8 ms·

A novel brewing process via controlled hydrodynamic cavitation

1_listerine_pls 10y ago
An MITech-review article: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/602464/this-technology-is-about-to-revolutionize-beer-making/?utm_campaign=socialflow&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=post https://www.technologyreview.com/s/602464/this-technology-is...
- SSLy 10y ago
  >amber nectar Yeah, they don't know shit about beer.
mikekchar 10y ago
I really only skimmed this very quickly, but it seems as though they are using a RIMS system for their cavitation based approach and an infusion mash (or maybe step controlled??? I'm not familiar with the Braumeister setup and their website is ridiculously slow) for their traditional approach. RIMS is already known by homebrewers to be dramatically more efficient than most other approaches. As interesting as it looks, I'm taking this with a huge grain of malt.
- mikekchar 10y ago
  Sorry to reply to my own post, but since I finished reading the paper I can answer most of my implied questions :-) The main difference between this setup and a RIMS is that they don't mill the malt when they allow the grain to be circulated. The cavitation pulverises the malt. This is actually a massive benefit because dry milling malt is a major cause of infection in a brewery. The other benefit is that they are able to mash at a much lower temperature and still get decent extraction. Even down to 48C (118F) allows them to get 91% efficiency in one case. This is on par with RIMS (most reports I've heard is that people can manage mid 90s efficiency), but of course rims has to maintain a temperature of about 65C (150F). Side note: Their reported temperatures for mashing without recirculating the grains is a bit crazy -- in the mid 70's C -- all much over 160F. They are going to be deactivating enzymes at those temps and that probably accounts for their decreased efficiency. I really can't understand what they were thinking. There is some mention of protein make up, but my main worry about mashing at such a low temperature is the break down of larger proteins. They have a picture of frothy beer with a caption about foam stability, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Also, that picture shows a very hazy beer. The other thing they talk about is isomerising the hops without boiling. That's pretty cool and would definitely reduce power usage. But again... that picture of nearly opaque beer haunts me. Finally they talk about cavitating the fermenting beer in order to remove CO2. That seems reasonable, but I would worry somewhat about how the yeast drops in that condition. To be honest, I wish they had stuck to mashing in this paper. It's strange to see a paper cram as much as this one does in one place. Normally you want to stretch it out over as many publications as possible ;-) The last thing I'm curious about is how they produce the cavitation. I really couldn't understand their description at all. Is it just a matter of the design of chamber in which they pump the wort? That would be extremely cool, but I'd like to see a better description. A mash system that depends only on pumps would be ridiculously nice to have.
  - Dagwoodie 10y ago
    Is this something a layman hobbyist can get into or try?
    - 1_listerine_pls 10y ago
      Second this.
    - glibgil 10y ago
      I'll just google the "Braumeister model 50 L brewer" mentioned in the paper and here you go http://shop.speidels-braumeister.de/en http://shop.speidels-braumeister.de/en
      - mkesper 10y ago
        They use it only for comparing their method to the traditional brewing process.
  - 1_listerine_pls 10y ago
    Found this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBSJHMfwNL0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBSJHMfwNL0 The mechanism they use in the video has no moving parts! It's just a matter of forcing water through opposing nozzles.
  - cthalupa 10y ago
    > This is actually a massive benefit because dry milling malt is a major cause of infection in a brewery. Don't mill in the same area you're brewing and this is pretty much handled. Lacto carries with dust, but just don't do anything post boil in that area and you're fine. >This is on par with RIMS (most reports I've heard is that people can manage mid 90s efficiency), but of course rims has to maintain a temperature of about 65C (150F). I sit in low 90s with a rather low tech HERMS setup. >but my main worry about mashing at such a low temperature is the break down of larger proteins. They have a picture of frothy beer with a caption about foam stability, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Also, that picture shows a very hazy beer. I'm curious about the lower temp mashes and getting enough longer chain sugars for those of us that spend a lot of time working with brett. As for the haze... Maybe the like NEIPA? ;)
ChuckMcM 10y ago
Ok, so there has to be a comedy plot in there where two guys trying to make beer with hydrodynamic cavitation end up discovering a viable cold fusion reaction but keep drinking the experiment results :-) That said, I found their off hand mention of using it as an alternate to high temperature pasteurization as much more intriguing. Mostly because I detest the "cooked" taste of ultra-pasteurized cream but have been finding it harder and harder to find cream that hasn't been over pasteurized in this way. Find me some cream that is "cold pasteurized" and tastes like cream, I'll be really happy.
- justincormack 10y ago
  You need to buy unpasteurized cream! Even better. But yes the ultra stuff is gross, standard pasteurization is ok, and widely available in the UK. You have to hunt for unpasteurized though.
- failrate 10y ago
  You have accidentally recreated the plot to Young Einstein.
bilbobeer 10y ago
'Ultra-Sound Assisted Extraction' is now being applied to all foods. To Coffee, and of course our beer. Sonic's can effect the germination of malting barley, and like in this article replace the milling/malting phase of the brewing process. The question to ask is why? Why apply sonic's to germinating grains? So they may germinate quicker. Why apply sonic's to malted grains, to break them up ( mill ) and to extract the sugar ( mash ) to a higher efficiency? Why would you want to do this? More efficient mashing? ( 3% ), and germination ( maybe save 6-12 hours ), because if you brewing 100,000 liters of piss-beer an hour this is real money to be made. Currently BUDweiser only buys the best malt, & hops. A ultra-sonic system that improves efficiency say 3-5% allow a cheaper or lower quality product to be bought and fed into the system. What does all this mean for the home-brewer? Nada What are the health effects of ultra-sound on germination? Nobody knows and nobody cares. Chemically what does ultra-sound do to our food when the starches are converted to sugar? Again nobody cares, google it, you'll not find a mention anywhere. What is the benefit of changing the modern ( 500 year old ) brewing process? Nada. Belgium Monks got it right a long time ago. Like we used to say in Unix back in the 1970's, "If it works, Don't Fix It". Slow-Food, and Slow-Beer people. That is what's best in life. LED lights were sold, over neon, over incandescent, now we find out LED is bad, when will they tell us the ultra-sonic processed foods are bad for our health? Probably only after the corpses are on laying on the streets.
couchand 10y ago
I'm highly skeptical of the claim that such a system can plausibly "preserv[e] beer’s organoleptic qualities". The claim is repeated in the conclusion in a Trumpian fashion: "We anticipate that the new CHC brewing process affords beer of taste, flavor, body and color comparable with state-of-the-art craft beers, while offering further advantages, beyond the discussed ones, that will be the subject of a forthcoming study." Somehow, though, that's the only mention of the flavor profile of the beer produced. They do describe measuring some key properties with a BeerLab, but those numbers hardly tell a complete story. Given the horrid state the mash ends up in, and the fact that it isn't removed until the water has reached 78C, I'd expect plenty of tannins to be swept along in the race to efficiency. I'd also briefly like to complain about the sad charts in this paper. What order are those bars in? Where are they drawing the conclusions in the text from? Why are the data points collected so inconsistent?
- DavidWanjiru 10y ago
  Wait, are we now using Trump's name to make an adjective in the same way we've used Orwell's and Kafka's?
  - bike4beer 10y ago
    This is a new version of Godwin's law, ... "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazism or Trump approaches 1"
  - lucozade 10y ago
    It's quite handy. I can't think of another adjective that means both Orwellian and Kafka-esque.
  - Pitarou 10y ago
    trump (2) verb attempt to convince an audience by repeating an assertion many times
    - toddchambery 10y ago
nagarch 10y ago
Good to see this.. how much it cost to implement?
Animats 10y ago
Reminds me of "Extracts from the club diary".[1] [1] http://www.antipope.org/charlie/fiction/coffee.html http://www.antipope.org/charlie/fiction/coffee.html
theptip 10y ago
Some points that are interesting to me, and warrant further investigation: 1) Milling of malts is no longer required. As a microbrewery operator, now I don't need to come in the day before to run the mill for a planned brew. Massive win on scheduling and convenience. 2) "Concerning mashing and sparging, the new equipment allows to eliminate sparging altogether since the pulverization of cavitating malts ... prevents practically any starch to remain trapped into the grains". Again, from a microbrewery operator's perspective, another few hours of labour saved per brew, since I don't have to run a few sparges over my grain. 3) Since cavitation apparently sanitizes the wort, we don't need to do a boil. This saves another 1.5 hours on a brew, removes the need for a boil vessel, and some other equipment in my brewery (steam boiler to heat the boil vessel, a bunch of plumbing for said steam). 4) related to 3, the hops can be isomerized without boiling. I've had great success with low-boil techniques like the hop stand, so I'd assume that CHC beer would capture a lot more of the volatile aromatics from hops. This could lead to some great IPAs. I'd love to figure out what the MVP is for this rig, and whether it could be replicated at homebrew scale, as it seems to simplify the process massively.
- bike4beer 10y ago
  1) that's the primary implication of paper 2) their claim is a 3-5% improvement of extraction and no sparging required, thus a 30% saving's in power & water 3) given that malting is now done with cavitation ( ultra-sound ) its clear that this does not santize, as by defn sanitizing kill's biological life, including bacterial organisms. 4) Boiling hop's for 0-120 minutes is well understood and complex, I doubt you will find DogFish 90min-IPA, coming out of a 30 nano-second SONIC-SESSION. ... 'Ultra-Sound Assisted Extraction' is now being applied to all foods. To Coffee, and of course our beer. Sonic's can effect the germination of malting barley, and like in this article replace the milling/malting phase of the brewing process. The question to ask is why? Why apply sonic's to germinating grains? So they may germinate quicker. Why apply sonic's to malted grains, to break them up ( mill ) and to extract the sugar ( mash ) to a higher efficiency? Why would you want to do this? More efficient mashing? ( 3% ), and germination ( maybe save 6-12 hours ), because if you brewing 100,000 liters of piss-beer an hour this is real money to be made. Currently BUDweiser only buys the best malt, & hops. A ultra-sonic system that improves efficiency say 3-5% allow a cheaper or lower quality product to be bought and fed into the system. What does all this mean for the home-brewer? Nada What are the health effects of ultra-sound on germination? Nobody knows and nobody cares. Chemically what does ultra-sound do to our food when the starches are converted to sugar? Again nobody cares, google it, you'll not find a mention anywhere. What is the benefit of changing the modern ( 500 year old ) brewing process? Nada. Belgium Monks got it right a long time ago. Like we used to say in Unix back in the 1970's, "If it works, Don't Fix It". Slow-Food, and Slow-Beer people. That is what's best in life. LED lights were sold, over neon, over incandescent, now we find out LED is bad, when will they tell us the ultra-sonic processed foods are bad for our health? Probably only after the corpses are on laying on the streets.
djkrudy 10y ago
My main concern is, like others below, the opaque beer. I've always known that to be the undesirable effect of "pulverizing" I think of it as maybe twice ground beef can be cooked more evenly than a steak, but the crust and raw elements are what make a steak better. That's an unscientific way to say it, but as a homebrewer I know that efficiency is NOT quality. "Cold brewing" or brewing with CHC may have advantages in releasing/ preserving flavor in hops, but the study doesn't support this claim. I don't care if I get 30% efficiency based on original alphas to extracted alphas if something else is lost. (Like taste, sensory effect or mouth feel) I'm thinking this may be more comparable to "dry hopping", which can be used to give hop forward bitterness instead of the dregs that hops boiled for an hour provide. (Like the difference between the aromatic taste of fresh salsa versus the nearly coppery taste of cooked all day tomato sauce. I love fresh salsa, but you can't replace that "dregs" almost umami flavor brought out in Marinara. Compare Bell's Two Hearted to 3F Zombie Dust. IBU's don't tell the whole story. I'm not discounting these methods, but I don't think that the research is comprehensive enough or takes into account taste enough to talk about completely converting a brewery to these methods.
gravypod 10y ago
They talk about the use of ultrasonic vibrations in the use of creating cavitation in fluid. Why would that not work in this case? Why did they opt for a centrifugal pump?

An MITech-review article: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/602464/this-technology-is-about-to-revolutionize-beer-making/?utm_campaign=socialflow&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=post https://www.technologyreview.com/s/602464/this-technology-is...

SSLy 10y ago
>amber nectar Yeah, they don't know shit about beer.

mikekchar 10y ago

I really only skimmed this very quickly, but it seems as though they are using a RIMS system for their cavitation based approach and an infusion mash (or maybe step controlled??? I'm not familiar with the Braumeister setup and their website is ridiculously slow) for their traditional approach. RIMS is already known by homebrewers to be dramatically more efficient than most other approaches. As interesting as it looks, I'm taking this with a huge grain of malt.

mikekchar 10y ago
Sorry to reply to my own post, but since I finished reading the paper I can answer most of my implied questions :-) The main difference between this setup and a RIMS is that they don't mill the malt when they allow the grain to be circulated. The cavitation pulverises the malt. This is actually a massive benefit because dry milling malt is a major cause of infection in a brewery. The other benefit is that they are able to mash at a much lower temperature and still get decent extraction. Even down to 48C (118F) allows them to get 91% efficiency in one case. This is on par with RIMS (most reports I've heard is that people can manage mid 90s efficiency), but of course rims has to maintain a temperature of about 65C (150F). Side note: Their reported temperatures for mashing without recirculating the grains is a bit crazy -- in the mid 70's C -- all much over 160F. They are going to be deactivating enzymes at those temps and that probably accounts for their decreased efficiency. I really can't understand what they were thinking. There is some mention of protein make up, but my main worry about mashing at such a low temperature is the break down of larger proteins. They have a picture of frothy beer with a caption about foam stability, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Also, that picture shows a very hazy beer. The other thing they talk about is isomerising the hops without boiling. That's pretty cool and would definitely reduce power usage. But again... that picture of nearly opaque beer haunts me. Finally they talk about cavitating the fermenting beer in order to remove CO2. That seems reasonable, but I would worry somewhat about how the yeast drops in that condition. To be honest, I wish they had stuck to mashing in this paper. It's strange to see a paper cram as much as this one does in one place. Normally you want to stretch it out over as many publications as possible ;-) The last thing I'm curious about is how they produce the cavitation. I really couldn't understand their description at all. Is it just a matter of the design of chamber in which they pump the wort? That would be extremely cool, but I'd like to see a better description. A mash system that depends only on pumps would be ridiculously nice to have.
- Dagwoodie 10y ago
  Is this something a layman hobbyist can get into or try?
  - 1_listerine_pls 10y ago
    Second this.
  - glibgil 10y ago
    I'll just google the "Braumeister model 50 L brewer" mentioned in the paper and here you go http://shop.speidels-braumeister.de/en http://shop.speidels-braumeister.de/en
    - mkesper 10y ago
      They use it only for comparing their method to the traditional brewing process.
- 1_listerine_pls 10y ago
  Found this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBSJHMfwNL0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBSJHMfwNL0 The mechanism they use in the video has no moving parts! It's just a matter of forcing water through opposing nozzles.
- cthalupa 10y ago
  > This is actually a massive benefit because dry milling malt is a major cause of infection in a brewery. Don't mill in the same area you're brewing and this is pretty much handled. Lacto carries with dust, but just don't do anything post boil in that area and you're fine. >This is on par with RIMS (most reports I've heard is that people can manage mid 90s efficiency), but of course rims has to maintain a temperature of about 65C (150F). I sit in low 90s with a rather low tech HERMS setup. >but my main worry about mashing at such a low temperature is the break down of larger proteins. They have a picture of frothy beer with a caption about foam stability, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Also, that picture shows a very hazy beer. I'm curious about the lower temp mashes and getting enough longer chain sugars for those of us that spend a lot of time working with brett. As for the haze... Maybe the like NEIPA? ;)

ChuckMcM 10y ago

Ok, so there has to be a comedy plot in there where two guys trying to make beer with hydrodynamic cavitation end up discovering a viable cold fusion reaction but keep drinking the experiment results :-) That said, I found their off hand mention of using it as an alternate to high temperature pasteurization as much more intriguing. Mostly because I detest the "cooked" taste of ultra-pasteurized cream but have been finding it harder and harder to find cream that hasn't been over pasteurized in this way. Find me some cream that is "cold pasteurized" and tastes like cream, I'll be really happy.

justincormack 10y ago
You need to buy unpasteurized cream! Even better. But yes the ultra stuff is gross, standard pasteurization is ok, and widely available in the UK. You have to hunt for unpasteurized though.
failrate 10y ago
You have accidentally recreated the plot to Young Einstein.

bilbobeer 10y ago

'Ultra-Sound Assisted Extraction' is now being applied to all foods. To Coffee, and of course our beer. Sonic's can effect the germination of malting barley, and like in this article replace the milling/malting phase of the brewing process. The question to ask is why? Why apply sonic's to germinating grains? So they may germinate quicker. Why apply sonic's to malted grains, to break them up ( mill ) and to extract the sugar ( mash ) to a higher efficiency? Why would you want to do this? More efficient mashing? ( 3% ), and germination ( maybe save 6-12 hours ), because if you brewing 100,000 liters of piss-beer an hour this is real money to be made. Currently BUDweiser only buys the best malt, & hops. A ultra-sonic system that improves efficiency say 3-5% allow a cheaper or lower quality product to be bought and fed into the system. What does all this mean for the home-brewer? Nada What are the health effects of ultra-sound on germination? Nobody knows and nobody cares. Chemically what does ultra-sound do to our food when the starches are converted to sugar? Again nobody cares, google it, you'll not find a mention anywhere. What is the benefit of changing the modern ( 500 year old ) brewing process? Nada. Belgium Monks got it right a long time ago. Like we used to say in Unix back in the 1970's, "If it works, Don't Fix It". Slow-Food, and Slow-Beer people. That is what's best in life. LED lights were sold, over neon, over incandescent, now we find out LED is bad, when will they tell us the ultra-sonic processed foods are bad for our health? Probably only after the corpses are on laying on the streets.

couchand 10y ago

I'm highly skeptical of the claim that such a system can plausibly "preserv[e] beer’s organoleptic qualities". The claim is repeated in the conclusion in a Trumpian fashion: "We anticipate that the new CHC brewing process affords beer of taste, flavor, body and color comparable with state-of-the-art craft beers, while offering further advantages, beyond the discussed ones, that will be the subject of a forthcoming study." Somehow, though, that's the only mention of the flavor profile of the beer produced. They do describe measuring some key properties with a BeerLab, but those numbers hardly tell a complete story. Given the horrid state the mash ends up in, and the fact that it isn't removed until the water has reached 78C, I'd expect plenty of tannins to be swept along in the race to efficiency. I'd also briefly like to complain about the sad charts in this paper. What order are those bars in? Where are they drawing the conclusions in the text from? Why are the data points collected so inconsistent?

DavidWanjiru 10y ago
Wait, are we now using Trump's name to make an adjective in the same way we've used Orwell's and Kafka's?
- bike4beer 10y ago
  This is a new version of Godwin's law, ... "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazism or Trump approaches 1"
- lucozade 10y ago
  It's quite handy. I can't think of another adjective that means both Orwellian and Kafka-esque.
- Pitarou 10y ago
  trump (2) verb attempt to convince an audience by repeating an assertion many times
  - toddchambery 10y ago

nagarch 10y ago

Good to see this.. how much it cost to implement?

Animats 10y ago

Reminds me of "Extracts from the club diary".[1] [1] http://www.antipope.org/charlie/fiction/coffee.html http://www.antipope.org/charlie/fiction/coffee.html

theptip 10y ago

Some points that are interesting to me, and warrant further investigation: 1) Milling of malts is no longer required. As a microbrewery operator, now I don't need to come in the day before to run the mill for a planned brew. Massive win on scheduling and convenience. 2) "Concerning mashing and sparging, the new equipment allows to eliminate sparging altogether since the pulverization of cavitating malts ... prevents practically any starch to remain trapped into the grains". Again, from a microbrewery operator's perspective, another few hours of labour saved per brew, since I don't have to run a few sparges over my grain. 3) Since cavitation apparently sanitizes the wort, we don't need to do a boil. This saves another 1.5 hours on a brew, removes the need for a boil vessel, and some other equipment in my brewery (steam boiler to heat the boil vessel, a bunch of plumbing for said steam). 4) related to 3, the hops can be isomerized without boiling. I've had great success with low-boil techniques like the hop stand, so I'd assume that CHC beer would capture a lot more of the volatile aromatics from hops. This could lead to some great IPAs. I'd love to figure out what the MVP is for this rig, and whether it could be replicated at homebrew scale, as it seems to simplify the process massively.

bike4beer 10y ago
1) that's the primary implication of paper 2) their claim is a 3-5% improvement of extraction and no sparging required, thus a 30% saving's in power & water 3) given that malting is now done with cavitation ( ultra-sound ) its clear that this does not santize, as by defn sanitizing kill's biological life, including bacterial organisms. 4) Boiling hop's for 0-120 minutes is well understood and complex, I doubt you will find DogFish 90min-IPA, coming out of a 30 nano-second SONIC-SESSION. ... 'Ultra-Sound Assisted Extraction' is now being applied to all foods. To Coffee, and of course our beer. Sonic's can effect the germination of malting barley, and like in this article replace the milling/malting phase of the brewing process. The question to ask is why? Why apply sonic's to germinating grains? So they may germinate quicker. Why apply sonic's to malted grains, to break them up ( mill ) and to extract the sugar ( mash ) to a higher efficiency? Why would you want to do this? More efficient mashing? ( 3% ), and germination ( maybe save 6-12 hours ), because if you brewing 100,000 liters of piss-beer an hour this is real money to be made. Currently BUDweiser only buys the best malt, & hops. A ultra-sonic system that improves efficiency say 3-5% allow a cheaper or lower quality product to be bought and fed into the system. What does all this mean for the home-brewer? Nada What are the health effects of ultra-sound on germination? Nobody knows and nobody cares. Chemically what does ultra-sound do to our food when the starches are converted to sugar? Again nobody cares, google it, you'll not find a mention anywhere. What is the benefit of changing the modern ( 500 year old ) brewing process? Nada. Belgium Monks got it right a long time ago. Like we used to say in Unix back in the 1970's, "If it works, Don't Fix It". Slow-Food, and Slow-Beer people. That is what's best in life. LED lights were sold, over neon, over incandescent, now we find out LED is bad, when will they tell us the ultra-sonic processed foods are bad for our health? Probably only after the corpses are on laying on the streets.

djkrudy 10y ago

My main concern is, like others below, the opaque beer. I've always known that to be the undesirable effect of "pulverizing" I think of it as maybe twice ground beef can be cooked more evenly than a steak, but the crust and raw elements are what make a steak better. That's an unscientific way to say it, but as a homebrewer I know that efficiency is NOT quality. "Cold brewing" or brewing with CHC may have advantages in releasing/ preserving flavor in hops, but the study doesn't support this claim. I don't care if I get 30% efficiency based on original alphas to extracted alphas if something else is lost. (Like taste, sensory effect or mouth feel) I'm thinking this may be more comparable to "dry hopping", which can be used to give hop forward bitterness instead of the dregs that hops boiled for an hour provide. (Like the difference between the aromatic taste of fresh salsa versus the nearly coppery taste of cooked all day tomato sauce. I love fresh salsa, but you can't replace that "dregs" almost umami flavor brought out in Marinara. Compare Bell's Two Hearted to 3F Zombie Dust. IBU's don't tell the whole story. I'm not discounting these methods, but I don't think that the research is comprehensive enough or takes into account taste enough to talk about completely converting a brewery to these methods.

gravypod 10y ago

They talk about the use of ultrasonic vibrations in the use of creating cavitation in fluid. Why would that not work in this case? Why did they opt for a centrifugal pump?