Homebrew Digest Friday, 25 October 1996 Number 2249
![[Prev HBD]](/img/previous.gif)
![[Index]](/img/index_button.gif)
![[Next HBD]](/img/next.gif)
![[Back]](/img/up_level_button.gif)
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Mike Donald, Digest Janitor-in-training
Thanks to Rob Gardner for making the digest happen!
Contents:
O2 solubility. ((Duff Hickman))
Let's Smoke 'em ("Greg Carter")
Re: Re: zen (Cuchulain Libby)
[none] (Peter Ensminger)
imports/ATF/decot quest ((beerdogs))
HBD Format (Derek Lyons)
Technical Assistance Requested ("Louis K. Bonham")
Zen and Extract (Derek Lyons)
Chiller Convection (Michael Gerholdt)
O2 solubility/AHA digest hosting/glitches/Immersion chiller ((David C. Harsh))
pH control in ferments ("Robert Waddell")
No Subject Repost - Extract-to-AllGrain and Hops Steeping Question (KennyEddy at aol.com)
Heat Exchanger Low-Down (Wade Hutchison)
Call To Newbies! ("Palmer.John")
Grant's Scottish Ale recipe (Rick Dante)
RE: Kraeusening / Removal of trub / Chiller flow ((George De Piro))
Re: O2 solubility/AHA digest hosting/glitches/Immersion chiller (Beertown Webmaster)
Guiness, oh my Guiness!! (Ken Sullivan)
stuff... (Anton Schoenbacher)
Re:Lactoagain (Nathan Moore)
For SUBMISSIONS to be published, send mail to:
homebrew at aob.org
For (UN)SUBSCRIBE requests, send mail to:
homebrew-digest-request@ aob.org
and include ONLY subscribe or unsubscribe in the BODY of the message.
Please note that if subscribed via BEER-L, you must unsubscribe by sending
a one line e-mail to listserv at ua1vm.ua.edu that says: UNSUB BEER-L
If your address is changing, please unsubscribe from the old address and
then subscribe from the new address.
If your account is being deleted, please be courteous and unsubscribe first.
For technical problems send e-mail to the Digest Janitor,
homebrew-digest-owner at aob.org.
OTHER HOMEBREW INFORMATION
http://www.aob.org/aob - The AHA's web site.
http://alpha.rollanet.org - "The Brewery" and the Cat's Meow Archives.
info at aob.org - automated e-mail homebrewing information.
ARCHIVES:
At ftp.stanford.edu in /pub/clubs/homebrew/beer via anonymous ftp. Also
http://alpha.rollanet.org on the web and at majordomo at aob.org by e-mail.
COPYRIGHT:
As with all forums such as this one, copyrights are retained by the
original authors. In accordance with the wishes of the members of the
Homebrew Digest, posts to the HBD may NOT be sold or used as part of a
collection that is sold without the original authors' consent. Copies
may ONLY be made available at no charge and should include the current
posting and subscription addresses for the HBD.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: duff at tam2000.tamu.edu (Duff Hickman)
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 09:10:32 +0200
Subject: O2 solubility.
HBD,
I know CO2 solubility (in a water based liquid) increases with decreasing
temp.. Does O2 behave similarly?
Thanks,
Duff
- ----------------------------------
Duff Hickman
College Station, TX
- ----------------------------------
Return to table of contents
From: "Greg Carter" <gcarter at mail.hq.faa.gov>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 96 10:14:30 EST
Subject: Let's Smoke 'em
Smoked ales, specifically Scottish smoked ales, are my new object of
attention. What experience do you fellow homebrewers have with
peat-smoked malt?
Smoked ales generally have 2 lbs (or so) smoked malted barley, and are
smoked with fruit wood or beechwood (according to the Cat's Meow and
the Victory Circle recipe book). An article on Scottish Ales (SAs)in
Brew Your Own stated that peat-smoked malt was mistakenly used in
certain brewer's recipes for SAs, and the brewer's ended up with
something they couldn't give away. (BTW, the article noted that the
"smoky" flavor in the beer was actually from roasted barley).
With all due respect, I'm forging forward with peat-smoked malted
barley. Why? Because the ingredients listed for the Sam Adams
Scottish Ale (which I would gladly drink, whether or not the brewer
gave it to me) included peat-smoked malt as one of the ingredients
(along with 2-row, chocolate, crystal, and munich - it is left as a
reader's exercise to find the hops used. Hint: go to Sam Adams home
page on the 'net).
One fine storekeep noted that peat-smoked barley should be used
sparingly, like 1/4 lbs in a 5-gallon recipe, and increment by 1/4 lbs
if it is not enough. He was quite sure that using two lbs in a recipe
would be WAY TOO MUCH.
Any help would be appreciated.
Greg Carter
P.S. Why are homebrews better than sex? You can have as many kinds of
homebrew as you want, and it won't keep the neighbors awake.
Return to table of contents
From: Cuchulain Libby <hogan at connecti.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 09:49:16 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Re: zen
"...honest ociffer that horse was dead before I hit him..."
What I was attempting to say, and what I think Derek & Scott may have missed
was: I think of myself as a fairly decent cook, able to follow a recipe,
able to modify one to suit my needs, etc. Extract brewing is just about
exactly that. I make GREAT beers with the extract method. Brewing beer after
all isn't all that hard.I was just trying to let others like myself know
that extract is fine , but go to liquid yeast and full wort boil asap to
make a better beer. I fully intend to go all-grain, hopefully next batch.
What I meant by Zen Master was that there are a few brewers on this digest
that are way beyond even all-grain. I refer you to any postings by Messrs.
Burley, Bayer, "Gump", or Korzonas.
And to the provincial bastards that keep complaining about the signal/noise
ratio here: If it is dry, strictly-to-the-point, no fun BS you're after buy
a book,get a magazine, go to the library, or call another brewer. There is
no seniority here. Just because you can remember the 'good old days' doesn't
mean shit, I like this forum for all the reasons you don't. It's the ability
to get advice from the Zen Masters,or any one, and have immediate, vibrant
feedback that make this so appealling.
Love and Kisses,
Cuchulain
" ..never mind..."
Roseanne Rosanadana
Return to table of contents
From: Peter Ensminger <ensmingr at npac.syr.edu>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 10:56:54 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [none]
Concerning a recent post by Dave Burley on the Pasteur effect and the
Crabtree effect ...
I believe that your selective quotations from M&BS may lead to some
misunderstanding of the Pasteur effect and Crabtree effect and their
importance to fermentation.
Pasteur originally discovered that in air, yeast reproduce rapidly but
produce little carbon dioxide and ethanol and consume little sugar;
without air, yeast reproduce more slowly, but produce more carbon
dioxide and ethanol and consume more sugar. A modern definition of
the Pasteur effect, based on our more complete understanding of
biochemistry, is the "inhibition of glycolysis (breakdown of sugar) by
respiration". The basic observation is that lowering the oxygen
concentration decreases carbon dioxide production only to a point. As
oxygen gets very low, carbon dioxide production actually increases. The
products of cellular respiration actually inhibit glycolysis, so that
producing less ATP allows glycolysis to go faster. An important effect
is the inhibition of phosphofructokinase, a regulatory enzyme in
glycolsyis, by ATP. (I'm afraid I've already lost many readers, so I
won't go into more detail.)
It was subsequently noted that when the sugar concentration gets very
high, ethanol fermentation actually increases! Given what we know
about the mechanism of the Pasteur effect (ATP inhibits glycolysis),
this observation may seem surprising. This effect -- called the Crabtree
effect -- was once thought to be catabolite repression by glucose. Many
biochemists now believe it is mostly due to over-saturation of the
respiration reactions. The argument is that there's so much flowing
through glycolysis that some of it just spills over into the fermentation
pathway.
Dave ... Thanks for jogging my memory about the Pasteur and Crabtree
effects, something I haven't thought about for years!
Cheerio!
Peter A. Ensminger 315-478-6024
256 Greenwood Place ensmingr at npac.syr.edu
Syracuse, NY 13210 www.npac.syr.edu/users/ensmingr/
U.S.A.
Return to table of contents
From: beerdogs at cyclops.dcache.net (beerdogs)
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 11:07:50 -0500
Subject: imports/ATF/decot quest
regarding the citation that a local bar places ballantine in india. one
bar in my neighborhood sells samual adams as an import. i said: from
where? they quited down and i bought a molson ice.
jethro & atf: while it is true that you do not always require ATF label
approval, ohio makes atf approval prerequsite for ohio approval so in
effect, while you can get only state approval, it doesnt make much sense.
is kansas similar and are you going to send beer this way??
in hbd 2244, George P. said a thinner second decoction should be used to
avoid releasing starch. i have understood that there is a german tool
(studymank something??) which collects the top of the mash without
collecting grains. i ask: would it be smart to collect runnings from
undrneath the mash (ie. to lauter) and boil this? would the higher
gravity mean more darkening and carmelization? if so, what are other
detrimental effects. personal email appreciated
Cheers to all,
Rod, owner/ operator of South Shore Ale Styles, Catawba Island, Oh.
CURRENT OFFERINGS INCLUDE: Rye-T On! (tm) rye stout, Positron Pale Ale and
soon to feature the Motley Cow Hefeweissen.
*** "[the] supply of beer was exhausted somewhat earlier than the
organizers of the migration scheme had anticipated, and that, therefore, a
landing was effected at the rather uninviting spot since then immortalized
in song and story as Plymouth Rock." -G. Thomann, New York,
November 1909 ***
Return to table of contents
From: Derek Lyons <elde at hurricane.net>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 07:57:16 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: HBD Format
I personally like having the undigested format available.
I pull down both. The digest version goes straight to disk for archiving.
I read the undigested version, deleting those with subject lines I am
uninterested in. (Save mucho time!)
Derek L.
Return to table of contents
From: "Louis K. Bonham" <lkbonham at i-link.net>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 10:19:49 -0500
Subject: Technical Assistance Requested
As those of you attending the recent Dixie Cup in Houston may have learned,
fellow Foam Ranger Andy Thomas and
I are in the process of doing an article to be published in Brewing Techniques
on RIMS vs. Decoction mashing.
In a very terse nutshell, Andy and I each brewed a high gravity (13P) / low hop
(23 IBU) Munich Helles
simultaneously using the same recipe, grain, hops, "built" water, boil times,
adjusted pre- and post-boil OG's
and volumes, etc., etc., etc. -- with the goal that the only significant
variable would be that his batch was
a traditional double decoction mash, while mine was a modified Fix 50-60-70
stepped mash on my RIMS system.
The batches were then innoculated using equal parts (2q) of the same yeast
starter, and then fermented and
stored in the same refrigerator. The resulting products (both quite good) were
then evaluated "blind" by the
Best of Show panel at the Dixie Cup.
Many of the results of this experiment were both surprising and
counterintuitive (read the BT article when it
comes out for the whole story), and so we are looking to do a followup
experimental brew (which will probably
also include a traditional step infusion mash for comparison). Per Dr. Paul
Farnsworth's advice, we would
like to have an ogliosaccaride assay and protein assay performed on samples of
the pre- and post- boil worts
we generate, with the aim of explicating the differences and similiarities we
obtain. The problem is, of
course, such tests require >$50,000 of lab equipment, and would run several
hundred dollars if done by Seibel
or an equivalent lab.
Ergo, if you are a professor / grad student / professional chemist with access
to the necessary equipment and
would like to assist us in this experiment, please drop me a line.
Additionally, if anyone has access to a copy of the American Society of Brewing
Chemists' *Methods of
Analysis* (>$400, and according to the OCLC not available in *any* library in
Texas), please drop me a line.
Many thanks ----------> Louis K. Bonham
lkbonham at i-link.net
Return to table of contents
From: Derek Lyons <elde at hurricane.net>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 08:06:10 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Zen and Extract
At 09:49 AM 10/25/96 -0500, you wrote:
>"...honest ociffer that horse was dead before I hit him..."
>
>What I was attempting to say, and what I think Derek & Scott may have missed
>was: I think of myself as a fairly decent cook, able to follow a recipe,
>able to modify one to suit my needs, etc. Extract brewing is just about
>exactly that.
This is absolutely off track.
I have created beers from scratch using extract, and the process is no
different than creating beers from scratch using all-grain. I choose the
malts, (extract rather than grains, but there are a *lot* of extracts to
choose from.), specialty grains, hops, yeasts, adjuncts...... I decide the
steep/sparge sequence for the specialty grains and adjuncts, the hop
schedule, the fermentation method and sechedule.....
With the sole exception of the source of the sugars, there is no difference
in the recipe formulation process.
Derek L.
Return to table of contents
From: Michael Gerholdt <gerholdt at ait.fredonia.edu>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 96 11:31:46 -0500
Subject: Chiller Convection
- -- [ From: Michael Gerholdt * EMC.Ver #2.5.02 ] --
Ken Schwartz wrote:
>>Charles Burns asks:
>>"Does this mean that we could get more efficient cooling by making sure
that
>>the chiller "water input" side is the "bottom" of the coil and the exhaust
>>comes out the top?"
>Actaully the opposite is true for the vertical coil. Colder water at the
top
>cools wort which "sinks", displacing warmer wort to "rise" into contact
with
>the cooler top coils. Running the cold water in at the bottom would result
>in the cool wort staying on the bottom and the warm wort at the top staying
>at the top.
But Arnold J. Nietzke writes:
>Yes, the cold water should go into the bottom of the chiller and exit out
>the top.
>
>However it depends on how fast your flow is, I know when I have
>mine on full blast, the water coming from the exit is *cold*!
>
>So, what do you gain from running the inlet to the bottom of the coil?
>water conservation, you can slow the water flow down and still chill.
>(say that three times fast:)
Enter the present writer:
Seems to me that the cold should go into the top first. However, I don't
quite accept Ken's argument based on convection. Why? If you cool the top of
the wort, where the hotter wort is, a bit faster than you cool the bottom of
the wort, where the cooler wort is, what do you get? In fairly short order,
the wort is going to be roughly monothermatic. With no distinctions in
gradient, there will be little or no convection based on thermal dynamics.
Just static. That picture will change as time goes on, and the top will
begin to get cooler and convection will occur, but 1) probably late enough
in the cooling process that convection is not a major player and 2) the
convection will be minor, because cooling is taking place at the bottom of
the pot as well, if a bit slower. The gradient just isn't going to be that
great, once the cooling process takes hold.
The reason for cooling from the top down is simply that the greater the
temperature difference between A and B, the greater the cooling that occurs
per time unit.
At least, that's how it looks from this keyboard at the moment.
- --
Return to table of contents
From: dharsh at alpha.che.uc.edu (David C. Harsh)
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 11:28:29 -0400
Subject: O2 solubility/AHA digest hosting/glitches/Immersion chiller
Eric Fouch responds to Dave Burley on air solubility:
>>1) Oxygen solubility in water is 2.3 X 10- -5 as mole fraction solubility at
>>one atmosphere.( Chem Rubber Handbook p 6-3) To convert this to ppm, a mole
>>of
>>water weighs 18 g/ mole so 2.3 x 10- -5 moles of oxygen (2.3 X32X10- -5 ) =
>>x1-- -5 g of oxygen in 18 gr of water ...
>Somewhere you must have misplaced a decimal point:
Yes, he did: 2.3 x 32 x 10-5 = 7.36 x 10^-4 g oxygen (not 10^-5)
That explains the 4.08 ppm instead of 40.8 that is the correct value.
Note, however, that this is the solubility that in equilibrium with PURE
OXYGEN at 1 atmosphere. In our pressure ranges, the equilibrium solubility
varies linearly with the oxygen pressure, so aerating with air would result
in 21% of the value calculated:
Saturation with air = 0.21 x 40.9 = 8.59
Solubility in wort is less than that in pure water due to all of the other
dissolved compounds.
- -------------------------------------------
On the AHA hosting the digest-
The only differences in operation of the digest with the AHA are
that the digest can be received undigested and the lack of a cancel
feature. The lack of civility on the digest is not the AHA's fault. Have
you noticed how many people can't seem to disagree without name-calling?
Is the AHA adding the personal attacks as some sort of sinister conspiracy?
Yeah, right. More people need to re-read their posts to make sure they
are acting like adults. If you want to call someone names or throw a
tantrum, do it in private e-mail or write it all out and then delete it.
Call it therapy.
- -------------------------------------------
Glitches in the digest-
Hey you at the AOB - what's with all the blank space? I'm wearing
out my page down key!
- -------------------------------------------
On Immersion chiller inlets point for cooling water-
I bet it doesn't matter in practice. Theoretically, the bottom
inlet would be better, but if you stir the wort at all (i.e., move the
chiller around) the temperature stratification in the wort would be
minimal.
Anybody have too much time on their hands and want to prove me wrong?
Dave
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
& Dave Harsh &
& DNRC Minister of Bloatarianism O- &
& "non illegitimi carborundum" &
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Return to table of contents
From: "Robert Waddell" <V024971 at Tape.StorTek.Com>
Date: 25 Oct 96 09:46:00 MDT
Subject: pH control in ferments
Regarding the discussion that has been occuring off-line between Dave
Burley and a few others, the article that started it all can be found at:
www.atd.ucar.edu/rdp/gfc/mead/danspaper.html
It has to do with (among other things) keeping the pH of fermenting
mead must between pH 3.7 - 4.0, and vitamins being used to get a high
O.G. must to drop in about 2 weeks. The discussion has been about
perhaps using this method in high gravity beer worts. Experimental
results may follow in a few months. (When I find time to do another
high O.G. beer.)
I recomend the article even if you're not interested in the discussion.
Robert
V024971 at tape.stortek.com
Return to table of contents
From: KennyEddy at aol.com
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 11:50:35 -0400
Subject: No Subject Repost - Extract-to-AllGrain and Hops Steeping Question
What's up with this No Subject crap? My two posts yesterday got eaten by
them. Here they are again (I hope).
Ron asks about converting from extract to all grain.
Problem with going that direction is that unless you're using plain pale
extract, it's hard to tell what went into the extract to make it whatever it
is. And even "plain pale extract" could be any number of things.
If the extract you have in mind is supposed to yield a beer of a particular
beer "style" (pale ale, pilsner, stout, whatever), your best bet IMHO is to
chuck it and start from scratch. Pull a bunch of Cat's Meow recipes and find
the similarities, as a starting point. For example, with a stout, you'll
typically find pale malt and some roasted barley in many/most of the recipes.
One recipe will add crystal while another adds chocolate, but the common
thread here would be the pale (of course) and the roasted barley.
If you're talking about the real generic "light", "amber", and "dark" stuff,
that's a different story. An amber wort can be made from pale malt + crystal
or pale malt + chocolate malt or all-Munich malt, among a million other
combinations. Each of these may look like the other, but the flavors will be
very different. Point is, unless you have a flavor profile in mind,
converting "amber extract" to all-grain will be a crapshoot.
As an example, let's assume I want to convert a recipe calling for amber
extract. To find the amount of grain to use, I start with a given amount of
"X" extract. If it's dry (DME) I would assume say 42 points per pound per
gallon; if liquid (LME), maybe 36. If pale grain yields say 36 pt/lb/gal and
your efficiency is 75%, that's 27 points for a pound of grain. So for DME, 1
lb of DME = 42/27 = 1.56 lb grain; for LME, it's about 1.33 lb. So if the
recipe called for 6 lb DME, I'd use 6 x 1.56 = about 9 to 9-1/2 lb grain.
Next, adjust the color using hand calculations or (better) a recipe program
like Suds. If you want color but neutral flavor, try small amounts of
roasted grains (2 - 4 oz per batch perhaps). Roasted grains will give you
lots of color with very little grain. For a sweeter finish try using medium
to dark crystal malt. For a bigger malty finish use maybe Munich or
Aromatic. Of course to get a little of each of these effects, you can
combine the aforemetioned malts...hey, now you're getting the hang of recipe
formulation!!
{The 1995 Special Issue of Zymurgy has a comprehensive table of grain yields
& colors for your reference. I've also put these into Suds database form
(along with hops data) on my web page.}
If the original extract recipe called for steeping grains in addition to the
extract, it complicates things. Again you'll have to sort of imagine the
flavor being developed, and work that into the all-grain recipe design.
However, by adding grains, the recipe's author is probably making up for
something lacking in the extract, so it might be fair to assume that a
neutral extract conversion is appropriate.
BTW, visit my web page (address below) for an article I wrote on the reverse
process -- all-grain to extract.
*****
In that ongoing quest for Nice Hop Character (NHC) I tried a post-boil steep
of 1 oz Liberty hops (4.x% AA I think) in an otherwise lightly-hopped (25
IBU) ale. I was disappointed at the lack of results. I have two conjectures
as to why this is: (a) not enough hops or (b) the fact that I started
immersion-chilling right away. Should I let it steep at sub-boiling for a
while before turning on the water? Commercial breweries use in-line
counterflow chillers so the wort in contact with the steeping hops is hot for
a long time. For us immersion-chill types, how long is long enough?
And while we're at it, I have another conjecture to toss out for comment.
The batch previous to this last one was also hopped in the mid-20's and of
similar graivty, though sweeter. I dryhopped with 1/2 oz Goldings, which did
a fine job of adding hop aromatics but also seemed to increase the
*bitterness*! I suppose the arome/volatiles fill out the overall taste
sensation, so it may be more hop *flavor* that I'm getting, but it sure seems
the bitterness is up too. Any thoughts?
PS -- Lest you think I'm heretically shunning the Wall of Hops approach to
brewing, well, I sorta am, at least on an experimental basis. Having had one
too many hop-tea IPA's at club meetings the last couple months, I though I'd
try brewing a couiple using the "balanced beer chart" in Norm Pyle's
wonderous Hop FAQ at The Brewery. For beers in the 40's of OG, 25 IBU was
supposedly about right for "balance". I brewed a sweetish brown ale (7 lb
Pale Ale 2-row + 1-1/2-lb 75L crystal, Goldings hops) and a "buttered-toast"
ale (7 lb PA, 1 lb Munich, 1 lb home-toasted PA, 1 lb 10L crystal, Liberty
hops, Irish yeast) both at this level and am pleased with the overall
flavors, though the hophead in me will crank up closer to 30 the next time
around. My conclusion from this experiment -- there is a non-linear
realtionship between IBU's and bitterness sensation; the difference between
20 and 30 IBU is seemingly much greater than between 30 and 40 IBU.
*****
Ken Schwartz
El Paso, TX
KennyEddy at aol.com
http://members.aol.com/kennyeddy
Return to table of contents
From: Wade Hutchison <whutchis at bucknell.edu>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 12:08:20 -0400
Subject: Heat Exchanger Low-Down
Hello, all - this is my first post to the digest. I'm an avid homebrewer who
has been extract brewing for the last 8 years or so, and am just getting ready
to move up to all-grain, along with some friends of mine. I'm fascinated by the
discussion on Wort chillers, and thought I'd add my 2 centimes. I come at this
from a technical perspective, as I am a Chemical Engineer, and this kind of
heat exchange stuff is pretty basic engineering.
First, some comments on previous posts:
>From: Derek Lyons <elde at hurricane.net>
>Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 19:39:17 -0700 (PDT)
>Subject: re: Killer Chiller Question
>
>At 12:40 PM 10/24/96 -0400, you wrote:
>>On Thu, 24 Oct 1996, Derek Lyons wrote:
>>
>>> If the water exiting your chiller is cold, then your chiller is not
>>> functioning. The water should be *warm*, indicating that it has indeed
>>> picked up heat while flowing thru the chiller.
>>>
Clearly, this is _not_ true. If the cold temperature out is very close to the
cold temperature in, that just means that the amount of water being sent
through he cooler is probably much larger than it needs to be. If there is a
temperature difference between the cooling water and the wort, there will
be heat transferred.
>>
>>It must be working, since the temperature is is down to 70 degrees in
>>about 20 minutes.
>>
>
>Then you are using far far too much water if your outlet temp hardly rises.
>
Agreed
>>> >
>>> >So, what do you gain from running the inlet to the bottom of the coil?
>>> >water conservation, you can slow the water flow down and still chill.
>>> >(say that three times fast:)
>>> >
>>>
>>> Nope, you lose overall, because the coldest part of the chiller remains in
>>> contact with the coldest part of the wort. Any water savings is illusory.
>>
This is only true if the wort is absolutely unstirred. Assuming the water temp
is always at least 10 deg. below the wort, you will continue to get reasonable
heat transferred.
>>I guess I have to disagree, look at the way a counter-flow chiller
>>works. The cold water in from the fawcet, contacts the coldest part
>>of the wort first and migrates to the hot wort in.
>>
>
>You have it exactly backwards. It encounters the coldest wort first
>*because the wort it first encounters has already traveled the whole length
>of the chiller*. The reason a counterflow chiller is *called* a counterflow
>chiller is because the chilling fluid flows *COUNTER* (I.E. against the flow
>of) to the chilled fluid.
>
Correct - a counterflow heat exchanger has the hot fluid inlet and the cold
fluid outlet at the same end. This produces the largest _average_
difference in temperature over the length of the chiller.
Although the temperature difference is important in heat exchange, there are
two other factors that effect the rate of heat transfer. The easiest one to
get a handle on is the area available for heat transfer. For an immersion
chiller, this translates to building the largest coil that you can immerse
in your wort. It also means that if you are building a coiled chiller, you
should space the coils a reasonable distance apart, so that the entire
circumference of the tube, along the entire length is in contact with the
wort, not with another part of the tube.
That being said, the final factor that is often overlooked in these chiller
designs, is that the heat transfer is affected by a series of resistances
that combine to form a heat-transfer coefficient. The primary resistances
for a simple tube-type heat exchanger is the wall of the exchanger, and the
fluid film resistance both inside and outside of the tube. Heat (energy)
has to flow through each of these resistances in series, so that if one of
them is very large, then the overall heat transfer will be slowed. The wall
of the tube
resistance has to do with the type of metal used for its constuction. Since
the standard for homebrewing seems to be Copper, which has a high
conductivity, and thus a low resistance, that should be fine. For an
immersion chiller, the water flowing on the inside of the tube has a very
thin film if it's flowing rapidly enough, so that resistance should be
small. The problem comes with the outside of the tube where the wort is
just sitting there, with some possible natural convection going on. Here
the film can be relatively thick, and there can be a high resistance to heat
transfer.
The obvious solution is that you _must_ agitate the wort in some way to
achieve high rates of heat transfer Now I know that you don't want aeration
in the wort, but you can still mix the fluid without aeration - look into
using an impeller type mixer, and run it at low RPM. Any amount of forced
convection (stirring) in the wort will improve the heat transfer over
natural convection. Another added bounus is that you no longer have to
worry about the direction of flow in your chiller coil, since if the wort is
considered "well mixed" it
should be the same temperature at all points. Like I agreed with before, if
you don't want to mix your wort, the coldest part of the coils should be at
the bottom of the vessel to get the largest _average_ temperature difference
across the coil.
Questions? Comments? Feel free to email me!
-----wade
Wade Hutchison, College Engineer
College of Engineering, Bucknell University
- -------------------------------------------
whutchis at bucknell.edu
http://www.eg.bucknell.edu/~whutchis
-----wade
Wade Hutchison, College Engineer
College of Engineering, Bucknell University
- -------------------------------------------
whutchis at bucknell.edu
http://www.eg.bucknell.edu/~whutchis
Return to table of contents
From: "Palmer.John" <palmer at ssdgwy.mdc.com>
Date: 25 Oct 1996 09:24:28 U
Subject: Call To Newbies!
Derek Lyons Writes:
As a 'newbie brewer' of sorts, (just over two years and 12 batches), who
*is* interested in 'hydrometers, IBUs and liquid yeast', and who *is*
reasonable well educated and read... I find BT utterly useless. Hence the
initial paragraph quoted above. (Which is mine).
An unscientific poll of 'newbie' brewers that I know shows the same feeling.
To which I respond:
Derek, as the author/Column Editor for Homebrewery Basics, the "beginners"
Column, I am very interested in what kind of material you would like to see
covered. I am interested in what Every new brewer would like to see. Email me
at
johnj at primenet.com with your suggestions for topics. What is it Derek, that in
particular you find so utterly useless? The topics? the depth? Is it because
you
learn the same things in HBD?
I have felt that my predecessor, Don Put, did a marvelous job of presenting key
material for new brewers. I am attempting to continue with the same level of
quality information. But it is tough to think of topics. It can be difficult to
differentiate between beginner and advanced material, oftentimes it will depend
solely on a reader's particular interests.
I would like to ask that anyone who has an interest in seeing beginner brewing
topics addressed in Brewing Techniques, email me. There are a number of regular
homebrewing authors in the HBD, Jeff Frane, Kirk Fleming, Jim Busch, Norm Pyle,
Martin Lodahl, just to name a few. We would like to bring the same level of
good
information to mass market publications that is provided to the HBD. Feedback
other than 'Utterly Useless' is always appreciated.
John J. Palmer - Metallurgist for MDA-ISS M&P
johnj at primenet.com Huntington Beach, California
Palmer House Brewery and Smithy - www.primenet.com/~johnj/
Return to table of contents
From: Rick Dante <rdante at pnet.net>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 09:31:21 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Grant's Scottish Ale recipe
Does anyone have a really good all grain recipe that approximates Grant's
Scottish Ale?
Rick Dante
rdante at pnet.net
Return to table of contents
From: George_De_Piro at berlex.com (George De Piro)
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 12:51:06 -0700
Subject: RE: Kraeusening / Removal of trub / Chiller flow
Hi all!
Mike asks about kraesening. He wonders why it is dependent on the
gravity of the wort, while priming with sugar is not.
Kraeusening is not only dependent on the starting gravity of the wort,
but also on its final gravity. The wort will contain both fermentable
and unfermentable sugars, therefore it is important to know how much
FERMENTABLE sugar you are adding to the wort in order to predict
carbonation levels. Corn sugar is glucose, which is 100% fermentable.
You can easily determine the fermentability of your wort, and kraeusen
it, by using the following method:
Prepare to save some wort on brew day. Using the formula in Eric
Warner's book, "German Wheat Beer", you can estimate how much wort
you'll need to save for krausening. You need to know the starting and
final gravities of the wort. You can make an educated guess about the
final gravity, based on your mash temp, yeast strain, and experience.
After calculating the amount of wort that you'll need, add another
12-20 ounces to that figure, just in case (you might drop some, etc.).
After boiling the wort, can the amount that you need to save for
kraeusening. Save some of your yeast, too. At the end of
fermentation, check the actual final gravity of the wort. Plug this
number into Warner's formula to see precisely how much wort you'll
need to kraeusen with.
Empty the calculated amount of canned wort into a sterile container of
suitable size, aerate, and pitch the yeast. When it reaches high
kraeusen, add it to your bottling tank (with the fermented beer, of
course), mix, and bottle.
You don't need to add the yeast; you can just use the saved wort
(called "Speisse", which means "food" in German). This method results
in a longer conditioning time, and if it is a high gravity beer you
really should add fresh yeast.
I really don't know if it makes a damn bit of difference to the final
beer if you wort prime, kraeusen, or prime with glucose, but if you
want to claim adherence to the Reinheitsgebot, this is the way to go.
---------------------------
Brendon (I think) asked about trub removal. The easiest thing to do,
regardless of whether you use a counterflow or immersion chiller, is
to whirlpool the wort and then let it settle a few (5) minutes. The
gunk will all be settled in the middle of the kettle, away from your
spigot or racking cane. You can also use a copper or stainless steel
scrubbing pad as a filter.
---------------------------
I've just got to mention that the cold water should enter the BOTTOM
of the chiller, not the top. The exit water will never be as hot as
the wort at the top of the kettle, so you will be cooling the wort at
that the top of the kettle, too. The key is to maximize the
temperature difference between the wort and the cooling water AT ALL
POINTS.
If the cold water enters the top of the chiller, it will not be very
much colder than the cooler wort at the bottom of the kettle, thus
reducing cooling efficiency.
If the cold water enters the bottom of the chiller, it will have a
large temperature difference with the wort for its entire trip through
the chiller.
I probably didn't explain that clearly enough to convince the
agnostics, but how about this: IT DOESN'T MATTER ANYWAY!!!
We're only talking about 5-10 gallons of liquid! Most people run the
chilling water so fast that the exit water is still pretty cool! All
this talk of currents in a 5 gallon pot is getting pretty silly! Just
stir it gently!
Sorry, I lost control. I didn't mean to sound patronizing,
protective, rude, tyrannical or insulting. :)
Have fun!
George De Piro (Nyack, NY)
Return to table of contents
From: Beertown Webmaster <root at aob.org>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 11:32:53 -0600
Subject: Re: O2 solubility/AHA digest hosting/glitches/Immersion chiller
> -------------------------------------------
>
> Glitches in the digest-
> Hey you at the AOB - what's with all the blank space? I'm wearing
> out my page down key!
> -------------------------------------------
David,
I haven't recieved any "blank spaces" when I get the digest. However,
I have noted a couple of other posts that mention the same thing. It is
possible that blank postings are being sent as well as filled ones or
something else is wrong with the software. If you can give me a better
discription and / or samples I maybe be better able to solve this
problem.
thanks,
Out of Here
D.J.
- --
D.J. Haines
Info. Syst. Mang. Admin.
Association of Brewers
736 Pearl Street (303) 447-2825 (fax)
PO Box 1679 root at aob.org (e-mail)
Boulder, CO 80306-1679 info at aob.org (aob info)
U.S.A. http://beertown.org
Return to table of contents
From: Ken Sullivan <kj at nts.gssc.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 12:00:20 -0600
Subject: Guiness, oh my Guiness!!
Hi fellow homebrewers,
Is Guiness Draft-style stout carbonated and
pushed to the tap with nitrogen or just
nitrogenated?? Same question goes for
Boddingtons?? Can I get a small nitrogen
tank and 'nitrogenate' my homebrew instead
of carbonating it?? Will it absorb the
nitrogen? Are there any pressure/temp
tables associated with beer and nitrogen??
Is the carbonation a significant flavor
contributor? Would nitrogenating a wheat
beer destroy the style??
thanks,
KJ
Return to table of contents
From: Anton Schoenbacher <aschoenb at eecs.wsu.edu>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 96 11:24:06 PDT
Subject: stuff...
Damn iv'e been busy.
I made my masher from a 5 gallon rubbermade water cooler.
I took out the spout at the bottom and got a rubber cork
with hole and put this around a tube. Stuck the tube/cork
where the spout was on the cooler. Next I got a cheap
(cheap == Walmart) ss bowl that just happened to fit perfectly
in my cooler, drilled about 30 1/8 " holes in it, stomped on
it to flatten it out a little, and whala I'm done. So i dropped
the bowl w/ holes down into the cooler (inverted) and filled
it up with grain and water and let it do its job. My 27.00
anton-masher. I used another larger bowl with a few small holes
poked into it to sparg with, just set it ontop.
Question:
I bottled some of my mead and stuck a bottle in the freezer to
cool it down. Went out drinking with a freind and this morning
realized that It was still in the freezer. Went to chexk it
out and it didn't freeze. Any body know approx. what the alcohol
content is ?
Question:
I made pumpkin ale yesterday, protein rest 122 for 30 min, add pumpkin
mash and brought temp upto 146 mash 70 min. Not very good conversion.
The licker was very very dark, I only had a little black patent in it.
Does the pumpkin make it dark ?
- --
*****Anton Schoenbacher*****aschoenb at eecs.wsu.edu*****
Return to table of contents
From: Nathan Moore <moorent at bechtel.Colorado.EDU>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 12:56:39 -0600 (MDT)
Subject: Re:Lactoagain
I've also been doing some research into Lacto Brewing. It seems
the best idea I've come upon is to use a yogurt culture from a health food
store. This seems like the safest method to me. There is an excellent
articale in the Library in the Cat's Meow that talks about making Sour
Mash.
Good Luck
Nathan Moore
Denver, CO
Return to table of contents