HOMEBREW Digest #5804 Sun 13 March 2011

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

		Digest Janitor: pbabcock at hbd.org


        Logic, Inc. - Makers of Straight A Cleanser

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

DONATE to the Home Brew Digest. Home Brew Digest, Inc. is a 
501(c)3 not-for-profit organization under IRS rules (see the
FAQ at http://hbd.org for details of this status). Donations
can be made by check to Home Brew Digest mailed to:

HBD Server Fund
PO Box 871309
Canton Township, MI 48187-6309

or by paypal to address serverfund@hbd.org. DONATIONS of $250 
or more will be provided with receipts. SPONSORSHIPS of any 
amount are considered paid advertisement, and may be deductible
under IRS rules as a business expense. Please consult with your 
tax professional, then see http://hbd.org for available 
sponsorship opportunities.

  Mash water treatment ("Mike Maag")
  SRM/Lovibond ("A. J. deLange")
  SRM vs. Lovibond (Fred L Johnson)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy! * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * NOTE: With the economy as it is, the HBD is struggling to meet its meager operating expenses of approximately $3500 per year. If less than half of those currently directly subscribed to the HBD sent in a mere $5.00, the HBD would be able to easily meet its annual expenses, with room to spare for next year. Please consider it. Financial Projection As of 10 Mar 2011 *** Condition: Green & Healthy *** Projected 2011 Budget $3271.04 Expended against projection $ 950.64 Projected Excess/(Shortfall) $1870.50 As always, donors and donations are publicly acknowledged and accounted for on the HBD web page. Thank you 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. JANITORs on duty: Pat Babcock (pbabcock at hbd dot org), Jason Henning, Spencer Thomas, and Bill Pierce
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 13:04:08 -0600 From: "Mike Maag" <mikemaag at comcast.net> Subject: Mash water treatment The city water lab guy says the water has 120 ppm Total Alkalinity, and 145 ppm Total Hardness. I brewed a Dry Irish Stout last week, and had trouble getting the pH right. It was 4.8 I initially, and took 2 Tablespoons calcium carbonate, and 3 teaspoons sodium bicarbonate (in a 10 gallon brew, 7 gallons mash water, 22 lbs. grist) to get the pH to 5 2. Just kegged it, and it tastes great. Regarding mash water treatment, would it be good to pre treat with phosphoric acid? Would it be good to boil it first? Beers with just a little dark grains come to around 5 2 pH. by themselves. Pale beers need 4 teaspoons of calcium chloride. What would you do this water for dark, amber, and pale beers? Cheers! Mike Maag, Shenandoah Valley Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 22:03:46 -0500 From: "A. J. deLange" <ajdelan at gmail.com> Subject: SRM/Lovibond Apparently 430 nm as the wavelength and the scaling by 10 WRT half inch absorption were chosen by Miller and Stone when the SRM was proposed in order to have it track the Lovibond system. Recall that the work which led to the definition of the SRM scale was based on beers no darker than 7 SRM (IIRC) so that it is is clear that the correspondence wouldn't be expected to be very good at colors more intense than this. But that was all just after WWII. Today the only path I was able to come up with connecting SRM and Lovibond is based on a table on Weyermann's site which ties Lovibond to EBC color and as the relationship between EBC and SRM is known, that's how I got the SRM to Lovibond conversion. It does not, of course, correspond to the SRM at low color intensity and even has the interesting feature that 0 deg. L corresponds to -0.76 SRM! SRM and Lovibond are really apples and oranges. One is measured in terms of the spectral absorption at 430 nm and the other by visual comparison of a sample of the beer with colored glass discs of labeled intensity. In fact today Lovibond tintometers use photometry to measure the entire absorption spectrum and map that into the Lovibond numbers but I have never been able to find the mapping. IOW if I have the absorption spectrum I cannot calculate the Lovibond number but as the Lovibond company can do I could to if I knew the algorithm A.J. Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2011 07:01:28 -0400 From: Fred L Johnson <FLJohnson52 at nc.rr.com> Subject: SRM vs. Lovibond The wikipedia site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Reference_Method#cite_note-2 describes SRM and relates it to the older Lovibond system. Apparently, the intent of the SRM system and its measurement was to make the values equivalent. In support of this notion, there is table on the web site with a column labeled SRM/Lovibond, and the column has a single value for SRM/Lovibond for each color sample. However, the web site also states that the relationship between SRM and Lovibond is: SRM=1.3546 x Lovibond - 0.76 I am completely confused now. How can the two systems be equivalent with such a formula? (I'm hoping AJ deLange will shed some light on this--pun intended--since he has studied this more than anyone I know.) Fred L Johnson Apex, North Carolina, USA Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 03/14/11, by HBD2HTML v1.2 by KFL
webmaster@hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96