I've noticed something with my FIZZ-X rod that I can't find any information
about online. I hope my explanation makes sense.

Let the fins hang down before inserting the rod. They form an upside-down
V. Now flip each rod to the other side. You get what looks like the exact
same configuration. I can't see any difference between the two.

I have noticed that the effect on the wine is definately not the same. In
one configuration I can let the drill go for 30 seconds before I notice a
lot of surface movement. In the other configuration I get a defined vortex
in about 5 seconds. I've done back-to-back tests enough times now to be
sure of this.

I get a lot more released trapped gas from the 5 second vortex configuration
than a minute in the other configuration . That seems good to my neophyte
mind. On the other hand, could the vortex be causing increased oxydation?

Have you seen anything like this? Whether you have or haven't, would you be
happiest with the vortex or non-vortex configuration?

Here's the problem with Fizz-X. Those little plastic fins tend to float
upward back into a V-config and spinning it once they have floated up will
not always cause them to extend into an outstretched position, which is
where you get your best vortexing. I use it in brewing to aerate the wort,
so I want as much air to be sucked in as I can. The trick there is to just
get them under the surface and get the rod spinning while they are still
floating up so they extend.

Now for wine degassing, I don't think you want maximum vortex. You will be
entraining air (and oxygen) in addition to gassing off CO2. I would do it
with as minimum vortexing as you create and still get gas coming off.
Personally, I use my vacuum bottle filler for degassing but I realize not
everybody has one of those.

Brian

"Dave" > wrote in message
...
> I've noticed something with my FIZZ-X rod that I can't find any
information
> about online. I hope my explanation makes sense.
>
> Let the fins hang down before inserting the rod. They form an
upside-down
> V. Now flip each rod to the other side. You get what looks like the
exact
> same configuration. I can't see any difference between the two.
>
> I have noticed that the effect on the wine is definately not the same. In
> one configuration I can let the drill go for 30 seconds before I notice a
> lot of surface movement. In the other configuration I get a defined
vortex
> in about 5 seconds. I've done back-to-back tests enough times now to be
> sure of this.
>
> I get a lot more released trapped gas from the 5 second vortex
configuration
> than a minute in the other configuration . That seems good to my
neophyte
> mind. On the other hand, could the vortex be causing increased oxydation?
>
> Have you seen anything like this? Whether you have or haven't, would you
be
> happiest with the vortex or non-vortex configuration?
>
>

Here's the problem with Fizz-X. Those little plastic fins tend to float
upward back into a V-config and spinning it once they have floated up will
not always cause them to extend into an outstretched position, which is
where you get your best vortexing. I use it in brewing to aerate the wort,
so I want as much air to be sucked in as I can. The trick there is to just
get them under the surface and get the rod spinning while they are still
floating up so they extend.

Now for wine degassing, I don't think you want maximum vortex. You will be
entraining air (and oxygen) in addition to gassing off CO2. I would do it
with as minimum vortexing as you create and still get gas coming off.
Personally, I use my vacuum bottle filler for degassing but I realize not
everybody has one of those.

Brian

"Dave" > wrote in message
...
> I've noticed something with my FIZZ-X rod that I can't find any
information
> about online. I hope my explanation makes sense.
>
> Let the fins hang down before inserting the rod. They form an
upside-down
> V. Now flip each rod to the other side. You get what looks like the
exact
> same configuration. I can't see any difference between the two.
>
> I have noticed that the effect on the wine is definately not the same. In
> one configuration I can let the drill go for 30 seconds before I notice a
> lot of surface movement. In the other configuration I get a defined
vortex
> in about 5 seconds. I've done back-to-back tests enough times now to be
> sure of this.
>
> I get a lot more released trapped gas from the 5 second vortex
configuration
> than a minute in the other configuration . That seems good to my
neophyte
> mind. On the other hand, could the vortex be causing increased oxydation?
>
> Have you seen anything like this? Whether you have or haven't, would you
be
> happiest with the vortex or non-vortex configuration?
>
>

Here's the problem with Fizz-X. Those little plastic fins tend to float
upward back into a V-config and spinning it once they have floated up will
not always cause them to extend into an outstretched position, which is
where you get your best vortexing. I use it in brewing to aerate the wort,
so I want as much air to be sucked in as I can. The trick there is to just
get them under the surface and get the rod spinning while they are still
floating up so they extend.

Now for wine degassing, I don't think you want maximum vortex. You will be
entraining air (and oxygen) in addition to gassing off CO2. I would do it
with as minimum vortexing as you create and still get gas coming off.
Personally, I use my vacuum bottle filler for degassing but I realize not
everybody has one of those.

Brian

"Dave" > wrote in message
...
> I've noticed something with my FIZZ-X rod that I can't find any
information
> about online. I hope my explanation makes sense.
>
> Let the fins hang down before inserting the rod. They form an
upside-down
> V. Now flip each rod to the other side. You get what looks like the
exact
> same configuration. I can't see any difference between the two.
>
> I have noticed that the effect on the wine is definately not the same. In
> one configuration I can let the drill go for 30 seconds before I notice a
> lot of surface movement. In the other configuration I get a defined
vortex
> in about 5 seconds. I've done back-to-back tests enough times now to be
> sure of this.
>
> I get a lot more released trapped gas from the 5 second vortex
configuration
> than a minute in the other configuration . That seems good to my
neophyte
> mind. On the other hand, could the vortex be causing increased oxydation?
>
> Have you seen anything like this? Whether you have or haven't, would you
be
> happiest with the vortex or non-vortex configuration?
>
>

No I haven't noticed that. Sometimes the Fizz-X seems to work
"better" than other times. Perhaps you have hit on the explanation.
I will try to research on Monday (just happen to have some wine to
stir <grin>). Just gotta remember!!!

I vote for NO VORTEX. I believe that the vortex brings air/oxygen
into the wine, and causes sulphite to be expelled.

But then what do I know??? <grin>

Steve


On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 15:08:10 GMT, "Dave" >
wrote:

>I've noticed something with my FIZZ-X rod that I can't find any information
>about online. I hope my explanation makes sense.
>
>Let the fins hang down before inserting the rod. They form an upside-down
>V. Now flip each rod to the other side. You get what looks like the exact
>same configuration. I can't see any difference between the two.
>
>I have noticed that the effect on the wine is definately not the same. In
>one configuration I can let the drill go for 30 seconds before I notice a
>lot of surface movement. In the other configuration I get a defined vortex
>in about 5 seconds. I've done back-to-back tests enough times now to be
>sure of this.
>
>I get a lot more released trapped gas from the 5 second vortex configuration
>than a minute in the other configuration . That seems good to my neophyte
>mind. On the other hand, could the vortex be causing increased oxydation?
>
>Have you seen anything like this? Whether you have or haven't, would you be
>happiest with the vortex or non-vortex configuration?
>