![[Prev HBD]](/img/previous.gif)
![[Index]](/img/index_button.gif)
![[Next HBD]](/img/next.gif)
![[Back]](/img/Back.gif)
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Digest Janitor: janitor@hbd.org
***************************************************************
THIS YEAR'S HOME BREW DIGEST BROUGHT TO YOU BY:
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 *********
Contents:
: geometry, algebra, and other simple logic. ("Max McDonohue")
Re: Hop pellets and the Bazooka screen (james r layton)
wheat beer (JGORMAN)
Re: Re: Hop pellets and the Bazooka screen (Pat Babcock)
Protein Rests and hot breaks (Bob)
New Haven, CT (John Baxter Biggins)
CAP experiment (Marc Sedam)
Re: Cider as an ale yeast starter??? ("Herman Holtrop")
Grand Heating? (Brad Miller)
CAP (EFOUCH)
Converting All-Grain Stout to Extract ("Hedglin, Nils A")
Flocculation, geometry, etc. (David Harsh)
Re: Bringing Beer Back (Tom Riddle)
experimental design vs. experience (Jan-Willem van Groenigen)
CAP Experiment (Mike.Szwaya)
slow or clogged counterflow ("Bruce Garner")
PID as fridge controller ("steve lane")
CAP experiment (Chris Cooper)
Experiment ("Pannicke, Glen A.")
CAP experiment (" Jim Bermingham")
Cap Experiment ("Jason Henning")
Transporting CO2 canisters. (Craig MacFarlane)
numbering each post ("Thomas D. Hamann")
Vessel Geometry ala Jethro ("Rob Moline")
H:W/aspect/oxygen uptake ("Nathaniel P. Lansing")
*
* 2001 AHA NHC - 2001: A Beer Odyssey, Los Angeles, CA
* June 20th-23rd See http://www.beerodyssey.com for more
* information.
*
* 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, 21 May 2001 19:37:21 +1000
From: "Max McDonohue" <max at hinet.net.au>
Subject: : geometry, algebra, and other simple logic.
Hello All
I have been reading quite a bit in your archives and beginning to understand
a little better about all the goings on in here. But i don't understand much
of the talk about brewing beer. Have some of you lost the plot?
Now I read from this Dr Pivo that he reckons by changing the fermenting
container's shape you can actually make a different beer. Am I reading this
right? If i bash in the sides of my brew bath or even tip it up on its side,
does he suggest i could make something like a Tooheys instead of a Reschs?
Well at this stage i don't seem to be making beer that tastes much like
either. But can this Doctor of Beer be serious?
I have heard that adding more or less sugar can change your beer but i would
never have thought to give the bath a severe bashing. What shape is likely
to make a Tooheys? I would be very happy if i could make a Tooheys.
Max McDonohue
Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 06:47:18 -0500
From: james r layton <blutick at juno.com>
Subject: Re: Hop pellets and the Bazooka screen
Zymie says of his bazooka screen product:
>The length of the screen assures that you'll have a clear pickup point
somewhere in the >kettle, not just if/when/how you've whirlpooled away
from it.
Yes, if some portion of the screen sticks out above or beyond the hop
pellet and break material, there should be no clogging. That will all
depend on things like kettle diameter, shape of the kettle bottom, amount
of hop pellets, and the position of the screen in the kettle. I never
meant that your product could not possibly work with hop pellets, only
that the pickup should be designed to draw wort from a point outside of
the layer of debris.
Good products are sometimes used in badly designed applications where
they may be unfairly blamed for poor performance. I hate to see that
happen.
Jim Layton
Howe, TX
Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 08:47:00 -0400
From: JGORMAN at steelcase.com
Subject: wheat beer
Has anyone had a similar experience? I brewed up an 85% wheat ale this
weekend with the following grain bill:
7# wheat malt
0.5# cara-pils
0.5# honey malt
0.5 oz orange peel
Enough rice hulls to unstick my sparge
I mashed expecting my typical 75% efficiency and only ended up with 55%. Is
this typical with near 100% wheat malt beers? I know sometimes efficiencies
can be low if you use unmodified adjuncts but this was fully mod wheat. It
also took a long time to convert. The wheat is fairly new so I am almost
positive it was still viable.
Jason Gorman
River Dog Brewery
Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 08:02:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: Pat Babcock <pbabcock at hbd.org>
Subject: Re: Re: Hop pellets and the Bazooka screen
Greetings, Beerlings! Take me to your lager...
On Mon, 21 May 2001, james layton wrote:
> Zymie says of his bazooka screen product:
>
> >The length of the screen assures that you'll have a clear pickup point
> somewhere in the >kettle, not just if/when/how you've whirlpooled away
> from it.
>
> Yes, if some portion of the screen sticks out above or beyond the hop
> pellet and break material, there should be no clogging. That will all
> depend on things like kettle diameter, shape of the kettle bottom, amount
> of hop pellets, and the position of the screen in the kettle. I never
> meant that your product could not possibly work with hop pellets, only
> that the pickup should be designed to draw wort from a point outside of
> the layer of debris.
>
> Good products are sometimes used in badly designed applications where
> they may be unfairly blamed for poor performance. I hate to see that
> happen.
>
> Jim Layton
> Howe, TX
>
Whirlpooling is optional. Personally, I don't bother, and have had no
problems.
I used a "home made" equivalent to the Bazooka, made with mnesh obtained
from our own Wally Meisner on the Home Brew Flea Market. My success has
not been a matter of having part of the screen poking up above the trub
layer, but a matter of available surface area. If you have sufficient
surface area, the entire screen can be covered with trub and still pass
wort - the trub covering a small surface area will compact like concrete
from the pressure of the wort being drawn from the kettle. Having more
surface area reduces the pressure of the draw on any given portion of the
screen, reducing likelihood of such compaction, keeping your stress level
and the wort flow rate to acceptable levels duuring your brew session. To
further impress you, I use pumps to draw from the kettle. Nary a plugged
up screen. I cannot say that regarding any of my prior methods - including
such notables as copper "pico screens", chore boys, or any other means.
No different than the function of the screens in your mash tun.
A free tip: If you find that proteins in the wort have turned your screens
into dumplings, a soak in dishwasher detergent or caustic will clean it
nicely...
- --
-
See ya!
Pat Babcock in SE Michigan pbabcock at hbd.org
Home Brew Digest Janitor janitor@hbd.org
HBD Web Site http://hbd.org
The Home Brew Page http://hbd.org/pbabcock
"The monster's back, isn't it?" - Kim Babcock after I emerged
from my yeast lab Saturday
Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 06:29:46 -0700
From: Bob <bobo99 at best.com>
Subject: Protein Rests and hot breaks
In the never ending quest for crystal clear beer(without filtering). I
have switched from my usual single infusion mash to a step mash
incorporating a protein rest at 130F(54.5C) for 20 minutes.After that I
use direct heat and bring it up to sach temps of 150-153. One thing I
noticed is my hot break after the boil starts is so small it's
practically non-existent. I hope I'm not breaking down too much protein
as to lose body/head retention. I use highly modified Marris Otter in
most of my beers. Anyone shed any light on this?
Brewer Bob
Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 10:09:44 -0400
From: John Baxter Biggins <jbbiggin at med.cornell.edu>
Subject: New Haven, CT
I'm attending a Chemical Biology symposium at Yale this upcoming
Friday. It has been over 5 years since I've been to New Haven, so if
anyone can give me the low-down on the brewpub scene, it'd be much
appreciated. All I seen to remember is the BruRoom. Private email
OK.
-john
- --
John B. Biggins
Cornell University Medical College
Weill Graduate School of Medical Sciences
Student -- Program in Pharmacology
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
Laboratory for Biosynthetic Chemistry
Department of Molecular Pharmacology and Therapeutics
lab:(212)693-6405 fax:(212)717-3135
http:www.ski.edu/thorson
"Science, like Nature, must also be tamed
With a view towards its preservation.
Given the same state of integrity
It will surely serve us well."
-- Neil Peart; Natural Science (III) -- Permanent Waves
Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:02:49 -0400
From: Marc Sedam <marc_sedam at unc.edu>
Subject: CAP experiment
I'm in. Love to participate.
-M
- --
Marc Sedam
Associate Director
Office of Technology Development
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
308 Bynum Hall; CB# 4105
Chapel Hill, NC 27599-4105
919.966.3929 (phone)
919.962.0646 (fax)
OTD site : http://www.research.unc.edu/otd
eMTA site: http://mta.unc.edu
Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 15:43:40 GMT
From: "Herman Holtrop" <h.e.holtrop at zonnet.nl>
Subject: Re: Cider as an ale yeast starter???
> So I just had a thought - why not use simple pastuerized
> apple cider (that you buy in the grocery store in the gallon
> jugs) along with a little yeast nutrient for starter
> material?
Dan,
Why so difficult, it can be even easier. Simply buy applejuice cartons
(brick). You know, the little take away containers (0,2 litre, made of
paper with alum. foil inside). But perhaps these are only available in
Europe.
Anyway, you should check if you have a pure apple juice variety. The
juice is sterile and can be added to a bottle-conditioned beer in order
to get the original yeast started (don't have to remind you to work
sterile).
It works fine for me. Before using the brew however, i suggest you do
make some wort as the yeast needs to adapt to the somewhat other
circumstances. The acidity of apple-juice is by the way soimilar to
that of wort. So your original idea wasn't bad at all. Hope this helps.
Cheers!
Herman Holtrop
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 08:55:37 -0700
From: Brad Miller <millerb at targen.com>
Subject: Grand Heating?
I'm currently thinking about designing a new brew system (I
think that this would be the 5th time) and was thinking about adding
a grand out of the mash tun. I don't have any problems with
compaction right now but was thinking of another application. Right
now I have a HERMS that works great but was wondering what would
happen if I direct fired the grant? Would that achieve some decocted
flavors or not? Any ideas?
Brad
Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 12:45:00 -0400
From: EFOUCH at steelcase.com
Subject: CAP
>Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 10:06:51 -0400
>From: "Alan Meeker" <ameeker at mail.jhmi.edu>
>Subject: Experiment
>
>Pat, I think this is a great idea and am willing to help out in any way I
>can. I hereby offer my services as a yeast supplier and scientific
>consultant if either or both of these are in need. Let me know...
>
> -Alan Meeker"
If Alan's doing it, I'm doing it.
There's nothing I like more than beating Alan in competitions.
I would also like to offer my services to the endeavor as the official Meeker
De bunker/K-Y Answer Man.
Eric J. Fouch
AKA Supermonkey
Bent Dick YoctoBrewery
Kentwood MI.
Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 10:01:34 -0700
From: "Hedglin, Nils A" <nils.a.hedglin at intel.com>
Subject: Converting All-Grain Stout to Extract
Hi,
Since I am not quite ready to do an all-grain batch, I'd like to try to
convert the following grain bill to an extract batch.
12 lb 2-Row
2 lb Carapils
1 lb Black Patent
1/2 lb Chocolate Malt
1/2 lb Roasted Barley
1 tsp salt
What would the 2-Row to extract ratio be? I assume I'd use a light extract,
probably a liquid. Would I still use the same amount of other grains? The
original recipe was a single-step infusion mash, but I'll be doing the
standard 20-30 minute steep at around 170. What would the affect of the
salt be? Does it modify the water? This is the all-grain I made 10 years
ago & am trying to recreate. Also, based on this grain bill, would it be a
5 gal or 10 gal batch? Unfortunately, I don't remember. I do think the
stout wasn't as strong as an Imperial.
Thanks
Nils
Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 13:08:18 -0400
From: David Harsh <dharsh at fuse.net>
Subject: Flocculation, geometry, etc.
Stephen Alexander accuses me of being:
> ...thoughtful and well read...
Been a while since I've been called that. I must be slipping. ;)
> >Circulation is a strong function of fermenter geometry. [...]
> Dave, I agree that circulation can be a function of general geometry, but is
> certainly NOT a function of H:W ratio independent of these other factors.
Circulation is strong function of the shape of the vessel: whether you
refer to this as "aspect ratio", "general geometry", "H:W ratio", or
"shape", it is the same thing. Essentially, a 1 foot cube would produce
the same circulation patterns as a 10 foot cube. You can extend this in
both directions although smaller fermenters would introduce viscosity
effects, assuming Knudsen fermenters don't exist ;) and larger
fermenters could introduce pressure effects. Use of scaling concepts in
describing mixing is preferred as analytical solutions of mixing tanks
are computationally intensive for those of us without a site license for
FLUENT.
> >Cell metabolism only? I don't think so. Can't premature flocculation
> >of the yeast cause poor attenuation?
>
> Flocculation is a consequence of yeast metabolic processes.
It is also a physical process as a result of fluid shear and statistics.
It is well accepted that there are biochemical changes on the cellular
surface that enhance flocculation, but shear induces flocculation.
Yeast are just particles in the fluid continuum and behave as such.
> >> The simplest, most direct explanation wins - Occam's razor.
> >
> >[...] circulation patterns [...] qualify in this case.
>
> Circulation has a more direct, simple and explicable impact on yeast
> performance than oxygen or CO2 ? I don't see that Dave.
Ok, I'll try again. I'm saying that a macroscopic process is
controlling the particle dynamics. The process being fluid circulation
and shear, the particles being the yeast in suspension. A high aspect
ratio fermenter will have less cross-sectional area for the circulation
induced by fermentation. As a result, the fluid eddies will be smaller.
Smaller fluid eddies mean increased shear rates. Higher shear rates
cause particle flocculation. Since this starts during a rapid
fermentation, the yeast flocculate and fermentation ends prematurely.
Steve - if you want to convince me: Give a physical explanation of how
the fermenter geometry will produce changes in the fermenting wort and
how those changes will explain the observed effects of aspect ratio.
What is your hypothesis?
Dave Harsh Bloatarian Brewing League
Cincinnati, OH
Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 10:55:20 -0400
From: Tom Riddle <ftr at oracom.com>
Subject: Re: Bringing Beer Back
Drew asks about bringing beer back from Belgium and England:
About three weeks ago I returned to the US from Belgium
carrying 16L of beer. After carefully keeping track of
amounts and prices, you can imagine how disappointed I was
when the Customs Officer showed no interest in my cargo.
I think they were too preoccupied with the Hoof and Mouth
thing to care. Also, this was JFK midday so they were
rather busy. But if you do get hit for the duty I think
it is about 4%.
The online wine merchants have good packing material
that allow you to pack four 750ml bottles in a box
about the size of two shoes box. I checked one of these
with my luggage with no problems. Also, I found alot
of breweries and beer stores sold 3x750ml bottles in
a handy cardboard carrying case which packed pretty well.
I looked into shipping but it was rather expensive.
If you are thinking of shipping beer back you can save
yourself some trouble with packing, etc, and check out:
http://www.beermania.be
He is an online beer merchant based in Belgium
that will ship to the US. He has a good selection
of beers you (I) can't find here. Shipping costs $125
for 30kg (to northeastern US), which is roughly equivalent
to 48 330ml bottles. But the beers are priced to Belgian
standards which makes the whole deal pretty reasonable.
I have no association with Beermania and have never ordered
from him - however I did visit the store when I was there.
Good luck,
Tom
- --
Tom Riddle
Portsmouth, NH
Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 10:45:08 -0700
From: Jan-Willem van Groenigen <groenigen at ucdavis.edu>
Subject: experimental design vs. experience
Hi all,
I'm totally new in the homebrewing world (just brewed my 4th batch last
week), and I've allready learned a lot from reading HBD and some of the
discussion groups on the web. However, I was a bit surprised at the (let's
call it) enthusiasm with which some people defend their point of views in
most of those forums. Surely brewing beer is much more serious business
than I thought it was!
I've been reading the discussion on experimental design with (partially
professional) interest, and I guess I'm just a bit confused about what the
main participants in that discussion want out of this forum, and if they
are professional brewers or advanced hobbyists.
As an agricultural scientist, experimental design plays an important part
in all of my work, and I regularly review scientific papers and reject ones
with crappy experimental designs. If you guys would be trying to design an
experiment that would be published in a scientific journal, I would agree
with almost everything Steven Alexander says on experimental design.
However, I don't think that's the purpose of this proposed experiment, and
one might make the argument that brewing is a craft as much as a science,
and good craftmanship develops from exactly the kind of ad-hoc,
unreplicated little experiments that dr. Pivo describes. After all, the
theory of experimental design as we use it now was developed mainly in the
first half of the 20th century, and I'm pretty sure there was good beer
being brewed before that time.
Although (and I can't stress this enough!) I know much less about brewing
than all of you, I would say that the sort of experiments that Steve
Alexander proposes require such a level of control, and a large number of
replications (one of the foundations of experimental design) that it is
almost impossible for non-professionals to achieve. As I said, I don't know
who you guys are and what your breweries (or laboratories?) look like, so
please correct me if I'm wrong.
The whole discussion reminds me about arguments we sometimes have with
farmers. Although we as agricultural scientists design the experiments in
statistically sound ways and have all the fancy equipment, it is often the
farmer who knows his land best and has figured out the answers to our
questions before we do using experience, anecdotal evidence and
'gut-feeling'. Nothing wrong with that, especially if your purpose is to
grow a good crop (or brew great beer) rather than write a Ph.D. thesis.
Anyway, that was my $0.02, please don't shoot me. I promise to keep my
mouth shut now until I brew at least 5 more batches.... For the rest, I'm a
Dutchman who is living and working in California for a couple of years. I
mainly took up brewing because I missed the (Belgian) beers of home. After
a couple of extract and partial mash brews, I'm hooked and ready to go
all-grain the coming months. Thanks for all the information!
Jan Willem.
Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:05:00 -0700
From: Mike.Szwaya at co.clark.wa.us
Subject: CAP Experiment
Is it possible for those who ferment in sankey kegs to participate?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mike Szwaya
Portland, OR
Email: Mike.Szwaya at co.clark.wa.us
Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 13:10:45 -0500
From: "Bruce Garner" <bpgarner at mailbag.com>
Subject: slow or clogged counterflow
I have a 3/8 inch counter flow chiller. Cooling a 10 gallon batch used to
take an hour or two. At that rate I was valving down my cooling water to a
bare trickle. I was using a SS scrubbie at the intake at the bottom of a
Sanke Keg conversion kettle. The wort had to siphon only 3" at the very end
and most of the time there was plenty of head pressure above pushing it out.
My chiller has 25' of pipe - maybe too long.
Sanke kegs are impossible to whirlpool as the outlet is at the bottom of
curved center and there is a 1/2" stainless pipe to the outlet. Nathan
Kanous and I did a batch at his place this past winter and we tried putting
his pump between the kettle and the chiller. This worked great. We
counterflow chilled a batch in twenty minutes.
I have a pump and in my last batch I recirculated for a couple minutes back
into the top of my boil kettle with no cooling water in the counterflow
chiller until I felt that I had Pasteurized anything inside the chiller.
Then I followed my usual practice of dropping the batch into an open
fermenter by clipping a footie nylon stocking at the top of the fermenter
and allowing the cooled wort to filter through it, ooze out and drip into
the fermenter. (Think oxygen - at least some.) The fermenter is a full width
cut keg and the sock is clipped at both ends of the diameter and hangs like
a 15 inch long sausage/hammock filling with hot and cold break. I clean,
boil and idophor it before use. (I also use it in my boil kettle at the
outlet of my sparge hose. It collects a lot of grain husks.) I keep a tent
of aluminum foil over the open fermenter while I chill to alleviate the dust
contamination.
When I use a carboy for a 5 gal batch I do the same thing except the sock is
vertical inside the fermenter with the top rubber banded around the outside
of the mouth. When the batch is done I slowly pull out the sock. I get a bit
more break in the ferment this way. I could use a large funnel or use a
sanitized plastic bucket with a hose off a corner of the bottom as a funnel.
The pump is the most important improvement. It allows you to recirculate
back to the boil kettle and push the batch though in a hurry. You don't try
to filter in the kettle, you filter at the end.
Bruce Garner
Madison, WI
Bruce Garner in Madison, WI
Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 13:53:33 -0500
From: "steve lane" <tbirdusa at hotmail.com>
Subject: PID as fridge controller
I have two PID controllers on my RIMs currently. One for the heating
element in the recirc path and one for the HLT. These are running SSR's
that handle the actual "work". I have two more PID controllers that I am
looking for something to do with.
Can a fridge be controlled with one? I assume that I would need to somehow
program it so that it doesn't constantly kick on and off like it does with
the brewery, as I believe this is hard on the fridge compressor. I have a
Johnson controller now that does a good job but I'm always tinkering and
would like to go digital on the fridge.
My other thought was a water bath setup with the coils being plumbed through
the fridge wall. Would set this up like a HERMs. Would that be called a
HERFS (heat exchange recirculating fermentation system)? This would allow
me the luxury of cold kegs in the fridge and a digitally controlled water
bath for fermentation. If one were to set up the water bath system, should
one run the pump constantly and use solenoid valves to bypass or should one
run the pump intermitantly and set the " I " in the controller to not be as
sensitive? I'm thinking a small pond pump would be plenty to move the
cooling medium.... What's the collectives thoughts on this type of setup?
Steve Lane
Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 16:18:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: Chris Cooper <ccooper at a2607cc.msr.hp.com>
Subject: CAP experiment
Greetings All!
I managed to get a brew day in yesterday (Sunday) and got three batches into
my carboys! My daughter's High School Graduation is coming up and I
want to have homebrew for the party (for the adults only of course!).
As I was putting a fresh batch into my fermentation fridge I noticed that
it would hold a carboy and a corny side by side and I thought it would be
an interesting experiment to do a double batch and split the ferment, now
I catch up on my HBD's today and find that another HBD experiment has been
suggested for just this purpose! COUNT ME IN! I am an alumni of the
Great Pale Ale experiment and would gladly participate in this one.
As a member of the Ann Arbor Brewers Guild I think we might be enlisted to
host a tasting panel, at least I will be glad to suggest it at our next
meeting and volunteer my help to the project.
Thanks to Pat for bringing this one up for our consideration.
Chris Cooper, Pine Haven Brewing (aka. Debbi's Kitchen)
Commerce, Michigan Member, Ann Arbor Brewer's Guild
Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 16:21:35 -0400
From: "Pannicke, Glen A." <glen_pannicke at merck.com>
Subject: Experiment
Dr. Pivo writes:
>I "KNOW" that for whatever reason may be causing it, it is in fact the
>case that the size and shape of your fermenter can, and does effect
>fermentation rate and flavour.
>
>Anyone who doubts this, has certainly not split up many ferments of the
>same wort, probably has not fermented much at all (or is not terribly
>observant)........ and most likely likes to argue a lot!
I also KNOW that the experiment, as proposed, will not adequately
investigate the differences between geometery. There are too many variables
comming into play and the fermenter geometery signal will be hidden by of
the noise of all the other uncontrolled variables.
As the Doc points out, the key factor is to "split up many ferments of the
same wort". I might also add that the wort should also be aerated and
pitched before splitting as well. This will ensure that there are no
differences before the ferment. After the fermenters are filled,
environmental conditions should be kept identical as well as length of
ferment. The finishing, priming and packaging process should also be
rigidly controlled to assure equal handling of the finished product. That
being done, we may more safely assume that most major variables have been
eliminated or have a negligible effect. The point is to isolate the
variables to only fermenter geometry.
While the current proposal sounds like fun, I find it to be of poor
experimental design. The only thing that may be concluded from the current
proposal would be a statement such as "I THINK that fermenter geometery
does/does not have an effect...". I'm not suggesting a full factorial or
latin squares design here, we only have one variable to study. The only
problem is that what I suggest would require a single physical location and
one hell of a big brew pot. This sounds like a Big Brew event! Damn, too
late...
The second thing to consider is the evaluation method. We're talking
subjective attributes here. I wouldn't donate my weak palate to the
experiment (but samples would be appreciated anyway ;-). Something like a
triangle test should be used to provide unbiased results and eliminate the
effects of personal preferences. We also should consider simple blinding of
results.
Not that I want to overly complicate matters, but if you wish to prove your
point(s), do it right. Otherwise I only forsee muddying of the waters and a
source of fuel for many future arguements.
Carpe cerevisiae!
Glen A. Pannicke
glen at pannicke.net http://www.pannicke.net
75CE 0DED 59E1 55AB 830F 214D 17D7 192D 8384 00DD
"I have made this letter longer than usual,
because I lack the time to make it short." - Blaise Pascal
Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 15:34:21 -0500
From: " Jim Bermingham" <bermingham at antennaproducts.com>
Subject: CAP experiment
I hereby volunteer to take all leftovers. Please contact me for shipping
address.
Jim Bermingham
Millsap, TX
Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 17:11:48 -0400
From: "Jason Henning" <jason at thehennings.com>
Subject: Cap Experiment
Hmmm. I had a lot of fun brewing the PAE (HBD Pale Ale Experiment) beer. I
guess it was fun because I did pretty good in the flavor evaluation and I
got to help with Louis Bonham's lab analysis. However, I think the most
important thing I learned was that 33 brewers brewing on 33 different
systems will brew 33 different beers.
With the CAP experiment, we would be testing the effect of fermenter
geometry on finishing gravities. Taking a look at the PAE finishing gravity
results, a few things stick out in my mind:
o The range of lab measured finishing gravities is greater than +/- 2
standard deviations. The range was 1.0084 to 1.0233 with the mean at 1.0158.
o Each brewer reported their measured FG. The average reported FG was .0016
points below the lab measured finishing gravity
o The correlation coefficient of brewer and lab measured FG's was just .64.
(Correlation coefficient compares two series of numbers and sees if they
behave similarly. Correlation coefficient ranges from -1 to 1. A correlation
coefficient of -1 mean that as one set of numbers increase, the other one
decrease. A correlation coefficient of 1 means that the series move up and
down together. A correlation coefficient of zero means the series don't move
together.)
So to sum that up, the FG's were over a wide range, the brewers didn't
accurately measure the gravities, and they didn't uniformly error on making
those readings. Given the amount of error involved in PAE, I can't but
wonder how valid this experiment can be.
OK, the rain is over, continue with the parade.
Cheers,
Jason Henning
Whitmore Lake, MI
Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 22:02:18 +0000
From: Craig MacFarlane <craigm at chemconnect.com>
Subject: Transporting CO2 canisters.
Hello all,
I'd like to take my latest batch of beer over to my Mom's house,
a five hour drive away. Is it safe to carry a full CO2 canister in
a passenger car?
Thanks,
Craig
Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 22:04:18 +0930
From: "Thomas D. Hamann" <tdhamann at senet.com.au>
Subject: numbering each post
Dear janitors, is it possible to number each post? It would make it really
easy to find one message very quickly.
Many thanks for a GREAT brewing service.
Thomas (ruelps)
when too much hops
are barely enough
Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 20:25:43 -0500
From: "Rob Moline" <jethrogump at home.com>
Subject: Vessel Geometry ala Jethro
Vessel Geometry ala Jethro
Not to really get into the discussion to the point of getting anal
about it...but all this talk about vessel geometry has reminded me of a
discussion at Siebel, ("Beer Heaven"), regarding a Scandinavian approach to
the now classical Cylindro-Conical.
The instructor told us about a CC in a scandinavian brewery that had
the approximate dimensions of a Saturn 5 Rocket, and it was gonna be the
'deal.' Then over multiple brews, the CC just wasn't producing the desired
effects....attenuations were long and slow, etc.
But the good news was that the vessel did finally earn it's
keep....once it was transitioned to a horizontal vessel........where the
static head didn't produce such high pressure on the yeast.
Again, no science here, and certainly no literature
references......just banch.
Jethro
Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 22:08:32 -0400
From: "Nathaniel P. Lansing" <delbrew at compuserve.com>
Subject: H:W/aspect/oxygen uptake
Steve says:
>>I wrote you about your hypothesis before, and it's not this
misinterpretation version. Please read your mail.<<
I do read it, but when you say,
>>The error in your statement is that these H:W ratios do not relate
directly
>>to surface_area:volume ratio that one expects would correlate to the the
>>surface O2 uptake per unit beer or yeast, etc,<<
there is not a lot left open for misinterpretation; but the H:W ratio
does relate
directly to surface area:volume ratio, and I *do expect 85% increase area
for
oxygen uptake to affect yeast vigor.
>>I don't have specifics of DeClerk's experiment but I'll wager that it was
>not designed to eliminate other factors and the conclusion that it is H:W
>ratio isn't the only plausible conclusion from the data.<<
I get it, without any facts or "experimental design" comments, or research
of your own, you have concluded DeClerk has to be wrong. I have not
seen any data from you to support your position that fermenter geometry
(or H:W ratio) does not matter. I at least put forth the correlation that
it
may happen because of improved oxygen uptake, which at least you
acknowledged in...
>>I've been assuming aerated wort and anaerobic conditions otherwise, but
>>that's a very good speculation too, Del, and could be easily tested. <<
This was so easy I over-looked it, 8 gallons of wort, 4 gallons in each
of 2, five gallon cornie kegs, aerated through the same method for equal
times, vent through the "gas in" and stand one up, lay one on its' side.
Same wort, same yeast, same fermenter materials and shape, only one
on its' side. The fermenter walls changing from straight in the upright keg
to cylindrical in the horizontal keg should not matter according to your
"geometry doesn't matter" "certainly not in a HB scale" posit, so need
not be considered to test the "aspect ratio effect."
**>Perhaps you don't look at cause & effect as commutative,
**Of course they are not commutative. A causes B in no way implies that B
**causes A. Correlation is commutative, but cause and effect is merely
**associative. I don't know what you meant by this.
**>I see it as
**>the geometry caused O2 uptake, the O2 uptake caused increased yeast
health,
**>the geometry caused improved yeast health (indirectly).
**I see. You meant associative.
At least here I can say we were *both wrong, the cause/effect relationship
I described was neither associative nor commutative, that's _transitive_.
if A=B and B=C then A=C; right concept, wrong name.
NPL
Return to table of contents
| HTML-ized on 05/22/01, by HBD2HTML v1.2 by KFL webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96 |
|