FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES Digest Janitor: pbabcock at hbd.org *************************************************************** TODAY'S HOME BREW DIGEST BROUGHT TO YOU BY: Sponsor The Home Brew Digest! Visit http://www.hbd.org/sponsorhbd.shtml to learn how Support those who support you! Visit our sponsor's site! ********** Also visit http://hbd.org/hbdsponsors.html ********* DONATE to the Home Brew Digest. Home Brew Digest, Inc. is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization under IRS rules (see the FAQ at http://hbd.org for details of this status). Donations can be made by check to Home Brew Digest mailed to: HBD Server Fund PO Box 871309 Canton Township, MI 48187-6309 or by paypal to address serverfund@hbd.org. DONATIONS of $250 or more will be provided with receipts. SPONSORSHIPS of any amount are considered paid advertisement, and may be deductible under IRS rules as a business expense. Please consult with your tax professional, then see http://hbd.org for available sponsorship opportunities. *************************************************************** Contents: Brix and SG ("A.J deLange") Berliner Weisse ("T. Rohner") RE: Brix to Specific Gravity ("Mike Patient")
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy! * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * NOTE: With the economy as it is, the HBD is struggling to meet its meager operating expenses of approximately $3500 per year. If less than half of those currently directly subscribed to the HBD sent in a mere $5.00, the HBD would be able to easily meet its annual expenses, with room to spare for next year. Please consider it. Financial Projection As of 04 Jun 2010 Projected 2010 Budget $3305.65 Expended against projection $1066.11 Projected Excess/(Shortfall) ($940.36) As always, donors and donations are publicly acknowledged and accounted for on the HBD web page. Thank you Send articles for __publication_only__ to post@hbd.org If your e-mail account is being deleted, please unsubscribe first!! To SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE send an e-mail message with the word "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to request@hbd.org FROM THE E-MAIL ACCOUNT YOU WISH TO HAVE SUBSCRIBED OR UNSUBSCRIBED!!!** IF YOU HAVE SPAM-PROOFED your e-mail address, you cannot subscribe to the digest as we cannot reach you. We will not correct your address for the automation - that's your job. HAVING TROUBLE posting, subscribing or unsusubscribing? See the HBD FAQ at http://hbd.org. LOOKING TO BUY OR SELL USED EQUIPMENT? Please do not post about it here. Go instead to http://homebrewfleamarket.com and post a free ad there. The HBD is a copyrighted document. The compilation is copyright HBD.ORG. Individual postings are copyright by their authors. ASK before reproducing and you'll rarely have trouble. Digest content cannot be reproduced by any means for sale or profit. More information is available by sending the word "info" to req@hbd.org or read the HBD FAQ at http://hbd.org. JANITORs on duty: Pat Babcock (pbabcock at hbd dot org), Jason Henning, and Spencer Thomas
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2010 01:17:16 -0400 From: "A.J deLange" <ajdel at cox.net> Subject: Brix and SG For Jim: Apparently you are seeking the relationship between the concentration of a wort and its specific gravity. In modern brewing this is modeled based on the work of the Normal-Eichungskomission of 1900 under the leadership of Leo Plato. He measured the true specific gravity (density at 20 C normalized by the density of water at 4 C) of pure sucrose solutions (as did Brix and Balling before him) and so when we do these interconversions we assume that wort is pure sucrose which, of course it isn't, but other sugars behave nearly identically to sucrose and so it is a good model not to mention that sucrose is easy to purify and is not hygroscopic so it can be accurately weighed out. The ASBC and EBC have taken the approach of taking apparent specific gravities (20 C/20 C) ranging from 1.00000 to 1.08300 in steps of 0.00005, converting these to true (in vacuo) values entering these into the Plato tables and taking out the percent sugar by weight for each specific gravity. Interpolation between adjacent Plato table entries was done as required. ASBC and EBC publish the result in tables found in the ASBC MOA's and in Analytica and these are the "official" basis for all concentration/SG calculations. Because these tables are based on Plato's work the units of concentrations (grams of sucrose per 100 grams of solution) are referred to as "degrees Plato" or just P. One enters the table with specific gravity and takes out degrees P. To replace the tables with a formula requires a curve fit. As you noted the relationship between P and SG is almost, but not quite linear. Curve fitting is a bit of an art and there are several options available to the analyst. The ASBC publishes (in the MOAs) a third order polynomial fit to the data in the table: P =(((135.997*S - 630.272)*S + 1111.14)*S - 616.868). This polynomial provides rms agreement with the table of 0.00061P with a maximum error of 0.0038P at SG = 1 (i.e. it doesn't go through 0 at SG 1.00000) but, as we seldom deal with worts weaker than 1 P it is a very good representation of what is in the table. It is, of course, possible to make higher order fits which are forced to go through 0 or others which emphasize a particular region (say 7 - 15 P) and one is, of course, free to do that but the ASBC polynomial represents the industry standard and should, therefore, always be used. But you want to go the other way; from Plato to SG. The only "correct" way to do this is by finding the value of SG which causes the ASBC polynomial to evaluate to the desired value of P. There are a couple of ways to do this. The ASBC polynomial is third order and so closed form formulas for the roots can be written and the correct one chosen. It takes a fair amount of algebra to get to the root to the point that it is actually easier to code an iterative root finder and this is what ProMash does. The reason it does it that way is so that if you feed ProMash a specific gravity of 1.040 is will use the ASBC polynomial to calculate 9.99353 P and if you feed it 9.99353 P it will return exactly (to machine precision) 1.040. You can, of course, fit the ASBC table to come up with a polynomial for SG as a function of Plato. S = (((6.34964E-8*P + 1.27447E-5)*P + 0.00386777)*P + 1.0000131) is such a polynomial and it is quite good. For example S(6) - root(6) = 2.19009e-06 where root( ) is a function that iteratively inverts the ASBC polynomial. Thus we would expect S and the ASBC polynomial to close pretty tightly e.g. S(P(1.040)) =1.04000198755817 where P( ) is a function that converts whatever specific gravity is in the parentheses to Plato by the ASBC polynomial and S_G( ) is a function that converts whatever is in the parentheses to specific gravity using the inversion polynomial. Note that in ProMash, root(P(1.040)) = 1.04000000031739 when the root bisector is set for a tolerance of 1E-9. Looking at the numbers in your table 6.000P interpolates to 1.02369166 in the ASBC table. root(6) = 1.02369005432759 and S(6) = 1.0236922444224 so the inverse fit polynomial is closer to the table than inversion of the ASBC polynomial (which isn't too surprising since a simple fit to the table gives a polynomial slightly different from the ASBC polynomial. But the inverse of the polynomial must be considered the "correct" answer as it closes with the official polynomial. Since ProMash uses the inverse it should return 1.02369 for 6 P input. For 9 P it should return 1.035899639 and for 12 it should return 1.0483692. The fact that the values you obtained from ProMash are different suggests that something is wrong. The 1.02277 corresponds to 5.771 P and 1.04644 corresponds to 11.54 P which are way off - i.e. too far off even to be explained by the small differences between the actual Brix scale and the Plato scale. I can't believe ProMash has become "broken" to this extent. It checked when I worked with Geoffrey on these algorithms but that has been years. Could you check those ProMash numbers? Bottom Line: S = (((6.34964E-8*P + 1.27447E-5)*P + 0.00386777)*P + 1.0000131) is an inverse fit to the ASBC table data and is good for almost any purpose. To 5 decimal places it gives answers identical to your number (3). An exact inverse of the ASBC polynomial may actually be less accurate (because the ASBC polynomial isn't the best fit to the table) but is to be preferred because it has the imprimatur of the ASBC upon it. A.J. Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2010 11:30:42 +0200 From: "T. Rohner" <t.rohner at bluewin.ch> Subject: Berliner Weisse Hello all i was reading the posts on "Berliner Weisse" with much interest. A couple of months ago, i was looking for information on the subject. It doesn't seem to be a very popular style among homebrewers. I can imagine why... After some internet research, i found a pretty easy way to let the lactos do their work, while still using a bacterial-free fermentation regime. The "four No's" way seems a bit adventureous to me.(I didn't try it..) The way i do it, is tweaked a bit from the original way i found on the internet. The way i read about, is closer to the "four no" method. Here the way i did it: (i use SI units...) Malt: 4kg wheat, 3kg pilsner (Weyermann) I mashed 90% of the grist at 63 C for 45 min then 30 min at 71 C. Then i cooled it down to 48 C and added the remaining 10% of the grist.(for the lactos on the malt) I let it sit for 14 hours for the lactos to do their work. Then i heat it up to 63 C again for 30 min, then to 71 C for another 30 min and then to 77 C for mash-out. After lautering, i boil it for 60 min and add a little hop for 30 min. I fermented it with a mixture of American Ale and Wheat yeast.(Both dry yeast from Fermentis) I did this, because i remember the beer in Berlin as relatively clean tasting.(Not very wheaty...) The smell of the sour mash in the morning was a bit strange at first, but when we bottled the first batch, i was pretty confident, that it turns out nice. Now, after having brewed 3 batches(150litres), we are very happy with the results. Even my SWMBO who doesn't drink "normal" beers, judged it very positively.(Not only verbally, but she drank a imperial pint of it with our woodruff sirup.) In Berlin, many people drink it with "Schuss", which is a shot of raspberry or woodruff sirup. It takes a little sourness out. After having tried our product in the pure form, i went in the forest to gather some woodruff to make sirup. The sirup turned out very nice and with some green food colorant it looks like the commercially sold version... If there is some interest in a more detailed recipe, i could post it, or even send the Promash file. Cheer Thomas Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2010 11:48:33 -0400 From: "Mike Patient" <mpatient at rta.biz> Subject: RE: Brix to Specific Gravity I have been making brewing software in my free time and have been looking at various resources for formulas. Wikipedia defines brix as 261.3 x (1-1/g) Making g 1-(261.3/b) This is also a linear formula, and my bet is that in reality it isn't. However, the relationship might be pretty close to linear for the range acceptable for brewing. I am not sure if it is the case. If anyone has more info, I am quite interested as well. Mike Return to table of contents
HTML-ized on 06/09/10, by HBD2HTML v1.2 by KFL webmaster@hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96 |