I think its time for a nitro set up i have questions

[socalboomer]

FWIW...

He IS an expert, and he is correct. There is very little N2 in solution, and it is the CO2 that causes the carbonation. The showerhead has very tiny holes which forms very small bubbles of CO2, and that is what causes the cascading and the creamy head.

There is a lot of misunderstanding out there, but aj is not the source of it.

Ok, he can be an expert. I'm actually an expert in quite a few things as well, and when I drop in on those conversations I try not to cut people off at the knees.

So - to get back on topic - if I were to take that disc in a CO2 system, I would have the same "whipped-cream-foam" ? I can just take and fill the N2 tank with CO2 and get exactly the same effect? I have a spare CO2 tank and my Beergas tank is getting low . . .

 

[ajdelange]

So - to get back on topic - if I were to take that disc in a CO2 system, I would have the same "whipped-cream-foam" ? I can just take and fill the N2 tank with CO2 and get exactly the same effect? I have a spare CO2 tank and my Beergas tank is getting low . . .

Let me start by saying that it was never my intention to cut anyone off at the knees. Incorrect interpretations were posted several times and I don't believe it would be right for me to let those stand. Whatever the mechanisms or the effect on the palate may be it is driven in large part by the fact that CO2 is so much more soluble than N2. This is in any paper, text, magazine article etc. on the subject. This forum would be worse than useless if people came here for information and went away misinformed.

Now back to the discussion. If you took your properly carbonated stout and propelled it with straight CO2 at a higher pressure through a sparkler plate, yes, you would get a nice creamy head. This is in fact what I do rather than fool with nitrogen bottles and blenders. Would it be the same creamy head that I got when I did fool with blenders and nitrogen bottles? Perhaps not. But I am certainly not of the impression that I gave up the 'perfect pint' when I stopped using nitrogen. You may recall that a few posts back I advocated keeping this scheme in mind for an occasion on which beer gas ran low. Try it and see!

I thought I'd better go back and see whether breweries indeed do go to considerable trouble to force nitrogen into their beers and found that indeed they do. Now I'm trying to figure out why. The texts have some conflicting statements to the effect, on the one hand that N2 is insoluble (relatively) and chemically inert so that it has no flavor effect on the beer but that, on the other hand, N2 produces smaller bubbles because it is less soluble and smooths mouthfeel and operates at lower partial pressure (in 25% beer gas it operates at much higher partial pressure so this is the sort of thing I mean). Whatever the truth here breweries are spending money and they don't do that unless there is some return. Clearly a cellerman can't use the trick I mentioned practically but I don't see why he can't bring in a keg of stout with no N2 in it, put it on mix for a few days and have it at the same equilibrium that the brewery goes to so much trouble to acheive. I'm pretty sure the answer there is that the pubs don't want to tie up space and couplers for a few days waiting for this to happen.

The other theory I came up with is that most of the mixed gas dispense in the UK is 'smooth flow' ales that are, as I mentioned in earlier posts, intended to mimic cask conditioned ales. Cask conditioned ales drawn through an engine with a sparkler produce the same creamy head that one gets with mixed gas dispense. What I am wondering now is whether the object might be to get that head without the sparkler plate thus allowing lower pressure dispense and the use of the same faucets that are used to dispense lager. But here I am speculating. The other possibility is that even at a couple of percent level this chemically inert gas works some kind of magic that I haven't been able to figure out.

 

[socalboomer]

Okay - I have a medium body beer that's only been on CO2. I will try it through the stout faucet on straight CO2 (at 30psi and at 12psi) to see what we get. I will post pics. This should be pretty easy - just swap the bev lines.

I'm not really interested in any "perfect pint" - my wife loves the creamy head and mouthfeel. To me, a "perfect pint" differs depending on the beer, but even then, at home I go for a "decent pint" - I don't have the ability to change the volume of CO2 per each different beer. They get the same pressure, period. I'd love a multiple regulator but. . .

 

[ajdelange]

Sigh - it's not a bruised ego. It's the frustration of running against someone who seems to look at nothing except his numbers.

I'm more empirical. Listen - not everyone is an engineer. Not everyone sits looking at equations all day. I look at the results - most of us do.

Jean de Clerck (one of fathers of modern brewing) wrote:

"A distinction is frequently drawn in the industry between the theoretical man and who tries to explain everything from a scientific point of view, and the practical man who relies on empirical knowledge and experience. A good brewer should be able to steer a middle course between these extremes."

I am 100% on board with that and that is the course I try to steer. In this case I have the empirical evidence that I have poured many a fine pint of stout without nitrogen (and many a fine one with) and I have the CO2 models from the ASBC tables and the N2 data from many other sources which can explain why and that's what I tried to do here. It is entirely possible that there is more to it than I know (in fact that is certain) but experience, common sense and data seem to converge here.

But you come in and denigrate the things we non-elite see, taste, and feel (mouthfeel, not touchy-feely) with a superior air. We're not worthy. We don't know about the Zahm and Nagle (ASBC) table nor the McDantim curves.

The only thing I denigrated (and I didn't mean to do that) was the insistence that CO2 and N2 are equally soluble when the data you posted showed they aren't.

Honestly - I know a number of successful professional brewers and those topics have never come up - btw, when I search for "Zahm and Nagle ASBC table" (or even Nagel) it doesn't give anything but a fairly common CO2 chart that has been reproduced elsewhere and doesn't have anything about Nitro on it. They're a purveyor of carbonation equipment - same as McDantim.

The ASBC (Zahm and Nagle) tables are familiar to people who deal with beer carbonation questions (such as brewers) and the McDantim curves (I don't see them on the website any more) simplify the process of setting dispense pressure for mixes - very handy for pub owners.

They have an agenda - sell their equipment. Do you have any academic information -

Well the ASBC tables are part of the MOAs (a compilation of methods for analyzing beer used by most breweries that do any analysis which I guess isn't all of them) and before a method is accepted it is thoroughly researched and tested in inter laboratory collaborative studies.

I work at an academic institution and if it weren't still Winter Break, I'd cross the street and ask the O-Chem profs to help out (they're fairly easy to get info from, esp with a bottle of brew or two. . .) - but I trust academic information more than I do commercial information.

Be careful there!

I looked at a bunch of other of your posts and this seems to be a trend. YOU are the expert. YOU have the numbers.

In some cases I am. I've acquired the knowledge or done the experiments and I have the data that other people don't have. In most cases, of course, I am not.

The rest of us can either bow down and accept your word for it or be buried under a TON of verbiage - little of it backed up, btw.

I can, and usually do back up most of what I say. Often with a simple demonstration/experiment that I can do in a few minutes. I won't say that I haven't gone out on a limb from time to time, though. Can you point me at an example?

I provided most of the sources in this conversation (even if I screwed up my numbers)

Well I didn't have to provide any here as you did. The question was of your interpretation of those references.

- look at the conversation you had with a PROFESSIONAL lab tech. YOU were the expert, questioning him at nearly every turn. Really?

Quite possibly. If the guy was posting misinformation should I have let it go? I sometimes think that this is what society demands of us now. It is better to ignore the most glaring errors than to hurt someones feelings by pointing out the mistake. Can you refresh my memory as to what that particular conversation was about?

Yes - I screwed up my numbers. I'm just ...I'm not a retired engineer so discount me. Blah blah blah.

If I got short (for which I apologize) it was because you went three rounds of screwed up numbers and ignored two explanations as to why which says I'm typing and you're not reading and that gets a little frustrating. OTOH I do have so say that given the heat that got developed here you probably won't make the same mistake again and in that sense I have been, pedagogically speaking, successful.

It's not bruised ego - it's your mannerism, your tone, and your condescending superiority. Had you approached this with an actual friendly tone, a NICE conversational mode, it may have gone another way.

I'm often a little short on nice conversational modes when talking tech stuff. I do try to be friendly, though.

But instead, you come in saying that what we (the mere lay person, the lowly homebrewers without your lofty knowledge) know, taste, feel, see about Nitro is WRONG. We're imagining things. Nitro does NOTHING.

You imagined that. 90% of the discussion was on the relative solubility of CO2 and N2.

Sorry people, you're wrong about what comes out of that faucet. Ignore what you see. Ignore that head that you can scoop with a spoon an turn upside down - that's nothing but an illusion. . . you could do that without Nitro.

Well I think you can but you are going to try it and see, right?

 

[ajdelange]

I'm not really interested in any "perfect pint" - my wife loves the creamy head and mouthfeel.

That phrase has special meaning with respect to Guiness:

http://www.brobible.com/lifestyle/alcohol/article/how-to-pour-a-perfect-pint-of-guinness/

 

[socalboomer]

Oh, I know.

I just don't worry about it. What IS a perfect pint? I think that article is quite tongue in cheek (119.5 seconds? LOL) and to us typical homebrewers, a perfect pint is probably anything coming from our taps!

 

[socalboomer]

Okay - empirical experiment. If I took a beer and transferred it to the stout faucet, it should get head characteristics and creamy mouthfeel that we expect from Nitro.

I used a medium bodied red. It has been on 10psi CO2.

I took a pour through my Perlick faucet under 10psi CO2. Then I took the bev line from the stout faucet and hooked that up. I first ran it through the stout faucet at 10psi, just because it was already set there. I then ran through the stout faucet at 30psi. I re-hooked the stout faucet up to the stout.

So, I have four pours. I sipped and handed to my wife who also sipped. We looked at the body of the head, the mouthfeel of the head, and the mouthfeel of the beer.

Red under regular faucet. It's a bit over-carb'd. It's the first pour of the day, but I figured this would give a comparable amount of foam so we could compare. Head dissipated in about 20 seconds.

Red under 10psi stout faucet. Note the bubbles are very similar in size (easiest to see if you look at the right of the glass). Head mouthfeel is little different from the Perlick pour. Mouthfeel of the beer is no different from the Perlick pour. Head dissipated in about 20 seconds.

Red under 30psi stout faucet. Note the bubbles look no different from the Perlick pour. Head mouthfeel is slightly creamier. Mouthfeel of the beer is slightly creamier, but flatter than the Perlick pour. Head dissipated in about 20 seconds.

Foreign Extra Stout under 30psi stout faucet (been on Nitro). very large amount of cascading action. Very very tiny bubbles which were extremely persistent. Head persisted for over 2 minutes (before my wife stole the glass and started drinking it). Mouthfeel of the foam was very creamy. Mouthfeel of the beer was also very creamy. NOTE - this is not a valid apples to apples comparison because my FES is not my Red. . . it is merely to show the reaction that we want from Nitro, and the claim was that the disk in the stout faucet was what created the effect.

I did no tampering with the evidence. This is what it is. I could, later, try the experiment again later with a RIS that is presently in secondary. However, at this point, it does not look, to me, like pushing a beer through a stout faucet and the sparkler plate does not have a significant effect on the beer.

Further experiment would be to take the RIS, pressurize it to 10psi with the Perlick. Then take it to 30psi on the sparkler. Then take it to 30psi on Nitro on the sparkler.

However, at this point, the evidence I have does not show any significant difference coming directly from the sparkler plate alone.

((edited to fix a typo))

 

[theck]

Okay - empirical experiment. If I took a beer and transferred it to the stout faucet, it should get head characteristics and creamy mouthfeel that we expect from Nitro.

I used a medium bodied red. It has been on 10psi CO2.

I took a pour through my Perlick faucet under 10psi CO2. Then I took the bev line from the stout faucet and hooked that up. I first ran it through the stout faucet at 10psi, just because it was already set there. I then ran through the stout faucet at 30psi. I re-hooked the stout faucet up to the stout.

So, I have four pours. I sipped and handed to my wife who also sipped. We looked at the body of the head, the mouthfeel of the head, and the mouthfeel of the beer.

Red under regular faucet. It's a bit over-carb'd. It's the first pour of the day, but I figured this would give a comparable amount of foam so we could compare. Head dissipated in about 20 seconds.

Red under 10psi stout faucet. Note the bubbles are very similar in size (easiest to see if you look at the right of the glass). Head mouthfeel is little different from the Perlick pour. Mouthfeel of the beer is no different from the Perlick pour. Head dissipated in about 20 seconds.

Red under 30psi stout faucet. Note the bubbles look no different from the Perlick pour. Head mouthfeel is slightly creamier. Mouthfeel of the beer is slightly creamier, but flatter than the Perlick pour. Head dissipated in about 20 seconds.

Foreign Extra Stout under 30psi stout faucet (been on Nitro). very large amount of cascading action. Very very tiny bubbles which were extremely persistent. Head persisted for over 2 minutes (before my wife stole the glass and started drinking it). Mouthfeel of the foam was very creamy. Mouthfeel of the beer was also very creamy. NOTE - this is not a valid apples to apples comparison because my FES is not my Red. . . it is merely to show the reaction that we want from Nitro, and the claim was that the disk in the stout faucet was what created the effect.

I did no tampering with the evidence. This is what it is. I could, later, try the experiment again later with a RIS that is presently in secondary. However, at this point, it does not look, to me, like pushing a beer through a stout faucet and the sparkler plate does not have a significant effect on the beer.

Further experiment would be to take the RIS, pressurize it to 10psi with the Perlick. Then take it to 30psi on the sparkler. Then take it to 30psi on Nitro on the sparkler.

However, at this point, the evidence I have does not show any significant difference coming directly from the sparkler plate alone.

((edited to fix a typo))

A lot of time on your hand ha

 

[Ariando]

Math put aside is it agreed (or not) the nitrogen co2 mix makes a difference over 1 atmosphere co2 alone?

 

[socalboomer]

A lot of time on your hand ha

Nah - this only took about a half hour, while my wife and daughter were making dinner. Pretty easy too.

Math put aside is it agreed (or not) the nitrogen co2 mix makes a difference over 1 atmosphere co2 alone?

I don't know - I haven't heard from ajd yet. I still do plan to try it with the RIS as I mentioned, but for me (and my wife, who was pretty adamant on it) it seems pretty clear that the sparkler plate, alone, while it does make the head a tad creamier, it doesn't approach the N2 on sparkler plate.

 

[theck]

Nah - this only took about a half hour, while my wife and daughter were making dinner. Pretty easy too.



I don't know - I haven't heard from ajd yet. I still do plan to try it with the RIS as I mentioned, but for me (and my wife, who was pretty adamant on it) it seems pretty clear that the sparkler plate, alone, while it does make the head a tad creamier, it doesn't approach the N2 on sparkler plate.

If only we could get paid to do experiments like this.

 

[ajdelange]

Math put aside is it agreed (or not) the nitrogen co2 mix makes a difference over 1 atmosphere co2 alone?

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

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

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

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.

 

[Big_T]

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]

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.

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

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]

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.

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

does nothing but push the beer through the sparkler plate. It does not dissolve in the beer (to any appreciable extent) does not form an acid and does not affect the flavor. Therefore, you can get the nitro effect w/o nitrogen but you still need the stout faucet or more particularly its sparkler plate. What you must do is carbonate the beer to the same level as it would be carbonated with 75/25 mix. . . When ready to serve crank the regulator up to 20 - 30 psig (whatever gives the best pour) and have at it.

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]

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.

No, THAT wasn't the point. The point was that ajdelane said that

Nitrogen does nothing but push the beer through the sparkler plate.

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.

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

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.

 

[socalboomer]

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.

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

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.

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]

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