Sparge device question

CornyKegs 728
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.
T

thenatibrewer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
144
Reaction score
0
Location
cincinnati
I am in the process of building my new single tier brew table!!! I will be using a 3 keg system and the mash tun will be direct fire and i want it to be recirculating the mash, it will have a false bottom. my question what type of set up do you guys us for your sparge device. and how did you make the connections. i think i am going to use the camlock quick disconnects from proflow. i have seen a copper ring on the inside of the mash tun that runs along the edge of the keg. is that the way to go or is there a better way? any help would be great, cheers.
 
Many on here have found that a simple short length of silicone hose works great. It will float on top of the mash, and is very easy to build and clean.
 
This is my low tech cpvc solution:

4251170431_f4b755cfc0_z.jpg


4244565083_10ee104333_z.jpg


I use nylon barb x garden hose thread fittings for the connections throughout my system. They are cheap, can handle the heat and they don't conduct much heat like metal fittings can. U.S. Plastics is my source.
 
If you are going to fly sparge a piece of silicone tubing as a sparge device is the least expensive and most elegant solution available and it works like a charm.
 
Sawdustguy said:
If you are going to fly sparge a piece of silicone tubing as a sparge device is the least expensive and most elegant solution available and it works like a charm.
Click to expand...

I fly sparge and the cpvc manifold gizmo functions as both a wort return for the RIMS and as a sparge water distribution manifold. The cost to put it together was about $10 including the wooden cross member. Not really what I would consider a budget buster. IMO elegance is very much in the eye of the beholder.
 
When fly-sparging there should be +-2" of water above the wort at all times. This means that it makes no difference how sparge water is added. Sprinkling sparge arms are over-engineered.
I originally used a copper manifold with slits cut in it which sprinkled the sparge water, I recently changed to a silicone tube (for sparge and RIMS return). My efficiency remained the same.
The $6000 SABCO system uses a silicone tube.
 
Catt22 said:
I fly sparge and the cpvc manifold gizmo functions as both a wort return for the RIMS and as a sparge water distribution manifold. The cost to put it together was about $10 including the wooden cross member. Not really what I would consider a budget buster. IMO elegance is very much in the eye of the beholder.
Click to expand...

I agree it's not a budget buster but I still would not personally suggest something that cost $10 when it can be done as efficiently for half the cost (2 feet of 1/2" silicone tubing).
 
Sawdustguy said:
I agree it's not a budget buster but I still would not personally suggest something that cost $10 when it can be done as efficiently for half the cost (2 feet of 1/2" silicone tubing).
Click to expand...

The apparatus I came up with is multi-purposed. The cross member not only supports the return manifold, but also the thermowell in the mash and the digital thermometer itself. The eye on the end of the cross bar holds the supply tubing in place. IOW, the $10 cost is spread out over the multiple uses, so it isn't all for just the cpvc thingy. It has been working well for me for quite a long time. Not that the silicone tubing alone would not suffice, as I am sure it would. I'm sure Sabco would not be doing it that way if it didn't. It's just that IMO there's more than one way to do it. At one time I used a rotating whirlygig thingy, but I felt that I was loosing too much heat sprinkling the water through the air with nothing to gain whatsoever. I circulate the wort at a fairly high rate and laying the tubing on the surface didn't work out well for me as it created some channeling and disruption of the grain bed. It worked just fine when sparging as the flow rate was very slow. I circulate the wort as fast as possible during the mash. I would never insist that my method is the best. IMO, that's something only the brewer can decide for himself. As with most of this ****, there's no one size fits all.
 
Catt22 said:
I circulate the wort at a fairly high rate and laying the tubing on the surface didn't work out well for me as it created some channeling and disruption of the grain bed. It worked just fine when sparging as the flow rate was very slow. I circulate the wort as fast as possible during the mash.
Click to expand...

I had the exact same issues with the plain tube lying on top of the grain bed. I stuck a simple CPVC 90 in there, and rotate it so that it points up away from the grain bed like your 45's do. That did the trick for me, and I get great efficiency now. Like you said, there's as many ways to do this as there are adventurous brewers. No one way will work for everyone.
 
You're right - I did forget to say IMO - point taken.
I agree there are multiple ways to achieve the same result but IMO ;) I can't see how there can be channeling if there is 2" water above the grain bed.
 
Bru said:
You're right - I did forget to say IMO - point taken.
I agree there are multiple ways to achieve the same result but IMO ;) I can't see how there can be channeling if there is 2" water above the grain bed.
Click to expand...

IMO, channeling is always a possibility regardless of how much water is above the grain bed, and particularly when circulating at a high flow rate using a pump. Channeling is much less likely when just sparging slowly. I built the return manifold specifically for circulating with a pump. It soon dawned on me that the same manifold could be used for sparging. I simply move the hose connection from the pump to the elevated HLT and I'm off to the races.
 
so there are a lot of questions about just using a piece of silicone tubing??? building a sparge type device will not be that big of a deal but lying a piece of silicone tubing on top of the grain bed will be a lot easier. i would still like to see what others are doing...

as far as recirculation rates, i have no idea. this is my first system where i will have that capability. i just figured pretty slow? is there a certain speed (qts per min) that i should be searching for?
 
thenatibrewer said:
so there are a lot of questions about just using a piece of silicone tubing??? building a sparge type device will not be that big of a deal but lying a piece of silicone tubing on top of the grain bed will be a lot easier. i would still like to see what others are doing...

as far as recirculation rates, i have no idea. this is my first system where i will have that capability. i just figured pretty slow? is there a certain speed (qts per min) that i should be searching for?
Click to expand...

The general consensus appears to be that it makes no difference whatsoever how you get the sparge water into your mash tun.

IMO, the circulation rate should be as fast as possible. IME, this shortens the temperature ramp up times as you can apply more heat without scorching the wort than you can at lower rates. IMO, it also helps to maintain a more stable and uniform grain bed temperature. Just my take on it. I'm certain others will disagree, YMMV, blah, blah, blah.
 
thenatibrewer said:
Do you stir the mash during recirculation or is that bad?
Click to expand...

I stir frequently and thoroughly. I stop the pump and shut off the burner when stirring. IME, it's most beneficial to stir well immediately prior to the sparge. This will require that you resume the circualation for a few minutes to allow the wort to clear. It's best to do this vorlaugh circulation slowly to minimize grain bed compaction prior to the sparge. This is the one time that slow circulation is advantageous IMO.
 
Does everyone recirculate during the entire mash process or just while heating? Are your pumps tuned wide open or gated down? I know a lot of questions. Just as an update my pumps came in today just waiting on all my connections thermometer and sight gauges and I should be good to go. Hoefully having the test brew in a week or so. I cannot wait!!!!
 
thenatibrewer said:
Does everyone recirculate during the entire mash process or just while heating? Are your pumps tuned wide open or gated down? I know a lot of questions. Just as an update my pumps came in today just waiting on all my connections thermometer and sight gauges and I should be good to go. Hoefully having the test brew in a week or so. I cannot wait!!!!
Click to expand...

I circulate during the entire mash, normally stopping only to stir. I have my pump valved down and probably never run it more than 30% open during the mash circulation. That's only an estimate though as I adjust the flow rate visually and don't pay a lot of attention to how much the valve is opened. The speed limit is dictated by how fast the wort can flow through the false bottom, not by the pump capacity. Exceeding the speed limit can result in a stuck mash, possible pump cavitation and/or loss of prime. The trick is to pump fast, but not too fast.

I do run wide open when chilling and pumping back to the BK.
 
Have you ever compared your efficiency to see if stirring makes a difference ?
I don't stir after mash-in (at all) simply because I can't see how it could make a difference but a comarison would be interesting.
 
Bru said:
Have you ever compared your efficiency to see if stirring makes a difference ?
I don't stir after mash-in (at all) simply because I can't see how it could make a difference but a comarison would be interesting.
Click to expand...

Yes I have made the comparison and I found that stirring makes a major difference in lautering efficiency.

IMO, it is seldom wise to base action (or inaction) on preconceived concepts. This is a near perfect example and I am guilty of the same thing. I used to think that once the dough in was completed and the mash thoroughly stirred, that it would be best to leave it undisturbed from that point on. This was a major blunder and I did it that way for years. My efficiency typically ran about 70-75%. Not horrible, but not that great either.

Earlier this year I began stirring frequently and thoroughly. The reason that I changed my procedure was because I had a particularly stubborn mash that kept sticking repeatedly due to my over crushing the malt. My efficiency went through the roof with a 94%. I dismissed this as a fluke which would probably never happen again, but I decided to see if it was a result of the extra stirring. I have been stirring the hell out of every batch from then on and the efficiency numbers have remained consistently very high. I have tested this hypothesis on two other RIMS systems besides my own with very similar results. IME, it is most beneficial to stir the mash very well immediately prior to sparging.

I fly sparge and have not done a similar comparison for a batch sparge, so I do not know if the result would be similar or not. I can't see how it could do any harm to try it.
 
Thats interesting. I still can't understand how stirring can help in a RIMS system that circulates for an hour but Im willing to give it a try. Im brewing tonight.
How often do you stir ?
I also fly-sparge.
Im wondering whether your crush is too fine to allow proper circulation. In other words not all the grain is exposed to the "flow" but by stirring that is eliminated. Just a thought.
Ive got a crankenstein set to the default setting.
To clarify - does your 94% efficiency refer to brewhouse efficiency or MLT efficiency ?
What is your flow rate (+-) when recirculating ?
 
The grain bed will always compact to some degree when circulating with a pump. How much and how quickly the compaction happens depends on a number of variables, but the primary one would be the pumping rate or how much suction you are applying to the false bottom.

I stir frequently. Initially at dough in, then again after every rest when doing a step mash. IME, it's most important to stir the grain bed immediately prior to the sparge and then sparge slowly. Stirring at this point loosens/re-suspends the grain bed and running off the wort slowly keeps it from appreciably re-compacting during the sparge. Most fly sparge slowly anyway, so there's nothing different in that respect.

My crush is just right. I've been milling my own grain for a very long time. I know what the grist should look like. Besides, crushing finer would have the opposite effect of what you are describing. IOW, a finer crush will improve the yield and a coarser crush will reduce efficiency. Too fine and you will have a stuck mash or excessively shredded husks which can cause astringency problems.

I don't mill at any specific gap setting. I adjust the mill according to visual inspection of the grist and I adjust it every time I use it. I also adjust the mill for different malts and grains. Fortunately, the mill I have is easy to adjust on the fly.

IMO, there is only one way to measure efficiency accurately and that would be pre-boil. This is technically a measure of the lautering efficiency. I checked the mash efficiency, or conversion efficiency, a few times, but it was always very near or over 100%, so I no longer bother checking it. I've never had a mash fail to convert. Since I began consistently following my frequent stirring routine, I've experienced very high lautering efficiences. I would have written it off as a fluke if it had been a one off event, but it was not, so I can only conclude that the stirring is what made the difference. IMO, stirring also helps to more completely wet the starches and it probably knocks loose a lot of tiny air bubbles trapped in the starch or otherwise clinging to the grain. That's just a theory I have with nothing to back it up.

My flow rate is as fast as I can go when circulating the RIMS. The limit is how well the wort flows through the false bottom. I would estimate the flow rate is about 1 gpm and possibly a little more than that. I have not measured it. It will also vary some during the mash as the grain bed inevitably will compact and slow the flow rate. I stop and stir when this happens, then resume circulation as before.

There was a time when I thought that it was impossible to achieve high rates of efficiency on the home brew level. I also thought that those who claimed to get very high efficiency were either measuring it wrong or outright exaggerating their results. I no longer think this is the case. I'm sure that sometimes it is, but not always.

I have confirmed the theoretical benefits of stirring on three different systems recently and the results have been very consistent. Most recently when brewing a 24 gallon batch. Apparently, batch size is not a major factor regarding lautering efficiency.
 
I've always stirred and have gotten very good efficiency. 90%+ up to 1.070 beers. Up at 1.100 beers, still getting 80%. I inject steam into the mash for step mashing. Normally just doing a typical temp conversion rest and then going up to 158 for 10 minutes to make sure everything is finished, taking refractometer readings along the way. Then up to mash out. I read about people getting 70% and wonder how that is possible. I even started fly-sparging (used to batch sparge) in order to lower efficiency (for a "better" wort) but it didn't work. A friend brewer thought there was something magical about steps with steam, I think it's just all the stirring and making sure conversion is 100%. I use the following graph I made to see what 100% conversion gravity should be. I could never do the iodine test since I'm color blind.

I also calculate my own potential extract numbers so I can calculate efficiency very accurately

A grant helps with recirculating so there's never more suction on the grain bed then what gravity can do.
 
dstar26t said:
I've always stirred and have gotten very good efficiency. 90%+ up to 1.070 beers. Up at 1.100 beers, still getting 80%. I inject steam into the mash for step mashing. Normally just doing a typical temp conversion rest and then going up to 158 for 10 minutes to make sure everything is finished, taking refractometer readings along the way. Then up to mash out. I read about people getting 70% and wonder how that is possible. I even started fly-sparging (used to batch sparge) in order to lower efficiency (for a "better" wort) but it didn't work. A friend brewer thought there was something magical about steps with steam, I think it's just all the stirring and making sure conversion is 100%. I use the following graph I made to see what 100% conversion gravity should be. I could never do the iodine test since I'm color blind.

I also calculate my own potential extract numbers so I can calculate efficiency very accurately

A grant helps with recirculating so there's never more suction on the grain bed then what gravity can do.
Click to expand...

I have the conversion table also, but after checking it a number of times and always finding that I'm getting 99-101% conversion I no longer bother with it.

I am color blind as well. You don't need perfect color vision to do the iodine test. The sample will turn from dark amber to black. It's difficult to miss the black. Much the same as with the conversion check, I've never had a mash fail to convert, so I no longer bother with that test either.

I use a vacuum gauge in lieu of a grant. This allows me to pump about twice as fast as gravity flow alone would provide. I like to circulate the wort as fast as possible for quick temp ramp ups and a more uniform grain bed temperature.

I was only able to achieve about 75-80% efficiency before I began the thorough stirring routine and I was perfectly happy with that. I sort of accidentally discovered that stirring immediately prior to the sparge caused a big jump in efficiency. This was the result of the mash sticking at that particular point while I was attempting to raise the grain bed temp for the mash out. Needless to say, I was quite surprised to see it happen. I do not strive for very high efficiencies at all. It was a serendipitous thing only, but now I find I need to back off on my expected efficiency when formulating the recipes. I've had to dump considerable excess wort recently just to get down to the upper range of the style gravities. That's how much of a difference this makes. I'm going to try 85% for the recipes from now on and cut the sparge short if I'm still too high. I can easily add water during the boil to hit the target gravity.
 
I brewed on Friday night but I had some issues with a stuck sparge (thick mash) so I didn't get to stir etc.
I normally get +-75% for anything over 1.060 and +-80% for lower than 1.060. I use a 40L cooler with a copper manifold which I assume is not as efficient as a full false bottom. My plan is to change to a 25gallon pot with a full false bottom.
My cooler is not big enough to mash with a consistent 3L/kg everytime - I suspect my bigger beers have lower efficiency because of the resultant thicker mash.
What you say makes sense - the grain bed slowly compacts during the mash and stirring before the sparge loosens it up. I use gravity to sparge adding water with a float switch controlled pump. Next 1.050 Im going to try stirring before sparging - Ill report back.
I don't agree 100% that too fine a crush won't reduce efficiency. IMO the grain bed becomes compacted too easily and doesn't flow properly but not to the point where it gets completely stuck.
I realise some commercial breweries mill the grain to nearly powder and get close to 100% but their systems are different.
 
Catt22 said:
I use a vacuum gauge in lieu of a grant. This allows me to pump about twice as fast as gravity flow alone would provide. I like to circulate the wort as fast as possible for quick temp ramp ups and a more uniform grain bed temperature.

I was only able to achieve about 75-80% efficiency before I began the thorough stirring routine and I was perfectly happy with that. I sort of accidentally discovered that stirring immediately prior to the sparge caused a big jump in efficiency. This was the result of the mash sticking at that particular point while I was attempting to raise the grain bed temp for the mash out. Needless to say, I was quite surprised to see it happen. I do not strive for very high efficiencies at all. It was a serendipitous thing only, but now I find I need to back off on my expected efficiency when formulating the recipes. I've had to dump considerable excess wort recently just to get down to the upper range of the style gravities. That's how much of a difference this makes. I'm going to try 85% for the recipes from now on and cut the sparge short if I'm still too high. I can easily add water during the boil to hit the target gravity.
Click to expand...

I like the use of a vacuum gauge.
I've been fighting something ever since implementing a different mash tun a year ago. Maybe you have some advice that would help? My procedure at the end of the mash is to hit mash out at 170F (steam + stirring) and rest there for 10 minutes. I start recirculating after that rest and it takes about 5 minutes or so to get crystal clear wort out of the mash tun. It'll run clear for the first 3-8 gallons (out of 14) into the kettle and then every time, bits of grain start coming out. It gets so bad that I have to re-recirculate for another 10-15 minutes and then continue sparging. Any idea what causes this? It's quite annoying and time consuming. I almost want to ditch the perforated plate false bottom and go back to a manifold. I never had issues with my old cooler and manifold combo. The false bottom is full diameter and hinged with a dip tube through the center. I figured it was due to stirring toward the end of the mash which disturbs the grain bed. I assumed nobody else had this problem because they either single infuse and don't touch the grain or they recirculate for the whole mash which sets the bed nicely. Do you ever have an issue part way through sparging like I describe?
Brewed a 1.044 Pale Ale yesterday with 92.3% efficiency into the kettle but had the same bits-o-grain issue after 4 gallons.


Bru,
I used to mill at .039". Then I started conditioning the grain and milling at .028". Never had a stuck sparge either way.
 
Bru said:
I don't agree 100% that too fine a crush won't reduce efficiency. IMO the grain bed becomes compacted too easily and doesn't flow properly but not to the point where it gets completely stuck.
I realise some commercial breweries mill the grain to nearly powder and get close to 100% but their systems are different.
Click to expand...

It has been well documented that a finer crush will improve efficiency. A good friend of mine manufactured malt mills at one time and he did actual testing in this regard and on the home brewing scale. Obviously, there will be a practical limit to milling the grain very fine due to sticking issues, but the efficiency will increase right up to the sticking point. The bottom line though, is that at some point it simply isn't worth the trouble to chase a small increase in efficiency at the expense of a big hassle with the sparge. Most of us settle for somewhat of a compromise and mill the grain a little on the coarser side, giving up some efficiency in exchange for an easier sparge.
 
dstar26t said:
I like the use of a vacuum gauge.
I've been fighting something ever since implementing a different mash tun a year ago. Maybe you have some advice that would help? My procedure at the end of the mash is to hit mash out at 170F (steam + stirring) and rest there for 10 minutes. I start recirculating after that rest and it takes about 5 minutes or so to get crystal clear wort out of the mash tun. It'll run clear for the first 3-8 gallons (out of 14) into the kettle and then every time, bits of grain start coming out. It gets so bad that I have to re-recirculate for another 10-15 minutes and then continue sparging. Any idea what causes this? It's quite annoying and time consuming. I almost want to ditch the perforated plate false bottom and go back to a manifold. I never had issues with my old cooler and manifold combo. The false bottom is full diameter and hinged with a dip tube through the center. I figured it was due to stirring toward the end of the mash which disturbs the grain bed. I assumed nobody else had this problem because they either single infuse and don't touch the grain or they recirculate for the whole mash which sets the bed nicely. Do you ever have an issue part way through sparging like I describe?
Brewed a 1.044 Pale Ale yesterday with 92.3% efficiency into the kettle but had the same bits-o-grain issue after 4 gallons./QUOTE]

No, I never have a problem with particulates in the runoff at any point after doing the vorlaugh. Stirring will disturb the grain bed and some particulates will pass through the false bottom, but IME a brief vorlaugh eliminates them as the grain bed resets and traps the particles as the wort flows through. The only thing that I can think of might be that the FB is not being held firmly in place or it does not fit tight enough to eliminate any gaps around the edges. It's unlikely that the particles are making it through the grain bed as you do the vorlaugh. The other possibility is that some particulates make it past the FB and lurk in the space below the FB. These don't get flushed out completely during the vorlaugh and later in mid-sparge they somehow get back into the stream flow where you detect them. You might try vorlaughing at a higher flow rate in order to better flush out the space below the FB. Backing off a bit on the fineness of the crush might help some too. I'm guessing here, so take that into consideration.
Click to expand...
 
dstar26t - I recently found that when recirculating during the mash I would get grain coming through the lines if the circulation was too fast. Circulation would work well innitially but as the grain bed compacted it would suck more and more grain into the pipes to the point where the pipes for completely blocked.
It would take about 5 minutes to get stuck even though it innitially looked fine.
I found this out during a thicker than normal mash. The thinner ones have been fine.
Im using a slotted manifold.
 
Interesting. Something else to try - malt conditioning.

Catt22 said:
It has been well documented that a finer crush will improve efficiency. A good friend of mine manufactured malt mills at one time and he did actual testing in this regard and on the home brewing scale. Obviously, there will be a practical limit to milling the grain very fine due to sticking issues, but the efficiency will increase right up to the sticking point. The bottom line though, is that at some point it simply isn't worth the trouble to chase a small increase in efficiency at the expense of a big hassle with the sparge. Most of us settle for somewhat of a compromise and mill the grain a little on the coarser side, giving up some efficiency in exchange for an easier sparge.
Click to expand...

BTW - where on your system is your vacuum gauge installed (I couldn't see clearly in the pic you posted). Im assuming on the inlet side of the pump ?
What calibration does the gauge have ? Most gauges Ive seen are from 1 to 20 psi which is way too high if you're maintaining 1 psi.
 
Bru said:
Interesting. Something else to try - malt conditioning.



BTW - where on your system is your vacuum gauge installed (I couldn't see clearly in the pic you posted). Im assuming on the inlet side of the pump ?
What calibration does the gauge have ? Most gauges Ive seen are from 1 to 20 psi which is way too high if you're maintaining 1 psi.
Click to expand...

I have the vacuum gauge mounted on suction (inlet) side of the pump. It could be mounted anywhere between the MT drain and the pump. I wanted to locate the gauge where it would be out of the way and also easy to view.

The vacuum gauge scale is 0-30" Hg (inches of mercury). Atmospheric pressure at sea level is 14.7 psi, so the conversion is roughly 2" hg = 1 psi. I shoot for 0.5-1.5 psi which reads 0-3" hg on the gauge. IOW, the gauge needle barely moves off of zero. When I see the gauge begin to climb, I know the grain bed is starting to compact, which it will inevitably do and usually more than once during the mash.
 
I tried something new with my system yesterday. Instead of recirculating with the grant inline after mashout, I hooked the pump up directly to the mash tun. After 15 minutes of full flow recirculating, it was crystal clear so I put the grant back in line and sparged. There were still some grain bits coming through at about the half way point but it was a fraction of what I've been getting and they were caught in the grant. I saved close to 45 minutes yesterday. I guess it takes more than gravity flow on my set-up to get the bed to compact enough to filter. Thanks for the suggestion to increase recirc flow rate Catt!
Still got 93.6% efficiency for 14.1 gallons at a 1.058 pre-boil gravity and I was finally able to sparge in just an hour.
 

Similar threads

A
For Sale Keggle homebrew system 15.5 gal w/burners for sale
Replies
0
Views
189
Allbrewnobark
A
F
Georgia 3-Vessel all grain system - $300
Replies
0
Views
219
fuzzybee
F
Z
Massachusetts SS Brewtech 10 gallon InfuSsion Mash Tun, Custom 22 gallon stainless insulated bottom triclamp drain mash tun
Replies
0
Views
234
zman_
Z
Denis2121
Dual Outpur Gas Regulator
Replies
27
Views
936
Broken Crow
Broken Crow
I
SS Brewtech InfuSSion Mash Tun Custom Heater
Replies
7
Views
849
Indian_villager
I
BrewSwag 300

Latest posts

Back
Top