How-To: Completely Awful BIAB (Brew-In-A-Bag)

Last Friday, as I was at the grocery store, noticed that they had added a small homebrewing section complete with equipment, fresh grain, and a cooler full of hops and yeast varieties. I immediately made a mistake and decided to have an impromptu brew-in-a-bag brew day, although I had never tried out the method before. Needless to say it didn't go very well, but I guess we'll see how things really turned out in a few weeks when the few gallons of beer is ready and (hopefully) drinkable. The goal was a refreshing, drinkable IPA or pale ale.

Let's jump in, here's the 3 gallon recipe:

• Grains
• 8 lb Maris Otter (probably 6.5 lb actually used)
• 0.75 lb Crystal 60L

               60 minute mash at 152F

• Hop Schedule
• 0.5 oz Magnum for 60 minutes
• 1 oz Centennial at 10 minutes
• 1 oz Centennial at flameout
• 1 oz Chinook at flameout

               60 minute boil

• Yeast
• Safale US-05
• Ferment at 68 F

This was done on the stovetop while also grilling out back (mmm deer burgers) in a 6 gallon kettle. The mash went alright except for the fact that I didn't consider that the grain bag wouldn't be large enough to fit all of the grain, let alone wrap around the outside of the kettle. Most of the grain was poured into the bag with ~1 lb left out completely, and another ~0.5 lb sitting above the water line in a sad column of packed grain. Nevertheless I let it ride, seeing that there just wasn't enough room for it all. The temperature only dropped 4 degrees, which I was happy with for some shoddy towel insulation while mashing. 

I didn't realize until afterwards that the hop amounts should have been scaled back due to the lack of malt, so the full amounts went into the wort. This brew was also my first trial with irish moss, so hopefully if the beer doesn't taste great it will at least look fine! With the lack of malt and prominent presence of hops in the beer my bet is that this will turn out to be more of a session IPA than anything else. If a session IPA comes out of this I will be thrilled. 

After the boil everything was immediately transferred to a sanitized #2 HDPE plastic bucket for the final mistake experiment: no chill wort cooling. As the smell of hot plastic came up from the bucket I got worried that I had actually ruined a half-salvageable beer, but it was too let. Just got to let it ride. The next morning I checked the gravity and, ha %&$#, 1.027. That's dang low. Laughably low. Then I realized I should have at least put a pound of sugar into the wort when I knew not all the grain was going in, but oh well. I transferred the wort to a clean and sanitized carboy before pitching a full dry yeast packet and it has done reasonably well so far. The yeast is doing its thing. 

At this point I'm just letting it go and will check it in a week or so. With any luck this beer will have a quick turn around time and be ready to drink soon, just to get some feedback on how far I can mess things up and still get a half drinkable beer. I'm curious to see if anything from this is salvageable, but at any rate it was a hell of a crash course for myself getting into BIAB brewing. 

Cheers! 

MO Fuggles MO Problems - Fuggles/Maris Otter SMaSH Extract Recipe

Since moving to St. Louis and back a few months ago for an internship I've seemed to pick up a new hobby...brewing. From April 2015 until now I've made five 5 gallon batches including an amber ale, Calypso hop IPA, French-style saison, holiday spiced ale, and a (currently fermenting) winter warmer ale. All of these have been premade extract kits (thanks Midwest Supplies!) and have turned out well, but recently I've been wanting to experiment and get creative myself. This post will feature the recipe that I eventually settled on, as well as some insight into how I got there and what resources I used to make decisions at every step.

Even though it's currently 30°F outside in mid-Missouri, spring and summer will come around soon. With that in mind I've been working with a recipe for a simple, tasty, refreshing pale ale. After searching around American Homebrewers Association recipes forum for hours and hours I made the first decision needed, that of what style to brew. The big stout and IPA burnout has been real recently, so I was in the mood for something lighter without being thin and a biscuity pale ale fit the bill. Also pale ales have flown under my radar for a while, so why not give them some love! 

Now that the style was determined, I checked out the BJCP style guidelines to see what gravity, ABV, IBU, and SRM constitute a pale ale. On the malt side of flavor, mouthfeel, and appearance I ended up looking for a malt extract that would lend some light amber color, clean bready taste, and an easily drinkable feel. Light and extra light malt extracts (comparable to pale 2-row malt) seemed to be a bit too light and wouldn't lend as much flavor as I would like, so they were out. I didn't want to add in any specialty malts for sake of simplicity, so a more complex malt was desired. Someone on the recipe forums suggested using Maris Otter to give some bready complexity without any additional malts, so it's now in! For a 5 gallon batch I've got 6 lbs of Maris Otter liquid malt extract and 1 lb of corn sugar to give a small gravity boost to the beer. With just these two fermentables the original gravity comes in at 1.052. 

For the hop schedule a friend of mine had been pushing me to us UK Fuggles in a beer since I started (he's a homebrewer as well) and I decided now was the time. Maris Otter and Fuggles seem to make a great pair on paper, with the Fuggles hops are commonly used in English ales and carry a mild aroma and flavor that won't strip enamel of teeth or overpower the malt like more aggressive American hops might. To keep it simple only Fuggles hops will be used, with 1oz added for bittering at 60 minutes, 1 oz at 20 minutes, and 2 oz at flameout for a burst of aroma and flavor. Fuggles is not an incredibly strong hop at only 4.5% alpha acid (AA) so the total IBUs only come in at around 25. Perfect for throwing back on a warm spring day!

To complete the recipe a dry pack of Nottingham yeast was selected to fit the theme of subtle English flavors. Altogether the beer is planned to sit in at 1.052 OG, 1.012 FG, 5.3% ABV, and ~25 IBU. The color looks to be decently light at 4.4 SRM. 

Also to be used with this beer is a half tablet of Whirlfloc, a clarifying agent that will be thrown in with 15 minutes left on the boil. I've not used these before, but hopefully the beer will come out clear and refreshing. 

Here's the final recipe:
_________________________________________________________________
MO Fuggle MO Problems
Style Name: Pale Ale
Boil Time: 60 min

STATS:
Original Gravity: 1.052
Final Gravity: 1.012
ABV (standard): 5.3%
IBU (tinseth): 24.51
SRM (morey): 4.44

FERMENTABLES:
6 lb - Liquid Malt Extract - Maris Otter (85.7%)
1 lb - Corn Sugar - Dextrose (14.3%)

HOPS:
1 oz - Fuggles, Type: Pellet, AA: 4.5, Use: Boil for 60 min, IBU: 12.23
1 oz - Fuggles, Type: Pellet, AA: 4.5, Use: Boil for 20 min, IBU: 7.41
2 oz - Fuggles, Type: Pellet, AA: 4.5, Use: Boil for 5 min, IBU: 4.88

YEAST:
Danstar - Nottingham Ale Yeast
Starter: No
_________________________________________________________________

The goal of these beer is to be simple and tasty, and the name "MO Fuggles MO Problems" reflects that attitude. Feel free to comment and critique this, it is my first recipe after all. Here's to a successful brewday coming up soon, I'll follow up with a brew day post and a tasting just as soon as there's beer to drink. Cheers!

Returned from the Grave

Hello everyone, I'm back.

   Although it really isn't much of a return, as I barely wrote anything at all previously. So now I'm looking at this as more of a renewed interest in The Twitterless Engineer as an ongoing, continuous project. Before there was such a self-imposed pressure to write about technology and 3D printing that I quickly suffocated my own interest in writing about only those topics, so I've decided to open up and write freely from now on. Anything goes from here on out, which will hopefully allow myself to continue writing regularly and simply get out my thoughts in an ordered manner.

   Given that, I'd like to discuss what has consumed my life for the last month: moving to a new city for my first "big league" job. In just a few days St. Louis, Missouri, will become home. But first I have to get there, and packing and moving has been just as big of a hassle as I would have imagined. A surprising amount of stuff, junk or otherwise, accumulates after living in one place for a year and a half, and all of it either has to get thrown out, go with you, or get dumped on an unsuspecting family member. But it has allowed me to get rid of a bunch of stuff that has found its way into the house, such as a left-handed hockey stick from the dumpster (I don't play hockey!), a few old model rockets, and a myriad of boxes that have built up over the years. The act of removing all this from my life has restored me a bit, and reset me for the next several months. I'm leaving behind or throwing out aspects of myself that are merely dead weight, leaving room for more purposeful and meaningful utensils to occupy my mental and physical space. Additionally this will allow me to take a brief look behind me at my schooling so far, my high school years, and my childhood, before looking forward at the beginning of the beginning of my career (this position is only for 7 months).

   Looking forward, moving to a new city affords you some chances to do many things that I think everyone should experience. These include starting a new job, living with new people, and becoming a part of a new community. But the one I'm most excited about is exploring my new environment. This ranges from exploring the new space I'll be living in to discovering the immense city around me, but I'm exciting for all of it. Of course I've visited St. Louis before, having lived only 2 hours away for all my life, but the chance to not be a visitor for once is one that I welcome, and hopefully the city welcomes me as well.

   Over the next several months I will be writing about my explored experiences, which will, with any luck, rub off on you to give you a picture of St. Louis as a home and attraction. Activities that are high on my list include checking out the Soulard Market, the Fox Theatre, Forest Park, and of course the Cardinals' opening home series (go Cards!). I can't wait to get going (and writing), see you all next time.


- Cam

Rockets and UAVs - Oh My!

   Over the past few weeks I've been working with my school's AIAA (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics) and ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers) chapters to use 3D printers in their prototyping and fabrication.  The collaboration between all three clubs (with the addition of the school's 3D Print Club) was very effortless given that there are many overlapping members of the clubs, all three organizations share close lap/shop space, and the meetings for each organization fall back to back.

   This season's rocket, a 12 foot, dual stage rocket with a 98mm lower motor and 75mm upper motor (or is it 75 and 54?), is modeled to fly to over 20,000 feet at a maximum speed of close to Mach 1.1.  Given these numbers, having anything printed from ABS or PLA (or any FDM material really) would prove to be insufficient as the heat generated from the rocket's high velocity would demolish these low temperature plastics.  Additionally, the shear and compression forces exerted on the rocket by it's rapid acceleration (it's got one heck of a 0-60 mph time) would similarly destroy any printed pieces.  Due to this, all 3D printed components for the rocket internal, not major load-bearing pieces.  Such parts include portions of the electronics bay, namely the central mounting plate which carries the altimeter, telemetry unit, and other electronic components.
   However, there is one piece which is printed and is an ideal spot to take the brunt of the wear during launches and landings - the nose cone.  Last year the nose cone tip was entirely 3D printed simply to make the fiberglass and carbon fiber fabrication easier (wrapping cones and tight-radius turns is no fun).  This year, the upper half of the nose cone assembly has been printed, with the nose cone tip having solid infill.  The rest of the cone is only a few layers thick, but is reinforced and shielded from heat and pressure by several layers of carbon fiber and fiber glass, with a section towards the tip being only wrapped in fiber glass.  Whereas the majority of the rocket body is made of multi-layer carbon fiber, these section is only fiber glass to allow an antenna to be installed without any radio frequency (RF) interference.  Carbon fiber is not RF transparent, meaning that it does not allow radio frequencies to pass through it.  Having the 3D printed internal structure of the nose cone allowed us to easily create these RF transparent zone as well as a smooth transition from fiber glass to carbon fiber construction.  It also let us exactly match the modeled profile of our nosecone, which has varied this year due to the possibility of flying at transonic speeds.

  Right across the room from the rocket team is this year's UAV team.  Each year ASME puts out a Student Design Challenge which focuses on the design and prototyping of a small vehicle/robot/device.  These competitions are usually loosely themed on recent events, and this past years competition was in response to the outbreak of forest fires.  A size-restricted unmanned aerial vehicle (encompassing lighter-than-air blimps, quadcopters/hexacopters, and helicopters) was to carry a payload through a number of gates, release the payload (a simulated water bladder to douse a fire), and fly back to the starting area.  Given this task the university's ASME chapter decided to design and build a hexacopter - six small rotors at the ends of radial arms, connected by a central body.  Many parts for these devices are readily available, but half the fun was in designing parts yourself so the team turned to 3D printing.  To align and secure all six arms a two piece bracket was designed and printed on a Makerbot Replicator 2X, as well as landing leg adapters and feet for each arm.  This cut down on weight and gave the team an immediately viable solution to many mounting problems.
   The hexacopter competed at the regional competition at the University of Wisconsin - Madison against over 20 other teams.  After inspecting the other vehicles it was noted that nearly every single one had utilized 3D printing technologies in their design, including one copter that's frame was entirely printed!  It was wonderful to see evidence of 3D printing and rapid manufacturing techniques in each of these schools, all of which were roughly from the Midwest of the United States.


   I hope to see more uses like these for 3D printing in the immediate future as students and schools are looking for more and more applications of this technology, and I hope you enjoyed this short narrative and case example for the current use of printing in engineering education!


- Cam

A Take on "Entry" Printers

  The most prominent 3D printers on the market today are what I would deem "entry" level printers.  They are affordable, simple, and readily available.  Starting around $300 dollars these printers can be found everywhere now, from Amazon to Staples and at every major university and hackerspace.  I myself own one of these little printers - a Prusa i3.  For only $500 dollars I was able to assemble a pre-cut wood frame with all the hardware and electronics needed to make my very own 3D printer, and I was up and running within a single day.  But why haven't these little machines taken off and replaced modern manufacturing as we know it?  What's stopping them from reaching the "printer in every home" goal of Bre Pettis, the successful leader of Makerbot?

  As I see it there are three key factors holding these machines back and preventing the common consumer from simply downloading and making everything he or she could ever need.

1) Reliability 

   The success rate of my prints is abysmally low by any manufacturing standards - and I've been tuning continuously for the last 6 months.  Unfortunately there is no such thing as a simple "plug-and-play" printer right now - each one will need some care-taking to remain running smoothly.  But to the hobbyist this probably isn't as much of an issue since the aim in owning a printer for them is not just to use the printer, but is the experience of working on the printer itself.

2) Quality

  For most FDM printers the current advertised range of z-layer resolution (the thickness of each layer) is between 0.1 and 0.3 mm.  By comparison, the resolution of the Objet Eden350 is a minuscule 0.016 mm.  That's  over 6 times as detailed a finish as that from a consumer printer, but even though this comes at the cost of well over $100,000 it's the quality and resolution which is required for professional prototyping.  Now some low end printers can in fact get down to 0.05 mm resolution, but only after months of fine tuning, often by one who is very proficient in FDM machines.

3) Knowledge

  Few people are aware of the prevalence of 3D printers, and even fewer have a working understanding of them.  For an individual to just pick up a printer at the store and expect quality prints within hours is unreasonable, but that is the promise large printing companies such as Makerbot are giving.  Even Makerbot printers, which are marketed as an easy-to-use, reliable machine, have their faults.  The same issues that plague other printers such as bed adhesion, temperature settings, vibration, and constant readjustment and leveling still affect the Makerbot.  So when people expect these machines to work great right out of the box but end up fighting them for months they become deterred from the holy grail of home manufacturing that was pitched to them.

4) Applications and Expectations

  There tends to be a "honeymoon" phase when it comes to printers in which the user ends up printing every overused toy, trinket, and gimmicky item they have files for.  After that interest in the machine fades as it becomes just another tool to be used in specific situations in the shop.  So unless the user is a continual tinkerer or DIYer the effective applications soon plummet, resulting in the negative stigma of printers being only good for those trinket items.  But if that user does have a significant use for their printer it can be an invaluable tool for model prop making, test fitting, and affordable replacement parts, among other things.

The problem arises when the user has an unrealistic expectation of the machine's capabilities and applications.  3D printers are currently most effective and practical as tools - for the shop, for marketing, or for personal projects and design.  They should not, however, be expected to replace the entire process of model making in one fell swoop.  This is where the many people may turn to criticizing printers for not being wonder machines, while in fact the machine performed as was designed but was marketed to be something it's not.


So how should these problems be overcome?

  First and foremost I believe that the first step in remedying the image of rapid prototyping machines in the eyes of the vast majority is changing how these machines and their uses are perceived.  In their current state, entry level printers are not an end all be all solution to replace traditional manufacturing of parts.  It seems to me that any great decentralization of manufacturing will not come in the next decade, but rather in the next few decades.  Secondly printers need to be marketed and publicized as what they are - tools.  They are roughly on the same plane of equipment that CNC mills are, except they add material rather than remove it.  Finally they need to be produced at a similar quality across all price ranges.  A lower cost CNC may not have as many bells and whistles as a higher end one, yet it still performs the job without troublesome, job stopping issues.


I hope this didn't come off as too much of a rant, but the current state of 3D printers is one of misinterpretations, so I wanted to make points that are grounding (or even sobering) to the people who may not yet have extensive exposure to these machines.  I hope this was an informative post, I promise the next one will be in a much better spirit!


- Cam

A rapid prototype...of a blog post

 
I've worked with rapid prototyping technologies and equipment for a while now, but this form of a quick and cheap fabrication of ideas is a first for me.  I'm not a writer by any means, so this medium is quite new, but if it's anything like model prototyping, 3D printing, or rapid design then I think I'll be OK.  To give a bit of background on myself I am a second-year mechanical engineering student in Missouri, USA, with a love for 3D printing (I own a printer myself), modeling and animation, and any accessible and shareable science, engineering, and electronics projects.  These posts will be my way of working through projects, news, and ideas for myself, and hopefully I can make it an entertaining and educational read for you, too!

  For those of you who aren't familiar with this magic "3D printing", it's not nearly as complicated (or all-powerful) as you might think.  Most printers that the average individual is used to seeing is an FDM printer, which stands for Fused Deposition Modeling.  In this process molten plastic is Deposited in a programmed toolpath, Fused on top of another layer of material, to form a computer generated Model.  In practice this all just comes down to simply stacking layers of hot plastic on each other to make an overall shape (I often liken it to a "glorified hot glue gun").  The process usually takes anywhere from 30 minutes to 10+ hours depending on the size of your model, but unlike traditional manufacturing methods complexity is non-issue.  Additional complexity of an object adds an insignificant amount of time to the printing process.  For this reason (among others) rapid prototyping has really taken off in sectors dealing with complicated, one-off parts and pieces.

  My favorite example of using rapid prototyping to create complex shapes not achievable by traditional means is that of unique human and animal bone structure  recreation.  Recently the teams at the University of Missouri College of Engineering and College of Veterinary Medicine partnered up, taking CT scans of an animal in need of surgery, printing that animal's bones around the target area, and using those bones to practice the exact surgery.  This process greatly increased the chance of success for the operation by giving the doctors a way to practice which would have been impossible without this technology.  Normally it would be near impossible for even a skilled modeler to replicate the unique structure of that particular animal, but by taking and converting the data from the CT scan into usable model information a direct replica was able to be produced.

  This project was not done with an FDM machine, however, but instead used an SLS (Selective Laser Sintering) printer.  In the SLS process a vat of powdered material (normally materials such as nylon or metals) is fused together by a high precision and high intensity laser.  This is then repeated until all layers of the piece are fused.  After the part is finished it is post processed, with all the surrounding powder cleaned away.  This additional powder, which surrounds the entire part, serves as support material for the model.  With this SLS can produce structures with large overhangs, a feature that is often difficult for FDM machines.

  In addition to FDM and SLS processes there is also the SLA (stereolithography) process, which utilizes UV-curable resins, and various methods based on the layered binding of powders.  These make up the vast majority of 3D printing (or "additive manufaturing") methods, while FDM machines are often the most simple and affordable, explaining the recent flood of them in the consumer market.

  I hope this is enough to get you well introduced to rapid prototyping techniques, I'll inevitably dive into much that the area has to offer including materials, major companies, new technologies, applications, my own experimentation, and much more!

- Cam