Yesterday it happened. I touched a ceramic surface with the tip of a >hydrometer and its tip shattered, spilling black weight grains. Luckily
that didn't happen in the brew kettle with the wort in it.
Why aren't they made from stainless steel? After all, it's essentially
just a weight with a hollow encapsulated area and gravity markers.
In article <[email protected]>,
Joerg <[email protected]> wrote:
Yesterday it happened. I touched a ceramic surface with the tip of a
hydrometer and its tip shattered, spilling black weight grains. Luckily
that didn't happen in the brew kettle with the wort in it.
Why aren't they made from stainless steel? After all, it's essentially
just a weight with a hollow encapsulated area and gravity markers.
Well, it is hard to read through stainless steel. ;)
I suppose a different method of marking the hydrometer
(and calibrating such markings) could be devised. Probably
more historical reasons why things still are the way
they are.
If you really want to go hi-tech, google the Tilt Hydrometer. I just
learned about that one. Neat trick but can't see spending $150 to take gravity readings...
One thing I'd really like to invent (haven't seen anything commercially
yet) is an automatic boil-over detector that turns off a burner when the >foam starts rising fast. On batch #114 I had my first boil-over because
I wanted to finish answering an email. What a mess.
Joerg <[email protected]> wrote:
Yesterday it happened. I touched a ceramic surface with the tip of a >>hydrometer and its tip shattered, spilling black weight grains. Luckily >>that didn't happen in the brew kettle with the wort in it.
Why aren't they made from stainless steel? After all, it's essentially >>just a weight with a hollow encapsulated area and gravity markers.
Well, it is hard to read through stainless steel. ;)
I suppose a different method of marking the hydrometer
(and calibrating such markings) could be devised. Probably
more historical reasons why things still are the way
they are.
In article <[email protected]>,
Joerg <[email protected]> wrote:
One thing I'd really like to invent (haven't seen anything commercially
yet) is an automatic boil-over detector that turns off a burner when the
foam starts rising fast. On batch #114 I had my first boil-over because
I wanted to finish answering an email. What a mess.
First boil-over at batch #114! That's amazing. I was at about batch
#3, still working in the kitchen. After that mess, I was ahem, banned
to the driveway - albeit with a new propane turkey burner... Boil
overs aren't as frequent - I keep a pretty good eye on things - but
much easier to cleanup in the event.
I usually brew outside as well. No smell in the house and I like it
much more. However, now that temps are in the 50F range I have a hard
time keeping up the temperature because I only have two back-to-back
electric 1kW burners under the brew kettle. So now I am indoors where
the boil-over happened.
It's easier for me to control because I am using a 13-gallon tamale
steamer pot and there is never much more than six gallons in it. I
found that if I crack the lid very slightly and leave both burners at
full bore it'll boil but not boil over. Except that day ...
I use a rock on a pot holder on top of the lid to prevent it from
sliding itself shut.
Joerg <[email protected]> wrote
I usually brew outside as well. No smell in the house and I like it
much more. However, now that temps are in the 50F range I have a hard
time keeping up the temperature because I only have two back-to-back
electric 1kW burners under the brew kettle. So now I am indoors where
the boil-over happened.
It's easier for me to control because I am using a 13-gallon tamale
steamer pot and there is never much more than six gallons in it. I
found that if I crack the lid very slightly and leave both burners at
full bore it'll boil but not boil over. Except that day ...
I use a rock on a pot holder on top of the lid to prevent it from
sliding itself shut.
FYI, this article recommends putting a wooden spoon across the top of a pot to prevent boilovers when cooking pasta:
https://gizmodo.com/1498537569
It claims that "The foam is thermodynamically unstable, which means when
the bubbles reach the spoon they will burst, breaking the layer of foam and sending all of the bubbles collapsing down again."
I don't know if pasta water foam is as potent as malt foam, so it may not work, and obviously if you are trying to keep the lid partially on, that's another issue. But I would bet it's not that hard to use some cotton string tied to the handles of the pot to suspend a couple of wooden dowels below
the lid and see if that helps.
There's got to be a way to do this with radio pulse-echo, similar to
Radar, where the receiver part detects the surface of approaching
bubbles and turns of a burner when that gets too close. I already have
a "hang plate" in the pot for temperature measurements and adding a
little gizmo wouldn't be a big deal:
Joerg <[email protected]> wrote
There's got to be a way to do this with radio pulse-echo, similar to
Radar, where the receiver part detects the surface of approaching
bubbles and turns of a burner when that gets too close. I already have
a "hang plate" in the pot for temperature measurements and adding a
little gizmo wouldn't be a big deal:
I vaguely recall there are moisture sensors that trigger an alarm, but I can't remember whether these are cheap devices or something more expensive. They may also be thrown off by all of the steam and condensation.
A circulator rated for high temps would probably keep foam down, but even a cheap sous vide would cost around $100, which seems like a lot.
It may be something as simple as putting a sheet of foil across the top of the pot with enough slack that it sits a few inches below the top of the
pot, and then punching some holes in it. It's possible that any high foam will push through the holes, but the process of going through the holes
will compromise the foam enough that it collapses.
Or, that may just result in an even bigger mess as the holes clog up, and
I'm not sure how you'd know without watching while you test, and that kind of defeats the purpose.
Come to think of it, you could probably fashion a collar out of foil that rose up another eight inches or so above the top of the pot, and that might give you some extra protection against spills. You could probably fashion something out of a foil roasting pan that you could wash off later and
reuse.
A circulator rated for high temps would probably keep foam down, but even a >cheap sous vide would cost around $100, which seems like a lot.
In article <[email protected]>,
Baloonon <[email protected]> wrote:
A circulator rated for high temps would probably keep foam down, but
even a cheap sous vide would cost around $100, which seems like a lot.
Woot had one a short while back for $40. It's worked like a champ so
far for its intended purpose, but I don't know that it (or any sous-vide cooker)
would be able to start or maintain a boil. At 1.2 kW, the power is
(barely)
there to slowly boil 5 gallons, but I suspect it's not intended to get
nearly that hot.
It might be suitable for mashing, though, as long as you can keep solids
from clogging it up.
I'm doing small batch (1 gallon) all grain brew in a bag, and I use a
sous vide stick for mashing with great success - it's great for holding a >constant temperature. A few notes:
I have the sous vide stick outside the bag, so no solids clogging problem.
I use the stick to bring my mash water to temp before adding the bag and >malt - with the larger batches most folks brew this would take weeks.
Even to hold temp with a 5 gallon batch I'd imagine you'd need an
decently insulated mash tub.
The more time your sous vide stick spends at full output power in the
mash, the more crud plates on the heating coils. This stuff is hard to
clean off, and I worry it might affect the beer.
Baloonon <[email protected]> wrote:
A circulator rated for high temps would probably keep foam down, but
even a cheap sous vide would cost around $100, which seems like a lot.
Woot had one a short while back for $40. It's worked like a champ so
far for its intended purpose, but I don't know that it (or any
sous-vide cooker) would be able to start or maintain a boil. At 1.2
kW, the power is (barely) there to slowly boil 5 gallons, but I
suspect it's not intended to get nearly that hot.
[email protected] (Scott Alfter) wrote :
Baloonon <[email protected]> wrote:
A circulator rated for high temps would probably keep foam down, but
even a cheap sous vide would cost around $100, which seems like a lot.
Woot had one a short while back for $40. It's worked like a champ so
far for its intended purpose, but I don't know that it (or any
sous-vide cooker) would be able to start or maintain a boil. At 1.2
kW, the power is (barely) there to slowly boil 5 gallons, but I
suspect it's not intended to get nearly that hot.
$40! That's a good deal. How is it for cooking? I've seen people rave about them, but then I've seen people rave about Instant Pots too. I have one of those, and I like it, but I think it works best on a relatively small
number of things people use them for.
[email protected] (Scott Alfter) wrote :
Baloonon <[email protected]> wrote:
A circulator rated for high temps would probably keep foam down, but
even a cheap sous vide would cost around $100, which seems like a lot.
Woot had one a short while back for $40. It's worked like a champ so
far for its intended purpose, but I don't know that it (or any
sous-vide cooker) would be able to start or maintain a boil. At 1.2
kW, the power is (barely) there to slowly boil 5 gallons, but I
suspect it's not intended to get nearly that hot.
$40! That's a good deal. How is it for cooking? I've seen people rave about >them, but then I've seen people rave about Instant Pots too. I have one of >those, and I like it, but I think it works best on a relatively small >number of things people use them for.
On 2018-12-12 18:20, Baloonon wrote:
[email protected] (Scott Alfter) wrote :
Baloonon <[email protected]> wrote:
A circulator rated for high temps would probably keep foam down,
but even a cheap sous vide would cost around $100, which seems like
a lot.
Woot had one a short while back for $40. It's worked like a champ
so far for its intended purpose, but I don't know that it (or any
sous-vide cooker) would be able to start or maintain a boil. At 1.2
kW, the power is (barely) there to slowly boil 5 gallons, but I
suspect it's not intended to get nearly that hot.
$40! That's a good deal. How is it for cooking? I've seen people rave
about them, but then I've seen people rave about Instant Pots too. I
have one of those, and I like it, but I think it works best on a
relatively small number of things people use them for.
Having grown up in Europe we were so used to pressure cookers that we
still use it a lot here in the US. Stew, goulash, rouladens, and so
on. Even my grandma had a (gigantic) pressure cooker in the 60's but
they were always early adopters when it came to technology. We have a
fancy one from WMF. No digital controls like on an Instant Pot but
that's no big deal.
I wish these things worked for brewing but then you'd need some sort
of double-gated port to add hops and do late additions, and couldn't
stir. Space station style. Also, AFAIK it's bad to not let steam come
off the brew kettle.
Baloonon <[email protected]> wrote:
$40! That's a good deal. How is it for cooking? I've seen people rave
about them, but then I've seen people rave about Instant Pots too. I
have one of those, and I like it, but I think it works best on a >>relatively small number of things people use them for.
Just did a ribeye with mine last night. Pulled it out of the freezer,
added seasonings, resealed the bag (I seal them individually in
FoodSaver bags when I buy them), and chucked it in the pot. 90
minutes at 130 thaws it and cooks it to medium-rare in one shot. 20
minutes before it's done, throw a cast-iron skillet into a 500-degree
oven. When it's done, pull the steak out of the bag and give it 2
minutes in the skillet on each side.
It's a perfect medium rare, with no parts overdone or underdone.
Adjust the cooking temperature up or down to taste (though if you
prefer your steak well-done, I don't want to hear about it :-P ).
Joerg <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2018-12-12 18:20, Baloonon wrote:
[email protected] (Scott Alfter) wrote :
Baloonon <[email protected]> wrote:
A circulator rated for high temps would probably keep foam down,
but even a cheap sous vide would cost around $100, which seems like
a lot.
Woot had one a short while back for $40. It's worked like a champ
so far for its intended purpose, but I don't know that it (or any
sous-vide cooker) would be able to start or maintain a boil. At 1.2
kW, the power is (barely) there to slowly boil 5 gallons, but I
suspect it's not intended to get nearly that hot.
$40! That's a good deal. How is it for cooking? I've seen people rave
about them, but then I've seen people rave about Instant Pots too. I
have one of those, and I like it, but I think it works best on a
relatively small number of things people use them for.
Having grown up in Europe we were so used to pressure cookers that we
still use it a lot here in the US. Stew, goulash, rouladens, and so
on. Even my grandma had a (gigantic) pressure cooker in the 60's but
they were always early adopters when it came to technology. We have a
fancy one from WMF. No digital controls like on an Instant Pot but
that's no big deal.
They're good for soups and for things like cooking beans, but they're not
so useful for things where you want the liquid to cook down, or for things where you're adding a series of ingredients over time.
On the other hand, InstantPots work just as well at slow cooking as crockpots, so I was able to get rid of my old crockpot.
I wish these things worked for brewing but then you'd need some sort
of double-gated port to add hops and do late additions, and couldn't
stir. Space station style. Also, AFAIK it's bad to not let steam come
off the brew kettle.
Referencing the start of this thread, the valves can get clogged by foam, which can be a big problem. I've never had a pressure cooker blow (InstantPots are supposedly safe that way) but it's supposed to be pretty scary. Not from a true explosion, but from the spraying hot liquid.
https://what-if.xkcd.com/40/
As far as not letting steam escape, I think newer thinking is that the
risks of DMS are overstated. This is one experiment involving blind taste testing which had the result of no detectable difference between a beer
with a lid on boil vs. the same recipe with a lid off boil.
http://brulosophy.com/2016/10/31/the-boil-lid-on-vs-lid-off-exbeeriment- results/
On 2018-12-13 19:52, Baloonon wrote:
As far as not letting steam escape, I think newer thinking is that
the risks of DMS are overstated. This is one experiment involving
blind taste testing which had the result of no detectable difference
between a beer with a lid on boil vs. the same recipe with a lid off
boil.
http://brulosophy.com/2016/10/31/the-boil-lid-on-vs-lid-off-exbeeriment- results/
Very interesting. I have to boil with the lid almost closed, only
slightly cracked, else no boil because of the weak electrical burners.
Though I always wondered why we have to boil for 60 minutes of some
beers even for 90 minutes.
| Sysop: | DaiTengu |
|---|---|
| Location: | Appleton, WI |
| Users: | 991 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 180:20:14 |
| Calls: | 12,940 |
| Files: | 186,574 |
| Messages: | 3,262,538 |
