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 - morticaixavier

Pages: 1 ... 286 287 [288] 289 290 ... 519
General Homebrew Discussion / Re: Calculating Losses to hoses
« on: January 16, 2013, 08:44:06 AM »
~182322 cubic millimeters worth  ;D
which is about 182 ml

If my math is right which I am not 100% sure about.

Ingredients / Re: Vanilla extract
« on: January 15, 2013, 03:24:52 PM »
I've never had a problem with vanilla extract disappearing in my porter.  It's there from start to finish.  I tend to go heavy on it, but it doesn't seem to fade.

I would lean towards Mort's suggestion that maybe it wasn't well mixed.

wait!!! your agreeing with me?  ;D

Ingredients / Re: Vanilla extract
« on: January 15, 2013, 02:29:47 PM »
I have heard that this can happen. I have no idea of the science behind it but I would suspect oxidative effects or possibly yeast metabolism?

or perhaps the sample was not thouroughly mixed so you were getting alot more vanilla in the taste than the actual ratio you finally ended up adding?

General Homebrew Discussion / Re: My first firkin!
« on: January 15, 2013, 12:21:05 PM »
congrats man!

Ingredients / Re: Berliner Weisse Sweetener Choices
« on: January 15, 2013, 11:14:41 AM »
I'm a big fan of the woodruff syrup.
I've not looked very hard but I havn't had much luck in finding it. do you have a source?

Ingredients / Re: Berliner Weisse Sweetener Choices
« on: January 15, 2013, 10:47:56 AM »
traditional is sweet woodfruff (sp?) syrup.

I have made blueberry syrup, raspberry syrup and blackberry syrup for adding to Russian River wild beer and they were all lovely. grenadine sounds nice though.

Kegging and Bottling / Re: Newbie Kegging Questions
« on: January 15, 2013, 10:44:11 AM »
but be gentle because if you form too much foam IN the keg there might not be enough foam positive compounds left intact to get a good head in the glass.

I know there's since behind it, but... I'm going to be contrary again.  I have not experienced any problems with this.

When I keg, I typically fill a one-liter PET bottle and shake the bejesus out of it to get a couple of glasses carbed up right away.  It foams a LOT in the bottle.  It pours just fine with a nice head.

Sample size is 1 (myself), so take it for what it's worth.

Full disclosure... my advice was coming from an article in zymurgy. I am always gentle so have not experienced anything else, look like you can shake as hard you want

I'm with Joe Sr. on this too. 
I carb my kegs by 1) get the beer cold 2) set the regulator as high as it goes - about 35 psi 3) pick up the keg by the ends and rock it back and forth about 40 times 4) remove the gas line from the keg 5) rest the keg in the fridge several hours 6) bleed off excess pressure 7) enjoy carbed beer.
It is not precise and sometimes it takes some adjusting to get the perfect CO2 level, but at least I don't have to wait several days. 
I've never had a problem with foam in the glass because of this method.

If you set to serving pressure and shake you will avoid the lack of precision and still get carbed beer super fast.

Kegging and Bottling / Re: Newbie Kegging Questions
« on: January 15, 2013, 09:44:44 AM »
Forgot to add,

- Faucets are Perlick
- Liquid side tubing is 3/16" ID

So if I set it at 11-12 PSI, shook it for a while (10-12 minutes), let it sit for a day or two, still at 11-12 PSI, would that work?

sure will, you don't even need to let it sit for a day or two after that much shaking. but be gentle because if you form too much foam IN the keg there might not be enough foam positive compounds left intact to get a good head in the glass. let it settle for 20 minutes or so and the first pour is going to have a lot of gunk in it

Other Fermentables / Re: Copper does remove sulfur!
« on: January 15, 2013, 09:18:57 AM »

but how does it taste? I am very curious about the asian pear cider.

Kegging and Bottling / Re: Newbie Kegging Questions
« on: January 15, 2013, 09:10:18 AM »
I pressurize to 30 and shake the keg to carb it.  It's quicker, but less precise.

I do that in a pinch as well.  Or crank it up and let it sit for 1-2 days and keep checking.  You get to sample a lot that way!   ;)


I have 5' bev lines with cobra taps and it works okay at around 8-10 psi any higher and it gets foamy

On the shake to carb method, I just kegged a porter this weekend, set the co2 to 12 PSI and gently shook the keg for about 10 minutes. after resting for about 20 minutes it was perfect.
I like to pick the keg up and hold it my the rubber handle on top and the rubber foot on the bottom so it is on it's side, resting against my thighs (sounds kinda dirty  ;)) and just rock my whole body back and forth. if the liqiud post is under the liquid level you can hear it bubble away as more co2 enters the keg. Although I have heard that you can end up with liquid in the gas line doing this I have not had that problem... yet.

Equipment and Software / Re: propane vs natural gas
« on: January 14, 2013, 02:12:37 PM »
■100,000 BTU/hr furnace will use about 97 cubic feet of natural gas (100,000 ÷ 1,030 = 97.1) in one hour
■100,000 BTU/hr furnace will use about 40 cubic feet of propane (100,000 ÷ 2516 = 39.7) in one hour

This might be what you are looking for.

Well, a little googling and I get an opposing view on the whole issue.

That being said I would argue with his methodogy as he is essentially assuming that you would extract all the amygdalin from the cherry kernals, which seems unlikely if they are whole, and that it would all be converted to free HCN.

But certainly keep it in mind.

anyway, it seems it's moot in this context as we are not talking about cherries but about pomegranites which are free of amygdalin anyway.

Not to be a worry wart, but cherry pits contain cyanide.  Not sure about pomegranate seeds and even if they do I'm still alive so at least in low concentrations no worries.

I don't know if the cyanide would leach out into the alcohol, but it seems a safe bet some amount would.

This has been covered. and while these things do contain cyanide compounds they are not in a toxic form. Cherry pits have been used as a spice for many centuries as have pomegranite seeds. Not something that one should worry about.

Five pounds of cherries contains far more pits than whatever amount you're using of whatever spice you're referring to.  I wouldn't do it.  Feel free to do so, if you are so inclined.

sure way more, the spice is mahleb or makleb or something like that by the way, but the spice is the toasted ground pits and the cherry pits in the beer are hardly consumed at all.

Let's also remember that traditional kriek is made by performing a secondary fermentation a-top HUGE amounts of whole fruit. The beer is left on the fruit for a very long time and nothing of the flesh is left when it's done. I have not seen any studies that quantify how much cyanic compounds are present in a traditional kriek but it would be interesting.

However what it comes down to is that the cyanide compounds found in cherry pits and other stone fruit stones are actually an important nutrient that we could not live well without. This doesn't mean that there is no danger in consuming it, just that in small amounts it is actually beneficial.

Beer Recipes / Re: double batch
« on: January 14, 2013, 01:46:04 PM »
Not to be contrary in all threads today, Mort, but IME the incremental feeding is just a PITA and not necessary.  With a good pitch of yeast and good aeration I haven't had any issues fermenting big beers up to 1.10.  Above that, I've had some difficulty reaching a good terminal gravity but in the last attempt I think my aeration was insufficient (the tank ran out and I was lazy/hurried and did not switch to the aquarium pump).  Time, temp and rousing the yeast brought that beer to a reasonable terminal gravity but it was more hands-on than I had hoped for.

I know some people swear by the incremental feeding.  I suppose if it works for you, have at it.  I just haven't experienced any great benefit from it.

As far as the blending, it's a straight-forward as Mort lays out.

as you say, if it works for you...

I don't have an o2 system and have no plans for getting one, it's money I would rather spend on a sack of grain. Also as far as I have seen the common o2 systems come with disposable bottles and that is just more crap to get rid of for me.

I've only started experimenting with incremental feeding but it seemed to produce good results for me. I suspect it is not really necesary unless you are dealing with a real OG that is higher than the yeast can deal with at all (aiming for that giant 20%+ abv beast) but particularly with simple sugar additions it's just not that much work IMO and if it can get me a big 12% that I can drink right away without months in the bottle then I am cool with that.

Beer Recipes / Re: double batch
« on: January 14, 2013, 12:52:26 PM »
If you're going to brew this in two separate batches, you may consider taking a few pounds of grain from the first batch and adding them to the second batch instead. This way your initial batch is a bit easier on the yeast. then once they're roaring away you can hit them with the higher gravity wort (which would end up getting diluted by the initial 3 gallons).

Oooh, I like that idea.  Make the first 3-gallons lower gravity than the target for you barleywine (and by the way, more appropriate for a starter "step").  And make the second higher than target so it all comes out right in the end.

Be interesting to play with the numbers.  For something as big as a barleywine, could you get the first batch gravity low enough to not overly stress the yeast, and could you get the second batch gravity high enough to make the end result come out where you want?

Guess that could also make hop utilization calculations pretty hairy but, then again, a barleywine isn't really all that much about the hops.

If your first batch is around 1.070 and your second batch is around 1.140 that works out to 3@70 = 210 + 3 @ 140 = 420 (hurray!) = 630/6 = 6 @ 105. pretty good for a barley wine. and while 1.070 is a bit high for a starter it should be okay in terms of growing up some good yeast. but the same math would work with 3 @ 1.050 = 150 + 3 @ 1.17 = 660.

The other benefit of doing incremental feeding is that the initial 1.050 wort will have dropped to say 1.025 so the actual gravity after the second addition is only 3 * 25 = 75 + 3 * 170 = 585 = 1.097 so you have never exposed your yeast to a gravity higher that that AND the ethanol level stays quite low till the end of the fermentation.

Pages: 1 ... 286 287 [288] 289 290 ... 519