If only we could get paid to do experiments like this.
I think its time for a nitro set up i have questions
- Thread starter Dmanshane
- Start date
Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:
If only we could get paid to do experiments like this.
We've seen beer at 2+ vols through a normal faucet at 10 psig dispense.
We've seen beer at 2+ vols through a sparkler plate at 10 psig dispense
We've seen beer at 2+ vols through a sparkler plate at 30 psig dispense
We've seen stout at ~ 1 vol at 30 psig mix dispense
None of the first 3 look like the last one. No surprise there really.
What we want to see is stout at 1 vol (0 psig CO2 alone) dispensed through the sparkler plate driven by 30 psig CO2 alone. That's how one gets the same (or a pretty similar) effect to beer mix without beer mix.
Next up for me is an Irish stout and though I'm not sure when I'll get to brew it I'll put up some pictures as soon as it's ready to drink.
It's probably worth noting that there is a bit more to the art of the perfect pint than meets the eye. The mix of gasses must be just right (so that the carbonation level is correct) and the flow into the glass must be just right too (the genuine stout faucets have a flow control valve). Then the glass is filled 2/3 full and one waits about 2 minutes for the bubbles to coalesce before continuing the fill. An indication that this is all going well is that the bubbles visible through the glass actually move downward. http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-18247680
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2008
- Messages
- 65,431
- Reaction score
- 10,793
Yes, once again, he missed the point.
The very low carbonation will reduce carbonic acid influence. The resultant beer will have noticeably less bite, and feel thicker on the tongue. The higher pressure pour forced through a restrictor will froth up the head but will not produce the same result as a true sparkler (aerator) on the end of a beer engine. I attribute this to the design of the stout faucet. While the restrictor plate does start the process of releasing the CO2, the narrow spout condenses the pour and the effect is far less dramatic than the shower head style aeration achieved by a true sparkler. I've gotten good results, with CO2 alone, by removing the nozzle completely.
I think a good test would be to take a stout that is carbed properly and then push it through the stout faucet using 30PSI beer gas and then 30 PSI CO2. That would be a more apples to apples comparison. You would need to do this with the CO2 right when the beer is finished carbing so there is no chance of having nitrogen in the beer. Then after a week or 2 on the beer gas pull a pint so there has been time for nitrogen to absorb into the beer. This will show the affect that the nitrogen has on the beer.
socalboomer
Well-Known Member
Okay, yes, the stout run through the sparkler plate at 30psig CO2 alone is the only test I don't have. However, we do have the medium body run through the sparkler plate at 30psig CO2 alone - and it showed no significant difference from the others. In any case, I will re-run the experiment with my RIS in the next week (when the FES kicks, one of the kegs of RIS will go on and I will try it. Don't think I can try it at 1 vol, though, as it's already on CO2 (purge plus a bit of pressure) but will try with what it is sitting at)
BTW - the stout was carb'd at 10psi before I moved it to 30psi Nitro. So it should be 2+ vol CO2 then moved to Nitro and served at 30psig.
Just for clarification, though - why would I want to keep a stout flat (1 vol or 0psig) and then serve? I don't like my stouts flat - I don't think most people like their stouts flat. Is the statement that the sparkler plate integrates the CO2 into the flow - kind of carbonating it right then?
However, I (and I think most homebrewers) are more interested in a more real-world experiment. That is, with equipment that a typical homebrewer will have at home, or that we would purchase from some place like Morebeer or Kegconnection or someone. We aren't trying to match a Guinness "perfect pint" - I know I'm not. That, to me and to my friends, is more of an academic pursuit rather than the consumption of brew. I want to drink my beer - not pour it and then admire it as "perfect" - okay, I might admire it for a second. . . then it goes in my mouth!
I used the same type of pint glass (as opposed to choosing the "correct" class) so that was controlled.
I have a typical stout faucet (no flow control - very similar to the one you can get at morebeer
I have both a good Perlick (630ss) and a low-end chrome faucet (like Morebeer's D1205) as well as good length bev lines (3/16" and about 8' of length)
Basically, my set up is pretty typical and my results should be what a typical homebrewer could expect.
If we have to jump through hoops to get the similar effect to beer mix, then it's likely we won't. Especially when it's really easy to run beer mix.
BTW - the stout was carb'd at 10psi before I moved it to 30psi Nitro. So it should be 2+ vol CO2 then moved to Nitro and served at 30psig.
Just for clarification, though - why would I want to keep a stout flat (1 vol or 0psig) and then serve? I don't like my stouts flat - I don't think most people like their stouts flat. Is the statement that the sparkler plate integrates the CO2 into the flow - kind of carbonating it right then?
However, I (and I think most homebrewers) are more interested in a more real-world experiment. That is, with equipment that a typical homebrewer will have at home, or that we would purchase from some place like Morebeer or Kegconnection or someone. We aren't trying to match a Guinness "perfect pint" - I know I'm not. That, to me and to my friends, is more of an academic pursuit rather than the consumption of brew. I want to drink my beer - not pour it and then admire it as "perfect" - okay, I might admire it for a second. . . then it goes in my mouth!
I used the same type of pint glass (as opposed to choosing the "correct" class) so that was controlled.
I have a typical stout faucet (no flow control - very similar to the one you can get at morebeer
I have both a good Perlick (630ss) and a low-end chrome faucet (like Morebeer's D1205) as well as good length bev lines (3/16" and about 8' of length)
Basically, my set up is pretty typical and my results should be what a typical homebrewer could expect.
If we have to jump through hoops to get the similar effect to beer mix, then it's likely we won't. Especially when it's really easy to run beer mix.
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2008
- Messages
- 65,431
- Reaction score
- 10,793
Okay, yes, the stout run through the sparkler plate at 30psig CO2 alone is the only test I don't have. However, we do have the medium body run through the sparkler plate at 30psig CO2 alone - and it showed no significant difference from the others. In any case, I will re-run the experiment with my RIS in the next week (when the FES kicks, one of the kegs of RIS will go on and I will try it. Don't think I can try it at 1 vol, though, as it's already on CO2 (purge plus a bit of pressure) but will try with what it is sitting at)
BTW - the stout was carb'd at 10psi before I moved it to 30psi Nitro. So it should be 2+ vol CO2 then moved to Nitro and served at 30psig.
Just for clarification, though - why would I want to keep a stout flat (1 vol or 0psig) and then serve? I don't like my stouts flat - I don't think most people like their stouts flat. Is the statement that the sparkler plate integrates the CO2 into the flow - kind of carbonating it right then?
However, I (and I think most homebrewers) are more interested in a more real-world experiment. That is, with equipment that a typical homebrewer will have at home, or that we would purchase from some place like Morebeer or Kegconnection or someone. We aren't trying to match a Guinness "perfect pint" - I know I'm not. That, to me and to my friends, is more of an academic pursuit rather than the consumption of brew. I want to drink my beer - not pour it and then admire it as "perfect" - okay, I might admire it for a second. . . then it goes in my mouth!
I used the same type of pint glass (as opposed to choosing the "correct" class) so that was controlled.
I have a typical stout faucet (no flow control - very similar to the one you can get at morebeer
I have both a good Perlick (630ss) and a low-end chrome faucet (like Morebeer's D1205) as well as good length bev lines (3/16" and about 8' of length)
Basically, my set up is pretty typical and my results should be what a typical homebrewer could expect.
If we have to jump through hoops to get the similar effect to beer mix, then it's likely we won't. Especially when it's really easy to run beer mix.
The point here is that the whole process is meant to imitate real ale. Very low carbonation in the cask, big creamy head at the pour caused by violently forcing what little CO2 there is out of solution and heavily aerating a normally heavy feeling beer to lighten up the mouthfeel.
Real ale never used nitrogen. Guiness used nitrogen as a means of a middle ground to get an approximation of what real ale is meant to be.
socalboomer
Well-Known Member
Wait - I missed the point?
First, I'm running a typical set up. I'm not going to jump through a bunch of hoops that a typical homebrewer won't jump through. I want to drink my beer. . .
The original posit was that N2 doesn't have a significant effect on the beer (for various reasons, mostly that it's 100x more difficult to get into solution than CO2) rather, it is the sparkler plate that does it all (or the vast majority of it) - is this correct? That's what I understood as being the postulate.
This thread started with someone wanting to go Nitro and then being told that a syringe would give him the same effect and then that a Nitro system (specifically the N2) isn't the actual agent of the effects, that it was the sparkler plate.
So - I didn't experiment with the syringe (I have a couple new ones that are used for squirting medication into pets' mouths - I can try that) but I did experiment with the sparkler plate.
No - I didn't use a beer engine. I don't have one and nobody I know in my area has one. Nobody in my club has one. No brewery in my area has a functional one. So, to me, while this may be a great academic experiment, it has little real-world usage since there is no application for it.
Instead, I used typical elements that a typical homebrewer either would have or would purchase.
After all, the statement was that N2
So - this is what I attempted to test. I didn't go through additional hoops - because a typical homebrewer isn't going to jump through additional hoops.
The statement was that Nitrogen DOES NOTHING but push the beer through the plate. This means that it's the plate (and the stout faucet) - and that's what I tested.
If I have to keep the beer FLAT and then push it through at 30psi - this does not seem feasible. It would mean that I would have to open my keezer every time, open the valve to flood the keg, pour a pint or two, then shut off the valve and WASTE the gas that I just flooded the keg with. Really?
Not gonna do that. I don't know many who will do that.
But, as far as I can see, that wasn't the point ANYWAY. The statement was that Nitrogen DOES NOTHING - in which case, using CO2 to push the beer through the stout faucet should have the same effect as using Nitro. Yes? It's the sparkler plate/stout faucet that has the effect, yes?
Or are you saying that everything is invalid because I've over-carbonated the beer? In which case, why does using CO2 not duplicate using Nitro?
If my experiment was invalid (I don't think it was - I think it was incomplete, but not invalid) then please enlighten. Outline an experiment that I can perform - with typical equipment that a typical homebrewer would have on hand (see my previous post.)
socalboomer
Well-Known Member
No, THAT wasn't the point. The point was that ajdelane said that
I don't do Nitro to imitate "real ale" - I don't want very low carbonation - and I don't want to waste my gas pressurizing, then bleeding, then pressurizing, then bleeding when apparently Nitro/Beer Gas accomplishes the task without wasting it.
The original post was not "how to imitate real ale" but rather asking anything else Dman needed to set up a Nitro system. He said nothing about "real ale" . . . he was asking legitimate questions. The thread got hijacked when he was told that "Nitrogen does nothing but push the beer through the sparkler plate" - so that's I tested.
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2008
- Messages
- 65,431
- Reaction score
- 10,793
Yes, the beer has to start out essentially flat. Just like in a cask.
"If I have to keep the beer FLAT and then push it through at 30psi - this does not seem feasible. It would mean that I would have to open my keezer every time, open the valve to flood the keg, pour a pint or two, then shut off the valve and WASTE the gas that I just flooded the keg with. Really?"
Yes, it is a PITA which is why very few, if any, stick with this. The point is that THIS is what it takes to obtain the result without nitrogen and without a beer engine. The point is that nitrogen is not the magic. A proper pour is the magic. Nitrogen is the crutch that Guiness devised to get a better pour from an industry heavily dependent on a system that better preserved beer than a cask is capable of doing but in return significantly changed the beer in the process.
"If I have to keep the beer FLAT and then push it through at 30psi - this does not seem feasible. It would mean that I would have to open my keezer every time, open the valve to flood the keg, pour a pint or two, then shut off the valve and WASTE the gas that I just flooded the keg with. Really?"
Yes, it is a PITA which is why very few, if any, stick with this. The point is that THIS is what it takes to obtain the result without nitrogen and without a beer engine. The point is that nitrogen is not the magic. A proper pour is the magic. Nitrogen is the crutch that Guiness devised to get a better pour from an industry heavily dependent on a system that better preserved beer than a cask is capable of doing but in return significantly changed the beer in the process.
socalboomer
Well-Known Member
So, we're talking different languages. I'm not missing the point at all.
A: The point was that Dman wanted to put up a Nitro system.
B: another poster said you can get the same effect with a syringe (you can't, but I'll do the experiment)
C: ajd then said that Nitro wasn't the actual agent, it does nothing but push the beer.
Nothing about a proper pour - nada. I don't care about a proper pour. A "good" pour, yes. But who cares if it's historically accurate, blah blah blah. LOL
Nothing about Nitro being a crutch - according to ajd, even if it was a crutch, it's an inert crutch.
Trying to compare to a cask system is impractical. I don't have a cask system and am not going to go through any PITA crap of wasting gas - and most of us aren't either. So that point is useless and just argumentative.
Nitro WORKS. If you get a stout faucet (with its included sparkler plate), you take a stout, carbonate it normally, then put it at 30psi on the nitro system, you WILL get, with very little bother and fuss, a great head, great body, and great taste.
If Nitrogen does nothing, then why did using just CO2 not give the same effect? Same exact system, faucet, line. . . just different gas.
That, my friend, is the point.
A: The point was that Dman wanted to put up a Nitro system.
B: another poster said you can get the same effect with a syringe (you can't, but I'll do the experiment)
C: ajd then said that Nitro wasn't the actual agent, it does nothing but push the beer.
Nothing about a proper pour - nada. I don't care about a proper pour. A "good" pour, yes. But who cares if it's historically accurate, blah blah blah. LOL
Nothing about Nitro being a crutch - according to ajd, even if it was a crutch, it's an inert crutch.
Trying to compare to a cask system is impractical. I don't have a cask system and am not going to go through any PITA crap of wasting gas - and most of us aren't either. So that point is useless and just argumentative.
Nitro WORKS. If you get a stout faucet (with its included sparkler plate), you take a stout, carbonate it normally, then put it at 30psi on the nitro system, you WILL get, with very little bother and fuss, a great head, great body, and great taste.
If Nitrogen does nothing, then why did using just CO2 not give the same effect? Same exact system, faucet, line. . . just different gas.
That, my friend, is the point.
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2008
- Messages
- 65,431
- Reaction score
- 10,793
It's all there. The answers. Just so long as you don't disregard what is being said. Which you show time and time again that you like to do.
Nitrogen was introduced by Guiness to approximate an effect the system used to dispense real ale created. A similar approximation has been described that will obtain similar results without the use of nitrogen and using equipment readily available today, which you have not followed, yet you disregard the result.
socalboomer
Well-Known Member
I CAN'T use the equipment because I don't HAVE that equipment (beer engine)
I WON'T use the method of pressurizing a keg, serving, bleeding all the gas and leaving it flat, then pressurizing the keg, serving, then bleeding the gas. A: it's expensive, b: it's impractical, c: it's a waste.
I'm not disregarding anything. I'm trying to get a plain answer. I went through the steps of doing (what I thought was) a fairly simple experiment that should demonstrate what ajdelane was putting forth - that Nitrogen has no real effect on the beer; that it's entirely the sparkler plate.
The history of Nitrogen and Guinness, while interesting, are not relevant. It is the empirical effect that I am interested in.
Does Nitrogen have an effect on the beer or not? ajdelane says pretty unequivocally that it does not (as I've quoted).
So, aside from any convoluted processes (which cloud the experiment, but could be done as a separate experiment) I switched a beer from regular tap to a stout tap (with sparkler disc) which, if ajdelane is correct, should have a pretty significant effect. If the Nitrogen has little to no effect, and it is entirely due to the sparkler disc and stout tap, then moving the beer from CO2 over from Perlick to the stout tap should show a significant change - and it did not.
Let me restate, more simply (ONLY to set it out):
If the active agent is the stout tap and sparkler disk, then moving from Perlick to stout tap should have a significant effect.
Not that it would fully accomplish what a cask system would. Not that it would fully accomplish what the convoluted process of bleeding, pressurizing, serving, bleeding, lather, rinse, repeat might. But it should have a significant effect.
And it did not.
The difference was not intended to be between results 1-3 and result 4, but rather between result 1 and results 2-3.
Left - Red on 10psi CO2, ~2 vols, Perlick
Middle - Red on 10psi CO2, ~2 vols, Stout/Sparkler
Left - Red on 30psi CO2, ~2 vols, Stout/Sparkler
I WON'T use the method of pressurizing a keg, serving, bleeding all the gas and leaving it flat, then pressurizing the keg, serving, then bleeding the gas. A: it's expensive, b: it's impractical, c: it's a waste.
I'm not disregarding anything. I'm trying to get a plain answer. I went through the steps of doing (what I thought was) a fairly simple experiment that should demonstrate what ajdelane was putting forth - that Nitrogen has no real effect on the beer; that it's entirely the sparkler plate.
The history of Nitrogen and Guinness, while interesting, are not relevant. It is the empirical effect that I am interested in.
Does Nitrogen have an effect on the beer or not? ajdelane says pretty unequivocally that it does not (as I've quoted).
So, aside from any convoluted processes (which cloud the experiment, but could be done as a separate experiment) I switched a beer from regular tap to a stout tap (with sparkler disc) which, if ajdelane is correct, should have a pretty significant effect. If the Nitrogen has little to no effect, and it is entirely due to the sparkler disc and stout tap, then moving the beer from CO2 over from Perlick to the stout tap should show a significant change - and it did not.
Let me restate, more simply (ONLY to set it out):
If the active agent is the stout tap and sparkler disk, then moving from Perlick to stout tap should have a significant effect.
Not that it would fully accomplish what a cask system would. Not that it would fully accomplish what the convoluted process of bleeding, pressurizing, serving, bleeding, lather, rinse, repeat might. But it should have a significant effect.
And it did not.
The difference was not intended to be between results 1-3 and result 4, but rather between result 1 and results 2-3.
Left - Red on 10psi CO2, ~2 vols, Perlick
Middle - Red on 10psi CO2, ~2 vols, Stout/Sparkler
Left - Red on 30psi CO2, ~2 vols, Stout/Sparkler
