Specific Gravity - here's a specific question!
Dynamic_Don
OK, I think I understand what specific gravity is, but I have come across a question that I don't
seem to be able to solve...
"A Treatise on Lager & Beers" notes that 1 pound mass of dextrose (corn sugar) equals 2 2/3 cups
[alternatively 1 cup weighs 6oz], and that 1 pound dextrose dissolved in 1 gallon water gives a
specific gravity of 1.040.
The way I see it, 1 lbm of dextrose is 453.6 grams. 1 gallon of water is 3785 ml of water,
weighing 3785 gm. So the total mass of the material is (453.6+3785)gm. The volume of the
resulting solution is 3785 ml plus the volume added due to you putting the dextrose in.
I've made a few measurements and found that 1/4 cup of dextrose increases the water volume by 20ml.
So 2 2/3 cups of dextrose should increase the water volume by 213 ml, and the resulting total
volume of solution is expected then to be about 3998 ml.
The density is then the mass/vol = 1.060, not 1.040 !!!
OK, what went wrong? The dextrose dissolving measurement of 20ml was carried out at 26C, close
enough to the 60F that I don't need to correct for temperature.
A reply via this usenet group and email would be appreciated. Thanks, and happy sugars to you.
Alan McKay
Dynamic_Don ("dpearson"@ghgcorp.com) wrote:
: The way I see it,
: 1 lbm of dextrose is 453.6 grams. 1 gallon of water is 3785 ml of water,
: weighing 3785 gm.
: So the total mass of the material is (453.6+3785)gm.
I'm not sure if mass works the same as weight (probably doesn't), but
if you put a 2 pound trout into a fish tank that weighs 75 pounds,
the tank still only weighs 75 pounds.
--
"The Reform Party is like a box of chocolates:
you never know where the nuts are."
- Double Exposure, CBC Radio
http://www.acadiau.ca/cc/alan/ http://www.acadiau.ca/cc/alan/brew/
Dave Whitman
Dynamic_Don <" dpearson"@ghgcorp.com> wrote:
>"A Treatise on Lager & Beers" notes that 1 pound mass of dextrose (corn sugar) equals 2 2/3 cups
>[alternatively 1 cup weighs 6oz], and that 1 pound dextrose dissolved in 1 gallon water gives a
>specific gravity of 1.040.
>The way I see it, 1 lbm of dextrose is 453.6 grams. 1 gallon of water is 3785 ml of water,
>weighing 3785 gm. So the total mass of the material is (453.6+3785)gm. The volume of the
>resulting solution is 3785 ml plus the volume added due to you putting the dextrose in.
>I've made a few measurements and found that 1/4 cup of dextrose increases the water volume by 20ml.
>So 2 2/3 cups of dextrose should increase the water volume by 213 ml, and the resulting total
>volume of solution is expected then to be about 3998 ml.
>The density is then the mass/vol = 1.060, not 1.040 !!!
>OK, what went wrong?
I'm not sure what went wrong, but I see 2 possible sources of
uncertainty in your calculations that could be contributors.
1. (major) I don't think that I would trust the 1 lb = 2 2/3 cup
number to be particularly accurate. There is uncertainty in how you
pack the cup, plus, depending on the particle size distribution of the
sugar crystals, the maximum possible packing density can vary
tremendously. The proper way to do this experiment is by weight, not
volume.
2. (?minor?) The volume increase upon adding a soluble material into a
solvent is not necessarily linear with concentration and can even be
negative (!). Unless your measurement was carried out at a
concentration of 1 lb / 1 gallon, I wouldn't assume that the number
you got was appropriate for this calculation. (You could make a small
AMOUNT of solution, but the proportions need to be the same).
---
Dave Whitman "The opinions expressed are those
Rohm and Haas Company of the author, not Rohm and Haas."
dwhi...@rohmhaas.com They made me say that. Really.
Mike Uchima
al...@news.acadiau.ca (Alan McKay) writes:
|> I'm not sure if mass works the same as weight (probably doesn't),
Mass and weight can pretty much be used interchangably, as long as the force
of gravity is the same as here on good ol' planet Earth. In other words, as
long as you don't try to brew in orbit, or on Mars (do they have "air" or
"atmosphere" over there? never mind... :-)), I think you can pretty much
ignore the difference between the two.
|> but if you put a 2 pound trout into a fish tank that weighs 75 pounds,
|> the tank still only weighs 75 pounds.
Eh? Only if 2 pounds of water sloshes out when you put the fish in!
-- Mike Uchima
-- uch...@fncrd8.fnal.gov
John Rezabek
Dynamic_Don wrote:
>
> OK, what went wrong?
Say isn't dry malt, corn sugar and the like extremely prone to absorbing
water (I think hydrophillic?) So depending on what your dry corn sugar
has been exposed to, perhaps it's picked up some mass from water. I
guess this would bias your results the "wrong" way though. FWIW
John Rezabek
reza...@alpha.wcoil.com
Pete Womack
Dynamic_Don <" dpearson"@ghgcorp.com> wrote:
>OK, I think I understand what specific gravity is, but I have come across a question that I don't
>seem to be able to solve...
(extra siphoned off)
>The density is then the mass/vol = 1.060, not 1.040 !!!
Nope, nope, nope, nope.
>OK, what went wrong? The dextrose dissolving measurement of 20ml was carried out at 26C, close
>enough to the 60F that I don't need to correct for temperature.
Specific gravity is a comparison of the density of a liquid to an equal volume
of water. By definition, and by formula, pure water has a specific gravity of
1.000. What you need to do is measure the mass of a specific volume of a
solution, and divide that by the the mass of the same volume of water (grams are
a measure of mass; pounds and ounces are the measure of gravity's pull on a
given mass. So, measure volumes in grams or kilograms). You are correct, though,
that the measurements need to be made at 26C. Higher temperatures reduce the
density, lower temperatures increase density.
Pete.
Medical Technologist, parent, brewer, computer nerd
Dynamic_Don
Right you are about mass and weight. Next time you put that 2 pound
trout in the tank, you'll also see the water level rise as well as the
weight of the fish.
Dave Whitman
al...@news.acadiau.ca (Alan McKay) wrote:
>Dynamic_Don ("dpearson"@ghgcorp.com) wrote:
>: The way I see it,
>: 1 lbm of dextrose is 453.6 grams. 1 gallon of water is 3785 ml of water,
>: weighing 3785 gm.
>: So the total mass of the material is (453.6+3785)gm.
>I'm not sure if mass works the same as weight (probably doesn't), but
>if you put a 2 pound trout into a fish tank that weighs 75 pounds,
>the tank still only weighs 75 pounds.
Well, the *tank* still weighs 75 pounds, but the ensemble of the tank
plus fish weighs 77 pounds, unless some water sloshes out of the tank
when you add the fish. The weight of the fish doesn't magically
disappear just because its immersed in water.
Alan McKay
Dave Whitman (rsn...@rohmhaas.com) wrote:
: >I'm not sure if mass works the same as weight (probably doesn't), but
: >if you put a 2 pound trout into a fish tank that weighs 75 pounds,
: >the tank still only weighs 75 pounds.
: Well, the *tank* still weighs 75 pounds, but the ensemble of the tank
: plus fish weighs 77 pounds, unless some water sloshes out of the tank
: when you add the fish. The weight of the fish doesn't magically
: disappear just because its immersed in water.
Hmmm, actually, I'm pretty sure that part or most of the weight of
the fish *does* magically disappear. I just sent email to a guy in
our brew club who has a PhD in Physics, and asked him about it.
I'll let you know when I get a response.
-Alan
--
"In talking about the relationship between users and performance, it is
easy to start seeing users as problems: the creatures who keep your
system from running the way it ought to" - Mike Loukides
http://www.acadiau.ca/cc/alan/ http://www.acadiau.ca/cc/alan/brew/
marc...@agreng.lan.mcgill.ca
> al...@news.acadiau.ca (Alan McKay) writes:
> Dave Whitman (rsn...@rohmhaas.com) wrote:
>
> : >I'm not sure if mass works the same as weight (probably doesn't), but
> : >if you put a 2 pound trout into a fish tank that weighs 75 pounds,
> : >the tank still only weighs 75 pounds.
>
> : Well, the *tank* still weighs 75 pounds, but the ensemble of the tank
> : plus fish weighs 77 pounds, unless some water sloshes out of the tank
> : when you add the fish. The weight of the fish doesn't magically
> : disappear just because its immersed in water.
>
> Hmmm, actually, I'm pretty sure that part or most of the weight of
> the fish *does* magically disappear. I just sent email to a guy in
> our brew club who has a PhD in Physics, and asked him about it.
> I'll let you know when I get a response.
>
> -Alan
>
>
Hello,
Weight is a force. The tank plus fish might weigh 75 if you bring them at
an elevation that is high enough where the gravitational acceleration begins
to change. But that would be pretty high.
Gravitational acceleration if what pulls object towards the earth.
The mass of the two (tank and fish) will always be the same. Which will be the
mass of the tank plus the mass of the fish, no matter where they are in space.
Hope that clears things up a little
T-Bone
I tried to measure the SG of a trout and dropped my carboy onto the
concrete floor, is my beer still good...?
TimW
Alan McKay
marc...@agreng.lan.mcgill.ca wrote:
: Weight is a force. The tank plus fish might weigh 75 if you bring them at
: an elevation that is high enough where the gravitational acceleration begins
: to change. But that would be pretty high.
Yeah, actually I checked with a Physics Prof, and he told me tha the
75 lb fish tank with a 2 lb fish in it will indeed weigh 77 lbs.
I guess this is one of those cases where I have to alter one of the
beliefs I've been carrying with me all this time :-)
-Alan
--
"I find that it's easier meeting people online.
You get to know them from the inside out.. "
- Melissa Dimock
http://www.acadiau.ca/cc/alan/ http://www.acadiau.ca/cc/alan/brew/
Mats White
By all means, bottle the trout. Let it age for a month or two first.
-Mats
T-Bone
it would be a rainbow trout stout
David R. Rorabaugh
Wait a minute folks, I think you're missing the point. Several,
actually.
At one standard gravity, mass and weight are equivalent.
The tank weighs a certain amount, so does the water it contains, and so
does the fish. The result of adding a 2lb fish to a water-filled tank
with a combined weight of 75lbs will be a 77lb result unless the
addition of the fish displaces a volume of water. If the addition of the
fish displaces a volume of water, the result would be equal to 77lbs
minus the weight (mass) of the volume of water displaced.
Or (finally) to put this in brewing terms:
If you have a 10gal brew kettle (weight 6 lbs), to which you have added
20 liters of water (weight 44lbs), you have a combination which will
weigh 50 lbs. If you add 8lbs of grain, you will have a combination
which will weigh 58 lbs. If you bring this to a boil, and it boils over,
your weight will be diminished by the weight of the additive volume of
the liquid which has evaporated or spilled. If you then add a 2lb fish,
you will ruin your beer.
--
David R. Rorabaugh
Systems Operations Specialist
Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky LLP
The opinions expressed are my own.
--
Kevin Roberts
> >I tried to measure the SG of a trout and dropped my carboy onto the
> >concrete floor, is my beer still good...?
> >
> >TimW
>
>
> By all means, bottle the trout. Let it age for a month or two first.
>
>
> -Mats
You might first want to rack to an aquarium until the trout readings are
constant...?
--
Kevin Roberts
robe...@llnl.gov
Mike Uchima
"David R. Rorabaugh" <dr...@mail.dsmo.com> writes:
|> Wait a minute folks, I think you're missing the point. Several,
|> actually.
|>
|> At one standard gravity, mass and weight are equivalent.
Says who? Have you ever actually *tried* it? I've heard of Oyster Stout;
why not a nice Trout Porter? (The style guidelines for Porter seem to
be pretty broad, so why not?)
Alan McKay
David R. Rorabaugh (dr...@mail.dsmo.com) wrote:
: Wait a minute folks, I think you're missing the point. Several,
: actually.
[ ... ]
: Or (finally) to put this in brewing terms:
Hey! Keep this brewing crap out of our newsgroup, we're talking
about fish here!
Oh, wait, where was I ?
;-)
-Alan
--
"I can say 'Saskatchewan' without starting to stutter."
- The Proclaimers
http://www.acadiau.ca/cc/alan/ http://www.acadiau.ca/cc/alan/brew/
Dave Whitman
al...@news.acadiau.ca (Alan McKay) wrote:
>Dave Whitman (rsn...@rohmhaas.com) wrote:
>: >I'm not sure if mass works the same as weight (probably doesn't), but
>: >if you put a 2 pound trout into a fish tank that weighs 75 pounds,
>: >the tank still only weighs 75 pounds.
>: Well, the *tank* still weighs 75 pounds, but the ensemble of the tank
>: plus fish weighs 77 pounds, unless some water sloshes out of the tank
>: when you add the fish. The weight of the fish doesn't magically
>: disappear just because its immersed in water.
>Hmmm, actually, I'm pretty sure that part or most of the weight of
>the fish *does* magically disappear. I just sent email to a guy in
>our brew club who has a PhD in Physics, and asked him about it.
>I'll let you know when I get a response.
I have a PhD in chemistry, but you don't need a degree to figure this
out. Do the experiment, and you'll find that the weight goes up in an
additive manner. Or try this gedanken experiment: imagine dropping a
wrench on board a submerged submarine. If the weight of submerged
objects disappears upon immersion, the wrench would be weightless.
I think you are confusing conservation of mass with Archimedes'
principle. (Where a floating object displaces it's own weight of
water).
David R. Rorabaugh
> |> actually.
> |>
> |> [snip, snip, snip]
> |> If you then add a 2lb fish, you will ruin your beer.
>
> Says who? Have you ever actually *tried* it? I've heard of Oyster Stout;
> why not a nice Trout Porter? (The style guidelines for Porter seem to
> be pretty broad, so why not?)
I tried hard to imagine it, and couldn't think of anything that didn't
send me over the edge. I would think that the oils alone would be a
serious problem. That is, if you're considering it as a recipe for BEER.
As a recipe for fish, it might well be excellent.
No, I haven't tried it. For that matter, I'm not interested in trying
it. I doubt I would drink it if someone else tried it, even if they said
it was excellent. I can't imagine working with 2 POUNDS of fish in a
beer. I would think that, even if you only used 2 OUNCES during the
boil, you'd have to hop the thing within an inch of its life (THAT might
be where the 2 POUNDS part comes in), and that probably would make for
something other than a porter in the final analysis.
However, you've got me thinking. There was a previous post about someone
who had made a Ginger Beer (actually a porter, if I remember correctly),
and noted that while they weren't happy with it as a beer, it was
acclaimed as the best barbeque sauce his friends had ever seen. Maybe
we've got a great recipe for fish going here.... Brew a traditional
porter, and use it to marinate and cook 20lbs of fish.
I've still got to believe you end up with better fish than beer when
it's over.
sig before replying
In article <3210a...@131.162.2.91>, al...@news.acadiau.ca (Alan McKay) wrote:
>marc...@agreng.lan.mcgill.ca wrote:
>
>
>: Weight is a force. The tank plus fish might weigh 75 if you bring them at
>: an elevation that is high enough where the gravitational acceleration
begins
>: to change. But that would be pretty high.
>
>Yeah, actually I checked with a Physics Prof, and he told me tha the
>75 lb fish tank with a 2 lb fish in it will indeed weigh 77 lbs.
>
>I guess this is one of those cases where I have to alter one of the
>beliefs I've been carrying with me all this time :-)
I'm kinda confused how you came to the conclusion that adding a 2# fish to a
75# tank would weigh 75# still. I mean, that's the disappearance of quite a
bit of matter along with the resultant city-leveling flash of energy. (Maybe
planet splitting, but I'm too lazy to go through the necessary calculations.)
Maybe I should also quit pondering exploding fish when drinking homebrew.
| Tim Robinson | Lonely Web page. Please visit. |
| timt...@ionet.net | http://www.ionet.net/~timtroyr |
| "The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by |
| men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding." L. Brandeis |
The e-mail address timt...@ionet.net may not be used for advertising
commercial goods without prior request from the address or without the
payment of US$50.00 per incident. Sending commercial advertisements
to the address shall be deemed acceptance of these terms.
Alan McKay
Tim Robinson (timt...@ionet.net__readsigbeforereplying) wrote:
: I'm kinda confused how you came to the conclusion that adding a 2# fish to a
: 75# tank would weigh 75# still. I mean, that's the disappearance of quite a
: bit of matter along with the resultant city-leveling flash of energy. (Maybe
: planet splitting, but I'm too lazy to go through the necessary calculations.)
: Maybe I should also quit pondering exploding fish when drinking homebrew.
I think I was confused about displacement and such stuff.
(Hey, everyone happy with the s/n ratio these days? :-) )
-Alan
--
Beauty lies in the hands of the beerholder
http://www.acadiau.ca/cc/alan/ http://www.acadiau.ca/cc/alan/brew/
Daniel Calder
If you dangle a 2 lb fish from a scale, the scale will read 2 lb.
If you then dunk that dangling fish into a fish tank, the scale will
read 0 lb because the buoyant force of the water upward on the fish
balances the downward force of gravity on the fish.
The fish still weighs 2 lb, its just that its being pushed up by the
water.
If you have the fish tank on a bathroom scale and it weighs 75 lb
before adding the fish, it will weigh 77 lb after adding the fish
unless some of the water overflows.
If you started with a fishtank that is completely full and then add
the fish and catch the water that overflows, that water would weigh 2
lb and the tank with the fish in it would weigh 75 lb still.
75 lb + 2 lb still equals 77 lbs.
T-Bone
Daniel Calder wrote:
[BAD MATH POLICE HAVE DELETED THIS !!!!]
> If you started with a fishtank that is completely full and then add
> the fish and catch the water that overflows, that water would weigh 2
> lb and the tank with the fish in it would weigh 75 lb still.
> 75 lb + 2 lb still equals 77 lbs.
Wrong...Bzzzzzzt !
With all due respect, the water would weigh as much as that which the fish
or object displaced, not necissarily 2 lbs. Consider sinking a baloon
and sloshing the gallon out. Would the gallon sloshed equal the 2 grams
of the baloon ? of course not, it would weigh 8 pounds.
I never thought about it, but I guess the SG of a trout is 1.
TimW
Jay Ward
Dave Whitman (rsn...@rohmhaas.com) wrote:
:
: I have a PhD in chemistry, but you don't need a degree to figure this
: out. Do the experiment, and you'll find that the weight goes up in an
: additive manner. Or try this gedanken experiment: imagine dropping a
: wrench on board a submerged submarine. If the weight of submerged
: objects disappears upon immersion, the wrench would be weightless.
And wouldn't hurt like a bitch when it lands on your toe.
:
: I think you are confusing conservation of mass with Archimedes'
: principle. (Where a floating object displaces it's own weight of
: water).
: ---
I thought that was conservation of bass, but thats a whole nother kettle
of fish.
Around our house it's the floating object that displeases Mom. And I
don't want to think about her weight in water.
Jay
arne thormodsen
T-Bone (twa...@infosphere.com) wrote:
: I never thought about it, but I guess the SG of a trout is 1.
Well,
I've never seen a flying trout.
I've never seen one drilled into the bottom of a creek.
When they float on top of the water they usually don't seen too lively.
So you may just be right.
But a bonus question. I start out a ferment at 1055, at 1035 I rack
into secondary, top off to the very rim, then shove in a 2 lb trout. I
drink the beer that is displaced by the fish. The beer finishes off at
1027 two weeks later. At this point I fish out the trout and make a
slightly gamey bouillabaisse with it. I eat half the fish in the soup and
drink 22 oz of the beer from the carboy.
Given this, how much weight did I gain? And why did I drink warm, flat,
fish-flavored beer?
--arne
: TimW
Mike Uchima
T-Bone <twa...@infosphere.com> writes:
|> Daniel Calder wrote:
|> [BAD MATH POLICE HAVE DELETED THIS !!!!]
|> > If you started with a fishtank that is completely full and then add
|> > the fish and catch the water that overflows, that water would weigh 2
|> > lb and the tank with the fish in it would weigh 75 lb still.
|> > 75 lb + 2 lb still equals 77 lbs.
|>
|> Wrong...Bzzzzzzt !
|>
|> With all due respect, the water would weigh as much as that which the fish
|> or object displaced, not necissarily 2 lbs. Consider sinking a baloon
|> and sloshing the gallon out. Would the gallon sloshed equal the 2 grams
|> of the baloon ? of course not, it would weigh 8 pounds.
|>
At the risk of extending this silly thread yet again...
I think that was the point. The SG of a trout is probably pretty close to
1.000, therefore a 2 lb trout *will* displace its own weight in water,
more or less.
And actually, to examine the balloon experiment a little more carefully:
In order to sink the balloon in the first place, you would need to
attach weights to it. At the point where the balloon + weights are just
barely heavy enough to sink, they (the balloon + weights) *will* weigh the
same as the amount of water displaced. Of course, if you sink an object
which is *denser* than water, the weight of the water displaced will be
less than that of the sunken object...
(BTW, T-Bone: Did you get my e-mail? A message I tried to send you
last week bounced back to me this morning (duh!). I tried to send it
again, but don't know if it got through.)
Mike Uchima
This is all about as enlightening as the "Is the atmosphere on other
planets called 'air'" thread. Maybe we should try and tie the two
together? :-)
And no, this isn't meant to be a flame... I've contributed to this
$@%&! thread myself. (And there, now I've gone and done it again...
damn!) :-)
John KropewnCKI
Daniel Calder <cal...@moose.ncia.net> writes:
>If you dangle a 2 lb fish from a scale, the scale will read 2 lb.
>If you then dunk that dangling fish into a fish tank, the scale will
>read 0 lb because the buoyant force of the water upward on the fish
>balances the downward force of gravity on the fish.
This is not true. It depends on the fishes density. The fish could be
less dense than water and float. In that case the scale would read <0.
Or the fish could be very very dense and the scale would read something
close to 2#.
--
The e-mail address refering to John Kropewnicki may not be used for
Wenzelbj
In article <4utgqg$t...@hpcvsnz.cv.hp.com>, ar...@cv.hp.com (arne
thormodsen) writes:
>But a bonus question. I start out a ferment at 1055, at 1035 I rack
>into secondary, top off to the very rim, then shove in a 2 lb trout. I
>drink the beer that is displaced by the fish. The beer finishes off at
>1027 two weeks later. At this point I fish out the trout and make a
>slightly gamey bouillabaisse with it. I eat half the fish in the soup
and
>drink 22 oz of the beer from the carboy.
>
>Given this, how much weight did I gain? And why did I drink warm, flat,
>fish-flavored beer?
Hey, maybe you could calibrate the fish and use it as a hydrometer.
Jean-Pierre Boileau
uch...@fncrdh.fnal.gov (Mike Uchima) wrote:
>"David R. Rorabaugh" <dr...@mail.dsmo.com> writes:
>|> Wait a minute folks, I think you're missing the point. Several,
>|> actually.
>|>
>|> At one standard gravity, mass and weight are equivalent.
>|> [snip, snip, snip]
>|> If you then add a 2lb fish, you will ruin your beer.
>Says who? Have you ever actually *tried* it? I've heard of Oyster Stout;
>why not a nice Trout Porter? (The style guidelines for Porter seem to
>be pretty broad, so why not?)
Actually, it'd be "says AHA". They would find that beer to be
"out-of-style" and you'd have to enter it in a special category.
(pfffrt).
JP
J Little Wolf
> uch...@fncrdh.fnal.gov (Mike Uchima) wrote in article
<4uqugs$3...@fnnews.fnal.gov>...
> "David R. Rorabaugh" <dr...@mail.dsmo.com> writes:
> |> Wait a minute folks, I think you're missing the point. Several,
> |> actually.
> |>
> |> At one standard gravity, mass and weight are equivalent.
> |> [snip, snip, snip]
> |> If you then add a 2lb fish, you will ruin your beer.
>
Hey, we all know that people have been known to drink just about any find
creater after a few
Bottles of good home brew.. So why not a gold fish or three... ;-)
> Says who? Have you ever actually *tried* it? I've heard of Oyster Stout;
> why not a nice Trout Porter? (The style guidelines for Porter seem to
> be pretty broad, so why not?)
>
T-Bone
Wenzelbj wrote:
> Hey, maybe you could calibrate the fish and use it as a hydrometer.
floats upto its eyeballs, it's gonna be a good summer brew !
floats up to its pectoral, it's a ganne be a good brown !
floats upto its arsehole, it's gonna be a stout !
TimW
Mike Uchima
Alex Flinsch <Sparr...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
|> Jean-Pierre Boileau wrote:
|> > uch...@fncrdh.fnal.gov (Mike Uchima) wrote:
|> > >Says who? Have you ever actually *tried* it? I've heard of Oyster Stout;
|> > >why not a nice Trout Porter? (The style guidelines for Porter seem to
|> > >be pretty broad, so why not?)
|> >
|> > "out-of-style" and you'd have to enter it in a special category.
|> >
|> > (pfffrt).
|>
|> just fall into the lambic category....
So, what is the proper temperature and length of time to steep a trout
at, to kill the unwanted microbes, without causing any unwanted compounds
to be extracted? Or should I just add it to the secondary (i.e. "dry
fishing"), where the alcohol (and low pH) should protect the beer?
:-)
Alex Flinsch
> >|> Wait a minute folks, I think you're missing the point. Several,
> >|> actually.
> >|>
> >|> At one standard gravity, mass and weight are equivalent.
> >|> [snip, snip, snip]
> >|> If you then add a 2lb fish, you will ruin your beer.
>
> >why not a nice Trout Porter? (The style guidelines for Porter seem to
> >be pretty broad, so why not?)
>
> Actually, it'd be "says AHA". They would find that beer to be
> "out-of-style" and you'd have to enter it in a special category.
>
> (pfffrt).
>
Alex
The Marauder
Alan McKay (al...@news.acadiau.ca) wrote:
> Tim Robinson (timt...@ionet.net__readsigbeforereplying) wrote:
>
> : I'm kinda confused how you came to the conclusion that adding a 2# fish to a
> : 75# tank would weigh 75# still. I mean, that's the disappearance of quite a
> : bit of matter along with the resultant city-leveling flash of energy. (Maybe
> : planet splitting, but I'm too lazy to go through the necessary calculations.)
> : Maybe I should also quit pondering exploding fish when drinking homebrew.
>
> I think I was confused about displacement and such stuff.
>
> (Hey, everyone happy with the s/n ratio these days? :-) )
>
Not meaning to burst any pending bubbles here, as I have neither a
PhD in Physics nor any other subject, however consider the following:
An easy way to put this into laymans perspective would simply be to
convert the 2lb fish from a living, animate 2lb peice of matter into
a more convienient form of non-living matter. To do so, simply place
the fish into a high speed blender and continue to blend until the
entire fish is liquified. At this point you will have 2 lbs of liquified
fish. Now simply pour this 2lbs of liquified fish into the 75lb aquarium
I think it's pretty much understood by all that your aquarium, now full
of an emulsion composed of both H2O & Fish Matter would weigh 75 lbs.
Study questions:
1) Does the fact that the 2lbs of fish matter need to be shaped like a
fish in order to defy gravitational forces?
2) Is it possible that the fact that in the original example, the fish
was a living fish make it defy gravity, perhaps I have excluded
consideration of the "Life Force" as a possible culprit for
anti-gravity.
cheers.
td
--
Marauder, The ||"Maybe going camping might provide a badly
LoD Communications, Inc. || needed dose of perspective? The radiation
mara...@lod.com || from your computer setup is affecting your mind"
___________________________|| [Circa 1994 - Universe aka ANI-Failure]
jo3sh
T-Bone <twa...@infosphere.com> wrote:
>I never thought about it, but I guess the SG of a trout is 1.
Now here's the question: How do you float a hydrometer in a trout?
Jo3sh
DNRC Crown Prince of Chortlers-at-Work
David Hammond
jo3sh wrote:
>
> T-Bone <twa...@infosphere.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >I never thought about it, but I guess the SG of a trout is 1.
> >
>
> Now here's the question: How do you float a hydrometer in a trout?
>
Ever hear of a Bass-o-matic?
Dave
Ssteppe
>Now simply pour this 2lbs of liquified fish into the 75lb aquarium
>I think it's pretty much understood by all that your aquarium, now full
>of an emulsion composed of both H2O & Fish Matter would weigh 75 lbs.
Uh, no, NOT "pretty much understood..." First of all, it's not
technically an emulsion, and second of all, it would weigh 77 lbs.
Jay Ward
jo3sh (jo...@fishnet.net) wrote:
: T-Bone <twa...@infosphere.com> wrote:
: >I never thought about it, but I guess the SG of a trout is 1.
: Now here's the question: How do you float a hydrometer in a trout?
: Jo3sh
: DNRC Crown Prince of Chortlers-at-Work
I think RonCO has a followup product to their wildly sucessful
Bass-o-Matic that just might do the job, the new and improved,
(insert drum roll/fanfare here)
The TROUT-O-TRON.
J.
Alan McKay
David Hammond (ham...@nexen.com) wrote:
: > Now here's the question: How do you float a hydrometer in a trout?
: Ever hear of a Bass-o-matic?
Yup, Dan Akroyd, original SNL.
Simply genious.
-Alan
--
"I've decided that I must be The Messiah; people expect me
to work miracles, and when I don't, I get crucified."
- John W. Braue, III
http://www.acadiau.ca/cc/alan/ http://www.acadiau.ca/cc/alan/brew/
BennBurke
The fish does not have a SG of 1.0. Trout float due to the presence of
gas in their swim bladder (sometimes mistakenly called an "air bladder").
The volume of this very light gas offsets the mass (i.e. gravity) of the
heavier organs, muscles, blood, bone, etc. Fish also "float" by actively
adjusting their position using their pectoral fins. If you have ever
watched a fish in a tank sit still, you will notice that it will slowly
sink.
The regulation of air in the swim bladder is a passive process for trout
(but not all fish). Gas is removed from sollution in the blood and
"injected" into the swim bladder via special cells that line the organ.
If the trout dies, this process will cease and the fish will sink. "Why
do dead fish float?" you ask. Initially they float due to remanent gas in
their swim badder. They usually sink soon after death. After a bit they
re-emerge at the surface due to gasses in their body cavity which are
bi-products of bacterial composition.
Wow! I finally used somethint I learned in College.
Benn.
The Marauder
re: First: No it's not technically an emusion at all, however it more
closely resembles an emulsion, as in the fine particles of fish matter
suspended in a liquid than a single particle (the whole fish) suspended in
the same liquid.
Re: Second: And yes, to finish my witty diatribe I type-o'd the intended
(correct) 77lbs of water & fish "emulsion", with the incorrect terminal
weight of "75lbs" However reading the rest of my witty post one would have
figured out for themselves that the point of my entire post was to
demonstrate that yes the weight of the aquarium would increase by 2lbs
regardless of the "particular" size of the fish matter. Unfortunately the in
my cleverness & quick typery the entire sarcasm was lost by fatally typing
"75lbs". However in the grand scheme of the universe (to include
rec.crafts.brewing). Who cares?
todd
Ssteppe
>mara...@lod.com (The Marauder) wrote:
>And yes, to finish my witty diatribe I type-o'd the intended
>(correct) 77lbs of water & fish "emulsion", with the incorrect terminal
>weight of "75lbs"
Ah, makes more sense! My apologies.
Beer? Cheers!
Mike Uchima
benn...@aol.com (BennBurke) writes:
|> The fish does not have a SG of 1.0. Trout float due to the presence of
|> gas in their swim bladder (sometimes mistakenly called an "air bladder").
|> The volume of this very light gas offsets the mass (i.e. gravity) of the
|> heavier organs, muscles, blood, bone, etc.
So, the total "fish system" (e.g. the body mass of the fish, plus the
gas in the swim bladder) have an aggregate SG pretty close to 1.0, yes?
I think this was the point.
|> Fish also "float" by actively
|> adjusting their position using their pectoral fins. If you have ever
|> watched a fish in a tank sit still, you will notice that it will slowly
|> sink.
I would think that evolution would have favored trout that expend the
least amount of energy adjusting their position, i.e. trout with a
SG very close to 1.0.
The Marauder
I am seriously considering brewing up a batch of "Fish Emulsion Stout".
Using the aforementioned 77lbs of fish-paste & aquarium water, a few
pounds of pale malt and perhaps a pound or so of munich malt (as I believe
the munich will enhance the "trouty" taste). Or maybe I'll use a muskie,
since they have a more gamey taste. Not sure.
cheers
Mark Farley
I just have to put in my .02.
Fish have an organ called a swim bladder that changes their buoyancy.
They do not necessarily need to constantly move the pectoral fins to remain
buoyant. Also the SG of an aquarium will vary by type. My freshwater
setup is at 1 and my saltwater is at 1.023.
Jay Ward
Mark Farley (sin...@vitinc.com) wrote:
: I just have to put in my .02.
You don't belong in this newsgroup, every one knows that keeping a salt
water tank cuts into your brewing time ... ;)
Jay