From the HBD Archive
From: korz@ihlpl.att.com
Subject: Re: EASYMASH (chilling)
Date: 1992-03-30 20:28:00 GMT

Jack writes:
>UNHH.UNH.EDU (Russ Gelinas)
>
>>Jack, I know when you said to just let the chiller sit in the wort for
>30 minutes without turning the water on, you were defining an experiment
>of sorts. I'd just like to say that in practice, you want to turn the water
>on immediately to cool the wort as quickly as possible.
>
>I understand but the longer it sits, the more time is has to settle out. My
>thinking is that if it sits after chilling, it is subject to infection and
>without mucking up the lid, the kettle can not be covered properly while the
>chiller is inside. One obviously does not want to remove the chiller after
>the wort is chilled.

Why not? I chill my wort with an immersion chiller, and when it is at 70F,
I simply pull out the chiller, cover the pot and let it sit for an hour to
settle.

>If it sits for 30 minutes hot it can not get infected
>and is not much different from an additional 30 min boil for a chemestry
>stand point but it gets an extra 30 settling time.

Oh yes it is different. When the wort is boiling, it is boiling off the
DMS that is produced, whereas when the boil stops, DMS keeps being
produced until the wort drops below 140F, which unfortunately is in the
bacteria-friendly range. You are correct in saying that keeping the wort
hot will kill bacteria that happen to slip into your kettle, but incorrect
in saying that it's okay to delay cooling.

>> In fact, the faster you cool, the more fluffy stuff you'll see. That
>stuff is the cold break.
>
>>The hot break happens during the boil, when proteins, etc. clump together.
>
>The problem with these terms is that in one instance they indicate a stage in
>a process and in another/both they indicate physical stuff.

Yes it is a problem, but the meaning, "stage" or "stuff" can be determined by
context.

>In my experience, somewhere well into the boil, stuff starts coagulating into
>what looks like egg-drop soup. If this point is the "hot break", I accept
>the definition but let's call the stuff something else.

I'm afraid we're stuck with the terminology -- it's been used for years
and the HBD can't change the whole homebrewing community.

>Similarly, the "cold break"...

Similarly, we can't change the meanings of cold break. If you must,
I suggest "hot break trub" and "cold break trub." All due respect to
Carl Sagan, but have you tried his IPA? Not nearly enough hops for the
style :^).

>I have big troubles understanding how this works or can be as effectively
>utilized with an in-line chiller.

As you mentioned earlier, it requires you to siphon or pump into an
intermediate vessel and then siphon or pump into the fermenter. The
advantage of a counterflow chiller is that the wort cools much more suddenly
which, as Russ mentioned, will give you a better cold break (the stage).

Al.

Back New Search

The posts that comprise the Homebrew Digest Searchable Archive remain the property of their authors.
This search system is copyright © 2008 Scott Alfter; all rights reserved.