Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - narcout

Pages: 1 ... 23 24 [25] 26 27 ... 103
General Homebrew Discussion / Re: Pics of recent brews?
« on: May 06, 2016, 09:57:31 AM »
Duvel definitely looks more like yours, ie., pale and clear. I wonder if there's some Aromatic or Vienna (or similar) in the Pranqster giving it the more gold hue.

Haven't picked up any Duvel yet, but here's a comparison against Damnation (which is on the left; and sorry for the terrible photo).  The color was much closer.

The flavor was also pretty close.  Damnation has a touch more mouthfeel and is a little bit fruitier in both flavor and aroma.  I feel like I could almost clone it with a few changes.  What I really want to do is figure out how to get a bit more yeast character.

Homebrew Competitions / Re: 2016 NHC
« on: May 03, 2016, 09:12:50 AM »
The checklist is not very verbose, however, I like the checklist.

I think I actually like the checklist scoresheet better than the regular scoresheet.

1.  I don't have a pump (yet) so that means having to VERY carefully pour pitchers of strike water into the cooler, without over oxygenating somehow.

Do you have a ball valve on either your BK or your HLT?  If so, you could heat strike water there and gravity feed it into the bottom of the mash tun through some high temp tubing.

That is what I started doing a while back when I became leery of picking up a full kettle of scalding water.

Yeah, that's exactly my concern. I like to experiment, so I'm not against the idea of giving it a shot. But being a cooler masher, the realities of excluding O2 completely so I could notice the (assumed) results are daunting.

I don't see why it would be any more difficult to pull off with a cooler mashtun.  There are brewers on the GBF are doing it.

For someone like myself who doesn't brew a lot of lagers, there are a lot of new techniques to learn.  However, after reading through the paper a few times, they seem doable.  I'm sure I will screw a few things up along the way, and there will be definitely be a learning curve.

Things I will have to learn:

-Correct strike water temperature for no sparge (with a higher volume of strike water, I will probably have to mash in at a lower temperature than usual)

-Correct water temperature and volume for hitting the 72C rest (I might due a single temp mash while I try to get everything else nailed down)

-The effect of doughballs and possible uneveness of mash temperature due to minimal or no stirring during mash in

-How high to set burners for target of 10% evaporation (I typically boil for 90 minutes and have a much higher evaporation rate)

-Getting to pitch temperature using an immersion chiller (ground water here is too hot; I will have to employ a pre-chiller or get a pump for re-circulating ice water; I also need to buy an SS chiller)

-Timing the racking properly so there is enough extract left to carbonate naturally utilizing the spunding valve (ordered the parts for the valve yesterday)

Ales supposedly benefit as well, so I might try that first.  That will at least help with the chilling issue.


Did you say mill? This is German, many craft breweries have these. Sierra Nevada, Bells, Firestone Walker to name three. I remember from Sierra Nevada Beer Camp back in 2009, they said they were milling under N2.

There is quite a bit in that marketing brochure about minimizing contact with oxygen.

The paper advocates pitching yeast first and then oxygenated/aerating to a target of 8ppm DO.

Shouldn't whether or not the process works be the only thing that matters?  What is the relevance of another brewer's opinion or how commercial breweries operate?

This should be tested the same way as everything else - brew the beer (following the instructions exactly as written with no shortcuts or substitutions) and set up a blind triangle test.

Given the zeal to prove these guys wrong, the best tasting panel would include people who aren't aware of the background and aren't biased against the GBF crew.

Edit - this is one my must see list. Several have said they make the best Pilsner they have had.

That is so cool; I never saw that page of the wiki before.

I don’t see how these process changes can be rejected based on the past actions or the attitude of the people who suggested them but other changes require blind triangle tastings and consideration of p values to make that determination.

We could come up with a thousand different hypotheses about why this is bunk (and maybe it is), but seriously – why not just try it if you're interested?

The mini mash test requires only SMB, mason jars, and maybe 2 hours of time.  I just ordered some SMB.  I’m going to give it a shot and post my results in a separate thread. 

NB flat rate shipping to CA is pretty slow, so I probably won’t be able to do it until the weekend after next.

Where are you seeing that in the paper?

I don't like the taste of wort, but I'd be interested in trying it to see if I can tell a difference.

It's not in the paper, but it has been suggested on the German Brewing Forum by the folks who authored the paper. 

There is a mini-mash test outlined that involves a side by side mash of a few ounces of grain in mason jars.  The only additional equipment needed for that would be the sodium metabisulfite (assuming you have jars).  You could then do a blind triangle tasting of the worts.  It wouldn't require much time, is no one interested in even that?

To me, it reads more like a recipe with a detailed guide on how to brew it than a scientific paper that requires peer review.

It seems like people are bending over backwards to discredit processes they haven't actually tried.  What's the value in that?

If you don't want to try it, don't try it.  It's really not a big deal either way.

We are happy to announce the re-opening of the German Brewing Forum. We look forward to seeing you over there and viewing our latest announcement.


That is a very interesting paper you all have put together; I really enjoyed reading it. 

Beer Recipes / Re: Belgian Red X
« on: April 25, 2016, 09:39:54 AM »
Well, I got it done.

From my previous experience with Red X, I knew it was more acidic than Bru'n Water would project so I targeted a mash pH in Bru'n Water of 5.54.  Actual mash pH was measured at 5.34.

General Homebrew Discussion / Re: Rube Goldberg Part Two
« on: April 24, 2016, 03:04:33 PM »

There are DO meters and digital refractometers available that are not outside the range of a homebrewer's budget.
Oh yeah?

Some of the folks on the German Brewing forum recommended this DO meter (it's $250):

Morebeer sells a digital refractometer for $199, and there other models available I've seen people using.

I don't have personal experience with any of these, but I've been thinking about the DO meter.

Pages: 1 ... 23 24 [25] 26 27 ... 103