
CO2 heavier than air and O2
#1
Posted 13 October 2009 - 09:02 PM
#2
*_Guest_BigBossMan_*
Posted 13 October 2009 - 09:22 PM
If I were going to age bottled beer, I'd use the oxygen absorbing caps. They only cost about 3 cents per cap more. Just remember that you need to invert the bottle and wet the cap to activate it. Then you can store it upright.I've read that CO2 is heavier than air and oxygen (O2). Does this mean that if you are aging your beers undisturbed and upright then you don't need to worry about oxidation during long-term aging? Will the carbon dioxide form a protective layer between the surface of the beer and the oxygen in the head space of the bottle?I wondered this after contemplating using those oxygen absorbing caps.Thanks
Edited by BigBossMan, 13 October 2009 - 09:47 PM.
#3
Posted 13 October 2009 - 09:45 PM
#4
Posted 13 October 2009 - 09:52 PM
#5
Posted 14 October 2009 - 03:40 AM
#6
Posted 14 October 2009 - 06:19 AM
#7
Posted 14 October 2009 - 08:12 AM
Gases mix. There is no "blanket" effect with CO2.MolBasser
#8
Posted 14 October 2009 - 08:13 AM
+1The oxygen would slowly diffuse through the layer of carbon dioxide and end up in the beer. It's not like oil and water, both gases would be mixed together, the concentration of the CO2 would just be higher in the lower part of the vessel.
#9
Posted 14 October 2009 - 09:04 AM
#10
Posted 14 October 2009 - 09:37 AM
hmmm - maybe I'll suck it up and get some of these. unfortunately my LHBS prices are all pretty stupid so I may end up paying way too much for them...If you're bottle conditioning, they'll probably help more than counter pressure filling. Alternatively, you can purge the head space of the bottle with CO2 before capping.
#12
Posted 14 October 2009 - 11:28 AM
If you have CO2 then I can assume you are kegging. If so, fill the bottles off the keg and cap on foam. The foam pushes out the headspace air, allowing to cap with nothing between the beer and cap. I also feel that the beers that benefit the most from long term storage, also can benefit a bit from oxidation. An oxidative "sherry" quality in big beers can add a nice complexity. (i.e. 1996 Samiclaus- best beer I have ever had!) I think the small beers that would have a bad off flavor from oxidation should be drank while freshest anyhow and would not make the 9 month maturation.At $4-5 per gross, the O2 caps are worth it too.I'm planning on aging a beer for a long time coming up - are O2 caps required? I have a bottled beer that's about 9 months old and still seems good to me.
Edited by Thirsty, 14 October 2009 - 11:34 AM.
#13
Posted 14 October 2009 - 11:32 AM
Actually - in this case I was going to bottle condition.If you have CO2 then I can assume you are kegging. If so, fill the bottles off the keg and cap on foam. The foam pushes out the headspace air, allowing to cap with nothing between the beer and cap. I also feel that the beers that benefit the most from long term storage, also can benefit a bit from oxidation. An oxidative "sherry" quality in big beers can add a nice complexity. I think the small beers that would have a bad off flavor from oxidation should be drank while freshest anyhow and would not make the 9 month maturation.
#14
Posted 14 October 2009 - 11:38 AM
Do you have force carb abilities? Besides needing higher vols which make bottling off the keg difficult, I see no advantages to force carbing. It has inspired me to make a spinoff thread.Actually - in this case I was going to bottle condition.
#15
Posted 14 October 2009 - 12:32 PM
In the quoted disaster, a massive volume of CO2 was released suddenly from the lake. I believe that the phenomenon of that mass of CO2 hugging the ground was a transient condition, and I'd guess the effect was probably enhanced by the temperature of the CO2 cloud being colder than ambient. Over a relatively short time, I'm certain that the CO2 and the surrounding atmospheric air diffused together. In other words, you can get a blanket of CO2 to stratify under the surrounding air for a short while, given ideal conditions, but I believe that the condition is not sustainable.It can happen but not with such a small volume of gas.
#16
Posted 14 October 2009 - 12:39 PM
Agreed. I was just pointing out one possible source of the belief.In the quoted disaster, a massive volume of CO2 was released suddenly from the lake. I believe that the phenomenon of that mass of CO2 hugging the ground was a transient condition, and I'd guess the effect was probably enhanced by the temperature of the CO2 cloud being colder than ambient. Over a relatively short time, I'm certain that the CO2 and the surrounding atmospheric air diffused together. In other words, you can get a blanket of CO2 to stratify under the surrounding air for a short while, given ideal conditions, but I believe that the condition is not sustainable.
#17
Posted 14 October 2009 - 02:16 PM
People asphyxiate quicker than gases diffuse.It can happen but not with such a small volume of gas.
#18
Posted 14 October 2009 - 02:44 PM
Ok. What point are you attempting to make?People asphyxiate quicker than gases diffuse.
#19
Posted 14 October 2009 - 04:11 PM
I guess it's OK to sleep on the first floor of my house?Ok. What point are you attempting to make?
#20
Posted 14 October 2009 - 10:29 PM
The 'blanket effect' is valid in some instances?Ok. What point are you attempting to make?
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users