In my situation I formulated the recipe in BTP at 60% efficiency. (I haven't had anything better than that since I started AG). My efficiency was calculated pre-boil and I actually used the individual calculations in How to Brew for each malt.
My thought on manifold design is that if all of the wort (carrying the sugars) has to converge on a central point, some of the said sugars that are farthest away might get trapped on their way to the center. (Stirring should take care of this). If I had a manifold that had a center point as well as two side branches, there should be a more direct route to the outlet.
Really, I probably have no clue what the hell I am talking about, but I'd really like to figure out what I can do to improve my efficiency.
If there is an error because of absorption, shouldn’t that affect both the first wort and the gravity in the mash? In other words, why should mash gravity be different from first wort gravity?
Or do you mean with absorption the amount of wort kept in the grains after it has been drained completely? For that reason I did say that you should take the amount of water that was added and not the volume you ran into the kettle.
Kai
Yeah, I just missed that part. I just didn't want anyone to think that the first wort runnings gravity AND volume said anything about mash efficiency.
Yeah, I just missed that part. I just didn't want anyone to think that the first wort runnings gravity AND volume said anything about mash efficiency.
To take this a step further, given a fixed extract potential of the grains, the mash gravity/extract is directly liked to the mash thickness. At a mash thickness of 1.25 qt/lb, your theoretical mash gravity about 23 Plato or 1.093 SG.
In my situation I formulated the recipe in BTP at 60% efficiency. (I haven't had anything better than that since I started AG). My efficiency was calculated pre-boil and I actually used the individual calculations in How to Brew for each malt.
My thought on manifold design is that if all of the wort (carrying the sugars) has to converge on a central point, some of the said sugars that are farthest away might get trapped on their way to the center. (Stirring should take care of this). If I had a manifold that had a center point as well as two side branches, there should be a more direct route to the outlet.
Really, I probably have no clue what the hell I am talking about, but I'd really like to figure out what I can do to improve my efficiency.
I bet that by brewing on a ship and it rocking back and forth that has something to do with your eff. being low. Just kidding bro. i was a marine so i had to mention something.
anyway 60's everytime seems really low. You would think that some of the time it would fluctuate. I think your idea of manifold is good. However there has to be something else going on since you are stirring. i dunno just seems funky.
Do you guys think it would be worth putting a thread together collecting data from the HBT AG community in regards to how each of us achieves our efficiency? I'd be happy to put the data together and analyze it in excel with statistics and graphics (charts). I think it would be interesting to see what trends we might find. There could be a list of questions like:
-Mash tun construction and shape (pot, cooler (round or rectangular))
-Manifold construction (false bottom, bazooka, braid, copper w/ slits, etc.)
-Water pH (treated or not)
-Grain crusher setting
-Sparge method (1-batch, 2-batch, hybrid, fly)
-Mash time when achieving this efficiency (single infusion only, to keep it simple)
-Mash-out?
-Temperature of sparge water
-Brewhouse efficiency
-etc.
Do you think that would be useful/worth doing?... anything to add to the list?
I think the PH would be the hardest data point for me to collect. I have the crappy test strips that always read the same no matter what and hitting 92% doesn't exactly urge me to spend any money on finding out what the PH is.
The sparge temp data point should be replaced or augmented with the measured equilibrium after infusing it since that's what makes the sugar soluable.
I'd also look at sparge volume infusions as a water/grist ratio.
How about preboil-postboil ratio. Some people get higher eff by collecting and boiling off more. Not my style but it can affect numbers.
My buddy has really gotten into water chemistry and the effect ph has on efficiency, attenuation anh hop brightness. He sent in the sample of our local water to a lab and we got the report back. Our ph is pretty high at 8.5, we had been using 5.2 buffering salts but it wasn't bringing the ph low enough,(5.2-5.3). The thing with water is when you start messing with it, it can get out of hand. Along with ph, you want to watch the residual alkalinity, there are some spread sheets out there that automatically adjust calcium, chloride, biocarbonates and so forth. We have found that treating the water with lactic acid and then gypsum in the mash has got us right where we want to be.
I think the PH would be the hardest data point for me to collect. I have the crappy test strips that always read the same no matter what and hitting 92% doesn't exactly urge me to spend any money on finding out what the PH is.
The sparge temp data point should be replaced or augmented with the measured equilibrium after infusing it since that's what makes the sugar soluable.
I'd also look at sparge volume infusions as a water/grist ratio.
How about preboil-postboil ratio. Some people get higher eff by collecting and boiling off more. Not my style but it can affect numbers.
"Damn it Bobby" (in a hank hill voice) Everytime i read a post from you on efficiency i feel really stupid. With all your 92% and big words. Im extremely jealous. I think you my friend needed to be the sight GURU on efficiency
this is why I love kaiser, always coming up with new stuff that is just great.
and in regards to pH, me and a friend are going to do the exact same brew with almost the same equipment and same water.
One of us will adjust for pH the other won't, and I guess we can see from there. That should be somewhere to start from.
Linear Mode
