| |
Main
Date: 23 Aug 2006 06:18:37
From: JL
Subject: Test results of Stout Faucet with CO2 only
|
Thought I would post the results of some tests I did tonight with a stout
faucet using CO2 only at 10 psi.
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?
|
|
| |
Date: 23 Aug 2006 15:30:36
From: Adam Preble
Subject: Re: Test results of Stout Faucet with CO2 only
|
Thanks for the post. I was curious how this thing really looks up
close. When you talk about restrictor plates, I think of cappuccino
frothers. Is it the same kind of affair.
Do you think it would be easy to throw together the tap you used that
seemed to do the best with CO2?
I just started kegging and haven't even served from a keg yet. On top
of that, I'm the only one in the household that has it in for stouts at
all. I don't see myself getting nitrogen soon, but I've warmed up to
the idea of having the good pour without it.
|
| | |
Date: 25 Aug 2006 07:08:29
From: JL
Subject: Re: Test results of Stout Faucet with CO2 only
|
Adam,
I don't know what a cappuccino frother looks like, but the restrictor disc
is stainless and about 8 mm diameter. There are 5 very tiny holes (~0.4 mm
diameter) in it through which all of the beer must pass.
To create the same effect as the tapered nozzle without the restrictor
plate, maybe you could take a very small piece of 3/8 racking tube and
insert it into the end of the faucet. Then stick a small piece of the next
size down hose into that. and maybe one more time to make a cheap tapering
nozzle. No idea if this would give same effect but it would be cheap to try
and would be easy to attach and remove.
And another comment only for the stout faucet...
For what its worth, the stainless replacement spout available from kegworks
will fill the stout faucet from micromatic. The micromatic stout fauce
originally comes with a black plastic spout. With a black wooden pub handle
(I had already), the black plastic spout is quite attractive (its a nice
black / stainless / black look). However, I wanted all stainless so I
ordered the part from kegworks. They were pretty sure it would fit and said
I could send it back if it didn't, but the threads were a perfect fit and it
connected up seamlessly.
Although this stainless nozzle is very similar in size and id, I notice that
more head is generated with this nozzle than with the plastic nozzle. I
guess there are some differences on the interior that cause more turbulence
and more CO2 release. Both are acceptable however. With the black nozzle I
push back on the tap at the end to top it off with a little more head. With
the stainless nozzle, I have to pause for about 30 seconds midway through
the poor and the head is just right without pushing back on the tap handle.
I'm sure I'll switch back and forth from time to time just to change the
look.
"Adam Preble" <rockobonaparte@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:ww_Gg.26589$ph.16887@tornado.texas.rr.com...
> Thanks for the post. I was curious how this thing really looks up close.
> When you talk about restrictor plates, I think of cappuccino frothers. Is
> it the same kind of affair.
>
> Do you think it would be easy to throw together the tap you used that
> seemed to do the best with CO2?
>
> I just started kegging and haven't even served from a keg yet. On top of
> that, I'm the only one in the household that has it in for stouts at all.
> I don't see myself getting nitrogen soon, but I've warmed up to the idea
> of having the good pour without it.
|
|
