HOMEBREW Digest #3663 Tue 19 June 2001

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

		Digest Janitor: janitor@hbd.org


          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 *********

  hydrogen peroxide and London Country brewer (JohanNico)" <JohanNico.Aikema at akzonobel.com>
  Questions about P. Calinski's Salt Correction Factors ("Tom & Dee McConnell")
  RE: Oxygenation via hydrogen peroxide ("Dr. Pivo")
  re: Geometry again ("Stephen Alexander")
  Oxygenation via hydrogen peroxide ("Pannicke, Glen A.")
  My Strawberry Wheat ("Jeff Beinhaur")
  My Strawberry Wheat ("Jeff Beinhaur")

* * 2001 AHA NHC - 2001: A Beer Odyssey, Los Angeles, CA * June 20th-23rd See http://www.beerodyssey.com for more * information. Wear an HBD ID Badge to wear to the gig! * http://hbd.org/cgi-bin/shopping * * 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, 18 Jun 2001 06:51:11 +0200 From: "Aikema, J.N. (JohanNico)" <JohanNico.Aikema at akzonobel.com> Subject: hydrogen peroxide and London Country brewer Hi, About hydrogen peroxide. I asked Wyeast and received the following answer: From: (Wyeast Labs ) >David Logsdon) Subject: Re: Aeration Hi Hans, That is a good question. We decided to experiment on that concept since we have had other questions >regarding the possibility of doing so. The results were as anticipated. The addition of approx. 1% H2O2 to a yeast starter provided a release of O2 which was readily evident. However at the >80% of the cells. Performance by the remaining live cells was sluggish and unatenuative. It also produced a odor/flavor which was undesirable. Wyeast Laboratories At 09:34 PM 11/28/1999 +0100, you wrote: >Hello, >Question: is it possible to add hydrogenperoxide to a yeaststarter to provide oxygen?> ========= I read in HBDigest about the possibility to download this book. http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/london/ Downloading failed and printing was a problem. Now a need just page 132 (was a blank page). Can anyone send me this page? Greetings from Holland (Europe), Hans Aikema <http://www.hopbier.myweb.nl/> Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 01:09:48 -0600 From: "Tom & Dee McConnell" <tdmc at bigfoot.com> Subject: Questions about P. Calinski's Salt Correction Factors Reference Pete Calinski's Correction Factors for Water Treatment post First I make no profession of knowing much about chemystery. With that said, I'll ask what seems to me to be an obvious question. It would seem to me that humidity would play a big factor in the weight of the water. FL has humidity in the 9x% range, but where I live the humidity is in the 1x% range. I hope there is a chemical reason that ambient humidity does not make a difference - life would be so much simpler. But still I would like to know as I use RO water and dose things up. I looked at you spreadsheet and notice that you have x moles of water for a given salt. How did you come up with this? Sounds like FM (freakin' magic) to me. Now, before anyone starts in with college level chemystery - realize that my high school chemystery teacher showed us how to bend glass tubes (yup!!! made my very own eye dropper), use a scale (I weighed the salt before it sat out and after it set out, but had no idea what it all meant - did not have to to pass, just weigh the salt), and memorized (for test purposes only) the periodic table. So I need the chemystery explained in some basic english. Not kindergarten style - I do pretty good with math & physics, but that chemystery .......... In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria. - German Proverb Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 14:04:04 +0200 From: "Dr. Pivo" <dp at pivo.w.se> Subject: RE: Oxygenation via hydrogen peroxide Brian Lundeen has some questions about the theoretical use of hydrogen peroxide as an oxygenating agent. He wonders: > nor would I want to use the weak solutions we use for treating our > boo-boos. > It might turn out to be exactly what you'd want. I use 35 percent H2O2 as the base for my sterilizing solution, and I just did a little mental calculation about how much I'd need to oxygenate a batch on hand, and it equipment. Using "boo-boo" strength, on the other hand (3 percent) would push you into just over 3 cc's which is a volume I think I could squirt. Anyone want to check my numbers, I thought like this. 1 ppm (in water) would be .001 ml per litre of pure H2O2. 35 percent is roughly one third so that would be .003 ml.. "Dropping" a batch, "might" take you to about 3.3 ppm O2, so that would be equiv. to .01 ml 35 percent per litre. I happen to have some batches in the cellar just pitched where there is one at about 30 l, one about 45 and one at 90 l of the exact same wort. If I took the smallest then it would need about 0.3 ml. If I had boo-boo strength I could be using more like 3.3 ml, which is "syringable" Now I WAS planning on doing some little "spurments" with temp variation during primary with those barrels down there. The idea of using H2O2 as an oxygenating method runs so ENTIRELY contrary to my beliefs, and purely by instinct is something that I would warn people from EVER trying. and hopefully not even THINKING about........ that it just might work. I have mentioned earlier that since recieving an article from AJ DeLange, I have become slightly intrigued with "reoxygenating" a bit into the primary, and feel I'm pretty familiar now with what kind of things happen when you do it at different times. I think I'll try a little H2O2 "squirt" when white krauzen is just turning up. After all, HBD history has shown us that this could well be an item of discussion for several years, if as per usual, everyone chatters, and nobody does anything. If anyone wants to check my reasoning on the volumes I'm talking about so that I'm not GROSSLY in error in my numbers, I'd be happy to hear from you. What I will have to do is dilute my 35 percent stuff 1 to 10, so that I have enough volume to "shoot", and I've already got a vision of there coming a large cloud of bubbles where I shoot it in.... in other words, the greatest ammount of O2 generated will probably be going straight into the air. What I'd probably need was some way of slow introduction at the "bottom" of the fermenter... but sooner or later that stuff will make it to the surface and out into the air....... but I suppose the rate at which that happens will probably depend on temperature gradients, convection, column height.... in fact a whole bunch of stuff thet are directlly drawn from the size and shape of the fermenter...... what some people call "geome-...." WHOOPS!......... ALMOST SLIPPED UP THERE!! I'd totally forgotten that there are still small enclaves upon the planet ----small tucked away hamlets of zealots ---- where people do not believe that this is a valid force.... but are willing to badger, insult, and perhaps even SLAY anyone who suggests that it may be. Now we don't want THEM getting riled up do we. We could get a repeat of the "Great Botulism Massacres" of '97. Dr. Pivo Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 08:29:27 -0400 From: "Stephen Alexander" <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net> Subject: re: Geometry again Dave Harsh writes ... >I think the point is that there are three statements here, two say yeast >must have oxygen, one says they can mostly do without it. Seems like a >contradiction. Where's the contradiction ? Yeast can survive ~indefinitely given ~10-40ppm of O2 at normal pitching rates every ~4 generations or so. This is orders of magnitude less than any respiring organisms (and yeast can respire) and about as little as possible except for true anaerobes . It seems you're having difficult understanding basics. Reading Tracy Aquilla's BT article may improve your understanding. How about this analogy Dave - humans require zinc, but in significant amount (~ 100 mg per day) it's toxic. Zinc is (I suspect) and absolute requirement for human growth, but anyone who claims humans "lust for zinc" and suggest that more zinc implies greater human growth is ignorant. It's no contradiction that humans require zinc but require d*mn little. It's also no contradiction that yeast require O2 but require little - (including in conventional brewing context). ... back to shear forces .. >If >our fermentation rates are similar, which they should be, the CO2 >evolved in the 3:1 system has less cross sectional area through which to >move! It won't decide to stay there, it will move at the same total >rate through the decreased c/s area, This is the part where I find holes in your argument. Perhaps you can fill in some detail Dave. 1/ There *is* net CO2 convection from the nucleation site upward *but* CO2 has viscosity (and shear forces) 5 orders of magnitude less than wort. CO2 shear can't be taken seriously as a cause. 2/ The wort has *NO* net flow due to CO2 nucleation. As a CO2 bubble forms there is a net upwelling of the volume and forces very similar to the whirlpool effect (another shear based brewing phenomena), *but* as the CO2 bubble rises and releases at the surface these forces are almost identically reversed yielding no net convection of the wort.. I am willing to entertain your suggestion as *possible but unlikely* that shear forces could cause somewhat poorer fermentation - but I cannot see that CO2 nucleation causes any net CO2 convection which would in turn cause shear at the fermenter/wort interface. I openly admit I don't understand the shear at a CO2 bubble/wort interface but any reasonable reader must admit that this force is *NOT* a function of H:W but only fementer 'H'eight. though which the bubble rises. >convection, [...] >and no, it would not be determinable. But wort/fermenter shear is directly relate to convection and you admit you cannot determine convection. How do you support the assumption of equal conventions ? >So are you saying that yeast are either "flocculent" or "non-flocculent" > - there's no in-between? No - I never said that - but it marginalizes your position as shear only increases flocculation for yeast which are flocculent to some degree. >I would suspect that >those pesky little CO2 bubbles, which are less dense than wort, are >rising due to buoyancy and dragging the fluid along with it. Perhaps so - but in any even height vessel the effect is uniform wrt surface area and so there is no net convection of the wort. >It's time to either put-up or shut-up, Steve. For the third time, I am >asking you to itemize your "more physically plausible explanations" for >the phenomenon that has been observed by multiple brewers, both on the >commercial and homebrewing scale. Well here it is Dave - for the 5th time - please read it this time for a change. *** I do NOT NOT NOT believe there is any such effect of H:W independently causing poor fermentation performance. ***, despite your extremely limited and poorly controlled observations. My statement (you quoted) described my belief that whatever was observed in terms of differential performance by DeClerck , Fix, your friend, etc cannot be correctly attributed to H:W, but rather to some other factor that was not properly controlled. Without examining the experiment, demonstrating that it is reproducible and adding additional controls - it is pointless to speculate which uncontrolled factor was the actual cause. Temp, CO2, O2, are just the tip of the iceberg. There are hundreds of well known yeast performance factors that were certainly not controlled. I am NOT NOT NOT going to join you in guessing wildly and without basis about to which one might have caused the effects observed. I seriously doubt DeClerck ever produced such a wide-ranging conclusion from limited experiments as "H:W independently is a fermentation performance factor". More likely readers overgeneralized his specific results. - -- Let's stick to your argument Dave. You have no evidence that increased shear causes poorer fermentation performance and there is a mountain of evidence that stirred and shaken samples from forced fermentation tests experience greater shear and better fermentation (in terms of the time param). You haven't shown any forces to create the added convection and shear such that it can be directly related to H:W (rather than height alone). I think you point is dead in the water. -S Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 09:14:01 -0400 From: "Pannicke, Glen A." <glen_pannicke at merck.com> Subject: Oxygenation via hydrogen peroxide Brian Lundeen wrote: >This ties into question 4 (I'm just having too much fun with this now to >stop), how much heat will this process generate? There's no time saving >advantage if you have to spend additional time cooling the wort to >compensate for the heat introduced with the oxygen. Don't use hydrogen peroxide. I've got something better - liquid oxygen. Let's shove some of THAT into our beer! It also has the added benefit of cooling the wort while it oxygenates it. But be careful! Last week I spilled a little on my pinky, it froze right up, cracked off and fell into my carboy! So while I'm waiting to drink my Stinky Pinky Light Lager, does anyone know if rotting body parts will have an effect on fermentation rate and diacetyl production?. You can buy liquid oxygen at Cape Kennedy Space Center or anywhere liquid fuel-propelled rockets are launched... Oh, I shouldn't forget, it goes well with dry ice carbonation of a beer brewed with a solar-powered RIMS. I give up... Some questions just weren't meant to be answered. >On a totally separate topic, can someone please let me know when the >fermenter geometry debate pushes the Clinitest debate out of first place on >the Official HBD Top 10 Contentious Topics list? I want to make sure I >salute the occasion in an appropriate manner. ;-) AMEN! Let's see... unsubscribe cap_exp... I'll do it on my own & keep it to myself. At this point I really don't care to provide ammunition to the barrage of I-told-you-so's, which the opposition will respond to in full force with lists of inane design flaws. 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, 18 Jun 2001 11:41:05 -0400 From: "Jeff Beinhaur" <beinhaur at email.msn.com> Subject: My Strawberry Wheat Thanks to all who made suggestions on my recipe. Well I started the brew yesterday and the grain bill for the five gallon batch was: 9 Lbs. Wheat 2 1/2 lbs. two row pale 1 lb. CaraPils One ounce of Willamette was added for a 60 minute boil. The yeast was a fresh slurry from a hometown micro (1056 like). I will be washing, cutting, freezing, thawing and then crushing five lbs. of strawberrys. A suggestion was made to add a crushed camden tablet to the berries and allow to soak for twenty four hours before adding the beer. So my plan is to do this crushing and soaking in a plastic 5 gallon fermentor and then racking the beer right on top of the berries. I was told to expect active fermentation to really take off again from the sugars in the berries. A suggestion was made to add some Potassium Sulfate to inhibit fermentation. Not sure if I'll do that or not but will have some handy just in case. Now to brew day specifics. I milled the grain with a Corona mill. Now I have a adjustable two row mill that I share with a brewing buddy but due to lack of planning and forgetfullness I didn't have posession of this. Hence the use of the Corona that our local micro let me borrow (no they don't use it but did have it laying around). I must say that I have a lot of respect for those of you still using one of these. Do yourself a favor and get a roller mill. Having never milled wheat and having never used a Corona I don't know if I got it right or not. The reason I say this is that my OG was at 1.044 which according to ProMash was only a 47% efficiency. I didn't use any rice hulls as was suggested and had no problems with the sparge. So.... could it be that I didn't crush the wheat enough? Is 1.044 going to be to low for this beer? It is fermenting away quite strong and would expect with this low starting gravity and the yeast used that most of the fermentation will be complete in two to three days. I guess I better start getting the berries ready. Jeff Beinhaur, Camp Hill, PA Home of the Yellow Breeches Brewery Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 15:43:24 -0400 From: "Jeff Beinhaur" <beinhaur at email.msn.com> Subject: My Strawberry Wheat I forgot to mention. The mash was a single infusion at 154 degrees. Although a number of folks suggested a protein rest I find it hard to hit multiple temp ranges using a Gott coller as a mash tun. Upon doing some further reading I'm really beginning to think that the wheat wasn't crushed enough. Any thoughts? Jeff Beinhaur, Camp Hill, PA Home of the Yellow Breeches Brewery Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 06/19/01, by HBD2HTML v1.2 by KFL
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96
Convert This Page to Pilot DOC Format