# Hydrometer Reading



## shaunms (10/7/09)

Hello all

So last night I was making a batch of some modified Coopers Stout and I took and initial hydrometer reading filling the tube to about 3/4 with beer. I dropped the hydrometer in and got a reading of 1050. About 20 minutes later I thought I better take a new reading so that I could sure to be accurate with my calculations, I filled the tube up to the brim so that when I dropped the hydrometer in I got a reading of 1042.

I am not sure why I got 2 different readings. I spun the hydrometer to loosen any air bubbles, it was not sticking to the sides either time and I can not imagine that the amount of beer in the tube, whether half full, 3/4 full or 100% full would make a difference.

Anyone know what the heck is happening?


----------



## Adamt (10/7/09)

If you drew the sample from your fermenter tap, it is possible you hadn't completely mixed the extract in so it was more dense (more concentrated) at the bottom.


----------



## glaab (10/7/09)

maybe you just had some goo in the tap so the first batch was thicker


----------



## the_yobbo (28/7/09)

Or you didn't fill the sample container full enough on your first reading and the hydrometer was sitting on the bottom of the container. (I found this out when testing a second hand hydrometer and sample container. The SG reading for water started at 1.000 but then started increasing slowly. I discovered a hole in the bottom of the sample container and water slowly leaking out.)

As a followup beginner question, if there is a potential of having a higher density reading when taking the first sample from the tap, how is this avoided when trying to get an accurate initial reading?


----------



## bum (28/7/09)

Thorough mixing and turfing the first 1/4 cup or so. Then test sample temp but if you're calibrating you gear (as above) then you've got a handle on that already.


----------



## Pennywise (28/7/09)

IMO the best way to get a correct reading all the time is to fill the fermenter with about 8-10 litres of water then top it up with the wort and some more water to desired volume, proceed to stir/airate the crap out of it. When you take a sample, draw off half a tube, discard, then fill the tube and take reading.


----------



## muckey (28/7/09)

stir the heck out of the wort and then run a little out of the tap and discard before you take your sample


----------



## Screwtop (28/7/09)

Sorry to appear as the minister for the absolutely bloody obvious BUT - What was the temp of the wort?


----------



## Pennywise (28/7/09)

Screwtop said:


> Sorry to appear as the minister for the absolutely bloody obvious BUT - What was the temp of the wort?




It's usually the case though isn't it, could be so obvious some times it doesn't even register. Hot wort sitting for 20 mins in a test tube cools down pretty quick. I reckon you may have hit the nail on the head there Screwtop.


----------



## bum (28/7/09)

He's talking about two different samples taken 20 minutes apart. Is there anyway the temp would change enough to drop 8 points in 20 minutes?


----------



## Pennywise (28/7/09)

Yeah didn't pick up on that one either, I doubt it would


----------



## muckey (28/7/09)

bum said:


> He's talking about two different samples taken 20 minutes apart. Is there anyway the temp would change enough to drop 8 points in 20 minutes?




have to be a huge temp difference for 8 points


----------



## raven19 (28/7/09)

What is this hydrometer you all speak of?  

Grab a refractometer and never look back!

Seriously though, if its a coopers kit then a stabke FG over a couple of days is much more important than the SG, as being a kit it will be around 4- 5 % anyways.

2c...


----------



## muckey (28/7/09)

raven19 said:


> What is this hydrometer you all speak of?
> 
> Grab a refractometer and never look back!




 there's 1 on every bus!

you need both so you can show off the bling to non brewing plebs and they will see how intelligent and skilled you really are!!!


----------



## Adamt (28/7/09)

raven19 said:


> Seriously though, if its a coopers kit then a stabke FG over a couple of days is much more important than the SG, as being a kit it will be around 4- 5 % anyways.



I foresee yeast dropping out due to low temperature and a new brewer bottling at 1.030...

KERBLAMMO!


----------



## muckey (28/7/09)

Adamt said:


> I foresee yeast dropping out due to low temperature and a new brewer bottling at 1.030...
> 
> KERBLAMMO!




the new face of terrorism h34r:


----------



## Screwtop (28/7/09)

Muckey said:


> have to be a huge temp difference for 8 points




You have a point. Shake the hydro a bit, to be sure the paper sleeve inside isn't loose and giving the crazy readings. 

Over the years using a hydro have seen some pretty weird readings returned at warmer temps though. These things aren't rocket science just a displacement device that you dunk in liquid and calibrate at a given temp for a known density value. Just guessing that a Hydro (calibration 15) would give a distorted reading at say 36C of about 6 points.

Screwy


----------



## Supra-Jim (28/7/09)

True, but from memory the warmer the temp (above the calibrated temp of the hydro), the lower the reading on the hydro???

OP read 1050, then his OG dropped to 1042?

Cheers SJ


----------



## Pennywise (28/7/09)

Isn't it the other way round?

http://www.howtobrew.com/appendices/appendixA.html


----------



## buttersd70 (28/7/09)

warmer sample, higher reading....
according to beersmith;
for a 15c hydro, 1050 @ 42C = 1042 @ 15C
for a 20c hydro, 1050 @ 45C = [email protected] 20C

In either case, thats a hell of a temp difference required.


----------



## seemax (28/7/09)

The hotter the liquid the lower the SG reading.

The volume of the liquid increases with temperature, therefore the apparent density decreases (same amount of contents dissolved in a larger volume).

20C higher results in a reading 5 points lower (approx).


----------



## Supra-Jim (28/7/09)

Homebrewer79 said:


> Isn't it the other way round?
> 
> http://www.howtobrew.com/appendices/appendixA.html



[Taken from Palmers page:

If the wort temperature is 108 F, and the gravity of the sample is 1.042, the Delta G value that would be added is between .0077 and .0081. Rounding it off to the third decimal place gives us .008, which is added to 1.042 yielding 1.050.

I believe when he says gravity of the sample is 1.042, he means "measured gravity" of the sample. And then he goes on to work out the correction factore, 0.008, which he adds to his "measured gravity" to give an "actual gravity" of 1.050]

By this reasoning, if the temp of the sample is higher than the calibration temp of the hydro, the reading will be lower than what is should be.

Specific gravity is a function of density, the warmer a fluid is, the lower the density, hence the hydrometer sinks further into the fluid and registers a lower reading.

Cheers SJ


----------



## muckey (28/7/09)

as stated hotter liquids are less dense.

the difference in readings taken by the OP couldn't possibly be temperature related due to the huge varience in reading.

I'd say that poorly mixed wort or a dodgy hydrometer is going to be closer to explaining this


----------



## Pennywise (28/7/09)

Ahhhh, I must have read that HTB page backwards. I remember last summer I had quite a few brews pitched at 26, and had to add a couple of points to my OG reading because I was obviously getting lower than correct readings.


----------



## buttersd70 (28/7/09)

buttersd70 said:


> warmer sample, higher reading....
> according to beersmith;
> for a 15c hydro, 1050 @ 42C = 1042 @ 15C
> for a 20c hydro, 1050 @ 45C = [email protected] 20C
> ...



duh, change first line to warmer sample will give _lower _reading.
and
for a 15c hydro, 1042 @ 42C = 1050 @ 15C
for a 20c hydro, 1042 @ 45C = 1050 @ 20C

Put your glasses on, Butters... B)


----------



## muckey (28/7/09)

buttersd70 said:


> Put your glasses on, Butters... B)




have a beer and settle yourself


----------



## chappo1970 (28/7/09)

buttersd70 said:


> Put your glasses on, Butters...




I see you have started :icon_drunk: early today Butters! Good on you for taking one the workin man!

Cheers

Chappo h34r:


----------



## buttersd70 (28/7/09)

Chappo said:


> I see you have started :icon_drunk: early today Butters



Not at all....I have pneumonia atm, can't think particularly straight.


----------



## chappo1970 (28/7/09)

buttersd70 said:


> Not at all....I have pneumonia atm, can't think particularly straight.




ROFL! 

Yes, yes of course you have the flu.......


----------



## Fourstar (28/7/09)

Muckey said:


> you need both so you can show off the bling to non brewing plebs and they will see how intelligent and skilled you really are!!!



Nope, you need both so you can calcuate the starting gravity of megaswill so you may clone it for said 'non brewing pleb' friends.

no seriously though, any decent beer i want to clone i will do this. I think its better than guessing and gives you an idea for the ballpark of required mash temps, yeast attenuation, grist etc. Its a good starting point as you will now know the OG, FG and true ABV (as whats listed on the bottle is allowed to be out by .2% from memory).

Cheers.


----------



## muckey (28/7/09)

good post fourstar

some info of the differences would probably help some of the less experience brewers as both hydrometers and refractometers have their uses. Unfortunately I'm not the best person to provide it


----------



## Ivan Other One (28/7/09)

Whould all this really matter?

If the OG and the FG readings were both taken at the same temp,, Say for example, 22C then the differnce would still be the same, and then one could still calculate alc%.

Please correct me if I am wrong so next time I get it right.


----------



## Screwtop (28/7/09)

Ok, lets try another tack.

So shaunms takes the temp of his wort @ 37C the reading is 1.050

If his Hydrometer is a calibrated at 15 then according to Palmers Hydrometer Temperature Correction Table

Reading 1.050 + 0.0058 = 1.0558 = Corrected gravity reading of 1.0558

Now later on he takes a reading and the wort has cooled to say 27C and the reading is 1.042

Again for a hydro calibrated at 15C and using Palmers Hydrometer Temperature Correction Table

Reading 1.042 + 0.0026 = 1.0446 = Corrected gravity of 1.0446


Has the penny dropped for anyone yet? 

Temperature corrections must always be taken into account for a hydro reading if not taken at the calibrated temperature. shaunms' problem is that the reading was different. You cant solve the problem of the difference using temperature correction. The reading should always be the same only the corrected value should be different.

Gets em every time :lol:


----------



## bum (28/7/09)

You're saying the wort in his _fermenter_ (two different samples) is going to drop 10 deg C in 20 minutes? Christ, I wish mine did that!


----------



## the_yobbo (28/7/09)

Wow, ask a simple question, get a variety of answers that lead to more questions 

So, temperature correction on hydrometers. Is the correction table a generic thing or does each brand/model have its own correction cooefficient? I picked up two hydrometers second hand, without any additional paperwork/tables. Can I use any correction table found on the web?


----------



## muckey (28/7/09)

yes you can

the hydrometer is rated/calibrated at a certain temp - should be branded on each.
the required correctionis based upon how much the density of the wort changes with temperature

you just need to know what the hydrometer is calibrated to so you know how much adjustment is required


----------



## Nick JD (28/7/09)

Why do you care what the OG is for K&K? What do you need this number for?


----------



## buttersd70 (28/7/09)

Nick JD said:


> Why do you care what the OG is for K&K? What do you need this number for?



two reasons. First, to work out the abv...if thats of any interest. Secondly, and more importantly, to be able to see what the attenuation is, to be able to compare that to the fermentables used, to see if the final gravity is within reasonable expectation for the yeast used. This will give you an indication if stable gravity readings means it's finished, or if it's stalled.


----------



## manticle (28/7/09)

And third - to get your head around processes that might become more important later. Why develop bad habits when you can develop good ones?


----------



## chappo1970 (28/7/09)

Eggsactery Butters and Manicle!

and saves you from the now famous but never not amusing "WHY HAS MY AIRLOCK STOPPED BLOOPING?"


Cheers

Chappo :icon_cheers:


----------



## muckey (28/7/09)

as opposed to the Chappo method of Abv calculation - how many pints to gethim pi$$ed h34r:


----------



## chappo1970 (28/7/09)

Muckey said:


> as opposed to the Chappo method of Abv calculation - how many pints to gethim pi$$ed h34r:




Muckey,
Everybody knows that is *Butters patented method* and it can only be used in the strict confines of a brew shed/man cave! FFS don't confuse the poor bugger!


Chap Chap


----------



## Nick JD (28/7/09)

So just in case you are incapable of sealing a fermenter, you need an OG reading? Seems counterintuitive - why complicate matters by getting irrelevant readings?

In K&K brewing, OGs are irrelevant.

How many people who do K&Ks even know what attenuation means? Or care?

Still, it does make us sound knowledgeable, doesn't it?


----------



## chappo1970 (28/7/09)

What? Surely you can't be serious?
OG is as important to a K&K as it to any Brewer. Especially once your over the kilo of sugaz and starting to add real beneficial juices to your brews like steep grains, BE2 etc. You need to know where your brew has started and expected to finish, No?

Cheer

Chappo


----------



## buttersd70 (28/7/09)

Nick JD said:


> So just in case you are incapable of sealing a fermenter, you need an OG reading?



Did you even read my post, or did your bicycle helmet slip down over your eyes? What the hell has sealing the fermenter got to do with anything?


----------



## bum (28/7/09)

Nick JD said:


> How many people who do K&Ks even know what attenuation means? Or care?
> 
> Still, it does make us sound knowledgeable, doesn't it?



Someone seems to be trying to elevate what he does in order to sound similar.

Why shouldn't we kit brewers learn about how yeast works?


----------



## chappo1970 (28/7/09)

I'll bite!

If cidery beer is your thing then keep going... Hell don't bother with temp control either that just for phuckwits like us.

I'm sure we can all waste our time and knowledge on more the grateful sods.


<_<


----------



## Pennywise (28/7/09)

manticle said:


> And third - to get your head around processes that might become more important later. Why develop bad habits when you can develop good ones?




Damn Straight!


----------



## manticle (28/7/09)

Nick JD said:


> So just in case you are incapable of sealing a fermenter, you need an OG reading? Seems counterintuitive - why complicate matters by getting irrelevant readings?
> 
> In K&K brewing, OGs are irrelevant.
> 
> ...



Ok. I'll suggest that taking an OG reading is an important habit to develop with kit/kilo beers for one simple reason.

How easy is it to forget simple things, no matter what stage you're at? Imagine it's your second or third brew, you think you've got everything under control, pour in your goop, add water, throw in yeast, everything's fine and dandy. Take the sample. Woops it's only 1025 (actual figures may differ from those pulled from my arse to illustrate a point).

What's wrong? Ah yes - that bag of sugar/dextrose/LDME/BE2 is still sitting on the shelf and should have been added. Well let's throw it in then.

Imagine you didn't take the reading, walked away, fermented your coopers light (unexpectedly) bottled the brew and wondered why your kit was actually water with beer cordial (hold the cordial).

It's easy enough to do, it's good practice for later and it can help avoid mistakes. Why would you be recommending so hard against it? Take sample, drop hydrometer, in read numbers. POP


----------



## muckey (28/7/09)

Nick JD said:


> So just in case you are incapable of sealing a fermenter, you need an OG reading? Seems counterintuitive - why complicate matters by getting irrelevant readings?
> 
> In K&K brewing, OGs are irrelevant.
> 
> ...


the only response I can think of for that post


----------



## chappo1970 (28/7/09)




----------



## bum (28/7/09)

^Bad advice. Threads should only be locked if ridiculously out of control (i.e. rampant racism, constantly breaking serious board rules, etc). And my shiny, new brewer brethren need to see someone correcting this kind of statement or else we may think it is an ok attitude.


----------



## Nick JD (29/7/09)

bum said:


> ^Bad advice. Threads should only be locked if ridiculously out of control (i.e. rampant racism, constantly breaking serious board rules, etc). And my shiny, new brewer brethren need to see someone correcting this kind of statement or else we may think it is an ok attitude.



Cheers. Many forums become hangouts for lynch mobs who gang up on anyone who disagrees with their mighty knowledge.

Here's the thing: anyone putting sucrose into their beer is not going to know what to do with an OG reading. They are certainly not going to care about attenuation. 

The wealth of information, and the kind expertise of people here is great ... but at some point this expertise serves to cloud up the novice brewer with irrelevant information, at a level that is beyond them. 

OG is a wonderful piece of information for more complicated brewing - but let's face it, if you are incabable of correctly dissolving and stirring the sugars in the bottom of your fermenter - what on earth are you going to do with an OG reading? 

My suggestion is to worry about the final gravity readings, that the OG is useless to the kit brewer. 

Experts need to know the difference between helping novices, and blowing their own horn.


----------



## muckey (29/7/09)

I disagree nick. How can you know that your final gravity is actually your final gravity if you dont know where it started.


----------



## Nick JD (29/7/09)

Muckey said:


> I disagree nick. How can you know that your final gravity is actually your final gravity if you dont know where it started.



The beer doesn't taste sweet. And the gravity is constant.

Seriously - let's give the novice brewer an informative and seriously simple test of true FG. 

What yeast are they using? What is the temperature? What brewing software are they using? 

Read the OP's question again ... and then how everyone starts discussing temperature effects on OG.

I'm all for the intracacies of brewing - but blinding with science is bad.


----------



## buttersd70 (29/7/09)

Nick JD said:


> Cheers. Many forums become hangouts for lynch mobs who gang up on anyone who disagrees with their mighty knowledge.
> 
> Here's the thing: anyone putting sucrose into their beer is not going to know what to do with an OG reading. They are certainly not going to care about attenuation.
> 
> ...


Talk about a sweeping statement...you say that people adding sucrose to their beer don't care about attenuation? have you asked them all, individually, if this is the case? If you don't care...fine. But the information is there, as requested, and if people want to use it, they can. But it's their choice to do so...NOT yours.

And do some people, at least, care about such things? I guess they do....how many people have downloaded and/or commented on ianh's spreadsheet, as an example?

Simple fact, for you, mate. If you don't want to know the answer, _dont ask the f*cking question._


----------



## muckey (29/7/09)

Nick JD said:


> The beer doesn't taste sweet.




bottle bombs!

a beer that has an FG of 1.012 wont taste sweet however to know if it has actually finished or not unless you know what actually went into it and hence some idea of where it started.

You are simply a troll who is going to cause no end of problems for new brewers


----------



## Nick JD (29/7/09)

buttersd70 said:


> Simple fact, for you, mate. If you don't want to know the answer, _dont ask the f*cking question._



I didn't ask a question. I tried to simplify a novice brewers problem when "experts" were clouding it. My apologies. Now go take your stress pills.


----------



## Nick JD (29/7/09)

Muckey said:


> bottle bombs!
> 
> a beer that has an FG of 1.012 wont taste sweet however to know if it has actually finished or not unless you know what actually went into it and hence some idea of where it started.
> 
> You are simply a troll who is going to cause no end of problems for new brewers



Bye. Trolls don't hang around.


----------



## Fourstar (29/7/09)

Nick JD said:


> Here's the thing: anyone putting sucrose into their beer is not going to know what to do with an OG reading. They are certainly not going to care about attenuation.
> ....
> My suggestion is to worry about the final gravity readings, that the OG is useless to the kit brewer.
> ....
> Experts need to know the difference between helping novices, and blowing their own horn.



Ummm i add sucrose to my beers.... There must be something wrong with my processes/recipe formulations, this might be the reason why i only get 3rds in comps.  

Without know your OG its impossible to estimate your FG,. its like dealing with the following: A - B = 23. Tell me what the value of B is... have fun with that. If you make a cracker of a beer, how are you going to replicate it without knowing the OG?

Helping and blowing your own horn unfortunatly can come part and parcel. Especially when provideing solutions via an example of experience and positive/negative results. If someone wants to ferment @ 37deg or topoff their fermenter with toilet water.. go for it. we will be the first to say... "i told ya so!"


----------



## wyethm (29/7/09)

I'm a novice brewer who pretty much only does K&K's. Nick you are correct that I don't know much about attenuation and don't have the knowledge that many have on this site.

BUT if something goes wrong with one of my brews and I need help, the OG will be one of the questions I will be asked by the experts who are helping me out.

I also like having a record of what I have done, so I can compare different brews and start to understand where I can make improvements, make better beer and enjoy drinking it. :icon_cheers: 

Cheers

Mark


----------



## buttersd70 (29/7/09)

Nick JD said:


> I didn't ask a question.





Nick JD said:


> Why do you care what the OG is for K&K*? *What do you need this number for*?*



No, you asked two questions.
 





Kiwi Mark said:


> I'm a novice brewer who pretty much only does K&K's. Nick you are correct that I don't know much about attenuation and don't have the knowledge that many have on this site.
> 
> BUT if something goes wrong with one of my brews and I need help, _the OG will be one of the questions I will be asked _by the experts who are helping me out.
> 
> ...



Bravo.


----------



## Leigh (29/7/09)

This thread is funny!

As a K&K brewer I always took an OG, many different reasons as outlined by others but the main one was similar to what manticle said, it helped me create consistancy in my brews when using inconsistant tins of goo...amazing the variability in sg you get from what appear to be the same tins!

Just nobody raise my 9% case swap brew LOL


----------



## manticle (29/7/09)

Nick JD said:


> The beer doesn't taste sweet. And the gravity is constant.
> 
> Seriously - let's give the novice brewer an informative and seriously simple test of true FG.
> 
> ...



I don't think you're a troll in the slightest but I disagree strongly with your position. Even the instructions for my first kit (written by Brigalow as far as I'm aware) taught me how to use a hydrometer. It ain't hard and suggesting its use is hardly blowing one's own trumpet or blinding with science. A lot of KK brewers also know far more than you obviously want to give them credit for. Of those who don't, many would like to.

It's a hydrometer reading - drop it in, spin it around and read the number. It's not as if anyone's suggested a triple decoction acid step-keeved mash with 1.2 minute hop additions and recirculated 8th runnings.

I do understand your point but I think it's a bit of a stretch and the benefits of using a hydrometer properly outweigh any difficulty a new brewer will have with the concept. They'll certainly find it far easier to use than brewing software.


----------



## Renegade (29/7/09)

I agree, why the hell wouldn't any brewer, novice or advanced, not take an OG ? Well at least if they wanted to know the ABV and/or get a bit more 'hands-on' and start calculating ferment efficiency/attenuation. 

A suggestion to the contrary is, well, just plain stupid. 

_*Manticle: drop it in, spin it around and read the number.*_

Oooh, spinning it around ! Now that's just showing off.  

I tend to blow over mine after I tap off.


----------



## Steve (29/7/09)

Renegade said:


> I agree, why the hell wouldn't any brewer, novice or advanced, not take an OG ? Well at least if they wanted to know the ABV and/or get a bit more 'hands-on' and start calculating ferment efficiency/attenuation.



I dont.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## thylacine (29/7/09)

Renegade said:


> I agree, why the hell wouldn't any brewer, novice or advanced, not take an OG ? Well at least if they wanted to know the ABV and/or get a bit more 'hands-on' and start calculating ferment efficiency/attenuation.
> 
> A suggestion to the contrary is, well, just plain stupid.
> 
> ...



"A suggestion to the contrary is, well, just plain stupid." 
An adage comes to mind, "Perception is reality'. But can one allow that there are differing perceptions? Hence differing....

Or as Forrest Gump said, "Stupid is _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.

;-)


----------



## muckey (29/7/09)

Renegade said:


> I agree, why the hell wouldn't any brewer, novice or advanced, not take an OG ? Well at least if they wanted to know the ABV and/or get a bit more 'hands-on' and start calculating ferment efficiency/attenuation.
> 
> A suggestion to the contrary is, well, just plain stupid.
> 
> ...




does it make a difference which way you spin it?


----------



## bum (29/7/09)

Nick JD said:


> Here's the thing: anyone putting sucrose into their beer is not going to know what to do with an OG reading. They are certainly not going to care about attenuation.



Possibly true - but do you think the clich kit brewer using 2kg of sugaz and fermenting in the sun is not going to want to know how to work out alc% of their rocket fuel? But even ignoring that you can't suggest that an OG reading is of no use at all to the novice brewer - all you can say is you doubt many want to know about it. Which also might be true but probably not true of most brewers who seek out a place like this. 



Nick JD said:


> Read the OP's question again ... and then how everyone starts discussing temperature effects on OG.



I agree that some of the discussion that followed his question might have gotten a little too complex for a novice brewer (in fact reading it it seems that some experienced brewers are also confused, but I digress) but that discussion was based in getting to the bottom of his problem - the fact no definitive answer came of it is irrelevant.



Kiwi Mark said:


> I'm a novice brewer who pretty much only does K&K's. Nick you are correct that I don't know much about attenuation and don't have the knowledge that many have on this site.
> BUT if something goes wrong with one of my brews and I need help, the OG will be one of the questions I will be asked by the experts who are helping me out.
> I also like having a record of what I have done, so I can compare different brews and start to understand where I can make improvements, make better beer and enjoy drinking it. :icon_cheers:
> 
> ...



I'd like to second Butters' "bravo". Well said, Mark!



Steve said:


> I dont.
> Cheers
> Steve



Fair enough but would you ever suggest that someone shouldn't?


----------



## Pennywise (29/7/09)

Muckey said:


> does it make a difference which way you spin it?




pffffft, of course it does


----------



## Steve (29/7/09)

bum said:


> Fair enough but would you ever suggest that someone shouldn't?



Nope. I would say its entirely up to them. But if they want to work out their alc %'s, attenuation, efficiencies then they will have to use one. I wouldnt call them stupid if they choose not to use one.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Nick JD (29/7/09)

Do a standard K&K brew and take two OG readings after mixing the wort as much as you can. Take the first from the surface of the wort. Take the second from the tap. 

Take these two again after a few minutes.

If you use the: boiling water into 1.5kg of malt extract and sugar method ... and add cold water, you need an electric stirrer to evenly mix the wort. Adequate mixing times are so long you start to expose the wort to foreign yeast.

OG readings are almost always high. All calculations are moot.

Flame away, experts.


----------



## bum (29/7/09)

So because they have a margin of error they are utterly worthless?

You realise this justification for your original point has nothing at all to do with you original point, right?


----------



## thylacine (29/7/09)

Kiwi Mark said:


> I'm a novice brewer who pretty much only does K&K's. Nick you are correct that I don't know much about attenuation and don't have the knowledge that many have on this site.
> 
> BUT if something goes wrong with one of my brews and I need help, the OG will be one of the questions I will be asked by the experts who are helping me out.
> 
> ...



http://www.howtobrew.com/sitemap.html e.g. Appendix A "Using Hydrometers"


----------



## bum (29/7/09)

Homebrewer79 said:


> pffffft, of course it does



Typical! Don't tell us which way! Keeping the secrets of your black arts to yourself as per!


----------



## muckey (29/7/09)

bum said:


> Typical! Don't tell us which way! Keeping the secrets of your black arts to yourself as per!



and the fact that the numbers spin fast too quickly to read :blink:


----------



## Ivan Other One (29/7/09)

Renegade said:


> I tend to blow over mine after I tap off.




Will this have much effect on the flavour???


----------



## Renegade (29/7/09)

Steve said:


> I wouldnt call them stupid if they choose not to use one.



Whoa, hold them thar 'orses. We should probably re-read the thread and understand the context in how the term 'stupid' has been utilised. Let's recap:

_*#37 - Nick JD: Why do you care what the OG is for K&K? What do you need this number for?*_

Then despite respondent discussions, a reiteration: 

_*#43 - Nick JD: In K&K brewing, OGs are irrelevant.*_

To which Muckey posts an image of a cartoon guy with his head on fire and the caption _"The Stupid, it Burns"_

A few more responses to challenge Nick JD's comments, but regardless he trucks on, and shares this: 

_*#53 - Nick JD: My suggestion is to worry about the final gravity readings, that the OG is useless to the kit brewer. *_

More to & fro, then that word pops up again from a handsome member: 

_*#65 - Renegade: A suggestion to the contrary is, well, just plain stupid. *_

Neither Muckey nor myself called anyone stupid. However the argument certainly lends itself to the use of the word. 

Despite there being a _few_ people who don't measure OG (and honestly I myself do measure, but often forget to log it in my notes -_- ), it is a _very_ big statement to say, on multiple occasions from the same author, that K & K guys are wasting their time by engaging in the process of measurement at the start of a brew cycle. Minor inaccuracies aside, isn't K & K the beginning point for an overwhelming majority of brewers who might now be making (potentially) award-winning AG beers ? It is _inconceivable_ to suggest that K & K is such a crass method of beer production, therefore the practitioners of the method should stay so simple and not even attempt to hone their skills base for eventual betterment in what they produce. 

What more effective way to bring oneself up to speed is there, if not for regular utilisation of aspects that will be part of the 'brewers arsenal' knowledge base down the track. 

To extend upon another comment made, how can you sit there, *Nick JD*, and make such a blanket statement that suggests K & K brewers have no regard for attenuation ? It's a pretty bloody simple calculation, even without the use of software. And it's a great way to get to know how different ingredients perform. 

Perhaps my intermediate method of brewing also falls under the 'why bother' umbrella, in using liquid malts, LDME, hopping from scratch and mini-mashing a pathetically pointless kilo of grain, both from the pack and home-roasted to my requirements (an inexact science, for sure). And maybe my reserving of yeast trub for future brews is also a lame old dumbass practice because I'm not using a whiz-bang stir plate to spring some life into cultured agar slants, and have no idea of accurately measuring the cell-count. In fact, maybe every method that people use to make good beer that is a variation from your own methods is simply a waste of time. Hell, anyone who's not into making beer outside of the *Nick JD* method is probably pissing in the wind. 

There are no doubt a huge % of the homebrew population that are going to stay with the can & sugar method, but I would suggest that new K & K'ers who join up here, ask the simple questions, and get some support will stick around if they think their beer is pretty good for a first attempt (whether we think/know it's crap is irrelevant). And you know, they might just keep reading, get interested in using some LDME, then some extra hops, and before you know it they are intrigued enough to start pushing their beers even further into _flavour country_ with grains beyond the 'enhancer packs'. 

To ridicule the K & K'ers by suggesting they shouldn't bother with OG readings is stupid.


----------



## lastdrinks (29/7/09)

Renegade said:


> I tend to blow over mine after I tap off.




:unsure: ......... :blink: ............... :lol: ............awesome!!!!! ROFL. i'm not even going to read the start of the thread, just going to leave it here while i keep laughing :lol:


----------



## bum (29/7/09)

Renegade said:


> Whoa, hold them thar 'orses. We should probably re-read the thread and understand the context in how the term 'stupid' has been utilised.



While I agree in principle with your post, Steve was probably just answering it in the context in which the question was asked rather than the context of the entire thread. I think he also fairly pointed out why a brewer might want to take an OG even though he doesn't himself.

Why am I defending Steve? Sorry for putting words in your mouth.


----------



## Renegade (29/7/09)

> :unsure: ......... :blink: ............... :lol: ............awesome!!!!! ROFL. i'm not even going to read the start of the thread, just going to leave it here while i keep laughing :lol:




I was trying to work 'froth' into that comment at the time, but it just sounded too obscene. 

You're in that special club now of two, that has actually brought quoted reference to my smutty little double-entendre. It probably doesn't mean that you're switched onto the nuances, (after all, it was pretty obvious) but it may get you a finger-waving from above, in that you're feeding trolls by acknowledging such filth. 

Seems to be a regular theme of late. 

Filth, that is. 

Now that we have that out off the way, back to topic. I often find that when I plonk my hard-as-glass rod down into the tube of sweet, sweet nectar (and observing the gravity of the situation), give it a bit of a spin, a few jiggles up and down to test for good placement, that if you are not focused on the task, you might end up with some unexpected fluid spill.





EDIT: Bum was in between, so I'm quoting the impetus for this rant


----------



## Renegade (29/7/09)

bum said:


> While I agree in principle with your post, Steve was probably just answering it in the context in which the question was asked rather than the context of the entire thread. I think he also fairly pointed out why a brewer might want to take an OG even though he doesn't himself.
> 
> Why am I defending Steve? Sorry for putting words in your mouth.



Yea, and I'm only responding to Steve's critical comment on the use of the word 'stupid' as a personal insult (which it wasn't). If Steve, or anyne else, _chooses_ to omit the OG reading, then that's fine. I think I read BribieG (maybe, sorry of mot, mate) saying that he checks neither OG or SG, but just knows the recipe, and how long it's 'typically' going to take to ferment out, and bottled them repeatedly without issue, and a drinkable beer at the end of it. No need for 'spot on' measures when a proven brew always hits the right targets in the tastebud stakes. 

Why am I defending Nick JD all of a sudden ?


----------



## bum (29/7/09)

Ah, I guess I took his comment about stupidity in his context - someone who knows how to brew but isn't too concerned about the other stuff, rather than a learning noob.

Apologies either way.


----------



## muckey (29/7/09)

been away from the pc and just catching up. I dont always take out my trusty hydrometer either. Then again, I nearly always brew the same recipe. As soon as I make a change or brew a different recipe I measure and note everything. 
On a recipe I brew often, I dont worry too much if the ferment hasn't quite finished because I keg and they are a little more forgiving however my case swap brew because it was being bottled got measured every which way to ensure everything was OK and the ferment was truely finished before bottling because I didnt want to risk anything unexpected.

I also beleive that if someone is starting out that it's best to learn things the right way straight up rather than finding they have to unlearn bad or risky behaviors.

just my 2c

edit pebkac


----------



## RdeVjun (29/7/09)

Interesting ebb and flow to this discussion... 

Consider this scenario: "My [k&k or whatever for that matter] brew isn't bubbling though the airlock, hasn't since day 1. Its now day 3 and I think the yeast is dead, should I pitch a fresh yeast? The LHBS guy says I should, he sold me some O-69." The one of the usual responses is, "What was the OG? And what's the SG now?" etc. So, how does one know, definitively, if their yeast has in fact started correctly and is not a dud? By falling SG. How do you know if you have falling SG? By comparing subsequent measurements to the OG. Enuff said... 

There are many reasons why even a k&ker would be wanting an OG. Perhaps I've missed the point in a few comments in this thread, but here's another, and the reason I will generally get one. I'm surprised this hasn't got a run by now, else I did miss the point badly, in which case I'll just quietly retreat back to my box...


----------



## Pennywise (30/7/09)

bum said:


> Typical! Don't tell us which way! Keeping the secrets of your black arts to yourself as per!




It depends on which one of Saturn's moons is in line with the fermenter


----------



## RdeVjun (30/7/09)

See? Told yas! Right on cue- in the nearby gluten free lager thread, another k&k situation where OG is a particularly useful measurement... 

Don't want to talk myself up too much, but what the heck- I'm just a little bit impressed...


----------



## Nick JD (30/7/09)

RdeVjun said:


> So, how does one know, definitively, if their yeast has in fact started correctly and is not a dud?



Start the yeast before you pour it in.


----------



## Supra-Jim (30/7/09)

Nick JD said:


> Start the yeast before you pour it in.



How does one start the yeast, is there a button that one is required to push? or are you referring to re-hydrating yeast prior to pitching, or perhaps creating a yeast starter?

In previous posts you have lambasted people for swamping basic brewers with over the top advanced technical advice, when they were trying to help/advise, yet now you see fit to cough up unclear or incomplete information that would leave a begineer rather confused!

Cheers SJ


----------



## Leigh (30/7/09)

But how do I know my starter has started? Do I take an OG of my starter? Or do I just need to buy a cat?

There's a hole in my bucket... :huh:


----------



## Nick JD (30/7/09)

I apologise for my tardy description of "start the yeast". 

Put yeast into a cup of cold tap water and add a teaspoon of sugar. Wait for it to foam up (should have an inch or two of foam ... sometimes it will escape the cup - this is a good thing). 

If it still hasn't foamed up after 2 hours at 20 degrees C ... don't start making your kit beer. 

Don't forget to take your OG if you like to ferment with dead yeast.


----------



## Renegade (30/7/09)

This doesn't sound like something an amateur could possibly have the skills to perform. Anything outside of cutting a pack of dried yeast open and sprinkling it over the wort is way too complex, and people shouldn't bother.


----------



## buttersd70 (30/7/09)

Nick on the alert, waiting to beat back the yeast as it escapes from his cup...


----------



## Nick JD (30/7/09)

Renegade said:


> This doesn't sound like something an amateur could possibly have the skills to perform. Anything outside of cutting a pack of dried yeast open and sprinkling it over the wort is way too complex, and people shouldn't bother.



If you subtract your OG from your FG and then add 0.0253 divide by 3/4 to allow for the lunar phase and the temperature of the current sunspots ... and use this calculation's sine value, at the bottom right corner of your yeast packet, you'll find a small button labeled (in Cyrillic) "START".


----------



## Renegade (30/7/09)

Warning: Nunchucks used under controlled conditions by expert

Kit brewers please do not chuck your nuns at home.

EDIT: 5000 kelvin is a bit on the high side for starter fermentation.


----------



## Nick JD (30/7/09)

buttersd70 said:


> Nick on the alert, waiting to beat back the yeast as it escapes from his cup...
> View attachment 29307



I asked my Mum to burn that photo.


----------



## chappo1970 (30/7/09)

ROFL! B man!

I wasn't going to bother with this again but???? I just love to brow beat as yawl know!

You use an open cup to start your yeast in? Not worried about infection? 2 hours and you have a fired up starter huh?

Well aren't I all red faced seeing I've been going about it the wrong way huh?

Hugs and Kisses

Chappo (Brew Snob and general social forum tard)


----------



## Renegade (30/7/09)

Chappo said:


> Well aren't I all red faced seeing I've been going about it the wrong way huh?



Everyone else said the red face was because you're a cheap whisky alcoholic.


----------



## chappo1970 (30/7/09)

Renegade said:


> Everyone else said the red face was because you're a cheap whisky alcoholic.




Alcoholics go to meetings Ren!

Besides 2lt goons of McWilliams Port every evening is hardly a habit? 

Cheers

Chappo


----------



## Supra-Jim (30/7/09)

Nick JD said:


> I apologise for my tardy description of "start the yeast".
> 
> Put yeast into a cup of cold tap water and add a teaspoon of sugar. Wait for it to foam up (should have an inch or two of foam ... sometimes it will escape the cup - this is a good thing).
> 
> If it still hasn't foamed up after 2 hours at 20 degrees C ... don't start making your kit beer.



Even simpler for those poor simpletons making k&K beers (come on now, we don't want to pop their tiny little minds with complicated procedures like measuring a teaspoon of this substance you call sugar) would be to add the yeast to some water for 30 mins and let it re-hydrate, no need for sugar. Proof that the yeast is alive will be seen as it turns the water into a milky yeasty mess.

Note: some of the above comments are sarcastic in nature and directed at Nick, not our tiny minded K&K friends  

Cheers SJ


----------



## Adamt (30/7/09)

Supra-Jim said:


> Proof that the yeast is alive will be seen as it turns the water into a milky yeasty mess.



Uhh... not quite!

If i put a scoop of flour into some water, cover it, and come back later, wheb it's dispersed itself into the water and appears cloudy, is the flour alive?


----------



## Supra-Jim (30/7/09)

Adamt said:


> If i put a scoop of flour into some water, cover it, and come back later, wheb it's dispersed itself into the water and appears cloudy, is the flour alive?



I don't know Adam, you would need to take an OG reading prior to pitching  

Fair call though, my description may not have been the best. I should ammend my comments to, an indication of the yeast viability will be visible as the dried yeast absorbes the water, drops to the bottom and swells/plumps up. It will also smell very yeasty.

Cheers SJ


----------



## chappo1970 (30/7/09)

Well there's another benefit to All Grain it apparently makes you smarter not so "tiny minded"... What does that make our megaswill mates out there then?


----------



## Supra-Jim (30/7/09)

Chappo said:


> Well there's another benefit to All Grain it apparently makes you smarter not so "tiny minded"...



Probably not, i suggest that you probably snuck through the door at the same time i did, while no one was looking (i believe they were busy using their infinitely larger brains to dazzle other K&K brewers). But keep quiet so they don't notice us!!!

Cheers SJ


----------



## muckey (30/7/09)

As far as starters, I thought you stirred the yeast into a cup of water and listened for the snap, crackle and pop to know when it is ready to pitch.

edit


> What does that make our megaswill mates out there then?



failed brewers?????


----------



## Renegade (30/7/09)

This thread is gonna be moderated *so frikkin hard* any minute now.


----------



## Nick JD (30/7/09)

Supra-Jim said:


> I don't know Adam, you would need to take an OG reading prior to pitching
> 
> Fair call though, my description may not have been the best. I should ammend my comments to, an indication of the yeast viability will be visible as the dried yeast absorbes the water, drops to the bottom and swells/plumps up. It will also smell very yeasty.
> 
> Cheers SJ



Foolproof! If the yeast is viable, it will drop to the bottom and smell like yeast! 

Note: some of these comments are of a sarcastic nature and directed at myself.


----------



## chappo1970 (30/7/09)

Supra-Jim said:


> Probably not, i suggest that you probably snuck through the door at the same time i did, while no one was looking (i believe they were busy using their infinitely larger brains to dazzle other K&K brewers). But keep quiet so they don't notice us!!!
> 
> Cheers SJ



Gotchya SJ! Chappo keep DumDumb! Mouth shut  


So if k&kers are simple minded folk what are BIABers? One step up from an ant? h34r:


----------



## Nick JD (30/7/09)

Renegade said:


> This thread is gonna be moderated *so frikkin hard* any minute now.



If we only knew the thread's OG we could have predicted this.


----------



## Renegade (30/7/09)

No-one was qualified enough to measure it.


----------



## Nick JD (30/7/09)

Renegade said:


> No-one was qualified enough to measure it.



My brain is attenuated.


----------



## brettprevans (30/7/09)

Nick JD said:


> So just in case you are incapable of sealing a fermenter, you need an OG reading? Seems counterintuitive - why complicate matters by getting irrelevant readings?
> 
> In K&K brewing, OGs are irrelevant.
> 
> ...


One of the stupidest things ive heard on here. From day 1 I measured OG, SG and FG when K&K. why. bacause you should you should know what alc conetent you have, or if fermentation has stalled or under attentuated. its also good bloody practice. 

I know this thread has moved on somewhat form this point but seriously, its poor and bad advice to give K&K people that OG doesnt count.


----------



## buttersd70 (30/7/09)

Even beeroclock wanted to know what his OG was, so he could work out how strong his rocket fuel was from his 3kg of sugaz.


----------



## Katherine (30/7/09)

citymorgue2 said:


> One of the stupidest things ive heard on here. From day 1 I measured OG, SG and FG when K&K. why. bacause you should you should know what alc conetent you have, or if fermentation has stalled or under attentuated. its also good bloody practice.
> 
> I know this thread has moved on somewhat form this point but seriously, its poor and bad advice to give K&K people that OG doesnt count.




Exactly... on the weekend (biggest brew day) one of the best beers of the day was a Kit brew from a very patient and knowledgable kit brewer who knew alot about fermentation etc...


----------



## Renegade (30/7/09)

Beeroclock rules


----------



## Renegade (30/7/09)

Katie said:


> Exactly... on the weekend (biggest brew day) one of the best beers of the day was a Kit brew from a very patient and knowledgable kit brewer who knew alot about fermentation etc...



Sounds like there were a lot of crappy AG'ers in attendance :lol:


----------



## buttersd70 (30/7/09)

Renegade said:


> Beeroclock rules



I miss beeroclock.  

But it looks like we've got a good replacement in the form of Nick...


----------



## Renegade (30/7/09)

And it's easier to rhyme _potty words_ with the name "Nick" too.


----------



## Katherine (30/7/09)

Renegade said:


> Sounds like there were a lot of crappy AG'ers in attendance :lol:




ummm no actually good ones, PP's beers are fantastic and he had an award winning beer on tap. Though two of his beers on tap were a little green only 12 hours in the keg but I stuck with those all day as I love his beer. My point was the kit brew still had huge WOW factor and had being in the bottle for quite some time it was also a brown ale which is not my usual style of beer. The beer we took was a IPA which was also only three weeks old it was cracker but had not come together as yet. 

I was better of not knowing who you really are! :icon_vomit:


----------



## Scruffy (30/7/09)

Should moon cycles be taken into account?


----------



## Renegade (30/7/09)

Perhaps I'm just stringing you along, babyface. One's perception can be a very powerful blinding light. Far be it from me to clarify your 'visions'

Anyway, can we PLEASE STAY ON TOPIC. This is a very bad habit of yours, Katie. We're focusing on ripping the hell out of Nick JD. Please pay attention.


----------



## bum (30/7/09)

Scruffy said:


> Should moon cycles be taken into account?



No. I think she just genuinely dislikes him.


----------



## Renegade (30/7/09)

bum said:


> No. I think she just genuinely dislikes him.



Oh you are funny ! :icon_cheers:


----------



## Katherine (30/7/09)

:angry:


----------



## Renegade (30/7/09)

:lol: Good answer. Very eloquently stated.


----------



## brettprevans (30/7/09)

Shaunms - to summerize : as has been covered earlier in the thread the most likely reasons for differant reasons are variation in temp. temp varies the readings. or if could have been that you had a sample of the wort that had more fermentables in it (1st) or less (2nd). after you've stirred the crap out of it, the fermentables (or sugars if you prefer) will settle out in differant rates ie the solution will not be the same density in all spots. 

Its not really an issue. all you want to know is that your OG is roughtly where it should be (use a gravity calc tool). a few points differance isnt too much of an issue. 

as to the last few posts....seriously, bad form.


----------



## Scruffy (30/7/09)

I meant... 









...oh, bugger!!


----------



## buttersd70 (30/7/09)

Renegade said:


> We're focusing on ripping the hell out of Nick JD. Please pay attention.



roflmao :lol:


----------



## Nick JD (30/7/09)

buttersd70 said:


> roflmao :lol:



Don't worry, I'm completely unscathed. 

Drinking a fantastic ale at the moment ... I have no idea of its OG, or its FG. 

I guess I just like to live dangerously. :blink:


----------



## warra48 (30/7/09)

I don't care who rips what out of anybody, but........
let's not lay into Katie.

I don't like boofie beer swilling blokes laying into ladies, it's not good form, and not clever.


----------



## Renegade (30/7/09)

That's a bit of old fashioned sexism right there.


----------



## warra48 (30/7/09)

I never claimed to not be sexist.
Just ask my wife.
She thinks I'm the world's greatest mysoginist and racist walking the planet.
So does my daughter, and my daughter-in-law hates my guts.
But deep down I'm a really sweet guy.
I never cuss and fuss at a mishit golf shot, and the final kicker, I brew my own beer, and love it.


----------



## Nick JD (30/7/09)

Nick JD said:


> Do a standard K&K brew and take two OG readings after mixing the wort as much as you can. Take the first from the surface of the wort. Take the second from the tap.
> 
> Take these two again after a few minutes.
> 
> ...



Whoever said this was a genius.


----------



## buttersd70 (30/7/09)

Nick JD said:


> Whoever said this was a genius.



more like a tosser...


----------



## pdilley (30/7/09)

Raises Hand :blink: 


When brewing beers, even the All Grain ones for my own consumption and not for a competition, I omit OG/FG readings as well. I'm still banal about control of fermentation for SNA-1/3rd Sugar Break Mead fermentations and throw all sorts of daily readings and formulaic evaluation into the mix. But if doing a simple Mead like JAO I take no readings either. Then again I can formulaically determine OG on Meads with no instruments.

That said, Refractometers and Hydrometers for most part are analogue instruments and have their own error rates. Even mathematical formulas have error rates, but usually out to the third of fourth digit following the decimal point. While in the formulas this is pretty damn good and all you can really hope to achieve, the tools have way higher error rates than my formulas.

This does not invalidate their use. But I see them as guideposts on a roadmap to tick off that you are headed in the same direction someone who created a recipe mapped out with their readings. You can factor in different brew gear, efficiency ratings, differing error rates among tools but if I wanted to try and gain consistency.

That and they give you something to talk about to other brewers and use as a way of building a mental description of the process you went through that they could then attempt to replicate and have a greater chance of succeeding than without readings. It also lets us more expediently diagnose potential wrong turns or problem areas if someone has a problem and not the first hand experience but has the sample data to evaluate that might clue us in on a list of most likely areas which could have created an end result thats up for analysis.

But are they necessary for making good tasting beer. I have to be honest and say no. I can see where Nick started from in his original post and is coming from but your dragging it a bit to far out if wanting to make an overarching judgement statement. For yourself yes its perfectly fine. But we must let others make their own decisions of what they want to put in effort wise in learning (or not) about their brewing.

Like BribieG I pretty much know my recipes and I do them from memory again and again. If I'm reading about something I have not done I will go into the additional sample readings and that helps me build in my mind the steps I will be going through to replicate. If the process is simple I'll usually omit, but if its more in depth I will.

You can make some great beer and it has been made for as long as the history of organised gatherings of humans and the only tools available for gravity readings a freshly laid hens egg near the tail end of mans history of making beer.

If you want to get started on something, my pet peeve is all these years above of beer brewing when you didn't get hops shrink wrapped with AA% ratings written all over the packet and how people survived and made great beer. Today a lot of brewers I meet are too chicken shit to make their beers bittering as well as flavour and aroma hopping using nothing but all the hops they grew themselves. What is this must use store bought hops for bittering malarky going around? You are making it for your own consumption right? Every batch isn't going into a competition event.

Cheers,
Brewer Pete


----------



## Nick JD (30/7/09)

buttersd70 said:


> more like a tosser...



Come on butters, you can be more eloquent than that. I thought you an intelligent fellow. 

Please take multiple OG readings from your kit brew wort from the top, middle and tap and write down the specific gravities, do it a few times. You will see that none are reliable. Do the research ... then establish who is and who isn't a tosser.

The OP of this thread had the exact same problem, just on a large scale. I'd say that most kit worts are inadequately stirred to give a relevant OG figure.


----------



## Nick JD (30/7/09)

Pouring cold water on top of 75 degree malt/sugar syrup and then expecting to get an evenly distributed specific gravity is like pouring cold water on top of a spoon full of sugar in a coffee cup. 

It takes an insane amount of stiring to even start to get a homogenous solution. Take all the OGs you want .. they'll be next to useless.


----------



## Adamt (30/7/09)

It's a lot easier when you pour in some boiling water first. Back in my kit days I never had any trouble; stirred it well before adding cold water, and vigorously for aeration.


----------



## bum (30/7/09)

Adamt said:


> It's a lot easier when you pour in some boiling water first. Back in my kit days I never had any trouble; stirred it well before adding cold water, and vigorously for aeration.



Ah, but you were a kit brewer (by your own admission), clearly you were too stupid to brew in those days!


----------



## Renegade (30/7/09)

Or add your goop & other fermentables at the end of your boil. Then when you mix it with cold water in the fermenter, it's all mixed. I had a similar theoy, so have taken to doing a measure of the tapped wort, and then ladelled a portion out from the bulk of the wort. Same-Same, on both readings.


----------



## RdeVjun (30/7/09)

Nick JD said:


> Start the yeast before you pour it in.


And completely out of context. I suggest having a read of the post again. Slowly this time, so it can be digested.

Straws, anyone?? To clutch perhaps? No need for an OG, this baby's been started... Rolling.

Edit: WRT bites, sorry, no earlier opportunity. Fair cop though, I just updated the list in my assistant...


----------



## Adamt (30/7/09)

I'd say it's infected... with Nickocillus Jaydeevisiae.


----------



## Steve (30/7/09)

why is everyone still biting for f*&^cks sake?


----------



## RdeVjun (30/7/09)

Adamt said:


> I'd say it's infected... with Nickocillus Jaydeevisiae.


Aye, a nasty outbreak, spp. trolliensis, unless I'm mistaken of course.


----------



## Renegade (30/7/09)

Oh it's another appearance from Word Of The Month


----------



## manticle (30/7/09)

Nick JD said:


> I apologise for my tardy description of "start the yeast".
> 
> Put yeast into a cup of cold tap water and add a teaspoon of sugar. Wait for it to foam up (should have an inch or two of foam ... sometimes it will escape the cup - this is a good thing).
> 
> ...




Tardy means late chief, not under-explained. The point that I see in that (and what I read into supra-jim's post too) is that recommending either a starter or rehydration is no less complicated a process (or science blinding) than taking a hydrometer reading. Considering most kit instructions suggest sprinkling yeast over the top, you just added on extra technical step that most kk brewers supposedly couldn't grasp.

@ Brewer Pete - there are a thousand things you might do (and I) with your own brews but I wouldn't always recommend them to people just starting out. If I drop a sausage on the floor I might decide to pick it up and eat it but should I recommend that to every sausage dropper? What people did in the past is not always an indicator either. Remember leaches or curing illness by bleeding? Treating psychosis by drowning in a water bath? Some things progress for a reason. Take a hydrometer, learn to use it, make good beer. When you understand the processes and what to look for YOU may decide to dispense with said items. They're not complicated to use though and can actually make simple kk brewing simpler.


----------



## Katherine (30/7/09)

manticle said:


> Tardy means late chief, not under-explained. The point that I see in that (and what I read into supra-jim's post too) is that recommending either a starter or rehydration is no less complicated a process (or science blinding) than taking a hydrometer reading. Considering most kit instructions suggest sprinkling yeast over the top, you just added on extra technical step that most kk brewers supposedly couldn't grasp.
> 
> @ Brewer Pete - there are a thousand things you might do (and I) with your own brews but I wouldn't always recommend them to people just starting out. If I drop a sausage on the floor I might decide to pick it up and eat it but should I recommend that to every sausage dropper? What people did in the past is not always an indicator either. Remember leaches or curing illness by bleeding? Treating psychosis by drowning in a water bath? Some things progress for a reason. Take a hydrometer, learn to use it, make good beer. When you understand the processes and what to look for YOU may decide to dispense with said items. They're not complicated to use though and can actually make simple kk brewing simpler.




It all depends on how long the sausage was on the floor!!!! doesnt it?


----------



## manticle (30/7/09)

When I worked in restaurants we actually used to measure the amount of time food was on the floor after it had been dropped. If the chef who'd dropped it picked it up for mise en place after 3.78 seconds we used to lock them in the cool room until the end of service with only a menu for company.


----------



## Katherine (30/7/09)

manticle said:


> When I worked in restaurants we actually used to measure the amount of time food was on the floor after it had been dropped. If the chef who'd dropped it picked it up for mise en place after 3.78 seconds we used to lock them in the cool room until the end of service with only a menu for company.




:icon_offtopic: 

try throwing ice in the deep fryer


----------



## manticle (30/7/09)

True story - when I was a simple dishpig, I worked with a chef who used to fill her pasta/blanching pot with water from the fridge (as in the toxic drip waste water).

When questioned by another chef, she claimed, quite seriously, that cold water came to the boil quicker than hot water.

I see.

Yum


----------



## buttersd70 (30/7/09)

manticle said:


> When questioned by another chef, she claimed, quite seriously, that cold water came to the boil quicker than hot water.



Well, that would depend on the OG. But as OG's are meaningless, it's a moot point.


----------



## pdilley (30/7/09)

Steve said:


> why is everyone still biting for f*&^cks sake?



Probably because they don't have a signature that reads "In my garage minding my own business!" 


Cheers,
Brewer Pete


----------



## brettprevans (30/7/09)

Renegade said:


> Or add your goop & other fermentables at the end of your boil. Then when you mix it with cold water in the fermenter, it's all mixed. I had a similar theoy, so have taken to doing a measure of the tapped wort, and then ladelled a portion out from the bulk of the wort. Same-Same, on both readings.


oh no f*ck me i actually agree with some Jase renageade said  



warra48 said:


> I don't care who rips what out of anybody, but........
> let's not lay into Katie.


i beleive i said something similar although not as blunt in post 126. leave KT alone. and get back on topic. as i did in post 126. now im going back to my Hunt for Brown October. I was only going to have 1 pot...8 down and still going. and I have recorded OF, multi SGs and FG.!

oh and brewerpetre is obviously such an experinced brewer that he can afford not to take OG readings. if you doubt me look at his techincal brewing knowledge on meads etc where he has taken refract readings up thw wahzoo to provode points and make scientific/brewing knowledge. 

yeah yeah yeah spelling, grammer etc is bad. dont care. too busy drinking beer.


----------



## manticle (30/7/09)

citymorgue2 said:


> I have recorded OF,
> 
> grammer is bad. dont care. too busy drinking beer.



Good beer is good

OF is reading the right way up. Kit brewers should read OJ to start and progress to OG followed by IH and then OF when they are ready though.


----------



## brettprevans (30/7/09)

ooooppps lmao/ yeah OF is the way the cool kids say it now a days. getting down to the DJ


----------



## bum (30/7/09)

How about you big, tuff guys let Katie look after herself? She probably already has a dad anyway.


----------



## manticle (30/7/09)

citymorgue2 said:


> oh and brewerpetre is obviously such an experinced brewer that he can afford not to take OG readings. if you doubt me look at his techincal brewing knowledge on meads etc where he has taken refract readings up thw wahzoo to provode points and make scientific/brewing knowledge.



That's exactly the point. He's reached a stage where he understands what his ferments are doing without needing a hydrometer. I myself only use one loosel)y (although my experience and knowledge is 8 million miles away from BP. 

The original question from Nick was "why would any KK brewer take an OG reading?" followed by the suggestion that anyone advising such things was only pushing their own expert barrow and trying to blind noobs with science. I'm fairly certain that's not the angle ol' Pete would be coming from.


----------



## Leigh (31/7/09)

Nick JD said:


> I apologise for my tardy description of "start the yeast".
> 
> Put yeast into a cup of cold tap water and add a teaspoon of sugar. Wait for it to foam up (should have an inch or two of foam ... sometimes it will escape the cup - this is a good thing).
> 
> ...



hmmm, my rehydrated yeasts always have foam over the surface BEFORE i add any sugaz...I never realised before that the foam of yeast in water meant the yeast had actually started fermenting h34r:




Nick JD said:


> Pouring cold water on top of 75 degree malt/sugar syrup and then expecting to get an evenly distributed specific gravity is like pouring cold water on top of a spoon full of sugar in a coffee cup.
> 
> It takes an insane amount of stiring to even start to get a homogenous solution. Take all the OGs you want .. they'll be next to useless.



Errr....no...

A lot of difference between dissolution of a solid in a liquid versus mixing two liquids...if this is what your own experiments have found then I would suggest you haven't actually dissolved your tins of goo properly in the first place h34r: 




Brewer Pete said:


> Like BribieG I pretty much know my recipes and I do them from memory again and again. *If I'm reading about something I have not done I will go into the additional sample readings and that helps me build in my mind the steps I will be going through to replicate.* If the process is simple I'll usually omit, but if its more in depth I will.



And I think this is the part of your lengthy post that actually makes sense in this topic...if you don't know or are unfamiliar the recipe/process etc then you take readings...

Could it be that the fact that the OP started this thread in the first place would suggest that they might (I know this is stretching things a little) not be comfortable with what they are doing and therefore this statement that I have quoted might (going out on a limb here) be the appropriate piece of advice?


----------

