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 - Pricelessbrewing

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 12
Equipment and Software / Re: 3D Printed Corona Mill Cover/Spout
« on: May 21, 2017, 12:59:52 AM »
OMG that's amazing. Can you upload the design?

Kegging and Bottling / Re: Closed vs under pressure transfer
« on: April 23, 2017, 03:27:17 AM »
Since Paul wants to see a pic of what I was talking about, I've attached a view.

The clear tube is a protective cover for a fluorescent bulb with a 1.5" (I think) PVC cap that is Gooped onto the tube. The blow off tube is regular vinyl tubing and it is plumbed into the rubber stopper with a 90 degree 1/2" PEX fitting.  I've used velcro straps to fasten the tube to the leg of the conical.

It works well enough and was cheap.

That is very interesting Martin.

Might have to consider doing this until I get a spunding valve. I ferment in kegs, so hooking a blowoff tube with a tall column would be pretty easy. I mean I could just hook a gas out blow off tube to another kegs IN dip tube and get an immediate blow off tube of several feet of column if desired...

General Homebrew Discussion / Re: HBC
« on: April 13, 2017, 03:20:26 AM »
Still deciding if I'm going to go. If I find a better job, I'll be celebrating by finally getting myself to NHC, and buying some brewing bling to make my brew days a little easier. Until then it's too much cash currently to justify for my hobby.

dude, you have a dog in the race, just look at your sig. I mean, they ended up with an eggy beer, and Bamforth stated that what they did while prescribing to LODO causes an eggy beer. I mean, its not hard to figure out.

I know he means well, but I'll go out on a limb and say it's not a universal statement and his quote is being taken out of context. I'm sure that if asked, "If sulfites are used in the mash at a dosage low enough that it is scavenged, or dissipates so that there is no sulfite present when yeast is pitched, will it cause an eggy beer?" the answer would be "No". Which is the point they're trying to make that perhaps the general starting dosage currently recommended is too high, and jake should "tailor it to his system".

I don't really know anything about how MBS affects mash chemistry, but I would be surprised if it's impact is high enough to be solely responsible for what we're seeing here, and no this is NOT the first report I've seen with low conversion due to LODO procedure. There's been other reports, and they're not that hard to find. I haven't followed all of the lodo procedures, since the conversation is generally rather hot, but I know a few have compensated with recirculation but I would have thought jakes repeated stirring through the mash should have been more than sufficient.

If there's no sulfite present when the yeast is pitched, there's nothing for them to react with.

The goal was to explore the differences in the process as outlined, having identical gravities would obviously be preferred, but is not part of the criteria as written. Just as obviously a 9 point discrepancy is significant in itself, I don't see anyone every refuting that, but that's a result of the process being performed which is the variable in question, as jake said in an earlier page.

We tend to want to point to these as an indication of "X is better than Y, look at this exbeeriment!" but that's not what they're doing. It's saying that their process, on this recipe, on this equipment did/didn't show a statistical significance and here's some details. Their only hypothesis is along the lines of, "is this significant by itself?" where this is a stand in for the methods and procedure outlined.

From the exbeeriment page,

Hydrometer measurements showed the normal batch achieved the expected 1.044 OG while the LODO wort clocked in at a much lower 1.035 OG (50% efficiency), which is exactly as I’d experienced in multiple prior brews using this method.

Sounds repeatable to me.

@jhuolihan I know you've at least occasionally used my software for brewday numbers, did you record and measure your volumes and incremental gravities so we could see if it was indeed an issue of conversion, just for the sake of confirmation.

Out of curiosity, how did you handle the boiling, then cooling of the lodo strike water? Did you initially use more water than needed, then measure out the necessary amount, and then dump the extra?


I disagree with this only because there has been a real nice discussion about process in this thread, with an emphasis on troubleshooting the gravity Δ and sulfur perceived by Jake.

In all this discussion I had not even noticed the difference in attenuation. Interesting.

Fair, I haven't caught up and read all of the thread. Just the first few pages and the last couple, still catching up for the middle part.

Without stepping on any toes, I would say they published it, not because of "investment in the process" because they did exactly what they set out to do fulfilling the outlined Purpose and Methods.

I have no doubt this will exbeeriment will be repeated, hopefully with a smaller gravity difference, but I've yet to see any constructive suggestions as to how to avoid this in the future, and name calling for Jake is pretty low.

If they were to not publish this experiment, it would not be ethical, nor scientifically sound. Sure, "no one would know but them". That's not the point.

Excerpt from APS guidelines for professional conduct, since I'm familiar with them and know that all of the ethical guidelines for chemists, and other scientific fields have similar statements.

"Fabrication of data or selective reporting of data with the intent to mislead or deceive is an egregious departure from the expected norms of scientific conduct, as is the theft of data or research results from others."

Side note: I'm more surprised in the attenuation differences. 1.044 to 1.014 for 68% and 1.035 to 1.006 for 82%.

General Homebrew Discussion / Re: Worst. Brew session. Ever.
« on: April 09, 2017, 03:23:18 AM »
Covered my chest and stomach in 2nd degree burns, did a boil over of about a gallon (didn't turn the burner off all the way, left with the intention of doing a "no chill").

Here's my thermal expansion calculator, works at any temp using thermal expansion of water (not sugar solutions, since that math is much more complicated).

What HoosierBrew said, looks like youre volumes still aren't lining up. Either your absorption rate is lower than input, or your initial volumes weren't measured accurately.

Yeast and Fermentation / Re: omega hot head yeast
« on: March 29, 2017, 04:02:53 AM »
This is an isolate from Stein Langlo's Stranda Kveik. As far as I know, Omega is the only lab culturing this isolate.

General Homebrew Discussion / Re: Uses for a corny that won't seal?
« on: March 20, 2017, 08:54:53 PM »
I have one that doesn't seal, I use it for fermenting.

All Grain Brewing / Re: Batch sparge efficiency
« on: March 20, 2017, 08:51:42 PM »

Don't worry, I found you! ;)

That all sounds correct to me, but to be honest I haven't looked at my own source code in 3+ years. I'll try to dig into it a little more tomorrow.

Oh well that works. Let me know if you find any issues or have any questions. There's a nice graph output, and calculator for measured vs expected on my  calculator too. I had been considering calculating the apparent boil off rate and absorption rate as you did, but ultimately decided against it.

All Grain Brewing / Re: Mash Water / Strike - Beersmith
« on: March 20, 2017, 05:57:42 PM »

First I've heard of it, and a quick google doesn't pull up a link.

My bad. I forgot they are now on version 3.3

No link either, those are all images. Looks like no input variables for deadspace losses or grain absorption rate, thanks though.

All Grain Brewing / Re: Mash Water / Strike - Beersmith
« on: March 20, 2017, 05:35:59 PM »
Download Mashwater 3.0 for you water measurements and temps. Simple and dead on every time.

First I've heard of it, and a quick google doesn't pull up a link.

All Grain Brewing / Re: Batch sparge efficiency
« on: March 20, 2017, 05:34:23 PM »

If you plug your numbers into this calculator you can see how close you were to the theoretical efficiency:

Can't find Seans forum name atm, but I wasn't aware he had an online version. Would have made my work a lot faster.

I'm using a similar approach now, but when calculating lauter efficiency by the ratio of volumes, you need to account for the volume displaced by the sugar during the mash, which he appears to be approximating using the C=1/SG coefficient. I'll need to check out his source code, as my calculator, which matches kai's to a couple decimal places (floating points yo) is calculating a difference of 3-6% lauter efficiency. When I lower the absorption rate to 0.12, they're pretty close though (.5-2%). Which matches the apparent absorption rate using preboilvolume - strike / grist mass.

You can get a better estimation using the following approximation

LauterFirstRunOffEfficiency ~= RunOffVolume / MashWortVolume

MashWortVolume ~= (0.0016005465398018200 * GrainWeight*GrainPotential) + WaterStrikeVolume

SecondrunningsLauter ~= SecondRunOffVolume / (MashWortVolume + SecondRunOffVolume)

TotalLauter = LauterFirstRunOffEfficiency + SecondrunningsLauter + etc etc  and

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 12