Confused - Beer gas vs. CO2

brewing-forum.net
Promoting brewing discussion.

Main

Date: 15 Jun 2006 14:53:01
From: Eric Scantlebury
Subject: Confused - Beer gas vs. CO2

Hello All,

I have just begun to start researching about brewing my own home brew and
have found several great resources that I have been monitoring for a month
or so now. One thing I may be interested in in kegging my brew into Corny
kegs as this seems to be fairly normal for the hobby.

So with that in mind I have been reading anything I can find on the web
(including this usenet group) gaining knowledge along the way. I thought I
understood most of the concepts pretty well until the other day when I saw
this thread posted on the brewboard:

http://www.brewboard.com/index.php?showtopic=56608&st=0

Up until this point I just thought that the CO2 gas that everyone was using
was regular old CO2 that you could get at a welding supply house. But then
up pops this thread and the term "Beergas" and now I'm very confused as to
how the whole process works and what I would need (at least on the gas side)
to accomplish kegging. What exactly is the difference? And when going to
buy a CO2 tank what do I look for?

Thanks,
Confused in RI

Eric Scantlebury

Date: 15 Jun 2006 19:22:11
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Confused - Beer gas vs. CO2

On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 14:53:01 -0400, <test@test.com > wrote:
> Up until this point I just thought that the CO2 gas that everyone was using
> was regular old CO2 that you could get at a welding supply house. But then
> up pops this thread and the term "Beergas" and now I'm very confused as to
> how the whole process works and what I would need (at least on the gas side)
> to accomplish kegging. What exactly is the difference? And when going to
> buy a CO2 tank what do I look for?

You are correct, most people will just use regular CO2 for their kegging
systems. A new trend popped up recently (some would call it a fad) along
the lines of the "widget" bottles and cans of various commercial beers,
most notably Guiness. It's trying to recreate the infamous "Guiness
pour". Basically, you get a special type of faucet and then use a mixture
of Nitrogen and CO2 (usually 75%/25%) which is called "Beer Gas". This
allows you to do a nitro keg, or Guiness style system with your own
homebrew. If you're not interested in that, then you just use plain CO2
from Welding supply houses, fire extinguisher refillers, etc.

John.

Date: 15 Jun 2006 23:36:36
From: QD Steve
Subject: Re: Confused - Beer gas vs. CO2

"John 'Shaggy' Kolesar" <spam@shagg.net > wrote in message
news:slrne93ctp.k1e.spam@weizen.shagg.net...
> You are correct, most people will just use regular CO2 for their kegging
> systems. A new trend popped up recently (some would call it a fad) along
> the lines of the "widget" bottles and cans of various commercial beers,
> most notably Guiness. It's trying to recreate the infamous "Guiness
> pour". Basically, you get a special type of faucet and then use a mixture
> of Nitrogen and CO2 (usually 75%/25%) which is called "Beer Gas". This
> allows you to do a nitro keg, or Guiness style system with your own
> homebrew. If you're not interested in that, then you just use plain CO2
> from Welding supply houses, fire extinguisher refillers, etc.
>
>
> John.

Slightly off topic, but I was astounded to find out that tap beer sold in
most pubs in my location (South Australia) that use the newer
propylene-glycol refrigeration systems, dispense the beer with nothing more
than filtered air from a standard compressor. Standard pub keg size is 50
Liters so, I guess with pubs with a relatively high turnover, oxidation is
not going to be a problem. The beers taste just fine and show no sign of off
flavours!
Steve W (in Aus)

Date: 15 Jun 2006 21:19:11
From: Craig Bennett
Subject: Re: Confused - Beer gas vs. CO2

But the beer has already been carbonated with Co2 right ? they're just
using air to pressurize the keg and so dispense it ? I imagine a pub would
go through 50 liter kegs in very little time, so probably not a big deal.

I remember reading an article that cask conditioned ales in England are
dispensed in a similar manner, dont remember how exactly, but I got the
impression that co2 was frowned upon.

Interesting about the 'beer gas' I've been toying with the idea of trying my
hand at a stout for a while, as a longtime drinker of draft guinness, I
would be keen to try and replicate, or at least get something similar to,
that creamy texture. though from what I read, it requires an investment in
the special faucet too.

..one of these days, when I have some spare cash :-)

Craig B.

"QD Steve" <adlab@bigponddotnetdotau.trashthisbit > wrote in message
news:8amkg.10044$ap3.2720@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
, fire extinguisher refillers, etc.
>>
>>
>> John.
>
> Slightly off topic, but I was astounded to find out that tap beer sold in
> most pubs in my location (South Australia) that use the newer
> propylene-glycol refrigeration systems, dispense the beer with nothing
> more than filtered air from a standard compressor. Standard pub keg size
> is 50 Liters so, I guess with pubs with a relatively high turnover,
> oxidation is not going to be a problem. The beers taste just fine and show
> no sign of off flavours!
> Steve W (in Aus)
>

Date:
From:
Subject:

Date: 16 Jun 2006 07:11:28
From: Brewer Bob
Subject: Re: Confused - Beer gas vs. CO2

QD Steve wrote:

>"John 'Shaggy' Kolesar" <spam@shagg.net> wrote in message
>news:slrne93ctp.k1e.spam@weizen.shagg.net...
>
>
>>You are correct, most people will just use regular CO2 for their kegging
>>systems. A new trend popped up recently (some would call it a fad) along
>>the lines of the "widget" bottles and cans of various commercial beers,
>>most notably Guiness. It's trying to recreate the infamous "Guiness
>>pour". Basically, you get a special type of faucet and then use a mixture
>>of Nitrogen and CO2 (usually 75%/25%) which is called "Beer Gas". This
>>allows you to do a nitro keg, or Guiness style system with your own
>>homebrew. If you're not interested in that, then you just use plain CO2
>>from Welding supply houses, fire extinguisher refillers, etc.
>>
>>
>>John.
>>
>>
>
>Slightly off topic, but I was astounded to find out that tap beer sold in
>most pubs in my location (South Australia) that use the newer
>propylene-glycol refrigeration systems, dispense the beer with nothing more
>than filtered air from a standard compressor. Standard pub keg size is 50
>Liters so, I guess with pubs with a relatively high turnover, oxidation is
>not going to be a problem. The beers taste just fine and show no sign of off
>flavours!
>Steve W (in Aus)
>
>
>
Steve,

Just think of it as modern Real Ale. I'm joking on one sense but, if you
really think about it, as long as the kegs are not going off it's almost
the equivalent of the Publican/Barkeep pulling a vacuum on their beer
engine for the beer to dispense whilst the air around the keg in the
cellar got pulled into the keg. I'm sure a keg is only good for a few
days or so in this environment.

Brewer Bob

Date: 15 Jun 2006 16:02:58
From: Eric Scantlebury
Subject: Re: Confused - Beer gas vs. CO2

"John 'Shaggy' Kolesar" <spam@shagg.net > wrote in message
news:slrne93ctp.k1e.spam@weizen.shagg.net...
>> homebrew. If you're not interested in that, then you just use plain CO2
> from Welding supply houses, fire extinguisher refillers, etc.

Ok. Thanks for the answer. Makes much more sense now. :) Beergas is a
mixed gas and CO2 is really just CO2.

Date: 15 Jun 2006 12:02:09
From: yddraig
Subject: Re: Confused - Beer gas vs. CO2

Eric Scantlebury wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> I have just begun to start researching about brewing my own home brew and
> have found several great resources that I have been monitoring for a month
> or so now. One thing I may be interested in in kegging my brew into Corny
> kegs as this seems to be fairly normal for the hobby.
>
> So with that in mind I have been reading anything I can find on the web
> (including this usenet group) gaining knowledge along the way. I thought I
> understood most of the concepts pretty well until the other day when I saw
> this thread posted on the brewboard:
>
> http://www.brewboard.com/index.php?showtopic=56608&st=0
>
> Up until this point I just thought that the CO2 gas that everyone was using
> was regular old CO2 that you could get at a welding supply house. But then
> up pops this thread and the term "Beergas" and now I'm very confused as to
> how the whole process works and what I would need (at least on the gas side)
> to accomplish kegging. What exactly is the difference? And when going to
> buy a CO2 tank what do I look for?
>
> Thanks,
> Confused in RI
>
> Eric Scantlebury
Beer gas is a mixture of CO2 and Nitrogen. Normally it is used for
long (25+ ft) dispensing lines to cut down on foaming problems. BTW
don't buy your CO2 at a welding shop unless they can guarentee that it
is fit for human consumption, most beer distributors that supply kegs
will swap CO2 tanks, a few will even fill on premissis.

Date: 15 Jun 2006 19:30:03
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Confused - Beer gas vs. CO2

On 15 Jun 2006 12:02:09 -0700, <yddraig@gmail.com > wrote:
> BTW don't buy your CO2 at a welding shop unless they can guarentee that it
> is fit for human consumption

I'm sure that the Welding shop will not guarantee that because of liability
issues. However, there is no danger from getting CO2 from a welding shop.
The CO2 that they use is the same stuff that goes into medical grade tanks,
the only difference is that the Welding shop doesn't spend the money on
getting the legal certifications done to say it is medical grade or food
grade, etc, because they don't need to. The gas all comes from the same
place though. Many, many, homebrewers get their CO2 tanks filled by
welding shops. Personally, I get mine filled by a fire extinguisher
company.

John.

Date: 16 Jun 2006 05:28:39
From: MarkMc
Subject: Re: Confused - Beer gas vs. CO2

Real Ale in Britain is dispensed without any force other than gravity
or the pull from the beer engine pump handle. Some - very rarely do
you see them now though, have a small wooden cask tapped and stillaged
on the bar, and just draw a pint off direct from the tap.

A cask will be shipped from the brewery with a hard, non-porous peg
(spile) in the belly to allow the carbonation to build up, but the
landlord will vent excessive carbonation and serve with a soft, porous
peg, and probably replace the soft peg with a hard peg to allow the
carbonation/condition to come up again while the pub is closed.

A cask has a soft porous peg placed in to the belly to allow air in at
atmospheric pressure to replace the liquid that is drawn off from the
tap by either beer engine or just by gravity direct from the cask.

Some landlords wanted to (or may well actually do) use 'blanket
pressure' CO2 in the cask at atmospheric pressure to make the keg last
longer in low turnover pubs do to reduced oxidation. The C02 is
injected at 1 ATM as the beer is drawn off by a device called a 'Cask
Breather'.

I personally think using a breather makes sense as the alternative is
to not bother keeping real ale for many pubs as half the barrel gets
wasted due to spoilage.

Sadly CAMRA (The Campaign for Real Ale) in Britain say that this is
unacceptable and can't be called real ale and won't allow pubs that do
this in to their Good Pub guides. It is this @nal attitude that made
me give up my CAMRA membership.

Regards,
Mark

Date: 19 Jun 2006 15:27:06
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Confused - Beer gas vs. CO2

On 16 Jun 2006 05:28:39 -0700, <mmcnospam@yahoo.co.uk > wrote:
> Some landlords wanted to (or may well actually do) use 'blanket
> pressure' CO2 in the cask at atmospheric pressure to make the keg last
> longer in low turnover pubs do to reduced oxidation. The C02 is
> injected at 1 ATM as the beer is drawn off by a device called a 'Cask
> Breather'.
>
> I personally think using a breather makes sense as the alternative is
> to not bother keeping real ale for many pubs as half the barrel gets
> wasted due to spoilage.

IMO, this method especially makes sense for homebrewers. This is definitely
the way I would go.

John.

Date: 21 Jun 2006 11:39:51
From: miker
Subject: Re: Confused - Beer gas vs. CO2

Shaggy wrote:
>The "beer gas" stuff is purely for appearance and/or to impress your friends

I would have to disagree on this (and I know you were just giving your
opinion, John). I don't have a beer gas setup myself but have to say I
do enjoy an stout or even an IPA served this way sometimes for a
change. And it definitely changes more than just the appearance. To me,
beer gas adds a totally different mouthfeel - a smoothness if you will
- and even flavor to a beer due to the lower carbonic acid bite.

Date: 21 Jun 2006 18:55:18
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Confused - Beer gas vs. CO2

On 21 Jun 2006 11:39:51 -0700, <mlracette@aol.com > wrote:
> Shaggy wrote:
>>The "beer gas" stuff is purely for appearance and/or to impress your friends
>
> I would have to disagree on this (and I know you were just giving your
> opinion, John). I don't have a beer gas setup myself but have to say I
> do enjoy an stout or even an IPA served this way sometimes for a
> change. And it definitely changes more than just the appearance. To me,
> beer gas adds a totally different mouthfeel - a smoothness if you will
> - and even flavor to a beer due to the lower carbonic acid bite.

Just target a lower level of carbonation. You can achieve the same thing
without the beer gas. The only thing the beer gas lets you do is have both
low carbonation and high serving pressure so that you get the "cascading
bubbles" appearance. The mouthfeel, smoothness, lower carbonic acid bite, etc
are all due to lower carbonation. You don't need beer gas to do that.

John.

Date: 22 Jun 2006 10:01:25
From: Joe Sallustio
Subject: Re: Confused - Beer gas vs. CO2

I bottle condition stouts with 6 ounces (by weight) of corn sugar per 5
gallons and the head is pretty creamy. I don't need 5 minutes to pour
it though. It's not exactly Guinness, but I don't add a small amount
of pasteurized sour beer to it either....

Joe

Craig Bennett wrote:
> But the beer has already been carbonated with Co2 right ? they're just
> using air to pressurize the keg and so dispense it ? I imagine a pub would
> go through 50 liter kegs in very little time, so probably not a big deal.
>
> I remember reading an article that cask conditioned ales in England are
> dispensed in a similar manner, dont remember how exactly, but I got the
> impression that co2 was frowned upon.
>
> Interesting about the 'beer gas' I've been toying with the idea of trying my
> hand at a stout for a while, as a longtime drinker of draft guinness, I
> would be keen to try and replicate, or at least get something similar to,
> that creamy texture. though from what I read, it requires an investment in
> the special faucet too.
>
> ..one of these days, when I have some spare cash :-)
>
> Craig B.
>
>
>
>
>
> "QD Steve" <adlab@bigponddotnetdotau.trashthisbit> wrote in message
> news:8amkg.10044$ap3.2720@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> >
> , fire extinguisher refillers, etc.
> >>
> >>
> >> John.
> >
> > Slightly off topic, but I was astounded to find out that tap beer sold in
> > most pubs in my location (South Australia) that use the newer
> > propylene-glycol refrigeration systems, dispense the beer with nothing
> > more than filtered air from a standard compressor. Standard pub keg size
> > is 50 Liters so, I guess with pubs with a relatively high turnover,
> > oxidation is not going to be a problem. The beers taste just fine and show
> > no sign of off flavours!
> > Steve W (in Aus)
> >

Date: 22 Jun 2006 08:35:43
From: miker
Subject: Re: Confused - Beer gas vs. CO2

I don't get the same taste/mouthfeel etc. from a low carbonated cask
ale as I do from beer gas, so the nitrogen must be adding its own
unique quality.

I definitely could pick out the three different beers (Regular CO2,
Beer gas, Cask ale) from a blind taste test. I believe each has its own
signature, and not just in appearance.

Date: 22 Jun 2006 17:07:53
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Confused - Beer gas vs. CO2

On 22 Jun 2006 08:35:43 -0700, <mlracette@aol.com > wrote:
> I don't get the same taste/mouthfeel etc. from a low carbonated cask
> ale as I do from beer gas, so the nitrogen must be adding its own
> unique quality.

Are you comparing the same identical beer with the different serving
methods, and are they carbonated to the exact same level each time, or
are you comparing different beers and different levels of carbonation for
each method? I suspect you're getting into a bit of an "apples and
oranges" type situation.

If beer A with carbonation level A and serving method A tastes better to
you than beer B with carbonation level B and serving method B. You can't
conclude that it's the serving method that makes a difference.

Given the same beer with the same level of CO2 carbonation, I don't see
how it would make any difference (or even be detectable) what gas you use
to push the beer through the line.

John.

Date: 22 Jun 2006 14:38:51
From: miker
Subject: Re: Confused - Beer gas vs. CO2

John 'Shaggy' Kolesar wrote:

> Personally, I think alot of the perceived difference is because the
> drinker expects there to be a difference. The rest of it probably has to
> do with carbonation level, or other differences in the beer.>

> John.

Ok, guess I'm not going to convince you. Nor you me. Can't believe
there are nitro users here on this board who are going to sit back and
let you tell them they could just as easily have undercarbed their beer
instead of messing with that beer gas setup and still get the same
results excepting the appearance. I just find it hard to believe
anyone would go to the trouble and expense to use beer gas if you could
just undercarbonate the same beer and get the same results as beer gas
-except for the look.

Date: 22 Jun 2006 21:51:07
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Confused - Beer gas vs. CO2

On 22 Jun 2006 14:38:51 -0700, <mlracette@aol.com > wrote:
> Ok, guess I'm not going to convince you. Nor you me. Can't believe
> there are nitro users here on this board who are going to sit back and
> let you tell them they could just as easily have undercarbed their beer
> instead of messing with that beer gas setup and still get the same
> results excepting the appearance. I just find it hard to believe
> anyone would go to the trouble and expense to use beer gas if you could
> just undercarbonate the same beer and get the same results as beer gas
> -except for the look.

Beer gas didn't start as a homebrewing thing, it started with commercial
beer and bars, homebrewers just copied it from them when it started to
get popular. I can easily believe that a bar would spend trouble/expense
installing something that only changed the appearance of the beer, especially
as the trend caught on. The bar wants to sell more beer, they don't care
if the customer buys it because it tastes better or if they buy it because
it looks cool. If they can get everybody to leave the bar next door and
come over to theirs because ... "Ooooh, look. Their beer has the famous
Guiness head on it", they'll easily spend money to do so. They'd be
a stupid business person if they didn't.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not really trying to say that beer gas is a bad
thing. I buy widget cans of Guiness myself, because I think they taste
better than the standard bottled Guiness. But the reason they taste
better is because of the lower carbonation. Personally, I don't really
care if it has a normal head or a creamy "cascading bubbles" head. If
a homebrewer wants to get a beer gas system because they like the way
it makes the beer look, then there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.
I just wouldn't want someone to go out and spend the money on extra
equipment because they think they have to in order to make the beer taste
better.

John.

Date: 23 Jun 2006 00:51:58
From: QD Steve
Subject: Re: Confused - Beer gas vs. CO2

"John 'Shaggy' Kolesar" <spam@shagg.net > wrote in message
news:slrne9m49c.end.spam@weizen.shagg.net...
> On 22 Jun 2006 14:38:51 -0700, <mlracette@aol.com> wrote:
>> Ok, guess I'm not going to convince you. Nor you me. Can't believe
>> there are nitro users here on this board who are going to sit back and
>> let you tell them they could just as easily have undercarbed their beer
>> instead of messing with that beer gas setup and still get the same
>> results excepting the appearance. I just find it hard to believe
>> anyone would go to the trouble and expense to use beer gas if you could
>> just undercarbonate the same beer and get the same results as beer gas
>> -except for the look.
>
> Beer gas didn't start as a homebrewing thing, it started with commercial
> beer and bars, homebrewers just copied it from them when it started to
> get popular. I can easily believe that a bar would spend trouble/expense
> installing something that only changed the appearance of the beer,
> especially
> as the trend caught on. The bar wants to sell more beer, they don't care
> if the customer buys it because it tastes better or if they buy it because
> it looks cool. If they can get everybody to leave the bar next door and
> come over to theirs because ... "Ooooh, look. Their beer has the famous
> Guiness head on it", they'll easily spend money to do so. They'd be
> a stupid business person if they didn't.
>
> Don't get me wrong, I'm not really trying to say that beer gas is a bad
> thing. I buy widget cans of Guiness myself, because I think they taste
> better than the standard bottled Guiness. But the reason they taste
> better is because of the lower carbonation. Personally, I don't really
> care if it has a normal head or a creamy "cascading bubbles" head. If
> a homebrewer wants to get a beer gas system because they like the way
> it makes the beer look, then there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.
> I just wouldn't want someone to go out and spend the money on extra
> equipment because they think they have to in order to make the beer taste
> better.
>
>
> John.
A thought that crossed my mind. If you use beer gas to carbonate a keg of
beer, the CO2 will disolve into the beer but, if I understand correctly, the
nitrogen will not as it is not soluble in water. This will leave mainly
nitrogen in the head space to dispense the beer. Yes?
Steve W (in Aus)

Date: 23 Jun 2006 00:58:15
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Confused - Beer gas vs. CO2

On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 00:51:58 GMT, <adlab@bigponddotnetdotau.trashthisbit > wrote:
> A thought that crossed my mind. If you use beer gas to carbonate a keg of
> beer, the CO2 will disolve into the beer but, if I understand correctly, the
> nitrogen will not as it is not soluble in water. This will leave mainly
> nitrogen in the head space to dispense the beer. Yes?

The headspace should contain the same ratio as the tank does, usually
75%/25% Nitrogen/CO2.

John.

Date: 26 Jun 2006 12:32:26
From: Chris Szajna
Subject: Re: Confused - Beer gas vs. CO2

You're right. Beer Gas didn't start as a homebrew thing. But I can't think
of anything on my kegging setup that did. It was all designed to be used by
bars and restaurants to dispense beer or soda.

As for why beer gas came to be is another issue. Many of today's bars use
beer gas (some even mix it onsite using a N generator) with a standard
faucet to allow them to serve beer through very long lines without dealing
with foaming issues. Less foam (washed down the drain) means more profit
and it's easier/faster to serve. It makes economical sense.

What this thread is addressing (really) is the use of a stout faucet and not
just the reduced carbonation level. When you push beer through a stout
faucet you are adding air into the mix much the same way a beer engine does.
This added air adds to the mouth feel and "creaminess" of the beer. If you
don't believe that air is important to mouth feel then I suggest you read up
on the importance of air when making ice cream. The issue with using a beer
faucet though is that the little disc in the faucet doesn't really aerate
properly unless dispensing under higher (32 PSI in my case) pressures. If
straight CO2 was used you would get nothing but foam.

There are many things that contribute to the experience and enjoyment of a
good beer, wine, meal, etc. Some of the obvious ones are appearance, smell,
taste and texture. What may be important to you may be (and likely is)
different than what is important to me. If by using beer gas with a stout
faucet I get a nicer texture and appearance that makes for a better
experience then that's what it is all about. If all I want to do is get
drunk then I drink something else. FWIW if I walk into a bar seeking a nice
creamy stout and find out it is served through a standard faucet I generally
go for something else.

Cheers,

Chris

"John 'Shaggy' Kolesar" <spam@shagg.net > wrote in message
news:slrne9m49c.end.spam@weizen.shagg.net...
> On 22 Jun 2006 14:38:51 -0700, <mlracette@aol.com> wrote:
>> Ok, guess I'm not going to convince you. Nor you me. Can't believe
>> there are nitro users here on this board who are going to sit back and
>> let you tell them they could just as easily have undercarbed their beer
>> instead of messing with that beer gas setup and still get the same
>> results excepting the appearance. I just find it hard to believe
>> anyone would go to the trouble and expense to use beer gas if you could
>> just undercarbonate the same beer and get the same results as beer gas
>> -except for the look.
>
> Beer gas didn't start as a homebrewing thing, it started with commercial
> beer and bars, homebrewers just copied it from them when it started to
> get popular. I can easily believe that a bar would spend trouble/expense
> installing something that only changed the appearance of the beer,
> especially
> as the trend caught on. The bar wants to sell more beer, they don't care
> if the customer buys it because it tastes better or if they buy it because
> it looks cool. If they can get everybody to leave the bar next door and
> come over to theirs because ... "Ooooh, look. Their beer has the famous
> Guiness head on it", they'll easily spend money to do so. They'd be
> a stupid business person if they didn't.
>
> Don't get me wrong, I'm not really trying to say that beer gas is a bad
> thing. I buy widget cans of Guiness myself, because I think they taste
> better than the standard bottled Guiness. But the reason they taste
> better is because of the lower carbonation. Personally, I don't really
> care if it has a normal head or a creamy "cascading bubbles" head. If
> a homebrewer wants to get a beer gas system because they like the way
> it makes the beer look, then there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.
> I just wouldn't want someone to go out and spend the money on extra
> equipment because they think they have to in order to make the beer taste
> better.
>
>
> John.
>

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Date: 29 Jun 2006 20:26:31
From: Ian Mac
Subject: Re: Confused - Beer gas vs. CO2

Two cents from West Oz.
We cop it big time from the gas guys, you can get CO2 for workshop use @
~$10 a fill of your (small) rented bottle or beer gas (clean CO2) @ $35
a fill.
If you are nuts/very serious and want the CO2/Nit bottles you need a
second mortgage and a rich dead uncle.

The only reason I posted a reply is that the meaning for beer gas is
different in different parts of the brewing world.

Cheers Ian

Chris Szajna wrote:
> You're right. Beer Gas didn't start as a homebrew thing. But I can't think
> of anything on my kegging setup that did. It was all designed to be used by
> bars and restaurants to dispense beer or soda.
>
> As for why beer gas came to be is another issue. Many of today's bars use
> beer gas (some even mix it onsite using a N generator) with a standard
> faucet to allow them to serve beer through very long lines without dealing
> with foaming issues. Less foam (washed down the drain) means more profit
> and it's easier/faster to serve. It makes economical sense.
>
> What this thread is addressing (really) is the use of a stout faucet and not
> just the reduced carbonation level. When you push beer through a stout
> faucet you are adding air into the mix much the same way a beer engine does.
> This added air adds to the mouth feel and "creaminess" of the beer. If you
> don't believe that air is important to mouth feel then I suggest you read up
> on the importance of air when making ice cream. The issue with using a beer
> faucet though is that the little disc in the faucet doesn't really aerate
> properly unless dispensing under higher (32 PSI in my case) pressures. If
> straight CO2 was used you would get nothing but foam.
>
> There are many things that contribute to the experience and enjoyment of a
> good beer, wine, meal, etc. Some of the obvious ones are appearance, smell,
> taste and texture. What may be important to you may be (and likely is)
> different than what is important to me. If by using beer gas with a stout
> faucet I get a nicer texture and appearance that makes for a better
> experience then that's what it is all about. If all I want to do is get
> drunk then I drink something else. FWIW if I walk into a bar seeking a nice
> creamy stout and find out it is served through a standard faucet I generally
> go for something else.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> "John 'Shaggy' Kolesar" <spam@shagg.net> wrote in message
> news:slrne9m49c.end.spam@weizen.shagg.net...
>
>>On 22 Jun 2006 14:38:51 -0700, <mlracette@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Ok, guess I'm not going to convince you. Nor you me. Can't believe
>>>there are nitro users here on this board who are going to sit back and
>>>let you tell them they could just as easily have undercarbed their beer
>>>instead of messing with that beer gas setup and still get the same
>>>results excepting the appearance. I just find it hard to believe
>>>anyone would go to the trouble and expense to use beer gas if you could
>>>just undercarbonate the same beer and get the same results as beer gas
>>>-except for the look.
>>
>>Beer gas didn't start as a homebrewing thing, it started with commercial
>>beer and bars, homebrewers just copied it from them when it started to
>>get popular. I can easily believe that a bar would spend trouble/expense
>>installing something that only changed the appearance of the beer,
>>especially
>>as the trend caught on. The bar wants to sell more beer, they don't care
>>if the customer buys it because it tastes better or if they buy it because
>>it looks cool. If they can get everybody to leave the bar next door and
>>come over to theirs because ... "Ooooh, look. Their beer has the famous
>>Guiness head on it", they'll easily spend money to do so. They'd be
>>a stupid business person if they didn't.
>>
>>Don't get me wrong, I'm not really trying to say that beer gas is a bad
>>thing. I buy widget cans of Guiness myself, because I think they taste
>>better than the standard bottled Guiness. But the reason they taste
>>better is because of the lower carbonation. Personally, I don't really
>>care if it has a normal head or a creamy "cascading bubbles" head. If
>>a homebrewer wants to get a beer gas system because they like the way
>>it makes the beer look, then there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.
>>I just wouldn't want someone to go out and spend the money on extra
>>equipment because they think they have to in order to make the beer taste
>>better.
>>
>>
>>John.
>>
>
>
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Date: 29 Jun 2006 20:27:22
From: Ian Mac
Subject: Re: Confused - Beer gas vs. CO2

Date: 22 Jun 2006 12:11:30
From: miker
Subject: Re: Confused - Beer gas vs. CO2

John 'Shaggy' Kolesar wrote:
> On 22 Jun 2006 08:35:43 -0700, <mlracette@aol.com> wrote:
> > I don't get the same taste/mouthfeel etc. from a low carbonated cask
> > ale as I do from beer gas, so the nitrogen must be adding its own
> > unique quality.
>
> Are you comparing the same identical beer with the different serving
> methods, and are they carbonated to the exact same level each time, or
> are you comparing different beers and different levels of carbonation for
> each method? I suspect you're getting into a bit of an "apples and
> oranges" type situation.
>
> If beer A with carbonation level A and serving method A tastes better to
> you than beer B with carbonation level B and serving method B. You can't
> conclude that it's the serving method that makes a difference.
>
> Given the same beer with the same level of CO2 carbonation, I don't see
> how it would make any difference (or even be detectable) what gas you use
> to push the beer through the line.
>
>
> John.

No, have to admit I haven't compared apples to apples to apples, but
close. We have a local pub here where they have a certain IPA that they
serve with regular CO2 and with beer gas and occasionally as a cask
conditioned ale served with a hand pump. Not sure what the CO2 levels
are on all three, so maybe the beergas CO2 level is different than the
cask beer - but one thing is for sure, they all seem unique and I think
anyone could pick them out blindfolded.

The question is what is different about them (the beer gas ale vs. low
carbed cask ale)?

>From what I understand, Nitrogen is somewhat soluble in beer (ppm
levels, so admittedly very small) so maybe this is a factor. I have
also heard that Nitro can cause beer to be less bitter because it
causes the hop bitterness to go into the foamy head. This could
influence the flavor perception. Also, the very creamy head produced by
the beer gas could be what sets them apart. I don't think they use a
sparkler on the beer gas tap (not positive about this), but the beer
gas ale gives a downward cascade of bubbles that result in a very
creamy head and mouthfeel. Lastly, perhaps the carbonation level really
is different between the beer gas and the cask ale and this is the only
difference as you are suggesting.

I really don't know, but still think there is more to it (beer gas)
than just the look.

Mike

Date: 22 Jun 2006 20:53:41
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Confused - Beer gas vs. CO2

On 22 Jun 2006 12:11:30 -0700, <mlracette@aol.com > wrote:
>From what I understand, Nitrogen is somewhat soluble in beer (ppm
> levels, so admittedly very small) so maybe this is a factor.

I'd be skeptical without some sort of proof that it makes a perceptible
impact. My understanding is that the amount is very small, and one of the
reasons for picking nitrogen for use in beer gas is that it is basically
inert with regards to beer. IE, it's not like CO2 which undergoes a
chemical reaction with the beer to form carbonic acid in addition to the
carbonation bubbles.

> also heard that Nitro can cause beer to be less bitter because it
> causes the hop bitterness to go into the foamy head.

How does the Nitrogen cause isomerized alpha acids to all migrate to
the head? Again, I'm fairly skeptical, sounds more like a "wives tale"
than scientific theory.

> Also, the very creamy head produced by
> the beer gas could be what sets them apart. I don't think they use a
> sparkler on the beer gas tap (not positive about this), but the beer
> gas ale gives a downward cascade of bubbles that result in a very
> creamy head and mouthfeel.

It's the sparkler that does that. I'd be surprised if they were serving
using beer gas but without using a sparkler of some sort. That's kind of
the whole point of using the beer gas.

> Lastly, perhaps the carbonation level really
> is different between the beer gas and the cask ale and this is the only
> difference as you are suggesting.
>
> I really don't know, but still think there is more to it (beer gas)
> than just the look.

Personally, I think alot of the perceived difference is because the
drinker expects there to be a difference. The rest of it probably has to
do with carbonation level, or other differences in the beer. Isn't the
Guiness that you get in a nitro keg actually a completely different
recipe than the one they sell in bottles (without the widget)?

John.

Date: 22 Jun 2006 19:37:01
From: Scott Sellers
Subject: Re: Confused - Beer gas vs. CO2

miker <mlracette@aol.com >:

[...]

>The question is what is different about them (the beer gas ale
>vs. low carbed cask ale)?

>From what I understand, Nitrogen is somewhat soluble in beer
>(ppm levels, so admittedly very small) so maybe this is a
>factor. I have also heard that Nitro can cause beer to be less
>bitter because it causes the hop bitterness to go into the foamy
>head. This could influence the flavor perception. Also, the
>very creamy head produced by the beer gas could be what sets
>them apart. I don't think they use a sparkler on the beer gas
>tap (not positive about this), but the beer gas ale gives a
>downward cascade of bubbles that result in a very creamy head
>and mouthfeel. Lastly, perhaps the carbonation level really is
>different between the beer gas and the cask ale and this is the
>only difference as you are suggesting.

I think a special tap is standard for Guinness. I think forcing
the beer through a sparkler probably decarbonates it some,
smoothes it out (could be the same thing), and could be easing
the bitterness as you suggest.

I know alot of people who ooh and aah over a nicely poured
Guinness. I enjoy a few myself. To the extent that a creamy
head ads to the flavor experience, you can't really factor
it out. It is different.

Scott S

--
Scott Sellers

Date: 22 Jun 2006 10:32:44
From:
Subject: Re: Confused - Beer gas vs. CO2

> Slightly off topic, but I was astounded to find out that tap beer sold in
> most pubs in my location (South Australia) that use the newer
> propylene-glycol refrigeration systems, dispense the beer with nothing more
> than filtered air from a standard compressor. Standard pub keg size is 50
> Liters so, I guess with pubs with a relatively high turnover, oxidation is
> not going to be a problem. The beers taste just fine and show no sign of off
> flavours!
> Steve W (in Aus)

Compressed air is often used in pubs to "power" pneumatic pumps that
push the beer (already carbonated and sitting in serving tanks) through
the lines. The air never comes into contact with the beer.

Are you sure the air in your case is literally being used to push the
beer through?

-Nick

Date: 26 Jun 2006 21:08:12
From:
Subject: Re: Confused - Beer gas vs. CO2

Chris Szajna wrote:
> You're right. Beer Gas didn't start as a homebrew thing. But I can't think
> of anything on my kegging setup that did. It was all designed to be used by
> bars and restaurants to dispense beer or soda.
>
> As for why beer gas came to be is another issue. Many of today's bars use
> beer gas (some even mix it onsite using a N generator) with a standard
> faucet to allow them to serve beer through very long lines without dealing
> with foaming issues. Less foam (washed down the drain) means more profit
> and it's easier/faster to serve. It makes economical sense.
>
> What this thread is addressing (really) is the use of a stout faucet and not
> just the reduced carbonation level. When you push beer through a stout
> faucet you are adding air into the mix much the same way a beer engine does.
> This added air adds to the mouth feel and "creaminess" of the beer. If you
> don't believe that air is important to mouth feel then I suggest you read up
> on the importance of air when making ice cream. The issue with using a beer
> faucet though is that the little disc in the faucet doesn't really aerate
> properly unless dispensing under higher (32 PSI in my case) pressures. If
> straight CO2 was used you would get nothing but foam.
>
> There are many things that contribute to the experience and enjoyment of a
> good beer, wine, meal, etc. Some of the obvious ones are appearance, smell,
> taste and texture. What may be important to you may be (and likely is)
> different than what is important to me. If by using beer gas with a stout
> faucet I get a nicer texture and appearance that makes for a better
> experience then that's what it is all about. If all I want to do is get
> drunk then I drink something else. FWIW if I walk into a bar seeking a nice
> creamy stout and find out it is served through a standard faucet I generally
> go for something else.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> "John 'Shaggy' Kolesar" <spam@shagg.net> wrote in message
> news:slrne9m49c.end.spam@weizen.shagg.net...
> > On 22 Jun 2006 14:38:51 -0700, <mlracette@aol.com> wrote:
> >> Ok, guess I'm not going to convince you. Nor you me. Can't believe
> >> there are nitro users here on this board who are going to sit back and
> >> let you tell them they could just as easily have undercarbed their beer
> >> instead of messing with that beer gas setup and still get the same
> >> results excepting the appearance. I just find it hard to believe
> >> anyone would go to the trouble and expense to use beer gas if you could
> >> just undercarbonate the same beer and get the same results as beer gas
> >> -except for the look.
> >
> > Beer gas didn't start as a homebrewing thing, it started with commercial
> > beer and bars, homebrewers just copied it from them when it started to
> > get popular. I can easily believe that a bar would spend trouble/expense
> > installing something that only changed the appearance of the beer,
> > especially
> > as the trend caught on. The bar wants to sell more beer, they don't care
> > if the customer buys it because it tastes better or if they buy it because
> > it looks cool. If they can get everybody to leave the bar next door and
> > come over to theirs because ... "Ooooh, look. Their beer has the famous
> > Guiness head on it", they'll easily spend money to do so. They'd be
> > a stupid business person if they didn't.
> >
> > Don't get me wrong, I'm not really trying to say that beer gas is a bad
> > thing. I buy widget cans of Guiness myself, because I think they taste
> > better than the standard bottled Guiness. But the reason they taste
> > better is because of the lower carbonation. Personally, I don't really
> > care if it has a normal head or a creamy "cascading bubbles" head. If
> > a homebrewer wants to get a beer gas system because they like the way
> > it makes the beer look, then there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.
> > I just wouldn't want someone to go out and spend the money on extra
> > equipment because they think they have to in order to make the beer taste
> > better.
> >
> >
> > John.
> >
>
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

I'm guessing that's also why you can't buy anything smaller than a FULL
KEG of Guinness :( and why the average price for said keg (in my area)
is about $150. All that money in the Guinness setup and then I gotta
pay $150 for 1/2 (who can drink ~13 gallons of Guinness in 3 months?!
well i suppose some can:)). I get about 4 months out of the Guinness
before it starts to taste bad. Re the Beer Gas ... I think it's
necessary. I've read that the Nitro literally creates the smaller
bubbles we've come to like with stouts.

Date: 27 Jun 2006 14:09:08
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Confused - Beer gas vs. CO2

On 26 Jun 2006 21:08:12 -0700, <twobearcatz@yahoo.com > wrote:
> I've read that the Nitro literally creates the smaller
> bubbles we've come to like with stouts.

Moving in a full circle... the Nitro doesn't do it directly. You can
create the same effect without the nitrogen.

John.

Date: 27 Jun 2006 14:25:56
From: Joel
Subject: Re: Confused - Beer gas vs. CO2

John 'Shaggy' Kolesar <spam@shagg.net > wrote:
>On 26 Jun 2006 21:08:12 -0700, <twobearcatz@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I've read that the Nitro literally creates the smaller
>> bubbles we've come to like with stouts.
>
>Moving in a full circle... the Nitro doesn't do it directly. You can
>create the same effect without the nitrogen.

I haven't been following this thread, so may be repeating
info, but it's the sheer force created by the sparkler under
the higher mixed-gas pressure used in those systems causes it.
So, yes, one can create the same effect without nitrogen.
I still have a little syringe from the pre-widget
days that Guinness included with bottled beer (this was
bought in and hand-carried from Ireland), which was used
to create the same effect as the widget, sparkler, etc.
Any old syringe will do; just put the tip of the syringe
into the beer galss, pull some of your beer into the syringe,
then quickly depress the plunger. Voila! Instant "stout
head," no nitrogen needed.
--
Joel Plutchak

I'm looking California, but feeling Minnesota.

Date: 27 Jun 2006 16:02:48
From: miker
Subject: Re: Confused - Beer gas vs. CO2

John 'Shaggy' Kolesar wrote:

> Again, we're just heading in circles here so I don't know if this discussion
> is really productive or not. However, the smaller bubbles and creamy head
> don't have anything directly to do with the Nitrogen, and yes you can
> get the same effect with just CO2. Try it sometime, I've done it before.

It's just friendly discussion - if it had to be productive most of the
discussion boards would have to shut down and this one would be about
1/2 the size it is now.

The smaller bubbles and creamy head (as well as better head stability
and mouthfeel) have everything to do with the nitrogen, that was my
whole point. And once again, if you could get the same exact results
with just CO2 and a stout faucet, professional brewers and most
homebrewers wouldn't spend the extra money, time and effort to use the
nitro. It just wouldn't make any sense, especially when you are in beer
for your business - every investment is researched and examined
carefully.

Here's an interesting discussion on nitrogen from the Probrewer
website. It talks about what it takes to get nitrogen into solution in
beer. It sounds like lots of pubs are not really doing this. Using
pressure and time to really get the nitro into solution, that is. They
are just pushing the beer with beer gas and calling it nitro beer. (I'm
not referring to pubs that use beer gas to avoid overcarbonation due to
long runs, but those advertising nitro beer). Maybe lots of us out
there really haven't had true nitro beer.

http://www.probrewer.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=4464&highlight=nitrogen

Date: 28 Jun 2006 04:36:26
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Confused - Beer gas vs. CO2

On 27 Jun 2006 16:02:48 -0700, <mlracette@aol.com > wrote:
> The smaller bubbles and creamy head (as well as better head stability
> and mouthfeel) have everything to do with the nitrogen, that was my
> whole point.

Again, no it doesn't. (I know this is getting boring though... no it doesn't,
yes it does, no it doesn't... etc)

> And once again, if you could get the same exact results
> with just CO2 and a stout faucet, professional brewers and most
> homebrewers wouldn't spend the extra money, time and effort to use the
> nitro.

No, you can't get the same exact results with just CO2 and a stout
faucet. I never said you could. If you want to use a stout faucet to do
this then you pretty much need the beer gas. There are other ways of
creating this effect that doesn't require either a stout faucet or beer
gas though. The problem with a stout faucet is that the beer needs to be
forced at high pressure through the faucet in order for the restriction in
the stout faucet to create the creamy head and knock CO2 out as it is poured.
It's the stout faucet (or more specifically the mechanical action of forcing
the beer through a highly restrictive opening) that is responsible for the
visible effects you see. If you tried to do this with just CO2 and a stout
faucet, then the beer would end up way overcarbonated because of the much
higher pressures you would need from your CO2 tank. *This* is the reason
that beer gas is used. The nitrogen acts as a relatively inert propellant
that will allow you to force the beer through the stout faucet under high
pressure, without over carbonating the beer. If nitrogen disolved into the
beer to any significant degree it would defeat the entire purpose of using
nitrogen in the first place. Nitrogen was picked as the other gas to use
in "beer gas" specifically because it is realtively unsoluble.

> Here's an interesting discussion on nitrogen from the Probrewer
> website.

That discussion sounds like a bunch of brewers who have absolutely no
science background and have no idea how nitrogen beers work. They are just
making wild guesses and speculation as to what is happening and what is
causing the results that they are seeing. IMO, that is primarily the type
of information that leads to "common wisdom" like this in the first place.
Unfortunately, it's often untrue.

> They are just pushing the beer with beer gas and calling it nitro beer.

Which is precisely what nitro beer is.

> (I'm not referring to pubs that use beer gas to avoid overcarbonation due
> to long runs, but those advertising nitro beer).

In this case, the nitrogen is not typically used just to avoid overcarbonation
from long runs. It's used to avoid overcarbonation due to the high pressures
required to force the beer through a stout faucet. There is no such thing
as "nitrogenation", at least not how they think of it. Some professional
brewers may *think* there is, but all they are really seeing is the effects of
carbonation when the beer is pushed through a stout faucet. They just don't
understand that the nitrogen is an inert propellant.

You can accomplish the exact same effect by forcing your beer through a
different restrictive opening in such a way that you don't need to create
overcarbonation issues. IE, like squirting regular beer through a syringe.

John.

Date: 27 Jun 2006 14:13:53
From: miker
Subject: Re: Confused - Beer gas vs. CO2

John 'Shaggy' Kolesar wrote:

> >Moving in a full circle... the Nitro doesn't do it directly. You can
> >create the same effect without the nitrogen.

and then Joel wrote:

>to create the same effect as the widget, sparkler, etc.
> Any old syringe will do; just put the tip of the syringe
> into the beer galss, pull some of your beer into the syringe,
> then quickly depress the plunger. Voila! Instant "stout
> head," no nitrogen needed.

Can't let this slide by as fact. Nitrogen creates smaller bubbles
resulting in a denser, creamier head that is more stable than CO2 alone
whether you inject CO2 through a stout faucet or syringe or whatever. I
don't think you can get the same effect as nitrogen with just CO2.
Guess I will have to go searching for references...

Here's a few, though you'll have to do some reading to get to the
usually short parts about the nitrogen

http://www.ibd.org.uk/igbsite/business/training/files/Timscourses/tech%20Summ.%20July.pdf

http://byo.com/mrwizard/906.html

http://oz.craftbrewer.org/Library/Methods/Other/KunzeFoam.shtml

http://www.sinc.sunysb.edu/Stu/tross/

Date: 27 Jun 2006 23:43:22
From: Joel
Subject: Re: Confused - Beer gas vs. CO2

miker <mlracette@aol.com > wrote:
>Can't let this slide by as fact. Nitrogen creates smaller bubbles
>resulting in a denser, creamier head that is more stable than CO2 alone
>whether you inject CO2 through a stout faucet or syringe or whatever. I
>don't think you can get the same effect as nitrogen with just CO2.

And yet, Guinness did it. <shrug >
--
Joel Plutchak

I'm looking California, but feeling Minnesota.

Date: 27 Jun 2006 19:59:50
From: Chris Szajna
Subject: Re: Confused - Beer gas vs. CO2

"Joel" <plutchak@see.headers > wrote in message
news:e7sfqq$un7$1@badger.ncsa.uiuc.edu...
> miker <mlracette@aol.com> wrote:
>>Can't let this slide by as fact. Nitrogen creates smaller bubbles
>>resulting in a denser, creamier head that is more stable than CO2 alone
>>whether you inject CO2 through a stout faucet or syringe or whatever. I
>>don't think you can get the same effect as nitrogen with just CO2.
>
> And yet, Guinness did it. <shrug>
> --
> Joel Plutchak
>
> I'm looking California, but feeling Minnesota.
>

NO they didn't!!! But they sure convinced a lot of people that they did.

The syringe gimmick was no different than the "ultrasonic" gimmick that they
recently developed. Anything to sell more beer.

Now THAT is marketing.

Chris

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Date: 28 Jun 2006 04:39:56
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Confused - Beer gas vs. CO2

On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 19:59:50 -0400, <szajna.spam@taylorstown.net > wrote:
> The syringe gimmick was no different than the "ultrasonic" gimmick that they
> recently developed. Anything to sell more beer.

I don't know about the "ultrasonic" thing (I've seen it advertised but don't
know a lot about how it works). However, the "syringe gimmick" as you call
it does exactly what it says it does. It will create the exact same thing
as using a stout faucet. The principle behind what the syringe does is
the same as what the stout faucet does. Have you tried it?

John.

Date: 27 Jun 2006 21:41:12
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Confused - Beer gas vs. CO2

On 27 Jun 2006 14:13:53 -0700, <mlracette@aol.com > wrote:
> Can't let this slide by as fact. Nitrogen creates smaller bubbles
> resulting in a denser, creamier head that is more stable than CO2 alone
> whether you inject CO2 through a stout faucet or syringe or whatever. I
> don't think you can get the same effect as nitrogen with just CO2.

Again, we're just heading in circles here so I don't know if this discussion
is really productive or not. However, the smaller bubbles and creamy head
don't have anything directly to do with the Nitrogen, and yes you can
get the same effect with just CO2. Try it sometime, I've done it before.

John.

Date: 28 Jun 2006 09:58:44
From: miker
Subject: Re: Confused - Beer gas vs. CO2

You make a real good argument, John, very concise and understandable.
But, I still think you are ignoring the "science" behind the nitrogen.
A small amount does go into solution and using it with the CO2 creates
smaller bubbles, etc. and thus a different beer than CO2, so I don't
think you can just ignore it and say you can get the same exact effect
with CO2. I know the references I posted are not the best available,
but all of them refer to better head stability and a creamier head with
the use of nitrogen. If you can direct us to a reference that says you
can get the same exact effect with just CO2 then I'll probably be
convinced. Also, it seems like it wouldn't have been that hard for
someone to figure out how to get a small injection of air into tap beer
(like you would with the syringe) that would be a lot cheaper and
easier than the beer gas and stout faucet if you could really get the
exact same effect that way.

I admit I don't know enough about the nitrogenation topic to really
comment on it but I don't think you can totally dismiss this topic as
nonsense the way you do without further explanation, either. But, as
you say, these guys could be clueless. Not every pro brewer knows the
science behind all aspects of brewing, that's for sure

As far as the syringe trick, I will give it a try. I never saw the
Guinness syringes. What size of syringe do you need? A hypodermic type
or what? I have a large syringe that I use to start a syphon and I
suppose I could get a smaller one at the pharmacy. What is the
technique exactly?
Thanks.

I'll let it go after this as you are probably right that people are
getting a little tired of this one. I will check with a couple of
brewers I know that use nitro at their pubs, though, and if they have
some useful info I'll post it.

Mike

Date: 28 Jun 2006 18:26:53
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Confused - Beer gas vs. CO2

On 28 Jun 2006 09:58:44 -0700, <mlracette@aol.com > wrote:
> As far as the syringe trick, I will give it a try. I never saw the
> Guinness syringes. What size of syringe do you need? A hypodermic type
> or what? I have a large syringe that I use to start a syphon and I
> suppose I could get a smaller one at the pharmacy. What is the
> technique exactly?

FYI, here's an interesting interview with the chief engineer for Guiness about
the syringe (it also goes on to talk about the widgets in the next
couple pages).

Before 1977, all bottled Guinness was different than what you found at the
pub. "The bottled beer used carbon dioxide, so the head was large, bubbly,
and brown. instead of fine, creamy, and white," says Gareth Halliwell, the
chief engineer for Guinness between the mid-1970s and 1995. The first
attempted device was the "creamer," pictured above. Customers received the
large plastic syringe with each six-pack they purchased. They had to draw the
beer into the syringe, then force the hammer down to squirt the liquid out
through its 15/1,000th of an inch opening and into a glass. It worked, but
was a hassle. "People were always losing their creamers," Halliwell says,
"and the rest of the six-pack was worthless without one."

http://www.cargomag.com/culture/content/slideshows/050204culisl?slide=1&playing=false&loops=1

John.

Date: 28 Jun 2006 18:00:05
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Confused - Beer gas vs. CO2

On 28 Jun 2006 09:58:44 -0700, <mlracette@aol.com > wrote:
> I admit I don't know enough about the nitrogenation topic to really
> comment on it but I don't think you can totally dismiss this topic as
> nonsense the way you do without further explanation, either. But, as
> you say, these guys could be clueless. Not every pro brewer knows the
> science behind all aspects of brewing, that's for sure

One good reference comes from one of the responses in that probrewer
discussion. I don't remember the name off the top of my head, but there
is someone who responds about 3/4 of the way down the thread that gives
very specific solubility numbers for CO2 and Nitrogen. Off the top of my
head, CO2 disolves to around 5000ppm under typical beer pressure. I don't
remember their exact number for Nitrogen, but it was insignificant compared
to the CO2. Something like 20ppm. That poster specifically pointed out
that the amount of "nitrogenation" you're really going to get is
negligable.

They did go on to make a statement that I disagreed with though. They start
their post by making a very convincing argument that Nitrogen does not
disolve into the beer, and then they claim that the stable head is because
the Nitrogen is more stable since the air is made up of a high percentage
of Nitrogen. The partial pressure difference of Nitrogen between
the head and the atmosphere is much lower than CO2 and the atmosphere,
therefore the Nitrogen will not degas as quickly from the beer. While all
of that technically makes sense, it begs the question... if Nitrogen is
insoluble in beer, how does it get into the head? You've got beer gas in
the headspace of the keg, and you are drawing liquid from the bottom. If
Nitrogen is not soluble in beer then it will not get anywhere near your
glass until the keg runs empty.

IMO, I think they were wrong on this one point, and the creamy head is
merely a by product of the restriction in the faucet.

> As far as the syringe trick, I will give it a try. I never saw the
> Guinness syringes. What size of syringe do you need? A hypodermic type
> or what? I have a large syringe that I use to start a syphon and I
> suppose I could get a smaller one at the pharmacy. What is the
> technique exactly?

I think a hypodermic syringe would probably be too small and/or difficult to
use. When I bought my turkey fryer kit, it came with a relatively large
plastic syringe for basting juices into the turkey. That's the one I have
used in the past. It's somewhere inbetween the size of a hypodermic syringe
and the normal turkey baster you usually get that has the rubber sphere
on the end. How well a particular syringe works for this trick will
probably depend on how restrictive the opening is. If you have a large
syringe that will allow the liquid to come out too easily, it might not
create enough restrictive turbulence to give the desired result.

You pour yourself a glass of beer through your normal tap system, leaving
a generous amount of room for a head. Then you put the end of your syringe
into the beer, suck up beer into the syringe, and while still leaving the
end submerged you quickly shoot the beer back out (I've also seen people
say to hold the end of the syringe just above the surface of the beer in
the glass, but that's not how I do it). It will create the same cascading
bubbles and creamy head as you see on a beer poured with beer gas. IMO, it
is the restriction of the faucet/syringe that creates the effect. Nitrogen
is just used as an inert propellant in order to force the beer hard enough
through the restriction to create the effect.

Years ago, before the whole "widget can" thing was invented, Guiness
used to include a syringe when you bought a 6-pack so that you could do
this yourself.

John.

Date: 29 Jun 2006 07:30:00
From: miker
Subject: Re: Confused - Beer gas vs. CO2

Ok, I lied, I won't let it go just yet. And since most of the other
topics on the board lately are about India instead of beer we might as
well keep this thread going a while longer.

As far as the low amounts of N2 (20 ppm or thereabouts) in solution
compared to CO2, it occurred to me that it only takes a few ppm of O2
(which is also much harder to get into solution than CO2) to affect the
quality of a beer. Now granted it takes some time for O2 to affect the
beer, but perhaps the N2 affect is much more rapid.

Date: 29 Jun 2006 14:55:18
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Confused - Beer gas vs. CO2

On 29 Jun 2006 07:30:00 -0700, <mlracette@aol.com > wrote:
> As far as the low amounts of N2 (20 ppm or thereabouts) in solution
> compared to CO2, it occurred to me that it only takes a few ppm of O2
> (which is also much harder to get into solution than CO2) to affect the
> quality of a beer. Now granted it takes some time for O2 to affect the
> beer, but perhaps the N2 affect is much more rapid.

The reason O2 effects the beer in low concentrations is because O2 is
a very reactive gas. There are chemical reactions that occur between
the O2 and beer. That's not the case with N2, which is relatively inert.

John.

Date: 29 Jun 2006 18:57:14
From: Scott Sellers
Subject: Re: Confused - Beer gas vs. CO2

miker <mlracette@aol.com >:

>Ok, I lied, I won't let it go just yet. And since most of the
>other topics on the board lately are about India instead of beer
>we might as well keep this thread going a while longer.

>As far as the low amounts of N2 (20 ppm or thereabouts) in
>solution compared to CO2, it occurred to me that it only takes a
>few ppm of O2 (which is also much harder to get into solution
>than CO2) to affect the quality of a beer. Now granted it takes
>some time for O2 to affect the beer, but perhaps the N2 affect
>is much more rapid.

Sure. The N2 effect would be physical/mechanical, where the
effect of O2 depends on chemical reactions.

I think the main effect of nitrogen is to push a low carbonated
beer through stout faucets, to get that mechanical, bubble
effect. This is also the point of widgets.

OTOH, I'm not prepared to conclude that dissolved nitrogen has no
effect on beer. The thing is, it's hard to guess how one could
test this. I guess one could put a mug of nitro beer next to a
mug of syringe beer, and watch what happens.

I don't use nitro, and do think it's kind of a gimmick. But even
if it is only a service effect, it still can't be factored out of
the beer drinking experience.

Scott S

--
Scott Sellers