HOMEBREW Digest #4532 Sun 02 May 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 *********

  Apple beer (John Harvey)
  Beer Engines ("Dan Listermann")
  Fw: Looking for Answers ("Jim Fisk")
  Re: Beer engines (Bill Wible)
  Re: looking for answers ("Spencer W. Thomas")
  Aitkens and Beer ("Graham L Sanders")
  Party! (RoadGlyn)
  Tap labels ("Val J. Lipscomb")
  Re: Barley in beer ("-S")
  How to (not to) calculate the mix temperature ("-S")
  How to (not to) calculate the mix temperature(2) ("-S")

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 00:36:39 -0700 (PDT) From: John Harvey <theharv0157 at yahoo.com> Subject: Apple beer I'm interested in brewing an apple beer. Something somewhere between a farmhouse cider and a beer. In searching the archives I have found little information or recommendations on how to do so. As far as flavor profile, I'm looking for a nice summer beer; something with a malt character and body, but with a definite apple flavor and aroma. Not just a hint, but something that is clearly an "apple beer." I'm not opposed to high alcohol, but it isn't necessary. (No lawn to mow!) Specifically I'm interested in: 1) What type of apple? Cider? Whole fruit? Concentrate? 2) Hopping. How bitter, what kind, and how much (if any) flavor/aroma hopping. 3) What type of yeast to use. Estery or clean, high or low attenuation? 4) Crystal malt, I assume some sweetening is beneficial, and I'd like some malt flavor and head retention. 5) Mash schedule? I'm doing all-grain and was thinking 45:45:10 pils:wheat:crystal, mashed at ~155 for body/sweetness. Any opinions or suggestions are greatly appreciated. TIA, John Harvey Miami, Fl Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 08:41:23 -0400 From: "Dan Listermann" <dan at listermann.com> Subject: Beer Engines Jim Cave asks about making a beer engine. I have built two prototypes for product development. They weren't as easy as I had initially imagined. At the moment we have material at the machinist's shop for our first production run. I need to work on a table top mounted version to get things under way and then proceed to bar and fridge door mountings. Dan Listermann Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 09:53:13 -0400 From: "Jim Fisk" <jimbogrq at comcast.net> Subject: Fw: Looking for Answers The instructions for my latest brew said to break the grain husks with a rolling pin but my wife suggested, "why not use the coffee grinder?" which I did. The results were a coarse powder. I tasted the brew just before botteling and found it quite bitter. I have been told that a few extra weeks, perhaps 6 or 8, in the bottle will soften that bitterness and give a pleasant result. Has anyone had this experience before? Appreciate any comments. Jim Fisk Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 10:46:40 -0400 From: Bill Wible <bwible at pond.com> Subject: Re: Beer engines Here's a nice site for beer engines and other English Pub Paraphenalia. They are located in Lancaster, PA (which should be less in shipping than from the UK) They have several versions of handpumps, half and quarter pint pull, bar table games, real English 'nonick' pint glasses, casks, cask equipment, on and on. I love this stuff. http://www.ukbrewing.com No affiliation, yada, yada Bill Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 11:09:26 -0400 From: "Spencer W. Thomas" <spencer at umich.edu> Subject: Re: looking for answers Jim Fisk asks why his brew made with grains that he ground in the coffee grinder is "bitter." My guess is that your problem stems from the pulverized husks that you got from your coffee grinder. The husks are full of compounds such as tannins and poly-phenols that you don't want in your beer. The good news is that these will eventually combine ("complex") with other compounds in your beer and will settle out, reducing the negative flavor effects. But in the future, don't *do* that! For brewing purposes, we want to crush the grain, not grind it. I'm wondering whether "bitter" is quite the right term to apply. I would expect astringency from the ground up husk material, but not necessarily bitterness. Do you get a drying or puckering sensation on the back of your tongue and in your mouth tissues? That's astringency. =Spencer Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 1 May 2004 11:18:51 +1000 From: "Graham L Sanders" <craftbrewer at bigpond.com> Subject: Aitkens and Beer G'Day All Its been one of those interesting lifes experiences recovering from my little accident. Having a rib cage that has more breaks than an American Football game, (no sorry about that, nothing I know of has that many breaks), you get good at modifying certain bodily functions. While its a blessing that I dont have to have s*x with SWMBO, something no man (or creature) should have to experience, one certainly fears it when a sneeze comes on. Over the last month, I have been good at avoiding these, and lately even if one makes its presence, you stifle it to a ladies muffle, and not a full blown male cyclone that pins peoples ears back. Now I decided to really let one go, despite the fear of pain, as a result of seeing my ribcage on a CT scan, where my ribs zigs-zags worse than George Bush explanations. My bush doctoring recons that the increase pressure of a sneeze will help set things, by pushing things in shape. So a sniff of pepper, and on it came. Well can I recommend you dont do this. After letting go a few choice words, you find - IT HURTS LIKE BLOODY HELL!!!!!!!!. More interesting, I heard and felt more clicks in my chest than a pacemaker. But I didn't drop dead in the next five minutes, so I hope it did me good. Anyway, I have been giving the odd sneeze it freedom to express itself. Its interesting feeling your insides every time you do it. Now I have to weigh in with all this crap on low carb beers and the article on BYO. Now I see the point of both Steve A and Chris Colby, but I find I have to fall, in general, well into Steve's camp. The article totally lost credibility with me as soon as it tried to tie in the Aitkins diet and Low Carb beer. >>>>>>>>A serious analysis of the actual sorts of carbs present in beer would indeed be of interest to "hard core" Atkins types.<<<<<< Any-one who perpetuated this bloody myth that the Aitkens diet is all about the sort of carbohydrates should be thrown into a local billabong. Anyone who tries to justify Aitkens to beer, should be thrown into SWMBO's bed. Aitkens diet is nothing more simple than any other diet. Its a simple rule, calories in verses calories out. More in, you gain weight, - less in, you lose weight. Simply put to those who dont know, Aitkens diet works on the principle of cutting out carbo-hydrates and you can eat as much protein and fat as you like. This sounds magical, as you dont count your intake and people rattle off all these carbohydrate theories to justify this. The truth is - "it works because protein suppresses appetite." A diet extremely high in proteins will actually make you eat less. Eat less, even fat, and you lose weight. Its that simple. Ever seen a fat lion on the plains....Wish people would not extrapolate these things to beer. Although you wonder those mad old English brewers chucking dead chooks into the barrels may be onto something. On FWHing, I hate to agree with Dave >>>>>>I have been unimpressed with the effect in my experiments<<<<<< I have to agree. I find the results very inconsistent. Randy asked >>>>>>>Has anyone else noticed that some hop strains flavours survive the boil when FWH'ing and other strains do not?<<<<<< I have gone right off FWHing due to its inconsistency. I find its not so much different strains, but different ages of the hops, as well as how well they have been stored - ie the deterioration of the hops. I believe this inconsistence is all to do with the natural oxidisation of the hop oils. FWHing seems to let people down when the oils have progressed past a "mystical "point where the by products dont show themselves in the finished beer. Fresh hops (say up to 3 months old) seem to impart a good FWH flavour, but after that the results get very variable. We as craftbrewers, have a real problem with our supply of hops. Most of us just get our hops from the local store, and most stores dont tell us the date of harvest of the hops. Now do we know really how well they are treated. Because of that, I believe its this lack of reference data that makes FWHing mystical. My bet is better experiments correlated to age/condition of hops will shown it only works with fresh hops. Thats certainly my experience. Now off to sniff some white powder. Shout Graham Sanders oh Had to laugh at this comment on the digest. >>>>>>Wasn't there some data on North America women drinking wine more than beer?<<<<< Just can't see the fairer sex up this way turning up at the Bar-bie with a Chateau-de-Chunder in her hand. Unless she also has the bladder it came with in her handbag as well. Our girls are far more practical, just dont try to sneak a glass. Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 01 May 2004 13:47:01 -0400 From: RoadGlyn at netscape.net Subject: Party! Yes, I'm way behind on HBDs, sorry. I always take beer to a party! Is it always well received? Yes, maybe not always by the women. Maybe not by the host even. But there is always someone else there that enjoys it. I will add it is almost always well received by the host. At least you are bringing something! And if you made it!!! (all I take is homebrew, or craft brewed, now that Graham is back!) What type? What ever I have. Generally stouts or Belgians! Glyn in Sothern Middle TN Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 01 May 2004 15:26:28 -0500 From: "Val J. Lipscomb" <vlipscomb at satx.rr.com> Subject: Tap labels Greetings Keggers, I've been puzzling over how to label the taps on my converted fridge-kegerator. I ran across the answer purely by accident and thought I'd pass it on. I bought some printable business card size fridge magnets from <www.magnetvalley.com> and printed my own. I was very pleased at the price and the shipping time;cost was $14.04 for 5 sheets of 10 cards and ordered on Wednesday,arrived on Saturday. They worked great in my inkjet printer and I'm ready to put them on the fridge above the taps. Usual disclaimers apply,no financial or personal interest in the company,just a satisfied old brewer. Val Lipscomb-brewing in strangely chilly San Antonio Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 2 May 2004 07:36:38 -0400 From: "-S" <-s at adelphia.net> Subject: Re: Barley in beer Jeff writes ... >Steve Alexander <-s at adelphia.net> wrote: > >>My experience when malting 6-row feed barley, [...] >> somewhat offensive >>phenolic flavors when used in large quantity. > >This was not my experience at all. My point wasn't that all 6-row feed barley tastes badly phenolic in beer, merely that some commonly available 6-row barley does. Mine came from in 50lb sacks as horse feed. Two samples, different sources. It's a great experience to home malt and make beer from the result, but mine had a background flavor, that was negative. Glad I made it, but not about to make this a regular feature until I can get a controlled source of barley. My attempts to grow 2-row here have failed - I get nice growth and seed formation (on the 2nd try) but it's too wet in Fall here (field mice had a nice Autumn tho'). I should point out that phenolic matter in malt is much more accessible (leachable) than the raw grain so it might be possible to use this same feed barley raw and in quantity with better results. -S Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 2 May 2004 11:33:12 -0400 From: "-S" <-s at adelphia.net> Subject: How to (not to) calculate the mix temperature Dan Morey writes ... > Units please! Mixing SI and English units in calculations [..] Dan was quite confused as he misunderstood that the eqn I posted was unitless (not dimensionless). Calculation of the mix temp for infusion only requires a dimensional analysis and the unitless Specific Heat of the materials. I understand why you are confused - many websites define "specific heat" and "[specific] heat capacity" the same and they are in error. Here is a similar proper definition: http://reference.allrefer.com/encyclopedia/S/specheat.html M&BS purposely gives specific heat of malt as unitless and they obviously meant this as the ratio of heat acpacity to that of water. When we say malt has a specific heat of 0.39 it means that it takes 39% as much energy to raise the temp of malt as it does water (15C is the reference). [[ on review it may not be so much of an error as the existence of conflicting definitions]]. > I believe that is 0.39 Btu/(lb*F) or 1.63 kJ/(kg*C) for "grain". It's numerically the same (0.39), if you choose the 'right' system of units. The heat capacity of water (Cw) is, Cw = 1 BTU/(lb*F) = 1 cal (gm*C) ***by definition*** [eqn 1] Sm = Cm / Cw = 0.39 (no units !) so obviously Cm = 0.39 BTU/(lb*F) = 0.39 cal/(gm*C) The ONLY thing above that has physical significance is that malt has 39% the heat capacity of water ! The rest are merely unit definitions and we can make up new ones at whim. Let me explain: If we have an object 'o' with the following properties: heat capacity = Co mass = Mo and we raise it's temperature by some incremental temperature, let's call it 'dT' then the energy 'E' require to increase the temp is [eqn 2] E = Co * Mo * dT This model is often a very good approximation for items that aren't undergoing a phase change . So here is the fundamental infusion mash puzzle: Q: We have a mass of water (Mw1) mixed with a mass of malt (Mm) at a mash-in temp T1. To this we add an infusion mass of water (Mw2) at temp T2. What is the mash temp (T3) after mixing the infusion in ? A: The mash-in water and malt change temperature by an amount (T3-T1) and the infusion water changes in temperature by an amount (T3-T2) [note T3-T2 is typically negative for infusion]. Using eqn 2: The initial water will change in energy by Ew1 = Cw * Mw1 * (T3-T1) The initial malt will change by Em = Cm * Mm * (T3-T1) The infusion water changes by Ew2 = Cw * Mw2 * (T3-T2) By conservation of energy: Ew1 + Em + Ew2 = 0 Substitution gives 0 = Cw * Mw1 * (T3-T1) + Cm * Mm * (T3-T1) + Cw * Mw2 * (T3-T2) divide by the heat capacity of water (Cw) and apply the definition of specific heat: 0 = Mw1 * (T3-T1) + Sm * Mm * (T3-T1) + Mw2 * (T3-T2) solving for T3 gives [eqn 3] T3 = ( T1 *(Mw1 + Sm * Mm) + T2 *Mw2 ) / (Mw1 + Mw2 + Sm *Mm) since Sm is for malt ~= 0.39 [eqn 3'] T3 = ( T1 *(Mw1 + 0.39*Mm) + T2*Mw2 ) / (Mw1 + Mw2 + 0.39*Mm) That's the answer, and we *NEVER* resorted to any system of units to derive this, so the eqn 3 works for all systems of units ! Example1: (US units) 10lbs of malt + 20 lbs of water at a mash-in of 104F. We add a boiling infusion of 20 lbs of water at 212F. What is the mix temp T3 from [eqn 3] ? T3 = (104F *(20lb + 0.39*10lb) + 212F*20lb ) / (20lb + 20lb + 0.39*10lb) T3 = 153.2 F - -- Example 2: (same as above but in SI units) T1 = 40C (104F), T2 = 100C (212F) Mw1 = Mw2 = 9.091kg (10lbs), Mm = 4.545 kg (10lb) T3 = ( 40C * (9.091kg + 0.39*4.545kg) + 100C*9.091kg ) / (9.0912kg + 9.091kg + 0.39*4.545kg) T3 = 67.33C - -- Note that 67.33C is identical with 153.2F ! The eqn works for any consistent units. You can even select units from different systems consistently throughout and it still works. Example 3: (same example, mixed units) T1 = 40C, T2 = 100C Mw1 = Mw2 = 20lb, Mm = 10lb T3 = (40C *(20lb + 0.39*10lb) + 100C*20lb ) / (20lb + 20lb + 0.39*10lb) T3 = 67.33C !!! == Systems of units are the hobgoblins of little minds when it comes to physical processes. The Sapir-Worf hypothesis states that language shapes thought and by analogy systems of units are *only* a language for communicating physical values, not intrinsic physical reality. [Even math is just a language - a disturbing thought]. [note - comment not directed at Dan, we all see the trees, but no forest at times.] -S Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 2 May 2004 12:11:35 -0400 From: "-S" <-s at adelphia.net> Subject: How to (not to) calculate the mix temperature(2) Dan continues, > I have a > 12 gallon stainless steel mash tun that weighs approximately 10 lbs. > specific heat of SS is approximately 0.11 Btu/(lb*F) Yes, we should account for our mash-tun too and Dan's figure for heat capacity of stainless is close enough. Dan is stating above that his tun has the total heat capacity of a 1.1lb of water - a little over a pint. Can't ignore it but not a big factor either. > Since the outside > surface must be "near" room temperature and the inside surface is at mash > temperature, OUCH !!! My baloney detector just went off. The outside of a stainless mash tun is NOT at room temp or even close. Have you never touched the exterior of your tun ? It's very near mash temp in minutes. Stainless is a not-great thermal conductor, but SS316 still has a thermal conductivity of 16.3W/(meter*C) which isn't low. Your tun w/ 12gal capacity must have a surface area around 0.8 sq.meter (sankes are abt 0.9sq.m) . At 10lbs (density=8gm/cc) this means the average thickness of Dan's tun is 0.07cm = 0.7mm = 0.0007meter So what happens if we have a sheet of 0.7mm stainless and one side is 65C *(mash temp) and the other side is held at 20C(room temp) ? There is conductive heat transfer at the rate of 16.3W/(m*C) * (65C-20C) / 0.0007m = ~1 million watts per square meter ! Over the 0.8 sq.meter surface that's 800kWatt of heat loss from the mash ! The ~12gal mash would start losing temperature to the room at about 4C/second rate if Dan's assertion was true ... it's not - it's baloney. ! More realistically if the tun above lost 0.2C per *minute* with a 65C mash vs 20C air temp (still high I think), then the tun exterior would measure some 64.96C, just 0.04C less than the interior at steady state. The reality is that the tun reaches very close to mash-temp and the low conductivity, low heat capacity room air is where most of the temp the gradient appears. > we can estimate the average temperature of the mash tun is the > average of the mash and room temperatures.[...] > 0.11 Btu/(lb*F) * 10 lbs * 1/2 = 0.55 Btu/F That factor of "1/2" should be a factor of 0.9991... and then we should add a small term for the room air. For a very good estimate just include 100% of the tun capacity. The 10lbs of 316 stainless has a heat capacity like 1.2 lbs of water (specific heat is 0.12). == Dan then calculates the rate of temp drop in his mash system ... > Te is the ending mash/step temperature [...] > To predict the ending temperature: > Te = (Ti-Tr)exp(-UA*t/C) + Tr So "ending temperature" is now time dependent ? I think T(t) = Tr + (Ti-Tr) exp(-Ua * t/ C) is better terminology. This is the standard rate eqn for conductive heat loss. All it says is that the mash temp approaches the room temp from it's initial temp at an exponential decay type rate. The temp loss rate (half life if you will) the energy per unit temp change (Dan's 'C') and the conductivity to the ambient environment (Dan's 'UA' term). It ignores convective and radiative losses (which aren't completely negligible) but still it's good enough. To rebut Dan's out of sequence defense, of this point ... the convection loss and radiative loss do not follow an e^(-xt) time dependence relationship so the above eqn does not model these. Good enough for practical use so long as you ignore Dan's assumption that the tun exterior is at room temp which would make UA huge. I'm not exactly sure what the practical brewing value of estimating the temp loss rate is, but then again I have a heated tun and don't care very much. Thermo controlled systems don't care either. If I was planning on straight infusion (no heating) as my primary method then I would mash in a well insulated tun or a gott cooler or whatever - and then again I wouldn't care about the rate of loss much. Commercial mashes have such great heat capacity compared to their small surface that the heat loss is trivial. Perhaps for overnight mashers ? I don't see the need, but the method of calculation is good for practical use.. -S Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 05/02/04, by HBD2HTML v1.2 by KFL
webmaster@hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96