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 - a10t2

Pages: 1 ... 176 177 [178] 179 180 ... 256
The Pub / Re: Lunar Perigee
« on: March 20, 2011, 08:03:54 AM »
What building is that?

Looks like the Acropolis at Athens.

The Pub / Re: Lunar Perigee
« on: March 19, 2011, 08:19:36 PM »
Clear blue skies all day, then the clouds rolled in about 6:00. They're bringing snow though, so I don't want to complain too much.

I thought that mash thickness was all about how far the enzymes were from the nearest bit of endosperm.  Isn't that what determines how active they are?

Not until you get to an extremely thin mash (like 4 qt/lb or more). Once the starches are solubilized, they'll diffuse throughout the sparge.

What if I route my RIMS system through a 10 gallon grant, and continuously cycle my entire wort (mash volume + sparge volume)?  Would that count as a super-thin mash?

You'd basically be doing a no-sparge mash, which would be thinner than if you were sparging, but I wouldn't call it super thin. Your efficiency will take a small hit, but lots of people brew that way.

1" ID tubing will hold 1 gal per 6 ft, BTW.

Yeast and Fermentation / Re: Bought the wrong yeast...
« on: March 19, 2011, 03:38:40 PM »
The WLP002 will be a little fruitier and may not attenuate quite as far, but it won't be a night and day difference. I'd say you could increase the pitching rate and/or drop the temperature slightly and get "close enough".

If I can answer your question with a question, why do you need to know the mash thickness precisely enough that that would make a difference? Although if you really do have 2 gal under the false bottom, that is quite significant. Was that a typo, or is this a 1 bbl system or something?

I'd use the full volume. The enzymes don't know or care how far they are from the nearest bit of endosperm. And if you're using the liquor:grist ratio to calculate infusion temperatures, you'll need to take all the water into account.

But even if there a ton of unfermentables left here, that sure seems like a huge final gravity.  Adding yeast at this point seems like a sure recipe for bottle bombs...  Thoughts?

If the sugars are unfermentable, the yeast can't ferment them, by definition. No fermentation means no CO2.

Ingredients / Re: Pale vs Pilsner
« on: March 19, 2011, 11:10:55 AM »
Pils malt tastes sweet to me, but a sort of grainy sweetness, as opposed to the bready grain character of something like Maris Otter or to a lesser extent domestic pale ale malts.

Yeast and Fermentation / Re: Lager Pitch Temperature
« on: March 19, 2011, 10:09:11 AM »
Never bought a Wyeast lager strain but please, please, tell me they don't also claim the lager smack-packs are "pitchable"

The text on all the yeast packs is exactly the same. They just stamp the strain and production date on them. It also says to pitch at 65-72°F, wait for bubbling, then lower it to fermentation temperature.

Yeast and Fermentation / Re: Counting Yeast Slurry with Hemacytometer
« on: March 19, 2011, 08:17:48 AM »
Are you sure you're using the correct multiplier for your hemocytometer? Mine is 50,000, for example.

Then again, for a count of 139 cells in a 10:1 dilution, you would have to have a very very thin slurry. That's roughly what I'm used to seeing for a 100:1 dilution, and the thinnest slurry I've ever measured was still >100 million/mL.

The Pub / Re: Japan quake
« on: March 18, 2011, 06:20:46 PM »
The scale is out of seven...right?

Right. I don't remember the wording off the top of my head, but a level 7 accident involves a large, uncontrolled release of radiation into the environment, multiple radiation deaths, and a long-term impact on the public. Chernobyl, essentially.

I am hoping you're right about the radiation deaths but then the concern becomes the after affects of all the exposure to radiation. (i.e. cancer, long term effects and the like).

As of now, they're enforcing a hard limit of 250 mSv for workers at the site, and requiring everyone to wear full-body protective gear. Between that, the overall low levels of radiation being released (or at least reported), and the fact that the prevailing winds are carrying it out to sea, I don't think it's inconceivable that there would be no long-term cancer deaths either. Of course, IAEA is saying there are now 300+ workers at the site, so if this gets bad it could get really bad.

The Pub / Re: Japan quake
« on: March 18, 2011, 03:18:18 PM »
On a scale for preparedness, one expert rated Japan an 8, and Haiti a 0.  He gave the US a 6.

Is that a national average? Because if so, it's pretty good. Being more or less on top of the New Madrid fault growing up, we had an earthquake plan. But I would assume that's not the case for 90% of Americans.

The Pub / Re: Do you know your State Capitals? - Friday Fun
« on: March 18, 2011, 10:17:09 AM »
That's two of five so far. (Honolulu is served by H1.)

The Pub / Re: Do you know your State Capitals? - Friday Fun
« on: March 18, 2011, 07:27:56 AM »
Ooh, right you are. I looked it up on an atlas during a long road trip several years ago, and I guess we either missed one then, or I've forgotten since.

The Pub / Re: Japan quake
« on: March 18, 2011, 07:25:32 AM »
I used to mine Uranium underground. I worked in quite a lot of radon, and had to be put on the surface a couple times to "cool" off.  What irks me is that we used RADs and now we are using a total different scale and that just keeps me learning I guess...

Yeah, I don't have much of an intuitive sense for sieverts either. Fortunately the conversion factor's easy: 1 Sv = 100 rem. AFAIK the industry in the US has gone metric on everything else, but for some reason we're stuck on rem.

I have immense respect for you guys who knowingly dosed yourselves day after day. I've had to take exactly one decon shower (my lab partner dropped a sealed source and it broke open) and even through my dosimeter only picked up 20-25 mrem it was absolutely terrifying.

Japan today raised the threat level for the crisis at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant from a 4 to 5 -- putting it on par with the 1979 crisis at Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island.

Which doesn't surprise me from all the reports that we've been getting.

Me neither. The problem with the INES scale is that it stipulates "at least one death" for a level 4 accident and "multiple deaths" for a level 5. So while the radiation releases from this accident are many orders of magnitude higher than at TMI, it doesn't really fit neatly into the criteria. They're being very conservative with both the public evacuations and the worker dosage limits, and at this point I'm optimistic that once it's all said and done there won't be any radiation deaths.

The Pub / Re: Do you know your State Capitals? - Friday Fun
« on: March 18, 2011, 07:12:09 AM »
I got 49, but it's my own fault - I was clicking through too quickly and missed Texas. :-\

Here's a fun trivia question: What are the four state capitals not served by an interstate highway?

Edit: Speeling...

Pages: 1 ... 176 177 [178] 179 180 ... 256