|
Guys, obviously he pours his beer into the pool, then pitches yeast.
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2013 19:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 20:40 |
|
|
internet celebrity posted:Maybe he uses his pool water in a counterflow/plate chiller or something? I'm skeptical his pool water is 65 degrees though. Its like 75-80 every day and 60 at night.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2013 19:47
|
|
|
He's probably running it through a pre-chiller or recirculating it through a big rear end bucket of ice with a pump.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2013 19:50
|
|
|
Docjowles posted:He's probably running it through a pre-chiller or recirculating it through a big rear end bucket of ice with a pump. Prechillers are a waste of money in my opinion. They don't seem to lower the incoming temperature enough to make a tremendous difference. You can just use that money to buy a submersible pond pump and run straight up ice water through the coils, really.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2013 20:06
|
|
|
Angry Grimace posted:I'm skeptical his pool water is 65 degrees though. Its like 75-80 every day and 60 at night. His pool is one big saison. Actually that would be amazing. New life goal found.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2013 20:11
|
|
|
zedprime posted:His pool is one big saison. Actually that would be amazing. New life goal found. I can only imagine how fast your neighbors would call a health inspector when the Biggest, Nastiest, Most Awesome Pellicle forms on it from all the wild yeast, pollen, and bacteria.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2013 20:13
|
|
|
zedprime posted:His pool is one big saison. Actually that would be amazing. New life goal found. This is pretty much exactly how I envision fullroundaction's back yard.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2013 20:14
|
|
|
Angry Grimace posted:I'm skeptical his pool water is 65 degrees though. Its like 75-80 every day and 60 at night. Yeah that's a load of horseshit unless you/he live in OB or somewhere right on the coast. Even without a solar cover on our pool it got up to 70° in early May. That said, I have kinda used my pool water to cool my beer before. Basic pond pump sending water through the IC, then back out into the pool, and when it gets closer to 70° I'll take the pump & return line out of the pool and into a 5-gal of ice water to get it down those last 10-15°. I used far too much ice in trying to use ice water to get it down incredibly fast from flameout - later learned having water that's consistently slightly below the temp of the wort is the fastest way to reduce it to pitching temps. I think the fastest I've ever walked down a pot of wort is 30 minutes, and that's with semi-constant stirring as I stir for a few minutes straight then clean up for a few minutes, check the temp, stir, repeat. The jerks out there who don't have a plate chiller and get from 212 > 70 in nine minutes can kiss my rear end.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2013 21:02
|
|
|
wattershed posted:later learned having water that's consistently slightly below the temp of the wort is the fastest way to reduce it to pitching temps. This isn't true, the coldest water possible will chill your wort the quickest. That's just the laws of physics.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2013 21:09
|
|
|
wattershed posted:Yeah that's a load of horseshit unless you/he live in OB or somewhere right on the coast. Even without a solar cover on our pool it got up to 70° in early May. Chilling is definitely next on my list of stuff I'm going to be investing in  I'm just not happy with it right now. I could theoretically move to a counterflow, but I don't think that's the direction I want. I'm thinking I'm going to try something along the lines of Jamil Zainasheff's recirculation chiller to batch chill the whole enchilada as fast as I can. My original plan involved a second homebrew pump (a Chugger or something) since I could double use it, but I'd be open to a suggestion for a good pond pump for the same purpose.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2013 21:12
|
|
|
baquerd posted:This isn't true, the coldest water possible will chill your wort the quickest. That's just the laws of physics. This is why I pump liquid nitrogen through an immersion chiller. On a side note: anyone have any ideas for getting a 5 gallon wortsicle off an immersion chiller? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2013 21:13
|
|
|
baquerd posted:This isn't true, the coldest water possible will chill your wort the quickest. That's just the laws of physics. Well then it's just not efficient for me to use my ice up that fast. Also, I know cold running water is the fastest way to unthaw a chicken breast...perhaps REALLY cold running water is even faster! Bad Munki posted:On a side note: anyone have any ideas for getting a 5 gallon wortsicle off an immersion chiller? I'm sorry, what?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2013 21:15
|
|
|
wattershed posted:Well then it's just not efficient for me to use my ice up that fast. Also, I know cold running water is the fastest way to unthaw a chicken breast...perhaps REALLY cold running water is even faster! Not efficient, sure, just because you'll go through a lot of ice, and if you're, say, buying your ice, that's money. As for your chicken breast, no, wrong again. Warm water will thaw it faster. It's just that if that water is too warm, it'll partially cook the chicken as well.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2013 21:17
|
|
|
Bad Munki posted:Not efficient, sure, just because you'll go through a lot of ice, and if you're, say, buying your ice, that's money. As for your chicken breast, no, wrong again. Warm water will thaw it faster. It's just that if that water is too warm, it'll partially cook the chicken as well. Then Alton Brown's a fuckin liar!
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2013 21:30
|
|
|
Or is just simplifying things for the plebs to get it done without cocking it up too much? Seriously, this is just basic thermodynamics.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2013 21:35
|
|
|
wattershed posted:Well then it's just not efficient for me to use my ice up that fast. Also, I know cold running water is the fastest way to unthaw a chicken breast...perhaps REALLY cold running water is even faster! My guess is that if you're redirecting the flow back into the ice bucket its melting the ice faster and bringing the overall temperature of your cold pump water up so it appears not to efficiently chill to the target temp.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2013 21:38
|
|
|
Docjowles posted:This is pretty much exactly how I envision fullroundaction's back yard. Kind of. I have used a kiddie pool as a swamp cooler, if that helps maintain your fantasy  Unrelated: we've got 3 competitions coming up soon and all 6 of my carboys are in use. Half of them are only 3 gallon batches though. Sometimes at night I just sit in my brewroom for hours and stare at the schmutz moving around in them. I think I'm going crazy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2013 21:40
|
|
|
I have a 50' copper immersion chiller and I can get a 4 gallon boil down to pitching temperature in about 6 minutes, so I don't know why everyone is so skeptical about this other guy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2013 22:50
|
|
|
You know, I never really noticed that the blowoff container on the end of a blowoff hose was full of yeast. I suppose you could harvest that if you had it set up in a sanitary manner, right? (meaning, run the hose into one end of a carboy cap attached to the catch jar and a airlock on the other end of the cap so the container doesn't blow up)
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2013 23:06
|
|
|
Angry Grimace posted:You know, I never really noticed that the blowoff container on the end of a blowoff hose was full of yeast. I suppose you could harvest that if you had it set up in a sanitary manner, right? (meaning, run the hose into one end of a carboy cap attached to the catch jar and a airlock on the other end of the cap so the container doesn't blow up) Cointelprofessional posted:I have a 50' copper immersion chiller and I can get a 4 gallon boil down to pitching temperature in about 6 minutes, so I don't know why everyone is so skeptical about this other guy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2013 23:40
|
|
|
zedprime posted:Sure. Be aware you strongly selecting for yeast that make tons of krausen and will end up with a yeast that blows off even harder. Evolution is cool. So what you're saying is if I do this for 10 generations of WLP300 my house will explode.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2013 23:43
|
|
|
Angry Grimace posted:My guess is that if you're redirecting the flow back into the ice bucket its melting the ice faster and bringing the overall temperature of your cold pump water up so it appears not to efficiently chill to the target temp. This is why you use regular tap water in the immersion chiller to get 90% of the way to your target temperature, then switch to the ice bucket sump pump to bring it down the rest of the way. I have a sour beer that's been aging for about eight months now, and I gave my boyfriend a taste of it the other day. His assessment: "It's like you ate a bushel of lemons and peed in my mouth." I think that means it's coming along nicely! 
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 00:07
|
|
|
Angry Grimace posted:So what you're saying is if I do this for 10 generations of WLP300 my house will explode. I have 11th generation west coast ale yeast that learned how to play the piano (not very well though). Joking aside, I have noticed a huge difference in first generation (from the package) to 5+. Mainly attenuation and fermentation time, not really a flavor thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 00:08
|
|
|
fullroundaction posted:I have 11th generation west coast ale yeast that learned how to play the piano (not very well though). I looked into it and the thing I was suggesting is basically just lazy person top cropping and a bunch of people do it. They said its the "healthiest" yeast collected that way. I don't know if that's bullshit or not.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 00:18
|
|
|
Just stopping by to say there is no good way to chill wort. It's simply about finding which way is the least lovely for your particular situation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 00:30
|
|
|
Home Brewing Thread III: I don't know if that's bullshit or not.tonedef131 posted:Just stopping by to say there is no good way to chill wort. It's simply about finding which way gets the least amount of hose water in your kettle
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 00:55
|
|
|
Angry Grimace posted:I looked into it and the thing I was suggesting is basically just lazy person top cropping and a bunch of people do it. They said its the "healthiest" yeast collected that way. I don't know if that's bullshit or not. Also the beer will never clear because the yeast will have all but evolved propellers. This is still evident in a lot of the English strains you can buy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 00:57
|
|
|
I asked previously but it got lost in the deluge: I didn't take a hydro reading before my pitch because I didn't have a jar. I have one now, so should I be taking readings at the end of my 2nd fermentation week? Without the first reading will it mean anything, or am I just looking for back to back days of the same gravity?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 03:06
|
|
|
Look for stability and maybe for general sweetness. You may have an idea if you're expecting something like 1.020 vs 1.010. Stability is generally the indicator of being finished, but sometimes if it's too sweet you can swirl and/or warm it a bit to dry it out (or in drastic cases add yeast or fermentables)
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 03:13
|
|
|
I just made an easy extract patersbier recipe (inspired by the NB kit) and had to dip into the dog's emergency simethicone supply (Bloodhound/GSD mix, every meal he inhales scares me) as I was out of Fermcap and poo poo was boiling TOTALLY OVER while I was running around making my kids smell the hops. People say I'm a good cook but gently caress cooking food I only love brewing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 05:42
|
|
|
...
immortalyawn fucked around with this message at 08:03 on Mar 31, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 10:33
|
|
|
This might be better asked in LAN but I've just moved to the Bay area . . . any Bay area goons with a garage want a brew buddy? My apartment is too small for homebrewing, especially since the whole thing is carpeted. I've got some equipment and I'm looking to some more but I need space.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 12:32
|
|
|
I did a cream ale this weekend. According to brewersfriend, my conversion efficiency was 109%. Here's the grain bill: 9 lb American - Pale 6-Row 1 lb Flaked Corn 4 oz American - Carapils Mashed w/ a total of 28 qts of water (single infusion and sparge), mash was 1.5qt/lb, resulting gravity was 1.052. How did this come out to over 100%? Did the lady at the brew shop put in too much grain?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 13:59
|
|
|
I think one of your input variables must be off. For a 5 gallon batch with that recipe I'm getting 1.073 @ 100%. If you ended up with 1.052 your efficiency would have been about 71%, which is normal.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 14:04
|
|
|
immortalyawn posted:Hello all. I think that would be fine (but I've never used lime zest so no idea on that), though I replicated it on brewtoad and only got "bitter", not "very bitter". Don't worry too much about whether brewtoad thinks your recipe is balanced. Make sure your fermenter is big enough for that batch though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 14:19
|
|
|
Myron Baloney posted:I just made an easy extract patersbier recipe (inspired by the NB kit) and had to dip into the dog's emergency simethicone supply (Bloodhound/GSD mix, every meal he inhales scares me) as I was out of Fermcap and poo poo was boiling TOTALLY OVER while I was running around making my kids smell the hops. People say I'm a good cook but gently caress cooking food I only love brewing. Simethicone is essentially the same as Fermcap? Mind: blown
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 14:32
|
|
|
bewbies posted:According to brewersfriend, my conversion efficiency was 109%. This is not the first time I have seen this sort of thing. I don't know what recipe calculator the other guy was using, but if it was brewersfriend, I have to speculate that BF means something else by that number. 109% of projected extract, maybe, based on an efficiency of 70%? That lines up pretty close with a target gravity of 1.050 and a measured OG of 1.052.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 15:47
|
|
|
Jo3sh posted:This is not the first time I have seen this sort of thing. I don't know what recipe calculator the other guy was using, but if it was brewersfriend, I have to speculate that BF means something else by that number. 109% of projected extract, maybe, based on an efficiency of 70%? That lines up pretty close with a target gravity of 1.050 and a measured OG of 1.052. They define it as "Conversion Efficiency: The percentage of total available sugars that were extracted from the grains inside the mash tun". I use what they call "option B" for calculating: Measurement Option B - blend of runnings: ◦Gravity - sample taken before the boil, blend of all runnings. ◦Volume - how much water went into the MLT, counting strike and sparge water. ◦Note: With Option B, the wort sample must be fully blended from all the runnings to be accurate. First runnings have a higher gravity than second runnings. ◦Works for batch sparge. Works for BIAB and partial mash (MLT and kettle are the same). Does NOT make sense for fly sparge. I batch sparge and usually calculate efficiency for 65%, my usual brewhouse efficiency is between 60 and 70%. Usually my conversion efficiency is between 95 and 100, which is another reason why this was weird.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 16:59
|
|
|
bewbies posted:They define it as "Conversion Efficiency: The percentage of total available sugars that were extracted from the grains inside the mash tun". It really sounds to me like they are using "conversion efficiency" to mean "how close did you come to your expected brewhouse efficiency," and "total available sugars" means the amount of sugar you would expect to get at a particular brewhouse efficiency. I think it's unnecessary and confusing to have both numbers. There's no need for the "conversion efficiency", and if it were me, I'd just ignore that line - brewhouse efficiency is the number that is actually meaningful in discussion, IMO. I guess you could use their "conversion efficiency" as a fast way to figure out your brewhouse efficiency. Say you built a recipe assuming 70% brewhouse efficiency and OG 1.050. You take a gravity reading as you go to fermenters and you plug that reading into the program. It tells you your conversion efficiency is 110%. 110% of 70 is 77, so you got an actual brewhouse efficiency of 77% that day, and you can adjust your recipe for next time. Jo3sh fucked around with this message at 17:13 on Jun 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 17:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 20:40 |
|
|
Jo3sh posted:This is not the first time I have seen this sort of thing. I don't know what recipe calculator the other guy was using, but if it was brewersfriend, I have to speculate that BF means something else by that number. 109% of projected extract, maybe, based on an efficiency of 70%? That lines up pretty close with a target gravity of 1.050 and a measured OG of 1.052. The way the numbers are working out and by calling it "conversion" I think that's the most useful way of explaining it. Sounds useless compared to mash efficiency (which it is probably assuming to be something which makes it stranger form of this) and brew house efficiency. In the end efficiency is just something to help you understand your rig and what grain you need to do something and the end game is just throwing grain at your rig and knowing what will come out, whether you know it from efficiency, rules of thumb, or magic. If you've been using the measure a while you probably know more about what 109% conversion efficiency than we do. The mash troubleshooting gold standard is really mash efficiency.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 17:14
|
|