Discussion in 'Brewing Books & Publications' started by godfrey, Oct 15, 2013.
+1 on both counts Dr. Mike
you are correct Dr Mike
they do not charge you until they dispatch
and then they charge you the lowest price from the point of the order to the point of the dispatch
so if at any point the item went into 50% off sale but on release day it is full price, you only pay half price:)
So glad I didn't suggest otherwise. :thumb:
It's still a right pain in the proverbial when you've placed an order that may be unlikely to be fulfilled any time soon, as others have pointed out. I've paid for an 'in stock' item before, that turned out not to be, only to receive a refund a few days later. Multiply that up by all potential similar cases and there may be a substantial amount sat in coffers somewhere at any given point - probably not in a UK bank, though!
Someone got a bargain
Am enjoying latest Camraâ€™s Essential Home Brewing by G Wheeler & A Parker, loads of new recipes based on award winning beers from around the world mostly UK, however the recipe for Verdant Pulp has I think the Mash Efficiency at about 90% that or theyâ€™ve missed out water loss or a base malt, I wonder if all the recipes have this fault
The recipes in the book are for circa 20L, or approximately the 5 US gallon recipes you find on various websites. This batch size makes a lot of sense if the method is BIAB, as the grain bag is a bit hard to manage for much more. I very much doubt that there is any typographical error of that sort of magnitude. I have not done any of the fancy recipes from this book, but have done several, with varying degrees of success, from the old book and TBH, it is pretty hard to imagine getting this vital part of the content that wrong.
Easy way to find out is to do the math, as the Americans say, I did hence my concern even for itty bitty American pints.
Give it a go
Iâ€™m being generous when I say 90%
Iâ€™ll show my workings for the red spider rye on page 143, just the pale malt
Percentage of grain bill 92%
225.4/(36x0.7)=8.95lbs or 4.05 kg
Not the 3.45kg quoted
However I may have found my extract potential in an American book.
But a book published in the UK by an British institution such as Camra really shouldnâ€™t use US Imperial measurements without making it very clear
And isnâ€™t 5 US gallons 18.9 litres?
It's a great little book and it's clearly stated on p.128 that the recipes are scaled to 20 litres at 75% brewhouse efficiency. I bought the book because it has a recipe for Eight-Arches (Wimborne Minster) Corbel, which a mate had recommended from visiting his last two beer festivals.
And, wouldn't you know it, the scaling's wrong: 5Kg of pale malt should give an OG of around 1063 and not the target OG of 1052 stated in the recipe. A lovely drop, nevertheless, and next time I'll pay more attention to the recipes. Most of the other recipes look about right, except "Drop That Ghetto Blaster" on p. 156, where I think I'd struggle to get 1066 from the declared grain bill.
When scaling up from U.S. to "Imperial" gallons, it's close enough to multiply by 1.2.
Our pint has 20 fluid ounces while the US pint has 16 fluid ounces (like 16 ounces of weight in a pound). That doesn't account for everything, though, as the US fluid ounce is about a millilitre more than the UK one.
Which system makes more sense? Hard to say except that a glass with 20 fluid ounces of beer in it is 20% better than a glass with only 16. And I can't see even the Americans arguing with that.
I was a bit taken aback by that, too. I seem to recall that in Wheeler's earlier books, he gave three scales US gallons, Imperial gallons and 25 litres. Not that I've ever used or even seen one, but aren't all the Grainfathery things and their ilk mostly sized at 20 litre batches? Not that it matters as most of my batches are 6 (UK) gallons, which is the ideal ratio of liquid and head space in my particular fermenters and if my fermenters changed, I'd change my batch size accordingly.
Is 20 litres minus trub and hoses rather less?
I read these recipes as "20 liters kegged/bottled", but at an expected efficiency of 75%, in practice I'd go for 17 liters abouts (65% efficiency here).
Separate names with a comma.