Author Topic: Improved Carbonation/Priming tool  (Read 7109 times)

Offline fernando_romagnoli

  • BeerSmith Apprentice Brewer
  • **
  • Posts: 3
  • BeerSmith 2 Rocks!
Improved Carbonation/Priming tool
« on: October 02, 2015, 06:24:49 PM »
Dears,

For me the priming is the most confuse portion of Beer Smith.

If you read the article

https://byo.com/resources/carbonation

And you understand the chemistry behind the carbonation process you will realize that where you read Beer Temperature or Storage temperature inside BeerSmith's carbonation tool you must input the maximum temperature that your beer reach between the fermentation and the bottling, since, the equation uses this temperature to estimate the amount of diluted CO2 which was generated during the fermentation process that flew out from your beer when the temperature was increased.

I also think that you should provide us with a tool specifically for the ones who shot inverted sugar with a syringe (everybody here where I live uses this thechinique to carbonate the beer), attached is a spreadsheet that I created to to properly calculate the amount of sugar and the volume of inverted sugar misture necessary, feel free to use the code or the logic behind.

regards

Offline brewfun

  • BeerSmith Grandmaster Brewer
  • *****
  • Posts: 2288
  • Malt dust is just alcohol's glitter
Re: Improved Carbonation/Priming tool
« Reply #1 on: October 02, 2015, 10:23:47 PM »
And you understand the chemistry behind the carbonation process

I understand it. There isn't much chemistry behind carbonation. It's largely mechanical and follows gas laws. In other words, produce or infuse x amount of CO2 to attain Y carbonation. Aside from some interaction with bicarbonate, carbonic acid laminates, rather than binds into beer. That's why the simple relief of head pressure reverses the weak change in states.

Quote
you will realize that where you read Beer Temperature or Storage temperature inside BeerSmith's carbonation tool you must input the maximum temperature that your beer reach between the fermentation and the bottling, since, the equation uses this temperature to estimate the amount of diluted CO2 which was generated during the fermentation process that flew out from your beer when the temperature was increased.

Well... Yes.... The maximum temperature between 1.5 plato (1.006) above terminal gravity matters for residual CO2, but if temperature is reduced faster than gravity, then residual CO2 will match the lowest temperature. What you're pointing out only matters if temperature rises after terminal gravity is reached and even then by only about 0.2 volumes.

Most of the time/temperature charts assume 0.77 volumes of static CO2 before carbonation. Similarly, sugar dosing assumes residual carbonation, too. Your spreadsheet is a statistics buffet of various carbonation ranges and unrelated dosing information. There are incomplete and unlabeled columns, plus little to no sourcing or correlation between them. So, it's very hard to follow.

Ultimately, there seems to be a chart that makes the argument that BeerSmith overdoses sugar based on your residual CO2 assumptions and a constant of unknown origin (109%?). In fact, anecdotal reports suggest that BeerSmith under doses sugar for bottle conditioning, by about 0.25 to 0.5 volumes. However, people are more likely to talk about not hitting their expectations than when everything goes according to plan.

« Last Edit: October 02, 2015, 10:52:58 PM by brewfun »
Beer Appreciation is the space between pints.

Offline fernando_romagnoli

  • BeerSmith Apprentice Brewer
  • **
  • Posts: 3
  • BeerSmith 2 Rocks!
Re: Improved Carbonation/Priming tool
« Reply #2 on: October 03, 2015, 05:20:54 AM »
Hello Brewfun

Looks like you got pissed; I am sorry I am just trying to share and gain knowledge here.

 You just told me

Quote
" .... I understand it. There isn't much chemistry behind carbonation. It's largely mechanical and follows gas laws. In other words, produce or infuse x amount of CO2 to attain Y carbonation. Aside from some interaction with bicarbonate, carbonic acid laminates, rather than binds into beer. That's why the simple relief of head pressure reverses the weak change in states. ..."

I am so sorry to disappoint you, but as a mechanical engineer I have to say that GAS LAW IS CHEMISTRY, chemistry is not only about chemical reaction.

http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Physical_Chemistry/Physical_Properties_of_Matter/Phases_of_Matter/Gases/Gas_Laws

since

Chemistry is a branch of physical science that studies the composition, structure, properties and change of matter.[1][2] Chemistry deals with such topics as the properties of individual atoms, how atoms form chemical bonds to create chemical compounds, the interactions of substances through intermolecular forces that give matter its general properties, and the interactions between substances through chemical reactions to form different substances.

Source:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemistry

I never told you do not understand what is behind I just told that the BYO article  specifically states that the maximum temperature  must be used.

I studied the equation inside beersmith, the equation from John Palmer book and the equation from the BYO article and they are all the same.

The same equation does not mean the same constants inside the equation, the residual CO2 equation constant is different for all the sources but very similar results are obtained no matter the source you are following.

Quote
“………..Well... Yes.... The maximum temperature between 1.5 plato (1.006) above terminal gravity matters for residual CO2, but if temperature is reduced faster than gravity, then residual CO2 will match the lowest temperature. What you're pointing out only matters if temperature rises after terminal gravity is reached and even then by only about 0.2 volumes.  …..”

I agree,

Quote
“…Most of the time/temperature charts assume 0.77 volumes of static CO2 before carbonation. Similarly, sugar dosing assumes residual carbonation, too…”

I disagree, the residual CO2 can go from 1.21 volumes at 8.33 C or 47 F to .655  at 28.33 C or 83 F, read the BYO article, the namogram from John Palmer and the BeerSmith Carbonation tool.

Quote
“…. Your spreadsheet is a statistics buffet of various carbonation ranges and unrelated dosing information. There are incomplete and unlabeled columns, plus little to no sourcing or correlation between them. So, it's very hard to follow....”


I agree it is a mess, It is a spreadsheet prepared by me for me I will clean it and upload a new version with an  improved interface.


Quote
“…Ultimately, there seems to be a chart that makes the argument that BeerSmith overdoses sugar based on your residual CO2 assumptions and a constant of unknown origin (109%?)…”

I use cane sugar, If you open your beersmith table sugar carbonation profile than you will see the priming effectiveness factor is 109% in other words the cane sugar is more effective than corn sugar since the original chart is for corn sugar.

Quote
“….However, people are more likely to talk about not hitting their expectations than when everything goes according to plan….”

I agree, so sorry to not say it before, BeerSmith is a great software it helps a lot I cannot brew without it, my only complaint is the carbonation tool everything else is great ! Remember that people can complaint for things they pay.

Finally don’t you have any opinion about a future tool to calculate the  inverted sugar to be shot with a syringe?

Apologize me for any grammar mistake as you can see English is not my mother tongue.

Thank you for your help and patience.

Regards
« Last Edit: October 03, 2015, 05:23:00 AM by fernando_romagnoli »

Offline brewfun

  • BeerSmith Grandmaster Brewer
  • *****
  • Posts: 2288
  • Malt dust is just alcohol's glitter
Re: Improved Carbonation/Priming tool
« Reply #3 on: October 03, 2015, 11:19:36 AM »
Hello Fernando;
Looks like you got pissed; I am sorry I am just trying to share and gain knowledge here.
No. Why would I be pissed? :) I’m just trying to understand your premise. I’m also sharing knowledge.

One question: Is your spreadsheet something you're actively using and getting reliable results from?

Quote
I am so sorry to disappoint you, but as a mechanical engineer I have to say that GAS LAW IS CHEMISTRY, chemistry is not only about chemical reaction.
I hear you. Thanks for that reference point. I have solid credentials, too.  8)

Since molecules are involved, I suppose it can be considered chemistry. However, gas law is about the movement and pressure of molecules with relation to volume and temperature. The application of gas law doesn’t require knowing the form of the molecule.

Avagardo’s law states that 1 mole of any gas will occupy the same volume as any other gas at 1 atmosphere. Charles’ law tells us that the volume relationship will follow temperature. Boyles’ law tells us that as volume increases, pressure decreases. These three simple laws are the basis of ideal gas law.

Your source:
Quote
http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Physical_Chemistry/Physical_Properties_of_Matter/Phases_of_Matter/Gases/Gas_Laws
Confirms it.

To be clear, I’m referring to the interaction between the beer and dissolved CO2, not how the CO2 is generated. The generation of CO2 from sugar is indeed a biochemical process with differing efficiencies due to the form of the sugar used. What we’re discussing is controlling the production of CO2 so that the sum of two sources equals an appropriate carbonation level.

To discuss the chemistry, we have to discuss the sugar source, which isn’t what I was addressing.

Quote
I never told you do not understand what is behind I just told that the BYO article specifically states that the maximum temperature must be used.

Ok. So, the assumption must be the minimum resident CO2 is the foundation for carbonation? No other variables?

Quote
The same equation does not mean the same constants inside the equation, the residual CO2 equation constant is different for all the sources but very similar results are obtained no matter the source you are following.

Correct. They all are making the same assumption of resident CO2 based on resting beer at or above fermentation temperature. This assumes that no nucleation by racking, dry hopping or agitation has occurred to reduce the assumed level. That’s cool, because it makes the assumption of needed sugar much simpler.

A sugar gravity of 1.002 is roughly equal to 1 atmosphere of potential CO2 at 20oC. Most sugar dosing calculations are assuming some CO2, which is the premise of the BYO article. Nearly universally, sugar dosing calculations of any kind results in a gravity rise of 1.004, or 2 atmospheres (volumes).

Quote
Quote
“…Most of the time/temperature charts assume 0.77 volumes of static CO2 before carbonation. Similarly, sugar dosing assumes residual carbonation, too…”

I disagree, the residual CO2 can go from 1.21 volumes at 8.33 C or 47 F to .655  at 28.33 C or 83 F, read the BYO article, the namogram from John Palmer and the BeerSmith Carbonation tool.
Maybe my fault for changing the subject a little. I was referring to time temperature charts of forced carbonation. Again, on the mechanical side. However, those numbers follow the same assumptions found in universal gas law and are about how much CO2 will laminate (meaning how molecules occupy space together). The CO2 is already produced, so its capture isn’t about the chemistry, rather about the mechanical balance found in universal gas law.
Quote
Quote
“…. Your spreadsheet is a statistics buffet”
I agree it is a mess, It is a spreadsheet prepared by me for me I will clean it and upload a new version with an  improved interface.
Cool. That’ll help me understand how you’re trying to accomplish your goal.
Quote
Quote
“…Ultimately, there seems to be a chart that makes the argument that BeerSmith overdoses sugar based on your residual CO2 assumptions and a constant of unknown origin (109%?)…”

I use cane sugar, If you open your beersmith table sugar carbonation profile than you will see the priming effectiveness factor is 109% in other words the cane sugar is more effective than corn sugar since the original chart is for corn sugar.
Ah! Ok. But you also mention invert sugar, which is a changed state of sucrose where glucose and fructose are the result. The change can be induced by heat, enzyme or weak acid (typically citric). So, I’m curious, are you using raw sucrose? Or changing it to invert? Or is invert sugar sold (somewhat incorrectly) as sucrose in your country?

Dextrose & glucose can be metabolized without any loss of energy because they enter the glycolysis pathway unchanged. Although both glucose and fructose have the same molecular formula, C6H12O6, but the difference is in the arrangement of Hydrogen and Oxygen. Fructose has to be altered first (an expense of cellular energy) before it can enter the glycolysis chain to create the requisite 2 each CO2 and ethanol. So, glucose/dextrose is more efficient at creating carbonation, explaining the 109% conversion factor.

Quote
Finally don’t you have any opinion about a future tool to calculate the inverted sugar to be shot with a syringe?
No, not at all. It sounds like you’re dosing each bottle, but I’m guessing based on your description. Bottle dosing is hard to keep accurate. Bulk dosing is far more consistent and controllable. How did you arrive at the need to dose with a syringe?
Beer Appreciation is the space between pints.

Offline fernando_romagnoli

  • BeerSmith Apprentice Brewer
  • **
  • Posts: 3
  • BeerSmith 2 Rocks!
Re: Improved Carbonation/Priming tool
« Reply #4 on: October 03, 2015, 12:44:18 PM »
Quote
“...One question: Is your spreadsheet something you're actively using and getting reliable results from?  …”

Yes I always use it and since them my carbonation is better.

Quote
“… Ok. So, the assumption must be the minimum resident CO2 is the foundation for carbonation? No other variables? …”

My assumption is that the only variable is temperature and I know that I am wrong, the pressure, time and agitation plays a major role on it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry%27s_law

To accurately determine the residual CO2 I think I need to measure the pressure and temperature all the time during and after fermentation is complete, this way we can estimate with some accuracy the residual CO2, if we give enough time for the beer to rest at a certain pressure and temperature I think we can estimate the residual CO2 using the same theory used to make the forced carbonation  chart which I think is Henry's law, eg.

http://www.kegerators.com/carbonation-table.php

Quote
“… So, I’m curious, are you using raw sucrose? Or changing it to invert? Or is invert sugar sold (somewhat incorrectly) as sucrose in your country? ...”

I prepare my own inverted sugar being:

water + cane sugar + fire + boiling + few minutes + few drops of  citric acid from a lemon

Eg. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHT07ADUHp4 (not my video just an example)

Quote
“ … No, not at all. It sounds like you’re dosing each bottle, but I’m guessing based on your description. Bottle dosing is hard to keep accurate. Bulk dosing is far more consistent and controllable. How did you arrive at the need to dose with a syringe ..”

Every time I do the bulk dosing I end up with a low carbonated beer, that is why I use a syringe to dose each bottle.

The main intuit of my spreadsheet is to guarantee the correct amount of sugar per mil-liter of beer for the ones who dose each bottle the way I do, to achieve it the logic I adopt is:

I specify the beer volume, temperature and final CO2 volume desired and the Beer Smith gives me the amount of table sugar needed.

I can calculate how much sugar per ml of beer I need (Sugar_per_vol_of_beer_need=Beer_Volume Ă· Sugar_mass), this is a key value since each shot must provide me this amount of sugar per volume of beer .

I specify the desired volume of inverted sugar per shot for my standard bottle which is 500 ml (half liter, I like to use 1 ml of blend for each 100 ml of beer so 5 ml per bottle.

I specify the sugar specific volume which is 1.61 g/ml.

Now I can calculate the amount of water which will guarantee the right ratio of in my inverted sugar blend so each shot has the exact amount of sugar I need, the formula is:

Water_volume=Sugar_massĂ·( Sugar_per_vol_of_beer_need *Bottle_VolumeĂ· Shot_volume)  -  Sugar_massĂ·Sugar_specific_volume

The inverted sugar final volume is:

Inverted_sugar_volume= Sugar_massĂ·Sugar_specific_volume+ Water_volume

I can check if the final number is right calculating the inverted sugar sugar_mass to volume ratio

Inverted_sugar_ratio=Sugar_massĂ· volume

Than

Sugar_per_vol_I_have= Shot_volume * Inverted_sugar_ratio Ă· bottle_volume

If Sugar_per_vol_I_have equals Sugar_per_vol_of_beer_need everything is fine otherwise check the calculation because something is wrong.