Grant for rims system

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.

pola0502ds

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2011
Messages
846
Reaction score
3
I have been searching the internet on grants and I cannot find anything. There is one thread on this board but it's not what I am looking for. Can you guys post pictures of your grants or point me in the direction to one? I am trying to gather ideas on how to make one and this message board really doesn't have any.

I am building a RIMS system and i'm almost complete. Just need to build a grant.

Thanks guys.
 
I have been searching the internet on grants and I cannot find anything. There is one thread on this board but it's not what I am looking for. Can you guys post pictures of your grants or point me in the direction to one? I am trying to gather ideas on how to make one and this message board really doesn't have any.

I am building a RIMS system and i'm almost complete. Just need to build a grant.

Thanks guys.

A grant can be as simple as an intermediate vessel which collects gravity drained wort flowing from the MT which in turn, is pumped or periodically dumped into the BK or circulated back to the MT while mashing. Some automate the grant with some type of liquid level sensors that control the flow to the BK. Obviously, you don't want the grant to overflow or to run dry. Running dry would cause the pump to lose prime as it sucked air. The challenge is that if you run the RIMS manually, you must babysit the flow rates into and out of the grant which can be extremely tedious. This gets even trickier if you are using gravity flow from an HLT for the sparge as the flow rate will drop as the water level in the HLT drops necessitating constant adjustments and if the grant is also not automated it becomes an intricate balancing act of which you will soon tire just as I did. My solution was to do away with the grant and instead use a vacuum gauge on the pump to monitor the suction applied to the false bottom. That proved to be a winning strategy with my direct fired RIMS.
 
A grant can be as simple as an intermediate vessel which collects gravity drained wort flowing from the MT which in turn, is pumped or periodically dumped into the BK or circulated back to the MT while mashing. Some automate the grant with some type of liquid level sensors that control the flow to the BK. Obviously, you don't want the grant to overflow or to run dry. Running dry would cause the pump to lose prime as it sucked air. The challenge is that if you run the RIMS manually, you must babysit the flow rates into and out of the grant which can be extremely tedious. This gets even trickier if you are using gravity flow from an HLT for the sparge as the flow rate will drop as the water level in the HLT drops necessitating constant adjustments and if the grant is also not automated it becomes an intricate balancing act of which you will soon tire just as I did. My solution was to do away with the grant and instead use a vacuum gauge on the pump to monitor the suction applied to the false bottom. That proved to be a winning strategy with my direct fired RIMS.

Thanks for the response. Would you happen to have pictures of this setup and can you explain in detail on how it works. I may want to go down this road it I can work it into my system. Also, any detailed information on any of the parts you used like the vacuum gauge so if i do go this way, I can purchase one. thanks.
 
Thanks for the response. Would you happen to have pictures of this setup and can you explain in detail on how it works. I may want to go down this road it I can work it into my system. Also, any detailed information on any of the parts you used like the vacuum gauge so if i do go this way, I can purchase one. thanks.

I no longer use a grant, so I have no pictures to share, but the Captain's link above details an excellent design at a reasonable cost.

Regarding the vacuum gauge, I have it tee'd off of the suction side of the pump. The guages are available from Grainger or McMaster-Carr and even the cheapest ones work well. I think I only paid about $20 for the one I use. I like to pump the wort at a high flow rate during the mash on my direct fired RIMS. The problem with doing so is that the grain bed will slowly but surely compact and this will inhibit or stop the flow entirely. The gauge indicates how much suction is being applied to the MT outlet. Without a gauge you are flying blind. You would not need a gauge if you use a grant as the runoff would be by gravity alone.
 
What's the real benefit of using a grant?
I run a single tier system and just built a grant myself. My problem was balancing the output of the pump against the rate of drainage in my MLT. I imagine the same would be true for a RIMS system.

With a grant, I can see how fast my MLT is draining and keep a good head of liquid on the inlet side of the pump.

-Joe
 
Oh, my grant is just a stainless utensil holder from Walmart with a 1/2" NPT coupler soldered into the bottom. The MLT gravity drains into it.

-Joe
 
If you already have the pumps and are doing a RIMS, I'm not seeing what this adds to the process. What's the real benefit of using a grant?

The purpose of a grant is to provide an air gap between the MT and the BK. IOW, it helps to prevent grain bed compaction and/or a stuck mash which can inhibit or stop the flow of wort. The runoff is by gravity flow only so the suction applied to the false bottom is minimal (might be a tiny bit due to the siphon effect of any hose attached to the outlet, but it won't normally be much at all).
 
I will not buy nor make one, I do not need it, enough with the gadgets - you guys are bleeding all my money on stuff.

BIAB here I come.
 
Shoot. I thought this thread was going to be about how to receive a gift of money from the government to buy a RIMS system. Guess i'll have to fund my own now.
 
I started a grant thread last year and got some good info: https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f11/controlling-rims-grant-173595/

I'm actually implementing an idea that I got from that thread, which is a pump feedback loop instead of a grant. I haven't tested it yet and I'm not done documenting it, but here's a photo and a BOM: http://brewbot.org/content/rims-and-pump-assembly

This basically uses a diverter valve to feed a part of the pump's output back to its input. The reasoning is this valve can be trimmed to control the pressure or vacuum applied to the mash drain, and even in its lowest forward-flow setting (no drain from the mash), it still keeps liquid flowing over the heating element, preventing scorching.
 
I started a grant thread last year and got some good info: https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f11/controlling-rims-grant-173595/

I'm actually implementing an idea that I got from that thread, which is a pump feedback loop instead of a grant. I haven't tested it yet and I'm not done documenting it, but here's a photo and a BOM: http://brewbot.org/content/rims-and-pump-assembly

This basically uses a diverter valve to feed a part of the pump's output back to its input. The reasoning is this valve can be trimmed to control the pressure or vacuum applied to the mash drain, and even in its lowest forward-flow setting (no drain from the mash), it still keeps liquid flowing over the heating element, preventing scorching.

This design has been around awhile and typically it is used with a HERMS setup. Some have used a three way valve which provides a bypass of the hex coil for temperature control. IMO, diverting the wort whichever way isn't a substitute for a grant as it does nothing at all to eliminate excessive suction on the mash tun FB, which is the main objective IIRC.
 
IMO, diverting the wort whichever way isn't a substitute for a grant as it does nothing at all to eliminate excessive suction on the mash tun FB, which is the main objective IIRC.

The feedback I'm describing is specifically designed to do avoid suction by controlling flow out of the mash tun drain.

The suction on the mash tun FB is related to the pressure in the mash tun drain. The lower the pressure in the mash tun drain, the higher the suction on the mash tun FB. I have a pressure monitor in line between the mash tun drain and the pump assembly (http://brewbot.org/content/mash-recycle-heat-and-transfer

The pressure in the mash tun drain is related to the flow of wort out of the mash tun drain. The flow of wort out of the mash tun drain is the same as the flow through the pump minus the flow in the feedback loop. I will monitor the pressure in the drain line and increase or decrease the flow in the feedback loop to keep the pressure out of the range of a stuck mash.
 
The feedback I'm describing is specifically designed to do avoid suction by controlling flow out of the mash tun drain.

The suction on the mash tun FB is related to the pressure in the mash tun drain. The lower the pressure in the mash tun drain, the higher the suction on the mash tun FB. I have a pressure monitor in line between the mash tun drain and the pump assembly (http://brewbot.org/content/mash-recycle-heat-and-transfer

The pressure in the mash tun drain is related to the flow of wort out of the mash tun drain. The flow of wort out of the mash tun drain is the same as the flow through the pump minus the flow in the feedback loop. I will monitor the pressure in the drain line and increase or decrease the flow in the feedback loop to keep the pressure out of the range of a stuck mash.

I do much the same thing with a $20 vacuum gauge. Yours is much, much higher on the bling scale though. That cannot be denied. Looks good!
 
Guys, I'm still not seeing the need for this stuff.

If you're restricting the output of your pump to get the runnoff rate you want, you're not creating any real suction or vacuum on your mash tun drain. I set a valve to get the proper flow into my brew kettle and then I set the other valve to get a matching rate of HLT water into the MLT. These are both slow rates - about 45 mins for a 10-12G batch. There's no serious suction going on here to compact the grain bed.
 
Yep, that's it. No diversion necessary on my system.

Yah, it's not like diversion is necessary on my system either. I realize that I can prevent scorching by turning off my RIMS element, and I could do it automatically with a cheap flow switch, but I like the elegance of the feedback loop. I also imagine that I get more uniform heating from my element because the wort flow across the element is always maximized. I think this will also limit the max temperature reached by the element, extending its life and making it easier to clean.
 
Guys, I'm still not seeing the need for this stuff.

If you're restricting the output of your pump to get the runnoff rate you want, you're not creating any real suction or vacuum on your mash tun drain. I set a valve to get the proper flow into my brew kettle and then I set the other valve to get a matching rate of HLT water into the MLT. These are both slow rates - about 45 mins for a 10-12G batch. There's no serious suction going on here to compact the grain bed.

That's just it, the rate is slow. I want to maximize the rate I can drain from the MLT without sticking it. That shortens my brew day and also increases the rate my RIMS can pump heat into the MLT for temperature steps.
 
That's just it, the rate is slow. I want to maximize the rate I can drain from the MLT without sticking it. That shortens my brew day and also increases the rate my RIMS can pump heat into the MLT for temperature steps.

I think I usually hit closer to 30 minutes instead of 45 (for 10 gallons), but what kind of times are you talking about?
 
So far I've only batch sparged, and I'm seeing about 45 minutes per batch. For the recirc system, I don't know yet, my RIMS is still under construction. Whatever the actual time turns out to be, my goal is to get as close to minimum as possible.
 
That's just it, the rate is slow. I want to maximize the rate I can drain from the MLT without sticking it. That shortens my brew day and also increases the rate my RIMS can pump heat into the MLT for temperature steps.

+1 I also want to maximize the flow rate and without some way to know how much suction is being applied to the FB, you are flying blind. The problem is that there is a speed limit and it is variable. Exceed the speed limit and you will have a stuck mash guaranteed. The need for speed is primarily to maximize temperature ramp ups. A faster flow rate allows you to apply more heat while helping to avoid scorching, cavitation or both. I'm running a direct fired RIMS and circulate the wort for the entire duration of the mash and all the way to the beginning of the sparge. The vacuum gauge allows me indirectly monitor the degree of grain bed compaction. When circulating the wort, the grain bed will inevitably compact. How fast this happens is roughly proportional to how much suction is applied to the FB by the pump. I expect the grain bed to compact at least once during the mash and I can see it coming by monitoring the vacuum gauge. Grain bed compaction is not a big deal at all. It's a simple matter of stopping the circulation and stirring the mash well. Matter of fact, I find that frequent and thorough stirring is beneficial to the mash, so I would be doing it occasionally regardless. IOW, it's not even a minor inconvenience. A grant works just fine, but I want a much faster flow rate than gravity alone can provide. Obviously, this is all irrelevant if batch sparging.
 
That's just it, the rate is slow. I want to maximize the rate I can drain from the MLT without sticking it. That shortens my brew day and also increases the rate my RIMS can pump heat into the MLT for temperature steps.

I take a different tack when sparging. I prefer to sparge very slowly. The benefit IME is that the extraction efficiency is improved over a fast sparge. Now this may not seem important, but what I like about it is that the wort gravity will still be fairly high when I stop the sparge and have collected the desired runoff volume. When sparging more quickly I found that I had to cut off the sparge prematurely as the gravity would drop too low before I had collected my target pre-boil volume, then I would have to add make up water which dropped my OG. The bottom line for me is that I believe that I can obtain a higher quality of wort with a slow runoff. The finished beer seems to generally confirm this, but that call is purely subjective as with pretty much all beer evaluation, so YMMV blah, blah, blah...
 
I take a different tack when sparging. I prefer to sparge very slowly. The benefit IME is that the extraction efficiency is improved over a fast sparge. Now this may not seem important, but what I like about it is that the wort gravity will still be fairly high when I stop the sparge and have collected the desired runoff volume. When sparging more quickly I found that I had to cut off the sparge prematurely as the gravity would drop too low before I had collected my target pre-boil volume, then I would have to add make up water which dropped my OG. The bottom line for me is that I believe that I can obtain a higher quality of wort with a slow runoff. The finished beer seems to generally confirm this, but that call is purely subjective as with pretty much all beer evaluation, so YMMV blah, blah, blah...

Ah, this is fascinating. I've been wondering about the flow mechanics of sparging. In another thread, someone was claiming that batch sparging is faster than fly sparging because you can drain a mixed-up mash faster than one that is on the edge of being compacted. I wonder if you could increase your sparge efficiency and also your speed by mixing up your mash periodically.
 
I have a few picts in my gallery of my system. I started using a grant many years ago and found it to be very useful. I (when I brew) do back to back 12 gallon batches. My grant lets me have them both going at the same time. Orfy started a thread on my system years ago. I will try and find it and give you a link.
https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f13/jaybird-brewery-38923/
Cheers
Jay
 
I started a grant thread last year and got some good info: https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f11/controlling-rims-grant-173595/

I'm actually implementing an idea that I got from that thread, which is a pump feedback loop instead of a grant. I haven't tested it yet and I'm not done documenting it, but here's a photo and a BOM: http://brewbot.org/content/rims-and-pump-assembly

This basically uses a diverter valve to feed a part of the pump's output back to its input. The reasoning is this valve can be trimmed to control the pressure or vacuum applied to the mash drain, and even in its lowest forward-flow setting (no drain from the mash), it still keeps liquid flowing over the heating element, preventing scorching.

Your website, what is it for? I see that there is a member login..
 
Your website, what is it for? I see that there is a member login..

You're asking about http://brewbot.org? The member login isn't really for anything yet. I have been collecting brewing system data and I use this site to publish it, hopefully in a form that is useful to people. The registry can be viewed without logging in, so there's really no use for logins at the moment.

Eventually I will also use the site for my own brewing system blog. I have written a custom drupal module that allows me to document assemblies and sub-assemblies, and I would be willing to make that functionality public. I have no clue whether people would be interested. There are plenty of on-line forums for people to use already, the only unique thing about my site would be the assembly browsing functionality.
 
So for people that don't use a grant, how do you prevent your pumps from compacting the grain bed on a single tier system? I am going to have a RIMS tube and I fear that without a grant i will compact the grain bed..
 
So for people that don't use a grant, how do you prevent your pumps from compacting the grain bed on a single tier system? I am going to have a RIMS tube and I fear that without a grant i will compact the grain bed..

IME, the grain bed will gradually and inevitably compact in a mash tun when using a pump. I expect this to happen on my system. It's not a big deal at all. I simply turn off the burner, stop the pump, stir the grain bed thoroughly then resume the circulation or sparge. Usually this happens more than once during the mash. I normally stir the grain bed several times during the mash regardless, so the interruption is not even an inconvenience. IMO, stirring the mash often is beneficial and I would do it whether using a pump or not and with or without a grant. I circulate at a very high flow rate which accelerates the gradual compaction of the grain bed. I've found that you can use a spoon as a probe to locate the top of the submerged grain bed. As you observe the top drop lower you can anticipate the grain bed condition or degree of compaction.
 
Wow,

See thats the thing about brewing. So many people have so many differnet views on what you should or shouldn't do.. From what i've seen and heard, you should never ever stir the grain bed.. So when you stir the grain bed do you vorloft again to get it running clear?
 
Back to the grant, a buddy of mine just came up with a great idea. Use the Hop Rocket from Blichmann as a grant. Mount it so that it's inverted, add a valve, and you have a grant. It's also the perfect size so you can add flow or level sensors. This sensor would kick on or turn off the pump when the level is too high or low. This would double as it's intended purposes.

Anyone ever hear of this or do it? I just wonder because it's mounted inverted, would it still function properly as a hot rocket?
 
Wow,

See thats the thing about brewing. So many people have so many differnet views on what you should or shouldn't do.. From what i've seen and heard, you should never ever stir the grain bed.. So when you stir the grain bed do you vorloft again to get it running clear?

Well, IMO whomever said to avoid stirring the grain bed doesn't know what he's talking about. Yes, I resume the circulation each time after stirring. The most important stir is the last one. I ramp up to mash out temperature, stop & stir then resume circulation for a short (5-10) minute vorlaugh at a slower flow rate until the wort is running clear again. At that point I begin the slow fly sparge and pump directly from the MT into the kettle. IMO, if you skip the stirring, you likely will have some degree of channeling whether you realize it or not. There is absolutely nothing to fear about stirring the grain bed. After all, it's already been through the mill.:D
 
So for people that don't use a grant, how do you prevent your pumps from compacting the grain bed on a single tier system? I am going to have a RIMS tube and I fear that without a grant i will compact the grain bed..

Don't fear it. I think compacting the grain bed or this talk of the unknown suction on the grain bed is being blown out of proportion. If you have a decent false bottom and you're not trying to run your pump full open, you likely won't have any (or many) stuck sparges. If you do, do as Catt22 points out - just stir the grain and vorlauf and life goes on. In the last year and a half of using my fly sparge system, I have yet to have a stuck sparge.
 
I would like to step in here and help you guys out. I am a professional Brewer and I have worked on two systems with Grants. The current system which I work on does not have a grant, and I wish it did. I also use a grant for my home brew. There is one piece I haven't seen any one talk about yet that solves the problem with a compact grain bed. It's called a trombone, and works just like the instrument. Basically what you do is, you run a piece of pipe from your mash tun valve vertically up along your Mash tun and then you need a vent on top and then you run the pipe back down. You run this with your valve wide open and allow gravity to control your flow. You adjust the height of the pipe to just under the sparge water level. It takes all the weight off you false bottom and keeps your grain uncompacted. You can use a grant to collect the run off from the trombone which is very helpful, and then pump it back into the mash to recirculate and then send it to the kettle after you get clear wort. Piping a pump to the mash tun does cause compaction and will cause channeling and reduce your efficiency. I usually get 94% of potential extract with my setup. Batch sparging is a bad idea! No brewery in the world does it neither should you, it causes oxidation of tannins and phenols. You should run off very slow, it should take at least an hour to an hour and a half to runoff. Also always adjust the ph of your sparge water to 5.7 and make sure your mash is between 5.2 - 5.4. To make a trombone get a 3/4 inch piece of Copper pipe and then use 1/2 inch with rubber o-rings and a little food grade lube. It seals pretty well with the right o-rings and allows you to slide it up and down. Remember you have to vent the top, or it just creates a siphon. Good luck!
 
Batch sparging is a bad idea! No brewery in the world does it neither should you, it causes oxidation of tannins and phenols. You should run off very slow, it should take at least an hour to an hour and a half to runoff.

Thanks for the tip about the trombone, I'm going to look into that. If the top of the trombone is below the water level, wouldn't wort come spewing out of the vent?

Do you have any credible references supporting the assertion that batch sparging causes oxidation of tannins and phenols any more than decoction mashing or other procedures that expose the grain to air? This sounds like the mythical HSA theory that seems to have been debunked by homebrewers.
 
What the trombone is supposed to do is tie the outlet of the mash tun to the liquid above the malt bed so you pull from both the false bottom and the liquid above the malt to prevent compaction through excessive suction pressure. In a maximum extraction for profit system this works well in preventing compaction when recirculating. In a home brew sized recirculating system with a coarser crush, you can recirculate for RIMS and HERMS stepping but you will pay the price in extraction efficiency. Normally when recirculation is held to 1 Gpm the grain bed compaction is not a problem, with high percentage wheat and rye beers mashed without a protein rest, any recirculation is to fast.
Having built and used 2 brewing systems with wort flow measurement, it has permitted careful observation of the effects of crush and flow rates for various malts and recipes.
 
The trombone does not tie into the top of the mash and mix the water, that is completely false. The weight of the grain and water create pressure on your false bottom, the taller the mash and the more weight the more compaction. This compaction reduces flow and causes the runoff to take the path of least resistance. And that causes you to lose extract. The trombone relieves that pressure and allows it to gently runoff. The wort can come out of the vent, but it only does if it is too low. They work very well, if done right you'll never have a stuck mash using one and you'll increase your extract easily. I'll take a picture next week when I brew and post it. As far as the batch sparging, I don't get why so many home brewers are obsessed with this technique, but oxidation of the mash is very bad, and if you don't treat your water for ph, this method is horrible. You should look up modern brewing vessels and look into the extents they go to reduce the pick up of oxygen while they mash and lauter. Modern vessels pump the grain into the bottom of the mash tun, because they found dropping it in from the top greatly increase the pick up of oxygen. Basically if you reduce the the pick of oxygen, you pick up less undesired compounds and reduce your color increase. You should always take great care with your wort, if you want great beer. Home brewers don't have to put their beer on a shelf, but breweries do and that is why they strive to make beers with out defect and that can with stand bad conditions.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top