Question about RIMS system...

I'm desiring to gain more control over the Mash process and am thinking of adding RIMS capability to my setup...

Currently, I use a single keggle and a mash tun... I do the initial mash, collect the wort in a bucket, and do usually two batch sparges and collect those in buckets as well... Then I typically brew the next day, sanitizing the keggle and counterflow chiller, pouring the buckets of wort in and starting the boil...

Hoping to add a very basic RIMS system.. Pump, In line heating element, PID...

My main question at this time is about 'process'..

I want to stay with the single keggle for now, so I'm wondering how this works...

Typically, is the initial infusion done, and then the mash just 'soaks' without any recirculation, or does the pump run during this part of the mash?

As far as the sparge, are the first runnings collected and then the sparge is a separate process, or can the first runnings be used as part of the sparge?

I'm kinda 'hoping' it goes something like one of the following two scenarios...

1) The initial infusion is recirculated directly back into the mash tun for the first hour, and then the sparge water in the boil kettle is added in line during sparge, the temp being raised to the desired sparge temp, eventually pumping all the first runnings into the keggle as the sparge water is drained from the keggle, and continuing that process throughout the rinse...

2) The initial infusion is allowed to rest for an hour, then it is pumped into the keggle with the heated sparge water which is recircualted back into the mash tun while the temp is held at the higher sparge temp....

Hoping number 2 is doable.. It is the simplest...

Can anyone shed light on how it works...

Thanks,
Mark

I guess what I'm really asking is, is it acceptable to use the intitial mash runnings as part of the sparge?

IOW, to do the mash and then dump the runnings into the preheated sparge water in the keggle, and sparge with the whole lot (at the higher temp)?

I don't see why you couldn't do number 2 even though I've never heard of it done like that before.

I just built my RIMS system...pump, RIMS tube, PID, etc. and brewed with it for the first time about 10 days ago. What I did was recirculate the mash water during the entire 60 minute mash period. Normally, I batch sparge however this time I tried a continuous sparge where I pumped the sparge water into the mash tun at the same rate I drained the mash tun into the boil kettle...very slowly. Hit the original gravity for my recipe dead on.

BiscayneBrewing said:

I don't see why you couldn't do number 2 even though I've never heard of it done like that before.

I just built my RIMS system...pump, RIMS tube, PID, etc. and brewed with it for the first time about 10 days ago. What I did was recirculate the mash water during the entire 60 minute mash period. Normally, I batch sparge however this time I tried a continuous sparge where I pumped the sparge water into the mash tun at the same rate I drained the mash tun into the boil kettle...very slowly. Hit the original gravity for my recipe dead on.

Click to expand...

So you collected the original mash first and kept it separate in a bucket or boil kettle while you did the sparge?

Normaly ...well in a system that has 3 kettles ie MT, HLT, BK your coil would be in the HLT with your 168 degree sparge water. During the mash if you need to increase temp you would recirculate it threw the coil in the HLT at the end of the mash you would recurculate unitl the MT temp was 168 then begin to runoff into the BK and start adding the sparge water to the MT at about the same rate as the runoff into the BK.

Batch sparge works well also and you only need 1 pump. You would basicly runoff the intial mash after recurulating to bring the temp up to 168 then add part of you sparge water into the MT mix the mash the recirculate until it clears the runoff again adding the rest of your sparge to the MT mix again, recirculate to clear then send it to the BK and Start your boil.

It sounds like you are only using 2 kettles having the MT do double duty as a BK? Running off into buckets then cleaning out the MT and boiling in it if I understand corectly.

Not exactly...
I started draining the mash tun very slowly via gravity. When I started to drain it I began pumping in my sparge water from the HLT to the MT...tried to get it at the same rate I was draining it. So I basically just did one long continuous sparge.

Just reread your intial post. So you are using a Cooler as your MT and a keg as your BK/HLT? The reason for running off into a bucket?

Why not put your element in your HLT/BK and basicly make an immersion chiller to heat your MT by recirculating threw the spage water, then pull it out for the boil. Seems like you would get more use out of your pid & element that way.

I'm trying to keep it super duper simple...

the main info I'm trying to ascertain is if it's okay to mix the initial mash runnings in with the sparge water....

IOW, I do the mash (recirculating from the outlet of the MT back into the MT), then I heat up some sparge water in the HLT/BK and pump the contents of the mash tun (first runnings) into the HLT/BK raising the temp to sparge temp, and then recirculate it all (MT to MLT/BK to MT), finally pumping it all back into the HLT/BK and start my boil?

Is there any reason why I should not combine the first runnings and the sparge water and recircualte it all during the sparge?

r8rphan said:

I'm trying to keep it super duper simple...

the main info I'm trying to ascertain is if it's okay to mix the initial mash runnings in with the sparge water....

Is there any reason why I should not combine the first runnings and the sparge water and recircualte it all during the sparge?

Click to expand...

The purpose of the sparge is to get all the sugars out of the mash, I would think that mixing your first runnings into the sparge water is a bad idea, I would stick with the bucket method until you get the hlt/bk emptied and then finish the runoff into the hlt/bk.

I was thinking about the sugars issues last night and that what I'm trying to do is basically a BIAB brew only the Bag is a separate mash tun, and am adding a RIMS system...

So that then begs the question.. Does the BIAB method result in lower efficiency, in that it leaves sugars behind? If so, how much lower?

r8rphan said:

I guess what I'm really asking is, is it acceptable to use the intitial mash runnings as part of the sparge?

Click to expand...

yoru first runnings are going to be the most concentrated amount of sugar you pull out of the grains. if you want to sparge with that sugar concentrate, you will never be able to get the same amount of sugar out again without using extra water (which means you would have to boil much longer to reduce the volume).

i dont understand what your trying to accomplish with that.

r8rphan said:

Does the BIAB method result in lower efficiency........

Click to expand...

No. Typical full-volume no-sparge BIAB "into the kettle" (conversion) efficiency is @ 80%. (I consistently get 82-83% with my rig)

audger said:

yoru first runnings are going to be the most concentrated amount of sugar you pull out of the grains. if you want to sparge with that sugar concentrate, you will never be able to get the same amount of sugar out again without using extra water (which means you would have to boil much longer to reduce the volume).

i dont understand what your trying to accomplish with that.

Click to expand...

I will be adding all the sparge water to it...

I am trying to avoid crawling up a step ladder with buckets full of wort (and them cleaning another bucket).. My HLT is my BK....

But even if I 'have' to collect the first runnings in a bucket and then manually pour it in... The addition of a direct fill hot water source, sight glass and a RIMS system with pump will reduce the number of full buckets of liquid I have to carry from 16 or so to 1...... Would be nice to not have to deal with even that last '1' though....

thughes said:

No. Typical full-volume no-sparge BIAB "into the kettle" (conversion) efficiency is @ 80%. (I consistently get 82-83% with my rig)

Click to expand...

So then I should expect the same or better efficiency with the setup I'm proposing?

Because really, recirculating the entire wort through the mash tun and BK is essentially a recirculating RIMS equipped BIAB rig, no?

In a BIAB process, you soak the grains at mash temp in the entire volume of liquid, and then raise them to sparge temp before removing the grains, correct?

Seems like the same thing to me, except that the grains are in a separate location...

Sorry No idea on the Diab..I only did 1 bach with extract before I rounded up the parts and went all grain. Check your local scrap yard and beer distributers for stainless tanks and keggs i seem to remember buying kegs from the distributer (leagal) for around $30.00. I'm not sure what kind of space you are working with. I wouldn't think it would result in lower efficency though there are pleanty of writeups on this sight to help you along that road.

I do single vessel, brew in a bag-RIMS. My efficiency is at least 80% and often mid-80's- once I hit 91!!!. I recirculate the full water volume and squeeze the f**k out of the bag at the end. One vessel, clear wort, no 'lost' efficiency. Having said this I do not want to suggest this route is 'simple'. There is a up front expense in construction and time. PID's can have a high learning curve. As I built my system, on several occasions I thought about how expensive and frustrating my 'simple' system is. Of course now I turn it on and act like it's nothing special, but as I built it I kept thinking, "This is the opposite of easy."

Retrofit said:

I do single vessel, brew in a bag-RIMS. My efficiency is at least 80% and often mid-80's- once I hit 91!!!. I recirculate the full water volume and squeeze the f**k out of the bag at the end. One vessel, clear wort, no 'lost' efficiency. Having said this I do not want to suggest this route is 'simple'. There is a up front expense in construction and time. PID's can have a high learning curve. As I built my system, on several occasions I thought about how expensive and frustrating my 'simple' system is. Of course now I turn it on and act like it's nothing special, but as I built it I kept thinking, "This is the opposite of easy."

Click to expand...

Which is why my focus is to start as 'simple' as possible... Anyways, your post makes me believe that it should work well enough to be worth giving it a try...As far as the learning curve goes, I have a background that lends to it... And after having built this thing (see picture) last year, a RIMS PID should seem like childs play..