HOMEBREW Digest #3496 Wed 06 December 2000

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

		Digest Janitor: janitor@hbd.org


          Northern  Brewer, Ltd. Home Brew Supplies
        http://www.northernbrewer.com  1-800-681-2739

    Support those who support you! Visit our sponsor's site!
********** Also visit http://hbd.org/hbdsponsors.html *********

  Wort viscosity / John's fluid flow experiment ("Brian D. Kern")
  Humour , Flow 'periment., Hidden valley, Oz Barley, Advice,Zinc (craftbrewer)
  RE: Fact vs Superstition (Tony Barnsley)
  re: Einstein's Garage ("Stephen Alexander")
  Re: Sabco False Bottoms (Todd Goodman)
  smoked beers ("Micah Millspaw")
  too much irish moss ("S. SNYDER")
  RE:  Large Corporation Rant ("Houseman, David L")
  Lauter Tun Design (part 1) (Martin_Brungard)
  Lauter Tun Design (part 2) (Martin_Brungard)
  Silicon and lauter tuns (JGORMAN)
  Re: Phalse Bottoms (Doug Hurst)
  Cloudy StarSan ("Paddock Wood Brewing Supplies")
  to decant or not to decant... ("Spies, Jay")
  Celis copy receipe... (Rick Nelson)
  making the plunge to all-grain ("Wayne Love")
  Re: SS False Bottoms (Phil Sides)
  Celis and a question (Beaverplt)
  False bottoms ("Strom C. Thacker")
  One more thing on recycling yeast ("Peed, John")
  False Bottom Support (Epic8383)
  Miller Brewery (Ronald Babcock)

* * 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 canoot reach you. We will not correct your address for the automation - that's your job. 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 at hbd.org. JANITOR on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 22:04:52 -0800 (PST) From: "Brian D. Kern" <bdk at srl.caltech.edu> Subject: Wort viscosity / John's fluid flow experiment I have been interested to see that a few other folks have shown an interest in viscosity, in addition to the fluid flow experiments that John Palmer put together. I have a few things to say about both. As for viscosity, we should be aware that there are two different kinds of viscosity -- kinematic viscosity and absolute (also called shear) viscosity. Kinematic viscosity (usually denoted by nu) is absolute viscosity (usually eta) divided by the density. Depending on the problem you're interested in, one is more applicable than the other. If you're looking at how a liquid pours out of a glass, you use kinematic viscosity, because all of the forces depend on the mass (i.e. through vravity), but if you're stirring a pot, you use absolute viscosity, because you're asking how the fluid responds to an external force. As an interesting note, the kinematic viscosity of air is 10 times the kinematic viscosity of water -- that's a handy fact to remember. For water, the density only changes by a couple percent between boiling and freezing, so kinematic and absolute viscosity have nearly the same behavior. On the other hand, the absolute viscosity of water changes by a factor of 6 between freezing and boiling. Here is a super-simple chart: 0 C 5 C 10 C 25 C 50 C 75 C 100 C eta 1.787 1.519 1.307 0.890 0.547 0.378 0.282 rho 0.9998 1.0000 0.9997 0.9970 0.9880 0.9749 0.9584 eta here is the absolute viscosity in centipoise, rho is the density in g/cm^3. Notice the density does increase between 0 and 5 C, just like Dr. P mentioned, then decreases out to boiling, but very slowly -- not like the absolute viscosity, which differs by a factor of 6 from freezing to boiling. In the 3 minutes I spent looking for this data (CRC Handbook), I couldn't find the data for wort viscosity vs. T. I did find the relative viscosity of different mixtures at 20 C, so all I can do is speculate that the viscosity vs. T is that of water, simply multiplied by some factor. Here are some examples of the relative viscosities: 1.025 1.050 1.075 1.100 sucrose 1.07 1.19 1.45 2.31 maltose 1.21 1.50 1.90 2.45 dextrose 1.19 1.43 1.79 2.26 urine 1.06 1.15 1.28 1.45 The columns are specific gravity, the entries are the absolute viscosity of the mixture / abs. vis. of water, all at 20 C. I figured the urine would be of interest both to mega-brewers and to homebrewers who don't clean their cat-bladder fermenters well. Notice that viscosity is not linearly related to the S.G. -- I don't claim to understand it, and it makes me a bit nervous to assume that its temperature dependence will be just like water, but my 3 minutes of look-up time is up (and my 30 minutes of typing -- can we find a more inefficient medium?). I find it interesting that the sucrose viscosity is so different from the maltose / dextrose viscosities -- the viscosity of a constant-temperature mash will change with time. As for John's fluid-flow experiments, let me join the public congratulations on performing a well-executed "lab" experiment. It turns out that the flow behavior can be understood mathematically with a bare minimum of assumptions. I am still discussing with John the agreement between the analytical interpretation and the experimental interpretation, so I'll defer those results until we've finished hashing it out between ourselves. But let me temper John's results with this caution: the results of the dye movements do not directly correlate to extraction efficiencies, because the dye takes longer to reach the bottom of the tun. The dye reaches the manifold quickly, because the fluid flow is fastest along the "direct" path, and takes its time reaching the bottom of the tun, where it finally rinses the grains down there. But the grains at the bottom of the tun have been rinsed the whole time -- since there was water (without dye) mixed with the bottom grains when the flow began, it started rinsing those grains immediately -- it didn't wait for the dye to reach the grains before starting to extract goodies. The dye experiment clearly shows where the flow is the fastest -- straight toward the manifold -- but it doesn't mean there was no extraction going on until the dye reached the grains. So all I'm saying is that the map of extraction efficiency vs. position is more subtle than the dye experiment makes it out to be. I'll iterate with John to make a more understandable explanation before saying any more about it. Wouldn't it be great if everybody tested their crazy ideas like John did before they posted them? Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 19:31:20 +1100 From: craftbrewer at telstra.easymail.com.au Subject: Humour , Flow 'periment., Hidden valley, Oz Barley, Advice,Zinc G'day All Well it great to see that every-one has realised that fun and beer are not related. As appointed humour monitor for the digest I am happy to report (but definitely not in hysterics - that would be too much for a koala to bear), that the Humour Index is now at a stable 1.5. but you may need a reference here to relate this number to. Well, Texans rate about 0.3, American sit-coms rate about 1.2, a politican looking sincere 3.5, The American Election about a 5.0, and me in the sack about a 7.5. Yeh SWMBO always has a great laugh when I attempt to relieve my excessive testosterone levels. Claims its much like my bladder, small in size, and its an embarrisment how often I need to go but nothing comes out. Now onto brewing matters. I read with interest John Palmer little experiment. Now for a home experiment this was quite well done, but there is an abvious flaw in his experiment that one might consider investigating further. John relys on his observations against the glass wall, this being of course obvious as he hasn't yet developed the sensor perceptions we Northerners have for see into the fourth dimension, which also inplies that we can also see into solid objects. Now his assumptions assume (nice play on words) that the flow will be same on the edge of the tank as per the the middle, and so it might be. But could the glass also be helping to channel water as well. Could we actually having a domed effect moving thru the grain bed. What is needed is for this experiment to be done again, with different coloured dyes placed throughout the grain bed, and seeing what results come thru. (or has this been done previously one could assume) It would be nice to remove all doubt. Now From: Jeff Renner <nerenner at umich.edu> Subject: Off-topic: Degree Confluence Project I'm sure that our members all over the world could enjoy trekking to these spots. It would be great to have a picture of a homebrewer enjoying a homebrew at some remote location, such as the intersection of 19 deg S 146 deg E: Near Hidden Valley, QLD, Australia, only 40 miles or so from Graham. Maybe he could take a photo of one of the dangerous species of wildlife as he drinks his beer.<<<<< Ok Jeff, I just might do this. recon the rest of the world needs to see a bit of Gods own country. I am impressed you actually knew the actual name of the place. But getting a GPS to do this, well, I think I'll just wing it and get fairly close. After all, what happens if I actually find the intersection is right on a Salties nest. No Bloody way I'm going to stand there having a beer. From: Philip Ritson <philip.ritson at adelaide.edu.au> Subject: Australian Barley South Australian Farmers are beginning to replace the familiar Schooner and Franklin varieties with 2 new varieties. Sloop is replacing Schooner and Gairdner is replacing Franklin. Does anyone know anything about these varieties? Are they just two more high yield low taste rubbish varieties <<<<<< Philip dont panick. you will always see new varieties on the market as plant breeder refine their skills. True different plant varieties will impart different flavours, but the biggest impact by far will be what the malting houses do with the grain. the up shot out of all this is basically no matter what grain they receive, they will malt it to the specs of the breweries in question. End result, You will notice no difference between the different varieties. From: David Lamotte <lamotted at ozemail.com.au> Subject: Pleasures of a new Tun I am a bit ashamed to confess that I have been giving advice, to all who asked, on the best way to convert kegs and so on; while all the time I have been stuck with a 'bucket-in-bucket' device. <<< Now come on David, why should you feel ashamed. There's quite a few out there giving advise willy-nilly, because they heard it from a friend of a friend of a........., - or read it somewhere so it must be right. And worse will then defend their position. Your just one of many. From: "Stephen Alexander" <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net> Subject: correction to Corn flavor/Tangled web .../repitching/ pitch/zinc John Palmer asks about zinc additions. I've been doing this for a long time by adding about 0.5ppm of zinc from unflavored bogus cold remedy drugs. It really can have a nice impact on fermentation. <<<< Sources of zinc and other micronutrients can be varied. You could even use those plant nutrient mixes. But I must warn people. Any plant will naturally show benefits with addition of nutrients, then it will stabilise, meaning that additional nutrients will have no benefit what so ever. Then it will decline as the nutrient becomes toxic. So many people may not see any benefit with a zinc addition if there water is high in zinc to start with. In fact they may actually see ill affects. Micronutrient additions will only benefit people who have relatively pure water (like me). Whats a critical level in your water. I'm still researching and experimenting, but I wouldn't do it if your water is above 0.6mg/L zinc, unless you really know what you are doing. Shout Graham Sanders Oh Good to see The Good Dr P. is putting up proper posts now. Must have received the book. since no one else will say it Good work - mate. Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 09:31:54 -0000 From: Tony Barnsley <tony.barnsley at blackpool.gov.uk> Subject: RE: Fact vs Superstition Joseph Kish Writes > Elephants aerate on thier hot side! Nonsense! Even my 5 year old daughter knows that Elephants Aerate at the back side!! :> (Just DON'T ASK how we found that one out, you really do not want to go there!!) - -- Wassail! The Scurrilous Aleman (ICQ 46254361) Schwarzbad Lager Brauerei, Blackpool, Lancs, UK UK HOMEBREW - A Forum on Home Brewing in the UK Managed by home brewers for home brewers To subscribe send a blank email to uk-homebrew-subscribe at smartgroups.com Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 05:32:37 -0500 From: "Stephen Alexander" <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net> Subject: re: Einstein's Garage Jeff Greenly says ... >I was out hunting around for gadgetry and found a really cool website. It > www.einsteinsgarage.com Jeff, dang it - you've gone and ruined my private little auction site (few participants or competition). Well I guess that cat is out of the bag and missing it's tail. I think it's a clearing house for Fischer Sci distributors mostly. Their 'auction' system is a bit odd, but the activity there has been (was?) so low that simply meeting the (hidden) reserve price is usually sufficient to buy an item. I picked up a fabulous new(unused) Denver portable pH meter (0.1mv, temp, 250 pt recording, programmable repetitive recording w/ time stamp, serial interface) with temp/pH probe for $240 a few months ago. List was $800 I believe. Got a nice pocket Orion ORP meter there for $20+S&H earlier too. Good email responsiveness from the maintainers, but there is/was some weirdness about auction expiration/deadlines, I think they erroneously permit(ed) webpage caching too. No timezone correction either I think. Maybe they've solved these issues by now. Shipping/handling prices a bit high though not outrageous IMO. I recommend it. -S Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 07:50:41 -0500 From: Todd Goodman <tgoodman at goodmanhome.net> Subject: Re: Sabco False Bottoms * In HOMEBREW Digest #3495, Rob Dewhirst <robd at biocomplexity.nhm.ukans.edu> wrote: > >From: Mjbrewit at aol.com > > > >http://www.kegs.com/falsebottom.html > > > >I have no affiliation, just a satisfied customer. I can not imagine anything > >that could be done to improve on it. And the price is competitive at $59. > > I can think of one very important thing the Sabco false bottoms can improve > on. > > Center support. > > I have two of these, and they both collapsed (the hinges "sprung") under > only about 10 lbs of grain in my RIMS. > > They work extremely well if you cut a small piece of 2" brew-safe pipe and > place it on-end the center under the false bottom as a support. Cut holes > in it if you need flow-through. It's a shame they don't sell these > supports with the screens. I had heard this before and was concerned about it. Just to give an alternative viewpoint, I have two of these, one of which I have been using for more than five years brewing ten gallon batches (> 20 lbs of grain). I recently brewed a RIS with 38lbs on one and didn't experience any problems. I'm not RIMSing. Do you use a grant to draw the wort into the pump for the recirc? Is it possible the grain bed is being compacted by the pump? No afilliation with Sabco, yadda yadda yadda, I just like their stuff. Todd Goodman Brewing in Westford, MA Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 07:13:23 -0600 From: "Micah Millspaw" <MMillspa at silganmfg.com> Subject: smoked beers >Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 21:47:48 -0500 >From: djazzie at juno.com >Subject: smoked beer...Finally >well, I finally tasted one of those smoked beers I brewed up a while >back. Thanks to all those who helped me formulate the recipe. The >results: Damn good! possibly the best tasting beer I've ever made. Now >here's the conundrum: At bottling, I tasted it and it tasted almost >exactly like Adelscott (the particular brand Iwas trying to emulate). >Now, a little more than 2 weeks in the bottle, and it tastes more like a >wit! (think blue moon's belgian) which is even stranger, since the >ingredients for a wit are pretty different. What could have happened? I brew a lot of smoked beers and have observed that they do not age in the way I would expect. The beer will often become appear to become very 'dry' and loses its mouthfeel. Ordinarily I would expect both a ph and FG drop to explain this. I am not finding either to be an explaination. It is a bothersome situation when beers that start out excellant, but in a month or so completely change (not for the good), but are not spoiled. I have been able to correlate (imperical) the smoke 'stability' with the smoke source and amount of smoked malt used. Small amounts of commercial peated malt appear to last the longest. Large amounts of hickory smoked wheat malt the shortest. Any one else have observations on this. Micah Millspaw - brewer at large Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 08:34:31 -0500 From: "S. SNYDER" <SSNYDER at LBGHQ.com> Subject: too much irish moss Greetings, OK, o how bad did I screw up? I was making a clone of Alaskan Amber (partial grain/extract) when I added 1 OUNCE of Irish Moss 30 min from the fishy before I tossed in the flavor hops 15 min from the end. Is this brew salvageable? I guess I'll know if its drinkable by around Saturday when I rack it, but I'd like to know what to expect. A good rule to follow I guess is to measure everything out from its original packaging and not assume you'll remember to measure it out in the heat of battle. TIA, Scott Snyder ssnyder at lbghq.com Rotten Rotti Brewing Company "Beer is only yeast's way of making more yeast." Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 08:34:33 -0500 From: "Houseman, David L" <David.Houseman at unisys.com> Subject: RE: Large Corporation Rant Doug Hurst goes into rant mode about large corporations. While I share the frustration over Celis' closing, blaming Miller, and other large corporations for similar actions is misplaced. Does Doug, or anyone else with similar feelings own any stock? Any mutual funds? Participate in a 401K? An IRA? A pension plan? All of these invest in equities and all of these equities are under pressure from their share holders, us, to out perform the market as a whole and each other. "We have met the enemy and they is us..." Dave Houseman Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 08:50:39 -0500 From: Martin_Brungard at urscorp.com Subject: Lauter Tun Design (part 1) John Palmer has performed a number of interesting experiments on false bottoms (FBs) and manifolds for lauter tuns. Its good work. I've promised John an analytical model of some of his proposed configurations...now if I could just get my hydraulic modeling expert to finish! John, I expect those models to confirm your testing observations. In the mean time, I've looked into some of the physical features of several false bottom and manifold systems. This is my report on those findings. In my profession as a geotechnical engineer, I constantly deal with flow through soil. As a matter of fact, I'm also a dam engineer (or maybe a damn engineer too ;-) )and that requires an excellent understanding of flow through porous media...ie. flow through grain too. First, I'll describe the physical features of some common lauter tun systems. These examples are not meant to be definitive, but to provide a comparison of these systems. False bottoms come in a variety of dimensions, hole sizes, and hole spacing. For instance, Phils Phalse bottoms come in 9- and 12-inch diameters for common drink cooler use. I don't know the actual hole sizes and spacings for these units, but I'll use some common perforated stainless steel plate numbers in conjunction with these diameters just to provide a degree of comparison. The 9-inch diameter version provides a total surface area of 63.6 square inches. Hole diameters for most of the false bottoms I've seen are generally in the 1/8-inch to 3/16-inch range and the percentage open area ranges from about 40 to 60 percent of the gross area. For the 9 inch version, that provides an open area of about 25- to 38-square inches. Not too bad. A 12-inch version provides a total surface area of about 113 square inches. Using the same 40 to 60 percent open area ratio, that provides about 45- to 68-square inches of open area. Another form of intake manifold for lauter tuns is slotted piping. In the lauter tun configuration I'm researching for John, it uses (3) 14-inch long, 1/2-inch diameter pipes. The pipes are slotted on the bottom half of the piping. This is in a 10-inch by 16-inch rectangular cooler. The total surface area of the 3 pipes is 66 square inches. Assuming the pipes were slotted using a hacksaw or something similar, that will probably provide 2 or 3 millimeter slot widths. Assuming that the slots were spaced at 3 or more times the slot width, that means that less than 1/3 of the total pipe surface area is slotted on the bottom. Since the bottom only is slotted, only about 1/6 the total surface area is open. That means about 11 square inches open area. By the way, it is well known in geotechnical practice that slots are much less prone to clogging compared to holes with a similar diameter. Another popular form of intake is the easymasher type screen. I don't have one in front of me, but I estimate they range from 6 to 10 inches in length and are about 1/2-inch diameter. That provides a total surface area of about 10- to 17-square inches and the whole thing could effectively be considered open area too. Another intake is a length of stainless steel hose braiding. This is the stuff that C.D. Pritchard likes. One that I have found easily available is a 5-foot long dishwasher water supply hose commonly available at Lowes or Home Depot. Cutting off the fittings and extracting the plastic tubing inside, provides a roughly 60-inch long by 1/2-inch diameter conduit. This stuff is interesting in that it acts like a chinese finger trap...the diameter grows if you push the hose braid shorter in length and the diameter reduces when you stretch the hose braid. Through measuring, I found that you actually get more surface area if you stretch the hose braid out as much a possible. It was about a 10 percent increase in area. The diameter reduced to 9 millimeters, but the length stretched to 88 inches. That provides a total surface area of about 98 square inches. These hose braids are composed of hundreds of tiny interwoven stainless steel wires. You could say that almost the entire surface area is open since wort could see p through any of the spaces between the wire mesh, but I could say that its about 2/3 or 3/4 open. That provides at least 67-square inches of open area. Another consideration is that the hose braid permeability is easily 10 to 100 times more permeable than a typical grain bed. For this reason, you could consider the entire hose braid surface area as open area, similar to the easymasher. I believe John Palmer estimates something on the order of 0.0001 cm/second for a typical mash permeability. If you have a sticky mash, its probably much less than that. I have found that I can easily arrange this 88-inch hose braid in the bottom of a common 7-gallon bottling bucket to form a lautering manifold. I've stitched the braid together with thin copper wire where the adjacent loops touch each other. This forms a relatively coherent assembly that will stay put and lay down on the bottom of the tun. It covers most of the tun bottom. One problem with this type of manifold is that care must be exercised whenever mixing the mash, so that the paddle doesn't touch or damage the hose braid. It can be collapsed if care isn't used, but it can be bent back into shape for the next mash. Stretching the hose braid, as recommended above, also helps make it less susceptible to crushing damage. I feel that any of these lauter tun assemblies can be successful for normal mashing operations. As John Palmer pointed out, a false bottom is probably the ideal configuration. Fortunately, with enough manifold coverage on a tun bottom, a manifold system too can operate effectively. Martin Brungard Tallahassee, FL "Meandering to a different drummer" Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 08:52:38 -0500 From: Martin_Brungard at urscorp.com Subject: Lauter Tun Design (part 2) This is part 2 of my post: The real test of a lauter tun comes when it is used for a RIMS. The flow through the system is many times higher than normal flows for wort run off. This makes intake capacity more important. As can be seen in the open area calculations above, some FB and manifold configurations can provide less inlet area than others. I submit that there is a minimum ratio of open area to tun bottom area exists below which, a FB or manifold system will not operate satisfactorily. I know from experience that the hose braid system works acceptably even when the grist includes 45 percent wheat and oats with the remainder Pils malt. No rice hulls. For my 10-inch bucket tun, the bottom area is about 78-square inches. The ratio of open area to bottom area in this case is actually greater than 1 if you buy the argument that the entire surface area of the braid is open area. I am more inclined to say that the ratio is actually around 1 (100 percent) in practice. That explains the apparent success in using this material. I have heard of many cases where Phils Phalse bottoms may not work well under RIMS use (I am not suggesting that they are not suitable for regular lauter tun duty). As I mentioned above, open area of perforated metal plates is on the order of 40 to 60 percent. That is the same ratio that I use above. I suggest that the Phils Phalse bottom product may actually have a lower open area percentage since it is plastic and may need more solid material to provide acceptable strength. I've heard of folks having success with FB RIMS setups, so I suggest that an open area ratio of about 60 percent may be the bottom limit for RIMS use. I suggest that this minimum open area ratio should also be applied to any RIMS lauter tun manifolds to provide acceptable performance. I would appreciate hearing from brewers with this type of equipment to confirm or modify this suggestion. I also know that many designs use a scraper paddle to assist their RIMS keep flowing. That would be good to know also. A recent post mentioned a lauter tun that was set up with manifolds located next to the walls of the tun. As John Palmer pointed out in his experiments, this can be a poor location due to the preferential flow at the interface between the tun wall and the grain mass. This phenomena is well known in geotechnical permeability testing. Hard walled permeameters (similar to our lauter tuns)can skew the permeability results of a soil test by about 10 times greater than the actual soil permeability. I called one of my university professors this morning to confirm this result. I think that 10 times increase is probably more applicable to clayey soils. The more permeable grain beds that we deal with will probably only yield a 2 or 3 times higher flow at the tun side walls. But the point is...you will incur increased short circuiting of the flow if your manifolds are too close to the walls. The same thing can be said for FBs, the FB perforations don't really need to go all the way to the side walls. In fact, you could get a slight decrease in short circuiting if the FB stops short of the walls. I will have a hydraulic model created to assess the degree of short circuiting due to wall effects. This may help assess how far from the wall we need to be with our manifolds or false bottom perforations. One of the other aspects of lauter tun design that has been pondered recently is the height of a FB above the tun bottom. Unless there is some other brewing reason, I believe the FB should be as close as possible to the bottom to reduce dead space losses. One physical reason some FBs are well above the tun bottom is that the tun has a side outlet pipe. Obviously, the FB needs to be above that outlet pipe and fittings. But where this physical limitation doesn't exist, there is a way to evaluate what the minimum space between the FB and tun bottom needs to be. Assuming the limiting feature of the lauter tun outlet is the pipe diameter, we can space the FB so that the maximum velocity under the FB is less than the velocity in the pipe. As an example, I'll assume the pipe diameter is 1/2-inch. I think that most systems would probably have piping this size or smaller. In this analysis, I set the annular area immediately below the pipe inlet and the tun bottom equal to the pipe cross-section area. The perimeter for the 1/2-inch pipe is 1.57 inches, the pipe cross-section area is 0.2 square inches. Dividing the area by the perimeter provides a minimum spacing of 0.13 inches. Pretty small! I would probably double that spacing to account for hydraulic losses at the inlet to the pipe. But, as you can see, the spacing is small. If the outlet pipe or tubing is smaller, then the spacing can be correspondingly smaller. Another factor to consider here is that the pipe size and FB spacing probably will not be the limiting factor in the flow in a lauter system. Either the grain bed, FB, or manifold system will be the hydraulic flow limitation. In most cases, we purposely throttle the flow to improve extraction. Both of these factors suggest that FB spacing can be minimal with little effect on the tun operation. A very narrow FB spacing is probably OK for most situations, you should minimize the spacing if physically possible. Wow, this was a lot larger than I expected it to be. I hope you get something valuable out of this work. Martin Brungard Tallahassee, FL "Meandering to a different drummer" Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 09:14:00 -0500 From: JGORMAN at steelcase.com Subject: Silicon and lauter tuns There is a food grade silicon. I can't remember the name. It's been a long time since I have used it. All I remember is that it comes in a blue tube. Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 08:45:08 -0600 From: Doug Hurst <DougH at theshowdept.com> Subject: Re: Phalse Bottoms I've seen a number of posts about floatation problems with plastic Phil type phalse bottoms. I thought I would share my solution (well someone else thought of it and sold it to me). My mash/lauter tun is a plastic bucket which I purchased pre-fabricated from Williams (Williams Mashing System) and solves the problem by running a small 1/8" (?) bolt throught the bottom of the tun up through one of the holes in the phalse bottom. A small plastic wing nut then holds the phalse bottom down. I have never had any leakage through the bolt hole as it is a very tight fit. Overall this works extremely well. The bucket also works for mashing as it comes with an insulated jacket that fits over the entire bucket. I have detected a 1 degree F or less drop in temperature at the end of a 75 minute mash. Doug Hurst Chicago IL BTW Standard disclaimers of affiliation w/ Williams apply. Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 09:24:11 -0600 From: "Paddock Wood Brewing Supplies" <orders at paddockwood.com> Subject: Cloudy StarSan Frank Tutzauer writes of his cloudy Star San: > My questions are, first what made it go > cloudy so quickly (it was a clean but unsanitized pot), and second, > how much additional concentrate can I add before I jeopardize its > no-rinse properties? Ok, one more question: Does it still sanitize if > cloudy, say with a longer contact time or something? And Brian Lundeen notes that he has "never had a batch of Star San stay clear." StarSan should be mixed with distilled or de-ionized or reverse osmosis water. I have batches that are 3 months old absolutely clear. It will work mixed with most tap water, but it will soon react and the pH will rise above 3. When the pH rises above 3 the solution becomes cloudy. When this happens it can be refreshed with an addition of StarSan. I do not believe in using it as a no-rinse sanitizer after it is more than double strength. It is not effective as a sanitizer when it is cloudy. cheers, Stephen Ross -- "Vitae sine cerevisiae sugant." ______________________________________________ Paddock Wood Brewing Supplies, Saskatoon, SK orders at paddockwood.com www.paddockwood.com Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 10:58:07 -0500 From: "Spies, Jay" <Spies at dhcd.state.md.us> Subject: to decant or not to decant... All - I'm sure this has been addressed before in previous posts about starters, but real quick again... If you continuously stir, repeatedly shake, or otherwise aerate your starters after initial fermentation commences (a good idea to re-saturate O2 and maximize yeast mass), you don't ideally want to pitch that starter fluid into your beer wort. Not to mention the fact that it probably won't follow your original recipe, it will be mega-stale. If you do multiple step ups, like I do when I'm starting from a WL tube, you'll have on the order of 1/2 gallon of liquid in your starter. Plan ahead and leave yourself at least 2 days to chill the finished starter and flocc out the yeast. Then decant that vile stale crap. I was stuck with not being able to decant for a Belgian Witbier, and had to pitch 1/2 gallon of highly oxidized starter wort and yeast. You could tell, believe me. I usually start my starters at least 5 to 6 days ahead of my brewday. HTH, Jay Spies Wishful Thinking Basement Brewery Baltimore, MD Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 11:24:57 -0600 From: Rick Nelson <Rick.Nelson at iVita.com> Subject: Celis copy receipe... Since this favorite of mine is going away, I'd like to know if anyone can give me a link to a copy receipe... Thanks, Rick Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 15:55:53 -0400 From: "Wayne Love" <lovews at auracom.com> Subject: making the plunge to all-grain Well after about a year and a half of extract brewing I've finally decided to go all grain. I figured it was a good time to get my xmas list in to SWMBO. I do have some preliminary questions that I was hoping someone could help me out with. 1.. I can buy Cdn 2 row grain for about $37cdn per 25kg. or spend $69 cdn for Maris Otter. I plan to brew mostly pale ales and bitters. Is it worth it to pay the extra for Maris Otter or other premium grains? 2.. What do most home brewers recommend for good cheap scales? Both for measuring grains and hops etc. I've noticed some relatively cheap digital scales (Royal ex2) on ebay for approx.$20 to $25. Has anyone used these? Thanks for your help wayne Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 12:13:50 -0800 (PST) From: Phil Sides <hopsock.geo at yahoo.com> Subject: Re: SS False Bottoms Richard Foote <rfoote at mindspring.com> wrote: >3. Works well. Due to the large volume under false >bottom, recirculation never seems to clear the run >off. It improves but not to the degree of >clarity of the other two. Also, sometimes back >pressure via a well-placed blow of air expelled from >the lungs through the attached PVC tubing is >needed to initiate flow. This design is prone to >channeling along the keg wall. Periodic stirring of >the top 4" or so of the grain bed is needed to counter >this tendency. Stuck mashes occur on occasion, Wouldn't this be a major source of HSA if you believe in such things. My recommendation is to underlet with hot water when this occurs. If you don't have a pump, I *suppose* a shot of CO2 would work as well. Comments? Phil Sides Concord, NH __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. http://shopping.yahoo.com/ Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 13:02:48 -0800 (PST) From: Beaverplt <beaverplt at yahoo.com> Subject: Celis and a question I thought the best news I've heard was that Miller was closing the Celis operation. I know that sounds wierd, but you know that they will sell the operation or at least the name and recipe. More than likely an enterprising person that has guts, brains, and a little drive will put Celis back on the map (Maybe someone reading this). My guess is someone at Miller lost their job over this mess. Miller doesn't stay in business by buying businesses and running them into the ground. One other possibility is Miller bought Celis to get their facility and knew ahead of time they'd drop the label. My question is this. I've been reluctant to use anything but a bleach solution for sanitizing. Call me old fashioned, but I was leary of no rinse products. After my soapy beer disaster I've been rethinking my prejudices. My local brew supply has a white powder that is sold as a rinse free sanitizer. It doesn't go by any of the names I've read in HBD. In fact it doesn't have a name on it and the part timer working that day didn't know anything. The stuff looks like sugar. Can anyone venture a guess what it is? I know sanitizers have occupied a lot of space in previous HBDs and I feel bad about bringing it all up again, so feel free to pick on me for not paying closer attention. Thanks Beaver __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. http://shopping.yahoo.com/ Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 16:24:39 -0500 From: "Strom C. Thacker" <sthacker at bu.edu> Subject: False bottoms Adding to the recent replies to the false bottom query, I've been very happy with the ABT (yadda, yadda) false bottom I've been using in my converted sanke keg mash tun. At $32 including the pickup tube, it was very economical, too. Extremely strong, and nice clear runoff. Here's a question for the collective: does anyone out there use the ABT false bottom with a RIMS system? It comes with a 3/8" ID pickup tube. I've used it successfully with a pump, but I don't use a heating chamber or automated temperature control so I'm not a RIMSer (yet). Just judging by sight, it seems to recirculate at a fairly fast rate, but I'm curious if anyone has actually tried it with a full RIMS system. Strom Newton, MA Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 17:19:18 -0500 From: "Peed, John" <jpeed at elotouch.com> Subject: One more thing on recycling yeast Thanks to all for the input on repitching yeast. As with most subjects, there were many conflicting opinions, but all were informative. One more question. Many have expressed the opinion that it's best to repitch with yeast from the secondary, but I use isenglass to fine the secondary (it works very well for me). So the question is: Does the use of isinglass make the yeast unsuitable for repitching? Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 18:45:47 EST From: Epic8383 at aol.com Subject: False Bottom Support I use a full diameter hinged false bottom in a Sanke keg m/l tun. When I first got it, the failure of the hinge under the weight of the mash seemed obvious, so before it's first use I gave it a little support. I took three stainless steel pan head machine screws and mounted them upside down as supports for the false bottom. A s/s nut on both sides of the false bottom holds the screw and before tightening, I was able to customize the length for good support. They're positioned about halfway between the center and the wall of the keg in a triangle configuration. Never had a problem for about 1/2 dozen 10 gallon brews. Since moving however, I have a haze in my first few batches that won't filter out with a 3u plate filter. I believe it may be due to elevated iron levels in my water. I'm now looking for ways to filter out the iron. Gus Rappold Massapequa, NY Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 20:57:58 -0700 From: Ronald Babcock <sportsdraft at home.com> Subject: Miller Brewery Well after reading the Miller bashing about buying and destroying Celis Brewery. I have to chime in and defend Miller Brewing Company. I am not afraid to proclaim my love of Miller Beer. In fact I buy MGD for very special occasions. Here in Colorado one would think of maybe the "C" brewery in Golden but in times of festivals Miller rises to the top. It is hands down the beer of choice for my own SLUG FEST. This is the best use for and best attractant for slugs. How could one argue with thousands of slugs? For those of you that are gastropod challenged slugs are little critters like a shell-less snail that destroy both flower and vegetable gardens, not unlike mega brewery destroying micro breweries. The beer is poured into jar lids and placed around your flowers and in the garden to attract slugs, the slugs then fall into or crawl into the lids filled with Miller and drowned. I find a lot have tried to escape this horrific death when I dump them in the morning but unfortunately they have failed. I mean what other beer would be more fitting for slug bait. So I wish for all of you to raise a glass of your finest in celebrating the perfect marriage of beer and bait. I know this really has something to do with nothing but I couldn't resist. Cheers Ronald Babcock - beerman at thedraft.org - Denver, CO Home of the Backyard Brewery at thedraft.org Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 12/06/00, by HBD2HTML v1.2 by KFL
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96
Convert This Page to Pilot DOC Format