HOMEBREW Digest #4865 Sun 09 October 2005

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

		Digest Janitor: pbabcock at hbd.org


          Northern  Brewer, Ltd. Home Brew Supplies
Visit http://www.northernbrewer.com  to show your appreciation!
               Or call them at 1-800-681-2739

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

  wort chiller efficiency ("eric")
  Dave should try (Reading Kunze Carefully) ("steve.alexander")
  Attenuation of WLP099 yeast (Signalbox Brewery)
  dry yeast-safale or nottingham/batch sparge (Aaron Martin Linder)
  New (?) bottle filler ("Doug Moyer")
  more of the same. ("steve.alexander")
  Batch vs. blah blah blah ("May, Jeff")
  Mashing cool (Signalbox Brewery)
  10-Gallon Mashtun/Sparger Limitations ("Steve A. Smith")

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * The HBD Logo Store is now open! * * http://www.hbd.org/store.html * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Suppport this service: http://hbd.org/donate.shtml * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy! * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Send articles for __publication_only__ to post@hbd.org If your e-mail account is being deleted, please unsubscribe first!! To SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE send an e-mail message with the word "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to request@hbd.org FROM THE E-MAIL ACCOUNT YOU WISH TO HAVE SUBSCRIBED OR UNSUBSCRIBED!!!** IF YOU HAVE SPAM-PROOFED your e-mail address, you cannot subscribe to the digest as we cannot reach you. We will not correct your address for the automation - that's your job. HAVING TROUBLE posting, subscribing or unsusubscribing? See the HBD FAQ at http://hbd.org. LOOKING TO BUY OR SELL USED EQUIPMENT? Please do not post about it here. Go instead to http://homebrewfleamarket.com and post a free ad there. The HBD is a copyrighted document. The compilation is copyright HBD.ORG. Individual postings are copyright by their authors. ASK before reproducing and you'll rarely have trouble. Digest content cannot be reproduced by any means for sale or profit. More information is available by sending the word "info" to req@hbd.org or read the HBD FAQ at http://hbd.org. JANITORs on duty: Pat Babcock (pbabcock at hbd dot org), Jason Henning, and Spencer Thomas
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 21:09:59 -0600 From: "eric" <zeee1 at nebonet.com> Subject: wort chiller efficiency Hello all You could run the water to the sink for dishes, or to the tub for a nice bath after the yeast is pitched. The hot water is also great for rinsing off the sticky from all the brewing equipment. Heat transfer is always going to be better with a greater temp difference. When the temp difference is about 10 degrees or more the potential for heat transfer, per unit of time, is much better than when it is only a few degrees. Precooling in an ice bath has been suggested and should indeed be faster at cooling the wort, but as far as efficiency is concerned, the energy used to make the ice will most likely not be made up for by saving water. However, personally I put my pot in the sink, fill the sink with icewater, and use an immersion coil. Using the coil to gently stir the wort helps keep heat flowing into the coil by conduction, instead of only cooling the wort in contact with the coil and then needing convection in the wort itself to move fluid to the coil again. Stirring the icewater will have the same effect on the outside of the pot, picking up heat my conduction. To summarize, if the wort is much more than 10 degrees warmer than the exit water, you can turn down the water flow. This will conserve water but still give practical efficiency for heat transfer. (10 degrees is a general refrigeration difference for reasonable efficiency). We use ammonia refrigerant at work and the 29 degree room has ammonia at about 18 degrees for the evaps. In the summer it can be hard to keep it below 30 or so as it approaches the 10 degree separation. Eric Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2005 00:37:51 -0400 From: "steve.alexander" <-s at adelphia.net> Subject: Dave should try (Reading Kunze Carefully) Dave Burley wrote: >Brewsters: >Steve, Steve, Steve, why do you always try to make any discussion personal? > > Perhaps it's that you started it Dave, by calling me incoherent, >SteveA what have you been drinking? {8^) Or perhaps it's that you repeatedly fib about what I clearly wrote, >You believe that batch sparging is more efficient I had just posted the opposite, (in error). >I am puzzled by your explanation There was no explanation to that point. >SteveA insists that batch sparging is [...] and expends several >pages with his examples to try to prove it I insist on nothing, I provided a simple model derived openly from principles, NOT just examples which prove nothing. > [Steve is] denying Chemical and Chemical Engineering >concepts to the contrary. I deny no such concepts. >I think Charley P's comment [...] >is right up there with most of his other silliness [then in a later post] >I wasn't denigrating CharlieP Calling someones work "silliness" isn't denigration ? Ridiculous fib. == In his latest post Dave suggests a more careful reading of Kunze, but apparently Dave hasn't read Kunze at all ! Dave just re-used my quoted snippet and concluded, >you will see he is discussing doing a very ><rapid> continuous sparge [...] > On Kunze pp 226 data is given for a continuous sparge of 185 minutes (3hr5min) using recommended water volumes. Page 276 graphically shows about 150min sparge. On pp 234 a sparge of 115 minutes (1hr55min) is graphed. On pp248 Kunze describes using a 100 to 110min(1hr,40-50min) for a special, very abbreviated sparge. Even the shortest sparge I can find in Kunze's textbook, (100 minutes, performed under the extreme duress of 12 to 14 brew cycles per day) is longer than Dave Burley suggests we use. No, Kunze was clearly NOT referring to extremely rapid continuous sparges. The bigger picture here is that Dave is once again misrepresenting the facts (the actual content of Kunze's textbook) to make his argument. That's despicable. >Huh? I thought the whole point (at least from my reading here)of doing a >batch sparge was that it is faster than a continuous sparge. > Red-herring, that was never the topic. == Dave does not accurately read and recite either Kunze nor HBD, and he habitually distorts the argument so there is little reason to think he has correctly read and represented the premises of the Chem and ChemE results he has referred to (but failed to produce). 'nuff said. -S Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2005 08:21:11 +0100 From: Signalbox Brewery <signalbox.brewery at ntlworld.com> Subject: Attenuation of WLP099 yeast Dave King is concerned that WLP099 might be over attenuative. I made a big mistake when I used this yeast - I took a couple of grists with a lot of diastatic amber malt to make Barley Wine and Imperial Stout using nineteenth-century brewery grists Diastatic amber is pale malt roasted to 50EBC which I guess is around 100L. The ogs were around 1100 and I achieved fgs around 1050-1060. As it turned out, after a few months maturing both tasted ok and the imperial stout was certainly a lot better than the stuff Scottish Courage turned up with at GBBF some years ago that was only a couple of weeks out of the mash tun! But I digress. Concerned by the poor attenuation I pumped air into the fermenters until I had a veritable yeast farm (1200M cells/ml). The yeast would multiply, but they seemed to have lost interest in alcohol. Now part of my error was not realising that while diastatic amber is diastatic that doesn't mean that the resulting wort is particularly fermentable! I left it at that until I went to a talk by Chris White the other day and he mentioned that WLP099 won't touch maltotriose. So I suspect that high attenuation with this yeast will only occur if you use a brewing enzyme. Other views? David Edge Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2005 09:16:28 -0400 (EDT) From: Aaron Martin Linder <lindera at umich.edu> Subject: dry yeast-safale or nottingham/batch sparge Am I lost in the endless runnings of the hbd, help!... Yeast: I recently used dry yeast (lalvin D47) for a mead and was pleased with the results (attenuation,ease of use, frugality/yeast mass ratio, flavor!, apparent lack of need for oxygenation,etc.) Anyway, has anyone used either Nottingham (Danstar) or Safale dry ale yeast(dry chico?) for a 5-7% ABV beer or for a 10-12% ABV beer? I heard bacterial/wild yeast issues are avoided in using dry yeast only if you make wine, which is dry (usually) and high alcohol (>10% ABV). would i still get low off-flavors and long storage using these dry yeasts in a normal strength beer?...in a really strong beer? i have only used liquid yeast since my first batch and am not aware of the world of dry yeast. i thought maybe at least if i used the dry stuff if in a big barleywine, where i need a lot of good yeast to pitch anyway, dry yeast might be the answer if the residual sugar is not a problem in terms of storage/aging, as the alcohol is at least high enough to thwart the bacterial hordes? Batch sparging: As I have only ever used fly sparging in my all grain brewing, I am not famililar with batch sparging. I assume you mash as usual, rest, vorlauf and then drain off the wort at usual. then, add more piping hot water and repeat the rest (grain bed settling), vorlauf and drain again. I've noticed that near the end of the runnings in fly sparging, I have to shut off the runoff to avoid a lot of draff coming into my boiler. isn't this a problem in using the batch sparge method? you have to shut off early and then "reload." then, you have to vorlauf again for 30 minutes or so and drain, avoiding more draff. at least in fly sparging you don't have to worry about any draff getting into the boiler, and you don't have to go through the biggest pain of brewing, recirculation. doesn't the pain of recirculation and avoiding draff make fly sparging much more convenient even if it really is a bit more wasteful of extract? you might say that my recirculation takes too long; i keep going until the wort looks almost as clear as finished beer, with a slight haze, whereas some i know are not as picky. but, i think my beers are better off for the long recirculation, making fly sparging yield a speedier, better beer. - -------------------------------------------- Aaron Linder Ann Arbor, MI lindera at umich.edu - -------------------------------------------- Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2005 11:21:33 -0400 From: "Doug Moyer" <shyzaboy at yahoo.com> Subject: New (?) bottle filler Brewers, Has anyone used one of these: http://www.thegrape.net/browse.cfm/4,11455.htm How does it compare to the traditional counter pressure filler? Pros? Cons? Advice? Brew on! Doug Moyer Troutville, VA Star City Brewers Guild: http://www.starcitybrewers.org Shyzabrau Homebrewery: http://users.adelphia.net/~shyzaboy/homebrewery.html Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2005 16:37:25 -0400 From: "steve.alexander" <-s at adelphia.net> Subject: more of the same. David Harsh writes, > >Of course not. You cut out my words that said "analagous to a mixed >tank reactor". > Sincere apologies Dave, if I cut out any meaningful context. >So you are saying that >1. there are concentration differences throughout the bed, but they >don't affect the modelling. > > I said they are not *accounted for* in this simple model. Which is clear I think. >2. concentration differences throughout the bed produce an inferior >extract > > Inferior in the sense of overextraction flavors for the continuous sparge. Whether the efficiency of a non-uniform extraction is superior or inferior is clearly dependent on that distribution. You misunderstood my statement was about inferior beer, not inferior efficiency, which is understandable - it wasn't entirely clear. >My unsupported facts? Please. Your crude model doesn't describe the >physical system accurately - so there's a lack of evidence all around. > > I agree that the model is crude, however it beats the pants off unsupported OPINIONS like, "I doubt that the batch process would be found to more efficient". >So 10 out of 10 for mathematical >rigor, but a big zero on picking the correct model for the process. A >packed bed is not a stirred tank. > > That's a valid criticism. So let me ask you how to model this. The extraction process appears to follow the same diffusion mathematics that govern heat flow and particle flow. I studied these latter long ago and had to consult a few old texts to get a view of how this works, but it's straightforward. The current flow equation (I think the biologists call it Ficks law) and the conservation eqn both seem to apply to extract in the lauter. There are some methods of solving practical problems by domain transformation, {Fourier, LaPlace} which might help here. We *might* assume uniform liquor flow through the bed in a simple model. I suppose that's close enough. If the concentration in the grist remained uniform I think I could pop out an analytic solution by morning, but of course it doesn't. Instead the extract concentration in the grist begins even and then top grist gives out more extract to the fresh water introduced from the top and less is extracted from the bottom-grist where the liquor-to-grist gradient is less. I can imagine the form of steady-state dynamic equilibrium eqn with respect to grist height, and without a lot of examination, I suspect that has an analytic solution too. Not only do we have the extract gradient driving extract from grist to liquor, but we also have the liquor gradient driving extract from bottom liquor to top liquor. And I suspect that the two diffusion constants involved differ considerably. So is there a means to analytically approach the transition from the initial (even gristbed concentration) condition to some steady-state, or is numerical modeling or ad-hoc modeling equations the only approach ? Also - if anyone has value for the diffusion coefficients ... the whole exercise is pointless without these. For glucose solution D = 0.67..., and I can find maltose easily enough but the grist the liquor diffusion barrier diffusion coeff is required ! (and are these temp dependent ?). > Source: Hines and Maddox, Mass Transfer Fundamentals and >Applications, Prentice Hall 1985, Section 14.4 >(and of course, for the "in between" case, both must be considered) >And "flow" refers to rate of sparging. > > Sincere thanks for the reference. >The quote from Kunze is interesting. If there's data to support this, >by all means present it! > Kunze has few reference citations and most are general ones. I'll be looking in the (English language) lit for support. As I said, it is only an appeal to authority - and I distrust it too without understanding the conditions, but given the brewing context I doubt it doesn't apply here. >It contradicts all published chemical >engineering literature (such as Hinds), but I'd like to see the data >used to support the statement. > > I doubt there is a contradiction - but I'd like to see Hinds or similar to examine the premises of their "sparge". I strongly suspect that both Kunze and sources like Hinds are correct, but there is some fundamental difference in their starting points (premises for their conclusions). >But Steve, you also said in #4859: > > Yes, and I explained my initial error subsequently. >To prove/disprove either case, we'd need data to generate a >breakthrough curve for the bed to prove my point. And we still lack >that equilibrium data required to run the calcs. And I'm still not >sure what we'd learn that isn't already in the process literature. > > Having not seen the premises of the process lit sparge, it's impossible to even state they are talking about the same thing. === Bill Velek notes ... >Isn't Kunze saying that fly sparging is faster? I was under the >impression that batch sparging is supposed to be quicker, > I believe he is counting the drain/refill time against the batch sparge. I'm sure you can get good efficiency in comparable time. >Kunze continues: >"... The limited mixing [sja- between batch sparges], and therefore >greater extract difference between the sparge water and the extract >solution contained in the spent grains, accelerates the washing out of >the extract (extraction)." > >I interpret Kunze's reference to "limited mixing" to mean "limited >stirring"; is that correct? > I don't think so. That sort of mixing would reduce the extract differences, not increase them. I feel that Kunze is referring to changing the sparge water and thus limiting the mixing between 1st and 2nd sparge liquor (or whichever). -S Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2005 17:09:23 -0400 From: "May, Jeff" <Jeff.May at uscellular.com> Subject: Batch vs. blah blah blah Enough theory! This is no longer interesting. As my boss tells me, "Talk with empirical data". Post some real numbers or move on. Zheach! Let me know when you have something else to talk about other than sparging. Jeff May Wilmington, NC AR[649.7,148.6] Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2005 17:24:49 +0100 From: Signalbox Brewery <signalbox.brewery at ntlworld.com> Subject: Mashing cool Greetings We mash one of our beers at 63C / 145F and - perhaps coincidentally - it takes quite a time to clear, compared to our others. Could this because starch is not being gelatinised at low temps? David Edge Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2005 19:29:26 -0400 From: "Steve A. Smith" <sasmith11 at verizon.net> Subject: 10-Gallon Mashtun/Sparger Limitations For you batch spargers out there who use a 10-gallon mashtun/sparger... Assuming a 75% brewhouse efficiency, how many gallons yield can you push your system to process, assuming a 1.050 - 1.065 OG after the boil? I have never tried more than a 6-gallon batch, but was hoping to try an 11-gallon yield (12.5 gallon pre-boil) using 25 lbs. of fine grind dry malt. Would there be any harm in getting the required sugars via a third running if necessary? Also, when using a converted 15.5 gallon keg kettle with a hosebraid filter, will using pellet hops instead of whole hops cause me serious problems by clogging the hosebraid at runoff? thanks, Steve Smith Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 10/09/05, by HBD2HTML v1.2 by KFL
webmaster@hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96