The effects of cold crashing on priming sugar needs - Page 2 - Home Brew Forums

 Home Brew Forums > The effects of cold crashing on priming sugar needs

08-31-2009, 01:31 PM   #11
Revvy
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

Recipes

Dec 2007
"Detroitish" Michigan
Posts: 40,938
Liked 3212 Times on 1896 Posts

I went to the horse's mouth...I knew you guys are all over complicatining things still...It occurred to me, that since I use Beersmith to figure it out, I should look at the beersmith help for THEIR definition of "Beer Temp."

AND I WAS RIGHT, Y'ALL!!!!! And I betcha if we emailed, Palmer, and asked him directly what HE means, he would say the same thing.

So here it is DIRECTLY from the instructions on my beersmith software.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Beersmith Beer Temp - The temperature of the beer. For bottled beers, this is the temperature at bottling (usually room temperature). For kegged beers, this is the temperature at which the beer will be force carbonated, which may be either room temperature or refrigerator temperature depending on your keg setup.
Not at fermentation, not at the highest temp, not at the coldest temp, not at the conjunction of the planets.....At the time I sit down and bottle!

FTW!

So, if you crash cool it and don't let it warm back up, then all you need to do is take a temp reading of the beer and calculate the amount of sugar (usually lesser) for the cold beer.

So going back to Palmer's Nomograph

Quote:
 Figure 65- Nomograph for determining more precise amounts of priming sugar. To use the nomograph, draw a line from the temperature of your beer through the Volumes of CO2 that you want, to the scale for sugar. The intersection of your line and the sugar scale gives the weight of either corn or cane sugar in ounces to be added to five gallons of beer to achieve the desired carbonation level.
For example, if if I crashed cooled and just took it out and my beer is NOW at 35 degrees, and I want 2.5 volumes of co2, Palmer says I need about 2 ounces of priming sugar.

On the other hand my 70 degree beer needs 4 ounces of sugar to get to 2.5 volumes.
__________________
Like my snazzy new avatar? Get Sons of Zymurgy swag, here, and brew with the best.

Revvy's one of the cool reverends. He has a Harley and a t-shirt that says on the back "If you can read this, the bitch was Raptured. - Madman

I gotta tell ya, just between us girls, that Revvy is HOT. Very tall, gorgeous grey hair and a terrific smile. He's very good looking in person, with a charismatic personality... he drives like a ****ing maniac! - YooperBrew

08-31-2009, 02:03 PM   #12
JLem

Recipes

Jan 2009
Attleboro, MA
Posts: 3,637
Liked 179 Times on 155 Posts

Revvy - I don't think we overcomplicated things, but rather Palmer and BeerSmith simplified things. If you crash cool to 35 degrees and bottle at 35 degrees, but your beer was at one point 70 degrees, you will not have as much CO2 in the beer as you think (CO2 will come out of solution at the higher temp and not go back into solution at the lower temp, unless there is still fermentation and/or you pressurize the beer). I imagine that Palmer and BeerSmith simplify it because that covers 99% of the bottling situations. I'm a relative newb, but how often is bottling done at a temp lower than room temp (which typically will be as warm as the beer has gotten)? And as far as kegging goes, I have no experience with this, so my statements apply only to bottle conditioning.
__________________
My Hombrewing Blog

My Beer Cellar

08-31-2009, 02:11 PM   #13
Revvy
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

Recipes

Dec 2007
"Detroitish" Michigan
Posts: 40,938
Liked 3212 Times on 1896 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by JLem Revvy - I don't think we overcomplicated things, but rather Palmer and BeerSmith simplified things. If you crash cool to 35 degrees and bottle at 35 degrees, but your beer was at one point 70 degrees, you will not have as much CO2 in the beer as you think (CO2 will come out of solution at the higher temp and not go back into solution at the lower temp, unless there is still fermentation and/or you pressurize the beer). I imagine that Palmer and BeerSmith simplify it because that covers 99% of the bottling situations. I'm a relative newb, but how often is bottling done at a temp lower than room temp (which typically will be as warm as the beer has gotten)?
BUT it verifies my initial statement/discussion with my esteemed collegue from the great state of New Jersey, the honorable (but wrong ) AnOldUR, as to what Beersmith or Palmer (we assume) meant.....And that's all I care about. I was doing it right, I was understanding it right, and when I advise people as to what to do, I will still be correct.

99% of the situations are good enough for me....If joe brewer brings his beer out of crash cooling and wants to bottle immediately without warming it up, he takes the temp of the beer at that moment and uses THAT NUMBER to calculate the amount of sugar. It doesn't matter that the beer was at 70 three weeks ago, or 2 days ago, if the beer is cold right now, they you use the amount of the sugar as per beersmith or the nomograph...if you let the beer warm up over night, you still take the temp AT THAT MOMENT, and use THAT TEMP for your sugar calculation...It IS that simple.
__________________
Like my snazzy new avatar? Get Sons of Zymurgy swag, here, and brew with the best.

Revvy's one of the cool reverends. He has a Harley and a t-shirt that says on the back "If you can read this, the bitch was Raptured. - Madman

I gotta tell ya, just between us girls, that Revvy is HOT. Very tall, gorgeous grey hair and a terrific smile. He's very good looking in person, with a charismatic personality... he drives like a ****ing maniac! - YooperBrew

08-31-2009, 02:41 PM   #14
AnOldUR
fer-men-TAY-shuhn

Recipes

Mar 2007
, New Jersey
Posts: 6,888
Liked 848 Times on 612 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Revvy I really don't care, my friend, if people think that Palmer or Brad of Beersmith is wrong...I only care that my interpretation of it is correct. Like I said earlier, it's worked for me, no undercarbed or bottle bombs.
Palmer and Brad's writings are not wrong just incomplete. It is your blindly following your interpretation and then using it as fact to fit you argument that is wrong. I suspect that their information was written before cold crashing became a popular technique, so it was left out of consideration.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Revvy AND I WAS RIGHT, Y'ALL!!!!! FTW!
I'm not here pounding my chest that my position is correct. It may not be. All you've done is produced quotes that contain no supporting data. This topic was brought to the science forum in search of fact based answers and I'm still hoping that will come.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Revvy the honorable (but wrong ) AnOldUR.

08-31-2009, 02:49 PM   #15
Revvy
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

Recipes

Dec 2007
"Detroitish" Michigan
Posts: 40,938
Liked 3212 Times on 1896 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by AnOldUR I'm not here pounding my chest that my position is correct. It may not be. All you've done is produced quotes that contain no supporting data. This topic was brought to the science forum in search of fact based answers and I'm still hoping that will come.
I think you are taking this way too freaking serious. I thought this was a friendly discussion between us right from the beginning, hence my calling you my ESTEEMED collegue And friendly jibbing....

And again, my original question as to how beersmith/Palmer's use of the word "Beer Temp" in those calculations is meant BY the people who came up with them...has been answered. Whether anyone thinks it is VALID or not is irrevelant to my initial point.

And has anyone ACTUALLY calculated "THEIR WAY" of doing things, and seen whether or not it comes out to be the same as these calculations????

Conroe in the other thread mentioned BYO's calculations....

http://www.byo.com/resources/carbonation

Like I said, I am not a scientist, and math makes me nauseous....so I am not going to run the numbers...and I really don't care if they match or not, because obviously there is more than one way to skin a cat in this...Perhaps just like there are different scales for IBU's Rager, Tinsteh, etc...there are more than one way to calculate carbonation...OR maybe Palmer/Beersmith took your way do doing things (figuring in excess co2) and came up with their calculators...and the numbers ultimately are close enough for government work.

My initial post in the other thread, and followed up in here, was that according to my interpretation of Palmer/Beersmith was what was THEIR intent in their use of the word beer temp...Well according the "definition of terms" in the beersmith helper document THAT IS WHAT BEERSMITH MEANS.

I don't know about Palmer, but if I can find his email addy I intend to ask him what he meant.
__________________
Like my snazzy new avatar? Get Sons of Zymurgy swag, here, and brew with the best.

Revvy's one of the cool reverends. He has a Harley and a t-shirt that says on the back "If you can read this, the bitch was Raptured. - Madman

I gotta tell ya, just between us girls, that Revvy is HOT. Very tall, gorgeous grey hair and a terrific smile. He's very good looking in person, with a charismatic personality... he drives like a ****ing maniac! - YooperBrew

08-31-2009, 03:02 PM   #16
AnOldUR
fer-men-TAY-shuhn

Recipes

Mar 2007
, New Jersey
Posts: 6,888
Liked 848 Times on 612 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Revvy I think you are taking this way too freaking serious.
Isn't that what the science forum is for?

You've buried this and the other thread in enough of your ego to make it impossible to read and all but useless.

Thank you for that.

3
People Like This
08-31-2009, 06:11 PM   #17
z987k

Recipes

Feb 2007
Anchorage
Posts: 3,518
Liked 30 Times on 28 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Revvy I think you are taking this way too freaking serious. I thought this was a friendly discussion between us right from the beginning, hence my calling you my ESTEEMED collegue And friendly jibbing.... And again, my original question as to how beersmith/Palmer's use of the word "Beer Temp" in those calculations is meant BY the people who came up with them...has been answered. Whether anyone thinks it is VALID or not is irrevelant to my initial point. And has anyone ACTUALLY calculated "THEIR WAY" of doing things, and seen whether or not it comes out to be the same as these calculations???? Conroe in the other thread mentioned BYO's calculations.... Brew Your Own: The How-To Homebrew Beer Magazine - Carbonation Priming Chart Like I said, I am not a scientist, and math makes me nauseous....so I am not going to run the numbers...and I really don't care if they match or not, because obviously there is more than one way to skin a cat in this...Perhaps just like there are different scales for IBU's Rager, Tinsteh, etc...there are more than one way to calculate carbonation...OR maybe Palmer/Beersmith took your way do doing things (figuring in excess co2) and came up with their calculators...and the numbers ultimately are close enough for government work. My initial post in the other thread, and followed up in here, was that according to my interpretation of Palmer/Beersmith was what was THEIR intent in their use of the word beer temp...Well according the "definition of terms" in the beersmith helper document THAT IS WHAT BEERSMITH MEANS. I don't know about Palmer, but if I can find his email addy I intend to ask him what he meant.
I'm sure you are right as to what Palmer and Beersmith are getting at because most people do not crash cool their beer, and it was probably even less likely when Palmer wrote his book. However the fact remains that if fermentation is complete and you crash cool, you will not magically get co2 from absolutely nowhere to dissolve into solution. That is physics and it's rather simple, with not much need for math, it's more of a concept.

So in 99% of the cases... which I don't think is accurate, because 1 case is where the simplified way palmer puts forth does not account for cooling of the beer, and that is not 1% of the time.

Since we are in the science forum, I'm going to continue to argue my point, and I know I am right on this, barring some property of water to retain co2 beyond it's normal ability that I don't know about. If this was in general techniques or such, the real answer is what you said "good enough for government work" so who the hell cares. I mean in reality we're only talking about .4 volumes difference at the most.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by AnOldUR Isn't that what the science forum is for? You've buried this and the other thread in enough of your ego to make it impossible to read and all but useless. Thank you for that.
Come on now, can't we get along. Our Esteemed Colleague Revvy is trying to argue a point that I think he really believes, and it's up to us to show him that he's wrong, not belittle him. Besides I agree with him on 99% of things anyways.
Nice to disagree once in awhile....but in the science forum, facts must prevail, it's not only about well in reality they both work and it doesn't matter.(which again is the case here.)

08-31-2009, 06:29 PM   #18
conpewter

Recipes

Nov 2007
East Dundee, Illinois
Posts: 5,109
Liked 54 Times on 49 Posts

I wonder if this would need to take into account the headspace filled with Co2. So if I have beer at 70* with a certain headspace sitting at 1 atm, then move it to the fridge at 40* at 1 atm then it should absorb Co2 (slowly) from the headspace while pulling in air through the airlock (after sucking the water/sanitizer/vodka in). So if I have a huge headspace it should equalize out to having the amount of Co2 in solution that you would expect at 40*, if there was not enough headspace or time, then you'll have less Co2 in solution than you would calculate.
__________________
"People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people." - V

Primary: Nothin
Kegged: Crappy infected mild
Bottles: Apfelwein, 999 Barleywine, Oatmeal Stout, Robust Porter, Robust smoked porter, Simcoe Smash

08-31-2009, 06:42 PM   #19
z987k

Recipes

Feb 2007
Anchorage
Posts: 3,518
Liked 30 Times on 28 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by conpewter I wonder if this would need to take into account the headspace filled with Co2. So if I have beer at 70* with a certain headspace sitting at 1 atm, then move it to the fridge at 40* at 1 atm then it should absorb Co2 (slowly) from the headspace while pulling in air through the airlock (after sucking the water/sanitizer/vodka in). So if I have a huge headspace it should equalize out to having the amount of Co2 in solution that you would expect at 40*, if there was not enough headspace or time, then you'll have less Co2 in solution than you would calculate.
That is true as long as it sucks in some air past the airlock to make up for the loss in headspace. Otherwise it would create a negative pressure in the haedspace, which throws in the pressure back into our good friend pvnrt as it's no longer 0psi/1atm.

08-31-2009, 07:32 PM   #20
AnOldUR
fer-men-TAY-shuhn

Recipes

Mar 2007
, New Jersey
Posts: 6,888
Liked 848 Times on 612 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by z987k That is true as long as it sucks in some air past the airlock to make up for the loss in headspace.
And at that point you're sucking in air, not CO2. The existing CO2 would blanket the surface, but the question is, is that nearly enough to make any difference or do you need a constant supply of pure CO2 at a constant pressure (even if that pressure is zero, so long as it's not negative) until the saturation point for that temperature has been reached?

Quote:
 Originally Posted by z987k Come on now, can't we get along. Our Esteemed Colleague Revvy is trying to argue a point that I think he really believes
You are correct and I apologize for that. But you have to admit that Revvy's long and multiple posts dominate a thread to the extent that very few would have the patience to follow through to the end.