Revvy, you're awesome for the amount of time you take to give responses on here.
You keep referring to the the foaming aspect of premature aging, but I think the piece that your responses aren't addressing is the fact that there is a TON of CO2 in suspension in the beer. It sounds like OPs situation and mine are the same in that we quick chilled the beer and found the beer to be ridiculously carbonated. I also used 3/4 priming sugar added to bottling bucket and then racked beer over the sugar and let the swirling of the siphon mix the solution.
If it is going to be OK in another couple weeks that's fine, but now I'm just curious why there is so much CO2 in the beer. Does flash chilling the beer change the chemistry of the beer in a way that makes the CO2 effervesce more? Like the OP, my beer was alka seltzer like. I agree it needs more time in the bottle; I'm just curious why the beer acts this way.
You're missing the point, and poindexter explains it really clear in the video, at least I think so...the co2,
hasn't gotten to the point where it actually absorbed and held in suspension in the fluid. That is when the beer is truly carbonated.
Fizzy, or gushing, and actual carbonation are two entirely different animals.
If your beer were TRULY carbonated it wouldn't be doing it like that. (I often call this situation, "newb carbonation" or "false carbonation."
If you look at the video, that even though the beer foams in pour number two, the beer is still not at the point where there are bubbles actually present in the beer. You know like when you pour a highly effervescent macro lagers how besides the head there is nice pretty bubbles dancing in the glass? That's truly carbonation, the co2 is being released from the beer.
The point of cooling the beer for a good period of time, is that
it helps to draw the co2 into solution. But it is not something that is done in an hour in the freezer, or a couple hours in the fridge,
it's something that takes a couple of days to do. The longer in the cold, the better it is.
And before that you are going to get exactly what has happened here.
If Macabra had waited at least 3 whole weeks, and had chilled his beer for at least 2 days, he more than likely wouldn't have needed to start this thread.
There is rarely anyone on here posting this same issue who has done what was suggested above.
It is almost always exactly the same situation, they 99% of the time do exactly what macabra did. And about 99% of the time, they come back after that period usually saying that their beer is fine.
We say these things for a reason, "three weeks at 70," "chill for at least 2 days" not to yank any new brewer's chains....
It's simply how it works, it's a natural process where there are living micro organisms are involved.
Until you pass through the "wait 3 weeks and chill 2 days," phase and tell us what's happening then, we can't truly know what's going on. I'm giving you the experiences of other's on here, who have gone through the same issue.....
But until you do that with your beer, what I or anyone else on here is saying is mere speculation. You could also have an infection.....but until you rule out the "It's too soon" phase, we can't go on. We're in effect at an impasse till then.[/i]
It's like with green beer, until you've passed a reasonable amount of time, to rule out green beer, then you can't know if there is actually a problem or not.
So rather than speculate, just do what it suggested, and then we'll see....