How many times do you reuse your bottles?

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
With all due respect to you and your education, one of the first things I was taught in "Strengths of Materials" was that all materials lose structural integrity with fatigue.

Let's assume for a bit that I misunderstood my professor and he was speaking strictly of metals, but if that were the case why would glass be so different?
...

Again, I have much respect for your materials science background: I just have to argue so that 1) I get this cleared up or 2) I learn something I didn't know.

I'll take a stab at trying to explain the difference between glass and metals, and also try to keep it as brief as possible (although brief is a relative term.) In order to keep it brief, it cannot be comprehensive. So please, no berry punches for leaving out special cases or second/third order effects. For those of you who get bored reading this, feel free to move on to the next post. There will not be a test at the end ;)

To understand what fatigue is, we must understand the difference between ductile and brittle behavior. In general, metals are ductile, and glass and ceramics are brittle (I'll leave polymers and composites out of the discussion.)

All materials deform when stressed. As long as the deformation is limited to the stretching/compressing of the microstructure, the deformations are reversible, and will disappear when the stress is removed. Fully reversible deformation is known as "elastic" deformation. Elastic deformation does not damage the material in any way.

When stress levels get high enough, the limits of microstructure stretching/compressing are exceeded. For brittle materials, once this stretching/compressing limit is exceeded, the atomic bonds rupture, and the material fails catastrophically (ie it shatters.) For ductile materials on the other hand, the microstructure can undergo additional deformation by altering the microstructure. These deformations are usually irreversible, and are known as "plastic" deformation. Plastic deformation represents damage to the microstructure of the material, and generally results in a weakening of the material. Over time and multiple stress cycles, the plastic damage will build up in the material, continuing to weaken the material. This build up of plastic damage and weakening is what we call "fatigue." Fatigued materials will fail at lower stresses than undamaged materials, and these lower stress failures are called "fatigue fails." If enough plastic deformation stress cycles are accumulated, the material can fail without additional stress.

In some cases the altered microstructure leads to a stronger/harder material. This is known as work hardening. This work hardened material is usually less ductile than the original material and more prone to cracking when the (higher) elastic stress limit is reached.

Now to the punch line: Since brittle materials fail before undergoing any plastic deformation, they don't build up plastic damage in the microstructure. Therefore they cannot "fatigue" in the classical sense.

Now some more on brittle failure:

Brittle materials normally fail at macroscopic stresses much lower than what is required to rupture the atomic bonds. IE their strength is much lower than would be predicted based on the strength of the bonds between the constituents. Why is this? The answer is cracks, most often microscopic cracks.

Stress is load divided by the cross sectional area supporting the load. In the presence of a crack, the cross sectional area is reduced, but the load remains constant, thus the stress is increased wherever there are cracks. And, this stress increase is not uniform. The stress is concentrated at the tip of the crack. The amount of stress concentration is determined by the length of the crack and the radius of the crack tip. Longer cracks and smaller radii lead to higher stress concentrations. The atomic bonds start to rupture when the stress at a crack tip exceeds the bond strength. Once the material starts to rupture, the crack gets longer, which causes the stress at the crack tip to increase even more. The result is sudden and catastrophic fail.

In practice, all brittle materials contain microscopic cracks which determine the engineering (usable) strength of the material. These are taken into account when designing objects made from brittle materials. The objects will continue to function as designed unless a much larger crack develops, and the stress concentration at the tip of that crack exceeds the working stress.

Now, there is a phenomenon known as "stress corrosion" that can affect glass and other brittle materials. Stress corrosion is often referred to as "static fatigue," but that is just lazy and confusing terminology. (The term "static fatigue" was coined before the mechanism of failure under static load was understood.) Stress corrosion is a different mechanism than cyclic stress fatigue or creep fatigue (which hasn't been discussed.)

Stress corrosion is the result of corrosion that is accelerated by the stress concentration at the tip of microcracks in brittle materials. The corrosion at the crack tip allows the crack to grow in length over time. If the crack ever grows to a length where the stress concentration at the tip exceeds the atomic bond strength, then rapid catastrophic failure can occur. Rates of stress corrosion are affected by availability of moisture at the crack tip and pH of the crack tip environment, as well as the particular material.

In theory, beverage bottles can be subject to stress corrosion. However, if the mechanism were operative in practice, we should see older bottles of carbonated beverages exploding on a regular basis, especially bottles with higher internal pressures. Since exploding bottles are rarely observed in the absence of massive overpressure. It is safe to assume that stress corrosion is not a significant factor in the life expectancy of beverage bottles. I did do a limited amount of searching for reports of stress corrosion bottle failures, but was unable to locate any.

I speak only from experience that I've had bottles stretch. I over-carbonated a stout and the bottles expediently showed signs of damage like some of my more used bottles.

As to observable stretching of beer bottles, I really doubt that you have ever seen this. Soda lime glass has a typical Young's modulus of 72 GPa or 10.4 million psi. This means that for every 1000 psi tensile stress in the glass, the glass would stretch ~1/10,000 th of an inch along each 1 inch of length (or 0.01%.) I know I could never detect this without special instruments.

Let's not forget the legal bit imprinted on so many glass bottles "one time use only": I ignore it because I understand it's over-cautious, but fatigue is a real problem.

Single use bottles are designed to be cheaper and lighter than multiuse bottles, so they are manufactured with significantly thinner glass. Because of this they are less able to withstand the rigors of being handled thru recycling and refilling. They are by design, crappier bottles.

Hope the above helps, and sorry it's so long. Feel free to ask questions.

Brew on :mug:
 
I rotate through 8 cases of Sam Adams empties. I have also wondered how many times I can reuse a bottle but I have never had one break or explode (yet). knock on wood.....
 
Hope the above helps, and sorry it's so long. Feel free to ask questions.

Brew on :mug:

That was extremely enlightening, and I read it all with care. To be honest, I wasn't planning on berry punching you but, even if I were, you didn't give me much to work with.

Two questions:
1) So with, say, a bridge: They are designed to stay well within elastic deformation (with large factors of safety), but elastic flexing of certain members causes fatigue damage. Perhaps I have this wrong, but that's what I was to understand. I'm just a naive Mech-E student pretending to know something about structural engineering.

2) I wish I had a decent camera. These fissures on my bottles are concoidal, randon, and appear to look as if the material on the outer surface of the bottle has begun to be stretched apart. Any thoughts on what this actually is? I inspect my bottles before I use them- even on the first use of brand new bottles. I do not believe these are defects or from mishandling.
 
Between commercial bottles, purchased bottles and bottle swaps with friends all in the mix, it's nearly impossible to keep track of what's what. If I have 'em, I use 'em.

That said, I was bottling from a keg on Monday and a bottle shattered when I pulled down on the bench capper. Last time that happened was 3-4 year ago, so it won't change my relaxed approach to reusing bottles.

It was just sad to loose even one bottle of that beer. It was a small (1-1/2 gallon of beer in a 2-1/2 gallon keg) experimental batch that turned out great.

So sorry for your loss Bro! Lol

Inevitably, when I do a small batch (1.75) my beer turns out unbelievable....lol actually most of my beer turns out really good but I'm scared and do a small batch now they are usually awesome.. (Knocking on wood)


Sent from my iPhone using Home Brew
 
Two questions:
1) So with, say, a bridge: They are designed to stay well within elastic deformation (with large factors of safety), but elastic flexing of certain members causes fatigue damage. Perhaps I have this wrong, but that's what I was to understand. I'm just a naive Mech-E student pretending to know something about structural engineering.
You very likely know more about structures than I do. Not sure off the top of my head about "elastic fatigue." My specialization was ceramics, not metals. It's possible that the bridge members could be undergoing a (stress) corrosion process, or maybe there is some creep going on at less than the measured yield stress. I'll see if I can find anything that looks like a good explanation.

EDIT: Ok I found something on Wikipedia that sheds some light on this:
Another deformation mechanism is metal fatigue, which occurs primarily in ductile metals. It was originally thought that a material deformed only within the elastic range returned completely to its original state once the forces were removed. However, faults are introduced at the molecular level with each deformation. After many deformations, cracks will begin to appear, followed soon after by a fracture, with no apparent plastic deformation in between. Depending on the material, shape, and how close to the elastic limit it is deformed, failure may require thousands, millions, billions, or trillions of deformations.
Because of the type of atomic bonding in metals vs. glass and ceramics, these molecular level faults are more likely to occur in metals.
2) I wish I had a decent camera. These fissures on my bottles are concoidal, randon, and appear to look as if the material on the outer surface of the bottle has begun to be stretched apart. Any thoughts on what this actually is? I inspect my bottles before I use them- even on the first use of brand new bottles. I do not believe these are defects or from mishandling.
They had to have some kind of crack in order to fail. The instigating crack could have been too small for the naked eye to see. Without having good pics it's hard to say where the original crack was. With conchoidal fractures, the ridges often radiate outward from the original crack.

Brew on :mug:
 
I'm slowly replacing my bottles because I might be moving soon but I used most of them for 4 beers before I started replacing them
 
Remember, that in the days of commercially refilling returned bottles, it would have been logistically impossible for a refiller to know how many cycles were on a bottle, or how badly they had been handled. If the bottles had molded in manufacturing date stamps, they would have known how old they were. But, it would have been very expensive to inspect and cull bottles by date codes (and automated vision systems didn't exist back then.)

Brew on :mug:
 
While I've added bottles, I'm pretty sure I still have the first case of used bottles from 36 batches ago. I have no intention of replacing them. I'm still using my grandmother's pie plate, and some lanterns that are decades old. While capping is stressful, so is baking and containing flames. Glass windows last centuries.
 
5 years, I've had to buy 1 additional case to replace give aways. I use a bench capper. Only problems I've had have been with belgian corked bottles, when the wire cage scored the bottle causing it to fail.
 
Save the heavier ones and chuck the real thin ones. I use 22 oz. bottle a lot to save work (who wants a 12 oz beer anyway?) and I have a collection of bombproof swingtop litre bottles. Bottling goes really fast with those.
When I was a kid most beer was in re-used bottles. They were used so many times that the sides looked sand-blasted. The lasted for years and years.
 
Save the heavier ones and chuck the real thin ones. I use 22 oz. bottle a lot to save work (who wants a 12 oz beer anyway?) and I have a collection of bombproof swingtop litre bottles. Bottling goes really fast with those.
When I was a kid most beer was in re-used bottles. They were used so many times that the sides looked sand-blasted. The lasted for years and years.

On tap: Robust chocolate porter, Revelation Pale Ale, Bravo IPA. Bottled- Blueberry mead. Bottles- Murphy's session ale, Porter.
 
9 years brewing and I know I'm still using some of my original 0.5L swingtops I don't know about my 12 or 22oz. I have no way of telling how old they are. I only toss bottles when I can't get them visibly clean.

I've only ever had two bottles explode. They were out of a brett infected beer from previous pLambic bottles I didnt get clean. Hence why I always double check bottles now.
 
All materials fatigue if you apply enough stress. The fatigue stress level for most materials is way lower than the level at which it will deform, so there is no way of knowing how much the material has weakened. Depending on the stress level, a material may last a few cycles, or millions before failure.

I think at normal bottle pressures, most bottles will outlive any of our lifetimes.

If you have a batch which builds up high pressure (infection, referment in bottle, etc), I would recommend tossing the bottles. I had one batch go to 9 volumes (only 1 bottle broke) - I measured the gravity from another bottle to determine the carbonation level. I drank them quick and got rid of the bottles.

While I say most bottles will last a long time, there are some that are weaker than others. I have hundreds of bottles, and for the most part I don't have a problem. I added about 50 New Belgium bottles (bombers) a year ago, and have been finding cracks in a number of them after use. I inspect bottles before and after use, so I know the cracks are developing while pressurized. These cracks are circumferential, so they are not from the molding lines.
 
All materials fatigue if you apply enough stress.

Be careful of absolutes. Gases and liquids don't fatigue. Gold is so ductile that it doesn't fatigue when being deformed. That's why you can make gold leaf by pounding it out to ridiculously low thicknesses.

The fatigue stress level for most materials is way lower than the level at which it will deform, so there is no way of knowing how much the material has weakened. Depending on the stress level, a material may last a few cycles, or millions before failure.

I think the highlighted statement conflicts with what most people who have learned about fatigue were taught. Do you have any support for that statement, and can you provide references? Would be nice if the references explained on a molecular level what leads to fatigue at very low stress levels. Not saying you're wrong, it's just not the way I learned it.

Brew on :mug:
 
I had one batch go to 9 volumes (only 1 bottle broke) - I measured the gravity from another bottle to determine the carbonation level.

Can you explain how you used gravity measurements to determine carb levels? It's not immediately clear to me how this would be done, and it sounds like it might be a useful method to know.

Thanks, and brew on :mug:
 
There are some 8 different formulas out there I've seen. But I use the Cooper's one that agrees with Beersmith2 so far; (OG-FG)/7.46 + .5= ABV%. So if your OG was 1.053 & your FG was 1.012, then, (1053-1012)/7.46 +.5=ABV% or 41/7.46 + .5 =ABV . 5.49597855227882 rounded off to 5.49 + .5 = 6.4% ABV.
 
There are some 8 different formulas out there I've seen. But I use the Cooper's one that agrees with Beersmith2 so far; (OG-FG)/7.46 + .5= ABV%. So if your OG was 1.053 & your FG was 1.012, then, (1053-1012)/7.46 +.5=ABV% or 41/7.46 + .5 =ABV . 5.49597855227882 rounded off to 5.49 + .5 = 6.4% ABV.

Ok, but how do you get from ABV to carbonation level?

Brew on :mug:
 
I think the highlighted statement conflicts with what most people who have learned about fatigue were taught. Do you have any support for that statement, and can you provide references? Would be nice if the references explained on a molecular level what leads to fatigue at very low stress levels.

No references, but if you look in any material handbook, you will find everything you need to know. Try googling Aerospace Materials Handbook, and research some steels or aluminum materials in it. The data should be there. I work in the Aerospace industry and material fatigue is a critical item. Just winging some numbers off the top of my head, but; cast aluminum yield strength is about 30 KSI. Yield is where it will permanently deform (plastic rather than elastic), but High Cycle Fatigue stress (the level you want to stay below to ensure infinite life) is around 12 KSI. These numbers are for high temperature applications, I don't know what room temperature capabilities are since I deal with hot parts.

...... And (before someone brings it up), there is actually no lower limit for aluminum for fatigue. It may take billions of cycles to fatigue, but aluminum will eventually fail at whatever level of stress you give it, if you cycle it enough times.

Can you explain how you used gravity measurements to determine carb levels? It's not immediately clear to me how this would be done, and it sounds like it might be a useful method to know.

I bottled to 3 volumes. One bottle broke. I immediately put the rest in the fridge and set about consuming them as quickly as I could. I opened one of the beers, and let it go flat, and then took a gravity reading. It has been a while now, so my numbers may not be correct as I'm not looking them up, but I think I bottled at 1.016 (an Oatmeal Stout) and when measured sometime after bottling, it was something like 1.009. I calculated the difference in gravity to be about 6 volumes of CO2. Add that to the 3 I bottled at = 9 volumes.
 
No references, but if you look in any material handbook, you will find everything you need to know. Try googling Aerospace Materials Handbook, and research some steels or aluminum materials in it. The data should be there. I work in the Aerospace industry and material fatigue is a critical item. Just winging some numbers off the top of my head, but; cast aluminum yield strength is about 30 KSI. Yield is where it will permanently deform (plastic rather than elastic), but High Cycle Fatigue stress (the level you want to stay below to ensure infinite life) is around 12 KSI. These numbers are for high temperature applications, I don't know what room temperature capabilities are since I deal with hot parts.

...... And (before someone brings it up), there is actually no lower limit for aluminum for fatigue. It may take billions of cycles to fatigue, but aluminum will eventually fail at whatever level of stress you give it, if you cycle it enough times.
Yield stress is an engineering definition, conventionally set at some fixed amount of deviation from the linear portion of a stress/strain curve resulting from a standardized test. Plastic deformation starts as soon as stress is sufficient to cause any change in the microstructure of a solid material, even if the deformation is not detectable at a macroscopic level. These microstructural changes can occur at much lower stresses than the yield stress, as you have noted. It's the microstructural changes that accumulate over time, and multiple cycles, which eventually lead to fatigue and failure. I'm no expert on aluminum, so have no idea at what stress level microstructural changes can occur.

I bottled to 3 volumes. One bottle broke. I immediately put the rest in the fridge and set about consuming them as quickly as I could. I opened one of the beers, and let it go flat, and then took a gravity reading. It has been a while now, so my numbers may not be correct as I'm not looking them up, but I think I bottled at 1.016 (an Oatmeal Stout) and when measured sometime after bottling, it was something like 1.009. I calculated the difference in gravity to be about 6 volumes of CO2. Add that to the 3 I bottled at = 9 volumes.
Ok, I get the general idea. Thanks.

Brew on :mug:
 
^^^ this!

I had some bottles of stout blow up on me. It's enough to put the fear of God in you when you start handling the other bottles.

My bottle collection grew immensely when my father-in-law, a prolific beer drinker who runs marathons to stay in shape, started saving his empties for me. For two months in 2013, he was giving me two or more cases of Sierra Nevada bottles a week. Eventually I had more than I could store.

About six months later, I started getting bottle bombs. It wasn't very many (about 5 bombs in total over the course of about 300 beers bottled), but for me, one bottle bomb is too many. Every time I got a bottle bomb, I would carefully uncap and pour out the rest - I will not risk an exploding bottle potentially injuring a family member.

I was at a total loss to explain the first couple bottle bombs. Even though my sanitation is extremely thorough, my first thought was that I had made a mistake somewhere that resulted in infection. My palate isn't very sensitive, so I thought I must be missing subtle off-tastes that an infection would produce. I went crazy cleaning and sanitizing my major pieces of equipment. Long soaks in PBW followed by high-pressure rinsing, followed by another PBW soak and rinse, followed by a bath in Star-San. After cleaning all my glass, I also sanitized it with a strong bleach solution. I replaced everything else that was relatively easy to replace; e.g., auto-siphon, tubing, bottling spigot. On the next batch I brewed, I went nuts making sure nothing was contaminating my wort during cooling and transfer - every opening had aluminum sprayed with Star-San guarding it. I threw away all my banked yeast (even though pretty much all of it was first or second generation) and started fresh. I thought I was good.

Then I got a couple more bottle bombs on my next batch. :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

Since the problem didn't seem to be infection. I figured I must be bottling before achieving FG. I don't use secondary fermentation, but I tend to let my beers ride a long time in primary. After dozens of batches, I'd never had a beer fail to reach FG by 8 weeks, and I had neglected to do FG readings for the bottle bomb batches.

So, I did another batch carefully repeating my detailed sanitation steps and meticulously measuring everything to include FG. When gravity was stable for two weeks, I bottled. I was also very precise with my priming additions.

And I got another bottle bomb. :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

I was really pissed and disappointed. I felt like I'd done everything as best as I could, and I still couldn't get it right. I took a good, long break from brewing.

One night, I was at my father in law's house for dinner with the family. He and I were chatting in the kitchen when he poured himself something from Sierra Nevada. After the pour, he tossed the empty bottle into a bin he keeps in the pantry for beer bottles (he empties it in the morning). There were already a number of bottles in there, and it made a hell of a racket when he threw one in. A light went on in my brain. I asked my father in law if the bottles he saved for me were tossed in the bin, and then fished out in the morning. Yup.

When I got home I went through my bottle collection with a very bright light. The Sierra Nevada bottles had small cracks, chips, and other camouflaged problems I had never noticed before. I threw them all out and haven't had a bottle bomb since.
 
Thanks guys...I guess basic materials science hasn't changed much in the last 30 years :)

Just as I suspected, the life of a bottle is somewhere between zero and infinite uses...

I did play briefly with heat sanitizing bottles in the oven years ago and lost a few bottles due to cracks / breakage likely due to heating cooling too quickly or unevenly. Probably not a great idea, and also a bit of a hassle IME. Some people love heat sanitizing bottles in the oven / dishwasher.
 
I bottled to 3 volumes. One bottle broke. I immediately put the rest in the fridge and set about consuming them as quickly as I could. I opened one of the beers, and let it go flat, and then took a gravity reading. It has been a while now, so my numbers may not be correct as I'm not looking them up, but I think I bottled at 1.016 (an Oatmeal Stout) and when measured sometime after bottling, it was something like 1.009. I calculated the difference in gravity to be about 6 volumes of CO2. Add that to the 3 I bottled at = 9 volumes.

According to this:
http://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php/Accurately_Calculating_Sugar_Additions_for_Carbonation

1 gravity point drop will add about .51 volume of CO2 (last line under the title Remaining or Residual Effect).

I have seen other values (higher) for this. Is there a different formula that you are using? I've been taking this as gospel but really don't know if this is accurate or not.
 
It's the heating & cooling cycles that can cause stress fatigue cracks, etc. they can be very small & nearly unnoticeable. Kinda like magnafluxing crankshafts & such. In this case, I don't think the pressure the average beer puts on the bottles to be of much concern. It's basically how the bottles are treated that matters most.
 
1 gravity point drop will add about .51 volume of CO2 (last line under the title Remaining or Residual Effect).

I have seen other values (higher) for this. Is there a different formula that you are using? I've been taking this as gospel but really don't know if this is accurate or not.

I forget how I calculated it in the past, or even if I am using the right numbers now. But just as a check I just pulled up a recipe in Beersmith (just the first sample recipe I found). Adding 12 ozs of corn sugar gave a gravity rise of .007. Checking the carbonation calculator, it says 12 ozs of corn sugar will give 5.7 volumes of CO2 - less the entrained CO2 (which looks like it is 1.2 volumes), would mean .007 change in gravity = 4.5 volumes.

Maybe my beer was 7.5 volumes (3+4.5). I can't remember the actual numbers, but it seemed to work out to 9 volumes at the time.
 
I don't bottle as much anymore since I started kegging, but my original 22oz bombers from 5 years ago are still working fine and I've never had an issue.
In Europe they reuse bottles almost exclusively. You get a beer and the bottle is all scuffed up because they reuse instead of recycle, and based on how gnarly some of the bottles look we're talking hundreds of times most likely.

That's not true at all. In Europe we recycle, but bottles are remade from scratch.
 
Ha, yeah. When I graduated high school, material science was flint swords & bear skins. But proper care will make them reusable for a long time to come. They better last, the old style Paulaner bottles with the bearded monks on the shoulder aren't made anymore! Seems like the German bottles seal better with their unique lip design?
 
Is there a reliable way to determine when they will break? No. :(
Sorry about the self quote, but on further reflection, there is a way to tell if a bottle is strong enough to use safely. The method is a hydrostatic test, similar to what we have to have done to our CO2 cylinders periodically.

A hydro test is a type of proof test, which simply tests if the bottle is strong enough to withstand expected maximum use pressure + a safety margin. It the bottle doesn't break during the test, then all of the preexisting defects are small enough that no stress concentration due to them, at working pressure, will be enough to cause failure. The test is short enough that no significant stress corrosion (crack growth) can occur during the test, and the test pressure is low enough that it will not cause microstructure deformation (fatigue) on it's own. So, if the bottle survives the hydro test it is safe to use, and if not, then you can't use it anyway. :p

To select the pressure for a hydro test: pick a maximum possible carb level (let's say 10 volumes to keep Calder out of trouble :D ), and a maximum possible storage temperature (let's say 110°F). So, we have to figure out the pressure that corresponds to 10 volumes of CO2 @ 110°F, and that is the proof pressure. Of course, if all or most of bottles break at this pressure, then we would have to settle on a lower pressure with a smaller safety factor (no more priming to 9 volumes.)

Pressure should be applied using a liquid (water is probably best) rather than air, as the driving force behind shrapnel acceleration drops off much faster with an incompressible fluid than with a gas. Still, a shrapnel shielding enclosure for the apparatus is a must. You'd want to suspend the bottle from the neck, but with jaws specifically designed to prevent possible damage to the neck (unlike wing capper jaws. :( ) Then we just need a stopper with plumbing connecting it to a high pressure, flow restricted, water source.

Any demand for such a tester? Any DIY'er want to take it on?

Brew on :mug:
 
10 Vco2 is a whole lot higher than the 3 1/2 Vco2 they say the average beer bottle can withstand. I didn't go higher than 2.8 Vco2 with my hefe & still got plenty of carbonation. Drove the head like a winter tornado.
 
10 Vco2 is a whole lot higher than the 3 1/2 Vco2 they say the average beer bottle can withstand. I didn't go higher than 2.8 Vco2 with my hefe & still got plenty of carbonation. Drove the head like a winter tornado.

10 volumes was a little tongue in cheek, but the example works anyway for illustration. 5 volumes might be more reasonable for proof testing with some safety margin for normal cases. I've seen the 3.5 volumes number mentioned seveal times, but never seen an authoritative reference for the number. And a volume number by itself is not sufficient. We also need to know the max assumed temperature, since the pressure increases significantly with temperature for a given volume.

Brew on :mug:
 
Back
Top