Michael Lewis. I've never heard him say not to sparge. I have heard him
say to sparge cooler at the end of the sparge to keep tannin extraction
low. He also was a bit advocate on mashing hot and short, which I do.
160F for 15 minutes.
On 19 Nov 2003 21:11:41 -0600 John Reese <jwreese(a)usinternet.com> writes:
> Yes, that's it. Anybody remember the first name? Still having my
> senior
> moment.
>
> On Wed, 2003-11-19 at 21:04, Wayne Theuer wrote:
> > Hi John,
> > Sounds like Dr. Lewis but I'm not totally certain.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "John Reese" <jwreese(a)usinternet.com>
> > To: <mba(a)thebarn.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 8:26 PM
> > Subject: Re: Thoughts on Sparging.....
> >
> >
> > > Years ago the fellow who put together the brewing research and
> training
> > > department at the University of California advocated non-sparge
> brewing.
> > > I can't remember his name -- I'm having a senior moment -- but
> I'm sure
> > > a lot of you do, so help me out here.
> > >
> > > Anyway, his theory was that an extremely loose mash (something
> more like
> > > malt soup) favored rapid and efficient conversions at much more
> easily
> > > controlled temperatures. At mash-out the liquid is simply
> drained off.
> > > This greatly reduced the tannins leached from the grain husks,
> and there
> > > was very little unconverted starch in the unfiltered runoff.
> > >
> > > The big advantage of his system was the reduction in mash time
> and
> > > control over the mash temperature. I think the entire mash
> required only
> > > twenty minutes or less, and of course there was no sparge time
> after
> > > mash-out.
> > >
> > > If I could remember the name, I'm sure his papers could be found
> on the
> > > Internet.
> > >
> > > John Reese
> > >
> > > On Wed, 2003-11-19 at 09:08, jvoosen(a)usfamily.net wrote:
> > > > Last weekend I brewed up an all grain Nut Brown Ale. After
> heating the
> > water to 175 degrees I poured it into my 6 gal plastic lautertun
> bucket and
> > wraped it in blankets to save heat for one hour.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, I did use the famous "Phil's Floating Phalse Bottom"
> however,
> > learning from a bad previous brew session (as we all know, Phil's
> floats and
> > plugs up with grain), this time I used a Muslin Grain Bag (As they
> say on
> > the Dodge truck commercial "SWEET!").
> > > >
> > > > As the afternoon was passing too quickly, I decided to bypass
> the
> > sparging and drain my liquid back into my brew pot. The liquid
> was a great
> > golden brown color.
> > > >
> > > > My question is "What are the drawbacks in the beer when
> bypassing the
> > sparging stage?"
> > > >
> > > > Thanks in advance!
> > > >
> > > > Jim Voosen
> > > > Stillwater, Mn
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------ http://USFamily.Net/info - Unlimited Internet - From
> > $8.99/mo! ------
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
David Berg
Head Brewer, Bandana Brewery
President, Minnesota Craft Brewer's Guild
________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 01:03:54PM -0600, jvoosen(a)usfamily.net wrote:
> Jim, Paul, Mike and others:
>
> After brewing extracts and Coop's for some three plus years, it is a lot of fun to take a stab at all grain brewing. A lot more time and effort are involved but a lot more interesting.
>
Charlie P claims you can do an all grain brew in 4 hours.
Some commercial operations sparge for 3.5 hours, plus
the 90 minute boil and the 60 minute mash and ....
> Jim, my ratio of water to grist was a little on the heavy side 1.88 qrts per lb. I raised my strike water temp to 175 thinking it would drop quickly when I poured it into the mash tun. Next time I will take some temp readings during the sachrification rest to see how much heat is lost.
>
I found that 168^F and 1.5 to the pound worked in my system.
I don't think 2.0 qrts per pound is all that loose, and anything
under 160^F is probably fine. It always amazes me how much
stirring is required to eliminate dry pockets and establish
uniform temps.
Speaking of mashing, w/ my manifold, I underlet the mash water.
W/ the false bottom, it was very important to "establish" the
foundation. That is, fill the mash tun w/ hot/strike water up
to the top of the false bottom before adding the grain.
> I did skip the vorlauf. Will give this a shot next time. After sparging, should I take a SG reading before I return the brew pot to the boil?
>
Not necessarily. Here's where those glucose meters are so handy.
No temp adjustment required. The high gravity at the begining is
interesting, but not critical.
It IS important to not over-sparge. While this has more
to do w/ pH than w/ SG, SG is the typical target.
e.g. stop sparging at 1.010 or 1.005 SG.
Oversparging can extract tanins, particularily if the
pH of the mash/runnings rise much above 5.2 pH.
> With the loss of wert and water during the boil, when transferring to our primary fermenter to chill down before pitching the yeast, if we top this off with water to 5 gal, will this dilute the wert too much??
>
That depends. Here's where you need the SG measurement.
Plan on boiling off about 10% per hour, or raising the OG
of the wort about 10% per hour. So, if my OG (cooled sample)
at the begining of the boil is 1.040 and my target OG is 1.044,
I should be just fine.
Better to "brew to SG" than to "brew to volume".
(e.g. ending up w/ 4.0 gallons of 1.050 IPA
vs 5.0 gallons of 1.040 IPA.)
High gravity brewing is not uncommon, but is less than ideal.
> The very first time I brewed, a good friend of mine told me that beer is forgiving.......in its creation......and in its consumption! He is sooo true!
Absolutely. It's a wonderfully forgiving process. Pitch lots
of yeast (wet or dry) and you'll be OK. Full flavored beers
are drinkable over a wide range of specs.
But perfection is most elusive. Heck, A-Bush blends up to
10 different batches to get their product "just right".
I'm not sure any of us could differentiate those 10
batches of Butt Light, but they can/do.
YMMV, HTHelps, etc.
Cheers,
Jim
> Jim Voosen
> Stillwater, Mn
>
>
> >* Great Lakes Brewing News, 1569 Laurel Ave., St. Paul, MN 55104 *
> >
>
> ------ http://USFamily.Net/info - Unlimited Internet - From $8.99/mo! ------
--
------------------------------ *
* Dr. James Lee Ellingson, Adjunct Professor jellings(a)me.umn.edu *
* University of Minnesota, tel: 651/645-0753 fax 651 XXX XXXX *
* Great Lakes Brewing News, 1569 Laurel Ave., St. Paul, MN 55104 *
Yes, that's it. Anybody remember the first name? Still having my senior
moment.
On Wed, 2003-11-19 at 21:04, Wayne Theuer wrote:
> Hi John,
> Sounds like Dr. Lewis but I'm not totally certain.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Reese" <jwreese(a)usinternet.com>
> To: <mba(a)thebarn.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 8:26 PM
> Subject: Re: Thoughts on Sparging.....
>
>
> > Years ago the fellow who put together the brewing research and training
> > department at the University of California advocated non-sparge brewing.
> > I can't remember his name -- I'm having a senior moment -- but I'm sure
> > a lot of you do, so help me out here.
> >
> > Anyway, his theory was that an extremely loose mash (something more like
> > malt soup) favored rapid and efficient conversions at much more easily
> > controlled temperatures. At mash-out the liquid is simply drained off.
> > This greatly reduced the tannins leached from the grain husks, and there
> > was very little unconverted starch in the unfiltered runoff.
> >
> > The big advantage of his system was the reduction in mash time and
> > control over the mash temperature. I think the entire mash required only
> > twenty minutes or less, and of course there was no sparge time after
> > mash-out.
> >
> > If I could remember the name, I'm sure his papers could be found on the
> > Internet.
> >
> > John Reese
> >
> > On Wed, 2003-11-19 at 09:08, jvoosen(a)usfamily.net wrote:
> > > Last weekend I brewed up an all grain Nut Brown Ale. After heating the
> water to 175 degrees I poured it into my 6 gal plastic lautertun bucket and
> wraped it in blankets to save heat for one hour.
> > >
> > > Yes, I did use the famous "Phil's Floating Phalse Bottom" however,
> learning from a bad previous brew session (as we all know, Phil's floats and
> plugs up with grain), this time I used a Muslin Grain Bag (As they say on
> the Dodge truck commercial "SWEET!").
> > >
> > > As the afternoon was passing too quickly, I decided to bypass the
> sparging and drain my liquid back into my brew pot. The liquid was a great
> golden brown color.
> > >
> > > My question is "What are the drawbacks in the beer when bypassing the
> sparging stage?"
> > >
> > > Thanks in advance!
> > >
> > > Jim Voosen
> > > Stillwater, Mn
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------ http://USFamily.Net/info - Unlimited Internet - From
> $8.99/mo! ------
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
Years ago the fellow who put together the brewing research and training
department at the University of California advocated non-sparge brewing.
I can't remember his name -- I'm having a senior moment -- but I'm sure
a lot of you do, so help me out here.
Anyway, his theory was that an extremely loose mash (something more like
malt soup) favored rapid and efficient conversions at much more easily
controlled temperatures. At mash-out the liquid is simply drained off.
This greatly reduced the tannins leached from the grain husks, and there
was very little unconverted starch in the unfiltered runoff.
The big advantage of his system was the reduction in mash time and
control over the mash temperature. I think the entire mash required only
twenty minutes or less, and of course there was no sparge time after
mash-out.
If I could remember the name, I'm sure his papers could be found on the
Internet.
John Reese
On Wed, 2003-11-19 at 09:08, jvoosen(a)usfamily.net wrote:
> Last weekend I brewed up an all grain Nut Brown Ale. After heating the water to 175 degrees I poured it into my 6 gal plastic lautertun bucket and wraped it in blankets to save heat for one hour.
>
> Yes, I did use the famous "Phil's Floating Phalse Bottom" however, learning from a bad previous brew session (as we all know, Phil's floats and plugs up with grain), this time I used a Muslin Grain Bag (As they say on the Dodge truck commercial "SWEET!").
>
> As the afternoon was passing too quickly, I decided to bypass the sparging and drain my liquid back into my brew pot. The liquid was a great golden brown color.
>
> My question is "What are the drawbacks in the beer when bypassing the sparging stage?"
>
> Thanks in advance!
>
> Jim Voosen
> Stillwater, Mn
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------ http://USFamily.Net/info - Unlimited Internet - From $8.99/mo! ------
>
>
Jim:
As I use a grain muslin bag, I suppose it wouldn't hurt during the mash to agitate it a little ( like a tea bag ) to avoid hot spots and get the most out of the grain.
Thanks for all the info and tips!
Need to get back in the brew house this weekend and try some of the proceedures talked about here. On the positive side, there will be an abundance of beverages in about 6 - 8 weeks. I think I know some neighbors who will be stopping by.
Jim Voosen
Stillwater, Mn
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 01:03:54PM -0600, jvoosen(a)usfamily.net wrote:
>> Jim, Paul, Mike and others:
>>
>> After brewing extracts and Coop's for some three plus years, it is a lot of fun to take a stab at all grain brewing. A lot more time and effort are involved but a lot more interesting.
>>
>
>Charlie P claims you can do an all grain brew in 4 hours.
>Some commercial operations sparge for 3.5 hours, plus
>the 90 minute boil and the 60 minute mash and ....
>
>> Jim, my ratio of water to grist was a little on the heavy side 1.88 qrts per lb. I raised my strike water temp to 175 thinking it would drop quickly when I poured it into the mash tun. Next time I will take some temp readings during the sachrification rest to see how much heat is lost.
>>
>
>I found that 168^F and 1.5 to the pound worked in my system.
>I don't think 2.0 qrts per pound is all that loose, and anything
>under 160^F is probably fine. It always amazes me how much
>stirring is required to eliminate dry pockets and establish
>uniform temps.
>
>Speaking of mashing, w/ my manifold, I underlet the mash water.
>W/ the false bottom, it was very important to "establish" the
>foundation. That is, fill the mash tun w/ hot/strike water up
>to the top of the false bottom before adding the grain.
>
>> I did skip the vorlauf. Will give this a shot next time. After sparging, should I take a SG reading before I return the brew pot to the boil?
>>
>
>Not necessarily. Here's where those glucose meters are so handy.
>No temp adjustment required. The high gravity at the begining is
>interesting, but not critical.
>
>It IS important to not over-sparge. While this has more
>to do w/ pH than w/ SG, SG is the typical target.
>e.g. stop sparging at 1.010 or 1.005 SG.
>
>Oversparging can extract tanins, particularily if the
>pH of the mash/runnings rise much above 5.2 pH.
>
>> With the loss of wert and water during the boil, when transferring to our primary fermenter to chill down before pitching the yeast, if we top this off with water to 5 gal, will this dilute the wert too much??
>>
>
>That depends. Here's where you need the SG measurement.
>Plan on boiling off about 10% per hour, or raising the OG
>of the wort about 10% per hour. So, if my OG (cooled sample)
>at the begining of the boil is 1.040 and my target OG is 1.044,
>I should be just fine.
>
>Better to "brew to SG" than to "brew to volume".
>(e.g. ending up w/ 4.0 gallons of 1.050 IPA
>vs 5.0 gallons of 1.040 IPA.)
>
>High gravity brewing is not uncommon, but is less than ideal.
>
>> The very first time I brewed, a good friend of mine told me that beer is forgiving.......in its creation......and in its consumption! He is sooo true!
>
>Absolutely. It's a wonderfully forgiving process. Pitch lots
>of yeast (wet or dry) and you'll be OK. Full flavored beers
>are drinkable over a wide range of specs.
>
>But perfection is most elusive. Heck, A-Bush blends up to
>10 different batches to get their product "just right".
>I'm not sure any of us could differentiate those 10
>batches of Butt Light, but they can/do.
>
>YMMV, HTHelps, etc.
>
>Cheers,
>Jim
>
>
>> Jim Voosen
>> Stillwater, Mn
>>
>>
>> >* Great Lakes Brewing News, 1569 Laurel Ave., St. Paul, MN 55104 *
>> >
>>
>> ------ http://USFamily.Net/info - Unlimited Internet - From $8.99/mo! ------
>
>--
>------------------------------ *
>* Dr. James Lee Ellingson, Adjunct Professor jellings(a)me.umn.edu *
>* University of Minnesota, tel: 651/645-0753 fax 651 XXX XXXX *
>* Great Lakes Brewing News, 1569 Laurel Ave., St. Paul, MN 55104 *
------ http://USFamily.Net/info - Unlimited Internet - From $8.99/mo! ------
Jim, Paul, Mike and others:
After brewing extracts and Coop's for some three plus years, it is a lot of fun to take a stab at all grain brewing. A lot more time and effort are involved but a lot more interesting.
Jim, my ratio of water to grist was a little on the heavy side 1.88 qrts per lb. I raised my strike water temp to 175 thinking it would drop quickly when I poured it into the mash tun. Next time I will take some temp readings during the sachrification rest to see how much heat is lost.
I did skip the vorlauf. Will give this a shot next time. After sparging, should I take a SG reading before I return the brew pot to the boil?
With the loss of wert and water during the boil, when transferring to our primary fermenter to chill down before pitching the yeast, if we top this off with water to 5 gal, will this dilute the wert too much??
The very first time I brewed, a good friend of mine told me that beer is forgiving.......in its creation......and in its consumption! He is sooo true!
Jim Voosen
Stillwater, Mn
>Hi Jim,
>
>I'm not sure what you mean, so I'll take a couple of stabs.
>
>What was your ratio of strike water to grist? 1.5 qrts per
>lb is typical... stiffer/drier and looser/wetter mashing
>will slightly alter the sugar distribution in the wort (in theory).
>A warmer sachrification rest (say 158^F) favors the production of
>unfermentables. A low temp mash (say 140) should result in
>a more fermentable wort. Stiff/loose also has an effect
>on fermentability, but it is smaller than the temp effect.
>
>
>Did you skip the vorlauf (sp)? That is the recirculation
>of runnings through the mash bed until clear. I used to
>skip the "recirculation" but a Siebel trained brewer convinced
>me that clear runnings were worth the hassle. This also pushed
>me back to a slotted copper pipe manifold (in a cooler) for mashing.
>In my experience, the slotted pipe lauter tunn clears quicker/quickly.
>
>The drawbock (nice slip there) The drawback of using, boiling
>cloudy runoff is too much protein in the kettle and in
>the brew. That can lead to "stability" and clarity issues
>in the finished product.
>
>
>Not all runnings are created equal. First runnings have lots
>of color and extract. SG of 1.100 or higher is possible.
>Later runnings are thinner, lighter. If you're trying to
>make an "all grain" barley wine, you'll take just the first runnings.
>
>(on a side note, adding some carmel or carapils to the mash
>for character, you can use the 2nd runnings for a 2 penny beer.
>E.g. the renfest brews. 45 lbs of malt yielded 6 gallons of 1.130
>OG wort that became Old Bed Spinner. Adding some carmel and
>sparging yieled 20+ gallons of 1.036 or so Bi'ah for the Renfest.)
>
>I'm w/ Mike on the efficiency issue. It's a hopbby and grain is
>cheap. Repeatability is another issue. I'd rather be repeatable
>at 25 pts/lb than "efficient" at 28-32 pts per pound.
>
>Cheers,
>Jim
>
>
>On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 09:08:02AM -0600, jvoosen(a)usfamily.net wrote:
>> Last weekend I brewed up an all grain Nut Brown Ale. After heating the water to 175 degrees I poured it into my 6 gal plastic lautertun bucket and wraped it in blankets to save heat for one hour.
>>
>> Yes, I did use the famous "Phil's Floating Phalse Bottom" however, learning from a bad previous brew session (as we all know, Phil's floats and plugs up with grain), this time I used a Muslin Grain Bag (As they say on the Dodge truck commercial "SWEET!").
>>
>> As the afternoon was passing too quickly, I decided to bypass the sparging and drain my liquid back into my brew pot. The liquid was a great golden brown color.
>>
>> My question is "What are the drawbacks in the beer when bypassing the sparging stage?"
>>
>> Thanks in advance!
>>
>> Jim Voosen
>> Stillwater, Mn
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------ http://USFamily.Net/info - Unlimited Internet - From $8.99/mo! ------
>>
>
>--
>------------------------------ *
>* Dr. James Lee Ellingson, Adjunct Professor jellings(a)me.umn.edu *
>* University of Minnesota, tel: 651/645-0753 fax 651 XXX XXXX *
>* Great Lakes Brewing News, 1569 Laurel Ave., St. Paul, MN 55104 *
>
------ http://USFamily.Net/info - Unlimited Internet - From $8.99/mo! ------
>
> Posted on Wed, Nov. 19, 2003
>
> Barley changes brewing
> Consolidation in the beer industry affect the way malting barley is
> traded
> BY LEE EGERSTROM
> Pioneer Press
>
> A solitary sample of malting barley sat in a pan on a long trading
> table at
> the Minneapolis Grain Exchange on Tuesday.
>
> There was no trading.
>
> An era is passing for one of the Upper Midwest's venerable grains, in
> large
> part because of relentless consolidation in the ages-old beer industry.
>
> That consolidation is changing the way farmers market their barley,
> how malt
> is made from barley, and who buys the malt to make beer.
>
> One victim of the trend is the Minneapolis Grain Exchange. Another is
> Minnesota Malting Co. of Cannon Falls, one of the area's historic
> barley
> processors. The company is shut down and its assets are on the auction
> block.
>
> "You can say this is sad, but I tell the farmers that nothing is the
> same in
> the food and agriculture industries," said Marv Zutz, director of the
> Minnesota Barley Growers Association.
>
> BARLEY, BREW MATCH
>
> Minnesota farmers this year had their best barley-growing season since
> 1992,
> tying a record of 75 bushels per acre and producing 98 percent more
> barley
> than they did a year ago, with a crop estimated at 12.8 million
> bushels. The
> problem is not production, but rather that the traditional way of
> selling
> barley through the Minneapolis exchange is fading.
>
> The Minneapolis cash market has long been the central trading point
> where
> America's barley processors — called maltsters — and brewers would
> meet to
> buy and sell supplies of malting barley. These buyers would connect the
> right type and color of barley to a brewer's special beer recipe.
>
> The grand trading floor of the Minneapolis Grain Exchange was partly
> designed to aid the barley trading business, with two-story high
> windows on
> the north side of the building to let in unrefracted light. The light
> allows
> barley buyers to check the pigment in the barley kernels to match
> supplies
> to the malt needs of different brewers.
>
> But the consolidation in the food and agriculture industries is forcing
> change on the maltsters. Buyers are bypassing the exchange.
>
> "Everything has changed over the past 10 years; and in the past five
> years
> we've seen maltsters bypass the grain elevators and the Grain Exchange
> to
> come out in the country and contract with the farmers for their
> barley,"
> said Zutz.
>
> Two brewing companies, Anheuser-Busch Inc. and Miller Brewing Co., now
> have
> more than 70 percent of the U.S. beer market. A-B has its own malting
> plants
> and makes about 30 percent of its malt supplies, while Miller, which
> was
> purchased by South African Brewing a year ago to form SABMiller, still
> buys
> nearly all of its malt from malting companies.
>
> The list of members of the Milwaukee-based American Malting Barley
> Association shows how consolidation has shrunk the number of players
> in this
> ancient processing industry.
>
> A-B and Miller are members, and are joined by a third brewer, the
> California-based regional Sierra Nevada Brewing Co. Malting company
> members
> include the Cargill Malt unit of Minnetonka's Cargill Inc.,
> Shakopee-based
> Rahr Malting Co., Briess Malting Co. of Chilton, Wis., Milwaukee-based
> Froedtert Malt, and Great Western Malting Co. of Vancouver, Wash.
>
> Froedtert was a malting unit of Harvest States until the mid-1980s. It
> was
> sold to Lesaffre et Compangnie, of Lille, France, which has since
> combined
> Froedtert into the International Malting Co. joint venture it operates
> with
> Archer Daniels Midland. Cargill, meanwhile, has combined its malting
> operations with acquisitions of two historic regional maltsters, while
> Great
> Western has been purchased and consolidated with Canadian malting
> companies
> twice in the past decade.
>
> BUYER NEEDED
>
> Minnesota Malting's only salvation may be consolidation.
>
> Insolvency Strategies Inc., of Henderson, Nev., is seeking sealed bids
> for
> the assets of Minnesota Malting. It hopes to open bids on Jan. 4 for
> the
> malting company, which filed a Chapter 7 liquidation petition in
> bankruptcy
> court in July.
>
> Minnesota Malting remained family-owned since its founding by the
> Mensing
> family in 1939. Rahr Malting and Briess Malting have also bucked
> industry
> trends and have remained private.
>
> In a statement announcing the Minnesota Malting asset sale, Wayne
> Basore of
> Insolvency Strategies said the malting company was generating $45
> million in
> annual sales and has capacity to make 5 million bushels of malt, or
> 80,000
> tons of malt annually. That equates to 7.4 million barrels of beer
> after the
> brewing process.
>
> Zutz said farmers on the northern plains are hopeful the liquidators
> find a
> buyer to reopen the Cannon Falls plant.
>
> "It's sad, because Minnesota Malting has been a great company and
> asset for
> the industry," said Zutz. "But it's clearly a sign of the times."
>
>
>
Last weekend I brewed up an all grain Nut Brown Ale. After heating the water to 175 degrees I poured it into my 6 gal plastic lautertun bucket and wraped it in blankets to save heat for one hour.
Yes, I did use the famous "Phil's Floating Phalse Bottom" however, learning from a bad previous brew session (as we all know, Phil's floats and plugs up with grain), this time I used a Muslin Grain Bag (As they say on the Dodge truck commercial "SWEET!").
As the afternoon was passing too quickly, I decided to bypass the sparging and drain my liquid back into my brew pot. The liquid was a great golden brown color.
My question is "What are the drawbacks in the beer when bypassing the sparging stage?"
Thanks in advance!
Jim Voosen
Stillwater, Mn
------ http://USFamily.Net/info - Unlimited Internet - From $8.99/mo! ------
Jim, Not trying to debate science but your response generated a question that I hope is easily answered about thermal conductivity. Possibly an experiment over a beer would be helpful.
Trying to better understand the aluminum vs SS debate. Some folks use Rocket Engines to heat kettles. Others use electrical elements. A few of us rely on small gas burners that seem to outperform many of the higher BTU producers.
According to your statistics, aluminum is 11.25 times more conductive than SS. Is it accurate to state that an aluminum stock pot would transfer 11 times more heat to the liquid that the SS version using the same external heating device? Would it be logical to conclude you would use 11 times less input heat with aluminum than SS to achieve the same degree of "rolling boil?"
To validate this, would a "heat to boil race" be appropriate? Two gallons in aluminum, two gallons in SS. Original water temperature 60°F. Similar profile containers with identical burners (15 kbtu). Both burners started at the same time. If the aluminum boils in 5 minutes, then the SS boils in 56 minutes?
I have never had trouble with scorching but use a diffused flame source with about 100 single hole jets. I do notice more accumulations of beer stone, hard calcium deposits (white), and general brown crud directly over the iron supports. They must significantly help with heat transfer.
The false bottom for boiling is usually used only when you bitter with whole hops. The nice thing is it does not need to be in the boil for the complete cycle but performs very well with Irish moss. If it is not yet installed, you can scrape clean the bottom of the kettle and cut back even more on your input BTU's. If you leave a little space between perforated plate and edge, you get a great roll in your kettle and the perforations appear to hold the hot break quite solidly.
Must be experiment time. Stay tuned - don't touch that dial! I look forward to data about flame impingement and actual heat transfer!
Thanks Jim for kicking this off again!
Rick O
Rick Oftel
>>> "Jim L. Ellingson" <jellings(a)me.umn.edu> 11/17/03 11:13AM >>>
Greetings,
I started out w/ Keg-kettles w/ heating elements and spigots.
I direct fired the kegtle, in addition to the electircal heat.
Never did a decoction in these elemented kettles, can't
really stir w/ the element in place.
The Polarware SS Kettles are much better than converted kegs.
For a direct fired brew kettle, I find aluminum to
be superior to stainless. Isssues as I see 'em.
1. Conductivity, hot spots, scorching:
Materail Conductivity Cost
(W/m-^C) (From Matweb)
Copper 360 $1kb?
Aluminum 180 $100
400 SS 27 $100
300/18-8 SS 16 $200
I've never used copper, but in my experience, aluminum is
a superior conductor compared to SS.
Granted the Al needs to be a bit thicker, so the actual conductivity
may be only 5 times the values for the Polarware pot. The chances
of scorching are much lower w/ aluminum. Aluminum works much better for
decoction mashing. A thicker, better conductor means fewer/no hot spots.
2. Cleaning. Commercially, aluminum is not a good option since
the commercial cleaners (strong caustics) dissolve aluminum, but
few compmercial operations are direct fired. Also, commercial
brewing is a high risk occupation. (get the numbers from OSHA
if you don't believe it.) Number one hazard is burns, from the
strong caustics used in cleaning.
My question is this. What sort of chemicals are you using
on your home brew kettle? Why?
My aluminum kettles take a bit of beer stone, and keep
it until I over-do the acid/pH adjustment.
3. I'm not a fan of spigots in the brewkettle. Impossible to clean,
and easily plugged. I like the siphon/duck/whatever.
4. I'm not a fan of false bottoms. Never worked that well
in the mash tunn (Sabco), so I'm back to slotted pipes in a
cooler. In the kettle, I've had trouble w/ scorcing under
the false bottom (Sabco). Quite possibly, that issue is
reduced or eliminated w/ a "real" kettle. (e.g. Polarware).
5. Flavor: Not an issue. See Jeff Donahue's article on same.
My keg kettls are wired for heat (1100 watts at 110v) and have
spigots. I've retired them "upstairs) to HLT use, and they
work fine for that. A spigot on the HLT is very convenient.
I'm as big a fan of stainless as the next guy, but it's
not a very good conductor.
Cheers,
Jim
--
------------------------------ *
* Dr. James Lee Ellingson, Adjunct Professor jellings(a)me.umn.edu *
* University of Minnesota, tel: 651/645-0753 fax 651 XXX XXXX *
* Great Lakes Brewing News, 1569 Laurel Ave., St. Paul, MN 55104 *
Dave, Personally, I agree with many of the comments about kettles. I prefer SS because all components (pump, SS counterflow and tubing) can be cleaned with the same cleaner. It does transfer heat but a bit more slowly but I still throttle back my Supurb burner when doing 14 gallon boils. Usually the wort is fully boiling about 10 minutes after finishing runoff.
I also strongly prefer having a false bottom for the same reason Steve mentioned. It allows using whole hops and is a great site for crud collection.
Same with the bottom outlet. Whenever you try to siphon hot liquid, the pressure at inlet and top of tube decreases which lowers boiling point and can cause the wort to boil and cavitate the pump. Not a good thing and it sounds worse than it is.
Converted kegs are also ok but we have had reports of temperature line fractures - not a good thing.
Then there is strength. Welded constrution vs deep drawn. Foreign vs domestic. Finally, width vs height. This is a whole subject worth considering. Tall brew kettles extract a little more from the hops. Short mash kettles are also known to work better than tall. The kettle you found is a great kettle but a wee bit short. My personal suggestion would be to get that kettle and replace the outlet valves with SS.
Best of luck.
Rick
