WineXpert Oh No???
- Thread starter JBHarris
- Start date
Help Support Winemaking Talk - Winemaking Forum:
I first pump it up to 5 mmHg and see how much bubbling occurs. As the negative pressure disappears I pump it back up to 5 a few times and then add 5 mmHg additional negative pressure and repeat this process until I get up to 20 mmHg. Each time that you go up it always surprises me at how much bubbling occurs and I don't particularily want a wine fountain/volcano episode with my precious product, so I proceed slowly in 5 mmHG increments. Once I have reach 20 mmHg I then will pump up to 20 one last time and leave overnight before removing the stopper and replace the airlock. Once this is done it is amazing how fast the wine starts to clear.redwineleo said:
Mine cost about $50, but they were out of the basic model and mine had alot of extra parts that I will never use. But hey, it was a gadget I needed "RIGHT NOW"
Or a EF-5 based on the damage done to the carboy after the picture was taken.
No damage really took place!
Off topic but I have this twisted desire to chase, video, and documenttornadoes when I grow up.
NOAA NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE IMPROVES TORNADO RATING SYSTEM
Feb. 2, 2006 — The NOAA National Weather Service today announced plans to implement the Enhanced Fujita (EF) Scale to rate tornadoes to replace the original Fujita (F) Scale. The EF Scale will continue to rate tornadoes on a scale from zero to five, but ranges in wind speed will be more accurate with the improved rating scale. The NOAA National Weather Service has approved the EF Scale and expects it to be fully implemented by February 2007. (Click NOAA illustration for larger view of tornado. Click here for high resolution version. Please credit “NOAA.”)
"The EF Scale takes into account additional variables which will provide a more accurate indication of tornado strength," said retired Air Force Brig. Gen. David L. Johnson, director of the NOAA National Weather Service. "The EF Scale will provide more detailed guidelines that will allow the National Weather Service to more accurately rate tornadoes that strike in the United States."
The F Scale was developed in 1971 by T. Theodore Fujita to rate tornadoes and estimate associated wind speed based on the damage they cause. The EF Scale refines and improves the original scale. It was developed by the Texas Tech University Wind Science and Engineering Research Center, along with a forum of wind engineers, universities, private companies, government organizations, private sector meteorologists and NOAA meteorologists from across the country.
Limitations of the original F Scale may have led to inconsistent ratings, including possible overestimates of associated wind speeds. The EF Scale incorporates more damage indicators and degrees of damage than the original F Scale, allowing more detailed analysis and better correlation between damage and wind speed. The original F Scale historical data base will not change. An F5 tornado rated years ago is still an F5, but the wind speed associated with the tornado may have been somewhat less than previously estimated. A correlation between the original F Scale and the EF Scale has been developed. This makes it possible to express ratings in terms of one scale to the other, preserving the historical database.Edited by: masta
No damage really took place!
Off topic but I have this twisted desire to chase, video, and documenttornadoes when I grow up.
NOAA NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE IMPROVES TORNADO RATING SYSTEM
Feb. 2, 2006 — The NOAA National Weather Service today announced plans to implement the Enhanced Fujita (EF) Scale to rate tornadoes to replace the original Fujita (F) Scale. The EF Scale will continue to rate tornadoes on a scale from zero to five, but ranges in wind speed will be more accurate with the improved rating scale. The NOAA National Weather Service has approved the EF Scale and expects it to be fully implemented by February 2007. (Click NOAA illustration for larger view of tornado. Click here for high resolution version. Please credit “NOAA.”) "The EF Scale takes into account additional variables which will provide a more accurate indication of tornado strength," said retired Air Force Brig. Gen. David L. Johnson, director of the NOAA National Weather Service. "The EF Scale will provide more detailed guidelines that will allow the National Weather Service to more accurately rate tornadoes that strike in the United States."
The F Scale was developed in 1971 by T. Theodore Fujita to rate tornadoes and estimate associated wind speed based on the damage they cause. The EF Scale refines and improves the original scale. It was developed by the Texas Tech University Wind Science and Engineering Research Center, along with a forum of wind engineers, universities, private companies, government organizations, private sector meteorologists and NOAA meteorologists from across the country.
Limitations of the original F Scale may have led to inconsistent ratings, including possible overestimates of associated wind speeds. The EF Scale incorporates more damage indicators and degrees of damage than the original F Scale, allowing more detailed analysis and better correlation between damage and wind speed. The original F Scale historical data base will not change. An F5 tornado rated years ago is still an F5, but the wind speed associated with the tornado may have been somewhat less than previously estimated. A correlation between the original F Scale and the EF Scale has been developed. This makes it possible to express ratings in terms of one scale to the other, preserving the historical database.Edited by: masta
![[Upgraded] 9Pcs Tree Root Growing Box with Drain Holes, Half Transparent Plant Rooting Propagation Ball & Metal Core Twist Ties, for Fast Propagation Plants (Size M)](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/514MWQxtWOL._SL500_.jpg)
Thank you for that demonstration! And, yes, I do that to my wines!
I have created the tunnel effect. Guess I didn't think again! Darn it anyway! I may be an old dog, but I'm still learning, I think!
Thanks again for all the information.
js
js
Masta I love to check that stuff out to! Im the dumb one driving around
in the hurricanes to look at the damage before its really safe. Ive
only seen one in Ct. as We were driving from our house to my
parent-in-laws house. It went right through my town and right next to
where we were going. My wife was freaking out and I had a hard time
driving as I just wanted to watch the tornado! I think it was a 2.
in the hurricanes to look at the damage before its really safe. Ive
only seen one in Ct. as We were driving from our house to my
parent-in-laws house. It went right through my town and right next to
where we were going. My wife was freaking out and I had a hard time
driving as I just wanted to watch the tornado! I think it was a 2.
PeterZ said:
Sorry PeterZ I read the markings on the dial incorrectly. It is 5 inHG or 130 mmHg. And yes this is creating a vacuum or negative pressure like alternating stirring but I think on a larger scale and that is why the gas seems to come out better with the vacuum pump. It is quite amazing to watch the bubbles coming out and it seems to stir up the entire volume like one would think is happening while fermentation.
ALright...just wanted to share an update. I finally decided to whip the wine again. I went slower cautioning not to create a vortex. I must tell you that wine released enough CO2 for me to throw a Keg party.!!! I then let is sit for about 2 weeks. The majority of the wine cleared, beautifully as a matter of fact. There was still a significant amt. of detrius in the bottom of the carboy to about 3-4 inches from the bottom. I waited and waited and waited, but the bottom 3-4 inches never cleared.????
On some advice from the local home brew shop, I went ahead a racked the wine into another carboy. The same darn thing is happening. There was a significant amt. of "stuff" that I left in ther bottom of the original carboy. Topped off a little, but like I said the bottom part is still cloudy, the rest is crystal clear. (and tastes great by the way) So, again, what should I do?????
On some advice from the local home brew shop, I went ahead a racked the wine into another carboy. The same darn thing is happening. There was a significant amt. of "stuff" that I left in ther bottom of the original carboy. Topped off a little, but like I said the bottom part is still cloudy, the rest is crystal clear. (and tastes great by the way) So, again, what should I do?????
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2005
- Messages
- 15,188
- Reaction score
- 1,213
Some kits just seem to create more lees on the bottom than others. After the initial racking, leave all the lees behind you can. Don't rush things. Let it settle out good. If you leave it for a month or so, the lees will compact more and you will have less sediment on the bottom. If you think it is as clear as it will get, bottle all you can without getting any sediment in it. If you pick some up in the last bottle, keep it aside for topping up you next similar batch.
JB, this might sound stupid....But is there any chance that your carboy is sitting on something with a small amount of vibration. This might cause the lees at the bottom to be slightly agitated, mixing in with the cleared wine above????? Just a thought.
