Gelatine substitute - chemistry question

Great ones! A thousand Salaams to you and all the ones you love!

As you know I make delicious beer at home. Contained in beer are some elements that we would rather not have, haze causing elements like proteins and protein–polyphenol complexes, also suspended yeast. These are formed when chemical elements bond together. Ok so far so good.

As a vegetarian I use a PVPP and silica gel product called polyclar 730 which bonds to these elements and causes them to fall out of suspension. However there is still some residual yeast left in suspension. The traditional approach has been to 'fine', these with animal products like isinglass ( fish bladders) or gelatine (cows hoofs) which act like a collagen and drops the residual yeast out of suspension. For a veggie they are out of the question.

As far as I can tell gelatine works because it carries a positive charge and attracts the negatively charged yeast/proteins, binds with them, generates heavier elements and they both sink to the bottom. Its particularly this polarity that I am concerned about. I have an idea to use agar as a substitute for gelatine but I am unsure if it will have the same effect because I don't know and cannot learn anything about its polarity. A question.

If it carries a negative charge will this adversely affect its ability to bind with yeast and act as a clarifying agent? or perhaps it works in other ways?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Great ones! A thousand Salaams to you and all the ones you love!

As you know I make delicious beer at home. Contained in beer are some elements that we would rather not have, haze causing elements like proteins and protein–polyphenol complexes, also suspended yeast. These are formed when chemical elements bond together. Ok so far so good.

A ...[text shortened]... its ability to bind with yeast and act as a clarifying agent? or perhaps it works in other ways?

Why can't you just use a fine filter?

Originally posted by sonhouse
Why can't you just use a fine filter?

Also, what about physical separation with a centrifuge? You could build one yourself cheap.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Great ones! A thousand Salaams to you and all the ones you love!

As you know I make delicious beer at home. Contained in beer are some elements that we would rather not have, haze causing elements like proteins and protein–polyphenol complexes, also suspended yeast. These are formed when chemical elements bond together. Ok so far so good.

A ...[text shortened]... its ability to bind with yeast and act as a clarifying agent? or perhaps it works in other ways?

I don't know enough about chemistry to answer that reliably, however...

I'm not recommending this as I don't know if it will work in beer, however in winemaking they use egg white to clarify wine, it's possible that you may be able to use egg white, if that is acceptable to your vegetarianism, for the same purpose in beer.

I've just checked in Wikipedia and both my suggestion and sonhouse's are used. For a vegetarian fining option use Irish Moss.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finings

Originally posted by sonhouse
Also, what about physical separation with a centrifuge? You could build one yourself cheap.

Yeah, the Iranians probably have some spare and they're guaranteed to be sterile and make the beer visible in the dark too!

Originally posted by DeepThought
I don't know enough about chemistry to answer that reliably, however...

I'm not recommending this as I don't know if it will work in beer, however in winemaking they use egg white to clarify wine, it's possible that you may be able to use egg white, if that is acceptable to your vegetarianism, for the same purpose in beer.

I've just checked in Wiki ...[text shortened]... e used. For a vegetarian fining option use Irish Moss.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finings

Actually Irish moss is used in what brewers call 'the kettle', or 'the copper', that is about 10-15 minutes until the end of the boil. (we boil hops to isomerise alpha acids and certain oils) The hot liquid is then rapidly cooled and its here that certain proteins coagulate and are left behind, however there are proteins and yeast that are left after fermentation which cause haze in the beer and Irish moss is of no use at this stage. I use a PVPP and silica gel to bind to these proteins and to drive them out of suspension. Residual yeast is left over however and at present I am forced to use mechanical filtration, passing the beer through a 5 micron and then a 1 micron filter, which unfortunately strips some of the aromatic oils and alpha acids which have attached themselves to the yeast. Its not a major problem, its a compromise because I cannot use a fining agent. Egg whites are also out of the question. My idea was to use Agar but the information on its is really really scant.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Also, what about physical separation with a centrifuge? You could build one yourself cheap.

centrifuge would be an ideal solution but I have no idea how to go about making one, I did look at a commercial plans for one but it was immensely complicated and very expensive. Maybe an old washing machine could be utilised or something like that?

Originally posted by sonhouse
Why can't you just use a fine filter?

This is what I do at present, a 5 micron and a then a 1 micron filter but it strips some of the aromatic oils and bitterness away from the beer. I could always compensate for this by adding more hops but would prefer a really easy solution. Commercial beer is filtered to a sterile level, .3 and .45 of a micron! but it changes the taste and body of a beer.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Yeah, the Iranians probably have some spare and they're guaranteed to be sterile and make the beer visible in the dark too!

Although this is unrelated, I read somewhere that logic cannot explain everything and the example was given of quantum physics. Why cant logic explain quantum physics?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Although this is unrelated, I read somewhere that logic cannot explain everything and the example was given of quantum physics. Why cant logic explain quantum physics?

not sure what it means to say 'logic cannot explain' quantum physics (or any other physics).
We may not know 'why' the most generic laws of physics are the way they are or even if there is such a 'why' (could be just a brute fact) and just perhaps even the mere question of that 'why' is somehow complete nonsense (that 'somehow' is just one of the many things I have intensively research for months but not yet reached any noteworthy unconditional conclusion. In short, its complicated), but, surely, just like with most if not all things, we can apply logic to it at least in the narrow sense that we can make deductions/inferences based on the assumption that the natural laws are the way we think they are. And we can 'explain' some of the more specialized laws by showing how they can be deduced from more generic ones.
Would that count here as 'logic explaining' it?

Originally posted by humy
not sure what it means to say 'logic cannot explain' quantum physics (or any other physics).
We may not know 'why' the most generic laws of physics are the way they are or even if there is such a 'why' (could be just a brute fact) and just perhaps even the mere question of that 'why' is somehow complete nonsense (that 'somehow' is just one of the many ...[text shortened]... ow they can be deduced from more generic ones.
Would that count here as 'logic explaining' it?

Yes in a sense. It appears to me that logic is used to subject ideas to falsification in exactly the same way that a chess players subjects a variation to falsification using logic in order to ascertain its soundness or otherwise. If after the application of logic the evaluation is deemed to be sound he plays the move, if not his theory (idea) is bust and he tries something else. Logic does not explain chess its merely a kind of tool that is used to ascertain certain things. I don't know anything about quantum physics but perhaps this is what the author meant, that logic cannot be used to explain the behaviour of certain 'things'? I don't know? Perhaps its as you say, a nonsense statement just as logic cannot explain chess then it does not explain quantum physics.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Also, what about physical separation with a centrifuge? You could build one yourself cheap.

some dudes on you tube have built them to refine oil, I think I could build one if I had a powerful enough motor.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Actually Irish moss is used in what brewers call 'the kettle', or 'the copper', that is about 10-15 minutes until the end of the boil. (we boil hops to isomerise alpha acids and certain oils) The hot liquid is then rapidly cooled and its here that certain proteins coagulate and are left behind, however there are proteins and yeast that are left aft ...[text shortened]... out of the question. My idea was to use Agar but the information on its is really really scant.

I don't know what the costs are, but you can you just make a small batch or secondary one and do an experiment? Provided it doesn't come out toxic which seems unlikely the worst case is some cloudy beer.

Logic consists of a formal language and some rules for making deductions, as such it cannot explain anything except in terms of premises that one supplies it. At first glance quantum mechanics does some damage as propositions can be true and false at the same time - Schrodinger's cat is both dead and alive before the observation is made. However all that means is that one has to be a little careful about constructing propositions.

Originally posted by DeepThought
I don't know what the costs are, but you can you just make a small batch or secondary one and do an experiment? Provided it doesn't come out toxic which seems unlikely the worst case is some cloudy beer.

Logic consists of a formal language and some rules for making deductions, as such it cannot explain anything except in terms of premises that one su ...[text shortened]... However all that means is that one has to be a little careful about constructing propositions.

Its really interesting. How is it possible to be true and false at the same time? Is this something to do with the perception of the observer? I see logic as a kind of tool to cut away pretence, whether it is or not I cannot say.

Yes I think an experiment is what is needed although I really fancy the idea of building a centrifuge. I been looking at top loading spin dryers, they look as though they could be used and are fairly cheap.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Its really interesting. How is it possible to be true and false at the same time? Is this something to do with the perception of the observer? I see logic as a kind of tool to cut away pretence, whether it is or not I cannot say.

Yes I think an experiment is what is needed although I really fancy the idea of building a centrifuge. I been looking at top loading spin dryers, they look as though they could be used and are fairly cheap.

I'll stick to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics for this - but note that what I am saying is not true if de-Broglie-Bohm theory is right for example. In the standard theory of quantum mechanics particles exist in linear superpositions of states. This is identical to a soundwave with harmonics. The difference is when an observation of a sound wave is made your ear hears all the harmonics. When an observation of a quantum state is made only one of the harmonics is observed and the particle goes into that state. So suppose the relevant property is spin. An electron has spin one half, which means that when one measures it's spin it is either +1/2 along the direction one is measuring the spin or -1/2, in other words in the opposite direction. These are called eigenstates are written |+1/2> and |-1/2>. A general state would be written down as:

|e> = a|+1/2> + b|-1/2>

Where |a|^2 + |b|^2 = 1. The probability of seeing the electron with spin +1/2 is |a|^2 and with spin -1/2 |b|^2. After the measurement has taken place, and supposing it comes to +1/2 the state is described by:

|e> = |+1/2>

So consider the proposition: "Before the measurement the electron had spin +1/2".

In one sense it is not true, the electron was in a superposition of states. However, in that case its converse, that the spin was |-1/2> isn't true either. In another sense the proposition is both true and not true, because of the superposition of states. This is what I meant by: "One has to be careful about propositions in quantum mechanics.", to ensure that they are either true or not true they have to be wrapped up to take account of the superposition of states.