Help me understand something - RIMS/eHERMS Sparge

BTW, thanks for the debate guys. You're givine me something to do while bored in this hotel in Holland!

lamarguy said:

No need to get touchy. If you present your work as evidence, expect comments.

Click to expand...

No, no, not touchy. Just giving you a ribbing for not noticing the graphs were essentially the same.

jfkriege said:

On my calculator I would go from 58.6% up to 72.4% assuming the same boiloff rate and time. It is a big jump, but I also would go from a 1.113 OG down to 1.069.

For the calculator that I use, I assume a 100% conversion. This is perhaps not realistic, but is good enough for playing with theory and designing a rig.

Click to expand...

Yup, 72% is what I thought.

The Pol said:

What if you doubled your water volume at 30 pounds of malt Jkarp? In your graph, would that change the eff.? Just curious.

I mean at 30 pounds of malt in a 5.5 gallon batch, youd be absorbing A LOT of your total mash wort, right? What if you doubled that water volume? What number would you have then?

Also, these graphs are cool, what is the "assumed" conversion eff. in these graphs?

Click to expand...

I had done another worksheet at 10 gal. Efficiency goes up as the pre-boil gravity goes down and less points are lost, as expected. All these graphs were done at 37 p/p-g at 100% conversion - i.e. a congress mash. It's been a while since I read Kai's sparging paper but I suspect that's the small difference between his graphs and mine.

Ok, your graph matches my initial statement several pages back. Thanks.

30 pounds, in a 10 gallon batch, at 72% is fine for me as that is an OG of about 1.084. I am typically in the 1.040 - 1.070 range with my beers.

I can handle 72%

The Pol said:

Ok, your graph matches my initial statement several pages back. Thanks.

30 pounds, in a 10 gallon batch, at 72% is fine for me as that is an OG of about 1.084. I am typically in the 1.040 - 1.070 range with my beers.

I can handle 72%

Click to expand...

Of course, that's a theoretical max and actual results will be a few points below that. Getting the absorption rate and deadloss down makes a surprising difference in no-sparge efficiency. I recall you were doing some malt conditioning and that should really pay off for you there. With a 30 lb grist, just going from 0.15 gal/lb to 0.1 gal/lb gets you another 7-8%

I've got a little excel sheet I use for brewday volume calculations that makes grinding all these numbers easy if you're interested.

jkarp said:

Of course, that's a theoretical max and actual results will be a few points below that. Getting the absorption rate and deadloss down makes a surprising difference in no-sparge efficiency. I recall you were doing some malt conditioning and that should really pay off for you there. With a 30 lb grist, just going from 0.15 gal/lb to 0.1 gal/lb gets you another 7-8%

I've got a little excel sheet I use for brewday volume calculations that makes grinding all these numbers easy if you're interested.

Click to expand...

I actually have an excel sheet which is where my #s came from too

I'm sorry guys, but that graph is just too rosy. I've yet to hear anyone explain to me how the boil-off rate is effecting your efficiency (other than justifying the use of sparge water)? Your graph should look more like this: (should be gal/lb, not lb/gal on absorption)

goatchze - the math was all laid out. What exactly aren't you understanding?

Boil-off must be compensated for on the front end in no-sparge. If you want 5 gallons of beer and you boil off 1 gallon, you'd better have 6 gallons pre-boil to avoid disappointment. When the mash is more dilute, the points per gallon is lower. Consequently, the actual points lost to absorption goes down. As absorption and deadloss are the ONLY sources of lost efficiency in no-sparge, the overall mash efficiency goes UP as pre-boil volume increases.

Well, of course conversion also plays a role in efficiency, but for the purposes of this discussion we're talking about theoretical best - congress mash, 100% conversion.

jkarp said:

goatchze - the math was all laid out. What exactly aren't you understanding?

Boil-off must be compensated for on the front end in no-sparge. If you want 5 gallons of beer and you boil off 1 gallon, you'd better have 6 gallons pre-boil to avoid disappointment. When the mash is more dilute, the points per gallon is lower. Consequently, the actual points lost to absorption goes down. As absorption and deadloss are the ONLY sources of lost efficiency in no-sparge, the overall mash efficiency goes UP as pre-boil volume increases.

Click to expand...

Right. And this is exactly what a sparge is accomplishing? The difference being magnitude. (sorry, I left this off my post and edited it in later)

Even if you're sparging, if you want 5 gallons of beer and will boil off 1 gallon, you must use 6 gallons of water?

What are the losses if you use sparge water? Are they also ONLY absorption and deadloss?

Yes, the overal mash eff. goes UP as pre-boil volume goes down. This is always true.

Right, but you started this thread with a Brutus 20 question. Brutus 20 is no-sparge. Batch sparging and fly sparging have different efficiency calculations entirely.

Brutus 20 is elegant in its simplicity. You've got X gallons in a closed loop, recirculating. Eventually, the wort gravity is uniform throughout the system. Assuming 100% conversion, at this point you have absolute perfect, 100% efficiency. No exceptions. No losses have occurred.

It's easy to calculate or even take an actual reading of the wort gravity at this point. Now run the wort off to the kettle. The difference in the volumes of what you started with and what's in the kettle now is your volume loss. You know the gravity, you know the volume. That's all you need to now determine the points lost and your mash efficiency.

EDIT: again beat to the punch by jkarp!

jkarp said:

Right, but you started this thread with a Brutus 20 question. Brutus 20 is no-sparge. Batch sparging and fly sparging have different efficiency calculations entirely.

Brutus 20 is elegant in its simplicity. You've got X gallons in a closed loop, recirculating. Eventually, the wort gravity is uniform throughout the system. Assuming 100% conversion, at this point you have absolute perfect, 100% efficiency. No exceptions. No losses have occurred.

It's easy to calculate or even take an actual reading of the wort gravity at this point. Now run the wort off to the kettle. The difference in the volumes of what you started with and what's in the kettle now is your volume loss. You know the gravity, you know the volume. That's all you need to now determine the points lost and your mash efficiency.

Click to expand...

...

I think this may be where the disconnect is. To me, there is no difference in the calculation, whether I have no sparge, a batch sparge, or I fly sparge.

I use:

GRAIN x PTS / [(GRAVITY-1)*VOLUME)] = EFF

where:
GRAIN = lbs of grain
PTS = gravity points per lb in one gallon
GRAVITy=specific gravity of wort, pre or post boil doesn't matter
VOLUME=volume of wort, pre or post boil doesn't matter as long as you're consistent

The above equation is what I use, so it doesn't matter the type of sparge, the length of boil, whether I'm standing on my head, holding my breath, or anything else. It only looks at how much grain you use and how much sugar you end up with.

What's simpler than that?

BTW, I'm not trying to be mean, hostile, or anything else. Just enjoying.

The real question, then, is how worthwhile is a sparge at all? That's really the difference here. How much of the residual sugar is actually recovered due to a sparge which otherwise would be unrecovered?

I'm not at home right now, so I can't look at my notes. It would be intresting to see some values for the gravities of different people's sparges. Because if you can recover just 50% of the residual sugar lost on the first run, the "max efficiency graph" would be as below, a sizable reduction in the amount of grain required. But I don't really know what those sparge gravities would look like?

goatchze said:

GRAIN x PTS / [(GRAVITY-1)*VOLUME)] = EFF

where:
GRAIN = lbs of grain
PTS = gravity points per lb in one gallon
GRAVITy=specific gravity of wort, pre or post boil doesn't matter
VOLUME=volume of wort, pre or post boil doesn't matter as long as you're consistent

Click to expand...

So, 10 lbs, 37 points/lb-g, 1.050 gravity, and 5 gal:

10 x 37 / ((1.050 - 1) * 5) = 1480.

What's the units of efficiency here? I'm not familiar with numbers like that.

Sorry, it's getting late over here in Holland and I've had one too many Hertog Jans!

Flip that equation. The numerator should be the sugar you recovered, the denominator the "potential sugar".

If we work in "points", Gravity-1 is the thousandths of SG above 1, so

GRAIVTY-1 = 1.050-1 = 50 points
50 pts/gal * 5 gal = 250 pts

10 lb*37 pts/lb-gal = 370 pts

250 pts / 370 pts = 0.68 or 68% efficiency

The funny thing is, the use of "points" is supposed to simplify the calculation. however, since the specific gravity can change pre-post boil, I really think it makes it more complicated.

It would be easier to say that 1 lb of 2-row should yield 0.31 lbs of sugar.

10 lbs should yield 3.1 lbs.

5 gallons of wort at 1.05 SG means you have

(1.05-1) * 8.34 lb/gal * 5 gal = 2.085 lbs of sugar

NOTE: 8.34 lb/gal is the density of water, or a SG of 1.0.

2.085/3.1 = 0.67 or 67% (the difference from above is due to rounding)

But the '1.05-1' part is where someone got the idea to introduce "points", so I can see where it's coming from.

Ah, OK. I understand. So let's apply your formula to my prior example:

GRAIN = 12
PTS = 37
GRAVITY = 1.0592 (pre-boil; you said it doesn't matter)
VOLUME = 5.75 gal (again, pre-boil, per your requirement to be consistent)

"GRAVITY-1" = 59.2
59.2 * 5.75 = 340.4
12 * 37 = 444
340.4 / 444 = 76.7% efficiency.

Holy smokes! How about that? We match exactly.

Now, to help you understand why boil time / evaporation is important, let's do the same example, adjusted for a 90 minute boil.

(Recall our original conditions: Say we want 5 gallons of 1.073 finished wort and want to do a 90 min boil. We know our system will boil off 0.75 gal/hr. Let's also assume our grist absorbs 0.125 gal/lb and our MLT has 0.25 gal of deadloss.)

Full Brutus 20 system volume will be 5 gal + (1.5 hr x .75 gal) + (12 lbs x .125 gal/lb) + .25 gal = 7.875 gal

444 / 7.875 = 56.4 points pre-boil

Now, back to your formula:

GRAIN = 12
PTS = 37
GRAVITY = 1.0564 (pre-boil; you said it doesn't matter)
VOLUME = 6.125 gal (again, pre-boil, per your requirement to be consistent)

"GRAVITY-1" = 56.4
56.4 * 6.125 = 345.45
12 * 37 = 444
345.45 / 444 = 77.8% efficiency.

So, simply by going from a 60 minute to 90 minute boil, NO other changes, our theoretical max Brutus 20 efficiency went up by a little over 1%.

goatchze said:

It would be easier to say that 1 lb of 2-row should yield 0.31 lbs of sugar.

Click to expand...

Where do you get your data? 2-row is 37 p/p-g. Sugar is 46 p/p-g. Therefore, 1 lb of 2-row is equivalent to .8 lbs of sugar.

jkarp said:

Now, to help you understand why boil time / evaporation is important, let's do the same example, adjusted for a 90 minute boil.

(Recall our original conditions: Say we want 5 gallons of 1.073 finished wort and want to do a 90 min boil. We know our system will boil off 0.75 gal/hr. Let's also assume our grist absorbs 0.125 gal/lb and our MLT has 0.25 gal of deadloss.)

Full Brutus 20 system volume will be 5 gal + (1.5 hr x .75 gal) + (12 lbs x .125 gal/lb) + .25 gal = 7.875 gal

444 / 7.875 = 56.4 points pre-boil

Now, back to your formula:

GRAIN = 12
PTS = 37
GRAVITY = 1.0564 (pre-boil; you said it doesn't matter)
VOLUME = 6.125 gal (again, pre-boil, per your requirement to be consistent)

"GRAVITY-1" = 56.4
56.4 * 6.125 = 345.45
12 * 37 = 444
345.45 / 444 = 77.8% efficiency.

So, simply by going from a 60 minute to 90 minute boil, NO other changes, our theoretical max Brutus 20 efficiency went up by a little over 1%.

Click to expand...

OK OK, I think we're running in circles here. My issue wasn't your math, it was the statement that the boil directly affected your efficiency or the way your efficiency is calculated. To me it's not. It affects how much water you use, which then affects your efficiency (indirectly). I understand your point, but we're talking to different things (because we're looking at two different things). I calculate the amount of water I need seperately, thus the disconnect (a question of semantics).

People can get confused when you say that a longer boil will increase efficiency because they think "I'm increasing the gravity of my wort in the boil, thus increasing efficiency". This, of course, is not the case.

As for you last post, I'm not saying sugar as in "sucrose" or "table sugar". If we assume that wort is a mixture of only two things, water and sugar (of whatever kind), then every point of gravity above 1.0 is due to a sugar (of whatever kind).

0.31 lbs i the amount of sugar (of whatever kind) which should be produced from 1 lb of malt.

So, now that we're off of this tangent, let's go back to my original question. Your above comment that the gravity of the wort "lost" affects the overall efficiency (which I agree with completely) is of course the justification for using a sparge. The Brutus doesn't use a sparge, so the above logic means the efficiency must be lower. This means you need more grain to get the same amount of beer.

The Brutus also requires two pumps, so a higher cost to build (for me the pump was one of the largest expenses on my build).

It only uses two vessels, but if using tap water the system I drew in the first post only requires two vessels. Even if you're not using tapwater, you only need a small water bottle to hold the sparge water. (BTW, you can do the same cross circulation with the layout I've drawn).

So what I'm still not understanding, or seen shown, is what the advantage of the Brutus set up is? I'm not trying to knock it; it obviously works and is quite popular. However, the only advantage I see is the elmination of a small water bottle if not using tap water. If using tap water, I see no advantage at all?

Meanwhile there are multiple negatives, mainly a loss in efficiency and need for an additional pump?

So, again, what am I missing? Do the pros really outweight the cons, or are so many people building this system because it's been done before and is easy to duplicate?

This is funny... because PRO and CON lists are different for everyone, it depends on what you value. What do you want? When you get malt for $.49 per pound, you may value a 10% increase in eff. with a sparge, a lot less.



Then you are going to argue about a PRO actually being a CON.

Carry on.

goatchze said:

People can get confused when you say that a longer boil will increase efficiency because they think "I'm increasing the gravity of my wort in the boil, thus increasing efficiency". This, of course, is not the case.

Click to expand...

This is 100% patently false, as I just proved! In a Brutus 20 system, increased boil time or higher evaporation rates MUST be compensated for by adding more water up-front. This drives down the pre-boil gravity which means MORE points get in the pot. MORE points in the pot = higher efficiency.

This is analogous to doing additional sparges in a conventional system. By sparging MORE, you end up with MORE wort in the kettle and LESS points left behind in the MLT.

goatchze said:

As for you last post, I'm not saying sugar as in "sucrose" or "table sugar". If we assume that wort is a mixture of only two things, water and sugar (of whatever kind), then every point of gravity above 1.0 is due to a sugar (of whatever kind).

0.31 lbs i the amount of sugar (of whatever kind) which should be produced from 1 lb of malt.

Click to expand...

OK. I've never heard of this and never come across this "0.31 lbs" number in all my years of brewing. Can you point me to some reference so I can understand this concept?

goatchze said:

So, now that we're off of this tangent, let's go back to my original question. Your above comment that the gravity of the wort "lost" affects the overall efficiency (which I agree with completely) is of course the justification for using a sparge. The Brutus doesn't use a sparge, so the above logic means the efficiency must be lower. This means you need more grain to get the same amount of beer.

Click to expand...

Absolutely, positively, 100% true.

goatchze said:

The Brutus also requires two pumps, so a higher cost to build (for me the pump was one of the largest expenses on my build).

Click to expand...

Absolutely untrue. See my CB20 build discussion here, or the condensed version that was published in the Nov, 2009 issue of BYO.

goatchze said:

So what I'm still not understanding, or seen shown, is what the advantage of the Brutus set up is? I'm not trying to knock it; it obviously works and is quite popular. However, the only advantage I see is the elmination of a small water bottle if not using tap water. If using tap water, I see no advantage at all?

Meanwhile there are multiple negatives, mainly a loss in efficiency and need for an additional pump?

So, again, what am I missing? Do the pros really outweight the cons, or are so many people building this system because it's been done before and is easy to duplicate?

Click to expand...

Well, first, It's important to understand there are different Brutus systems. A Brutus 10 is a 3-vessel, direct fired system. A Brutus 20, which is the 2-vessel concept you're asking about has the following advantages:

+ Takes up less space
I've built a version that runs on a single 120V outlet and fits comfortably on a 3' x 2' counter in my kitchen. I can brew when it's 5 below and snowing, sitting in my recliner and watching the game. Have a look at Pol's new system. Besides being a damn work of art, it's a full 10 gallon brewing system in a SUPER compact space.

+ Potentially higher quality wort
First runnings are always the highest quality wort. With every sparge, wort quality goes down and the risk of tannin extraction increases. With no-sparge, ALL wort is first runnings. Batch or fly sparging require a certain level of skill on the brewer's part to monitor wort quality. Too many brewers get caught up "brewing by the numbers" and strut around efficiency numbers as a testament to their brewing prowess. No-sparge brewers care more about getting the best possible wort and are perfectly willing to forgo a few points of efficiency.

+ Higher repeatability
Because the variability of sparging is eliminated, it's trivial to hit the exact same numbers, every time.

+ Time saving
No sparge means no time spent sparging! For a relatively simple ale with a 60 min mash and 60 min boil, I can easily brew a batch of beer in 4 hours, including clean-up.

I'm sure the other no-sparge proponents will chime in with other points, but those are the big ones. Now I'm not saying no-sparge is the be-all end-all of homebrewing. Quite the contrary, it doesn't suit many brewers at all. It's just another option in this hobby.

This is 100% patently false, as I just proved! In a Brutus 20 system, increased boil time or higher evaporation rates MUST be compensated for by adding more water up-front. This drives down the pre-boil gravity which means MORE points get in the pot. MORE points in the pot = higher efficiency.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but you proved no such thing. What you proved was that increased water, compensated for by a longer boil, increases efficiency. A longer boil by itself does not help. Goatchze's point, as I understand it, was that when people simply hear that a longer boil increases efficiency they can be misled because they are missing half the picture.

Thirteen said:

Sorry, but you proved no such thing. What you proved was that increased water, compensated for by a longer boil, increases efficiency. A longer boil by itself does not help. Goatchze's point, as I understand it, was that when people simply hear that a longer boil increases efficiency they can be misled because they are missing half the picture.

Click to expand...

You guys are just getting flat-out silly now.

Nowhere in this thread were the words "a longer boil increases efficiency" said on their own, so it's not possible for your so-called "people" to be misled. In EVERY instance, it was clearly explained that greater starting volume (required for a longer boil) lowered the pre-boil gravity, putting more points in the pot. More points in the pot = higher efficiency. I've said it so many times in so many ways, I'm sick of saying it. If folks aren't understanding the basics of efficiency calculations by this point, this hobby MAY not be for them.

I'm out. Good luck fellas.

I'll say this another way because it just isn't getting through. If the preboil volume is increased due to willingness to boil down longer, it reduces the mash gravity. That means LESS sugar is locked up as absorption and therefore your sugar loss is less. This is a gain in efficiency. Yes, it DOES matter in no sparge brewing if your preboil is 7 gallons vs. 8 gallons.

We're not generalizing across various sparge methods, we're talking about the situation where ALL preboil wort is derived from the mash liquor.

Thirteen,

Thanks, this is my point. EDIT: But, I think we all are saying the same thing, just in different ways.

----------------

Jkarp,

Thanks, these were the "pros/cons" or points I was looking for. I honestly wasn't aware that there was such variety in the term "brutus" (I'm not a subscriber of BYO). I thought all were the same and the #'s were the volume. Guess I should research more!

I did leave off repeatability as a pro; I can see how the Brutus would be more repeatable than sparging. I'm still not entirely convinced that the wort will be of "higher quality", but I can see where sparging at higher t's and using more water has the potential for increased tannins extraction. I'm just now sure how big this risk is.

Also, before this thread, I had never come up with the 0.31 lbs of sugar / lb of grain. I usually calculate brewhouse efficiency the hard way, just converting the added gravity of the wort to a generic "mass". In doing the comparisons we did here is where I finally converted it to a unit of mass sugar per unit of mass grain. Thanks.

-----

The Pol,

I don't know what to say. The whole point of posting something like this to a bulletin board is to get the opinions of others and find out why they like this system for their given situation, then compare their situation to mine. We digressed quite a bit from this question for a while. The system I came up with was out of the blue on my part, only borrowing the idea of a RIMS tube. It seemed intuitive to me, but I wanted to find out why others weren't doing the same, instead going with a no sparge system.