Why are hydrometer generally made from glass?

Post by Joerg
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...

Regards,

Mark

Joerg

2018-12-07 18:37:17 UTC

Post by gtwrek

All a stainless hydrometer would need is etch marks on the thin vertical
section, outside. As brewers we have to keep everything very clean
anyhow so these markers would never gunk up and become unreadable. This
might require a flashlight in dark areas but that's easy.

Post by gtwrek
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...

Same here. My current hydrometers cost $1 and even have a thermometer
inside which is very useful, to see whether the wort has cooled below
80F before racking into the primary fermenter. At that price I could
afford a couple of spares :-)

I also have a large professional hydrometer with glass sampling
cylinder. However, it's too big and bottoms out in the brew kettle. Plus
it's also glass.

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.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

gtwrek

2018-12-07 23:32:41 UTC

Post by Joerg
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.

--Mark

Joerg

2018-12-08 15:51:33 UTC

Post by gtwrek

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.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

Baloonon

2018-12-08 20:39:24 UTC

Post by Joerg
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.

Joerg

2018-12-09 15:59:45 UTC

FYI, this article recommends putting a wooden spoon across the top of a pot
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.

Yeah, I can try it. Probably it has to be wood from one particular tree
that only grows on southern hill sides in one particular town in Italy :-)

In my case the lid has to be on and only slightly cracked, else I cannot
maintain a boil. This is with both 1kW electric plates running full tilt.

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:

Loading Image...

The temperature is sent wirelessly to a pocket receiver so I can also do
some other things on brew day.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

Baloonon

2018-12-10 01:48:18 UTC

Post by Joerg
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

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.

Joerg

2018-12-10 19:05:13 UTC

I think it really has to be something Radar-like that can differentiate
between moisture condensation on the antenna and a radio-reflecting mass
below that starts to rise. It shouldn't be fooled by things like hop
spatters and stuff. The electronics part isn't overly complicated but
the programing of the little micro controller in it is, at least for
guys like me who are hardcore hardware design engineers with only little
porgramming background.

Post by Baloonon
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.

I've had talks with chefs, brewers and others and they said there really
isn't anyting that works reliably other than a watchful human eye on things.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

Scott Alfter

2018-12-11 22:07:12 UTC

Post by Baloonon
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.

_/_
/ v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail)
(IIGS( https://alfter.us/ Top-posting!
\_^_/ >What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?

Derek J Decker

2018-12-12 15:50:15 UTC

Post by Baloonon
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.

The crud problem is why I don't use the stick to ramp temps up during a
mash.

Boiling? No, not even at my scale. Not made for that.

To combat foaming during the boil I turn the heat down after boiling
starts to maintain a nice medium rolling boil. I've only had problems at
the start of boiling when I don't catch it in time.

-Derek

gtwrek

2018-12-12 18:13:50 UTC

Post by Derek J Decker
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
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.

I use a sous-vide just to heat my mash water. It's no trouble at all -
I've done 5, and 10 gallons. Sure it takes a little time - but I use
that to my advantage. I start the sous-vide the night before at around
11pm. It's at strike temp when I start next morning at 6am. I'm
actually not sure how long it takes, but it's always been ready for me
the next morning.

I take care to wrap my pot with blankets, and cover the top as best I
can with foil (to reduce evaporation). Works like a charm!

Post by Derek J Decker
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.

Yeah - I don't do the mash with sous-vide. For one it's against the
manufacturer's warranty to heat anything but clean water - for the
reasons you note (it clogs the circulation and cruds up the heating
coils). I've also found that sous-vide machines aren't made all that
well. I've had three different units (different manufacturers )
over about 6 years. One was repaired once under warranty.
(The replacement died about a year after the repair).

I do get good use out of them - both for cooking and brewing - but just
wish they were better made. It's usually the electronics that crap out,
not the actually heating/circulation. A hot, steamy environment isn't
all that friendly to solid-state electronics...

Regards,

Mark

Baloonon

2018-12-13 02:20:43 UTC

Post by Baloonon
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.

$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.

Joerg

2018-12-13 15:17:52 UTC

Post by Baloonon
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.

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.

If I had a 3rd electric circuit downstairs I'd use the pressure cooker
to heat up the late addition malt syrup for Belgians but this would mean
running a long extension cord from upstairs.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

Baloonon

2018-12-14 03:52:01 UTC

Post by Joerg

Post by Baloonon
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.

$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.

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.

Post by Joerg
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/

Joerg

2018-12-14 15:49:59 UTC

Post by Baloonon
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.

$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.

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 find crockpots more practical but they probably use a few hundred
watt-hours of electricity more per big meal.

My wife uses the pressure cooker regularly, like yesterday when cooking
goulash. It goes a lot faster and saves energy. Here in the People's
Republic of California electricity costs almost 30c per kWh and rising,
fast. Propane wouldn't be much cheaper (here).

Well ...

Post by Baloonon
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.

He's got an impressive chiller coil.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

Baloonon

2018-12-15 02:37:14 UTC

Post by Joerg

Post by Baloonon
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/

Post by Joerg
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.

You may not. If you go to http://brulosophy.com and search for shorter
boils, you will see some experiments with 30 (+/-) minute boils and the
results seem pretty good. Obviously you'd need to play around with brewing
software to adjust for hop levels and water volumes in many recipes, but it
may be worth trying some home experiments. Some recipes may need longer
boils for a bit of caramelization, but even then I would bet a bit of trial
and error would get good results.

A lot of newer IPA recipes shift hop additions to the last minutes of the
boil anyway, so they could definitely be good options for shorter boils.

Scott Alfter

2018-12-13 21:48:00 UTC

Post by Baloonon
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.

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 ).

_/_
/ v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail)
(IIGS( https://alfter.us/ Top-posting!
\_^_/ >What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?

Baloonon

2018-12-14 03:54:55 UTC

Post by Baloonon
$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 ).

Sounds good. I had thought they took longer to cook, but 90 minutes from
frozen is not bad at all. Maybe I'll ask Santa for one.

Baloonon

2018-12-08 03:17:21 UTC