From: us279764@mmm.serc.3m.com (Philip . Miller)
Subject: Re: Kettle Mashing
Organization: 3M Company
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 23:02:45 GMT

> >But seriously, Jack, why DO you think so many homebrewers 
>> mash in picnic coolers?  You used to claim it was because of 
>> Papazian's influence.  What are your thoughts now?
 
 > I have already expressed my thoughts, you just ignored them.  

 I haven't seen any of your thoughts on why people mash in picnic
 coolers from you lately so I don't see how I could ignore them even
 if I wanted to.

 > Change the word "mash" to sparge and you get the point.

 I'm afraid I DON'T get the point because you haven't made one yet, or
 at least, not one relevant to my question.



 Let's take a step back and define the problem for the kind folks
 reading
 this newsgroup:

 1)  Jack has implied in the past that the reason so many people 
 mash in picnic coolers is due to the influence of Papazian's book.
 (This has occurred in the HBD many months ago and lately in the first
 paragraph of his Kettle Mashing article.)

 2)  I pointed out that Papazian advocates Step Infusion Mashing (aka
 kettle mashing) as the preferred method of mashing, not picnic
 cooler mashing as Jack implied  (Papazian's chapter on mashing
 in TCNJOHB is very clear on this matter.)

 3)  Then I asked Jack, that given 1 and 2, what new theory does he
 have to explain why so many people mash in picnic coolers?

 I went on to poke fun a Jack in a light hearted way (knowing his
 penchant
 for conspiracy theories) by suggesting that it was all the work of
 the Trilaterial Commission and the Society of Free Masons.  Mea culpa.

 Jack must have missed MY point because he answered the following
 question rather than my original question:

 "Why is kettle mashing better than step infusion mashing?"

 And let's give Jack some credit here.  He did a GREAT job answering the
 above question.  Unfortunately, it wasn't the question I asked...

 (My original question is sitting at the top of this post in double >>
 marks.  Go ahead, re-read it.  It isn't vague at all.  In fact, it's a
 pretty
 straight forward question.  Nothing at all like those tricky TRUE/FALSE
 questions we had to answer in college.  Makes you wonder how Jack could
 have mistaken it with the question he answered instead, doesn't it?
 Hmmm.)

 But then Jack goes on to say that *I* missed the point because I was
 cheeky enough to point out that HIS answer didn't address MY question.
 (Imagine the nerve!  What if EVERYBODY on the net was called on the
 carpet each time they posted a non-relevant answer?  Why, the signal
 to noise ratio would plummet and then where would we be?)

 Jack goes on to say some other questionable things in his latest post:

 Jack:
 >>>The fundamental advantage over Papazian's approach is that 
 >>>he drops the ball after mashing.
 Me:
 >>I assure you, the chapter on all grain brewing doesn't end 
 >>after the mash out.
 Jack:
 >I didn't say it ended.  Dropping the ball implies that he 
 >made bad use of the rest of the chapter.

 Let's have a quick show of hands here.  How many people think that
 Papazian made "bad use of the rest of the chapter" in his mashing
 chapter?  Assume that Charlie did a pretty good job up to the point
 where he describes heating the mash in a kettle.  How many people
 feel that the lautering and sparging and boiling and tables and
 recipes were, in fact, a waste of paper?

 Finally, Jack and I argue the merits of reading TCNJOHB.  I maintain
 that Jack should read it sometime, he maintains that he WOULD read
 if only he could get a free copy somewhere.  He also claims that he
 is no longer in high school.  (Expelled for being a curmudgeon, Jack?
 :-0  ;-)

 Jack, I can't send you MY copy of Papazian because I use it all the
 time for
 the information in the tables and recipes.  Also, I'll be honest and
 say that I'm not inclined to pony up for the postage to mail it to
 Chicago.
 Try the library for a free copy or ask somebody in your area brewclub
 to
 lend it to you.  I'm sure that most of the people there have a copy.

 [BTW, for those of you that have been paying attention:  How can Jack
 know
 that Papazian dropped the ball in his Mashing Chapter if he hasn't read
 the book yet?  Makes you wonder, doesn't it?]

		     ****************************
And now, gentle reader, I will give you MY thoughts on why so many
people
use the cooler method for mashing:

People who mash in picnic coolers THINK that this method is easier than
Step Infusion Mashing in a kettle on the stove.  There's no need to
monitor temperatures for an hour or so, no danger of scortched grains
on the bottom of the kettle...  Admittedly, there's less control, too,
but there are always trade offs.  [Note:  I have not mentioned sparging
AT ALL.  This was intentional.]

Whether or not this method really IS easier than Step Infusion Mashing
is left as an exercise for the reader.

Phil

Postscript:

Upon rereading this post, I realize that I'm dangerously close to
flaming here.  In order to curtail any more wasted bandwidth (and
I realize that I'm as guilt as the next guy, nay, more guilty) this
post represents the last word I have to say on this matter.