| |
Main
Date: 22 Aug 2006 04:23:34
From: JL
Subject: Stout Faucet used without Nitro?
|
Is there anyone with experience that can comment on the effectiveness of
using a stout faucet with restrictor disc in place but with CO2 only (not
N/CO2) and at normal psi (~10 psi)?
If you do this and it works, what carbonation levels do you typically employ
and what pressure when serving?
My beer is carbonated to about 2.2 volumes (10 psi at 42 F). I am hoping to
be able to use the stout faucet at my working pressure (~10 psi) without
having to adjust it up during serving and back down after.
In googling the newsgroup and speaking with people I have seen opinions both
ways to all degrees that contradict each other:
Yes it works.
Yes it works somewhat.
No it won't work without high pressure to push it through the restrictor
disc
No it won't work -- all you will get is a glass full of foam
If there is anyone that can comment please let me know.
I have ordered a stout faucet and will report back my success or lack
thereof using only the CO2. While waiting for the delivery, I'd be relieved
to receive any comments either way.
I ordered the stout faucet without being sure about the answer as I consider
it win-win. If it works with just the CO2, that's a win. If it doesn't, I
will have to add a nitro set up and then I really win. I love this hobby.
|
|
| |
Date: 22 Aug 2006 18:06:22
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Stout Faucet used without Nitro?
|
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 04:23:34 GMT, <jlewis80@columbus.rr.com > wrote:
> Is there anyone with experience that can comment on the effectiveness of
> using a stout faucet with restrictor disc in place but with CO2 only (not
> N/CO2) and at normal psi (~10 psi)?
I've never tried it, however I imagine it would create a lot of foam. You're
essentially going to be "spraying" the beer into your glass. I know that
restrictions in the serving line can cause people problems, the stout
faucet in this scenario is basically just a restriction in the line. I'm
not 100% positive though. Let us know how it works.
John.
|
| | |
Date: 22 Aug 2006 15:55:39
From: Dan Listermann
Subject: Re: Stout Faucet used without Nitro?
|
I doubt that, with normal pressure, you would get much flow. The stout
faucet needs the high pressure to overcome the resistance of the restrictor
plate. You could use CO2 at high pressure, but you would need to remember
to turn it back down to normal pressure when you are finished drinking or it
will wildly overcarbonate your beer.
Dan
"John 'Shaggy' Kolesar" <spam@shagg.net > wrote in message
news:slrneemi22.hhs.spam@weizen.shagg.net...
> On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 04:23:34 GMT, <jlewis80@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
>> Is there anyone with experience that can comment on the effectiveness of
>> using a stout faucet with restrictor disc in place but with CO2 only (not
>> N/CO2) and at normal psi (~10 psi)?
>
> I've never tried it, however I imagine it would create a lot of foam.
> You're
> essentially going to be "spraying" the beer into your glass. I know that
> restrictions in the serving line can cause people problems, the stout
> faucet in this scenario is basically just a restriction in the line. I'm
> not 100% positive though. Let us know how it works.
>
>
> John.
|
| | | |
Date: 23 Aug 2006 06:17:24
From: JL
Subject: Re: Stout Faucet used without Nitro?
|
Hi all, thought I'd post my results:
For starters, this is a 1040 stout carbonated at about 2.2 volumes (10 psi
at 42 F). The stout faucet is the micromatic stout faucet. For those, that
aren't familiar with it, the stout faucet has a nozzle (about 2" in length)
that attaches to the end of the faucet and tapers to a smaller opening.
Inside the nozzle is a restrictor disc with 4 or 5 pin holes and below this
a plastic flow straightener. The handle pulls forward, but you can also push
back on it like a creamer faucet. The regular faucet is a standard faucet,
also micromatic.
1) Regular faucet, 10 psi, pour down the middle of the glass:
Nice head in the pint glass but the foam lacked the tight little bubbles and
creaminess of a nitro beer.
Larger bubbles, "normal" CO2 head.
Pleasant head but not thick / dense stuff.
2) Stout faucet, 10 psi, forward pull, down the middle or against the side
of the glass (no difference), restrictor disc and flow straightener in
(these are two small parts that fit in the nozzle that attaches to the end
of the stout faucet):
Flow was quick but nearly all foam (e.g., in a couple seconds, the glass was
half full of foam but there was only 1/4" of liquid beer in the bottom of
the glass).
Gloriously creamy foam, however.
Head was very tight and dense with a near continuous creamy surface.
The foam was thick enough that you could move it around, pile it up in a
spot, poke a hole in a spot and the hole remains, etc. This was thick stuff.
On the negative side, it took 6 minutes to pour a pint. Even then, I had
about 2" of head at the top so it was more like 10-12 oz in a 16 oz glass.
No need to push back on the tap handle to use the creamer function of the
faucet as it made no difference (nearly all foam in either case).
No dramatic "sands" effect but you could see a little bit of that action
just less than what you would get with a nitro pour at a bar (or proper
homebrew setup).
3) Stout faucet, 10 psi, forward pull, down the middle of the glass,
restrictor disc and flow straightener REMOVED:
I removed the restrictor disc (a disc with 4 or 5 pinholes in it) and the
flow straightener (a white plastic piece under the disc) from the nozzle and
replaced the nozzle. I assumed the pour would now be similar to the regular
faucet, but I was pleasantly surprised.
The pour was quick and the head was closer to test #2 than to test #1.
The head was, in fact, much denser than #1. Instead of the near continously
creamy head of #2, however, the bubbles were slightly larger.
It was easy to see that they were bigger than #2, but it was much tighter
and creamier than with the regular faucet in #1 or #4 below.
#3 was much closer to #2 than it was to the regular faucet of #1.
With the restrictor disc and flow straightener removed, I don't know what to
attibute this to except to the taper of the nozzle as well as the taper of
the part of the faucet that connects the main vertical part of the faucet to
the shank (it tapers as it approaches the vertical part of the faucet). I
assume that the narrowing in diameter at two points of the faucet causes CO2
to come out of solution.
In addition, pushing back on the tap handle the right amount till the stream
turned frothy (about half as far as it could go) allowed me to top off the
glass with as much head as I wanted. The general charater of the foam was
similar to the forward pull/middle of the glass pour but I could quickly
generate as much head as I wanted. The nozzle keeps the pour, whether frothy
or not, going straight down in a continuous stream. This is not the case
with #4 where the faucet kind of spits a bit when I restricted it by
closing it partially during the pour. It is a bit messy especially when the
glass is filled close to the top.
4) Regular faucet, 10 psi, down the middle of the glass, closing the faucet
partially at end of pour: This generated more head than #1 but the head was
of the same general consistency as in #1 -- bigger, gauzy medium size
bubbles on a head that was not particularly tight. In addition, closing the
faucet off partially caused it to kind of spits a bit when the flow was
restricted during the pour and it could be a bit messy especially when the
glass is filled to the top. The spitting is not too big of a problem and
doesn't bother me, but I'm happier with the result in #3 which had a better
head with a clean, easy to control pour.
My own conclusion is that test #3 (stout faucet with restrictor disc and
flow straightener removed) gives quite a nice effect for not having a nitro
setup. There is no need to change the CO2 pressure for serving (and then
readjust after serving). I would agree with the statement that much of the
nitro effect (50-75%) can be achieved with a CO2 only setup and a stout
faucet. Since I plan to eventually add a nitro/CO2 setup, the stout faucet
is a good addition. If you have no plan to install a nitro set up, it would
be important to check out a creamer faucet too. I have never used a creamer
faucet but it is imagined that this might provide similar effect to #3, but
since its less than half the cost of a stout faucet, it could be a better
buy (if there is no long-term plan to go nitro/CO2).
Additional questions:
Can you pour quick with a nitro set up (faster than my 6 minute pint)?
Why is there nearly all foam with CO2 only when using the restrictor disc?
At 30-35 psi, doesn't beer gas have about 8-9 psi of CO2? Is this so much
lower than my 10 psi to totally alter how much foam is generated when
pouring?
Why would pushing the beer through the restrictor plate at higher pressure
keep more CO2 in solution?
"Dan Listermann" <dan@listermann.com > wrote in message
news:12emo9k46srksc1@corp.supernews.com...
>I doubt that, with normal pressure, you would get much flow. The stout
>faucet needs the high pressure to overcome the resistance of the restrictor
>plate. You could use CO2 at high pressure, but you would need to remember
>to turn it back down to normal pressure when you are finished drinking or
>it will wildly overcarbonate your beer.
>
> Dan
>
> "John 'Shaggy' Kolesar" <spam@shagg.net> wrote in message
> news:slrneemi22.hhs.spam@weizen.shagg.net...
>> On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 04:23:34 GMT, <jlewis80@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
>>> Is there anyone with experience that can comment on the effectiveness of
>>> using a stout faucet with restrictor disc in place but with CO2 only
>>> (not
>>> N/CO2) and at normal psi (~10 psi)?
>>
>> I've never tried it, however I imagine it would create a lot of foam.
>> You're
>> essentially going to be "spraying" the beer into your glass. I know that
>> restrictions in the serving line can cause people problems, the stout
>> faucet in this scenario is basically just a restriction in the line. I'm
>> not 100% positive though. Let us know how it works.
>>
>>
>> John.
>
>
|
| | | | |
Date: 23 Aug 2006 19:25:50
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Stout Faucet used without Nitro?
|
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 06:17:24 GMT, <jlewis80@ixsnayspamsay.columbus.rr.com > wrote:
> Additional questions:
> Can you pour quick with a nitro set up (faster than my 6 minute pint)?
> Why is there nearly all foam with CO2 only when using the restrictor disc?
> At 30-35 psi, doesn't beer gas have about 8-9 psi of CO2? Is this so much
> lower than my 10 psi to totally alter how much foam is generated when
> pouring?
> Why would pushing the beer through the restrictor plate at higher pressure
> keep more CO2 in solution?
Even with a similar amount of CO2 in the beer, when you triple the
pressure pushing the beer through the stout faucet it's going to completely
change the flow dynamics (IE physics) of how the beer passes through. I
can't tell you exactly what is going on, but it doesn't surprise me that there
would be a difference. For example, with a regular keg system changing
the dispensing pressure will yield very different results in the pour, even
without changing the amount of carbonation.
John.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 25 Aug 2006 07:14:34
From: JL
Subject: Re: Stout Faucet used without Nitro?
|
John,
see my other post too on same subject. I changed the nozzle with one that
appeared to be very similar and the foam generation changed noticeably
although still in a very acceptable range.
"John 'Shaggy' Kolesar" <spam@shagg.net > wrote in message
news:slrneepb34.fgi.spam@weizen.shagg.net...
> On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 06:17:24 GMT, <jlewis80@ixsnayspamsay.columbus.rr.com>
> wrote:
>> Additional questions:
>> Can you pour quick with a nitro set up (faster than my 6 minute pint)?
>> Why is there nearly all foam with CO2 only when using the restrictor
>> disc?
>> At 30-35 psi, doesn't beer gas have about 8-9 psi of CO2? Is this so much
>> lower than my 10 psi to totally alter how much foam is generated when
>> pouring?
>> Why would pushing the beer through the restrictor plate at higher
>> pressure
>> keep more CO2 in solution?
>
> Even with a similar amount of CO2 in the beer, when you triple the
> pressure pushing the beer through the stout faucet it's going to
> completely
> change the flow dynamics (IE physics) of how the beer passes through. I
> can't tell you exactly what is going on, but it doesn't surprise me that
> there
> would be a difference. For example, with a regular keg system changing
> the dispensing pressure will yield very different results in the pour,
> even
> without changing the amount of carbonation.
>
>
> John.
|
| |
Date: 23 Aug 2006 07:53:54
From: miker
Subject: Re: Stout Faucet used without Nitro?
|
Night before last I had an beer served this way at a friend's house (He
was out of nitro). He said no matter how much pressure he tried he kept
getting a glass of foam. Once it settled out and we could get close to
a full glass, it did have a denser, creamier head than the same beer
(local micro, not a homebrew) served with a regular faucet and CO2, but
still didn't taste the same to us as this very beer served with nitro
and a stout faucet. (But, we already had that discussion).
|
| |
Date: 25 Aug 2006 04:06:13
From:
Subject: Re: Stout Faucet used without Nitro?
|
JL wrote:
> Hi all, thought I'd post my results:
>
> For starters, this is a 1040 stout carbonated at about 2.2 volumes (10 psi
> at 42 F). The stout faucet is the micromatic stout faucet. For those, that
> aren't familiar with it, the stout faucet has a nozzle (about 2" in length)
> that attaches to the end of the faucet and tapers to a smaller opening.
> Inside the nozzle is a restrictor disc with 4 or 5 pin holes and below this
> a plastic flow straightener. The handle pulls forward, but you can also push
> back on it like a creamer faucet. The regular faucet is a standard faucet,
> also micromatic.
>
> 1) Regular faucet, 10 psi, pour down the middle of the glass:
> Nice head in the pint glass but the foam lacked the tight little bubbles and
> creaminess of a nitro beer.
> Larger bubbles, "normal" CO2 head.
> Pleasant head but not thick / dense stuff.
>
> 2) Stout faucet, 10 psi, forward pull, down the middle or against the side
> of the glass (no difference), restrictor disc and flow straightener in
> (these are two small parts that fit in the nozzle that attaches to the end
> of the stout faucet):
>
> Flow was quick but nearly all foam (e.g., in a couple seconds, the glass was
> half full of foam but there was only 1/4" of liquid beer in the bottom of
> the glass).
> Gloriously creamy foam, however.
> Head was very tight and dense with a near continuous creamy surface.
> The foam was thick enough that you could move it around, pile it up in a
> spot, poke a hole in a spot and the hole remains, etc. This was thick stuff.
>
> On the negative side, it took 6 minutes to pour a pint. Even then, I had
> about 2" of head at the top so it was more like 10-12 oz in a 16 oz glass.
> No need to push back on the tap handle to use the creamer function of the
> faucet as it made no difference (nearly all foam in either case).
> No dramatic "sands" effect but you could see a little bit of that action
> just less than what you would get with a nitro pour at a bar (or proper
> homebrew setup).
>
> 3) Stout faucet, 10 psi, forward pull, down the middle of the glass,
> restrictor disc and flow straightener REMOVED:
>
> I removed the restrictor disc (a disc with 4 or 5 pinholes in it) and the
> flow straightener (a white plastic piece under the disc) from the nozzle and
> replaced the nozzle. I assumed the pour would now be similar to the regular
> faucet, but I was pleasantly surprised.
>
> The pour was quick and the head was closer to test #2 than to test #1.
> The head was, in fact, much denser than #1. Instead of the near continously
> creamy head of #2, however, the bubbles were slightly larger.
> It was easy to see that they were bigger than #2, but it was much tighter
> and creamier than with the regular faucet in #1 or #4 below.
> #3 was much closer to #2 than it was to the regular faucet of #1.
>
> With the restrictor disc and flow straightener removed, I don't know what to
> attibute this to except to the taper of the nozzle as well as the taper of
> the part of the faucet that connects the main vertical part of the faucet to
> the shank (it tapers as it approaches the vertical part of the faucet). I
> assume that the narrowing in diameter at two points of the faucet causes CO2
> to come out of solution.
>
> In addition, pushing back on the tap handle the right amount till the stream
> turned frothy (about half as far as it could go) allowed me to top off the
> glass with as much head as I wanted. The general charater of the foam was
> similar to the forward pull/middle of the glass pour but I could quickly
> generate as much head as I wanted. The nozzle keeps the pour, whether frothy
> or not, going straight down in a continuous stream. This is not the case
> with #4 where the faucet kind of spits a bit when I restricted it by
> closing it partially during the pour. It is a bit messy especially when the
> glass is filled close to the top.
>
> 4) Regular faucet, 10 psi, down the middle of the glass, closing the faucet
> partially at end of pour: This generated more head than #1 but the head was
> of the same general consistency as in #1 -- bigger, gauzy medium size
> bubbles on a head that was not particularly tight. In addition, closing the
> faucet off partially caused it to kind of spits a bit when the flow was
> restricted during the pour and it could be a bit messy especially when the
> glass is filled to the top. The spitting is not too big of a problem and
> doesn't bother me, but I'm happier with the result in #3 which had a better
> head with a clean, easy to control pour.
>
> My own conclusion is that test #3 (stout faucet with restrictor disc and
> flow straightener removed) gives quite a nice effect for not having a nitro
> setup. There is no need to change the CO2 pressure for serving (and then
> readjust after serving). I would agree with the statement that much of the
> nitro effect (50-75%) can be achieved with a CO2 only setup and a stout
> faucet. Since I plan to eventually add a nitro/CO2 setup, the stout faucet
> is a good addition. If you have no plan to install a nitro set up, it would
> be important to check out a creamer faucet too. I have never used a creamer
> faucet but it is imagined that this might provide similar effect to #3, but
> since its less than half the cost of a stout faucet, it could be a better
> buy (if there is no long-term plan to go nitro/CO2).
>
> Additional questions:
> Can you pour quick with a nitro set up (faster than my 6 minute pint)?
> Why is there nearly all foam with CO2 only when using the restrictor disc?
> At 30-35 psi, doesn't beer gas have about 8-9 psi of CO2? Is this so much
> lower than my 10 psi to totally alter how much foam is generated when
> pouring?
> Why would pushing the beer through the restrictor plate at higher pressure
> keep more CO2 in solution?
>
>
>
> "Dan Listermann" <dan@listermann.com> wrote in message
> news:12emo9k46srksc1@corp.supernews.com...
> >I doubt that, with normal pressure, you would get much flow. The stout
> >faucet needs the high pressure to overcome the resistance of the restrictor
> >plate. You could use CO2 at high pressure, but you would need to remember
> >to turn it back down to normal pressure when you are finished drinking or
> >it will wildly overcarbonate your beer.
> >
> > Dan
> >
> > "John 'Shaggy' Kolesar" <spam@shagg.net> wrote in message
> > news:slrneemi22.hhs.spam@weizen.shagg.net...
> >> On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 04:23:34 GMT, <jlewis80@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
> >>> Is there anyone with experience that can comment on the effectiveness of
> >>> using a stout faucet with restrictor disc in place but with CO2 only
> >>> (not
> >>> N/CO2) and at normal psi (~10 psi)?
> >>
> >> I've never tried it, however I imagine it would create a lot of foam.
> >> You're
> >> essentially going to be "spraying" the beer into your glass. I know that
> >> restrictions in the serving line can cause people problems, the stout
> >> faucet in this scenario is basically just a restriction in the line. I'm
> >> not 100% positive though. Let us know how it works.
> >>
> >>
> >> John.
> >
> >
As I look over your test results I noticed one thing that
remained constant and that was your despencing pressure. As John had
pointed out you may be changing the entire dynamics of your pour. When
I assembled my draught system I learned that the despencing pressure
should only be enough to overcome the resistance within the line and
again only enough to allow the beer to "fall" out of the tap. Pushing
your despencing pressure beyond that results in foam. Not enough
pressure results in no flow at all. Yet you already know all that.
Despencing with nitro changes that resulting in an entirerly different
set of rules reguarding pressure. In your post you said you were
despencing at 10 PSI that seems a bit high to me. My system creates an
excellent pour at 6-8 PSI yet I lean toward the lower end of that. I
haven't used nitro yet so I can't offer a true hands on definition of
right and wrong in this but it would seem that would be a good area to
work on. Good luck, and again let us know how you progress.
Steve
|
| | |
Date: 26 Aug 2006 14:49:56
From: JL
Subject: Re: Stout Faucet used without Nitro?
|
<smhoneydo@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1156503973.054441.276020@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> As I look over your test results I noticed one thing that
> remained constant and that was your despencing pressure. As John had
> pointed out you may be changing the entire dynamics of your pour. When
> I assembled my draught system I learned that the despencing pressure
> should only be enough to overcome the resistance within the line and
> again only enough to allow the beer to "fall" out of the tap. Pushing
> your despencing pressure beyond that results in foam. Not enough
> pressure results in no flow at all. Yet you already know all that.
> Despencing with nitro changes that resulting in an entirerly different
> set of rules reguarding pressure. In your post you said you were
> despencing at 10 PSI that seems a bit high to me. My system creates an
> excellent pour at 6-8 PSI yet I lean toward the lower end of that. I
> haven't used nitro yet so I can't offer a true hands on definition of
> right and wrong in this but it would seem that would be a good area to
> work on. Good luck, and again let us know how you progress.
>
> Steve
>
Steve,
Thanks, your post was good reminder. I was hoping to not have to change
serving pressure from carbonating pressure but with a stout where I'm
knocking out much of the CO2 intentionally anyway, this is less an issue I
guess. On a hunch : ) I lowered my pressure to ~7 psi and find that I get
a nice effect and can then use the creamer function of the faucet. My guess
is I will end up at 8 psi (for my tastes). Quite a difference. Thanks for
your post as I probably would not have messed with the pressure without
being prodded to do so.
|
|
