# No Chill / Partial Chill / Full Chill Experiment



## donburke (28/2/12)

I am proposing a no chill / partial chill / full chill experiment, as inspired from a discussion with Ross

My rig can make 80 litres of beer, and I can chill all the way down to pitching temperature if i want to

The purpose of the experiment is to see the effect the different rates of chilling have on the bitterness and flavour of the beer

I propose to brew a simple beer of around 1.048 with IBU of around 30 using 3 equal additions of probably cascade at 60, 20 and 5 and then fill 4 x 20 litre cubes according to the following;

1st cube filled straight away

chill remaining wort to approx 70 deg

2nd cube filled with 70 deg wort
3rd cube filled with 70 deg wort and cube hopped with approx 20g cascade

chill remaining wort to 20 deg

4th lot straight into fementer and pitched

next day pitch the 3 cubes and ferment all beers at same temp using US05

i appreciate any input to help make this a useful experiment


----------



## MarkBastard (28/2/12)

Sounds like a good experiment and I'm interested in feedback.

Next time I propose another experiment.

1 - Normal chilled beer + ferment hop
2 - No-chill beer + cube hop + ferment hop
3 - No-chill beer + ferment hop
4 - No-chill beer + french press hop tea addition in fermenter


----------



## Fents (28/2/12)

Nice experiment. But im pretty sure we already know what the outcome is going to be.

and unless someone has a lab that you can use to test the IBU in the final products then its all just "calculated" numbers. Also it will just be your judgment at how they taste im assuming? (maybe Ross as well?)

still a good experiment though and one thats been begging to be done properly for some time now so all the no chillers have some proper numbers to run with.


----------



## donburke (28/2/12)

Fents said:


> Nice experiment. But im pretty sure we already know what the outcome is going to be.
> 
> and unless someone has a lab that you can use to test the IBU in the final products then its all just "calculated" numbers. Also it will just be your judgment at how they taste im assuming? (maybe Ross as well?)
> 
> still a good experiment though and one thats been begging to be done properly for some time now so all the no chillers have some proper numbers to run with.




i'm happy to bottle a few and send for proper analysis if someone is offering

and if so, i'd appreciate some input on tightening the parameters of the experiment

i think fermenting them at the same time will also eliminate any aging differences


----------



## seamad (28/2/12)

How much would analysis cost?
Id be happy to contribute, would think other no chillers may as well ?
Cheers
sean


----------



## MarkBastard (28/2/12)

Analysis doesn't concern me much unless there is first a distinctly recognisable difference that the tasters notice.

The ideal outcome for this would be very minor differences with the cube hopped one having more late hop character. I doubt that'll happen but it'd be nice.


----------



## donburke (28/2/12)

seamad said:


> How much would analysis cost?
> Id be happy to contribute, would think other no chillers may as well ?
> Cheers
> sean




might also get another brewer involved to help with the integrity of the brew process


----------



## iralosavic (28/2/12)

Maybe start an experiment donation fund? And when the list of donatations reaches the target the experiment is commenced? There is only theory in circulation regarding this topic, so it would be great to get some scientific data that can be used to formulate an accurate post boil temperature/bitterness calculator. Just need to convince a lab to consider a discount for doing a few tests and then share the figure/donation target. If there isn't enough interest then you could just conduct the experiment as planned.


----------



## QldKev (28/2/12)

I would not worry about the measured IBU, it's only a number. It is the perceived bitterness that we taste. ie 0min hop additions add no IBUs, but throw 3g/L of 10%AA hops in at 0min and I think it makes a huge difference to the bitterness taste.

Great idea, the only think I would like to see is a few people having a sample to get a few inputs. Could be worth doing a blind tasting of it. 

QldKev


----------



## iralosavic (28/2/12)

A panel of blind tasters sounds like a good idea to me. Happy to volunteer my sensitive taste buds, although they are located in vic


----------



## sponge (28/2/12)

+1 to the blind tasting idea. Only way to really perceive the difference in flavour/aroma/bitterness without first mentally deciding what each brew should taste like if its wasn't done blindly.



Sponge


----------



## donburke (28/2/12)

iralosavic said:


> A panel of blind tasters sounds like a good idea to me. Happy to volunteer my sensitive taste buds, although they are located in vic




how does blind tasting work ? drink 2 or 3 litres of your favourite IIPA before doing the tasting ? that should get you blind


----------



## iralosavic (28/2/12)

Haha after that everthing will taste like 20ibu. You just number them and the taster notes their thoughts before being told what each number represents


----------



## donburke (28/2/12)

QldKev said:


> I would not worry about the measured IBU, it's only a number. It is the perceived bitterness that we taste. ie 0min hop additions add no IBUs, but throw 3g/L of 10%AA hops in at 0min and I think it makes a huge difference to the bitterness taste.
> 
> Great idea, the only think I would like to see is a few people having a sample to get a few inputs. Could be worth doing a blind tasting of it.
> 
> QldKev



i can push the late hop additions to 15min and 0min and use a higher aa hop to amplify the effects
i'd agree and say the differences would likely be more noticable


----------



## QldKev (28/2/12)

iralosavic said:


> Haha after that everthing will taste like 20ibu. You just number them and the taster notes their thoughts before being told what each number represents




Thats it, glasses are just numbered and the panel does not know which beer is in the sample, and they are sent out in a random order.
The panel record their notes against the glass number.

And not until all samples are tasted and recorded are they told which beers were in the glasses.

ps. you don't need to poke any eyes out

QldKev


----------



## seamad (28/2/12)

A proper blind tasting is an excellent idea. Randomly allocate numbers to the 4 brews and get a decent number of testers, then correlate the results. Would think that the results may obviate need for lab analysis


----------



## QldKev (28/2/12)

donburke said:


> i can push the late hop additions to 15min and 0min and use a higher aa hop to amplify the effects
> i'd agree and say the differences would likely be more noticable




I think it would help in the experiment, and personally am really interested in the outcome.

I've been thinking of a few experiments myself (since I already have an immersion chiller that never gets used sitting around)

QldKev


----------



## seamad (28/2/12)

A lot of no chillers use the +15 min addition method. Any feasible way of removing a portion of wort for a seperate boil ( with same boil rate) to see how this method compares?


----------



## mxd (28/2/12)

manticle has done a no chill and chill experiment off the one batch, I tasted both and could pick the no chill, for me it wasn't the bitterness it was more the harshness/smothness (maybe that is the bitterness  ). No surprise the no chill was a little harsher, both we beautiful beers though.


----------



## donburke (28/2/12)

seamad said:


> A lot of no chillers use the +15 min addition method. Any feasible way of removing a portion of wort for a seperate boil ( with same boil rate) to see how this method compares?



is this the argon method ?arent the 15min additions eliminated altogether then added on pitching day with a small boil of part of the cubed wort ?

i supposed 20 litres of wort can be drawn just prior to the 15 min additions of the main boil


----------



## donburke (28/2/12)

mxd said:


> manticle has done a no chill and chill experiment off the one batch, I tasted both and could pick the no chill, for me it wasn't the bitterness it was more the harshness/smothness (maybe that is the bitterness  ). No surprise the no chill was a little harsher, both we beautiful beers though.



do you remember the difference in flavour profile ?


----------



## seamad (28/2/12)

I suppose the easiest way would pull a cube before the 20 addition, with the 20 min hops in the cube then chill cube via argon method, before pitching do a seperate 3-4 l boil for same time (5) as the aroma addition in the main boil. That is one approach ive tried.


----------



## seamad (28/2/12)

Not sure how manticle did the experiment but i was under the impression he doesnt make time changes for no chill ?


----------



## big78sam (28/2/12)

Sounds great. My only suggestion is to use a high AA hop as I'm not sure the difference would be noticable with cascade. Maybe galaxy, chinook or similar.

EDIT: I see a 10% hop was already suggested. I'd be inclined to go for 12 or 14% to make the differences stand out. If a blind tasting doesn't pick the difference with a 14% hop that would be a more definitive response.


----------



## Fents (28/2/12)

QldKev said:


> I would not worry about the measured IBU, it's only a number. It is the perceived bitterness that we taste. ie 0min hop additions add no IBUs, but throw 3g/L of 10%AA hops in at 0min and I think it makes a huge difference to the bitterness taste.
> 
> Great idea, the only think I would like to see is a few people having a sample to get a few inputs. Could be worth doing a blind tasting of it.
> 
> QldKev



It may be only a number but perceived bitterness is only a personal perception. everyones tastebuds are different. everyone who regulary drinks 40+ IBU beers, well they are sort of immune to bitterness, same as smokers too, palates are ruined.


----------



## stux (28/2/12)

QldKev said:


> Thats it, glasses are just numbered and the panel does not know which beer is in the sample, and they are sent out in a random order.
> The panel record their notes against the glass number.
> 
> And not until all samples are tasted and recorded are they told which beers were in the glasses.
> ...



Roll a dice twice to pick the numbers

3,4

4,5

5,3

4,6

etc


Hopefully you're going to prove/disprove the accepted theory that no-chill has less hop aroma and more bitterness... which is a satisfactory result...

Perhaps its simply enough to do the experiment, note the differences, and then perhaps propose a followup.

Alternatively, goose it with two bottles from each batch, but with a different set of numbers , that'll keep the tasters on their toes


----------



## iralosavic (28/2/12)

I find 30ibu bitter haha


----------



## qwertyjnr (28/2/12)

iralosavic said:


> I find 30ibu bitter haha



ill happily volunteer to be a blind tester. located in toowoomba though.


----------



## donburke (28/2/12)

qwertyjnr said:


> ill happily volunteer to be a blind tester. located in toowoomba though.




i'll give you a couple of days notice


----------



## iralosavic (28/2/12)

donburke said:


> i'll give you a couple of days notice
> 
> View attachment 52711



I'll need a week's notice - prefer not to drive at night.


----------



## Gar (28/2/12)

I'm with big78sam on the high alpha idea, and very late on.

Looking forward to the results though :beerbang:


----------



## Nick JD (28/2/12)

Should do an ABX Test. 

Start with the first one, labled with what's in the glass "No Chill" X.

Then in three other glasses labled A, B and C have the three brews (one of them will be the no chill brew).

Tasters have to pick which of A, B or C is X. 

You will soon see if there's a significant difference between the beers by how many people pick it or don't - and how many times.

You might find that X an Z are impossible to pick, but Y is easy. You might find that the results get worse the longer the test is run. 

Stop the test when the first person vomits. Discrimination Testing and Drinking Games ... finally the two combined!


----------



## donburke (28/2/12)

Nick JD said:


> Should do an ABX Test.
> 
> Start with the first one, labled with what's in the glass "No Chill" X.
> 
> ...




slip a couple of drops of visine in "Y" then you'll know the person that got "Y" is the one who got up in a hurry


----------



## Nick JD (28/2/12)

donburke said:


> slip a couple of drops of visine in "Y" then you'll know the person that got "Y" is the one who got up in a hurry



Heh heh. 

Everyone will have Y though - lots of times. You need a big set of data before any conclusions can be made.


----------



## black_labb (28/2/12)

My concern is that the partial chill where you put it in at 70* would not be fully pasturised, though if you pitch the next day you should be fine. If you have a pool the "chuck it in the pool option" could be a better bet.


----------



## donburke (28/2/12)

black_labb said:


> My concern is that the partial chill where you put it in at 70* would not be fully pasturised, though if you pitch the next day you should be fine. If you have a pool the "chuck it in the pool option" could be a better bet.



good, this is the sort of input i'm after

what temp would be recommended, if there is such a temperature, that will allow for sufficient pasteurisation without continued isomerisation

because if the results show that the partially chilled beer retains more hop flavour without added bitterness, it could become a standard practice for me at home


----------



## big78sam (28/2/12)

black_labb said:


> My concern is that the partial chill where you put it in at 70* would not be fully pasturised, though if you pitch the next day you should be fine.



Ross uses this method without problems. Maybe he can comment further on infection issues




Ross said:


> When I'm filling a cube rather than direct pitching, I run an immersion heater for a minute to knock the heat down to 85/90c. Flame out hops (if required) are then added & steeped for 20 mins.
> The temperature by then has dropped to approx 70/75c. I then run into the cube in the usual manner. The heat here is more than enough to sanitise & knock over any wild yeast, but cool enough to limit the hot break & make handling easier.
> I find this method doesn't require any adjustment (to my taste) from the fully chilled version.
> 
> cheers Ross


----------



## seamad (28/2/12)

I pool chill. Normally whirlpool 10-15 min, let settle 10-15 then cube. Usually @ mid 80 s. Leave upside down for ten , retighten lid and drop into the pool.
I vary between using my 20 min additions either at power off or into the cube. 10,5,&0 additions always seperate boil ( argon method).


----------



## black_labb (28/2/12)

big78sam said:


> Ross uses this method without problems. Maybe he can comment further on infection issues




I'm more concerned for long term stability. The next morning will be fine. I think I read somewhere that liquid at 71* for a minute is pasturised, but it's really the vessel we are looking at when cubing as the boiled wort will be sanitary already. It's the long term cubing where you want to really be sure of the higher temps. I read someone suggesting that 80* was the lowest they would aim to cube at as it's the small cracks, the tap area and the lid that are succeptible to contaminating the vessel.

As I mentioned above, if you are pitching the next day this is going to be irrelevant as that spec of bacteria that takes 3 weeks to get anywhere in terms of creating a bacteria colony is going to be irrelevant until a while down the track, if that spec of bacteria is there at all.

edit: and sorry, I can be anal about advice in most situations and tend to piss people off with too specific advice


----------



## donburke (28/2/12)

black_labb said:


> I'm more concerned for long term stability. The next morning will be fine. I think I read somewhere that liquid at 71* for a minute is pasturised, but it's really the vessel we are looking at when cubing as the boiled wort will be sanitary already. It's the long term cubing where you want to really be sure of the higher temps. I read someone suggesting that 80* was the lowest they would aim to cube at as it's the small cracks, the tap area and the lid that are succeptible to contaminating the vessel.
> 
> As I mentioned above, if you are pitching the next day this is going to be irrelevant as that spec of bacteria that takes 3 weeks to get anywhere in terms of creating a bacteria colony is going to be irrelevant until a while down the track, if that spec of bacteria is there at all.
> 
> edit: and sorry, I can be anal about advice in most situations and tend to piss people off with too specific advice




its milk that is pasteurised at those temps

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=...VP-IQ4NbofE3KTg

so someone packing their cube at 80 is probably erring on the safe side to allow for heat loss down the siphon hose and heat the cube will absorb, which is probably realistic

i think i'll do the partial chill to 80deg not 70deg

also, with the earlier references, it looks like isomerisation is considerably slower at 90 deg vs 100 deg, and again even slower at 80 deg, so 80 deg should achieve what its intended to do and also be safe


----------



## black_labb (28/2/12)

donburke said:


> its milk that is pasteurised at those temps
> 
> http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=...VP-IQ4NbofE3KTg
> 
> ...




Pasturisation is the killing of bacteria in a liquid from high temps. wether it is milk or beer is pretty much irrelevant as it's the bacteria we are dealing with. It was also mentioned that using cubes we should err on the side of safety as there could be bacteria hiding in cracks, tapholes ect and a bit more temperature will likely heat into the cracks killing the bacteria where lower temps could possibly not kill all the bacteria in a crack/thread.


And here is another situation where I am being anal about specifics that don't really matter, but I can't help myself


----------



## going down a hill (28/2/12)

The only thing that I can think of that will improve the test is changing the yeast proposed. US05 is a bit of a hop killer, maybe look at a yeast strain that is more hop friendly? 

It's been interesting to read through all of the no chill threads in the last 3 months or so and I tip my hat at you for doing this test, great idea.


----------



## Nick JD (28/2/12)

US05 isn't a hop killer.


----------



## donburke (28/2/12)

Nick JD said:


> US05 isn't a hop killer.




i agree, plenty of hops come through when i use us05


----------



## jbowers (28/2/12)

Hahaha. Might have to let the hundreds of excellent american breweries using this yeast know....


----------



## iralosavic (28/2/12)

I thought US05 was well known for its hop showcasing qualities? It was this that lead me to using it for my LCPA.

It's good to see somewhat of an open forum/debate occuring to assist with the evolution of the experiment conditions.


----------



## Muscovy_333 (28/2/12)

As long as you are consistent with everything except the parameter you are measuring the difference for, it is a sound experiment.
Regarding blind tasting, the more people you get to taste, the more precise your data will be.

I believe a blind tasting on the wort pre-ferment would also be a worthy experiment. You could compare difference without the added variable of yeast,time and temp. Given that differences in yeast time and temp will have a significant impact on finished flavour.

And i must beg to differ with a few on the 'dont worry about lab analysis' bit. 
IMHO, the lab analysis would also take out the subjective variable of differing palates and give some 'real' data that could be used as a guide to improve everyones understandings of chill vs no-chill.
Hat off to you for tackling the experiment...wish i was closer to help out.


----------



## QldKev (28/2/12)

Muscovy said:


> As long as you are consistent with everything except the parameter you are measuring the difference for, it is a sound experiment.
> Regarding blind tasting, the more people you get to taste, the more precise your data will be.
> 
> I believe a blind tasting on the wort pre-ferment would also be a worthy experiment. You could compare difference without the added variable of yeast,time and temp. Given that differences in yeast time and temp will have a significant impact on finished flavour.
> ...




Do you drink beer for the numbers? I drink it for the taste! Hence stuff the scientific numbers, they are just a wank factor. Why do all the big breweries still hire people to do the final tasting? We need all the tasters we can get, so we can result on the input from many different people. People drink beer, not scientific equipment. If donburke is happy to bottle up one of each, I am more than happy to pay to get them up here and get together locals for a tasting, and submit our notes. Hopefully I can get AndrewQld in on this as he has the best ability to pick up the exact characteristics of beer of anyone I have ever met. 

Same as drinking pre-fermented wort? I don't normally do that, do you? The finished product is what matters. 

Keep it simple, blind tasting so yo don't build a pre determined outcome, and keep real people who are tasting it! 

Don't forget this is a hobby and should be fun.


QldKev :icon_cheers:


----------



## manticle (28/2/12)

seamad said:


> Not sure how manticle did the experiment but i was under the impression he doesnt make time changes for no chill ?



No I don't. That's a separate experiment to see if you can compensate with NC to get same/simialr to chilled.

Mine was simply to compare the difference, as a no chiller, of a known beer and known recipe when chilled.

I don't make adjustments because I design all my own recipes and I no chill - therefore I design my recipes based around that method. No need to adjust anything - just to get a taste for what works to my palate.

My experiment took a beer that I make regularly that involves a lot of late hopping. I brewed a double batch on a friend's system, ran one lot off to no chill and one through a plate chiller. I can't remember now which one was run off first - the NC one to make sure it was still hot enough or the chilled one to make sure it got all the advantages of chilling.

Anyway both were fermented with same date packets of neutral yeast (05) - the chilled one same day (obviously) and the NC one next day. Same ferment conditions, both cold conditioned, both dry hopped at 1g/L with the same hops that appeared in the brewing, equal amounts of all hops. Neither yeasts were rehydrated, bot brews were fermented with cold break (NC one in the cube, no transfer, chilled got CB becuase it was a plate chiller).

While I did it mainly for myself to see what I thought, I got 3 other brewers to taste it, then took it to my brew club where a few others tasted it.

I think MXD was actually one of the few to pick the NC one straight up. Strangely enough, the first three brewers mentioned and at least one or two from the brew club, picked the NC as being more aromatic.

The chilled had a more distinct flavour hop profile (and actually showed some elements of one hop I didn't like which weren't in the NC version) and was definitely less bitter. I actually found it too sweet and out of balance and if chilling would change the recipe (probably by dropping the crystal and munich amounts, rather than by changing the hops). I know at least one other I gave two bottles to preferred the chilled and found the NC a tad too bitter.

Anyway mine was interesting but far from conclusive, except to say that yes there is a difference and yes NC will definitely give more bitterness in beers with late additions. Preference can still fall on either side and there would no doubt have been variables in my trial that I didn't control.

I have become interested in purchasing a plate chiller for use with some beers, when I feel like it but I'm not likely to give up NC completely and I'm not likely to start trying to compensate my NC beers by screwing with the addition times unless for the purpose trying an experiement precisely to determine that difference.

I think good on Don for having a crack - these experiments are a great way to learn about beer and different methods.


----------



## Nick JD (28/2/12)

Here's how to do it.

Get ten people. Fill up 30, 50ml glasses with brew A, brew B and brew C - ten of each. Give them a multi-choice form so they can tick which they think it is.

Then fill up ten glasses of X (which is B - but they (and you) don't know that). 

They sip X and then sip A, B and C ... their goal is to identify whether A, B or C is X. 

Fill up another 30 glasses of A, B and C.

Fill up ten glasses of Y (which is C - but they (and you) don't know that).

They sip Y and then sip A, B and C ... their goal is to identify whether A, B or C is Y. On their multi-choice form they can tick which they think it is.

Repeat for Z.

At the end you will have a true representation of whether there is a discernable difference between the three beers. Everything else is just a bunch of pissheads talking shit.

I can get all statistics on yo asses if you'd like; beer appreciation is one thing - actually eliminating wank from taste testing is a whole nother.


----------



## the_new_darren (28/2/12)

Nick JD said:


> Here's how to do it.
> 
> Get ten people. Fill up 30, 50ml glasses with brew A, brew B and brew C - ten of each. Give them a multi-choice form so they can tick which they think it is.
> 
> ...




Nicks suggestion is actually a good idea. Triangle testing WITHOUT the brewer knowing which beer is which beer is essential.

tnd


----------



## manticle (28/2/12)

I thought it was obvious that brewers wouldn't know which beer is which beer until after they have tasted (and given feedback or opinion)?

Nick's method is the most thorough statistically but I thought blind tasting was self evident?

Of course just tasting beer and giving feedback based on tasting, not expectation (so not knowing what any of them are or the purpose of the experiment) is the proper way to do it. Is that what you were suggesting?


----------



## donburke (28/2/12)

the_new_darren said:


> Nicks suggestion is actually a good idea. Triangle testing WITHOUT the brewer knowing which beer is which beer is essential.
> 
> tnd




someones gotta know which is which because if the differences are noticeable then you'd want to know which is the 'preferred' one


----------



## the_new_darren (28/2/12)

These things can easily be "rigged" by an "influential person" at the tastings who knows which beer is which.

Also, several individuals can confer together through conversation about a particular aspect of a beer (right or wrong) but by chance alone (1/3) a "trend" will be assumed.

By asking the tasters to reassess the flavour will result in a more accurate assessment (ie they were all wrong or correct).

Also, if there are distinct differences in the beer, it will help the tasters to "taste" higher IBU against lower IBU (ie they ge to taste more than once and re-compare.

cheers

tnd


----------



## Nick JD (28/2/12)

donburke said:


> someones gotta know which is which because if the differences are noticeable then you'd want to know which is the 'preferred' one



That's the "double" blind ... the guy pouring the beers isn't aware which is which (someone who doesn't watch the test labels the bottles and leaves, knowing which is which).

This way you don't get someone who everyone looks to when they think they have it to see his reaction. Or worse, someone who makes comments about others preferences.


----------



## seamad (28/2/12)

The person suppling the beer labels them 1-4. Gives bottles to someone ( doesnt tell him what they are). That person randomly relabels them A-D, taking note of course of changes eg #1 is C.
Gives bottles to pourer.
Ideally tasters should be seperated ( screen etc) to prevent collusion.
Tasters given standard multi choice questions to make stat compilation easier.


----------



## Muscovy_333 (28/2/12)

QldKev said:


> Do you drink beer for the numbers? I drink it for the taste! Hence stuff the scientific numbers, they are just a wank factor. Why do all the big breweries still hire people to do the final tasting? We need all the tasters we can get, so we can result on the input from many different people. People drink beer, not scientific equipment. If donburke is happy to bottle up one of each, I am more than happy to pay to get them up here and get together locals for a tasting, and submit our notes. Hopefully I can get AndrewQld in on this as he has the best ability to pick up the exact characteristics of beer of anyone I have ever met.
> 
> Same as drinking pre-fermented wort? I don't normally do that, do you? The finished product is what matters.
> 
> ...




Ouch...back in my box i go!
My humble opinion of course; but I taste my beer at every stage of the process because i can, and it helps ME understand what is happening where in my process.

I also categorically agree that tasting a finished beer is very important for this experiment. I have no doubt that some people will find differences when tasting and others wont. I was employed to do it with food for 15 years.

I use my taste buds, but also rely on numbers to help me improve my craft, otherwise it may be a lot of heresay.

I digress...


----------



## Lecterfan (28/2/12)

That small and intimate moment where empiricism meets idealism and realises that it has to account for subjectivity somehow and then stuffs it under a number of different models to make it work. Completely valid (in many contexts), I'm not knocking it, but from a psychological perspective it MUST be double blind as when working with humans (rather than rats or other measurable dependant variables related to human behaviour - including perception - and even most of that is open to debate) the experimenters give the game away in their very way-of-being amongst the subjects (it may be unconscious, imperceptible, but it is there).

This goes back to when someone wanted "science" to explain the shape of the glass debate from the BWS thing...for many people the shape of the glass has already cognitively determined what characteristics they will get from the beer (due to their subjective historicity as a being in the world) before their olfactory systems fire any synapses at all. Science? Dunno...but something that happens and can be demonstrated with decent repeatability using the scientific method.

Anyway... this sounds great!


----------



## Mikedub (28/2/12)

Nick JD said:


> US05 isn't a hop killer.



yeah, I think Ice T sang a song about it in 1992" 


Hop killer, better you than me.
Hop killer, f**k police brutality!
Hop killer, I know your mama's grievin'
(f**k her)

Hop killer, but tonight we get even!
:beerbang:


----------



## Lecterfan (28/2/12)

"Like" :icon_cheers: 


- still got the original cd. Hardly a claim to fame, but it only lasted on Oz shelves for about 6 months before being withdrawn and replaced with the sanitised version. 

THERE GOES THE NEIGHBOURHOOD! (big song for the pimply teenage Sabbath fans haha)


----------



## peaky (28/2/12)

Lecterfan said:


> "Like" :icon_cheers:
> 
> 
> - still got the original cd. Hardly a claim to fame, but it only lasted on Oz shelves for about 6 months before being withdrawn and replaced with the sanitised version.
> ...



That brings back memories, haven't heard it in years.

Off to TPB I go.....

Sorry to OP for taking this :icon_offtopic: even more :icon_offtopic:


----------



## Nick JD (28/2/12)

Forget The Police? 

_Parental Advisory Lyrics._

EDIT: NWA, not Bodycount. It's been a while - since I squeezed my zits.


----------



## Lecterfan (28/2/12)

Nick JD said:


> Forget The Police?
> 
> _Parental Advisory Lyrics._
> 
> EDIT: NWA, not Bodycount. It's been a while - since I squeezed my zits.


Str8 outta compton - yep, great stuff, but some of us country boys needed a big riff rather than a clever rhyme about a pit bull and an uzi to open our cultural horizons...


----------



## Nick JD (28/2/12)

Then you need this:


----------



## Lecterfan (29/2/12)

Nick JD said:


> Then you need this:



Touche, but the Sabbath fans wanted a different type of riff, or more to the point a different rhythm/tempo. But I've already carried on about this elsewhere haha!


----------



## hando (29/2/12)

QldKev said:


> Do you drink beer for the numbers? I drink it for the taste! Hence stuff the scientific numbers, they are just a wank factor. Why do all the big breweries still hire people to do the final tasting? We need all the tasters we can get, so we can result on the input from many different people. People drink beer, not scientific equipment. If donburke is happy to bottle up one of each, I am more than happy to pay to get them up here and get together locals for a tasting, and submit our notes. Hopefully I can get AndrewQld in on this as he has the best ability to pick up the exact characteristics of beer of anyone I have ever met.
> 
> Same as drinking pre-fermented wort? I don't normally do that, do you? The finished product is what matters.
> 
> ...



I think a lab report on official IBU's is a good idea. Having tasters alone would only be able to determine results based on perceptions of bitterness and preferred tastes. Having real data to refer back to would be valuable.... and it shouldn't cost too much either.

Edit: I think both tasters and lab analysis are important. Not just one or the other.


----------



## QldKev (29/2/12)

Muscovy said:


> Ouch...back in my box i go!
> My humble opinion of course; but I taste my beer at every stage of the process because i can, and it helps ME understand what is happening where in my process.
> 
> I also categorically agree that tasting a finished beer is very important for this experiment. I have no doubt that some people will find differences when tasting and others wont. I was employed to do it with food for 15 years.
> ...



That was no way a personal attack. All I am trying to say is the numbers can add up to say (random beers, may have totally different IBUs etc) Ashai and Corona are the same. Both are lighter malt profiles, both are subdue IBUs, but are completely different beers and to me taste differently bittered. Maybe not the best example but hopefully you get what I mean. 

Personally I think the IBU scale is great base way to measure 'a given bitterness compound' within beer. I think it is not a complete measurement of what the beer bitterness will taste like. I'm not talking IBU vs malt profiles, I'm talking wack in 200g of a high AA% hop at 0 mins. IBU calc will say zero bitterness, my taste buds will say heaps.

Maybe measuring the IBU will put something on paper, it could be great to at least document that. But didn't manticle's experiment result the no-chill was actually less bitter/smoother bitterness to drink? I would like to see a study of IBU Vs perceived bitterness. 

I would like to see this kept something fun, so more people are tempted to do it again. Of course the ultimate decision on this one is by donburke as it's his experiment.

I'm also thinking of running a test on my system and pump out 4 cubes to see how it goes. Only problem is I only have temp controlled environment for 2 fermentors at a time. 

QldKev


----------



## manticle (29/2/12)

QldKev said:


> But didn't manticle's experiment result the no-chill was actually less bitter/smoother bitterness to drink?



No, the NC was definitely more bitter. It's just most who blind tasted picked it as more aromatic which is counter intuitive. I also preferred the balance of the NC but it's a beer I've brewed a few times specifically as an NC beer so the balance was thrown out for me with the lower bitterness.

I agree that measured bitterness and perceived bitterness are different but you'd be expecting these kinds of tests to be measuring the same beer so those factors should be lessened. If you tried it with different beers, even if theoretically the same IBU the results would tell you nothing.

I agree - first and foremost the human palate is the key instrument for qualitative assessment (most important with this kind of thing) but measured/quantitative differences would at least be interesting.


----------



## punkin (14/3/12)

What ever happened with this experiment?


----------



## ekul (14/3/12)

everyone died from botulism


----------



## donburke (14/3/12)

punkin said:


> What ever happened with this experiment?




patience my dear watson

its in my brewing schedule


----------



## donburke (14/3/12)

ekul said:


> everyone died from botulism




wrong thread mate :icon_cheers:


----------



## pk.sax (6/5/12)

In the interest of necro...







Pool chill for apartment dwellers


----------



## Dazza88 (6/5/12)

Is that from five storeys up?


----------



## Gar (6/5/12)

practicalfool said:


> In the interest of necro...
> 
> Pool chill for apartment dwellers



haha awesome!

If the rope breaks... deny all..... h34r:


----------



## pk.sax (6/5/12)

DazDog said:


> Is that from five storeys up?



lol no, just 1.



Gar said:


> haha awesome!
> 
> If the rope breaks... deny all..... h34r:


I had tied my very own cowboy version of Bribie's hangmans noose, it held 
I must say I'm quite impressed, its all cooled down in ~ 1/2 an hour, of course the pool is big, I could put it into ferm fridge now and pitch in an hour if I wanted!
Well, I'll see, have also ordered a plate chiller since I get water for free .. will see.. I'll have to do my own 3 way comparison sometime when I'm more organised.


----------



## kelbygreen (6/5/12)

you got one long shoelace lol


----------



## QldKev (6/5/12)

kelbygreen said:


> you got one long shoelace lol





thats just one huge public hair holding it in place.


----------



## Yob (6/5/12)

practicalfool said:


> lol no, just 1.



do you just heave it from the balcony and then haul it up later like a cray pot? 

10 shades of awesome if you do :lol:


----------



## pk.sax (6/5/12)

iamozziyob said:


> do you just heave it from the balcony and then haul it up later like a cray pot?
> 
> 10 shades of awesome if you do :lol:


Heaved and lowered, haul... well.... I tried ...... and failed, not enough muscle, lol


----------



## ekul (6/5/12)

practicalfool said:


> Heaved and lowered, haul... well.... I tried  ...... and failed, not enough muscle, lol



I'm guessing you're a 3v brewer, otherwise you'd have a pulley system


----------



## pk.sax (6/5/12)

ekul said:


> I'm guessing you're a 3v brewer, otherwise you'd have a pulley system


Let the pulley never be mentioned again!!
My pulley from the biab days was involved in a loud accident last night h34r:

It involved lifting a half full HLT off milk crates....


----------



## donburke (6/5/12)

practicalfool said:


> Heaved and lowered, haul... well.... I tried  ...... and failed, not enough muscle, lol




cube bombing prohibited


----------



## kelbygreen (6/5/12)

lol grow some muscles.


----------



## pk.sax (1/6/12)

Ok, here is a disadvantage of no-chilling:

When I no chilled, I'd leave it in the cube for a week or so at times, out of the sheer laziness of having to trnsf etc.
Now that I do chill, the pitching and everything is all done and dusted by the end of the day and come next weekend I have a new brew. Without fail.

Anyway, thats what it has done to me.

In terms of difference between slow chilling and pure no-chill, the hop effect is simply outstanding. No faffing about with dry or cube hope required to compensate for no chill. I you can't chill, I would highly recommend slow chill. Mine was down to 25ish within the hour.


----------

