Cold crash suck-back volume estimate?

HomeBrewTalk.com - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Community.

Help Support Homebrew Talk:

Vale71

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2018
Messages
3,520
Reaction score
1,861
The keyword here is dissolved oxygen, as in it's already there and will instantly mix with the beer. Atmospheric oxygen takes time to dissolve and in any case the discussion here is about ways to effectively prevent oxygen ingress in the first place, particularly vis-a-vis the barbaric practice of cold-crashing. Saying "but air contains oxygen anyway so why bother?" really makes little sense in this context...
So you're saying you actually dump boiling water in your fermented beer? Must make for a very nice foam display. :D
 

d40dave

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2017
Messages
94
Reaction score
13
I wouldn't say it's boiling but still pretty hot. Probably about as hot as when I dump 2 cups of water with priming sugar in my bottling bucket. What foam display are you referring to?
 

Vale71

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2018
Messages
3,520
Reaction score
1,861
If you pour boiling water in even partially carbonated beer CO2 will be released and with no headspace to speak of that foam is bound to overflow. I'm guessing your water is much colder than that and therefore has a significant amount of dissolved O2, not counting what your beer has already picked up during transfer, making your process quite ineffective as far as preventing oxygen ingress is concerned compared to the alternative discussed here, i.e. no transfer with suck-back prevention.
 

d40dave

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2017
Messages
94
Reaction score
13
I thought you said it takes time for atmospheric oxygen to dissolve. I realize some people do not like secondaries for various reasons. But if one is used the problem of suck-back becomes less of an issue if the secondary has little headspace.
 
Last edited:

The_Bishop

Supporting Member
HBT Supporter
Joined
Dec 8, 2013
Messages
2,097
Reaction score
669
You will still have suck-back, as the negative pressure is caused by the colder liquid absorbing more gasses, not just CO2. You also have the volume of the liquid itself shrinking due to the temperature change.
 

d40dave

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2017
Messages
94
Reaction score
13
You will still have suck-back, as the negative pressure is caused by the colder liquid absorbing more gasses, not just CO2. You also have the volume of the liquid itself shrinking due to the temperature change.
I would think that since I have less than 10 square inches exposed to gas versus 250 square inches that the rate of absorption will would be proportional but certainly less. But that is just speculation. Anyway, it's finally getting warmer around here so I'm done with cold crashing until next Winter.

I agree that all the little things add up. It's a learning process. Time, expense and other factors make for determining what's best in ones situation.
 
Top