HOMEBREW Digest #4489 Tue 02 March 2004

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

		Digest Janitor: janitor@hbd.org


                  Beer, Beer, and More Beer
      Visit http://morebeer.com to show your appreciation!

    Support those who support you! Visit our sponsor's site!
********** Also visit http://hbd.org/hbdsponsors.html *********

  Re: Fermentation Bubble Counter ("Greg 'groggy' Lehey")
  malted oats (darrell.leavitt)
  Burton-on-Trent water and Sulfate additions (Fred Johnson)
  molasses used to feed yeast ("Doug A Moller")
  Alcohol Content ("A.J deLange")
  Re: Wheat questions (Jeff Renner)
  Re: Burton-on-Trent water and Sulfate additions (Jeff Renner)
  Culturing German Lager Yeast (Eric Schoville)
  RE:micros in Paris (Kevin Brown)
  CO2 saturation dynamics ("Fredrik")
  Multi-tier infusion mashing system ("Brian Schar")
  RE: mass flow meters ("Mike Sharp")
  Making a beer with 2 kits. ("William Erskine")

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * The HBD Logo Store is now open! * * http://www.hbd.org/store.html * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Suppport this service: http://hbd.org/donate.shtml * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy! * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Send articles for __publication_only__ to post@hbd.org If your e-mail account is being deleted, please unsubscribe first!! To SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE send an e-mail message with the word "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to request@hbd.org FROM THE E-MAIL ACCOUNT YOU WISH TO HAVE SUBSCRIBED OR UNSUBSCRIBED!!!** IF YOU HAVE SPAM-PROOFED your e-mail address, you cannot subscribe to the digest as we cannot reach you. We will not correct your address for the automation - that's your job. HAVING TROUBLE posting, subscribing or unsusubscribing? See the HBD FAQ at http://hbd.org. LOOKING TO BUY OR SELL USED EQUIPMENT? Please do not post about it here. Go instead to http://homebrewfleamarket.com and post a free ad there. The HBD is a copyrighted document. The compilation is copyright HBD.ORG. Individual postings are copyright by their authors. ASK before reproducing and you'll rarely have trouble. Digest content cannot be reproduced by any means for sale or profit. More information is available by sending the word "info" to req@hbd.org or read the HBD FAQ at http://hbd.org. JANITOR on duty: Pat Babcock and Spencer Thomas (janitor@hbd.org)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 16:28:21 +1030 From: "Greg 'groggy' Lehey" <grog at lemis.com> Subject: Re: Fermentation Bubble Counter On Saturday, 28 February 2004 at 9:33:53 -0600, Kevin Eggemeyer wrote: > I've been very interested in the recent posts regarding CO2 generation > as a means of analyzing/recording fermentation characteristics. I had > been planning a way to measure this activity by tracking the > fermentation temperature vs. ambient temperature. However, I think > there are too many difficulties with this approach. Yes, I've found that my temperature control leaves a lot to be desired as well. > I like the idea of being able to use 'bubble frequency' to tell me > (within reason) when the fermentation began, how active it has been, > and where it is with regard to completion. The fermentation curve, > as Fredrik pointed out and gave an example graph of, would allow a > more complete picture of the fermentation than hydrometer readings > alone. > > I'm more inclined to use this in a general sense (number of bubbles) > than in an exact sense (volume of CO2 generated). This is mainly > because I don't know how to build a flow meter, but I think I could > make a bubble counter. I envision using the parallel port an older > PC to make the count (I currently have plans to use this type of > setup to monitor/control fermentation temperature - so why not add > on a bubble counter?). Yes, this pretty much sums up my interest in the matter at the moment. > Would anyone out there be interested in working on this project off > line? Certainly. I'm copying the list in case there are any more. I can set up a separate mailing list if people think it worthwhile. > To me, the real question is how to design the sensors. I use a > blow-off tube; many other brewers use air locks of various designs. > Perhaps a group of us could work up some sensor and software > solutions to present back to the HBD? I'd suggest that each of us work out a method which works with our equipment. For my airlocks, I still think that an optical method is the best. > Kevin Eggemeyer > O'Fallon, MO > [Somewhat south of Mr. Jeff.] Greg Echunga, SA [Quite a bit to the SW of both of you] - -- Note: I discard all HTML mail unseen. Finger grog at lemis.com for PGP public key. See complete headers for address and phone numbers. Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2004 06:35:10 -0500 From: darrell.leavitt at plattsburgh.edu Subject: malted oats Chet; I have spoken to the local supplier of Fawcett's malted oats (NorthCountry Malt Supply) and he says that due to the higher oil content in the malted oats on should use a couple of pounds in a 5 gallon batch...otherwise head retention is bad... I am uncertain/ don't remember/ as to the diastatic power of the oats... ..Darrell Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 07:23:05 -0500 From: Fred Johnson <FLJohnson at portbridge.com> Subject: Burton-on-Trent water and Sulfate additions Jeff recently posted the use of gypsum to achieve the sulfate content of Burton-on-Trent water: > ... Burton-on-Trent water that was famous for > pale ale. Primarily among these ions are calcium and sulfate, and I > think that adding just CaSO4 (gypsum) is sufficient. You typically > add a teaspoon per five gallons ... One teaspoon of gypsum weighs about 3.8 grams by Byron Burch's measurements (Brewing Quality Beers), which would provide 140 ppm of sulfate to five gallons. The sulfate values I've read for Burton-on-Trent water are more in the neighborhood of 820 ppm, requiring as much as 27 grams or about 7 teaspoons of gypsum if you are starting with deionized water and not much less than that if you start with most water sources in the US. (Incidentally, the ion concentrations in the final product, i.e., after boil-off, would be even higher.) Jeff et al., am I missing something here? What does ProMash report? What values are being used by other calculators? And how wide is the range of values reported for Burton-on-Trent water? Fred L Johnson Apex, North Carolina, USA Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 06:25:24 -0600 From: "Doug A Moller" <damoller at intergate.com> Subject: molasses used to feed yeast Hello, Does anyone know what type of molasses to use to feed yeast to grow a volume? Sorghum molasses is unprocessed and black strap is what's left after sugar refinement? Please help Doug Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 12:36:24 +0000 From: "A.J deLange" <ajdel at cox.net> Subject: Alcohol Content Yes, you can estimate the alcohol content from the difference between the true and apparent extracts. The catch is that the multiplier depends somewhat (but not too strongly) on the original extract. For example at OE of 1 P the multiplier is 2.2010 and at 20 P it is 2.2483. You can do a linear interpolation between these extremes and come up with a number which is pretty close to the tabulated ones if you have any idea about the original extract or just use a value half way between these two numbers, . Note that the true and apparent readings are in Plato and that the resulting alcohol concentration is by weight. Example: apparent extract is 2 P and true extract 4 P. Multiplying by 2.2246 (half way between the extreme values above) gives 4.45% ABW and multiplying this by 1.25 gives 5.56% ABV. Needless to say, this is not a high accuracy estimate. A. J. Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 09:16:21 -0500 From: Jeff Renner <jeffrenner at comcast.net> Subject: Re: Wheat questions Chet Nunan <katjulchet at yahoo.com> writes from apparently somewhere in the Pacific time zone: >I'm planning to make a hefe-weizen and am considering >using all wheat malt (except for some hulls). I do an >infusion mash in a cooler - will this convert an all >wheat mash? Or does it require a step mash? You can certainly do a single step mash though with all wheat, a short protein rest might not hurt. I've done 70% wheat (no hulls) with a single step with no trouble. >Also, my homebrew supplier carries both white wheat >and red wheat - is one preferable to the other in an >all wheat mash (easily convertable in a single step >infusion mash)? White wheat has lower tannin levels in the bran layer, so it would potentially be a better choice, but it's hard to say if it would make a practical difference. It's always my choice, though. >While I'm on the subject, how about an all malted oat >beer? Would a single step infusion mash do the trick 100% malted oats would be a challenge, I think. I did a midieval recreation of a dark ale with 50% home malted oats (before commercially malted oats were available here). It produced a viscous beer that took forever to lose its oily (10W30) viscosity. As I recall, the runoff went fairly well. I wrote Fawcett Malting http://www.fawcett-maltsters.co.uk, the producer of malted oats that are available in the US, about this product, and got this reply from James Fawcett (parts 1-3 were on brown and amber malt): "3) Oat malt laboratory worts are normally slightly hazy rather than clear. Oats are not normally low in protein and are quite difficult to modify from a protein viewpoint, which could well explain this. Our current stock gives values of 11.8 % total protein with an index of modification of 27.8%. "4) As far as mash schedules are concerned we would suggest you ensure temperatures are between 63 degrees C and 68 degrees C during mashing in with a one hour minimum stand after mashing in a grist composed of 50% oat malt and 50% lager malt. "5) You should aim at a liquor/grist ratio of between 2.5:1 and 3:1. "6) Oat malt needs very close mill settings to achieve an acceptable grist. For normal malts our standard mill setting is 62 thou top and 58 thou bottom- for oat malt we drastically reduce these settings to 48 thou top and 42 thou bottom. Certainly a point to watch to produce an optimal grist for mashing." Please report back on your results. Jeff - -- Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan USA, JeffRenner at comcast.net "One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943 Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 11:59:07 -0500 From: Jeff Renner <jeffrenner at comcast.net> Subject: Re: Burton-on-Trent water and Sulfate additions Fred Johnson wrote from Apex, North Carolina, USA: >Jeff recently posted the use of gypsum to achieve the sulfate >content of Burton-on-Trent water: > >>... Burton-on-Trent water that was famous for >>pale ale. Primarily among these ions are calcium and sulfate, and I >>think that adding just CaSO4 (gypsum) is sufficient. You typically >>add a teaspoon per five gallons ... Actually, I didn't intend to mean that this would achieve Burton-on-Trent salt levels, but rather than one would typically use this level for typical beers, not historic IPAs, to achieve at least 50 ppm Ca+2. A teaspoon of gypsum (not Burton salts) would give about 60 ppm ca++ and 150 ppm SO4-2 (see below). This is a reasonable level for many beers, you might want to add more for pale ales and bitters for the sulfate. Terry Foster (_Pale Ales_) suggests 100-200 ppm for Ca+2 and 200-500 ppm for SO4+2 for pale ales and bitters. I find the upper level rather high. )For lagers and dark ales, I like to use CaCl2). >What values are being used by other calculators? And how wide is the >range of values reported for Burton-on-Trent water? Foster suggests that a teaspoon of gypsum weighs 5 grams, and this is about what I get, which he says will give the levels I gave above, 60/150. He suggests these ranges for Burton water: Calcium, Ca++ 270-300 ppm Magnesium, Mg++ 20-40 Sodium, Na+ 20-30 Bicarbonate, HCO3-1 200-250 Sulfate, SO4-2 450-700 Chloride, Cl-1 35-40 Last summer I made a historic 1.072 British IPA with a gizillion IBUs (well, actually 100+ calculated, but that much doesn't go into solution) based on recipes in the Durden Park Beer Circle's _Historic British Beers and How to brew Them_. I used the lower range of these values. My water has a bicarbonate level upwards of 200ppm. I used all pale Maris Otter malt, and was pleased to see that the Ca++ and the malt overcame the bicarbonate alkalinity to give me a normal mash pH. I didn't calculate residual alkalinity, just flew by the seats of my pants. It has turned out very well with no harshness whatsoever, which I was concerned with, but it needs more time to mellow the bitterness. Hope this helps. I can't address your Promash questions as I drive a Mac and so don't use it. I am going to get an old PC laptop, though, so I can. Jeff - -- Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan USA, JeffRenner at comcast.net "One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943 Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2004 13:47:56 -0600 From: Eric Schoville <eric at schoville.com> Subject: Culturing German Lager Yeast Hello all, Has anyone successfully cultured a German lager yeast from an import? If so, what have your results been and with which beers? I thought it might be interesting to try. I get to drink the beer, and use the yeast. Thanks! Eric Schoville Madison, WI Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2004 16:17:16 -0400 From: Kevin Brown <kbrown at uvi.edu> Subject: RE:micros in Paris My wife and I ended up at the 'Au Trappiste' bar almost everyday on our trip to Paris. Many Belgium beers and lots of good stuff on tap too. At that time (about 3 years ago) they also had a great "Happy Hour" special on mussels, lots of different sauce styles and a very hardy serving too. I highly recommend it.Some info on the place can be found here: http://www.paris-menus.com/en/01/trappiste/trappiste.htm Cheers, Kevin St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 23:05:23 +0100 From: "Fredrik" <carlsbergerensis at hotmail.com> Subject: CO2 saturation dynamics > > Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 16:50:04 -0500 > > From: "Dave Burley" <Dave_Burley at charter.net> > > Subject: Twoey's old metab 'ite, bubble counting,Clinit*st Dave, I remember that you pointed these things out before to me :) but I also said I think the dynamics can be worked out, I am stubborn enough to not give up until it works or until the failure is written in my forehead. I haven't posted any formulas because I don't want to obscure the ideas with technical solutions that tend to be very unreadable to many. I prefer to focus on the target, and if one tool doesn't do it, on with the next. The technical solutions are not the interesting part to me, and second I am still working on the entire thing, so it's not yet settled. So I may only add confusion by posting something that's not done. A beer is certainly a non-equilibrium system, which is also the reason why I think there is need for a computer simulation. It is a framework, and you can easily replace the CO2 subset for another one as improvements are found. But just as a basic idea so far to maybe resolve some misunderstandings, I've put some formulas on this page regarding the CO2 dynamics on the link. It's too messy to write math in emails, there may be typos but it's the idea that's important. It's just taken from my old paper notes so beware. I'll probably regret posting this at this point(!) because there may be faults in there but anway: http://hem.bredband.net/frerad/beer/CO2dyn.jpg Some explanations: "Production" means the CO2 produced by yeast at any time. Of course this involves a whole set of equations itself that are coupled to these ones, but that should not be relevant to the CO2 discussion. the parameters k2,k3,k4 all depend on temperature and wort composition. I'm assuming a basic arrhenius form of these temperature dependances. The dependance on wort composition, sugars etc can most certainly be worked out, it is probably available as tables somewhere. I didn't post these, because it's only gets unreadable. They are supposed to be functions. Once you've got these DE's you can just plug them into excel and do the simulation. The backpressure is the back momentum from the bubbling. this was just an idea, I haven't fiddled yet to see if its' significant. There may be more issues like this, that will be added in the end. Maybe the formulas made the idea more clear. I know you know alot about this Dave so if you can find anything obviously wrong in the ideas it would be great. I have not been focusing on the CO2 part at all because I don't think that is the troublesome part, though it certainly has some issues but the yeast thing is the heavy part, at least for me. Eventually of course the entire model will be simulated and debugged and then tested against some real batches to tune in all the unknown parameters. I have some backup plans in case I will observe some resonance phenommenon in the airlock at certain flow rates. I haven't estimated the resonant frequencey yet, but in theory there might be some resonance phenomena. But if that is the case I will model that too. Still of course there will be an element of unpredictability since the initial conditions are not known, but that is a problem of reality, not a problem of the modelling. /Fredrik Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 15:32:39 -0800 From: "Brian Schar" <schar at cardica.com> Subject: Multi-tier infusion mashing system I am planning to build some kind of stand for a multi-tier infusion mashing system. Currently, my hot-liquor tank is my brew kettle; I place the mash tun on the ground next to the kettle and fill it. I then move the mash tun up onto an old cooler, put the kettle on the ground and drain the mash tun into the kettle. Then I have to lift the full kettle onto my burner. The problem is that my kettle is a 15 gallon Polarware, and trying to lift that sucker with 10+ gallons in it is impossible. My wife is a saint and helps me lift it. However, it's a hassle, and one of us is bound to get hurt at some point. I want to build a more-traditional 3-tier system for safety's sake. I also think I will brew more when it's easier to do, and I don't have to coordinate my brew schedule to match my wife's being home to help me heft the kettle. I am thinking about two options: 1) Buy one of those Wal-Mart turkey fryers as a hot liquor tank and use the propane burner underneath it to heat up the water. This option has the virtue of being cheap in terms of the HLT. However, it makes stand design more complex, because the top tier of the stand has to withstand the heat and/or flame produced by the burner. This puts me in metal-working land, potentially. 2) Use an Igloo cooler as an HLT, and purchase a pump such as a March pump. I can heat the water in the kettle, then pump it to the HLT. This option is more expensive, and brings AC power into the mix, but it may simplify the construction of the stand significantly. I could use good old wood or other material without worrying about the heat and flame from an HLT burner. Any opinions from HBD land? Brian Schar Menlo Park, CA Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 17:58:01 -0800 From: "Mike Sharp" <rdcpro at hotmail.com> Subject: RE: mass flow meters -S says: -S: "I wish I had time for a full response but ..." If that was an abbreviated response, I'd hate to see the full one. Good thing I'm several timezones away. Geez, you'd think I was recommending clinit*st to measure residual CO2! -S: "Mike portrays himself as an MFM expert" Oh no, not at all. I rely on my instrument vendors for that. Really. But if you'd called the vendor before you slammed me, you'd have found that the coriolis MFMs you were talking about don't read within two orders of magnitude of your needs. Forget a 500:1 turndown. It doesn't mean anything here. You're not trying to measure flow rates in the SCFM range! And you keep ignoring the pressure drop across the instrument that is required to get those numbers! -S: "I found a Brooks Quantim around 4L/min FS CO2 and an ABB unit around 2L/min." How about some model numbers? AFAICT, the Brooks is for liquids only. So is the ABB. The Brooks Quantim you describe carries the tag line: "Taking Coriolis Technology to the Low Flow Market." And in their market, they truly are. So I can see you might think they would be a good candidate, assuming they worked for gas. But let's see what they mean by "Low Flow," shall we? "Minimum full scale flow rate: 50 grams/hour" But the lowest value of measurement and control within the stated accuracy specifications is 5 grams/hour, and the zero stability is stated as "better than 0.5 gram/hour." More telling is the stated density range: "Density Range: 0.5 to 2.0 grams/cc Accuracy: +/-0.05 grams/cc Repeatability: +/-0.005 grams/cc" And what about the gas we're trying to measure? Well, in your words, we need to measure "a few ml per minute", and 3 std ml/min of CO2 is in the neighborhood of about 0.006 grams per minute. Unfortunately, the density of CO2 is a bit outside the 0.5 to 2.0 grams/cc range. Do I see a disconnect here? How do you propose *accurately* measuring a flow on the order of 0.006 g/min with this? Of course, as I said before, the only low-flow Brooks I can find is intended for liquids, not gases; thus, the source of Steve's disconnect. I can't find a gas version, so a model number would be worth more to me than reading several paragraphs of ranting about how ignorant I am. -S: "I haven't time to do a thorough search right now, but I see no reason based on the principles of operation why a coriolis meters can't be made with a full-scale of 500-1000ml/min." I see a reason. They're inherently mechanical. They measure mass by measuring the deflection of a vibrating tube. The process fluid must have enough mass to deflect the sensor tube. The literature is full of cautions regarding using Coriolis MFMs at low flows and with gases and vapors, because of this reason. -S: "Coriolis meters, unlike thermal units, measure true mass, so they are normally rated in grams per minute flow." Bull. You're being misleading. They both measure mass flow. Neither one "infers" mass flow as other meters must. The primary physical characteristic each one measures is directly related to mass flow. Come on, Steve. Instrument ratings are often specified in units according to the industry or process they're intended for. If it was a standard industry unit, you can bet there would be instruments rated in furlongs per fortnight. -S: "I'd like to find one around 1 or 2gm/minute." I presume you mean at max flow. You need one with a resolution about ten thousand times *less* than that, if you want to measure flows as low as 0.002 g/min of C02 gas. 2 g/min is about 1 std liter/minute for CO2. We all agree that this is a suitable upper limit for a 5 gallon fermentor. It's the lower limit that we disagree on. To get that sort of turndown in a coriolis MFM means you're going to have significant pressure drop across the sensor at max flow, because they are mechanical. Being mechanical, the energy to deflect the tube has to come from somewhere! How are you going to achieve this? -S: "Of course Mike should be aware that lower range meters exist for both technologies." Well, I'm certainly aware of thermal MFMs in the low ranges. If you recall, I pointed out a thermal MFM that goes from 0 to 20 std ml/min, full scale, and will tell you flow rate to within 0.2 std ml/min or 0.0004 g/minute for CO2. They don't require any pressure drop to function. And Brooks has (no doubt for a lot more money) a thermal MFM (model SLMF 60/61/63) that goes from 3 sccm to 2500 slpm with an accuracy of 1% of rate up to 1200 slpm and 1% FS above that. There are, no doubt, plenty of options for thermal MFMs. But I don't know of a single suitable coriolis MFM within two orders of magnitude of that range. In fact, for *low density* process fluids like gases, I don't know of a single coriolis MFM within 3 orders of magnitude of your requirement. Percent of rate accuracy isn't all that wonderful if it only holds true for relatively high rates. It's pretty well accepted that for mass flow measurement of industrial gases, you use thermal MFMs. What coriolis MFM will tell you gaseous CO2 mass flow to within 0.0004 g/minute? Face it Steve, they simply don't make a Coriolis MFM anywhere near the flow ranges you're talking about needing! "Low flow" for a coriolis MFM is on the order of hundreds of grams/hour. So arguing that a Coriolis MFM is more accurate and therefore better than a thermal MFM is ridiculous. That's like saying a forklift is ideal for putting beer in your fridge. It might be true if we were placing a PALLET of beers in a refrigerated warehouse. But it simply ain't true for a homebrewer. Regards, Mike Sharp Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 21:24:06 -0500 From: "William Erskine" <werskin at sympatico.ca> Subject: Making a beer with 2 kits. Dear kit brewers, Does anyone have any experience with making a batch of beer using 2 Cooper's kits and no other ingredients? The instructions say to add the can of extract (from a hopped kit) and 1 kg. of dextrose. I've done this and ended up with cidery beer. My local homebrew supply doesn't sell Coopers unhopped malt extract, even though I've asked. This is also not something I want to order by mail-order.I am suspicious of their dry malt extract. I'm afraid it's 5 years old and stale. So while I am acquiring the equipment for all grain which I am anxious to start, I thought I might try brewing a batch with two kits done to 23 litres of volume. Does this produce a beer with two much bitterness? Is it too high in alcohol? Please note: I would not be boiling it this time. Thanks for your insight. William Erskine London, Ontario. Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 03/02/04, by HBD2HTML v1.2 by KFL
webmaster@hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96