Building my AG equipment

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.

mblanks2

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2013
Messages
793
Reaction score
91
I have my stainless kettles. I've installed my site-glasses in the HLT and BK. I have ball valves in HLT, MLT and BK but I have a few questions about the thermometers. I'll have a false bottom in my MLT. I plan to assemble a motorized rake system very soon to add to this system as well. It will be direct fired with propane. I haven't decided if I will do step mashes or single infusion. I do plan to fly sparge though.
My questions:
1) Should I install the thermometer to measure the temperature of the wort below the false bottom out of the path of the rake or should it be in direct contact with the grain?
2) Since this will be direct fired; is there any danger of scorching the wort while maintaining the mash temperature up to mash out?

Thanks for your comments.
 
1. Above the false bottom, where the grain is. Best to keep it as close as possible to the grains themselves since thats where the magic occurrs.

2. As long as ur using a false bottom the risk of scorching is minimal, however u can always remove the lid and stir while the burner is firing.
 
Thanks for your responses.

however u can always remove the lid and stir while the burner is firing.

There will be constant stirring very soon as it will have the motorized rake installed. I'll have a shaft with three or four rakes that will be driven by a 13 RPM gear motor. This is how a friends 1000 gallon system is set-up and I'm taking the idea into my small 10 - 15 gallon set-up.
 
Another option is to recirculate instead of stir. This is what I do and I measure the temperature at the outlet of the mash tun and wind up with very clear wort due to the recirc.

I would think it would be about as expensive as assembling a motorized rake if not cheaper.
 
Another option is to recirculate instead of stir. This is what I do and I measure the temperature at the outlet of the mash tun and wind up with very clear wort due to the recirc.

My thought pattern with the rake system is that I would get higher efficiency due to the slow agitation of the grist with the heavier sugars dropping to the bottom where recirc would only move the sugars back to the top of the grain bed. I do plan on a fly sparge instead of batch.
What are your thoughts on this?

The reason behind this idea is that it was a recommendation from my friend with the brewery. He originally had a small 10 gallon set-up designed this way and has won national 1st place awards with his brews. He has brewed at two of the top craft breweries on the east coast and is currently working with another here in Virginia on a collaboration brew. He is currently producing on four 1000 gallon systems and has plans for three additional systems by year end. :rockin:
 
So, my thinking is that efficiency doesn't really matter much at the homebrew scale. When you're talking about micro/macro brewing it becomes important because your concern is minimizing costs and maximizing profit. If you think about it, in the brewing process the only place you can move the needle on profit is in hitting high efficiency numbers.

Having a poorly efficient homebrew system will really only cost a small amount in extra grain use.

Now if you're approaching it as a technical challenge, then perhaps it's worth pursuing, but I don't personally think it is going to make better beer or save you worthwhile amounts of money.

As far as distribution of sugars, even if you were depositing all your sugars at the top of your mash, you'd still be washing them back out with a fly sparge.
 
Yes your more correct with ur second post. The fly sparge, as long as its done properly, will wash all the sugars from the grains no matter what.

I like the idea of the rake as far as a DIY concept but as far as it being worth the time/effort/money im not sure it will be any better on this smaller home brew scale then the recirculation idea.
 
I really appreciate the comments. I've got several things to consider and will talk to my brewery friend some more to see why he so strongly recommends the rake system over recirc. As far as expense, I'm not sure if there would be much difference in a rake system vs. recirc. but I will continue to gather information on both. Again, thanks for the comments and I appreciate additional conversation.
 
The other thing to consider is if a rake system costs you $150 and a pump costs you $150, the rake only does one thing and a pump can be used everywhere in your brewing operations.

Just to keep in perspective.
 
with a temp probe sitting at one spot in grain how do you know what the temp is in the rest of the mash? maybe it doesn't matter.
 
with a temp probe sitting at one spot in grain how do you know what the temp is in the rest of the mash? maybe it doesn't matter.

With recirculation, you measure at some point in the recirculation, usually at the valve. That will give you a solid idea of the average temperature of the mash. This picture below is how I measure temperature of the mash. it's a tee with a compression fitting holding a thermometer and quick disconnects. I just put it inline wherever I need to know temperature flowing through (mash recirculation or chill output as in the pic below).

20130219-090112.jpg
 
With recirculation, you measure at some point in the recirculation, usually at the valve. That will give you a solid idea of the average temperature of the mash. This picture below is how I measure temperature of the mash. it's a tee with a compression fitting holding a thermometer and quick disconnects. I just put it inline wherever I need to know temperature flowing through (mash recirculation or chill output as in the pic below).

20130219-090112.jpg

that's what i was getting at, i use a similar recirculating system. the OP was tending toward a rake system with a static probe in the grain which seems to be less precise.
 
I would imagine with a rake system, a static probe will still give you a pretty decent average. Otherwise what would be the point of the rake?
 
I would imagine with a rake system, a static probe will still give you a pretty decent average. Otherwise what would be the point of the rake?

I am planning on a gravity fed system and this is part of my rationale for the rake. It's not a money issue at all. I'm a little concerned with the pumps because I don't want to have to worry about oxidation or anything that could potentially occur from using a pump. I also don't want all the additional hoses and such to clean up or have loss due to the hose system.
I was thinking that since the rake would be creating movement in the mash with an upward force that the average over the static probe would be a better measurement of the mash as opposed to no movement at all, plus it would eliminate the need for manual stirring. I'm a DYI nut, so the rake system is a little more appealing to me and if it increases my efficiency then it'll give me bragging rights with my homebrew club.
 
I am planning on a gravity fed system and this is part of my rationale for the rake. It's not a money issue at all. I'm a little concerned with the pumps because I don't want to have to worry about oxidation or anything that could potentially occur from using a pump. I also don't want all the additional hoses and such to clean up or have loss due to the hose system.
I was thinking that since the rake would be creating movement in the mash with an upward force that the average over the static probe would be a better measurement of the mash as opposed to no movement at all, plus it would eliminate the need for manual stirring. I'm a DYI nut, so the rake system is a little more appealing to me and if it increases my efficiency then it'll give me bragging rights with my homebrew club.

unless you are pumping your finished beer i don't see where you would have oxidation issues with a pump.
 
So I'm not actively trying to dissuade you from taking on a fun DIY project, but I am just advocating for simplicity where simplicity makes sense.

Efficiency is not worth your time to chase. It just isn't. It very certainly won't make better beer, and it won't save you any money worth saving. You're going to invest much more in equipment and time then you will in grain over most of your brewing life I'd imagine, so grain is the cheapest cost in your operation next to water.

Don't try to save on cheap.

Deadspace and system loss are similar problems, once you learn your system you can account for them so you have repeatable beer - not cheap beer. The amount of sugars stuck in hoses is not worth worrying about at any scale at or above 5 gallons, you're talking about a couple of 12 oz bottles at most.

Similarly, HSA is not something you really need to worry about with using a pump (if you did change your mind to use one).

Just my opinion, but if you want to build a rake system because it's a fun DIY project then you should go for it. You should not build one if your reasons are oxidation and efficiency. Your money and time would be better spent on other variables that would actually make better beer (ie-fermentation).

I'm not super knowledgeable on commercial brewing, but it's my understanding that most commercial operations with a rake would also have a lauter tun which you wouldn't be using. I'd be concerned about using a rake, then using that same vessel to setup a nice grain bed so you can actually lauter and sparge well. Not saying that it can't be done, I just haven't read about any setup like that yet so it's a big grey area.
 
Thanks for all the replies. You've all given be food for thought. I plan on doing several batches without a pump or rake to get a feel for my system, once complete. I will continue to look at information regarding both the rake and pump before making any moves.
Continued debate is still welcome. Thanks again.
 
Back
Top