iodophor left in keg.
Can someone explain how...
- Thread starter dirty_martini
- Start date
Help Support Homebrew Talk:
Explain to me, then, how my pickling brine produced a deep purple when I used iodized salt. The same brine recipe with pickling (non-iodized) salt didn't. See #17.
I'm sorry, but we might have to agree to disagree here. No offense, sir.
TB
I'm sorry, but we might have to agree to disagree here. No offense, sir.
TB
Not in this case. Sorry,too big of a diff. Look at that carboy. There isn't that much yeast in suspension (you can see most of it in the bottom if the carboy).
jsguitar
Well-Known Member
I'm going with this one.
I'm sorry, it isn't iodine. I just took some corn starch and mixed with some idaphor solution - cool is this more purple blue
The color in the picture (look especially at his finger is) BEER more red, actaully I couldn't find 'burgandy' this is 'purple'. The color of the beer is burgandy - red wine color.
Iodine would be more indigo. Do the test yourself.
So what would cause burgandy color - clearly a 'redish' molecule like blueberry. OP stated no contamination, and doesn't give us his cleaning agents, or his ingredent list.
As to it being Beer-Bougert-Lambert law that can be tested by pouring into a hyrometer sleve - what the hydrometer comes in. If the color seems about the same - then in't isn't that (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer–Lambert_law - mostly prereq's which basically say that the law holds less effect with turbity and non parrell rays.
It is a chemical reaction, but not iodine. I'm beginning to wonder if the OP is pulling our leg and having us compare 2 different beers.
The color in the picture (look especially at his finger is) BEER more red, actaully I couldn't find 'burgandy' this is 'purple'. The color of the beer is burgandy - red wine color.
Iodine would be more indigo. Do the test yourself.
So what would cause burgandy color - clearly a 'redish' molecule like blueberry. OP stated no contamination, and doesn't give us his cleaning agents, or his ingredent list.
As to it being Beer-Bougert-Lambert law that can be tested by pouring into a hyrometer sleve - what the hydrometer comes in. If the color seems about the same - then in't isn't that (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer–Lambert_law - mostly prereq's which basically say that the law holds less effect with turbity and non parrell rays.
It is a chemical reaction, but not iodine. I'm beginning to wonder if the OP is pulling our leg and having us compare 2 different beers.
jsguitar
Well-Known Member
I thought it looked more purplish but I argue with my wife about colors all the time!
I also wonder too if he's gong to come back and say 'Just ****in with ya!'
![Craft A Brew - Safale S-04 Dry Yeast - Fermentis - English Ale Dry Yeast - For English and American Ales and Hard Apple Ciders - Ingredients for Home Brewing - Beer Making Supplies - [1 Pack]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/41fVGNh6JfL._SL500_.jpg)
maybe. OP is actively posting this evening in other threads. Why no comment in his own?
jsguitar
Well-Known Member
Good question. Easy enough to say 'Yeah, I did use iodophor', or 'Yeah, I forgot. I dropped four purple crayons in there. I was wondering what happened to those!'
Ah, I think I'm seeing the light. Heres a picture of one of my beers: http://www.pbase.com/image/136977075. And here's another picture of one of my beers (you don't have to hit the second link - just use the "Next" button.): http://www.pbase.com/agamid/image/136977072 It is now quite clear that while I had my back turned someone must have dumped iodine into the second beer because it is much darker in color. Right?
Not quite. Anyone who knows anything about color perception will immediately see what I have done. I took two pictures of the same glass of beer but in one case used only the ambient light and put the glass in front of a light background while in the other case I added some transmitted light and put the glass in front of a dark background. Not by design, but in support of the argument I have earlier advanced, by the time the second photo (the first one posted) was recorded some condensation had begun to form which scatters some of the impinging light enhancing the impression of lightness.
I recorded NEF's and then asked Photoshop to do Auto contrast adjustment i.e. what a cheap digital camera would do before cranking out a jpeg (which is what these images are). More to the point, I didn't "Photoshop" the pictures to make my point (which, of course I could have done). I only allowed it to do what a consumer camera would have done.
The bottom line is that what one sees and what a camera records depend very much on lighting, background source light color temperature and gamma in the camera.
With this evidence plus the chemical evidence presented in an earlier post readers should be able to conclude on their own that the cause of the phenomenon we see in the OP's original photographs are probably due to the color perception issues I illustrate here and mentioned in earlier posts. Theories involving iodine, iodophor, keg fairies and Barack Obama are, while entertaining, not likely to have relevance here. Common sense does play an important role in brewing science.
Now does this prove anything? Not really. The strangely silent, at this point, OP may have poured grape concentrate into the beer in the glass photo and may be laughing himself silly over this thread. I really don't know. I wasn't there. Nor do I feel obliged to speculate as to why someone might have gotten purple in a pickling operation. We're talking about beer here. Nonetheless an explanation could be that the pickling solution was in a oxidized state (as opposed to beer's reduced state) so that when iodine was added with the iodized salt it got oxidized but the chemical experiments show that iodized salt does not contain enough iodine to produce color and iodine (I3-) in solution isn't purple - it's orange - reddish - brown. Again, I don't know. I wasn't there.
Not quite. Anyone who knows anything about color perception will immediately see what I have done. I took two pictures of the same glass of beer but in one case used only the ambient light and put the glass in front of a light background while in the other case I added some transmitted light and put the glass in front of a dark background. Not by design, but in support of the argument I have earlier advanced, by the time the second photo (the first one posted) was recorded some condensation had begun to form which scatters some of the impinging light enhancing the impression of lightness.
I recorded NEF's and then asked Photoshop to do Auto contrast adjustment i.e. what a cheap digital camera would do before cranking out a jpeg (which is what these images are). More to the point, I didn't "Photoshop" the pictures to make my point (which, of course I could have done). I only allowed it to do what a consumer camera would have done.
The bottom line is that what one sees and what a camera records depend very much on lighting, background source light color temperature and gamma in the camera.
With this evidence plus the chemical evidence presented in an earlier post readers should be able to conclude on their own that the cause of the phenomenon we see in the OP's original photographs are probably due to the color perception issues I illustrate here and mentioned in earlier posts. Theories involving iodine, iodophor, keg fairies and Barack Obama are, while entertaining, not likely to have relevance here. Common sense does play an important role in brewing science.
Now does this prove anything? Not really. The strangely silent, at this point, OP may have poured grape concentrate into the beer in the glass photo and may be laughing himself silly over this thread. I really don't know. I wasn't there. Nor do I feel obliged to speculate as to why someone might have gotten purple in a pickling operation. We're talking about beer here. Nonetheless an explanation could be that the pickling solution was in a oxidized state (as opposed to beer's reduced state) so that when iodine was added with the iodized salt it got oxidized but the chemical experiments show that iodized salt does not contain enough iodine to produce color and iodine (I3-) in solution isn't purple - it's orange - reddish - brown. Again, I don't know. I wasn't there.
dirty_martini
Well-Known Member
passedpawn said:
Because I couldn't post any proof. I was posting from my iPhone app. I am going to take a pic of the beer next to the carboy so everyone can see it's not some refraction of light or other stretch.
I swear that it's the same essential beer. I mashed enough for 6 gallons and split it into 2 batches. One no boil Berliner Weisse, one gose that I boiled for 15 mins. Just enough to add a little hops as well as the coriander and salt. The Berliner is what's still in the carboy. The gose had reached the level of tartness I wanted so I kegged it. The Berliner is still aging.
As for cleaning and sanitizing, I use oxyclean and iodophor. I've been using it for years without ever having this issue.
It would be more helpful if you could take a single photograph of two small glasses of each next to one another and illuminated from behind e.g. put the light source over your shoulder, put a white piece of paper in front of you and put the beer glasses between you and the paper. [EDIT] Make sure the flash is disabled.[/EDIT] This will insure that none of the effects I illustrated in #39 are responsible for differences in the colors of the beers as seen in the photo.
Now it appears that the two samples are not the same beer but the same "essential beer". There are lots of reasons why two beers that are "essentially" the same can be different in color and, as you can see from #39, why samples of the same beer can appear to be different in color. Let's try to eliminate the latter.
Now it appears that the two samples are not the same beer but the same "essential beer". There are lots of reasons why two beers that are "essentially" the same can be different in color and, as you can see from #39, why samples of the same beer can appear to be different in color. Let's try to eliminate the latter.
I did my own test last night with iodine and iodized salt in samples of a berliner weisse (mine). The salt (as expected) did nothing but cause it to froth quite a bit. The iodine did discolor the beer a reddish hue (also expected), but not to the extent shown in the OPs pic.
I will sit here and guarantee you that the phenomenon we're seeing in the OP is NOT due to light refraction.
I don't have time for this right now. I'll be back.
TB
I don't have time for this right now. I'll be back.
TB
DregAddict
Well-Known Member
The OP has confirmed that he uses iodophor to sanitize, so there may have been some residue in the keg. On top of that, the salt may have been iodized salt. I would like to see the side by side, same style glass pics. But I'm confident that the OP is being honest and not just pulling an optical illusion on us. I don't think he would have taken a pic of the color discrepancy if it wasn't visually apparent.
Also, the argument that I- needs an oxidizing reagent to become I2 is valid. But the presumption that the beer is in a reduced state is not necessarily true.
The color is more of a light burgundy, reddish purple. In an iodine test you would see a deep blueish purple. But this is a 5 gallon batch of beer with many other contributing factors to the color, not a 1mL test on a white saucer.
Also, the argument that I- needs an oxidizing reagent to become I2 is valid. But the presumption that the beer is in a reduced state is not necessarily true.
The color is more of a light burgundy, reddish purple. In an iodine test you would see a deep blueish purple. But this is a 5 gallon batch of beer with many other contributing factors to the color, not a 1mL test on a white saucer.
dirty_martini
Well-Known Member
Heres some more photographs for people to see. I even used 2 different glasses so you can see the effect
As for the person saying the "essentially" the same beer could possibly make a difference...adding an extra .25oz of hops with 1oz of coriander and .5oz of salt should not change the color profile. Ive brewed this before. The beer in the glass should be lighter than the beer in the carboy because there is less density of liquid. The color should only be around 2.5L.
As for the person saying the "essentially" the same beer could possibly make a difference...adding an extra .25oz of hops with 1oz of coriander and .5oz of salt should not change the color profile. Ive brewed this before. The beer in the glass should be lighter than the beer in the carboy because there is less density of liquid. The color should only be around 2.5L.
dirty_martini
Well-Known Member
sea salt. I dont use anything in my house other than sea salt or kosher salt so it isnt that. If there was any iodophor residue in the keg it was minimal and I dont overuse the iodophor like Ive seen some people do. There may have been an ounce at best of liquid. Ive always used it and never had this issue before and Ive been brewing 4 years. Thats why Im so confused by all of this.
As for the purple I mentioned earlier in my posts, its not so much when you are looking in the glass as it is when I dump it down my white sink drain. Thats when it looks purplish. Maybe just a touch in regular light but once you illuminate it, it takes on the brownish hue
OP what was the color before you kegged? was it similar to the carboy? And the flavor is ok correct?
BTW, brown is less confusing to me than purple or similar - the head is white. When I pour a framboise lambic (leidmanns) the head is a light purple matching the beer.
BTW, brown is less confusing to me than purple or similar - the head is white. When I pour a framboise lambic (leidmanns) the head is a light purple matching the beer.
While I took refraction off the table in #14 I'm putting it back on as it is pretty clear that refraction is partially responsible for what appears in OP's second photograph. The globular glass serves as a lens which images something dark (i.e. not the wall visible in the photo) onto the camera lens though the image is, obviously, not in focus. Hence the beer appears dark because he has photographed some part of the bathroom (probably the floor) which does not receive any light from the flash. Certainly it is not the image of the wall behind the glass because the beer is much darker and a different color from the wall.
At http://www.pbase.com/image/136989737 I have posted a similar flash photograph which illustrates how this works. The white bar on the top simulates the foam on the beer which had collapsed by the time I realized how this works. That's there in order to force the camera to adjust gamma to fit the whole histogram between the rails just as it would do with real foam. The real foam is against the rail in OP's photo and the synthetic foam is against the rail in mine. As with the photos I posted yesterday I actually recorded a NEF and then had Photoshop do what a less sophisticated camera would do i.e. tweak gamma until both the darkest part of the picture and the "foam" fit between the A/D rails.
It is clear in my photo that the goblet is not imaging either the windows which nor the parts of the garage door panels behind it because both of those are lighter than the beer. Thus the bright light from the windows is refracted by the beer into some other part of the room. At the same time more feeble light from some dark part of the room is refracted by the beer so that it hits the camera lens. Changing the position of the camera so that it captures the window light obviously changes the brightness and color of the beer. This can be seen by pressing the "Next" button at pbase or going to http://www.pbase.com/agamid/image/136990074. It is even possible to make out some details of the structure of the room image in this latter photo though I can't identify these objects i.e. I can't tell whether the lightest parts are the actual door lights or the patches of light cast by them onto the floor.
So it turns out refraction is very much a part of the explanation for the dark color of the beer in the glass. Note: This is the same 12.7 SRM beer as in the photos I posted yesterday.
Now of course it is also possible that OP's beer in the glass is in fact also darker or lighter than the beer in the carboy. We won't know whether that's the case if and until he puts up the picture I requested in an earlier post. But that would only be part of the story. As I said way back when here the color one sees (or the color that is recorded in a photograph) depends on the the thickness of beer through which the light passes, the coloring matter in the beer and the color quality of the light which passes through the beer. This latter is determined by whatever part of the surrounding room is imaged through the glass at the camera lens. Also, as stated way back when, any light scattered from yeast cells in the container, dew on the glass surface... will add to the transmitted light and add to the total light reaching the eye or camera. This will make beer with suspended yeast look lighter than it would when it is bright.
I doubt this will convince everyone but at least I am now satisfied that I fully understand what is going on here and may, thus, be better able to explain it.
At http://www.pbase.com/image/136989737 I have posted a similar flash photograph which illustrates how this works. The white bar on the top simulates the foam on the beer which had collapsed by the time I realized how this works. That's there in order to force the camera to adjust gamma to fit the whole histogram between the rails just as it would do with real foam. The real foam is against the rail in OP's photo and the synthetic foam is against the rail in mine. As with the photos I posted yesterday I actually recorded a NEF and then had Photoshop do what a less sophisticated camera would do i.e. tweak gamma until both the darkest part of the picture and the "foam" fit between the A/D rails.
It is clear in my photo that the goblet is not imaging either the windows which nor the parts of the garage door panels behind it because both of those are lighter than the beer. Thus the bright light from the windows is refracted by the beer into some other part of the room. At the same time more feeble light from some dark part of the room is refracted by the beer so that it hits the camera lens. Changing the position of the camera so that it captures the window light obviously changes the brightness and color of the beer. This can be seen by pressing the "Next" button at pbase or going to http://www.pbase.com/agamid/image/136990074. It is even possible to make out some details of the structure of the room image in this latter photo though I can't identify these objects i.e. I can't tell whether the lightest parts are the actual door lights or the patches of light cast by them onto the floor.
So it turns out refraction is very much a part of the explanation for the dark color of the beer in the glass. Note: This is the same 12.7 SRM beer as in the photos I posted yesterday.
Now of course it is also possible that OP's beer in the glass is in fact also darker or lighter than the beer in the carboy. We won't know whether that's the case if and until he puts up the picture I requested in an earlier post. But that would only be part of the story. As I said way back when here the color one sees (or the color that is recorded in a photograph) depends on the the thickness of beer through which the light passes, the coloring matter in the beer and the color quality of the light which passes through the beer. This latter is determined by whatever part of the surrounding room is imaged through the glass at the camera lens. Also, as stated way back when, any light scattered from yeast cells in the container, dew on the glass surface... will add to the transmitted light and add to the total light reaching the eye or camera. This will make beer with suspended yeast look lighter than it would when it is bright.
I doubt this will convince everyone but at least I am now satisfied that I fully understand what is going on here and may, thus, be better able to explain it.
I strive mightily to keep my beer in the reduced state. Don't you?
You've done just about everything except what I need for you to do in order for me to see what the actual colors of the beers are relative one to the other and that is put small samples in identical glasses in front of a white piece of paper (or in front of a light table if you have one) and take a non flash photograph. To do this in a lab I would put the samples in a cuvet, pop them into a photometer and measure the transmission at a particular wave length. If a sample were turbid, I would centrifuge it (and it's pretty clear from the photo of the carboy that the beer is turbid - as explained earlier that is, at least in part, why it looks lighter). Clearly you don't have a photometer so the next best thing is to get me a photo as requested and I can at least look at the blue channel and get an idea what is going on.
I've been brewing for many years and never made a beer as light as 2.5L. A home brewer just can't do it. More to the point, I brew the same beers over and over again and there is always some variability in color. We, as home brewers, cannot control our materials or our process closely enough to hit the same SRM every time.
dirty_martini
Well-Known Member
DregAddict
Well-Known Member
He is asking for one glass of the gose, and one glass of the berliner weisse. It would be best to put them into glasses that are the same shape and size, and with the same lighting and background.
DregAddict
Well-Known Member
If you mean that you like to drink your beer quickly, thereby reducing the quantity that you have at hand, then I agree. If you mean you try to keep your beer from becoming oxidized, then I also make every effort to prevent oxidation. That doesn't mean that oxidation never occurs. I'm sure many homebrewers have experienced oxidized beer despite their best efforts.
is this better?
Yes, but we're still not quite there. The glasses need to be identical (so the light path through them is the same) and all the light should come through the beer. No flash. And the exposure needs to be adjusted so that the beer shows some light coming through. In the pair L* is 2-5 for both beers on my laptop. The photo looks like 2 glasses of porter. I cannot see any difference.
Here's an example of the kind of photo we need: http://www.pbase.com/agamid/image/66773803
In this photo the flasks are in front of a light table but they can be in front of any diffuse source of light such as a white piece of cardboard illuminated with a light behind the camera in such way that the cardboard in uniformly (or as uniformly as possible) and that no light strike the glasses directly (so there is no scattered light and no shadowing on the white screen).
Perhaps it would be best to just take the samples outside and put them on a table so they have the northern sky behind them and adjust exposure until the beers show definite color. It doesn't matter if other parts of the picture are blown out.
Or, if you can find some little vials just send me 10 mL of each. If you want to do that PM me and I'll get you a mailing address.
Germelli1
Well-Known Member
Wow I was interested in this thread a while ago and now I couldn't care less. It went from cool discussion and brainstorming to nitpicky "has to be admissable in court" science
That's the only kind of science there is. As Edison said it's 2% inspiration (brainstorming) and 98% perspiration (doing the experiments that support or demolish the hypotheses, analyzing the data, revising the hypotheses....). Who would be served by simply accepting that it's iodine and having that become another brewing falsehood which circles the globe at the speed of the internet?
No, it doesn't but I'm guessing that a beer with on ORP high enough to oxidize iodide would be in pretty rough shape flavor wise.
Perhaps it's an infection?
I thought you said "case closed" about 50 posts ago. I was honestly put off by that, for exactly the reasons you are now espousing. I'm glad the OP is continuing to address this. Hope we come to a conclusion we can all accept. Interesting mystery.
I think I said case closed WRT iodine. I don't think I said case closed period. I really do think I understand it, at least the refraction/color quality/Lambert part but I really want to see what color (SRM sense) the beer is.
It is an interesting question.
It is an interesting question.
