HOMEBREW Digest #4910 Tue 13 December 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 *********

  CO2 saturation/nucleation (and life on mars) ("Fredrik")
  Re: Sanke Parts (Roger Deschner)
  High Gravity Beers (stewart.pounds)
  Useless information? ("Doug Moyer")
  Freezer not freezing (le Man)
  CO2 output measurement (ALAN K MEEKER)
  Carbonation of beer - can a soda stream be used? (Bill Velek)
  a little more on CO2 supersaturation ("Fredrik")

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 08:21:46 +0100 From: "Fredrik" <carlsbergerensis at hotmail.com> Subject: CO2 saturation/nucleation (and life on mars) Dave wrote... > Now that I have Fredrik's attention. The carbon dioxide emission from a > solution of carbon dioxide in water is dependent on the rate of breakup of > these clathrates in equilibrium with the formation of these clathrates. If > this is the slow step in this kinetic series, that is what you will be > measuring, not the rate of formation of carbon dioxide. Therefore, your > measurements do not represent the rate of formation of carbon dioxide > from the fermentation. These reaction rates are, of course, temperature > dependent, as is the saturation ( to which it is related) . Hello Dave, yes this is the old issues we discussed before, and I still agree it's true that there is a chain of events interacting, and what the flow measurement measures is the rate of which case leaves the fermenting wort. Also the liquid is supersaturated, and nucleation has a certain element of randomness to it etc. I really think we agree so far. But this applies to many other measurements. Many things are dispersed in disturbances, and we have to deal with it. And we will. Maybe this is were we disagree, I don't know. While it's well worth to point out again thse complexities I would to add again also that I consider none of these issues as "fatal enough" to remotely void the information in the flow data. I think flow measurements are very valuable, even granted the issues. It is not necessary to explain every single bubble, only the trends. There is also a lag between local CO2 production and escape through the fermentor, but these things can be guesstimated to a certain extent, in order the uncover some of those issues. We will still end up with some noise, that we will not understand, but we really don't have to explain every single bubble anyway. But the distrubtion of the bubble/gas flow statistics are bound to relate to fermentation activity via a set of dynamic relations, like production, saturation, nucleation etc. Also there is a limit to what extent these saturation stories can affect the trends. The fermenting wort is supersaturated, and this varies in nucleation bursts and stuff but it doesn't vary infinitely. The fermenting liquied won't hold unlimited amounts of gas. So this scrambling, while there, is under a certain amount of "control" and "limit". So in summary this saturation and nucleation complexity doesn't worry me in the context that there are other complexities in brewing that I consider much worse to descramble. It is along with the temperature and headpressure tests, the best method I can think of. I choose to focus on the opportunity here, not the lack of perfection. I think of use as here "organisms" feeding on information, and during times of information starvation it is not wise to reject data because it failed to be submitted in triplicate copies, or beause it has coffe stains all over it. We can afford be picky when we have data in excess, they we use only the most significant parts and leave the rest for later. But as a homebrewer trying to understand beer, and yeast, lacking a lab, I do not consider myself remotely having excess of information. So I will have to use alternative data sources to make progress. Or should I go dormant until someone will donate me a lab? ;-) Each situation calls for different responses. That's my perspective in a nutshell. So bring on the madness, I am starving. /Fredrik Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 03:32:56 -0600 (CST) From: Roger Deschner <rogerd at uic.edu> Subject: Re: Sanke Parts Try Banner Equipment, www.bannerbeer.com. This is a beer tapping geek's wonderland. Roger Deschner rogerd at uic.edu "I didn't know you could pay for beer." - --Michael Jackson, on National Public Radio, May 13, 2005 Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 06:24:23 -0500 From: stewart.pounds at gm.com Subject: High Gravity Beers Last night I was at a Beer Appreciation Night at a local brewpub and the guest speaker was Rex Halfpenny author of the Michigan Beer Guide. The subject was high gravity beers. During the discussion Rex started telling of brewery's that have been brewing beers in mid 20% alcohol range. I then asked how this was possible since I was always told that even Champaign yeast was only alcohol tolerant to about 15%. Rex's explanation was that certain brewers ( Bo's in Pontiac MI ) where breading strains of yeast that were able to tolerant alcohol levels in the 20% range. Is this possible? Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 09:30:47 -0500 From: "Doug Moyer" <shyzaboy at yahoo.com> Subject: Useless information? Bill Velek takes it upon himself to limit other brewer's interests: "If you can find a way to _USE_ the data you collect, then that's great; otherwise, more knowledge -- like knowing how many steps an ant takes in mile -- is worthless." Bill, if Steve Alexander feels that collecting data enhances his enjoyment of the hobby, then good for him. Why should he care if you, or others, are interested? It's not like his posts are preventing you from focusing on the parts of the hobby that interest you. Even if his data is completely useless, it is interesting to him (and probably at least one other). As such, it is just as valid as a frothy discussion of Clinitest.... There's plenty of room in this hobby for all sorts. Live and let live. 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: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 16:35:04 +0000 From: le Man <hbd at thebarnsleys.co.uk> Subject: Freezer not freezing Hello all, Here is a puzzle for you? I have a chest freezer with a converted thermostat that allows me to set a temperature between +35 and -35C. Temperature has been set to zero C for a period of lagering. . . However we have had a cold spell here and the ambient temperature where the freezer is located is around 4C. Just checked the freezer temperature and it 4.9C. How can this happen? The freezer is working as I've turned it down and the walls where the coils are get cold, turn it back to Zero and leave it and the temperature stabilises around 5C. TIA - -- le Man ( The Brewer Formerly Known As Aleman ) Mashing In Blackpool, Lancashire, UK - -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.13/199 - Release Date: 13/12/2005 Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 12:03:03 -0500 From: ALAN K MEEKER <ameeker at mail.jhmi.edu> Subject: CO2 output measurement Commenting on Ken Anderson's monitoring of CO2 output as a proxy measure of fermentation rate, Dave Burley said: "The carbon dioxide emission from a solution of carbon dioxide in water is dependent on the rate of breakup of these clathrates in equilibrium with the formation of these clathrates. If this is the slow step in this kinetic series, that is what you will be measuring, not the rate of formation of carbon dioxide. Therefore, your measurements do not represent the rate of formation of carbon dioxide from the fermentation." I disagree. Since the fermenting wort rapidly becomes saturated by the CO2 produced by the yeast, the CO2 output you are measuring will be equal to the rate of CO2 production (so long as you don't do anything drastic during the measurement such as shaking the carboy). Temperature fluctuations should be of little concern in a controlled lager fermentation, however this may be of some importance if conducting an uncontrolled ale fermentation. Alan Meeker Lazy Eight Nanobrewery "Where the possibilities are limitless" Baltimore, MD Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 12:18:39 -0600 From: Bill Velek <billvelek at alltel.net> Subject: Carbonation of beer - can a soda stream be used? First, I want to thank A.J. ($600 tables) and Mike Sharp (re GAC), for their replies in #4908; both were very informative. Next, I have a follow up question for Dave Burley from his Clinitest reply in #4909, which I also greatly appreciate. Dave, at the end of your post you discuss carbon dioxide emission and "clathrates". You indicated that shaking a bottle of beer -- the shaking containing about the same amount of energy needed to form a clathrate -- disrupts it so that the beer foams when pressure is released. If you don't mind, I'd like some clarification. It has been my understanding that carbonation of beer can be speeded up by agitation, such as with a keg-shaker or by manually rocking the keg. I presume that CO2 is dissolved or absorbed by the beer quicker in that fashion, but am wondering about those clathrates you mentioned. Is their formation time-dependent? I ask because I know that if I try to open a beer right after dropping it (when I presume the clathrates have been disrupted), the beer will foam, but if I wait awhile (presumably for the clathrates to reform), then it will be okay. So, if the can of beer is just sitting there, where does the energy come from to form, or reform, the clathrates? Is it just the increased pressure from disruption of clathrates that remains in the can? And interestingly, I have a link here which pertains to carbonation of soda -- http://www.sodastream.co.uk/gbretail/SP_HowTo.asp -- which I wouldn't think would be much different from beer unless beer contains a much higher rate of carbonation (I have no idea how they compare). Anyway, if you will look at the video on that website, above, you will note that the water is carbonated _instantly_, without any rocking, and it doesn't foam even though the carbonation was added mere seconds beforehand. I'm wondering about the clathrates (if they apply to water versus beer), and also wondering why this wouldn't be an excellent way to carbonate bottled beer if one were to switch over to twist-off bottles. I'm interested in what folks think about this. Cheers. http://tinyurl.com/7zpob is my 'Brewing Glossary' with photos and links! http://tinyurl.com/99s2l compares HomeBrewers Team stats w/ other teams. http://tinyurl.com/axuol moderated group (now 310 member) EXCLUSIVELY re equipment for craftbrewers and small breweries. Please visit. Bill Velek Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 20:26:41 +0100 From: "Fredrik" <carlsbergerensis at hotmail.com> Subject: a little more on CO2 supersaturation just another addition to my first post... Here is a somewhat related article that I thought might be of some interest. It is an article about CO2 pressure vs volatile formation, but it does contain a side note on CO2 saturation. http://www.asbcnet.org/journal/pdfs/backissues/35-0035.pdf Under the give experimental conditions, the levels of supersaturation was correlated with the corresponding "equilibrium level" for a given CO2 headpressure, and as one would expect they found a significant correlation, and it's far from random. They found that the supersaturation coefficient (ratio of dynamic supersaturation and level and equilibrium level) is fairly constant throughout fermentation. The supersaturation coefficient also didn't seem to be much influenced by the CO2 headpressure. Moreover they found that the supersaturation coefficient varied linearly with agitation. The article also suggests that once the *dynamical* "quasi equilibrium" is attained (= the supersaturation level) this is fairly constant throughout the most active part of fermentation if the headpressure is constant. This test refers to stirred fermentation and the experiment didn't cover the no agitaton domain - this is where we are - where the wort particles acting as nucelation sites would probably become a more dominant factor and the short time deviations would increase due to chaotic nucleation bursts. It's to be expected that as the agitation slows (most of us don't agitate), the significance of random nucelations burts will increase and there will probably be larger deviations in data. But I expect it to be deviations a fairly determinable trend, and that's what we need. So *while the test doesn't cover the relevant range* (no stirring) and that we are to expect some deviations due to chaotic bursts, it supports the concept that there exists a somewhat reasonable correlation between the supersaturation level, and any given nucleation activity, as in a given agitation, or a given amount of trub in wort or concentration of nucelation sites. This is also what one would "expect" based on normal kinetics and normal plausible argumentation. I think the largest value is not to predict FG (this is easy enough to measure roughly anyway), it is the dynamic information contained in the graph. OG and FG gives us the end points and the graph helps map out the process in between. Eventually the full blown "poor mans" fermentation continous tracking I have in mind would consist of 4 basic transducers. - flow/bubble meter - internal and ambient temperature sensor - head pressure sensor, possibly one absolute pressure sensor and one differential pressure. + and A/D converter (many cheap ones for USB these days). + software of course (and this is where all the magic, and the full blown descrambling will have take place) The tricky part is the flow meter. Either make one (bubble counter) or get a used one if you can, like Ken's. /Fredrik Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 12/13/05, by HBD2HTML v1.2 by KFL
webmaster@hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96