Maybe. But I had already made that point earlier. *shrug*The 'blanket effect' is valid in some instances?

CO2 heavier than air and O2
#21
Posted 15 October 2009 - 07:56 AM
#22
Posted 15 October 2009 - 08:15 AM
#23
Posted 15 October 2009 - 09:26 AM
If you have to tilt your bottle to get the cap wet you're doing something wrong. The caps should already be wet from the sanitation step.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.
#24
Posted 15 October 2009 - 10:42 AM
Disagree. Sanitizing them will dissolve the sorbate (or kmeta or whatever it is) from the inside of the cap. There's no need to sanitize caps.If you have to tilt your bottle to get the cap wet you're doing something wrong. The caps should already be wet from the sanitation step.
#25
Posted 15 October 2009 - 01:11 PM
#26
Posted 15 October 2009 - 01:14 PM
The gasses are never free to mix because you have an airlock on the fermenter. Gas goes out but can't get back in.Just reading along with the 'blanket effect' comments. Is it true that ACTIVE fermentation provides positive pressure and in effect creates a protective barrier from oxygen entering the fermentation chamber? I'm wondering if the blanket effect started as that an incorrectly was extended to also include the times where there is no pressure difference and the gases are free to mix.Someday I hope to keep a beer around long enough to worry more about oxygenation
#27
Posted 15 October 2009 - 02:56 PM
So you believe they're sanitary right out of the package?I worked at a homebrew shop for a few years, and knowing how we packaged caps, I would NEVER use one that wasn't sanitized first.I'd rather lose a little effectiveness with the caps than wind up with an infected (but not oxidized!) beer.Disagree. Sanitizing them will dissolve the sorbate (or kmeta or whatever it is) from the inside of the cap. There's no need to sanitize caps.
#28
Posted 15 October 2009 - 03:19 PM
That's fine if it makes you feel better to sanitize them. Far be it from me to interfere with warm fuzzies.So you believe they're sanitary right out of the package?I worked at a homebrew shop for a few years, and knowing how we packaged caps, I would NEVER use one that wasn't sanitized first.I'd rather lose a little effectiveness with the caps than wind up with an infected (but not oxidized!) beer.
#29
Posted 15 October 2009 - 04:30 PM
Well I am glad you guys are having your opinions, I never realized the activation factor and use these eclusively, (WTF not for the cost difference- pennies). So I now question my usual process of dropping them in a measuring cup of sanitizer while I bottle, and pull them out as needed. I think I will now drop them in 1 at a time, fill the bottle, then cap. It takes about 30 seconds to grab the bottle spray it, purge and fill, so the timing should not be too bad soaking for 30 seconds.I'd rather lose a little effectiveness with the caps than wind up with an infected (but not oxidized!) beer.
#31
Posted 15 October 2009 - 04:56 PM
It's not even really a "blanket", you only have to get the oxygen concentration in the air a little below 20% (from 21% normally) for it to be fatal. The CO2 and air mix pretty well, but you only need ~20% of the mix to be CO2 for the oxygen concentration to drop to dangerous levels.I think the blanket effect is only valid with respect to asphyxiating people. When it come to preventing oxidition in beer, not so much.
#32
Posted 15 October 2009 - 06:16 PM
Yes, true. And air at a 19% concentration of oxygen, while aphyxiating to people, should still be quite capable of oxidizing beer.It's not even really a "blanket", you only have to get the oxygen concentration in the air a little below 20% (from 21% normally) for it to be fatal. The CO2 and air mix pretty well, but you only need ~20% of the mix to be CO2 for the oxygen concentration to drop to dangerous levels.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users