a staling >precursor and the latter generally have cooked vegetable and rubbery odours. I think you overgeneralize her. Furfural (or at least 2-furfural) is a caramel flavor and very flavor active, but these exhibit a great flavor range. Furfural is also described as almond flavor. furfurals, furans, pyrone, iophenes pyrazines, pyroles, and sulfur containing heterocyclics like thiazoles thiophenes etc are all maillard products found in malt. Some have caramel flavors, but others have nutty, bready and malt flavors. You find all of these in munich and melanoidin malts for example. All carbonyls (which includes most of the above and their pre-cursors) are implicated in oxidation damage. Fix has referred to the double edge sword effect of dark malts on oxidation in one of his books. The solution is not to eliminate the flavor compounds, but to reduce the oxidation damage as you previously noted. Maillard product flavor descriptions include all of the following and a lot more: Maillard almond: 5-methyl-2-furanaldehyde almond: acetophenone biscuit: (Z)-4-heptenal burnt: 2,3-dime-6-ethylpyrazine burnt: guaiacol burnt: furfuryl alcohol caramel: maltol caramel: furaneol caramel: g-butyrolactone caramel: et 4-hydroxybutanoate coffee: 2-furfurylthiol hawthorne: phenylacetaldehyde malty: 3-methyl butanal marshmallow: ethyl 3-hydroxybutanoate nut: 4-heptanolide nutty: 2,6-dimethyl pyrazine popcorn: 2-acetyl pyridine roasted: trimethyl pyrazine roasted: acetylpyrazine roasted cocoa: 2-methyl butanal roasty: 2-Propionylpyrrole roasty: 2-acetylthiazole roasty: 2-acetyltetrahydropyridine roasty: 2-acetyl-2-thiazoline rubbery: benzothiazole rum: ethyl formate whiskey: 3-methyl-1-butanol whiskey: butyl decanoate Grain flavors include almond: benzaldehyde almond: furfural bitter almond: p-methyl acetophenone nutty: (E,E)-2,4-heptadienal nutty: 2-acetyl-1-pyrroline popcorn: 2-methyl pyrazine Don't take the above too seriously - the 3rd level chemical analogs of the second level may not always may not correspond with the first level term. The exact mix of flavors in a particular cooked (maillard product) food is dependent on a lot of factors, but particularly the mix of amino acids present, and the sugars present. See my 1997 post for more detail. >the latter generally have cooked vegetable and rubbery odours. I don't disagree with much that you post Eric, but I disagree with this. The heterocyclic sulfur compounds among the maillard products are responsible for more meaty, brothy flavors and some nutty & bready ones too. Roast meats are an extreme example of sulfur heterocyclic maillard products Cooked yeast hydrosylate another. OTOH simple aliphatic sulfur compound like hydrogen-disulfide and dimethyl-tetrasulphide are more responsible for vegetal flavors. Rubbery aromas from thiazole exist, but this same class of compounds is responsible for roast flavors as in coffee too. Pyrazines are more responsible for roast malt flavors and other roast food flavors as well.. DMS and methionine derived aliphatic sulfur compounds are probably the flavor issue. I've never experienced brothy, meaty or rubber flavors from pCooking. If I did I would also give it up too. Maybe you should remove the mutton from the pCooker before adding the wort Eric ;^) Incidentally, di-carbonyl terminated lipids , if I recall correctly, are reportedly responsible for the peculiar flavor of mutton. So adding mutton to your wort is another oxidation issue. - -- Eric was kind enough to send abstracts from some German journals - which I much enjoyed reading. Perhaps the difference we see in results has to do with the specifics of the method. I start the pCook unlidded till at or near boiling and after a 20' pCook add the result to the main boil (for another 60' approx). Some of the papers are concerned with issues such as DMS formation and evaporation in low evaporation high temp boils performed entirely at pressure. -S Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 10:14:20 -0500 From: "Kensler, Paul" <paul.kensler at wilcom.com> Subject: re: yeast question Brian, This might not directly answer your question, but it might give you another option to consider: using yeast on slant. I started yeast ranching a couple years ago, and love it - you buy a slant of yeast for $3-$4, and it will last you for several batches. It adds an extra step to start up your yeast cultures, but you will already have to make yeast starters using the Wyeast smack packs. Using slants is MUCH cheaper than smack packs, they keep better, and they take up less space. I really recommend Yeast Culture Kit Company (Ann Arbor, MI - no affiliation). I usually buy 10 slants or so every 12-18 months. This gives me more yeast strains than I could possibly use in one year (considering that I use certain strains more than others), so I always have a suitable strain on hand, and it still costs less than what I would have spent on smack packs. In my experience, every YCKCo yeast I have used has fermented like mad - short lag times, complete fermentations, etc. YCKCo: http://oeonline.com/~pbabcock/yckco/yckcotbl.html YCKCo sells a starter kit - a few slants and an inoculation loop, with basic beginners instructions. Plus, they sell sterile small volume starters - test tubes with 30-50ml sterile wort in them. They're extra money, but they save a lot of time and effort, plus you know they're sterile. I would also recommend getting an alcohol lamp - they are a lot easier to use than a butane lighter... Hope this helps, Paul Kensler Plano, TX Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 11:34:20 -0400 From: "Stephen Alexander" <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net> Subject: Sourmash -NOT!/Jolly Roger/Reynolds # Paul says ... >> note the difference >>between a (bacterial) acid rest and a sourmash. > >I've always made a concentrated sour mash. Sourmashing is a method used in whiskey production that adds roughly 25% of fully fermented beer (setback) to fresh wort. This immediately drops the pH and gives an advantage to yeast over certain other bacteria. I don't think anyone sourmashes beer. === Roger says ... > Steve just won't let this one go, 'Takes two to tango, Roger. > >>dP = L (in feet) * 0.56psi + 0.43 psi [1/4" ID ...] > > Please , you can't say the formula is dimentionless, I DIDN'T SAY THAT. I NEVER SAID THAT. You are arguing with yourself, Roger, since YOU made up this statement about being dimensionless, not me. I have never said any eqn in this thread was DIMENSIONLESS. Your inability to see the difference between units and dimensions, and between the unitless ORIGINAL eqn and the PRACTICAL eqn above *with units* lies at the heart of YOUR misunderstanding. The basic force eqn "F=M*A" is UNITLESS, but must always have DIMENSIONS of "mass * length / time^2"". The UNITs for measuring and expressing these DIMENSIONs can be anything at all. You can measure the DIMENSION of length in UNITs of inches or meters or lightyears, but "F=M*A" still applies. Once you substitute UNITs into such an eqn the result is still an eqn but it is relevant only in those units. F = M * A :is unitless F (in Newtons) = 0.069 * M (in slugs) * A (in meters/second^2) :is not unitless. similarly ... dP = C' * (rho * vbar mu .... : is unitlesss dP(in psi) = L (in feet) * 0.56psi + 0.43 psi [1/4" ID ...] : is not unitless Each pair has identical DIMENSIONs. The units REQUIRED must be stated in eqns with units. I have consistently stated this. > and then say you > have all the units there, and then say you need to convert to > something... No - I didn't say that either. The units in the term "L(in feet)" IS stated, I never suggested anything needed conversion. You are the one who suggested substituting L in lightyears into "L(in feet)". If you don't understand why this can't work, think apples and oranges, but in the realm of UNITs not DIMENSIONs. There is no reason to continue this thread until you read what I have posted and respond to *it* rather than making things up and attributing them to me. Use quotes, or state what *YOU THINK* you understand. Made-up nonsense statements like: > Please , you can't say the formula is dimentionless, have no place. Stop pirating my words. > either way, as I have said, the 0.5psi per foot of 3/16" tubing, sat > least in my experience. That is about one third the pressure drop I see from experience, from eqns and also from practical data published on beverage tubing for 3/16" tubing at ~1gal/min flow. === Mark Bayer of the broken shift key writes ... >what amazes me is that the guy who made it to 40,000 reynolds laminar >published his results in the year 1910. A lot of experimental and basic physics appeared in that decade, and a couple of years on either side, followed by some big advances in biochemistry. Don't be too amazed, it was probably a lot more interesting time in that respect than our current decade. Mark supplies a good bit of the background on the meaning of *critical* Reynold's numbers that I had been trying to avoid delving into here. I agree with his conclusions. Thanks (I think !). >"the more i re-read this post, the more happy i am that reynold's number is >dimensionless" Dimensionless - yes, now I don't feel so alone. Mark, could you explain concept to Roger. He's too busy arguing to bother to read what I write. -S Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 11:15:44 -0700 (PDT) From: Scott Murman <smurman at best.com> Subject: Re: Praticality > Once again Mr. Alexander ties to baffle us with B.S. (if you cant dazzle > em with brilliance.......) > > R = 0.00223 ft^3/s * 0.021ft / 1E-05 ft^2/s > > R = 4.64 > > Paul Niebergall In Paul's excitement to attack and belittle someone he apparantly forgot how to do basic math. Steve was correct. -SM- Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 14:42:44 -0400 From: Jeff Renner <nerenner at umich.edu> Subject: Re: Dark mild licorice flavor BioCoat at aol.com asks >Does anyone know how to create the licorice like flavor in dark mild? There is available from brewing supplies brewers licorice sticks, which is an extract of licorice root. You can also use licorice roots. Papazian suggests 2-5 inches/ 5 gallons shaved and chopped and boiled at least 15 minutes. It was also used in historic US porters. It seems to me I've seen reference to a few British brewers who use it, but I'm sure it's not common, and it seems to me it was in a stronger dark ale such as porter or old ale. I haven't tasted it in the few milds I've had. I suspect it's likely the malts, or malt and brewing sugars and caramel, and perhaps yeast. Frankly, I've never liked licorice. I did use it once in a porter back in the 70s. Lots of recipes we had back in the bad old days called for it in dark ales. I don't recall that it had a strong licorice flavor - more of a cloying oily effect as I recall. The Real Ale Almanac would probably help you find which breweries use it. I have a copy and could look up specific brews if you want, but I'm not up to going thru all 314 pages and thousands of breweries to check. ;-). I just scanned about half of it and didn't find anything. Jeff -=-=-=-=- Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan USA, c/o nerenner at umich.edu "One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943. Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 14:17:31 -0500 From: "Paul Niebergall" <pnieb at burnsmcd.com> Subject: Turbulence Once again Steve Alexander tries to cover up his own errors by lashing out in an attempt to find fault with others calculations. This guy just wont give up, will he? To clarify the issue, lets go back to the original post about turbulent flow in a peristaltic pump: -S Wrote: >Turbulent flow in a tube is a Reynolds Number RN >2200 where >RN = rho * vbar * Diam / nu For 20P maltose solution at 20C, 1/4"ID, >1gal/min the RN is about 5500. The RN will be even higher at higher temps >(lower viscosity). The RN will be proportional to the flow rate. For a >given flow rate, increasing the tubing diameter causes a proportional >decrease in RN. The actual values and units that were used for "rho and nu" are left out. This is bad science and can lead to the miscalculations such as the one appearing above. We can assume that Steve is confusing the concept of absolute viscosity (mu) and kinematic viscosity (nu). By using the term nu (kinematic velocity) in the denominator in the above equation, the rho term should be dropped from the numerator. The relationship is rho/mu = nu. Anyway confusing the two terms leads to a miscalculation of RN that is way too low. According to the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (57th Edition, page F-51), the absolute viscosity of water (mu) at 20 degrees C is 1.002 centipoise (cp). A conversion on page F-50 indicates that this is equivalent to 2.093E-05 lb*s per ft^2. I have chosen water for my example. The viscosity of wort is only slightly higher (thus my Reynolds Number will be slightly lower) so this does not change the results of the calculation all that much. The specific gravity of wort at 20P is about 1.080, thus the unit weight of wort at 20P is 1.080*62.43 pcf or about 67.42 pcf. To get the mass density (rho) of the wort you must divide the unit weight by the acceleration due to gravity: rho = 67.42 lbs/ft^3 / 32.2 ft/s^2 = 2.094 lbs s^2 / ft^4 (or slugs per ft^3 for the unitly challenged or dense. Get it- slugs, mass, DENSE, Ha). Anyway, correcting Steve's equation for the viscosity discrepancy: RN = rho * vbar * Diam / mu (note the correct term of mu rather than nu) rho = 2.094 lbs s^2 / ft^4 vbar = 6.54 ft/s (velocity of 1 gpm flowing through a 0.25 inch diameter tube) Diam = 0.25 inches or 0.02083 ft mu = 2.093E-05 lb*s per ft^2 Therefore: RN = (2.094 lbs s^2/ft^4 * 6.54 ft/s * 0.02083 ft) / 2.093E-05 lb*s per ft^2 RN = 13,629 Well beyond the 5500 value that Mr. Alexander claims above. Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 14:45:09 -0500 From: Eddie Kent <ebk1 at earthlink.net> Subject: Barley Wine Aging I'm making my first batch of barley wine this weekend and was wondering how most people store it for aging. I was going to let it go 2 weeks in the primary and a week or 2 in the secondary and then keg it with 5 or 6 lbs of CO2 pressure for about 6 months at 40 degrees F (finished beer fridge). I prefer kegging to bottling- any recomendations as to the right CO2 storage pressure. Any recomendations for impovements on my recipe-barley wine virgin here(5 gal batch): 22 lbs 2 row malt 2 lbs. 60degree Crystal malt 2 oz. EKG hops during boil 1 oz Cascade at end of boil 2 vials of California Ale Yeast stepped up to .5 gallon starter - -- Eddie Kent ebk1 at earthlink.net Who needs ketosis when it's 100 F outside on a brew day (Houston, TX)! - -- Eddie Kent Mark VII Special Services Group 340 N. Sam Houston Pkwy. E., Suite 280 Houston, TX 77060 800-422-9942 fax 281-260-9980 ebk1 at earthlink.net "When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem begins to look like a nail." -Maslow Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 15:58:15 -0500 From: MVachow at newman.k12.la.us Subject: The Brew Warrior Perhaps we won't have to worry about confronting the philosophical dilemma Steve Alexander poses in his vision of future-brew. Consider this more apocalyptic, "Road Warrior"-like vision of the future: The local brew supply store is a distant memory muttered by half-mad old-timers as they stand on street corners warming themselves beside trash barrel fires. "Stainless in Seattle!" one old timer howls at passersby. Ditto for the Web; not enough money in the homebrew supply business to attract even the scam artists selling five-year old extract and browning hop pellets out of their garages. Cast back to their homebrewing roots, a small band of "brew warriors" cling to their avocation. They scavenge Pabst extract (back in production after county after county in the Plains and Bible Belt kicked Darwin out of the schools and alcoholic beverages off the store shelves) and supplement with table sugar and corn meal. They grow their own hops and culture yeast with lab gear pilfered from the workplace; many ferment spontaneously. They pester local farmers for a few bushels of raw barley and malt it themselves. No sense in trying to get in good with the local micro's brewmaster. First of all his label is owned by Phillip Morris and his contract strictly forbids that kind of subsidiary trade, a moot point anyway as the micro uses the latest in synthahol brewing technology--wouldn't find a speck of malted grain in the place. Using a primitive list serve communication device, this hearty band of cranks manage to brew beer the "real" way using Rube Goldberg contraptions cobbled together from salvage yard jetsam. Rumor has it that they come together occasionally in gatherings that resemble the ancient phenomenon of the "rave" to share barleywine, Grand Cru, kriek, weizenbock and other arcane beer styles that exist otherwise only in history books. Mike New Orleans, LA Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 14:07:00 -0700 From: "Bayer, Mark A" <Mark.Bayer at JSF.Boeing.com> Subject: die by the sword/ayinger mash collective homebrew conscience_ paul n wrote: >R = V * d/v <snip> >Where: >R = Reynolds number >V = Velocity of the fluid >d = diameter of the tube or pipe >v = kinematic viscosity of the fluid >If: >V = 1 gpm (or 0.00223 ft^3 per second) >d = 0.25 inch (or 0.021 ft) >v = 1E-05 ft^2 per second >R = 0.00223 ft^3/s * 0.021ft / 1E-05 ft^2/s >R = 4.64 reynolds 4.64 is the regime of "creeping flow". imagine pouring refrigerated molasses. it is not like beer at 1 gpm from a .25 inch diameter hose. the problem can be detected by examining the units above, and specifically the velocity, which is written in units of volumetric flow rate. one gallon per minute comes out to 6.562 feet per second {mean axial velocity} for a .25 inch diameter hose. so the calculation should be: reynolds = [6.562 ft/s] x [.25/12 ft] / [1.e-5 ft^2/s] reynolds = 13 671. this is well into the turbulent regime for steady pipe flow. ********************** still looking for details on ayinger's malting procedure. i re-read brewing techniques vol 4 number 1 last night and also got a private email confirming they perform at least a double decoction on the dunkel. don't they realize decocting is a waste of time? ; ) brew hard, mark bayer stl mo Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 16:35:46 -0500 From: "Bruce Garner" <bpgarner at mailbag.com> Subject: St. Catherines and Buffalo area beer places I need recommendations for good food and beer near lodgings. St Catherines area Saturday night 28Aug. Will be flying to Buffalo Saturday the 28th and traveling to watch my daughter row Sun AM at St. Catherine's ON so am looking for a motel or B&B within walking distance of a good beer bar/brew pub Sat night. I expect that the crush of the world's championships will force me well out of town to the west. Augusta's Winking Judge in Hamilton looks like a possibility. Any other ideas? Buffalo near the airport Sunday night 29Aug Got to catch a 7:05 plane Monday morning. Need a beer bar/ brew pub and motel or B&B Sunday evening within walking distance of each other. I've noticed Buffalo Tap Room and Grill in Amherst and Buffalo Brewpub in Williamsville. Private email is reasonable here bpgarner at mailbag.com TIA Bruce Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 17:32:55 -0500 From: "Paul Niebergall" <pnieb at burnsmcd.com> Subject: Reynolds Number Steve Alexander shows his true side and just cant seem to admit that he is wrong (and can get downright nasty in the process). But lets stick to the facts. In my last post I demonstrated how to correctly calculate Reynolds Number (RN) based on absolute viscosity (mu) and mass density (rho). In that post I calculated a RN of = 13,629. This number is far from the incorrect value of 5500 that Steve calculates in his original post (quoted below for clarity). -S Wrote: >RN = rho * vbar * Diam / nu For 20P maltose solution at 20C, 1/4"ID, >1gal/min the RN is about 5500. This time I will obtain an value for RN using the kinematic viscosity. And as you will see, it supports (or at least close enough for engineering purposes) the value of 13,629 from my previous post. The following equation can be found in most any hydraulics text book: RN = vbar * Diam / nu where: vbar = velocity of the fluid in the tube = 6.54 ft/s Diam = the diameter of the tube = 0.25 inches or 0.02083 ft nu = kinematic viscosity of the fluid in the tube = 1.002E-05 ft^2 per second The value for nu came straight from the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (57th Edition, page F-51). RN = 6.54 ft/s * 0.02083 ft / 1.002E-05 ft^2 per second RN = 13,596 So I have shown using two different, and acceptable, methods that the value of RN is about 13,500. All parameter values, references, and units have been clearly defined. The RN values that I calculated vary by about 2 percent (that does not surprise me, rounding errors and all), but they are nowhere near a value of 5500. Whats the problem Steve? Dont you accept science? Why do you continue with the false belief that the RN of 5500 that you calculated is correct? Maybe thats why we (you) should be discussing the art of brewing and leave the science alone. Here is another clue in case you still dont get it. The RN values of 13,500 and 5500 differ by a factor of 2.455. This factor is awfully close to the mass density of water (2.094 lbs s^2 / ft^4). As I indicated in my previous post, rho/mu = nu. Is it starting to sink in yet? Dr. Beer Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 17:45:08 -0500 From: rlabor at lsumc.edu (LaBorde, Ronald) Subject: RE: Dark mild licorice flavor From: BioCoat at aol.com >Does anyone know how to create the licorice like flavor in dark mild? Well, ugh, yeah, pour in a few ounces of Anise Liquor Do NOT, repeat - Do NOT pour in the entire 750ml bottle as I did. Unless you are trying to make my outstanding "Smith Brothers" in a keg! Ron Ronald La Borde - Metairie, Louisiana - rlabor at lsumc.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 17:51:20 -0500 From: rlabor at lsumc.edu (LaBorde, Ronald) Subject: RE: Praticality ....(if you flip forward in your text book a couple of pages, I am sure you will find it).... You will find it right next to Young's Modulus, no darn, that's for reflecting glass. Look next to "Brewster's Angle", no, shucks, that's for springs. Ron Ronald La Borde - Metairie, Louisiana - rlabor at lsumc.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 19:42:28 -0400 From: "BeerLvr" <Beerlvr at hrfn.net> Subject: Plastic ball blanket Homebrew collective lend me your beers.... I was thumbing through the plastics catalog from my local plastics supplier and found something interesting. They have a HDPE ball blanket product. The balls are in the 3/4 to 1.5 inch range and the idea is that you float them on the top of your hot tank and they keep the heat in. Has anyone ever seen these things and if so what would the feasibility be for say the HLT and the mash tun in my 3 tier systems? Mike Pensinger beerlvr at hrfn.net Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 08/19/99, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96