this is why I love kaiser, always coming up with new stuff that is just great.
Thanks, I appreciate the support.
Efficiency is one of those things, where you can make good beer and still have problems with it. The good thing about that is that you are not really in a rush to get it fixed it would just be nice to get it fixed eventually. So brew a batch and take a few additional notes to analyze later and maybe you are one step closer to get it fixed.
Interesting thread Kaiser. How close to 100% should we expect to be at conversion for the typical system? Is 100% an ideal, or should that be typical if our procedures are sound? I'm wondering if this would be a good way to gauge conversion, particularly at low sacch. rest temps that might require variable lengths of time for conversion.
Thanks.
__________________
"..can the human soul be glimpsed through a microscope? Maybe, but you'd definitely need one of those very good ones with two eyepieces."
like everything in nature, 100% efficiency is pretty much impossible.
I was just curious about the lab extract figures. If they are calculated in real world conditions with some margin, then 100% efficiency should be attainable on the mash level. I suppose that's what this experiment is all about.
__________________
"..can the human soul be glimpsed through a microscope? Maybe, but you'd definitely need one of those very good ones with two eyepieces."
I was just curious about the lab extract figures. If they are calculated in real world conditions with some margin, then 100% efficiency should be attainable on the mash level. I suppose that's what this experiment is all about.
Yes, 100% mash efficiency, as I define it, should be possible. The lab extract is done with a step infusion mash and a very fine grind. Your actual grind is not going to be as fine, but that should have only very little effect with modern malts. The efficiency losses come with the lautering step where you have to strike a compromise between getting the most of the converted of the mash and the amount of water needed/wort quality.
Yes, 100% mash efficiency, as I define it, should be possible. The lab extract is done with a step infusion mash and a very fine grind. Your actual grind is not going to be as fine, but that should have only very little effect with modern malts. The efficiency losses come with the lautering step where you have to strike a compromise between getting the most of the converted of the mash and the amount of water needed/wort quality.
Kai
That's what I was looking for Kaiser. I suspected as much.
__________________
"..can the human soul be glimpsed through a microscope? Maybe, but you'd definitely need one of those very good ones with two eyepieces."
Yes, 100% mash efficiency, as I define it, should be possible. The lab extract is done with a step infusion mash and a very fine grind. Your actual grind is not going to be as fine, but that should have only very little effect with modern malts. The efficiency losses come with the lautering step where you have to strike a compromise between getting the most of the converted of the mash and the amount of water needed/wort quality.
Kai
I have enjoyed reading many of your posts on this forum, it would seem you are a brewer with much experience. However, as I read the above post I am left wondering if you are really trying to make excellent tasting beer, or are you simply trying to create a "lab" experiment. Last time I checked, many great beers never even approached 100% mash efficiecy, and even if they did, isn"t fermenting it properly the key?! The more I hear people talk about mashing efficiencies and the less I hear about fermenting, it really tells me where the homebrewing really is!! With all due respect sir, I don't think
100 % efficiency is relevant in homebrewing!! You lost credibility with me on this one!
Even great brewers should strive to do better, the best strive for perfection.
__________________
---
In Primary: Belgium Chimay clones.
In Secondary: Braggot, pale ale, end of the world white.
Conditioning: Mead, Cider, braggot, Belgium Wheat.
On Tap: Clones, Chimay Blue, Red, Porter, malted cider.
Bottles: Far, far, too many to list.
Great thread... last weekend I broke out my new refractometer and measured my mash efficiency... 100%! That's with a good BC crush, and carefully adjusting the mash pH to 5.2 (for me that means 5.2 + Gypsum and/or Phosphoric Acid.. my water is farkin' hard!!).
I have enjoyed reading many of your posts on this forum, it would seem you are a brewer with much experience. However, as I read the above post I am left wondering if you are really trying to make excellent tasting beer, or are you simply trying to create a "lab" experiment. Last time I checked, many great beers never even approached 100% mash efficiecy, and even if they did, isn"t fermenting it properly the key?! The more I hear people talk about mashing efficiencies and the less I hear about fermenting, it really tells me where the homebrewing really is!! With all due respect sir, I don't think
100 % efficiency is relevant in homebrewing!! You lost credibility with me on this one!
Peace
Eastside.............
I think there is some confusion Eastside. He was talking about extraction efficiency at 100%, not brewhouse efficiency. Clearly, this should be attainable given that the published number is derived under normal conditions.
I certainly am not an efficiency nut since I do plenty of no-sparge brewing. I am primarily interested in this for on-the-fly calculations.
__________________
"..can the human soul be glimpsed through a microscope? Maybe, but you'd definitely need one of those very good ones with two eyepieces."
That's with a good BC crush, and carefully adjusting the mash pH to 5.2 (for me that means 5.2 + Gypsum and/or Phosphoric Acid.. my water is farkin' hard!!).
Linear Mode
