Oven sterilization of whole grains log....
Posted 14 January 2006 - 12:01 PM
1. To heat excessively; overheat.
without raising the veriable of pressure this cant be done to liquid water, only vapor
2. To heat (steam or other vapor not in contact with its own liquid) beyond its saturation point at a given pressure.
correct, but keep in mind we are in the framework reference of 1 atmosphere
3. To heat (a liquid) above its boiling point without causing vaporization.
elevated pressure is required to do this to water
1. heat liquid without vaporization: to heat a liquid above its pressure-related boiling point without causing it to vaporize
again at elevated pressure
From the Oxford dictionary on-line:
1 heat (a liquid) under pressure above its boiling point without vaporization. 2 heat (steam or other vapour) above the temperature of the liquid from which it was formed.
again pressure must be elevated
You can superheat ANY solid/liquid by heating it under pressure.
your own quote.....^^
(sometimes – superheating water is much easier/more reliable than supercooling it).
the correct term is sub cooling, and ya water doesnt do this well as it solidifies with only a small amount of sub cooling.
There are really not very many “rules” in physics which apply 100% to every possible condition.
again we arent talking about altered conditions
All of the examples you site do not relate to what we are talking about
I know that physical properties can be manipulated but we for the purpose of this discussion we are referring to pure water at sea level atmospheric pressure.
and the microwave thing, ya didnt even catch the humor, theres no microwave energy remaining after the power is turned off, well heres whats realy happening.......
Lets set up some ground work
on a stove a pot of water heats from the bottom up. It is 212 f at the bottom where the flame hits the pot and it is cooler on top, it boils from the bottom
a pot of tomatoe sauce ( read as heavily contaminated water ) boils and makes a mess of your stove long before any of it ever gets near 212f.
read as: Contaminated water has a lower boiling point.
a microwave heats the entire body of water in the glass at relitivly the same rate and it will reach 212f from top to bottom without stratification and when the wave gets turned off and the glass of water is removed it is still at 211ish deg. When the spoonful of coffee is dropped in, boiling that should have happened slowly over the course of a few minutes happens in a few milliseconds.
If you notice the guy puts not only a spoon in the glass, we puts in some of what apeared to be instant coffee thus contaminating the water, dropping its boiling point to well below the actual temp of the water and it all boils at once with the appearance of an explosion. tea bags do it for me.
I dont mean to be so picky or start a pissing contest either, but ya need to stay in the frame of reference that the rest of us are talking about
HI laz this is a great thread !!peace
Posted 14 January 2006 - 08:49 PM
That said, I’ve got to trounce one more time…
Firstly, supercooling and subcooling are interchangeable terms. Another equivalent term is undercooling. Scientists argue quite heatedly over specifically what super-, sub- and under- mean when qualifying certain terms. Supercooling is the “preferred” (read: used more often) nomenclature in thermodynamics. Supercooling is also the preferred term of meterologists. Subcooling, however, is preferred in the refrigerant and HVAC industries. In Europe, the preferred term is undercooling, no matter what industry you are in. Go figure. They also spell color and vapor with a “u” in Europe. Point is, these terms all mean the same thing: dropping a compound below it’s established state change temperature without it having changed states. But that is a digression and really IS nit-picking.
Anticheffy, you make the statement that “contaminated water has a lower boiling point.” This is not generally the case. Generally speaking, solutions have higher boiling points (and lower freezing points) than the pure solvent involved. There are, in fact, so few exceptions to this “rule” that, in thermodynamics, it is referred to as Raoult’s Law.
Raoult’s Law (I HATE laws) states P=Po*X, where P is the vapor pressure of a solution, Po is the vapor pressure of the pure solvent and X is the molar fraction of the solution involved.
In a nutshell, adding instant coffee to the cup of water elevates it’s boiling point, it does not depress it.
This phenomenon is commonly known as boiling point elevation/freezing point depression. This is why we salt icy roads: salt water freezes at a lower temperature than pure water. This is why Rodger said, “nobody is suggesting the hydration of grains with salt or ethylene glycol.” I had implied using a solution to increase boiling point. Two common solutes which change boiling point are salt and ethylene glycol (antifreeze).
Generally speaking, “impure” water has a higher boiling point than “pure” water. The degree of variance is based on the percentage of solute involved.
That said, please take another brief look at the video captures on:
Even if a change of boiling point was the cause, nothing is added to these containers to cause such a change. Yet the violent release of a few liters of steam in a few milliseconds still happens. Since the water is unadulterated, how do you explain that sudden (and spontaneous) release of energy? If the water wasn’t superheated (i.e. if it hadn’t built up heat above it’s boiling point) where did all that energy come from?
But still, a boiling point change after the fact does not explain how you can prevent this phenomenon by putting a chopstick (or, for that matter, boiling chips) in the solution before heating. Boiling point elevation also does not explain why shaking/tapping a jar of superheated water can cause the same effects. It is not boiling point elevation which makes the addition of coffee cause the explosion, it is the addition of nucleation sites to superheated water.
As to water not subcooling/supercooling/undercooling very efficiently, I pointed that out specifically in my post. Please realize, however, that a lack of efficiency does not imply an impossibility. It’s more difficult to demonstrate supercooled water in the kitchen laboratory, but by no means impossible.
As to the humor of your “microwave energy…that hasn’t converted” comment… Dude, I don’t know you well enough to recognize sarcasm. I just kind of ignored that part of your post, ‘cause I read it as nonsensical. I’m not trying to be a grammar dick, but when you spell phenomenon with an “f” and catalyzes without a “y,” it becomes kind of hard for me to spot sarcasm of concept in your post.
My first post on superheating was motivated by one thing. That was Rodger saying:
[quote name='Rodger']The laws of physics show that water can not exist in a liquid state at a temperature above 100C without being subjected to pressure. If anyone can show otherwise, I'm all ears. RR[/quote]
Personally, I despise “laws” in any form, but most especially in the sciences. I simply don’t buy any law which can’t embrace/explain exceptions. I believe that “laws” are actually very destructive to the valuable science of creative innovation.
Also, my experiences with psychedelics over the years has taught me a number of things. At first, what they taught me could best be expressed by the bumper sticker “Question Authority.” At this point, however, what they have taught me is best expressed by the bumper sticker “Question Reality.”
Being as I’m someone who really digs on realizing bizarre exceptions to “rules,” I began this superheating discussion. My primary intention was showing Rodger something weird that he didn’t already dig on (i.e. that heating distilled water in a microwave can push it’s ambient temperature above the “hard rule of physics” boiling point we are all so familiar with).
I KNOW this phenomenon has no relevance to sterilizing grain. I KNOW that I’m way outside the frame of this thread. I have, myself, mentioned these points numerous times.
Rodger said “if anyone can show otherwise” so I posted, ‘cause I could show otherwise. I only continued the discussion after that because Rodger said:
[quote name='Rodger']Prove it.[/quote]
Personally, I can’t ignore anybody who asks me to explain/prove something which I believe to be true. Call me a geek, but I LIVE for shit like that. Transferring bits of knowledge gets me off in a major way. The more obscure/bizarre the bits, the better.
I quoted all those web definitions of superheating because you said:
[quote name='anticheffy']deffinition of Superheat =
Heat added to a substance in the vapor state that raises its temperature.[quote]
That’s simply not a complete definition of superheating. Solids and liquids can be superheated, not just substances in the vapor phase. ANYTHING which can conduct energy can be superheated, regardless of it’s current phase. It’s about as common as cold fusion, but laboratory documentation of superheated ice does exist.
You also said:
[quote name='anticheffy']you can not superheat a saturated substance
Saturated = liquid and vapor existing in the same contained ie: microwave[quote]
By that definition, superheating would seem to be impossible. Unless you are processing your water under hard vacuum with high end desiccants, how are you going to avoid some ambient water vapor in your container? Any container which has water and air in it is also going to have some water vapor present as a result of evaporation. I remind you that if you were using a hard vacuum, the water would evaporate and produce vapor even faster. In fact, it would boil at room temperature and very quickly fill your Bell jar with a critical mass of steam.
Now, Rodger has said:
[quote name='Rodger']You are correct. The microwave thing is an exception. That is not however, as you noted what is happening in the jars of grain.[/quote]
Which is really very gratious/cool of him to say and to me, is like music to my ears. I actually showed the incomparable Mr. Rabbit something interesting! The fact that I know something (hell, anything) that a guy who can fruit a bible doesn’t know makes me pretty happy. Hopefully, he’ll use this info to needle a small minded thermodynamics purist at some point in the future. If not, oh well, at least I’ve added to his knowledge of bizarre exceptions.
By the way, I see this as a very stimulating discussion, not a pissing contest. I said that to Rodger to clarify my feelings/intentions and (hopefully) not piss him off. I don’t know him, I respect him and I wanted to tread lightly while still making my point (I’d cut off my whole head to spite my face). I’m saying the same to you and I hope you (also) are not pissed off. Stimulating discussions like this are one of the high points of my personal existence. I hope you feel the same way.
Love that friggin’ avatar, by the way. It’s so disturbingly peculiar…
Posted 15 January 2006 - 04:18 AM
Posted 15 January 2006 - 09:54 AM
You get a 25litre PP container which can take heat, put a heating element in it, one that screws in. Now fill it with RGS, now pour in excess water and boil it up, IME RGS floats so the element should only be in contact with water. Do this over a few days to fractionally sterlize it, the cap should be fitted with a filter and put in place. You would now need to drain the excess water off, a syringe needle could be inserted in the bottom and the water should eventually fall out. I am not certain but the water content may be too much, the container could be put on a heating mat to drive some moisture off, or it could be put in a black sack with damprid. Weigh the container and the grain separately so you can calculate the moisture content.
This would be ideal for sclerotia.
Lazlo- weigh the jars and grain to determine moisture content.
Posted 19 January 2006 - 02:04 PM
I'm really mad. I think this is looking very good IMHO. The damn strain is taking an eternity to go. The seed looks great and no signs of contamination at all.....
Posted 19 January 2006 - 02:07 PM
I'm doing some new ones in the morning with a fresh Redboy culture. I'll be dead and dust by time these finish.....
Posted 19 January 2006 - 09:37 PM
What temp are you using for incubation?
Posted 19 January 2006 - 10:28 PM
Well, my patience is starting to run thin. I'll give this a try with the Redboy culture that's nice and new to see if it's worth proceeding. 15 days and no contamination is a good start I guess. 30 days for completion would be nice if it indeed happens to colonize easily. I only used 2.5mills per jar so I could have a good time line to go by for being sound. If I knew it was going to be this slow, I would've used 500mills per jar. lol!
Posted 19 January 2006 - 10:40 PM
If you had used a hot culture, and it had spoiled, you would be beating yourself up for wasting it.
Cut yourself some slack and smoke a fattie, man!
Posted 20 January 2006 - 01:34 AM
You're not being rough. I went in to this fully knowing i'd have my hands full with negetivity. If I didn't want opinions, I would do it at home without posting anything until it was dead on. No worriers man, I understand. I just think if we @ Mycotopia can be the first to provide a sound technique for sterilizing grains without a pressure cooker, this will put us even further in front of any community on the web than we already are. lol! Now i'm juiced again thanks to Sev and Buck. I Will win this battle now that i've been rejuvinated a bit.....Gauranteed my friends and foes......Whether you like it or not. I will get this down to a tee, even if it takes another bag of seed....
I don’t know about this idea . it doesn’t seem very sound . the fact is you could probly soak grain over night add some lime and super spawn it via a g2g type and as long as the mushroom mycelium takes hold first and faster you could get a full col. without contams 50% of the time maybe more. some of the oysters I’ve worked with where so fast and strong that they col. uncut straw that was lime soaked for 12 hr only . TMC has a small section in the book about non heat pasteurizing methods for fruiting substrates. This might work a couple times BUT a good cultivator wont accept above a 10% contams rate. if there is more then 10% then one must go threw every step and check to see what vectors are causing the contams ,and I have a feeling this tek would have a much higher rate then 10% if duplicated in others labs. If your looking for the easy ways and cutting corners then you might think about outdoors natural culture methods. These seem better simply because nature is much more forgiving then the lab. Just my 7 cents . I must note that you didn’t say that it was a tek others should fallow just that it was an experiment you where trying . that’s really cool . I guess I might be being a little ruff simply because ive been seeing so many bad ideas at other boards that are being past off as the next big idea . When in fact there a recipe for disaster . The mods here are very good at stopping that in its tracks here. so its not a issue here . but some of the other boards are really bad about what they let folks post as fact.
Posted 20 January 2006 - 02:09 AM
Posted 20 January 2006 - 01:28 PM
I really should avoid posting when drunk..
Amen to that, brother! And I don't mean you, I mean me. I've done the "alligator mouth overloads jaybird ass" thing just a few times when I do a PUI (post under the influence).
Posted 20 January 2006 - 02:59 PM
Posted 11 February 2006 - 10:12 AM
make the assumption
that the LC is to blame,
the growth would also
be extremely slow
if your attempt at sterilization
was a miserable failure
and bacteria now rule
inside your jars.
Posted 11 February 2006 - 11:53 AM
Posted 12 February 2006 - 09:18 AM
that shows the LC to be clean and viable.
the problem must be the grain jars themselves.
Posted 10 March 2006 - 06:30 PM
Posted 10 March 2006 - 07:43 PM
I totally forgot about this project. It's not sound at all, so don't try it. I'll try some new attempts to see if I can get it right.
Posted 10 March 2006 - 09:09 PM
Got filled up with alot of useless information (for THIS project) IMHO.
It consisted of an oven, grains, and water right? I think suggestions that could be directly used/related to this project would have been better use of the space here rather than battling over some topics that could not be applied.
Just my two cents.