I continually forget to take good notes during the brewing process, which I'm told is crucial to making consistently good beer. Perhaps this time it was due to the fact that I had my first significant failure in a while.
The Recipe
Belgian Wit
4.50 lbs UK 2-row
4.50 lbs Flaked Wheat
1.0 oz Kent Goldings Hops Pellets (boil 60 mins)
.75 oz Coriander (crush and boil 5 mins)
.75 oz Bitter Orange Peel (boil 5 mins)
Belgian Wit Yeast - WLP 400
I made a yeast starter on Friday night, using 1/2 cup of DME and a couple of the Kent Goldings pellets. It's recommended to start the yeast several days before brewing, but I was unable to due to time constraints.
The first real step was to pre-heat the cooler to prevent temperature loss when adding the grain and that mash water. I boiled about one and a half gallons of water and used that to preheat. When I added the mash water and then the grain, that's when I ran into my problem. I did a good job of adding the grain slowly and stirring properly, but I still had a stuck sparge. I think I made a few serious mistakes.
First, I ran the flaked wheat through the grain mill. I've read in some places that this is recommended, but I think this added a lot of "dust" to the mash tun which helped it get stuck. Second, I didn't drain the mash tun of the first amount of water before I added the second. I think this disturbed the grain bed and again helped contribute to a stuck sparge. And finally, I turned the ball valve too far. I've since learned that doing so creates a "suction effect" which is another cause of a stuck sparge.
The end result was the entire thing had to be thrown out. I couldn't salvage the stuck sparge, even by blowing on the tube. Luckily, the screw up came long before I added any of the other ingredients, which meant all I had to re-purchase was the grain. I was determined to get this right, so I did exactly that a few days later and added some rice hulls as well to prevent a second stuck sparge.
The second attempt went very smoothly. The temperature of the grain bed was perfect for the first part of the mash schedule. I messed up a bit on the second stage by adding water that wasn't as hot as it should've been. So, I didn't give the grain a proper enzyme rest, but I don't think that will affect the beer too badly.
The hour long boil went without incident. I added the coriander in orange peel in the same grain bag during the last 5 minutes, and added pre-hydrated irish moss within the last minute. But, this is a Belgian Wit which is going to end up cloudy anyways.
My yeast starter had been working for four days by this point, so it should have been good and ready. After cooling the wort (which I think I did a really good job of this time, using 35 lbs of ice) I pitched the yeast, and the air lock was bubbling along the next morning.
I failed to take a really accurate gravity reading, because there was so much foam at the top of the wort. But I believe it was about 1.36, which is 2 off from the target. I think this was because I added too much water afterwards.
I let the beer sit in the primary fermenter for five days, and then transfered it to the secondary. When I took the cover off of the primary, I thought there was a bit of a strange smell. Almost like sulfur. I have an awful sense of smell though, and I could be wrong. But there was a lot of yeast at the top of the beer. I don't think I've ever transfered to a secondary after just 5 days, which might be why I've never seen it like this. I racked from the bottom of the fermenter, avoided grabbing the yeast floating at the top and the trub from the bottom. The beer in the secondary is still pretty cloudy, but again... it's a Belgian Wit.
It should be ready to bottle in a few days, and I'm hoping it turns out well. I'm thinking of taking another day this weekend and brewing up another summer beer.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Pawns
The NYTimes reported on two American journalists that were caught crossing the border from China into North Korea and are being detained.
"When Ms. Ling and Ms. Lee were arrested on the border between China and North Korea under the still-unclear circumstances, they became unwitting pawns in the delicate international politics surrounding the North’s planned rocket launch, said a senior South Korean official."
I think that line hits the nail on the head. Unfortunately, I think Ms. Ling and Ms. Lee are in for a long and awful stay in North Korea. It will be interesting to see if the US government will be at all successful in negotiating their release. I feel very bad for them.
"When Ms. Ling and Ms. Lee were arrested on the border between China and North Korea under the still-unclear circumstances, they became unwitting pawns in the delicate international politics surrounding the North’s planned rocket launch, said a senior South Korean official."
I think that line hits the nail on the head. Unfortunately, I think Ms. Ling and Ms. Lee are in for a long and awful stay in North Korea. It will be interesting to see if the US government will be at all successful in negotiating their release. I feel very bad for them.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Computer Security
I would really like to learn more about network security and get a better understanding of computers in general. I feel that as we become increasingly dependent on a technology, it behooves us to acquire a more refined knowledge of it. But then again, I'm not exactly an expert on the internal combustion engine that I use every day. Hell, I'd probably have trouble changing my own oil...
Anyway, I found these two articles (one, two) to be interesting/alarming. For the first one, I'm comforted only by the fact that the "instructions" being sent to the worm are scheduled to take place on April 1st. I'll naively continue to hope that some young 14 year-old with cheeto stained sweatpants and too much time on his hands came up with an excessively elaborate April Fools joke.
And the second article is part of a growing theme that I've taken note of. The Chinese are thought to be investing a lot into cyber-warfare. Since computer security and China are both topics I'm interested in, maybe this could turn out to be a future employment opportunity. Keep up the good work China!
Anyway, I found these two articles (one, two) to be interesting/alarming. For the first one, I'm comforted only by the fact that the "instructions" being sent to the worm are scheduled to take place on April 1st. I'll naively continue to hope that some young 14 year-old with cheeto stained sweatpants and too much time on his hands came up with an excessively elaborate April Fools joke.
And the second article is part of a growing theme that I've taken note of. The Chinese are thought to be investing a lot into cyber-warfare. Since computer security and China are both topics I'm interested in, maybe this could turn out to be a future employment opportunity. Keep up the good work China!
Nuclear Proliferation
I don't look to Bill Maher or the celebrity panelists on Real Time for any revolutionary ideas on politics, but I'm a fan of the show's format and the content. The latest episode brought up the topic of Iran and nuclear proliferation, which I thought would be worth spending some more time thinking about.
Iran has continually made the case that they are not seeking nuclear weapons, but are merely trying to acquire an alternative source of energy. The Bush administration has viewed these claims to be dubious at best, and probably purposefully misleading. I understand the concern here, despite the fact that there hasn't been any conclusive evidence suggesting that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. There is reason to fear a nuclear Iran, which has made thinly veiled and not so thinly veiled threats against the US and its allies.
The opposite side of this argument is that the US has no right to tell Iran that it can't have nuclear weapons. This is a valid point, but is essentially irrelevant. The United States will not sit by idly as Iran acquires nuclear weapons. At least, you'd hope they wouldn't. The question then becomes, what is to be done? The Obama administration seems to be taken a softer approach, which may or may not get results. The recent rebuff from Khamenei after Obama reached out to them is not exactly a good sign, but I think it's just political posturing on the part of Iran.
But really, what's the incentive for Iran to stop its quest for nuclear weapons? The talk about "keeping all options on the table" by both Bush and Obama is meant to suggest that military involvement is a possibility, and I think having Bush at the helm for the past eight years has made Iran take this threat a lot more seriously. However, it seems like Iran's nuclear ambitions are being spurred on by America's flaunting of military might. Perhaps this softer approach isn't such a bad idea.
Unfortunately, there is precedence is working against the carrot approach. Iranians need only look to Libya as an example of what happens when you play by America's rules. The answer is, not a whole lot. Qaddafi isn't exactly happy with what his country has been given as a result to giving up nuclear weapons and admitting responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing. But maybe the problem is with Qaddafi himself and the US is merely waiting for the next leader to begin the thawing of relations in earnest. I think Libya is an often overlooked accomplishment of the Bush administration, and I'll be interested in reading about it in more detail in the future when the details are more readily available.
Iran has continually made the case that they are not seeking nuclear weapons, but are merely trying to acquire an alternative source of energy. The Bush administration has viewed these claims to be dubious at best, and probably purposefully misleading. I understand the concern here, despite the fact that there hasn't been any conclusive evidence suggesting that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. There is reason to fear a nuclear Iran, which has made thinly veiled and not so thinly veiled threats against the US and its allies.
The opposite side of this argument is that the US has no right to tell Iran that it can't have nuclear weapons. This is a valid point, but is essentially irrelevant. The United States will not sit by idly as Iran acquires nuclear weapons. At least, you'd hope they wouldn't. The question then becomes, what is to be done? The Obama administration seems to be taken a softer approach, which may or may not get results. The recent rebuff from Khamenei after Obama reached out to them is not exactly a good sign, but I think it's just political posturing on the part of Iran.
But really, what's the incentive for Iran to stop its quest for nuclear weapons? The talk about "keeping all options on the table" by both Bush and Obama is meant to suggest that military involvement is a possibility, and I think having Bush at the helm for the past eight years has made Iran take this threat a lot more seriously. However, it seems like Iran's nuclear ambitions are being spurred on by America's flaunting of military might. Perhaps this softer approach isn't such a bad idea.
Unfortunately, there is precedence is working against the carrot approach. Iranians need only look to Libya as an example of what happens when you play by America's rules. The answer is, not a whole lot. Qaddafi isn't exactly happy with what his country has been given as a result to giving up nuclear weapons and admitting responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing. But maybe the problem is with Qaddafi himself and the US is merely waiting for the next leader to begin the thawing of relations in earnest. I think Libya is an often overlooked accomplishment of the Bush administration, and I'll be interested in reading about it in more detail in the future when the details are more readily available.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
怎么说 "Avast, ye matey?"
The US navy and several Chinese naval vessels had a "significant encounter" yesterday, 25 miles south of Hainan island. The event brought to mind a recent article by Robert Kaplan that discussed what a future confrontation between China and the US would entail, along with a subsequent article from the same author that described the increasing strategic importance of the Indian Ocean and his views on the changing role of the US navy.
The brief clash in the South China Sea between the two nations is probably not a good sign in the eys of Kaplan who states that "a U.S.-Chinese understanding at sea is crucial for the stabilization of world politics in the twenty-first century." However, I do not believe this encounter is a portent for US-Sino naval relations. As Kapaln suggests, China is a competitor of the United States and not an opponent. The relationship could probably be better served by closer communication between the two militaries, and indeed such a trend has been taking place.
I am certainly no expert on the subject and there are people that would disagree with me. When I was living in China last year I just such a conversation. A friend and I were on an overnight train and were sharing a compartment with a group of naval soldiers that were on leave. After they learned we could speak Mandarin, we quickly found ourselves in a political discussion. A common question that I faced while living in China was "do you think the US and China will go to war?" Inevitably, this came up. I expressed my opinion and when I turned it back to one of the navy guys, he told me that he "was certain that they would go to war." He didn't elaborate much further, but said that the US and China get worked up over seemingly insignificant problems all the time, which to him meant that a larger problem surely was on the horizon.
I questioned the validity of that statement then and continue to do so now. The accidental bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade in 1998, or the spy plane collision in 2001 are but two examples of "big problems" that the countries were able to work through without further loss of life. And I think that relations between the two countries are much better now than they were 10 years ago, and the prospect of conflict is that much less likely as a result.
A bit of a wandering post here, but I'm trying to get into the habit of writing more often.
The brief clash in the South China Sea between the two nations is probably not a good sign in the eys of Kaplan who states that "a U.S.-Chinese understanding at sea is crucial for the stabilization of world politics in the twenty-first century." However, I do not believe this encounter is a portent for US-Sino naval relations. As Kapaln suggests, China is a competitor of the United States and not an opponent. The relationship could probably be better served by closer communication between the two militaries, and indeed such a trend has been taking place.
I am certainly no expert on the subject and there are people that would disagree with me. When I was living in China last year I just such a conversation. A friend and I were on an overnight train and were sharing a compartment with a group of naval soldiers that were on leave. After they learned we could speak Mandarin, we quickly found ourselves in a political discussion. A common question that I faced while living in China was "do you think the US and China will go to war?" Inevitably, this came up. I expressed my opinion and when I turned it back to one of the navy guys, he told me that he "was certain that they would go to war." He didn't elaborate much further, but said that the US and China get worked up over seemingly insignificant problems all the time, which to him meant that a larger problem surely was on the horizon.
I questioned the validity of that statement then and continue to do so now. The accidental bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade in 1998, or the spy plane collision in 2001 are but two examples of "big problems" that the countries were able to work through without further loss of life. And I think that relations between the two countries are much better now than they were 10 years ago, and the prospect of conflict is that much less likely as a result.
A bit of a wandering post here, but I'm trying to get into the habit of writing more often.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
IPA and Irish Red
I made my second attempt at an all-grain beer recently. I borrowed a recipe from homebrewtalk.com and made some slight variations to it. My recipe was as follows:
I still haven't purchased a wort-chiller, so I again left it to sit over night before pitching the yeast. I'm not sure how much this will affect the end result. We shall see.
Irish Red Ale
Grain:
9 lbs. American 2-Row Malt
2 lbs. Crystal/Caramel Malt 40L
2 oz. Roasted Barley
60 minute mash @ 154.
Hops:
1 oz. Willamette @ 60 minutes
1 oz. Willamette @ 15 minutes
Yeast:
Irish Ale Yeast
I was a bit ambitious on this brew day. I was hoping to use my recently acquired turkey-fryer and brew outside, but the water has been shut off for the winter so the pipes won't burst. So I was stuck inside again. After the last all-grain batch, I knew to start early.
Before making my new batch, I bottled the IPA that I made just three weeks ago. Normally, I would move a beer from the primary fermenter to the secondary but because of time constraints and a "busy schedule" I decided not to. It's probably the quickest I've put a beer into bottles in a long time, and hopefully it won't suffer as a result. I tried a sample before bottling it and it was very bitter and hoppy, like an IPA should be.
I broke my hydrometer right before brewing, so my notes aren't very good. I feel like I did a better job hitting my target temperature right off the bat. The mash tun is also continuing to work just fine.
Grain:
9 lbs. American 2-Row Malt
2 lbs. Crystal/Caramel Malt 40L
2 oz. Roasted Barley
60 minute mash @ 154.
Hops:
1 oz. Willamette @ 60 minutes
1 oz. Willamette @ 15 minutes
Yeast:
Irish Ale Yeast
I was a bit ambitious on this brew day. I was hoping to use my recently acquired turkey-fryer and brew outside, but the water has been shut off for the winter so the pipes won't burst. So I was stuck inside again. After the last all-grain batch, I knew to start early.
Before making my new batch, I bottled the IPA that I made just three weeks ago. Normally, I would move a beer from the primary fermenter to the secondary but because of time constraints and a "busy schedule" I decided not to. It's probably the quickest I've put a beer into bottles in a long time, and hopefully it won't suffer as a result. I tried a sample before bottling it and it was very bitter and hoppy, like an IPA should be.
I broke my hydrometer right before brewing, so my notes aren't very good. I feel like I did a better job hitting my target temperature right off the bat. The mash tun is also continuing to work just fine.
I still haven't purchased a wort-chiller, so I again left it to sit over night before pitching the yeast. I'm not sure how much this will affect the end result. We shall see.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Biographies
I've given myself a long term project of reading through the biographies of all the Presidents of the United States. It's pretty ambitious and I don't expect to finish anytime soon. I'm being realistic, and realize that I might even abandon it at some point. I'm not trying to read them all straight through and have already started breaking it up with other books in between.
Surprisingly, reading about the life of an upper-class, slave owning farmer from the 1700's is more interesting than I would have thought. I'm reading Douglas Southall Freeman's biography of George Washington. It is seven volumes long and pretty dry, but I enjoy it nonetheless. Even more surprising than my enjoyment of the books is the fact that I can actually relate to the young Washington. For this, much credit is owed to Mr. Freeman for his writing style, but I also think it has to do with where I am in my own life right now.
I'm into volume three, which picks up with a 20 something Washington who has just retired from the military, returned home to marry Martha and settle down in Mount Vernon for a life of farming. He commits nearly 15 years to this way of life before he becomes involved in the revolutionary events that would eventually lead to his presidency. I thought that this would be an excruciatingly boring part of his life to read about, but news from throughout colonial America, quotes from Patrick Henry, stories that describe Washington's ambition, and a variety of other elements that Freeman includes helps keep it interesting.
I also can't help but draw connections between the story of Wasington's life and contemporary politics. There has been a lot of fuss in the news recently about Obama's cabinet appointments and their ties to various industries. I understand the contention that arises when government officials have financial ties to a sector of the economy that they're passing legislation for, and I'm offering no defense for the Obama administration's recent nominations. If he felt compelled to impose strict restrictions on himself for cabinet appointments, then I think he should adhere to them completely. Otherwise, what's the point? I wasn't too fond of Robert Gibbs's line about "making exceptions."
But individuals in power wielding political influence to benefit personally is nothing new. It's been going on since time immemorial. One of Washington's roles in the House of Burgess was to help put forth legislation regarding the expansion of the frontier and what land would be made available to those individuals living in the Colonies. Washington's first job was that of a surveyor and he was forever interested in acquiring more land (having more than 30,000 acres by the time he was 30 is proof). His association with the Burgess certainly allowed him an edge over his peers when attempting to obtain this land. He was also involved in deciding the types of benefits that would be granted to the veterans of the French and Indian War. As a veteran himself, he had a personal interest in being as generous as possible in that regard.
It's become quite common to comment on the fact that our nation's founding fathers were predominately white, upper-class, slave owning men. And for that reason, it may seem like I'm just recycling old ideas here, but it's hard not to notice how little has changed. I do not mean to take away from the ascension of an African American into our country's highest office. I believe it will be regarded as one of the greatest milestones in American history, and I'm proud to have been around to witness it. But looking back at Washington's reason for joining the political realm of Virgina, it is clear that his motives were not entirely altruistic. I don't believe that Washington was an evil man, but he was an ambitious man who set his eyes on obtaining wealth, distinction, and "honor." He may have professed to others that his actions were selfless, but that's hard to believe when he personally benefited as much as he did.
Washington used that term, "honor," a lot and it no doubt had more than one meaning for him. It wouldn't be a stretch to say that at times the words "prestige" or "fame" could be used interchangeably with it. I believe that these qualities are shared by the vast majority of those who have held the seat of the Presidency.
Surprisingly, reading about the life of an upper-class, slave owning farmer from the 1700's is more interesting than I would have thought. I'm reading Douglas Southall Freeman's biography of George Washington. It is seven volumes long and pretty dry, but I enjoy it nonetheless. Even more surprising than my enjoyment of the books is the fact that I can actually relate to the young Washington. For this, much credit is owed to Mr. Freeman for his writing style, but I also think it has to do with where I am in my own life right now.
I'm into volume three, which picks up with a 20 something Washington who has just retired from the military, returned home to marry Martha and settle down in Mount Vernon for a life of farming. He commits nearly 15 years to this way of life before he becomes involved in the revolutionary events that would eventually lead to his presidency. I thought that this would be an excruciatingly boring part of his life to read about, but news from throughout colonial America, quotes from Patrick Henry, stories that describe Washington's ambition, and a variety of other elements that Freeman includes helps keep it interesting.
I also can't help but draw connections between the story of Wasington's life and contemporary politics. There has been a lot of fuss in the news recently about Obama's cabinet appointments and their ties to various industries. I understand the contention that arises when government officials have financial ties to a sector of the economy that they're passing legislation for, and I'm offering no defense for the Obama administration's recent nominations. If he felt compelled to impose strict restrictions on himself for cabinet appointments, then I think he should adhere to them completely. Otherwise, what's the point? I wasn't too fond of Robert Gibbs's line about "making exceptions."
But individuals in power wielding political influence to benefit personally is nothing new. It's been going on since time immemorial. One of Washington's roles in the House of Burgess was to help put forth legislation regarding the expansion of the frontier and what land would be made available to those individuals living in the Colonies. Washington's first job was that of a surveyor and he was forever interested in acquiring more land (having more than 30,000 acres by the time he was 30 is proof). His association with the Burgess certainly allowed him an edge over his peers when attempting to obtain this land. He was also involved in deciding the types of benefits that would be granted to the veterans of the French and Indian War. As a veteran himself, he had a personal interest in being as generous as possible in that regard.
It's become quite common to comment on the fact that our nation's founding fathers were predominately white, upper-class, slave owning men. And for that reason, it may seem like I'm just recycling old ideas here, but it's hard not to notice how little has changed. I do not mean to take away from the ascension of an African American into our country's highest office. I believe it will be regarded as one of the greatest milestones in American history, and I'm proud to have been around to witness it. But looking back at Washington's reason for joining the political realm of Virgina, it is clear that his motives were not entirely altruistic. I don't believe that Washington was an evil man, but he was an ambitious man who set his eyes on obtaining wealth, distinction, and "honor." He may have professed to others that his actions were selfless, but that's hard to believe when he personally benefited as much as he did.
Washington used that term, "honor," a lot and it no doubt had more than one meaning for him. It wouldn't be a stretch to say that at times the words "prestige" or "fame" could be used interchangeably with it. I believe that these qualities are shared by the vast majority of those who have held the seat of the Presidency.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)