cp filler mk II

[Capn Ahab]

I have come across a better design for a home built cp filler than my last one, but it requires ss tube. Anyone know where to source this? Or more simply, is there any reason for not using plain old copper pipe for the filling stick? I could make the whole thing out of brass and copper fittings (I think) but don't know if this will work as well as ss, or whether it will react badly with the finished beer, so advice from engineery types appreciated (looking at you Lard) ;-)

[mrlard]

Bloody phone

[mrlard]

I try and keep copper and brass away from finished product to save on tainting.

Would be interested to hear about the mk2 - tube within a tube by chance? Its fairly straight forward to make but stainless compression fittings cost a bomb

Why the upgrade is it due to foaming?

[alikocho]

Copper will react with finished beer, so a very good reason not to use it.

[Capn Ahab]

Cheers, I had a feeling copper wouldn't be suitable. Stainless it is then.

@lard yep tube within a tube and a more solid bung. I just like the idea of better control over the filling rate as opposed to 'burping', which with the fact that you have to press down hard to maintain a seal, means it gets a bit messy sometimes. I'll scan and send the design over.

[alikocho]

I have the More Beer CPF, which is great. The trick on this is the pressure relief valve, which you can adjust and then set. I bottled a case the other day in no time.

I've been thinking about making the process easier, not least in terms of the faff of putting down and piking up the thing. It's occured to me that mounting the filler in some form of fixed position (using a lab clamp and stand, say) and then holding the bottle up (rather than pushing the cpf down on the bottle, might be a good way of improving the process.

[steve crawshaw]

Copper will react with finished beer, so a very good reason not to use it.

Not disputing this, but with a contact time of a few seconds max, is it really a significant concern?

steve

[I_used_to_brew]

There was an article in Zymurgy that reviewed CP fillers by way of analysing %age carbonation retained and the amount of O2 that got into the beer. All the various CP fillers retained more or less the same carbonation (i.e. lost 5-10%) yet all of them were worse for O2 levels irrespective of whether it was possible to purge the bottle with CO2.

One bottle filler was very significantly better in avoiding O2 pickup. That was a piece of tube on a picnic tap (http://www.homebrewtalk.com/f35/we-no-n ... gun-24678/). That method did lose more carbonation, about 25%.

All the methods advocated chilling the keg and recieving bottles to 2-3C first. The picnic tap method probably kept out O2 by the break out of CO2 protecting the beer.

Slightly over carbonate, chill beer, picnic tap and bit of tube :)

The article found a lot of the CP fillers a pain to use, but one with press to open taps was much easier to use than standard ball valves. They are probably expensive and I don't know where to source them.

[alikocho]

Copper will react with finished beer, so a very good reason not to use it.

Not disputing this, but with a contact time of a few seconds max, is it really a significant concern?

steve

Definitely a significant concern - I've had beers that taste like pennies that were doctored by simply pourong them down a short length of copper pipe. It's not just the metal, but also the fact that copper oxide is highly soluble in beer.

I'd advise staying well away and using something non-reactive like SS or plastic.

[mrlard]

Cheers, I had a feeling copper wouldn't be suitable. Stainless it is then.

@lard yep tube within a tube and a more solid bung. I just like the idea of better control over the filling rate as opposed to 'burping', which with the fact that you have to press down hard to maintain a seal, means it gets a bit messy sometimes. I'll scan and send the design over.

I will look into how cheap I can get hold of the stainless bits mate :-)