Toadfish Monastery

I used to be a huge fan of the "Swiss Army" knife variety-- usually Victorinox brand, and one with 30 or 40 different functions or so.  But when I started doing A/C work, I found those were just not robust enough for what I was asking it to do.

I switched to Leatherman-brand multi-tool, knife, pliers, saw, etc.  But again, they just wouldn't hold up to daily, hard use-- I kept breaking them.  And at $60-80 a pop, that got expensive, so I gave up on the multitool entirely.

I carried a reasonably high quality folding lock-back knife for quite a while-- 6" to 8" blade, and I liked it. But I increasingly found myself reluctant to use it for fear of chipping the blade, requiring hours on the honing stone to get back to a good edge, and even if I was careful about how I used it, it still was more dull than sharp, most of the time...

... so I finally settled on the current incarnation:  the folding, lock-back "box knife".  It needs no tools to changeout the blade, it uses standard "box knife" refills, and each blade has double-duty as only 1/2 is exposed at a time.  It has a robust aluminum handle, with a steel blade-holding section.  A small easy to get-at latch hold the blade in place-- easy to change, but not so easy that you'd accidentally release the blade.    If it had a spare storage-space?  I'd be perfect-- it's even red, making it easy to spot if laid down or dropped. 

I don't care for the sliding varieties, even the ones that lock in place-- they are too long in the storage-mode, and typically require a tool to change the blade.  Although they almost always have a space for spares. 

Since I'm never out in the bush?  I don't really need anything all that large for protection.  That's a plus and maybe a minus too...  

I've always been very happy with my Stanley Knife, but then I am possibly less ambitious.

I've got a mini- and a full-size version of Bob's, which is in effect a folding Stanley knife.  Trouble is, the blades are so brittle.

Haven't had a problem with brittle-ness. I like the different blades.

Yeah-- brittle blades was my bane too.

After I chipped the edge on yet another high-quality folding lock-back, I switched over to my current one.  I had a blue one for about 6 months which I liked well enough, then I found my latest in red (it came in a variety of colors).  The blue one I still have, as a backup (in fact, I have a spare one identical to it in the original packaging-- a sale), but it's blade changing mechanism is a bit awkward to do, and sometimes comes unlatched in my pocket-- not a big deal, as it's folded up, preventing the blade from actually falling out and cutting my fingers.  But when it came unlatched, pulling the knife and opening it, the blade then falls out-- a minor annoyance, unless I'm up on the top of a ladder-- then it's a major pain.  But that was rare enough.

Found the red one, though, it uses a little push-button to release the blade-- and it's recessed when folded, so accidental releases hasn't happened.

I suppose I ought to pick up a 2nd one-- I've learned that having backup tools is not only a good idea, it's essential in my line of work. 

Oh, looky!  A linky to Amazon, with the knife in question-- Husky Utility Knife.  Woah!  $20 bucks?

I paid $8 at the local home improvement store.... that is some markup!    Just goes to show, you gotta know your prices on stuff you get everyday.

Thing is, Griffin, the hard, brittle Stanley blades are ideal for what they're meant for - cutting - but I also want a penknife for levering and digging stuff out and other such actions which will snap a Stanley blade every time.

A month ago we arrived in our hotel room to find a complimentary bottle of wine.  But no corkscrew.  My small, sharp-bladed penknife dug most of the cork out, then I was able to push the rest into the bottle.

Oh see what you mean. Never use my knife for digging. I have other digging instruments. I also have a tiny penknife which is mother of pearl fascia and about 2 cm long, with small but essential features. Very ladylike.

I do carry a camping tool in my notebook bag (the one that houses my Kindle-replacement gadget).  It comes apart into two halves, one a spoon & knife, the other a fork.  There are also a corkscrew, an awl, a "pipe scraper" (don't know what I'd do with it) and a bottle/can opener.  

I mostly use the fork, as I loathe plastic dinnerware.  Occasionally, the spoon too.  And once in awhile, I want to split my sandwich in half, and out comes the knife-- since I use it only for such things, it remains quite sharp.  I've also used it at the Bar-B-Q places to dice up the inevitable raw onion rings they put on the plate as garnish-- I love raw onion, but rather prefer it diced than sliced or in rings.

That handy gadget fits together into a nice folded-up package and slips neatly in the accessory pocket of my notebook case.   And I'm always bringing it along, so I have something to read while eating.

Here it is http://www.usefulthings.com/shop/travel/classic-camping-tool.php


(more pictures at the link)

Here's one from Amazon

Quote from: Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith on October 11, 2012, 10:38:02 PM
Since I'm never out in the bush?  I don't really need anything all that large for protection.  That's a plus and maybe a minus too...  

Plus, you're Amrikan, so I suppose a firearm is de rigeur for protection.  A hatchet is certainly a last line of defense (I also often pack an air horn and pepper spray), but it comes in handy for other tasks, like cutting down small trees to create bridges over waterways, and it fits nicely on my belt without getting in the way. I used to carry just the lightweight hunting knife, until I got up close with a non-aggressive bear a couple of years ago. The ruff of fur on that bruin's neck convinced me that I would not be able to do much with just a knife in an emergency situation.  I prefer a small lightweight dozuki for cutting firewood as it's more efficient for bucking smallish trees, but don't typically pack one unless I'm camping.  

With regards to multi-tools, my Leatherman Juice has held up well enough for what I've used it for, but I don't put too much stress on it.

As for eating implements?  Spoons are a little difficult to carve without a gouge, but I've managed well enough for thicker foods like oatmeal.  Chopsticks are extremely easy to devise with a pocketknife, provided there are some suitable trees or bushes around.  I prefer them over forks for many foods.

======

What, approximately, is the maximum concentration of sugar that yeast will tolerate?

What I'm actually after is how much sugar, added to a fermentation, will kill off the yeast and stop the fermentation.

I think that is highly dependent on the yeast and different strains have been developed deliberately with that question in mind.
Google yields almost three million hits for 'sugar tolerance of yeast' lots of them referring to papers describing differrent varieties of yeast under that aspect and some at the top on the topic of their application.

Hard to say, it's spontaneous fermentation by wild yeasts from grapes in the backyard.  I'm making grape liqueur (which has been fermenting in the bottle), so I'm planning to add large amounts of sugar. What I need to know is whether a given amount will keep bubbling (undesired) or knock the yeast out of any shape to ferment.

I suppose any fermentation at this point would just up the alcohol level to the point that the booze would kill the yeast. I'm surprised it's below those levels now; I started with vodka and added grapes. Obviously, it pulled out enough grape juice to reduce the alcohol levels significantly (I subsequently mashed in the grapes and then strained off the liquid).

As I recall, roughly 12% is the level of fatal alcohol-- fatal to yeast, obviously-- as that is the rough alcohol level of most wines.   Obviously, it varies a bit from yeast to yeast, and with beer as well.

As for sugar concentration?  You could take a small sample (half an ounce or so) and double the current concentration and see what happens.   And a 2nd sample, with redoubled.

Of course, to be truly scientific, you really need a way to measure the sugar concentration in any given sample, as your bottle is large enough to permit local variations in the liquid's content.  And without active stirring or agitation, higher concentrations would settle to the bottom (more dense) and alcohol, being the lightest least dense would tend to rise to the top.

And no, I don't know how to do that easily-- but a hygrometer might work, since you are dealing with a few chemicals here, apart from the multitude of trace elements, which affect flavor, but not overall chemistry.

I was watching several "how it's made" shows last night (eye candy more than anything else), and distillers frequently used a hygrometer to measure alcohol content.  I also seem to recall, it's also used to measure salinity in fish tanks?  I think this is true.  So, if it can measure salt concentration, it should work just as well with sugars I would think.

Of course, the problem here is that the word "sugar" covers a very large range of organic chemicals ....    And a lot depends on which one(s) you started with, and how "pure" it was, and so forth.   I seem to recall reading starches are basically two or more sugars bonded together?  (hydrogen bonding?  I forget...been years and years)  And that some sugars are really two simpler sugars bonded together and... well I remember it's complicated.   

I would imagine, however, that there exists test papers that would permit you to quickly, and accurately measure the sugar concentration, by extracting a drop of liquid and depositing it onto said paper.  I know that sugar concentration is an important step in many-many food processing procedures.  So much so, I would be totally surprised if there were not a simple and quick test for it somewhere or other.  It's just too obvious, not to have been made by someone or other.

Of course, you could utilize a classic, pre-scientific test:  the good old human tongue, and taste it.  We humans are pretty good at determining the concentrations of sugars in liquid, provided you are speaking of actual, natural sugars and not some artificial thing.      

And in the end?  A taste-test would help you decide if it's what you were wanting anyway.  Right? 

_{(sometimes we silly humans can over-think a thing, when a simple solution is both obvious and more than good enough... heh)}

Taste is not the issue (sugar to taste is easy to do); it's more that I don't want the bottle exploding.

Boosting the sugar right now would allow any last-minute fermentation to happen; once the yeast have their final run at it, the increased alcohol concentration (some strains can take up to 20%) should do them in. I'd prefer to just dehydrate them outright with sugar.  I'd be better to rack it first, I suppose, to get out any residual yeast carcasses.  It's pretty murky at the moment.

As for bursting?  There are any number of classic ways to "seal" a bottle but still permit pressure to escape.  One of the better ones, I always thought, was the S-bend tube, with a small bit of water/liquid trap-- bubbles can creep through the water-trap in the S-bend, but air/contaminants cannot return.

Another classic is a simple plug of cotton batting-- lets it breathe, but filters out dust particles.

I suspect you can easily get the S-trap from your homebrew supply company-- a nice glass one, with a proper cork stopper for the bottle end.  Or you could "roll your own" with 1/4" copper tubing (copper is reasonably inert for this purpose)  Of course, you cannot see if there is liquid in the trap, rather a downside I'd think.

Lastly, polyethylene or polypropylene tubing is both cheap and inert-- but you'd need to wrap it with stiff wire to make it hold it's S-bend shape.  But you could see through it enough to be sure there's liquid in the trap.

Vinyl tubing is also cheap, but I think vinyl can leave aftertaste behind-- I'm not fond of it where food is concerned (not an issue with the poly's above or glass or copper, for that matter).



Finally?  A very tight-weave fabric stopper would work too-- roll a strip tightly until it's large enough to stuff into the neck (for example).   Or even a wad of nylon stockings--washed first, of course.