Finings VS gelatin VS whirlfloc - affecting mouth feel?

[ben 10]

On 12/4/2019 at 7:42 PM, BlackSands said:

26,000 social media fans sounds like a lot of brewers to me.

Sounds insignificant to me.

I have some biofine coming. Don't really give a $h1t about clear beers but I may make a lager again sometime so will try it anyway.

[BlackSands]

10 minutes ago, Ben 10 said:

Sounds insignificant to me.

Insignificant compared to... ?  

 

National Homebrew Club (Facebook) 1,580 
Beer Brewing (Facebook) 12,550
Homebrewing 101 tips & tricks (Facebook) 17,883

HomebrewandBeer Forum  3,774
Homebrew Forum UK  18,753
Beersmith Forum  27,119 
Aussie Homebrewer  30, 775 
Brewers Friend Forum  41,301

 

[ben 10]

Current World Population

[BlackSands]

1 hour ago, Ben 10 said:

Current World Population

Irrelevant Comparison

[ben 10]

Probably, I thought it was funny though.

[Otto Von Blotto]

I doubt all 26000 followers actually read and/or adopt the different processes either. 

Besides, numbers of followers is irrelevant anyway and isn't an indicator of how factual something is. Look at all the alternative medicine and other anti science garbage and the millions of idiots following those. They're still just as untrue as if there was only one person following them.

[BlackSands]

1 hour ago, Otto Von Blotto said:

Besides, numbers of followers is irrelevant anyway and isn't an indicator of how factual something is. 

There you go again... another strawman argument.  The original comment was "not a lot of brewers..."   I simply stated that there was 26,000 following them.  And 26,000 compared to other FB homebrewing groups and forums seems to be quite a lot.  And similarly, members of other forums such as this may not read and/or adopt the different processes that may come up for discussion. 

And don't confuse 'factual' with repeatable and verifiable.  Their work is factual. Their work did actually happen, processes were actually followed and documented, and results were actually obtained and analysed.  Those are the facts.   The issue you and others appear to have is not about facts, it's about the reliability and credibility of the data obtained.  And that's a fact.  

 

[Otto Von Blotto]

The original comment was not a lot of brewers would consider it to be a source of unbiased, peer reviewed gospel, and I'd agree that it isn't a lot of brewers. How many people are home brewing and not on any internet forum or otherwise. There'd be millions of homebrewers worldwide, 26K is a pretty insignificant amount of that, and who knows how many of them are actually active. There's over 60,000 registered members on here alone and probably less than 100 who regularly visit and contribute. It's probably not much better on any of the other sites. I stand by my comment of numbers being irrelevant.

And no I don't believe their findings are particularly credible on their own. If they were backed up by repeated large scale testing and actual objective analysis rather than just tasting which is highly subjective, then I'd be more inclined to believe it. I've brewed crappy beers before, but someone else may have liked them. It doesn't really prove much. 

[BlackSands]

3 minutes ago, Otto Von Blotto said:

...actual objective analysis rather than just tasting which is highly subjective, then I'd be more inclined to believe it. I've brewed crappy beers before, but someone else may have liked them. It doesn't really prove much. 

How do you suggest they, or anyone 'objectively' test the quality of a product that is primarily assessed by the way it tastes?   

[ben 10]

Maybe I should run it through SPSS to see if the sample size is statistically significant?

[Otto Von Blotto]

Measure amounts of different compounds that may be present and see where they sit in relation to quality standards. I'm not suggesting that brulosophy do that, but these methods are how they pick up on things that tasting alone may not. It's the only real way to see what total effect the changes have on the beer.

Edited December 11, 2019 by Otto Von Blotto

[BlackSands]

On 12/11/2019 at 5:42 PM, Otto Von Blotto said:

Measure amounts of different compounds that may be present and see where they sit in relation to quality standards. I'm not suggesting that brulosophy do that, but these methods are how they pick up on things that tasting alone may not. It's the only real way to see what total effect the changes have on the beer.

Well, traditionally taste and smell attributes are most often measured by human taste/judging panels: foods, wines and of course beer and also the likes of beer and wine competitions etc. 

However, it is true that there are systems known as 'E-noses' and 'E-tongues' - electronic sensory devices using a variety of techniques to analytically determine 'taste' and 'smell' but I think these would only be applicable in certain situations.  Ultimately it is humans that taste/smell the product in question and assess it accordingly. 

[Otto Von Blotto]

Of course, and tasting is part of quality testing at breweries as well. However, there are other tests that measure amounts of all sorts of things that tasting wouldn't necessarily reveal by itself, things that could adversely affect the beer if they are present in high enough amounts. Based on the results of those tests, processes can then be recommended to prevent such occurrences. 

That crappy pilsner of mine had a process fault, tasting it confirmed something wasn't right, knowing what the process fault was gave me a reasonable idea of why, but I don't have the equipment to test the beer to tell me exactly what it was in there that caused it. I can only figure *something* in the hot break. 

[BlackSands]

Beer tasting robot uses AI to assess quality...

 

[Olemate]

On 12/11/2019 at 2:43 PM, Otto Von Blotto said:

The original comment was not a lot of brewers would consider it to be a source of unbiased, peer reviewed gospel, and I'd agree that it isn't a lot of brewers. How many people are home brewing and not on any internet forum or otherwise. There'd be millions of homebrewers worldwide, 26K is a pretty insignificant amount of that, and who knows how many of them are actually active. There's over 60,000 registered members on here alone and probably less than 100 who regularly visit and contribute. It's probably not much better on any of the other sites. I stand by my comment of numbers being irrelevant.

And no I don't believe their findings are particularly credible on their own. If they were backed up by repeated large scale testing and actual objective analysis rather than just tasting which is highly subjective, then I'd be more inclined to believe it. I've brewed crappy beers before, but someone else may have liked them. It doesn't really prove much. 

There are 4 home brewers in our, pretty short, street and I'm the only one that goes anywhere near brewing sites

Edited December 12, 2019 by Olemate

[BlackSands]

23 hours ago, Olemate said:

There are 4 home brewers in our, pretty short, street and I'm the only one that goes anywhere near brewing sites

I live on a short street too. 100% of brewers on my street frequent this and other forums.  

[Olemate]

14 minutes ago, BlackSands said:

I live on a short street too. 100% of brewers on my street frequent this and other forums.  

Statistically perhaps, I stated numerically. If you are the only brewer, well!