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 - kgs

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 64
16
Ingredients / Re: Bru'n Water calculations for a rye IPA
« on: January 07, 2017, 09:18:08 AM »
Looks fine. Somewhere between 5.3 and 5.4 should be good. While I prefer the high sulfate of the pale ale profile, its safer to start low and see where your preference lays. The good thing with gypsum, is that you can still dose your beer after fermentation.

I suggest you figure out how much gypsum it would take to bring the sulfate content of a glass of your finished beer from your 150 ppm target to the 300 ppm range. Its going to be a teeny amount. Then add to a glass of beer and mix in. It should dissolve in a minute or so. Taste the stock and gypsumed beers and see which you prefer. Do be careful to keep the carbonation and temperature similar for both samples. The higher gypsum dose should make the beer finish drier. That may be a desirable or undesirable effect, depending on the style, the bittering level, and your tastes. Adding post-fermentation gypsum is especially useful when you've created a beer that seems too full or sweet.

You don't have to accept where the beer finished up, if its too full or sweet.

Thanks, Martin! Good tips overall -- I didn't know I could add gypsum after the fact.

17
Ingredients / Bru'n Water calculations for a rye IPA
« on: January 07, 2017, 08:34:47 AM »
This is an attempt to calculate water adjustments for a 3-gallon batch of a rye IPA. (No sparge.) I used the pale ale profile in Bru'n Water but took advice to keep sulfates below 150 ppm. For 6 gallons of RO mash water, I come up with 6 grams of gypsum, 1.5 grams of calcium chloride, and 6 ml of 25% phosphoric acid. Does this look right?

Bru'n Water v.4.0   Water Adjustments         
Denny's Wry Smile Half Batch            
            
Profiles (ppm)   Exist   Mash   Finished   
Ca      0   81   81
Mg      0   0   0
Na      0   8   8
SO4      0   148   148
Cl      0   36   36
HCO3      0   -32   NA
SO4/Cl Ratio            4.1
            
Batch Volume      3.0   Gallons   
Total Mash              6.0   Gallons   
Mash Dilution      6.0   Gallons   
Total Sparge      0.0   Gallons   
Sparge Dilution      0.0   Gallons   
Estimated Mash pH      5.32   SU   
            
Mineral Additions (gm)   Mash   Sparge      
Gypsum      6.0   0.0   
Calcium Chloride      1.5   0.0   
Epsom Salt      0.0   0.0   
Mag Chloride          0.0   0.0   
Canning Salt      0.0   0.0   
Baking Soda      0.0   Not Recommended   
Chalk      0.0   Not Recommended   
Pickling Lime      0.0   Not Recommended   
            
Mash Acid Additions                  
            0.0   (ml)
Phosphoric   25.0   %   6.0   (ml)
Sparge Acid Addtions            
Lactic   0.0   %   0.0   (ml)
            0.0   (ml)

18
Beer Recipes / Death & Taxes
« on: January 07, 2017, 08:03:48 AM »
Anyone have a recipe that is close to this local favorite?

19
I think no-sparge makes better beer than any other mashing process, for all beer types. I'll duck and cover now.
I don't think anyone ever said it didn't. I think most people don't do it is because you get lower efficiency and mashtun space is an issue.

Hmmm, maybe you're right. An unpopular method but a popular result.

Small batches again. I have been doing all my batches no-sparge for years now. 8 or 16 ounces more grain? Cheap. Mashtun space? No problem. I looked at the biggest recipes I could find, and as a 3-gallon batch it was easily doable in my 9-gallon mash tun.

20
I really didn't have an original goal with this thread other than to post interesting excerpts from my new (err old) book.

Where it got dodgy was when I started posting large chunks of the text, in picture form, on this thread. That's when people stepped in to make sure I wasn't doing anything unethical or illegal.

I've started compiling snippets related to references over seen of DeClerck in other papers/texts and will plan on putting them together in the near future.

There is no English WP entry for DeClerck as far as I know.

Oh, ok. I thought there was a goal to clarify poorly-cited references to de Clerck. Maybe that was in my head, as a librarian ;-)

21
All Grain Brewing / Re: Excerpts from DeClerck's "A Textbook of Brewing"
« on: January 06, 2017, 07:41:24 AM »
Siebel got back to me and the DeClerck family is the copyright holder. Siebel merely has the right to reprint the text. That explains the price. They likely only recoup the expense of printing with the $75.

Given the original task, copyright shouldn't be relevant, unless I'm misreading what the OP wants to do.

If the idea is to provide clear references for other books where the De Clerck book is quoted, one approach would be to create a bibliography listing those books, and then providing snippets from those books (a quoted sentence or two) with the correct pagination from De Clerck. Where De Clerck is cited but no reference is found... state that too.

One possible way to do this is to create a page that begins at the top with a crisp citation for your copy of De Clerck and then briefly note that this book is available in multiple imprints for different years (which appears to be the case; not sure about actual editions, but text can change even without edition changes). Then list the references alphabetically followed by the added references.

Nabisco, R.J. (1999). A handbook of cereal technology. New York: Cheerio Press.
"Reduction of enzymes in the production of breakfast cereal is similar to that used in the mashing process described in DeClerck's handbook (p. 342)." See De Clerck (1957), Chapter 7, pp. 50-59.

Or maybe I'm missing the goal here? Note, I'm rushing to get to work but I had trouble finding an English-language Wikipedia entry for Jean. Found it in other languages, though. That would be very useful. A virtual Wikipedia Edit-a-Thon for brewing people, technologies, and history could be an interesting activity.

22
I've contacted Siebel to see who owns the copyright for the text.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Note: assuming they do, don't rule out that a polite request would allow you to reproduce a few pages online. I've worked on licensing projects for books, and found that what my mother taught me ("Please and thank you are the magic words") opens a lot of doors.

My real goal is to assemble a PDF of the numerous excerpts that are referenced throughout brewing literature. One of the reasons I bought the text was out of frustration over seeing it referenced so many times and not being able to trace it back to DeClerck.

The publisher might really like that! You're doing the sort of work for a monograph that is now taken for granted for academic journals.

23
I've contacted Siebel to see who owns the copyright for the text.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Note: assuming they do, don't rule out that a polite request would allow you to reproduce a few pages online. I've worked on licensing projects for books, and found that what my mother taught me ("Please and thank you are the magic words") opens a lot of doors.

24
Will do. My research so far says fair use but I'm playing it fast and loose by doing pictures and such long portions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
As a librarian, I'd say so far ok, but at some point (and it's a fuzzy line) this will go beyond fair use. It's about the proportion of material used relative to the text. If it were just you and me, no problem.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Also, based on my years in the music biz, fair use is about YOU using something, not sharing it.  In effect, you can make copies for yourself but not others.

Fair use for music has always been much more limited than for other media. For textual works, fair use is more generous. Not arguing to reinstate the photos of the book pages, but Google Books wouldn't exist without this concept of fair use (q.v. Authors Guild v. Google), nor would I be able to request an ILL of a book chapter. Nolo Press has a good discussion.

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/fair-use-rule-copyright-material-30100.html

The phrase I recall from over the years is "systematic copying," such as the creation of coursepacks without first acquiring rights to copy the articles or chapters included in the coursepacks, which got U Georgia smacked down.

When in doubt, quote what is needed to make a point, and type it out, don't photocopy it (and of course, give it proper attribution). For one thing, that's more accessible, for people using text readers and other assistive devices (or reading on tiny phone screens).

25
I deleted all the content.

Here is the link for Siebel to purchase the text:

https://www.siebelinstitute.com/products/bookstore/a-textbook-of-brewing/

Used originals pop up on secondary markets occasionally.

Due to the fact that the reference of this book is nearly ubiquitous in all texts that followed it, if you have specific questions about references to it and can't find them, send me a PM and I'll find the references section and send it to you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's not widely held in libraries, but in case yours holds it, or can get it easily/cheaply via ILL:

http://www.worldcat.org/title/textbook-of-brewing/oclc/2800288


26
Equipment and Software / Re: Electric Brew In A Can (BIAC)
« on: December 31, 2016, 09:46:37 PM »

This is very tempting because I do own a pump, and can see this taking the place of the brewstand I was thinking of building. I have several questions for them (is the thermostat adjustable, can it handle smaller batches, etc.) but I'm definitely interested. I'd also like to figure out if I would be able to lift a basket of wet grain at or near max capacity, which at 16 lbs dry would be about 30 lbs wet, if the guideline that a lb of grain absorbs .1 gallon water is correct (16 lbs grain --> 1.6 gallons water --> ca. 15 lbs; + 16 = 31 lbs).
Here is a solution to your lifting concern.

http://www.brewinabag.com/collections/frontpage/products/pulley-metal-ratchet-250-lbs-capacity

This is assuming that you are brewing in the garage or basement (or your wife will let you put a eyebolt in the kitchen ceiling).  I use one of these for BIAB, works great.

Took me some head-scratching to figure out my response. Well... I'm a wife in a two-wife household... But back to brewing... I'd prefer to find an equipment design more mobile than one requiring a fixed winch. When I can't get to sleep I mentally work on the design of a mobile, highly accessible all-electric brewstand. I ask myself,  if I had very limited mobility, how would I move grain and fluid through this process? It's an interesting workflow problem. Pumps, gravity, and placement seem important to the design.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Oops...sorry if my attempt at humor was off :-[ ...but, as you said, back to brewing...I don't have limited mobility but I do have a bad back.  So here's what I came up with to deal with that.

https://www.homebrewersassociation.org/forum/index.php?topic=25940.0

It's not all electric but you may get some ideas for your brewing workflow system.  I can envision a roll-around stand made out of 2x4s with big caster wheels that has a peak for the lifting tackle.  The pump should be a must.  It really saves my back and has so many uses (mash circulation, several transfer uses, whirlpool, cleaning, etc., etc.).  Also the tall roll-around cart for the fermenter.

Your humor was fine--I did laugh (like "um how do I answer this"). IMO that's the advantage of brew clubs, brewing events, and conferences -- the chance to get past our digital selves and have some face-to-face celebration of our shared belief that no matter what else happens in this crazy world, malted barley wants to become beer.

I will add the roll-around stand with a lifting tackle to my insomnia exercises. I agree on pumps--they are magic. I have one, and don't use it much right now, but every time I do I'm impressed. In my late-night musings, I am trying to deal with the hot wet grain, and I'm a bit stumped. I wonder if that means the mash tun needs to be reimagined. The lifting tackle may offer some solutions.

27
Equipment and Software / Re: Electric Brew In A Can (BIAC)
« on: December 31, 2016, 07:53:56 PM »

This is very tempting because I do own a pump, and can see this taking the place of the brewstand I was thinking of building. I have several questions for them (is the thermostat adjustable, can it handle smaller batches, etc.) but I'm definitely interested. I'd also like to figure out if I would be able to lift a basket of wet grain at or near max capacity, which at 16 lbs dry would be about 30 lbs wet, if the guideline that a lb of grain absorbs .1 gallon water is correct (16 lbs grain --> 1.6 gallons water --> ca. 15 lbs; + 16 = 31 lbs).
Here is a solution to your lifting concern.

http://www.brewinabag.com/collections/frontpage/products/pulley-metal-ratchet-250-lbs-capacity

This is assuming that you are brewing in the garage or basement (or your wife will let you put a eyebolt in the kitchen ceiling).  I use one of these for BIAB, works great.

Took me some head-scratching to figure out my response. Well... I'm a wife in a two-wife household... But back to brewing... I'd prefer to find an equipment design more mobile than one requiring a fixed winch. When I can't get to sleep I mentally work on the design of a mobile, highly accessible all-electric brewstand. I ask myself,  if I had very limited mobility, how would I move grain and fluid through this process? It's an interesting workflow problem. Pumps, gravity, and placement seem important to the design.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

28
Will do. My research so far says fair use but I'm playing it fast and loose by doing pictures and such long portions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
As a librarian, I'd say so far ok, but at some point (and it's a fuzzy line) this will go beyond fair use. It's about the proportion of material used relative to the text. If it were just you and me, no problem.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

29
My opinion is that the default batch size of 5 gallons is an impediment to bringing new people into the hobby and keeping them brewing. While there are small-batch entry-level kits and plenty of ways to start small and keep going that way, the 5-gallon batch is the implicit default batch size, and it drives how long a typical brew day is, the average cost of a homebrew session, and what kind of equipment is needed to manage the process, from extraction to carbonation. It also assumes that there are points in the process where the homebrewer can successfully lift very large quantities of liquid and/or wet grain or acquire the equipment to do so.

The hobby seems much more open to smaller batch brewing than when I started brewing in early 2009, but there's still that 5-gallon mindset. It's as if the bakers on that British baking show had to not just bake really great cake, but bake a cake the size of a small shed.

You're gonna love our new book!

It sounds like it's either on smaller/more accessible brewing, or baking really large cakes :-)

30
My opinion is that the default batch size of 5 gallons is an impediment to bringing new people into the hobby and keeping them brewing. While there are small-batch entry-level kits and plenty of ways to start small and keep going that way, the 5-gallon batch is the implicit default batch size, and it drives how long a typical brew day is, the average cost of a homebrew session, and what kind of equipment is needed to manage the process, from extraction to carbonation. It also assumes that there are points in the process where the homebrewer can successfully lift very large quantities of liquid and/or wet grain or acquire the equipment to do so.

The hobby seems much more open to smaller batch brewing than when I started brewing in early 2009, but there's still that 5-gallon mindset. It's as if the bakers on that British baking show had to not just bake really great cake, but bake a cake the size of a small shed.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 64